![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Because of my current situation, I haven't played very much poker over the last 5 months. During the previous 5 months I have been involved in the financial markets quite a bit as a speculator/investor. It has been interesting comparing discussions I've had with market players to discussions I've had with poker players about making money in the respective disciplines.
------------------------------------------------------------
Market Player: Give me a good tip on what stocks to buy.
Comparable To:
Poker Player: How should I play this hand.
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Market Player: The market makers control the price of the stock and it only moves when they want it to move.
Comparable To:
Poker Player: That guy and the dealer are in cahoots with each other.
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Market Player: I've taken a beating on this stock but I'm going to buy more now and average down because the market is wrong.
Comparable To:
Poker Player: I'm really stuck in this game and I've been here a long time but I don't care how long it takes I'm going to get even.
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Market Player: The price fell back some today. I've got a 15% profit in a week on this stock I'm going to take a profit(the same guy who averages down).
Comparable To:
Poker Player: I'm up about $300 in a short period of time and I just lost a pot. I'm going to cash out to make sure I have a winning session (the same guy who plays marathon sessions to get even).
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Market Player: You piece of sh*t how could you short that stock when I have a long position in it?
Comparable To:
Poker Player: How could you call with that hand?
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Market Player: Offers an OPINION (often long winded) about a stock that is based on dubious assumptions, half truths, faulty and irrelevant information.
Comparable To:
Poker Player: Offers an OPINION (often long winded) about playing a hand that is based on dubious, assumptions, half truths, faulty and irrelevant information.
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Market Player: I'm going to make a killing on this stock by putting all my money in it and leverage myself to the hilt.
Comparable To:
Poker Player: I've got only got $3000 in my bankroll but I'm going to play the $50 - 100 game and hope for the best.
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Market Player: I knew I should have been on the sidelines but I couldn't stand just observing this market.
Comparable To:
Poker Player: I knew I wasn't in the right situation to play that hand but couldn't tolerate sitting and waiting for a playable hand any longer.
------------------------------------------------------------
hey there is nothing wrong with taking your three grand and sitting in on the 50-100, as long as you dont make your rent money playing poker, who knows, mabey youll rack a big score and your bankroll will get health real fast.
"hey there is nothing wrong with taking your three grand and sitting in on the 50-100, as long as you dont make your rent money playing poker, who knows, mabey youll rack a big score and your bankroll will get health real fast."
Either that, or if you go broke, just go out and find a job. No big deal...right Tom?
Peter,
That's right. I'm not assigning any particular value judgement to anything I wrote. You just might win a lot of money.
Tom Haley
Tom,
Same psyche, different outlet. BTW, if you are trading you should be looking at the interbank currency market. Money values are often the precursors to interest rate shifts and market volatility. At Globalview.com they have a free screen with realtime currency quotes.
Whether poker players or market traders, they are gamblers who need to believe they have some edge in their gambling. With the leverage possible in market trading, the volatility makes the poker tables look quite tame by comparison. I hope you are doing as well at trading as I suspect you did at poker.
I am a ten year veteran trader of commodities and stock full and part time. Many of my friends who are far better traders are all gamblers of BJ or Poker or Sports book. Only thing - while in poker you can get robbed, cheated or outplayed at times this will happen to you ALL the time in the Chicago Board of Trade pits. The worst is the manipulation traders can legally do. I know I am not talking about psychology but most successful traders are good if not very good poker players if they choose to do it. The other diffence that is the favour of trading is if you have the money and the market of your choice is liquid you just have to type 2,3 more zeros and you are making substantially more right away. In poker of course this is a crazy idea. About phychology it needs the same attributes.
good trading comes from a perspective more about defense, than offense. you are trying to keep your losses low, and think more about losing alittle rather than making alot. money mgmt is very important. In poker it's more towards controlled aggression, and of course we know that money mgmt is not the KEY. Both take alot of knowledge and discipline and the willingness to put your money out there when you see opportunity. Both games need a long term view. The nyse is huge and the pros(specialists) make the market and are allowed to trade their own funds as long as they keep an orderly market. To put this into perspective, wouldn't you like to raise the limits every time you flopped trips or the nuts. That's how it is to be a specialist. This is why what is happening on the nasdaq is so interesting, as at least you can play on the same field with them. anyway, both worlds, the players need to be able to stay cool when the game turns sour and not let it affect their decisions. YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TAKE SMALL LOSSES. thanks, seeya!
"Market Player: The price fell back some today. I've got a 15% profit in a week on this stock I'm going to take a profit(the same guy who averages down). "
Reminds me of a friend of mine who got out of Microsoft too early and now he's working at a sweatshop in Oklahoma far away from poker & civilization. :)
JG
Jim,
Who is this guy? What a fool he must be. Seriously I have learned a few lessons the hard way.
Tom Haley
I found this post very interesting, partly because I work in the financial markets and have just set up as a self-employed day-trader (local), partly because I started taking a more serious approach to poker a few months ago (before I only played a few casual games, now I study the the good limit/nolimit holdem books, and compete regularly in casino tournaments and low limit play). In both fields I think the "average person" has a distinct tendency towards losing big. In poker, they blame the cards or the dealer, they think the "sharks" are out to get them, they go on tilt, they refuse to fold AA when they are clearly beat, they won't quit a game where they are clearly outclassed, and they get their reward from the thrill and excitement of the big swings and the occasional big pot. In the markets they blame the banks, the speculators, Alan Greenspan or whoever; they think the floor-traders are out to get them, they over-trade wildly, they refuse to get out of an initially good trade when the situation changes and it goes against them, they try to force trades at those times when the markets do not offer any good opportunities, and they get their kicks from the wild swings and the occasional big winner. I think the winners in both fields also have many characteristics in common. Professionals in both fields must play with small enough stakes so as not to put their entire bankrolls at risk (although amateurs with other income sources can take more chances). The best traders and poker players also seem to be very confident that they will win, and take responsibility for all their results (e.g. they don't complain if they make a good play, then end up losing because of chance circumstances out of their control). They also work hard and are extremely committed to their field. One big difference though is that in poker you can win by aggression - bullying your opponent into folding. In the markets this is usually a terrible strategy, since you have a tiny "stack" compared to the market as a whole. Another difference is that patience is even more important in trading, since you do not have to pay antes/blinds just to "sit down at the table" - you can just wait for the AA of trading opportunities. I also think that the variance in poker is much higher. At my last firm the two best traders would average 85% winning days, and would rarely have a downswing greater than 5% of their trading capital, whereas the best poker players seem to experience losing days/sessions much more frequently and have much bigger swings. Lastly i think the potential return from trading is much higher - you can increase your trade size much more and with much less detriment to performance than you can alter bet size in poker. If I thought my abilities and experience at poker and trading were equal, there is no question I would choose trading. In fact that's what I've just done! Lastly, the parallels that you mention all concentrate on the similarities between losing poker players and losing market players. Allow me to offer some that I believe apply to winners in both fields:
Market Player: The market makers have some short-term influence over the price of the stock; perhaps I can anticipate their behaviour and use it to my advantage
Poker Player: That pro wins too many hands by driving his opponents out; maybe I can check my fair hands and induce him to bluff at me with rags.
Market Player: The price fell back some today. However it hasn't yet reached my stop, and I am confident my judgement on the potential risk/reward of the trade is correct. Therefore I will stay with my position until proven wrong.
Poker Player: I was up about $300 in a short period of time but I just took some bad beats and now I'm down $500. However, I can afford that loss and the player to my right looks like a bit of a live one - I'll stay at this game as long as he keeps raising with Kx offsuit and the other guys continue to play weak-tight.
Market Player: Bank stocks are way overpriced at the moment. However, I think they may well go up in the short-term, so I'll wait for a better level to initiate a short position.
Poker Player: "Great hand!" (if he keeps playing trash like that, I'm sure to get the money in the long-run)
Market Player: Offers a clear, well thought out analysis of his intended trade, paying close attention to the specifics of the situation, rather than relying on popular "rules of thumb" which may well be irrelevant or just plain wrong in this particular case.
Poker Player: Offers a sound, logical basis for playing a particular hand, paying close attention to the psychology and past play of the opponent in question, rather than just relying on the reccommended texbook play from p. 64 of HPFAP
Market Player: This is a great trade, however I don't want to get faked out if the stops get hit after the GDP figures tomorrow, so I'll put on a small position and then think about doubling up if it goes my way.
Poker Player: There's some real action here, the $20-40 stud table is full of tourists. However, the game is pretty wild and my bankroll isn't big enough for me to feel comfortable with the big swings, so I'll think I'll step down and play $10-20 holdem - it's my best game and I can usually put those rocks on a hand.
Market Player: The market was going nowhere - I got impatient and made several losing trades. Then I doubled up to try and win it back but just ended up losing more - this is my worst day of the year so far and it's not even midday! But Greenspan is testifying to Congress today and there are sure to be lots of opportunities - I'll take a 1 hour break to clear my head, then come back and trade as disciplined and focused as I know how. As long as I follow my method I know I'm likely to come out a big winner.
Poker Player: I knew from the start that this game was full of pros - what's more I'm not too good at shorthanded play, but for some reason I stayed, and sure enough I got taken to the cleaners. What's more, the tourist I reckoned to make money from kept catching big hands every time I had something. This has got to be one of my worst sessions ever! But a couple of live ones have just come over from the $3-6 with big stacks of chips - obviously they got lucky. If I keep my wits about me and play good solid poker, I should be able to do pretty well over the next few hours.
Matt
ten nine suited is a light hand, pass this hand from middle position unless three people are already in the pot. ace x suited is a weak hand, pass this had from an early position, also pass this hand from a late position if only one or two are in the pot. if no one is in the pot make a play for the pot if you think you can get away with it. queen ten, suited or offsuit is a light hand. pass this hand from any position unless you are making a play for the pot. or call from late position if three people are already in. j,10 suited is a light hand, pass this hand from a early position, unless the game is loose passive. if a weak player calls in middle and you are late, you might want to raise with j,10 suited if you think it will give you good control, but then you wouldnt necessarly have to look at your cards to make this play. dont call raises from late position, with the connectors or the small or medium pairs, unless 4 people are already in. even then this is a very small winner, better 5, 6, or 7 people already in. from the early position only play hands in groups one through three, but leave out 9,9- j,10 suited- qj suited- kj suited- a,10 suited-if most pots are being raised. comments?
Remember this was written when the Blinds structure was Smaller.
CV
good BASIC advice.
What level of competition should one expect in a Vegas low limit HE game. Have most of the players read the books? S & M books advise to adjust certain ways to tight and loose games, what way do these normally go, or does it just depend on the table. I am planing a trip in Dec. and am planning on the strategy I would want to play. I have never played casino poker before. Also, what would be the best bankroll to assume. I have read that 15x the BB is sufficient. I have studied and learned HFAP, and have applied it weel at home, but I know Vegas is gonna be a whole new game, but I'm not sure exactly what to expect. On a side note, last years WSOP is going to be replayed Wed. at midnight on ESPN.
I've never been to Vegas either so I can't tell you what the competition is like out there. Everything will depend on the lineup at your table when you sit down. A very tight and boring game can turn into a capping war on every round if one or two maniacs sit in your game. I don't know where you read about 15 BB being a sufficient bankroll, but I'd play it safe and bring a little more. I never bring less than 20 BB when I sit a HE game, otherwise I'll be playing too passively. If your trip is for 3 days, then bring 40 BB per day (assuming you'll play 2 6 to 8 hour sessions per day), which amounts to 120 BB. 15 is a minimum and 120 is a maximum. I'd bring something like 60 BB to be on the safe side. Thanks for the note on the WSOP. Good luck in Vegas.
Gator:
I play HE low limit ($3-6-12 & $4-8) in many different home games as well as in Vegas. I go to Vegas all the time and play. I have played downtown several times, but most recently have been playing at the MGM. My read on the MGM games is that when playing with the locals (they usually only play during the day....told from a good local source), be careful of falling into their style of play. They play strictly for the long term and are very tight, and almost never will you find them playing runner-runner to beat you. If you have a good solid game plan, your starting requirements are sound, you don't play too many hours per session, find games at night where you will be up against mainly tourists and don't get intimidated, then you should be able to hold your own. Although, before sitting in a game, go up to the rail and size up the game for at least 30-45 minutes and see whether it's tight, loose, passive, aggressive, etc. and then determine if the game fits your style of play. When you find the game that fits, then go for it and enjoy it!!
As far as the bankroll, if you play in a $4-8 game I would not sit down with less than $300, should you have several early bad beats that you have to make up for. Whatever you do don't give the impression that this is the first time playing poker in a casino.....they will jump all over you and make you pay!!!
Good luck!
Gator:
I'm not much of a Vegas veteran, but in my experience (about a hundred hours in LV), the low limit players there are just as bad as their counterparts elsewhere. Nearly all players are familiar with holdem but don't understand it, or are weak psychologically or short on experience. Most tables see several truly horrible players for a least a few hours a day, and there seem to be more of these types in Vegas. On the other hand, there are also a lot of local rocks in $2-8 HE games that rarely lose much -- some of whom are pretty good -- and the $6-12 players are better as a class than the $3-6 crowd.
As for bankroll, you can easily lose 15x the BB in a bad hour playing $3-6 against lousy opponents. I'd take at least $150 to play $3-6 and $200 to play $2-4-8-8, but these amounts won't withstand a bad but not terrible run. As for low limit players and the books, it seems that everyone's heard of them, most people have looked at or held them, a lot of people have read them, and almost nobody that consistently plays low limit uses them. Besides, in a typical loose $3-6 game, bluffing and semi-bluffing are just theories and raising just makes the pot bigger, something you can justify less often than you'd think. You're going to spend a lot more time on the sidelines watching goofball hands being shown down than in applying strategy. Finally, if you're short on cash and want to increase your chance of winning, try low limit stud anywhere on the strip.
There is a myth that all poker players in Las Vegas play very well and that players at other locations play poorly. Nothing could be further from the truth.
First, many players in all games are tourists. My experience is that the middle limit day games are tougher than the late night games, and that virtually all small limit games are filled with many weak players.
I also recommend that you play structured limit hold 'em. This means $3-6, $4-8, $6-$12, etc, where the big blind is the size of the opening bet. (For example, in a $6-$12 game it is $6.) This is not that the game is necessarily better but because if you have aspirations of becoming a successful hold 'em player this is the game that you will have to get good at since all middle limit games are played this way.
Thanks for the input so far, it's great because it's what I wanted to hear.
Isn't LL stud $1-4, $1 bringin, no ante, $4 rake? You might scratch out a couple of bucks, if you don't die of boredom first. For LL I'd recommend the $1-2-4 HE game at Palace Station, I'm not sure of the rake.
The problems I've always had w/LL are: the rake is so high, little action because everyone is playing super tight because of it, and no "social" benefits i.e. conversation, 'excitement' etc. (This isn't always true; I've met great folk at 1-4-8-8 and real jerks, errr 'pros', at 20-40).
Trip to Vegas? Hell, bring $500 and take a shot at $6-12 HE or $5-10 Stud. They're both good games and they go every day at The Mirage. Or least play 1-4-8-8 at the Orleans or Stations. Have some fun and give yourself a chance for a nice win if you catch some cards.
Actually I was thinking of $1-5 with no ante. I think these are the very easiest games to beat at minimal risk. As Ciaffone notes, a lot of people that play holdem don't know much about holdem, but a lot of people that play stud don't know much about poker. But if I had $500 to lose I'd play bigger too.
I JUST RETURNED FROM VEGAS LAST WEDNESDAY. WHEN PLAYING IN A LOW LIMIT GAME OF HE 20xTHE BB SHOULD BE AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT FOR EACH SESSION.MY ADVICE WHEN PLAYING AT A LOW LIMIT TABLE IS ONLY INVEST IN GOOD HOLE CARDS. BLUFFING IN A LOW LIMIT GAME IS LIKE PISSING IN THE WIND. THE STAKES ARE JUST TO LOW FOR EVEN YOUR AVERAGE PLAYER TO BAIL OUT ON A POSSIBLE WINNER. VEGAS IS DIFFERENT FROM HOME BECAUSE YOU DONT KNOW WHO YOU'RE PLAYING WITH. AT LOW LIMIT TABLES THERE AREN'T ANY SHARKS,ITS JUST TO MUCH OF A GRIND FOR THEM, BUT YOU WILL RUN INTO PLAYERS WITH DEEP POCKETS THAT'LL HURT YOU IF YOU CAN'T READ THEM OR THEY CAN READ YOU.IF YOU RUN INTO ONE OF THESE GUYS MAKE SURE YOU'RE HOLDING THE NUTS WHEN (S)HE WANTS TO HAVE A PISSING CONTEST. START OFF AT 3-6 TABLE AND GET A FEEL FOR THINGS SINCE THIS WILL BE YOUR FIRST TIME. DON'T MOVE UP UNTIL YOU BEGIN WINNING HANDS AND YOU FEEL TOTALLY COMFORTABLE THEN MOVE TO A 6-12 TABLE. YOU'LL FIND YOURSELF PLAYING BETTER BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE POISED YOUR PLAYING STYLE AT THE LOWER LIMIT TABLE. NOW WOULD ALSO BE A GOOD TIME TO START TRYING TO BLUFF A BLIND RAISE AFTER YOU'VE WON ACOUPLE OF HANDS JUST TO GET A FEEL FOR THE COMPETITION. FINALLY I WOULD DEDICATE ONE DAY IF IT'S WITHIN YOUR MEANS TO PLAY 10-20 HE YOU SHOULDN'T EVEN THINK ABOUT DOING THIS HOWEVER UNLESS YOU'VE GOT AT LEAST $500 TO PLAY WITH. DON'T LOSE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT BUT LET THE COMPETITION KNOW YOU CAME TO PLAY. AFTER A 4 HOUR SESSION AT A 10-20 TABLE, YOU'LL KNOW WHERE YOU STAND AS A POKER PLAYER. AS FAR AS WHERE TO PLAY I RECCOMEND BELLAGIO DURRING THE DAY AND FOR HIGHER LIMIT GAMES AND MIRAGE AT NIGHT FOR LOW LIMIT GAMES. THE PLAYERS ARE BETTER ALL AROUND IN MY OPINION AT THE MIRAGE AND ITS A GOOD PLACE TO BUILD YOUR CHOPS UP. IF YOU WANT SOME OLD SCHOOL FLAVA MAKE IT DOWN TO BINIONS HORSESHOE. GOOD LUCK AND LET ME KNOW HOW YOU DO.
Your posts are much more readable (and I might actually read your next one) if they are done in mixed case.
Beginners would be well advised to 1) avoid situations which are important and either complicated or unusual, 2) learn which hands in which situations tend to win or lose showdowns, and 3) gain overall experience costing only time but not money. Playing very conservatively is an excellent, dare I suggest "best", method for accomplishing these beginners objectives. "Very conservative" means something like: call with about half as many hands in early or middle position as recomended in HPFAP (for stuctured games), about as many in late, and about 1/4 as many hands when someone else raises. Rarely call, if at all, with less than top-pair 2nd kicker. With such a conservative strategy, don't expect to win much, if at all, but don't expect to lose much, if at all.
Playing very conservatily in small blind games cost much less than in regular (large) blind games. At first, I recomend playing the Unstructured HE games such as the 1-4-8, which have half the blinds ($1-$2) of a structured 4-8 game ($2-$4). You can wait patiently for an obvious solid hand and flop and the blinds won't eat you alive.
But after you are comfortable with the game, patience, discipline, and observation are routine, you can usually put people on a hand or at least on what they are supposed to have, you can adjust the relative value of hands visa-a-vis the board (e.g. J flush with 4-flush on board) and visa-a-vis the other players (e.g. Aces with a King vrs a re-raiser), you can usually tell when you have the better hand (e.g. 2nd pair with an Ace), you can often tell when they are betting weak hands (e.g. flush draws), and you recognize several SORTS of players and can anticipate their actions (e.g. maniacs, little-old-men), < ... take Mr. Malmuth's advise and play Stuctured games. The larger relative pots in Stuctured greatly affects advanced play, and your skill level will languish if you stay in the un-structured games. There are many people who can eak a little win in the 1-4-8, but cannot beat the 3/6.
- Louie
I'm going out there in Jan. I normally play $2-5 here in Kansas City, but its waaaaaay too looooooose to be profitable. 5-6 callers pre-flop, at least 3 showdown, many times all 5-6 showdown. When I go to Vegas I am planning on playing $6-12 or maybe $10-20. I was just wondering, are these games going to typically be as loose? I.E. early position, call with 33, gets raised/re-raised and they STILL CALL? Or early position, call with ANY AXo. I'm sure there will probably be a maniac to be dealt with at the table, but not 3-4 like I normally encounter. I'm not too concerned about losing to better players, its losing to bad players who call raised pre-flop with 69o, catch a gutshot 7 on the river to make their straight and beat my AQs which flopped Top 2 pair. That happens a LOT in the games I play. I could name off many hands like this where I get beat. Hopefully going to higher limits will prevent this? I know $6-12 isn't really that high of a limit, but hopefully it will be better than the $2-5 shitty game I play in. Any info on these limit games in Vegas is appreciated. Thanks
Instead of whining about your bad beats,why don't you devise a strategy to beat the game your in.Nobody can give you a magic formula to beat the game:learn to read your opponets and adjust accordingly.Bad beats are part of the game.If your getting 5-6callers in a capped pot(when your holding aces),ya gotta love it.Variance will be high but the game should be relatively easy to crack.If you can't devise a strategy to beat this game,you have no prayer when you try to beat up on the" big boys"
My experiences so far in real casino play have been with a limited bankroll....$300 or less. I have just started playing HE in the past 5 months. I play 4-5 hours nitely on IRC, which has improved my game. I haven't been to the casino in about a month, and have improved quite a bit since my last visit. I also ordered HFAP and am sure that will tremendously improve my game. Another casino in town offers higher limits, I think I'll try that out once or twice before my big trip. Good advice, I'll keep thinking up ways to crack these games. I guess I just had some bad luck, and I know the money will come. I did win a nice pot of about $150(not bad for $2-5) with QQ after flopping a set, then 99 showed on turn/river. Beat out both AA and KK, and some guys 93o. I did turn a profit that session, but its just those losing ones I was frustrated from.
You also might want to buy "Claiming Colorado" by J.D. Conley, if you can find it. This is the only book I've seen that's exclusively devoted to $2-5 holdem. It also has a sensible approach to hand rankings. Hands are grouped according to the number of players in the pot and then subdivided according to their strength in those categories. You may be able to order it through the Tattered Cover or Rocky Mountain Gaming bookstores in Denver.
The $6-12 games are generally much tighter than what you've described. Read up on and think more about blind stealing and defense, free cards, semi-bluffing and reading players, as these concepts are almost meaningless in no-foldem $2-5 but usually play a role in $6-12 and above. You're in for a treat: you're going to be able to put people on a hand!
I ordered HFAP this week, so hopefully it will get here in a couple weeks, and I'll have time to apply some of the principles in it either on IRCpoker(I play nitely), or at the casino I play at here. Well I believe it should be a good learning experience, win or lose. I'll be out there 5-6 days, and will play about 10 hours a day. Thanks for the advice! Brad
Posted by: Bradley T (blivermo@csc.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 4 November 1998, at 12:23 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Macleod (smacleod@shaw.wave.ca)
Posted on: Wednesday, 4 November 1998, at 12:58 p.m.
Posted by: Bradley T (blivermo@csc.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 4 November 1998, at 6:33 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Thursday, 5 November 1998, at 12:25 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Wednesday, 4 November 1998, at 2:58 p.m.
Posted by: Bradley T (blivermo@csc.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 4 November 1998, at 6:17 p.m.
We have a small $12, 10 table tournament. We get down to 4 tables and a player with a "significant" amount of chips decides to quit (20-40 game is starting). Instead of blinding off his chips, the tournament director just picks-up the chips and takes them "out" of the tournament. I did not think this was the right decision. Would like some input on the correct procedure.
I am not sure of the correct procedure, however every time I've experienced this situation (only twice) the chips have been "blinded away". The only reason I can think of for removing them from play would be that your table had a disportionate (is that a word) amount of chips and the tournament director thought that it would be an unfair advantage to be playing at your table.
Read an article that stated 75% of all open raises (pre-flop) are not a pair.
This seems very High. 50 - 60 per cent max is more likely?
I realize it depends on the players but if you had to lump all the mid limit games (15/30 and above) together and guess.... what would your estimate be?
Thanks
Does anyone agree that Lady Fingers set up the Kid on the last hand for 'The Man'. It's been a long time since I watched it and did not remember it also had Karl Malden and Ann Margaret.
I watched the movie for the first time this past weekend and I did get the feeling lady fingers did set up the kid, although I don't think this was the implied intention. I heard that the book ending was slightly different too, albeit I don't know the discrepencies. Cheating was definiately an important theme in the story, between the cards and with the women. The kid cheated on his woman, then was cheated by a woman in cards...poetic justice?
Thanks, the Exchange Forum needs more action anyway.
CV
I was wondering if you guys could post a little info on what projects you are currently working on. I think a little info now would be like a slowplay, so you can get those extra....ahh whatever. Hook us up. Please.
We are working on new projects, but we do not believe it to be good form to announce them too early since production schedules are easily changed. Look for a couple of new books during the first part of next year and some other projects hopefully to be completed in the summer of 1999. That's all we will say for now.
In a typical 4-8 HE game a loose, predictable player limps from early position. It is folded to me one seat to the right of ther button. I raise to get heads-up with the limper (the BB is fairly tight and I have good control over the original limper, who will limp with all kinds of bordetline hands). The plan works, and only the limper calls.
Great flop for me of 9-7-2 rainbow. He checks to me and I check my top set behind him since this seems like an ideal slow play situation since he can turn a lot of cards that will make a second best hand, and not a lot of cards that can hurt me.
The turn card is not what I'm looking for: 8 of diamonds, making a possible straight and putting two diamonds on the board. He best into me, and I raise him. I don't put him on J-T since he likely would have bet the ragged flop with two overs and a gutshot. He calls, which makes me think he picked up a flush draw with something like Q-T, K-J, or A-small suited.
A King of diamonds comes on the river. He bets out and I have to pay him off since he is the type of dope that would bet something like a spiked two pair to the King, or even a pair of Kings with weak kicker here. He turns over a Q-4 of diamonds and I figure that my slow play cost turned a net win of $14 into a net loss of $32. This $46 swing represents about 4 hours profit. However, I think I would play the hand the same way if I had it to do over again. Any thoughts or analysis on wheteher to bet the flop and take down a small pot or try to picke up an extra 2 or 3 big bets?
I run into this problem all the time in low limit holdem, players in low limit will pay to draw out on you! Its a fact. It happens time and time again. Do not allow these players to get a free card or in your situation After you checked and he bet you should have raised. The reason I believe is that these players will loose in the long run if they keep playing bad cards so make them pay to draw on you, you will win more money, and you will be able to knock other players that are on a draw. If you still loose the hand, they are just borrowing your chips, because they will eventually loose by playing this way. I have been so mad at a 4-8 holdem game when I raised pre-flop with wired kings I raise to be called by 5-6 callers and flop the set to be beat on the river by a 2c to make somebody a flush. It sucks! I take a deep breath…Say good hand and continue playing. Cause its just a loan!
Good luck Walleye
Michael,
Figure it out for yourself exactly. To get one or two bets out of him on fourth street which you had about 80% equity you risked the pot and your further investment. Most times a free card is disaster to give just because you already showed strengh and wont get more action unless its bad action. If you knew that he had two overcards that wouldnt make a straight then it would be ok as a free card would only get him in trouble. What usually happens is that he would have called anyway on the flop and you lose that bet and now a scare card comes on the turn and you cant bet or his weak hand wont call anyway. What if he had a pair of eights and planned on calling you all the way down. Now you lose all this money when a bigger card comes on the turn. In general once you showed strength and are last to act you might as well bet your hand. Good Luck.
As usual Ray's post is right on . You can't logically raise pre-flop with posistion, and then check the flop heads -up. The best way to play in those size games is straight forward.I see so many players blow pots this way, by getting greedy.If he had bet the flop, then you could have just called, hoping to raise on the turn. Play aggressive and take what the pot gives you,... the big pots will take care of themselves.goodluck
In addition, against live players with a nine high flop they could easily have overcards and automatically call any bet.
Sets should almost never be slowplayed (see HPFAP's chapter on slowplaying - it may be even more appropriate advise for low-limit). One thing's for sure, you only KNOW you misplayed the hand when you slow play it. If you bet on the flop and win it immediately, there's no way to know if you made any mistake. Pick up the extra bet or the whole pot on the flop, and be satisfied with whatever results.
Don't feel too bad, he probably would've called you on the flop anyway. You saved $4! Seriously, though, I've found that any kind of sneaky just doesn't work at lower limits. It doesn't work all that great at medium limits either, but that's another post. Bet 'em if you got 'em, they'll call with any miracle draw, because "it's only $4". Lower limit players also tend to have bad cases of "gotta see it", probably because they can't figure out what other people have.
Anyone that would fold to a bet on that flop but may call a bet on the turn is probably is playing the kind of cards you least want to give a free card to.
A Poker Guy!
I was playing in an extremely loose 3-6 game over the weekend. Normally five or more callers preflop whether raised or not, and nomally 3 showing down on the river. I played very tight and still had two terrible sessions. It didn't matter whether I flopped top pair, a set, or even a straight or a flush, by the time the river came I would be up against two bottom pair to my top pair, a higher set to my set, a flush to my straight, or a full house to my flush. It was incredible, every time I hit the flop i was being outdrawn by bottom pair, gut shot draws etc...
A woman I usually play with commented that I was "running bad" and should leave. I said how can I leave with all this action, but then I realized it might be too much action for a tight approach.
So I am wondering if there can be too much action, or is it not uncommon to have a bad run where no matter how tight and aggressive you play you end up second best by the river.
Pondering Aces
A.J.
A.J.
If you lost your money with sets and good straights and flushes you just had bad luck. Its called short term bad luck and people that have long term bad luck are called bad players. If most of your loses came from top pair perhaps you play too loose after the flop. Top pair with nothing else does poorly against a large field. With many callers unsuited unconnected hands have alot of trouble because while they may flop the best hand they dont improve along the way. Good Luck.
Are you sure you are not me? I am on the same sort of run. hang in there good play prevailsover shrt term vagrencies.
Carl,
I am definitely on my own "run" and i have to offer my sympathies to anyone else on a similar one. Hope our luck improves.
A.J.
I play in the same type of games here in Kansas City. AA, KK, and QQ are about the worst hands you can start with. Even capped bets preflop are called by 4-5 people. Flop a set, which gives someone a 3-card rainbow straight, they'll draw out on you. Flop complete rags, they'll catch runner runner to make two pair. They even cold call on the flop when its raised with a looooow pair. No help on turn? They still call no matter what. I guess there is enough money in the pot for them to have odds, but they should have never called pre-flop with trash like J3o. I see the same thing time after time here. The sad thing is these people actually think they're good becuase they have more chips than everyone else. One guy who was just terrible, (but was catching hands like the above), said to a group I/II player(who was losing with Top set/top pair best kicker to this guy), yeah why don't you give lessons, we don't know how to play, we'll all show up and learn from you(very sarcastically). Hopefully when I go to vegas in Jan., the $6-12 games aren't like this. I think I'll start playing higher limits than $2-5.
Big pairs and big Ace suited connectors are the hands that win the money in loose multiway hands that are capped before the flop. If there are six people in the pots see if one out of five or more of these pots are won by someone with a good starting hand. Good Luck.
Last night I was playing Ohmaha/8 at the Garden city. It was a low limit game. I am dealt JJAK/ss, an excellent high hand. Five players, I am in mid-position.
Flop: J 10 10
I have the nut full house. I bet and get one raise. Every one stays in. I don't re-raise.
Next card: 2 (a flush is now possible)
I am slowplaying because I want the guy who raised (probably with three 10's) to play as well as those who are looking for that flush draw.
River: 10 (yuck!)
I check, the raiser bets. I am the only one who calls. Sure enough he has A-10.
I did slowplay this hand (not re-raising, etc). I feel that was the best play. The 10 was the only card in the deck that could beat me.
Any comments?
thanks,
paul martino
it happens all the time.
in the low limits your raise would have nocked someone out or not?the low limit games i play in would generaly get re-raised.it seems the only time most low limit new comers fold to a raise is they have no draw at all. your raise would have been called anyway,loseing you more money.its going to happen in the low limits.but the new comers should loose more than they hit that 11% draw!you will win more than you loose to these players! nuts only to you!
I have no problems with the way you played this one...there's no way the T is leaving (and you don't want him too!) and there's no sense chasing the straight and flush draws away (if they are stupid enough to chase them with a high pair on the board)...you saved yourself a small bet or two. Actually any A,K or Q or a suited 7/8/9 could beat you, too, but you have the right idea...they probably would not have.
I'm a slow play junkie myself and have spent quite a bit of time justifying my 'problem' to myself. The key is knowing when I'm behind in a hand and when a bet will make people fold. In some cases you want them to fold and in others you don't.
Here's an example of what I mean--
You hold 99 in early position. Flop comes AT9 with two diamonds. My strategy is to bet here (you will probably be raised) and call any raises. If you re-raise on the flop, people will slow down against you with big aces, two pairs (which you don't want them to do). When you don't re-raise with a set, it's hard for them to put you on it later.
Flush and open-ended straight draws are not leaving this party now. The only hands that may drop are gutshots, depending on the player and number of players in the hand.
On the turn is when I will get selectively aggressive. If it's the 8d (or some other scary card), I will probably check-call (or check-raise if there are only one or two players in) on the turn and check-fold on the river if the board does not pair. If the turn is a A or T, I will go at least three bets...hopefully looking at AQ or KT or something. If the turn is a blank, I will bet and re-raise or check-raise depending on the make-up of the game. This is where you can put pressure on the draws.
In late position, if you are in the habit to raising to steal, obviously raise the flop. Otherwise, I usually call and raise the turn. Again, the thinking here is that decent draws are not going anywhere and I'm hiding the strength of my hand.
This overall strategy can save you a bet (at least) when a draw gets there, and can actually make more money for you by getting more bets in during the later rounds. Going too fast on the flop will make opponents uneasy...you want them to think they have the best hand when they are drawing thin.
Obviously, you have to mix up your play with aware players, but I think this strategy will work in most low-limit games. Have them do your work for you.
Comments appreciated/Chuck
The slowplay was a mistake. You could have raised on the turn, and he'd have called. You also could have reraised on the flop, no-one who called two bets already would have folded for a 3rd. You just don't pry those people out of the pot, so you should club them over the head when you have the goods. The only good news out of the way you played it was that you saved some bets when you did get outdrawn.
I have recently started playing in some local low limit HE rebuy tournaments. The first hour and half allow unlimited constant stack rebuys. I am finding that, although I typically end this period having quadrupled my stack, this is not enough compared to a number of aggressive players who have typically got 10-15 x the number of chips they started with. They will play this period very aggressively, playing just about any hand and being prepared to rebuy 7 or 8 times to try and get a good stack. Is there any way to combat this sort of tactic or are they simply buying their way to the final table? I am finding this frustrating since on the rare occasion I do manage to get to the final table with a decent stack of chips I can outplay them at this point.
This can be frustrating but you should remember that if a player is averaging 6-8 buy-ins per tournament (yes, this does happen) and you are only averaging 2 then he needs to makes the final 3-4 times more often than you to get the same ROI (Return On Investment). Patience is a virtue. As you become more experienced it will become clearer exactly when to take people on but if you've only started playing recently then a tighter approach is advisable. If you can quadruple your stack on 2 buyins, or even only double it with 1, then that's good - don't worry too much about people with massive stacks because if they continue to play loosely you only need a couple of good hands (especially in Pot-Limit) to turn the tables.
I seem to have improved my game lately so where I can constantly post winning or break even sessions the problem I still have is adjusting my game for short handed situations...I find it harder to put players on hands and it is more difficult to bet out my hand to eliminate draws. How should I adjust my play or should I avoid short handed(less than 7 players) games altogether? any helpful comments would be appreciated...the games are low limit 3-6 and 4-8 straight high
Dean,
I get the impression that you play mostly 7 Stud. Whether it be hold'em or 7 Stud, I would look at playing in short handed games as an opportunity. If you play well in short handed games, you should have a lot of opporunities to make money. Why limit yourself?
You write:
>>I find it harder to put players on hands and it is more difficult to bet out my hand to eliminate draws.<<
With a full field and the majority of pots being multi-way it is easier to read hands. I suspect you are finding it more difficult to bet out and eliminate draws because your hands are kind of weak after 5 cards in stud or the flop in hold'em. I think you already realize that your weak hand is a lot more likely to be the best hand a lot of times in the short handed games. As has been stated in other posts, assessing your opponents will have a major impact on your bottom line. Remember also that the pots are smaller so take that into account. Hate to sound repetative, but the 2+2 books provide a lot of good information that should be helpful. Apply the theory and gain experience.
Tom Haley
well pocket queens with no over cards on the flop or turn that gets run down by J-6os when the 2nd jack hits the river doesn't sound all that week or is A-Qs weak too? Hold'em only. My point is that in short handed games players don't seem to repsect bets and go for the miracle draws but I guess I should tighten up even more and take their money as they call me to the river with mediocre cards
In my view short handed play is really a fun (in an intense sort of way) and lucrative change of pace from play in a full game. If you avoid it you'll not only be depriving yourself of some profitable opportunities, but you'll shortchange yourself in understanding the game more fully. Be game selective about it at first. Don't jump in there with players you know or suspect to be good at short handed play until you have more experience with it, and have studied all you can find on it. (In addition to the books, scour the archives here and for RGP [dejanews] for info.) If you can play short handed against weak, passive players, that would be a safe and profitable way to start - but you'll probably need to settle for something a bit less ideal.
A couple of key points are:
1. If you're on the button in, say, a three handed game, the situation is very similar to being on the button in a full game when everyone ahead of you has folded.
2. As your statement, "...players don't seem to respect bets and go for the miracle draws", suggests, you've discovered that players' thinking changes in a short handed game. They expect you to be stealing more, so they call you down more with weak hands. Often you *should* steal or bet hands that you might not bet in a full game, but realize that your opponents are not oblivious to this. So take advantage of their tendency to go to call you down, as well as their tendency to try to steal form you. You got unlucky in a couple of hands you describe, but a hand like an overpair will generally be very strong in a short handed game.
There's much more to it so keep working on it. It won't be long before you see short handed play as an opportunity rather than something to be avoided.
John Feeney
Dean,
First of all anytime your opponents are making bad calls this should make you happy. Bad calls by opponents should even make you happier in a short handed game. Second of all, A-Qs often turns weak on the flop and in a full ring game with a lot of multi-way action it is pretty easy to throw away when you don't flop anything. In a short handed game the A-Qs may be weak after the flop but still could be the best hand going. I don't think that tightening up is necessarily the right answer.
Tom Haley
Situation 3-6 HE AKo in late position.
Flop is capped preflop with the main raiser a very loose player ( LP ) that would have a wide variety of hands to raise. AQ or even AJ and other such hands. (I didn't do any of the raising pre-flop).
Flop comes A 9 7 with two of a suit. LP bets I raise, 2 callers, LP reraises, I cap, 2 other callers hang in.
turn a blank.
LP bets. I raise, fold fold, LP calls.
I call and lose on the river to a set of 9's.
*************************************** Not too disturbing that I lose, but I caught a lot of flack from half the table for my betting.
I suppose folding on the turn is possibly correct but what would be the point of calling? It can't be too terrible to raise and elliminate some draws.
Ideas on how to play this?
Dave
David,
I think you played it fast and correctly. What troubles me is that you say you called on the river. I hope that is a mistake as you should have bet on the river unless you called his raise. The bad thing about this hand is that if you called him you never needed to show your hand and it is a very costly mistake to let your opponents see how you play. Also what are you doing discussing your hand with the table are you trying to beat these players or convince them you know what you are doing. You played ok, some hands you just lose. Good Luck.
Yes I did call his bet on the river.
Thanks for the point about not showing the hand. I have felt it was safer to show for the small chance of an oversight by me but it gives up too much, as you point out.
Thanks
Dave
Top pair-top kicker on the flop is obviously a solid hit. The problem comes in when someone re-raises you on it. At that point, I'm thinking set.
When he bets out on the turn, I don't think a raise is worth much. He's obviously afraid of rockets after your raise, but there's no way he's gonna lay down his hand.
Getting involved with a capped pot pre-flop with AKo can be right or wrong depending on the game...in a tight game, I might let it go if there were two or three bets in front of me, in a loose game (which it seems like this was) I would go along for the ride.
On the flop, your first raise is correct. Calling the re-raise is probably OK, as you think he may do this with lesser hands than AK. You've gotta consider the hands that he would re-raise with here...you can take out flush and straight draws I would think (in this case) which leaves you with a big ace, trips or two pair. You are probably behind. I think re-raising again is a mistake.
On the turn, I also think raising is a mistake. I'm sorta surprised he did not re-raise the turn and then bet the river, though...he probably cost himself a BB.
I was kind of trapped pre-flop so it was easy to get involved and it was loose as you suspected.
ChuckE wrote "On the turn, I also think raising is a mistake."
So you would fold the turn? I just can't see calling with 3 other players. Actually I think a fold might be ok, hard to do over-the-board though.
Thanks for ideas!
Dave
>ChuckE wrote "On the turn, I also think raising is a mistake."
>So you would fold the turn? I just can't see calling with 3 other players. Actually I think a fold might be ok, hard to do over-the-board though.
I like the raise on the turn. The players behind you make it raise or fold situation and fold looks ridiculous against this guy.
I think capping it on the flop might have been a little aggressive. Your raise told him you were not worried about that ace on the board, which said you had ace-big kicker at a minimum. His re-raise said he he wasn't worried about top pair, and meant he probably had at least 2 pair, if not a set. At this point you had to suspect you were probably behind and that everyone else was committed to seeing the turn, so there was no real point in betting just to build the pot.
Your cap on the flop told him you had better than top pair (which you didn't, but thats the way he would interpret it). He still bet so at this point you have to be certain that you are behind. There would be two reasons to raise at this point ... to buy a free river card or to make him fold a better hand (two pair). Yeah, there are other players in there, and maybe they will fold, but he is the one you have to be most concerned with. If you don't get past him, the rest don't matter. When he re-raised, it became almost pointless to call the river (except to see what he had) if you didn't improve.
I think that not capping the flop, and letting pot odds (for improving, since you had to be certain you were behind) dictate the call/fold decision on the turn would be a more cost effective strategy. Yeah, he might have been playing AQ, but the odds were probably low for that.
A Poker Guy!
If you feel a raise on the turn will be correct, then next time consider just CALLING the flop re-raise, so you CAN raise on the turn and knock out other players. This time the opponent bet into you AGAIN, but usually they will not unless they can beat your one pair. The callers who called one double bet on the flop are very likely to call another, but may fold for a double (big) turn bet.
Also ... the nature of the CALLERs is significant here. If they are of the routine weak-tight then at least one is likely to have an Ace when they call the raise on the flop. This fact reduces the chances that the LP has an Ace (the very hand you want him to have). So even if you correctly deduce you have the Callers beat, their presence can easily mean the LP has YOU beat, such as with a set. There are only 4 Aces in a deck.
Also ... AK is an EXCELLENT hand to play against these very aggressive non-maniacs; since most of the hands they raise with have an A or K; the very hands that AK plays best against. Consider ReRaising yourself on the flop against these types and hope to get heads-up.
Tonight I managed to trap myself into getting knocked out of a NL tournament. Blinds of 100/200 with antes of 25. I am two off the button with AKo and have 2550 in chips. Average stack is about 4500. There are four tables left and they are paying only one table. I decide to raise one limper to 900, hoping to pick up the 700 already committed to the pot. Player on my left calls and big blind moves all in with about 6000. I count 3200 already in the pot and reason that he probably has a medium to large pair but probably not AA or KK since I have one of each. I push my 1650 into the pot thinking that I have good pot odds for the call and am happy when player to my left folds leaving the BB and I heads up. Flop, turn and river bring no help and he shows pocket 10's. I know that I would have let the hand go if I had brought it in for 600 rather than 900, but felt that I had to call based on the percentages and my remaining chips. The BB would have called me with his 10's if I had moved all in instead of making it 900, so I couldn't have avoided elimination that way. I am only unhappy that my initial bet didn't leave me with the wiggle room to allow myself to reconsider whether I wanted to make my stand with this hand. To me, this is a subtlety that often goes unnoticed by the typical tournament player. I mismanaged my stack and left myself without an otherwise available option. Hopefully, I'll learn to factor stack equity into my betting decisions in the future.
When the opponent went all in on you it should have been a clear signal to trash the hand. That was your mistake. When he went over the top you should have trashed the hand. You must remember that you want to be the aggresser. You don't want to call a all-in raiser with just AK. When you made your attempt to steal the pot with your raise and he then went all-in you should have folded. After he went in nothing should have made you call. Thats your mistake.
"Predator",
Having had a good night's sleep and being fresh and alert now, I must disagree with your assessment. While a lesser bet might have induced me to fold to his all in raise, the correct play mathmatically is to call. The pot is laying me about 3:1 for my call and I am only a dog for more than that to AA or KK.
If I had had the pocket tens and he came over the top,I would have folded in a heartbeat. I don't necessarily subscribe to your stated belief that I'd always want to be the aggressor. I like to slow play big hands in early position and catch the too aggressive raises of opponents. In retrospect, I don't think I made a mistake, and I would probably play the hand in a similar manner if it came up again. Thanks for the input though.
AK is not a big hand. The opponent went all in against the AK player. My opinion is that you should fold in that situation. I have said so many times that in tournies you should be more worried about surviving then math odds.
I agree. even when considering the math, isn't almost any pair better than AKo when it's heads-up?
Any pair is better, but is it enough better when you are offered nearly 3 to 1 odds for your call? The answer is obviously, no.
Now wait a minute here. If you dont believe the all in raiser has aces or kings than you must call. You are less than 6 to 5 dog if he has a pair and there is a chance he may not have the best hand, I see it all the time. Your hand is a must call happily so. You are low on chips if you fold, even if you just came for the 600 you wanted to do. It cost you 500 a round to wait for a better spot and thats a quarter of your chips and if you wait two rounds you have to double up to be just where you are now. I might have raised that limper all my stack in this spot and maybe the guy with two tens would have folded. Also you wouldnt be telling the story if an ace or king came and you won. Take heart in the fact that you played it similar to what was the correct play. Good Luck John.
I disagree with you in that I don't think he played it correctly. If he cannot fold to an all-in raise, then his bet was the wrong size. If his bet needed to be that big, then the appropriate bet was to go all-in. Alternatively, he could have made a bet that allowed him to fold to an all-in raise.
Also, he was in far from a desperate situation. Even if he folded here, he had 1650 in chips remaining, which is several passes through the blinds. This is above Buntjer's threshold for desperation (but getting close). It's really annoying to lose a chunk of your stack with a good hand, but is essential that you be able to do it and go on to the next hand without looking back.
Steve,
The pot was offering me almost 3:1 with AKo. I put the player, a young guy I hadn't seen in no limit tournaments before, on a range of hands where I wasn't even a collective 2:1 dog. Had I not been tired last night, I wouldn't have even tried to second guess my actions here. My ability to make these calls in games with observant tighter players, such as yourself, is how I manage to get the calls and easy double throughs when I bet big with my pocket aces and kings. Players who only risk their chips with premium hands never get the action from a table that I will get. As an added bonus, when I am playing my buttoned down, tight as I can be, game, other players at the table are still making their calling, raising or folding decisions based on their interpretation of my wild player image. I seldom get in desperate straits with my chips in tournaments; with me it is either feast or gone. An exception, of course, is when I am close to the money and need to just survive to get paid. I have a lot of respect for you and have you on my list of players to avoid in ring game action so I hope you don't misinterpret my disagreement with you in this one instance.
I'm not disagreeing with the call, just saying that if the call was necessary, then perhaps your bet was incorrect. Your bet tied your entire stack to the pot, so why not bet your stack to begin with? You increase your chance of winning the hand, and possibly avoid some of the ugly high-risk confrontations like AK vs. big (but not AA or KK) pair.
Steve,
My answer to this question is that part of my playing style is to be aggressive with a wider range of hands than most players in the game. If you see me go all in with pocket sevens on the button, you will naturally put me on more potential hands than the average player when it comes time for you to call my all in bet. I want the table to be more willing to call my bets than they would be for other players. I contend that I get much more play on my big hands than most players. Let the other players fear getting involved in a pot with you; I want them to look forward with anticipation to mixing it up with me.
If you get called all-in when you have 77 you can't feel very much secure. But their is some merit to your style of play. It puts a premium on learning your opponents various styles which is something I think is very important.
Steve thinks John should leave himself wiggle room to fold to the all-in reraise, or go all-in himself. A fine and good theory, which may or may not be true in most cases -- let's assume it is.
But the cold-caller threw a real monkey wrench into the works, didn't he? Now there's an additional T900 of (presumed, and as it worked out, dead) money to be reckoned with. Depending on your read of what the BB must have to reraise all-in, this will change things. from the initial raiser's perspective.
In fact, the initial raiser might reason that the BB may raise with MORE hands once the cold-caller comes in, because the cold-caller is so likely to fold to such a large all-in reraise, leaving more dead money in the pot, and getting it heads-up with the initial raiser who has less chips than the BB.
Ray,
You are absolutely right. I had a good night of sleep and woke up knowing that I had no choice better than calling all in. If I had had the pocket tens rather than the AKo, I would have had an easy fold. I seldom second guess myself like that, and I hope it isn't the beginning of, what I believe is, a bad and destructive habit. I try to learn from my experiences, but I don't think it is necessarily a good thing to constantly look for ways to second guess yourself. Try to be mean once in a while in your postings, you are so nice it is scary. 8<))
In that situation the AK should have made a large bet but never call. But once TT raised all-in the only clear play is to fold. T.J. Cloutier will agree with me on this but he would never call with AK or make a small raise. I clearly believe that once TT raised all in it's time to throw away AK. Too many people think that it's somekind on powerhouse hand when it's not. If I was playing in that tourny I still be playing. Also I want to be the aggresser with that type of hand. I want opponents to have to make a decision. For some reason nobody sees the fact that TT had a lot of chips. Does anyone think that he would raise with 72 in that situation? He had to have a hand and TT beats AK more then AK beats TT.
Why not limp with AKo in that situation? AKo is not strong preflop, and is a showdown underdog to most hands that would call a raise. Your hand is either great or worthless, and you might want to know which before committing the rest of your stack. With the blinds and stacks as you described, (if an ace or king flops) there is a good chance of someone betting all-in (or you being able to raise them all-in) with top pair, worse kicker. Once you raised preflop there, you were too committed to fold.
the point is that when you raise with this hand you would rather win the pot without a flop.
Limping was an option, but I was trying to win the 700 in the pot right away and AKo is not the worst hand to defend a called bet with. Had I limped, I would have folded to the all in bet. If I limped and the player to my left made it 600 and then the BB moved all in, I'd probably call anyway as I wouldn't put that player on a hand better than the pot odds I'd be getting. I bet 900 trying to win 700, I called with my last 1650 trying to win the 3200 in the pot plus 1650 of the raiser's money. Decisions are made after considering many factors. With 6500 in chips and less than four full tables, I would have been in a very favorable position to get to the money and with 1650 in chips I would have been one of the shortest stacks at my table. Kathy Keller Kolberg and Tom McEvoy were at the table too, and I would rather play against them without the disadvantage of being a short stack.
With all of this said, why did you bet an amount that committed your stack, without actually betting your whole stack? If your goal was to win the 700 in the pot, it would seem that goal would be more easily achieved with an all-in bet at this point. The main reasons for not going all-in would be to allow yourself the opportunity to fold, to allow another player to make a mistake trying to blow you out of the pot, or to hold some chips back for leverage after the flop if you were just called. You wouldn't have enough chips to make a pot size bet after the flop if you were called preflop, though, so leverage after the flop is weakened by the percentage of the stack that went in preflop. I'm kind of surprised at the cold call behind you, I'd have expected a raise to put your stack in at that point, but perhaps they were waiting to see if the limper in front of you was going to come over the top of your bet.
Steve,
That is a good question. I have no good answer though. I bet 900 because I thought that was enough. When the player to my left just called, I was glad I had some chips left to bet out with if the flop looked like it might have missed us both, or an A or K flopped. When the BB went all in, I paused, counting my remaining chips and the existing pot and thought about what the player on my left might have had to smooth call with. In the end, I just decided that the pot was laying me more than sufficient odds to justify the call.
Last night I went out in 28th place at Crystal Park with 34o, putting in my last 2300 on the flop when J 2 5 rainbow came. I was the BB and blinds were 500/1000 with 100 antes. I had already spent 6 hours playing from a field of 222, and I believed the small blind would fold to my all in bet unless he had a J. He had A5o and called. I could have checked and seen the turn for free, but I decided to try to win it right there and root for the open-ender if called. A J came on the turn, and I definitely would have won if I'd waited and bet out on the turn. Such are the vagaries of tournament poker. I had no problem with my play of the hand last night.
Much depends on whether you are a lot better than most of your opponents. If so your initial raise should be lower so you can fold to a reraise. So what if the limper will call? If your opponents are more skilled the proper play at this stage of the tournament with that amount of chips is probably to move in yourself. By the way your call would be wrong if you knew the raiser had to have only AKS, JJ, QQ, KK, or AA.
Why would it be wrong to call if you knew the raiser's holdings were limited to that list? John (if head up) would nearly quadruple his stack at least 30% of the time against those hands, which justifies a call even if he loses his stack the rest of the time.
David,
When I bet the 900, the two players that were known competent, Kathy Kohlberg and Tom McEvoy had already passed. Two of the three players remaining had given no signs of further interest in the pot. One of those two, the player who called my bet, was Andre Maloof, a good player but not one whose face was known by me at the time. The BB was a young guy I'd never seen in tournaments before, at least I didn't remember ever seeing him. The action he'd given since I'd been at the table, less than thirty minutes, suggested to me that he liked to gamble up. I had actually put him on a medium to large pair when he raised since his move carried some confident authority when he made it. I was gambling that he didn't have AA or KK, the only rwo holdings that made my calling a negative EV play considering risk/reward.
I'm not adverse to playing the hand out after the flop, but this wasn't a choice once he moved all in. I wouldn't have put my last 2650 into the pot with him putting in 3950 if we had both shown our hands before betting, but with the sequence of the action I still think a 900 bet to win the blinds, antes and the limper's 200 was reasonable and my call of 1650 to try to win the 6500 resulting pot was also reasonable. AKo vs. 10's isn't a 39.5 to 26.5 dog, but it wouldn't have made me want to commit. 65 to 16.5 though, I'd jump at the chance.
John,
In the above post, you wrote, "...I still think a 900 bet to win the blinds, antes and the limper's 200 was reasonable..."
In your original post, you wrote:
> I am only unhappy that my initial bet didn't leave me
> with the wiggle room to allow myself to reconsider
> whether I wanted to make my stand with this hand.
Several people have agreed with your original reaction. I put myself in that camp as well. Your initial bet should have been small enough to give yourself some wiggle room, or you should have moved all-in immediately.
Mark,
If I had brought it in for the size of the pot it still would have been T700. With a call to my left and the BB's raise, there would have been T4650 laid to my remaining T1850 call. The only way I could have escaped would have been if I had limped and got raised by the player to my left and reraised all in by the BB. In that case I would throw the AKo away. Since that original post I have been knocked out of several more tournaments and more than a handful of satellites. I am now satisfied that I played that particular hand OK. Last night in a tournament I folded AKo to a large raise and an all-in call when I had the button.
There are situations when a call is appropriate and when a fold is correct. My playing strategy, and the table image I try to project, dictate certain moves that might be inappropriate for other players. I try to encourage other players to be less inhibited about playing hands with me. Some players try to play very solid, hoping that they can avoid being played with when they move serious chips to the center. When I move in, I want players to suspect that I'm weak and on a steal. This means I can't do much out of position stealing early on, but, when the blinds and antes are very strong, anyone can steal from any position.
Last night, In a tournament at Crystal Park, I got some foolish player with AA, to push it all in against me when I bet out with pocket KK. I flopped the K for a set, but he turned an A for his set too. I also caught a player betting 250 when the big blind was 50 when he had 22. He was smooth called by the button with AJo. I moved in from the SB with my last 825 with my AJo, expecting at least one of them, and probably both, to fold. 22 won that pot and I was done. That last hand looks pretty questionable as a play on my part, but I had correctly read both players as being weak and I thought they would fold to my all-in raise. If I had held either of their hands with their chips and position, I would have certainly given it up.
I spent $625 for the buy-in and two rebuys, but I felt OK after busting out. I know that I could have had a much more favorable result on my plays than I did. Some days your big pocket pairs get beat, your moves don't work out to your advantage and you get beat. I did manage not to misplay a couple trap hands that might have taken a lot of my chips when I was less experienced.
I'm happy to post here because I find the comments and insights instructive and valuable. I do find that each player has a unique playing philosophy that is brought to their commentary. I am very risk tolerant and have the wider spectrum of risk/reward parameters. When I'm in a tournament I try to be somewhat more aggressive than most other players. I will push it all in when I think I'm an 11/10 underdog if the pot is laying me a little extra and I feel like I need to make a move to get some chips. When my risk taking is rewarded, I know how to use those chips to shift into a different, less risk tolerant, game style. I am not one of the tournament players who has no shot at making the final table no matter how many chips he amasses in the early going; if I have the chips, I know how to last to the money. If you play tournaments and can't shift gears to play fast and loose when that style is appropriate, you never seem to get to the money tables with enough chips to take a solid swing at the top prizes. If a player plays with a proven strategy outlined in his brain, he can take some comfort even when he loses, if he knows that he had the discipline to follow his game plan faithfully. I tinker with my game plan almost daily, looking to improve on it, but change it while playing only to adjust to the style mixture at my table.
John,
You wrote:
> Last night, In a tournament at Crystal Park, I got some
> foolish player with AA, to push it all in against me when
> I bet out with pocket KK.
IMHO, your opponent would have been foolish if he or she had turned down the opportunity to go all-in against you.
Regarding another hand, you wrote:
> That last hand looks pretty questionable as a play on my
> part, but I had correctly read both players as being weak
> and I thought they would fold to my all-in raise.
Earlier, however, you noted that you intentionally project a table image where you "try to encourage other players to be less inhibited about playing hands with me." This could explain why both these players called your weak hand with their weak hands. As you tinker with your game plan, be sure to check for internal consistency.
And good luck with your future tournaments.
Mark,
Didn't you catch just a hint of self-deprecating whimsy (if not humor) in the assertion that moving all in with pocket rockets against pocket kings was foolish?
In the tournament in question, my table image was fairly tight since I'd only shown pocket tens folded to a raise, pocket kings losing to pocket aces and AKo folded to a bet and all in raise. In point of actual fact, I was playing very solid starting hands up until raising all in with the AJo.
As to my internal consistency, you may be right. I am somewhat inconsistant in my play, perhaps, even unpredictable. This tendency seems to carry over into my posts. I do show a wider range of starting hands than most. Amazingly though, I show the widest range when stacking it all in against someone with a much shorter stack than mine. When I am stacking it in against players with larger stacks, I generally have the "goods". This time though, I had bubkas........... go figure. Sometimes when you are making a move and it doesn't pan out, your play looks ridiculous.
Thank you for your kind wishes for my future play in tournaments.
When I am in the big blind I have a habit of not looking at my cards. I will look at them if there is a raise. but if there is not a raise I will not look at them until after the flop. I use this time to wacth the players reaction to their hole cards and their reaction to the flop, Do they reach for their money right away or do they make any give away any tells. The question I have is dose anyone think that this gives the other player an advantage to wacth me look at my cards? In the big blind I will rarely call a raise unless I have group 1 or group 2 cards. It does not take long for me to know how Im gonna play. Im am hoping somebody may tell me if they think I am at an advantage with this tactic or a disadvantage?
This is an ugly habit that you should rid your self of.What if there's 2 limpers and you look down and you've got rockets?You have effectively given the limpers an easy ride.You should have as much information as possible when you make a decision in the game.Although deception is sometimes nice your giving away to much by not looking at your cards.Calling a raise from the blinds with only group 1or2 hands is definetly depriving yourself of opportunities.This makes you very predictable and smart opponets will walk all over you.Vary up your play:play small-medium connectors once in a while,dump the hands that will trap you(A-Jor less,K-10),be a little more aggressive in the blinds and your play should improve.
I couldn't agree more. Just the other night I was playing $4-8 and in the little blind, and had not looked at my cards and was not going to, but changed my mind at the last minute and looked at Q-Q, but did not raise because I didn't want to seem too anxious about my holdings, and figured I would come out smoking on the flop......what a mistake that was!! BB had 7-4o, and since there was no raise he was in for the flop. Guess what flopped, 8-6-5 rainbow!! Needless to say it cost me the pot ($100 swing between winning and losing) since I did not raise him out. Had I looked immediately and decided I was going to raise when the action got to me I would have won the pot....shame on me!! Never, never, never let limpers in the pot without it costing them dearly!! Not looking at your cards because you are the SB or BB is not a wise idea, because there will always be a few times that you have superior cards in one of those positions and need to at least try to thin the field or make the limpers pay for their weak hands. I learned the hard way and will never do that again. I suggest you heed that advice and make sure that you always know what tickets you have before going to the show!!
Good luck!
Even worse than the habit of never raising from the BB is the habit of never folding your SB. If you always complete a 50% SB, then your game has a leak that needs plugging.
One of the secret unspoken truths of poker, which I am collecting, is "Its to your advantage to know what you have". 2+2 seems to have missed that one. :)
If for some reason you will NOT raise with premium pairs in the BB then checking blind has a little merit. Even so, you still want to know what you have so you know WHO to study for information. I would tend to study early and middle limpers if I had a trouble hand or better, and study late position limpers with small cards.
Yes, if they are trying to read you and they know when you look at your cards and you are likely to "tell" away, then doing so when they have nothing to do but watch you has got to be a mistake. If you believe this is a problem then practice looking at your cards the same way each time.
In the blinds you get your cards first, so you can take a quick peak while the opponents are still retrieving and looking at THEIR cards, so there is unlikely to be anybody watching you at that time.
- Louie
The posts regarding AK in a no limit situation were very interesting. I don't play no limit, so how a bout a limit situation with AK. I raise from under the gun with AKoff suit and a fairly loose player re-raises,(he could have a fairly wide range of hands, from low/med. pairs to AXS ETC.) A tight player behind him re-raises.I know from previous play that this player would only re-raise me, let alone another raiser with AKs,AA,KK,QQ,AND MAYBE JJ.Do I play, or do I fold? I would most likely play, but I'm not sure if this is correct in a situation like this. Thanks in advance.
i think it is important to know more about the tight player... how does he play after the flop? if he still plays very tight, you (depending on your reputation at the table) might get him to fold by simply betting after an all rags flop. if something interesting, but not good for you comes on the flop, i'd be outta there.
against the loose player, what else can you do but play with him. the chance that he has something better than AK is not very good (according to your message).
so i guess i would call as long as the tight player is also tight after the flop as well.
I wonder how many tight players would call 4 bets without A's or K's. I doubt very many. The problem for you is that the tight player is likely to have the cards that you need, so I would hope for two cards to the nut straight. If I got them, I would try to confront the tight player with a two bet call. If he or she puts you on the straight and folds, you are left with the loose player. If you pair, you may still win against him. If neither fold, it is likely you will have to make the straight to win. The tight player has you beat, and the loose one may out draw you both.
Let's see if I have this right. The pot contains 12 small bets when the flop comes QJ3. You have AK and decide to bet "on the (gutshot) come" in hopes that the semi-maniac raises. The semi-maniac does raise. I've got AA or KK and am very perceptive. I put you on the gutshot straight draw. And I fold? Not very likely. I'm probably going to re-raise.
Since you have a reasonable chance of beating the hands he is most likely to have (QQ, JJ), I'd say the pot odds dictate a call. In no limit with deep money, especially in a tournament, I'd bail.
Let's do some math. There are 3 aces, 3 kings, 4 queens, and 4 jacks available for the tight player to have. This means the number of ways for him to have various hands is:
AA 3 ways KK 3 ways AK 9 ways QQ 6 ways JJ 6 ways (but according to your post he might only play JJ this way half the time he has it)
If he has QQ or JJ, you definitely want to play. If he has AA, you definitely want to muck. If he has AK, you are probably slightly better off mucking, but it's real close. If he has KK, you are probably slightly better off playing, but it's kinda close.
Overall, it seems to me that you are better off playing.
William
" If he has AK, you are probably slightly better off mucking, but it's real close"
why? i thought it would be very obvious in that case that a raise is best.
one correction: if you meant AKs, maybe that would be close. but with a total of three callers, i would still at least call. although if you raise it and cap it, that is a very strong move that the tight player may get worried. maybe it depends on your image at the table what the correct move is at this point, but i don't think i would fold.
karpov, pay attention, the tight player is capping it. go play some chess
This is a story about one particular hand I remember from my first month of serious low-limit hold'em.
I was in middle position at a table of mostly strangers in a 2-5-10-10 game. i had 8 8 in the whole. there was one raise before the flop and 5 called. the flop came 6 6 8. there were 2 checks from my right and i bet 5 (my experience in low-limit games is that you might as well bet because they aren't gonna fold anyway). there were 3 callers including me. the turn was a 10. 1 guy to my right checked, i bet 10, guy to left folded, guy to right called. the river was a jack. he checked and i bet 10. he then raised me 10 and had a look of excitement on his face. i got scared and called. he turned over 1 jack and a rag and exclaimed "jacks over sixes". i quietly turned over my boat and raked in the pot.
my question is, "should i have re-raised him on the river." a guy i thought was a pretty good poker player sitting next to me chastised me and said "you should've re-raised him." I said, "yeah, but i was scared he was hanging around with two pair, jacks and sixes and then hit a boat on the river." he then replied, "no, because if he had jacks in the whole, he would've been betting." this is the part i am not so sure about. I always thought that if there was a pair on the board, two pair was probably not going to stand up. therefore, I think my call was reasonable, especially after a check-raise.
what do you guys think?
1. This guy is a BAD player to check-raise top pair/no kicker with a pair and straigh draw on the board.
2. You gotta put in one more raise here unless this guy is a total rock, which he clearly isn't. Only if he pops you back do you start thiking about pocket 10s, Jacks, or even sixes. For a bad player, it would be more likely that he hit a goofy straight with some dead-draw like Q9. I might even stand ANOTHER reraise if the guy is a real live one.
Post deleted at author's request.
"Most players would have played on overpair pretty fast on the flop and turn in this situation (I think)."
you really think so? i thought that in low-limit hold'em when there was a pair on the board that you might expect trips. because of this, i thought most players won't bet two pair in such a case. i guess the one exception is when you have a high pair. maybe jacks were big enough to bet in this situation and i did make a mistake.
what does everyone think?
I think we all are brilliant Monday quarterbacks. On Sunday, however, I have difficulty reaching Gary's conclusion that your opponent's most likely hand was a single jack.
But I still think you are seeing "monsters under the bed" if you immediately put him on JJ, TT, or 66. If you thought his look of excitement was genuine, then a poor player might have had Q9, J6, J8, or JT. If his excitement was delayed, he might have had 79, T6, or T8.
I probably raise him back once. If I get raised again, now I give more serious consideration to JJ, TT, and 66. But then, it's at least Tuesday by now. :-)
In WINNING LOW LIMIT HOLD'EM, Lee Jones notes (with some qualification) that "if you get a set beaten and don't lose a lot of chips, you didn't play it right." I think the same thing applies here.
I agree you should reraise. Full house over full house is so rare I'd make the re-raise automatically, especially in a low-limit game. Think about it: if you don't reraise a full house on the river when are you ever going to reraise? If you just wait for the absolute nuts every time to give action you will be costing yourself a lot in the long run. Ok so occasionally you will get beat by quads or whatever, but this will not happen very often. Remember this is holdem not 6-card omaha. Good luck.
Matt
I got a question for all you guys that have been playing all of your lives. The game sucks. It is the only game going and it varies from day to day but tonight it sucks. But you really feel like playing. You hate to give up and waste a night but the game has seen better days. There's no other game so you have to take it or leave it. What do you do?
It depends what you mean by "sucks". before the days of casino gambling this situation occured more than I would have liked. If I was on a good run I stayed. When the run was over I left. If I was considering entering the game my winning potential was the sole determiner. In the old days i sat in more "suck" games than I can count. it was part of the Price of poker in the underground circuit.
Allan,
Go online and get the help wanted section of the Los Angeles Times. Find a few ads that appeal to you and begin sending out your resume. Life is too short to continue playing in any place that has only a single game to choose from. Of course, if you have a normal life and poker is a small, insignificant part of it, please disregard this advice.
Line up some low priority tasks ahead of time; such fixing that squeaky step. When the game is bad or you don't feel up to it go and do one of these tasks. Its a good enough excuse not to play, you will end up feeling better about not playing, the step gets fixed, and I suspect your enthusiasm for playing when you do play will increase.
- Louie
You really feel like playing. How much? Is the entertainment value of the game worth $5 per hour? $10 per hour? $25 per hour?
The game sucks. How much? Do you expect to lose $3 per hour? $8 per hour? $20 per hour?
What do you do? If your expected losses exceed the game's entertainment value, then walk away. If the game's entertainment value exceeds your expected losses, then pull up a chair.
I love short-handed games......5 players or less. The games that I fomerly played in collected time. My long term results in those games showed that,hour for hour, this was my most profitable situation. The ratio of winning to losing sessions was much higher as well.For that reason it seemed like the ultimate bankroll stabilizer . Alas, nothing lasts forever. Now I'll be playing only in games with a rake. I have played short handed in these games as well and while it seemed to be profitable, I probably just got lucky. Certainly I havn't accumulated enough short-handed hours in a raked game to be sure of anything at this point. The previous discussions on this forum have been helpful, especially some of the posts by Ray Zee where he points out that(if I have it right)he would generally walk unless some of the players were going way too far with their hands. I like his no-compromise approach of not giving the casino any action by keeping their games going for them and I'm going to adopt it.Normally, I asked for a break on the rake.A good portion of the time this request was granted. How much would a typical rake have to drop before a short handed rake game would be profitable? Would there be any other conditions besides the ones described by Mr. Zee that would make for a profitable game with a full rake? How about heads-up play against a weak opponent? would it be even more of a mistake to do this than against, say, four opponents? Wouldn't being able to get into action more frequently somewhat cancel out the negative effect of the rake? Or is this just a minor factor compared to the all-consuming rake? Hope I'm not being too repetitious as I know that other threads have taken this topic up, but I would still like more clarification and I hope this post stimulates further discussion.
Proportionally you can pay more in rake playing heads up than you can in a full game!
Consider: Rake $1 a hand heads up.
Your playing very fast,,, maybe 60 to 80 hands an hour. After all, many hands don't go very far. (I've played in heads up games where the dealer couldn't keep up with us!)
At 60 hands an hour thats $30 an hour apiece!
Nice work if you can get it.
You may also need to adjust the toke and should probably discuss the toke with the other players and the dealer, especially at the lower limits. The problems with tipping as much as one would in a full game are (1) it's unecessary, as the dealer shouldn't receive twice as much money for dealing twice as many hands in the same period of time (2)the stacks of the most generous tippers -- often weaker players -- seem to literally evaporate, encouraging them to quit or causing them to bust out early.
John,
If the house is willing to adjust the rake for you they are compromising. Perhaps half rake as the decent california clubs will do with time. They will charge half time or take time every other half hour. In a rake game half rake taken at higher pot levels or if they have to take full rake make it at drastically larger pot sizes. In most casino games they pay shills or prop players to start or keep games going so why wont they give you a big break for doing that work free. If the rake is say $3 a hand you need someone every hand mostly to throw the equivalent of $3 away. This is hard to get if any other players are the least bit aggressive or make fairly good decisions. Remember shorthanded you are in the pot for the rake part on many hands with marginal values and you need to make this up somewhere. Suppose you play me head up and I play real bad. Suppose you can beat me out of 5 big bets an hour, which is pretty good Id say. Suppose we play 20 &40 limit which is bigger than most rake games. In an hour we may play 50 hands since its head up and we play quickly. The rake is $150 of the $200 you hope to beat me out of and what if you guessed wrong and can only beat me out of two bets per hour.{ Do adjust these figures for smaller stakes and amount of hands dealt and you may see how tough it can really get.} My contention is to not play unless they accommadate you and the game is truly good. Most casino people work with you if you can explain it properly and they can see it will make their games break up if they persist. The ones that wont, dont do them any favors, take like they take from you. In small stakes games where the pots dont get much bigger than the top of the rake limit it will be extremely hard to show a profit unless you can play like Tom Haley or Louie Landale :)
There is a chance that I could be in the Trop's 2nd chance no-limit tournment. The $300 one. My DUI is costing me A LOT OF MONEY but I have learned my lesson well. It knocked me from being able to play the $1000 at the Taj and possibly the BIG ONE if I won a seat.
If Big John and others feel he made the correct play in his situation then I ask"HOW COULD HE THEN TRAP HIMSELF if he made the correct play?"
I should have said that my initial bet left me without any intelligent option of conceding the pot once he moved all in. I had an overlay for my all in call regardless of what the player behind me decided to do. I felt "trapped" because I couldn't escape putting my last chips in. I win many pots from players who fail to call me when the pot size absolutely justifies calling. My experience in tournaments is that you have to commit to pots even though you conclude that you are an underdog when the risk/reward ratio is skewed decidedly in your favor. Once the tourney gets down to a few tables and all the money is at the final table, having a good sized stack is your best insurance policy. Knowledgeable players rightfully attack the smaller stacks whenever they can. This, combined with the increasing blinds and antes, forces the small stacks to make stands with starting hands they would happily muck when under less pressure.
I disagree with your statement that I should have folded to the all in bet and I still believe that I felt "trapped" due to the circumstances I found myself in. As Ray Zee said, I wouldn't have made the posting if an A or a K had flopped, turned or rivered. Tonight there is another NL tourney at Crystal Park. I'll be in it and looking for an opportunity to make it to the money tables. If I find myself in this exact same situation, I'll do the exact same thing. This time though, since we've thought about it and reconstructed all the math, I'll do it without feeling the need to second guess myself if it turns out badly again. I'm a little more knowledgeable now than I was on Tuesday, and I'm really looking forward to a great time tonight. Hope to see some of you there. Be sure to come by and introduce yourself and say hello.
I agree with some of your priciples but I still would have folded when BB went all in. By the way I e-mailed T.J. and Tom Macvoy and they will be e-mailing their opinion on your post and will let me post it here.
Good,
I spoke with both last night, but the subject didn't come up. Tom was real happy about the turn out for his inaugaural tournament at Crystal Park and T.J. and I were laughing about him getting knocked out of a tournament, looking up at the TV on the wall and seeing himself getting knocked out of the World Series by Kevin McBride. T.J. was still in the tournament when I left at 1:00, knocked out in 28th place when they only paid 18 places. There were 222 entries, 307 rebuys and a prize pool of $51,400 plus a paid TOC entry. As to asking TJ about calling all in with AKo, he once busted me in a NL ring game with a 46s. Good players are unpredictable, that's what makes them good.
Sometimes in poker you just get unlucky.
As another player in the tournament, if I worked out that if I moved all in on you in that situation, you would fold AKo, I would move all in on you with any two cards.
William
I have read a few articles recently about what is called Morton's Law, which seems to say that in multiway pots Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem... might not hold. I believe this might have something to do with whether the outcome of your opponents hand depend on one another (that is, are they independant?) An example of this would be in Hold'em, where everyone has the same up cards--whether I make my hand may well influence whether you make yours (I can't get a heart flush when you get a spade flush). An example: Imagine a hypothetical game where you have a given hand and you have up to ten opponents who are trying to beat it, with only one round of betting, and the bet always equal to one (a dull game, but it serves as an example). Each opponent has a ten percent chance of beating your hand. In the first instance, imagine the results of your opponents hands are completely dependant on one another--if one makes his hand (beating you), the rest don't. You bet first. As long as all ten opponents don't go in, none of them should--they have a ten percent chance of winning, so they don't get sufficient odds. However, it does not benefit you to have too many callers (Morton's Law)--it is pretty easy to see that the expected return on your bet, if x is the number of players in the game, is equal to (1-x/10)*x (the first number being your chance of winning, the second what you win). This number is maximized at x=5--if more players come in (incorrectly, as far as they are concerned), you lose money, even though they are making a mistake. The same does not hold true if the results of the opponents' hands are independant (one making his hand doesn't influence whether the others do). In that case, I believe Sklansky's theorem holds, though I will have to remember a bit more calculus before I can prove it.
The above may explain why you hear Morton's Law discussed in terms of Hold'em more often than anything else, as the results of the hands depend so much on one another.
I forget and I don't have my books; what was the fundamental theory?
#1 What's good for you is bad for the opponent, and versa visa.
#2 If you play differently than you would if you could see the opponent's hand then you made a "mistake".
#3 ??
- Louie
I have read Holdem Poker for Advanced Players, good book. What would be a another good book. I am considering pot limit holdem game $300 take out. I have been playing 10-20 holdem and a lot ot 10-20 omaha. I have had enough of omaha. I am enjoying the forum and picked up some good ideas. Book suggestions??
Try; "Pot Limit and No Limit" by Bob Ciaffone, if you are considering a foray into this style of betting structure
Darren
Super/System should well be worth the investment. You'll get great advice on several games including 5 card draw, 7 card stud, 7 card stud/8 or better, lowball, no limit hold'em and limit hold'em. The book was probably written close to 20 years ago but the advice contained in there cannot be out of date.
While the book is worth the investment, some of the advice in there CAN be out of date.
For example, the 7 stud/hi-low game described in SUPER/SYSTEM is played with no qualifier for low (i.e., no 8-or-better qualifier). The qualifier makes a big difference in how you should play this game.
Also, the blind structure of most hold'em games back then put less money into the pot initially. Hence, tigher play was more correct back then.
And you don't find very many 5-card draw games (for high) spread in cardrooms anymore. Razz also is on the endangered species list. And lowball is a threatened species.
If you want to learn more about no-limit (or pot limit) hold'em, Doyle Brunson's thoughts on the subject are worth the $50 price tag all by themselves.
I believe Mike Caro wants to update the tome, but Brunson is skeptical.
You've heard two good suggestions. I would say either read Sklansky's "Theory of Poker", or if you've already read it, reread it. This is in addition to the other recommendations.
Also, although I think Ruben and Ciaffone's book is the best single book on big bet poker, Cloutier's "Championship No-Limit and Pot-Limit Poker" is also well worth reading.
I got home last night turned on the T.V. and lo and behold ESPN had the 1998 WSOP show on again. I had never seen it for one reason or another so I finally got a chance. There were 2 hands that I found interesting.
1) Scott Nguyen, Kevin McBride and T.J. Cloutier are left. I believe that Nguyen was on the button, McBride had the S.B. and T.J. had the B.B. This was the hand that T.J. was eliminated on. McBride raised $40,000 and T.J. re-raised $120,000 and McBride called. Flop was rags with two spades. McBride checked and T.J. pushed the rest of his stack in which was about $400,000 and McBride called. McBride had the J,9s and T.J. had K,Qo. Maybe this is 20-20 hindsight but I think T.J. screwed this hand up bad. IMO McBride was a pretty weak player at least in this round he was. I think T.J. could have played this hand a lot better given the fact that McBride was a weak player and this was a tournament situation. I just think that T.J. could have found a better spot to shove his whole stack in there against McBride because he wasn't going to run McBride off of a legitimate hand as McBride would only call if he was ahead or fairly close in value. Should T.J. have put his whole stack in pre-flop? Perhaps T.J. only re-raised $120,000 to assess the value of McBride's hand. If McBride had Aces or Kings he would have come back over the top most likely. Personally I think if McBride had Aces or Kings pre-flop he would have just called trying to trap Nguyen or Cloutier.
2) McBride and Nguyen are heads up. Nguyen in S.B. both limp in. Flop is 3c 4c Ad. Nguyen bets $30,000 and McBride calls. Turn is a 4s, Nguyen bets $80,000 and McBride calls. The river is a blank. Nguyen bets $200,000 and McBride raises his entire stack which amounts to a $386,000 raise. Then McBride goes to the bathroom while Nguyen contemplates calling! To me this was a clear sign that McBride was confident that he had the best hand because he wasn't expecting to walk back in on a victory celebration for Nguyen. This is just how it hit me.
Tom Haley
Not that it matters but McBride had a very bad tell which I believe Scotty picked up on a little while after they started playing heads up.
As for T.J's play he did what he believed was called for in the situation and I won't second guess him. (BESIDES THAT HE HAD THE BEST HAND!)
WHAT WAS THE TELL IM DYING TO KNOW! :+)
Jimmy R,
I think that McBride's call of T.J.'s all in bet on the flop was correct. IMO since McBride was a weak player T.J. didn't have to be too concerned with anything fancy from McBride. Therefore I believe that T.J. should have checked behind McBride on the flop. If a blank falls and McBride bets give it up. If a spade falls and McBride bets, give it up. If a blank falls and McBride checks, make the all in play with one card to come. Why not give McBride a chance to make a mistake? I'm not so sure how T.J. knew for sure that his K,Q was the best hand because I would think that McBride would make his pre-flop raise with a lot of hands that contained an Ace or if he had a pair. I'm probably wrong but I think T.J. made his play on the flop to shut McBride out. McBride wasn't going to make the mistake of folding incorrectly. As you point out T.J. had the best hand and was a favorite to take down the money. However, I believe that McBride's call was correct also and T.J. could have played that hand differently as well as wait for a better spot to get all his chips in their against McBride.
Tom Haley
Tom-
I absolutely agree with you. This play also seems to be counter to TJ's own advice in his pot-limit/no-limit book. If I am ever at the final table and have a chance to double through TJ and knock him out with two cards to come and 15 outs (9 clubs plus three jacks and three nines if no king or queen falls), I'll jump at it in a minute!
By the way, I don't think TJ was hip to this "obvious" tell. Otherwise, there is no way he would be giving KM the chance to knock him out with a 30-outer. I think TJ put KM on absolutely nothing and was convinced he would lay this hand down. Again though, he viloates one of his own rules, never bluff a calling station. And despite the comments of the previous post, and all-in bet with only two non-Ace overcards and no flush draw is a stone cold bluff, not a value bet.
If you play in enough tournaments, you learn that you can't win or, usually, survive to the middle rounds if you don't manufacture wins. TJ was ahead when he moved on the pot. If McBride had J9o instead of a flush draw, he'd have laid it down in an instant. When the money went into the pot, TJ was the favorite. When the J hit the turn, TJ still had four outs but was drawing pretty slim. You have to consider the point that TJ had observed McBride's play for the entire session and was making his betting decision based on a lot of factors that his experience and observation had processed. We all expect to see TJ at the final table of the Big One again, but what about McBride? Had TJ won that hand, I believe he probably could have won the whole thing. I certainly think he would rate as a favorite heads up against Scotty.
Don't misinterpret my comment. I think TJ is THE PLAYER at big tournament time. He also had a sound basis for trying to blow McBride off his hand. I just think he was wrong in this particular hand in the Fundamental Threorom of Poker sense that he would NOT have made an all-in bet with only the slightest edge against an inferior player if he put him on a flush draw with overcards. Here's how I see it breaking down (assuming you knew what type of hand you were up against:
1) McBride is a calling station, so there is 0% chane of getting him to lay down overcards with a flush draw.
2) An all-in bet here is the same as a call, and I don't think a call for all of your chips with at best a slim edge is proper. Therefore:
3) TJ probably put him on a weak pair or a weak Ace and figured that he might not be able to win a showdown, but thought he could power his way through.
By the way, I understand that you have to manufacture wins in tournaments and have gotten at least my fair share. However, TJ was already at the final table with enough powder left to pick a better spot. He would probably even agree in hindsight that this was an ill-advised play given McBride's decent holding.
Furthermore, I want to be the lone voice to defend McBride's play. At least the guy made some seemingly tough calls. This is a p[erfect example of how a calling station that mixes up his hand selection is much more difficult for the pros to beat than a weak-tight opponent. I'll bet the rest of us aspiring PLAYERS would have let the big guys push us off of a few winning hands or justifiable draws at the final table. We would have convinced ourselves that we played solid because we wouldn't have to confront the mistakes we made.
I think you'd have to ask TJ what he was thinking at the time. Yesterday, when he alluded to it, he commented to the effect that it was McBride who was behind when all the money went in. I believe he was searching for ammunition to use to blow Scotty out of the game after McBride's inevitable elimination. I also think that, in his heart, TJ believed this was his year to win it and that he was the better player amongst the three. As for McBride, I think the poker reporting establishment failed to give him his due for this remarkable achievement. In truth, he was a single hand away from the Championship, and with it, poker immortality. That he triumphed to the degree that he did is a monumental accomplishment. He went where many of us aspire, and few, if any, of us will attain.In the process of playing, he personally ended the tournament for a number of excellent players. I also believe that he was a better player than the World Series tapes and Mike Paulle reported. Remember, he survived three grueling days of playing prior to the final table action.
I watched it on ESPN too. I had read about it, but seeing it in person really demonstrated how weak that guy played. He was a checking machine, but that worked to his advantage when the two fours hit his 4-5. He could check and call, then check-raise. His bathroom thing was silly. Then he comes back and says : "Did you call Scotty? Did you call?" I would have folded -- that call gave hime too much credit for having the balls to raise all in with just an ace.
The really amazing hand was when he knocked out the 4th place guy (Dewey Weum?) with K-J vs. A-7. The guy hit all kinds of flops. On that hand, he hit trip kings and then the flush. But Nguyen really worked him in the end. He played him like a flute on that last hand, when he said "you call and it's all over." McBride played the board; to me, he basically gave up at that point. He should have dumped that hand on the turn and picked a better spot. You never know.... The good news is it proves an amateur can get there, with some luck.
There was a tell that Scotty missed when Kevin went all in on his trip 4's. When the second 4 hit on the turn Kevin fumbled his chips and was somewhat nervous and called without hesitation. This is a clear sign that he had the set. He had not done this prior. I think the reason Scotty called Kevin on the end was because in a hand earlier Scotty caught Kevin bluffing at a pot. The hand I am talking about is when the ace hit the river Kevin was representing a straight and came out betting a $100,000 and got out of his chair quickly to stretch and walk around. Scotty re-raised and Kevin folded. I think this hand had a lot to do with Scotty calling the hand where Kevin had the set of 4's.
I have pocket Kings.
The flop comes 9-9-2. I checkraise my opponent who then re-raises.
I call and stop to analyze the situation mathematically ala Sklansky.
I think: I can beat 77's, 88's, 1010's JJ'S and Queens. (All reasonable hands for him-he is a loose aggressive player.) I can't beat pocket AA's or a nine. (Or pocket deuces.) There are 30 ways he can have any of those pairs and 6 ways he can have aces and 3 ways he can have pocket deuces but there are ??? wait a minute. How many ways are there that he can have a nine? He could have A-9, K-9, Q-9 on down to 6-9 suited I suppose. Plus there are two nines!
So now what do I do. Just how many ways are there that he could have a nine? Along with pocket Aces or deuces?
I don't understand why you Check-Raised a Loose Agressive Player in this Situation. If he is Truely Loose Agressive you want him to Bluff away his Stack all the times he can't beat your Kings. You aren't worried about getting drawn out on in this Situation.
CV
You didn’t give the exact cards, or the PreFlop betting, but let’s say
that you have
Ks Kh
and the Flop is
9c 9d 2s
And let's say you stay to the River
Vs one opp who will play any two cards
you’re a 6.34 to 1 Fav
Vs one opp who will play Group VII or better
you’re a 4.25 to 1 Fav
Nice to know, but my guess is you’re going to lose
this hand.
The numbers of how you'd do all-in against a random hand (either selected from all possible hands, or from a subset of playable hands) is interesting, but not really relevant in this situation. The opponent's play changes the probabilities of his holdings significantly, and you'd have to resort to Bayesian analysis (and have a good model of the opponent) to really know what the odds were here.
I don't know that you need to do this kind of analysis in this situation. You're not going to fold because he could have a lot of hands that you'll clobber. But the board pair justifies your slowing down. If you think your opponent may be little unhinged (let's say he's stuck and you've been pounding him a lot), you might go for an extra bet somewhere but in most cases I'd just check and call to the river. BTW, why do you suppose he didn't wait until the turn to tell you about his "9"? (I'm assuming you were playing structured limit).
Why worry so much about the math here. You said he was aggressive, not stupid. reraising your check-raise indicates a phenomenal hand. i would definitely think pair 2's, or A-9, maybe even pair 9's.
i think check-raising here was probably wrong.
You say he can have AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77, 22, A9s, K9s, Q9s, J9s, T9s, 98s, 97s, and 96s.
Let ignore the KK tie; (and A2s).
There are 30 total pocket pairs you can beat.
There are (AA=6, 99=1, 22=3) 10 pocket pairs you cannot beat. There are two of all the suited hands, or 16 suited hands (call it 15 since you didn't say if one of your K's matched a 9); or 25 hands that beat you.
You have a two card out. He has a two-card out. We'll ignore the fact that you have a better re-draw than he (he makes a set, then so do you) unless he has A9s.
So you are a 30:25 or 6:5 favorite. At least call him down.
Be advised not to fall into the trap of evaluating situations based only on "chances I have the best hand". Its "chances my hand wins" that matters. Most situations have radically different draw outs for each player (THIS hand was an exception). As shown in some old Sklanski book: if you have AK and the opponent AA, KK, or QQ you are even money to "have the best hand". But he is only a slight dog when he has QQ, a big favorite if KK, and a huge favorite with AA.
- Louie
Your comment is good, but your example is bad. QQ is ahead of AKo, and even ahead of AKs in a heads up match.
I thought the hypothetical was: you have QQ and know your opponent has either AA, KK or AK. Even though there's a 57% chance that your opponent has AK and you are ahead, the times when he has AA or KK you're so far behind that you should fold to an even money bet in a small pot(such as a huge preflop raise in no-limit).
Louie's response is the only one that answered the question. Thankyou.
I re-raised his checkraise on the flop because he is capable of giving me a few raises with an inferior hand. (Any of the pairs I mentioned.)
He also is smart enought to know that the best way to play the hand against my probable big pair is to be agressive on the flop. If he waits till the turn he knows I can lay it down.
He had Ace-Nine, but this is irrelevant. He could just as easily of had pocket 88's. I still get paid off nicely. I did just call him down. I suspected a nine and wanted to compare the price for drill but got lost in the shuffle.
I don't have a simulator in my head nor could I think of all the ways he could have a nine vs. those he couldn't. Not that it would make any difference in how I played the hand. Regardless of the price I was still going to call him down.
Yes. Ooops. I'll be more careful.
I'd like some comments please on the play and thinking process involved in the following hand-
Situation:
NL HE Tourney, no rebuys. Fairly early in the going. Folded around to me in middle position, I make a pot sized raise with AsQh. Only caller is a rather loose, reckless player, one off the button. He has slightly less $$ than I do.
Flop is Q79, with two clubs.
I'm over 90% sure I have the best hand at this point. However, that flop is extremely 'well co-ordinated'. There are a *huge* number of possible scare cards to deal with later: any club, 6,7,8,9,T,J, or K makes a straight, flush, or trips possible. Granted, some of these are a lot less scary than others (a 6 isn't so bad). Still, its hard to find many cards left in the deck that *won't* be scary!
Yet, the reality is that only a small portion of those scare cards will *truly* help my opponent, if he is on some kind of draw or lower pair. And of course, I will have no idea which are which. I figure it would be best to try and win this hand right now rather than deal with all these bluff possibilities later. So I bet double the size of the pot, which is about a quarter of my remaining stack.
My opponent reraises with over half his stack. I do not believe for a second that this guy has me beat. I have seen him bet, or even raise, with stuff like bottom pair on the flop with an overcard. Of course he might have two pair or trips, but that is pretty unlikely. Depending on where he's at, I still believe I'm anywhere from a 2:1 up to a 5 or 6:1 favorite.
So I play back at him, reraising enough to put him all in. Again, the idea is: I don't want to deal with scare cards later. I want to make or break right here, in a hand where I think I'm a strong favorite.
He decides to call.
Turn and river are a T and a K. My opponent turns over JT and wins with the straight made on the river.
Did I play this correctly? I read my opponent well and was a 2:1 favorite to win, yet I lost over 80% of my stack.
Notice the ten on the turn. If he had $$ left to bet I might have been bluffed out when that hit; however, I still had the best hand at that point.
So here are my questions:
1- Was this played well from an overall tournament strategy
point of view? In other words, is it correct to want to get mixed up in a hand like this early-on for most of your stack?
2- Was there an alternate play that would have saved me some money in the event that I did get drawn out on? If so, how would any alternate play deal with all the scare and bluff possibilities available on the turn and the river, and an opponent who will undoubtably try to take advantage of them?
3- Was the thinking process I used to derive my decisions correct? If not, what are some alternatives others would use?
One important takeawy from this hand is the importance of POSITION in no-limit. Your opponent had it, and it sounds like he was smart enough to use it. That is why hands that can only make top pair/top kicker like AK and AQ can be dangerous to play from early and middle position.
Now for the action on the flop. You made the correct read of your perilous situation. You suspected that you had the best hand, but that it was very vulnerable to draws and bluff opportunities since you were out of position. One thing to keep in mind, is that a lot of players who are out of posiution would prefer to get all-in on the flop with a good straight or flush draw since they are they have at least 2-1 odds with two cards to come. Keeping that in mind, here are three alternative plays that I think are preferable to the one you made:
1) Check the hand down and fold it if there is any action. This is no-limit. You should be looking for opportunities t bust guys with top pair, not the other way around.
2) If you feel like you have to play this hand and don't want to second guess yourself, then move in immediately on the flop. This puts your opponenet in the situation of outguessing himself. Do you have top pair, an overpair, set, a straight draw, a flush draw, etc.? It would be impossible for him to get a read on you since all of these are reasonable hholdings given your position and the pre flop action.
3) Make a bet at the pot but mentally commit yourself to fire a second barrel, regardless of what comes on the turn. Again, if a scare card turns and you move in, how does he know YOU were'nt on the draw. If he is still drawing and puts you on top pair or a set, his odds have been cut down greatly with only one card to come. In this specific case, his strong raise on the flop kind of spoiled this plan, but you still have enough chips to just call and fir again on the turn.
As for the overall strategy, since it is a no rebuy tourney, and still early, discretion is the better part of valor with a modest holding like queens.
I can't give a good full answer, but I can nit-pick a little:
- The fact that you have more money than him is very significant, since you cannot get busted out this hand.
- You are in trouble if anybody ELSE had called the pre-flop raise. Its tough to raise with big cards when you are only going to get called by better hands; even if you succeed most of the time.
- Congrats on noticing that this is a very coordinated flop. I've seen in print that such flops are NOT coordinated. To some people it has to be either 3 big cards and a 2-flush or 2 big cards and a 3-flush, before you become conserned.
- Your fear of scare cards that can trigger a bluff are perfectly justified against reasonably solid opponents; but not against this guy since you, obviously, are going to call HIM. This player has no bluff potential against you.
- I don't know how you could not get your whole stack in against this player; unless you just call and he gives up the bluff and he saves most of HIS stack. PERHAPS you can lay this one down of you just call, and then a King comes and he bets again.
- This player is a cinch to bet on the flop if he has any part of it, so consider check-raising him. You are not giving away a "free" card that can beat you since he will bet any hand that can beat you with one card (except perhaps Kxs). This way you get some money when he has nothing and decides to bluff anyway.
1- Was this played well from an overall tournament strategy
point of view? In other words, is it correct to want to get mixed up in a hand like this early-on for most of your stack?
Absolutly the wrong play. Early into a tourament you want to give the other players opportunities to make mistakes. Stack size is of paramount importance. I would NEVER repeat Never risk 80% of my Stack with such a vunerable hand.
When your opponent raised over half his chips he commited his stack to the hand. Nothing you could have done at this point could get him off of it. Remember you said that he was a loose player. What you might have done is to check on the flop with the intention to check raise all in. That is a powerful strategy but I wonder if it would have worked against this guy. I think that it's a cardinal sin to go all in with nothing but a straight draw without any over cards and when it's early in a tourny. If this player is that type then he is not a good one. But it shows the luck factor in cards. Another thing you might have done is to raise more before the flop with the intent to steal blinds and maybe you would have blown this guy off the hand. But it's questionable because he is a loose player. On the other hand AQoff with a Q on the flop is not worth getting knocked out early. But at least you know that he needed a 8 or a K to win. One final thought. Another play to use is a turn card play. Call his raise on the flop. When the turn card comes go all in. When he missed his straight draw there is no way he should call all in with just one card to come. But then again many people don't think this way.
We play a lot of stud variations here in Kodiak and one of my biggest weaknesses is memorizing cards. Can anyone give me tips on how to become better at this?
Thanks.
There are two ways to do this, by experience, or by learning a Complex system. Learning by experience is far easier. There are some systems that require you give each card a "Picture Word" then "Peg" them into your Longterm Memory, but they take alot of time to master. I use one mostly for Gin since that game is alot slower paced. I also don't play much Stud. If you are really interested look up Books by Harry Lorayne or Tony Buzan.
CV
My card memory is bad, mostly due to my visual recall handicap. I cannot see things in my mind, and cannot even right now tell you what the Jhearts looks like, or the details of the back of my own motor home, nor can I spell since I cannot see the correct spelling in my mind. But I remember thoughts so I INTERNALLY VERBALIZE suspicions about the other hands based on the cards that I see.
I focus on important cards such as cards that relate to my hand (Dogh!), their door cards, and cards that relate to their door cards. For me, that's a lot.
I then assign a thoughts such as "2 kings and 4 spades are out, so the Kspades who called probably has 3 big cards", "My three-flush is very live but my pairs are wounded", "the order of their door cards is King, Eight, Queen, and Six". "I suspect he made a 4-flush" or "his hand is getting more wounded".
This causes problems when the opponents improve in ways unrelated to their door card (if she catches running Tens I have no idea how many Tens are out).
That's the best I can do, and can rarely do that well. But I believe Mr. Caro who suggests that those that remember ALL the cards perfectly only have a small advantage over those that can only remember cards that relate to their own hand.
With limited resources then decide what is important and focus energy on that.
Let me know if you enjoy greater success.
- Louie
I am not a stud player but I do recall reading some helpful hints in Roy West's book. I think it goes something like this:
- Don't try and memorize all the cards you can see. Just memorize the ones you see folded because the hands that are still contesting - well, you can still see those cards - they are in front of you.
-So, if you are playing seven handed and four people fold right away, you only have 4 folded cards to remember. Now, let's say two more people fold on fourth street, you then add four more cards to your memory bank. You are now heads up with your opponent and only have to keep in mind the eight cards you have seen folded.
-To help remember the eight cards, it might be easier to recall them in numerical order rather than haphazardly. As for suits, you probably only need to worry about two of them (at most)- the one you are chasing and the one that your opponent is chasing (as the case may be).
Maybe all of the above is too simplistic and I am not telling you anything you don't already know but like I said, I'm not a stud player.
Good luck.
oops! My previous post should have been in response to Ken's post and not Louie's.
You can try to use memory tricks, for example mnemonics, or associating the cards with images or even sounds/music. Images are good for the court cards e.g. Ks would be an image of a King digging with a spade, Kd is sometimes called "the butcher with the axe", two of the jacks have only one eye showing, one of the Aces has the maker's name on etc. For tens and below you can try to associate them with certain dates or significant numbers e.g. Ts and 3s gives 10+3=13, 13 is "unlucky for some", so you could remember it as "unlucky spades". It might look silly when written down, but I find such associations help me remember, maybe it will work for you too.
Good luck.
Matt
What types of hands should narrow the field preflop, and which prefer to play against a crowd?(This is a lot less clear than in holdem, since in Omaha you are playing to the nuts with redraws, and so it would seem that the higher the chance of your opponents making middle set, king-high flushes or made straights without redraws, the better. However, your made hand can be an underdog or near underdog to a strong draw; the fewer people that take the flop, the less likely it is that someone will hit the flop perfectly to a 17 or 20 out draw. Starting only with connected hands, you will often have redraws as well, and some of their outs might make a better hand for you. But you might be playing a connected starting hand, and flop the nuts only with your redraw cards worthless - KhKdJhTd and a flop of Kc6s5c.)
Which starting hands decrease significantly in value if it becomes clear that your opponent has a high pair?
If you are against multiple high pairs, would hands like As8s7d6d or 8c7d6c5d actually go up in value (provided that the implied odds were still very high)?
With top trips on the flop, it normally pays to keep raising. Rarely is it safe to give a free card, and only with the most unconnected boards will you be sure enough of where you stand on the turn. Since there are too many potential danger cards, you should try to go all-in on the flop rather than have to play guessing games later.
(Assuming that your opponent clearly has trips) If you hold a weak draw (enough outs to call, considering bluff possibilities and implied odds but not enough to make you a favorite), you want to get to the turn cheaply and with as much money remaining as possible, so that you can bluff the made hand effectively if a scare card comes that misses your outs.
But what about when you have a strong draw (17+ outs)?(Again assuming that your opponent clearly has trips) If you are the favorite over top trips, should you go all-in on the flop, or wait until the turn? Waiting lets you escape when your opponent fills on the turn. In other cases, your opponent cannot be sure that you hold the maximum draw, and might call in many situations where you have made your hand. Does this change if some of your outs are flush outs, so that your opponent might fold on the turn if the suited card hits? (If your opponent could be on a weaker draw, you might as well go all-in and freeroll.)
1. Give the guy his due; he came damn close to winning the WSOP in his first year of playing poker. He made a few mistakes and got lucky a couple times, but I bet I'd be a little nervous w/ the lights, TV cameras, $1 million cash on the table, etc. I think the comments about him in Card Player were unnecesarily harsh and bordered on a personal attack.
2. IMHO the only horrible play he made was calling TJ's re-raise before the flop (along with not checking the turn on the final hand, but he had given up by then). TJ probably forgot who he was playing against when he fired out on the flop; KQ ain't that great w/ a rag board, raise before the flop, heads up w/ an amateur-calling station who's running good. Remember how Brent Carter got eliminated in 1995 in the same way and situation? Of course, Goldfarb DID have the better hand at that point.... BTW I thought TJ acted first on this hand after the flop, but I could be wrong. I remember reading that TJ was getting frustrated waiting to get rid of KM. As was posted earlier, he probably considered himself the big favorite and just wanted to double up so he could wait for a monster hand to eliminate KM, or watch while SN did it, and have enough chips for the headup.
3. I don't think the call against DW was bad, he had a ton of chips, DW took a long time before acting so he obviously didn't have a big pair or A-paint, and KJs ain't that bad. Remember, at a final table eliminating other players becomes paramount and changes hand values. The call against LS was pretty questionable, the fact the LS took awhile probably indicated that he had A-better kicker instead of a big pair where KM's A could be good if one flopped, but again he was probably thinking " I'll still have over $500,000 left (remember him counting his chips) if I lose and I'll have over $1 million if I win, w/ one player eliminated, and I'm not THAT big a dog because I'm suited, and besides, LS is a pro who knows I'm an amateur and he may think I'm bluffing or that he can run me off." I'm not sure what I'd have done, but I bet Bonnetti or Ungar would've called. In fact, Stu DID call, last hand of '97. :)
4. KM obviously should have bet when he caught the J on the turn when SN was bluffing. Even though SN was steaming I don't think he would've come over the top; SN CERTAINLY knew KM was a calling station by this time. KM also should've bet when he caught the A on the turn the hand SN rivered the straight; if SN has Ax he'll call but likely won't bet, and he won't bet a K, either. I think KM was pretty nervous at these points, and of course, it's mighty easy to criticize after the fact. I've noticed, however, that at recent WSOP final tables straight ahead play seems to work out best unless you have a monster hand or reliable tell.
5. Funny how amateurs have been getting to the headsup w/ the lead, then the pro calmly waits for them to self destruct.....
I can't believe the ridicule that McBride has gotten. This guy went to the final table and knocked out players #5, 4, and 3. Before then being eliminated as #2.
McBride ended in the money in his first tournament. There is not much more to say. These comments about him being a "weak player" etc. seem misguided.
I wish him the best of luck next year. I would love to see him in the money again. I think he did a great service to the game.
Comments?
Paul Martino
He got lucky. But it's the same sort of luck that a novice can sometimes put on any player by not "seeing" the plays and just blindly following through on book values and gut instinct. McBride was doing what a lot of players (in any sport) subconsciously do when the pressure is too much -- he was trying to go broke as fast as he could, but the cards wouldn't let him. As Jack Binion noted however, the real skill differential showed heads-up. He was severely outclassed against Nguyen, although perhaps that didn't seem as obvious as it was. I too congratulate him though -- it's an opportunity that keeps all of us going year after year. (Note that despite the press to the contrary, the WSOP was not McBride's first tournament. At the very least, I know he placed in the money in the January 1998 Rio Carnivale.)
Kevin McBride also finished in the money in another WSOP event. I believe it was $1500 pot limit. Enough said.
I was a little surprised at the cardplayer article that almost ridiculed KM. This guy did very well for many days. Most people only saw a few hands that were televised. I gotta believe that he had to play somewhat well to get to the final table. He personally eliminated the top players to get to scotty.
Of course he got lucky. So did Scotty, TJ, and the whole final table. This is only one tourney. A little luck always comes into play. I'm sure many believe that Scotty is not the best NL tourney player. The best usually rise to the top. If KM lasted the many days to the final table, he surely cannot be the worst player there. And on that day he was #2. Congratulations!
Everyone makes mistakes. I know I do, and all pros do. Mine and yours are not usually televised for everyone to see and analyse. I don't know how I would play under the final table conditions. I sure wouldn't ridicule someone who has been there, while I haven't even entered. Although, i may disagree with his play of certain hands, I may have played them worse.
Many players don't realize that checking and calling is one of the most deadliest strategies against someone who is trying to overrun you. I know my overaggression is usually defeated by what appears to be a calling station.
Congrats Kevin!!!!
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Here's an idea i had about the way Kevin McBride played:
In a game with a chance element where you have the best of it (e.g. a pro card-counter playing blackjack), the correct strategy is to make bets when you have a good edge, whilst keeping the bet size small enough to minimise the chance of going broke through a piece of bad luck. For someone who is taking the worst of it (e.g. a roulette player), the correct strategy is to maximise the luck factor, and minimise the edge against you i.e. bet all your chips on red in one hand at roulette.
As an inexperienced poker player, at the final table of the WSOP vs expert players, the correct strategy is surely to maximise the luck factor/variance (as long as you think the odds are not prohibitive on a particular hand) and thereby reduce the skill advantage of the experts. Assuming Kevin McBride knew he was outclassed, his best strategy is to make plays like calling all in vs a good player if he thinks he has a 40% chance of winning the hand. Given that the expert players perceive him as weak, and will attempt to drive him out of pots with weaker hands than they would play against other pros, he should raise his calling frequency still higher.
From the expert's point of view, they should be trying to use their skill superiority to the maximum by keeping the bet size smaller than they would otherwise (to reduce variance), and by reducing the number of times they go all in, and by reducing their attempts to bluff vs this weak calling station (that is how McBride has been portrayed).
Another strategy for the weaker player is to make inane comments and make "bad" plays, in an attempt to send the pros on tilt, inducing them into trying to bust you out in one hand (the best situation for McBride) rather than patiently trying to grind you down (the worst situation for McBride). On this score McBride "played" brilliantly. Was he really just a cheeky upstart or did he know exactly what sort of effect his play and comments would have? Personally i think the pros fell for McBride's banter and played right into his hands by trying to bully him off the table. As a result he lasted a lot longer than he would have done if he had kept quiet and shown the players respect. Besides, it's always fun watching an amateur winding up a pro, especially when the pro doesn't have the discipline to continue playing his normal game.
Given McBride's inherent disadvantage in ability, which he was no doubt aware of, I think he played pretty close to optimal from a game-theory point of view, although obviously the plays he made are seen as "bad" from the expert poker player's point of view. I have no doubt that if McBride had tried to play "expert poker", he would have had virtually no chance of winning the WSOP. (Personally i think he should have been even more aggressive when playing heads up vs Nguyen e.g. going all in every time he had a 4 flush or 4 to a straight. One could even make the argument that he should have gone all in pre-flop with any hand better than T high) If playing well means maximising your advantages, minimising your disadvantages, and therefore maximising your chances of winning, then I think McBride played very well indeed. The criticism of him from poker circles not only borders on the malicious, but also shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the strategic (as opposed to tactical) element of games. Perhaps if TJ Cloutier knew a little more about game theory and probability, he would have been the winner. Instead he risked 100% of his chances of winning the WSOP by going all in when he was only a marginal favourite. In a cash game this play would be correct. Against another pro the play would be correct. Against a weak player over whom TJ must reckon to be big favourite (75% perhaps) in the long run, the play is mathematically unsound.
Well that's my opinion on Mr McBride. Fair play to him I say. Anyone got any comments?
Matt
Matt I thought i was the only one who thought mcBride played the correct stratgy. I will use the following analoghy: You are in a fight with a larger stronger and more experienced opponet. if you try to out box him he will clean your clock. Your only chance is to attack as agressively as possible and knock him out early. This IMO is what Mcbride tried to do. he knocked out all but one opponent. Not bad for some one out of his wieght class. I bet Mcbride hopes the "experts" continue to have contempt for his ability..it means big paydays for the guy.
I agree with Matt. It's nothing new tho... In any game with a predetermined end point, the weaker or behind opponent usually benefits from high stdev play even with -EV. Think of it as the "hail mary of poker"
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Maybe this is something that hasn't been fully considered but I think that one of the main reasons that he made it as far as he did was because eliminating dangerous opponents, when you are down to just a couple of tables, would have a high priority for a good tournament player. If possible you would want to structure your encounters so that he would be the very last opponent to eliminate. In a way, he may have been "helped" to achieve second place by the other players. Given this, luck would have been the predominant factor in allowing him to achieve a high position in the earlier stages of the tournament.
John,
I think it is most natural to seek out weakness in tournament play. If you think the other players were waiting and saving KM for dessert, I have to think you are absolutely wrong. I always try to attack short stacks and weak players, in that order.
John, you are right that they wouldn't necessarily be trying to save him for last as a conscious strategy. My contention is that they would go that extra mile to eliminate opponents who represented more of a threat to them in the later stages of the tournament. This would be done in the normal play of the hands by raising enough to ensure that your opponent is absolutely all in. And doing it with some pretty weak hands if you have superior chip position and can't get hurt much. Unlikely this strategy would be correct if your opponent was a calling station as you would love to be heads up with him later. This extra aggression against the other players ends up being beneficial to the calling station. Conversely, if you had a great hand you could milk him, but how many great hands are you going to get.......especially when you most need them.
I'm sure that Scotty and T.J. both assumed it would come down to the two of them heads up for the Championship. I'm also sure that each wanted McBride's chips in their stacks. Chip position in heads up play is the single most important determinant of playing strategy.
It is unfortunate that the escalating blinds mitigate against waiting for the "ideal" hand to attack with. Several players attacked McBride with their superior hands only to get drawn out on and defeated in the process. Short handed you have to take greater chances if you are to have any hope of winning. Going all in with two overcards was T.J.'s way of taking a greater chance and calling with what he must have felt was only a flush draw was McBride's.
I'm sure that Scotty was damn glad to see T.J. busted out, realizing that he only had to get past McBride to win it all. I'm in the camp that thinks that Scotty could easily have been McBride's final victim on the way to victory. If McBride had held that nine instead of Scotty, we would be talking about how poorly he played and discussing how the "pros" let a championship slip through their collective fingers. The end game in big tournaments that are played to a conclusion is a crap shoot with victory and defeat determined by the fall of a single card. Put Scotty in a chair hooked up to a lie detector and ask him how certain he was of victory when McBride was the chip leader. I doubt if Scotty will ever win the "Big One" again.
Just wanted to emphasize that my previous two posts had nothing to do with McBride in particular. I don't know him or even anything about him. However, I did want to discuss the interesting concept of what ones priorities should be, and how eliminating key opponents might have more more importance in the later stages of a tournament than adding to ones stack, providing one already has a decent chip position. I'll leave it to the tournament experts to debate this further if they wish. As for Mcbride, I wish him well in all his endeavors.
You are absolutely correct. Stewart Reuben, known for his Pot-Limit book, first brought this to my attention in a book about chess he wrote some years ago. If you're playing against an inferior opponent, keep the game simple and straightforward and you will almost certainly win. If you are playing against a superior opponent, try to muddy the waters and if neither of you knows what's going on you have maximized your chances. It seems obvious to me "looking in from the outside" that many of the anti-McBride comments arose out of pure jealousy.
Remember in 1994 when everyone was saying how "lucky" and "what a bad player" Hugh Vincent was? Watch the tape and you'll see that he had everyone except Russ Hamilton on complete tilt, esp. John Spadavecchia. Sure, RH ground him down plus he got a little tired IMO, but so what? Here's a conversation I had right after:
Me: "HV sure had the boys confused, didn't he?" Dealer: "Ah, he's a 4-8 player who got lucky." Me: "Actually, he's a successful retired businessman who just won $588,000 playing poker, which is more than any of us has." Dealer: "I understand that, but ..blah,blah.."
BTW HV has placed in the money in several tournaments since and won an event at the '97 Queens.
A funny postscript. At the final table of the '96 $2500 NL, I saw Spadavecchia make a horrible call against Russ. Four handed, RH raises 10k on the button. JS re-raises 40k, RH goes all-in for another 110k, JS mutters something like "You got me" then crycalls w/ 55 ! RH had 10-10 and a 5 comes on the flop. Remember, JS has played alot against RH, but he "holds" over him. He also knocked himout of the '97 $2500 PLO and hit a 2-outer on him in the '94 final table.
Remember in 1994 when everyone was saying how "lucky" and "what a bad player" Hugh Vincent was? Watch the tape and you'll see that he had everyone except Russ Hamilton on complete tilt, esp. John Spadavecchia. Sure, RH ground him down plus he got a little tired IMO, but so what? Here's a conversation I had right after:
Me: "HV sure had the boys confused, didn't he?" Dealer: "Ah, he's a 4-8 player who got lucky." Me: "Actually, he's a successful retired businessman who just won $588,000 playing poker, which is more than any of us has." Dealer: "I understand that, but ..blah,blah.."
BTW HV has placed in the money in several tournaments since and won an event at the '97 Queens.
A funny postscript. At the final table of the '96 $2500 NL, I saw Spadavecchia make a horrible call against Russ. Four handed, RH raises 10k on the button. JS re-raises 40k, RH goes all-in for another 110k, JS mutters something like "You got me" then crycalls w/ 55 ! RH had 10-10 and a 5 comes on the flop. Remember, JS has played alot against RH, but he "holds" over him. He also knocked himout of the '97 $2500 PLO and hit a 2-outer on him in the '94 final table.
BillM,
I read every recent post regarding Kevin McBride and I didn't read a one that I would say was malicious. Calling him a weak player and a calling station doesn't seem malicious to me. Everybody has probably called too much and played weakly at some point during their poker playing days. I have no idea how McBride played in earlier rounds but there is no doubt that he did make some bad calls at the final table (don't we all) and I think he let Nguyen push him around too much when it got to be heads up. If anything my post was critical of Cloutier and Nguyen's play. I think these guys had a hard time adjusting to Kevin. I think Nguyen showed a lot of class, ALL LOWER. To be honest Nguyen's attitude really bothered me. Heck I wish Kevin would have won the whole enchilada. In trying to attact corporate sponsorship, Kevin seems like a lot better representative for big time tournament poker than Nguyen does. Kevin seemed like a decent person to me and I think he could have been shown a little more respect by Nguyen.
Tom Haley
I agree with you completely about Scotty's behavior and attitude. He represents the type of LC guy and shifty image that makes it embarassing to be associated with poker. I was surprised to see so may people in the industry pulling for him after his arrogant actions. I would have liked to see TJ finally win it all because he is a wonderful player that brings some element of old-school dignity to the game.
I look forward to some day being lucky enough to look up Scotty with a marginal hand and put a beat on him. It will be worth the foregone expectation to watch him steam. How come pros like him always make "good, tough" calls, checks and raises, and the amateurs make "bad" plays, when the cards and situations are often the same?
I think the reason a big reason there was a lot of "dissing" of McBride was that the amount of people who have intimate involvement with big stakes poker in the LV area- whether through writing of books, or playing in the games, or both, is pretty small. Its probably much like other poker playing cliques involving poker parlors around the country showing "respect" to their fellow regulars. The guys in LV probably have bigger bankrolls, as well as egos from seeing their faces on ESPN and names on the internet and CP.
When an unfamiliar face sits down at a table full of regulars and pulls down some quick pots, it seems to put the regulars on tilt big time. In this case, on pokers grandest stage, mcbride managed to put the whole big stakes COMMUNITY on tilt by getting to within one position of the title. This is because the "powers that be" dont appreciate someone coming "out of the woodworks" to win the whole thing. Why? Because this would cause a whole lot of decrease in chest thumping about how so and so has such great "skills", when anyone can point and say "Bah, he was beaten by a newbie, how good can he be?" or hurting them even worse, "skills schmills, its all about luck and that guy just proved it"
Comments?
Hetron
I bet that if the poker "community" was in fact pulling for SN, it had to do with the fact that two '98 WSOP event winners didn't leave a tip for the dealers. I believe that one of these persons is a notorious "dealer hater", while the other was playing in his first tournament, BUT I'M NOT POSITIVE ABOUT EITHER OF THOSE! :)
Remember, SN is a former dealer, has made the money in dozens of tourneys, and has lived in LV for years. He also probably did not have 100% of himself, either. :)
I've played w/ him before, seems like a good enough guy.
The whole toking in tournament problem would be solved immediately by holding 2% of the purse for the dealers. This would also help players on their taxes, I believe. Sure, some people would probably scream about it, but **** 'em. If they followed through on their threats to never play another tournament, who'd miss 'em?
In my opinion the reaction to McBride by many poker players is pretty contemptible. One thing I like about the 2+2 authors is that I don't think you would ever catch them reacting like that against an amateur who got a bit lucky and beat them in a big event. As David Sklansky in particular has emphasised, the best attitude is to complement the player, and then resolve not to be put off your game one bit. Although I think TJ's all in bet was unnecessarily risky, he did have the best hand at the time and got drawn out on. Nevertheless he didn't react sourly to this stroke of bad luck. Contrast this to Nguyen whose attitude at the final table is hardly likely to win him any friends. In the future who is more likely to get McBride into a cash game with them, Nguyen or TJ Cloutier? Nguyen also showed himself to be extremely vulnerable to baiting, a trait which future opponents will no doubt take advantage of. Perhaps at next year's WSOP, the amateurs ought to bait the pros incessantly - not only would it be fun to watch, but with players like Nguyen around their EV can only improve!
Matt
I have questions about the two examples given on p.66-67 of HFAP. These are in the "Odds and Implied Odds" section.
Ex. 1
"suppose you hold AcTc, and the flop is AsQs9d. You should fold if you are in second position, a solid player to your right bets, a number of players are behind you, and there has been no raise before the flop."
HFAP later goes on to suggest that raising should be the second choice. THIS BAFFLES ME. I do not understand why one should fold here. To me, raising seems to be the clear cut winner. Among the hands that the bettor might be betting with in an unraised pot, I think I am still a big favorite. Furthermore it seems like I am a favorite over all of the possible draws combined, especially if I knock out the gutshots and bottom/middle pairs with a raise.
Can someone make a more detailed case for folding in this position?
Ex. 2
"fold in the same situation if you hold KdJd, and the flop is JsTs8h".
Although this example also stunned me at first glance, after some thought, I assume that the idea here is that the open- end straight and flush draws are less likely to leave for a raise, and that you may already be facing 2 pair (or a set, or a made straight). In this example, it seems that it is MUCH more likely that you are drawing dead, and that the draws will be tougher to shake with a raise, so it seems that perhaps folding is the best play. BUT, are these factors really strong enough to warrant a fold in Ex. 1?
Thanks, Dennis
Both examples are borderline but the point is that when there are many players yet to act you must get away from medicre hands that can't improve all that much.
I was reading Poker Essays Volume 2 by Mason Malmuth and came across a section that really caught my attention. In a section entitled "A Quick Quiz", Mason points out that in a $15-$30 7 card stud game with a $2 ante and $5 bring-in, the optimal buy-in is $2. I disagree with Mason about the $2 amount, although I cannot say what the optimal amount might be. I have an idea that the optimal buy-in amount lies somewhere in the range of 10 to 20 BB (just a hunch). Reasons why I disagree with Mason: 1)What happens if I'm dealt a hand that plays well heads-up (pair of aces) and cannot raise to thin the field (I've got no more money in front of me). In this case, having $2 for a buy-in may cost me the pot. 2)What happens if I'm dealt rolled up queens and cannot raise to get more money in the pot. If there are 3 callers to the river (assuming no raises), I only win $14 instead of $344 (14+15+45+90+90+90).
Of course you do risk more, the higher your buy-in. But having more chips allows you to play more optimally. I wonder if this is true of most players, but it seems that there is an inverse relationship between the amount of chips a player has in front of him and how tight he seems to be playing. Is there any truth to this? Any feedback on these two points would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.
Think harder,
...This will automatically allow you to go to the river, which should give you a higher theoretical expectation... I don't question the validity of this statement. If you ain't in, you can't win! If I were dealt 3 random cards and they happened to be unplayable, I would probably fold if I had chips in front of me and the conditions didn't warrant playing the hand, thus depriving me of the $16 pot ($21 if we include the bring-in). According to your essay on "The Eight Mistakes in Poker", an all-in player cannot make mistakes. He can't raise, bet, fold, check-raise, ... But does that necessarily mean the player will make an optimal amount by being all-in? I don't know about most players, but most of my profit comes from winning 1 or 2 big pots in a night. I would not be able to make those big pots if I had no chips in front of me. If most of my profits in poker came from stealing the antes, I would not question Mason's point. Also keep in consideration that I play low limit, where most pots have multi-way action. Please let me know if I'm getting close to 1st base or if I'm lost somewhere in left field. Thanks
The reason most of your profits may come from those one or two pots a night is that you have chips. If you only have enough for an ante, you will always be getting correct odds to call no matter how bad your hand. I do agree that every now and then a hand comes along where you wish you had lots of money, but there are many more hands where you would like to play for free.
I'm a little confused here. Doesn't this depend on the play of your opponents?
To take an extreme example, consider a game in which all of your opponents play all of their hands all the way to the river. It seems to me that, in this case, precommitment to the pot buys you nothing; your ex ante expectation when buying in for the ante (I assume you ante before you get your cards) is zero in an unraked game. However, if you bought in for more, your ex ante expectation would clearly be higher, assuming you play better than your opponents.
What's going on here?
You are correct that the reasoning falls apart against extemely loose opponents.
... At which point, your expectation approaches +0. If your opponents mimic your all in ploy, there will be symmetry, so of course your EV is break even. Someone higher in the thread alluded to the FTOP earlier in the thread. Players going to war over money you get a free ride for is the mistake that creates value for the all-in ante-er. Thus the FTOP underscores the value of this strategem.
JG
I am living in Taiwan currently, so I have not had a chance to view any of the WSOP. I am wondering what types of tactics McBride used, if any, to induce incorrect play from the professionals at the final table.
If I was the amateur who made the final table, I believe that I would be able to get the pros so mad they couldn't even see straight--nevermind playing well. In the end this would not be enough to help me, but it would be fun. Of course that could just be my "warm, outgoing" nature. :-))
What types of things did McBride do? Any good zingers that I can use?
Darren
Last table…8 players left.
Blinds $1500 and $3000.
I have $18,000. ($167,000 on the table.)
Two hands till my blind. (Blinds go to $2000 and $4000 in 15 minutes.)
Everyone in the money.
Solid Aggressive player on my right raises to $12,000. (He has $40,000.)
I look down and see pocket eight’s and without hesitation go all in. (I felt I had the best and he probably had two over cards.)
He has Ace-King.
The flop is J-Q-4…. J…. Q! His Ace plays I’m out.
A particularly disturbing way to lose.
I second-guess myself all the way home. (Should I have waited?)
Let’s assume I knew for a fact that he had Ace-King…What should I do?
What would you have done?
Unlike most other responders here and on rgp, I would have gone all in too. The other $6,000.00 isn't in hopes of driving out the original raiser, but to give future potential players pause. It is harder to call a raise and reraise than a raise and call. I want to get heads up with the raiser so that my eights have a better chance of being the best hand.
I go all in because the prize money difference between eighth place and fourth place isn't that much; I want to give myself enough chips to be able to try for one of the top two or three payouts. When you are at the final table a lot of other players "turtle up", trying to survive to a higher money finish. Seldom do you see an "all-in" pot contested more than two ways at the final table of a NL tournament. Putting yourself "all-in" pre-flop is your best chance of keeping other players out. In spite of what you will read in the replies to your question, pocket eights is a reasonable gambling hand against a raise in that situation. As long as 70% of the prize money is reserved for the top three finishers, it is +EV to do what you did if you thought you would be up against overcards only. It seems the majority of pundits here believe that you profit by waiting for a good hand where you can be the aggressor; I've been in too many tournaments and watched these players starve themselves of chips so much while waiting that, when the hand they'd waited for finally arrived, they didn't have enough left to protect it from a call and an overcall by one other player and the big blind. It is then routinely checked down and the best hand at showdown wins. Too often, that best showdown hand isn't the pocket jacks or queens that the original, patient, aggressor bet out with. Chips equal power at the final table; this is true when playing, cutting a deal or stealing blinds and antes. When you get a chance to double through against a single player when there are eight players remaining, I'd take it if I thought I was close to even money to win. I know my opinion on this is the minority opinion, and frankly, I'm glad that it is.
Big John-
I am on your side. Some of my best value bets in the middle and late stages of tourneys have come from tough calls against players who are over-emphasizing the conventional wisdom of being the aggresor.
As I have posted before, in my experience, against average players who are trying hard to apply the strategies they read about, you are frequently getting the best of it when you call rather than raise and GET called. The turtle's calling standards may be overly tight and your raise with medium pairs and weak Aces is likely to either be a small winner of the blinds or a big dog against a monster. Conversely, your calls are often only a small dog with two overcards or a huge favorite with medium pair over smaller pair. This seems to be a better way to bild a winning stack rather than running on the treadmill by stealing one or two sets of blinds each round.
Would be interested on your thoughts on my post above, which is yet another example of this concept.
I prefer being the raiser to being the caller. I like picking up uncontested blinds and antes. When you only call, you can't possibly win it right there. When I raise all in, more than half the time everyone else will fold and I win the money already in the pot. The rest of the time the hand plays out to a showdown at the river with no betting possible. The chips I win at the river, when added to the chips I win uncontested, are greater than the chips I lose at the river.
If my chip position is already strong, my strategy changes to become more of a trapping one, hoping to bust people out when they take inferior starting hands too far. I also like position steals and isolating small stacks to my left. I only call when I'm trying to trap, want to see a cheap flop or believe I already have the best hand and someone else has put himself all in. I am always willing to risk busting out in the early part of the final table play in order to get good enough chips to have a good chance to make it to the top three places. I go for the money, and it is concentrated in the top three positions. The difference between 9th and 4th might be $1,000.00 or less in a $30,000.00 prize pool. The difference between 1st and 2nd is about $6,000.00 and a three way split of the top three places averages out to $7,000 per person. As long as these tournament payouts are so top-heavy, it is worth it to gamble at the final table.
Big John,
I finally got ya. You are wrong this time. Unless you had enough chips where there was a chance he might fold playing the two eights is a mistake. Since he is portrayed as a good player there are too many bigger pairs that he might have. The rest of your reasoning is correct and will enable you to win lots of tournaments. Its just that this particular hand is not the one. You win the tournaments by you being the bettor and the others throwing away even money hands waiting for something better and when it comes they find they are even money anyway. Those that wait increase their chances greatly for third or fourth place but cripple their winning chances. Good Luck.
Ray,
The question was : What would you have done?
My answer, if true, and I assure you it was, was therefore correct. Not to put too fine a point on it, I still believe that from a risk/reward perspective, going all in was correct. If you accept that I can make the questionable choice to willingly forego all chances to improve to seventh, sixth and fifth place by hoarding my chips in order to give myself an opportunity to be adequately chipped to contend for the top spots, then my professed preferred strategy is sensible.
I'll leave it to the mathematicians to figure out what my equity in the pot was based on a reasonable range of hands that the original "Tough aggressive player" might have held. I know that my chances to get to the top 70% of the payout window has improved substantially if I win this one hand. Getting to the final table in tournaments isn't that great unless you can get to the top three spots your fair share of the time. If you win once, place once and come in third once and then finish ninth the other six times, you will have earned more than the player who comes in 4th or 5th each time.
Let me concede right here that I know you are the superior player by a long shot. If you were the one who brought it in for the $12,000, I'd probably kiss my chips goodbye as I threw them into the pot, but throw them I would.
Ray,
Thanks for the insight. I have been playing tournaments for several years (Early 80's). I have numerous times gone in to the final table the chip leader or close, but seem to constantly come up 3rd or so. I used to wait for the perfect hand and end up blinding myself away;however, when I took a different approach and played fast I usually end up in 7th or so. It seems the only time I reined supreme is when I would be behind and river out a couple times. I'm not sure why you say one is even money anyway but i intend to mull it over some and see if I can understand it. Thanks again
Mark,
What I meant was that players that wait for a good hand late in tournaments blind off too much of their chips. They should play more forceful and win small pots. What I said happens is that when they finally do get a hand they play for all their chips, they end up against a hand that they are only even money ( or close to even money) against anyway. Such as when they finally get two jacks and find themselves against kq. That is why you need to build chips because in all tournaments you will have these confrontations and with chips to spare you need not win every one to survive. Good Luck.
If this UTG raiser surely has two cards bigger than 8ight, then you are either a BIG dog if he has a pair or a slight favorite if not. Even if you are a 3-1 favorite to be the favorite, I'd guess you are still a dog to win the pot (OK, someone calculate that out...).
If he will raise with any pair than I would be TEMPTED go all in.
Your raise cannot have much positive EV, if any, especially if someone else calls. I am confident it actually has considerable negative EV when you consider tournament pay outs and every player out puts you higher in the money. If you have folded and one player raises, don't you WANT some other player to move all in and threaten to be eliminated? So if its good for the folded opponents it must be bad for you and the original raiser.
Since you can be eliminated with this hand, you have almost your share of the chips, you have plenty of chips to survive a few rounds, and you don't know if someone ELSE will play, I'd wait for a better opportunity, and wait for some other guy to push all his chips in, while you watch.
- Louie
I'd either go in, or muck it. If I though I had good control at the table, and could steal the blinds often enough, I might pass on this one. If the table was tough, and it's hard for me to find good spots to get chips, I'd move in. There's not really enough information in your post to decide, for instance it's really important how the other stacks are situated both in terms of chips and your assessment of how they play. It's important what the pay scale is - how top heavy is it, how much do you benefit by moving up one spot, etc.
You both played it right, and he won ... thats poker at its best.
A Poker Guy!
Even after reading all of the insightful comments about the danger of AK from our esteemed posters, I managed to get myself knocked out of my weekly no-limit tourney with big slick. Here is how it went down.
The tourney was down to two tables of 9 players. They were paying four places, but there is generally a deal made at about six or seven players, so I view tourney chips as close to "money" chips unless I have a huge stack. In this case, I have T2300, which equates to only $230 of cash equity, if I survive. I am in for $150 with rebuys and have played for 3 hours, So I am looking to build my stack and make some real dough, not just hang on and eke out a $100 win.
The blinds are T200/T100. A typical player with a stack of about T1100 makes it T500 from early position. A similar player with roughly the same size stack cold calls the T500 from middle position. I am two from the button with T2300 and pick up Big Slick. I glance quickly to the players to my left, none of whow show any interest in coming in. The BB, a tight player who is playing prevent defense, looks clearly ready to fold. Based on this, I decide to just smooth call to get three-handed with position over the raiser and cold-caller. I think about moving all in, but decide I have a better chance to take the pot by using my position on the flop and keeping a barrel of chips in reserve. Both of these players are fairly predicatabl.
Anyway, the loose, aggressive player immediately to my left (who has been running good for the day) spoils my plan by coming over the top for T6500. The blinds, the raiser, and the cold caller all fold to me. Now I have to revert to plan B. For a call with my remaining T1800 in chips, I get a shot at the T1300 of dead money, plus my T500 original call, plus T1800 of the chip leader's bet.
I just KNOW this guy does not have AA or KK based on his action, his body language, and his image of me as a guy who he could probably blow off of anything lees than Queens here. I sweat out the the decision for dramatic effect and then make the call (I didn't say his image of me was correct!). I figure that it is a "value" bet laying me 2 to 1 odds when I am at worst a 11 to 10 dog. (There is an outside chacne that this guy also has AK or even AQ).
The good news is, I had a solid read on him as he had pocket eights. The bad news is, he flopped a set and my Aces didn't improve, although I did make four to a flush. I decided to advertise my call with AK because I thought there was marginal benefit to letting the regulars think that I could take some heat with a premium draw.
I would appreciate any comments on: 1) the overall strategy of treating tourney chips as "money" chips at this stage; 2) the smooth call with the AK; 3) the heads up "value" call; 4) the merits of showing the hand. By the way, several players, including the guy with pocket eights expressed their amazement that I made this call. Maybe my image is TOO tight here, although I have made soild profits at these tourneys.
Initially I would have either moved all in or mucked my hand I think moving all in is a stonger play. I think you would you have picked up the pot by moving all in based on your opponents hand. After the player on your left goes all in I don't think it is wrong playing the hand either way. Keep in mind your best possible scenario is to be basically even money with this player. If you win the pot you will probably finish high in the tournament and if you lose you'll be standing on the rail.
k
Michael 7 wrote:
>> The tourney was down to two tables of 9 players. They were paying four places, but there is generally a deal made at about six or seven players, so I view tourney chips as close to "money" chips unless I have a huge stack. <<
Unless they are bad at making deals, chips are NOT equivalent to money chips in the tournament. An appropriate deal would take into account the actual pay schedule, and approximately what chance each player has of finishing in each of the spots. Cutting up the money based solely on chip count (as some tournament deals do) heavily favors the large stacks. I am surprised time after time that I see this type of deal cut. Of course, if you are the big stack, and someone suggests cutting up the entire prize pool strictly based on percentage of chips, you should jump at it. If you are a short stack, you should refuse such a deal, you are taking significantly the worst of it.
Good point. There are often some bad deals made, and I take have been on bothe disdes of these deals. Of course, the two largest stacks are never "offered" more than the guaranteed prize money for first and second place. But beyond that, I believe the shorter stacks generally bow to peer pressure and take the worst of it.
It has been my experience that the big stacks bow to peer pressure and agree to an even seven or eight way "chop" rather than play it out to a two or three way split in the small tournaments. I have been guilty of this too often. I hate to seem greedy when I am the chip leader, but will often nix a deal when I am second or third chip leader by pointing out that it is too early to talk any deal. This often gives the chip leader an "out" to nod and agree without seeming to be a cutthroat greedy bastard. My next year's New Years Resolution is to play all tournaments to the end unless offered a deal too sweet to turn down. Most of my "deals" have paid me less than I would have earned without them. Because of the tendency to make deals, too few players have meaningful shorthanded playing experience in tournaments.
The problem with AK in this situation is that it only hits a little over 50% of the time. Smooth calling to get heads up is a dangerous play as you have no idea where you stand if the flop misses you. Even if they check to you on a missed flop, they might have second pair and might call you if you raise. I think either moving all in or folding to the raise would be the better strategy. Move all in if you are an aggressive, gutsy player. Fold to the raise if you are not. The all-in move gives you the opportunity to drag the pot down right there, the call does not.
A Poker Guy!
The following play occured in an 8-handed $4/8 game that was playting tighter (and better) than your typical low-limit action. I raised AK from early position and was called by only the big blind. The flop comes K55 rainbow.
The big blind bets out and I raise. He calls the raise. An off-suit ten comes on the turn. He checks to me. I check behind him, reasoning: 1) I have seen this guy defend his blinds with middle suited connectors and A-rag so I can't rule out that he has a 5 and is going for a check-raise; 2) If he had a weaker King, he probably would have reraised me on the flop; 3) As I have been aggressive, he is capable of bluffing at the river if I show weakness on the turn.
So, its a classic play of saving a bet if he has trip fives, and inducing a bluff on the river if he has a medium pair or picked up second pair with something like QT.
Anyway, the play seems to work when a six comes on the river, he bets into me and I call. EXCEPT, I lose the hand! Any guess what he was holding or comments on the application or misapplication of this textbook play, which I think I first read about in HFAP.
66 You got unlucky. I don't see any problems with the way you played the hand. Your opponent hit a 2 outer.
Just because you didn't bet on fourth street doesn't mean your check cost you the pot. That would only be the case if your opponent would have folded. Assuming that he had 66, there are many loose players who would have made this call on the turn as well as the flop. If that is the case then your check saved you a double sized fourth street bet.
MM-
I'm not blaming my loss of this pot on this play, which I think is usually correct against reasonble opponents and certainly correct in this particular case. I just thought it would be a good one to provoke discussion of "advanced" theory compared to its real application. If this guy was going to call a turn bet (and river bet) with a 66 or other middle pair, wasn't I giving up EV by employing this strategy?
p.s. I was explaining my play on this hand to a friend and beginning player who was sweating me last night. I told him that this play alone on top pair with a paired flop has paid for my copy of HFAP at least ten times over. It seems to come up at leats once a session and I'm not sure I would have conciously figured it out on my own. Thanks for the response and the profitable tips.
If you knew that he had a Pocket pair of 6's and that he would also call the Turn and River unimproved you would want to bet the Turn. But if he will not call your River bet unimproved if you bet the Turn. Then you are better off Checking and hoping that your show of weakness gets him to Bet his 6's or call your Bet on the River.
This doesn't even take into account all the Times he has two unpaired cards and happens to catch one of them. But would he have called your Raise on the Flop with just two unpaired cards and maybe a back door Flush?
CV
Do you think this play is correct in all low-limit games? If he had bet instead of checked, would the other guy been correct to call? What are the odds of hitting the six? For every time he hit the six, how many times would he not improve and you take the pot? How many times would he fold instead of bet?
Another question - how much larger is the standard deviation in low-limit games than in high limit games? can you suggest a good place i look for more information on this subject?
Read "Getting the Best of It" by David Sklansky. This book is very good for learning Basic Probability Math. In fact other than TOP, this is the only book I've used to learn how to calculate Poker problems.
Boy, I think I've surpassed Tom Haley for 2+2's No. 1 Suck-Up. ;-)
CV
Chris,
Yes I pass the mantle on to you but I'm still happy with the money made playing poker. As far as this hand I just think it is a long range gamble based on your opinion of how this player plays. The results of one play does not make it the wrong play.
Tom Haley
This was an excellent question because it involved a question regarding reading hands. I doubt that I am alone in feeling that this is the area in which I could use more instruction. I think more questions of this type and answers from the experts explaining why they read the hands as they do would be very helpful. A 2+2 book devoted solely to the art of reading hands might even be better.
The size of the pair on board is a factor. If for example the board hit with KJJ, then I would be inclined to check the turn behind the player.But more important, You are blaming a book for your inability to read this player and make a judgement based on his style of play.You will have to open your mind a bit more if you are going to progress in this game. Goodluck.
He must have had pocket 6's.
He called a raise pre-flop when he knew it was going to be heads up, so I wouldn't have been too scared of the 5's on the board (figuring if they helped him, only pocket 5's would have made sense and he wouldn't have fired first on the flop with them, and so I would have bet the turn. I would figure him for a pocket pair or Kx, and either way I would bet until he played back at me. You said you saw him defend his blinds with suited connectors, but does he do that head-up or only multi-way?
A Poker Guy!
Since everyone else thinks 66 I'll guess K6. Or TT. Yes, TT.
I would reason that this player would CHECK trips on the flop, and so would conclude AK is far the best hand and I would bet on the turn. ESPECIALLY if I was perceived to be aggressive, since I would be much more likely to get called down by a weak hand like 66, AND I want to give power equity to the hands I Bet/Raise that are not as good as yours.
But even if you feel differently and he may have a 5, you certainly have a hand to call him down (except against the whimpiest of the whimps). So I would be inclinded to just CALL on the flop, and call him down, inducing him to bet/bluff even more.
His call of your raise announces he has a K, 5, or pocket pair; few will call that raise with QT nothing. So, he does NOT have a bluffing hand once he calls your raise. Your RAISE on the flop pretty much announces that YOU do not have a bluffable hand either.
So, ... I don't think this is a "classic play of saving a bet or inducing a bluff", since it is "obvious" that you both have something and each knows the other knows.
This particular play would be applicable if he checked and called the flop causing you justified fear of a 5, and causing him justified suspicion you have a bluffable hand when you check the turn.
In any case even if you made the right choice, you can expect to lose for it once in a while. There is no escaping that poker reality. (The reverse is winning with the bad play, encourages them to come back, keeping the games alive, yaddy ya...)
- Louie
The question is rhetorical, since it's obvious that this textbook play did, in fact, cost you the pot, if the guy would have folded the turn for a bet. The question is whether or not you'd play it any differently next time. About three weeks ago I lost with the same hand (AK) seven times in one session, and each time I flopped top pair. Does this mean I (or you) shouldn't play AK? Obviously not.
Generally speaking, how many players do you want in when playing a small pair from either the blinds or from early position? The reason I ask is that yesterday, in my usual loose aggressive 10-20 game, I was dealt pocket 6s in the big blind and then pocket 5s in the small blind. Both times, the pre-flop betting was capped before it was my turn to act. When I had the 6s, there would have been 4 players competing for the pot (in my game, once a player comes in for $10, he will not fold before the flop even if the betting subsequently gets capped so when it came to deciding whether to pay the $40, I was certain that all 4 of the other players would pay the $40). I should also add that on that hand, the player who made it three bets was a solid player who likely had pocket kings or aces.
When I had the pocket 5s, I reckoned that there would be six players (including me) seeing the flop.
Oh, I should say that I called both times, flopped nothing each time and was $80 in the hole for my troubles. I called reasoning that if my odds of flopping a set were 7.5:1, then taking into account implied pot odds, the price for seeing the flop was affordable.
Do you agree or disagree?
I believe that small pocket pairs are only playable in low limit games and then only where you are on the button or way in the back. I cant see why you would want to play them up front and be subjected to a raise. Further more if you believed that the solid player had aces or kings you must hope to improve where he doesnt.
I don't think I would have played them. Four people is still a lot of people to play a pair of 5's, especially when you have a pretty good idea one of them has a high pair already. You have two things going against you here: 1. the strong player is definitely better than you at this point, and 2. the other 2 players have cards higher than a 5 (surely if they cap the bets they must have something, even if they are sub-par players), and so if they even pair anything and you don't improve, you lose.
I didn't bother to work out any math here because I think instinctively it is correct.
There's no doubt that I have to hit a set to continue playing. But, I guess that's my question: Do I pay $40 to try and hit my set? Remember that there is already $160 of other people's money in the pot before the flop (That is, when I had the pocket 6s. When I had the pocket 5s, there was $200 of OPP). I was only getting 4 to 1 on my money before the flop (when the odds of hitting a set are 7.5:1) but it seemed to me that my implied odds were pretty good. If I didn't hit my set, I would be gone after the flop. If I hit my set, I figured that I would rake in a pretty good pot. In fact, with all the seemingly strong hands out there, I would expect a net profit on the hand of more than $300 which is 7.5 times my initial investment of $40. Anyways, that was my thinking. I could be wrong. If so, I would appreciate hearing why. Thanks.
This has been discussed before. Check the Archives from over a year ago. Basicly your Implied Odds go way down if you have to put alot of money in before the Flop. I suggest you read The Theory of Poker and try to do the Math yourself.
CV
Remember, you don't always win when you hit your set. Your calculations assume virtually no losses when we all know that sets get cracked frequently. Remember the pot is big, people will be getting proper odds to draw to gut shot straights, etc.
ok, let's say there is $200 in the pot. you pay $40 which is 5-1. your chance of making a set are 7.5-1 (assuming). no way i would pay $40. assume for a minute even that you get 7.5-1 implied odds. you might not hold the nuts even if you make the set! what is someone has a flush or straight? what if someone has a set already? this is a borderline decision i guess, but it just doesn't make sense to me to stay in the pot with only 5's. i mean, if people are capping the bets, they've gotta be in better shape, and your odds are just not good enough.
Since your set will sometimes get beat, you need closer to 10-to-1 implied odds for those times that your set does hold up. Thus you need to be pretty sure that when you win this pot your profit is on average $400 or better. In some games like you describe this may be the case.
ok, let's say there is $200 in the pot. you pay $40 which is 5-1. your chance of making a set are 7.5-1 (assuming). no way i would pay $40. assume for a minute even that you get 7.5-1 implied odds. you might not hold the nuts even if you make the set! what is someone has a flush or straight? what if someone has a set already? this is a borderline decision i guess, but it just doesn't make sense to me to stay in the pot with only 5's. i mean, if people are capping the bets, they've gotta be in better shape, and your odds are just not good enough.
Just a couple points that maybe you overlooked:
1) There is no OPP(other peoples money)in the pot. It doesn't belong to anyone. That includes the $10 that you put in the pot as the BB. 2)If you want to figure out your implied odds in this situation you would start by saying to yourself that you are going to put in $30 and and, considering implied odds, you need to make a profit of $300 on the hand, or 10-1 as Mason pointed out. This means you anticipate the final pot size to be $330 not counting any additional money you yourself would have to put in later in the hand.
If one of the players in the pot probably has AA, KK, or QQ your implied odds diminish, because of those times when one of your opponents flops top set over your middle/bottom set. Furthermore you have bad position over your opponents. In a capped pot preflop, I would muck 66 or 55 in the blinds. If I was in late position and only had to pay 1 BB to call vs 4+ players, I would definitely call.
Matt
"If one of the players in the pot probably has AA, KK, or QQ your implied odds diminish, because of those times when one of your opponents flops top set over your middle/bottom set."
I disagree. Players with big pairs will often give a lot of action without improving their hand, and being afraid of set over set is something that many inexperienced players have an irrational fear of.
"Furthermore you have bad position over your opponents."
Not necessarily. If the capper is in a late position you could bet and force the other players to put money in the pot before he raises.
"In a capped pot preflop, I would muck 66 or 55 in the blinds."
You should do this if you don't feel that you will get the necessary implied odds to make this call profitable. I agree that this will often be the case, but it should be close.
"If I was in late position and only had to pay 1 BB to call vs 4+ players, I would definitely call."
I agree, but against the right players it can be right to call with a pair of deuces for more than 1 BB.
>>If one of the players in the pot probably has AA, KK, or QQ your implied odds diminish, because of those times when one of your opponents flops top set over your middle/bottom set."
>I disagree. Players with big pairs will often give a lot of action without improving their hand, and being afraid of set over set is something that many inexperienced players have an irrational fear of.
I agree that you shouldn't be paranoid of set over set. However the fact that at least one of your opponents definitely has an overpair, and the probability that some of the other callers have pairs higher than your small pair (after all, they must have something to stay in a capped pot preflop), obviously affects your implied odds. If you hit your set, let's assume you make an average profit of $400 vs AA or KK when they don't improve. But the overpair has 4 chances to hit the remaining 2 outs, assuming the players stays to the river, which I work out to be a probability of about 16% of improvement to top set. (For simplicity I have overlooked the 4% chance of you hitting quads on the turn/river, which means the following analysis slightly underestimates your overall payout.) So every 6 times you get into this situation, 5 times you will make a profit of $400 (e.g.), and 1 time you will lose the bets you put in, say $200, for a total win of $1800 or an average win of $300 per hand (assuming that AA or KK gives you good action). This contrasts with the assumed win of $400 per hand if you ignore the possibility of your opponent hitting a set. If you need implied odds of 10-1 to call $40 from the big blind, you are not getting it from a capped pot preflop, and personally I am not sure that a $30 call would prove profitable. 2 big bets or less gives you implied odds of 15-1, making it a clear call. Now consider 2 overpairs e.g. AA and 99. Given that you hit your set on the flop, your opponents combined have 2 cards to hit 4 outs to make a set for one of them, giving a 16% chance that one of them flops a set. Assuming that 99 drops if he misses, AA then has the turn and river to improve again if he misses the flop, giving a further 8.5% chance to improve, making a total 25% chance that you will be beat. Thus every 4 hands you hit your set, 3 times you will make (e.g.) $400, 1 time you will lose $200, for an average profit of $250 each time you hit a set. Thus you are getting only 6-1 implied odds for a $40 call, and 8-1 for a $30 call. Again a $20 call or less should prove profitable.
(I may well have missed something in my analysis, and I have made a few assumptions which people may disagree with: if someone spots an error please point it out!)
>>"Furthermore you have bad position over your opponents."
>Not necessarily. If the capper is in a late position you could bet and force the other players to put money in the pot before he raises.
True you can exploit this situation to get drawing hands into the pot. However, the amount of action that AA or KK gives you will be affected by position. If I had AA and capped preflop, and someone in the big blind cold called, then jams the flop from early position and leads out on the turn, the chances are that they have two pair at least and I am going to slow down and probably fold the river unless I improve (depending on the texture of the flop, and the player involved). In contrast, if I have AA in first position on the flop, I will lead out and if I get raised i will reraise, and most likely bet the turn too. If I get raised on the turn only then would I consider slowing down. So I think middle set in late position is going to win more vs AA in early position, than it will if the positions are reversed. Admittedly in a multiway pot, with drawing hands staying in, the position is less important.
Thanks for your comments Mason.
Matt
It's virtually impossible to predict how the action is going to go without knowing the players and the texture of the board. I don't like to come in behind other peoples raises, let alone re-raises, unless I have the kind of hand that I can take control with.I am a firm believer that hldm is a game of aggression and of course, posistion. If someone else is the aggressor, and has posistion as well, I need long ,long ,long, odds to come in with most any hand except the big pairs. I want to be the one putting the pressure on. Seeya
As several people have pointed out, it is a major advantage to be all-in early in the hand in a multiway pot. Therefore, it must be a disadvantage to play when someone else is all-in.
Consequently, I tend to fold marginal hands before the flop if someone is all in, or if one of the blinds is close to all in.
My question is -- has anyone done serious investigation into how far one should carry this concept? That is, just how much of a disadvantage is it to play in this situation?
William
A related topic I would like to hear comments on.
While discussing Hold'em with another player while waiting for a seat he told me that when he sees a player who is one or two small bets from being all in he likes to bet on hands that he might normally not bet on. His reasoning:
1) When one is close to being all in many people are much more picky about their starting hand, thus when they choose to play you can depend on them having having better hands.
2) Many who are close to all-in are using a valuable spot on the table where fresh money, or causing them to dig again is benificial for the table.
3) By betting you are (perhaps) forcing the near all-in to give up their blinds or play a marginal hand. Nothing is worse to being outdrawn to an all-in big-blind who saw the flop for free.
Comments on differant styles when playing with a seat or two who are NEAR being all-in.
Thanks,
S. Doyle
William,
You write :
< As several people have pointed out, it is a major advantage to be all-in early in the hand in a multiway pot. Therefore, it must be a disadvantage to play when someone else is all-in. >
That someone has an advantage over me solely because he has less money on the table than I do, seems to me a little counterintuitive. But even assuming that this were so, wouldn't the need to be more selective with preflop starting hands that you advocate, be counterbalanced by the loosening up prescribed for short-handed games - after all, you will be playing a substantial side pot with non-all-in players.
Etienne
Etienne --
I don't think so. After all, the other players in the side pot are also now in a shorter handed situation.
The all-in player's advantage has to come from somewhere, and if I'm in the pot, I think that "somewhere" is me.
William
What was the methodology in deriving the starting hand groups? Thanks.
--Ron
Read "Hold'em Poker" David go's in Depth on how he Figured his Hand Rankings.
CV
While at work today, I read an issue of The Intelligent Gambler where Mr. Malmuth discussed whether a player should play stud or hold em at a given limit. In my personal experience, I have to disagree with him on LL stud. I find this game to be much more beatable than HE. I can steal a $10 pot if someone bets $2 and I'm next to act and raise $5. I did it 4 times in 3 hours Saturday nite, and have done it numerous times in the past. Now at the no foldem HE table, I can have KK in the BB, raise pre-flop and everyone who limped in for $2 still calls. Flop comes rags, I bet, they all call, maybe catch 2 low pair or low trips to beat me out on the river. It happens all the time. I guess maybe I'm not using enough bankroll to sustain these swings.
It just seems to me that in the LL stud games, people don't know what their hands are worth. The hands I play at stud usually end up winners in the end. I can drive people out and end up heads-up at showdown. I enjoy playing HE more and spend more time studying it, but so far I've had -2.5BB/hr losses at it, while posting +4BB/hr at stud. Bear in mind this is only over a small sampling of 100 hours(12 sessions) at each game. Any thoughts on this? The stud is $1-5 and HE is $2-5 and $3-6. Higher limit HE is available in my area(up to $40-80 I think), but I'm hesitant because of the losses at lower limits.
So are there any players who started playing HE only and switched to stud or vice versa? Any players who started playing both and switched to one for any certain reasons? I do understand what Mr. Malmuth meant when he said that LL stud isn't real stud because people have no idea how good they're hands are, and to expect to get beat around a bit moving up to higher limits.
Any comments, thoughts, suggestions are appreciated.
I think that you misunderstodd some of the article. I wasn't saying that you can't win at low limit stud. What I was saying that it is not a good vehicle to develop those poker skills that you need in bigger limits.
What is and where can I find a copy of The Intelligent Gambler?
The Intelligent Gambler is published by my company, ConJelCo. It is a sixteen page newsletter containing articles by many of the top writers/thinkers on gambling. It is published (roughly) twice a year. It is available free for the asking by sending me your name and snail-mail address.
The Winter 98 issue is at the mailing house and should be in the hands of "subscribers" within a couple of weeks.
Some (but not all) past issues can be found on the Web at the URL below.
Chuck
Would like to be put on your mailing list for intelligent Gambler. Thank you. Robo.
Last night during a no-limit tourny I was dealt 77. I was in 7th position. A player 2nd from the big blind raised 150 which was 3x the big blind. It was early in the tourny and the blinds were 25-50. Everyone folded to me. I called. Now let me tell you my logic. Its early so I don,t want to go all-in with 77. The reason I just call is that I'm hoping to bust this guy if a 7 flops. The flop comes K76 with two hearts. The player bets the pot. I raise 1000. At this point I'm thinking he has AK,or Ksomething. He surprises me by raiseing 3000. At this point I'm confused. I meekly call. The turn is a blank. He CHECKS! I check behind him. The river is a 9. He checks again. I check. He has AK. I show my trip 7's and take down a nice pot but it occured that this player would have went all in here which left me thinking That I played it wrong somewhere.
I definitely understand why you slowed down after he raised $3000 on the flop, but when he doesn't bet on the turn (or the river) when a blank hits, what could he possibly be holding, certainly not pocket Ks or he would definitely come out smoking. I would have not checked the turn once he checked. What could he possibly have when he checks (AK or KQ)? Obviously at this point you have him confused because when you call his $3000 raise, he knows that you are holding some strong tickets and not in there on just your good looks! And when he checks on the turn you know that he is not looking to check raise at this point, so this is where you need to make him pay. And since both of you checked on the turn, when he checks on the river, it should be obvious at this point that he is weaker than his $3000 raise led you to believe. At this point you must know you have him beat and should have gone all in and hope that he calls. It's easy to read when you are not in the heat of the battle, but when he checks twice you really should have realized that you had him beat and made him pay.
At least you won the pot!!
Since you called hoping to bust him if you flopped a set, why didn't you do so when he raised 3000? BTW, how many chips did they start you with in this tournament? I count at least 4150 each that you dropped into the pot and it is early on as the blinds are 25/50. If the flop had been set over set, he would certainly have busted you on the turn.
This is a no-name "club tourny" with 6000 in chips. Its a private club in Florida. For some reason that 3000 bet stopped my thought process.
Sorry, but I have a slight complaint about some posts.
They describe an actual situation worthy of analysis, yet report the outcome of that hand. This encourages after-the-fact double guessing which encourages detrimental analysis.
Please consider reporting the actual outcome AFTER you have received a few responses. Such posts may end like "I considered ABC and decided to XYZ. Thoughts?"
>>> Since there is greater EV in predicting the future than in predicting the past, one should practice predicting the future.<<<
- Louie
...ignored outcome analysis of hands should even more importantly be practiced at the table and afterwards. Too many players think they played the hand wrong if they lost the pot or missed a bet. In fact, EV calcs, bayesian analysis, etc., will often confirm your correct play even if you did lose the pot. The better you are, the more often your analysis will confirm your play. (... or else your analysis is terrible...)
I practice predicting the future and am getting better at confirming the past.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Any time that I put a player on a hand, I do so based on my knowledge of his playing style and his betting patterns. I can't remember the last time that I put a player on a hand because of a "tell". This is an area of my game that could use a lot of help.
How should I go about trying to become proficient at recognizing tells? What are some of the most common and reliable tells one might find in a 10/20 or 20/40 hold 'em game?
What tips would you offer to ensure that I rid myself of any tells that I might have?
I recall leafing through Caro's "Body Language of Poker" at a Vegas bookstore sometime last year. I didn't find it too helpful then (although, I had just starting playing poker and probably wouldn't have been able to tell a good book from a bad one). Over the last few months, I have been reading a lot of poker books and see that most authors (including Mason) consider Caro's book to be very good. So, I think that I'll get a copy and give it a good read. But, are there any other books or videos that you would recommend?
All suggestions appreciated.
skp writes:
>>Any time that I put a player on a hand, I do so based on my knowledge of his playing style and his betting patterns. I can't remember the last time that I put a player on a hand because of a "tell".<<
Observations of playing style and betting patterns *are* going to be your *main* source of profit. But tells certainly have value too. You may have seen in the poker literature the differing views held by Mason and Mike Caro on the value of tells. You'll have to decide for yourself just how much value you think tells have. Personally, I have generally felt that in middle limit and higher games they are less prevelant than Caro's materials would have you believe. *However*, I have noticed that as I've worked for some time on detecting tells I do pick up on more of them than I used to. Many are quite subtle.
>>How should I go about trying to become proficient at recognizing tells?<<
Watch the players. You might pick out a particular player and watch him intently when you're not in a hand. Try to correlate his actions (e.g., hands, face, posture, speech, hesitaion or lack of it...) during the hand with the hand he shows down. This can get tedious as your target will frequently fold before a showdown or simply not show his hand. But over time it can generate some useful information.
Of course you must also keep track of how opponents have acted in hands against you, and correlate that information with the hands they showed down.
>>What are some of the most common and reliable tells one might find in a 10/20 or 20/40 hold 'em game?<<
You might, on occasion see some typical "acting weak when strong" or "strong when weak" tells as described by Caro. A fairly common "weak when strong" tell involves hesitating before betting a strong hand on the river. (The player is trying to act as if he has doubt about whether his hand is worth a bet.)
Speech tells are common too. Observe what kinds of hands players show down (or fold because they were weak) after making different kinds of comments. Listen to *how* they speak too. For instance, you might find that a certain opponent almost always has a strong hand when he talks in a relaxed, jocular way during the hand.
To me the most interesting tells are very subtle little cues. They may involve bodily movements, speech, facial expressions, or combinations of various factors. They can be very specific to the player - unlike the kinds of tells Caro describes. Lots of focused but relaxed observation can help you start to see some of these. (I think that if you watch in a very intense way you can actually miss some of this stuff.)
Beware of players who know you're aware of common tells and therefore *reverse* them on you.
>>What tips would you offer to ensure that I rid myself of any tells that I might have? <<
Be self observing. If you have a friend in the game ask that he let you know of any tells he may spot in your behavior. Try to "standardize" the way you bet, check, raise, call, etc.
>>I recall leafing through Caro's "Body Language of Poker" at a Vegas bookstore sometime last year. I didn't find it too helpful then (although, I had just starting playing poker and probably wouldn't have been able to tell a good book from a bad one). Over the last few months, I have been reading a lot of poker books and see that most authors (including Mason) consider Caro's book to be very good. So, I think that I'll get a copy and give it a good read. But, are there any other books or videos that you would recommend?<<
Caro's book does have some tells you should be aware of. He has a pair of video tapes on the same topic. They don't cover *too* much that isn't in the books, but they're worth seeing. The book _Play Poker, Quit Work and Sleep Till Noon_ by John Fox has some info. on tells, but you have to read it in a discriminating way. Some of it is probably not valid, and *all* of it derives from high draw poker only. So you have to think about how it may apply to hold'em.
Mainly, just watch, watch, watch. At home, you might start keeping a notebook on your opponents. If you make a note of every tell you identify, eventually you'll have tells on lots of your opponents. You will then be able to lord over them with a God-like awareness of their every thought. ;-)
John Feeney
Thanks very much John. That was useful info.
Cheers!
One thing you can do is watch all the other players pick up their cards, then only look at yours when it's your turn. Obviously this only works in late position, but you'll find some players who will quickly tuck their cards under their stack (usually, I've found, the sign of a good hand). If they start casually "looking around", then they've usually got the goods.
John's reply was very good. One thing I can add is that your opponents eyes are one good place to look for tells. If the guy is staring at the flop, that's a high probability tell of a weak hand. A glance down at the chips after the flop is a tell for a good hand. LOTS of players exhibit this tell.
Although I am not particularly good at tells, I do know that you need to distinquish those players who who deliberately "Act" from those that do not. At the 10/20, "Actors" rarely stop acting, even if they are very good at it.
It is also very important to know if the opponents suspect you are watching for tells. Nobody tries to double-reverse a tell on a blind drunk.
Some controversial observations:
Almost all deliberate reverse tells are exaggerated, even just a little. Exaggeration is easy to identify if you pause and think about it a second.
Its not what they say so much as whether they talk and how they say it. Bluffers rarely say anything.
Hands project the players intention with confidence. Be aware of reverse exaggerated motions like grabbing chips.
Be sure you are confident with your game and your profiling before spending mental energy on tells.
- Louie
Louie writes:
>>Almost all deliberate reverse tells are exaggerated, even just a little. Exaggeration is easy to identify if you pause and think about it a second.<<
That's a key point. And the same goes for most "acting" tells. The actor wants you to *get* what he's trying to say.
John Feeney
The other day this hand occured in a 20-40 Omaha High-Low Game. The game was pretty loose and I was delt Ac 4c Ah 6h in the big blind. Perhaps 5 players had called and I decided to raise when it was my turn to act.
The flop was Js 7c 3c giving me: a)2nd nut low draw b)Nut flush draw c)Gutshot straight draw to a nut straight d)Overpair. I liked the flop and led out. It was called in several places. The small blind, a very loose player, check-raised the flop. I briefly considered re-raising but decided to just call (Mistake #1?)
Turn card was the As giving me top set. The small blind checked, I led out and was raised by a solid player on my left. I immediately put this player on the nut low (probably uncounterfeitable) with a redraw (spades). My intention was to just call when the action got back to me because I knew that he had his side of the pot locked up and mine (the high side) was far from locked up even though it looked good.
When the action got back to me, the small blind (the very loose player), called the $80 cold on the turn. I figured he must have some sort of straight draw. I decided to make him pay and reraised. The solid player capped it at $160 on the turn. The loose player calls another $80 cold.
The river card brought the 2d. I now had 3 aces which was the 2nd-nut high and a 64 low which also happened to be the 2nd-nut low. My hand was a pretty strong holding. It would take the wheel to beat me. I decided to bet into the solid player who had raised me twice on the turn knowing that he had been counterfeited on the river and thinking he might throw in a crying call with a live 4.
Solid player just called, loose small blind calls. Solid player turns over 45 for the wheel (also had a deuce of course--he called on the river because he feared a raise would knock out a call from the small blind).
Questions: did I play this hand "well"? I am well aware of the concept that when you are up against what is obviously a made low and all you have is a high such as 3 aces, that then your opponent is "free-rolling" you and you should definitely not raise. I wasn't going to re-raise until the loose player called $80 cold. I wanted to make him pay for whatever weak draw he had (he had a 4-6 for a gutshot straight).
Guy Tyler
You made one VERY large mistake: You played OMAHA SPLIT!!!!!!!!!!!!
why do other players always jump on omaha players?its our $$$$$$if we like the game and do well at it whats it hurt? you play your boreing play one out of 30 hands holdem games.or your no brainer hi only omaha games. and leave all these[fish]new want to learn players to the few of us that can play hi-low omaha.sorry about the trip aces getting snapped off,that seems to be my hand that gets snapped at least once a night.monday night made it twice with trip aces on the flop.and got snapped off once by the nut low making the straight,and not filling the aces.it happens live with it!good playing and nuts only to you!!
Obviously you should not raise one player who has nut low and shots at your high. But to raise in this situation you need to be a 2-1 favorite to win your half of the pot. For each 40 you put up you are hoping to get 60 back. You certainly were a 2-1 favorite for your side of the pot on the turn. I don't like betting out on the end, since the solid player may now raise when he has the wheel expecting you or the other player to call. When he doesn't raise and just calls you need to be scooping to gain
You are right about betting on the end. My intentions, however, were to fold if raised. Yes, even though the pot had gotten huge, I intended to fold if raised. The logic behind that, of course, would be if he didn't have the wheel, he would have to fear that I did especially when I come out betting into him when he acted so strong on the turn. I didn't want to miss a bet in case he just had 2-4 and got counterfeited.
Incidentally, I felt it was greater than 50-50 that he had 2-4-5 because he would not cap it on the turn if his low was not protected, or at least I wouldn't.
Guy,
Its best to try not to be in a situation where you lead with the intention of folding because if other players think you may do this they will bluff you. In a big pot it is a catastropy if you let it happen. There are just too many players that raise in desperation for you to make those laydowns without a great read on your opponent. When you decide to reraise on the turn with the current high against a made low you also need to count the cards that can come to beat you. It looked like a 2,4,5,6 could beat you for high or give you a quarter of the pot or less. Subtract from that the chance that you could win the low if things went your way then make your decision. Good Luck.
Omahaha Hi/Low limit: You [Ac 4c Ah 6h], Oppt1 [x5s4s2h], Oppt2 [xxJJ], Board {Js 7c 3c As} You have top set, "solid" Oppt1 has small spade draw, unbeatable low, and a staight draw; and is unlikely to have a card bigger than an Eight; "idiot" Oppt 2 is drawing to a stiff J and could have any other two cards, on average lets say a 2 card out gut shot.
You make the nut high with 8 clubs and 1 ace, <<9>>cards. You make (almost) unbeatable full house with 6 3's/7's, <<6>>cards. You make probably best top set with 14 red K's/Q's/T's/9's/8's/5's/4's, but <<2>> are covered by the idiots gut shot, <<12>>cards. =27 good cards.
You lose with <<7>> spades, <<1>>Jack, <<2>> 2d/6d, <<2>> more gut shot cards. =12 bad cards.
There are 39 unaccounted cards, 27 good ones and 12 bad ones = 27:12, = 2.25:1 odds, which is more than the 2:1 you are LAYING when you cap it (risk $60 to win $30 from the idiot).
OK to cap it on the turn; unless the idiot is in there with 89TQ.
But even with all those good cards its STILL close. With lesser vulnerable one-way hands you MUST NOT CAP IT in a 3-way pot. 4-way pots DOUBLE your reward so be more inclined to cap it with untieable one-way hands.
- Louie
PS. What is the "solid" player's 4th card? If it is not the Ah or a 3 than you have mislabed him "solid".
I played Omaha H/L split for the first time the other night, It was a 3-6 game. I bought in for $100.00 and started to play. I started off by making a big mistake, I thought I had flopped the nut low when I only had the 2nd nut, I had raised and re-raised the whole time. ( made a bad mistake of thinking I held 23 when I had 43) Ouch this game hurts. -60.00 from the get go, I decided I should really know what I had. But things looked better as I continued to climb out of the hole I dug for myself! I starte winning, and winning some nice pots. what is a good book for learning this crazy game? And is this game a profitable game? can it be beat at this lower limit?
Thanks
Walleye
Walleye,
For the low limits the Shane Smith book is good although (IMHO) it contains some mistakes but they won't cost you much. John Payne also has a worthwhile book with a lot of tables and statistics, which makes it a bit more of a hard read. The best book is by Ray Zee (it also covers stud high low) which of course is published by Twoplustwo. Although most of it is orientated towards the bigger games, the introduction and basic points are so good it is a must buy. If you are a careful reader and student, much of the advice for the big games can be applied to the smaller games. The beauty of this game is that it is suicide for the player who is not studious and uses typical seat of the pants poker instincts.
When this game is loose (as it often is), no game is easier to beat at the low limits. You do not have the problem you get in holdem and stud of expectation flattening out as you add loose players (as Mason Malmuth has described in his first essay book) and your swings should be low. This is because it is a game where the very good hands have a big advantage in multi-way pots. This is an unusual game in that you can flop the nuts yet have a hand you should throw away (because it is vulnerable and without redraws), yet you should put in tremendous action with your big draws which can often hit something over 2/3 of the time.
Once again, if the game is loose, it can be beat for much more than an equivalent holdem or stud game with much less risk. But be a good student and leave your holdem and stud instincts behind. They will get you in trouble.
Regards,
Rick
you mention names of author's, but how about titles ofbooks and where one may purchase the books and how, please. thanks, dw
omaha is the game...getting snapped off is part of it!but knowing the players your playing with or knowing their playing style is the most important thing ive learned so far.i was playing a 3-6 with full kill last night,on a kill hand playing 2-3,4-5 suited on the button i floped 2nd nut low,nut hi the turned to 2nd nut, on the turn $48 to call 4 players all of which i know play mostly hi only.i called the river didnt bring any change,$48 capped again im last to act,almost tossed it in,looked the players over again i could put all but one on hi only.i called they were all on hi only. three nut highs, i scooped my half of a $500+ pot.so knowing how your opponets play is as much the key as knowing ace,king,duce,trey double suited is the mortal nut drawing hand. ive read some books too!good luck with the most fun and profitable game ive found[lower limits r good]
Which 2nd nut low did you have? If there is no Ace on board your 2-3 is 3rd nut low; A-3 is 2nd nut low. You gotta have that Ace in your hand.
With your 2345, flop was 2-[3/4/5]-6? Turn 7/8?
Even if EACH player is 80% likely to have only a high and 20% likely to have the low, you are about 49:51 to be drawing to one of 3 Aces to get your money back, or 51:49 to get 1:1 on your money unless you only get 1/4. And even if you are right the opponent could ALSO have the nut or 2nd nut low. 80:20 seems far fetched to me. At 75:25 you are near a 58:42 dog to have the best low.
I think you should have tossed this one in on the turn. Was is Ciafone (sp?) who said "Hands that aren't the nuts and can't make the nuts are strictly for tourists".
But I agree with your premise about knowing the opponents, as it lets you steal half the pot now and then, and that's where $ are made.
- Louie
Dann,
Book title information is as follows:
"High-Low Split For Advanced Players" by Ray Zee
"Omaha Hi-Lo Poker" by Shane Smith
The John Payne Book appears to be out of print but I think it has Omaha Hi Lo or Omaha Eight or Better in the title. (Note: It is currently packed away in my garage so I don't have access to the exact title.)
Concerning the best places to get books on poker. Forget Barnes and Noble. By phone, call Gambler's Book Shop in Las Vegas 1-800-522-1777, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m pst. They also have a website www.gamblersbook.com. I made a successful order on the world wide wait at this site last week. They have the largest sellection of gambling and poker books in the world but no discount.
The Zee book is available at this (www.twoplustwo.com) website if that is all you want. Both are also available at the www.conjelco.com website (look for the link at the left side of this site (it is under Favorite Links (for that matter so is Gamblers Book Shop)) and directly linkable by clicking on ConJelco at the bottom left. Conjelco does offer a discount and others have recommended it to me. If you have access to Card Player or Poker Digest you will find even more sellers adverstising their wares.
The most amazing thing is that www.amazon.com has the Zee book and many of the better books on poker at a good discount (it does not have the Shane Smith Book). My wife and I have made several orders from this site and are very satisfied. They even have on-line reviews. Anyway, that is probably more than you needed to know but I owe a lot to most of the books I have bought on poker.
Regards,
Rick
In the message I just posted regarding where to get poker books, I said "Forget Barnes and Noble". Although their stores are nice and big, they usually are hooked up to a Starbucks (who isn't), and Dennis Miller (or some other comedian) rants that they are the only place to meet the opposite sex in the 90's, I have found their poker book selection a joke.
Since I had luck with www.amazon.com regarding poker books, I just decided to take a quick look at the Barnes and Noble site (www.barnesandnoble.com). It also has a pretty good selection of poker books at a discount! The Ray Zee books are available there as well as many others. So much for false assumptions.
Regards,
Rick
i played in my first omaha hi lo a couple of weeks age. twas a ten twenty. made over nine hundred in less then three hours, no kidding,scouped a lot of pots and raised the piss out of the game. ray zees book hi low is the best book on the market. your other questions i cant answer, a assume i was in a good game but i dont know how tipical that is.
I am not asking much. Just need to know how I can gain more discipline in tournaments. I manage to last beyond the middle limits and a few times I made it to the final table. However often I just burn up at the upper-middle stages. Like last time. 200-400 blinds (in 12 table tourney) 3 tables left + 1,2 players. I am second in chip-lead !!!!! (all from t175 twice all in run-up). Then trouble started.. I get some decent hands (sometimes a bait in tourneys) and no flops. I start playing poker and since odds justified I chased a bit. Before I notice I am out of the tourney. Very upsetting !!! I am not a very seasoned tourney player but I realized that I should have just not play anything but premium hands, cheap flops and play the nuts plus steal. I reverted back to *real* poker and this happens a lot with me. I am not *supe* tight even in real poker. but with tourneys I think I do get careless and lose it. Any ideas, or how long does it take to be good in tourneys ?
My best advice is to learn "tournament flucuation". What I mean by this is that there are times when very tight play is best when others are playing fast and then there are times when you should play fast because others are playing very tight. Notice that this occurs several times during various levels of a tourny.
I often hear people say that they got a great room rate in Vegas or California. Usually about $68 to $99.
Question? At what point does it become too expensive to play? If you go out on the road to make money how do you evaluate the cost effectiveness of your expenses. At what limits do you have to play in order to overcome the cost of air fare, hotel, food and rental car? Does it make sense to go to Vegas for 5 days paying $70 a day for a room and only play 10-20? Where do you draw the line and what is the correct way to evaluate these types of situations.
I would like to go on a road trip. If I do I will have to pay double expenses. (Rent, bills etc. here, plus expenses out on the road.) What is the best way to determine the cost effectiveness of my planned trip? Is it even worth it to go since I can stay here and play, albeit a little bit smaller?
I am confused by people that go to Vegas to play $1-4 stud and pay $80 a day for a room. Are they just going for entertainment? They certainly don't expect to make any money over and above their expenses do they? If that? I go out on the road to make it pay, so I always play higher to justify the double load. How much should I increase my bankroll requirements in order to factor in my extra expenses? Should I just forget about it? What is the minimum limit I can play and not be fooling myself?
I'd like to go to the Rio tournament. But now I'm not so sure it is practical. How do other players handle this situation?
Whoa--
Do you never take a vacation? If you have the means to play 10-20 and are good enough to average 1 BB an hour, you should cover your trip's expenses, playing 8 hours a day. How many Vegas vacationers can say that? You will be having fun on this trip too, I hope, so that should be factored into your equation. Even if you get your clock cleaned and blow 5K, at least you have the experience and some good stories for this forum. Everything in life isn't measured in EV. If you are trying to save up a bankroll to go pro, maybe you should rethink your trip, because you really need to build up your money. But if you're just another Avg. Joe who likes to play poker and won't be gambling with the rent money, why not go? You only live once.
-- Ralebird
-- Ralebird
your win from the week, minus your expenses, is your win fro the week, actually i dont really understand the question. i frequently go out of town, play for 10-20 or 20-40 and sleep in my car. say im going to vegas for a week. well in vegas you can get a room for 40. thats 40 per day plus food. thats 70 per day. can you play 10-20? figure it out. if you make on the average 240 per day (12 hour days) minus 70 equals, you figure it out. but thats a big if. the main good thing about vegas is that you can really get 12 hours per day in playing only in good games, but thats if your a workaholic, and use strict dicipline and refuse to play in bad games, ie the tipical day shift at the mirage. of course the other good thing about vegas is the great rake. just get your paper and pencil out and figure it out. by the way you can always choose to sleep in the mountains round vegas. none of this is ment to be (although it may sound) sarcastic or otherwise less then helpful. if you think ive never sleept in the mountains and played (for me) lots of money poker in vegas your wrong.
but then again ive always enjoyed the mountains.
I was e-mailed by Tom And T.J. They will be discussing about your situation aka:trapping myself: and my answer in a upcoming Card Player! By the way Tom agrees with you unless the player is a absolute rock, then you must fold. However T.J. did not give an opinion!
Predator,
I played in a NL ring game with TJ last night after we were both knocked out of Tom McEvoy's NL no rebuy tournament. On one hand we were in together the flop came 2 2 J and TJ made a substantial bet. After all folded, he showed his deuce and made a comment about sometimes playing anything. I'm pretty sure he would have done the math and made the call like I did in the case you are referring to.
As an aside, concerning Kevin McBride, TJ happened to mention him and was very complimentary about him, calling him a real nice guy, etc. He also maintained that he knew he was ahead when he moved all in. TJ has always been a class guy and, for my money, was the best player at the WSOP Championship event final table this year. Had he been the one to prevail and triumph this year, the poker community would have had a great champion, based both on his ability and his sportsmanship.
I, only recently, began to play poker and I decided to start with hold'em. I had read Lee Jones' book and took a vacation in Lake Tahoe. I had been winning small at Harvey's in Tahoe, when this particular hand came about. I was playing 2-6 spread limit and picked up AA in the small blind. Seeing that this was the first time in my life that I had ever held rockets, I was excited about the chance to "jam the pot." This was a pretty tight game with only 2-3 people seeing the flop per hand. Three people limped in, and I got ready to raise. Then, to my left, I noticed that the big blind had a big stack in his hand and looked like he would raise. I just called, getting ready to reraise him. Everybody called his raise, and I reraised which surprised the table. Two of the previous limpers folded which surprised me, because they were getting better pot odds. The other two guys called, and I was ecstatic about winning a huge pot with all that dead money. The flop comes TJQ rainbow. Since I was first, and I knew to be aggressive, I bet out. I figured I probably had the best hand, plus I had a gutshot to the nuts. The big blind raised and the other guy folded. I tried to guess what the BB had, and I put him on either a set(30%) or a straight draw(50%), with some chance of him having AK for the nuts(20%). I just estimated those percentages. I didn't know what to do, but I figured because the pot odds were huge and because I was trying to convey an aggressive image, I reraised. He reraised and I was really scared. I called and prayed for a King. A blank came on the turn and I called his next bet. On the end, he bet out and I called, more out of curiosity than anything, and he turned over two queens. I know I probably made mistakes, obviously the call on the end (but being my first session I had to know). Was the reraise on the flop a mistake? The call on the turn was correct for pot odds, but should I have refigured with the possibility of him having already made the straight? What else did I do wrong? Experts please help.
-- Ralebird.
The only real mistake was the reraise on the flop
I don't understand. why is reraising on the flop with a pair of aces a mistake?
Perhaps re-re-raising the flop is a mistake because: (1) all our hero has is one pair with a gutshot straight draw, and (2) our hero easily could be facing AK (i.e., the nut straight).
In the low limit games that I've played, perhaps 25 percent of my opponents will raise pre-flop from the big blind with WORSE hands than they need to raise pre-flop from the button. This is particularly true against multiple limpers. In such a case, our hero also could be facing several two pair possibilities (e.g., QJ, JT, or QTs).
Even at low limits, most players will not re-raise the flop with a single pair or an open-ended straight draw. Some do, of course. Against these folks, I usually prefer to let them keep the lead. Just call them down to a showdown.
The only real mistake was the reraise on the flop
Well played B4 flop. Couldn't of asked be a better outcome except had the BB re-raised you heads up.
The two players folded since you were a cinch to have a big pair (trust me, tight nervous beginners are easy to spot and do NOT reraise with QT), AND they each had a trouble hand. They should call with 87s, but not AJ or KQ against TWO good/premium hands (Mmmmm still getting 7:1 though ...).
QJT is a weak flop for AA; BAD if someone else raised. I would be tempted to check-and-call since the raiser surely has enough to call, you dislike a raise, you lose less if you are beat, and you "disguise" your hand for whatever that's worth.
This player is unlikely to have the KK straight draw since HE didn't cap it. Would he raise in BB with KQ? Unlikely. So AK or Set seems to be very likely. Bad re-raise.
You considered what kind of hand he may have, but since Holdem offers so few hidden combinations you should evaluate based on possible SPECIFIC combinations. Don't think just "straight draw" think "KK, KQ, or KJ straight draw". Don't think just "set" think "QQ, JJ, or TT set". You will find many such combinations are realistically very unlikely.
- Louie
There was a time when I only wanted to play against the best players. I deluded myself into thinking it was to gain experience and learn moves I could later use against weaker competition, but the truth is that I liked playing at a table where the best congregated. I liked knowing and being known (if not respected) by the really successful players. Surprisingly, due as much to my fear of making a move that was so stupid everyone would know that I shouldn't be playing against good competition, I did pretty well resultswise in these games. My wins were bigger than my losses and I won more than half my sessions.
When the NL game at the Commerce disintegrated, I went back to playing 15/30 lowball and low stakes 3-6 and 6-12 hold'em, but it wasn't as profitable and not nearly as captivating. I decided to turn to tournaments and see if there was any profit to be had there for me. I played a lot of single table satellites at first, paying expenses and learning about tendencies of some of the tournament regulars. I also played in all the small buy in NL tournaments in the Los Angeles area with the exception of Hollywood Park's tournaments which I boycott in retaliation for them never letting me sit down while I'm waiting for a game. With experience, I became somewhat more competitive in tournaments and started making it to my share of final tables.
There are enough NL hold'em tournaments in my area that I can play one every Monday, Tuesday, Friday and Saturday even when there are no major tournaments going on. I've found a couple ring games where I am a solid, winning favorite, and can sit down on days when there isn't a tournament that I'd like to play in. Now that I've carved out a playing formula that works well for me, I've started to concentrate more on the expectation I have in a given game. I play only lowball, Mexican Stud and NL Hold'em in my ring game play and play only NL and Lowball tournaments and satellites. I will probably cease playing in lowball ring games because the action is too slow and my fastplay tendencies are only profitable in that game if the table is shorthanded. I will still play NL with the good players, trusting in my ability to play within my means and quit before I do any serious financial harm to myself. I feel comfortable in these games because I know that my judgement and survival skills make up for others being more capable than me in poker ability.
I'm posting this because several people have emailed me and wanted to know how I happened to get into big bet poker and tournament play. I would like to see other postings by some of the regulars detailing where they play, the games and levels and the evolution of their poker careers. I still think of myself as a recreational player who happens to play a lot of poker. Before retiring in 1990, I was a land developer, specializing in taking raw land up to the tentative map stage and selling it to the builders. In another time, years ago, I was a principal in the largest individually trusteed pension and profit sharing administration firm in the world.
hello big john, there is a big john that plays in the pot limit game round town here and i actually thoght it might be you when i fist saw your name on this exchange, anyway you want poker player history and evoultion so here is a brief summery of mine. bout 5 years ago after i decided blackjack was a bad habit (i have since turned it into a fair habit thanks to the omega count) i was in a bookstore and picked up a copy of poker strategy and winning play by livingston. i knew nothing about poker and neve gave it a thought as i didnt see how you could get a edge at a game of luck. after reading the book-or some of it, i decided to become a professional poker player. the basic principle of getting a edge by making better dicisions then your opponents made my success a done deal, now all i had to do was learn how to make better decisions then my opponent. from there i went to super systems and from there to my first game in las vegas. twas a 5-10 stud game. i played all night ad won twenty dollars. next day i won 100. next day i sat in my first hold em game. i hadnt studied hold im in super system yet but from my quick reading i knew that any two cards 5 cards apart (mabey its four but i believe its 5) could turn a double belly buster, and i knew you needed to be super aggressive. boy did i turn that game on its edge. lost 300 in short order, got up, said thanks boys ill be back and left. that night lost all my money at blackjack (boy was my wife pissed), but all was not lost as we went to the horseshoe where my wife won enough money at vidio poker on four jacks to buy me a copy of hfap in their bood store, dont know if they still have that book store. from there bought all the two plus books (still remember trying to figure out what a wrap around straight was when i got zees book). a year later i returned to vegas and won a thousand playing 10-20 hold em at the mirage. i thought i had arrived. lost bout 5000 playing 10-20 in maniac games in iowa over the next few months. needless to say my hold em game has evoulved considerably over the years. still as i analize situations in my mind i still reflect on hands that came up several years ago in those games. branched out into pot limit and no limit with small blinds as to keep the risk to a level approximate with 10-20. home games. at this writing i play 10-20 , play more 20-40 then i use too-still dont have the bank for it, and play pot limit or no limit. i play seven stud, hold em, pot limit omaha, omaha high low, seven stud high low. hold em and seven stud are my strongert games. i dont pay the rent with poker so i am able to play in middle limit games, without a bankroll to back up such play. ive never played small limit other then my first trip to vegas. thats advice id offer to anyone that can do so-i dont see how 10-20 could be much different the 3-6, if your game selective. more often the not the action is multihanded and loose. same goes for what ive seen of 20-40. of course if you sit down in a tight tough game it dosnt take a rocker scientist to figue out that you probable should look for a softer game. nowdays with poker closer by (i live in dayton ohio) , and with recent improvements with my financial situation i am much closer to having the bank to play medium limits, but i still tend to push the envelope if the situition looks good so i can go through (for me) some pretty big swings. one thing i have going for me is mental dicipline. i dont care about makeing money i just love to play- sort of. mainly i evaulate if ive made mistakes, from game selection to the play of the hand. if the answer is yes im not upset if i lose, i try to correct, if the answer is no- im happy win or lose. any way there you have it.
I'm going to be in Vegas next week for Comdex and would like some advice on where and when to play hold'em. I usually play low limit 3-6 and 4-8 hold'em here in southern California.
I've heard that the best games are at Bellagio, Mirage, MGM, Excalibur, and The Orleans.
If anyone can tell me if one is better than the other, what time of day is best to play, or any other tips, I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks, Andy
First, we would aprreciate it if this kind of post was put on our exchange forum.
To answer you question all the rooms that you mention have low limit hold 'em. However, right now I would recommend The Mirage. The reason is that with the opening of Bellagio the room is not as crowded as it use to be and you should be able to get into a game quickly. In addition, some of the regulars, who play a little better, have gone to Bellagio and have left The Mirage games very weak. This is especially true at $10-$20 and $20-$40.
I'm sorry if I posted this in the wrong forum. I was not aware of the exchange forum you refer to. If you want to give the link to the exchange forum I would appreciate it. I think I found a link to this forum from another poker site.
I bought your book "Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players" but as you can see I have not finished studying it yet as I am still playing 3-6, 4-8. I just finished Lee Jones book "Winning Low Limit Hold'em" and am learning as I go.
Thanks for responding to my question anyway.
Andy
The link to the exchange forum appears in the left hand column. However, if you do not come directly to this site you may not get to see the link.
Mason - thank you for the note about the exchange forum. I've been reading posts off this site for a year now and never observed a link to the exchange forum on the left hand side of this page. Maybe this has something to do with how I first got to this site and book marked it??
Try the poker room at Harrah's, right across the street from the Mirage. They have unstructured 1-4-8-8 hold'em with one $2 blind and play 11 handed; really get your $2 worth if you are patient as many tourists play. Harrah's also has a bad-beat jackpot and their food comps are more liberal then the Mirage.
Russ
I don't have a copy of TOP handy (lent it out), but my recollection is that the FTOP goes something like: "Every time your opponent plays differently than he would if he could see your cards, you gain."
Consider the following situation. I bet my second pair into my opponent, who folds because he thinks I have top pair and he missed his draw. If he could see my cards, he would realize that I don't have top pair and that a bluff would have a legitimate chance at succeeding against most opponents. He then attempts it. However, he doesn't realize that I don't like to fold, so I actually gain by him knowing my cards.
My point:
Shouldn't the FTOP read something like: "Every time your opponent plays differently than he would if he could see your cards AND KNEW YOUR STRATEGY, you gain." ?
I apologize in advance if it does read like this or it is addressed elsewhere in TOP.
You are referring to the "Psychic Fundamental Theorem of Poker" (PFTOP).
Would you mind expounding a bit or directing me to a reference?
Thanks for your help.
George
I'm not sure I understand your question. But I think you answered it yourself. If you made two pair and your opponent laid down his hand, on a missed draw, then HE did the right thing according the theorm, as he would have done this if he had seen your cards. If he knew you had two pair and tried to bluff you, and you seen his cards and called (or raised) him, you would have made the correct move. If you assume you know how your opponent will play, is not the same as knowing what cards he holds.
