![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
David I'm thinking about buying your video set but I'm wondering what topics and what concepts are discussed and what if any specific limit are you gearing them for? My other question concerns omaha-8 tournies. What type of strategies should be used. I own 2+2's book on the subject but I think that the strategies of that book are not geared towards tournies. If so, then what changes should I make for a tourny?
geez joe, your asking dave to write books he has already written, just buy the vidios. they arnt addressed to any specific limit and they are very good. take your high low from zee, compare it with tournament poker from tom, add that other book about low limit 8 or better tournaments, think it has something to do with tourny tips from the pros (although the name excapes me) and put it together. im not meaning to be critical here-really im not-but your questions are so broad i dont see how they can be answered on this format, and as ive said the info is already out there.
Hi, Could anyone direct me to a site where I could get some in depth reviews of the various poker software programs. I've heard that some are terrible and some closely simulate live play. How do you find out which is which? Thanks
Paul: Go to Ken's Poker Page (www.best.com/~mentorms/poker/). He has a review of all the games/software. Two hints- Wilson is the Cadillac of software. The beerware draw program, free, is cute. Enjoy! Earl H.
If you were UTG and flopped a Royal, would a slow play be a good tactic? It happend to me last night. This was my first time even getting a Royal in a real poker game. The odds of this must be outragiuos, I slow played it till the turn, then I raised and re-raised...I did make a nice pot...beat Jacks full. When you flop a hand that is sure to win...Is slow play the best stratigy?
YES
It probably is. You had a hand that is impossible to beat (or tie). Therefore, all that matters is to get as much money as possible into the pot. If a raise on the flop scares people away, don't do it. Give them a chance to make a mistake. If they improve their hand on the turn or river card, they will probably call your bets, so it's important to keep your opponents into the game.
Richie is right, that your only concern at this point is getting the most money into the pot.
Slowplaying will often be the best way. However, betting out, or maybe even raising, might be better. There is no pat answer (I know of) as to which is best. It depends upon the action at your table in general, the preflop action that hand, the size of the pot, etc. For example, if you made your royal with ATs, and there was a lot of raising preflop, then there is a good chance that there is at least 1, maybe 2, sets in other players' hands. If not sets, then certainly top pairs with A kicker and/or 2 pair. You may make more money jamming now, as these players will, in many cases, expect you to slowplay the nut flush. Thus, by betting or raising on the flop, you may get more money in there now, and more later (as you will, in a sense, have disguised your hand by playing it deceptively straightforwardly (I think that this is a Mike Caro phrase, apologies if wrong)).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I doubt if even Mike Caro is old enough to have coined the idea that the best deception is often none at all. Sun Tz in the Art of War only speaks of some variations on that idea, but nonetheless, it's not a novel concept.
To my way of thinking, a decision on whether or not to bet the hand would depend upon position and image. If you're on the button and everyone checks it to you and you think you'll still get a lot of callers, then bet (I might even bet the flop and check the turn if I thought someone seeing me back down meant weakness). If they've seen you bluffing a time or two, then bet.
But the overriding principles on whether or not to slowplay are given in Sklansky's "Winning at Poker." If you have the mortal nuts and giving the opponent a free card will make him a second-best hand, then it is most likely correct to slowplay. I probably would.
I tend to agree with fossilman here. There is no single, correct answer. But, I think most folks slowplay too much. And, I think when you're really got the nuts, you should tend to not slowplay. When I first started playing poker one of those OTG in Reno told me once, "Son, don't never slowplay the nuts. Cause when you do you'll find out some idiot who thinks he's got the nuts is gonna be slowplaying right along with you". This is one case I think the OTG got it right. The times when slowplay was wrong, a slowplay can cost you a whole lot of money not bet, when slowplay is right, you usually only lose a little bit by betting. In the case at hand, would you have bet a draw to a nut flush? If so, and your opponents know that, I think you should bet the flop. -- Gary Carson
I agree here.
Rarely raise, but strongly consider betting.
When you flop a Royal you have the top two of the suit out, so getting a fourth doesn't give anybody else much of a second best hand.
The ".. may make a second best hand..." consideration assumes that they would not play with the hand that they have. The two pair people will continue. Even those with one pair are likely to take one more card. In this case, it seems that those with a bad gut shot (who will pay it off reluctantly if they hit it) are the only ones who are likely to get sucked in; but that's only good about 1 in 17 times (you have one of their gut cards).
However, an important issue here is how often the players tend to call on the flop with nothing and then fold on the turn. Certainly in such a game you should bet to get that money in; then consider slowplaying on the turn.
I would routinely bet out unless I am in a game where I routinely check-raise the aggressive players behind me.
Now slow playing a small straight flush may be another matter, since over cards can give reluctant folders a hand to continue.
Routinely slow playing diminishes the power you get when you bet marginal hands.
- Louie
You were absolutely correct to slow play a royal,however just make damn sure your hand is unbeatable before slow playing.I've wasted alot of money slowplaying overpairs, sets,straights,etc.When I get burned by being too cute I think of one saying"Pigs get fed,hogs get slaughtered"
I know that, as a 7-Stud player, I'm in the minority, but I thought I'd ask the experts a few questions about my game of choice in the hope that maybe Sklansky or another player who knows 7-Stud can help me a little.
I use Wilson's newest 7-Stud program to practice since I live in Ohio now (formerly Vegas, moving back for good in a couple years). It has been a great tool for me, and after about 30,000 hands I think my game has greatly improved. I do have a few questions though:
1. What are the absolute toughest profiles to play against in this program? I've set all players to make moves and adjust play to my play. But, in spite of a few bad beats once in a while, I'm always coming out ahead.
2. What should a good stud player be able to achieve on this program? In other words, how do I really know I'm getting better without immediate access to a live game? Is there a way to test my ability at home?
Also, I've "studied" (as opposed to just read) Theory of Poker. I learned a ton, and owe a BIG THANKS TO DAVID SKLANSKY for that book. I've also read Champioship Stud and found it informative too. So what's next. If I can only get one book at a time, do I get Sklansky's advanced 7-stud book, or the much advised Roy West stud book? Any help is greatly appreciated.
aces, Scottro
the computer is only a computer. dont be surprised if you can beat it at this point in the development of programs, however i agree with you that it is a great tool. for the toughest lineups see your owners manual under lineups, actually if you go to lineup on the computer and click help it will explain the several lineups they have there. if you want your own lineup pick 7 other players from the tight profiles. i would suggest staying with one lineup at a time and letting the hands play through, not only so you can see the cool chip movements and voice audimation, but to practice getting a line on what your opponents are capable of. as for the books you mentioned, im very suprised you have championship stud befor 7 for advanced players, but at any rate, get them both (advanced players, and roys book) it dosnt matter in what order. im a great fan of the advanced players series, so much so i wish they would put them together in a hardback edition. however there are many things i disagree with (which im sure is not a problem with dave or mason)-you will have to learn to do your own thinking.
I hate this game. Jack's_or_Better-Trips_to_Win is a great time to take a leak.
1) If you know the player did not make trips you should have bluffed after the draw on the first hand.
2) Those with real pat-trips will usually draw 1, hehehe. (On the first few rounds. After that the pot is so big you should always make your best draw).
3) By the third hand she is SUPPOSED to draw to everything; so are you. If she never bluffs and draws 1 to 2-pair then you have a big advantage and should continue to play rather than split. 4) Pot Odds? That's easy and you have done it. The problem is calculating "Win Odds" so you can compare them to the pot odds.
I don't know how to figure the chances of making trips or better, but suspect a Vidio Poker book will say. ???Anybody Know???
Lets say its 10%. Notice she also makes trips 10%. So 81% is a tie go on to next hand; 9% a win; 9% a loss; and 1% you both make trips or better, so you have a 50-50 chance which is effectively a tie.
Even with a hopeless hand you still retain 41% of the pot; so it seems to me you always call heads-up when the bet is less than 41% of the pot; which is always after the first two hands.
>>>> 41% assumes you make trips 10% of time; which I just guessed<<<
Notice that after the draw and you are faced with a bet, your pot odds are worse, since if you are "right" and catch the bluff you only retain half the pot.
I would say tend to play looser on the first round if you will be in late position for the 2-4 rounds; which are the most critical.
...Mmmmm... maybe this game has some potential....
- Louie
PS.
Drawing one to trips considerably supports your missed 1-card draw bluffs.
Trip qualifiers changes your drawing strategies also. You will almost always draw three when you have two pair. You will also draw to one pair vs the inside straight even more often than you normally would. This has to do with "qualifying odds'
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
I have often read that raising pre-flop helps you steal on the flop.
However, it SEEMS to me that the opposite is true. People routinely "check-to-the-raiser" expecting them to bet. If there are no high cards it SEEMS you have no chance to get any pair to fold, since they are suspicious. Only two high cards give you clout (but then you have a bettable gut-shot).
I have found, or think I have found, my last position steals are much more successful when I have not raised pre-flop; since the opponents are more likely to bet their hands (saving me one bet) and any flop could have hit me.
Am I SEEMing this wrong? What should I do? Other thoughts?
- Louie
If people are checking to the raiser when they flop something,they are playing weakly(unless they flopped thenuts or a strong hand that they intend to check raise), and are long term losers. By raising pre flop you are giving yourself,(in my opinion) a better chance of taking the pot when you don't flop a hand.If rags flop and you get a call, you still might have the best hand. There is also a difference between being the first one to come in, with a raise, and raising a player or two whom have already called. If you raise and never follow up unless you flop top pair or better, you are playing too tight, and will be more towards a break even player as opposed to someone who continues to play at the pot when there are no more than two players, whom have showed no strength in the hand. Ask yourself why you consider it stealing, if you raise with AQ, and rags flop against a player or two.There is a good chance you still have the best hand. There is an article in the CARD PLAYER WEB SITE BY bOB cIAFFONE that talks about these issues.see ya
Louie,
Yes I agree with what you say. The scenario you describe is often repeated. I have played against opponents who automatically start swinging into you if it is a raggedy flop. Also I have played against players who when in the BB will call a raise and automatically check raise if they think the raiser didn't hit the flop as I'm sure this is common. A lot depends on who you are against IMO in how you play from the flop on. I guess the answer is to proportion your pre-flop raises and calls correctly to try and keep from being read to easily pre-flop. Also play well after the flop. Just my $0.02.
Tom Haley
im probably one of those players that is capable of making a play for the pot with a checkraise when i dont think the flop hit you, followed by a bluff bet on fourth. sometimes you just have to call someone like me down with you ace high, it all gets back to knowing your player. for the logic of raising and then stealing see hfap. the logic presented there in the opening chapter on this subject has no flaws and works very well. but as hfap states you must consider your player when making these type of moves. also pay very close attention to the number of opponents, if you try to steal from more then two other opponents you are throwing your money away. bobs book, improve your poker addresses these issues in great detail, you wont find better advice.
Darrell,
I guess you wouldn't be scared everytime I raised pre-flop and bet into a raggedy flop. Interesting response and IMO a good one.
Tom Haley
What you are doing is extending a preflop raise into the flop, a very effective tactic when rags flop, especially against tight, losing, or just got back even players.
Against loose players raising before the flop is a waste of money. You won't thin the field unless you can find some way to three bet before the flop. Four bets seems to keep them calling until the river.(Where they go all in to draw the inside card of a seven high straight against your pocket K's--but hey, it's never happened to me.)
I don't agree that preflop raising with premium hands is a waste of money vs loose players. True, you shouldn't raise against calling stations if your reason for raising is to drive players out (e.g. bluffing AKo when rags flop). But you definitely must raise if you're favourite preflop, to get money into the pot. Every caller adds more money to a pot you're the most likely to win. (If you have KK and the flop comes with an A, or a small pair, or straight and flush draws, then you can always muck your hand). Raising will not drive out suited cards and connectors, but these hands are only good with the right flop, and what's more, you can easily identify when they hit their hands. If you have AA and can get 5 callers even if you raise UTG, you are making 5 small bets more each time you win the pot, at a cost of 1 extra small bet to yourself. Another reason to raise is that it stops the blinds getting in cheap or for free with trash hands that are impossible to read, and which can cause you trouble if rags flop (e.g. 27). The only reason not to raise is if you can't stand the variance, in which case you should probably be playing at a lower limit.
i agree that if you have a good hand charge em two bets to see the flop. actually the question does it help you steal is yes i believe. against tipical opponents in the blinds if they dont hit they will release. of course if your against a tricky player that might put a play on you from the blinds because he thinks he knows what you have, as i said you might have to call him down. what if there is a limp or two and the blinds go out. now you have position and probable the best hand even without improving. as illistrated in hfap if someone limps from number 7 mabey you should raise with a hand as weak as q 10. if you are successful it knocking out the blinds and a high card hits you will likely steal if it dosnt hit your opponent. i frequently make this play without really considering what i have. it dosnt really matter what i have, im just hoping to knock out the blinds and steal it from the limper. of course again you must consider who you are up against.
Tom, i woldnt be scared if i had a piece of it. at limit i am usually suspecious of late raises and generally like to mix it up. thats part of the fun- who is zooming who? wont find out till all the cards are out and we turn over our hand. in the situation as outlined i think i resteal with nothing enough to make it profitable although i have no concrete evidence.
I was wondering if anyone with $10,00 can get a seat at the championship game? If so, why was there only a little over 300 entries last year, and then what are the purposes of the satellites. One last thing, how did Matt Damon and Ed Norton (i.e. "Rounders") get in, and how well did they do? Oh yeah, $10,000 is enormous to me, but there has to be a lot more than 300 players that could afford losing this for a chance to sit among the best, and a million bucks.
My guess is that less than 1/2 of the players in the final WSOP event are "pros", in the sense that they make their daily bread from playing. The rest are tournament trail junkies and veteran "amateurs." Many of these are businessmen of all ilk who have been playing poker for most of their life. As Jack McClelland noted one day, "this is truly a melting pot -- players from all walks of life."
Yes, pay the $10k and you have a seat (no juice required on the entry either). Damon and Norton were funded by Binion's. Usually 1/3 to 1/2 of the players get in via satellites.
Purpose of the satellites? Even if you have $10,000 to pony up, it's a heck of a savings to get in via a $1k single-table satellite or a $220 super-satellite.
As far as the "more than 300 ...", well, there were 350 players this year, and the estimate is for approximately 400 next year. As best I could tell, most of the players in the world who thought they had a chance were there this year (if I recall correctly, finishers 6,7, and 8 were all British).
Other reasons there were only 350: some players don't play no-limit (or don't play it well), some players see tournaments as "-EV", some players just come for the side action, and some players enjoy playing just satellites (note also that the organizers do make some vigorish off of the satellites). And, despite it's recognition amongst poker players and some journalists, it's still not as much of a highly-publicized or well-known event in the world as say, the Masters, the U.S. Open, the Kentucky Derby, or the Indy 500. It's sure getting there though.
Finally, it's an expensive undertaking just to make the journey to the World Series (even more so for the foreigners, reminding me of the sad faces I saw on Sunday night this year for some Brits who made the long journey and didn't win a seat). Not only do you have to bankroll yourself, but you have expenses to cover for at least a week or two, and then you have to account for the lost time away from your business or work. For my money though, the journey will alway be worth it. I just can't imagine putting the immense amount of effort into refining a skill without having a grand finale' to play for.
The following links are some stories written about WSOP champions and generously passed along by Peter Alson. They were previously published in Esquire and Details magazines.
http://www.iquest.net/~brikshoe/poker/Chan_profile.html http://www.iquest.net/~brikshoe/poker/Hellmuth_profile.html
well said, and so much kinder then my respons, im attempting to become a buddist but not doing very well.
Thanks for the insight!!!! Excellent info.
What Earl said.
The results of the WSOP can be found at ConJelCo's web page.
Both actors were knocked out on the first day. Matt went out with KK vs. Doyle Brunson's AA.
ten grand will get you in. i never am amazed at the stupid fucking questions.
I didn't see your name in the money list.
mike, without even reading your respose, i appolige. simple question that deserved a simple and respectful answer. i was drunk when i poasted that, and im not saying that makes me any less evil than i already feel for posting such an insinsive response. again my apoligies.
i dont play small suited connectors up front in pot limit because i dont want to be caught on the turn with a good bit of my stack in and nothing to do but check. if for some reason i did find myself up front with the connectors and the flop was such that i decided to go with it, id check raise the flop and go all in either there or on the turn regardless.if i would be unable to get all in on the turn i throw it away for a raise befor the flop. im more willing to play the small and medium pairs up front because its either or. ill call one raise, if its not heads up and there is no possibility or a reraise. in limit i use a three limper rule, and i dont call raises with these hands regardless of the number of opponents because i see no implied odds, the future bets actually decrease on the flop. of course its a different story in pot limit, the future bets increase tremendosly in a raised pot. so i call raises, but i use a one limper rule and i pay close attention to my position in relation to the raises. i want to put the field between me and the raiser.if the raiser in up front and im in the back and its multiway there is no problem, the field is inbetween, i can either make a monster raise, smooth call and go all in on the turn (if i have a made hand), or simply draw at my hand, much as in limit. if ther is some limpers, i also limp, then its popped, again no problem, the field is inbetween. if its bet up front on the flop and the raiser is behind me i dont draw, if its checked to the raiser and i have a monster, again the field is inbetween. if there are some limpers then a raise, i call. i throw it away for a reraise, but if i get to see the flop, its checked to the raiser, he bets, i dont draw. if i have a monster, well monsters arnt really that hard to play. comments?
let me mention that in limit, once i come in with the three limper rule, i call one raise. also in pot limit up front with a draw that i have decided to go with i might lead into the raiser, whatever will get all the money in on the flop,.or on the turn. im going with it regardless of what you do. and of course if youve played with me you know that, very intimidating.
Since nobody else wants to respond I will. Pot limit is a game that I wished was spread regularly in A.C. and in Florida but it's not. It's a game where you try to build big pots where your hand is a favorite. No-limit is a game where you try to shut out your opponent's hands as much as possible. Pot-limit is a sneaky game and that favors my style of play hence my nickname"predator" which was given to me because I love to slow play and I tend to slow play even average hands not just monsters. You should use a strategy that allows you to build big pots where you are the favorite. You can cut down your opponents drawing hands more then limit but not as much as no-limit. Small pairs can be played in "ANY POSITION" even against raises because you do have implied odds but not as much as no-limit. Pot-limit has a structure that favors these types of hands and HPFAP's strategy will cause you to lose in pot-limit because it's designed for limit of course. I also wish that there were pot-limit tournys in AC and Florida as well. Pot-limit requires a smaller bankroll then limit as well.
Joe, could you please explain why pot-limit would require a smaller bankroll than limit? I haven't played any pot-limit, but this seems counterintuitive.
There is less fluctuation in pot-limit and you can on average win much more then limit. This alone reduces your required bankroll although I still rather have a good sized one for my security. This concept is just like the concept for spread-limit hold'em which reduces your required bankroll.
i agree that pot limit requires a smaller bankroll, but only if you are fairly conservative and are playing against opponets that are prone to making expensive mistakes, which seems to often be the case, at least if your playing fairly small, which i do as i cant as yet afford much larger games then having bout 500 to a grand in front of me. also in pot limit i tend towards giving my opponent credit rather then cash, but often so do they,so its kind of give and take. if your opponents were willing to bluff a lot and take large risks by moving mountains of chips with top pair the game would quickly become difficult, if not at least nerve racking to play, and your fluctuations would increase. As it is ive found that with medioker hands the actions slows considerably post flop. unless of course you have a big hand and one of your opponents are making those lovely expensive mistakes. I tend towards frequent bluffs and semibluffs- usually in position, but frequently in early position (the bluffs outlined in hfap work well), betting top hand untill something changes my mind, and moving in on big hands and big draws, in other words picking up small pots and winning large ones. i dont tend to take large risks with top pair-ie walking back to houston. this keeps my fluctuations down, even if i get walked on from time to time. i might also add that of course i didnt exactly invent my stragety for small pairs and suited connectors, ive put it together from the different sources on big bet and kind of tailored them into what i feel will prove to be a winning stragety for pot limit. thought i would throw it out there to stimulate thought regatding pot limit as its sort of a strange animal, not limit, not no limit.
by the way Joe, if something is not getting done mabey you should do it yourself. i play a lot of limit, and there is never a table that im at that i dont just ask the table if anyone here is interested in pot limit. thats how i got my home game going and thats how i got the game going at my nearest casino. most poker rooms will give you a table and a dealer if you bring in 5 players ready to go, of course get there when they have tables avalible. you can tailer a pot limit game to be similar to any level of risk that the players are use to. a 5,5 pot limit i would compare to a 20,40. 2.50,2.50 is handy becaues you come in for 10-comparable to 10,20. that is of course if your playing with sensible players that are a little afraid of losing their ass. as i am.
I was involved in a rather animated discussion regarding the final hand of the movie recently and thought it might be a fun post. Mike McDermott takes a page out of the Johnnie Chan playbook in flopping the nut straight and checking it all the way to the river. Based on how the betting took place here are the two questions. First, what did Teddy KGB have and second, what did he think McDermott had at each stage of the hand?
First, Teddy KGB was on tilt and not making good decisions--that Oreo tell thing pissed him off.
Second, he probably put Matt on a draw, and was bluffing at the pot himself. Why else make a bet? I don't remember Eric Siedel's hand at the moment, but I think he was bluffing at the pot when Chan had that straight. Chan had commented in an interview about Eric(?) bluffing all his money away, suggesting that he was waiting for a situation like that. Although that interview may have actually been done after the tournament.
By the way, the hand that Teddy KGB had has nothing to do with poker logic. It was a movie written for the general public, not a Sklansky quiz. The reason for showing the World Series footage was to set up the end of the movie (as you picked up from the fact that Matt flopped a straight, which remained the nuts). Therefore, Teddy KGB is supposed to be "Eric Siedel" and have a similar hand.
George,
I agree that KGB was looking to buy the pot initially, putting Mike/Matt on a draw. However, that doesn't explain the turn bet. If Mike/Matt called that, which he did, it wouldn't have been on an inside straight draw. I know this was a movie, not a Sklansky quiz, but it was supposed to be researched. I'm still asking----what would make sense that Teddy KGB had and what could he realistically believe that Mike/Matt was holding?
Since KGB was on tilt, his action didn't necessarily have to make sense.
I don't remember the board cards, especially the suits, so I can't comment on the play. I also don't remember what happened pre-flop. If there was a flush draw, maybe KGB was betting on the come, and bluffing on the end.
But the "answer" the writers probably intended is contained in the WSOP video of Chan/Seidel. KGB probably "had" something similar to what Eric Seidel had (nothing?).
Rattled, certainly---Full tilt, I don't think so!!!
The board was 6--7--10 Rainbow (with Mike holding 8-9), with a deuce of the fourth suit on the turn and an Ace on the river. There was no flush draw at any time.
I don't think Seidel's hand was ever exposed, so aside from the "Knowing your opponent well enough that you can check the nuts all the way to the river, knowing that will encourage him to go all in and be able to trap him with the nuts", I'm still asking someone to venture what KGB should have had and what he believed Mike McDermott had at each stage based on how the betting was staged.
My guess is as follows.
KGB flopped top pair with an ace kicker. McDermott could have many hands that KGB would want to bet against. This includes a pair or some sort of draw. If I remember right KGB commented that the ace could not help his opponent, this might be because it helped him meaning less aces in the deck plus McDermott never played back, and he might have played back (heads up) if he held top pair with a good kicker or two pair. Also, in case KGB was beat on the turn, the ace would frequently give him the best hand.
I think Mason has got the best answer, although I thought at the time that KGB had pocket aces, since he was so happy with the river card, knowing that it could not have possibly helped McDermott if he was on a draw or slow-playing a set.
I thought McDermott's comment about splashing the pot was designed to accomplish exactly what happened, goading KGB into making a spectacular large pot-splashing bet, AND break his concentration at the same time.
I had KGB on AA at the river too.
I also figured KGB for AA and thought he put McDermott on Ace--Ten. He asked him if he was on a draw but why would he be calling those bets with a double gut shot?
It didn't have to be a straight draw. If he put Mike on a hand like AT at the turn and was holding AA himself, then the action and table talk makes sense to me.
That was my thought exactly. KGB had ATo. I don't remember the pre-flop betting, but if our hero styed in with a 2 suited middle connectors, then the pre-flop could not have been raised significantly. (Although, KGB did slow play his pocket As in the first scene).
As a side issue, was anyone else bothered by the fact that KGB had such a blatant tell and could actually make a living playing no limit poker? On the other hand - who cares - it's Hollywood. At least we didn't see quads beaten by a straight flush.
It was only blatant due to the cinematography. We were supposed to recognize the tell about the same time Mike did. I thought it was an appropriate one.
Perhaps - it is not blatant for someone playing him the first time (Mike Caro does not discuss oreo eating in his book of tells). However, when I play someone night after night (as is suggested happens in this movie), I can pick up on way more subtle tells than that. Maybe his tell is so unsusal that no one thought to spot it?
Are far as the tell being unusual, my wife spotted it right away and she doesn't play cards at all.
I wondered why Mike, having spotted KGB's tell, chose to throw it in his face, rather than filing it away and using it against him later. Did he think KGB would be so generous as to provide further tells as needed?
JW,
Mike says in the movie (voice over---what he's thinking) that having spotted the tell, normally you would keep it to youself and use it time and time again. He didn't feel he had time to do that as by morning he had to have the money for Grama and KGB. He thought he could rattle KGB by showing him he knew he held the nuts and was therefore laying down top two pair. Apparently it worked!
Seidel's hand was shown in the corner of the screen throughout. He had Q7. Since Johnny's J9 was involved in a queen-high straight, Seidel either had a pair of queens, or two pair on that hand.
He may have had J10 or A10,A7.The hand that made no sense was when the kid had A5 and laid it down vs. 2,4.Holding A5 in a no limit heads up game a raise pre flop is certainly called for,how could the other guy see the flop with 2,4.I really don't know why the russian was playing in the first place,he was playing against his own money basically and he had nothing to gain.
That the russian was playing against his own money bothered me too, at first. Then I thought about the personality of his character and realized he just wanted the action, or the thrill of beating Matt Damon's character one more time
This is one aspect of poker that really intrigues me. I realize that to become an excellent poker player, one must learn to play different forms of poker (stud, hold'em, omaha, etc). One must also learn to adjust play to different situations. Short-handed play is one of those situations. I play in a game and I usually do pretty well while the game is 8 to 10 handed. However, I struggle quite a bit when the game gets short-handed. I guess I don't adjust my play in consequence. I loosen up, but I think probably too much. Right now, my reasoning is to quit the game once its down to 7 players and quit ahead, rather than to squander my profits away. Any advice on short-handed play would be very appreciated. Thank you.
With respect to short term EV, you're making the right decision by quitting when the game gets short. If you don't yet have the skills to play this game, then it is a money-loser (unless you get especially lucky).
There is one big difference that typically occurs between short and full table play. In full games, you often must have a good hand at the river in order to win. It is, in most games, difficult to bluff people out, so you must have something. Thus, it is typically correct to fold early when you have no hand and no draw, and to fold on the river when you don't complete your hand. When playing short, almost every pot is heads-up after the first round of betting. As such, it is common that neither player will finish with a very strong hand. Therefore, whoever can convince his opponent to fold can often come out ahead.
Overall, starting with the best hands and knowing odds will serve you well at a full table. In a short game, it almost always comes down to reading the players. You need to know when they are bluff-raising, and when they've got a real hand. Well, not necessarily KNOW, but you must realize that given the situation, how often will they be bluffing, and how often will they think they're ahead.
Here's a HE example. Suppose that you're in a 4-handed game. If the player 2 to your right is constantly raising preflop, he's going to kill you if you fold your big blind too often. Thus, you need to learn when to play back at him. This MIGHT include 3-betting with a very weak hand, and playing this hand like AA all the way to the river. If you can get away with this occasionally (i.e., he folds before the showdown), then you can win back much of what he's stealing. Another idea would be to move to a new spot on the table so that this guy doesn't have the button on your big blind.
In the long run, unless you're a full-time high limit pro, you don't NEED to learn short game play. However, if you can get into a short game with a real weak, easily read player, it can be a goldmine. A pro who earns 1 big bet per hour in a full game might have an EV of 5 or more big bets per hour in the right short game.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Steve,
If you are in a ten handed game and the first three players fold the hand plays very very close to being a pot started with just seven players. You really play many pots shorthanded all night long. If you treat these hands as such you can get the feel and confidence to play when the game is really shorthanded. If I was on the button in a ten handed game and everyone folded to me I would play the hand the same way as if it was a three handed game and I was on the button. The big difference is that in many shorthanded games the passive players are the ones that have quit broke and the aggressive players are left. If this is not the case easy money is waiting to be picked up. Good Luck.
I'm confused about how to handle certain situations involving checking or calling when there is a threat on board as opposed to betting to prevent free cards from beating me on the end. These situations most frequently come up on fourth street and I believe that this is a leak in my play that has cost me a lot of money in the past. For example, here is a typical scenario: Preflop, holding A,6 diamonds I raise on the button against two opponents who limp in from late position. The blinds both call as do the original limpers. Now the flop comes Ac 6c Th giving me two pair. It's checked to me, I bet and everyone calls. The turn card is the 4c giving someone a possible flush. Once again it is checked to me and I bet. This time the small blind check raises. I reluctantly call and give a crying call on the end as well because of the large pot. While I understand that in HFAP it is recommended to check hands on fourth street if they have outs I hate the idea that a card could fall off on the river to beat me when I'm involved in a multi-way pot with a decent amount of money in it. For instance, what if nobody had a flush yet on the turn and I gave a free card to someone that only held a small or medium club and then another club came on the end? What if someone had a small pair that they would normally fold on the turn and and a miracle card came for them? Would the money I save by not betting in these situations compensate me for the times I got drawn out on? Am I a sucker for getting trapped like this? Can anyone give some insight and a set of guidelines for handling these situations with varying numbers of opponents, pot sizes, qualities of flops etc. Would any of the contributors here like to come up with their own related scenarios explaining how they handle them? I would appreciate any help anyone could give. Thank you.
John,
Id play it about like you did and have done so for years. But since i got check raised by the blind out of position I would suspect I was in trouble. I would consider folding on the end if I felt I could read him fairly well. I would not fold on 4th street unless I was sure he would not raise with a smaller two pair and I was not getting about the ten to one I might need to make the winner. Also consider raising back on fourth street if you are going to call on the end. He may throw away a better hand than you have and he may check to you on the end. If he raises back or bets on the end most players will always have you beat. Good Luck.
HPFAP says the following:
"However, you should not always check two pair on the turn when a third suited card hits. Suppose your opponent checks to you, and you think that it is unlikely that he would check a flush, because he would be afraid that you may not bet. In this case you should put the chips in the pot. However, if you are against two or more opponents and are first to act, a check is probably the correct play."
Here's a hint. If your opponent is a "typical player" and bets into you on the flop after you raised before the flop, he is more likely to be on a flush draw. If he checked called on the flop he is less likely to be on a flush draw.
When you said "typical player," I started thinking the exact opposite. This probably points to the most succinct answer to John's question:
You've got to know your player.
I could post a really good example from the other night where I called 160 on the turn with nothing, but I understand my opponents are now reading this forum, so I hate to divulge too much.
The truth is, that in almost every poker situation talked about on this forum,it can come down to knowing your players. That's simply the importance of it. But many many times you have sat down in a game at a club where you haven't had a chance to rate the player your'e up against, in a situation like this. First off, I wouldn't judge a player as to whether he made the hand or not, by looking at whether he bet or checked the flop. If I haven't been able to rate the player, then in general I would give the man credit for the hand.... but I would still call with top two pair , and re-raise with trips.(I'm assuming a limit game).If I had less than top two pair I would let it go, unless the pot was very large. Also, you have to be thinking about how you have played the hands that you have played so far in that session. Do they think your tight, loose, weak, ?The problem many players have is that they don't realize that they have shown themselves as weak in previous hands, and then they start to get raised and check raised ,re-raised, until their head starts to spin.If you are playing lower than 10-20, this might not be as much as a factor, but in my opinion it is definately something to think about.Good Luck
The truth is, that in almost every poker situation talked about on this forum,it can come down to knowing your players. That's simply the importance of it. But many many times you have sat down in a game at a club where you haven't had a chance to rate the player your'e up against, in a situation like this. First off, I wouldn't judge a player as to whether he made the hand or not, by looking at whether he bet or checked the flop. If I haven't been able to rate the player, then in general I would give the man credit for the hand.... but I would still call with top two pair , and re-raise with trips.(I'm assuming a limit game).If I had less than top two pair I would let it go, unless the pot was very large. Also, you have to be thinking about how you have played the hands that you have played so far in that session. Do they think your tight, loose, weak, ?The problem many players have is that they don't realize that they have shown themselves as weak in previous hands, and then they start to get raised and check raised ,re-raised, until their head starts to spin.If you are playing lower than 10-20, this might not be as much as a factor, but in my opinion it is something to think about.Good Luck
[Two limpers, you raise A6d on button, 3 calls. Flop Ac6cTh, all 3 check and call. On turn 4c, they check ...]
Don't forget that "betting to avoid giving a free card" is relevant when they would NOT call a bet. If they WILL call a bet anyway then you are "betting to avoid giving a cheap card", or betting for value. Often you don't know which kind of bet you are making, but the combination is very profitable.
Which "small/medium" club has enough to call on the flop but not on the turn? Yes, the blind with say Tc9s may give it up on the turn; and a caller with AsJc MAY also fold, but probably not. But I think your "Free Card" conserns are for other hands likely held by the two limpers, such as KsQs (gut shot) and As9s (counterfeit draw), which should usually be abandoned especially if someone else calls the bet. And the callers probably have calling hands weaker than yours.
I routinely bet this hand for value, unless I have a specific reason to do otherwise. But that's part of an overall strategy I have against the somewhat loose and easily intimidated opponents I play against; where I need to bet these hands to gain equity for my semi-steals, such as QTs.
- Louie
No, you are not a "sucker": if you rarely bet a 2nd best hand you are not betting nearly enough.
Consider the possibility that your decisions MAY be a LITTLE influenced by your emotions; in this case desire not to be a "sucker". That's a common tendancy and a frequent battle for me, but I can overcome it so long as I recognize it while its happening; which is by no means always. Asking myself how I would advise playing this hand when discussed on this forum helps a lot.
If you opponent made his flush on the turn, it must have been a low flush. He is first to act and you are last. There are 3 people trapped in between you and him. By checking and letting you bet and then raising, he is putting 2 big bets in front of the 3 trapped people who have invested nothing on the turn. They are no longer trapped. They can just throw their hands away without nut draws. He should either bet out and let them call, hoping you will raise, or he should just check and call your bet if he wants to build a pot.
In that situation, the check-raise is designed to get people to fold, not to build a pot. If you were first to act after him, a check-raise would have been appropriate to build a pot, not when you are last to act. He either made a very low flush that he figured would not be good if the 4th suited card came, or he made something like 2 pair on the turn card. You have position on him, so he can't buy a free river card with his check-raise. I would call in that situation if I thought he knew what he was doing.
A Poker Guy!
I think this is my leak, I played tonight and it seemed like every time I was the Big Blind I was delt a hand like 9 10s or a 8 9s. as the action went around the table it was raised and I called. I put the good players on pairs Or AK. There were some loose players (Having a little to much to drink!) But the quistion I have Is this a bet to call pre-flop? I see that there are lots of draws, But still not sure what the odds are....I think they are not good because if I hit the flush, It is small and the good players will beat me w/ their AQs. One particular hand I did have 10 9d and I called a pre-flop raise under the BB. The flop came 7c 4d Jd. I called there were no raises, I think 4 players. Then the turn was 3d. I called no raises. (Should I have raised?) When there were no raises. But the river killed me it was a 2d. and I got beat by Kd 10c. Looking Back I think I should have raised or folded when I Hit the flush, Maybe I could have scared the Kd into folding? The Player that beat me did not raise but did check. any help?
Post deleted at author's request.
I think 9Ts is OK to play out of the blinds for one raise if you are not worried about being reraised. I think your "leak" is in what flop you are looking for. You are _not_ looking for a flush but rather for the top end of a straight or top two pair. In this case you had a gut shot and a draw to the 4th flush. I might have folded on the flop -- you are really only going to be happy if you hit the gut shot.
Assuming you didn't fold on the flop If your game is the type that people will call all the way to the end with the A or K of the flush and will call preflop with any two flush cards then you need to check-raise, raise or fold on the turn. In this kind of game you could have saved the bet on the end. The type of player that would call KTo this far would probably call a raise and might call 2 cold.
Michael...
Can't agree with you here. That flop was a good one for 9Td. It seems that you view 9Ts from 9To the same. If you play HE only 'being happy' with the nuts, I would switch to Omaha, because you are giving a lot away. The 4th best flush is an extremely strong hand.
Jayman...
I don't think your calling a single bet pre-flop with medium suited connectors is your leak. These hands are VERY playable here. I think the way you are playing them might be, however.
As mentioned above, this flop is solid and I think you should consider raising it. And YOU'VE ABSOLUTELY gotta raise the 3d turn. You are trying to get people to drop the kind of hand that just beat you...or at least pay for looking when they miss (because he will not put any money in the pot on the end unless a K comes).
KdT would be correct to call one bet here...but I think would be making a mistake to call two with the Kd (depending on the number of bets in the pot pre-flop and the impact of your raise on other callers/re-raisers).
If you are worried about flushes higher than yours every time you hit one, you are playing scared. I'm not a stats guy, so I'll let someone else tell the class how frequently an A/K/Q suited in your suit will be out there when you hit...it's reaaalllly small though.
Another thing...one of the valuable parts of a raise on the turn is to FIND OUT if a higher one is out there! You will most certainly be re-raised, and then you can use your knowledge of the raiser to determine if a laydown is appropriate...although there are almost NO situations where I would lay down this hand until the 4th diamond fell.
Good Luck/Chuck
Post deleted at author's request.
In playing Turbo H-E, I've eliminated KT and KTs as my worst hands, now my worst hands show to be middle suited connectors and small pairs. Doesn't mean they can't be played, just don't play them in every situation.
I agree Max KT is a loser too often and KTs will beat the hell out of T9s, so what does that tell you about calling a raise with T9s?
The general consensus, both here and on rec.gambling.poker, is that the side action at major tournaments can be very profitable. In addition, many have recommended that I avoid the Omaha-8 events and play the side games instead.
Will the World Poker Finals at Foxwoods probably have good side action? (The Taj tournament will be occurring at the same time)
What are some things to look for to find the best games?
When is the action the best - before an event starts, after about an hour into the event, after most people are eliminated, during a less popular event? Is it better earlier or later in the two-week period?
What about satellites and supers? Are these worth playing (for the cash, not for the entry) or are they too much of a crapshoot, especially considering the high relative house take on the lower buy-in ones?
Has the Belagio poker room opened yet? If so, how are the games? What limits are spread in hold'em? How has the new room affected the games at the Mirage? Are both rooms staying full? Does this make better action , since it is easier for players to get in a game since the wait isn't as long?
The Bellagio poker room along with the rest of Bellagio is scheduled to open Oct. 15.
I believe Bellagio opens to the public on Oct 16. I think they are hosting a private party on the 15th.
DegenerateG (not!)
As Abdul and others engaged in TTH2 simulations can testify, there is an awful lot of work involved in the optimization process of adjusting and readjusting strategies. What has always worried me (and I'm sure has not gone unnoticed by others) is the emphasis placed on preflop starting hand strategy at the expense of the at least equally important (but more complex) postflop play which is characterized in TTH2 by the player's hand and position, the board, the stage of the game, and "bet variables" defining style and commitment to the particular hand, and which to the best of my knowledge has not been the subject of any public discussion. I can only infer from this that others, like myself, have decided to embrace the postflop program default values that accompany each profile (perhaps with some occasional minor modification), on the grounds that to do otherwise would involve the introduction of additional dimensions into an already complex picture. Yet this would be an unwise approach when the very fate of hands like A8s and KQ are in the balance. Just as an example, one of the 60 postflop hand types when there is no pair on the board is #21 - 2 major overcards (AK, AQ, AJ or KQ) with rags on the board. Advisor_T is programmed to play this hand in last position on the river with bet variable P0 (check, and fold if there is a bet). When I changed this to X1 (if someone bets fold - if checked, bet - fold if raised) there was a significant improvement in the performance of AK with the button unfrozen. This is not to say that no further testing and retesting is necessary - it is, and this for just one out of hundreds of bet variables. In blackjack strategy simulations, it is mandatory to "work from the end" eg. the strategy for hard 16 (vs. say 9) must be determined before that of hard 15 or hard 12. Such an approach is probably not required for hold'em, which more resembles (for these purposes only) the beginning, middle and end games of chess. This modularity (preflop and postflop) however, must somehow be integrated, and certainly not ignored.
Etienne
I, for one, can admit to accepting the defaults for the most part. You raise some important issues about post-flop play but where might the discussion lead? Making a claim that AJ is a long term winner UTG based on extensive sims is one that I can readily accept for pre-flop play. We all began the game with some concept of starting standards and the sims can give us some guide as to whether we're too tight/loose.
As you said about the example you gave, there are hundreds of bet variables and on top of that, there are hundreds more "starters vs. board" scenarios. So where would we begin? Perhaps your example is a good one - it's a fairly common post - what to do with AK when rags flop. If we could limit our research to these FAQs, then I would be very interested in following the discussion.
As an alternative, HPFAP provides several examples of "starters vs. flop" scenarios with advice as to how they should be played. What would the sims suggest? At least that would put us on some common ground for discussion. For example, in the chapter on "The Free Card", playing QsJs versus a flop of Ts7d3h is discussed. It might be difficult to simulate the exact situation presented by S&M, but hey, that gives the guys as easy "out" if someone challenges them!
These are just some ideas, so the ball's back in your court Etienne.
Ian,
I think your ideas are excellent. Your suggestions are similar to some ideas that I've had. I would like to see TTH2 gather statistics on particular types of flops although I admit specifying a flop type can be kind of vague.
Tom Haley
Tom,
Thanks goes to Etienne for starting this thread. See my comments to his latest post if you're interested.
Ian
Ian,
You mention "starters vs. board" scenarios. The point I am trying to make is that the inclusion (or exclusion) of any particular starter is predominantly a function of the sum total of all its board scenarios. I say predominantly because the preflop betting sometimes produces a decision before the flop. Now think of all the preflop fine tuning and tinkering that was necessary for a particular starting hand. For each of 6 pot statuses (Blinds only, Called pot, Raised pot: 2 bets to you, Reraised pot: 3+ bets to you, Raised or reraised back to you - 1 more bet to you, Raised or reraised back to you - 2 more bets to you) the optimal betting strategy had to be determined by trial and error. So for some hands RRRRRR was appropriate, while I got RRRRCC, RRCCCC, RCCCCC, RCCFCF, RFFFCF and CCCCCC to name but a few for the others, where R = (re)raise, C = call and F = fold. So I think it would be naive to assume that we have obtained the correct EV (all other things being equal) when we have not done any postflop finetuning. If we were to do so, the new results could mean the promotion (or demotion) of certain borderline and maybe not so borderline starters. On the other hand, maybe all the additional effort leads to only a few isolated changes, justifying the present emphasis on preflop. I don't know, I haven't looked into it yet. Once again, the usual simulation disclaimers apply - departure from the norm is strongly recommended whenever an advantage can be obtained and for whatever reason, but even if these departures occur 90% of the time, it is still preferable, IMHO, to be forearmed with the norm.
The QJs / (Ts7d3h) scenario you cite from HPFAP could be analyzed with TTH2, but what I had in mind at this stage was the analysis of board scenarios vis-a-vis their starters, and not a postflop analysis per se. I say this not because I deem the latter analysis unimportant, but rather because I urgently require lots of not so refined postflop analyses to define my starting hand strategy. Once I can start the game, I then can proceed to the next steps. In fact it could well be that these latest refined postflop strategies, when placed into TTH2 (instead of the 'first crude' set) lead to changes in the preflop strategy for a particular hand - an 'R' instead of a 'C' here, and a 'C' instead of an 'F' there. This, in turn, may produce changes in the postflop strategies (the cross-section of likely opponent hands will have changed) and so on back and forth.
Your suggestion of identifying common ground for discussion is a good one. Even though you regard AJ under the gun "a long term winner" and I would fold it UTG in a tight aggressive lineup, by exchanging sim details so each could replicate the other's work, I'm pretty sure we'd each be able to live with the other's results. So maybe AJ is a good hand to start off with. Are you still game?
Etienne
Etienne:
You write, "I urgently require lots of not so refined postflop analyses to define my starting hand strategy. Once I can start the game, then I can proceed to the next steps."
I assumed from your original post that you had created a "best" custom profile but had changed only the first section of screens and not any of the postflop screens. Am I correct? That's sort of where I'm at which led to my agreement that due to laziness, etc. I haven't tinkered much with the postflop screens. I've also done all the FFCCRR edits via trial and error and have created my two "best" custom profiles. The second profile is only slightly different than the first, edited so that it might be reasonably easy to remember in real life play.
I would be happy to share my profile with you - Abdul and I had agreed to do this a couple of months ago but I didn't know how to do it in a simple fashion. I'm semi computer literate, but am unaware of whether or not profiles can be e-mailed and downloaded on the other end. In case no one on the forum can answer this question for us, I've e-mailed Wilson Software to ask them for advice. I'll post their response when I get it so let's wait and see.
In terms of sharing a common ground, it would be easy to agree upon a line up, a repeatable deal #, the stakes and the number of hands dealt so that our results are based on identical conditions (plus toughness of players, etc.). My original challenge to your first post was this, "If the sim with my custom profile shows AKs to win $25.57 in a 10-20 game, and yours shows $28.32, where do we go from there?" Is your result better because of how you play a flush draw, straight draw, top pair, top two, etc.? Those would seem to be difficult conclusions to draw whereas your CRRRRR versus my CCRRRR might very easily point out an improvement I could make preflop. So again, I wonder whether we can get much done on the postflop side of the profiles although I'm very much interested in trying.
Another thought on common ground is just what does CCRRRR mean? The 25 preflop screens are essentially a 6x7 matrix (if you include BB play), so when we say CCRRRR are we reading a row or a column? I would suggest we refer to a column so that all the strings will be 6 characters long, not some being six and some being seven.
As an example my matrix, from SB to But is as follows for AJ: RRCFCF,RCF(I guess BB is always a 3 char column), RCF(so is the UTG column), RRFFCF, RRFFCC, RRRFCC, and RRRFCC. Do you understand? If you read my screen 8, column by column, that's what it would say. Since we don't likely have the same postflop screens, your AJ matrix in my profile might prove worse while the same might be true when you put my matrix into your custom profile. Wow, is that the revelation we've been trying to put into words???
Anyways, it's some where to start, and maybe some other posters will share their matrices with us too. Tom, Abdul, AL are you listening?
My $0.03 CDN ($0.02 U.S.)
Ian
Ian,
Thanks for the response. Rather than answer in one post, I'll break it up into two or maybe three, this being the first.
< I assumed from your original post that you had created a "best" custom profile but had changed only the first section of screens and not any of the postflop screens. Am I correct? >
Yes, you are correct. My statement about urgently requiring postflop analyses was merely voicing the wishes of an imaginary and enthusiastic user (with plenty of time on her hands) who has just purchased TTH2 and who thinks that it is only natural to optimize both preflop and postflop screens to get the "best" profile.
< I'm semi computer literate, but am unaware of whether or not profiles can be e-mailed and downloaded on the other end. In case no one on the forum can answer this question for us, I've e-mailed Wilson Software to ask them for advice. I'll post their response when I get it so let's wait and see. >
From what I can gather, there are 2 files which define each profile - NEWPROF2.P# and NEWPROF3.P#, where # is the profile number as shown in the Profile menu (1=Advisor_T, 2=Conan the Librarian, ..... , 44=Adv_2, 45 and onwards are your custom profiles if any). So if you wish to send me, say,your customized profile number 47, all you would have to do is locate the 2 files NEWPROF2.P47 and NEWPROF3.P47 (they're in the subdirectory in which you installed TTH2, most probably something like ...\WHOLDEM2\) and send them via email as an attachment. They're small files (1,296 and 1,050 bytes respectively) so there's no need to compress them. But let's see what Wilson Software have to say.
Some other preliminaries. I use 4 as the maximum number of raises. Just to see that my "all flags turned off" is equal to yours, this short sim should suffice: I get : Seat 1 : +1,002, Seat 2 : -675,....Seat 9 : +597, Seat 10 : -1,178. Hopefully, you should be able to replicate this.
I will respond to your other points in a subsequent post. There also remains the small detail of how we shall continue this communication. I can imagine that some readers will have no interest in this interchange, especially with the more technical aspects, so I have no problem continuing on a private level. On the other hand, your call to Tom, Abdul, AL et al echoes my sentiments that we need all the help that we can get, and that constant public participation and monitoring will result in more efficiency and less errors.
Etienne
Ian,
This is the second part of my reply. Starting with the end :
< My $0.03 CDN ($0.02 U.S.) >
In a thread some months back about one of David Sklansky's essays, with the conversation revolving around mutual funds and small cap stocks (ouch!), I recall you mentioning that you worked in that field. From the above, I believe you!
< I've also done all the FFCCRR edits via trial and error and have created my two "best" custom profiles. The second profile is only slightly different than the first, edited so that it might be reasonably easy to remember in real life play. >
I like that. There's no way I can accurately remember all those R, C and F's, but some simplifications here and there would really help. Of course I'd have to check the new "simplified" EV to see that the tradeoff is worth it - more bloody work!
< My original challenge to your first post was this, "If the sim with my custom profile shows AKs to win $25.57 in a 10-20 game, and yours shows $28.32, where do we go from there?" Is your result better because of how you play a flush draw, straight draw, top pair, top two, etc.? Those would seem to be difficult conclusions to draw whereas your CRRRRR versus my CCRRRR might very easily point out an improvement I could make preflop. So again, I wonder whether we can get much done on the postflop side of the profiles although I'm very much interested in trying. >
What you are in effect saying is that because it is easier to compare your CCRRRR with my CRRRRR, and this can only be done when both our postflop screens are identical, then it is best to leave them (postflop) untouched. Assume that this is the case and that your profile shows AKs winning $25.57 as compared to my $28.32. What I fear most with that approach is that after, say, 20 or 30 identical changes to both our postflop screens, your CCRRRR goes up to $27.35 and my CRRRRR goes down to $26.65. Maybe that's an exaggeration for 2 such similar strategies (CCRRRR and CRRRRR) but then again, maybe not. I could certainly envisage the possibility of some convergence between the two, which would be just as disconcerting. How would this come about? As I have already mentioned in my second post in this thread (October 6), your preflop strategy gives rise to postflop "opposition holding makeup" X, while my preflop strategy leads to a different makeup Y. But the 20 or 30 changes that we made to our postflop screens treat these opposition makeups identically. I'm assuming we have identical opposition. So summarizing, identical preflop strategies will produce identical "opposition flop holdings". In this case, the superior postflop strategy (if any) will determine the best overall strategy. Different preflop strategies will produce different "opposition flop holdings" - if the postflop strategies are identical, then it does not necessarily follow that the superior preflop strategy remains superior for all possible (identical) postflop strategies. So what's the algorithm for finding the superior strategy - is it the back and forth approach I mentioned in the same earlier post?
< Another thought on common ground is just what does CCRRRR mean? The 25 preflop screens are essentially a 6x7 matrix (if you include BB play), so when we say CCRRRR are we reading a row or a column? I would suggest we refer to a column so that all the strings will be 6 characters long, not some being six and some being seven. >
Agreed. A column is what I had in mind when I first posted RRCCCC etc.
< As an example my matrix, from SB to But is as follows for AJ: RRCFCF,RCF(I guess BB is always a 3 char column), RCF(so is the UTG column), RRFFCF, RRFFCC, RRRFCC, and RRRFCC. Do you understand? >
Perfectly. And yes, BgB and UnG are always 3 chars. My matrix for AJ is : RCCFCF, CCF, FFF, RRRRCC, RRRRCC, RRRRCC and RRRRCC.
< Since we don't likely have the same postflop screens, >
Even though I initially did do some very minor postflop tinkering (changes without any serious followup investigation more like it) I decided to revert back to the original postflop screens as provided by Wilson Software. So if you didn't do any postflop tinkering (that must sound impeachable to a non-poker player) then we have identical postflop screens.
< your AJ matrix in my profile might prove worse while the same might be true when you put my matrix into your custom profile. Wow, is that the revelation we've been trying to put into words??? >
If in fact the postflop screens are different, then I don't think we can draw any conclusions about the switch. It could well be my AJ matrix just happens to perform better in your postflop environment - after all, there's nothing special about my mine.
I'm afraid this has been rather long and apologize to all readers unfamiliar with the Turbo Texas Hold'em program who have found all of this unintelligible. But my sincere, heartfelt apologies go to all readers familiar with the Turbo program who have found all of this unintelligible.
Etienne
It seems to me that you need to completly define player types before you get involved with the starting hands. What is needed is much more complete analysis rather than broad descriptions such as weak tight, loose, aggressive. My questions are how loose? How aggressive? How weak? Of course it can never be totally accurate, but it seems that we could break down profiles further, so we can adjust our starting hand play, and post flop play to the players in with us.Of course there is much solid advice as to how to play against major styles of play, but it seems it can go much further. My 02cents
AL:
I understand your point, but it's already so damn time consuming to edit a custom profile that I can't imagine more complexity. For instance, the program asks how you'll play a certain hand versus no callers, some callers (unknown how many), a raise, a reraise, a wrap-around raise and a wrap-around reraise. Sure, in real life I like to determine who made that raise, or who limped in, etc.. As it is, however, there are already 36 inputs required about how you'll play T9s. We'd be well over 100 inputs if we considered how to play if the raise came from a tight, aggressive, or weak player. Or how to play versus 1,2,3,4,5,6 or 7 callers versus just "callers" as the program currently stands.
I'm sure it's possible to build in the intricate details you're talking about, but even then, what would be the value in the real world? If you knew the absolute best way to play T9s versus all of those myriad conditions, could you even begin to remember it during the heat of battle? I have a tough enough time remembering whether 97s is a group 4,5 or 6 hand!
I can't argue with you about that. If you have read my posts responding to Masons essay etc., you know that I feel that the next revelations, no matter how small, will come from these sims that use the profiles that are capable of making decisions based on their hands versus the board and pot size. Although the wilson product isn't perfect, I sure think it is better than anything else I've seen.My only question about it, is that it seems to be a little liberal with pot odds,(implied odds),but if I can help you guys in any way, just let me know.I'm not a mathmetician, but I can certainly run scenarios based on your profiles etc., or anything you think of. If you would like to fax me your profile that you have developed, please do so at 310-379-7418. good luck
WOULD ANYBODY KNOW THE FARGO HOMEPAGE ADDRESS SO I COULD SIGN UP FOR THE TOURNAMENT THIS WEEKEND. THANKS
The payoffs here seem a bit different than other video poker games. You get 8 units each for a flush, straight, and three of a kind, I think.
Is this version of video poker worth playing?
Jazbo's analysis shows the full-pay version of the game is +EV. The strategy is challenging because the high straight payoff requires drawing to a lot of unusual straight draws.
He sells strategy cards for this game and others. See www.jazbo.com
Hello Mason..I just read the cover article in the October issue of "Poker Digest". I don't know if I should congratulate you on being selected for the article or if I should congratulate "P.D" for having the good sense to feature you..so I give kudos to the duo. Best wishes to you, Mason and continued success and good health. Sharry
This online poker game seems to have better odds than most of the tens or better machines i.e. 1 2 3 5 8 25 50 200 1000 as opposed to the usual 1 2 3 4 6 9 20 50 250 or thereabouts.
What is the true house advantage for this game? (In percentage)
John,
The table game of Let It Ride has the payoff schedule as follows: Playing optimal basic strategy the expectation per unit wagered is -2.8648%, or the expectation per hand is -3.5057% (as you are wagering an average of 1.224 units per hand).
The popular video machines have the following payoff schedule: This may appear to be more attractive than the table game but in fact is actually worse. The machine keeps your portion of the wager that remains in action, so it is necessary to subtract one unit from each payoff before comparing the two. Your expectation for the video version of the game is -3.5728% per hand, slightly lower than the above because of the lower payoff for hands of higher rank than full house. I presume that your "1 2 3 4 6 9 20 50 250 or thereabouts" refers to these machines.
The online game that you quote seems to have the same payout schedule as the table game though apparently you made a transcription error with the full house payout (should be 11 instead of 25). Make sure that this is the case before playing.
I got all this info out of Stanley Ko's excellent booklet "Mastering the Game of Let It Ride", which covers just about everything there is to know about the game including optimal playing strategy which makes your money Etienne
To Etienne:
Thanks. Sounds like this is not worth playing. I try to find games where the house advantage is less than 2% with optimal play. It sounds like Let It Ride is about 3% at best; akin to Red Dog and Pai Gow.
Am I correct?
John,
You are correct in saying that Let It Ride is not worth playing according to your 2% criterion, and that Red Dog has about a 3% house advantage. Pai Gow Poker, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish. While I'm personally not fully familiar with this game, it is claimed (also by S&M though they're not too thrilled by the game) that the game is beatable and the common consensus is that reading Stanford Wong's "Optimal Strategy for Pai Gow Poker" is a prerequisite to get this edge.
Good luck,
The game is not beatable if the house is taking 5% from winning bets. However, if you have the bankroll to be dealer, cover all action, and the other players are making bad mistakes such as misplaying pair/pair vs. two-pair/rag or playing *house way* with lop/lop's then it might be profitable in the long run. This all assumes you know the habits of the competition. The game was beatable with a $100 maximum bet and a fixed $1 collection. I don't believe any casino would spread this game with those old terms anymore.
I am refering to Pai Gow in the above post.
ive only seen a commercial, and i wasnt impressed by the heroes analysis of the situation (he was commenting on a poker game). it amounted to something like, joe blow over there is hoping his queens hold up and should fold. i dont remember exactly the board cards (it was 7 stud) but i remember thinking if i was joe blow i would raise. anyway is this movie worth seeing?
I thought it was a very good movie. The poker playing was good from my perspective. The movie probably overemphasized how much skill has to do with winning (in the short run), but that works out for me since that makes my occasional trips to the poker table seem less like gambling to my wife. I've been beating the rake at the low limit games I play and it was nice to have the movie portray a good poker player in such a positive light. She practically kicked me out the door to go play last weekend.
good for you. my wife has had to put up with a lot of -honey i just lost a few more hundred but i know im going to be really good at this some day- type stuff.
by the way if you have been beating the rake at the low limit games its time to move up to ten twenty. pick your spot and just take it 500 at a time, if you can afford to lose that much at one time. if you lose it just get another five and have another go. the play is so loose and undiciplined at many ten twenty, please dont wait, go for it.
Thanks for the advice. I only get to play maybe once per month so I don't know if that's enough time to realistically expect to beat the "big game". Do I need to worry much about collusion between players?
at 10,20 no forget about it, there is no collusion, or if there is its very ineffectice, for the most part there is none, go for it
Yes.It isn't great but it's better than most crap you see at the movies these days.Could of had a much better ending.
ive drank a lot all my life. i now play limit poker almost by remote control. i dont slow the game down, im much more aggressive, and i play more pots. however as i said i frequently have excellent results drunk, like i dont know, a grand in a ten twenty. i loosen up my starting requirements, and as i said im more aggresive. as any one else lived through this situation. im sensitive to loses and if my rushing isnt working i cut back to the point where i seldom have losers that are any different then my norm. if we cant learn anything by this perhaps our readers should take note that just because someone is drunk they are not neccessarly your target.
I've personally had horrible results when I've played drunk. A friend of mine that doesn't play aggressively enough normally, does a little better when drinking. He says it helps him to be more patient with his starting hand selection. Just sit back, enjoy the beer, and wait for aces. I like to see people drinking because it seems to loosen up the rocks at the table as well. They don't want to wait too long and miss their shot at that money. There's a big difference between drunk and having a beer or two. I think drunk is always a very bad idea. A few beers is probably OK since you get more aggressive.
Nobody can read my play when I'm drunk because I don't know what I'm doing.
One morning about 2 years ago I was playing 20-40 in the Mirage.A man came and sat next to me who was in his mid 50s ,he had giant rings on all his fingers,about 10 gold chains, a brown polyester 70's type shirt with big white flowers on it,and he just had that basic half grin drunken look.It was about 10 A.M. and everytime the cocktail waitress came by he ordered a double dewars on the rocks,he was very loud but he wasn't a bad guy,Iliked him much better than most of the crybabies that usually sit next to you at the Mirage. Anyways he was playing most hands and throwing money in with both fists.I don't know how much he lost in an hour because he wouldn't use chips unless he won them,mostly cash,but I'd guess he was about 2500-3000 stuck.Then the floorman came over and told him his 40-80 seat was ready.Two guys at the 20-40 table who I'd never ever seen at the 40-80 table put their names on the list.So did I but I knew it was hopeless because their were about 6 people ahead of me and I knew with this guy in the game none of the vultures were going to give up their seats.About an hour later I heard him loudly call for a chip runner to change color.I thought that won't last long.I kept hearing him laughing loudly.About an hour later I was going to cash out,I walked by the 40-80 table and I was astonished.The drunk had a stack of 12 $500 chips,a pile of $10 chips up to his chin,and god knows how many hundreds.All the pros had looks of disgust and frustration on their faces.I remember thinking how lucky I was not to get a seat.The next day a friend of mine who was playing in the game said the drunk left with $14,OOO in chips plus cash he won.I know he couldn't possibly be a long run winner the way he played(any two will do)so I was glad to see the fellow make a nice score.My friend did tell me that after the drunk won the first few pots with crappy cards the whole table was on tilt.The moral:Just because a man is drunk doesn't mean he's a sure thing,you might get the tables turned.If you see a drunk in the poker room and you want a sure thing follow him outside,kick his ass and take his money because at the poker table there are no sure things.
thats an interesting story, i consider myself a semipro player and dont expect any particular results, drunk or sober. that is me drunk or sober.
Another quick note on the same subject.I have a golf buddy that drinks almost a beer a hole.He usually shoots 37-42 on the front,and 33-38 on the back,if for some reason he has no beer he won't break 80.Makes no sense in a game where hand eye coordination is so important but he plays better drunk time after time.He's just not allowed to drive the cart.
Since alcohol have a relaxing effect on you, and it's important to be relaxed in golf, a small amount would make you play better.
The same is true for poker, by being relaxed you're probably harder to read and more likely to make a correct analysis of the situation. The problem is to know when your judgement is starting to get affected, since that negates the positive affect of drinking.
//Tomas
I've won a lot of money off of drunks - but they slow the game down and can be unruly. I avoid drinking and poker.
You bring up a good point ... some people don't play worse when they are drunk. Some people believe they drive better when they are drunk, some people believe they play better poker when they are drunk. But if I had a choice, I would still rather take my chances a a poker table with someone when they are drunk than when they are sober.
A Poker Guy!
Just wondering if there are any online cardrooms for real money like the online casinos...if so where? if not then why aren't there any? thanks Dean
Go to www.yahoo.com and search for online casinos. I got a list of 20 that included poker. I'd guess a large fraction of those are money oriented.
Now the question is why do you want to play poker online? If I could trust the casino AND believe there wasn't cheating it i_might_ be worth writting a bot, but otherwise I'd save your pennies and go to a real casino.
I was actually curious as to why there wouldn't be online poker rooms...the virtual casinos tend to have video poker but not poker rooms online where you can actually play online. I figured with the popularity of IRC and the other gambling programs that this would be available. I'm new to this poker online stuff so was just curious...I played in the casinos and cardrooms but a game that I can play at home without smoke and dealers to tip sounds interesting. Got any more info? thanks
Post deleted at author's request.
If I wrote the software to deal on-line poker I know I couldn't resist the temptation to include some obscure keystroke combination which would result in my receiving a big pocket pair whenever I wanted it.
Altho there are digital signature protocols that allow you to be certain that the game is dealt square, as Gary points out there is no protocol to ensure that the other bastards aren't cheating you. If there was an online casino I trusted enough not to be cheating (there are none - tho I haven't researched it for precisely the reason I detail below), this would be the second thing I'd do. The first thing I'd do would be to eliminate the three friends part. It would only be a moderate programming challenge to write your own colluding bots and have them log in via different client machines.
The only even reasonable countermeasure to this that I've heard was Jeffrey Siegal's suggestion that if you had an online casino with a million tables, it would be effectively impossible to stage all your players in the same game. The problem is how do you create one? One thought is for the casino parent to provide a lot of prop bots, but I would venture that most players would find this scenario even more disconcerting. Depending on how the case with those New York guys go, I have half a mind to start my own casino with many, many prop bots. The only remaining interesting implementation question is what ratio to seat prop bots at a table. If I'm playing against Abdulbot, then I probably limit the exposure of my horses and throw the other sharpies to the same table, just counting on the drop from there. If I have lots of fishies, I put a couple per bot table and go for the parlay. And all this can be done just with a slightly intelligent brushbot, that is WITHOUT COLLUDING. Imagine the possibilities if I were a dishonest entrepreneur... If this isn't enough to convince one to save their money for something other than online pokering, drop me a line, and I'll see if we can arrange a heads up game. At least then you're exposure is limited to collusion between me and my dealer program...
Regards,
JG
Post deleted at author's request.
I still consider myself to be fairly inexperienced and saw a comment in another post advising someone to either "raise or fold".
The logic being if your hand is good enough to stay in with its good enough to raise with, and if its not good enough to raise with you should fold it.
I can see how this will help reduce the field, and help scrutinize the hands your playing past the flop and would like to see some comments on trying this technique to help me improve my post-flop play.
I am comfortable with my selction of hands that I'll play but believe that I have some severe leaks in the later parts of my game.
Thank you,
S. Doyle
Post deleted at author's request.
I believe that there are many reasons to raise - building a pot, limiting players, gaining information, taking control of the betting or intimidation. I think the term "raise or fold" keeps players (including myself) from calling passively (in stupid hope situations or to keep other player honest). However, like all things, raising can be overdone. If I am at a table with a particularly loose player with a tendancy to raise, I may just call and let him do my betting for me when I have a big hand.
This post does not address very large pots, which require a different view...
"Raise or Fold" is very sound advise when the main value of your hand is whether it is the best hand right now (rather than the best draw) and there are lesser hands in the pot that you WANT to fold, or at least pay to draw.
Note that drawing hands do not qualify since they are rarely the best hand right now and you generally do better keeping players in (gaining future bets, NOT saving the pot). Drawing hands are usually "Raise or Call" hands.
The main theory is that if your hand is worth one bet to call to save the pot then it is probably worth one more bet to raise to save the pot. Note that the "raise" only costs one bet, since you planned to call anyway.
If your non-draw hand is worth a call to save a small pot, such as the routine situation on the first round of betting, then it is routinely worth a raise which (should) increases your chances of winning that pot. Thus "Raise or Fold" is usually a sound strategy for your first action.
- Louie
A corollary is that if your non-draw starting hand is not worth a raise, then it is usually not worth a call. This is an excellent view for those of us with less than stellar discipline; it helps us fold KT in holdem or (96)6 in stud in early position.
I have to write a book critique for a medical class this semester on a type of professional skill. I was thinking about doing a paper on nonverbal communication because it would also improve my poker game. I have Caro's book of tells, and was wondering if anyone has read any other books on the subject, that are not so much poker based, or any books that have helped their game, in any area from psychology, to discipline etc.. All suggestions will be greatly appreciated, and I think very interesting since theres a lot more to winning than just cards.
Post deleted at author's request.
This is a really cool game. But it is very difficult to understand what is going on, since the decisions are so different from those in other games, even from other PL games. This is what I have figured out so far:
There seems to be some confusion on whether or not it is legal to gamble on the internet using offshore casinos if you live in the United States.
I have not gambled with real money yet, but intend to. I don't want any legal problems though. Can anyone set me straight on this?
>Can anyone set me straight on this?
No. There is no real answer to this question, only opinions.
If you are concerned about legal problems, I suggest you consult personally with a lawyer who can give you specific legal advice.
Despite it's limitations, computer software appears to be of great interest on the forum. I have recently acquired "Advanced Hold'Em" by Odds On Software who state that the program uses artificial intelligence to modify the play of your opponents as the game proceeds. At the program's professional level, I can only describe the play as loose-aggressive and it appears equivalent to TTH lineup 6. The advice on starting hands also approximates to TTH. I would be interested to learn of other forum's members experience with this program.
What are the exact odds for being deal any ace suited in the first two cards.
I've heard everything from 28 to 1 to as high as 55 to 1.
Thanks
You can be dealt Axs in four suits, with twelve possible values of x, so that makes 48 suited aces out of 1326 hands = 26.6:1
Bob...
Chances of getting an ace (4/52) and then a suited card (12/51) are 48/2652 (54.25:1).
The chances of getting a non-ace (48/52) and then a suited ace (1/51) are, funny enough, also 48/2652 (54.25:1).
The 55:1 you heard did not consider getting the A with either the first or second cards. Common error.
Chuck
NB> To get odds of specific pocket pair, there is only one combination (4/52) * (3/51) or 12/2652 (220:1).
Flop: Ks 6h 5d Would you rather have Kc Tc or 7d 6d in a loose game?
Sklansky has written that with everyone playing everything he’d rather start with 7d 6d.
Let’s say you have Six opponents that will play any hand from group I to group VIII.
Is the effect of Implied Odds and Reverse Implied Odds strong enough to overcome that Kc Tc has about a 21% chance to be best at showdown vs about a 5.2% chance for the 7d 6d?
I suspect he meant he'd rather start with 76s BEFORE the flop in that environment. There's no question that I would take top pair mediocre kicker over middle pair with multiple backdoor chances at the non-nut ON the flop. If I'm wrong about this, I'd sure like to hear the contrary arguement.
Post deleted at author's request.
I wouldn't want to play KT under these conditions either, but having seen the flop...
There is some probability that KT is the best hand on the flop (no one else flopped top pair) and could remain so. The probability that 76s (middle pair) is the best hand on the flop is less than that of KT. The difference between these two probabilities would have to be more than compensated for by the superior drawing capabilities of the 76s. Both hands should not call two bets cold (reraising with the 76s from last position is not out of the question though). KT can lead with a bet on the flop whereas 76s probably should not, so there is an extra possibility that everyone folds to that bet (no one has hands like AK KQ A6s 65s 55 etc.). Most of the outs for 76s require drawing again on the turn (increased variance). It doesn't seem to be a good idea to *factor in* a raise on the river. First, KT can improve to a river raising hand too (running tens is one possibility, trips may be enough with passive action on prior rounds). Second, any pat hand the 76s makes is still vulnerable to higher hands of the same rank. Surely you've made the second nut flush, smooth called an initiator's bet on the river with a player behind you having just made, and so raising with a garbage flush?
I prefer the KT over 76s with this flop - even in a loose game - primarily because I can either win immediately, make the field shorthanded, or get out cheaply. If I check/call with 76s (which I may have to up front) against four opponents, and the turn produces an eight or nine out draw, my having shown weakness on the flop can hurt me if I'm faced with calling two bets cold (and it might even get reraised).
It would not surprise me if an unmodified TTH2 simulation shows KcTc with the edge against an agressive field on a fixed flop of Ks6h5d, but 7d6d showing the edge against a passive field (assuming all loose players).
This is an interesting question though, since one could hold either hand from any position going into the flop having posted on the kill button.
Post deleted at author's request.
When I said I would prefer 76s I assumed that there was some chance that it was already the best hand. I did not assume there was already a K10 out against it. In other words the question was given that flop which hand would you give yourself if you could.
Post deleted at author's request.
I was wondering what life as a professional card player would be like. I sometimes think about changing occupations, but I wonder if it's really worth it. I'm working on building a bankroll and figure that $50,000 should get me started. I'd set aside $20,000 for 2 years of living expenses and a $30,000 bankroll that should be more than ample to let me grind it out at $10-$20 and $15-$30 while I gain experience. Playing 40 hours a week, I figure I could make $30,000-$45,000 per year depending on how disciplined I am. What are the tax implications for gambling winnings? Also, does the novelty of playing for a living wear out quickly? Any advice or comments would be appreciated.
Steve wrote:
>I'd set aside $20,000 for 2 years of living expenses
This seems pretty low. I think that you'll need more than this (at least I would). Don't forget that most poker pros travel a lot, as they find it advantageous to move from casino to casino. If you're going to be in LV, then you may find that the opposition gets to know you too well, as there are only a couple of rooms in town that spread the higher limits. If you're going to be in LA, the cost of living is so high that this definitely won't be enough. Make sure you really look into it fully.
>a $30,000 bankroll that should be more than ample to let >me grind it out at $10-$20 and $15-$30 while I gain experience.
This does sound sufficient.
>Playing 40 hours a week, I figure I could make $30,000-
Well, are you already a winning player? Do you have a couple of thousand of hours of records to indicate that you can win at this rate already? If you're break-even or a marginal winner, you can't expect to suddenly do better just because you've "turned pro".
I would say that you shouldn't even consider this idea seriously until you can look at your records and see that you're winning that 1+ big bet/hour for the last 1,000-2,000 hours.
>What are the tax implications for gambling winnings?
They are fully taxable, and unlike other businesses, you can't carry losses forward or backward to offset gains in other tax years. Also, you can claim expenses of doing business (travel costs, educational materials, anti-smoke fans) as deductions, but only if you're a full-time pro. Also, you must document everything fully in order to have your deductions allowed.
Reconsider everything at least 20 times before quitting your current job.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The 10k per year sound way too low to me also. In some places, ven if you own your home that won't even pay property taxes. You won't be able to get credit cards and such, health insurance could be a problem. Larry King (not the TV one, the other one) wrote an essay once about getting turned down by American Express because he didn't have a job. His income was well into 6 figures (this was right after Best LIttle Whorehouse). He got a letter from his book publisher saying they employed him as an asst. ed. at 30k a year, he got the Am Ex. And, I think you'll have to count on moving around -- the good games don't always stay where you are. And, are you sure you can find good games for 40 hours per week? And, even ignoring medicl expenses, what pays the bills if you you get sick for a couple of weeks? And, as far as taxes go, the IRS likes it a lot better when you get 1099's, that means tournaments. The IRS does not like undocumented cash, and the threshold for casino reporting of cash transactions gets lower all the time. Most poker pros I've known really do live on the edge of life. I know I did when I was playing fulltime. As for what Greg said about 1-2000 hours with win rate of 1 big bet/hour, I'd say that's noe enough of a win rate if the time was spent on weekend games. If you can win 1bb per hour playing in the best 15 hours of the week, then 40 hours per week play will significantly reduce that rate. When I first started play8ing full time (long ago), I thought I'd move to Reno. My win rate had been about 2 big bets per hour, on weekends. I quickly found that I couldn't beat the games on weekdays, had to move back to SF. Good luck. -- Gary Carson
>>>"I was wondering what life as a professional card player would be like. I'm working on building a bankroll. I'd set aside $20,000 for 2 years of living expenses and a $30,000 bankroll that should be more than ample to let me grind it out at $10-$20 and $15-$30 ..."
Excellent, so long as you really can live on 10,000/year.
>>>"... while I gain experience."
Oops. You should already have a lot of experience.
"Playing 40 hours a week, I figure I could make $30,000-$45,000 per year depending on how disciplined I am."
See Carson's response. If you expect to play 2000 hours/year, that's $15-$22.5/hour. Is that what you are making now? Carson is correct in pointing out that you will play more often in less profitable games.
>>>"What are the tax implications for gambling winnings?"
You should report net winnings, less expenses, at the end of the year. Temptation for creativity is high. Reporting nothing will attract attention, as will reporting very little several years in a row, as will reporting little but leaving a padded paper trail behind, such as frequent changes in bank accounts and high credit card use. You DEFINATELY do not want IRS attention.
>>>"Also, does the novelty of playing for a living wear out quickly?"
Yes. But "novelty" is not particularly important. Satisfaction increases, so long as you are building your bankroll.
>>>"Any advice or comments would be appreciated."
Your large bankroll will reduce the emotional impacts of long losing streaks, which are *inevitable*. Put effort into not losing heart, such as have some non-priority activities ready for those times you quit a game early due to discouragement, such as fixing the squeaky step, writing Mom, or shaving. Find a respected peer to talk lifestyle, strategy, and individual hands. Be sure to engage in a regular non-Poker physical activity, such as biking, tennis, or sex. Keep other areas of your life "balanced"; whatever that means for you. Do NOT bring home problems to the table, nor table problems home; I wish I knew how to do that; other than have some routine activity before and after each session, such as a half hour commute: think poker going in and RESOLVE a misplayed poker hand on the way out. Be ENCOURAGED about poker before you walk in the door.
Expect loved ones to hate poker-talk. Expect loved ones not to understand. Expect loved ones to routinely suggest you are doing the wrong thing. Expect to lose a Mate that does not understand. **Sigh**
Of all the "easy" ways to make a living, Poker ranks just below parachute tester at the tough end.
- Louie
If you are Mateless then DO IT. Even if you fail, your future Mate will be glad you got it out of your system.
Post deleted at author's request.
Okay, I will be the ball buster. Don't do it!PERIOD! Why? Except for a handful of players world wide, those players that are playing, "Professionally", either, A- already made money from a business previous to poker, B-Won a tournament or placed in a tourney that gave them enough money to continue, C- were playing before so many players were wised up by Sklansky's books, etc. etc. 10-20(by the way) is probably the worst place to try to grind it out. It's a transistional game.(Players moving up and players moving down). Poker has to be played with a long term view. remember,that Poker is a GAMBLING game that has a lot of skill involved. If you want to be a poker player then the best thing you could do would be to save that money you were talking about and try to start a business, or invest it. You need an income stream other than poker inorder to insure survival at the tables. You might also try to play in tournaments, which will give you great experience against very good players, (at least in the bigger tournaments), and if you get lucky and win some money you can play higher. I'll put this another way. If you want to have a "LIFE", then find a way to make money that will allow you some time to also play cards.
Steve,
A few things I would like to add, if you think you can just grind away and win all the time forget it if you play $10-20 and up. You're going to have to play well continuously to get the money in the long run. Anyway grinding it out doesn't seem like a lot of fun to me.
As far as experience, it depends on what your situation in life is. My opinion is that you can always get a job and if your job sucks why not give it a shot. If your young you can always recover.
There are advantages to being an amatuer and playing poker on the side. You can be choosier about games and can play higher with the same bankroll. I also know some folks that conviently forget some of their big wins when it comes time to fess up on taxes because they have a job and already pay taxes.
The last thing is that my opinion has always been that when you are depending on poker for your main source of income you really do have a boss, the good poker game. You just simply have to be there when the games are good at least that is what I have found. To me this meant night time hours and wee morning hours especially on the weekend. Getting good at short handed play is something else I would recommend. Learning a variety of games is a must. Be good at hold'em, Omaha/8, Seven Stud, and Seven Stud/8. And yes it does put a lot of stress on relationships. If you have a wife or significant other, they might start getting the idea that your a no good bum hanging around the card room playing poker all night no matter how well you do.
Tom Haley
You are so right !! I never understood the fascination of all people towards the poker pro. I admit even I fall into the group. Yes they are the ones who can be proud, the true Mavericks. However I rather be the trustfund kid or have some major funds from company stock options, stock market 'gambling' or wise real estate speculation. Have a good tax attorney and pay taxes. Then play poker !!! You are not going to be the 'short stack' and can play well if you psychology is good. If you never file and grind out a living, they will get you either way; if you win - you lose (to the IRS) if you lose end up in the gutter. Granted not every one of us have a trust-fund or win the lotto. What bothers me is the McEvoy's and even the Stuy Ungars who bet $250,000 on some baseball event where they could be set for life if they used some smart investment. They say the first million is the hardest to make ! Some of these guys had done it twice(or trice) and yet they are broke. Not from poker but from this weird habbits of betting on stupid things. McEvoy was taken for a ride by some bad 'friends'. I think you never have a problem (of not having a good bankroll) if you don't piss away your poker winnings. If these are pros I want nothing like that for me !!!
Don't pay any taxes.Not one cent.Don't even file.As far as the IRS is concerned your just an unemployed bum living off your wife.So many poker players,bookies,sports bettors, loansharks,etc.have tried to do the right thing and pay taxes,but what usually happens is the IRS claims they didn't pay enough taxes and audits them anyways,2 acquaitances of mine each owe the IRS over 200,000 each (with the IRS's mob style math)and can never have anything in their names. Another had a laundry mat he bought with sports gambling proceeds taken by the IRS.They had no problems when they were paying nothing,all the bull started when they tried to do the right thing and pay some taxes.
Re: taxes
If you want to avoid tax implications - try gambling in Canada. Revenue Canada (at least at this point) does not tax gambling income. The down side is that you cannot deduct gambling losses.
Revenue Canada does not tax "windfalls" or gambling wins by non-professionals. But, if gambling is your primary source of income, then it IS taxable in Canada.
Regarding the NFL football season is in progress right now, I have some questions about the Under/Over bet that I wonder if anyone has opinions about:
1. Conventional wisdom about betting pro football states that the Under/Over bet is the easiest to beat. Is this conventional wisdom correct? I think the answer is yes.
2. To "seasonal" tendencies tend to affect the propensity to go over? For example, conventional wisdom in football states that the defenses progress more rapidly than the offenses at the beginning of the season but eventually the offenses catch up. So at the beginning of the season you would see more low scoring games. Perhaps after about 4 weeks you might see the offenses catch up and the total number of points scored move this number higher. Also weather would seem to have a great impact on the score. The Sunday night game between KC and Seattle must have been a dream for bettors who had the under in that game when they saw the torrential downpour that the game was being played in. I'm not sure what the number was for that game but I'm sure it went under. Just think if you were watching the weather channel before that game and knew KC was going to get deluged with rain.
3. How much does the public distort the number? There is no question that the public can load up on a team and the point spread is distorted. For example, from my observations, a lot of sports bettors love to try and bet against the weakest teams by often spotting them too many points in pro football. Does this happen to the totals? Does the public see a couple of high scoring teams and decide the game has to go over and the total is distorted? I would think that this would be the case.
4. It seems that analyzing the offensive and defensive match-ups (special teams included) would be very important. For example, team B is playing Team A. Team A plays great defense against the pass but is not very good against the run. Team B has a poor running offense but is a great passing team. It would seem that team B might not score it's usual number of points. BTW, the book, Getting the Best of It, discusses match-ups in this manner for picking teams against the point-spread.
Tom Haley
Being new to sports betting, I enjoyed your post. But, because I'm rather new at it, I can't answer your questions. I suggest you check out http://www.talksport.com/ and post your question there. You'll find some real experts on football betting there (and a few boneheads, too.)
Good Luck
Tom states:
1. Conventional wisdom about betting pro football states that the Under/Over bet is the easiest to beat. Is this conventional wisdom correct? I think the answer is yes.
That depends on what you mean by 'easiest'. In my particular handicapping regimen, I play a somewhat smaller number of totals than sides, but the totals are easier to spot. On the other hand, totals 'capping can be a bit deceptive to the beginner; totals are a *byproduct* of the main goal of each opponent. No coach tells his team, 'Let's have a high scoring game today'. He just wants to win.
Tom states:
2. To "seasonal" tendencies tend to affect the propensity to go over?
My 11-year NFL database displays a consistent predilection towards the Under early in the season, and Over late in the season. I haven't done enough research to tell you whether that's an artifact of the game itself or the bettor's predispositions.
Tom states:
3. How much does the public distort the number? There is no question that the public can load up on a team and the point spread is distorted. For example, from my observations, a lot of sports bettors love to try and bet against the weakest teams by often spotting them too many points in pro football. Does this happen to the totals? Does the public see a couple of high scoring teams and decide the game has to go over and the total is distorted? I would think that this would be the case.
Basically you are correct. Past results show considerable profit in simply playing Under any line of 45+, and a lesser profit playing Over any line of 38 or less.
Tom states:
4. It seems that analyzing the offensive and defensive match-ups (special teams included) would be very important. For example, team B is playing Team A. Team A plays great defense against the pass but is not very good against the run. Team B has a poor running offense but is a great passing team. It would seem that team B might not score it's usual number of points. BTW, the book, Getting the Best of It, discusses match-ups in this manner for picking teams against the point-spread.
My research finds these and other stats to be pretty important. What's interesting is that the relationship between these stats and the total score is not so linear. Depending on where the posted total is, a particular stat may have the exact *opposite* effect on the outcome from what you would normally expect.
As far as the process outlined in GBI, I find that far too time-consuming. I have mechanized the process so that I can spend more of my time in more productive efforts, like building db's for other sports(like soccer), or becoming an expert on more esoteric propositions(like halftime wagering).
I have some idea whereof I speak; I finished #2 in the NFL regular season rankings with The Sports Monitor of Oklahoma City last year. After a nice Sunday, my monitored regular season record(sids & totals combined) over the last 1.5 seasons is now 100-61 ATS. If it weren't for a ridiculous number of TD runbacks(kickoff, punt, and interception) screwing up my Unders so far this season, I'd be on the sunny side of 66%.
I wish tech/sports guys like myself had a website like this one to exchange ideas.....
Dave Fobare
Dave and Mason state in their book Gambling for a Living "how often the two teams will be passing rather than running is the single most important factor regarding whether a football game will go over or under."
I wish they had elaborated more on this point as it deserves an entire chapter of explanation and not just one sentence.
I believe that totals are hard to forecast, as teams can score points on defense and give them up on offense. Also, how can one factor in turnovers and special teams play?
As an aside, I do like the Jets/Patriots game to go over providing the weather is okay. If one team takes control of the game, I believe it'll run up the score on the other. Bledsoe hates Parcells, and the Jets have many former Patriots including their ex coach.
Philip sez:
Dave and Mason state in their book Gambling for a Living "how often the two teams will be passing rather than running is the single most important factor regarding whether a football game will go over or under."
I would prefer to know the net yards-per-pass each team will put up in a given game. This quantity(add them together) has an very strong relationship to the total points scored.
Dave Fobare
Barring California, does anyone have any comments where the best mid-limit HE games can consistently be found? Comments on Phoenix, Las Vegas and other western locations would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Would like some feedback from everyone......
A situation came up tonight- playing 50-100 HOLDEM:
Six callers for one bet pre-flop. I'm in the big blind and find AKs.
Conventional wisdom would say to raise in this spot. Certainly you would want to build the pot, as you hold one of the best, if not the best, hand in a multi-way pot.
Also, to recall something I read in HPFAP:
This would be a spot that you would possibly want to manipulate the pot, so as to force players to call you down with second best hands, due to the size of the pot.
My question, however, is simply this:
Assuming you don't flop a monster hand (e.g. nut flush or top two), doesn't your raise make it correct for a person to call you with second, or even third, pair on the flop due to pot odds as a result of your raise pre-flop.
For example, if the flop comes A-7-3 rainbow-- isn't it correct for an individual, holding the 8-7, to call in the hopes of making two pair? If it costs the player 50 on the flop, with 600 already in the pot, doesn't that make a call on the flop correct?
My math isn't great, so maybe I'm missing something..... and I know that this situation is not quite as simple as it sounds-- as in a lot of cases- raising from the big blind-- it's possible you could've flopped a set of aces...... in which case the 8-7 is in SERIOUS trouble (to say the least).
I just wanted to throw this out for discussion....... Is it possible that this may be a case of NOT wanting to build too big of a pot- so as to make a call INCORRECT post-flop (i.e. 50 to win 300 as opposed to 600)?
Thanks for the input.
Jimmy
Mix it up. However, I'd raise here more often than not. While you're right about the math, there's different ways of looking at it.
In the flop you describe of A73, with 78 chasing your AK, you're right. If you don't raise and bet the flop, 78 does not have pot odds to call, as he'll only be getting 7:1, and needs to get over 8:1. Even considering implied odds, he probably shouldn't call, because he may be drawing almost dead, and doesn't really have the 5 outs he thinks he has. If you had raised, he'd be getting 13:1 now, and should call.
Let's look at this another way. If he calls on the flop with slightly insufficient odds, he's making a small mistake. However, before the flop, people with hands like Ax and Kx (x=2-Q) were probably in there in at least 1 or 2 spots, and they were making big mistakes (if they had known what you are holding). By raising preflop, you're getting a lot more +EV from the folks that are drawing very slim, as well as from those that have a reasonable chance against you. After the flop, any mistaken calls will be from fewer players, and will be a smaller mistake.
Thus, the preflop raise will make you more EV than if you don't raise and get mistaken calls postflop.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
> For example, if the flop comes A-7-3 rainbow-- isn't it > correct for an individual, holding the 8-7,
You are ahead, and he is drawing to 5 outs for 2 pair or a set. He will hit that a little over 20% of the time. He doesn't even know if a set will hold up. You are drawing to 5 outs also to improve. You will scoop over 80% of the time. I would love to be in that situation every hand all night. If he wants to chase that one, let him. You didn't mention whether or not the board hit his suit. If it did, he could chase the flush and hit it around 1/7 of the time. A Poker Guy!
If your hand was not suited you should only call since you will need to hit the flop to win and your raise will give a five out hand, assuming you flop top pair, the correct odds to continue.
Being suited is another matter since you make extra money those times you flop a flush or a flush draw and entice a "five out hand" to stay in. Consequently I almost always raise in this spot.
Now suppose you start with AKs, raise before the flop, and flop top pair and no draw. Even though you like your hand you must now play it well to maximize your profit. Depending on the board, the line-up, etc, you might bet out, try for a check raise, check it twice and try for the check raise on fourth street, etc. I frequently will try for the fourth street check raise (in this spot) since it may knock someone out who would beat me on the river.
Mason, when you say you will try for a 4th street check raise (and I believe you mean with a flop of either Axx orKxx), do you mean you bet the flop and then check, or that you check both flop and turn? It seems to me that if you raised 4 or more cold-callers from BB, bet the flop, and then check, that most players would simply "call" your check. I would think that this is a play with much more of a downside..giving a player(s) a chance to hit their kicker for free, than to pick up an extra large bet. Those times when you check, and are able to check-raise the better, but 2 or 3 people drop-out between you, who would have called a single bet hoping to hit 2-5 cards, that this also causes you to lose money. Perhaps I am missing something obvious here.Thanks for your time. Gary
The answer is yes to both questions. It just depends on many variables that you have to consider. Sometimes it might be correct to bet the flop and then try to check raise on fourth street. Other times it might be correct to check call the flop and then try to check raise the turn. Other times it might be correct to check raise right on the flop, etc. This is where experience and knowing your opponents comes into play.
By the way, many players would raise (or reraise) with two queens or two jacks out of the blind before the flop, bet the flop if an ace or a king comes, and then check on fourth street. I'm not saying that this is correct strategy, but it is not an uncommon play.
Sorry guys , but I would just be calling here most of the time.Although it's a great starting hand, there are just too many players and your posistion is bad. When you raise out of the blinds, it says "strength", and to try for a check raise after raising in this posistion in a 50-100 game, seems to me would be very difficult. At the very least, I would be a little suspicious if a player raised from the blinds with many players and then checked.Also, If you raise you are inviting players to chase. Of course, as with all other scenarios, it ultimately depends on the players you are in with.If there were a couple less players in, then I'd be raising.
Mr Malmuth said: "... many players would raise (or reraise) with two queens or two jacks out of the blind before the flop, bet the flop if an ace or a king comes, and then check on fourth street."
At the lower limits there are also who would routinely raise with real trouble, like AT, and always bet the flop, "trying to represent a pair". They then check the turn. Since this seems natural to them they would suspect it of you, so a bet-the-flop check-the-turn looks like a perfectly natural bad hand to them, and makes for a good check-raise on the turn.
These types will be VERY suspicious when you check on the flop, so do so when you miss but bet when you hit. Trick them by playing straight forwardly, hehehe.
But as Mr. Malmuth said you need to know the opponents. Mr. Malmuth's Essays II has an example that a player who bluffs too much will assume that others do as well.
I agree, and have formed generallized rule-of-thumb as follows:
< How could such an opponent believe good players play different than they, without admitting their own weakness?
- Louie
I have read a lot of discussion about manipulating pot size and it usually centers around forcing your opponents to make mistakes. For example, you don't want to build a big pot with AKs because opponents with any part of the flop will hand around in an attempt to catch two pair, gutshots, etc. And if the pot is big, these calls will be correct (pot odds). However, it is my opinion that except for deceptive purposes, failing to bet/raise with the best hand (or even with above average equity in the pot) seems to be a mistake on *your* part, thereby allowing your opponents to gain.
If AKs has 30% equity against 6 opponents (I have absolutely no clue what the real number would be), then for a $50 raise preflop, you would win (in the long run) 30% of $350, which is $105, for a net of $55. Failing to raise in the spot *costs* you $55 dollars! I understand that you will win more pots be simply calling preflop, but these pots will be smaller, and all in all I doubt that $55 can be recovered this way. Could someone please help me with this?
Personally, I believe that a poker player would want to get as much money in the pot when they are ahead, and would want to pay as little as possible when trying to continue with a draw for example. The exeptions to this rule would be for deceptive purposes only (mixing up play, raising for a free card, etc.) By *not* raising when ahead, you are giving your opponents what they want: cheap chances to outdraw you.
I have been thinking along these lines for a while. If everybody knew what everybody had, surely at least ONE person would want to raise, and at least one person would rather not. The ones that would rather hold hands like AK. If the opponent's odds go from an easy fold to a marginal call, then he has only gained a little after the flop, but has usually lost more when you raised before the flop.
But it could very well be that there are situations where the "mistake" you make on an early round (such as not raising with AK or raising multi-way with 22) are over compensated by the mistakes the opponents will make later.
The 22 seems like a good example: your pre-flop multi-way raise encourages extra calls when you flop a set. But these extra calls do not significantly change your chances of winning this much larger pot (the most notable exception would be gut-shots), and the cost of the raise is cheap (expect say 5 calls, you get 5:1 for your 7.5:1 chances, so you lose 1-(5/7.5ths) of a bet, = .3333 bets).
In this case your raise encourages opponents to make what they THINK are marginal calls, such as 2nd pair, but which are disasters when played against your set. In the case of AK your raise encourages opponents to make calls which are in fact marginal against your one big pair.
So, with say 5 opponents who will call the raise....
#1: How much will this raise cost/gain right now?
#2: How much will this raise reduce my chances of winning?
#3: How much more likely am I to put more money in later with the inferior hand?
#4 How much more likely are the opponents to put in more money later with the inferior hand?
A raise with AK is favorable for #1 and #4 and unfavorable for #2 and #3. A raise with 22 is favorable for #2, #3 and #4 and unfavorable for #1. A raise with 76s appears to be unfavorable for #1, #2, and #3 and favorable for #4.
I have ignored the "check to the raiser", steal, and psycological advantages of raising.
- Louie
I have started playing pot limit holdem recently and have had reasonable results. However, when the game gets down to 4 handed-play I do less well. My head to head results especially are extremely poor. This is puzzling me because when i play in a full game, and end up in a 2 way pot, i usually do very well. I think this is because in a full game I feel confident with my hand values, whereas in a 2 handed game I often have no idea where i stand. I have read some previous posts on shorthanded play, and read what some of the books have to say, but do not feel that this has been of much use to me. I would appreciate advice on how to play 2 handed pot limit holdem, especially if it relates to the following areas:
1) Starting hands: the consensus seems to be that high cards become much stronger, e.g. Ax, KJ etc. I am raising and calling with Ax, medium and high pocket pairs, KT upwards, and occasionaly with hands like 76s. Is this a reasonable set of hands to be playing with? Should i always be raising with high pocket pairs (TT upwards), or sometimes just calling?
2) Play on the flop: i think this is my biggest weak point. If i miss the flop completely, should i just muck my hand? If i have draws should i try to steal with a pot-size bet, or just check and hope my opponent doesn't bet? How should i play bottom pair, middle pair, top pair, with or without a good kicker?
3) Aggressive/passive play: I have 2 problems here. First, I am not sure what strength hand i need to be able to raise with. Secondly, i am not sure how to deal with an aggressive opponent who tries to steal constantly. I have tried folding unless i have a hand, i have tried calling then seeing if he bets again on the turn, and i have tried raising to discourage stealing, but none seem to do me any good. Any ideas how i could improve here?
4) General approach: my limit holdem results in head to head play have been reasonable - i find it much easier to dominate passive opponents, and to deal with aggressive opponents by being selectively aggressive back. But in pot limit, against opponents with an equal or bigger stack size, i find aggressive opponents extremely difficult to deal with. Should i be adopting a different approach entirely? Should i be trying to win a lot of pots, or should i allow my opponents to steal more, and then try to exploit their aggressive play by setting them up when i do make a big hand? In other words, should i be content to take a lot of small losses, in the hope of scoring one big pot which will more than make up? Or should i be trying to grind out a series of small wins?
5) Reading opponents: i am not happy with my ability to read opponents in head to head play. I have frequently folded hands only to be shown rags; and often when i decide to punish my opponent for stealing, i end up running into a strong hand and losing big. I do not seem to have this problem when playing at a full table - i can usually put my opponents on a hand, and have no problem making good laydowns, bluffing big on the river at the right moments, and so on. Any advice on how to improve my reading skills in 2 handed play would be greatly appreciated.
Some people are extremely good at 2 handed play, which tells me that there must be at least one "winning" style of play. Unfortunately, at the moment I have no idea what it is. Can anyone help?
Matt
For heads-up pot-limit (HU PL) play, I'd say that you can almost forget concepts like hand strength. There is no cutoff point for hands that are worth calling or raising with. You need to mix it up a lot, sometimes jamming with 46o, sometimes just calling with QQ. You have to try to find your opponent's patterns while avoiding falling into any patterns yourself. Let's just say, that if you set up any (even loose) guidelines for what hands you'll play in which way, a good HU PL player will eat you up, because you'll have a pattern to find.
You're playing a very high volatility game here, so be careful unless your bankroll can handle the swings.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Game conditions - loose semi-aggressive.
Maniac raises UTG, you are on his immediate left with either of these three hands: Axs, 66, 87s.
If you were 95% sure that there would be exactly 3 more callers and no reraise, would you call with all of these hands?
Would you call with any of them? Which ones?
If you would not call under these circumstances, what would be the minimum conditions in which you would play these hands?
All comments appreciated!
Post deleted at author's request.
Off the top of my head, I'd play the 66 in the scenario described, but not the Axs or 78s. Both Axs and 78s tend to flop draws much more often than made hands. Because of the raise, my implied odds aren't as big with any hand, and I'm likely to pay these 2 bets, plus 2-3 more, before making a draw. With 66, I'll either flop a set for 2 bets or fold on the flop.
Also, with Axs and 78s, I think that position is much more important than it is for the pair. Position doesn't win or lose you the pot after you flop a set, it only is relevant to maximizing your win. However, with the draw hands, you can sometimes win a pot by semi-bluffing, and if in last position you are less likely to get sucked in for multiple bets on the flop or turn (you're less likely to call 1 bet and then get raised behind you).
If there will be enough people in the pot, then all 3 hands are worth playing in any position for 2 bets. You probably need at least 5 opponents if you're in late position, and 6 if in early position, to play the draw hands.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
At one point in the new movie Ronin, the Robert DeNiro character,
a CIA agent, when asked how he avoided an ambush, replied
“When there’s doubt, there is no doubt. That’s the first thing they teach you”.
Does this apply to Poker?
Hardly. If you're afraid to bet (or call) when you don't have the current nuts, you're playing way too tight. After a while your opponents will catch on and adjust their strategy and crush you.
There might some situations in big bet poker where that might be a good strategy because you can lose your whole stack on one mistake. But that might be based more on your knowledge of the other players, or tells, than any other factors. But even in big bet poker (no-limit and pot-limit), being afraid to take chances is a losing strategy.
Players will sometimes ambush you if the can, but they will make way more in the long run if they can make you think you're being ambushed, forcing you to give them free chances to catch up to your hand, or by making you fold a better hand.
By the way, in poker you can just as easily be ambushed by a bet, as well as a check or a call.
A good general rule for the beginner is, if in doubt, fold early, and if in doubt, call late.
This question is for Mr. Sklansky, but all responses are welcome.
While rereading The Theory of Poker, I started thinking about the Fundamental Theorem of Poker. The gains you make when your opponents play differently than they would if they could see your cards are in exoected value. But isn't it true that expected value is not always the quantity you want to maximize? For example, do I really want a tableful of opponents to all make marginally bad calls of my bet, hoping to draw out on me? The result of this would be that I almost always lose, but when I win, I win a lot; this may maximize expected value, but produces extremely large fluctuations possibly making the game one in which I am likely to get broke. A similar example: If we toss a fair coin, and you give me better than 1-1 payoff odds, then as far as maximizing expected value, my best strategy is to bet my entire bankroll each toss. However, I am almost sure to get broke this way, although there is a tiny chance of winning a HUGE amount. (The Kelly Criterion gives a bet size which maximizes a different, but more reasonable function than expected value.) So the point of all this is that perhaps the Fundamental Theorem should sometimes be tempered with some "money management" (I know that term is not well regarded) to produce practical results. (Generally, I suppose such extreme examples don't arise so often in poker, so in most cases maximizing expected value may be fine.)
chas friedman friedman@math.utexas.edu
Actually, extreme examples like the ones you refer to can happen at any time in poker. Just take your life savings and put in on the table in a game where that will cover only a couple of bets. As you pointed out, you will eventually go broke--even if you're the best player at the table
Fluctuations are as important to understand in poker as maximizing expectation. They go hand in hand. I don't remember if Sklansky address fluctuations in The Theory of Poker (although he has elsewhere), but Malmuth does address standard deviation's effect on poker and gambling in general in Gambling Theory and Other Topics, as well as in Poker Essays. Both of which I highly recommend you read.
Gambling is a combination of two mathematical disciplines, probability and statistical analysis (as well as other non-mathematical ones). Understanding how both apply to gambling is critical to winning.
While you're right that in certain situations maximizing EV may also result in higher fluctuations, I think that this should be controlled by selecting the proper game, i.e., picking a limit of game that will allow you to maximize EV in that game while still not overextending your bankroll.
If your bankroll won't let you play 40-80 in a manner that maximizes EV, then play 30-60 to maximize EV instead. If that's still too big, maximize your play at 20-40.
In poker, I don't think it's usually good advice to play in any game where you feel worried about losing your bankroll. You're not likely to play your best.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Sklansky addresses the idea of overbetting your bankroll in his book "Getting the Best Of It." Unless you don't mind going broke, you must always balance your bankroll against your expectation.
Once you find the proper level for your poker skills, your bankroll should far exceed that which is necessary to play those stakes. At that point concerns about fluctuations should become almost irrelevant as compared to maximizing expectation. Poker is not like blackjack where your edge remains the same regardless of the color of your chips. There are many 20-40 players with $100,000 who play no higher simply because they wouldn't make as much if they did.
I agree that in poker, once the appropriate bankroll is established for the limits, maximizing expectation is the primary goal. Poker bankroll-expectation balancing will only be an issue when taking shots or when the game and limit selection is restricted. My point was more one of a general point that bad runs will inevitably occur in positive EV situations and consistently overbetting the bankroll in these situations will ultimately lead to no bankroll. Sports betting is one example where this is true.
I have been playing poker professionally for many years. I was able to get by most of those years but it was always a struggle. Several years ago I started making more money and I was actually able to "save" money and build up my bankroll with minimum risk and smaller flucuations. I also have more peace of mind. The highs and lows were overwhelming. Now, I am on more of an even keel. How did I do this? The answer is simple. I STOPPED OVERPLAYING MY BANKROLL. Period. In the past I always used to jump into the biggest game I had three (or two) buy-ins for. Sometimes, I was spectacularly successful. But it only takes one bad week, or in many cases one or two bad nights to severly deplete your resources. Result--back down to the smaller limit. Now, I always have money. I can always afford to play, and I don't "step up" until I have more than sufficient funds. Thereby assuring a high degree of confidence at my new stakes. When I finally make it--I belong there. In the past I considered it "heartless" if I didn't jump up and play in a bigger game that I knew I could beat. (Even ones I couldn't) Now, I am much happier just grinding out smaller, but steadier wins. Oh sure, it is very boring sometimes, but I have just reasoned with myself that it is much better to always be in money and have the ability to build up my bankroll, and watch it grow, rather than take reckless chances for a piece of the ellusive rainbow. I was greedy and in a hurry. The hurrier I went the behinder I got. Why did it take me so many years to get this through my stupid thick skull.
I agree with you that overplaying your bankroll (especially if you intend to build it up consistently e.g. if you are playing as a pro or semi-pro) is a major mistake. What bankroll would you consider adequate for, say, 10-20 holdem, assuming that the player was competent and capable of winning, say, 1BB per hour at that level?
Matt asks,
"What bankroll would you consider adequate for, say, 10-20 holdem, assuming that the player was competent and capable of winning, say, 1BB per hour at that level?"
$12,000. Assuming you have no other outside income. (More if the games are wild or you have a high standard deviation--above 230.)
$6000. Assuming you have an outside income. (No concern about rent/mortgage/bills,etc.)
$3000. Assuming you have an outside income and are willing to accept some risk of going broke. (Usually about 5%. This is what got me into so much trouble in the past. I was always willing to accept a chance of going broke--or of severely depleting my bankroll. PLUS--I had no outside income. Eventually it will happen because there is always a bigger game.)
The foregoing are all MINIMUM numbers.
ofcourse im a poker dealer in a state with with very little poker[ten dollar limit seminole indian reservation,3 1/2 hour no limit boat cruises].i have dealt everything from pot-limit hldem to pot limit omaha in casinos and house games years ago.i understand your feelings on dealers talking to much.and i agree with them for the most part.but[you had to know that was coming]there are somtimes when a dealer is just as much of the fun as the gamr itself.im talking about low limit poker$1-3 games those players are there to have fun,if they win thats a bonus!its like going to the movies for them.i see stupid mistakes everyday i hear from my regular players"why do they let that dealer deal this game"and some dealers should never be in the box,but someone in upper management gave them the job not another dealer.we are human!theres always video poker!
I agree that in the very small limits the dealer can be more "social" than I described in the POKER DIGEST interview. In our book THE PROFESSIONAL POKER DEALER's HANDBOOK we state this. But my descriptions of dealer's are accurate, and poor dealing quality is an industry wide problem.
Now this doesn't mean that every dealer talks too much. But it is a problem that most card rooms need to address, and they should give it a top priority.
The players should have as much at stake with the dealers as the casinos. In other words the players should be paying for the dealers as well as the clubs. The clubs should be responsible for hiring well trained dealers and paying there base hourly wage. The players should pay for the dealers by a mandatory, per hand rake, ( probably .50 cents). It is then up to the dealer to deal a fast and mistake free game. Forget this, whether to tip or not to tip crap. If the players have a required reasonable rake per hand, then they can voice their complaints when a dealer is screwing up.If a dealer knows what his wage is in advance, he/she is going to try to put out as many hands as possible. Mistakes waste time, so for a dealer to make a good wage, then they will have to perform.It will also get player distractions ended quickly in my opinion, as when a player is acting up, the dealer is not going to waste his/her valuable time. Mgmt will be called to the table and the player will be dealt with. I'm not a dealer, but from my 20 plus years playing in casinos, it is my opinion that there are many more abusive players than there are bad dealers. many higher limit players don't tip and act like complete assholes, expecting perfection, and blame the dealers , throw the cards and act like children. In fact it is more pervassive the higher up you go. before you can make demands on the dealers, they have to know that they are going to go to a 50-100 table and make 10-15 dollars instead of nothing, and that player abuse will not be tolerated. It is only then that you will attract a better qualifed dealer to begin with.
AL wrote: "The players should pay for the dealers by a mandatory, per hand rake, ( probably .50 cents). It is then up to the dealer to deal a fast and mistake free game. Forget this, whether to tip or not to tip crap. If the players have a required reasonable rake per hand, then they can voice their complaints when a dealer is screwing up.If a dealer knows what his wage is in advance, he/she is going to try to put out as many hands as possible."
Don't the dealers already have the same incentive? Even though the dealers don't know exactly what they're going to be tipped, they obviously know that the more hands they get out per hour, the more tips they'll make. Why would a mandatory raked-tip change this very much, or even at all?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
On a related note of dealers talking to much: I played stud at the taj last weekend, it was the first time I had played a non-flop game in a casino. Some dealers called out possible flushes etc., some didn't. What is appropriate?
as far as i know and have been taught a dealer calls all poss. hands in stud except:lowball,hi-lo,razz or any other stud game that has a low hand or split pot with hi and lo.
Greg,
The difference I see with Al's proposal is that there would be no favoritism shown towards a player that tipped more. Also it might foster better relations between the players and dealers.
Tom Haley
I think a mandatory dealer rake balances out the good table/bad table situations that arise at every club. As I said earlier , and I'm sure you have seen yourself, that in the higher games many players don't tip as to not effect their hourly rate or whatever. This causes negative attitudes on the dealer side of the fence. The player might rationalize that the casino should pay the dealer enough so as for them not to depend so much on tips, but this is impossible for the clubs to do and survive.Also tournaments should have a mandatory rake for the dealers since the players have shown that they don't give a shit, but some of the biggest winners are the first ones to throw cards, or jump on a dealers back when they make a mistake, and then they humiliate the dealer at the table and make the situation much worse, they complain to mgmt about the bad dealer or it turns into a fight because the dealer gets fed up with making no money and being abused by a player. I have seen this several times myself, and I don't play that many tournaments. No, the truth is that both the players and club mgmt has to realize that bad conduct by players cannot be tolerated, no matter who the player is, and.. we need to pay the dealers consistently,period. My idea might not be the ultimate answer, but I believe that it is better that what is being done now. To further comment, the clubs,(especially in California), need to wake up and do what is best for the longevity of the game, and quit ripping the low limit players off.How many clubs need to close before they get it. What is amazing is that these clubs keep hiring the same people to consult them on how to run the rooms, over and over again. I will name one name, Tom Bowling. He's the worst I've ever seen yet these clubs love him. They'll make money for a while then the club will go sour after they drain the plyers money.It's time for a change.
Al,
Your premise that the clubs can't afford to pay the dealers adequately is logically flawed.
1. Money spent fighting smoking ban. 2. Money spent fighting Indian Gaming Initiative. 3. Extra drop for "Cashpots". 4. Contributions to politicians and their campaigns. 5. Extra "dividends" paid to points holders. 6. Top heavy incompetent management.
The card clubs can and should pay the dealers. Floormen shouldn't be allowed to take tips as they are going to be called in to make rulings that are often matters of interpretation and judgement. There is so much money flowing into these card rooms that they could easily afford to pay their employees like any other business.
As a dealer the must tip rule for tour. is good, the must tip for dealers in live play is bad.im a good dealer and i know it my wifes better than i am,we make more than the average dealer because of that skill.ive worked hard and i study both sides of the well.iget better tips because of that talent,my players know that fact[they are my players not the casinos].i treat them with respect if its a$1 toke or nothing.it will always come back to me!the $100 bills when they hit big here or somewhere else.i give all my regular players x-mas cards every year,they know they pay my bills and im thankful for every dime. i chose this job and i can make it better or not,i think better!i make mistakes like every human,but i find out why and i dont make them again!really my wifes much better than i,and better looking too!
The situation will never improve as long as management continues to "ass kiss" the so-called BIG NAME players. They can do no wrong. In fact they cater to them. They act like complete morons, continually, and yet if the dealer makes one small error that is the event given all of the attention. What about Mr. Big Name's behavior. Throwing the cards a little bit harder into the box. Giving the dealers the stare down. Continually asking when are you going to get out of the box. Change the deck. New setup. I'll never play on any of your downs ever again. I'll never tip you ever again. In stud, it is almost a personal thing. "How could you give me a deuce on the river, I swear every time you get in the box you take me down. You burn me every time you deal."
I hear all of the above continually every time I come to Vegas. It embarrasses me. Sure I see errors and mistakes by dealers, but when the players who go off abnormally exacerbate the situation everything tends to escalate. Players hate the dealers and vice-versa. You can feel the tension. There is no fun in the room. No fun in the game.
Mandatory tipping wouldn't help either. The tension would still exist. Now, many of the players would be pissed every time they won a pot because of the money given to the dealer that they hate. Some dealers would be happy to deal X number of hands per hour and wouldn't care about speeding up their game.
In my opinion the best dealers have the best attitudes and say nothing taking the good with the bad. This goes for the best players as well. I'ts just that a place like Las Vegas has such a bad attitude overall that everyone from management (they just seem to have given up and just want to get by) on down doesn't care and just wants to make their bucks and go home. The way everybody hates everybody else in a place like that can you blame them?
a+
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary:
1. I was talking about dealers in general. This includes all games, and it represents my opinion which has been widely known for many years. (I have had numerous conversations with cardroom personnel and players on this very subject.)
2. You wrote: "Now, possibly the whole thing was intended as a puff piece to promote your new book and you didn't even realize that's what you said."
Let me give you a little history on this book.
After I received the original manuscript from Dan Paymar, I undertook it only after recruiting Donna Harris to be a co-author. I consider Donna to be the foremost expert in this area, and I didn't want to produce this manuscript without her contributions. (Donna is now poker room manager at The Mirage. [Doug Dalton is now at Bellagio.]) The original text needed to be completely rewritten and expanded, and we wanted to produce a very serious work that would contribute to the future growth of the poker industry.
Second, both Donna and myself spent hundreds of hours working on it. This includes time that I would have rather spend at the poker tables.
Third, it is unlikely that I will ever break even on the project. I knew this when I got involved. (You see, this is not the type of book that players will want to buy.) In addition, I have given out over 250 copies of the text to cardrooms and cardroom management. One copy was sent to every member cardroom of the California Card Club Association, and at the World Poker Conference which I spoke at (and which was sponsored by CARD PLAYER magazine) I (and Jessica) handed out over 200 copies.
As stated in the interview, we hope that THE PROFESSIONAL POKER DEALER'S HANDBOOK becomes the standard nationwide.
As for promoting the text, this is something that all of us at Two Plus Two would like to do.
I'm sure that the book is okay for the dealers and will do some good, but as I stated in my first post and several others have stated, the players need to change, and that starts with mgmt. The mgmt knows that it is dealing with extreme personalities many times, but they don't draw the line when the behavior goes over the top. You will never get consistently professional dealers when mgmt and players don't give a shit..period. I'm sure that the dealers handbook is well written, but it will change nothing.
i hope your book is a good starting place for new dealers. its something we as a industry need.ofcourse i cant afford it just dealt pot limit last night.$1 a hand for $1500+ pots.just kidding!ha!ha!i think the bulk of the blame starts on the top.after all most of our room mgrs. were dealers once.i try to maintain a good atitude all the time,but its hard when you see a player tip the wait staff $5 for a coffee because shes wearing a skirt then grumble to give you a buck on $800 pot.all i want as a dealer is time in the box and a fair chance at making a good living as i already do.ill take my chance with the one out of thousand ass&*%#s.ordering one of your books today!
I don't mind dealers making mistakes. Most mistakes can be fixed with very little time wasted. The same goes with dealers talking during the play. Many skilled dealers can talk and deal at the same time without slowing the game down. Most problems occur when dealers and players fight. Unfortunately for dealers, you control the game and it is up to you to stop arguments before they get out of control. I don't envy your job. I think I would take a swing at some of the players I've witnessed abusing dealers.
Game: 10-20 hold-em
Hand: Two red Aces.
Action: Capped six ways before the flop ($240)
Flop: K-J-6 (offsuit)
The steamer bet the flop--got one call--I raised. 5 players. Another King came on the turn. (K-K-J-6) If everyone checked to me I was planning on betting. If the steamer bet I was going to raise. The steamer checked and a little ol lady on my right that would never dream of bluffing in this situation came out betting--and I threw away my hand without giving it too much thought. An ace came on the river (K-K-J-6-A) and another player won with an ace high straight. (Q-10) But this is not the point! The point is that NOBODY HAD A KING!
When she bet on the turn I was getting 15.5 to one. In retrospect I guess it was worth a call just because there could be better than a 6% chance she was bluffing. Yet, at the time, I felt the chances she was bluffing were closer to 0% or 1%. Also, the price wasn't right to try and catch an ace (even with implied odds, {I'm 22 to one} getting 4 calls on the river doesn't get me to a break even situation) assuming she, or someone else had a King.
I was absolutely convinced she had a King. Plus someone behind me could have had one too. I was obviously wrong. The fact that an ace came didn't bother me. What bothered me is that I misjudged the situation so badly, especially because I felt I had the best hand and was going to bet the turn anyway. But when she fumbled with the chips and then bet I was fooled and lost the pot.
Knowing what you know now what would you have done? If you want more information there is another factor I am not telling you about because I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT until the hand was over. Another player filled me in. Scroll down for the answer.
I had only been in the game for about 30 minutes. Normally this particular lady is VERY scary when she bets or raises. I know here syle and she just wouldn't DREAM of bluffing in this situation because she knows it wouldn't work. I found out later she had been playing all night AND had been drinking AND was losing very badly. Obviously her play had deteriorated. She has put in long sessions before and that wouldn't matter but it was the fact she had been drinking that made the difference. She made several similar plays later in the game and had the nuts every time. (As usual) I guess the lesson to be learned here is that you should make a point of finding out who has been playing all night--how they are doing--AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE BEEN DRINKING!
EddyDr,
Even a bad player will occaisionally try to play you off of a hand. This is especially true when they have a pretty good idea what you have and you have made similar laydowns against them before. Yes even bad players notice things. It seems that if the chances were greater than 1% that you had her beat you should have seen the river card.
I don't know how the betting sequence went pre-flop but if she had a pretty good idea that you had Aces you have to take that into account. You were in a tricky situation. What can you do? This time your judgement was wrong but as you already know it's the consistency of making the correct judgement over the long run that counts. The guy drawing at the straight obviously was going to hang on until the bitter end.
Tom Haley
I was in last position in an unraised pre-flop with pocket 7s. The flop came JJ5 - two clubs. 5 players checked to me - I bet. Small blind calls all other fold.
The turn brings a 6d. Small blind checks ( figure he's on a club draw) I bet - he raises. He had that look he gets when he is slow playing a big hand and is making his kill. I fold.
In cases like this, is it better to check on the turn and risk being drawn out or is it better to back off and deny the risk of a check raise?
Dan,
IMO it depends on the player you are up against more than anything. When you get check raised like this you have to decide how likely it is that you are getting check raised by a worse hand than 7,7 and evaluate this in terms of what the pot is laying you, how much it will cost to see it through, and your chances of drawing out.
Against some players it would be very right to check on the turn. If it would cause them to bluff enough on the river to make calling correct, then checking the turn is the right play in this situation IMO.
What you really do is analyze this hand using the chapter called, Analysis At The Table, from the Theory of Poker, as your basis.
Tom Haley
This is an extremely important question that depends on many factors. I would like to hear what others have to say about it
I have always found that player knowledge is the determining factor here. Some players ALWAYS try to get the extra bet on the turn by check-calling the flop and check-raising the turn. Some players tend to bet out. Less experienced players will check-raise the flop, knocking out players they should really want to keep around. Some players will lead at the pot when a big pair flops if they flop bottom pair, or even as a total bluff. I think this is a wonderful topic for discussion, as David says.
you seem to know the other players well.if i didnt i think a reraise would be in order.at least the first time let them think about your hand more than your worring about theirs.if you get rerasied and you throw it away it may save you a bet or call latter on in the game.
There is no simple answer as whether to check or bet the turn into a single opponent with a high pair on board after betting the flop. With a flush or straight draw and a high pair on the flop, it becomes more complicated. I advise checking the turn unless you know your opponent's style of play and figure him weak or have other information which betrays his hand.
O.K. I'll shoot.
I think that with 5 people in the pot there is a good chance that someone has a Jack, especially since there wasn't a raise before the Flop. There are alot of hands that contain a Jack that your opponents might limp with. I don't think I would take a stab at it with many players. If the pot was shorthanded then betting would be a better play. Hopefully nobody plays back.
CV
Ihaven't read the other posts ,so if I'm repetitive, sorry bout that. When there is a pair on the board and you are betting an underpair, or even an overpair on the flop and get called by someone who checks, the brakes should go on. Unless this player is a complete beginner or someone who has been in there gambling every pot... he has to be calling with something. For me this is just a simple experience play more than anything. Mr sklansky might have other reasons to bet or check etc., but the right play is to check behind him on the turn, and if you don't improve, you can let the pot help you decide to call on the river. It's very rare in this situation for the player not to have trps, unless it's a player who is very very cagey, and knows that you know, etc. etc.. good luck
You should obviously check if you seriously fear you are beaten. But what about those times when you think that you probably have the best hand?
I would bet the turn against an opponent who I expect would bet his set on the flop and call with 88, 99 and TT and, of course, will lay down these same hands on the turn. I will bet into a loose-passive opponent who will call on the flop with bottom pair or less and possibly bet the river. I will bet and call a check-raise with a loose-aggressive opponent. Against any other I will check the turn and consider my chances if bet into on the river. The more saavy the player the more inclined I am to call the river after checking the turn.
Flop: J, Jc, 4c Turn: 6d Hole Cards: 7,7 in Last Position One Opponent Pot= 70.00
Since there is a possible Flush Draw I think a Bet on the Turn is Correct since you don't want to give a Free Card, of course Fold for the Check Raise. If the Flush comes in on the River and your opponent Bets, then Fold. If the Flush doesn't come in on the River, but an Over Card comes Especially an Ace, and your Opponent Bets into you I think a Fold is also correct against a Typical Player. Call an Agressive Player who might Bluff on the End with a Busted Draw.
If the Flush Draw wasn't on the Board I think a Check is better since you won't get Check Raised and may induce a Bluff on the River. I'd call any bet on the End, and just Check it down if Checked to me. I think in this situation a Bet on the End in Last Position is a Bad Play because if you are called you're probably beaten.
CV
You should be more likely to bet when:
1. The pot is bigger.
2. There are more free cards that can hurt you.
3. Checking is less likely to induce a bluff on the end from your opponent.
4. Your opponent is a less frequent check-raiser.
5. You are less likely to be faced with a difficult decision if you are check-raised.
6. Your opponent's current perception of your play (especially in a situation such as the one at hand) supports betting rather than checking.
In the actual situation described, given no other information, I'd tend to bet because the pot has some size and there are many free cards that can hurt.
John Feeney
John's answers are very good. I would probably check behind the player even though I thought I had the best hand.If I do have the best hand then the player is probably going to fold on the turn if I bet, unless he/she is unusually loose.I have a chance to induce a bluff if I am the best, and if I'm wrong and he/she has trips, then I save a bet.Since the pot is fairly large with all the pre-flop callers this gives the player plenty of incentive to bluff at it.Of course the texture of the turn card could also have an effect on my decision.
one further comment is that these types of boards also give players an opportunity to put a play on you, so it can very well happen that an early posistion player feels that you have less than trips and waits to check raise you on the turn, which creates a very tough decision with an under pair. Someone like Mr. Zee would make this play routinely if he thought you were weak, so it's better to check the turn. David??
Just as you may think that the guy may be calling with a flush draw or trips, he may think you could be betting a flush draw. He may call with two overcards, I do it all the time just to see what happens next. Most players will give up on the turn because they lose their nerve, of course you should have an idea of whom you are up against. This is a good reason to bet on 4th street against a good player and maybe check against a weaker player. The opposite of what usally is the correct play. This is why David is so irritating as he takes such a simple thing and turns it into a nightmare of possibilities that require you to think about something for a long time that most people take for granted.
I agree the more typical the player the more reason to check. But against a very weak player, a calling station (probably not often found in your daily game), in my experience (even with the possibility of an overpair to your pair) betting makes money if you have any sense whatsoever you have him beat. As for betting into a good player on the turn, expecting him to bet a flush draw and most always a set on the flop, I'm not sure? It seems you have to answer the following. How often does he check-call a flush draw? How often does he check-call a set? How often does he check-call and fold a better pair for a bet on the turn? You have to compare these three to the chances he check-calls with mere overcards (with which he didn't raise pre-flop: AK, AQ, KQ) and then be pretty sure he will never play back.
My question for you is this, if you pick up any tidbit of worry in your opponent's bet on the turn in a situation like this, will you check-raise with your overcards?
Scott, Anytime I find an opponent that doesnt like his hand im going to try to see if there is a way I can win that pot. Each player has a way to play against him that will give you the best results and that is what you need to guess right about. Good Luck.
It also makes a difference whether your opponent will call with a hand worse than yours or will fold. If you check when your opponent would have folded you may cost yourself the pot. But if you check when your opponent would have called, you only cost yourself a fraction of a bet since if the card comes that he needs he would have been there anyway.
I did some math on this problem an came to the conclution that you should be more inclined to bet the Turn if your opponent is on the Weak and Tight side, and check the Turn more if your opponent tends to be Loose and more Agressive, even with a Flush Draw on the Board.
Lets say there is 70.00 in the Pot.
You believe your Opponent has: A Jack 25%; A Flush Draw 25%; and Overcards 50%.
Lets also say your Opponent always Check Raises you on the Turn with a Jack.
If you Bet the Turn:
If he is Tight he Folds his Overcards when you bet the Turn, but Stays with the Flush Draw and bets it on the End and you call. (he draws out on you 5% of the time) on average you make +$46.00 per hand
If he is Loose he will not Fold his Overcards for a Bet on the Turn. Lets say he will bet the made Flush, but not an over Pair. (he draws out on you 12% of the time) =+39.90 per hand.
If you Check the Turn:
If you Check the Turn lets say that They both act the Same. They both Bet there made Hands and now Bluff 30% of the Time. You call every Time and check if its checked to you =+$42.70
You make more money by Checking the Turn against an Opponent who will not drop their Overcards for a Bet on the Turn.
CV
You have to be less than a 3.5 to 1 dog to bet and include in those odds the chances of getting outplayed via the check-raise. To simply say you should bet or check in this situation isn't good enough. You have to be able to read your opponent well. The tendancy would be to check.
I don't know of many people who would Check Raise the Turn without having a Jack in this situation. Just my thoughts.
CV
I might checkraise from the small blind with Ac6c.
True. Against a Tough Opponent Its probably best to Check the Turn with 7,7.
CV
Scott, you write: "You have to be less than a 3.5 to 1 dog to bet... The tendancy would be to check."
Well, in this part of the thread David has stipulated that we're talking about instances in which you "think that you probably have the best hand." So your best estimate is that you are a favorite.
John Feeney
I wonder how many players might conclude too easily they are the favorite? Checking is most often the best play.
Here are some of the main factors I think are important, not necessarily in order of importance:
A) The size of the pot. B) The # of ways that I had to improve if I was already beaten. C) My opponents tendency to bluff 1) By raising on the turn with a draw. 2) By bluffing on the end afer missing. D) The # of opponents. E) The chances of drawing dead. F) The specific texture of the flop....including thinking about how many reasonable draws other than the most obvious my opponent(s) could have. G) My opponents ability (Is he a strong player? A weak player that almost always calls on the flop to see the turn no matter what? A tight predictable player? H) My current image: Am I perceived as someone who would attempt to pick this pot up with very little? Have I recently won a large pot and now my opponents are intimidated, thinking I'm on a roll? Would they think I'm bluffing because of late position? Is there a player who would try a "resteal" if he thought I was bluffing? Have I been losing during this session and now my opponents would make a play at me because they don't fear me? I) Tells that my opponents have given me. J) The relative magnitude of an error caused by betting as opposed to giving a free card, which is probably a function of pot size more than anything else.
To give insight and make the problems easier to analyze it seems to me that relevent non-psychological factors should be used as a starting point:
1)size of pot. 2)# of ways to improve. 3)# of ways my opponent can improve, given the possible hands I've put him on. 4)# of opponents. 5)my position relative to my opponent(s). 6)The hands my opponent would take another card off with even if I did bet. 7)the chances of drawing dead.
And of course any others that I've missed.
Perhaps, discounting the psychological and more nebulous, hard to pin down points I've previously mentioned someone would venture to come up with some handy formulas using these and other similar criteria. For starters, how much weight should each one be given relative to each other when making your decisions? How do these factors influence each other? Japanese Go is a very complex game and many players have found proverbs to be useful when trying to decide what to do. Here are examples of some:
"When faced with an unreasonable situation an unreasonable responce is justified."
"Play slow, win slow, play fast lose fast."
"Keep sente(the iniative) in the opening. A premature attack loses sente.
Would any of the contributors like to come up with poker proverbs (as long as they are based on logic and sound reasoning) to cover these fourth street situations. Thanks to all for the excellent thought provoking responses to my earlier related post. I learned a lot.
Something has been nagging me for a long time, and hope someone can clear it up.
I suggest that the larger the pot (relative to future bets) the less position matters, and the smaller the pot the more position matters. If there were $million in the pot and bets were $1, what matters position?
If so, a raise will reduce the affect of position, encouraging blind position raises (with strong hands) B4-flop and discouraging late position raises (with marginal hands). Yet I routinely see advise "don't raise in the blind 'cause of your position."
There appears to me to be a conflict here.
Could it be that even though the AFFECT of your position is deminished, its VALUE is increased due to the size of the pot: if a raise reduces your positional advantage by say 1/3, then position matters more, since 2/3 times a double size pot = 4/3 of the affect of a not raised pot?
- Louie
If I correctly understand what you are saying, then the first part is certainly right. This might even be a corollary to the concept of the bigger the pot, the less of a mistake it is to chase. The idea behind not raising in the blind would seem to be based on the premise that the pot is small, will likely be contested heads-up, the odds are against you helping on the flop, and future bet size will be disproportionately large as compared to pot size.
However, I don't believe that the value of late position increases as pot size increases. In fact, I'm certain it generally decreases. Sure, in a limit game, the last position can raise or bet to increase his win by one or two bets, but as compared to pot size, this is not a huge advantage. Furthermore, the last position player has reduced bluff leverage. Not only can an early bettor shoot with relative impunity, but the last position is at a tactical disadvantage vis-a-vis a bluff-raise.
This can be seen more clearly in no-limit, where being last to act can be a huge disadvantage in those situations where he who shoots first often wins. Here, the bet size may be equivalent to pot-size, but the early bets were much smaller compared to the (now) future bets. This also follows your concept that the larger early pot size negates the advantage of position.
Louie,
The bigger the pot the less good position helps assuming you cant win it without the best hand. By raising out of position your mistakes later on in the hand are less costly but you will be inclined to make more of them because the pot is bigger. You also pay dearly by putting in early money which may have little value and by making the pot bigger early you may lose that great opportunity against many players of stealing the small pot which they may not want to contest. Good Luck.
On Sat. I was playing in a 4-8 holdem game, I was delt wired aces. I rased pre-flop and I was re-raised, I figured the raiser for another big pair. I capped the betting to try to shake some of these players out. But 5 players called. ( Most of the players were really loose!) the flop was 4d 6h Ah. I was aware of the chance of a flush draw and a straight draw but figured anybody with a 2-3 or 7-8 would not call a capped raise pre-flop....boy was I wrong! It was checked to me so I bet, 4 called, I figured them on a flush draw or straight draw. the turn card came Ks. No help for the sraight or flush draws, It was again checked to me, I bet, only one caller and he was a loose player, I knew he was on a straight draw...He called the river came and it was an 5s , when he checked and I bet he called! he had 23off. WHAT in the world was he doing? I know these players exsist, how do you control your emotions in a situation like this?
I got up walked outside got a fresh breath of air and streched my legs.
I continued to play and about another hour later the same thing happend again! A diifrent player this time! I had been delt wired aces and got another on the flop...I bet it hard and got drawed out again. This time I was Pissed...I lost two good size pots to a 5 high straight and a 8 high stright. The second time it was a gut-shot 6 that did me in...I felt that I was on Tilt and went home down $80.
Does anybody have any advice on this type situation?
Thanks Walleye
Be happy you made the right decisions in playing your hand. Getting up and takeing a walk after the first beating was probably a good thing to do. Leaving after the second if you didn't feel like you could play well is also good.
These kind of game abound at the lower limits. I've pretty much decided that if there is more then one person that will cap preflop with garbage that the variance is too much for me and I'll come back another day. Depending on your bankroll and tendency to tilt this may be appropriate for you.
FWIW there were enough bets in the pot for his call on the flop (he was getting something better then 1:18) and turn (he was getting 1:11) were probably correct. I think it would have been correct to check on the end. You already had ample evidence that a bet wasn't going to shake this one loose and you were pretty sure he had made his straight.
He was taking so much the worst of it before the flop that you want him to stay in. On the flop he may have the correct odds to draw. Of course even if he gets there on the turn you have a big draw for a full house on the end.
I would never check the end here. Many loose players will call you with any pair hoping that you something like KQ or any non-pair hand. I would say the chances of him outdrawing you on that last card were < 45% which is the number usually needed to bet on the end in this case.
This is a high variance game but solid tight play will get the money in this game. No reason to leave. YOu want players to play like this. Dont' assume this will only happen at 4-8 games. I see if at 10-20 games and have even see this type of play at 20-40 from time to time.
I'm not so clear on why once (conditionally) he got to the flop you would want him to call? He is doing the right thing. Doesn't the FToP say you would rather he fold? To think about this in another way you are both drawing but you are ahead and the pot isn't small. Wouldn't you rather have it now then get an extra 2 BBs out of him and risk he claims his equity? In any case my comments about the other player were meant as some consolation (fat chance) to the poster. The type of player mentioned wasn't going to let go once he had a one ended straight draw.
Check on the ends depends on how much credence you put on your earlier read of his straight draw and if you get any further info when the river card is shown. It sounded to me like the poster made a "crying bet" being fairly sure his opponent had the straight. Depending on if this was the "always passive" or the "can recoginize a winning hand" kind of player I'd be worried about being raised.
How much variance you are willing to deal with is a personal issue. If this hand was typical and action was often capped preflop I'd probably start looking for easier grazing. Note that the overriding reason the poster should have left the casino was that he was losing his cool.
When opponents call multiple bets pre-flop with 32, this is what we refer to as "a very good game." Instead of getting upset and heading for the door, the best move would have been to congratulate your opponent and buy more chips.
I don't know why people get upset when they lose to garbage hands like that.Don't you want to play with people who call raises with crap?I do.Occasionally they will win with them, it happens all the time.There's a regular in the 20-40 game who goes nuts when he gets big pairs beat by small cards,but if the same guy raises and only gets the blinds he's mad because nobody called.It's a 7 card game,if you think you should be automatic winner because your 1st two cards are the best take up 2 card gut.The point is don't get upset if you get beat by crappy cards,if they never won with them they would quit playing them,then you have a table full of rocks.Not good.
I don't know why people get upset when they lose to garbage hands like that.Don't you want to play with people who call raises with crap?I do.Occasionally they will win with them, it happens all the time.There's a regular in the 20-40 game who goes nuts when he gets big pairs beat by small cards,but if the same guy raises and only gets the blinds he's mad because nobody called.It's a 7 card game,if you think you should be automatic winner because your 1st two cards are the best take up 2 card gut.The point is don't get upset if you get beat by crappy cards,if they never won with them they would quit playing them,then you have a table full of rocks.Not good.
Same situation happened to me this weekend. KQs in late position. $2-5 10 person game. Three people call $2, guy in middle position raises, I call. SB calls, others fold. Flop comes KQ2 rainbow. Middle position checks, I bet $5, all call. Turn is a 3. Same bets. River is a 2. Checked to me, I bet, SB Raises, I call and get shown a 23o for a full house. SAME GUY--- I have pocket 8's, four people call $7 pre-flop. Flop comes T82 rainbow. $5 to me, I raise, guy to my left re-raises, initial bettor folds, Jackass guy calls, I call. Turn is a 3. Jackass checks, I check, guy to my left bets $5, we all call. River is a 7. Jackass bets, I fold, guy to left re-raises, jackoff re-raises, lefty calls. Lefty has TT for trip 10's. Jacknut has 69o for a gutshot straight. Another hand I have QQ and raise to $7 pre-flop, he calls, and 1 other calls. Flop is rags. I bet, all 3 call. Turn is a 3, i bet, he calls, other folds. Turn is another 3. I bet, he calls. I say aloud, "If I get beat by a FUCKING 93o I'm gonna kill you". He shows me a 83o for trips. NO PAIRS till the turn and this guy calls. I said, how the hell do you call $7 pre-flop with shit hands, table and dealer all started laughing. It happened like this all nite, other people with AA or KK getting beat by his 95o which caught 2 pair on turn and river. All these other posters say they would love a player like that in their game, but he took $300 from me(at a very low limit game). No amount of skill could overcome his luck that nite. He has to be the worst player I've ever seen. He's also the only person I've seen walk out with $800 from that table. The guy on my right was giving him more shit than I was about how bad he was. His response, "Yeah, why don't YOU give poker lessons, and we'll all show up." He actually thought he played good becuase he won.
>All these other posters say they would love a player like that in their game, but he took $300 from me(at a very low limit game). No amount of skill could overcome his luck that nite.<
Some players have the temperament for the swings in poker and some don't. John Feeney has a good essay about this problem which you can find on the link Essays (don't click here, it's the one to your left).
Okay now you can click here Essay for info on thinking about fluctuations.
That last post just proves my point.Most players attitude is:"I want you to call my big cards with crappy cards,just don't beat me."You need players like this to have good games,sometimes they have to win or they'd never play,then you got ugly games.Just throw your pocket A's face down(dont turn them face up for sympathy,I hate when people do that), tap the table and say nice hand.Don't belittle the man for playing 7,2,that is a classless move.It's part of the game all you can do is learn to accept it when it happens.I usually don't play small cards,but in the 20-40,40-80 games sometimes I'll deliberately play them if I'm against the right people,the reason for this is not for odds,or to vary my play,it's because if I do hit a flop and win a pot off certain spazz's,I know it will ruin their game.Don't let it upset you,it will ruin your game.
HI Walleye... Check out my little tale further up the board(play garbage & win & your an idiot!).....really strange that i was one of those players holding garbage.... Dianne
Help! I've recently been playing in a $5-$10 hold'em game with the following structure. sb=$2, bb=$5, $5 to call preflop with preflop raises in $10 increments ($15 for the raiser, $25 for the reraiser, ...), $10 bet and $10 raises on the flop, turn, and river. Max. of 3 raises on all rounds unless pot is heads up. I'm only winning 0.4 BB per hour after 100 hours of play. I can say that I've had some bad luck, but I'd rather blame it on sub-par play. There's a maniac in the game who's won over $2,000 since I started playing in that game. I have a hard time playing against this player, since I can rarely put him on a hand. My strategy has been to sit on his left and reraise him most of the time I enter a pot. However, when I do this I am making the pot so large that he's correct to chase me down, which he's been successful at doing since I've been playing against him. Am I better off sitting on his right? I also have a question concerning starting hand requirements. I usually apply the principles in HFAP, but my hunch tells me to play a little bit tighter than HFAP suggests. Any comments/advice would be appreciated. Thank you.
Steve, If I got it right you would play looser when you thought you would not get raised and tighter when you thought a raise was likely behind you. 100 hours is too soon to tell but with him winning so much it stands to reason that you would be doing less than expected. Maybe that .4bb is all you rate to win in the game. Maybe not. I like to sit across from a guy like that sometimes so I can see his reactions and also can find out if some other players are coming in before I stick a bunch in. Dont sit on his right or you will be duck soup. Good Luck.
One possibility, if you are poorly positioned on the right of a maniac, is to smooth call before the flop with hands you don't mind playing for capped action. The intention is to reraise the maniac when the action comes back around to you, expecting him to cap the betting. This way you're not bullied into just calling HIS reraises.
Here's a story I found told about the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi, newly arrived on American shores, enlisted in the Manhattan nuclear weapons Project, and brought face-to-face in the midst of World War II with U.S. flag officers.
So-and-so is a great general, he was told. What is the definition of a great general? Fermi characteristically asked. I guess it's a general who's won many consecutive battles. How many? After some back and forth, they settled on five. What fraction of American generals are great? After some more back and forth, they settled on a few percent.
But imagine, Fermi rejoined, that there is no such thing as a great general, that all armies are equally matched, and that winning a battle is purely a matter of chance. Then the chance of winning one battle is one out of two, or 1/2, two battles l/4, three l/8, four l/16, and five consecutive battles 1/32 -- which is about 3 percent. You would expect a few percent of American generals to win five consecutive battles -- purely by chance. Now, has any of them won ten consecutive battles ...?
Fermi's assumption, "...all armies are equally matched, and that winning a battle is purely a matter of chance," is questionable.
Then you missed the point.
He didn't say that all armies and generals were equally matched, what he said was that the evidence presented in favor of there being great generals was also consistent with the case of there being no great generals, and that the evidence that was presented was therefore insufficient as proof of any general's greatness.
The generals who "wins 5 consecutive battles--purely by chance" are not great at all.
That a general's greatness is defined by winning how many consecutive battles makes up the funniness of the story.
Assume that all armies are equally matched makes the role of leadership in an army more important instead of ZEROING.
Then assuming that winning a battle is purely a matter of channce is questionable to me. Again assumption that "...the chance of winning one battle is one out of two, or 1/2,..." since "that all armies are equally matched" is above me.
The common sense is that not all generals are created equally on the aspect of warfare; and there are great generals. That some of so-called great generals are actually more lucky than great doesn't mean there is no great general. We have to argue for all the rest of our lives about how knowledge is generated if we negelect that common sense.
It's great that Fermi can produce some great generals by purely playing with numbers...Please don't forget either that by creating a great general he creat another "NOT GREAT" general. I don't know how much more we can get to know about generals. :-)
No matter how great the General is, his soldiers(cards) also have to be good. The general cannot send poor soldiers in to fight every battle and expect to win. But sometimes a poor General with very poor soldiers somehow gets a sneak attack in, and the other generals don't know what hit them. Been there, done that, not going back to battle until I have a better supply unit and can play for more power.
There is also the issue of selection.
Suppose winning battles is a matter of chance. If the winners are promoted while the losers are sent out to pasture, our generals are much more likely to have successful records. This is probably better applied to mutual fund managers than army generals.
What's the minimum dealer toke on a Jackpot payout that leaves you welcome in a cardroom?
Personally, I think Jackpots are a terrible drain, with a $1 leaving the table every round, to be returned later to a small group, minus dealer tips, taxes, and in some houses, player comps.
However, in some locations it's the only game in town sp what's a player to do. Anyways, in remote chance I'm seated at a table that pays out, what's a reasonable toke, 3 or 4% ?
There was a great finish to the FARGO no limit hold'em tourney on Saturday at Foxwoods that I thought would be of interest.
The field of roughly 80 was down to heads-up between Peter Alson of New York City and Llew ??. Llew started with about a 3 to 1 chip lead, which was extended to about 4 to 1. Both players were playing fairly aggressively pre-flop, with most hands being raised/folded before the showdown. The first all-in confrontation resulted in a split pot with both players showing A-5. Peter had battled back to a 2 to 1 chip disadvantage when the final hand played out. (The big blind was about 5% of Peter's stack, warranting fast, but not crazy play)
Llew raised pre flop and was reraised all-in by Peter. She suprisingly called with 56s and appreared to be drawing nearly dead to Peter's pocket sevens. The flop came off 346, pairing Llew, but killing her two-pair outs to the five.
The turn was a 5, giving Peter the nut straight, but opening the door for Llew to fill up. Sure enough, a six came on the river to give Llew the title. It was only fitting that the tournament ended on a bad beat after all of the bad beat stories that were exchanged over the weekend. Congratulations to both players on a great finish to a very competitive tourney.
Can anybody figure out the extent of Peter's beat? How big was he favored before the flop?; on the flop?, on the turn? (I don't think Llew picked up even a backdoor flush draw on the flop.)
Michael 7 asked about the odds in an all-in confrontation of 77 vs. 65s, as was played out in the final hand of FARGO between Peter Also and Llew.
If neither 7 is in the same suit as the 65, then 77 has a pot equity of 80.731%. 77 will either win or tie 81.361% of the time.
If one of the 7s is suited with the 65, then 77 has pot equity of 81.43%. 77 will either win or tie 82.514% of the time.
77 will be busted in this confrontation less than 1 time in 5.
After a flop of 643 (unspecified suits, but poster stated that he believed no flush draw was possible), Llew has 8 direct outs to beat 77 (77 has redraws against them), and some runner-runner outs. Llew can win if the turn and river cards are:
Llew ties if a 5 on the turn followed by a 7 on the river, or 7 on the turn followed by a 5 on the river comes, 12/1980 or .606% of the time.
Peter wins all the other cases, 1388/1980 or 70.101% Peter's pot equity after the flop is 70.404%.
After the turn 5, Llew can only win if a 5 or 6 comes on the river (4/44, 9.091%), or tie if a 7 comes on the river (2/44, 4.545%). Peter wins in all other cases (38/44, 86.364%), and has a pot equity of 88.636% after the turn.
Prior to the confrontation, assuming both players were equally skilled, and ignoring the position of the blinds, Llew had about 2/3 chance of taking first since she had about 2/3 of the chips. After the betting on this hand, but before the flop, the possible outcomes are:
18.063% Llew will win the tournament on this hand (100% of first) Before the flop, Llew's chance of winning the tournament has been reduced to less than 50/50. If by folding to Peter's all-in reraise she would have retained more than 1/2 of the chips in play, she should have folded.
In Sklansky's latest book Fighting Fuzzy Thinking, there is a Question and Answers section with some excellent analysis and insight on playing small pocket pairs under various situations. It was very detailed and provided useful help to learning how to best handle these baby pairs depending on the situation at hand.
However, I am confused with one of his answers because it seems to contradict the advise given in HPFAP. On page 146, Question 2 the question that was addressed to Sklansky is as follows: Hero is on button or next to the button with a small pair (22-66's) and only one or two players have called...Is it correct to mostly fold because the odds against hitting trips compared to the pot and implied odds are too great, and you can't steal because of the original callers?
Sklansky provides the following answer: Call, unless there is a strong possibility of a raise behind you. The implied odds are there.
On page 68 of HPFAP, ...call before the flop with a small pair, if there is a little danger or a raise, when you have odds of only about 5 to 1. (The odds against flopping a set are approximately 7.5 to 1)
I am confused...which is correct?? In the Fighting Book, Sklansky saids it's correct to call with only one or two players already in and you're on the button (or next to the button) if there's little chance of a raise behind you. The HPFAP saids you need 5 to 1 odds (meaning at least four limpers to the big blind for preflop) before you can call with a small pair hoping to flop a set (7.5 to 1 against).
Also, in Sklansky's answer he offers the same caution "unless there is a strong possibility or a raise behind you" but in that original question we are on the button or next to the button. So there is either only one person behind us or nobody behind us (not counting the blinds). Why is he stressing about the action behind us SO much when we are in this very late position?
Thanks in advance for clairfication on this issue...
If you are a good player, you can play a small pair in very late position in an unraised pot getting less than 5-1 since you can sometimes win without improving.
David answers: If you are a good player, you can play a small pair in very late position in an unraised pot getting less than 5-1 since you can sometimes win without improving.
I believe if you do play in these situations (i.e. only 1 or 2 players have limped in front of you and you are on button or next to button), you should almost always play your small pair with a raise preflop. Hopefully to knock out the blinds and increase your bluffing options for the upcoming flop. Am I correct or wrong to raise in these situations?
I like the raise with one player especially if the blinds are tight and you have good control over the original limper. Don't overdue this because you will start to get called down more often which you don't want.
Small pairs and a hand like Ax suited share the trait that they tend to do well against one opponent who may be weak and several opponents due to the implied odds. They are most difficult to play against two to four opponents. In this situation you must play well, know your opponents, and know what they think of you at that moment. I believe most players (even pros) overplay these hands and lose money in this situation. It is very easy to go from recognizing when it is the rare situation where you can play a small pair in a less than optimal spot to lowering your standards so you routinely play it.
Regards,
Rick
Hopefully these one or two limpers in front of you will be weak/tight players. Now a flop like 852 may let pocket sixes take it down. It may even be easier to win with a bet on the flop if you didn't raise preflop (you won't have been representing two big cards). You need to be aware of the types of flops which don't let weak players holding two overcards chase. These would include low flops which don't show two suited or connected cards. A low pair on the flop should not cause you to freeze up here.
The only time I play a small pair is in an uncontested big blind. Dump.Dump.Dump. However, if absolutely forced to play this hand, I would much rather play heads up or against 2 players. My logic is that even if you connect on your set against 7 players you have too great a chance to be beaten. Remember, pairs of 9's thru A's make sets too and they are also going off at 7.5 to 1. In addition, at least one or two of those 7+ players will come into legitimate draws and could punish you severely. Forget the late position, forget protecting the blinds. Playing small pairs will break your heart and your pocketbook.
Fred Aces,
Your post caught my eye and I couldn’t resist responding since I am the “hero” you refer to. Having never done anything especially heroic in my life, I was quite delighted by your compliment and figured you might be interested in some background on the questions.
About ten years ago I was working for a defense contractor back east which required spending a lot of time in a lab facility in the Los Angeles area. When I wasn’t working in the lab I was playing in the Los Angles card clubs. Since I was a serious student of the game without much previous card playing experience, I was an avid reader of David Sklansky’s work along with some of the other authors of note. At the time there was a bit of a disagreement as to the play of small pairs pre-flop. I devoted a lunch hour back east to writing the questions, which were designed in most cases to hit the gray areas of the somewhat conflicting advice. I made several copies and sent them out to Sklansky, Malmuth, Tom McEvoy, Mike Caro and a couple others (all with self-addressed stamped envelopes). I got direct replies from Tom and Mason and was delighted to see my questions answered in David’s column in about the sixth issue of Card Player Magazine. When I bought the book “Fighting Fuzzy Thinking in Poker Gaming and Life”, I was once again happy to see that my questions still had some value.
Regarding David’s clarification, I agree that being a good player and understanding the quality of your opponent’s play is essential in these marginal situations. Against a single limper who you read well and one probable weak /tight blind who plays reasonably, the value of stealing on the right flop makes the hand worthwhile. For example, you have 44 and the flop comes Kd 7s 3c. If the blind and limper check you have a good bet and will often take it. This possibility combined with the chances of hitting a set make it worth it.
If two have already called the chances of stealing on the flop go way down as now you are more likely to attract the button (assuming you are next to the button) and also are more likely to get a call from the small blind. In this case you are getting 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 pot odds. Here you usually need to flop a set. To get favorable implied odds (comparable to the 5 to 1 guideline in HPFAP) it is essential that you have the type of players up front who will often lead into you when they flop marginal hands along with players who call (or even raise) too much in the middle.
By the way, I was also the author of the three questions on pages148 and 149 that appeared in Card Player a week later (or perhaps before). I was wondering if I am entitled to any royalties? In all seriousness, I would gladly have paid ten times the price for the quality of advice from David, Mason and Ray Zee. I still have the $2.95 copy of David’s original holdem book and the original “Sklansky on Poker Theory”. They are the only possessions I have that may become a collector’s item.
Regards,
Rick
6-12 Texas Hold'em I'm in Early Position. Opponents are Typical to Loose.
I Hold Ac,Qs in Early Position and Raise. I get a caller in Middle Positon and Both Blinds. Pot= 48.00
Flop: Qc, 8d, Td.
Looks Like I'll get alot of action with This Flop. SB bets, BB calls, I call(planning to Raise the Turn if a Diamond, 9 or Jack Doesn't come), Middle Position calls. Pot=72.00
Turn: 4d
SB bets again, BB calls again, I FOLD?!!. I think I made a Bad Play since it is possible that with a Q 8 T Flop there could be many Straight Draws. I think the Better Play should have been a Raise.
CV
I have done the same thing to my regret when both players still in the pot were drawing, not there. The question is: will your hand win if you make it? And, how likely are your opponents to fold their draws if you raise? A one raise probe might have gotten you the answer. Most people playing straights and flushes will not let a raise go unchallenged, because of the likelihod you have three of a kind and a full house draw. If you raised, and weren't reraised, it is not likely either one of them were there yet. Unless, the other players are timid ( not likely at 6/12) or slowplaying the nut (slightly more likely.) The math wizards who participate in this forum could probably give you the odds against your hand standing up. I suspect that in the long run, you made the correct decsion. Even if the players have not turned their hand, their odds of improving are better than yours.
I may not have made the raise, however I would have called. Maybe this is a bad play. How did the hand turn out? Did someone make a flush? I would have watched so I could take what happened in consideration next time.
Yeah, but you have to be careful on taking things into "consideration" for the next hands. Even if no one at the table hit their straight or flush, folding could still have been the correct decision.
Typical loose players tend to check the flop into a pre-flop raiser except when on the come or having made a high top pair with a decent kicker. You have to figure the lead better has KQ, QJ etc or open-ended or a diamond draw. With two pair or better he is likely to check-raise, but QT remains a possible hand. The BB, being loose, could have any pair or any draw. He might even have small diamonds on the turn if he's passive. It's true you have many ways of being beat on the turn. But there are many ways you can have the best hand on the turn. I would call the turn and re-evaluate on the river, specifically if another diamond hit. I wouldn't raise the turn because loose players will find too many reasons to call the raise without a flush, and you certainly can't raise for value in this spot. (By the way, I would rarely put a good player on diamonds in your spot - raising pre-flop, calling the flop, raising turn - figuring he would have raised the flop.)
I'd say check and call all the way.Your not going to get anybody out with a strait draw or a big diamond,but ther is a good chance you have the best hand.
Slightly off the question topic but ...
Isn't raising preflop with AQ slightly inacurate? Of course this might be for variation purposes.
Secondly shouldn't you reraise on the flop with the possible draws out there? I wouldn't really prefer the middle position player to remain on the turn. For instance with a turn 4d I doubt folding would be a consideration if the last player was not there to possibly raise.
(p.s. I hope some of the top players respond to this question! )
David
I think it's preferable to raise on the flop with top pair ace kicker from third position against three opponents with this board instead of waiting for the turn. This often helps me clarify the ensuing action, may get the player behind me to fold, and may be misread by the blinds as a raise with a good drawing hand.
I play in a very loose 10-20 hold 'em game in Vancouver, Canada. Half of the players are literally clueless. For example, the other day, I got called at the end by a player holding pocket sixes when the board showed 8-8-7-7-4. Anyways, the above is just to give you some idea of the type of game that I play in - a true no fold 'em hold'em game. My question is this. I've got 87s on the button. Everyone calls except the guy to my right who makes it two bets. Most players in my position would automatically call thinking "I've got the button and therefore the best position, I've got a drawing hand that plays well in a large field etc." But do I really have great position? In the game that I'm in, virtually every flop is checked to the pre-flop raiser. Thus, while I do have the button, I will essentially be the first to "really" act after the pre-flop raiser makes his (inevitable) bet. Now, suppose the flop is 8-3-3 rainbow, I am left in a real quandary as to what to do. Folding seems to be a bad play with the pot odds. Calling is clearly incorrect because almost everyone is going to call the bet on the flop and if any overcard comes on the turn, I am likely done for. Raising appears to be the best choice (Even in my game of poor players, they are unlikely to call 2 bets cold unless they really have a hand). However, raising does have its obvious drawbacks: (a) The bettor may have a pocket overpair in which case he ain't going nowhere or (b) a player with a 3 has checked with the intention of check raising.
So, given the type of game that I play in, I would be interested in hearing what you would do.
P.S. By the way, my solution of late in this type of situation has been to 3 bet the flop. While this may have the adverse effect of having a couple of players drop out before the flop, it does have the positive effect of ensuring that the action gets checked to me on the flop. I would be interested in hearing comments on this play as well.
Sorry, there's a typo in my original question. In the last paragraph, what I meant to say was that I've started to make it 3 bets BEFORE the flop (i.e. not on the flop.
I don't think 3 Betting Pre-Flop with 7,8s is a good idea, because it cuts down on your Implied Odds. You would need around 7 people Staying for a Double Bet after you Reraise. I just think you would Knock Out too many players, plus you may get bet into anyway.
With the whole Table seeing the Flop the only Hand I would be Trying to make (on the Flop) is a Split Two Pair or Trips, and, of course, I would play my Flush and Straight draws. I would Fold a Single Medium Pair on the Flop unless I really thought I could Knock Out allmost everyone with a Raise.
CV
skp,
If you dont feel comfortable with these hands just fold them. In real loose games those marginal hands will not cost you money by throwing them away. If it was one bet to you thats a different story of course you know that. There is no reason to make it three bets with the worst hand when the only way to win is to make the best hand and you will get little free money by making the play. Good Luck.
Also, hands like 87s go down in value in games where many opponents routinely play hands like Qxs, Jxs, Txs.
On a slightly different topic from the original poster, one big adjustment to make after the flop in no fold 'em games is to realize that the implied odds on your draws are far better than normal. For instance in one of these games, I would cold call in 5-way action on the flop with a gutshot to the nuts and no flush draw on board, even if the pot was not raised before the flop. I am putting 2 small bets for 1 in 11.5 shot at a pot that figures to be 15 small bets when the turn card comes, but if I hit my gutshot, I figure to win another 10-20 small bets on the turn and river. Putting in 2 bets for a draw at 30 is easily worth it, even allowing for the danger of a reraise.
There are additional reasons to call here -- it is possible that no one will bet the turn, or that I will be in a position to make a profitable call on the turn, still drawing to the same gutshot. Also, I may pair.
William
i'm tracking the results of all the card counters on my team and computing their standard deviations as per malmuth's GT&OT page 60-63.
of what use can this data be? how should i interpret the results?
if sim data from 400 million hands tells me that the standard deviation for the game we are playing should be about 31 units per hour (based on 100 hands per hour), how far off can an individual's results be from this (after 50 sessions) and still be considered on target? malmuth says that the SD should be reasonably accurate after only 30 sessions or so, but more is better. what is 'reasonably accurate'? (what is the standard deviation of standard deviations?)
if a person clocks in with a standard deviation of 20 units per hour, should i be worried? what should i suspect the cause to be? skimming off the top from winning sessions? underbetting the bankroll? waiting too long (say, to true +4) before jumping into a game? or could this just be a normal occurrence?
also, at the other end of the spectrum, if a person clocks in with a standard deviation of 40 units per hour, should i be worried? what should i suspect the cause to be? not using index numbers correctly? overbetting the bankroll? not wonging out of bad games often enough?
maybe 31 plus or minus 10 units isn't enough to be concerned about... but how much is enough? how would i calculate this figure?
I would just like to know where I can practice texas holdem over the net for free. I do not want to play for money but I am wondering if I can play with other "live players" over the internet and where can that be done?
Thanks
Michael
On AOL there is an online Casino where you can play Holdem, Omaha, Stud, it is a preimium channel i costs $.99 per hour... It is not free....but a lot of pratice
There is an IRC server for just that purpose. It's at irc.poker.net.
That IRC poker that the previous poster referred to is good, and I feel that playing it has definitely improved my game, as I cannot play live poker more than once or twice a week. Use the favorite links link to your left, go to Ken's Poker Page, and download the G-poker interface, which is very easy to use. See you there! Frank Brabec NUT-Z (on IRC)
There is also a low limit game 2-4 holdem only at http://sockeye.fishnet.caltech.edu/~johns/javapoker/ it is not as good as irc. but you will learn to play better.
How do you access the IRC.POKER.NET site? I am a new user. Thanks!
I play IRC poker, which is good practice when your away from the tables. They now run HE tournaments all nite long which are a lot of fun. There is also a couple HE channels on there. Play is looser than In Real Life, because its not real money. WWW.MPLAYER.COM also has HE, but you have to get a plus membership which costs $4/month or something like $40/year. It is much more graphical than IRC poker. It also lets you play almost any Multiplayer game (quake, Red Alert, etc.) against other people. I got the plus membership just for HE, but since I don't have a CD-ROM (hence no other games), I'll just play HE on IRC and cancel my Mplayer until I get a good computer.
A recent issue of "The Intelligent Gambler" had an article by a guy with a name something like Ciafone or something like that, in this article he states that there is no such thing as a hold'em player that plays too tight. How true is this? I am new to hold'em and have just begun studying HPFAP. Being new, should I play somewhat tighter than the book suggests.
Nagurski,
The guy with the name Ciaffone is one of the top authorities on poker and if you read his works you will definitely gain. When learning holdem playing too tight will be much less of a penalty than playing too loose. In 10 handed games it gets hard to play too tight especially in early positions. hfap talks about the kind of game the stratagy applies to and you always adjust your game to the players you are up against. Good Luck.
Also, keep in mind that playing too tight is a concept that is true mainly before the flop at a full table. On the later streets including the flop, this idea does not hold anymore.
I have been thinking lately about how better to handle it when I'm not getting starting hands to play.Since playing with discipline is very important, I don't want to hurt my chances for overall profit, yet I know that I need to get in and try to steal blinds, and raise when I can isolate a player, one on one, with less than optimal hands. I would like some help as to how to figure the frequency of making these plays without hurting my overall chances for profit. So far I have been trying these plays about once every other round(eighteen deals), when the cards aren't hitting me, with mixed results. Any advice would be appreciated.Thanks
Al,
There is no such thing as not getting starting hands. You mean that previously during the game you didnt get your fair share of hands. This shouldnt effect future decisions. You mention the cards arent hitting you. I hope you meant that prior hands you didnt get good cards. Im stressing this so you understand that what cards came to you in the past have no bearing on what you will catch in the future. Having said all of that you should make the plays you are referring to whenever you feel they will show a profit. Knowing when that will happen takes time and skill that is hard to teach. For some players its not very often as they may not be able to bluff effectively or read people well enough to extrct money from small mistakes. Good Luck.
AL, if I understand your question correctly you're talking about trying to "manufacture" some hands during periods when you haven't received many playable hands for some time. I couldn't say anything better than what Ray said in his response. Trying to pull some hands out of the air - something we've all been tempted to do as a result of running badly - will only hurt your profit. I think some players even get into a costly long term habit of trying to do just that, feeling that they can't just sit around forever waiting for a good hand. If you have to go six hours hardly playing a hand, then so be it. The money saved not playing hands that should be mucked is as real as the money you win with good cards. I know you know this. I have an expression I sometimes remind myself of: "The money will come in the cards' time, not when I want it to."
John Feeney
John,
As the games get tougher I would venture to say that a lot of players feel that you need to "manufacture" hands in order to come out on the plus side. In other words, as the games get tougher and thus the players better you won't find that many players giving their money away. When you do find a live one, isolating the live one would seem to be important. Also, even though players play reasonably well they may have weaknesses that you can exploit such as folding too often in a given situation so you must make plays with not so good hands in order to exploit these weaknesses. This would mean that you would get involved with not so good hands pre-flop occasionally. I'm just wondering what other posters think about this.
Tom Haley
Tom, I completely agree. When I referred to "manufacturing" hands I meant playing hands that have a negative expectation in a given situation, trying to *convince* yourself that maybe you can turn them into winners. The kinds of things you mention can all be +EV in the right spots. If you think you have an edge then you should exploit it. And the tougher the game the smaller your edges will frequently be. Also, the better you get as a player, the more you can detect and push small edges. Of course it's very easy to fall into a big trap of *thinking* you have small edges, when actually you're in the negative expectation zone. But that's another topic. I guess basically I was just trying to remind AL R. that you simply have to wait for the profitable situations, even if that means waiting for quite a while.
John Feeney
In HFAP the authors mention needing to play some marginal hands just so that your opponents will not be able to read you as well; and or steal from you when rags flop. This seems to be important especially if you are new to a game and play fairly tight, occasionally you may need to get in there just so you will get future action with your real hands
Don't forget - players play better against you when you're running bad. If this is just the time you try to push a marginal hand; well .... you know .... good luck.
I often think in a tournament that I'm going to just blind away if I never get a hand and so be it. Hasn't happened yet.
Dan,
Well, yes, such mixing up of your play has its place. And I suppose you could choose to do it when you've folded a lot of hands recently. IMO its most important functions are the first two you mentioned - to prevent your opponents from reading you as easily, and to keep them form stealing from you so freely when rags flop. As for getting action on your future hands, I'm in the camp (for which I think Mason is head counselor) which sees a tight image as generally advantageous in hold'em. So if I've gone a while without playing a hand, I'm usually glad about any *extra* tightness it has added to my image.
John Feeney
Sorry if I worded the question incorrectly. What I'm talking about is when you go through a stretch of time where you aren't getting playable hands, or you get a medium strenth starting hands, but there is raising etc. in front of you so you can't come in. etc. When you go through one of these stretches, I think it hurts your ability to make money sometimes because when you finally do come in, you aren't going to get action unless the other player has a premium hand, because you 've been on the sidelines so long. So, I'm wondering how often I might try to steal the blinds, knowing , that it isn't going to work every time, but that I need to play as to not look overly tight. So, I'm wondering how much this is going to effect my overall profit .Thanks for your answer Ray and John.
Ah, okay, that clarifies it. I'm short on time now (I was busy clarifying may last post while you were clarifying yours :-)) but my basic thoughts would be:
1. In many looser games it doesn't seem to matter much that you haven't played a hand for a while. Sometimes the players give lots of action anyway.
2. In other games you can be thankful for your tight image as it will allow you to steal more easily when you finally pick up, say, KQ, raise with it, and the flop comes A-T-4.
3. In general my approach would be to adjust my play according to the how my image has changed as a result of the cards I've been getting. David S. has a good essay on this in one of his books. This is not to say that your idea of working in a few extra marginal steal raises and such cannot be another workable approach. It's just something I haven't tinkered with very much.
John Feeney
Hammer them in the blinds a couple times with 64o and overplay any pair or draw. This usually seems to loosen up my image.
I'm an extremely tight hold em player, tighter than S&M suggest in their book for advanced players. I'm familiar with the fellow who wrote the article, and I must admit that my philosophy re the game closely matches his. Less is always better. My poker life has been guided by some choice words David Sklansky wrote ' Its all one big poker game'. If you get hung up on individual sessions, you should reassess. When I'm getting bad cards or agitated at the game, I stand up, circle the table, circle the poker room, talk to strangers, and generally take my mind off the game. You see, I enjoy watching hold em being played, i.e. I can go extremely long periods of time without participating. It just doesn't bother me. By the way, when I reraise people shudder and their cards fall out of their hands except for the usual fish. I don't care if the regulars regard me as a tight -ss rock. There is always the two or three (I don't like many more) fish in the game who will gladly give me their money. Good Luck!
hey guys, your'e not running bad if you aren't playing any hands for a period of time, and I'm not talking about being impatient when I'm not playing. I'm talking about how to best maximize the situation when I am not getting playable hands, or the action keeps me out. I'm also not talking about trying to cultivate a loose image, I want to STEAL... and I'm trying to figure out how often I can try without it hurting my overal ev. thanks, interesting comments though.
Hmmm, okay one more try. If you haven't played a hand for a while, then your image may be a little tighter. This should allow you, on average, to steal the blinds a bit more easily. But of course it depends on the players and how they perceive your blind stealing frequency. More perceptive players will view you in the context of a longer history than just the past few hours or whatever. And some less perceptive players are just oblivious. So you want to target those who are going to react to your recent actions. (e.g., players who don't know you and have therefore formed a perception of you as a very tight, conservative player.) As I mentioned in another post, just adjust your play according to your current image. A tighter image should allow for at least a *little* more stealing. Is that getting closer to what you're talking about?
John Feeney
John, thanks for your polite answers. As per my last post ,I get a little crazy when the tangents get to far away from the subject. It's hard to try to get input sometimes without sounding like a smart ass. I keep re-clarifying in order to hopefully learn a little more, so what I'm getting at is, that I know basically what to do ,as far as going after some blinds etc.,... what I'm trying to figure out, is how often I can try to steal etc., without it affecting my long run ev. It's not always going to work, so how can I calculate it.How would you calculate it, or do you think it's not worth the effort?? Thanks for all the comments.
Okay, AL, I do think I see basically what you're getting at now. Still, I'm not sure if you're referring mainly to blind stealing, as one of your other posts suggested, or more broadly to such things as isolating a weak player with the possibility of stealing after the flop as well. But it doesn't matter too much for *my* response because now that I'm clearer on what you're asking, I don't have too much of an answer. I'll just offer a couple of thoughts about how I would look at this with regard to blind stealing. Once you move on to scenarios involving weaker hands played in anticipation of possible post-flop steal attempts if you don't improve, etc., it seems the analysis would get much more complex, and "feel" informed by knowledge and experience might be your main guide.
HPFAP points out in the chapter on playing the blinds that if everyone folds to you in the small blind, and if you know that the big blind will fold to your raise over 50% of the time, then you would show an imediate profit by raising with any two cards. David/Mason then add that given that you'll sometimes win when the big blind calls it becomes worth it to raise if your chance of stealing is only about 30%. This kind of thinking could be applied to a steal raise from the button. But your chances of successfully stealing (with any two cards) would have to be greater (as you have to have a kind of "parlay" of both blinds folding), and things can get more complex post-flop, e.g., when both blinds call. But I think that here you show an immediate profit raising with any two cards if both blinds will fold over 57% of the time. (Your raise = 2 units = 57% of the total of your raise plus the blinds [3.5 units]) I'll leave it to a better mathematician to bring this figure down accurately to account for the times you'll win when you're called. Perhaps both blinds need to fold something like 45% of the time???
Anyway, that might be a starting point in thinking about it, but I tend to think that any precise figures get overwhlemed by a large number of additional factors that come in to play. e.g., you might raise with, say, A5 if you think the small blind is likely to fold but you expect the big blind to call, because you know the big blind is a very weak and predictable player against whom you can play very confidently post-flop. Or you might raise with something pretty mediocre knowing that there's a reasonable chance that *both* blinds will call, because you have a tell on one and the other is easy to bluff... something like that. These situations would seem to be tough to quantify precisely, but as a good player I'm sure you often know them when you see them.
There are also factors to think about like the greater likelyhood of successfully stealing the blinds if you're known as a less frequent stealer. Where to draw the line can become a tough question to answer. And of course all of this doesn't even begin to address the simulation findings like those Abdul has described.
So I think the bottom line comes back to what Ray said in his response to you. You just make such plays whenever you estimate that it should be profitable to do so. I'm sure someone could take the math farther, but I think it still ultimately comes down to situational judgements that often could not be precisely quantified in the heat of play.
John Feeney
Al, you can steal well beyond an attempt at the blinds. Your tight image a la unplayable hands and general acknowledgement as a tight player can work wonders for you against the right players. The key is limiting the field to one or two who play their hands relatively predictably and will give you respect (yes, even many loose players will do this), although you will be forced to semi-bluff late in a hand and sometimes follow through with a pure bluff on the river.
I'll give you one example. There's a type of player, sometimes loose, sometimes pseudo-tight and admittedly weak, but that's generally the idea, who will call my pre-flop raise and chase me to the river with bottom or middle pair and then fold to save a bet if unimproved, since he "knows" I have him beat (for some strange reason this type will rarely fold top pair even if medium strength). Problem for him is I don't always have a hand, and many times my hole cards are below playable "requirements." One thing I constantly try to be aware of is my image, changing gears as they begin to recognize what I'm doing, which generally serves to increase profit on legitimate hands and when I do get lucky.
If your win rate and skill level is acceptable to you, and you don't mind the status the mother of all rocks, more power to you.
Again, all responses are welcome. I asked a question last week basically about you welcome lots of calls of a bet you might make when these calls are marginally incorrect for the opponents making them. The Fundamental Theorem of Poker seems to imply that you do welcome them, although this may increase fluctuations a lot to the point that you are uncomfortable with the situation. Well, there is an article in the Oct 2 Card Player by Lou Krieger on Morton's Theorem which seems to state that there is an inconsistency in the Fundamental Theorem in situations similar to the one I described. Actually, I believe the Fundamental Theorem and find it hard to believe that such an inconsistency really exists. My question is whether there is, in fact, an inconsistency of the type described by Morton.
chas friedman
The Fundamental Theorum only applies rigoursly to head up pots. There are obviously many cases where a player costs both you and him money at the same time by making a bad play. What some call Morton's Theorum is simply a special case of this syndrome.
Satellite Heads Up Play
I'm looking for opinions on heads up Satellite play. I played eight or nine No Limit Hold'em Satellites the past few weeks, reaching heads up twice. Both times I got busted. Once raising the big blind from 400 to 1100 with K9 offsuit when I had approximately 1700 in chips and my opponent who had about T2300 reraised me all-in with KQ. The second time I lost with QJs to an Ax and I raised all-in pre-flop. The chip situation was about 1500-2500 to my disadvantage, and the blinds were 200-400.
I'm having a problem with the following. When the blinds become very high in comparison to your stack you're supposed to play extremely aggressive poker. I know that and that's what I try. I translate this into not giving my opponents good odds to call a bet when I raise. For example with the blinds at 100 and 200, I won't make it 400 to go, since this offers the big blind 2 to 1 odds to make a call. I'll raise it to 600 or 700 with the big blind at 200 and to at least 1200 or all-in when the BB is at 400. This basically means I'm playing my hole stack every time I decide to raise when the BB reaches 400. I'll do this convinced it's the right move when I have Ax suited, a small pair or better. With most hands that I try this move-in with, like K9, Ax or QT I would prefer calling over raising. But just calling, giving the big blind a free shot with an above average hand myself seems like such a gutless thing to do, especially if he would have folded to a raise.
I wonder what strategy others use when the Satellite reaches the crapshoot stage. I`ve read McEvoy in Tournament Poker, Ciaffone in Improve your Poker and T.J.Cloutier in the Championship Hold'em book on Satellite strategy, but none of them discuss in any detail this heads up situation.
I see two alternatives to raising, and risking your whole tack.
1) Raising to double the big blind, giving him 2 to 1 odds. He might not call anyway with really crappy hands, even if offered 2 to 1. If he does call you just hope to catch a good flop, or try to steal the bootie after the flop.
2)Just calling and equally putting your hope on post flop-play. It is a weak play but jeopardizing your whole stack on a hand lik K9 just doesn't feel right either. The advantage of this play is that it costs less, and if your opponent doesn't raise you can be fairly sure he doesn't hold a rockcrusher himself. The BIG downside is you give him a shot at cracking you nut for free.
I'd like to hear how others approach the final lap of satellite tournament poker.
Spielmacher
>>I'm looking for opinions on heads up Satellite play. I played eight or nine No Limit Hold'em Satellites the past few weeks, reaching heads up twice. Both times I got busted. Once raising the big blind from 400 to 1100 with K9 offsuit when I had approximately 1700 in chips and my opponent who had about T2300 reraised me all-in with KQ. The second time I lost with QJs to an Ax and I raised all-in pre-flop. The chip situation was about 1500-2500 to my disadvantage, and the blinds were 200-400.<<
One thing that I do in heads up play is try to make up ground when I'm in position. In both situations that you played good hands but you were out of position. Just my opinion as others may disagree but I play more conservatively in the little blind when I am playing someone heads up. With both hands you mention I would call most of the time and see the big blind and see what the flop brings. If the big blind starts leaning on me well that is something I have to deal with and I make the adjustments then.
>>I'm having a problem with the following. When the blinds become very high in comparison to your stack you're supposed to play extremely aggressive poker. I know that and that's what I try. I translate this into not giving my opponents good odds to call a bet when I raise. For example with the blinds at 100 and 200, I won't make it 400 to go, since this offers the big blind 2 to 1 odds to make a call. I'll raise it to 600 or 700 with the big blind at 200 and to at least 1200 or all-in when the BB is at 400. This basically means I'm playing my hole stack every time I decide to raise when the BB reaches 400. I'll do this convinced it's the right move when I have Ax suited, a small pair or better. With most hands that I try this move-in with, like K9, Ax or QT I would prefer calling over raising. But just calling, giving the big blind a free shot with an above average hand myself seems like such a gutless thing to do, especially if he would have folded to a raise.<<
First of all you do have to mix up your play some. However, a lot of times with the types of hands you mention, your not that big of a favorite IMO. Your opponent will adjust (they have to or go broke) so you won't be able to run them out of the pot all the time anyway. Second of all, when the blinds get up there like you describe it is a crap shoot.
>>I wonder what strategy others use when the Satellite reaches the crapshoot stage. I`ve read McEvoy in Tournament Poker, Ciaffone in Improve your Poker and T.J.Cloutier in the Championship Hold'em book on Satellite strategy, but none of them discuss in any detail this heads up situation. <<
A lot of players, if not the majority, will try to make a deal when it gets to the crap shoot stage. I do almost all the time although I wish I would have played a lot more of them out. I've had to play quite a few to the bitter end also and I'm very happy with my results. All in all I think it is prudent most of the time to make a deal. That's the best answer that I've got.
>>I see two alternatives to raising, and risking your whole tack.
1) Raising to double the big blind, giving him 2 to 1 odds. He might not call anyway with really crappy hands, even if offered 2 to 1. If he does call you just hope to catch a good flop, or try to steal the bootie after the flop.
2)Just calling and equally putting your hope on post flop-play. It is a weak play but jeopardizing your whole stack on a hand lik K9 just doesn't feel right either. The advantage of this play is that it costs less, and if your opponent doesn't raise you can be fairly sure he doesn't hold a rockcrusher himself. The BIG downside is you give him a shot at cracking you nut for free.
I'd like to hear how others approach the final lap of satellite tournament poker. <<
For whatever it is worth I try to mix it up in the little blind but really I play conservatively in that spot. Therefore I would use the all in strategy, the moderate raise strategy, and the calling strategy but mostly I would call. One thing though, if I'm short stacked real bad I just put em all in.
How should I adjust preflop play (which I currently base on HFAP) in a 3-6 or 5-10 game which is raked 10% to $4?
Are there certain marginal hands (that would normally be played in that position, situation and type of game) that should be folded in high rake games?
(There is no choice around here. Foxwoods and the AC rooms rake at that rate.)
One author in Card Player indicated that only premium hands are playable in raked games. While this is clearly wrong, some hands probably don't tend to have a sufficient value to overcome a high relative rake, especially when the game is not extremely loose-passive.
Foxwoods low-limit play is normally not no-foldem, and while most players play somewhat too many hands, they don't take them too far, and they don't play everything.
Vince,
When the pots will be shorthanded play tighter before the flop. Against players that dont go a long way dont play marginal hands when you think they may be stronger. Complain to the management and never start games for them. Dont play shorthanded and walk whenever the game gets tight. This is similar to a post I made a while back. Good Luck.
I don't know if this is the appropriat spot to place this....sorry if it isn't.
I am looking for a home game in the Gainesville, FL area. If you have any info...please let me know.
Thanx.
email me if you are interested in 1/2 holdem, 1/2 omaha in Gainesville.
Thank you David,Mason,and Ray for this exceptional website. I have only been playing poker at structured tables since 1993 but feel I have learned more about poker in a couple days at this site than I have in 6 years of playing. I will be ordering some books. Any suggestions? Thanks again.
Thank you too Lynne. I did'nt mean to leave you out.
Tom,
All the 2+2 books should be read. All of Bob Ciaffone books. All of the books Mason recommends and Doyles book for sure. Read what all of what Caro has to say and Tom Mcevoy has books which should all be read. Then read all the other and older books and when you can see whats wrong and whats right in them then you are on your way. As Jimmy Rogers says getting rich aint easy. Good Luck. P.S. Most library reading areas are wonderful places to spend a rainy day. They have many of the older books that are not worth spending alot of time or money on.
The older books despite inaccuracies, can offer some insight as to how many of your elderly retired social club type players think about the game. This is the best reason for reviewing the pre 2+2 material. As Ray points out, it is important to be experianced enough to reject the ideas that are inappropriate to the games you are involved in.
i recently moved to arizona, where poker playing is allowed to those under 21 on the indian reservations. I have always been a fan of card games, especially poker, and have played in games at home in new jersey. It had been a while since playing, though and i decided to start playing at the reservations. I started on the 1-3 tables and was winning every time I went. I felt like I was playing well (bluffs, raises,etc.). Then all of the sudden just when i was about to go to the 3-6 or 6-12 tables, i began playing too conservatively. I lost the aggresiveness i had when i first started. Ever since I have been coming home down $$. I guess i would consider myself a little above the beginner level, now. I feel like i dont know how to play anymore. I want to start playing again, and want to know how to be a good player. Any tips, recomended reading, etc. you could send, please e-mail me!!! thank you!!!
LETS TALK POKER
Get Lee Jones' book on Winning Low Limit Hold'em and study it thoroughly before you get too discouraged with your Hold'em results.
ps...have you seen Rounders yet!?!?!?!?
great movie!!!! made me want to go out and play again!!!!
Brain, Look over on the left side of your screen and check out the posts under exchange. Use this side for more poker strategy type of stuff.
i recently found out that social poker games were aloud in bars etc., until a few years ago...what happened!?!?
any tips for poker tips for a beginner? brirish@imap4.asu.edu
thanks
A few? "Social Gambling" was outlawed in 1990. Bar owners had previously interpreted a certain legal clause as failing to outlaw gambling. Whether they were correct or not was rendered moot when the legislature/AG (I forget which) made the law less ambiguous. Now, because of the state lottery/ tracks, gambling is allowed on Indian reservations. Anti-gambling forces (bankrolled by a combination of religious fundamentalists and Las Vegas casino interests) have introduced a proposition on the November ballot to fail to renew the lottery. This would be the first step in killing gaming on Indian land. If you're registered voter, you may wanna circle the date on your calendar. Additionally, between the two current AG candidates, Janet Napolitano has shown herself to be gaming friendly. Tho the current state of gambling is pretty good, it wouldn't hurt having the good guys in office. And finally, this is probably a question best served by posting on the exchange forum rather than the Strategy forum. But I'm happy to answer anyway.
JG
Where are the poker chat rooms? would like to talk with other poker players.. especially from my area..ny.. long island...
Go to Ken's Poker page in the favorite links section at right. Then download Gpkr. It IRC Poker with a graphical interface. Then you'll not only be talking poker, you'll be playing poker(for free). Its a lot of fun and offers about 5-6(??) varieties of poker.
Still having troulbe finding various free poker games on line.. Please help with info...
Scroll down to Frank Brabec's post- RE:Online poker---GOOD LUCK
Sorry, I said Kens Poker page had the link. It is actually Dan Kimberg's page that did.....oops :) Anyway, here is the place to get GPKR(irc poker)
http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~gregr/
It is a free client used for playing IRCPoker. If your still having trouble, e-mail me and I'll help you.
I was playing in a $5-$10 hold'em game with raises preflop in $10 increments although it only costs $5 to see the flop with no raise. The flop and turn cost $10 with $10 raises. The river costs $20 with $20 raises. I'm in BB with Kd Kc. Player #4 is the first to bring it in and raises to $15. All fold to the button who makes it $25. Both of these players are solid players. I debated whether to make it $35 or to just smooth call. I reraised it to $35. The reason that I thought of only smooth calling was so that I could check raise the flop if an ace didn't hit. I also didn't want to be in a position of making the pot too large ($107)and then having an ace hit the flop and having to face tough decisions. Well, the flop came Ad 4s 8c. Exactly the kind of flop I was not hoping for. I figured that one of the players held AK, AQs, or AJs. Since there was so much money in the pot, I came out firing on the flop. Player #4 folded and the button called me. The pot was now $127. The turn was a rag. I checked, button bet and I folded. In a standard structure game I wouldn't even question myself as to how I played it. I think I made the right decision before the flop, on the flop and on the turn. However, with this structure, should have I check called the turn and river? Was it worth investing another $30 in the hopes of snapping off a bluff or catching a miracle K on the river? Any feedback will be highly appreciated.
Steve,
These hands are always tough and most times it may not make much difference as to just how you play it. When you played it the way you did you needed to have a plan on what to do when an ace hit and have a read on what they may hold against you. I dont like the bet out on the flop with the intention of folding on 4th street. Here is why. The button double raised it going in. What does he have? Probably a big ace or good pair. The way you played it most players will call on the flop with their pair and then bet when you check because it looks like you dont have an ace and that makes their pair good. If you called him down you would be getting about 5 to1 on winning. Not bad odds since it is really possible that you may win. However if you read the hand right then you did the right thing and just lost an average pot. Good Luck
I would have bet out on the turn here. You showed strength pre-flop and on the flop. Checking is inviting him to steal the pot if he doesn't have an ace. If he raises, I will probably let it go. If he calls again, I'd probably check the river and make a decision based on the player.
When you cap the pot pre-flop from the BB (depending on your image), he's gotta put you on a tier 1 hand. If the button has one of the hands you mention (AK, AQs, AJs), he is probably gonna raise you on the flop to find out where he's at. He could easily have 99-QQ and lose or a small suited ace and lay down a winner.
Chuck
He just called on the flop? Is he the type of player that would just call with Aces and a high kicker? It's hard to make any kind of call there without information about him as a player.
I chop if I am asked. having said this I am thinking if I should (will) stop as of Jan 1999. The question is not so much of the math, but the image I have now. I feel that by chopping I have a looser more amateurish image (I have never said no, except once when the prop said let's chop down to four players(at 15-30) and when it got down to four players I held him to his own words.) Anyway, I now think I have a loser player image by chopping. Do you think that there is anything to this theory ? (I deep down don't like to chop but one gains nothing at times - may even lose but one gains (as I preceive) the advertising value.)
You shouldn't be thinking about if you should ever chop blinds but rather what the criteria is for chopping/not chopping. If you are sitting in the same game all the time I doubt the change you get in image from chopping/not chopping is worth a cent. OTOH it might be worth it at some tables not to chop if it comes up soon after you've come to the table in order to set up an aggressive image. At other tables you might want to go along with the happy types and chop to fit so you can get a few more loose calls later. As in much of poker I don't think there is one rule to answer all situations.
FWIW, I don't really like chopping either but "like" isn't a good metric for poker play.
In a rake game you should be more inclined to chop. Are you really going to outplay someone for a full rake?
Mason, Im surprised to here you say this, didnt you speak out against chopping in your "Poker Essays".
Regularly chopping blinds except shorthanded reduces your variance or strain on your bankroll. Be sure to ask both the players if they chop, BEFORE this situation comes up. This goes for new players coming into any empty seat on your immediate left and right as well.
In Washington State, there is only two raises in regular ring game card rooms (non-Indian casinos). If you flop two pair, bet and get raised and you reraise it shuts off the betting. You get no more information because the raiser can't reraise, nor can any other player who may have sandbagged a call. Does this mean that it is almost better to never cap it on the flop except for value? Even in value situations should you not cap it anyway and wait to get in a full bet on the turn?
Hey all...
I know this may be somewhat of a novice question,and the answer may have to be quite detailed.... but what is a good pre-flop strategy in low-limit texas holdem?
I realize hands that are most profitable in the long run are ur high cards, high pairs, etc... but what about the middle hands...even from late position?
any information and comments would be helpful
thanx -Chris magxflet1@aol.com
I've grown accustomed to liking pocket aces.
Today was the 1st day the Bellagio poker room opened.I went there this morning,very nice atmosphere,good service but the tables are much smaller than the Mirage.In a 10 handed game we were really crammed with no fat people at the table.Another interesting thing is the dealers won't have to shout,there's buttons on the table they push for seat open,chip runner,cocktails,etc.The games will be as tough as the Mirage,it was basically all the same people.I played 30-60,there were only 2 strangers in the game and one was a pretty strong player.My 1st visit to the Bellagio poker room was a losing one,but I'm sure I'll return,overall I really liked the place.I didn't see a blackjack table with less than $25 minimum,and that was at 9 A.M.Tonight they'll probably be all $100 tables,and you won't be able to get a seat.
If you're dealt K Q J 10 and the flop comes K 3 5 rainbow, how much heat should you take for the turn card. I used to fold but have won some big pots by taking the next card and catching another paint.
Greg,
Multiway maybe call one bet if all looks good. Shorthanded this hands plays better than it looks but will lose money if played out of position and against better players and people that are smart enough to have all their cards hooked up. Of course alot depends on how much is in the pot already. Good Luck.
This sounds like the flip side of holding A-2-3-4 and only hitting one little card on the flop, but with a much nicer return if the turn and river comes paint-paint. Ray's advice works for me: if I can take a card off for one bet when in position with a large field, then it should be a moneymaker. You could set up a simulation to evaluate whether the return was positive or not, given x-players, x-dollars preflop, x-callers postflop.
In his article, Situational Adjustment, Roy Cooke provides excellent analysis as usual. Beyond the analysis is the method of analysis. Where other authors provide concepts and general approaches for winning play, Cooke provides a process and context to evaluate the factors relevant to profitable decision making. The key is the process. Many of us know to one extent or another the factors or general approach to consider dictating play, but how do we go about putting it all together? Cooke helps us out here by walking us through each factor, driving each decision in the play of a hand - he prescribes a process.
So, instead of thinking purely in terms like it's better to cost myself a bet than the pot, armed with a new way of evaluating a situation, we can now be much more prepared to determine when it is definitely better to cost ourselves a bet than the pot - and when it is not.
Lets make Poker so complex that we can't possibly analyze it. Since we can't analyze it, lets not talk about it. Since we can't talk about it, lets just play.
Yes, Poker is very complex. So is playing Guitar and many other activities. To be a Great player you must have talent. But I'm very sure our Favorite Guitarits didn't become Great without practicing their Chops.
CV
P.S. Jimi Hendrix is my personal favorite.
Friday I was playing 10 - 20 holdem at Foxwoods. It was early afternoon, so there was only one game. The weakest player in the game was good the best the overall winner at last years Foxwoods World Championship
There was a married couple playing. I think the are professional, at the very least, very experienced amateurs.
Needless to say, I wanted to have eother one of them replaced by anyone on the list or later from a must move game.
I am certain that they was no collusion. They are both plesant people.
It seems to me that even though there isn't any obvious or opne collusion, there is an advantage to having your spouse at the same table and therefore one of them should be required to leave the game.
The following are my reasons;
You are one ninth less likely to have a bad beat put on you. Because your spouse is excluded from that possiblity. Even if they do, the money has only gone from your stack to theirs and other than bragging rights what is the damage to your phyche? This puts everyone else at the table at a disadvantage.
You know how your spouse plays and all their tells.You must,you play with them all the time. So, you can get out of their way when they are strong.
It seems to me that the swings in your collective bankroll would be less.
I was going to complain to the floorman, but I didn't. I was only playing for the afternoon and I was doing all right.
Are there rule against this in other casinos? I'll admit I haven't even checked at Foxwoods, yet but I will.
On reflection I should have complained. It might have thrown them both of their game and stired up everyone at the table. Even if neither of them had to leave the game.
I think that you're right. Playing against partners is always to your disadvantage. However, nothing was forcing you to play in that game. If I was you, I would have gotten up and left the game. I would have probably put my name on the list for a 7 stud game and taken a walk. Roy West wrote an article in Card Player magazine a while back about playing at a table where there is collusion between players. His advice is to not play in that game. I'm just passing on advice that someone else passed on to me. On another note, how would you compare Foxwoods' poker room with California and Vegas poker rooms. I've only played at Foxwoods and Harrah's in AC and thought that Foxwoods had a pretty decent room.
I play in a regular game where several married couples play together (at various times). I don't notice any real difference in the play with these couples. At least it is no more different than 2 buddies playing at the same table. Each knows each other's tells and will give the other a break.
I did play in a game recently where two players were obviously colluding. Fortunately, they were very poor players and some of us at the table used their collusion to our advantage.
I don't think spouses should be barred from playing at the same table any more than any two people who know each other well, as friends or more. I'm a new hold 'em player and I would love to get my husband to go with me -- it would be more fun.
You are UTG with Jc,Tc and just Call the BB in a 9 Handed 10-20 Hold'em game. The Player to your immediate Left Makes it Two Bets, Everyone Folds, and you Call.
Given: This Player will make it two Bets in Early Position with A,A; K,K; Q,Q; A,K; A,Q. You also believe that He will only make the FLOP 3 bets with a Pocket Over Pair. You do not know him to be Tricky. Note: Don't worry about a Runner Runner Straight, or Flush. Also don't worry about the fact that its Raining outside in the Middle of July.
The Flop comes: T, 2 ,6
What is your Best Play on the Flop, Turn, and River? I think I've got the answer, but I was hoping I could get some input.
CV
You are sure he must have something good? Then I would probably bet 10 on the flop. If he calls, you are probably better than him. If he raises I would probably fold.
Looks like he is heavily favored to have AK or AQ as opposed to having a big pair in this spot, making you about a 1.78-1 favorite. I would just bet the flop in this spot and if I got raised I would call and take another card off. If I didn't improve on the turn I'd probably be done......you did say he was a straight forward player didn't you? If I didn't get raised on the flop I would bet it on the turn no matter what dropped unless it was an ace.If an ace dropped and I checked it to him and he bet I would most likely fold.....after all what could I beat? Besides I wouldn't be getting odds to draw out on him at this point, there being only about 8.5 small bets in the pot.On the river I would likely just try and check it down assuming that, once again I didn't improve.
Warning....The above analysis was just for my own practice and shouldn't be taken too seriously by anyone actually faced with this situation as I need a lot of improvement in these areas myself. Anyone care to comment on the above or rip it to shreds as the case may be....I'd appreciate it. Thanks
I think Betting The Flop and Folding if Raised would only work against the Weakest of Player, even then you could possibly make more Money by Check Raising.
CV
You have already indicated that you need to check-raise the flop (and I agree completely). If he re-raises, fold.
If he is the nervous type that will think your check-raise indicates tens or sixes, you may need to be careful though as he may not make it three bets with an overpair.
If he calls, bet the turn (assuming no overcard) and fold to a raise. On the river (if you have not improved) you have to assume that if he calls/raises, you are beat...therefore, I would either bet out (to protect showing my hand) or check-call (trying to induce a bluff with AK...don't know what he could think he could bluff you with after the check-raise on flop, though).
If an ace comes, fold (obviously) and if a K/Q comes, I'd probably check-fold (unless I was in a gambling mood or picked up a tell that he hit the wrong paint).
Given your scenario, it is more likely he has overcards (32 combinations) than an overpair (18 combinations), so play it as if he has overcards until he convinces you otherwise.
I believe Check Rasing the Flop is best against a Typical Straight Forward Player. If this player Folds his Over Cards on the Flop and gives away his Overpair by Re-Raising, you can expect to make around +6.00 more per Hand than by using any other Strategy.
But what if your Opponent becomes Tricky, or may just call with his Overpair after you Check-Raise. What if you have been forced to Fold alot on earlier Hands. Now I think Checking and Calling is the Best Play. You may even be able to Draw out on a Big Pocket Pair and possibly Check Raise on a Later Street. Unless an Ace comes I would Check and call all the way.
I think both Check Raising and Check Calling are good plays and are allmost equal. It now becomes a judgement call on which will be slightly more profitable.
CV
If your going to call this raise anyway why not reraise and if you just get called it puts you in control instead of the other way around{you being first to act}.If he comes over the top and caps you still get to see the flop and can get away from the hand immediately.If he just calls you may win the hand with the bet on the flop especially if he is AQ or AK.
Given your assumptions the correct play would be to check raise on the flop and bet again on fourth st. if only called. If you are reraised you must call twice more in the hopes of getting in a check raise on the end.
David if your response is to my post I was talking about reraisng before the flop and taking control being first after the BB. Would like your opinion of that play. Regards Jay
Thanks for the Responce David. You did point out something very important that I forgot to figure. That the Pot and Implied Odds are Large enough to Chase with 5 outs when you know your opponent has an Overpair. Of course its not as good as it seems because if the Board pairs 2's or 6's on the Turn (this will happen 6/45ths of the Time he has an Overpair) you are Basicly Shutout, but its still better than giving up if Reraised on the Flop.
CV
P.S. There are also Times when you will improve to T's and J's but the Board will Pair, or you will improve but your Opponent makes Trips, or you make Trips and the Board Pairs. They are possibilities, but they come up less than 3% of the time and almost counteract one an other.
Over the past three years I have toyed with the concept of training poker players in much the same way you train a boxer. You first have to see them play, searching for the good and the bad before you begin building a successful, winning player. The hurdle that I've never been able to overcome with any player is convincing them that they aren't winning players currently and that they desperately need to make changes in their game, lifestyle choices or habits in order to have any chance of becoming winning players. It seems to me that any player, accustomed to spending the majority of his time on the "rail" hoping to find a backer to put him into action, would be honest enough with himself to concede the necessity to make changes. My experience tells me that my assumption just isn't correct. Case in point: I recently began working with a player who has good playing abilities but can only play in small buy-in tournaments when he gets a backer to put him in for 50% of any win. In conversation after a tournament once, I asked him why he doesn't play in "ring" games and he gave as a reason the fact that he had no bankroll and was unable to handle the variance when he took the couple hundred dollars he might win from a tournament into a live game. I had watched this player carefully over several hours of tournament play and knew that he could handle himself profitably in many live games. He had demonstrated discipline and self control and had shown on several occasions that he could lay a losing hand down when necessary. I became intrigued with the idea that I might have a contender to manage. We discussed the possibility of me putting up the bankroll for him to play, splitting the net wins 50/50. I told him that I would pick the games and that I would back him until such time as he had enough money to play on his own or that I became convinced that he wasn't able to become a net winning player. My rules were short and simple, show up when he said he would, play in the games I picked for him and not play in live games on his own until he had a sufficient bankroll to go on his own entirely. We spent a week, winning four of five sessions and booking a promising profit that seemed to bode well for the future. After booking a solid win over an eight hour period in a game, we called it a day and split up the profits and I was heading home when I realized I hadn't set a firm time to meet for the next playing session. Returning to the casino to look for him, I found him back sitting in the same game he'd cashed out of not fifteen minutes previously. He had every penny he owned sitting in front of him and didn't bat an eyelash when he saw me standing next to him. I'm sure that he is going to be upset to learn that he has lost a backer, but this single breach of faith leads me to believe he doesn't have the necessary control to ever be a winning player. The game was very good, but one of the reasons to get up and leave it was to see whether he had the ability to leave a game that good. I am curious whether others have ideas or suggestions concerning the feasability of managing poker players. I've worked with more than thirty players thus far and have yet to find one that I felt could be successful.
Big John,
This is not your first post on this subject, and I must say that I admire someone like yourself who is willing to recognize the playing skill of others and back them up with money. In my early gambling days, I was fortunate enough to meet someone who was prepared to back me. Of course he was fully conversant with both the game(s) I played and gambling theory in general. This is essential for such a relationship to be successful. A proper understanding of low expectation/high variance enterprises will go a long way in preventing future disappointment and heartache. But even more important than my playing ability was trust and discipline. If the session strategy was that I stop playing after one hour, I would do so. There would have been no chance that he would have later found me back at the same game, at a roulette table or even the bar. I don't think I'm inherently any better disciplined than the guy you were backing - it's just that I knew I was onto a good thing, so all the rest came pretty easily. My backer could have been thousands of miles away, but he knew that I would always be faithful to the game plan. During the apprenticeship stage, he had singled out incidents which I thought were only very minor infringements of discipline (mostly situations where I had to exercise my discretion) and lambasted me. He would regularly entrust me with five digit (dollar) amounts of cash with which I would fly off somewhere alone. He understood that not every session (or trip) would be a winning one, which eased the pressure on me (though naturally I felt terrible when this occurred, and it occurred a lot). I've always had the reputation of being straight and honest, and I know he knew this, yet I still expressed my willingness to be polygraphed whenever he wished. Despite my repeated insistence, he never took me up on it.
Today we are good friends. It is no longer teacher/pupil, backer/player but rather equals. I do analyses and sims for him, and will put up my money to get a percentage stake in a particular 'venture' of his. He knows I'm studying hold'em, with which he's totally unfamiliar, yet has already expressed willingness to buy into any future poker escapade.
Etienne
Players who have what it takes usually don't need or want a backer. I think that you are getting into very dangerous territory. Of course there are always exceptions, but you should be aware that many of the so called tournament stars have backers, which change every so often. There is a reason for this. They don't win.
I'll have to agree with Mason on this one. Although you probably can't tell it from some of my posts, I'm a pretty good poker player. But, I've been busted or near busted a whole bunch of times over the last 20 years - most of the time it's been because of non-gambling leaks in my life. I've had offers from potential backers. Maybe a dozen times, I'm not sure. I've turned down every one. The reason is that I don't want to get involved financially with someone who's judgement is that bad. Ignoring the fact that it's real easy for a backed player in a ring game to steal from a backer, when I've got major distractions going on in my life, my judgement at the poker table is just not going to be real good. I can always get money (I can work), and when I'm short of it it's not a financial backer I need, it's some stability in my life that I need. Now, I'm sure their are situations where someone might need a backer, and they won't steal from you, and they don't have any current life problems that would interfere with their play or their judgement. I just don't think that happens real often. -- Gary Carson
There are, of course, other reasons why some tournament players have backers. Tom McEvoy could explain.
Mason,
I believe that there are quite a few players in the small buy-in tournaments that get put in by backers every day. Usually they trade small pieces of themselves with other regular players in the hope that one or more will cash and they will receive something. They are trading their time for a guaranteed free roll. The real quality tournament players will often make "saves" among themselves to offset the high varience. I know of no backer who has made any real profit from backing tournament players. Ring game players can be backed profitably if you control the games that they sit in. Whether they can make the kind of money that they think they deserve, well, that is another story. It is my belief that regular low limit players are a capital asset for a card room and should be treated as well or better than the top section players. When these players are standing on the rail hoping for a loan to get into a game, they are producing nothing of value for themselves or anyone else. If I owned a card club, I'm sure that I could identify at least 25 players that I would back confidently knowing that the collections they would occasion by their presense would more than cover any losses I might incur.
Why do you insist on doing this? If I tried something 30 times unsuccessfully, I would probably give up. The only scenario where I would want a backer would be to obtain a seat at a WSOP event. The reason for this is that I could play against the best players in the world and I'd have a better idea of how good a poker player I am. Unfortunately, I can't afford to play in such a high stakes game, so I don't. My question is "Why would you give your hard earned money to a stranger, who would play in a game and let him keep 50% of the winnings, while absorbing 0% of the losses?". You seem like a nice guy, maybe too nice. Be careful who you trust with your $$$.
Steve,
In answer to your why? It is a combination of curiosity, empathy and greed.
Curiosity:
I've often wondered whether marginally skilled players can be taught poker playing traits and skills to make them net winners. Experimenting like this allows me to find out more about the questions I want answered.
Empathy:
I happen to feel that the life of some of the fringe "professional" players is really sad and that their living on the very edge of subsistance takes a tremendous toll on their physical and mental health. These players contribute much to the California card rooms by occupying chairs to make the smaller limit games go. By and large, casino management treats them like shit compared to "top section players".
Greed:
If I can piece together a method of converting these players to net winning players, I can negotiate with a card room for a substantial fee to bring my players to play in their casino. I have, in fact, negotiated such a fee successfully in the past, where the card room agreed to pay me $1,500.00 per week to have my players sit in games for an aggregate total of 300 hours per week. I showed the card room how these players could be used to start, shore up or maintain games that the room wanted to spread. The cost to them was much less than what they were paying their low limit props.
I hope this information makes my experimenting seem more rational to you.
Thanks for answering my questions Big John.
its funny i just e mailed david sklansky to ask him if he ever heard of a poker coach? I was asking because i was looking for one.....what i am about to say may sound like a movie script but it is not...it is real life. I am 34 years old and i never played poker up until about 2 years ago. I had happened to meet a man called Charlie Cutia a professional poker player and we became good friends..he taught me to play 7 card stud...he claimed to be one of the worlds best 7 stud players....any way feel fortunate because so far i have been succesfull in my poker career although i could use more experience. Just recently I have decided to be a professional poker player myself....I have been reading virtually ever book out there on the subject..why because when i decide to do something i want to be the best at it.....i have also been playing more often. anyway i could use a coach..i have all the tools to be a great poker player and i know i still have a lot to learn...I am very humble it is too easy to let your guard down in this game and get your clock cleaned...anyway it you are interested e mail me.....even if you are not i would appreciate any avice you might have for me.....
ps my e mail address is msc33@aol.com.....thanks scott
First off, I would like to say in my delurk thank you not only for the great and informative web site; even more thanks for all of the quality information that you have published. Your books have helped my game considerably. Anyway, my point of discussion/confusion is:
"Therefore it is wrong to raise with unsuited high cards in multiway pots, and it may be right to fold hands like AT, KT and even AJ and KJ."
_Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players_ p. 77
I ran a computer simulation with ten players. All ten saw the flop every time. The button was frozen and I gave the big blind the same unsuited big cards each time. The big blind was set to play as one of the better loose players all the others were loose and passive. This was showdown poker, 100% of the players seeing the flop, 90+% of the deals going through the river. 10,000 trials. AJo did great, something like a 17% win rate, 12.00 net profit. Even KTo did pretty good with a 15% win rate and a 8.59 net profit. This was with the BB being set to raise after the whole field trailed in. I don't want this to degenerate into how (in)effective computer programs are in modelling the real game. The relevant point here is that these hands took down more than their share of pots with every possible draw coming after them regardless of whether there were odds to justify it (granted with $200 in the pot pre-flop the odds were probably there). When there was no raise before the flop not only the net dropped but the win rate as well. Why is calling recommended in this situation? You're a favorite to win with the offsuit, why not raise? I know that this is a high variance play but is there any other reason to call?
To use a more realistic example than the above, think of someone with high offsuited cards close to the button ready to act after four opponents have just called the blind. If I am not afraid of a slow play (and lets assume that I have AJo as with KTo there would be problems if someone had come in with Axs) then it seems correct to raise. Not only am I raising with the best hand, but I can make them make a mistake. First, they will all probably call the raise, it would be a mistake for them not to as their pot odds will be even better. It is doubtful though that their hands can generate the kind of action that they need to break even on, if they have to pay two bets to see the flop. Example: with 97s (and many will be coming in with worse hands) they have a 21.65% chance of flopping a hand that has some potential for profit (1% chance of flopping a straight, .85% for a flush, 16.3 for an open end straight draw or flush draw, another 3.5% for flopping a good hand, ie. two pair, trips, full house), but the more relevant question is whether they will be able to expect the kind of pot back they need to justify getting involved in the first place. With the times that this hand will be drawing dead and the expensive draw outs it will lose, I would guess that it needs to bring back in action 10-12 times the size of the opening bet. It is unlikely that they will be able to get 120-160 in action consistently. This small edge that the big cards are getting is going to come in the form of the larger pots they will draw the once in 6 or 7 times they win.
I understand that on the flop if I hit a pair with two offsuited high cards the multi-way pot is going to be laying odds fo anyone with any kind of draw to call me. But I'm the favorite. Certainly I win more money if there's $150 in the pot and someone folds a gutshot to a $10 bet, but call or fold I am in a profitable situation. That particular bet on the flop or turn is not profitable (but mandatory, or the opponent is drawing out for free), but being in contention for the pot is.
So, those are my thoughts on the under rated off suited high cards. Rebutals, refutations, flames all are welcome. I can see that the overlay the big cards have becomes smaller with more people in the pot, but it doesn't disappear. So why not raise consistently with them and be satisfied with the occassional very large pot? And why would you ever fold?
First of all you do not win as often as you think. Your simulation incorrectly assumes that you will always go to the river. It also gives your opponents random cards including absolute junk which is a different situation than we asssume in our book. ( We would also raise with these hands if players were truly playing any two cards) Thirdly your analysis of 97s did not include flopping a pair. Fourthly is the fact that by just calling on the flop it makes it more likely that you will be bet into which will allow you to thin the field with a raise those times it is to your advantage to. There are other factors as well that argue against your position.
Thank you for your quick answer. I can see the benefits to calling when considering these possibilities. Two questions remain. AKo, AQo and KQo were not mentioned in the section of text previously quoted. In the chapter, The First Two Cards: Late Position, it is suggested that with many callers in the pot AQo should lean towards calling. Do these cards have enough high card strength to make raising an acceptable if marginal play? I did not think of including the possibility of 97s flopping a lone pair as such a hand struck me as having a minimal chance to win a multiway pot. There would though have been enough in the pot with five way action to pay for draws to improve one pair. This alone would probably improve the 97s chances enough to call a double bet. In the essay "Why You Lose in a Good Game" you state that it would be correct for T8s to call against two overcards for a cold raise. Does this require a certain amount of multi-way action or would it be correct heads-up? I was guessing that 10 times the amount of the opening bet in action would be required to be profitable multi-way, however, this won't happen heads-up but only one pair will be good at showdown much more often as well.
I usually raise with AJo in early position to drive out other players and it doesn't always work, but whether I raise or not I win with them over 40% of the time. I don't care what the simulations show. As has been stated, it doesn't usually go to the river.
One problem with raising with AJo in early position is that the players you don't drive out will frequently have a better hand than you. Just something to think about.
I agree with you Mason and I have found this out first hand. I didn't mean to imply that I stay with them if the flop doesn't help and/or if I'm raised back. I usually let the AJ go if I don't get help by the turn, and sooner if the betting gets stiff.
I'm playing in a 3-6 hold'em game, and I'm dealt pocket aces. I raise pre-flop and am called by 3 others. The flop comes 4c, 5h, and 9d. I raise again and am called by one other player. Fourth street and the river are rags, and I raise on both. The only other player in calls and shows 4, 5 in the pocket. My question is if I played this correctly. I assumed my raise before the flop should have driven out any low pocket pair, but since this is low-limit, I probably should have expected this. Any thoughts/opinions would be appreciated.
Thanks, James Flames
You're probably lucky you didn't lose more money. I definitely would have raised you back on the river (and probably on the turn as well).
From your description of the hand, there did not seem to be much chance of you holding anything other than a big pair. The only hand 45 needed to worry about was pocket 9's.
After calling your raise on the flop and betting into you again on the turn (and river), there's no way I'd put in a raise at the end (and probably not on the turn either).
You also mentioned that two other rags came (which I take to mean PS> There are often times when you can tell that someone has a big pocket pair because they are making angry bets...this is a sure fire way to tip off your hand. Not saying that you did this, but it is something to consider.
In low limit they will play any two cards and I mean any two cards. You did not say if this opponent was one of the blinds or what the other two cards were. Since three people saw the flop you were already up against one pair or a straight draw or trips. Most opponents in low limit don't raise when they should. As the previous responder said, your lucky they didn't raise back. With only one high pair your only out is trips. The only question you need to ask yourself is, " If he raised me back, what would I have done?"
Actually, the hand showed two characteristics of low limit hold 'em. Not only will players play "any two", but players will take big pocket pairs to the river pretty much regardless of what's out there and how the betting has gone.
Out of curiosity, how does the original example show that a big pair is beat even before seeing the showdown? According to the story, the flop came 459 rainbow. Should pocket aces, or any other big pair, just check and call or check and fold? How far should a big pair stay in, if not the latter? Should James have seen the turn? Seen the river? Turn and river were blanks, so I'm assuming that James meant that there was no 3-flush, no straight possibility, and no pair on the board by the river. So what to do? Play according to the opponent(s)? What if the opponent is impossible to read, like a typical loose-aggressive type, or just plain loose?
--Ron
>So what to do? Play according to the opponent(s)?
You certainly need to know your opposition. But if you raise it 3 times and your opponent still comes out betting on the river, the raise on the end would stike me as a zero expectation bet.
How long have you been playing low limit hold-em? When I first started playing (about 3-1/2 years ago) I read all the books and tried to apply most of the "winning concepts" of the game, and what I found out playing in "the trenches" was that this game should be titled "No fold-em hold-em"!!! The longer I played, the more I realized that players without a clue with regard to position or pot odds, will stay in to draw out on you no matter where they are positioned or what their pot odds are!!! Learn to deal with it as I have and you will be much better off.
As far as playing it right, you probably did everything you could to drive out those players with weak hands, but once again this is "low limit" and most "bad" players will play and two consecutives and suited cards from any position! In fact I play in a $3-6-12 game with a player who sees 99% of the flops (no exageration), and invariably he will draw out on almost everyone at one point during the night, but I can't tell you how many times this guy has lost at least $500 by playing that way. But I love playing with him because I know that even though he will draw out on me sometimes he's just "borrowing" my chips and I will get them back at some point during the session.
My advice to you is (if you are an aggressive solid player) to keep playing the "right" way and eventually your bankroll will much larger than your opponents.
Marc
That was actually my first time playing hold'em in a casino. I had a feeling that I played that incorrectly, but I didn't know exactly how. Thanks, everyone, for your responses.
James Flames
PS I only ended up losing $21.00 during 6.5 hours of play. (I started with $100). So, I did better than I expected, although looking back, I can remember alot of mistakes that I made, like playing too many hands. (Impatience got the better of me). I'm planning on playing again this weekend, hopefully with better results.
James,
Any time you bet check or raise try to think why you are doing it and if it is accomplishing what you want. The actions you take are not based on the strength of your hand but on the strength of your hand in relation to what you think your opponents may hold. Good Luck.
If when you said you "raised" on the flop, turn, and river you mean you bet it and the other player called, then you played it the only way you could (and the other player played it poorly). If you truely mean the other player bet and you raised in all 3 situations, that would be too aggressive.
A Poker Guy!
Raising until the river is surely correct, I am assuming there was no re-raising.
I might not bet on the river since it is hard to think of many hands that would call you and not beat you. I am surprised for instance in the actual hand he did not reraise you on the river. Also there is perhaps a better chance the player will bluff with a broken "draw" rather then call you with nothing, and you can pick up a bet with your call.
David
David,
I'm not sure that raising on the turn would have been correct... If I had raised preflop and then raised again on the flop and wound up with one caller, I would have to think that person was on to something. That something would have to be two small connecting pairs that many no fold 'em players play. Therefore, I might not have raised on the turn and maybe even checked to the river, depending upon the other person.
well, this subject seems to be getting a lot of attention.....keep in mind that the average winning hand in holdem is averaged around trips nines. with that in mind you must play conservative when there is no ace on the flop. by raising the first round he must know you have a high pair or perhaps a k...yet he still called after the flop you should have known then you were in trouble......your only out at this point was trips....try and get free cards at this point.....don't fall in love with those aces..because alone they don't often win..unless you know your opponent is drawing to a flush or sraight and misses...but by the betting after the flop you could tell that wasn't the case
This weekend I was playing for a while at Artichoke Joe's. All day long I was getting run on down on the river by the same women. She was clearly not getting odds to be doing so. For example:
I have AJo in the pocket. I raise preflop in late position. Two people drop (a rarity for low limit). We now have three people. The flop comes A K 7. I get checked to and bet. I get called by the women and the other guy folds. Turn is a 9, I bet. She calls. River is a 2 (no flush potential). I bet, she RAISES, I call. She shows me the Montana Banana of 9-2!
The main question I have is how to deal with this situation from both a strategy and emotional point. She did this to me 4 times in 2hrs. I have never been so "titlted" at the table.
Suggestions?
Thanks,
Paul
Why would you tilt? This woman has zero outs in the long run. I would love to be heads up with anyone who needs runner runner to get there when I also have redraws to close out any hope she may have. Quit playing results, the variance exists and you must accept it. Look for her at a table in the future. She called three small bets with nothing, a big bet with third pair on the board, and got there with a hand that was only third and fifth two pair and raised you. If you had had AK instead of AJ, this story would never have been told. Imagine how much she would have lost if she had taken the beats you took from her in addition to the many she must put on herself already. If I had played in this game with you and saw you could be thrown off by this type of bad beat, I'd gamble a little to try to put one on you.
This lady must be related to the guy who played at my table 2 weeks ago. Same thing, hands like 3-2o beating my AA by catching pair on turn and river. It put me on tilt too after the 5th time. Thats the problem with low limit I guess. But in the long run we all know who has the advantage. I can't wait to play that guy again :)
Flopping Quads, Bradley T
The only people I like at the table I'm playing more than these poor players are people that go on tilt
> Suggestions?
Post a description of her so I can make sure to sit at her table next time I am at AJs :).
Actually I used to seeth inside (but not go on tilt) when stuff like this happened, but now I don't let it get to me. A voice inside just whispers to me over and over "it's only a loan" (from a Mike Caro post somewhere in the past, I believe). Yeah, on a lucky day, they get the interest free loan for more than a few hours, but geez even thats not a bad thing. Without those lucky days, they'd never come back.
A Poker Guy!
The old adage rings true. The best players take the toughest beats. However, I would caution you not to sit down with more than three of these type players in your game. I learned my lesson in a 5-10 game (with a 10-20 kill) when I sat in with 7 "bad" players and left the table 8 hours later with a slight loss. When there are too many bad players in the game I call this "sleeping with the fishes." Very dangerous.
When "bad" players beat "good" players, is it always by luck, or are the bad players playing better (in that game)? My point is that luck aside, it doesn't make sense to me that playing well can lose to playing badly -- part of playing well is being able to handle different styles. A master chess player, for example, can beat a "coffee-house" style wild player -- he doesn't lose and say he lost because his opponent played badly!
Stick to chess Kate.
Post deleted at author's request.
Gary, of course hands change value with changing situations, e.g. pocket deuces playing better than ATo multi-way - I thought this was common knowledge and beyond debate above novice level. There are many more examples.
Now, to compare poker to chess - it doesn't work. The best player in chess is simply that, the best player, and he will rarely, if ever, lose to an opponent of less skill. In poker, the player with the highest expectation for the game at hand can be a loser to a specific opponent who otherwise does much worse. This is the point I think Kate needs to understand.
Post deleted at author's request.
Scott and Gary, You're right, chess and poker can't really be compared -- I guess I just confused my point with that. What I was responding to was Merle's saying it's dangerous to play with weak players -- as if it were their weakness, rather than bad luck, that made him come away with a loss after 8 hours. Maybe that's not what he meant. -- Kate
Kate, the upside of playing in extremely loose games is they are very easy to beat. The downside is increased fluctuations and (arguably) little gain in expectation. Sklansky says in these games your wins will come few and far between, but will be inordinately large. Mason has said piling on loose players adds marginally to expectation, but greatly to fluctuations. My limited experience in quintessential no fold hold'em has shown both to be true. In any event, extremely loose games are far from dangerous as previously posted.
Scott,
You write : Therefore, if a player moving to this type of game (from tight or average lineups) does not review his bankroll requirements, he may indeed figuratively end up like Luca Brazzi, "sleeping with the fishes".
Etienne
Etienne, as I recall, bankroll requirements is covered the second day in Poker 101. Yeah, of course, play in any game long enough without the appropriate bankroll and you will have put yourself at risk, but the danger isn't intrinsic to the game.
Scott,
You write : Judging by the number of talented players standing on the rail in Big John's "Poker player manager" thread, it would seem that allocating only one day of Poker 101 to bankroll requirements is clearly not enough.
< Yeah, of course, play in any game long enough without the appropriate bankroll and you will have put yourself at risk, but the danger isn't intrinsic to the game. >
The treacherously high variance to expectation ratio (which S&M attribute to this particular game and which I claimed warranted a review of bankroll requirements) is intrinsic to what then?
Etienne
Etienne, the intrinsic danger, as it were, is not knowing how to play in the game. Things like overvaluing big offsuit cards and top pair on the flop multi-way and not playing loose enough with drawing hands in every position. By the way, this is covered day 3.
Scott,
< By the way, this is covered day 3. >
How long's the course?!
Etienne
Kate, I was trying to point out that in holdem you can be deceived re if you can beat a game. Table selection is important. I wasn't putting down weak players or saying they can't win. I was merely saying that players should be aware of the pitfalls of the types of games they are encountering. In chess, a stronger player will almost always beat a weaker in the short run. In holdem, this isn't the case. Games that appear to be easy ultra loose passive may be the most difficult to beat. Scott had some good comments. However, I think Gary is wrong. If I understand your post Gary, you would play down to the competition re starting hands, i.e. you would play any loose connectors or flush draws. You could probably justify post-flop calls with pot odds for practically every hand you play but I've found that consistently playing good starting cards works best for me. The only time I adjust starting cards is in a shorthanded game. I guess I'm a low-variance player by nature.
Merle, Thank you (and Scott and Gary) for your comments. I think I understand better now that adjusting to different games isn't easy or straightforward and doesn't necessarily pay off quickly.
You say "Nice hand!". You must also mean what you say. You cannot get mad when a situation like this occurs. You are clearly getting the best of it when you bet. If she runs you down so be it. It's not the first time it's happened to someone and it's not the last. If she didn't hit the deuce in the river, you'd be happy that she called you down as you were able to get 2 BB out of it. That's 2 hours work! If you want to win every hand you play, you have unrealistic expectations. Aim at winning in the long run not the short run. You should only get mad at yourself when you think you played poorly. It seems to me that you played the hand well. So don't get mad. Good luck.
Exactly, I know that I played the hand well and know that in the long run I will be a winner. But it truly is frustrating to be beaten by someone who plays like that even if I know it is a short term set back.
Thanks for the reply.
Paul
After studying HPAP for about two weeks, I headed out to the local casino for my first session. After playing about seven hours at a 6-12 table, my win was over $700. This means my win rate is $100 per hour. I guess that makes me one of the greatest hold'em players ever, just kidding. Needless to say the poker gods were smiling down on me, but there is no question that my skills learned from the 2 + 2 books helped. I would just like to take this time to thank Mr. Sklansky, Mr. Malmuth and Mr. Zee for opening up a whole new window in my life and getting me started on what hopefully will become a successfull poker career.
Good Job. I just hope you don't get disappointed the next time you play and your win rate isn't as high, or you have a losing session. What you experienced is not the norm, and shouldn't be expected results every time. That is what, about 8 BB per hour? I think expert players usually average 1/4 of that. But good job on your win. Hope your "luck" continues. Flopping Quads, Bradley T
For your first attempt at low limit hold-em to win $700 is actually amazing!! I noticed that you have done some good reading prior to playing and I hope it was not just beginner's luck. I recently responded to another post: "Low Limit Hold-Em Situation" in this poker forum, that I recommend you read. Basically, it tells the reader that you need to expect the unexpected in low limit. Players will draw out on you regardless of their position or pot odds. The concept of "any two cards can win at this game" is all too prevelant for a lot of low limit players. In fact I play with a guy who's attitude is: "He never saw two hole cards he didn't like, just bad flops!" If you maintain a positive attitude about this game, and constantly realize that most low limit players play for the action and excitement rather than to make money, you will do just fine!!
When it happens that you go on tilt (and eventually it will), recognize what is happening and try to remove yourself from the situation. I realize this is hard to do, but when you feel that you have been playing solid cards, making the right decisions, and yet you are constantly being beat by low percentage draw-outs, you tend to fall into the "going on tilt" category! This is when you keep losing with good cards to people who are playing bad cards and you then think, well, maybe I should start playing like them because they're winning. STOP right there and leave the table because I can almost guarantee that it won't happen. Minizmize your loss for that session (don't forget that poker is just "One Big Session"). You will wind up losing even more if you denegrate yourself to their level of play. It has happened to me and I can guarantee that it has happened to everyone seasoned player reading this post.
Good luck, Play Smart and Manage your Money!!
Marc
Congratulations on your big win. It feels good to know that your hard work has paid off. But don't let one big win like that make your expectations become unrealistic. A big win like that should happen once every twenty to thirty sessions. What you really want to do is to avoid losing $700 in a 10 hour session of $6-$12 hold'em. Regardless, keep track of your winnings/losses, length of time played, limit played, variety of game (stud, hold'em, ...). After a minimum of 30 sessions, aim more for 50 to 60 sessions of approximately 8 hours each, you'll have a better idea of what your true win rate will be. I'll guess that it will be anywhere between 0.75 to 1.25 BB per hour. More towards the upper end if you don't steam easily, don't play drunk or tired, play with money that isn't scared money, ... Keep up the good work!
I've done a lot of reading but have next to no real playing experience. I went down to Commerce Casino (I live in LA) yesterday and lost $200 playing 2-4 Stud for 10 hours. Is 2-4 Stud a good game for gaining experience? It seems that the rake makes it awfully expensive. Does 3-6 offer an improvement on that front (because the rake is only $0.50 more but the pots are much larger)? I can't say that at this point I'd like to invest more than $100-$200 a session in my education. What's a good book for low-stakes stud? I have one by George Percy that's quite good. Problem is it's 20 years old.
Does it make sense to fold three bad/mediocre cards (say 2-8-Q unsuited) if it only costs $0.50 to get a fourth? I played for a long time at a table yesterday where pretty much everyone stayed in through 4th St.. Only a few times did anyone bet or raise this early. Although I was good about not chasing, I did tend to stay in for a fourth. Was this poor play? I'm figuring that it was and that it probably accounted for much of my loss.
Lastly, I played at a table where a guy bet $2 blind before every deal. How does this affect my ability to guage other hands? What is the correct way to play this? Do I call with good cards (say a high pocket pair) or raise?
Thanks for any help. Incidentally, if anyone lives in LA and feels like sharing some of their expertise in person (over a meal or at a low-stakes stud table)...
Sean,
I suggest you get some more modern books. Its good you are reading but by the questions you ask you need much more knowledge and experience. To get that experience without going broke first I think you should try to be the tightest player at the table during your early plays. Play only hands that look like they are the best hand of all the players for the first bets and then only continue if your hand still looks good. As you gain experience you will learn when to play with hands that have value that is not readily apparent. Good Luck.
Thanks for the advice. Can you recommend some good current books? All of my books came out of the reading list in Holden's "Big Deal". Consequently, they are mostly outdated.
Is your Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players too advanced for me?
Don't let the "Advanced" part get in your way. Eventhough alot of the concepts 2+2 talk about are "Cutting Edge", I think you should still read them even if you are just a Beginner. They are written well enough to understand even if you have little knowledge of the game. I do think an other good book for beginning Stud is Roy West's "42 Lessons". Of course he also recomends the 2+2 books.
CV
Sean,
Not all that long Chris was kind of a beginner like you and he put in the time and effort and now he is an accomplished professional. All it takes is work. Read as many books as your mind can stand and play a little in between till you get it. Good Luck.
a reckless player who will raise with a variety of weak hands raises under the gun, a player who likes to steel blinds every chance he has with any hand reraises four places from the button. im sitting six places from the button and make it four bets with acejack offsuit. my reasons are i was pretty sure i had a better starting hand than both players. this was a 20-40 game, i know acejack is not a great hand is it worth making it 80 before the flop if i believe i have the best hand with ace jack. my only other option was to fold and i don't think that would be a bad play either. one other reason i reraised was if the flop does not hit anybody i might win with a bet right away. please let me know your opinions on this play.
Just to clarify, UTG makes it two bets, you flat call two in fourth position with AJo, sixth position makes it three bets, blinds fold, UTG calls and you cap.
I don't like the original call and like the reraise less. The guy in 6th position is not trying to steal blinds here given that the pot has been raised and called already. I would be surprised if you had him beat pre-flop (unless he is a loose cannon).
Your raise actually makes it more difficult to win the pot if it hits nobody. Pot is now $270. You should not be able to get anyone out with a ragged flop for a single bet.
Chuck
I think you misread the situation. I think it was UTG makes it two, 6th to the right of the button makes it three, hero is 4th to the right of the button (2 after the second player) and makes it four. But, I'm pretty much with you, I don't think I'd be real interested in getting involved in that pot with AJo -- even if I did think I was probably the best hand. Just too many ways I could be a big underdog and not know it. I really doubt you'll win that one with a $20 bet on the flop. -- Gary Carson
I think you're right Gary...I was thinking 'from the button' as right rather than left. It makes more sense when you consider from left.
Chuck
I would have to agree wouldn't have even made the bet in the first place......you could alway invest that money later when you are in a sronger position.....with two raises you can figure you are not the favorite.....someone has a high pair and it ain't you.....fold....you will have more chances later
I was playing hold'em last weekend and two other players and myself were discussing what we wanted as our image to others at the table.
A lady said she wanted to be respected and known as tight. However she plays so tight she never gets any calls when she does play she hardly bluffs or semi-bluffs. She rarely makes good at the table.
Then the other guy says he likes to be feared, which makes sense and works for him since, he is fairly tight but gets away with some stealing bets, etc..
I on the other hand am very young compared to everyone I play with, I play tight and follow HPFAP. I said I prefer disrespect for my playing, from others. It seems that all the older players can't believe I know how to play, and when I have good hands, I get tons of action and do very well almost every time I play.
Any thoughts on what image is best, and on whether I should be happy with my profitable disrespect until I ripen with age.
Funny you should ask that -- image has been top of my mind this morning. In particular, I was thinking of a post I'd read where someone was whining about how Barbara Enright plays a lot of crap but wins consistently.
Image as an action player does at least three good things: it gets you paid big on your good hands, keeps your opponents guessing about what you are holding, and makes it appear you got lucky (which maybe you did), thus often putting your opponents on tilt. Of course, in these days of sanitized limit hold-em, you have to be in the right game with the right opponents for that to work consistently. On the other hand, if you want to grind away at a profit, your approach would be the safest, most consistent way to do so.
As I've often said, a poker player's most valuable asset is usually their relative anonymity. And, as you've noticed, one of the oldest maxims around still holds true: never underestimate your opponents. Someone (Mason?) once remarked that it might be more unprofitable to overestimate your opponents. In Los Angeles or on the riverboats, this is probably true; in Las Vegas, it probably isn't.
I have a different take on the subject of image. I would rather be perceived as a tight player. I've found that over my short holdem career my profits lie in my ability to execute the semi-bluff or pure steal. Everything else seems to even out; flops, cards holding up, etc.
>>A lady said she wanted to be respected and known as tight. However she plays so tight she never gets any calls when she does play she hardly bluffs or semi-bluffs. She rarely makes good at the table.<<
Sounds like she has this tight image, but fails to take advantage of it. The idea is to *use* your image profitably.
>>Then the other guy says he likes to be feared, which makes sense and works for him since, he is fairly tight but gets away with some stealing bets, etc.<<
This sounds better. Mason weaves a convincing argument for a tight image (and how to make use of it) in some of his essays. If you add to that Ray Zee's advice (in a past post) that you should be "scary to play with", then you start to have what I think is a very effective (lucrative) image.
>>...I prefer disrespect for my playing, from others. It seems that all the older players can't believe I know how to play, and when I have good hands, I get tons of action...<<
If you play well, against the same players over time, they're bound adjust. I mean they're not going to go on *too* long just blindly discount any possibility that you have some skill simply because you're young. If you want a loose image, it shouldn't take long before you'll need more than just youth to maintain it. (Maybe they'll take longer to adjust if this is a low limit game full of fairly unaware players but still...) But more important I think are the relative merits of a tight versus a loose image. Personally, I'd opt for tight. In reality you also need to adjust to however the cards you've been getting have influenced your image in the short term.
>>...I ...do very well almost every time I play.<<
A small sample I suspect. Unless something like 65%-70% qualifies as "almost every time."
See Mason's and David's essays on the subject. You'll find them helpful. And of course Mike Caro has written stuff on the loose image approach.
John Feeney
Just to clarify I do not play loose and passively but rather tightly and aggresively as prescribed by HPFAP. I also vary raises pre-flop according to HPFAP.
Perhaps I misread the action I get. Maybe they can't put me on a hand as Steve points out. This would make sense since alot of my semi-bluffs work well. This image I see as a great advantage of HPFAP method, everything is not always played the same which keeps opponents guessing.
That is the problem with the too tight lady at the game, she never varies her play and can be read like a book.
Thanks for the thoughts.
A.J.
I have only been playing casino poker for about 3 years now, as I am a young player too. I may not possess much experience but I learn quickly. One thing I learned is that image is important, but you must keep your opponents guessing. What I mean is that you should consistently change gears when playing. If players perceive you as tight (every time you raise, everyone folds) it might be time to loosen up some. On the other hand, if people start to think you are playing wild and recklessly, it might be time to tighten up some. This is a good way to maximize your overall win. However, the variance (fluctuations) will be greater if you play this way. If you are on a limited bankroll, then playing tight agressive is probably a better approach. Your fluctuations will be smaller. I don't really care if other players think I'm a novice, tight, loose, crazy, ... . So long as they can't put me on a hand and I keep stacking their chips. Just remember that you can't always win. Even the best players in the world don't win almost every time they play. Whenever I start to feel that I'm much better than the competition, that's when I read/study a little more. Hope we play together some day. Good luck.
Your session image depends on what sort of playable hands you are being dealt. If you get many good hands that you naturally play agressively, like it or not - you have an action image. Contrast this with a run of unplayable hands (you're still playing tight/agressive) and you're now the candidate rock. The point is whatever image happens: A. Be aware of what you're projecting and how it is perceived. B. Take advantage of your current image regardless. Try not to force any particular image on your opponents, rather let the image evolve. Particularly stay away from using the *scared rookie* routine since it doesn't last long and you'll face some sophisticated plays or fancy raises which can be uncomfortable. The best image you can have is one which causes opponents to play straightforwardly against you!
Before we started the other night this guy was telling me about a situation he had been in in a previous tournament. 4 players left, he was chip leader with more than half the chips on the table. The other three players made a deal to split their winnings between them, excluding this guy, and they then proceeded to check each other down when it was only them, raise and re-raise our man when one of them had a hand, etc etc. The guy I talked to was convinced he had been carved up, and finished third (as is usual, most of the payout was for first and second).
How true all this was I don't know, my question is what can you do to prevent this happening and if you can't prevent it what is the best way to deal with it ? Firstly, as I understand the rules, any deal has to have the agreement of all players even if not all players are involved in the split, is this right ? Could he have nixed the deal ? Even so, there is clearly nothing you can do to stop people swapping money in the car park when it's all over, so the second question is could/should he have made some kind of complaint to the management ? Even if the management don't like it can they make anything stick ? And finally if, as I suspect, there is nothing you can do in practice if this happens, what is your best strategy against an entire table colluding against you ? My best guess is if you're chip leader, to wait for a good hand and then do your best to get as many of them all in as possible (this is pot-limit). Then even if you lose the hand you might get heads-up. If you're not chip leader I don't know - play tight ?
This guy I was talking to is not the most experienced player, and how much of it he was imagining I don't know, but forewarned is forearmed - has anyone experienced this and can anyone advise ? Many thanks in advance,
Andy.
Scenario: 3 limpers from early - middle - and button
You are in the BB with Ad 9h
The flop comes Ac Jh 4s
Options:
(1) Lead with top pair on the flop and turn (unless raised) Check/call on the river. You are trying to win the pot immediately.
(2) Check on the flop to see where you stand. If you don't have the best hand, you saved yourself money. If you do, there are not many free cards that will beat you.
(3) Check raise on the flop and lead on the turn.
What is the best play the majority of time? Feedback appreciated!
Most often bet the flop. Consider a check-raise if a late position player frequently bets weak. Always lead the turn if called on the flop. Evaluate your competition if raised on the flop, but generally go to the river unless your opponent is predictable. As always, evaluating your opponents is the key and can modify the above. One thing to keep in mind on a flop like this, if you get several callers, you may end up looking at AJ or more likely A4 or a set of fours on the flop.
I don't think your kicker is weak. In fact I think you should like your hand on the flop. The reason is that in a "typical" game players are likely to raise or fold if they have an ace. Therefore if someone had A-K, A-Q or A-J they would probably have raised. This is the reason why your kicker (9) is good.
You have to know your opponents to know whether it's best to bet or check-raise on the flop. I guess I would bet most of the time. One thing if for sure, don't check and call.
With this board there are no openended straight or four flush draws available on the flop, and no one has overcards. This makes it more likely if you bet and are raised that you don't have the best hand (including a button raise). I prefer to check aces with a mediocre kicker from the blind positions. If everyone checks to the button who bets, I'll raise (which gets rid of the gut shots and other pairs without extra backdoor outs) trying to isolate. If the button is not playing hyperagressive and now reraises, A9 can be released, otherwise it's check/called to a showdown unless I catch a nine. The reason it goes in the muck is because the button doesn't know what my checkraise from the big blind represents. I could have big slick, two pair, or occasionally even a set. So, the reraise almost certainly means a strong hand, probably an AJ. I'll play the same way if the middle position player bets, and the button folds (raise and try to isolate). Naturally if I'm reraised by someone other than the original bettor, I'll have an even easier fold. If the early position player bets, and is called by both other players, I'll usually fold here too. Sometimes against tight/passive players I'll make a loose call hoping for a board pair so I can lead out, or a nine so I can checkraise the turn. I will try for a checkraise on the turn if I catch a nine, most of the time after having checkraised on the flop. If the early position player bets the flop and it's folded to me, I'll call and check/call against a good player while completing the checkraise facing a weak player or someone at least mini-tilting. If no one bets the flop, I get to (usually) bet the turn representing a possible steal. It is this last possibility which makes checking on the flop superior to betting. I'll often get called all the way to a showdown by a pocket underpair or something like JT to which I have a hefty overlay (the type of hands I want to be calling me down, which would probably fold to a bet on the flop). The problem with betting out on the flop with ace and a mediocre kicker is that if you are called or button raised you just don't have enough information to decide if your aces are still the best hand. If you get called in two spots and a blank hits on the turn, you'll need to bet at the pot again on the turn without knowing if you're way behind or barely ahead. When aces are your top pair rather than kings or queens, assume someone else also has top pair (which you may or may not beat) and try to find out if this assumption is correct before the turn. Leading out from the blinds under these conditions either wins you a small pot or leaves you gambling with the double bets. With kings or queens as top pair with a mediocre or weak kicker, I'd be glad to take down the pot right away on the flop, so I do bet out. This situation is quite different since overcards could beat me, and someone else with top pair would have probably raised before the flop instead of limping.
All of your options are viable and will be used at least some of the time. However, which option I'm most likely to use this time depends as much upon the players who limped as it does upon the cards. The real question here is would any of these folks have limped with Ax, where X>9? If I'm pretty certain that none of these players would have limped in with AT, AJ, AQ, or AK, then I'm inclined to bet out. I am hoping to win immediately, or get called by someone who has only 4 or 5 outs (gutshot straight draw or a lower pair). The other big question is how do I get the most money into the pot from someone who has a worse A? If I checkraise or bet out, I might lose action from A5s, who limped in more for the flush draw than the A. If I put off the checkraise until the turn, I might make more money from him.
Like you say, a free card isn't too likely to hurt you, because any hand that you're beating now has at most 5 outs to be beating you after the turn. As such, you're big concern is either maximizing profit if you're ahead, or getting out cheap if you're behind. Therefore, consider check-calling the flop and check-raising the turn, or check-folding the flop (if there's a bet from a rock, or a bet and raise from almost any 2 players.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
A free card won't hurt you here? Oh really?
To me it looks like you're folding too much when you're "obviously" beat, giving too many free cards and way too many bets away just to make sure you're not "obviously" beat and overvaluing the action given by five out hands and weaker aces with potential backdoor draws versus the value of taking the pot down early.
I am a low-limt ($3-6-12;$4-8) player who has been playing this game consistently for about 4 years now (I have been playing some form of poker for over 44 years and have extremely astute poker sense) and have read several books (Winner's Guide to Texas Hold-Em Poker by Ken Warren; Hold-Em Poker for Advanced Players by Malmouth and Sklansky; and How to Win at Low-Limit Hold-Em by Lee Jones). I consider myself a solid agressive player with a very good winning record (during the time I have been keeping records). My question has to deal with a statement I have read in Ken Warren's book, "Winner's Guide to Texas Hold-Em Poker", and has been bugging me for the longest time, and to which I have written him on 4 different occasions and have never received a response. He claims in his book, chapter and verse: Chapter 9, Section 4.,"You Flopped a Set of Aces", Page 112, 3rd paragraph:
"Also if you flop a set of Aces, you cannot end up with the nuts if you do not improve......When you flop a set of Jacks or below you are in the exact same situation you are with a set of Aces. You cannot make the nuts without improving."
The rest of the section goes on to explain why you can check a set of Kings or Queens since indeed you can end up with the nuts without improving these hands. I absolutely agree with his statement about the set of Kings and Queens, but why does he claim that it is different with the set of Aces, since there are exactly 14 hands that you can have (from AK984 through AK762, none of which are 3 suited) which will end up being the nuts if you indeed flop a set of Aces and do not improve them by the river?
Maybe someone can explain Ken Warren's thinking process here, as he has me stumped by that statement. Whenever someone writes a book which includes strategies, philosophies, etc., there are usually very subjective thoughts, and I can accept them for their intrinsic value, BUT when statements are made, in my opinion, that seem to be "obviously wrong", and the author will not respond to me why they were made, I have a hard time comprehending that!!
I am not trying to make a big deal about nothing (especially since I know the game well enough to know that his statement is incorrect), but it has gotten very frustrating to me when I have spent my hard earned money on a book that I have read and enjoyed, and cannot get the author to answer me, especially when, at the end of his book, he has given his address and asked for questions and feedback!
This forum has many experts, professionals, and excellent amatuers who post on a regular basis, so if someone has an answer to this perplexing dilemna, please let me know.
Thanks, Marc
Warren may be saying that with an A on the board, there is always the possibility of either the Broadway (A high straight) or the Wheel straight by the river. With the set of K or Q, that is not always possible.
Does this make sense??? Email me anytime.
Sorry to be redundant, but in the time it took me to type in my long-winded response, David already provided a more concise correct answer.
David:
I absolutely agree with what you are saying about having a straight possilibilty with an Ace on the flop, in fact, there will ALWAYS be a straight draw with an Ace on the flop. My problem is that the author, Ken Warren, makes mention that the straight possibility exists, but that you can NEVER end up with the nuts with a set of Aces if you do not improve by the river. That's when I disagree with that statement, because you can end up with the nuts if you do not improve your hand by the river. Sure, the possibility exists that the Broadway straight or Wheel straight will hit the board, but he is very emphatic about stating that you can NEVER end up with the nuts if you do not improve by the river. The 14 examples I cited in my post are hands that have not improved by the river, but won the hand....please explain.
I just think that he should clarify his statement in the book so that is not a confusing statement. I do understand the game fairly well, and when I read emphatic statements like this, that seem totally incorrect, I must question them.
I would like to hear from someone who has read his book and specifically about this statement in the book.
Thanks, Marc
This is what happens when you cheat on me.
I am confused? How did I cheat on you?
You must not recognize DS's dry wit. He means you cheated on him by reading a poker book by another author.
Finally!
An answer that we all know comes directly from the heart!
I think he means that you cannot flop a set of Aces without there also being at least a possible gutshot straight draw. For example, even the most ragged Ace flop like A95 would give a gutshot draw to each of 87, 67, 34, 23. Therefore, you may have the current nuts, but many cards could turn which don't pair the board, but no longer leave you the nuts since there is always a straight draw possible if an Ace comes with an un-paired flop.
With pocket Kings, however, an unsuited flop of K82 will give you the nuts on the flop AND the nuts on the turn if anything other than an Ace, 8 or 2 turns since the flop doesn't provide for any possible one-card straight draws.
Although Warren writes about this incorrectly, he is on the right track. With a set of Aces, the free card is more likely to break you than your opponent! Doyle Brunson discusses this in Super/System.
Michael:
I agree with what you are also saying, but when I sent him a question regarding this statement, why did he not respond (I sent him four letters)! The only reason for me contacting him in the first place was so that he could make it clearer in the next issue of his book. Yes, he is on the right track, but he does not seem to express himself very clearly and therefore his statements lends themselves to confusion.
Thanks, Marc
Having trip A's is a very good hand on the flop. But with two cards to come there will always be the possibility of a draw to a straight or a flush for your opponent out there, no matter how remote.
Just remember trip A's will win more times then it loses.
I wouldn't waste my time trying to analyse why an author wrote what they wrote in their book. The only hand that can't lose on the flop is a Royal Flush.
David:
I really appreciate your comments. You are right about trying to analyze why an author wrote what he wrote. I was just very frustrated and disappointed that he did not have the courtesy to write back to me after I tried 4 times to contact him, and to no avail.
Post deleted at author's request.
That's where I have been writing to him!! That's the frustrating part.....I know that he must have received my letters, unless the publisher did not give them to him. Any other advice?
Why are you so obsessed with having this author respond to you? I would simply not buy his books anymore. By reading his book, you are encouraging him and helping his business to thrive. On the other hand, he doesn't seem to care much about your patronage. Forget about this guy and spend your money on better books!
You are so right, and I would never buy a book authored by him again!! And it's definitely not an obsession as much as it is I feel he is just plain being RUDE, and think that if you author a book, then you owe your readers explanations to your questions. Sorry if I belabored by point!!
Good hunting on the tables!!
Post deleted at author's request.
This refers to a no-limit holdem ring game. Question: Clearly it is important to adjust play in no-limit holdem to the stack size. With blinds that are very high relative to the stacks, it becomes necessary to play high offsuit hands more aggressively, and to often move-in on top pair, while hands requiring good implied odds would tend to be mucked. With the blinds being high relative to the stacks, stronger hands on the flop would tend to check-raise rather than bet out. When the money is somewhat deep, position is more important, and you avoid drawing hands out of position. You can generally play low pairs, suited connectors and suited aces in position and in unraised pots. In raised pots, you play those hands only when the implied odds and other factors indicate. But what about when the money is very deep, such that nobody will be all-in unless they get in a raising war? With somewhat deep money, you don't want to be out of position with a draw on the flop with a large fraction of your stack in the pot. (because the opponent will set you in as a huge underdog if you miss, and fold if you hit) But when the money is deep enough, that isn't an issue. If normal bets on all rounds won't put anyone in, then how would the strategy change?There might be a difference in the play of low pairs and suited connectors, which are used to build strong hands that break top pair, but that are beatable in rare situations. (Since set-over-set or 87s-flush-against-Axs-flush would be so much more costly) Also, playing aces might be different, since you can't go all-in preflop.
You should read Bob Ciaffone's No-Limit/Pot-Limit book. The general rule of thumb for draws is 5% of your stack preflop.
I read the Ciaffone book. The 5% rule is designed to give you leverage towards your opponents entire stack if you hit, while the implied odds are sufficient if 95% of the money remains. Many of the strategies discussed assume that you can go all-in preflop or by a bet or check-raise on the flop, which is not the case in the game I am describing. When all-in often isn't a realistic option, the game changes.
This reminded me of a question I've been thinking about. I've been invited to play in a game that is $5 limit preflop (I think 1-2 blinds) and nolimit from the flop on. It's a $50 buyin. Not sure but I got the impression that buys of over $50 are frowned on. How should this game be played? I've played 5/10/20 with some of the players in this game and most are loose/passive. The guy that runs the game is very tight. On the surface it would seem the structure invites somewhat loose play preflop - high implied odds. But, with the short buys I'm thinking loose preflop would be wrong. Does it look to y'all like playing tight/aggresive preflop the way to go with this kind of sturcture? I used to play in a nolimit game that was very loose and somewhat passive (single $1 blind and max $2 rake when pot got to $50) and I did pretty well by playing pretty loose preflop. But, in that game the min buy was $20 and most buys where for $100. Any thoughts? Is this a structure where raise with big cards and otherwise fold is the way to go? -- Gary Carson
I think you are very much on target in thinking that loose play before the flop is correct--the implied odds are wonderful in this game. I play in a very similar game to that which you have described ($50 buy in and $50 rebuy, routinely a $5 bet before the flop, although most are passive there is some preflop raising). The best strategy has been to play almost everything reasonable (say groups 1-4 in early position) and almost anything in good position preflop, but tighter with a short stack. I am very conservative postflop with a short stack (under $150), but I become MUCH more aggressive as my stack size exceeds the stack size of the majority of the other players.
The ability to change gears depending upon stack size, and in reaction to the opponents that stay in the pot postflop, seem to be fundamental to success for me. In my game the players tend to be quite mixed and the quality of the opposition varies substantially depending upon the evening, but this basic formula holds for almost all compositions. I would add that in my experience loose/passive players are somewhat easier to read on the flop and are susceptible to bullying if you can create the right image. A decent stack size is necessary before you can do this, so a fundamental game, but looser preflop, to build up your ammo supply before an all out attack seems right.
Hello everybody,
I would like to know where to buy good Poker Chips? Are there any good shops on the net that are recommendable?
Thanks for your time
Eric
Currently I am a decent player at $5-$10 and $10-$20 7 card stud and texas hold'em. I average around 1 BB per hour after playing over 1000 hours. However, these are the only games I consider myself a winning player at. I've been wanting to learn some new games because I've read that game selection is very important to be a winning player. I believe that learning new games will help me in choosing better games. Am I better off sharpening my skills at stud and hold'em or is my time better spent learning a new game. If it takes me 500 hours to learn a game and become a winning player at it, that's 500 hours not spent studying/playing 7 stud or hold'em. If I do learn a game, what games are recommended? Any advice/feedback would be appreciated. Thank you.
I would stick to stud and hold 'em. You can add in Omaha eight or better at a later date. These are the games that teach you all the poker skills.
Hi there,
One quick question, for anyone: Is the rake actually beatable in low-limit stud games? Here in Edmonton we have $ 1-5 7-card stud, sometimes they play $ 1-5-10 where you can bet $10 on the last round, I think. The rake in these games I think is really high, % 10 up to $ 5. (Is that normal?) There's also a 50-cent ante per hand, and the low card has to start the betting for a buck.
I'm asking this because even though I'm winning at the $ 5-10 hold 'em level (I'm averaging, as the original poster, around 1 BB per hour thus far) I sure wouldn't mind a little change from time to time.
Thanks for any responses,
Rob Nakashima
Canadian rakes are out of line with reality. The answer is NO. Poker at that level with a rake structure is not very beatable, marginal at best. You can look at the educational value and fun factor. I assume that the game is loose with many players and there is $1 ante ?? That can help. If the game was no ante, low card brings in with tight players, you might as well write a check to the Canadian Gambling Commission.
Heh, you assume correctly. The game is VERY loose. I remember I played for a little bit one time while waiting for a seat at the hold 'em table. I might have played three hands in half-an-hour... meanwhile I don't think any other player even ONCE mucked his hand after the first three cards! And yes, there was a 50-cent ante per player (did I say $ 1 before?), and the low card had to bring it in for a buck. (That was one of the few hands I played, where I had to bring it in.)
Ok, that's what I was thinking too in the back of my mind, that the rake might be very marginally beatable. Yeah, a %10 rake on each pot is pretty high... oh well. (btw, the Hold 'Em tables are normal, %5 to 5 bucks max.) Still, I might keep playing stud for a bit, since I find the game interesting, and would like to learn how to play. Plus I'm a little bored with hold 'em right now... fold fold fold fold fold. Geez ;-) (Not that stud seems to be a lot different in that regard. But at least there are new things to think about when I do get a hand to play :-)
Well, thanks for responding,
Rob Nakashima
Rob, first time I played casino poker was at $1-$5 seven card stud at Foxwoods. Rake is $1 @ $10, $20, $30, and $40. That comes out to anywhere between 4%($100 pot) and 10%(<$40 pot). The rake is pretty high, but dealers deal out less 7 stud hands per hour (12 to 25) than they do hold'em hands (20 to 35). Just arbitrary numbers I made up. I think that might be why the rake is higher at stud. You must realize that the casino also wants to make money. I think that even if the rake is a little high, you can beat the game. If you are better than most of your competition, you can make anywhere between $3 to $8 per hour (see Poker Essays by Mason Malmuth p.56). I don't think I'm a great stud player because I never ventured higher than $10-$20 in a casino game but I did average close to $8 an hour at $1-$5. Reason is that game is spread limit and you can easily manipulate the size of the pot to make it to your advantage. This game is often a multiway battle for the pot which makes it a drawing game (play straights and flushes). You'll learn through experience what the right plays are. I never read a low limit 7 card stud book, but Roy West publishes a great column in Card Player magazine which should be worth your time. Besides, you're better off knowing 2 games instead of 1. Mason recommends you learn stud and hold'em. I didn't know that there was poker in Edmonton. I'm from Montreal where a good poker game isn't always easily accessible. Good luck.
Yes, I understand why the rake is higher in stud, I was just wondering whether or not it could be beat. As far as being better than my competition, well, I'm fairly sure I would be. Not being arrogant or anything, but most people I've seen playing stud here in E-town don't seem to have much poker sense. Like, when I see *every* player but me playing every single starting hand, they can't be too good, right? I would have to change gears a bit though, and lose the hold 'em mentality somewhat. I'll keep what you said in mind, about stud basically being a drawing game. I guess I'll try to figure out what I'm supposed to be doing at the table ;-)
Anyhow, you say you've averaged $ 8 an hour at a $ 1-5 game? Hey, that's not bad for such a low-limit. (Though I don't really understand what you say about pot-size manipulation. To me if I'm going to bet anything I'm gonna bet $ 5 bucks no matter what I have.) And I'm in full agreement with you on your point about learning more games. It's good to be flexible... plus more interesting as well. And as I've said above, hold 'em can get pretty damn boring sometimes ;-).
Cheers,
Rob Nakashima
Btw, there's actually a fair bit of poker here in Edmonton. There's three or four casinos, though only two of them have active poker rooms, as far as I know, at this time. There's also at least one semi-private club that has games going day and night. Most common around here is the hold 'em/omaha high split - half an hour of each, with limits anywhere from $ 3-6 up to $ 10-20. I've heard rumors of an occasional pot-limit game too, though I've never actually seen one dealt. There's also at least one tournament a month in the main casino, Casino ABS. In a way though, there's not nearly enough poker venues here, at least for my tastes. I'm starting to get to know too many people... which is nice in a way but I'd almost prefer to remain somewhat anonymous, frankly, at the poker table. I'm thinking of making a Stateside getaway in my travel van pretty soon, playing my way through Nevada and California... heh... sounds exciting :-). Especially with it getting so damn cold here nowadays... hehe... it might be nice to be in Las Vegas or Lake Tahoe for the winter ;-).
Rob, I just came back from Reno (Peppermill Fall Classic) and it snowed in Tahoe! We are too spoiled in the Bay Area. Make sure you come to the Bay Area before going south LA - Las Vagas.
I'm a long time low-ball player from s.calif...moved to southern nevada,started playing holdem tourneys almost daily for over a year. The play...last table, last 2 players out of 3 full tables...i'm in seat 10....the enemy in seat 1...announced payout..530.00 first, 420.00 second. our stacks are about even......blind is 1000 & 2000 then no limit. enemy ask's...wanna chop payoff and move to live game? SmartAss me say's "nope". I'm dealt As-9s....i call 2000.00 blind.....enemy declines to raise.....The flop...Ah-9h-10h....i check.....enemy checks...4th st...3c..I check.....enemy checks....river...5s....I push "all in"...enemy calls with no hesitation....enemy wins with Ac-10s........NEVER SAW THE A-10 comming! Question... Should i have chopped the pot and took the $475.00 or never called the blind (expecting the heart flush or straight to come) and lived to play another hand? Its been buggin me ever since!
A bird in the hand is worth much more than two in the bush!! Why be so greedy over the $55 extra you would have made had you finished first. As far as calling the blind at that point, you probably made a right call. When the flop comes you feel you are in the driver's seat and figure to win the tourney as long as a heart does not hit the board, so if it makes you feel any better I would have gone "all-in" on the river as well to try and win the tourney right there....but when he calls you know that you might be in trouble.
Look at this way, you only lost $55 this time, so that when it happens again, you will remember this incident and take the chop.
Good Luck
Thanks Marc.. When she called me, i really throught i won....well guess you've been there! Nice to know the all in bet was "OK"......... Next time , ill take the chop....Well maybe! Thanks for the response Dianne
Post deleted at author's request.
That was my thought too...... Thanks for the response gary. Dianne
Whether to chop or not depends upon you and your desire to avoid variance (or not). However, if someone offers to chop and I don't want to, I'll almost never just decline. Instead, I'll offer a deal that's more to my liking. For example, if this guy wants to split the $110 evenly, instead say you want $65, or something that is a better deal than what your chip count alone justifies. If he agrees, you come out ahead. If not, you will get your fair expectation (in the long run, over an infinite number of trials ;-) ).
I'd also have raised preflop with any A when you're down to heads-up play. Try to win the blinds rather than let him get a free chance to flop a better hand than you.
I think that most of us would have lost on that hand, just as you did. Anyone who gets away from that hand without losing a lot of chips is either psychic, too good for me to even consider playing against, or too wimpy to be any good.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You didn't say how many chips you had relative to the blinds, but I can pretty well guess the blinds constituted a high percentage of your stack. At that stage, a deal is pretty much automatic since neither of you have an advantage regardless of any skill differential.
I would also have put more heat on the hand upfront rather than let my opponent see the flop (although in this case, a quality opponent might have set you all-in with his A-10).
Look at this on the bright side: lessons like the one you learned there are nice to receive when they are relatively inexpensive.
I'm a novice, but twice this week I've heard the term "kills" refering to Holdem. I have not run into this term in any book I've read. I also heard that it tends to hurt the better players. Could someone explain what this term means and what impact it has.
A "kill" is just another way of increasing the stakes. Let's say you're playing $5-$10 hold'em with a kill @ $95. This means that anytime a pot contains $95 or more, the winner of that pot must post an additional blind the next hand (usually a $10 blind). Also the stakes double and the game becomes $10-$20 hold'em until a pot falls to under $95. The SB and BB remain fixed at $2 and $5 unless one of the blinds has won a $95 pot; he then posts the $10. The effect that this has on the game is that it loosens it up and puts people more in a gambling mood. There is $17 ($2+$5+$10) at stake instead of $7. Before playing in one of these games, make sure you can afford to play at the higher stakes. Sometimes the psychological effect of the stakes increasing causes a player to play "weak tight". If you don't feel ready to play $10-$20, don't play $5-$10 with a kill. I also forgot to mention the half-kill. Same principle as before but stakes don't double, they go up in a smaller increment. For example $10-$20 with a half-kill @ $150. If the pot is over $150, the stakes increase to $15-$30. I tried to answer the question to the best of my knowledge, but I'm no expert. If someone else has more ideas on how to adjust strategy when playing in kill games, I'd like to learn some more about it. Good luck.
Often the pot size will have nothing to do with it and the kill option (before the flop) is the option of any player to double the betsize.
I agree that the pot size has nothing to do with the kill, but I understood it to mean that if you were playing with either a "kill" or a half-kill", that any player who won 2 pots in a row, now had to post either 1-1/2 times the BB or 2 times the BB (depending on whether 1/2 kill or full kill) and the stakes were either 1-1/2 or 2 times the original stakes (again depending on the type of kill). I am no expert either, and if anybody has a better explanation I would like to hear it.
A kill in HE multiplies the stakes of the game (usu) by 2. So a 3-6 kill game would be played for 6-12 when the kill was on. Often the killer acts after the blinds preflop. I believe the term "kill" comes from draw lowball where you have the chance to double the stakes after the first two cards.
Depending on the house rules the kill can be turned on in various ways. Sometimes its pot size, other times it winning twice in a row, and yet others its always on and its just the last winner. The last example is really a 6-12 game with an extra blind. Each of these is just an example of how the kill would be turned on. Ask at your local casino for each kill game what the criteria is. Note for split games its often scooping the pot.
How to play? Adjust as normal to more money in the pot preflop. In the few kill games I've played people tended to separate into two types: 1) gamblers who like the thrill of more money and 2) people playing with scared money. Don't be in either camp and do the obvious to those that are.
Here are a couple thoughts I have on image. I am 6'4" and 225 pds, I press 350 easy. I am a big guy, long hair like a pro-wrestler. I am not the best player but I've read most 2+2 books and then some. When I sit down to play I get two reactions. First, some older guys think, look at the big dumb guy and his soon to be smaller stack of chips. The second is kind of like fear, like my big bets or raises are too powerful to call. Different kinds of players react pretty much to one of these stereotypes, and it pays off for me as they are easy to spot.
D-X,
The ability to read others thoughts and actions is one of the traits of a good player. The ability to apply that knowledge to defeat others is the mark of a great player. If you can do both and press 350 please stay away from me. Good Luck.
You COULD become a pro wrestler who will make movies, score big, move up to 40-80 and further, thus you'll never have to worry about things like 'image'. There are things as easy money even easyer than poker !!!
> You COULD become a pro wrestler who will make movies, Then you can run for Governor.
If I had to put numbers to it i would split poker like this 50% STRATEGY...40% PSYCHOLOGY...10% CARDS and LUCK. While I have found all the S&M books to be the best as far as strategy goes, the books on poker psychology are far between. I saw on conjelco, the P$sychology of Poker $implified, and was wondering if this was worth the price. Also are there any other good books on the subject, or should I just go enroll in a psych class in my local community college? Thanks 2 + 2 and all you authors for the awesome work.
I would add that the percentages vary according to how high you are playing. Psychology would probably drop to 5-10% at 1-5, while it might be 60-80% in no-limit or pot limit. Of course, in the long run, luck is 0%, since we ultimately all get the same cards.
Aces,
Marc
I think that in pot limit and no limit, it isn't so much psychology as it is chess-like strategy. Many times in no limit you might flop the nuts but be unable to persuade anyone to pay you off. It isn't a matter of tells or failed traps, but rather, no opponent feeling the confidence or larceny to provide you with a large pot. No limit is about not paying too much for draws and having the ability to know whether your hand is strong enough to go all in with. You never get all the bitterness of suckouts in no limit because you are able to force a bad call on your opponent. I've made and lost a ton of money in no limit ring games and have had far less frustration there than in limit. I find that no limit is a game where you can punish another player who unknowingly discloses tendencies. Find a weakness and exploit it.
I am very interested in - I call it 'behaviour science' There are special classes in that area and it is better than pure phychology. you are right in that this is more important specially at higher limit than cards/luck etc. Besides this one needs good intuitive talents.
The book is well worth including in your poker reading cycle.
10% luck?I've been playing hold em for 11 years and I hate to say it but you are wrong.I'd have to say it's about 60% luck at a limit structure 10 handed,45% at a limit 4 handed or less.25% at no-limit.Examples:Say world poker champion Scotty Ngyuen was going to fight Oscar Delahoya,a game of pure skill,what would be the odds?Think about it,there would be no odds,you couldn't bet on it because Delahoya would kill him.No amount of luck could make Scotty win the fight. How about Doyle Brunson playing Ernie Els in golf?Chip Reese playing Gary Kasporov in chess?David Sklansky playing Michael Jordan 1 on 1.All of the above would be examples of no odds.It's like betting will the sun rise,will the Atlantic ocean still be there tommorow.All of the above are games of pure skill.Let's take the flip side,Scotty Ngyuen vs. Delahoya heads up poker,let's assume delahoya has never played hold em and give him one day to observe,learn the rules etc.If he got some cards,especially if Scotty got some cards where he had to pay off,Oscar could and would win. While if the average person applies himself he can beat poker or at least hold his own,no amount of practice and dedication can get me,you or 99% of the population into the NFL,PGA,MLB,NHL etc.simply because they are games of skill which we don't possess.Let's take the above matchups one step further.What would make them fair?Maybe if Doyle played Els +35 shots(I don't know how what his handicap is,I'm being hypothetical),Chip playing Kasparov,Kasparov spots him the queen,MJ spotting Sklansky 29 baskets in a game to 30(just one long range fade away for the win).Are you starting to get the point.In games of skill there are spots to make them fair.Football,basketball you give points,baseball,boxing,and hockey give odds.Have you ever heard of a spot in poker?Do you think Doyle would give a guy who just learned the game a spot like 3's are wild for the amateur only?Or 4-1 odds,for every $1 the amateur puts in the pot he has to put $4.No!Because he knows his skill could never overcome that.Too much is left to cards and luck.As far as Marc saying we all get the same cards in the long run is simply not true.In turbo texas hold em I simulated 100,000 hands.I gave 3 players the exact same profile,so they would play exactly the same way.3 players playing the same way agains the same lineup.After 100,000 hands one player was +353,380,one was +72,407,and one was -232,622.The limit was 20-40.If luck isn't the reason for these variances please tell me what is?The theory that we all get the same cards in the long run is simply naive.
Joey, what do you mean when you say that limit hold'em games are 60% luck? You can't mean for a regular player, even a 1 or 2 day a week player. That isn't my experience. I've been playing since Foxwoods opened their doors (Feb '92) and every year my numbers have improved. Now I'm a significant winner at 10-20. What does luck have to do with that? Luck is only a factor in the short term. Over the course of the year, your bottom line reflects how well you play. ...Ray Houle
Luck is merly a "snapshot" of the laws of probability. I have lost to rank novices and drunks who couldnt read thier cards--it happens. but over the long haul they are all broke and I play on.
You are missing my point,my point being poker is not a game of pure skill like basketball,baseball,golf,chess etc.,and it is not a game of pure chance such as slots,dice,roulette etc.it is somewhere in the middleground.A good player in the longrun will win more with good cards and lose less with bad cards than the average or inferior player but if you ask me if everyone has the same amount of good breaks and bad breaks (luck)in the long run my answer will always be no!
joey, were the sim players capable of using psychology? I doubt I could specify a real life line-up using a sim, and even if I could, I doubt my results would come close to the real thing. That being said, how much a role does luck play in results over even relatively long periods of time? HUGE. My problem with the luck factor is many players use this idea to justify their lousy play, all the while waiting for their "expectation" to be realized. It already has.
There is a major flaw in your argument making it totally invalid. The idea of Jordan spotting david points in a one on one etc... is flawed because those games, basketball, chess, golf have nothing on the line period except win or lose. Lets see Jordan spot David 29 pts in a game to 30 for $10,000 dollars. I didn't think so. Give Jordan and Sklansky 100 chips each, hell spot MJ 10 chips and play untill winner has all, with nothing on the line. You know who would win, it doesn't freakin matter because if the chips have no value, you're not playing poker. Play a $10,000 freezout game MJ vs. David and I'm sure Dave just might spot him $1000. What happened to your 60% luck value now. Am I making a good point here? Does anyone else agree? David how would you respond to these hypothetical challenges?
There is SOME luck involved in poker. This luck comes under 2 forms, good and bad. If there were no luck involved the bad players would all be broke. Sometimes a bad player gets lucky chasing a gut shot straight to crack your set when pot odds don't warrant chasing. Sometimes a good player flops middle set only to find out many chips later that someone else flopped top set. Call this bad luck if you want. However the numbers that joey uses are somewhat extreme. If poker would be so much a game of luck, the good players would not win consistently and the bad players would not lose consistently. The luck factor in poker is the variance. Mason posted an article on computing variance that every serious poker player should read. Your goal should be to maximize your hourly rate while simultaneously minimizing your variance. I like to compare poker to investing money in stocks. I'd rather have an annual return of 10% with little risk than to invest in small caps (speculative) and not know if I'll make 28% or lose 36% . If you play speculative hands in poker you are exposing yourself to more luck than necessary. I have a feeling that Joey likes to play a higher percentage of hands than most people. When you're involved in more pots, you are exposing yourself to more risk. Hence that's why Joey's estimates are so high!
Post deleted at author's request.
The answer to this question is very simple. Poker is a marvelous blend of luck and skill. In the short term, assuming you play well, luck is more important. But in the long term, assuming you play well, the opposite is true.
It just so happens that I wrote a whole book on this subject. It is called GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS. Some of you may want to look at it. Many of the conclusions, such as a great player is more likely to go broke than a good player, assuming that they each start with the same bankroll, can be surprising.
Post deleted at author's request.
Of course, but they are the difference between monetary wins and losses not just psychological, the later being a risk only to your ego, and not your wallet. I know you know what real poker players find far more threatining.
Gator, I have played golf for $500 across,the most I've ever bet on chess is $1200,pro sports players are playing for their job,so don't tell me in these games the only thing on the line is win or lose.If you(or anyone else reading this)would like to give me any kind of a spot in heads up poker,limit or no limit I accept.I can be found at the mirage or bellagio poker rooms about 3 times a week
Let me say this one more time,if these 2 were to play 1 on 1 for 10,000 with no spot you would know who was going to win because there would be absolutely no luck involved,MJ wouldn't be 15-1,100-1,or even 10000-1 because everyone KNOWS,not thinks he would win.If they went heads up with 10,000 of their own money,I'd say DS would be about an 8-1 favorite,all it would take would be MJ to get KK against QQ or for MJ to call all in when he has by far the worst of it and suck out and he wins.DS would almost certainly win but you don't KNOW that and neither do I. The point:In a game of pure skill some of the time you know who's going to win,poker or other card games of skill like pinochle,hearts,gin you never KNOW who's going to win,there is an element of chance involved
Your point is well taken, I just think you are way over valuing the luck factor. If you presume MJ has say no HE experience and has one day to learn I think David with his experience would be a huge favorite, I doubt the cards in this stiuation would even matter. Against a more experienced player the odds would drop exponentially. To say sports are 100% skill is your worst overestimation. There was a thread on this forum not to long ago about sports and luck involving Big Mac hitting 70 homers and the role luck played. It was good you should try and find it in the archive. An exaple, The Yanks sweeping the series, they are a much better team but you can bet your bottom dollar that if they played that series 10 times the Yanks would probably win all 10, but probably wouldn't sweep again. Your argument that MJ going all in at the right time under the right conditions and winning his impling an awfull lot of skill or luck for that matter. You yourself obviously would know how to do this but would a HE virgin be as astute. A better challenge for you would to be find a person with no or HE xp and train him for 1 day, that pit him vs. Dave or any pro and I'll give a situatiion were we will KNOW who is going to win. Like I said the cards won't even matter.
Anyone can win on a given day. But in the long run the better player will win the chips. If MJ and DS were to play heads up NL HE, DS would be a big favorite to win. Probably somewhere close to 20-1. On the other hand if MJ and DS were to play in this same match every day for 1 year, the odds would probably be 10,000-1 that MJ would be ahead at the end of the year. You have a big enough sample size (N=365) to minimize the effect of luck. With a sample size of N=1, anything can happen. That's why very bad players sometimes win money. They get lucky on a particular night. But at the end of the year, that same player will almost certainly be in the red. Good luck.
> If MJ and DS were to play heads up NL HE, DS would be a
Steve, while I believe Joey overestimates the luck factor, I believe you underestimate it.
Suppose MJ adopts the following strategy: go all-in with every hand. I'd put my money on MJ, if you were giving me 20-1 odds.
Also, I'm guessing you meant that DS would be ahead at the end of the year.
Joey wrote: "As far as Marc saying we all get the same cards in the long run is simply not true.In turbo texas hold em I simulated 100,000 hands.I gave 3 players the exact same profile,so they would play exactly the same way.3 players playing the same way agains the same lineup.After 100,000 hands one player was +353,380,one was +72,407,and one was -232,622.The limit was 20-40.If luck isn't the reason for these variances please tell me what is?The theory that we all get the same cards in the long run is simply naive."
Here's two suggestions for the different results.
1. You had these 3 profiles at the exact same table for 100K hands. However, you don't tell us the profiles you placed at the other seats, nor the relative positions of these players to one another. Unless the table is set-up properly, certain players will do better or worse depending upon their position relative to other players. Unless you set up the table something like ABCABCABC, where A, B, and C designate 3 different profiles as seated at a 9-handed table, then the different results for the 3 A profiles may be due to their table position.
2. 100K isn't enough. I used to be primarily a card counter at BJ. I have some good software that will run simulations for me. When I lived in Chicago, I ran simulations using the rules at the riverboats testing out different strategies. Here's an anomaly I recall. I started a test run that was going to go overnight. When I looked at it before leaving the room, about 1 million hands had been played, and my strategy was losing at a rate of about 1.1%. The next morning and 10 million hands later, I was now winning at a rate of 0.7%. Clearly, the 10M hand result is more reliable, yet this profile had a run of "bad luck" that lasted for 1M hands. That's 5+ years of bad luck in the real world. 100K isn't enough.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I feel that the results of Joey's simulation are striking, and I believe his answer to FossilMan's point #1 is of paramount importance here. Joey --- How was the simulation run? What happens if you run it as FossilMan suggests?
Thanks, Dennis
Well, it's true that we don't all get the same cards in the long run. We do all get the same cards in the future (statistically speaking). But, if we once have a really good run of cards then we don't have some future run of bad luck to counterbalence that. Once you have a really good run of luck then the odds are that you will end up your life as a lucky player.
If the 1st hundred spins of a roulette wheel are black, then it's a good bet that wheel will end up its days having had more blacks than reds.
Gary Carson
I am a high stakes low-ball player, that enjoys low stakes holdem ($2-6 an so on). Playing lower stakes holdem allows me to "test" the waters as i sharpen my basic skills at the game and buffers me from a large loss if i error to much. I decided that to learn the game at my own level of understanding, i had to take the attitude that i am willing to call all preflop bets so as to see the flop regardless of what i am dealt. This way of playing has cost me as well as paid off. A regular player called me a so & so f'in idiot last night when i played off suit 5-9 , the flop...A-6-7 / K /8 on the river.....i called all his betting from the start..3.00/6.00..even one raise from another player before the river that he re-raised. He lost with AA-KK to my measly straight...as he thru his card into the muck...got up and looked at the player to his left and sputtered his crude comments referring to me playing "garbage" 5-9 off suit. (don't misunderstand, i know the play was bad, but i was "testing") Why would his play have gotten him a "great play" if he had won...But i'm an idiot for calling? (by the way , the player he remarked to gave him the old buddy "Nod of agreement") As he stomped out of the room mumbling and i stacked my chips! I am finding this attitude more and more in the smaller rooms were low stakes are the norm. MY question is...(remember, i just started playing holdem several weeks ago) Does a player who is used to playing higher stakes at one game have an edge at a lower stake game that is new to him or her?
Just my thoughts..... Dianne
I can't believe that this player called you an idiot. I can see his frustration in having lost that particular pot, but I would have congratulated you on playing your hand well and would encourage you to continue playing such cards. I love to play against players who play inferior cards to me, that's how I make money in the long run. If everyone played only AA and KK there would soon be no poker games. It is players like you who keep poker players in business and poker rooms operating. If I were you, I would ignore his comments as he is a poor sport and expects to win every pot he enters. A good poker player has to learn to lose with dignity and to respect his fellow players. Good luck.
Thats exactly my thoughts! Thanks for the reply steve. dianne
Clearly playing every hand as you describe is very bad poker, but you seem to understand that. Furthermore, there is a lot more to hold 'em than there is to draw lowball. So you are wise to start small and work your way up.
But your post points out another interesting facet of hold 'em. In general, hold 'em players are very competitive. Sometimes I think that they carry this competitiveness too far. For example, hold 'em players are constantly arguing over who gets the empty seat.
I believe that this hurts the games in the long run by driving too many live players out of the game. This looks like what you ran into.
Post deleted at author's request.
I wouldn't try to learn hold'em the way that you are, but that's up to you. As long as you play like that, though, you're going to have to be pretty thick-skinned because you're going to run into scenes like this often. It shouldn't be this way, but it is.
I expect it won't last long because after your learning experiment is over you'll be turning to more profitable strategies.
Welcome to hold'em, Dianne.
Ray Houle
Just wanted to add a couple of book recommendations for learning hold'em. For low limit and getting started, get WINNING LOW LIMIT HOLD'EM by Lee Jones (ConJelCo - publisher). For 10-20 on up and for advanced strategies, get HOLD'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS by David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth (Two Plus Two Publishing). Maybe you're familiar with these books already, but it's good info for any newbie to hold'em.
Ray Houle
Dianne:
The two books recommended to you would be very wothwhile reading,especially if you continue to play this game for a profit. I do agree that if you keep playing the way you have recently been playing, your bankroll will dwindle rapidly. I can tell from your posts that you do understand poker, and that you are only "testing the water", but don't loose sight of the fact that this game, like lo-ball draw is a "game for profit", and you will have a very difficult time showing a profit in the long term if your play such loose starting tickets. I am not trying to preach to the choir, but just a word to the wise.
Good luck in your new endeavor!
Eventually you can focus on making these players believe you're in there with trash every hand, while in reality playing good starting hands. Do this by showing your starting cheese to the table if you're the last one to fold (even better if you make something and get to showdown). You're going to get paid off bigger than any of the regular players when you do have a monster. This is going to further frustrate those undisciplined losers. Be glad that there are players at the Hold'em table that hate you, you'll just get more action.
Hi there, I'm the impolite one. I'm not sure I believe your post. Not the part about the player, as that happens all the time, but if you're a lowball player, especially high stakes as you say, then you should have experienced this type of person many times before, as lowball players are notorious for this type of behavior. The second thing is , ah.. well... give me a break! Testing What?? You obviously know about S&M's books, otherwise you wouldn't be posting here, and there are many other excellent books on hldm. So why would you knowingly lose money, which is what you will be doing if you continue, when you can get a good head start by picking up a book?
Hi there, I'm the impolite one. I'm not sure I believe your post. Not the part about the player, as that happens all the time, but if you're a lowball player, especially high stakes as you say, then you should have experienced this type of person many times before, as lowball players are notorious for this type of behavior. The second thing is , ah.. well... give me a break! Testing What?? You obviously know about S&M's books, otherwise you wouldn't be posting here, and there are many other excellent books on hldm. So why would you knowingly lose money, which is what you will be doing if you continue, when you can get a good head start by picking up a book? Also ,low limit will not get you ready to play 15-30 and above. The games are played differently in general.
Diane,
I love you. You can do no wrong. I give personal lessons, especially to young attractive ladies that wish to improve their game and love life. Please e-mail me for secret rendezvous! Bobby <3 <3 <3
Diane, I think everybody makes a valid point, everyone who posts usually has something intelligent to say, or they think they do. I agree with most of everybody's comments. The first time I played hold'em I had no idea of what I was doing. I played $3-$6 hold'em and won $1,000 in 8 hours. Needless to say, ladyluck was on my side that night. I played any hand that seemed to have a way to win. I was sober, yet Jd 4c seemed like a good hand. Especially if the flop came to my liking, Kd 2s 3s. I seemed to manage to always make my straight when a 5c 6d would hit runner runner. Everyone always paid me off too. That was great! After winning $1,000 that night, I managed to lose $900 the next 3 times I played, imagining that I had been unlucky. If I had been playing $10-$20 that would have been at least $2500. I ain't rich! Now I don't know if you are, but I'm assuming you like money too. To avoid this happening to you I would read HPFAP by S&M. Easy to understand book that if it does not improve your game, will at least lower your overall swings. You'll lose less on bad nights and win just as much, if not more on good nights. What bothered me about your post was the way the gentleman reacted. Poker is not as much fun when there is disorder at the table, even if you're winning. I'd rather be winning and laughing with everyone at the table then winning and hearing people argue. We should promote sportsmanlike behavior at the poker tables a little more. It's easier to promote poker and help expand the poker playing community if we make it a pleasant experience for everyone. I hope that some other people feel the same way I do. Good luck Dianne
Odds of her hitting that gutshot are 4/46 or 8.69% correct? (only 4 8's in deck, 6 cards used from deck) Think about that dianne, you'll lose that hand approx. 92 times and win 8 times out of every 100 you play it. So just figure out how much you won from that pot....$150 maybe? Look at how much you put into it....$25 maybe? for a net profit of $125. So you profit 125 * 8 = $1000. You lose 92 * 25 = $2300 for a net loss of $1300 every 100 times you play that hand. These are just betting/winning numbers i guesstimated. You do the math yourself and see how profitable that play is. I especially don't like the part where you called a raise/re-raise before the river. Just something to think about. Good Luck, Bradley T
Dianne, Read my responses too "Wired aces" Oct.14.That will tell you most hold em players attitude.By the way how's Bob Barker?
Thats Dianne Pennington i thought........Sorry!
> Does a player who is used to playing higher stakes at one
If the high-stakes player uses the general poker knowledge (e.g., pot odds or tells) that she learned while developing expertise at her main game (low-ball, in your case), then she usually should have an edge at a new low-stakes game (e.g., hold'em). At least when compared to a new player learning her first poker game.
But if the high-stakes player calls every hand to a showdown, then the edge probably goes to the novice (who perhaps has read a book or is intelligent enough to fold some hands).
These are the extremes. I'm guessing your "tests" fall somewhere between them.
more power to you!i play both limits and i expect to get snapped off by the new comers.i know i will win more than i loose.and get more action out a rookie,plus most new comers are a whole lot more fun than those im the best rock in the house players!tell them what i tell them when igo play a new house and act the rookie player[this works great in some games,ah how much to call?can i raise?]you get the rocks coming off their game throwing in chips they would not with all vetran players.good luck keep snapping them off!nuts only too you!
Low limit poker players are the crabbiest bunch of loosers that I have ever run into in my life. Don't let it affect your game. You did it right.
For low limit Hold Em, is it ALWAYS correct to raise AA, KK, AKs preflop??? From any position? The reason that I do not always raise, is because in low limit, NOBODY folds!! They all want to see the flop. Raising in a higher limit game tends to drive people out.... Low limit just makes a bigger pot!!
Also related, is it appropriate to RERAISE with those hands when in late position??
Most players would say to raise preflop on those premium pocket cards so that "when you hit, you will win a larger pot". And, of course, the pocket AA and KK will sometimes stand up with no improvement.
Help!! I believe this topic should generate lots of responses.
Thank you.
Almost always raise with AA or KK. AKs can sometimes smooth call, particularly up front in a loose game. If you do just call with AKs from early position and you are raised by a player in late position with most other players already in for one bet, usually backraise. From middle or late position, it is best to not get tricky (always raise or reraise). When you choose not to raise with one of these premium hands, it is for deception only. You don't need to be deceptive in a typical low-limit game, so play these hands fast. If you are considering smooth calling before the flop with a big pocket pair as an adjustment to everyone staying in to see the flop, then I'd recommend trying for a checkraise on the flop despite your having already shown strength. Checkraising with top pair best kicker, or a pocket overpair to the flop from early position is the best way to handle the premium starting hands in a game that's devolved into no-fold'em.
I'd agree with Andrew. While there are a few situations where not raising with these hands pre-flop can make sense, many players err on the side of overdoing it. This is actually a different situation, but I'm reminded of a hand I played the other day. A player limped in as the opener (!) in a late middle position with AA. I called the half bet in the small blind with 96o. I flopped a straight to win the pot, and had to chuckle at his slowplayitis. Your thinking is better than his in that you're considering the merits of just calling when knocking players out is unlikely and making the pot very large may create problems for you after the flop. Just be aware that indications for calling rather than raising with these hands pre-flop are the exception, even in the kind of game you describe.
John Feeney
I am primarily a low limit hold-em player who is considered by most as a tight agressive player, who fortunately has a very good winning record. Over the past 4 years playing low limit I have found that raising pre-flop is more times than not a pot builder more than anything else. I used to argue with my friend that it is a good strategy to "thin the field", well that strategy usually does not apply to low-limit hold-em, and they should rename the game to "No-Fold-em Hold-em"!! Those loose players who will see the flop with any two cards from any position will never drop out regardless of the number of raises, once they have made up their minds to see the flop. Unfotunately, they will put a bad beat on you sooner or later, BUT, I am so glad to be playing with them that I will withstand the occasional bad beats, just to see their chips eventually find their way to my stack. As far as raising with AA and KK, I will usually raise with those two starting hands regardless of my position, and cap if necessary. When they do hold up (50% of the time), you will win a huge pot and it's worth the risk and raising. As far as AK (suited or not), I almost never raise with that hand pre-flop, because I have found that unless you hit a flop, you will only be costing yourself more money in the long run, since there will always be someone in there with rags that feels that he has to call you down!
I hope that I have shed some light on your dilemna.
Raising before the flop is a dilemma in low limit hold-em. If you do not, and you allow someone to draw out cheaply, you have misplayed the hand. If you do, and still get out drawn by a player who has decided to go to the river no matter what, you suffer a bad beat. Either will cause you to grind your teeth.
Whether a pre-flop raise will thin the field and allow you to play heads up depends more on the players than the limit. I have played in many tight and unprofitable 3-6 and 4-8 games where a pre flop raise caused the entire table to run. I have also played in wide open versions of these where capping the bets pre flop caused everyone to stay, presumably because any two cards can win. The wide open game is the most profitable, unless you get a bad run of cards. If you can reduce the field by a few players with a raise, or more effective, a reraise, your premium hands may stand up. The idea of check raising on the flop is a very good tactic. It gives you the opportunity to confront your opponents with a double bet. Hopefully they will credit you with the best hand possible and fold. If not, prepare to be outdrawn. Or to lose to someone too timid to bet a low set against your represented best hand.
Nasty surprises on the river are very common in low limit. I always root for my opponents to fold, and give them the opportunity by betting my hand, if I believe I have the best one at that point in time. Slowplaying a hand that has the potential to be outdrawn is a very bad idea in a no fold'em game. Some deception is achieved by betting a draw with plenty of outs, but at these limits, deception is rarely needed to keep your opponents in the game.
A good draw (8-9 outs or more to the nuts) is usually bet and even raised for value rather than deception when a game becomes no-fold'em.
>>For low limit Hold Em, is it ALWAYS correct to raise AA, KK, AKs preflop???<<
Yes I think so.
>>From any position?<<
Yes I think so.
>>The reason that I do not always raise, is because in low limit, NOBODY folds!!<<
This doesn't seem relevant to me. The relevant issue is how you make the most money in the long run.
>>They all want to see the flop.<<
Good. You'll win your fair share and you'll make more money from these players who call too often pre-flop IMO.
>>Raising in a higher limit game tends to drive people out.... Low limit just makes a bigger pot!!<<
Actually a raise can do both at the same time. Example, if 4 players call voluntarily and there are 3 players left including the blind, if you raise and the 3 players left fold and the 4 players call in front of you both objectives have been accomplished. More money in the pot with less players competeing. If they don't fold when you raise that's o.k. You'll lose more pots but win more money.
Also related, is it appropriate to RERAISE with those hands when in late position??
Most players would say to raise preflop on those premium pocket cards so that "when you hit, you will win a larger pot". And, of course, the pocket AA and KK will sometimes stand up with no improvement.
Help!! I believe this topic should generate lots of responses.
Thank you.
Thanx for the response.... I agree with most of what you are saying.
In the past, I have always thought it best to raise those premium hands only in LATE position, and not to Reraise, because although "you will win a bigger pot", that applies to only WHEN you hit. I guess I was thinking of the frequency of being hammered with these premium pocket cards, after putting in the 2 bets pre-flop. Some would say to see the flop as cheaply as possible, and then make your moves. (danger there is that it may be too late)
Thanx again.
David
In the captioned book there is a discussion of how playing techniques differ with different antes.
As related to this discussion, Mr. Sklansky, am I correct in assuming that Hold'em (15-30) with 15-10 blinds is considered large ante?
What about 15-30 with 15-5 blinds?
And finally, am I correct in playing that tough 10-20 Hold'em game at The Mirage as a small ante game?
Thanks for your consideration and your help.
Squeaky
P.S. I have almost all of your books and they have helped immensely. I still think the classic is your first book on Hold'em.
Large blinds are not the same thing as large antes. I will let others expound on that.
I don't know the theoretically correct way to say this, but I believe the following is true.
Small Blinds SB are usually either 1/3 of a bet ($1 in a 3/6 game, 1/2 a bet ($5 in a 10/20), or 2/3 ($10 in a 15/30).
The amount of the SB (1/3, 1/2, or 2/3) has a BIG affect on play, especially late position. A 2/3 SB will routinely call one-more chip unless head-up vrs the BB. A 1/3 SB will NOT routinely call.
So, trouble hands should be raised MORE in a 2/3SB game to discourage this player from calling. The call-re-raise trap with early position premium hands is more dangerous, since you are letting two players in cheap instead of just one.
Drawing hands should be over-called more often in a 2/3SB game since you can expect another person taking the flop. Pots tend to be noticably larger in the 2/3 SB game on every betting round, which encourages more marginal bets, raises, and calls, which makes the pots even larger.
Note that a game with a 1/3SB and somehow a 1/3 total ante does not have the features I described above, and would play just a LITTLE more losely than a straight 1/3SB game.
So you seem to have hit on the "right" answer: a 1/3SB game plays like a "small" ante game and a 2/3SSB game plays like a "large" ante game, but the reasons are different than you have suggested.
There surely must be a better way to say this....
- Louie
PS: I have played the Mirage 10/20 a little, and while there are numerous selective/assertive regulars, they tend to be PREDICTABLY selectively/assertive. They semi-bluff well enough, but are quick to abandon the hand when played back (e.g. they will bet 2nd pair but not call with it on the turn). So "Semi-bluff ReSteals" or "Counter Semi-Bluff Raises" seem to work quite well against them. Many will back down even when you just CALL once.
Knowing which will semi-bluff only once per hand is a HUGE advantage.
Change strategy when there are no check-and-call tourists left in the pot.
The HLSFAP section on pot-limit Omaha-8 emphasizes that in the pot-limit structure of the game, the value of redraws is even greater. Also, you wrote in HLSFAP that in all forms of Omaha, it is important to play hands with the maximum degree of connection between the cards. A2xx (in a looser game or in good position) or something like A34T would be among the few exceptions in Omaha-8.
What about pot-limit Omaha high? High pairs (QQ and higher), suited aces and straight runs are the combinations that seem to give hands the potential to make the nuts with redraws. But a high pair with two connected cards, or a double-suited straight run are too infrequent to depend on. Your stack would be depleted too rapidly from the blinds just waiting for those hands. And opponents seem to see a large percentage of flops, and often show down weak, unconnected hands. So what types of hands should I be playing in pot-limit Omaha high other than the premium hands?
There are many other factors in preflop pot-limit Omaha play - position, stack sizes, what the opponents play, how aggressive they are on the flop, whether they pay off on the river. But with respect to the hand itself, what factors should I consider in deciding whether to play a hand?
Dan,
In pot limit omaha high only High suited connected cards do bring down the money. Waiting for good hands does not deplete you from the blinds as enough playable cards come along. Plenty of times you get to see flops cheaply late position or out of the blinds. Hands where you feel you must make the best hand to win or to compete onward in the pot demand four good cards or some type of hand that plays well from its position such as 5,6,7,8, suited in the back when high card players are in, in front of you. Ive played tons of hours in large stakes games where most hands were contested and I couldnt blow out players with even your money. Those games required very tight play (boring) for hours and days on end and I played in more pots than I cared for and took home the bacon as well as other good tight people. Hot and cold hands run close in value before the flop but the playability (is that a word) of hands that do not have the extra outs, redraws and backdoor outs goes way down especially from out of position. I dont know if this is what you wanted but good luck.
I recently played in a $5-$10 Omaha high only game. It was my first time playing and I lost a bundle ($250) in about 4 hours. I felt I played badly but also that some people put a couple of bad beats on me. I'd flop top set and lose to a runner-runner flush. I do believe that if I learn to play the game correctly it can prove to be a big money maker. This is a ten handed game where 7 to 9 people routinely see the flop for 1 or 2 small bets. Makes no fold'em hold'em seem like a tight game! My guess is to only play coordinated cards and muck on the flop if I don't have the nuts or am not drawing close to the nuts. Am I correct in my assessments? Any books recommended for this game? Or should I just stick to 7 card stud and hold'em where I can win on a regular basis? What I really want to know is wheteher low limit Omaha is a game of luck or skill. When I see an old lady calling a double raise before the flop with a hand like Jc Td 4s 3c and taking down a monster flop after flopping As Js 7c and catching a runner-runner flush to beat my unimproved set of aces I cannot think it's a game of skill. On the other hand, I'm able to see 7/9 of the total information for 1 small bet makes me think that I should play even tighter than at hold'em. Any advice would be appreciated.
Steve,
If you play 4 coordinated cards high cards in those loose games you will win the money. The hard part to swallow is the common drawouts. You also need to learn how to bet and when to get out its adifferent game than holdem and you cant relate your holdem value of good hands to omaha. A set of aces is very good but it may be only a small favorite many times and can be a dog to win on the flop even though it is the current nuts. Good Luck.
What book should I read that will give me some pointers. Is Cappeletti the authority on Omaha? Or can I just read HLSPFAP (section on Omaha)? My true question is, which game has the highest +EV and lowest variance. My guess would be: 1)Hold'em 2)7 card stud 3)Omaha
I play this often in a house game. The only advice I can give you is, if the board pairs and you dont have a full house, dump your hand.
"My true question is, which game has the highest +EV and lowest variance. My guess would be: 1)Hold'em 2)7 card stud 3)Omaha"
That depends on the skill of your opponents. Against terrible players, the highest EV is Omaha-8, followed by Stud-8. Holdem is better than stud high, but with a much higher variance in wild games. Omaha-8 has a reasonably high variance - you get counterfeited a lot, the flop significantly changes the value of starting hands, and made hands are very vulnerable to draws. Stud-8 might have the lowest variance, since you win half a pot more often, and since you aren't in without at least a very solid chance at half the pot. Omaha high is probably the lowest EV and highest variance, since any reasonable draw has enough outs to call, so you can't protect a made hand.
Against mediocre opponents, stud has a lower variance than holdem for most good players. (And possibly a higher EV: See Mason's essay "Detrimental is Good") But the variance in either game against normal opponents is much lower than in a game with maniacs or calling stations. Omaha-8 is nowhere near as lucrative when the opponents don't play too many hands and take them too far. And the variance in Omaha-8 remains high in somewhat tighter games.
My personal, limited experience playing Omaha 8 leads me to believe it may have lower variance than holdem. With Omaha 8 you can safely muck after the flop if you don't have the nuts or a good draw to the nuts, for at least half the pot. Frequently your nut for half will win the whole, as when your low makes a wheel or flush, or there is no low and you scoop with high.
One of the reasons you will find your variance in Omaha 8 is lower is the game is slower. AC casinos are very slow in splitting pots, esp the 3 and 4 way pots.
Post deleted at author's request.
O.k. question for the pros and amatuers, I this guy, John Patrick a joke or what? Does he really earn a living as a "gambler"? Has anyone ever seen him play? I never read his poker book, but I brosed through his blackjack book at the store, and his published basic strategy was all wrong.
You mean the wholy owned subsidiary of Caesar's, Inc., John Patrick Enterprises?
I don't know I mean the author of the "so you wanna be a gambler series". He stands there on the covers of his his books fondling a couple chips, like they were his "nuts" in a dumbass turtle neck. He is such a tool. Seriously, from the few passages I've browsed in his many books on slots and craps and blackjack and poker, I don't think he could gamble his way out of a nutsack. The sad thing is that in the big chain bookstores here in florida they only carry this commercialized b.s. Thats fine, I can get the real goods right here, and let the suckers buy the crap. One other question, it'll take a rocket scientist to answer:
"How many world's foremost, or leading authority's on gambling are there?"
John Patrick is my idol. Heed his call.
There is only "one" world's greatest authority on gambling and I will leave it to you to determine who that is.
Hint: First name Bob.
I have seen several of his videos. If you are Bill gates you can play his systems--gates just about has enough cash to survive a "patrick session".
Yeah like I was thinking, "world's foremost authorities" are like Highlanders....There can be only one!
. . . My friend, a would be Bj player, refused to split 8s v 10, and wouldn't believe me when i told him if he didn't understand this play, he could never play decent bj. He said i didn't know what i was talking about -- he'd seen it on a professional gambler's video tape . . .
I got "Theory of Poker" a month ago, and it rocks. What gets me is your theorm, it is so good, I've pondered it, tried to disprove it (the best way to see how true it is), not I just try to apply it, and profit from it. The question is where did postulate this theory from? What educational background do you come from (if you don't mind). You must have had some other developmental theorms you worked on that weren't quite as good, what were they? I'm really interested in your thought proccess and the methods you used in formulating your fundamental theorm. Thanks a big bet.
Gator
3 subjects = long Although I disagree from time to time with things that Mr Malmuth says, I would like to commend him and Jessica for their fine article regarding poker rooms and rakes in Poker Digest.It was honest, and to the point. I hope the right people read it. I have always thought that an off strip , 30-40 table cardroom, would do well in Vegas, as long as it had a small (very small) sports book, so players could bet their fav. games, and also maybe a crap table and assorted slot machines on the fringe. I think that players would gravitate towards such a room as long as it had those other outlets. With out being a hotel, I think a club like that would do quite well. Why hasn't someone tried? new subject. Apparently David Sklansky has written ,or is writing a book about BlackJack. With all that has been written on the subject, I'm curious to know what we can expect. Is it geared towards new players, or is there new information or a new angle that we can look forward to? Give us a teaser, please. next Subject. This is a little off the subject of Poker, but if any of you have ever had any intetrest in the stock market, or you are looking for a way to make your bankroll grow, or you are looking for a way to make money without working for someone else,(as many poker players are), I would urge you read a new book called the" Electronic Day Trader", by Mark Friedfertig. The playing field has been leveled for traders. New technology that lets you have access to the same real time info as the pros allows you to make high percentage trades.I have read many books on investing etc. This is by far the best I have ever read. The strategies and info on the inside workings of proffessional trader are excellent. Their web site, WWW.electronicdaytrader.com, has an article from Forbes, that was published in April, that will motivate you. Anyway, sorry to get off the Poker subject, but I thought some of you might be interested in this, as their are many similarities. Seeya
Thanx for the info on day trading. (This happens to fascinate me.)
I feel that this forum should be appropriate for any zero-sum investing scenario. Isn't that what we are all about?
Anybody agree...disagree?
Strictly speaking the stock market is not zero-sum. Commodities are pure zero sum. The stock market is paper wealth by generating publicly traded companies The owners of these companies have these stocks for next to nothing (you can't measure sweat equity) hence when they sell for $45 and the book value of the company maybe $50, Joe Trader buys it and sells it for $55 - where is the zero sum ? The bad part is that so many very smart poker players are very closed to the stock market as the biggest casino in the world ?? Why - I am not sure. Howevever all those hours and energy they put into Sport Betting to golf etc could yield millions with a few smart trades and investments. It is time to wake up !!! I have nothing against sports betting but there is a very fine day trader group just off the Strip that takes $25000 to get into and you can make $800,000 a year between 6:30 and 1 pm. (I know, no poker player is fond of getting up at 5:30 in the morning but I know a few traders who make $500,000 to $800,000 a year and they can even play poker)
I disagree that an off strip 30-40 table cardroom would be successful in Vegas. There are two reasons. First, you wouldn't have the tourists who just happen to find their way into the poker room. Second, if it was successful, some casino would imitate it but have more to offer. Thus killing it.
However, I do believe that a cardroom can be an asset to a major casino, and not just a convience to some of its guests.
A quick warning about day trading: I am an economist, and have taught a bit about day trading at the undergraduate level. It is true that you now have access to a great deal of the same information that the professional trading houses use, but keep in mind that information in and of itself is useless--it is the analysis of the information that counts. However bright you are, you will always be at a disadvantage here. The big houses hire large staffs who, using the latest computing technologies and forcasting programs, do nothing more than analyze incoming data. So, even if you and your pc are able to ultimately correctly analyze the data, it is quite likely that someone else will have done so first, so prices will have already adjusted to it. Also, be careful of articles about this and other trading strategies in the popular press. They often suffer from "survivor bias". That is, they rarely interview someone who started six months ago, lost his shirt, and quit three months ago, for the simple reason that they can't find him. As a result, the people they discuss are often a non-random sample of those who succeeded, and you shouldn't their results as being particularly meaningful.
And, anyways, poker is more fun. Good luck to whatever you try.
I'm aware of the things that you mention, but we are talking about specialists(nyse), and Marketmakers on the nasdaq.The book is very clear about the difficulty, but, now on nasdaq , because of the new technology, you can see what the big boys are doing. I won't go into further detail, but it basically comes down to the same thing as poker, Discipline, concentration, and alot of studying etc. That is why I posted it.I would invite you to read the book first, and then respond. Goodluck
Scott, just one thing further. We are talking about having the ability to be a marketmaker on nasdaq without having to have a seat on the exchange. In other words you can make your own bids and offers right alongside the proffessionals. This wasn't possible until about a year ago.So there are very low risk ways of beating the spread between the bid and offer. When you buy stock on nyse you buy the offer and sell on the bid. On nasdaq, you can trade bettween the spread real time because of the new technology, and the new rules imposed on nasdaq marketmakers.So,it has nothing to do with member firms and their research.Day trading up until now was a loser, but now, the field has been leveled.You might want to read this book just to keep up to date. It also gives a very good description of the inner workings of the specialists on nyse and mrketmakers on nasdaq. Isaid I wouldn't go into more detail, but I couldn't help myself.
You can and always could go between the bid/ask spread at the NYSE, in fact the NYSE specialist by law have to fill the public orders before the floor traders gat filled. The point is that at the NYSE the spread is very tight but if it is just an 1/8 you can make it 1/16 or 1/32. The nasdaq spread used to be so big that you could drive a Mack truck between it ;-). I think now you have a size limit to trade level 3 system unless you ARE a market maker.
You can and always could go between the bid/ask spread at the NYSE, in fact the NYSE specialist by law have to fill the public orders before the floor traders gat filled. The point is that at the NYSE the spread is very tight but if it is just an 1/8 you can make it 1/16 or 1/32. The nasdaq spread used to be so big that you could drive a Mack truck between it ;-). I think now you have a size limit to trade level 3 system unless you ARE a market maker.
The smallest NYSE spread is 1/16 not 1/32. Trading a NASDAQ stock as a customer or day trader is now MUCH better than a NYSE stock. The converse used to be true. The specialist in a NYSE stock has 2 minutes from the time your order gets to the post to the time he has to execute it. On the NASDAQ you can take out an offer or hit a bid and reiceve virtually instantaneous execution. Thus someone with good market timing, and I mean GOOD can flip stock for small amounts with relatively little risk. Be forewarned this is not very easy.
Well I know about zillions of exchange traded stocks under $5/share that trade in 1/64 at times. Also the 2 minute is not accurate the specialist can stop your market order in order to get a better fill !!!! I have traded for 2 years in NYC and market orders are very fast - never take 2 minutes !!! What a joke ! You can get on the book i.e. the computer of the specialst and be in queue for a fill (they play games now an then) but it is CLEAN and very democratic. Nasdaq was VERY crooked and now it is still crooked !!! (Pay attention ! I am not saying you can't make a buck). I have done this for a living ! If you like Nasdaq fine but you'll have a hell of a time convincing me that it's better for the daytrader joe. The best is to combine both. Most level 3 trading joints are just glorified brokers with a twist and I would warn the neophyte to CHECK them out before jumping in. Check for the commission price the cost of businees (if there is a monthly overhead charge) And check out if the others traders make any money !!!!!! I don't know about this book but some are just fronts for nasdaq juice outfits.
the book is a front, but their buy in is 75,000, So they are after a small percentage of the population. They charge .02 a share, I believe. Even though they are touting their own horn, the info is still excellent.But i have to disagree with you about the nasdaq, it is definately more trader friendly since the changes.The spreads are much tighter.
To be honest I have limited nasdaq experience. Having said this didn't they limit a number of shares of level 3 trades to a 100 shares ? There was some legal dispute with the market makers. To be a market maker you need a lot of money and connection. If you can just post $75000 (and I know many nasdaq juice firms who will take 50k or less) why should one have the same edge as the market maker ??? Anyway it is a mute dispute, let's stick to poker and make lots of full houses !!!!
Jim,
What do assess the odds to be of the US economy falling into recession in the next 6 months? 12 months?
Tom Haley
Will be at Barnes & Noble tomorrow am to check out Electronic Day Trader. Thanks. But, could not reach site www.electronicdaytrader.com. Is this a good address?
I think there is a problem with the site. the address is correct. I would also advise you to search for other firms that provide real time nasdaq level 2 quotes.Enjoy the book.
Post deleted at author's request.
Typical Tunica, Mississippi Sat. night 3-6 Holdem game. Very loose passive preflop, fairly solid play after. I'm in late position with ATs hearts. Four callers, I call, small blind folds.
Flop: Qh, 9s, 3h
Blind bets, one caller
Now the action is to me. In this situation, I have always just called. My thinking being, since I'm an underdog to make the flush, I should try to persue my draw cheaply. I was reading one of Mason's essays that talked about raising with a draw. Now that I think about it, it seems like a raise would be good here. I'm a 2:1 dog to make the flush, but I'm probably going to get two callers. This might put me in a good postion to steal even if I miss. It also would be good at making me harder to read.
Any thoughts on raising here?
How about if a non-heart falls on the turn and its checked to me?
Thanks,
Byron
That's the idea,... to get a free card on the turn if your heart doesn't come. actually it's not free it is a half bet. This is a basic situation, and you can find it covered in hfap by S&M, under the free card.
Hitting an ace amy also be good. If that is the case you are close to even money, not 2-to-1.
Don't always make the same play. If you always raise on a flush draw, your observant opponents may reraise you with a hand like AQ, KQ, QJ, two pair or a set and your attempt to obtain a free card may be costly in the long run. If I'm playing against players over whom I seem to have control over and will fold whenever I show strength (weak tight players), I'd be more inclined to raise. Against maniacs who will reraise with a hand like Q5, or against extremely tight aggressive players, I'll just call and try to draw out as cheaply as possible. Advantage to raising: knock out players who might have beat you had they stayed in (middle pair), improve your position if players behind you fold, make a bigger pot if you do hit your hand, ... Disadvantage to raising: knock out potential callers who might have called a single bet thus reducing your effective odds, risk being reraised, ... You can run a simulation to figure out what the best strategy would be in the long run. I think it depends on the particular game. According to David Sklansky's essay on the eight mistakes in poker there would only be one correct play (call or raise?). However I believe this question is not a yes/no answer. Hope that more people respond to this post. I'm curious what the best strategy is. Good luck.
I believe the raise is the best move unless you have some reason to believe there is going to be a reraise behind you, in wich case your in a bad spot if your flush doesn't come. Does this situation come up with you often enough that your opponets get a good read on you? How many times say in an eight hour session would you be in this position? I think I think you would have to make this same play at least three times for an opponent to profit on it, meaning it would have to come up once every two hours, and your opponent must be very astute in recognizing it. What does anyone else think?
Post deleted at author's request.
In many games raising in late position with a flush draw is automatic for many in attempts for a free card. There is of course it's double duty as a value raise also. In many cases you can assume that a late position player does not have a flush draw if he doesn't raise. The Free card play is so popular and automatic in some rooms that you can use this info to your advantage.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
This is the kind of board that makes you wish you had raised before the flop, which I think is a good move in late position against these kinds of players. Given the 35-45% chance of improving against two players, you should play this hand aggressively. Don't commit yourself to checking the turn if you "miss" until you've considered (1) how the turn affects your draw, (2)how scary it looks to your opponents, and (3) the chances they will fold then or on the river.
I agree with Chris. You shouldn't necessarily semi-bluff the turn (even after catching the straight draw cards mentioned by Gary) if you're up against opponents who absolutely will not fold their hand turn or river. However, if you figure there's greater than a nominal chance they will fold, betting is the best play.
I'm fairly new to Hold 'em but I've studied hard and practiced, deciding that % aggressive" was the type to be. During my profitable sessions I average about 2 wins/hour [for est. 25 hands/hr.] but during the bad sessions, it seems that I'm folding 95% of the time pre-flop.
In the low limit game I play in, each hand averages at least 5 players who see the flop, regardless of raises, 7 not being unusual.
Am I too and how can I measure this? I'm considering tracking my "see the flop" ratio and comparing it to the game I'm in.
[edit note: looking at the "preview" message, the word T,I,G,H,T doesn't seem to print. If the language doesn't make sense, insert that word and maybe it'll help.]
1.5 winning hands/hour seems about right for a sensibly selective player, so 2/hour on a winning night seems right.
Tracking your "see the flop" ratio is a good idea; better if you do it by position. Include "call raises".
As you know, with this many opponents taking the flop you are unlikely to win without a show-down. So only loosen up to include quality multi-way hands like 44, 76s, and A2s. T9o is still a loser most of the time.
Many "semi-bluff" bets in a solid game become "value" bets in this game. Its not unusal for JT flop KT6 to bet, get 3 calls, and still have the better hand. On the turn, since you are going to call anyway with the larger pot, be willing to bet again. Be willing to make such bets, and reconsider your strategy based on WHO calls.
I prefer the word "assertive" since "aggressive" to me means play a lot of hands and bet most of them, even when you are sure you don't have the better hand. Bet enough that you still USUALLY have the hand you are representing, but the non-brain dead types are still suspicious.
- Louie
How did you all start writing books about poker? Is it something that just happened unexpectedly or was it something that you've always wanted to do. Did you all start your careers playing poker or is poker a second career for you? Would I be wrong in assuming that you each (DS,MM and RZ) have a math background? At your level of play, what % of income would you say comes from live games vs. tournaments vs. royalties from books vs. consulting fees? I hope I'm not being too curious by asking such questions. I just think that you guys are really lucky to be doing something you like and to be so successful at it.
" I just think that you guys are really lucky to be doing something you like and to be so successful at it. "
... I very much doubt that luck had much of anything to do with it (definately less than you face playing poker.....)
Post deleted at author's request.
> but it seems pretty clear that what he was saying was correct, just not well presented.
That's pretty much my impression of Warren's book ... just not well presented...
Gary:
After reading your post I went back to the exact page in Warren's book that refers to the set of Aces. The exact statement (page 112, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence) that he makes is: "Also, if you flop a set of Aces, you cannot end up with the nuts if you do not improve." Now you said that he does not make that statement in his book, but yet that is "exactly" what he has written and in my opinion it cannot be interpeted in any other way!! Unless I am totally misunderstanding, he is saying that if your set of Aces does not improve by the river, inotherwards, if you do not make a full house or four Aces, you cannot end up with the nuts by the river. Now if he means that improving your set of Aces by flopping two other rags on the turn and river that do not produce a straight or flush, then he is absolutely correct. But by the tone of the sentence and remainder of the content in that paragraph, that does not seem to me what he is saying. And if he did mean that, then he should correct his book and say it the correct way.
The manner in which he presents his material is at best confusing in a lot of areas, but this particular statement is precise, exact and unequivocally WRONG!! I have read it more than a dozen times, and no matter how you slice it or dice it, that statement is absolutely incorrect in the context which it was written. And later in the paragraph when he refers to the set of Jacks being in that same situation as the set of Aces, I agree that he is right that if the set of Jacks does not improve it is impossible to end up with the nuts by the river.
Spending so much time and effort on this statement has been ludicrous at best on my part, and I am sorry if I have taken peoples' valuable time in trying to respond! I just have a difficult time in accepting false statements made by an author who will not even respond to my questions!!
Post deleted at author's request.
Last Friday night I was in a no limit HE tournament at Crystal Park. We were down to three tables after starting with seven, and a friend of mine was in the big blind while I was one to the right of the button. It was passed to me and I looked at my hand and found A-10s. I brought it in for T800, hoping to steal the blinds of T100-T200 and the T25 antes. All passed except my friend who called, leaving himself T250. The flop comes 9-8-6 rainbow, and my friend puts himself all in. I know that I am behind, putting him on a pocket pair when he called my preflop raise, but the T250 certainly isn't enough to keep me from calling a T2000 pot. I rivered a 7 and my straight beat his pocket Queens. He was quite upset at being knocked out of the tournament this way and remained on the sidelines until the next break. I went over to talk to him and he started in complaining about my play of that hand. I told him that my initial bet wasn't out of line with me expecting to get the blinds right then, and his bet of his last T250 certainly wasn't enough to get me to give up my gut shot straight draw or the possibility that an A would win it for me as well. Nothing I said could sway him from his opinion, and we left it with him being steamed at me. After the tournament concluded (I won it) he more or less asked me to give him the buy-in back since I had knocked him out with a "bad beat". I refused for three reasons, first, I thought he was wrong about whether my raise and call were wrong, second, I wouldn't have said anything if he had beaten me, and third, he had been on a freeroll anyway as I saw another player give him the buy-in money in return for 50% of his win. Had I given him the buy-in, I'm absolutely sure he would have stuck it in his pocket and said nothing to his backer. I don't like it when people try to hustle me this way. What do forum members think about the hand and the buy-in return request?
No problems whatsoever with the way you played the hand...but I think you already know that. The only way this may not be the right play is if it crippled your remaining stack (which you did not seem to indicate).
I would reconsider the 'friend' label for this guy though.
Chuck
I don't know the exact odds but the other guy was a small favorite before the flop, after the flop, what did he put you on, with a raise in late position you could easily have tow small suited cards, the 10Js an ace something, or even Kings, all of wich ahve the advantage in beating him. After this flop I wouldn't think I was a favorite holding queens. At this point, and correct me if I'm wrong, after you checked, he should have also instead of going all in right then, knowing that you would not buck to those odds, he could have seen turn for free, and if it helped, go all in there, you still would call. It seems that any bet made at this point on by either you or him would be for his stack, so why would he be so anxious of getting them all in after that flop, and that size pot, In such a position I think tighter play would have been better. How could you call a crook like this your friend? I don't call anyone my friend unless I could give them my car or house keys without a second thought.
He was first to act and put himself all in. Actually, we are friendly towards each other and have discussed poker quite a bit together. He is more of a poker acquaintance than a friend in the sense that you mean.
I think you played the hand well. You didn't mention your stack size, but if you were going to raise T800 pre-flop anyway and could afford it, it might have been better to raise T1050 just to force an all or nothing decision on his part. In this case it might not have mattered as he probably would have called anyway, but in some situations it might be the edge you need to get someone to fold (which would be the goal here). It was not a bad beat at all, you had at least 7 outs with 2 cards to come. The pot was at T2200 after he bet, you get to see the turn and river with no additional financial risk, so he should not be complaining that you called a T250 bet.
A Poker Guy!
first place needs no apologies or explanations, nor does last place for that matter
You call this guy a friend? I'd like to see how your enemies treat you.
Get a new friend.
Since you have now read all these "positive" responses about your so-called friend, you definitely need to reassess your definition of a friend. Unfortunately, in the world of poker there seems to be many more "poker associates" than true friends. I know for fact that one of my friends would have congratulated me for winning the tournament, and would have not tried to make me feel bad about what he considered a "bad beat" (which in reality was not since you had every right to be in the pot). A "friend" does not put conditions on your friendship, and certainly does not demand money from you because you won and he lost!!!
Get a new friend!
im mainly a 10-20 player or small limit pot limit or no limit. ive taker several shots at 20-40, and as it worked out i usually won. took my money and ran. but recently i sat it out for my usual 16 hour session. lost 800, gotta wear shades. typical game, no different from 10-20 ,. comments?
16 hours is too long. I'd bet that if you wrote up a bunch of multiplication flash cards, that you'd do much better at the start of the session than at the end. Much better. Fox said he cut out a BUNCH of bridge columns, would draw one out of his "hat", and if he couldn't get the right answer he wouldn't play poker that day.
"Take Money and Ran". Why? So you don't play 2/3 of a day and lose it all back? If you are winning then stay since you are likely a favorite even if you don't know for sure why, and the fact of you winning makes the others play a little worse (No, Mr. Malmuth, not because of "Money Management"). :)
Get the kind of "shades" that are graded, light on the bottom and darker on the top. Then you can see the cards well enough but the opponents cannot see your eyes. Get class cleaner. Get a glasses pouch to avoid scratches. No shades are worth it if you occationally mis-read your hand or board.
Where is this 20/40 that plays like a 10/20?
- Louie
Play less than 16 hours and I'm sure you'll make lots more money. It's really tough to do, especially when it's a good game. In the short run, playing shorter sessions ensures that you'll play more sharp. Easier to focus and concentrate when you're not tired. In the long run, playing marathon sessions will have a negative impact on your health. You'll get burnt out. Play 3 days a week for 16 hours and you're playing poker for 48 hours a week. That's more work than a full time job. Besides, if you only play once a week for 16 hours, it's still better to play twice a week for 8 hours. If you keep track of yours wins and losses, calculate the statistics of your long sessions(10+ hours) vs your short ones(under 10 hours) and see what results are better.
:)
Get a job. :) (or you could take away the booze)
I've only been playing hold'em for about 3-4 months. I've read three books on the subject and at present am reading HPFAP, which I do understand. I play in Shreveport a 4-8 game and the players fit all categories. I am currently ahead and average about $35/hr playing twice a week from 6-7 hours.
I have several questions: 1) What does standard deviation tell me and how do I utilize it to my advantage?
2) What is EV?
3) What should I strive for in per hour rates. Is winning 1-2 hands an hour good. (Does BB have a definition other than Big Blind?)
4) In tournaments what does Freezeout and Freeroll mean?
The main thing I have picked up, is that one must have discipline and play good solid cards. Thanks to all, I would appreciate any advice.
<< new to poker... I am currently ahead and average about $35/hr playing twice a week <$4/8> from 6-7 hours. >>
<<1) What does standard deviation tell me and how do I utilize it to my advantage?>>
I don't have the Malmuth quote in front of me, but SD represents your expected fluctuations due to luck. Higher SD means you can expect wild fluctuations in your results: lose $400 one night and win $450 the next; when you have only averaged winning $25/night.
You use SD in order to pick games or playing styles that would minimize your chances of going broke: comparing SD with your bankroll. But since you are a recreational player and losing your "bankroll" is no big deal, so SD should have little affect. There are much more important things for your mental energy at this point in your "career".
2+2 would appreciate it if you would buy their excellent books which discuss this issue.
Be sure you can fiscally, mentally, and emotionally afford to lose the money you put at risk on the table. Keep your "bankroll" separate from your real money. Keeping a separate money clip or keeping at the players bank at the casino helps a lot.
<<2) What is EV?>>
"Exected Value" (??). This is the mathematical "average" (??) result you can EXPECT when considering the merits of certain plays. For example you would calculate the EV for folding, calling, and raising, then pick the best one.
>>Does BB have a definition other than Big Blind?>>
BB= Big Blind or Big Bet. SB = Small Blind or Small Bet. Context tells the difference: In a structured 4/8 game there is a $4 BB and a $2 SB, and a BB is $8 and a SB is $4.
"1.5 - 2 BB/Hour" win rate seems to be the quoted figure for "move to the next higher level". But since SD is very high you need to average this rate over a long period; I think AT LEAST 500 hours for recreational players and 1000 hours for profesionals. 1 BB/hour is satisfactory. .5/hour means, to me, "move down".
1-2.5 hands/hour is about right. But if you play particularaly selective, as all beginners should, expect only .7 (or so on a losing night) to 1.5 (or on a winning night). Be patient.
4) In tournaments what does Freezeout and Freeroll mean?
"Freezout" means there are no re-buys; lose your money and you are frozen out of the tournament. I don't how that term got started. "Freeroll" means the casino has offered some promotion and tournament participants play without any fee or buy in. Some casino's may offer a "freeroll" tournament for every player that played in the casino for 100 hours last month.
< That is the most important thing for beginners, and very important for all players. With only modest play after the first round, this will guarantee a beginner a long term win when playing against the dolts that frequent the low limits.
< Your $35/hour is OBSURDLY HIGH for a 4/8 game: 4BB per hour. Do not expect that to continue .. err .. don't feel bad when you start winning less.
Losing streaks are inevitable. Those who maintain their discipline and patience during these periods succeed, those who don't fail.
- Louie
3) What should I strive for in per hour rates. Is winning 1-2 hands an hour good. (Does BB have a definition other than Big Blind?) ............................................. Wouldn't 1-2 hands won per hour = maybe 10+ BB per hour? Especially at the limit he plays(4/8), you would think there would be many callers, hence 5+ BB in each pot.
The BB/hr that is always referred to on here is Big Bets per hour($8) in your case. So if your a good player, $8-16/hr over a LONG run is what you could expect. It may not sound like much, but when you think about 20-40/40-80 games, then the hourly rate sounds very nice. Good Luck, Brad
Someone else in this thread had said that the beginners report of a win rate a little more than 4 BB per hour was absurdly high. I don't think so at all. If he only plays on Fri/Sat night, shows up late with plenty of rest, and only plays 3-4 hours, then 4 bets an hour is about what I'd expect a player who is good at playing loose games to win. I've had a 6 BB an hour rate in a low limit game full of really bad players (private game, very low rake) after over 1000 hours of play. One of the players lost an average of about 10 BB bets per hour in this game, these people were really bad players (the cashier kept track of buys and cashouts). -- Lavon (Gary Carson)
10 BB's an hour? what was the big bet, a quarter? that's ridiculous... that guy shouldn't play any cards at all...
even with really bad players in a casino on friday and saturday nights, 4 BB's an hour is obsurd.
This is the important part - If you play in a manner which allows you to win 4 big bets an hour (in a casino where the games are a little tougher than just home games), don't ever try and leave the game you are doing well in, because you are not playing poker the way a good player would. You would get killed at a game with skillful players.
It was a 1-2, 5 on end game. Single blind of $1, dealer put up $1 ante for the table, $1 rake. It was 4 nights a week, usually about 5 hours. This one woman lost about 1k a week. She could afford it. She was elderly (in her 70's) and a former drunk and drug addict. Gambling was the passion that kept her away from the bottle. She knew what she was doing, she'd been playing poker a long time, since Bennie Binion was running games in Ft. Worth. My win was about $30 per hour, two other players had slightly smaller average win rates (they played a lot tighter than I did), a couple of players were basically break even players, and 4-5 others were consistant losers but more at a rate of a couple of bets an hour (I'm using BB=5). Sometimes we'd play 12-14 handed, always got in 50+ hands per hour. Very fast game. And, I've played in a couple of casino games that weren't a lot different from that one. But, thanks for the advice. I do know who to adjust my play to the table, however. It's a skill a lot of players lack and it's been profitable for me. --- Gary Carson PS. It was not unsual for the big winner of the night to cash out 1200 in this 1-2,5 game. I was alsmot never the big winner of the night, I didn't play quite wild enough to reach that level. The big winner of the night was alsways one of the really bad, but aggresive players. The woman I spoke of was almost never a winner, she was very passive.
I would like to clarify something: I have been playing since the first of June and since that time I have played 322 hours and I did make a mistake in my per hour rate, it is a few cents over $21.
I do not play for fun, I play to win money. I have set up a bank account specific for that purpose. I make sure I am always well rested and I know who I am playing against. On just about every hand there is usually 3-5 callers and a lot of those guys play No-Fold-em.
Here in Shreveport there are a lot of regulars, who lose. A lot of these people will J9o, T9 and if they have an Ace, even if it's Axo, will go to the river. Which I do not think is smart playing.
Sorry about the mistake on my per hour rate, I should have checked it first as I track everything about my playing.
Last nite I read the second interview of Mason in Poker Digest, And I do take issue with his premise that casinos should cut back on low-limit games., I am most happy playing 1488, though I could easily play 40-80, but have no desire to do so. My wife plays the slots when I play poker, and most often my winnings have made up for this habit. We usually play 2-3 hrs/day, the "negative expectation" games like Let-it-Ride. I have spoken to many "tourists" like myself, at low-limit games at Luxor, Monte Carlo, and Harrah's. Many of us do gamble at other casino games. My main question to Mason is Where to do you get your data that poker players at higher levels are better for the casinos than low-limit players like myelf? I do respect you as a poker player, but expect more than just a feeling to explain your position. Also, if there are not low-level games, do you expect to force folks like myself to play higher limits? just to quit poker? or stay in California? None of these questions is asked in anger, just curiosity. Gary
"I am most happy playing 1488" 1-4-8-8 games should not be spread. This has to do with the fact that these games always burn out because they disrupt the proper balance of poker and skill.
"My wife plays the slots when I play poker, and most often my winnings have made up for this habit. We usually play 2-3 hrs/day, the "negative expectation" games like Let-it-Ride. I have spoken to many "tourists" like myself, at low-limit games at Luxor, Monte Carlo, and Harrah's."
This is precisely the problem. These rooms contribute virtually nothing to the casino. Just count the number of games that Luxor has at any time to see my point. As the mega-casinos get more and more expensive, poker needs a cross over effect.
"Many of us do gamble at other casino games. My main question to Mason is Where to do you get your data that poker players at higher levels are better for the casinos than low-limit players like myelf? I do respect you as a poker player, but expect more than just a feeling to explain your position."
I'm not completely free to reveal my sources. But I do know that a study was done at The Mirage to see if a poker room at Bellagio was worth opening.
"Also, if there are not low-level games, do you expect to force folks like myself to play higher limits? just to quit poker? or stay in California? None of these questions is asked in anger, just curiosity. Gary"
I have nothing against low limit games. In fact, if you would read what I said I brought this very point out. But what I am saying is that for the new mega-casinos to want to feature poker it needs a spill-over effect. This is different from what I may want or think is best.
To distinguish Gary from Gary Carson, I'll start using my middle name, Lavon. That's how I sign my art and photos. What is the proper balence between luck and skill (I assume you meant luck/skill, not poker/skill)? Is there such a thing as a proper balence? I don't think there is in general, for a given table composition I think there is a balence that will keep the game going. For the same reason I think think that, I think that research on the Mirage poker market is not easily applicable to the poker market in general. The games at the Mirage, as near as I can tell, consist of 5-7 reasonably good players, 2-4 medicore players, all sitting around waiting for 1-2 loose toursists to sit down. That's not the way poker games are composed in the rest of the country. I used to be a regular player in California, in Lousisna, and in Texas home games. In all those games we had regular contributers who could be depended on to show up every night and piss away some money. The kind of structure you need to keep those players coming back is not the same structure as is needed to keep the regulars sitting around waiting for a tourist at the Mirage. Whenever I think of the Mirage I get an image of a pot limit game I almost stumbled into in New Orleans once. When I asked the floor what games they had going he said a 3/6 and a pot limit with 2/4 blinds. I asked for a seat in the pot limit, he pointed me to the rear of the room. I walked back. It was 4-handed, all four players were reading newspapers while they played their hands as slowly as they possibly could. I don't mean between hands, I mean during the hand. If ever I saw 4 guys sitting around waiting for me to sit down, this was it. I didn't sit, I drove to Bay St. Louis. But, anyway, back to structure. I used to play in a 10-20-40 game full of very, very loose players. That double bet on the end was the perfect structure for this game -- it was just enough to give the really bad players a good win once in a while. To complement this game, there was a 15-30 game populated by a bunch of Mirage type rocks. They would sit around and wait for a 10/2-/40 winner to sit in, then they would jointly crush him. Satisfied, the loose player would be back in the 10/20/40 game next day. All was right with the world. Then, the loose players wanted to start changing the 10/20/40 to 20/40. That destroyed the game. It not only destroyed the 10/20/40, it destoryed the 15/30. What happened was that the 10/20/40 players no longer had big wins, cause when they did win at 10/20/40 we'd change the limit and they'd just lose it all back at 20/40. Also, the 15-30 game wouldn't make anymore, so the 15-30 players started playhing{_ 10/20/40 and most went busted cause they couldn't adapt to the different structure. An every night 10/20/40 game became a thurs-sat 20/40 game. Players who had at one time bought in for $500 every nite, where now buying in for $200 twice a night. My own win rate was cut in half. It was all very sad. Then another cardroom opened up down the road, splitting the game up, and then things got really bad. I had to move back to Austin and start selling photos and magazine articles -- not quite the same as getting a job but too damn close to it for my taste. The point of all this rambling is that whatever the proper blend of luck/skill might be, it's depndent on the particular makeup of the game -- and Mirage poker just aint the same as poker elsewhere (and yes, I've played at the Mirage). -- Lavon
To distinguish Gary from Gary Carson, I'll start using my middle name, Lavon. That's how I sign my art and photos. What is the proper balence between luck and skill (I assume you meant luck/skill, not poker/skill)? Is there such a thing as a proper balence? I don't think there is in general, for a given table composition I think there is a balence that will keep the game going. For the same reason I think think that, I think that research on the Mirage poker market is not easily applicable to the poker market in general. The games at the Mirage, as near as I can tell, consist of 5-7 reasonably good players, 2-4 medicore players, all sitting around waiting for 1-2 loose toursists to sit down. That's not the way poker games are composed in the rest of the country. I used to be a regular player in California, in Lousisna, and in Texas home games. In all those games we had regular contributers who could be depended on to show up every night and piss away some money. The kind of structure you need to keep those players coming back is not the same structure as is needed to keep the regulars sitting around waiting for a tourist at the Mirage. Whenever I think of the Mirage I get an image of a pot limit game I almost stumbled into in New Orleans once. When I asked the floor what games they had going he said a 3/6 and a pot limit with 2/4 blinds. I asked for a seat in the pot limit, he pointed me to the rear of the room. I walked back. It was 4-handed, all four players were reading newspapers while they played their hands as slowly as they possibly could. I don't mean between hands, I mean during the hand. If ever I saw 4 guys sitting around waiting for me to sit down, this was it. I didn't sit, I drove to Bay St. Louis. But, anyway, back to structure. I used to play in a 10-20-40 game full of very, very loose players. That double bet on the end was the perfect structure for this game -- it was just enough to give the really bad players a good win once in a while. To complement this game, there was a 15-30 game populated by a bunch of Mirage type rocks. They would sit around and wait for a 10/2-/40 winner to sit in, then they would jointly crush him. Satisfied, the loose player would be back in the 10/20/40 game next day. All was right with the world. Then, the loose players wanted to start changing the 10/20/40 to 20/40. That destroyed the game. It not only destroyed the 10/20/40, it destoryed the 15/30. What happened was that the 10/20/40 players no longer had big wins, cause when they did win at 10/20/40 we'd change the limit and they'd just lose it all back at 20/40. Also, the 15-30 game wouldn't make anymore, so the 15-30 players started playhing{_ 10/20/40 and most went busted cause they couldn't adapt to the different structure. An every night 10/20/40 game became a thurs-sat 20/40 game. Players who had at one time bought in for $500 every nite, where now buying in for $200 twice a night. My own win rate was cut in half. It was all very sad. Then another cardroom opened up down the road, splitting the game up, and then things got really bad. I had to move back to Austin and start selling photos and magazine articles -- not quite the same as getting a job but too damn close to it for my taste. The point of all this rambling is that whatever the proper blend of luck/skill might be, it's depndent on the particular makeup of the game -- and Mirage poker just aint the same as poker elsewhere (and yes, I've played at the Mirage). -- Lavon
Since the beginning of the year I have cut my playing time roughly in half. I used to try to play about 4 times a week. Now I'm playing once or twice a week at the most and taking weeks off here and there, and I've made slightly more money than last year.I am having alot more fun playing this year than I ever have, and it carries over to my style of play, which has become more aggressive when I'm in.From this experience, I would reccommend to players trying to make money at this game to play less days a week, and consider taking a week off every 6 weeks or so.Although you read it over and over again about playing happy etc., it doesn't really sink in until you actually are playing happy. Most of us play somewhere in between. There seems to be so much emphasis on hourly rate etc., so many players feel they need to play almost full time. So, I say, "Play less,Win More". comments??
Thats similiar to my motto at work...."Play more, work less". It seems in the past year I've been adhering to it quite well, and I'm quite happy too. Mainly its been from discovering this forum and rgp newsgroup. I think you all should follow my model of example, you'll be much happier at work. Brad
Does this apply to professional poker or just serious recreational poker?
I'm not a professional poker player and don't claim to be one. I don't even think I can consider myself a good poker player. I've never won a tournament in my life and I never ventured higher than a $10-$20 game. However, I do well at the limits I can afford to play. I learn from my mistakes. I think that playing too much can be a mistake. It might work well for some people, but for most people it can destroy them. Some players can play 40 to 50 hours a week and make 1 BB an hour playing $15-$30. That comes out to close to $75,000 per year net. Not bad for playing cards. I can say with honesty that I don't know of too many people who can make this claim. For alot of people playing too much poker can be a bad thing. Too much of anything can be a bad thing. It's better to play 15 to 20 hours a week, have a part-time job or a side business, spend time with family and friends, play sports, study poker, etc. I believe that it's equally important to manage your time as it is to manage your money. I'd never tell anyone what to do because we're all free to make our own choices. But if I had to choose between playing poker 50 hours a week and making $50,000 per year or playing 25 hours per week and leading a balanced life making $30,000 per year, I'd choose the latter. Goodnight, I think I'm going to bed.
Steve,
I agree with you when it comes to playing some and still having a life outside of poker. I am finding that I make more money by being selective about the games I play in and by only playing at the times when they are good. Since I have been playing a fuller tournament schedule in the local small tournaments, I have found that I am actually playing less poker. I have several tournament playing acquaintances who only play ring games when the casino pays them an hourly wage to do so. It must be nice to be paid $25.00 per hour to sit in a 15-30 game that you figure to be able to beat anyway. This type of "silent propping" has got to be the highest +EV type of poker playing. "Name" tournament players are getting this now at one L.A. area casino at least. My opinion, based solely on observation, is that the casino offering this deal has got to be losing money on the overall program, but has a pretty well known lineup playing in their top section on most nights.
Ray, how weak can your starters be against an opponent you figure to be raising with big cards or on a move and, flop willing, plan on outplaying him? How does opponent type change starter requirements in this situation? Your advice appreciated.
Scott,
If you plan on taking the worst hand and outplaying an opponent after the flop you need to be careful. You need an opponent that will go out if he doesnt help, or you need to be able to know that you can control him. If I think he has just two big cards and no big pair( I can read his reactions when he looks at his hand) then any 2 cards is good enough to mess with him. Most times he will miss the flop and I can win it then or on 4th street. It still pays to have something in case you get callers behind you and the times he hits if you also make something your payoff becomes worthwhile. What you dont want is hands that are similar to his that are not as good unless you can dump them if you both improve. Basically you are just playing the player. The more control you have over him the weaker hand you can play. Most times if there is doubt have at least a hand that could be played in the situation if some other players entered as well. If I believe he may just be on a steal Ill have anything and resteal or if he is a little tougher I want to have at least 2 cards that are not trash. Good Luck.
Hi. Anyone interested in player poker in house games on long island or in club, please feel freto contact me...
The Sklansky holdem books that I have seen only have preflop hand rankings for limit holdem. There is a notation that basically says the hand rankings don't apply to no-limit and would have to be substantially changed to apply to no-limit. This obviously makes sense. But, is there any books that address pre-flop hand strengths in no-limit?
I have played in a bunch of NL tournaments and have finished at almost exactly the 80th percentile in every single one. In trying to analyze why this is, I think that it comes down to throwing away too many playable hands during the early rounds so I end up with a smaller stack size in the later rounds and get pushed around by the big stacks. Then the blinds eat me alive. I have adjusted my play somewhat with positive results. I still only get to 80%, but every tournament my relative stack size is better than the previous in the later rounds. Currently I am entering the later rounds with about an average stack size for that round(total chips/number of players left). My last two tournaments I went all in with KK and lost to 76s when he flopped two pair, and then I went all in with AJo and lost to A9s when the board contained AA9. If I had bigger stacks I could have survived both of those situations (either winning the side pot, or putting more pressure on the callers and getting them to fold).
Any thoughts or pointers on how to evaluate relative hand strengths pre-flop would be appreciated.
A Poker Guy!
Poker Guy,
I think you want to win on the strengh of your hand too often. In no-limit you must win hands with your betting more often. Find spots to blow people off the pot as they are trying to hang on just like you. This way you will go into the important rounds with more chips and ability or be gone and playing in a good side game and winning money as well.
I hope Earl and Dan Rubenstein will give some good insights as well. Good Luck.
Change in Hand Rankings for NL? I suspect there is some useful truth to the following, but would appreciate knowledgeable comments.
Compared to Limit hand rankings, No Limit rankings may be adjusted as follows: Trouble hands go down. All hands except premium ones go way down when someone raises. All hands except premium ones go up when YOU raise. Premium hands go up no matter who raises. All pairs go up. Suited connectors go up when there is no raise. Axs goes ??? Trash is Trash.
All hands go way down in relative value in NL. All hands go up in value when you have of "courage", or "position", or "people" going for you. Don't play if you have only one of these going for you. Don't expect to win much, if at all, if you have only two. ReRead Mr. Zee's reply carefully. Then look at your cards.
- Louie
In NL tourneys I find that you break it down into four separate sections:
Early: Here I mix it up and tend to give lots of action if there are rebuys available. I want to try to quadruple my original stack. If I double through early, I tend to be much less aggressive, looking for one more solid opportunity before the first break and end of rebuy period.
Middle: I add on if possible and then wait for premium hands to move all in with or good hands I can take to the flop cheaply. I don't mind blinding away the entire add on chips if good starters avoid me. I try to isolate and pick off short stacks and allow normal player attrition to move me closer to the pay window.
Late: If I've managed to avoid bad luck or serious errors in judgement and arrive at the late stages, I'm constantly alert and adjusting to the best strategy to get me to the final table. I'm opening up here and actively stealing the blinds and antes when I have position both button wise and stack size wise. I don't want to get to the final table so depleted that I'm only thinking about moving up the payout ladder through determined survival.
End: Time to gamble! This is the time when remaining players are caught up in the possible payouts and the real chance of winning it all. I want all the chips and I want to be the one they are trying to pick off or avoid. I'm always going to be aggressive when it is four players or less, whether I'm the chip leader or the short stack. Forget second or third, I want 1st or fourth or to force the others into getting trapped by someone else for all their chips. It is surprising the number of times you can go from short stack to chip leader in the space of just a few minutes. When you play short handed you can dictate the tempo of play and throw people off their comfort zones. In the end game, it is better to act than react.
Hand rankings?:
First in with any pair or any ace with two or fewer players to act behind you. Pocket eights, nines, tens or jacks, all in with four or fewer players behind you. Q's, K's or A's, all in from everywhere. I call an all in bet or go all in with pocket pairs AA, KK, QQ. Against certain players with known weak hand tendencies I open up a lot more. Stack size determines play as well as the opponent you are trying to move against. If you are known as unpredictable, people have to call you with hands they would throw away against more conservative players; make sure you get out of line only with short stacks and scared blinds. Your premium hands will get much more play when you have them. Opponents look for chances to trap you, wanting to be the one to take your chips.
There is of course no easy formula to plug in for NL hand rankings. Generally, the main points made by Brunson, Ciaffone, and Cloutier is that every hand depends on price, position, and table composition. Tournaments add other elements that are difficult to quantify without stipulating the situation.
Given that caveat, what NL hands I would play will depend on the combined factors of how big my stack is compared to the other players, how quick the blinds are going up, and how many players are at the table. I'll give some examples:
In a 10-handed satellite, I'll not get involved early without the premium hands, A-A, K-K, Q-Q. If I can get in very cheap for a nut draw or small pair, I'll also occasionally take it, but the flop will have to be perfect. Once 3-4 players drop, then I'll play the middle pairs stronger, and the big trouble hands when I'm in position. When down to 3 players, I'll play any hand if I think I can blow the other 2 off the hand. I'll also play any Ace when short-stacked and any King if severely short-stacked. (We had a fairly detailed discussion of precisely when to resort to "any Ace" or "any King" strategy on RGP awhile back, so you may want to comb the DejaNews archives to find that thread.)
In a fast action tournament or super-satellite, I'll play the first rounds precisely; quality hands and quality draws only. I'll not lose any money on trouble or trash hands -- not one chip. After the break and the rebuy periods, I'll play the opponents rather than be concerned about my hand values. Unfortunately at the final table, there's not much you can do about the type of brutal beats you took with those two hands. It *is* fast, and the players are going to get involved with very little.
In the slower NL tournaments, position and price are critical. Early on, if you can limp in with a small pair or small connectors and hit a big flop, the rewards can be great. Otherwise you should be playing premium hands ONLY. I'll toss all trouble hands. A-K should not be overplayed, and A-Q is highly deserving of its "trouble hand" designation.
For what it's worth, in this years' WSOP, I lost the most money on A-K (several times), Q-J, and J-10. If I'd never played those hands AT ALL, I'd have been there at least for Day 3. I think this may be one of the points that Brunson made in Super/System that people sometimes overlook: the trouble hands usually only cause you big trouble in NL.
"The Sklansky holdem books that I have seen only have preflop hand rankings for limit holdem. There is a notation that basically says the hand rankings don't apply to no-limit and would have to be substantially changed to apply to no-limit. This obviously makes sense."
In limit, hand rankings have significant limitations, as so much depends on the game and your opponents. (Sklansky made this point in a post to this forum.) That is even more true in NL. Ray's post can't be overemphasized - very rarely will you have a lock hand, and reading the board and your opponents to pick good situations for bluffs and semibluffs and check-raising and catching bluffs are far more important than precise differences in hand values. Unlike in limit, a weaker hand can't just check and call hoping to draw out, and when top pair doesn't hold up, you will lose much more than a few bets.
With that in mind, preflop play in no-limit depends heavily on the size of the stacks relative to each other and to the blinds. In addition, there are major differences in the play of certain types of hand as compared to limit.
With deep money relative to the blinds, hands that have even a small chance of winning your opponent's entire stack will go way up in value. Hands that won't get action from worse hands become much weaker, since they will only win tiny pots. The ideal hands for doubling through an opponent are pocket pairs and suited aces. Pocket pairs make flopped sets, which will get action from top pair or an overpair. The overpair might think that you are betting top pair, and move in on you. Top pair might overbet the pot if he thinks you are on a draw. Suited aces are good, since you might get a lot of action from a lower flush. Suited connectors are riskier, since the flushes they make are vulnerable. But when you make a straight, it will often have good deception value, since people often won't suspect a straight when the possibility exists on the board. In all of these cases, the important factor is how much money you can win relative to the cost of seeing the flop. Since the above hands will miss far more often than they hit, you really need huge implied odds to make them playable, especially in raised pots. So if the opponent doesn't have much for you to win, lower pairs, middle and lower suited aces and suited connectors are less valuable. High offsuit hands go down way down in value when the money is deep. KJo is sometimes playable in limit, since you win more on the times it's top pair holds up than you lose when it doesn't or it misses. In NL, you won't get called by a weaker hand when you bet a KJo top pair, and the only hand that bets into you that you could beat would be a bluff. So you would either win a small pot or lose a large one with this hand, and it should normally be mucked. Even AQo or AKo should sometimes be avoided. Unless your opponents play hands like AJo aggressively, AQo and AKo will run into the same problems. The amount it costs you to protect top pair often puts your hand at risk. If there is a flopped set, you're in trouble, and otherwise, your opponent can easily put you on top pair and bluff almost any possibility that comes on the board.
When the blinds are high relative to the stacks, you have to play the high offsuit hands, and you avoid hands that require high implied odds. In this game, hands like AKo are valuable, since they will get action from players who make top pair with a weaker ace or king.
Position is far more important in NL than in limit, and you have to be more careful what you play in raised pots or out of position than in limit. Drawing hands are normally avoided in early position. While cold-calling raises with mediocre hands in limit is a major error, in NL someone doing that would rapidly go broke. However, hands like a medium or small pair are playable after a raise if you can see the flop for a small percentage of your stack and the implied odds are sufficient. Position relative to the preflop raiser is also important. If there are several callers, you want the raiser betting through the field into you. You also want to know what hands your opponents raise and reraise with. When you raise with QQ or KK and your opponent reraises you, you need to know if he would possibly have a hand other than AA or KK.
"I have played in a bunch of NL tournaments and have finished at almost exactly the 80th percentile in every single one. In trying to analyze why this is, I think that it comes down to throwing away too many playable hands during the early rounds so I end up with a smaller stack size in the later rounds and get pushed around by the big stacks. Then the blinds eat me alive. I have adjusted my play somewhat with positive results. I still only get to 80%, but every tournament my relative stack size is better than the previous in the later rounds. Currently I am entering the later rounds with about an average stack size for that round(total chips/number of players left). My last two tournaments I went all in with KK and lost to 76s when he flopped two pair, and then I went all in with AJo and lost to A9s when the board contained AA9. If I had bigger stacks I could have survived both of those situations (either winning the side pot, or putting more pressure on the callers and getting them to fold)."
You may be playing too passively. Once the blinds are fairly high relative to the stacks, you need to bluff more and put more pressure on the small stacks.
A lot of good points. I read all the time how much more difficult limit HE is supposed to be than NL, but it just isn't so. It may be more arduous trying to amass chips by working small edges in limit, but truly, NL gives a player much more to think about -- and to worry about. One thing I've noticed about a lot of those small buy-in NL tournaments is that many of the players think it's just a game of stuffing your stack out in the middle pre-flop. Thus, precise play will usually put the rest of the (mostly limit) players back on their heels.
**Opinion**
The 2+2 authors are correct in that Limit offers a wider variety of different plays than does No Limit (how often do you see 2 check-raises in NL?). Since Limit offers more options, Limit is more difficult than No Limit in this sense.
In NL there are less options, but the criteria for choosing between them are much more important (conluding that the opponent is betting a flush draw is worth MUCH more in NL). Small criteria can have a HUGE affect on proper play and so must be considered carefully. Since NL requires more comprehensive analysis to come up with the best play, NL is more difficult than Limit in this sense.
"Strategy", in the sense of manipulating and anticipating the opponents, is much more important in NL than in Limit, and is therefore "more difficult" to do well.
- Louie
I can agree with all of those points. Taking the situation you described one step further, if, let's say, your opponent flops a four-flush with an underpair versus your top pair, how should you play the hand? In limit, you'll most likely just keep putting your money into the pot until he sucks out on you. But in NL, if your opponent has 13 outs on the flop and his stack is 4 times bigger than yours, you have a much more difficult hand to play.
Earl,
I'll put in my $0.02. I familiar with Mason's arguement but I believe that No Limit hold'em is more difficult than the limit variety. I don't think the correct play is all that clear all that often in No Limit. At least it isn't clear to me. I will concede that playing against weak players in No Limit makes things a lot easier. I'm sure you encountered quite a few sticky situations in the big one this year.
Tom Haley
limit or big bet, take your pick, they are both difficult to play well and require different thought processes. of course big bet is much more scary and takes more heart. if you are not afraid to back your convictions with your whole stack there is nothing wrong with that and thats the kind of heart you are going to need in big bet. if the idea of putting your whole stack in the middle without a cinch dosnt appeal to you, there is nothing wrong with that either, and limit offers the option of calling someone down without that kind of risk. i dont know which i like better, i love them both. however i will say that i dont believe big bet should be discouraged in the card rooms for the sake of the health of the poker economey. (something like lets not break the weak players). poker is a mans game (meaning poker takes guts) and this is america so let the game begin. ive not had any problem getting a card room to allow big bet if you can come in with 5 players. the problem lies in keeping the game going as the skilled players seem to have quite a overlay. but as i said this is america and so be it. perhaps as time goes on and more people make the transition to big bet it will have a longer shelf life. which is harder? i dont know. which is more fun, depends on my mood. but as i said shuffle up and deal.
Darrell,
The problem with big bet poker being spread by cardrooms is that the "regulars" keep wanting to change the structure to keep the little guys from "taking a shot" at them. In my opinion, it is these same little guys, with their maniac tendencies that make big bet poker worth playing. I've started at least three regular big bet games and abandoned them when the "regulars" had restructured the buy-ins and the blinds to make the game unattractive to the very people I want to play against.
In the 60's and early 70's I played a lot of no limit lowball. The best games were always low buy-in with lots of people hoping to get into the game and run their $50 or $100 into thousands. I remember a game in San Luis Obispo in the early 70's where the buy-in was only 10 or 20 dollars. On weekends, it wasn't uncommon to have $15,000.00 on the table and still have guys sitting down to try their luck with a minimum buy-in. Often, that initial $20.00 would turn into multiple buys where the player might have dropped several hundred dollars. I like sitting in a game with some chips and having guys come in to try to take them away.
The no limit Mexican Poker games at the Bicycle Club have a selection of players that I love to play against. The "regulars" there are trying to restructure the buy-ins and blinds to make the game "safer" for what they perceive to be their self-interests. The result is that they have driven away the players they are favored to beat and are left with players equal to or better than themselves. With the lineup changes and the increased rake, some of the players who might have had an expectation of winning in the old game, now are in -EV territory.
One of the reasons I've decided to concentrate on the small tournaments is that they don't keep changing the structure on you. If you develop a winning strategy, you can continue extracting your +EV for a long time.
Though I doubt a consensus will be reached any time soon, I do find these discussions of the "skill" required in limit versus big bet poker to be intriguing. I don't have the answer, but I often come down slightly on the side of limit requiring more skill. I'm not sure about that, but am sure that those who argue strongly that big bet poker requires more skill generally make it seem much more black and white than it really is. Anyone who has real depth of knowledge in either form (loosely lumping pot limit and no limit together here) will realize that that form presents a nearly bottomless well of opportunity for learning more and acquiring more skill.
Here are just a few random comments that I hope can add to the discussion:
These debates usually suffer from a lack of clear definitions. I'm not offering a solution, but obviously there's a problem when two different people mean two different things by the word, "skill".
There is a common tendency incorrectly to equate magnitude of edge with skill. Again, it's tough to pin down a precise definition of skill to use in these discussions, but it seems clear that it's not the same thing as edge. As an example, suppose two people are out hunting moose. (Discliamer: I am not a hunter and am not condoning it.) One person is using a high powered hunting rifle. The other is using just a knife. Now, which has the greater edge? Which requires the most skill?
Two other threads have appeared which provided some good insights into this topic: One was here on 2+2. In the archives see the thread started by D Poker on 5/19/98, titled "Limit, pot limit, or no limit". In that thread Ray Zee made some interesting points which, as he is one of the few people around with a reputation for being highly skilled in both limit and big bet poker, should be carefully considered.
For the other go to www.dejanews.com and do a power search for the RGP thread started by Jeff Alexander (easiest to do a search for his name as it appears to be his only RGP post to date) on 10/12/98, titled "pot limit vs no limit hold'em". See the posts in that thread by "drubenst" and Steve Brecher.
John Feeney
John,
I am in the camp that believes limit and big bet require separate and different skills. I have won large sums in NL from players who would destroy me in limit. The qualities that serve limit players well in limit games often doom them in NL games. Trapping is a skill that is seldom used in limit, but is a necessary weapon for big bet players. The ability to make decisions based on your knowledge of whether your opponent will pay you off if you make your hand, and knowing how much or little you stand to gain by assuming a questionable risk are attributes necessary in big bet. Finally, the ability to play correctly and take measured risks knowing that one mistake can cost you all your chips is something a big bet player needs and that most limit players lack. If you can't call with your last $3,000.00 with a pair of fours when you have put your opponent on AK and he's making a move on the pot, then you need to stay in limit where the need to do so seldom, if ever, arises. NL players have to have more gamble in them than the winning limit players generally display. That said, I'd rather my daughters married winning limit players as they tend to be somewhat more stable, if less exciting, than the NL players.
wow, i dont need any of dans action. he got it down cold. as far as your question of hand rankings brunsons supersystem, is a must read, but i assume you surly must have almost memorized this by now. just in case you dont have it though i thought i would mention it. also no limit and pot limit poker by bob.
This question is similar to the NL Hand Rankings question below.
I am about to enter a winner take all HE tournament with a very substantial first prize (no other prizes). The bets start at low limit, increasing on the half hour to the final table at which time it is no limit after the flop. There are 40 players.
I have limited tournament experience but I have had some success. I found that I can play very tight in the early rounds and keep a moderate stack. I then attack the smaller stacks (usually heads up) and enter the final table with a good (but not spectacular) stack. I usually end up in the money, but I have yet to win.
Since this is a winner take all, I would appreaciate help on alternate methods. I know that many of the players will be gambling in the early rounds to build good stacks. At least one of those players will be successful and probably have a substantial stack in the middle rounds.
Should I throw caution to the wind and bet heavy in the early rounds?
Should I attempt to enter more multi way pots for maximum return?
Are drawing hands more or less valuable?
How do the moderate pocket pairs (9s to Js) rate when the players will be gambling more?
Thanx for the help.
Dan,
Since this is winner take all, tournament strategy goes out the window. You must win every chip on the table or get nothing. Play your best game regardless of stack size and there is no benefit to attacking small stakes as opposed to attacking large stacks. take advantage of any players that play to last or play in any way other than the proper way you would play in a ring game for real money. If you get to shorthanded it plays just exactly like a freeze out winner take all. You may elect to save money or make a deal but that does not alter your play usually too much. Good Luck.
When I am caught bluffing, my habit is to immediately throw my hand into the muck, reasoning that someone who called me must have a better hand, and I don't want to show people anything about how I play if it is not necessary.
It occurs to me, however, that this could encourage people to call me with absolutely nothing, since if I am bluffing, they will win without a showdown.
What do you do when you are caught bluffing? Any comments on my practice would be appreciated.
William
I never muck my cards until I see a hand that beats mine - or at least think I see one, but I won't relate that story just now.
I'll say "I missed", even if there's no obvious draw. If my opponent still refuses to table their hand, then I may call no pair, the rank of my top card, or just table my hand. I never let an opponent win without showing their cards in a showdown I'm involved in. I've won hands before when I bluffed and was called by someone that thought I was bluffing, but they still didn't beat what I held.
I've "call bluffed" other players because it was cheaper than raising their suspected bluff if they actually had the goods, and because I knew they'd throw their hand away if they were bluffing.
I would suggest that you show your hand down. The advertising value is greater that way. People tend to remember your bluff more if they actually see you turn over your cards rather than if you just muck it. That type of advertising will hopefully pay dividends when you really do hold a hand.
A second reason for turning over your cards is that it will then force your opponent to do likewise. This will then give you some insight into how he or she plays. A good player has to have the ability to change gears and constantly keep his opponents guessing as to what he has. Thus, showing my hand down causes me very little concern because I know that I may not necessarily play the same way the next time around. So, in that sense, showing my hand down may in fact confuse my opponents even more.
I routinely, and proudly, turn over my hand just as I would if it were the goods. Reasons given in the previous post apply (advertise, bluff call, ...). I rarely play against really good players, and I can "advertise" better than they can "anticipate".
The opponent may fold anyway; such as when the dealer announces "King High" the opponent assumes "King High Flush". That's called BINGO.
I've been known to accompany turning them over with "Read 'em and Weap", "TaDaaa", or "I want to see THAT hand!".
Annd... following the pregnant pause, the "Ah Ha" the opponent (and the others) experience when they figure out its not the goods emphasises the play.
Annnd... The second or so of DOUBT they experience carries over to other hands. Making them doubt makes them hesitate; and as I have suggested before, Hesitation makes them play predictably, and that's GOLD.
Annnnd... it makes me look like I was betting a weak hand, but not actually bluffing. That creates even more doubt later.
Annnnnd... it makes me a "character" which is good for MY game plan in the games I play.
Annnnnnd... I like doing it. :)
- Louie
I have been playing consistantly for the past three months at several card rooms in the SF Bay area. There is one very obvious item which leaps out on my records: I am big winner during the week and a big loser during the weekend.
I have about 200hrs of records (so its not thousands). But it seems significant enough to warrant examination. Is it the case the Mon - Thurs evening game is easier to beat then the weekend (Fri/Sat night) game?
I have noticed that some of the weekend games I have been in are "more aggressive" than the more passive weekday games. Perhaps this has something to do with it.
Thanks,
Paul
I have always found the opposite. I do really well on the weekends and not as well on the weekdays. Maybe you aren't choosing games carefully enough.
I haven't examined my records for weekends vs weekdays, but I do know that I do better earlier in the day than I do late at night. I believe that the reason for this is that I play more disciplined in a tight game. In a loose wild game I get drawn into the action too easily. This may also apply to weekday/weekend.
I have yet to beat this problem myself. It seems that I have more control over and play better against "regulars" who make up a large percentage of weekday players. I don't have nearly as good a win rate in the no foldem games that regularly go on friday and saturday nights. I think the answer lies in the essay "why easy games are hard". My theory is that you need to play more drawing hands and raise less with big cards. I know it doesn't make sense but it's late and I may be slightly innebriated. Actually what I'm saying does make sense, high pairs go down in value the more callers you have. Therefore you need to learn to thin the field when you have these hands. If you figure out how to do it please let me know.
If you just never played two big unsuited cards in loose/aggressive games you wouldn't be going far wrong. And, you have to agressivly bet good draws on the flop when you're getting the right price, which you usually will. You often do not get the right price tobe aggressive on the flop with top pair or overpairs. Those are the two mistakes I most often see players who do well in the weekday games make when they get in the wilder weekend games -- they overvalue top pair and undervalue draws. -- Gary Carson
I'm looking for a low limit, no rake & no smoking poker game, not too far from the Clear Lake area. I prefer Hold em.
thanks
In the future, we would appreciate if these kind of posts were put on our Exchange Forum. Just click on the word exchange in the column at the left.
I never even realized until I read your post about the "Exchange" forum that this was the place to "exchange" personal information and stories. I never even payed attention until you mentioned it in your post.....thank you. I'd imagine that there are several of us who did not realize that as well.
Thanks again for the input!
The problem is that the word exchange doesn't exist on the left. You have to go to the homepage to find the exchange forum.
I think it would be a good idea if you (2+2) made it possible to switch between the two forum-pages more easily. Maybe that will make the exchange forum more popular.
Sincerely
Emil
I have to clarify myself. I usually use the link at Dan's poker page to get to this site. If you do it that way, it's impossible to switch between the two form-sites.
From now on I will bookmark this site. Good, another problem solved.
Sincerely
Emil
TLO:
This must be your lucky day!! I have lived in the Houston area for 20 years and have been hosting a poker game of one sort or the other since I moved here. I currently live in Katy and we have a $3-6-12 game every other Friday night. In fact there is a gentlemen that comes from Webster to play with us all the time (about a 40 minute ride). Just recently we decided to add Omaha to our repertoire, and now play Hold-em and Omaha every other Friday. This is strictly a "friendly" home game (by invitation only) with no rake and played at a house in which the owner (and player) built a 1000 sq. ft. game room specifically designed for poker (no smoking).
I have compiled a list of over 25 active players who love to play and enjoy the commraderie. If you would like to hear more about it call me at work: 281-531-2477. In fact, this Friday, I am unusually short of players and could use one more. Give me a call
I´m thinking of playing poker on Internet for real money. Is that a bad idea? Does anybody have experience from playing at www.planetpoker.com ?
Thanks
Mike C
It's not a bad idea. It's the worst idea you've ever had. -- Gary Carson
The main problem with online poker is the chance that your opponents are cheating. This assumes that the provider of the poker server is honest (which may not be the case). Cheating is enough of a problem in home games - imagine the possibilities for fraud when you can't even see your opponents. E.g. you could be up against 7 players, and 3 of them could be collaborating against the others - over the phone, or over the net. The only circumstances under which i would consider internet poker for real money would be i) if i knew the site i was using was reputable; ii) if the stakes were small iii) if i knew all the players personally from casino or home games. Then again, it's your money, and if you want to risk it, feel free - just don't be too surprised if you don't do as well as you think you should.
Matt
I've played it...you take a risk that the other's are cheating but I wanted to check it out and had a $100 to blow...I ended up cashing out a $100 ahead...received a check in the mail....game seems legit...I'm sure cheating is prevalent but not rampant. And for those who thinks it's entirely crazy because people can cheat then I'd like to introduce them to a friend of mine who I won't set at a table with so he can play a nice "even" game with them. He'd love to do it and he has some friends he knows that would like to play too. Also, unless you are an addicted gambler you aren't going to stick around if you lose all the time anyway. It's in the poker servers best interest to keep the game honest...The one thing you would have to worry about is collusion by players. It wouldn't be difficult to do that in theory but I'm of the opinion that top players who would actually be able to take advantage of the situation have better things to do...I'll probably play again.
I often play in a 50 cent limit home game with a bunch of friends. During one hand of seven stud high, I was dealt aces wired, and seeing my good fortune, decided to sandbag the first few rounds. This worked well to build the pot, but with two cards yet to be seen, I started betting the limit. This drove everyone out but one guy, who had jacks showing. I figured him for two pair, jacks up. He often likes to go in with inferior cards, and as usual called all my bets until the end. After the last card, I hadn't filled up, but when he turned over his last card, he HAD filled up, two's full. The worst thing of it, a jack had been folded, and I had a two in my hand. Of course, he took a nice pot, as pots go in a 50 cent limit game, and I was disappointed. Did I play that hand right to slow play, or should I have tried to force out the player who stays in with just a glimmer of hope? All responses appreciated.
First of all you have to understand some of the basic reasons many players do not fold in a very very low limit stud game.....for sure it has nothing to do with player position, strategy or pot odds, but rather with for the sheer thrill of action, drawing cards and just playing the game. The guy that beat you obviously had either a pair of dueces wired, or J-2-X, in order for him to have filled up J's full of 2's with a pair of J's showing on the board. You would think though, if you came out strong and raised with your A's that he might have folded early and you win right there......but on the other hand if he is the type of player who does not care about paying off a few raises to play, you loose anyway.....damned if you do and damned if you don't!!!
My best advice to you if you are in that situation again is to make the players who are drawing "pay to beat you". At least this way you have played your best to win and if you are drawn out on, well, so be it and move on to the next hand.
Poker is still a game of chance at any skill or stake level, and granted there is, in my opinion much more skill that luck required to win. But regardless of how you play, or for how much you play, you'd better have the best hand at the showdown to win the money.
Keep hanging in there....try hold-em some time and you will probably give up stud!!
Good Luck!
[Slow played 3-Aces in Stud, pair jacks ran me down...]
If your choices are to raise and win a small pot now, or slow play now and induce the pair to pay to the river, then since your hand is SO STRONG that you should gladly slow-play. Few situations are that strong.
But ... You should already be aware whether the field is going to call YOU on 3rd street or not. In home games, they usually DO call even though they are sure they are beat, since they want to see most of the cards before giving it up. If you can expect 3 or more calls then certainly raise now. I guess even 2 calls will deny "slow playing" as a reasonable option.
Notice that raising on 3rd street DOES disquise your hand, since everybody else will assume you would slow play trips.
I'll mis-quote Mr. Skanski: Slow play when they are unlikely to call now, likely to make a hand to call later, and unlikely to make a hand later that beats you. Few situations qualify.
The "main" reason to slow play, in my opinion, is to disquise your other bad hands, not to disquise THIS good hand.
- Louie
PS. Betting or raising a few times with draws, such as 4-flushes, offers home players plenty enough encouragement to call you when you have the real goods, like rolled up.
These hands give me trouble... especially in early, or middle position.
In these positions, in a low-lim (5-10) game that is fairly loose, I am not sure if I should play these hands. I will usually call the blind on the button or late (unraised), but in early position, these hands just don't seem to win as much as they get beat! (loose game....lots of guys catching that river card)
What do you guys think???
Thanx.. David M.
>>...in early position, these hands just don't seem to win as much as they get beat!<<
You're right. They're really not even close to being playable early. And the K9 is probably most often not even playable late.
John Feeney
I won the biggest pot of my life w/ K10-off, so there you go.
I know a guy who won a very nice low limit pot with 32o. I had AA, another guy had AKs, KK, and QQ. Needless to say, all bets were capped. Flop was complete rags. Turn was a 3, river was a 2. The guy just smiled like he made a killer choice playing that trash. Did that make me want to start playing 32o? Hell no. What good can come from a hand like that? You need at least 2 helping cards to make a hand, and its a weak hand at that.
I saw a guy win a huge pot with K-9 off once! It was almost enough to make me start thinking about playing this hand once in a while - NOT!
In my view, they don't call K-9 "canine" for nothing...it's a dog hand. If there happens to be a raise behind you, I don't know how you would go about playing the hand after the flop. Even if you hit your king, you can't be sure where you stand. In fact, even if the flop is Q-J-10, there is a fair chance that you will be second best (the raiser might be holding big slick).
Save the aggravation. Muck the "canine".
I'm not saying you should play K9o every time you get dealt those cards. But some situations warrant playing those cards. If you're on the button, everybody calls a single bet preflop, you have K9o and don't call, then you're playing a little tight. You're just hoping to flop trips, two pair or a straight and then make a monster pot. It's only costing you 1 SB in the hopes of winning 10+ BB. That's the difference between a good night and a great night.
I agree wholeheartedly. My initial post was directed at the wisdom of playing K-9 in early or mid position.
I concur.....
David M.
Steve writes:
>>If you're on the button, everybody calls a single bet preflop, you have K9o and don't call, then you're playing a little tight. You're just hoping to flop trips, two pair or a straight and then make a monster pot. It's only costing you 1 SB in the hopes of winning 10+ BB.<<
I have to cast a "no" vote here. If you're on the button with K9o, and everyone ahead of you limps in, what do you have? You have a hand that's garbage in most situations (Exceptions include some stealing possibilities as Andrew Wells described.), that's absolutely *terrible* multiway, facing an extreme multiway pot. Even KT would be fairly worthless here. *Perhaps* an all-star world class player could eke out a tiny profit in this spot aginst a weak lineup. Most players will probably give up to trouble situations more than what they win when the flop hits them hard. Muck, muck, muck.
John feeney
I agree. The fact that HPFAP says these hands are playable on the Button, in an unraised Pot, takes into account that you understand that you only want to play Group 7 and 8 hands that welcome alot of company. Even for a Half Bet, against many opponents, hands like K,To and K,9o go right down the Tubes. Now if the Pot is Short Handed, thats a whole different story.
CV
skp:
Thanx for the response. Our thinking is identical. Even when you hit your hand (flop a pair), it is either the KK with a terrible kicker, or a middle pair with good kicker. The straight draw is what attracts many people to this hand, and then it can usually beat because of someone holding an ace....
It's a cheese hand, overall... maybe play on the button with a weak field.
Thanx again...... David M.
I play a lot of Turbo HE (because I live in Japan and there is no HE to be found for about 4000 miles). One of the things I look at are hands that I consistently lose money on...KT and KJ are always two of the biggest (even suited). I gave up on K9 in just about any situation long ago.
If you swore off ever playing either hand in any position for the remainder of your playing days, I think you would be quite a bit richer. Obviously, there are times to play a hand like this (heads-up this plays reasonably well), but almost never in a loose game from early position.
Have you tried irc poker? It's free, and you should be able to connect to the server from Japan. Let me know if you want more info, I'll post where to get it.
I start playing (usually raise) both these hands from early or middle position if what was previously a loose game has now become shorthanded (five or less players). Both hands have semi-steal value on or next to the button in a full game provided everyone has folded up to you. I may sometimes call from late position against one early limper with the KT. Otherwise I agree with all other posters, that these hands are worse than trash up front in a full ring. Play them and you'll usually end up paying off the winner with second best.
So everyone agrees k9,k10 are bad hands up front. Most said they wont play them in the back. Since it is a small stakes loose game we are talking about, would you think k10 would not have a positive earn on the button against almost random hands from weak players. Then you are saying weak players out of position with almost random hands will show a profit against you when you have k10 on the button.
Well, let me tell you how it is, Ray (heh, heh ;-)). The KT is clearly better than the K9, so in this situation the decision (play or fold) is often going to be more borderline. The weaker the opponents, and the closer their hands are to random, the more likely I am to play the KT in this spot. In a typical loose, small limit game opportunities to play it should be more frequent.
As the players get trickier and more aggressive, and the hands become more rational, then I think the KT becomes weaker and weaker. This would be more likely to happen as you get into higher limits. Say I'm playing 20-40 and a couple of tight, solid players just happen to limp early, then Ray Zee (killing time waiting for his 200-400 seat) happens to call, then a couple of average to decent players limp in too, and I'm on the button with KT. Well that hand is going into the muck at warp speed.
This seems closely related to a post David wrote recently in response to John R. about the problems with a simulation showing KT doing well by raising on the button against a lineup of random hands. It did well, partly because the opponents' hands were just random. (See the recent archives for John R's Oct. 18 post, "Hand Values Multiway".)
It's also close to the topic of David's "Another Gambling Paradox" essay in _Getting the Best of It_. He shows there how a hand that is a solid favorite against one other hand (especially a hand like, say, 65s, which occasionally turns into a big hand), and even the most likely to win against two other hands, can become the least likely to win once you start adding in additional opponents.
So, like so much in poker, I think it comes down to the situation. As David said some months ago in the famous Q5o thread (started by that trouble maker Tom Haley I believe ;-)), against a reasonable, not really weak, lineup 'maybe Ray Zee could turn a small profit on the hand', but other players had best wait for a better situation.
John Feeney
I'm interested in comments on my play on this hand:
I had 8d7c in the small blind. Two fairly weak players called -- one from an early position; the other from a late position. I called.
Flop was JT9 with two spades. I bet; the big blind called all-in. The first weak player raised; the second one folded. I called the raise.
Turn and river were blanks, and I checked and called. I won't tell you what he showed, yet . . .
I assume this was a limit tournament. If so, I think a re-raise on the flop is mandatory (if he pops you back, you can be more cautious). Obviously there are only two hands that beat you now, but a lot of hands that can catch up to you so you want to extract a price because you are probably ahead...would a weak player not raise UTG with KQ (I have seen much lesser hands raised here.
If he does not re-raise lead into him on the turn and river.
I think it depends on what you mean by weak player. Some weak players would have me beat on the flop, I'd be so sure of it I would have folded to the raise. Other weak players I'd have reraised on the flop, to go ahead and get as much money in the pot while I was still best. Buy, then I'm not really a tournament player.
Gary Carson
I'm gonna make a wild guess to what he showed: Q8s.
Well, he showed wired kings. So I won the side pot, and split the main with the big blind, who also had 87o! I don't really know the player's tendencies that well, except that he loses a lot. I'm still not sure if I should have been more aggressive or not. I guess that shows I need to observe my opponents more closely!
One other thing about the situation I forgot to mention in my original post . . . there were 8 players left, 5 places paid. A big bet was T1000, and his stack before the showdown; mine was only slightly larger. This was of course a reason to be conservative.
William
What's everybody's opinion of the limits to be spread at Bellagio viz. those at The Mirage listed in the new Card Player; x(15-30) games at B, x(10-20) at TM? Specifically, how will the 15-30 affect the 10-20 & 20-40? My guess is some of the 10-20 dayshift super rocks will move to 15-30 and some of the better 20-40 regulars will take a shot at 30-60. Being as the lists might be shorter and move quicker, and some more meat could get the chance to try 20-40 (think about some of the "big eyes" on the rail at TM, looking at the mountains of red chips), TM could be fun around the holidays/Super Bowl. The 10-20 might be very nice.
IMO the 15-30 will be an absolute abbatoir for any "high end resorter" unfortunate enough to stumble in it (though a couple rocks will get broke for not adjusting properly), and some folks will book truly monstrous winners (and losers) in 30-60 for the first few months.
Will the x(15-30) O8 games have a kill or not? Will the daily 10-20 O8 game move to B? Has anyone played at B yet? Does B make the local slobs clean up their dress/behavior?
Would you mind posting your bankroll requirements article from Poker World on the essay section here? A nice article on several counts.
BTW in Oct '96 we played together in a 20-40 Omaha game. I told you how I read "Biggest Game in Town" in New Yorker magazine. Remember your 'most outs ever' hand? :)
My previous post reminded me of a couple things....
1. In 'Biggest Game in Town', Alvarez confuses two forms of poker. What were they?
2. The Stephen King poker story, "The Man Who Would Not Shake Hands", contains a comical error. What was it?
3. Anybody notice anything wrong with the final hand in "Rounders"? NOTE - I have poor eyesight so I may be wrong about this.
BONUS - In "King of a Small World", a quasi-celebrity's name is mis-spelled. Anybody catch it?
Yes, I know, I DO need a life......
The error in stephen kings story is that the guy did not take the pot he won!! hehe. I read that story about 6 months ago, but cannot remember. I'll re-read it this weekend and tell what I think. BTW, is this an poker error to be looking for??
Good point! I missed the haystack looking for a needle.:) Yeah, it's a poker error, similar to movies & videos where they have chessboards set up the wrong way...
Don't keep me in suspense forever.
Rick Bennet
Should "The radio is on and Snap is rapping.", be "..Snoop is rapping." ? :) Fantastic book BTW....
I enjoyed "King of a Small World", anything else in the works?
Ah! I'm off the hook--"Snap" is correct. (I ain't no Snoop Dog fan). As to other work, I did have a second novel released, two years ago I guess, but it didn't have any poker in it. I'm currently working on a third book, crime fiction set in the gambling world, promised to my agent by January. It isn't a sequel to King Of A Small World, but will have some of the same characters, including the narrator (although it's written in the third person). Thanks for asking, Rick Bennet
.
George, the storyteller, had made his flush with the King of hearts. Baker had 4 kings, which is impossible without cheating.
Starting in poker several years ago, I learned high low stud from Ray's book, and quickly turned from beginner to winner. Now, with omaha, the high low book has continued to make me money. Seeing his insightful and genuiely helpful posts here today, and thinking of the book that got me out of Big Boy's kitchen, I decided to take a moment just to say thanks, Ray.
Sincerely, Peter
ive worn the cover off all my advanced playes books, of course i now have second or third copies. i agree. thanks ray, mason, and dave.
I flopped it in late position. I have 56s flop comes 556. I smooth call all the way to the river. Then raise. bettor calls. By the way we are three way before the turn. Third guy folds, after the turn. So should I have raised before the turn ?? Would I have made more ? I suppose he (never showed the hand) had a 5 too. but initially I put him on a big pair maybe JJ or QQ, even as the pot was never raised. If he was playing A5s I should have raised I guess. The opponent was early pos.
I am no "expert" but here's my take.
I think that several factors affect your decision. I comment on just two of them:
Firstly, you have to think about what your opponent will think you hold if you raise. Lot of that is of course dependant on your "image" and playing style (either generally or for that playing session or for that particular hour or two in that playing session). If you have been playing tight and not yet made it two bets on the turn without a real hand, then you may scare off your opponent with a raise on the flop or on the turn. On the other hand, if you have been playing aggressively and using position to your advantage all along, a raise may in fact entice a re-raise (I think your opponent would surely have made it 3 bets if he was holding A-5).
Secondly, the texture of the flop is also important. Was it rainbow or was it suited? If it was suited, I would be more inclined to raise. If your opponent was semi-bluffing a flush draw, he will likely call your raise. Now, if he hits his flush on the river, he may checkraise which would then allow you to make it three bets. Even if your opponent is betting an overpair (as you suspected), it may be better to raise on the turn when there is a flush draw showing on the flop. This is because if the flush card hits on the river, your opponent may be scared into checking his hand. In other words, if a scare hard hits, you may not get a chance to raise on the river - so why not do it on the turn.
In general, I tend to raise a lot on the turn, Therfore, when I do really have the goods, I do put in the raise right on the turn. This helps camoflauge those times when I'm raising with less than a monster hand.
On a somewhat related note to your topic, I think that too many players slowplay their hands at the wrong time. The other day I was playing in a loose aggressive 10-20 game. I was in the big blind with J-10c. Eight players called. I raised. All 8 called the raise. The flop was a miraculous J-J-10 with two diamonds. The turn was the 9 of spades which made it two spades on the board. Let me tell ya, with that many draws out there (all drawing dead), I wasn't slowplaying at all. I managed to cap the betting on the flop and on the turn. Because of the size of the pot (and possibly because no one could put me on a J-10 having raised from the big blind before the flop), none of the draws folded. The only unfortunate aspect of the hand was that a complete blank hit on the river. I got just one call on the river from a lady who was holding A-J.
The point of the above is that you shouldn't be afraid to raise when you flop a monster. In a low to mid limit game, the drawing hands will still call you.
While I agree with what you're saying and how you played your hand, maybe not everyone was drawing dead. Certainly the lady with AJ was not and the possibility of two different straight flush draws are there according to your description.
skp,
This time you are the expert as you really got it right and your thinking gets you a gold star,however I dont have one so tough luck but good luck.
I was just reading your essay comparing rakes. My question involves analysis of this rake. Here in Florida, gambling is illegal, except on indian reservations. and some greyhound tracks which have poker rooms. These rooms play 7stud, holdem and omaha. There is a quarter ante on every hand, the house takes this as the rake. (in HE and Omaha there are also 25 and 50 cent blinds). On the first and second rounds a quarter is the bet and max three raises, the last rounds are fifty cents, again max three raises. The catch is that the pot is capped at $10 (everyone still in on the round it goes over $10 is refunded the extra.) My experience was that most players are there for fun, and 50 cent bets are really just change to most people, (not me, I'm a starving student) so the pots on a few early raises get to the max quite easily. I played only my strongest hands in He, and raised aggresively, to insure the $10 pot, my reasoning is that with 10 people at the table, it would cost me $6.50 to just see my first twenty hands. If I won one max pot on this I would probably be even, 2 wins out of twenty hands would put me ahead, then I would lose some bets that didn't make the flop and so on. Basically, I was up fifteen dollars at the end of an 4 and a half hour session, after all the rakes and dealer tips. I was very happy, but I'm not sure if this is really beatable mathematically, if the rake is too much, and if expecting to win two out of twenty hands (only playing the top starters) is reasonable. I would really appreciate someones analysis. Later.
arnt there any poker buddies you could hook up with and start your own game at home, higher stakes and no rake? mabey get the idea going where you are playing now. if they are taking the anties i dont think you can expect to beat the game.
Yeah, after reading your response about the anties I set up the math and figured in a 7 handed game, the anties are $1.75, caping the pot at $10, makes $1.75 @ 14% of 11.75 I guess a 14% rake is way to much.
I was looking at purchasing Turbo Texas Holdem, I have the demo and I do like its charts and the ability to give "advice" What do some of you out there think of the advice that this program offers? I know this game will help my game...I was just hoping I could get some feedback from some of you that have this program. Thanks in advance!
Walleye
Don't take its advice. Other than that I think its the best Hold'em game on the market.
CV
forget the advice, definnetly by the software.
The old DOS TTH was pretty weak. But I hear, but do not know, that the Windows version has significant strategy improvements, notably the ability to remember what has already happened on previous rounds (no more capping with the Q flush on the turn, against the nut flush, and then capping it again on the end, against what is still the nut flush).
"Advice" is just what one of the "good" programmed personalities would do in your situation. Whoopie Do.
TTH is probably the best on the market. However, deriving or demonstrating elegant strategies from any such game is out of the question. Their BEST use is for raw beginners to gain familiarity with mechanics (such as clock-wise, what is a flop, check-raise, cannot check-then-bet etc.) and with basic strategic concepts (dangers of small kickers, underpairs rarely win a showdown when someone else bets on the river, dangers of small flushes when 4 are on board, etc.). And all of this quick and cheap in the safety of one's home.
Once you can beat the computer opponents easily then stop playing. You will likely learn IMPROPER strategies.
But TTH can be used for some crude hot-and-cold hand evaluations, and CAN be used for crude adjustments in strategy. This can be done by programming a personality and playing a few million hands with it against a particular line up of opponents, then changing one feature of the personality, then playing another few million hands, and comparing results. Programming personalities was tedius and probably still is in the Windows version.
IMO: Windows TTH is not much of a serious learning tool, but is a great raw beginners learning tool and a "fun" computer diversion. ... But no-where near as "fun" as Master of Orion ... :)
- Louie
It's a "typical" 10-20 or 15-30 hold'em game. I'm in middle position (maybe 5th) preflop. Everybody who acted before me have folded, and I have a medium pair like 6's, 7's or 8's. What do you think I should do?
The problem is that it doesn't seem to matter whether I raise or call, I still often get about 3 callers. This puts me in a troublesome situation. If overcards come on the flop it almost always seem to hit someone, and I don't get trips often enough (7.5-1) to make this play profitable. But the hands intuitively seem strong enough to play from this position.
I find myself in a situation where I don't know if I should raise, call or fold. What do you think?
Sincerely
Emil
This is kinda off the subject,and I don't mean this as a Put Down because we all know Poker is a very tough game. But if I was asking your question I think I'd also be stepping back down to the 4-8/6-12 games.
CV
Chirs,
Perhaps you're more ready for $10-20 and $15-30 than you think.
Tom Haley
I guess I should have made it more clear that I personaly don't play above 6-12 at this time. Experience and Bankrole have alot to do with it. That being said, I deduced by the way the question was worded that Emil possibly has other basic issues that need to be looked at before hitting the Middle Limit games. The Best way I thought of handling that would be to Play a winning game at the Lower Limits while Studying and Participating in this Forum.
CV
CV,
I partly agree with you. If I (somehow) know that I'm going to get three callers if I raise or call, I'm totally sure that I would prefer calling. In that case raising is out of the question.
But the main question is if I should call or fold? I have at least 3-1 in the pot when the flop comes plus the implied odds. The answer to that question doesn't seem obvious to me but if you think it's so easy, why don't you come and visit me in the 10-20 games and show me how it should be played?
Happy Halloween everybody!
Emil
I'm sure I'll get to you sooner or later, just be patient. ;-)
Later, CV
P.S- I don't think calling is the best play, but I guess thats debatable.
let me quote bobby, in supersystem. the small pairs and small connectors are hands you want to play against a lot of players. (i would place sevens, eights, possibly nines, and of course below sevens, in this catagory). When i get these hands, i have to decide haow it looks likke the pot is going to be played. there are three types of pots that can come up. l. the first type is where one person ina n early position calls and everybody passes to me. i pass, too, because ther is no reason for me to play a short handed pot without a premium hand, with perhaps one more player who may come in behind me. worse yet i may get raised form someone behind me. then i have to put in more money before the flop in a pot where i dont expect to win much, even if i do make the best hand. if im going to play a light (weak) hand in limit, i whant to have the chance to win a big pot with it. unquote. unless you think your chances of stealing are so good that you dont even have to look at your cards, i would dump these light hands in shorthanded pots.
First, notice that two eights is a significantly better hand in this spot than two sixes. Second, you need to realize that the worse situation with these hands is to get precisely two or three callers with you in the middle. If you limp and this is happening you shouldn't have limped. Raising (or perhaps folding) might be the better play. If you raised and this keeps happening, then you probably would have been better off calling.
Here's a hint. Think about how tight the players are in the blinds, especially the big blind; and how tight the players behind you are.
Emil,
I hang out most of the time in the middle limits. Paying attention to previous hands really helps out here. As MM suggests, 2-3 callers is a catastrophe. I even don't like 4 callers. If play is tight and you think you can take the blinds or play heads-up then I like a raise for value and balance for your premium raising hands. If you think you can get at least 4 callers then calling most likely would be the best play. If in the situation you describe you ge exactly 2 or 3 callers, then folding is my first choice.
I usually kick myself when I raise in early position and get two loose callers behind me with something like Qjo and A9o (CA game) and the BB calls. Then I wish that I would have noticed earlier that these guys have been calling and just calling may bring on another two callers.
If the last five hands have been chopped, and players are folding AQo and 88 to a raise, then I'll even raise with 22 under the gun.
How tight the game is especially of the players still to act determines how to play these hands. Also, often overlooked is how these hands complement the play of your other hands. That is if you are an S&M by the book player, you may play it differently than if you were a "mad genius" type. Any way may be correct depending on your overall stategies.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Although the advice to try to guess, based on past hands whether 2-3 people will call, sounds good, it doesn't strike me as workable. you might be able to discern whether 1 person will call your raise etc., but so much depends on the cards in their hands. sure, you can get a feel for how they are playing, but just as often, you could fold, and watch as the blinds chop after no one else comes in. besides, we are talking about 1 bet. medium pairs are a perfect vehicle to mix up your play, and you can adjust your play depending on how many players call. The only time I would not raise, is if these people were playing every hand with trash hands. I certainly wouldn't fold though. I would imagine that with these types of players thatthe implied odds would be good, so even if you raise and don't get the proper odds initially you could easily make up for it as they chase you to the river. And that would be more my criteria as to what to do. Do they call before the flop with almost anything, but play good after, or do they continue to chase. Seeya
The answer is so simple it is obvious.
If you know you are going to get three callers, and this is perceived to be a bad situation then simply fold your hand.
oh my god,... look what the cat drug in.
Quotes: Queens or Jacks - One caller is good!
If the pot is raised in front of me, I just call with QQ, JJ, TT unless I am trying to be deceptive.
Do not 3-bet this hand.
One author says it is Mandatory to raise or reraise to narrow the field.
I'm confused!- I trust your advice. What do you say?
Bob,
If the raiser is tight with his raises than you are more likely to be up against a bigger pair. A call or fold may be in order after deciding how good his hand is likely to be. If he raises frequently with big cards smaller pairs or messes around alot you must reraise in this spot. It is real important to try and not be in the middle with a player behind you that may muck up the play of your hand. If it is a loose game you may want to just call to pick up many callers as that is much better than maybe just two or three others. Remember you have a good hand and position on the raiser and if he is not a real strong player you should be real happy to be head up with him. Good Luck.
When I have found myself in a game where most of the players seem to play reasonably well, and not too loose, I look for an opportunity to UNDERPLAY a good hand if possible. It's not always the smartest thing to do, but what it does is it makes my opponents uncomfortable, and gives me an opportunity to steal quite a bit more and clear the decks easier. This goes along with a tight image. an example is I get dealt a pair of jacks or queens, and I call a raiser. I make a set on the flop and just call the player who is betting, when I should definately be raising. I want to show it down, and be very under aggressive. When I do so, it usually causes typical players to react with confusion, even anger for my unusal play.it doesn't have to be trips, it can be top pair when you have the probable best hand. Anyway, after a couple of these plays, I usually get them running scared when I start raising.It really has worked well for me, as usually you see people advertising aggressive play with bad hands and then tightening up etc.. The opposite works just as well if not better. What to you think??
You've found my secret weapon. I've mentioned this a couple of times but people don't realize how devasting this strategy can be against intelligent players(only). It almost disorients good players when you check and call down with clearly the best hand and show down. it needs to be done a few times to varying degrees. what it does is to disarm them. Even when they have top pair etc, they will be reluctant, and some will try to underplay to "PayBack". But that's okay because what it does for you is set the stage. but you must change gears in order to take advantage. My experience with this is players won't want to get in their with you on the flop unless they are strong, and then it's like they were playing with the cards face up. It increases your chances of taking the pot on the flop when you get a couple of players in front of you, and you raise. You must have a monster if you didn't raise on those other hands, right? Of course, like anything else, it isn't the holy grail, but I think it can have tremendous results.seeya
I like to do this also but have gotten caught short depending on the flop. Flopping a set and not raising to protect can be dangerous if there's a a two flush or two straight out there. If I didn't raise and the flush/straight is made and I don't fill up I feel like a jerk even though I might have lost anyway. They might drop on the flop with my raise.
If anything, this play induces me to call. It's not unlike a tournament where an opponent makes too large bet in a spot indicating he is most likely on a steal.
I think underplaying good hands can be correct once in a while, primarily for deceptional purposes, but most of the time I think the costs are far too high to make this play profitable.
1) When you are underplaying a hand you are costing yourself money, but you expect to earn it back (+ more) on future hands when your opponents have become confused. One problem is that good hands are rare and far between. When you are underplaying a couple of good hands early in a session you are costing yourself money, but when it's time to start winning it back, the "confused" players might already have left...
2) If you allow somebody, who would have folded if you had raised, to win the pot, then as HPFAP (p 50) says: "you have allowed a mathematical catastrophe to happen".
3) During the time when you are underplaying your hands, your opponents may start to think that you are a weak-tight player, since you didn't raise when you clearly had a premium hand. In that case your opponents can turn tricky and try to run you over. I prefer a tight-aggressive image.
But as long as it works for you, keep doing it. Maybe it suits your image and style of play.
Sincerely
Emil
I tend to agree with Emil. I usually never slowplay unless I flop quads or a straight flush. I play the lower limits where most people will call a raise, when they shouldn't even call a single bet. I think the section on slowplaying in HPFAP was one of the most useful ones in that book. Slowplaying one pot in the wrong spot can totally change your results in one session. I always prefer to lose one extra bet than to lose the whole pot. Good luck.
I am interested in finding some low-limit hold 'em games in Mississippi. Where are the best places to look?
Just a reminder that this type of post should go on our exchange forum.
I'd be pleased to put it there if I knew where that was... (First time reader.) Please help.
Beth....
Look to left of this webpage...... under "Forums" there are choices.....
(we are in Theory/Strategy now!)...
Just click on "Exchange"
Who makes the Best Poker Hand Analyzer now days? I wanted to run some Hot/Cold Sims for 7 Card Stud, but I lost my Shareware Program when I upgraded my PC. I thought I should get a better Program anyway.
Thanks, CV
Chris,
Mike Caro's poker probe is the best i know because it works.
Quick question....Chris, you said you had a shareware version of a hand analyzer; What is it called and where exactly did you download it from? Thanks
Donnie
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 2 October 1998, at 1:16 p.m.
Posted by: Albert Wang (AlbertWang@alum.MIT.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 1:37 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 2 October 1998, at 1:46 p.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Friday, 2 October 1998, at 3:56 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Friday, 2 October 1998, at 7:44 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Friday, 2 October 1998, at 8:06 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 3 October 1998, at 9:26 a.m.
Posted by: Roger (rkbrad@cts.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 3 October 1998, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Matt (matt_docherty@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 3 October 1998, at 9:12 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 6:34 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 6:23 p.m.
Posted by: Mike (afn03307@afn.org)
Posted on: Friday, 2 October 1998, at 6:01 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 3 October 1998, at 1:59 a.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Saturday, 3 October 1998, at 6:42 a.m.
Posted by: Mike (afn03307@afn.org)
Posted on: Saturday, 3 October 1998, at 3:34 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@planet.earthcom.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 3 October 1998, at 6:54 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Saturday, 3 October 1998, at 6:21 a.m.
Posted by: Mike
Posted on: Saturday, 3 October 1998, at 3:35 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 7:17 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Friday, 2 October 1998, at 9:24 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Friday, 2 October 1998, at 10:35 p.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 6:35 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 8:54 a.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 4:35 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 5:42 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 6:00 p.m.
Posted by: Puppytoes (thleonard@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 3 October 1998, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@planet.earthcom.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 3 October 1998, at 6:43 p.m.
Posted by: Puppytoes (thleonard@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 3 October 1998, at 7:39 p.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@planet.earthcom.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 3 October 1998, at 8:00 p.m.
Posted by: Puppytoes (thleonard@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 3 October 1998, at 10:33 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 4 October 1998, at 1:54 a.m.
Posted by: JW (jboling@siemens-psc.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 4 October 1998, at 5:15 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: Puppytoes (thleonard@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 8:06 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 12:31 p.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 5:39 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 4:08 p.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 8 October 1998, at 4:26 a.m.
Posted by: JW (jboling@siemens-psc.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 8 October 1998, at 4:34 p.m.
Posted by: Puppytoes (thleonard@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 8 October 1998, at 7:53 p.m.
Posted by: Stephen H. Landrum (slandrum@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 4 October 1998, at 2:40 p.m.
Posted by: joey (Blitz504@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 7:36 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 7:56 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 3 October 1998, at 7:24 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 3 October 1998, at 9:24 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Saturday, 3 October 1998, at 10:59 p.m.
Posted by: John Harding (jharding@direct.ca)
Posted on: Saturday, 3 October 1998, at 11:06 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Saturday, 3 October 1998, at 11:35 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 4 October 1998, at 1:42 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@primenet.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 4 October 1998, at 4:21 p.m.
Posted by: Al Raiseya
Posted on: Sunday, 4 October 1998, at 11:24 p.m.
Posted by: Al Raiseya
Posted on: Sunday, 4 October 1998, at 11:25 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 7 October 1998, at 2:07 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@sierra.campuscw.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 10 October 1998, at 4:12 p.m.
Posted by: Jayman (Jaman289@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 4 October 1998, at 7:48 a.m.
Posted by: gary carson
Posted on: Sunday, 4 October 1998, at 10:56 a.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mphunter@qnx.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 4 October 1998, at 11:04 a.m.
Posted by: ChuckE (chuck@ms.com)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 10:36 p.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 11:20 a.m.
Posted by: Max (wenmax@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 4 October 1998, at 11:41 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel McGilvry (McGilvry-COLO@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 9 October 1998, at 9:15 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 4 October 1998, at 11:55 a.m.
Posted by: jtf (jtf9@juno.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 4 October 1998, at 2:27 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 4 October 1998, at 4:10 p.m.
Posted by: DegenerateG
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 3:35 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 8:51 a.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 7:48 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 11:45 p.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 8 October 1998, at 1:36 a.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 6:17 p.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 8 October 1998, at 1:32 a.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 8 October 1998, at 1:53 p.m.
Lineup of 10 Advisor_T's (untinkered with, as supplied by Wilson)
$10-$20
Auto stop point = 1000
Deal code number = 180
No card assigning, button unfrozen
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 9 October 1998, at 3:42 a.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Wednesday, 7 October 1998, at 12:19 a.m.
Posted by: Ian Haar (ianhaar@inforamp.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 8 October 1998, at 2:02 a.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Thursday, 8 October 1998, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: TIM R
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 10:28 a.m.
Posted by: john soares (moose@bignet.net)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 3:04 p.m.
Posted by: Jeffrey B. Siegal (jbs@quiotix.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 8:11 a.m.
Posted by: Sharry Mally (gaming@lfp.com)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 3:04 p.m.
Posted by: john soares (moose@bignet.net)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 3:08 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 7:07 p.m.
1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 50, 200, 1000
2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 50, 200, 1000
disappear at a slower rate last longer.
Posted by: john soares (moose@bignet.net)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 10:20 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 10:57 p.m.
Etienne
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 12:43 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 12:44 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 6:09 p.m.
Posted by: Ben A.
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 6:32 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 6:44 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 6:50 p.m.
Posted by: Ben A.
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 7:37 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 12:34 a.m.
Posted by: joey (Blitz504@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 7:18 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 7:25 p.m.
Posted by: Ben A.
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 7:48 p.m.
Posted by: Dean Martin (nafs@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 9:40 a.m.
Posted by: joey (Blitz504@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 7:29 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 8:17 p.m.
Posted by: joey (Blitz504@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 7:49 p.m.
Posted by: Tomas L (tol@2.sbbs.se)
Posted on: Wednesday, 7 October 1998, at 4:13 a.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 8 October 1998, at 4:59 a.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@sierra.campuscw.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 10 October 1998, at 3:46 p.m.
Posted by: Dean (Jagger26m@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 8:03 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mphunter@qnx.com)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 8:09 p.m.
Posted by: Dean (Jagger26m@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 8:14 p.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 11:11 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 12:53 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@primenet.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 12:28 p.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 7 October 1998, at 4:10 a.m.
Posted by: S. Doyle
Posted on: Monday, 5 October 1998, at 11:23 p.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 11:33 a.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 8 October 1998, at 4:44 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 8 October 1998, at 1:31 p.m.
Posted by: Mike (afn03307@afn.org)
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 12:38 a.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 11:42 a.m.
Posted by: Iceman
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 10:15 a.m.
Posted by: john soares (moose@bignet.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 1:31 p.m.
Posted by: Jeffrey B. Siegal (jbs@quiotix.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 8:09 a.m.
Posted by: Bill Priest (Bill@priest1.freeserve.co.uk)
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 5:51 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@Nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 October 1998, at 9:41 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Johnson
Posted on: Wednesday, 7 October 1998, at 12:03 a.m.
Posted by: ChuckE (chuck@ms.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 7 October 1998, at 3:29 a.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Friday, 9 October 1998, at 3:57 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 9 October 1998, at 8:01 a.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Friday, 9 October 1998, at 1:45 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 9 October 1998, at 4:10 p.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Friday, 9 October 1998, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 10 October 1998, at 6:12 p.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 10 October 1998, at 7:00 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 9 October 1998, at 5:31 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 9 October 1998, at 11:03 a.m.
>$45,000 per year depending on how disciplined I am.
Posted by: gary.carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Friday, 9 October 1998, at 11:33 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 9 October 1998, at 1:57 p.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Friday, 9 October 1998, at 2:20 p.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Friday, 9 October 1998, at 3:20 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Friday, 9 October 1998, at 2:53 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 2:44 p.m.
Posted by: joey (Blitz504@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 12:32 p.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 6:45 p.m.
Posted by: Derek (ederekf@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 3:18 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Friday, 9 October 1998, at 6:43 p.m.
Posted by: Kodiak Ken (wkgordon@ptialaska.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 10 October 1998, at 11:35 a.m.
Posted by: Dave Fobare (editor@the-sports-page.com)
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: Philip Bass (philbass@webtv.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 8:17 p.m.
Posted by: Dave Fobare (editor@the-sports-page.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 8:50 a.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Saturday, 10 October 1998, at 2:18 a.m.
Posted by: Jimmy
Posted on: Saturday, 10 October 1998, at 8:12 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 10 October 1998, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@sierra.campuscw.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 10 October 1998, at 3:32 p.m.
> to call in the hopes of making two pair? If it costs the > player 50 on the flop, with 600 already in
> the pot, doesn't that make a call on the flop correct?
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 10 October 1998, at 4:09 p.m.
Posted by: Gary (creepshow@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 10 October 1998, at 6:49 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 6:27 a.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Saturday, 10 October 1998, at 4:31 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 1:43 p.m.
Posted by: Matthew Bjorge (ferday@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 7:47 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 1:46 p.m.
Posted by: Matt (matt_docherty@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 10 October 1998, at 8:57 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 10 October 1998, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@Nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 10 October 1998, at 1:30 p.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 10 October 1998, at 2:52 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 10 October 1998, at 3:17 p.m.
Posted by: Erin
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 6:16 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@planet.earthcom.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 12:08 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: chas friedman (friedman@math.utexas.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 10:31 a.m.
Posted by: George M. Rice, Jr. (yorick@planet.earthcom.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 12:30 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 12:53 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 2:32 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 7:50 p.m.
Posted by: EddyDr (eddydr7474@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 3:53 p.m.
Posted by: Matt (matt_docherty@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 1:36 p.m.
Posted by: EddyDr7474 (eddydr7474@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: cutterdlr (cutterdlr@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 3:29 p.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 4:14 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 4:52 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 7:09 p.m.
Posted by: cutterdlr (cutterdlr@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 4:01 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 11:55 p.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 1:34 a.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 12:19 p.m.
Posted by: cutterdlr (cutterdlr@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 4:19 p.m.
Posted by: Jason DeWitt
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 1:31 p.m.
Posted by: cutterdlr (cutterdlr@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 4:24 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 10:14 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 3:51 p.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 6:08 p.m.
Posted by: cutterdlr (cutterdlr@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 6:37 p.m.
Posted by: EddyDr (eddydr7474@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 3:28 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 10:52 p.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 7:05 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 11 October 1998, at 11:44 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 11:18 a.m.
Posted by: JW (jboling@siemens-psc.com)
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 1:25 p.m.
Posted by: cutterdlr (cutterdlr@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 3:40 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 8:03 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 12:08 p.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 6:21 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 7:56 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 8:22 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 2:18 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 6:53 p.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 7:23 p.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 7:37 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 10:01 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 12:07 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 12:12 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 7:28 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 8:10 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 8:37 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 16 October 1998, at 8:57 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Friday, 16 October 1998, at 8:30 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 10:38 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 11:05 p.m.
Posted by: John Harding (jharding@direct.ca)
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 8:08 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 1:55 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 4:53 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 10:22 p.m.
Posted by: walleye (walleye675@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 4:52 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mphunter@qnx.com)
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 7:20 p.m.
Posted by: Monte Christensen (montec@Microsoft.com)
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 8:50 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mphunter@qnx.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 1:15 a.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Monday, 12 October 1998, at 10:53 p.m.
Posted by: joey (Blitz504@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 3:07 a.m.
Posted by: joey (Blitz504@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 3:10 a.m.
Posted by: Bradley T (blivermo@csc.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 5:05 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 11:47 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 8:11 a.m.
Posted by: joey (Blitz504@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 1:44 a.m.
Posted by: Dianne Parker (respond_to_us@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 2:31 a.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 2:58 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 10:38 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 16 October 1998, at 9:13 a.m.
Posted by: John Harding (jharding@direct.ca)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 7:25 a.m.
Posted by: demingh (demingh@innovativedesign.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: Stephen H. Landrum (slandrum@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: demingh (demingh@innovativedesign.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 8:29 p.m.
Posted by: Bradley T (blivermo@csc.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 5:54 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 1:39 a.m.
Posted by: Buggs Palooka (nafs@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 9:30 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 12:08 p.m.
Posted by: Stephen H. Landrum (slandrum@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 1:59 p.m.
(4/45)*(41/44)=164/1980: 2 on the turn, with any card but a 5 on the river
(2/45)*(41/44)=82/1980: 6 on the turn, with any card but a 7 on the river
(2/45)*(32/44)=64/1980: 7 on the turn, with any card but 7,6,5,4,3 on the river
(36/45)*(2/44)=72/1980: Any card but 2,6,7 on turn with a 6 on the river (2 and 6 on turn excluded because they were counted above)
(34/45)*(4/44)=136/1980: Any card but 2,5,6,7 on the turn with 2 on the river
(28/45)*(2/44)=56/1980: Any card but 2,3,4,5,6,7 on the turn, with 7 on the river
(3/45)*(2/44)=6/1980: 5 on turn, with 5 on river
Llew wins 580/1980 of the time after the flop (29.293%)
1.301% Outcome is a tie, positions unchanged (Llew has 2/3 of first)
80.636% Llew will lose the hand, but will still have about 1/3 chance of taking first
Posted by: FredAces (FredAces@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 2:21 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 6:08 p.m.
Posted by: FredAces (FredAces@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 5:09 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 16 October 1998, at 9:36 a.m.
Posted by: MERLE
Posted on: Friday, 16 October 1998, at 4:06 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 12:46 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 3:00 p.m.
Posted by: Roger (rkbrad@cts.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 3:20 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Sample (mtbikesamp@mcn.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 4:35 p.m.
Posted by: Karpov (cdurham@cc.memphis.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 18 October 1998, at 7:03 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 8:53 p.m.
Posted by: joey (Blitz504@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 2:48 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 1:20 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 16 October 1998, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladnerdowns.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 5:25 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladnerdowns.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 5:39 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 8:28 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 10:52 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 5:14 a.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: StrayFrog
Posted on: Tuesday, 13 October 1998, at 9:48 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Sample (mtbikesamp@mcn.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 12:35 a.m.
Posted by: walleye (walleye675@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 11:51 a.m.
Posted by: Kevin Prigge (klp@umn.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: Frank Brabec (thebrabec@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Biggie (classic647@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: Shakey Steve (sekin@spiritpos.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 11:52 a.m.
Posted by: Bradley T (blivermo@csc.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: nagurski
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 12:03 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 12:35 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 1:44 p.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 11:47 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 12:30 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 8:22 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 3:53 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 5:38 p.m.
Posted by: Max (wenmax@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 16 October 1998, at 12:24 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 16 October 1998, at 1:53 a.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 3:48 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 4:10 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 8:37 p.m.
Posted by: MERLE
Posted on: Friday, 16 October 1998, at 2:21 p.m.
Posted by: Al Raiseya
Posted on: Friday, 16 October 1998, at 4:32 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 17 October 1998, at 2:04 a.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Sunday, 18 October 1998, at 12:57 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 18 October 1998, at 7:31 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Saturday, 17 October 1998, at 4:02 a.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Saturday, 17 October 1998, at 12:09 a.m.
Posted by: chas friedman (friedman@math.utexas.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 12:49 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 10:42 p.m.
Posted by: Spielmacher (keulon@dds.nl)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 4:07 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 8:31 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Johnson
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 4:34 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 12:00 a.m.
Posted by: Willy
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 6:09 p.m.
Posted by: Larry Ciesla (LCiesla@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 16 October 1998, at 8:59 p.m.
Posted by: Tom S. (rundontwalk@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 14 October 1998, at 11:51 p.m.
Posted by: Tom S. (rundontwalk@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 12:33 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 16 October 1998, at 12:46 p.m.
Posted by: Brian (brirish@imap4.asu.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 1:52 a.m.
Posted by: ROBO (BRONZSHU@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 11:52 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 16 October 1998, at 12:51 p.m.
Posted by: brian (brirish@imap4.asu.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 1:54 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 12:50 p.m.
Posted by: brian (brirish@imap4.asu.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 1:58 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@primenet.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 8:12 p.m.
Posted by: Barb (moomoo5419@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 2:05 a.m.
Posted by: Bradley T (blivermo@csc.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 4:49 p.m.
Posted by: Barb (moomoo5419@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 12:16 a.m.
Posted by: B Anderson (butchanderson@webtv.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 1:07 a.m.
Posted by: Bradley T (blivermo@csc.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 5:57 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 3:17 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 8:43 p.m.
Posted by: ChuckE (chuck@ms.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 8:59 p.m.
Posted by: Karpov (cdurham@cc.memphis.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 18 October 1998, at 6:52 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 8:40 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mphunter@qnx.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 8:59 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 16 October 1998, at 5:57 a.m.
Posted by: Nagurski
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 12:34 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 16 October 1998, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: Max (wenmax@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 15 October 1998, at 11:52 p.m.
Posted by: Chris (Magxflet1@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 16 October 1998, at 1:52 a.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Saturday, 17 October 1998, at 2:14 a.m.
Posted by: joey (Blitz504@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 16 October 1998, at 3:48 p.m.
Posted by: Greg (nevajean@tds.net)
Posted on: Friday, 16 October 1998, at 8:47 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 16 October 1998, at 9:18 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 17 October 1998, at 1:26 a.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Saturday, 17 October 1998, at 2:01 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 17 October 1998, at 10:46 p.m.
Posted by: Joe Marcklinger (Digger49@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 18 October 1998, at 8:54 a.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 18 October 1998, at 12:00 p.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 4:31 a.m.
Posted by: Kate (kgasser@ti.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 8:39 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 18 October 1998, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: Karpov (cdurham@cc.memphis.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 18 October 1998, at 6:45 p.m.
Posted by: John Harding (jharding@direct.ca)
Posted on: Sunday, 18 October 1998, at 11:59 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: ChuckE (chuck@ms.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 12:16 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 3:00 p.m.
Posted by: Jay Dean (jden2464@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 5:05 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 6:16 p.m.
Posted by: Jay Dean (jden2464@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 11:17 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 18 October 1998, at 9:13 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 3:31 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 6:25 a.m.
Posted by: gary.carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 9:08 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 10:46 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 24 October 1998, at 3:18 a.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 2:04 a.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 1:39 a.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 8:10 a.m.
Posted by: scott
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 1:01 a.m.
Posted by: scott
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 1:03 a.m.
Posted by: John R
Posted on: Sunday, 18 October 1998, at 10:31 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 5:26 a.m.
Posted by: John R
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 4:48 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel McGilvry (McGilvry-COLO@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 8:56 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 6:20 a.m.
Posted by: Daniel McGilvry (McGilvry-COLO@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 9:20 p.m.
Posted by: James Flames (jamesgrove@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 12:44 a.m.
Posted by: ChuckE (chuck@ms.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 7:15 a.m.
Posted by: David D (david_dana@ed.gov)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 7:56 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Downs (jpd@talx.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 10:08 a.m.
Posted by: Geroncio Galicia (galicia@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 1:00 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Downs (jpd@talx.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 12:49 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: James Flames (jamesgrove@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 11:14 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 11:57 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@sierra.campuscw.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 10:38 a.m.
Posted by: David Steele (dsteele@best.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 12:21 p.m.
Posted by: Dan A. (Himally@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 12:48 a.m.
Posted by: scott
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 12:48 a.m.
Posted by: Paul Martino (paul@ahpah.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 2:25 a.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 11:31 a.m.
Posted by: Bradley T (blivermo@csc.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 1:17 p.m.
Posted by: Daniel McGilvry (McGilvry-COLO@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 8:47 p.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@sierra.campuscw.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 10:22 a.m.
Posted by: MERLE
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: Kate (kgasser@ti.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 10:14 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 12:34 a.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 11:48 a.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 11:05 p.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 4:01 a.m.
Posted by: Kate (kgasser@ti.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 5:12 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 12:32 a.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 9:47 a.m.
< Sklansky says in these games your wins will come few and far between, but will be inordinately large. Mason has said piling on loose players adds marginally to expectation, but greatly to fluctuations. My limited experience in quintessential no fold hold'em has shown both to be true. In any event, extremely loose games are far from dangerous as previously posted. >
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Saturday, 24 October 1998, at 12:36 a.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 5:16 p.m.
< Etienne, as I recall, bankroll requirements is covered the second day in Poker 101. >
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 7:43 p.m.
Posted by: Etienne (integer_007@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 6:17 p.m.
Posted by: MERLE
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 11:46 a.m.
Posted by: Kate (kgasser@ti.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 1:24 a.m.
Posted by: Paul J. Martino (paul@ahpah.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 6:08 a.m.
Posted by: Nagurski
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 12:25 p.m.
Posted by: Bradley T (blivermo@csc.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 1:08 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 2:45 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 1:13 a.m.
Posted by: Sean Carr (scarr@bkwu.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 4:52 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 11:23 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Carr (scarr@bkwu.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: Sean Carr (scarr@bkwu.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 2:10 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 3:42 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 11:47 p.m.
Posted by: TJt
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 6:46 p.m.
Posted by: ChuckE (chuck@ms.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 October 1998, at 9:04 p.m.
Posted by: gary.carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 8:41 a.m.
Posted by: ChuckE (chuck@ms.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 8:31 p.m.
Posted by: scott
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 12:30 a.m.
Posted by: A.J. (Gadway77@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 12:01 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 2:01 p.m.
Posted by: MERLE
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 3:14 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 4:27 p.m.
Posted by: A.J. (Gadway77@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 10:19 a.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 12:52 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 2:22 p.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward (AJWard@BTInternet.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 3:54 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@Nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 5:10 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 8:23 p.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 9:46 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 1:29 a.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Saturday, 24 October 1998, at 12:23 a.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 5:17 p.m.
Posted by: David (davemandell@juno.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 5:51 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 6:08 p.m.
Posted by: Masrc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 10:11 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 4:59 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 5:12 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 6:06 p.m.
Posted by: Masrc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 10:20 p.m.
Posted by: David D (david_dana@ed.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 8:47 a.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 9:25 a.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@emailexcite.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 4:36 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 7:33 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 8:49 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (Gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 3:41 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 8:06 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 9:34 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 9:57 p.m.
Posted by: gary.carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 11:28 a.m.
Posted by: Darrell (darrell@insweb.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 8:01 p.m.
Posted by: Eric Reuter (ereuter@abo.rhein-zeitung.de)
Posted on: Tuesday, 20 October 1998, at 8:08 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 2:32 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 4:22 a.m.
Posted by: Rob Nakashima (tomn@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 8:14 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 1:29 p.m.
Posted by: Rob Nakashima (tomn@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 3:14 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 6:23 p.m.
Posted by: Rob Nakashima (tomn@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 10:32 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 3:33 p.m.
Posted by: dianne parker (respond_to_us@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 3:52 a.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 8:40 a.m.
Posted by: Dianne Parker (respond_to_us@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 10:45 p.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 12:00 p.m.
Posted by: Dianne Parker (respond_to_us@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 10:47 p.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 2:07 a.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 11:50 a.m.
Posted by: SId
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 1:19 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 7:21 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 8:26 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 8:57 p.m.
Posted by: Michael Hunter (mphunter@qnx.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 9:39 p.m.
Posted by: D-X
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 11:20 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 10:36 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 3:01 p.m.
Posted by: Kevin Prigge (klp@umn.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 3:24 p.m.
> score big, move up to 40-80 and further, thus you'll
> never have to worry about things like 'image'.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 October 1998, at 11:44 p.m.
Posted by: Marc (scamp1@idt.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 1:17 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 2:28 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 1:44 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 2:46 p.m.
Posted by: joey (Blitz504@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 6:16 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Houle (RayHoule@webtv.net)
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 8:46 p.m.
Posted by: carl (ace-giovanni@my-dejanews.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 24 October 1998, at 12:58 a.m.
Posted by: joey (Blitz504@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 24 October 1998, at 11:29 a.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Saturday, 24 October 1998, at 1:02 a.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Saturday, 24 October 1998, at 1:38 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 24 October 1998, at 5:14 p.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 24 October 1998, at 7:25 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 October 1998, at 4:05 a.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 24 October 1998, at 7:38 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Saturday, 24 October 1998, at 9:03 p.m.
Posted by: joey (Blitz504@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 24 October 1998, at 10:52 p.m.
Posted by: joey (Blitz504@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 24 October 1998, at 11:18 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Sunday, 25 October 1998, at 12:27 a.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 October 1998, at 5:55 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 8:35 p.m.
> big favorite to win. Probably somewhere close to 20-1.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 2:21 a.m.
Posted by: Dennis
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 5:44 p.m.
Posted by: Lavon (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 12:47 p.m.
Posted by: Dianne Parker (respond_to_us@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 1:12 a.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 1:25 a.m.
Posted by: Dianne Parker (respond_to_us@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 2:21 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 4:03 a.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 4:30 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Houle (Ray J) (RayHoule@webtv.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 10:10 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Houle (Ray J) (RayHoule@webtv.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 11:23 a.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 12:22 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 2:58 p.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 3:13 p.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 3:15 p.m.
Posted by: BobA928674 (boba928674@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 3:23 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 5:55 p.m.
Posted by: Bradley T (blivermo@csc.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 6:24 p.m.
Posted by: joey (Blitz504@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 4:29 p.m.
Posted by: Dianne Parker (respond_to_us@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 9:34 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 8:56 p.m.
> game have an edge at a lower stake game that is new to
> him or her?
Posted by: cutterdlr (cutterdlr@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 11 November 1998, at 11:04 a.m.
Posted by: youloose
Posted on: Saturday, 14 November 1998, at 11:48 p.m.
Posted by: David (davemandell@juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 12:01 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 3:18 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 4:38 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 5:16 p.m.
Posted by: Roger (rkbrad@cts.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 10:30 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 11:28 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 6:54 p.m.
Posted by: David (davemandell@juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: Squeaky@K9Offsuit.Early (adi@vegasnet.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 2:48 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 3:22 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 12:42 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Thursday, 22 October 1998, at 10:16 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 3:15 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 3:30 p.m.
Posted by: MERLE
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 3:46 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 4:12 p.m.
Posted by: Larry Ciesla (LCiesla@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 24 October 1998, at 10:46 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 10:20 p.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 3:22 a.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 1:56 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: gator
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 3:59 p.m.
Posted by: Bob A928674 (boba928674@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 4:26 p.m.
Posted by: carl
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 4:32 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: N.B.
Posted on: Monday, 2 November 1998, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Friday, 23 October 1998, at 4:32 p.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Saturday, 24 October 1998, at 7:10 p.m.
Posted by: JimmyR
Posted on: Saturday, 24 October 1998, at 10:51 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 2:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 October 1998, at 3:54 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Stoker (jstoker@pop.uky.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 October 1998, at 10:11 a.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Sunday, 25 October 1998, at 10:48 a.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Sunday, 25 October 1998, at 11:10 a.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 2:49 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 3:23 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Sprung (josprung@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 5:55 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 8:16 p.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 12:39 a.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 1:44 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 October 1998, at 9:26 p.m.
Posted by: $2 Bill
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 12:59 a.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 3:48 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 24 October 1998, at 8:20 p.m.
Posted by: Byron Curtner (bud@aristotle.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 24 October 1998, at 10:34 p.m.
Posted by: AL raiseya
Posted on: Saturday, 24 October 1998, at 11:21 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 October 1998, at 5:13 a.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 October 1998, at 5:34 a.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Sunday, 25 October 1998, at 1:46 p.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 October 1998, at 6:24 p.m.
Posted by: albert (Albertwang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 October 1998, at 1:28 p.m.
Posted by: Chris
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 3:17 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 8:13 p.m.
Posted by: NC (nocable@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 October 1998, at 4:41 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 1:08 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 October 1998, at 5:10 p.m.
Posted by: Easy E
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 8:39 p.m.
Posted by: gary carson (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 October 1998, at 5:54 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Downs (jpd@talx.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 11:12 a.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 4:47 p.m.
Posted by: Gary Carson
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 5:48 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 25 October 1998, at 11:27 p.m.
Posted by: ChuckE (chuck@ms.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 12:11 a.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 1:57 a.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 11:59 a.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@sierra.campuscw.net)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 2:02 a.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 10:04 a.m.
Posted by: T.P
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 9:31 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Marcklinger (Digger49@ix.netcom.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 12:16 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 4:08 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 11:21 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 12:55 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 6:24 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 11:25 a.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 9:49 p.m.
Posted by: Jack (mjdaniel@softdisk.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 8:13 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 12:50 p.m.
>>3) What should I strive for in per hour rates. Is winning 1-2 hands an hour good.>>
Posted by: Bradley T (blivermo@csc.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 5:29 p.m.
Posted by: Lavon
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 6:05 p.m.
Posted by: Karpov (cdurham@cc.memphis.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 5:36 p.m.
Posted by: Lavon (gary.carson@altavista.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 9:17 p.m.
Posted by: Jack
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 7:28 p.m.
Posted by: Gary (creepshow@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 9:52 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 26 October 1998, at 11:44 p.m.
Posted by: Lavon (the artist formerly known as Gary Carson)formerly Gary Carson) (gary115@clubhouse.email.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 12:46 p.m.
Posted by: Lavon (the artist formerly known as Gary Carson)formerly Gary Carson) (gary115@clubhouse.email.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 12:54 p.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 3:51 p.m.
Posted by: Bradley T (blivermo@csc.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 6:01 p.m.
Posted by: Joe"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 7:31 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 3:17 a.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 6:34 p.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 9:27 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 10:26 a.m.
Posted by: Barb (moomoo5419@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 2:12 a.m.
Posted by: A Poker Guy! (kwon1@sierra.campuscw.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 2:56 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 10:43 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 12:15 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 7:38 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 1:34 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 3:50 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: Earl (brikshoe@iquest.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 October 1998, at 5:00 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 7:38 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 1:50 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 10:16 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 6:06 p.m.
Posted by: Big John (jhartz@jps.net)
Posted on: Monday, 2 November 1998, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 1:32 p.m.
Posted by: Dan (dredekopp@uniserve.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 1:26 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 10:28 p.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 1:30 p.m.
Posted by: Stephen H. Landrum (slandrum@pacbell.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladnerdowns.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 1:51 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 1:31 p.m.
Posted by: Paul J. Martino (paul@ahpah.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 3:41 p.m.
Posted by: Karpov (cdurham@cc.memphis.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 5:16 p.m.
Posted by: v quever (vrqprbuf@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 6:16 p.m.
Posted by: Sam (rcharley@cgocable.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 2:53 a.m.
Posted by: lavon (gary.carson@altavista.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 4:12 a.m.
Posted by: TLO (TLO@pdq.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 28 October 1998, at 11:22 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 2:44 a.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 8:25 a.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 2:05 p.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 4:49 p.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 8:17 a.m.
Posted by: Mike C (spspoker@iname.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 4:40 a.m.
Posted by: Lavon (gary115@clubhouse.email.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 4:52 a.m.
Posted by: Matt (matt_docherty@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: Dean (Jagger26m@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 7:03 p.m.
Posted by: Bill (wbg7649@garnet.acns.fsu.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 11:58 a.m.
Posted by: Marc Scher (marc.scher@uslgn.mail.abb.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 2:53 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Monday, 2 November 1998, at 12:53 p.m.
Posted by: David M. (davemandell@juno.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 4:41 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 5:05 p.m.
Posted by: Maximum Murph
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 7:43 p.m.
Posted by: Bradley T (blivermo@csc.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 12:08 p.m.
Posted by: Dave_A
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 7:51 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladnerdowns.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 8:18 p.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 1:45 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladnerdowns.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 10:48 a.m.
Posted by: David M. (davemandell@juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 11:00 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 9:20 p.m.
Posted by: David M. (davemandell@juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 10:58 a.m.
Posted by: ChuckE (chuck@ms.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 8:46 p.m.
Posted by: Bradley T (blivermo@csc.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 11:53 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 1:30 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 10:00 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 October 1998, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 5:09 p.m.
Posted by: ChuckE (chuck@ms.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 8:37 p.m.
Posted by: Lavon (gary.carson@mailexcite.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 1:02 p.m.
Posted by: William Jockusch (wildbill@wizards.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 October 1998, at 3:30 p.m.
Posted by: King of the Night Time World
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 9:27 p.m.
Posted by: BillM (billm75@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 10:34 p.m.
Posted by: BillM (billm75@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 10:47 p.m.
Posted by: Bradley T (blivermo@csc.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 12:39 p.m.
Posted by: BillM (billm75@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 1:22 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Bennet (ricbennet@nctimes.net)
Posted on: Monday, 2 November 1998, at 4:12 a.m.
Posted by: BillM (billm75@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 2 November 1998, at 12:13 p.m.
Posted by: Gator (afn03307@afn.org)
Posted on: Monday, 2 November 1998, at 1:13 p.m.
Posted by: Rick Bennet (ricbennet@nctimes.net)
Posted on: Monday, 2 November 1998, at 6:19 p.m.
Posted by: BillM (billm75@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 2 November 1998, at 8:26 p.m.
Posted by: Web^Pimp
Posted on: Saturday, 31 October 1998, at 3:36 p.m.
Posted by: PeterF (pdf@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 12:00 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 1:22 p.m.
Posted by: Andras Nagy (andrasnm@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 1:17 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladnerdowns.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 6:44 p.m.
Posted by: Sam (rcharley@cgocable.net)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 8:01 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 9:31 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 1:36 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 1:15 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 3:41 p.m.
Posted by: Walleye (Walleye675@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 1:49 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 8:37 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 1:11 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@Earthlink.Net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 4 November 1998, at 12:36 p.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Friday, 30 October 1998, at 8:53 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (thaley@nmia.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 October 1998, at 10:46 a.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 October 1998, at 3:08 p.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 October 1998, at 6:23 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 October 1998, at 9:37 p.m.
Posted by: Darrell Danfield (DPOKER@AOL.COM)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 1:06 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 October 1998, at 4:51 a.m.
Posted by: Albert (AlbertWang@alum.mit.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 3:11 a.m.
Posted by: AL Raiseya
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: Peter Frayley
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 4:02 p.m.
Posted by: al raiseya
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 11:19 p.m.
Posted by: Bob Morgan (Bob@Nationalbooking.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 October 1998, at 12:42 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Saturday, 31 October 1998, at 8:08 p.m.
Posted by: billy
Posted on: Saturday, 31 October 1998, at 5:05 p.m.
Posted by: AL R.
Posted on: Saturday, 31 October 1998, at 6:53 p.m.
Posted by: bundo (mbarry1@nycap.rr.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 12:00 a.m.
Posted by: Scott
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 10:10 a.m.
Posted by: Emil (elg57@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 2 November 1998, at 1:54 a.m.
Posted by: Steve (melanie_quintin@msn.com)
Posted on: Monday, 2 November 1998, at 3:06 a.m.
Posted by: Beth
Posted on: Saturday, 31 October 1998, at 10:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@TwoPlusTwo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 October 1998, at 11:00 p.m.
Posted by: Beth
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 5:15 p.m.
Posted by: David M. (davemandell@juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 2 November 1998, at 1:42 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 31 October 1998, at 11:27 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 11:33 a.m.
Posted by: donnie rowe (donnie_rowe@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 1 November 1998, at 11:51 a.m.
The Gambling Forum October 1998 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo