![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
There are many situations where it is correct to fold the current best hand. In pot-limit Omaha, AsKsTc9c should usually go in the muck against action on a flop of 8h7h6d. In limit Omaha-8, A2KQ rainbow is no g00t in a 4-way unraised flop of 8c6c3c after a bet, raise, and call. In seven-card stud, two dead small pair on fifth street should be folded against a live high pair and several live draws unless the pot is large.
There are many fewer situations where the hand with the highest chance of winning should be folded. Let's say the game is pot-limit 5-card stud with the bug. Also, let's play it the way some people do where you can choose to turn your downcard up and get your next card down. On fourth street, you have As-2c-3s-Ac up, and your opponent shows 9h-Jh-Th-Joker, all face up. Assume the money is very deep. Out of the remaining 45 cards, 22 possible fifth cards for your opponent put him ahead, while 23 don't. So you are the favorite here. But he has the informational advantage. He knows where you stand, but you don't know what he has. You will pay off some of his wins and/or fold incorrectly in times when he actually missed, while you will never get more money on a win unless you call his bluff. If he uses a game theoretic bluffing frequency, he will bluff 11 times, and always bet his 22 wins. Regardless of how often you fold or call, your EV is 12/45 of the pot after fourth street. So even though you are the favorite, you shouldn't call a pot bet on fourth!
Make that As-2c-Ks-Ac against 8h-Th-9h-Joker.
In your limit O8 example, I tend to disagree. How is folding an almost guarenteed 1/4 of a 4 way pot(ie, money back no loss) and possibly 1/2 of a possibly large pot? Folding this would be a mistake. The only way folding would be correct is if you saw A2 in two other players' hands. In an unraised pre-flop O8 game, the chances or someone else with and A2 are probably lower. I think not atleast calling all the way down is a mistake.
Hi,
can anyone give me an idea how can I take private lessons on 7 cs from some of the known poker authorities?
Thanks
David S. gives private lessons. I'm sure there are others.
Zee gives private lessons but he doesn't take cash you have to clean his subterranean outhouse cellar where he grows mushrooms for cranium research. He has a special grant at MIT that I check on every now and then for medicinal purposes only.
ukw
Roy West writes a column for Cardplayer and has written a book on Seven Card Stud. He gives lessons to players up to and including $10-$20 stud. His rates may be reasonable so you should check out his ad in Cardplayer.
I believe Sklansky charges $300 per hour. Bob Ciaffone gives lessons but I am not sure about Seven Card stud but you can call and ask him (1-517-792-0884).
Thanks for the responds. I really appreciate it. Roy's West book is really great, but I want to learn to play at higher stakes.
I would be interested to take lessons from Sklansky or Caro. Anybody knows how to contact them?
Thanks
There's a long haired white haired guy whom I've played stud with about a dozen times or so at the Mirage. He plays excellent. He told me that he gives lessons. I can't remember his name though. Perhaps someone can help me remember. He used to train tigers and I swear I saw his picture in Mike Caro's tells book. He looks like a skeleton.
.
Thanks. His name is indeed Rick Greider. Now that I've just called him a skeleton in public, I hope he doesn't send one of his tigers after me. I'm allergic to cats!!!
Anybody in AC (NJ) area?
I'm not sure whether or not Ciaffone teaches thru the phone but he probably does. And I'm pretty sure he's not from Joyzeee. But he's probably your man. His book is awesome and I assume he can teach well too.
How can I contact them?
I just learned from the Other Topics forum that David Sklansky teaches over the phone too. He's definitely worth it, even at double the price.
Man, that guy charges a lot.
We know Mason Malmuth plays 30/60 hold'em, and David Sklansky plays the 60-120 to 150-300 hold'em/mixed games (or at least that's the perception that they have given us)....Ray - what do you play and do you play often these days? Just curious, that's all.
not too much anymore as im all washed up and over the hill. but when i go to l.a. i like to play in the biggest 7 stud games they have which last time was 80&160. in northern cal. i played in the no limit games. at the tournaments when i go, i play in the bigger or biggest pot limit and no limit holdem and omaha games. or i will usually play any and all comers except a few, headup poker for any amount they can raise, borrow, or steal.
and david and mason do play those games and higher and win most of the time against all the fields they play in.
Do mind if I ask who the players you won't play are?
friends and those whose style make it tough to muscle around(makes for no edge). no one in particular thats too good.
Darn! Now I know I'll never be able to play Ray heads-up. BTW, we're not friends, just cold-blooded businessmen. ;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
na, were still friends even though you blew all my dough on tips to the girls and keno. when i see you i wont even tell lawyer jokes.
Thank you Ray. Funny thing is, during a break at the TOC, Vince walks up with David S. to introduce us. Before I can even say any of the usual niceties, DS is spouting out a lawyer joke. He then giggled a bit, and walked away.
Also, DS is a lot smaller than I expected. I always got the impression he was tall, for some reason. Not that this means anything, just one of the few observations I was able to make in such a short interaction.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
you probably only heard about how tall David is from people who have only seen him sitting down, as he is tall then because he is sitting on his fat wallet stuffed full of hundreds.
Ever been to AC? If you do go there I'll buy you a pizza and a good beer.
i may go to ac and or foxwoods if they have decent winter tourn. this year as they are non smoking. i been to both and you can buy me pizza at the cal. pizza kit. beer is on me. dont tell vince as he will want to tag along with us like a puppy.
Ray, what game do you think making you the most money, pot-limit, no-limit or limit poker?
regards,
jikun
i think i make the most per hour in no limit, then pot, then limit. but thats because of my style of play which works best at big betting. i think the most skill is at pot, then limit, then no limit with the no limit skill more of a people skill and understanding some fundamentals which are not apparent to most.
"some fundamentals which are not apparent to most". What do you mean specifically be no limit "fundamentals"?
" dont tell vince as he will want to tag along with us like a puppy."
You better believe it! I will be at the Foxwoods tournament, waiting with bated breath for the arrival of the infamous Z(ee) Man!
vince
"not too much anymore as im all washed up and over the hill. "
Praise the lord! The "Z"(ee) man is alive and finally being honest with his following! Praise the lord! All washed up! Anyone that sees that white mass of "goofoo" on your dome already knew that. All washed up, I'll say. Anyone that rely's on a FOSSIL to do his playing for him instead of getting his lazy butt off of the sheep (no I didn't mean sheet) and doing it himself is definitely pasture potential. Thank you again oh lord for letting the supposed king of 7 Card stud bone up to the fact that he is an old cow poke awiting boot hill occupancy! Praise the lord! Zeeman showing his true self. Washed up and now trying to put the TwoPlusTwo onus on David and Mason with the false statement "and david and mason do play those games and higher". Let's ask Mason and David when the last time they played higher than 80-160. Does the word "never" mean anything to you old fallacious washed up one!
Yes praise the lord the Zee man has come semi clean. What does he play these days? Let me spell it out for you. He has joined the ranks of the senior citizens. He has arrived. His game, and from what I hear he has mastered it, is.. Wait, maybe it's better if I sing it to you. Then I'm sure you'll get it. They have a song up in Montana land that they sarcastically yet afectionately sing to Z when it's time to play. The whole senior community comes by the hog farm and choirs to our hero: "B-I-N-G-O, B-I-N-G-O and BINGO is his NAME-O" Just like the game he plays.
Vince.
Thanks Ray....anytime you plan to come up to Northern Cal to play in the no-limit games (Lucky Chances is now spreading 2-3 tables on Wednesdays and Fridays - the first game stated at 10am this Friday), please post it, as I would like to be there and just say hi and play at your table (I know that sounds crazy for my own expectancy, but I actually do like to play with the best players, as learning is something important to me).
A short while ago there was a thread comparing games in California with those in Las Vegas. Various factors were cited regarding toughness of games, and cost of playing whether it be rake, time charge or button charge.
Here is my question. If I were to take a short vacation to do nothing but play poker at limits of 10-20 to 30-60, would I better off going to LA, the bay area, or Vegas? Assume that the cost of flying to any of those locations is the same. The differences between them are cost of lodging, local transportation, toughness of games, cost of playing, and cost and quality of food.
I know that I would not have to rent a car in Vegas, which makes local transportation costs low. But the only place that I know where I can take a meal break while playing at Bellagio is at the nearby snackshop. The food is not bad, but there is not much of a selection, and it's no bargain.
I've never playin in CA, so I don't know anything about the toughness of mid-limit games there. Would I have to rent a car even if I played exclusively at one place?
Would the answer change if I took the trip during the week as opposed to the weekend? Lodging is certainly cheaper in Vegas during the week, but are the games tougher? Last time I was in Vegas, I played 15-30 Hold'em. The games were horrible on Friday night, Saturday and Sunday. The games were great on Monday and Tuesday. There were some conventions starting on Sunday, and I wonder if that is what made the difference, or if my experience was a fluke.
Thanks, Steve Fiete
I live and play in So. Cal. I have never played in the Bay area and play in Vegas around 3-4 times per year. The game selection in L.A. is much better and they are easier to beat. However they are more expensive. In L.A. you pretty much need a car. Food is comped. You can get a casino rate on a room for around $50-60 per night. When you are not playing there are a lot of things to do esp. if you have a car. In Vegas you pretty much have the Bellagio and Mirage to choose from. The games can be quite good but there are periods of time when they stink. In Vegas you're stuck in the middle of the dessert. It is 120 degrees everyday and there is very little to do besides poker and other gambling activities. If you want to do something outside you need to be up at the crack of dawn otherwise its too damn hot.
Bruce
Post deleted at author's request.
If you play at Hollwood Park you can get a room for $20 a night $30 on weekend at Crystal Park a 20 minute drive during no rush hour traffic. They even have a shuttle that goes every hour, so in theory you don't need to rent a car.
Crystal Park has no mid-limit games though, so it would be worthless for this guy to go there. When I was there this weekend, I asked a dealer "what's your biggest game, normally?" - he said 6-12.
If in southern cal, I would suggest Bicycle Club. The food is good and free, and it seemed that they usually had a 15-30, 20/40, and/or 40-80. Plus the rake was the lowest there in all of LA (40-80 rake is $7, at Commerce, it is $8 or $9, and Hollywood it is $9)
Do you really mean that the *rake* is $7-$10? or is that a time charge per hour or half-hour? or is it a dead-button drop?
I thought the cost of playing was the highest in the country here in the midwest where we pay 10% with $5 max rake per pot.
.
Badger - I don't know if you missed the thread concerning win rates in the three areas - or maybe I missed your comment.
Basically, my question was : if you can average 1BB/hr in a midlimit game in LV, what does that translate to in LA / Bay Area.
The most concise info (accurate or not, I don't know) came from Abdul, who claims to have played a significant amount of time in all three spots - he said 1BB/hr in Vegas = .5 in LA = .75 in Bay Area.
It seems you disagree with his Vegas/LA comparison - do you (I'm just trying to get another opinion, not trying to stir up a controversy or anything like that)?
Thanks.
Post deleted at author's request.
But isn't game selection everything?
Though Badger's reasoning is often clouded by his dislike for a particular sandnigger, he has a point here. These very different games (Vegas vs. L.A hold'em) require very different skills.
That said, my belief is that for a top player knowledgeable enough to exploit the fish in both flavors of the game, weak-tight ones will be much more profitable (this is the gist of Abdul's writings on Vegas vs. L.A). The fish in L.A. are rocket scientists compared to Vegas fish. The L.A. fish will school and (implicitly) join forces against you, while the Vegas fish are simply fodder to the pros.
On top of that, when the L.A. wannabe-pro makes a mistake against a top player, it's usually a small one (he calls once or twice too many). When the Vegas wannabe-pro makes a mistake against a top player, it's a big one (he folds once or twice too many). His win rate will reflect this very sharply.
BTW, I kinda like you, Steve. We simply must get together sometime for some social hold'em/omaha8 headsup mix.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
Mississippi still gets my vote. Although I've never played in CA, after playing Vegas and AC, I'll take Mississippi anytime.
How does that rate compared to SF/LA/LV? It's non-smoking, so that's got to be a plus.
AZ is not non-smoking. One card room went non-smoking for one month, but that is the extent.
the games are soft, a kind of Meca for live play. consistent up to 20-40. spitball
I enjoyed myself there.
Skip Vegas except for the big tourneys. Go to Tunica, Mississippi (fly to Memphis, rent a car and drive the 20-30 miles south to Tunica).
Games are mostly hold-em, from 4-8, 10-20, 15-30, 20-40, to pot-limit. Poker room rate at the Horseshoe is $28/night on weekdays, food is comped, and the games aren't that tough. Make a reservation though, because even on weeknights during the summer, the place stays pretty full (I was there late last Sunday, and the hotel was booked solid).
They do allow smoking (great ventilation though). On the other hand, unlike S. California, you don't have to be concerned so much about the traffic, bad neighborhoods (where all the card clubs seem to be located in LA), getting cheated, or getting mugged.
I'm not sure how many casinos are in Tunica (I think about 12), but most seem to offer poker.
Oh, I'm sure someone will point out that your post belongs on the other forum ;-)
What is the typical rake or time charge in Tunica?
Are most mid-limit games going 7 days a week?
Although you'll only find games above 20-40 on thursday - Sunday, Missippi has by far the easiest to beat mid limit games in the world. And there are plenty of cheap places to stay and lots of public transportation.
If you would like better weather and great beaches, try San Diego. Ocean's 11 has a 20/40 and 30/60 game that can be very hot. Many of the dealers in the area play. There is also a pot limit game that used to be hosted by Mike Carson. If you try it, bring money, lots of money, and your A+ game. Stay away from the lower limits. Too tight to be worth the time. There are two motels are two motels close by. Plan to rent a car.
A low limit game worth checking out is the 8/16 at Viejas in Alpine. The limit generates much more action than you would expect. The Chinese menu is great. Avoid Syquan and the smaller clubs, except for the Village Club in Chula Vista. The action is great, if you can get a seat.
Geez, what happened to O11? The low limit games there used to be super loose, at least as loose as anything in LA. Heck, on my better nights (luckwise) I could win $1,000 in the 4-8 kill HE game. I had seen other people (who played more hands and longer sessions) win over $4,000. And the 9-18 used to always be a good game.
Too bad.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Steve,
I have played all three areas a fair amount in the middle limit games. I like all three.
Vegas is either Bellagio or Mirage. I prefer Bellagio as it has more game selection and the place is great. But, the 30-60HE can be tough and the smoking is a problem. Find Roy Cooke and sit in his game. Watching him play, listening to his coversation and watching his friend Melissa is worth it, just avoid playing in the same hands. The rake is the best deal. Wish CA did the same.
LA has the best game selection with little to no wait. Commerce is the best of the bunch and the games are usually excellent. The Bike and Hollywood Park are good alternates. My overall vote goes to LA.
Little is said about my home venue, the Bay Area. Most talk about Bay 101. It is very nice with pretty good game selection but the best overall game selection today is none other than Lucky Chances just south of SF. I mean multiple and great 20-40HE, some 40-80HE, 80-160HE with No-Limit 10-10-20 blinds two to three times a week. Good luck.
Bob Lewis
Hi folks: Having trouble with Greg's poker client. Getting a "24057 Socket is not connected" Message. Suggestions? I have tried changing the port from 6667 to 6666 to 7666 (on a friends computer and he uses AOL). Help appreciated. Thanks
.
I was wondering if there was anyone out there that could inform me of a fromulae of trick to knowing which card will be delt next or just a way to become good at card counting?
I can't tell you a simple formula for determining which card will come off next, but I can tell you a simple one to determine which will come off last!
Seriously, you need to define in which game you are interested in using this information. Arnold Snyder has covered blackjack counting systems, but they are only going to give you a blackjack oriented *probability* of which card will come off next. Short of memorizing all the cards that come off the deck, you won't have complete information and even then, unless a large number of cards have been dealt, you will still be dealing in a probabilistic prediction.
I was wondering if anyone knew of a simple formulae to help with predicting the next card to be delt. Also i was curious of a way to get good at counting cards.
I can tell you which card will come off the top of a shuffled deck of poker cards (No Joker) one out of 52 times.
I usually count cards one at a time, but sometimes, to impress people, I count them two at a time.
CV
Buy "The World's Greatest Blackjack Book".
It will take your from never having played BJ before to a winning card counter.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"Card Counting for Dummies"
a card that has already been dealt has a zero probability of being the next card dealt (modulo the integrity of the dealer).
a card that has not already been dealt has probability (1 / # of cards left) of being dealt next.
given that this isn't very useful, i suggest using a magic 8 ball to conduct a binary search over the space of undealt cards to derive your predictions. you will have to ask at most log_2(n) questions, where n is the number of cards left, to arrive at a prediction. in addition to the obvious speed of this method, i guarantee that in the long run it will succeed at least as often as anything else you might try.
"Also i was curious of a way to get good at counting cards."
Start with 52 and subtract one evertime a card is dealt. When you get to zero there are no more cards left.
Vince.
Counting cards at which game?
I assume you refer to 7 cs. But, here are my handy tricks -
learn a complex blackjack count, if you play that game anyway. This will help.
Learn to play gin, and play a lot. This will help a ton, and be more fun than blackjack.
The only way to get really good at this is practice, practice, practice. On 3rd street, it is difficult, but you just have to keep a list of dead cards. When plaing gin, it is helpful to imagine a 13x4 grid to represent the deck. One might try this for stud. I use this method sometimes.
Eventually, you will be reading hands on 3rd, and guessing opponents hole cards and factoring this into your count.
For starters, try remembering folded 3rd street cards. Then add on any 4th-7th street folders to your list, as they fold. This is especially easy in a loose game, because there often are many players who have not folded. Also, (in loose games) those playing to 4th usually see the river, and the players are slow enough this should NOT be that hard.
Good luck.
Aaron could not ask such a dumb question and at the same time remember that there are two a's in his name. Aaron is putting people on.
I think he's joking too.
I have a simple math question.
If seven squared is forty-nine and eight squared is sixty-four then why isn't 7 1/2 squared equidistant between forty-nine and sixty-four.
The midpoint between forty-nine and sixty-four is fifty-six point five, but 7 1/2 squared is fifty-six point two-five.
What exactly am I missing?
Jeff Pilt
Maybe someone else can give a better explanation, but if you graph it out, any equation with a square in it will have an exponetial curve to it. A hyperbola I believe.
CV
CV has it right. For 7.5 to be the midpoint, the situation has to result in a linear relationship. But, squaring numbers is not a linear function, so you don't get the result you expected.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Actually, it is a linear function, but it isn't graphed along a straight line.
x˛ is a non-linear function.
The curve generated would be a parabola, not a hyperbola. Take note: a hyperbola is not the same as the hyperbole we sometimes see on this forum.
(7.5)^2
= (7 + .5) * (7 + .5) = (8 - .5) * (8 - .5)
= 7^2 + 2*7*.5 + .5^2 = 8^2 - 2*8*.5 + .5^2
That's just the way it works out. You can't square an average and expect it to stay an average.
Perhaps a more cogent way of explaining it:
Consider 7*7, 7*7.5, and 7*8. Then 7*7.5 is indeed the midpoint. But when you square everything, you're multiplying them all my different numbers, so there is no reason to expect the 7.5 to remain the midpoint.
It doesn't even work with whole numbers. Consider 1^2 and 5^2. The average of 1 and 5 is 3, but the average of 1 and 25 is 13, which is a lot different from 3^2.
Really, the more I look at my explanation, the worse it gets. Maybe someone else will try.
if you thought the other explanations were confusing, just wait till you read this one.
7.5^2 is the midpoint between 7^2 and 8^2. just not with the euclidean metric.
the way we usually measure distances intuitively is with the euclidean metric. the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees and everything is linearly related.
but we can imagine tons of different metrics. and in some of them 225/4 is equidistant from 49 and 56.
i'll tell you one of the coolest metrics. let's say the distance between two points is 0 if they are the same point and 1 if they are different points. it is easy to verify that this is a metric ( d(a,a)=0, d(a,b)>=0, d(a,b)=d(b,a), d(a,b)+d(b,c) >= d(a,c) )
one cool thing about this metric is that the midpoint between any two distinct points is any other distinct point!!
how'd ya like that?
scott
What you are missing is that when you square a number, you're using it twice, rather than once. If you were to cube the numbers, you'd see the discrepancy become even bigger.
The formula for squaring a sum is:
(x + y)² = x² + 2xy + y²
It's that last little bit (the y²) that's causing your question, because it multiplies the difference by itself. Like this:
(7 + ½)² = 7² + (2 * 7 * ½) + ½²
(7 + 1)² = 7² + (2 * 7 * 1) + 1²
The first part doesn't change between the two. The middle part of the first one is half of what the middle part of the second one is, which is what you seem to be expecting. It's the third part that throws you off, since for the first one its ¼, but 1 for the second, which isn't an even halfway. It's .25 lower than halfway, which is why your result is .25 lower than the average.
This can easily be seen if you draw out the squares. Which I can't do here. Just draw a square of 7, 7.5 and 8, where they're right on top of each other, sharing two sides.
Hope this helped!
That's what I wanted to say...
What is 3 squared?
If 2 squared is 4 and,
if 4 squared is 16, and since
4 + 16 = 20 and
20/2 = 10,
then 3 squared should be 10. Right?
Your question is the same as asking,
"Why isn't 3 squared 10?"
Buzz
It is simple algebra. The average of x squared and (x+1) squared is: x squared plus (x squared +2x + 1) all divided by 2. That equals x squared + x + 1/2.
On the other hand (x+ 1/2) squared is x squared + x +1/4.
The reason is that when you make a number bigger and square it, you have a greater imact on the new square than if you make a number smaller and square that. For instance 5 squared is 25. If you increase 5 by 2 and then square it, your new square of 49 is an increase of 24. On the other hand if you decreased 5 by 2 your new square of 9 is a decrease of only 16. That is why the average of 7 squared and 3 squared (29) is greater thn 5 squared. Same principle as your question.
Averaging is a linear function while squaring is a non-linear function.
Aren't you glad you can? (x˛+(x+1)˛)* ˝ = x˛+x+ ˝ Now why didn't I think of that?
(n/t)
good idea, jim. but then we'd still need a separate forum for whatever this was. it certainly wasn't a math puzzle.
I don't care one way or another about a special forum for math puzzles -- the main thing is how is it in some way related to poker.... The square root & average thing between two consecutive integers doesn't really interest me. (I guess the square root thing evolved because DS mentioned it "uses it" in his discussion of how much "bankroll in reserve" various poker players need.) Has DS presented in this forum a derivation in math form on how he derived the bankroll problem? Maybe he has -- I would like to see it. If not I will attempt to do so.... Another math problem....
Maybe I am repeating myself but, a few months ago while playing OM8, a player mentioned he was curious how often there was a possible low in OM8 resulting from the five board cards. He said, "I think it's about fifty percent." I knew it was higher than that because -- using monte carlo techniques, "if I remember correctly from years ago" there was a low for the OM8 players about 52% of the time if in a nine handed game they all players went to the river.
Using closed form probability techniques, I calculated that there is "in the long run" a 60.2% chance for a possible low in OM8 from the distribution on cards on the board "flop, turn and river". Wilson's Turbo OM8 program predicts a somewhat higher percentage on the average. I used about twenty starter seeds "pseudo random number" program seeds for Wilson's OM8 HiLo program. The program predicts a possible OM8 low about 62% of the time. It essentially never predicted a low less than 60.2% of the time. I always used sufficient number of trials "iterations" in this study. Pseudo ramdom number generators are never perfect -- but there are techniques to improve any generator by introducing more degrees-of-freedom in the technique.
If anybody is interested in my analysis, than please let me know. I will gladly email them a copy of the results and technique that I used to come up with 60.2%. Also if anybody else has done this study in an analytic form, I would be interested in their results.
2 squared is two twos.
3 squared is three threes.
4 squared is four fours.
5 squared is five fives.
...and so on
Make sense?
No duh. The only poster who made any sense is Tom Haley. X squared (X**2) is a non-linear function. Simple. That's it. By definition, a non-linear function does not behave linearly. Another "No duh."
If memory serves, introductory algebra handled this question. We're not talking rocket science here. Jeez, how much math did you people take??
David,
I was told that you are teaching 7 CS lessons.
Can you, please, contact me at lnarod@yahoo.com.
Thanks.
How would top tournament an no limit players like Cloutier and Hellmuth stack up against the top limit players (in a limit game. Or are they the best limit players? Is it safe to say that the WSOP stars are the best poker players in the world?
They are both dead meat playing limit hold-em in a cash game against most of the better players around. It's not even close. Being a top tournament player does not translate into playing ring games well for most tourney players.
Just my 2cents for whatever it's worth.
Bruce
why? what is it about the different skills in tourneys and ring games that make one successful in one and not another?
Playing a tournament translates to playing with (and against) scared money. Loose aggressive tournament champs build their stacks spreading fear with their I-represent-a-top-pair raises. When they try that against my AK and my oversized bankroll in a limit poker cash games, they find their ass raised on the turn a bit too often for their taste.
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
From what I have heard, many of the tournament superstars are not superstars in high limit games. Players who do well in tournaments but not as well in ring games include players like Phil Helmuth, Scotty Nyugen, T.J. Cloutier, John Bonetti, Tom McEvoy,etc. to name a few. These players find themselves in fast company when they start playing against Chip Reese, Danny Robison, Doyle Brunson, Berry Johnston, Lenny Martin, and Ron Stanley.
The reason is because tournament poker, big bet poker, and limit poker require different skill sets. The reason that tournament players and frequently pot limit players have trouble beating high limit games is because they cannot move people off a hand as easily. The problem with limit poker is that you have to almost always showdown the best hand to win. You will not win a pot with fancy check-raising or through repeated betting and raising since the betting amounts are usually small compared to the pot size. Imagination, creativity, deception, psychology, etc. are not nearly as important in full tabled limit hold-em as they are in big bet poker or tournament poker. In fact too much imagination in limit poker can get a good player in trouble. Full tabled limit hold-em is very much a card game requiring proper technique and is not nearly as much a "people game" as many believe.
It would seem that good no-limit player would be excellent in trapping players. They probably do this routinely in no-limit, when it is much less profitable and probably a mistake to trap in most limit situations. But, being great players they should be able to adjust, right? They must have moved up through the limit ranks like the rest of us.
they are both great players and would kill any side games they play in if they played in smaller stakes games. tournament players tend to play in large side games and get beat. they are not accustomed to those games that are played in by the best players in the world. in a tournament you arent playing with a table full of champs at all times like in the big cash games. but you can bet all you like that if any(most) of the recognized by me champs at tournaments had to play in smaller side games they would be big winners. good nolimit players get eaten alive in limit games and good limit players get eaten alive in no limit games. just like when micheal jordan went to play baseball. there are precious few that can play both well enough.