I have a question for all the "Poker Gurus" out their in "Poker Land": Do you think that keeping your own personal poker statistics on a very regular basis will improve your game, especially if you use that information to constantly evaluate your game? I started out keeping stats about 5 years ago which only included how much I won or lost (I was only playing about twice a month back then and played only crazy mix-em games). For the past 3 years I have only been playing hold-em (with Omaha thrown in once in a while), and this last year I have been keeping more detailed statistics (playing about twice a week). In addition to total $won/$loss numbers, I now analyze $/hr, $won/session, $loss/session, Avg.$/session, winning ratio and won/loss at various locations. I am finding that keeping these kind of records has somewhat influenced my play, i.e., if (based on the type of game)I have either won or lost close to my avg. $won (or loss)/session and don't see much chance for improvement in either direction, I will end my session.
I am currently averaging $12/hr (1BB) with a 68.5% winning ratio. Do you think I should move up to $10/20, or stay where I am at. I have the bankroll to play $10/20, and feel I have the ability to compete.
Comments would be welcome!
Marc,
Anytime you win regularly at a certain limit you should move up in good spots to see if you can beat the next higher game. Why hold yourself back for no reason. Its good to keep records but you cannot use those averages to decide when to quit a game because your current standing in the game is around your average. That is drawing wrong decisions from good data. I believe you need to do some reading on the subject. It sounds like you are a winning player with the right work ethic to move up. Good Luck.
It appears for each session at a particular game you record where you played, the game you played, #hours, and $net; and calculate the rest. That's real good.
$net/#hours = $/Hour is the most important. This prevents you from kidding yourself as to your abilities. It also allows you to evaluate EV at certain clubs in certain games. However you need to take LOTS of samples, like 1000 hours, to be reasonably confident in the figures.
As Mr Zee suggested, do not use your calculated expectation to decide to stay or leave; except as to calibrate the competition. Take selective shots at the 10/20.
WARNING: I am not too confident in the following .... Perhaps someone who IS can comment ....
A moderate 1BB/hour combined with a whopping 68% win rate means TO ME (using only an intuitive feel for SD) that your SD is particularly small, so either you are particularly selective, particularly passive, or you often leave just because you are winning a certain amount (as you suggested you are willing to do).
I suppose someone smarter than me could calculate ones SD. Then one COULD graph ones ACTUAL distibution of $net/session with PREDICTED distibutation based on SD. While the area under the curves will be the same, the actual shape of these curves may not align well (one may have many MORE sessions between $300-$400, but many LESS over $700 than the SD will predict). Unless one often artificially decides to stay or leave based on ones win or loss; big differences would mean one is playing in games with EV or SD far different than in other games one plays.
If so, one is likely often playing over ones head. If so, one should identify these games (which is much easier said than done) and don't play them. One may be beating the rack'em-shack'em home game to death, but losing in the casino. Or perhaps one usually loses when that guy with the white hat plays.
I doubt anyone does this.
Boy, changing "you" to "one" above didn't work too well :).
- Louie
I haven't looked at the other posts, but I'll give it a shot. Your expectation will ultimately converge with your results. Keeping track of your results can only affect your future results in that it keeps your expecation (or play) in line with prior results.
In other words, you're kept very conservative in your game, illustrating the value of tight play.
I just finished reading Jean Scott's, "Frugal Gambler", book.In it she talks about how they stay free in Vegas hotels 100 nights, plus a year. They play the full pay video poker machines, and with perfect play they supposedly return 100.5%, a positive long term return. Then they use the slot clubs to get points towards free meals and rooms, and they use the special promotions etc.If this is viable, then it seems that anyone who is looking to play regular poker for a living could offset many costs by learning to play these video poker games correctly. I have a couple of questions for either S&M, or anyone who knows about this. First, I have heard about progressive jacpot machines that become profitable at certain levels, but I want to know if these "Deuces Wild" full pay machines are plentiful, and if played correctly that they actually pay back 100.5%. Also they mention that if you are playing the quarter machines you need a bankroll of about 3,000 in order to ensure survival.Does this sound reasonable?? Any help would be appreciated.Thanks
"I just finished reading Jean Scott's, "Frugal Gambler", book.In it she talks about how they stay free in Vegas hotels 100 nights, plus a year. They play the full pay video poker machines, and with perfect play they supposedly return 100.5%, a positive long term return. Then they use the slot clubs to get points towards free meals and rooms, and they use the special promotions etc.If this is viable, then it seems that anyone who is looking to play regular poker for a living could offset many costs by learning to play these video poker games correctly. I have a couple of questions for either S&M, or anyone who knows about this. First, I have heard about progressive jacpot machines 0that become profitable at certain levels, but I want to know if these "Deuces Wild" full pay machines are plentiful"
There are less and less of them. But some of the local casinos still have the full pay versions.
"and if played correctly that they actually pay back 100.5%."
Yes
"Also they mention that if you are playing the quarter machines you need a bankroll of about 3,000 in order to ensure survival.Does this sound reasonable??"
No. You need at least twice as much and probably three times as much. Also, my sources have told me that Ms. Scott actually plays $1.00 machines a good percentage of the time.
"Any help would be appreciated.Thanks"
My opinion is that the book has a little bit of value but not more than that, and the swings that you will go through as a video poker player are not properly accounted for. If you are interested, I suggest that you purchase the video poker reports by Bob Dancer. They can be ordered either through ConJelCo or Gambler's Book Club.
The following play occured in a small no-limit ring game. The blinds were $2/$5 and the average stack size was about $500. A couple of looser players who had caught some hands had close to a grand in chips. The game was playing relatively loose for no-limit as most participants hadn't adjusted their limit games. I was stuck about $300 despite playing fairly selectively as I lost $200 on the only major pot I entered. My current stack was about $400, aided by a $300 rebuy.
I was on the button with 87s (clubs). An agressive regular called the $5 UTG. It was called in two more places and then a borderline maniac on my right (who had lucked his way into a $1200 stack) bumped it to $10. Since this baby raise signaled nothing to me, I called the ten- setting my sights on his stack in case I got a big flop since he had been giving major action with limit-type hands such as top pair, marginal kicker. Thi big blind, and the other three limpers also called the initial nickel, making it a nice little 6-handed $62 pot with me on the button.
The flop came KJ5 rainbow, with one club. Suprisingly, it was checked around to me. I also checked. The turn came a 6 of hearts, putting two hearts on the board. The BB checked and the agressive player UTG made it $30 to go. It was folded to me and I saw a chance to pick up the small pot with a bluff because:
1. I put the UTG player on a weak King as he would have probably raised preflop with AK. (He could possibly have been going for a check-rasie on the flop with KJ, but I think he would have overbet the pot on the turn with the large field still hanging on and and two hearts on board.)
2. He was one of the few players who would lay down a marginal hand to my raise as he respects my play and understands that top pair ISN'T the nuts in this game.
3. If he didn't fold on the flop and put me on a draw, alot of scare cards could come on the river to make straights, flushes, Aces and I could use my position and remaining chips to fire another big bet.
4. Importantly, I still had outs and my turn bet might help get me paid off since it would be tough tp put me on 87.
5. If HE was on a draw, I am certain he would bet if he hit and check if he missed, giving me another way to pick up the pot or fold with a clear conscience.
To make a long story short, I raised his $30 to $150 total and he called without a lot of hesitation, but didn't seem to contemplate reraising. Now I am was even more certain he has a weak King and has talked himself into putting me (correctly) on a draw. The river comes a Q of clubs. It is not the perfect a scare card, but I am emboldened by his disheartened look and check. My main fear is that he has a KQ, with which he might call, but not bet into that board.
Now that I have managed to build a $350 pot with nothing, should I continue the bluff or cut my losses? I have about $250 left and he had about $300. If I do fire again, how much should I bet? As a matter of context, this guy was stuck for about a grand as he had already been beaten by a couple of funny draws.
Michael,
Looks like he may have you read right and you dont have enough to make him throw away a hand he believes he may be able to win with. You read him wrong and maybe you are way off. You have too many strikes against you in this hand give it up and move on. Perhaps you should have called his bet on the turn and saved your bluff for the river when his hand would really look weak and the pot would look small. The best plays were to 1. fold on fourth street 2. Call in hopes of making money if you hit and giving up if you missed. 3. Making a bluff unless you knew your opponent and were sure you could take the pot away then this would be first choice. Good Luck.
I play in a frequency in an extremely loose 3-6 game. Live button, 5-6 people in every pot, even if raised. Typically one to two pre-flop raises.
Given these conditions, a pre-flop raise serves only to grow the pot not limit the field. Much of the literature refers to raising to limit the field. This is wholly inapplicable here.
In these cases what are the best hands to play? Here hands like AKs and TJs seems to be superior to even hands like AA or KK. For example, the biggest hand in a 8 hour session yesterday was a suited King which stayed in for two pre-flop raises.
Does anyone have a correct preflop strategy for such a game?
Ya, keep flopping sets when you play your pocket rockets.
Just kidding.
Seriously though, your pocket aces and kings are still better than AKs or JTs. You may win fewer pots with the big pairs (as compared to a tight game) but you will win more money.
There are some adjustments you should make to your game. Unsuited high cards go down in value while suited connectors go up in value (particularly in late position). I too usually play in a wild game. I almost always muck offsuit hands such as AJ, AT, KJ, KT, QJ, JT from early position. These hands I find either win a small pot or lose a big one.
Position is huge even in these wild games. For one thing, if you flop a great hand, you can usually double the pot by raising an early position bettor (thereby trapping all players in the middle for an extra bet). This is tougher to do from early position. You would have to checkraise which doesn't always pan out if the players to your left check along and take the free card you have offered them.
The other major adjustment you should probably make is to lower your bluffing frequency (sounds like bluffs just won't work in your game). Conversely, I probably would never slowplay a hand (sounds like no one in your game likes to fold a hand).
I would recommend Lou Krieger's second book to you on this subject. He offers some pretty sound advice on how to play in a loose aggressive such as yours.
keep raising with your premium hands. You got it right with your question. You want to get more money in the pot so when you hit, you get paid. seeya
You need to know if a larger pre-flop pot will attract more flop callers or not. In such a game usually not: if they have anything they are going to the river; damn the odds. You also need to know if a flop raise will limit the field: again usually not; damn the raises.
If the opponents ignore pot size and raises then any finese is out of the question. = Bet/Raise when you expect to win more often than the number of callers. = Do not bluff, but value bet with some weak hands in late position. = DO NOT SLOWPLAY. = Rarely check-raise. = Forget "free" cards, delayed semi-trap playes, etc. etc. = "Advertise" by capping it with your nut draws.
The hands that NEED to limit the field once they flop a pair are the unsuited trouble hands. As suggested, avoid these. Play few unsuited-unpaired hands. Play all pairs. Play more and more suited connectors and Axs as your position improves.
Beware when the rock calls.
A good strategy to keep your SD down is to rarely, if ever, raise pre-flop; so the pot is small enough for you to fold those bad pairs you will make. Never-the-less, expect wild swings.
You win by hand selection discipline, and extra bets gained/saved by your superior judgment; not by application of "advanced" plays.
Be advised that once the pot gets big they are SUPPOSED to go to the river with those weak hands they should not have played in the first place. So are you.
Keep them gambling, tell a joke or two. NEVER critisize; instead admire their determination; or tell them "Hey, that's my lucky hand too!".
- Louie
BTW; 5-6 people/pot out of 10 isn't THAT loose.
Without a doubt, one of the most common responses I read on this forum and within books is to know your opponents.
Obviously, during a session it's easy to tell if a player is good or bad. Whether someone is aggressive or passive, loose or tight.
However when someone tells you to evaluate the chances that someone is, for example, raising with the second best hand to force you out, I would find that very hard to do.
It's one thing to know your player, but I think it is difficult, often impossible, to remember player attributes during one session, especially if players keep changing.
How do you guys not only form good profiles of your opponents, but then remember that stuff from session to session? It's not like you can get your opponents name and start taking notes.
Plus, how long do you need to observe an opponent to know that something is his general tendency and not a fluke move? Basically, someone might do something once and never again (like check raise bluff on the end) and that one play will affect your future strategy.
I know this is long, but I think it's an interesting discussion.
-- Ralebird
If you're playing low limit, then the odds are that noone is raising you if they're sure they've got the second best hand. The exception to this is if the player in question is a maniac, but then, these types are pretty easy to spot.
Other good rules of thumb- If you bet out on the flop w/ top pair, are called, and the caller than check raises you on the turn, nine times out of ten you are beaten. Go ahead and lay down. Also, if someone check raises you on the flop, you can be fairly sure they're holding somehting like AKo, and are simply trying to limit the field. Make 'em pay for it.
I'd be interested in comments, flames, etc. on how I played this hand last night in a loose 6-12 HE game.
2 in front of the button, I have JH-TC. Everyone in front of me folds. I raise. Player behind me, who I don't know very well but seems to call a lot, calls. Button, a strong aggressive player, also calls, and both blinds call.
Flop comes JD-TD-4C. I bet. The two players behind me raise and reraise, and the blinds fold. I think there is a good chance that at least one of the players behind me is on a straight or flush draw, or possibly even a straight flush draw. I call and await the turn, which is 3H. I bet. Player behind me calls. Button raises. At this point I have no idea whether I can beat the button or not, so I just call. Player behind me also calls.
River is QH. I check. Player behind me bets. Button calls, and I overcall.
William
I like the play on the flop (although a case could be made for making it 4 bets)
I like the bet on the turn. One or both of your opponents may have raised on the flop in order to get a free card on the turn. So, when the blank hit, I really like your bet on the turn.
But I would have made it three bets on the turn. The only hand that could beat you on the turn is a set. Most players wait until the turn before raising with a set so with all that raising on the flop, I probably wouldn't be too worried about a set. In any event, my thinking would be that an incorrect raise can only cost me an extra bet (or two, if the button makes it four bets). On the other hand, an incorrect call could cost me the pot (i.e. for example, if the river card ends up giving the guy in position #9 a higher two pair and that player would have folded his hand if you had made it three bets. Of course, that logic only works if you think that the player is the type who will fold one pair in the face of calling two more bets cold on the turn. Even if he is the type of player who will call those two extra bets with a single Jack or Ten, well, that's not necessarily a bad thing because at most he could only have three outs. No amount of raising in a 6-12 game is likely to get an open-ender or flush draw to fold but all the same I'd want to charge the player the max for his draw).
After the river card, I wouldn't be too concerned about someone having made a straight. The player would have to have either AK, K9, or 98. I would think that very few players would call a pre-flop raise with K9 or 98. As well, many would make it three bets with AK before the flop. If you are beat, it's most likely to a set or QJ. Anyways, to comment on your play on the river, I probably would call. The pot is too big. Once again, an error in calling only costs you $12 while an error in folding will cost you $156.
If you cannot steal the blinds, and it appears you never had a chance, then don't raise with such a weak hand. Call? I guess that can't be too bad.
Unless of course you are going to flop two-pair.
If the two late callers and half way sensible, then one or both surely hit a JTx flop. Consider check-raising. But I dislike it for psycological reasons.
The player on the button with the set of 4's is SUPPOSED to make it 3-bets, in the hopes that you fold your possible gut-shot draw. But if he knows you are passive and would not BET such a hand, then slow-playing gains considerable merrit.
I dislike the play of call-bet-on-the-turn, since usually this means you have a bluffable one-pair. But with your two-pair calling hand you could encourage and assertive player like me to try to run you off your KJ; so call-bet has merrit.
At least call on the turn. I would not raise.
Call on the river? I routinely pay it off, but I am sure that playing the river when someone else bets is the worst part of my game. If you do FOLD your obvious good hand, plan to pay everyone else off the rest of the night.
- Louie
Partial-deck stud games are becoming more common. One is 5-card stud with sevens and higher, another is 5-card stud with the eights, nines and tens removed and a joker added, where the player can turn their downcard up after a betting round, and receive their next card down.
What are some strategies for these games? Due to the spread-limit structure, and 5-card stud aspect, it would seem that these games would be potentially lucrative. Unlike 1-5 7-card stud, the level of bet variation is enough to manipulate the pot odds. Also, the fact that there are only five cards means that the chance of being drawn out on is smaller, although the partial deck may lead to more frequent lucky cards on individual rounds.
A friend recently gave me a poker quiz which I found quite interesting. Although several of you may find the answers to be obvious, I hope that you too will have some fun with it. Here are the three questions:
1)The flop is 3d6c7c. If you and your opponent were both all-in, which hand would you rather have
a) 4d5s or b) 8c,9c
2) If a little genie told you that you would flop a set everytime you were dealt a pocket pair, which hand would you like to be dealt most often
a) 22 or b)AA or c)88
3) You are playing draw poker. You are dealt JcJdJs2s5c and open the betting. Your opponent calls and goes all-in. Before the draw, your opponent for some reason turns his cards faceup. He holds KcKdQsQh10c.
How many cards do you draw and why?
a (a 1.07373:1 favorite), b, toss both rags; better chance of catching the case J.
A Short Poker Quiz I believe this is an answer To #1.
Flop: 3d 6c 7c a) 4d 5c b) 8c 9c
I’m supposing that if you chooses (a) your opponent gets (b) and visa versa.
(a) is a made hand and will not significantly improve enough when (b) makes its hand. Therefore, the question is how often will (b) make its hand.
With your 2 cards, your opponent’s 2 cards, and the 3 cards in the flop, there are 45 unseen cards. (I’m supposing that your opponent’s cards are know to you, or else the question of choice is invalid.)
Of the 45 unseen cards, there are 8 suit c cards to make a flush (I’m assuming, in this example, that you know that (a) has the 5c). [Ac 2c 3c 4c 10c Jc Qc Kc]. Of the 45 unseen cards, there are 6 rank cards (not of suit c) that will make a higher straight. [5d 5h 5s 10d 10h 10s]. This is a total of 14 cards of the 45 that will make (b)’s hand. Consequently, there are 31 cards (45 - 14) that will not make (b)’s hand.
With 2 cards to come, of the 45 unseen cards, this gives you a total of 990 2-card combinations. *Binomial Coefficient nCk = n! / (k!(n - k)!) 45C2 = (45 * 44) / 2 = 990
Of the 14 cards that will make (b)’s hand. 2-card-combinations of only these 14 cards. e.g. (5d 10s) 14C2 = (14 * 13) / 2 = 91 2-card-combinations of one of the 14 cards an one of the 31 other cards. e.g. (Kc 3d) 14C1 * 31C1 = 14 * 31 = 434 This gives a total of 525 (91 + 434) 2-card-combinations that will make (b)’s hand.
Therefore, to arrive at the probability that (b) will make its hand, you divide the 2-card-combinations that will make the hand (525) by the total 2-card-combinations (990). 525 /990 = 0.530303 or 53.03% of the time
Therefore (b) wins most of the time and should be selected.
I forgot to add in the times when he catches TWO outs. oops....
A short poker quiz: An argument for #2.
>2) If a little genie told you that you would flop a set everytime you were dealt a pocket pair, which hand would you like to be dealt most often a) 22 or b)AA or c)88
I believe the gist of this question is which will make the most money visavis get the most action.
And I believe this to be a function of your opponents. e.g. looseness, number of calling stations, etc.
A. If your competition is loose and/or weak and/or has many calling stations, then it doesn’t matter how strong you start out, you will get many callers and stayers, so you might as well start out as strong as possible. Answer (b) AA.
B. If your competition is good to great, then there is a small argument for starting out with (c) 88 to get action, at least at the start, and especially against less than great players. But I believe that, after a short period, these players will pickup that you play medium pairs regularly and adjust accordingly, and give you little action when you play strong and they aren’t strong enough to take down trips. So again I believe that the answer is (b). Answer (b) AA.
C. If your competition is average. They have read a little, know a little about probabilities, but are not quick to pickup on your tendencies (you regularly play medium pairs), then this is the competition you might want to play (c) 88. These players are probably aware enough to know they are in trouble when an ace flops and they don’t have one, but oblivious enough not to figure that you may have flopped medium trips. And maybe oblivious enough not to fully realize how powerful this hand is. This is a tentative argument for (c). Answer (c) 88, just.
Overall, I believe it is best to start out with the strongest hand possible, (b) AA, and maybe slow play it occasionally to get more action. There is a small argument for (c) 88 being the best for money-action in certain cases. In no situation did I see (a) 22 being desirable over the other two choices. If your going to start off small to get action, then (c) 88 will probably give you close to as mush as (a) 22.
These are my answers and reasoning. If anyone has a different view, please let me know.
1)The answer is (b). MH has got it right. After the flop, the drawing hand has a greater than 50% chance of improving. The made hand can't get any better. I would take the drawing hand.
2) I would select 22, 88, andd AA in that order.
With AA, you aren't going to win as much money as you would with the other two hands. After all, if you flop a set of Aces, what kinds of hands can give you any action?
I'd pick 22 over 88 because with an 8 on the board, there is a greater chance of my set losing to a straight. As well, I could possibly flop top set with 88. There may be very few hands giving me any action. On the other hand, when I flop a set to 22, I am assured that there will be cards higher than the 2 on the flop which could possibly make second best hands for my opponents.
True, with 22, I could run into a higher set. But in my experience, set over set is a pretty rare event and not something to get too worked up about.
In sum, flopping a set of deuces will generally lead to greater profits as compared to flopping a set of eights or aces.
3) I wouldn't draw any cards at all. I would stand pat. My opponent has two pair. He has to hit his king or queen to win. I can reduce his chances of hitting a king or queen by ensuring that he draws only one card. In other words, I want to make sure that he doesn't break his two pair and draw three cards to either his pair of Kings or his pair of Queens (because unbeknownst to him, he only needs trips to beat my hand, he doesn't need a full house. His chances of making trips by drawing three cards are greater than his chances of making a full house by drawing one card to his two pair).
If I draw two cards, my opponent will likely put me on trips and draw three cards (exactly what I don't want).
If I draw one card, there is still a chance that my opponent will break his two pair and draw three cards (i.e. fearing that I have trips or possibly Aces up).
If I don't draw at all, my opponent would likely assume that he needs to fill up to beat the pat hand that I am representing. Therefore, he would have to draw one card to try and make his full house (which is exactly what I do want him to do).
Do any of you guys have any differing views?
Skp, On draw poker, i would draw one card only.My opponents may believe that i am drawing to make a straight,a full house and a flush. He then will draw one to fill up and will miss most of the time.
Drawing one is unlikely to help you. i.e even if you make a full house, you will lose if he makes his full house. Drawing one card will turn out to be a good move only on those occasions when your opponent fills up AND you draw the case Jack. The odds of both those events occurring simultaneously are pretty slim.
If you draw one card, there is a chance (albeit slight) that your opponent will break his two pair and draw three cards to his pair of Kings or pair of Queens (which is exactly what you don't want. He may do this if he fears that you have trips or Aces up. By the way, since the game is Jacks or better, your opponent won't put you on a straight or flush draw if you take one card because you need to have jacks or better to open the betting).
By standing pat, you force your opponent to draw just one card (which is exactly what you want).
Did anyone else find Nolan Dalla's idea of an email Poker Study group in the last Card Player interesting? I know this sort of thing goes on to various degrees right here in the 2+2 forum and rgp, but I find the concept of bouncing ideas off of a small group of peers you respect intriguing. Do any of you have something similar to what Nolan decribed? What are the mechanics? Do you think you can only share your deepest poker secrets with someone you will most likely never play?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I was playing 15-30 HE at Hollywood Park last night and had an interesting hand. Picked up 54s in the big blind, moderately tight player UTG raised, and uncharacteristically, 5 people called, including the small blind. I decide to call and take my shot.
Flop: 445, rainbow
All right! Let's see if I can trap some callers between the raiser and I. I check, UTG bets, and a very loose player (VLP) raises in late position. This guy is the sort to call a preflop raise with K4s. So I put him on 4X and only call. My intention is to check raise VLP on the turn. My call fairly screams that I have a 4, and I see that UTG is wary as he calls the raise. Everyone else has dropped at this point.
Turn: J, making a 2 flush on board
I check, and, to my surprise, UTG bets out again. VLP raises again and now I'm starting to worry a little. It's quite possible for UTG to have JJ, and VLP may have 55 or even 54 with me. I cold call 2 bets again and UTG only calls again.
River: K
I got a subtle "Big Hand" tell from UTG (his eyes drifted up and away and stayed there for a few seconds). I check, UTG checks, and VLP bets, I call and UTG only calls?!?
Showdown: UTG: AKs VLP: J5s
No one can believe it when I show down my boat.
Now I had many opportunities to raise, and in retrospect I probably should have on the turn. How would you have played this hand differently?
If you don't raise on the turn here, then when do you? If this exact situation came up a thousand times, how many of those times would UTG have pocket jacks? Further, you're call on the flop could indicate a 67s, or something like that.
No offense- I've gotten gunshy before too. But it's important to remember that, as a rule, if you think you've got the best hand then you probably do.
In short, not raising on the turn is a huge mistake.
Sorry! There is no "rule" here. If you calculated the pot, opponent's tendencies, whether you'd been getting stuck, etc., then you probably played the hand correctly. As you pointed out, you didn't have the nuts and opponents were carrying the play for you. Getting everyone to stay with your strong hand is also a valid consideration. Stack 'em and smile!!
"No one can believe it when I show down my boat.
Now I had many opportunities to raise, and in retrospect I probably should have on the turn. How would you have played this hand differently?"
Here is what I think. You played the hand passively. When you play passively rather than aggressively you start to think in terms of how you "could" be beat. When you play aggressively you think in terms of, "I have the best hand, and they ain't got nothin."
I did this myself the other night. I had what I thought was the nuts. I was going to play it strong but decided to slowplay for whatever reason. Well, the other two opponents got a little out of line and started a raising war. Now I was paranoid. Could I be beat? I guess so. They COULD have a better hand. Had I taken the lead and played it aggressively I wouldn't have even been concerned with their holdings. As it was I felt I still had the best but they slowed me down and I missed a couple of bets. A catastrophe in my opinion. Moral? Don't be a wimp.
First off, thanks for the response.
Of course I played it passively, and I realized it at the time. The reason i made this post was that it was so uncharacteriastic of my play (which I would like to believe is tight-aggressive). Sorry for not making this clear from the get-go.
Part of my decision proccess was mostly believing that I had the best hand, but also wanting to maximize my gain/minimize my loss. If UTG doesn't have a flush draw, a raise on the turn will blow him out, and I still make the same amount of money when UTG calls. As it turns out, he's drawing dead so I don't mind him being in the pot.
After calling the turn it was my intention to check raise the river, and I would have if a big card hadn't come and I misread UTG's tell. Again, if I raise the river, UTG probably can't call and I make the same amount of money, with the potential of losing an additional bet if I have the tell right. I believed that there is no upside to raising, hence the call.
Had you ReRaised on the Flop you are sure to drop almost everybody else; certainly AK who is drawing very slim, but also QQ if he respects your play. Do you WANT to drop everybody? Well, the VLP is going to call you down; as may 67. I would ReRaise as part of my overall strategy, which probably doesn't apply to many other players. Calling is at least satisfactory.
On the turn, if the UTG player really made JsFull he surely .. err .. usually would check, hehehe. While concern may be called for, fear of JsFull is not. Raise on the turn; bet it on the end.
After just calling on the turn, going for the overcall on the river was clearly correct. UTG will get 3 bets if he has you beat, probably won't call 2 bets if not, but probably will call 1 bet.
-----------------------------------
But what is interesting about this hand is that you were surprised you still had the goods, and THEY were surprised that YOU had the goods. Their reality was different than yours, and its your job to accept and understand their's.
They were playing "does the pre-flop raiser really have a pair". You were playing "who can beat trip 4's". They made the (common) mistake of ignoring the caller and you did not anticipate them doing so.
From this I conclude that the UTG player is a "pair and kicker" guy who cannot adjust for multi-player hands (HE would not call the pre-flop raise with a 4, so you, of course, can't have one either); and the VLP thought he flopped "top-pair good kicker" and was more than happy to flog this pot. "Top two pair" was like a gold mine to this idiot, even though he came in 3rd.
There is no rule that says what's obvious to you is, of course, obvious to them. Changing "obvious" to "apparent" works well for me when contemplating these matters. It was not "apparent" to them that you, of course, had a 4.
Everybody gets embarassed like that. (I flopped Aces Full and never got a bet in once; slow played it until I didn't like it anymore, and beat three drop-mouthed opponents!)
Its not what you should have known to do, its what did you learn. Unless you learn from it, "Experience" only lets you recognize when you make the same mistakes.
So, how are you going to play against these two next time?
- Louie
Louie, thanx for the comments.
Your question about how to play against these 2 is very relevent. Unfortunately, I was on a business trip to LA; my regular haunt is Reno, and I don't really expect to see them again. My judgement of UTG was a little off, but I had VLP pegged.
What it really comes down to is my original intention to slowplay the flop and check raise the turn was the right play; I had the turn sequence be: me check, UTG check, VLP bet, me raise, UTG fold/call VLP call. When UTG bet and VLP raised I was totally taken aback, and wasn't able to assimulate the new data (UTG has a flush draw). If that had occured to me, the obvious play is to raise.
I think I played the river correctly, too, given the info available to me.
I guess I've been playing too much Omaha/8 lately. Under boats often lose!
Thanx,
-Oz-
Last night I had a stretch of 4 hour stretch of Hold 'Em where I won exactly one hand. We were playing about 35 hands per hour and the table averaged about 7 handed. I wanted to compute the chances of this disaster every befalling me again. So I came up with the following.
Assumption: On average you win 1 out of every 7 hands at a 7 handed table. This assumption is a bit weak since it does not consider skill.
So we will use the binomial distribution with p=1/7 and n=35*4=140. To approximate with the standard normal, we compute mu and sigma:
mu = 140 * 1/7 = 20
sigma = sqrt(1/7 * 6/7 * 140) = 4.2
Let's compute the Z value for 1 hand or less.
Z = (1 - 20) / 4.2 = -4.52
At Z = -3.6 we have less than a 1/1000 chance, so this -4.52 is insane.
If anyone has any knowledge of applying these assumptions to poker statistics, please reply. For one, is it safe to use the binomial distribution?
Thanks,
Paul J. Martino
As a skilled player, you win less than your share of hands in holdem. You are more selective with starting hands than weak or even average opponents, and you make good folds later in the hand that had some (but not enough) chance of winning at the showdown. So 1/N is generally too high for a full loose table.
With seven players, aggressive play might be more effective in getting you a larger share of pots against weak-tight opponents. But if your opps. are very loose, even with only six of them, you'll usually need to have the best hand, which makes you play much tighter than the others.
And many of the hands you do play are played only for their profitability in specific situations rather than for their having a strong chance of winning on average, such as 33 and 76s. These hands rarely win, but win enough when they do to sometimes justify seeing the flop with them. And some hands that have an above average chance of winning are not played.
Yes, I was indeed playing less hands than most. But here is an interesting analysis.
Let's say that you win 1/2N hands, we have Z=-3 which gives 0.17%
When winning one out of 1/3N hands, we have z=-2.24 which gives 1.25%
So even at 1/3N hands this still is a rather big anamoly. Also note that 1/3N hands means approximately 2 hands an hour, which seems well in line with the theory of "one big hand per hour".
Yes, yes, yes, I can hear you all saying it, "its not how many hands, its how much money". Well, I know the answer to that as I know what happened to my bankroll during this slide!
This was more a theory exercise. Perhaps there is a better way to model the problem I am discussing.
Paul Martino
The Poisson distribution is a good way to estimate probabilities for counting phenomena. The Poisson probability of n events occurring if m events are expected is m^n e^(-m)/n!. If you are playing well in a loose game, you should expect to win somewhere around .7 hands per "orbit" (going through the blinds). At 5 orbits per hour, you should thus expect to win 14 hands. Based on this, the probability of winning 1 or fewer hands is about 1 in 80,000.
On the one hand, events this rare happen all of the time (for example, people make royal flushes playing video poker, even though it only happens about once every 40,000 hands).
On the other hand, this could be an indication that you are playing too tight (either you are folding when pot odds actually warrant a call or getting bluffed out too much) or too timidly (perhaps you are not raising out hands that would fold to a raise but call a bet -- but be warned that this is less likely in a very loose game).
Could you please explain the .7 hands per orbit number? It sounds reasonable, but where does it come from?
Thanks,
Paul
It's based on two things. One source is simulations where you assume a field of loose players, then find the overall win rate of the profitable hands. The other is my personal experience. Actually, I tend to win .8 pots per orbit in loose games, but I play looser than most players should. :)
..
Warning - this is a not a short post. I've put a brief summary up front, so you know what's in store. I hope you find it interesting.
Summary:
I found what I think is a unique and original interpretation of what is "really going on" in "Morton's Theorem" situations. Let me say right up front, I'm not pretending to be some kind of "poker theory expert" here. However, I think this interpretation provides a useful framework for understanding and analyzing these multiway situations. I would like to share these ideas with the 2+2 community for review/discussion/comment/feedback.
In a nutshell:
1- At certain points in a poker hand, betting actions can be interpreted as if they are a buy/sell exchange of outs between players.
2- When you lose value in a "Morton's Theorem" situation, you lose because you sell outs for less than what they are actually worth to you.
3- The standard pot odds calculation method (which calculates the value of outs to the 'buyer') does not properly calculate the value of outs for the 'seller'. The true value of outs for the seller can be calculated with formulas such as one I present below.
- Mark Courtney
(aka "CybrTigr", to those denizens of irc poker)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All this discussion lately about the Fundamental Theorem and Morton's Theorem in 2+2 (and in RGP as well) really got me thinking. I reviewed all the math and was able to understand clearly how it was that one player could lose value in a Morton's Theorem situation, even as his opponent was making a mistake. However, I wanted to understand, at a more fundamental level, not just how, but WHY the leader was losing value in this situation.
The standard answer I have often seen to explain multiway situations like these has been 'you lose out because the value of an opponent's mistake is being distributed to not only you, but to others as well'. Well, that can't be all there is to it. For me to *lose* value, my opponent's action must actually be taking some of my value and distributing it to others as well! What is going on here? How can the act of my opponent doing something wrong take money away from me? Since I am losing value, it seems to me that I must, on some level, be making some kind of mistake also. I wanted to find the nature of this mistake.
Let's look again at the original example of what is now known as "Morton's Theorem":
In this situation, there are three players at the turn in a limit hold 'em game: You, and the imfamous Players A and B. Here is how things stand:
Your Hand: Ad Kc Player A: Ah Th Player B: Qc 9c
Board: Ks 9h 3h 6d Pot size: P bets (at beginning of round)
You have bet and Player A has called with his flush draw. Andy Morton showed that for certain pot sizes, your hand is actually going to *lose* value when Player B calls *even when he doesn't have sufficient pot odds*. That's right. Player B makes a mistake, yet you lose value! The math proves it is true. But what is *really* going on here? *WHY* is your hand losing value?
To find out, lets look at the two possible outcomes in Andy's example (your opponent either folding or calling) and look at the difference. Maybe that will show us what happened. Here it is:
CASE ONE: Player B Folds
POT SIZE: P+2 (pot size at beginning of round, plus your bet and Player A's call)
YOUR ODDS TO WIN: 37/46 PLAYER A ODDS TO WIN: 9/46 PLAYER B ODDS TO WIN: 0/46
CASE TWO: Player B Calls
POT SIZE: P+3
YOUR ODDS TO WIN: 33/46 PLAYER A ODDS TO WIN: 9/46 PLAYER B ODDS TO WIN: 4/46
So what is different between these two situations? When Player B calls, the pot is one bet bigger, you have four fewer outs, and now he has four outs, whereas he had none before. Thats it.
Hmm. You know what? Here is how I interpret what just happened. When Player B calls, you are, in effect, selling four outs to him, for the cost of one bet going into the pot. Player B is buying four outs. Of course, you have no choice here; when B calls, you have to sell them whether you like it or not. But, regardless of whether there is any choice in the matter, this is what is actually happening: you are selling him some of your outs. (Later on, you may also want to think about what, if anything, Player A 'did' here.)
Now, do you think you made a good sale? The sale price was one bet going into the pot. That's what Player B gave for your sale. But what did you give in return to B? What were your outs worth?
Well, if you happened to sell those outs for *exactly* what they were worth, then your expected value would not change after your "transaction". If we compare your expected value when you don't sell, to when you do sell, we can figure out the fair value of those outs. Let's do the calculation for a general case:
Let N = number of outs you have "available for sale"
U = number of cards as yet unseen
W = amount to be won = pot size (at moment of sale)
S = number of outs being sold
V = value of outs sold = sale price
Your Expected Value prior to sale
EV(1) = W*N/U
Your Expected Value after sale of 'S' outs at price 'V'
EV(2) = (W+V)*(N-S)/U
If EV(1)=EV(2), then you sold your outs for exactly what they were worth. Doing some algebra, we can come up with a formula to determine V, the fair value to you, of your 'S' outs: It is:
V = S*W/(N-S)
(For the special case of selling a single out, the formula reduces to V = W/(N-1))
{Hey, you think maybe with all this naming mania going on lately, I could get this formula named after me? Just kidding! Ahem.}
This formula for the value of those outs to you, the seller, is not the same as the standard pot odds calculation (which calculates the value of those outs to the buyer). Notice that as "N", the number of outs you have, goes down, the value V goes up. The fewer outs you have, the more they are worth. This outcome is similar to Mason Malmuth's calculation showing how, in percentage payback tournaments, the more chips you have, the less each is worth, and the less chips you have, the more each is worth.
Before we go on, notice a couple other things about this formula: First, in a heads up situation, since there are no third party players who "own" any outs, the number of outs N 'available for sale' will equal U, the number of cards unseen, and the formula then reduces to the standard pot odds calculation, as it should. Second, if you somehow had only one out left, the formula shows that (as expected) you cannot profitably 'sell' that out at any price.
Now, if one goes back and applies this formula to Morton's original example, it clearly shows exactly what is happening in those cases where B mistakenly calls with insufficient odds, but you also lose value: yes, B is paying too much for those outs, but you are also selling them for too little.
THIS IS THE ANSWER. Why do you lose value in these situations? You sell outs for less than they are worth to you.
Here it the math:
V = 4*(P+2)/(37-4)
Exactly as in Morton's example, when the pot size P at the beginning of the round is larger than 6.25 bets, you lose value when you sell the four outs to Player B, since the value of your outs will now be worth more to you than the single bet for which you are selling them.
Thoughts? Comments?
There are plenty of obvious examples where a player playing other than he should if he saw eveyone's cards can cost you money as well. His raising with the third best hand when you have the second best hand for instance. His folding a straight draw when you have a flush draw and are against two pair and the pot is big is another example. The Fundamental Theorum was stated simply to illustrate the importance of deception , card reading and not giving your opponent the right price. In the days I first wrote it these ideas were not as widespread as they are now. And it was always clear that multiway situations may not apply.
In introducing the FToP in ToP you compare it to the FToC and FToA. Neither of these is used "to illustrate" anything but rather to state strong fundamentals.
Right after stateing the FToP you say "The Fundamental Theorem applies universally when a hand has been reduced to a context between you and a single opponent. It NEARLY [emphasis added] always applies to multi-way pots as well, but there are rate exceptions, which we will discuss at the end of the chapter."
Did you really mean to come up with a "fundamental theorem" that was just illustrative when you were saying it "nearly always applies"?
Is your last sentence mean to imply this was merely a marketing move to gain attention? If so that isn't all that bad but maybe you should be made more obvious now that you have wider readership.
As with the fundamental theorem of algebra and the fundamental theorem of calculus, the fundamental theorem of poker, there are explicitly-stated hypotheses that must be satisfied in order for the theorem to hold. The fundamental theorem of poker is in fact a statistically accurate algorithm for computing long term expectation from HEADS UP poker play.
One thing to recognize is that even if all of the hypotheses are not satisfied, a theorem's conclusion may still be true in some instances. For example, the fundamental theorem of algebra does not hold if you restrict yourself to real numbers (you need the complex domain to find all of the roots), but there are many polynomials whose roots are all real; similarly, there are times when FTOP holds for multi-way play, even though it doesn't hold for all multi-way play.
By the way, even though FTOP is a correct algorithm for computing long term heads up expectation, it is not the only such algorithm. In fact, there is a more statistically efficient formulation that is consequently more instructive in the short term.
> In fact, there
> is a more statistically efficient formulation that is consequently more
> instructive in the short term.
Can you please elaborate? You've piqued my curiosity.
--Ron
Basically, you combine the fundamental theory of poker with the psychology of poker (in the sense that Sklansky writes about it in "Theory of Poker").
What do you guys do for fun? I read the fundamental theorem and concluded, no shit, if I know what my opponent has I am much better off and vice versa. I can also figure out where I'd prefer ancillary opponents to fold.
In multi-way pots there is a guiding principle: it is better to cost yourself a bet than the pot, when playing is better than folding.
Some time back Ray Zee commented that it if one is playing correctly it is possible to be stuck about 100 big bets. Ray, did you mean 100 BB from your total bankroll over a number of sessions or 100 bb over the course of just one session?
In "Poker Essays" Mason has estimated bankroll requirements to ensure that an ok, good, or excellent player will not go broke. For a good player at 10-20 HE I think it is around $6-7000. He also states that it is possible to run bad for long periods of time. Does this mean that a good player could possibly lose nearly all his bankroll, and be down to just one final buy-in of, say, $500 at the 10-20 level, before things turn and he starts to win again?
I have been playing recreationally for about 1 year and am trying to determine just how bad even really good players can do when playing limit poker to decide if it is worth pursuing further on a more serious basis.
Thanks in advance for any comments, advice.
Brian,
Since you haven't decided to quit your job and take up poker as a full time vocation yet, your need for a bankroll is simply a session by session decision. Playing experience will show you how much you will need to feel absolutely comfortable once you decide to pursue it as a vocation. I've played regularly in games where I had a negative expectation, knowing that I would probably lose some money, but hoping the knowledge gained would, ultimately, result in greater gains from winnings in the future. I now play in some games where 100 big bets would last me a lifetime; I just couldn't lose that much without being cheated by someone at the table.
In limit games, I believe that 500 big bets is adequate for a winning player to withstand variance caused by "running bad". I would certainly feel comfortable playing in a $500.00 buy-in NL Hold'em game with a bankroll of $15,000.00. If my bankroll dropped to $7,500.00 or less though, I'd be doing some real fast soul-searching to make sure that my playing ability against the current lineup had a true positive expectation. When I lose a couple of sessions in a row, I run a diagnostic check on my game to see if I'm changing some critical aspect of my play. If I don't see anything that I can definitely point to, I review the players that I've been facing to find out whether they might have been playing much better than previously. Once my suspicions are aroused I concentrate on my play and on the play of the opposition to try to find where my earn has been diminished or eliminated. Surprisingly, the very act of coming off my routine, auto-pilot, playing style causes me to play better and, usually, results in immediate winning sessions.
As far as whether poker is worth pursuing on a serious basis, I can't help you. If I had used the time I spent fooling around in card rooms for my businesses instead, my bottom line would have been far stronger. I spent plenty of time at my businesses though and poker, for me, was a form of relaxation and enjoyment. If I had known as much about poker then as I do now, my time spent in card rooms over the past 36 years would have yielded results far more positive than those I did get. I've always been drawn to cards and gambling, relishing the time spent competing for money and trying to prevail over my opponents. If you are able to take it or leave it, then you should just give it up and find something that engulfs your being totally. I work as hard today, studying poker and playing it, as I ever did at any job or business. The difference is I am doing this for love of the doing rather than as a means to provide for my family. I hope that you find something that captures you like poker has done with me.
Brian,
I said (meant) you could get stuck 100 big bets in one session. Ive done it a few times but I believe that when playing correctly it is not likely to happen to you. When you are losing more than just a normal amount look closely at your play because it is far far far more likely that you are playing bad than running bad. 300 big bets is enough to know if you can beat the game and enough to keep as your playing bankroll. This is for a full time pro. If you have outside income you can have just a few buyins because you can always get back in later. If you are a strong winning player you should get ahead with a few buyins and never look back if you manage your life well. Good Luck.
Ray --
How long were those sessions in which you got stuck 100 bets?
Paul,
It can only happen when you play long hours (12 and more) and you play bad and the game is such that many early raises go in so you now must go farther on in most hands. You play bad and perhaps you also got unlucky. You play bad and the pots are aggressively contested and did I mention that you need to play bad. In 30 years playing it has only happened a few times. Good Luck.
Here is a real life example for you. I have about 5000 hours of 10-20 holdem in the books and a win rate of close to $30 per hour. This year I had an 80 hour period where I lost $5500. I was playing with the same opponents I have been playing with well over a year. The 700 hours previous to this period my win rate was $32/hr.
Most players could not handle this financially or more importantly emotionally. This is why even winning players disappear over time.
Dan Harrington, in a Forbes magazine interview May 20, 1996, estimated that 99% of PROFESSIONAL poker players eventually lose every penny they make at poker.
I think what he meant was most winning players move up (as they should) to a point where they are playing above their bankroll limitations (as they shouldn't). They are also probably underestimating their competition. This deadly combination along with a bad run leaves them broke and scratching their heads.
As in most endeavors in life you usually only hear about the successes and not the 99% who failed.
This is probably more than you wanted; but the bottom line is try your best, hope for the best, expect and prepare for the worst. Stick to poker part-time to supplement your main source of income.
Losing everything in poker isn't exactly the same as going bankrupt in a regular business. Poker is a service business with almost no fixed overhead. You are the owner and sole employee. You have the option of putting your business on hold until you raise new operating funds without incurring ongoing overhead expenses related to the business. The skill that you bring to your business doesn't necessarily diminish during your forced hiatus, and it is the one true asset of it. Some players have more skill at raising playing capital than they do at playing; they seem to always be "in action" though not usually winning.
All professional poker players have lost their bankrolls on at least several occasions. All current poker professionals must have solved that problem. The trick is to be able to make a living from your poker winnings between the periods of catastrophic losses. I believe there are many players whose bankrolls have grown so large, relative to the size games that they play, that they will never be jeopardized by their playing.
There is another category of player to whom poker is a sideline, whose winnings merely supplement their earnings. These players need have no fear of losing their poker bankrolls since they have outside sources of bankroll rejuvenation. These players, most of whom are free of the pressure of needing to win in order to maintain a reasonable standard of living, collectively represent the greatest source of danger to the working professional. They are free to play in the games they think will afford them the most fun or best return or in one that presents the greatest challenge to their skills. Since they don't need to earn, they can get up and leave when the game isn't good. Often, their skills at poker match or exceed those of the typical peofessional player.
In the very top echelon, poker players are somewhat stable, but the journeyman level of play features a bevy of players whose lives are in chaos and whose careers hang by the results of today's result. This group is the most vulnerable to the highly skilled and aware "amateur".
This is only my observation, but it has been made after more than 35 years of being around California card rooms. I'm not good enough to ever be top echelon, and don't choose to be a journeyman.
I normally play 20-40 ~ 25hrs a week. It is my only revenue. My bankroll is 500BB. Last month, I made ~ $15000. and last week I lost ~ $10000. During my previous play, for each session, i lost as low as -$2500.00 and win as high as $6000.00. Because last week I went to Las Vegas and then to McEvoy tournament and blow up $10000., I decided to take a week off and think about what i need to do to get back in the winning circle. During the month of October, i lost one session only. In November, i lost 6 sessions out of 9. I did lost my bankroll 3 years ago at my regular game of 30-60. Actually, i never beleived in bad beat back then. My bad beat periods last over 3 months.Also, back then, poker was not my principal revenue. Today, it is. Over a week ago, i realized i was going through the same thing i experienced back in 95. So I decided to take a week off vacation and let things cool down. Loosing your bankroll not only affect your money but also your level of confidence. And that, is the killer!! So, i beleive, 500BB in my case is sufficient because i do recognize when to take a break because i now beleive in bad beat periods. By taking a week of vacation i did not loose my level of confidence, i lost only the money. And starting next Tuesday, i will be back to the drawing board and start recovering all my lost for November within 2 weeks there-after. And if, i am still getting bad beats, then i will take a month vacation. But one thing is for sure, i will not loose my bankroll. So, the bottom line is 500BB is good for me. For you, it may be less or more. It all depends on your experience. Good luck.
Who are you people? And, where in the universe do you play poker anyway? I play in Montana and the people here never enertain a serious thought. I play with people who play poker every day and not a one of them ever thinks deeper than their groain.. Where do you come up with this crap. Do you think that your apponients really have a brain or what? Where do you play poker?...Louie, Ray Zee, Big John, what are you fat?, Mason Malamouth, David Slamski. Joe Prey Nardo, OOh I am scared. Looser Landel. Who the hell thinks this much and actually wins? Not you guys If you won you wouldn't be so manic obsessive about your game. Get a live. Get a job. Win and get off the internet.
you are absolutely right, you found us out, now i'm on my way to get a live, bye.
I'm glad you have a sense of humor.
What happened? Did she cut you off for losing the rent money again?Don't take it out on us.
"Get a live" you mean get a live one ? Me no understand !!! Me no speak english so goood ! What is the language in Montana ??? Is it part of the USA ???
"Hey "You Lose!" I too play poker in Montana and I take offense at your remark that people here up in big sky country don't think about much. Hell, just yesterday I thought about takin' out the trash for awhile. Then I thought some more and said to myself, "hell it would be easier to go play poker and make some money off of the BRAIN CHILDREN than it would be to take out this here trashbag." So I went out and won a couple hundred. Then I hired my neighbor kid, (a computer nerd of course) to take my trash out.
Doc-
Okay, yaah. I dig the trash thing. People are makin fun about me not bein' able to spel. But hay. It don't take a brain to be a consistant poker winner. Just guts and more money than brains. Don't you agrie. Also I lernt that loose is saposta be spelt lose. Thanks to Doc.
Good point!
Here is how a person wins on a consistent basis. Learn all you can from the books, videos and crap than have your head stuck into a blender and have that ol' blender whirl all that knowledge back out and into a king sized garbage bag, then take that ol' bag out to the shed and dump it. Then- take a big bunch of money and a big bunch of ball against the walls to your local card room and wing it until you have made your daily pay.
Party on k-man. Doc-
>>People are makin fun about me not bein' able to spel. But hay. It don't take a brain to be a consistant poker winner. Just guts and more money than brains.<<
Hey, go easy on yourself. Don't worry about the spelling. It's clear enough what you mean. And you're right - with guts and more money than brains you *will* be a consistent poker whiner!
John Feeney
You,
Thanks to your post, I've had an epiphany. Once I find, purchase and don suitable rainment, I shall journey to Montana and seek you out. I long to sit in your game and watch you win pot after pot, thinking only with your groin.
I've already modified my playing strategy from the wisdom I've gleaned from your post; If it is limp, I fold, tumescent, I call, hard, I raise, and Diamond Cutter, I'm going all in!!!! Thank you for this pearl you cast upon this swine who is unworthy of receiving it. Soon, under your tutelege, I will become the player that I've always hoped to be. Leave a light on for me Master, I'm heading to Big Sky Country.
You devoted disciple,
Big John
Where the hell is Montana? Is it in Europe? Besides to think you have to have a brain and spell just a little bit correctly. Is it true that Montana has a lot of sheep to keep you happy at night? Oh yes one last request, if you what to spout crap at least do it on RGP and not here.
Watch it predator, I am from Montana. See my post above if you are interested in the real story, which is actually a lot like you would guess.
I mean no harm to you
I just have two comments:
1. Youlose pointed out that only idiots live in Montana. (His conclusion not mine.)
2. Ray Zee lives in Montana.
Ray Zee is the official Montaner Bananer. An expert goatsman and sheepherder. One time next door neighbor of the Unibomber. (Ray used to help him with his rabbits.) He makes and sells arts and crafts designed from goat leavings. Once in a blue moon he will come down from the high hinterlands and visit with the common people leaving his sheepskin hat behind. We all love seeing and talking with Ray and regale in his many stories of hunting and feasting. We then tell him how much we have missed his pleasant countenance while noticing the tell-tale sings of sheep droppings on his shoes. By this time we have coaxed him into a big action side game whereupon he starts relieving us of some of our hard earned dough. Ray Zee...the best sheepherding poker player in Montana.
Hookt on fonics werkt fer meee.
I not loose, I tight.
I am a good Blackjack player and have spent my fair share of time in casinos. I count cards and even track the shuffle as much as one person realistically can. All in all, Blackjack is good to me for small stakes and I am confident that I can beat that game... But, I am bored with it.
Recently, and for the first time I might add, I bought into the 3/6/12 game. It varied between hold'em and omaha hilo split. Frankly, I think that I am hooked. I love how much subtle complexity poker seems to have.
The problem is, I am a loser at poker, and as fun as the game is, I'd like to start winning.
Not only that, I'd like to know if it is possible to really win at as consistent and predictable rates as is possible in blackjack. Don't get me wrong, I don't think anybody wins fortunes playing blackjack and I know that it happens in poker, but in poker, the math is so much more messy.
In BJ, it is easy to figure out how much I should be winning, along with exact values for risk of ruin based on bankroll size and bet spread, etc...
Poker is a bit harder to analyze (well, what do I know really, but it seems that way to me right now) and it seems to involve a lot more diverse array of skills than BJ.
Anyways, I was hoping that some of you poker gurus out there could give me some insight as to the expectation and bankroll requirements of a serious poker player. I am a small stakes guy at BJ but am quite sure I can grind out about five bucks an hour. Is that possible in my near future playing low limit poker? How much bankroll is required to play the 3/6/12 game or even the 5/10 game? How big does a person have to play to make 10 or 20/hr at poker?
Really, I'd be very interested in any comparisons between poker and BJ at all.
As a side question, I know that with regards to blackjack, there are really about two or three books which pretty much say all that needs to be said. This is how it is with any subject in my experience, and I'd like to know what the books to get with regards to poker are (specifically hold'em and omaha limit games)
I was thinking I'd get Sklansky's 'theory of poker' and the advanced hold'em and advanced Hilo split books by two plus two publishing. If I get advanced hold'em, do I really need to get Sklansky's hold'em poker book first?
Regards, Initiate
Hi! I'll tell you how I learned to make good $$$$ playing poker. I went out and got my wallet (ass) whipped to the tune of 5-7 grand over a period of a year or two. Then I started making $$!!
No book, no instructions from anyone can take the place of experience.
Play low limit games. Lose some hard earned money. Find out why the table beats you and then use this info to beat them. Good luck. Doc-
> I was thinking I'd get Sklansky's 'theory of poker' and
> the advanced hold'em and advanced Hilo split books by two > plus two publishing. If I get advanced hold'em, do I > really need to get Sklansky's hold'em poker book first?
These are excellent books. Although, I'd recommend focussing on one game at a time, either Hold'em or Stud, and getting reasonbly good at that before branching out. Don't get me wrong, it's important to be diversified in the poker games one plays, but I recommend concentrating on getting to the break-even level at one game before moving on to the next.
As for the Hold'em books, I believe you can easily jump into Advanced Hold'em if you're fairly familiar with the concepts of poker. If you're a novice to the game as a whole, you may want to read something more introductory first. Remember, these books are, as the titles suggest, fairly advanced.
As someone who has played both poker and blackjack, while it's obvious that you understand how much harder it is to be a winning poker player than blackjack player, every BJ player I've known who has made the transition to winning poker player has remarked on how much more work it was than they thought it would be. It's a much more complex game, but also a lot of fun to not be hated by the casino staff.
Hope this helps. Good luck.
Get Theory of Poker. This is the one book you want to read over and over. I don't own any of the introductory holdem books so I couldn't comment which is best. But if you're brand new to the game, HFAP is not the right book for you.
As for expectation, poker doesn't scale like BJ. You can't apply a year's worth of learning, raise your stakes and all of a sudden be making $50/hr.
As for consistency, I don't have any math to back this up, but I do certainly get the impression that BJ players expectations are for greater consistency than poker players. It can sometimes take a long time to get to the long run in poker.
Having said all that, poker IS a much more interesting game than BJ, and it sounds like you'll be happy learning it. Part of the hook is that unlike BJ, your opportunity for learning new stuff and improving never trails off. Good luck.
JG
I disagree with most of what you said.... First of all, while poker may not scale as well as blackjack, it also is much more profitable for a given bankroll size. You need a very large bankroll to make $50/hr playing blackjack, whereas a good middle-limit poker player can make that kind of money with a bankroll that is reasonable.
To make $50/hr playing blackjack, you will see regular swings of $1500/hr or more. To do the same in poker, the swings will be more on the order of $500/hr. So while poker may not scale as far as blackjack, it scales faster.
Second, the long run in blackjack is MUCH longer than it is in poker; this is related to the much higher variance as indicated above.
Dan
Iniatate, you're in the exact same boat as me, I'm tired of maintaining the "act" while grinding out my 1% edge on BJ.
I started poker a short time ago and have about 200 hrs. in and I agree with Dan. One thing that happens with Poker is that occassionally you'll play against a couple of fish who play horroribly and you'll almost always make money. In BJ, the dealer never hits a 19.
One problem I've come to realize on the difference, is that unlike BJ, where you can increase your stakes with "house money," Sometimes when you move up in stakes at Poker, you'll get slapped hard by better players.
I've read about 6-8 poker books and the most helpful for HE were HPFAP and Silberstein's book.
I am a relative novice in poker; playing home games but taking it seriously. I am not a novice in blackjack and am a fine counter. The key issue to me seems to be the relative frequency of unbeatable cheating. Cheating by the dealer or someone who manipulates the cards themselves (as opposed to signalling, flashing cards, etc.) is unbeatable. Cheating in blackjack is by definition unbeatable, since the house controls the cards and has a direct interest in the outcome of the game. Once you are a known counter you are screwed. I would bet that your blackjack game is known -- the casinos are not unsophisticated gamblers -- and you are seeking a game of skill which is beatable. Good luck.
The interesting thing is, that while my blackjack game is known, the casino is not going to stop me from playing.
I play blackjack in Western Canada, and all of the casinos up here are gov't operated charity places that nobody really makes any money off.
Couple this with the fact that I play a four deck game that the pit bosses think is unbeatable and you get a card counters paradise. ...or is it?
Sometimes I think that half of the real fun of card counting would be having to evade casino personnel and steaming my bets and all sorts of other camoflage. I don't have an act.
The first while that I went into the casinos, I was really paranoid but it didn't take long to realize that they would never 86 me no matter what I did, especially at the stakes I play. I currently use a spread of 2-25 but I think I'm going to start going 2-50 or even higher. I know my risk of ruin is going to go through the roof, but like I said I am bored. maybe I'd even get some attention from the pit?
Peter Griffin in his 'Theory of Blackjack' actually makes a reference to Alberta and how much more sporting the casinos up here are. (just as a side note, I'd be remiss if I didn't state that this is the best blackjack book ever written by about a factor of ten)
Anyways, the quote that he gives is an official policy statement from the Alberta gaming control board:
"Any player who obtains an honest advantage over the house through a playing strategy is not comitting a crime of any kind... Gaming supervisors should see that no steps are taken to discourage a card counting player simply because he is winning" (thats probably not the exact quote as I am reciting from memory buts it's close)
The game up here is a hard one to beat being four decks and all, but in a lot of ways is actually very exploitable. The most obvious reason is the bet spreads that I can get away with but other factors are a very consistent 75%pen. on the cut card, and an easy non random order four pick zone shuffle that is great for tops and bottoms tracking. I can almost always cut small cards out of play and it is easy to get the cut card all the time if I want it.
This is going to sound unbelievable, but there have actually been times when I've told friends that they should bet big because the count was good. I know that dealers have heard me and I am reasonably sure that a few pit bosses have also.
This is all great, I know, but like I say, it may also be my problem. Not much fun if I don't at least get to feel like what I'm doing is bothering the casino. It's an ego thing I guess.
Poker is just a change I think I'd like to make. I'll probably lose money for a while. I'm getting that impression already but I can accept that. I'm willing to learn and I think that is all that it comes down to.
Thanks to everybody who responded to my initial post. I hope to post more questions and comments on this board in the future as I continue to get whipped in poker by the same idiots (or so I thought!) who laughed at me for splitting nines and hitting 12v2.
Regards to all, the Initiate
Ah, you're in Western Canada... So am I.
Are you familiar with the new rules in Alberta regarding surrender and Double After Split? The rules now give you early surrender against a ten, and LS against an ace. If you've read Griffen, you know what this means...
I used to be be a serious blackjack player here, and I agree with you about the quality of the game. Some casinos even offer a $2-$100 game, giving you a 50-1 bet spread with no heat. Still, I moved to poker a long time ago. The profit is better, the game is far more enjoyable, and the bankroll swings are much more reasonable. My profit playing 5-10, 10-20 and 15-30 is much, much higher than it ever was playing blackjack. In "Professional Blackjack", Stanford Wong quotes a typical value for standard deviation of around $450/hr in order to make a win rate of $15/hr. (of course, this depends on the rules, penetration, etc. The introduction of surrender cuts variance quite a bit).
Good poker players usually have a win rate of somewhere between 1.5 and 2.0 big bets per hour in the lower limit and middle limit games, with a S.D. of perhaps 15 BB/hr. So, if you start off playing 5-10, you might expect a win rate of $15/hr, while your standard deviation will only be $150/hr.
One word of advice: Stay away from the Alberta Stud games. The 1-5 stud game has a rake of 10% to a maximum of $5.00, making this game nearly unbeatable. The rake in Holdem is fixed at 5% to a maximum of $5.00. This is still pretty high for 3-6, but becomes more reasonable for the 5-10 and 10-20 games.
When the Alta gov't introduced those new rules, I could have danced for joy. I figure that my basic strategy disadvantage went from about .7% to as low as .4%.
That probably doesn't sound very good to a lot of Vegas single deck players, but it sounds great to me.
Like you said in your post, I have read griffin and I know what those rules mean to a card counter. With a huge spread like I play, my adv. could be as high as 1.5% (maybe higher, it's hard to figure what effect shuffle tracking has exactly).
My only wish is that it was easier to backcount up here. Other players get so upset with me for jumping in during the middle of a shoe that it just isn't worth it. I tried just betting behind other players when I wanted to jump in, but nobody plays their hands correctly and it still isn't worth it.
One thing that I think you are wrong about though is the LS vs the Ace. I thought that with no dealer hole-card, a player couldn't surrender to the ace at all. Still, early surrender on the ten is nothing to complain about and I'll take whatever I can get.
It's interesting to hear that you play poker in Western Canada. That's another thing that I was wondering about. How good are the players up here? Where are the best games?
The casino I usually play at only offers a 3-6-12 and a 5-10 game on a regular basis, as well as the occasional pot limit game. It is almost always dealers choice which is a big reason why I don't just want to start learning one game only. I figure that I'll have to get good at Hold'em, AND Omaha if I want to make any money at all.
I am not sure if it is acceptable to ask exactly where you play at. I know that the boys over at Wong's Blackjack page would have a fit if I asked that sort of thing. Poker seems different though (I notice most of the players on this message board actually use their names) and I'd be interested to hear which casinos you play at.
Regards, the Initiate.
I play in Edmonton.
Several casinos here have added 'peekers' to the BJ tables, and at those tables you have LS against an ace. Surprisingly, they still offer ES against a ten, when they no longer have to. Great game. Penetration is often as good as a half-deck, too. And, the Alberta shuffle is a single-pass zone shuffle, which is easily trackable.
On average, the poker players are pretty bad. On any given night, there are usually only one or two winning players at the table, and the rest are pretty bad.
Tonight I flopped quad 10's in Omaha. I bet the flop, and 8 players called. There was a two-flush on the board. On the turn, I bet again and 5 players called. The flush came in on the river, and I bet again and I was paid off by 3 players, one of whom didn't even have a flush (he had an overpair), and the other two had non-nut flushes. This is horribly bad play in Omaha. Mind you, this was a low-limit game (3-6), and the players are even worse than they are in 5-10 and up.
The bigger games (10-20, 15-30, and pot limit) have a tougher mix of players, but there are almost always at least 3 or 4 weak players in the game, which is all you need to beat the game if you're a solid player.
Dan
That is good to hear. I play in Lethbridge, but in the next week or so will be moving north to Vermilion.
I am going to try to make as many weekend trips as I can to Edmonton, especially now that I hear LS is offered against the ace.
As for poker, I don't think I even qualify as a mediocre player, but hopefully I'll get my act together enough to beat those small stakes games.
Really, for right now I'd just be satisfied with even play on the poker tables. If there are as many bad players as you say there are (and I believe you -I think it's probably just as bad down here) then maybe Edmonton could be a painless learning environment.
You never know, I might see you there.
Many thanks, the Initiate
If you send me private E-mail (danh@planet.eon.net), I'd be glad to give you specifics about the various casinos, with respect to playing conditions both in blackjack and poker. And if you're in town, I'd be glad to chat about it.
Dan
My experience with BJ has been a never ending quest to find a game where they weren't cheating on a regular basis. The best one I ever found was the old Sundance casino in downtown Vegas. They would only tolerate a 1-3 spread but it was single deck with good rules so it was very beatable. I just played it $10 to $30 and occasionally took a hand off if the count was particularly bad. Does anyone know of a decent place in Las Vegas? Circus Circus seemed to cheat the least but I noticed some there as well. But as others have mentioned, BJ is a pretty boring game anyway. I wouldn't play it to try to make serious money, but I'd like to find a game that I could play for entertainment value without feeling like I was getting raped. The Mirage had a workable three deck machine. Caught a lot of crap from the pit bosses but managed to beat that for pretty good money one month (around $4,000 using an outrageous spread of $5 to $200 in three weekend trips). They promptly took those bad boys down for "repairs". I had also noticed numerous card counters working it for more serious money, one was going at up to 1k per hand. When they brought them back I couldn't beat them anymore, and I saw no signs of any other card counters even trying. That's what got me going on poker. I figured that it's just got to be easier to take money from other people than from casinos.
"Always have outs... "
Not being a blackjack player myself, I hedged with
"I do certainly get the impression that BJ players expectations,"
that is I took no personal position about the relative variances. I merely commented on what I perceive BJ players perceptions of swinginess to be, a point slightly reinforced by the original poster.
In the poker games wherein I make $50/hr, my s.d. is approximately $400. You say the swings can be $1500/hr. Are you referring to s.d. or worst-case? A quick check of my records for 98 reveals my largest swing hours for 20-40 holdem were +1650 and -965. Certainly a comparable order of magnitude if we're talking endpoints. If the variance for blackjack at comparable win rates is greater, I stand corrected; thanks. Mason, if you've written on the relative merits of the two games, interject here.
I'm not sure if we're in dispute about my main point, which was that you cannot just "raise the stakes" and start beating games for $50/hr after one year of play. After one year of play, a player will not be the best player in a 20-40 game. To make $50/hr playing poker may require a smaller bankroll than to do so in BJ. But the novice player just isn't going to have the skill necessary to do as quickly.
Finally, I hope we're not in dispute about the value of T.O.P.
Regards,
JG
In a recent issue of Arnold Snyder's BLACKJACK FORUM I wrote an article that compares poker to blackjack. It's in the "Gambling for a Living" issue that came out at the end of last year.
Read Lee Jones Winning Low limit Holdem. Then play some - reread it - play some more. PLay 3-6 and also play BJ if your bankroll and locale allows it. Don't expect to be a winning player just from reading the book, you won't apply everything (most likely) if you do you are very disciplined and/or very good. Anyway, BJ and poker are very different games. By the way you may ignore all this and get into stud if you have a very good memory 7stud counting cards (going out*) is very important so will have an instant edge !! P.S.* What I mean paying attention to other player's cards as the cards relate to your own drawing hand, as they fold you have to remember what is folded if you are still drawing.
I used to be an expert Blackjack player. I even made a living on it in Europe. I was barred for life at the Lowes in Monte-Carlo. I wrote a French book on Blackjack which is published all over Europe, Africa, Quebec in Canada. Yes, I am a counter and I beleive the counters are those who loose the most money in Blackjack. It takes more than counting cards to live on Blackjack. 3 years a go I quit playing Blackjack regurlarly and I mainly focused on Poker. That's where you can make a living. I play $20-40 Hold-Em, $10-200 spread limit regurlarly in the Bay area. Yes I only play poker for a living. I believe you need to read a few books, study every day, play everyday and expect to pay your dues before you become an expert poker player. One thing for sure, if you study the following books, it will cost you less money. But do expect to pay your dues. I have read many Poker books and I will recommend you the following as a start: Super System from Doyle Brunson Mason Malmuth and David Slansky poker's books The 12 lessons in Hold-em by Mike Caro. Focused on becomming an expert in one game to start with. I have been focussing on Hold-Em for the past 3 years. And yes I do play once in a while other poker games because it does help me think about the game at end. Quit Blackjack and start poker. It is so much more fun. Not like the mechanical game of Blackjack. Good Luck
Maybe everytime you post what you think-someone will use this info against you at a table someday.
Also, some so called expert, may be giving the new guy on the block a buncha' bad advice just to get him hooked on playing badly.
I read a lot of posts and I find most of it is very inaccurate and bookish. It takes basic poker knowledge to play good poker but the real winners are those who use every trick that IS NOT in the books to win. Thoughts? Doc-
First, you're assuming that there are available ways of matching names from here to faces. It's true in some cases but not in general. And in my experience where I do find myself at a table with a known poster, their messages give information just as reliable or unreliable as what you get from playing against a bunch of regular opponents. I've found no big differences.
Second, anyone who is serious about poker should question everything, *everything*, he or she reads or hears. (I believe that non-poker players should do this also.) Automatic appeals to authority are dangerous at the table. Back when I wanted to learn poker, but didn't even know what a raise was, I picked up Silberstang's book. Did I apply his advice blindly? No way!
--Ron
I couldn't agree with you more Ron! Good point! Doc-
I very much agree with the post saying to question everything you read. While discarding bad advise is obviously beneficial, so is validating good advise.
I doubt anybody here is routinely giving bad advise ON PURPOSE.
By far most of what you need to know is covered in the books. These extra "sticks" are nice, but only icing. And, these "sticks" almost always fall into general categories as outlined in the books.
But sticks are important, so please share yours with us from time-to-time.
- Louie
I've considered what you've said Doc. Actually, Mason has covered your concern. He has said in effect, in order to be a significant winner, you must do everything well. I realize this is a book answer, and I hope it doesn't perpetuate your conspiracy theory.
My experience has been that few players understand the books, specifically applying the information contextually.
I have started reading poker messages only since yesterday. I have found out that yes there are good and bad advices and this is fine because I take the time to evaluate them based on my poker knowledge and experiences. These evaluations makes me a better poker player.
A classic three-way confrontation occured during a small no-limit hold'em tourney. We wer down to two 9-handed tables, with four places being paid. I was in decent stack-shape, with T2500. This was good for fourth place at my table, with 4 small stacks, two large ones, and the rest at roughly the same size as mine.
The blinds are 100/200 and I pick up two black Kings under the gun. I make it 600 to go. This is my standard raise, until it gets down to pure survival time, which I don't think we have hit yet. It is folded around to the big stack (about 6,000 high), who is one off the button. He flat calls the 600. This guy is a very aggressive, and tricky player, so this call concerns me a bit given our relative position and stack sizes. The player on the button, who has about 2000 in chips, also calls. Both blinds fold. I am not feeling that great to have two agressive players in the pot with position over me who can knock me out of the tournament. I almost hope to see an Ace flop so I can get off the hand.
The flop comes 9-7-5, with two diamonds. I am first to act and there is 2100 in the pot. Believe it or not, I actually think for a second about CHECKING, because I am not sure I have the best hand. However, if I check, the big stack is going to make a move and I won't be able to live with myself if he pushes me off of a winner. Trying to conceal my angst, I move my stack in with confidence. I know I am dead when the big stack raises all-in and the button calls.
Would anybody out there get off these kings in this spot or am I a big wimp for even thinking about it when my only concern was a "gut" feeling? I had never seen this guy slow play Aces before, but he is certainly capable of it.
If they are too aggressive and tricky then I would be tempted to encourage this behavior, and check-raise all in. In this case, you could have let it go when the button either calls or raises.
By betting, you are denying them the chance to play bad.
At this point you don't want them to play bad except as calling when they should'nt. Mike 7 is at a survival stage here. After that flop the only thing to do is to go all in. Personally I would have raised more before the flop. Hopefully we can here from "YouLose" and see what his punk opinion on this is!
Predator-
What is your thinking when you raise with KK before the flop here? Are you looking to double through or are you looking to win the T300 blinds?
My goal at this stage with AA or KK is to induce a rerasie from the very aggressive players so that I can move in and double through and not have to face a tough post-flop decision if an Ace falls.
The regular tourney players in my game are very aggressive at this stage. If I put in a BIG (say 5x the BB) raise from UTG, the better players will put me on a big Ace or a medium pair like TT through QQ, so I am only going to get "good" action from QQ or possibly JJ. With a more modest raise, I may get underpairs to play back at me or get calls from AK or AQ in late position that can be trapped for the rest of their stack on the flop if their paint hits.
At this point It's okay to pick up a small pot if no one calls the raise. What I meant by raising a little more is that I'm now commiting myself to the pot once the flop comes. I just have to hope a A dosen't hit or that no one is holding a A. If however no one calls the raise then that's okay. My style is something I call super selectively aggressive as opposed to just super aggressive. It has served me well in Florida but I was hoping it would in A.C. I will have to wait till next year.
Sometimes you lose with that hand. You played it correctly no matter the result. I've lost a lot of chips in NL tourneys with KK, but not as many as I've won with them. I'd much prefer to be all-in with KK as an overpair to a rag flop than with some of the trash I've found myself holding with all my chips out in the center.
Here's a hand I played last night in a $30-$60 hold 'em game at Bellagio. I had only been in the game for a few minutes. An unknown plyer raised in middle position, a live player on his left called, a solid player in the small blind call, and I called out of the big blind with 10d9d. The flop came KdQdQc. Notice that I have flopped a gut-shot straight flush draw. The player in the small blind checked, I checked, the original raiser bet, the player on his left raised, the player in the small blind called the raise, and then it was my turn. What do you think I should have done and how do you like the way I played the hand so far?
I think that I would have Re-raised, My thinking is that when you check raise after the flop this may push some of the limpers out leaving you heads up with the original bettor. I guess sort of a semi-bluff, the original bettor has not seen me play so he is also in an information disadvantige. If the original bettor caps the bet the I put him on pocket kings or queens. My only out to win this pot is the stright flush (if in fact he has pocket Q or K or KQ). Not knowing this player and just having sit down makes it hard to decide what to do, but he has not seen me play, so he is in the same situation. Why did he raise pre-flop? and what has he showen down? Information I don't have, but if I could have gotten him heads up I think thats how I would have tried to play it. Its what I would do, but I have had 10 min. to think about it. But on the spot I may have folded. Let me know what you think about my play on your hand.
Walleye
What about the solid player who in the LB? Your analysis doesn't consider him; I think he is the problem here.
In response to your question,here is my opinion. I would at this point release this hand. You would only be sure of winning if you got the straight flush. At this point based upon your description of the play you are probably up against a set and maybe a full house.
As far as your play pre-flop I think that you probably did the right thing by just calling, especially since you have no information about the unknown player. What would concern me is the solid player in the SB as well as the "unknown". Once the flop hits and now you hear from the live player with a raise and the SB calls, you really do have a decision to make! Forgetting at the moment that you have a gutshot straight flush draw, do you figure to win if the flush hits? It's possible that the solid SB has AQ, and maybe even KQ and he is just smooth calling just to trap everybody. The unknown might be on Big Slick, and the live player could be on anything and bluffing, or maybe even QJs. Assuming that you are not already drawing dead (except for the one out straight flush), do you figure your flush (or straight) to hold up if it hits? Seems like you have the correct implied odds to draw, but what bothers me is that the board is paired, and flushes (or straights) don't do well against full houses. Even if you do catch your flush or straight you are definitely in bad position to get more information about your opponents hands. I'd give it up. This might not be the right play, but you just sat down a few minutes ago and you have only invested $60 pre-flop and if you continue to the river you will invest at least another $180 (assuming no more raises)on a draw that might give you a silver medal.
When the small blind called a double bet after the flop with you behind him still to act, ( and a possible re-raise from the original bettor) I would think your hand has few outs. probably the JdXd is out against you, or the AdXd. So lets say your flush is good 60% of the time
Also the little blind can't fear a set too much, because even if he thinks the raiser would slow play a set he needs to worry about the bettor, with the flop as it is even a moderate player would bet right out rather then slow play a set as the flop will almost certainly give someone a draw at something.
The only hand the little blind might have that you can beat come show down is smaller diamond suited connectors.
The Jack to make your straight is a loser to A 10 maybe 15% of the time , so I think that of the 12 outs you have (.85*3)+(.6*8)+1= 8.35 outs.
But since you will lose several more bets the times you get there and lose it just doesn't add.
Fold.
The initial bettor
Since you are asking us on how you've played so far. I'm thinking you are having doubts about your play on the Flop. I'm also wondering about the merit of Betting into the Pre-Flop Raiser. Betting might have got the Pre-Folp Raiser to Raise again, and since you have positioned yourself as a threat to Re-raise, the other Players might be forced to Fold or just Cold Call. By checking you have put yourself in the Middle and are most likely to Fold.
If you Bet, get Raised, and Re-Raised you could be able to Fold your hand with confidence. Betting also gives you information on how the Hand will be played on the Turn and River.
CV
I would fold now, though I may have bet out on the flopfor reasons stated by others. Your hand is just too likely to make second place at this point.
Yikes!!! That's a tough decision, all right. I think you should have bet the flop (doesn't this fall under your rule that "if your hand is worth a call, or almost worth a call if someone bets, you should bet yourself to try to pick up the pot")? If you're going to cold call now, you definitely should have bet earlier.
Now let's take a look at the situation at hand. The crucial question is how likely is it that someone will end up with a full house. My approach to that question is going to be: based on the play, guess how many people have at least trips, then do some math to work out the chances that they have a full house.
To take a guess, maybe there is a 20% chance that no one has trips or better, a 50% chance that one opponent does, and a 30% chance that two or more opponents do. The hands which are at least trips that an opponent might have are:
AQ (8 ways they could have it) KK (3 ways) KQ (6 ways) QQ (1 way) QJ (8 ways, but they might have folded before the flop, so let's count it as 6 ways) Qx (but other than the live one, they would probably have folded before the flop. Let's count 6 more ways here.)
Adding it up, there are:
10 ways for them to have a full house or better 20 ways for them to have trips, but 6 of those kill your gutshot.
If we accept all this handwaving as gospel, an opponent with at least trips has a 1/3 chance of currently having a full house or better. Based on the earlier guess about the number of people with trips, we also end up with about a 1/3 chance that someone currently has at least a full house.
I think this suggests that a fold is now indicated, especially since a player with trips could still improve. (How will you like your hand if you catch a flush, and the board pairs again on the end?)
I actually think there are more reasons to fold: 1) Someone might have a bigger flush draw. 2) The small blind's play thus far looks a lot like KQ (he didn't reraise before the flop, and now he is slowplaying) 3) If the live one has, say, Q7, he might get involved in a raising war with a player with a full house, which will not be good for you 4) Since the other players presumably also know that this player is live, they might go to war holding only AQ, and you may decide to fold, even though you are not drawing dead.
There is one good reason to play on: 5) If you *do* hit your straight flush, the upside potential is enormous.
But I just don't think this is enough, and you ought to throw the hand away.
William
William,
You and I must have similar styles because I analyze a situation like this in a similar way. I don't think the live one had a full but the original raiser could have and I think there is a very good chance that the solid player in the small blind was drawing at a higher flush or had a full and was slowplaying. Even though it is impossible to make a detailed analysis like this in the heat of battle, it is well worth it in the long run because situations like this do repeat themselves IMO. The solid player IMO is defining his hand a lot more by his actions in this situation.
Tom Haley
I think this is a good example of the level of analysis the contributers to this forum are bringing to the table. Participating in this forum is worth its weight in gold.
I believe you should get out of this pot now. The flop is scary enough, and the action of the small blind is scarier. I believe you are looking at a one-outer. As far as how you have played it, it is pretty obvious that it would have been raised if you bet and it would be harder to get away from the hand.
In the game I play in, with a lot of agressive players that bet and raise into threatening flops like this, I wouldn't be so ready to believe this, and I am sure you know your players well enough to know if your flush will hold up if you make it.
In my case, I find myself going for these draws too much against my better judgement.
I'm in aggreement with those that say fold. My reason would be the small blind calling. I would have to put him on either a set or the ace of diamonds.You are also facing a re-raise possibly. I think you played it fine by checking since you know there is an aggressive player behind you, and you want to see what develops with this type of scary board as far as getting pot odds, and what the small blind is going to do.Your pot odds are diminished somewhat by the high probability of a set out thereas well.
(without reading other replies, so original blunders are still possible)
> how do you like the way I played the hand so far?
So far you have acted in turn every round and made a reasonable call preflop. I give it a 10.
> What do you think I should have done
I think there is a strong chance you're drawing to 4 cards and perhaps just 1. Mucking looks very powerful here. 1% of the time you might consider making it 3 bets on a bad draw naked steal (this play may have extra equity if you're opponents know you're MM and never do this; JG's opponents have adjusted... ). Tho I rate the probability of this working at about zero. Of course, that 2% of the time the 10d comes you set the table on tilt. :)
JG
I re-raise. There is a good chance of simply picking up the pot. (I've had this happen many times.) These guys ain't got much and with a 12 outer I am going to take the initiative and represent a Queen. I can always reevaluate the situation on the turn or river.
However I can't argue with folding. Just not my style. I'm guessing you threw the hand away.
Perhaps you misunderstand. Two people have put in two bets (on the flop). If you make it three bets the initial bettor might fold but the other players will not.
You are correct I musunderstood. Now it IS a tough decision. I don't like that overcall. Had I led bet the flop I would almost surely call. Had I checked the flop I would ......probably fold. But I would have to stop and think about it.
I throw it away, happy that I didn't put more in the pot before finding out how thin I was probably drawing.
Good play so far but it's gotta hit the muck now.
I tseemed obvious to me that I was against three queens and could already be against a full house. So I threw my hand away.
"I tseemed obvious to me that I was against three queens and could already be against a full house. So I threw my hand away."
...soooooo
...it's not often i encounter "tough decisions" that have obvious answers...
:}
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Albert,
Some of the toughest decisions I make are very obvious. One of the main differences between winning and losing players is that the winning player won't talk himself into taking the worst of it just because he might get lucky. Losing players look for excuses to play hands that they know are dogs to the odds laid by the pot. They want to catch that one or two or three outer and put a bad beat on a better hand. Having discipline is tough.
Because that straight flush card can win you a truly monster pot it could easily be right to call.
My guess is that the call on that flop would pretty effectively tie you to the call on the turn. If you make a flush on the turn you might get whipsawed between the nut flush (non straight flush) and the full house. There are just too many ways to lose a lot with the second or third best hand and only a single 2+% way to make the nuts.
There are so many better situations where you can invest correctly, knowing that you have the best of it, that it seems a waste of available resources to call here and go off on a treasure hunt. David, I can't believe that you would have called here either. Isn't it axiomatic that you should leave the gambling to those who need to?
It seems the only out is the Jd, and with this in mind I would be hoping that I am up against a full house. The implied odds make calling an *option*.
There is $390 in the pot, and it costs $60 to call - but it *could* cost an additional $60 (total $120) to see the next card because of re-raises. I might be inclined to weather the 1:6.5 to grab a monster straight flush over quads/full-house if my call finished the action. But with the potential of further action this round, and the associated diminished odds, I have to fold.
i am with you i would have called
In the situation you described, this is what we call playing weak-tight.
Playing weak tight would be folding when you have positive expectation to call. I felt that my expectation was negative to call. That's not weak tight.
You have positive expectation on weaker flush draws and/or multi-player queens. But you got the straight flush draw. Given the field you got positive expectation.
Unknown raises and lead bets, loose raises (is he loose-aggressive?) and solid calls behind (would he call with a King given the lead bettor and loose raiser and would he reraise with a queen to eliminate you and build a pot?)
As always, your expectation and the correct play is in evaluating your competition.
Mason:
After you folded, how did the hand shake out? Who had what, how did the betting go and who won the pot?
The player in the small blind had KQ and two blanks hit the board.
Your chances of ending up against a full house is very high, so your flush and straight chances are bad.
How much can you make when you catch your Jd straight flush on the turn card?
It costs 1 BB now to call if there are no more raises. There are 7 in there. You need 45 BB to justify the one card out; or 38 more. If all three players go to the river you need over 12BB from EACH of them, just to break even. That's 6BB (5 raises 4-way action) on the turn AND river to almost break even. That's unrealistic, or impossible if there are only 4 raises.
So the question is HOW bad are your flush/straight chances? If a call loses only 1/2BB then your straight-flush pay-offs need to be half as much, or 6BB from each of three opponents; which is unlikely but not impossible.
Would you call 1 SMALL bet in this situation, if you peaked at a Q in the blind's hand and the Jd in a folded hand? Answering this question allows one to better answer the original question.
- Louie
Mason --
I totally agree with your fold. What I don't understand is, why didn't you bet the flop in the first place? In the actual hand, not doing so probably saved you money, but isn't this a +EV semibluff?
William
Before the flop there was a raise and two calls. This indicates that a flop of KQQ is probably going to hit someone so I didn't see any value in betting. In addition, by not betting and watching the action I might get a clue as to how strong the other hands really were. And, after watching the action I was convinced that there was a good chance very strong hands were out.
In general, is it true that with 3 other players, a semi-bluff is not a good idea? I thought it is rarely good to bluff into more then 2 others so the bluff part of a semi-bluff would lose most of its value.
David
William,
To boil it down to a rule of thumb, you shouldn't semi-bluff if you feel there's a strong chance you'll be raised. As Louie L. mentions in another part of the thread, there has to be some realistic chance of winning it right there to make a semi-bluff profitable. When you're likely to be raised that doesn't exist.
Sometimes, if you expect several callers, you might bet a draw for *value*, knowing that there's no chance of winning it right there. Then it's not a semi-bluff. Here too, if your likely to be raised, a bet may no longer be correct. If the raise will knock some players out, then the odds you are getting on your draw are reduced.
To take a shot at David Steele's question too, a semi-bluff doesn't need as good a chance as a pure bluff of picking up the pot immediately. This is because of its added chance of winning by drawing out. Yes, the number of opponents is a key factor in deciding whether or not to semi-bluff. But there are times when it's profitable to do so against several players. It depends on the players, the texture of the board, etc.
John Feeney
Weak play Mason, but I realize you're not used to being up against weak competition unless you don't understand your field.
What's "weak" about folding? "Weak" poker is not betting or raising when you should. "Tight" is not calling when you should. "Foolish" is calling when you should fold, betting when you should check, and raising when you should call or fold; just because you are afraid of APPEARING "weak".
"Solid" is doing what you should. Mr. Malmuth invited discussion on what is the "correct" play; presumably so "solid" players would do it.
- Louie
The reason why it might be OK to call besides the straight flush possibility is that you don't have to lose anymore if you hit your flush! Also there may be no bet on the turn no matter what comes. Put another way, it would be right to call if you were all in but could sneak money on the table. Of course that is not the situation but it may be almost close enough.
Also imagine the IMPLIED TILT ODDS if you suck out the Jd royal flush to beat two full houses or even 4 queens! They will be throwing chips at you, particularly if you are solid player who shoul "know better."
This does not seem like a good situation for a semi bluff, IMO. It is just too likely this flop hit someone. If the flop were 887, 2 diamonds I would agree with the semi-bluff. Thoughts?
Yes. Semi-bluffing has to have some chance to win the pot without a showdown; and some chance to win WITH a showdown; "and" being the key to the play.
But a pre-flop raise, KQQ flop, bet-raise-TightColdCall is a sure sign at least one player has something good enough to pay it off on the river. "Discretion is the better part of valor" applies well here. There are few worse situations to "semi-bluff".
- Louie
MAYBE you could "semi-bluff raise" Axs, AT, or JJ out of the pot and improve the chance your draw wins, AhhHaaaaa!. I sure would like to know what THAT play is really called, besides "pathetic excuse to make a far fetched 'advanced' play". ;)
I was kidding! (Although I might pull this play in a lower limit game just to see some guy blow a gasket if I did hit my miracle card.) I don't think you would be giving up THAT MUCH EV and sometimes even poker can be fun.
This does not seem like a good situation for a semi bluff, IMO. It is just too likely this flop hit someone. If the flop were 887, 2 diamonds I would agree with the semi-bluff. Thoughts?
In the heat of the battle I would have fold immediately. And now that I think about it, I would still fold. Because, i assume the middle position and the next player to have JJ and A-10 or AK. For the small blind to check then to call 2 raises is very powerfull. If he would be scare someone could make a flush or a straigth he would have put in the third bets to get the BB out of the play and hopefully the middle blind in order to play heads-up. He did not. He will do everything in his power to keep his customers in there. The best play for you is to fold. You will loose even if you make your hand.
It seems to me the implied odds justify a call. No one else seems to have read the raiser for a full house. Neither is it likely they would suspect a straight flush. So, if MM hits his hand, the pay off will be immense. If he doesn't, he is out before the large bets and raises begin.
It seems to me the implied odds justify a call. No one else seems to have read the raiser for a full house. Neither is it likely they would suspect a straight flush. So, if MM hits his hand, the pay off will be immense. If he doesn't, he is out before the large bets and raises begin.
Dear Mason, You don't know me but we have played stud once at the Mirage! The only hand we played I had a FOURKING hand against you. On fourth street I might add! Anyway, the way I see this hand is that at this point you can only be sure of one out and because of the way you played so far you should fold. I believe a raise before the flop may have allowed you to effectively check raise the flop. Although I am not sure the pre flop raise would do you any good in bluffing at the pot it would have made the pot big enough with adequate implied odds to allow you to continue calling after the flop. If the situation called for it, a check raise may have increased your chances of winning by driving out a straight draw or the AD(xd or J ns) of diamonds. There is also the possibility that the AD,JD are in one of the other hands, if so he aint goin no where. Though I dont believe anyone is full at this point the possibility exists. Anyway because of the pot size at this point, the bet and raise (with the possibility of another raise and cap) coupled with the almost sure probability that a made hand is needed to win this, I believe your best play is to fold! v/r Vince
I have to confess to all of the forum regulars that I cut my teeth playing hold'em in the legal bar/cardrooms of Montana. Some observations on the makeup of a typical middle limit game:
-2 old time Gardena rocks that will let you steal their blinds for three straight hours but then take losing pocket Aces all the way way to the river despite your reraises with middle set
-2 drunken rednecks that play any two suited cards and then threaten to kick your ass when you check-raise the nut flush an the end against their 7-deuce suited
-3 drunken frat boys/ski tourists who are playing for "fun" with their significant other sitting on their lap
-1 "pro" like you lose who thinks he can rain down chips and blow everybosy off the pot
-1 other solid (if unimaginative) player who is content to stay out of YOUR pots and book a decent gain
As a result, despite that I was playing only by "feel" and employing unsophisticated strategies developed on my own, I was able to average just over 2 big bets per hour. And that was on top of a rake that could best be described as "whatever you can get away with! I would love to revisit those games now that I have some "formal" training. (But I promise to stay out of Ray Zee's pots if he stays out of mine.)
Some other Big Sky tidbits:
1) A lot of games PROHIBITED check-raising (even in holdem.)
2) Kathy Kolberg (I think the same one as the successful tournament player) used to deal and play at a bar in Missoula called Stockman's in the late eighties. She would win all the time, but I was convinced that it was because she was so attractive and that the guys tried to "impress" her with their lack of concern about money.
3) There is an Oxford bar in Missoula that is still open, has had poker games spread since the 1800s, and actually serves fried cow brains for breakfast, which is all pretty cool if you think about it.
I apologize to MM for not putting this on the Exchange, but I thought that the regular posters who responded to youlose would enjoy this.
As someone who lives and plays poker in Montana I find this post not only totally inaccurate but a little funny as well. It is true that Montana has its many flukes such as the Unibomber and the Freeman etc and that the Oxford may still serve cow brains for breakfast but those from Nevada should be real familiar with weirdness. Consider Elvis everything, fake cities within cities and all the glitter and falseness that comes with the NEVADA lifestyle. I lived in Nevada most my life and I have lived in Montana for 10 years. I find many Montana poker games are as tough to beat or as easy to beat as Nevada card rooms. There are good players here and there are bad players. There are good card rooms and card rooms that are real amatuer in every way, just like Nevada. To blatantly compare all Montanans to sheep herders just shows a person's ignorance. Montana has very classy people and yes, there are sheep herders, many who show more class than most and play poker very well. To say we up here in Montana are all sheep herders is like saying all Nevadans are either hookers or mobsters. It is just not true. If you happen up this way and want to find some good games that are professionally run then try The Sawbuck Saloon in Kalispell, the Oxford in Missoula, The Silvertip in Missoula etc. There are some differences in Montana poker though that you do not find in Nevada and the biggest difference is that there is a $300 pot limit. Most card rooms close at 2:00 am and most folks who play regularly win regularly. They take the money off the tourists, just like the Nevadans do. I invite those interested in our state to come on up and enjoy the scenery and good action. It is not Vegas but it can be good and the folks up here are a lot more friendly than the folks down south on a whole. The state is big and card rooms are flourishing. Thanks for the comments and I wish everyone who reads this a full house on your next flop. Doc-
Couldn't have said it better Doc Tom S. From Kalispell
Guys-
Have a sense of humor. I wasn't trying to offend anyone nor did I mention anything about sheep. I am a Montana native that lived there for 22 years, but now live in New York. If you are finding the games tough to beat, you shoule exercise your number one poker weapon- game selection! One should stick to the bars and avoid the card rooms.
In Missoula, the Stockman's Bar always used to have games that were particularly profitable on the weekends. I was always able to beat the game at the Oxford, even though I now know I was a relative novice. In the Bozeman area, the Big Sky ski resort had some games that were unbelievable (about 50% clueless tourists). I'm sure the games have gotten tough since I was there in the late 80s, as they have everywhere. Good Luck. P.S. In the movie Fargo, was the theme of the movie to mock the Minnesotans, or was it to ironically highlight the true close-mindedness of the city slickers who took them all for granted. Please think about it and then reread my post.
I was a great poker player until the FBI raided my game and shot my wife.Damn it!!!!!!
Bad beat, Randy.
I was a good low ball poker player till they took away my wheel.
i played in several locations in july of 98 and had a ball...the games were great... in misu. ... they played a lot of dealers choice... and what got me was a "blizzard"... which is any five suited cards wins everything... and this was for any game called for in the DC game... i found this in several card rooms... i also played in a lot of razz games.. which i hardly have ever seen anywhere else.. spread regularly///
can we play poker
can we play poker
At page 72 of the Theory of Poker, David talks about how it might be desirable to raise a bettor to you right (who you know has you beat and who in fact may reraise) in order to ensure that players behind you will fold rather than cold call two bets. The idea I gather is that by limiting the field, you increase your chances of winning the pot.
I can readily see how the concept would work in games such as stud. But how does it work in games such as hold 'em which has community cards. That is, if the cards I'm looking to hit help me and only me, then how does raising with what I know to be the second best hand improve my chances to win the pot?
In retrospect, maybe I have answered my own question. Perhaps I should make this play when the cards I am trying to hit will make a third player's hand even better than mine. Thus, I would want to raise to ensure that he goes out. Is that it or is there something else I'm missing.
Can anyone provide some concrete examples of this concept at work in hold 'em?
I'm not sure whther this qualifies as a raise with the second-best hand, but here is acommon example:
You flop the nut flush draw to a ten-high board with A7s. If a guy with JT bets out, your raise may cause AK, AQ, and AJ to fold when they would have called a single bet. Therefore, if you hit an Ace instead of a flush, you also win the pot.
Read the fundamental theorem of poker trashing posts further down to understand the importance of limiting the field in the event you have the best hand multi-way. Sometimes raising with the second best hand turns out to be raising with the best hand. BTW, this is the worst information to ever be widely put out and understood.
Can anyone give me a little piece of advice about getting off on the right foot? I tend to get sloppy once in a while when I first enter the game and then, when it's too late, I find myself in deep water trying to swim out.
Is there a trick the experts use to always make sure they start off on the right track. When I start well I usually do MUCH better.
My problem I guess is that I usually get a couple of gambling type hands that either get me off big winner or big loser. Or I may tend to bluff too much. Any advice appreciated.
I carry a rabbit's foot to ensure getting off to the right "foot". Consult your local spirtualist for more info.
Play real tight in the begining.
Some will say I am nuts ;-) but I have studied a type of NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) that deals with mental states. All highly performing athletes and even traders use 'state management'. If you go to the Cardroom always check your inner intentions and your state. Your state should be of a winning poker expert (even if you played for the second time). If your inner intentions is to 'play' i.e. gamble or to see people - go to Vegas or expect that you may not win. Also if you are upset, angry, anxious either take control (CHANGE YOUR STATE) or go to the movies. I am the humble disciple of Tony Robbins (who charges a cool $100K to consult with the top people in their fields). Take my word for it this will not hurt you to check out.
This is what the major battle in poker is... the battle against yourself. if you find that you are unable to control yourself as far as waiting for profitable starting hands, or you push your hands way to far, and you can't easily stop this with self talk, then you might not be suited to play gambling games.This isn't meant as a put down, but some people have a difficult time adjusting. Only you know how severe this problem is. goodluck
You need to understand that many of the hands that you play are not hands that are favorites to win the pot, but are hands that have a statistical overlay. This is particularly true in a loose hold 'em game. That is you want to play hands that are let's say a 5-to-1 shot but for which you will be getting something like 7-to-1. However, you could easily play several of these hands in a row and lose every one of them. Thus you find yourself stuck in the game.
This happens to all good players and is frequently the pattern of play. There are many nights where I am losing but finally win that one big pot and it makes me a winner. You need to understand that this is common and that you should not let it upset you and cause you to play poorly.
well most good players will play very tight until they win there first hand wait for an aa, kk, ak i know that might be awhile but if nothing happens your in the perfect position to steal an ante......when your last to act with only with no raises put in a raise....there is a good chance you will win the ante and the blinds.......also bluffing is just one of the tools in poker....don't do it too much because once someone catches on it can cost you and in a loose game were lots of people call and even raise a bluff will not work at all
When you first sit down at a table don't be so concerned with getting a jumpstart, as with learning the cast of characters. Watch every hand; watch how everybody acts. Sacrifice a couple of blinds. Don't go into battle before your properly postioned. Its not a bad idea to wait for type 1 cards as you contemplate destroying every player in sight. Good Luck.
Ya, this has worked for me particularly when I'm at a new (for me) cardroom. The last 3 or 4 times I've been to Vegas and played 20/40 at the Mirage, I have on each occasion played super-tight for the first hour or so. I have sacrificed blinds during that time but I used the time to get a feel for the game and try and get a line on the players.
The initial hour or so of supertight play also helped me when I changed gears and started getting into the action. In fact, during the second hour, I was able to more than recoup the cost of my sacrificed blinds by stealing blinds on my own (after all, when I finally did put in a few raises, some of the players probably played me for a rock raising with nothing but the nuts given that I had not entered a pot for so long).
In short, I agree with Merle's advice particularly when playing in a strange environment.
I'm curious as to how you would play this hand and this particular flop in a tourny? I know many people that would go all-in with Mason's hand. I wonder if it would be correct? I personally would fold to such action. Any thought? Thoughts from Youlose don't count!
MM's post got me thinking about the subject of protecting blinds. When I first started playing HE a friend told me "You have to protect your BB if you have a pair, connectors, loose connectors, etc. and for the longest time I did and found myself throwing away a lot of money. In most poker literature, the player is admonished not to regard money already in the pot as his, but in the case of protecting blinds many good players do. I know the initial bet is forced ,but does this really change the decision to call a raise, reraise, etc. ? especially when the player knows he/she is going to be in bad position for the remainder of the hand ?
In reading some of the posts in the forum, I found that some players talk about pre-flop pot odds. I don't believe these exist. Could somebody tell me what the pre-flop pot odds are for Mason's 9d10d ?
I understand the reasoning behind calling a drawing hand after the flop (pot odds vs. making x/47 cards), dependant upon odds of 2 cards to make my hand. When I don't make my hand on the turn, what odds do I use to determine whether to call, and in that case should I not be betting on the EV at the flop based on NOT making the turn card, and having to bet to see the river?
I'm sure this is explained somewhere in a book (which I have on order), can anyone explain which section of which book should be looking, or give a quick explanation.
I'll try to explain the best way I can .I'm sure Malmuth or sklansky would be more concise, but here goes: Let say that before the flop there are four callers including yourself and the small blind folds. That's 4 1/2 small bets. The flop comes and you have a flush draw. It is a little over 2-1 for you to make this draw with two cards to come, so you need a minimum of two other players playing on the flop. So now there is a bet on the flop and lets say one player folds and there are three of you left. There is now 7 1/2 small bets in the pot. Now the bets double. The turn comes up empty for you, and a player bets and there is a call, and it's up to you.There is now 4 3/4 big bets in the pot, and with one card to come the odds are just over 4 to 1 to hit the flush.You would call since the pot is offering you just over 4-1, plus "implied odds" of possibly two big bets or more if you make your hand.Now flush draws and straight draws like this kind of play themselves because as long as you have at least two players besides yourself on the flop you're going to be getting enough pot odds on the turn to call. Where it comes into play more, is when you call on the flop let's say with over cards, and then on the turn pick up a flush draw, ..you want to be able to figure out your outs against what the pot is offering you to see if it makes sense to keep playing. So you do look at the pot odds one street at a time, but you don't need to do so with frequent draws such as flushes and open ended straights as long as the correct number of players are in on the flop, and your hand figures to win the pot if you make it. I hope this helped.
How much money is to be made playing in those daily and/or weekly NL-hold'em tournys that are offered at various casino's? The one's $100 and under, some with rebuys?
Predator,
The small Friday nite NL Hold'em at Crystal Park has a first place of approximately $2,500.00. It costs 60.00 with one 50.00 rebuy. Bicycle Club Monday nite NL tourney usually pays 1000.00 or so for first. The 100.00 tourneys at Crystal Park have been drawing more than 200 players and lots of rebuys with first place between 10 and 15,000.
I had a career month in October, winning five and making four other final tables. (Don't try this at home as it is almost 3,000,000 to 1 that it won't ever be repeated or duplicated) I netted out 15K from tournaments and had a good month in ring games as well. In November, other than winning one single table satellite, I haven't cashed at all. The cumulative buy-ins and rebuys for the tournament schedule I follow is somewhere around 1500.00 per month. Players who travel the major tourney circuit and play most events need to cash at least $100,000.00 to break even. There are a number of players who have backers and never use their own money to enter. Most of these find themselves only getting backed for satellites which they need to win in order to have a paid entry. There is always a group of five to ten of these players who walk up and down in the tournament area right before an event hoping that someone will see them and ask them if they are in the event yet or not. It reminds me a little of the street whores of Pig Alle in the early sixties, with their scared and desperately hopeful glances. Of course, none of those girls could play a lick as far as I know, but, giving them money, unlike with the tournament players, pretty much assured that you would get something you'd hoped for. (I heard this only)
I think you should also consider that you have a back door flush draw although not a strong one. This strengthens your chance to win the pot against few players.
Why was the qualifier put in to H/L stud?
Clearly high pairs are unplayable, and low 3-flushes and low starting hands with an ace go way up in value. "Razz hands" are better than in the qualifier game, but should still tend to be avoided. But what about low pair-ace kicker, pair of aces-low kicker, or low pair-low kicker? While these hands would prefer to play heads-up, are they even playable then?
What other strategy modifications should be made?
(One reason why low pairs are marginal in the qualifier game is that they rarely qualify, and so you will often lose both sides. You only want to play them in specific situations (HLSFAP). They lose a lot of value if against high pairs in the qualifier game, but high pairs won't be against you in this game.)
Dan,
One reason was that cheating is easy in split without a qualifier. Another is that almost no high hands can be played and bad players get to watch as the so called good players show their wired three kings then fold for one bet. It just is a bad game to spread unless you have some dummies and want to beat them easily. That is why the casinos dont want it but in some home games it still may work. You said { But what about low pair-ace kicker, pair of aces-low kicker, or low pair-low kicker? While these hands would prefer to play heads-up, are they even playable then?} They play ok in the right spots but the aces do well.
I was playing in a low-limit game (4-8) this past weekend and I was involved in two interesting situation. The first situation came up like this. I was on the button and a new player sat to the right of me. A person in early position started the action he came in for $4 ( I considered him at this point a good player because of the hands he had been playing and his aggressiveness) everyone behind him folded exept the individual to the right of me who raised. I had AK off-suit so I reraised hoping to get heads up with this player. The individual who started the action capped it. The flop comes all rags with an nine high.(Only the three of us). The person in early position comes out betting and the guy next to me raises. What do I do??? I figured that the guy in early position may have a good hand but not a great hand, maybe a small pair but not bigger than 10's. The guy next to me I have no idea what he had. I figured one of them had a pair so I folded. Next card comes a five. No help. Last card comes a King which would have won me the pot. The guy next to me had Pocket JJ's and the guy in early position did not show his hand. Did I play this right???
The next hand I was involved in was with the same two players and again I was on the button. The guy in early position leads out the guy next to me raises and I reraise. I have pocket 10's. The guy in early position caps it. Flop comes 568 different suits. The guy in early position leads out, the guy next to me calls, I raise, the guy in early position reraises and the guy next to me folds so I call. Next card comes a 2 he bets and I reraise. He reraises and I call. I think I have him beat at this point because If he had a big pair he would have checked raised before the flop like he had been doing. The river comes a 7. He bets and I call. To my surprise he turns over a 7H and 9C. I don't think I did anything wrong but I think he was changing his play and got lucky. All comments and suggestions welcomed
Thanks,
Tony
I think you played the first hand fine. Your raise from the button was justified. When you are looking at two bets on a rag flop, someone's got an overpair...fold. You may have won that pot, but he could have had AA or KK and you would have lost more.
In the second case, with the action that he's giving you, I would not be confident at all that I had the best hand. I would not have put him on 79o, but I probably wouldn't put him on A8 either (the hand you are hoping he would have). I would put him on a set or an overpair, though. You noted that you picked up that he will check-raise overcards. You've gotta consider what hands he will be raising and reraising with here. Don't get married to these ideas because good players will change the way they play certain hands.
Good Luck/Chuck
Well, in the first hand, I'm not sure you could have played it any better. Pre-flop play looked good. Now, on the flop, you have two overcards without any certainty that top pair would hold up if it hit (you could be shown a set). You are drawing to 6 outs with 2 cards to come, which means you will hit top pair (which may or may not hold up) slightly less than 25% of the time by the river. There are 18 bets in the pot and you need to call 2 bets with no guarantee that it wont be reraised or capped before the betting is done. You do have position going for you. I don't think you can go wrong throwing this one away.
As to the second hand, I think you were a little too aggressive. But, I would just be telling myself "its only a loan" as he stacked his chips.
A Poker Guy!
Case 2 shows you that it's not a bad idea to throw a wrinkle into your game occasionally. He probably had a pretty good idea about what you had but you had a tough time putting him on that hand. He didn't even need that big of a flop to beat you. Say he went in with 56 or 68 suited or a pair of 5's, 6's, or 8's? HPFAP recommends that you should occasionally throw in a raise in early position with a suited middle connector. OK, going from one bet to four with that crap (especially not suited) isn't recommended, but it's still the same basic idea. Mix up your play. Plus since everyone's read that book, maybe you have to take your insanity to a higher level to get the same desired effect. I don't see anything wrong with that reraise on occasion with say a pair of 8's. I don't follow your logic for raising so aggressively. If he would have check raised with a big pair, but instead went for a bet, reraise, I'd put him on something even bigger than that. Why would he do that with AK? You're not going to lay your hand down for one more bet. Think about what hand he would put you on. You reraised before the flop. Certainly he wouldn't be shocked to discover that you held an overpair to the flop. My read on it is that he took a flyer figuring that if he hit he'd get plenty of action. Maybe that one play was a bad percentage play for him (you said he was selective normally), but he got a big payoff and he may get the added benefit of slowing people down a bit the next time he comes out betting. I just read the book "No Fold'Em Hold'Em". In it the author describes the 79 as the best possible garbage hand. His logic is as follows: Stay away from the 10+ as your opponents are likely to be holding those cards. A gap of one on the connectors gives more surprise value for a straight yet does not give up that many combinations to make the straight. A two gapper is just a poorer hand. 79 has the highest rank that satisfies those two requirements. You may have just played against a graduate "garbage player" who takes great pride in, as the author puts it, "sending the rocks to the bar". One final thought. HPFAP states that it's a mistake to put someone on a certain hand and not change your mind as the hand develops. People make bad percentage plays all the time (at least where I play). It doesn't mean you have to pay them off that richly when they get lucky. The raise on the flop is OK if you think you know your man, but his reraise should have slowed you down to a crawl especially since he has to act first so his raise couldn't have been to just get a "free" card.
Good. Table image is important. Do these players know MM. If not, a raise in this spot is a "cheap" semi-bluff for when you first sit down at the table. Later on a fold is probably the highest EV play here. You may have only a one card out. What if the Ad falls and someone has AQ?
Scenario: Typical loose aggressive no foldem holdem game. I flop the nut flush draw. The betting is capped after the flop and 3 others hang in to see the turn. I suspect trips. The turn is a duece, making a pair on the board. The first person, a good player, bets. The second player folds. the third raises ( a loose cannon). I fold the nut flush draw. The river hits my flush. The first person who had been leading off the betting checks to the raiser. I instantly realize that I made a huge mistake. The raiser bets and is called by the first person. The first person turns over two pair. The raiser tuns over a straight (he hit it on the river). I folder the winner. Was this really a mistake? When the board paired, I thought for sure that it made a full house. What should I do next time?
My seecond question: That same night while talking to a good (for that game) player sitting next to me, she said that I'd do better playing in a higher limit game. I am a tight aggressive player but go through wild swings with this low limit game. It is has always been my feeling that I should be able to win consistently at low limit before making the move up. But what if the style of a higher limit game suits the style that I play? Any thoughts?
Loose Aggressive Low Limit games are terrible. Most of the plays that are talked about in this Forum must be put aside while you wait for a Premium Starting Hand and then play it meakly while all the Loose Cannons fire away their Stacks when you hold a Strong Hand. (Wake me when I'm delt some High Suited Connectors.)
Do youself a favor and scope out a Passive table where you can at least have some control over the game. I have even moved from a 3-6 to a 4-8 game and seen a large differance.
CV
Good advice. But I have no alternative here in Colorado.
Surely a wild, loose low-limit game should be more profitable (in terms of big bets won per hour) than a fairly tight, albeit predictable, game (unless your opponents are so easy to read that you can correctly put them on their hands every time)? Anyone have any views on this?
Matt
actually the nut flush draw is a perfect hand for a loose low limit game.....generally in a loose game you call more and raise less...and pot odds are usually very good...i would have played it to the river
>generally in a loose game you call more and raise less
While that may be the DEFINITION of "a loose game", it's a losing strategy...
"Loose Aggressive Low Limit games are terrible."
"Do youself a favor and scope out a Passive table where you can at least have some control over the game."
This is some of the worst advice I have ever seen. The only way a low limit game IS playable is if it is loose and or loose aggressive. How else are you going to overcome the rake?
These games just take different skills. With a little practice and some deep thinking they should become your most profitiable venue.
(Extra hint: These games are even better if they are populated by a couple of so called "good players" that get frustrated with the excessive action. They can usually be counted on to throw off some easy steaming money.)
You're right. Loose Argessive games are the way to go. The best way to find a good game is to look for those Big Pots! I don't even know why I bother posting.
CV
Don't take it so personally Chris. Different strokes for different folks. I for one enjoy and benfit from your thoughtful posts.
By the way, I actually like to play in loose low-limit aggressive games myself on occasion for practice as much as profit. Sometimes getting into some perilous situations in big pots really forces you to focus on people reading vs. hand reading skills, which is good real-world practice for all games.
Chris,
See what happens when you become the biggest 2+2 suckup!!!!!!!! LOL. Seriously I prefer a loose passive game myself as I think they are actually more profitable.
Tom Haley
Dear Mr expert, The idea that loose aggressive games are great is probably the worst advice I've heard in a while. If you are going to be cocky, then be right. I'd sincerely like to hear about the adjustments you make to play in these games. seeya
Post deleted at author's request.
Chris didn't say loose games are terrible; he referred to loose, AGGRESSIVE games. While I might not feel quite as strongly about it, a little thought should make it clear that aggressive is generally much less desirable than passive when it comes to traits you want your opponents to have.
Sure, there is money to be made from a table full of maniacs, but is it really any more than you make from a bunch of weak, passive, loose, predictable players? And at what cost? The fluctuations in a loose aggressive game mean that it can be a loooong time before you really know how you're doing in that game. In a passive game you should be able to win more consistently, with far smaller fluctuations.
Much of it comes down to predictability and readability. Though some very aggressive players can be read, in general you will more consitently know where you're at against weak, passive opponents. This is clearly a huge plus, in part because it makes it easier to avoid mistakes that cost you the pot.
A loose or semi-loose, passive game is, IMO, the best game. I think the idea that a table full of maniacs is a great game is a myth deriving, perhaps, from players' competitive desires to beat such "in your face" opponents.
John Feeney
Is bluffing at an 80% rate a mistake? Is calling a pre-flop raise with A6 a mistake? Is calling two bets with second pair bad kicker a mistake?
Does Caro not say that you make most of your money from other players mistakes and bad play?
>>Is bluffing at an 80% rate a mistake?<<
Yes, of course. Let me try to clarify my point (which I'd guess was close to Chris's point too). I wasn't trying to say that overly aggressive play is correct or unbeatable. I was simply saying that it is tougher to take advantage of and profit against (without big fluctuations) than overly passive play.
>>Is calling a pre-flop raise with A6 a mistake? Is calling two bets with second pair bad kicker a mistake?<<
Yes. But notice also that these are not examples of overly aggressive play. They're just very bad calls. Many calling stations might make them. And you'll beat these players pretty consistently without much effort.
>>Does Caro not say that you make most of your money from other players mistakes and bad play?<<
If he does it's an understatement. As others have pointed out, that's where you make *all* of your money.
Certainly an overly aggressive player such as a maniac is going to lose a lot of money. But such a player will give you more trouble along the way than a weak, passive player. My regular game contains lots of overly aggressive players of various sorts. At night it's chock-full of these characters. On those occasional days when I sit down to find myself facing a lineup of mediocre, straight forward, fairly passive opponents, it's like a relaxing vacation day.
John Feeney
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary, you write:
>>If you follow the stratagy of playing every pocket pair, from any position, and folding if you don't flop a set, you get a small, positive expected value and a std. dev. of about 20 big bets, per hand, not per hour.<<
I'm not the statistician you are, but that standard deviation does sound pretty big to me. However, I'm not clear on what it would translate into in practical terms as there would clearly be many small downswings, an occasional big upswing, and some intermediate downswings (when you flop a set but lose).
Pairs, though, are probably the easiest hand to play in such a game, and should create smaller swings than other hands using just a bit more refined strategy than the simple one you used for the calculation. There should be some much bigger swings generated by suited connectors. e.g., you flop a flush draw and have to stay in for multiple bets on the flop and turn only to -----------> get there about 20% of the time. You'll make money, but it'll be a roller coaster.
At any rate, I certainly agree that you can make good money in loose aggressive games, but I'd need more convincing that there's more to be made there than in a loose, passive game. Another argument would be that if you consider the four basic styles of play, a)loose/passive, b)loose/aggressive, c)tight/passive, and d)tight/aggressive, which is the one you want to see in your opponents? Well, if we assume that tight/aggressive contains the correct basic elements for winning play, then it's clear that the only style containing *neither* correct element is loose/passive.
It seems to me that the best argument in favor of loose, aggressive games is simply that they are the games where the most money is bet. So if you could find a logical way to show that therefore there is more money to be won in those games, you'd have something. But you'd have to account for the greater frequency of pot-costing mistakes that your opponents will cause you to make in these games (folding when you should call or raise, calling when you should raise, checking when you should bet, betting when you should check [so you can check-raise to knock people out]). I think the cost of those mistakes is a key to what makes such a game less desirable than a more passive game. I also think that while the swings can be tamed a bit, there's no denying that they'll be considerably bigger in such a game.
John Feeney
I agree that a loose, passive game is easier and better to play in than a loose, aggressive game. Certainly, the fluctuations are much narrower. It's also much easier to read a raise from a typically loose passive player -- they got something good!
The only advantage to a loose, aggressive game (versus loose, passive) is that, if you catch the good cards, you can fill up a few racks very quickly.
DanA,
Seems like the loose cannon made a good play. Maybe I'm missing something but after the flop the pot was huge and if that loose cannon can knock out better draws like a flush draw and have a reasonably good chance that his straight will hold up or maybe win the whole thing on the turn then I would think that you were simply outplayed. My point is the loose cannon may be a better player than you give him/her credit for.
Tom Haley
You may be right, but he was losing big and whipping out new money left and right, but he might have accidently out played me... but what I really want to know is how to play it next time.
You defined the game as loose aggressive, so that is your answer.But beyond that, you can't play hldm fearing the nuts all the time, it will screw your game up.If you move up, you will be intimidated in other ways.The bottom line here is that the pot was offering you a substantially better payoff than the odds of making your hand, as well as seemingly great implied odds, since this was a loose aggressive game as you described,.. so you have to stay, and if the guy has a full house and you make your flush, you simply lose. The swings will be alot wider, but your payoffs will be larger in this type of game.When you move up, observant players will see that you are uncomfortable with re-raises etc. as it will show when you fold all the time when the heat is turned up.So I would work on this a little, but definately play higher and see how it feels. goodluck
Al advice is right. You need to be very sure before you fold a made nut flush in a big pot, and based on your description you cannot be sure enough.
Loose aggressive games are excellent games to win pretty good money at, but many players fail to do so. The reason is that they don'r adjust properly. I won't go into all the adjustments here, but you should strive to play hands that can win big pots. This includes all pairs (which can flop a set) and hands like A7s.
Mason,
I guess it depends on when the play starts to get aggressive, and how many players are in the pot, but I thought that hands like Axs and small pocket pairs went down in value when its costing something like a triple bet to see the Flop.
CV
My interpretation: these hands do go down in value for most other types of games, but are OK for this kind of game--composed mostly of loose-aggressive players--because they make your implied odds better than usual.
--Ron
Mason wrote: "You need to be very sure before you fold a made nut flush..."
He folded a nut flush draw with a bet and a raise to him on the turn. Still wrong? I would think given the game he describes it was wrong.
David
AL: One of the best, most info-filled responses posted in weeks. Thanks, keep 'em coming.
It's a big mistake to fold the nut flush draw here. There are already at least 20 small bets in the pot. If you win the pot, you'll win at least 12 big bets. Even if there's a 50% chance that you'll lose if you hit your flush, you must call.
One reason why tight players get beat up in these games is because they make too many folding errors. Folding errors are deadly in games where the pots are huge. In a loose agressive game you're often getting the odds to call on the flop with little more than bottom pair or a 3-flush with an overcard. A recipe for disaster in these games is to see a lot of flops for two or three bets and then chuck all your hands away.
Stay away from hands like KJ and AT. They cost a lot on these games. Play pocket pairs and big flush draws. Don't be afraid to call raises before the flop with a pocket pair, as long as you know you're getting 5-6 callers. I know a lot of tight players who always complain that they never win the big pots in these games. Why? Because if someone else raises, they fold anything but AA, KK, or AK. And if THEY raise, even the maniacs cool off and the pots stay small. You're going to have to be willing to get in and jam with them a bit, as long as you keep the odds on your side. Remember, implied odds go way up in these games, making hands that can hit the flop big very valuable even if it doesn't seem like you're getting the odds. Let's say that you have 77, and someone in front of you raises and 3 people call. Two are left to act behind you. Do you play them? It doesn't seem like you're getting the odds needed to call, but if the action is unreasonably large later on, you probably are, even if you face the chance of a re-raise behind you.
Dan
I agree completely. I have found that the key to winning in these types of games is your hand selection. Pre-flop decisions become even more important in a game where you have a feeling no one is going to fold after the flop. Don't try to bluff, don't try to play fancy, just play nut draws and hands that you know are the best at the time.
It is a common belief that a higher limit is always tighter, but it ain't always so. The looseness of the game depends on the people at the table, not the limit.
Wayne
Dan A
I have a question. What was your mental state at the time this hand was dealt? Did you just take a series of bad beats? I know from my beginning days at hold em that these types of games can produce psychological lapses in judgement. How did you play after the hand, tighter or looser ? did the hand causee you to go on tilt?
Great question, Merle. Up until that point I was playing well, up over two hundred, my hand selection was good and I was patient and making good decisions. . But After that hand.. well that's a different story. My winnings went down to fifty, I was on tilt. Fortunately, I got up and left. The one thing that makes me go off is not taking a bad beat, but beating myself up wondering or not if I made the correct move. That's usually when I have to leave.
I also want to thank all those that responed. It was a pleasant surprise. THANKS!
Mason,
I enjoyed your post " Tough Decision" It provided for many diffrent opinions from the forum. I was thinking how nice it would be to see a question like this once a week. It makes for great discussion, and the learning experince is great. Just an idea, let me know.
Walleye
I have had this happen several times recently. For example, I call a pre-flop raise with AQo and flop comes 3 rags. Original raiser bets, I call. Turn is another rag, Original raiser bets, I fold.
This almost always happens with 2 big cards. I think I'm too tight. Advice is appreciated.
In haste I forgot to mention that the player I folded to in this example also has AQo.
re-raising helps put you in the posistion to win the pot on the flop or turn.
What are you hoping to have happen when you call a preflop raise with AQo? If no-one else calls, and you'll fold if you don't catch an ace or queen, you should probably discard or reraise instead of just calling.
This is a play that I've seen often lately, and that I don't understand - player in early or middle position opens for a raise. Player in late position calls, when it's unlikely that there'll be other calls. Player who raised preflop bets the rag flop and the preflop caller folds, or he folds to the raiser's bet on the turn. I can see having this sequence happen occasionally, but not frequently.
Other options for you include raising on the flop or on the turn to test your opponent.
What would you say; about 50/50? On such a missed flop raise 50% of the time and fold 50% of the time.
To win consistently, you have to look for an opportunity to take control of the hand. One way you do that by taking advantage of position. You have position on him. Raise him on the flop. It will only cost you one additional small bet. If he reraises, then you have a decision to make. Most times it will slow him down. You still have about a 25% chance that an A or Q will hit on the turn or river. He will have no idea where you stand when you raise and will have to check to you on the turn if he doesn't improve. If the turn misses you, you can take the free card (check) or bet out if you think he will fold. In any event, you have taken control of the hand and given yourself some options. Your play will be much less readable too. When you have control, you can win with the same hand (like he did) or second best hand sometimes.
Good luck, A Poker Guy!
Often, after returning home from another failed poker tournament, I think about a critical hand. Inevitably, a raise on the flop would have either won the pot or gotten me out of trouble early.
Yep, thats exactly the point. When you play aggressively (in a smart way) you either take control of the hand and give yourself the options or you recognize that you've got a probable loser and invest as little as possible in it.
Post the critical hand here next time you play a tourney. Let others examine it along with you and help you see the different ways you could have played it or thought about it.
A Poker Guy!
You think you're too tight. I think you're too loose, at least pre-flop.
If the pre-flop raiser "goes upstairs" with respectable hands, then AKo are usually the only two big, unsuited cards I will enter the battle with. Too often, hands like AQo will be dominated by the raiser's cards.
After playing HE for two years, I finally broke down and bought David and Mason's "Holdem Poker for Advanced Players. I've devoured the book and my game has improved dramatically. The chapter on Maniacs deals with one or two Maniacs in a game, and I found that I have been successful following the advice.
One of the local 4-8 games attracts several young, often intoxicated, men with an endless supply of money. Six or seven of these guys are in every pot and every pot is capped on all betting rounds. The pots are huge, but I found myself jammed in, taking bad beat after bad beat from the most unbelievable hands.
I've since avoided the game, but the lure of the big pots is very tempting. I would appreciate any advice on playing a table full of maniacs.
Finally, the books published by David, Mason and Ray are a big part of my daily reading. I know you guys are sick of compliments, but I know a lot of university text book authors that could take lessons from you. Also, David - I miss your column in the "Card Player".
The best scenario in the game of poker are many maniacs in a game. The posts get huge and if you have the goods you win BIG POTS! Play the nuts! The maniacs will follow you off of a cliff! BUT-You may need to GAMBLE with them in order to beat them and this will require a larger than usual bankroll. Where is the game? I WANNA" PLAY! YEE-HAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Doc-
I am trying to work on my poker game. I know some odds and percentages but I need a lot of improvement. For example I would like to learn how to calculate if one person is holding AA's and the other is holding 22's, the person is about a 4 1/2 to 1 favorite. These are the types of things I would like to work on. Are there any good poker books out that can help me with this. Thanks in advance.
Dice
For questions like this, it is not easy to calculate the probabilities using analytical methods. Instread you have to develop a numerical approach, implemented as an algorithm which will give you an estimation of the probability you are looking for. You have to use a good random numbers genarator and write the simulatation routine and then execute it thousands of times and accumalate the results....
Try Sklansky's "Getting the Best of it" or Petriv's "Hold 'em's Odd(s) Book". The material in Petriv's book is pretty dry reading but it does contain some useful stuff on how to work out odds on, well, just about any Hold 'em problem although much of it is probably just of academic interest and likely won't have much of an effect on your poker results. The material in Sklansky's work should be enough.
By the way, MM will probably admonish you for not putting this post on the exchange!
The best method is to get a copy of similation software (wilson softwares's tubo texas hold them for windows version 2 is very good) and just run the condition.
I was involved in an interesting hand last night which emphasized how playing well but in a predictable manner can hurt a player.
The game was 10-20. While the game is generally loose aggressive, we had just started and everyone was still playing their "A" game.
I was in the big blind with the KQ of hearts. A good but predictable player raised under the gun. The small blind (an unknown player) called. I too called. Having played several times with the raiser, I put him on a big pair (jacks or higher), AK or AQ.
The flop was Js,Jd,4h. He bet. The small blind folded. At this point, I reasoned that the bettor could have one of 37 different hands (JJ, 3 different pocket Queens, 3 different pocket Kings, 6 pocket Aces, 12 AK's and 12 AQ's). Since he bet, I could probably rule out JJ (i.e. he surely would have slowplayed).
Now, this is where the predictability aspect comes in. I know that the bettor is a player who has read several poker books. I have seen him on several occasions check his pocket Aces and pocket kings on the turn where there is a high pair on the flop. His reasoning (a logical one) being that he saves two bets by checking if I have the jack and probably gains a bet on the river if I don't have a jack(i.e. I'd probably take his check on the turn as a sign of weakness and bluff at the end. He would of course call and take the pot). There's nothing wrong with that thinking except if you employ the same thinking all of the time.
So, what did I do on the flop. I called. I knew that if a blank came on the river and if he bet, he couldn't hold pocket Kings or Aces. Therefore, his holding was likely to be one of 27 different hands (3 pocket Queens, 12 AK's or 12 AQ's). Accordingly, I reasoned that if he bet on the turn, there was an overwhelming chance that I could pick up the pot by checkraising. Needless to say, that's exactly what happened.
I guess I wrote this post to illustrate two points:
1. Do the right thing most of the time BUT NOT all of the time. Playing perfectly or "according to the book" every time can backfire. If the original bettor had shown that he would bet his pocket kings or Aces on the turn even, say, 10 or 20 percent of the time, I couldn't have called the bet on the flop. His predictable betting patterns made it easy for me to call the flop.
2. Those who say that poker books are full of gobbledygook are sadly mistaken. My reading of the chances of my opponent holding various hands was based almost entirely on an essay written by David Sklansky in his Poker, Gaming and Life. The one play I made as a result of the knowledge I gained from reading that essay won me a $100 pot. That more than paid for the book even at badly devalued Canadian dollars.
There is a difference between reading a book and understanding what you read. Obviously, you fall in the latter class. I wrote a post about a year ago called "book players" for which I was chastised by Sklansky et al for suggesting that book players can be beat on a regular basis. good luck
Every book I have read by S&M states explicitly "don't always play by the book" and even recommends specific percentages for deviations from the optimal play. Therefore, if you are beating a predictable opponent because he always "plays by the book", then he really isn't playing by the book now is he?
If S&M suggest that you don't raise with AA in early position 20 percent of the time, I would venture a guess that the average player who thinks he is following S&M's advice will not raise only 4-5 percent of the time; maybe less. I don't have the book with me so I don't have their exact percentages, but you get the idea. I'd like some input by others on this topic. On a related topic " How about those players who call you all the way to the river and after you beat them they say 'I knew you had that' or 'I put you on that' and you want to say 'if you put me on that, why did you call me all the way to the river?' but you don't because you don't want to offend them and have them leave the game. Cognitive dissonance is a b-tch!
Then that "average" player is still not playing by the book. He is more predictable, he is more beatable, hence he's a worse player (for exception see below). Be happy.
On the related topic (I don't quite see how this is related--is it because this type of player also ignores book advice, in particular the Theory of Poker's "Heads Up on the End" chapter?), I never discourage or embarrass habitual callers who make those plays and remarks. This is bad for my profit. I don't get paid to teach them to lay down a hand in a situation where they know that calling would be unprofitable for them but they *feel* that they have to call anyways.
By the way, predictable play is not always bad. Once, after I had spent several hours at a table, a player started calling out my hand, usually correctly, after river action was completed but before the showdown. He and everyone else continued to pay me off generously, so I saw no need to become unpredictable that night and stayed with my current game plan. He felt so good that I confirmed his hand-reading ability, and I was glad that he was glad . . . until he busted out.
--Ron
Michael, well said.
I just love it when I hear some talking about ranks of hands at the table. Generaly to a freind standing be hind them. I think to myself he just got done reading the poker book and I know how he's going to play. The plays that should get done 20% of the time never get done. I think the books are a good outline to develope your own style of play. Just look at the better players at the table they all read the same books, but they all play different. A lot of different styles can take home the money.
In my opinion,contrary to popular belief,small pocket pairs are most powerful not when you have 8 people in the pot,but when you are in late position and reraise a preflop raiser and get heads up.Sometimes you will be up against an overpair and you'll be in bad shape,but usually you will have the best hand.I had an argument with a friend who insisted that AK was stronger than 22,after we realized arguing wouldn't settle anything we put our money where our mouth is.For 100 straght hands I was given 22,he was given AK off and the cards were run to the river for $200 per hand After 100 hands I won 56 lost 43,1 push.Comments appreciated.
I too make this play at times particularly against (a) weak tight players whom I figure I can outplay and (b) maniacs who could be raising with anything. But I do this as a change-up. If you are saying that one should make this play more often than not, I can't agree with you. The fact of the matter is that your small pocket pair may just be a slight favourite over your opponent's 2 high cards in a heads up confrontation (by the way, I say "may" because hands like J-10 suited are better than say pocket 3's in a heads up confrontation). On the other hand, if you are up against a higher pocket pair, your small pocket pair is a huge underdog. Thus, you are either a small favourite or a huge dog. I wouldn't want to try and make a living out of that type of play.
All in all, the value of small pairs does lie in multi-way pots. You want to flop a set and hopefully grab a monster pot.
Try this experiment then: Take your 22, and give the other player a random hand selected from all possible raising hands (i.e. AK, AA, KK, QQ, AQs, AJs, 99, etc). Now you're going to find that your 22 is a big loser. Yes, you're a *slight favorite against two unsuited big cards. But you're a slight dog against 2 suited connectors bigger than your pair, and you're a huge dog against a bigger pair. Overall, you're going to lose money. Also, it's tough to play your hand correctly. What if the flop is JT7, and the raiser bets into you? Do you play your hand for the best hand EVERY time? What if it's AK7? Do you fold now? What do you do if you raise and he re-raises you?
If you make this 3-bet play all the time, then you're giving away information about your hand, which means a good player will play you more correctly than you'll be able to play him. That means you lose even more.
All in all, this is a bad situation. I see this play made all the time, and I think it's generally a bad play.
Dan
Another problem is that even in late position and especially in California, you may not end up heads-up and but have a 3 or 4 way raised pot instead.
David
> For 100 straght hands I was given 22,he was given AK off and the cards were run to the river for $200 per hand After 100 hands I won 56 lost 43,1 push.Comments appreciated.
This is, of course, interesting information. But how does this experiment relate to poker? Does poker consist of knowing each other's hands and checking it down to the river?
Maybe 2,2 is a favorite against A,K (o or s?) in a heads-up situation, but that doesn't mean that you should always play 2,2 heads-up. The problem is that you just don't know what your opponent has.
I understand that wasn't the point of your experiment. The real problem with the experiment is that you give wins vs. losses instead of MONEY won vs. MONEY lost. How was the betting done? In other words, if you have AK and the flop comes all rags and your opponent still exhibits that his hand is strong, you might throw it away. etc. etc. what you did was a nice probability exercise (although a computer simulation can do it better), but your experiment may not really tell us anything about playing in the real world.
small to medium pairs are a great way to mix up your play, but..... your not looking to show it down!! That's why your experiment is meaningless. It is true that a pair is a slight fav, in the long run over two big cards, but it is important to be able to play it correctly after the flop. for example if you make your re-raise and it's heads-up if he comes out betting on the flop and you haven't improved, you better throw it away in most of the time.If he checks, you bet, if he calls and checks again, I'd bet again most of the time. Again it depends on the player I'm up against. If he calls the turn and checks, I might just show it down on the end. But the point is you are essentially on a steal with a hand that has a 7-1 chance of improving to a strong hand as you continue to bet it, but don't look at it as a play where you are a favorite.Also, when you want to show some speed, do it with a lower cost or percentage.For example you might limit this play to a middle to late first raiser, when you are in the big blind, so it doesn't cost you as much to make the play. When you haven't improved, or you have improved, and you have to show down, then you are showing a little speed and will be getting calls the rest of the session. 77 and up are good hands to bring it in with a raise when you are the first one to come in after a couple of folds. Seeya
If I read the results of your experiment correctly, you ended up with a $1,400 profit. Nicely done! That probably wipes out a portion of the losses you inflicted upon yourself by re-raising with small pocket pairs to get heads-up against pre-flop raisers.
It seems to me that AT offsuit is certainly one of the more difficult hands to play correctly. So here's a couple of questions concerning the hand in a typical red chip game 1. When is it correct to fold AT before the flop? 2. When should you continue after the flop if you make top pair with the ace or if you make 2nd pair with the ten?
Thanx
AT offsuit? Well that's a tough one! I mean...If it were definitely AA then of course I would slow play it just to suck in the kk and jj players. Then of course they would suck out on me on the river and I would lose. What was the question again? oh yeah, AK. JAM IT BUDDY! Get the $$$ in before the flop! Really. Don't play like a rock. JAM it up! Make them pay for your flop. If your flop doesn't come, well..there is always the next hand. Anyone who is not playing super aggressive at all times is just limping himself into trouble. Sure, there are rocks who bilk out a couple of big bets per hour but there are also endless jobs awaiting people who want to work in the fast food industry too. I figure this. Either I am running the table or I'm in trouble. JAM IT! DAMN IT! Doc-
I only have time for a few comments but here goes.
This is a hand to stay away from before the flop most of the time. It plays horribly against a large field (especially in raised pots) because it will rarely win the big pot and often be second best or worse. It is also suicide to call a single decent player who raised up front because it is once again either a big loser or a small winner after the flop (this would also be true of AJ and perhaps AQ).
It can be played against several weak callers for one bet before the flop in back. It is a decent hand for attacking the blinds from late position and even then you will have trouble against a tricky opponent in back or in the blinds. Usually you can also raise against a single opponent you control well from the back (here you hope the blinds fold).
This is a hand you would rather flop top pair with a ten then top pair with an ace but there are exceptions beyond the scope of this post. When you flop the ten tend to be aggressive and when you flop the ace play a little more defensively (it can play well as a calling hand against a player who bets too much).
Other than the exceptions noted above, stay away from this hand. The vast majority of players lose a fortune with it.
"It seems to me that AT offsuit is certainly one of the more difficult hands to play correctly."
Yes, especially against several opponents.
"1. When is it correct to fold AT before the flop?"
There are many factors to consider. How good are your opponents? Do they play any ace? Are the players behind you likely to raise? Do they take their hands too far? Do they ever slowplay or limp-reraise strong hands? etc.
In general, though, the most important thing is to not be dominated. With ATo, your hand is fairly strong provided that AA, AK, AQ and AJ are not out there. So if a solid player raises in early position, you would almost certainly throw ATo away in a "normal" game, since the chance of facing a dominating hand is high. In early position, ATo is also dangerous, since stronger hands may well be out there. Also, you might lead off on the flop with top pair only to be raised, and you would have difficulty knowing where you stood with many boards. So this hand plays best in late position, in unraised pots, and with fewer other callers. Other situations are risky, although if your opponents tended to play any ace, this hand would go way up in value.
"2. When should you continue after the flop if you make top pair with the ace or if you make 2nd pair with the ten?"
Again, there are many factors to consider. In a loose game, though, the preflop pots can be so large that you often have odds to draw to something as weak as second pair-ace kicker. Players who automatically throw these hands away are making a mistake. In many situations, it is even better to bet or raise with that hand than to call. In an unraised pot, you are primarily worried about AQ or AJ if you pair your ace, and you need to determine if one of those is probable. Also, a backdoor flush draw adds a bit of value to your hand in a marginal situation.
well like everything in poker there is not an exact way to play the hand but position and the quality of players will help you make that decision...in an early position this hand is hard to play...why because if you bet and someone else raises or perhaps two people raise you certainly can't call with this hand.....however if you are in late position and everyone else has just called by all means RAISE!!! You might steal the pot right there....in a middle position with weak players to your left call and wait for the flop provided that know one has raised ahead of you......now just wait for the flop it and if its and ace i would probably raise unless there was 3 to a strait, 3 to a flush or a pair flopped...........and if a stong player under these circumstances raises......fold.....there are many different way to play this hand but you must know who you are playing against
Pray for a Ten high, non suited, non-consecutive flop! - Multi-way - Late- Bet or Raise
- Early - check raise the late aggressor - Heads-up! - Bet or raise! (even suited or consecutive flops)
Oh Yeah - Don't get upset if you lose!
v/r Vince
> .....however if you are in late position and everyone
> else has just called by all means RAISE!!! You might
> steal the pot right there....
Do I detect a tongue in your cheek? If not, is there an empty seat at this table full of weak-loose players?
As one poker author has put it, you should handle this type of hand with the delicacy afforded a Ming vase.
In general, I want to be in late position with no more than 2 (possibly 3) opponents when I'm holding AT. Of course, I would raise with it in late position in order to try and steal the blinds or to reduce the field.
You probably would not be giving up too much if you decided never to play the hand in early position (although I probably would call or raise from early position in a passive game).
Not to be a party pooper, but you're asking the wrong question. Although you can make some general statements about certain starting hands, it is important to realize that starting hands change in value, based on the type of players, your posistion, how many people in the pot vs your posistion etc. etc.So there isn't a simple answer to how to play it.Dan touched on this as well. It might be more helpful for you to think about the type of flop you want, for example, if you raise it early and you get 2-3 players calling, or just heads up, or someone re-raises, or your in the big blind etc.You might follow the basic starting hand strategy in hfap by s&m, and then as you get more experience you will be able to get more creative.In fact if you haven't read their book you are missing out. goodluck
I am lucky enough to live in the Los Angeles area (?), where poker palaces litter the landscape. In the 3-6 and 6-12 holdem games, the practice here is for the person on the button to post a $3 drop that goes down the chute to the house regardless of the size of the pot. Yes, even if everyone folds and the blinds chop it, the $3 drop happens.
Now admittedly the low limit hold'em games here never sees everyone folding and the blinds chopping - this is the birth place of "no foldem hold'em" after all. This message is not to debate whether "no foldem hold'em" inherently can be beaten; I think its well established that these type of games can be played but you must give more value to starting cards that can make big hands (suited connectors, pairs)while unsuited high cards go down in value, your standard deviation is much larger, you must be able to emotionally withstand big swings in fortune, etc, etc, etc.
No, this post is about the $3 drop. Lets look at this for a second. In a 9-handed table (the norm here in CA) in a 3-6 game, and with a deal rate of 36 hands per hour (reasonable, if not low), each player will be paying $12 on the drop charge alone - equal to 2 big bets. And even this is ideal, if all 9 players stay put throughout the given hour. In reality, since smoking is no longer permitted in the cardroom, and people just love to disappear for no apparent reason, 1-2 players are usually not present, on average, per round. This has the effect of making it your turn to pay the drop come much faster, and also increases the number of hands dealt per hour (less players=faster hands). To be generous, lets say that raises your drop fee per hour to $15.
Two and 1/2 big bets. It has been said that top players can average something like 2.5 BB per hour. How many of us who play 3-6 holdem (or any limit) can say we are in this top group, and not be kidding ourselves? Even saying that because of the extremely loose nature of these games, we can beat the game for 3 BB per hour, the drop knocks that down to .5 BB, and because of the looseness, greatly increases our standard deviation so that we may never see that .5 BB per hour before some short term luck wipes out our bankroll.
Lets look at this another way. At 36 hands dealt per hour, the drop takes $108 dollors _OFF THE TABLE_ per hour. Since the average buy-in for a 3-6 game seems to be around $50, it will take 4 hours before there is nothing left of the original money.
My question is simple. It is not "is it _thoeretically_ possible to beat this game", since I'm sure someone will say that under ideal conditions with the right mix of loose, passive players, and limiting tokes, and catching cards, it can show a small profit in the short term. My question is "is it _Practically_ unbeatable", especially in the long term, and should just be done for entertainment. Am I better off waiting until I can get to the 10-20 limit (time collection) because it is too rare to be averaging 3BB per hour, and not worth my time anyway because it comes out to .5 BB after the drops? Are all the people playing 3-6 hold'em 97% likely to go bust because the drop is just too high? And the other 3% lucky / great players if they can break even?
Secondly, if I am correct, how many of you are upset enough about this to organize an official drive to rectify the situation? Signed petitions and campaining type of stuff? Look, not all of us can afford to start of at 10-20, nor do we want to play that high because we have families or businesses, etc. You can say, "well then don't play poker" but I think that is too short sighted; there must be some charge less than $3 per 8-9 hands that is both profitable to the house and allows good players to win over time. And those who do play bigger limits should be upset too; with no one coming out of the lower ranks to join you, the future of your games cannot be bright forever. Think about it, the house is taking a disproportionate amount of money from the "players pool", money that you will never be able to win if we could move up to the middle limits. Most likely we go broke, with the house having all the money. In the current structure, only the _house_ wins. It might as well be Super-Pan 9 or slot machines, because the low-limit players will never win. This is simply being taken advantage off by the casino, with too many sheep too unaware of how bad it is.
Perhaps having too good of an economy and too much excess cash as a society has its evils as well. Low limit poker will never be more than a diversion that you pay heartily for, instead of a training ground for poker players. Anyone else want to comment, or organize with me to protest this? A well informed player community can force _fair_ changes to the blind casinos.
J10Suited
I am very interested in the answer to these questions.
One particular point you mention I have thought about lately too.
"and people just love to disappear for no apparent reason, 1-2 players are usually not present, on average, per round. This has the effect of making it your turn to pay the drop come much faster, and also increases the number of hands dealt per hour (less players=faster hands)."
Does the house encourage these regulars to take up a few empty seats because, as your analysis shows, it increases the total revenue? It seems to me that they at least do next to nothing to discourage it.
David
No, the house does not encourage this behavior (at least in northern California). The house tries to come up with ways to combat it without pissing off the regulars too much, and it's a difficult problem.
When playing for long periods of time, I take breaks every few hours. I try to time my breaks to coincide with the worse dealers. Some people take regular smoking breaks. Some go to the Asian games to get a quick fix of action if the poker game is slow (this is against the rules in many houses, but difficult to enforce).
Also, the quoted rate of 36 hands/hour in the original post is on the high side for the lower limit games. My experiences in northern and southern CA give a rate of more like 32 hands/hour (still approx. $100/hour dropped), with more hands/hour in higher limit and tighter games.
I read your post with considerable interest last night and decided to sleep on it before responding (besides, Thursday is “Frasier” night on NBC along with “Inside the NFL” on HBO). I work as a floorman at Hollywood Park Casino, and it is essential you understand that the following represent my own opinions and not necessarily those of HPC management.
Let’s start with background on the “dead drop”. When holdem and stud were introduced in the spring of 1987, the drop was taken from the pot only when a fixed threshold (a.k.a. qualifier) was reached (this ignores the jackpot drop which was always taken). For example, in the 3/6 holdem game the drop was taken only when the pot was $20 and in 5/10 holdem (the predecessor to 6/12 holdem) the drop was taken only when the pot was $30. Because the games were new and the Los Angeles County area had a huge pool of players, the games were very loose and often wild. My own recollection was that the casino missed its drop no more than one or two times per hour.
In January 1989, important court decisions were made that had a pronounced effect on the card clubs. These decisions essentially established that the house could not “bank” the games (as they were doing in Pai Gow and Super Pan Nine) and that holdem and stud along with the “Asian Games” (now called “California Games”) were legal.
In Los Angeles County, a local sheriff responsible for oversight of the card clubs (who I do not have contact with but I’ve heard the following from dozens of different sources) interpreted the ruling to mean that the only legal way to collect from a poker game was to charge time (not practical on a revenue neutral basis when so many tables are active) or to take a collection up front from each and every player. Otherwise, depending on the pot size to collect the drop make poker a banking game, which was illegal in his opinion. In 5/10 and 3/6 holdem, a 50 cent (peach) chip was added and each player had to “ante” the 50 cent chip before the hand started and the drop was taken. In a nine handed game, there would be three peach chips ($1.50) in the pot after the drop.
Of course, the relatively few analytical and studious players were horrified by this new method of collection. They knew that in these games the loose players were paying the majority of the drop (since they won the most pots, probably didn’t keep records, and they had big swings which tend to camouflage their overall losses). They knew the tighter players’ overhead would go way up and win rate down. (Note: I will save the math for another posting if necessary since this and the original post are so long.).
Anyway, the new method of collection was anathema to the serious and/or tighter player. Some moved up to the bigger games with varying levels of success, some drove to the Indian reservations or small clubs just outside the county (were they retained a modified version of the “drop on qualify” method of collection), but most found that they didn’t do as well as before. Now the years have passed and what has happened to low limit poker in Los Angeles? First, the games have stayed exceptionally loose because so many players who are the analytical types and those who would have learned to tighten up don’t play as much or are not attracted to the games in the first place. Secondly, the style of play encountered in a typical low limit holdem game (as opposed to the 10/20 holdem game and up) is so different that it is almost impossible to develop and practice skills in the smaller game (such as semi-bluffing and various pressure plays) that one can effectively use in the bigger game.
Has this been good for the card clubs since they never miss a drop? Of course not! Overly loose games slow the game down reducing overall revenue per table per hour. More importantly, the lower limit games do not serve as a training ground for moving up into the higher limits. (Note: I do know of many enlightened members of management in most of the card clubs who realize this.) . In addition, these loose games have a very high standard deviation which puts many of what I call the “monthly check or allowance” players on the rail early in the month.
When Hollywood Park opened in July of 1994, they attempted to modify the collection by instituting a “live” $3 drop on the button for 3/6 and 6/12 holdem games. Note that this is not as good for the tighter player as the pre 1989 way but definitely an improvement over the peach chip “ante”. This lasted a few weeks until (to my understanding) the sheriff stepped in and insisted that it must be dead money. This is the method retained today at HPC. Over time, the Bike and later the Commerce adopted this (or a similar) method of collection.
No one can be sure what the Los Angeles County poker scene would be like today had the drop on qualify method been retained but the following is what I believe. First, there would be far more games and far more players. Second, the house would make even more money per table per hour since the games would be tighter, more hands would be dealt, and most hands would qualify (for the drop) anyway. Third, there would be a far greater percentage of 3/6 and 6/12 players who would actually make money playing. Some of these players would be encouraged to move up based on their results and top section would grow and prosper (remember, in the tighter games these players would develop some of the skills needed to survive up top). Lastly, poker would be doing so well that there would be far more casinos and more games. In support of this assertion, note that the casino initiative in Pamona a few years ago narrowly lost, the Bike is currently not doing well (although government intervention and location have played a role here), and the Hawaiian Gardens Casino plans to expand appear to be on hold. This is despite a thriving economy.
Is their hope for change? It’s possible. Note that outside of Los Angeles County more favorable methods of collection exist and poker is growing in these areas. Maybe someone in RGP or www.twoplustwo.com land knows the Los Angeles County sheriff responsible for card club oversight and can influence his thinking and interpretation of the law directly via these posts. Perhaps management can be inspired to assemble the legal resources to fight this unjust method of collection in court (perhaps management of a casino currently not doing so well (e.g., the Bike)). One casino with a court victory would be enough.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Please note that this and the original post by j10suited are included in the news group rec.gambling.poker and also in the theory and strategy forum of the web site for Twoplustwo Publishing.
The Oaks Club up in the Bay Area has always charged "time"; every half hour the light next to the clock comes on and if you want to continue to play you put up you $3.50. I like this method, I think it is fair to all parties and the only reason most card rooms rake the pot is so they can make more money. My understanding is that the State law required that seats be rented to players but some sleasy lawer type decieded that "time" was the "leangth of time to play one hand" and thus the rake came about...
Rick, Did you recieve this. tim
In theory, good idea for petition etc, but in practice. forget it! When Commerce raised collections over a year ago $2 per hour, everone had the option of going to the Bike which did not go up, but no one did! That was an easy thing to do--try to organize these idiots for something more involved. Even if you got a petition signed, the clubs would just ignore it.
I hate to play 5 card draw, jacks or better, trips to win. I think it destroys the sanctity of the game. But in dealers choice homegame someone always has to call it. last night a friend of mine who just started playing, groaned after no one could open, cause he said I got a good hand, four to the straight, he flipped his cards over, and had J 10 8 7 3, and I gasped, I asked him if he really was going to draw to that inside straight. I told him how bad that was, how he was about 12:1 to not making it. He argued that when he does get it he will surely win. When I was leaving I started thinking about that. In regular draw, it probably is not even a hand worth seeing an opening bet, and your chances of improving are ok I gues to at least a pair or two pair if you hold the J 10. but these hands are worthless in trips to win, and your odds of drawing trips, or a pair of jacks or tens are pretty slim too, so is your best bet to draw for that miracle nine? If you catch it is a huge favorite and will pay nicely if someone nails trips or a smaller straight. Can someone compute the odds(my permutations are all out of wack) to see if drawing to the inside straight is your best option in making trips or better in this situation. I
I found this game - 5-50 Holdem. Any advice on strategy ? I am new to spread limit but I love the game. It plays a bit like pot limit (unless there are many players see the flop which happens at times.
Andras,
We have a few good spread limit players on the forum and I hope they will respond. Also way back when we had some posts with advice so try the archives. Good Luck.
I was playing in a 3-handed 50-100 game last night,twice in a row I straddled and won the pot,the 3rd time someone objected saying it was illegal to straddle in a 3 handed game,he said I could post a sleeper but what would be the point of that.We argued and the game broke.I checked this out and he was right,I have never heard that rule in 12 years of hold em,then again I have never heard anyone object to a straddle,is this a new rule?Does anyone know the reason for this rule?
Joey,
With three players the straddle is on the button and that is too much of an edge in the eyes of others. Anytime your big blind and maybe small blind is being straddled it is most likely you will lose in the game.
Sometimes in a regular game there is a maniac to my left that always likes to straddle. Sometimes I'm not running that good and I would usually would like to get a free play on my big blind and not have to put in another small bet on a marginal hand. What I do sometimes is once i see the straddle and before the dealer starts dealing the hand I will get up and miss my blind and then just post after the button passes.
Is it a bad idea to do this? Knowing that you will not get a free play in the big blind but that you also forfeit the right to have the button. (However you will in most cases, considering there is no straddle the next hand, get a free play in the cutoff seat)
carlos
Are you suggesting that the blinds really are put at a disadvantage by a button straddling with a random hand? Or are you saying that this is how others perceive the situation?
If you think there is a real disadvantage, could you please explain how it comes about? My initial reaction is that I would rather face a straddle in a three-player game than in a ten-player game, since more of my blind hands would be worth defending against one or two opponents (with random or nearly random cards).
Even if straddling has a real advantage, why would there be a rule against it at a three-player table? Everybody gets to be the button every third hand, and they would be free to straddle if they so chose, so the "advantage" would even out.
I suppose it might not make for much of a game if everyone felt the straddling advantage was so great that they should fold 95 percent of their blind hands. In that case, the cardroom might want to prohibit straddling in an effort to preserve the game.
There are several cases where player misperceptions effect poker rules to the detriment of all--players and management alike. Sometimes, you wish management would stand up and say, "Don't be silly."
Mark,
I think it was the combination of never getting a free flop with your big blind plus always having to call a raise when having poorer relative position. Even when you pick up a hand that defends well from the big blind, you are going to give up position to the button straddle. The correct counter is to straddle when you have the button.
I must be dense. No, you don't get to see the flop for free. But you do have the option of playing against someone who put in two small bets with a random hand. Even out of position, I'd be happy to be in this situation every hand. Obviously, therefore, I'm not going to counter this move by stradding when I get the button.
Of course, I might well raise on the button once I see that I'm holding decent cards.
Mark,
Let's play 10-20 lowball heads-up. When you have the big blind, $10.00, I'll put a live straddle of $20.00 everytime without looking at my cards. When you have the button with the $5.00 small blind you can straddle or not, your choice. Do you want to play?
I haven't played much lowball, but with this kind of edge I'll look you up next time I'm in California. ;)
Seriously (and trying to make a positive contribution to this forum), I still am trying to understand why you believe straddling is a good idea. Yes, the button has a positional advantage. But the button has that positional advantage whether they straddle or not.
The straddle bet "buys" you the right to throw in one more raise before the flop (or draw). Do you really think you get enough good hands to make this raising option worth paying two small bets before seeing your cards?
Perhaps this would be true if your typical short-handed opponents fold too easily. I assure you, I would not.
May all your straddles buck the odds and be profitable.
Mark,
We would be playing 10-20 when you had position and 20-40 when I did. Playing head's up in lowball you would tend to be more agressive and contest the vast majority of pots in any case, frequently with raises. If the starting hands break even then the player with more money in the pot when he has position would have a huge advantage. Please come to California and let me prove this to you. ;< )...........
I understand your confusion now. You believe the straddle doubles the table limits for that round. Think about it for a minute, and you will realize this is untrue.
Before the cards are dealt, it might look like a 20-40 game, because I have put in a $10 (big) blind and you have put in a $20 (straddle) blind. Now I look at my cards and call for another $10 (yes, there is more aggression heads-up, but there are times when one also should just call). You look at your cards and decide to raise. So you throw in $20. But wait! The dealer tells you to take back $10. You can only raise $10. What's going on here?
Despite your straddle, we are still playing a 10-20 game. You can only bet and raise in $10 increments pre-flop and on the flop. You can only bet and raise in $20 increments on the turn and river.
Or perhaps the straddle rules are different in California.
I doubt that they spread much lowball where you live. It seems to be a relic of California only. In lowball, a live straddle doubles the limits. Some clubs, like the Player Club in Ventura, used to allow multiple straddles after first viewing two cards. Say we were playing 2-4, the blinds would be 1-2 and the first player after the blinds would look at his two cards, (The dealer would deal each player two and pause.)and decide whether to post a $4.00 straddle. If he did straddle, the next player could post an $8.00 straddle and the next a $16.00, etc. etc. If the final straddle was for $32.00, we were playing 32-64 that hand. This was in the mid-seventies, when limits were usually 1-2, 2=4 and 5-10 at the small card rooms and lowball and high draw were the only games being spread.
In lowball, the straddle is a live "kill", doubling the limits for the entire hand. In some clubs you can look at two cards and kill, in others, you can look at three. Mason did some great analysis on the effects of these "kill" strtategies in his Draw and lowball book. ( Which I strongly recommend to anyone playing lowball in California.)
For the purposes of our discussion, we are considering shorthanded play either head's-up or three handed. Three handed, I would be aggressive by looking at two and "killing" from either the button or middle blind. Some players like to "kill" their own big blinds, but I seldom do so.
I am an aggressive player by inclination, but that inclination is inversely proportional to the number of players in the game. By the time I find myself heads-up, I am usually hunched over, in a drooling trance, chanting "Oh my, I Raise!!!" in a cackling shout as I splatter chips with reckless abandon, creating mountainous pots.
What you are describing is not a straddle bet, it's killing the pot. Killing the pot raises the limit, straddle bets do not.
I've been playing California lowball in cardrooms since 1962. Before we ever called it a "kill" pot, we referred to it as straddling. In my last post I referred also to multiple straddles in lowball in the sixties and seventies. We also used to straddle the blinds in No-Limit lowball, forcing a larger bring in bet. The "kill" button in lowball replaced the less formalized "straddles" that existed before.
In California lowball, can the under-the-gun player raise before the cards are dealt, have the option to raise again pre-flop (even if nobody else does), and still be playing at the original table limits? That is, can the player make what today is commonly called (in other games and/or other states) a "straddle" bet?
If so, what is this bet called when it is made in a CA lowball game?
The under the gun player, and anyone else at the table, can put in a bet that is double the big blind. This is now called a "kill", and doubles the betting limits for the remainder of the hand. In the old days, this was called a straddle, or live straddle. Many cardrooms in California that have "Kill" games for lowball, allow any player to look at two, sometimes three cards, before deciding whether to "kill" the pot.
This may be a blasphemous question for this board, however I am interested in learning to play poker as cover for my blackjack play. I discarded craps ect. for the house edge and I was wondering which game would work best. I know absolutely squat about poker but am willing to learn. Pai-Gow looks to be easy to jump in and out of but it appears you don't have an edge in most casinos from what I've read. I get the impression that in other varieties of poker jumping in for awhile and then out would be frowned upon if not impossible. So are there any other types of poker that lend themselves to jumping in and out. I live in Canada so I am also looking for a game that is widely offered so that I will have time to polish my skills before heading south of the border, so I don't lose my shirt. All replies appreciated. Regards, A. Counter
Most casinos know that some of the best blackjack players also play poker. They will not like a poker player playing blackjack. However when you learn poker you will play less blackjack as poker is more fun and earns more money with less fluctuation. How do you like them apples. Good Luck.
Thanks for your insight Ray, maybe my blackjack will have to become camouflage for my poker play. I realize poker is not the ideal choice as a cover for bj. However I hate the idea of just giving them my money. So given these parameters which game( poker) should I work on first? Regards
What is the most popular game where you play bj? If you lived in west US, the answer would probably be holdem. If you lived in east US, the answer would probably be stud. I don't know what the rave is in Canada I'm afraid. Where to you plan on ending up in the U.S.? That'll probably determine your answer.
JG
As a blackjack card counter, you might want to start with stud. Stud requires remembering what cards come out, and if you can do this well, you will have a large advantage.
One thing to consider though: low-limit stud is in many respects a different game from mid and high limits. Due to the no/low ante (relative to the bet size) in low-limit stud, you have to trap opponents in when you have a good hand (because you don't just want to win a tiny pot), while in higher games, the starting pot is much larger relative to the bets, which makes the objective to knock players out. Low-limit holdem isn't exactly like higher limit holdem, but you consider the same factors in making decisions. It's just that those factors will often lead you to different decisions than you would make in the higher limit games. So low-limit holdem will better prepare you for higher limits than low-limit stud would.
If you have the bankroll for 5-10 stud, and the game is loose, it shouldn't play that differently than the higher limit stud games. But the 1-5 stud games should be avoided. If you plan on starting below 5-10, you should play holdem.
And if you do learn holdem, next learn Omaha-8 as fast as possible, since it is the most profitable game against bad players.
In answer to your question for myself I use low limit stud simply because I am more re-laxed playing stud and can sit out of the bj for a couple of hours and clear my mind a little bit.My profit/loss in low limit stud is minimal in 2 or 3 hours play.I find bj much more profitable for me than low limit stud but much more intense as far as concentration goes.I agree with what someone else posted however in that you can make more money quicker and have a heck of alot more fun in higher limit stud and hold'em games,but you had better practice,practice,practice just like you did when you were learning to count and to adjust your wager to the count.Also if you don't want to have to concentrate at all and just want some harmless time out as a cover fot your bj play then Pai Gow may be for you.Goodd Luck Good Luck
I think you hit it exactly, I was sort of coming back in my decision making to Pai-Gow for the simple reason it appears fairly mindless and it is usually offered very close to the bj pit which would give me a chance to tell which pits are soft while blending in to the crowd. Is there anyway to gain an edge in this game or are you still at a disadvantage even if you play well? Also, here is a real newbie question with Omaha, Hold'em ect am I correct in assuming that they are usually offered in a seperate part of the casino or are they offered on the same sort of lay out as a Pai-Gow or Let it Ride game ( I said I did'nt know squat !!) and do they use red or green felt on the tables?
just kidding about the last part, thanks to all replies.
Poker is played in a seperate part of the casino known as a poker room(hehe). If you want to get used to Hold 'Em, I'd recommend you get Gpkr. Its an IRC client for playing poker. This will be the easiest(and cheapest!) way for you to learn how to play HE or Omaha/8 or even stud. At one of the casino's I play at, the all the poker tables' felt is blue! Good Luck.
Web^Pimp
Post something if you can't find where to get Gpkr.
I'd like to know where to get Gpkr. Cheaper is always better when it comes to learning.
Regards, A. Counter
A Counter
Sorry for the delayed response but I've been working all week in beautiful weather and haven't been at the PC.Funny how work interfers with your gambling isn't it.To address your question about Pai Gow and a playing system for it I don't know of one.For me I play a little above minimum and see what the trend is.If the dealer is catching strong hands I'll regress my bet but if the dealer is catching mediocre hands I'll press a couple of times then regress a little then back up.I'll want to press heavy if the dealer can't catch a hand.I'll drop my bet to minimum if I get a bad beat then start over again.Also If you want to you can be bank at different times depending on house rules and then you can get your jucies flowing if there are any heavy betters in the gamebut then you are defeating the purpose you stated about laying low and relaxing before your next bj session.Anyway have luck and fun.I waiting for my next trip to AC I play at the Trop and then I'll be going to BiloxiMississippi in Feb. to play at the Grandin my opionion boyh have great poker rooms.
I will say that I like to read your posts because I find them good to read. However you did not answer my question post to you. Perhaps I should rephrase it. Are small no-limit(under 100) tournies worth playing regulary as far as a regular source of income? Can they be beat consistently and by this I mean at least placing in the money? Or are they a crapshoot? Another question I have is this: do you play limit tournies? I don't like them because I think that they can become a total crapshoot with zero skill involved. My style is something like a yo-yo. I try to follow the trends of the tourny and then go against it. Sometimes I will play super-tight. Sometimes I will play Stu Unger and Doyle style-super agressive. However I'm not a all-in style of player. I try to stay away from all-in as much as possible until I can see some flops. And when I do go all-in I want to be the one who goes all-in and forces someone else to call or fold. I too will play more hands then some typical players and will rely on my skill to navigate through the potential traps that can develop. By the way, YOULOSE, if you are reading this which I doubt because you have to have a IQ of atleast 50, please study Big John's posts and mine because you might learn something.
Predator,
Warning: (THIS IS AN EXTREMELY LONG AND, PROBABLY, BORING POST)
I cannot answer your question about whether you can make money playing these small buy-in tourneys. It is impossible to make a living playing small tourneys only. If you are a winning ring game player and you supplement your tourney playing with good ring games, yes, you can do pretty well.
I play the small tourneys for several reasons: 1. Experience for bigger tournaments in the future. 2. Enjoyment. 3. Limited financial gain. 4. Strategy experiments.
By the way, if you only go all in when you have seen the flop and are betting first, you are missing out on many good sources of profit. In fact, without trapping and calling the all in bets of others, you can't hope to be successful in tournaments.
There are no "sure fire" answers to the questions you have asked. By the way, YOULOSE didn't bother me and I don't consider what I post to be anything particularly worthy of study. I have learned much by reading on this forum and rgp. It isn't always the information contained in the post, but rather, the audit trail of the poster's thinking that proves most instructive. It isn't just learning what to do that I find illuminating; it is finding out what I should be thinking or noticing before I commit to a course of action.
There are players, probably fairly new to casino or tournament poker, who have asked me questions that I would have liked to have been able to ask of someone when I first started playing seriously. I try to answer, based on my limited experience and abilities, hoping that someone else will join in and answer in a different way, thus adding to my knowledge as well as that of the player originally posing the question. This sharing of information, even if the quality is uneven and subject to controversy and questioning, pushes the body of poker theory ever forward. When you have the Sklanskys, Malmuths, Zees, Ciaffones, Caros and Jalibs, and others less well known discussing poker and attacking strategy from so many different viewpoints, you are going to get growth and some light shed on the heretofore dark areas. We have all seen strategy that was posted here on the internet, percolated in the minds of readers, crystallized into concrete ideas and later posted for discussion. There is some newbie out there today who will be logging on to 2+2 or rgp for the first time this month, who'll become so fascinated that he or she will study and learn and, eventually, become the Champion of some major tournament. For better or worse, it seems that the internet will become a powerful teaching tool for poker.
For some reason I got the post information backwards!
How can you detect your bad beat periods?
Do you refer to your Biorythm? Astrology? Horoscope? Tarot? and whatever?
Do you keep track of your bad beat periods?
Example: Last year I was very hot in September and October and I made a lot of money. On the other hand, I lost a lot of money in November and December. Believe it or not, i am in the same boat right now. The month of November has been very bad for me. Isn't that a strange coincidence? As you know,when you are playing 20-40 it is not hard to loose between $1500-$2500 in a few hours when you are running bad.
Because, i know i am running bad i am playing much tighter. I studied each of my betting decisions and although i have the best hand pre-flop and on the flop, i am getting beat hand after hand.
I did notice that because i am less agressive i lost a few pots because someone has raised before me and i mucked the best hand.Anyway, even after I took a week off to relax, yesterday i went back to the game and my selective and less agressive play still did not work and i lost $1300.
Ex: No one raised before the flop. I have Q-10 in the middle position. On my right, the player has J-10. The flop comes: A-10-3. Everyone checks. The small blind is a loose player and he bets on the turn when he sees a 7. On my right, the J-10 ( solid player) raises and then i mucked my hand instead of either calling or raising him. I know if the player on my right would have an Ace he would have bet it on the flop. So, the only thing i had to beat was the K-10.
From your point of view, what do you think I should do besides searching for moral support because this whole thing does not make sense.
From
I know exactly how you feel,sometimes everybody goes through perids of losing day after day after day.It's a terrible feeling,you try to be very aggressive someone is holding a better hand,you play conservative and just call the player stacking the pot says "If you raised I had to get out".In times like these it seems as though you make the wrong move at the crucial point and it some times makes you doubt your abilities.When your running bad knowing you made the play that will "get the money in the long run" doesn't make you feel any better when a guy just hit a two outer against you for a $500 dollar pot.Remember,poker is not a game of pure skill,it is a blend of luck and skill and you need both to win,and at a limit structured game luck plays a much larger role than pot or no limit.No luck over a perid of time can make you doubt yourself and change your play,it sounds like your bad run has you on tilt,being on tilt doesn't necessarily mean playing like a maniac,for some people "on tilt" is checking and calling in spots they'd normally be betting and raising,"on tilt" is anything that takes you out of your game and a long run of bad luck will do that to anybody either making them too aggressive or too passive at the table.I wish I had something I could tell you but we all know if someone found a cure for bad luck they'd be a zillionaire.My best advice to you is to play at a lower limit for a week or 2 until you get your confidence back and it will be easier to play like you were before things started running bad if your playing at a lower limit.Remember those cards are just plastic and they aren't in an elaborate conspiracy against you.(I know sometimes we all feel like that's debateable)I really hope things turn for you.Keep me updated.
Yvan, I feel your pain. But I'm concerned that you're asking the wrong questions. If there were a foolproof way to use astrology, biorythms, etc., we wouldn't have to waste all this time studying and thinking about the game. We would just consult our personal chart and go to the movies if it's going to be a bad day to play.
Losing periods are a normal occurance, even for a winning player. If you haven't yet, please read Mason's essays on this subject.
I went through a very painful losing period recently that stretched out for almost 4 months. I tried all of the recommended remedies, taking a break, lowering my limit, etc., but the one thing that helped me the most was reading (a non 2+2 book, unfortunately) Ciaffone's _Improve Your Poker_. This book gave me the precise kick in the head needed to get my game back on track. I can't recommend it highly enough.
-Oz-
Oz-
I second the recommendation for all of Ciaffone's books. He is an excellent strategy authority and enjoyable (even humorous sometimes) to read.
So have things gotten any better?
Yes. I am back to normal. I found my problem. Loose and Agressive and not reading opponents hands. In playing in loose games in Vegas and at Crystal park, i lost sight of reading opponents hands. The game was so loose that any two cards would win.The only thing you need to do is show the best hand on the river. How expensive this was!!! After playing for a while, i started playing like them and playing agressively was definitely the wrong strategy. Back in town my mind was still loose and agressive. I started reading hold-em by excellence and that helped me to get back on track. I did not loose a session since Monday. I agree about your recommendation and had started reading some book to go back to basic. This one week session in Vegas and Crystal Park was a good lesson for me. Although in the past i did experience long bad beat periods, i now beleive that this current bad beat period is now over. It only last two weeks. This tells me that i can control in the future bad beat periods to its minimum timeline .This remains to be seen. Thanks for your advice.
You beat me to the analysis. I was going to suggest that if they QT you played from middle position was offsuit, then perhaps your play was too loose rather than too tight.
Yesterday, i saw a player that kept throwing cards at the dealer's face everytime he lost. The players complained to the floor person while this person took a short break. I told the dealer, that she should not tolerate this kind of behavior. And explained to her that she could received the card in her eyes and lost her eyesite. I know this happened a few years ago in Vegas. What do you think should be done to oblige all the casinos to implement a strict rules in regards to that behavior. Should the casino ask the person to leave the game on the 1st offense and banned this person access to the cards games on the 2nd offense? About petitioning in our respective casinos where we play and have that rule enforce with strong penalties? Not only for tournament but also for side games.
I say shoot the idiots after the second deliberate attempt. The penalty for the first attempt? 2/3 of their chips! (1/3 for dealer tip, 1/3 for table, 1/3 for charity)
Perhaps the tournament rules are the most equitable: so long as the cards land on the table, it's a minor offense ;-) (Reminds me of the time I once observed a Stardust dealer cleanly catch an entire 7-stud hand in mid-flight -- with one hand -- as it was flying toward his head.)
Seriously, most places with a seasoned staff will not permit this abuse. It's up to management to protect their staff, but the players at the table can exert some peer pressure with subtle comments to the player concerned.
Don't bother being subtle, just ask him what the hell he thinks he's doing. In my experience, players like this, when challenged, will grumble but then stop their offensive behaviour. One thing I can't stand is when a player gives a dealer abuse, or comes over rude and offensive, and the rest of the table just sits there saying nothing. I visit casinos to *play* cards - if i wanted to see people throw the damn things i'd join the circus.
Matt
My favorite thing to do is throw cards at the dealer. No, actually I blame the dealer for all my problems that range from impotence to alcoholism. I encourage all patrons of card rooms to pick on the dealers because it is THEM who give you bad cards. Yeah...Right. Learn some manners. Learn to play. Play often. Quit whining. Beat up you cat instead. Doc-
I'm a regular at the mirage and bellagio and you'd be surprised how many professional players really and truly believe(or at least act like they do)that the dealer or the deck has control over who wins and loses.Throwing cards is an absolutely classless move,I'd like to see a special table for all the card winging,play criticizing,deck change asking for,bad beat storytelling,dealer blaming,turning losing AA up on the river for sympathy whining crybabies can all play with each other.I would enjoy poker much more.
I need the following info: chips you start with for your buy-in time between blind increases starting blind limit
This is for limit hold-em held each week I also heard something about a no-limit tourney held at the Trop on a Friday. Does anyone know any thing about this?
Wed night is a 50$ buy in 300 in chips. Fri is 100$ buy in 500 in chips. Last Fri of the month is a 200$ buy in 500 in chips. The Trop is going to be introducing No Limit hold em tourneys, I'm not sure when they will start. I do know they are having a No Limit tourney on I believe Dec 3 at 4:15, its their second chance tourney, if you get wiped out early at the Taj's tourney you can shoot over to the Trop. In the limit tourneys the blinds go up every 20 minutes, I wish they would make it at least 30 minutes to give you a little play. The tournaments are well run by a great staff. I've been playing at the Trop for the past 2 years and have thoroughly enjoyed it. Danny H
I read a post on rgp and that person said that he played in a $50 buy-in no-limit tourney at the trop last week! Is he full of crap? And are these limit tournies profitable or are they crapshoots?
There was a no limit tournament at the trop on Fri. Nov. 6. I believe it was their first one.
JP
I just talked to the Trop, the first No Limit tourney was on Nov 6. They are running them every other Fri. The response has been great 80% rebuys with big turnouts. I haven't been able to play on Fri's this month. Damn!! The second chance tourney is coming up and after that they look to continue No Limit maybe every Fri! The Limit tourneys do tend to be a crapshoot with blinds increasing every 20 min. I've played about 28 tourneys, I've won twice and placed twice, I want to play better. No Discipline! I'm going to start in December with all the tourneys coming up. Hope to see ya at the Taj and Trop Danny H
What is a must move table? Serious or funny responses welcome. Thanks in advance.
If there are multiple tables of the same game and limit, (say, 5-10 Stud), the house might declare must-move to keep the games balanced. They keep an ordered list of the players that are already in the games. If there are nine players at Table A, and eight at Table B, then if someone at Table B leaves, then the player who has been at Table A the longest will be shifted automatically to Table B.
Foxwoods does this, and it is annoying. There can be a really wild Omaha-8 game on one table, and a rock-filled game on the other. No one ever leaves the wild game by choice, and the rocky game always has empty seats. So I have to play a few hours in this pointless rock-filled Omaha-8 game in order to get into the fishy game, and I can't leave the rocky game or I would have to get on the back of the line.
On page 21 of Seven Card Stud, by S,M & Z, for kings down to tens, it says that the time to throw away a big pair is when you are against a bigger pair or when your cards are dead. Does this mean that if another card of the same rank as your pair is on the table, it is best to fold? How many of your kicker have to be out to make the hand unplayable?
Alan,
I'll take a crack at this one although I would take it with a grain of salt. When your hand is at least a little dead it depends on the following IMO:
1) How high your pair is. 2) How high your kicker is. 3) How many opponents you are up against. 4) How much could your kicker help in making a straight, flush, or both.
Pardon the rough English but in general the higher your pair the deader your hand can be and the few players you are up against the deader your hand can be. If you have a pair of Jacks with a small kicker that doesn't help for a straight or a flush and one of your Jacks is in sight and it is a family pot, your hand isn't all that good. On the other hand if you have a pair of Kings with a Queen kicker that is suited with one of your kings, you see another King on the board, your hand is very live to your two flush etc. you can feel more comfortable playing a hand like this against the field and at somepoint try to eliminate players. I'll let CV recommend any books that might be appropriate.
Tom Haley
A 5-10 Holdem game. I am in late position with KK. A player I never saw before raises under the gun. I re-raise, all fold and he calls. The flop of course comes A, rag,rag.He checks, I make the obligatory bet,he raises, and I fold.He then shows me a pair of tens. I was both impressed and upset at being moved off the hand like that. Other than storing this experience in the memory bank, were there any other remedies?
Heads up stealing is so common that I usually will take 2nd pair to the river,but that's easy to say after the fact, many agressive players will not check or call heads up,that is a tough call in your spot,I don't think anyone will say you made a bad play.Your opponent's play is a great play when you fold your kings,but if you hold an ace his play looks like a terrible play.
I agree. You were just unlucky. From his point of view you could also have had an ace or two. In that case he would 've been in a lot of trouble.
Was this heads-up? With an A-rag-rag board, I don't know why this guy would want blow you off of the hand with a check-raise on the flop if he had a big Ace. He wouldn't have to fear many cards, except perhaps having you pair your kicker in case it is AK vs. AQ. It would be more profitable to check-call the flop, and then try to pick up one or two big bets on the turn and river once you have more money committed to the pot. Therefore, I smell a move and would be inclined to call him down. If he checks the turn, I would check behind him and try to pick off a bluff on the river because YOU also don't have to fear any free cards.
If he bets both the turn and the river, I Might consider folding on the end. By the way, never show your Kings here to try to evoke "bad-beat" sympathy if you do lay down. You don't want to encourage tougher opponents to take shots.
Right. But since he just sat down at the game, he doesn't have any idea how this guy would play it. For all he knew the guy had lost a bunch, and was simply trying to get the pot before someone drew out on him on the turn or river.
I agree with the "don't show your KKs" post: mumble "Dang, I missed another straight...".
"storing this experience in the memory bank" isn't going to do much good; except vrs THIS opponent later.
With your intention to fold for a raise, your bet on the flop prevents you from winning a show down; except against a weak caller who will not bluff. By your KKs, your hand value is almost zero. This is NOT "semi-bluffing" since you can rarely win a show down. This so called "offensive" stance works well against other offensives, and of course against weak-tights.
It cannot win against "aggressive" types. The other player correctly deduced you had either a big pair or a big Ace when you re-raised, and he correctly deduced you would lay down a big pair NOW for his raise, so his raise was a great play; especially if he deduced the only Ace you would re-raise with was AA or AK.
Against these aggressive types you should play defensively, either checking and folding or encouraging a bluff and calling him down.
Another point: had you called the raise with the intention of folding on the turn, you are affectively cutting his bluff odds almost in half, since it costs him twice as much to bluff but he gains only 1sb more. I ALWAYS call this check raise even if I have the NUTS, unless I have NOTHING or the opponent who is SURE to have at least an Ace. I will even call with NOTHING against the "offensive" types who will take only ONE shot at the pot. This way, I can bluff on the turn with impunity; since my "bluff call" convinced him I had a Ace.
The "trick" is to profile these aggressive/offensive/defensive types ahead of time. Such profiling pays big dividends. Put another way, determine who will never take a shot at the pot with a raise, who may take only one shot, and who may take more than one. Once done, you can RESPOND to these players "effectively" instead if REACTING to them "by the book".
- Louie
Well, this is not an uncommon move. Look at it from his point of view: he raised under the gun, you re-raised pre-flop. He puts you on a premium pair and you could easily put him on AK or another premium pair less than KK. When the ace hits, he knows that if you don't have an ace, you will be worried that he does. He knows he's behind and can't win without improving (and thus wants to get to the river cheaply), or by getting you to lay it down. The checkraise gives him a chance to win by you laying it down, or might cause you to check the turn after he's checked (fearing another check-raise), giving him a free card. If you reraise his check-raise, he can think hard about throwing it away. If you don't reraise, he knows exactly where he stands (he is up against a better pair) and you have no idea where you stand.
Going down without a fight at that point seems like a mistake. You have position on him. I think re-raising would be the stronger strategy. If that doesn't slow him down then either he is a maniac, a really incredible player that can read you like a book, or he has you beat. If he just calls, you stand a good chance of him checking to you on the turn (which you then check, thus recouping your 2SB gamble on the flop).
A Poker Guy!
I don't understand why you bet the flop. I would just check behind him with this hand. If he is ahead, you save money, and if he is behind, you may encourage a bet later, which you plan to call. And free cards are not very dangerous here.
If he checks it to you three times, you might bet for value on the end, but that's it.
William
I think if he was a good player here holding an ace, he would not check-raise. He would have simply bet. However, I know that you don't know anything about this guy, so you had no way of telling if he was good or not. Checking your kings probably would have made sense here. The flop bet is only $5. If you wait till the turn you will have a better idea where you stand if he checks again. This time you bet $10. Most people won't go for the check-raise 2 times in a row. They then think, "well, he checked behind me, he must not have much."
BTW, the real point of my response was supposed to be about the check-raise. In low-limit games especially, I have found the check-raise to be extremely, extremely intimidating to other players. Semi-bluffing with it can buy many pots.
Well, your play is an example of weak tight.Mike 7 posted a good point about the player making this raise before the bigger street. In general, my opinion is when your heads up with a big pair your going to pay off.At the very least you should call this down to the river,(if not re-raise) and if you lose, you lose. That is the nature of this game. Some times you have to go to the river when someone is putting pressure on you and it is very uncomfortable. This is one of those situations. If the board offered alot more scary possibilities, then you might pause a little, but at the least, call the raise on the cheap street.This is where that word," courage" comes in. I posted it elsewhere, but it takes more than just the discipline to wait for a quality starting hand, it takes the courage to play it aggressively and follow through when it 's appropriate.This is the difficult part for all of us,.. me included! goodluck
I agree with you al. This situation just happenned to me this afternoon while playing 15-30. The player raised under the gun and I reraised with KK in late position.He called my raised. We are playing heads-up. The flops comes A-J-4 off suit. He checks and I bet. He raised, I reraised. To my surprise, he folded. My plan was to put fear into him as well as finding out if he really had an ace. If he would have called, i would have check the turn and called him on the river if necessary. I beleive that some of the time you need to play your hand to the river and pay the price if your are beat. The bottom line is to know your opponent and if you don't know him, well here is a great opportunity to find out. By doing so, the players know that when you have a strong hand, especially heads-up,they cannot run over you. Your selective and aggressive image has a value that you need to protect.
That's right, so in this case 'Lou B' here didn't make an real error. He just didn't know his opponent well enough. But by showing his hand he indicates that he probably doesn't do it very often. He just tries to create an image for himself.
Don't show your KK. I wouldn't have made any comment. If I was in his position, I wouldn't have showed you the TT,since it was no initial bluff. I have made the same play as your opponent. I imagine many players have. It really was a combination of raising to define your opponents hand(certainly not the best reason to raise,but often acceptable on the the flop and cheaper than chasing) and a semibluff raise to steal the pot.
Mason has written that in limit Omatha high you cannot have any real long term expectation as the luck factor is too high, eliminating any skill better players can exercise. (Although I think Ray Zee posted that this game is beatable if you play really tight and have lots of patience)
My question relates to short deck games, typically with all the 2s-6s stripped out leaving a 32 card deck. Games played include draw poker, 5 card stud, sometimes 7 card stud, and various community card type flop games, sometimes with a three card flop as in holdem, sometimes with the community cards turned up individually or in pairs etc. Betting ranges from standard limit, spread limit to pot limit. These games are common home games in England and in the southern hemisphere - Asia, Australia, New Zealand, Sth Africa etc.
I would like to know if anyone has done any analysis as to whether these short deck games are beatable, or are they in the same category as high limit Omatha?
My initial thoughts on first playing these games were: with less cards there are more draw-outs against made but non-nut hands so therefore more luck; less cards so less combinations and situations arise so less skill in terms of hand selection, hand reading etc so that the gap between skillfull vrs unskillfull play(ers) is much reduced; although "bigger" hands take down the pots than in standard full deck, the reduced complexity makes these games far more boring to play, this coupled with the increased risk of drawout increases the potential for tilt - on the other hand the games give an appearance of fast paced action with many hands playable so that the unskillfull will play hands that look good but in reality are losers. Am I generally correct or incorrect?
David,
All poker games are beatable if you play good enough to overcome the rake and play better than your opponents. If you do these two things you must be ahead after a long term of playing. If you are losing money one of these two things is getting you. The short deck games may bring more fluctuation into play but they are still very beatable. Good Luck. I suspect you took quotes out of context or misunderstood them as Omaha high limit is a very beatable game and if I was broke that would be the game I would look for.
I was just wondering if Ray, David, Mason, or any of the other 2+2 staff ever play on IRC poker? Just thought it could be beneficial to the people who do play there if the upper echelon would pop in and maybe give some advice once in a while. I know its only "cybermoney", but many people on there practice the same way they actually play. Build bad skills there, you're likely to apply them when it's real money. Just curious as I don't recall seeing any nicks that looked like your names.
W.P.
I dont even know how to get to irc poker and play. Maybe you could post it on the exchange side and explain more. Although it may be fun while learning why not play some place for real money if you are a winning player. Good Luck.
In Bob Ciaffone's excellent book 'Improve Your Poker', he discusses the play of AK in no-limit money games and recommends often limping before the flop. His reasoning is that it is still a drawing hand and therfore you want a "volume" pot. This seems to me to be a recipe for getting doubled through by a medium set or bottom two pair when you do hit a flop. What do you think is his rationale since he doesn't discuss post-flop strategy for this play?
If I were playing big slick in a five-handed flop, and made a pot sized bet with top pair to the A or K, I would have a tough decision if someone played back at me unless they were a total aggressive. It seems like the only "good" action you would get in a multi-handed pot is from drawing hands and habitual bluffers. And most of the quality draws would not be getting the worst of it by THAT much if there were some dead money in the pot.
Conversely, if you raise to get heads-up or three-handed you have a better shot to make some decent money from weakies with top pair, second kicker or the QQ that always manages to stick to the live one's hands. You might even be able to win with a bluff or showdown if you are against some weak-tight or predicatable types.
Michael,
You dont have to play a big pot with ak when one of them flops. Also ak in a multiway pot can win a big pot from a second best straight or two pair when three big cards come. Plus there is the person involved. Each player plays certain styles and should play hands in such a way it fits into their style. Good Luck.
My opinnion folks, If you play any hand in any poker game by rote you will soon find that others are smarter than you thought! To play AK the same way all the time is a poker mistake in line with raising when you should call or calling when you should raise or calling when you should fold (Sklansky). With AK unsuited you can make any or all of these mistakes. Like most poker questions and I believe Lou Krieger or one of the 2+2 guys have coined the expression "IT DEPENDS". To play this hand correctly requires the application of the correct stategy in the current situation. You must take into account your position, your opponents, your image etc.. before deciding on the correct stategy. The bottom line is that winning poker requires a lot of thinking. If you are not prepared to act appropriately or you will fail to reach your goal of "winning money". Consequently with all due respect to Bob Ciaffone there must be situations in which the correct strategy is to raise with AKns. Conversely there must be situations where the correct preflop stategy with AKns is to call or (ugh) fold! You must be the Judge or maybe we should all let Bob play the Big Slicks for us! respectfully vince
When the blinds are fairly high relative to the stacks, such as in a moderately late phase of a tournament, limping with AKo can make sense, especially in position. Players are then more likely to back top pair with their entire stack, and a lesser ace or king that pairs may well bet into you, or call your check-raise. Your hand is either great or worthless, and you might as well know which before committing all of your money. Preflop all-in, you would only be even money against a lower pair, and you have a somewhat strong advantage over a weaker Ax or Kx.
With deep money, forget limping. You need to narrow the field, unless your opponents are bad and they will overplay a weaker top pair. With top pair on the flop, you are basically looking at calls from strong drawing hands and hopefully AJs, etc. Why limp and let the low pairs and suited connectors get three free cards? You won't get action from them after the flop unless it's action you don't want. (AKs is a very different hand, and its play depends in part on how your opps. treat suited connectors.)
Also, very late in a tourney, you often might as well just go all-in preflop, since there is a high likelihood that Ax will call, and you can't gamble a large fraction of your stack on making top pair (1/3 chance).
I read the book refered to in the original post and also just completed T.J. Cloutier's books too.
My understanding, particular of the Cloutier book, is that the ONLY hand he ever plays is AA. (Yes I am being facetious). He continually brags about how often he throws away KK and how dangerous AK is.
Could some expert NL players please comment on his exremely tight play before the flop? In a game with quickly increasing blinds, he would just blind away his money (or hope to get lucky flops in the blind). Clearly this is not the case as he is one of the best NL tourney players in the world.
-paul
Here is a typical TJ play.
Early Position player limps Middle Position player calls Late position aspiring aggressive player tries to steal
TJ pretends to look at his cards, but he really knows that the guy is on the steal and is intimidated by TJ's semi-tight image, knows the two early players are trying to see a cheap flop, and also knows the BB and SB are not interested in their hands, and wouldn't call a reraise out of position without AA or KK anyway. So he pops the pretender with a reraise and picks up a nice pot with very little risk.
The guy has a gift. Unfortunately, he tried to write a book for those of us who lack the gift and must rely on our cards instead. Players like TJ, Johnny Chan, Phil Helmuth, Stu Ungar, etc. all have huge equity in every pot they eneter since they can smell the slightest weakness and can steal in the majority of the cases where the enemy has only top pair at best.
A lot of aspiring tourney players are trying to emulate this style. My defense against these guys is to mentally commit yourself to a hand BEFORE putting any significant ships in the Pot. If that means reraising all-in with pocket nines or AK before the flop or betting out with QQ and a King on the board so be it. But forcing the action cuts down their biggest edge- exploiting your weakness.
wouldnt call a reraise with aa out of position? thats seems pretty strange. how bout reraising the reraise out of position with rockets?
The post reads "wouldn't call a reraise WITHOUT AA or KK, not WITH AA or KK."
Perhaps a decent player should learn to feign weakness, taking advantage of the expert player's ability and using it against them. Is it feasible for an amateur player to learn how to do this successfully?
Matt
T.J. doesn't play anywhere near as tight in NL cash games as he advises in his book. Once, several years ago, through some really poor play on my part, he busted me with a 6-4 of spades in a NL ring game. He is a controlled and deliberate player, but he'll throw some money in the pot if he thinks he's ahead or that you'll lay a hand down. When he's in a game, few people think of him as the "weak-link" to double through on. I've read a couple posters on rgp alleging that they considered him pretty juicy in limit hold'em, but I've no experience playing any limit with him. For myself, I'm just as happy to avoid playing with him as I would be to avoid playing any player that I felt had an ability advantage over me. Bobby Hoff is another player that I think has playing similarities to T.J. It isn't a good idea to fight for bones with some of the "Big Dogs".
.
I'm considering keeping a running profile on all players that play at my game. ($1 to $5, no check raise, one $1 blind hold'em/tahoe is all we have in Whitefish Montana.) I figure this way I can refresh my memory on previous plays that players have done in the past before I sit down at the table, like what cards they will hold to see the flop, how many times they will they call to the river while getting the worst of it with a gut shot straight etc. etc. There are probably 25 to 30 regulars plus a slug of canadian tourists and I have trouble keeping this information clear in my head as I only play about once a week. Do you pros think this is a good idea or am I over complicating by doing this. What do you guys do? Any responses or sugguestions Appreciated.
Tom S.
Post deleted at author's request.
Thanks for the input Gary.
Tom S.
All things being equal (position, other players, etc), which usually play better???
I always seem to lose with high cards.... A10, AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ (all offsuit) when they don't pair on the flop. It is difficult to call one bet after the flop (and especially 2 bets) if you don't hit the flop. And, on the other hand, guys who play 99, 88, 77 either flop the set, or, are still ahead of you with their pair if you dont hit the flop..... I need some help and would like your opinions...
How do you guys value the 2 high cards vs. a med/lower pocket pair? Thank you in advance for your opinions.
All things being equal (position, other players, etc), which usually play better???
I always seem to lose with high cards.... A10, AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ (all offsuit) when they don't pair on the flop. It is difficult to call one bet after the flop (and especially 2 bets) if you don't hit the flop. And, on the other hand, guys who play 99, 88, 77 either flop the set, or, are still ahead of you with their pair if you dont hit the flop..... I need some help and would like your opinions...
How do you guys value the 2 high cards vs. a med/lower pocket pair? Thank you in advance for your opinions.
Sometimes a flop will come where I know my opponent knows I can't possibly have a drawing hand. An example would be where I have raised from a middle position and the flop comes A94 rainbow. These flops create a bit of a dilemma as far as bluffing and semibluffing is concerned. First of all, there is a very good chance that my opponent or opponents have nothing at all, and a bet will pick up the pot. So I want to bet a lot of weak hands here. But of course I don't want to bluff all the time. Normally, the answer would be to semibluff, letting my cards randomize things for me, but this is problematic because it is almost impossible for me to have a "legitimate" draw -- the only gutshots are hands like 53, and I would not have raised with these hands.
My answer is to semibluff with my backdoor draws! If I have, say, JT suited with one of the cards on the board, I would consider a bet to be almost mandatory unless I am playing against a total calling station. Notice this hand gives me a backdoor flush draw plus *three* backdoor straight draws. It turns out I have about an 8% chance of ending up with a straight or a flush here, so my draws actually add quite a bit of value to my hand. Similarly I would semibluff just about all the time with T8 or 87 suited with one of the cards on board, and most of the time with QJ and QT with a three flush, both of which give me two backdoor straight draws to go with the backdoor flush draw, for a total of something like a 6% or 7% chance of making a straight or a flush.
I'd be interested to hear how other people handle this tricky situation -- compliments, flames, etc. are all welcome!
William
If you know that there is a very good chance that your opponents have nothing at all and a bet will pick up the pot then you should bet everytime. Unfortunately that's only rarely the case.
I have found that unco-ordinated flops that contain a queen as the highest card and two other cards eight or lower are excellent flops to try to steal with nothing, especially if the pot is not very big and you only have a small number of opponents. This play frequently comes up when you are in the blind.
Another kind of rule that I use is the 2 gap rule. If you have a paint and the two side cards are 2 gaps or wider, and there is no flush draw, go after it.
What sorts of lagitimate steal hands can you have that do NOT have a pair or back-door draws to A94 flop?
"Of course I don't want to bluff all the time" Why not? The opponent who flopped a pair is going to call you anyway. Four reasons not to let them know you bluff all the time are 1) they may bluff-raise, 2) they may "bluff call" with nothing and take it away on the turn, 3) they may call you down with a small pocket pair, and 4) they will routinely check-raise you. Those are good, but not compelling reasons.
But routine opponents are going to give you this pot unless they have SOME kind of hand, no matter how pethetic. So delete reasons 1) and 2). Since you have correctly deduced that there are few hands out there to call, go ahead and bluff. If you win half the time, what does it matter if they know it? An OCCASIONAL check is enough for them to remember.
AND ... these profitable obvious bluffs count as bluffs in their minds for situations where you are very unlikely to bluff. Lets hope "bluff" comes into their minds when you Call-ReRaise a flop of Q75 against 6 opponents...
- Louie
Dear 2+2 Do you have a list of Card Rooms in the US that employ Proposition (house) players? Thank You Very Much Vince
Most/All card rooms from the Rockies to the Pacific CAN and often DO use props and shills. Most/All of the MidWest cannot. I don't recal for the East Coast.
I believe every card room must identify such players upon request. Even if not, I'm sure they cannot lie about it.
Hopefully someone will point out where I am wrong ...
- Louie
Silent props which are used in some California cardrooms do not have to identify themselves as working for the house.
When I stated playing poker in Colorado I had to drive 45 min-1hour in the Mountains to play. The limit there was $5 bet so I had many frustruating days. When I got to the Casino I usually gambled bigtime and after being stuck a $100+ or so I begun playing more disciplined. Staying there only for 2-3 hours was out of the question and I never stayed there in the hotel (I guess I am cheap). All in all I played 8-10 hours each trip. Now I play 20-40 (15-30) and the cardroom is never further than 15-20 minutes away. More often than not I start on the 'right foot' play 2-3 hours and I am up $500-800, aftewhich I sometimes lose focus (and $$). What I am trying to convey is the length of play and (ones ability to focus, be disciplined) may vary. How does one archieve the ability to play 8-10 hours without losing 'it' ? Is this a step by step progress ?
I dont think it is a question of focus. It is aquestion of discipline. If a game is good and you feel that you can play up to your level,by all means play. A game should only be quit if it becomes to tough, you have most of the money or your play becomes ragged either because of bad beats or tiredness.
I'm going to add another word that I never see talked about and that is courage. Of course discipline is important, but you need to also feel courageous when you are playing games such as hldm and stud.What I mean is, if you have the discipline to wait for premium starting hands, but you don't have the courage to bet these hands aggressively and follow through when you have top pair , and a scare card hits the board on the turn, etc. , then you are wasting your time for that session.When you aren't feeling particularly aggressive or courageous, but otherwise you feel fine, think twice about playing longer hours. seeya
i play long sessions. when im not drunk, and often times when i am, i use self talk to keep me playing good. ill quote doyle from supersystems. the ability to stay alert for long sessions can be a major factor contributing to your earning power, and it has been a key to my own success.end quote. you have to develope the ability to play each new hand as if it were the first of the evening regardless of how you are running. if im down 1300 and im still seeing mistakes, and it still looks like im the favirite its time to get out the toothpicks and prop my eyes open, if im up or down and it looks like the game is too tough its time to leave. i dont know how you develope the ability to play long sessions (over 12 hours). but i just got off of a 18 hour shift in the medical profession and id druther have been playing poker.
i play long sessions. when im not drunk, and often times when i am, i use self talk to keep me playing good. ill quote doyle from supersystems. the ability to stay alert for long sessions can be a major factor contributing to your earning power, and it has been a key to my own success.end quote. you have to develope the ability to play each new hand as if it were the first of the evening regardless of how you are running. if im down 1300 and im still seeing mistakes, and it still looks like im the favirite its time to get out the toothpicks and prop my eyes open, if im up or down and it looks like the game is too tough its time to leave. i dont know how you develope the ability to play long sessions (over 12 hours). but i just got off of a 18 hour shift in the medical profession and id druther have been playing poker.
Dear Mason, You don't know me but we have played stud once at the Mirage! The only hand we played I had a FOURKING hand against you. On fourth street I might add! Anyway, the way I see this hand is that at this point you can only be sure of one out and because of the way you played so far you should fold. I believe a raise before the flop may have allowed you to effectively check raise the flop. Although I am not sure the pre flop raise would do you any good in bluffing at the pot it would have made the pot big enough with adequate implied odds to allow you to continue calling after the flop. If the situation called for it, a check raise may have increased your chances of winning by driving out a straight draw or the AD(xd or J ns) of diamonds. There is also the possibility that the AD,JD are in one of the other hands, if so he aint goin no where. Though I dont believe anyone is full at this point the possibility exists. Anyway because of the pot size at this point, the bet and raise (with the possibility of another raise and cap) coupled with the almost sure probability that a made hand is needed to win this, I believe your best play is to fold! v/r Vince
Hi to all!!! It's been about 8 months since I last visited this board and about that long since I played poker. I have been preoccupied with other things to say the least. Anyways, I will be going to LV soon for about a 5 day visit. It's been about 3 years since I last came here so I was wondering if the scenes have changed. Is the Mirage and Binion's still the places to go or have the Bellagio and other casinos took up the slack. I generally play 10-20 holdem but because of my rust, should I play 5-10, 4-8,6-12 instead. I am just looking for some action but would like to leave LV with my shirt intact. Additionally, are there any tournaments the week of Dec 6-12. Thanks in advance. Spidey.
Here is a question I was pondering last nite while thinking about hand rankings and the percentages that they hold up. For ex. AA holds up something like 86% heads up against a random hand. AA holds up something like 37% against a field of 9 random hands(from the rankings on Ken Churilla's page). Ok, thats fine and dandy.
Here's what has me confused. With 9 random hands, we could possibly assume that there might be 3 "calling" hands, say maybe JJ, 10-9s, and maybe 88. Now, in all practicallity, aren't those other 6 "random" hands going to fold pre-flop? So in actuality AA is really up against 3 "calling" hands, not 9 random hands? It seems silly to run a simulation where say half the hands are something like 73o, K3o, J2s, when these hands aren't playable. I just don't see how these sims hold much water when they show percentages of "random" hands, rather than "calling" hands. Does AA really win 87% of the time heads up when the "calling" hand is KK or QQ or JJ?(I'm no math whiz so I don't know)(I guess the answer is yes because each hand has the exact same probability of improving, with KK/QQ/JJ having a few more straight possibilities, but unimproved AA always wins) Back to the 9 "random" hand example. Does AA really win 37% of the time when the other hands are also good hands? (I think a calling hand reduces this percent as opposed to a random hand).
Mason had a very good article in the Winter Intelligent Gambler about starting hands. In it he says, "As you become more experienced at hold 'em, you will see where it is proper to deviate from standard strategy, and also, where certain hands MOVE UP AND DOWN THE RANKINGS." (caps are my emphasis). I also read the interesting article by Mike Caro and his "everybody in the world" situations. These seem to agree with my thinking.
Sure, I'd still take AA every hand, but with 5-6 callers, just about any flop where I go unimproved I think I'm a big dog to the 2 small pair/set/flush and straight draws that are now out there. Maybe this applies more to the low-limit games where you constantly have 5-6 people who see the flop, and calling stations who will call to the flop with any draw or even any pair. I see a lot of 89o, 10-Jo, Q-10o hands that win with 2 pair or a straight. I usually don't play hands like that, but the more I see them win, the more I feel enticed to start playing them.
So what do you people think, do the hand rankings imply more value than they actually supply multi-handed? I always hear people say to others, "I can't believe you called(and won) with that when I had KK or I can't believe AA didn't hold up when there were 7 callers." But I guess in multiway pots, ALOT of the starting hands are so close percentage wise, you can call with them and still be correct. Just want to know what people think about this post. Call me an idiot or say "hey your starting to get it" or whatever you want. I only have 5 months of Hold 'Em experience, but someday I'll be there.
Good Luck, WP
Mr. ^Pimp:
Your points are very good. You have referenced the numerous no-betting_hot-and-cold analysis "simulations" out there.
Hand rankings assuming no body folds nor bets is easy to generate and gives a fair idea of rankings. I use such reports to notice the RELATIVE position of hands, perhaps 96s and 98, and to notice which hands go "up" and "down" depending on the number of brain dead opponents. I use this information to confirm/deny parts of the numerous strategies I have been exposed to; for instance how bad 96s really is.
The hand rankings of 2+2, I assure you, are only partially based on hot-and-cold evaluations. They include the likelyhood of winning/losing against selective opponents AND the likelyhood of making a good 2nd best hand AND of beating good 2nd best hands.
Do NOT use "sophisticated" pre-flop strategies generated from these "simulation" rankings. Trust 2+2. Do NOT trust other advise from "experts" who generate "sophisticated" strategies from these "simulation" rankings. You'd do better trusting the used car dealer: you'll lose way too much money before you realize that advise was a "lemon".
-------------------------------------
Lets say a good hand wins 1/2 the time and a bad hand wins 1/4 of the time. Since there may be 4-5 times as many bad hands, you can expect more bad hands to actually win show downs than good hands in a loose game.
Another view: lets say a good hand is going to win 1/3 of the time against 4 bad hands that will each win 1/6 of the time. Clearly the good hand has +EV since he's getting 4:1 for his 2:1 shot, and the bad hands -EV. Don't let the fact that a bad hand will show down best 2 times out of 3 diminish your discipline to play only those good hands.
-------------------------
AA wins 37% of times vrs 9 random oppponents? If AA plays $1 100 different times he can expect to win $9 37 times and lose $1 63 times, or $9*37 - $1*63 = $270; or $2.7/hand for a $1 investment. That's excellent. I would gladly CHEAR every time someone beat me! That's much better than the $.86 you win per hand heads up.
------------------------
As to your last point: starting requirements for late position calls when several people are in are more conservative in an other-wise TIGHT game than for a loose game: with several tight players in you can expect several QUALITY draws against you so your small flush, straight, and set are going to lose much more often. When you have 87s: K4 is a welcome over-call, QJs is not.
"Hey you're starting to get it". Your willingness to challenge what you have read bodes very well for your poker career. Confirming good advise through challenge is as beneficial as rejecting bad advise through challenge. You learn to THINK, and your ability to THINK at a table is as important as your ability to RECALL.
- Louie
The other day I was shocked to read that Stu"the kid" Unger was found dead at age 45 in a Los Vegas hotel. Stu in my opinion, was the greatist no-limit tourney player ever. His 3 wins will go a long way towards that statement. He played tournments with extreme aggression and with the fact that he was never interested in just placing. He always wanted to win. He surely will be missed. He also was a fellow New Yorker like myself. I just wish that I could have met him in person.
What did he die of? I heard he had a coke problem, but I don't know for sure.
For a detailed account of this story and a recount of Ungar's career see:
Damn, that link didn't show up. Anyway look at http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/1998/nov/23/508047481.html
I cant access your story. Could you tell me how it happened.
this makes me feel sad. kinda like when i heard bout john getting shot.
course john never asked that asshole to shoot him in the back
then again im not saying that stu asked anyone to shoot him either, karma is too great a burden to bear, says gondi.
this makes me feel sad.
.
Here are some of my thoughts on holding AK against a pocket pair other then AA and KK in a no-limit tourney. When your opponent holds a pocket pair he is a 11to10 favorite over you. That means that he is not a big favorite over you. How you play that AK depends on certain things like your stack size which is very important, your opponents stack size and the current tourney phaze. If you have a large stack against a large stack it would be okay to fold the hand. You would'nt want to risk your stack all-in. If you are playing a very small stack who is on the verge of being blinded out you could then try to put him all-in UNLESS you know that player would not go all-in without AA or KK. Then you would fold. If you have a small stack then you would want to go all-in and hope for the best. There is more to it then this but these are some ideas that I truly trust in as far as strategy in these situations.
What about when you hold that pocket pair vs. AK.? Strangely enough my above advice also fits playing when you are a 11to10 favorite!
10/20 7 card. this was months ago so this is just a approximation. what it amounts to is i had split tens, the action gets around to me and i call. everyone in the pot, at least seven people. on fourth i watch a ten fall to my right, then hit the case ten for my set,i check. off to my left someone bets ten, the man with the ace makes it 30 (calls ten and raises 20), everyone calls, i call and pop it to 50.everyone calls. im in the lead and simply bet it out all the way. didnt lose a soul till seventh street. my off cards were falling dead and i was very lucky nobody hit what ever they were drawing at, last bet was me and the ace man who had aces up. coments? the whole thing was very scary to say the least, really the whole table was comming after me.
i might further elaberate that nothing happened to convence me i was beat, as i was drawing dead if i was beat.
Unless you have very good reason to believe that someone else will bet or that you are beat, you should bet through sixth street. On seventh street you will have to make a decision. This will be influenced by what you catch, what you think they are drawing for, and what you think the action will be if you check or bet.
Darren,
I was just playing in a very loose 3-6 stud game. A similar thing happened to me, I started with Aces in the hole and a J showing. I raised on 3rd street. I caught a blank on 4th street but I figure I was still ahead. On fifth street I caught another Ace, giving me a set. I could tell that nobody was drawing to a straight (except maybe a gutshot or double gutshot) and nobody seemed to have 4 to a flush on 5th. I bet on 6th when I catch another blank and bet on the river only to get raised! by this woman who had put in around $500 into the game and was calling everyhand. Everybody folded and I paid her off. She made Queens full on the river.
But getting to the point of betting when you have the best hand I think is the right play. I don't think I made any mistakes on that hand that I played. Even betting a set of Aces on the river was good i thought because the pot was big and I would get called by any two pairs (since I raised with a J showing and never made an open pair). Now if someone else's board looked scary like 4 of a suit with live cards or 4 to a straight with the cards to complete the straight live then I might have checked and just called or even folded my set of aces.
carlos
Played last nite in the Senior's World Championship at Crystal Park. For a $550.00 entry fee you got T10,000. This is a great tourney with all entrants having to be Geezers of at least 50 summers. I played about even for the first hour and a half, not making any important mistakes and evaluating my table. Blinds were 100-200 and I was one to the right of the button. At my table I had Thomas Chung and Brent Carter, so I was hoping to pick up some chips to give me a cushion to play on. A player who had been showing down a lot of Ax starting hands brought it in from second UTG with a T900 bet and it was folded around to me. I had pocket Jacks and moved all in with T10,150 hoping to get him to lay his hand down. He called and had KK which held up, his stack covering all but T325 of mine. I know that this was a poor play on my part, risking the whole tournament to try to pick up T1200, but I really believe he would have laid the hand down with anything other than AA or KK.
I believe that my playing has a tendency to be much weaker when I play without any concrete plan or purpose because my focus wanders too. I am not faulting my play because of the result so much as because it wasn't well thought out. I more or less decided, on impulse, to try to put a play on that T1200. I could just as well have had 34o since a call meant that the caller had my JJ beat all to hell. I am not against gambling while playing tournaments, but to do so that early in the tournament amounted to a de facto admission that I needed to try to get lucky to have a shot at the money. If I really believe that, I shouldn't be entering tournaments against this level of competition.
If the play had worked out and I had won the pot uncontested, I believe that I was mentally disposed to continue on with similar plays until I either had so many chips I felt confident or got caught and wound up knocked out of the tournament. In short, I wasn't mentally prepared last night to play my best poker. That is what is grating on me now. It is easy to fool yourself and pretend that you are the same player each time you sit down in a game. For me, this just isn't so and I am committed to taking whatever steps are necessary to insure that I bring my "A" game to the table whenever I sit down to play. In order to accomplish this, I'm going to limit my tournament play to very small buy-in tourneys with weaker fields than I've been playing against lately. I can accept the losing, not the poor playing. I will stay away from the major tournament circuit until such time as I am satisfied that I have the confidence and discipline to assure that I will play my best game.
I don't know if others have experienced this same problem. I watch some players who continue to make the same mistakes in tournament after tournament. Their chance of cashing is almost zero since the better players know their tendencies and weaknesses and are always on alert to exploit them. I expect to profit from my mistakes and to learn ways to avoid making them in the future. I am interested in getting imput from others.
Hey Big John, Said the same thing myself! Bigger buy in better players! How do you get the experience against good players in small buy in tournaments? They are just not there in large enough numbers. Can you play your best when the stakes ar low? I don't know who said it but you are doing yourself a disservice when you play at a level not equivalent to your skills. I think that you might consider continuing tournament play at a level that you feel comfortable. Play as often as you can (afford to play that is). Apply your strategy. Take notes. Adjust your strategy accordingly and contiue to go forward. v/r Vince
Because of the success of this forum we established the Exchange Forum. Non-strategy posts should go there. The reason for this is that the Theory and Strategy Forum tends to get too big and many users have trouble loading it in a timely manner. For those who don't know how to find the Exchange Forum it should appear in the column on the left.
Thanks,
Mason Malmuth
The game is 10-20 that generally has a lot of players seeing the flop. I call UTG with Ah, 5h. Uncharacteristically, everyone folds except a fairly solid player on the button who raises. The big blind (a player who in the six months that I've played with him has never not defended his blind) calls. I call (and I know that the player on the button knows that the big blind will call the raise. Accordingly, I don't put the button on a pure steal attempt; he probably has AK, AQ or a pocket pair -medium or big).
The flop is 3h,7h,8s.
Big blind bets (knowing this player, he has nothing more than a pair. He could just have a draw).
How would you play my hand i.e. Ah,5h?
Would you play your hand any differently if there were four other players left to act behind you?
What are the reasons for just calling in these situations? What are the reasons for raising? What would you do more often?
All comments appreciated.
Raise. If the Button folds AQ or AK your A is now live, giving 3 more outs over big blind if he has a pair, and making your ace live as a high card if big blind is on a draw and neither of you improve.
If the button reraises then you are no worse off, as big blind will likely call and you have 3 way action in a pot you will win better then 40% of the time.
If the button smooth calls (very unlikely) be aware of T9 or a set of 8's.
Unless preflop action was noteworthy, in a multiway pot I would just call, as you almost certainly need to make the flush to win, and the only hands you will force out with a raise are hands with little chance to improve enough to beat your nut flush, while exposing yourself to a reraise from a flopped 2 pair or a set. If I was in later position and had trapped 2 or 3 callers in ahead of me I would raise then purely as a pot building move.
I would have dumped and not called the raise preflop. By playing A-rag suited UTG you're strategy was to play against many players and make a big draw. It didn't work. If you raise on the flop as a semibluff in this awkward position and you get reraised you'll end up at best playing a draw against a made hand(s). Not a good proposition and probably costly. Just calling the flop is too weak here. You didn't play wrong technically but you made a mistake in judging the action. Perhaps the players in the game knew you were a solid player and your call under the gun scared them off. I actually believe that you win in the long run in holdem by mucking cards in situations like this. Errors tend to magnify in this game and if you adhere to a minimax approach (minimize your maximum losses) you profit in the end.
As pointed out, A5s is in a lot of trouble out of position against a player who is very likely to have a big Ace or big pair. 5:1 for the call isn't much.
On the flop? Chasing out possible AK behind you only increases your outs by 2; not very much.
You should RAISE if the blind will bet a draw, since your Ace is likely the best hand against him. But if he is likely to have a pair then your Ace out isn't worth much and you need the flush or gut shot; either one prefers the button in the pot. Just call if the blind is likely to have a pair, unlikely a a draw.
Note: RAISE if for some reason the pot has gotton VERY large by this time, like 14 bets.
- Louie
Ya, you do make some good points. The suggestion to dump my hand before the flop is something I had never even considered doing. Nobody in my game (me included), having called the initial bet, dumps a hand if raised. The thinking being that "I've already put in $10 - so, I'll put in another $10 and see what happens". Of course, what happens with alarming regularity is that you flop an ace and run into kicker trouble. While I believe that I can and do get away from a mediocre flop when I sense that I have kicker trouble, there are obviously times when my radar is off and I end up paying off the raiser all the way to the river.
Anyways, thanks to all who responded. You all raise some good points.
I agree their may be some rare situations that if you limp in, are raised by a tight player, and no one else plays it might be correct to fold. But one problem with this is that if you are seen to do it, you are encouraging other players to take this shot at you. I have never limped in and then folded to a raise even though I frequently will fold to a raise and a reraise.
"On the flop? Chasing out possible AK behind you only increases your outs by 2; not very much."
I disagree. Two extra outs could easily change your call to a raise. Furthermore, if there is a chance the bettor was also betting some kind of draw your raise might leave you with the best hand. If the ace comes you may be able to bet it for value if your raise is successful in knocking out the original raiser. Otherwise you may have to check and call.
When they were heads up Kevin had AQs. Scotty had TJ. A king flopped and they both checked. Then a A hit the turn. This is part one of his mistake. He checked when he should have bet a sizeable amount. Part two of his mistake was when a Q fell giving Kevin two pair. But when Scotty bet $300,000 and Kevin called it cost him any chance at the title. Why did Kevin not bet when he turned a A? He had to know that there was no K on the flop. When that A hit he should have bet enough to make Scotty not go for the gut-shot straight. I personally believe that Scotty whould have thrown away his TJ for a large bet. I wonder what Kevin was thinking about what was in Scotty's hand. Another thing that Kevin should have thought about is that Scotty was not betting $300,000 on a bluff or two pair less then AQ. By the way I found out that Kevin placed very high in another tournament at the 98 wsop. He might be a rookie but he is not a slouch.
He might have been trying to feign weakness by checking, hoping Nguyen would bet with a 2nd best hand. Heads up, risking a free card with a KA board, vs an aggressive opponent may well be worth it if you can trap him for a big chunk of his money when he has AJ or worse (AK would most likely bet the flop in 2nd position). If Nguyen had AJ, he would probably have bet and McBride would be able to raise and win the pot, whereas if McBride leads out, Nguyen may well put him on A with a good kicker and fold a hand like AT, maybe AJ. If you make this play, of course you can get in trouble when a possible straight card comes on the river. Given that Nguyen gave away his hand by his attempt to induce a call (when he said "call and you lose"), McBride's big mistake was not reading his opponent on the river, and not respecting the all in bet (Nguyen's two consecutive checks show that he either has a monster e.g. a set which he is slowplaying, or that he has a drawing hand or nothing at all - and given that he goes all in on the river, it is difficult to put him on anything less than trips). I think McBride's check on the turn was a reasonable attempt to induce a bluff - he just didn't know how to get away from the hand when the scare card came and Nguyen showed strength (both by his betting and by his tell).
Matt
I had a truly terrible night last night. I played in a loose-passive 2-5-10-10 hold'em game and over 5 hours I lost $160 bucks. I am fairly confident that I played almost perfectly though. Cards just all fell the wrong way. There was one or two maniacs in the game at all times.
Hand example:
I held AQs. I raised a raise before the flop (otherwise there were regularly 9 people seeing the flop). The maniac and three others called. The flop came 10 5 3 rainbow. with one spade. I figured I was still the best (watching the raiser closely, but he checked) when the two in front of me checked, so I bet, maniac called. Now it was three way. Turn was a Q. I couldn't really imagine not being the best here. I bet 10. Maniac called, other guy folded. River was rag. Bet 10 again. Maniac called. We turned over our cards. He had 10 5 offsuit!!!!
How the hell do you read any hands when someone calls over 2 bets before the flop with everything?? I understand that he probably accidently played his hand correctly after the flop. I also understand that someone who calls pre-flop with such crap will eventually lose. But that didn't make me feel any better last night!
The worst part is, this guy had no idea what was going on. On a later hand, he called on the river with absolutely nothing, announcing that he had a straight. You might think he was just trying to be slick. No way. I have seen others try to pull off similar stuff much better than he did, he was just stupid.
All night long I was better pre-flop and not one flop (not all night, 5+ hours) helped me. It was the worst rush of cards I have ever experienced. Maybe I should feel lucky that I am only down $160.
Does anyone else have any horror stories that can make me feel better?
You must be new to the game. Otherwise you'd know nobody is interested in reading your whinings about the nature of no fold'em hold'em. If you can't stand opponents like you've described, play only 20-40 or higher limits.
Dear Karpov, YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHIN YET! Keep your cool! Good Luck! Vince (BTW Always pick the game that this maniac is in, sit on his left, wait and he will feed you forever or go broke trying!)
Thinking that $160 down after 5 hours in a loose-passive 2-5-10-10 game is "truly horrible" is one of the most pathetic things I've ever heard. You obviously haven't played very long or very high or very regularly. The name of this forum is "Theory and Strategy", not "Whining about 'bad beats' that are really not knowing how to adjust to the game."
I probably shouldn't say anything because you're obviously a steamer who makes games good, but I never want to read another post like this again. If you want to know how to play in loose-passive low limit spread limit games that's one thing, but don't include any whimpering. That WAS NOT a bad beat or bad session.
Perhaps you misunderstood my post. My purpose was not to whine. There are plenty of places where I can just whine. I would like to know what I could have done better.
First of all, if the guy (maniac) just kept calling every hand you bet he was not a maniac at all but just a calling station. These are THE BEST PEOLPE TO PLAY WITH! It sounds like he just sucked out on you over a period of time. In the long run a GOOD PLAYER will eat this guy up. Here is where I find your mistakes: You should have let him bet then you could RAISE! Maybe this might get him off of his hand. Then again, maybe not. Anyhow, it sounds as if you are just a beginner at the game. I come to this conclusion by the fact that you are complaining about a 160.00 loss. Hell, I usually get stuck on purpose 500.00 in the beginning just to set the game up (CARO's Stuff)and sometimes it works and I make a killing! Other times I loose my ass and I come back the next day. But I don't whine about it. Look: Its a poker game. No one wins all the time. If losing such a miniscule amount of money upsets you so, take up a new hobby. I am not trying to upset you, I am giving you instead, some neighborly advice. Chin up! Doc-
We're merciless here, aren't we!
Good points made: someone who checks and calls with "top two pair" is not a "maniac". Maniacs routinely BET and RAISE. Get this loose-whimp-idiot on your RIGHT, so he gets committed with his trash before you assert your strength. This is the best opponent you can have. $160 is not a horrible loss.
Other good points:
Your ReRaise with AQs should be based on the likely raising hands of the raiser. This player needs to be raising with lots of trouble hands before you are justified in reraising. AQs plays well against several opponents, especially if one likely has you beat already.
You cannot put such players on hands. Why Try? He's going to win his small "share" of pots that you believe would normally be yours. It doesn't matter which ones.
If this player "had no idea what he was doing" and playing every hand then YOU are the fool if you are surprised by T5. You SHOULD be surprised if he makes a SENSIBLE play.
"The Long Run" is often longer than a couple months. "Long Run" is not meaningful for one session.
So you lost. You can feel bad about it, or you can seek and find an error you made, determine the correct play, and fix it. That will make you feel better.
Horror stories? The dogs tunneled under the fence to play with each other. My dog went into BroomHilda's yard, who promptly put the dog out front during a storm, and she was killed by a car. ... Sniff ...
- Louie
Play percentage poker against imbeciles.
Play percentage poker against imbeciles.
To say that you played "perfectly" for five hours shows a real lack of self-analysis--especially since in the single hand you describe EVERY DECISION is questionable, if not outright wrong.
Gee, Mr. Poker expert. That was a really thorough reply. Thanks for helping me find my mistakes.
Almost every play in poker is "questionable",ther is never any true right or wrong way to play a hand.One regular that I play with quite frequently is called a bad player by many book players,I disagree with the way he plays sometimes, (once I saw him in 20-40 3bet 9-4 off,flop 2 pair and win the pot)but I will give him one thing,every play against him is a total guess.Just keep one thing in mind,when your running good almost any way you choose to play a hand will work out,and when your running bad vice versa.
This doesn't qualify as a horror story. If losing one sixty in a 2-5-10-10 game strikes you as unusually abhorrent, then brace yourself; it gets wors. I took a 450$ hit in a 3-5 game about a month ago in less than an hour and a half. In that span I was dealt AK nine times (three times suited), flopped top pair six times, and lost each- one I lost to the small blind, who called three pre-flop raises w/ a K5o and flopped two pair.
I am planning my New Year's Eve (when your life is as boring as mine, you tend to look far ahead for partying). I have never been to the casino on New Year's Eve. Are the poker games especially good? I figure all the tourists probably get really drunk. Do all the old-fart regulars go home for holidays?
Let's discuss the best holidays to play cards on.
Relatively new to casino poker, but Memorial Day and Labor Day were good for me this year...lots of non-regulars with the day off from their straight jobs...Looking forward to the day after Thanksgiving for more of the same. Frank
Dear Karpov, I was at the Mirage last New Year's Eve! Needless to say the Casino was packed! There was a lot of action in the Poker room. I do not recall it being particuliarly roudy. I played 15-30 stud and 10-20 Holdem. The most glaring memory I have about the night is that at Midnight my son and I went to the Band area and toasted with Shampagne. All in all I remeber it as an enjoyable night with action through the next morning. Hope this Helps! Vince BTW do you Play Chess anymore?
Dear Karpov, I was at the Mirage last New Year's Eve! Needless to say the Casino was packed! There was a lot of action in the Poker room. I do not recall it being particuliarly roudy. I played 15-30 stud and 10-20 Holdem. The most glaring memory I have about the night is that at Midnight my son and I went to the Band area and toasted with Shampagne. All in all I remeber it as an enjoyable night with action through the next morning. Hope this Helps! Vince BTW do you Play Chess anymore?
Somewhere along the way, I've read a anecdote as told by Mike Caro regarding playing poker on New Year's Eve:
Apparently Caro's experience was that the action prior to midnight was plentiful. However, at the stroke of midnight, everyone tightened up and the action died. New Year's resolutions apparently put grimly into effect. (Caro's account of the evening is much more picturesque than my synopsis.)
Good luck to you, Dan Radosevich
Could someone please tell me what the Suicide Kings are? Thanks.
Gwilyn Vancouver, BC
There is one king that has a sword thru his head...I belive its the King of harts.
Walleye
I think this one was covered in the Exchange Forum.
The
Hi there!
Thanks for your responses so far.
Yes, I noticed that one king was poking himself... I think though that this was plural "kings", but I couldn't see anything unusual about the other three.
I've never visited this poker forum or any other before, Walleye, but if you can remember what was said about this issue in teh Exchange forum, I'd really love to know.
Thanks again
In a small no-limt game I have AhKs in early position. My stack is about $750. The player to my right straddles the 2/5 blinds to $10. I raise $25 and make it $35 to go.
Solid late position player ($400 stack) calls and solid player in big blind (also about $400) calls. The straddler also calls. I get a great flop of AsAd2s. The BB bets $75 into the $140 pot. The straddler folds, and I smooth call. I am not overly concerned about the late player having a quality flush draw since I have the Ks in my hand and he called 10% of his stack cold before the flop.
Sure enough, the late player folds and I am heads-up with position over the BB, who I figure for a big ace, but probably not AK.
The turn is a 4h and the BB makes an odd bet of $75 into the $290 pot, leaving him with about $215. I am a bit confused and think that he either picked up a goofy gutshot draw to a little suited Ace or thinks I might have a weaker Ace and is betting for value. I guess there is an outside shot he also has Aces full, but my read on him tells me otherwise. Anyway, I decide that the situation will only get more foggy if a Ten, J, or Q rivers, so I decide to stop the guesswork and move all-in. He ponders for a long time and then lays down, saying "You must have AK." It turns out he made a bg laydown with AQ (what a trap hand in the blind!).
I was glad to rake the $365 pot without showing down, but wonder if I shouldn't have tried to get his last $215. For example, if I had only raised him $75 on the turn, he probably would have called and was drawing pretty slim to his kicker. I don't think he would have bet the river in any event unless he filled-up or a scare card hit, but surely would have called my bet for his last $140 if I induced had a call on the turn instead of overbetting the pot.
Any comments on this hand would be appreciated.
There were three deuces, three fours and three queens that could have come and cost you some money. Had you raised the $75.00 on the turn, he would be risking $75.00 to win the $515.00 then in the pot. With six outs to tie and three to win outright, did you really want to try to get another $75.00 out of him? Also, don't forget that there was a decent chance that he might have called your turn bet when you did have the best of it. I think you could have popped him another $100.00 or so on the flop though and gotten him committed to the pot. He made a real good laydown, one that I seriously doubt I would have made. In fact, there is no chance that I would have ever not taken that holding to the river given the action sequence that you've described. He played that hand "like a dog" in my humble opinion. He must have a damn good read on your play to be able to let it go like that.
Big John-
Good point about the potential to get my kicker counterfeited. I did NOT take this into account during the heat of battle, but in retrospect it supports my play. This guy probably gives me more respect than I deserve and I don't intend to do anything to change his mind as I think I get better value stealing an occasional pot than I do inducing calls when I have the near nuts, which doesn't seem to happen very often.
In the same session last night, I stole a decent pot from him with pocket Kings (out of position) after an Ad9d7s flopped and the "deathcard" 8d hit the turn. I checked and called a pot-sized bet on the flop, knowing that I had a good chance to steal if a scare card hit the turn. I had the Kd. I am nearly positive that he laid down a winner.
By the way, I find your no-limit tips very valuable. How do you deal with the inter-session swings of no-limit and what type of bankroll should you bring to semi-live $300 buy-in $2-$5 blind game? I know MM says no-limit is supposed to offer lower volatility over the long run, but find that it is easy to have much biggge swings in a given session, even if you play solidly.
For example last night I was down a grand in the first 90 minutes of a "good" game before storming back to pull even. I lost three $300 buy-ins on hands that I wouldn't play any differently in retrospect. The hands: 1. QQ in the SB vs. AA in the BB after I came over the top of a button steal raise; 2. Set of Tens full under a set of Aces full; 3. All-in semi-bluff on an Ac-Kh-7c flop with the nut flush draw to my KJ clubs.) In this last case, I got called by a lower flush draw and the post-flop raiser, who had only AQ. I guess not everyone reads me for a nut-peddler.
Michael,
If the NL buy-in is $300.00, I'd usually be ready to invest a maximum of $1,500.00 assuming that there was good money to be had with each buy-in. If two of the big winners leave with most of the chips, I'm through investing for that night no matter how little I've got in the game. I'd buy for 3, 3, 3, and 6. I have a rule about not getting killed for a bigger amount than I'd be happy to win in a given session.
If the game is really good and you can afford a bigger loss, you can be a little flexible about your total potential buy-ins. I have gone to NL Lowball private games with "lots" of money back in the '60's because the games lasted three or four days and only took place twice a year or so. In a casino, where the game is being spread on a regular basis, I think five times the buy-in that you are planning to start with is about right. Some of the best NL players I've known put it all in play from the beginning. If they are willing to play $5,000.00, that is what they buy in for. When I see a player put the whole bankroll in play, I automatically assume that this is a player to be reckoned with. The first time I played Huck Seed in a baby NL game, He put $16,000.00 on the table. The second biggest stack was probably $1,500.00. I knew that Huck was a player without knowing who he was.
A bird in the hand is better than him sucking out on you on the river. You did okay. Move on-
Last night in pot limit Omaha I recieved AcAhQhTd in small blind. When it got to me,there were 4 callers and 1 raiser. I reraised half the pot. 3 called. Flop came Qc6c3h. 2 checked,player raised half the pot. I put raiser on flush draw. I had thought about this play before. My odds of improving to a full house by the river were appr.11-1,also I knew I was currently best and had backdoor flush possibilities. My opponent was a pretty solid player and I knew he would be trying to put me on a range of hands. I bet the pot. He called. Turn was 8c. I knew he made his King high flush. This is where I made my play. I had thought about making this play months ago and this was the first chance. I bet the pot. I knew he knew the only way I could know he didn't have the nut flush was because I had the nut flush. And my betting pattern was indicative of someone with the nut flush. He folded. Okay,so I won, but did I make the right play? Also if I did would this kind of play work in limit Omaha? Thanks.
I've tried that in low limit Omaha split 2 or 3 times and it hasn't worked. But I was always convinced that at a higher limit it would work.
Obviously, there are several things you need to do well to excel at poker. In my view, one attribute that almost all successful players exhibit is their ability to continue to put pressure on the pot by betting after the turn card even though the board has not yet offered their hand any help. These successful players have a nice follow through to their swing.
For example, I know several players in my game who, having raised before the flop, routinely bet after a ragged low cards flop but then routinely check after the turn card if they have not yet paired. Well, they are then subject to being robbed blind on the river should anything other than an Ace, King or Queen hit. In fact, against such an opponent, I'll often bet on the river (moreso when I'm first to act) with nothing even when a king or queen falls - my reasoning being that if a queen falls, it is more likely that my opponent has AK while if a king falls, it is more likely that my opponent has AQ. (I should say that I rarely, if ever, try this play when an Ace hits on the river. I am also reluctant to try it when the river card makes two pair on the board because many of my opponents would then likely call me with Ace high).
Although I've never played pot limit or no limit hold 'em, I suspect that the ability to "follow through" with a bet on the turn is even more important in those games.
Any Comments???
Sorry, but you are totally wrong about no limit and firing the second barrel. First of all it is more likely that getting called on the flop indicates that you are against a good hand. Secondly the risk versus reward ratio is much different for this second bet. It should be made but much less often against typical players.
Sorry, but you are totally wrong about no limit and firing the second barrel. First of all it is more likely that getting called on the flop indicates that you are against a good hand. Secondly the risk versus reward ratio is much different for this second bet. It should be made but much less often against typical players.
Having had zero experience with no limit, I obviously defer to the experts. Nevertheless, I would think that the issue may just turn on one's philosophical approach to the game of no limit poker.
I recall reading one of Mike Sexton's articles in the Cardplayer where he quotes Stu Ungar as saying that the ability to fire that second barrel is what sets the superstars apart.
Most likely Stu said "knowing when to" rather than " the ability to".
Bones Berland was the master of following through with the "second barrel" in no limit. In fact, he could also pull the third barrel better than anybody. I think this was the secret of his success. Never mind his weaknesses. Wouldn't you agree David?
Stu said most players can fire off one shot to a bluff but few can fire two. This was on a hand where he got pocket queens to fold on a ragged board by climbing the ladder with absolutely nothing. And he is right...most players can only fire one shot.
I like your strategy. I have and still used this strategy of follow through under the following conditions: 1- a player when he raised before the flop, he most likely has the kind of hands you are talking about.In addition, my hand must have some potential of drawing to the best hand when i am looking at the flop. 2- i am heads-up 3- if there is one more player and i am in last position and the bettor is in second position, i may raised him to get rid of the first player and possibly win it right there. If the second player calls, i will bet the river within the condition that you have described. If the first player call, then i give up. This strategy worked very well for me. But i don't used it very often and my image has to be right. Is the strategy applied worth it? Well, like David said:"It is very risky"
Certain players will take AK and AQ and bet it out all the way with no pair,you need to learn the players that do this and punish them by raising (or at least calling to the river)with any pair.It makes me happy as hell when someone raises pre flop,bets a rag flop all the way like he has aces and when I call on the end to hear him sheepishly say"nothing ace high."Show the hotshot players you won't let them steal from you heads up with no pair.After punishing them a couple times you will be surprised how much control over them you will have,they will stop making this play against you.If you flop no pair let them have it but if you do,take it to the river.
10/20 game. One limper. Button raises. I have QJ suited in the big blind. As a variance play, I make it three bets. We take the flop three handed.
After the river card, I have top pair. The button had folded after the flop. I am almost certain that the limper has missed his flush draw. The limper is not much of a bluffer - I figured there's a 10% chance he might try a bluff at the end if I checked.
My question is this: If I bet, he will simply fold. Therefore, the correct play (from strictly an EV perspective)in this situation is of course to check and offer my opponent a chance to bluff. However, I figure there is only a 10% chance that he will bluff. Either way, if I check,I will have to show my hand to the table thereby allowing all of my opponents (and in particular the player on the button) a further opportunity to gauge my play from the blinds.
Given these concerns, is it better to bet or check on the end? By betting, I am obviously conceding some EV but is it worth doing so in order to keep your hand a secret?
Why keep that particular hand a secret?
Nothing special about that particular hand but in general I think it's fair to say that the less often you reveal your hands to your opponents, the less opportunity they will have to get a line on your play. Of course, there may be times when you want to reveal your hand for any one of various reasons but none were applicable on the hand that I was involved in.
Post deleted at author's request.
The content of this site is great, but I think the mechanics of how it is organized are terrible. RGP has a much better format. A common thing I believe all readers would like to do after reading part or all of a thread is to go back to the place in the index they were at last to continue scrolling forward until another thread seems of interest to read. When I click on back to index, it goes back to the START of the index and I now have to scroll back down and find the place I left in order to move forward. If instead I click NEXT, I get the start of the next thread, but this is good only if I am interested in reading that thread. I still have to go back to the index in order to scan through it until I find a thread I want to read. In RGP, when I X a message, it takes me back to the place in the index where I left last. Similarly,when a post has two or more posts following it but each indented the same amount, when I click next on the first indented post I get not the next indented one but the start of the next thread instead. I actually have to go back to the index to find and read the next indented item.In RGP, I have the option of going to the next message in the thread, going to the start of the next thread, or going back to the index where I last left it. These complaints may seem trivial but when I want to read 50 or so of 300 posts and want to pick which ones I want, it can take 50% more time to do so. Why cant the great minds that offer this site correct these obvious deficiencies?
access this forum from
http://www.twoplustwo.com/forum.html
I use the back button on my browser. I read the post then click back to read responses one at a time using back after each response read.
Tom S.
Everything works fine as long as you come directly to our page. If you get here via another page this may not be the case.
Judicious use of the "Open Link In New Window" function of your browser as well as the Back function makes it easier to navigate. I hardly ever use the "Return to Index" or other navigation links provided by the forum server software.
Assume you have a fairly typical 10/20 hold 'em game but that one player is a very, very good player (expert or near-expert) whereas the others range from poor to average with say two being very good. Further assume that no one is on a lucky streak and that the game is raked.
While I think we all agree that the VVG player will, at least over time, be a fairly consistent winner, I am curious as to whether this VVG player's expected superior win rate is estimable in terms of "hands per typical 6 hour session". That is, by playing his/her hands more or less expertly against this field, what "extra" number of pots will she or he win in a typical 6 hour session versus that of a good player.
My personal estimate, determined unscientifically, is that the VVG player would through their expert play, win perhaps 1 to 2 "extra" pots per session, with 1 being far more likely than 2.
Now that the government has closed the "roving" casinos (legitimate operations, not underground) here in Toronto, we are left with only one casino that has hold 'em in the whole province of Ontario. The rake is 5% to a maximum of $7.50 in 5/10 and $10 in 10/20 (the highest limit available). I have tried to convince the casino management that they are killing the goose that laid the golden egg but my pleadings fall on deaf ears.
Personally, I now play only occasionaly (for fun versus for profit) whereas I used to play daily. When I played the roving casinos I was a consistent winner. I was able to beat the rake because of the wide choice of casinos and by choosing "soft" games. However, now that we're down to one casino I find that the players are, on average, better than those I used to play against. With a fairly even field, even where one or two players are substantially better, the money tends to just circulate, minus the rake of course. The rake of course, eventually kills everyone.
Can someone please tell me why supposedly really intelligent players continue to play in a (fairly even) game where $200 to $300 is coming off the table (10/20 game) in rake every hour? They all bitch and complain, and mutter about what a rip-off the rake is, but yet they continue to play despite the enormous odds against them winning.
I also play at the Heron (in TO), and have also been wondering about whether the game is beatable. The level of play at the 5-10 is much softer than at 10-20, especially on the weekends, and the rake works out, on average, to about 1 big bet per player per hour. I assume that the 1.5 to 2.5 bb per hour number that is bandied about for winning players already takes into account some kind of rake or time charge.
Anyway, any comments concerning the beatability of a high rake game such as this one would be appreciated (as I'd love to quit my job and hang out there full time :) ).
Thanks
A top player can beat a $10-$20 game with normal rake for about $30 an hour. Now you increase that rake by $7 each pot. This same player should still be able to beat the game for $10 to $15 an hour assuming everything else stays the same. But the problem is that every thing else won't stay the same. The bad players will lose their money too fast and quit coming. When this begins to happen I doubt if anyone will win. (In addition, with the high rake the best players will leave looking for greener pastures.)
It is amazing the abuse that poker players must take throughout the world because of incompetent casino/poker management. It's not like that in all card rooms. I recently stated in a POKER DIGEST interview that poker was no longer expanding even though it should still be expanding. This is clearly an example.
Mason & others,
I am also suffering from a high-rake game. I posted "Can the $1-3 stud game be beaten by anyone?" on RGP, and about half of my responses say the rake is too high. This is in the Phoenix area, and all the 3 casinos I play at (Gila River, Harrah's, & Casino Arizona) have identical rules.
Can the following game be beaten? --
Rules: 7 or 8 at a table. No ante, low card brings it in for $1. All streets, $1-3 spread limit, 3 raises.
Drops and tip: If $2+ in pot after 3rd street, $1 jackpot drop taken. At $10 pot, $2 drop. At $20 pot, $1 more dropped. If you win a decent pot, the standard etiquette is to toke $1. I do not want the reputation as a "stiff", so I do toke $1 for a pot bigger than $10-12.
PS - Without repeating all of my long RGP post, suffice it to say that the other players are terrible, very loose, and usually passive as well.
I would appreciate your expert analysis of this game, Thanks.
Dick in Phoenix
I believe that an excellent player can beat this game for perhaps as much as $4 per hour. But, if you are good enough to beat it, why play in it. Why not play higher where your question becomes less important.
Since excellent players will go to a higher limit you may be hard pressed to find anyone beating the game.
My god, who could beat that rake? I don't think anyone.
Down to 4 tables at the Peppermill No Limit tournament a year ago. Late position player raised twice the amount of the BB. I am the SB and called with 33. The BB called. Flop comes: 10-3-2. SB check, BB check,and the late position bet half the pot. SB called and BB raised all in. We all have about the same size stack. After thinking for about 1-2 minutes, the last position called all in. Now being the small blind, i put the BB on pocket deuces. So i know i got him beat. But then i start to beleive the other player has pocket 10's. So, i am thinking that may be i should fold because i know this last position player from Oregon is a very solid player.Then, i realize that this does not make sense and i must raised all in and take the opportunity to become the chip leader if my hand is the best one. Never i had ever saw 3 players flopped each a set in the past. Well, i lost to the set of ten and yes the BB had a set of deuces. I felt strong about folding my hand, just a gut feeling! How would you have played in my position? Was it the right decision to go all in? Is this where the expert distance themselves from good player and would have folded because they respect more their guts feeling based on many years of experience?
Yvan,
You've got to go broke with this situation. Bottom set, if you are a real strong intuitive player, maybe you escape, but even that is unlikely. In the same sequence of betting you will possess the winning hand far more often than not. When you flop second set in no-limit, you are going to go broke with it if somebody flopped top set. I doubt that any winning tournament player would have released that hand.
Five times in my life I have thrown away a set on the flop when there was no straight or flush possible. Of those five times I was wrong three and right two.
a gut feeling can be trusted when it comes to you unexpected. When you are searching yourself for a "gut feeling", they can't be trusted.I have won many pots when I was very uncomfortable.
Thank you all for your input. Ray this is very comforting to see that you did release a set on the flop under the conditions described and be correct 40% of the time. In a life and death situation, like tournament, I beleive releasing a set the way i felt was the right thing to do. I did not release it because i felt like John "you must go broke on a second set". At that particular moment, my decision was based on logical facts and proved to be a mistake because i lost. I have very strong intuitive antenna and many times, like you AL, i am right when my subconcious unexpectedly tells me "he is bluffing" or "he's got you beat". Yes, sometimes, i get confused about who is telling me what. Is it my subconcious or my logical mind that is speaking to me? When i am confused i usually listen to logic based on real cold facts. This whole thing is so weird. I continually analyse situation, odds of making the hands versus the number of bets and apply all the technical stuff we read in all the poker books and then i turn around and question my decision due to an unexpected voice. So the bottom line is why should i spent so much time in studying poker through books and software simulation. Why not spending time in learning how to listen to my subconcious who seems to be right all the time. Any of you focus on learning how to listen to your subconcious? If so, about being kind enough to refer me to specific manual where i can start exploring that discipline. Thank you in advance.
Yvan - There are lots of books and information and even classes going on in listening to your sub-conscious. Check out your local metaphysical bookstore or alternative newspaper for classes, etc. Enjoy.
I wish I trusted my "gut" like you do. Just this weekend I picked up pocket Aces in the early stages of a no-limit tourney. I bet $70 into the $10/$20 blinds and get called only the BB, who was steaming from a recent bad beat. This guy has put many bad beats on me recently, so I should have been concerned.
However, the K-7-2 rainbow flop seemed pretty benign, so I bet $200, figuring that he would call with any King and I might win a few bucks. Sure enough he called. A nine came on the turn, which should have scared me since this steamer is equally likely to play K9 as AK. I decided to bet my remaining 500 to take away any bluffing opportunity. A Jack hit on the river and I knew I was a goner, but alas it was too late. I just smiled when he showed me his QTo, reached for my $100 rebuy, and promised myself to heed my gut feelings in the future.
I think it's important to differentiate between a gut feeling that might be based on a subconscious analysis of the current situation and a gut feeling that might be based on premonition.
In the case of flopping a middle set, you might get an uncomfortable feeling if you subconsciously tune into a tell (or multiple tells) that strongly indicates you are up against the nuts. (I would have to be very uncomfortable before I folded the second nuts, however.)
In the case of AA being cracked by a runner-runner straight, you would need some sort of supernatural abilities to lay down your hand before the river.
I'm not saying supernatural abilities do not exist. (I don't want to start an ESP thread here.) I'm saying it is important to separate these two types of gut feelings.
> So the bottom line is why should i spent so much time in
> studying poker through books and software simulation. Why
> not spending time in learning how to listen to my
> subconcious who seems to be right all the time.
Before abandoning the books, you might want to perform a reality check on just how accurate your subconscious really is.
It might seem like your subconscious is right "all the time," but it probably is far from perfect. We all must be careful of the psychological phenomenon of "selective perception." We tend to remember remarkable events and forget routine events. When we look back, therefore, the ratio of remarkable to routine seems greater than it really is.
Players tend to underestimate the actual power of pocket rockets. They remember many of the times they had expensive bad beats when they played their rockets, and they forget many of the small (but numerous) pots that they won with this hand.
Players tend to overestimate the actual power of 43o. They remember many of the big pots they won by making a straight or full house. They forget most of the small bets it cost them to see a worthless flop.
In your case, you should be careful that you aren't remembering the remarkable times when your intuition went against the book advice and proved correct while forgetting the (probably) many times when those gut feelings went against logic and turned out to be wrong.
To test the accuracy of your gut feelings, you might want to bring a small notebook to the poker table. Whenever your intuition goes against your logic, write an entry in your notebook and estimate how much extra money the gut feeling costed or benefited you. Of course, other psychological elements could influence your estimates (or even whether you write down an entry). But this little test might show that your intuition isn't as good as you currently believe it is.
When you play 33 and call a raise pre-flop, the best you can realistically hope for is to hit your set on the flop. This is not quite a miracle, but pretty darn close. When you miss, you have to either throw it away, or hope you are up against 2 overcards that miss the board.
If you are afraid to bet that hand when your set hits, you should be throwing it away pre-flop instead of calling a raise. You will never flop top set. You will never flop a flush. You will never flop a straight. In short, you will never flop the best possible hand for the board (except if you hit quads) and thus there is guaranteed risk with that hand that you could be behind. You have to be comfortable with that risk and be able to play it aggressively anyway.
Your prayers were answered, not only that you hit your set, but also that it was a non-threatening board for you (I'm assuming it was a rainbow too), and you were able to play it such that the other two put you all in instead of you having to work at enticing them to risk their money. You checked so that they would bet and you could trap them. And it worked perfectly.
I think you run a big risk if you start second guessing yourself in that situation. I think your intuition was just discomfort with risk and fearing the worst. And, by coincidence, the worst happened. If you are prone to that though, don't play 33.
Good luck, A Poker Guy!
Set over set there's nothing to do but take your lumps.
What strategies should you use for these types of tourneys and how do you develop them? Will studying Ray zee's great book help you develop the proper way to approach the tournament, or are omaha higj-low tourneys just a crap shoot?
Omaha high-low tournaments can be somewhat of a crapshoot if the rounds are short. Omaha-8 tends to play slower than Hold'em.
Much of the tournament strategy is similar to Hold'em tournament strategy. One friend who's not a strong Omaha-8 player recently won an Omaha-8 tournament because he applied tournament poker strategy. One way in which the tournament differs from the typical ring game (especially the later stages of the tournament) is that there'll be a lot of heads up confrontations, and Omaha hand values are different in heads up play. You no longer need the nuts to win, and it's often important to have hands that can make something both high and low so you can escape on the other side if you are beaten in the primary direction you are going.
...drawing on a combo 3 flush/3 straight on the flop??
I can figure the draw for 4th street but can't do the math for the two card draw. I'm wondering if enough callers are in, if it's worth calling. TIA
I am doing this rather quickly just as I am about to go off to a meeting at work so I hope I get it right.
I assume that what you are asking is what are your chances of making your draw when you flop an open-ended straight and a four flush. Note that you therefore have 15 outs with two cards to come. My calculations show that you therefore have a 54.12% chance of completing your draw assuming 47 unseen cards.
You get this according to this formula:
1 - (32/47 X 31/46) = 1170/2162 = 54.12%
If I'm wrong, I'm sure that some of the math whizzes who read this will correct me.
I think he is talking about a 3 flush.
I'm no math whiz either. However, for the flush you have 10 outs/47 cards on 4th and 9/46 on 5th. Probability of 2 events occuring is the 1stx2nd. Making it simple, 1/4.5x1/4.5 is 1/18.So your odds of going runner-runner for the flush are 18:1. For the straight,16/47 on 4th and 8/46 on 5th. Again making it simple, 1/3x1/6. Suprise again it's 1/18 or 18:1. So the odds of making either are 9:1. Of course, you wouldn't go past 4th w/o one or the other,so you wouldn't have to worry so much about implied odds here. Hope I'm right and it helps. If I'm wrong someone please correct me.
Think you are wrong. 4.16% for monkey flush. 4.37% for 3 straight; no gaps, including the possibility of getting an inside straight on the turn, and 1% for pairing both your hole cards or making trips from one of them.
You are probably right,but I was trying to show how I do the math in my head while playing. Hence, I approximated. I believe in play it is better to be close to correct in your odds quickly than exactly right and reveal too much info on the nature of your hand. I would note however that if you add up your %s and convert them to odds, essentially you end up with 9-1.
See the thread "Runner-runner draws" initiated by Albert on July 25th, 1998. It can be found in the Archives under July '98.
If you have 7d5d and flop is KcQs6d your odds for complete hand is 1/12 6/47*9/46( 6 cards whith give you flash draw only, 9 cards to make it)+6/47*8/46( 6 cards whith give you open end straight draw only, 8 cards to make it)+6/47*4/46( 6 cards whith give you close end straight draw only, 4 cards to make it)+2/47*15/46(2 cards whith give you open end straight flash draw, 15 cards to make it)+2/47*12/46(2 cards whith give you close end straight flash draw, 12 cards to make it) =(6*9+6*8+6*4+2*15+2*12)/(46*47)=(54+48+24+30+24)/(46*47)=180/(46*47). now i have to make it siple 46*47=45*48+2 so 180/(46*47) almost 180/(45*48)=1/12. But call is losing play any way. Do not play like this if you do, do it only against me.
I am interested to hear comments from forum members regarding the impact of strategy discussion on limit HE games in general. Do you think the games have or will become more difficult to beat as strategy is discussed in depth on forums like this?
why is members italisized? are there official members?
A little, I suppose, but not much. Most players don't really continue working on their game. At least, that's the impression that I get. Many seem to have read something at some point, but now they just want to play. And some people read but they don't have the discipline to apply.
Well, I know that I probably could not have gone on to become a winning player without having read some very good poker books. So, the "strategy dissemination" you talk about has certainly assisted me. At my club, I could probably name another 4-6 recreational players who are now winning players and cutting into the money that the full time professional poker players used to enjoy all to themselves. In fact, in my experience, some of these new students of the game are better than the old guard.
So, my answer to your question is "Yes".
There is an archived thread about poker jackpots, but I was hoping we could reopen the discussion. Does anyone know of any articles or references about jackpots? Is there a certain $ amount that makes sitting at the table a positive EV? I am not talking about changing your play based on the jackpot, but simply being present in the game waiting for a spectators share.
Could it serve as a tie-break between deciding where to play?
I'm not sure about how the amount of the jackpot affects your +EV. One thing I am sure is that it brings a lot of people who don't know how to play into the game. At least here in K.C. it does. Once the HE jackpot gets up over 10,000, a lot of stud players come over because its so high. A majority of times that means +EV for you because they don't know how to play HE at all. It also brings a lot of people in who you never even see play poker(we have a base group of regulars, so you can tell who they are). So I would have to say based on my experience, its not the jackpot money that gives you +EV, its all the bad players that it attracts to the game.
Good Luck, W.P.
First, the bad beat jackpot should effect your game. As the jackpot gets bigger and bigger, your table will tend to get looser and looser. You must play differently in loose games than you do in tight games. Even if your opponents' played perfectly, your style must change to take the jackpot potential into account. There will be very few adjustments for smallish jackpots and more adjustments (but still not very many) for bigger jackpots. There was a CARD PLAYER article on this subject a couple months ago (probably by Ciaffone or Cappelletti).
Secondly, a big jackpot at some point will more than offset the administrative fees deducted from the jackpot rake and start to increase your EV (even if your opponents' games do not change). Will it make your EV positive? It depends. It depends on how negative your EV is without a jackpot and how big the jackpot is. If you are a very bad player, it will require a much bigger jackpot to push you above break even than if you are a slightly bad player. If you are a good player, than your EV will be positive without any jackpot at all.
This is a dumb question because I have never played NL. If the buy-in on a NL games is $500, does that mean you have to buy in for $500? Otherwise, can't you buy in for a lot more and have an advantage because you are the big stack?
How common are small buy-in NL games?
Any time you have a no limit game with a buy in stated that is the minimum you can buy in for at any one time. Strategically you can buy in for much more and you will have a chance to win much more on any single pot, but you also have a chance of losing it all at one time. So often it helps to buy in for enough to make it worth it to win, but not enough that it kills you to lose...usually you can play a $100 buy in no limit, but you will be seeing a lot of rebuys.
But it is table stakes right? So it seems like if you bought in for only $100 and everyone else bought in for $100 dollars, you wouldn't get your money's worth when you hold the nuts.
>How common are small buy-in NL games?<
I used to play at a no limit game at the Cattlemans Casino in Kalispell Montana that was only a $20 buy in. Although in Montana there is only a $300 pot limit law so the most you could win or lose is $150 heads up. The game was busted a year or so ago because the guy running the game was giving some players credit (which is illegle here) and some whinning jerk was stuck for alot of cash on credit and deceided that ratting out the game was easier than paying his gambling debts.
The stated buy-in is almost always a minimum. (I have heard of games in which it was also a maximum, but such games are very rare.)
You can have the biggest stack only if none of the other players is able to or choses to buy in for as much. Whether having the biggest stack is an advantage in a live game, as opposed to a tournament, is controversial.
No-limit games are relatively rare in public card rooms. The only regular one in Nevada of which I'm aware is one in which I regularly play at the Eldorado in Reno; it has blinds of $2 and $5, $5 to come in, with a $100 minimum buy-in.
Steve,
You stated "Whether having the biggest stack is an advantage in a live game, as opposed to a tournament, is controversial". I agree it is controversial, as I have been having this exact debate with a friend of mine. I am curious as to your thoughts on this, having played regularly in such games. Do you see it as a disadvantage to have a small stack against large stacks in a live game? If so, then what sort of rule of thumb would you give on when you would/would not buy into a game?
Secondly, how is the live nl game at the Eldorado? What sort of stack sizes would one generally see in that game?
A Poker Guy!
The stated buy-in is almost always a minimum. (I have heard of games in which it was also a maximum, but such games are very rare.)
You can have the biggest stack only if none of the other players is able to or choses to buy in for as much. Whether having the biggest stack is an advantage in a live game, as opposed to a tournament, is controversial.
No-limit games are relatively rare in public card rooms. The only regular one in Nevada of which I'm aware is one in which I regularly play at the Eldorado in Reno; it has blinds of $2 and $5, $5 to come in, with a $100 minimum buy-in.
I have just started to play poker and have been playing a little holdem and the TAJ. How is the best hand determined in regard to who wins because of the best kicker. At first I thought it was the best five cards, but this does not seem to be true.
If the board is A T 7 6 2 and you hold A Q and your opponent holds A J your hand is A A Q T 7, Your opponents hand is A A J T 7. you win with a Q kicker. Same board but you hold A 3 and your opponent holds A 4 both your hands are A A T 7 6, split pot.
It is the best 5 cards out of the 7 (the 2 in your hand plus the 5 on the board). Can you post an example of what happened?
Sometimes it can look confusing if, for instance, you have the same first card as your opponent and you have a better second card. It might seem like you have a better kicker but its possible that neither second card is used to determine the best 5 card hand, and then the pot is split. If you have AT and your opponent has A7, and the board is A K K J 4. Your best hand is AAKKJ (the J is higher than your T for the 5th card, so it plays and your T does not) and your opponents best hand is AAKKJ (same situation, the J is higher than his 7), so you split the pot even though your starting two cards beat his starting two cards.
A Poker Guy!
What is the best way to play top pair when you have a medium or weak kicker. How about if top pair is less then jacks? I know it depends on many factors, but generally is it better to bet check and call or check and fold? Thanks.
bet
Agreed, unless - it's the flop, your in the blind and an aggressive player is last to act - then a check with the intention of raising may be a better course of action. Opinion by Vince
Play it strong short handed,with alot of people in you can play it more passive but be prepaired to pay off unless it's obvious your beat.
Top pair is always worth betting if you are first to act or if it has been checked to you, and it's usually worth at least a call (if not a raise) if someone bets in front of you. Sometimes its even worth a checkraise. The only question really becomes at what point do you slow down, and how does the strength of your kicker factor into that decision.
I see a lot of people make, what I think is a tremendous mistake, by checking top pair when they are worried about their kicker, or they are worried that an overcard will fall on the turn or river, or they are worried that they may be up against an overpair, or they are worried because the board is scary (3 flush or 3 straight or the board paired), etc etc.
Bet top pair at least until someone raises back at you (or until it is no longer top pair, or maybe slow down if the board gets really scary such as a 4 flush or 4 straight). If top pair with a better kicker calls you all the way to the river, then so be it. They get the pot and you move on. This wont happen often if you play quality cards, but if you start giving people free cards instead, bad things will start happening to your top pair on a regular basis.
A few weeks ago I flopped top pair (8's) and bet it. Someone chased me all the way to the river and I hit my set. He had flopped bottom 2 pair and because I was aggressively betting he was imagining that I had a better 2 pair or a set. He was of the belief that I would not be betting all the way with top pair when it was only 8 high. He made a tremendous mistake obviously, but the point is that he had trouble putting me on a hand because I will fire (or sometimes checkraise) with ANY top pair, two pair, sometimes a set, and even sometimes a middle pair if I have enough extra value (ex. 3 to the nut flush and a gutshot) and I think I can drag it down right there with a bet. I enjoy hearing people grumble (while I am stacking my chips, of course :) that if they had stayed in, they would have had me beat when the overcard fell. It means I made a damn good bet, but somehow they view it as I got lucky. Top pair? Bet it!
A Poker Guy!
You have to assume that you have the best hand at this point. If you check, many people will have a free card. This is a very easy way to get beat.
If you show strength, you will eliminate a lot of draws.
Maybe it's not quite that simple though. With 8's, it's a very close call (another post mentioned a pair of eights).
Every where i read that a top player makes approximately 1.5 to 2 bets per hour. The problem i have, is: i do not beleive i am a top player. I play regularly 20-40 and i average $124xhr. I used to do $69xhr when i had a permanent job. This was until September 98. My question is, the 1.5 to 2 bets x hr is measured on how long of a period.
The 1.5 to 2 BB/hour is really for someone that is playing full time. Someone that has to play in lousy games when there are no good games going. Someone that has to play when they are sick, tired, or even totally burned out on poker. Someone that has to continually play against many of the same people, people that know them and know their style.
For us part-timers, we have the luxury of being selective about which games we join or stay in. We often have the luxury of playing against strangers who have no read on our play (yeah, that one cuts both ways, but I still look at it as an advantage). We can get up and leave at any time, take a sabbatical from poker, only play when we are feeling like we are in top form, play without the pressures of having to win to pay the rent or put food on the table, play in low limit games filled with fish and newbies, and basically enjoy it because it is a hobby instead of a job. I have no idea what the true mark (expressed in bb/hour) of a good part timer should be, but I suspect it should be at least double, if not quadruple what a good full timer makes.
I would think that a part timer should have at least 2000 hours or 2 years of records and a relatively low standard deviation to establish a reasonable bb/hour expection. But then again, I just simply measure the number of months my bankroll is higher than the previous month. That seems to be a much simpler method to determine if I am playing well. If at the end of the year the number is 11 or better, then it was a good year and its time to play more at the next level.
A Poker Guy!
Several people have told me that Cissy Walford makes $200,000+/yr playing 20-40 HE. I don't know if that's true, but I do know that she is one of the very best medium limit HE players in the world.
Yvan, $124/hr for two months full-time is a very nice hit. Don't go crazy Christmas shopping, and mentally prepare yourself for a bad run of cards come January.
I am not a professional. I play PL Texas/Omaha HE in a home game biweekly. Besides that I play 1-4-8-8 on the local riverboats. I have been playing on the boats for 6 months and my win rate is $38/hr, which has pleasantly suprised me,considering S&M's calculations for expectation in 4/8 HE.I realize by it's nature 1-4-8-8 can be more profitable,but sometimes I think the LV pros could benefit by doing some traveling. Simply put I think the games here in the midwest may be easier. Yvan,where do you play?
I play in the Bay area in California
I have question for group.
I read Mike Caro is world's biggest expert on poker.(That what he say.)
I never see him post here.
If he so smart how come he never say anything here to group.
Me thinks he quiet because he maybe not so smart.
Where is he anyway? How come you so quiet Mr. poker guy?
Like you say...ask anybody?
Me asking.
I am not sure if this post is a joke or not, but many good poker players do not even have a computer. It's like saying, Garry Kasparov says he is the best chess player in the world, why doesn't he write articles for Chess Life if he is so smart? Well, it still doesn't change the fact that he is the best chess player in the world.
Mike Caro has a computer and posts frequently on Rec. Gambling.poker. A better answer might be that, no matter how friendly, Mike Caro and 2+2 are competitors. Mike is also very busy and is behind on any number of projects. Time pressure alone could account for his not posting here.
Caro behind on a project???? Nah, no way.
Mike Caro doesn't post here because he is frequently wrong. Gives bad advice and his ego wouldn't let him even consider participating in a newsgroup that would challenge his many ridiculous assertions.
Other than that I have asked many people about him and the response is only so-so. He is a know-it-all in his own opinion. In the eyes of many of the most talented players he is considered somewhat of a joke.
In fact, in over 20 years I have never even SEEN him PLAY poker! Never seen him at a major poker tournament. (Except for last year.) Never seen him in any of the big side games. He's never around.
I guess he is too busy working on projects that never get finished or are months (and years) late in materalizing.
He posts on RGP though. Acts like he owns the place. I guess his ego won't let him post here.
The purpose of this forum is to discuss theory and strategy. If possible, we would like to leave personalities out of it. Mike Caro is someone who has put forth many ideas on poker and strategy. I agree with you that many of these ideas would be challenged on this forum. In fact, over the years I have disagreed with many of them. However, that doesn't mean they aren't worth debating. In poker, there is very little that is totally cut and dry. There usually seems to be a down side to what ever strategy is employed. This is easily seen by the many posts that we have had on this forum disagreeing or debating many ideas and concepts that I espouse.
Well said, Mason.
Mike Caro has, both in the past and recently, made reference that there is someone at 2+2 that keeps making disparaging comments about him. He states specifically that it isn't David Sklansky. It doesn't take much deductive skill to figure out who he is referring to.
I have purchased several poker books by both you and Mike, and have gained insight and profit from following both strategy and thinking advice contained therein. Competitors can disagree on aspects of their profession and yet still have respect for each other. I hope that this becomes the case with you and Mike Caro since both are responsible for improving the information base of poker.
There is a thread below about gut feelings and a thread on bj21 about luck. I am really interested in how everyone defines these abstract ideas.
I used to believe in the traditional, abstract idea of luck. But now I believe (know) it is contained in the science of statistics and probability. Even if you are not a math/science fan, business researchers call it decision science and risk management.
Luck is not all equal. If I pick a random number between 1 and 100 and guess correctly, am I not "luckier" than guessing a number between 1 and 10 correctly? So in all games with unseen parts (cards and bj for example), you choose to be involved in situations which require less "luck" than others. The people that do this the best win the most.
What is a gut feeling? In a game with unseen parts, there must be other aspects that affect your decision. It isn't ESP that make some people better than others at choosing correctly. Maybe it is a subconscious enlightenment of the way an opponent bets, plays with his chips, repeats a pattern, etc.
By the way I see people play games in general in the casino, I definitely have the feeling that people believe in the traditional definition of luck. Where all luck is created equal. I know this every time I hear someone yell, "any two cards can win" at the hold'em tables. Or every time someone complains, "I would have had a set if I called pre-flop."
So someone help me out understand what a "gut feeling" is and what is "luck?"
"Luck" is used a bit differently in poker than in day to day life. It doesn't refer to mystical forces of wonderful occurences or something of that nature. Luck is an illusion. If I'm playing 7 card stud and I have nines full of dueces with two pair (9's & 2's) showing and three sixes calls on sixth street and catches the fourth six -- well you might be tempted to say she got lucky. But as long as that 6 was live there was a possibility (albeit a small one) of her getting quads. So we say things like "She got lucky and caught a six". Had this scenario played out 100,000 times - I'd be making money. In a sense her call lost money. Not so much that particular call, but making calls in that situation. If you can understand "luck" and bad beats in this way, you will realize that the proper response to such a situation is not throwing cards but congratulating your opponent and encourge them to make the same play next time.
Karpov, I could not defined it better than you did.
BEING LUCKY: a decision science based on years of playing experience + extensive study of poker and risk management.
GUT FEELING: Subconcious enlightenment based on opponent's behaviour. Although i agree with you,i would go a little bit behond than that due to past experienced. Subconcious enlightenment does not only derived from opponents' behaviour as experienced by the 2 following examples: 1) I was playing blackjack and suddenly my subconcious tells me that a 4 is comming from the shoe of 6 deck. I take the card and make 21. Based on decision science, I should have stayed put with 17. But i really liked it because the pit boss was watching me. 2) Playing Hold-em and i am in seat 1. Everyone checks to the player on seat 9. Again, my subcioncious tells me "That's a bluff". i was not aware of his behavior because i could not see him played. This may sound unreal but these are facts. Many more times i have experienced this kind of intuition that goes behond my comprehension. The difficulty is to recognize when the intuitive mind is talking to us versus the logical mind. So, i beleive GUT FEELING means: subconcious enlightenment based on opponent's behaviour and clear intuitive receptivity.
At any given moment in time and space, especially when talking about 'material' connected events as we are (meaning; the arrangement of a deck of cards, or certain events about to happen in our immediate environment, eg a poker hand) the cards are shuffled and arranged, what is going to happen will happen in the next few seconds. Occasionally, that amazing instrument of sensory awareness, our human brains, taps into the 'flow' and gets just a bit more infomation on what is going to happen in the next few seconds than it usually does. Sometimes we call that a gut feeling, others watch the events and occasionally call it luck. This awareness can be cultivated, I know folks who have been doing it for years. As you open yourself to the possibility, it happens more and more often. Enjoy.
Are you talking about ESP or something? If you really believe what you wrote, I think you are paying too much attention to the times that you accidentally guess correctly and not enough attention to the times it doesn't happen like this.
As an experiment, take out a deck of cards, shuffle it, and cut it in half. Guess what card is on the bottom of each half. Keep careful records. Do this 100 times and see what your results are.
I used to think that maybe I could guess significantly better than probability said I would, but I can't. FYI, hundreds of psychologists have studied ESP and not one of them (not even one) has determined that any of their subjects (not even one) can guess better than statistics and probability predicted they would.
Karpov, I don't deny what you are saying. As a matter of fact, i fully support what you are saying. I am addressing only those rare times while focussing on the game that suddenly or unexpectedly without seaching for answer or results a voice is telling you the right outcome. I find this very interesting because every time it worked. Not only while playing poker but also at other instances. For whatever reason, when you are looking for this information, it does not come. To be profitable at any game, i beleive you need to stick to statistics and probability all the time. But, be aware of those instances where your subconcious is sending you a message. The trick is to recognize that moment. Beleive me, i would not bet my bankroll on it. As an aggressive player, it will certainly slow me down if the message tells me that my opponent will draw out on me as well as paying an extra bet or even raise to check things out. This situation happens to me a few times a week and i play everyday.
Yvan and Karpov demonstrate a basic principle. Gut feeling is what YOU have when make a statistically bad play and it pays off. Luck is what the OTHER GUY has when HE makes a statistically bad play and it pays off.
1st let me say I'm no great player and I have made my share of stupid plays,and I don't mean to be little this guy,OK on with the story.Last night playing 30-60 a guy who I think is a pretty fair player raised in early position with QQ,one caller the big blind.Flop 10s 8d 4c blind checks, raiser checks.Turn 6c check check.River A blind bets out, pre-flop raiser calls and loses to pair of A.I guess he was thinking about trying to get the blind to bluff and pick up a bet,if he was thinking period.
That isn't even close to the worst play in poker. I'm sitting in a 6-12 Hold'Em game at the Commerce about three months ago. Pot is folded to the SB who limps and simultaneously announces to the BB, "I've got Rockets." BB checks and flop comes rainbow rags and SB checks. BB checks and turn pairs the board. SB now shows his pocket aces to BB and checks. BB checks also. River card brings trips to the board, SB checks and BB shows the fourth seven and bets. SB is totally pissed about BB betting and raises while screaming that BB is a no good prick for betting into him when he was nice enough to check it down all the way. BB thinks for a second, apparently agrees with SB's assessment and dumps his quads without calling. Two players, one of whom was me, get up and leave this game in total disgust. If this isn't the woest play in poker, I'd love to hear your candidate.
Leaving a game like that is a pretty bad play. HOWEVER, IMHO, the worst play in the history of poker has been made by myself, on numerous occasions....
..6-12 HE game, big ram-jam pot. Board is Jxxx w/ 3 hearts. Another rag heart comes on the river. Guy who raised on the flop, but called on the turn bets outs. Coupla folds, another guy flashes two small pair then folds. Original raiser-reraiser screams and whines then mucks his pocket aces. Bettor turns over A-J of spades then rakes in the $297 pot. Aces picks up his chips, ALL TWO DOLLARS OF THEM (Yes, two one dollar chips), and storms out.
John,
That is a great story and I have a few myself but one is a hand I played. It was a 100 200 limit omaha high game and the pot had Jay Hemowitz and myself with no raises in. The flop was ten jack queen of spades giving me the royal flush with the ace king of spades. Jay checked and I checked behind him. Next card was a small spade. Jay checked again and I knew he would not call any bet with four spades out there. Last card was a blank and Jay checked again so i figured I could be cute because there was no way he would call a bet so I checked again. Jay now shows 8 9 spades for a straight flush and I win with the royal. It turns out no one was even looking to my dismay except David Chu who says look everybody a straght flush and a royal flush checked down with no bets. No one still even looked. Jay never even smiled and the next hand was dealt. Although I lost a few bets it was worth it as I will always remember my stupid plays that were funny but may never recall those great boring money making hands. Good Luck everybody.
In Omaha, why would a rag spade on the turn when the QJ10 are already up affect somebody's, esp Jay Heimowitz's, decision to call?.
Bill M,
The fourth spade doesnt affect his decision to call it affects the likelyhood that he will call.
How's that? Aren't they the same thing? Is it more likely that someone has a flush in Omaha when a fourth suited card hits the board?
Since in Omaha, you must use exactly two cards from your hand and exactly three cards from the board, a fourth suited card on board will actually slightly decrease the odds someone has a flush.
BTW,I read your post wrong, I thought you wrote "Isn't it more likely" not "is it more likely". Sorry, I think I need to go to bed.
Now the thing that would have really topped that story off is if you had been playing at a place with a huge bad beat jackpot, and it didnt qualify because there wasn't enough money in the pot :).
A Poker Guy!
Big John-
Don't think I can top Ray Zee's story, but this one is even "stupider" in its simplicity, and even has an element of bad beat to. It is a small $300 buy-in $2-$5 no limit HE money game. A guy under the gun (who has obviously played too many satellites) makes it $300 to go! He bets $300 all-in into a $7 pot. It is folded around to the button, who clearly knows that this guy is an idiot, and calls him with pocket Kings. They turn up their hands, with Mr. all-in showing AKo. The caller (Kings) asks if he wants to do "business", which for this game would mean to deal out three separate boards. Mr all-in says "f%*? it and deal!.
The dealer turns out KTx Q J! It's Broadway over three kings! I guess this guy knows something I don't.
you mean they'd play out 3 seperate boards for 100 each or 2/3 wins all? Can you do that in a tourney? Just curious.
It wasn't a tourney, it was a ring game.
No, you can't do anything like that in a tourney.
SL is right, you can't do this in a tourney. We would deal out 3 sepate boards for $100 each as a form of fair "insurance" for all-in coups where a longshot draw might send a guy home for the night.
I saw a similar play where the KK checked it to the river against 5 opponents, then RAISED when an Ace hit ...
--------------------------------
I saw Bet, Raise, ColdCall, OverCall when all three hands were face up and the ColdCaller had the nuts.
--------------------------------
Of course, I've had my share of misreading my own hand, such as raising several times with the Ahigh nut flush against the REAL Ahigh nut flush...
--------------------------------
I was in a game with a maniac who regularly put in several extra raises; in one hand he raised heads-up 5 times with a small flush DRAW against the tight UTG player (me) when the board was paired. Darn it, he missed. Another hand my friend raised him confidently 3 times with only second pair. Otherwise, Friend was very selective. Maniac was not.
On this hand I raise UTG; Maniac ReRaises; Friend ReReRaises; I fold (wisely, since Friend surely has AA, KK, QQ); and Maniac, reluctantly, calls heads-up. Flop is T97; Maniac squirms and checks; Friend bets; Maniac squirms and reluctantly calls. Turn 6; Maniac squirms and squirms and checks; Friend Bets; Maniac squirms and squirms... He then announces that this is a tight player who must surely have the nuts, which is an 8ight: he's gotta have the straight. He then shows us AA and mucks it! Friend turns bright red and blenches outload, and I say "You're right, you ARE on a roll lately!".
- Louie
This play is not uncommon for timid social players. I have run into quite a few players that raise preflop then check, check, ckeck and call. Sometimes it just depneds on their mood. God Bless'em! V/R Vince
My nomination ...
Somewhat tight 3-6 Holdem game. Everyone folds to the button, who raises, called by woman tourist in BB. Board AAKK3, with button betting all rounds and tourist check calling. Showdown: Button 22, tourist 42. Tourist: as she scoops the pot says "I KNEW you were bluffing!"
I had to leave the table because I got Pepsi up my nose.
I had a guy call me down in stud and pay it off once: <<
I gotta go with Mike's nomination as the worst play ever.
A close second is the one that Mason recounts in one of his "Poker Essays" book. A guy made top straight (which was the nuts) after the river card. Before he could act, the player to his left (acting out of turn) bet. The guy with the straight yelled out, "hey man, what are you doin'? I never checked". The dealer then asked the bettor to take his money back and offered our hero his chance to act. Our hero bets. The player to his left now folds. Our hero then turns over his cards and smugly says "I knew I had Ya!!"
That one's a real beauty.
The game is Anaconda (high only). After passing cards, you roll your five card hand one card at a time, with a betting round before each rolled card. I have been betting and raising at every opportunity since after the first pass. After the second rolled card, I am heads-up, and my opponent and I make it four bets on each card. On fourth, I roll an ace, and he rolls the Jc.
My board: 4sAs4hAd
His board: 6c3c7cJc
I have aces full and now I know I can't lose. I check to him, hoping to induce a bet. Surely enough, he bets. I raise.
HE RERAISES. I cap. HE CALLS and turns over the ten of diamonds.
I can top all these, and I swear this is true. In a fairly tight game, a pre-flop raising war breaks out between AA and KK. Flop is 79J rainbow, aces bet, kings raise, aces call. Turn is an 8. Again, aces bet, kings raise, aces call. River is a 10. Aces check, kings decide what the hell and bet, and the Aces- no, I'm not making this up- shows the rockets to the table and folds. Kings start giggling, the dealer is mystified, and finally, after the hand, someone tries to explain to the aces what all the fuss is about. Aces blush, mumble something about pocket queens, and picks up his chips and leaves.
John L. Smith column...Nov. 24th...
"He had six figures worth of legitimate debt when his old pal Stupak took him over and tried to sober him up. Stupak assigned his man, Dave, to act as Ungar's companion. Keeping Ungar straight was more than a full-time job.
Over the weekend, Stupak assumed Ungar was with Dave. But Ungar told Dave he was going to take his daughter to a birthday dinner.
Instead, Stu Ungar went into the night.
His body was discovered in a $58 room on the Boulevard. He had $800 in his pocket and no cocaine. That fact makes his friends and family suspicious. It's a Las Vegas mystery the late Ted Binion might have appreciated.
Could this "Dave" be David Sklansky?
There is no pos e.v. in a job like that. Dave S is too wise.
I'm not buddy-buddy with Mr. Sklansky, but all of the references to him that I've seen always say "David", not Dave. I highly doubt it was Mr. Sklansky. W.P.
For the record, it was not me.
1. It was not I is technically correct.
2. It's too bad. Who knows what insights might have come from one of the best instinctive players in the history of the game and one of the best theoreticians in the history of the game combined their expertise, especially with the addition of a modest helping of controlled substances.
I was in a private pot limit game the other day and the following hand came up: one player in late position raises the pot, I have AA in the small blind so i reraise the pot, the original raiser calls. The flop comes Q rag rag with no straight or flush possibilities. I bet the pot, he calls. Then a Q comes on the turn. I check, he checks behind. A rag comes on the river, I check, he pauses for a while then bets the pot. This player is quite loose, and could easily be bluffing with a hand like JJ or KK, so i decide to call. He shows down AQ to take the pot.
My question is, did i make a mistake calling the river? Against a tight player, I would assume that a call on the flop meant he had top pair (or KK), in which case i would have to fold to the river bet most of the time. However this particular opponent is pretty loose and would call the flop with a middle pocket pair like JJ, TT, 99. I figure I have to call sometimes with AA vs this kind of opponent, but how often should i call rather than fold?
Matt
Matt,
This late in the hand your decision is whether or not he is bluffing. Since he bet the pot you are getting 2 to 1 odds for your call. Decide if you will win more than one third of the time. If so call. You mentioned his pause before betting. This may be a reason to call or fold, you read the person and make your decision. Also, if he is betting kk or jj those hands may not be bluffing hands as they may win in a showdown and he is not likely to be betting them for a bluff but may be betting them for value. Good Luck.
Gotta Muck It! After the flop he must have thought you had a pocket pair, AA or KK otherwise he would raise with the AQQ. The A he had made it more likely you had KK. Since he was getting 2 to 1 early, with the prospect of making a big bet later, he decided to continue(3A and 2Q give him 5 outs, not a lot but enough for some people). (Note that if he had KK he would probably raise the flop or muck it if he knew you wouldnt bet into the Q without an over pair. ALso, if he has KK he only has 2 outs against AA not enough to continue). When he bets the river you know he has to have a Q and is looking for a call. Since he was astute enough to check the turn you should give this loose player a little more credit than you had given him before. V/r Vince
Me:
(3,A)3,3,K
Opponent:
(?,?)Jc,9h,J
Lets just say all the relevent cards are live. I was the bring in and the Jack raised on 3rd St. I checkraised the Jack on 4th St. I checked and the Pair of Jacks bet on 5th St. If my opponent has Trip Jacks I'm a 3 to 1 Shot. If he just has Two Pair I'm a 1 to 4 Shot. Lets say the Pot only has 6 Big bets in it at this time. What is important.
Thanks,
New to 7 Card
I would be pretty worried at this point. He obviously isn't scared of your check-raise, because he is still betting. I think you probably definitely looking at another jack down there.
I was against a higher set but I sucked out and made a boat while he didn't improve.
n 2 s s,
If there are 6 bets in already from 5th street on its going to cost three more to you. The six plus his next three is nine. It looks like you are getting three to one. Ive won too many to count from this spot to throw away trips when the pot is already built. Besides with a jack nine showing there are just too many drawing hands and big two pairs he could have and play it like he did. In my experience you win about half of these. Good Luck.
Thanks for your points. I'm glad you noticed my basic math mistake.
After reading some of the other responses I thought I had not understood your question. I take it you asked what is most important when facing a possible higher trips in seven card stud. The most important thing in situations like this is to proceed with caution. Since you are playing limit stud you are at worst giving up a a fraction of a big bet if you call and are actually facing a bigger set. Key to playing this hand correctly is your knowledge of your opponenet. Keep in mind that most people playing mid to high level seven stud understand the pitfalls of playing against a paired door card. Consequently the fact that you checked raised this opponent and he still bet out on fifth street (expecting you to at least call by the way) would indicate that he probably but not necessarily, has at least 3 jacks. Dog, that you may be in this situation, I still believe that for most if not all cases, where your not beat on board, a call to the end is in order. v/r Vince
Recently in a 10-20 game I called (first in) with JT suited, it folds to the button who raises, sb folds bb reraises so now its 2 bets more for me. So my question is this, when is it correct to fold before the flop when you,ve already called the blind? A lot of players take the postion of automatically calling everything once they've put 1 bet in, but it seems to me that there are times that it's best to fold and I would enjoy hearing some general guide lines on the topic.
Thanx
You gotta know the players. Are they maniacs who would raise with anything, or rocks who only raise with AA/KK/QQ/AKs. I think I'd have to throw this hand away. I don't buy the "well I already have 1 bet in". A lot of players do this where I play and I love it. They'll do that with hands like Q4s, and T7o. When i'm SB/BB and its raised, I think, would I play this hand for 1 bet if I didn't have any money in? Most of the times the answer is no, and I muck the hand.
TJs is a good hand multi-way, but I'm not sure how good it is against only 2 other players. Once again you probably have to put them on big cards to raise/re-raise. Like Mason said in the Winter Intelligent Gambler comparing AJo to TJs. (paraphrasing)"Short handed you'd prefer AJo because many times you can win with A high, but not J high." TJs is ranked higher as a starting hand, but you have to look at how many people are in the game.
Good Luck, W.P.
"Like Mason said in the Winter Intelligent Gambler comparing AJo to TJs. (paraphrasing)"Short handed you'd prefer AJo because many times you can win with A high, but not J high." TJs is ranked higher as a starting hand, but you have to look at how many people are in the game."
In this spot I would clearly prefer the JTs because you are a little less likely to make a second best hand. However, I would usually throw both of them away.
Unless bb is a maniac, it is correct to fold in the situation you described. You have to put bb on a big pair,making you a big dog. Suppose you call and the flop has two overcards, giving you a straight draw. Here an A or a 9 gives you a straight,so you convince yourself the implied odds are good,only they're not quite as good as you thought because your opponent already has two of the Aces that can help you. Suppose you flop a 4flush, you bet. He raises with AKs another hand he might have raised with in this hand. And I don't even want to think about flopping a gutshot draw and convincing yourself to go for it. Here your call was marginally correct but going any further would be chasing.
As usual this questin calls for an "IT DEPENDS" answer. Who raised first? My question is not what position raised but Who. What does he think of your game? What hand(s) does he put you on when you limp early? What do you think of him. Is he solid, tight, etc. Is he on tilt? Even more important is WHO raised fromt the BB? Same questions. Pot size when it gets back to you is now $75. You must call $20 (consider also that the button might reraise and you would have to call 10$ more). 3 1/2 to 1 right now. How well do you play after the flop? How about the other two? If you were in the BB with the same hand and it was raised to you, pot odds would also be 3 1/2 to 1. Would you call in that situation (certainly not the same situation you described but potsize is the same, even though the implied odds in your situation are much greater.) Clearly if enough of your playing criteria are favorable you should call. If you are it is probably better to get out! By the way the only bearing that the one bet you already have in has is that it has added to the pot size. It is no longer yours so forget it! v/r vince
I would definitely have called if only the button had raised. I would probably raise with a wide variety of hands from the button, so I wouldn't give it a whole lot of respect (unless you know something of the player otherwise). However, the re-raise from the bb would worry me. Calling all depends on who this guy is.
I might consider capping it here. If you have a good chance of pushing out the button (two re-raises right after his raise may be too much strength for a hand that may not really be that great), you will have better position than the bb. This type of situation may allow a bullying, bluff type of situation. If the bb is a maniac, I wouldn't do this, I would just fold. But if he is a loose aggressive player, he probably won't be used to someone more aggressive than him (especially if you normally aren't). If rags come on the flop and he bets, I might be tempted to re-raise again. Showing strength here might be interesting.
Are my suggestions too aggressive? I think it should be either folded or played like this. It seems like calling is just asking for it.
Is there same kind of question and answers section in this book, like seven card stud for advanced players.
Yes.
Yes.
Here's the game. 3$ SB, 5$ BB and 5$ bets all through the hand (flop, pre-flop, turn and river). I can consistently beat 2-6 and 1-4-8-8 HE, but I always get creamed in this game. Any ideas why? The obvious answer, of course, would be that I suck, but I don't think this is it since I can win at just about any other low limit game. But for some reason this 3-5 game gives me fits.
Any insight would be most appreciated.
How do you get creamed? There a probably (at least) 2 choices to explain the difference. Either you play different, or everyone else does (possibly because of the betting structure).
Are you ahead or have odds when you bet/call? Do people just stay in more since it is no more expensive to call the turn than to call the flop? Do you find that they generally river you? Do you chase more because it is no more expensive to call the turn than the flop? If you can give a little more info on what you are observing, it would be helpful.
A Poker Guy!
I have the same problem, but then I really do suck : ). I think the key, if there is one, is to stick to pairs and nut draws in position and get set for serious boredom. I would also stay away from the tables with the heaviest action as these games are just insane. In one of the first posts on this forum, David Sklansky suggested that this structure with the $4 rake might not be beatable, and that it might depend on whether the jackpot rake went back to the players. If that is true, it must be more true in the more aggressive of these games, so I would concentrate on fairly tame tables with a few weak players.
Interesting. I never before considered the possibility that this structure could be unbeatable, but it does seem intuitively possible. Of course, if this is true, then the rest of this post is irrelevant, since I won't play the game again.
But, just for arguments sake, let's say it was beatable. Would the optimal strategy be to play tighter or looser pre-flop? You seem to suggest playing tighter, but I'm wondering if by playing too tight you don't get to a point where the blinds just eat you alive. I know I've had plenty of nights where I never flopped a set or four to a nut flush,and nights like that could get purrrrty expensive when you're paying eight dollars per loop.
You're right that the blind structure of this game generally dictates looser, more aggressived play. The problem is that everyone senses this and overcompensates, so that there's a lot of six and seven way action with multiple raises. ATo isn't going to work well here. My suggestion about relying on hands with high potential applies to a typically aggressive (but not out of control) 3-5 game. With the pots typically in the $80-120 range, you don't need to win many -- probably less than one an hour. The hands I have the most trouble with in this game are connectors and big unsuited cards. In passive games with players that always pay you off, I think you can play a few more hands and be less scrupulous about position, especially with pairs.
I recently played a 4-8 hold'em game with a $170,000 bad beat jackpot. You must get beaten with 4 Jacks or better, and must use both of your hole cards. What is the expected value per hand?
This message has popped up several times on rec.gambling.poker. I assume that this is the same casino in St. Louis that has a jackpot that has been building for months.
I'm pasting the reply I gave when this questions was asked one and a half months ago and the jackpot was at $154,000:
--Start of RGP message--
MChosky wrote:
>
> Does anyone know how many hands it should take for 4 jacks to be beat with both
> hands having to use both hole cards? We have a bad beat in St. Louis that is
> over $154,000 with 50 cents taken from each pot, therefore we have gone through
> over 308,000 hands.
Quoting from a post that I back in July when someone posted previously about this same jackpot (when it was $110,000):
=== begin quote ===
USER wrote:
> Anyone know the odds of getting four jacks or better beat in Hold-Em?
> Jackpot is up to $110,000 approximately with a 50 cent bad beat rake.
Really slim.
For the analysis below, I'm assuming that both hole cards must play, but that kickers can be used with the quads. That is, a board of JsJcJdTd9d works if you hold AsJh and your opponent holds Qd8d, it still works if you hold JhTh, but doesn't work if you hold Jh9h (your best hand is JJJJT, but that can't be made with the 9 in your hand).
Assuming that everyone stays in whenever they have a hand that still has a chance of qualifying, then for every two play combination at the table there's slightly less than 1/20,000,000 chance of it occurring. The chance on each hand that it will be dealt to some pair of players at a 10 handed table is about 1/445,000, and at a full 11 handed table it's about 1/364,000 .
At an 11 handed table, the expectation on the $.50 dropped is about $.30 with the jackpot at $110,000, so it's still a bad deal (although a better deal than most state lotteries).
If you are one of the people playing at a full 11 handed table where everyone stays whenever they have a chance at making a qualifying hand, then you have about a 1/2,000,000 chance of being on either side of the beat (about 1/4,000,000 of being the one beaten, and about 1/4,000,000 chance of being the beator).
If fewer players are at the table, your chances are worse.
=== end quote ===
Updating the numbers, the value for an 11 handed table from $.50 dropped for the jackpot is about $.42, so it's still a losing gamble. If there are fewer players at the table, it's substantially worse.
I'll assume that the average jackpot eligible hand is dealt 9 handed. In that case, the jackpot would be hit about once every 557,000 hands. Also, there've probably been more than 308,000 hands dealt, because there's usually some rake off of the jackpot drop for "administration". It's difficult to determine how big this rake is and the club isn't likely to tell you, but I'd guess that it's on the order of 15-20%. There's a significant chance that the jackpot still won't be hit even after a million hands have been dealt, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it. Even if the jackpot becomes so large that the expectation for the table exceeds the $.50 dropped for it, it's still going to only add pennies to your per-hand expectation.
-- end of RGP message --
I since got a reply claiming that 100% of the jackpot drop was contributing to the jackpot. The rake-off for the jackpot still exceeds the expectation for hitting the jackpot. It may be years before this jackpot is hit (if it ever is).
I'm not trying to pick on Mike Caro,but...I don't believe any significant portion of his income has been derived from playing poker for many years now. With the exception of The Body Language of Poker(and it's information must be utilized very carefully) most of his work is vague and not very valuable. Gee,I would have never known tilting was a bad thing if not for him. The truth is he has milked his image and his contribution the outdated "classic" SuperSystem for all it's worth. Okay,so I guess I am picking on Caro,but I don't like to waste my money or my time.
I agree. I am just a beginner, but I find most--not all--of Caro's writing too simplistic, obvious, and unhelpful. In addition, I feel a bit ripped off by the large amounts of white space in his books.
Man, if you believe that, then you are missing some incredible contributions. Mike Caro's style seems to be more oriented to people that want to work for deeper insights into the game. He gives simple tools and ideas to build powerful strategies. One of his strong messages seems to be that there is no one right answer. Thus, he often times gives ideas on different ways to look at a problem without necessarily selecting "the" solution. I personally find that to be very thought provoking. But if you are looking for "the" answer, it might come across as "vague and not very valuable". If you step back from the Body Language of Poker, for instance, and really think about tells, and the approach he took, there are some powerful learnings that can be applied to developing youself in this area. If you stop with the specific list of tells he mentioned, I think you missed an opportunity to learn even more.
Me, I have more trouble with Sklansky's writings, for instance. Not that he isn't brilliant and insightful, but that he sometimes simplies the concepts for mass understanding (which then causes debates like, did he really fully understand the concept later put forth by Morton's theorem when he wrote the Fundamental Theorem of Poker?) or some of his writings don't go deep enough into the insights that brought him to the conclusions stated (ex. I would like to see a lot more discussion into the approach, insights, and learnings he went through to come up with the hand groupings). But I still buy every book he writes, I just have to work a little harder to go from the solution to the insight.
A Poker Guy!
First and foremost Caro is a capitalist. Nothing wrong with that. He does, however, tend to be a self-absorbed capitalist. Is there any other?
Skalansky can give you the pure math approach, provided limited conditions. Malmuth does the same, but tries to do it more practically, blending experiential knowledge. By the way, Poker Essays II is my favorite.
But, back to Caro. It appears Caro suggests (and always has suggested) starting hands closer to what modern day simulation software advocates (versus S&M recommendations.) In this sense, Caro does what others proclaim to offer: maximize expectation, regardless the cost in fluctuations.
Quite frankly I am sick of all this talk of hand rankings. Only a complete idiot would think this subject is all that important. The chief critics of this particular subject never post here (Barbara Yoon--if that is who you really are). But that is not the point. So what if their hand rankings are a little off or don't jibe with current pentium computer simulations. You are all missing the point. IT ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT! GET A LIFE!
As for Morton's theorm and why David didn't explain the fundamental theorm of poker better. I will say this. A bunch of jealous losers that wish only in their dreams that they had written this brilliance will never stop whining about it.
David Sklansky can ACTUALLY PLAY POKER! I have seen him do it. His approach is NOT ENTIRELY MATHEMATICAL!
He has had greater insights into the game than ANYONE and the constant bickering and naysaying is just sour grapes on the part of those who wish they had written his words!
SHUTUP!
Ron,
You found a point of view that is different than yours and rather than explain why you disagree, you chose to just attack (idiots, get a life, jealous losers, shutup, etc.) the people that hold different ideas and yell at them. I thought this forum was for people to express different ideas? How about posting your insights that led you to these conclusions. Why aren't hand rankings important, for instance? That might generate the kind of discussion that we can all learn from.
Btw, to whoever runs this forum. Is there any way to just respond to an author in here without having to post to the entire world?
A Poker Guy!
If the author provides an email address with their posting, you can just click on their name. If they don't, then you have no way to send them email (unless you know their email through some other route).
x
Ron-
I have no doubt Sklansky is a great poker player. He has, after all, spent most of his adult life exploring the finer points of poker and gambling in general. My above post, simply, addressed my interpretation of aspects of Sklansky, Malmuth and Caro's work.
Starting hand advice based on computer simulations tends to be very inaccurate because the simulations do not take into account how much a hand wins when it wins and how much a hand loses when it loses.
Post deleted at author's request.
Aside from Monte Carlo what other simulations are you talking about or are you referring to some type of contigent valuation?
I have just submitted an essay that addresses this. It should appear in the essay section of our web page in a few days.
Post deleted at author's request.
As usual this poster does not know what he is talking about, and I recommend that all users of this forum always discount everything that he says. I have written an essay that addresses this subject. It will appear on our essay page within a couple of days.
In any forum where the free exchange of thoughts and ideas has been encouraged, coming down so forcibly on a contributer will only serve to inhibit others from posting their questions and observations. A consequence of this is that the forum misses out on something that might have been the inspiration for another book, chapter or essay from you. When someone posts information that is incorrect, even repeatedly or with malice, I urge you to stand above it and counter with an argument based on your own position that is so clear and obvious that it serves to teach rather than punish.
As one who states his opinions on this forum in the hope of triggering responses that add to my knowledge and that of the other readers, I don't want to worry that my mistaken conclusions will be used against me in a way that subjects me to public ridicule.
In other words, quit being an asshole Mason.
I have held my tongue on this issue long enough. So here goes.
Who the &*#$ is Gary Carson?
By his own admission he is always broke. Hasn't played poker in years and thinks going broke repeatedly is OK.
He is constantly hammering on Mason and David for whatever personal reason.
The only ASSHOLE on this subject is Gary Carson who in my opinion has NO credibility. Just endless rants against S&M.
Doyle said you judge a hunter by his hides. Carson has no hides. Sklansky has house full.
Gary Carson crawl back into whatever hole you dug yourself out of because you really suck man. I'm sick of you.
G.W.-
Point well taken
Post deleted at author's request.
Big John, I couldn't have said it any better.
I was quite surprised by Mason's post which appears to the reader as having been made based on emotion rather than reason. However, in his defence, I would have to say that in the short time that I have been tuned into this forum, this particular response of his is quite unlike his usual well-reasoned posts.
I trust that this was just an aberration.
Thank you, Mason.
I don't think anybody can value a poker hand; it depends too much on the individual's risk profile and his utility for a certain hand in a certain situation. Depending upon different variables, I think an individual can order or rank hands and maybe adjust them to the game. Would you agree that Sklansky's ordering represents an optimum for a risk neutral player in a fairly tight?
I would agree the better the player the more hands that can be played profitably. The more relevant question to ask on starting hands is, given solid play, what hands will show a profit in a given position and standard situation? As I understand it, simulators, as well as, Caro advocate looser and more aggressive starting play than S&M recommendations (as noted in my earlier post). Malmuth says the simulators are flawed and are not to be trusted, which may or may not be true. As a practical matter, I think S&M starting recommendations are good to control fluctuations and guarantee a profit if played reasonably well in a good game.
Since the essay that I have referred to has not appeared yet on our essay page, I will put it here where it will appear temporarily. It is open for all discussion
Mason
I have often read that computers make gambling an easy undertaking, and many people believe this is true. One young lady even claimed (in print many years ago) that she bought a home computer, quickly taught herself the Basic language, and then programmed about twenty different blackjack systems to help her determine which was the best. Even though I suppose this is possible, I don't know anyone, including myself, who has this ability.
By the same token, several of my friends and acquaintances have requested a visit to put everything they know about poker or some other form of gambling into my computer. They have no idea what a difficult task this would be, and that such a major undertaking could require several years to complete, especially if an attempt to program sophisticated strategies was made.
Let's look at home computers and gambling from a realistic point of view. First, a computer is a significant investment. These are very sophisticated pieces of equipment and to do the type of work that certain types of gambling research requires, you will frequently need top-of-the-line capability.
Second, you need a complete knowledge of what it is you are trying to resolve, since many research problems — especially those related to poker — are complex. Just having an idea of what you want done is not good enough. An exact understanding of the specific circumstances is an absolute requirement.
Third, and perhaps most important today, is the fact that you are dependent upon the accuracy of the software that you are using. It turns out that it is relatively easy to accurately program games like blackjack or video poker. This is because one of the players — either the house or the machine — has a fixed strategy, and all that needs to be done is to determine optimal play against that strategy.
But poker is a different matter. You need to understand that poker consists of many players who can each employ a different strategy. Further this "different strategy" can change based on the player's position, how he perceives himself in the game in relation to the other players, whether he is winning or losing, whether he's tired, whether he's steaming, the structure of the game, the size of the pot, and a myriad of other factors.
In addition there are many more options available to each player. Poker is much more than just call, fold, or raise. For example, if someone raises he might be doing so because he feels he has the best hand, to buy a free card, to knock other players out, to "read" the reaction of his opponent, to bluff, to set up a play on a later round, to misrepresent his hand, and so on.
What this means from a software point of view is that a realistic poker simulation will have to go through literally hundreds of steps to arrive at its conclusion (or play). If some of these steps contain small errors, their cumulative effect may mean that the inherent errors of the program can easily be larger than the small difference that it is trying to measure. Thus erroneous or unreliable results can be produced.
Unfortunately, I believe that this is frequently the case with today's software poker packages. In many ways they are marvelous tools, and can be fun games to play. But it is probably a mistake to treat them as serious research tools. I still believe that the best way to analyze poker is through a combination of statistical logic and much playing experience. I do agree that in some cases (poker) simulations can be used to supplement your research — see our book Seven-Card Stud for Advanced Players for some examples. But if you come to conclusions that are different from what the recognized experts say, you may have a problem.
In conclusion, I also want to point out that this was not written to discourage you from doing gambling research. In fact, there is no question that home computers are marvelous tools, and because of them, much enlightened research has recently been done. But this endeavor is not as easy as some "experts" have claimed it to be, and you need to be sure that the results you are getting are more accurate than the differences that you are trying to measure.
Mason, I enjoy your point. The point is, there is no way a computer can emulate the sophistication of a human person (at least not yet). Such the beauty of poker. To the buyer of a simulator, caveat emptor baby.
In his essay, Mason writes :
< One young lady even claimed (in print many years ago) that she bought a home computer, quickly taught herself the Basic language, and then programmed about twenty different blackjack systems to help her determine which was the best. Even though I suppose this is possible, I don't know anyone, including myself, who has this ability. >
You are either underestimating yourself or overestimating the complexity of programming an existing blackjack system (as opposed to creating a new one). In fact, a little further on into the essay you state :
< It turns out that it is relatively easy to accurately program games like blackjack or video poker. This is because one of the players — either the house or the machine — has a fixed strategy, and all that needs to be done is to determine optimal play against that strategy. >
Etienne
> What this means from a software point of view is that a
> realistic poker simulation will have to go through
> literally hundreds of steps to arrive at its conclusion
> (or play). If some of these steps contain small errors,
> their cumulative effect may mean that the inherent errors
> of the program can easily be larger than the small
> difference that it is trying to measure.
> I still believe that the best way to analyze poker is
> through a combination of statistical logic and much
> playing experience.
Do you think logic and experience can go through hundreds of steps with smaller errors and reach better conclusions? Or do you think logic and experience can reach better conclusions because they don't require as many steps? If so, which steps can be omitted and why can't simulations omit them as well?
Are you suggesting a change to this forum? Maybe if folks like me would only be allowed to post questions here, and you, David and Ray would be the only people allowed to answer them, it would certainly prohibit idiots like Gary Carson from confusing the masses by trying to give their own obviously incorrect opinions. Though personally I like to evaluate a diverse selection of opinions on a topic, so that I can develop my own opinion and improve my thinking process, this new forum would certainly make things much easier, as I would be able to blindly accept everything written here without contradiction and without any thought process on my part.
Sarcasm aside, I have often found Gary Carson to be an insightful poster and will never blindly discount anything he says, no matter what anyone says. He is at times quite negative with regard to 2+2 publishing, sometimes unfairly so, but that does not mean that "he does not know what he is talking about" when it comes to poker strategy. I am happy to be able to read this forum because of the lack of spam, the abundance of quality poker content, and the many quality posters here, 2+2 authors included.
-------------------
I look forward to your essay, as it seems to me that current poker simulations have quite a lot to offer players at all levels, and as long as their strengths and limitations are understood, I can't see why you would have a problem with them. Certainly your point that hand value analysis must take into account how much a hand wins when it wins and how much it loses when it loses is true. There are "simulations" out there that would reach the conclusion that 22 is better than AK heads-up because it wins more often in an all-in-before-the-flop situation. I completely agree that those simulations are very poor (and dangerous) when used to determine hand strength, because of reasons that you have mentioned before, and probably will mention in your upcoming essay.
However, Gary's point is that software like Turbo Texas Holdem *does* take into account actual money won/lost per hand because it uses "sentient" (or whatever you want to call it) computer opponents, who bet/call/raise/fold depending on the situation. This allows the software to expose hands like KJ, which will either win a small pot or lose a large one, for what they really are. Simulations like TTH, by analysing "amount of money this hand wins" instead of "times this hand will be the best hand", by their very nature are affected by position, pot odds, bluffing opportunities, kicker trouble, implied odds, and the like. The hand rankings derived from such simulations (and more importantly, how to play those hands) are very useful if the user knows what he/she is doing. It can simulate a weak/tight game, a loose/passive game, or a table full of maniacs, and the user can observe the way that hand rankings are affected by these conditions.
The hand rankings in Holdem for Advanced Players are not based on computer simulation, but instead on years of experience and strong poker thinking and ability. I greatly respect the 2+2 authors and I also put a great amount of weight on these rankings also.
I believe that a careful balance must be maintained between computer-based analysis and experience becuase both have their drawbacks. Computer analysis by itself may lead to conclusions that just don't work in real life. Simulations will always fall short, for example, of simulating human emotional changes in opponents. Conclusions based solely on experience, on the other hand, can sometimes be based on shaky anecdotal evidence that are the result of short-term expectation. Either way, it is possible to draw incorrect conclusions at any time and from any source, and we should therefore seek to "test" these conclusions in as many areas as we can.
(A small note: although I have used the word "rankings" often in this post, I really mean something much more general than that throughout the post. More important than simple rankings is how and why to play a particular poker hand and the ability to recognize the context of these plays in different situations, and I have used the term "ranknings" because that is where a lot of these discussions begin.)
Matthew Bjorge
Really, the question is, do simulators accurately depict how you're opponents react and counteract? If you weight you're oppponents response heavily in favor of emotion, then the simulators do little good. If you're opponents react based on logic and reason and predictable patterns, then simulators are your answer.
Replace you're with your and you'll umsterstand what I'm saying LOL...
I agree with you. 2+2's books have done more than anything else to improve my play. But TTH the new version, forget the old one, has also been a valuable tool. While S&M might not learn much from it, they might be pleasantly suprised by how much better it is than the original. Forget the upgrade,too.
If you reread my post you will see I made an exception for Body Language of Poker. But it is his only book I would make a recommended read.
Mid way through a nl tournament with rebuys, blinds 100-200, I have 1800, AJs and am under the gun. 12 players and about 18000 on the table. I raise to 600 and am reraised to 1800 by a good player two seats behind me. Do I have a call? Was my raise right? Thanks for your thoughts
Danny S
DS-
Not sure why you are playing AJ so aggressively at this stage and given your stack size.
If the reraiser thinks YOU are a good player, I would dump it. His most likely hands are AK, AA, or KK, which are the only legitimate hands to reraise a solid UTG raiser. (Even the AK would be questionable unless he was short-stacked.) However, if you make a habit of raising UTG with trouble hands like AJ (and the reraiser knows it), you might want to call since he could be on a power steal or trying to get heads up with a medium pair. His stack would be important in order to narrow down the possible hands he might be willing to put you all-in with.
Dan,
You are getting 27 to 12 for your call. If you fold you will have 1200 left and the blinds are on you. You will have 900 after the blinds go by and they could be doubling soon. If you call and win you will have 3900 to play with now. It starts to look like do you want to play with the worst hand and have 3900 if you win or be left with about 900. If you are sure your opponent has aa kk or ak then a fold is in order but what if he has tt 99 kq of other pair hands that I see people do these plays with all the time or am I out of touch with reality. When you first came in did you think about just calling and playing poker from there or betting it all to win the antes and making a player with a killer hand for you to go out. Good Luck.
Hmmmmmmm ... you were a little above average in stack size, blinds will be a problem later, but no hurry. AJs under the gun is a good hand when you are desperate, or maybe for a limp or steal attempt in late position, but would be risky against a raise. If you knew you were up against a pair that was less than JJ, you would be close to (but not quite) 50-50 to take it. A pair JJ or higher is trouble. AQ, AK not g00t either. But there are tons of T9, 98, etc. hands that might call you if you are lucky. But, I dont like depending on luck. So, basically, I would probably just toss that one from the start UTG. Feels like its too easy to get yourself trapped, which is what you ran into.
A Poker Guy!
Thanks for the responses. I knew AJs was a trouble hand in this position and certainly considered tossing it. Once I decided to play it, I had the following choices. 1. Limp in. Not my style in this game. 2. Raise a medium amount. This gives me some chance to win the pot, and some chance to get called by worse hands and still win. 3. Bet my stack. This play is essentially laying 6-1 to win the blinds, and when you do get called you are likely to be a big dog.
That was my thinking. Thanks for your thoughts
Danny S
Though the correct thing to do may be to muck the AJs before the flop the blinds are high enough at this point to take a shot. I believe I would have bet the 1800 UTG. With only 1800 and blinds at 100 and 200 I have to belive I need to be as aggressive as possible. I am hoping to win the blinds with no callers. If you get called it is probably by a better hand but so what, you're all in and it is now in the hands of the poker entity. The point is that someone with a better hand, AK or AQ or medium pairs up to and including JJ will (may) now be forced to toss it (even if those hands are in the blinds). By betting 600 I may allow a marginally better hand to take the initative and then I am in real decision trouble. If I had made a 600 bet and was faced with the situation you found yourself in, I would strongly consider the play of the raiser before making my decision. I would not consider the pot odds I was getting. At this stage of a tournament odds are relatively immaterial. You must win the hand and that needs to be the main consideration. Good Question. Thanks Vince
I play in a real loose (and often aggressive) 10/20 game. Normally, there are 6 or 7 players who see the flop. A friend of mine was telling me the other day that in our game, he actually prefers a hand like K-6 suited over A-6 suited. Obviously, he plays both hands with a view to making a flush. But often what happens is that he just flops top pair (and now has a weak kicker). He figures if he starts with A-6 and flops top pair, he likely has kicker trouble because many players in our game will play any ace (suited or not). On the other hand, many of those same players will muck hands such as k-7, k-8, and k-9. Some of the better players will also muck K-J and K-10 offsuit (Incidentally, I agree with mucking all of these hands in early position in a loose aggressive game). Thus, my friend figures that he is less likely to run into kicker trouble when he flops top pair with a hand like K-6.
Of course, if he were to make a flush, he would rather have A-6 but he figures on balance, he is better off playing K-6 rather than A-6.
At first, his thoughts sounded pretty strange to me. But I am now starting to wonder if there is some validity to his argument.
What do you guys think?
skp,
This is the kind of thinking that brings players to higher levels. You friend has alot on the ball and he may be right given the game but it is doubtful that playing that hand will be much benefit as I suspect when he hits top pair with so many in he will take it too far, but I could be wrong. I think if 6 or 7 see the flop they are also playing k8 and the like. Good luck.
Surely your'r Joking, Mr Zee? It is thinking like this that is precisely the reason poker games remain good! The only time, let me say it again, the only time K6 suited is preferrable to A6 suited is after the flop and K6 is the undeniable, unbeatable nuts (Hard to imagine isn't it). Of course if preflop you saw all the other hands you could find situations where the K6s is better but that doesn't happen either. Or maybe a situation arises where player 1 bets, 2 raises, 3 reraises and 4 caps it. Now you the super reader knows that 1 only raises with Ax, and players 2,3 and 4 do likewise thus making your K somewhat live although not anymore live than say Q6. Which brings us to the question is Q6s better than A6s for precisely the same reasons given for K6s over A6s and then how far does one take this. Try to imagine a game where K6s is playable in other than the blinds or on the button. If someone is in a game where this becomes a playable hand because of the loose play of others then what makes anyone think that others aren't playing K7s-KQs. If you are identified as a player that likes playing K6 others will be more inclined to play K9,KT,K8 even K7 against you. Were I giving advice on this subject, which I am clearly not, I would advise the gentleman to reread Mr. Sklansky's groupings and until further notice follow his advice (and I believe your previous advice also). Respectfully Vince
I don't think that Mr. Zee is joking at all. I think it is fairly clear that one will run into kicker trouble more often when flopping top pair with A-6 as compared to flopping top pair with K-6. Of course, flopping top pair which is a king has its own problems i.e. An overcard being the ace may fall on the turn or the river.
The point of my original post was not to recommend that people start playing K-6s on a regular basis. But, I think it does point out that under the right conditions, a hand like K-6s can be better than A-6s (although intuitively it seems impossible).
if you re-read mr zee's post you will see that he is not necessarily aggreeing that k6 is better than a6. He is commending theplayer on his thought process, and reasoning, stating that this type of thinking can take you to the next level. he follows by stating that probably there are too many people taking the flop in the game to make it a better hand and that probably the other players are in fact playing the kx's as well. this is why two people can read the same poker book and get completely different results. goodluck
agreed.
Thanks Al and Skp for defending me here. Sometimes when I tell someone I saw a white blackbird while driving they think I was playing golf.
When looking at an abstract drawing each sees their own interpetation.
Dear Mr. Zee, I don't know you and I don't believe you know me! If you told me you saw a White blackbird while driving I would not confuse that with you're playing golf. Out of respect I would take your word for it. Especially if you were making the statement in a serious manner in response to a serious question posed by one of your readers. And if you state that a poker player that believes K6s is preferrable to A6s has a lot on the ball I believe that I understand the meaning of that. Maybe not! If I misunderstood your answer then I apologize! Of course if you meant what you said then I, like president Clinton, stand on my statement! Respectfully, Vince Lepore
If you reread my posting you will see that I was referring to the kind of thinking Mr Zee was referring to. Since you choose to defend Mr. Zee, please define the level that thinking K6 suited is preferrable to A6 suited will take you to! V/R Vince
I think what Ray is referring to is one's ability to put some thought into analyzing a hand or a play based on the particular situation or circumstances facing that person.
The levels he talks about may refer to the different levels of thinking that one needs to excel at poker. The first level might be the ability to put opponents on a hand and thought process. The next level is the ability to figure out what your opponents think of your thought process. The next level is to figure out what your opponents think about what you think about their thought process and so on.
The issue is not K-6s vs. A-6s. It's the thought process that's important.
Precisely, And How Does the erroneous thought that K6s can be preferrable to A6 suited raise one to any of those levels! This young man stated that he thinks that in some instances K6s is Preferrable to A6s. Now I presume, if I may, that he proceeds and plays limit hold'em employing this belief. I presume this from the manner in which the proposisiton was stated (admittedly by a third party and not as reliable as is preferred but responded to by all of us none the the less). He stated he prefers K6s to A6s. Not, Is K6s preferrable to A6s! He isn't thinking at anything but a basic "gut feeling" (my quote) level. And all I said was that it is this kind of thinking (I guess I should have added playing) that keeps poker games good! Playing those wonderful gut feelings! Respectfully, Vince
To me, what is important is that one thinks and thinks hard about poker situations and plays. I would rather have thought through a play and come to a wrong conclusion (assuming that I don't always come to the wrong conclusion in which case there's something fundamentally wrong with my thinking process) than arrive at the right conclusion accidently without giving the matter any thought.
One can imagine several poker situations where a good thinking player may arrive at the wrong decision (bet, call, raise etc) when a terible player may have made the right decision accidently. It may be that the good player just took the wrong fork somewhere in his thinking process.
I should also add that my friend who initially came up with this proposition is not one who plays on "gut feelings" (By the way, you are right. Those that do are one main reason why poker games continue to be good.) He and I began playing hold'em at about the same time a couple of years ago and his results over a 2 year period are pretty spectacular. This then re-emphasizes my point: one can be a good thinking player and still err now and then.
Enough is Enough! Quite frankly I enjoyed the interchange! If at any time I offended anyone I apologize. It was not my intention. Looking forward to discussion with you on other poker questions. v/r vince
No offense taken at any time. I too enjoyed the interchange.
Let's continue to do it on another topic.
> The only time, let me say it again, the only time K6
> suited is preferrable to A6 suited is after the flop and
> K6 is the undeniable, unbeatable nuts (Hard to imagine
> isn't it).
It's not merely hard but impossible for me to imagine K6s being the unbeatable nuts on the flop -- assuming that the remaining hole cards at the table are unknown.
However it is easy to imagine flops which make K6s the current nuts and assure that an opponent holding A6s is drawing dead.
Flop of 666 or KKK might qualify as the unbeatable nuts if you hold K6s. Of course I took my last math classes in 1966 at the University of Nevada (Reno), GO WOLFPACK!!! when it was the only four year college in the state and UNLV was still a backwater junior college.
Nope, someone can catch runner-runner straight-flush or higher quads. Still, I'd be pretty confident about that hand holding up.
Of course you could accidentaly drop your cards on the floor, making it a dead hand... :)
Matt
skp,
I think both hands need to be played very well after the flop. I certainly wouldn't play either in a tough game. In a loose game, then it depends on the type of mistakes your opponents are making. Remember, most random kickers beat a six.
Be careful the analysis does not conclude: "... well I lose less with K6 than with A6... therefore I would rather play K6"
Folding cannot be too wrong. It really also depends on your overall starting strategies.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Post deleted at author's request.
Minor error in your post. 7542 offers the same straight draw to K-6 as it does to A-6.
Gary, in fact, k-6 offers more straight possibilities than A-6 ( one more to be exact).
Post deleted at author's request.
In TTOP the following example is given. You have either As7c or 8d8s. Flop comes Jc7s2h. You have five outs w/ the first hand and two w/ the second assuming your opponent has a Jack. DS says be more inclined to check the fewer outs you have. ( I'm assuming you should fold the 88 if he bets) . It almost seems like this principle is backwards. In this example I'm assuming you figure its ~ 4-1 he has the better hand. Why not bet the 88, fold if he Rs, Ch if he C? He'll probably check behind you on the turn. Or you can bet again and he might fold TT, 99, or J9-8s. Conversely, why not check-call w/ A7? He'll probably call your bet anyway w/ stuff like A9, KQ-10, maybe even suited middle connectors. You might not mind a free card yourself in this spot with the extra outs. You can then bet the turn depending on what comes. Your chances of winning w/ a bet probably could increase considerably, and you might save some bets when something like the K or 9 of clubs hits. .Does this relate somehow to the "exposed hand" problem in PG&L where you wait til the end to raise to see if you're 'beaten'? With few outs isn't it better to "find out right away?"
I'm confused about what you are asking here. The subject suggests fear of giving your opponent a free card when you have a marginal hand (that you think might be ahead). Yet the example suggests that he is 4-1 to be ahead of you at that point, thus you need the free card instead of him. In any event, he has position on you and the pot is very small.
The problem I see with your strategy of betting either hand is that you are out of position to make that move. Betting and planning to fold on a raise may backfire. If he wants a free card (ie, he has overcards), he might make a positional raise to get you to check to him on the turn, in which case you fold the better hand. He will probably only call you if he is far ahead (waiting for the turn to raise you). He will raise for a free card, or if he is ahead but feels vulnerable. And if you are already ahead and he doesn't have good outs, you wont make any money with that bet anyway because he will throw it away. I would be inclined to check to him and throw it away on a bet since the pot is so small and he has position. If I was really bound and determined to invest money in that hand, I would check and checkraise him hoping to open up my options on the turn (maybe bet on a non-scary card or check, hoping my checkraise put the fear of god into him, if it is a scary card).
A Poker Guy!
I probably didn't explain that well, just musing out loud. Of course, knowledge of the opponent is crucial. Checkraising would probably work really well here. The examples are taken straight from the book, which probably threw me off. I can't think of too many situations were I'll be headsup on an unraised flop and first to act w/ either 88 or A7o. I understand the idea of being more inclined to bet out with a marginal hand the more outs you have. I don't think the point DS was making was investing in the hand or making alot of money so much as balancing your chances of winning the pot w/ a bet, having the best hand, and improving your hand. I guess I wanted to hear from people who are familiar w/ this section of TTOP. Thanks for the feedback.
"I can't think of too many situations were I'll be headsup on an unraised flop and first to act w/ either 88 or A7o." You in big blind unraised pot one call.
let´s play
ok
The Gambling Forum November 1998 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo