![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Of course your suggestion also brings on responsibility. So we expect to hear from you a lot.
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Hey Sklansky,
Badger isn't even a *****SuperStar*****. What are Scott and Feeney too think. Nuttin Poisonal Badger but just because you win at Omaha (is that poker) Tournaments doesn't cut a lot of mustard with me. Oh. I get it. Sklansky owes you a lot of money. Sure money talks.
Vince.
so i'll break the ice and be the first person with just a watch (no bracelet) to post here. the only question is what should i post about. hmm. how about a bad beat story? everyone loves those and they definitely belong on the general theory forum. no, that doesn't feel right... how about a long post about why mississppi is better than stud. i, for one, miss those posts. wait, i like 7cs.... maybe i should just ramble for a while and say nothing of substance. yeah, that'll get the ball rolling over here.
scott
Scott,
You are showing your'e youth! Don't become a s(n)cott nosed kid.
Vince.
hey! let me ask you something. before i started us off, how many poker theory posts were on here? uh..none? and how many now? uh..more than none? and i claim all the credit. besides, what does sncott mean?
scott
Suppose you are in the Big Blind and the button raises and you call with 98 of hearts. Just you and he. Against the typical player would you rather be all in at this point or not?
David I'd like to answer the question but I'd need more info about the game is it NL tournament? or BB is a short stack in a ring game.
i would rather not be all in. this is because i can usually win a heads up hand before showdown. he probably has me beat right now with at least a big card or maybe a pair. i don't like no fold'em from here. i would like the chance to outplay him postflop so i can win without improving. one pro of being all in is i can draw for free, but i'd rather not have to draw at all.
scott
Suppose you are in the Big Blind and the button raises and you call with 98 of hearts. Just you and he. Against the typical player would you rather be all in at this point or not?
I never want to be all in when I play. However, considering the theoretical nature of your inquiry, the answer is still no. Against a typical player that I read well or have good control over I want plenty of chips in front of me in order to maximize my gain when I do make a hand. If I flop nothing, I lose nothing more.
I don’t want to be one of the nit-pickers that the forum has been plagued with lately, but I’m not really sure what is meant by a typical player. I’m sure that the typical players in the games David Sklansky plays are quite a bit different than in the games I play. Putting that aside, I’m assuming it’s a limit game and that the button has to have something when he raises, that he’s not raising with two random cards. I’m also assuming he’s not gutless or an idiot. Let’s look at the possible scenarios:
1) Opponent has a big pair. In this case, you are dog meat. You have little chance of outplaying him and he’s going to win about 80% of the time in the showdown. If you knew what he had, you would want to fold.
2) Opponent has a small pair. In this case you are almost 50-50 if the hand goes to the showdown. The expectation on your call if you are all in is
.5(3.5 bets) - .5(1 bet) = 1.25 bets.
Therefore, in order not to want to be all in you would have to be able to outplay him for an expectation greater than 1.25 bets per hand. In other words, the extra bets you can extract the times you make the better hand, plus the bets you can save when he has the better hand that he can’t save when you have the better hand, plus the net amount you are a better bluffer than he is must average out to 1.25 bets per hand. This is highly unlikely.
I’ve read that an expert can expect to win about two big bets (= four bets) per hour if he is by far the best player in a limit game. If an expert player could dominate a typical player for 1.25 small bets per hand when he has a mediocre holding like T9s, he would be able to win much more than four small bets per hour.
Therefore, you would want to be all-in in this scenario as well.
3) Opponent will raise with any Axo or Kxo. Your opponent beats you about 52% of the time when these hands go to the showdown. Your expectation on your call if you are all in is
.48(3.5 bets) - .52 (1 bet) = 1.16 bets
You aren’t going to be able to outplay him for 1.16 bets worth. You want to be all-in.
4) Your opponent has Axs or Kxs. Your opponent wins about 55% of these for an expectation of 1.03 small bets. Same conclusion.
5) Your opponent has two big cards. He wins about 60% for an expectation of .8 bets when you are all in. Ditto.
I could go on, but this is getting tedious. It certainly looks like you want to be all-in for every reasonable scenario. (All of the above win percentages were derived using Mike Caro’s “Poker Probe.”)
your numebrs don't measure what you think you're measuring. you don't have to outplay the whole ev of calling with T9s. you only have to outplay supposed loss of ev future action. T9s allows you be hit lots of flops, which in turn allows you to play very aggressive heads up. and that allows you win without the best cards. you still win (and win more) when you have the best cards. but you lose more when you both make hands but his is better. you just have to outplay the difference. this hand may not even require being able to outplay your opp.
and your 2 bb per hour number doesn't really apply here either. a hand like this comes up less than once every 60 hours (guessed numbers) so even if he can play it for 3 sb profit it only adds .05 sb to his hourly rate.
scott
Scott,
If I call this one sb in the big blind, I'm getting 3.5:1. When I'm all in preflop, my expectation on the call has to have positive EV with 9-10h. I think there are far too many times when a combination of flop and bad position would force you to not take this hand any further if there was money to be bet and called. I vote for being all in with the preflop call.
I believe you are correct about my reasoning being off. I think my conclusion may still be correct, but being right for the wrong reason still makes one a moron. It reminds me of an adage: It’s better to keep your mouth shut and have people suspect you are an idiot than open it and have them know it.
If Mason Malmuth were to delete my post before it manages to mislead someone, I certainly wouldn’t scream censorship. I’d probably consider it a mercy. I’m going to go crawl under a rock now.
man! this is the second time i have responded to one of your posts and you have responded with an apology. as vince would say 'get tough.' since i'm not vince, i'll only say it once. who cares if you look stupid on the forum? (which you don't. we all make mistakes.) if you keep your mouth shut you'll never learn. stop being embarassed. i mean, i can understand self effacing humor, but try some self aggrandizing humor. it makes you feel good. malmuth won't delete this. he didn't even delete my plea to my mother.
as for you having the right answer. you seem to be squarely in the majority. but i think that T9s is a strong enough hand here that you don't even have to outplay your opp to profit from future action. look at how low david t the buttons stealling requirements. you can push him off a lot of these hands
scott
It’s not really an apology. It’s an admission that I’m incorrect. Doing this is important. I didn’t want someone who was trying to learn how to calculate expectation to be misled by my screw up. I made an elementary thinking mistake, which is easiest to see in the 50-50 case. When one of the players is all-in, the big blind’s expectation on his call is
.5(3.5 bets) - .5(1 bet) = 1.25 bets.
So far, so good. But let’s suppose the big blind is not all-in, but for some reason he resolves that he is just going to check and call the button down. In this case, his expectation is
.5(8.5 bets) - .5(6 bets) = 1.25 bets –- the same! (But his variance is higher.)
For some bone-headed reason, I concluded that the expectation in the second case would be zero. (And I hope to God that I’m not making some different elementary mistake now.)
I certainly seem to be in the minority here, but in this cas and knowing only the opponent is a typical player, I would expect he or she will call the river or fold to my all in. I have a drawing hand, and I would take a shot at a draw all the way. His bet is automatic and I cannot let him steal.
98s is a drawing hand. The button may have a pair or a bigger drawing hand. As it stands now, a drawing hand against one person doesn't offer the necessary pot odds. All in is best assuming no miracle flop....
j
Since we only have limited info to go on I'll give you my best shot.
In bad position with a drawing hand I have no interest in playing out this scenario against one opponent. So I'd have to be all in to continue here - I won't call a stealing button bet in the BB without at least a Q in my hand. Except in different circumstances - If this were a NL tournament and there was an aggressive player stealing my blinds I'd go all in with 5-2 in the bb to stop him.
Some of you apparently misconstued what I was asking. Assume it is a 10-20 game. Everyone folds to the button who makes it 20. You can expect him to have any ace, any pair, any two cards above a seven plus hands like kxs qxs or75s. Thus folding cannot be right and reraising is an option.
But my question assumes you simply call. What I am asking is whether AFTER you call you will do better in the long run if you or your opponent were now all in as opposed to if you both had money to continue to bet.
A second question is this: Suppose you did have money to bet all the way through the hand, but if you won, the pot would be raked $20. Would you still call before the flop ,given this rake does not alter your opponents strategy?
1. I'd want us both to have chips to continue on with the hand.
2. Wouldn't call with $20 rake.
I assume there is a point the this exercise and that point will make you look like a genius and us look pretty stupid huh.
Q2: I would not call if a $20 rake. I probably would not play if there is a $20 rake.
Q1: I figure I have a 50.8% shot head to head with 98s. I'd prefer to not be all in, but I could live with it. It would also depend on my knowledge of the other player. In the past 4 years, the only time I have been all in is (1) in a tournament or (2) a no-limit game. In a 10-20 game, I'd make sure I had enough to cover the round.
I have seen a 98s all in call win in a big tourney head to head. Paired the nine and that was the high pair.
if you would not want to be all in, then you should call with the $20 rake.
scott
Explain that please. Intuitively think you might be correct, but I would appreciate a logical arguement.
Thanks
you still get to play the future action. so if the ev for that is positive, say equal to K. calling with the $20 rake is paying $10 while expecting to win $15+K. when K is positive, this is clearly a good deal.
scott
Thanks, I got it!
"What I am asking is whether AFTER you call you will do better in the long run if you or your opponent were now all in as opposed to if you both had money to continue to bet. "
David,
You should have left well enough alone. By asking the question this way you beg too many questions. Too many varibles. If one just calls an all in bet he is limited to winning 3 1/2 sbs. But if he calls and he and his opponent and he have an infinite amount of chips, well, you can see the problem. Now the issue takes more of an it depends type answer. How well does the opponent play and how well you play are now prime considerstions. In fact hand strength is now of secondary importance. Gee, I was just beginning to like this thread too!
Because I can't answer the first question I can't answer the second one either
Vince.
BTW - What I liked about this thread before you "misconstrued" me up were the responses. Both sides were taken and a reasonable analysis was done and countered. Those are the things that forum discussions are made of. I particularily liked the responses that started with "I hate going all in". Now those are the responses of true "Poker Players'. They want some influence over whatever hand they are iplaying. The Math guys do: Let a=the EV of being all in. Let B= the EV of having more chips. If A>B then A. Wow! Vince.
the second question is really a very similar question. the pot would have $15 in it (rake excluded), so you could take a slightly negative ev for future action and still call the $10. but not too much.
this guy will chase me down with an A or a pair. but he will fold an unimproved Kx, Qx, JT, etc. there are 30 overpairs out of 587 possible hands. here we lose big no foldem and lose bigger with more action. against almost most of the other hands we are ok no foldem, but being able to win the pot those times we both miss should easily make up for losing more to KK et al and the rare higher flush and K9 when the 9 hits. because when the 9 doesn't hit, we can win by betting. the 9 does not usually hit.
very rarely would i want to be all in this early in a hand. and i don't think this is one of those times.
scott
what i meant, of course, is that there are few hands that i would play if i weren't all in, but i'd prefer to be all in. there are clearly scores of hands that i would fold if i had money left, but would take the 3.5-1 odds if i didn't have to worry about future betting.
scott
Scott,
You are in the sb, so calling would cost you $15.00. There is $50.00 in the pot when you call but the BB has yet to act. When you called, you were being offered 35:15, not 3.5:1. The BB is now offered 5:1 to defend. If you raise, in an effort to get it heads up, it costs you a $25.00 bet into a $35.00 pot. Now the BB can call but is only getting 3:1 odds to do so. However it turns out, you will be first to act for the next two betting rounds. Assuming all three of you stay and the flop is neutral for all of you, how do you like your chances? I need more of a hand in the sb than I'd need in all positions except UTG and 2nd-UTG. While I might raise 3rd-UTG, and first in, with 9-8 suited, I would then at least have the possibility of stealing the blinds, or failing that, maybe playing against only one other player. Hopefully, that other player would be one of the blinds, giving me the positional advantage. My considered opinion is that people who play too freely out of position in the small blind probably aren't able to outplay people who have shown a respect for position when committing money to a pot. I could be wrong, and probably am, but I would fold the hand against a typical player raising first in from the button.
Hopping around between forums I have gotten two different questions confused. Scott is in the BB and is getting 3.5:1. I call, but wish I was all in. I would rather keep my equity in this pot through to the showdown than try to overcome my opponent and a positional disadvantage. If I weren't all in, I would bet out on the flop regardless of the cards. In the sb in this example, my answer above stands, I fold.
Here's how I'm going to interpret your question.
If I'm all-in, I will have some equity in the pot. In a hot-and-cold analysis, 98s will win just under 49% of the time against a RANDOM hand. I will guess that 98s will win between 40-45% of the time against the overall lineup of hands that this opponent is raising with. In this case, my equity in the pot will be 40-45% of $45, or between $18 and $20.25. I will round this off to $19 for ease of discussion. Since I called $10 more to be in a spot to have an equity of $19, an all-in call made me an EV of $9 over folding.
If I'm not all-in, and both my opponent and I have lots of money in front of us in this 10-20 limit game, will I win more than $9 in this pot, as compared to folding? I BELIEVE that this is what DS is asking, but I could EASILY be wrong.
I think that against a typical opponent who is of comparable overall skill (OK, that's not typical, that's extraordinary) I cannot win more than $9 by playing this pot. If the opponent is very predictable, and can be moved off the pot on the flop, turn, or river by aggressive play with semi-bluffs and the like, then maybe I can make this much profit.
Against most opponents, I believe that calling will be better than folding, but I don't think that I will average a profit (EV) of $9 (as compared to folding, which I am defining as an EV of $0).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
With a $20 rake, I fold.
In my other post, I determined that my EV for calling all-in was $9 vs. folding preflop. My equity in that pot after the call was $19. If it is raked $20, I cannot call all-in.
If the hand is played out, I believe that I will not average a profit (EV) of greater than $9. As such, how can I profitably call when my EV (which is less than $9) is reduced by $20? Since I can't, I fold.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
With 98, you should prefer to be all in against one opponent in order to realize all of your hands' drawing value. When you have chips, your opponent will freeze you out of some of that value, probably nearly all of it, by making bets or raises that you cannot afford to call.
Against a number of opponents you would prefer to have chips in order to realize the better part of the hand's drawing value, although you will rarely be able to realize all of it (e.g. when you flop a gutshot to the "ignorant" end).
Since a $20 rake will more than wipe out the value of your hand against your opponent, you must fold.
This really depends on what you consider to be a typical player. If he's the type of guy who'll chase an unpaired A or K to at least the turn (and maybe the river if he picks up a draw), then I'd rather be all in. If he's weak tight, then I'd rather he wasn't.
First of all it is important that you understand that the two questions are actually almost identical. If you think future bets are to your advantage then it would be correct to call with a $20 rake, since even if you were were all in, you would be getting 15-10 odds which would show a profit. The only way it would be wrong to call with this rake is if you think that future betting costs you money.
Now whether you would prefer not to be all in (and thus would call even with a $20 rake) is not so easy to answer. My guess is that against all but the most timid players you would want to be all in. This is mainly because of the times the flop comes something like KQ4 and you fold to a bet from Ace rag and thus give up a good chance to outdraw. Greg Raymer's answer was therefore the one I like the best.
As to what this has to do with anything, I should tell you that this question occurred to me because I was discussing a specific play with a good playing friend of mine. The question was what to do with this same 98 suited in the SMALL blind when the button raised. Logically it follows that if you prefered not to be all in in the previous case (and would therefore accept a $20 rake) you certainly would not fold in the small blind. However the converse is NOT true. Even if you would prefer to be all in because you lose ground from the flop on, it still may be right to play given the 30-15 odds you are getting at that point. There are other factors as well such as the fact that you may be playing in a three way pot. (By the way, for those who might have wondered, this is the kind of thought process I go through often when determining the best strategies for a given situation.)
So the next question is whether you should play this hand in the small blind. But that is a question for the Holdem Forum and I will repost it there.
so, i lost to greg even though i called the questions being almost the same just because i thought i could push the typical opp of his hand frequently enough to not want to be all in. i am sure that the difference is that i play against the same weak players every week who *know* that i know exactly what they have. in my game i still think i was right. against a player of nearly as much skill as you, i agree with david's answer that you should want to be all in.
wait a minute. i still don't. you get to take first shot. sure you want to be able to draw at K Q 4 against Ax. but don't you want Kx and Qx and KJ to fold when 2 5 7 flops or 2 5 T or 2 5 A or even 3 6 9.
if you are considerably better than the button, then you want future action. he doesn't have to be timid. a loose aggressive who thinks i'm loose aggressive may pay me 3 bets to draw to his over cards when i flop a pair. he just has to be bad. if you are comprable (or he is better) then the question becomes 'how does he play against you'. if the player calls you more than he should then you want to be all in. and if he respects your aggression then you don't. it isn't really about the player, it is about how the player plays you.
scott
You might be right scott but i doubt it. because what happens when you try to steal on the flop but get caught?on the other hand i should have given you credit for being the first one to see that the two questions were the same. greg may have benefited from your post.
Question #20 on page 37 of the recent issue of Poker Digest asks: If someone plays any pair, any 2 big cards (10 or higher) any 2 suited cards, any 2 connected cards and any Ax what % of of all hands delt are played.
A - 31% B - 42% C - 53% D - 64% E - none of the above.
Without looking can you answer this Question.
well, with a pen and a piece of paper and about 30 seconds i came up with about 67.3%, but that is figuring each class of cards separately and then adding their probability, so it doesn't take into account that, say, AA is counted 3 times (pair, Ax, and 2 big cards), so if i had to guess blind the actually total i'd probably think around 60%. I don't know which is more likely currect, C or D. Probably C.
any pair = 3/51
any 2 big cards = (20 * 19)/(52 * 51)
any 2 suited = 12/51
any 2 connected = 8/51
Ax = 4/51
27/51 + (20*19)/(52*51)
(27*52 + 20*19)/(52*51)
(1,404 + 380)/2652
1784/2652
.673
okay, i just redid the math so as not to count anything twice, and i get 43.7%, which suggests to me that i made a goof in my math somewhere and the answer is actually 42%, or something pretty close anyway.
i'm too lazy to post all the math again when it's evident that nobody cares. however, i would like to know if i got the answer right.
C. 53% I did the math too and found D a better answer but I double counted some of the outs.
I have been trying for a while now to figure out a really good system of recording results for my spreadsheet on my PC. I have only been playing a while now, but seriously nonetheless, and want to get a permanent, and very comprehensive system for January 1 2000.
Obviously, I want to record the locations where I play, how long that I play, the stakes I'm playing for, and my winnings and losses. there are, however, some other things I want to record and calculate but am either not sure if I should be, or am not sure how to. These include:
1. I have been recording the time of day that I am playing and compiling statistics for my wins/losses at particular times of day as opposed to other times of day. Does anyone really think that this is necessary? Am I likely to notice a difference?
2. I have been recording my high dollar points, and my low dollar points, as well as my eventual results. Is this likely to do me any good, and if so, should I be comparing these points to the stage of the game in which they occurred? Are there any other stats that I could calculate from this info which would do me good?
3. I have been recording a $/hr average and computing a total $/hr average, but play at lots of different limits, and in lots of different games. I want to standardize this but am faced with the problem of not knowing my $/hr in each particular game. I guess I could just record all of this info, but would still like to know what others find most usefull
4. I want to also reduce my $/hr average to a BB/hr average, but this doesn't seem completely accurate. A 5-10 game for example, is for higher stakes than a 3-6-12 game, but the 3-6-12 would seem to have a higher BB. I have thought of just adding the bets at all stages of the game. 5-5-10-10 would then be a 30 game and a 3-3-6-12 would be a 24 game. Then I could reduce this to a unit TOTAL bet/hr expectation. I would like to know if there are methods that others find more usefull.
5. The games I play in tend to change mid-way through. Most are dealer's choice, and limits often go up as certain players leave the game and others enter. How do I account for this in my notes. I want to have a rough idea of my results in particular games and particular situations but this often makes it impossible.
6. How do I account for tournaments when I figure stats like $/hr average. Are they separate from my other game results, or is there a decent way of combining the data?
There are other things that I am considering, but I'll just leave these thoughts for now. Remember, I have talked to a few people about this already, and most laugh at the thought of recording so much in the first place. I am not sure that is the right advice but I don't want to record too much either. It is surprisingly difficult to keep track a lot of different things, and I sometimes have the tendency of getting overly obsessed with statistics. (I am a former BJ counter, and I think to succeed at that game stats are a must)
My main objectives are to streamline those things that I do record but to preserve any valuable info I could use. I also record personal notes after each session, but these seem less usefull statistically, as they often reflect my mood of winning or losing.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated, and I'd especially like to hear how others keep track of their results
Brad S
Brad,
Get quicken - record your wins in the deposits and your loses in the withdrawls. You can use the check payee for the casino so you can determine your profit and loss by casino. Game in category ie: 10-20HE 6-12 Omaha. The hourly rate is the only bugaboo - you can record your hours played in the memo section and keep a running tally on the rate.
Quicken is capable of running reports by payee and category.
Hope this helps.
I just recently realized I could be using my quicken in this way and will put all my tournament and ring results on quicken in the future.
Which version of Quicken. There are many on the market.
I have both quicken and quick books - I was talking about the personal checkbook package - quick books can be used too but it costs a lot more money.
I am considering putting my 1999 results on but will probably start fresh in 2000.
I'm gonna keep tournaments on it too.
I use Excel on a Mac. It works well for me. It does stats (more on that later). It draws graphs, and the data can be exported to any other programs I need.
Just consider what variables you want to collect. As a general guideline, for every variable you will need a minimum of 10 data sessions and preferably 32. So, measuring 5 variables (game type, limits, $ won or lost, time, hands won/hands played) you will need a minimum of 50 sessions to get any meaningful regression analysis.
Ray invites 9 people, who have never played Poker before, to play Texas Hold’em at his place for 2 weeks.
The rules are that all the players must keep at least $1,000 in play.
The First week Ray plays Limit 10/20 Hold’em with the group. What is Ray’s Hourly win Rate?
The Second week Ray plays No-Limit 10/20 Hold’em with the Group. Now what is Ray’s Hourly win Rate?
Which game would Ray rather play with these people if he wishes to maximize his EV in the Long Run? Given that each player has a $5,000 bankroll that replenishes once a month. If at anytime a bankroll hits $0 or less, that person will never play at Ray’s game again.
The No-Limit Game is just has a 5SB and 10BB.
The last question is elementary, but I find that a lot of good players would choose to maximize there short term profits while cannibalizing their Long Term EV.
CV
Variable Ray = any Ray(ok player) or Ray Zee
1. any Ray.
10/20 limit
2. Ray Zee
Bust them all. Go to a nearest casino for more profit making potential unless it's the only game left on this planet.
Ray goes on tilt by the 4th day and committs suicide cuz he finds out the hard way you can't out play someone who doesn't know when he is being out played.
:-)
If this game is supposed to occur in the winter and Ray Zee can talk nine people into coming up to his cabin for two weeks to play poker, than Ray could make a lot more money in real estate than he ever could playing poker.
If the game takes place in the summer, and these people have never played poker before, I think Ray would bust at least six of them during the first week. In the second week, when it is NL, I'm pretty darn sure one of the newbies would bust Ray with a series of 5 outers and runner runner suck outs.
If the game is in the summer, I want in! While it is true that I've played poker before, making me technically ineligible, I submit that I would bring stability to the game and, to be brutally honest about my ability, none of the others would suspect that I'd had any prior experience.
If the game is in the winter, could you please make sure that Mike Paulle is invited to attend and post the daily play by play on the internet?
Environmental note*
*If you allow Mike Paulle to go out into the woods to forage for his own grub, you are liable to have a dramatic reduction in your bear and buffalo population. Insist on paying him money for his work. Don't fall into the room and board trap that Crystal Park fell for.
80 an hour for the limit game with people that never played before. 500 an hour for the no limit same condition. n/l for all choices . if Rounder plays i over feed him pasta and he goes away. if Big John plays i take half his action.
Huh.. I thought for sure you would say Limit because of the fact that you would burn out the game too fast in no-limit. I may not have set up the question too well, but I did figure you would want to string out the easy pickings for as long as possible.
Thanks for responce though, its interesting to see what you'd expect the differance in hourly rate would be.
Makes me think that if I didn't like a players company I would want to play more no-limit. ;^)
CV
This probably isn't a good title for this thread, but I just couldn't resist the cheezy Shakespeare pun.
Moving on.... My question is, when you're heads up and out of position (this applies mostly to HE, but can also apply to Stud or Omaha or any other inferior card games), what factors make you lean towards betting, and which make you lean towards check/ raising?
I have some ideas on this, but I also want to see what all of you think.
To Bet or not To Bet that is the question.
GD there is something about great minds thinking alike. I wonder what it is when it's you and me? Oh well! This title for a thread has been going through my ear paths fro a while now. I beleive it is because of the heated discussion on betting into a big field in a large pot. No I'm sure that is the reason.
2 bet or not to bet into an opponent heads up! This is poker. This is the true challenge of playing well! You are out of position. Think of it! Out of position. Mason has said, I beleive in Essays II thet the most important factor in mid limit Holdem is understanding position. If we agree and I do then what is the most difficult situation to be in in Mid Limit Holdem. It has to be Heads up and out of position. Yes you got the title right "To bet or not to bet" that is the question. And who better to paraphraes than the Greatest of them all "The Bard" Billy boy Shakespeare.
To bet or not to bet. What be best Thine eyes must glare Perk those dog ears Tis information I seek.
Be he meek or strong bad of the deck or fourlong Aye to bet or not to bet! That is the question.
Consider thyself first Is he fearful of thy thrust? Advantage yourself of his weakness Bet marginal against weakness Check and capture his over agression
To bet or not to bet Aye that is the question!
Vince.
Vince,
Why man, you doth bestride the earth like a Collossus, while we mortal men do grovel from pillar to post in search of a dishonorable grave. All Hail Vincent!
Factors to bet - my cards and my opponent.
Factors to check ditto.
Factors to check and raise ditto.
Well, uh, yeah.. I mean, I'd like to think that your hole cards and your opponent will factor into your decision. But I think an analysis can go farther than that.
I've been reading this forum for a while, and have been impressed with the quality of technical advice given. But today's topic is not a technical one. Like many others who read this forum, I am very familiar with the works of S&M, having read and studied all of their hold'em works. But in my trip to Vegas this past weekend, it was painfully obvious that there's much more to the game.
It became clear that while I may have been technically superior in understanding the game, I was not prepared for the mental aspect of losing good hands. I was smart enough not to go on tilt(how could I be sure?), but I could not keep myself from steaming on the major losses. When my trips on the flop got drawn out by a runner-runner straight, I had to leave the table, even though I thought I could beat the game in the long term.
So my question to all of you is, can this mental aspect of the game be worked on, or is it just another one of those things that come with experience? It's hard for me to imagine at this point that I could just tell myself something, like "bad beats happen" and have that prevent me from getting all bent out of shape. I'm hoping against hope that there's some technique or realization I could find to keep my head on straight.
I eagerly await advice and comments.
Mike
read john's essay. don't tolerate the bad beats saying 'they happen.' welcome them knowing they keep the losers playing. about 8 months ago or so, i used to get mad at bad beats. i had another problem. i felt i was so much better than my opp that i could take by far the worst of it preflop or on 3rd street. these seemed to go hand in hand. i still beat the game but my fluctuations were huge. now i just take the best of it and fold the worst of it. i am more disciplined (or apathetic. it's just score.) and now my wins are more consistant and higher on average.
of course, i've never played for rent money. so maybe that changes things.
scott
It may help to remember that bad beats don't just happen, they happen all the time. There is a large amount of luck in poker. To get a feel for just how much, think about this: Most pros strive to make one big bet per hour. Think of how many big bets go into the pot in a typical hour. Think about what a small percentage of this amount one big bet is. If you are mathematiclly inclined, or have had some math jammed down your throat, think about how very large the standard deviation in poker is compared to the expectation.
Mike,
I went to a Chicago catholic school in the 50's and got the hell beat out of me by the nuns (my school burned down in 1958 I was in it at the time), got beat up by DI's in Marine Corps boot camp in the mid 60's, got beat up by 20 sailors in 1967, got beat up by 7 Portugese police in Lisbon 1985, lived through two typhoons in S/E Asia, earth quakes in Quatemala City and San Jose Costa Rica & tornados in Indiana in 1988 that damn near destroyed my business - I ought to be tough right.
Bad beats affect me like anyone else. Thing is to get up if your on tilt and wash your face off look in the mirror and cry like a baby until you feel better.
Casinos should have motherly women on stand by to give us a hug when we feel bad.
Keep your chin up and remember behind every bad beat is a sucker waiting to give you back your money with interest.
I seldom steam anymore. Part of this can be attributed to experience, part to an understanding that bad beats are unavoidable when you are consistently taking the best of it, and part of it to the fact that I built a little three cell prison in my basement and whenever someone puts a really sadistic bad beat on me I kidnap their butts and take them home for some reeducation and torture. Believe me when I say that after surviving a two or three week stay in my little reeducation center, most of these people will NEVER,EVER put another bad beat on me. Ask Ray Zee sometime what he has been feeding those three grizzlies that are constantly hanging around his Montana cabin?
I, too, think that devouring your opponents at the dinner table is a proper way to exact revenge. However, when my opponents are too fast (or too skinny), I am consoled by the fact that if you never got a bad beat put on you, there would be no game.
I also think about this; in my HE career, I estimate that I've had A's beat at least 900 times. Other 'big' hands, such as K's and Q's, have been snapped with even more frequency. The way I look at it, nothing in HE is sacred; there are 'good' and 'bad' starting hands, and 'good' and 'bad' flops. That's it. But nothing is invincible. And who really cares what happens to your set? Again, how many of my sets have been snapped on the river? Hundreds!!! So what's so special about this particular one?
Thanks for feeling my pain. Like most things in life, I don't think there's going to be a quick fix for this one. But your words and those of the other posters here tell me that
a) experience and perspective should heal this wound or
b) I need to dig a basement under my house.
Mike
"got beat up by 7 Portugese police in Lisbon 1985,"
God, was that you, Rounder. Sorry, but me and the boys really had fun that night.
Vince
Vinny,
These guys were straight of the farm or the hills.
Bad scene thought I was dead they robbed me and threw me in a car I thought I was going to end up in a ditch.
Then dropped me off at the US embassy. PHEW - close call.
I've only been playing non-home games for a few months, but something that really helped me feel better about bad beats was when i started counting bets carefully. knowing that i had the best of it, and i made the right decision even if i did get drawn out on or didn't make my draw was much easier than just having a vague sense that i deserved the pot and didn't get it.
hope this helps.
conform
Probably the best single place to start is with beginning to do all you can to become more interested in the quality of your play than in your short term results. Aim to care about your decisions rather than the outcome of individual hands. Make sound play, rather than winning today, your goal.
didn't somebody write an essay on this?
scott
It does sound familiar... Oh, okay, Another Mike, as Scott suggested in his first post, try my essay over there in the essay section.
<-----------------
The one on fluctuations.
You might also see David's essay "Willpower" in _Poker, Gaming and Life_.
Also, a while back on rgp Kojee Kabuto wrote a very good post with thoughts similar to some of those in my essay. I can't recall the thread. Maybe Kojee will read this and say something.
Thanks for the link, John. Your essay is excellent, and should be required reading for all players. I've forwarded it to friends of mine that don't get the edge I do by reading this forum. :-)
Let the days of tilting end, and let the days of good play begin.
Mike
AMike,
Master the "SMILE" whether your pissed off or happy. People who beat me with outrageous hands I congratulate them on playing the hand so well. You will get paid back ten-fold as they will stay in with even more ridiculous hands than what they just beat you with and if you do go to the end just say you got lucky when you win. Remember YOUR the one that matters not the SOB that just beat you. People love compliments on there play so the more you give them the more they are willing to stay in a pot to get another one. Occasionally I do deviate from this type of play but it keeps me alert to see if it is working throughout the game. Everyone has there breaking point, but if you can put it off for one bad-beat, and maybe the next your probably on your way to enjoying cards and life alot better.
Paul
People love compliments on there play so the more you give them the more they are willing to stay in a pot to get another one.
I've only been playing poker for a few years now but in that time I have come to the conclusion that when someone compliments me on a hand they are being completely insincere. In fact, I am often insulted when I get complimented after putting a particulary bad beat on someone because I know they really don't mean it. It's courteous, but phony sounding. Am I alone on this one?
Brenda it is kinda of like saying "god bless you" when you sneeze - "nice hand" is a reflex comment not ment to be much but a niciety I rarely say it myself I wil say "well played" if it was and I will say "you just outplayed me" if that happened.
If your madder than me and I just got the bad-beat thrown at me I guess you win.
Brenda,
No, you are not alone. I don't much care for the "Nice hand, well played." when it is dripping with sarcasm. I find that a simple grin accompanied by "Well, you got me this time." is unoffensive and neutral enough that it can be a compliment, a concession or an acknowledgement that you've been sucked out on. I feel much better if everyone at the table plays the cards the way they prefer, not having to suffer criticism, ridicule or enlightenment.
One of the problems with some pros in cardrooms is that they hustle too much. Generally, people who do what you complain about also make a great deal of effort to be the live one's new friend. My feeling is that this hurts poker because most everyone, except the hustler, quickly sees through this. I believe that it is best to just be quiet when you lose a hand (no matter how it happened) and go on to the next hand.
Good words to live by, Mason. I've been playing about 3 years. The first 6 months or so, I knew zip about the game and was stumbling around probably laying a few horrendous beats on people and not even realizing it.The next 6 months or so, I started to acquire some knowledge about the game, and couldn't wait to share it with my new-found pigeons. I call this my "smart ass teacher" phase. After a short while, though, I began to realize that I was accomplishing two bad things: a) begining to educate some of the more observant types that there was a little more to this game than they had thought, and b) making myself a big target at the table for those who couldn't wait to lay a licking on me.
Over the past couple of years, I have become much better at the table in just sitting there and quietly taking the punishment. About the most sarcastic I get anymore is the occasional, "Please, sir, may I have another?" Maybe the fact that I have played a fair amount of decent level amateur golf has helped. Expect the unexpected. If the guy has a 40-footer for a half, EXPECT him to make it. That way, when the rare occasion comes along, and he actually does, you aren't surprised. Same thing with the runner-runner stuff cracking your sets. Getting mad about it doesn't help a bit.
Dunc,
I will often equate a bad beat to the 40 footer or chip in - guess we picked a couple to tough games to invest time in.
The ability to control your mental state is a very learnable skill. The following authors' ideas once applied should help you control tilt instantly and effortlessly: Anthony Robbins, Richard Bandler, John Grinder, Robert Dilts, Connirae and Steve Andreas, Charles Faulkner. Controlling your mental state is a skill. The good news is that with the proper instructions, it is a skill that is very easily and very quickly learned. It's just a matter of knowing how. I used to tilt excessively, but thanks to the works of the above mentioned neurolinguistic experts, I resolved it in less than a few seconds, permanently. And so have traders Tom Basso, Ed Seykota, and Jack Schwager; so have athletes Andre Agassi, the entire San Antonio Spurs, the entire LA Kings, golfers Mark O'Meara and Dan Jansen; so had Princess Di, Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, and Al Gore; so have the top rifle shooters in the Army; so have Phil Collins and Sting. And many other achievers. Mental state control is extremely easy and unbelievably quick too learn (only a few minutes to create a permanent change). But you have to follow the proper techniques.
Kojee -- That's yet another whole area that may indeed be very helpful for lots of people. I'm not too familiar with it, but I think it may share some elements with "behavioral/cognitive" techniques used by psychologists. Thanks for the references.
I was thinking of your post in which you talked about the best players being "connoisseurs of good decisions". I thought it was well put. I had started to write a response to it but never got around to it. I checked back though, and see that it was in an rgp thread called "Psychologically speaking". So anyone ambitious enough can find it on deja.com.
" Anthony Robbins, Richard Bandler, John Grinder, Robert Dilts, Connirae and Steve Andreas, Charles Faulkner. Tom Basso, Ed Seykota, and Jack Schwager; so have athletes Andre Agassi, the entire San Antonio Spurs, the entire LA Kings, golfers Mark O'Meara and Dan Jansen; so had Princess Di, Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, and Al Gore; so have the top rifle shooters in the Army; so have Phil Collins and Sting."
How many of these people play poker (you name dropper you)? What major poker tournaments have they won? No seriously I'm interseted. No No don't click me off. Help me! Help me!
Vince.
Calmness after bad beats. Tenacity when short stacked and bleeding. Patience when hand after hand gets annihilated on the river. Objectivity when nothing seems to turn out right. These are all traits that we can use. Calmness, tenacity, patience, objectivity and other poker friendly emotions have components and follow a certain syntax that we all can program in our minds in less than two minutes.
"I eagerly await advice and comments. "
We'll see!
No advice here!
Just Comments:
Another Mike are you serious!? I could accept a post like this from our Columbia College student Scott. He's a teenager and youth would account for Bad Beat woes. But, not to my surprise, Scott actually had some advice for you. Of course I am assuming you are an adult of more advanced years than our 18 year old Scott. Rather than ASSuME that, if you also are a teenager novice then disregard my comments. Actually you can disregard them even if you are as old as say Fossilman. But if you choose to pass them off as ravings of an old Uncle you will be missing out on the truth. Missing out on what may be the answer to your quest for ending the bad beat woes.
First thing: Grow Up! Ego my friend Ego. The driving force of youth, is a double edge sword for the poker player. We all have an ego. Without an ego one cannot excel, especially at poker. But an over inflated ego is the down fall of an otherwise "technically sound" poker player. You know that! You don't need advice from this group. Your just looking for support of what you already know. Bad beats happen. Yes, they do. Duh! Did wittle wunner wunner stwait beat your twips. Ogh. Too bad Tweety! What do you want here? Who do you expect to help you here. Sigmund Freud died many moons age. You've seen Sklansky's nominal response. Do you think he has the time or the understanding. No, Oh wait a minute there is someone here that can help you. Why didn't I think of it before. Of course. He's the only one that helps us all. No not god. Well maybe god. Actually he is just that old "Man in the Mirror". Yeah that's the ticket. That's the one! Ask him while your'e shaving in the morning. I bet he'll help!
Vince.
Vince,
You saw right through my tale of woa and added another one for AMike. Get over it!!! It's only a HAND!!! Like I smile all day at the table Yeah Right!!!!
Paul
I like the websie's new expanded setup.
I am currently living in Southern California, and think I am a reasonably good player. I used to live in Nevada, and for some time (a couple of hundred hours) averaged $17.50 an hour in $5-10 stud at the mirage, and a whopping $5.75 in more than a thousand hours in $3-6, $4-8, and 1-4-88 holdem. I also played there in 10-20 stud and holdem games, and in some nolimit and pot limit live games, but not for any reasonable amount of time.
In so-cal I play only small tournaments and in much larger games ($15-30 and $20-40), which I really can't afford, because the drop in the small games seems outrageously high. I just don't think it can be beat. Am I wrong? Is anyone beating $6-12 and below games in So. Cal?
Chris,
It is more the way it is taken (always, from either a dead button or excessively large "ante" ) no matter what the size of the pot) rather than the amount that really hurts. I wrote a little bit on this in a reply to Jim Brier on the holdem forum last night and you may be interested (the post title mentions rakes - you should be able to find it).
Anyway, I do know of some who do quite well (about $15 to $25 per hour over time in the 6/12 and 9/18 holdem), but they play well in loose games and work hard to stay in good loose games. I doubt 3/6 holdem is beatable for much in Los Angeles County but I don't know anyone who plays and records his results in a manner I would trust. Small limit Omaha H/L is beatable for a decent amount due to the linear increase in expectation as the game becomes very loose.
I'll try to check back later tonight.
Regards,
Rick
I have no problem with the aggressive label part of the weak/aggressive continuum, especially since you can tack on "overly" to differentiate solid aggression from the maniac type. It is the weak part that I have problems with.
In many of the ring games I've played in, and some tournaments as well, the weak/tight players come in two separate, and very different, varieties. For lack of a better term I've tentatively been calling them weak and timid. The tight/timid player usually has something when he's in a hand and is too timid to bet himself, but not at all unhappy to call. In some strange way he seems to relish the idea of someone else betting his hand for him and then calling his way to victory. He will almost invariably checkraise with the nuts on the river. A call from him instead of a raise doesn't give you any useful information about his holding. The weak/tight player is just weak. He doesn't know where he's at with a hand and will make incredibly bad checks, folds and calls. He is a blessing to any game the two of you are in. The timid player can cost you some money if you continue to treat him as just weak/tight. Both are poor players, but the timid one is far more dangerous to an aggressive player IMO. I would appreciate any criticism, comments or other observations concerning this subject.
John,
I consider weak players those who play way to many hands in the wrong positions. Like any suited cards any 3 gapper utg etc. Weakish players tent to play alot of hands 40-50 with the wrong ones in the worng position.
I don't confuse weak with tight as a matter of fact they are pretty much 180 degree apart. Aggressive is another misunderstood classification. (By me) I consider an aggressive player one who controls the hand takes the lead and sets the stage.
My fav player to have at the table is weak aggressive as opposed to weak passive.
Isn't your definition of "weak". Closer to loose. By your definition, essentially all a weak player does is play too many hands. If this is the case what is your definition of weak/tight?
I suppose I can't define weak/tight since I consider weak the kind of cards one plays and what position they play them in. Tight to me is a tough desctiption too.
Tight when? and in what positions? For example: Say a player mucks 9T utg but raises with it on the button with 2 limpers. Is that a weak play or tight? I think it is smart.
I don't play just any suited cards for example I won't play 75s in most any position. But will play 65s in later position. What does that make me? I don't play Ax in most postions but will play Axs in mid to late position What do you call that?
I have to stop thinking about this I'm getting confused.
Hey Rounder, I thought you didn't care about suited cards?
Mike - I never said I didn't care about them I said I don't play them cuz their suited - I'd only play the ranks in position I'd play them off suit with the exception of AXs - to many good thinks happen when you have an A in your hand and I love the nut flush. :-)
Does that mean you'll play 65o at all? I know I never do.
- Andrew
By weak, you mean bad, and bad players fall into too many categories to call them all weak. For example a maniac is a bad player who fits under your description of weak, but I would not classify a maniac as weak.
Why not if he is playing and over betting bad or marginal hands in bad or marginal positions.
Hey - maybe this is a good topic there seems to be a diverse opinion out there.
Just cuz a guy throws alot of chips in the pot doesn't make him strong.
No, but it does make him aggressive and I don't consider aggressive players, whether their good or bad, to be weak.
Good descriptions. I certainly don't feel I have this game mastered by any means, but it never ceases to amaze me by the way some people, at least those with some level of experience at the table, play their hands. With a brand new player, you take your chances, but when people with whom I have been playing for a year or two still won't raise premium pairs at ANY time, and just sit there at the table waiting for someone to bet their hands for them, I just can't for the life of me understand why they can't or won't raise the level of their games even marginally.
i think that these labels only affect our discussions. what we call someone is not as important as the patterns we find in their play or the mistakes we see them make. what you call 'weak' does not affect your game at all. that said, i use the term weak tight in my posts etc. so here is what i mean. i call players weak tight if they are tight players who act predictably when pressured.
scott
Big John,
I have said this before and so has Mason.
Weak/ tight: Tight refers to the quality of hands a player selects. Almost always the best hands. If you prefer, Group 1-3, sometimes 4, Mostly 1 and 2. Weak refers to the way he plays those hands. Bets/raises when he thinks he has the best hand and checks/folds when he thinks he doesn't. A weak player plays in a predictable manner. That's all there is to it folks. You got a problem with that!
Vince.
Most people use passive/aggressive as two sides of the same coin. We all know that all players fall somewhere in between the two extremes. Weak/tight is used to describe people who play tight and passive. I just think there are two kinds of weak/tight players. One, the passive bettor, who I referred to as timid/tight, has a strategy of letting others lead when he figures he's ahead, thinking that he is disguising his hand and punishing the aggressor at one and the same time. These people aren't making as many bad folds and hopeless calls as the weak/tight hopeless players. I thought by isolating this category and looking at each of the individual subsets, we might be able to raise our collective awareness and discuss different playing strategies that we each employ.
Of course, Vince, I'm sure that you've already done this and incorporated it into your overall playbook. I was hoping that,like Gary Carson, you'd publish that chapter here on the forum, or on RGP, for all of us to read and critique. I guess my subtle probe didn't work, huh?
"Of course, Vince, I'm sure that you've already done this and incorporated it into your overall playbook."
Oh! Sure John, take it out on me. The only guy here on 2+2 that really likes you even if you are a lawyer. We go back a long way. How soon they forget!
Vince.
Vince,
I am not actively engaged in the practice of law. To the best of my knowledge, other than a few cases in small claims and a misdemeanor or two, I've never acted as a lawyer. My constant lying is probably what got you confused. An honest enough mistake, and I forgive you. When are you going to tire of the dreariness of Connecticut and return to God's country, or Las Vegas?
God's country - you mean Arizona or the land of fruits and nuts and earth quakes. :-)
If I was from Illinois or Indiana, I'd probably mistake a forsaken desert for God's Country too. I once read a report that conjectured that after three winters in the midwest most people would commit suicide rather than leave California to return there. In that same report, Arizona was only even money. :-)
I think i fall into your new catgory sometimes. I'm usually a pretty aggressive player, but when i feel another player is too aggressive and will bet many more hands than he will call with, i will go into check and call or check and raise mode against that player. But this is only against players who are very aggressive, who consistantly bluff. To me, this is also a good way to balance my play and table image.
Idle conversation over the 1-5 table in AC last week. The subject was purposely misidentifying your hand to entice your opponent to muck his hand.
You hold 2 pair. up against an obvious flush. at show down you announce "full house 6's full of 5's" when in reality you have 6's and 5's. You opponent mucks you rake pot.
The consensus at the table was:
1 Always protect you hand, turn it face up and this will never happen to you.
2 This type of play is akin to bluffing.
I was astounded, mostly because of a looong thread in RGP regarding Badger and a straight flush in a tourney.
What is the consensus here?
Fair play, angle, or dishonest.
Thanks for your input.
Todd
i agree with consensus #1. on the morality, i consider it angle shooting. i think it is dishonest but not illegal. similar to flopping to induce a charge call in basketball. i would never do it. i play for the sport. if someone beat me, they beat me.
scott
poker is a highly competitive game and getting the win is the goal. you should be able to do whatever the rules allow. that is what rules are for. however it doesnt work that way in life. things that are considered unethical are banned but not illegal. so that many times you can do these things and get away with it. what happens is that they sometimes work. if you do it too much everyone knows and doesnt fall for them anymore. what does happen though is that we all play together for most of our lives and our paths cross back and forth all the time. when you shoot angles it will follow you the rest of your life and you will regret it at some point when you grow up.
There is a former WSOP Champion, who I won't name. I'll just say that he's a known Jerj.
A few months ago in a superstellite, after I was all in, he announced that he had a straight after the turn card came. I looked at the board on the river, which was 6-5-3-3-5 and he boarded his cards face up and announced straight. I mucked my 6-9 without giving his cards even a cursury glance. His cards were 6-4. Someone said, "Hey, that's no straight!" I was really pissed at myself, that I had stupidly mucked. The Jerj, a little embarrassed, offered to split the pot with me "if no one objects". His good buddy, another well known steamer, John Bonetti, made the objection right on cue. I didn't want, or deserve half the pot anyway,since I had stupidly thrown my hand away, but I resented the Jerj making such an unethical move. Of course, I learned a valuable lesson. The Jerj explained to the floorman who was called over that he was just joking when he said he had a straight and that everyone at the table had been kidding around and joking all night. I always look forward to his "Hands of the Week" in Cardplayer, but I doubt if he will ever feature that particular one. I sure hope that I've concealed his identity enough in this posting, since I really wouldn't want to embarrass Phil.
Since when did Phil Donahue take up poker?
Vince.
Good guess, Vince, but not right. Although both have those boyish good looks that might appeal to some forum participants. As far as I know Phil Donahue has never won the WSOP final event or intentionally miscalled a hand. I'll give you one final hint: his website is:
www.philhellmuth.com
Big John,
If I were you I would spend some extra time thinking about his game.
Good luck. Make him pay.
Bloody Hell! Next time pop him in the muth.
Actually, I believe posting it here will serve nicely. People need to learn that misdeeds can result in more longterm problems than the shortterm gain was worth. Since I had read, like everyone else, that he was finally growing up and was making a real effort to be a good poker citizen, it was personally disappointing to see evidence that he still acts rashly without thought to the consequences. His pattern of intemperate behavior reflects badly on the image he is always trying to project.
John,
The "Hand of the week" is usually some obscure 10 year old story about something not unusual that happened in Wicsonsin. His negative attitude exhibited in the column has turned me off more than once and I rarely read it any more.
As much as i'd like to agree with you that this huge ego was being a total jerj, I can't.
His declaration and remarks seem to indicate a fairly common table (trash) talk pattern among some very experienced players. I doubt if he expected that you would muck your hand but I don't doubt that he enjoyed "stealing" the pot from you.
Players who get ""lucky " at an early age, no matter how good they may be, are often too immature to handle the success and too insecure to admit that they have much to learn. Many seem to believe that they are God's gift to poker and they may do anything to TRY to prove that.
Of course this also goes for some senior players with attitude: I once saw a self proclaimed seniors champion tap-check from the blind position and all other players check, but the champion, knowing the dealer wasn't watching, insisted he hadn't checked and insisted on betting. The players folded in turn but I raised with bottom pair and ended up winning the pot that he was trying to steal. Thanks, Oklahoma. BTW, players around me had been complaining about his play that day and seemed delighted to see me resteal.
I believe it is dishonest and cheating. Any players constantly doing this should be banned from public cardrooms (and private games as well)
Todd,
I have, as an honest mistake, misread my hand and announced a hand better than I actually had. If that was the case then you have an honest mistake. This more than anything should point to the need to protect your hand and look at the opponents hand before you release yours. In reality the best play is to turn your hand over and let the dealer read who is the winner. An "obvious flush" is not a flush. It becomes a flush when it is turned up and verified. Had he done that the Casino may have stepped in an awarded the pot to the best hand. I know that is the policy at the Taj in AC.
That said your question appears to be one of an ethical nature. If a person makes an intentional move as described is he committing an offense? It is not illegal to intentionally announce a different hand than one has seems to be the consensus. I wonder if that is true. Fossilman and Big John should know. I think that it can be considered cheating. Is cheating at cards in a Casino illegal? Good question. If not illegal is it unethical. I guess that depends on your personal moral code. Mine syas that it is unethical. I would not intentionally miscall my hand. I think that it is "dirty low down" (that's cowboy talk) to do that. John Wayne taught us to be fine upstanding citizens. I think it is even more important to have high moral standards in the poker world. I say we black list the bum! I vote for dishonest!
Vince.
Vince injudiciously wrote: It is not illegal to intentionally announce a different hand than one has seems to be the consensus. I wonder if that is true. Fossilman and Big John should know.
For those who might not know or remember, John and I are both attorneys, and since this is a "rules" question, I believe that is why Vince names us. John and I are not being named (I hope) because Vince thinks that we commonly pull angles like this. Right, Vince?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"John and I are not being named (I hope) because Vince thinks that we commonly pull angles like this. Right, Vince?"
I am sometimes unclear with remarks I make. Fossilman, who (or whom I don't know) has my respect is absolutely correct. I named John and Fossilman beacause they are lawyers. In this case I was being honest. So with that in mind oh ageless one Answer the question. Is it illegal to cheat at cards in a Casino? Can one be prosecuted for say, Stealing?
Vince.
Vince,
Since I am not an attorney I can give you the answer without charge. (though I do feel a certain shame in doing so) It is illegal, and you can be prosecuted for theft. In practice, most cardrooms do not press criminal charges. I believe that most feel that it would open them up to civil liability and cost them money by having to assist in the prosecution. (provide witnesses and evidence)If you need additional guidance, you'll have to retain Greg to provide counsel. He is probably licensed to practice law in the state you currently reside. While I can't say that I've never practiced law in Connecticut, I can say that I shall never do so again.
I'm not sure that you naming me as an attorney is actionable; it is, however, predjudicial to my image. I am not an attorney. In California, where I reside, you have to pass a bar exam to be an attorney. I have never attempted that kind of bar. The fact that I frequently prevaricate when posting might account for your confusion. Forgive me if I mislead you in this regard. I did spend three years as custodian at Western State University. It is often difficult to distinguish between law students and custodial staff unless you search them for cash. (janitors have some, law students don't) If you get up to New Haven and stop by the Yale law library, don't be confused by the picture of the class of 1968. I can assure you that the tall man on the left end of the top row is not me, though he does bear a striking resemblence to the way I looked more than 30 years ago. I hope this ends the confusion.
Yup! Pretty Clear now! Thanks a lot O.J.
Vince
Ya, of course cheating at cards is illegal and you can be prosecuted for it. From a practical viewpoint, no one gets the cops involved and the cheater just gets barred from the casino.
Some months ago, a fellow at our Casino bought $300 in chips, put it on the table and went to get a bite to eat. He was away about 30 minutes. In the meantime, the lady in the seat to his left had apparently called bets in various hands with about $80 of this fella's chips. Talk about a bad beat - not play a hand and lose $80. Anyway, the lady was caught red-handed on camera and she has been banned. Too bad from a strictly EV point of view as she has been a regular donator in the game for several years.
As for Phil "Donahue", good lord! Do these supposedly world class players have to rely on these "moves" to win? It's a bloody shame.
I have announce a better hand by mistake a number of occasions over the years. Others have done the same to me, hopefully also by accident. I always look carefully. I do not feel funny. It's my money.
I think it is dishonest to do it intentionally and have caught cheaters and have had them tossed out of the casino. Gotta' have some scruples
Couple of comments.
1. In some rooms, if you announce a hand and do not have that hand or better, you lose to the guy who mucked. In these rooms, if you announce a hand, anyone knowledgeable player who can't beat what you announced will immediately muck and ask to see your winner. In some cases, you might lose the pot even if you could beat what he mucked, because you don't have the hand you announced.
2. Of course, always protect your hand, and don't muck it until you are 100% sure that the opponent has a better hand. Don't believe them, even if they are your best friend. Even friends make mistakes.
3. The Badger incident on RGP was not at all a case of misannouncing a hand. In that case, Badger turned over a hand (full house?) in Omaha, and the opponent said something about that beats my flush. As he did this, he turned over his hand, and actually had a straight flush. However, the dealer and players did not notice, and the hand was mucked. Badger won the pot. The ethical issue was whether Badger should have spoken up and told the opponent (in a $500 entry fee tournament) that he had beaten Badger. Badger kept quiet, many folks at RGP felt he should have spoken up and gotten himself eliminated from the tournament, while others thought he did nothing wrong. Opinions are clearly varied as to the ethical nature of this act.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Last weekend I played in a 10-20 7CS. On 2 occasions, a player (seat 5) mucked the winning hand at the showdown. He showed the man next to him (s6) and me (s7) his cards then threw them into the muck. Occasion 1 he was looking for a flush and got a straight on the river beating the 2 pair from the guy in seat 4. Occasion 2 he was looking for a boat and drew a higher 2 pair beating the man in seat 2 who had a lower 2 pair but mucked the hand.
Should I have said something? I did not
Ah good, an easy question.
If the player only shows you, and not everyone (i.e., he does not "table" his cards), then you are under an ethical duty to NOT say anything. If you do point out to the guy that he has a winner, and he then tables his hand, the other player can rightfully accuse you of breaking the rules (the "one player to a hand" rule).
Of course, there is no specific penalty for breaking this rule, and it is unlikely that the floorman will do anything to you. Most likely, the floorman will explain to you that you're not supposed to do that, and tell you not to do it again.
However, the dumb mucker will win the pot (in most rooms).
This is a good reason to not intentionally be an ass to someone like me. I would normally follow the rules here, but if you've been an ass, I'll be sure to tell that guy to table his winning hand. In fact, I might even give the weak player some unsolicited advice, such as "I know that guy, and he's bluffing. You should call him." This is even more true if I know that the ass can't hold his temper, will likely do something stupid, and get kicked out of the room.
Fortunately, I've never (yet) had to resort to such tactics.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I guess I think, reluctantly, that deliberately miscalling your hand probably isn't illegal. That being said, my vote is ...
Sharp angle shot, highly unethical, borderline illegal. Protect your hand or just turn it up, and if you think someone tried this deliberately, I would call the floor and put in a complaint. One simgle complaint won't get sanctions against the guy, but the complaint would serve as a warning AND allow floor people to maybe see a pattern over time.
This is analogous to suspicion in a bridge tournament that your opponents are unfairly communicating. You "log" such an incident with the Director, and basically nothing is done. But if the director gets 2 or 3 such complaints about a pair, he/she starts watching them.
Dick
This is not really a theory question, but. What is the opinion of long term winning players on this forum as to the quality of play vis-a-vis today with say, 20 yrs ago before the "information explosion" on poker?(this forum and 2+2 publications being prime examples)
Has all this information increased the % of winning players relative to the general poker population, or has it remained pretty static, despite the absolute increase in actual people numbers playing the game?
If not, why not? Or does more information not necessarily imply comprehension and application?
Post deleted at author's request.
"However, the gap between the best players and the good/decent players is smaller -- significantly smaller in Holdem, less so in the other games."
That gap is lowest in Omaha-8, and greatest in stud.
I have no idea of the increase in winning players but I have to think in the last 25 years with the influx of immigrants from S/E Asia the poker rooms have increased their population considerably.
I spent quite a bit of time in S/E Asia in the 70's on business and there is a culture of gambling out there unlike anything I have ever seen the two S/E Asian casinos in Hong Kong and the Getting Highlands of Malaysia are over flowing with players and the race tracks are so crowded you can hardly get to the windows for a bet.
So I suspect this influx of new talent is contributing to the popularity of poker in the 90's
Actually the percentage of players who are winners will never change that much. Common sense should tell you why. Thus what we have right now compared to 20 years ago is a lot more winners -- and a lot more losers.
With the high cost of playing in public card rooms, the strict ratio between winners and losers has to have the losers pulling away.
I have played poker for 30 years. 22 years professionally. Not once in that time have I used the term "Linear." Not only have I never used it, I have no idea whatsoever what people are referring to when they use that term. I see it mentioned a lot especially by the likes of Gary Carson, et.al. (Hell every post Carson makes he says linear at least once.)
Are these people just being snobs?
Would anyone care to explain--to what I guess is a total moron--what this term means and how on God's green earth it is applicable to poker?
What the hell are people talking about when they say everything is linear? Or not linear? I'm serious about this. I am totally mystified. Thank you.
linear is a math term. generally, it means 'like a line.' specfically, it means different things in different contexts. if you want some examples i could provide them. the one time i remember seeing it, gary used it to describe a linear function. that means that changes in the value of the function are proportional to the change of the variables. so you can do your math with the inputs and scale your results later. his pont (well, my point. he was agreeing.) was that outs and probability of winng are not linearly related. so you can't just do the math with the outs and scale your results to make the probability. i hope this helped.
scott
Once you get away from very simple probabilities many things cease to be linear. (For those a little more mathematically inclined, this is because a probability space has a measure of 1 while the standard real world number system which most of us are use to working in is infinite.)
A simple example is with one card to come if you double your outs you double your chance of success -- linear. If you keep the number of outs constant but now have two cards to come you do not double your probability of success even though many people think so. Both Sklansky and I have discussed this before.
In our book GAMBLING FOR A LIVING we wrote up a concept originally proposed by Sklansky in which we show why it can be profitable to bet every combination in a Pick Six. This works because of the non-linearity of the population uninverse (all possible pick six combinations which is a finite number) for a Pick Six. This can be a hard concept to grasp. For example, Stanford Wong, who should know better, has disputed us by saying that if you have a set of bets that are profitable yet they contain a subset of bets which are not profitable there must be another subset of bets which is profitable. (For those of you familiar with abstract algebra this sort of sounds like LaGrange's Theorem.) But in a non-linear system this does not have to be the case.
Getting back to Gary Carson I am not sure exactly what point he is trying to make by pointing out that certain things in poker do not follow a linear model. However, if you conclude that certain aspects of poker are a little more complex than they first appear and that other aspects are somewhat counter-intuitive, then you should be on the road to success.
the simple example is too simple. there is no reason (other than fallacious intuition) to believe that the chance of making your hand is linear with respect the number of cards to come. a more potent example is that, although with one card to come the chance of making your hand is linear with respect to the number of outs you have, this is not the case with more cards to come. that is the chance of making a 8 outer in 2 tries is not twice the chance of making a 4 outer in 2 tries. while your example is important to guide towards correct play, i think that this one will better give people an intuitive feel for the math.
also, how does lagrange relate to his result (which does not, in fact, seem to disprove yours)? groups, especially finite groups, have a certain structure that does not extend to the sets considered in measure theory. i have never seen any results linking order and measure. while they are not entirely dissimilar concepts, i do not think that any results transfer.
i agree with you on the important point (poker is complex etc.) and i apologize in advance for getting close to the esoteric limit for the forum.
scott
Your Holiness,
I confess that I used the term in a post today. Forgive me father for being a snob and forgetting where I posted it.
Anyway, I used it in reference to your expectation in Omaha H/L as the game gets looser and looser. In Omahaha subtracting a tight player and adding a loose player pretty much adds to your expectation in a linear (i.e., fixed amount for each loose player added) fashion. This is true since you are almost always drawing to the nuts.
This is not so true in holdem as beyond a certain point adding a loose player and subtracting a tight player adds only a little to your expectation but a lot to your swings. Mason goes into this in detail in one of his essay books.
I'll say ten "Hail Mary's" tonight and we should be even.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Is your student's name Mary? If so, coincidence or not?
Il Padre, Il Padre,
Scusa mio, U misunderstand. Thesea boys here, led by the master mathematician Mason, do indeed explain linear extremely well. But Gary Carson was not saying linear to you when he called. He said; Hey Pope, whatsa matter for you, Can'ta you hear! Whata you got a "tin ear" not a "linear", a, a "tin ear". I cana see howa youa were confuseda youa holiness. Gary sometimes speaks with broken "Polish". "Forgive Him O Father for he know not what he does"
Cardinal Vincenzo
Pope I could have used your linear blessing last night. I was in a tournament with a Ac5c had 20 outs times 2 and linear or not my calculations showed I was favored to win but lost to KK - I have to stop listening to the experts on this board they are making me crazy.
Will you hear my confession.
I would like to log my hours and win/loss on a spreadsheet and have my std. deviation calculated but I can't seem to figure out how to write the formula. I have the one from Gambling Theory and Other Topics but I'd like the calculation to be done automatically. The STD function on my spreadsheet (Microsoft Works) doesn't take into account the number of hours for each session. Any help is greatly appreciated.
The answer is relatively simple but will take some extra accounting. Keep track of results by hour when you play. This will not only allow you to calculate std dev on your spreadsheet but will normalize results in accordance with hours played. Remember, poker is not baseball and it is total results that count, not the number of wins and losses.
While feasible, this is not an easy approach and is why the formula in the Gambling Theory book was created. To have your spreadsheet compute the standard deviation using the maximum likelihood estimator you will have to develop columns for each of the compoents and then add these up. That's what I do.
Funny you should ask. I have been doing just that for 2 years. I thought I was doing it correctly simply by dividing my winnings/losses by the number of hours played to give me my per hr rate then simply calculating the non biased (n-1) standard deviation using Excel's function (prob same as Works). I checked my calculations with Mason Malmuth's calcs found in his book on pp60-63. His std dev calcs are different from my calcs, and I have not found the reason. I also used his method to calc mune and that ans is different from what Excel gives me. I am working to resolve it but have little spare time this month.
Maybe Masonwill address this issue
I have not worked out the entire spreadsheet method, but I noticed one flaw in your method.
Try normalizing your result by the square root of the number of hours, not the hours value itself.
Dick
Thank you. I'll try it tonight
I think that Mason's formula gives an estimate of your intrinsic standard deviation, and uses your results to calculate it. The STD function in a spreadsheet probably just gives you the sampling standard deviation which is not the same thing.
Eric
A Row from my spreadsheet:
date time game res bb/hr std
10-Nov 5 10 - 20 120 6 1.9
std deviation formula:
(E44-B44*A$53)^2/B44
(bb/hr - time*avg_bb/hr)^2/time
with the avg bb/hr at A53
Zooey
It's important that you use the formula in the Gambling Theory book since it accounts for playing sessions of different lengths of time. What follows is a description of my excel spreadsheet which may help you put this together properly.
The first column is the date.
The second column is the result. Also known as Xi.
The third column is my total (running) result.
The fourth column is the length of play in hours. Also known as Ti. (I round to quarter hours.)
The fifth column is my total (running) time.
The sixth column is the win rate. It is simply the running total divided by my total hours or the current entry in the third column divided by the current entry in the fifth column.
The seventh column is Xi*Xi/Ti. That is your current result squared divided by the length of time played.
The eight column is the number 1. (Their sum is the number of playing sessions.)
On the bottom of the page I have two entries. They are the mean and standard deviation.
The mean is simply the sum of the second column (your overall results) divided by the sum of the fourth column (your overall number of hours played).
The standard deviation component is much more complicated. First add up the eight column (your number of sessions) and divide 1 by this number. It is then multiplied by the sum of the seventh column. This completes the first term. Second, square the mean and divide it by the sum of the eight column. Then all of this is multiplied by the sum of the fourth column. This completes the second term. Now subtract the second term from the first term, take the square root, and (assuming I described everything right), you should have the standard deviation.
By the way, I use a little trick on my spread sheet. The last row of entries is always zeros. For instance if my spread sheet looks like
11/13/99 340 340 1.50 1.50 226.67 77066.67 1 11/14/99 -101 239 1.00 2.50 95.60 10201.00 1
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
When I add a new row in I add it in above the zero row and always sum through the zero row. For example, by summing from the first row through the zero row in the last column my number of playing sessions is 2 just as it is suppose to be. Now if I add a third playing session and add it just above the zero row and sum I now will get 3 playing sessions. This allows me to never have to adjust the formula (on the bottom of my spread sheet) for the mean and standard deviation.
I think you answered a lot of peoples questions just now. Thank you for sharing that info. I feel it is valuable and time saving.
Thank you, Mason. Your answer was exactly what I was looking for.
In response to your question, I created a web page where people can download an excel workbook that will calculate mean and standard deviation estimates for them.
http://www.geocities.com/happy_flop/index.html
It might not work in MS works.
I have an excel spreadsheet for $10-$20 that does all the computations and I have tested in with the data in "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" and gotten the exact same results. I will be happy to E-Mail to you. I have done this for others like Kevin and Jason.
I've managed to set up my own spreadsheet to do the calculations now. I guess you just have to calculate individual pieces of the formula seperately and then put them all together. Thanks for everyone's input and offers to help.
Last week I tried to introduce a two tier betting structure to regular players in a home game that universally featured spread limit games.
It was a totally foreign concept. Noses were wrinkled, and players were fumbled -- always betting the wrong amounts. It was not well-received. They felt very constricted.
The question was posed to me -- "What's the point of a two tier structure?" My only answer was "Well, that's the way many tables do it in Vegas." Not very convincing or authoritative -- I must admit.
So I now forward the question on to you fine posters. What is the point? More specifically, why would you choose a two tier limit game over a spread limit game, or vice versa? What are the strategic implications of playing in one type v. the other? And in a spread limit game, what are factors used to determine what you should bet or raise within the spread?
Thanks for the help.
Jon,
If you can play and your opponents who cannot will stay then spread limit is great. The problem is that it gives too great an advantage to the skilled player.
When spread limit is spread in Las Vegas it is usually populated by several local rocks just waiting for the weak tourist to drop in. The most common form in holdem is 2-10 spread limit (at least a few years ago). The tourists don't have a chance, even in the short run. Without this type of scenario (an endless supply of tourists who play badly), the game dies out. In the end the spread limit sharks get their just due because they never develop the skills needed to beat the split limit games.
I had an aquaintence who preyed on these games for years. He never improved as a player taking advantage of the pure live ones and now is out of poker to the best of my knowledge.
BTW, Mason Malmuth discusses more of the problems with spread limit in his first book of "Poker Essays".
Regards,
Rick
There are two problems with spread limit versus structured betting. The first problem is the most significant. Spread limit slows down the game a lot compared to structured betting. Suppose you were playing a spread limit hold-em game with a $40 high bet and blinds of $10 and $20. Now you have people betting $5 then someone raises $16 followed by someone trying to call and needing change followed by the next guy raising to $28 and then someone making it $40, etc. You might get 20 hands an hour which is not profitable for the cardroom when they operate on a rake system. It is also boring to the players. A structured game moves much faster making it more profitable for the cardroom, the dealer, and the players. The second problem is the skill factor. A spread limit game favors the better player to such a large extent that the weaker players don't win often enough to make the game fun.
Jim,
As to your first point, I totally agree that it slows down the game. Something else I have noticed -- it is much harder to track the pot in a spread-limit as opposed to a structured limit.
However, both you and Rick talked about the HUGE advantage better players have over weaker players in spread-limit. I have not come across much regarding spread-limit in my limited readings. Could you elaborate on where this advantage comes from?
Thanks.
It comes from the fact that the better players will bet the limit usually when they have the best hand forcing the weaker, chasing players to pay through the nose on their draws. On the other hand, when the good player is chasing, the weaker player will frequently not bet the limit but make a smaller bet making the draws on the part of the good player even more profitable.
A good example is the $1-$5 spread limit 7 card stud game that is featured in many casinos and cardrooms throughout the country. When I learned poker back in 1995, this was the game I played in. When I had a good starting hand like Aces or Kings or just the best pair, the low card would bring it in for $1 and maybe three or four people would call. I would raise anywhere from $3 to $5 and two things usually happened. Everyone would fold, allowing me to win the pot immediately or one guy would call and chase me all the way to the river paying $5 a card. When the situation was reversed and I was one of the players limping in for $1, I never got raised. The only time my opponents would make the big $5 bet would be on sixth street or at the river. The rest of the time they would just bet $1 or $2. I played this game about 6 months (500 hours) and I averaged better than $8 per hour which included a $5 rake. Later on, the cardroom I played in started spreading a $2-$10 spread limit 7 card stud game with no ante and a $2 bring-in by the low card. This game lasted about 6 months and died because so many players were losing so much money. There were maybe 3 or 4 of us that were averaging better than $10 per hour and the others that moved up from $1-$5 were simply losing too much money so the cardroom dropped the game. Instead, the players who wanted to play higher had to switch to hold-em which is what I did in 1997 because there were no decent sized stud games where I played.
x
HOW DO OTHERS SEE YOU AT THE TABLE !!
Grab a pencil and paper and keep track of your letter answers.
There are 10 questions.
1. When do you feel your best?
(a) In the morning (b) During the afternoon and early evening (c) Late at night
2. You usually walk
(a) fairly fast, with long steps (b) fairly fast, but with short, quick steps (c) less fast, head up, looking the world in the face (d) less fast, head down (e) very slowly
3. When talking to players, you
(a) stand with your arms folded (b) have your hands clasped (c) have one or both your hands on your hips (d) touch or push the person to whom you are talking (e) play with your ear, touch your chin, or smooth your hair
4. When relaxing at the table, you sit with
(a) your knees bent and your legs neatly side by side (b) your legs crossed (c) your legs stretched out or straight (d) with one leg curled under you
5. When something really amuses at the table,
you react with
(a) a big, appreciative laugh (b) a laugh, but not a loud one (c) a quiet chuckle (e) a sheepish smile
6. When you enter the poker room, you
(a) make a loud entrance so everyone notices you (b) make a quiet entrance, looking around for someone you know (c) make quietest possible entrance and try to stay unnoticed
7. You are working hard, concentrating hard on a and. You are interrupted. You:
(a) welcome the break (b) feel extremely irritated (c) vary between these two extremes
8. Which of the following colors do you like most?
(a) red or orange (b) black (c) yellow or light blue (d) green (e) dark blue or purple (f) white (g) brown or gray
9. When you are in bed at night, in those last few moments before going to sleep, you lie
(a) stretched out on your back (b) stretched out face down on your stomach (c) on your side, slightly curled (d) with your head on one arm (e) with your head under the covers
10. You often dream that you are
(a) falling (b) fighting or struggling (c) searching for something or somebody (d) flying or floating (e) You usually have a dreamless sleep (f) Your dreams are always pleasant
POINTS:
1. (a) 2 (b) 4 (c) 6 2. (a) 6 (b) 4 (c) 7 (d) 2 (e) 1 3. (a) 4 (b) 2 (c) 5 (d) 7 (e) 6 4. (a) 4 (b) 6 (c) 2 (d) 1 5. (a) 6 (b) 4 (c) 3 (d) 5 (e) 2 6. (a) 6 (b) 4 (c) 2 7. (a) 6 (b) 2 (c) 4 8. (a) 6 (b) 7 (c) 5 (d) 4 (e) 3
(f) 2 (g) 1 9. (a) 7 (b) 6 (c) 4 (d) 2 (e) 1 10. (a) 4 (b) 2 (c) 3 (d) 5 (e) 6
(f) 1
Add the total number of points.
OVER 60 POINTS: Others see you as someone they should "handle with care." You are seen as vain, self-centered, and extremely dominant. Others may admire you and wish they could be more like you, but they don't always trust you and hesitate to become too deeply involved with you.
FROM 51 TO 60 POINTS: Your seen as an exciting, highly volatile, rather impulsive personality; a natural leader, quick to make decisions (though not always the right ones). They see you as bold and venturesome, someone who will try anything once; someone who takes a chance and enjoys an adventure. They enjoy being in your company because of the excitement you radiate.
FROM 41 TO 50 POINTS: Others see you as fresh, lively, charming, amusing, practical, and always interesting; someone who is constantly the center of attention, but sufficiently well balanced not to let it go to your head. They see you also as kind, considerate, and understanding; someone who will cheer them up and help them out.
FROM 31 TO 40 POINTS: Other people see you as sensible, cautious, careful, and practical. They see you as clever, gifted, or talented, but modest. Not a person who makes friends too quickly or