Some time ago, I read an interesting article of Mason Malmuth in which he compared modern poker to that of the Wild West. He assumed that in former times the best players were simply tight players.
In our days much more concepts have been added to good play. Yet, I sometimes ask myself how later generations will judge our style of play. Is there still an edge to be squeezed out of the game in the future? Or is anything that can be said already put into print?
Discussing "self-weighting" strategies, Mason Malmuth once wrote somewhere that a skilled poker player should "always try to play the same size game." I'm starting to think this has become an issue in my play. Let me illustrate with some made-up numbers describing some recent play:
______Total____EV,_______EV_______SQRT(Var)Limit___Hrs___Hourly____Total______Total
===========================================
10-20___100_____28______2800_______2500
15-30___225_____30______6750_______5000
20-40___100_____35______3500_______4400
40-80____25_____65______1625_______4500
(I hope this table is comprehensible. I had to use underscores to get the spacing right. The third row, for instance, indicates the hypothetical player recently played 100 hours of 20-40, with an hourly rate of 35, for a total of 3500 in expectation. Because his hourly standard deviation in that game is 440/hr, his total variance for his 20-40 play, expressed in dollars by taking the square root, was 4400.)
So, even though this hypothetical player has played only a tiny fraction of his time in the 40 game, and has only generated ~10% of his EV in that game, over 1/4 of his fluctuations come from that play. Seems like a problem.
Assuming the EV estimates are accurate, and the bankroll is big enough, you can't just say, "don't play the 40; it's too risky." Nor can you say, "stop playing the 10," because that game sometimes appears to be the best game in the room, and other times it is the only seat available.
Another confounding factor is that since the 40 is so much bigger than the others, I try to be extremely game selective. This severely limits the hours I can play the 40, and also suggests that my EV in those particular games may much higher than I give myself credit for.
Any thoughts? Have other people noticed this problem? Is there a rational way to deal with it?
Thanks
Andrew wrote: I believe that good players should take shots at bigger games when they feel that the games are good. I also feel that they should move to smaller games when their regular game is bad or when they have lost about half their bankroll. Typical players are reluctant to move down.
Mason: Thanks for your reply. I have seen in your writings that you feel typical players are too reluctant to move down from higher limits when they have lost a large fraction of their bankroll, or when the higher games are bad. This is definitely something I try to avoid in my own play.
Nevertheless, I had hoped for something a little more concrete than this. For instance, I personally find the idea of losing half my bankroll and being forced to step down in limits very disconcerting. When you were starting out and trying to build your own bankroll, did you push your bankroll so hard that losing a significant fraction of it and being _forced_ to play smaller was a common occurrence? Thinking back to that time, wouldn't you yourself have been sort of alarmed to have noticed one day that you had been playing a mix of limits similar to the one I described earlier?
Andy
ps From Blackjack Essays (1988) by Mason Malmuth, p 27: "The conclusion here is to always try to play the same size game if you think you are a skilled player." This is from the chapter titled "self-weighting" under a section labelled "Example Two: Playing Poker." So, I didn't misquote you. I think this statement makes a lot of sense in the context of 'self-weighting' ideas, and it was in this light that I posted my question.
When I started out I also had a job that paid very well, so I was never under the type of pressure that some aspiring pros go through. Howevev, my general tendency was to be very conservative, probably overly so. See my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS for more discussion
Posted by: andrew morton (andrewm@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 October 1997, at 3:41 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 8 October 1997, at 3:47 a.m.
Being a novice poker player, I have entered a game on a monthly basis. We play classic draw poker (no joker). The ante is one unit per player. In the betting round before the exchange, there is a 1-5 spread limit, and after exchange, there is a 1-10 spread limit.
I characterize most of my opponents as loose AND aggressive. This can be seen by the fact that a) it is not uncommon that they call the first round and then change 4 cards, and b) that in the final round, there often is a pattern of raise and counter-raise with the max (10 units).
I have two questions:
1) Do I play to tight? To call in the first round, I like to at least have a pair of Jacks. The problem is that my opponents can raise in the first round, and still exchange 4 cards...
2) Which is the best strategy to win money in such a game? I usually make a small winning, but it disturbs me that 1-2 players consistently win more. I guess I am doing something wrong, but I am not sure what.
Grateful for advice Torsten Martinsson Sweden
If you are NOT playing "Jacks or Better" to open then you should play as if you are in the early seats. Only in the last couple seats should you even CONSIDER openning with Jack; much less a lesser hand. Anyway, the following is sound Jacks-or-Better advise.
Loose agressive games require tighter play for beginers.
If someone will open with at least a pair of Jacks their mean hand is a weak pair of Aces. So if you have KK and someone opens THEY ARE THE FAVORITE. But if you have AA then you are the favorite.
Do NOT play less than AA when someone opens.
Two small pair are bad enough in J-O-B; and its terrible in this loose game. You are a 11-1 dog to make a full house, and surely someone will make two pair to beat you.
The mean two pair is JsUp. Rarely play two-pair smaller than Js+. Note that AA can be played even though TT-66 cannot.
Tend to raise with AsUp or better before the draw. When you do raise tend to always draw one card unless you have a pat hand. This will disquise your trips and also, believe it or not, disguise the flush draws you try to steal with occationally. Opponents are suspicious of 1 card draws and may pay you off with one pair anyway.
Most flushes are Ace high (wait; perhaps not with no Joker..). So if you have a K high flush you have a SMALL flush, and should NOT raise someone you suspect has a flush. But if they have maid either a straight or a flush the straight is much more likely so you can raise with most flushes, ignoring overcalls you are giving up.
Do not draw to gut shot straights and two card flushes. Do NOT draw to small pairs with an Ace; except when heads up and there is some chance your pair is high.
If the OPENER bets first after the draw then DO NOT OPEN. Some sucker will do it for you then you have position after the draw which is good. if the player under the gun opens first then treat late position as you do in Holdem and play very tight in early position.
In this loose game where raises after the draw are common then you should cherish especially flush draws but also big straight draws. Avoid small straights: THEY will be making a lot of straights and will beat you alarmingly often.
Tend to let THEM bet and raise after the draw. Maybe they won't notice that you drew one card and CALLED, and they raise with the small trips they made anyway.
- Louie
In David Sklansky’s recent essay, posted in the essay section of this web site, he supports Barry Switzer’s decision to go for the first down twice in his own territory against the Eagles in 1995 (I’d be surprised if I’ve misidentified the game, but for some reason Sklansky didn’t use any names). But even though I’m an Eagles fan, I still feel intuitively that Switzer made a mistake, so I’m curious as to why. I hope David or someone else will comment on the two specific points of curiosity I raise below. (And, to head off certain likely responses, I am not only not a professional gambler, I have never made a proposition bet on football or coached a football team. I’m simply curious about the details behind Sklansky’s argument.)
Sklansky breaks down the processes involved in making the correct decision into two parts: estimating the probabilities and calculating the p(win)s. The latter is extremely simple in this case, given some pretty reasonable assumptions. But the numbers would likely be pretty controversial (if anyone still cared about that game), since they conflict with the criticism leveled at Switzer at the time. So although I’m sure Sklansky’s numbers are reliable (it would be silly to post completely fabricated numbers under the heading “Fighting Fuzzy Thinking”), I’d still like to know where the numbers come from, since they seem so counterintuitive.
I’m particularly surprised by the 40% estimate of the probability of either team (independently) scoring. It’s my impression that teams with the ball, a tied score, a short clock, and 70 yards of field don’t score nearly as much as the 40% of the time. Of course, if this number is only 30%, then punting vs. running becomes an indifferent decision, and if it’s less than that (all else being equal), punting is a better idea. My recollection is that at the time, most of the Switzer-bashers at the time said they felt the Eagles were not very likely to score, although they didn’t put numbers on it. The Eagles certainly had an abysmal record of fourth quarter scoring in 1995, and Dallas hadn’t done much on offense all day.
I’d also like to know about the 50-50 proposition in overtime. My impression is that when a team that was a priori a very strong favorite (as was the case in that game) enters overtime, they have the edge in overtime (for the same reason that a bad poker player can amass a big stack over an afternoon yet be a dog over the next hour). At the time of the game, I had the impression the Eagles had been dodging bullets, and would be unlikely to win in overtime, despite the fact that Dallas hadn’t done much offensively all day. In fact, this was also the basis of some criticism. Most observers felt the Eagles were unlikely to score if Dallas punted, and that Dallas was the favorite if the game went to overtime. Switzer himself claimed afterwards that he went for the first down because he believed the opposite, because the wind was against him, and because he felt the first down was a high probability outcome.
So I guess I’m willing to accept Sklansky’s analysis, because obviously he knows more about the correct probability estimates for these circumstances than I do. But I’d really like to know where they come from, since I’m always suspicious of round numbers that don’t have an obvious source and are somewhat counterintuitive. (As an aside, getting football fans to agree that parameters are reasonable is probably not too difficult. The problem is that they will probably do so with a wide range of numbers.)
dan
I picked up on the fact that it was the Cowboys-Eagles game of 1995 in Philly, also. I am not sure about the percentages David used but intuitively, to me, they seemed to be about right. What I found really interesting about the analysis was that Dallas was a fairly significant underdog to win the game no matter what they did.
I have read David's comments about coaching and probability with great intereset. IMO the point is that a mathematical and probabalistic analysis of the situations involved is sadly lacking from a lot of coaching decisions. For the sports wagerer, knowledge of a coach that makes the best strategy decisions obviously has profit implications.
In a sort of related topic, I wonder about the NBA strategy of spotting up for 3's in a fast break situation. It seems to me that the idea of standard deviation somehow comes into play. I say this because, from my observation, even though a team might possibly get more points per shot (I am not even sure this is true) they are more likely to miss a lot of shots in a row which means they are much more likely to fall behind by a significant margin. I believe if this is a contributing factor to lower scores in the NBA last year and is one of the reasons the three point line is being moved farther away from the basket.
I feel compelled to join in this discussion as a lifelong fan of the Dallas Cowboys and as a person who was appalled by the decision made in this game.
The mathematics of Coach Sklansky would be fine if I could come up with any logical basis for the 50% number that he claims should result in a first down. I would say if that play had been run 10 times in a row (and may I remind fans that it was in fact run twice with the same results), Smith might have made the first down twice or roughly 20% of the time which dramatically changes the mathematics of the call's correctness.
Where do I get 20%? From the fact that Emmitt had rushed for less than 50 yards throughout the course of that game and was averaging less than 2 yards per carry. Let's not forget that Philadelphia had the #1 rated rushing defense in the league as well, at that point in time. Let's furthermore remember that during Emmitt's TWO attempts in a row not only did he not get the first down, he actually lost yardage!
Barry repeatedly defended his decision with he "had faith in his offensive line" which I thought was a crock then and still do. He made a bad call and his ego was such that when he had the opportunity to reverse the decision (after the first attempt was called back), he made the same bad call again.
I won't argue that it cost the boys a win. I will argue that it cost them a legitimate opportunity to outplay their opponent.
I am a firm believer in figuring the math associated with reasons for actions however sometimes there are other things to be considered.
Regards-
Actually, I think the 50% estimate may not have been so bad (at least, I thought about it for a while and couldn't decide which way it was off). Smith had actually averaged 4 yards per carry during the game (27 carries, 108 yards), and given the positive skew of rushing yardage distributions (but not taking into account the game situation), a long 1 was probably somewhere in the 50% ballpark. Although of course as an Eagles fan I like the 20% estimate too.
For anyone interested, here's USA Today's Recap of the game
Of course, the results of the analysis are especially sensitive to this statistic. The difference between results if you set it at 60% vs. 40% are dramatic.
dan
As an admited Cowboy devotee I'll try and refrain from emotional sentiment, re: "the Switzer Blunder," and stick to basic probabilities and mathematical influences upon football coaching decisions.
The post-game "controversy" cited by Sklansky in his original essay does not so much stem from head coach Barry Switzer's ORIGINAL decsion to "go for it" on fourth down. Although I have no statistical basis for this view, most fans (and certainly the players) felt that if the Cowboys couldn't gain a yard and a half, they didn't deserve to win. The post game public outrage was largely due to: (1) Playing calling: Running Emmit Smith off left tackle (Newton) two consecutive times, and (2) Going for the fourth down try AFTER the Eagles stuffed the line of srimmage on the first play (which was negated by an Eagle penalty, ipso facto, giving Dallas a second chance to re-think their decision.
Dan Kimberg made a few very vaid points which I would like to elaborate on. First, Kimberg disputes the 40 percent figure which Sklansky gave....i.e., "The probability of either team scoring from their own 30-yard line is about 40 percent." I wholeheartedly agree that 40 percent is incorrect. It is not a subjective jedgement to assume the Eagle chances of scoring had they taken the ball after a Dallas punt would have been far less than 40 percent. Likely, the chances of the Eagles scoring would have been no greater than 25-30 percent (based purely on scoring ratio/Eagle possessions for the day), even under the best of conditions keep in mind at this point in the game rain had begun to fall which usually hampers passing offenses). Given the Eagles had difficulty moving the ball all day long, and with adverse weather conditions Philadelphia's most reasonable goal would be to drive 40 yrard (giving the Eagles the ball on the Dallas 30) to attempt a last second field goal. Assuming this happened -- driving 40 yeards against a solid defense in these condtions then would then have given the Phila. kicker a 47-yard attempt...probably no better than a 50/50 shot. Sorry, but the 40 percent figure is way too generous.
One point Kimberg made in his criticsm of Skalsky's figure comes in Kimberg asking how the Eagles could be expected to drive "70 yards." In this response, I have given the Eagles the benefit of the doubt in assuming the primary goal would be to drive **only 40 yeards** or so for the field goal attempt....so it wasn;'t necessarily 70 yards that was needed to win the game.
Kimberg also correcly points out the fallicy of Sklansky's 50-50 figure -- that each team would have an equal chance of winning the game in overtime. Again, the longer the game goes, the less varience, which means the better team should prevail. Perhaps this figure would only be 55-45 in favor of Dallas (who were favored by 3), but again this adds up to a mathemtacal advantage for Dallas and is compelling evidence to PUNT and rely on the defense to take the game into overtime.
Kimberg made one other point which is fallicious (sorry Dan, you are usually on the mark). He points out that the Dallas ball cariier Smith (who we presume wil take the ball on the 4th down attempt) averged 4 yeards per carry for the day. This avg.-per-carry is based on a normal Phila defense in which 3 linebackers are off the line and another 4 defensive backs are non-factors. In fourth down situations, defenses play closer to the line, making the EXPECTED yardage for the carry to be significantly lower.
I do appreciate Sklansky's approach to evaluating sports situations. It seems there are repeated situations which come up where simple mathematics/probabilty arte ignored (Last week in the Dallas/NYG game, midway through the contest, the Cowboys elected to punt from the NYG 35...giving them on average only a 20 yeard net vs. a field goal attempt from the 52 which might have given Dalas a tie had the kick been successful). Certainly, if there were more NFL coaches who were poker players, they might be inclined to make wiser judgments.
Nolan, thanks for your considered reply. I want to add one comment about the 40% figure. As I'm sure you agree, it's not entirely valid to extrapolate from a team's overall scoring percentage to their chances of scoring from their own 30. The weird thing is that teams in such dire straits at the end of regulation seem to score more often than otherwise. This may be due to adopting higher variance strategies, 4-down play calling, longer kicks, and other things that happen when you get desperate. But I still don't think it's 40%, and your estimate of 25-30% seems much more reasonable. So until Sklansky (or anyone) weighs in with some more concrete evidence for that number, I'm going to believe it's closer to your numbers.
Of course, disagreement about the play call at the time may have boiled down to the same argument. Switzer's post-game comments about the wind factor (on his punter and on the Eagles' offense and kicking game) make it clear he (at least retrospectively) considered the Eagles' scoring chances to be pretty high. How rational that was is anyone's guess, although Sklansky obviously considers estimates lower than 30% to be the product of fuzzy thinking.
You're of course right that the distribution of Smith's yardage outcomes would be different on that last play, and that would seem to be a strike against Sklansky's argument. I certainly didn't mean to imply that Smith's expected average for that fourth down play would be the full 4, given that he actually gets the ball. However, in the previous message, "Lone Star" asserted that Smith had been having a lousy day, which was statistically untrue.
Although I should have mentioned the differences in distribution, the rest of my comment was just to point out that even if Smith's expected gain (i.e., average over a large number of identical situations) were enough to get the first down, his chances of converting might still be less than 50%, because distributions of running yardages are certainly positively skewed. In other words, even if his expected yardage is above 1.8 yards (or whatever it was), his chances of making the first down might still be less than 50%. So even with optimistic estimates, and with the Eagles' linebackers playing deeper, he still might not be as likely as 50% to pick up the first down. It might be possible to estimate this by looking at the proportion of his runs earlier in the day that were 2 yards or more, although as you point out, this would likely overestimate his chances of converting on that last play. Anyway, my suspicion is that 50% is a pretty neutral estimate. (btw, it was the two-minute warning that negated the first run, and not a penalty, or the outcome would have been much different!)
Oh, as for the 70 yard figure, that's how many yards I said they would be faced with. How they would cover them is anyone's guess, but I certainly meant my reply to assume they would be playing to kick a field goal. On the other hand, as anyone who saw the most recent Eagles-Cowboys game (or anyone familiar with their special teams over the past decade or so) can attest, the Eagles might very well have to cover the entire distance to score.
Anyway, I guess at this point I should make a minor retraction. I'm not really willing to accept Sklansky's argument without some concrete and convincing support for the parameter estimates he used. The main reason I posted my message was to point out that while he characterizes the criticism of Switzer's decision as fuzzy thinking, his argument supporting that decision seems at least equally fuzzy, given that it's very sensitive to parameter estimates that seem to come from nowhere. Of course, Sklansky is a professional gambler, and could easily tell us the factual basis for his estimates, so it may be more a case of fuzzy writing than fuzzy thinking.
dan
I would like to get some mathematical answers for the generic question of when you should rebuy and/or add-on in a tournament. I will set out a few exemplary situations, and ask for input thereon. Hopefully, this will improve my decisionmaking, even in tournaments that arent' entirely analogous. BTW, please assume that the tournament is a +EV situation for me (if it's not, forget the rebuy issue, I should never have bought in originally).
Common situation #1
typical low limit tournament. All rebuys and add-ons cost the same amount. Original buyin gets you T300. During the first 3 levels, a rebuy will get you T300, T400, and T500, respectively. An add-on at the end of the third level gets you T600.
My strategy has been to never rebuy unless I go bust. I figure that since I can buy more chips/dollar by surviving to the next level, I should do so. Of course, if I make a huge hand, I won't be able to maximize my profit if I run out of chips during the hand. Would you rebuy before going bust, and how low would you have to get to do so?
Related question. Time to add-on. How many chips would you have to have before you would decline to add-on? The T600 is being sold at half-price compared to the original buyin cost. Thus, you obviously rebuy if you're below T600, and obviously don't rebuy if you already have T5,000 or more (it seems obvious, let me know if you disagree). But where would you draw the line between such "obvious" decisions?
Common situation #2
typical medium limit tournament. All rebuys and add-ons cost the same amount. Original buyin gets you X. During the first 3 levels, a rebuy will also get you X. An add-on at the end of the third level gets you 2X.
My strategy has been to never rebuy unless I go bust or am below about 1 big bet. The idea here is that since I am not getting a bonus (i.e., extra chips) on my rebuy, I want to avoid it if at all possible. Again, the disadvantage is losing chips I might have won when I make a big hand. I see many players in these events rebuy as soon as they qualify (i.e., are below the original X in chips). I am sure this is wrong, but I don't know if I should liberalize my standards for rebuying.
When it comes to the add-on, my line is drawn at about 3X. If I am below 3X, I will add-on, but will not add-on if above 3X. However, the add-on is at a bonus rate, so maybe I should add-on more liberally as well. BTW, if there have been numerous rebuys (thus creating a larger than expected prize pool), I will liberalize my add-on standards, and vice versa.
Any comments, either in direct response to the specific questions above, or more generic comments, will be appreciated.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Most of this is discussed in detail in my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS. You may want to look at it there.
Mason
I was in the 10-20-40 hold'em game the other day when a particular incident at the table disturbed me alot. I don't remember the specifics but the two people involved ended with a straight (player A) and a full house (player B). Player A bet $40 at the river and was raised $40 by player B. Player A had at that point 5 red chips ($25 total) and one $1 chip. He pushed the red chips in and proclaimed "all in." Player B then proceeded to mention quite loudly that his opponent has one chip left and should throw that in as well. After winning the pot he proceeded to explain to the other people at the table that he did not drive 150 miles to play poker for fun. I understand that great poker instincts imply that one goes for the jugular at every opportunity, and that to show mercy even to a friend at the table is a sign of weakness, but player B's action gave me a real jolt of reality. Squeezing the last dollar out of a man, driving him from playing the game (rebuying) anymore, and then proceeding to justify this action to onlookers is IMO atrocious. Is this what poker is all about? If it is, then I have to rethink whether I want to continue playing the game. Please share with me your thoughts on the subject. I would really appreciate it.
Caught in a web,
Spiderman
It may be legal but I've often made a full bet and the opponnent would have 3 or 4 single chips and never would ask them to put those in the pot. I've also had the reverse to happen.
What are you going to do with a dollar?
I'm one of those guys who likes to win but still plays for the fun of it. You'll never see me do it in your life time.
Lots of casinos don't allow any chip less than $5 to play, if it is a $10/20 game or higher.
This is a problem that exists in many cardrooms, and as in this example it can cause unpleasantness and problems at times. What many players will do if they think they have the bset hand is to put every last chip in the pot. If they think they don't have the best hand they put a convient amount in the pot saving their last few dollars.
The solution for this, which some of the major cardrooms have adopted, is to round all-in bets to intervals of the common denominator chip for the game. For example, in your game the $5 chip would be the common denominator chip. Thus all all-in bets must be in $5 intervals.
A player answered one of my messages a short time ago and mentioned a pot-limit hold'em game at Foxwoods. Does anyone know what the blinds are for this game and how often it's being spread?
newsgroup rec.gambling.poker is a good place to ask such questions.
Unlike the authors the vast majority of players have difficulty observing and correlating. Noticing tells, profiling, and determining playing frequencies of opponents are crucial but very difficult for most of us.
Please give specific advise on how to go about getting and using this information at the table. How do you determine the frequencies of opponents? Noticing specific hands played? COUNTING hands played? Is there a trick to remembering and useing tells against these players?
Also, can you give specific advise on how we can avoid PROJECTing tells ourselves?
Tells
The first thing that I'd like to say about tells is that Mason Malmuth, in my opinion, has written some very good stuff about the profitability of tells. I would definitely reccommend reading his material regarding this subject as I feel this will help players ( it's helped me ) put tells in their proper perspective .
Tells are one of the tools that a player employs to read hands. In my mind they have the most value in heads up situations, a lesser value in short handed situations, and in multi-way pots they have the least value. I'm not an expert in this area but I fell that it takes time and experience to pick up on tells. I'm not as sensitive to peoples body language and voice inflections as a lot of people. Therefore, I feel it is easier for some people to pick up on these kinds of things than other people. Also, I feel it is much more important to spend your time observing how people play their hands than looking for tells. Concentrate on how people play their hands and eventually, I believe, you will start picking up on tells as well. Also, sometimes, you get tells but they don't give you any extra information as this is something Mason has written about. For instance, if a person never check raises and they check emphatically, the emphatic check hasn't given you any extra information.
The "act weak when strong" and "act strong whe weak" tells are the most reliable kinds of tells for me. Mike Caro has published a book on tells that is good. Just realize that the pictures in the book are emphasising the behaivior as most of the time the behaivior is a little more subtle than what is protrayed in the book. A lot of times players aren't overtly trying to fool you rather they are trying to keep you from discovering what they have if that makes any sense. There are certain players where you can read them so easily by reading their tells. Some of these characters actually think they are very good players and do bluff frequently so you can make some money against these kinds of players.
Obviously you want to avoid projecting tells. I try to be very concious of the way I put chips in the pot. I also try to be very consious of where my attention is directed when I bet, call and raise. I also am very concious of the "tempo" of my actions. For instance, if I have to pause to make a decision I try to pause later for no reason at all. Hope this helps.
In a previous post Abdul wrote:
>>In the previous message I reposted a rec.gambling.poker article by Ramsey, which serves as an excellent introduction to this repost of a rec.gambling.poker article by me. Some aspects of this I changed by the time I wrote the Poker World article based on it, and some aspects of my strategy I have changed since the article, so feel free to criticize!
---
...The character of the game dramatically changes at 4 or fewer players, where everyone is either in late position or on a blind.
PLAYING THE PLAYERS
Short-handed tables tend to be heads up by the flop, and heads up play is a tremendously psychological game. Categorize your opponents and exploit their weaknesses, radically adjusting your play for the opponent. Against overaggressive players you should be passive-aggressive; be tenacious and let the overaggressive player bluff into you, shedding your passivity for aggressive counterattacks for value late in the hand. Against weak-tight players likely to fold, you should be overaggressive, but just be sure that they are really weak-tight, not passive-aggressive. Against passive-tenacious-loose players (i.e., calling stations), bet for value and almost never bluff.
Do what you can to encourage them to continue to be predictable in one extreme or the other; for example, against chronic bluffers, don't embarrass them by forcing them to show their hand at the showdown.
Against weak-tight players, cow them into submission with your glorious superiority (as long as you and they believe you are the superior player, you will be!)
Those tight-aggressive players, well, they are a problem, especially if they have loosened up appropriately for the short-handed game; you have no choice but to be tight-aggressive against them, and much of the below strategy emphasizes this approach.
PREFLOP
Yes, you should see more flops when short-handed. Don't get carried away with this, however, as you'll need good hands to support the semi-bluffing that you'll be doing later in the hand. Short-handed preflop play is nearly identical to late position play and play on the blinds at full tables when everyone folds to the last four players. (The only difference in theory is that there were not a bunch of people folding before, so in short-handed play the card distributions are uniform, whereas at a full table that has folded down to a few players the last few hands are more likely to contain aces and other high cards.) Review the late and blind position sections in Sklansky&Malmuth's _Advanced Holdem_ book, and see also their comments on heads up play and semi-bluffing and just about everything else. See also the [rec.gambling.poker] FAQ.
Attack the blinds by raising with any playable hand. A naked ace, which is a trouble hand at a full table, becomes a playable raising hand when short-handed. Kings with decent kickers are okay too. I tend to dump hands such as 86s, however, as I really don't want to get heads up with it, though if the blinds are likely to fold I might go for it. When short-handed, big unsuiteds are fine, while small suited connectors are trouble. When your blind is being attacked, call with most playable hands and reraise with the better hands (such as AQ, KQs, ATs, 88) to punish your opponent for raising your blind with his 86s.
ON THE FLOP
Heads up, an ace with a good kicker is often a value-betting/raising hand on a flop that completely misses it (i.e., no pair), even if the kicker is not an overcard, though proceed with caution if you get called (you have to hope your opponent is on a draw and that your ace high will hold up in the showdown or that you'll hit your ace or its big kicker on the turn or river.) When I say proceed with caution I don't really mean to check... although sometimes you can, much of the time you should be betting, betting, betting until your opponent shows you the error of your ways by raising you, and then you should often fold, not call.
Giving free cards is not so dangerous heads up as at a full table, but showing weakness heads up can be a fatal mistake, so in addition to betting real hands that you could later get pushed off if a scare card hits, you should also usually bet your draws.
If your opponent is showing strength by betting or raising you but you have an awesome hand that you are sure beats him or a weak but nonvulnerable hand such as ace bad kicker with an ace on the flop, then it's usually best to "rope-a-dope", that is, back off and just check and call, letting him defeat himself with his own strength. You can even do this with weaker hands such as middle pocket pairs, especially against overaggressive opponents. Although sometimes when out of position you will give the dreaded free turn card in this manner, this is really pretty rare, because your opponent does not wish to show his weakness by checking.
Because betting is so important, you can nearly count on your opponent to bet if you check, and so you can and often should check-raise on the flop with as little as top pair or a good draw or less.
Because you are often check-raising, it's okay to check your really rappy hands... you won't be giving your opponent a total license to steal. Generally bet your middle pairs heads up as if they were top pairs at a full table especially with an overcard kicker, double so an ace kicker), generally check-raise the better hands such as a good top pair, and check-fold the hopeless hands.
ON THE TURN
If on the flop you bet and your opponent called, don't make the mistake of showing weakness by checking the turn, especially if you are going to fold if your opponent bets. It bears repeating: keep hammering until you are raised. Don't let a scare card slow you down.
Remember, since you have just one or two opponents, it's much less likely that they are helped by a scare card than at a full table, and they are probably just as scared of the card as you are. Look out for bluff raises when a low card on the board pairs on the turn.
If the flop got checked through, then you should often bet on the turn even if you don't have much. When out of action, it may appear to your opponent as if you attempted to check-raise the flop but failed and so now you are betting the turn with a real hand. When in position, and your opponent checks again on the turn despite your checking after him on the flop, well, it sure looks like he is just begging you to take the pot. However, if you have a really bad hand with no hope of winning in a showdown, you might want to save your cold bluff for the river, since you don't want to run a cold bluff on both the turn and the river, and you don't want to bluff on the turn and then concede on the river when you have no chance of winning the showdown yet aren't sure your opponent has a hand.
When out of position and rope-a-doping a powerful hand by checking on the turn, you should almost always (check)raise if your opponent bets, because you are probably going to want to bet the river anyway, and so you might as well spring the trap now for that extra bet. Also, if you opponent is on a draw, he will pay that extra bet on the turn but not on the river (unless he makes his draw.) When out of position with a drawing hand and the turn gets checked through, then you should often bet into your opponent on the river regardless of whether or not you made your draw. And with position on the river, you should often bet if your opponent checks. Again, see S&M.
If you check-raise on the flop, then bet on the turn and prepare to reevaluate/dump if your opponent raises you on the turn. However, your opponent with position on the turn may make a powerful play by raising you when he intends on calling on the river anyway, especially if he has an okay hand with some draws, even if he strongly suspects it is second best now. One can even do this raise on the turn with just a good draw or even as a pure bluff, though this would be risky if the other player showed strength by [having] check-raised on the flop.
Because when your opponent raises on the turn with position it may just be a semi-bluff, don't always dump your no-where-near-the-nuts hand... sometimes reraise! This reraise can be done for value with a hand as weak as top pair or it can even be done as a pure bluff against the right opponent at the right time. If you reraise on the turn and your opponent calls, then be careful on the river, as evidently he was not bluffing and either had a good hand or a good draw or a mediocre hand *and* mediocre draw.
ON THE RIVER
If you reraised your opponent on the turn, you have a good but beatable hand, and the river card is a flush or straight or pair scare card, then it's perfectly reasonable to check into your opponent with the intention of calling; you may induce a bluff from the poorer players here (your opponent would have to be dumb to bluff on the river when you reraised his ass on the turn, but you might as well give him the chance to make this mistake), and you may save yourself a bet if your opponent hit his draw. On the other hand, heads up often that flush or straight scare card will be just as scary to your opponent as to you, so sometimes you can bluff or value bet without worrying about getting hit with a raise unless you are beat. If you have a no-where-near-the-nuts hand that you want to showdown, then you can check, but if you opponent is likely to fold some hands better than yours (and that's very plausible given given your reraise on the turn) then you should often bet.
More generally, if on the river you have a hand that you would agonize over calling if you check and your opponent bets, then usually you should bet, especially since you can easily fold it if you are raised.
And that points to the fact that you can occasionally succeed in bluff-raising on the river with position. Don't try this too often though, but also remember that it has to work only a fraction of the time to be worthwhile. A bluff check-raise on the river can work too, but it's so tricky to pull off that it's almost not worth mentioning.
SUMMARY
Well that's off the top of my head. Again, I refer you to S&M for much more information than can be squeezed into a short article.
Short-handed hold'em is a glorious game, where the skill factor really goes through the roof and your play should become much more probabilisticly mixed up and aggressive, including much more bluffing and semi-bluffing than at a full table. If you are a good full table player, you can help adjust your play to a short table by usually betting instead of checking and usually folding or raising instead of calling. That's good advice for full tables too, but it goes double for short-handed tables. <<
The above material from Abdul while good as far as it goes has a major problem. Someone who bets everytime should clean out any player who follows this strategy.
Specifically, on the flop when someone bets you will usually be getting odds of slightly better than 5-to-1. On pages 175-176 of THE THEORY OF POKER by David Sklansky (third edition). He says:
"If your opponent bets $20 to win $100, he is getting 5-to-1 on a bluff. Therefore you make the odds 5-to-1 against your folding. That is, you must call five times and fold once."
This is why in HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS we say -- referring to short handed play on the flop -- on page 131 (second edition):
"If you fold every time you don't have a pair, a draw, or overcards then you are not calling (or raising) enough in a heads-up pot."
In other words you must call enough to make sure that someone who bets every time doesn't beat you. These ideas also carry over to fourth and fifth street.
Now I realize that there is much more to short handed play than this brief amount that I state, but it is the basis for successful short handed play.
The problem with the advice in the Abdul article is not that there is anything wrong with it, it is that it only partly covers the situation. Following Abdul's advice I believe that you would fold much too often. But in reality you should call with many hands that appear very weak unless you know your opponent very well.
Mason is right. When I wrote the rec.gambling.poker and Poker World articles on short-handed play, I believed that one must contest the pot sometimes with nothing. Not only with nothing, but also when you have nothing *and* don't have any particular reason to believe your opponent has nothing. I agonized about including these suggestions. However, I felt it was getting dangerously close to describing how *I* play, rather than describing general strategic concepts, though when speaking of it vaguely it is a general strategic concept. I was conscious of the fact that my 60-120 and 75-150 Hold'em short-handed opponents might read the article and get a lock on my play.
I'll now present here what I dared not present then. In addition to when I have a made hand or legitimate draw, I tend to contest a heads-up pot in a short-handed game when:
* The flop is unlikely to have hit my opponent. If he raised preflop and the flop came rags, or if he limped preflop and the flop came AAK, my opponent is unlikely to have a hand. Flops such as K72 offsuit are also good opportunities to steal (if the opponent does not have a king, it's hard for him to have any draw or hand.)
* My opponent is likely to think that the flop hit me. If I limped before the flop and the flop came medium rags, or if I raised preflop and the flop came AAK, my opponent may believe I have something. (Note that medium rags is dangerous to steal on, since my opponent may have overcards.)
* I have overcards. Often even just one.
* I have a draw to a draw and maybe some other outs. For example, I have KQs and raised before the flop and the flop came with the As. I have the nut nothing, two high pair draws, and backdoor straight and flush draws... certainly worth playing unless I have reason to believe my opponent has an ace.
* The flop is so scary that my opponent might be willing to lay down a lot of hands, such as a single suited flop or a flop with a pair.
* The timing is right. For example, if my opponent has generally been folding too much and the previous hand I just showed down the nuts, I can probably steal now.
For the hands not covered by the above excuses to play, I contest about 10% additional pots, when it might seem I have no excuse to do so.
Anyway, I think the above information is closer to "how I play" than to "how I know you should play", and that's why, aside from wanting my opponents to believe I never cold bluffed, I refrained from including it in the r.g.p or Poker World articles. Many players no doubt use a different range of situations to consider contesting or a different percentage of "additional" pots to contest, and I really don't have any strong arguments as to the superiority of my style of play.
BTW, Mason, a big "END QUOTE" or something might have made it easier to figure out where my old article ended and yours began.
-Abdul
I agree fully with the often stated idea that a player running bad is wise to drop into a lower game. Is there a consenus on the smallest game in which the rake/drop can be overcome? For instance, in the Public card rooms in my area, 6-12 Holdem has 2 and 6 dollar blinds and a 3 dollar (dead) drop on the button. "Gambling For a Lving" states that 10-20 is the smalest game with can be beat for "anything of consequence" Assuming adequate skill and discipline, can 6-12 be used as a bankroll builder, or would you be just spinning your wheels?
We said that nobody could beat 6-12for more than 10-20 unless they couldn't beat either for much. Clearly however,excellent players could do okay (maybe $15 an hour if they were forced to play 6-12).
A hand came up a couple weeks ago that I'd like feedback on my play. The game was Omaha, pot limit, 1-2 blinds, 9 players.
I called the $2 in late position with J987 single suited. 5 players saw the flop, J75 rainbow. First player (probably the best PL player at the table) bets $10, I raise $30 to drive out the player behind me, and the good player calls. Our stacks are both around $400. When he calls I put him on a hand like 75, or a set of 5s.
Turn is a 7, he checks, I bet $50 into a $90 pot, and he calls.
River is a blank, he checks to me.
I'd like to hear what people think the play here would be, and also input into my play of this hand.
Let's take a shot here.
There is at least some reason to believe here that first player (FP) was on a wrap-around straight draw. He might have been playing something like Q89T, and the J and 7 gave him 9 outs to a straight (with redraws to a higher straight). If he has 89TJ, he has top pair with a straight draw. Now, at this point, we don't need to worry about these, because he hasn't made his hand. Thus, even if he was drawing dead after the turn, he won't call your bet now. Whether you bet or check, you've won. However, for psychological reasons, I'd rather bet. I don't want people in a pot-limit Omaha game to think that I'm scared to bet the 2nd nut full-house on the river, or they'll try to run me out of the pot everytime a scare card comes on the river (and how often is the river not a scare card in Omaha?).
Now, let's get to your real (implied) question, should you bet your full-house into his full-house? If FP has a house, it must be one of the following:
7J (2) tie
75 (3) win
55 (3) win
7X (3) win?
XX (3) win?
JJ (1) lose
X is the river card, the number in parentheses is the number of combinations of cards left in the deck that FP could hold, and the final term is the result. You said X is a blank, and I'll assume that includes it being a card less than a J, such that if FP has 7s full of Xs, you still win. If you look at these numbers, FP can have a full house 15 different ways, 2 of them tieing you, and only 1 beating you. Now, if you think that FP will pay you off with these 12 losing full-houses most of the time, you've got to bet and collect that money. If you think that he'll only pay you off occasionally, but will, of course, always raise the full amount of the pot with JJ, then you might consider just showing it down. You also have to weigh the chances that FP will check-raise you with something other than JJ. If this chance is high enough, then you've got to pay off his JJ in order to catch his bluffs (or mistaken raises with 55).
Personally, my inclination would be to bet $100. on the river. While not the pot, this is double your bet on the turn, and half of the pot. FP is almost certain to at least call with his lesser houses, and may raise with them. I can imagine many good PL players putting you on a straight draw in this hand. You raised the flop to ensure last position and maybe take a free card. The turn paired the board, and when FP checked you decided to steal/semi-bluff. When he calls but again checks the river, you decide to steal again. Now FP check-raises you with his 55 or 57, and is unfortunately surprised to run into your higher full-house.
How about this scenario. FP is playing 6789, and bets the flop with his weak pair plus good straight draw. He slyly checks the turn when he makes trips, but is also afraid of you having already filled. But not so afraid he won't call to see the river. What if X is 6, 8, or 9? Now, he decided to check-raise with his surprise straight draw that became a full-house. But he runs into you.
Only you can know how FP plays, but these scenarios certainly seem possible to me, considering the PL players I know in Oceanside. In this case, you've got to bet the river, as you will win more money much more often than you will lose more money, because of that last bet.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
If I read this right, All he could beat you with is the remaining Jacks at this point, so you should just bet the pot. I don't believe he could not raise again on the flop, because he still had a couple of players to eliminate between you and him, and if he had any set, he would want to drive out straight draws. If he did let you take the turn with top set, hoping to build a pot that would take your whole stack, then he really is a player to watch out for.
As is always the case in big bet poker, a lot depends on the player. When first reading this post I was inclined to agree with the other respondents in that you should have bet bigger on fourth and bet the pot on the end. However you did say he was an excellent player, and if this is the case let's diagram a possible holding versus what you have represented. Your raise has indicated either two pair or trips, probably not a straight draw (the best you can have is a 13 outer and this is probably not raising potential). If he has the straight draw he will almost certainly call, but would probably not put in a single bean on 4th street - it looks like you,ve made your hand and want to milk him slowly. Alternatively, many good players will slow play top trips (by slow play I mean not go all in, but make sure a price is charged) hoping to pull in weaker holdings, and also makiing sure that if the outdraw comes they can get away from the pot easier. I have seen a lot of pros make this play, either waiting for a blank or filling up on 4th street before making a major commitment. If this is the case then of course he will check call on the turn - except for quads he knows you are drawing dead.
In the end, it is probably best to check on the end, as a re-raise putting you all in is going to be very hard for you not to call - when in doubt in pot-limit, it's best to play it safe.
I'm not a big bet player, but I would like to point out that he has you beat only if he has JJ. If he does have JJ then he will be conserned that you have 77 (unless he also has the case 7); so it seems to me that you are betting with impunity; it being much more difficult for him to RAISE with HIS 2nd nuts than it is for you to bet YOUR 2nd nuts.
It also seems unlikely he would slowplay top set on that particular flop; weak straight draws to be elliminated.
I like this situation and would bet about 60% of the pot; but that shouldn't carry much weight with you.
- Louie
I wouldn't have gotten involved after a flop that I'd only put $2 in pre-flop. Brunson's advice rings true here, "don't get broke in a nothing pot."
The other night, I was in a loose-aggressive 6-12 Texas Hold'em game. In the middle position, I received AKo and raised. There were eight callers. The flop came Jd Jc As. The small blind betted, was called by the big blind, and was raised by UTG (all in at this point). Everyone else including me called the double bet, which was then re-raised by the small blind. This bet was also called by everyone creating a large pot ($264). The turn came Kd and they all checked to me. I also checked. The river card was a blank 7h. The small blind betted $12 and was called by 3 people including me. He showed Js 8h to win the side pot. UTG showed Qh 10c to win the main pot. What should I have done differently? On the re-raise by the SB after the flop, I put him on trips (pocket rockets are unlikely because he always raises and reraises with them, he is also likely to reraise with AKo,AQo,AJo). Because I needed only $6 more to see the turn I called him (two outs with the pot giving me 43:1 odds). My outs increased to four on the turn with the K. His not betting on the turn led me to believe that he only has trips and not full(AJ, KJ) because with a full house and a large pot, most people would bet as their opponents are likely committed to see the river card. However should I have called him on the river? There was a lot of money in the pot for me to fold. What do the experts think?
Caught in a web
Spiderman
I'm no expert, but I'll take a shot. As I understand your description, the flop of JJA with no suits was three bet to a total of $264, so it would take 8 active players to get there. Given that, it seems very doubtful that you have *any* outs other than maybe two running kings. Surely it is likely at least one jack is out and both other aces are probably gone. And, unless there is a fluke and everyone else has smaller pocket pairs, one or both of your kings are also probably out there in hands like KQ or K 10. I guess I would have laid my ace down, once I put SB or anyone else on trips.
Once you *have* called the flop, and the king comes (at least one was still there), it might be time for a bet once it is checked around to you. You'll probably find out then if a jack (or better) is out, and if you aren't raised, you may get to see the river free. If I did bet I'd lay it down to a check raise against most players (and reraise the others). Incidentally, your table position is a little unclear - you say you raised from "middle" but at the turn they've all checked to you, and as noted there seemed to be at least 8 active players - how many players in the game?
In any case, once the SB bets the river, even though the pot is big I'd only call if I thought the guy was purely stealing (which you didn't as I recall). I'd be hard pressed to think he'd be betting something weaker than AK for value into a full table. And, if he is stealing, how about the two callers? Once they had already called in front of me I'd really have to question my two pair, unless they are known calling stations who would call with something like a weaker ace. Though you don't specify their hands, I guess they did have the other two aces, or perhaps one had a worse jack (seems unlikely, but I know one guy who religiously plays j 6 suited even at 30-60 and 50-100).
Sounds like a good game, though the betting pattern sounds more typical of loose passive, with a couple of aggressive players perhaps. Otherwise, where was the preflop cap? :-)
Thanks. I was in the 6th position. What I had meant to say was that on the turn, everyone checked including the three players behind me. There were nine players in the game. On the river, the SB bet, the BB called, I called, and the button called. The BB had A2o and the button mucked his hand.
Spiderman
Your most important decision was whether to call the first raise. The raiser must surely suspect someone could easily hold a Jack. Anyway, it does appear that you are getting the right odds to call the re-raise. But beware; with so many people in and one raised and several called, SURELY there is at least one other Ace out; so you really have only one or no outs; not counting back door Ks full or straight.
With eight opponents there are 16 cards out (1/3 the deck), and they are playing random hands then you are only about a 1.1-to-1 favorite to have the best hand (1.1-1 favorite that both Jacks are still in the 31 stub deck); discounting information you gain from action after the flop. You are a HUGE dog if a Jack is out and a comfortable favorite if the best hand. Giving information from the action and the sad state of affairs overall I'd say go ahead and fold for the original raise. Get a cup of coffee NOW if you are the sort of player who will fume if you lay down a winner.
Do NOT call a bet in the turn; you are not getting anywhere near the right odds, if you correctly assume he has a Jack.
(OK I'm wrong, the raiser had neither an Ace nor Jack and was just getting all in with the worst play he could make).
When the small blind comes out betting after this flop you can put him/her on a very good hand. It doesn't seem like the UTG player made a good play but then again quite a few players called the double bet so perhaps this player new what he/she was doing. When the small blind re-raises in this situation he/she is a cinch to have at least a jack.
I agree with Louie, that it was probably wrong to call the first raise on the flop cold because there was a fairly good chance that at least one Ace was in another players hand although I will admit that when the action got to you the pot was big. There was also a slight chance the small blind had quad jacks since he/she called a raise from the small blind. There was also a slight chance that he/she had an A,J in the S.B. Interesting, calling a raise in the S.B. with J,8o. On the turn, your chance for winning the hand did improve and you did get a free card. On the river you had no business over calling, even with your two top pair.
There has been a lot of silly comments about my recent essay about a particular situation that came up during a pro football game. First of all readers should understand that the point of the article was to show how many people ,who agreed with all of the assumptions would still come to the wrong conclusion because they don't know the math.This happens all the time in both sports and poker. So the idea was not to show my superior knowledge of football but rather to show how someone who has this knowledge should use it. Now as to specific points: 1 I did not mention the Cowboy game by name because I did not remember the exact circumstances (was there exactly two minutes to go and was it fourth and exactly two?) I do seem to remember that the Cowboys were on ther own 27 yard line rather rather than the 30. Hopefully readers will realize that this makes the play of going for it even more correct. 2. It is absurd to say that .making the first down is much less than 50%. Two point conversions are almost even money. And who is to say that you shouldn't pass? 3. Even heavy favorites are only slight favorites in overtime. This should be common sense. 4. My 40% figure for scoring from your own 30 was based on the fact that there was exactly two minutes to go. With either more or less time the chances would go down (more time would mean the offense would have to worry about giving the ball back.) In this precise situation, however the offense will be able to use all four downs to get into field goal position. 5.Even if this 40% figure is slightly high it would almost certainly have been about right in the actual Cowboy situation. This is because the other team really figured to get the ball closer to their own 40 on average after taking into account return yardage and the fact that the cowboys were three yards further back than the essay implies (not to mention the possibillity of a blocked punt or a muffed snap.) My essay uses the two 30 yard lines simply to make the math easier.
I'm new to the game of Poker, and I want to try to test my skill against other experienced players. The problem is I live in Boise Idaho. None of my freinds are as intersted in the game as I am. Other than blindly asking around is there any other way to find players.
[poker newbie wants to find a local game to play in. asks how to find it.]
This is tough to do. One way is to post here (as you've done), and on the rec.gambling.poker newsgroup, and hope that someone in the Boise area will see your post and invite you into their game. Of course, this isn't highly likely.
Your best bet is not to ask blindly, but to ask people who are most likely to know. Good examples would be bartenders, barbers, salesmen, and others who talk to a lot of people. Your best bet may be a bartender at a local fraternal organization, such as a foreign legion hall. Of course, these people should all be suspicious if they dont' know you, so don't be surprised if they clam up.
Interestingly, Bob Ciaffone, Cardplayer columnist, once wrote an article about small-town poker when he was in Northern Minnesota. He went to the local sheriff, and informed him that he was a writer and wanted info on any local poker games. After sizing him up a bit, the sheriff got him invited to a regular local game. Might work for you, but less likely in a larger town like Boise than in the tiny town Bob was in. Plus, who wants to walk up to a cop and ask him to share information about an illegal game that he knows about, yet doesn't bust? If I were the cop, you'd never hear a thing, because I'd fear an expose on me.
Good Luck, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Several years ago I had dinner at Cactus Pete's Casino in Jackpot, NV and noticed that they had a poker room. Since Jackpot is only about 180 miles from where you are that might be your best bet. I would call ahead to make sure that they still have a poker room.
By the way, the best buffet that I have ever had at any casino anywheres was at Cactus Petes. I guess to attract people from Idaho they need to have very good food.
Since I'm new at Poker. Whats the lowest limit you would suggest I play to beat the House Rake in Tahoe. (Given that I win against the other players) I'll be there in two weeks. Thanks.....
Yesterday I was playing some $10-20 Holdem and noticed that one of the regular $10-20 players was playing Pot Limit instead. I have observed this game frequently as it has the following characteristics:
1. The blinds are $5 and $10. 2. Standard Pot Limit rules 3. Mostly the players play tight.
To make a long story shorter, the $10-20 regular cleaned up. I took a break from my table and observed him win a $3000 pot with a set of sixes when the other player didn't have a pair, flush draw, or straight draw on the flop. All he had was an Ace overcard and a back door draw to a wheel! He bet on the flop (around $100) got raised by the $10-20 regular the max about $300 dollars. After getting raised the player with the Ace proceeded to re-raise the max, I presume to drive the $10-20 regular out. It was obvious to me that the $10-20 regular had a big hand and sure enough be got all of his money in the center of the table and the other called guy called! Now, I agree that Limit Hold'em is the most popular form of poker but I think that Pot Limit still has a future and although the bad players go broke quickly, I have observed a lot of terrible players play in the Pot Limit game who apparently have lots of money because they seem to last for awhile and then disappear and there are people to take their place after they go broke. Therefore I've concluded that there is a future for Pot Limit Holdem, although it may be limited, as I am going to take a shot in this game when the table looks good.
Go for it! I am a pot-limit junkie myself, and there is nothing like the rush you get from having all your money in the center with the best, but beatable hand, or a good draw at the other guy. I believe that the main reason that pot-limit, and big bet poker in general, is disapearing from public cardroom's is that management considers them more trouble that they are worth. They have good reasons for this. These games are hard to start and harder to keep going, due to the obvious problems of steady player availability, and the less obvious problem that people tend to be suspicious of cheating, mostly in the form of collusion, in these games. I have been playing in pot-limit games in Las Vegas off and on for several years, and I have never personally witnessed a suspicious action. My only complaint is the lack of availability of these games, except during major tournaments. It is the same situation in private games where I live. Limit games seem to last for years, but the pot-limit games last for a short time only then die out as the bad players go broke.
Pot limit can be a great game to make some money in as long as there are a couple of bad players at the table. In fact, it is probably the best game for this situation.
This is also the major problem with pot limit. It is the fact that the good players have a very large advantage over the bad players, and the game will usually burn out. This is the main reason why you generally only see it around the major tournaments.
My advice would be as long as you feel that you can play it reasonably well, and there definitely are a couple of weak players in it to go ahead and take a shot. Just keep in mind that if you lose at it then you may not play it as well as you think that you do.
In one week, I'm about to launch what I hope will be a sucessful tournament career. I plan on playing alot of pot-limit and no-limit holdem games. However I doubt that I will travel to Vegas to play or in California. I will stick to the east coast I will put in a tremendous amount of energy in order to succeed at this venture. This message is more of a essay then anything else but I assume that their are other regular players who might want to lend me some helping words!
Playing tournaments has a much greater variance compared to ring games; meaning you may go a whole year before posting a significant win. Be prepared for regular disappointments.
Also, tournament play is significantly different than ring game play. "EV" is less meaningful than "survival". Play much tighter at all phases of the hand; except in those situations where you have a comfortable stack and can get someone all in, or when the blind is a like minded rock which will let you steal.
The chips you have are almost always worth more than the chips you can win.
You must always be aware of your position in the tournament and plan your play a head of time.
Play many small tournaments before any major investment.
Good Luck. - Louie
Let me start off by saying that I do not consider myself an expert on tournament play but I would be more than happy to share some of my experiences and insight. Please do not take everything I say as gospil because I think you need to develop your own game and your own style of play. Also, I most certainly can not claim to have won any major tournaments or placed highly in a major tournament so take this input as someone who may have a little more experience than you do. I think that Chuck Thompson's article about hitting the wall in Limit Holdem tournaments that appeared in Card Player and McEvoy's book on tournament poker is worth reading. I have played a lot of smaller tournament poker at various games and I wish that I could say that I have been successful in all tournaments but my record at Limit Hold'em surpasses my record in all other tournaments combined. I did manage to win a low buy in pot limit tournament but I never even placed in a no-limit tournament. As a general caveat I certainly would not ignore playing in money games in fact I think money games should be your "bread and butter." Also, in my opinion, you should learn to play in short handed money games and short handed situations in money games if you want to be successful in tournament play. Of course you should learn to play in full money games as well. Don’t ignore short handed play because you will need these skills. The rationale for this is three fold:
1 - In all tournaments that I have played there is a point where the play tightens up considerably when the limits get high enough so you will be in a lot of short handed situations.
2 - In the later parts of a tournament you will be playing short handed a lot.
3 - At the final table you definitely will be playing short handed as players get eliminated.
I think you can get a lot out of what Mason Malmuth and David Sklansky have written once you get some experience. Their advice is not all in one place but contained in several of their books. I mentioned McEvoy’s book on tournament play. I would read it if I were you but I feel that you’ll need to get out their and play. I would also recommend the reading the Andy Bloch Project at http://www.conjelco.com/wsop/bloch.html on the internet as this is fascinating reading.
Let me tell you about a player I know that have been more successful than myself in tournament play. His name is Mike and he is a pro. He won the first pot limit tournament at the 4 Queens in Vegas this September. He claims to make a substantial income from his satellite play and I have no reason to doubt this based on input I have gotten from other players. Mike started off in the money games and I have seen him progress a whole lot. He has done this for the most part, in my opinion, by playing a lot of poker both short handed and ring games. Mike likes to vary his play pre-flop and makes some plays that other players would never make with some odd ball hands. He also "experiments" a lot with different strategies in money games. I happened to witness a big hand for Mike in the 4 Queens Pot Limit tournament that Mike won. It’s down to two tables and Mike is in good but not commanding chip position. A player who has slightly more chips than Mike calls under the gun pre-flop. It is passed to Mike who is one off of the button and he raises the max. The player under the gun calls the raise. Flop comes down J 9 5 rainbow. The player under the gun bet the pot and Mike raises him all in. If the player calls this raise and wins he is in real good chip position. If he calls and loses, he is just about out of the tournament. Well he hemmed and hawed for a long time and finally decided to call the raise. Mike is all in, so there is no more betting. Dealer peals off a King, and Ace on the river. Mike says "I’ve got a pair of Aces" without turning over his hand. The player under the gun is motionless and expressionless. Finally Mike turns over his hand and it’s an A,2s. Mike was trying to run him out of the pot and didn’t do it. The player under the gun made a good call as it turns out (in my opinion) and got extremely unlucky. This put Mike in a commanding chip position as he went on to win.
Lets say that you are playing a no-limit tournament and have been dealt KT suited. You are in early position. You decide to call the big blind. A player WHO YOU DON'T KNOW raises in a late position. Do you call,raise or fold?
Fold
Suppose, you'd participate in WSOP. Suppose, you were an overdog against any single opponent. Then still you had to be lucky to come out as the champion. I guess, you had to be VERY lucky, even if you were a BIG overdog, especially in a large field. So, how in the name of probability, can someone come out as the champion for the third time? (Maybe many find it quite natural that the best player wins but other than in a chess tournament this is not true in poker). Correct me, if I got something wrong in this context.
My feeling is that it comes down to several factors:
1. It is generally held that there is a lot of dead money in the main event at WSOP. Many players have gained entry either through satellites or super-satellites and are not really that experienced at WSOP-standards of play. When this is coupled with a 4 day structure, many players simply cannot hold their game together for that long.
2. No-limit is a game that is not generally played as a ring game and so many players have only limited experience. Also, the nature of the game is such that skill differentials can cause weaker players to be heavily punished - this is true of any strong vs weak match-up in big-bet poker.
3. Despite his more recent drop in form prior to WSOP 97, Stu Ungar has always been widely held as one, if not the best, No-Limit player in the world. No-limit poker often comes down more to the art of poker, versus the science of limit play - the plays that Stu Ungar has made and does make shows that instinctively he is one of the games greta artists.
I've thought a lot about this very topic, and I would have to second Dave's opinion: If you look at the players who have won the WSOP main event several times (Ungar, Brunson, Moss, and Chan), you see the "artistes'" rather than the theorists.
I think Mr. Sklansky's evaluation of why this is so (re: The Biggest Game in Town) is quite correct; the great theorists have superior technical knowledge (and may be turned to by the great players for technical answers), but the artists innate reading and judgmental skills are more than adequate to overcome mathematical lapses -- and the theorists they oppose at the table.
Additionally, tournament play is much different than play in a ring game; you must have a global strategy as well as a local strategy. If you look at Ungar's earlier wins, you'll see that he won both of those events by bobbing and weaving until he was heads-up. In simple terms, the global strategy (with the goal to survive) has to take precedence over the local strategy (with the goal to win chips). How the better players accomplish and balance those competing goal is what makes them true tournament specialists.
I agree with the assessment that it can't be luck that quite often the same people rise to the top of these tournaments. There is another sound reason why it is so: until you've been near the top, you don't know how to get there and you don't know how to play once you do get there. I liken it to water-skiing the first time: until you get on top of the water that first time, you don't really know what to expect -- and while you may be able to ride the water, you don't really know how to maneuver well once you get there. Conversel, just as with water-skiing, it gets easier to get back on top with every final table appearance.
Cactus Pete's in Jackpot Nevada still has a poker room. I entered a game there for the first time on Saturday. I didn't come out a winner but I learned some valuable lessons. Do any of you have suggestions about what I should do if a player starts asking what hand I'm holding. This old guy betting against me saw that I raised before flop and said "You've got Aces". I said nothing... (I had Aces). He called my raise and the flop came out 9d, 6c, 2h. I bet, then he said "I beat your Aces". The rest of the cards were other blanks. He had paired up the 9 and 6. My jaw dropped and so did my Bankroll. I've been studying "Hold'em For the Advanced Player" and "Winning Low Limit Hold'em" by Lee Jones since then and found how I could have made better plays. The mind games these guys were playing are still haunting me though.
Also, two Hespanic men were sitting by each other. When one would fold and the other would stay in they would show each other their cards. They would sometimes also show there opponents one of their Hole cards and ask if they could beat it. The Dealer didn't say anything so I just let it go, but left the game. I've just never thought Poker was played that way in a Casino.
>>Also, two Hespanic men were sitting by each other. When one would fold and the other would stay in they would show each other their cards. They would sometimes also show there opponents one of their Hole cards and ask if they could beat it. The Dealer didn't say anything so I just let it go, but left the game. I've just never thought Poker was played that way in a Casino. >>
Definitely cheating. Don't go back to that place if that is how they run their games.
The claim that this is cheating is rediculous. If one of the players has folded he is out of the hand, how could showing him the cards have any bearing on the play of the hand.
Virtually all card rooms have the rule of one player to a hand. If a particular player shows his cards to someone else that person cannot comment on his play or give advice on how to play. If that happens you can speak up and have the practice stopped.
Allow all poker rooms allow "sweaters." That is a friend is allowed to behind someone in the game and watch the play of the hands including their friends cards while the hand is in progress. Sweaters are not allowed to comment on or advise on how the hand should be played. Having a sweater isn't cheating and neither is showing your hand to someone who is sitting next to you in the game as long as they cannot comment on it.
In addition, when someone shows his hand to another player at the table, you have the right to see his hand after the hand is over. This is the "show one show all" rule.
As for turning a card over some players will do in in an effort to entice action from another player when they have a good hand or in an effort to trick you in some way. The down side for them is that they are giving away information about how they play. If this is done a lot and you play well you should be able to use this to your advantage. (It will help you read their hands in the future.)
>>They would sometimes also show there opponents one of their Hole cards and ask if they could beat it. >>
Sorry to offend you but I was assuming "opponents" to mean they had a live hand and if this is the case then there was more than one player to a hand. Did I assume the wrong thing ? Even if "opponents" are out of the hand they can not respond to the question. Did they respond to the question ? If they did during the play of the hand ( not when the hand was over), then there was more than one player to the hand and thus they we cheating and not so ridiculous after all.
First of all I'd like to thank you guys for all the advice. Second, since you confirmed the One person to a hand rule... Those two Hispanic Gentlemen were definately cheeting. They were giving comments on each others hands whenever they were not playing against one an other. I'll know next time to definately put an end to that nonsense. Next time I'll scope out a better table too.
You're welcome. Feel free to post anytime. I'll try and give you all the support I can. You can e-mail me too.
Be very careful about how you "definately put an end to that nonsense". Aproach the floorman or manager away from the table and discuss the situation. Also take note of how well these two guys are doing in the game and consider why no one else is complaining about their behavior. It could be that they are so bad that helping each other is only magnifying their mistakes. There must be some reason their conduct is being tolerated by the other players. If you cannot tolerate their actions and cannot get satisfaction from management, then don't play there. In a room like that, the players tend to be mostly regulars and you are an outsider. Good luck, and let us know what happens in the future. We have all been where you are at now.
I think that you are over rating their "mind games." My guess is, and I say this from experience, is that the old man recognized that you were playing fairly tight (as you should) and just commented that you had aces when by coincidence you did. You should also love the fact that he called you with a 9-6.
When someone asks me what I hold I either don't say anything or tell them a very good hand. As readers of my material know I advocate a tight image when playing games like limit hold 'em where the pot becomes small in relation to the bet. This helps allow me to control the game -- get free cards, knock other players out, pick up a pot every now and then, etc.
This reminds me of a story. There use to be a player in Las Vegas we called "80 percent Dave." He claimed to win 80 percent of the time and that was how he got the nickname. (In actuallity he played fairly well and I do not know why he left town.) Anyway, when playing hold e'm one day I raised UTG with a pair of aces and Dave was in the big blind. He thought for a while and said, "You only play aces? What do you have?" "Aces as usual," was my reply. "OK," said Dave, I call anyway. After the hand was over (and I won the pot) someone at the table told Dave that from now on his new nickname would be "79 percent Dave."
Lovely anecdote, but also think it is important for you to further clarify the card exposure situation as to what is cheating and what is simply bad play. In my mind, the only two problems are as you said, receiving advice from a player out of the hand, or worse, exposing cards to a player still in the hand, but not to all.
The rest is just angle shooting, to entice, or sometimes suppress action. I believe this generally indicates a weak player, and is not something to quit a game over. There can be a downside if he exposes a card to multiple opponents in the same hand, since this may help someone else and not you.
After re-reading your post I became aware that I may owe you an apology. Your complaints about the lack of intervention by the dealer meant, to me, that you believed the dealer was allowing illegal actions to take place. I was extending you the courtesy of assuming that you already knew that there is only one player to a hand and you could distinguish when this rule was being violated. This may be a very pretentious assumption on my part and if it is, I do apologize to you. Hopefully I am not offending you by stating the obvious as table talk, coffee housing, mind games, etc. are all legal as long as the one player to a hand rule is not violated. Sweating hands and looking on from the rail are all fine as long as the rule isn’t violated. I assume that every player that sits down to play poker in a card room knows this rule and can distinguish when it is being violated. The rule, to me, (again this may be a pretentious assumption on my part) speaks for itself. I feel bad that your first experience in a public card room wasn’t a pleasant one. My advice is not to give up because of one bad experience.
While playing holdem down south this weekend I noticed a poorly dressed, unkempt old man at the table. He was winning far than his share of the pots, despite the fact that his play appeared erratic and unsound. I watched a bit more and realized I was watching a poker genius. I flattered him but could not get him to divulge his secrets. Being persistent though, I invited him to dinner after the game and after mellowing him somewhat with red wine he explained to me a new concept thus far overlooked by the best theoreticians in the game. I will share it here as most poker players don't use the internet. I have been very successful using this concept myself, having won thousands in only 2 days of play. Here it is: always play 10,5 offsuit. Note that no straight is possible unless a 10 or 5 is in play. Furthermore, by playing the hand offsuit you have 2 flush possibilities. And lastly, a tight player will not be read as having 10,5 offsuit because most players are ignorant of the theoretical potential of this hand.
Good Luck, K. Whitley
Yeah, I recommend playing 7788 rainbow in Omaha Hi-Lo too -- no one will ever put you on that hand ...
In a more serious vein, while there's something to be said for playing eccentric hands to vary your play, in the long run, those hands must lose. The nature of limit hold-em dictates that, over a period of time, inferior starting hands will cost more than they will return.
On the other hand, in 7-stud, a pair of 10s or pair of 5s *do* hold more weight, for the very reason you mention, that is, you have not only narrowed the possible straight possibilities, but you can occasionally see by other exposed cards that it is impossible for an opponent to hold the straight they are representing.
Playing hands like ten-five offsuit is no secret. If you look closely at the cover of our HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS you will see that the eight of diamonds - three of clubs does pretty well.
Most amusing storey! (1) What positions did you play these hands in? (2) Did you raise or just call? (3) How many players had to be in the pot be fore playing one of these hands
>> Play 10-5 ... it works >>
This is some kind of joke?!
No, 10-5 in holdem will lose to MORE straights than other random hands, since you will need to make at least one pair to win the pot, putting this "key" straight card on the board for others to use. If you don't make a pair, then yes, they will make less straights, but it makes no difference to you since you can't win anyway.
In hot and cold analysis T5 fits right where is it supposed to compared to T6, T4, J5, and 95. There is no special "power" to this hand.
Louie, get a life!
In Supersystem's chapter by Sklansky, he talks of a Hi--lo split hand where a player plays a pair of kings.Then he goes on to say how bad a play this is. Well, I certainly agree with that most of the time. But I think just mucking that hand every time can be a mistake also. I think he was just mainly stressing not to get" caught up" in the hand and lose many bets with a stone cold loser. I recently posted this on RGP but how about this as a steal hand? (late position....no limpers) Also what about these........
10s--Qs--Qd......(extremely live)
Ah--Qh--10h......(live again,late position,no players in)
Suppose you have good control over your opponents?
Just wondering.....Scott
My chapter in Supersystem was on hi-lo with NO QUALIFIER . In that game high pairs are totally unplayable.
I'm curious as to what is happening with a project to update Supersystem. I heard a while back that Mike Caro and Doyle Brunson were going to update the book, and Mike was calling for suggestions.
Presumably, David would be asked to update his hi-lo chapter to the current preferred variation, 8 or better (and maybe add a chapter on Omaha 8 or better). Is the project on, and if so, when would a new edition be coming out?
In HIGH-LOW-SPLIT POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS by Ray Zee all of this is dicussed on pages 13-23. This book is written for the eight-or-better qualifier which is used in almost all high low split games that are offered in casinos today. Half the book is on seven-card stud eight-or-better and half the book is on Omaha eight-or-better.
Specifically quoting from the book
"Category No. 6: The best high hand on board. The best high hand out is another good starting hand. An example would be two kings or two queens, providing that this is the best pair.
Category No. 7: Three high cards to a consecutive straight flush. As long as your cards as live, these are some of the better starting hands. You can play these hands against several low hands, and you can take cards off."
Of course there is much more written than what I have posted here, and if you are interested in this game then this is the book to read and study. Good luck.
I have been reading John Von Neuman's tome on game theory and it seems to me that this kind of reasoning would have some applications to poker. I have read Mr. Sklansky's thoughts about the use of game theory in reference to bluffing in his Theory of Poker book. This certainly seems like a powerful approach when you don't have enough information about your opponents game. My thought is that it might be extended to deciding how to declare in high low games which offer a declaration. If anyone has thought about this I would appreciate your input.
I recently finished your book, "Gambling For A Living", and I would like to share some of my thoughts with this forum. I would call this book a survey type book on how one could go about making their living from gambling. Tips and insights into the various forms of gambling are offered. The target income is 100,000 dollars a year. The authors review several different forms of gambling that can be beat. These include 21, poker, horse racing, sports betting, casino promotions, slots, and video poker. In order to make $100,000 a year a person would have to make approximately $50 dollars an hour if they worked at a 40 hour a week job.
Poker
Using $50 an hour as a target it seems that in poker, a player would have to gain lots of experience and have lots of poker knowledge in general before he or she could reach this level. For most people, in Poker, I feel that $50 is simply not attainable. Where would you have to play poker to achieve this level? If you want a variety of games that allow you to beat poker for $50 an hour it seems that California is your best option. The cost of living there is rather high, to say the least. I am not sure about the poker scene in other places like Atlantic City, Washington state, etc. so they are probably viable as well. Las Vegas doesn’t seem to have the variety of games to support $50 an hour if your maximum win rate is approximately one big bet per hour. I’ll reiterate that I feel there are very few players who can beat poker for $50 dollars an hour on a long term and regular basis.
21
Possible to do theoretically and appealing in that it is a simpler game to learn than poker so there is some chance there. I feel that the edges that a typical player has that learns how to play 21 well are right on in this book. Again you would be betting a lot of money to obtain a $50 an hour rate and avoiding casino heat would be a major problem. If you want to get a flavor of what it is like to play blackjack for lots of money on a daily basis I would recommend, "Blackjack Diaries", by Stuart Perry. Las Vegas would seem like the best place to play. You would have to have a very good act, a big bank roll, a lot of intestinal fortitude, and a whole lot of determination to make $50 over a long period of time. Your chances appear to be slim.
Sports Betting
Tougher to put the $50 an hour number in perspective here because this may not be as labor intensive as poker or 21. Then again it may be more so. I would think that computer technology could be very helpful here. I actually have done a fair amount of sports wagering in my life and I will admit that I am a loser. Indeed I agree 100% with the concept of finding a good bet that you present in this book. How many of them are there? I submit that you would have to bet a lot of money on games to make a $100,000 dollars a year. This would require an enormous bank roll in my opinion. Nevada is the place to be for betting on sports. I know you can bet offshore and in Mexico so there are other options to Nevada. I will admit there are a lot of illegal bookies too. Still I think Nevada is by far the best place to bet on sports. Your chances to win at a rate approaching $100,000 dollars a year appear to me to be remote.
Horse Racing
I have done a fair amount of betting on the ponies and I am ahead for my lifetime at this form of gambling. I can tell you from experience that there are not that many good bets at the track. You would have to bet a lot of money and have an enormous bank roll to make $100,000 a year at the track. Perhaps I am not that knowledgeable. Their are a few things that go into a race where I can absolutely say that this horse should have these odds and I am pretty confident that an overlay will exist at post time. Again a lot of time can be spent pouring over the racing form and your own data. Computer technology could also be very helpful in this area as well. Being at the track is good but I think Vegas is great place to bet on the races. Your chances to win at a rate approaching $100,000 dollars a year appear to me to be extremely remote.
Casino Promotions, Slot Machines, Video Poker
I don’t think that pulling the handle on a progressive slot machine or a video poker machine is a very practical way to make $100,000 dollars a year. Talk about an enormous bank roll! There doesn’t seem to be very many Casino Promotions that are available these days. Certainly not enough to make $100,000 dollars a year. Your chances to win at a rate approaching $100,000 dollars a year appear to be the remotest.
Combining all Forms To Make $100,000 Dollars A Year
This may be possible by being very selective about the poker games you play in, playing under the best conditions for 21, finding the best bets for sports and the races. Given the logistics involved and difficulty in beating anyone of these, I would guess your chances are slim at doing this.
Summary
The $100,000 dollar a year target income presented in the book, "Gambling For A Living", is more of a dream figure than reality. Also there wasn’t any mention of speculating in the financial markets which in my mind is form of gambling. From what I understand, there are some famous pro poker players who do this. This would be a better idea than pulling the handle on a progressive slot machine in my opinion. If the figure was lowered to $50,000 a year or $25 an hour, the dream has a much better chance of becoming reality but is still difficult to achieve. This book is worthwhile reading as it gives a lot of good insights into the different forms of gambling and what you need to do to make money at them.
A great post, Tom -- instead of poker theory, this analysis should be the cornerstone for any aspiring professional gambler.
On a scale of 1-10 for analysis of how to succeed, your analysis would be a 9. There is a final piece to the puzzle.
Your thought about being more versatile while betting selectively is one step. I've spent 20+ years learning how to play the horse races and how to play poker. It has taken me much longer to learn how to win at the track (a much more difficult game than any poker game). Limit poker, on the other hand, is much as the late Jack Strauss once said, "anyone can work out the mathematics and beat it." For how much is the question.
So, the final part of the gambling equation is that you *must* score BIG in order to be a consistent winner. I'm sure that sounds contradictory, and I can't take credit for the thought (rather Andrew Beyer in "Beyer on Speed" explains the rationale). In sum, attempting to secure a modest return at minimal risk actually puts you at long term risk of being ground down. An exaggerated example of this effect can be found no further away than the $1-4 tables.
Thus, you *must* make a major score to be successful. A big bankroll (or a steady income) helps, as does confidence in your bets. While many people have bet $2 on a trifecta, or put together a trifecta combination that returned a decent payoff, not many are willing to bet $100 or $200 or more on a particular trifecta sequence -- and 50x even the most modest of trifecta payoffs is a nice score. The same reasoning applies to poker: the long-term goal should be a major tournament score -- not a day-to-day limit grind game. However, practice is necessary, and it should be profitable, so here is where the EV calculator is handy.
Beyer's approach to gambling is to play for the crusher scores while making "saver" wagers on peripheral plays. This can be applied to poker, where a player makes a modest income at the limit games while using that income to enter major tournaments. The crusher scores aren't going to come around that often, but it only takes one to change your life. Isn't that why we play?
Earl, Thanks for the 9, I'll take it. I think you have made some tremendously valid points and I agree with you. My first reaction to this book was, "Why do I want another job, I've already got one?" My second reaction was," Only $100,000 a year?" In all fairness tournament poker is discussed in this book. I think there is a lot of merit in trying to hit a "home run' and giving yourself an oppurtunity to do it. It can happen!
I guess I do have a gripe with this book is the front cover of the book. I feel there is a lot of hype and makes claims that are not supported by the content of the book.
Tom Haley wrote:
> My second reaction was," Only $100,000 a year?"
That was my reaction, too. $100,000 a year at gambling isn't nearly the same as $100,000 a year in a salaried position even if you evade taxes (which I do not recommend).
In fact, given the relentness exposure to second-hand smoke in most casinos and cardrooms, even success at high stakes may not provide sufficient compensation if you agree with Benny Binion that the most important way to be lucky is to have good health.
Paul,
California is going smoke free jan 1 1998. This may make it the best place to play in the world for those that care about their health. Good Luck.
As with everything else in this game, the answer depends upon many things. Here is just a fraction of what you should think about:
Are you head-up?
a. No. If there are many people in the pot to act behind you (especially if they have not already checked), then you pretty much have to let go of the hand. Even if the bettor is semibluffing a draw, the likelihood of someone behind you having a better hand than you is just too great. If all those people behind you have checked, you still have to let it go because of the possibility of a check-raise. If he bet into several players, and everyone has folded to you, then you have a tougher decision, based primarily on whether you think he bet a draw.
b. Yes. As usual, when you are head-up, your play is greatly influenced by your read of your opponent (much more than when multiway). Only the most straightforward of opponents will bet the flop into you if and only if they hit top pair or better. Other poor players will ALWAYS check-raise a top pair here (making your hand very good when they bet). Good players will mix up their play, sometimes betting, sometimes check-raising, and sometimes check-calling. But there is even more to it than this. Were you in a steal position preflop? If so, then your opponent may have 2nd pair and be betting for value. Was your opponent in the blinds? If so, he is less likely to have the overcard in his hand than if he called in early position before your preflop raise.
Without a doubt, this is one of the toughest situations in holdem, and I'm afraid there are no easy answers. Only experience and close observation of your opponents will help find the correct play.
Is it possible for someone who is good at reading hands to win pots without even looking at their hand by betting/raising according to how the cards fall and how the other players have bet or responded to your raise(I'm speaking theoretically. of course I would always look at my cards) How often do you(S&M or others) win pots by betting or raising with a complete bluff or in a situation where you beleive betting or raising will cause your opponent to fold.
Second question.....it is said in many of your books that you want to see the flop as cheaply as possible with certain hands so you should try to limp in..... my question is how many extra pots would you win if you came in raising with those hands because your opponent believes your hand to be stronger than it is and folds when you bluff at the flop and how much more would you win when you hit your hand and your opponent is unable to see how the flop has helped you because of his incorrect read on your cards.
An additional advantage to being more aggressive seems to be that people become confused by your play and become antimidated. This type of play doesnt seem to have to be supported by correct pot odds.
Or is limit poker simply waiting for the best possible hand and only drawing to hands that need improvement when the pot is right?
Your ideas work best in no limit or shorthanded limit games.
what specifically is wrong with playing thsi way and how will I be punished for playing like this? Will players not lay down their hands enough to make this profitable?
In a full limit game you usually have to show the best hnd to win. However in very tight ring games your idea also has merit.
I have had considerable success with betting more assertively than my typical opponents. In fact, being assertive is I believe the biggest part of my wins. I do understand that it is because I am taking advantage of a common fatal weakness in my low limit opponents.
Considerations that make it work include:
- Play hands before the flop that will win their share of the pots. You do NOT want to be routinely betting 9-7o with board Q-7-5. That is, follow before the flop advise closely.
- Make sure you have SOMETHING before being assertive (semi-bluffing). It doesn't have to be much, perhaps a 3 straight and a 3 flush, but it has to be something. Rarely, if ever, steal completely naked.
- Your opponents must be the type that will be cowed by your assertive actions; as is typical in 10/20 and below. At higher games, expect to be played back much more often. In the lower games, expect more calls and less bets; which is good for you.
- Your opponents must be the type that will let your small pairs win a show down, even after you bet twice and then check it to them on the river.
- You must be able to give it up when you smell trouble. But you can't give it up often or they will run all over you. You must be willing to call down a suspicous check raise with 2nd pair when you are close to getting the right odds. This call will greatly discourage future potential "semi-bluff raises".
- You want to bet at a frequency that makes the opponents not know what to do: someone with 2nd pair good kicker should be in a quandery. It easy to play rocks and maniacs; you fold against the former, and call or raise the later. Your opponents know this also; but against YOU they don't know what to do. If you see them routinley calling or folding you need to vary your frequency a little.
- Bet your solid hands assertively. They will get VERY suspicious, and rightfully so, if they see you check a set down to the river.
- You should be able to often bet weak hands for value on the river; such as 9s with an Ace (second pair). This greatly adds to your stack when you really have the quality hand you are representing, and they still call you down because they are suspicious.
- You must not be losing much when you do this. Players are much more confident when you are losing, and this negates much of the advantage of being a little over assertive.
- A good way to randomize your play is to routinely bet again on the turn when you improve a little, such as making a small pair after betting the flush draw.
- You must also play the players. When the rock checks and calls on the flop with an Ace, give it up and take the "free" cards.
- Change gears reasonably often and quickly; especially after getting snapped off a couple times or checked-raised out of the pot a couple times. Wait until you have built up some psycological energy (such as betting top pair top kicker all the way and getting it paid off and holds up) before launching back into assertion. Also, don't do this if it doesn't "feel" right to you; whatever that means to you.
- The real profit to this is knowing when to steal again on the river. This is the weakest part of this play for me, and I'm working on it, albeit by the seat of my pants.
- Louie
Pocket kings in a ten handed three-six, game. Lady to my left has 8-2 off suit. Stays on a capped pot before the flop, and all the way to fifth st. She has a pair of deuces on the flop, and hits a deuce on the river. Wins a 200.00 pot. I do not think this is the kind of crazy you mean, but I have played in numerous games this scary. The fluctuations are enormous, and sometimes when you get down 100 to 200 dollars, the game gets tight. What a nightmare.
Sounds like a great game to me! Put me up! Do they play higher?
I was in a loose passive 4-8 hold 'em game the other night in a casino with a bad beat jackpot that hadn't been hit for a long time. I was dealt JJ under the gun. I called, 5 other callers, one off the button raises, myself and (only) one other person call the raise. Flop comes JJ2, two suited. I check, caller bets, and preflop raiser raises. I reraise (being pretty sure that I'd get one or both callers), but both of them folded.
Question: I showed my cards to my buddy after hand, and he was insistent that I should have just called the raise - his main point being that I had the makings of a jackpot hand, and I gave away too much information by check raising. I truthfully did not even consider the jackpot when I raised, but thinking about it later, I'm wondering if I should have. If a decision is borderline, should jackpot equity sway you one way or another? Also, I'm wondering if I should have just called in order to try to extract as much money as possible from the raiser on later streets if the flush card comes. Any thoughts?
You shouldn't have reraised for two reasons:
1) These two guys are going to war while you're sitting on the nuts. You shouldn't do anything to discourage them. I'm usually scared to death of the guy just calling in these situations, and might ease up, but I don't know if that can be extended to 4-8. This action may well have cost you 4-8 big bets.
2) Tho players error 99% of the time towards overvaluing jackpot considerations, you *probably* have errored the other direction -- depending on the size of the jackpot. Assume for argument sake that opponent preflop would only raise multiple players with a big pair. You're at 1/3 that he has aces. Given this, the odds of ace hitting on turn or river (I hope I don't fumble this, I know the math dudes will be all over me) are (2/45) + ((43/45)*(2/44)) = 8.8 % Since you'd be getting the low share (25% in most places), you're losing 2.2 % of the jackpot by ending the hand. In most places, you have to fill out a 1099 for any score over $1200, and some places any score over $600. Assuming you cannot document gambling losses as an itemized deduction this year (and what reader of Forum possibly could??), you'll probably take an 18%-30% bad beat on the jackpot. You now are looking at forgoing 1.6% or so of the jackpot by terminating the hand. So you lost 2 big bets for every $1000 in the jackpot. Where I play at Ft McDowell (but not jackpot-drop games -- ripoff!!), the jackpots are maintained at a minimum of $5000, so in that locale you would've cost yourself at least 10 big bets just due to jackpot considerations by your action.
Even in a 4-raise game, you couldn't have got any more than 23.5 more big bets besides your own into the pot. So unless you think the pot will go nuclear over 75% of the time, raising is a mistake. I'm sure there's enough math in here that I could be erroring all over the place. However, I think the conclusion will remain intact.
As an aside, JJ doesn't play too well 5 handed unless you hit that jack on the flop, so you should've probably reraised and tried to make the pot heads up. This depends, though, on what you think the odds of flushing out the limpers with a double raise are. This also assumes disregarding my earlier assumption about the preflop raiser's holding :) .
Regards,
Jim Geary jaygee at primenet dot com http://www.primenet.com/~jaygee
There is a discussion of this very topic in HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS. See pages 107-109 (of the second edition) under the heading of "Playing Pairs in the Hole."
If you then have any more questions get back to us and we will try to answer them.
I've really enjoyed reading the Gambling Forum!
However, here in England most poker is played pot limit. Most of the 2+2 books that I have read deal with limit poker. I have seen ads for a book by Tom McEvey and TJ Cloutier called Championship No limit and Pot Limit Holdem. I would like to know if anyone else has read this book, and their opinion of its contents. Also can anyone recommend any other big bet books?.
Yours Kieran
I liked the McEvoy and Cloutier book, it's focus was more on the tournement side of things than ring games.
Bob Ciaffone and Stewart Rueben have a book out "Pot Limit and No Limit" that covers a range of different games. Stewart is an English player, and the games covered may be more appropriate to your area.
Both books are available from Conjelco (www.conjelco.com)
Good Luck.
I was very unimpressed with the Cloutier/McEvoy book. To me, it seemed to consist mostly of generic advice with no real grounding (e.g., play aggressively, but be careful). This kind of stuff doesn't really tell you what to do, nor does it even tell you what to think about. I have heard more good things about the Ciaffone book, and intend to buy it.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I have both books, and I agree completely with your analysis of the Cloutier/McEvoy book. The Ciaffone/Stewart book is much better.
The book Pot-limit & no-limit poker by Stewart Reuben & Bob Ciaffone is must reading for those that wish to improve their game of big bet poker. It is one of the few books that teaches you how to think poker and is written by players that are actually winning players in large stakes games. Good Luck. Ray Zee
I agree with Ray here - I have read both books and by far Stewart and Bob's book is superior. Whilst there is no doubt that TJ & McEvoy are excellent tourney players, they are probably not as good at cash play as the aforementioned...also the book covers very similar ground to McEvoy's earlier works. Also, as a UK player, good omaha skills are essential - Bob Ciaffone's earlier book Omaha Poker is a must read
Dave D
Advice needed.......... I have been largely a "home player" throughout my "career". I started with a bankroll of about 300 dollars about four years ago.After four years of playing and thinking about the game, I have turned that 300 dollars into about a 12,000 dollar bankroll. Most of my play has been in circumstances where the most I could bet was 3 or 5 dollars.Many times I have played in Atlantic City for 10--20,(stud).Although its not as easy there, I more often than not win there also. The real reason I'm writing this is about 6 months back a personal friend of mine moved to Atlantic City.He is not what any of you would call "sophistocated" playing poker by any means.He has been "running real well" as far as I can tell and he encourages me to move there as he feels that I could do rather well. I have read many books and I think the best around are those by 2+2.Though I do not claim to be an expert,I have a good grasp of what to do in many situations. Does anyone think I could do well playing as a pro? I have no problem taking a part--time job on the side to help ends meet. By the way,I'm only 26 so If this is a failed venture I could have no problem "regrouping" and going back to sales like I've been in. Any thoughts?????.........just looking for advice from anyone of you guys that have been there.
Thanks Scott.......SM 7 STUD@ aol.com
First, you should start traveling to AC, or wherever you would "go pro", on a regular basis, and establish a significant background of play there. If you go to AC every other weekend, and are winning relatively consistently at an acceptable rate, then you can judge whether to do it as a living. However, you may find that you can't beat the higher limit games for enough money to make the kind of living you desire. Beating home games for about $3,000/year and beating AC games for just a couple of trips does not give you any firm basis for making this judgment. Play at least 500 hours of poker in AC, and keep excellent records, and then report those numbers and ask us again.
Assuming you have not spent any of the bankroll I don't think that winning $3k/year in home games reflects much in the way of your skill. If you make $20/hour that's only 150 hours, or 3 hours/week. Either you aren't making much or you're not playing much. If the former than you should not quit your day job. If the latter than you don't have enough hours in to feel confident in your hourly rate.
Keep records of each session, minimum of where, stakes, hours, and net. Calculate hourly rate often, at least once per month.
Go where you want to play often, in this case AC. Keep meticulous records here, as these are the most relavant. I expect you will notice you do WORSE in the casinos than in the home games.
You're best bet should be to get a job near these casinos and play most every day after work. In a year or so you should have a good idea whether you CAN and whether you WANT to do this for a living. If you do make the plung than having a part time job is a good idea, as "having" to make expenses can be a drain on your abilities as a player. The best part time job is one where you work for yourself and have flexible hours. Then you can cut any session short and go do something productive.
Your friend COULD realistically be on a statistically valid hot streak; since its only been 6 months. Question her closely: What are her strengths? Opponents weaknesses? What common mistakes do they routinely do? How often does she draw out on someone? A solid player will know these answers.
Also, professional gambling and family life often conflict, since the quality time for both is in the evenings.
Do NOT become a professional player unless you KNOW its right. If you have to ask, its not right.
Recentlly, some skepticism has been expressed over the title of our new book. There is no hype in that title. Right now there are hundreds of people who make $100,000 a year or more, solely by gambling (honestly). In the case of poker, $50 an hour is attainable by expert poker players in games as low as 20-40. More realisically you would have to play 40-80 to reach this figure. The bankroll requirements to play this high are about $30,000 plus living expenses. But this assumes you do not cut down your stakes if you are losing. It also assumes tha you aren't willing to take a moderate chance of going broke. Thus you probably could get by with less. To make $2,000 a week playing blackjack, you would need to make about $100 per hour of actual playing time as nobody can play this game effectively much longer than that. To make that, your bet spread should be in the neighborhood of $50 to $300. You need about $50,000 to bet this high. But you can get by on much less if you are a member of a team, or if you are willing to take a chance of going broke, or if you cut back your bets if your bankroll depletes,, or if you can find extra edges (as we describe in our book). In the days when you had to go to the racetrack to bet horses, a good living at that game was probably unattainable (without inside information) . However, the emergence of racebooks and the simulcasting of racing has made that a different story. Since they can now watch and bet on as many as 200 races a day , expert horseplayers should have little trouble finding an average of at least five bets a day. ( This is especially true at those racebooks that offer house quinellas as we explain in our book.) If those five bets have an average edge of 10% and they are $400, each you make $1200 per six day week. This requires a bankroll of about $25,000 (depending on th volatility of your bets). To make more requires finding more bets or wagering more per bet. However big bets drive the odds down and thus drives your edge down. So it might take a $100,000 bankroll to win $100,000 a year solely by horseplaying. In the case of sports, only a monster bet changes the odds. If you can find ten good bets a week with an average edge of 4%, you need to bet $5,000 per game to win an average of $100,000 a year. This does require a larger bankroll, maybe $150,000, but you can work up to it. Furthermore $100,000 is no longer an upper limit since ther is no problem getting down for at least $20,000 a game spread among the books in Vegas, without changing the line. It is true that an individual playing a poker machine cannot attain a high hourly rate. However if you are running or bankrolling a poker machine TEAM, you can make lots of money. The required bankroll to do this is about $25,000 if you stick to quarter poker machines. Larger denomination machines or progessive slot machines take much more. As far as tournament or casino promotions are concerned, your yearly win would depend on the number of opportunities available. However, your hourly win rate can be astronomical. In the case of promotions especially,you might find yourself in a situation worth $500 per hour where the required bankroll to take advantage of it was negligible. (We describe a few of these situations in our book.) Tournaments can be almost as profitable in the long run although they do require a much larger bankroll. Though I am aware of gamblers who stick to tournaments and promotions, I feel it is much better to learn at least one other beatable game that you can play when there is nothing else available. Likewise if you are an expert at only one game like poker it would behoove you to learn more about general gambling theory so that you can take advantage of profitable situations when they occur. Thus hopefully I have convinced you that an intelligent person who works hard, studies hard, and has a little talent,should indeed be able to work his or her way up to winning $100,000 a year, if not in one game than at least in some combination of them.
I'll warn you all, this is long.
I just wanted to say that the book you co-authored with Mason Malmuth, "Gambling for a Living", has a lot of good information and insights. Certainly the content of the book DOES NOT HYPE gambling and the prospects of making a living from gambling. Rather, it is very honest and straightforward in my opinion. After reading my post and your response I went back to the cover of your new book and above the title it reads:
HOW TO MAKE
$100,000 A YEAR. I am not sure that I agree with this statement on the cover but I will admit that it can be interpreted in a lot of ways.
I also started thinking about a couple of other things that I wrote that I would like to re-visit. The forty hours a week constraint doesn't mean very much after I thought about it. I do think that in order to get to the point where you are making a $100,000 a year you will have to put in a lot of time and of course as you state in the book, there are no guarentees. If you really like what you are doing and are totally involved, working more than 40 hours a week shouldn't be that big of deal. I think that you basically imply the same thing in the book. My comment on having a job was also something I thought about in another way. I think that the relevant points about a job are:
1. How hard is it to make $100, 000 at a job. Is it actually easier to make $100,000 at a job or does gambling offer you better prospects for making $100,000 a year ? It just might.
2. How much security is there in working for someone else?
I'm actually fortunate enough to make $100,000 a year plus in my line of work. I would never make the kind of money I do if I didn't take some risks. I'm an independent contractor and if was employed as a direct employee I would probably make about half of what I am making now. I have also had to spend many years going to school and gaining experience so there is a price to pay one way or another in my opinion. Over the past 15 years or so corporate down sizing has made a lot of jobs less secure in my opinion. Gone are the days of secure employment. I think we would all agree that poker, sports betting, etc. are here to stay so gambling in a kind of a bizzare way may offer one more long term security if one acquires the ability to win consistently. Also $25 an hour is a substantial hourly rate in my opinion so I don't think you necessarily have to make $50 an hour to derive a lot of financial benifit from gaming.
I have some more questions regarding your book,Fighting Fuzzy Thinking in Poker, Gaming, and Life, that relate to Gambling For a Living. In your chapter titled,"Are Great Players Born", you discuss the chances of succeeding at poker if you just try to learn from experience and don't read are 1 out of 100 or 1 percent. If you read books, your chances are 10 out of 100 or 10 percent. In you book, Gambling For a Living, there is a table of hourly rates for very good players, excellent players, and world class players. Would the people who succeed at poker, as described in your book, Fighting Fuzzy Thinking in Poker, Gaming, & Life, be at worst very good ? Another question relates to a statement in the Fighting Fuzzy Thinking book in the chapter, "Talent Versus Discipline." Allow me to quote you, "And if you want to be a professional player in a public cardroom, you have to be a great player, not just a good one. The rake and the quality of your opponents demand it." Would the preceeding quote be most applicable to an excellent player that is discussed in Gambling For a Living ?
If any of you are still reading this rather long post, I firmly believe that you do have to a great player to survive in a public cardroom over a long period of time. I also firmly believe that it is very difficult for most people to achieve the status of being at least a very good player.
Cheers, Tom Haley
I think you have the situation pegged about right now. However you are still a little too pessimistic especially in regards to the type of people who use this forum.
Sorry, but I've been confused for long enough. I've followed the calculations to determine your bankroll requirements depending you your hourly rate, deviation, and tolerence for going broke; I have basic understanding, and I believe the calculation are correct.
But I have my doubts that there is just one "deviation" for a particular player in a particular game. It seems that the deviation for losing should be different than for winning, since there is more money to be won in any single hand than there is to be lost. When heads up the potential is the same, but against many opponents wins are larger and losses are smaller. Also, my daily average wins are well more than twice my daily average losses.
If this is true then your chances of going broke is LESS than calculated since they are using an "average" deviation when they should be using the smaller losing deviation.
What am I doing wrong?
Louie:
You definitely misunderstand what we are representing by the estimate of the standard deviation. Let me see if I can give you a quick explanation.
Your bankroll requirements are predicated on two parameters. They are your "mean" which in this case is your win rate. (Think of it as how much you average per hour.) And, the amount of short term luck in the game which is estimated by the standard deviation (per hour). You shouldn't be thinking in terms of a specific hand or hands.
Part of the reason for this is that these parameters only have real meaning over time. That is statisticians will say that you need a reasonable "sample size" for these parameters to begin to have accuracy and for the appropriate statistical properties of "distributions about a mean" to come into play.
The standard deviation as we use it in relation to poker is not suppose to indicate how much you may win or lose on a particular hand. It is an indicator of what your overall fluctuations will be.
I suspect that you may find this explanation even more confusing, but I hope not.
In addition, there was some discussion recently on the rec.gambling.poker newsgroup about the "maximum likelihood estimator" for the standard deviation where someone tried to show that it was inaccurate for a sample size of 2. That discussion was statistically unsound for some of the reasons that I gave above. Don't think of the standard deviation in terms of one hand. It is based on your overall results.
Thank for the response.
Sorry for the poor wording of my original post. I think I (basically) understand the long term nature of the factors involved:
Your win rate determines the movement of the center of the expected distribution curve over time, and the standard deviation describes the exact shape of the curve (is it "fat" or is it "skinny"). The curve is drawn for a particular WIN RATE for a particular STANDARD DEVIATION after a certain NUMBER OF WAGERS (or time periods; hours). The Y axis is probability and the X axis is money. Points on the curve represent your chances of having that much money after that many wagers.
A cinch wager would result in a skinny curve, such as if the opponent has to give you $1 every time you shuffle the cards. A wild wager would result in a fat curve, such as when you risk $100 and the opponent risks $101 on a cut of the deck. Skinny curves makes it easy to predict how well you will be doing some time in the future, and fat curves makes it difficult. Wagers that result in fat distribution curves are "risky".
I meant to say that SINCE the distribution of results is not symetrical for a single wager (in a typical limit poker hand you can win more than you can lose) then the distribution curve isn't symetrical for 10,000 such asymetrical wagers (it's of course very close). If that's true then you need more than one number (standard deviation) to represent its shape; perhaps you need different numbers for each side of the curve; hence my suggestion that you could use two numbers to represent the standard deviation of typical gambling distribution curves; one for each side of the curve.
If this is the case then current analysis uses one standard deviation that as closely as possible redraws the distribution curve to make is symetrical, since the mathematics of symetrical curves is well understood and convenient.
I have had these questions for many years and was going to send them privately, but I think that others may have thought about this too. When outlining bankroll requirements, Mason says that for a given necessary bankroll X, if you win some delta D, you must not spend that D because (approximate quote) "some of the paths that just avoid bankruptcy start out with a win."
My question: for what value D/X may you finally peel off some dough?
Obviously, if you're playing for a living this will be necessary eventually. But if you're playing for fun part time and are up, say, 500 big bets after a year and do not intend to move up in stakes, how many of these bets can you apply towards buying a house? Assume an initial bankroll of 300 bets. I know one answer is, "if you're just playing for fun, whatever you feel comfortable with," but I don't feel comfortable taking any risk of having to drop back to 10-20 for a year (I don't play many hours per week) to rebuild a bankroll. This kinda leads to my second question:
If you have a sufficient bankroll N # of bets and lose say 30 big bets your first session, aren't you now playing with an insufficient bankroll?
Do you have to move down in stakes? Because of bankroll paranoia, I would move down if after a loss I still didn't have 300 big bets. Where I play there isn't a smooth continuum of limits escalation, so I'm now forced to make up a 40-80 loss playing 15-30. Oh well, so much for that big down payment on the house...
Regards,
Jim Geary
jaygee at primenet dot com
www.primenet.com/~jaygee/
Note to IRSBots: The above musings are, of course, purely hypothetical.
Jim Geary writes: My question: for what value D/X may you finally peel off some dough?
My answer: I don't know the answer.
Jim Geary writes: If you have a sufficient bankroll N # of bets and lose say 30 big bets your first session, aren't you now playing with an insufficient bankroll? Do you have to move down in stakes?
My answer: In reality you should move up and down according to your bankroll. If you are willing to do this I believe that in most cases you only need about two-thirds the amount of bankroll.
Roughly speaking if you lose half of it move down. If you double it move up. However, you will frequently need more than double to move up because the games at the higher limits are tougher. In addition, there are some players who may win at a reasonable rate in let's say a $10-$20 game but who would only be marginal at best in a $20-$40 game where the players tend to not only play a little better, but to be more aggressive as well. In other words, be sure you play well enough to move up. (In my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME II there is an entitled "Moving Up" that addresses this issue. For those of you who are considering playing bigger, you may want to give it a read.)
I must point out that if you are not playing for a living, (you have a job) then losing your bankroll is not a disaster; since you still have income and can restake yourself enough to play in a smaller game. Therefore you need not be as confident of not going broke as someone who uses poker as their sole or major means of income.
Even the most serious hobby players can take noticeable risks with their bankroll, so long as they are willing to restake themselves later.
Saw your post in rgp on Hold 'Em computers. I do think you have the groupings wrong is some cases. The only way to objectively value each of the 169 staring hands is to see how often they win. It also matters greatly how many players there are when evaluating a hand's value.
I use my rankings of 1 to 9 for every one of the 169 hands. This helps me establish how I play before the flop. Once I see the flop, I base my decisions on where I stand, how the betting has been, and the odds I will improve based on the pot odds. Say I go in with a 9Ks which you rate as a 6 but I rate as a 4. I'm in middle position (no rases) and I raise. So what? Call it a bluff but I call it the right play. Only the flop will tell.
It's the flop that makes or breaks a hand. Even a 27o can beat a AA if the flop comes 772. The river kills more hands than any other card so you have to drive players out to prevent getting beat on the river. I lost in WGRP7 when I went all in with two pair and my caller caught a Queen for his last card giving him two higer pair. That's life. The bigest decision is to see the flop or fold. Then the fun begins.
I ran over 250,000,000 hands to get my objective data. This is information that helps me make decisions inconjuntion with other factors (players, position,odds to improve, pot odds, etc). I guess I would ask you on what objective data did you base your rankings? Observations are fine but they can be missleading.
Tony
My rankings were not based solely om how often a hand wins. I adjusted for the fact that the existence of future bets hurts some hands and helps others.
Hello,
I know that when the ante goes up, I must play more hands, but how many more hands should I play? How much should I lower my standards?
I have a problem to decide which hands to open with, and how much my opening bet should be. I play draw poker with free opening (no jackpot) and no joker. Typically the pot is 5 units after the ante, and the opening bet is spread limit 1-5 units. The betting round after the exchange of cards, is started by the first active player to the left of the dealer.
Question 1: Assume that I get the pot odds 1:1 if I would open. Is it correct to reason that in order to open the pot, my hand should have at least 50 percent chance to be the best hand at that instant?
Question 2: In the situation with a pot consisting of 5 units, and being able to open the pot with a bet of 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 units, WHAT standards should I have for my opening hands (in terms percent chance to have the best hand), and HOW much should I bet, with respect to my position?
Question 3: Specific hand; With 5 players, a hand with a pair of aces has more than 50 percent chance of being the best hand, at that instant. With the 5-unit pot, and the possibility of opening with 1-5 units, what should my opening bet be, with respect to my position?
Aces high...
Torsten Martinsson
Torsten,
2 good books for you to start with are winning poker systems by norman zadeh and winning concepts in draw and lowball by mason malmauth. masons book can be ordered thru this site. the zadeh can be ordered from gamblers book club in l.v. nevada. check their web link.
Starting hands are important but how your opponents react to your bet is the most important part of the decision. As an extreme example, if you know your remaning opponents will probably fold all but their strongest hands, you would bet with anything as a bluff. My point is that you open with hands based not only with what they may hold, but based on how they will play the hands that they may hold. Good Luck. Ray Zee
Hello,
Does anyone of you know a good poker book with probability tables? Specifically, I am interested in a book that not only gives the probabilities for the various legitimate hands (royal to pair) after the deal, but also gives the probability of be given a draw hand (4-flush, outside straight etc).
Aces high...
Torsten Martinsson
In the process of analyzing a hand on rgp I encountered a really weird situation, one where assuming exposed cards, the correct strategy for a given hand is to raise all-in in no-limit but to *fold* to a pot sized bet in pot limit. I was wondering whether this example had some implications I was missing.
Sjramsey (on RGP) mentions a Holdem example from Super/System where one hand is 8c9c, the other is 5h4h, and the flop is 7c6c3d. Even though the second hand is the current nuts, the first hand has a slight edge in showdown poker, having 14 outs on each of the next 2 cards. If both hands are exposed, it's correct for the first hand to go all in at no-limit since it has the edge.
In pot limit assuming both players have lots of money, if the turn card misses the first player, she does not have enough odds to call a pot size bet on the turn (she needs 2-1 but is only getting 30-14). So it seems she should call a flop bet and fold the turn if she misses, but by the same argument (except this time the odds are 31-14) this would not be as good as folding the flop for a pot sized bet.
I think the opportunity to make a large bet on the turn is key here. Opinions?
William
As to the hand being played pot-limit, whether or not she gets paid off on the end when she hits the hand determines the "odds". If she gets paid off, then the "odds" are adequate.
this may have been addressed before, i'm a newcomer, but what do people think of the turbo holdem and turbo seven stud programs?
Turbo Hold'em is an excellent piece of software, infinitly configurable and easy to use. I think its a great learning tool. When I started playing Hold'em, I read Sklansky's books and played on Turbo Hold'em for two months befor entering a casino. On my first 12 hrs at the felt ($3-6) I came away a $286 winner. Beginner's luck....perhapse but I felt confident that I was doing the right thing most all of the time and I believe I had the respect of the other players. I practice with Turbo regularly and my bankroll is steadily increasing. Get this software!
This software is only good for a new comer to learn the mechanics of the game, and to run some hot-and-cold analysis with players that never bet.
The best configurable player still plays abysmally. There are many options to play that are unavailable; for instance you can't say to raise late with KQ but fold if someone else raises.
Also, there is no memory between rounds, so if a player caps it with the K high flush on the turn, will cap it again on the end, forgetting that he is beat.
Playing this game to learn tactics or strategy, above the mechanics, is more than a waste of time: its detrimental since you will often learn the wrong thing.
It does offer the opportunity to notice the dangers of certain kinds of boards, such as Ace high, 4-flush, or paired boards.
Fun? Yes, it can be very fun for raw beginners.
- Louie
Louie wrote:
>Playing this game to learn tactics or strategy, above the >mechanics, is more than a waste of time: its detrimental > since you will often learn the wrong thing.
I think it's even worse than this. The pop up advice that the game offers is, to be polite, way off target. The program does have many nice features, but if you are trying to become a competent player my advice is to ignore their advice.
In the article, "Are Great Players Born" from Sklansky's book Fighting Fuzzy Thinking there is a discussion regarding preplan fancy play options (Page 16). In particular, it discusses that poker players that are "by the book" players (i.e. achieving most of their skills via reading/researching) should plan ahead categories of creative plays in advance to be ready in the heat of battle. Sounds like a great idea.
The first example given (on page 16) is the one I would I like to discuss in more detail for my enlightment and understanding. In the Fuzzy book, it saids "space doesn't permit an analysis of this play, but good players should see the reasons." Hopefully, there is an enough space here on the internet to discuss in some details why this is the best play.
For those of you who don't have your copy of Fuzzy next to your PC, here's the problem: It's Holdem--a tough player raises, everyone folds to you on the BB and you have Ks9s. You call and the flop comes Kc8d3h. You check and call. Fourth street is the 2h...you check and he checks behind you. The last card is the Qs. Sklansky states that the play is go for a check raise...but space doesn't permit an analysis of this play. He also says that the idea is to think about situations of this type before they come so that you make the play automatically.
I think I could benefit from a detailed analysis of why this is the best player (i.e. to check raise on the end). Here's my thoughts on this: Can you be that confident that you can check raise on the end instead of just betting out? Some players are capable (especially in a heads-up situation) to "trap you" by checking the turn behind you if they had for example KK or 88 in this situation. Also, the book example doesn't clarify what position the preflop raise came from. If the preflop raise was from a late position (a possible steal) then the raiser might have something like Q8 suited or offsuit. He would probably check the turn fearing you might have a King (when you called the flop). But I guess in this situation, you are still better off going for the check raise?
I do understand that if the preflop raiser had AQ or JJ then the check raise on the end would be optimal. But how about for other hands he might have or if he's tricky (i.e. checking on the turn with his set of eights)??
I enjoyed the Fuzzy book and learned alot from the many interesting stimulting articles.
Rarely does he have you beaten. Check raising is the best play not so much because it wins you two bets, though it might, but rather because he will bet almost all of the hands he will call you with PLUS he will often bluff representing a queen. In other words check calling is probably better than betting, and check raising is probably better yet.
I have often wondered if anyone has read a book called "Fuzzy Thinking" by Bart Kosko. In almost all of the poker books I have read, the percentages given for making a bet or raise seem to be unrealistically precise. The use of fuzzy logic has become an accepted method of design and analysis. It seems as if this method of would be very applicable to poker theory. Does any one have any comments on this?
Fuzzy logic is actually a precise mathematical technique which was invented by Norman Zadeh's father. Some say it is a form of probability theory. I supposed it could be used to analyze poker but I doubt it would add any insights that couldn't be arrived at by other methods. In any case when I use the term "Fighting Fuzzy Thinking" , I am in no way referring to Kosko's book or the subject of fuzzy logic.
It is very unlikely that he has you beaten on the turn.
If his hand isn't good enough to bet on the turn and he didn't hit the Queen, then his hand got worse and he is unlikely to call. If he did hit the Queen, the hand you want him to call you with, then he is likely to bet it for value if you check. He may also bluff. Raising on your part looks suspicious in this situation.
Check-Raise is a reasonable option against all but the most passive players. These playes will call with many more hands then they will bluff with.
It seems to me you are "looking for monsters under the bed" when you are considering all the hands he could have to have you beat. That's quality analysis so long as you also consider the hands he could have that YOU can beat.
- Louie
What are the tricks of the trade with regard to being consistently on the last table in tournaments versus live play?
J, The best trick is to play in lots of tournaments to gain the experience needed to make the best decisions. The players that seem to be at the last table all the time are in all the tournaments. Good Luck.
Can I put my new book "THE COMPLETE POKER ROOM" IN THIS SECTION? Will 2+2 carry my book to sell? Thanks Chuck Ferry
If you lived in Germany, your only opportunity to play limit poker in a casino would be something like this:
7card stud spread limit ante: DM 10 (say $6) spread limit: DM 20-100 (say $12 - $60) low card has to start the action with a minimum bet. rake: DM 20($12) with 5 or less players at the table
DM 30($18) with 6 or more players at the table
Now, with such an high rake, I sometimes wonder if there is any point in participating in this game. Perhaps, you could help me with my questions:
1. Assuming that German players do as well as US-Players do,
can this game be beaten? 2. Occassionally 1 or 2 unexperienced players sit down (since lower stakes are not available). The other players
are tight regulars. Would you touch this game?
Opinions highly appreciated HH
Unless the players are EXTREMELY weak, this game is not beatable long term. I might compare your game to a game of 20-40 or 30-60 limit in the US. In most of these games, a good pro will profit about 1 BB, or about 50/hour. This assumes a rake of typically $3/pot. This pro probably wins about 4 pots/hour, so in reality is beating the players for about $62/hour, but losing $12/hour to the rake. If the game were the same in Germany, this pro could still beat the players for $62/hour, but would be losing $72/hour to the rake (4x18). Thus, the same pro who could earn $100,000/year playing full time in the US, would lose $20,000/year in Germany. I expect your cardroom to go out of business pretty soon, as they are just raping their players. Just imagine how bad it is for the weak players. If a winning pro is losing $10/hour, then the really bad players must be losing something like $100/hour. Heck, at $18/pot, with maybe 30-40 pots/hour, the casino is making somewhere between $540-720/hour from that table. This is an unbelievable amount of money for a game of that size. In fact, even if the players were playing 300-600 limit, this rake would be excessive.
I suggest that you start a private home game. That way there is no rake, or if it is legal, you could charge a door fee of something like $30./night/player and make a profit yourself (of course, provide free soft drinks and snacks to keep your players happy). I know people in the US who do not even play in the game unless it is shorthanded, and who make a lot of extra money doing this. Plus, you can try to stock your game with as many weak players as possible, and try to keep out the sharp players, so that you will also win, in addition to the door charge. Of course, I know nothing about the laws in Germany, so be sure that what you do is not going to put you in jail.
Good Luck, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
No way. This is 4-6 TIMES the U.S. rake. Are you sure this isn't the time charge/hour? I guess not, since you distinguish between short and full tables. You are doomed if you play in this game.
I have played some in Europe and the rake is huge in most places. One reason is the govt. taxes the casino rake as much as 70 to 90 percent of the gross. Yes that is not a mistake. Also tips to the dealers are large and mandantory as most places do not pay any wages for the dealers so you can imagine the pressure the players are under to tip. Only the best poker players have any chance at all to win, and they are finally starting to put some needed pressure on the casinos to lighten up. Hope they can do it before all the live money is gone. One way the casino gets more revenue is from drinks and food. Coffee or a coke runs about 4 bucks in most joints and food is worse. One good point is the european players are some of the finest sportsman in winning and losing and are a nice bunch of people.
I actually think that this game is beatable providing that you play well and that there are always a couple of novice players in the game. However, even if this is the case, it won't be beatable for much.
Cardrooms both here and abroad need to learn that for their long run success they need to charge a reasonable rake. When the rake too much, they may do well in the short run, but they bankrupt their players too fast, and don't develop the core of regulars that all cardrooms need to start games and keep games going.
I’d like to share a situation I was in the other day. Playing $10-20 limit hold’em. A couple of players call early and I peek down to find K,Q of clubs. The players that called are very loose and quite passive. The button is two seats to my left. I raised as I know that I have a decent chance to win this pot even if I don’t get a hand. I am confident that I can read the players that are in already and I am hoping that all of the remaining players fold, especially the people to my left through the button. The button calls my raise as everyone else folds except the two players who call early. At this point I am quite sure that the button is up to something. I have played with this guy before. I would categorize him as somebody who views himself as an expert card player who can turn defeat into victory because he plays his hands so well. The truth is that he is a consistent loser who might win if he didn’t get involved with a lot of the hands he gets involved with. At any rate, the flop comes out Ad 8s 2s. Well this flop doesn’t look very good for me. If I am last to act I still have a pretty good chance to win but I am not last the button is. It is checked to me and I am absolutely positive that if I bet, the button will raise with a hand or without a hand. I’m thinking that if I check, the loose players are likely to call a single bet and I’ll just fold. I check, the button bets, the two guys early call and I fold. The button ends up winning the pot on the river with a bet and no callers. I’m thinking that if I’m heads up I'd play things a little different. Later on in the session he calls a raise cold on the button with four players active. He mucks on the turn and flashes J,8d for me only. Needless to say I am not very surprised.
The next day I’m waiting for a seat and watching the game. A women that is very aggressive and plays fast is in the game. There is an early position caller she raises and the guy who was on the button from the previous day is on the button again! I’m thinking this should be interesting. Sure enough he calls her raise. The flop comes out something like 10 5 2 rainbow. She bets, he raises, early position player folds and she calls. The turn is a blank she checks, he bets, and she folds. I have some ideas on how to counter this play but I was wondering has anybody else encountered this type of thing and if they have how would they play it.
What can you do in this situation? He has position on you for the rest of the hand, and he may have a good hand. You might consider just limping with your hands like KQ suited with this player on the button. When you have a big hand, you can really make him pay. Check-raise him, or bet out and get 3 bets with your big hands.
Tom,
You are a good player, in the first case you read him for just messing with you. You said he would raise if you bet,so you checked and folded. What you needed to do to him was bet out and when he raised and knocked out the other players, then call. Then bet out on 4th and 5th st. as a bluff. Unless he has a good ace you will win even if you don't win he now knows not to mess with you any longer. At some point you must take control and it does not have to be with a hand. Good Luck.
While I agree that you need to let this guy know that he can't mess with you, I think you still should tighten up preflop when he has the button. That way you'll always be against him in this situation with a premium hand. Then, as Ray and others say, don't back down, but keep coming at him. If you try to run him down with a mediocre hand, and he manages to hang on and win, it'll be twice as hard to break him of this habit when you're in the pot. Good Luck.
Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Conisider that you don't necessarily want to break him of his over-aggressive tendencies. In general, you want to encourage your opponents to exaggerate their own mistakes. If he tightens up just a bit, you've now turned him into your nightmare opponent: a fairly selective, aggressive player who generally has a hand, but will occassionally try to pick up pots he doesn't deserve. And since you will never be able to turn him into an honest, passive opponent, why not nudge him in the other direction?
Todd,
You do not want anyone to be playing hard at you thats on your left. You will never be in good position in a pot and will be giving up much of the playing value of your hands. But in this case I was mostly concerned with talking about winning that particular hand. It sounded like a perfect time to pick up a good sized pot without a hand. Good Luck.
Doesnt sound like that much of a problem to me. Remember just because you come in for a hand with a raise does not mean you have to win the hand. It's ok to fold on the flop on hand you raised with pre-flop. You cant turn every hand into a winner no matter how hard you try.
The way you describe him, he should be very easy to play against in this situation. When you flop nothing check and fold without a second thought. Go ahead and bet your marginal hands (second pair with good kicker, etc..) if you think he'll raise with anything and you can probably get him heads up when you are a substantial favorite. If as you say he'll be anything if you check then check raise your strong hands. From reading your original post, it seems like you wanted to turn that KQs into a winner with that flop somehow instead of just giving up and looking forward to the next hand.
Good Luck Rob
I would like to thank each and everyone of you for your responses. They certainly give me a lot of things to think about. A couple of things I want to make clear. I hope I didn’t give anyone the impression that I had a problem with the guy flashing his cards at me. As I’ve stated in other posts table talk, coffee housing, mind games, etc. are all legal as long as the one player to a hand rule is not violated. I would also draw the line at insulting, obnoxious behavior but this almost never happens. I certainly don’t think that his actions were unfair or even reprehensible as in reality they didn’t bother me a bit. I just felt that he was trying to convey some sort of message to me. I certainly wouldn’t want poker to become a game like bridge where a lot of the talk and actions that goes on at the poker table would be considered unethical. Also, I really feel that he makes the play of "defending the button" very frequently. I’ve played against him several times over the past two and a half years. He must have been on my right all the time! I don’t think he is a local but I think he comes to town on business a lot. I don’t talk to him because I don’t want any free "card lessons." I’d rather post on this forum to get my poker advice as I value the input from the participants in this forum a lot more.
Thanks,
Tom Haley
Yes, check and fold with your KQ when an A flops against this player and callers. There will be better opportunities for semi-stealing, such as when you flop two overcards and a whip-saw. As pointed out in the fine books of the authors, semi-bluffing is much more profitable than outright bluffing.
Generally, top pair and draws are easy to play. Profitable play of 2nd pair is one of the keys to success. If you can't win with 2nd pair then play very conservatively before the flop so you rarely FLOP 2nd pair.
Notice that someone who plays that many hands and is willing to bet any pair or any draw is an underdog to someone with 2nd pair reasonable kicker. However, if was sensibly selective before the flop, then he won't be FLOPPING bottom pair very often, so he is a favorite against 2nd pair when he bets. That's why tight-aggressives who semi-bluff are so hard to play; but loose aggressives who outright bluff are easy to play.
Taken by himself this player is a very desireable opponent, especially since you have such confidence in your "intuition", "table sense", or whatever you want to call it.
However, he interfers with your ability to routinely accept the weak player's money. Usually that's more money you are losing from them then you gain from him.
He is well worth the bulk of your attention and energies, since you can obviously beat the fish on auto-pilot.
To defeat THIS player you must tell if he is the kind of guy that will go to the river when you have the lead, even if he has a clearly beaten pair. I.E. is he "tenatious". But he may be of an offensive mind set, like appearantly you are, where he will lay down his semi-steal once the lead is taken from him. (When you bet 2nd pair and are raised, you'll generally lay it down on the turn, won't you? But if you are just called, you may bet it all the way?) If he is tenatious and on your left, then play premium hands, raise less before the flop, check-raise when you get there, and bet them all the way. If he is offensive then play more hands, check-raise with your marginal stuff, and bet them all the way.
To get this player out of your way so you can take the other's money, then try:
Put him on your right.
Never show fear. Make a strategy you are comfortable with and then do it confidently. There's nothing that will take the wind out of someone's sails then calling down a confident player with a weak hand, when yours is weaker still.
Follow the outline above, then embarras him by asking to see his hand. I'm not confortable with that, but others are.
Don't get involved unless you expect to show down a hand against him. When is semi-steals don't work a couple times he should slow down.
Check and call him down with a bettable hand. Do it again. You should be able to judge when his mind set changes, then shift gears and pound on him a couple times, then concentrate on the fish.
This guy is an opportunity to either be exploited, removed, or a source of valuable experience. Expect to find many more such fellows in the higher limits, but ones that are more sensible and therefore much more dangerous.
- Louie
First, a disclaimer:
You have to be VERY certain that this guy is making these kinds of moves before you can employ counter-measures, especially with other people in the pot.
Now some ideas:
You seem to be saying that he...
1. ... is the kind of player who will call a preflop raise (after some early position callers) with say QJ in that spot.
2. ... will get out of line when an ace flops by raising a bet made by the preflop raiser.
This is HIGHLY unusual behavior, and you'd have to have logged literally hundreds of hours with this guy to have any reasonable certainty of this read. If you are not that certain, then what you did (check & fold) was absolutely the correct play. If you do have a great read on this player, then you have some counter-measures:
Bet into him on the flop and let him isolate you with a (likely) worse hand. Then call his raise. On the turn, if you hit your hand, check and call all the way from there, allowing him to shoot himself in the foot. If you miss on the turn, check raise him. This will get an extra big bet from him that betting on the turn will not (plus the latter strategy is more suspicious-looking, as you would normally check-raise with a strong hand here). He'll be done with his rags at this point, unless he has a decent draw. If he calls, check the river and ONLY consider calling a bet on the river if there were one or more draws available and he generally does not bet weak pairs for value (another attribute of his you need to know before embarking on this plan).
This play extracts the maximum when your read is correct, and when it works (especially when you win with KQ high), generally stops him (or slows him down) from perpetrating any further silliness against you.
Note that this kind of sequence usually does not occur with an ace on the board, and I strongly suggest rereading the disclaimer before running out and putting it into use. It is more typical when you have represented a big ace preflop and rags come. Then when your opponent tries to run over you with his lower overcards, this kind of play turns the tables.
Tom Weideman
This brings up something I've been giving some thought to. Dealing with maniacs. Before the flop I think i have a fairly good idea on how to play against them. You play tighter for much the same reasons that you would play tighter when facing a blind straddle (this is discussed in HFAP). One mistake (at least I believe it is a mistake) that I see alot of people make is to allow maniacs to seduce them into actually playing looser. "If he can raise with 74o I'm going to re-raise him with A6o". When I feel tempted to go down this road I think of the story from Super/System in the front of the 7 card stud section where Doyle tells of a game where he wagered alot of money against a drunk when he had a small edge rather than waiting till he had a huge one. Sure, A6o is a favorite over 74o, but not by a huge margin, and the very nature of the maniacs play will force you into making difficult decisions after the flop. I think it best to wait for a better oportunity, no matter how frustrating it is to watch on the sidelines while all the giant pots get shoved around the table.
Now, the question is how to deal with such a player after the flop. Say he made his usual raise before the flop and you re-raised with a hand like AJs. Lets also asume that you managed to not get any cold callers (although there are plenty of games where 3 bets wont be enough to do this). If you flop a pair your decision is not that compicated, you certainly aren't going to lay it down. The only question is how many times you are willing to raise. However most of the time this isn't going to happen. What are you going to do when you are left with just Ace high? Do you call all the way to the river with your ace high? As I was pondering this question one day I suddenly thought about the section in Theory of Poker regarding semi-bluffs, and how it is often correct to fold your weaker holdings even if you suspect your opponent is semi-bluffing. Now, the maniac may not be aware of the fact that what he is doing when he bets his 74o into your AJs with a board of 8Q3 is a semi-bluff, but it actually is. Even though you have the best hand he has 6 outs, and if it is correct to make a semi-bluff with a gutshot straight draw, then certainly it is "correct" to make one here, or at least it would be if he knew that you held AJ. So, is the combined chance that he already has you beat, and the chance that he will hit one of his cards and make a pair great enough that you must lay down your ace high? Or are you simply giving away to much if you lay it down?
I would be extremely interested in hearing opinions on this matter.
It will cost you 5 small bets to call him down, there is 7 in there before the flop, and he'll put in 5 more, so your pot odds are 12-5. Any hand worth re-raising and then not flopping anything certainly better than a 12-5 dog against a random hand.
(I very roughly intuitively suspect the break even hand to be around Q8, and invite subjective and objective analysis).
Also, why on earth would you re-raise when you are going to lay it down about 2/3 of the time after the flop? (I know, its because you want to take all his money unmolested by other players when you DO flop a pair ...)
Call the pure maniac down. Encouraging such a player to bluff even more by laying down a raising hand every now and then is wasted strategy on this guy.
But is he a pure maniac? He didn't cap it before the flop, did he? If he is only MOSTLY a maniac and must have SOME hand to bet, such as one overcard (even a 9) or a whip-saw, then I'd say you are in some trouble. Then tend to call him down only with A high when there is no more than one overcard on your kicker, or better.
Also, tend to fold against the rare dangerous boards such as 7h6h5s.
- Louie
This thread got me to thinking that I may have a minor hole in my game. The comment was made "one must play tighter against a live straddle". Last month playing $20-40 HE at the Mirage. Mixture of players from rock to wild. UTG staddles for $40 - 2 position calls, 3rd raises, I call (10-10) and pot ends up capped with six way action. Three see the river. Did I have enough implied odds to call this bet. I knew from the texture of the table it would most likely be a family pot; however, I was not sure how many would chase the turn. Comments please. In additiion I know straddles are addressed in S&M; however, I think that mostly explains how to play against a single gambooler.
When he bets as a bluff he is getting almost 8-to-1 on the flop assuming you reraised before the flop. If you fold as much as you indicate he is correct to bet every time no matter what the flop is or what he holds. You need to call a lot more.
Tom, here is what you do. The next two times you are involved with this guy(when you think he is pulling something)just call him down with whatever you have. Dosen't matter. Call him down. (by the way, if at any point he shows obvious weakness because of your calling be sure you take advantage of it by betting or raising) Make sure he sees your cards.(in fact be sure the whole table sees them) But before you do analyze his every move. Then over the course of the next couple of hours re-run these two hands over and over in your mind. Think about them deeply. Every nuance and hesitation. Every blink and nod. Notice how he bets and raises. Which hands he uses, and how he cuts the chips. What does he do with his eyes. Notice his posture. His demeanor. Pay attention to how he is doing. If you are still confused call him down one more time. Only this time check raise him on the river. Don't worry if you don't win. Show absolutely no fear. This investment will teach you more about his play than watching him for two months. It will probably also intimidate him. When you think you have a very good line on his play turn your attention to the next player that is giving you problems and start all over again.
By doing this instead of playing guessing games about what you THINK he might have you can learn something about him immediately and then just go on with your game. After seeing your obvious skepticism and loose calls against him(which could possibly win!)he will be very reluctant to mess with you in the future. Personally I love having this kind of player sitting right behind me. He is in for a big surprise.
Yes I know some will say it is stupid making losing plays just to get a line on someones game. I say this. There is only room for one player in the game and that player is me. If I am not in charge, then I am trying to figure out a way to take charge. I want all eyes looking to me. I want everyone at the table worried about me. What is HE going to do. How is HE going to play. What has HE got THIS time. Get the picture? If it costs you a few bucks to figure out a problem player then so be it. But this should only be a one time investment so don't worry about it. Bye Bye
Askmrmoney wrote <<< Yes I know some will say it is stupid making losing plays just to get a line on someones game. I say this. There is only room for one player in the game and that player is me. If I am not in charge, then I am trying to figure out a way to take charge. I want all eyes looking to me. I want everyone at the table worried about me. What is HE going to do. How is HE going to play. What has HE got THIS time. Get the picture? If it costs you a few bucks to figure out a problem player then so be it. But this should only be a one time investment so don't worry about it. Bye Bye <<<<
I agree and disagree with this advice, and want to make an important point. As we have discussed before reading hands is the real seperator between the expert and moderately good players, and what Askmrmoney describes are certainly some of the things that you can look for when trying to read an opponent's hand. Also, exactly how he plays a hand is extremely important.
The problem I have with this advice is the cost. He seems to be advocating to give away 10 to 15 bets in order to gain some knowledge. While the knowledge may be worthwhile, I can't believe the cost is. If you are good enough to win an average of 1 bet an hour, and very few people are, (and at the higher limits no one may be this good unless there is a very live tourist present), you have just given away all of your profits and then some.
I was thinking that a lot of things he was saying was just part of observing opponents when you were not involved in the hand and that I could go pretty far in the hole if not broke with askmrmoney's advice. The inflammatory nature of some of the other comments by this poster caused me to think that he probably is not be very serious. At any rate, I couldn't agree with you more about askmrmoney's advice. I am quite sure that a flame will be forth coming from him.
Talk about eating WAY to much corn. I'm sure you're looking to flame somebody so here is your chance. I think your advice really has nothing to do with making money. But with all of your years of experience I am sure you will tell me how I am wrong.
To this I add:
Wait until you have something like bottom pair. Then you are only giving away partial bets.
Watching while someone ELSE is calling him down CAN'T be much less useful than when YOU are calling him down. And it CERTAINLY is not worth "watching him for two months".
A subtle method of enticing the opponent to give away a clue is to throw off his pace; usually by adding a second or two pregnant pause such as between the time you start to call and actually make it.
Taking charge in a game can be very good. In the dieing days of Draw this was essential; but much less so in Holdem. Be sure not to do this for ego reasons; but make sure you understand how to MAKE it work for you. But that's a whole other topic.
- Louie
You are not wrong Tom. Mr. Malmuth isn't wrong either. He is 100% correct. Perhaps I can best explain with an example. Then if I am in error, I stand corrected, and will stop doing this. After all I am still learning also.
Recently I was playing in a game and the player on my left was giving me fits. He constantly called my raise when he had good position. I knew that on average my hand was probably better than his but what could I do?. He was fairly new to the game but had been playing more and more recently so I decided to "invest" a few dollars to try and figure out his play. It just wouldn't do to have this "new" player constantly outplaying me, and taking away my play. I got a king-queen suited and raised two players one to the right of the button--he called. I didn't like that but I felt his hand couldn't be that much better than mine--in other words there were a lot of hands that I could beat that he would play in this spot. The flop was horrible A-8-2 all offsuit. When the first two players checked I felt I could pick up the pot if I didn't have this man behind me(pretty much like the situation you described)so I also checked pretty sure that he would bet. He did, they folded and I "called". I called in tempo without much thought. Surreptitiously, I observed his actions. On the turn he bet again, I called smoothly. He seemed confident but not overly so. On the river he just turned over 8-7 of hearts. Two eights took the pot. I showed my hand. I know it had to unnerve him that I would draw to two "undercards" and this is what I wanted. Three bets invested. An hour later--same situation--this time I had A-queen of diamonds. The flop was King-9-4 all off suit. Again I check called. This time he shot me a subtle look. I checked the turn when another 4 came and he did also. I won the pot in the showdown when he didn't bet. (yes, I would of called no matter what came) I was getting closer. This might not cost as much as I thought. The next time I raised on the button he folded, and the next time after that. When he three bet my next raise I simply threw my king-jack off into the muck, confident I was drawing very slim. When I did that he shot me another look, one of much irritation. Then he quit shortly thereafter. I haven't had a problem with this player since. He cuts me a wide swath. If I even suspect that he is pulling something I call, bet or check raise him. He hates this--then usually backs off and gives me respect for the rest of the session. I was lucky it only cost me a few bets this time, but let's say it did cost me 8 or 10 bets to come to the same conclusion. Isn't that worth it if over the course of the next few months I am able to save 30 or 40 bets--or more--or even pick up a pot now and then that has many bets in it that I wouldn't even of contested previously. I personally believe that it is. Of course this is a personal thing. Everyone has a different style. I am very content with the knowledge that there are some people that I play with on a regular basis that I NEVER have to pay off--and that--in my opinion--is priceless.
P.S. By the way---what is a flame?
I agree that you occasionally have to make a stand every now and then, particularly against an opponent who could have anything. In your example your opponent is getting almost 10-to-1 from the pot when he bets on the flop. If you think that he could be in there with a lot of hands, and will bet almost anything, you are suppose to call him with a KQ whether it is suited or not.
This is very different from what I thought you meant in your original post. Every now and then I see advice, usually pertaining to creating a wild image, but sometimes pertaining to other aspects of poker, where you are told to "blow off" many bets to accomplish your objective. I find it hard to believe that advice like that can ever be right.
By the way, in a game like draw poker, where there are only two rounds of betting, you can frequently accomplish this type of objective with a much smaller investment. Now firing in a bet here and there has some merit. But in games like hold 'em or stud, I believe that these type of plays are too expensive.
But making a stand, as you did in the above example is very different. The reason for this is that in the situation you have described, because of the size of the pot, you may be getting (and probably are) positive expectation to call.
Thanks for a good post.
I thought this play sounded similar to a play in stud where you call an aggressive bluff-raiser's Ace on third and fourth street and then jack him out of his chair on fifth street with a check-raise -- when you're holding zilch.
I would like to share another hand with you where the problem is a little more pleasant to deal with. I believe I played it wrong and I would like to get input on how other people would play this hand. I was in a weekly Limit Hold’em tournament last month. Blinds start out at $5-10 with limits of $10-20. Buy in is $45 with $40 going into the prize pool. For the $45 you get $1000 in tournament chips. Rounds are twenty minutes. The winner gets 50% as there are approximately 45 entrants. It is the fourth round as the blinds are $25-50, limits $50-100. I’m sitting under the gun with about $1100 in chips and look down to find Kh,Kd. I raise, a fairly solid player to my left calls and there are three other cold calls behind her including the big blind. The fairly solid player to my left is my main concern. I know that if she has Aces or Kings she will re-raise otherwise she will only call with a very good hand. I’m hoping an Ace doesn’t come on the flop without a King as I am sure I have the best hand pre-flop. I am glancing at the fairly sold player to my left when the flop hits the board and I can tell that she likes it. I look at the flop and it is KcKsQs. Of course I love this flop but I take it in stride because I have flopped quads several other times during the course of the last few years since I played a lot at one time. My main concern was extracting the most chips possible. Yes there could have been a variety of straight flush draws against me but I’m not very concerned about that possibility. I know the player to my left likes this flop and I suspect that she has queens in the pocket giving her a very big hand also. Remember there are 6 players involved at this point (a lot of dead money exists in these small tournaments). How would you play it? If you don’t want to know what I did stop here.
I checked which most players would do. She bet as every player called as the action got around to me. I decided to raise because I felt that there was a good possibility that she would re-raise and since the other players would call the re-raise cold I could step on it one more time and get 5 other players to put in four $50 bets without a ghost of a chance to win this pot. Well she only called as did everybody else. I could have checked again on the turn and I probably should have done this but I decided not to. I was hoping to get into a raising war. I bet, she raised, everyone else folded, I re-raised and she called. I bet on the river and she called asking me,"Do you have 4 Kings?" I said I sure do as she shows me her pocket queens. The happy part is that even though I probably didn’t extract as many chips as I could, I went on to win this small tournament. It must have been my lucky day because I got quad nines on the turn with two tables to go. Quads twice in one day! The tournament got down to three handed play. Two of us were about even in chips and one guy had about 1/4 of the chips we had. He wanted to make a deal but I nixed it because I’ve played against him before at the final table in other tournaments and he is a royal pain about making deals. After a while I had the pleasure of breaking him. At this point with two of us left, my opponent wanted to make an even split with me as he had 1/3 of the chips. Couldn’t do that so I had to break him too.
** raise UTG, surprise get 5 calls; flop Quad Kings; tight player behind me likes it and I suspect she flopped Queens full.***
Excellent application of tells, watching the most dangerous opponent as the flop comes. It turned out to be very profitable for you.
Trust your reaction that she likes it and check. When they all call her by all means raise. She is unlikely to make the field with the bad straight draws face a double bet and she is likely to just call, as she did.
If you had NO inkling from the player behind then Q's full is an unrealistic suspision; in which case no one will bet. But you should bet to get the loose "one time" calls from the bad straight draws (anyone foolish to call such a raise pre-flop is foolish enough to draw to a gut shot when the board is paired). Then generally check on the turn, hoping for a bet but not minding giving away a free card.
Anyway, you should have looked for confirmation of the Queens full as you raised and she called. Too bad you forgot to apply tell theory here. Anyway, if you still strongly suspect Queens full then you should check-raise, since you are likely to get a couple extra bad calls when she bets. Players will be suspicious of your check, and "knew you had a full house" after the hand, but are likely to call her anyway.
== Don't get lax with sure winners. Correct observation and play of top quads is just as valuable as with top pair weak kicker. Like the lawyer said, 20 bucks is 20 bucks.==
--------------------------------------
Congrats on the tourney win.
Your refusal to split at the end of the tournament BECAUSE this guy is "a royal pain" was a bad one. You should decide based on the best offer you can get and the playing ability difference between you and the opponents.
When there are two of you left the mathematical split should be each player gets second place money plus the %age of chips he has times the difference between 1st and 2nd; ever so slightely adjusted for who has the blind next. So if 1st place is $500 and 2nd $300 and you have 60% of the chips, then a fair split against an evenly matched opponent would be $300 + 60%*(500-300) = $420; opponent getting $380. Notice that 60% of the price money is $480; more than is fair. So if you have the chip lead at the end be tempted to offer to split "evenly" based on the %age of chips, in the hopes he'll take it.
Having a clear understanding of "fair" splits can be very advantageous and is well worth adding to your tournament preparation.
Three or more way splits with tiered pay offs are much more complicated and beyond my abilities. Perhaps an author can explain it. Then perhaps he can give practical approximations for the benefit of us who couldn't possibly do such calculations at the table. :)
- Louie
I'm back form Tahoe, had a great time in the Low Limit Hold'um games. They were nice,loose, and passive. Perfect for a novice to cut his Poker teeth with.
My question concerns how to practice calculating: pot, effective, and implied odds. I've started reading "The Theory Of Poker" by Sklansky (I'm now on chapter 10). It seems to me, since the biggest advantage one gambler has over another is favorable odds, I should be mastering these calculations. I'm not a math major so I was wondering if anyone had good ideas on how I could learn to quickly calculate the odds. I'm guessing that I should just brake out a deck, deal out a typical hold'um hand, and start figuring my Outs.
I suggest the first few chapters of Getting the Best of It.
If you are completely new to probablity, as I was three years ago when I started playing poker, I would suggest a book titled "Probablity Without Tears." I've lent it to a friend so I can't tell you who wrote it. It presents probability theory and problems, which get progressively more complicated. I got through it very slowly (with the help of a friend who has a Math degree.) It made things clearer for me, and didn't make me cry!
Warning:
Be sure not to confuse your chances of making your hand, your "hand odds" with the chances of winning the pot, your "win odds". Pot odds should be compared directly to hand odds only if you are drawing to an unbeatable hand, which is rare.
Drawing to an Ace high flush is NOT unbeatable, since the board may pair.
Tend to reduce the outs you have in proportion to the chances of you catching and losing anyway.
- Louie
I have a question for the pros...I would consider myself a average poker player. By that, I mean I play once-twice a week, and visit the casino poker rooms (in Kansas City and Tunica) once every other month or so. My problem is this...in virtually every poker session I have played, at one time in the session I am a winner, sometimes quite a bit. However, more often than not I squander away these winnings and end up loser. I have discussed this with some "friends" who I play with, and they tell me they see no obvious weaknesses in my play.
What is the solution here? Should I have a predetermined "win" amount, and always quit when I get this much ahead? Should I tighten up my play considerably when I get ahead?
I would appreciate any input on this subject. I have read several poker books, but have yet to see something that really would help me in this area.
Thanks
I believe that if you are playing a winning game you shouldn't change anything necessarily. I will say that when you are winning a substantial amount or appear to be you have a more intimidating image and you can take advantage of that. Remember the word "sustantial" and don't get carried away with that idea. There are a lot of short term fluctuations in poker. You should think about the pots you won and the pots you lost after your session is over. Did you win because you got lucky and the pot really wasn't laying you enough? Did you lose a pot because you didn't raise when you should have? Are you playing too straight forward in that your opponents are adjusting to you as the session progresses? Could be a lot of things. In my opinion, if you want to win, you'll have to analyze your play after a session and determine what you did correctly and what you didn't do correctly. In a casino the game can change a lot because bad players are replaced by good players after the bad players leave. If this happens and the game becomes unprofitable or marginally so get up and leave by all means unless you think the game will improve in the near future. The time of day could have a big effect on your profitability. It is generally better to play at night as opposed to the day time. Hope this helps.
I'm no "pro" but I'm sure they will be quick to point out that money management is (to quote mason) "an extremely silly subject". You should be basing your decision to leave on whether the game is good and if you are playing well.
One of the reasons there are so many bad players is that it is extremely hard to correlate strategy with results, since the ammount of time required to seperate luck from skill is so large. For example I have played close to 1500 hours of holdem to date, but statistically speaking I can not say with certainty that I am a "winning player" despite the fact that have made money. I can only say that I am 95% certain of that fact.
Without very acurate record keeping you will never know. This is, of course, one of the main reasons there are so many very bad players that beleive they are "winning players".
One aspect to consider is the type of game you are in. There are many tame games where you can count on not many players drawing to long shots, and your chips do not fluctuate that much. The flip side is 8 to 10 players seeing the flop, the pots getting huge, and huge fluctuations in your chips. In the wild and crazy type games it might be good to win a big pot or two and leave. I have seen good players do this on numerous occasions.
Thanks for the responses. In the casino games, I have often won one or two pots and left. For some reason (probably a weakness of mine I need to work on) I can't do this at the home games, at least not in the first hour or two. Obviously, I need some work at reading other players hands and just "sleeping" for a while if I have got a big win early.
I appreciate the opportunity to solicit advice in this forum, and thanks to all of the people who have responded.
Dick Taylor recently re-evaluated Sklansky and Malmuth's hold 'em groupings. In my opinion, if you were to make Taylor's rankings the basis of your play, the changes would prove costly. The following are my objections to his "A New Guide to Starting Hands in Texas Hold'em Poker," which can be found at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker/.
1. EXPERT HOLDEM IS CONCEPTUAL NOT FORMULAIC
Dick Taylor writes:
"Usually the best you can get from a poker book is the author's naked recommendations."
A good hold 'em book can help a player learn to apply and balance often contradictory concepts. It cannot and should not give the reader a cookbook formula for victory. A careful reader of "Hold 'em for Advanced Players" will note that the hand groupings, for example, are only guidelines, and that actual hand values vary with the situation. In fact, the book contains many examples that clearly show hands moving up and down in the rankings.
In discussing position, Taylor argues:
"If you wish to vary your starting hand selection based on your playing position, which is fundamental to the playing strategies of noted poker authors, then you'll be using the overall ranking of each hand as a basis for doing so anyway."
This is absolutely not true. For example, compare 87s and AQ offsuit. Consider two situations: (1) under the gun, and (2) on the button after four players have limped. In the first situation, the 87s would generally not be played, whereas the AQ would often warrant a raise. In the second situation, at least calling with the 87s--and perhaps even raising--is advisable, while the number of foes has diminished the AQ down to a calling hand. These decisions should also be influenced by the calling frequency and playing style of the players to act behind you. For example, against several tight observant opponents, an occasional up-front raise with the 87s might be warranted, whereas a call might be okay versus a loose field. Clearly, hand values vary with situation, position, and the style of your opponents, and cannot be accurately judged on the basis of an absolute ranking.
2. REAL HOLDEM CONSISTS OF REAL ACTION
It should be understood that simulations that involve a "cold run" of the cards have little value. Because all hands play to the river, hands containing high cards overachieve. Think about a hand containing an ace. Even though some other hand might flop top pair, it receives a free chance to snare an ace on the turn or river. Of course, that is one of the benefits of having an ace, but in real play, you generally must pay for the opportunity to draw out (and sometimes, if you are outkicked or drawing dead, pay dearly). The same reasoning applies to any hands containing high cards.
There are other problems with cold run simulations. Hands such as small pairs and suited connectors receive free chances to back into a big hand. How many times have you seen two friends check out a hand, and one of them stumbles into a monster he never would have backed into had his buddy been betting his hand? In general, these simulations can tell you what poker would be like if there were no betting; and poker without betting just isn't poker.
Taylor notes that the players in his simulation continue playing pre-flop "only with knowledge that [they have] favorable odds" against the anticipated number of opponents. Since he makes no mention of what his criterion for favorable odds may be, I assume players are basing their actions on some sort of cold run. This creates a problem right from the start.
The most objectionable aspect of the whole simulation is the play of the hands from the flop onward. Taylor writes,
"After the flop, foes...will play only when they have either a made hand or a 1 card straight draw to a straight or a flush. At the river they will play only when they've made at least a pair or better."
First of all, these are extremely simplistic playing guidelines. Anyone who played this way would rapidly lose his money. I assume a "made hand" to mean a pair or better. In that case, middle or bottom pairs are never folded. Even two deuces will always play to the river. This of course punishes small cards, and particularly small pairs. It is no surprise that Taylor has dropped 33 and 22 from his playing list entirely. In many situations--particularly when many players are already in--small pairs are highly profitable hands. If you were to follow Taylor's guidelines, you would miss these opportunities.
Furthermore, there is no accounting for playing overcards or backdoor draws. These draws are so prevalent in the general playing population that it's unrealistic--and, occasionally, strategically incorrect--to omit them. In addition, as the game loosens, these backdoor draws add significant value to a hand.
The most glaring flaw is that there is really no concept of betting at all. Players are simply limping along in a vacuum, electing to play or not to play simultaneously. There is a total absence of action and reaction that is so fundamental to poker. There is no bluffing or semi-bluffing. Certain hands, namely suited connectors, offer more semi-bluffing opportunities. These hands are therefore undervalued in the Taylor system. There is no checking. No betting. No raising. There is only a sort of calling without anyone ever having bet at all. There is therefore no accounting of the strategic concepts that are the essence of poker and of hold'em in particular. Any ranking system that ignores these concepts must necessarily misevaluate those hands that are not subject to go automatically the river.
3. OTHER PROBLEMS WITH THE MODEL
Taylor goes on to discuss what he calls "aggression", which is really the tendency of a computer player to continue playing a hand. With the absence of any real betting, this term is misleading. "Playing loosely post-flop" would be more accurate.
Taylor's model contains a "hero" whose cumulative results for each of the 169 hold'em hands are ultimately evaluated. He is supremely "aggressive"; that is, he plays every hand all the way to the river. If he wins any hands that would have been beaten if other players hadn't folded, he loses credit for these hands. A large part of poker is getting a better hand--or, a hand that might become the best hand--to fold. Why should our hero surrender a pot when it is discovered that another player would have outdrawn him?
In this situation, hands that are prone to get into many semi-bluffing opportunities will be underrated. It is also clear that small and medium cards will be penalized. If our hero flops top pair, a pot he would have otherwise won is going to be negated when, say, an ace falls on the river. And yet an A2 never has to pay for this opportunity. How is this fundamentally different from a cold run?
I also fail to understand why the hero always plays to river. Why not have him adopt a set of strategies similar to the other players at the table? His strategies might be superior (since he is an expert), or they might be identical. In the latter case, we could simply do away with the hero altogether and evaluate the cumulative hand-by-hand results of all players at the table.
4. CONCLUSIONS
For a mathematical model to be of value, it must accurately approximate the behavior of its real world counterpart. Taylor's model does not resemble real poker. With the exception of each player's estimation of the expected number of callers, players do not react to each other. There is no betting, raising, bluffing, semi-bluffing, or position play of any kind.
Taylor concludes that Sklansky and Malmuth undervalue hands such as KTs, A9s, A8s, AT, and even A9. Since his model does not simulate actual play, and at times begins to resemble a cold run of the cards, high cards are overvalued. Holdings such as AT also have the potential to make costly second best hands. Holdings such as JTs and 22, which are underrated by Taylor, can turn into monsters when the flop comes just right, and can be more easily released when it doesn't.
The ultimate appeal of models such as Taylor's is the idea of taking a complex world and reducing it to its elemental parts. The problem with reducing hold'em is that expert, and even decent, play involves juggling a myriad of inter-related and often contradictory concepts. A hold'em simulation of any value is therefore necessarily complex.
I believe that simulating hold'em is an interesting and worthy aspiration. However, if you are going to base your own play on the results, you better be sure the simulated players play very much like the real ones, or the real ones will be taking your money to the bank.
Very well said.
If someone wanted to write a Chess program with simplifying assumptions, he could end up with the best and fastest Checker playing program.
But it wouldn't win any Chess games.
But you have to look at the bright side of Taylor's work.
Even if it were done correctly, it would be unlikely to hurt a good player or help a bad one.
Or vice versa.
The details of Tod Levi's "evaluation" of a free 24-page Player's Guide to the Starting Hands in Texas Holdem that I've made available recently is not based either on a correct interpretation of my computer simulation or a correct reading of the contents of Sklansky & Malmuth's book.
I've posted a reply in the recreational.gambling.poker news group.
Dick Taylor
After reading the Taylor starting hand document it is easy to see why his results are so inaccurate. It has many problems, but the most important problem is that the model does not take into account how the betting action influences your long term results. That is future bets will hurt some hands and help others.
Specifically this is reflected in two areas. First, his model does not recognize the ability for some holdings to easily make second best hands, and get punished on the later rounds. Hands in this category include K9 suited and A-10 offsuit. Thus his model overrates all of these.
Second, Taylor does not recognize those hands which only rarely win the pot, but when they do they can collect a lot of bets. This includes small pairs and hands such as 54 suited.
It is my opinion that anyone who uses the Taylor rankings as the basis of their starting hand strategy will find it very expensive. You will get trapped too often, and occasionally miss out on a big pot.
Finally, the Sklansky Hand Rankings were initially developed solely by David Sklansky in the mid 1970s. There was no GAMBLING TIMES hold 'em simulation. The initial rankings appeared in his book HOLD 'EM Poker, which was published in 1976. In 1980 he updated the rankings in his book ESSAYS ON POKER (now part of SKLANSKY ON POKER) to reflect the facts that the structure had changed and the players had gotten better. In 1988 when HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS was released we made some slight modifications to them. (This includes moving K-10 suited from Group 5 to Group 4.)
Mason has confused the liklihood of a hand winning with the consequences of betting action. If a hand played ends up second best, it is "punished" in the model by getting a score of 0. If that happens a lot, such as with 22, 33 or JTs, then it's wins are decreased and we rank it lower than Sklansky did. Otherwise, any random starting hand has the potential to win a big pot, depending on the flop. And, the more random the hand, the more "surprise" value it would have. But that is not the same thing as betting real money on such hopes in the face of heavy odds to the contrary.
This is a clever tour-de-force, but Mason's stated opinions do not appear to be based on a good understanding of the model, or on the need for Sklansky to revise his hand Groups accordingly.
Dick Taylor dtaylor@monmouth.com
> Mason has confused the liklihood of a hand winning with
> the consequences of betting action.
Resolved: that certain hands tend to either win small pots or lose large amounts and that certain other hands tend to either win big pots or lose small amounts.
Is Taylor saying that the above proposition is false? Or is he saying that it's true, but irrelevant in evaluating whether or not to play a hand?
It seems like Dick is missing the point as far as the profitability of hands like 22, 33, JTs and hands like K9s or AT. Hands like 22 and 33 very rarely get "punished" and end up second best. They are ususualy lose one small bet or win a big pot. Hands like JTs can flop very big draws but also can lose alot if not played correctly. As long as you know when to get away from some of these flops, JTs if a very powerful hand. Hands like AT or K9s can be profitable in certain situations, but I think Mason's comments on these hands are correct that when not played correcty will lose many bets when dominated against AJ, AQ, KT, etc. or will win a small pot when nobody else holds a King or Ace against you.
Rob
If I generally understand the "analysis" it goes like this:
1 - Judged hands never fold. 2 - Other hands go to the river with any pair or any draw. 3 - "Pot size" is calculated based on how many players have at least a pair at the river. 4 - Judged hand "wins" and "losses" are associated with their pot size and later recalled to calculate the relative value of the hand and therefore the ranking.
How much worse can it get?
1 - Judged hands never fold is a TERRIBLE method of determining a hand's strength. No wonder he rates the low pairs so low, since they always go to the river. Hand rankings have meaning only the hands of the person who is playing them; or in the context of solid game theory. Yes, a small pair in a Novice's hand SHOULD BE rated low since he'll end up going to the river with it; usually with only two outs.
2 - Well, this is a disaster when combined with #1. Taylor is judging terribly played hands played against badly played hands. He do much better with hot and cold show downs.
3 - I can't imagine why he doesn't just add up all the bets as he goes along. With his method he ignores the "contributions" of all the missed straight and flush draws, and when no opponent has a pair or draw.
4 - Well this sounds good. Except when combined with the above it is destined to produce detrimental and misguided advise. So this feature couldn't really be worse, unless he semi-randomly re-distributed many of the hands.
Suggestions:
Set a minimum standard for all played hands. Hands lower than standard fold before the flop, and are considered equally bad in the rankings (who cares if 9-2 is better than 5-3?). Count all bets. All hands play the same, Judged hands and opponent hands alike. A hand invests a bet if it has a draw, or 2nd pair or better. Therefore, some rounds are checked. Hands on the river put in a bet if they have top pair or better. Accumulate the number of occurances of a judged hand AND accumulate the amount of money won or lost.
Compare the above rankings with hot and cold analyis which can be done with Turbo TH. Identify TRENDS which move hands up and down when played; such as you'll find small pairs do noticeably better (they lose little unless they make a strong hand) and trouble hands do worse (tending to make 2nd best pairs and kickers).
The above is not a good system, but its much better than the one embraced by Taylor. And of course, it ignore positional adjustments for hand rankings (trouble hands go up since you can often abandon them for free).
If anybody writes a great limit holdem program, we'll use that as a "final" arbiter, after it plays itself, learning all the time, about a trillion hands. In the mean time judgment will continue to play a key role in hand value and rankings.
Now, who's judgement should you trust ...
- Louie
A poker player would probably do better than average using either of these two ranking systems. It is an enjoyable and educational debate though. I had an idea while reading these communications. I have a book titled 72 Hours at the Crap Table. It is a list of all dice throws for 72 hours with graphs etc. Why not compile the same sort of information on a Live holdem game or series of different size games. This would take some of the computer simulation factor out of hand analysis and be a facinating data base.
IXCUIX wrote:
>A poker player would probably do better than average using >either of these two ranking systems.
I want to state again that I strongly disagree with this. When playing hold 'em hands like A-10, KJ, K-10, Q-10 etc. tend to be hands that either make a small profit or lose a lot. By staying out of those situations where it is easy to make second best hands these hands deserved the rankings that Sklansky gave them. But if you were to raise them in the rankings you would then be playing them in more situations, and these are the spots where they tend to get very expensive.
greetings.
started a weekly home game a couple months back. its a dealer's choice game... so long as the dealer chooses 7stud, holdem, or draw. the problem is that the same people always choose the same games; this tends to put some people constantly in the blind and other people never in the blind.
when everyone shows up for the game, there is a big power struggle over seat selection. it seems to me that this could eventually destroy the game.
any ideas?
Its simple,
just play one round of each game. Another alternative may be to leave the button where it last was at that particular game. You may need 2 buttons if it presents a problem between the draw and holdem. You also have to make things fair for all or you lose all. Good Luck.
You could always have a blind. In 7-stud this is rare, but it doesn't make for a bad game.
Blinds are also prefered over antes, since antes require and extra small denomination of chips and slows the game down.
- Louie
Ray's right - you need to make it fair. The button should move, so the guy who always deals holdem isn't always on the button, only when it's his turn.
We have the dealer ante for everybody, so we never have to worry about who's short. For the holdem dealer you could make that "ante" part of the blinds. It shouldn't be a live post because it shouldn't count toward the dealer's bet any more than it would in the other games.
Ray's also right that the easiest solution is to get an agreement to play a full round of holdem, but I assume you've not been successful with that.
regards
If you can't get them all to play flop games all the time then play 1 hour of flop and 1 hour of stud. Or have the flop players put up the blind on the button. Home tournaments are fun but you can not have an elimation type tournament because you will have the first players out with nothing to do. Have a 1 or 2 hour shootout. At the end of the time the player with the most chips wins. You can use real money chips or tournament chips and give every one $1000 and play $10/$20 for the full time.In real money chips have each player buy in for $100 and play $1 to $5 at end of time each player gets 1/2 of the value of his stack and the winner gets the balance. Or some such payoff. Good Luck Chuck Ferry
The Gambling Forum October 1997 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo