![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
This may seem like an ignorant question, but I scarcely venture from the low-limit tables into the upper-limit waters. I simply want to know : What are the average or "typical" rakes at the 5-10, 10-20, and 20-40 HE tables? You don't have to be precise, a ballpark figure (within a dollar) will do. Thanks a bunch. Dax (NeilYngRok@aol.com) "24 and there's so much more."
Dax,
I'll fill you in on the two biggest top sections in the Los Angeles area where they charge time rather than rake.
Hollywood Park:
10/20: $5 per half hour
15/30: $6 per half hour (holdem only - in stud they drop antes)
20/40: $7 per half hour
Commerce Club:
10/20: n/a (they spread 9/18 with a $4 dead drop on the button)
15/30: $7 per half hour
20/40: $8 per half hour
Regards,
Rick
about any site in the web with complete information about poker tournaments? Does anybody know a good one? I´ll really appreciate the information.
You can play holdem on the internet on IRC, tournaments too. The SW is at:
The website address is:
http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~gregr/
Hope that helps- Jim
Try Cardplayer magazine's site. 2+2 has a link to there from their fave links page.
I play on Planet Poker because it's the only way I can play regularly (family, job, etc.) I've been winning, but worried about the effect of possible collusion.
Question: Is it possible to win in spite of collusion? How do you spot it? If you do spot it, how do you react?
It seems to me that at best, collusion provides a form of deception, but in the end strong play is what gets the money.
Thoughts?
If 2 good players are at your table, and they are doing a good job of colluding, they will win pretty big. Whether or not you can also win depends upon how weak the other players are at your table. If they're weak enough, and lose enough, then you can still come out ahead.
However, I suspect that many of the colluders (not that I KNOW there are any at all) are not that great as individual players. Moreover, they're probably not that good at colluding, either. Thus, their collusion won't cost you as much as it could, leaving you with a table that you can still beat with good all-around play.
However, no matter how bad they are, you are probably not making as much as you could if they stopped colluding.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
My largest fear on Planet Poker is running into someone playing two hands. If an individual has two computers with modems and two phone lines, whats to stop him from creating two Planet Poker accounts with different handles and playing two hands?
I've yet to see evidence of such a scam, but it makes you wonder.
If the colluders are only playing "better hand", meaning only rarely does more than 1 play at a time, the advantage would be huge. Casual observers may never notice that these two players are never in the same pot. In a 3 handed game (button + 2 blinds) I think I could give the authors a run for their money if I could actually see two hands and pick the better one to play.
Those that are willing to raise their buddy increase their EV but drastically increase their chances of getting caught.
"Better Hand" can easily be detected on computer poker as it would be easy to keep track of which hands which players folded, as the strong hands folded would attract detailed attention. Likewise with raising each other.
So I suppose you are in the hands of the quality and ethics of the guy running the computer.
- Louie
I have a few questions regarding a 20-40 Stud hand I played at the Taj last weekend. It was an eight-handed game with a $3 ante and a $5 bring-in. I was dealt wired sevens with an eight up-card in middle position; all of my cards were live. The player to my immediate right was the first to voluntarily enter the pot; he called the bring in with an Ace up. He is a loose, fairly predictable player-I felt fairly confident if he had aces he would have raised.
I decided to raise myself (as there was only one upcard higher than an eight remaining to act). Much to my surprise, the player to my immediate left, with a five up, re-raised. He is a fairly tough, very aggressive player. I put him on a pocket pair higher than eights. Everyone folded to the ace, who now called the double raise- which concerned me-he is loose, but would need some kind of hand to call a double raise. I also called.
On fourth street I caught an eight (pairing my door card), and the five and ace both caught apparent blanks. I bet out the maximum ($40) and was promptly raised to $80 by the five. The ace thought and thought and finally called the $80 cold. This surprised me--I decided to just call. My original plan was to re-raise the five, representing three eights (assuming the ace dropped). I felt the five might have been making an "information raise" to see if I really had the three eights, and I know he is capable of folding a hand quickly if he feels he is beat. Also, if I put him on the right hand (a big wired pair), I am succeeding in getting more money in the pot with the best hand.
Alas, on fifth street both me and the five caught a blank and the ace made open aces. He bet out and both the five and me folded (the five showed me wired jacks).
I have several questions:
1) Was my raise correct on third street?
2) Should I have re-raised to $120 on fourth street?
3) Was it correct to drop on fifth street? I felt I had to give him at least aces up--meaning I had four outs- or zero outs if he had aces full.
Thanks in advance.
Max,
if the aces hand would have called on 4th street with a 3 flush or 3 big cards then you should go all the way with him. i would also raise him hoping he might fold with just two aces as he is also unlikely to raise back and you can take a free card on 6th or 7th if you want. if you felt he had to have started with a pair or caught a pair on 4th then it may be a fold. maybe you should have reraised the jacks if you thought he might fold as you would want him out of the pot at this point.
I see this as a hand were someone could get themselves into a lot of trouble. The Aces needs only another pair to win. Your two small pair really needs improvement, an unlikely event. I think the initial advice is correct. Fold to the loose player with the Ace. Who cares how many free cards you can get with a bet. If he is truely a loose player, he my re-raise or continue betting, especially with Aces showing. He will never fold. The more money you throw into this hand the more you are likely to lose.
Rich,
sure you most likely will lose this hand and if there was no money in the pot you would fold. but it looks like you are risking 3 bets to win about 12 or more and that makes it a calling hand for me. plus you can improve and get another bet or two. your two pair may not need improvement and that is the reason to play.
Ray,
Why not just fold this had on third street when the 5 reraises?
All you've got is a lousy pair of sevens with an eight kicker and, as the poster said..he knows that the guy who reraised has a bigger pair.
Jim Mogal
I think it would have been incorrect to fold my hand on third street for the following reasons:
1) All of my cards were live.
2) There is already $94 in the pot; it is only costing me $20 to call (4.5 to 1)
3) My sevens are hidden.
4) If I am right in my belief that my opponent holds a big wired pair, he cannot make two pair without my being aware of it.
5) I have a two-straight.
6) My opponent is an aggressive player and I don't want him running over me in the future.
If I don't improve by 5th street and my opponent keeps betting, I will usually chuck it in similar situations.
Best regards.
Jim,
i go with what Max says here except i may not fold on 5th street if thats what he implies.
I might have misread an article by David Sklanski but I have always thought that the odds of flopping a set were:
1 - 48/50 * 47/49 * 46/48 * 45/47 * 44/46 = 19%
Even though I plan to see only the three cards, pre-flop I should consider the turn and the river as a part of my pot-odds decision pre-flop.
Is this incorrect? Should I only consider the flop?
1 - 48/50 * 47/49 * 46/48 = 11%
The probability of flopping a set, full house or quads (a set or better, ignoring 4-straights and 4-flushes) to a pocket pair is 10.8%, making the odds against it about 7.5-1. This fact is useful in deciding whether the amount of money you must risk for the chance of flopping a set presents a good investment.
Unless your preflop call forces you all-in, taking into account to chance of making a set by the river is pointless because you'll be guessing at how much you'll have to invest to get to the river. Sometimes nothing, sometimes 10BB. More importantly, after the flop you'll be faced with a different set of factors to consider, namely the board and the betting action, that you can't begin to guess about before the flop. Finally, it is virtually always correct to fold after the flop unless you make your set, fill in the middle of a 4-straight, or are faced with a gigantic pot or a board that has other possibilities (e.g. 822 flop to your pocket fives -- and this can get tricky).
Bottom line: the only time you'll be faced with a "good" betting opportunity that involves hitting a set is before the flop. Failing to let a pair go after the flop is probably one of the more expensive of the basic mistakes.
Your first number appears to be your chances of making a set by the river if you always stay.
No, you should only automatically consider your chances of making your hand by the river if you really expect to get to the river. A big flush draw almost always gets to the river so a 2:1 dog to make it is realistic (and should raise for value if you can get +2 callers on the flop).
With a pocket pair, you will RARELY be calling on the flop due to your slim chances. So if you are unlikely to call, what's the point of calculating it before the flop?
- Louie
Sir, I really like pocket pairs. True that it is about 8 to 1 before the flop, yet you have better implied odds than that due to the fact of no one realizing it if you hit ie trip 6's on the flop. You really need only about 5 to one odds to call with a pocket pair. Should be a nice pot by the river. I"ve also seen times in a big pot where I missed on the flop, I figure about 23 to one to hit the set on the turn, so I look at a card, cause low and behold, the pot was offering 30 to one odds.
Michael M.:
Louie was talking about the rarity of call "on" (or "after") the flop, not before. It is certainly rare to see a flop bet getting 18 to one or better (you don't need 23-1), and rarer still without having already made a mistake.
"Sir"? Huh? You're new here, aren't you.
I agree with the authors that you need about 10:1 by the river to justify playing a pair, to cover the times you make it and lose. So getting 5:1 means: will you average at least 2.5bb from the opponents after the flop when you make the set? Yes. 5:1 is 'nough for me also.
- Louie
Yessir.
It's been my experience that when player's raise preflop, it's almost an automatic bet on the flop, whether the flop misses them or not. Last night while playing 15-30, I noticed on several occasions player's raising preflop and not betting on the flop, only to muck when someone bets out.. Then on the other hand, I see player's bet and bet all the way to the river, and will turn over Ace high, and are usually beat by some middle pair or something.
I just wonder what others out there thought... for example, raising with AK, and everyone checks to you on the flop, but the flop has missed you. You bet. The turn still misses you, everyone checks to you. Bet or check?? I've found times where I checked, I could have taken the pot, because I lost it on the river. Then other times I've found that when do bet, when it doesn't buy me the pot, it backfires hard and I get raised. It wasn't until last night that I saw so much raising preflop and checking on the flop. Most of the time a raise preflop is an automatic bet on the flop. Any thoughts??
It might depend on your image. There are some games when you raise and the flop is rags, like 9 5 2. Players will always put you on AK. So if you get raise on the turn, sometimes it's good to reraise (this works better if you are head's up against an opponent who will fold to a river bet if his pair does not improve). I sometimes take the free card and pay off with AK if there is a better and all fold to me. Once you raise preflop, bet the flop, check the turn, pretty much anyone can take a shot at you with any 2 cards.
Sometimes it helps playing big pairs like AK, that way, when you try a reraise on the turn people will believe you'll have an overpair.
Just some thoughts,
carlos
the worse the flop for your hand and the more people in the less likely you will bet.
I'm a novice at odds. Assume a two flush on board, I have no flush card. Odds against an opponent having a four flush: 1 opponent=30 to 1; 2=14to1;3=9to1;4=6.5to1;5=5to1;6=4to1;7=3to1;8=3to1;9=2to1. These about right? and I promise to not ask again. Gotta know these things at 4-8 loose game.
What game are you playing?
Old Maid. (Sorry)......Hold Em.
Hello -- Can anyone help with 2 questions? 1. 3-6 HE,9-handed, I had JdJh in 4th pos. and called 3rd in; 5 saw the flop -- 9hThQh! I bet for value, dropped 2; turn was 7o; I bet again, figuring I had the best of it with 17 outs on the draws and 2 others in the pot. 1 dropped. The river was Ao, and I checked and folded.
Should I have raised preflop hoping to limit field? Was I right to bet on the flop or should I have checked to keep people in? Was I right to bet on the turn? Should I have called the river? I figured the other guy had an A or Q.
2. I wonder why ATo is so much lower than AJo in HPFAP hand rankings (gp 6 vs gp 4)? They both make the same straights. Lee Jones says OK to call with AJo ONLY with <= 3 callers in front in middle position (and presumably in late pos, though he doesn't say so), and says don't EVER call with ATo. That seems severe.
Thanks for any insights you can give me.
You played the hand fine although other alternatives are OK as well.
A10 has to worry about 3 overcards when it pairs its lower card as opposed to 2 in the case of AJ. It also has a worse kicker when it pairs aces. These differences are significant in games where players won't usually play ace rag offsuit, but less important in looser games.
In 3-6 HE you are not likely to "limit the field" by raising pre-flop. A raise here might get you perhaps four callers instead of the five you did get. And the players with the A-x and Q-x would have probably stayed in anyway. I think you were correct to bet the flop, but not right to bet the turn. I also think your fold on the river was correct. Black Jack
I think I would have played it more aggressively, depending on the mood of the table.
Sometimes you get loose, but weak, 3-6 players. Last night I somehow managed to bluff and win several 3-6 pots. Wouldn't happen in a typical game, but this group was interesting. They would all call to see the flop, and mostly wait to see the turn, but on the turn they would ditch their hands. So I started betting the turn (and, when necessary, the river) regardless of whether my hand was made or not, and pulled down three nice-sized pots with nothing (or its nearest neighbor). The only downside to this was that I turned a wheel and got no takers when I bet. But better that than the usual being drawn out on!
Anyhow, back to your hand... the upshot is that your bet on the turn gives the opponent a chance to fold; if you don't bet, there is 0 probability they will fold. So I'm in favor of the bet.
I'm not sure about your 17 outs, though. Given the betting, it's unlikely that the flush is already made. Obviously you have the 8h & Kh working for you. But what happens if any other heart comes? You could easily have 2nd (or 3rd) best flush. After all, why else would someone stay in with that board? Ah or Kh in the opponent's hand is not unlikely in this situation. Anyhow, I would discount the 9 hearts not in your hand. 2 of them are good, but the other 7 could actually kill your hand. Making trips with the Js or Jc is not obviously good, either. Any 8 or K beats you unless the board pairs. So then there's the straight cards. The other three 8's are on your side here, and the K's are probably ok, too, since with you holding 2 of the J's the probability an opponent has one is very low (sorry, too tired to do the math).
So in summary, you've got:
4 8's 4 K's
for 8 reasonably sure outs. Then you have 7 rather dodgy hearts and 2 questionable J's. As a quick approximation, we can halve these, for a total of 12.5 outs (that oughta get me my head handed on a plate by the purists!). This means you are about 1.2:1 to make a winner by the river. So pretty much any betting you do would appear to be justified, esp. since it can only increase your chances of winning (from possible better hands dropping).
As it is, it might have been better to play the hand more aggressively. One approach would be to go for a checkraise on the flop (I'm not sure of your position relative to the other bettors). There's a reasonably good chance that the last bettor will bluff at this flop if nobody else opens. Even if the check goes around, what's the problem? You're already in a little bit of overcard trouble with the Q, and a K is your best friend. The only thing you have to fear is an A, although the Ah may be OK. Actually, I guess that's not quite true, because if the board pairs, someone might have made trips, and even that 7o could have given some fish trip 7s. But still, I think there are more cards that help you than hurt you. So a free card isn't terrible, and might be worth the risk when you do get to pull off your checkraise.
After the checkraise (attempted or successful), you bet on the turn. Now people have to face the fact that the turn didn't help, and they're going to have to pay you not just $6 now, but $12 total to see your advertised big hand.
Alternatively, bet on the flop to suck people in, and then go for the checkraise on the turn, and then bet on the river. That might make a weak opponent more likely to believe you had the flush and/or straight all along. I know sometimes the games I get in, people act as if you had invoked a voodoo magic spell when you checkraise, esp. on the turn.
As far as the lay down on the river, it would depend on a few things. For example, what was the size of the pot. If I read your post correctly, it was only something like 3*5 + 3*3 + 6*2 = 36. So after your opponent bets you are getting 7 to 1 on your call. So, do you have greater than a 12.5% chance of winning? This brings up the second factor... did you inadvertently induce a bluff and then fail to snap it off? You had bet the flop and the turn, but then checked. If your opponent read that check as weakness, as opposed to a trap, then it's natural to bet at you. So it's conceivable that the probability that your opponent was bluffing and your J's were good was greater than the 12.5%.
In any case, you ended up in a situation on the river (and I do this to myself all the time), where you've lost your read on what's going on. Is the guy betting for value? Is he bluffing? Is he an idiot? You let him get control of the hand, and now you're stuck in a guessing game. At least if you bet and he comes over the top, you have a better idea of where things stand (unless this is some real tough guy).
One thing I wouldn't do is raise on the river. A call is sufficient to snap the bluff, and a raise just gets you into trouble. If the game you're in is at all like the ones I get in, his late bet might just mean he had 86o and that stupid 7 made him a straight, but he "slowplayed" it because he was afraid of the flush. Now you've checked and said "no flush", so he can bet. When you raise, he is "forced" to call, and your hand goes down. Or even more embarassing, all he has is Q2o, but he just is curiousity, and his curiosity kills the Kate. :-)
--james
PS WARNING: I am not a pro, and I don't play one on TV. I just like to think about these things, and by airing my musings in this forum I might even get construcive feedback. :-)
PPS I wish I could think through hands in this much detail at the table!!! That's why thinking about this stuff "offline" is so important. It's like a basketball player practicing moves separate from playing the game--on the floor, you don't have nearly enough time to think, so the moves have to be instinctual.
IMHO: I think you should have raised preflop with the jacks.
Since it's 3-6, you will probably get a bunch of callers either way. But consider this: 1) you probably getting (almost) the right odds to be raising for value, just on the chance you might hit a set 2) JJ has some chance of standing up on it's own. 3) You may set up a steal situation for a later round if the flop doesn't hit anyone, having already advertised that you "have a hand" 4)If your raise narrows the field, that's OK too 5) you may gain information that saves you $$ on a later round. Some people can't resist reraising with things like KK, AK and AA. Find out now, while the bets are cheap. Depending on the flop, this type of info could save you several bets later.
After all, you are only putting in one more small bet before the flop, go ahead and raise.
Other than that, I think you played it fine. The turn bet was good, and you were probably beat at the river so folding was the best move.
Of course there could be other reasons not on my list....
comments welcome...
Dave in Cali
QT9 is NOT a great flop to JJ against 5 players. It is realistic that someone has a K, someone a Q, and someone a J. If so, you have about 7 outs to SPLIT.
Don't confuse your chances of improving with your chances of winning.
Even if it IS a great flop what would be the point of "keeping people in"? Someone who doesn't have enough to call the flop is VERY unlikely to call if you make your straight on the turn. And, players often call the flop and fold the turn, so lets get that money NOW. Good enough bet for the hand you had, great bet if your hand was as good as you thought.
"I figured the other guy had an A or Q". Really? Would this player have bet this hand for value on the river? Would YOU? Its much more likely she made or had 2 pair OR was bluffing her stiff J.
Unless the opponent had an Ace, the ace looks like a bad card to her. I would have bluffed on the river figuring the stiff Queen would give it up.
- Louie
A very interesting and helpful range of responses. I'm embarasssed to admit I didn't realize at the time that I might very well be drawing dead. And reflecting on my thought process on the river I see that I unconsciously assumed that my opponent knew I had been on a draw (and, obviously, missed it). Got to stop doing that, for sure.
Well, you certainly weren't drawing "dead". If you make the straight flush, I'm pretty sure you win. :-)
But you definitely did not have 17 outs.
I am sympathetic with the "I assumed my opponent knew I was beat" syndrome. But watch for this in others... How many times have you been playing against someone who you suspected of being on a draw, and when a blank hits on the river, they do one or more of the following:
Rarely, this is someone acting trying for a checkraise, but more often, people are more than happy to tell you "I missed my draw".
So learn from their errors and don't do this yourself. I think part of it is keeping your mind set on "I'm going to win this pot". Don't go foolishly into the jaws of doom, but don't give up until it's all over. With that mindset, you can convincingly bet your Jacks on the river, and let your opponent make up the goblins in their own head--Aces, pocket Q's, a made flush or straight, whatever.
best,
--j
Well, yes, but the straight flush was my only certain win. Your advice is good -- thanks.
I'm on the tail-end of a nice rush at an almost ideal 3-6 game and the table breaks (by ideal I mean almost everyone seeing the flop, but then dropping their hands on the turn. People flopping flushes and letting you see them for free. Etc.)
Half of us get merged with another table, which has some wilder players on it.
All three hands in front of the BB call, I look and have red Aces, so I raise. We end up with about 6 people seeing the flop. Flop comes something like J74, all clubs. SB checks, BB opens, next hand drops, next hand goes all-in for 6. I think about things, and after some agony, lay down my aces. Everyone else folds, BB calls, turn and river are blanks, and the all-in guy takes down the pot with two little clubs. BB shows Kc and some weak kicker.
Why did I lay down the aces? Well, as far as I could tell, I was screwed. The guy who went all in was loose enough to go all in with one little club, but he looked too happy. I had no problem calling the BB alone, since I put him on 1 club. But if the all-in guy has equity in most of the pot, I'm not going to win much. If the 4th club never shows, the BB just folds on the river. So even if I re-raise the all-in guy and the BB calls, that's $3 there and $6 more on the turn.
Of course, if one of my aces was the Ac, I have a much more playable hand.
What would you have done?
--james
MHO:
In that situation, either I am the RAISER or I am gone. I would raise if there was only one bet to me, partly to drive out any worse hands than mine, and partly to gain information. No sense spending big bets if you're beat, find that out now while it's cheap. If you get re-raised, you are usually against a made flush, or an aggressive player with the K or A, who has a good draw and probably won't be folding (maybe raising). Since you had no clubs and it was a bet and a raise to you, with the possibility of a re-raise behind you, you should fold.
I say you made a good play in that situation. Your "read" was probably the deciding factor that made you actually LAY DOWN your aces, instead of paying off the whole way.
coments welcome...
Dave in Cali
Interesting situation. I think you had a small positive expectation on the flop, particularly if the BB might be inclined to bluff on the river.
I'd reraise on the flop figuring that the BB will call if he's got a good flush draw, and also to increase the size of the pot to give him something to bluff at. (Although if he folds here you're out $6, few $3-6 players will drop for a double bet with a flush draw, and you want as many bets in the pot as you can get when you're ahead.)
It's 30-60 at Bellagio, I'm on the button, and it's folded to me. I look down and see 
I raise, the small blind folds, and 
calls in the big blind. (I'm hoping he doesn't mind my posting this hand. I'm posting it mostly because I just figured out how to insert his head in the middle of my text.)
The flop comes ten high rags, no clubs, he checks, I bet, he calls.
The turn is another rag below ten. He checks, I bet, he calls.
The river is yet another rag below ten. Some weird straight is possible (of course), but otherwise there's not much on the board. He checks, I check.
He turns over KQ, and I take the pot with ace high.
Comments?
(My hand was actually A3o, not that it matters.)
No profitability in checking and calling...(Calling Station)! Either check-raise the flop, the turn, bet out on the flop or turn or abandon the hand...Terrible play from terrible position!
Huck writes: "What could Abdul have raised with? Answer: Anything." After the flop comes "ten-high rags" and Abdul bets after Mason checks, Huck reasons: "[Abdul] either has a pocket pair, an ace, or some of the flop..."
Does Abdul really give away free cards like this, meaning that he'd check down Kx, Qx, gutshots, 3-flushes and connectors in the face of Mason's intimidating check? I suggest you're reading too much into Abdul's bet.
If I'm right, Mason is in a pretty good position. On the flop he's getting 5.67-1 to call. Of the 1081 combinations of cards Abdul could be holding, Mason beats about 40% of them and has a 20+% chance of drawing out on most of the rest by the river. (OK, I won't take you literally when you said that Abdul could have "anything." But this means that he's less likely to have hit a ragged flop.)
There's an argument for betting or check-raising, but by doing neither Mason substantially reduces the likelihood of folding a better hand or paying too much if he's behind. The ten on the turn makes the case for calling even better. Just because a calling station would make the same play doesn't mean it isn't optimal.
Chris writes: "Just because a calling station would make the same play doesn't mean it isn't optimal."
In many situations I think that's quite correct. Now, I have no first hand familiarity with Abdul's play, so this is just on a sort of hypothetical level. (I agree with Dan H. below, that you absolutely would have to have been there, and have been familiar with all the situational variables to really know how to assess the merits of this play.) But given the possibility that Abdul could be expected to play very aggressively, maybe rather relentlessly so, then a simple call-down strategy with a hand like KQ or any ace, or pair, is not going to be far wrong.
It's almost comical to see how good, very aggressive players will completely hang themselves sometimes against calling stations. (Doyle Brunson even mentioned this with regard to some passive caller at the WSOP one year. All the aggressive, tough players kept betting themselves broke against him. Not the same situation, I know, but roughly the same idea applies.) I've won many pots with king-high, when I knew the opp would bet almost anything. Again, I'm not suggesting anything about Abdul's general play. I've never seen it. (But indications are at least that he's generally quite aggressive, and that he does go for the blinds with a very wide range of hands.) I'm just looking at one situation in which calling in a spot like this can be right. You look at how likely the opp is to bet a wide range of hands you can beat, assessing the the chance that you have the best hand, combine that with the chance that you will hit a winning pair -- and it can be the way to go.
BTW, the posters who are arguing that Abdul had to have some fairly decent hand, that a hand like 52s was out of the question, really should read his standards for blind stealing. I'm not sure about specifically 52s, but he does not shy away from going after a blind with some pretty weak hands. (Not a criticism, just a clarification.)
John Feeney
I think this thread has no real instructive value. This is not a criticism towards anyone responding, rather a mild point that Abadaba dul is simply poking fun at Mason with his image in the post, and the fact that he beat him in a showdown with ace high. I think we have all been duped into responding, when abadab is just having fun.
It's far more insidious. Abdul wants to incite poker riots over Mason's playing of pocket fours.
I'm curious why didn't reraise preflop.
Abdul,
I figured out the italics, I figured out the bold type, but is is unfair to up the ante by placing pictures in your post.
Anyway, IMHO KQ is a hand you would have to make a move with at some point in the hand with this flop. Reraise before the flop, if not check raise the flop, check raise or bet the turn. To me a check call hand needs to have at least an ace or a pair unless he figures you to be very aggressive just about every time with any hand then he may be right to play it this way.
If Mason replys it is only fair he finds a picture of you. It may have to come from blackjack pit surveilance.
Regards,
Rick
Based on all the ancillary compliments she has garnered on rgp (and I recall at least one compliment from DS here), I would rather have someone post a photo of Abdul's wife.
L
First two tens flopped, and given how many hands I know that Abdul would raise with before the flop the combination of me drawing out and having the best hand was enough to go to the river. On the end I thought that he might not try to steal it (as he didn't) and yet I might still win in a show down. I didn't bet or check raise earlier because I didn't feel like getting into a complex situation out of position against an aggressive player.
For further discussion why I chose the strategy I did I recommend the short handed section in the 21st edition of HPFAP. (The bottom line is that folding was never an option except maybe on the end. Betting or check raising while reasonable is by no means mandatory when your hand does have some chance of winning without improving.)
In any case I know you chose my picture as opposed to Ray or David because by doing that more people would read your post carefully.
Mason,
All kiding aside, I like your play. I can see there is little reason to try to "out aggressive" an aggressive experienced, and knowledgable player out of postion with a medium strong hand.
I think many players don't do this even when it is right in that they don't want to look weak. After all, checking and calling is supposed to be the sign of a weak player.
I'll guess that the value of Abduls average raising hand may be quite a bit less than yours, the flop is ragged, he is likely to bet it for you, thus your play is at worse arguable.
Note that I'm writing this without checking Abdul's charts, I'm just guessing that KQ would do quite well against his average hand. Maybe he can do a simulation. Me, I have to go to sleep.
Message to Rick: Stop posting when you are tired and babbling.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Good job on that seven stud article in Poker Digest.
You're right, the flop was TTx, where x was small but not a 3, sorry.
-Abdul
Abdul,
Actually the TTx flop does make quite a bit of difference. If Mason makes a play at the pot on the flop with this kind of a flop it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that his hand was probably weak. When a rag falls on the turn, again it shouldn't be too hard to figure out that it probably didn't help him much and if he bets the river when another rag falls there is enough money in the pot to warrant a call with an A3. Now whether or not he should have made it 3 bets pre-flop is open to debate but there are good reasons not to as well. Whether or not he should have called on the flop and the turn is open to debate as well as this is player dependent in my opinion.
Tom Haley
Mason: You are the man, but I would have tossed after Abdul's first raise. Call e a silly fool (allright, you're a silly fool) but Abdul will take it down to the river more often than not and I just don't feel like being that big a contributor to his excellent aggresive play.
Bob Sherwood wrote:
I would have tossed after Abdul's first raise. Call e a silly fool (allright, you're a silly fool)
If you're saying that Mason should have mucked KQ in his big blind preflop to my button raise, then you are a silly fool, um, no offense.
-Abdul
Abdul,
I think you need to make fun of this guy rather than Mason.
![[Ray Zee]](/images/zee.gif)
What is this picture, from the seventies?
Regards,
Rick
Listen carefully everybody. Mason played this specific hand, in this specific circumstance, against this specific player, totally reasonably and probably the BEST way (although betting out on the end has things to be said for it). The combination of four factors; Abdul's skill, Abdul's loose raising requirements when first in on the button, Abdul's willingness to fire two (but probably not three) barrels when bluffing, and Mason holding KQ are all required however. Change any of them (e.g. give Mason QJ) and you should play differently.
Mason has allready sort of explained himself but perhaps others would like to elaborate. (Actually this hand is a great example of how subtle differences in a situation can change the right play. Also I wouldn't be surprised if Abdul was actually planning to post something in the future defending Mason. After all Mason's strategy was an implicit compliment to him)
WRONG,WRONG,WRONG!
Checking and calling the flop and the turn has no chance. What could Abdul have raised with? Answer: Anything. What could Mason beat after the flop and the turn? Answer: Nothing Abdul most likely did not raise with 52s as a "great author" might. He either has a pocket pair, an ace, or some of the flop...i.e. Mason can't beat any of them! Either make a play at an aggressive opponent early and win or let it go or FOLD! No calling stations allowed on this Forum!
abdul could easily have QJ, KJ, or lots of other types of hands that don't include pairs or A high.
I like Mason's play here.
1. You up against a tough apponent.
2. He will bet no matter what. You don't loose more when you have the worst hand and win the same if you have the best hand.
3. If you try a play here such as checkraise the turn what will you do when you get raised back. You are basically back to point 1 which is what? Call, fold, maybe raise back? You have put more money in, yet you still don't know where you stand.
I've been in Mason's situation many times I don't think you can win much here if any at all. The question I have for Mason is if you thought Abdul would bet all the way would you have folded on the turn or were you prepared to call him on the end(most of the time)
HUCK,
David posted under my joke post rather than my serious post which was under Mason's response. The fact is that it is often correct to check and call all the way through under certain circumstances (and this was probably one of them). But few otherwise talented players use this tactic even when it is clearly correct. I believe the reason is that most players don't want to appear to be a "calling station" because they associate it with weakness and they don't want to appear weak in front of their peers. Yet it can sometimes be the right way to play certain hands.
Regards,
Rick
HUCKIE BABY, your simply wrong. you are forgeting one aspect which is very important. Can you guess what that is? I'll give you a hint......no, no i won't.
Post deleted at author's request.
Oh my God. We finally got Gary back along with Abdul. I can now die happy.
I did not say that Abdul was bluffing. I said that he was capable of firing two barrels as a bluff. Big difference.
Post deleted at author's request.
Lately I've been finding myself responding to a lot of strategy posts by saying, "That really depends on the player you are up against". These heads-up confrontations are the extreme example of how important table context is. I don't see how anyone can claim that Mason's play was right or wrong, unless they are very familiar with the play of both Mason and Abdul, and perhaps unless they were at the table and observed what had happened over the last few hours.
The lawyer 
, or was it the gigolo 
, wrote:
...Mason's strategy was an implicit compliment to him.
Maybe you're right, but I viewed his strategy as an implicit insult. I don't mind such implicit insults, mind you, as if my opponents are making false assumptions about how I play, I gain. Immediately after the hand I thought that Mason was trying to exploit me, judging me as overaggressive rather than as optimal. I ran the hand past a good player and he thought the same thing.
If I were in Mason's shoes in that hand and I were playing against an optimal player, I would have played it pretty hard at some point, normally starting by 3-betting preflop. Playing KQ hard is part value betting, part semibluffing, and part bluff and bluster in case my opponent has that darn A3. I totally agree with Mason that KQ is locked to the river in this situation, but a hand like A3 can be pushed out.
The hands I would have raised with were: 22-AA, A2s-AKs, K2s-KQs, Q4s-QJs, 65s-JTs, 75s-J9s, T7s/J8s, A2-AK, K7-KQ, Q9-QJ, 98-JT, and J9. So I'm playing 42% (558/1326) of my hands on the button. From Mason's perspective, after I enter the pot the probability that I have an ace preflop not counting AA is 34% before Mason looks at his cards, 37% afterwards. Some of those I'm going to keep until the bitter end, but I could be pushed off of a sizable fraction of them. Also, I could easily have had a small pocket pair like 22-55 (5% of the time), which Mason might have been able to convince me to release due to the paired board. Since there is a nontrivial probability that I hold a currently better hand that Mason can push me off of, my inclination in his spot would be to push.
wrote:
On the end I thought that he might not try to steal it (as he didn't) and yet I might still win in a show down.
With the hand I held, my frame of mind was "value bet", not "bluff bet" (any ace should call me), but obviously I decided against a value bet. I expected Mason to show me an ace more often than not. Certainly the fact that I would check some better hands than KQ, like A3, lends support to his check there. Also, I would likely bet a missed 75s or other low hand, and with such a hand I would only fold or raise if he bet. I prefer to avoid the uncomfortable situation of having KQ out of position on the river in the first place, but your posts give me something to think about.
Dan Hanson writes:
Lately I've been finding myself responding to a lot of strategy posts by saying, "That really depends on the player you are up against". These heads-up confrontations are the extreme example of how important table context is.
You said it, David Sklansky basically said it, and Mason Malmuth almost said it, but this is simply wrong, unless I am a bad player, or I believe Mason is a bad player, or I believe Mason believes I am a bad player, or Mason believes I believe Mason believes I am a bad player (well, I've lost myself now.) There is a right way (most likely several right ways with identical expectations) to play Mason's hand against a competent opponent.
-Abdul
I am not a lawyer.
You got a problem with lawyers?
Later, Greg Raymer (Patent Attorney)
Not necessarily. Mason could play it that way simply to mix up his play. I do exactly that from time to time against agressive players just to let them know that if I check it doesn't mean I'll release the hand to a bet. Heads-up, there are lots of reasons to play the same cards in different ways, even against the same opponent.
Mixing your strategy can be part of the optimal strategy.
(I'm not weaseling... that's just how it is, like recall the recent thread where the optimal way to play on the river was to either bet all the time or you could bet with AA and a certain fraction of the time with AK. The latter optimal strategy is a mixed strategy, though it seemed to be weakly dominated in this case by the pure bet-always strategy.)
What's wrong w/ Q3s?
In general open-raising on the button with a hand like K2 would be risky because when the small blind calls you could be in trouble as there is no chance you have him in trouble. Being suited helps, but Q3s and Q2s are shaky. There is more of a difference between Q2s/Q3s and Q4s/Q5s than most people think, as it's not just a matter of your kicker playing directly, but also your kicker making straights, your kicker making two pair with another pair on the board, etc. However, I was wondering myself whether I should include Q2s and Q3s.
-Abdul
In the short handed section of the 21st Century Edition there is a discussion of the problems of playing hands that have a deuce or a trey in them. Some of you may want to look at that.
Though I agree with Abdul that Mason reraising before the flop is a very viable alternative, I disagree with a couple of points he makes about the way the hand was in fact played. (This disagreement makes me a little nervous because, as I have said before, when I disagree with Abdul I am only 95% to be right as opposed to the usua l99.997% and I hate taking that 5% chance.)
First, his comment that he would have more likely folded a pocket pair because the board was paired seems odd. Common sense suggests the opposite. But Abdul may have thought of something I haven't so I'll see what he says.
More importantly is the fact that Abdul seems to have misconstrued Mason's comment that Abdul would often not bluff on the end. The point was that Mason planned to fold if he did not improve but would still win some showdowns.
In any case this hand is extremely interesting and very sensitive to initial assumptions. It is worth a major essay if not a thesis. But against most aggressive players it is obvious to me that Mason's strategy is never too far from optimum as long as we are talking about KQ specifically.
Sklansky writes:
First, his comment that he would have more likely folded a pocket pair because the board was paired seems odd. Common sense suggests the opposite. But Abdul may have thought of something I haven't so I'll see what he says.
If I hold 44, then which board should I fear more on the turn if my opponent check-raises me... TT68 or T368 (or even T568)? Suppose my opponent has KQ. He has 12 outs against me in the first case, but only 6 outs against me in the second case. Just about any hand my opponent could have has a minimum of 12 outs against me if it doesn't already have me drawing to just 2 outs or dead. A pocket pair under a board pair with a couple of cards in between is a very vulnerable hand, agreed? I would almost never just call in that situation, though I might raise.
Sklansky writes:
More importantly is the fact that Abdul seems to have misconstrued Mason's comment that Abdul would often not bluff on the end. The point was that Mason planned to fold if he did not improve but would still win some showdowns.
Malmuth writes:
On the end I thought that he might not try to steal it (as he didn't) and yet I might still win in a show down.
You're right that I thought he implied he would call if I bet when actually it sounds like he would fold. I think a check-call is his best play on the river, again since I would check some hands that beat him but bet many hands that he beat, and since if he were to bet it would be questionable whether I would lay down any hand that beat him. But it's painful to check-call with KQ against me here, as I am going to value bet AQ or better. Again, with KQ I would just try to avoid this situation by winning the pot earlier.
-Abdul
(Abdul on why a paired board (or maybe just this paired board) is more fearful to 44:)
"If I hold 44, then which board should I fear more on the turn if my opponent check-raises me... TT68 or T368 (or even T568)? Suppose my opponent has KQ. He has 12 outs against me in the first case, but only 6 outs against me in the second case. Just about any hand my opponent could have has a minimum of 12 outs against me if it doesn't already have me drawing to just 2 outs or dead. A pocket pair under a board pair with a couple of cards in between is a very vulnerable hand, agreed?"
You're implying a rule of thumb that doesn't work. Its not the presence of the board pair that controls but which pocket pair and which board cards and board pair. A pocket pair with a board overpair and an undercard on the turn (e.g. 55 vs. TT63 is obviously much better than three overcards and one undercard (55 vs. T863), just as a board overpair is much less threatening to a lower pocket pair than two overcards.
Ignoring for a moment the qualifying factor of your opponent check-raising (and reversing the positions of the players in your original post), in your particular examples you in fact have more of a chance of being ahead against two random cards with 44 against the TT68 board than you do with the T368 board, and a significantly bigger chance than when you're against T568. I'd need to spend more time with this, but I would think that the preference for being ahead (that is, not being a 96% underdog on the turn) vastly outweighs any disadvantage from your opponent having a few outs or a bunch when he's behind. Great thread.
.
(-:|~~~~ (best I could do at providing a picture) writes: Immediately after the hand I thought that Mason was trying to exploit me, judging me as overaggressive rather than as optimal.
Shame on him for trying to exploit you in a poker game! But seriously, you can't expect him or anyone to assume you are playing close to what you believe to be "optimal" all the time, can you? You are presumably varying your play to adjust to opponents' variations in their play, as they are simultaneously doing the same. Exactly where your adjustments and his might fall at a given time in a session need not be bound so tightly to your attempt to play in an "optimal" way as a baseline. Maybe that's essentially what Dan said, and what you said about mix being part of optimal play, but I thought it could stand some clarification
You say this: The hands I would have raised with were: 22-AA, A2s-AKs, K2s-KQs, Q4s-QJs, 65s-JTs, 75s-J9s, T7s/J8s, A2-AK, K7-KQ, Q9-QJ, 98-JT, and J9.
But a year ago said this: I need to run more simulations, but right now my best guess for the minimum hands needed to raise on the button is as follows: 22 A2s K2s 54s 53s 63s 92s A2 K4 87 97
So then you were including hands as weak as 54s, 53s, 63s, 92s, 87, 97, K4. I think you felt *those* were optimal at the time. Anyway, you can see how a player might put you on a little wider range of hands than your most current standards. I get tired just trying to keep up with you and those dang changes! Then there's that reputation for aggression…
With the hand I held, my frame of mind was "value bet", not "bluff bet" (any ace should call me), but obviously I decided against a value bet.
Lost me there. As I understand it you had A3 for ace-high. There was no 3 on the board. So how can you bet for value against another ace with a better kicker?
Also, I could easily have had a small pocket pair like 22-55 (5% of the time), which Mason might have been able to convince me to release due to the paired board.
More so than an ace? Why?
John Feeney
What a dilemma for Abdul. Should he be irritated at John Feeney for coming up with a good debating point against him or complimented that the guy saves YEAR OLD POSTS from him?
And to paraphrase what Badger said about this hand on RGP, might Abdul have been just a wee bit tempted to return to his old opening strategy on the button with Mason Malmuth in the big blind?
Disregard the part about the value bet vs bluff. On rereading more closely, I see what you were saying. (I had misinterpreted your comment to mean that you were thinking of value betting despite putting Mason on an ace. I figured you'd had too much caffeine.)
Oh, and you should probably feel complimented -- in an irritated sort of way. ;)
John F.
I was attempting to play the hand optimally (i.e., assuming an optimal opponent), an implicit compliment to Mason.
With the hand I held, my frame of mind was "value bet", not "bluff bet" (any ace should call me), but obviously I decided against a value bet.Lost me there. As I understand it you had A3 for ace-high. There was no 3 on the board. So how can you bet for value against another ace with a better kicker?
I was expecting Mason to call me with KQ and maybe KJ (though apparently I was wrong), but that doesn't make enough hands to offset the aces, which I thought he would show me over 50% of the time. In general, I make extremely thin value bets on the river, partially to cover my bluffs, and I also call check-raises with virtually any hand that I'm thin value betting, again partially to cover my bluffs. Here, checking with A3 was the correct play.
Also, I could easily have had a small pocket pair like 22-55 (5% of the time), which Mason might have been able to convince me to release due to the paired board.More so than an ace? Why?
I didn't say "more so." In the face of a check-raise on the turn, I would feel slightly more verklempt with A3 than 22, though at least A3 would have 12 outs to a pocket pair lower than the board cards, not to mention a ton of half-outs to better aces. In any case, the point was I might lay down both A3 and 22 here, a point in favor of playing KQ hard.
What do you think of my bet on the turn? It has a lot of pluses, but one of the minuses is that I open myself up to getting pushed out of the pot by a check-raise from KQ.
I have a gerschpilling in my ganectegezoid, so let me give you a topic:
The fundamental theorem is neither fundamental nor a theorem.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
-Abdul
"In general, I make extremely thin value bets on the river, partially to cover my bluffs, and I also call check-raises with virtually any hand that I'm thin value betting, again partially to cover my bluffs."
You say you call check-raises to cover your bluffs. Can you expand a little more on this I'm not quite sure if I call these checkraises for the same reasons you do. I was going to cut down on this practice mainly because I think I'm loosing money on it, but then again I've just been doing it mostly on instinct without completely understanding the situation at hand or so it appears.
I accept your explanation of the small pair but only if it is smaller than any of the board cards,
You say you were going to bluff with many hands that lose to KQ, but how many of them would you have bet on 4TH ST? If many, surely checking and calling all the way would be right especially given your year old John Feeney discovered opening strategy.
While trying to win the pot earlier is reasonable, my point has been that Mason's strategy was also reasonable and not simply timid as it might appear to some (timid players would fold on 4th st.). And the reason I called it a compliment to you is that he assumed you would sometimes RERAISE his bet or checkraise on the flop or fourth st. with hands you say you would fold. But if you did occasionally reraise instead, you would of course force him to fold a hand with 6 or 12 outs. Given that, a reraise before the flop is a viable alternative but not trickiness on the flop or 4th st. Thus once he decides on the option of just calling your raise, you must admit that against a tricky player like you, his stategy has many things to be said for it and is either optimal or not far from it.
If Abdul , you thought that mason would call you with an ace or better more than 50% of the time, then why would you bet the turn once he called you on the flop. From that point on it's pure bluff isn't it?
First, once Mason had flat called on the turn and then checked the river, then my estimate was there was a better than 50% chance that he had an ace (not just an ace or better, as I think he would have spoken up with a pair and not been so tenacious with cards much weaker than KQ.) On the turn after he checked, my estimate was different; he could have had any ten (that he would defend the big blind with), any two overcards, any ace, a flopped 3-straight/3-flush with a pair or overcard or a 3-straight-flush, etc.
Second, because I would have to call a bet on the river if I checked the turn (pot odds, and my check would induce him to bluff), it can easily make sense to instead bet the turn as a dog on average, as this gives my opponent an opportunity to make a mistake by folding, and also it allows me to put in an extra bet on the river if my hand improves. (If a 3 had come on the river, I would have bet my pair of 3's and called a check-raise.)
It often makes sense to bet as a dog if called or even as a dog period.
-Abdul
I see.
A good "Where the rubber meets the road" question. Any analysis on who is conservative and aggressive in basic character from the responses?
Maybe, in some cases. But maybe just analyses of what is the best play under the circumstances. I mention above having called players down in similar spots (passive approach). But I could also point to many, many times when I've opted to semi-bluff raise on the turn, raise as a pure bluff on the river, or what have you. It's a real handicap if you can't play *contrary* to your basic (passive vs aggressive) personality tendencies whenever it's correct to do so.
John Feeney
On the button, I'd remembered, I mean Abdul probably remembered that he'd read somewhere that against weak players he should try to play as many hands as possible, hence raise. Congrads to Mason though, in that he took not one bullet, but two.
There has been some good analysis on this hand. One important thing to discuss is fifth st. play. I believe all options are close. I lean toward checking and folding in this specific situation. If Abdul will sometimes bluff on fouth st. and often give up those bluffs on the end, that gives Mason high enough pot odds on his fourth st. call since he has two ways of winning. Of course that does not prove that alternatives would not be even better. It only shows that Mason's fourth st. play along with check and fold on the end should have a positive EV.
Mason: Just kidding. I read your essays, books, etc for many hours each month.
Here's a suggestion for a new 2+2 title: "Check and call your way to victory". I suspect it'll be a slim volume.
?Quien es mas macho -- Sr. Ben Dover o nostotros que decimos que es posible que llamando es correcto en este caso? Yo creo que Sr. Dover tiene un problemo de pensando que jugando en un metodo macho es correcto *todo* el tiempo. No es la verdad!
Juan Feeney
John Feeney writes: "?Quien es mas macho -- Sr. Ben Dover o nostotros que decimos que es posible que llamando es correcto en este caso? Yo creo que Sr. Dover tiene un problemo de pensando que jugando en un metodo macho es correcto *todo* el tiempo. No es la verdad! "
Well said. I got almost as much from this post as I did from your recent essay. Just to check out my reading comprehension let me know what you think of my summary, OK? Earn more, beat bigger games. Is that about it? Got it. Can I use that despite your copyright?
Ben (nose not yet brown) Dover
.
John (o Juan),
I think my HE game improved a great deal when I stopped being a very aggressive player. Not that being aggressive is wrong. I was just being aggressive at the wrong time, when it was definitely uncalled for and I was trying to win every single hand I played in and I pushed my hands too far. I decided to take a slightly more passive approach, but tried to be aggressive when I noticed weakness or I was sure (and I needed reason for this, such as a good read on the player's holding or knowing how the player would react to my play). Now I think I sometimes play certain hands a little more passively when I should've played them stronger. But I figure that by thinking about the particular hand I have been improving my game.
carlos
Carlos -- Yes, definitely. While the idea of playing aggressively is valid as a *general* rule of thumb, there are plenty of situations where checking and calling is absolutely correct. Probably the easiest to see is in many situations against an habitual bluffer. But the same idea extends to other situations (against many very aggressive players, to induce bluffs, to balance your play...). That you're thinking about it is a sign that you're expanding your repertoire and your understanding of the game.
John F.
Somewhere deep in the archives (perhaps Exchange) you'll find a chapter listing of my book with exactly that title.
JG
First off, its time to go home if you THINK your A3 was suited and discovered in the show down it was not. It is also time to get some kind of "tilt monitor" in place if you don't notice that the flop was paired. But I suspect this was not the situation at the time.
I think Mason should have 3-bet it. I think he WOULD have 2-bet the flop or turn if he had 2-pair. So your only "fear" on the river is whether he hit the river card or is holding A-modest; since A-paint is a sure 3-betting hand. It think he will fold A8 more than one time in 5, AND call with KJ often enough to warrent a bluff/value bet on the river.
- Louie
Yeh!
Yuck!
Reraise preflop! Bet flop! Win pot! BEST PLAY!
Play it Mason's way. O.K. it works for me! Well almost works! A little to passive to be the optimum strategy!
Play it Mason's way but bet River. Abdul, no fool. He call/raise. Hmmm. Maybe Abdul reraise if Mason reraise flop. Then what does Mason do. Oh man, maybe above not work against a top player like Abdul by another top player like Mason. Unless Abdul thinks Mason thinks that Abdul thinks that Mason thinks that Sklanksy doesn't think but knows that they both think that Zee,Zee,Z,Z,Z. That's all folks! Znoring time!
Vince.
I have to admit that you write the most creative posts on this forum. Maybe we should give you a piece of the ad revenue.
David,
"creative posts" A veiled criticism if I ever heard one. But not one to miss an opportunity to fondle my ego I will accept your remarks as a compliment and leave it at that.
Vince.
BTW - Make the "ad revenue" checks payable to....
I arrived at the casino with only a couple of hours to play. the two 20/40 games were full, with a couple guys on the list, but there was a 4 handed 40/80 game going, and the floor told me another one or two would enter soon (maybe a lie, but i fell for it anyway). i looked at the field, it was a tough field, 1 very aggressive but probably solid player, the other three guys were tight but aggressive, and probably very solid players as they always play in the higher limit games. but after reading John Feeney's guest essay, I figured it would be worthwhile to sit in and learn, and who knows, maybe a donator would sit in.
i played a couple hands, nothing much special...another guy sat in, and turns out, he's a very solid player too.....and another guy sat in, and he may have been the best player at the table. i look around, there's no fish...i guess i'm it. i play one last hand....it is now 7 handed.
I get AJ off UTG. i decide to just call, and hope for a good flop. too good (?) of a hand to lay down and not strong enough to fold.
everybody folds to the small blind. he raises. the small blind is a player that i highly respect. nice guy, very good player (it seems), probably a professional in the technology industry, playing poker as an interesting hobby type of thing. bb folds. i call.
flop is 823 rainbow.
sb bets. i put him either on middle pair like 99, TT or AK, AQ. I raise to see what he does, and to get a free card. a fold just doesn't seem to be a good idea here, especially when i know he'd bet even a KQ on this flop. he reraises. now when he reraises, i think to myself he must not have a big pair, AA thru QQ because with that hand, he'd probably want to trap me on the turn or something. so I pretty sure he has middle pair like 99 TT or two very high cards like AK AQ (probably not KQ now that he reraised). I think my image to him must be a normal 20/40 player who is playing 40/80 for the first time and probably a little nervous (this is actually true)....the guy probably plays 40/80 80/160 all the time, but I rarely do, so he probably doesn't recognize me. i try to use this to my advantage.
on the turn, it is a 5. he bets, i call.
on the river, is a 7. the board is 82357, no flush possibilities. he bets....i think about it for a second. these were my possibiilities...
1. He has a pair 99, TT .... maybe A8. 2. He has two big cards AK, AQ 3. He has two bigger cards than the board, but no A , KQ.
I put a lot of weight (but equal) on 1 and 2. so I figure if I call, its just a complete loser. but a raise may have a very good chance of getting AK AQ to fold. I think he has the abiliity to fold that hand even with a fairly large pot now, and he knows i'm a nervous 20/40 player playing in 40/80 so if i'm raising, i probably have something very good. maybe 87 two pair or higher pair than the board. so if he has a pair, he'll call....if he doesn't he's 90% to fold.
did i play this well given the situation or was i too aggressive? comments please.
There is validity to your thought process on the end. However, whether this is a profitable play (even if it fails often, if it succeeds enough, it is profitable) or a losing play depends almost entirely upon this particular opponent. Since I don't know him, and your description doesn't give me any obvious reads on him, I don't know.
Unless I thought that my bluffing potential was pretty live against this particular opponent, I would have folded to his bet on the flop. As you indicated yourself, you are very likely behind, and may be drawing very thin. The only reason to play on is if you think you can push him off of enough of those hands that you give him credit for having.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Perhaps you should have called on the flop and raised on the turn (much intimidating) IF you are quite sure he will bluff bet 2 barrels like Abdul'play against Mason with probably a couple of big cards and IF you think he may put you on a middle pair.
Giving ONE free card on the flop (but not on the turn) in this situation is not so dangerous since you already have an Ace and he may heave another one.
If K or Q comes on the turn you can now fold and it costed you one small bet.
If an A comes you may at least call on the turn.
This is different. Mason knows Abdul. Your opponent does not know you. In situations like this your ability to bluff goes way down unless you have been earning his respect for several hours. He'd have to have 1-card in his hand not to call your putative raise on the river.
JG
At the beginning of the hand, your UTG limp suggests a mediocre but not bad hand, such as (1) a medium pair, (2) an ace suited with a medium card, (3) above-average suited connectors (such as QJs) or (4) two big cards less than AQ. (Against this lineup I'd probably muck AJo UTG, 7-handed or not).
On the river, he should assume that you'll call or fold a medium pair, having been intimidated by his earlier aggression. Your raise on the end therefore substantially narrows the range of hands that you probably hold to (1) 87 or 77, the former being an unlikely hand for an UTG limper, (2) a slowplayed set or straight (also highly unlikely) or (3) nothing (categories 3 and 4 above).
In other words, he's got to figure you for hitting a miracle card or running a desperation bluff. He might add to the calculus your raise on the flop, which conveyed your doubts about him holding an overpair. A three-bet on the river could shatter that. Also, if he's really got nothing, he might be disinclined to throw it away here for image reasons, effectively telling the table that they can pick him off with a raise on the river: he'll pick up more small pots by showing an aggressive image here with nothing than he'll lose by reraising you. So given these factors and the good-sized nature of the pot (10 1/2 BB), he would be well-advised to call with any pair and the two "big card" hands you suspected him of holding (AK, AQ) and to reraise with anything worse. You're in essence betting that he won't suspect a desperation raise, but I don't think this is the place for it. (I hope it worked, however).
he folded.
You don't tell us what happened but you must have balls of brass. If you don't flop anything with AK or Aj for that matter you through it away. Specially heads up when the pot is not that big. Now if you knew this guy I would say as a big lose cannon bluffer you may raise him but you don't say that either. I suspect that you were a few chips lighter and you just posted to verify what you already suspected you played lose.
I am interested in playing this game. Is there a book published that is worth reading? Any 2+2 stuff? Any other advice from pineapple players would be appreciated.
Dave in Cali
As in all hi-lo split games, hands that can win both ways are much better than 1-way hands.
Unlike Omaha8, unless there are still numerous people in the hand at the river, you will find many situations where there is no made low, even if there are 3 low cards on board. This is because if there are 2 low cards on the flop, people must discard, and therefore their low draws are counterfeited much more often.
The winning high hand usually must be very strong. Unlike HE, top pair, top kicker is not much of a hand. When you have AKQ, and the flop is A7T, you really shouldn't like your hand that much (unless the flop was seen only 2- or 3-handed). If this is a typical lower limit CP game, then so many folks saw the flop (with 3 cards each) that someone is quite likely to have 2-pair or a set. Plus, even if you're ahead for high now, there is a good chance of losing half the pot to a low draw that gets there, plus the chance of losing to a high draw that sucks out on you, plus the chance of losing to a low draw that backs into a straight or flush in addition to their low. When you add these chances up, top pair is often a folding hand on the flop, unless no one else is betting.
There are at least 1 or 2 books out there. I have one, whose title and author escape me at the moment. That book primarily just preaches playing tight preflop. While that advice is correct in a typical loose game, it doesn't help much in any other type of game, so you don't really need to read it.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
what exactly are the rules and structure of crazy pineapple i have seen it written about, but the important stuff for someone who has never seen it are missing
OK.
Here's how I've seen it played. The general structure is like HE and Omaha. Like Omaha8, the game is played hi/lo, with an 8 or better required for low. Like HE and unlike Omaha, you do not need to use 2 cards from your hand. Like HE, you can use 0, 1, or 2 cards from your hand (i.e., any 5 of the 7 cards may be used to make your hand, and different combos can be used for hi and lo simultaneously).
Preflop you are dealt 3 cards. After the flop, you must discard 1 of your 3 cards. Here's a difference I've seen. In California, you had to discard sometime before the turn card was dealt. In Connecticut (although this game is seldom played here) you must discard as soon as the flop is dealt, before any betting occurs. After the discard, play is as for HE or omaha. On the river, you turn over your cards, and the best hi and lo (if it qualifies) split the pot. There is no declare.
BTW, among moderately skilled players, I see a lot more evidence of frustration while playing this game than any other. You frequently have the situation where you start with A24, the flop brings 2 low cards, you discard the 4 so you have the nut low draw, and then a 2 shows up on the turn or river, effectively killing your hand. The problem here is you hear people griping about "throwing away the wrong card". In other words, this game provides an extra avenue for second guessing yourself.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In the midwest Crazy Pineapple is usually played as FossilMan described, but it is high poker only. That makes it a Hold Em game with very strong hands shown at the end.
In some games I have played in you must use at least one card from your hand; that is you cannot play the board.
As Greg decribed, the game is played as Hold'em, except you are initially dealt three cards, and usually must discard one. Whether and when you discard depends on the particular variant you are playing.
In Pineapple, you discard before the flop.
In Crazy Pineapple, you discard after the flop.
In Tahoe Pineapple or Lazy Pineapple, you don't discard, but can use no more than two cards from your hand to make a hand (although you can use a different two cards for high and for low).
The game is played either high or low. When played hi-lo in a cardroom, there's an 8 qualifier on the low (and no declare).
I've only logged a few dozen hours of this at a 10-20 limit, but I think the high hand is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be if the game's not ridiculously loose.
Two examples. 1) I've had reasonable success pushing a vulnerable hand like an overpair, on flops like 10-7-3. The reason is that most of the hands that might want to draw against you won't with the low draw out there, and you'll end up pitted against a bunch of people drawing at the low. 2) When an ace flops with another low card like a 6 or a 7, AK is a pretty good hand. The other aces will keep a low card for the runner-runner low potential, and few other high hands will be willing to tango with an ace on the board.
Well, an overpair is certainly better than top pair, for obvious reasons. And, that means that it can be played more often and/or more aggressively than top pair.
However, it still isn't a great hand. Let's say you have JJ on your flop of T73. First, there is a 77% chance that a low will be possible by the river. While no one will actually make a low some of those times, you will still be losing half the pot about 65% of the time (my guesstimate).
Among those low draws, there is likely an A. This will connect and beat you for high sometimes. Other low draws may include a 3-straight, a 4-straight, a 3-flush, and/or a 4-flush. These will connect and beat you for high sometimes as well. Sometimes, an opponent won't give up his AT or the like, and he'll catch a 5-outer and beat you.
Then, sometimes your JJ isn't good for high right now anyway. Someone called preflop with A33, and now has a set.
Now, against the right players and under the right circumstances, you should continue with JJ. I am very much not saying that top pair or an overpair should always be folded on the flop. That is way too weak-tight. However, the real trick is judging (from the action and who gives it) when your hand is no good and should be folded, and when you should just call to reduce your exposure, and when you should bet or raise aggressively to drive out some of those weaker draws that might beat you.
It can be quite tricky, and an expert player has a bigger edge in this game than in HE (I believe). When this game became popular in San Diego (for about a year and a half) it was almost always a GREAT game. The only downside is that it only got spread much at 3-6. But this game was at least 2-3 times more profitable than the 3-6 HE games in the same room. And, unlike Omaha8, the optimal strategy for playing in a loose game is less easy to discern, and only the really good players ever became good at this game IMO.
I wish it was spread at high limits everywhere!
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I have no feel for Pinapple hi/lo.
But straight high has the feature that players see LOTS of hands they like; there being 3 times as many hands with both cards T or higher. Thus, bad players play WAY TOO MANY trouble hands.
AK is a trouble hand. It should usually be folded in volume pots if there is a call and a couple callers, even if you DID flop an Ace. I think.
If you do not have a premium hand then you must have a 3-card hand. An exception may be Axs since you can expect callers to the river.
- Louie
Somewhat loose 10-20 HE game. You've been playing for about 2.5 hours and folding almost all of an unbelievably bad string of starting hands. You've noticed that other players are giving you a lot of respect (predictably) when you are involved in a pot.
You are in the big blind with pocket nines. Three limpers. A tough aggressive player raises on the button. You call. The limpers call. The flop comes Q-Q-9. How would you play this?
Suppose you checked, the button bet, you called, and one player called behind you. The turn is an eight. What now?
Suppose you checked, the button bet, you called, and the other player folded. The river is a ten. What now?
I would probably bet the river hoping my opponent has a Jack and raise me so I can make it 3 bet or have my opponent make a crying call with a hand like KK, AA, AQ or KQ. But then, I might've led the bet on the flop to see what would the button's reaction would be and at least try to put him on some kind of hand. Your hand is pretty strong that I don't think there is anything wrong with just betting the flop, maybe your opponents will not put you on such strong a hand when you bet the flop and not wait until the turn to get some action.
carlos
It is hard to answer the questions you posed since they assume my playing that hand in a way I believe to be incorrect. I do agree with checking and calling after the flop. However, I would check raise on the turn, not check call. And I would bet out on the river. One of the reasons to bet and/or check raise (besides to build the pot) is to get information about your opponents hands. With the passive way this hand was played, you did neither. The button could have anything from 4Q's to nothing. You might like to know this before the final betting. Black Jack
With 4 players, it's 2 to 1 against anyone having a Q. The odds are in your favor then, that you indeed have the best hand. The button could be assuming you also have no Q, and he could be playing any combination of A and K. I would either check-raise the flop to see where I stand, to see if I'm re-raised perhaps. But since the button is aggressive I would tend to play like I do have the best hand, and check raise the turn. But I also am an aggressive player. Comments welcome.
I don't think there's much doubt that I had the best hand on the flop. I certainly didn't give it much thought. I may be up against a hand that is drawing live, and the question is how to weigh that against other factors.
I think that a check raise on the flop is almost certainly the wrong play, especially when it is the button who bet. There are a lot of hands that will pull off one more card for a small bet that are (essentially) drawing dead against you---with only a fraction of 1% chance of beating you. You might even get a late position player to call with a gutshot. The more people you lure in here, the better the chance that someone picks up a calling hand for a later round. And regardless of the type of player you are or I might be, I could never hope to get much action by checkraising in a spot with a bunch of strangers who've been watching me fold for the last few hours straight.
Ok. I'd assumed that you were in doubt as to the strength of your hand. Your intention was then, to slow play the hand. So, ok we just call the flop, fine. Yet, I say either bet the turn and if raised, re-raise, or check the turn and checkraise. Both to get more money into the pot. Your hand is strong, but at the turn I say it's time to go for it, even if other players drop. It is just possible you know that letting them in at the river could allow someone to catch some "miracle" card to beat you, that is a larger full house. Good Luck.
I would bet right out. Once you do, there are 11.5 small bets in the pot. This is plenty of pot odds for people to call with JT, or any gutshot straight draw (since they may not factor in the "drawing dead" part of the equation). This flop can provide a wide variety of draws. Plus, once they call for 1 bet, if the button raises, you can just call, and this will go a long way towards disguising your hand. Now, you've gotten 2 bets in from a lot of players, AND disguised your hand.
Whether you should bet out again on the turn or go for a check-raise, or check-call, depends upon the card and the players. If the button is less likely than not to bet again (i.e., his raise on the flop may have been a free card play for AK), then don't go for the check-raise or check-call. If the card is a 9, T, J, or K, then someone may have made a straight. You can either bet out knowing they will at least call, or check and hope they bet for you. Same considerations if there are now 3 suited cards on board.
Most of the time, I will bet out again on the turn, as that will get more money into the pot more often than the alternatives. However, the correct decision is highly dependent upon the players and the current character of the game.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I would put more emphasis on two problems with betting out on the flop: (1) the possibility of a third queen with another "nearby" card weakens any draw, both by reducing the chance of hitting and the amount of action you'll get if it does; and (2) your image. Two 1/2 hours is a long time without catching cards, and there's a real threat that your opponents, having none of this board, will let it go on the flop or for one small bet. The button might be particularly cautious about giving you action, while a show of weakness on your part might encourage him to walk out on a limb.
I would prefer to check the flop and bet the turn. If a rag hits, they might suspect a cold bluff, and if a straight card hits, they might continue with a draw and/or suspect a semibluff on your part. Waiting until the turn, IMO, gives you the best chance to induce a raise that could ultimately tie someone on until the end.
(BTW, why didn't you repop him preflop?)
I agree with you that betting out was not the right play here. Marginal drawing hands can't call with a pair on the board and the threat of a raise behind, especially given my table image. I'm surprised that people are disputing my play on the flop, which, in my opinion, was about the only part of this hand that I almost certainly played correctly.
I wasn't really happy with how the action went on the turn. Betting out might have induced bluff-raises from more aggressive players. As it turned out, I did manage to induce the button to bluff twice---he held K-10---and he might have been more inclined to toss the hand to a bet. I think there's a case to be made for checking and calling here, given my weak-tight image and to make it easy for the guy behind me to call. I'm still not sure how the best way to play the turn was.
The truly bone-headed move, which I left out of my original post, was the bet I missed on the river. Given the Q-Q-10-9-8 board, there are a lot of calling hands out there, and also a lot of hands that will check behind me. Some players will even lose faith in their unimproved queen at this point, fearing a straight. The guy would also have been tempted to call with a hand as weak as K-10.
As for not repopping preflop, I have to be honest that it never even occurred to me. Now that you say it, I note that it might have worked. The limpers would have been pressured to fold with my table image---it might have thinned the field considerably. That said, under normal (image) circumstances, I'm usually content to pay my ten bucks and have a nice big multi-way pot in this spot, given my position.
I'm in the big blind with 10s2s. Loose 3-6 game. Six callers to me without a raise. I take the free play.
Flop comes T 2 8 rainbow. SB checks, I bet, everyone calls until the tilt-master type player on the button, who raises. He is somewhat stuck and his raising standards are very low today. I re-raise, two drop, rest call.
Turn is an offsuit 3, no flush possible. I bet again. Rest fold, tiltmaster raises. I don't think he has a hand, judging from the look on his face. I decide to re-raise. He calls after some thought....
River is a 4. I bet, He calls. He has AT. I guess I read him right.
Comments/suggestions?
Dave in Cali
Sounds fine to me. With your second pair being so low, you don't want to give a free card, so bet it as hard and often as possible (until and unless someone convinces you that your hand isn't the best, which didn't happen here).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You are in a $120 buy-in limit hold-em tournament. You get $800 in tournament chips. The rounds are 30 minutes. The limits start at $10-$20 up to $500-$1,000 or whenever the tournament is over. There are 278 entrants. The first prize is 40% or $11,200, and 27th place gets 2% or $150. Second place gets 23% and third place gets 12%. The limit is at $500-$1,000. You are at the fourth table, and you have $6,500 in chips. An early position player raises to $1,000. A player just to the right of the button makes it three bets to $1,500. When the reraiser next to the button makes it three bets, you ask "what do you have -- pocket aces?" He reacts surprised that you guessed his holding, but otherwise does not make a comment. He remains silent. You are in the small blind. You look down and see two black Kings. What do you do? Fold, call, or raise?
This is an actual hand which I was involved in at the Bicycle Club's Bike Bash IV Tournament. Instead of going with my first impression, and sitting on my chips, I made it four bets. The original raiser folded. We were heads up. The flop came all black cards. I can't remember which, but they were small to medium sized. I had an overpair. I bet. My opponent called. The turn came another black card. I don't remember if it was a spade or a club. I bet $1,000. My opponent raised it to $2,000. I sensed trouble, but I ignored my feelings and called his raise. Another black card came on the river. There were either three clubs or three spades on the board. I don't remember which. I checked. He checked, apparently because there was a three flush on the board. He turned over two red Aces. I was down to about $1,600, and before long I was out of the tournament and out of the money.
When you get pocket Kings, it is awfully hard to throw them away on the flop, let alone before the flop. I was overly excited getting pocket Kings, and ignored my first impression of the reraiser's possible holding. He had just come to the table, and had not had much chance to observe his play. How would you have played pocket Kings under the above described circumstances?
You wrote:
"The limit is at $500-$1,000. You are at the fourth table, and you have $6,500 in chips. An early position player raises to $1,000. A player just to the right of the button makes it three bets to $1,500. When the reraiser next to the button makes it three bets, you ask "what do you have -- pocket aces?" He reacts surprised that you guessed his holding, but otherwise does not make a comment. He remains silent. You are in the small blind. You look down and see two black Kings. What do you do? Fold, call, or raise?"
Since you had a "tell" of sorts on the guy with aces, why on earth would you call? If you are certain the other guy has aces, FOLD!!! You are a 4.5:1 underdog, and the pot is only offering you 2:1. Plus it's late in a tournament, this promises to be a big confrontation, and you only have 6.5 big bets left. You can fold now for free!
Of course, without the tell, it could be most difficult to lay down those pretty kings, I'm sure....
Dave in Cali
In a sense, the strength of your hand is immaterial. What matters is the RELATIVE strength of your hand.
I can't say whether you should have played this hand or not. It really comes down to your read of the other player. If you think that your hand is the best preflop, then you should have capped it as you did. If you have enough confidence in your read of this player, then you fold. You can't just call here, because 3 bets is too much to pay hoping to flop a set (under the circumstances).
Of course, sometimes you make a play preflop, and then reevaluate what you think the other guy has later in the hand also (not that I would have folded on the turn once the pot has gotten this big).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Hi,
Very interesting post, got me thinking. I wish I could do as I say more of the time, although I am getting much better at it:
If you just know that someone has something
which makes you a losing second best,
but the losing cards you have look so pretty, then you must fold em.
You made me remember the nice full house I flopped (66) 677 on board years ago, big pot, three players, then the turn was, yes, you guessed it, another 7...I knew who had the quads, just knew it, but I paid off. His forehead had a sign, I have the case 7, I have the case 7. I just would not believe my nice boat was beaten.
Mark
"When you get pocket Kings, it is awfully hard to throw them away on the flop, let alone before the flop."
As hard as it may be, it is the ONLY correct play! Throw them away before the flop! Not because you asked ( a silly question) and YOU felt he gave you a SURPRISED (silly again) response. You fold because it is the CORRECT play at this stage of the tournament given the situation you found yourself.
Vince.
BTW - It is easier said than done! Throwing away the Kings that is!
Hello, I really need some advice. I consider myself a pretty tight player, and I play low limit.. $3-6 and $4-8. Once in awhile I play on Delta Casino online, and sometimes I get stuck in situations that frustrate me to no end. A 3-way match-up or heads-up. Everytime im in one of these games, All they do is Raise,raise,RAISE EVERY SINGLE HAND!!! This completley throws me off... I dont have much experiance in this situation and I really,really,really would appreciate some advice or strategy. I know most people are goign to say "Just dont play in those games", but I want to improve that aspect of my game, not shy from it. So any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank You!!, Hornet
The issue isn't so much that they're raising, but what they're raising with. You need to get a line on the players, and determine what range of hands they will play this way. If it's heads-up and they'll raise with absolutely anything, then you can call them down with any hand that rates to win a high enough percentage of the time. This will include a variety of hands that have no pair, such as A high and K high.
The much tougher spot is when you're against 2 of these guys at the same time, and they're raising each other. Now it will cost you many bets to get to the river, and it's much harder to call with these marginal (e.g., K high) hands. While it's more likely that at least one of them has some kind of hand that beats you, you're now getting 2:1 on your investment. This still means you need to tighten up, but you certainly don't need top pair or better to call them down.
Now, the situation is much different if the player(s) are somewhat (or highly) selective with their starting hands, and THEN jam unmercilessly once they come in. It takes a much better hand to call them down now.
So, get an idea what each of these opponents needs before he goes into jam mode, and call him down with the appropriate range of hands. Also, you will eventually want to determine how these guys respond when you do more than call, such as bet into them or raise their bet. Some of these maniacs get even more aggressive when you do this, others close down.
Also, don't forget the other guy (when there is one) who is also tagging along. If someone who isn't a jammer is also calling the bets, you now need a MUCH stronger hand to call. This other guy also feels he has a better hand than the jammer, and he may be slowplaying a very big hand.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I disagree a little, but it would help if I knew for sure exactly what game we are talking about. I assume it's hold-em as that is all that is played on the web (as far a I know) and it's a game with frequent raises before the flop. While I have no experience with this game, I will give you my opinion which I think should apply anyway.
This is it. Fold until you have nuts or something you can slowplay. This will do two things. First, they will pay you off. Second, they will get nervous anytime you call. Of course, you may want to adjust your play throughout the game, but it seems to me that playing tight against these manics is better than going in with marginal hand.
These manics will raise you to the river. Then your stuck playing that marginal hand for lots of money when it really does not have a lot of value. Playing nuts will both win you money against the manics who may be raising with marginal hands, and it will tend to throw them off their game by making them call rather then bet and raise when you're in the game, something you can take advantage of later.
If you wait for the nuts in 3-way Hold'em you'll be down to the felt in no time. You need to play at least 75% of the hands you're dealt, while mixing up raising, limp-re-raising, slow-playing, check-raising, call/bluff-raising, etc. Fold a lot and you'll get broomcorned, then when you have something you'll only win the blinds.
Are you sure? Nuts in hold-em is a high pair, I think. The moment they start folding is the moment you start calling and betting. Pretty soon they'll call, then go back to playing strong starting hands. That's what I mean by adjusting your play. If you call with marginal hands, you'll find yourself up against strong hands more often then not.
Two suggestions:
1) Respect position. Play your button aggressively before the flop, especially with big cards. Don't be afraid to sacrifice your little blind with marginal starting hands---you don't want to get jammed with these when you're out of position. The crime in this game is folding the button and the big blind too often.
2) Do some thinking about what it takes to win. A lot of players fail to make the adjustment from a full game because they just don't know where they are. For example, against one opponent with two unpaired cards, it's about 2 to 1 that he missed the flop. What does this mean? When you have a pair, you're probably ahead and you should play it that way. Bet out or check-raise when you have second pair. Don't be intimidated by positional raises and don't give free cards when you have a good hand. Call people down when you're in doubt: it sounds like your opponents are in there a lot with nothing. Calling is not a crime in heads up situations.
Can we get a ruling on how this is *normally* handled, although it's not a normal occurrance.... :)
Home game:
Flop is T,T, xxx
Button bets all the way through to the river.... 3 callers (including the button) at the showdown... Button rolls over his cards, and low and behold, he has a Ten, along with a Queen..... along with a 3... :)
After considerable arguement, the pot was split 4 ways...
Comments
Thanks
Larry
I'm pretty sure that the ruling in almost every public cardroom is that the 3-card hand is dead, and can get nothing from the pot. Once that hand is killed, you look at the other shown hands, and give the pot to the winner.
A harder situation is where the button shows his T, and someone(s) mucks their hand before it is noticed that the button has 3 cards (and a dead hand). While the muckers and maybe others will be pissed, the proper ruling is to again kill the dead hand, and then award the pot to the best shown hand. The lesson here is to hold your cards until you see both of the winners cards, and see that he doesn't have 3 cards.
Of course, in a home game, ruling often differ just because the game is more sociable and the players trust one another.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
What type of poker game should l learn first? What would be the best book for it?
I suggest: Texas Holdem as the first game.
Books: Start with Holdem Poker (2+2) and Winning Low Limit Holdem (Lee Jones ).
soon after: Theory of Poker, and Holdem For the Advanced Player 21st century editon.
After that buy every good poker book, there are not that many.
I also suggest playing on IRC poker and using Wilson Turbo Texas Holdem software to get some cheap pre-experience.
David
Great post, not much I can add, but...
You should practice dealing out hands, or playing turbo HE, until you can unquestionably read the board perfectly every time. In any form of poker, whether casino or wild-card home games, you must know EXACTLY what you have and what you might hope improve to. Then practice reading the board on the computer or in your home game.
Remember your home game will be nothing like the casino, it's MUCH harder to win in the casino. You usually need a good hand to be in the pot at all. The tactics are different, so you need to read about them before beginning play.
The 4 books mentioned are essential reading for HE. Theory of poker is probably the most important one, if you are really serious about being a good player. You will probably have to read it several times and keep referring to it often....
Dave in Cali
p.s.
Should you decide down the road to conquer another game, I suggest 7CS and read S/M/Z's book.
I would also recommend 7-CARD STUD:42 LESSONS by Roy West.I would also recommend Wilson Turbo 7-Card Stud for Windows7-stud i a most fun and challenging game.
Thanx all of you!!! for the information. ;)
Yeh! Well we will see if you still say Than(x)ks when Malmuth sends you the bill!
Vince
A local card club spreads a 4-8 7Stud game with a $1 ante and a $1 bring in. Now the house takes $3 as rake. However if there is no 4th street card the house doesn't drop any money at all.
So for a ante steal, a $4 bet can gain you $9 in a full table. Something that doesn't happen that often, by the way. Now, this game seems to have a larger ante than a 20-40 game with a $3 ante and a $5 bring in (for 8 handed the total amount of money after the bring in is 1.45 small bets). The 4-8 Stud, 8 handed, after the rake has a total of $6, or 1.5 small bets.
Should this game be played to knock other players out, just like a bigger Stud game? What effect can it have on the bad players? Does this game penalize those that play too tight? Any ideas?
Carlos
dont play it!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you and one other player see the pot for the bring in only, that's 10$ in the pot. If that $$ is going to be raked 3$ that's 30%. So it seems like everyone at the table will be severely penalized for tight play and small pots. With that rake structure, you don't want to win a bunch of small pots. I would question whether it's worth it to play in that game, or even possible to beat the rake.
Dave in Cali
Last night the local card club was spreading a 10-20 Omaha/8 game with 1/2 kill. The lineup was made mostly of Holdem Players (with some being rather weak). I decided to sit down since the game looked good. I post a hand in the cutoff seat and get dealt A245 with the 2 and 4 of diamonds. It was raised by a middle position player and I just called. (1) Should I have reraised? I figure that with that hand I wanted as many people in the pot and I was ready to make it 4 bet if someone raised after I just called. The button and the blinds call. We take the flop 5 handed.
