![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
... Experience tennis players can benefit from strategy advice that encourages keeping the ball wide in the opponent's court. Less experienced players such as myself can benefit from a down-the-middle strategy since our directional control is suspect and we will miss far too often going for the side lines...
I strongly disagree. When I taught tennis emphasis was mainly on stroke execution. The above comments was not the way it was done.
This really doesn't have anything to do with anything but I just wanted to point out that teaching stroke execution is good when the students strives to become a great player but it will not help him win the match at hand. Clearly, the best strategy is to keep the ball down the center and not make unforced errors. It is sort of analagous to telling a beginner to fold on the flop unless he has top pair or better. Rather than tell him what is correct, because he would get in to more trouble than it was worth. Hopefully my point is clear.
When player "A" was bluffing at a rate of 5% - and I was, of course, folding 100% of the time - I was doing the RIGHT thing 95 times out of 100. (This was saving me $1,900 over the course of 100 hands.) I was doing the WRONG thing 5 times out of 100. (This was costing me $600 over the course of 100 hands.)
My net gain per hand was $13. ...........................................
With "A" now bluffing 15% of the time, I am doing the RIGHT thing [calling], 15 times out of 100 (gain of $1,800), and doing the WRONG thing 85 times (loss of $1,700).
My gain is NOW only $1 per hand...
His change in strategy is costing me $12 per hand ! ........................................... Against "B", I WAS gaining $600 every 100 hands by correctly folding when he bet; NOW, I am gaining $800 every 100 hands by CALLING when he bets. - ( MATH OMITED)
His change in strategy is EARNING me $2 per hand. ...........................................
Against "C", I WAS gaining $1 per hand by calling (the same as I am NOW gaining versus "A").
NOW, I am gaining $15 per hand by calling.
His change is earning me an additional $14 dollars per hand. ...........................................
Against "D", I WAS gaining $8.80 per hand by FOLDING.
NOW, I am gaining $5.20 per hand by CALLING.
His change is costing me $3.60 per hand. ...........................................
WHAT WAS THE QUESTION AGAIN ? - - - - - - - ...........................................
JD,
Maybe i am thinking about this incorrectly, but when you say that B's change nets you two dollars per hand, i think that you are mistaken.
Your EV by calling B went from -600 to postive 800. However, when B is at a 10% bluffing tendancy, your optimal play is to fold, not to call, therefore your EV is 0. So wouldnt B's move net you $8 per hand??
I would ask the same question about your other EV analysis
Elie
your optimal play is to fold, not to call, therefore your EV is 0
When you fold, I think your EV is $20, since you save a bet.
David
Actually I should have said that your EV is not zero because you save a bet. Not quite the same thing.
David
What about the fact that you win one extra pot/100 each time his bluffing percentage goes 1 more percent under optimal. At optimal, it doesn't matter whether he bluffs or not. So, if optimal is 20% (for example), and player bluffs 19% instead, don't you pick up one extra pot for free? And so on if it goes from 19% (fold every time) to 17%(still fold every time) don't you pick up two extra pots/100. This changes the calculations quite a bit.
clarify exactly what it is that you are questioning ?
You may very well have a valid point; the problem is I don't understand the question.
Your previous posts have shown alot of well thought out reasoning -
If I am wrong here, I would love to be made aware of it. I am MUCH more interested in learning something than I am in showing - or trying to show - how clever I am.
Please respond; you would be doing me (and perhaps many others) an enormous favor.
Thanks in advance,
J-D
What I am objecting to is the assumption that EV is symmetric around the optimal bluffing frequency. In the original example, the optimal bluffing frequency is 1/6 and Sklansky gives examples of an opponent moving from below that number to above that number. What I am saying is that when an opponent bluffs under that number that is much better for you than if an opponent bluffs over that number by the same amount.
For example, in Sklansky's original example opt bluffing = .1666. If an opponent bluffs 15% of the time, that is much better for us than if he bluffs 18.3% of the time, even though both are approx. the same amount from optimal.
This is because when he bluffs only 15%, we pick up an extra .016 pots for free as compared to when he bluffs at 18.3, all we do is pick up .016 extra bets than if he would have used optimal strategy.
I was trying to make a point with these questions that unfortunately would have been easier to see had I not hastily chose my numbers. In any case the point was this: The further away you can move your opponent from his optimum bluffing strategy, the better off you are WITHOUT REGARD to the direction you are moving. If 20% of his bets should be bluffs, you gain more by moving him from 17% to 11% than by moving him from 17% to 27%. This in spite of the fact that the second move was greater and it allowed you to call.
David,
I don't agree that it doesn't matter which side of optimal the opponent bluffs on. When the opponent bluffs under the optimal, you gain entire pots. When the opponent bluffs over the optimal, you gain single bets. If opt bluffing = 20% and opponent bluffs 10%, you gain 10 pots/100 for free compared to if he bluffed at the optimum. If he bluffs 30%, all you gain is 10 extra bets/100 compared to if he played at the optimum.
So, moving someone from 15% to 25% is very bad for you.
Is there anything wrong with the following analysis? It implies that EV is not symmetric around bl* which is contrary to most opinions here. Please help by looking into this. Thanks a lot. I've changed your example to a $25 bet size so the numbers work out more evenly.
Take a pot of 100 with bet size = 25. Then the optimal bluffing percentage, b* = 1/5 (that is, 1/5 of the bets should be bluffs) If the particular probability of improvement is .2 then the caller's ev = 76(see below), calling or folding. In this instance the better will be bluffing .04 of the time (1/5*.2) [see below for ev calculation]
EV calculation: fold all: .2(0)+ .04(0)+ .76(100) = 76 call all: .2(-25)+ .04(125)+.76(100) = 76
Now, let's check EV for bl = .1 and .3 (.1 in both directions from optimal)
[bl = .1, now opponent bluffs .02] bl = .1 fold. EV = .2(0)+.02(0)+.78(100)= 78 EV = 78, or a gain of 2. [bl = .3, now opponent bluffs .06] bl = .3 call. EV = .2(-25)+.06(125)+.74(100)= 76.5 EV = 76.5, or a gain of .5.
Thus, it is much better to have player bluff too infrequently than too often. This implies the EV curve is not symmetric around the optimal bluffing frequency. Please check math to see that this is true but it seems so to me.
I'm confused as to the origin of these calculations. You shouldn't assume that the player has the best hand 20% of the time and bluffs %20 of the time. You should assume that he has the best hand 80% of the time and bets every time. In other words, you're only considering the times he bets.
I don't have the article you're talking about, but I read it, and I believe he was refering to using the chances of improving a hand to dynamically bluff in accordance to proper game theory.
To analyze this situation, it's given that the bet is either a bluff that you can beat or a hand that will beat your hand. The EV for calling a *game theory* bluff is $0. This function is symetric around the correct bluffing frequency.
Ok, now this makes sense to me. So if someone says "Mike bluffs 20% in this spot" then that is an absolute percentage right? 80% of the time that he bets he is betting for value and 20% of the time he is bluffing. We really don't care about any other situation since if he checks he obviously isn't bluffing (unless he check raises).
Thanks for the clarification. I was getting a little confused, but you have confirmed what I thought to be correct. Intuitively it made sense to me that the EV function should be symettric about the optimal bluffing frequency.
When Sklansky derived the 1/6 figure as the optimal bluffing frequency in his example, that had to be 5 bets with the best hand and 1 bet with the worst hand. If opponent just bet 16% of the time randomly (and absolutely), and even had the best hand 50% of the time, then he would be bluffing 16/66 = 24% of the time, which would be way over optimal. This is a very tricky point. I think when many people think try to use game theory, they first see if they think they have the winning hand. If so, they bet. If not, they calculate the proper wagering percentage absolutely, and try to use some random way of betting that often when they think they've lost. This leads to people betting way too often as a bluff.
Comments welcome.
Some comments:
Yes, the EV of calling a game theory bluff = 0.
Yes, that is the essay I was referring to.
But, when David posed this question, we were trying to figure out if, when optimal bluffing = .2 (for example), whether you were better off if player bluffed .25 or .15 (or some combination above and below optimal, I don't have the exact numbers here). And, by my way of thinking, this depends on what percentage of the time the opponent has the best hand. You don't need that to evaluate EV of calling if opponent is playing optimally, but you do need it to calculate ev of playing against an opponent that bluffs greater than or less than optimal. In fact, to get the exact EV is probably impossible since you would need to sum over the all the probabilities that he has you beat. My calculations were just trying to show that EV is not symmetric, and one does better when bluffed at less often. If this is not true, I'd like to know where in my calculations I have made a mistake. My particular numbers are only for 20% but I think the relationship is robust.
Thanks for your comments.
Russ,
I think you are adding an unnecessary variable into the discussion.
The Sklansky article was addressing a different albeit related issue.
The issue you're discussing (where a player actually has a hand) applies more to "Betting for Value". If you have a hand that isn't a bluff, then if you bet you are betting for value. If your hand can't win without your opponent folding, then you are bluffing. These are the definitions you should use for evaluations of bluffing problems. By the way, there is excellent discussion of betting for value in "Gambling Theory and Other Topics" (Malmuth).
In some games (usually those that don't use community cards) this randomization method can be a very useful tool. In hold'em it is less useful because your opponent can see your last card.
Think about this: If your opponent holds the best hand he is never bluffing. David's post wasn't addressing the times when your opponent is bluffing but you can't beat a bluff or any other additional situations. It's simply: Your opponent is bluffing more frequently. Not semi-bluffing, not *holding the best hand*, just plain bluffing.
I agree with your analysis with one question. If the opponent bluffs more, is that bluffing percentage an absolute or a relative one? Doesn't his optimal bluffing percentage (which in David's example was 1/6) depend on how often he holds the best hand?
The only point I was trying to make is that EV is not symmetric around the optimal bluffing point and that one is better off if an opponent bets less than the optimum and not more.
Thanks for your comments. I'm having a little trouble straigtening them out myself (but at least it gets my mind off the stock market)
Considering the original question, (you are a notable author), it's considered to be absolute. However, in real poker, nobody is this predictable. Even opponents who have suddenly become froggy will not bluff *10%* more often, they are much more whimsical in their actions. In some situations they might be 40% more likely to bluff. The question was theoretical.