Ray, you are known to be world class at both limit and no-limit. What intellectual and emotional adjustments do you make in order to make successful transitions between the two? I have learned to make some successful adjustments myself. For example, when I'm playing limit I'm more relaxed and detached but when I'm playing no limit, I am a lot more into it rather than detached. I also play a lot more aggressively in no limit where I'll constantly raise with 56o for deception and implied odds reasons. I'm starting to get good at both but how can I make a good thing even better?
in both games i just try to make the play that gives me the best results. id stay away from that 56o a little unless you are stealing the blinds. and there is never implied odds for it in normal situations.
I have never played with T.J. but have played limit hold-em with Phil a good half dozen times. Everyone at the table including myself wonders how this guy can possibly win a tournamnent let alone the Big One. Besides being very temperemental to the point of being obnoxious his limit hold-em play leaves quite a bit to be desired. His hand selection is very poor and he frequently overplays his hands to the point where he literally looks like he is the live one at the table. Perhaps these are the necessary skills to be a successful big bet player, because if they are he certainly does possess them.
Bruce
Seems the question has changed to Limit players vs Tournament players.
I was (and still am) under the impression Pot/No limit requires more skill than limit. Maybe some ideas which futhered this notion were No/pot limit games aren't spread anymore bc the fish lost their money all too fast and really didn't stand a chance. While in limit the fish can win and win (and thus come back) and keep the games alive.
Granted the set of skills are different but I stil believe Pot/No limit has more skill.
However I should note I am thinking of Ring games and not tournaments, I think/suspect there is way too much luck in those event.
Comments!?
In my book POKER ESSAYS there are a couple of chapters where I address this issue. My conclusion is that limit hold 'em is strategically more difficult than no-limit hold 'em. But I do agree that no limit hold 'em is psychologically more difficult.
You make a good point that comparing no-limit tournament players to limit ring game players is not the same thing. I have argued that no-limit tournament play is actually a "weak" form of no-limit because many hands are played where someone is all-in after the first (or second) round and thus the later streets do not have to be played well since there is no play to them. In fact, all tournaments, whether limit or no-limit have this characteristic, and thus you can argue that virtually all tournaments, regardless of the type of poker being played, are a form of "weak" no-limit.
As for someone like Phil Helmuth, there is no question that he is very good at this weak form of no-limit. Even though I use the word "weak," there is still substantial skill in it. However, my opinion, and I want to stress that it is my opinion, is that he just happens to have the right style for it. Furthermore, for reasons that are too complex to get into here, I predict that he won't do nearly as well in the future as he has done in the past. (This has something to do with regression towards the mean and the fact that other tournament players have learned to adjust to his style and some of the correct plays that he happens to make are not as effective as they use to be.) It is also well known that he has done very poorly in side games, and even though I haven't played with him in years, when I did play some limit hold 'em at his table it was very clear (to me) that he should stick to the tournaments.
I wish I could express myself as eloquently as you. Couldn't agree with you anymore.
Bruce
I suspect (only having played pot limit a few times) that limit games require more skill BUT the punishment for playing poorly is much higher (in the short term) in pot/no limit games.
I say, in the short term, because a poor player might lose a substantial amount quickly and simply stop playing poker.
In a limit game a player may draw upon other resources (such as monthly paychecks) and the losses,over time, may extend much past what they might lose playing pot limit.
There would be exceptions of course such as someone losing their house and/or business by playing in large no limit games.
Just a few random thoughts (I agree with much that's been said already.).:
Specialization has much the same implications in poker as in other fields. Specialists in a certain area will *usually be the best. There have been a small number of players, though (Zee et al), who have done very well across a bunch of different games/structures.
Nevertheless, as Mike Sexton (obviously a major tournament supporter) acknowledged in a column a couple of years ago, the highest levels of poker talent, most of the very best players - if you had to pick between tournament and live game specialists - are found in live games. That's in large part because an excellent player can make more, and, God knows, make it much more consistently, in higher limit games than on the tourney circuit.
Would a player known primarily for unusual tournament success typically do well in the higher limit live games? Aside from the good points others have made, one thing that's clear is that the only players we *know can really beat such games are the ones who have *done so, day in and day out, over a fair number of hours. Many of them are not well known outside the small circles of the games they play in. In recent months in the 80-160 hold'em game in LA, I've had occasion to play against quite a few "name" players, ranging from WSOP champs to players known mainly just in high limit circles. The best two or three players (IMO) I've encountered in that game have names few outside such games would know. They are simply very skilled regulars, among the best in a game through which an amazingly high volume of very good players passes. (As I've said, though, I have little doubt some posters here could succeed in such games - at least after some initial adjustment.)
You asked if the top NL/PL players didn't all come up the limit ranks like others of us. In many cases the answer is actually no. A good number of top big bet players either gravitated into those forms of poker early in their poker careers, or learned poker in areas, and in a time, in which big bet games were much more common. So that was what they learned. I have a friend who is more a NL player than a limit player, and the first time he ever played poker was in a NL home game in Texas. Another point: It's not like these days you work your way up the ranks and at the top, waiting for you, are the NL games. Limit games can be just as "big" or bigger than NL games. What's waiting is just bigger games, regardless of structure.
John Feeney wrote :
... "As I've said, though, I have little doubt some posters here could succeed in such games - at least after some initial adjustment.) "
can you specify exactly what you mean by the "intial adjustment"?
when I played in the 80/160 at the commerce (played for 6 hours), I found no necessary adjustment needed compared to my local 40/80 game...it was pretty much the same typical range of players, good & bad, tight & loose, aggressive & passive. of course, it was only 6 hours on a monday afternoon, so it may not have been a typical table makeup
"when I played in the 80/160 at the commerce (played for 6 hours), I found no necessary adjustment needed compared to my local 40/80 game..."
Well, only a few posters here have the chance to play much higher than about 20-40 on a regular basis. What I said could apply to the jump up from, say, 20-40 to somewhat higher, tougher limits like 40-80. Around SoCal you do often see a real change when you get up to about 40-80. (Though sometimes - like lately - some of those games can be surprisingly good, as Bruce can attest.) There's some adjustment needed to deal with a tighter, more aggressive game. (e.g., more emphasis on blind stealing situations, more intelligent "moves" being made, a bit more time spent playing short-handed…) But the Commerce 80-160 does sometimes play fairly similarly to the 40-80 games there, with some cross-over of players as well. However, on average, it's a bit tighter, with somewhat fewer mistakes being made overall. Also, the best players in the 80 game tend to be noticeably better than the best in the 40 games. So you just have to deal with a somewhat higher level of play on the whole. Still, it's certainly beatable. With a little game selection I suspect a lot of players who might think it's too tough for them would find they could do pretty well in it. Certainly a number of posters here could beat it.
Thank you, all the responses were excellent.
"Furthermore, for reasons that are too complex to get into here, I predict that he won't do nearly as well in the future as he has done in the past. (This has something to do with regression towards the mean and the fact that other tournament players have learned to adjust to his style and some of the correct plays that he happens to make are not as effective as they use to be.)"
I found it interesting that Mason seems to think Phil Hellmuth will be less successful in the future. Mason, you wrote that you didn't want to get into the details, but I was wondering if there was anyway to loosen your lip? I know that you don't want to scrutinize someone's style or analyze someone's play on a public form, but I think it would be instructive to know about these plays that he makes. There seems to be little talk about tournament plays at this site, and I was wondering if you could give us an example?
Someone also mentioned that players don't work their way up anymore. I am a college student who is twenty and have moved my way from 3-6 to 10-20. I was just curious if you knew why this was the case?
"Someone also mentioned that players don't work their way up anymore."
You may be misunderstanding something I said. What I meant is that there are quite a few good no-limit/pot-limit players who did not work their way up through limit games into big bet games. This is partly because a no-limit game is not necessarily bigger than a limit game. It just depends on the size of the blinds. Some of those players simply worked their way up from smaller no-limit games to bigger ones. (And of course a few who had the resources just jumped into bigger games from the start.) Anyone can afford to play no-limit if they use small enough blinds.
More generally, I was saying that NL/PL games do not define the top of the "food chain", so to speak. Bigger games do. Those can be limit or NL/PL. Limit games are of course much more common.
John Feeney wrote :
"Limit games can be just as "big" or bigger than NL games. What's waiting is just bigger games, regardless of structure. "
I agree. The no-limit games in Northern California have a $1000 buy-in, and it plays less volatile than the 40/80 games. I think one reason for this is that people are sometimes afraid to bet, as they are afraid to get raised. And also, it stops the random calling preflop and postflop by many of the very poor players as the bets are sometimes too big for the poor players to just throw their money in. For example, if an A flops, and someone has AK, they will typically make a pot-sized bet (ranging from 100-300), which is just too much for a no-pair to call (which, believe it or not, some of these guys would call without a second thought in the limit games)
Also, it's just a matter of the size of the blinds in NL or PL.
well, I take that back, I just figured out that the tournaments forum had the tournament plays! When I graduate college these tricky concepts should be easier for me.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 2:26 a.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 3:11 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 3:48 a.m.
Posted by: ex-newbie
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 1:36 a.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 2:33 a.m.
Posted by: JV
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 3:13 a.m.
Disclaimer: This post is not for those interested in learning anything about poker or anything else for that matter. In fact it is long and may not be of any interest at all to anyone but me.
Vince.
Day One.
I awoke, as usual, sometime in the afternoon. The sun, as usual, was brightly shining. After all I was in Las Vegas. What else would you expect. I ate something. I wanted to say I had breakfast but somehow eating in the afternoon just doesn' seem to fit with "breakfast". Being a blue collar person all of my life I still associate breakfast with early a.m. eating.
After a little lounging and t.v. surfing I left my Warrior Inn room and headed over to the place I was planning on spending the next few hours. When I got there everything was in order. Lots of people were mulling around. Some familiar some I had never seen before. Nothing was differnt. Even the unfamiliar faces were the same. I sat down with a bunch of folks and soon was deeply involved and having a fine time. Although the few hours I spent with these, mostly strangers, were not relaxing and in fact down right energy draining the time passed quickly and was very enjoyable. Not to mention profitable. When I was tired I got up. I stopped at a video rental place on the way back to my room and picked up "The Green Mile". Wow, I'm in Vegas and renting movies. I know that sounds depressing but I wanted to chill out and a movie felt right. I watched the film. Eh..It was o.k., then went to sleep.
Day 2
Got up around the same time. Went through the same rituals. Shower shave, mostly the top of my head, ate, lounged while surfing the channels and left my room. Today though I went to a differnt place. There was an event going on there and I wanted to participate. Got there to late. the party had already started and I was unable to get in. Oh well, a little disappointed but not terribly upset I decided to return to my favorite place where I was the day before. I had such a pleasant experience I was hoping to repeat it. When I got there nothing had changed. The same familiar and unfamiliar faces were there. I even got my same chair with the same unknown others that I interacted with the night before. It seemed as if I had never left. It wasn't long though before I became uncomfortable. Things were not the same, at least not from my perspective. An it just kept getting worse and worse. Soon I was besides myself, I felt out of control. I hadn't had this feeling for a long long time and I became increasingly worried. I was very close to just hanging it up and running out of the place when I caught a hold of my emotions and settled down. I decided I would stay longer than I had originally planned and just ry and regain control of my composure. I did settle down and things got better but I never really go to a point where I felt in control. After a lot longer than I should have stayed and being very tired and worn out I fianlly left. I was totally spent and headed straight for my bed and was out for the count before my head hit the pillow.
Day 3
When I woke this time it was dark out side. I was well rested physically but somewhat emotionally distressed. I began to think about the events that occurred the night before and yelled "NO". I was not going to dwell on negatives. No. So I forced myself to not think of what happened other than to try to keep it from occurring again. I decided to use it as a lesson. I would take a positve view of a negative event. I turned on the T.V. and surfed for a while. I looked at the clock, it was 7:30 p.m. I rembered that there was an event that I wanted to attend that began at 8:30. I hurried to the shower and rushed out of my room and scurried over to the place where they were holding the event. I arrived at 8:40 and was again too late to participate. I left. I got in my car and began to think of things to do. I did not want another experience like the one I had last night. I was reluctant to return to that place and face those same unfamiliar faces. That's when I decided that I had to go back. I was not going to let fear rule my life. Come hell or high water I was going back. When I got there I could not get over it. Everything was the same. I really don't know what I expected but I should have known that nothing was going to change. Same unfamiliar and familiar folks. One thing was different though. I ran into an old buddy. Well not really an old buddy who I had a lot of respect for. Actually a fairly new aquaintance that I had had some discussions with in the past. He was with his lady friend waiting to join the group just like I was. We talked for a little while. It was great. I became completely comfortable here again. Any trace of anxiety I had was gone. I sat in with the group and it was as if yesterday was a distant memory. It was day one all over and it stayed like that until I left. Another enjoyable experience. Not only enjoyable because it was profitable but because I felt in control of myself. I wouldn't have mattered what the outcome was I was satisfied with my self. I left early because I wanted to keep that feeling and got another movie. "The Talented Mr. Ripley" Weird but interesting. Then I went to sleep.
For those of you interested.
Place 1: Bellagio's
Place 2: Stratosphere
Events at Bellagios: 15-30 Holdem games
Events at stratospher: Daily tournaments.
Day 1: Won $850 in 5 hours
Day 2: lost $1050 in 15 hours. Was stuck $2700 after five hours of play. In seven years of playing 15-30 poker had never been stuck more than $1500 before. One half hour before I stopped I had come to within $450 of quitting even. Once I got stuck this bad I could never ocus completely on what was important. I only wanted to get unstuck. It was very stressful. No way to play poker.
Day 3: Won $1050 in 4 hours of play. Completely relaxed and in control for entire session.
Oh yeah, buddy at Bellagios: Mason Malmuth.
What's the point: None
Vince.
a bit warped. The funny thing (and somewhat scary) is that I understood exactly what you wrote. Oh, by the way, I owe yoy a dollar. Been playing 5/10 HE; not bad.
Welcome home, old buddy. Well, not really THAT old and I don't know you at all but, heh, this is cyberspace and you can't hit me.
Better reread "Threshold of Pain". You were a favorite on day two to have such a disaster there would be no day 3. You got LUCKY to get reasonably unstuck with the state of mind you apparently were in.
Never been stuck $1500 in a 15/30? What, you regularly bring only $1400?
- Louie
What's "Threshold of Pain?"
This is the way I first heard the term, and I'm pretty sure that this is what Louie is referring to. Either terminology is the same.
Mike Caro explained this theory to us at BARGE about 5 or so years ago. When you're playing poker, in the long run, every dollar you win (or every dollar you save) is the same. It doesn't matter whether the dollar came at the end of an otherwise losing session, or at the beginning of a winning session. So, it always matters that you play your best. However, when you're having a terrible session, whether due to bad luck or bad playing, the misery you feel from your loss can become so great that you've reached your threshold. That is, even if you lose thousands more from this point forward, your misery will not increase. People who have reached their threshold and continue to play are HIGHLY likely to lose every dollar they have on them or can obtain. They will often play like total maniacs or some other very bad player-type, in their attempt to win back enough money to reduce their misery.
His point was simply to be aware of this phenomenon so that you can avoid living it out. If you reach your threshold, and don't recognize it, it will likely have a severe negative impact on your bankroll. While losing that last $3,000 might not have increased your misery that night, it certainly will increase your misery the next day and thereafter, as you must live with the consequences of the total loss.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"You were a favorite on day two to have such a disaster there would be no day 3. You got LUCKY "
Louie,
Some things just always stay the same. Your (valuable) opinion is right on the money, as usual! I was just trying to relate the swings I experienced during this three day period. I thought they might be of interest. Your perceptive response may just be the most important point to learn from my experience. Something I had considered as I kept buying more chips but had not intended to point out in my post. Thanks for reminding me and putting it into words.
Vince.
Very good.
What makes your post good is that you write from the heart and not the head.
His head is squished by his "Bulls" cap he has to speak thru his heart.
paul
When's the last time you got laid? I'd rather here about that...although I have a feeling it may have been a while ago....
Al asked: When was the last time you got, well had sex!
Al,
It's been oh
s-o-o-oo
l
o
n
g
ago.
| can't seem to remember the feeling. By the way if you are proposing I'm sorry unless you are a female I wouldn't consider it.
Vince
Let me get this straight, Vince. You were in AC, LV and LA within the space of 2 months. You are certainly a decent looking chap (chicks like beards). You had a pocket full of money, a teriffic attitude, no excess baggage (as in the human type of mental baggage), no bad habits and you did not partake in any of the wonderful ladies available? (I am not making a judgement her as to legal or illegal activities).
You must rethink of how to use some of your free (or pay per use) time. Man does not live by bread and poker alone.
But ratso, poker lasts much looooooooonger.
Poker lasts longer NOW (It didn't whenI was 25). I think we all need a physical and mental break from poker once in a while, and while fishing for trout is nice (i.e Ray Zee), I think the other alternative to which I alluded might be better.
agreed
..as a mid-limit hold 'em player should read this. This is what it's like, every day. Sound fun?
Go to engineering school. Trust me.
Props to you, Vince. At least you never went to a sportsbook.
At least a poker pro doesn't have to kiss an employer's ass like all 9 to 5 working people do.
nt
The real idiot is the 9 to 5 person who kisses his boss's ass all day long seven days a week for most of his life, and is too damned egotistical, defensive, and insecure to admit it to his friends, family, and especially to himself. That's the real idiot!!!!!! And if you're him you oughta be ashamed to show your face in front of your children. You are a gutless bad example and are not worth looking up to. On the other hand, anyone who has enough independence and guts to leave the rat race and tell his employer to "Take this job and shove it up your ass!!" in pursuit of a full time poker career should be commended. The more you ingore these facts (as BetTheDraw suggests you should), the more you deny yourself of the truth that you know to be true deep down inside your conscience.
Well, the main problem with this point of view is that it does, by necessity, condemn most of the world. There can only be so many bosses, and so many independents, in the world. Thus, most of us will work for somebody else for most or all of our lives.
If you believe PV's position, then 90 odd percent of the world is doomed to a life of ass-kissing and humility in front of their families. I don't buy it.
Based upon how often he brings this up, it is my opinion that PV uses this line of thinking to boost his ego, and make himself think that he's better than most of the world. Even if he's right, and he is better than most of us, it's not because he plays pro poker.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I don't need to boost my ego because I don't have one. I'm just a humble little poker player discretely and patiently trying to speak his mind. And I never condemn people. I believe everyone is equal in the eyes of God. But not all philosophies about how to view and live life are equal.
Vince
Although I am not a pro, and only play lower limits most of the time, I can relate to your story.
When I lived on the east coast I often played three to six times a week. Probably averaged 30 hours a week in AC. Swings like the ones you described here were all too commonplace. Both $$ and emotional swings were common. Some days / weeks I could do no wrong, sometimes I could do no right. Sometimes the cards beat me over the head in every game, in all positions. Other times I couldn't lose a pot even if I folded BTF. Stayed 36 hours one time trying to get unstuck and wound up leaving AC dead tired and 50$ down. Those extra 25 hours made up the 500$ I was down though!!! Was it worth it... That's another story.
I think your post gives everyone who doesn't really know what it is like a glimpse into the reality of being a serious poker player. Especially you new players, take this to heart. You will be feeling it too, soon enough.
Dave in Cali
I've finally figured out how David Sklansky wins so much money playing poker. He simply outthinks everybody. While we're hopin our hand stands up he is figuring out all of the possibilities that could occur and is comparing that to what his reactions will be to those different possible outcomes. When we get a big pair we are thinking about how the cards are finally starting to break even and he is thinking about what everyone else could have and the most likely way they would play each of those particular holdings. When we flop a draw we are thinking that it is about time we finally make a flush and David is thinking about the best way to play the hand for maximum profit if he does make it and minimum loss if he doesn't. Not to mention all of the different bluffing scenarios that might develop.
I have started thinking a lot more deeply at the poker table lately. My results have improved. I watch every hand from beginning to end no matter how boring. Wow, that guy opened raised with Ace-ten off, hmmm, I better file that away. This other guy called a raise in the fourth seat with the Queen-eight of spades, better put that in the memory bank. She called a double bet on the button from an early raiser with nine-eight suited. The list goes on.
Once I started doing this I found myself playing much more...cautiously...not my normal style but it had the effect of keeping my losses smaller. I like that. It also earns me more respect at the table, if that is possible, and I can pick up a pot here and there that wouldn't have been possible previously.
I've played a lot with David and Mason, and I've played some with Ray. I never cared for the way they played. Just a couple more nits dragin down the game. I know what they're doin. They are trying to create an image. They don't take any reckless chances and then they wait for the right situations. Then they pounce.
I remember a hand David played many years ago in a twenty-forty game. He had just sat down and raised around toward the back, first one in, with the King-seven of spades. One other player called. David flopped a flush draw and bet all the way till the river when his flush card came and then he checked. The other guy bet and David got a check-raise in which the guy paid off.
I wouldn't have gone for the check-raise there fearing that the guy wouldn't bet but would almost certainly call a bet. So, I would have gone for the sure bet. But David was thinking much more deeply than the rest of us that were analyzing this play after David had left the table.
First of all, most of the players in the game couldn't believe that he would come in for a raise with King-seven suited. That didn't surprise me but the check-raise on the river sure did. How did he know the guy would bet and then almost certainly call a raise? He would have to know the guy would not only bet over 50% of the time but also most likely call his raise, otherwise the correct play would be to come out betting and almost certainly get paid off. Maybe he just knew the guy. Well, David wasn't there any longer so we couldn't ask him but I'm sure that he was pretty certain that the guy would swing at the pot and he did.
It just goes to show you that the deeper you think about the game the more profitable it becomes. What we all did notice though was the silly looking grin he had on his face when he checked his hand on the river. In retrospect -- what an acting job! It sure must have fooled his opponent because he came right out firing.
Where did you learn to think like that David? Is everything just logical analysis with you?
" How did he know the guy would bet and then almost certainly call a raise?"
He didn't. He knew that if the guy didn't have a hand he wouldn't call a bet. So he tried to induce a bluff and it worked. In fact it worked better than he figured because the guy called his raise. He must have had a hand or knew David was capable of a bluff raise. Of course if I am correct, and I would lay 5-1 that I am, it just emphasizes your point about David's "Deep Thinking". David is a math whiz. His kind have this thing about logic.
As far as who you are? Hmmm ... I will guess that you have never posted on this forum before and therefore I have no idea whom you might be. Correct? Vince.
First one in in late position with a K7s? He was obviously trying to steal the blinds. At worst, it would make a good image play if it didn't work. An image play with maximized benefits since it was done at the beginning of the session. Also, don't forget the fact that since he had just sat down, he probably had to post a big blind in late position and was therefore already in the pot for one bet. "While we're hopin our hands stand up he is figuring out all of the possibilities that could occur.....". Hope is a four letter word that David obviously does not believe in. "When we flop a draw we are thinking that it is about time we finally make a flush and David is thinking about the best way to play the hand....". Praying is a four letter word too. This is the moral lesson of your post: "Don't worry about what the cards are gonna do, focus on what you are going to do in response to the cards".
How come every time a "star" makes a marginal decision, i.e K-7 spades people instantly come to his defense suggesting that it must be an advanced play to develop his image. I may be a cynic, but they are human. Everything they do isn't calculated and analyzed fourteen levels.
If he made that K7s play based on at least all of the reasons that I mentioned (plus other reasons that I may not be aware of because I'm not deep enough of a thinker), it was definitely an advanced play.
If that was his thinking, he played the hand very well.
"Once I started doing this I found myself playing much more...cautiously...not my normal style but it had the effect of keeping my losses smaller. I like that. It also earns me more respect at the table, if that is possible, and I can pick up a pot here and there that wouldn't have been possible previously."
The other side of the coin is playing very aggressively when you have the edge. Sometimes you'll get burned, but if you are correct more times than not, and if you play the odds, you will come out a winner overall.
It can also be correct to call or fold to induce action from your opponent. For example, on the river if your partner bets, it may be correct to fold the best hand if you are very sure your partner has the third player beat, in order to induce a call from that person.
For the question in the example, it might be correct to call with even a small chance of winning, if the majority of the times you lose your partner will pick up the pot anyway. For example, your partner has top pair, you have a gutshot to the nuts, and you suspect the third player is on a straight draw. Your gutshot makes a higher straight than the open-ended straight draws on the board. By calling for the gutshot, you reduce the opponent's outs from 8 to 4.
Sorry about that. I'll put this under the right thread.
" I remember a hand David played many years ago in a twenty-forty game. He had just sat down and raised around toward the back, first one in, with the King-seven of spades. One other player called. David flopped a flush draw and bet all the way till the river when his flush card came and then he checked. The other guy bet and David got a check-raise in which the guy paid off.
I wouldn't have gone for the check-raise there fearing that the guy wouldn't bet but would almost certainly call a bet. So, I would have gone for the sure bet. But David was thinking much more deeply than the rest of us that were analyzing this play after David had left the table."
I'll bet David's thinking is even deeper than you realize: I'll lay odds that after the guy paid off the check raise, David had a nagging doubt that maybe betting out on the river instead of checking would have netted him three bets. Genius has its drawbacks.
Tom Weideman
Fourth St. Limit Holdem. Payer A bets. Player B calls. You are considering calling. To keep it simple we will say there is no fifth st bet. Normally you would call here if your chances of winning are better than your pot odds. However suppose you are partners with player B (or A for that matter). Now this is no longer the correct criteria. It might be right to fold a hand with better than a 50% chance of winning or to call with a hand that has only a 5% chance (even when the pot is small). So what exactly is the correct criteria under these circumstances?
clearly it matters whether the increased chances of the team winning the pot is worth the pot odds.
say you are against a Q high flush draw. your teamate has KK, an overpair to the board. and you have AA. you should fold even though you have the best hand.
similarly, it may be right to call with a gutshot getting very bad pot odds if the cards that would allow the opponent to beat your teamate would make your straight.
this is a pretty easy question.
scott
I don't tink it's that simple since you (i assume) do not know what your partner actually has.
It doesn't make any difference what you do if your partner is going to win if you fold. So you only care about the times the target is going to beat your partner if you fold. Of these times that the target has a good enough hand to beat your partner, its a "good" call if the chances against you beating the target compare favorably to the pot odds.
So if partner has an Ace flush, you have a full, and the target has a one-card straight flush draw, you should fold even though you are a 43:1 favorite since if target outdraws partner, you cannot win.
Conversely, if partner has Aces-up top two pair and both you and target have the same bottom pair, you should call if your kicker will tie or beat target even though you have only a one-card out: if target outdraws partner then YOU beat (or tie) target 100% of the time; even though you are a 43:1 dog.
No time to double check. Bye
- Louie
If the order of action is Player A--Player B--you: If you are colluding with Player A then the correct action would be to raise regardless of your hand. Now, Player A will do one of two things; if he is on a "monster" then he will flat call to keep B in. If he would rather drive B out of the pot then he will reraise to put maximun presssure on B, who will have to call a double bet AND face the threat of a reraise from you. If you are colluding with B then you should not raise as the threat of a reraise from B (after A presumably calls) would not be credible (B originally only called). If B had the "monster" he would not raise for fear of your misinterpreting his motive, and reraising to drive A out (which is what B would NOT want). Similarly, if B were on a bluff and wanted to drive A out then B would raise to allow you to participate in the pressure tactic, as above. Therefore B simply has a playable hand, such as a draw, and your raising would simply reduce his pot odds. Therefore he would rather you just called if your hand justified it (presumably your funds are pooled so he wouldn't care if you rather than he won the pot).
Summing up: raise without looking at your hand if you are partnering the initial bettor (A). Play your hand normally, but tend to avoid a marginal raise, if you are partnering the caller, B.
You should raise unless you just call in which case your partner will raise and you can then re-raise.
If you partner checks you can bet and then he will raise in which case you can re-raise if you still have someone left in the pot to beat.
If your partner bets and the other guy calls you can raise and partner can re-raise but if the other guy has the nuts you will lose more money and he will think you're nuts.
I would call when I have the best hand and fold with the worst hand when my partner has a better hand but can't call.
The best play of all may be to wait for a better hand and a get a different partner if things don't work out too well. It depends on how well you get along.
The strength of the various strategies available to a team that has isolated an opponent two-on-one should convince anyone with a brain that Internet poker is tantamount to monetary suicide (unless, that is, you intend to form a lil' ol' team yourself).
I think he's looking for a pot odds type criterion not some kind of strategy in a particular situation.
EG if the pots is laying you better odds than your chances to improve you can profitably call in a heads up situation. This is the criterion one uses if he doesnt' have one colluding w/him.
One should note this criterion should hinge on the probability that player C (who is colluding w/A) improves to beat B when A doesn't.
this may be the wrong forum for this, BUT; i have been playing 3-6 hold'em on the net ( always the same site; probably better i don't give the name ) for over a year - on avg. 8-10 hours per week. 80-90% of the players at this level are absolutely clueless. it's very difficult to calculate an hourly earn due to the tremendous differences in the pace of the game; i prefer to base my results on $$/100 hands. having played slightly in excess of 12,000 hands, i am ahead a little over $6,500. i am almost certain that cheating does occur ( i am not sure that it is more prevalent on the net than in live play ) but do you really believe it to be a major concern at this level ? i don't. i just find it hard to believe that there are enough parasites out there willing to put forth the time and effort to cheat at a game of this size. i consider myself to be a very good player although i am aware that it is the horren- dous play of my opponents that has allowed for most of this profit. at these stakes i find the game to be an excellent way to kill some time, and pick up a little extra walking around $$$. most of the opponents i encounter seem to view it as a good way to get rid of $$$ that they obviously do not want soiling their pockets. so far, we all seem to be getting what we want. would i consider moving to higher stakes ? I THINK NOT, but i do plan to continue to play, at least until i see evidence to suggest that things are not on he level. driving two hours to play three or four hours of 3-6 is insane - not to mention that the best player in the world could never win enough to cover his expenses, let alone show a profit. when i want to play for red chips i go to AC or CONN. when i want to play for green chips, i have my doctor adjust the dosage of my medication ( just kidding ). online poker is a wonderful thing when played at the right level; it's russian roulette when there is serious money involved. as Dennis Miller would say - " but that's just my oppinion; i could be wrong". regards to all ...
You have to consider the marginal effect on the probability of the team winning relative to the cost of calling and pot size. When you are playing alone, then the probability of winning if you call is the same as the marginal impact of calling vs. folding.
In other words you need to count the probability of your hand being better than the opponents hand AND the opponents hand beating your partner's hand. Use this as the basis to compare to the pot odds.
For example, if you were drawing to a K high flush and your partner were drawing to an A high flush, and you needed the flush to beat the opponent, then you should always fold no matter how big the pot is.
Steve Fiete
It can also be correct to call or fold to induce action from your opponent. For example, on the river if your partner bets, it may be correct to fold the best hand if you are very sure your partner has the third player beat, in order to induce a call from that person.
For the question in the example, it might be correct to call with even a small chance of winning, if the majority of the times you lose your partner will pick up the pot anyway. For example, your partner has top pair, you have a gutshot to the nuts, and you suspect the third player is on a straight draw. Your gutshot makes a higher straight than the open-ended straight draws on the board. By calling for the gutshot, you reduce the opponent's outs from 8 to 4.
To draw a parallel between collusion poker and bridge, pinochle etc., how big a problem is voice or hand signs to indicate what type of hand one might have as to be able to signal a partner? Would it not be nice if I could relay info to my partner that I had AA or a hifh flush draw? Is this even an issue?
Taking the question at its simplest:
By betting you will increase the partnership’s chances of winning, but will decrease the partnership’s pot odds. The increase to the partnership’s chances by the inclusion of your hand in play must be greater than its corresponding decrease in pot odds.
There are 4 bets in the pot at the beginning of the round. Your partner, A, has a 1:4 (.20) shot and bets. B calls. If you call, the partnership will have bet 2 to win 5 (.29). You need a better than 1: 10 (.9) to call. If you raise and get two calls, the partnership will have bet 4 to make 6 and so needs better than a .4 chance to win. You would need better than a 1:4 (.2) shot to raise, etc.
Example of what I mean: Reagan's threat of building the "Star Wars" missile defense system scared the Russians into bankruptcy and ultimately led to the Soviet empire's collapse. They believed him, and tried to match the US military buildup that was being fueled by deficit spending and a strong US economy. As we know now, the threat was bogus: even now we are years, even decades, away from deploying a functional missile-defense system. Reagan was akin to a seven-stud player showing a board of QJ109 of clubs, but holding a pair of red threes in the hole. The nagging question for the Russians was: is he bluffing? And even if he IS, he could catch lucky on the river (the US could develop the technology in the future anyway, as opposed to possessing it right then, which is what Reagan implied). The action of calling would have been to accept Reagan's offer to share the Star Wars technology and to dismantle all offensive weapons once the system was in place (which never would have been done, thus the bluff would have been exposed). But the Russians folded.
Can anyone come up with similar examples in world history?
I think the greatest example of an historical semi-bluff was the Cuban Missle Crisis. Absolutely brilliantly played hand, with the fate of the entire world at stake. The USSR bet, JFK addressed the nation and basically raised "all-in". Talk about moments of pure terror. In fact, even comparing it to a poker game is making light of the cold war's "moment of truth".
This was not a bluff. Kennedy would have attempted to sink the soviet fleet. Failing that, Kennedy was planning for and would have invaded Cuba to keep the missles out.
Fecal matter hit the fan in October 1962, not November. FYI: the current Newsweek has an excerpt on the Cuban crisis from a new biography of Robert Kennedy, claiming that he played a pivotal role in the eventually successful outcome.
And JFK's play WAS a semi-bluff: he hoped to "win" the hand right there, but he didn't have a hard plan if Khrushchev didn't fold. Options, yes.
The way I see it:
Starting hands....JFK clearly has a better hand, as the US is stronger than the USSR, has position, etc.
Russians catch a scare card; the U-2 does its reconnaisance amd takes pictures of the missile sites. This is a Russian show of aggression--a bet which may or may not be a semibluff. That's what Kennedy's got to figure out. In his address, Kennedy states: "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small." In other words, you're not stealing this pot. Semi-bluff raise. Kennedy: "I call upon Chairman Khrushchev to halt and eliminate this clandestine, reckless and provocative threat to world peace and to stable relations between our two nations." Obviously he doesn't really expect Khrushchev to fold up and say, "okay, we're outta here boys". But he expects him to think about it, and as we know, the opponent doesn't have to fold this time to make it worthwhile as a semibluff.
Khruschev: "I propose: we, for our part, will declare that our ships bound for Cuba are not carrying any armaments. You will declare that the United States will not invade Cuba with its troops and will not support any other forces which might intend to invade Cuba." Nikita calls.
The next street is even more interesting. Khrushchev issues the statement that if JFK wants the Soviets out of Cuba, the USA has to get out of Turkey. It semi-bluff bets out after just calling on the previous street. JFK's in a tough spot now. He can't muck it, the pot's too big, and there's still a really good chance he has the best hand (he does). His semibluff re-raise gets Khruschev to muck it; the Russian Premier's had enough.
The real question...if Khruschev had 3-bet and then lead out on the next street, would JFK have folded, or would Khruschev have just lost more..?
Reagan's threat was not responsible for the Soviet system's bankruptcy nor for their collapse. That country had been going bankrupt for a very long time, and the end result was inevitable. Reagan's threat may possibly have accelerated the process slightly. In addition, their much feared military was already in decline due to economic difficulties and maintenance problems. They were far more of a paper tiger than the U.S. was.
The Russians didn't fold by choice; they just had more pressing internal problems to deal with. Star Wars really didn't do all that much except point up the growing impotence and problems the Soviets were facing. They couldn't have kept up with Star Wars anyway and they knew it; hence all the bluster. Once they ran out of countries to expand into, their economic base was like that of a third world economy (selling natural resources to the rest of the world) as their only means of generating hard currency (plus arms sales). In the whole history of the USSR they never managed to produce any consumer goods that the rest of the world wanted to buy. Add in their incredibly inefficient mega-bureaucracy, and they had to fall down eventually. It finally became a choice of guns or butter. They are still piqued at not being a superpower anymore. But they always have been superb negotiators. They finally met another man they couldn't bluff.
You seem to have a very limited understanding of the Soviet Union. The bankrupcy of the USSR is a common american misconception, due in part to propaganda. Soviet Union had not very advanced but very stable economy. It was never oriented to production of consumer goods but rather to production of "means to productions" (instruments, machines, etc). All 5-years plans stressed that point. The USSR exported some consumer goods: cars "Lada", for example, were quite popular in Canada. Mostly, they exported technology. Soviet technologies and machines for oil retreiving and refining still cover about 80% of word oil industry. Soviet optics are still considered the best by all experts. Naturally, they also sold their oil and gas. The collapse of the Soviet Union had only political reasons, not economical.
I thought high level optics were best found in west germany.
Certainly my knowledge of the USSR is quite limited and possibly inaccurate.
However, the political collapse was just the surface; the economic collapse was the long-term root cause. Their economic system was destined for collapse, it just took decades for it to actually occur. Their economy became a basket case and still is.
If you think this is propaganda I have over 400,000 in old Soviet rubles I will be happy to trade you for a good steak dinner. You don't get the Czarist 10 ruble gold piece, though.
You misunderstand the power of fear in controlling people. So what if their economy was in shambles? The Soviet people had a culture of hardship. They were PROUD of it. Since the Bolsheviks took power all they had ever known was scarcity, fear, and tedium.
You can't apply western-style thinking to those people and assume that they were on the verge of revolt. They weren't. The economy could have collapsed so hard that people were dying by the millions, and the Soviet government could have held power.
Stalin murdered over 40 million people, with nary a peep from the public.
The biggest contribution Reagan made was to put the Soviet Union on trial. He called them an 'evil empire'. He put pressure on the client states, who started to get restless. He stopped Soviet terrorism and expansionism, and basically made their life tough. The Soviet response opened a Pandora's box - they tried to stem the tide of world opinion by putting a moderate in power. And once Reagan had a guy in the Kremlin that he could actually talk to, he hammered on him relentlessly. Remember, "Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!". Gorbachev responded by instituting reforms ("Perestroika") and loosening state controls ("Glasnost").
SDI was just the finishing coup de grace. And contrary to what many people think, it actually WAS a success technically. If it could shoot down even 100 missiles it was success, and mere point defenses could manage that (like the Vulcan gatling guns on Aegis missile cruisers).
If Reagan had not been elected the Soviet Union would still have collapsed, but it might have taken fifty years or longer. And they might have taken us with them.
I agree. Reagan rules! Bush-Cheney 2000!!!
I agree that fear is good at controlling masses. I am not saying the people were not afraid. I am saying that the USSR's economic troubles were intensifying to the point that it was affecting even the military, and that this process would have continued. I did state that Star Wars may have hastened the process slightly. I doubt it would have taken 50 more years.
Remember when they couldn't even pay a lot of their soldiers their monthly salaries? I don't remember just when this was and I think it was later than the period we are talking about, but how long can you expect to maintain an army if you can't even pay them? It was inevitable.
One Russian genius, Garry Kasparov, forecast in an interview in Playboy in, I believe, 1979 or 1980, that the Soviet Union would collapse economically and fall apart politically and ethnically, and that it had to. I have not read the interview again since then so please excuse me if my memory is a little off after 20 years. If I recall, he actually said the great USSR would cease to exist as we knew it, and would inevitably become a group of separate states. This was long before glasnost or any other apparently noteworthy developments, and back when the "old guard" was still in supreme power.
Star Wars was what hammered the message home and was sort of the climactic thing that tied it all together, but it would have happened anyway and probably not too much later. If you can't even pay your soldiers and the stores are virtually empty and people have to wait in long lines...even the soldiers get fed up. There are economic limits to terror and repression. It cannot continue to exist indefinitely without economic support. If Saddam didn't have the oil he wouldn't have had such a military. The Russians, not being able to maintain their military colossus, were slowly but surely losing their power both externally and internally. People can be oppressed through military force but only so long as the military can be supported economically.
I read in the newspaper several years ago that Russia's current forces were less than a shadow of their former selves. Literally most of their subs and ships had rusted out and were useless, etc., etc.
The only danger they still pose is the enormous stockpile of nuclear arms.
Sure it might have taken 50 more years, but I would bet even money that it would have taken at most 5 more years even without Star Wars.
If you read the history of the Soviet Union, you'll find that the people were actually better off in the 1980's than at any time since the revolution. The Soviet economy was a mess, but it had ALWAYS been a mess. I agree that it would have eventually collapsed, but it could have easily taken decades, and a lot of blood could have been spilled in the process.
Again, you underestimate the effect of terror. The soldiers will put up with no paychecks and no food, if the alternative is a bullet in the head. The Soviet Army experienced defections in WWII, but only after the Soviet Commander's brutal policies left them pretty much no outs other than death. Whole battalions were sacrified by Soviet Generals, the armies froze to death in the field, and in general were treated like fodder. And still, morale was high and they fought bravely and well.
You really should read a bit about the Soviet people. I recommend "The Russians" by Hedrick Smith. He was the American Ambassador to the Soviet Union under Carter, and lived there for a long time. His description of the people is sad and chilling. Public opinion could be turned on and off like a light switch. If the government made a friendly overture to the west, the next day American tourists would be greeted on the streets with smiles, invititations to supper, you name it. Incredible hospitality. The next day the Soviet government would issue a proclamation criticising the west, and average citizens wouldn't even make eye contact. The people were completely under the thumb of the ruling class. There was NO dissention.
It is one thing to rally the people and the army against an outside force in wartime. Then great hardships can be borne far more easily. In peacetime an army can oppress their own people, but in peacetime this cannot continue indefinitely without the army getting paid their salaries.
>> In peacetime an army can oppress their own people, but in peacetime this cannot continue indefinitely without the army getting paid their salaries.
It is a minor point but between 1945 and 1985 Soviet Army was never used against Soviet citizens, nor could it.
.
I think you are mistaken. 1.Soviet soldiers were NEVER paid. They received 7R a months for things like soap, toohpaste, etc. 7R was like $20 in the US. Officers were paid, usually twice as much as ordinary civillians. Salary delays occured well AFTER beginning of collapse, which has started in 1985 with XXVII Party Congress in which gorbachev started "perestroika".
Gary Kasparov was about 20y.o. in 1980 and not very famous. I doubt that he gave an interview to Playboy but even if he did he couldn't have a big understanding about the situation. He didn't even lived in Moscow. He lived in Baku and spent 99% of his time playing chess.
*
I said I thought the period when they were having trouble getting paid came later.
You mentioned that Russia exported the Lada to Canada. My impression is that the Lada is a step down from the Yugo. I find it hard to imagine that either would be highly popular in Canada.
Kasparov did indeed understand the house of cards that was the Soviet Union, and that it was destined for collapse. I read the interview and years later was amazed. As I said, it was a long time ago and I may have a few details wrong. Perhaps it was not even 1980. But it was before Gorbachev's time.
he would have known more about the Armenia Azjerbaijan (SIC) conflict. Karpov was a party member.
Dan,
Great post. However, although there is such a thing as the Vulcan Gatling Gun, the weapon you are thinking of is probably the Phalanx, which fired depleted uranium (later tungsten) bullets under computer control and could shoot down a cruise missile at close range. Here is a link to a page describing the weapon.
Regards,
Rick
I thought it used to be called the "Vulcan Phalanx", and it is a Gatling gun. Perhaps the early versions used the Vulcan, then they upgraded them? The original Vulcans fired 20mm depleted uranium rounds, as I recall.
C/!
Having worked with a Russian scientist that got out of the Ukrain about 17 years ago. He rec'd two PHD's in the Soviet Union -- had all A's except one B in communism. He know teaches at UCLA(artifical intelligence, knowledge based systems, cybers, and search routines) and works in aerospace.
He mentioned that most Russian lab equipment was World War II German vintage.
Star Wars was the coup d' grace blow that toppled the evil Soviet Empire, thus making it possibly the greatest semi-bluff in world history.
I can't find Saddam's quotes from the days leading up to the Gulf War, but "mother of all battles" and "American streets will run red with the blood of American children" are paraphrases. Also his scud missiles were more of a scare tactic than an effective weapon, and the chemical/biological warfare threat was largely a bluff. Hey, most semi-bluffs fail. He keeps trying.
-Abdul
i am sorry, there is a difference between an effective semi bluff, and saddams pathetic attempts. if saddam played poker he would be the maniac at the 3-6 table, trying to convince people he could beat doyle brunson.
The real semibluff of the Gulf War was made by the Allies. They bluffed amphibious landings thru the Persian Gulf when all along all they really wanted to do was to attack by land from Saudi Arabia. And it worked!!! Saddam actually deployed most of his forces on the beach facing the Persian Gulf leaving his right flank open to a purely ground based attack from the Saudi Arabian dessert. Once the Allies finally struck, the Iraqi front over at Kuwait, facing the Gulf, were isolated from the base in Baghdad. It was a de ja vu of the "Inchon Landings" of 1950. Simple but brilliant!
*