The flop comes K 9 3 rainbow and the BB bets. Middle position player (MP) calls. I call. button calls and small blind call. Turn comes a 6. Now i have a nut low draw with an open ended straight. Action gets checked to me. I checked (2) Should I have bet my strong draw at this point trying to get more money in the pot? Should I worry about getting there with the low and get quartered? There seemed no indication that there was an A2, but the game was a little passive. Button checks. River comes a 2. Now I have nut low (A4) and nut high (6-hi straight). Action gets checked to me. I bet and get 4 callers. I scoop the pot.
Here is another hand that doesn't involve a low and was pretty much head's up with a player who I think is a very good HE player. I have never played Omaha with him before. I raise first in with As7sThJh. The big blind calls. Flop comes KJJ (rainbow). BB checks. I bet. BB raises. I reraise. BB reraises!. (1) At this point the BB is showing a lot of strenght and I am guessing that he has a KJ, AJ, or KK. I don't think he would play QT that strongly in this situation. But I do fear KK or KJ at this point. Turn brings a T giving me a full house and BB fires a bullet. (2) Since I figure that if I was behind on the flop, the T makes my hand better, but not relative to my opponent's hand. I decide not to raise and just go on calling mode. River is a 4 (Board now: K J J T 4) and BB checks. I checked behind. (3) I know I probably made a mistake here by not value betting my fullhouse, since if my opponent really did have KJ he would've definitely bet the river, even AJ he would've bet. He says I have a Jack and I show my hand to take the pot.
Any comments welcome,
Carlos
First Hand:
I don't think there is much value to jamming pre flop in a multiway pot with a hand that has little high value other than wheel potential. Even if your Ace was suited, it only serves to increase your variance since no single hand is a huge favorite against the field. In O8, I raise preflop to get the button, isolate a weak player, or take control of the hand for a potential free card on the flop. I don't usually raise just to builf the pot.
Post flop, it was worth peeling one card off for a single bet since you had a strong "draw to a nut draw" with any ace, 2,3,4,5 or 6 giving you a nut low and straight draw. You should ALWAYS worry about drawing to a low just to get quartered, but that is why counterfiet protection (which you had) is so important. Despite the stregth of your draw, you did the right thing by taking the free card, especially in a multiway pot playing with guys that will pay you off when you get there. If you had a king or a pair of Aces you might venture a bet in hopes of saving the high hand if the low doesn't et there.
Second Hand:
Since it was heads-up, he properly played his Jack strongly, as hig must figure that YOU would surely slowplay KK or KJ with that board. I think your slowing down on the flop and turn was reasonable, but you correctly second guessed yourself. You missed a bet on the river. If you have position, you gotta use it. Especially in Omaha.
Post deleted at author's request.
First hand, preflop - I don't really know which is the BEST way to play this hand. The good thing is that it's a strong hand, and strong both heads-up and in a big multiway pot. Since I don't think you're losing much (if anything) by 3-betting here, I think a call is preferable just because it reduces your variance.
On the flop, the call is OK. As M7 said, more than half the deck gives you a nut draw, and all those low cards but an 8 give you a straight draw as well. On the turn, I would bet more often than not. 20 cards out of 44 give you the nut low. Of those 20, 3 give you the nut high (2), 3 give you the very likely best high (4), 7 give you a more likely than not best high (7,5), and 7 give you the low only (A,8). If everyone calls, this bet is profitable. If only 1 player calls, this bet could be setting you up to win with a bluff on the river when you miss. Finally, this bet is only a negative when exactly 2 players call. In this spot, it still may enable you to bluff on the river if necessary.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"Last night the local card club was spreading a 10-20 Omaha/8 game with 1/2 kill. The lineup was made mostly of Holdem Players (with some being rather weak). I decided to sit down since the game looked good. I post a hand in the cutoff seat and get dealt A245 with the 2 and 4 of diamonds. It was raised by a middle position player and I just called. (1) Should I have reraised? I figure that with that hand I wanted as many people in the pot and I was ready to make it 4 bet if someone raised after I just called. The button and the blinds call. We take the flop 5 handed."
I would just call there. You want many players with that hand. Your hand is not strong 2 or 3 way and you don't want to put a lot of money behind it if you will only be facing one or two opponents. Against a crowd, you have a strong hand and a fourth bet would be correct. Also, a 4-bet would create a sufficiently large pot to keep virtually any high draw in after the flop, which is to your advantage with an A2. So I agree with the call with the intention of 4-betting a reraiser if many players are in.
"The flop comes K 9 3 rainbow and the BB bets. Middle position player (MP) calls. I call. button calls and small blind call. Turn comes a 6. Now i have a nut low draw with an open ended straight. Action gets checked to me. I checked (2) Should I have bet my strong draw at this point trying to get more money in the pot? Should I worry about getting there with the low and get quartered? There seemed no indication that there was an A2, but the game was a little passive. Button checks."
Nobody is going to fold here (since they all called on the flop with only slightly better odds and now there's a second low card on board). A bet would gain value even if you are quartered for low.
"Here is another hand that doesn't involve a low and was pretty much head's up with a player who I think is a very good HE player. I have never played Omaha with him before. I raise first in with As7sThJh."
You were in the button, right? This hand is only playable as a steal.
"The big blind calls. Flop comes KJJ (rainbow). BB checks. I bet. BB raises. I reraise. BB reraises!. (1) At this point the BB is showing a lot of strenght and I am guessing that he has a KJ, AJ, or KK. I don't think he would play QT that strongly in this situation. But I do fear KK or KJ at this point. Turn brings a T giving me a full house and BB fires a bullet. (2) Since I figure that if I was behind on the flop, the T makes my hand better, but not relative to my opponent's hand. I decide not to raise and just go on calling mode. River is a 4 (Board now: K J J T 4) and BB checks. I checked behind. (3) I know I probably made a mistake here by not value betting my fullhouse, since if my opponent really did have KJ he would've definitely bet the river, even AJ he would've bet. He says I have a Jack and I show my hand to take the pot." His check-raise on the flop announces a minimum of Jx. Your reraise indicates a jack with high kicker. His raising that would normally represent a monster. It's possible that he would be semibluffing QT or AQT or QT9, but those would probably not be check-raise hands, and a good player would slow down with them once it's obvious that you have a hand. When the T hits the turn, AQT and QT9 make straights, QT still has a draw (unlikely that he would bet again), KJ/KK/JJ are ahead of you, AJ is now behind you, Jx is still losing. JJ and KK and even KJ would probably have been slowplayed until the turn by most players. More likely, he has AJ or Jx. If he's normally an aggressive player, I would be inclined to raise the turn and bet the river. If he's primarily a holdem player, he may not be sufficiently adjusting to the greater strength of Omaha hands in virtually all situations. He may be playing hands strongly on the flop and turn that are actually far weaker than his play would indicate.
I was first one in maybe 2 off the button when I raised with that hand. I would've been happy just stealing the blinds. And it almost worked, only that the big blind called and he got trapped when I had the better kicker with my Jack.
Carlos
As an aside, in limit Omaha or Omaha8, it is probably NEVER a loss of EV if everyone folds preflop to your raise.
In other words, your EV on the hand if played to a conclusion probably never exceeds the value of the blinds alone in a limit game (with exceptions for really weak opponents).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I would reraise preflop with that hand. I normally raise preflop with hands that have a combination of powerfull draws to the nuts, and vulnerable or weak non-nut draws. With your starting hand, you want hands that contain middle connectors out. You don't want your 5 or 6 high straight beaten by other straights. Raising (and in this case reraising) can do that. Raising and reraising with hands like Ad2d5hTh also create the possiblilty of scooping if a runner-runner heart flush comes in after you make a low.
Hey Chris,
It was the first hand I played. I had just posted a $10 blind in late position and the raiser was the first to open the pot. I didn't feel that I wanted to get head's up with the opponent when my hand was more geared towards the low. Now as I said earlier, if the BB had made it 3 bets. After the button and the small blind called. I would not have hesitated to make it 4 bets with that hand, since with 5 players in the hand I am not likely to lose, even if quartered.
carlos
The button is to my left in a fairly passive 2-5 game. I have pocket jacks and raise to $7 after three limpers. All fold but two limpers. A tight player in seat four and an unknown in seat six. The flop is A 8 4 rainbow. The tight player bets $5 and the unknown calls. The pot is now $35. I fold. Comments please..
You have a tight player betting into the raiser, and an unknown player calling the person betting into the raiser. Given your assessment of the other players capabilities, I absolutely agree with your fold. One or both of your opponents had A-x. Black Jack
I agree with the fold. My experience with pocket jacks is: You would preferably play them against either one or two players so that they may stand up on their own or against an entire field of 5 or more, in which case I would be looking to trip up and have a possible big pot. Three or four opponents is not what I'm looking for. Hence, IMO pass up the raise pre-flop here. Good Luck.
" You would preferably play them against either one or two players...Hence, IMO pass up the raise pre-flop here. "
His raise got him against two other players. Had he limped, he was guaranteed at least 4 callers, but if the button and SB folded, he's playing up against 4.
It's also worth noting in a 2-5 game (where the bets on the turn and river don't increase), you won't get paid off as much when you hit your set.
Raise the flop and fold if reraised. Why? You tell me!
Vince.
I guess folding to a reraise is correct because the worst hand I am up against is AK and the pot is still not big enough for my two outs. There is some chance that both would fold (say a weak ace) to my raise. That would be nice but not too likely. Suppose one or both players call my raise and check to me when the turn is a blank. Do I take my "free" card? Or do I bet again? Do I fold to a check raise on the turn? I'm obviously having trouble telling you why I should raise the flop. /moses
Raise the flop for the same reason an early position opponent will bet this flop. The pot is big enough to take a shot at it! If you are reraised you can be very sure you are beat with not much chance of winning the hand. Thus a fold is in order. If you raise there is some chance one of your opponents will fold and a very slight chance they both will fold. The initial flop bettor may have taken a shot with a medium pair and may fold to your raise. The opponent that most likely has you beat here with an Ace or maybe even a set is the opponent that just called on the flop. If he calls your raise or reraises you are in trouble. If he has a weak Ace he may call or fold but will probably not reraise. So unless you make a set on the turn you should check and take a free card. Checking the turn makes calling/folding to a river bet more difficult. Aggressive players may bet the river at any sign of weakness. But you are probably beat and should fold to a river bet if you do not improve.
Vince.
BTW - I never said that a fold on the flop was a mistake. Just a little to passive for my taste. However, I must concede that a fold against a tight player and an unknown opponent in this situation cannot be considered incorrect.
I would fold as often as not here, because the overcard is the A, which figures into more playable limp hands then does say a Q, especially for weaker players, and what with 2 players involved with this flop you are almost certainly up against an A.
As far as the raise before the flop goes, with the number of limpers in the pot before the action reached you, IMO it would have also been correct to limp in yourself and hope to pick up a couple more callers behind you, then (hopefully) hit a set on the flop.
Larry
During the play of a hand, is it improper to make any comment or ask a question which might elicit information or give you a tell as to what your opponent's holding is? I was told by a friend that it is improper to make any comment during the play of a hand. Does making a comment during the play of a hand, especially in a tournament, violate some poker rule of conduct?
You cannot say anything at all which might give away ANY information about the play of a hand which the players still in the hand do not have the right to know. It is bad ettiquette and probably against the rules in most places (I HOPE).
For instance, saying what cards you folded could drastically alter the strategy for one of the players, which would obviously be unfair to the others. You also cannot give anything away if another player happens to show you his hand. Perhaps his lone opponent is at the other end of the table and he is not protecting his hole cards very well.
The same thing applies to folding out of turn. The other players don't know you are going to fold, so if you fold out of turn, you are giving them extra info on which to base their decision which they weren't entitled to have.
I will let others elaborate as to the specific rules, etc.... The point is, if you are gonna play poker, do it with some class. Don't do or say anything that will affect the outcome of anyone's hand, whether you are in the hand or not.
Of course, it's all DOUBLE for a tournament!
Dave in Cali
Part of playing poker is deception. While you should be careful not to give tells that help other players, you can make comments as part of a deceptive ploy on your part. This, of course, may not win you a lot of friends; but sometimes you have no choice. Like when someone asks: Do you have it? Otherwise, be careful not to inadvertanly help other players regardless of whether your helping them beat you or beat other players at the table.
Is it always the case that you should avoid making comments when you are heads up and you ask, "what do you got, pocket aces?" I remember in the movie, ROUNDERS, when Matt Damon's character was asked by Johnny Chan "do you have it?" It wasn't in a tournament, but they were apparently heads up in a cash game. Was it improper ediquette for Johnny Chan to have asked Damon's character what he had?
It was useless question as it usually is. If he needed to know, he would have called.
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Yes, but in encouraging social/recreational games, chatter is part of the social interactions that many players, especially older players, find so satisfying. I would rather be in that type of game than a serious and silent game.
Tonight I made a critical error playing 5/10 stud and I want feedback, even though it really STINKS that I made this mistake.
It's a maniac game. The player in the 2 seat is raising about 50% on 3rd street. He always raises if he has an ace or the highest card up. He also re-raises about 40% of the time when it's a raise to him. I will make another post and discuss how I fared dealing with the maniac! However, he is 2 seats to my right. Him, me, and one other player are in the pot.
I had a pair of jacks in the hole, six up (and, I HAD A TWO FLUSH!!!!!!!). He raised with a ten up, one ten dead in another player's hand (bring in was one to his right). I re-raised and a player with a nine called, he capped, three players.
I raised on 4th and he promptly reraised again. He kept betting the whole way, even though his board did not improve by much. He showed no signs of letting up, getting his chips ready in advance for each betting round.
I had a four flush and a pair of jacks, king kicker by sixth. The other player had caught an ace and showed no signs of folding. She probably had a pair smaller than jacks to start, but is now drawing to two pair with a better kicker than me. MOST of the cards that could help any of us were live.
I was pretty sure I had the best draw going into the river, and even if I just made two pair they stood a good chance to win. (The player with the ace never bet or raised on it, I don't think it helped her). My flush would most likely be good if I hit. Despite the threatening boards, the maniac keeps betting the whole way.
On the river, He bets again after looking at his hole card. I see the player with the ace getting ready to call behind me. My flush is bust, all I have is a pair of jacks. I fold. She calls with a pair of sixes, he has a pair of tens.
I folded the best hand for one more bet in a big pot. It really put me on tiltus maximus, I had to go take a long walk! I had already been losing a little and that pot would have put me back to even. But alas, I got over it and returned to the game a while later. Things did get better later in the game.
Usually I consider a bad call on the end to be a small mistake. Folding the best hand for one more bet at the end is certainly a LARGE mistake. Certainly this pot would have made up for several river calls in the past or future.
Comments please....
Dave in Cali
You maybe even should have raised on the end.
You were deep into a big pot with no outright sign you were beaten. At the very least you should have called one final bet. And Sklansky may well be right that a raise could have been an even better move. I learned my lesson in a 10-20 game years ago when a better player psyched me out on the last round and I tossed a solid winner. Don't beat yourself up over this---we've all learned from our bad plays (I hope). Bob Sherwood
Dave,
Sometimes good players make the mistake of thinking that the other players are aware, being logical, and reading hands. Of course this is not always the case as it was in this hand. All good players have made this mistake at one time or another. Of course David brings up a great point as usual in that a raise should be considered.
Tom Haley
I had a hand similiar to this a couple of weeks ago. It is funny but I always learn more from a loss than I do a win. If I'm winning, who's going to tell me that I need improvement? Anyway, an aggressive player bet me all the way, with big cards up. I ended up with a stinking pair of 5's, folded the last bet on the river. He proudly announces, I'm glad you didn't call, as I didn't even make a pair. Wowie. Since then, verses a player capable of bluffing at the end, and especially heads up, I will call that last bet, if his board does not have my hand beat. Period. Next day, same situation, player bets on river, I still have that same stinking pair of 5's. He says, nice hand and reveals a split pair of threes. Send me that pot please.
Clearly, you should have called. You logically thought you must be beat by at least one of the two players. On the other hand, the way you described the other players, you could have read thier hands differently. In any case, had you called and lost, you would have said, "oh well, maybe I shouldn't have been in that hand for that long anyway." At least you would know that you didn't let anyone get away with a bluff and had correctly called on seventh street.
As a note, I don't think I would have raised. With a pair you're just calling to keep the other players honest. They obviously knew you were capable of folding. Hence they bet. It seems to be a disease of good poker players to underestimate low limit players. In any case, it's easy to say: "you should have raised, because you had the best hand: one pair." The reality is if you had raised, you would have thought you were at least semi-bluffing. If they folded, you would have thought: "boy, I got away with that one." You wouldn't have know you had the best hand, unless they are the type of player who can't let go of hand at end no matter what they have. Also, the other player, who was bluffing, may have simply reraised. Then, had you know what he had, you should then reraise. It just becomes more and more absurd.
I think what you learned is the lesson that you should rarely, if ever, fold on the end. You have to be facing strong boards and multiple bets.
The raise is suggested with a view to getting the third player to fold a hand that can beat the hero's pair of Jacks; it is not suggested as a way to garner an extra bet from the original bettor although that's also likely to happen if the third player folds.
First, please feel free to critize everything I say. Second, I realize that what I'm about to post is very general, but I have to go into a game with a general schema. I adjust to the players and the game from there. It's just too hard to go in blank thinking I'm going to play every hand as it comes. I've got to have a general idea of what I'm going to do. I worry about he intricies during the game. I've just finished reading the twentith century edition of 7CSFAP and want to make sure I have it right. Please point out if I've missed something important. Please also point out if I got it right. Following is an outline of the general approach, by street, to playing in loose 1-3 and 1-5 spread limit 7CS games.
THIRD STREET
Go in with marginal hands for the bring-in. This includes live hands with two face cards, small and medium pairs, and gut shot straights. Just call with low trips and potential big pairs. You may raise $1 or $2 with small to medium pairs with two to a flush or straight. Sometimes bet with a live three to a flush or straight and with high trips as you are likely to get called. Don't try to get players out of the game. Try to trap them in.
FOURTH STREET
Fold unimproved marginal hands. Call with potential two big pairs and low trips. Sometimes raise with live four to a straight or flush and with high trips when you think you will be called.
FIFTH STREET
Try to set up a double bet with pairs or low trips. This is your chance to get people out. Bet or call, but don't check raise, everything higher.
SIXTH STREET
Generally call or fold pairs and low trips. Only bet if you can drive players out with a double bet. You can bet high trips or better. It all depends on what you think you're up against. Very few players will fold on sixth street regardless. (I've seen players in these games almost always check on sixth street. I think this generally means two pairs. Is this correct?)
SEVENTH STREET
Generally, call everything. Consider betting if you think you have the best hand or if you have a threatening board. (Something not mentioned in your book is that sometimes these players will incorrectly fold on seventh street. It's maddening to watch them call all the way to the river and then fold. One may sometimes be able to take advantage of this.)
If this doesn't make sense, please let me know.
Maybe I've got the low trips and big pairs confused? Maybe I should bet $1-2 dollars with low trips and big pairs, too? On fourth street I can either check, make a full bet, or raise. The later two are an attempt to thin out the field.
Greetings:
You need to take a very hard look at your 3rd street requirements again because they look quite off!!!!!
JPN
See above, "3rd Street Play in Spread Limit Games."
Last night, the holdem games weren't that good, but there was one 5/10 stud game that intrigued me. It definitely contained a classic maniac type player. He was possibly the WORST player I had EVER seen. Raised 50% or more on 3rd, ALWAYS with an ace and almost always with the best high card showing. If reraised, he would raise again or cap about 95% of the time. Once he started, he almost never backed down, betting/raising/reraising all the way to the river. He was a one-man jamming machine!
This is NO LIE:
Once, he kept raising to 50$ on 4th (heads up), after raising to 30$ on 3rd, with just a pair of tens. The other player had a king up (and raised) on 3rd, and had caught a TEN on 4th! (this was the only good player other than me at the table, he KNEW what he was doing raising so many times, and had the cash to do it).
Despite the maniac, I really thought I could make some $$ in this game, but it would be risky and require much patience. I would have to isolate the maniac by reraising with my quality hands, and dumping most everything else.
I must say, it was a bit frustrating dealing with him at first. He drew out on me twice, despite my starting with good cards, and made me fold the winner once. However, I got control of my emotions and decided it was OK to keep playing.
The tactics I was using:
1) anytime I had a larger pair than his upcard, I would raise, knowing he would re-raise. The other players had caught on and it would usually wind up heads-up. I would then just call his reraise on 3rd most of the time. (of course I took notice of the other players actions, doing this only with the probable top pair or other good hand).
2)depending on the exact nature of our boards, I would either bet into him and let him raise me once each round when I had a pretty good advantage, or just check and call if my advantage was less. I was not in ANY pots with him where I had any known disadvantage or catching up to do.
3)If I was still around by 6th, I wasn't folding on the river, even with just one pair! This proved to be very profitable in the end!
4) On the end, I would either bet into him, or more often, try to induce a bluff (it was SO easy). If I had only one pair, I would check, he would bet, and I would call. If I improved on the river, I would check, he would bet, and I would raise.
5) Once I check-raised him with only a pair of queens on the river. I could tell by the way he looked at his hole cards that he was going to bluff. By this time, I had already beaten him heads up several times, and he just folded after I raised!
6) If I improved to something good by 5th or 6th, I would start the REAL raising war when the big bets came around!
7) the best part was when the game got down to 5 handed, with myself and only one other competent player in the game. This proved to be even more profitable. Even though the pots were smaller, I was playing a few more hands on 3rd. It wasn't hard to outplay the weak players and maniac, and I mostly avoided the other good player.
In the end, I made back the 100$ I had lost playing holdem plus won 280$ from this game (50% from the maniac in heads up encounters). The maniac was fairly tame by the time I left, having lost a bundle. I wasn't the only player in a raising war with the maniac! Just before I left, a 10-20 game broke up and the game got 3 new players....
I figure it would usually cost at least 10$, if not 15$ or 20$ just to see 4th with this guy in the pot. The maniac forced me to enter into major confrontations almost every time I got a playable hand. It's usually much easier to decide what to do in a NORMAL game.
I did get to play (a few) pots without him in the hand, and they went more like normall 5/10. What made this game even better was that 3 of the other players were almost as bad a player as the maniac, but not so aggressive.
I felt this experience did me a lot of good. I dealt with the frustrations of a maniac game and handled the pressure. It was tough, requiring much more bravery than is normally required for 5/10 stud. Maybe it's a primer for my eventual move to higher limits (to be discussed later...).
All comments welcome
Dave in Cali
Dave,
1) Thanks for the information. If I understand you right, you have presented a clear blueprint on how to use the presence of a maniac to your advantage: when you have good cards that play best against only one or two opponents, use your own raises and his re-raises to drive everyone else out.
2) Were you able to play strong drawing hands, say for example, a three flush, none or one showing in other hands, headed by A or K? Or did you just let drawing hands go unless the maniac was already out of the hand?
C.J.
C.J.
I will almost always play a three flush with 3 cards nine or higher, especially if I have AK or AQ in the hole. Of course it depends on how live my cards are, and what the boards look like, and how many bets it costs, etc....
In the maniac game: I would play a big three flush against him, but if I busted out on 4th I would most likely get out if he caught good. Since he started with such poor hands, all I needed was to catch one card and I would probably be in the lead. Otherwise it was no dice on drawing hands, small three flushes I was ditching unless I could get in cheap (which was rare).
Thanks for the response...
Dave in Cali
Where do I find IRC Poker. How do I use IRC Poker.
Thanks in advance.
Bill
Go to Greg Reynolds page at
http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~gregr/
Download GPKRv200 and it will take you there. This is a Windows front end... Greg has pointers to solutions for other operating systems as well.
See you on irc!
Writers Ray Zee and Bob Ciaffone warn against playing middle cards such as 7, 8, 9, 10 in Omaha 8. They reason that when these hands hit a straight, there is always a low hand made to split the pot. They middle card straights are also subject to dominating redraws when the board pairs or ends up with three of a suit.
I’ve always followed this advice, and have done quite well doing so. Others whom I consider excellent poker players (but I don’t have a firm opinion as to their Omaha 8 expertise) like these middle card hands. They reason that in multi-way pots where all others are going low, they can take half the pot at good odds.
Is this a sound strategy? Has anybody developed techniques for playing these hands?
I play in 5-10 and 10-20 house games, both of which draw from the same pool of thirty to forty players. Over the last six months I have noticed definite movement along the learning curve in Omaha 8: fewer and fewer players are showing down without the nuts – more and more are going low.
Is it time to give playing middle cards a try? Are there games where it is profitable? Are there flops that will scare out premium high hands and make middle cards profitable?
playing middle cards wont give you an exclusive on them because other hands accidently have some of those cards sometimes and that ruins the idea that they become playable. follow their advise to the soup line. Bob and i are right on this one.
Hi ,
Getting half price in the big blind (UTG raise and X callers) against typical opponents, how many callers would make a hand like T987 playable?
Getting half price in the small blind, how many callers would you need to see the flop (assume the blind never raises)?
I'm trying to see if I'm in the ballpark on this one so I won't put in my answer.
Regards,
Rick
I would never play T987 in a raised pot, even with eight callers. In a $10 small blind in a 15-30 game, I would not even complete the bet with T987 with many players in. The reason is that as more players enter the pot, while the odds you're getting are better, the chance of your hand winning the pot go way down. Even if you make your straight, with many players in there's a good chance that (1) someone will make a better hand later, including a better straight, (2) you'll often only get half (or a quarter of) the pot in the rare cases it does hold up. In this loose a game, even T987 being double suited means virtually nothing; higher flush draws will almost certainly be out there. Nut draws receive much of the benefit of the extra calls rather than marginal and weak hands.
I would play them headup or 3 handed in a spot I could maybe steal the pot. With alot of bad players in I might throw in one bet to hope for a full house type hand which could scoop.
Rick,
This is one of those hands that should be mucked in the big blind BEFORE THE FLOP if only the small blind calls and you get to see the flop for nothing.
In the SB you should call a half bet just about, oh, say, never!
Vince.
Vince, did you see Cappellitti's article in the new Card Player? Sigh....
BillM,
Generally I don't read much of Cappelletti but if you are speaking of his September 3 article it seems pretty good (after a quick read). Of course the hand he speaks of is a couple of noches higher which makes a big difference.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I don't read much from Capalleti either and haven't read his last one. But I will say that what I have read from Capalleti has usually been pretty good. I do agree with you that a couple of notches higher is a big (huge to me) difference for this type of hand.
Vince.
I thought the hand is playable if you are getting about 13 to 1 or better on your call which you often will in a loose passive game against weak players. This asumes you play well post flop. Now I wonder if I'm wrong after reading the above posts. If Badger comes by and flames me, I know I'm wrong.
Regards,
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
How bad a hand is T987? Why would I throw this hand away at every opportunity? I classify this hand as similar to A,Q in early position in NL Holdem. A trap! Certainly the level of expertise a player has and his ability to play after the flop will influence a decision to play a given hand. But we are talking about limit Omaha here folks. Mason and David have stated in 7SFAP that the most important decision a player can make is his third street decision. I believe that they have said the same for Holdem (preflop decision) but I can't site a refernece. There may be an arguement that can be made that the most important Holdem decision is made on the flop. But were talking about Omaha Hi/lo here folks. So what is the most important decision in this game. Besides game selection the most important decision in Omaha hi/lo is Hand Selection. I have seen in print that Omaha is more of a position game than even Our Sacred Holdem. I of course disagree with that but note it. Either way I can not imagine a position or situation that this hand plays well. But even that doesn't really matter. What matters is something that Mason has said about this game. I believe that it goes like this (forgive me Mason if I misrepresent). Omaha hi/lo is a simple game. If Mason didn't say that then I will. It is a simple game. The best way to play a simple game is to play it with a simple strategy. Now for the paradox. The simplest strategy for hand selection in Omaha Hi/lo is to select hands that have all four cards coordinated. Well T987 are certainly four cards that appear coordianted. And they are! So how do we resolve this problem? Well... well I'm tired. And since Sklansky can do it why can't I. I will leave the rest of the answer to the astute posters on this forum.
goodnight.
Vince.
I agree completely that the hand is pretty bad, and I'd never pay a full bet for it before the flop, but I have to wonder if it's so bad that you can't call when getting big odds like 10-1 or better for a couple of reasons:
1) You do sometimes make full houses, and with this hand there will be some low draws around to pay off your full house if you make it.
2) If you flop a straight on the low end, you have some pretty good re-draw potential against someone else holding the same straight, meaning you might get 1/2 of a pretty large pot, and
3) You can flop some big straight draws giving you odds to call for even half a pot (56 on the flop gives you 13 outs)
Note that I'm not really defending the hand that much, as these are all fairly longshot events, but surely they must add up to enough to make the hand playable in some circumstances (for instance for that 1/3 of a bet in a $10 small blind in a 15-30 game).
Dan,
Your more detailed analysis pretty much mirrors my own. One thing is clear to me. There is a big difference if you change the hand by one rank. For example:
8765 and 9876 seem like they would almost never be playable against a large field.
T987 is of course debatable as discussed in this thread. But note how much better JT98 and QJT9 are.
If I get the energy, I may post this one on RGP and see what comes back. It is somewhat important to a tight player in that it seems half the flops one gets to see are out of the blinds in this game.
Regards,
Rick
Hiya,
The question intrigued me, even though I was sure, as Ray says, that playing them is wrong.
So I ran a series of simulations using Texas Turbo O8, many thousands of hands.
Here is what I found:
Player who plays these cards loses more, the more they are played.
Strong player, 10-20, will only play these in the blinds, but get off them quickly:
Th9h8d7d -- over thousands of hands -- loses $1 per hand. T987o - same within a few cents.
Weak player, 10-20, plays these more than just blinds:
Th9h8d7d -- loses $6.80 per hand. T987o -- loses $2.40 per hand (why less loss? plays em less because of the no-flush chance)
Weaker player, 10-20, plays even more, but not always:
Th9h8d7d -- loses $16.60 per hand (this is huge!!!) T987o -- loses *only* $10.70 per hand. Plays slightly fewer.
DO NOT PLAY THESE. If you do want to, please tell me where, and I will be happy to sit in with you Mark the K
PS I love to run O8 simulations, see my latest post, on AA, I will be happy to answer questions like this on O8 or HE any time.
I bought Turbo Omaha and Turbo Omaha/8 with the intention of running some Abdullian simulations (I think these games work better than holdem for simulations). I gave up because, IMO, Turbo Texas Omaha and Omaha/8 play very badly. I just couldn't see the simulations being really useful, especially when trying to do things like find the difference between similar hands.
Dan,
Omaha/8 Turbo holdem doesn't itself play badly: But some of the players do! I now consider myself somewhat of an 'expert' in these programs, and I am amazed at the job which Wilson does. If you think that some of these players are terrible, then set up a game with Sammy, Sherlock, Son of Sammy, and a few of the other good players. If you can beat those guys, you can win anywhere. If you play against Chasin Charlie, Fearless Freddie, Drawing Danny, etc, then you absolutely right, the program 'looks' bad: That's because those players are programmed to be bad. And you will see players that bad and worse in real life.
I just spent two weeks running a lot of simulations of key situations, using various good, bad and middling players. The results are amazing. The game is so deep, and small differences are crucial. And good players take down the money, just as in real life.
Mark
I was going a lot by the advice of some of the advisors.
Let me give you an example, using the default advisor. I had bottom two pair plus a nut flush draw. On the turn a straight comes on the board. There is a bet, I call, there is a raise, the original bettor re-raises, I call, it's capped.
On the river, I miss my flush. Original bettor bets again, and the advisor tells me I should call, because I have two pair and there has only been one bet and no raises before it got to me.
As far as I can tell, the program doesn't consider the action on previous rounds when determining correct behaviour on the river. Given this, I can understand why hands like AA95 make no money - the computer doesn't know how to play them properly.
Dan,
Given my experience (a lot lately), I am VERY surprised that the advisor will tell you to stay through an obvious straight after you miss your flush, when you have 2 pair -- do you have a current version with all bugs fixed? I never see it do that. I do see situations, like 2 pairs with no outs, where I have gotten marginally dubious assistance, (hands which I think people will come down 50/50 on) so I do not listen like a robot to the Advisor...but it is generally extremely good.
But suit yourself, I think the computer simulator is a useful tool, some other smart people do to. You obviously do not. Some other smart people agree with you. I *have* found though, that in many cases of questions which the human *experts* here agree, the simulations of the stronger players also prove out.
Enjoy,
Mark
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 September 1999, at 1:21 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 September 1999, at 9:56 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 September 1999, at 1:13 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 September 1999, at 3:07 p.m.
Is this a bad beat or rookie mitake? I'm und the gun in loose,passive 4-8 game with AK hearts. I raise,6 callers,Flop-10,8,4 1 heart. 1st player(BB) cks,I bet,2 callers incl.BBlind. Turn-10 heart,BB bets,I call,lat player raises,BB re-raises,I call(error?). At the time I figured they each had a 10, given large pot,thought call was correct. River-heart rag,BB bets,I call(giving respect to FH possib.)last player calls. Show down A,10/10,4,my flush cracked by someone who called my early raise with 10,4 offs from BB.
Maybe neither, in my opinion...
You can debate whether the BB should have called, but the pot was offering him 13 to 1 and there was no threat of a raise behind him. As for the call on the turn, a fold might have been better, depending on the player: his check/call on the flop, followed by hyperaggressive play on the turn, should have sent up some warning flags for you---especially if he was one of the passive players you described. That said, it's tough to fold the nut flush draw.
You're going to take your lumps now and then in those games. Grin and bear it.
I would like to hear comments about the following 2 hands I played recently in a 10-20 game at the Mirage.
The first hand was played against a tight aggressive female player named Nancy (the lady who split the diamond earrings with Barbara Enright at the TOC). Everyone folded to me in the small blind, I raised with Ad Qh, Nancy called in the big blind. The flop came As 9s 6c. I bet, she raised, I reraised, she 4 bet it, and I called. The turn was a blank, I checked and called. The river was another blank, I checked, and Nancy checked, showing me a 9 6 for two pair. First, should I have called the third raise on the flop? Second, should I have bet the turn, then folded if she raised? Third, should I have called if she had bet the river? Finally, what would have changed if there had not been a flush draw on the flop? As a note, the 4th bet on the flop made me think she had a hand rather than a draw.
In the second hand I held black pocket Aces in late position. One player limped in early position, everyone folded to me, I raised, the small blind called, and the early limper called. To preface, the small blind was somewhat loose aggressive before the flop, calling too many raises with hands like Axs, but he played fairly well on the flop and beyond. The early limper was an unknown. The flop came Kh Kd 7h. Both players checked, I bet, both called. The turn was a blank. The small blind bet, the early limper raised. Should I have reraised, folded, or called?
Thanks, Brian Flanagan
...tight aggressive female player... Everyone folded to me in the small blind, I raised with Ad Qh, Nancy called in the big blind. The flop came As 9s 6c. I bet, she raised, I reraised, she 4 bet it, and I called. The turn was a blank, I checked and called. The river was another blank, I checked, and Nancy checked, showing me a 9 6 for two pair.
First, should I have called the third raise on the flop?
An assessment of this hand could easily change according to what you know about the player, but… Yes, you have to call, especially given that at that point the pot is getting big. You have some reasonable chance that your hand is best, combined with enough likely outs, and some chance that she's raising on a flush draw, to warrant calling.
An alternative play here would be the "stop and go", just calling her first raise on the flop, then betting back into her on the turn. But it depends on what you know of the player's tendencies.
Second, should I have bet the turn, then folded if she raised
It depends on how likely you think she is to be on a draw. Since you had started to think it was not so likely, then checking and calling there was probably better. If you did bet, and she raised, you'd be getting about 9-1 on your call. Again, against some significant % of opponents there would still be a decent chance you had the best hand. You also have between 0 and 8 outs. You'd have to assess your outs as a function of what kind of hand you put her on at that point, based on whatever you know about her play. e.g., if you know she'd be very unlikely to raise on the turn without top two or better in that spot, then fold, but if she'd routinely raise there with various aces, or bottom two pair (though it's tough to put a tight player on 96, even in this situation), or would raise again with a flush draw (I'm guessing she wouldn't)… then you have to call.
Third, should I have called if she had bet the river?
Yes. The river was a blank so it gave you no additional concerns. Given the pot size at that point, the chance that you're best plus the chance that she's been semi-bluffing warrant a call. You call, though you don't expect to win most of the time. You could fold only if you knew her play well enough to be almost certain you were beat at that point.
Now, given that she didn't bet her two pair on the river (though we don't know just what the turn and river were), she starts to look a little conservative to me. If that's the case, some of the assessments above might be affected. Also, as you were there, if her 4th bet on the flop really convinced you she was not on a draw (because of how you'd seen her play up to then) then, yes, you have to take that into account. Because of the situational factors, I find it difficult to be more definitive with this hand.
Incidentally, you might want to consider chopping in the blinds. The game is raked up to about $3 isn't it? I don't want to start a different thread here, but the arithmetic suggests to me that no one is good enough to overcome such a rake at 10-20 playing hands out when heads-up in the blinds in a full game.
In the second hand I held black pocket Aces in late position. One player limped in early position, everyone folded to me, I raised, the small blind called, and the early limper called…. The small blind was somewhat loose aggressive before the flop, calling too many raises with hands like Axs, but he played fairly well on the flop and beyond. The early limper was an unknown. The flop came Kh Kd 7h. Both players checked, I bet, both called. The turn was a blank. The small blind bet, the early limper raised. Should I have reraised, folded, or called?
Fold. The small blind appears to be coming out with his king on the turn. I say "appears" because he may be pulling a slight variation on the ol' HPFAP "mimic a slow play" bluff into a paired board. But once you add the early position player's raise, you have to figure you're beat somewhere, and can very likely only win by spiking an ace on the river.
John Feeney
She did not chop the blinds. I normally do.
John: Your analysis is excellent! Players like you are one major reason 2+2 is such a great post-grad study. Bob Sherwood
Brian,
I'm a little tired (finally) so I'll answer just the second question. I'm not going to look at John's answer (who of course is tops in his analysis) until I finish mine.
I would fold against all but the trickiest opponents and maybe I would fold even then.
Regards,
Rick
I thought I would comment on this hand since I know the player.
"The first hand was played against a tight aggressive female player named Nancy (the lady who split the diamond earrings with Barbara Enright at the TOC)."
First, this is not a tight player. She is frequently overly aggressive.
"Everyone folded to me in the small blind, I raised with Ad Qh, Nancy called in the big blind."
She would call with a very wide range of hands here (and be correct to do so).
"The flop came As 9s 6c. I bet, she raised, I reraised, she 4 bet it, and I called. The turn was a blank, I checked and called. The river was another blank, I checked, and Nancy checked, showing me a 9 6 for two pair. First, should I have called the third raise on the flop?"
Absolutely. There is still some chance you have the best hand, and if she had a set she is likely to wait until the turn to raise. (Also notice that a real tight player would not make this call with a 9-6.)
"Second, should I have bet the turn, then folded if she raised?"
No, I think checking and calling is best. If you do bet and are raised you still can't fold. She could easily be raising with a hand like AJ, AT, or two little pair.
"Third, should I have called if she had bet the river?"
That's a little tougher, but I thnk so.
"Finally, what would have changed if there had not been a flush draw on the flop?"
Very little.
"As a note, the 4th bet on the flop made me think she had a hand rather than a draw."
I thought I would comment on this hand because I DON'T know the player.
1) I agree %100 with Mason's assessment of this hand (what there is of it).
2) Mason states that the player in question is not a tight player and is frequently over aggressive. The original poster claimed the player was tight aggressive. I believe that Mason is probably correct in his assesment. Why? Because he's Mason.
3) I am convinced that if Mason did not know the player in question he would have assessed the hand the same way.
4) I am convinced that if Mason knew the player in question and she was a tight player he would have assessed the hand the same way.
5) I am convinced that unless Mason had seen the opponents hand he would have assessed this hand the same way.
6) So much for knowing one's opponent.
Vince.
I have no doubt that Mason's assessment of the player in question is more accurate than mine. I only played with her for about 2 hours. For those 2 hours she played relatively few hands, but backed them up with aggressive betting once she entered a pot. I was going on the only information I had about her up until that point. I wish I could have stood up from the table and asked Mason about her play, as he was at the next table playing 20-40 when the hand occurred. I hope Mason is feeling better. He seemed to be fighting a cold at the time (Thursday night). On Friday Mason had to fight not only his cold, but also Hal, who was running over the 20-40 game.
Regards, Brian Flanagan
Yes, Big Hal was a big winner in the game, but I hardly played a pot against and did pretty good myself.
7) If Vince Lepore would have played the hand I would have assessed the hand the same way.
Different question - why not just call her first reraise on the flop? I'm still learning, but I would think that she wouldn't reraise with something less than AQ.
Bruce -- Let me see if I understand your question. I think you actually mean why not just call her first *raise* on the flop. He did just call her first *reraise* which was the 4th bet on the flop. As for just calling her first raise, he could do that as an alternative, either because he puts her on a draw and plans to bet back into her on the turn, or just as an alternative way of playing it (e.g., just call the raise, then check-raise on the turn, or let her bet her money off against his likely best hand if he thinks that might be the most profitable option...).
But reraising her was quite reasonable too. As you gain experience, you'll find that most players (particularly above the lower limits) *will* raise with lots of hands less than AQ in this spot. They'll often raise with any ace, and sometimes (though considerably less often) with middle or even bottom pair. They'll also raise a lot on draws. So that's why he wasn't too worried at that point that she had him beat.
John Feeney
I misread and thought he raised her reraise. It makes sense that she might raise with some weaker hands against one opponent.
Let me try to learn something else while we're buried here. Would it be correct for her to raise with a draw against just one opponent? I thought you had to have two opponents for break even odds on a draw.
You're right that you need at least 2 people calling your raise to come close to breaking even *if* you are betting or raising with your draw purely for *value*. (BTW, You almost always prefer more than that. Some might not call.) But it's quite often profitable to raise with a draw heads-up as a *semi-bluff*. Its profit comes from the combined chances that your opponent will fold right there or, if he doesn't, you will make your draw. So you do have to believe there is some semi-reasonable chance he'll fold.
So in typical games at the middle limits you'll generally have many more occasions to semi-bluff than to raise for value with a draw. But in some very loose games, most common in smaller limits, you might be correct only very rarely to semi-bluff, while you would have more opportunities to raise for value with draws. A caution: you should probably *not* raise for value without a nut or near nut draw if there is any reasonable chance that it won't win if you hit it (e.g., you have a jack-high flush draw and soemone may well be drawing to a higher flush draw).
Look at discussions of "value betting" or "betting for value" and "semi-bluffing" in _The Theory of Poker_ for detail on this stuff.
John Feeney
Thanks. Didn't think of semi-bluffing since I don't use it in loose games. I suppose another reason to raise here would be to buy a free card on the turn.
Last nite was playing in a pretty loose 3-6HE at "Lucky Chances" in Colma, Ca. 6-8 players in every pot. I played maybe 1 of 10 for the flop. But always tried to act like I was there having fun, jokes, etc. Anyways, I'm in the BB with As-6d, flop comes Ks9s7s, player to my right bets, I say he's on a king, I raise with exuberance, get 4 callers and then say "time" before the turn. I tell everybody I have the nut flush, turn over my ace of spades for all to see and bet in the dark before the turn. Turn comes spade! I get 2 callers!!....I'm laughing my ass off....they dont even have 2 pairs....I bet in the dark again!...My ace is still face up...the dealer cant help her self hardly...river pairs and I get one caller who then MUCKS!....god I love this game I says!
Larry,
Why show your hand before the turn card comes? You only have the draw with an ace on the turn and would have been jammed if you didn't hit. Even when you got the spade, you may have gotten a couple of more calls and perhaps a raise and reraise if your hand remained unknown.
Regards,
Rick
I think the dumbest thing i ever heard of, was somebody drawing at the nuts and showing everybody there ace!!!!!
as I was terrorizing this game already....and had 2 new players @ the table it was time to put a "loose" image out there again. I already knew how many bets I could lose if they draw out AND if they do it will encourage them to go for lousy odds in the future giving me more $$$ for the nite. Any time I get drawn out I encourage the winner to their good play, say "good hand" and all that. As long as I know they will go up against lousy odds I know I will have the best of it. But show a lousy player you raised with 5-7 suited and they wont get it.
by the way....I left with 9 racks. I woudlnt do it in a $20-40 rest assured.
Was the "#1 all time dumbest" a reference to the number of bets you lost by exposing your cards? Yes it's true, that you were against some terrible players, but I think you could have won more money.
You were in the lead as "#1 all time dumbest I've ever seen!" until the caller on the river ran you down.
I was just curious to know what the odds are of not getting a 10, J, Q, K, or A on either the flop, turn, or river? Thanks in advance to whoever has the math skill to answer.
If you take all the AKQJT from the deck, that leaves 32 cards. There are 32!/27!/5! or 201376 ways to choose 5 cards from a 32 card deck, and 52!/47!/5! or 2598960 ways to choose 5 cards from a full deck. The chance that the board will have no cards from T-A by the river is therefore about 1 in 12.9 (11.9 to 1 against).
If you are know some of the cards that are missing from the deck (i.e. your hole cards), the odds change a bit. If your hole cards are lower than T, then the board will be more likely to end up with at least one broadway card. If your hole cards are T or above, then the board will be less likely to have a broadway card.
What does 32!/27!/5! mean?
The "!" means the factorial function. x factorial is defined as 1*2*3*4*...*x, so 4! is 1*2*3*4 or 24.
If you get involved in figuring combinations or permutations, you'll find factorials all over the place.
Can anyone recommend Poker Tournament Strategies by Sylvester Suzuki? Is it worth getting? Are there any other books on tournament strategies that anyone can recommend?
"Tournament Poker" did absolutely nothing for me. One of the worst poker books I've bought.
Wenatchee Max
Thanks Wenate, wenacheeeeeeeee (bless you), weacrachte, watchyasay, Oh Wenatchee (I knew I could pronounce that if I kept trying). Your'e review is good enough me! Of course if Mason or David or Abdul or T.J. or Zee or McEvoy (well maybe not McEvoy) or SKP or Rick or Dan or Fossil or whew Well if one of them disagree I may reconsider.
Vince
BTW - Anyone know What happened to "big john"? Haven't heard from him recently. Him too Max.
Unfortunately, I cannot disagree with Max. I feel that I did not get any real value from Sylvester's book. Now, if I had read it earlier in my career, that might not have been true. As far as critques go, I did not have that concept in mind when I read it, and cannot say whether it would be helpful to a beginner or intermediate tournament player.
Sorry 2+2, I still like your other books.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I didn't think the Suzuki tourney book was good either. However, even though I say that, I can't think of a better tourney book...seems like none that i've read have been good. Can anyone suggest any? or do they just not currently exist?
I'll let you know when ours is done (if ever).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I've got the book. To date, I have only glanced at it. Can't really comment on its virtues. Given the fact that I have played only 2 tournaments in my life and don't expect to play in any in the near future, reading that book is at the bottom of my list of things to do.
I also have just glanced at Cloutier's Omaha book. That seems like a big time waste of cash ($40). However, I guess I better hold off on making a final decision as to its merits until I have studied it.
So little time...so many damn poker books.
I think the book sucks.
"Is it worth getting? " Maybe.
I'm playing a little 6-12 HE at Crystal Park yesterday after busting out of the NL tournament fairly early. I'm in seat 6 with AT suited and take the flop with four other limpers. Flop os J-9-6 with two of my suit. SB and BB check and I bet out; seat 7 a solid, Russian tournament player calls and seat 9, weak calling station, also calls. Turn is a 9, pairing the board. I check, seat 7 checks and the 9 seat bets. I call and so does seat 7. River is deuce of spades giving me the nut flush. I check, fully expecting seat 7 to attempt to steal the pot away from seat 9 by representing a flush, but he checks also. Seat 9 bets, I raise and get called by seat 9 after seat 7 folds. Leaving the table to cash out fifteen minutes later, a player I respect who was sitting in seat three during the hand described, told me that he thought my checkraise was way too aggressive with a paired board. I was shocked that he would think so given the betting action on the river and turn. I would play this hand exactly the same (sometimes going for a checkraise on the flop if the right kind of aggressive player was directly to my left) 99 times out of 100. Had Sergei, in seat 7 bet I would have also raised.
John,
thats certainly not too aggressive to raise him. i would have led out on the hand because most times i see people check it out scared of the flush. plus you played it like you had a flush. but since you knew the players you did right.
On the turn, it is unlikely that the #7 player would have the full house, or he would bet, but you do not know this about #9. On the river, no reason to think that 7 will bet into 9 with a bluff, as you said he calls everything. I would come out betting on the river. Since 9 calls all hands, this means he will call with more hands than he will bet, and you were lucky to get a bet out of him. If he raises you at the river, just call. To check-raise means you need to be fairly sure that a player will bet, plus be fairly sure you have the best hand. What to do if #9 re-raises here? Be in a pickle.
I would have bet the River. Check raises on the river when you make the nut flush most often do not work unless you are against extremely poor aggressive players. Most players will fear a flus and not bet the river but may call with weak hands so I believe in a situation as described the best course of action is to bet the river not try for a check raise.
Vince.
BTW - Why would you care if someone was a "solid Russian tournament player"? What's a Russian tournament?
He knew he would bet because of the way he was eating his oreos.
Hi all,
I ran a bunch of simulations on the T987 in O8 this morning, -- after reading the "middle cards" question. Then I looked at one hand which I find to be an important swing hand, it can greatly increase or decrease O8 winnings:
AAxx. Of course, AA with one or two babies, coupled with flush possibilities is a no-brainer great hand; it is the non-flush middle card, or non-flush middle/high card mixtures which I reviewed. I found that hands like:
AA7h8h, AAKQ offsuit, or AA46 are all nicely profitable (less than one unit) over thousands of simulations, played by a good player. A poor player breaks even or even loses with these (getting a set against obvious straights and flushes, I think dooms these weaker players, both in the simulations and in real life). The most interesting to me, which I often played, and which cost me, were the AAxx where x and x are unconnected high cards not making a flush. These are dropped by the strong simulator player. But the weaker simulator players I set up will play these, and here is the bad news: Losses of 2 small units per hand! ($16-20 per hand in 10-20).
This surprised me so much, the incredible losing potential.
Ray, on Page 215, says it all about this, in H-L-S Powker for Advanced Players, but I had not realized HOW BAD it is! Hope this helps someone else.
Enjoy,
Mark
Wow that IS amazing how bad AA-high-junk is. Was the simulation set up for a fold if a set wasn't flopped? Did it report an average number of small bets to see the flop? I may have been finding too many excuses to play that hand...
I have a hard time believing that even AA95 rainbow wouldn't be profitable in a loose game provided that you can get in for one bet. If the computer plays past the flop with just an overpair in the wrong situations, that would account for its losses.
Dan and Phat,
The simulations were done with both strong and weak players. But AA95 is not so bad, it is hands like AAq9 or AAt8, the A5, givning some decent shot at low which makes it better.
Mark
But the point still is, that if you have weak players playing these hands, they may lose money no matter what. Do you "force" the strong player profiles to play these hands, or what? If these profiles don't play these hands, then what? Do you rotate position, and give the same profile the same hand every time? Do you give the test player the same target hand, and have him only play against other identical profiles? There are a LOT more issues I haven't thought of, I'm sure. If you want more advice on this, talk to Abdul, as he is quite knowledgeable about most of the tools and tricks available in Turbo software.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
Good questions. What I did was to vary it a lot: Good players able to go in from the button or near the button in an unraised pot, or from blinds. Average players (calling too much) going in from more positions. And weak players going in a lot, and losing a lot. The interesting thing is that the strong player do not even do well with these hands. Bad players do terribly. (The varying was done based on making up hands which the TT counting method allows to go in on).
Another interesting one -- which says a lot to me about O8, and also a lot about how good the TT product is (no I am not paid for this):
I ran some tests on two pairs, with hands like KsJh2s3h, where the board might be: Kd2c7h. The players stay the same for each simulation, but the button rotates. As Dan has said a few times, the bad players in TT O8 (and in real life IMO) play these way too long and way too much. The good player will make a very small profit on average, between the 2 pairs holding up, the few times where they can snatch a low, or make a full house or backdoor flush. (The bad player will be hurt.)
But then, on a whim, I changed the flop of Kd2c7h to Kd3c7h, expecting not much change. Wrong wrong wrong. Shows the depth and subtlety of this game. Even the good player loses and a not-insignificant amount! Chalk this one up to remember....
Mark
You may be missing some of the subtleties of simulation. If you are measuring small differences in EV, you need to simulate many, many hands to get a statistically significant answer.
Does anybody know of any place to play poker in Indiana besides the riverboat in Gary. I am having a tough time finding enough players for our local game but I really have that need too get into a good game.
I suggest Harrah's in East Chicago....they spread everything from 1-5 to 50-100....20 plus tables...ask for Mitch and tell him Bob Sherwood sent you. Bob
1. Grand Victoria - Rising Sun, IN. 2. Ceasars Indiana - New Albany, IN.
Both Spread Poker starting at 5-10.
I liked Grand Victoria better.
Aztar is also on the way to Grand Victoria but doesn't have poker.
aztar in evansville does have 7 stud and holdem, up to $10-20
In the future, please put this type of post on our Exchange Forum.
Mason: Sorry if I crossed the line - just trying to be helpful... Bob
I know I'm letting myself in for some flaming replies, but this is a SINCERE question for discussion: Setting luck aside for now, which of the two skills will win you the most money....a THOROUGH knowledge of odds, or a strong ability to read other players? Thoughts? Bob
the knowledge of odds assuming you have no knowledge of either. if you had no odds knowledge you couldnt make any correct decision to play or not. when to fold according to pot size or any intelligent decision. if you were average in each the improvement in reading players would be more helpful. both are nessesary to be a winner and if you neglect one you just lose or win less.
Thanks, Ray...I was assuming average odds knowledge.... I think that's the point where people skills move yoou further into the win column... Bob
ODDS. No question about it. Unless of course your name is CARO.
Vince.
Don't you need both?
Odds also goes into reading other player's hands. When you read another players hand, you often are saying, odds are he has this.
I'm not a good enough player to expound on this but a recent experiance makes me think about it more. Last nite, 3-6HE, Im BB 6 players to me, game is going from slow to loose aggressive, I have pocket 10s, flop is Ad 10h 4d, I bet, 2 callers in middle, 2nd before button raises, call, button 3 bets, SB calls, I cap it, two guys in middle call, turn comes 4h, I check, raiser bets, button goes all-in for 2 bets, I 3 bet it, 2 middle guys fold, raiser caps. river comes a red king. I bet, raiser raises again, I take pause, analyze what can beat me, and what would he have raised with before the flop. figure he must have pocket aces (oh it was two bets before the flop.)and i flat call and tell him "pocket aces is good" as I get ready to muck. He turns over Ks4s and asks "you got pocket 10's?...yes I drag a huge pot....but I poorly misread his hand. This happens too often for me. I give players TOO much credit for playing better cards and reading the strength of their play.
Your question was what's more important: a THOROUGH knowledge of odds vs. a strong ability to read hands.
I say it's reading hands that's more important.
One can get by with a working understanding of odds if he or she is particularly good at reading hands. On the other hand, even a thorough understanding of odds ain't gonna help ya if you can't put your opponent on a hand.
Furthermore, acquiring a thorough understanding of odds is a lot easier than mastering the art and science of reading hands...that in itself tells me something about what is more critical to success.
skp is absolutely right. Take a player like David Chiu, who has never read a poker book. He hasn't won close to $1,000,000(just in tournaments) in the past three years by concentrating on odds. He is not only an expert in putting a player on a hand, but in determining how that player will react to a given situation.
Brett
The question was Odds versus Reading opponents not reading hands! Odds skills are by far more important than reading opponents.
Vince.
BTW- Reading hands is not as dificult as some would have you believe. Also Mr. SKP, you sound more and more like Sklansky (or is it Malmuth, sometimes I can't tell them apart) with every post. Art and Science indeed!
Vince once Again!
Vince,
Reading hands/reading opponents sounds like about the same thing to me.
Anyway, skp wrote: "Furthermore, acquiring a thorough understanding of odds is a lot easier than mastering the art and science of reading hands...that in itself tells me something about what is more critical to success."
This is key. Anyone or reasonable intelligence who can't or won't figure the odds fairly accurately is just plain lazy. Reading hands and/or reading opponents well takes talent plus hard work.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. skp can't be confused with David Sklansky because he can type. However, he could be confused with Mason Malmuth.
Rick,
The original poster wrote ":...or a strong ability to read other players"
I interpreted this to mean reading tells.
You wrote: "Reading hands/reading opponents sounds like about the same thing to me."
You obviously have not read Poker Essays II. Mason went to great lengths to list and less lengths to explain 12 poker skills. Two of those skills were reading hands and reading tells.
Now I will concede that reading opponents is an aid to expertly reading hand but they most certainly are NOT the smae thing as you intimate.
I will also concede that reading an oponent may include categorizing his style of play and if that is what the original poster had in mind then I will back off from my original point stating odds as more important. I don't believe from his post (question) that he was referring to anthing mor than reading tells.
I believe reading tells are of little or no consequence (value) and could in fact lose a player money. This is where I differ in my opinion from Mason's. Mason doesn't list determining and applying pot odds/implied odds as a skill. I believe that it is far more valuable to thoroughly understand and apply the concept of pot odds than to understand and apply the concept of tells.
But then again what the hell do I know. After all "Vince is....VINCE"
VinCE.
Vince, doesn't a tell give you information about a player's hand and how he will act/react? Isn't that what reading players is all about?
Did anyone else notice that I agreed with skp before he posted his opinion?
Brett
3 Bet,
Now you are sounding like Rick, very sarcastic (something I would never do).
"doesn't a tell give you information about a player's hand"
The answer here is the same as 99% of poker questions. It depends. Then there is the question of whether or not you can trust the tell or your ability to read a tell. Tells can cause more cofusion than they are worth and confusion can cause frustration which may lead to Tilt. Calculating odds produces no similar effect. I say calculating odds is more important than tells. Dat's all.
Vince.
NO WAY! C'MON! You CAN'T be Cereal?!! How can you say that reading hands is not very TUFF? That's pure NONSENSE! yada yada yada.
Opinion by SKP!!!
There, I no longer sound like Sklansky or Malmuth...you get a small prize in the mail if you can figure out who I now sound like:).
This dispute has its limitations because people can always plug in different assumptions about the hypothetical student or use subtly different but reasonable definitions of such commonplace terms like "most" and "important."
There's something missing, however. Arithmetic skills (knowing the numbers and doing problems quickly) and observation skills (watching players and finding patterns) are both tools that allow players to exercise better judgment than their opponents. Another related skill, and one that I believe is harder to master and more important, is the ability to correcty decide and execute, or to actually exercise good judgment under a variety of circumstances. Unlike the other skills, the act of simply playing poker makes good judgment difficult. While you can work on it by definition good poker judgment can't be practiced away from the table. Players that are good at it not only have a good understanding of the finite, mechanical aspects of the game and the patterns of their opponents but also confidence, maturity, insight, self-understanding, mental discipline and substantial experience at realizing they have these strengths and using them to their advantage. This is much more than being patient and having discipline.
Most players find it hard to exercise good judgment at the table when things are confusing or going badly, and I'm not limiting myself here to those that are noticeably steaming or on tilt. A very few seem incapable of exercising good judgment beyond simple situations. There is perhaps an entire subspecies of player who knows a lot about hold 'em yet their judgment simply sucks. While average players might improve incrementally with better math or people reading skills, unless they also improve their ability to intertwine these elements and apply them they're going to waste time without experiencing any long-term breakthroughs in results. Note also that good judgment is also impossible to teach; most advice is limited to the removing obstacles to doing it (e.g. "don't play whe upset or tired").
Obviously, the more you know about the game and the players the easier it is to make decisions. But if you tend to get emotionally wrapped up in the game, suspect others of bluffing constantly, hate your opponents, or find your betting arm winning arguments with your brain, the last skills you need are the ability to multiply fractions in your head or the patience to watch an opponent's betting gestures or patterns for hours at a time.
(BTW, to answer the question I'd say that reading opponents is by far the more difficult and profitable skill to acquire and that most average players (like me) should concentrate on it the most).
Exactamundo!!!
Oh, sorry...now, I am having trouble finding my own posting style:).
In all seriousness, that was a superb post which summarizes the discussion as well as one can.
Hey, skp, I'm the only one around here allowed to post in quasi-Spanish! But Vince is allowed to post in quasi-everything else!!!
But I agree that Chris describes a *huge* key to doing well at poker, one which is all too easy to overlook. Without really going on tilt, good players can nevertheless have their judgment thrown off, sometimes for long periods of time. They get out of what I call "The Thin Zone of Correct Play" (copyright 1999, John Feeney ;-). It only takes a little misplaced emotional investment or other interference to end up consistently on the wrong side of (seemingly) close decisions over, and over again.
I agree too, that after a certain point reading hands is by far the bigger factor in winning play. I assumed that was what Bob was asking about. But if he meant specifically reading players (as in tells), then that's a different story. Somehow, as usual, Ray managed to cover it all in a couple of sentences.
John Feeney
Chris,
We were having a little bit of fun with this thread and you come along and write this absolutely terrific and insightful post. Please post more.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Normally I try to stay away from the "me too" or "I agree" type posts but I couldn't help myself.
Very good post. I do however disagree with two points you make.
1) Note also that good judgment is also impossible to teach; most advice is limited to the removing obstacles to doing it (e.g. "don't play whe upset or tired").
This is only true if you are trying to teach good judgement to an unwilling student. Good judgement comes from being prepared. Being prepared for poker can be taught. Strategy and tactics, understood and learned correctly, will lead to good judgement.
2 ) (BTW, to answer the question I'd say that reading opponents is by far the more difficult and profitable skill to acquire and that most average players (like me) should concentrate on it the most).
The problem I have with this statement is that if you read the original posters question and then read your response you get the impression he was asking about getting a read on opponents. If so then I agree with you. However, I read his question to be more interested in reading tells than getting a read on an opponent. Two entirely differnt things. When you get a read on an opponent you are categorizing him as weak, tight, loose etc. A tell is more like if he scrathes his butt he has Aces (scratch his A-- he has A--). Reading tells is a highly over rated skill. The value of tells, IMO, is that they make you conscious of things you should not do.
Of course I understand that there may just be a simple matter of interpretation on this last point. So in fairness I will compliment you on a very good post.
Vince.
odds in lmit reading in NL and PL
Ray, Dave, Mason,
I found the following being offered on a website and was wonder a) Is this a 2+2 item, or a 2+2 appoved item? b) if so can I order it from you guys? I know the stud one is not 2+2.
"TEXAS HOLD 'EM: Offers a complete list of starting hands. Reviews some "before the flop" and "after the flop" strategies. Excerpts are from the classic Hold 'Em Poker book by David Sklansky.
8096 ........... (Texas-Hold-Em) ....... $2.20
SEVEN CARD STUD: Describes the primary starting hands along with some general and specific concepts to guide play. Excerpts are from 7 Card Stud, The Waiting Game by George Percy.
8
I need to see the website. Perhaps you could send it to me privately.
Could you keep us posted on this subject?
Richard,
I think it's a safe inference from Mason's post that it's not a 2+2 item, thus the accuracy would be suspect.
I failed to bookmark the web page so I can't point you there unless I trip over it again.
Frank,thanx for the reply.I agree the item in question is not a 2+2 item(their books more emphasize thought and/or situation analisys to allow for a no-brainer type card).However,being curious,let me know if you find thi website.
1st, here is the website:
http://www.casinocom.com/library/bjt_g.html
2nd, let me introduce to you my favorite search engine: www.google.com Instead of blindly indexing words, it ranks sites by how "important" they are: i.e. how many sites link to them. The linking sites are also rated, and this recursive relationship does a great job at filtering.
I just entered: strategy card starting hands sklansky
and it was the 2nd one to come up.
be well,
Zooey
When a hand in a ring game has been reduced to 2 or 3 players before the flop, should you use the same guidelines for play on the flop, turn, and river that you would in a shorthanded game with the same number of opponents?
Leonard
It depends. If the original raiser is first in from a late position, the answer is probably yes because he could have a wide range of hands just like a raiser in a short handed game.
However, to take the opposite extreme. If the original raiser is a tight player who raises under the gun in a full game, his range of hands will be very narrow (and very good). Now you must play very differently.
For example, if an overly aggressive player raises on the button it could easily be correct to call him through the river when you hold king-queen and you don't improve. If a tight player raises under the gun (and no one else is in) you should probably fold the same hand out of the big blind before the flop.
No!
You play shorthanded poker when you are Shorthanded not for any other reason! You use shorthand guidelines in a shorthanded game not in a full ring game. Psychology is an important part of winning poker. Not just the psychology of getting into your opponents head but the pschology of keeping things simple. Evaluating a situation as it unfolds and applying an appropriate strategy requires complete mental focus. The KISS principle is nowhere more useful than in playing poker. Keep it simple. Use ring strategy in a full ring game. Again, use shorthand strategy in a shorthand game.
Vince.
I totally agree with Vince. At least, I'm sure there must be something that we agree on.
If you understand how to play well in short-handed games, you are most of the way to understanding how to play in pots that are heads up from the flop on. There are some adjustments to make, but the concepts and feel are much the same.
Also, the original poster may have been asking whether a 10-handed game that has folded around to the button requires the same strategy as a 3-handed game. The strategy is pretty much the same. The differences are that in the full game after the folders aces are slightly more likely to be in the remaining hands, but also, as Rick pointed out, the weak players are less likely to be in the frame of mind to attack/defend their blinds at the proper frequency.
-Abdul
Abdul,
I agreed with you on your Bacarrat Position. You just didn't know (notice ) it.
I heard it through the Vegas grapevine (and some other fruits I know) that Abdul Jalib is the best middle limit shorthanded player in the woild. I play a pretty good, actually very good shorthanded game myself if I do say so and I do. I must admit that experience is the best teacher. Obviously from Abdul's response one can see that he is much older (I mean experienced but I can't find the backspace key so I'll just continue). Anyway I yield to Abdul in the shorthanded arena. The main point I was trying to put forth was to not unnecessarily mix strategies. By mixing things that were not meant to be mixed one may experience confusion and frustration which equals TILT. Hey Abdul, you math guy you, how about a formula. Let's see, Let A= confusion (not Confucious) and Let B = frustration. Now the: Cosine A * Sine B = Major T(ilt). Whaddya think !
Vince
Leonard,
Besides the positional factors Mason mentioned, there are pshycological factors in play (I'm suprised Mason didn't mention them, since he has written about them before).
Generally speaking, players willing to play shorthanded are more likely to be aggressive, more likely to defend their blinds, and more likely to make a tricky play. Ring game players usually tend to prefer the multi-way pots. They usually would rather get on to the next hand then defend blinds (with marginal hands), attack the blinds (once again with marginal hands), and so on.
On the other hand, shorthanded players are usually ready to do battle on every hand. If they were not ready, they would look for a full game or go home.
Regards,
Rick
Will finally try my hand at poker after years of playing bj exclusively. Anyone know of casinos around the Chicagoland area that offers games. Usually all you see is Carib stud. Looking for 7 card stud especially. I dont't have a problem traveling to Indian reservations out of state within reason.Thanks much.
betel...go to exchange category...that is a better place fous to post these issues Bob
Hollywood Casino in Aurora, Empress in Joliet, Harrahs in E. Chicago Indiana all offer 1-5 stud.
I found a pretty good 5/10 stud game over the weekend. Fairly loose but not overly aggressive lineup.
3rd) I have (J K)J. Bring in is to my right, a four. I raise. Two players call one with a 7 the other a 9. The bring in calls as well. I am high.
4th) Bring in catches another 4, I catch a queen. Bring in makes it 10$. He was a fairly easy player to read and he wasn't very excited about his hand on 3rd. I had seen him just about always make it a double bet and try to "make a play" when he pairs his doorcard. I decide to raise him, partly to knock out worse hands than mine, and partly to see if he would reraise. If he didn't reraise I would be confident he didn't have trips. One other player calls, bring in just calls. I'm sure he has two small pair now.
5th: I catch a Jack for trips. Bring in catches an ace. Other player catches a possible 3rd card to a straight. Bring in checks, I bet 10$. Other player calls, so does bring in. I'm pretty sure I'm against a straight draw and a two pair fill-up draw. Some (but not all) of their cards are dead. My cards are partially live.
6th) I catch a blank, Bring in catches another ace. I know he doesn't have another ace in the hole because he would have raised for sure on 5th, judging by his prior play. He has 3 pairs, I am almost certain. Straight draw catches a possible blank.
River) I catch a blank. Both other players were easy to read, and I knew they didn't fill. I bet my hand for value, knowing at least one would call to keep me honest. Both call. Bring in has fours and dueces and aces, 3 pair. Other player had a busted straight which made 777 on the end.
Comments welcome
Dave in Cali
You read them all the way. Seems solid to me. Bob
A little confused...
On fifth street it was checked to you but unless I'm missing something you should have led.
You didn't finish describing the sixth street action.
5th I bet out with the jacks on the board, both called.
6th I bet out again, not wanting to give free cards. Both called.
I played for about 12 hours so I was tired when writing. Sorry guys....
Dave in Cali
Some situations are so rare that I have hardly thought about them. When you flop a nearly unbeatable hand, it takes a special determination to think critically about your play because you win the pot, and are happy to go on without a second thought.
Yesterday, in a soft 10-20 game I had 3 such situations, and I would like to invite your comments. In this game there were several players who played too many hands, and played too passively on and after the flop. For example, they would play A7 offsuit. If the flop was AQ5, they would call if you bet into them, and call all the way to the end. They would also check to the river in this situation. So one conern that I had was not getting in bets when I had a good hand. Therefore, I was often reluctant to go for check-raises on the turn for fear of it getting checked around.
Hand 1: I'm in early position with pocket 7's. Four players see the flop in an unraised pot. The flop is 776 offsuit. I lead out on the flop. I figured that this would not give my hand away, and since the flop almost certainly missed everyone else no one was going to bet it for me. I get two callers. The turn is another 6. How do you play it from here?
Hand 2: I have K10 offsuit in the big blind. 4 players see the flop in an unraised pot. The flop is AQJ offsuit. I lead out and UTG calls. Turn is a blank. I check. UTG checks -damn!. River is a blank. I check UTG calls, but does not show his hand.
Should I have checked the flop, and then tried for a check-raise on the turn? The UTG player had just come into the game, so the general assumptions given above do not apply to him.
Hand 3: I have pocket Aces in early position, and raise. I do not remember who capped it, but 5 of us saw the flop for 4 bets each. Flop is A86 offsuit. I bet, next player folds, then a raise, call, fold. I call. Turn is a blank. I bet, the flop raiser calls, the next player folds. I bet the river and he folds. I think I may have misplayed this hand, but I was afraid of not getting bets into the pot. For reasons stated above, this was a rational concern for this game, but it might not have applied to this particular hand.
In all three hands, I want to convince my opponents that I am not as strong as I really am. But doing so could just cost me early round bets that I will not be able to make up later. I invite all comments on these hands, or similar situations.
Cowboy, You did the right thing in all of your hands. Its the old, would you make more if you made small bets rather than a check-raise?, thing. I have had the best hands in the world before and they checked all the way around, and I didnt get my pay off. Sometimes it works, others it doesnt. You played your hands how I would have played them, dont change your technique. It will pay off in the long run!
Jeremy
Hand 1. Bet. Your best chance is that your opponent holds a small overpair or a draw, neither of which will he likely bet. Although the 6 increases the chance that your opponent will fold, it makes it even less likely that he will bet. Resist the impulse to hope that your opponent will hit a longshot draw if he gets to the river for free. He's much more likely to give you money on the turn. Betting the nuts here also makes it easier to pick up pots later when the board is scary.
Hand 2. "Damn!"? What did you expect? If your opponent couldn't raise you on the flop, how can he bet on the turn? Checking the nuts here makes it harder to pick up pots later when the board is scary.
hand 3. When the pot is big and you hold the nuts, just keep pouring in the dough unless you have a very specific plan to increase your earn some other way (rare). If you don't reraise on the flop (a mistake), then you should have check-raised on the turn (bigger mistake). Slowplaying cost you at least one big bet, or perhaps thirty minutes of perfect play in a game like this.
I would have been tempted to check the Quad 7's on the turn, hoping to either induce a bet or bluff downtable, but I wouldn't slowplay either of the other two hands for love or money. Why give someone a free shot to catch up to Broadway, or make some sort of gut shot straight to run over trip Aces? In the low limit games in which I play, I find that people will call raises with just about anything, so when I hit the monsters, I want full payoffs to offset the ridulous rundowns. Sometimes I adjust a little. Examples:
1. 3-6HE, fairly loose game, decent action. Mid-position, pocket Q's. Raise, two cold callers, SB and BB call, everyone else folds. Flop Q-Q-2 rainbow. Check, Check, I check, it gets checked out. Turn card 10d making a diamond draw. SB bets, BB calls, I just call hoping to trap the later players, but they both fold. River comes an offsuit 8, SB checks but the BB bets, now I raise and BB pays off with a J-9, so slowpaying this one got me the most I think I could hope for.
2. Not 20 minutes later in the same game, UTG I raise with pocket 9's, four cold callers, SB and BB both call. Flop comes 9c-8s-6s. Checked to me, I bet, and four people call including both blinds, two fold. Turn card comes the fourth 9. SB & BB check, I go ahead and bet, figuring that nobody will put me on one 9, never mind both of them, and anyone with an over pair, spade or straight draw will put dead money into the pot. They all folded! I showed my hand because the casino offers entries into a prize draw for quad's or better, and everyone was astounded that I would bet my quad's on the turn, and not let everyone catch up. My thoughts were that I knew I was going to win the pot anyway, barring some sort of straight flush miracle, and anyone with that draw was going to put the money in on the turn anyway. I wanted not only to win the pot, my maximize the profit, too.
I think I played both hands to my best advantage. Comments welcome.
In the second hand, you should bet on the turn because there are so many potential draws available, and players with those draws are likely to pay you off. If you slowplay and they miss, they pay you nothing on the river. If you bet and they miss, you win those turn bets. If you bet and they hit, they may raise or reraise you on the river. You were just unfortunate that no one had a draw they were willing to pay for.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Note that in hand no. 2, the only good (or good-looking) draws are TJ and any hand with a 7. Since the 9999 only has two opponents left, I still think the better play is to give a free cards and hope for an overcard hit or renewed confidence in a lower pair.
Checking the quads might be correct if you knew your opponent well. Your opponent either has something he can convince himself to call you with on the turn or river (a pair, a draw or a big card to pick off your bluff), or nothing. If he has something, a check is only correct if he is more willing to bet than he is to call. Most players when holding a little something are much more likely to call than bet, particularly in a game like this.
If he has nothing, checking is correct only if the probability that your check will induce a bluff is higher than the combined probability that your bet will induce a call or a bluff raise. Note that bluff-raising might also cost your opponent another bet somewhere. While this might be the case if your opponent has a strong tendency to bluff here, I still think the "default" play should be to bet the turn. Betting also gives you a certain flexibility after the turn, whereas if you check the turn and he checks behind you, you will feel compelled to bet the river.
Your examples:
1. I agree with checking QQ with a QQ2 flop but would have raised on the turn after two players bet into me. A downstream diamond draw won't fold and an upstream diamond draw might (please God) play back at your here. In any event, the chance that either of the first two bettors will fold is usually quite small, so why not pick up an extra BB?
2. I wouldn't raise preflop with 99 UTG. On the turn, upon hitting the fourth nine after betting top set on the flop, you're looking at a classic case for slowing down, despite the healthy size of the pot. Otherwise you get to represent top set (or better) after representing top pair; the weak hands are outa there. Notice also if you check your opponents will now be hard pressed to put you on trip nines and might call you down with second pair. I would therefore check after the blinds and just call anyone who bet. This sets me up well for the river.
Thanks for the comments and insight, Chris. On the quad Q's hand, I did give some thought to popping it on the turn, and in retrospect, probably would have earned one additional big bet, especially when the BB made her straight on the river. She might have thought I was trying to "protect" my big pair and bet out on the river. Oops.
On the quad 9's hand: I don't generally raise up front with pocket 9's, either, but my table image is such that most opponents put my on premium pairs or a big Ace when I make these moves, and I try to vary my play a bit to keep them offguard. This one obviously worked out well when I hit the set, but the board was scary and I clearly didn't want to slowplay the flop. There were still four opponents in the hand on the turn, not just two, and as I mentioned, they tend to call raises with just about anything, so I was not discounting the possibility of some one holding pocket 8's, pocket 6's,any pair, any two spades, a 7, a gutshot, or conceivably even two overcards and be willing to call a further bet on the turn, or I might even get raised or checkraised. The field is also generally so passive and weak that if I checked the turn, it would be very unlikely that anyone would take a bluff shot at the pot on the end; I might get called by someone thinking I was trying to "steal" with my AK if I checked the turn and a blank fell on the river, but that's about the extent of it. I still feel my best chance of maximizing my profit in this particular situation was to bet out the turn. As Greg Raymer pointed out earlier in the thread, it was my bad luck that no one had enough to call the turn, and given that scenario, I can't imagine what could have come up on the river that they could have hit to call then, either.
Yeah, you and Greg are right (I misread the post). With 4 players left and you in the middle you should definitley bet the quad nines. One advantage of slowplaying in this particular case, however, is that by indicating that you have less than a set you are more likely to get multiple bets if a draw hits.
Here was a situation that came up in a 10-20 game a few nights ago. I'd be interested in hearing what other people think:
I have A-8 suited 3 off the button. Folds to me, I raise, the button and the blinds call. The flop is Q-J-x with my flush draw. The SB (a new player---appears fairly weak) bets, the BB (a loose, passive, calling station) raises, I reraise, the button folds, the SB calls, and the BB calls. The turn is an offsuit ten.
Both checked to me. Suppose there is no chance of the BB folding---you know she holds a legitimate hand. Should you bet?
Not unless you think that bet will increase your chances of stealing on the end to an adequte degree.
There is no chance of the BB folding at any point in the hand. She has a pair (it turned out that she held Q-9) and will not fold no matter what the board looks like.
This is not the issue that I was getting at. My question concerns the benefits you might get from getting the SB to fold an ace, an eight, or maybe even a king. Should I interpret your response to mean that these are not sufficient to merit a bet? If so, a little reasoning would be appreciated, if that's not too much trouble.
Thanks...
Given that I knew the BB had a legitimate made hand and was not leaving under any circumstances, should I have played more passively on the flop? My main reason for reraising was that I wanted to give my ace (and other runner-runner draws) a better chance to win. I did check the turn, but wondered afterward if the same logic called for a bet to pressure the SB.
George,
This post is in response to your three previous posts.
These opponents, this situation, and that board indicate that you must make your hand to win the pot. The reraise on the flop bought you the "free" card yet your opponents still hung in.
I don't see the small blind, who bet the flop, folding any hand containing an ace that he was willing to bet with. I don't see the small blind folding any king that he would lead the flop with. And what hand containing an eight would the small blind bet the flop with?
I think a check on the turn is pretty clear. The reraise on the flop was at worse debatable, and will leave that one to others (am I sounding like Sklansky here?).
Regards,
Rick
I think it's closer than you think.
Let's say that there's no chance he'll fold. Keep in mind that I have a huge draw: 18 cards improve my hand, and 15 make me a straight or better. If he calls, my guess is that it's about a wash after accounting for the possibility of splitting the pot.
I have about a 40% chance of beating the big blind, who holds Q-9, indicating that the "cost" of betting, if the SB folds a hand that can't win, is about $4.
You may be right that the chances are slim that he'll fold, but keep in mind that I've done nothing but raise--he may be intimidated. And if he does fold an ace, I gain over $5 in expectation. If he folds a king, I gain over $20. If he holds a king and doesn't fold, the bet loses me about $2.50 and expectation. If he holds an ace and doesn't fold, I gain a little over $1. If all of my draws are live and he calls, I gain over $6 in expectation.
I think the decision is really on the margin. If he's a calling station, a bet probably helps me. The bigger danger is that I bet into a hand that will fold if unimproved, but would call with a king or a pair with an ace. Factor in the chance that the BB has a king or a set or that the SB is lying in the weeds, and I think your advice to check the turn is probably correct.
I don't think the reraise on the flop is debatable, but would enjoy debating it if anyone disagrees. After all, that's what we're here for. Why leave all the fun to "others"?
George,
I probably should have said the flop re-raise was "close" rather than "debatable". Anyway, I'll still stick to the turn decision on this post.
First a nit: "18 cards improve my hand, and 15 make me a straight or better.". Actually 21 cards improve your hand, if you count pairing the eight as "improvement".
Next: "I have about a 40% chance of beating the big blind, who holds Q-9" You know this after the fact. It is important to analyze a hand based on the information you have at the time.
Anyway, I figure during the play of the hand you can't be too happy about hitting an ace or a nine and you need to figure that hitting a king may only get you half the pot. Most of your flushes will be good (I don't see a set or two big pair here out against you) so you really have the equivalent of about ten or eleven outs.
Any hand that the small blind would bet with the ace almost has to be paired with the flop with the exception of AT and AK. With the AT you will probably still be called and with the AK you will be check raised on the turn if you bet. No player will fold a king at this point (probably KQ, KJ, or KT), since most playable kings pair the board in addition to having the straight draw.
I still don't think it was close. Check the turn and root for the club.
Regards,
Rick
"I probably should have said the flop re-raise was "close" rather than "debatable". Anyway, I'll still stick to the turn decision on this post."
I realize that I raised this possibility in my follow-up post, but after reflection I really think the raise was a no-brainer, given position and the nature of the hand and opponents. LOTS of reasons to reraise here.
"First a nit: "18 cards improve my hand, and 15 make me a straight or better.". Actually 21 cards improve your hand, if you count pairing the eight as "improvement". "
C'mon Rick. This is hardly worth addressing, given my assumption about the BB.
The thrust of my post was to point out that if both can be trusted to call, I'm close in terms of expectation. The reason you might not see this is that you're shortchanging me in terms of outs. 10.5 outs assumes the flushes are good and the offsuit kings always split the pot and that the nines and aces never win. (In fact, I won this pot after checking the turn when a nine fell.) A more realistic assessment would put me at somewhere between 12 and 14 outs.
The main reason to bet here is to give the SB a chance to make a mistake by folding an ace or king. I think you're probably right that he won't. But he might fold worse hands, making a check the correct play. On the other hand, if he'll call with anything...a bet may be correct.
I say your re-raise on the flop just bought you a free card.
You may get check-raised on the turn if the ten made someone a straight, so take the free card. If they don't have a straight, but instead have a straight draw, you still have the flush draw plus an overcard. You have a few more outs, some of which happen to overlap with the straight draws, giving them few less outs.
If you pair aces on the end and no one has a straight, the best 3 kickers to a pair of aces are already on the board, so kicker trouble is irrelevant, because anyone with AK already has a straight.
Also, betting here seems like a borderline decision, high-variance play. Having the free card option is always a nice option when you are drawing.
Dave in Cali
I've seen this hand before. Both blinds had K,T.
I like taking the free card. Mainly because your Ace may not give you any outs. Of course if you check you have very little chance of winning without making your hand. So you may want to set up a river steal. Not an easy decision, huh!
Oh well that's poker!
Vince.
Vince,
George wrote: "Suppose there is no chance of the BB folding---you know she holds a legitimate hand. Should you bet?"
How do you set up a river steal given this assumption?
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Is my speling geting anny beter?
Rick,
George wrote: "Suppose there is no chance of the BB folding---you know she holds a legitimate hand. Should you bet?"
Rick wrote: "How do you set up a river steal given this assumption? "
Your speeling is fine and so is your sarcasm. I do take this quesion of yours as a sarcastic remark. Am I in the ball park?
There is an obvious answer to your question. Just reread what George wrote. with your keen sense of inconsistency I'm sure you will find the flaw with these ASSumptions.
Vince.
BTW- Rick, speeling has to e's's not one!
After reading the 21st Century Edition of 7CSFAP, and based on my own experience playing the game, I have formunlated this question for the authors and contributors to this forum. Should you raise the bring-in in a 1-3 or 1-5 7CS game when you have: 1) a pair of kings or aces; 2) a pair of queens, jacks or tens; or 3) a smaller pair with an overcard kicker, anything from an Ace to a ten?
In 1-3 and 1-5 stud, there is no ante. The bring in is a dollar. If you were to raise in early position, you would likely win a dollar. Considering that a pair of Aces or Kings is likely to be the best hand at the table, you may want to wait until at least fourth street to try to drive people out. If you raise in late position on third you risk just traping people in and making their calls correct and reducing your chances of getting them out on forth or fifth street. But is winning that dollar adequate when you have a pair of queens or a small pair with an overcard?
Comments
Rich,
I probably would NOT bet the max in an early position, as like you said, u probably would drive out everyone and win a $1-$2. I'd bet $2 in a 1-3 and $3 in a 1-5. If the game is like the one in my area, the game is loose and u will get several callers. On 4th street, if u feel u have the best hand, bet the maximum. At that point it is certainly worth driving people out. I have found that only a $5 bet will drive out players consistently.
I have found 3rd street in a no ante game to be where players "volunteerly" ante into the pot. Many players will call in a 1, 2 or 3 bet for right to play the hand. I say let 'em, then drive 'em out on 4th street.
Jack
I have been a semi-pro for 14+ years and I have held MANY part-time, side-line jobs to get me over the bad beat nights etc. I am once again solvent and considering JUST playing poker as my only job. I have the experience, bankroll and guts it takes to pull off the job. How many of you out there have been doing this and if so, how much $$$ can you make in middle limit games? Any help in this area would be GREATLY appreciated. Thanks, Doc River (ex-Card Player Magazine writer.)
i have tried twice and can't ,some might say won't make it .ithink location and game choice is critical .baton rouge has two working players,and one guy who is using his unemp comp.none of them make 500 wk the games are tuff and the rake is bad .my friend went to cali for a few weeks and loved it .i might try again in la but playing in the same 4-8 game here is murder
I won't quit my day job...Last year I cleared just over 10K...This year I'm ahead a little over 9K...No pro here...I'll need my pension, social security and any return on investments when I retire---just so I can continue playing! Bob
Robert, It really depends on what type of games are in the area. In my home town I play with a bunch of rich company owners. We play at one of their houses in a game room. I have played for over a year making a good 500-800 a week. If you can find a private game, and the people you are playing against are at your level, I would go for it. The only problem is when you first get started you cant spend your winnings as you normally would. You should play and keep your winnings in a seperate account, only spending what you need to out of that account. Try to live off of it and if it looks like it will work than by all means go for it! This is just a small means of putting up a safety net in case you fall.
Jeremy
If I can't lie I'm not responding. Same reason I play poker.
Vince
I operate my own business in addition to playing poker. Quite often, I would rather work that play. There is a lot less risk involved.
I think if you plan on supporting yourself by poker alone, you need to play at the 15-30 level or above. Below that you might as well drive a cab.
Brett
Rich:
I generally only raise about 2$ or 3$ in 1-5 with these hands. One the one hand, big pairs are certainly worth more than the bring-ins. So you want at least one or two players in the pot. On the other hand, you still have to raise and give them a chance to make a mistake by entering the pot.
It also depends on how tight the game is.
One time, I had just gotten into the game (1-5) and got dealt split aces. Bring-in and two callers to me, I raised 1$. Everyone folded! The game was obviously way too tight and I left two hands later. No $$ to be made. I would have probably got more out of my hand If I had waited till 4th to raise.
In other looser games, people will generally call a 3$ or 4$ raise, even if they don't have a S/M/Z textbook hand. 3rd might be your only chance to raise, as you will probably be high most of the way. In that case, get the $$ in the pot while you still have the best hand. Chasing out a couple hands is fine too. You don't want to play against 5 chasers. Be satified with winning a smaller pot with big pairs.
As for what pairs to raise with, Any time I am pretty sure I have the highest made pair, I will usually raise (even if it's 99 or 88). Small pairs in the hole with a big upcard are good raising hands, mostly for scare card value (setting up a steal for later).
Also, with big pairs (split or in the hole), I will sometimes put in a small raise to test any higher upcards behind me and see if they reraise. Better to find out now If I'm an underdog, rather than after I'm already committed to the pot.
Good luck.
Dave in Cali
I play $2-$5 spread limit stud, and with big pairs I have as my objective, getting one caller with an under pair or draw. In some games, this will be $5 raise to the left of the bring-in, in other games it will mean waiting until 4th street. Also, you generally need a larger raise if your door card is low.
Last night I was playing in a 5 handed home game. Somehow I seem to not be able to beat these 5 handed games. When we were playing a 4 handed game 3 weeks before, I and another player slaughtered the game by playing aggressive. Playing H2H or 3-handed on irc I seem to do pretty good too. But when 5-handed I only get even (not beaten).
When started playing last night I started off aggressive. Soon I realised that it wouldn't work in this game. Everybody was almost always seeing the flop even if raised preflop. Somebody almost always also seemed to have a decent hand at the end.
I then changed my strategy and tried to play the way it is described in shorthanded section of HFAPL. After NOT getting any of the recommended cards after a couple of rounds and seeing big pots being brought in by real crap to starting hands (even for shorthanded) I changed strategy again.
Now I decided that becuase everybody seemed to be pretty loose and getting aggressive when they got something I would try to see more flops. I decided that I would see the flop with ANY cards if there wasn't any raising preflop. If raised preflop I would only play Ax, Kxs, Big Cards and pairs. I also decide that I would not raise anything preflop, not matter what cards I have. (that after getting KK beaten on the turn by Ax.) I wanted to see the flop.
This strategy got me to get even and take back my losses. I saw many times my big cards or pairs get beaten and was therefore happy that I didn't raise with them preflop. One of the biggest pot that I won I also brought in with 5 2s.
Altough this can't be the right way to beat this 5-handed game (playing crap like 5 2). I have read Abdul's posts about shorthanded, Sklanskys advices in HFAPL and been pretty successful in 2, 3 and even 4 handed games. But in 5 handed games the implicit collusion of the loose players seems to be much harder.
Does somebody have any good advice how to adjust to this kind of games to be more successful?
Thanks
Abbe
I just started playing Omaha Hi-Lo Split (8 or better) and I was wondering what is the average % of the time that the low hand even qualifies? In other words, what % of the time will 3 or more of the 5 cards be either A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8? Thanks in advance for your help.
Dax
Dax - There are at least three different ranked community cards of eight or below 1,561,728 times out of 2,598,960.
In other words, because of the cards in the community hand, low is possible only three our of every five deals in Omaha-8.
Since, once you are in playing a hand, you can see the four cards in your own hand, an even better question might have been:
How often is low possible in Omaha-8 if you have:
a. no low cards in your hand,
b. one low card in your hand,
c. two low cards in your hand, such as AH, 2H.
d. three low cards in your hand, such as AH, 2H, 3H,
e. four low cards in your hand, such as AH, 2H, 3H, 4H.
(But you didn't ask that question and I have to go say the Caro-Winning-Player-Oath three times now).
Omaha8Buff (A student of Mike Caro)
You are a lucky player. A powerful winning force surrounds you. Thanks for the help, OmahaBuff.
I have been reduced to playing low limit games as there is no 10/20 or higher games within a 4 hour drive.
My question is simple:
Should I continue to play in a low limit 5/10 HE game knowing that I am the best at the table? The game is very loose and difficult to beat because of this. I am wondering whether or not the odds of all the players combined generally will beat me.
I find that on most occasions 6 players will call to the river and I am getting beaten with poor draws most of the time. I am usually the best to the river, should I stop playing in this game?
(The swings in this game are tremendous, you can be ahead 300 or down 300 in an hour, the action is fast, the pace comfortable but the swings uncontrollable)
How about posting a detailed description of some the hands that you get involved with in this game. Different strategies are needed for beating loose and wild games.
Firstly, in the low limit games I tend to play tighter, only drawing to nut flushes and calling pre-flop with a pair of 99 or better. So premium hands.
Since the variance is so large I figure that playing only premium hands, irrespective of position, is warranted for this game. Correct?
I have been beaten on umpteen times with KK to gut shot straights and flushes.
1 recent example is:
I have Kh Ks, I raise pre-flop (automatic in this loose game, but no one cares!) I am in position 6 and EVERYONE calls behind (to fluke the good player)(this is another problem as the game gets personal and players "attack" the players that are the best/have the most chips)
I bet all the way through and get called by 4 on the river: (no raising, just simply calling, the game is loose but passive until the turn or river depending on when people catch) Board: 4h 6s 7d 9s 2s
I get beat by a set of nines (sitting directly beside me, to my left, making him act after my bet) and I get beat by a 10 high flush (10s 2s) thats how bad (or GOOD!)the game is!!
"Correct?" No.
"I have been beaten on umpteen times with KK to gut shot straights and flushes"
I guess you should just muck'em from now on.
"I have Kh Ks, I raise pre-flop (automatic in this loose game, but no one cares!) "
Noting is automatic in poker. I guess you include yourself when you say no one cares.
"(to fluke the good player)"
I know what this means and I'm very surprised that you would believe something so silly.
"(this is another problem as the game gets personal and players "attack" the players that are the best/have the most chips)"
This is not a problem! Let any foolish player that is not as good as me attack me. That is without question, I repeat without question, the best scenario a good player can ask for. Bring'em on! especially, I might add, when I have a lot of chips. Stop licking your chops the rest of you poker guys out there he ain't tellin where this game is!
"the game is loose but passive until the turn or river depending on when people catch)"
Gee what a surprise!
"I get beat by a set of nines (sitting directly beside me, to my left, making him act after my bet) and I get beat by a 10 high flush (10s 2s) thats how bad (or GOOD!)the game is!!"
The only half right comment made in this post. GOOD! that is. BTW only one winner so the set of nines lost also. Should tell you something.
Vince.
Vince:
""(to fluke the good player)"
I know what this means and I'm very surprised that you would believe something so silly. "
This reminds me of a post several weeks ago by someone who thought it was another player's fault that he was knocked out of a tournament.
Brett
Yeh 3 Bet I remeber that idiot too!
Vince.
It appears you're not adjusting to the game correctly. Big pairs play differently in loose games. Drawing hands increase in value.
I'm too lazy to go into detail, but you need to learn how to play big pairs in loose games. Your description of the action was not detailed to the point where I could recommend the way you should have played the hand.
I suggest that you get a hold of a copy of the new HPFAP 21st Century Edition and study the Loose games, Wild games, and Starting hands. These sections in the book will give you the information on how to play your cards when you encounter these types of games.
Good Luck!
Low limit games can be quite profitable over the long run, but you will get drawn out on alot so get used to it. I have shown a nice long term profit at low limit HE but have suffered tremendous swings along the way. You can't let the results of a particular game influence the decision of whether or not you can beat the game. Sometimes the suckers just keep drawing out with terrible draws and poor odds and there's not much you can do. Just make sure to charge them the maximum each time they try and it will eventually pay off.
Also, drawing hands, especially ace high flush draws, are more profitable in these games. If you know there will be 7-8 callers every time, you can bend the position rules a little and come into the pot with more small pairs, Axs, and suited connectors. Keep in mind these hands will increase your variance. There's nothing you can really do, you will have big swings in wild games. It's the long term profit that is your main goal.
Dave in Cali
This is good advice. It may seem like pocket aces get beat constantly by gutshots and trash like 7-2o that catches a miracle flop, but the math doesn't lie. Short term luck aside, these people won't be winners for long playing this way. Certain hands like pocket kings or aces are not hands that like alot of competition anyway so I wouldn't take them too far past the flop unimproved in a loose game with more than 5-6 players in the pot if it appears that there are straight or flush implications.
On the other hand, suited big cards and connectors are more valuable since they are powerful drawing hands. Play connectors and suits more often since you will get the correct odds and drop pocket pairs that don't improve on the flop when there are overcards or when the board pairs. In a loose game you are most likely a big dog or practically drawing dead.
I tend to agree with both Dave and Moses, though their approaches are contradictory. Dave suggests loosening your starting hand requirements some where Moses suggests tightening up a bit. I might add that you may be able to knock people out with both strategies. With Daves strategy, you can try to knock em out by setting up a double bet when the minimum bet goes up (fifth street in stud). With Moses' strategy, you scare people just by entering the game. I really don't know which strategy has the better return, but I feel that these games should be beatable.
If they are not beatable, that would mean that the correct strategy is to draw to the river with any decent draw. That can't be correct. Also, don't underestimate these players. Professional gamblers tend to label as a smuck everyone they think doesn't know how to play. Don't do this. First, you will underestimate the quality of their hands. Even "poor" players get good hands, and they play them. Second, you will underestimate their play and will fail to read them well. Someone at the table has a winning hand, and you're not going to be able to scare them off with the low limit bet.
Let me know which strategy works best.
I would like to add that the advantage of Dave's approach is that you can bet strong hands early on and expect to be called whereas with Moses' approach you will see people fold and not bet into you unless they have a strong hand, making their play correct. The advantage of Moses' approach is that you will get a lot of free cards. If you can mix it up a bit, you can play more drawing hands until they catch on and then beat them with nuts once they've let their guard down. Moses' approach requires good timing, both of the cards and your play.
I should add something to my post that might clear things up about mine and Moses posts being contradictory.
I suggested loosening up with drawing hands, I should add that you want to make the pot big when YOU have a drawing hand. I have been raising with 910s, small pairs, and Axs in late position with many callers. I also like to limp-reraise in early position with AKs and similar hands.
The opposite is true for high unsuited cards. Here you must tighten up, sometimes even mucking the poorer hands. If you have AKo in late position with 7 callers, raising only makes the pot big enough to make it more correct for the fish to chase. Keep the pots small with these hands. Only raise to knock people out when it has a good chance of working, such as when you can make it 3 bets in early position BTF. Making opponents call a double bet (especially on the turn) in a small pot can force your opponents into making a mistake by calling. Not true if the pot is really big. These are the hands we die with in low limit. Try to reduce the amount you lose on these hands in loose games and you will probably do better.
Does this help?
Dave in Cali
Yes, it's no wonder I started losing after reading the earlier edition of 7CSFAP. In loose low limit games you have to adjust your strategy to how you expect the other players to behave, i.e., how the hand will be played. Just by counting chips rather than money, does this make low limit games more profitable or less profitable?
I really don't mean to be a smart-ass(I just can't help it), but if you were the best player at the table the title of this post would be "Low Limit Winner." Somebody is winning in this game(probably the player holding the best cards), and you need to figure out why it isn't you.
Brett
Brett,
You are right, but you are also being a smart ass. Players tend to underestimate the competition, but there is also a change in strategy when playing in low limit games, combined with the drop and the tip, that make it difficult to win. Your point is well taken, but I do appreciate people sharing their failures as well as their successes. In fact, I learn more from other peoples mistakes than I do from their successes.
Seems this is a familiar kind of post.
The fact you get drawn out w/these sometimes ridiculous draws *should* make you happy in that most of the time these people will be paying you off , and often they will be big underdogs most of the time.
One must also note KK or AA doesn't hold up all the time, and it is quite possible you may stay in too long w/these hands when they catch bad flops. And a hand like AA is not even a favorite to win if the rest of the table takes the flop, turn and river. and you should adjust your attitude appropriately.
Good luck, if you really are teh best player the money will soon be flowing your way. You just can't expect to win every session....
Ray,
after reading and re-reading your book I wonder what are the basic adjustments in strategy for playing 7-stud Hi-Lo 8 or better in pot-limit (there is no PL section in your book contrary to O8).
You basically say that limit 7-stud Hi-Lo is a game of implied odds since the pots are frequently jammed in the later streets, thus there should not be big differences between limit and pot-limit.
However in pot-limit we have always to take into account the all-in factor by fifth or sixth street, specially with short / middle stacks.
Let me try to define the opening hands:
- any set, 2 A or 2 K, small 3-straights, small 3-flush
- what about A28, A27 or A26 without even a 2-flush
- what about a 2-flush A55, 556, 554 (Max Stern says that after the Ace, the 5 is a key card in this game)
- what about A + small pair
- what about a small pair + 2-straight-flush card (specially if the pair is in the hole)
I understand that the high hands go up in value, almost when playing heads up and/or short or middle stacked.
You also say thet check-raising is a powerful tool, since the obvious high hand can always be expected to bet, specially with a high hand disguised in low. Is it OK to use it in PL (if it is powerful, it is also dangerous).
What about the 2 "expert" plays you discuss:
- check raise in a 3-pot in 5th street with a small open pair to eliminate the high hand
- chech raise in a 2-pot in 5th street with a 4-low and a big card against a high hand to represent a better high ?
What about the other basic adjustments to be made ?
An european player (in Europe poker is only played pot-limit [or no-limit] )
In poker essays, luck vs. skill, pg 98, it talks about the structure of 10/20 stud, and how the suckers get cleaned out quickly. What is the exact structure of this game, and how pronounced is this effect relative to other structures, specifically 5/10 and 15/30? Is this because of a disproportionately small ante relative to the first raise?
Particularly, these two 10/20 structures:
1$ ante 3$ bring in 1st raise completes to 10, 2nd to 20$ 1$ ante 4$ bring in 1st raise to 14$, 2nd to 24$
Further, is it worth it to specifically try to exploit this particular phenomenon, or will the expert player do just as well at any limit/structure that is within his bankroll?
Also, in Poker essays II, it discusses the same phenomenon with 15-30 holdem, 10 and 15 blinds (sorry no pg. #, the book is loaned out).
Would this effect be the same in 3-6 or 30-60 HE if there were 2 chip and 3 chip blinds, i.e. does the 1$ 3$ blind structure make a difference? I believe it was talking about 3 chip, 6 chip betting structure. How does 15/30 specifically compare to 5/10, 10/20, 20/40, 30/60 HE structures as far as this effect goes? Why does that extra 1/6 of a bet in 15/30 make a difference, and to what degree is this effect?
I guess in the end I just wanted further details on this beyond what's in the books. All comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
"In poker essays, luck vs. skill, pg 98, it talks about the structure of 10/20 stud, and how the suckers get cleaned out quickly. What is the exact structure of this game, and how pronounced is this effect relative to other structures, specifically 5/10 and 15/30? Is this because of a disproportionately small ante relative to the first raise?"
In Foxwoods, it's $1 ante, $3 bring-in, first raise completes the bet to $10. As compared to $15-30 ($2/$5/$15), the ante is proportionately smaller, and is much smaller relative to the bets than the antes of higher stud games. Higher antes help the loose players by adding a randomizing factor. Players who win a large share of the pots (although they lose money overall) will not do as badly in a high ante game. Playing too loose both on third-street and beyond is a far more critical error in 10-20 than in higher games where the large starting pot makes many marginal calls correct. Bad players who play too many pairs and weak straight draws don't get anywhere near the odds they need to make those hands profitable with this small a starting pot. Also, the better players in the game correctly play tighter, which means that loose players are constantly entering and staying in pots with inferior hands. In higher ante games, where all players are more induced to multiway action by the large starting pot, many drawing hands will do better.
While "fish" will lose especially fast in 10-20, in many cardrooms most of your opponents in 10-20 will be "mediocre players". They play slightly too many hands, but on later streets they fold too easily in many spots. (And call too much in others.) They are also too passive. These players may actually do better under this structure than they would in a higher ante structure.
"Further, is it worth it to specifically try to exploit this particular phenomenon, or will the expert player do just as well at any limit/structure that is within his bankroll?"
No - if you are an expert, you would almost certainly make more in higher games. An excellent player might win $40/hr in 20-40, but certainly won't win $40/hr in the long run in any 10-20 game.
"Also, in Poker essays II, it discusses the same phenomenon with 15-30 holdem, 10 and 15 blinds (sorry no pg. #, the book is loaned out). Would this effect be the same in 3-6 or 30-60 HE if there were 2 chip and 3 chip blinds, i.e. does the 1$ 3$ blind structure make a difference? I believe it was talking about 3 chip, 6 chip betting structure. How does 15/30 specifically compare to 5/10, 10/20, 20/40, 30/60 HE structures as far as this effect goes? Why does that extra 1/6 of a bet in 15/30 make a difference, and to what degree is this effect?"
Normally, a higher ante structure helps the loose players a bit. The 15-30 with 10-15 blinds and 30-60 with 20-30 blinds is an exception. Mediocre players become more inclined to call raises in the small blind with dominated hands. When they are first in in late position, and they incorrectly limp with a medium hand rather than raise, they will face two opponents almost automatically, while in the normal structure the SB will often fold. Facing two opponents makes these hands much less likely to win unimproved. Also, for only one more chip, they enter the pot with hands like J2o and Q5o, but then they misplay them in multiway pots after the flop.
The local indian casinos in Cal. still have jackpots. In hold 'em, the jpot is aces full or better must be beat. Both cards must play. How often does this happen? How do you figure it out mathematically? Thanks
I posted something on beating quads tens a month or two ago w/explanation. A's full would be more tedious but much more likely. Look at the post and tell me if you really want this figure...
It ain't happenin' that often, that's for certain. There have been some good essays written about the dangers of jackpots in poker, but the main point is all the money it sucks off the table.
Anyway, as to your question about how to figure it out mathematically, it is simple. Take the odds of getting aces full. Then take the odds of a better hand like quads, and multiply the two together. Unfortunately, I don't have those at hand at the moment, but in any event, we're talking about 2 big numbers being multiplied by each other (or on the other hand, using percentages, multiplying two small numbers together) which yields a much bigger number.
So, the odds of aces full getting beaten is rather stiff. Then as you say, *both* hole cards must be played. This makes the proposition even more ludricous. Still, if you can hit the jackpot, congrats...
In a 10-20 HE game on the weekend, there was a heads up play I observed that was unfathomable.
There is no preflop raise, flop comes 227 rainbow. Check, check.
Turn is another 7. Check, check.
River is an A. Check check.
First player tosses KQs face up, doesn't say anything. Other player mucks!
Larry
Huh!
Vince.
Looks like a split pot even with one player mucking
Milt
Nope. Rules are player must show his hand to win. KQ won the enitre pot ( granted it was only $22 ).
L
I have been playing poker for about 1yr 3 months playing about 3 sessions a week,, I have had my share of bad beats and my share of controlling the table!1 in the last month I have lost most of what I have won in the last 3 months ive been out played and catching bad beats so often its not even funny... here is my concern I have a chance to deal poker at the casino that I have been playing at ,, to get me off my game and back into the learning stage,, should I take that offer .. there is 3 outs that I have by takeing the position,, 1) I will not beable to play poker there,, saveing money!! 2) I will be able to study more of the game ,, position plays blinds ,, slow play,, and most of all learn more about the players that have been beating me ... 3) potential of a career in dealing .. please give me your fair oppinion on what this could do for me !!!thanks,, Turn Card
Go for it if you don't already have a job. Dealers see a lot of play. You will gain observational experience. I don't think dealing is a great carreer, however. So if you already have a job that pays more or is more satisfying or has upward mobility, stay there. If you have to work two jobs, you might not be able to play at all.
If you are inexperienced, the situation you described is not uncommon. A couple really bad days can eat up what it took you months to earn. Don't kick yourself, it happens to us all. Use this experience to improve your game and it's not a total loss. Dealing might help you with reading hands and players.
I've been playing for many years, and I can count on one hand the number of dealers that are also good players. Maybe it's because the job is so demanding that they don't have time to pay attention to strategy, but few dealers learn the game from being so close to it.
Dealers are usually considered to be fish when they are playing. It's unlikely that dealing will improve your play. But it will improve your bankroll.
I think you should examine what has caused your loss in the last month. Maybe you have relaxed your play a little too much since things had been going pretty good for the past year.
Brett
3 Bet,
He said "poker player" not poker prayer. On a serious note, I agree with (ugh) you! Da Bears!
Vince.
Vince,
Of all peaple on this forum with the insight and wisdom that you have for the game I was hopeing to read a little more than what you said,, I have read this forum for a long time, sense before I started playing cards,,, can YOU please give me little more,, I respect you opinion and honesty ,, please give me it,,,
Turn Card!
You value Vince's advice? I think we're getting to the root of your problem.
Brett
I deal poker, and where i work there is not 3 good players out of a 100. Dealing will help you to read players a little better but i do not think it will help your play that much. It will give you a idea how the regaurs play and that can be helpfull if you are alowed to play in your own card room.
good luck
TurnCard,
"I have been playing poker for about 1yr 3 months playing about 3 sessions a week"
I have been playing for about 6 years.
" I have had my share of bad beats and my share of controlling the table"
Been there, done that!
"in the last month I have lost most of what I have won in the last 3 months ive been out played and catching bad beats so often its not even funny.."
I could have written this one myself in April of this year.
Now the interesting stuff. The answer to your question: "should I take that offer "
"1) I will not beable to play poker there,, saveing money!!"
This sounds like a statement from a losing poker player. Notice, I did not say Loser! Indicates to me that a little more self discipline is needed. You probably need to decide if you are a recreational poker player or one that is willing to do what is necessary to play winning poker full time. (Remeber you asked for the advice.)
" 2) I will be able to study more of the game ,, position plays blinds ,, slow play,, and most of all learn more about the players that have been beating me ."
This ain't gonna happen! Just ask Mr. Malmuth what he would do to a dealer that was not focusing on his job. A dealer must (must) pay attention to the action as it unfolds. They have not time to be studying poker! Try it at my table and you will be in trouble. Now remeber you are getting this kind of comment that never, never blames a dealer or gets upset with a dealer and always defends dealers. Again, Imagine what Mr. M's response would be.
"3) potential of a career in dealing .. "
There is no good response to this point. Maybe -- If that is what you want to do with your life then go for it! If you want my opinnion I say go to college instead and find a profession instead of a career. But remeber your getting this advice from a High School Graduate.
Now, turn card, my advice is that you look in the mirror and ask yourself what you want. Hopefully, the wise fellow looking back will have the answer you are seeking.
Vince.
Vince,,,,,
Thanks sir yes that was more of what I was looking for !,,, I will do just that ,,, Thanks,, Turn Card!
I have recently moved up from 3-6 to 4-8 hold'em here in Arizona, and the game is really Jekyll-and-Hyde. Sometimes it is just as loose as the 3-6 game (with many of the same players), but sometimes it gets much tighter and tougher, with only 2-3 players seeing the flop on average. I am holding my own in this situation, and I think my adjustments are OK. I recognize that it is going to be more like this as I move up in limits, so I value this experience when it happens. I am not "afraid" of the game, and in fact I am up so far in these games.
My question for the panel is: in a tight, tough hold'em game, in which I am going to have to get in there and mix it up, stealing, defending, etc., will the rake kill me at the 4-8 level? We have a $1 jackpot drop, up to $3 rake from the pot, and a $1 toke.
My approach to the 3-6 level was, if I ever encountered a game like this, I would change tables or go home. If the percentage rake reduction (by only one-third) helps enough, then I will play in these tight games for the experience, but if it is not beatable, I will wait until later (at higher limits) for this experience. I always have the option of running back to the 3-6 game when the 4-8 game gets tight.
Advice?
Thanks, Dick
Dick,
Just a few thoughts while I foul up my keyboard from the condiments on my burger.
If you are mostly in it for the money, you need to look for the looser games at the lower limits. Otherwise, the rake overwhelms you. The 3/6 and 4/8 limits are pretty close, so you should be comfortable switching games at both limits.
I'll assume that you probably play after work or on weekends for about four to eight hours at a time. If the 4/8 game looks good to start, get in that but keep your name on the other board (and visa versa). If the game tightens up early in a session, swich to a better game at the same limit (via the change list) or the other limit.
If you are within an hour or two of going home anyway, don't be afraid to stay in a 4/8 game that tightens up a bit. Use that time to practice the skills you will need to move up to the higher limits (I'm sure you would be better than average at 15/30 in Los Angeles on day one). You won't make a lot of money but it will prepare you for the future. Don't worry if your "hourly rate" is low or even negative for this situation. The rake and tips are less of a factor when you move up and that is where you will make the real money.
Regards,
Rick
Do NOT toke $1 every hand; only for large pots. You won't be paying THAT much rake per hand since the pots don't get big.
Tight games are just dandy if you play in late position and steal shamelessly. "Shamelessly" means less than they will notice and adjust for it. If you play about half your hands on the button (when nobody raises) and mindlessly bet about half those hands when everybody checks to you, they probably won't notice. One way to do this is to "semi-bluff" with any pair or any draw as good as a 3-straight and one overcard.
The major trick for tight games is this: RARELY if ever call 1st bets or raises, routinely suspect a good hand when early tight players are in.
== The value of your hand matters little unless the opponents have a good hand ==
- Louie
Its good practice to play in Jeckle-and-Hide games.
In tight 4/8 games i raise with any 2 cards 10 or better or any pair 8 or better if first in then bet the flop. I win about 30% right there. If i get called it depends if i keep betting.I feel table image is important you must show them a lot of good hands to make this work, and play after the flop.
In real games you will get ROASTED if you routinely raise with QT UTG. Expect to routinely get 3-bet by those in late position. Yuuuuuuck. But against weak-tights it works.
But I think you'd be better off dumping the obvious trouble hands and playing the draws, as 87s has a better chance than QT of beating someone who has a hand much better than QT (i.e. tight players who call raises).
Played an interesting hand in a $50 buy-in no-limit tournament this weekend. 55 players with 6 places being paid 40%/25%/15% for first three places. With rebuys, there s over $9000 in the prize pool. I forget the other splits, but 6th place was only something like $200.
There are about 90,000 in tournament chips and the field is down to 3 tables of 7. The blinds are at 200/400 (no antes) and we are half way through the round. The blinds double after each 40 minute round.
With a hard-earned 3000 in chips, I have a shorter than average stack. A guy brings it in for his last 600 in 2nd position. A tight, unimaginative player with an average stack of about 4500 calls from the cut-off seat. The large stack (almost 9k) also calls on the button. He is a pretty tough player. The short-stacked small blind folds. I have QJo, and simply call the extra 200.
Flop is JT8 rainbow. I have 2200 left and decide that I am not willing to bust out on this hand, so I check. It is checked around. I guess I missed a bet.
The turn as an offsuit 8. I check again. 2nd player in bets a grand and button raises to 5000. I fold.
Was I a wimp on the flop? Was I a wimp on the turn?
How does the player being all-in for the first 2600 affect your thinking here?
Don't think you were a wimp in either case. Too many ways to be behind, your redraws may be no good, out of position and with a precarious chip position.
The all-in player seemingly makes button's (solid player - who was it, by the way?) 5k bet stronger as it indicates he has a hand rather than a draw. However, if you know that he knows that the middle player was fishing and would fold to a big reraise there...hmmmm.
I probably would have folded, but by the tone of your post it seems like you would have won a big pot here :).
Michael...drop me an e-mail, I need to ask you a question.
Good Luck/Chuck
Played a hand of 10-20 HE at Foxwoods yesterday. Here's an interesting hand. It reminds me of Mason's famous 44, not because there is any strategic similarity, but because a low, unimproved pair won a big pot.
10-handed table. Players will be referred to by number, with #1 being the SB, #2 the BB, around to #10 being the button.
1 and 2 post their blinds, 3, 4, and 5 limp, 6 and 7 fold, 8 raises, 9 and 10 call the raise, 1 fold, 2 calls, 3 reraises, all call. 3 had limp-reraised about 40 minutes earlier in a 3-handed pot, and had won with unimproved KK. There are 21.5 bets in the pot. 2 asks the dealer for "No cards higher than a 4, please". He made this same request preflop in an earlier hand, and had shown down 22 (that flopped a full house).
Flop is 3c4d4h. 2 says to the dealer "That's pretty good", and bets. 3 raises. 5 (a very loose player) calls, and 2 calls. Down to three players, and 27.5 small bets (almost 14 big bets).
Turn is the 5c. 2 checks, 3 bets, 7 and 2 call.
River is 9c. Everyone checks. 2 shows 56, 7 shows 22, and 3 wins with 66. Pretty much every player who saw the flop and folded there started whining about folding a winner (e.g., 88, A9, KcQc, etc.) because they "knew" that 3 had a premium pair.
What do you think of this interesting hand?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think that 3 probably didn't have the intention to re-raise until there was so many players in that it made sense. his previous re-raise with kings helped, but not to the extent that it was a planned image play, since it appears that there were some very loose players in, that he wouldn't be able to run off no matter what flopped. But of course, I wasn't there. Once the flop came #3 played it well, but he wouldn't have won the pot if I was in the #2 seat. #2 should have check raised the turn with 2 pair and open ended, and the size of the pot, it would have been worth a try to get 3 and the others too fold. You would have to tell us if #3 would have let that big pot go if #2 raised him. big pot, it would be interesting.
No chance that 3 could have been run off by 2. It would have taken two players raising each other to get me out of that pot.
The play wasn't made as an image play. The earlier limp-reraise with KK was made for value. The player 3 seats to my right was doing a lot of raising preflop, especially from the button. I thought the hand would have higher EV if I limped and reraised his expected raise. The limp-reraise with 66 was as described. I limped UTG looking for a multiway pot for 1 bet. Once so many players were in, I decided that a reraise would add EV by building a monster pot for those times I flopped a set.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
1) Players who saw the flop and folded there: A) Whining is always ugly; B) player who played A9 doesn't deserve to ever win anythng; C) pretty tough to call that flop with KcQc and probably correct to fold with it, despite all the money already in the pot; D) 8-8: I find that it is usually correct to keep playing with an overpair to the board despite the fact that you "know" (which really means, most of the time, that you suspect rather than know) that another player has a higher pair. I doubt that this player really had 8-8, but if he did, he should have (at least) called the flop.
2) 2 (big blind): I don't think, in this situation, I would have bet out on the flop. You can be pretty sure 3 is going to raise and eliminate other players, so you're costing yourself 2 bets on the come as well as forcing out others who could be drawing dead on the turn should you make your straight then. After that, his play was standard, which is correct.
3) 3 (6-6): I like his re-raise preflop: for 1small bet, it allows him to take control by raising on the turn if the flop is to his liking, which it was. Pretty tough for the whiners to call his raise on the flop after he has 3-bet before the flop. And with 6-6 you want all the overcards to fold. He has to bet again on the turn for the same reason (plus he has turned an open end straight draw) and he has to check on the river with an overcard and possible flush hitting the board. Well played. (I hope you were 3.)
4) 7 (2-2) (By the way, you must mean 5, not 7; 7 folded): he shouldn't have called the 2 additional bets pre-flop with 2-2; he shouldn't have cold called the raise on the turn; and I'd love to have in my game. (I hope you weren't 5.)
By the way, I don't think the hand is too similar to Mason's 4-4 in that Mason called on the flop and bet on the turn despite 2 overcards on the board. This hand was a lot easier to play than Mason's 4-4.
Sounds like a great game.
Andy,
I don't think this will take off like the 4c4d thread on RGP. What else is there to say after Greg's detailed post (we can forgive a small error regarding the seven or five seat), your detailed reply, and Wild Berry's contribution.
Regards :-),
Rick
P.S. Then again, after a good nights sleep .....
Andy,
That's why I said "marginally". The play was nothing like Mason's hand, just the similarity of a small pair winning a monster pot unimproved.
I was the 66 hand, and the 22 hand will always be welcome in my game (as would MOST of the others at that table).
It was interesting how sure so many of those players were that I held AA or KK. I saw clear shock on at least 3 faces when I turned over my cards.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Good going! 3-bet it with 6-6 after limmping before the flop and then show it down on the river! Not only did you play well and win a big pot, but the play is going to win you extra $ in future action. Well done.
I am very new to the complex world of Hold'em Poker. My friends and I play semi-regularly "Friday night poker", but for some reason have never played Hold'em. I am trying to setup a hold'em game for us all to play. I think I can talk them into about $50 per person (that's the max they can cover-up from their wives). My question is what would be the best way to structure this'tournament'? I am currently reading Sklansky's "Hold'em Poker", but this goes more into detail on strategy than betting structures, and I can't seem to find any other info. I would like to start out small, to let everyone get the feel for the game, then increase the betting as the night goes on. My expectation is that we would play for 3 to 5 hours. Any info or references anyone could provide would be greatly appreciated. I want to make sure that everyone's first intro to hold'em is an enjoyable one...(I like to see smiles as they're handing over their cash)
Here is the basic structure I have used the last 3 times, with great success:
2000$ in starting chips (we have green,black,purple chips so this is a convenient amount)
8-10 players
20-30 min rounds, depending how fast you want it to go
blinds limit 5-10 10-20 10-15 15-30 10-20 20-40 15-25 25-50 15-30 30-60 20-40 40-80 25-50 50-100 .............(see below) 50-75 75-150 50-100 100-200 etc....
In our game, it becomes no-limit after the 50-100 round:
ante big blind 10$ 50$ 15$ 75$ 25$ 100$ 50$ 100$ 50$ 200$ 75$ 250$ 100$ 300$ 200$ 400$
If you set it all 20 min rounds, there should be about 5-8 players left for the no limit round, depending on how well they play. It usually takes about 5-6 hours to play. This structure goes slow enough that skill and luck are pretty well balanced, but adjust it according to your time restraints. We have been playing winner take all, but do what you wish on that....
Hope this helps
Dave in Cali
Sorry guys, that's not what it looked like when I posted it! REVISED tournament structure!!!
blinds limit
5-10 10-20
10-15 15-30
10-20 20-40
15-25 25-50
15-30 30-60
20-40 40-80
25-50 50-100 .............(see below)
50-75 75-150
50-100 100-200 etc....
In our game, it becomes no-limit after the 50-100 round:
ante big blind
10$ 50$
15$ 75$
25$ 100$
50$ 100$
50$ 200$
75$ 250$
100$ 300$
200$ 400$ etc...
That should replace the botched portion of my post (which I'm sure didn't help at all)! It didn't look like that when I posted it! My Bad!
I forgot to mention that we have 8 players. I don't know how this should influence the structure of the game.
HE is commonly played with bets of x and 2x. On the first 2 betting rounds, all bets and raises are in increments of x. On the last 2 betting rounds, increments of 2x are used. The blinds are typically 1/2x and x.
I would recommend that you use 2 colors of chips, with values of $0.25 and $1.00. Have blinds of $0.25 and $0.50, and betting at levels of $0.50 and $1.00. This should give people a chance to win or lose within your $50./player target. If this is too small, double it.
Do not play with limits higher than 1 and 2, or you will certainly have multiple players losing more than $50.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I guess the question in my mind is why do you want to have a tournament as opposed to just play some Hold 'Em? If nobody is familiar with the game, this should be sufficiently interesting. Plus, with a tournament, you are guaranteed to bust out some of the players, whereas if you just play Hold 'Em, everyone has a shot at winning some & losing some.
--james
PS for variety, you could play limit Hold 'Em for half the night and then switch to no-limit or pot-limit for the rest of the night.
Here are new tournament winning strategies practiced by some of the player's?
1- Play in a daily tournament at some local casinos where the chip is exactly the same as the chip used in major tournament, example: $500 chip. Then, steal a couple of those chips in order to gain an edge in a major tournament.
2- Sponsor a few players within the same tournament and then at the next break, let's meet somewhere, feed the world class player and then share the jewelry!!
3- Add a few of those stolen chips in your stack when you are transferred to another table!!!
4- Sponsor a few players in a daily tournament and have them collect a couple of high value chips for you in order to give you an edge in a major tournament? No one will know that you are stealing chips if you treat your team adequately. Who cares about winning a $20 or $100 tournament when you can use these chips in the $1000. buy-in tournament ?
5- I let you think about other cheat that can be done!!
At this moment, this is the big talk in Las Vegas because one of the local, well known internationaly in the tournament circle, has just been caught in stealing $500 chips in a daily tournament where those chips have been used and probably are still in use in major ones.
This matter is very serious. A few poker player is damaging the whole world poker community. I feel very bad thinking about those who gives their life in promoting poker and then see these kind of things happenned.
It's time for Damage Control. Millions are in play!!!
1-Do you beleive that major tournament chips should be different than those used in the daily ones?
2-When you are tranferred from one table to the next, should the dealer count your chips and write it down on a piece of paper for the next dealer to recount the chip at the next table? In Vienna, dedicated personnel bring the chips back to the player at the next table,. Wouldn't that be better?
3- If every poker player is aware about the above cheating, would you beleive that everyone from now on will be policing each others?
Mason, I do not have the vehicle necessary to collect feedback from your readers about finding ways in cheating in tournament. Would you mind collecting the feedback from your readers and then formulate a tournament management security rules and regulations that should be applied internationnaly. If not, please let me know, and I will find another way.
I believe every poker player should boycott tournaments that will not follow the future security rules.
I am sorry about the long letter but this is for the good of POKER. By the way, english is my 2nd language. So expect to find grammatical error.
Thank you
Answers to your questions:
1. Absolutely; inexcusable not to.
2. I'm not sure if that's practical, but perhaps it's necessary. Chips definitely should be counted before breaks, though.
3. They should be. I'm not sure who Yvan is talking about, but I do know there is one very famous player from California who has had similar allegations (*NEVER PROVEN OR MADE PUBLICLY*) made against him.
On a somewhat related note, I witnessed the whole incident where Men Nguyen was 86'ed from the '95('94?) HOF tourney. Card Player reported the incident but did not name him. I like Men, most of the time he's hysterical and his record speaks for itself, but his behavior was disgraceful that night. Card Player needs to take the lead on these kinds of issues, and when they're proven, NAME NAMES. I will say that Men's run-in w/ Tom McEvoy was fairly, accurately, and openly reported, probably due to the seriousness of some of the allegations.
Needless to say, the player Yvan mentions and his crew should be banned for life from every poker room and tournament in the world, and it should be fully reported on in CP, PD, RGP, and here.
Here! Here!
Vince.
"On a somewhat related note, I witnessed the whole incident where Men Nguyen was 86'ed from the '95('94?) HOF tourney"
I'm not sure what happened here, but I did hear that Men is supposedly sponsering a team of players (passing chips around)
BillM said:
3. They should be. I'm not sure who Yvan is talking about, but I do know there is one very famous player from California who has had similar allegations (*NEVER PROVEN OR MADE PUBLICLY*) made against him.
There has been endless discussion about this allegation on RGP this week. The player in question was banned from the Orleans for life! According to the posts he is a WSOP Bracelet holder. I wont mention any names since I still believe in innocent until proven guilty, but you can scan RGP for that info if you want. I remember a Reagan Cabinet member,I think Ray Donovan, who upon being exonerated of corruption charges asked the press "Where do I go to get my reputation back". The answer in these cases unfortunately is nowhere.
Randy Collack
I've followed the 2+2 forum for some time and if I remember correctly Mason Malmuth suggests that cheating is all but nonexistant in poker today. I'm sure Mason was refering to ring games since he never seems to play tournaments. Probably best to stick to ring games, eh?
Of course there is a small chance that the regular tournament cheats end up in a ring game after the tournament but you're probably completely safe.
Best,
R. G. Peterson
I was sitting there with my Handy-Dandy Monte-Carlo-O-Matic software this evening and looking at what happens when you have a 4 flush on sixth street with two blanks.
Granted we probably shouldn't find ourselves here to often.
But it does happen.
In any event I found that if the holder of the betwixt hand was dealt to first, the odds of making a flush against 3 other random hands was about 4.5.
However if you were second the odds consistently averaged about 27 to 1.
I realize we thrashed this some in an earlier thread.
But I have to ask.
Does this add any credence to the dealer's myth that seat 1 is a better place to be? Or at least a greater propensity to call in this scenario if you are early?
Comments on possible fuzzy thinking here are invited.
How many hands were in your sample? These numbers (your results) make no sense to me whatsoever.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
They didn't make a lot of sense to me either. Hence the desire for some commentary.
As I look at the sim though one thing does come out.
By moving the flush to the second seat and beyond, 7 random cards come out for each player ahead of the 4 flush.
This may account for the flaky results.
The software firm reccomended 1-3K hands which I used. They went on to say that 30K might be good if "you are writing a book".
Many folks run millons though. I'm not a stats expert so I don't know how many is enough for x level of confidence. Guess I'll have to pull out the old college stats book.
In any event this Monte Carlo tool doesn't take burn cards into account either. That's another 7-9% of the deck.
I'll run it again and see what happens.
OK Greg here's the latest on this.
Simulation was heads up.
The fixed hand was 2d,4d,6d,10h,Jh,8d.
After 5000 hands the odds of filling the flush were 4.14 to 1 with the fixed hand in seat 1.
The same fixed hand was placed in seat 2 and seat 1 was made the random hand.
After 5000 hands the odds of the flush filling on the river were 27.62 to 1.
Similar results were obtained multi-way up to 4 players.
Repeated trial showed the same results within a few fractions of a percent.
Greg,
Toss this one in the 86 file. GIGO. Found an error in my use of reporting functions of the "Monte-Carlo-O-Matic".
DOH! Operator Error.
My apologies.
If possible can the webmaster delete this so as to not mislead someone not reading entire theads?
I would like to thank those that contributed in a positive manner and particularly Mah and Dave in Cali.
I am a knowlegdeable player with ample play experience. I have read most of the 21st Century material but do admit that this situation is STILL confusing to me. The house rake is 5% and caps at $5.00 (FYI a 5/10 HE game). With approx. 20 hands per hour meaning 1 buy-in is eaten by the house per hour (the game runs slower due to the table talk, unusually high number of players in each hand and the constant in-flow of people into the playing area, unfortunately the gaming area is poorly designed and not easily modified).
With that said, can one say that generally speaking I am an underdog in this game. A hand by hand anaylsis wouldn`t be effective because I believe that this game is quite volatile. As I stated earlier it is quite easy to fluctuate +300 or -300 in an hour. I do play tight (premium hands only) and even tighter if 6 players call ahead of me (I`ll drop to QQ or better in order to call). I try and modify my play and I understand what all of you have said that any game should be beatable but this particular game is tough. Typically, you can put in $30 just to see the turn card. Thereby, making large pots and a larger then normal standard deviation. So with that being said, should I continue to play in this game (which by the way is located in Ontario, Canada)or should I wait and save for a quarterly trip to Vegas or AC and then move up to a more comfortable level where the swings are not as apparent?
Thanks again and I apologize for the repetitiveness and lack of providing enough information. I look forward to hearing your advice.
P.S. I have been playing in this game for 6 months now for about 40 hours of play time per week and am ahead $3200 making me $3.33 per hour!! HELP!!
If a lot of players have (just) called before you, you should play any pair, any suited Ace, and any other hand that does well in multiway pots. This likely includes suited connectors down to 45s, and not unsuited big cards like QJ.
However, it also depends a lot upon how these guys play after the flop as well.
With a rake this high, the players do need to be very weak in order for you to make a long term profit.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
With all due respect, you are either not playing "premium" hands, or you are not throwing enough hands away after the flop.
It should be a rare event to have a swing of $300 in a 5-10 game that deals only 20 hands per hour.
Even if you played all 20 hands, and called a raise each time to see the flop, at that point you still aren't even close to a swing of $300 per hour.
Re-examine your game.
Larry
I am virtually certain that this game is beatable, as your results suggest. I have no idea, however, for what hourly amount or at what variance. I also suspect that your biggest problem may be the 20 hands an hour. If the same players can keep coming back despite the exceptional ups and downs, it sounds like the action mostly consists of people trading their money back and forth with nobody beating the game for much.
Based on your descriptions of the game, the lineup seems fairly predictible and stable. So shouldn't Turbo TH be perfect for this kind of question? It seems to me that you'd simply have to generate a lineup that best fits your competition, plug in a reasonable player representing yourself, and run a bunch of sims at the rake level you describe. If the real opponents aren't adjusting to your play, you could discount the usual computer problem of failing to account for such adjustments. You could then modify the lineups until you have one or several that make the game unbeatable at an acceptable hourly rate. Then compare how the lineups play against your actual competition. If the lineups play differently, you should persevere. If they play similarly, find another game. To get to the variance problem, you could run a series of shorter sims.
Your posts suggest that your game appears is unusual in that the action is almost nonstop, whereas most "ram-and-ram" games die down after a few players leave.
I will investigate using Turbo TH.
As for the players dying down that does happen but not too rarely. In this game there are a bunch of plumbers, mechanics and carpenters that own their own businesses and love to play HE. There are 50 regular players and the rest play at least weekly. The club is private and is invites only.
Having these regulars helps to anaylse each player but trying to keep track of the constant movement of chips is difficult. Lately, I have been noticing that the house seems to be the only winner.
Play less trouble hands when tight players have called. Play more drawing hands like 33 or 65s when loose players have called. I think you are missing golden opportunities by folding so much.
- Louie
Agree here, but note the phrase "when loose players have called." Ignore the smaller pairs (55 and below) and (especially) suited connectors (98s and below) when ram-and-jam types behind you will regularly force you to put in three bets or more to see the flop. If the game is at all passive and you're waiting for 99 to play a pair, you're playing too tight. Forget about unsuited hands below AJ.
Whatever the case is, you're still a winner. On the other hand, I've seen players, in 7CS, walk away with a rack full of chips every game. Every hand they enter they win. They rarely lose a hand, and even more rarely have a bad day. I'm afraid to move up until I can compete with those players.
Also, AC isn't much better, The rake is 10% to a max of $4.00. Vegas, of course, is the best; but it's a long trip. Do you really only want to play poker quarterly?
Either move up or figure out how to win more. I agree, it's a tough game. Your time is your investment. At least it's not your money.
Rich P. writes:
[I]'ve seen players, in 7CS, walk away with a rack full of chips every game.
This doesn't mean they've won.
Every hand they enter they win.
No they don't.
They rarely lose a hand, . . .
They lose a lot of hands.
. . . and even more rarely have a bad day.
They have a fair number of bad days.
I'm afraid to move up until I can compete with those players.
Predators don't eat other predators. They "compete" only when prey is scarce. The trick is in becoming a predator and finding tables with abundant prey. Having to share is a secondary concern.
This is the most incredible draw poker hand I have ever played. It happened recently in a wild home game.
Jacks or better to open, trips to win (no joker, no wild). If you fold, you're out and can't get back in, at all. If no one opens, it's a re-ante 1$. If someone opens, there is a draw and another betting round. Usual rules for splitting openers etc.... You must have trips or better to win in a showdown, but you don't have to show it if you bluff everyone out (thus you do not necessarily need trips to actually win the pot). It was spread limit 1$-20$ with a 5 bet cap, unless head to head. Bets were usually kept in proportion to the size of the pot (these players rarely bet the max, how convenient...)
Ten rounds have passed and there's about 60$ in the pot. 7 times no one has opened. There have been a couple unsuccessful bluff attempts. 4 players remain. I am dealt 789TJ, all hearts. Unbelieveable, a pat straight flush!
I am UTG, so I open the pot for 5$. All call to the button, who raises 5$. I don't want to scare anyone out, so I call. Both others call, 4 players. Players draw one, then two, button stands pat, I (obviously) stand pat.
After the draw, I open for 10$, and immediately get raised 10$ more. Next player calls, Button raises 20$! I reraise 20$, first raiser calls, other player folds, button calls.
First player has a straight AKQJ10 (open ended draw).
Button was dealt an AK spade flush.
Other player had made QQQ but decided he was beat, rather than calling the extra 40$ at the end.
Comments welcome.
Dave in Cali
Usually, in a game like this, after the pot has gotten big and so many rounds have passed, no one is going to fold predraw to your bet, almost no matter what. Thus, you probably could have made more money by betting more predraw, and by reraising the raiser predraw.
Then, after the draw, when you stand pat, it looks like a straight or flush. Since the other guys made both the top straight and a very strong flush, they are going to give you some action. Thus, I think it's likely you'd have made more by just betting out $20. instead of $10.
But, you know these players, and that means a lot. In the final say, trust your judgment of what will make you the most against them in particular.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Ditto.
You also may have lost some action since it really looks like you slowplayed a monster: bet a little call the little raise, then BET OUT.
- Louie
Background:
I am a player that enjoys playing up to 20/40 He and HE only. I enjoy playing in casinos that are well designed, that offer the player a smoke (or as smoke free as possible!)free environment, good frequent hostess service and great action.
Question: Which casino in Las Vegas is best designed for dealing the most hands per hour while minimizing distractions to the players in the game?
The most convienient cardroom around me spreads a decent HE game, and several 1-5 studs. I prefer HE, and it's the game I plan to master first, but the stud games seem more profitable (after 100 hrs of 3-6 HE, I averaged 7.3/hr, with big SD. With stud, I seem to get around 10/hr, with small SD, tho I don't really have enough hours to tell for sure.)
My real question is, should I play the stud at all? I want to play stud for real eventually, but it seems to me that mid-lim structured stud would be a whole different game than 1-5 spread. What I really want to get out of my play for the time being is experience, & I'm not sure if I'm getting worthwhile experience at 1-5 stud.
Any thoughts?
P.S. Some may find this post more appropriate for the Exchange forum, but I feel that game selection is a question of Gambling Theory and Strategy. Apologies if I'm wrong about this.
Chris,
I want to play stud for real eventually!! HE it's the game I plan to master first!!!!
Good Luck!!!
Paul
Paul,
Can you explain your comments?
Frank,
If 1-5 7CS isn't real what is it?? If he is going to master HE first, he would never get to 7CS.
Paul
Well, given that translation, I'll respond.
First, I didn't mean I plan to become THE MASTER of HE before I begin to play stud, but rather that I am focusing my energies on that game. Perhaps it is a different sense of the word "master" than you read. Example: I am trying to master French. Previous sentence does not imply pretensions of becoming Voltaire.
As to the "reality" of 1-5 stud, I meant that for a few reasons, low, spread limit study strategy seems very different than mid, structured limit strategy. Implied odds must be figured in a totally different way. Hand reading is different since players may bet or call on third street with anything. There are no antes.
Thanks to Louie for his response to my question. Apparently the meaning of my original post was not inscrutable to everyone.
I think Paul F. found the original post pretentious. Use of words like "master" and "real game" etc. may be pretentious after only 100 hours of play. Or it may just be the medium we're using along with the choice of words.
Put in 3 or 4 thousand hours at different limits and locations and then re-read your post.
As to the question at hand; I would work at both games. I also would play the game that is most profitable the most.
Good Luck! Mike N
Chris,
I was just joshing around. To answer your question, it sounds like your on the right track. In spread games 1-5 7CS, I find the biggest challenge is to find the maximum bet to attract the maximum amount of players to win the maximum amount of money without losing the hand. Every table is different, so you have to get a feel for the game.
DMTOY (Didn't Mean To Offend You)
Paul
Hey, no problem.
Sorry about flying off the handle on you, I should stay away from forums after meetings with the boss :-<
Thanks to all for your comments.
I firmly believe playing low limit anything against brain dead types is an excellent way to get basic experience. You must first learn the "standard" way to play hands before moving onto such things as disguising your hand. You know, 3-bet with Ks when the Q raises, fold Ts when the Q 3-bets it, fold your small 4-flush when someone pairs their door card and someone else appears to have a bigger 4-flush, etc.
In low stud, I would advise playing in such a manner that experienced players can EASILY figure out what you have.
Once you can beat 1-5 stud in your sleep, THEN move up.
- Louie
Chris
I have been playing 1-5 and 5-10 stud for a while now, and I seem to be doing equally well in both. For some reason, my SD is smaller in stud games than in HE, especially 5-10 HE. The holdem games in my area are definitely more wild than the stud games.
My swings in 5-10 stud have been about the same as for 3-6 HE. 5-10 HE has (by far) the biggest swings for me. At 5-10 stud, I am to be able to win decent pots, but have fewer chasers than in 1-5. I think my swings in 1-5 were (proportionately) bigger than they are in 5-10.
The game does play a bit different, so perhaps practice on Turbo 7CS to get the feel. It's really a better game, once you get playing 1-5 will seem boring....
Make sure you're ready, but 5-10 stud is a great game....
Dave in Cali
Tight game 10/20 HE,, average players seeing the flop 4 average to see turn 2 heads up normally ,, UTG, 10s10c, raise and get 5 callers both blinds,, flop 10h 9s 2d blinds check ,, I bet ,, call, raise from button both blinds call , I 3 bet it and button capps it with 4 players,, Turn, 2h, SB bets out,BB raised,, I called button 3bets it,,,SB capped it we are still 4 handed,, river 7h SB bets out BB raises , I call, button 3 bets it SB capped it,, SB 9c 2s BB 9h 9d button Ah Kh,,
Because it's a tight game and an otherwise nondescript card on the turn (1) downgraded your hand to the second nut and (2) inspired two previously quiet players to start pounding you, joining a third. The probability of your being beaten was far from minuscule.
Because with 4 players one would have thought everyone would have known there had to be a couple of full houses out there and that a flush would have known his hand was beat. So it was logical to suspect that maybe someone had quads.
I find that, pretty often, when some one has put in so many bets, or called down a few bets against so many opponents, that you would think you're beat, it can be a case of a player simply falling in love with his hand without adequately considering the possibility that you have him beat. I had this same thing happen to me when I had pocket queens and the board ended up K-Q-T-3-3. My opponent had pocket tens and I would have thought, the way the action went, that she had to know I had her beat. But she didn't. When I called the last bet, both of my neighbors, not involved in the hand, said "pocket kings and pocket queens?" and that is what I suspected as well.
Nice pot!
I do not know :). I'd be feeling pretty good after that turn card.
You obviously got as much value out of the hand as you could anyway. Looked like you were a dead money overpair to the blinds. The only guy to be out in left field was the button. He does not raise AKh pre-flop, but raises and then caps it on the flop with overcards and bd flush, then three bets the turn after the board pairs, and three bets his dead flush on the end. If life could always be so easy!
Can you send that guy to Tokyo...I need him in my home game! I'll pay his travel expenses :).
I recently played in a small limit holdem tournament. Four of us were left at the final table. One player had 85 -90% of the chips and was raising on every hand. SB was $200 and BB was $300. I had $1600 . The Player on my left was a rock and had approximately the same amount (I was unable to get an exact count because he kept shuffling them). The player on my immediate right had $2100, but had shown a willingness to get involved with the big stack (which is why he only had $2100 left).
On the button I picked up AQo. I raised, the SB folded as expected and the BB reraised as expected. Needless to say his J2o outflopped me.
My question is should I have mucked the hand and not gotten involved with the big stack? My feeling is that the player on my right might well have gone all in before I would have been blinded out. Also as it turned out, the player on my left would have to play before me.
For the record the payout 2ns, 3rd and 4th was approximately $390, $250, and $160.
One other quick question is would it have been proper for me to ask for a count of the small blinds stack before I acted on the hand. I am not sure if it would have made a difference, but it would have been useful to know that I could have outlasted him.
Thanks Al
Don't forget to tell us how much first place pays. It's probably about double or less than double the 2nd place figure if it's a typical payout, but there are exceptions out there. If 1st paid an entry into the WSOP 10K event, then I'd say go for it with AQ and try to double up through the chip leader. If not, it depends upon your goals. If you want a shot at winning, you need to play a hand this strong when 4-handed.
If maximizing your EV is your only goal, then you probably just fold everything but AA and KK and hope the other 2 short stacks bust before you.
Here's an alternative strategy that the big stack might let you get away with. Ask to make a deal with the other 2 short stacks. The 2-4th prizes add up to 800. Make a save with these guys, wherein you each guarantee the other 250., with the 2nd place finisher getting 50. extra. Make sure that this is done in the open with the approval of the big stack and the tournament director (otherwise, you're cheating by collusion).
In most cases, the big stack will not prevent the deal. Once the deal is made, you are effectively colluding with the short stacks against the big stack, but it's not cheating because he gave his permission. You can now try your best to win chips, knowing that if you fail, you only lose $50. If you succeed, you might reach a chip position where you have a legitimate shot at beating the big stack. If the other 2 short stacks don't understand the ramifications of the deal, they may still play survival mode, and allow you to steal their blinds when you confront the big stack.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I am just curious why do you think the big stack will not object? It is obvious to me that the big stack have nothing to gain but something to lose. I would like to see them folding AQo and pick on the one that must play.
The big stack should object, but either ignorance or ego may prevent him.
If you have 90% of the chips 4-handed, your ego may tell you to not object, because it looks petty (to some, not to me, I don't voluntarily give up any EV, unless it's a trade-off for future EV). "I mean, come on man, you've got 90% of the chips, why are you complaining because the rest of us want to lock up more than 4th place money? You'll still win, right?"
Of course, if I'm the chip leader, I'll suggest that they simply split up 2-4th evenly, give me 1st place money, and there's no need to risk anything. This counter-argument should often be effective. Hell, since 800 isn't evenly divisible by 3, I'll even kick in 10 so it comes out to an even $270 apiece. How can they pass up a practically free $10?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I believe 1st place paid $730. A deal was not possible because the player on my right expressed a desire to continue playing straight up, but I will keep your proposal in mind for future tournaments.
Thanks, Al
Good Response FossilMan!
One question.
"If maximizing your EV is your only goal, then you probably just fold everything but AA and KK and hope the other 2 short stacks bust before you."
Will this strategy really maximize your EV? Would you please elaborate. Why wouldn't the correct strategy be to attack in a situation where one player has 85% of the chips and the other three are close to even. Especially if the other tthree are adopting a wait and see strategy. If you winn one hand and doble up are you not now in a position to finish seconfd by waiting. Where is the balance one looks for to maximize EV in these circumstances. Is "hope'' really your only ally here.
Vince.
Whenever you're in the money, or very close, every time 2 players go to war, the 2 of them (combined) lose EV, and the other players sitting on the sidelines gain EV. Thus, you actually want to be the person sitting on the sideline. Since our hero in this story was tied for 2nd, he could wait and force someone else to go all-in with the chip leader first. If he is going to voluntary take the risk of busting out when the blinds haven't forced him in, he wants to have more than just a slight edge over the chip leader. He wants to be a significant favorite. By only playing the very top hands, he can do this. However, I'm not 100% sure where to draw the line here.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
First time poster, so please bear with me while I try to get the protocol right! Have been playing low limit HE (3-6 to 5-10) for about 3 years and after a slow start, decided to study the game much like I did in the tournament bridge world 25 years ago - get the literature, study good players' habits, get together with friends after a session to "go over the hands", etc. For the past two years, I have averaged about a $14-16 per hour win rate at this level,playing about 20-30 hours per week. The main thing keeping me back from tackling higher limits is the relative scarcity of these games in my city and the feeling that if I can beat the low limit game regularly with little risk to the bankroll, why bother? I feel I have good mental discipline to handle the swings and run-downs, but a hand came up last night that still bugs me and I would welcome the comments of the group.
Game was a very loose 4-8 Dealers' Choice that was almost exclusively Omaha/8 with some HE and Omaha mixed in. My table image with this crew is that of a very tight, disciplined player and I get a lot of respect for my play. My hand on the button was Ad-2d-5c-6s. Six or seven callers, and the BB(loose,aggressive type) raises. Everyone of course calls. Flop comes down Ks-Td-3d, giving me the nut flush draw with backdoor low opportunities. BB bets, 4 callers to me, I raise partly to gain information as the nature of BB's hand and partly for value. BB re-raises, 2 callers drop, others call. At this point, I have to put him on trips, because I'm looking at the nut diamonds. What else could he have, I'm thinking? Turn card comes Kd, giving me the flush, but pairing the board. BB confidently bets out, 1 player calls, over to me. I ponder the situation for about 30 seconds, and decide I don't really need to put in another $16 dollars to have him show me possibly quad Kings, or perhaps 10' full, and muck the hand. River is a blank, BB bets, the other player calls, and our hero turns over Kc-Qd-Jd-Jc, and scoops up a sizable pot with the Q-high flush. Never did see what teh caller had. He made a nice play on the hand giving me the chance to go wrong by laying down the bigger flush and I fell from grace, but my questions are: 1. Do you like my raise on the flop? 2. When I get re-raised, was I giving this guy too much credit for holding a hand such as trips, especially given that his pre-flop raises in this game are frequent, and often Low-driven sorts of hands? 3. Was the laydown on the turn reasonable, or should I have just turned into a calling station, put in the bets on the turn and river, and taken my chances? Comments appreciated. ( Hope to turn into a regular contributor now that I have figured out how this e-mail thing works!)
Whether you played this hand well or not depends almost entirely upon what you know about the raiser/winner. On the turn, you will have to invest 2 (or more) big bets to win about 15 or so big bets. Thus, you only have to be wrong about his full house (i.e., win this pot) about 12% of the time to make folding on the turn the wrong play. Some players are predictable enough that you can fold here and know that you're almost never wrong. Others aren't so predictable.
You say he raises loosely preflop. However, the question you need to answer now is how loosely does he raise after the flop? If he still raises on any made hand or any good draw, then you should call. If he'll only 3-bet with the current nuts, then your fold on the turn looks good.
Good Luck, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Well, there's 30 small bets in the pot at this point, and there will be no low. You'll have to invest two big bets to win 16-18, so you're getting somewhere around 8-1 on your call. However, pot odds are irrelevant if you're drawing dead. So you basically have to ask yourself if this is the kind of player that would jam the pot with a big draw, or whether he has to have a full house. The single cold caller has to worry you, but it really depends on the player. No hard and fast answers here, but remember that folding errors are terrible in loose, passive games.
I like your raise on the flop, and I might even have capped it when it came back to me.
Whether you can put the guy on trips when he re-raises depends on how good an Omaha/8 player he is.
Is this the game at the Palace?
Yes, Dan, that's the game. You're right, the third cold-caller did give me some concern, but I was basically treating this as heads-up between myself and Wayne(the bus driver). I realize there was too much money in there to automatically fold; that's why I took my time to consider the ramifications. Given the math, the nature of that particular game, and the catostrophe of folding the winner in the face of only two more big bets, in retrospect, calling him down now seems automatic. That's also partly the reason I'm staying away from you and your crew at the 10/20 level; I know I can hold my own the majority of the time; it's these tricky decisions that make the difference and I'm still learning.
Well, calling isn't automatic... If you always call with your flushes on the turn when the board is paired you'll lose a lot of money. The pot has to be large, and the bettor and caller have to be the right players. You could have called only to find out that you were 3rd, and if the same player bets the river and the cold caller raises you have to chuck the hand anyway.
Given that it was Wayne, I'd think it was a fairly close decision. Sometimes he's the Rock of Gibralter, but other times he makes a lot of strange plays. If the cold caller was a fish I wouldn't worry about him, but if was a good player I'd have to give some thought to him having a big full house and trying to trap me for another bet or two.
Are there any good hold-em games in Wisconsin, Michigan,Iowa,or North or South Dakota. Any information as to casino location (Casino name and city) would be appreciated. tx.
Should put this on the exchange forum but Soaring Eagle in Mt Pleasant Michigan has a nice poker room
Everyone, I have played Texas Hold'em for about 8 years now, and have been a fairly large overall winner so far. I am normally very interested in the specifics of hands that are posted on this, and other forums, however, I'm starting to get a bit dissapointed in my 'heroes'. I, like everyone else, grew up in the poker world reading Sklansky, Caro, Malmuth, Brunson, Ray, etc, and they were wonderfully informative, but I'm beginning to wonder some things about them. Every time I read the play of a hand I get a bit more frustrated with the way the 'heroes' always seem to fall back on the 'specific hand, specific instance, specific opponent' excuse for making a 'bad' play. I personally respect the hell out of you guys, but it's ok to say that you thought something that turned out to be wrong, or you had a hunch and followed it . . . every decision you make is NOT mathematically sound I assure you, it's not possible to be THAT accurate all the time, spur of the moment. Just once in awhile admit that you strayed from your own advice and it cost you a pot, or in some cases won you a pot you shouldn't have had. It won't lower anyone's opinion of you damn, we all make mistakes. I prefer to read Jalib lately, because at least he is willing to say he messes up here and there.
Kyle.
I don't recall any of the heroes saying they never mess up. David, in particular, has a big ego (which I think he might admit), but this usually comes as part of the package with a big brain.
Mason took a lot of heat for the 4-4 hand. Many posters felt he played the hand badly and said so. I think it would have been easier for him to not publicize that play, or to say in a couple of posts that he calls to the river with K-Q on a "specific hand, speicific instance, specific opponent."
It can, of course, be something of a cop-out to use the "specific hand. . ." explanation, but it also can be correct strategy to play differently in apparently the same situation depending on the specifics.
I still find the heroes filled with new insights and help to my game. If they're a bit defensive, I think it's a small price to pay. But I also wish, at least a little, that they would lighten up a bit, and I think that's why I too enjoy Abdul Jalib's posts so much. They're well written (S & M admit in their new book they're not exactly Ernest Hemingway), funny, and informative from a different perspective than the others.
Andy, I appreciate your response, and I agree with most of what you said, I just wish there had been a bit more response from my post that from one or more of the 'heroes'. I am looking for them to give me a valid reason ya know . . . just needed to hear their take on it. Guess I'll have to wait and get it in person some day. ;)
Master.
I am a beginning low limit HE player ( < 20 table hours ), so I am still getting used to what to expect in cardrooms. There is a 4-8 game that I have played in a few times. This casino allows dealers to play; they seem to do poorly, and I guess it seems okay with me.
The last time I played I was there until quite late. The dealers were moving on the hour. This casino allows dealers to play; they seem to do poorly, and I guess it seems okay with me. However, about 4 in the morning a dealer sat down at the table who had dealt to our table earlier. 10 or 15 minutes after he sat down I played a couple hands in a row. The second hand, as he considered his action, he commented that I didn't play a hand the whole time he was dealing.
This struck me as innappropriate, but I didn't say anything at the time, as I didn't want make an issue out of nothing. Should I have talked to the floor manager?
I've been reading the board regularly since I started playing, and I am very pleased at the improvement of my poker thought process. Thanks for all your help.
-- conform
His comment was annoying, but he did not break any rules in making it. What I would do, the next time he is dealing and you win a pot, say to him: "See, there is a hand I played!" Then, don't toke him. He should get the point. If he asks you what you meant by that statement, you can then explain to him why you made it. If he has any sense at all, he will then apologize to you, and you can resume toking with the next pot you win. If he decides to be a snot about it, never toke him again, and tell your friends not to toke him either. Good Luck! Black Jack
As long as he was not abusive he has the right to make the same comments as anyone else. Would you think about calling the floor if anyone else at the table had made the same comment.
I am not saying you have to take abusive comments but general comments you just have to learn to shrug off,you will hear a lot worse the more you play.
While a dealer is dealing to you he is gaining valuable information about you if he chooses to. If the card room allows him to play, then the dealer could use some of the information gained to his advantage. I have no problems with any of this so long as all the players know this going in.
However; should a dealer gain information while dealing and therefore being paid by the card room, and then PUBLICLY share this information with your opponents. I consider highly unprofessional and unethical.
Your response indicated it was "his right" to make this comment. I do not believe that it is the right of ANY card room employee to gain information about players through the normal course of employment and then share that information.
I would make a point of informing the dealers supervisor letting them know that you have know problems with allowing dealers to play but YOU EXPECT a better level of professionalism from them. I would also take Black Jack's advise and the next time you drag a pot when he is dealing inform him that you did not and will not toke him because of his actions.
Remember the whole idea of tokes in the first place is to reward good dealers when doing good jobs, his behaviour was unprofessional and should not be rewarded.
Just as you say "it was his right to comment" it is our right to choose not to toke.
Jodder
I have had almost exatly that same comment made about me about 2 weeks ago and it did not bother me a bit. If the table folds more or gives my bets more respect I will happly take down more pots uncontested.Good players just do not have much to fear from any comments, just change your style and steal more from that person.
A friend of mine was at the casino this weekend and observed this dealer in action. Somebody won a big jackpot -- roughly $115,000 -- playing Carribean Stud or something. The player, in what I would consider a substantial moment of generosity, gave each of the other players at the table and the dealer $100. The dealer I had the interaction with (who was dealing HE) was terribly offended that a player would give other people as much as he gave the dealer. He complained loudly, and when a HE player suggested that $100 was a nice tip, he railed at the player until he backed off from his suggestion.
I can imagine that dealing loose low limit games would change your expectations. A lot of the players seem to me to be very superstitious about dealers and the cards they get, and it's not uncommon to see $3-5 tokes on pots of $70-100. I have a policy of always tipping $1 (this is 4-8 HE) unless the pot is quite small, in which case I don't toke. If the pot is very large or we're at the end of a shift of a dealer I found quite professional or courteous, I might tip $2.
I am planning to just avoid the dealer in question as much as possible. Of course he didn't break the rules, but his action struck me as unprofessional, and combined with his mediocre dealing, I would just as soon do without.
-- conform
If I witnessed a dealer doing this ranting to other customers, I'd go to the shift manager and let him know what a bad attitude the dealer had. Maybe after the dealer was on the street he'd appreciate the $100 tip a little more.
It's funny how people are never thankful for what they get if someone else got more (or the same).
I have heard before that dealers usually get toked 10% for jackpots won and in tournament action. I have no clue if this is correct or not. If it is correct $100 seems like a slap in the face and if it is incorrect, $100 is very generous! If anyone knows about jackpot tipping, please post.
Russ
I've never heard that there is an accepted etiquette for jackpot tipping. I think that because it happens so rarely, no set standard has developed. I probably wouldn't tip as much as 10%, however. I mean, tipping $5,000 on a $50,000 jackpot seems overly generous.
As for tournaments, there is a definite etiquette. Figures you commonly hear range from 2-3% for the biggest tournaments, up to 10% for the small daily events.
Personally, when I win a tournament, I ask the tournament director how many man-hours were dealt, and tip an appropriate amount. Thus, if 300 dealing hours went into a WSOP event, and I won the tournament and $200K, I would probably tip about $4.5K, as I think that provides a generous hourly wage (~$15/hour) for the service provided. Plus, the other winners will hopefully tip enough to add up to another $5 or more per hour for each hour dealt.
However, when I play the tournaments here at Foxwoods, I don't tip at all. All tips here go into a pool that is split among every dealer throughout the casino. Thus, if I were to win 10K and tip $500., the dealers who actually dealt to me would only see about $0.02/hour from my tip. In case you didn't guess, I don't like that, as it removes one of the biggest incentives to better, faster dealing (i.e., a better toke rate).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Fossilman,
Thanks for your input! The same splitting effect on dealers tokes happen in Louisiana also. I did win a significant amount at Blackjack and didn't want the dealer to split it. I got up when his shift was over and while he was walking out and told him a place to meet me and I tipped him privately. I think that is a fair way to do it and would do the same for a jackpot. Your absolutely right about the 10%!! That would be way too much. As always, your posts are right on. I'm going to come to Boston to see my best friend( Maybe if the Red Sox go to the playoffs because I've always wanted to go to Fenway). If I do, I'll meet you at Foxwoods and we can play a little poker.See Ya
Russ
I have been a dealer on and off since 1983 and I still get a little upset when a player *tips* other players the same or more than he does the dealer. The players are there for entertainment, the dealer is there to work and make tips. The dealers ranting about the tip is very unprofessional, though.
If I had won $115,000.00 my I would have given at least $2000.00 to $5000.00 to the dealer. $100 is so small compared to the jackpot that i would consider it to be an insult, quite frankly.
A couple of years ago I was having one of my better days in terms of entertaining the table at Let it Ride and I received a very generous $1000.00 tip on a Royal Flush payoff of $15,000.
If the dealer was doing a good job I would think that 1% to 5% of the net jackpot would be an appropiate tip.
Here's a tip:
If you are playing BJ and card counting, tipping the dealer is essential. A few years back a former dealer and co-worker of mine became extremely proficient at $25.00 BJ and wouldn't tip a dime. I finally alerted the Floor person and this player was virtually barred from the very profitable 2 deck game.
JJ
When he is dealing he is working and should keep from making comments, but if he is playing he is just like any other person putting his money in the pot and it's no big deal. I wouldn't quit toking unless he's a bad dealer. Besides, if the dealers are as bad as you say don't worry about toking them because you'll probably get their money back!
Russ
The hand I have waited my whole life for and I am not even playing for money. I taught my son (10 years old) how to play 5 draw , 5 stud and Texas Hold'em just recently ( rudementary play) and we are playing 5 stud with some Paul-son edge spotted chips but not for cash. I thought he was going to beat me but I was working on a flush and draw a real straight flush to the Q of diamonds. I could not believe it and it was my first in non-wild. I really could not believe it in a 5 stud game (what are the odds). I guess the jokes on me since no money was riding on it but it sure felt good. It felt like playing golf by yourself and hitting back to back whole in one's. Oh and yes we did cut the cards.
at the point that you drew the last card.... 43:1 against, if you drew first.
to get 5 card str-flush from beginning= some million:1 (can't remember exact number)
Easy E's figures are out: if the last draw was to a double ender the odds would be 2/43? Didn't notice if it was specified that it was a gutser, which would be 43 to one,as you say.
And there are 40 possible straight flushes in the deck, which contains ~2.5 million hands, which makes a routine flush dealt about a one in 60,000 occurrence, not millions to one.
Calling three big bets to make a five card hand is a long shot which cannot pay as a strategy, as everyone knows, so if it happened in a money game, it probably wouldn't have happened at all ....
I thought no one played five-card stud anymore? The last game I saw was a stripped deck game, which is the popular form of the game in europe and south east asia.
David Zanetti.
My complaint with SM&Z's original 7 stud book was the glaring omission of third street strategy for when the low card brings it in for a full bet.
When should the low card exercise this option, and what adjustments are made when other low cards play for a full bet?????
Amazingly, all three authors saw fit to omit any mention of this important aspect of third street play in their otherwise beefed-up "21st Century" edition.
Is there any other literature out there which includes discussion of bringing it in for a full bet on third street?
I believe Roy West mentions it briefly in his book. I also agree that a complete book of stud should discuss this topic.
"Amazingly, all three authors saw fit to omit any mention of this important aspect of third street play in their otherwise beefed-up "21st Century" edition"
I don't have the book yet, but I think the reason they omitted (if in fact they did) is because this aspect of third street play is not as important as you believe it is. You basically should never bring it in for a full bet. As far as the other players go you just have to watch them.
I'll have to look at Roy's book to check this.... but I also agree that there are few, if ANY instances where I would bring in for a raise when forced-opening....
What would be the gain? Other than ruining the surprise effect of your hand, being the opener? I'd rather hope for an open-reraise opportunity.. I think they skipped it because it wasn't a tool to use (except for shock value?) with any degree of consistancy. Maybe one of the Big 3 can speak to this?
The only good reason I can think of to bring it in for a full bet would involve certain situations very late in a tournament. This is primarily due to the fact that late in a tournament, the antes alone are very significant, and it may be that the antes alone add up to anywhere from 10-50% of an average stack. In this spot, you might choose to come in for a full bet just because stealing the antes alone is a worthwhile goal.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
It is an off the wall play that should almost never be used. If someone else uses it, your counter strategy depends almost entirely on what you have noticed about that player. In general the situation would be similar to the situation where for instance,a deuce brought it in and the very next player raised with a three.
"It is an off the wall play that should almost never be used."
Amen!
I use 7 SFAP 3rd street startegy (hey did I just make a Sklanskyism ("STARTEGY", WoW) and have for years. David and Mason and Z are correct with this one. I am glad Sklansky said "almost never". I can't find many absolutes in poker. I also can't think of a situation where bringing it in for a full bet is correct. Show's how much I know.
Vince.
BTW - I also can't find fault with the Fossilman's tournament example.
Has anyone out there read Dick Taylor's "New Guide to Starting Hands"?
Any feeling on his revisions to S,M&Z's work?
Any thoughts on the various proposed strategies (The Starving Strategy, Tight Pro...Gambler etc.)?
Does this stuff look effective? Seems to be a computer tuned version of 2+2 stuff to me.
Frank -- It's been discussed exhaustively on the forum before. I don't recall what months, but there have been at least two major discussions of it. Try about 5 or 6 months ago, as well as sometime during the first six months of the forum's existence -- roughly. In a nutshell, we're talking simulations designed with major flaws, and performed with a simulator containing serious bugs.
John Feeney
John Feeney writes : " In a nutshell, we're talking simulations designed with major flaws, and performed with a simulator containing serious bugs. "
How would you compare Dick Taylor's (or Abdul's) simulation methods to the simulation methods used by Sklansky and Malmuth in developing their starting hand rankings?
Just curious,
R. G. Peterson
Email me or leave a valid email address if you want to discuss it. With all due respect in case I'm wrong (but sources say I'm not), I believe you are a, hmmm, how shall I say, yes, an agent provocateur.
Too bad I need credentials to join a discussion. Prehaps someone a little higher up in the organization will be able to answer my qustion.
Best,
R. G. Peterson
In this instance you need only a valid email address. Don't worry, I won't reveal your top secret identity to the the CIA. (Of course the NSA is a different story.)
Interesting question. I remember reading Lou Krieger's book. He had his own way of graphing starting hands. Very similar to 2+2.. Abdul has a position on starting hands. Likes to cite turbo Mumbo Jumbo. Look, 2+2, or Mason and Davey boy, came up with a pretty good ranking of hands for purposes of applying various strategies consistent with the situation one finds oneself in! Are their hand rankings optimal? Maybe. If not optimal, pretty close.
When I first read HPFAP I believed it was the Holy Grail. Study this book and get rich. That may be true for others I don't know. It's not for me. I believe that Holdem is a wonderful game because we just can't pin it down! Mason and David gave all of us an excellant starting point to become great poker players. Their hand rankings are important but not a cure all for poor strategic or tactical play.
I expect that all Holdem poker players, once they have mastered the game, will only refer to starting hand rankings when they find themselves in terrible times. Times when they just can't win. They will return to the basics and use hand rankings to reevaluate thir game. When things are going good or even o.k or even going not real good (highly technical stuff here) then master poker players will select hands and tactics based on the current situation. They will have grown out of the learning stage, the stage where hand rankings are important, to the holdem expert stage. There they will play any hand in the right situation and be what we all hope for. They (we) will be poker players.
The bottom line is if it ain't broke don't fix it! Unless someone can show you a major dificulty with 2+2 rankings. a dificulty that will cost you a lot of money then stick with those rankings and move on!
Vince.
Vince,
No argument there. Just wait till I get to the flop, turn and river stuff! :-)
Mr. Taylor's hold'em simulations were not no fold'em and not full blown play either, but rather a strange ad hoc approximation. Then he insisted that his rankings were 100% correct and hence S&M's were definitely wrong even in the small differences, leaving many people scratching their heads.
Despite the flack Mr. Taylor has taken, I find it interesting that one of his observations also occurs in Turbo: the inversion of the values of suited connectors. I call it the "roller coaster effect." The following might be a reasonable ranking of the suited connectors in a normal game where you expect multiway action: JTs, 76s, T9s, 87s, 98s, 65s. Graphically:
JTs *********
T9s ******
98s ****
87s *****
76s *******
65s ***
(The graph is intended to be conceptual, not accurate in detail.)
If either only Dick Taylor's simulator or Turbo Texas hold'em had come up with this, people would dismiss it on the grounds that the simulations are flawed. But with both simulators saying it's true, this considerably boosts the odds that it is true. And of course the explanation is readily apparent: it's caused by domination of medium hands by the limpers.
-Abdul
Yes, I remember that suited connector phenomenon. I don't know if it would hold in all types of games, but it's intriguing nonetheless. But for more detail on the problems I referred to I would point people to January '99 archives here for a long thread or two on this topic. Also, I believe Barbara Yoon on RGP was instrumental in bringing to Taylor's attention the bugs in the software. I don't know if those were corrected. (If they were, then I apologize for suggesting that that was an unresolved problem with his sims. The design flaws, however, were obvious and not resolved -- at least not publicly.) I believe his responses to her were similar to those he gave to challenges here.
John Feeney
Here is a repeat of the comments I made on The Taylor Report
Comments on the Taylor Starting Hand Report
As promised, here are my comments on "The New Guide to Starting Hands" by Dick Taylor. As you will see there are many errors in his assumptions that lead to many errors in his advice. The comments follow below.
1. The only decisions that players make are to play or fold. Their decisions do not seem to be impacted by betting or pot size. This will have the effect of over-valuing medium high cards such as KJ and KT (and QJ, QT, etc.) and under-valuing connecting hands (especially) suited connectors and small pairs.
2. Hands are played based on favorable odds of finishing with the best hand. How large a pot or how many bets you can lose is not considered. This will have the effect of over-valuing hands like KJ and KJ, which can easily make second best hands.
3. If a player does not yet have any information, that is no one has yet acted, he assumes that a certain number of small bets are in the pot. That is, raising is discounted. Again this has the effect of over-valuing hands like KJ and KT.
4. Pot odds are considered only, not in conjunction with the number of players. That is, whether the previous players have raised or called is not considered. This means that hands like KJ which can easily make second best hands are over-valued because the amount of punishment they sometimes take is not represented.
5. After the flop, players only continue when they have either a made hand or a one card draw to a straight or flush. This reduces the value of hands like AK and AQ, especially if they are suited. (Two overcards with a three flush is frequently a hand you should play.) In other words, hands that have some additional semi-bluffing value, or that may still be best, especially short-handed, are ignored.
6. Position is ignored. "Although playing position is generally thought to be the most important factor in selection of starting hands in hold 'em, it is not particularly important to the conclusions we've drawn here." Thus hands like KT which are particularly vulnerable to pressure by players acting later are elevated.
7. The broad spectrum of hold 'em table condition is not covered, even though claims to the contrary are made. The reason for this is that the betting action is not considered. Only a vague notion of the number of players in the pot.
8. Aggression seems to only be thought of in terms of winning the pot. The idea of occasionally building a big pot and then enticing others to continue when you get a favorable flop is ignored. This will have the effect of lowering the value of suited hands, especially suited connectors and small pairs.
9. Taylor states that in a very tight game that AA and KK are the only starting hands that you should raise for value. This conclusion is probably a function of the idea that players only make play or fold decisions regardless of the previous action. This is obviously not the case.
10. The conclusions about hand sensitivity to the number of players in the pot does not take into account size of the pot and the number of additional bets a hand may win or lose on the later streets. For example, on the river a hand like KK becomes more of a payoff hand in a large multi-way pot, but it tends to collect additional bets when played short-handed.
11. Hands like AQs do better in multi-way pots than Taylor gives them credit for because of additional bets that they can collect before they complete their hand. For example, in most situations, if you flop a flush draw with one of these hands you want to raise many opponents. In the Taylor play/fold criterion, this is not represented.
12. Taylor points out that hands like AQs and KQs "are particularly vulnerable to heavy multi-way action, the kind that increases the likelihood of 6 or more foes playing to a showdown." Again he fails to recognize that they occasionally will win a giant pot.
13. In the recommendation to play KTs up front in tough games instead of JTs, Taylor does not account for the fact that KTs can more easily make a second best hand (by flopping top pair with a king) and fails to account for the type of pressure that tough players can put on this hand.
14. Size of blinds and betting structure is not accounted for. For example, in today's modern two blind structure, as compared to the old one blind structure where the "one" blind was half the size of today's big blind, the value of suited hands, particularly suited connectors has gone up.
15. When advice is given on which hands to play, position and other players betting action is ignored. For example, Taylor's Professional Play List has you playing the top 24% of all starting hands. While there are spots where it can be correct to play more hands than this (see HPFAP), routinely calling raises with most of these hands is suicide.
16. In The Savvy Gambler's Play List Taylor points out that 22 and 33 are never worth playing. He fails to realize that these are hands which if you do not flop a set, you usually immediately fold without having it cost you very much. But when you flop a set they are highly profitable. Thus they should be rated higher than their winning percentage indicates.
17. Taylor doesn't understand that when you hit the flop with a flush draw you may be charged many best for the privilege of trying to make your flush. (Compare this to flopping a small set where you will now do the charging.) Thus, hands like Kxs are over-valued.
Conclusion: In my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics, I have a lengthy discussion on what I call non-self weighting strategies. It is shown that in virtually all gambling situations where a positive expectation can be achieved, a non-self weighting approach is far superior to a self-weighting approach. This is exactly Taylor's problem. By using a self-weighting approach where size of pots, additional bets gained or lost, pressure by late position players, ability to semi-bluff, etc. is not considered he has come to conclusions that do not benefit those readers that he is trying to help.
This is a duplicate response to this question. If you read the response under John Feeney's post then don't bother reading this.
Interesting question. I remember reading Lou Krieger's book. He had his own way of graphing starting hands. Very similar to 2+2.. Abdul has a position on starting hands. Likes to cite turbo Mumbo Jumbo. Look, 2+2, or Mason and Davey boy, came up with a pretty good ranking of hands for purposes of applying various strategies consistent with the situation one finds oneself in! Are their hand rankings optimal? Maybe. If not optimal, pretty close.
When I first read HPFAP I believed it was the Holy Grail. Study this book and get rich. That may be true for others I don't know. It's not for me. I believe that Holdem is a wonderful game because we just can't pin it down! Mason and David gave all of us an excellant starting point to become great poker players. Their hand rankings are important but not a cure all for poor strategic or tactical play.
I expect that all Holdem poker players, once they have mastered the game, will only refer to starting hand rankings when they find themselves in terrible times. Times when they just can't win. They will return to the basics and use hand rankings to reevaluate thir game. When things are going good or even o.k or even going not real good (highly technical stuff here) then master poker players will select hands and tactics based on the current situation. They will have grown out of the learning stage, the stage where hand rankings are important, to the holdem expert stage. There they will play any hand in the right situation and be what we all hope for. They (we) will be poker players.
The bottom line is if it ain't broke don't fix it! Unless someone can show you a major dificulty with 2+2 rankings. a dificulty that will cost you a lot of money then stick with those rankings and move on!
Vince.
Post deleted at author's request.
So in other words, the value you get from the Taylor Hand Rankings is the insight you gain from the exercise of thinking about why they are so damned wrong. Sounds about right to me.
When Taylor was posting here, he made a lot of comments that made it clear he really doesn't understand poker very well. For instance, he made the claim that a value bet and a crying call were the same thing.
Not that semantics are terribly important, but from the posts above on the definition of value bet, it appears that there is some overlap between what David S. considers a "value bet" and what you would consider a "crying call".
"For instance, he made the claim that a value bet and a crying call were the same thing. "
Come on Dan. You know as well as I that there is a lot of "value" in "crying"
Vince.
Mason,
I have to admit, my current embryonic understanding of HE doesn't allow me to get all the points you've made on a first reading.
However, I will refer to them repeatedly until they are clear as I foray into HE.
Thanks Again!
Last week in a small buy in (25+0ne 20 RB)he tourney, 70 players pays final 9. I'm at final table, 8 players left, 2 players with 70% of chips. Blinds are 300, 500. I'm 2nd after BB with 4 small bets left, big blind is all in for his lone chip, player behind me has 2 small bets left. I have QJs, I raise for 2 bets hoping to get'em all out, which I do. As it turns out BB won the hand, and I still made it beyond him up to 5th place. I even passed up a KJos to try to lock one more place up if poss. Which did happen when I was forced all in in the SB and BB was all in and I had pocket kings. But was I wrong to raise earlier to go head up against an all in or should I have allowed competition which may have wiped me out too. I was fortunate that with it head up and he paired an 8 that I still had 3 chips.
Your raise with QJ was a pretty big mistake. While QJ is favored over 2 random cards, it's not by all that much (58:42, or about 4:3). Given the fact that you're not much of a favorite over the blind, plus the fact that someone behind you may find a premium hand, your raise here is probably -EV in a ring game. Since you're at the final table of a tournament, making a play that risks almost half your chips (more when the player behind does have a premium hand and 3-bets) is a mistake unless you feel confident that you have a pretty big edge. This would be much less true if you were the short stack, but here there are at least 2 people that must go all-in before you have to.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
10-20 stud, $1 ante, $3 force. The game was average, and somewhat passive. There were a few decent players, one aggressive player (who wasn't involved in either of these hands), mostly mediocre players, and one horrible player (who also wasn't in these hands).
I had (77)A (no 2-flush) and raised. Aces and sevens were totally live. A nine and jack called. On fourth, I caught a blank and checked. The others caught apparent blanks also. The nine bet, the jack called and I called. Next, I pair my doorcard (77)AxA, as does the nine. The jack shows ()J8T. I check, the open nines check, and the jack bets. I call and the nines fold. Sixth street is ()AxAy and ()J8T7. I check and call. I check and call the river and pay off jacks full of sevens. He started with three jacks.
What should I have done differently here?
I have (44)6 with a 2-flush, and am last to act before the bring-in. Three players have limped, and 4s, 6s, and my flush and straight cards are live. I limp, and the bring-in checks. On fourth street, I catch a four. ()Ad3d bets, ()JTo calls, I call, the others fold. On fifth street, I catch a queen, the others catch total blanks. I'm checked to, I bet, they both fold.
Should I have raised on fourth? Should I have slowplayed further?
why are you playing (44)6 to begin with,,? second of all,, the first hand also was played bad your you should have raised on 5th when you knew the J10what ever was ganna bet he reraises you call and then check and fold on6th!
The first hand you could do nothing about. He had rolled up trips. I would have played the Aces more agressively. You still would have lost.
The second hand probably played right. Sure, going in with a small pair without two to a flush is a pretty loose starting hand requirement, but that all depends on the game. Once you got low trips, you bet. It's not strong enough to slowplay. Of course all of this depends on your reads.
Your biggest mistake is underestimating the players at the table. I refrain from making judgments beyond may read of the player.
I think you should have bet when you paired your doorcard on 5th, and probably should have bet on 4th. It may have saved you $$ when you got raised on 4th, you may have been able to figure out his hand sooner and get out early. If you had bet on 5th and got raised with open aces, once again you may have figured out you were beat sooner and saved some $$. Of course, once you checked on 4th, you pretty much told everyone that you don't have two aces so why bother anyway? Ironically, your passive play here probably saved you $$. If you had played it right, you would have lost more with your hand than you did.
On the second hand, I'm not opposed to limping in with a weak hand like 446, "IF" you are last and can't be raised and can get in for cheap in a passive game. It's about 20:1 for making trips on 4th, so you can call the bring in if you think you can win at least a 90$ pot if you hit your trips on 4th. But you had better think strongly about folding if you don't hit trips on 4th, or at least catch a good kicker/scare card that might make your hand playable. Keep in mind that if you make two small pair, your hand has become a terrific second best "paying off" hand.
You should have raised on 4th. As soon as you made the small trips, don't stop betting or raising, as you just may get beat if you don't drive some people out. Make them pay now, while you still have the best hand. If you them all in cheap, you may lose to a 23456 gutshot straight or some other peice of cheeze, then you will wonder why you were playing YOUR peice of cheeze to begin with!
Dave in Cali
Iceman,
First off, I want to say I'm no expert. That having been said here's my humble opinions.
On the first hand you were showing a paired door card of Aces. If you were against the good players on the table you have to realize they may be reading that as possible trips. However the (trip) Jack may have been willing to engage in a horse race up to the point where you showed another pair on board. which you didn't. Thus when he hit the boat on 7th. He was probably pretty confident he had you beat.
This is a case of you're strength showing and his not, but your read of the player might have led you to believe he wouldn't be playing without having a good shot at winning or drawing out.
Still it's tough as he was rolled up and had a fairly inocuous board. Having shown no pair on 6th he caught the boat on end thus you had little in the way of board reading signals.
I don't think there's much you could've done. Especially since many will play trips to the end even against other apparent trips.
On another note, was this a case of marrying aces? We've all been hit like that.
Bottom line : Whether you played correct or not really seems to revolve around you're estimate of the opponent and whether you acted on that estimate. (In my opinion).
We all get zapped like this on occasion, it's a graphic illustration of the advantages of hidden hands.
On the second hand I don't have clue. You took the pot...musta done something right. :-) Seriously though, the jack may have been jacks and thus thought the queen was clearly now queens over. The Ace may have been a small pair and an Ace (I don't suspect a four flush unless this player wouldn't play a four flush heads up against a pair, which makes some sense from an odds point of view) and now also figured you for queens over and decided not to chase any more.
I'm a beginner from England who wants to buy some Poker software (7 Stud and/or Hold'em). Any advice or views would be appreciated on which is the best - Is Wilson Turbo worth the extra money when compared to Sozoban ?
I'm in the same situation. Hit the "ConJelCo" link on the lower left hand side and you can download a demo to what I think is an ok program. I'm new so what do I know? Anyway, there's one.
The only complaint I've ever heard about Wilson Turbo software is the advisor's advice in the Omaha software (some people say it's incorrect more than occasionally). However, the HE software is clearly the best on the market, according to the consensus of RGP.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The omaha-8 advisor is frequently wrong, as any good player can figure out. That does not mean you won't benefit from the software, only that you must use the advisor cautiously.
I have seen some errors in the Holdem advisor also. Specifically, once I had 98s on the button and raised with 6 players in the pot. Flop was 65A rainbow. SB bets, two callers, advisor says fold. I was getting 15:1 to call for a gutshot to the nuts, with no possibility of being raised, advisor says fold! Overall the holdem advisor is pretty good, but you really shouldn't need to use the advisor that much anyway, except to occasionally confirm borderline decisions.
Dave in Cali
If the Omaha/8 advisor is frequently wrong, then the players can't play all that well either, since they use internal advisors for their actions. Specifically, in the Omaha high game even the 'good' players pay off way too much with hands like 2 pair, and call too much with bottom two pair etc. In fact, they do this more often than even your average weak Omaha player. Any simulations you do are going to be wrong because of this.
For example, one of the first things I was interested in was the difference in strength between a one-gap hand with a gap on the top vs a gap on the bottom (i.e. 9765 vs 9875). The simulations I did indicated a HUGE difference, much more so than I would have thought. In analyzing it farther, I suspect it is because the computer simply plays non-nut straights and straight draws very poorly. It also plays poorly when these hands make pairs and full houses, lowering the overall profitability of both.
I sent a message similar to what follows to Paul. I guess I may as well post it here as well.
As the publisher of Stud and Hold'em Poker for Windows (formerly Sozobon Poker), it is difficult (but only a little) for me to say this. Stud and Hold'em Poker is a perfectly fine piece of software, but it does not play either game as well as Turbo Texas Hold'em for Windows (current version) plays Hold'em and Turbo Seven-Card Stud for Windows (current version) plays Stud.
I won't go into the reasons why that is true here, but that's my current opinion. On the otherhand, Stud and Hold'em Poker is significantly cheaper, and if all you want to do is play against the computer recreationally it would be an good choice.
Hi Paul,
If you are looking for a good poker software, I would like to invite you to visit AceSpade Software's web site.
Henry http://www.acespade-software.com
Since I have seen no-one but this shill for AceSpade software ever say anything good about it, I'll have to assume that there really is nothing good to say about it.
If someone HAS used it, it'd be nice to hear from them. I'm certainly not going to give it a look until someone else recommends it.
I have the Omaha-8 and Omaha High versions of their software. I haven't had time to give it a thorough going-over, so I'll reserve comment until I do.
$10-$20 hold'em, 10 handed, aggressive game. UTG raises to $20, all fold to me in middle position and I make it $30 to go with pocket red aces. All fold to button who cold calls, small blind folds, big blind calls the double raise and UTG calls. We take the flop 4 handed. Flop comes spade king, spade 7, club king. BB checks and UTG bets. I'm not happy, but I'm not ready for the crying towel just yet. I call (in retrospect, I think raise would have been better) and the button raises to $20. BB folds and UTG calls.
What am I facing? Two sets of Kings? What did the button have to cold call $30? AKs? UTG could have suited spade connectors (I guess). If UTG also has a king, it is likely to be KQs to make his initial raise.
I folded. You know the rest. Turn was a red blank, UTG bet, button called. River was club ace, UTG bet and ... result to follow.
Obviously you are correct to be VERY concerned that someone has a K here. However, you probably should have called the raise on the flop anyway. But, let's back up a step.
Play preflop: why slowplay? You did it perfect.
On the flop: I think you're correct that you can't automatically fold here. There are 13.5 small bets when it's your turn. One question you need to ask yourself is whether UTG would bet if he had a K, or would he slowplay it more often than not? This will go a long way towards determining the correct play. However, against most players, I wouldn't fold here. Now, why raise? The only advantage I see is to get flush draws to fold, as you clearly don't expect someone behind you to fold a K. Overall, I'd say you're better off trying to see the river cheaply.
Now, once the button raises and UTG just calls, there are 16.5 small bets. If I were there, I'd be pretty sure that someone has a K. However, I like taking one off now hoping to catch an A on the turn. If I do, I'm sure that I'll win enough extra to cover the needed odds. However, once I miss on the turn, I'm most likely to fold (I might take one off again if we check to the button, he bets, and UTG just calls; in this spot I'm not hoping only for an A on the river, but also that I might still have the best hand).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I believe many people will be able to relate to my post and hopefully offer some advice..
I have regularly played in a house game in Houston for the past 5 mos. Lately I have noticed that the dealers (one of whom is the host's son, freinds, etc) have been cutting the pot more than the "advertised" rake. The game is 5-10 and the cut is supposed to be $3, plus $1 for a jackpot, taken out of pots greater than $100.
The dealers often take an extra $5 chip on the river (even after the first $3 has been cut), and often "shortchange" the pot when "making change". They are stealing from the players....
This bothers me terribly but none of the players (some have played there for 15 years) say anything.... (I wonder if I am the only one who notices????)
Anyone with similar experiences??? This is a big price to play 5-10..... What should I do??
Thanx...
You should tell the host that you'll never be returning because you don't want to play with cheats. In fact, if the pot is raked, the game is probably illegal, so you might want to drop a hint to the local PD about it.
Find another place to play. You're probably being ripped off in more ways than this.
Just walk away.
I wouldn't tell the police. It won't bring you any direct benefit, and it might bring you some detriment (in the form of revenge).
If you think there's some chance the host doesn't know this is going on, tell him in private. Be straightforward. Tell him that if that's his policy, fine, you simply won't play. If it isn't his policy, you thought he'd like to know. Don't try to force him to do the right thing, because it probably won't happen.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Now that's what you do! Fossilman, I knew there was a reason I always look for your threads...It's because you make sense...Later
"If the pot is raked it is probably illegal and you may want to drop a line to the local PD about it". Excuse me but are you an idiot or jsut living in Fantasyland? Not everybody lives in California or Vegas where you can find a game any hour of the day or night! Sure, let's just nark on all the card games in town, that will solve the problem. I'm sorry Stephen but that is not the way to solve a dealer overcutting the pot. I hope your 1st inclination when Saddam is being a bad boy is to jsut nuke him and all his surrounding countries and millions of innocent people. I'm definitely glad you don't play in my game. Somebody might be sweating my hand with me and you'll shout collusion...Get A GRIP!!!
Russ
I think reporting it to the police is a lot more polite than shooting or hanging people, which is the traditional way of dealing with cheats. I guess you don't think it's appropriate to call the police when someone breaks into your car and steals stuff either.
I happen to think toleration of cheating is absurd.
Steve, Like Russ alluded to before, people who live in California or Nevada or any other place with card rooms dont understand what those of us who dont, go through to play poker. Here in Houston there is no legal poker. The nearest casino is 165 miles away in Lake Charles, Louisiana where they charge 5$ rake even in low limit 3-6-12 games. There is also a $1 jackpot drop and comps are thrown around like manhole covers. So the only option we have is at games run by individuals who profit from the game. These games are all illegal. If I see a game which I think is crooked, I just dont go there anymore. Guns or ropes are not an option for me. Calling the police isnt either. The main reason is that I have friends playing at these games even when I leave. Most of the home games here are legit as far as I can tell. Sometimes it isnt the House which is cheating, but just the dealer trying to line his pockets. As far as whether I would call the cops if someone was stealing stuff from my car, of course I would. Except if the theft occured while I was robbing a liquor store. My point being that everyone in the game is "Breaking the Law" not just the game runners. What do I tell the cops when I call. I was playing at this illegal card game and they were taking extra 1$ out of the pots, I want to press charges.
Randy Collack
Billy,
I tried to E-Mail you but you weren't currently accepting mail. E:Mail me at kgould333 and I'll let you know of some Houston games that are straight up and don't overcut the pot.
Hey Russ! Let me know where I can find a game like that also :->. I have been looking everywhere. By the way, I really enjoyed last Sundays game. Glad I didnt leave too early. That game was ripe. And memo to Billy: Listen to Russ, he knows of what he speaks.
Randy Collack
Ha Ha, very funny...You know where one straight up game is I know... Hey, what did I tell Billy? What can a fish like me tell one of the 'Best' players in Houston? I'm trying to remember but I'm at a loss. Give me a call, E:Mail me or post back...I'm headed back to 15-30 for the night. I played for 3 hours and was stuck about $600 and playing relatively tight after 2 hours.I had a couple of bad beats (2 outers and 1 gutshot straight against my set) but I had a lot of KK against AA and JJ against QQ and wasn't catching...I caught about a 30 minute rush(Flopped 2 pair in the blind and then a set and got paid off and left with $15 cheeze and headed to the movies...Why go back? Can't sleep.
Laugh....
Randy... I was thinking the same thing, but did not want to directly respond..... oh... it just might be illegal! Of course it is!!!!!!
Most poker players can understand and absorb a reasonable cut.. say $3-4 per pot, but just cant stand getting screwed! The dealers look at you really funny if you don't tip them, but have no problem in stealing your money..
See you later
The CUT Doesn't go to the dealers...That would be the House. The dealers don't get paid unless tipped! It's kindave like going to a restaurant and getting the $5.95 Enchiladas even though it only takes .43 cents to make the enchilada dinner. The waiter is not screwing you at all and if you don't tip him he might give you a funny look because that's how he makes his living. At least he gets paid half of minimum wage per hour...A dealer gets absolutely nothing except tips! Remember that the next time you think about toking!
Ken Warren reliable author,,???
I can't even recall the name of his book, "Winning Hold'em" or something? He's generally been trashed here and on r.g.p. There isn't much real insight into Holdem in his book and I think there's consensus that some of his advice is just wrong (probably not dangerously wrong). There are probably some good tips but I found the book's organization, structure and writing style confusing.
In the past I have argued that most ring games, with the possible exception of those played at the very highest limits where it is natural for the same players to always be sitting, are essentially free of cheating. This includes collusion which most poker players are so afraid of.
The reasons for this are a little too complicated to go into here, but suffice it to say that in most cardrooms there are several mechanisms which essentially police the games. This most importantly includes the players themselves.
Recently there has apparently been a cheating incident at The Orleans involving their daily tournaments and a well known tournament player. I don't know exactly what is true and what is not true concerning this incident, but I want everyone to know that my thoughts on cheating in tournaments is not the same as my thoughts on cheating in ring games. This is because the mechanisms that police the games in ring games tend to break down in tournaments and the fact that there are so many more things that can be done in a tournament that would be considered cheating.
Mason, I have heard a story about a famous "American" tourney player who BACKS 25-40 players in major tournaments,with the condition they pass their chips to HIM, or other team players, when possible,by losing a pot. The players he "backs" are from his country of origin. At the Orleans (preTOC)he was knocked out of a tourney by one of "the players he had backed". He was very unhappy and let his country man know...and the rest of the table,including to of my friends. To say ring games have very little cheating is a very bold statement. Cheating I've seen and heard about, with little to nothing done about it included..... 3-4 players playing with the same BANK in the one ring game, without others knowledge....removing chips from the table(going all in or bringing them back when it suits)..taking a card from a mucked hand to add to ones hand to make a winner..partners signing,etc. A player once said to me, with regards to cheating at poker..."$20 is a lot of money to some people!" DAZZLER
Darryl:
My guess is that when you show up here to play poker you are at some tournament and are trying to play in a pot limit game. The games that I play in, which is mid-limit hold 'em and stud are very clean. And, they are this way for the reasons that I have given before.
One reason organized collusion in moderate size games in major casinos is rare, is that it would look suspicious if the same players always chose to be at the same table. HOWEVER, in medium size cardrooms, those that typically have only one game in the 20-40 range, two or more players would not look as out of place always playing together. In this situation you should be a bit more vigilant. Even here though, the danger is small for a vareity of reasons, not the least of which is that the better players in the game will quickly smell a rat.
Post deleted at author's request.
I've heard the same story and I know who the player in question is. I doubt that it is "25-40 players", but the story has been around awhile, particularly in the Southern California cardrooms. As for the story's validity, I'll reserve judgment until I've seen it happen (if I recall correctly, this is the same player who was thrown out of an East coast casino for pigeonholing tourney chips in his room).
Would it even be worth your while to pull that kind of scam with 10 players? You're talking about splitting the winnings from such a scam amongst 25-40 people. It just seems like a big waste of time. You could make more money playing in a live game than wasting your time passing around chips in a daily tournament. Furthermore they would need to be well organized and the main player would have to cash in the top 3 every time to make it even remotely possible.
Darryl,
I have to strongly agree with Mason here. What intersts me is that I have heard quite a bit of generic cheating instances like those you cite. However, I have never heard of any specific coroborated instances. The closest coroborated story I have heard of cheating at limit poker occurred at the Trump Taj Mahal a few years ago. It seems that a fellow scooped in some green ($25) chips of a player that was sitting next to him. The player was on a toilet break and the crook won a pot and scooped in a stack of the missing players chips. My understanding of the incident is that the deed was uncovered by the casino surveilence system and the culprit was barred from the Casino. But in 6 years of Casino play I have to say that I have not seen any cheating or collusion or any actions even close to what you claim.
Vince.
I have wittnessed chips being passed both in middle and higher buy-in tournaments. I'm not sure how much of an edge this gives a player but should be watched by all of us. I have also heard of a few instances where a player will pocket a black chip or two at the latter stages of a tournament to be used the next day at early stages where it is more meaningfull. It seems to me that this should be easy to spot by tournament directors by simply counting the chips at the end of a tournament. I wonder why they don't do that.
There are some unique aspects to tournaments that can make it both more profitable for cheaters while also making it less effective. As per the episode at the Orleans, extra chips could help a cheater survive, but it wouldn't guarantee a win or even a cash finish. On the other hand, cash game colluders will always hurt you, as would "soft-play" agreements in tourneys. I've been cheated at both (although not often), and the most devastating is when it happens in a satellite or in a big cash game. I'm less concerned about some clown bringing in a few extra chips at the start of a regular tourney because of the negligible long-term affect on the tourney. On the other hand, I expect an event like the WSOP or TOC would zealously guard their tournament chips and we should not expect to have to even think about that.
But Earl, the affect isn't negligible, it's just spread out.
For example, let's say you enter a tournament with a $35. entry fee, no rebuys, and get T500. Then, during the middle stages, this guy slips T2,000 into his stack during a table change. That's $140 worth of chips. The fact that there are still T50,000 in play, and he might not make the money even with this edge isn't relevant to the long-term affect. The truth is he stole about $140 in EV from the other players.
Like you say, he may or may not get that money in cash form today, and it may have cost you only $1.40 in EV. However, it still was stealing $140 in my opinion.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"However, it still was stealing $140 in my opinion."
Again, the Fossilman hits the nail om the head!
Vince.
A well known poker writer who was challanged for a "sweet heart" check down to the river, at the Gold Coast Tournament a few years ago, had this to say " Us girls have to stick together".
I am a newcomer to poker and really want to learn as much as I can about it. I have Sklansky's Theory of Poker on order and am expecting to have my question answered when I receive it. The play I made last night though is really eating at me and I would like some opinions on it.
I was playing seven card stud, I had KJ in the hole with 10, 9, and a pair of 5's up. I folded. Obviously I was beat on the board, and there were four callers (no raisers). The best board hand was a pair of Ks and another guy with three clubs. Did I make the right move???
Opinions appreciated.
yes
Greetings, everyone. I'm a long time reader of this forum, and a first time poster. Thanks to all for the many insightful posts.
I've been invited to join a regular game in my area, and I wanted ideas on strategy changes due to different structure.
The game is Omaha H/L with an '8 or better' qualifier for low AND 'two pair or better' for high. Also straights and flushes count for high only,with the best low hand a 6-4.
It seems that this is a 'game of Aces', with very few chances to scoop..(maybe with trips and a very good low?)
I'd appreciate any ideas on starting hand and post flop strategy. Incidentally, Omaha is not my best game.. almost all of my playing experience (up to 10-20 level) is Holdem and some stud.
Thanks!
Your preflop starting hand requirements are probably not much different than in regular Omaha8. I'm guessing the major exception is that it is even more important that your low starting hands must contain 3 or 4 excellent low cards. This will also provide you with greater opportunity to make both a low and high.
In other words, in many loose Omaha8 games, just having A2 in your hand is sometimes sufficient to enter a pot. In this variant, you probably never play hand just because it has A2 only.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Huh? In this variant, A2 is even more valuable as you can scoop a pot with just the low. If the same number of people are calling, you should be more willing to play a bare A2 than in regular O-8.
Your high hands go down some in value in this game, as one pair can no longer win the pot.
The original poster does not say what happens to the pot if no-one qualfies either direction. The answer to that question has a huge impact on strategy unless the game is so loose that there's never a pot that someone doesn't qualify for high.
20-40 Hold 'em. Weak-tight, very predictable player raised from position 4 (1=sb; 2=BB; etc.) and 5,6 & 7 fold. I am one off the button (8) with 4-4. Weak-tight almost always limps with a powerful hand in early position and never raises with pairs except K-K or A-A. I figure him for A-Q, A-J, or K-Q. I make it 3 bets. To my chagrin, the button (unknown player) cold calls the 3 bets. The blinds fold and weak-tight calls.
Flop comes J-6-3 rainbow. Weak-tight checks. I bet. Button and weak-tight both call. Turn is another J also making 2 spades on board. Weak-tight checks again and I bet again. Button calls and weak-tight calls again.
River is an off-suit 8 making board J-6-3-J-8 with no flush possible. As weak tight ponders, button grabs $40 in chips and holds it in his hand as if to call any bet. Weak-tight checks, I check and button checks.
Weak-tight delays in turning over his cards. Finally, button turns over 2-2. Weak-tight soups and I show my winning 4-4.
All comments welcome.
Andy,
I think the raise is too aggressive here and is only OK if you think you can get head up most of the time (where your hand is about even but you figure to outplay him). The problem is that you often won't be head up and being against two opponents for three bets is about as bad as it gets for a small pair. I would fold most of the time unless the player behind me and the blinds play very tight.
Once you’re in, the flop bet is strong against these opponents. You are hoping you are up against overcards.
The bet on the turn is OK. Note that they really won't fear a jack from you (as opposed to a pre-flop caller leading into a jack high flop). IF you get raised here you probably can dump it.
You wrote: “The turn bet is River is an off-suit 8 making board J-6-3-J-8 with no flush possible. As weak tight ponders, button grabs $40 in chips and holds it in his hand as if to call any bet. Weak-tight checks, I check and button checks.”
UTG could not have hit this card. I don’t like this check once the button pulled this act. This usually means they don’t want to see you bet. Bet for value here.
Regards,
Rick
"I don’t like this check once the button pulled this act. This usually means they don’t want to see you bet. Bet for value here."
I disagree. I don't think you should bet for value here. You will be shown TT,99 or 77 most of the time here by the button. The other hands he will throw away most of the time. So even when you know he is weak and does not want to see you bet you still can't bet it for value against all but the worst.
Berya,
I'm not saying it is a cinch. I believe the tell he made indicated he was weak along with the play of the hand. My guess is that this bet for value would be good at least 60% of the time that it is called which is good enough for me.
I wouldn't worry about getting raised here either. Also, given the fact that you have been the aggressor, there is little chance a check will induce a bluff. Bet the river.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I agree that he is definetely weak, but this does not mean that you should bet. He thinks he is weak because of the previous betting. Now in my experiences when a player gives this tell away it is almost always on purpose.(by the way this player is most likely a weak player because strong players will almost never do this...)
Now my point: if you bet again and he has for example AK, AQ he will not call you. He scared you yet you still bet therefore you have a hand, also there is another player behind him. But if he has a medium pair he will almost definetely call you.
Rick, I am with Berya on this one. I can't see either player folding a better hand or calling with a worse hand. In other words, a bet on the hand is unlikely to be either a good value bet or a good bluff.
I responded that I thought a check on the river was the better play (11:58 P.M. post) after reading Rick's original response, but before reading the other posts. I'm not so sure that the button (or even the original raiser) wouldn't have called me with A-K, but as I say, I thought it more likely that I would see a medium pair higher than my 4s than I would be called by a lesser hand. Acutally, I think now, in retrospect, that 2-2 would have called me down, although I certainly did not expect him to have 2-2. And I did not fear a raise on the river; I feared a call. Thanks to all 3 of you for the responses.
I essentially agree with everything you say, except the bet for value on the river. I felt the button might well have had a pocket pair bigger than mine. His most likely hand, of course, was A-K, and "threatening" to call in advance was an indication that I had the best hand, but all in all, against two opponents in that sitiuation, I felt it was best to show the hand down. Incidentally, I did feel I was going to be head up against the original raiser as the two blinds both are relatively tight and, to that point, the button hadn't come even close to being out of line. Thanks for the intelligent response.
Andy,
I did have second thoughts as to the river bet after berya's and skp's responses. On the other hand, I do think the medium pairs mentioned would probably "test the waters" on the flop and raise. I also think most players would call down an AK or AQ on the river once they have gone that far. But at best my reasoning is close so a check can't be that bad even if I'm right.
Regards.
Rick
P.S. Are you the same Fox who used to sometimes write for Card Player? If so, I remember and article about not allowing short buys that I'm interested in finding (I have all the old issues but no index).
No, I'm not the card player Fox.
I'd b e interested in comments on Roy Cooke's article "From Russia With Regards" and Bob Ciaffone's article "Poker Optimist Odds" in the Sept. 17 edition of Card Player.
Cooke self-criticizes his failure to bet the river, but I wonder what others think about his play pre-river. For those who haven't read it, he was in the big blind with 10c7c and called a raise from early position when 4 other players cold called the raise. The flop came A-8-7 rainbow and the raiser bet. Two players called and Cooke called. The turn was a J. The original raiser bet, the other two players folded and Cooke called.
The river was a 10 (board A-8-7-J-T). Cooke checked and the raiser checked and Cooke won with 2 pair.
Ciaffone's article was a sequel to his previous article on poker optimists which I and other posters criticized. Much as I hate to say it, this one strikes me as even worse than the first one.
Ciaffone advises not to call in the cutoff seat (first seat to the right of the button) with 2-2 when there are already 3 limpers in the pot. He also advises not to raise with Kh-Jh on the button after a flop of Ah-8h-7c in a 5 handed unraised pot when sb has bet out and gotten 3 callers.
A 3rd example criticizes a student of his for calling on the turn with A-J on a board of K-J-8-5 when the small blind bet out after having check-raised him on the flop.
Also of interest was Phil Hellmuth's Hand of the Week article "Jeff Pulver's Four Eights." Enough to talk about above already, but anyone who read Hellmuth's column, I'd also like to know what you thought of it.
I haven't yet read the latest edition of CP so my comments are based just on your summary.
Cooke's hand
I think that all of his plays were correct except the check on the River.
Pre-flop
He has got a suited 2-gapper. There are 6.5 big bets in the pot when it is his turn to act. The betting is closed. The call is a no-brainer IMO particularly for someone like Cooke who plays well after the flop.
Flop
Obviously, I don't think this is a good spot to come out betting if you are Cooke. With that many players cold-calling the raise preflop, odds are pretty good that someone's got an ace. His check is clearly the most reasonable play. When the action gets back to him, he once more has the advantage of knowing that the betting for the round is closed in that there is no one behind him who can raise. Given the pot odds, I think a call is correct although a call would be more correct if the board was such that if he hit a 10 on the turn, there would be no possibility of someone making a straight. In other words, the call would be more correct if the flop was something like A75 instead of A87. Now, if the players who cold-called the raise preflop are all fairly rational players, Cooke certainly need not worry about someone making a straight with 96 (if the 10 hits on the turn). In fact, most rational players probably would not even call a preflop raise with J,9 (except perhaps if it was suited and a couple of other players had also cold-called before it was their turn to act).
In sum, I like the call on the flop.
Turn
The call here is also fairly pretty easy. It is now heads-up. It is reasonable to assume that Cooke has 4 outs to the nuts. It is also reasonable to assume that he has 5 additional "non-nut" outs. Paradoxically, a call could be less correct if the two players who folded before him had called. Even though that would in fact offer Cooke greater pot odds, his chances of winning if he hits one of his 9 outs goes down considerably. Hitting a 10 may no longer give him the pot; similarly, hitting a 9 may see him win just half of he pot.
River
I don't like the check. There is an "easy" straight possible on the board. Many players would not even bet AA here if checked to (although I have to admit that I am not one of them - I almost always take a check on the River to signify a weak or mediocre hand). In any event, the point is that if Cooke bets, he is not going to get raised even if his opponent has AA. If Cooke checks and his opponent bets, Cooke certainly has to call. So, why not bet? In other words, his opponent will call with many weaker hands that he would not bet with. Secondly, his opponent likely will not be able to raise with hands that can beat Cooke's 2 pairs. Thirdly, the board and the play of the hand was such that this was not a situation where a check would be correct in order to induce a bluff.
All right, that post is too damn long. I'll hold off on commenting on the Coach's suggestions.
His king jack advice is just wrong. I asked six good players and they all agreed. Again his general principle is fine but his example is terrible. In order for him to be right you would have to be almost sure that the original better would raise and that the others would fold,
Cooke's Hand:
Your question only addresses the River. For my purposes I will limit the options to four (discounting reraises although they could be considered) . 1) Bet and fold to a raise 2) Bet and call a raise 3) Check and fold to a bet 4) Check and call a bet. Also, since I know nothing of the opponent I will classify him as average. Cooke plays 30-60 so an average player at that level plays like Mason. That makes him a below averge 3-6 player. First I will say I agree with Cooke. He should have bet the River. Second I will say that I disagree with Cooke he should check and call the River. (BTW - SKP did a pretty good job with his post so I opted to attack from another angle)
Of the four options I listed 1,2 and 4 have the potential of winning you a bet from an average player. Option 3 would be a mistake against an average player. Paradoxically, let me say that a check raise is also a mistake against an average player. The reaon is that if you are check raise or even if you check and call you are a dog. The pot offers enough odds for you to call after a check. But being a dog the pot is not big enough to risk being reraised then having to fold. Man, I hope Abdul and Mr S don't read this. They'll think I'm trying to get into their game theory arena (which I'm not because I wouldn't no how to anyway). Option 2 is a mistake against an average player. An average player would not raise with less than the nuts in this situation so calling a raise here is a mistake. Option 1 is a correct strategy against an average player. If raised you are very certain you are beat and should fold. Option 4 is also a correct strategy against an average player. Although an average player may only raise with the nuts ther are hands that he will bet with that he wouldn't call with. So which of the two is the most correct? The answer is not your opponents image but yours. If you are viewed as an aggressive player you should bet. If you are viewed as a tight player you should check.
As for Ciaffone. Don't raise with KJh in the situation described. With not much chance of the limpers folding it seems to me you gotta raise. You want a big pot and a shot at a free card on the turn.
2,2 against 3 limpers and with the button and blinds behind seems to me to be a good call for a good player. Small pairs require that the player be an above average player after the flop to be played in a situation like this. Small pairs are dangerous even with the philosophy of no set - no bet.
All right, I'll have a crack at the Coach. He can then tell me why I am wrong (and I'll probably listen because generally, I believe he offers solid advice in CP).
22
I certainly would call with 22 in the scenario given. 3 limpers plus likely the 2 blinds gives me at least 5 opponents. I have good position and the required number of players to offer me good implied odds of flopping a set.
Incidentally, I find that such hands can also be profitably played if you are to the left of UTG and he limps. His limp coupled with your limp can often result in a "calling frenzy" resulting in a 7 or 8 way pot. Of course, if you have got some aggressive players behind you, the "calling frenzy" theory may not pan out.
KhJh
I guess what the Coach is saying that the sb almost surely has at least an Ace given that he is betting into 4 opponents. Further, the sb may well assume that the button does not have an Ace as if he did, he likely would have raised preflop. Thus, the sb would reasonably assume that the button's raise on the flop is with a flush draw. As such, the sb would in most instances reraise to try and limit the field. If that happens, then of course the raise by KhJh would not be a good move.
However, having said that, I still think that KhJh should raise in most cases. Several reasons for this but I will just list four of them:
1. Of course, if you knew that sb would just call, your raise on the flop is a gimme. Now, sb may not figure out your hand and just call the raise (i.e. don't make the mistake of automatically assuming that the sb is thinking at your level..he may not be).
2. Even if sb reraises and knocks everyone else out, it's not a total disaster as there will be some dead money put in by the limp-folders on the flop.
3. If you never raise with a draw when the flop is Ace high(and this seems to be about the best spot to do so), you become much easier to read when you do raise in such situations. In fact, for these reasons, I would even raise on the flop here with 10,9 (i.e. an open-ended straight draw). You could set up a pretty good bluff if the raise on the flop buys you a free card on the turn and a FLUSH card comes in on the River.
4. Let's not completely take out the joy of playing poker...gamble it up a bit!
AJ
One needs more details to comment on this hand. The suggested fold certainly can be a viable option.
I agree that Coach doesn't give enough details: the type of game, what we know of the players involved, etc. It seems to me his advice is less sophisticated than, for example, S & M, and is better for average players, rather than better than average players, who can play more hands because they will play them better. His basic advice seems to be GIGO: garbage in, garbage out, which is good advice for beginners or inveterate losers, but not of much use to advanced players.
Hellmuth's article is available at Cardplayer's site (and I assume, his). Not the main subject, but he mentions that Miami John won 3 events at the Bike but finished second in the all-around points. Reminds me of the time when John Bonetti won three events at the 4 Queens and didn't finish in the top FIVE in the all-around, or the time the guy who won the Foxwoods all-around didn't make a final table the entire tourney. At the Gold Coast in '96 the points were awarded as follows: 1st-48, 2nd-44, 3rd-40, etc. A joke. All-arounds should be discontinued, they're an extra rake that strongly favors pros and partners, but if you have them, the points should be awarded just like the money, i.e. 1st-37.5, 2nd-20, etc.
As far as Jeff Purver and his $15-30 game, someone please tell me where it took place so I can get on the next plane there.
"Ciaffone advises not to call in the cutoff seat (first seat to the right of the button) with 2-2 when there are already 3 limpers in the pot."
I call every time in this spot.
"He also advises not to raise with Kh-Jh on the button after a flop of Ah-8h-7c in a 5 handed unraised pot when sb has bet out and gotten 3 callers."
I frequently but not always raise. My knowledge of the bettor would influence my decision. Many players will bet any draw in this spot -- this includes straight as well as flush draws. They will also bet a weak ace and some will even bet middle pair.
Sometimes, in this situation of raising with a drawing hand, you may be better off raising with 2 low hearts than with the nut heart draw. This is because while it is a still bad thing for you if sb 3 bets it and moves out the rest of the field, one benefit to you of his 3 bet is that you improve your chances of winning the pot if both the turn and river card are hearts.
An example is this:
Flop: Ah10h5s
Sb bets. 4 players call. You are on the button. You may be better off raising with something like 9h8h instead of Kh9h. With the first hand, if sb 3 bets it, he could cause a hand like KhJs to fold which would be to your advantage.
I disagree. The play only gives you extra help (as opposed to making it with the nut flush draw) those rare times when the ace reraises, AND a high heart folds, AND two hearts come, AND nobody else has two higher hearts. It will save you the pot less than 1% of the time. On the other hand it will cost you more money than it would cost the nut draw anytime you catch one heart but lose.
This is not to say that you shouldn't do it with a lower flush draw.In fact you usually should. I am only saying that the extra reason that skp gives to do it doesn't quite make up for the extra reason not to do it in this particular case where the pot is relatively small.
"On the other hand it will cost you more money than it would cost the nut draw anytime you catch one heart but lose."
Let me put it this way: I certainly don't say that I would rather have 9h8h instead of Kh9h on a Ah10h5s flop. Clearly, I would rather have Kh9h for the reasons apparent in your statement quoted above. What I am saying is this: Suppose the sb bets and 4 players call and I have a flush draw. I am not sure whether the sb will reraise if I raise. I think about it for a second and decide to raise. The sb then does reraise. At that precise moment (i.e., without knowing whether any of the other players will call 2 bets cold), I would say that my play is better (relatively speaking) if I have 9h8h rather than Kh9h.
I understand what you are saying and I still disagree given an unraised pot.
I have always wondered,
Do you pronounce Caiffone as see-a-phoney?
What better time is there to raise the nut flush draw than when its bet from the blinds, 3 callers, and the nut draw has the button?
It will irritate me a little if the bettor reraises, but I will counter by 4-betting it no matter how many people call in between.
The posts on this site are very helpful. What is the general consensus about which is an easy game for a beginner to get into? My 'guess' is 5 card stud? Any thoughts? Steve
5-card stud is deader than disco. Good luck trying to find this game outside of the movies.
I would start with Texas hold'em as you should be able to hold your own at the lower limits simply by playing fewer hands than your opponents and reading some basic strategy books. Start with Sklansky's "Hold'em Poker".
Seven card stud is the other logical starting point. However, it is probably more difficult to make the transaition from the lower to medium limits for reasons that are beyond the context of this post.
Good Luck.
The easiest game to get into is Wilson's Texas Turbo Hold'em Version 3.0. It costs less than what you can expect to lose in your first several sessions playing low limit poker in a casino. Play with it using a fixed limit structure (conventional $3-6, 10-20, etc.) and stay out of the casinos for as long as you can. (You can get information about inputting the appropriate time charge or rake off the internet, or just call your local casino). In a casino you'll play about 30 hands an hour in a normal full hold'em game, a few more if the game is tight, a few less if the game is very loose with a lot of multiway action. You need this information to figure out hourly rates on the computer.
Read and reread the new version of Hold'm Poker For Advanced Players until you have the material down cold. While you don't have to buy a lot of books about poker (in fact, merely reading them will do you little good), the ones by Bob Ciaffone and Roy Cooke are excellent, and the Theory of Poker is fundamental. Mike Petriv's "Hold'em Odds Book" is also a good introduction to the math. Don't read the strategy tips like a cookbook but try to figure out why it works and when it won't. Notice that nearly all poker advice is highly conditional and qualified (you'll find this frustrating at first). Also notice that, at first glance, some of it appears contradictory. Think a lot about why this is so. In fact, spend more time thinking about the game than in playing or reading about it.
Apply what you read to your computer game. Experiment with different lineups. Figure out what works when and why to the point where you can reject one strategy in favor of another for subtle changes in the situation. Do this until the differences don't appear to be subtle anymore. (Generally ignore or at least don't worry about the Turbo "advisor").
Practice correlating what you see a computer profile doing with how the profile actually plays. That is, guess how a profile plays in a variety of situations based on how you can see it play over just a few rounds of betting, then study the player profile screens to see how close you were. Don't zip to the end of hands you're not in but the watch the players and learn how they play.
Practice varying your play according to how specific opponents play and how entire lineups of opponents play. Take this to extremes and develop a good understanding for how much (and often how little) your play should vary according to differences in the game and your opponents. Also notice that you should often play the same in very different situations, and understand why this is the case. Play against the very best profiles and the very worst.
Get a good feel for how much discipline and patience you'll have to exercise in a real game to have any hope of consistently winning. Hone your judgment. Pay particular attention to how well you play and how you feel after losing for a long period of time or after losing a when you were way ahead at some point in a hand.
Appreciate that a comfortable working knowledge of the game takes hundreds of hours and that developing an edge against more experienced players that are serious (or at least semi-serious) about trying to get your money is hard. Appreciate the short-term luck factor in poker, and that there are considerable limits to what one can win a poker at that significant winnings are ground out in dollars and pennies a hand over a long period of time. Read months and months of postings here and on r.g.p.
If you're not interested in hold'em you can learn 7-card stud the same way.
Once you've can consistently beat a lot of different lineups and understand why you're beating them, then go to a casino, realizing that most people don't somewhat more whimsically than computer profiles (although the profiles are much closer than they used to be). Don't play lower than $3-6, and preferably $5-10 or $6-12. Find a table were people play too many hands, but stay away from the "ram-and-jam" games. If you've developed a good understanding of the game and can keep yourself emotionally together you'll soon play better, if you don't already, than most players in the room. Appreciate that you've got a long way to go.
Sorry for running on...
I agree with Chris. Buy Lee jones book (Wining Low limit Hold`em) and then memorize it. (This takes a while) Do what Lee says and you should do good at most any 4-4-8-8 HE game (OVER TIME) with a little common poker horse sense. If you aren`t willing to memorize the book for get about posting many winning sessions.
Good Luck
Milt. Boyle
I recommend you start with holdem - (1) the game is easier to learn at an intermediate level than seven-card stud, (2) low-limit stud is almost a different game than higher limit stud, while low-limit holdem strategies and concepts are more directly applicable to higher holdem games, (3) low-limit holdem opponents typically play very bad, so you probably won't lose money starting out if you've read Holdem for Advanced Players, and (4) in seven-card stud you have to keep track of the cards that are folded, while in holdem, it's a lot easier for a beginner to focus on strategy since you don't have to keep track of cards. The best book is "Holdem For Advanced Players". You should also get "Theory of Poker". I wouldn't waste time or money on computer programs. They won't prepare you for real games. Home games and low-limit cardroom games are a better place to start. I also wouldn't waste money on Ciaffone or Caro or Lee Jones' books - the 2+2 books will teach you everything you need to know, and many of the other books contain errors and fail to explain concepts properly. After a few sessions of 2-4 to learn the mechanics of the game, try moving up to 5-10 or 6-12, since those games will better prepare you for higher levels even if they will be more difficult at first.
In addition to everything else posted:
I find IRC poker to be helpful to get a feel for how the game is played, it's fast paced and probably the best way to get a little experience, and to try out some of the concepts before you sit down at a casino
Lars
I am new to casino gambling, having played less than 100 hours outside the home game. On my last trip to Atlantic City I ran into a situation which raised the question Should I raise with a four flush? I may be supplying too much information but it seems like knowing the opponents is important.
It was a 1-3 Stud table. The low card was to my left, seat 8, brings in for $1. Seat 1 raised it to $3 with a K spades. He is new to the table, he has raised to $3 once before and then folded when a pair came on the board against him. Seat 4 calls with a nine spades(he is a tourist from New York and will play any pair for awhile). Seat 5 Calls with a Ten(He is a friend. I know he is uncomfortable when I am in the pot with him. He also would be in with a pair.) Seat 6 Calls with a Jack Diamonds.(She is elderly and plays rock like. I worry if she calls a raise) Seat 7. I call with AT3 Hearts, 3 showing. Seat 8 folds. $16 in the pot.
4th street. Seat 1(inital raiser) bets $1 with KQ Spades showing(3 spades other than his already seen). Seat 4 Calls with 9X crap. Seat 5 Calls with TX crap. Seat 6 Calls with J9 Diamonds(2 other diamonds have been seen). Seat 7. I raise with AT53 Hearts, 53hearts showing, $3(to $4). No other hearts have been seen. Seat 1 Reraises to $7. Seats 4 and 5 fold. Seat 6 Calls(I put her on a flush or straight draw, possibly two pair). Seat 7. I Call.
$39 in the pot.
Is the raise with a completely live 4 flush a good raise? Seat 1 ended up having a pair of Ks at this point. Is it the correct play for him to reraise at that point if he correctly guesses he has the high hand at the moment.?
You're going to make the flush over 1/2 the time with no hearts exposed; so, you should win the pot enough for your raise to have positive expected value. His re-raise seems excellent because he knocked out 2 opponents and will reduce the expected value of your future bets.
Fat-Charlie
one question I have about this is whether it is better to raise here if you know that catching the third heart on the board will force the other players to fold. It seems like it might be too early to announce that you have a good draw to a flush, especially with 5 total people in the pot.
on 5th street,if you didnt raise on 4th, and you catch the flush and other players get help, your raise might look like a semi bluff more than a made hand, and people might be more likely to chase you. It almost seems like it would be better to raise here more often when hearts are live and you only have the two on your board. Then there is a huge chance that you will catch one or two more, and your hand has great bluff possibilities. (assuming your opponents will lay down their hands). With an actual 4 flush you may be giving away too much. (or maybe not-comments please)
A second question is based on the further play of this hand,(i know the player). on fifth street, all players caught airballs. The king checked and so did Wayne with a four flush. doesnt this play announce that you were on a draw, and it didnt come? would you be more likely to check or bet in this position? When would you be more likely to bet here?
I think this is the weakness of raising to early. You have to continue to play strong, which may make you uncomfortable since you are on a draw. or you have to slow down which announces that your hand is weak.
i am also very new to the underlying theory of poker, so perhaps Mr Malmuth or Mr Sklansky could help us flesh out the "right" things to think about in this situation.
Todd
On the question of giving away too much information, it is important to take into account how you play w/2 suited cards on board but do not have the flush draw.
If these players are going to give up their hands when I catch another in suit whenever I have represented, I want to know about it. The best time to find out is when I actualy do have the draw.
If I find out they all run away after I so easily "convinced" them that I have made a flush, then I have found a cash cow fit for the milking.
At this point I like your raise. There is already a good bit of money in the pot (13 max. size bets). The big advantage of raising is twofold. First, if everyone calls, you're getting money into the pot at 4:1 at a time when you're about 1:1 to make the flush. If people fold, then you got more money from fewer people, which is balanced by the fact that you might win without making your flush. Specifically, you have a completely live A. If you catch an A, that might be enough to win. If not, you might catch a second pair, and aces up will win pretty often.
So, whether your raise sets the hand up to eliminate players or get more money in the pot, it looks good.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
As said before you are going to make your flush over half the time when its completly live, and the AT-flush will hold up almost every time (unless J9d snags the Ad) or KKs make a full).
Unless someone has a bigger 4-flush or two-pair or better, you clearly have the "best" hand at this point.
Notice this: if the Ks have no additional value and the J9hearts does, such as a 3-straight to go with her 4-flush, then the Ks has the WORST hand of the 3; meaning he will win less often than each of you. The fact that he has the "best" hand only means the minimum hand he can make is Ks and that's higher than the minumum hands you two can make. That's not very interesting nor relevant.
Good raise, except perhaps the Ks in the hands of a real player is an obvious favorite to 3-bet it narrowing the field and preventing these snit-pairs from paying you off when you make it. The raise has positive EV, but just calling MAY have even better EV in this particular situation.
I'd have raise $2. Just $1 if I were sure he'd 3-bet it.
A live 4-flush is EQUAL to a live pair of Aces on 4th street, better in multi-way pots.
PS. Few 1-3 players will put you on a flush draw.
- Louie
ok guys, i am a very new player and would like to know some more about this four flush hand. first, i like the reraise advise. but my question is about playing the hand with some hearts showing --at what point do you change the play - two hearts showing - three - four??. i am also new to the net - could u guess. i have been enjoying reading this form. thanks for all the good advise/vano
If you have three to a flush and your cards are completely live, especially if you have high cards showing, you may want to bet to narrow the field and trap players in for your evetual flush or high pair. Two to a flush on third street is worth of bet if you have something else, like a pair. If you are showing three to a flush on the board, you may want to bet as a bluff or semi-bluff; but that play is less likely to work on seventh street. You can bet with three to a flush on third street so long as you cards are live. Do you have any other situations in which you may think about betting?
Thanks for the response rich p. ok - what if you had the hand wayne had - three hearts to start with and then four. at what point would you change your strategy - if you saw two other hearts out in other players hands or three hearts???/vano
Hi Wayne, Some things to consider Concerning the four flush situation, Is the bettor an aggressive player? if so I would be more inclined to just call his bet and raise when I make the flush. However he only bet $1(strange bet)so I would raise to get more money in the pot.
If he was a passive player then raising may be a good idea as it will probably bring you a free card on 5th st assuming no one improves . Also you will get more money in the pot if you do make a flush. However you must be concerned whenever a passive player bets.
Don't be concerned with disguising you hand . A four flush is exactly what they'll put you on , only they won't be quite sure.
If you catch the flush on the next card don't be concerned with opponents folding(some of them will). A flush is a good hand but it's not invinsible. If they all fold , take the pot and be happy (it does happen occasionally).
Don't believe that low limit players are complete dolts. They are people just like you and me . Some of them have been playing for many years and have witnessed all kinds of situations. They are still bad players but they DO THINK!!! That's their problem . They make decisions based solely on their feelings and ignore game theory, Pot odds etc..
I should know . I am a low limit player myself.
Good luck!!! John..
i have read this term, and seen it used in the context of a river bet when the better is holding a moderately weak hand-one pair, two pair, even ace high. I have also seen it used for mid hand bets, where somone bets the flop for "value". I am interested to know what exactly this term means. i understand the basic concepts about this, however, i have had a very difficut time articulating this to others, or even to myself. Also, how does one describe other bets that you make, besides this value bet.
todd
On the river, a bet for value is a bet with what you believe is the best hand, with the intention of being called by a weaker hand. This would be opposed to say, a crying call, which is a call made with a hand that you expect to be beaten, but not with a probability greater than the pot odds you are being offered.
A bet or raise "for value" is made when the odds are in your favor - that is - when the size of the pot and anticipated action gives your hand the correct odds to bet or raise.
For example, if you have a flush or straight draw on the flop, you will complete your draw 1 time in 3, so if you can get 3 or more callers you would want to maximize the number of bets that go in since you are getting a positive ev on every bet (make sure you are going for the nuts or near nuts in this case so you don't lose to a bigger draw).
Bruce -- That's one kind of bet for value. We talked about it in that thread below. The most common kind, though, is what Dan mentioned -- just betting a hand, expecting to be called by a lesser hand. (e.g., you have AK and flop A-9-3. You bet figuring to be called by a lesser ace or another pair...)
It is possible to make a value bet even if your getting called, implies that you are an underdog. This sometimes occurs when you are first to act after all the cards are out. My definition of a value bet is simply a bet that is made at least partly because it will sometimes be called by a hand that loses to you.
Sorry for my barging in, I just couldn't resist. I prefer my (debatable) definition:
It's a bet wishing for a call.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World since 1389!
Izmet,
I like your simple definition.
kwoksing
David, I prefer the definition of a value bet as "any bet you believe will make you win the most money".
A value bet is one where: 1- You believe your opponent does not have a card he represents and you bet or raise him. You may or you may not succeed but if he does have a better hand than you consider your bet as a value bet because you will be paid back at a later stage by anyone who saw your play. 2- Bet against a hand you know you have him beat and he has no choice than calling you. You also know if you check he will check. 3- Check against an aggressive player where if you check he will bet, and you know you have him beat resulting in a check-raise is also a value bet. 4- Bet on a flop to represent the top card with no flush or straight draw 5- In a 3 way pot, the best hand on your right bet the flop with the top card a jack, you bet the turn a king for him to throw his hand away and still have the potential to beat your opponent on your left if he called you.
I would appreciate if you could reply to any of the above if you do not agree with the statements Thanks
Sorry replace my previous definition of the value bet to " The most profitable bet"
The only reason you would ever bet is if you thought it made you more money than the alternatives. Thefore, 'value bet' becomes redundant by your definition. It certainly gains you no new information about the reason for your bet.
I think it generally refers to bets or raises that are good because your hand overall has more "value" then the opponent's. I.E. you prefer your hand over the average opponent's hand. There are other kinds of bets, such as "bluffing" or "advertising". You bet in order to force lesser hand to either call as a dog or fold when they could have outdrawn you.
It can easily happen that before the last round, you can "value bet" with a hand that is a sure loser if called. You still get value since you cause lesser hands who may outdraw you to fold. Such a situation may be if you raise in middle position with TT, get called by a conservative type, and then flop an Ace. If you bet, he'll only call with Aces but you should still bet to get 2-paint hands to fold.
Some bets, of course, are combination bets, where you may will cause lesser hands to fold or call, AND get some better hands to fold.
- Louie
Value Bet! I never liked that term. Mainly because I don't understand what a constitutes a value bet. I relly believed that the term value bet was another Sklanskyism. After reading his response I doubt that he is the guy that "coined" the phrase. Maybe it was SKP. Who knows.
Skalnsky: " a bet that is made at least partly because it will sometimes be called by a hand that loses to you."
Now I don't know about the rest of you but I find this definition vague. Does it mean that any bet made partly because it is sometimes called by a weaker hand is a value bet. Well don't all bets besides bluffs fall in that category? I mean, when I bet I usually bet with the best hand and hope someone calls with a weaker one.
To me the word value means worth. It means getting something in return. I know I am toying with semantics here but I am hoping that it helps pin down this vague term "value bet". Although I have said before and will again trying to pin down something in poker is like trying to catch a "greased pig". (I never really said that before but it sounded good so)
Value bet: Hmmm. I bet because what I get or expect in return has some value to me. I see from some responses that there are those that would tie a value bet to a river bet only. Others find value in flop bets. I guess others would say a bet on any street could be a value bet.
I normally hear the term expressed in relation to a river bet. So for now I will stick to a river value bet. When I bet the river, excluding a bluff, I bet because I expect the opponent to call with a weaker hand. If I feel the opponent will fold if I bet but will bet if I check then I check. I wonder is that a value check. I expect something of worth in return for my check so maybe. That doesn't make sense now does it? A value bet must be somewhere in between the bet with the known best hand and the check to induce a bet. Don't you think? A value bet must be a bet when your are not very sure you have the best hand and/or not very sure your opponent will call if you bet and/or not sure very your opponent will bet if you check.
Now maybe Abdul can ascribe a value (pun)/percentage to "not very sure". I can't. So I won't try. I will try and define a value bet with words given my attempt at analysis above.
Value Bet: A river bet with a hand less than the nuts that figures to yield more by betting than by checking.
Whew, maybe Sklansky's is correct. It sure would be easier accepting his than trying to come up with my own. I don't know I like my definition. I'm not sure I need the "less than the nuts" but I think it's right.
Comments?
Vince.
To say that a value bet is a bet wishing for a call is utterly wrong. There are many times you bet with a good hand while you still "wish" no one calls. This is clear when there are more cards to come but is often true even on the river. Mike Caro has discussed this quite a few times in his Card Player columns.
Hmmm. Interesting, this different view of yours. Of course there are >many times you bet with a good hand while you still "wish" no one calls<, I never disagreed on that. I just felt the term "value bet" should not be applied so loose as "a bet with a good hand".
If you dissagree with my definition (and I'm willing to reconsider), don't you think we should need a new term for "a bet wishing for a call"? What about "pure value bet"? Any other ideas?
Izmet Fekali
Vince writes:
>>Value Bet: A river bet with a hand less than the nuts that figures to yield more by betting than by checking.<<
It seems that Vince's definition does is not necissarily wanting a call. It seems to fit the situation on the river, where you are better off betting when first to act where a call by your opponent implies you are an underdog.
Tom,
I was hoping someone would respond with some good points. Thank you! Sklansky has me mixed up with someone else. I didn't think I would pin down the definition with my first shot at it. But I believe I'm on the right track. I thought searching for a generic definiton would be the best path to take. I came up with my definition in an attempt to apply some measure of worth or "value" to a bet. Obviously when I say "worth" I am not trying to be specific., like 20 value bets should yield a 3 big bet positive return. As opposed to checking and maybe picking up 1 big bet or no return. Although that may be part of the answer.
I still like my defiintion because all it really says is that when you find yourself in a situation, and you must understand the situation, (opponent included), where a bet will yield a positive expectation then you should bet. This, to me, infers that even if the bet makes the opponent fold and that produces a more positive yield than a check would then your bet has "value".
Vince.
But Vince, by your definition every (sensible) bet is a value bet then, even "image" bets, as every bet is done for one sole purpose: to yield a positive result. Why bet otherwise?
You'll obviously have to reconsider, as by your saying >even if the bet makes the opponent fold and that produces a more positive yield than a check would then your bet has "value"<, this impies even bluffs are value bets.
This is certainly not what David intended when he coined the term in his writings.
Izmet Fekali
Izmet (May I call you Izmet, well I already did so..),
The defiition I came up with relates a bet to a check. If one finds hemself in a situation where he must choose between the two then the coice must be dependent on which produces the greatest yield. I suppose if the check produces the greater yield one could term it a value check. Also, I am not opposed to including bluffs in the definition but would need some convincing.
Vince.
BTW - After reading David's initial response I'm not sure he had anything in mind when he coined the phrase.
Mr Sklansky,
I think you responded to the wrong post under my post. I never mention the word or even suggest that a value bet is wishing for a call.
My definition: A river bet (I confined my def to the river) with a hand, less than the nuts, that will yield more by betting than by checking. I excluded bluffs but maybe they should be included.
If you don't mind please comment on this definition.
Vince.
Your definition seems fine Vince.
Yes.
Most of the time when you probably have the better hand against 2 or more opponents, the best outcomes are in the following order:
1) You bet, Nobody calls.
2) You bet, Somebody calls.
3) You check, they check.
4) You check, they bet.
5) You bet, they raise.
I think.
The last two are because better and raisers generally have better than average hands, thus reducing you chances of having the better hand.
Heads-up I would move #2 down to #4, raising #3 and #4 since heads up, callers have stronger hands then betters. <=== Hmmmm.
- Louie
I asked Sklansky about "value bet" a year ago. He seems to use it in a very specific context. He seems to imply that IF THE BET IS CALLED (by a good or tough player), the chances of your hand being good is around neutral (at best). Is my understanding right, Sklansky?
The definitions by others seem too general to have any practical use. By these definitions, any bet is a value bet. Would there be any bet that's not a value bet? Or value check? Or value raise? Or value bluff? Or value call? Or maybe even value fold? Or for that matter, would there be any break that's not a value break? Or any friendly chat with neighboring tourist not a value chat? I'd better go and do some value reading.
Does anyone know who coined "value bet" by the way?
I would say a bet is a "value bet" based on the believed value of the hand. That is, if the bet is called, you'll still be gaining money (on average) by having made the bet. Betting nut hands falls into this category, but bluffs do not. Betting a flush draw with an expectation of a sufficient number of callers is a value bet. Betting a flush draw against a single opponent because he might fold right now is not. Betting 2nd pair on the river because you expect that you'll get looked up by a worse hand is a value bet. Usually when you think you are betting the best hand, you are making a value bet.
If your bet gains you because of the possibility of your opponent(s) folding a better hand than you hold, then that bet is a bluff or a semi-bluff.
I have a couple questions about two five card stud hands I played in at my home game. We play a version of five card stud that is a H/L split, with a declaration after the last round of betting for which half of the pot you are going for. There is no qualifier. You can declare low with two pair and win if everyone else is going high.
This is a very tough game.
I want some feedback on a couple hands.
Three handed. On third street I show a pair of fives, and the other two hands are a 7 high and a six high. I bet, the 7 high raises into the 6 high, and th 6 cold calls, I call, thinking the 7 may have a better pair. Fourth street I catch a blank, 7 catches another low card, and 6 catches a Q. I check and it is checked around. Now I'm definitely puzzled, but I'm thinking the 7 has a pair.
Fifth street is another blank for everyone, except the 7 is a 9 high now, and he bets. We both call. I declare low, hoping the Q low has paired. My reasoning by the end was that the 9 high had a pair of 7s to beat me. My only hope was to declare low and hope for the best. I am wondering what you think about my reasoning? Was it reasonable or totally ridiculous? Results below.
SECOND HAND.
On fourth street I have A475 with the A in the hole. To left is a pair of 9s with no kicker and the third hand is 976 showing.
Fourth street the betting is capped by me with the best low hand at the time, and a fully live A to possibly make a high or even a scoop.
River is a blank for the other two but I get a Jack, ruining my low. The nines check, the 9 high bets, I fold, the 9's call.
I couldn't put the 9 high on a pair with the nines practically dead, and the seven half dead too. I figured he was just gambling on the last card giving him the best low so I folded. I could have called one bet but I figured the open nines would raise behind me and I"d get squeezed for four bets just to see the declare. For one bet it was worth it but for four bets no way. Again, does my reasoning seem logical? Is there something obvious I'm missing about these hands?
I'm asking because I'm having a hard time with this game even tho I feel like I have a good understanding of it.
results below:
First Hand: Everyone declared low and the 9 high took the scoop. Q high was hoping we were both going high, and I was hoping 9 high would go high and that q high had paired up. (He had a couple live cards higher than a five which could have paired)
Second Hand: They both had a pair of nines and the 9 high with a nine in the hole declared low to take half the pot, he had a 7 kicker and it turned out the open 9's would have lost with a worse kicker. The worst part is they debated a while before declaring so I knew I had thrown away the best low hand. In addition, the open 9s told me he wouldn't have raised behind me.
Natedogg
On page 7 of your strategy, you provide a table for defending the Big Blind against Tight, Legit and Steal raisers. Can you provide a similar table for defending the Small Blind against raisers in a loose-aggressive game ? I request this because I cannot get to grips with your statement on page 9 i.e. "When defending the small blind versus a raise, your minimum requirements are about midway between your minimums for calling in the big blind versus calling a raise cold". BTW, many thanks for providing a valuable insight into your approach via the articles on your web page.
You're right; that the statement was obtuse.
Versus a raise from, say, 66/T9s/QJ or better, I would suggest defending your 1/2 small blind (e.g., $5 in $10-$20) with 77/T9s/AJ or better. A 2/3 small blind would lower the requirements to maybe 55/87s/KQ. A 1/3 small blind would raise the requirements to maybe 88/KQs/AQ.
-Abdul
i was playing holdem and there were two players who were friends or something, and every time they were the only two players left in the pot, they would turn their hands over and check it all the way down to the river. they weren't doing anything obvious like raising behind each other to knock other players out. they were playing normal as far as i can tell until they were the only ones left, then they would check all the way. regardless, this practice seems unfair to the other players.
i wanted your opinions as to whether this practice is acceptable or shouldn't be allowed.
also, i'd like opinions on "pushing," i.e. two players giving one or a few chips back and forth to each other after winning a pot.
I wouldn't care if they do that but I'd damn sure be watching for some other suspicious activity. If they are such good freinds they cannot win or lose to one another I am sure thay would probably be reading into either person actions and helping them along. I'd find another table just to be on the safe side. Hope that helps and remember it is only and opinion (and everyone has an opinion they are like assholes; everyone has one and everyone but yours stinks!
Both practices are relatively common, and unlikely to hurt you. The practice of giving chips to one another after winning a pot cannot hurt you at all, especially since the amount is usually very small compared to the size of the pot.
With respect to checking it down. This can hurt you if you are caused to fold in a situation where you otherwise wouldn't, due to these guys playing the hand differently because the "know" they'll get to check it down after you leave.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"Us girls have to stick together" per a well known poker writer when her "sweet heart check down" was challenged at a tournament a few years ago.
Initially let me state I don't know the rules on these issues so these are just my ad hoc thoughts. Tommorow I might feel different.
Situation 1 :
An interesting question.
Clearly one or the other of them will win the pot in the situation you describe. So as for harm to you when you're in a pot. Don't see any that's obvious as you're out.
But it is soft playing don't you think? Suppose all 10 other players did this and only played "normal" against you? (Reductio absurdum?) It would then appear that you'd be the only one actually being played against.
At what point does it begin to be problem?
Hard to say. But this is the kind of things legal types wrestle with all the time. I'll let you decide.
Personally, in a "friendly" game I wouldn't care. In a blood match well that's different again.
As an aside, it could let you learn more about these persons starting standards since both hands are visible, whereas you might have only seen one or none if they didn't turn them up.
Situation 2 :
Well in a sense it's removing chips from the giver's stack, which could possibly be seen as that person removing table stakes, which generally isn't allowed. It could allow someone to go all in earlier. In which case it could hurt you as someone could end up with free cards they might not have otherwise recieved.
However, the intent probably isn't that anyway, strikes me as more of an emotional thing.
Wouldn't bother me unless it was a tournament situation. In a ring game not everyone is playing just for money. No point in making it an uptite game over a few chips. However, that may not be what the rules stipulate.
I support this kind of friendship at my table.
(a) I get to see both players hands. (b) The weaker player wins/retains more chips.
I cant see a single downside.
I have recently begun venturing my game into the club scene. I find that I feel fairly comfortable with quick pace and other facets of the casino game, but I am feel a bit overwhelmed by all of the things that I am trying to think about (odds, reading people, etc). Where do you suggest that I begin when I sit down to a table? Should I first become comfortable with figuring proper pot odds before moving on to another skill? Should I become more proficient at figuring reading people and their skill level before moving on? If someone would take a bit of time to reflect on their early experiences in the cardrooms I would appreciate it.
Thanks Joe
It seems to me that when I sit down to a game, the odds, pot odds, reverse odds, etc. happen quite naturally, requiring little thought (usually). Giving me freedom to consciously try to read opponents. If the odds aren't a natural part of your game, start there.
Darren
You raise in early position with AJ. Everyone folds to the small blind who reraises. You know this guy has to have aces kings or AK. You call. Flop is AJ4. You call his bet. Next card is a 7. He bets again. How do you proceed against various types of players and why?
I believe small blind definitely has the best hand before the flop. Most likely not after the flop. SB best strategy is to re-raise before the flop to be heads-up with the early position. On the turn I will raise SB against all type of players. First, against the tough players because I put him on KK or AKs. Second, against lower caliber of players because I believe I have the best hand. If both re-raise me I will call to the river and pay them.
David,
Hello. I will answer your question as posed. That is I will assume I *really* believe that the SB *has* AA, AK, or KK, based on previous play or whatever. And I will assume we are talking high cards only, no flush draws.
To recap- Me: AJ, Board AJ47, SB: AA, AK or KK
Good player: I think it is very close whether to call or raise. A raise drops many good players with KK, costing me. Most good players will, however, re-raise with either AA or AK, so while I am much more likely to find them holding AK, and be a great favorite in those cases, I don't learn much from my raise against AK or AA. I guess I can raise, hoping that the good player will not drop the KK automatically, and also hoping that AK doesn't reraise; which will give me some info. so I can take control. But I play to the end in any event. (But one advantage of the call though is that I am drawing dead against AA, but the AK and KK are not drawing dead against my AJ.) But then there is table image to consider...
Passive player: Passive player isn't betting at all with KK against the AJ4 board and with the blank on the turn. So I would put them on AK or AA. I would raise against a weak/passive player, looking to see whether they call or re-raise. I fold against the re-raise, and take control against the call. (Another question you did not pose is what to do when you know that they would never re-raise before the flop without AA, AK, or KK, and then they check the turn...telling you they have the KK. I think I would bet this...I hate to slowplay a passive player and find a K hitting on the end)
Loose player: This is much like the good player, but they will not fold the KK so quickly I think, which makes a raise more clearcut in my mind.
Mark
reraise and if you imoprove raise or bet depending on what the blind does,,you have locked top 2 only gut shots to beat you and if you cant put him on a set then raise is your only option,,If he were to have AK then make him pay to beat you,,
I don't have time to write an essay answer and offer you a relatively short response.
Given your initial premise as to what the sb is holding, there is very little doubt that I would raise on the turn.
After the turn card, the abstract odds of sb holding AA are 1 out of 15. If the sb is the type of player who would never bet the flop and turn with KK, his odds of holding AA improve to 1 out of 9.
In any event, it's clear that you are going to be in the lead the vast majority of the time. Thus, the only real danger of raising is that the bettor may fold KK to a raise and you end up losing one big bet (i.e., if you just call on the turn, the sb with KK will almost surely just check and call the river if a blank hits). However, you can't know with certainty whether the fellow has KK or AK and I believe you will be giving up too much by not raising on the turn as you may miss out on the opportunity of causing the sb to make an error by 3 betting you with AK (BTW, if he does three bet it, I would still call or possibly even reraise- I would have to have an absolutely fantastic read on sb before I would fold because the odds just don't favour him having AA although the chances sure become a lot greater if he 3 bets it).
The question does require an essay type answer if one were to factor in all prototypes of players in the sb's shoes but I suspect that my answer can't be too far off (although I am sure that you will correct me if I missed something).
Assuming that we are NOT talking about a flush draw,it would depend on th type of opponent your up against.If you've correctly figured them to be conservative,then pocket aces are a likely reality(pocket jacks too,for that matter).A somewhat more liberal opponent(of course,we've CORRECTLY figured that out)I would then be more likely to consider calling.Correctly reading your opponents is just as important as reading the pot and cards,or so I believe.
In most cases, the fact that you were bet into on both the flop and the turn would point to the sb holding AK. If he had KK, the chances of him checking the turn out of fear go up considerably. If he has AA, the chances of him trying for a checkraise (or even slowplaying the flop by check-calling) go up considerably.
The flop bet and turn bet pattern indicates (all other things being equal) that the feloow has AK. I say raise him with your AJ on the turn. You surely will get a crying call and may even get a confident reraise out of him.
I’m not sure how many different “various types” of players David has in mind, but here is my two-cents worth.
I’m assuming that just about all players will fold if raised if they hold KK. I’m assuming that just about all players will stay until the showdown with AK.
Passive Player I define a passive player as someone who will not bet KK on the turn, and will check AK on the river if he/she doesn’t improve. There’s an 8:1 chance this player has AK (as opposed to AA). This player doesn’t have KK. I will raise here (expecting a call) and bet the river if a king doesn’t come on the end.
Moderate Player I define a moderate player as someone who will not bet KK on the turn, but will bet AK on the river, even if he/she doesn’t improve. There’s also an 8:1 chance this player has AK. I will call here and raise on the river if a king doesn’t come. I’m assuming that this player will call if I raise on the turn, and then check the river. So I get the same three bets by waiting until the river to raise, but save a bet if a king comes on the end.
Agressive Player I devine an agressive player as someone who will bet KK on the turn, check KK on the river, and check AK on the river if raised on the turn. This player will not re-raise with AK on the turn, but bet AK on the end if not raised. This player is 8:7 to have AK, and 6:9 to have KK. Against this player I would raise on the turn. I’ll get three bets against AK whether I raise on the turn or wait until the river. By raising I can’t save the bet on the end if a king comes. But by raising on the turn I chase out KK. Since the small blind is 8:6 to have AK as opposed to KK, I will lose 8 bets against AK in the long run when a king comes, but win 6 pots (6x5.5=33 bets) against KK in the long run as well.
Very Agressive Player I define a very agressive player as someone who will bet AK and KK on the turn and river if not raised. He/she might also re-raise with AK on the turn. Against this player I would check on the turn, and raise on the river if a king doesn’t come. Against AK you save a bet if a king doesn’t come. Against KK you will lose the pot (5.5 bets) the two times a king comes, but win a bet the 42 times a king doesn’t come. You will lose a chance for the re-raise against AK on the turn. But those two extra bets, even if the small blind always re-raised with them, will not come close to what you can gain by letting KK bet out on the end (8x4 < 6x31).
Of course there are more combinations of playing styles that you can be up against. But you can use the above examples and figure out the correct action as necessary. Also, if a player is apt to call a raise on the turn with KK, then you would raise. If a player is apt to fold to a raise on the turn with AK, then you wouldn’t raise.
I think that you made a few odds errors in your post.
With an Ace in my hand, there are 3 combinations of Aces, 6 combinations of Kings, and 12 combinations of A-K he can have. The Ace in my hand takes away 3 combinations of Aces and 4 combinations of A-K. It does not take away any combinations of K-K.
Therefore, the odds of him having A-K vs A-A is NOT 8:1 (mentioned in the Passive Player section), but 4:1. The odds of him having A-K vs the other two holdings is NOT 8:7 (mentioned in the Aggressive Player section), but rather 4:3. And the odds of him having K-K vs the other two holdings is NOT 6:9 (mentioned in the Aggressive Player seciton), but rather 2:5.
Odds and probability is the weakest part of my game and I'd like to do more work in this area. Hope that you can correct any errors I made in my calculation.
Yan,
Your odds calculations were correct--before the flop. In David's question an ace came on the flop. Hence, there are only two aces left in the deck.
2 Aces X 4 kings = 8 AK 6 KK 1 AA __________ 15 total hands
I did make an error in the pot size for the Very Agressive Player. When a king comes on the end, you will lose 6.5 bets if a king comes (I forgot to add in the call on the turn). And it should also read (8x4 < 6x29). But the conclusions reached are unchanged.
Good Luck.
George,
You're absolutely right. I'm not very good at calculating odds, and you just proved it one more time. Thanks.
Yeah, Like this is really gonna happen. Where you been playing lately Sklansky?
If this guy has to have AA, AK or KK to reraise then you are not playing against various kinds of players. You are playing against a very tight player or very good player. That is if he needs this hand to reraise an early raise from the likes of David Sklansky. If he needs these hands to reraise with before the flop, he certainly isn't going to bet the turn with K,K. That would put him very out of character or make him very good. ( Might not even bet the flop but probab;y would.) Of course if he were very good he would raise with more hands than those mentioned and sometimes wouldn't raise with those hands. I put this tight fellow on A,K 80% of the time. A raise on the turn is in order. You may not get the opportunity again.
Vince.
Vince,
My friend and I were doing a little surfing when we saw David's post. Our first thought was pretty similar to yours when you said:
Yeah, Like this is really gonna happen. Where you been playing lately Sklansky?
If this guy has to have AA, AK or KK to reraise then you are not playing against various kinds of players. You are playing against a very tight player or very good player.
I don't know if the SB was a very good player (he is way too predictable to be good IMHO) but here in Southern California I've never seen a player who will only three bet with such a narrow range of hands. Most of the respondents did a good job in their replies but I always have problems with this kind of lead post (even if it is by David). The whole hand becomes quite contrived and I can't see how it helps anyone's game very much.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Sklansky said that his intention with this thread was to get people thinking about play on the turn. From the number and quality of responses I would say he accomplished his goal. Certainly, I would agree that a player with such a narrow range of reraise hands is most likely a tight player and not a good player. I only added "good player" to my response because a good player may narrow his range of hands against another good or great player in situations of this type. To tell you the truth, though, Rick, what I like about your response the most is that you spelleded (or is that speelded) "Contrived" correctly!
Vince.
Am I the only one to question the wisdom of getting into this situation to begin with? Why call pre-flop? You're only getting 6:1 immediate odds and I suspect the implied odds are canceled out by the times you pay off like a slot machine.
1/7 of the time he's got AA and you're DOA. 2/7 of the time he's got the kings and you need an ace but you can't know it's any good. 4/7 of the time you need the jack and no king, a bad spot indeed. 'Course I ain't no Sklansky.
If I really know my opponent holds only those hands (AA, KK, AK) I'm not going any further with AJ in that situation. I'm wondering if this was 'fuzzy thinking'?
Why call pre-flop? Why raise with AJ in early position? Why climb Mount Everest?
I suspect that David doesn't need to ask us what to do in this situation for his own good. He can propably figure it out for himself. The "Professor" is giving us an assignment to make us think about situations that come up. By asking us "students" to explain how and why we would proceed, we are forced to think the problem out--and hopefully learn something in the process. It's irrelevant in this problem why we raised or called previously. We did, this is the situation now, and what are we going to do about it?
The problem demonstrates that the correct course of action changes depending on the player. Sometimes it's a good idea to raise earlier to chase a weaker hand out, and sometimes it's better to let a player keep betting a weaker hand. Sometimes it's better to wait to raise to save a bet should your opponent improve. Knowing which to do comes from analyzing what cards your opponent is likely to have, and correctly figuring the best course of action to extract the most out of the situation.
Actually, David didn't say he called the raise knowing the player had AA, KK or AK. He said you called the raise. So what do you have to say for yourself? ;-)
"Actually, David didn't say he called the raise knowing the player had AA, KK or AK. He said you called the raise. So what do you have to say for yourself? ;-) " - G M Rice
I'll grant you it's an exercise. Prehaps the correct answer to the test here is "Why call this 3-bet pre-flop when you know you're dominated?" Vince suggests he'd play 72o. I think that isn't right either but at least it's got clear outs. AJ has no clear outs except Broadway or other huge and improbable flops. In the problem the hand hits one of it's best flops, two pair, and it's still not clear where you stand. Why go there to begin with?
I read bridge problems all the time. They have a realistic auction to reach the contract upon which the problem is based. They are self-consistent within the accepted rules of the game. This Sklansky exercise strikes me as quite flawed. Prove me wrong. Identify my "fuzzy thinking".
I was in a similar situation today, AJo early and faced with a 3-bet from late position. In my case the 3-better had a wider range of hands, AA-99, AK, AQ, AJs, maybe others. I still don't like it. I did call but I expect my pot equity was small.
If you go all in with AJ and your opponent can only have AA, KK or AK, you'll win just over a quarter of the time. So if it's 6-1 to call all in and you fold, you're walking away from a profitable situation.
When you still have more chips the possibility of being outplayed from the flop onward is greatly curtailed by your knowledge of what your opponent holds, and by whatever you know about how your opponent plays once the flop is dealt.
You are not going to make a profit calling raises with unsuited AJ.
"You are not going to make a profit calling raises with unsuited AJ"
If I know someone has A,A, A,K or K,K only, I can make a profit with 7,2o!
Vince.
This was not a real hand. It is rather an exercise in head up fourth st. thinking. For such exercises it is actually better to be contrived so as not to muddy the water too much. Thus even if it was wrong to call with AJ, that would be irrelevant to the point of this problem. That being said, those who think that you should throw your hand away for one small bet with six bets in their already and you acting last are wrong. But that deserves a seperate thread.
David,
I believe I understand the point of your question. From the number of responses in this thread I would say you accomplished your goal. I apologize for adding to a silly response with my 72o comment.
Vince.
You are way ahead on the flop and will obviously make the most amount of money the 53% of the time your opponent has AK. How you should play is largely a function of how your opponent will react to your play.
You should bet the flop and generally play aggressively when:
1. Your opponent will play AA and AK fast when you show aggression. (Obviously you need to judge the point at which you should let him lead). You are way ahead when he has AK and don't care if he folds KK because he'll have AK 8 times as often as AA.
2. Your opponent will slowplay both AA and AK and play KK defensively (perhaps fold it) if you show aggression. In this case your opponent will overrate his AK and trap himself when he raises you on a subsequent street. Because of all the money you win when he has AK, you again don't care if he releases KK early. You should also play back when he raises you on the turn or river because he'll usually have AK.
You should slowplay after the flop when:
1. After you show strength, your opponent will (a) slowplay only AA; (b) play AK defensively by just calling and checking after you if you check and (c) not play KK at all. By playing passively here, your opponent will be induced to lead with AK and can trap him with a check-raise on the turn or river.
2. After you show weakness, your opponent will slowplay both AA and AK but will play KK aggressively. Although here you lose a few bets when he has AK, you make up for them when he pushes KK.
Cris,
Your opponent is the small blind and will act before us. Your response is for when we are first to act. Also, David's question specified the flop action. He's asking how we'd proceed on the turn (and river) after the small blind bets the turn.
Sorry to be the one to break the news. ;-)
George
Duh-uh. Of course, not everyone can be expected to read all the way through another interminable Sklanksy post... I should try this when I'm awake.
We are down to 6 players at the weekly NLH tournament at the Mirage. 7 players in the money after reducing first place $350 and 2nd place $150.First prize is $2000. There is $42,000 in chips. The blinds are now 250-500.
Would you have played the following hand and why?
I am in the big blind with $7000 in chip placing me in 3rd position when I am dealt a pair of 10's. The chip leader, which I considered to be a good player has about $12000. A well known excellent tournament NLH player in position 2 bet $2000 from his stack of about $8500. Everyone folds to me. After some thought I decided to go all in. Calling was not an alternative. The only other alternative I had was to fold. He called with AQo. The board is JQx97. He wins.
Here is the reasons why I went all in: 1- I put my opponent on 2 overcards, AK,AQ,AJ. 2- He is a tough tournament NLH player and certainly expected him to fold with this kind of hand. 3- This was an opportunity to become the chip leader and then go for the gold which was my ultimate goal.
I believe it was a mistake to go all in because: 1- He had a bigger stack 2- He, also, saw the opportunity to become the chip leader 3- The first prize was only $2000. I definitely believe he would have fold at a major tournament.
Reading his hand well, your thinking that he might fold was not bad. Unfortunately he appears to have read you with something approximating what you had. A pair of 10s is a very treacherous all-in hand, since the chances of an overcard coming on the flop is about even money -- and that's if you are not already beat. The way I usually prefer to play a pair of 10s is to just call the raise and see if the overcard flops then make a decision whether to make an all-in move. His correct play is to fold if he misses the flop, although many weak players will keep coming with their two overcards (which of course is even sweeter).
One point that I think many players overlook is that by moving all-in before the flop on someone with a 50-50 proposition is that you don't let them make a big mistake. If he gets all of his money in there before the flop, he doesn't have to stand the heat after he misses. This is a very similar mistake to moving all-in on a guy with a big 4-flush draw on the flop -- it is much better to make a reasonable bet instead of moving all-in, and see if he misses the turn in order to REALLY put him to the test.
I really don't like a CALL for a material portion of your stack here with TT against tough player. Even if you put him on overcards, you don't know which overcards. An Ace, King, or Queen would certainly be unwelcome on the flop, but a Jack may also be scary. If he is a tough player, he will probably bet if a paint flops and you check. If he checks beind you, he gets another chance to hit his card or another scare card. In other words, you will be in a guessing game on the flop.
In that sense, I disagree with Earl. I think it is a raise-or-fold scenario since you will be in such a precarious situation on the flop. While I dn't like to Call when I am at best facing a 50/50 proposition, I love to raise and turn the tables on the other guy. By raising, you are reversing the tough decision and forcing him to call as a slight dog, slight favorite, or big dog.
Of course, this thought process assumes that his 2000 bet represents a material raise of your big blind. If you already have 800 or more in the BB, I would simply call the bet and proceed as Earl advocates. However, I don't think you can check-fold to any overcard, and I might even bet out unless an Ace or King hits.
I thought I would comment on just a couple of issues raised by your post.
Yvan C. wrote: >After some thought I decided to go all in.
I wouldn't be surprised if a large part of the reason he called is because you thought about it for a while. If you look at your cards and go all-in pretty quickly, he's going to fold this hand if he's good. After you think about it for a while, he puts you on a small or medium pair or an A that's not AK. If you had been dealt AA, KK, or QQ, you probably wouldn't have had to think so much. Admittedly, this is a process that can be used against players, but if he doesn't know you, he will likely think this way.
>I definitely believe he would have fold at a major >tournament.
Who knows. However, he should play the hand the same way under the circumstances (which includes his assessment of you) no matter what the tournament pays. Thus, whether first prize is 2K or 200K, if the payout is proportionally the same, then the right play is still the right play. While it's very true that the high money does scare some players, a truly good player will make the same decision.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
About 3 months ago on this forum, skp was discussing the merits of limping and then reraising with small pairs. I agreed to try it out and then report back with any results.
First off, I was surprised at how infrequently the situation came up. This experiment was limited to early position, holding 55 thru 99, and getting a late raise. It just didn't happen that often. The number of opportunities was also less than expected since this was only tried at 5-10 and 4-8 limits. I've been playing more 10-20 and a little 20-40, but am not very adventurous there.
Got 2 great results with the play. Once with 88 vs a very aware/observant player. Flopped a set, but no A or K ever came up. I led and he called on the flop, turn, and river. He saw and mentally recorded the limp reraise with the 88. The other time was in a tight casino 4-8 game. I reraised with 66. Flop had an A. I bet the flop and turn and the preflop raiser folded.
The 2 other times, I folded later in the hand. One pot was multi-way and in the other one the preflop raiser continued to show real strength.
I have continued to limp (and try for a reraise) about half the time with AA and KK. Hopefully, my regular opponents will have some doubt as to whether this means AA or 77.
Has anyone else had good or bad results with this play? Are there other long term benefits or dangers?
Abe
What Typically do you buy in with when sitting down at these games? I would figure 20-30 times max bet but would like some other peoples opinions. What are some average swings (wins vs loses at this level of play?
When I play $5-$10 Stud at the Taj or Trop I buy in for $200 and dig into my wallet if I get down to $50 in chips, or so. I NEVER EVER EVER go all-in in a money game. Bring around $400-$500 or so with you to the table.
In 1to5 stud i buy in for 50$. In 5/10 he i buy in for 100$ and bring more money out of my pocket after the blinds go by, however some peope never like to go all in.
I agree, you should never go "all-in". What a shame to have a "monster hand" and not be able to win a big pot. Even if you win, you lose money (the $$ you would have won).
To prevent this from happening, I usually have cash under my chips. Example, I buy in for $100, but if my stack goes down to $60 or so, I'll take some cash out of my wallet and put it under the chips. If I run out of chips during a hand, the cash is "in-play".
Jack.
P.S To answer original question, I buy in for $100 & $150 respectively for 1-5 & 5-10 games.
Mike:
Phil's advice is pretty solid. 200$ is a good starting buy in for 5-10. For 1-5, I think about 120$ is a good estimate. You could certainly lose your whole buy-in pretty quick if you catch some big hands that get beat, but it usually doesn't happen that way. You still need extra $$ just in case you get a bad run of cards. My recommendations, based on my own experience:
If I'm down to less than 100$ in 5-10, I will buy at least 50$ more in chips. I like to have a minimum of 150$ at the start of any 5-10 stud hand. If I catch a monster, I want to be able to jam the pot with big bets!
In 1-5, if I am down to 50$ I will probably buy in for at least another 50$. It just doesn't pay to have to go all-in, so have sufficient cash on the table to play your cards.
The swings can be large in these games, but I find that holdem at the same limits is more volatile. 1-5 you could easily lose 100$ in a couple of hands. Once in 1-5 I lost with (AA)KK (on 4th), then lost with rolled up queens the very next hand I played, 10 minutes later. Since I really bet my hands, I was out 100$ in a very short time. In 5-10, I have had 550$ swings from the furthest down to the most up, and finished near even. Luckily, these big swings are not that common. Typical 5-10 swings for me are about 150$ either way, barring some occasionall big wins. (last week, 600$ in six hours! I wish that would happen all the time!). My biggest losses by far have been in 5-10 holdem, not stud.
Does anyone else think these are reasonable estimates? please elaborate if you think differently....
Dave in Cali
Thanks to everyone who has responded. I've played home games for years where the limits are $1 (sometimes up to $5). I usually do very well and have been reading up alot on playing here lately. I want to play some higher limit games but it is hard to find around Tulsa.
The $5-$10 Stud at the Sands has a 50 cent ante and a $2 bring-in on third street. 4th Street is $5 and 5th Street is $10.
However, 6th and 7th street betting rounds are in increments of $15. Does anyone have any general advice on how to adjust for this structure???
This game fascinates me but I am still not sure how to play optimally compared to a normal $5-$10 game. All comments are welcome.
I don't think you can let the structure affect you here. If you begin to fold too much on sixth and seventh street, you are bound to lose money. What do you think?
the structure will affect all sorts of things. the increased implied odds will help your draws. so taking a card off when you miss on fourth street will be correct more often than the customary 60%. also trying for a free card on 6th st., i.e. raising on fifth street, becomes a better play than it is under typical structure. perhaps you should hold your slow plays all the way to 6th, something that is rarely correct normally. of course, when making decisions to bluff, call a possible bluff, or value bet on end the larger bet changes the percentages some. however, the biggest thing you will be able to take advantage of is the other players incorrectly adjusting to the new structure. one player will stay in with less to have a shot at the bigger bets. another will be easy to bluff late in hands because the $15 bet scares him (noticing this tendency is extremely profitable). one guy might think everyone will fold to the larger bet and will bluff with anything.
other than adjusting for the increased implied odds, i don't think that you need to change much. slow plays are rare and, about the free card, 10/5 is greater than 15/10, so the free card on 5th for a raise on 4th is still a better deal. i hope this helps.
-scott
Hold'em ring game in casino: Is anyone at the table likely to object if I write down my starting hands in a notebook while at the table? Should I ask or just do it?
No one is likely to object, but it may not be a good idea for other reasons.
First, you may be labeled as a pro, even if you are not. The regulars may not give you as much action, especially if they think you are only playing for the $$$.
Second, you may be questioned about "what are you writing down, can I see it?".
Third, you may become unpopular if people get the wrong idea about what you may be writing down. While popularity isn't everything, a well liked player is likely to get more action. Just watch how tight even the weakest players get when someone who is disliked is winning their $$.
Of course these are just my opinions, some will probably disagree. You can keep a notebook, but don't over do it at the table. I often walk away to write stuff down, mostly because I don't want anyone to question me about what I'm writing. Keep the details of poker strategy to yourself. Write down the most important good (and bad) plays you make in a session, you don't need to remember every single hand.
Dave in Cali
Dave - Thanks. I wasn't aware of those negative ramifications. Too bad, though.
Kate, I've made notes at the table for years. I try not to be real obvious about it and every now and then someone will ask me what I write down. And I tell them. About once an hour I summarize the previous hour's play. Number of hands played, won, general character of the table, etc. It hasn't caused a problem yet.
DJ
Just do it. If someone doesn't like it, too bad for them. However, the lost action as mentioned in one of the replies above is a consideration (sometimes it might help you, however).
I would recommend keeping your notebook on a drink table next to you. That way it's below table level, and out of sight of everyone but the player on that side of you. You can just lean over a little and jot down your notes. When not writing, I recommend turning the notepad upside down, so no one sees what you're writing (they might be offended if they recognize themselves in the description that "seat 4 is loose, weak, and plays every hand, but you can easily bluff him on the river".
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg, Good idea. I was just planning to write down my starting hands, position, # callers in front, whether raised, and what I did (call, fold, raise). Maybe when I get comfortable with that and stop making beginner mistakes I can get more ambitious. Thanks, Kate
K't: Watch out for info overload. The Q? I always asked myself was "If I have to refer to my notes am I really giving a tell that a good player could use against me?" I found simplifing and working a instant recall techniques confused opponents after I made a few notes early in the game.
I've come up with a game which I call figleaf holdem. It's holdem with one of the two start cards turned up, so the start is exactly as for five-card stud. Then follows the flop and sixth and seventh as usual, with each player having only one hole card at the end.
I can't see it in any lists of variations, but it looks interesting. If anyone is interested in trying it out, let me know how it plays.
David Zanetti.
Sounds interesting, I shall try it at my next wild home game. A possible variation: make the river another down card for everyone instead of a 5th board card, so everyone has two down cards at the end! (possible problem - complaints about "miracle cards" will go way, way up!)
One thing about the structure you suggested is that you will be able to narrow down your opponent's hand much further if he has only 1 unknown card.
I shall let you know how it plays....
Dave in Cali
Here's a play I made in 5-10 stud, wondering what you guys thought...
I have (AsKs)Ac on 3rd. Bring in is 2$, next player raises with an Ad. Another calls, I reraise, both call, three players.
4th I catch a Kc, Ad catches another diamond. I am high, I bet 5, Ad raises 5, other player folds, I reraised, he called.
On 5th he caught a third diamond, I catch trash, I bet, he called.
On 6th he catches a fourth diamond, the king, I catch trash. He is now high, one of his diamonds is higher than my two rags. He bets, I call.
7th I catch nothing. He bets, I call. I decided the pot was too big for me to fold. I thought he played his hand more like an unimproved big pair than a flush, so I doubted that he had it. Some (but not all) of the diamonds were dead.
It turns out that I was right, he had (Ahxh) in the hole and his aces never made two pair, and he didn't fill the flush on the river. I made the right call but did I use the right reasoning to get there? Comments on the play of this hand?
Dave in Cali
It sounds like you played it right to me. You put him on either a big pocket pair or the other two aces. If he had a big pocket pair, one of them might be a diamond, one might not be. The key here is that with four diamonds on the board, your opponent will bluff enough times to make calling profitable. Unless your opponent is timid and never bluffs, you should call. You will run into a flush sometimes, but he's gonna have to show it to you. I'm not going to lay down a strong had such as AAKK, especially when his previous betting actions led me to believe that he wasn't going for diamonds.
I'm doing some research on poker history and evolution and am wondering if anyone can tell me when seven card stud first appeared. My understanding is that it became popular in the early sixties, but was it around for a while before that?
The dates of appearance of holdem and omaha will be easier, but has anyone got the exact year? And any info on who invented the games.
And what is the current status of five card stud. Is it only a home game now, or is it still spread in casinos?
david Zanetti.
There is (very rarely) a 5cs game in atlantic city. This game plus 10-20 draw are occasionally spread (if there's enough players for a list). It is still played in some dealer's choice home games that I have participated in. The old timers tend to like these games more than 7 card stud or holdem.
There are stripped deck variations of 5-card stud that make appearances in the cardrooms - Asian Stud and Mexican Stud are a couple that I've seen.
In general, though, 5-card stud is not played much, even in home games. It's too boring and its strategy is too abvious for most players.
I remember playing 7 card stud on a pool table while in the army in the mid fifties.It may be older then that? Hold-em was played in Washington state around 80-87.I have heard that hold-em was played in the northwest before Ca but dont know for sure.
If playing stud on a pool table and your cards fall into a pocket are these your hole cards? Get it? ha ha
I believe hold'em dates much further back than that. I was told it was invented in Texas - not just a clever name :-) - and may have been played during the early part of this century.
Chris Van Zele writes: "I believe hold'em dates much further back than that. I was told it was invented in Texas - not just a clever name :-) - and may have been played during the early part of this century. "
I'm absolutely amazed that both 7cs and holdem have pretty long histories. It seems incredible that two games which are now so popular were for so long playing second fiddle to five-card stud and draw. I
Can anyone point me to a book which covers this stuff?? IE poker evolution. .
I thought 7CS ("down the river") was a 1800s river boat game. I have a history of poker somewhere but couldn't find it. I believe poker came to be played in a fashion somewhat similar to its modern day form first in Louisiana through the influence of brag and poke from France. Later it was spread to the north in the US via the American civil war and then back to Europe during WWI. Maybe if you do some research on brag or poke you will find concrete info.
Me: K2KQ is garbage, even double suited. I'd consider it in an unraised small blind.
Badger: Well now... KsQsKd2c is an extremely profitable hand in a typical Omaha8 ring game! It is high variance though. You won't hit the flop very often, so it's not much of a hand in a tournament in the circumstances you were in. The advice in this thread though seems geared more generically, and IMO, is way off base. KK is a very prime Omaha8 hand, if it has any other decent values to go with it, which in this case KQ and the suit are. Love this hand for one bet on the button with a full table of limpers. The more out of position with less people for the more bets, the worse it is. But it should generally be played.
Me: Paint pairs are quite marginal hands in Omaha-8. In the rare cases you flop a set, you have to have it not lose to straights, flushes or higher sets, and when you do win you'll often only get half the pot. Also, these hands are tough to release accurately and as such frequently have to pay off when beaten. Suited kings are worth little in a loose O-8 game, and suited queens or jacks are worth close to nothing. KQ makes few straights, and many of those will lose to flushes and fulls in multiway pots. When you have very strong redraws, like KsQsKdJd, then the hand would be playable. Pot-limit Omaha players know that KQJ has far more straight potential than KQ; two-straights add very little value to a hand. Changing the jack to an offsuit deuce significantly reduces your straight and flush potential. Also, if you flop top two pair with QJ, you would have a strong hand in most games in many situations. Two pair with Q2 usually goes right in the muck unless the game is tight (in which case you should find another game).
Badger: This question is KK, not QQ or JJ. The difference between these three hands is very large -- IMO, something like the differance between (KK)100 and (QQ) 40 and (JJ)15.
Me: It isn't as large as you think, since in a loose game you need to hit your set.
Badger: KKQ2 double suited is even better than what I posted on (only one suit). This hand will scoop about 150% the amount of pots a random hand will when played against a 9-handed field. (It'll scoop about 10% of the time, and get half another 10% or so.)
Me: Showdown simulations are basically worthless. The question is also how much a hand wins when it wins and loses when it loses. When you flop a set in a pot that was unraised preflop and there is only one low card on board, you get won't much action. You'll only get significant action when low cards hit the board and on many of those hands you'll lose to flushes or low straights or at least only get half the pot.
Badger: The hand has enormous positive value, especially is a person plays well and makes sensible laydowns like when a flop is 776 and it's two bets to you. You just can't turn down a hand that scoops at such a high rate.
Me: It scoops small pots and loses ones that cost it several bets. Low draws and suited aces benefit from multiway action, while hands like this don't play well against large fields.
Who is right?
Hi Dan,
I am not Ray, but I thought I'd give you the following info.
KKsQs2 is not ready to be played too frequently. Your comment, "I'd consider it in the SB" is about right. Even KsQsKdJd, while playable (raisable), needs to be played carefully, and against strong competition is marginal, for the reasons you said.
I did some sims of KsQsKdJd, they were very interesting:
Strong player, strong field (dups of strong player): Small losses. .3 of a small bet per hand played.
Average player, average field: Small losses. Strong player, avg to weak field: Gains of .7 small bet per hand. Avg player, avg to weak field: Gains of .2 small bet.
Overall, it scoops about 13%, splits about 6% and no calls on starting raise about 6%. But losses to flushes and full houses are large, especially with sets and straights. It must be played very well to win.
Mark
First, Ray Zee is out of town. He should be back to the forum in approximately 10 days.
When playing Omaha 8 you generally want all four cards coordinated together. However, in late position, and this would include the small blind, if you can get in cheaply, you can play some hands for profit where only three cards are working together. This looks like one of those hands. So it becomes a marginal play if the conditions are right, especially if the game is good. On the other hand, if you never played it (or similar hands) you can't be costing yourself very much, and if your judgement is wrong, they may be costing you money.
See High Low Split Poker for Advanced Players for more discussion.
"When playing Omaha 8 you generally want all four cards coordinated together. However, in late position, and this would include the small blind, if you can get in cheaply, you can play some hands for profit where only three cards are working together. This looks like one of those hands. So it becomes a marginal play if the conditions are right, especially if the game is good. On the other hand, if you never played it (or similar hands) you can't be costing yourself very much, and if your judgement is wrong, they may be costing you money. See High Low Split Poker for Advanced Players for more discussion."
In HLSFAP, there are some examples of hands that might become playable in late position of unraised pots with many players in. Those examples are all two-way hands. In sections referring to high hands, HLSFAP emphasizes the importance of having the hand fully connected. This is presumably because you need the extra flush and/or straight potential to make paint pairs profitable. With KsQsKd2c, the queen and the suited king add very little value to the hand. I always fold a paint pair with nothing else in loose games, in accordance with HLSFAP. Are you suggesting that hands like KK93 rainbow are playable for one bet in late position of loose-passive games?
There is a limit to weak hands becoming profitable even against several bad opponents who are totally passive and call too much on and after the flop. However, something emphasized in the new edition of 7CSFAP is that a significant number of additional hands can be played in that type of game. Many otherwise solid players miss those opportunities and cost themselves a lot of profit. What about in Omaha-8; in late position of an unraised pot against a crowd of passive calling stations, can you loosen up more than HLSFAP's recommendations for "playing in loose games"? What additional hands would you play in this spot?
Dan, Mark, Mason, (Badger?),
I've always avoided calling for a full bet in any situation what many call the "three legged horse" Omaha H/L hand. Of course KKQx is about as good a three legged horse one would ever get. So maybe this is playable if everything is perfect. I'm no Badger.
My question is this. When comparing a hand like this (KKQ2) to one that coordinates (e.g., KKQJ), I look at the former hand as having about half the value of the latter hand. Is this a relatively valid rule of thumb?
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Badger, if you come in and flame me, can you be a little more verbose?
Post deleted at author's request.
Question? I play in Biloxi with a jackpot of four Js or better beat would this type of hand be more playable for no ,raise with KsKQ2s. Would it add to your calling frequency. With a jackpot consideration.
There was a recent thread with talk about a marginal 7cs hand. I played such a hand for a nice profit, but I was the bring in, so it was a bit different situation (5-10 stud).
3rd) I have (44)2 and bring it in for 2$, three other players just call.
4th) I catch a third four. Ace high, who didn't raise on 3rd, bets 5$. Two callers, I raise. One folds, others call.
5th) Ace is still high, catches a jack, bets again! I catch a blank. One caller, I raise again. Both call, three players.
6th) I catch an ace, ace catches a blank, other player has a three flush. Both check to me, I bet, both call.
7th) Both check to me, I bet again. Both call. Aces and queens for the one player, trip threes made on the river when his flush busted out for the other. I win a nice pot.
This is the perfect situation for the small pairs, no kicker: Get in cheaply and make trips on 4th, otherwise fold. If I had made two pair here, I would have probably folded, as it's not worth chasing. If the ace had not slowplayed his big pair on 3rd street, I would have never been in the pot at all, as I would have folded for a raise!
Comments welcome....
Dave in Cali
PS: on 3rd, I also had a TWO FLUSH!!!!! Oh joy!!!!
Dave,
You lucked out. You played this hand because you had to. You luckily made a hand on forth street. Because you were the bring in, your hand was even more deceptive. In general, however, these hands are probably best played in late position when you are sure you won't face a raise. As the bring in, you are the most likely to face a raise. You may then have to either fold, especially if you fear a reraise, or call as you were already were forced to bet once and the pot is now big enough to justify a call. This latter point I'm not too sure I understand as I don't see throwing good money after bad especially early on. I do, however, understand going in for at one more bet when you were merely forced to bet in the first place. Again, it may require being in late position.
Rich
You wrote:
"I do, however, understand going in for at one more bet when you were merely forced to bet in the first place. Again, it may require being in late position".
How big would you want the pot before calling a raise in 5-10 or 10-20? (Obviously the raise costs proportionately more in 10-20). Up till now, I have almost always folded without any question. The chance of a reraise made it an absolute no doubt decision. Pass in early position.
My policy has been to fold the bring-in if raised, in 1-5, 5-10, and my occasional 10-20. If any of these guys would have raised on 3rd, I would have folded and wrote off 2$ as a small loss.
I agree that coming in late with little or no chance of a raise makes it worth it to see 4th with these hands. Once you see 4th, it's either trips or hit the road, two pair ain't gonna cut it.
Does this sound reasonable? any other comments?
Seems reasonable to me. I do not know how much money would have to be in the pot for me to call. My gut reaction is that too many bets spells disaster for my hand, because someone's betting something good.
This is a hand played on Planet Poker this week with my poker student. My 15/30 - 20/40 Commerce player friend thinks I made a mistake and I’ll let you decide who is right.
We enter a 5/10 holdem game and post a blind to the right of the button, as does a player to our right. We get dealt an AJo, Two players limp, the other blind checks, we check, the button calls as do both blinds. Note that in Planet Poker (in the absence of other information) the games play a little tighter than most games.
The flop comes J 4 3 rainbow. It is checked to us, we bet, button folds, SB calls, BB checkraises, others fold, and we three bet it. Both SB and BB call.
The turn is an offsuit seven. They check, we bet, both opponents call.
River is an eight. They check and we check it down.
My question concerns checking it down on the river. I thought that against two opponents who have called against that much pressure with no apparent draws (wouldn’t a 65 have raised the turn?), we no longer had a reasonable value bet. My friend thinks we had a solid bet on the river. Comments, flames, etc. are welcome.
BTW, comments on my flop play are welcome but this is not the main point of this post.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Yeah, I know all about the problems with the random number generator on PP (refer to the Exchange). It still is a great teaching tool and we are mostly sticking to the lower limits.
I agree with the check on the river. The BB could have had a hand that beat you. He check-raised on the flop, right? I believe if you bet on the river and were called you would have lost the hand. Futhermore, if their hand is no good they would have not called the river bet so I don't see the value in betting.
I would bet. The reason I would do that is because you have to look at it from the other players' perspective. Most players (correctly) do not fold on the River with a weaker Jack or even 2nd pair. As well, if the fellow hit 2 pair on the River he would likely bet because he may fear that you may just check down a good Jack.
In low limit games, people are always griping about being drawn out on the river. Well, one of the ways to combat that is to make sure you value bet a lot more on the River because you will get crying calls with weak hands even when the weak hands don't go on to improve.
I gotta go to court and can't comment in more detail. BTW, I would also bet the River in the other hand where you had the K,10.
Thanks for all the responses.
We checked the river but I indicated to my student I thought it was close. A big factor in my decision to check was that I was up against two opponents and there was no draw out there that wasn't already made before the river (I'm thinking of the 65). Had we dropped one opponent before the river, I would definitely want to fire out a river bet just about no matter what comes.
That being said, with skp, David Steele, FossilMan, and Louie providing convincing reasons to bet, I think I'll be a little more aggressive next time.
Regards,
Rick
I would normally bet the river here and I agree with what skp posted.
David
One of the main points here is that all three players essentially saw the flop for free (admittedly, the SB had to put in some more money, but there were 6.5 bets out there when he called, so he knows he's getting great pot odds for almost any hand).
Given this, it is VERY hard to put anyone on a hand. The BB could easily have a J weaker than AJ. He could also have 34 for 2-pair, and your 3-bet scared him into thinking you had J3, J4, or better (it's not like you really called preflop). Thus, in my mind, the reasons for betting the river revolve around the relative likelihoods of KJ or worse vs. 34 or better, both of which will probably call you. As for the SB, I put him on something like 75 calling for a gutshot and the size of the pot (although your 3-bet should have folded him).
Overall, I would bet here. It's close, but there is the advantage that if you don't bet, it makes it easier for the opponent to more correctly fold in the future when you bet stronger hands than this. Betting hands that actually lose a very little when called is overall maybe the right place to draw the line.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Do not fear the 8. ANY card can make the blinds 2-pair.
You are correct that your main fear was whether or not you had the best hand going into the river. Yes, the only real draw got there when the 7 hit.
I'd have bet it. They should have put more action in if they had 2-pair, and you are new and they are suspitious. In fact, I'd have bet no matter what card came on the river. Any card can make 2-pair, and if someone called all the way with a stiff K or Q, well, nice hand and he deserves another bet.
- Louie
Here is another hand from Planet Poker and again my mid limit Commerce player friend thinks I’m wrong.
We (my student and I) have only been playing a while against what appears to be typical medium tight (for 3/6 holdem) Planet Poker players. We call four limpers with a KTs on the button. The SB folds and BB checks.
The flop comes a K 8 3 rainbow. It is checked to us and we bet. All fold except the player on our right who had just entered the game (so we knew nothing about him).
The turn is an ace (I forget if it was suited). Our opponent checks and we decide to check. My reasoning was that I am in an “either or” position. By this I mean I am “either“ already beat (most likely by a better king or an ace) or I still lead and am not too vulnerable to free cards. My friend (who is eating me out of house and home as I write) agrees with the check.
The river is a nine (no flush possible). My opponent checks. This time I won’t give away what I did. Should I check or bet the river?
Regards,
Rick
Bet the river, after trhe check on the turn any thing that has you beat would have bet the river.
oops, after reading Badger's responce I went back and read the oringinal post again. I misread it the first time; I agree with Badger.
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger,
"A somewhat revenue neutral question." Did you work for the government in a former life? Anyway, it sounds like you are saying it is close.
"Betting just adds variance." Good thought here. I think there could be a worthwhile thread on how to reduce your variance * (which is important if on a short bankroll for the limit, in tournaments a lot of the time, and so on). Obviously this is such a situation.
Keep Posting,
Rick
* I realize David and Mason have written about this, but I'm thinking of listing more specific techniques. It is a worthwhile subject in view of what John Feeney has written about moving up in his recent essay. If you are a 15/30 - 20/40 player and comfortable at that limit, and the 40/80 sometimes looks juicy but just a little too big, then it is very worthwhile.
I agree. Similarly, I think simply calling a bettor down with TT on a T44Q2 board is the way to go too. It's pretty revenue neutral, sometimes you'd win an extra bet if you raise, sometimes lose a couple more if you don't have the best hand. Just call 'em down and hope he doesn't have 44 or QQ.
Since you have no information about your opponent, a check is reasonable on the turn (since you could be check-raised). But, if you bet on the river, you may be called since you showed weakness on the turn by not betting. So, I would also check the river.
Mah,
You wrote: "But, if you bet on the river, you may be called since you showed weakness on the turn by not betting. So, I would also check the river.
In general, doesn't it seem that after you have shown weakness on the turn (by checking behind), and your opponent still checks the river, you should be more inclined to bet a marginal hand since he would tend to bet more of his half-decent hands (fearing that he would lose a bet). This of course applies mostly to situations where there are no likely draws out there.
Regards,
Rick
I know that you posed the question to Mah but I'll answer it as well: "Absolutely".
If your opponents hand was better than yours, he would have raised you on the flop? Do you really want him to call you on the river? If you bet that hand on the river do you think he would have called? What's the point. I don't get it.
Mah,
"If your opponents hand was better than yours, he would have raised you on the flop?"
I think most better hands (I'm thinking AK, KQ or KJ) or even worse kings would have bet the flop from my immediate right. If they were slowplaying a big hand like a set, they might check the turn. But once we checked behind they would have to bet the river or else fear losing a bet.
"Do you really want him to call you on the river?"
Yes. Remember, this is 3/6 holdem. Many hands will call that you can beat after you showed weakness on a previous betting round.
"If you bet that hand on the river do you think he would have called? What's the point. I don't get it."
Read FossilMan's reply below. He hits it on the head IMHO.
Regards,
Rick
I say check the river, that way you avoid being wrong in your judgement. You already get to show it down for free, and a bet may be check-raised. You have a marginal hand at best (and you may be beat), so just showing down and possibly winning a small pot is not a bad end result for this hand.
Rick,
It depends on how often you bluff the river in this situation. If you do tend to bluff, then tend towards value betting the river.
hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Albert,
(Note: I tried to post this message this morning but my connection was bad.)
In general, I tend to induce a lot of bluffs which to an extent was what I was trying to do by checking the turn.
I rarely make a pure bluff in a situation where I think my opponent has something (what else could he have on the flop?), I have shown weakness on the turn, and he has already checked to me which often indicates he is in a "calling mode". Besides, what kind of bluffing hands could I have with this flop?
Regards,
Rick
Hi,
I read all the responses which say "check the river." Ok, that is ok. But betting against SOME weak players ALWAYS wins an extra bet, their check of the turn AND river means they lose but will call, especially in 3/6 or 4/8.
Mark
I would likely bet unless I thought it was very timid player or an exceptionally tricky one. The opponent has shown just a little too much weakness to let this go by check-check and will quite possibly call with an 8 or some other worse pair.
David
I think a bet here would be profitable. Typical players would most likely bet a hand that could beat you here. They will also call you down with almost any pair after your check on the turn thinking that you may be bluffing the end. Unless this is a really tricky player (obviously you did not have any info on this particular opponent), I would bet the river.
Just my opinions.
Rob
If I were your opponent, I would put you on an 8. While I realize that other hands cannot be excluded (including the one you actually have), your check on the turn makes a K less likely (even with the A falling). I certainly don't put you on an A. Thus, I am going to call the river with any hand that beats an 8, and some that don't (you also might have only a 3, so pocket pairs 44-77 also become calling hands here, IMO). Thus, you should bet the river for value, figuring that more than half the hands that call you will lose.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I would bet the river for two reasons:
1. Value, expecting to earn an additional bet from someone with an 8, 9 , or a pair who thinks I might be stealing.
2. To give me some protection in future scenarios when I want (need) to steal on the river.
If I get check-raised from the Ace who has the discipline to check it twice, I start looking for a table move, cause this crowd is too tough for a typical 3/6 game.
Bet! Bet the turn! This is a 3-6 game. YOu did not raise pre-flop so the player on your right isn't "scared" of your hand. If he had flopped top pair (ie. K) he most likely would have bet it. Thus, he probably does not have top pair so he either has "something goofy" or a BIG hand (a flopped set). When the ace hits the turn bet! Many many 3-6 players will call your flop bet with underpair, three flush or any other number of goofy hands. He might have an ace, but my tendency will be to bet the turn and check the river. Or... bet the turn AND the river depending on the player. I realize you said you know nothing about him, but c'mon he just pulled into a 3-6 game he PROBABLY is making a lot of bad decisions.
If you get check-raised on the turn... fold. Then on the river you either check it down or bet again depending upon your knowledge of the player.
Regards, Dave Scharf
Thanks again for the responses.
I thought this was an easy bet on the river. I couldn't imagine most players with a better hand checking a second time after we checked the turn (the exeption may be a better king, but wouldn't such a hand bet the flop?).
I agree with FossilMan that any hand that can beat an eight would call us and perhaps a worse hand would too.
Anyway, it seems about four to two in favor of betting (I won't count people who change their mind after a mere WSOP champion weighs in :-) ).
In the final analysis, my friend and I split but he still ate me out of house and home.
Regards,
Rick
I check the river. I'm not much on river betting with margunal hands. The biggest problem I see with your play during this hand is just calling preflop. It seems to me that the most correct play would be to raise!
Vince.
A few friends and I were discussing how to play quads when you flop them.
Both of them came right out with the idea that you should check all the way down to the river if you have to, hoping someone will make a hand and be able to pay you off.
My take on the situation is somewhat different. I want to bet the hand right down to the river, hoping someone will pay me just to draw to the hand that they will then have to pay me off with when they get there.
Thoughts?
You have to whatever is necessary to get the pot as big as possible. I wouldn't start raising until the big bets come around, let everyone get a nice little hand going first....
It might be "time to raise" on the turn, depending on the action. Otherwise, you hope to get in a raise on the river.
I would at least get one bet in on the flop if everyone checked to me and I was last. Someone might accidentally have a hand, or someone might feel like chasing in a loose game....
Of course, It's entirely possible you might make more $$ by overcalling the whole way, it all just depends on the situation. Do whatever it takes to build a giant pot.
Hope you have to deal with this situation often....
Dave in Cali
It's a function of the board, how many opponents you have and their inclination to call with junk (whether because they think you're a thief or otherwise) or bet when you show weakness. Even against one opponent willing to do neither you should often bet because of its effect on your image, including how the rest of the table will perceive you. Remember that slowplaying can not only cost you bets on that round but also future pots against players that "know" you can't have the nuts. Also note that if your opponent can hit a big hand with only two cards to come, he often already has a little something with which to call and, further, that nobody but a completely clueless opponent is going to put in a bunch of bets for value at the end with a board pair staring at him and you suddenly leaping out of the trees.
If I flopped quads often enough to have a tendency here it would be to bet with terrifying or junky flops (e.g. AJJ and 622) because my opponents won't believe it and with other flops of which my opponents might have a little piece (e.g. 877 two-suited).
The harder question is "what difference does it make?" Flopped quads are so rare that the money you make off them (in limit poker) can't have much effect on your earn. So don't argue over it.
The other two posts were good ones. Your inclination to make them pay to MAKE the hand is a good one.
The flop is KK2 and there are 2 weak-tights in the game?, well be happy if you get even one bet so check-along ("come-onnnnn Ace").
The flop is T9s9 and there are 5 passive callers? Who didn't get a gut shot to that flop? Be inclined to win a very large pot.
- Louie
Good timing on this post, cause I was just going to put up a question on a similar topic.
Saturday night 5-10 loose home game. I am the sb with two red nines. Four limpers to me. I call as does the bb. Six of us see the flop of all black 9 9 5. My check was followed by all check. Turn is a red A. I checked again--as did everyone else. River was a red K. I bet and got one call.
I felt terrible about this. Haven't played a hand this bad since Junior High School. My action on every street I now think was wrong. Worst is the check on the flop. With this many preflop callers, probably someone will have something.
What are others opinions on betting out from the blind, and also the number of other players still to act?
You think that's bad...check this one out:
BB in a 5 way pot holds 9s6s. Flop is 5s7s8s. He checks. Everyone checks.
Turn: 8d. He checks. Everyone checks.
River: Js
Our hero figures that this must make someone happy. He checks. Everyone checks until the button who thinks about it for a sec and just flips over his Qs and says "send it". Our Hero then shows his straight flush. Button looks at him and says "you built it, you take it".
On your play, I think a check on the flop is fine particularly if the flop was a rainbow one. However, as I think you realize, you have to at least bet the turn when no one bets the flop. If someone has a weak Ace, they may not necessarily bet (fearing someon's sandbagging a 9) but they will most likely call (or even raise).
Wow! That is an ugly hand. Flop the straight flush and then have the three rounds all checked. I don't think you were the button QQ in that hand either. You would have raised preflop, and probably bet the flop too.
What about this thought on the quads flop. Doesn't betting out (especially from early position) INTO A LARGE FIELD kind of announce that you have a trip card? And obviously (only to you) no one else does.
skp, thanks for looking at this with me.
Abe
It depends on the texture of the flop. If I have 99 and the flop is 998 with two clubs, I don't mind betting. But if the flop is 995 rainbow, I would have to check aginst a large field.
i flopped quad sevens in a 6-12 game at the mirage in vegas...a pretty tough game. i was in first position with 3 people behind me. i checked and everyone checked around. the turn was a low card...i checked and everyone checked again. the river brought a queen...i bet...3 queens called me.. i dont think i could have made any more money by betting on earlier rounds
Obviously, correct play of quads depends on position, magnitude of the quads, character of the table, character of the flop and preflop betting. Generally .... with a KK2 flop ... check to the river. with a k22 flop ... UTG check, on the button bet the flop
if it's checked around ... and call with a 766 2 suited flop, bet out ... many will put you
on a 7 or a str8 or flush draw or a single 6
when they have a str8 or flush draw or overpair
One of the largest *headup* pots I've seen resulted from a loose player coming out firing UTG with a J66 flop. Another player had AJ and caught a J on the turn. He put the other player on a single 6 simply because he did bet out UTG. He thot that with Quads, he'd slowplay.
5-10 must move game. Four 10-20 regulars are in the game.
I have AsJs in middle position. One limper, I raise, one call, button calls, both blinds call. 5 players.
Flop is Jh7s5h. Checked to me, I bet. Button and both blinds call, 4 players.
Turn is 10d. Checked to me, I bet. Button folds, SB (10-20 regular) check-raises me. BB fold, I call, Heads up.
My read is that he is bluffing. I suspect he may have bluffed me out of an earlier pot, but he never showed his hand so I wasn't sure. I thought he had to be bluffing by the way he played. The turn did not fill anyone's draws, and if he had JT, there is no way he wouldn't have bet on the flop. He was a pretty aggressive player and I was sure he would have bet. the only hand he could have had was JT, and he Didn't have it. Or so I decided....
River is the Qh. I might really be beat now, but I'm calling him down anyway.... The pot was pretty big and I wasn't making another critical mistake! He bets, I call. He had Ad7d.
Comments?
Dave in Cali
Dave:
The biggest problem I see with your opponent's play is that the events before the turn makes it difficult for him him to represent anything besides a semibluff, and with this board there are a lot of semibluffing hands out there. On the other hand, he might not care because the vast majority of the cards left in the deck (everything except a 4, 3, or 2) might have induced you to either check behind him or fold, which gives him a certain flexibility on the river.
But overall I like his play because (1) if your earlier laydown were evidence that you were timid or afraid of him, he might have gotten you to lay down a better hand; (2) if you were bluffing or semi-bluffing here, he would either have picked up a good-sized pot on the turn or won it later while making an indelible impression on you; (3) if you were really suspicious of him based on your prior play (I guess you were), you might have just called him with nothing. Good for you for picking hm off because he probably won't be trying to run over you even in spots where he really ought to be trying.
Maybe his mistake was in representing his hitting a double gutshot on the turn because these are so hard to see. ;-).
Am I the only one that thought "set" when he check-raised?
I think he played the hand very poorly. If he was going to check-raise he should have done it on the flop since he's likely to have the better hand AND he's likely beat if you bet the turn (people bet weak hands MUCH more often on the flop). His turn-check raise was bad since if you don't have a pair to pay him off with, you surely have at least a 2-overcard gut shot and are going to call. His bet on the end wasn't so bad since now you MAY lay down your JJs or TTs now that the Q hit.
Nice read figuring he'll attempt another bluff.
Are you SURE he didn't pick up a 4-flush on the turn?
- Louie
Most players in the 5-10 games I have played in will play a set just like this. That being said, you obviously knew your opponent and rightly called him down.
Danny S
He did not pick up a four flush on the turn, that I remember clearly.
As for his having a set, if he had played like he really had a set he might have been successful in getting me to lay down again. He could have easily check-raised on the flop. When he checked and called on the flop, I had no reason to suspect he had anything but a draw.
I agree he played badly, which is the main reason I got suspicious and called him down. He was actually one of the BETTER players in this game (it was a Good game). We became short handed a while later. I held my own against the higher limit players, while making about 150$ before the game broke up.
Thanks for the responses...
Dave in Cali
This is a repeat of an earlier query. thanks for the replies, but no one seems to be sure when 7cs was invented, but it was around in the fifties. But would it have been invented before 1950?
David Zanetti
John McDonald writes about 7 hi-lo being played in the Twenties. My guess is that 7CS must go back further than that. Maybe the turn of the century?
Phat Mack writes >John McDonald writes about 7 hi-lo being played in the Twenties. My guess is that 7CS must go back further than that. Maybe the turn of the century?<
I was out by a long way. I thought the rapid increase in popularity of seven card stud in the sixties was due to it being a newish game. Maybe it was just because it was so suited to the new casino market.
has anyone got a narrower time frame for first appearance of 7CS?
I thought it was time to move up and was looking for a $5-$10 at Balley's AC. I sat at what I thought was a straight 5-10, but instead found myself at a 5-10-15-20. This was the biggest game I ever sat at and was a bit nervous at the time. In addition my stack was only $300.
After playing for a few hours I didn't think the players were much better than in a $1-$5, in fact they were more consistent and certainly not wild. The game was somewhat tight agressive. (Please excuse some of the missing details. This hand was played last Monday)
In this particular hand I found myself with a pair of 7s split with $2 to call and three players remaining to act. I call, everyone folds. It is the opener and me. This guy is very readable and very aggressive.
3rd street: opener: ??, 6 me: 7?, 7
4th street: opener: ??, 6 6 me: 7?, 7 ?
Opener checks. At this point anyone would put him on trip sixes so I just check. "He is trying to sucker me in." I say to myself. If he only had sixes he should bet and hope I fold. I am out unless I get a 7.
5th street: opener: ??, 6 6 ? me: 7?, 7 ? 7
That's right. The 7 falls and I now I have him. I bet 10 and he raises 10 and I call.
6th street: opener: ??, 6 6 ? ? (no flush or straight) me: 7?, 7 ? 7 ? (no flush or straight)
I bet 15 and he calls. On 7th street I don't fill up and I check and he bets 20. I call and he is full. I think I played the hand well and I though that the opener was silly to have bet into me with 6's full since I would have checked if I was full anyway. My friend who was sitting at the same table said I played it ok. He suggested I could have checked on 5th (6s would bet) and then bet out $15 on 6th (6s would raise) and then reraise $15 when the opener raises. Then check on 7th either way.
What do you think about the hand?
I played a 7 hour session and won $295. I don't think I will play $1-$5 again. How much money do you suggest I have for this type of game?
Somewhat tight aggressive games are generally NOT good games.
Good read, there are players who will always bet weak hands (like 66 only) but check trips. DOH!
The combination of calling the 5th street raise and betting on 6th is wrong. Either 3-bet 5th or check-raise 6th. Check-raise is better for THIS game since its more expensive (AND this aggressive guy is a sinch to bet), otherwise lets not get tricky and just 3-bet 5th.
Why would you not bet trip 7s only into someone who has trip 6s ONLY going into the river? He's an underdog to make it (with 10 live card outs he's still a 2:1 dog) and is SURE to call and almost-SURE to check behind you. One of the author's theory books discusses this point very well.
- Louie
Just curious since I've never been to Bally's before.
1. How often and what times does this game go down?
2. How does this card room compare to the Taj and the Trop?
I have never played at the Taj or at Trop. This game was being played in the afternoon on Labor Day. And like I said in my post it was the first game I played in those stakes. I love Balley's card room and that is why I play there. I don't like to be distracted by people or the other games like at the Sands. I walked into the Taj card room once and it seemed too crowded.
Hope this helps ... Mike
Bally's usually has only 3-5 tables going, even at peak times. The only game I've ever seen there is stud high. There's usually one table of 5-10-15-20, and the rest are 1-5. Once I saw 15-30-45-60. The Taj and Trop have much larger rooms, with holdem, Omaha-8, Omaha high and stud high (and the Trop also spreads stud-8), spread at normal structures (5-10, 10-20, 15-30...), at a variety of limits.
I'll refresh the set-up. You have AJo under the gun and raise. A well known opponent 3-bets from the small blind and your are sure he has AA, KK or AK. Is it correct to call one more bet pre-flop when there are 6 bets in the pot already?
David Sklansky writes "Thus even if it was wrong to call with AJ, that would be irrelevant to the point of this problem. That being said, those who think that you should throw your hand away for one small bet with six bets in their already and you acting last are wrong. But that deserves a seperate thread. "
How can this issue be settled? I have an idea. Let's use everyone's favorite tool, Turbo Texas Hold'em to simulate the situation. Stop laughing! Have you a better idea? Please don't post something like "An expert would see the folly of this in an instant. How can I be expected to explain it to the likes of you."
Here's my 30 minute worth of simulation results.
AJ vs AK loses only 1.76 sb per hand played. This is actually a profit since you have 2 sb commited at the time you are 3-bet. Your profit is 0.24 sb per hand.
AJ vs KK loses 2.48 SB per hand. Net loss is 0.48 sb per hand played.
AJ vs AA is hopeless, losing 6.1 sb per hand for a net loss of 4.1 sb per hand played.
We now need to normalize the results because of their different frequencies of occurance.
AJ vs AK 4/7 x +0.24 = +.137 sb
AJ vs KK 2/7 x -0.48 = - .137 sb
AJ vs AA 1/7 x -4.1 = -.585 sb
Add the three results and you'll see this simulation suggests calling the 3-bet is an error of 6/10 of a small bet or roughly 1/3 - 1/2 of an hour's worth of profit for a winning player.
Remember, your mileage may vary. Not every expert plays as well as Turbo Texas Hold'em all though quite a few do. Stop laughing!
Scott
Your method doesn't work because you're not imparting your knowledge of your opponent's hand to the computer player profile holding AJ. Unlike you, the computer won't know exactly when to fold when behind or raise when ahead. Just do a cold simulation of AJ versus the various combinations of hands. AJ should win about 25-26% of the time, making a call getting 6-1 odds + implied seem easy.
Chris writes "Your method doesn't work because you're not imparting your knowledge of your opponent's hand to the computer player profile holding AJ. Unlike you, the computer won't know exactly when to fold when behind or raise when ahead."
A valid point however in the actual hand you rarely know when you're ahead or behind. Let's say you flop an ace only. Your opponent bets. What do you do? 2/7 of the time you're ahead and 5/7 of the time you're nearly dead. How do you minimize your losses here?
Your best flop is jack high (one pair hands only considered). Even with this you are ahead only 4/7 of the time and the action you get will be modest. Keep in mind you'll get this type of flop only occasionally, perhaps one time in eight (i'm guessing here). 3/7 of the time, when you are behind, you'll give good action and be drawing thin or dead.
There is some value to knowing your opponent has such a small range of hands and there will be times when you have him nutted - and know it - and get good action, however they are a very small number of the possible cases (JJx flops for instance - x <> A,K).
Scott
First of all, if an ace flops you you will be ahead 2/5 of the time not, 2/7. A raise on the flop followed by a fold if reraised will save lots of bets against most players. Secondly I suspect turbo is taking at least one card off when the flop comes rags which you would not do. Thirdly if a jack flops you will still get away cheaply if a king shows or if your opponent shows strength. These factors should swing it.
"These factors should swing it."
Question.
How good do you think one should be before it can swing it?(idiot, ok, good, pro, expert)
I don't trust Turbo for this kind of detailed analysis. I have just programmed a "never fold, never bet, always call" profile. With two of these heads up, you end up with an accurate hot-and-cold analysis of how these hands rate.
Then we can subjectively apply factors such as position and such things as Sklansky pointed out. I'm sure that there are some opponents who are so predictable (such as those that ONLY 3-bet with AA, KK, or AK) that YOUR implied odds are better than theirs.
Some important nits:
You do NOT "already" have 2 bets invested. Its only 6:1 to call, heads up, it doesn't batter how the money got in there.
Play at least 50K hands.
You also need to do some changing of the hands to account for the way the suits of the cards match up.
- Louie
You raise under the gun with AK or AQ and get several callers. The flop is rags, missing you completely. When does it make sense to check-raise semi-bluff in this position? Under what conditions? If you try this play, what is correct strategy on the turn and the river?
Check-raising in that situation will look suspicious to your opponents. I'd check and either give it up or call once and hope for an overcard on the turn. I believe this isn't the spot for anything tricky.
The time to check-raise bluff is on the turn out of the blind positions, in my opinion. A blind can have any two cards and has more credibility in representing a legitmate hand.
Does everybody agree? Seems to me they've got to acknowledge you may have a big pair, which would warrant the bet after the flop. If no big cards hit, there's an opportunity to steal on the turn, made more powerful by the earlier check-raise. Opinions?
It's not really a semi-bluff if there's zero chance the opponents will all fold. When was the last time your opponent(s) folded to a flop check-raise? If you play in the same type of game I do then this just doesn't happen.
Scott
First, this probably should not be a common play for you to make. When I make this play, here is the most common scenario. I check the flop, and everyone checks around to a player who likes to bet his draws on the flop, or who likes to bet anytime we all check to him. Then, there is no one between me and the bettor, or anyone in between folds. Now, I can raise and eliminate (hopefully) everyone else. I expect the bettor to call me, but now I can win unimproved if he was bluffing or betting a draw. Thus, if he was merely betting a straight draw, I will win well more than half the time. Add in the dead money, and this raise is great.
However, you must be pretty sure that he's betting a draw, and that the other players will fold. If the game is so loose that they will still all call, or if the bettor is not a habitual bluffer/semi-bluffer, then just fold.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I agree that this is not something you should try every hand, although, if you are playing every hand, you have bigger problems. Something I might try is to bet the flop, putting thoughts of a pocket overpair to the rag flop in your opponent's heads. After all, you did raise pre-flop. Then, check-raise on the turn. Sometimes they'll figure you're trapping, and lay it down right there. Of course, you must know your players. It worked for me in a holdem hand at the TOC, but I tried it on Erik Seidel. Naturally, you won't be facing a player of his caliber every day, capable of good laydowns. But when it works, you feel like you really earned your money. God, I love this game! Good Luck, Frank Brabec NUT-Z
I've played poker on and off for 2 years now (1-5 SCS) and seem to be losing at the rate of 5-7 bucks an hour. Long time ago I a small booklet which explained pot odds, raising, and starting hands.
I just received D Sklansky's SCS for Advanced players, and even though it seems to be an awsome book, I feel as though my knowledge of the game has many holes in it such as why does a high pair play better heads up and a possible straight plays better with several players in the pot.
Will Mr. Sklansky's 'Theory of Poker' and Mr. Cook's collection of writings help me? I really don't wnt to buy a dozen or more books which will at best be confusing.
So, here's my future collection:
Theory of Poker SCS for Advanced Players Roy Cooke's collection.
Comments please!!
John
Roy's book is maimly about holdem.
John,
If you play 7CS, I would recommend the following.
1) Theory of Poker David Sklansky
2) 42 Lessons 7CS course Roy West
TOP gives great poker knowledge and great thinking techniques. 42L/7CS is a terrific, easy to read book for LOW and medium limit 7CS. I read it when I started and think it is the best low limit/beginner stud book out there.
3) After you read TOP and 42L/7CS and begin to play better, make sure your re-read 7CS for advanced players again. It will make more sense. The 2nd time (9 months after reading it originally) I found it to be much more understanding and useful. It is a great book, and I was able to absorb the information and apply it to the low/mid limit game where appropriate.
P.S Turbo 7CS computer simulator is GREAT and will help newer players.
Good luck,
Jack
Mo: I also recommend Roy West's book. As for one example try this. Deal out 2 opponent hands,give yourself a hand with a pair of Aces and another card, and see how many hands you win. Now deal out 7 opponent hands with your same hand containing a pair of Aces, and now see how many hands you win. Does a pair of Aces (or any pair for that matter), play better verses 2 opponents or a field of 7? Good Luck.
I can't comment on 7-Stud specific books, since I basically am Hold-em only player at them moment.
However, I can definitely recommend Sklansky's "Theory of Poker". I own about 8 poker books and it is by the most generally useful, regardless of game. If there was a PhD program in gambling theory, it would have been an award-winning thesis, and then some.
I've only recently acquired Super/System and am still digesting it, so I withhold comment.
--james
If you really like 7CS(asI do),spend the $25 and get Roy West's book.
7 Stud: 7 Card Stud for Advanced Players S&M+Z
Holdem: Holdem Poker for Advance Players. S&M+Z
General: Poker Essay's II (Malmuth)
The only books you will ever need.
Vince.
Mr. Sklansky, you separate the different flops in your book into three categories; Excellent, Good, and Fair. I'm having trouble fitting the concepts of slowplay, checkraise, semi-bluff, raise, etc..... with this chapter; here's an example of what I mean
First two cards
Excellent Good Fair AA KJ4 T33 QQ3
What concepts should apply when I flop the column that fits my cards, or have you already answered this question in your book
Frankly I feel this is the most exciting chapter in any poker book I've seen because to me it gives me the power to know when someone with a likely second best hand would be betting into you when you have them beat(excellent category) and I suppose you can really punish other players with these concepts, however I'm more shady on the good and fair flop categories.
I'm asking what strategies would be best to apply to the Excellent, Good, and Fair categories, it seems a little vague to me on how to use this great information. -thanks -Salamander
IMO, to answer this question, one needs to write a book or, at least, a chapter of a book. Perhaps Sklansky can give you a concise answer.
These hands were played in a two-day tournament with 15 players starting at 10,000 each. There were eight players at my table.
HAND 1
Early on I found myself heads up in the big blind against the small blind, a good aggressive player. I believe he perceives me as weak tight, which is about right, unfortunately. Blinds were 25-50 and he raised 100, which I think he would do with a wide range of hands. I found AJs and raised another 300. He called.
The flop was ATT. I checked and he checked. Turn was a low card and I bet 500. He raised to 2,000. I thought for about 20 seconds and called his raise. The river brought an ace. I checked as did he.
HAND 2
About an hour later the blinds were 50-100 with 25 ante. I was dealt AsKd UTG and raised to 400. A solid player with a large stack (~20k) called in the small blind and the big blind also called. The solid player was new to me. I had been watching him for the two hours we had played so far but that was about all. The flop came Ad5d2c and I bet 1,000 after the others had checked to me. The solid player made it 3,500 (actually this made me think AK) and the big blind mucked. Now what?
My no-limit play certainly needs work. I think I would benefit greatly from your opinions.
Thanks
--- Chris
HAND 1:
Since you were last to act I would have checked the turn. I think your bet on the turn was risky, as you see, he check-raised you (I think this was an atempt to make you lay down your hand). On the river I would have underbet the pot for an amount he would call. He may interpret this as a weak bet and reraise you.
HAND 2:
I need to know what your stack size was at this point. If you were relatively small compared to your opponent he could have used any hand to knock you off.
Thank you for your reply and sorry for the missing info. I had 14,000.
--- Chris
HAND 2:
With only 14,000 he could be bluffing you, but it would be very dangerous to continue. Since, a lot of players will play any Ace with a little kicker, plus the straight combination would make me muck it. Some players will raise with small straight combinations when their stacks are relatively large. With the flop that came, I would not call the bet.
Hand 1
You either pulled a miracle card or are tied with him...no way are you behind. You have to bet there (either a real big amount or a real small one...given your impression of his image of you, the big bet probably will not work though) to try and get him to call with a T or come over the top with a bluff.
Hand 2
I find it would be rather impossible to fold here. It is likely that he interpreted your smallish bet (smaller than the pot of 1450) as a sign that you had a big pair and is either making a move with an ace (or actually has one). You have nut back-door flush draw and if he did flop two pair, you have K and board pairing outs. I expect he had a worse A or a diamond draw. I don't think he would check-raise here with a set or a 34...he'd wait for the turn.
Please re-explain hand 1. You say you were the BB, and your single opponent was the SB. Then, you explain the action as if you were always acting first rather than last. I can't believe you checked the river AFTER the SB checked, as you have the nuts. Please clarify.
As for hand 2, it all depends upon the player. With some players I would call, and then go all-in on the turn when the flush failed to arrive. Against others I would go all-in now, knowing they would give up their draw. Against still others I would fold without any doubt that they had 2-pair or better.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg, TKChuck, mah,
Thank you for putting in the time to try to answer my questions. I must apologize for wasting your time and bandwidth with confusing and incorrect information. I played these hands ten days ago and I didn't put enough effort in trying to recollect what exactly happened. Once again, sorry.
HAND 1
The aggressive player was on the button. At this stage there was still a player between us who moved to the other table shortly after this hand, which has confused my memory. This also means I have to re-evaluate his holding since he is not quite as likely to have a weak starting hand when not heads up against me (who he perceives as somewhat weak-tight). Having said this, he is in a steal position and he does not have that much respect for the player between us either.
Moreover, the turn was not a low card. I just blundered when writing it down in my post. Turn was a Q with no flush possible. (I fully understand that this hand now is completely different from my pervious story.) When I checked the river my reasoning was that he would not call a weak-tight player with a hand less than aces full, and that there was a danger of him having AQ, which will cost me. At the same time I wanted to give him a chance to bluff.
In hindsight, the chance of him having AQ (or TT) is small, while KJ ot TX is much more likely. I also think he would likely call a small bet with these hands. I overestimated this player's ability to read my hand.
My bet and call on the turn are once again open for discussion. BTW, I had about 10k at the start of this hand.
HAND 2
This hand I got almost right. The wheel cards were there and there was a two-flush. However, the board might have been A35 rather than A25. In any event, I don't (and didn't) think this player would call a raise with 34.
I folded, and the truth is I did it primarily because I didn't want to bust out of this, by my standards, rather expensive tournament. After the hand, I kicked myself for folding this hand against this player. I don't know how I should have played it.
I believe my no-limit play sucks and I suspect these hands show parts of what is wrong. I need help to figure it out. Thank you for your time.
--- Chris
Im looking for any suggestions in selecting my first poker book.
My intentions are to be able to make money in poker rooms and casinos on a regular basis. I have no preference in specializing in one game or learning more than one very well. I am open to suggestions.
I am a blackjack card counter as well as a video poker player (for profit). I play poker weekly with frineds and often win. I know all the games but I want to take it to the next level.
Any help would be great. Thanks for the time!
Just Me (You?) (Who?),
My answer may surprise many of the readers of the forum who I believe would pick the Theory of Poker by David Sklansky (an excellent choice which I would get in the top three or so).
Try Getting the Best of It by David Sklansky. It is about half on poker and half on other games. I believe it has some of his best writing and is a pleasure to read (the Theory of Poker is more like a textbook).
That being said, just about any book in the two plus two catalog is a must read depending on what game you want to play. Also check out Mike Caro, Bob Ciaffone, and Roy Cooke among others.
Regards,
Rick
For specific games if your starting out,I recommend 7-CARD STUD:42 LESSONS by Roy West and HOLD-EM POKER by David Sklansky.After absorbing the info in those books(and I mean GET IT DOWN COLD),move on to books like T.O.P. AND THE 2+2 advanced player series.
Just to repeat the rules for holdit, or figleaf holdem, and to ask again, has anyone seen this game before? Or did I invent it?
Holdit is holdem played with one start card turned up, one turned down;high card speaks, then a three card communal flop followed by six and seventh face up communal.
Hand No. 1
I have been running good in the session and try a blind steal with J,9 off two seats to the right of the button. Big blind calls.
Flop: 7s7c8c
I bet. He raises. I reraise.
Turn: 9d
I bet. He calls.
River: 4s
Do I bet?
Hand 2
I raise with JJ in early position and get one caller in late position. This is the type of player who will not call a raise with hopeless hands. Having said that, he is certainly no rock and will call raises with any two high cards even if unsuited, all pocket pairs, medium suited connectors etc.
Flop: 10,9,8 rainbow.
I bet. He calls.
Turn: 10 (there are now 2 spades on the board)
I bet. He calls.
River: Kh
Do I bet?
skp,
I may just do one hand as I just got up for some milk and hope to get some ZZZ's soon.
"Hand No. 1
I have been running good in the session and try a blind steal with J,9 off two seats to the right of the button. Big blind calls.
Flop: 7s7c8c
I bet. He raises. I reraise."
This is a little aggressive here for a steal raise and I supposed I would be infuenced by the manner in which I was running good. Anyway,I wouldn't fear a seven against most players who would usually check call for a round. Look for overcards, a good eight, or perhaps a T9 or even 65.
"Turn: 9d
I bet. He calls."
All four of the later hands mentioned above could still be out there. Now it is even less likely you are up against a seven since you would be raised here again. A good bet IMO.
"River: 4s
Do I bet?"
Yes. The main hand you fear now is 65. I think you get raised by this hand and should lay it down. All of the other hands will probably call you head up (not counting the seven which would have raised on a previous round).
Regards,
Rick
Isn't this too aggressive? He DID check the flop and then check-raised you. Couldn't this be a weak 7? His raise is good because it makes you pay dearly to draw to an over pair which is a possible holding for you. Isn't his failure to raise on the turn possibly caused by fear that you tried a steal raise on something like A-7 and he's out kicked? Would this BB really check raise a straight draw or low pair here?
The river bet doesn't look too good either. Is he going to call with a hand you can beat? Maybe, but he actually has to have that hand, and his check-raise suggests a better hand. He probably isn't folding any hand which can beat yours; so, I don't think the river bet has a positive EV.
Fat-Charlie
Fat-Charlie,
This is a player defending heads up against a steal raise so he is bound to be much more aggressive than in other situataions and much more suspicious that his opponent is betting with little. But his opponent (skp) in fact has top pair which he got on the turn. You need to stay aggressive when you have something or else you will get run over in these short handed situations.
Here are some hands he could reasonably have that he would call with and skp could beat: any eight (except 98 & 87), T9, overcards such as AK, AQ, AJ, AT and maybe KQ or KJ. He loses to 98, bigger hidden pairs than a nine, a better nine, and any seven. The play of the hand tends to indicate the former hands rather than the later.
Note that when betting for value, you don't need a cinch. You want to be a small favorite when you are called (55% is about right to account for the rare times you will get raised or check raised).
I think this hand will win about 60% or so when called. But I could be wrong so let's see who else weighs in.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Thanx for the good response. I'm sure I'm NOT aggressive enough in my game. Sadly, I'm probably one of those weak- tight types; however, this still looks like a dangerous flop for a competent BB to re-raise on a weak draw. Aren't you supposed to reserve your semi-bluffs to flops like A-7-3 with a hand like 8-8?
Fat-Charlie
Charlie (I can't call you Fat-Charlie any more because it just isn't PC),
You wrote: Aren't you supposed to reserve your semi-bluffs to flops like A-7-3 with a hand like 8-8?
This of course is a different hand and we don't really have enough information to know when a bet is appropriate. That being said, betting a pair of eights into a flop like A 7 3 can't really be called a classic semi-bluff.
When you make this bet you need to be believe there is a good chance that the ace is not out there and by betting you can get overcards and perhaps overpairs to fold. If the ace is out there (and calls) you only have two outs, which is far less than the typical number of outs for a semi-bluff.
I've got to get back to Spring/Fall cleaning with my wife for now.
Regards,
Rick
Rick, minor quibble:
The 4 on the river wouldn't make me fear 65 because 65 would give the BB a straight on the turn with which he probably would have checkraised. Board on the turn is 7789.
skp,
This is my real tired response. It is the equivalent to about how I play when I've been at the table too long.
I'll check here and call any bet. There seem to be a lot of hands that he could beat you with and the hands that don' probably won't call your bet. However, he may bet some missed draws and combo hands like pair draw.
Then again, some sleep may change my perspective.
Goodnight.
Rick
hand 1 - bet the river. I doubt he's looking for a check-raise here, so since he didn't bet, he very likely won't raise (unless you're interminably aggressive, and he knows you'll always bet the river, which I doubt). His most likely hand is 8x. If you lose, I bet he has TT or higher, and your reraise on the flop convinced him you had a higher pocket pair after all. He may also have 2 overcard clubs or the like. If he has AcKc or AcQc, he may also call your river bet since you might have been semi-bluffing the flop and missed.
hand 2 - Check and call. I don't see any reasonable hands that you still beat that will call on the end here often enough, and the K very well might have hit him, in which case he will raise (and can you call?). Also, if you check, as Rick said you may induce a bluff which you profit from calling.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
A couple of months ago, I would have agreed with you 100%. However, I am starting to rethink this type of situation.
Five factors tell me to bet here:
1. If I check, my opponent will likely bet any hand that beats JJ and I have to call.
2. My opponent will likely not bet if I check and he can't beat my JJ.
3. My opponent will likely call with a worse hand.
4. My opponent likely won't raise even if he hits a King because I could have AA or AK or even KK the way I have played the hand. Of course, he might raise if the King makes him 2 pair but about the only 2 pair hand he would make on the River is K,10 and if that is the case he may well have raised me on the flop with just a pair of 10's to see where he is at.
5. This is probably not a good spot to try and induce a bluff because when I check on the King, it will seem to my opponent that I have a hand like JJ or QQ and am afraid to bet but will certainly make a crying call. If the river card was a deuce,I probably have a better shot at inducing a bluff i.e. my opponent who misses with something like KJ may think that I have just given up bluffing with my AK.
Of course, your decision to bet or check is entirely dependant on the nature of your opponent. But it seems to me that against most opponents in a fairly weeak game, the better play is to bet.
Gotta run. (I posted this quickly. If I have shown some fuzzy thinking here, please let me know and I'll blame it on haste.
Ah! To bet or not to bet! Oh! What a question.
I doubt that this is the case:
"Of course, your decision to bet or check is entirely dependant on the nature of your opponent"
Must be more involved in betting than being "entirely dependant on the nature of your opponent"
So my friend what is important here. Fossil says check, you say bet! I respect you both. So who's right? Hey, Mason who's right? O.K. Maybe we ought to ask someone who know's. David who's right? (Careful or I'll ask Abdul. But I don't think he knows. So I won't.) I Certainly have trouble arguing with SKP's "5 factor's in favor of betting. But the fossil had just as good reason's for not betting.
It should be obvious to all why I am asking David Sklansky to settle this. Sklansky, as you all know, very definitively described the "8 Mistakes of Poker".
What we have here is either "Betting when you should check" or "Checking when you should bet." BTW neither of these mistakes are as costly as "Calling when you should fold". Just thought I would add that. Wait a minute! Maybe that's the answer. Since neither of these mistakes is very costly, Why worry about it. What's the point! Either of these mistakes cost only a fraction of a bet so maybe one should just use his "gut" feelings when faced with such a "deletarious" (I don't know what that means but I like that word) decision. To Bet or Not to Bet! Don't worry be happy!
Vince.
Vince wrote: "maybe one should just use his "gut" feelings when faced with such a "deletarious" (I don't know what that means but I like that word) decision."
Better look it up Vince, as it doesn't appear to apply very well in this context. ;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Fossilman,
Deletarious (correct spelling; deleterious): Harmful
Substitute perplexing for deleterious. Forgot you were a teacher, Old Man. Thank you.
Vince
Skp,
Excellent post.
Hand No.1
BB throws up 10c9c in disgust.
Hand No.2
My opponent throws away. He told me later that he had J,9 suited. I guess I was wrong this time in thinking that I would likely get a call on the end with a worse hand if I bet.
I should say that I have my doubts as to whether my opponent was telling the truth. I would think that with a pair and open-ended draw, he would have raised me on the flop.
$6-12 HE, pretty loose not too aggressive game.
I have 9d 8h in BB. Pot is raised early, I'm getting 9:1 (or maybe 11:1) to call, so I do.
Flop is 9h 9c Jc. SB checks, I bet, called in four places (middle, button, SB).
Turn is Js. SB checks, I bet, button calls, making me suspicious.
River is blank. I check, button bets, I call. he shows me a Jack.
So... could I have possibly gotten out of this?
I played it over and over while de-steaming, and I couldn't see a way out. Is this just "one of those things"?
If it matters, I hadn't played with the button before, but watching him in maybe a dozen hands, he seemed solid and not too crazy.
--james
PS I had sweet revenge when I flopped a well disguised straight with my 96o in the BB (unraised pot) and it held up despite three fish swimming down the river with me.
Tough hand! I'm not good enuf to muck a boat. With 4 callers on the flop someone rates to hold a J. Even if you checked the turn, you'd probably still call him down when he bets, and this is the same two big bets. It would be easy if there was a lot of action from players you knew were sensible; you'd KNOW you were beat. I doubt many players would REALLY fold your boat. We'd pay off and grumble the way you did.
Maybe you could avoid this in the future with clean living.
Fat-Charlie
In many games you should have saved have saved TWO bets, given three callers on the flop. With four people in there you have a protected pot as well as a good chance for a jack being out. Occasionally you throw away half the pot by checking and folding on fourth st. Very occasionally you throw away the whole pot. Still this is normally the right play. Your game may be an exception but I doubt it. (If everyone checks on fourth st. you now must at least call if not bet.)
Retrospect is everything, but when the jack landed on the turn the first thing you might have asked was: "do I feel like wagering two big bets that none of the four people that contested the pot on the flop was holding a jack?" Then consider: (1) if your hand was any good, there's a reasonable chance it would have been checked to the river; (2) worse hands than yours were not likely to give you any more money; (3) few of your four opponents would likely tip their hand on the turn if they held the jack, meaning that you'd just get sucked in. More generally, there's real danger here and you can't tell where you're at. Surely the game offers you better spots for your big bets.
So its an ok pot, but you're probably already done for and further action won't help you and probably just seals your fate. Also, if you would have checked the turn, the button probably would have bet, the SB called, and you could have said: well, there's the nuts and there's the draw, and if I'm wrong I could still get check-raised, so I'm out of here, or alternatively if everyone let it go and you faced a lone bet on the river, your decision would have been easier and cheaper to make.
Thanks for the input.
Here's my follow-up thinking... comments on my logic are welcome.
I don't see how it helps me to check on the turn. Here's the likely result:
me: check
middle: check
button: bet
SB: fold me: ???
At this point, there's something like 17 small bets in the pot (10 pre-flop, 5 on flop, 2 from button's turn bet), so I'm getting 19:4 or 4.75:1 in implied odds if I call and then check and call on the river (assuming middle folds).
So if I have at least a 17.4% chance of winning (call it 20% :-), it's reasonable for me to call and then check and call on the river.
Given the texture of the flop, it is not fait accompli that a Jack is out just because 3 people called. J9 makes a straight draw for several reasonable hands, and there were two suited cards, so a flush draw could be out. Plus the pot was raised pre-flop, so maybe someone is hoping AA, KK, or QQ hold up.
Furthermore, by checking on the turn, I think I would show weakness after having bet on the flop, so the button is almost obligated to bet, even if risking check-raise from me (SB and middle were weak players and non-factors w.r.t. a check-raise, and I believe button would have agreed with me).
Net net, it does not seem too unlikely to me that I have a 20% chance of winning. So I should call, and then check and call, and I still lose two big bets.
On the other hand, if I bet on the turn and button overplays his hand and raises, maybe I have a chance to get away from my hand.
Anyhow, I'm not trying to justify my play, because I did a damn sight less analysis than this at the table. :-) Basically, my mental processes were about this complex:
pre-flop: "hmm, 9 to 1, call"
flop: "Woohoo! three nines! but 2-suit flop and possible fit to straight drawing hands. better bet."
turn: "Full house! but the basement of it... well, let's let the Jack raise me. bet."
river: "No point risking a raise. check. Hey, he bet. Well, I did show weakness. might as well call."
--j
PS I actually had mixed feelings about the Jack coming on the turn. I was worried that one of my callers had the case 9 with perhaps a better kicker. In this case, the Jack saves me for a "chop". This was not my primary hope (I know, playing for chops sucks), but it does add slightly to the EV of my call, I think. Only slightly, because a) the probability of the case 9 being in the button's hand must be pretty low, and b) he would likely have raised with trips.
The reasons your bet on the turn was a mistake are twofold.
You will almost never be called by a worse hand. So, who's going to pay off that turn bet? Clearly any J won't fold, and it is very unlikely that a 9 will fold.
Second, a J will often raise, and when they do, you cannot fold unless that player is VERY predictable. Thus, you will often lose 3 bets to a J.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
James:
I think a check on the turn is mandatory here for three reasons: (1) you don't have a good reason to believe that you will be called by an inferior hand; (2) there is no possibility of getting a better hand to fold and (3), perhaps most importantly, with this board against most opponents, the probability of being called by an inferior hand after you show strength is less than the probability of being bet into by an inferior hand after you show weakness. Thus, while in this particular case your bet on the turn cost you just as much as if you had checked and called, a decision to do the latter is a better decision and should prove more profitable (or less costly) over the long run.
Checking in this case also gives you more information than betting because (1) you probably won't be raised by a jack if you bet, (2) anyone holding a jack will undoubtedly bet, allowing you to consider the source, and (3) if no one bets your hand is probably good and should remain so. Also note that the free card risk to you is small.
Of course, this analysis is premised on the assumption that you probably are a likely underdog. I like this assumption because you bet into a paired flop and received 4 callers, meaning there's a good chance of someone holding a jack. (Against 4 random hands, you will lose on the river 40% of the time; the calls you received on the flop should at least double this probability despite the presence of two jacks on board – but of course I'm guessing here). Even if I'm wrong about whether you're behind, however, there's still the matter of whether a worse hand will pay you off.
I use to play 15-30 Holdem at my local Casino (Speaking Rock, El Paso Texas). But now the guys just decided they want to play 15-30 Omaha Hi-Lo, so these days we're playing Omaha Hi-Lo and no more holdem. So, my question is, What game is more profitable for a good player? At the 15-30 Holdem I use to make 1 BB/hr What should I expect at the Omaha-8 game?. The rake is 4 dollars, and 1 for the Jackpot (In Holdem), the Omaha Hi-Lo is not Jackpot elegible, so we save 1 dollar per hand; but we play as half as many hands per hour in Omaha than Holdem. Is the Omaha Hi-Lo game really profitable? Does anybody have numbers on this? Any comments would be apreciated.
If the game is very loose, especially after the flop, then it is a gold-mine. I think that weak Omaha8 players are easier to beat for more money than weak HE players. However, if these guys aren't weak at Omaha8, then I would prefer to play HE against them.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
David, Greg,
FossilMan is absolutely correct. Nothing is like a weak, loose Omaha H/L game for getting dead money that has almost no chance against your hand.
If this is true, try to get them to put in a "Kill" button. A 1/3 kill works well for this game (i.e., the hand becomes 20/40 with the kill blind posted). Have the killer act in turn before the flop as this keeps it simple and more casinos are doing it this way.
Regards,
Rick
Isn't saying "FossilMan is absolutely correct" a bit redundant, as it almost always the case?
One thing about 08 that is that it is pretty easy to determine if a partiular game can be beaten. A rule-of-thumb that I use is to simply watch the game for about 15-20 minutes and if there is more than one guy who draws to non-nut lows in multiway pots, you know the game has positive EV if you simply play tighter than these live ones.
I think it is materially more difficult to determine whether a holdem game will be profitable.
Michael 7 wrote: "Isn't saying "FossilMan is absolutely correct" a bit redundant, as it almost always the case?"
OK, your check is in the mail. In case my press agent forgets to tell you, let's be less obvious next time, shall we?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thanks for the answers guys. In fact the Omaha-8 game here is very loose. 6 or 7 to see the flop, and 3 or 4 in the showdown (some guys calling with any low).
Eyy Greg, do you remember me, I played with you at the final table at the 300 limit holdem Orleans event. Maybe you remember that time I flopped quads
Take care
David
Limit poker is probably the hardest game to beat. In addition, the lower the limit the harder it is to beat.
It's not that the games are hard to grasp or there is some complexity to the game that most of us don't understand. Oh no.
You almost always know where you stand and know what you should do when playing limit poker. It's a simple game. Especially in lower limit when you really can't predict with much accuracy what cards your opponent could be holding. Post-flop action can give you an idea but not totally. Everyone who plays limit poker knows that the hardest players to read are the worst players at the table. What the hell did he/she come into the pot with THIS time? That's usually the question going through your head.
Limit poker is mostly a game of playing the odds. What are the odds that my AQ will be dominated by AK this hand? What are the odds that my KQs will lose to Axs this hand? What are the odds my low pocket pair will flop trips? Am I getting odds to draw to an inside straight for one bet? etc. etc. etc. It's important to read your opponents but almost always this is only beneficial when deciding to fold. You can't bully people out of the pots by bluffing, but you can fold when you're beat. This is probably your biggest edge in limit hold'em, which isn't much of an edge it turns out.
There is a saying about hold'em which goes "If you lose with trips and don't lose a lot of money, you played them wrong." This epitomizes the problem with limit poker. A more succinct and revealing phrase that illustrates the same point would be: "If you lose with quads and you don't lose a lot of money, you played them wrong". Understand? No? Ok fine, the point is that it just doesn't matter HOW you play for the most part. Either you have the best hand or you don't. Either your cards are running good or they're not. Either the so-called "fish" (who as a group usually walk away with all the chips) will draw out on you constantly or they won't. It's luck.
That is the one thing that most players refuse to acknowledge. They jokingly refer to it by stating "It's luck when you lose and skill when you win." This is usually in reference to some poor whining bastard who keeps losing with AA to 68o.
The fact is, the odds are that the odds won't work out. Some people won't understand this, but I think the smart ones will. It's extremely unlikely that the odds in card distribution (whether it's the quality of starting hands you are given, or the odds that your hands will hold up/make the draw) will ever even out perfectly. In fact, it is statistically improbable, which is the mathematical term for saying "when pigs learn to fly pal".
Given that the odds are the odds won't come out the way they should, what the heck are we doing in the game?
The pat answer is that your skills will more than make up for any odds anomalies you encounter. This may be true in no-limit heads up texas hold'em and other similar games, but in limit ring games, you can forget it. The advantage you gain by knowing a little about the game is negligible.
The odds are just too much to overcome, and the short term luck everyone talks about can last for your ENTIRE LIFETIME.
Let's look at it this way, every time there is a chance for something to come up, we'll call it an Odds Occurence. Usually in poker this boils down to the turn of a card or the allocation of a card to your hand. Your fourth street card in stud was one OO. The next guy's fourth street card is another OO. The flop is an example of an OO.
OK, so normally one would imagine that you could overcome statistical anomalies by playing enough hands, or experiencing enough OOs to even the odds out. However, the number of OOs necessary to achieve a true expectation of the odds is astronomical.
Take a craps table for instance. Ask the any casino operator in the world if he/she would be willing to bank the craps table for one day and one day only. They get the chance to be the house for one table for one day. This chance will never come again.
Nobody would take this offer if they had any brains. The chance that on any given day a craps table can lose millions is too great a risk. The only way the casinos are willing to offer the near break even odds that they do is that they will be experiencing millions and millions of OOs in even a short period of time.
As an individual poker player, there is not enough time in your entire life to experience enough OOs to even approach an evened variance. As a poker player, you cannot expect the odds to even out for you EVER, as long as you live.
Thus, if you continue to play a lot of limit poker, a game where the odds come into play a heck of a lot more than other forms of poker, you are basically putting your fate in the hands of lady fortuna my friends.
natedogg
Natedogg,
How many times have you posted essentially the same thing? If you really believe this, why do you keep coming back to this forum and RGP? It seems that you would feel it's all a waste of time, and just give it up.
Here's why you're both right and wrong.
Your statement that my luck may never even out, even when considering my entire lifetime, is true. However, that doesn't mean I can't be a regular, long-term winner.
A great player in a HE game probably enjoys an edge of about 10%. By this I mean that his expected profit is roughly about 10% of every dollar he puts into action. However, he could be unlucky, and not win this much, even over an extended period of time (like years). Thus, if his expectation were $80/hour, he might not achieve it. However, if instead of winning 10% he's unlucky and only wins 8% for the year, he's still making $64/hour. Thus, your statement doesn't mean he can't win, though it does mean that he may never know exactly how much he should have won (if his "luck" broke even).
Let's discuss a quote from your post: "Either the so-called "fish" (who as a group usually walk away with all the chips) will draw out on you constantly or they won't. It's luck."
There is no group of players that I would categorize as fish who walk away with the money, AS A GROUP. Almost any player will have their night occasionally, but a true group of fish will always lose money. One night might be too short of a term to always achieve a loss, but give that group of fish a half-dozen nights or so, and they will lose.
The only question is who gets the money? Do you get the money, or did only the house come out ahead? That's the thing you have to beat, the rake, not the fish. If you beat the fish enough, you'll overcome the rake.
BTW, if I had the appropriate bankroll, I would gladly bank the craps table for the day. I bet that a given table in LV, open and active for 24 hours, banks a losing day less than 10% of the time (anyone know the answer?).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Not to get off track, but ever since the corporations took over gaming (what they call gambling)limits are imposed at the tables of most Casinos. I think this eliminates the short term big losses for the Casino.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from your response I think you actually agree the principle of what I'm saying in my post.
My main question for you is where do you get the 10% edge figure? You seem to be basically agreeing with me that it's possible to actually be at a disadvantage for your entire lifetime if you simply account for the odds. But you say that is offset by an arbitrary 10% for good players. Then you say if they're unlucky they might have ONLY an 8% advantage.
I just don't think those numbers are very scientific, and indeed, any numbers we talk about cannot be scientific. It's not a scientific process. But what if a good player has only a 5% edge against a world full of fish. Now, what if an unlucky player's cards end up giving him a drop in 8% instead of just 2%.. Now you've got a -3% disadvantage for a GOOD player, not counting the rake.
My point is just about the principle. And I think from your post that you agree with the principle. The luck factor can easily be so overwhelming for certain individuals that all the skill in the world won't overcome it. And vice versa too of course. An awful player could never learn the truth about his skills if he gets lucky all the time. MANY of the supposed "GOOD" players that I talk to or read posts from strike me as happily naive about their good luck.
Even some of these poker celebrities sometimes blow me away when they describe their play in detail. Every time Phil Hellmuth writes about a hand I think to myself what a lucky SOB. I'm sure there are many tourney winners who are nothing more than lucky, and retroactively justify their wacked plays with vague understandings of Sklansky's "implied odds" theories and whatnot.
Whether you are right or not is irrelevant. I'll leave it to others to explain why.
Put it this way Natedogg, what's your point?
No one can prove what a given player's edge is supposed to be. We can only measure results over a long period, and see what his edge has been (approximately). Then, we can use statistics to argue that these results are highly likely to be accurate, to within "n" dollars, of his "actual" expectation.
As for my non-scientific numbers, I'm pretty confident that my guesses are a lot more likely than your guesses. Over a significant period of time, it is highly unlikely (IMO) that your actual results will vary from your theoretical expectation by 8%. While 1 in a million events do occur, they really do only occur about 1 time in a million (by definition). You seem concerned with things that will happen about that often.
If a "winning" player has gone 2 or 3 years without winning, it is MUCH more likely that he's not a winning player (in the games he's playing) than that he's been unlucky. If we're only talking 2 or 3 weeks, then it may just be a run of bad luck.
If you wish to go on with this, please explain your point, as I for one don't get it.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I've just read Sklansky's Holdem for advanced players. I'am going to Shreveport this weekend and plan on playing on the 4-8 table. How much of the strategy discussed in this book should I stay away from due to the low limit. I have played in numerous no limit tournament type games around town. I dont want to lose my money quickly but also do not want to play so tight that I can't make money on my good hands. Suggestions please.
Just played a 12hr 4-8 game the other day and found out that if the table was loose playing premium hands brought a good profit. When the table was mixed I let it out a notch or 2 and caught some nice flushes and even a back door boat. After the "Wild Bunch went broke the game changed from night to day and we (thoese who were in for the whole wild ride) could not believe how the tone had changed. So get a feel for the game and make your adjustments.
MJ
Joel:
My suggestions:
Keep it straightforward. You'll lose money with FPS (Fancy Play Syndrome) in low limit -- and noone will notice to be impressed anyway :) .
Specifically, reduce/eliminate your bluffs and semi-bluffs at the low limit. People are going to stick around. On the flip side this increase your "bet-for-value" opportunities when you do have the strong hand.
Good luck
-Michael
P.S. Remember BIRCILLH! (Bluffing is rarely correct in low limit holdem! (per L.J.)
I am new to casino poker and need to know the best way to handle a problem with a dealer.
What happens is that in trying to build a pot the dealer tries to pressure the tight players play more hands than they normally would by making loud comments that everyone at the table can hear about which players are only playing a few hands. He is the only dealer that I have noticed that does this. I did not think too much about it at first, but then I realized that he was really not being impartial to all players. Needless to say, if any players had failed to recoginize the tight players they were all made aware of it when he sat down to deal.
Since I am new to this should I say something to him about it or should I just grin and bear it?
Thanks in advance for any replys.
Sounds pretty unprofessional to me. It's possible he's friends with those he's ribbing. It's also possible he thinks that bigger pots make for bigger tips (I'm guessing this is low-limit, as this behavior would never be tolerated at higher limits). Either way, he shouldn't do it, and you would certainly be within your right to complain about it.
The best course of action might be to take him to the side when he's going onto or coming off of break. Point out to him what he's been doing and explain to him that it can effect the play, it's improper, and you'd prefer he not do that. You've not embarrassed him in front of others and you are not subjecting him to discipline by his superiors. He may not appreciate it, but at least you'll know you acted in a mature manner.
If that dealer does it again at a table where you are playing, then you will have to take further action. Perhaps calling a floor person or the shift manager over and complaining about it. If you prefer, go over to the shift manager away from the table and explain the situation, and ask him/her to speak with the dealer. That should do the job. And if it still continues, complain again to the same shift manager. Im sure he/she will be pretty peeved that they were ignored by the dealer the first time.
Walter,
Here's the deal...I deal Poker for a living in House games in Houston and have never dealt Casino Poker. This dealer needs to basically "Shut up and Deal". Dealers get away with much more in Casinos then in House games from what I understand. I would definitely pull him aside and tell him how you feel. It's not quite the same thing as saying " that makes a flush" when the 3rd of one suit hits the board on the river but it's not that far away either.
It is unprofessional and I would definitely say something.
Walter basically do what George said. Confront the dealer, confront the floor person, confront the floor person again, confront the shift manager. If it continues: shup up and play or take a break if it bothers you too much. Also make sure to let the dealer know you will never ever tip him or her again for as long as you play.
David and berya,
Thanks for your responses. I will keep your advice in mind.
Walter
if you could be so kind, i'd like your opinion on the following: i have no interest in regular casino gambling, trying to buck a fixed house percentage. however, over the years i've done very well playing non-casino poker.
a while back i bought wilson's 7-card stud software (vers 2). i played around with this a lot & try as i might - after deducting a house rake -- i can't show a profit (i'm using 10% of the pot, with a $4. maximum & a .50 tip) the game is 5-10, with a $1 ante.
i've set it up so i have the one stronge player against 7 weak players, but after 500,000 deals, it first shows a profit, but then always shows a net loss for the strong player after the house rake is deducted. - it averages about $2.50 per winning pot
is it me, the software program, or is it simply impossible - over the long run - to beat the house rake no matter how well you play????
i’ve recently made a couple of very quick trips to atlantic city, playing 1 to 5 7 card stud. I found most players, even at this low, beginning level, to play pretty tough & tight.
i’d really appreciate your knowledgeable opinion.
thanks, john
jjrbk@interport.net
I too have Wilson 7-Cars Stud for Windows and have some questions concerning your game setup. 1:What is the ante and bring-in for your $5-$10 game? 2:How many raises per player are allowed? 3:Is your rake 10% OR $3.00 per pot or just 10%? I set up a $1-$5 spread limit game on my program and after about 1400 hands I'm up about $1000.I think I,d check my rake setup if I were you.
$1 ante, $1. bringin.3 raises total for all plyers. rake is 10%, w/ a $4. cap. i've also found to get a real picture of any results i need to deal at least 100,000 hands.
john
As Richard pointed out, you should double-check your rake structure in Turbo 7CS. To make the game like 5-10 AC games, you need 50 cent ante, 2$ bring-in, complete to 5$, first raise to 10$, 2nd to 15$ etc.... The rake should be 10%, 4$ max, increments of 1$.
A 1$ ante at your 5-10 changes the strategy by making it a higher ante game than A.C. 5-10. This may be why you are not beating the computer. You will have to loosen up or you will go like broomcorn's uncle and ante yourself to death....
The players in 1-5 and 5-10 atlantic city games may seem tough, but if you are a good player and you scout your games well you will find they are not usually as tough as you think. I know from experience that these games are beatable, both "live in AC" and on Turbo 7CS. The rake is a considerable factor, but it can be overcome by a good player.
If you can't beat the computer, perhaps you should play with S/M/Z's 7CS book open. Each hand you play is a hypothetical situation that you can analyze at your lesiure. Think about what "might" happen ahead of time and you'll be ready when it happens in the casino.
Dave in Cali
thanks for answer. a little confused about your explanation of raises. if it's a 5/10 game, how can you raise $15.?
whwn i talk abou computer results, i'm not playing the game myself, but running it on automatic, hi-speed simulation -- usually 100,000+ hands
john
Sorry, once again ambiguous wording.
Ex. 5-10 stud
First raise completes the bet to 5$, second raise is a 5$ raise bringing the TOTAL to 10$, second raise the TOTAL is 15$....
Simulations have their place but I think I have gotten more use out of playing the game than simulating it.
Dave in Cali
Do you keep records that show exactly how well you're doing in your home games? What I mean is, do you know pretty accurately how much you're making per hour? If you do, then you can probably estimate how much rake you would pay per hour if that same home game were raked in a casino, and then you'll have an estimate of whether you can beat that game in a casino setting.
Of course, if your home game is typical, it is easier to beat than most casino poker games (because the players are weaker and/or there are fewer truly good players).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
the only "playing i've done for a long time is with my computer, both as a "human" & in hi speed simulation. that, with a couple of quick trips to atlantic city.
john
Lately I have been playing a lot of poker on the internet and I was wondering how legitimate these games might be. I was just wondering because the last 2 times I had pocket kings..I got beat with pocket aces...what are the odds? Anyway just looking for your thoughts.
Scooter,
Check out the Exchange. There was a recent thread on the subject. For a wide variety of thought, check out www.deja.com. Go to power search, look at the newsgroup rec.gambling.poker and search for the keywords "Planet Poker" or Internet. You should find a wide variety of opinions and experience.
I play but use it mostly for teaching. I think Planet Poker is trying to run an honest operation but they have some problems inherent to internet gambling. Overall, my experience is positive.
Regards,
Rick
I played poker last saturday at Foxwoods. It was the first time I had been on the felt for over 6 weeks. I sat in a 10-20 Holdem agme with a half kill. (I'm going to start a thread on Kill games at some other time.) I began at 11a.m. and finished a $15 winner at 3:30p.m. I left the game not because it was a bad game but because I felt that I was playing terribly. Now this is important because of what follows.
Since I felt that I was playing poorly and I still wanted to play poker I decided to play some 15-30 Stud. So I picked up my chips and sat in on a must move game. I wasn't at the table more than 10 minutes when the player on my left struck up a conversation with me. Always amenable to keeping the opponent on my left friendly I indulged him. His first comment, and I quote:" I was watching you play Holdem. My friend is at that table. He said you were a great player" Now I am not posting this to boost my already considerable ego. I only mention it to point out the differing views of two observers.
Now to the reason for the post. This same opponent then asked: "Can a 15-30 Stud player learn to play Holdem at the 3-6 level?"
My initial response was No. I then qualified that no. I feel that to learn poker correctly you must play at a level that has meaning. That is a level where the money means something to you. A 15-30 player will have a considerable amount of trouble at the 3-6 level. (Unless, of course, he has lost his BR and now must build it back.) 3-6 will just not offer the psychological interest to the 15-30 player. The paradox here is that the 3-6 level can offer a reasonable level of play for a beginner to learn the game. So, anyone else have an opinion?
Vince.
Vince,
Just an aside. Playing horrible for a Vegas player= playing really well for an east coast player (in hold'em). Bring some of the money back to Vegas.
Randy R.
Randy,
Are you saying that someone who is considered to play well on the east coast equals playing terribly in Vegas. What about a california player. Compare the 3. What about stud players? What level do you most play at?
I hope it's not too personal. I'm just trying to find out how big a difference it really is between skill levels.
"how big a difference it really is between skill levels."
Berya, (Randy, hope you don't mind my 2 cents)
Typically 10-20 Vegas games are much tougher than those I've played at Foxwoods or A.C. By much tougher I mean that the average local Vegas player, professional or recreational, has a better understanding of correct Holdem play. I attribute this to experience. Holdem has been played on a large scale out west much longer than back east. Interstingly, I have found that some of the best players in Vegas are originally from back east. Go figure. BTW- I will also have to say the same thing appears true for mid limit 7 Stud although not to the same degree. The reason that the Stud games appear tougher in Vegas is because there are not as many of them as there are back east. Consequently you get a greater concentration of skilled stud players in the same game. Don't let that fool you though becasuse there are some great stud players back east.
Vince.
Vince hit this one pretty good. When I was in the east I generally played 20-40 (Horseshoe in Tunica Miss; Soaring Eagle in Mt. Pleasant MI nad Grand Victoria in Rising sun In (20-40 was less common there)) and in Las Vegas I play mostly 6-12 at Mirage; 8-16 at Bellagio; 4-8 1/2 kill at MGM and 6-12 with kill to 10-20 at Orleans. I also play in the 10-20 at MGM when they get one and occasionally in the 15-30 at Bellagio if it looks really soft. The 20-40 in Michigan and Indiana is dofter than any of the Vegas games and the 20-40 in Miss is softer than all of the Vegas games except the MGM and the 6-12 at Mirage (actually I think the 6-12 at Mirage and 20-40 in Tunica are very comparable; the Tunica has a few experts and the 6-12 sometimes has some really weak tourists).
As far as California players I am leaving for there on Fri for my first trip to California. I plan to post a trip report on the exchange forum on my return, so I should ahve some additional insight.
I haven't been in Tunica in over a year, so the game may have changed. If anyone disagrees/agrees with my assesment I would love to hear about it.
Randy Refeld
Randy,
Thanks for your take on Tunica. I will be heading there Mid October. Trip report will follow. Of course Mason wants this stuff on the exchange. He's right. I'll post mine there.
Vince.
My opinion is that your friend will have trouble with 3/6 HE because the stakes will be too small to have much meaning for him. I think he should start at 5-10 / 6-12, where he can gain meaningful experience but not lose a bunch of $$ while he is learning.
If he is a regular 15-30 player he should have more than enough bankroll for 5-10 HE. But a loss will still hurt a little, so he will take the game seriously. I find that in one of my home games (that is really small) the stakes aren't enough to mean anything to me, so I don't play as seriously when I am there. 3-6 is pretty small if you are used to 15-30.
Dave in Cali
I totally disagree that the 15-30 player cant learn to play at the 3-6 level. This is totally dependant on the player. If he is someone with an ego problem who cannot handle playing a smaller lever, then of course he will have a problem. If he is a good player who understands the game and knows that he is in a learning stage then he should have no problem.
I am a regular 10-20/20-40 player. I am also a regular 3-6/5-10 player. When the bigger games are bad, I just move down and have no problem with this. Why should I play in a tough 20-40 game where I might have an expectation of $15/hour with a $400/hour standard deviation when I can play in a $5-10 game with the same $15/hour expectation with a standard deviation of $100/hour.
Now these numbers may be a little off, but I think you get the point. There is nothing wrong with playing a smaller game. If the player has an ego problem, then he may have trouble with this.
Just my opninions.
Rob
You are a lucky man for thinking this way. I envy you.
As a predominately low-limit player, perhaps I'm a little defense, but this has to be correct. I can understand the stakes being so low that a good player finds the game a waste of time, but then he shouldn't bother playing (I know, must move). I also understand the need to have an incentive to play your best. Since real money, however, only reflects one's quality of play in the long run, really good players, when at the table, must be satisfied with simply making the best decisions they can. The stakes should only be a factor in figuring out how your opponents think and feel.
If a player really "can't" adjust to lower stakes, I suspect he has an emotional attachment to money that hinders him when he plays higher than usual or even at his usual game when he's stuck or on a dry spell. Or maybe he's slow to adjust to different playing styles. While these might apply in varying degrees to most good players, I still can't see them as anything but weaknesses.
I meant "defensive," in the first sentence, not "defense," but feel free to assume "dense."
I lose every time at 6-12 (I confess, that's been three times this year). Just not enough money involved to make you REALLY focus. On top of that, my guess is that most of the players in the 6-12 game are waiting for a seat in a different game, so they don't particularly care enough to play properly either. Net result -- high deviation for all concerned. Theoretically, I suppose it can be beaten, but who is going to play enough hours at the game to show a statistically relevant EV.
But perhaps we are in good company. Stu Ungar once said that, "I have no chance in a 5-10 game, no chance whatsoever." While I understand that thought, I prefer to take Phil Hellmuth's new attitude, quoting words to the effect that, "the next time I win the world championship, I'm going to have enough humility that I can sit down in a low-limit game and win." Now *that* is discipline.
Earl, what Phil ought to do *RIGHT NOW* is have the discipline and humility to play nothing but Hold 'em tournaments. He might do OK in California 20-40 to 40-80, but I'll bet that Roy Cooke, Mason, and Abdul would pay his airfare to get him to the Bellagio 30-60.
I thought it was Huck Seed who said that but I could be wrong. Whoever it was who said it delivers the right message: You have to play at the proper level for you. I personally couldn't play 3-6 and when I do get down to Vegas again (Gawd, it's been more than a year since I've been there), I probably would feel uncomfortable at 30-60. But let me at them 15-30 players...what the hell, I have a few thousand to blow in a weekend.
Huck could grind 30-60. Russ Hamilton made a similar comment about tourneys: Players should only play there best events, not every event. That's why he only plays No-Limit Hold 'em and Pot-Limit Omaha tourneys. Hellmuth is the best ever at all forms of Hold 'em tourneys (for every one he's won, there's three he should've), his wife just wants him to play those only, he's never done much in other events, and his side record is horrific, but he's got too much pride. Give him credit, he admits all his flaws; I guess he wants to be the best poker player ever, not just the best Hold 'em tourney player ever. NOTE: Stu Ungar was the best at No-limit tourneys, but Phil's much better at limit.
Vince - Of course I have an opinion! Does the emperor have no clothes here? Could one of the best contemporary poker players beat a typical 3-6 game? YES.
This is just a matter of adjustment of your strategy to the game that you are in. If Phil Hellmuth, or Mason or David or Ray, sat down in a 3-6 game, it would take a while (maybe 1/2 hour or more) for them to fully realize the depth of poor play to which they have descended, and then they would make the proper adjustments. I actually recommend that the authors DO that sometime, just to remain in contact with some of their readers.
I will also grant your point. If the expert is playing at a level so low that the money doesn't matter, then maybe he is not motivated to play well. But I can't really believe that a professional poker player wouldn't play at any level to win. Even I, an amateur, play my family for pennies (reallly) with a strategy to win, because it's a game and we keep score in pennies. You should see me cut throats in a Monopoly game.
I also believe that it is easier to move down than up. If I suddenly win the lottery and move up to the Bellagio 100-200 game, I am going to have a problem winning. But if a winning 30-60 player sits down in a 3-6 game, you have to believe he has been there sometime in the past, and he does know how to win.
Dick
I have some good news and some bad news. The bad news - if you like the game as it is currently played - is that five-round seven-card stud is now obsolete. The good news is that four-round seven-card stud, or mississippi seven, is a much better game.
To play mississippi take a table of poker players and deal two cards down one up to each player; bet, then drop two cards to each player, bypassing fourth street and giving everyone an express ride to a five card holding for the second round of betting. The sixth and seventh card follow, but deal the last card up. You can leave the last card down if you play limit betting.
Mississippi is 7CS with a two card drop, bypassing fourth street, and the last card up instead of down.
This follows the model of holdem, which is the way seven card poker should be played: four rounds of betting, a multi-card draw bringing five cards into play at the second round, and only two concealed cards.
No doubt Mississppi looks at first glance like another dealer's choice game of dubious appeal. My belief is that it's nothing of the sort. I think I can prove it, but whether I can prove it or not, the market will love this game.
Once you've been dealt two cards for your opening bet, getting only one feels like a rip- off, which it is. A table that starts playing mississippi is unlikely it to change back to old-style seven, because mississippi gives better poker value, and it's faster and more active, so the house profits too.
The layout of mississippi is 3-2-1-1, which compares to holdem's 2-3-1-1 and five-card stud's 2-1-1-1: it fits the classic mould of a high-limit championship game.
Seven card stud has the layout 3-1-1-1-(1) and has no living relatives, but was born of six- card stud, which died giving birth, and was never very popular anyway. Six card stud is 2-1-1-1-(1).
If holdem was played with five rounds it would be 2-2-1-1-1, with a two card flop instead of three. Not as good as real holdem by a long way, but playable. And so it is with mississippi; if you insert an extra round of betting at the fourth card it becomes an inferior but still playable game known as seven-card stud.
Last-card-down was a six-card stud gadget which gave an added incentive to play for another round. It's a poor trade when you look at what the extra round and extra hole-card does when applied to seven-card stud: it kills the game for high-limit poker, which is a serious criticism for a poker form.
Again, look at what the same thing does to holdem: a third hole card at seventh street would spoil the game for anything but limit betting.
Seven-stud's 3-1-1-1-(1) layout is an archaic and imperfect structure. The things which make seven-card stud attractive are the three-card start and the seven card finish. The three card start is a beautiful poker proposition, and it gets better when you add a two card draw after the first round.
I'll stop here for now, but will for the record give the rules to the communal card versions of the 3-2-1-1 mississippi structure, which together make up most of the fourth and last family of poker: actually it may become the first family: the others were just discovered first. This is poker for the twenty-first century.
All these games have four rounds of play and follow the 3-2-1-1 pattern, which I thought could be called the River family of poker games, in remembrance of the founding game of seven card poker, soon to be in honourable retirement.
Shanghai: deal three cards to each player, two down one up. After betting, drop two communal cards on the deck, then a third and a fourth communal. This gives four communal cards and one card face up in front of each active player.
Billabong: Deal four cards to each player, three down, one up. Only two out of the three concealed cards are live. After betting, drop two communal cards, followed by a third and a fourth communal. This gives four communal cards, one card face-up in front of each player, and three cards in hand, two of which can be used.
Pinatubo. This is a stripped deck version with five communal cards based on the popular limit game, Manila. There is a saying "Beware of Greeks playing Manila" because it's an hellenic favourite. Manila shares the inferior 3-1-1-1-1 structure of 7CS: Pinatubo is 3-2-1-1. Deal each player two cards from a 32-card deck, and turn one communal card. Bet, then drop two more communals, then a third and a fourth communal as usual. This gives five communal cards and two in hand. Both cards in hand must be used. >>>The five-communal-card layout doesn't work with a full deck, but Pinatubo is a killer. Try it. Nothing you know about other forms of poker will help you much with this one, but it's real poker. A flush beats a full-house of course, and the ace counts as a six for baby straights. <<<<<
Zanzibar: deal five cards to each player, one face up. After betting, turn two communal cards, then a third and fourth. Only two concealed cards can be used.
Murrumbidgee: this can be played as a stud game or with communal cards. Deal five cards face down to each player. Players discard two cards, and one of the remaining three is turned at random. If played stud style the discards will need to be re-shuffled if more than five players are at the table. If played with communal cards the game proceeds without a reshuffle, with the two card drop/turn, followed by a third and a fourth communal.
Huxley 9/9/99
Huxley,
If you want another variant of 7CS I have one. It's called 7CSF (7 card stud with a floater). Two cards are dealt down and the third one is dealt up. Then the floater (community card)is placed in front of the dealer face down. You have the initial betting on third street low or high starts whatever rules you go by and when that is completed you turn over the floater. If it pairs the door card bets are doubled. You then go around as normal betting or checking or dropping in sequence. You then proceed through the rest of the hand as if it were 7CS. You end up with one extra betting round with the floater and the hands that win are usually better than 7CS obviously. It's fun to play and you seem to get people chasing more than 7CS.
Paul
Paul Feeney writes of the game 7CSF, which is seven card stud with eight active cards(one communal) which makes it eight card stud, and six rounds long.
Mississippi goes the other way: a two card drop, making only four rounds of play, and only two hole cards. I don't regard it as a variation of seven card stud: it's the correct way to play seven card poker with a three card start.
7CS is an obviously inferior version of mississippi, but you have to play it to know that.
huxley,
Take a chill pill I was just offering up another game not trying to take over your world of Mississippi.
Paul
I have been playing 7cs for about a month and would call myself a smart player who is learning, I lose about $5/hour. I live in FL where poker stakes are max. $10/hand. I think I lose because I call and raise in situations where I should fold. I would fold with more marginal hands if I had to put up $3-10 to see the next card. When I only have to throw in a $1 though I don't think its a very big deal-a dollar for a shot to fill. I'm wondering if I can truly learn in this low stakes game and what can be done to maximize time spent in the poker room (more knowledge maximization than $ maximization)?? Should I be more disciplined in the lower stakes game and if it's not a good way to learn what would you suggest.
J. Pfeifer
If this is one of those Florida poker games I have heard of with a maximum pot size of $10 of which they rake $2 a pot regardless and once the pot reaches $10 you can't bet anymore, a big problem you are facing is that you're in a game that's probably impossible to beat. The rake is *huge* (a minimum of 20% per hand), you can't bet enough to protect your hand, you can't bet for value in later betting rounds (if the pot reached $10), etc. This game sounds like showdown poker where 5-6 people put in $2 each by 4th or 5th street and then sit back and wait to see who has the best hand. At least that's the way a friend of mine described it when he lived in Florida and played in them a few years ago. The showdown aspect takes away any advantage in skills you might have, and the huge rake makes it impossible to beat. It's no surprise you're losing money in this game but I suspect that most everyone who plays long term in this game loses money. The only one who wins is the house. You're better of finding another game. Low stakes are fine as long as the rake is reasonable and there is no cap on the pot size. The cap on the pot size takes away many aspects of poker that you'll end up never getting exposed to that are crucial to becoming a better poker player.
J.,
"I live in FL " Speaks for itself. Not a poker paradise.
"When I only have to throw in a $1 though I don't think its a very big deal"
If you are playing for stakes that are not a big deal it will be very hard if not impossible to learn to play the game correctly. Also, when you do move up you will have a tendency to call when you should fold. The number 1 mistake in poker (IMO). Discipline yourself to play correctly regardless of the stakes. Easier said than...
Vince.
You're probably doomed to stay a loser in these games because the Florida rake is too high to be beaten no matter what you do. And if low limit is the elementary school of poker, the $10 pot cap must make these games like special ed. Try home games or the gambling ships.
The rake is equivalnt to 18.5% if the pot reaches 10$ witch it does not always do. If you play very well you might only lose 20$ in 3 hrs or maybe win 10 to 15$, it is almost impossible to beat. You can learn a little discpline and people reading skills at this limit but that is about it.
Fly to Bolixi or drive there if you want real poker. If you get caught in a home game it is a 2nd degree mistermeaner. It is a felony if you are running the game and take a rake, believe my i know.
The boats take 10% to 5$ that also is a very hard rake to beat.
You could do either of two things.a) Visualize chips as unit of play for a contest and imagine the they have more "VALUE" b) find a decent home game where the game is clean and play for higher stakes.
I started playing in a small, private game that consist mainly of jackpots and a game they call fifty-three. Most of the players are stacked with at least a grand, but I dont think that much money is needed for the game we play. Jackpots goes about average with a 5-10 ante, depending on the night. Fifty-three, which I had never played until now, goes like this: Players are dealt five cards, and then three cards a placed on the table face down.These cards act as community cards. For the first card you pay 10, the next 30, and finally 50. This game is only played mabye twice an hour. I only bring around 200 to these games, and I usually win at least a good 400. It seems that whenever I get into the fifty-three game it burns me. Should I just only play amazing hands when fifty-three is called, or just avoid it period? Is my stack too small to begin with?
Jeremy
53: There is no draw and you play the best 5 cards of 8?
I intuitively suspect the average winning hand for an 8-card game in a loose game with be a Q-high straight; give-or-take a lot. If so, you need to draw to hands better than that.
I intuitively suspect the following: I would play AJ or better 4-flushes, trips, and some combination hands like a pair of Ks and an AK-three flush. Abandon flush draws when the board pairs and two people like it. Get very paraniod when there are two cards of the same suit bigger than the second card of your suit (the first being an Ace).
- Louie
Father, I have sinned. The lord hath given me bounty and I squandered it in a moment of foolishness. I tell you my confession seeking not forgiveness (for the tables hath none, though my bankroll may heal), but rather so that others may learn from my story or simply be reminded of the path of righteousness.
Gladly did I buy in for $59 to play in the limit Hold-Em tournament. Full of fire was I! For twice had I gone to this same battle and succumbed to my foes (yea, even before the break on one occasion), but this time I felt ready to conquer all of the world.
Father, I must confess that my faith did waver at the beginning. Though I was dealt many playable cards, the flop missed me and lo, I was left with garbage that must be mucked. And soon I was down to but the dregs of my original T$300, and the mighty prayer of "Rebuy!" I did issue. Carefully now did I bide my time, for as the High Priest did take of me $50 for the extra T$300 he remindeth me: "my son, this is but a single-rebuy tournament".
And lo! My prayer was heard! And the angels rejoiced! And I turned a straight which held up, as the temples are held up by worship of thee. And my house filled up, and no bigger house there was. And so it went, until my chips stacketh high like a tower of praise in thy name. And I said many hallelujias, for I was given much action by those who came to gamble! And I did admonish them, "live by the raise, die by the raise" And I was much contented.
But then came a break in the combat, and many had to relieve themselves, and I counted my chips and lo! I had T$1400, and the High Priest did say "there were 31 rebuys, making the prize pool $4050". And there was much rejoicing. And here is how we count the numbers: T$300 times five tables times ten plus 31 is T$24300, and T$24300 divided by forty (for after the break, a table of sinners was gone) is just over T$600, and yea, my stack was more than twice that high.
And lo! I looked from table to table, and from stack to stack, and my temple to the lord was as great as any, perhaps the greatest! And I did thank the lord. Such harvest and bounty had I not seen for many a long battle.
The conflict resumed, and though I am not a coward, I did let others fight, for it is best to attack only when the advantage is yours. And I did steal some blinds and I did take down a small pot and soon my tower was greater, yet no longer the greatest, but still it measured T$2000 or more.
And the High Priest came to our table and said, "take each of you but one card from the deck, for the other table hath suffered grievous casualties, and one of you must join it". And lo! I did draw the high card (a ten!), and I was taken from my seat of great honor.
Unknown faces greeted me, and the taxes were high, and I was weary. "Fold!" said I. "Fold! Fold! Fold!", for my cards were as ash in my mouth. And it was good, for garbage is as garbage plays. And thus I went, until again the High Priest told us it was a time of rest and relief.
Merry was I, for though we had lost yet another table, and T$23400 divided by twenty is T$1170, yet my stack was larger than this, though somewhat taxed. At least T$1500 did it measure.
And then father, I sinned. Mortally did I sin! And it was not a single sin, but a sin of many parts, of many errors. For on the first hand after the time of rest, I did get AKo in middle position. And lo, an elder, who I had only watched play briefly, did raise to T$200! And yea, it was a time of much thievery from the blind, and methought "I shall stop the stealing! I shall give a lesson to this faithless heathen! For I have a mighty warrior with a mighty weapon to fight for me!" So I did raise to T$300. And all began to fold, and it was good. But the elder, faithless heathen, did call! And yes, father, he was not a short stack, although he was not tall neither. But stacked enough to fight, as I should have noticed. But I am a sinner, and let excitement overcome judgement.
But still I fought. For the flop came JTx rainbow. And the elder checked his hand and I thought to myself "aha! the faithless heathen has aught but garbage, and garbage is as garbage plays!" So I did bet T$100! And woe but he did call.
And then father, I was punished for my sin, yet sin I did some more. For the turn brought K! (still rainbow) And I did have top pair, and a mighty kicker, and glad I was, for the elder checked. And I bet T$200, and I bet it mightily!
But woe! Woe is me! How I gnash my teeth thinking of my foolisheness! For the elder did raise to T$400! The faithless heathen did a checkraise deliver to my sinning hands, and woe, but I was lulled into calling. For I had top pair, and a mighty kicker, and an inside straight draw.
But punished again was I, for the river was a blank, and the elder did bet T$200, and I did call, and lo, my fears were confirmed! To temptation I had succumbed, and the enemy had AQo, and his straight was good.
Mighty to my stack was the damage! From T$1500 to T$500 I plunged, like the Fallen One into the depths. And even then I was granted a blessing, for the small blind did fold to me in my big blind, and I did win the race for the odd chips, and I was reseated behind the button.
But my sinning was mortal, and though 9 places were payed, and I clutched my last few chips like one lost in the desert, at the end I had K4s and did call, and did not win, and my last chip was a big blind of Q5o, and the enemy had an Ace, and woe but the board brought an Ace as well. And I was out in 11th place.
And I did curse myself and my fate and my foolishness, for I had gone to war foolishly with the elder for no reason! I had but to wait, and in the end money would be mine, if not the $1600 first place, then yea, some money, even lowly 9th place, be it only $100!
And my tale is done, but father, may it serve as a reminder to those who do battle in tournaments.
Amen.
Too Funny. :)
-Michael
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
Your play against the elder was OK. You might have considered just calling preflop, unless you thought that others would then call also.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
And I thought I was strange.
Typical elders UTG in tournaments are rightfully only playing premium hands lined with gold. If this is a typical elder dump AK and lament not. If the elder is "gambling" and raising with most other 20/21 hands then that is EXACTLY the kinds of hands you want to play AK against (ones that have an Ace or a King in it). If so, 3-bet and rejoice.
Since the elder did in fact have the cheese hand lined with yellow bronze, you should be gleeful to engage with your dominating hand. He hit is 3-outer so what.
So, you 3-bet with AK 'cause you believe he will raise with AQ, AJ, or KQ. On the turn with 3 high cards, one of you is drawing VERY slim to the other. This makes for a good check since a bet gains one bet if correct and loses two if incorrect, a bet doesn't change your chances much (he's going to call), and that single bet in your diminished stack is worth much more than the single bet you can ADD to that stack; this being a tournament. And the only hands you can beat now are KQ and AJ, which are sure to be in the minority of his possible pre-flop raising hands.
Checkth the turn, payth it off.
- Louieth
On the flop the only hands you can beat are KQ and AQ, unless he raised with a medium pair.
I was just trying to be funny, not strange.
However, some people probably think I am strange, so oh well.
Anyhow...
I agree with your analysis, insofar as I should have checked and called twice. This would have saved me T$200, making my "bad beat" only cost me just over half my stack, rather than 2/3 of it.
However, I still believe that my engaging him was a "sin", because this was a tournament. In a ring game, I can say "bad beat" when he hits his three-outer.
In a tournament, I believe I should not have imperiled my stack, unless I had the way best of it. Nobody else is likely to call the T$200 (maybe the BB) and the "elder" is unlikely to fold. So there's not much reason to raise pre-flop.
Furthermore, it was a "sin" to engage the elder because he had too many chips for me to put him all-in, but enough to seriously damage my stack.
That, I think is the lesson.
--james
1) Your original post was brilliant, a joy to read, funny, not strange. If the poker gods don't smile on you, you should consider a second career as a writer. However, your analysis of your play indicates that the poker gods will, if they have not already, smile anon.
2) I'm not a tournament player, but I understand your feeling that you "sinned" by engaging the elder with a hand that was only slightly better than his. I don't think the "sin" was in playing the A-K, but rather in your play from the turn when the board containing K-J-T should have looked liked trouble against the elder. What hand could he have that you could beat that he would still play?
Still, it was a tough spot and you did get beat by a three-outer.
Thanks for the entertainment, a much needed commodity at this site. I get a smile or two out of Abdul Jalib's posts, but yours had a broad grin on my face throughout.
verily thou speakst in a tongue this tournament varlet took great pleasure in. forsooth. thou spoke the truth.
Please post if you know of any publications that describe strategies specifically for one-on-one hold'em.
Thanks,
There really aren't much of any specific strategies that you should follow for HU HE. Since you don't have to worry about the best 1-5 hands out of 8-10 players dealt in, it's not so much what cards you're holding as what you can cause the opponent to do.
In other words, the correct strategy against each opponent will vary by so much that there really is no basic strategy as to what cards you should play and what you should do on each betting round.
This is a game of knowing the opponent.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Betting strategies are your main concern. I recommend reading the HPFAP 21st C edition Short-handed section.
I calculate the chances of completing a 4-flush on 4th when you have seen no other cards, and when you have seen 2 of your suit as follows:
Chance-of-Making = 1-Chance-of-Missing. *** Missing means catching all three cards of the remaining 39 non-suited cards, = 39choose3 = 39*38*37/6=## 9139 ## number of ways of doing that.
With no other cards seen the total number of outcomes is 48choose3 = 48*47*46/6= ##17,296 ##. *** With two cards of your suit gone there are now 46 cards left, 46choose3 = 46*45*44/6 = ##15,180 ##.
So with no other cards seen you miss 9139/17,296 = 52% or you make it 48%. *** With 2 of your suit gone you miss 9139/15180 = 60% or make it 40% of the time.
But I have always been under the impression that 2 cards gone means you are half as likely to make it. Is that just a holdem flop number?
What's wrong?
- Louie
PS. Yes, if you see 7 other DOORs cards and none of them are your suit, that improves your chances a lot.
Your calculations are correct. Here is another way to get all the probabilities you ask about:
4 flush with no other cards seen (why can't you see them?) gives you 3 chances to catch one of 9 cards out of 48 so 1 - chance of missing = 1 - (39/48)(38/47)(37/46) = 47%
4 flush with 2 of your suit gone gives you 3 chances to catch one of 7 cards out of 46 so 1 - (39/46)(38/45)(37/44) = 40%.
If you see seven offsuit cards out, then you have 3 chances to catch one of 9 cards out of 41 so 1 - (32/41)(31/40)(30/39) = 53% (only a little better than than the 47% if you didn't see the 7 cards.
4 flush in holdem on the flop gives you 2 chances to catch one of 9 cards out of 47 so 1 - (38/47)(37/46) = 35% the well known result.
4 flush in holdem on the flop if you know 2 of your suit are out (did you peek?) gives you 2 chances for one of 7 cards out of 45 so 1 - (38/45)(37/44) = 29%.
The hold'em result isn't half either so I'm not sure what your statement applies to.
The following scenario unfolded last night in a fairly good 3-6HE game populated by a nice mix of calling stations, loose, aggressive types and a couple of solid players who don't usually try anything too fancy at this level. I would put myself in the last category.
I am in late position, one off the button with the red A's. One early caller (shooter type with frequent off-beat raises), then raised by another frequent raiser. Folded to me, I re-raise. Button (usually fairly solid) cold-calls, and the BB, whom I had never played with and had no read on his tendancies, capped it. Original caller calls, raiser calls, and five of us take the flop capped. Flop comes down 9-4-2 rainbow. Couldn't ask for much more, right? BB checks (??), check, bet, I raise, button calls, BB calls,call, call.
Turn comes down 6h, putting a heart draw on the board. Check, check, I bet, button calls(overcards?, pair?), BB just calls (AK?), fold, and now I get check raised by the loose, aggressive player who first raised the pot to begin with. Given the fact about the only plausible hand to beat you is a set (I can't see anyone having 3-5 at this point), do you go ahead and 3-bet it? If I'm still in the lead, obviously, I want to both get as much money in as possible and put maximum pressure on the button and BB, but if I'm drawing thin to a 2-outer over-set on the river, I have to slow down. I don't know enough about this player to know if he would try to put a "move" on me at this point, given the fact there are still two other players in the hand. This is 3-6, after all, and not the 30-60 at Bellagio.
I just called the check-raise, and the button and BB also called. River comes offsuit 8, conjesting the board significantly with small cards. BB checks, check-raiser bets, and given the size of the pot, I call. BB overcalls. Check-raiser makes the comment," You must win." I should have waited for him to turn over his hand, but as it appeared I was about to take down a big pot, I turned over the bullets, BB showed pocket K's, and the other hand went into the muck. I overheard him comment to his neighbor that he had an open-ended straight, and a flush draw on the turn, thus the aggressive check-raise, I guess.
Thinking about the hand later, I wondered: did I play this to my best advantage? Pre-flop, no problems. I jam it to the max with Ace's in every circumstance. Post-flop, what is the concensus? Would you 3-bet the turn check-raise? Would you raise the river bet? Consider folding at any point? Comments, please.
First, this pot is huge, so you can't consider folding on the turn or river, not until there's a bet, raise, and reraise to you. Even then calling probably isn't that big of a loser (in a typical 3-6 game).
In most 3-6 games, against most opponents, I would go into check-and-call mode here on the turn (I mean after he check-raised you). You really can't say with all that much certainty that he doesn't have 96 or 64 for 2-pair, as many folks would play these suited. Plus, the set you're afraid of is still quite possible. The only advantage I see to reraising is to get someone with a hand like 9T, 98, 65, etc., i.e., someone with 5 or more outs, to fold. If you get one of these guys with 5-9 outs to fold, you've bought a lot of pot equity. However, as you've said, you might be down to only 2-8 outs yourself, in which case you want to see the river cheap. Overall, I don't expect any of these guys to fold a 5-card (or better) draw here, so I think that calling is higher EV than raising, in most cases.
No need to raise on the river, as you'll not get a better hand to fold, and you'll probably lose more extra money than you win in most cases.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
4-betting the flop and 2-betting the flop and turn is a lot for Aces. Against almost all players call and pay it off.
Having said that, betting and calling the raise, then check-raising the turn when they flop a set is uncharacteristic of loose aggressive players. If they are "tricky" they would tend to slow play from the get-go, hehehe; if they are not they would tend to have 3-bet it. "Sensible" loose aggressive players may make this play, as will many other solid types.
Against THIS player, I would 3-bet it and put lots of pressure on the 2 2-5 out hands behind you. If there were only one, I think just call and encourage a bluff.
- Louie
PS. One SHOULD 3-bet the flop with this set since its "obvious" the tight player has a premium pair and is a favorite to cap it. Cha-Ching!
Dunc, a suggestion: try and not reveal your opponent's hands as doing so usually leads to less helpful analysis. You can always tell us what he had when the thread begins to peter out.
There is very little doubt in my mind that you ought to 3 bet the turn. I take it that the checkraiser on the turn was also the preflop raiser. He likely doesn't have a straight or 2 pair. He has either a big pocket pair or now picked up a big flush draw (less likely) or a set. If he has a set, you lose 2 big bets by 3 betting him (and if he caps it). On the other hand, if he has just KK and your failure to reraise allows a hand like 98, A5 etc. to beat you on the river, you lose the pot.
Unless you have a great read on this fellow and put him on a set (and I don't know how you can), you must reraise.
BTW, you may wish to consider just calling the flop instead of raising. This is the new 21st Century Edition idea to delay the "thin the field raise" to the turn. However, the play is more dangerous here than in the examples given in the book because with a 9 high flop, there is no guarantee that the flop bettor will lead again on the turn (i.e. a King or something on the turn may cause him to check and thereby deprive you of the opportunity to raise).
It is certainly difficult (impossible) to put this guy on a set because the usual play would of course be to check raise me, probably on the turn, if no scare card came up. I have just had the 21st Century edition of HEFAP delivered, and will get into the book shortly. It might made defined the position a little cleared if the calling station in the blind with KK had come to life after the flop, but when he didn't act, I was sort of on an island trying to figure what what the aggressive guy had. If this player was capable of getting into third level thinking, and he was savvy enough to figure out that I was also capable on getting into that mode and possibly laying down AA, I should be prepared to find a little softer 3-6 game! Thanks for the help.
.
I'm a fairly new poster to this forum, and while we all have our share or horror stories, I don't think this is the place to share them unless there is something we can learn from them about our play. One can always justify his actions by what eventually happened, but in the bridge world doing post-hand analysis, we called these types "results wizards". If I can garner even a small nugget of useful information from the more experienced players out there, it can only help me down the road. This story did have a happy ending (for me), but that's beside the point. Thanks for the input.
Just be careful how you title the post... I almost skipped this thread b/c I thought it would be a bad-beat story. :-)
--james
PS I wouldn't 3-bet pre-flop with AA unless I thought it would thin the field. Sounds like you were suprised that the button and BB called in this game (and expected the pot to be 3-way, rather than 5-way), so your raise was probably correct for your game. If you are in a game where button and BB will always call, then the 3-bet works against you by giving the drawing hands too good of odds after the flop.
Readers of my earlier post, 7CS R.I.P. 1999, , will perhaps have the impression that I don't like 7CS, seeing as I have put forward the argument that it cannot survive in competition with mississippi seven.
I must admit I always had mixed feelings about 7CS. It's complex and interesting, but deeply flawed, and a dreadful high-limit game.
There are three problems: The bet at fourth street, excessive length, and the third hole card.
It's easiest to see how bad these things are by looking at what they do when you inflict them on a perfectly good game of seven-card poker, namely, Holdem.
Holdem could be played with a bet at fourth street by flopping two cards instead of three. Would that be a good thing? Obviously not.
Unless we make other changes, adding that bet makes the game five rounds long with a structure of 2-2-1-1-1. Would that be a good thing? No again.
The last card could be dealt down to each player, giving three hole-cards. Would that be a good thing?
Obviously a bet at fourth, five rounds of betting and a third hole card pretty well destroys holdem as a serious form of poker, though it would be ok for limit betting.
Holdem with a two card flop is playable, but no one would prefer it to holdem with a three card flop. It would be a perfectly good limit game, suitable for a lot of analysis, just as seven-card stud is, but it would never have the status of being a world championship game, if played that way, just as seven card stud never will be, played as it is today.
Mississippi Seven is seven card stud without the bet at fourth street, with only two hole cards, and with one fewer round of betting, making four rounds instead of five.
Mississippi has the same true poker structure of holdem, and is equally spoiled when you add a bet at fourth street, make it five rounds long and turn the last card down - in other words, seven card stud is just as bad a game when compared to mississppi seven, as holdem with a two-card flop and a third hole-card is when compared to real holdem.
Seven card stud is a great game, if you don't spoil it with a superfluous bet at fourth street and a third hole card.
Contrary to the title, the poster never says /why/ 7CS is bad, he only asks us to imagine doing similar things to Hold'Em and assumes we'll see them as bad things without giving us any reason to. As it happens, though, I agree with his assertion so I'll give some real reasons: Yes, 5 rounds makes too slow a game and lowers the strategy options that make sense in later rounds. Final card down also makes the final card decision pointless: if you called 6th, there's no reason to fold 7th unless you missed a draw so bad you shouldn't have called 6th in the first place. I do not, however, think 3down/4up is bad, just 7th down. So I've suggested this (I'll call it Sacramento 7): Round 1 as normal; Round 2 deals 2 up; Round 3 is /down/, river is up. I've played it at home and it makes for a rich strategic game that moves quickly and has the occasional scary ending.
Mason Malmuth writes: Sounds good to me! Everyone will have their own reasons for liking the game, or not. But it isn't just a matter of opinion, there are some facts at hand which show that mississippi has a big edge over seven=card stud:
1. It's faster, and pit-bosses will love that. 2. the two-card draw is undeniably more exciting than fourth street and fifth street. 3. Drawing two cards to three is a very interesting poker proposition, better and more interesting than holdem's three card flop to a two card holding. Aces win far too easily in holdem, in mississippi they get run down by straights and flushes often enough to make a difference. QQ-4 versus K5-5 is very interesting poker, especially with a two card draw, but QQ versus 55 is one way traffic with the three card communal flop. The kicker helps the fives and hinders the queens, with the three card start.
4. Mississippi is suited to pot-limit and no-limit championship play, seven card stud is not (very).
Just to return to the third card down argument: look at how it hurts straights and flushes: they can never be the nuts or near the nuts if three cards are concealed. If you have an apparent straight or flush on fifth street and get called for two pot sized bets by a player with no pair straight or flush showing, what are you going to do on the end?
Betting into a likely full house is suicidal with full pot betting. With limit there is probably a formula which tells you how many times to raise in that situation, but in pot-limit, straights and flushes are not worth the effort and expense of chasing. The third down card will kill you.
The situation is that he can bluff you, but you can't really bluff him. If you were bluffing from fifth, what are you going to do? If you do it as a bluff you have to do it for real too, and it's going to cost you when you get reraised in that situation.
If he bets at you, again, he knows if he's ahead, you have no way of knowing if he is or not. He can bet out with three of a kind, if has you placed on two pair when you check, and he knows you can't raise him if you have the straight or flush.
So the third down card kills straights and flushes in pot-limit betting. They are just too vulnerable.
todd h writes: I have to plead guilty to this. I never liked seven stud, and I'm looking forward to playing the better version of it. Yes, I'm changing the game to the way I like it, but I like a game of omaha, or stripped deck draw, six handed with a thirty two card deck too.
Maybe I'll get some more people to play that too. It's miles better than jackpots.
The multi card draw was one of the pivotal inventions of poker, and I think it's about time seven card stud caught up.
Did I mention that Bob Wilson prefers mississippi to seven card stud?
I meant to quote Mason Malmuth as saying "My guess is that you like this game because you feel that you can win more consistently at it. Well, that might be the case, but that isn't necessarily good."
Something went wrong with my ctrl-v. I'll start reviewing before I send to avoid it happening again.
I still say, winning more sounds pretty good to me, but actually I haven't played mississippi enough to really know if I can win at it. Seven card stud has been my least profitable game, I must confess, so it wouldn't be hard for me to do better.
There are some typos in the previous post, in particular where I meant to quote todd h: "this post sounds a lot like someone who doesnt really like the game wanting to change the game so he likes it instead of finding a game he does like. "
I plead guilty to that! Funny thing is, I think it's going to work.
Posted by: Huxley (huxley@mail.dns.au.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 September 1999, at 5:30 a.m.
Posted by: Huxley (huxley@mail.dns.au.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 16 September 1999, at 5:22 a.m.
"It's complex and interesting, but deeply flawed, and a dreadful high-limit game."
In the United States, seven-card stud is the dominant high-limit game.
"There are three problems: The bet at fourth street,"
I like the fact that there's only one card at a time. Hands increase or decline in value more gradually, and each card involves different strategic ideas. 4th street can be a pivotal street despite the half-bet.
"excessive length,"
The pace of the game is slower, but that's because the decisions are more involved and you have to concentrate on remembering and taking into account folded cards as well as the situation and players.
"and the third hole card."
This can give a skilled player a large advantage. Players who are predictable on the river give away a lot, while expert play involves adjusting to and taking advantage of these mistakes.
Holdem is an excellent game also. Not everyone likes all games. If you prefer holdem, then play that. Stud definitely isn't for everyone. But I see no reason to change the rules to make stud more like holdem when it's a thriving game as it is. In the New York region casinos, stud is by far the most popular game.
Lee Daniel Crocker writes:
>I've suggested this (I'll call it Sacramento 7): Round 1 as >normal; Round 2 deals 2 up; Round 3 is/down/, river is up
Your game sacramento is the only one I've ever heard of which drops two cards instead of one after the three card start. It is undoubtedly a true form of seven card poker, like holdem and mississippi, which has the same structure.
Mississippi is available on disc - just switch off all fourth street play on a seven card stud programme and you have the last-card-down version of mississippi, which plays well as a limit game.
I have Wilson's Turbo Seven Card Stud for windows, and to modify it I simply entered p0 into every fourth street play domain in the profile editing screens - it takes a couple of minutes to do all seven screens. Once I had eight profiles I pushed the button and got my first set of stats for Mississippi seven.
I would suggest to anyone who is interested in the future of poker should play the game for half an hour for real money, and/or on disc before passing judgement.
Dan Rubenstein writes >In the United States, seven-card stud is the dominant high-limit game.>
Does that mean pot limit? I have played pot-limit stud in an English club a couple of times, and it's played half pot in Oz. I thought from what I have read, heard and seen on this page and elsewhere that limit betting was the dominant form in the US.
As a pot limit game it's way too slow: the issues are rarely clear cut and there is a lot to think about, five times. And the third hole card kills bluffing: it's hard to be agrressive in the face of unlimited hidden strength, which is what the third hole card grants. that's what some people like most about seven card stud: the limit betting and/or third hole card protects them from being bullied by big bettors.
There are only two good ways to start a game of seven card poker; with three live cards or with two. Starting with four live cards (usually two down two up) is playable, and is mercifully brief compared to seven-card stud, but it will never be a mainstream game.
After the three card start, it is customary, for no good poker reason that anyone can show, to drop four single cards, the last one down. My contention is that seven-card stud is popular in spite of those things, not because of them. Seven card stud has the three card start, and that's the best way to start a hand of seven card poker: the rest is out of shape, but it still works because of the strength of the start.
I think I can prove with compass and ruler that fourth street is a blot on a good game, but what I say in way of argument is irrelevent. The game speaks for itself, and it plays better than 7CS, better, I think, than holdem, and better than Lee Daniel Crocker's sacramento too.
Leaving aside any technical argument for the moment, the easiest way to show what adding fourth street, a third hole card, and a fifth round of betting to a good game of poker is to point out that adding any of those things to holdem - which is the only other practical way to play seven card poker - makes an inferior game of poker.
Same thing with mississippi: add in the bet at 4th, the fifth round and the third hole card and it is a shadow of itself called seven-card stud.
It only looks different because the shadow was seen first.
That doesn't matter much either I guess, all that matters is that mississippi seven is seven-card stud, only much better.
Huxley,
I was going to blast you for trying to say that 7-card stud was absolete and trying to change the game to Miss...stud, but you only said it because you are having problems with the game at this point in time. Come on take it easy already. We all get frustrated from time to time.
You say 4th street sucks. I think 4th street is very important. 4th street is usually the place where you can find where you are at for cheap and act accordingly.
Also I think the expert can extract a lot more value from his hand in stud than in hold-em especially against the weaker players and there lots of them.
You don't like the many cards you have to remember. Many people don't like it, but it is just part of the game(most card games). By the way if everybody remembered A L L the cards that went out you would have many great players, but this is not the case as most don't. I'm just saying it because I know if I remembered all the cards I would be a monster in this game. So, if you don't remember most all the cards maybe you should not play stud period.
As far as pot-limit 7-stud goes who wants to play it anyway. Make no mistake the best players still will have all the money at the end(in case of pot-limit it will be pretty quick)
I think something that is being lost here is that many of these games develop so that talented players can exploit weaker players. Why would anyone invent a game where tracking folded cards was such an integral part of the strategy? It is more work, it can tend to shorten the length of time you can play since you need to be mentally sharper than at holdem (at least i do). To make the changes that Huxley is proposing would rob the game of some of its inherent "nature" and minimize the advantage good players have over weak players.
I could imagine looking at any of the games we play and identifying the aspects of each that we do not enjoy, and desiring to change them so they conform more to our liking. I personally think it is easier to read someone at stud since you have distinct information about their hand. I am not as good at reading holdem since i have no info about each persons hole cards. Maybe holdem would be more exciting if it were dealt one up/one down. then there was a comunal flop, and turn and finally the river card is down to each player. this would make holdem more exciting for me, and easier since i am more proficient at stud.
the point is I think "change is bad" (this is one of my scientific mantras, the other is "more is better") and this post sounds a lot like someone who doesnt really like the game wanting to change the game so he likes it instead of finding a game he does like.
Todd Do or do not, there is no try
It seems to me that you are trying to reduce the short term luck factor in seven-card stud. It is precisely this reason why stud thrives at much higher limits than hold 'em. My guess is that you like this game because you feel that you can win more consistently at it. Well, that might be the case, but that isn't necessarily good.
Huxley,
Excellent! I've never played Mississippi Stud, but as soon as you described it, I said YES! out loud. Aside from the benign, time wasting fourth street round, and the difficult decisions created by the hidden river card, the fact that players couldn't engage in endlessly shuffling their hole cards before squeeeeeeeezzzing out the last card would help the game tremendously. It's really great when they do the shuffle 'n squeeze in series: each player waiting for his turn before the next one starts. If I added it up, I've probably spent years watching people shuffle that river card.
I've already pitched the game to other stud players. Good job.
Tom
In our room a verbal bet in turn is binding and a verbal bet out of turn is not binding. An ex-floorman playing as a prop yelled check out of turn and then raised when an inexperienced player bet into four players. This was a low stakes 7stud game. Certainly this is not illegal and when I asked the poker room manager about the situation he said he didn't much like it unless it was not intentional. A dealer was also standing at the desk and immediately named the prop, so I guess there is not much doubt that it was an intentional move. I know in the old days (in school) a move like this would have been standard practice. How do you feel about it? /moses
I dislike it. It doesn't fool me (anymore), but it does often have a significant negative affect on beginners. I'm very sure that many hundreds of new players have quit playing early in their careers because they got burned by someone like this. Those people might otherwise have still been playing regularly in the cardrooms today.
The fact that it was someone who should know better says a lot. He obviously doesn't care. The fact that he was working as a prop tells me something. He should have been fired (or at least warned this time, and fired next time). The purpose of a prop is to keep a game going, not chase out beginners.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
NT
Ethics!
I expected more response on this subject. Doesn't surprise me that the Fossilman and I agree in our dislike for the kind of move described in the original post. Of course it did my heart no good at all to read a response that said that ethics and poker are an oxymoron.
The way one should play poker. Of course this is just another opinion of mine. I am a baby boomer. Born in the late forties, a teen in the dynamic sixties and now an older, Uhmm, gentleman. While growing up I played a lot of sports. Baseball and football were my favorites. The one thing that I had instilled in me by all my coaches and teammates was that it wasn't whether you won or lost but how you played the game. Of course winning was much more fun. But the belief in fairness and integrity were much more important. Playing your best while abiding by the rules was what I and my teammates strived for. When I play poker I have a strong desire to win. But I have just as stong sense of right and wrong. I strive to play fair. I admit to taking advantage of mistakes my opponents make. I try never to take advantage of my opponents. Some may feel that "all is fair in love and poker". Not me!
Vince.
Bob Wilson has made this comment on the new game of mississippi seven, as compared to seven card stud: "I think Mississippi is a significant improvement."
Please see earlier posts "7CS RIP 1999" and "Why 4th ST. Really sux" for the rules and some commentary.
Now I'm going to blast you.
THIS IS THE THIRD POST ON THIS SUBJECT MAN!!!
COME ON GIVE US A BREAK!
MASON IT'S PAST SEPTEMBER 15(who said we have freedom of speech here?)
There is an big effect of the % of winning hands you play on the rake you pay. This is something I have never seen mentioned anywhere (maybe because I haven't been reading the Forum long enough or maybe because it is obvious?!). But here goes:
To take the extreme case, if you win all the hands you play, you pay rake only on those pots. But if you win, say, 1/3 of the hands you play, then to maintain the same hourly profit you must win enough to make up for your lost investment in the other 2/3 -- you are effectively paying a rake on that lost investment.
For example, suppose you were winning $10/hr at 5-10 HE and making an average investment of $15 in each losing pot and $30 in each winning pot, with 30 hands played per hour so the blinds cost you 3x$7 = $21.
If you play only 1 hand per hour, then the size of your winning pot is $68= $21 blinds+ $30 investment + $10 profit + $7 rake.
But if you play 3 hands per hour, winning 1 and losing 2, then the size of your winning pot is $101 = $21 blinds + ($30 + 2x$15)investment + $10 profit + $10 rake. You are paying almost 50% more in rake.
Therefore it seems to follow that a "high variance" strategy pays a toll in extra rake per $ of profit (but may still be more profitable overall).
Comments?
I don't understand your math. In your first hypothetical, the guy is playing 1 hand per hour and winning it. In the second hypothetical, the guy is playing 3 hands per hour and only win 1 of those. Of course he has to win a bigger pot to make up for the losers.
At first I thought your point was as follows. If the pot is being raked, you can't play as many hands. This is because you will only win some percentage of the hands you play, and if a hand is only barely profitable, that bare profit will get eaten up by the rake. Therefore, you can only play hands that beat the opposition by enough money to overcome the rake. Is that it, or not?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
My point was that, for a constant win rate ($/hr or $/hand), the more money you put into pots you don't win, the more rake you pay, since the total of your winning pots, which must make up for the $ put into the losing pots, will be larger. Keep in mind I'm talking about the same win rate in both situations.
I hope this is clearer.
However, since rakes are typically capped (which I forgot to take into account in my original post) might negate my entire argument in many cases.
I still don't see the point. You can't (readily) change playing styles while maintaining a constant profit. And you certainly don't change from one winning style to another that you think will have the same win rate (unless it reduces variance).
Usually, you only change your game when you think it will improve your win rate, right?
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I do not understand the math myself, but would like to offer that you only pay "rake" on hands that you take the pot. You pay "lost bets" on other hands.
It is easy to calculate how much you lose to the rake: % of hands won * rake per hand (using the max is pretty close most of the time) * hands played per hour.
In a raked game, you can avoid the rake by: playing tighter. Slowplaying more in marginal cases.
This will have you winning fewer pots, thus less rake paid.
Good luck.
Kate - You are onto something here, but I think you have it slightly backwards. Instead of assuming a constant win rate, your objective is to develop a strategy to MAXIMIZE your win rate, considering the rake as one of the factors. As Dan Z so brilliantly points out, you only pay the rake on hands that you win. So one of your considerations in determining your strategy for a particular game (suppose it is with a high percentage rake) is to reduce the percentage of hands that you win, with a larger pot size most of the time that you win. This is entirely possible, as you will play more high implied odds hands like suited connectors, and fewer unsuited high-card hands. I have developed such a strategy for myself, playing in loose-passive 3-6 and 4-8 hold'em games, and I estimate that with the average player at my table winning 3.3 pots per hour, I win about 1.5 pots per hour.
Dick
Thanks to all who read and responded to my 2 previous posts in this thread. I think it is necessary to go thru the math in my example to get my point. I won't try again to clarify it except to say that I used a constant win rate so that my example would calculate rake paid per dollar of profit for 2 different styles of play.
Kate
I'm stumped. I'm bright enough to figure out that 20/40 is double 10/20. In 10/20 Holdem the blinds are half that of 20/40 Holdem. Since that is true (I think!). What factor makes it so difficult to get unstuck at 10/20? I have heard someone also make a similar remark about 10/20 Stud (hard to get unstuck). I believe it is a real phenomenon, but I have never been privy to a discussion on it. Thankyou.
There was a lengthy discussion about the structures of holdem and stud which will (in part) answer your question. It was a week or two ago on this forum, I started a thread about poker essays and the structures of 10-20 stud and 15-30 holdem. While not specifically geared toward your question, some of the answers you seek will be there, the response I received was very good.
Dave in Cali
I am going to Chicago in a couple of weeks and would like to know where there is a Casino in town or outside of town that has Hold'em. If you live around the area or know of a place, please let me know.
Thank you in advance,
David
David:
Hollywood Casino in Aurora spreads 5-10 and 10-20 HE along with 1-5 stud. Harrah's Showboat in East Chicago, IN spreads a 3-6-12 HE/OH game along with 10-20HE and 1-5 and 2-10 stud. I've heard that the Empress in Joliet also has a poker room.
Hope this helps.
-Michael
Be the flop... See the flop... You're not being the flop, Danny.
"I've heard that the Empress in Joliet also has a poker room. " Also Empress in Hammond, IN.. 15 min from Downtown 4 - 8 Holdem Call a head 1 888 4Empress ask for the poker room and make a reservation up tp 90 min a head of time. (to insure a spot call or the wait can bee a hour or longer)
MJChicago
Maybe its just me, but if I'm going to play in a game where I've never played with any of these people, the hour wait can be a very good time to learn people's tells and betting habits.
I find it difficult spotting habits and tells as a railbird. First of all, if their are multiple tables, you don't know which one you'll be at. I like to sit at the table and unless I get AA-JJ in early position or good odds and some suited connectors of the big pairs in late position all just watch a round or two and that works for me.
This is a different thread to the mississippi question.
I applied the multi-card draw to five card stud and produced two games. Unlike mississippi seven there is no reason to expect that these games will become major casino games, but they look pretty interesting.
The first one I would like to call holdit (I invented a game last week and called it holdit, but I think this one deserves the name more): deal ONE card only, face down to each player; bet, then deal two cards face up to each player; bet: a third upcard, bet, and the fourth upcard and bet.
That gives four rounds of play with an exotic 1-2-1-1 layout. I just thought of that one, and it sounds like a lot of fun in loose company.
The second one I want to call Kalgoorlie stud, after the famous goldmining town and gambling centre: I thought of it about a year ago. Deal two cards to each player, one down one up,as for five card stud. Bet, then deal two more cards face up to each player, then a fourth card face up.
It has three rounds of play, which is something of a rarity in poker, and a 2-2-1 structure.
Kalgoorlie stud plays well with canadian stud rules: a four-flush beats a four-straight beats a pair.
There is another figleaf game I invented recently (at least no one has said otherwise yet) and which I called holdit, which is holdem with one hole card dealt face up. I want to rename that one holdtight.
We played a game in our looose home game that had two down and one up on 3rd, then 1 on 4th, 1 on 5th for a three betting round game, 3-1-1 layout. It is a good game for wild home games, and especially interesting if made something like "low in the hole".... Might be brutal if played high/low, see recent 2+2 post.... Probably won't replace 7cs anytime soon but interesting nonetheless....
Dave in Cali
My theory is that hole cards are like swimsuits: less is more. Figleaf games like five-card stud are played in a thong, two-hole card games in shorts and shirt, three hole-card games in a heavy overcoat. It's more fun with less on.
Last night I was playing holdem. I had been losing, mostly because the game was SO passive that I couldn't make any plays when I had a good hand.
For instance, I had AKs and raised on the button, 8 players in the pot, everyone calls. The flop was AK6 rainbow. Could hardly ask for a better flop, right? WRONG!!!!! Everyone checked to me, Of course I bet, so as not to give anyone a free card. I was hoping to get check-raised, but everyone just called, all 8 players! What could they possibly have, and how was I supposed to read their hands?!!!!!!
Suffice it to say I lost to trip 5's on the river, but the holder of 56 (with no flush draw) just checked and called the whole way! This same player cold called 3 bets before the flop with 6h3h, and 3 bets on the flop which was AsJs6d (of course making 666 on the river and beating my aces and jacks!). It would seem at first that this would be an easy game to beat, but not so fast there skippy....
The purpose of this post is not to complain about my having lost in an easy game, but rather to help some players rationalize WHY we lose in easy games. Also, I feel this forum has helped me understand why I sometimes lose when I know I am the best player at the table. Special thanks to David Sklansky's article on the essays page about why we lose in easy games.
The point is that when games are SO passive that no one will bet, they are (almost) "too good" for the skilled player to win at! When no one will bet, it is almost impossible to make plays. If you can't raise, you usually can't knock anyone out or bet anywhere near enough to protect your hand. It becomes a contest of everyone ante up and we'll deal out the cards and see who wins the pot, no betting necessary!!! Flops such as the AK example are bad news for you when no one will fold and no one will bet.
Another reason I lost $$ in this game was that I never made any of my big draws, while the other players drew out on me almost every time. This is merely a statistical abberation, not the poker gods getting their revenge! Two weeks ago "I" was the one making my draws on almost every hand!
I gave up on the HE game after a while and went to 5-10 stud. I found what looked like a good game and took a seat. But alas, it seems the "gods" must have still been angry with me! Soon after I sat down, it became apparent that no-foldem-holdem can also be played 7 card stud style! No one would fold in this game either, I was just about the only bettor in the game! It was check-call-check-call, then maybe a raise on the river when their 2233 filled up!
Rolled up nines...
I get dealt 999 on 3rd. Terrific start, right? Player one to the left of the bring in raises (a rare raise) with an ace up. Three people call. I reraise (I was last). I want to get as much value out of my hand now before it gets drawn out on by a 23456 straight! There were plenty of callers, so I wasn't going to slowplay. This might be my only chance to raise. Everyone just calls (even the aces). As far as I can tell, I am the only one who "should've" called the original raise (let alone the reraise).
On 4th, everyone, (including the ace who raised), checks to me and then calls when I bet. I don't improve.
On 5th street, a player with a king door card catches another king, becoming high, but still checks! I bet again, everyone just calls! (no one has folded yet). How frustrating, never being given an opportunity to raise! Still no improvement for my trips.
On 6th, the player with the kings catches a third king. Finally, someone other than me bets: you guessed it, the trip kings. I know my hand is completely ruined now, as the other nine and at least four of my pair cards are dead. I fold, not wanting to pay off another 20$. (I had no doubt this was the correct move). In the end, trip kings filled up and beat the straight and flush who foolishly called on 6th and then made their draws on 7th!!!! The sucker who chased me with nothing had just won a big pot!
Looking back, the player with the kings never even had a pair to begin with, and just got very lucky in beating my 999. I didn't take it personally, because I know these players are the ones who pay off my good hands by chasing with next to nothing.
Many players, including me, get frustrated when this keeps happening over and over in a session, like it did to me last night. But what can you do? I guess I could have picked a HARDER game, but then what would my expectation have been? Surely I had a much greater expectation in the easy game than the hard game. However, it's impossible to know ahead of time when the suckers are going to get lucky and hit their longshot draws.
It's very frustrating, losing to bad players, but poker is a long run game. I certainly didn't lose as much last night as I have been winning over many sessions playing in these games....
It still sucks when this happens though....
All comments welcome....
Dave in Cali
Dave,
I agree, but when you are catching, there is no better feeling, that you beat the "MOB".
Paul
Dave,
The games you're describing are the most profitable in poker. Because of the multitudes drawing against you, your variance will be high. However, you don't want to be unhappy when you flop AK6 while holding AK. No one has more than 4 outs against you (unless you're already behind to 66). And, there can't be a whole mob who collectively have that many outs (as the more of them who have a gutshot straight draw or a 6, the more they use up each other's outs). In a spot like this, the only reason you want someone to bet or raise is so you can get more money into the pot, not so you can chase people out.
Now, when you hold AK and the flop is KT6, you'd like to get rid of some callers. But that's because there are now so many more thin draws possible that they can collectively add up to most of the deck being bad for you. However, even in these spots, your pot equity is usually much higher than your share relative to the number of participants (e.g., if there are 5 callers, you'll win more than 1 in 6; if there are 3 callers, you'll win more than 1 in 4; etc.).
Again, more profitable for them to be loose and passive than loose and tricky/aggressive.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The Other Dave wrote
"The point is that when games are SO passive that no one will bet, they are (almost) "too good" for the skilled player towin at! When no one will bet, it is almost impossible to make plays."
You can't make many plays in these games but you still can have a huge edge by just playing better cards and knowing when to get out ( and when to stay in ). You may get to make a few of those pot-saving plays described in the 21st century HFAP loose play section but that is about it for fancy stuff.
The problem with these games is that they can be boring and you have to listen to a lot of idiotic chatter about lucky seats, bad-beats, people saying river! river! over and over etc.
David
Dave,
It's not just the low limit games! It's all relative to how much the players in that particular game are willing to gamble, whether their on tilt, how much money they have, etc.etc.etc.
I played 10-20-40 last night and got dealt Ah9h on the button with 3-4 callers. I thought about raising but didn't think my hand warranted it. The SB and BB both called making it 6 players. The flop was J95...I was pretty sure I had the best hand and when it got checked to me I bet and everyone called.(Note: The SB called 1st not knowing what the players behind her were going to do.) Turn is 10 with a spade draw....Checked to me.I bet SB and 2 others call...River 7h No flush. SB bets 40. I disgustedly call thinking pure bluff or pocket 8's but hoping bluff obviously. She turns over 8h3h. What in the hell just happened. I was fuming so bad I had to leave after a few more hands. That was the 2nd of two such beats and it just wasn't my night but you know what, I hope that's the kind of players I always play against! Last night I was thinking that it is so much easier with decent players in the game but in the long run I'll take the FISH!!!
Good luck in Cali
RUSS
Was it?
Randy
Randy,
Quit it! You know she's a very solid player...Ha ha ha
Actually, I was hoping one of the "fish" would go out and let an agressive player in, just so I could get in an occasional raise! The "bigger fish" could then help ME round up the smaller "fish"!
Your ace nine losing to a back door non-nut straight made me laugh for about 5 minutes! I flopped a set of queens and lost to a backdoor runner-runner 9d2d flush in the same game! Now you can laugh!
This situation describes a lot of the games I get in ($3-6 in SF Bay area card rooms).
And the other posters have it right... these games are great for EV, but terrible for variance.
Some thoughts:
If you start "gambling" like the fish, you become one of them. You want to make your edge as high as possible to compensate for the increased variance, otherwise your bankroll will do loop-de-loops. You can loosen your requirements, but do so only with hands that are going to win in a showdown. 73o doesn't qualify, but 56s might.
In HEFAP they say something to the effect that "when the pot gets big, your goal is to win it as soon as possible." But in a really loose game, you are only going to win it on the river, so the solution (IMHO) is to either:
a. Make sure you are drawing to the best hand, and then make the pot as big as possible so when you DO hit you get paid off bigtime.
b. Avoid making the pot too big if your hand has few ways to improve (e.g., pocket pairs which don't flop a set), to reduce the odds that the sucker draws are getting.
Thus, in a loose game, I will _rarely_ raise with high pocket pairs (AA,KK,QQ, sometimes JJ) or hands like AKo in late position with many callers, since everyone is just going to call, and then there will be 17 bets in the pot, and even the inside straight draws will be justified (or, horror, the small pairs trying to catch trips on the turn or river).
But with a small pocket pair (where trips or better is my main out), I almost always raise in such a situation, since I am probably going to fold if I don't flop a set but if I do I want the pot to be nice and juicy, since I will have as many or more outs than most of the draws anyhow.
And with a hand like AKs, I really want to pump up the volume since I have so many ways to win...
In early position, depending on the mood of the game, I will generally raise with the high pocket pair, because while I won't get everyone out, I'd rather play a pot with 8 small bets against 4 players than a pot with 8 small bets against 8 players. So if I have a decent chance of knocking out some of the customers, I think I'm winning by raising. Plus, I have some chance to win right away on the turn (not flop--they always call then, right?) if the inevitable backdoor flush and straight draws don't materialize.
Another concept in games like this is that it is more important than ever not to draw at things like a small flush or the ignorant end of a straight, because with all those fish out there, one is fairly likely to have a better flush or straight.
Having said that, I believe that things like K-high flush draws go up in value, because for every time you are beaten by the A-high flush (usually when he/she catches the 4th flush card on the board to make Axo good...), your K-high flush will win against at least one, if not more, smaller flush that calls you all the way to the river. Thus, you come out ahead in the long run. Q-high flushes are still danger-- leave 'em for the fish.
It is a perplexing characteristic of low-limit (or generally, loose) Hold 'Em players that they cannot internalize the fact that the community cards make it very likely another flush is out there when they make their flush. Think about how often you see a fish disgustedly throw down a losing T-high flush in a four-way showdown.
Sometimes I want to say, "HELLLLLLO!?!?!?" Fortunately, I am not the type of player who needs to prop up his self-confidence by criticizing other players. In fact, while I will sometimes say, "ooh, lucky!" I always put a positive spin on it, as in "you must be a magically lucky person, so you better draw draw draw til daddy takes the t-bird away".
Nothing drives me more crazy than the people who need to put other players down. Actually, not true--people who yell at the dealer bother me more.
Anyhow, coming back to no fold'em, I think it is psychologically very important to go into the game prepared for bad beats and focused on the long run. Don't get too attached to hands. It's a very statistical game. And statistics only matter in the long run...
I guess a sports analogy would be baseball vs. basketball. Two unevenly matched basketball teams play 100 times, and the better team will win 99% of the time. Two unevenly matched baseball teams play 100 times, and the better team might only win 75% of the time---baseball is just a high-variance game. (One of the reasons I don't like football very much is that I think it is a fairly high-variance game and they don't play enough games to overcome the chance factor).
So for a baseball team, losing one game means something very different than for a basketball team. And so it is with no fold'em vs. "tough" hold'em.
--james
James,
How can it be correct to raise with a small pair and in the exact same situation be wrong to raise with AA? Doesn't AA have the same chance of flopping a set?
Even if you win a higher percentage of the pots where you didn't raise with your AA, I bet you're not making as large an average profit. It's probably analogous to doubling down with 11 vs. a dealer's 8. You don't win as many hands when you double, but this is more than made up for by the winners being double-sized.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I played in a 10-20 1/2 kill holdem game at FW last weekend. I've played in kill games before. I never thought much about them until this last outing. Then I had the thought that kill games could have a loosening effect on a poker game. I have my reasons but am working on them. I am looking for opinions on the effects the "kill" variant has on the nature of the game itself. Comments please.
Vince
Kill games *SHOULD* reduce the action, if for no other reason than the winner of the last pot should rarely play the next.
Kill games *DO* increase the action, if for no other reason than the seduction of bigger pots. Players LIKE to kill it. Players LIKE to call big raises. Go Figure.
Play in low limit kill games. It'd kinda like playing in the bigger game but YOU only have to post half as much blinds.
- Louie
About a year ago, I played in a 3-6 Kill HE game at Gila River in Phoenix. It seemed like the action came to a complete halt when the kill button was out there. At one point, everyone folded to the kill button seven hands in a row! Maybe this was an abberration, but after about a week of this action, I wasn't too fond of the kill.
Louie,
The original poster asked about kill games, but specifically at Foxwoods. The kill is different (and worse) there.
In California, every time I played in a kill HE game, the pot was killed when the same player scooped 2 pots in a row. In Foxwoods, anytime you scoop a pot over a certain size, you must kill the next pot. Thus, if you play 5-10 HE with a kill to 10-20, you will find that more than half the pots, maybe even almost all the (non-split) pots, are played at the higher stakes. The other difference I saw was that the killer always got to act last (preflop) in Cal., but acts in turn here at FW.
I liked the HE kill games in California, and don't like them at FW. In Cal., I would tighten up a LOT after winning the first pot, and therefore I almost never killed. Here, I kill almost every time I win a pot. I don't like that extra tax on my winning pots.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I have played in both of those types of kill games. The tax on a large pot I think is a bad idea. I like the kill after winning two in a row. While the correct strategy is to tighten up after winning a pot most players I have seen always call when they have won the previous pot and frequently raise trying to kill it. This type of kill allows those players that are trying to give away their money to do it more efficiently.
Randy R.
Look at it another way. Being sensibly selective in these loose games means you are winning less than your "share" of pots. So you win less than a hand a round. So affectively you get to play the higher stakes but have to post the BigBigBlind (kill) less than other's do.
But I agree, I favor (and discussed) the win two in a row kill games.
10-20 HE new guy (unknown) raises UTG, another call from loose player (call raises with any suited Ace), i'm 3rd in with JJ, then another unknown calls from button, 9.5 SB's in the pot ..........
Flop comes K 10 x rainbow, UTG checks, goofball bets.
My question is do u ever go on and play here or muck.
10-20 HE new guy (unknown) raises UTG, another call from loose player (call raises with any suited Ace), i'm 3rd in with JJ, then another unknown calls from button, 9.5 SB's in the pot ..........
Flop comes K 10 x rainbow, UTG checks, goofball bets.
My question is do u ever go on and play here or muck.
"Peeling off a card" is considered when you KNOW you cannot win without improvement, such as if you have a gut-draw. In this situation, you are a LONG way from knowing you're beat. You will often win this pot without help. This changes, of course, when there are lots of callers behind you.
I would raise against the goof ball so long as he's not a stone whimp.
Unknown raisers and goof balls 2-bet with LOTS of hands worse than JJ. You should have 3-bet it.
- Louie
When calculating whether or not to stay with a draw. There are a few things that have not always been clear to me. Let us say you flop a flush draw on the flop with two other preflop players. There are 3.5 sb in the pot. The odds are 1.85:1 against you completing it (approx.) by the river. Lets say one player bets, the next folds and it is up to you. There are now 4.5 sb in the pot, so you do have odds to call(yes? no?) Turn card is a blank. Opponent bets. Do you now need 4:1 odds to continue? Or should you have just not played on the flop? I figure that some of the answer lies in what percentage of the time the player will pay you off on the river when the draw completes, as well as adding in the percentage you make and are beaten. The way i figure it, in ideal situations, where the flush ALWAYS wins and the opponent ALWAYS pays off, you DO have odds for calling the turn bet. Can someone take me through this from the time of the flop calculation on? Because the way i am figuring it, in these scenarios a call on the flop would seem to be almost ALWAYS correct, and i am not sure this is true...thanks in advance.
One thing to consider with these situations is to semi-bluff bet or check-raise. Then you don't have to worry about those odds. Assuming the opponent is cabable of folding a few hands, you will certainly have enough combined odds with the bluff.
Without taking you through it, I believe you are correct that it is usually correct to at least call on the flop but it can be a bad call on the turn if the pot is too small.
David
You are rarely not getting enough odds to call for a flush draw (assuming you have the ace, and your hand will be good if it hits). You may not be getting the right odds in a very small pot with few players, when there is a bet and a raise on the turn, and no raises in the first two rounds. Otherwise, you are usually OK to draw to a flush. If your flush is non-nut, you should have some extra bets in the pot to make up for the chance you might hit but still lose. If the board is paired... should be obvious that drawing could be dangerous....
There was an excellent discussion titled something like "folding big draws" a few weeks ago. Abdul posted a response that you would be interested in....
Dave in Cali
Here was the situation:
Full table 4-8 Hold'em .I join the game in seat 8 and post. Play a few hands (nothing) the button is now on seat 10. Seat 3 posts a "live straddle" ok I have 8-2 off and fold to check out how the others are going to deal with the "Live straddle". The player to my right says "here he goes again" I make a comment "is this guy on tilt all the time" The player says "he sees you come in and will try to get you rattled with the straddle. He is testing you if you call you better be able to call the raise that is *going* to follow" . I think to myself well this should be fun at least I am on his left for each straddle(and the raise to come). I get lucky the next straddle with pocket QQ, hit trips on the flop,lots of action but i keep the pressure on and catch queens full on the river and take down a huge pot. The rest of the game (till he went broke and left) I played only top overcards when Mr. Straddle was doing his thing.
In general how should a "Live Straddle" be played.
any opinions??
Thx,
MJChicago
First off, if the guy to your left likes to straddle you should move so you aren't straddled when its your BB.
The increased wagers before the flop theoretically reduce the implied odds of drawing hands link 87s and 44. The straddle *SHOULD* reduce the number of players contesting the pot B4 the flop, and encourage less folders along the way. Therefore, trouble hands gain value (since a big part of their negativity is their reasonably bad implied odds).
You should routinely 3-bet with any hand worth 2-bets. You should almost always 4-bet any hand worth 3-bets. The significantly larger pot means you should routinely try to knock opponents out at all stages, including the blinds before the flop.
Therefore, straddled pots should make for "pair poker".
Having said that, it has been my expernence that MANY low limit games attract MORE callers when there is a straddle. Go figure. That makes it more difficult for you to judge when to play draws and when not.
- Louie
I'd add one thing: if you always 3-bet the straddler, he may stop straddling. I hate to force my opponents into playing better. So I temper my 3-betting with that knowledge.
Would some one explain what a live straddle is to us dumbies.
Milt -
A "live straddle" is a raise from the player immediately to the left of the big blind, made *before* the first two cards have been dealt to all players.
It's also generally known as a good way to lose money, if you're the one doin' the straddlin' :-)
p0wer
There is some image value to straddling esp. in a very tight game. There are some casinos with very tight structures (like the $2-$3 blind structure in the Orlean's 6-12 game w/$4 straddle) where a straddle doesn't cost you much and might buy you a bunch of action. Additionally buying option of last action preflop has some limited value.
That said, I like the straddlers to my right so I can 3 bet and isolate when reasonable. Contrary to what Dan said _most_ of the straddlers I see crave the action. They are going to 3/4 bet it if you don't (often blind).
Just to add. this was a *VERY* loose game 5-6-7 way action every hand and the pots were huge for a 4-8 game. Before the flop (with our friend the *Live* straddle) there was $60.00 dollars in. If you hit the flop you had a nice pot. And yes "Mr. Straddle" went broke in about 4 hours
"Live" means this player may raise when it gets back aroune if other's just call.
I often go to play at four in the A.M. and often find myself playing three handed. In that case, I like to "live straddle" on the button. It forces the other two guys to make thier descions first on all rounds of betting, thus they are always reacting to me. I find this works very well for me.
A straddle is just another blind. It is not that much different from a blind posted by a player who missed his blinds and wants to get back in without having to wait until his blind comes around naturally.
Best rule I ever heard:
"Don't ever just CALL a straddle. Either muck or raise."
Why let another player in for free with trash cards?
Diane
In a full game you would get 7 hands for the price of 1sb AND you post in late position. From the blinds you get 10 hands for 1.5sb but you post in bad position. Posting late seems like a good idea to me.
In a 3-handed game you get 1 hand for 1sb if you "post", and get 3 hands for 1.5sb when you wait for the blinds. That's not a good deal. IMO.
Yes, raise or fold straddles is the routine strategy.
As per Hippie Chuck's auto-straddling... I can see this if the opponents are easily cowed and you would raise with most everything anyway. Straddling cowes them even more since you have the threat of the raise; and of course actually raising is good for you. But if you would normally be reasonably selective in your raises (say you would raise half the time) then by straddling you are 2-betting with hands you normally wouldn't want to and getting (or threatening) an additional bet a lot of the time when you want to. I doubt the additional "threat EV" makes up the difference.
- Louie
In the fairly loose games I have been playing in lately, I have been aware of how important it is to make some of the long shot calls ( e.g gut-shot straight ) when the odds are there.
What is the correct way to adjust the odds when the board is paired?
For example:
You are at the turn and have to decide whether to put the last call in with no re-raise possible and the board just paired at the turn. Lets also say you have no particular read on the leading hand, it could be top pair, two pair, or a set. Your gutshot will be the nut if you hit it.
How big does the pot have to be?
David
As a "rough" approximation, don't count some of your outs.
So, you've got JTs, flop is 378, so any 9 gives you the nuts. You call. On the turn, the card is a 7. So, anyone who flopped a set or 2-pair (that included the 7) now has you drawing dead. But, you've still got 4 outs to the nut straight (as long as no one is holding 97!).
If the turn had been a 4, you'd be drawing to the nuts, and you'd do the math as 46 unseen cards, 4 of them are 9s, that's 42:4 against hitting, or 10.5:1 against. You call if there are 10.5 bets in the pot (we're ignoring implied odds here).
If I thought there was about a 25% chance of losing even after the river card was a 9, I'd do the math assuming 3 outs. So, that's 43:3 against, or about 14:1 against, and there will need to be 14 bets in the pot before I'll call.
The other reason this situation is worse is not only might you lose after making your draw, you cannot get into a raising war with anybody because you won't have the nuts. Thus, even if a 9 comes on the river, if the person still bets, you probably can't even raise once. And, if they check to you, it's unlikely that they'll raise you, and you can't put in 3 bets. So, your future potential profits on the river aren't as high when the board is paired, thus reducing your implied odds, probably to zero.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
My rule-of-thumb is the pot needs to be twice as big when you are not drawing to the nuts. Then adjust that. Its obviously not so bad of the board paired 22 than when it pairs AA.
A lot depends on the flop, the action on the flop, and which card pairs on the turn.
i.e. let's say you have JTs and call, then someone raises in middle position. The flop comes AK4. You check, he bets, a couple of people call. You call. On the turn, the Ace pairs. You check, the same guy bets again. This is a very dangerous flop, and I'd downgrade that gutshot a LOT. Ask yourself what hands he would have raised with before the flop, bet the flop, and bet the turn again. If he doesn't have a full house already, the Queen you need could easily give him one. I'd chuck that gutshot unless the pot was absolutely massive, and maybe even then.
Now, same situation, but the flop is J73. You have 9Ts. If he bets, the only hand that he can have that is dangerous for you is JJ, and maybe 77. You can't put him on two pair, or probably anyone else for that matter if it's a reasonably tight game. If there are no raises on the flop, that increases the probability that no one has a set. So I would downgrade my gutshot only slightly, if at all when the board pairs. Let's say the 3 pairs on the turn. If you hit your 8 on the river it's almost certainly good because you're not going to be shown 88 or 83 by anyone. If the seven pairs, you have to consider the possibility of an 87, and downgrade your straight draw accordingly. If the jack pairs, you have to worry about J8.
The bottom line is know your opponents, put them on probable hands, and go from there. There is no real 'rule of thumb', other than your best judgement.
In a loose game or multiway hand, a board pair is a disaster for a gutshot draw because the board is usually coordinated, meaning that (1) an opponent is more likely to have a full house than he would if the board were just paired, in which case you're drawing dead; (2) an opponent is more likely to have as good or better draw to a straight than you do, in which case you might be drawing dead (this is usally when you pair on the turn and think: hey, 5 more outs); (3) an opponent might have a better straight draw and an open set and one of your outs in his hand, this last of which might be the best thing for you.
Also, when the pot is large enough to appear to give you the right odds for drawing (which are god knows what anyway), there are often enough players contesting it to raise a big possibility of drawing dead.
Even if your draw is alive and you hit it on the turn, any pocket pair, open set, flush draw, or higher straight draw can overtake you on the river.
So I throw them away.
On the flop, when an opponent otherwise has two pair or a set, the effect of his hand on your straight draw is less severe because you only care about the chance of him filling up when you also hit. This leaves him with one card.
If you have a flush draw on the flop and one of your cards can make an opponent's full house, you've gone from about a 36% chance of winning to about 26%. If you've got a flush draw and gutshot, you've gone from about 45% to 33%. If you've got a flush draw and an open end straight draw, you've gone from about 55% to 40%. (I'm working from memory, you may want to check theese numbers yourself). Or just subtract three outs.
I am not sure what question you are answering but did you say you throw away all gutshots on the flop in a loose game?
David
I was trying to answer your first question, about the value of gutshots when the board is paired.
No, I don't always fold them on the flop in a loose game. (I probably ususally call).
But when the flop is paired and multiway and a gutshot is all I've got, then I pretty much always fold unless I'm getting something like 20-1 to see the turn and I can't remember this ever happening. (Note this also means no overcards, which means I can't be drawing to the nuts. One or two overcards could make me call or raise).
The way to play small suited connectors in NL HE is well known (and very well described in Doyle Brunson's or TJ Cloutier's books):
when you hit it on the flop (2 pairs, trips, straight, flush or even 4-straight) and you can put with accuracy your opponent(s) on big cards or big pairs, then you have a great chance to double your stack.
But this suppose
(1) you are in late position pre-flop (because you can not afford a raise or a re-raise)
(2) you have very good implied odds:
- either the pot is multi-way and unraised, but in this case you can not put with accuracy ALL your opponents on big cards (you can flop trips with 76 and lose to A7s on a flop of 772)
- either you have a big stack against a big stack and your opponent has raised an amount which is less that 5% (or a little bit more ?) your stack, and this time your only opponent is supposed to have big cards
On the other side in NL tournament it is commonly admitted that you have not no take risks with a big stack against another big stack unless you have a very premium hand, especially late in the tournament where you prefer to attack the small stacks (in this case you don't play the small connector) and protect your stack against the big ones.
So my question is: when is it OK to play small connectors in a NL tournament (assuming it is a rebuy tournament in the 1rst 2 hours of play, and then no-rebuy till the end) ?
PS: I HATE to play drawing hands in tournaments ...
I'm trying to figure out just what you feel is the paradox.
"So my question is: when is it OK to play small connectors in a NL tournament"
If you have a medium stack, you can get in cheaply against a big stack, and you are confident of your ability to play correctly after the flop then you may take one giant step and call with small suited connectors.
Vince.
PS: Small suited connectors are drawing HANDS. Learn to correctly play every hand in the deck and you won't have to hate any of them.
PS-PS: If you are not concerned with the number of rebuys you make then you may call every time you get small suited connectors during the rebuy period. That's gambling. Otherwise the best thing to do is as I stated above.
The paradox is simply that:
(1) you should better play small connectors in good position in a RAISED pot against a lonely opponent, so that you can put him with accuracy on big cards
(2) but for that to be correct both you and your opponent must have big stacks (you need big implied odds)
(3) it is almost always wrong in a tournament to play a big stack against another big stack (in this case you don't want to gamble, you want to have a premium hand)
Anyway, I think you are right:
- better play them in the rebuy period since I can gamble a little more, and the implied odds are there because of the multi-way pots: but in this case I want to catch perfect on the flop, and not play 4-straight or 4-flush, and be very carefull of trips
- late in the tournament avoid playing them unless I am sure I can bust my big stack opponent with a favorable flop: in this case I want a loose/agressive opponent because I want him to put a lot of chips with his big cards or big pair. I think it is an error to make this play against a tight opponent who can release his hand on the flop.
KK
Early in a NL tournament you can play drawing hands just as readily as in a NL ring game. That being said, the conditions are so different that it seldom applies.
In a NL ring game, people often have many hundreds of times the BB in their stack. I have seen people sit down with $5,000. in a game with 3,5 blinds. That being the case, they can take a chance with low percentage hands because the amount they can win is so much more than the investment.
The same is true in a tournament, but you are seldom in a spot where you and an opponent both have so much more money than the size of the blinds. Even the WSOP, where you start with T10,000 has initial blinds of 25,50, or a multiple of only 200:1. In this tournament, you can take a shot early, but once you've been playing a while and the blinds have gone up a couple of times, suited connectors aren't as playable.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I would not call a raise with them unless the raise is small (2 X BB)and my chip status was good (I may call a bigger raise if I was one of the chip leaders). If players started limping in, I would also limp. If the flop is 7-7-2, you are last to act, and everyone checks to you in a multiway pot, bet the pot(or approximately close to it). If you get raised or called, use your judgement about the player, and get ready to release it (especially the guy that always plays with an Ace in his hand). You can easily trap yourself with this hand. In a multiway pot, I would check it down if anything higher than a seven came on 4th or 5th street. Besides the guy with the A-7, you need to watch out for someone that limps with pairs. If an 8, 9, Ten, Jack, Queen, King or Ace fell on 4th or 5th, be very careful.
Typical 3-6HE game yesterday with a mix of talent in the game. One obviously brand new player, who made a series of impossible calls, run-downs and miracles to stay alive. It was clearly only a matter of time before he chewed up his $100 buy-in, and who knows if he was willing to go in more? Player to my left (newbie was 2 to my left) was providing ongoing Boomer Eliason color commentary to the player about the quality of his plays, advice on pre-flop raising, etc. Some of the "advice" was pretty basic stuff, but some of it was so far off base as to be laughable.
Question: would you take the advisor to task for his actions? I was waiting to get him away from the table to do so, but he or the newbie never took a break and I didn't want to say anything in front of them both. The more I listened, I wasn't so sure I wanted to stop the flow of lousy advice, but that's probably beside the point. Thoughts?
It's generally a bad idea to give advice at the table as you know. It can annoy everyone including the person you're giving advice to, and if they take it to heart it costs you money.
That said, sometimes a little advice to an absolute newbie can turn him into a long time player rather than a one-shot wonder. That may be long-term +EV, especially if the player looks like someone with money.
I've given a few players advice simply because they were losing money so fast I knew that if they didn't learn a few things we'd lose them from the game forever. If they lose at a more affordable rate, they may play forever.
One thing I NEVER tolerate is other players berating someone for a bad call or bet. That's a no-win situation. It annoys the other player AND educates him. Not smart, and it's not good for the overall game either. I've seen loose happy tables tighten right up because some idiot continued to shame everyone for their loose play. More than once I've asked one of these hotheads to come away from the table for a minute, then lit into him for doing it.
This is a very good post. Let me just add that even if the advice is poor, if it makes a recreational player start to realize that there is more to this game than luck that alone can make him play better.
Dan
What are you, about 6'5' & 250lbs? I could never get away with "taking a hot head aside".
This is a common occurance in the games I play. I play 5-10 stud because the games are loose-passive. Not only do I consistantly make money but the games are more fun than the tight (I'm here to make money) 10-20 games. The players are having a good time, calling for the hell of it and of course, sometimes out drawing you. There is usually good conversation and eveyone is having a good time. Then the jerk gets into the game and starts complaining about bad beats and berating the play of certain players. This changes the whole game. I would like to kill this guy (no particular person, just the type) but have no idea how to do it. Any advise for those of us who don't know Karate.
The Advisor was very friendly and not harrasssing the new player in any way. His advice was along the lines of "you should have raised with thos pocket King's before the flop", "you can't call three players with a 3-high flush", etc. An education thing, for sure, but if the new player all of a sudden wises up and makes a play that costs me a pot when he might not have acquired that knowledge until much later in his poker life, then what? I agree with you that I can't stand the berating and belittling of other players for their play, however "bad" the play was. That serves no one's best interests long term.
Was the newbie being coached while he had cards in his hand? While the hands were still being played? As a dealer, I prohibit that on my tables during the hands. Also, I will not let a plyer badger another simply because he didn't play perfect poker.
Mo Dealer
No, the advice was coming after the play of the hand. I would have jumped in for sure if the play was live. I can see Dan Hanson's point that some friendly helpers to the new player might keep him around longer, or help turn him into a permanent fixture in the game; and I can also see Mason's point of view that the player might suddenly realize he's in way over his depth. But, who knows, if he likes a challenge and wants to get into poker more seriously, that can't be all bad, either. My original post was just that I wasn't sure what posture to take at the table.
It happens a lot that players will actively seek me out and ask advice, especially if they are sitting next to me. They'll say, "Do you think I should have raised there?" etc. My usual response is a friendly, "Well, there's a lot to think about, and depending on your read of the situation you could justify a raise or a call like you did." Or I'll just say, "I don't know... I wasn't really following the play" or something like that. Be somewhat helpful, be friendly, don't lie to them, but don't sell out the farm either. I might say, "I can see why did you that." or something, even knowing it wasn't a really solid play.
I think Dunc's question was more should he take the big mouth ADVISOR to task for commenting on the Newbie's play. My feeling is that if the "advisor" is not harassing the Newbie, or making comments during the play of the hands, you should not interfere. Learning how to deal with obnoxious self-proclaimed "experts" is just as much a part of playing poker as learning the play of the game itself. I would not tolerate anyone harassing a newbie (or anybody else) and I would handle the situation by leaving the table and talking to the floor person (if the dealer was not doing his job). Black Jack
The only time I felt like coaching a newbie was one time I was playing 1-3 7cs. She went all in on 4th. When her friend came by she just folded her cards right then. I really wanted to tell her to wait, that she might have a winner, but she left before I had a chance to say anything. On the other hand, if I had said something, I would have had to expose my (winning)bluff on the river, so I guess it all worked out in the end ::g::.
IN middle position 4 callers before me 3 after,,, 7 of us see the flopp,, I have QQ, I figured I would wait till I seen the flop to invest more money with that many callers,, flop K Q 10 rainbo ,,, SB bets BB folds Utg raises,,, I called 2 callers behind me ,, the turn 4 still 4 suited baord,, SB bets Utg raises I reraise,, both late players call,, sb folds Utg 3 bets it,,, I called,, river A Utg slamms his chips on table I called both late players folded ,, he sais ,, well I flopped it you might of cought me,,, and shows AJ ,, I tapp the table in disbeleif that my QQ LOST 6 TIMES,, that session and looked up and seen Utg throw his cards into the muck and I am still holding mine ,, the dealer is confused that no money has been moved towards either of us and In reality my hand lost thow Im the only player left with cards,,,, Im stuck $400 in this game and Im not about to let this get a way If I can help it,, floor is called and who should have won the pot after all?
Since you saw his cards and can't have any doubts about being beaten, you should do the ethical thing and give the dumbass his pot.
IF THE PLAYER LAYED HIS CARDS FACE UP ON THE TABLE HE HAS A WINNER. IF HE JUST SHOWED THEM WITHOUT LAYING THEM DOWN HE HAS A DEAD HAND.
If at least TWO players, including the dealer recognized that he had the winning hand, then he should be awarded the pot. Otherwise, it's YOURS, BABY!!! Decisions like these will vary by poker room.
Mo Dealer
Allan,
The river was a bet and call situation. If he in fact showed his cards so that they were face up and it was apparent to the table (or the camera if needed) that he had the best hand, the pot would be his.
He is being careless and there are clubs where he may not get the pot but in the big California clubs this is the way it would work (at least if I'm making the decision).
Regards,
Rick
The ethics of poker players is one of the main reasons that turn people away from the game.
I might do some hustling in a game, but I won't take what's not mine. In this situation even if the dealer pushes me the pot I would push it back before anybody can even blink. I wouldn't even think of a decision. There is no decision as far as I'm concerned.
P.s. Where I play you unfortunately get awarded the pot 50 to 70% of the time. It is especially unfortunate for me since this is at least one edge you have over me. Oh well, so be it.
I'm glad to see the other responders clearly understand the ethics here. Similar discussions over on RGP suggest lessons are needed there.
I'm surprised at the lack of comments on how you played this hand. Shouldn't you raise the flop and try to avoid the 3 callers behind you? The flop is clearly dangerous. Shouldn't you raise IMMEDIATELY to find out where you're at? Unless UTG is very tricky, his re-raise should REALLY make you fear A-J. Maybe you could have saved some large bets.
Fat-Charlie
I think he showed the nuts. He believed the pot was halved even though you didn't raise. When you wouldn't show your cards he mucks his knowing he has at least half the pot.
Since he showed his cards, he is entitled to whatever correct share of the pot is his. In this case all of it.
Regards Mike N
I've been playing bad poker for years. I finally decided to educate myself. I picked up Sklansky's "Theory of Poker" and "Texas Hold'em Poker".
Position is obviously very important in determining one's starting requirments. However, in "Texas Hold'em Poker" I can't get a feel for how to account for the blinds. If I directly behind the blinds at a table of eight players should I consider myself under the gun or in early position. And when I am one of the blinds, do I (for purposes of analyzing my starting hands) consider myself in early or late position?
If you act immediately after the Big Blind, you are in early position, and under the gun. If you are one of the blinds, you are in early position. I consider the blinds, and the next player to all be in early position. The next 3 players are in middle position, and the last 3 players(including the button) are in late position. Good Luck! Black Jack
would someone be kind enough to tell me what are the folling limits in 7cs, especially at atlantic city casinos: amount of ante, bringin bet, & dollar cap on house rake for the following betting limiits: 5/10 10/20 15/30
john
John, you wrote:
would someone be kind enough to tell me what are the folling limits in 7cs, especially at atlantic city casinos: amount of ante, bringin bet, & dollar cap on house rake for the following betting limiits: 5/10 10/20 15/30
In atlantic city:
5-10: 50 cent ante, bring in 2$, complete to 5$, 1st raise 10$, 2nd 15$... Rake 10% increments of 1$ max 4$
10-20: 1$ ante, bring in 3$, complete to 10$, 1st raise to 20$, 2nd to 30$... Rake 5% increments of 1$ max 4$
15-30: 2$ ante, bring in 5$, complete to 15$, 1st raise 30$, 2nd 45$.... No rake time charge 6$/half hour
Dave in Cali
dave,
thanks again. in a 5/10 game, when you say first raise 10$, second raise 15$, that confuses me, i thought in a 5/10 game there was a maximum bet of 5$ on the first two rounds (unless possibly a pair on 4th st) & a max of 10$ on the last three rounds. am i wrong????
john
p.s. in the 15/30 game does that mean each player pays 6$ each 1/2 hour (12$ an hour)??
John:
The first raise completes the bet to 5$ (5-10), the second raise is a 5$ raise which brings the total to 10$, 2nd raise is a 5$ raise brings the total to 15$... Sorry about the ambiguous wording....
Oh, one other thing, in all the games, the 4th street limit is OPTIONALLY doubled when there is an open pair on 4th. For instance, in 10-20, if I pair my doorcard, I may bet either 10 or 20, If I check, someone else may bet either 10 or 20, If I only bet 10, someone else may raise 20, bringing the total to 30. All raises must be at least as big as the previous bet....
For the second question, yes it is per 1/2 hour (12$/HR)...
thanks, i fully understand the whole structure now
john
Oftentimes we see decent starting hands in Om8 such as A24Q, but with two of the cards suited along with the Ace. Although pleased that there is strong low, flush potential, and even good straight potential, I always wonder how the three suited cards affect the flush draw possibilities. In a somewhat weaker hand, such as A35Q, with say the A35 suited, if the loss of one out for the flush would make the hand playable in middle position; or possibly raised in very late position? How much detraction from EV should anyone assume in a fairly good 3-suited starting hand in general?
Hmmm, i would think A35Q w/3 suited cards to be an easy call in middle position, though i don't think I'd call a raise cold w/it. But then again it depends on the game, and what the people raise w/and such.
As for "detraction from EV" can you compute your expect ation from a hand independent from the game and players? Do you want to know what the probability is of making a flush (w/ or w/o a paired board) w/ 3 suited cards (or 4) as opposed to only 2? Let me know... (It's not hard to figure out).
Yes, I think that was the main thrust of my question. Presumably pre-flop with 3 suited cards in one's hand, one would have theoretically 10 outs for a flush; whereas with only 2 suited cards, one would have 11 outs for a flush. I'm not sure how to put that into odds, but as Ray replied, the losing percentage comparing the two is not real significant.
I've often wondered what a working rule of thumb estimate would be in figuring how many of your triple suited card suits might exist in other player's hands. Would it be reasonable to assume on average that say 3 or 4 of your other suited draws might be in other player's hands? If so it would obviously change 10 outs to only 6 or 7. Or is that not the type of information worth speculating on?
It's not worth speculating on, at least preflop. Preflop your opponent's cards are complete unknowns. Even if a guy starts raising and you know he must have AA or A2 in his hand, you still don't know the suits of those cards. So, for every assumption you make that "x" number of your suit are in another player's hand, you must also assume that "y" number of the other suits are also out. If you ignore these x and y numbers, or if you don't, your odds of making your flush should come out the same.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Doc,
having 3 of your flush cards suited hardly loses any winning percentage for your hand. it would seem like it would hurt alot but it doesnt. the value of your low cards is much more important than anything else. good luck.
Yesterday I posted the rules to two new five card stud variants: holdit and kalgoorlie stud.
Both these games have a two card drop after the first betting round and only one hole card. Holdit starts with only one card, and has a 1-2-1-1 layout.
Kalgoorlie stud has the one-up one-down start of five card stud, followed by a two card drop, then a fourth upcard, giving a 2-2-1 structure.
If we add in the extra-cards-in-hand principle of omaha and tahoe then we get another two games, which look better still:
Pocahontas five-card stud: deal two cards face down to each player: only one of the cards can be used at the end, but both are held. Bet, then drop two cards face up to each player, followed by a third and a fourth upcard, which gives the same four-round 1-2-1-1 structure of holdit, with an extra card in hand.
Coolibah five card stud: deal two cards down and one up to each player. Only one hole card can be used, but both are held till the end. Then deal two cards face up to each player, followed by a last card up, giving the same 2-2-1 structure of kalgoorlie stud, but with an extra card in hand.
Umm,
It's bad enough to have to deal with Hold'em as the successor to stud without all these new variations.
How's anyone ever supposed to get good or find a game of thier type?
I have an idea. Let's toss 'em all and play stud.
BTW, the chess fanatics aren't proposing changes all the time.
I disagree, there is more to life as a poker player than playing stud and holdem. If you can beat these games, you should be able to beat all games. Just think how much more confused the "tourists" will be when a wider variety of games are offered. I for one wish there WAS a wider variety of games offered.
On the forum, most talk is limited to stud and holdem because they are the two most prominent games, not because other types of poker are uninteresting or unworthy of discussion....
"BTW, the chess fanatics aren't proposing changes all the time". Maybe they should though. Now that opening theory has been analyzed to the nth degree, it might be refreshing to see people playing off the cuff rather than reeling off endless computer-analyzed variations. Fischer himself said that all you would have to do is swap the knights and the bishops.
Andy.
Plus, there are chess variations.
The simplest variant is speed chess.
I've seen people design chess for 3 (on a board with hexagonal squares!!), 3D chess (ala Star Trek), etc. etc.
One of the things that makes poker very interesting is that many of the strategic principles apply across variants (otherwise it would have been hard for anyone to write a book like "The Theory of Poker").
So I, for one, am in favor of variants.
I just am not too much in favor of variants (e.g., with many wildcards) that totally randomize the game, because then the strategic principles go out the window.
--james
I've posted some responses to these posts in the post jurassic poker II. See also the jurassic poker FAQ.
I raise with AKo from early position and get two callers, both of whom are loose and weak players in one form or another. I play $2-$5 HE. The flop comes J74 rainbow (one of those smog ridden rainbows where there's more black than not.) Of course I bet and I get called by a girl experiencing her poker up-flux hook, who coincidentally is compelled to do a little dance upon each successive beat she administers me, "whoo whoo whoo" it goes.
I bet the flop; she calls. The turn is a deuce. Mother of God, I'm momentarily possessed and I check. She bets. The demon persists: I call, even while everything I know says check-raise. (Actually, to put things in perspective, she will call the flop with all sorts of hands and be inclined to bluff after a check on the turn.)
I'm thinking of a King; I'm thinking of an Ace; and I'm concentrating hard. A six hits the river. I focus on the upcoming "whoo whoo whoo," I check. She bets. I call with my last chance at the check-raise bluff squandered. "You win," I'm told. She shows me 43o.
Your thoughts on turn play in situations like this against players like her coming from a player like me?
If she will call 43o for a raise pre-flop, she damn sure is going to call a turn check raise. Hell, she hit her top pair.
Ah, but Woodman, remember she said after betting the river, "You win." I could have convinced her with a check-raise on the turn I had the best hand, and, if so, I'd give it 50-50 she'd fold. At least that's my thinking...
Bet on the turn and check and call on the river. If you can tounce her one or two times by picking off bluffs or by checkraising when you've improved, start betting the river too. Turn up the volume on your headphones.
I hear what you're saying. I think the "flop bet - turn bet - river check-call" play is a good play against a player who will call with nothing on the flop, fold with nothing on the turn and bluff at the river with nothing, but who will not fold a pair on the river for a bet. And the play sets up bluff steals on the river in the future against players prone to a bluff (sometimes the same players who will call you with as little as an ace on the river.) Still, I think a check-raise bluff on the turn can be the best play, but it's definitely image and opponent mood dependant and therefore an intermittant play -- a play that should be considered on occasion.
Wanted skilled, ambitious poker players for full-time position. Pay up to $8.76 per hour.
While I have many years of poker playing experience, I’m new to casino playing (a couple of quick trips to Atlantic City.
I’m also new to your discussion group, and while I find many of the topics discussed interesting, the central question that I need answered is simply: can one play in a casino -- having a significant house rake to overcome -- and make , over period of time, enough of a profit to make your investment of time worthwhile?
This obviously eliminates players who are just looking for a little entertainment or “action”. Ideally, if one played full-time you could make a modest living, say 25 to 30K a year net.
Rather than spend a few years of my time in actual play, I’ve first turned to the magic genie of today’s technology: the computer. I ran a series of various tests, using a large, 500,000 (about 8-10 years of 35 hours a week playing time) sample each time. The software was Wilson’s’ Turbo seven card stud (v.2)
The best figure I could come up with was a profit of $8.76 per hour in a 10/20 game, using a very good player against mostly weak opponents
The 5/10 & 15/30 showed a loss, and a lower profit respectively.
If I changed the lineup of players to a moderately tough one (a much more realist option), all betting limits showed a loss.
Now the question is, am I doing something wrong, is the program playing incorrectly, or what?
I selected as the test player one who plays a tight but aggressive game. And since the computer has no emotion there’s no problem with “going on tilt” or poor money management.
I ‘d love to hear some intelligent comments on this test.
John jjrbk@iinterport.net
PS The 10/20 game had a $1 ante, a $3 bringin, a rake of 5% with a cap of $4 & a .75 average toke . The 15/30 game was $2, $5 & a charge of $12 per hour & a $1 toke
The type of simulation you're describing has one serious flaw, it doesn't learn.
If you play against an opponent for a while, you'll (as a good player) learn some of his tendencies. If you know that he never raises with less than the nuts, you'll fold when he raises, right?
However, the turbo software, while good, doesn't have this ability. With a given set of cards, and a given set of opponent actions, a given turbo profile will play the same strategy every time, irregardless of which opponent is making each action. In other words, if you're using Conan the Librarian (he's a turbo HE character, don't know if they use that name in the 7stud software), and his strategy says to always 3-bet from late position with JJ, he will not vary this strategy because the bet came from a known rock player (because he doesn't know that, it's a fact that the profile doesn't look at when deciding it's actions).
Therefore, the software, no matter how strong it's profile strategy may be, can never optimize that strategy for a particular opponent(s). You can do this.
I can beat turbo HE for at least a couple of bets an hour against a standard rake, even with a bunch of "tough" profiles. I've never tried it, but I guess you're telling me that none of these profiles could beat an assortment of opponent profiles for any serious profit.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Perhaps a better test would be to see if a profile which is optimized to play against loose players can beat a lineup of all loose players, and if a profile optimized to play against tight players can beat a lineup of all tight players.
The player I selected plays a tight, aggresive game & I had him play against BOTH tight & loose players. The only profit was with the looser palyers.
John
But notice also that Turbo seems to have some fundamental limitations that call into question even this sort of simulation -- I think. For instance, if you want to create a TTH V3.0 profile to play well against a tight lineup, it would be nice to be able to make it semi-bluff effectively, right? But as far as I can ascertain, that's not possible because:
1. If you try to use the semi-bluff bet variables themselves (X1, x1, X2, x2), the problem is that the profile folds if another profile raises after it bets. So it bets, say, a flush draw, but folds if it's raised. This of course is not what you would like the profile to do. So the "semi-bluff" feature is essentially useless for semi-bluffing.
2. Instead of the "semi-bluff" bet variables you can just set the profile to bet (e.g., B3 where a profile will bet then call all subsequent raises on that round) a particular hand (such as a flush draw, two overcards, etc.) given particular kinds of boards. That's better than the "semi-bluff" bet variables. But it's still no good. It fails to take into account the number of active players (not to mention any specific "tendencies" of those players). It just *always or never* bets with the hand/board (and very roughly defined position) specified. This is a big problem. To take an extreme example, when was the last time you tried indiscriminately semi-bluffing with a hand like two overcards without taking into account the number of active players? Major problem, eh? And of course choosing whether or not to follow through with a semi-bluff on a subsequent round repeats the same problem.
I think there are other serious problems with trying to set a profile to semi-bluff, but that alone is enough, I think, to raise major questions about how to interpret some TTH sims.
In sum, I don't think a profile can be set to semi-bluff effectively (much less, intelligently). But I don't yet know the software as well as some do. Am I correct in my understanding of this problem? Am I missing some aspect of TTH, which negates it? I'd welcome any clarification.
John Feeney
greg,
Thanks your response makes a lot of sense. it certainly is a factor that doesn't "program" as you explain.
John
I think your simulations do not give a realistic approximation of what you could expect in real life. I have the program you used. I can easily beat weak computer opposition in 1-5, 5-10, 10-20, and 15-30 for a considerable sum. I can beat tougher opponents for somewhat less. But the computer can't make $$ in the simulations because it does not learn from its mistakes, it just performs actions based on preset tables.
In my opinion, the simulations run on these programs should be interpreted cautiously, as they are inherently flawed. Obviously the games you mentioned can be beat, both on the computer and in real life. From experience, the 5-10 games in atlantic city are usually not that tough if you are a good player, and I made plenty of $$ from these games over time.
Don't give up so easy! See if YOU can beat the computer with tough opposition. Practice at home, read you books, become proficient at calculating pot odds and chances of improvement, and THEN take another trip to AC.
Dave in Cali
p.s. if you want more specific advice about AC, email me.
As an owner of Wilson software(both 7-stud and HE),I dont rely a whole lot on the simulation feature(even though it is fun to play with).I personally rely more on playing the hands myself(a few thousand or so)and thoroughly reviewing the STARTING HAND ANALYZER feature.And of course,making sure the rake and ante structures reflect those of the local casino.My reason for is my belief that poker players are like finger prints.No two are exactly alike.The fifty or so profiles to choose from to represent you in the simulation process arent really "you".Your being a long time poker player,I'd like to think you can appreciate this line of thinking.Playing 10,000 hands at the $10-$20 level I made about $12.16 an hour(I'm not a long time poker player).Whether you agree or disagree I'd like to hear a response.
Richard:
Good point about the starting hand analyzer. Actually not much has been said about any of the features of Turbo programs other than the simulator function. The charts and graphs offer an amazing wealth of information. Although much of it is just interesting trivia, some of it can really offer significant insight. The starting hand analyzer is perhaps the most useful feature of Turbo.
In one 5-10 game I have played 5800 hands and made 3589$ profit, which is $0.61 per hand played. If I played 40 hands per hour, that would be better than two big bets per hour win rate. This particular result is somewhat too high to correlate with real life, which is the reason why I am posting it here. I cannot beat casino 5-10 stud for 2.5 big bets per hour, even though I can beat Turbo for this much! This high of a win rate probably reflects the fact that I have unlimited time to make decisions when playing at home. I think a real life expectation would be more like $0.30 - $0.40 per hand played, or about 1.2 - 1.5 big bets per hour.
I don't think anyone else should put too much faith in correlating their results on turbo to their predicted real life results. Example: In my 10-20 Turbo game, I have played 1820 hands, won 9.1% of hands dealt, won 5890$, and averaged $3.24/hand. This would perhaps suggest that I should rush out and invest all my $$ in my phenomenal 10-20 stud playing abilities... but I'm sure anyone reasonable can see the error of THAT line of thought! More likely my sample size is WAY too small and I happen to have been luckier in the recent past than the other players. When I have played 100,000 hands, I should have a more realistic hourly win rate.
The information found in turbo is useful but must be interpreted with caution, as I have (hopefully) shown. Still, there is no doubt that aspiring players will greatly benefit from the use of these programs. Just using the program and thinking about poker will help your game.
Dave in Cali
hi everyone,
I'm new to the poker world and was inspired to take on the game after watching the movie Rounders...i consider myself an average player and would like to improve on my game....i was looking into the wilson turbo program for holdem and am still debating whether i should get the wilson program or the ace-spade program....(it calims to be better than the wilon turbo... )
thanks, Dav
Until this one guy showed up here (and on RGP) and started pushing it, I had never heard of the AceSpade program. I have used the earlier version of Turbo, and like it. I hear the later versions are MUCH better. I trust people like Abdul who say that it is a great tool. I know that it's a fun game to play, as well.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Dave' Thanks for the advice. I will most definitely take your advice to heart.
John
Random thoughts:
500,000 is a small sample.
Real players can do much more than Turbo can simulate. Good players even more. While programming "your" profile you should notice how limited the choices really are; even thought there are hundreds of them.
Turbo is good for Qualitative analysis, such as which of two strategies does better against loose players. But it is bad at quantitative analys, such as by how much.
Get your feet wet for a while, and determine your own realistic win rate.
- Louie
John,
I did some simulations using TTHE and TTO8. The numbers I got for the 10/20 game were a bit higher than yours for 7CS when I played the HE game and quite a lot higher for the O8 game when I had a strong player against mixed opponents. When I strengthened the opponents, the simulations lost or barely broke even. When I weakened the opponents, the simulations $$ per hour went up. (Pretty obvious). For example, against a mixed lot of opponents, with a few weak (like in real life), it won as much as $40 per hour after rake and toke in O8. I win more against these lineups, especially at HE.
A few thoughts:
1. The lineups really count. 2. The simulations for the different games are different, as I think these three games (7CS, HE and O8) are different in real life. A good O8 game is better than any game I can think of, since a weak-avg player in that game will get chewed to death. 3. You should play yourself against these lineups, keep statistics, and figure out how to get better, you should be able to play well and win against TT before you can expect to win much in real life. 4. While I love TT and while Bob Wilson has done, in my opinion, an amazing job, there are people who sit down at the tables for long or short amounts of time in casinos who are much worse in some ways than almost all of his players. People who do not know the rules. Or who do not realize that two higher pairs on board are better than the 22 in the opponents hand, so their Ax has won the HE pot, or who never play a hand until they have the nuts (and tell you so), or who foget that they can only use *two* of their cards in O8, and on and on and on. And watching opponents live is worth a lot...so play live too.
Mark
I posted a message a week or so ago about a four flush hand I played at AC. It has lead to me thinking alot about 4 flush play.
In a 1-5 game, where 3 people call the bring in, you find yourself with a four flush on fourth street. It is checked around to you. You have seen a total of 14 cards and 3 other of your suit(7 total). I believe you now have a 41.2% chance of making your flush by seventh street. Clearly, good enough odds to call a bet if there had been one.
Lets say you check. Now on fifth, you catch an airball. The first player to act bets 5(9 in the pot) on what you think could be a high pair and it is folded around to you. You would now have seen 18 cards and lets say there are still just the three other of your suit that you have seen(7 total). You now have a 32.6% chance of making your flush and too poor odds to call the bet.
However, if you had bet 5 on 4th street, even if you had just one caller, you would then have odds to call a bet on 5th street.
This arguement could also be used on subsequent streets, to support betting.
So assuming you have a perfect read on you opponents, is it the correct play to bet your less than live 4 flush against a field without trips or a higher flush draw in it?
Wayne
I want to keep this thread up near the top, so I will start putting out a post on most days which answers some of the previous days responses. (That starts at the end of the post) I also want to take whoever sticks with me through a short course in poker anatomy.
It's not a big field but as far as I can tell no one has been there before so there are some very interesting bits and pieces lying around.
But if your only interest is in beating the game - which is impossible anyway because no one beats poker - then you won't find much here of interest, though I suppose I could leaven the dough with a few "professional's secrets".
Maybe one a day, here's the first: drug dealers on their way to prison make the very best of opponents. I know it's not original - you can find the same information in poker books - but it's something I have seen myself, and really, get there with a bucket.
What I aim to do over the next few days is set out some observable facts about poker structure, and establish a general rule which is descriptive of what we have, and which shows that poker is now more or less complete as a game, just as bridge is.
Before I do that I just want to take a side track to talk about something which has few emotional connotations: five-card stud bores most people, because it's not a mainstream game, and any comments about seven card poker meet a lot of entrenched and unexamined beliefs.
Caribean stud as I understand it is a licensed game which has been successful in many places as a house game. It is a modified form of 5-stud with some rules of play which give the dealer/banker an unbeateable edge.
I didn't think it would work, but it did. It takes the banker principle of blackjack and applies it to poker, which is itself a successful game.
Caribean has many of the best things about poker: control of what hands you play, the suspense of drawing, the ability to put more money on in good situations. It suits people who don't want to, or can't play poker, for whatever reason, but who like some aspects of real poker which caribean stud keeps.
The big difference in the feel of the game is that it is social rather than competitive. Even the dealer can be rooting for the house to lose, and there is no problem with cheating or having to hide your hole cards. It's a party, and that seems to be enough to make the players ignore the crippling house edge.
There is another game being launched at the moment called Mambo, which is a form of high-lo four card stud where the casino deals the cards: the players compete as in other forms of poker. I would be interested in hearing how it plays.
I wish the promoters of the venture luck. Mambo is a very different proposition to Caribean stud. It only provides a rake (if I am wrong in any facts here please let me know) so apart from perhaps being faster it is no better for the house than any other poker game.
It also introduces a whole new genre which has no established market. It looks like a tough form of poker, so the blackjack contingent are unlikely to flock over, nor are many of the craps, roulette or whatever players, in any great number. If it makes it with the poker contingent it will be quite an achivement, because four card poker has never been played much before, and there might be good reasons for that.
So Mambo has a pretty big hill to climb.
Tomorrow, or if not, the day after, I'll look at five card poker in it's entirety.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Some replies, with thanks to all contributors, and apologies that I can't address everything. If it's important restate it and I'll get to it eventually.
James Kittock writes: "I just am not too much in favor of variants (e.g., with many wildcards) that totally randomize the game, because then the strategic principles go out the window"
I couldn't agree more. I feel the same way about the third hole card.
Dave In Cali writes: "there is more to life as a poker player than playing stud and holdem. If you can beat these games, you should be able to beat all games"
And there is more to life than being a poker player. Anyone who plays too much poker, or only one form of poker, especially with limit betting, is risking getting bored to death with it, which plays hell with your hourly rate.
Frank writes: "I have an idea. Let's toss 'em all and play stud. "
I agree up to a point. Seven stud is the best form, if you give it a reverse heimlich to pop the fourth street bug out of it's arse, and take the top off.
As a dealer, I've noticed that many times my flops seem to be related. For example: In one particular half hour I flopped a pair of 5s 5 times! Or, I'll tend to flop face cards or low cards. Has anyone noticed these trends and is there a way a player can take advantage of them?
JJ
I think this is an interesting subject, but how do you predict when it's going to happen? Usually, by the time you realize it's happening, it's to late to take advantage of it.
It appears that these things happen for short periods of time, but I have not heard of any research being done on this phenonemon.
Here's some other examples:
Rushes--When a player wins 3 or 4 pots in a row no matter what cards he holds. Hot BJ Dealer--When your BJ ties the dealer BJ or you have 20 and the dealer draws on his 16 to 21 (this will continue until the dealers goes on break). Craps--Player throws 26 sixes before he rolls a seven and still does not make his point of 8. (when this one happened a lot of people made some money).
Does anyone have the answers?
"Does anyone have the answers?"
Sure, rare events happen all the time. That sounds like a contradiction since by definition a rare event is one which happens infrequently, but the set of all rare events is sufficiently large that you can expect to see some of its members from time to time. All of the individual events you mention were unlikely before they occured, but the fact that some unlikely events occured is not remarkable. It would be remarkable if no unlikely events ever occured, or if you could have predicted which individual unlikely event would occur in advance.
The answer is simply that certain events stand out in your head, and SEEM more remarkable. However, the truth is, that every sequence of events is unlikely, but most don't appear unlikely.
Go to your craps thing. If you walk up to a table and start betting with the shooter, and the pass line bet loses 10 times in a row, you start thinking "what are the odds of that happening?" That's because 10 losses in a row is unlikely.
What if you had walked up and the rolls had gone something like win, win, lose, win, lose, lose, win, lose, lose, win. You wouldn't even notice, is my guess. However, before you walked up, either outcome was approximately equally likely.
No, I don't mean 10 losses is just as likely as 5 losses and 5 wins. I mean the 2 series LLLLLLLLLL and WWLWLLWLLW are approximately equally likely. However, all those times you played and the series consisted of some combination of about half win and about half losses, you didn't notice, as it appeared to be typical.
If you look at it in enough detail, nothing is typical. Perspective is what causes us to see some patterns and ignore others.
I'm reminded of a religious argument. Someone tries to prove that God exists by pointing out that it is so unlikely that the world would have turned out the way it did, working the way it does, without some guiding force to create it in all its detail. I respond that the world was going to turn out SOME way. The fact that it happened to turn out THIS way doesn't prove anything. If everything were somehow different, you could still apply the pro-God argument. Since the argument is equally applicable no matter what the world is like, how can it be a valid argument? No matter what the world is, you might wonder "what are the odds of this?" Again, however it actually turns out, if you went back in time and tried to predict it, it was a rare event (again, because all events are rare).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
I find this is a hard concept for many people to understand. Often a player will come to me and say something like "I just got two black kings three times in a row. What are the odds of that happening?" I usually reply "100%, assuming you are telling the truth."
You wrote "No, I don't mean 10 losses is just as likely as 5 losses and 5 wins. I mean the 2 series LLLLLLLLLL and WWLWLLWLLW are approximately equally likely. However, all those times you played and the series consisted of some combination of about half win and about half losses, you didn't notice, as it appeared to be typical.
If the above was a fair coin flip rather than a pass line bet at craps, would you agree that the 2 speficic series HHHHHHHHHH and TTHTHHTHHT are exactly equally likely?
Anyway, there was a discussion like this many months ago and I introduced a reply containing a distant memory of a study from about 1981 that analyized shooting for an NBA team (the 76's from 1983 or so who shot 50% - defense wasn't so good in those days). Despite the fact that almost all coaches and players believe in the "hot hand" when it comes to shooting, there were no more streaks than what would be predicted by a coin flip. But as you said, the streaks are what people remember. Amazingly, many people who participate in the forum (I don't think you were posting then) remembered the study and problems with the methodology and so on. We definitely have a pretty tough group here.
That being said, if I came to a craps table on one of my rare trips to Las Vegas (or Foxwoods) and saw ten passes in a row, I would suspect there is a higher likelyhood that something "fishy" is going on rather than the event was totally ramdom.
I know very little about shuffle tracking and so on, but am interested if anyone comes up with valid thinking in reply to JJ(MO)'s post below.
Regards,
Rick
Rick wrote: "If the above was a fair coin flip rather than a pass line bet at craps, would you agree that the 2 speficic series HHHHHHHHHH and TTHTHHTHHT are exactly equally likely?"
Yes I would. I only used the word approximately because it was a craps line bet where the win and lose outcomes are not equally likely.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Some advanced BJ playes are able to use what is called 'sequencing', or memorizing a sequence of cards.
Take a standard 52 card deck, arrange it in order, and then perform a *standard* poker shuffle. Many of the cards will still be in sequence. I was just wondering if there was a way to take advantage of that. Any thoughts, Mr Sklansky?
JJ(MO)
What are the best introductory books on Omaha 8? I'm looking for something geared to new players and lower limits like Roy West's stud book.
Thanks!
I recommend Ray Zee's High Low Split Poker for Advanced Players. The first section of the Omaha part of the book is geared for the low-limit Omaha 8 or Better games. The title of this book is somewhat misleading, because I believe this section has the best advice for beginners.
I just want to second this. This section was designed for low limit games where many players were seeing the flop and going to far with their hands. The rest of the Omaha eight-or-better part of the book is where the more advanced information is, but it's not really necessary in most low limit games.
Patrick,
Yes, Ray's O8 book is excellent.
Also, buy Wilson's TT Omaha High-low program. It is an excellent way to learn and see Ray's writings in action without paying off at the table.
Mark
Besides Ray's book I also recomment Ciaffone's booklet. I have the older one which mostly concentrates on Omaha high but I understand the newer one has more O/8 info.
I have a copy of Bob's new version of the book. It's a good suppliment. But, for a beginner, I highly recommend studying Ray's 22 concepts first.
Sklansky writes:
"Mistake No. 3. Calling When You Should Fold. This mistake is made by most players in the early rounds of betting because they don't understand the concept of effective odds as explained in my book The Theory of Poker. Briefly stated, the concept suggests that it is not worth chasing with a hand even when it appears you are getting good odds because of the bets to follow."
First let me say that I consider this the single most costly mistake in poker. Of course not being an ego maniac I may have termed it something like, Mistake No 3. Calling when folding is a better play. Superior folks usually have a way of emphasizing others inferiority in their wording, "you should fold". Oh, Davey, how Sklansky of you! Now for the reason for the post. "Effective Odds". This term seems a little off base to me. I agree that one must consider the bets to follow when deciding to play or fold. In fact if you don't you are making the 9th mistake in poker. Not considering the play of the hand. So will someone please clarify the term for me. Is Sklansky saying that effectively the odds are not what they may appear to be but may be much higher. Thus the term "effective odds". Not being a Math weeny (Like Sklansky or Abdul) or English Scholar (like Fossil) or down right poker expert (like Mason) I need an explanation. How about an example to boot!
Vince.
BTW - If you think I am being unkind to Mr. S. just read the rest of the 8 mistakes. I bet he calls some of our (us) fellow poker bretheren "Suckers". Must want to make us that have made that mistake feel good. Huh!
Effective odds, as defined in the TOP, are the odds that take into account the extra money that you have to put in on future rounds (and on the current round if raised) and the amount you will win if you make your hand. This is often less than the "pot odds" which only consider the current size of the pot and your current bet.
For example, if the pot is $50 and the bet is $10 to me, the pot odds are 5:1, but if there is one other opponent who calls and then bets again on the turn and river, then I have to put in $30 to win $110 and the effective odds being offered are only 3.7:1.
Sometimes you make much more than what the pot odds indicate due to future action when you make your hand, and this is what is meant by "implied odds".
There were a couple problems with the calculation of effective odds in my example. First of all you don't count the river bet since I'm going to fold if I don't make my draw. Secondly, I added my additional bets to the total that I would win which isn't right. So let's try this again:
There is $50 in the pot and the bet is $10 to me. My pot odds are 5:1, but if I have to call a bet on the turn that means I have to put in $30 to win $80, so the pot is only offering me effective odds of 8:3, alot worse.
Pretty damn funny Vince...
Anyhow, effective odds simply means how much are risking on the current and future rounds to win the expected size of the pot at the end of the hand. For example, in $10-$20, if there's $50 in the pot head-up and your opponent goes all-in on the turn for $20, you're getting odds of 70 to 20 or 3.5 to 1. If you're on a flush draw your chance of hitting is 4 to 1. Since the odds the final pot is offering is less than the odds of hitting your hand, you'd be wise to fold.
If your opponent was not all-in and would pay you off if you hit your flush, your implied odds in this situation would be 90 to 20 or 4.5 to 1 (greater than your odds of hitting the flush) and it'd be in your best interest to go ahead and call the turn.
Vince, I have always considered checking (when I should bet) and calling (when I should raise) as the worst sins in poker.
Calling when I should fold is as you point out an error in the early rounds of a hand. The opposite - folding when I should call - can be an even bigger error than Mistake No. 3.
"How Sklansky of you." Now that's a great sentence.
The term "biggest" mistake might be changed to "most costly" as skip puts folding instead of calling. But mistake #3 might be most common mistake.
But calling when you should fold is sort of a unique case in that while one given instance of it does not cost much, it can be a very costly mistake on the whole. First, when you call early in a hand when you should fold (e.g., play a hand you shouldn't) the error can easily compound itself if you get trapped in a hand you never should have been involved in. Second, hand selection comes up every hand, so if you are prone to call early when you should fold (play too many hands) the bets add up. Was that Sklansky of me?
John, in retrospect, I guess I now have to agree with you and Vince.
I guess what I am trying to say is that "good" players rarely have to worry about the mistake of calling when they should fold. They rarely have to think about this. On the other hand, I see otherwise "good" players constantly make the mistake of checking or calling rather than betting or raising.
"that "good" players rarely have to worry about the mistake of calling when they should fold"
SKP There is some truth, no, a lot of truth in what you say above. Of course when a good player makes a call he shouldn't make he sometimes compounds it by kicking himself in the behind and thinking about it for most of the session. Or at least until he wins/loses his next battle. That is not the point. Good players rarely have to worry about any one specific mistake. Usually they make a few of the garden variety during each session. They are smart enough to know when they are making to many of the same mistake during a session and will figure a way to plug that leak in their game. One of the prime reasons I rank "calling when a fold is a better play" as the number one mistake in poker has to do with what I like in my opponents. I like the oponnents that call too much.
BTW- David made a remark about my saying "how Sklansky of you" to him. Do you think he's mad? I am asking you because I was afraid to ask him. Since you always take his side and sometimes sound a lot like him (that's not bad) I thought I would ask you.
Of course you know that my BTW was only written in Jest, good comrade.
Vince.
I am basically a Backgammonplayer and am starting right now to study Poker.
In Backgammon there are 2 programs, which play a world class game. Expert opinion differs about the question, who is stronger, the bots or the top human players. Well, if you ask me, where I'ld put my money on, I'ld answer: "Bring me an expert of your choice, I'll go with the bots!" (But of course that would be no big bargain)
The BG-machines are trained by neural nets, that means something like they play billions of times against themselves, while learning by there own faults.
Now I am sure, Poker is another story. But apart from psychological aspects, there should at least be a theoretical correct action against a perfect opponent. (Am I very wrong with this statement?)
And how strong are the Poker bots compared to top human players? (e.g. Turbo Texas Hold'em) If you work with them and study some basic books, will you get substantial favorite in a weak, non-educated, loose round?
Comments appreciated, thanks in advance,
- Harald Retter
"there should at least be a theoretical correct action against a perfect opponent."
The beauty of poker is that there is no perfect opponent and to maximize your profit, you need to play slightly differently against virtually every opponent and every table.
Harald,
A Program like Jellyfish 3.5 plays almost as good as the top expert in backgammon. I understand Snowie (sp?) is even a little better. And mainframe software (TD Gammon?) is better still (that may be what you are speaking of).
Anyway, there are no programs for poker that play at that level but there are some worhtwhile efforts if you understand their limitations. I would rate the best poker programs close to what Randy Weaver's "Expert Backgammon" was about ten years ago.
Regards,
Rick
We were playing regular five card draw with a 5 dollar ante. It had checked all the way around three times and it was now 90 dollars to open. I caught a pair of bullets, but I was in poor betting position and checked. Well, it checked all the way around again, and now it was up to 120 dollars to open. I was now UTG and guess what? I caught the bullets again. With 120 dollars to open, there was no way that I was betting UTG though, and I checked. Two people on the end opened and I mucked the bullets. It turned out that a pair of cowboys had won the 360 dollar pot. Was this a bad play?
Bishop
You did not tell us what he betting limits were. Anything less than pot limit made this an easy open. you are dealt better than two aces only about 8% of the time.
You had to open for the full 120.
I have seen a lot of posts here suggesting that major tournaments with large fields are close to crapshoots. While there may be weaker players in the larger field than in another event with a higher buy-in, the greater luck factor may negate this advantage. Due to this, many expert players stick to the side action at the major tournaments.
In what situations will a strong player have a high expectation in a major tournament event (higher than he would have as a winning player in the side action over those hours)?
Which type of tournament is generally highest EV for the expert - stud, limit holdem, NL holdem, or something else?
Which types of tournaments should be avoided from an EV standpoint?
This is actually a simpler questrion than it might appear. It basically is related to the size of the buy in and the stakes you usually play.
Excellent players can expect their average payoff to be about double the size of their tournament buy in. Thus for a 330 buy in, their EV is about +300 or so. This profit is spread out over an average period of about 5 hours. In the example given, thats about 60 an hour. So you compare that with what you could make in a side game.
Of course their are other issues, taxes, volatility, the chance for a score, bankroll requirements, the fact that the intensity of a tournament may keep you from playing your best game in a side game if you are knocked out early.
For pros who normally play 30-60 but are also real good at tournaments, I would recommend playing in $500 or $1000 tournaments when the field is easy or when you want to have a change of pace. The fact that there seems to be a lot of players who play much more often is due more to their lack of success in side games rather than some incredible extra edge in tournaments.
My experience indicates that the playing styles of some players is simply much better suited to tournament play. There are some players that are very good in both arenas but they are rare. My experience also indicates that a good player has a much higher expectation in no limit hold-em than in limit hold-em. My personal best returns are in Omaha Split. I believe this has to do more with the relative weakness of the other players in Omaha Split more than to my own play. The difference in results between limit and no limit hold-em can be partially attributable to the fact that weak players are more heavily penalized for their mistakes in no limit and the fact that they take draws that are reasonable in limit but not reasonable in no limit and they fail to make the adjustment.
UTG is a wild man on a major rush. He was in the game for 3 racks but found himself on a $1800 roll over the course of an hour. The guy was hitting everything in sight.
He puts in his customary raise. A Player three seats to the left of UTG ( a fairly "solid" player who adjusts to game conditions very well) three bets it. I call in the bb with AhKh. UTG caps and we take the flop 3 handed.
Flop: Jc10h5c
I check. UTG bets and "solid" raises. I call. UTG 3 bets and "solid" caps. I call.
Turn: 9h
I bet.
A friend of mine who had cashed out and was watching me play said that my turn bet was pretty strange.
Is it? What do you guys think?
I agree with your friend. The "solid" player raised pre'flop and raised twice post-flop. You have to figure him for at leat a premium pair, and with his post-flop betting, possibly JJ(now with a set). There was no information you could gain with your bet, so I guess you were trying to build a pot. I also guess that you got at least one raise from the solid player, and possibly a re-raise from the maniac (who could be holding anything). Unless you had been playing like a manaic, I don't think anyone would have you pegged for holding KQ through all the previous betting, so what were you trying to do? You weren't going to scare anyone out. Even if the end of your story is that Qh came on the river, I think you were incorrect to bet here. Black Jack
It looks like you are completely missing what's going on here. (I'm probably wrong, but that's the way it looks.) Are you saying that if you were sitting behind a maniac (who has random cards, essentially) that you wouldn't re-raise preflop and go big on the flop with less than premium hands, in order to put heavy pressure on the third guy who appears to have a draw? If I've got two cards in that situation, I will look like a maniac, too. I figure SOLID could have just about any slightly better than random hand, here.
Once "the fire broke out in another spot", most, if not all players with less than super hands are going to go into conservative mode, even some maniacs. If skp just checks and calls, then he may have to pay 4BB to hit his 12 to 18 outs. By betting out, he probably limits his cost to 1BB or 2BB. SOLID will not raise without something REALLY good, now. The maniac may not even raise, and if he does, SOLID may fold. Heck, even skp's bet may get SOLID to fold.
I think this is one of those times where you should bet if you figure you'll have to call all bets anyway. No harm will come, and who knows how much good it can do?
Eric
I'm assuming your play is aimed at putting pressure on the SOLID player as the gambler doesn't appear from your description to care why you may or may not be betting. This is a message bet to SOLID. So, from SOLID's point of view,'If the flop gives SKP an open-ender, does he usually bet out? Or check-raise? Or smooth-call two bets when he KNOWS its going to be capped? Would SKP call two bets with an under-pair like 9's? Not likely so I'm writing off a set of nines with your turn bet. If you turned top straight would you bet out in this situation expecting gambler to raise and put pressure on me (SOLID), or would you more likely trap, calling the raises, then check-raising the river. What if you turned the bottom straight? Would you likely bet then? If you had 7h and 8h you'd likely bet. I think you know I'm trying to drive you out of the pot with my betting and could have just about anything but still likely have GAMBLER beat. If I'm solid, I narrow your likely holdings to 78h's, AKh's, AQh's, AJh's, A10h's, AKo, AQo...or pocket J's or ten's which you've slow-played (for varience), and have now decided to push to see how strong my hand really is after GAMBLER likely raises. But you'd likely have re-raised pre-flop with J's or ten's...wouldn't you? What about J10s? Pocket 5's?! Oi my head.
SKP, I like the bet because of the pressure you put on SOLID. If you hit, GAMBLER will pay you off, if you don't, a bet on the river and a raise by GAMBLER may still let you steal. This is an interesting use of position to put pressure on the player, SOLID, who is supposed to enjoy position on you. spitball
It's a hell of a gutsy bet, but, respectfully, I don't like it. It's possible your bet may keep solid from raising, which he most likely would have done had you let UTG bet, but you're still on the come against two players who have shown an awful lot of power to this point.
I think you hit the nail on the head. When I called all bets on the flop, I thought there was a good likelihood that Solid would put me on Clubs. If I checked and UTG bet (which he could with almost anything in his frame of mind), Solid would likely come over on top to make me pay for the third club (and I would call as I have 12 outs to the nuts and possibly another 6 outs to give me the best hand).
Accordingly, I thought I would bet. I figured even UTG with his frame of mind would not smoke me unless he really had something (given that he has to worry about me and Solid) and I definitely knew that Solid would respect my bet way more than UTG's bet and would not raise me unless he had a set (I certainly didn't put him on KQ).
As it turned out, both players just called my bet on the turn. I hit an Ace on the river, bet, and was called by both players. Solid and I split the pot as we both had Big Slick.
I think your categorization of players needs some work. You have a fellow with AK who 3 bets it before tha flop, then raises after the flop with nothing on the board but a gut-shot? And you call him "solid"? I don't think so.... Black Jack
Don't forget that the bettor on the flop is a wild thing who could be betting anything. Solid certainly should raise the flop to get me out (the cap is a little more questionable). BTW, he has much more than a gutshot. He has also has 2 overcards. He certainly is justified in believing that he has 10 outs as against the wild thing assuming that the wild thing is even ahead at that point.
SKP
My guess is you and solid were both "lucky. Solid more than you. Well maybe not, you called a double raise on the flop with 6 outs and back door possibilities. Wait a minute, Less than six outs. You must have put solid on a big hand. AA, A,K or K,K especially when he caps the flop. How can he cap the flop btw and still be considered solid. Did he figure you would fold after calling 2 bets cold before the cap? My guess is that "wild thing" had you both beat until the river unless he had A,Q, (very unlikely). He probably had Q,Q with K,K or A,Q second likely. He called the river so unless he is wild and "stupid" he had you beat before the river.
Now about your betting the turn. It sure beats checking and having two guys check behind you!
Vince.
UTG had QJ off.
As I said above, Solid's cap is questionable. However, the fact that he made a questionable play doesn't take him away from the solid player category. Hell, these types of raising errors are really inconsequential in the long run and I'll tell you that I make them all of the time (and probably will continue making them).
The initial raise on the flop by Solid is a gimme (with all due respect to Blackjack). If solid 3 bets before the flop and just calls (when the bet comes from a wild thing no less) on a flop that includes a J,10, he would be off my Solid list and into my "weak-tight' list.
Off to the movies. I'll add to this later.
"Off to the movies"
Hey my niece says that Sixth Sense is great! Have a good evening.
Vince
BTW - Solid must consider your play! If you know him and consider him solid my guess is he knows you and considers you solid. His betting certainly doesn't indicate that he considered your play very much. Capping here with A,K is a sign of frustration. Calling your turn bet is also questionable although it is a big pot. Don't you love it when you get lucky and split a pot!
If it is inconsequential it is not an error; if it is an error it is not inconsequential. In the long run errors cost money.
I'm wondering just how good the Turbo software is as a practice tool.
I have played many hours of TTH against 'tough' and 'aggressive' lineups. I've even set up a lineup of all 'Advisor t' with that 'Conan' guy thrown in.
My question is: if I am beating these lineups consistently for 1.5 to 3 bets an hour how can I expect to do in higher limit live games?
I understand that game selection is crucial, and I have played up to 10-20, with most of my experience at the 1-4-8-8 in Las Vegas and AC (almost 300 hours total, winning at these limits, even from the start.) I've also worn out one copy of HPFAP, and I've studied most of the other books, particularly Sklansky's Theory of Poker and Malmuth's Essays.
I'm not planning to quit my job , but can I expect to take a shot at the games up to 30-60 without 'getting killed'?
I bought Turbo Texas Holdem hoping to use the advisor to improve my game. Now I'm thinking that maybe I don't want to learn to play like the advisor. Rick Nebiolo has stated below that he can beat the advisor for 2 BB/hr. I would rather learn to play like Rick Nebiolo (or other top experts).
So here's my proposition. Why don't some of the top experts get on irc poker and play for a little while, and have the windows irc client log everyone's decisions for every round. They could play in both loose games and tight games and against players whose characteristics would be initially unknown. Then publish the results on the web with some annotation on instructive hands as to what they were thinking at various points, and what they were observing about their opponents.
It is customary for books on chess to provide theory followed by examples from real games which illustrate theory. The 2+2 books provide theory. Perhaps now it is time to provide some examples of real world play.
I think that within a fairly small amount of playing time and relatively little effort, something of invaluable instructive value could be produced.
6-12 HE. Loose-weak field. UTG is slumming from his normal 20-40 Omaha. He is excellent at reading hands, is aggressive but often plays the low-limit games like he is on perma-tilt. This is not one of those times. UTG raises and could have any reasonable raising hand as well as any marginal raising hand. Two seat folds, I'm in three seat with two red tens. I raise, four seat and five seat, both very weak players, call, six and seven fold, button raises. The ONLY hand button could three-bet with is AA. SB, another terrible player, calls, and BB, a GAMBLER on a role also calls. UTG calls. He also KNOWS button has aces. I call as do 4 and 5. The flop is 6h 7s 10c. SB, BB, and UTG check to me. Normally I bet the flop after I raise and go for a check -raise on the turn. I rarely fail to get the opportunity to check-raise. In this situation I decided to just call if the button bets, or three bet the flop should I get the chance. Four and five checked, button bet, we all called. Turn is 2h. Again we all check around to the button, he bets, SB and BB fold, UTG calls, I check-raise, 4 and 5 fold, button calls, UTG calls. River brings the Kh. UTG bets and I make a crying call. My question; would it be better to bet the flop hoping button raises and perhaps drive out SB, BB, and UTG? This is the way I usually would play the hand. I didn't think check-raising the flop was a good idea here because I would lose the opportunity to check-raise the turn. BTW, betting would not help clarify any hands in this situation. If 4,5,SB or BB had flopped a straight, they would bet out or raise any bettor. My goal in this situation was to mix up my play a little, and trap as many players as I could for a check-raise on the turn. Toward that end I was successful.If I bet and there is a raise, I'll likely have killed much of my action. Is this a proper application of the delayed thin-the-field strategy? Or was I being careless with a vulnerable set and should wait to apply that strategy when I have an even stronger hand? thx spitball
Correction...pre-flop, the botton isn't three-betting, he's capping...sorry. spitball
With the flop "bunched up" T-7-6, and the pot already quite big, I think you need to thin out the field NOW. The best way to have done this, in this situation, was to bet the flop, knowing A-A would raise,. hopefully driving out sb, BB and UTG. You could then re-raise, getting rid of 4 & 5, setting you up one-on-one with a player who's hand you knew to be A-A and who would probably pay you off on the turn and river no matter how you played either of these streets.
I don't think this was the situation to try to get the maximum out of the others on the turn or river. It was the time to do all you could to get everyone out. I know, or at least I think, that others may disagree, in light of the recent writings and discussion on the best way to get the others out (they will stay for a raise on the flop, but not on the turn). I don't think you were "careless"; it is certainly debatable as to which way to play it, but I still think firing and raising until they show me the error of my ways, in all but the most perfect situation, is best.
I agree with Andy's post. If I read your post correctly, there were 7 people capped pre-flop. That's already a decent size pot for the limit you were playing in. Bet the flop, hope the button raises to rid the blinds and UTG players, and reraise to either trap the 2 in between you and the button, or force them to fold. Top set on the flop in a powerhouse, but many players incorrectly call their draws and you must make them pay for it.
If I understand you correctly, the flop is seen by 7 people. After the flop, you know that the power betting on the flop is going to center around you and the button. You have 2 players between you and the button and 3 players between the button and you. You also know that the button will bet if you check and the button will raise if you bet.
Normally, in my mind, there is no such thing as a vulnerable top set in Hold 'em. I am going to play with the expectation of winning a big pot. In this instance, the way to make the pot bigger is to come right out betting on the flop. You know that the button will raise. Given the size of the pot, guys are going to call even a raise with all kinds of longshots. You then 3 bet it and build the pot even more.
No one with a 9 or 8 is going to fold on the flop even if the betting is capped. Further, with all the action on the flop, no one with a 9 or 8 is going to fold on the turn unless it is 2 bets cold to them. So, if your intent is to have the gutshot seekers fold on the turn, you have to manipulate the betting on the turn such that these guys will be required to call 2 bets cold. How you do that depends on the body count between you and the button in a clockwise/counterclockwise direction on the turn. Of course, the aggressivenes of the button is also a key.
For example, if after the flop betting is done, the only remaining players are UTG, you, seats 4 and 5 and the button, you might well check the turn if a blank hits to let the button bet so that you can checkraise and try and get seats 4 and 5 to fold (BTW, don't worry about the button checking the turn even if you put in the last bet on the flop...he ain't gonna check with AA). On the other hand, if the players remaining on the turn are you, button, the blinds and UTG, you may want to bet the turn and hope that the button raises. Some players will not raise you on the turn if you capped the betting on the flop. If this button player is like that, then I would let him bet and checkraise the field. i.e. if you can't manipulate the button to thin the field for you, you ought to at least manipulate him to build the pot for you.
Bottom Line: While in some ways, you obviously are concerned about getting the gutshot seekers out on this hand, it really ought not to be the paramount concern. The paramount concern here is to build an already large pot.
I think with the players you described and the flop that came, you have to bet the flop and reraise the flop. Get the $$ in now while you have the best hand. You have lots of cards which could hurt you on the turn and river, so charge them the maximum now. The added advantage of this is that you have outs, which gives your bets greater value.
Also, you might still check-raise the turn anyway! If you know the guy has aces, (and he's any kind of player), you KNOW he's not giving any free cards on the turn. The board had the same apparent dangers for his hand as well as yours.
Dave in Cali
I guess I just play to tight, but I'm surprised nobody's considered folding before the flop. Based on your description of UTG, doesn't he either have 2 overcards to your pair or a bigger pair? You're either a slight favorite or a huge dog, and you don't know what the people behind you are going to do.
Even if he doesn't have a big pair, you'll get AT LEAST 1 overcard on the flop about 65% of the time, and you won't know where you're at. If you KNEW all these people would call, you could call hoping to flop a set.
A raise might be ok if he'd raise with 6-6 thru 9-9, but this still only leaves you a slight favorite overall (AA-JJ big dog, 66-99 big favorite, and 2 overcards slight favorite). If everyone REALLY likes a re-raise of UTG from early position, then I guess my flabby butt's just too tight.
Fat-Charlie
Thanks for responding FC. Should I have just folded is a good question. My goal here is two-fold. First, I love my positon in the game and I am using it in this situation. UTG is easily the most experienced player, the most likely to try and put me on a hand (and most likely to be correct). Between he and I is JK, another very experienced and tricky player. The only other player at the table even romotely dangerous is in the BB. When UTG leads off with a raise, we can include just about any strong to medium holding,eg. any S&M right down to group 5. I highly doubt AA, or KK as he prefers to slowplay these to holdings from up front against this field. Remember, he's slumming. He believes he can outplay all of us. So when JK folds I want to either get a)heads up with UTG, play agressively at the flop and hopefully drag a smallish pot, or b) build a big pot if the fish school behind me and hope to make a big hand. If I make a big hand, it will be somewhat disguised because of the three-bet in this position and I'm thinking this will be worth a few extra bets. I felt that I was following through with this plan when I decided to adopt the delayed thin-the-field raise. A second goal here has to do with image. UTG has been pushing the fish around all game. Button ends up 1200 in the whole, largly due to UTG's superior play. He also took a run at me a round previous and the three bet is reminder that I do have a good read on him and that I don't mind shoving match. As it turned out, UTG dragged the pot with A3h.
Hense my post; given that the fish are going to chase ANY draw after the flop am I better off delaying any aggressive move until the turn. Keep in mind we both know that button is playing the rockets and at some point one of us is going to try and use this guy for leverage. In this situation I was expecting UTG to check-raise the flop or the turn and then I make a move to trap him...doh!
Anyway, I was not expecting the responses to be so one sided against. No one feels the delayed raise is in order here? thx spitball
SB,
Great post! Sounds like you thought this through and had logic behind your actions. If UTG is raising up front with stuff like Ah-3h, I like your action; three betting thins the field and screws his odds.
Fat-Charlie
I have always wanted to be able to sit at a table and WRITE DOWN everybody's cards because by the time we are at the river, I have forgotten what was out there and folded. I have recently been playing stud on paradisepoker.com and have taken to finally fulfilling my fantasy! :-)
I have printed out sheets with columns of all 52 cards, and when I see a card I mark it off with a series of codes so I know who had it and where. This has greatly increased my confidence in at least knowing I'm not going to look like an idiot with an obvious mistake, but now I am beginning to think strategy for this and how to apply it.
Paradisepoker doesn't offer real money games yet but they will soon and I want to be ready for it. What suggestions would you make knowing that you can be sure what cards have been out? I suppose for a lot of people whose memory is a lot better than mine this is not an issue. But for me this is a new way of looking at things and I want to be able to use it.
Juan,
somewhere in the archives we discussed some good ways to remember the cards out. learn a system of remembering the cards that affect your hand and later expand it to all cards. it is not a memory thing so having a good memory is not the deciding factor. good luck.
Could someone narrow down which archives these posts are in or what they are titled?
If you can find a copy, "The Memory Book" by Harry Lorayne and Jerry Lucas (Ballantine, 1974) has a good system for memorizing cards. I've never applied it to poker (I'm just learning and I play Hold'Em), but I've used it to great effect in bridge and hearts. It's possible to pull stunts like dealing 47 cards face up and then naming the last five cards.
David
I would like some pointers on third street play in seven card stud. I play in a fairly loose 5-10 game ($1 ante, $2 bring-in).
Suppose the low card brings it in, one player calls and one folds, and then a player to my right with a queen up makes it $5. The player is quite solid; he almost certainly has either a pair of queens or a pocket pair, nines or better (or rolled up queens).
I have (AcKd)6c. My cards are live; aside from the queen the highest upcard is an 8. There is one other club out. There are three players left to act. Should I play this hand (on the basis of two overcards to the likely pair of queens)? If I do play, should I raise?
fold and immediatly read our stud book is the best advise in the world. good luck.
Pardon me Ray, but I would not advise a 1-5 player to read and head 7 SFAP.
Vince.
Playing overcards is only a good play for stealing antes (you probably need a high card up), or (maybe) if you have three overcards, with at least two suited cards, and straight possibilities, and you can get in CHEAP with NO chance of being raised, and all your cards are live. Even then, they are Still borderline hands and should probably be mucked. Calling raises with these hands is suicide.
In your example, he is starting with a pair and you are starting with nothing, so who is the favorite? Do you really want to call a raise when you are the underdog? You should enter pots when you are the favorite and fold when you are the underdog....
Read the book and you will be way ahead of the game.
Dave in Cali
Studette, (Is you a female?)
"Should I play this hand (on the basis of two overcards to the likely pair of queens)"
Not unless your Mike Caro! He likes them thar 2 suiters.
"If I do play, should I raise? "
Not unless you want to be reraised. If this fellow is as solid as you say and he has Q,Q he will blast you again. You see I know this because I am solid too.
"(or rolled up queens)."
You believe that there is a chance that solid has rolled up Queens and you want to take a shot at him with two over cards.
Where is this game being played?
Fundamental to good poker playing is logical thinking (do not misconstrue my words. I don't mean this in a derogatory way). Think about the situation in which you find yourself. You have a hand that is unquestionably weaker than your opponents. That is, if your read on that opponent is correct. Why would you want to chase with a weaker hand unless you have a good reason. The only reason that you could have for chasing a solid player in a situation like this would be pot odds (effective odds). The odds of you beating a pair higher than sixes are not in your favor and the effective pot odds do not warrant a call never mind a raise. Throw hands like this away.
Vince.
I am trying to learn Hold'em and have purchased 2 of Sklansky's books (Hold'Em and Hold'Em for Advanced Players). I have also purchased Turbo Texas Hold'Em and have been "practicing". My question is whether or not the advice in TTHE is (reasonably) accurate. Some (much?) of it seems to be in contradiction with Sklansky. Maybe I am just so new to the game that I can't comprehend the advice. Any comments sincerely appreciated.
MC
keep working thru all the material you can find and soon you will be able to sort out the bad. one thing though is that Sklansky is always right about what he puts in print for sure. if it contradicts him you got it wrong or it is wrong.
The advisor in Turbo HE is not always right. Take the advice with a grain of salt. Play the game with your books open and soon you will be able to determine not only which advice is bad advice but also why it is bad. Consider pot odds, your chances of improvement, your chances of getting raised, etc....
I'm not certain all the stats in the "odds" screen are always 100% correct, so I have my own statistical charts to verify anything the advisor says which might be questionable. Anyway, figuring odds in HE is pretty easy compared to stud so you should become proficient fairly quickly if you study. This is the first skill you should master before attempting casino play.
Dave in Cali
I've read both books and they have paid for themselves about 40 times over so far. I also have spent dozens of hours playing on IRC and that intensive practice with a wide range of player behavior has also been invaluable.
I've found two things very useful with TTH:
1) (original suggestion by MM) Figure out when the computer players in TTH make a mistake.
2) Analyze each and every hand (don't 'zip') and practice your hand reading.
Take the advisor with a grain of salt. If there is a contradiction its most likely the advisor is wrong but use the opportunity to analyze the situation and convince yourself the truth of the matter. If you use the advisor make sure that before you consult it you've thought about what you think the right solution is. Between the advisor and the 'zip' feature TTH was a little too easy initially for me to start flying through a game without really getting the full benefit of learning. Don't let yourself fall into this trap.
The best function of the TTH advisor is that it might indicate when your play is consistently wrong. But even if the TTH's advisor's advice were always "correct" it would be worthless to a new player because it won't tell you why it is correct. Your job is to figure out why and when certain plays are right or wrong and to discern patterns admidst all the noise. You will never learn how to play poker by mimicking the Turbo advisor.
You will also learn that several alternative and seemingly diverse plays (such as either folding or raising in certain situations) may have an almost identical expected value, at least for that hand. The advisor won't help you on this, but the sims will.
(In fairness to the "advisor," there was a lot of negative feedback on it's abilities in earlier versions of TTH. I understand that it is much improved).
A more general caveat: you need to be wary of considering the game function of TTH as anything more than a crude simulation of live play. In real life, weak players adjust their play according to recent wins and losses and weak and strong players alike adjust according to their perception of specific opponents. You need to be able to sense and even predict these adjustments and be ready to exploit them.
Does anyone know, in general, what percentage of hands played in a kill game are kill hands? I'm sure it varies, depending on the looseness of the players. For those of you who keep track of you performance in terms of number of big bets won or lost, what do you consider the size of the Big Bet to be in a kill game vs. non-kill game? I would think if you don't compensate for the kill then the deviation calculations will be larger than expected.
-ab
All the way from practically 0% to just short of 100%. YOu'd have to name to rules for the kill to get any real answer and THEN you could adjust the number for the players tendencies. For example:
1) There is a game in Bakersfield that is _always_ killed by the last winner. This means all but the first hand is killed (almost 100%).
2) At foxwoods I understand the HE kills are based on pot size. Once it kills the amount to keep it killed doesn't change so a significant portion of the pots are killed.
3) In the Orlean's 6-12 kill to 10-20 HE game I got the feeling that if the normal rock's are there the pots only infrequently get killed (<10%?). This is a win two pots in a row kill structure.
4) In a O/8 low limit kill game I play the pot is kill every 4th hand or so (from very possible flaky memory).
I havn't played enough of these games to worry about stats. In any case who cares what size a BB is as long as you keep the units consistent? Its unlikely you can mix these numbers with non-kill games and get anything meaningful.
In the games I play, there are usually 2 to 3 kills per hour. I like kill pots, because the other players usually tighten way up during a kill, so I loosen up accordingly, and find them quite profitable. Black Jack
I guess I should clarify. Where I play, A pot is killed if a player wins two pots in a row, there was no flop on the last pot, and the pot is larger than 3 small bets (I think). The winning player most post a live blind and continues to kill it until he losses.
-ab
Last night I had the nearly ideal situation arise, a pure freeroll from the nuts to the better nuts. Not a very common occurence in HE.
It was 3-6, loose passive game. I am dealt Kd9d in the big blind. There are 8 callers when it gets to me, I raise.
Flop is AdQdTc. SB checks, I bet, 7 callers, button raises, everyone calls.
Turn is Js. I now have the nut straight and a freeroll for the nut flush. SB checks, I bet, several fold, Button raises, SB check-reraises, I cap, button and SB call, three players.
River is the 4d. I bet, both call. One had a straight the other had a set of tens.
It was possible for me to lose to a full house if the board paired, but I had to charge anyone with a set or two pair the maximum amount to try and fill up. I wish these situations were more common!
Comments welcome
Dave in Cali
Hi there everyone,
First let me say that this is a venting post. It may not interest most of you so if you don't want to read a "whiner's story" move on to something else. Wait a minute Mason, don't delete this. It does apply to poker. As a matter of fact it just may be important to some players. So here goes.
Played at FW today. I am trying to play once a week while back here on the east coast. Well I had intended to play 20-40 Holdem but after an hour on all the lists I was called to a 15-30 Stud game. So that's what I played.
First hand. Made 3 9's on fourth street and was beat by a full house. Second hand. Made an Ace high flush on the river and was beat by a full house. 2 hands, $300 behind. Needless to say I was not in a good mood. Especially since this was a tight game and it did not look like I had much of a chance of retrieving my funds. Play on I said to myself. But really I was mad at myself for losing those two hands. There must have been something I could have done, I thought. So I was steaming. Don't forget this was only my second session since leaving Nevada 6 weeks ago.
Anyway I fought myself back to only $80 down. I felt better. then I lost with Kings to sixes (he made 3 on 6th street). I began to whine to myself. I never whine outloud. Then I lost with pocket Aces (Aces up) to 3 tens. My head was now beginning to swelter. Then 3 nines. Lose. Now $700 behind and Iam ready to commit Hari Kari. Fortunately I didn't have a sword. Besides I'm not Japanese. Wouldn't look good. I did all the smart things that I have read about in Card Player. Got up and went for a walk. Ok. didn't help. Still whining abotu my bad fortune. Bought more chips. No help. Changed seats. No go. I was on the brink of tears. Why couldn't I win. I only wanted to play for a few hours and then run home to Boston. How could I be behind $700 in such a short time. Whine! Whine! Whine!
Wait a minute! 9's full big pot. Whew not bad. What;'s this 3 8's another good pot and now I'm only down 100. Huh flush in five and big pot! Wow I'm up $200. O.K O.K cry baby! Hmm a 90$ loss with Jacks up to 3 three's. My luck! Whining again! So with a $107 win the cry baby went home!
I know there is valuable information contained somewhere in this post. That is not a question. Just convincing myself that I should click on the post message button.
Vince
HEY, I lost last night (despite my freerolling flush hand). I never got my $$ back, but you don't here me whining about it! Oops, I guess I just did, please disregard this post!
Dave in Cali
Vince,
It wasn't you it was those damn boards at FW they never move. I was down there Fri. nite arrived about 6pm or so was on the 5-10 7CS list waited about a 1/2 hour snapped and said I got to play something I just drove two hours to sit on my butt and I have to get up early tomorrow. Went to play craps and I got hot came back and of course I missed my call. Put my name up again and went over to the 1-5 game and got in rite away. Didn't play a hand for 12 hands bluffed out a queen with nothing and caught the straight that I didn't need she had already folded. Next win pair of JJ's on 3rd, make it 3 and three callers. Catch another J on 4th. Make it three again two callers. Catch another J on 5th. Bet 5 end of hand.
After a couple of hours of playing what I didn't want to play all nite I decided to go home also a "WHINING WINNER". I should be grateful that I have the versatility to play other games and win rather than whining about it. CASE CLOSED.
Paul
At Foxwoods you can call ahead with an arrival time to be put on a list, that usually gets you in without a huge wait.
CrazyJim,
Thanks I didn't know that. I'll just call from my car because I usually have a 2 hour ride.
Paul
Lets talk attitude.
=== Once you lost the money it is NOT your money. "did not look like I had much of a chance of retrieving my $300" is a detrimental thought. TRYING to retrieve it will cause you to play poorly.
=== If you really did react so energetically to your fortunes at the table then I think you are playing TOO HIGH.
=== If you spent more time remembering how the hands went down rather than how you felt about it, you could analyze your play; which for me puts me in a more objective (and less bad) mood.
=== 7-Stud has high varience. Accept that. Do some calculations, perhaps figuring you average swing per hour.
Come On Vince: I prefer your humor. Don't you think you could have inserted "cheese" to go with your "whine" somewhere in your post? Like "Bought more chips and cheese".
- Louie
"Don't you think you could have inserted "cheese" to go with your "whine""
God, now why didn't I think of that!
Thanks, Louie!
BTW - I am not playing too high, even though it may appear like that. I believe that I am playing too low. The reason I don't move up is BR requirements. I have watched higher stakes games. My style of play is definitely suited to higher stakes action. Excepte for the Wining part of course. Well maybe someday. I will try the "cheese" the next time as you suggest.
Vince.
There's a girl( I can't call her a lady) that plays in a 4-8 game in Houston on the weekends and every time I play with her it gets more and more comical! ( At 1st it was frustrating). In the last 2 months she has whined about everything.
This past weekend I saw her raise with AK UTG and got 6 callers(I'm sure a couple only called to piss her off)
The hand was won by a 96s in the cut-off seat when the flop came K93 rainbow and then a 6 on turn and a duckie on the river. When the hand was shown down she said loudly to the player to her left, " How the hell did he call a raise with that?" and kept ranting about how she's going to go to a bigger limit game because they don't draw out on you(Yeah, right).
A little later she checked a hand down with another player acting as she was being sweet, but actually wanted 2 free cards thinking her hand was no good... Then later the same player she played sugar with check-raised her when he was in the blind and her on the button. She threw her cards at the dealer and said directly to the player in a mean voice"That's real nice", I can't believe you check-raised me!!! She was almost crying which she's already done twice in the last 6 months at this game, usually when somebody tells her to shut up and play her own chips. It goes on all night. " I can't believe you put that River card out there" directed at the dealer plus much more.
OK already....My point is that Vince at least took a walk and shook it off as they say. I can't stand playing with this girl and I sometimes look for oppurtunities to check-raise or bluff her out of a pot and then sho my hand. I've been playing for 7 years and this is something new to feel this way. I do have 1 Question for the forum though. Do you think her being such a pain in the ASS gives her more action and is good(Players will come in with lesser cards just to beat her) or do you think it is bad the way she acts and people will give her less action... Go ahead and respond and I'll let you know afer about 10 posts how she does in the game...BTW, she is a semi-tight somewhat aggressive player...Thanks in advance for listening to me whine about a WHINER! Oh Vince here's another one..You must be from San Franciso....Why, isn't that the Wine Country
N'Crease da Peace,
Jim
I think being only this annoying is bad for her, since it puts opponents in less good moods and they will gamble less. It may be distracting to the solid players making them play worse, however. So, ... I don't know.
But I am sure that the emotional state that is CAUSING her to whine is extremely detrimental to her.
I would also like to observe that her priorities in the game are clearly different than yours. She WANTs to complain about something and will subconsiuously create situations she can complain about, such as checking a good hand down in paranioa and letting some long shot get there for free.
Knowing that her priorities are different CAN lead to a better understanding of what she does, and ultimately into predicting what she will do.
- Louie
Jim,
I really like this post. I haven't been playing much lately and I sometimes forget that you meet all kinds at the poker table. Makes it intersting.
"1 Question for the forum though. Do you think her being such a pain in the ASS gives her more action and is good(Players will come in with lesser cards just to beat her) or do you think it is bad the way she acts and people will give her less action.."
Great question. The answer is not as obvious as it appears. I bet most players will say that a player that acts obnoxiously at the table doesn't affect their play at all. Wrong answer. Others will say that they specifically target "pain in the ASS players just to piss them off" I believe there are players that respond this way. The truth here is that everyone that plays poker is affected in some way by the actions of others at the table. We are all human beings. We are social creatures. We react to others and to the behavior of others. My guess is that because of her image this player will recieve more action from some players that otherwise would not give her action. those that are good players and have learned to deal more effectively with all kinds of behavior will give her action when warranted and not because of her actions. Actually the good players will probably give her a little less action. Becasue they are aware that it is a mistake to target a player like this they usually are over cautious and throw away some otherwise playable hands against her. It is qutie possible that a player that acts like your opponent here will experience the best of both worlds. The fair to average players will give her more action and the good players will give her less.
Vince.
BTW - I get my Whine on de Rhine!
An interesting hand I saw in 5-10 HE. Slightly loose wild game, one tiltmaster type player who's been losing.
"Tiltmaster" raises UTG. Another player in middle position reraises, (wisely, I fold my trash), Button caps, both call, three players.
Flop is 2 5 J rainbow. UTG leads out, then caps after a raise and a reraise. Three players.
Turn is an 8o. UTG checks, next player bets, button calls, UTG check raises, both call.
River is blank. UTG bets, both call. UTG has 55 for a set. BOTH other players were dealt Aces in the hole.
Don't ask me about why it happened this way, I just thought it was entertaining.... The two guys with Aces high-fived each other as tiltmaster was stacking up the pot.
Dave in Cali
I want to put up several posts over the next week or so which look at poker structure in a general way. I'm doing this not in expectation of a big audience here, where most people are only interested in limit betting and seven-card stud, but to get some feed back from a few interested and informed people.
Professional tip of the day: Embezzlers are excellent value at the table: they have a lot of money, and they either need a lot more, or play like crazy to take their mind off their future. Unfortunately they usually disappear off the poker scene pretty quickly for one reason or another. I've played with a couple - not that anyone knew at the time, not till it hit the papers.
To get on with the alleged topic of discussion, poker structure, here are a couple of terms:
STRUCTURE: this refers to the skeletal outline of a game; holdem, omaha and tahoe all have a 2-3-1-1 structure, despite their other differences.
PRINCIPLES, GADGETS AND RULES: these are ways in which a structure can be successfully modified to create another game. For instance the extra-cards-in-hand principle applied to the holdem structure creates tahoe and omaha.
Similarly, the multi-card-draw-to-five-cards principle applied to the 2-1-1-1 five-card stud structure, produces holdem's 2-3-1-1.
(If that sounds like BS try holdtight, which is holdem with one of the two start cards turned up, as in five card stud.)
Other principles are the communal cards principle, the discard principle (seen in draw and pinapple), and one or two more which don't come to mind right now.
GADGETS are any modifications of a poker structure which make it unsuitable for serious championship play involving non-limit betting. Wild cards; a second hole card in five or six-card stud; a third hole card in seven card poker, all rate as gadgets.
The jurassic park principle of reviving extinct forms of life is well known, and it seems only a matter of time before it comes to fruition.
What I aim to do here is take some old games and apply some modern poker principles and gadgets to them and see what comes out. Maybe something will move.
Five-card stud, or stud horse poker as it's cowboy inventor's called it, may well be the oldest true form of poker, having published rules by 1864, and it was the de facto championship game until I believe, the early sixties. It's parentage of holdem and grandparentage of seven card stud are pretty obvious, so we'll start with poker played with five cards.
The original game is two cards to start, one up one down, then three single upcards to follow: 2-1-1-1. What I want to do is show why adding the gadget of last-card-down destroys this game as a serious form.
There are two ways of applying the gadget, by simply dealing the last card down, giving 2-1-1(1), or adding another round at the end, producing six- card stud: 2-1-1-1-(1). The argument is the same for both games.
Take a typical five card poker layout of (?)A-6-2-5 versus (8)8-6-7-2.
Lets say that two aces have been folded, and the ace showing has bet from the start. The Ace bets, and the Eights must decide whether the last ace is indeed in the hole. It is crucial to the game that the ace can choose to bet strongly in this situation, whether or not it is paired.
Compare this layout: (?)A-6-2-5 (?)8-7-2-7. Because the eight has called three pot-sized bets to draw a pair , the ace will not usually consider a bet or a raise even if paired , but it can call if both paired and optimistic.
Obviously the Ace is very scared in this situation, and rightly so.
Look what happens when the last card is turned down, giving a hand like (?)A-6-2-(5) versus (?) 8-4-3-(?).
Again, the Eight has called three pot sized bets to get to this situation, so obviously he has something to be proud of. Or maybe not. But the ace cannot really bet for either value or a bluff, whereas the Eight can.
When the last card is down a player can decide at fourth street to buy the last card and bet if the Ace checks, even with a bust. The last card down is a bolthole into which an inferior hand can duck, and from position of great safety throw out a grenade which is unlikely to be thrown back. Of course three aces could check-raise, but aces-up might have to settle for a check and a call, or a bet and a difficult decision if reraised three bets.
If you have just the pair of aces, or were trying to bluff, you are cornered, not by apparent card values, but by the impenetrable wall of the last card down.
In effect the last card down confers the same protection to a hand as an open pair: red lights are flashing and caution is mandatory.
This is a dreadful fault because it turns card values on their head and gives the inferior hand too much protection. In five card poker an Ace, or any card, must be able to bet if no pair is showing at the end.
Some may say it's just a matter of opinion, and if you are talking about personal preference for a game then that's true. But the criterion I am using is one which gives an objective and not at all arbitrary measure of a game's worth as a serious form of poker: Could it ever be used for an actual world championship match with non-limitted betting? In other words, is it the best available variation of that form and a true form of poker?
The answer for five card stud with one hole card is yes, the answer for five or six card stud with two hole cards is no.
Therefore they are inferior forms of poker, however complex and interesting they might be as limit games, or as dealer's choice. Five card stud, despite it's current and long-standing lack of casino play in the US, was the de facto championship game till the early sixties, and still could function as the world championship game. (Not that it will, unless they make it dealer's choice.)
The other two never were and never could be because five card stud was available and better, while being essentially the same structure.
I think that's an objective measure of the superiority of five card stud over them, and proof that two hole cards is one too many in five and six card poker.
Furthermore, even with the last card turned up six card stud can't be considered as a form suited to non-limit betting because five rounds would ensure that nearly every hand would put someone all in.
So five card stud is clearly superior to the two variations produced by the last card down gadget, and also to the 2-1-1-1-1 five round structure of six- card stud played with last card up. In competition with five-card stud those variations did not thrive or survive. Whereas five card stud, was and still is a standard part of the poker repertoire, and can be played in many casinos around the world. Watch the dealers though.
My law of hole cards for five card poker is that two is too many.
I'll stop there and get back to it in a day or two.
"the extra-cards-in-hand principle"
Now just where in the world does this principle come from?
"the multi-card-draw-to-five-cards principle "
Ditto!
"Other principles are the communal cards principle, the discard principle (seen in draw and pinapple), and one or two more which don't come to mind right now. "
Just what we needed, another science weeny attacking poker.
"What I aim to do here is take some old games and apply some modern poker principles and gadgets to them and see what comes out. Maybe something will move. "
Am I really responding to this garbage. David, please help me!
"Five-card stud, or stud horse poker as it's cowboy inventor's called it, may well be the oldest true form of poker"
funny how this "true" form of poker is not played very much anymore. Must be to old. Whatta ya think?
"But the criterion I am using is one which gives an objective and not at all arbitrary measure of a game's worth as a serious form of poker"
The whole point of "Poker" is that it is subjective and arbitrary. If you doubt this just read the responses to Holdem hands on this forum. Also, look at Sklansky's 8 mistakes of poker very closely and you will find that the very nature of poker is arbitrary. It is one of the prime reasons that Poker vis Chess is the gambling game of choice for millions of people.
Enough! Enough!
Vince.
Hi Vince: You said "Just what we needed, another science weeny"
Thanks, glad to be of service. i didn't realize I was attacking poker though.
You wrote: >>"the extra-cards-in-hand principle"
Now just where in the world does this principle come from?
"the multi-card-draw-to-five-cards principle "
Ditto! >>
The multi-card draw making five cards is the foundation principle or invention of poker, almost: the extra-cards-in-hand and communal card principles were invented much later. I didn't invent them, I'm just applying them to different games to make new ones, in a methodical way.
Gadgets are inventions sich as last-card-down which make a game unsuitable for non-limit play, and I'm removing them from some game to produce new ones.
Wall-Hux or whomever you are,
You Wrote:
"The multi-card draw making five cards is the foundation principle or invention of poker"
"I didn't invent them,"
I(Vince Lepore, real name, Vince is short for Vincent)write:
Oh, really. Well, then, please cite your refernces.
Vince (non pseudonym) Lepore
BTW - At first I thought you were Abdul but now I retract that thought.
It seems to me that the status 7CS has as a professional's game is related to the fact that it is a popular game, rather than it's quality as a form of poker. Any game which has three hole cards and limit betting is a watered down version of poker, which is why is has broad appeal: the professional's edge is less.
In limit betting an extra bet or will gain or lose you perhaps five or ten percent of the pot. In pot-limit a bet gains or loses the whole pot, and you can be reraised three times the pot-sized bet you just made.
A small edge can translate into a huge profit in pot-limit. In limit betting a large edge can be nullified by basic solid play, and the third hole card, and those extra bets an expert extracts are not worth much. You might win, but it will be a slower process.
You mention 7CS in the title, but it seems the gist of your argument is with regards to limit poker as opposed to big bet poker, so that's what I'll address.
Well, at least in the United States, most poker is limit poker, so if you want to play for a living here, it's a pretty good idea to be able to beat that form of the game. That being said, I'm not sure I follow the logic that because a form of poker allows an expert to make money against weak players more easily it is necessarily a "purer" form of poker. If I were to simultaneously organize a chess tournament as well as a nolimit holdem tournament, I'd see much higher correlation at the end of the chess tournament between the best players and the final standings than I would the nolimit holdem tournament, but that's not to say that chess is a purer form of poker than nolimit holdem. Okay, that's a jigged example, but having played many limit and no-limit holdem tournaments, I'll go on record as saying that the limit tournaments are much more intereseting from a "pure poker" point of view. There's just a lot more play to them. In no-limit, the money goes in and boom let's see who wins. It's just not as interesting. In a limit holdem tournament, the late round strategies are much more complex.
Okay, so I'm talking about tournaments. How bout ring games? Well, I think the same is true. The fact that it's easy for the expert to extract the money actually makes it a worse game. NL holdem is a lot of doing nothing while waiting to spring the big trap on the weakie or get all his money in when he is a dog. This certainly makes it easier for the expert player to make a profit, but it deskills the poker experience. You have to do much more work if you want to beat limit poker. That makes it a much more interesting game.
As for your argument that 7CS, in particular, is a "watered-down" version of poker, I disagree as well. I think that there are levels of complexity that you fail to appreciate within the game. I will leave it to other posters to pick up the ball from here.
JG
Jim Geary writes, (thanks for the thoughtful response BTW)
"in the United States, most poker is limit poker, so if you want to play for a living here, it's a pretty good idea to be able to beat that form of the game"
That's my point. The mass market prefers the game which protects them from expert play and aggressive pot-limit betting, and 7CS, because it can only be played with any logic as a limit game, is particularly attractive.
The same situation exists in backgammon: I'm a pretty bad player, but I know worse, and I sometimes play for $100 a point with them - but without the doubling cube. They have no interest in ever learning to use it, they just want to play to the end and see what happens.
So it is with 7CS or any limit game. It's like backgammon without the cube because the hard question is never asked, only a series of easy ones. You can spent a lot of time trying to get an edge, but it doesn't help much if you can't put the weight on when you have it.
"You have to do much more work if you want to beat limit poker. That makes it a much more interesting game."
I guess I have a different perspective: I only play poker for the money, and I would rather win quickly, because that holds my interest. Why do you find virtue in hard work and long hours? That's a bad work ethic for a poker player because it makes you stale.
I lived off $2 ante five card stud for most of '88 and '89 by playing only once or twice a week. That's what I liked about poker playing, it was quick money. Putting in long hours for the same money is ridiculous because there are so many more productive and interesting things to do.
As for complexity as a virtue in a poker game, I prefer a game where you can bet. The game is poker, and you just can't poke hard enough with limit betting for it to be fun.
I wrote: "in the United States, most poker is limit poker, so if you want to play for a living here, it's a pretty good idea to be able to beat that form of the game"
So you wrote: "That's my point. The mass market prefers the game which protects them from expert play and aggressive pot-limit betting, and 7CS, because it can only be played with any logic as a limit game, is particularly attractive.
Actually, it might not EVEN BE the mass market. At my local room, the management has placed severe restrictions on two forms of poker that give the expert an extra edge, pot-limit and kills. They didn't do this because the players were crying for it(the players can always vote with their feet). They did it because the experts were extracting money at a rate that they feared might not be good for the long-term health of the room. In a sense, they were protecting the players from themselves, as I never perceived any groundswell of player opposition to the old way of doing things. It could also be argued that the implementation of such restrictions would be a good shot in the arm for poker in countries where the current m.o. is big bet. Without any ability to do a controlled experiment, I don't know. But I can assert that limit poker is alive and booming here in the U.S.
JG
Sorry about the name juggle. Huxley didn't fit.
I really agree with the angle that limit makes the game last longer, which is good for the house. But from a pro point of view, if the same amount of money is being gambled it's much quicker to get at it with potsized bets. That's why it seems like a better deal for a pro to tackle potlimit when it's available. If you are after the money that's the betting style which works fastest.
Which doesn't change the fact that most games in the US are limit, so that's the betting style most of the pros play.
Your thinking is too short-sighted...
It doesn't do you any good to get all the money now, if the games burn out or the only players left in the game are expert players.
Mason has commented on this in one of your threads and also discusses these issues in one or both of his Poker Essays Books (I don't have them in front of me so I can't quote you chapter and verse). You should re-read these essays.
In my 2-5 game (when I get a chance to play and yeah I know it's chump change to most of the posters here) there are a number of regular players who rarely, if ever, leave the table with chips yet alone anywhere near even. But it's what they like to do for fun. Limit Hold'em gives them a chance to play without losing their money too quickly, they play 5-8 hours on a Saturday and pay $100-$150 to do so. There's no chance they'd keep playing if they lost their money more quickly. I for one would prefer not to lose these kind of opponents.
A buddy of mine has been going to a tuesday night game of 5CS where the players are all immigrants from one country, except him. They have no local poker connections, whereas he can organise a game in half an hour. He tells me that they keep asking him to bring other players, which he declines to do. I beg him to invite me:..... He refuses, pointing out that the players are so bad and losing so much money that they will stop soon, if out of pride if not because of the money (they are all acting very rich). ....... So he can't see the game lasting more than another month or so; less if he invites any players. And if it lasts longer, he will keep winning. He isn't such a great player himself, just solid, but he is the best at the table, and he will get most of the money, while it lasts. ....... As an experienced and connected player with many other interests in life, he prefers to play less and win more, because he can. His tuesday nights currently earn him $200-$300 an hour. Why should he change that for a week of grinding out the same money slowly in the many other games around? The best games are often intermittent or ephemeral. The daily grind is the hardest and keeps you from doing other things..
Why does your buddy think his lucrative game will burn out shortly?
Why are the best games are often intermittent?
RJK writes "Why does your buddy think his lucrative game will burn out shortly?"
Because a few players will get sick of losing every week and the game will collapse. Adding good players to the mix will just hasten the process, and bad players with money are hard to find. He is happy jsut to ride this one down. When it finishes he will find something esle to do on tuesday night.
"Why are the best games are often intermittent? "
Many players hit the tables on a seasonal basis, between other commitments: as a spree, when they get the big annual bonus, or whatever. Playing week in week out doesn't appeal to most people, so the in- between times can get pretty slow. When the moneyed players start playing, for whatever reason, you can make more money in a day than in a week at the tables. Getting invited is the problem.
"Because a few players will get sick of losing every week and the game will collapse. Adding good players to the mix will just hasten the process, and bad players with money are hard to find."
Exactly, and if you really believe this is the case, then it should be clear to you that it would be a mistake to spread games and betting structures that allow the good players to win more money, quicker.
Anyway, that's enough on this thread for me...
Most pro's (actually wannabe pros) are in holdem and to some extent in omaha on both coasts. this excludes the very big limit stud in vegas or AC. I just finished a few sessions of 4-8 stud (after I decided to teach stud to my new european wife, who is very new to poker) even in 6-12 holdem some Bay Area joints are infested with busted pro wannabees. It's almost idiotic to even sit down there. I am starting to realize that 'game selection' IS 1st rate in poker skills.
...some Bay Area joints are infested with busted pro wannabees. It's almost idiotic to even sit down there.
Andras,
I surely don't want to look like I'm saying game selection isn't an extremely powerful part of a player's arsenal. I'm not, I'M NOT, *I'M NOT*. (Seems I was misunderstood by some to be saying as much in my recent guest essay, despite strong statements to the contrary in the essay.) But there's a reason those busted pro wannabes are busted. They don't play very well!! Really, they don't! Now, a table full of them will *not* be as profitable as a table full of complete "producers" or first time players. That's obvious. But a few busted pro wannabes don't really present a big problem IMO. If you don't have serious weaknesses in your game, they won't take money from you. You will take from them. You may even win quite a lot from some of them if they have clear, exploitable, weaknesses in their play (and they often do). (Hint: If I couldn't have some clueless, passive players, I wouldn't mind settling for "typical" busted pro wannabes as players to play short handed with.) If you can find games containing nothing but "live ones", great. But don't worry too much about those BPWs. Worry more about the "doing just fine thank you" pros.
Jurrassic Poker FAQ
1. What's Jurassic Poker?
Jurrassic Poker is a name for a project of mine which aims to bring poker to a state of completion as a serious form by defining all championship-quality games. Some have been missed, and I think I've found most of them.
>>>>>>>>>> 2. So what?
Many games such as bridge and backgammon have many variations, but only one championship form. In poker there are many variations and one way of sorting them out is to assess them using that measure: are they suitable for championship play?
>>>>>>>> 3. What are the rules of mississippi seven?
Mississippi seven is a form of seven-card stud which is suitable for true poker betting, that is, non-limit betting.
Deal the start cards as for 7CS, two down, one up. Bet, then deal two cards face up to each player. Sixth and seventh streets follow singly, but deal the last card up for non-limit betting. Limit players can play the game with last card down.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
4. What's so good about Mississippi Seven?
There are plenty of technical reasons and stats which show that it's better than seven card-stud, but best way for anyone to really know that is to play it. The three card start with a two card flop is very exciting poker. Fourth street isn't
<>>>>>>>>>>>
5. Where can I play Mississippi?
Any seven-card stud player can play mississippi, so try it out when you can. You only need four people for a good game.
Mississippi can be played on computer by turning off all fourth street play in a good programme. In Wilson's Turbo Seven for instance simply open your favourite profile and enter p0 in every domain in the seven sheets of fourth street play. That forces the player to check at fourth, and two cards are dealt instead of one. Assemble a line-up and you are in a game of mississippi.
The last card is still down, which is the inferior form of the game, but it's still much better than seven-card stud, and the stat's prove it.
Bob Wilson regards mississippi as a significant improvement on seven-card stud BTW.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
6. What else have you got?
I have a general rule of poker:
"Any game of poker in which straights and flushes play a significant role must have five cards in play by the second round."
Also a law of hole cards:
"The correct number of live hole-cards in seven-card poker is two; in five card poker, one."
7. But have you anything interesting?
The 3-2-1-1 structure of mississippi plays very well as a communal card game, mostly with four communal cards, but one form plays with five communal cards in a stripped deck. I have named several of them: if mississippi is accepted as the true form of seven-card poker, then Shanghai, Billabong and Pinatubo are also likely to become popular games over the next few years.
I've also discovered a couple of interesting (to me anyway) forms of five-card stud which use the two card flop of mississipi, and also give each player two hole cards, only one of which can be used at the end.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
7. Who are you?
I'm using the pen-name Huxley at the moment because I like to be able to put on and take off my poker hat when I want to. I don't want my actual life ruled by poker in other words, and a pen-name is one way of helping ensure that.
My name is no secret, but I won't usually bring it up here.
I've played poker for a living as it has suited me over a number of years since 1987 when poker became legal here. I have earnt my wages and better, at draw (potlimit, not jackpots) five card stud, seven-card stud, and omaha, all with nonlimit betting. (Either half-pot or full pot, never no-limit).
I've never travelled to compete at a high level or in tournaments, nor do I now rate myself highly as a player, but I have been a consistent winner locally. I gave up regular play several years ago, but I play often enough.
My main interest currently is developing hand- held digital devices including educational games and non-offensive personal security devices.
My security tip: when carrying a big roll, or otherwise vulnerable, use your mobile phone to make a fake or real phone call to make yourself a hard target for criminals. If you don't have a phone, you can talk into your wallet or calculator as a bluff, and it looks real enough. In a taxi for instance, you can pretend to ring ahead, or leave an actual message on your answering machine.
annoying rambling waste of bandwidth...
we get the point already!
I picked the name Huxley for another reason, I was thinking of changing it and the brave new world connection seals it. I'll do a mellencamp and go by the name Huxley-Wallace for a while.
Your post was admirably concise:
"annoying rambling waste of bandwidth...
we get the point already!"
there are a couple of things here: firstly webspace is pretty cheap so it's not really an issue, so I take it you find my posts too long for another reason.
As for "we get the point" you must be speaking for a number of people who you have played the game with and discussed some of the concepts with. Or if not, how can you speak for everyone, or anyone else at all?
I am going to post some more stuff in the hope that it gets some thoughtful responses. But if not, so be it.
"There are plenty of technical reasons and stats which show that it's better than seven card-stud"
I'm sure there are fellows like you that could make the above statement apply to Holdem.
"Bob Wilson regards mississippi as a significant improvement on seven-card stud BTW."
Big Deal! What makes Bob Wilson a poker expert? I always considered ham a Computer Weeny!
'Mississippi can be played on computer"
My point exactly (about Wilson).
"Any seven-card stud player can play mississippi, so try it out when you can. You only need four people for a good game."
The number of players is not what determines a good game. Just where do you play anyway?
6. What else have you got?
I have a general rule of poker:
"Any game of poker in which straights and flushes play a significant role must have five cards in play by the second round."
I'll guess? Your name is Hoyle. I guess all us 7 Stud players have been stupidly playing a game that doesn't have 5 cards in play by the second round. Guess what take this rule and shove it!
"Also a law of hole cards:
"The correct number of live hole-cards in seven-card poker is two; in five card poker, one."
For a minute I thought you were Sklansky but now I know who you are. You seem to have more pseudonyms than the "Great Imposter" Sklansky would never make such a stupid law!
"if mississippi is accepted as the true form of seven-card poker"
7 Stud is Seven Stud by any name. Mississippi is just another variation.
"I have earnt my wages and better..."all with nonlimit betting."
Try doing the same at limit poker like real poker players. Then come back and see us!
"My security tip: when carrying a big roll, or otherwise vulnerable, use your mobile phone to make a fake or real phone call to make yourself a hard target for criminals. If you don't have a phone, you can talk into your wallet or calculator as a bluff, and it looks real enough. In a taxi for instance, you can pretend to ring ahead, or leave an actual message on your answering machine. "
Excellant advice. Maybe you missed your calling. Security tips are obviously your forte.
If you want to push another game for introduction into Casino or Tournamnet play by all means do so. Just leave 7 Card Stud alone. It is a very fine game the way it is played!
Vince.
Vince Lapore makes a number of unnecessary personal remarks, which I will answer, but only once.
"What makes Bob Wilson a poker expert? I always considered ham a Computer Weeny"
"Just what we needed, another science weeny attacking poker"
-- he's talking about me (not BW) that time.
It's clear from your vocabulary that your education has given you no appreciation or understanding of computers or scince, and no respect for those who have. You seem proud of that.
"Am I really responding to this garbage. David, please help me! "
You are reacting with prejudice, but not thinking, and you obviously haven't played mississippi seven, so you are totally uninformed.
Your lack of appreciation and understanding of ideas is clear: your lack of any ideas of your own is obvious from your "daddy help me" plea. Maybe you should just ignore me?
Quoting me he writes: "I have earnt my wages and better..... all with nonlimit betting."
And responds:
"Try doing the same at limit poker like real poker players. Then come back and see us! "
Poker is in a bad state if ridiculous statements like that can pass. Why should anyone be considered a good poker player if they only win at limit poker, or at only one game? I have played and won at both limit and non-limit in several forms of the game. That means in a dealer's choice situation - restricted to mainstream games - I would beat most specialists. I would never consider playing limit poker for a living, but not because I couldn't.
Maybe we should agree to disagree? Your views are now known and understood. Mine are clearly not. Go back to whatever you were doing, because if you are right you need say no more.
And Huxley retorted to the Vince: "Maybe we should agree to disagree? Your views are now known and understood. Mine are clearly not. Go back to whatever you were doing, because if you are right you need say no more."
Hey good idea about agreeing to disagree, and now why don't we all agree that Huxley should stop filling up this message board with messages about "Jurassic and Mississippi poker".
If your "views" are still not clearly represented after close to 20 posts in the last 5 days then exactly how many messages will it take to clearly express them.
Sheesh, enough is enough.
Jodder writes: "why don't we all agree that Huxley should stop filling up this message board with messages about "Jurassic and Mississippi poker".
This is an invitation to all those who aren't interested in my ideas not to ignore me, which I invite them to do, but to start harassing me. Why?
My message headers take no more room than anyone else's, so just pass them by. What's the big deal?
I'm not promoting a commercial product, I'm explaining a theory of poker structure which few people have attempted to grasp, or if they have, they show little sign of it in their posts.
I have said some deliberately challenging things about limit betting and 7CS which some people take offence at. Well don't. If you only play limit betting and think that's it's real poker to bluff someone with a bet of 5% of the pot, well, then we disagree. But don't get upset about it. I'm not the only one who thinks the same thing and it's a common enough view, though few are foolish enough to say it out loud in this forum.
Banning such statements seems pretty insecure.
Huxley,
Vince wrote:
"What makes Bob Wilson a poker expert? I always considered ham a Computer Weeny"
That is not a personal attack. One is a valid question about Wilson. The other is an observation given that he Sells Turbo SOFTWARE. Computer Weeny is not a derogatory remark. It is, in fact, a term of endearment.
You are the second person that incorrectly accused me of making personal remarks about another person. In both instances they involved Bob Wilson. I hope he doesn't get the impression that I don't like him because of your inappropriate remarks.
"It's clear from your vocabulary that your education has given you no appreciation or understanding of computers or scince, and no respect for those who have. You seem proud of that"
I retired from the U.S. Air Force after 20 years. I was an electronic technician for all of that time. After retiring I worked for the Navy. I installed desktops, setup lap tops, plus the office's LAN. I was also the Dos, Windows, MS Office and applications resident Help professional. Don't preach to me about computers. "Just what we needed, another science weeny attacking poker"
Since you feel this statement constitutes a personal attack, I apologize. My intent was to attack your premises not you personally.
"You are reacting with prejudice, but not thinking"
This is true. I am prejudiced when it comes to poker. I never claimed to be a thinker.
"Am I really responding to this garbage. David, please help me! "
Emphasis of my prejudice!
Your lack of appreciation and understanding of ideas is clear: your lack of any ideas of your own is obvious from your "daddy help me" plea.
I definitely agree with this statement. Tell me, though, would you consider this statement a personal attack?
"Try doing the same at limit poker like real poker players. Then come back and see us! "
"Poker is in a bad state if ridiculous statements like that can pass."
You think that was ridiculous, just read what follows? Guess who wrote it? It seems to say that limit poker cannot be played at an expert level. What do you think?
"That's my point. The mass market prefers the game which protects them from expert play and aggressive pot-limit betting, and 7CS, because it can only be played with any logic as a limit game, is particularly attractive. "
"I have played and won at both limit and non-limit in several forms of the game"
Anyone that has played poker at both limit and non-limit can make this type of a general statement. Proves nothing.
"Maybe you should just ignore me? "
Hey, that's my line! Thank you very much. I know that I have very few, if any. ideas of my own (evidenced by my call for help to David) but this one belongs to me so please at least put it in quotes when you use it.
I do not intend to ignore you though you may feel free to ignore me!
"Mine are clearly not."
Referring to your views, you are very mistaken. Your views are understood. You have said that you wish to replace 7 Stud with Mississippi. I understnd that. My views are this. Introduce any new variation you like but leave 7 Stud alone. 7 Stud is fine without your medling.
You have an obvious disdain for limit poker and from you post limit poker players as well. Well I'm here to tell you that it is a lot more difficult to be a consistent winner at limit poker than no-limit. The reason is "obvious". More skill is required.
Vince.
Vince Lapore writes: "Since you feel this statement constitutes a personal attack, I apologize. My intent was to attack your premises not you personally. "
Graciously said, and thank you. I took you for a young anti-intellectual know-nothing, when obviously it's just that you have a good sense of humour and know a lot of things I don't. I am no computer weeny, wish I was. Bob Wilson, Bill Gates and me, computer weenies together, I wish.
Same with science weenie: Johnny von Neumann, Richard Feyman and me, I wish.
I guess I responded in a personal way, and it's not a good thing to do, so let's talk poker, which is all I'm interested in here.
You raised some points: . "You have said that you wish to replace 7 Stud with Mississippi. I understnd that. My views are this. Introduce any new variation you like but leave 7 Stud alone. 7 Stud is fine without your medling."
7Cs is a great game, mainly because the three card start is the best for seven card poker. It has problems with length etc, which you might not be worried about, and it is rightly popular. Still, a two card flop is a better way to play seven card stud, and that's not something I can prove by argument.
Until you have flopped a straight or a book or quads in Mississippi-7CS you can't really compare. You aren't losing 7CS by switching to mississippi, you are just playing it a slightly different, but much better way.
You write:"Well I'm here to tell you that it is a lot more difficult to be a consistent winner at limit poker than no-limit. The reason is "obvious". More skill is required. "
I agree that more skill is required to win the same amount, but is that a good thing?
I've been in the situation of playing the same group of players at limit and nonlimit (Not no-limit, I've never played that).
In the nonlimit games my advantage was translated into rapid profits. With the same advantage over the same players in limit games, with the same ~3/4 win rate, my profits were far less, and the work more arduous
That seems to be the pattern: the expert edge is less in limit games. That is a bad thing from a professional point of view, and a good thing from a non-professional's point of view.
I'll respond to other points if you wish, just point me at them.
"You aren't losing 7CS by switching to mississippi, you are just playing it a slightly different, but much better way. "
There in lies the weakness (IMO) in your arguement. Your presentation is an attack on 7 stud instead of a promotion of Mississippi. I am all for learning new things. I am not a preserver of the old. Holdem was new to me until 20 months ago. Mason and Sklansky have always recommended learning both (plus Omaha, which I am learning now). They have never recommended replacing one with another. This is my point. Call Mississippi what it is, a Poker variant. Try and get Casino Poker Rooms to spread it, get players to ask for it, whatever. I agree with that. I don't believe you will get anywhere with your promotion of this game by demeaning Limit Poker. Limit poker is by far the most widely played form of poker. There is no future for poker without limit.
"That seems to be the pattern: the expert edge is less in limit games."
Absolutely True!
"That is a bad thing from a professional point of view, and a good thing from a non-professional's point of view."
Absolutely false. From a professional point of view doesn't one want first and foremost "Availability" (my term, couldn't think of another term). By availability I refer to the fact that one can walk into most 24 hour Casino Poker Rooms in this country and find a game. 98% (rough estimate) of those games are limit. I like that kind of availability.
BTW -"I took you for a young anti-intellectual know-nothing"
Pretty close!
Vince.
Hi Vince, I've chucked Huxley as you can see. I didn't like the Brave new world connotation. (I think I've invented an acronym, as in that guy FKA Prince.)
>>From a professional point of view doesn't one want first and foremost "Availability" ... By availability I refer to the fact that one can walk into most 24 hour Casino Poker Rooms in this country and find a game. 98% (rough estimate) of those games are limit>>
Never mind the quality, feel the width? You only need seven other players for a game, so what is the real advantage? If you want to play all the time, you can if you want, but if you do it too much it becomes work, and who wants to work all the time?
You write:"Your presentation is an attack on 7 stud instead of a promotion of Mississippi."
You are right. I guess I was intent on stirring a response.
"Try and get Casino Poker Rooms to spread it, get players to ask for it, whatever"
Good advice. Have just started on that route.
"I don't believe you will get anywhere with your promotion of this game by demeaning Limit Poker. Limit poker is by far the most widely played form of poker. There is no future for poker without limit. "
Damn, you've hit three out of three. I have to agree that seems to be the case, in the US at least, which I have never visited.
Limit poker is by no means the dominant form in australia and a couple of places i've visited in Europe, but the US is the biggest market by far, so point taken.
I guess it's aiming a bit high to want to introduce a new family of games, provide a general definition of poker AND bring non-limit betting back to it's rightful place. Two out of three will have to suffice.
We haven't even got a proper word for it. Maybe I'll call it poker betting to stir people up.
Wallace FKA Huxley.
Hi Everybody,
I am a poker student of one of the players who writes on this forum occasionally. Today I had the following hand in a 5/10 holdem game and wonder if I played it well. I was new to the game so I didn’t know much about the players.
One player limps up front and I raise with AA in middle position. All fold behind and both blinds and the limper call.
The flop comes T 9 9 rainbow. All check and I bet.
The turn comes a ten. They check and I check behind fearing a trap.
The river is an offsuit four. They check and I bet. I get called by all three players (!) and when I show my hand they all fold.
Since John Feeney (in one of his older essays) says to concentrate on my play rather than my results, I want to ask what you think of my play from flop to finish?
Poker Student
you did fine. you could also consider betting on 4th by assessing your opponents. with your check on 4th you may get a bluff on the river so be prepared to call. rarely will you get all those calls on the end and win with that board. bad players are hard to figure so play good cards and bet them out.
"fearing a trap"
Fear, did you say fear! Who's your teacher? Fear is something you put into the hearts of your opponents. Come back when you've eliminated that horrible feeling from your reasons for making a play.
Fear a poker players enemy/friend. Make it your friend!
Vince.
Lets peak at their hands that they folded. They must be able to beat ATT99 but not AATT9. So at best two each have an Ace and the early caller KK, QQ, or JJ.
Or they are just brain dead. One called with 44 not noticing he was counterfieted. One called with K8 since he's got two pair, by golly!
So now that you know they are brain dead you should have BET on the turn as a big favorite. But since you DIDN'T know that your check on the turn was good as was the bet on the end. And as Ray pointed out you have encouraged a bluff on the end and should call all but the quite timid of opponents.
Feeney is correct. Next time consider leaving off the "they all fold" phrase, as it encourages people like me from doing easy post results analysis. Yes, most people have 20:20 hindsight. So do I, whoopie-doo.
- Louie
This can be a tricky business. Some players that call a lot won't bet without the near-nuts whenver the board is scary. Make sure these types aren't around before you make assumptions about what your opponents are holding in a late round with a scary board.
I would just add that another benefit of your checking as a default play in this case -- when you don't have a read on the opps telling you that a bet is okay -- is that it preserves for you that small chance of spiking an ace on the river. (With AA here free cards aren't a big concern.)
And Landale is correct about Feeney.
John,
I was writing my post as yours went up and hope you are still online. I'm hoping for feedback on the merit of checking both the turn and the river in this very unusual hand (try to use that memory zap thing concerning the three calls "Student" got on the river).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I enjoyed your article in Poker Digest. In addition, it once again seemed to hit home with my own student who is becoming a big fan of your essays and posts. Too bad they put in your picture. I now get one free shot at you in that 20/40 game at Ocean's 11 if I can make it down. Or should I say now I know who to stay out of the way of in that game :-)
Rick -- I post while you post while I post... See my comments under your post.
Thanks for the compliment. But free shot at me, eh? Hey, you've described yourself in posts a time or two. I'm just going to keep my eyes open for this guy who doesn't look like a Nebiolo -- tall with blonde hair was it? (If I ever got out of my own backyard to play poker I'd know.) Anyway I have this vague picture in mind, and I'm pulling out my whole bag of tricks against anyone who looks remotely like that over the next year. Or, like you said, maybe I'll just pass on the game. :-/
Right. Right about that spike. Nothing quite like slow playing the nuts and getting bunches of action from someone who just outdrew you.
Free cards ARE a consern since you WANT straight draws and flush draws to fold against you on the turn when the board is double paired; AND they probably WILL fold since they don't know what you have. Your bet will usually force these draws to abandon their equity, which (against you) is more than a bet.
- Louie
Poker Student,
I don't think anyone would dispute your pre-flop raise.
You wrote: "The flop comes T 9 9 rainbow. All check and I bet."
I assume from the rest of your post that all three called. You have to be a little concerned that a nine could be out against you but it should not stop you from betting here to punish straight draws like QJ, 87, KQ or J8. A hand with a ten could also be in a check and call mode. Note that a typical weak 5/10 player would often play these hands up front or in the blinds even after a raise.
"The turn comes a ten. They check and I check behind fearing a trap."
Vince in his post above may show no fear but I would be worried now. A hand containing a nine may have planned to check raise you on the turn but stopped because he "feared" a ten in the hands of the other players (other than you). If the ten is out he may also be thinking of the check raise. So I like your check here. You hate to give a draw to a straight a free shot but this board is very dangerous and a ten or nine could be in the hands of any one of your opponents. And all it would take is one opponent to have such a card to make you wish you had not bet.
"The river is an offsuit four. They check and I bet. I get called by all three players (!) and when I show my hand they all fold."
It would have been better if you ended the post by indicating that it was checked to you on the river and you wanted to know if you had a bet here. Tell that "teacher" of yours that giving away the ending skews the answers of even the best of us. I wonder if Ray or Louie (OK, I'll even include Vince) would write that the bet was strong if they didn't know the ending.
I'm going to rewrite the above sentence to the following and blast myself with one of those memory loss things from the science fiction comedy "Men In Black". Then you might get a fair answer from me.
You should have written: "The river is an offsuit four. All three check. Do I have a bet here?"
At this point the board is T 9 9 T 4. Any one of the draws mentioned (except perhaps the KQ) won't call on the river. I don't think the ten would check twice in a row but the nine certainly could if he was one of the blinds. The basic problem is that it is hard to figure any hands that you can beat calling you on the end except for an ace or king high and of course JJ, QQ, or KK but then these three pairs are unlikely to be out there (I would think they would have given more action at some point in the hand). Ray, Louie and Vince can call me chicken if they want but I think you should check here.
One factor not yet mentioned is that your opponents probably are not going to worry about you having a ten on nine in your hand (since you raised before the flop). This makes it much easier for them to make "a move" on you on the turn or river. I wouldn't want to face the check raise on either betting round.
That being said and knowing that you bet and got three callers on the river and still won is What the heck did they have?.
Regards,
Rick "the chicken"
P.S. Are you interested in a new teacher? I saw my own student take a card off against a large field on the flop with bottom two pair in a 6/12 Omaha H/L game today with the low already out there and no shot at low. I sometimes have a hard time getting through to her because she won over $400 in the game. Since you seem to be a fan of John Feeney (in wondering how you play as opposed to your short term results) I would guess you would make a great student.
Re the turn, Rick points out, You hate to give a draw to a straight a free shot but this board is very dangerous...
Yep, free cards *are* bit of a problem in this hand, contrary to what I suggested in my post above. (I hastily said they weren't because they often aren't with boards containing two pair.) Still, I agree that the check on 4 was probably best barring a read to the contrary.
I vote in favor of the bet on 5 though, because I think a lot of players (most?) holding a 9 would go ahead and bet it there once everyopne checked on 4.
John,
Sometimes I guess they can have anything. Years ago I'm playing 15/30 holdem at the Bike and I show down top two pair against a player who had three smaller pair if you could use six cards. He went nuts when the dealer pushed the pot to me and the floor had to be called. The next day I see the guy playing 100/200 or something like that. Go figure.
Regards,
Rick
"Sometimes I guess they can have anything." Today I was in the BB and was raised by the button. SB folded and I called with Tc9c. Flop came Jc-8c-Ad. I checked, button bet, I check-raised, button called. Turn was 4h. I bet, button raised, and I called. River was 6s, making board Jc-8c-Ad-4h-6s. I checked with the intention of going to the bathroom after the pot was pushed to button.
I said "I have nothing." Then I turned over my cards and said "nothing." The dealer pushed my cards towards the button and said "ten high." He studied my cards, studied the board, studied his hand, and souped.
What the heck could this guy have had? About the only thing I can come up with is 5c-3c.
Rick,
You wrote above in a dazed and confused state last night: "That being said and knowing that you bet and got three callers on the river and still won is What the heck did they have?."
I'll make a quick guess. I'll assume all three opponents are not blind and can read the board correctly (this is a streach at 5/10 holdem). I would think each call after "Student" bet has to be respectfully stronger because of the previous overcalls. I'm going to assume the limper did not have the overpair since he would have taken a shot with it by at least the river once everything was checked twice. Without doing any math (way too early and I'm way too lazy), I'll guess that the SB had a king high type hand, the BB had either an ace or a king high or the JJ, QQ, or KK, and the limper had at least an ace high but no pair.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Is answering my own posts an early or later sign of insanity?
"The turn comes a ten. They check and I check behind fearing a trap."
"Vince in his post above may show no fear but I would be worried now"
Rick,
First, I thought your response to this young person was excellant. Mine should be disregarded. Just one point. I was not inferring that the poster should show no fear and bet. I was trying to tell him what you so elequently did in your response. Think about the situation you are in and make your decision based on your evaluation of all the factors. Under no circumstances do you make a play because you "Fear" the outcome. Certainly use all your senses and factor the feelings you have into the situation equation. (Does that sound like a math weeny talking, I hope not). Just be sure your decision is based on logic and not emotion.
Vince.
Vince,
(Does that sound like a math weeny talking, I hope not).
I don't think you can be mistaken for a "math weeny". Or a Sklansky. Or a Mason. or a ray zee or skp. But you could qualify as a "weeny".
Regards :-),
Rick
Looks ok. As odds go, it is about 3 to one against anyone having a set of 9's on the flop, verses 3 players, plus they checked to you. I like to make an assessment at a table: Who is capable of a check-raise? Many are not. Also, most players then usually bet their hand right out if they have something, not thinking of a check-raise. I have a tendencey to play like you here, that is check the turn. But if I know my opponents I believe that is a mistake to check, because I just gave them a free card, the river card. And again, was anyone even capable of a check-raise? If not, I can bet more hands behind them.
By the way, I've lost me last 3 times with pocket aces, if that helps you any.
My thanks to everybody who responded to my pos