For the theoretical question that David asked, the function is symetric around the optimal bluffing point. David's (The point I was trying to make) is stating that the closer a person is to bluffing optimally, the worse off you are, regardless as to whether the correct play is to fold (always) or call (always).
Even if the percentages are absolute, the EV is still not the same around optimal bluffing percentage for the following reason.
If optimal bluffing = .20, then we are indifferent to calling or folding. If opponent bluffs = .15, then we fold all the time. The amount we gain is the 5% of the pots that our opponent deserved by game theory but did not get. That's 5 pots extra out of 100 that we now win because our opponent did not follow proper strategy (assume we folded if he bluffed properly).
If opponent bluffs = .25, now we call all the time. All we pick up from optimal is 5 extra bets/hundred hands. In general, 5 extra bets don't compare very well with 5 whole pots. That's why EV is not symmetrical around the optimal bluffing point.
As far as why bluffing percentage cannot be absolute, let's look at the original Sklansky example. Optimal bluffing = 16.6% Does that mean our opponent bluffs 16.6% of the time and bets his hand for value 83.4%?
Or does that mean our opponent bluffs 16.6%, value bets 40%, and just checks (with losing hand, presumably) 43.4%? If the latter is the case, then he is not bluffing 16.6%, but rather 29% of the time.
So when Sklansky says an opponent has raised his bluffing frequency from 15 to 25%, this is supposed to imply that he went from one end of the optimal to over the optimal bluffing frequency. If it's taken absolutely, than he is way over to begin with and now has gone even further over.
You can't accurately compute the exact EV without knowing what percentage of the time the opponent holds the best hand and bets. However, you can determine that the EV is not symmetric and get exact numbers for a specific example by specifying how often the opponent holds the winning hand.
Russ,
We've hit a major speed bump.
Take as a given that the opponent bets.
Your hand can only beat a pure bluff.
The percent chance that your opponent holds the best hand is 1 minus the percent chance that he is bluffing.
For this question, there is nothing else to consider.
In this example, the only considerations are that he is bluffing X% of the time. Your hand will only beat a bluff so there is no value in your opponent's bet. Simplify the problem.
The only instances you are considering are when an opponent bets. Therefore, you never win any pots from him when he bluffs 15%, because you fold every time. When he bluffs 25% you call every time. You NEVER win a pot by default.
Well, I have one question that will hopefully clarify things for me.
Wasnt the original question about whether you would be better off if the opponent bluffs 15% of the time or 25% of the time? If that's it (or something like that), then, in the 15% example, what happens to the other 10% of the hands?
If an opponent is bluffing less, that means he must be checking more, doesn't it?
I can only say this one more time. You are only considering the cases where he bets
ONLY CONSIDERING THE CASES WHEN THE OPPONENT BETS is not the correct way to calculate the implications of an opponent changing his bluffing strategy.
I don't disagree with the calculations based upon only examining when an opponent bets, just stating that I think those calculations do not give you the correct answer to whether or not it's better to bluff more or less than optimum.
Would you take a game with optimal bluffing percentage = 20% and I bluff at you 30% and you bluff at me 10%? If so, I will offer you 6-5 on a 1000 hand simulation that I come out way ahead.
Russ,
Let me clarify that I don't think that your thoughts are without merit. They show a great understanding of the complexities of bluffing as a whole. All I'm saying is that to determine the profitability of a bluffing percentage a person should only concentrate on the part of the problem that is important.
If I am the one bluffing, then I am assuming that my hand cannot beat the other player's hand, and he must fold to win. Therefore, to make money, if my opponent would call 20% of the time, I want better than 4:1 on my bluff. The reverse is also true.
If I am picking off a bluff, I want my opponent to be bluffing more often than the pot odds justify if I am going to call.
In your example, which is perfect to illustrate this point. A method to perform this is to use a 10 sided fair die. When it's my turn, I roll the die. If I roll a 1 it means I was bluffing. If I roll any other number, it means that my hand wins. You are never going to call a bet, because my hand wins 9 out of 10 times. When roll the die, if it comes up 1,2 or 3, it means you were bluffing, and I win. I will call every one of your bets.
I think part of our communication challenge is that you are considering the play of the hand as a whole. The problem was really only meant to address the "player 1 is either bluffing or has a hand that can win versus player 2". Player 1 has bet, how often would player 2 like player 1 to be bluffing.
Maybe someone else has a new take on this to bridge our gap in communication.
Your post has clarified our difference in looking at the problem and the way we looked at my 10% vs 30% is the defining event.
In my way of thinking, I roll first and both of us look at the number. You then roll and I don't look at the number. The 10% bluffer bets every time he has me beat PLUS 10% more often (bluffing) and the opponent folds every time. The other times the bluffer just checks and loses. [ignore ties] The 30% bluffer also bets every time he has the higher number and 30% more at random. The opponent then calls every time. I'm saying that the perspective caller is much better off in the 10% condition than the 30% condition.
"player 1 is either bluffing or has a hand that can win versus player 2". Player 1 has bet, how often would player 2 like player 1 to be bluffing.
For that statement, your analysis I believe is perfect. The reason we had a disagreement is that I believed the statement was I'm playing against a player that either bluffs x% or y%, against which am I better off.
Either way, it's been an interesting exercise in analyzing bluffing. Have a nice weekend (what's left of it). I'm stuck a stud player stuck in the bay area so I've got plenty of time to fiddle on the message boards!
In your die puzzle, there is an interesting effect. The correct bluffing frequency is going to change based on the first player's roll of the die. In addition, the correct calling frequency (for the first player) would change based on the roll of the die. It's a much more dynamic problem.
Yes, it's kind of a dynamic problem but I don't think that changes the optimal calling frequency. No matter what, the optimal game theory calling frequency is always pot size divided by pot size plus bet size.
It's the bluffing (absolute) frequency that changes. If the pot = 100, and bet size = 25, and I roll a 6. There is a 40% chance that you will beat me so you will bet on all those occasions, as well as 20% more often, in order to keep with the optimal bluffing percentage of 20%. In this case will be .20*.40 = 8% of the time. Following game theory, you would simply check the remaining 52% of the time.
If I rolled a 8, then you bet all 20% that you rolled a 9 or 10 and 20% more to keep optimal which leaves you at .2*.2 = .04 absolute bluffing frequency. .04 absolute bluffing frequency will leave you at the game theoretic optimum. [It's actually a bit tricky this 20% number for optimum in the example is 20% of the number of times you improve the hand or really 16.67% of the bets. The exact optimal bluffing frequency as a percentage of bets is bet size/(pot size + 2*bet size) but we usually describe the optimal bluffing frequency as a percentage OF winning bets]
The example most often used for bluffing strategy is a player is going for a flush vs. a big pair with one card to come. He bets when he makes his flush as well as the game theoretic optimum (bet size/(bet size + pot size) times his prob. of improvement. Thus, it's quite dynamic. Optimal calling is not dynamic, but stays at pot size/(bet size + pot size).
Sorry for the long interpretation but it's late and I wanted to get it all out. Aren't dynamic problems interesting.
Russ,
Check out Skalansky's Theory of Poker section on calling with game theory. He explains how you can use game theory to reduce the efficacy of a game theory bluff.
thanks
"Question reads: Should a player be inclined to play fewer hands if he is in a game with a rake higher than normal?"
Absolutely.
Let's say you're in a game where each player is charged $10 per hour. You've already paid that $10, and any money you win in this hour you keep. So you play any hand where you have EV above zero.
Now switch to a game with a $3/hand rake instead of a time charge. Each pot you win will be $3 smaller. So you only play hands with an EV above $3. Hands with EV between 0 and $3 would have been playable in the time charge game, but aren't when you have to pay a $3 rake. (This assumes that your opponents' play is the same in either case.)
Dan,
Regarding time versus rake, I think you have it nailed regarding tactics. The original poster didn't mention that whether or not he played in California, but if he does he needs to be careful as to what is often called "rake".
For example, in Los Angeles there is a dead drop on the button in limits below 10/20 in button type games and the "antes" are usually dropped before the hand starts in stud type games in the low limits (and sometimes even in mid limits). Where the drop is taken before the hand ** begins **, then play as if a time game with the remaining blinds and antes dictating the stucture and your related tactics.
In the Bay Area I believe you will often find a "live" button drop that is always taken. This should loosen you up since your calls are half price (in an unraised pot) but don't forget that half of your contribution is gone.
At Ocean's 11 in Oceanside and many Indian reservations there is a "no flop, no drop" policy. That means if you steal the blinds the drop (which is usually taken from the big blind and replaced by a token that is placed over the collection box) is returned to you. But if one or more players call they flop and take the full drop. In these games most customers always chop the blinds to avoid the “flop and drop”.
In any game where the drop is always taken regardless of pot size (or almost so as in the case of the Indian reservations), your basic strategy adjustment is to find a better game. No moderately tight small limit game in Los Angeles is beatable. Of course, you will rarely find a tight small limit game (as you will in Las Vegas) since tight players despise the dead drop.
Regards,
Rick
** Some may note that they don't actually put the drop in the slot until the hand is over but this is semantics. It is taken no matter how small the pot (e.g., in a 2/4 holdem with one blind at Hawaiian Gardens, if no one calls the blind goes back to the player and the $2.50 rake is dropped!).
Brier's response is atypically off the mark. There is a lot more to holdem then "proper" starting hands.
While there are certainly exceptions especially before the flop, holdem decisions more-often matter more than stud decisions. By this I mean there is usually a bigger difference in EV between folding/calling/betting/raising in holdem than stud. It is also the case that stud offers a lot situations where perfect information does you no good: you are going to call anyway. Stud offers a wider variety of low-importance criteria which can be used to make slightely better decisions.
I am more of a what-does-she-have or how-does-he-feel now kind of guy who cannot remember more than 3 cards at once. I therefore favor the more subjective holdem than the objective stud.
- Louie
Stud IS the more "skillfull" game and is harder to master. Holdem can be reduced to playing by the book starting hands and playing top pair or good draws from the flop on. That said there was a comment made that its harder to figure out what the correct play is in holdem than in stud. And this may be true as the correct play is often very straightforward in stud once you can put your opponent on a hand. But it is much harder to put an opponent on a hand in stud esp if they are a skilled or tricky player.
"Holdem can be reduced to playing by the book starting hands and playing top pair or good draws from the flop on."
Please pre-pend this sentance with the word "Mediocre".
The starting hands are far too liberal if you can only get to the river with top pair or good draws.
I agree its easier to turn a complete novice into a competant begineer at holdem than stud.
- Louie
I am a new hold-em player who has been playing about 15-20 hours a week for the past three months. I've read several books and feel my play has improved quite a bit, in fact i'm sure that i am better then 90% of the other players in the 1-2 or 3-6 range but i don't have the bankroll to move up in limits yet (Starving college student). My question is that last night at the card club I lost like 5-6 big hands on the river because people with terrible cards ie 2,6 unsuited or something similarly bad were drawing out on me in the end. I feel like there is nothing i could have done to get them to fold these looser hands. if anyone have any suggestions besides moving up in the limits i would really appreciate it. ps. The players who were drawing out on me did not in most cases have pot odds and would call three or four scoops pre-flop with the bad cards that would beat my pocket kings or ace king suited..
Why do you want your opponents to stop making mistakes?
I suggest you reread several of those books.
The 20-40 and 50-100 games I play in have similar types of player(they have plenty of money and they all suck at cards). So much so that the 50-100 game has been dubbed the game "where no card is safe". Yet a friend and I are beating the game consistently.
You are taking the best of it when you cap it and they are sticking around w/ 26o yet they'll win some, but they wont hit them for ever. You'll beat the game easily by playing good cards and betting the hell out of them.
Moving up doesn't stop suck-outs. Besides, as Mark said, why do you want your opponents to play better? I'd prefer my opponents to be dopes who think the game is all luck and figure any two can win vs. people who know good cards and know how to bet them.
Jake -
To reiterate what the others say here, as long as they're playing worse cards than you, you'll win in the LONG run (but not necessarily the short run). What I'm adding here some people may disagree with, but I've actually found some of the 1-2 games to be TIGHTER than some 3-6 and even 6-12 games. Some 1-2 players have so little money (which is why they're playing 1-2) they actually play more conservatively than the 2-4 or 3-6 players, for what it's worth.
I've never played higher than 9-18, so I don't know at what level the players get tight enough for insane suck-outs to stop being a problem. Maybe the bigger rollers here can answer that.
I can't imagine a card room spreading 1-2 with a rake that's anything less than exhorbitant (a big bet out of every pot, small bet tips?), so you should probably get out of that game fast.
Aside from the rake, you'll always win more bets from the fishy little limit players than you will if you play higher. The idea that you can more easily beat better players is silly and you should stay where you're at if you don't get this.
It sounds like you experienced your first blowout session. Every 20 or sessions are like playing in the twilight zone, typically after a pretty good run, no matter where you play. Welcome to hold 'em.
Lousy players don't collude perfectly. Merely playing "top hand" won't make poor players winners. and it might entice them to play games they otherwise wouldn't, and still can't, beat. None of the foregoing however should be construed as my agreeing with the title of this thread.
Two big points when it comes to collusion, fisrt of all just because they're colluding doesn't mean they will win the hand, lousy players tend to make for lousy colluders, I think the most dangerous colluders are players who are very aggressive anyway, but still the pots they lose will be bigger because of their participation. The second point is it makes a huge difference whether or not you know if collusion is going on, because if you know players are colluding and you can read hands well, you can make a ton of money by waiting for a monster and slowplaying it, on the other hand if you don't know what's going on you can get killed on your drawing hands that miss. I personally don't mind playing against colluders in a live game, because you have a lot of ways to tell what's going on. Online it's much harder because you can only read bets, I try to request hand histories right after a hand if I think people are colluding, because then I can see what folks had at the river, and I can tell if they should have been in the hand or not or if their bets corresponded to their cards.
Subtle collussion can not usually be taken advantage of even if you know it is occurring.
a lot of above is just talk about the poor players/colluders. what about the one good player with two computers and 6 accounts colluding subtly with himself? Winning players would play in a 9 handed game if it was good. With the right motivation, he could play the tenth hand too, playing both hands straight, waiting to take advantage of those opportunities to milk a nut hand or whatever. It would not take creative or expert play. How could it hurt? If you got into a heads up hand against yourself, the money just rolls accounts. So the house scrapes a tad, easily replaced when you catch that one guy in the middle of you. yeah, sometimes you'll be up against trips, or drawing dead. MOST times you wont. If both hands are straight, the house can't detect.
The real questions are:
How many accounts have been removed from these sites because of collusion?
Can someone get the numbers?
How does anyone know how big or insignificant collusion is without them?
You don't even need 2 computers. Just 2 connections and IP addresses (very easy to come by). And why stop at 2? Imagine a guy with 3 or 4 hands in an 8 handed stud game. Just knowing the values of the extra 4 or 6 down cards is an enormous advantage.
I know of 2 people, a father/son team that used to play straight in the casino 4-7 days a week making a living. Now they haven't been seen for many months. The son told when they were getting started about a year and a half ago. Seems the dad played strictly 3-6 for 90 days(he was a 20-40 player)while watching the accts, payouts, players etc. Now they don't live together. And they have friends with computers. So all move there cpu's to one room in one house. All have different acct's. diff cities, etc. They are not seen in live games anymore.
No way in hell I'll play online. Suggest you don't either.
Online collusion matters little (in some cases. Although expert colluders who were also solid players could win large amounts with little potential for detection, many colluders will lose and online games may still remain very profitable in spite of there being some collusion.)
Rick,
Earlier, I wrote, "Mason, . . . I'm a bit surprised that Rick Nebiolo hasn't responded to your post."
You wrote: "As I have mentioned, Lou Krieger is a close friend. Since he is a friend, I cannot be impartial in this debate so I will sit on the sidelines."
I understand why you might want to sit on the sidelines. You made some responses to my earlier posts concerning POKER FOR DUMMIES (PFD), and your bias did seem to come to the fore.[1]
I didn't expect you to reply to my original post in this thread, but I was a somewhat surprised that you had no comment on Mason's response. After all, in a reply to an earlier post where I questioned some PFD advice (but did not attack either of the authors), you felt it necessary to remind the forum, "To the best of my knowledge, [Lou] has never been vindictive regarding the bashing he occasionally takes here and is a class act and a great guy."[2]
It just seemed odd that after Mason bashed Lou, you appeared to overlook his behavior. I'm guessing that if I had done the bashing, you would have said something.
---------------------
[1] Rick Nebiolo's 22 November 2000 post, "Re: POKER FOR DUMMIES: Losing streaks," under Mark Glover's 21 November 2000 thread entitled "POKER FOR DUMMIES: Losing streaks."
[2] Rick Nebiolo's 14 November 2000 post, "Re: POKER FOR DUMMIES: Long-shot draws," under Mark Glover's 13 November 2000 thread entitled "POKER FOR DUMMIES: Long-shot draws."
Mark,
In my post above I wrote: "Since Lou knows my personal situation as well as anybody, I believe he will understand."
My last fourteen hours was spent attending to the situation alluded to in that post. This situation has cut into my posting for the last week or two and will take up much of my free time in the weeks to come.
I post both to learn more about poker and for enjoyment when I have time and energy left over after taking care of my other responsibilities. On that note, I would like to end any further comment on this particular matter.
Regards,
Rick
"My last fourteen hours was spent attending to the situation alluded to in that post. "
Rick,
Give it a break. I've heard of it falling off with over use. My god 14 hours. I'm more of a 14 minute man myself. Oops I meant seconds.
Vince
Rick,
You wrote: "This situation has cut into my posting for the last week or two and will take up much of my free time in the weeks to come."
How you allocate your limited time is your choice. I noticed you decided to post at least two dozen times on these forums since 27 November. And more than half of those were posted after Mason made his above comments.
You wrote: "I post both to learn more about poker and for enjoyment when I have time and energy left over after taking care of my other responsibilities."
What topics you opt to discuss also is your choice. I noticed you had some longer posts about playing AJo and some shorter posts about the U.S. and Canadian elections. All I was saying in my earlier post is that I was a little surprised you decided not to devote any of your comments to Mason's bashing of Lou Krieger. It just seems inconsistent with some of your previous remarks.
You wrote: "On that note, I would like to end any further comment on this particular matter."
Again, you certainly are entitled to remain silent on this matter. But I think your silence speaks volumes.
I think I would agree with that statement as the math has been worked out in other posts (I have not validated it).
But I thought the original question was how much better/worse it got when opponents bluffed more at you and my point is that going over the optimal bluffing percentage is not as bad as being under for the bluffer. The result being that it's much worse for you when people start bluffing more at you. Do you agree with that and do you agree that my math shows that? I seem to be taking a lot of heat for this opinion and if it's not true, would really like to understand why.
You are taking heat because everyone is looking at the problem from the perspective that the opponent has already bet and you have to determine the EV of calling or folding.
You are looking at it from the perspective that the hand has an intrinsic EV before opponent acts that is dependent upon (1) the likelihood that his hand is better, and (2) the likelihood that he will bluff if it's not.
This is rapidly getting over my head, but you've convinced me that this is true in an absolute sense.
However if he bluffs too much, don't you still win all those pots that would have been uncontested when he bluffed too little? Because now your correct strategy is to call. I'm getting too tired to think about this. Maybe David will respond and save my poor brain some pain.
David
Thanks for your comments of support, I haven't found many here.
Yes, you will win the same number of pots if your opponent overbluffs but you'll now have to pay every time he hits as well. When opponent underbluffs, he costs himself the entire pot for each percentage he is under the optimal. This is why the EV curve is not symmetric. If player overbluffs by 2%, he costs himself the price of the bluff, 2% of the time. If he underbluffs by 2%, he costs himself the whole pot 2% of the time. [Once again, these need to be relative numbers. As I have shown in other posts, an absolute bluffing percentage is meaningless.]
OK, maybe this is the problem. You said "every time he hits" in this message. And when you quoted from the article (above in reply to Mark Dodd) it was definitely implied that there are cards to come.
But my understanding of the original problem is that there are no more cards to come. This is a bluff on the end. Does that change things for you?
David
If I implied there were cards to come, I am mistaken. I have assumed there are no cards to come in all of my analysis. Sorry about the mixup. I must have written it wrong because in David's article, there are no cards to come either.
I think my latest post in response to JD's answer of all three questions puts it best. In it, I ask:
When better goes below optimal, you are now folding every time. So if optimal is 20%, and opponent only bluffs 15%, aren't you picking up 5 pots for free since at 20% you were indifferent to calling (assume you folded every time)and now you are still folding every time yet there are 5 less bluffs/100? These have not been figured in the EV calculations.
[I used absolute percentage here to make life simple, it's the exact same argument with relative bluffing percentages]
Thanks for all your feedback.
Inspired by the "Which is better: 5-2s vs 3-2s" debate on the Medium stakes board between Abdul and Mason, I would be curious to know what the stupidest hand you ever played and got away with was.
I doubt many can compete with me playing 3-6, re-raising to 9 in mid-position with 72o. That cut it to me and one other guy.
Flop: 6-8-10 Me: "I bet" (inner self: please fold!!) Him: "I call"
Turn: Q Me: "I bet again!!" (inner self: FOLD! DAMN YOU!) Him: "I call you?"
River: 9 (hitting the gutshot straight!) Me: "I betcha $6!" (inner self: PLEASE RAISE!) Him: "I call you"
Dealer: "Show!" Me: "I have a straight with a 2 kicker" Him: And whats more: the next hand I had pocket aces and my preflop raise was met by 9 callers. Get what you deserve I guess..I swear to god this happened exactly as I describe.
David "Still working on some slight leaks in my game" Ottosen
...You're lucky he didn't have a straight with a 3 kicker, eh...!?
Graham
Work on the leak of thinking something bad happened when you had aces and got 9 callers. That's friggin mouth-watering.
Would you have preferred everybody folded?
9 callers with pocket aces?
Depends what I see on the flop...and I didn't see much. I don't think pocket aces play too well 10-handed.
While it is true that you will only win about 30% of the time with against a gang that big, think of the monster pot you get when you win. Just don't get married to the hand. There is no wrong number of callers when you have AA; there is a wrong number of bets to play the hand for, however.
As was pointed out by Ark, your thinking repesents a leak, but a natural one, and it diminishes with experience. Regardless of what you or they have (with contrived exceptions, perhaps) when you have the best hand, you MUST make them pay heavily. Even if you are a dog to the collective, you are still the one who will benefit the most in the long run. Never be afraid to bet a very good hand.
Eric
I am not sure to what leak you are referring. Raising with pocket aces is the only "automatic play" I have. I think the board came up with some disaster like 7-K-K and I folded at the first bet.
While I still play the hand aggressively, I still don't get happy with 9 callers of a preflop raise! However, my happiness with the situation doesn't really affect my handling of the hand (at least in this case).
David
While it may not make a difference in your play in this specific case, your internal reaction seems to be symptomatic of a mindset that will lose you money in the long run. In that sense it is a leak. Perhaps I am wrong (being no psychoanalytic expert - or even poker expert) but that is the feeling most people will get when reading your post.
I think it goes id-in-ego with the problem of buying in for the minimum and not buying more chips when you get low. Going to the felt is a Very Bad Thing. If one doesn't have enough to play a hand out, then one should leave with the little that remains. To illustrate, let's take a couple of hands of yours. You were all-in twice on Wednesday and won both times. Think of how much more you would have won if you had had the chips to play them out.
Sorry if it seems I'm raggin' on you, but it seems like you could be picking up the bad habits of those you play with, and that needs to be nipped in the bud.
Eric
Don't pay attention to how I played on Wednesday; I was just there to see how Aaron did in the tournament, and he suggested we sit for half an hour.
On the two all in hands I won, one time pocket queens held up vs a board of 4-5-7-8-10; if I hadn't been all in, I probably would have folded it at some point in the face of all the betting that was going on.
The other hand...I dont recall. Dont think it was particularly a monster either! But anyways, my play that night was very unusual for me; loose and for a small buyin.
David
So 20 small bets go in pre-flop.
On the flop, you are getting at least 21-1 (if there is only the bettor). You are 22-1 to make a full house on the turn, better than that to make one by the river. That's almost good enough to call if only one more card was coming, only one player was in, and there were no more betting rounds.
You may have more leaks in your game than you think.
If one of the K's is suited with the 7 and one of your aces, it's an even bigger mistake, though a flush probably won't hold up here.
Ark
Last June at the Mandalay Bay's 4-8 HE game, I called on the button with 7-2o just for the hell of it. I think the flop contained a 7 and a 2; I do remember that a 7 hit on the river to give me a boat. I was laughing so hard I could barely bet! I took down a nice pot. Unfortunately, I had to leave soon after, and I know that the table didn't have a clue how to play with me after that crazy hand.......
I've got pocket rockets and our hero is a live female dealer on tilt. She raises UTG with her 7-2 5 players to me in BB and I 3 bet it. She caps it!...
Well we know the rest flop goes 722!!!!
Damn I lost a bunch in that hand. great 9-18 game.
we laugh about it now but a year later I'm still shaking my head!
Ok, I don't have the time to go over your calcs fully. They make sense to me though, and I know what you are doing. You are making the assumption that the bettor has the best hand 20% of the time and then using the bluffing percentage as a relative figure. Makes sense to me, but I'm not sure if your function is symettric or not. Intuitively I think it is, but when I have more time I'll check. Obviously your math shows that it is not.
I don't have access to the Sklansky article you are referring to. It's too bad. I don't think Sklansky get's into this in TOP, he talks about bluffing but I don't think he mentioned that the bluffing frequency is relative to the percentage of time he has the best hand. I thought the bluffing percentage was an absolute percentage.
Here is what I think about bluffing percentages. These are my thoughts alone. I agree that the bluffing percentage should be a relative percentage as you indicate, but I don't think it should be in relation to percentage of times you hold the best hand. I think it should be relative to the total percentage of times taht you bet. With the best hand, and with marginal hands as well. I am just throwing out some thoughts here.
Your post has confused me as to what the correct way to calculate EV for this type of situation is. That's a good thing though, now I'll be able to figure out the proper way of doing it, once I spend some time understanding it. I hope sklansky gets in here and teaches us how to perform this calculation.
In Poker Digest, Sept 24 - Oct 7, 1999, Sklansky published a column entitled "The Sklansky Bluffing System" (pp12-16). In it, he derives the optimal bluffing frequency, assuming you were playing against someone who saw your cards and knew what your draw was.
He lists some rules about when to use this system and rule # 6 says: "Determine the chances of making your hand before you get your last card. These chances in comparison to the chances that you will bluff should be the same ratio as his pot odds. For example, there is $100 in the pot;you can bet 40, and there is a 21% chance you will make your hand. Since he is getting 140-40 or 7 to 2 when you bet, there should be a 6 percent chance that you are bluffing since 21-6 = 7-2."
So you can see that bluffing is a relative frequency and in the above instance, one should optimally bluff 6/27 or 22.2% of the time. Now that's optimal. But if a player normally bluffs only 10%, and now changes to 25%, those percentages have to be relative to the amount of times he holds the best hand. If one is on the above draw, and bets 22.2 percent of the time absolutely, then he will be bluffing way too often. This is the only way to evaluate the EV of the choices involved in Sklansky's original question. And by my calculations, the EV is not symmetric so you really are losing a lot when players start to bluff more at you, even if they go past optimal.
Comments welcome.
Hi everyone--
In _Winning Low Limit Holdem_, Jones gives preflop strategy based on position. The positions have categories, like "4 or more callers in front", etc.
I read this advice as "4 or more callers not including the blinds." Obviously, if you include the blinds, you can play much looser. I was wondering if anyone reads it "4 or more callers, including the 2 blinds" or "4 or more callers, including the big blind."
tia.
I would tend to think that "4 or more callers in front" means that 4 or more players have called in front of you, but that's just a wild guess. :) Neither blind should be considered to have called before acting.
-Abdul
I am guessing that Abdul is right; Mr. Jones uses the phrase, "if you are the first to enter" (or something very close to these words) on at least one occasion.
If he counts the blinds as callers, you could NEVER be the first to enter.
P.S. I am working on learning how to be more direct and succinct when answering peoples' questions.
For this reason only, I have chosen not to include my opinion on the quality of this book; if it is helping you, then at least it has sreved some useful purpose.
Hope I was able to help -
J-D
abdul--
I've got a question for you on the accuracy of the numbers. The book recommends playing Axs when you have 5 callers. Is that what your numbers say? I always thought it was 5 people in the pot total to make Axs break-even, but not playing it unless there are 5 callers would seem to indicate that you need at least 6.
Is there anything in your preflop strategy that talks about the number of callers you need for each hand? I think that your pf strategy assumes a bit tougher games and a bit better player playing it than the jones stuff does...
thanks.
If there is one loose limper and the rest of the players are loose, you can play A2s. Against a tighter limper or in a tighter game, you might need A7s. In passive games, you can open-limp with these hands. Even if the limpers are quite tight, after 3 or more limpers, you can certainly play A2s.
So, yeah, you're probably looking for 5-way action to play Axs, but I haven't really thought of it that way before. Maybe I should.
-Abdul
Just when I thought I was incapable of ever slowrolling another player ever, this hand came up.
$20-40 hold'em, full game.
The pot was down to three handed before the flop. I had J-10 on the button.
The first player called all bets and raises all the way until he went all-in half way through the betting on the turn.
The other guy, the guy who did a bad thing and got it done back to him, let's call him Joe.
The flop came: 10-8-6. Joe and I capped it (four bets).
Turn: a deuce, making a backdoor flush draw possible. The first guy checked, Joe bet, I raised, the first guy called all in for one bet, and Joe called my raise.
River: an offsuit queen.
Joe checked, and I checked. Now the fun began.
Joe said, "I missed."
Whenever someone says that or taps the table in this situation, and I have any pair or better, I always just turn my hand over. I don't make them show or muck. In my code, that's rude. And in our player pool, when someone says they missed, they really mean it.
But Joe is unusual within our group because he does goofy little childish stuff sometimes. So I just sat there, for the briefest moment, without doing anything.
Then the all-in guy turned his hand over, pocket sevens. I had that beat with my pair of tens.
Joe saw the sevens, and AGAIN said, "I missed." Now I knew exactly what was happening. I sensed that he had the all-in guy beat, even though from what he said, that was etiquettely impossible.
So I waited just another moment. Right when I was about to turn over my hand, Joe turned over 10-7 suited. He had flopped top pair and a gut shot, and picked up a flush draw on the turn.
Now I did something evil and sinister. I still feel guilty about it, even though I suspect a poker court would rule not guilty.
I started complaining, "That's a bunch of crap! How can you say you missed when you had top pair all along? bla bla bla."
Of course he thought he had me beat. That was obvious from his reaction. So I laid it on just a touch more, about what a slimey thing slowrolling is, and while talking, casually turned over my pair of tens with a better kicker.
Okay, sins confessed. Was this "wrong?"
Tommy
Well, even if it was it made great reading. I'd love to hear about Joe's reaction.
Joe's reaction was plenty cool. He didn't say or do anything, not a peep. He new he was out of line, and he knew he'd been had, and like many players at 20-40 and up, he works hard on not showing pain.
What really bothered me, and still does, is that Joe and I are palsy at the table. That makes me think he wasn't really slowrolling ME, he was just doing what he typically does.
Tommy
I saw Tommy just seconds after this happened. There are quite a few of these players in the 3-6, 6-12 pool that have recently been moving into 20-40 occasionally. So when Tommy was telling me of this story as he was writing down the details I laughed my ass off! For this sin I suggest ESPY award! Only because revenge is sweet in a case like this and I know you won't do it to me! Nor will I to you. Well maybe if we were playing 3-6, waiting for a seat or in "cool down" and just having a good time laughing it up and it was heads up! Naw I couldn't....or......?
Tell ya what. I'll make you a deal. I'll promise not to slow roll you if you promise to stop torturing yourself. Your poker stories make me think of scab-picking syndrome! lol
By the way, I've lowered my rates, just for you. Five bad beat stories for three bucks. But if you make me miss my blind, the price goes WAY up. Omaha stories are still five bucks per pop. :-)
Tommy
I usually pay a dollar a story, but the omaha rates should be cut back to 2.50 since I have a volume purchasing plan!
I got some bad beat stories on Pan too! What's the rate?
no, that was (just) playing (around). but im curious why you capped on the flop with that.
brad
I have no reason that would satisfy 2+2 scrutiny.
finally someone who (i guess) kind of agrees with me when i say that i 'just felt like jamming it' because i 'thought i had the best hand'.
brad
Sounds like a home game I played when I was 12 years old. Very childish on all concerned.
I have never slow rolled anyone NOT EVER no matter how much they DESERVED it.
Well said Rounder.
i'm reading HPFAP- 21 again, and i have a question about one particular concept that has come up a couple of times. it seems simple enough, but for some reason i'm having trouble seeing the logic behind it. one good example is on page 135, in the chapter "Playing Good Hands When it is Three Bets Before the Flop" the authors write: "If you raise with two high cards, get reraised and flop top pair, it is usually correct to simply check and call all the way." this does, as the text continues on to say, exclude AK. i suppose that the obvious reason for this is that there is a good possibility that the raiser holds AA or KK. but this logic seems to contradict something that is mentioned on page 134- 135 that says you chould consider capping with a hand like QQ against an aggressive player who might hold KJ. ultimately, my question is why would you re- raise pre- flop with QQ, and not bet into the raiser if you flopped top pair (let's say jacks or queens) with an A or K kicker?
and finally, this does not relate exactly, but there is a hand that i played about three weeks ago that i've been losing sleep over ever since. the reason that i include it here is because i haven't been able to decide whether i played too aggressively, or not aggressive enough once the cards were out. moderately loose 4-8 game. i'm in the little blind with 55. UTG raises, only two people fold, everyone else calls. 8 handed, the flop comes: Kh,4s,5h. i check for a few reasons: 1) to gain some information about what the rest of the table has, 2) to raise if there is action, 3) i'm worried about drawing hands with eight people in the hand. BB bets, utg raises, one more raise, everyone calls to the guy on the button who caps. i call. turn: 9c i bet, BB calls, utg raises, three fold, one calls, button raises, i call, everyone calls. river: no flush or straight card comes. no pair. at this point i'm scared. i check. BB checks, utg bets, two fold, button raises, i call, BB folds. utg calls. utg has AA, button hit the little set. i'm the winner with trip fives. i feel like i made so many mistakes here, that i don't know where to begin. any analysis would be very helpful.
[1] I have serious misgivings about playing before the flop in such a way (e.g. 4-betting) with only one-type of hand (e.g. premiumn pairs). I almost never 4-bet when 3-bet no matter what. But to answer your question, flopping a vulnerable top pair (e.g. AQ flop Qxx vrs premium hand) puts you in the position of either drawing slim (e.g. vrs KK) OR the aggressive opponent is drawing slim (e.g. KJ or JJ). In the first case you don't want to raise and in the second you don't want the opponent to get scared and stop betting. This is a good, but not a compelling argument for check-calling.
[2] Auto-brain-dead call with 55 vrs all these people before the flop; unless you feel like 3-betting for value, hehe-eh?. UTG will probably slow-play trip Kings if he flopped them, hehehe. (digressing, I believe this to be a mistake since you can get in LOTS of bets before someone gets suspicious). Button would likely have 3-bet KK before the flop and likewise will probably slow-play top-set on the flop, hehehe. Fear of trip 9s is unreasonable.
Once you have successfully slow-played the flop, even if accidentally, I would check the turn, hehehe.
Particular critism: (1) You are not going to gain much useful information on the flop by checking, since there really isn't any information about the other hands that you can put to good use. Nor, I suppose, will you gain much useful information by betting or raising. (2) Check-raise OK. (3) Choosing checking/betting/raising doesn't seem to do anything about your "worry".
With a set you WANT to show down a big pot with lots of opponents along the way. Information may turn a call into a crying call and worrying isn't going to help. Flail away and let the odds sort out the winners in the long run.
- Louie
Priorities are: [1] set [2] pair+flush draw [3] flush draw + straight draw [4] Viagra [5] 2-over-card flush draw [6] over-pair or top pair + top kicker.
Actually, when thinking about the exception to holding A-K, the book says 'where you will usually want to put in a raise at some point'. The chances of your opponent having A-A or K-K are smaller when you hold A-K. The reason that Ace-King is the exception is because you very likely hold a better hand than your opponent, and if you just call all the way, your opponent will wake up you'll lose your market.
"Some players--and it's only a few of them, to be sure--never bluff. After you figure out who they are, playing against them is easy. If they bet once all the cards are out, you can safely throw your hand away unless you believe that your hand is superior to theirs. If it is, you should raise."[1]
Are there any flaws in this advice?
----------------------------
[1] Richard D. Harroch and Lou Krieger, POKER FOR DUMMIES, 2000, p. 131.
I don't think there are any flaws in the advice.
However, this advice depends totally on the player's ability to read his opponents. If a player tries to apply this advice, but he misreads his opponent, it is not the advice that is flawed, it is the player's application.
For example, I regularly play against people who say "I fold - he never bluffs!!" when I bet into them.
Against these players, I know I can bet into them on a scare card with a missed draw and they will fold a better hand more than 75% of the time.
But against the calling stations, I simply won't bet into them unless I have a good hand, which they routinely force me to show and reinforce my "no bluff" image.
That is the wordiest statement to say: don't call someone that never bluffs unless you have a better hand. If you know your hand is better than someone elses on the end, of course you would raise.
The key is knowing when you have the best hand.
I think the general idea here is that you shouldn't raise unless you think there's a 55% percent chance that you have the best hand when you are called.
If the game had no rake, or the rake was already maxed, you could raise with a 50% chance of winning. It be profitable if you had a 50.1% chance.
You could be right. Sklansky, I think, argues that you need a 55% chance of having the best hand when called since you have to account for the possibility that you're going to be check-raised. But he only applies that to betting the river, not raising.
Actually, he does apply the 55% concept to raising also - the theory being the same in both cases.
If you raise with a 50.1% chance of having the best hand when your raise is called, you don't allow for the times that your opponent re-raises.
Unless you have such a good read on him that you can muck your hand with 99% certainty when he "comes back over the top", 50.1% is not enough.
- BTW, the 55% figure was a guideline, although IMHO it is a very good guideline.
- The other way you are told you can look at it is that when you raise [on the river] for value (obviously, none of this applies to bluff-raises) you are laying 2-1 IF your opponent is someone against whom you can NOT safely muck your hand if re-raised.
50.1% would be enough if your raise put you all in, or if your opponent did not have enough $ to re-raise.
In all other cases, the "55% rule" is probably a good one.
J-D
There are plenty of times you should flat call someone who never bluffs; not counting strategic moves such as going-for-the-over-call. Your hand needs to be better than the minimum hand they'll bet, but your hand needs to be noticeably better in order to raise.
One such situation is when you make a 3rd nut flush on the river and your buddy bets! Not a good time to fold nor raise; flat call the guy who surely also has a flush.
I strongly suspect that there is much more money to be made against these players on the early rounds; either folding marginal holdings early or taking free cards against them.
- Louie
Your chances of having the best hand when your raise is called, must be between one half and two thirds depending on the size of the pot and the probability that he will reraise with a worse hand than yours.If the probability he will reraise when he has a worse hand is 0% or 100%, your chances need only be 50.1% (when called) to make the first raise. If he will occasionally reraise with a worse hand, your chances of winning when you get your raise called must be higher. 55% is a good estimate. But that theoretically could reach 66% as the pot size approaches infinity. See why?
PS The above assumes he will never fold a better hand when you raise.
You are also assuming worse hand will not fold when you raise with a better hand.
Ignore above post - Misread David's Post
Shouldn't post messages while drinking wine.
Lets say the opponent will 3-bet with the absolute nuts and will also 3-bet the one time in a thousand he misread his hand and THINKS he has the nuts and lets assume the pot is 1000; this means he's 3-betting not often enough but he's bluffing appropriately. Lets also assume there are exactly 101 hands he'll bet in the first place and he will call with all of them except as 3-betting above. You can still 2-bet him with hand 51 or better and need not wait until hand 67 or better.
I therefore suggest your first sentance needs to be appended with the phrase " and the chances he'll just call with a better hand".
Your 66% figure is for opponents who are bluffing AND value raising appropriately in huge pots. I think.
- Louie
I guess I should have read all the replies before posting.
I don't suppose there was much sense in quoting someone who had already posted himself.
J-D
If your opponent is betting with a hand that is inferior to yours, is he not unintentionally bluffing?
The ? was, "is there any flaws in this advice" -
Yes.
You had better be sure that your opponent's idea of a "winning hand" is the same as your's is.
Example: (actual hand)
Me: 9c,7c
Flop: 8s,6c,2s / Turn: Kd (?) / River: 5s
My opponent - a player who NEVER bluffs - bet the river as though he had just caught a royal flush. I made a [somewhat] crying call - almost certain I was going to be shown a flush, probably "A"-high - at which time he very proudly displayed his 7,4 off-suit. He WAS NOT bluffing.
J-D
Hello,
I saw this Friday night at a local $3-6 HE table. Seats two and eight are in an arguement because seat eight insists on seeing seat two's hands when they are both in at the river.
Seat two is getting really bent, and enlists the 'aid' of seat three in a campaign to punish seat eight. Seat eight is well aware of what he is doing, and I suspect he has done this before.
To make a long story short, in less than an hour seat three drops ~ $250.00, seat two drops ~ $150.00, and seats seven and ten are way ahead. Seat eight is about even. Seats seven and ten are poorer players and unless they leave, they will give the money back to the table.
I believe this is a case of too much ego in the game. I am kind of curious about how much effect ego has in the games you play? Do you see this type of behavior often, and if so does it have negative results for the participants?
You see ego all the time in low limit games. Mostly from players who think they are pretty hot stuff getting angry at getting sucked out on, which usually leads them to play badly/force the other player to play well/drive the other player out of the game. Nothing good can come out of letting your ego get involved in the game. Too bad more players don't realize that.
I make it a policy to say "nice hand" after EVERY hand I lose in showdown, no matter how ridiculous. If you can say that and smile, you will do a lot towards keeping yourself off tilt. No matter how hard it is to say to getting rivered by K3o when you have pocket Q's.
David
This can turn out to be a very good game, if you can keep your head while others are losing it. When big ego's get together, let them put on the show or run the table, you just quietly collect the chips.
My ego gets out of control in bigger games when they treat you like an idiot just because the don't know you. I'm trying to check myself in this because:
When I try to prove I'm not I usually just prove I am.
I've found it hard to "get" someone anyway. It sort of makes you play less than your best game. I like it when someone gets hot, don't you?
I really enjoyed it when I posted the three players were going at each other. I sit quietly and hope I get some decent hands before they go broke!
I see it more in HE than in Stud, I haven't decided why this is so. I am leaning towards the aggressive nature of HE verses the trapping game of Stud.
Mike
I'm reviewing the probabilities in the book HOLD'EM FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS. In Appendix A (page 309)are a list of the probabilities of completing a hand with two cards to come. I don't understand how a flush draw has only 8 outs or a straight draw has 15 outs as illustrated in the text. Can anyone explain this to me. Thank you.
Looks Like a type-o to me. A straight draw has 8 Outs and a Straight Flush draw has 15 Outs.
CV
I'm still relatively new to the poker world. I used to play BJ professionally and decided to take a look at switching to poker about a year ago. For several reasons that are unimportant to this discussion I decided to concentrate on 7 card stud.
I have been playing mostly 10-20, 15-30 and 20-40. I've had some success and am trying to refine my game. I've read about acting crazy, professional, like a tourist, happy, grumpy, etc..., and have decided to take the happy, pleasant, relaxed approach. My question is about stack size.
It appears that many believe it is a benefit to have a large stack of chips in front of you. I never let myself go all in, but I am usually conservative with my buy-ins. The common wisdom says that a large stack may intimidate and a small stack may attract agressive play from opponents. Is intimidation always good or is it just generally good? What are we trying to accomplish by appearing intimidating? Is this contradictory to appearing pleasant and relaxed? I would think that you don't want to appear like a professional.
I am contemplating larger buy-ins. The problem is that I expect it won't be easy to determine the effect (if there even is any).
Comments...
When I buy I try to match the rest of the table. When I’m short I rebuy or leave, I rarely see people happy to go all in esp. with a good hand.
A large stack may cause some to bet differently than if your short stacked, and I may be wrong here, but I don’t think a large staff is intimidating. I really just want to have enough chips to get everyone all in (or almost so) when I get my straight flush.
Stud looks like the natural game for good BJ counters.
The main purpose of "intimidation" is to cause the opponents to play less aggressively and more predictably. That's usually done with assertive but sensible bets and raises. I suppose a large stack size may help a little.
There is more money to be made in stud in getting the opponents to fold medium pots then there is in getting paid off in medium pots. I don't just mean bluffing and stealing but also you generally prefer the opponents to FOLD when you bet your marginal hands for value. You should therefore foster an "image" that does NOT look like a regular bluffer. That's tough to do.
I believe a large stack size will make you look LUCKY which has LOTS of psycological benefits.
- Louie
I would appreciate feedback on a hand that i played this weekend at the Taj.
It was 20-40 Holdem, a fairly loose non aggressive game at 5 am on saturday. I was in the big blind and looked down at the 5-8 of spades. there were 4 callers (like i said, loose non aggressive) and the button, who was tilting a little bit, raised. I figured that that was the end of the raising so i called (question 1, how bad was that call?). UTG reraised and person before the button capped. At that point, it was $40 for a $490 pot so i called (q2, how bad was that call?).
Flop:
6s - 8d - 8c
giving me trips and backdoor straight and flush draws. I check, guy to my left bets, all calls to me and i just call.
Turn: 6s - 8d- 8c - 7s
Now i have up and down straihgt flush as well. I check, guy to my left bets, all calls to me and i raise, 2 callers, 2 folds, one guy all in for $5 more.
River: 6s - 8d -8c -7s - 7d
I bet, get paid off by both guys in.
HOw bad was my play here? I thought that considering the loose non aggressive game, that i could get away preflop for only that $20 more, i was wrong....but was my thought process wrong?
Thanks
Mav
Mav,
I would have folded to a raise pre-flop, maybe called without a raise. Once in, like you, I would have called the cap.
With that great flop, I would have bet or check raised. I understand the check call though.
The rest of the hand was great!
Remember, i was the big blind, i would never call a raise cold with that
Mav
Remember, i was the big blind, it was only costing me one bet, i would never call a raise cold with that
Mav
n/t
You should fold pre-flop with Eight-Five suited rather than call a raise from the big blind. However, it is not a terrible call just a bad one with all those players. Unfortunately, you got stuck having to call another raise and a cap back to you.
On the flop, I think you should bet and hope to get raised so you can re-raise. The pot is already large and you need to make sure it does not get checked around. Having failed to bet your hand you should at least raise when someone else bets. You must protect your hand when there is a huge pot like this at stake.
Not to seem too critical, but this is my opinion.
Your first call of a raise was bad. Your second call of two more bets was worse because your implied odds are much worse than your first call, and you're most likely up against a high pair or two, making your hand much much less valuable. The only plus side to your second call is that you don't have to fear anymore raises, but this is just a slight plus, and doesn't make up much.
On the flop you probably want to bet out, you can probably get in three bets and the pot is so large it is important to do whatever possible to improve your chances of winning. Your hand is definately not strong enough to slowplay especially with a pot of this size.
You should probably bet out on the turn, unless you think a checkraise will work. Your hand is now in serious jeopardy of losing to a straight with one more card to come, you should do whatever might help eliminate some players
"Your first call of a raise was bad."
Yeah, i know that,
"Your second call of two more bets was worse because your implied odds are much worse than your first call, and you're most likely up against a high pair or two, making your hand much much less valuable. The only plus side to your second call is that you don't have to fear anymore raises, but this is just a slight plus, and doesn't make up much."
Im not sure i agree...the implied odds are a little worse, but i am stilling calling $40 for $450....and it seemed to me at the table that a tilter made the orginal raise, a loose player made the reraise, and it seemed to me that a fourth player capped it on high cards....i thought that many of those cards were duplicated....just my thougt
"On the flop you probably want to bet out, you can probably get in three bets and the pot is so large it is important to do whatever possible to improve your chances of winning. Your hand is definately not strong enough to slowplay especially with a pot of this size."
probably right, i wanted to check raise the turn, but i probbaly could have done that anyway even if i bet initially.
"You should probably bet out on the turn, unless you think a checkraise will work. Your hand is now in serious jeopardy of losing to a straight with one more card to come, you should do whatever might help eliminate some players"
I thought a checkraise would work, and like i said, i had most of my opponents on high cards......i wasnt too worried about a straight against me, maybe i should have been
Your call pre-flop is close. Your getting 11-1 on your money. If you are certain that there will not be a raise then 58s is definitely playable.
I think you should have bet out on the flop and hoped to get raised immediately. There is 24 small bets in the pot on the flop. Any pocket pair is getting sufficient odds to call one bet, but not two. So you have to get rid of the overpairs. Also, you have to get rid of all the backdoor flush and inside straight draws. They also have enough odds to call one bet on teh flop. With 24 bets in the pot you should play the flop as hard as possible.
On both pre-flop calls you are getting 2:1 vis-a-vis the reward/#opponents ratio (whereas someone calling a raise cold is getting 1:1). I'd wager about half the hands are worth calling; and I'd wager 85s is in the upper half of hands.
Playing $3-6, I call with QTo in the small blind. Flop comes T55 and I bet out. A loose/aggressive raises everybody out and I just call. King on the turn, I check and call. River is a blank and we both check. He shows T9 and I flip over my QT (relieved that he didn't have a 5). To my surprise the dealer (who is quite sloppy) flips over all the cards and then pushes me the whole pot. I even block the chips flying at me so they won't mix with my chips. Nobody says a word as I seperately stack my chips and slowly add them to my own and the next hand is dealt.
Was what I did wrong? Am I going to hell?
well uh... hmmm... I would've... uhhh well no what you did was not technically wrong. everyone can see the cards... survival of the fittest...blah blah..
you will probably go to hell.
Was what I did wrong?
Yes, you suck.
Am I going to hell?
No, there is no hell.
natedogg
Better get an asbestos suit buddy, it's hot down there
If he can't read his own hand I don't see why you should read it for him. Being able to read one's own hand is part of the game and is a form of the resonsibility each player has to protect his own hand. It might be different if you were getting paid to be a babysitter too.
You can't go to hell twice. And since you were probably going anyway I say take the money.
In these situations I normally assume that I was the one in error so I simply take the money. How can you be sure you saw everything correctly? After all, 10 other people saw you win the pot with the best hand so you are probably in error. If you think about it long enough, I believe you will agree.
As a lawyer, I really thought this was a great response. I'm sure you feel much better about it already, hearing that. lol
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
then again, it's just hell. do what you want.
scott
Don't think of it as "just money" think of it as "just bail".
Am I my brother's keeper?
Sounds like you got away with one. Oh well, shit happens and your opponent should have been paying attention.
I would probably have pointed out the error and split the pot.
As far as hell goes, I personally do not believe there is a hell.
If you believe in the bible and hell and all that, you should also believe you are destined for flames.
Have fun.
In casino poker, the rule is "cards speak." It is the dealer's responsibility to read the cards and determine the winner. When you see the dealer make a mistake like this, the honorable course of action is to point out the mistake. BTW, it is quite likely that others at the table also saw the error but kept quiet. I will stop dealers from incorrectly pushing me a pot, but I will usually "mind my own business" when not involved in the hand. [People have been killed for less!]
MJS
All players at a table have a right to read the hands when they are flipped up. In fact some would say that if they see a mistake they are obliged to point it out. I am one of those that feel obliged to point out mistakes. If I saw that this hand and read it correctly I would have commented to the dealer that he made a mistake. If you agree with me then you incorrectly accepted the pot. If you do not then you should never open your mouth about mistakes you see when you are not involved in a hand. I also believe that what you did as unethical. But that's just me.
Vince
It's OK to win the pot when you outsmart your opponent, but it's not OK to win the pot because of your opponent's stupidity.
OK, now I got it.
It's not o.k. to be unethical. You follow certain ethical standards and I obviously follow others. It's not totally your fault you are not as ethical as I am. It can be attributed to your environment or maybe it's because you hang around with Fossilman. He is a lawyer you know.
vince
Following the rules at the poker table is not unethical.
All players have a right to read hands that are shown down, but no player is obligated to. That's the rule (and it is the only rule that can make sense, if one thinks about it).
In fact the only player who actually bears this responsibility is the player who is reading his own hand.
Winning poker is all about making good decisions. Anonymous Coward's opponent made a bad decision.
Depending on who my opponent was, I might have the pot split anyway. I wouldn't feel obligated to, but I might. Depending.
The only reason he won the whole pot was b/c of dealer error. Had the dealer done his job the pot would've correctly been split. Since the opponent lost his pot b/c of dealer error, how can you think you're doing anything but stealing his money. (and I odn't mean stealing like raising and taking the blinds).
I guess your the type who thinks of it as a windfall when the cashier gives you too much change?
The reason he might have lost the pot was not because of a dealer error. Dealer errors are unavoidable and must occasionally occur.
The reason he might have lost the pot was because of HIS OWN error.
Don't you guys believe in accepting some responsibility for your own mistakes? Or that your opponents should too?
BTW,when the dealer takes your cards because you didn't put a chip on them, it is YOUR fault. Nobody else's.
So now we have obliged = ethical? Ethics are personal beliefs or adopted character traits of the individual. In poker I believe it is the responsibility of the player to read his own cards. I also believe that if I am involved in the game as a participant and I witness an obvious mistake by the dealer or another player that it is my responsibility to make that mistake known. I therefore would tell on myself and split the pot with the other player. Of course if it were a big pot and I actually had the worse hand I might elect to adopt your ethical make up. I hope not. But you never know until you know. I quite possibly could win an election to the Florida legislature on the basis of those ethics alone.
vince
My point is that the primary responsibility lies on the player whose hand it is--not the dealer or the other players.
If I misread my hand I DESERVE to lose the pot!!! I DON'T deserve to have the dealer or anyone else pointing it out!!!
When I went broke playing poker because I spent my bankroll, or played too many marathons, or just didn't know enough or didn't play well enough, I DESERVED to go broke!!! It was MY fault!!! Nobody else's!!!
Poker is all about accepting responsibility for one's decisions at the table and continually working to make the best decisions possible. Those who feel that there should be safety nets to prevent them from mucking the winning hand might be better advised to find a more forgiving game.
Those who feel that their sense of ethics extends to automatically extending this courtesy to their opponent might wish to consider if they truly have the killer instinct necessary to really succeed at poker. That goes for me too, because in many cases I really would give the pot to my opponent. So maybe I also don't have what it takes to really win at the highest and toughest levels (yet).
My point is that it would not be unethical to keep the pot, because it is your opponent's responsibility, not yours, to read his hand. It might not be nice, but neither would it be truly unethical.
It would, however, be very nice to give your opponent the pot. You could sleep better that night. However if you were trying to play for a living and you were low on your bankroll and your opponent was an ***hole, you just might have second thoughts. And then if you went broke the next week with the rent due and no income coming in, that $300 pot might seem very important indeed.
"My point is that it would not be unethical to keep the pot, because it is your opponent's responsibility, not yours, to read his hand. It might not be nice, but neither would it be truly unethical"
I might agree with this.
vince
M wrote: "My point is that it would not be unethical to keep the pot, because it is your opponent's responsibility, not yours, to read his hand. It might not be nice, but neither would it be truly unethical."
Vince replied: "I might agree with this."
I might not agree. Each cardroom has its own rule book. Many, many of those rule books include a statement similar to the following:
"Any player or floorperson who sees an error about to be made in awarding a pot has an ethical obligation to speak up."[1]
"Any player, dealer, or Floor Supervisor who sees an incorrect amount of chips put into the pot, or an error about to be made in awarding a pot, has an ethical obligation to point out the error."[2]
------------------------
[1] Las Vegas Hilton rule book (www.pokerworld.com/rules1.htm).
[2] Canterbury Park rule book (www.canterburypark.com/cardclub/rules.html).
I was not aware that any cardrooms had such a rule. I would be curious to know if any major existing cardrooms besides Canterbury do.
There are also impractical matters re. legislating such as a rule for players (as opposed to floorpeople). It woud be impossible to enforce such a rule since more than a few players would abide by it only selectively.
In a cardroom where there is actually such a rule which pertains to players, I would have to shift my stance somewhat towards your view. However I feel that unenforceable rules should probably not be rules in the first place, especially in this sort of situation (because only the angle-shooter types would then stand to gain an advantage from such rules, since they and their pals would selectively apply them with impunity and nobody would be the wiser).
M,
You wrote: "I was not aware that any cardrooms had such a rule. I would be curious to know if any major existing cardrooms besides Canterbury do."
While the Las Vegas Hilton no longer has a cardroom, its rule book serves as the basis of many, many other cardroom rule books. Probably more so than any other.
But my main point is that each cardroom has its own rules, and what is proper in one cardroom might be improper in another cardroom.
You wrote: "There are also impractical matters re. legislating such as a rule for players (as opposed to floorpeople). It woud be impossible to enforce such a rule since more than a few players would abide by it only selectively."
It's usually difficult to impose ethics on people, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage people to be ethical. It's hard to pass laws that force customers to correct cashiers when they give too much change, but I'm glad social mores encourage people to do so. It's hard to pass rules that forbid poker players from farting at the table, but I appreciate it when my opponents step away.
There are many things that I could do at the poker table that might benefit my bankroll, but I refrain from doing some because I consider them unethical. I suppose that means I'm not a cut-throat poker player, but at least I can look at myself in the mirror.
You make some good points.
Was what I did wrong?
Yes.
Am I going to hell?
You're already there.
I am NOT a religious man nor closeminded enough to "know" that there is no GOD.
Therefore I never pretend to be GOD.
I believe that AC will probably lose back 10 times the amount of that pot due to sub-conscious guilt. Until that absolution he remains in a personal hell (kind of a blue flame hell).
PS. God, if this is you, sorry for the misunderstanding. I try to believe, but I only ever hear from you on his forum. And here you must battle for supremacy with DS.
"I believe that AC will probably lose back 10 times the amount of that pot due to sub-conscious guilt."
I know you mean well, BetTheDraw, but you need to give this more thought. You can't judge the action until you understand the whole plan. It may be that Anonymous Coward will be rewarded for doing this. More likely, it's not about him and he will just be ignored.
First off, I can't believe we had such a long thread for this simple question. I probably would have given the guy his half, but not for ethical reasons, but for selfish reasons. How many free cards do you think that guy will give me if I do that for him. It seems weird but he will probably be grateful and be willing to "help me out." Second off, the whole idea of this being "ethical" is ridiculous. I mean those of us who make a small or large profit from poker do so because others make mistakes or are not as smart as us. So we are taking advantage of these people. I am not saying that what AC did was right or wrong. What I am saying is that it is silly to try to be self righteous about it and say he was wrong. Like I said we make our money off others mistakes. The suckers. Because we know there suckers, and they are there to have a good time, does that mean we should not take "advantage" of their mistakes? Anyways started rambling. Played to long today.
Wetfish
A friend and I were talking about Draw vs. Hold'em/Stud. I told him that Draw was hardly played anymore because it was too basic of a game (Correct?).
While we both agreed that the increased number of betting rounds in Stud games made for more areas to use skillful play. We disagreed that having the hand partially Open in Stud games made the game more demanding than Draw.
He insisted that you would need more skill to play a Closed Hand game because of "all the hidden cards". I disagreed saying that the game becomes less skillful because of the lack of information for the expert player to use.
Comments?
CV
different types of skills for the two types of games. both require alot of skill. the reason that some games die off over the years is mostly that those games are ones in which the live ones or action players who are trying to last awhile and have fun never have winning sessions or get far ahead during the game. these games, draw, razz, 5 stud, lowball, 6 stud, hilo no qualifier, tend to have only the tight better players winning at all. the bad players dont even get to get ahead and rationalize that they could have quit winner if they just left sooner. many of those old time games were spread just to take off the live ones and the better players really werent very good. they were mostly tight and that was what it took to break anyone that gambled.
I find it interesting that you group Draw and some Stud games in the same catagory. So, even though Draw games require a good amount of skill they leave the Live-Ones with no good reason to justify playing so the games tend to die out.
I would guess that it works the other way around where the Pros find that some games are jus too easy to play expertly. They can't seem to get an edge over the mediocre players so they stop playing and the game dies. From what I have read Razz games are like this.
CV
For a game to thrive in low-limits, it needs a high variance above all else. To keep the gambling-type players interested, it's necessary for them to have a shot at a large win, as well as for them to frequently come out ahead in individual sessions (although of course they lose overall). If a game can be beaten by tight play alone, rocks will take it over and that game is usually doomed since fish won't want to play in it. Due to the above, many games can succeed at low limits that won't at mid-limits, such as Crazy Pineapple, Omaha-8, Omaha High, "Mexican Stud". I've never seen some of those games above 3-6, and others not above 10-20. Stud-8 is sometimes found at mid-limits but usually not. For a game to thrive in mid-limits, a substantial skill factor is imperative. In games with limited skill, while they may be highly profitable against morons there is usually very little difference between an expert and a mediocre player. Due to this, experts will shun such games, and they won't get started. For this reason, you don't see much mid-limit Omaha-8 or razz. And players who are just there to gamble would lose serious money if they played those games that high; few incomes could sustain such losses on a regular basis (and why would they want to when there are other games with more action where they have some chance to win). So mid-limit games are almost always restricted to holdem and stud, the most strategically complex games. Stud thrives at limits like 75-150 due to the progressively increasing ante, which gives worse players a chance in the short-term against much stronger opposition.
I was under the impression the reason why draw games aren't played any more is because they are slower and the fish lost all their money and didn't stand much of a chance.
The latter would suggest that these games are not easy, and may even be as difficult.
SInce the fish seem to stand a better chance at say limit holdem or stud, their must be more luck in these games than in draw...
Finally I think the number of cards seen doesn't make a game more or less skillfull. Each requires a different set of skills.
"SInce the fish seem to stand a better chance at say limit holdem or stud, their must be more luck in these games than in draw..." There are two definitions of skill: (1) strategic complexity, and (2) the advantage a better player has. A less complex game can give you more of an edge against idiots, which is the case in draw. But the difference between a world-class player and an okay player is greater in holdem and stud than it is in draw.
There may be more objective information available in stud but trust me there's lots of subjective information available in Draw. Its MUCH easier to put a player on a hand in draw then stud. ..err.. a bad player anyway.
Nothin' quite like knowing that one card opener really still has only a pair of Queens.
While I don't disagree with Zee I would like to point out that Draw is boring after a while.
- Louie
"While I don't disagree with Zee I would like to point out that Draw is boring after a while." Lowball is pretty cool shorthanded though, since you get tough decisions on what to keep.
thats the fun and profitable thing about shorthanded. you get to make lots of decisions and turn your profit edge over and over. most games stay somwhat interesting when played shorthanded. some like draw can be boring. and im inclined to throw 9 and 10 handed holdem into that category for me personally.
I have been playing quater ante for about a year now with a regular group at my home. A card club recently opened near my home and I'd like to give it a shot.
My question is: What differences can I expect between my game at home (We play Texas Hold 'em) and the $3-$6 game at the club and how I can adapt and excell in the new conditions.
Thanks!
P.S. I've read and re-read Winning Low-Limit Hold'em (Lee Jones).
Well, first you probably won't win as much as you would think in a Casino 3/6 because of the Rake, Tokes, and the players are usually a bit better than Home game players. If I had a choice between playing a 2/4 Homegame vs. 3/6 Casino game, I would pick the home game almost every time.
If you must play in the Casino, play above a 3/6 level unless you don't plan on winning anyway. Not that you can't win, but these days 3/6 seems like a waste of time for a winning player. I'd suggest reading more than Jones also.
CV
I would strongly recommend reading several poker books. Two of the benefits should be; 1.branding on your brain the importance of playing only good hole cards, and 2. helping you begin to see that a large part of the game is in learning about opponents and adjusting your play it fit.
i made a king queen high flush playing 5 10 stud with the king and queen on board and three spades showing, someone bet and i raised on 6th street. the player to my left call me with two pairs, two's ans three's, and he catches a three on 7th street for a full house, beating my flush. i have been playing this way for four months, twice a week, 10 hours each time, and i have a loosing record. my question is: if i play by the book, only good starting hands, how come i loose to weak hands, most of the times.
If you've played for 400 or so hours and have a losing record, there is a strong chance you're not playing a winning game. If your rate of losing is greater than a few dollars an hour, the chance you're not a winning player goes up. If the rake is exorbitant, the chances that you're a winning player in a losing game go up.
Tell us the exact rake structure or time charge to play, the average pot size, the number of players seeing each street, the average tipping amounts, and everything el
Posted by: Graham
Posted on: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 10:06 a.m.
Posted by: Ark
Posted on: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 10:22 a.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 11:08 a.m.
Posted by: Eric
Posted on: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 12:28 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 1:08 p.m.
Posted by: Eric
Posted on: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 2:30 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 3:00 p.m.
Posted by: Ark
Posted on: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: Paul T.
Posted on: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 7:44 p.m.
Posted by: Larry (fishead@neteze.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 9:02 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Dodd (mdodd@telusplanet.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 11:51 p.m.
Posted by: Russ (rgarber@leland.stanford.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 3:41 a.m.
Posted by: dudha
Posted on: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 5:38 p.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 2 December 2000, at 7:39 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 2 December 2000, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: dudha
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 11:49 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 7:41 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 8:18 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 8:30 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 2 December 2000, at 12:42 a.m.
Posted by: Larry (fishead@neteze.com)
Posted on: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 8:39 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 2 December 2000, at 12:38 a.m.
Posted by: Larry (fishead@neteze.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 6:59 p.m.
Posted by: Larry (fishead@neteze.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 7:04 p.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 2 December 2000, at 1:51 a.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 2 December 2000, at 2:02 p.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 5:02 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Saturday, 2 December 2000, at 8:36 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 12:18 p.m.
Posted by: captain marlow
Posted on: Saturday, 2 December 2000, at 11:44 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 12:43 a.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 2:44 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 8:07 p.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 8:41 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 8:53 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 10:19 p.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 12:25 a.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 4:16 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 3:57 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 12:52 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 2:34 a.m.
Posted by: TheCat (thecat_08021@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 2:53 a.m.
Posted by: TheCat (thecat_08021@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 4:29 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 10:59 a.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 4:05 a.m.
Posted by: Dave
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: J-D (johndoe36holdem@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 4:29 a.m.
Posted by: Mike (mikedahl@gate.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 11:32 p.m.
Posted by: David Ottosen (dottosen@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: Clint
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 6:51 p.m.
Posted by: Scott V (vraneshs@dmjm.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 2:52 p.m.
Posted by: Mike (mikedahl@gate.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 11:20 p.m.
Posted by: Eric M. (emenser@finsvcs.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 12:25 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 1:09 p.m.
Posted by: Maurice (maurice_32@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 1:21 p.m.
Posted by: Scott V (vraneshs@dmjm.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 4:27 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 4:48 a.m.
Posted by: Maveric
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 2:29 p.m.
Posted by: Scott V (vraneshs@dmjm.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 4:19 p.m.
Posted by: Maveric
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: Maveric
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 4:25 p.m.
Posted by: Scott V (vraneshs@dmjm.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 4:28 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:22 a.m.
Posted by: Big D (dongregory@mail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 3:30 a.m.
Posted by: Maveric
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 9:52 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Medwick
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 1:36 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 4:39 a.m.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 8:21 p.m.
Posted by: Boris
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 8:36 p.m.
Posted by: natedogg (nate-web@thegrovers.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 8:46 p.m.
Posted by: ratso
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 9:03 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 9:36 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 11:14 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Brier (jbrier1@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:15 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 10:35 a.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:18 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 2:40 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 1:31 a.m.
Posted by: Dan C (dannyc12@bitstream.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:33 a.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 5:29 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 9:12 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 1:03 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 1:14 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 1:48 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 1:40 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 4:29 a.m.
Posted by: Joe Schmoe
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 5:31 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 1:54 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 11:55 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 2:35 a.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 11:21 a.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 7:47 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 10:45 p.m.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 1:51 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 5:32 p.m.
Posted by: God (bgates@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 10:27 a.m.
Posted by: BetTheDraw (BetTheDraw@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 4:53 p.m.
Posted by: God (bgates@msn.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 8:47 p.m.
Posted by: wetfish
Posted on: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 5:36 a.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 8:58 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:25 a.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 11:13 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 6:36 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 12:02 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 8:43 a.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 4:33 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Rubenstein (drubenst@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 8:45 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 12:01 p.m.
Posted by: Phil (Fierce3@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 10:08 p.m.
Posted by: C. Villalobos (chris@freeroll.com)
Posted on: Monday, 4 December 2000, at 11:01 p.m.
Posted by: OmahaBrown
Posted on: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 11:50 a.m.
Posted by: oneijack21 (acaceres@blast.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 8:23 a.m.
Posted by: Greg Raymer (FossilMan) (raymers@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 10:40 a.m.