![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Ahhh, I see your point -- but I disagree.
For example, if we took TJ Cloutier and sent him back to the days of the riverboat gamblers, well, he'd destroy them. He would know everything they know, plus have the variety of the evolution of games on his side, and have a more sophisticated read on the players from having faced more sophisticated players. Indeed, going back, he would be playing at the same level of game, but his "skillset" would be superior to theirs.
In football, the "skillsets" have remained the same, but as the years go by, the athletes have become bigger, faster, stronger and more skilled. This might be the epitomy of your "human to human confrontation". For example, I'm certain that none of the defenses of 50 years ago would've enjoyed seeing a Jerry Rice on the field. They couldn't adapt/adjust, simply because they would be inferior from an evolutionary standpoint.
Only in the area of war could I find room to agree. I'm not convinced that the warriors of today are equal to their predecessors. I mean, officers are still studying Sun Tzu to learn how to wage war.
Regarding football players of 50 years ago you type
"They couldn't adapt/adjust, simply because they would be inferior from an evolutionary standpoint. "
Are you stating that "home sapien" has evolved over the last 50 years?
I started an ethics question last week dealing with a poker buddy relaying information to me about how bad he is running. This is an epilogue to that post. It doesn't really deal with poker theory and should not be read unless you are interested in silly things I have to say.
Last night at Bellagio's. 15-30 Holdem. Hosh, my poker buddy, comes to my table on a tranfer from another table. Bellagio's had 4 games going. The action is all that it can be. Hosh transferred voluntarily without any coaching from yours truly. He sat in the 5 seat. I was in the 9 seat. 10 handed. After a while the following hand developed. Hosh raises UTG. Fold to me. I have pocket nines. If you read my ethics question you will know that I knew that Hosh is running bad. If you read my response to his post "Since this is about me" you will know that I am running bad also.
When I looked at the nines I knew that I was going to either raise or fold given the situation. I thought " He's running bad, go for it" No I actually thought that. I know it sounds self serving (relating to my earlier post) but those were my actual thoughts. I raised. He called. The flop was 7,7,2 rainbow. He bet I raised he called. The turn was a 5. He bet. I didn't hesitate. I called. The river was an 8. He bet I called. He turned over pocket 8's.
There is a moral to this story. I just can't seem to put my finger on it.
Vince
I coulda sworn that in the recent past, a man well-known for his character and honor across all internet poker forums once said "At the end of the day, what matters is that you maximize your win rate." Hmmmm...I wonder who that was who said this great words....hmmmmm....
Sorry Vince the only game I can beat is the one that you are in so the last two days I decided to play with you. Laugh Seriously I choose the game by volume of expected loss by the bad players and it seems you know how to pick the right game. Sorry about the long draw with the eights. All the best in the New year.
This is my take on the whole thing, maybe I'm beating the bashed ribs of the dead horse by now. If you purposly moved to his table, I think it's on the fence...but someone was going to get his money anyway.
This time he moved to your table. He's open season.
Unfortunately you were running worse - for this hand anyway.
Mike
Badger's column in the Jan 5 Card Player is entitled "The Rock says..."
In the first paragraph Badger state's ".winning player's fall i9nto three basic categories:players who win in the short term because of a large amount of random luck, solid,creative,thinking players; and the"rocks".
The article is about his last category of winning players - the "rocks". When I firat read the article I just passed it off as just a waste of my time. I didn't find it interesting or in any way informative. So I'm not recommending you read it. After mulling over the article a bit I came to realize that I took for granted that Badger was correct in describing the "rocks" as winning players. I belive now that I was wrong to do that and now feel that believing that the "rocks" are winning players without some proof may just be a major "conceptual" error. In fact it may just also be an error that can confuse and detract a player struggling to improve his game.
I am not saying that the "rocks" are not winning players. I have always assumed that a rock can be a winner. I have stated that in the past. The problem is that I have no data nor experience to back up that assumption and my guess is that neither does Steve Badger. Consequently, I believe that his article is more speculative than fact and he should have made that known. I find that those "professionals" that are quick to put out information have a responsibility to back there statements up with fact.
Comments?
Vince
Vince,
I just read the article on his website, so you made him some money. I hope you are happy. He ain't saying much, I'm sure you will agree, although he is right.
From the article: "....simplistic way in which they win-starting with and showing down the best hand." Thats quoting from memory, so its not guaranteed, but thats his definition, basically, of a PUP. Showing down the best hand frequently is important, but winning the default pots, applying VLG (a plug) isolating weaker hands are what makes poker more profitable and way more fun.
I think that people often confuse preflop with post flop. Playing a little too tight preflop can't hurt you too much but doing that post flop destroys you slowly.
Rocks winning money? I used to drive to the card room with two super rocks who regarded me as a slight maniac. They were five/ten players and would literally fold JJ to a single early raise (What if he has AA??). They would fold to almost any scare card. They were both marginal winners, constantly griping about bad luck. They were both making about twenty thousand a year playing low limit. Great life.
Could you post at least once with a meaningless equation?
Vince,
You wrote: "I belive now that I was wrong to do that and now feel that believing that the 'rocks' are winning players without some proof may just be a major 'conceptual' error."
Perhaps you meant that Badger could be making an "empirical" error. If you actually think he made a major "conceptual" error, then you might not understand the concept of "conceptual" errors. In that case, ironically, it would be you who made the conceptual error.
By the way, my own observations indicate that rocks can be winning players in certain types of games. Apparently other posters have noticed the same thing. I'm guessing Badger's experiences also have suggested to him that rocks can be winning players.
Now, if Badger really believes winning players include "players who win in the short term because of a large amount of random luck" but exclude those who win in the short term because of a *small* amount of random luck, then he would be making a conceptual error.
Well it certainly may be an empirical error that Badger is making if in fact he is wrong. I'm certain that I was wrong in deaming his potential error a conceptual error if in fact that is what I meant.
You wrote: "my own observations indicate that rocks can be winning players in certain types of games." This sounds like the same type of "empircal" error Badger may be making. Unless of course you can truly define "rock" and just what type of game the rock has an edge. Guess what; I've seen "idiots" win in all types of games but I have no way of knowing whether they are long term winners or not. I'm inclined to believe they are long term losers but no 3mpirical data to prove it.
Another point about Badger is that he is dead set against using a hierarchy of hands or a list of starting hands, if you will, to teach winning poker. Yet, if he is correct that there are rocks and if rocks play only the "very best" hands (whatever they may be) doesn't he imply that winning poker can be played by rote. Or more precisely by playing only certain hands. And if is true wouldn't this suggest that using a strating hand selection list would indeed be the best way to start a beginner? I personally think a hand selection list helps new players and players running bad. But that is an opinion only based on my personal experience in learning Holdem.
I also believe that winning "rocks", if they exist, need to know a lot more about the game than some self proclaimed poker experts would like to admit. Additionally I think that some so called poker authors write articles just to fill up space and use their impressions and beliefs rather than data "empirically" compiled to get their points accross. I put Badger in that category, sometimes.
Vince.
BTW - Mark, you seem to gain pleasure by pointing out errors by others rather than discussing the issue. Gee seems we have something in common here, after all I am criticising Badger. I guess that makes us friends or maybe just colleagues or something.
.
Vince,
You wrote: "You wrote: 'my own observations indicate that rocks can be winning players in certain types of games.' This sounds like the same type of 'empircal' error Badger may be making."
How so?
You continued: "Unless of course you can truly define 'rock' and just what type of game the rock has an edge."
As a Zen Buddhist might ask, can any of us truly define "rock?" ;-) Let's just use the commonly accepted definition. And let's say the type of game is an overly loose, low-limit game.
You wrote: "Guess what; I've seen 'idiots' win in all types of games but I have no way of knowing whether they are long term winners or not."
Certainly some people win despite having playing styles that have negative expectations. But I think overly tight "rocks" can have a positive expectation in certain games. (I'm writing, now, from a conceptual rather than empirical perspective.) Do you disagree?
You wrote: "I also believe that winning 'rocks', if they exist, need to know a lot more about the game than some self proclaimed poker experts would like to admit."
I'm not sure any of us "needs" to know a lot more about the game. I'm sure all of us "could" know a lot more about it.
You wrote: "Additionally I think that some so called poker authors write articles just to fill up space and use their impressions and beliefs rather than data 'empirically' compiled to get their points accross. I put Badger in that category, sometimes."
I think your comments also apply to some forum posters. I put you in that category, sometimes.
You wrote: "Mark, you seem to gain pleasure by pointing out errors by others rather than discussing the issue."
Did you read my post to which you responded? Sometimes, I go into detail while discussing certain issues. Sometimes, I don't go into great detail. And, sometimes, I try to encourage discussion by others.
As Sklansky once noted, "This is why I have a soft spot in my heart for Gary Carson, Abdul Jalib, Badger,Izmet Fekali, Jim Grier and even Mark Glover even though they sometimes criticize me. They back up their positions with careful reasoning and ususally non fallacious math and logic."
Also, I sometimes do point out errors by others. As Malmuth once noted, "In poker the thought process and the logical reasons behind it are frequently more important than what the play was. If you are thinking about things correctly, it is only a matter of time before you begin to play well."
You wrote: "Gee seems we have something in common here, after all I am criticising Badger. I guess that makes us friends or maybe just colleagues or something."
I don't think it makes us friends. ;-)
Good article as well as the original in MM's book. It makes a lot of sense if someone fits into all of the PUP categories.
Mark,
You wrote: "I don't think it makes us friends. ;-)"
I think you're right. But who knows what the future may bring.
I wrote: "I also believe that winning 'rocks', if they exist, need to know a lot more about the game than some self proclaimed poker experts would like to admit."
This was meant to say that if a player, rock or otherwise, is a winning player, then they must know more about the game than most poker writers care to admit or maybe just don't realize. Some writers believe "rocks" play only the very best hands. I believe a lot of "rocks" play better than that, picking and choosing situations very carefully not just specific types of hands.
I also believe that in certain games "rock" strategy works fine and have played rock style on many occaisions myself.
I wrote: "Mark, you seem to gain pleasure by pointing out errors by others rather than discussing the issue."
You came up with a nice answer but did not deny that it pleases you to point out errors by others. Especially, IMO, Sklansky and also some other poker authors. Could it be that I am right about this after all.
Bottom line, Mark, is: Happy New Year!
Vince
Vince,
Concerning Badgers article about rocks as overall winners,I just read a study by Lou Krieger comparing 50 years of play at 2000 hrs per year under different conditions in his book "Hold'em Excellence".In a simulation on page 22 the rock lost $3,000,000 in the $20/$40 game,the loose player lost $4,000,000 and the other 7 profiles won from $800k to $1.2million. Just some info to consider.
Pac
However, I don't consider this information very good since we don't know how well or realistic the simulations are when compared to real poker. Also, these simulations were done a bunch of years ago when these programs played really awful.
I think your friend is right and I do not believe they are additive. An adequate bankroll for $15-$30 should cover those times that you plan on stepping down to $10-$20.
Thanks Jim-
If it were one game instead of two, I could see how one bankroll would cover the total time since you can safely square this time. But what if it were two players? Surely, one 15-30 bankroll could not safely cover two players in the same situation, right? This is what's confusing me... (please see my response to Louie and respond if you have anything to add). I really appreciate your help with this.
Kevin
Jim,
Kevin wrote: "A friend of mine thinks this is ludricrous since I am already accouting for a worst case scenario at the higher limit and the addition of the lower limit sessions should not necessitate an increase."
You wrote: "I think your friend is right and I do not believe they are additive."
You are both wrong and right. Kevin's friend is wrong to believe the bankroll does not have to be increased to account for the addition of the lower limit sessions. Kevin is wrong to believe his bankroll requirements are additive.
To show that you cannot simply use the bankroll needed to finance your highest game level, let's look at an extreme case. Suppose Kevin planned to play one session of 15-30 and 100 sessions of 10-20. Do you really believe Kevin's 15-30 bankroll would be sufficient for all his planned poker sessions?
Perhaps you meant to suggest that his biggest bankroll requirement would be sufficient. In the above scenario, he should compute his 10-20 bankroll requirement and use that to fund all his poker sessions. But let's use another extreme example. Suppose Kevin planned to play 50 sessions of 15-30 and 50 sessions of 14-28. Would his biggest bankroll requirement be sufficient?
Obviously, Kevin's bankroll requirement has to increase to take into account his additional planned poker sessions, even if they are at a lower level.
But that bankroll requirement is not additive. See Louie's post for an explanation of why.
They are definately not additive. You can prove this by calculating 75 8-hour 15/30 sessions and noting that this figure is much less than 50% more than the 50 session number; that is BR(75) < 1.5*BR(50).
Adding 25 10/20 sessions rather than 25 15/30 sessions will probably require a lesser bankroll since the varience in the 10/20 is surely lower, but if your 10/20 win rate is much less than the 15/30 it may INCREASE your bankroll requirements, but I doubt it.
No, the difference between a 10/20 session and a 15/30 session is not that much more different than between two 15/30 sessions.
I believe this minimum bankroll requirements stuff, while of course accurate, is of little practical use. As Malmuth said somewhere you need to evaluate your own personal aversion to risk; which for most of us allows for a slight chance to go bust. Even so, when you lose half your bankroll most of us will drop down a level or play more selectively and thus significantly decrease the chances of going bust, thus reducing our original bankroll requirements.
I also believe that focusing so much on BR requirements detracts from other important uses of your neurons such as finding a good game and encourage artificial and detrimental "money management" schemes.
Find your own comfort level, then play comfortably.
- Louie
Thanks Louie-
You can prove this by calculating 75 8-hour 15/30 sessions and noting that this figure is much less than 50% more than the 50 session number; that is BR(75) < 1.5*BR(50).
This seemed obvious to me as well and was exactly what confused me but... 75 8-hour 15/30 sessions assumes that you do not touch your bankroll for the entire 75 sessions. This means that you can safely square the time played, so that your edge (assuming the player has one), figures to eventually catch up with and out perform any standard deviation.
Imagine there are two players instead of one. Player A playing 50- 15/30 sessions, and player B playing 25 10/20 sessions. It is not reasonable to assume they could both get by on one 15/30 bankroll...
It is not a matter of comfort or even money for me, since I believe I maintain an edge at both limits and am willing to put in whatever $$$ necessary to insure that my edge will eventually overtake any variance. However, I try to NEVER mix my poker bankroll with other money (it's a discipline thing). I put in X amount of $$$ at the beginning of 1999 and did not touch any winnings until now. I feel I deserve to make a withdrawal from my bankroll, but am unsure of how much I can safely take out. I do have a couple of problems though...
First, there is very limited game selection in my area (20-40 is not even an option for me since they kick off at such inconvenient times).
Second, time will be a problem for me this year. I can only play in one weekly 15/30 game while adding an additional 10/20 game every other week which comes to about 600 hours for the year. I know it may sound like I'm being too persnickity about all this, but I just want to put aside enough $$$ and forget about it knowing I am covered to survive most cold streaks, bad beats, etc. Thanks.
Kevin
Black-jack has the unique feature that increasing the stakes does little to affect one's win-rate. This means that bank-roll requirement calculations are performed in order to determine how high you can play for a given bankroll. If YOU double your BJ bankroll then YOU can play more than twice as high. If you and your identical twin combine bankrolls, the two of you can effectively play more than twice as high as either one of you individually.
So you are wrong in your 3rd paragraph. Two identical-twins each playing half as often as either one need the same bankroll as one. I will admit, however, that going busted is twice as bad when there are two of you than if there is only one.
I admire your respect for your bankroll. I would like to point out, however, that these calculations presume going bust is some sort of "disaster". This does not seem to be the case for you since you obviously have a job and can create a new bankroll by not going to Mom's next Christmas.
Your bankroll is obviously very healthy for you and you should stop worrying about it. If you lose a bunch then reconsider.
- Louie
Jim Brier has hit this very accurately. In my book POKER ESSAYS there is an essay called "Weak Tight Opponents." In it I state:
A weak tight player exhibits four characteristics: (1) he clearly will play fairly tight, (2) he usually plays in very predictable patterns, (3) he has the ability to fold marginal hands, and (4) he bluffs very little.
Later on it says:
One last comment. Although weak tight players are great opponents because you can win lots of chips from them, I believe this type of play is the first step toward winning. In fact, most weak tight players will be small winners as long as they stay in small- to moderate-size games, usually $10-$20 and below. This is because even with their deficiencies, they still are playing much better than the tourists and many of their other opponents. However, at higher limits where many more experts can be found, weak tight players usually don't stand a chance.
Yes, I wrote all of this before Badger was even a "pouchling." But that's not my purpose in repeating it here.
Now I generally play in games at the $30-$60 level (though I'm hoping that will change in a few months), and at that level there are no weak tight players that win any money. This is an important fact for those of you who read these forums and are trying to become top players. While learning to play tight is important and essential, there is much more to it.
So why do weak tight players do poorly outside of the smaller games. I believe that there are two reasons for this. First, weak tight players are poor card readers, and second they rarely ever bluff. Notice that these two skills go well together. Good reading skills will sometimes allow you to work a profitable bluff in, but the weak tight player would never think of doing so anyway. Put another way, weak tight players don't play very well from the flop on.
Mason,
My Hero/Student (nicely resting after crushing them again at the middle limits today at a local card barn) loved your Essay Books, including the aforementioned chapter. She still has to work on fundamentals but I can guarantee you she is on her way to becoming an excellent card reader and she is the antithesis of weak tight!
Happy New Year and Best Wishes For a Prosperous 2001!
Rick
PS: My New Year's prediction is that you and Badger will not kiss and make up.
m
.
How would you classify the late George Collins? Do you think he could have made money in the Bellagio 30-60 game?
I don't know who the late George Collins was.
Thanks anyway. Ray Z. remembers him.
Mason wrote :
"Put another way, weak tight players don't play very well from the flop on. "
They play well pre-flop, but poor post flop.
Recently, I have encounted many loose-aggressive players who play way too many hands pre-flop, but then play very well post-flop.
Two questions : Which one would you rather be in a 30/60 game, assuming you only had these two choices, and you must play - weak tight (good preflop, poor post flop) or loose aggressive (poor preflop, good postflop)?
Also, which one would you rather face at the table (assuming the other 7 or 8 guys are normal)?
It actually depends upon how well the loose-aggressive player performs post flop but in general I believe a loose-aggressive player will lose more money over the course of a year at $30-$60 than a weak-tight player. Personally, I would rather face a weak-tight player as an opponent rather than a loose, aggressive one because I am less likely to make a mistake against the weak-tight player.
While I think I know what you are saying, it's somewhat ironic that you think that the loose-aggressive player will lose more money but yet you would rather have the weak tight dude as your opponent.
Personally, I like a mix of opponents...a couple of weak-tights along with a couple of loose-aggressives and hopefully a clueless calling station makes for a good table.
Nothing worse than playing a table full of weak-tights...it's like watching paint dry. While it may be profitable in the long run, it's not enough money to compensate for the boredom that these guys subject you to.
Weak-tight players are easier to beat up and down all night than loose-aggresive ones. With weak-tight players, you can use your full arsenal against them, especially the bluff and the powerful semi-bluff. Loose-aggresive players tend to want to showboat and control the game, and beating them is more about timing than anything else.
I invite all of the players who post, or simply read here to join me in a New Year's Resolution:
"I will not whine anymore!" If someone plays bad and wins against me, that's o.k. That's what I want them to do! If they played correctly, then I made a mistake and I will learn from it!
"I will not blame dealers or others for my losses." The dealer has nothing to do with it...ever! They insure that the game I'm in is being run fair and honest. The bad players are what feed my bankroll. I want them in my game. I can not lose if I play well. Today maybe, but never in the long run.
"I will not ask for deck changes or new setups". This only slows down the games and cuts into my profit. All decks have the same 52 cards in them... nothing changes!
"I will tip all competent dealers for every hand I win". For most, this is their sole source of income. I win consistantly thanks in part to their hard work. They deserve my praise as well. If they are incompetant, I will tell the management, not berate them in front of others!
"I will not allow abusive players to ruin my game". If a player abuses a dealer, I will speak up. If a player abuses another player, I will try to pull that player aside and make him realize that a bad player is good for the game, don't send them off by abusing them. I will make it a point to make this game better for all.
"I will tell no more bad beat stories". I will greet all my fellow players with questions about their lives. After all, life is more important than poker. (But poker is a close 2nd) We've all seen it ALL before... no need to beat a dead horse!
"I will not talk about the play of a hand with anyone at the table". Why should I help educate my opponents?
"I will become that ONE player we all enjoy playing with". We all know that person. He/she is always pleasant. Fun to be around. Never has a bad thing to say about anybody.
Please join me in making this a part of your game. For that matter... make it a part of your everyday life! Happy New Year to all and Keep Playing Hard!
Glen,
"If they played correctly, then I made a mistake and I will learn from it!"
This is not true. Figure out why, and learn.
"The dealer has nothing to do with it...ever!"
Sometimes dealer errors do effect my profits or losses.
"[Dealers] insure that the game I'm in is being run fair and honest."
Usually, but not always.
"I can not lose if I play well. Today maybe, but never in the long run."
Want to bet on that?
"I will not ask for deck changes or new setups."
If some decks are more warped than others, I will continue to sometimes ask for deck changes. If card backs are marked, I will ask for a deck change. If there are missing or duplicate cards, I will ask for a deck change. If I suspect an opponent is holding out one or more cards, I will ask for a deck change.
"For most [dealers], [tips] is their sole source of income."
Then many dealers should be complaining about the poor enforcement of minimum wage laws.
"We've all seen it ALL before..."
I haven't.
"I will not talk about the play of a hand with anyone at the table."
I sometimes will, if it will help be get a better line on my opponents.
While I agree with many of your sentiments, I also think we could resolve to improve our logical understanding of the game of poker, especially on this forum.
"In poker the thought process and the logical reasons behind it are frequently more important than what the play was. If you are thinking about things correctly, it is only a matter of time before you begin to play well." (Mason Malmuth, 14 December 1999.)
no text
If you felt the need to disect each and every line in my resolution... then you missed the whole point. I could have simply stated "Self-improvement" but I thought I'd give people an idea as to what's wrong in this game... generally speaking. You missed the whole point!
I am a regular mid-limit holdem player. I play slightly less than full time, and for several years the majority of my income has bee derived from poker.
I have been experiencing major losses in the last several months. I have had some winning weeks, but it has seemed almost impossible to put together any substantial wins. Please understand that the purpose of this message is not to lament, and that my play has NOT deteriorated, even in the face of extremely frustrating results. I regularly consult with other professional players in my area, and analyze hands and sessions, even on this forum.
I have taken certain measures as a result of the losses. I have moved down in limits (although I still play mid-limit). I have tightened up a bit as far as small edges go. I try to play in only the best games. On the very worst nights, I leave when I feel psychologically drained.
Now, here is the point of this post. I have acknowledged the possibility that this bad streak may not end any time soon. However, I wonder if anyone could tell me how long it may last. I understand 1,000 hours is not very uncommon. And here is the real question: When it is over, can I expect similar streaks? If not, what can I expect?
Thank you.
It sounds like you have found some of the answers. Not playing too long of sessions is a good start, as is tightening up on the small edges and playing at a lower limit.
Still, I recommend you consider changing your style of play. When I first moved over to mainly limit hold-em, I had long winning streaks. Once I became a "better player", my results deteriorated. The common advice when losing is to tighten up, but I've noticed that if I "let the tiger loose" that my game gives me more winning opportunities to outplay weaker opponents after the flop. Running bad can become a cyclical event if your game tightens up too much.
The flip side of this is maybe what might be called the "pro game". If your opponents are all knowledgable competent players, then all of the moves that you might make against weaker competition are just fodder for those players trying to get inside your head. If that is the case, I would revert to a basic strategy.
Finally, I've noticed that when I'm running bad in one locale, I can go back to my records and find where I've been running good. For example, I was winning regularly at the Horseshoe in Tunica throughout the summer, then started running bad. I saw that my results in Soaring Eagle (Michigan) were excellent, so I've spent more time there recently. Get out of ALL ruts and routines in order to improve your attitude and break the streak.
I would not change my style of play if what you post is true. You say you have, for several years, derived the majority of your income from poker. You are now in a losing period that has lasted several months. You do not play for years and earn a substantial amount of your income playing "slightly less" than full time by playing poorly. I submit that you just happen to be in an extended losing streak that will correct itself if you stick to what has worked for you all these years. To change your style of play would only worsen the problem in my opinion. Just keep doing what worked for you in the past and you will eventually straighten out.
Been there, done that.
My biggest problem is that the majority of my "win" came from outplaying the opponents with some "spectacular" plays. When losing, I tended to lose nerve and would hesitate which was a disaster for my style of play. It took a while to figure out that if I cannot outplay the opponents while out-on-a-limb then I had better adjust my ENTIRE game to go out there much less often; which for me meant playing more like I say I do. This means not just tightening up in "marginal" situations.
If you usually play a creative game and feel bad for any reason, you'd better play a more book-like game.
Yes, you can expect similar streaks. How you handle them is what matters.
When I was 9 during the cold war I found a friend looking at the sky worring he'd see the death-missile coming. How silly, I thought, since there isn't anything he can do about it.
Don't be my friend. Play your best game and let someone else worry about how long a streak may last. After all, there is no such thing as "being on a steak", only "have been on a streak".
- Louie
Bully for you. Doing extra homework and analyzing a previous session works wonders for MY attitude as well.
Louie,
Even though you don't read my posts I read yours. This one is outstanding!
Happy New Year!
Rick
I don't read your posts either, Rick. ;-)
i hope you didnt change your posting name to hide from me because i give you such a hard time for being so skinny. as your new shortened moniker is also a skinny form. try a chocolate shake.
Ha, I was eating chocolate Tofuti when I read your post. :)
Sometimes I just like to be a little inconspicuous. So then I go with the skinny name.
you didnt pay attention in school Louie. when you saw the death missle or told it was coming you put your head under the desk in the classroom. we all practiced this many times.
You confuse not caring with not paying attention.
How silly that was as well, except that with your head under the desk you are not blinded by the flash a split second before getting vaporized; which I guess has SOME positive EV for some people. The Slim Pickens in me would want me to see it explode.
- Louie
Note the reference to EV. This is how we anal-retentive folk justify "strategy" posts.
Each time you sit down and play, pretend it is your first and only session. As for how long it will last, it may have ended in your last session, in your very next session, or it could last much longer. If you're playing 20-40, 4000 hours could be the worst case scenario as long as you continue to play well despite the negative run. Remember to act as if each session that you play is your first and only.
Jack,
every hand is a new one and the previous ones do not affect it. so there is no bad streak going forward only looking backward. most likely all times ive ever seen or heard from someone on an extended losing streak they were playing badly or playing in games that didnt mesh with their style. id look there first. its hard to accept and admit when we play poorly as it reflects on us personally, but look inside deeply and be honest. then if its just bad previous luck, win going forward. if its changed your play take a vacation as that will be much cheaper than what you lose trying to regain your composure.good luck.
Add that to a healthy bankroll will give some peace of mind during horrible cold streaks, just plain cold facts.
Jack:
I have read the above responses and saw something useful in each one of them. However, I like Ray's positive attitude towards the game and his expressed viewes the way the things should generally work.
I say generally because I wonder whether everyone can fully relate to your experience, that is, going through a long dry spell with no relief on the horizon. It is discouraging, depressing and disbelieving. One's personal outlook and/or attitude towards reality does not seem to change anything. I have dealt with such desperations; I have been there myself. Just how many times do you get dealt, say, 27o in an 6-8 hrs session? Then, this get to be repeated in the next 15-20-30 sessions and makes you thinking if you at all can win a hand.
Perhaps, the best immediate remedy is, as Ray too has suggested, to take a break from the game. Re-visit your poker books and compare those game strategies to the ones you currently utilize in your play. Be your "worst" critique in order to grasp the reality. Make sure you know the intricate complexities of the game. The greater your knowledge of the game you play, the lesser your dependency on the element of the luck associated with the favourable outcome.
Another suggestion is to, if only temporarely, move to a lower limit game, a game in tume with your comfort zone where you will play considerably weaker opponents.
Be more selective in the way you chose your tables, for not all of them are identical, if even similar, in textures. And for a while, do not play marginal hands so as to minimize your loss "risk" exposure. I have seen many individuals dropping lots of money in an brutally loosing session rather then tightening their plays and re-adopting to more appropriate strategies.
While these advices may not get you totally out of the red, I hope they help you see a new, fres perspective.
Wish you good luck!
You must remember that in full tabled limit hold'em your advantage over your opponents is statistical not absolute. You are playing in a game that is dominated by luck which is why it is a gambling game. You asked about losing streaks. Here are some facts:
1. In his book "Gambling Theory and Other Topics", Mason Malmuth talks about a $30-$60 low ball player who can beat his game for $30 per hour and could nevertheless have a 4000 hour losing streak.
2. I have a good friend who has read all the books, plays a good game, and is usually the best player in the $1-$4-$8-$8 games he plays in here on the Las Vegas strip. He has played well over 1000 hours and lost over $2000.
3. A good friend of mine from Houston is an attorney who plays $20-$40 part time. He is an excellent player who was averaging almost $40 per hour over his first 1000 hours of play. Over the next 800 hours of play he lost $13,000.
4. Mike Caro is reputed to have stated that over the course of his career a poker pro can expect to have a 1000 hour losing streak.
I could give you many more examples. I believe the biggest single reason otherwise competent poker players quit the game is because they run into an extended losing streak of 500-1000 hours. They quit not because they go broke. They quit because the game simply isn't fun anymore.
I recommend you step down to a lower limit game that you know you can beat until you grind out enough of a win to get back a signficant percentage of the money you lost. This will help restore both your bankroll and your confidence. If it means dropping down to a low limit game like $6-$12 then so be it.
Unless, you believe in hocus-pocus then you are not on a streak at all.
You WERE on one but that is over. There is no way to tell what will happen over the next 500 hours.
Say for example, the longest known losing streak by a good player playing his best was 2000 hours. Now suppose you have been losing for 1999 hours. There is no rule stating that you couldn't continue to lose for another 2000 hours.
Also, when does a losing streak end? When you have gained back 1/2 your losses or all them since the start of the streak. Certainly you are winning again but if you count the entire period you are still on the losing streak.
It's a matter of perspective.
Good future luck!
In "Getting the Best of it" David gives a very simple formula for figuring keno odds.
Specifically he gives the formula for determining the odds of hitting exactly six numbers when you mark an eight spot ticket.
I extrapolated this down to figure out the odds of hitting exactly five out of eight; four out of eight; three, two and one out of eight.
The problem is that the odds for hitting one out of eight is HIGHER than the odds for hitting two out of eight. I've done the problem a dozen times. What am I doing wrong?
Thanx.
Exaggerations can be okay.
There are times, for instance, when readers expect and accept exaggerations, as in the "Forward" section to books. Obvious exaggerations also can be effective literary devices (e.g., "My favorite baseball team wins once in a Blue Moon.").
At other times, however, exaggerations serve little purpose and can damage a writer's credibility.
Are any of the following statements exaggerations? If so, do they have positive or negative "expectation?"
"If you take our advice, you will seldom, if ever, play hands that are four-gapped or worse unless they are suited--and then only under very favorable circumstances."[1]
"'Should I checkraise or should I bet?' comes up frequently. Unless you think your opponent will bet *and* call your raise, you should come out betting."[2] (Emphasis in the original.)
"Remember, unless you think your opponent will bet *and* call your raise, betting is the preferred course of action."[3] (Emphasis in the original.)
"If you are not certain you'll hold the best hand if you are called, or you aren't sure one of your opponents will bet if you check, do not checkraise."[4]
"You're always better off committing a small error of calling with a losing hand, than the catastrophic error of folding a winner."[5]
"But winning players are more selective than their opponents, and they enter pots only with hands that are superior to those that their opponents play most of the time."[6]
"Every poker player should be concerned about two basic statistical measures: win rate . . . standard deviation . . ."[7]
"If you're not comfortable at a certain level of risk, or you are playing on a short bankroll, you'd be better off minimizing your standard deviation than trying to maximize your winnings."[8]
"Whenever you sit in a game for cash stakes, you'll be facing opponents who use computers for poker study."[9]
"Dumb [computer] simulations produce misleading results, and you really won't find them helpful in improving your game."[10]
"Part of being a professional [non-poker] player is how well you play when you're not at your best--and you won't be at your best all the time. But professional poker players need to play their best game every time they walk into a casino."[11]
------------------
[1] Richard D. Harroch and Lou Krieger, POKER FOR DUMMIES, 2000, p. 64.
[2] PFD, p. 73.
[3] PFD, p. 76.
[4] PFD, p. 78.
[5] PFD, p. 80.
[6] PFD, p. 103.
[7] PFD, p. 145.
[8] PFD, p. 151.
[9] PFD, p. 204.
[10] PFD, p. 212.
[11] PFD, p. 266.
Maybe I'm missing your point. I generally agree with everything you quoted.
There are games where #4 might hold, but if that's the case then the reader of "Poker For Dummies" is in the wrong game. Point #9 is a clear exageration, and probably isn't at all true for games below 5/10. For games higher than that I'd say it's probably 50/50 that someone has "used" the computer in some way shape or form to help them study poker. Point #11 is a clear contradiction, but it emphasizes the importance of playing your A game all the time.
But most of these "exagerations" are solid and sound advice for anyone who should buy the book.
- Andrew
Andrew,
You wrote: "Maybe I'm missing your point. I generally agree with everything you quoted."
Hmmmmm. Where should we begin? How about with the first quotation?
"If you take our advice, you will seldom, if ever, play hands that are four-gapped or worse unless they are suited--and then only under very favorable circumstances."
The "if ever" clearly is an exaggeration. I've been known to play 72o in the big blind when it checks around. So the phrase is unnecessary, at best. It also might cause some readers to question the authors' credibility. And if beginning poker players realize the authors are wrong in this instance, they might be skeptical of all the authors' advice--even the good advice.[1]
The "very favorable" clearly is an exaggeration as well. When I do play 72o in the big blind, it is rarely under very favorable circumstances.
Worse, a novice could read this sentence to mean that the only reason the authors do not recommend playing K8o in middle position is that the circumstances are not "very favorable." "But maybe these circumstances are moderately favorable," an eager-to-play beginner might think, "so it's probably okay for me to venture into this pot."
Isn't this wording better: "If you take our advice, you will seldom play hands that are four-gapped or worse."
We could take a look at the second and third quotations next, but why don't you read them again and see if you can identify a problem without my assistance. They actually contain several flaws. I gave the authors the benefit of the doubt and labelled these flaws "exaggerations" rather than "conceptual errors."
You wrote: "But most of these 'exagerations' are solid and sound advice for anyone who should buy the book."
If you take a second look at those quotations, I think you will find that the advice they offer is not as solid nor as sound as you first thought.
As for the book's intended audience, please see my (forthcoming) response to chetk.
--------------------
[1] Yes, I generally encourage readers to be skeptical, but novice players often need to accept certain poker advice on faith until they gain a better understanding of poker concepts.
Mark you are 100 % correct, thank you for taken the time and I want you to know that you are not the only one that suffer with this kind of writting every where. It is a good thing that will always have Ernest Hemingway to adore for ever. IMHO.
Mark,
I think you're spinning a web of nits around yourself. If you don't consider playing a hand for FREE to be a very favorable circumstance, then I suggest you retune you understanding of favorable.
- Andrew
Andrew,
From POKER FOR DUMMIES, we learn: "If you take our advice, you will seldom, if ever, play hands that are four-gapped or worse unless they are suited--and then only under very favorable circumstances."
I noted: "The 'very favorable' clearly is an exaggeration as well. When I do play 72o in the big blind, it is rarely under very favorable circumstances."
You wrote: "If you don't consider playing a hand for FREE to be a very favorable circumstance, then I suggest you retune you understanding of favorable."
I think you are reaching. By playing a hand under "very favorable circumstances," I believe the authors meant playing it with an *overall* very good expectation--not just for the pre-flop betting round. It certainly is what I meant.
You also wrote: "I think you're spinning a web of nits around yourself."
Did you read those quotations a second time, like I requested? If you did and still believe their flaws are mere "nits," then you could be one of the people who might benefit significantly from reading the book (although those particular quotations probably won't help you).
I'm not sure what to make of all that. Alot of those statements, if they were in the right context, wouldn't be all that bad. But taken by themselves they are really dreadful. For example:
"You're always better off committing a small error of calling with a losing hand, than the catastrophic error of folding a winner."[5]
Was this in the context of folding for a single bet on the river when the pot is large? If so it's a small exaggeration and can be further tempered by a discussion of your degree of confidence that you will win vs. pot size. Hopefully he gets the idea across somewhere that you don't always call with a busted draw.
But taken by itself it is advising a player to be a calling station. Which would probably qualify it as the worst possible single piece of advice in the history of poker.
David
perhaps i miss your point, but the book title FOR DUMMIES, to me means that the author is addressing the un-initiated. Soooooo, i believe that emphasis is warranted to stress what a new player(dummy) must pay attention to while playing. Hell, unconciously, i over emphsize the various "rules/methods of play" in my mind so as not to make a mistake. Hey WATCH he never checks in early position when he opens the raising, he MUST have hit it BIG. don't you talk to yourself with heavy emphasis through your thought progressions depending on the situation. In fact, i'm doing it now, BE SURE to mention bla bla.
i'm sure that reading a basic text can be tedious, but let's keep the purpose of the book in mind while rating its merits. thank you.
chetk,
You wrote: "perhaps i miss your point, but the book title FOR DUMMIES, to me means that the author is addressing the un-initiated."
It is precisely because the book is aimed at novice players that these exaggerations are as grievous as they are.
First, beginning players are less likely to realize that the exaggerations are actually exaggerations.
Some might actually believe, "Unless you think your opponent will bet *and* call your raise, you should come out betting." Hopefully, they quickly will learn that this is not true, but it could be a needlessly expensive lesson.
Second, beginning players who do recognize some exaggerations as exaggerations might wonder how much of the authors' other advice also is exaggerated--even the advice that is not. The authors' credibility is damaged.
In well-written books of this sort, a mutual respect will develop between the authors and the readers.
The authors respect the readers enough to craft their words carefully. They don't want to mislead their audience. They strive to make it as easy as possible for their readers to correctly understand their points.
If the readers, in turn, discover few flaws in the book, they will embrace the advice and find it worth their effort to try to understand the concepts.
I'm not that familiar with Richard D. Harroch, but I respect much of Lou Krieger's written works. He understands that language is a powerful tool.
But I am left with the impression that this book was rushed to print. It could have used at least a couple more drafts, better editing, and more careful proofreading. I suspect the authors would agree with that assessment.
That said, I also should note (again) that I do believe certain players should benefit from reading this book.
this is a question that has troubled me for the last couple months. there is really no way to arrive at my question without a seemingly useless autobiography. for those who do not wish to read the bio feel free to skip down to the question......BIOGRAPHY...i am 22 years old, i have been a student of poker for about 9 months now. i am an avid reader of all 2+2 titles (as well as other popular credited authors) pertaining to poker. i have recently gotten out of the marine corps and have had an extended vacation for the last 5 months. needless to say i have had a lot of time on my hands. i have not been utilizing that time very efficiently but that is besides the point. i spend a great deal of time studying and rereading poker books....PROBLEM...i have never been proficient with math. i recieved straight A's in high school, but as far as math went, let's just say i was a dedicated homework copier for a few years. my lack of mathematical wisdom made me notice certain characteristics in people who were good at mathematics. from that i derived two personality profiles that i have been able to categorize almost everyone i have ever met into CATEGORY 1...mathematical mind- it seems to me that most people who have good-great math skills tend to be more forward thinking and creative. it seems they can concoct a way of doing something that is either extremely brilliant or extremely stupid. they seem to forget small things like appointments and appear to be lost when several things are going on (lose situational awareness). most that i have observed have very little common sense, some are downright ditzy. the mathematical mind will definately find a cure for cancer.. CATEGORY 2...studious mind- i definately fall into this category. this category is made up of people with either photographic memories or at least excellent recall. the kind of person who reads something once and it sticks with them for life (history, literature, meaningless trivial pursuit questions, ect..) this person is usually not very creative but can understand perfectly the meaning of someone elses creativity. this person is not the artist but can describe the artist's work in explicit detail whereas the artist could not. CATEGORY 3-i had to include a category that includes people who posess both types of minds (nobel prize winners) and people that posess none (my pothead friends QUESTION - when it comes to poker, what percent of successful players fall into which category, are most great players of a studious mind or a mathematical mind. Kyle Bell
ps Dr. Schoonmaker wrote a kickass book
Question 2-am i at a great learning disadvantage without haveing a mathematical mind?
Kyle - I couldn't answer your question #1, but I'll take a stab at #2.
First of all, perhaps you're selling yourself short. There is a whole spectrum of aptitudes for math. Maybe you're not as bad as you seem to think you are.
The very act of putting things in categories, as you have done, shows an organized approach which is part of an analytical approach.
There is not a lot of math one (who is not a genius) can do while playing a poker hand. Most of my poker math is done ahead of time, away from the poker table, while preparing for various situations I might encounter.
When you play poker, you frequently encounter situations where the odds in your favor. If you are able to exploit these situations, you have a better chance to be a winning player. The very nature of odds involves math.
Therefore, yes, you would be at somewhat of a disadvantage with a low aptitude for math. However, in my humble opinion, other skills (such as reading your opponents) are more important than math ability.
Just my opinion.
Semper Fi.
Buzz
Kyle,
I think you sell us all short by trying to categorize. Personality and intelligence are much too complicated to be described in such simple terms.
For example, you put yourself in category 2. The category containing people with photographic memories or excellent recall. If you had either of these traits then you would probably know how to spell the word "definitely".
Please don't take the above observation as an insult. I just found it so ironic that I had to comment.
To answer your question... I think the most successful players are the ones that continuously work to make their game better by reading, studying, thinking about and discussing the game.
thank you both for the responces, i did no think i was onto any sort of breakthrough thought or question, i just needed some sort of opinion from people who i would say have more of the same thought process as i do. i found it very difficult to put these thoughts into words and definitely did not take to the time to do a spellcheck...thanks again...Kyle Bell
Last week there were a few posts from people who talked about quitting poker. I have been thinking along their lines for a while now and after evaluating my results from last year I think I agree with them.
Last year I played 843 hours and made $2,860, being $3.39 per hour. This was after a good October and Novemebr and a brutal December. I played mainly 10-20 but also some 5-10 and 4-8. Now I'll be the first to admit that just over $3.00 an hour is nothing spectacular but I suspect that if everyone was completely honest this is about what most posters make who play 5-10 and 10-20.
The thing that really bothers me is the 843 hours. If I had spent just 100 of those hours at work I would have made more than $2,860. Then I would have had 743 hours to do whatever I wanted to do. Now if you play poker simply for the enjoyment good for you but I think you would rather spend your time doing other things. I know I would much rather do many other things than play poker such as golf, play hockey, watch t.v., sex, just to name a few. Sitting in a room with other poker players for 6-10 hours, getting a sore butt, is not my idea of a good time. Where I play I am lucky in that the casinos are smoke free but if you play where smoking is allowed this is even more reason. I also gained 10 pounds over the year. I could have had a year of workouts with those 843 hours. You have to admit when you go into a poker room the players generally do not provide a picture of health and fitness.
Poker is also a very frustrating game as we all know. Getting sucked out by someone who calls your raise with 5-3s and stuff like that really makes you wonder why you play. As Jim Brier constantly says luck is such a huge factor in this game.
How many players have their work affected by poker? Be honest now. I admit I have. Playing 843 hours definitely means you have to neglect other things in your life. Maybe it's not work but it will be something, ie. spouse, family, health, etc.
The only reason I played poker was to make money. It is not enough enjoyment simply to play for pleasure only. And for me anyways, there is not enough money to be made. Maybe I'll play once in a while but I think a temporary hiatus is in order for me. So for you that do decide to continue playing good luck and for those that decide not to good luck in the other (more worthwhile) endeavors you spend your time on.
to fix your problem, you need to do one of the following :
1. quit poker - you just don't like it.
2. play better and bigger games - then you'll make more money, and maybe it'll be worth it for you.
3. play the same limits, but only as a pasttime - like going to the bowling alley or something like that - and only for periods when you enjoy the challenge.
or maybe not. It seems people decide to stop playing poker because the yare not making enough money.
Well!! The point of a game is that IT'S A GAME!!!
If you are not having FUN then why play. There are many many things to do that are not fun that you can make a lot of money at.
The reason to play poker is that 1. it's fun 2. you can get a little money out of it. Instead of paying $15 for 2 hours at a movie you can MAKE a few bucks playing poker.
Unless you decided to play for a living, relax and enjoy the gambling experience. Some days you will be a winner and some days you will be a loser. The long run for a $20 table player sucks when you average out 800 hours. UNLESS, you are very good.
But - you answered your own question. If it ain't fun, why do it!!
One man's pain is another man's pleasure. (Or however that saying goes.)
I love poker. I'm not quite in the same place as the famous player who said, "The next best thing to gambling and winning is gambling and losing," but I'm sure close. Sure losing is frustrating, especially when you've been "sucked out" on by the idiot cold caller with 5-3, but the other activities you mentioned can be frustrating too: you hit a good 3 iron just when a gust of wind takes it off line and what would have been a cinch par, or maybe a birdie becomes a double bogey when you get plugged in the bunker. The hockey puck hits you in the mouth. The cable goes out just at the crucial moment of your favorite Simpsons episode. Or you get sucked out on during sex. (Sorry about that.)
Golf takes about 5 hours for a round, not including travel time to and from the course. So your 843 hours would have been around 165 round of golf. At $30 a round (cheap in my neck of the woods), this would have cost you about $5,000, not including the cost of clubs, balls, accessories, etc. Is golf worth it? It depends on how much you like it, which probably also depends, at least to some degree, on how good you are at it, which probably also depends on how much you work at it. Even hobbies require, to enjoy them, some work,study, and concentration.
So if you feel the negatives of playing poker outweigh the positives, by all means, do something else, or at least play poker less often. But this man does not live by hockey, golf TV and sex alone.
As has already been mentioned, you have answered your own question--take a break!!
If in a week or month or year you are drawn back into it, then great. If not, you have other things to do.
Playing for money is not the only reason to play poker, and despite what many players think about themselves, it usually isn't the only reason they play, even if they think it is.
Come back wanting to win a little and to have fun or be challenged.......winning a lot takes a huge amount of effort, learning and experience. I have only played two years seriously and I look forward to the challenge of trying to acheive the many levels above me, although I already make a little now.
Good luck.
spouse, family, health - are over rated.
especially if you have none of them
I spent 565 hours at The Holiday Inn between January and August 15th and a further 320 hours on Planet Poker between August 15th and the end of the year. BTW, I am never going back to the Holiday Inn again - why play Canadian 10-20 when you can play 20-40 yankee doodle money?! Plus, the convenience of playing at home etc.
What amazes me is that even though you played 843 hours (mostly at Holiday Inn I take it), you and I never met!
I have enjoyed good results this year (over 1 bb an hour) and generally have each of the 5 years that I have played poker semi-seriously....yet I can tell you that I too have often considered quitting.
The game takes a lot of time away from other things I could (and probably should) be doing with my life. This Forum takes up a lot of time and I have often seriously considered removing it from my "favourites" list.
It's all a matter of priorities. A smart guy like you who has so many things going for him in his life (law practice, family, outside interests etc.) can easily avoid the poker room and be better off for it. I am almost positive that I will be leaving poker within the next 5 years for the same reasons.
Let's get out for a round of golf some time. My number is in the Legal Directory and of course my e-mail address is set out above. I love the game but am not very good at it (about a 22 handicap).
Good luck, Clint and whatever you decide...don't look back.
Thanks skp.
We played almost the same number of hours and have similar stresses from work so I know you can relate, although you with the new boy have it even tougher than me... must have an understanding wife. I don't think I am quitting for good but just taking a break... couple of months or so and then see what happens. Maybe I wont want to return maybe I will who knows.
I bet we have met at the Holiday Inn but I can't say for sure. I didn't start playing there until June 24 of this year. Before that I played 5-10 in Surrey and 4-8 at the Blueboy but since July I have played 90 per cent of the time at the Holiday Inn.
Anyway I will accept the golf invite for sure. I'm about a 20 handicap as well.
Clinteroo,
I must know you from the Surrey (Newton) great canadian casino. Games are great there right now apart from the smoking.
Drop me an email. You too SKP.
skp I'm glad to hear you are no longer playing at HI. Maybe now I can go back and return to my winning ways. As for golf I think you and clinteroo should come up to Squamish for a game. Given your hadicaps (which I am sure are accurate) I can get some of my money back.
You are on for that Squamish round, Herb... er..Matlock...but given that I am a fair weather golfer, that might be a few months yet.
Happy new year and hope to see ya soon.
BTW, what's with so many Vancouver lawyers playing poker...
I think you should quit poker if you only play for money. Furthermore, there is no real money in low limit poker unless you want to limp by on maybe $1000-$1500 a month. As a hobby, poker is the only one that does not cost you money over the course of a year. My father had a 7 handicap and he never made a dime playing golf. I averaged about $19 per hour playing $10-$20 and below last year.
you're not doing it right.
But Jim I doubt your dad played golf for over 800 hours a year. He would have to play every second day for that to be the case. My biggest concern is it just takes up too much time which could (or should) be spent on other things.
Plus at least your dad got some exercise by golfing.
Clinteroo,
I have just come back from a 8 month hiatus and will be tracking my records as well as trying to keep my life in balance.
I stopped for all the reasons you mentioned.
I should mention that I really enjoy playing poker.
I stopped when the combination of "effects on my life" and a very long losing streak hit. Had I been winning I doubt I would have taken the break I did.
Losing just made me realize that I could use the rest from the game.
How do you feel after the hiatus? Did you miss poker at all? Did the other aspects of your life improve?
The first 2 months were very tough. I always wanted to get into the action.
After that not playing wasn't as hard. I did continue to read this forum and card player etc.
I got a lot more sleep which helps. Now I'm trying to learn to play and get home by 1 which means I can still get 6 hours sleep.
I was able to address other issues which mostly involved time. Nothing really solved by stopping ... I was just able to spend time working on things.
I also spent more time with friends ( outside of poker).
In general, stopping did not fix anything for me but allowed me the time to address other things.
When did you stop playing in Newton? What's your name? Mine is Clint... as you could probably gather.
Played in Newton up to 8 months ago from opening day. Played at Guildford before that. Also played Blueboy and Richmond before the game died.
HI is a bit far for me PLUS I loaned 1/2 my bankroll 2 years ago and haven't got it back yet. After losing 2K I was in no mood to play 10/20 with only 2K backing me.
My name's Mike Nelson. I don't post using it ( I did once) cause I fear revealing too much about the way I play.
Clint doesn't strike a bell with me, although I'm sure I'd know you to see you.
Blasphemy!!!! Blasphemy!!!! Blasphemy!!!! I have never read a more disgusting thread in my whole life. The fact is, poker is a religion - a spiritual experience. It is one of the Almighty's greatest gifts to humanity. Thus, those of you who have chosen to bad mouth it in this thread have committed unforgivable mortal sin. Shame on you you evil Anti-Poker Activists!!!! Shame on you, I say!!!! May your souls find their way into the abyss and burn in hell!!!!! Shame on you!!!!!!!!!!
But tell us how you really feel. It's bad for you to hold it in.
Let's say you make about 1/2 a big bet per hour playing $10-20 with a standard deviation of $200 an hour and that's all you played for 843 hours. Your results would fall within the following range:
$-8990 to $25850
or
$-10.66 an hour to $30.66 an hour
If your results are within 1 standard deviation they would fall within the following range:
$2624 to $14236
or
$3.11 an hour to $16.89 an hour.
The luck factor with 843 hours is very high.
Taking a book back to exchange. Since I play 100% Low-Limit Hold'em should I get
1. Winning Low-Limit Hold'em by Lee Jones
or
2. Hold'Em Poker for Advanced Players by our pals!
If I buy #1, I'll buy #2 next month and so forth.
opinions?
I would get HPFAP-New Edition unless you are a complete novice in which case I would get the Lee Jones book first. The Lee Jones book is good for about a month. After that I would get HPFAP-New Edition which will last a lifetime. Then I would get "Improve Your Poker" by Bob Ciaffone. After that I would get "The Cooke Collection" by Roy Cooke. With regard to Hold'em there is not much else out there.
IPM!
Is that a division of IBM?? Blisters on his thumbs?? Mountain Z on his way yet or is he still claiming Computer Problems!!!!! FW dealers are bad compared to Cal consider yourself fortunate.
Books: 21CHEFAP, Inside The Poker Mind, and Roy Cooke.
Paul
I think MZ is always on his way. And I do think the blisters must have caused a little brain fade for Jim... leaving out the $*main*$ book for heaven's sake.
TOF
I would also get John Feeney's "Inside the Poker Mind". Sorry John, you are the "new kid" on the block so to speak and I simply forgot. On the other hand, maybe sublimely I would like to keep your book for myself and burn everyone else's copy.
Would you not also need to kill or at least find a way to keep John silent for ever more?
It's a book I haven't read. I guess I'll be ordering it
get lee jones. HPFAP is geared towards medium limit games and some of the concepts discussed therein may get you into trouble in low limit games.
If you get the Lee Jones book,make sure you get the new updated one.He fixed some things, that needed changing from the first edition.
Good Luck
Howard
Definatly get WLLH. I would not get HEPFAP unless you plan on playing in middle limit Vegas games (15/30 ish). As an alternative I would suggest getting Sklansky's "The Theory of Poker". It is much more well written, and much more general.
- Andrew
dsa
Don't forget to also read Holdem Poker by David Sklansky and Theory of Poker.
HPFAP, while written for mid-limit games still has valuable info for lower limits. concentrate on the loose games section and don't worry too much about the fancier plays they talk about. As an example, there is a section on how to play when 3 cards of the same suit come on the flop. In low limit your decision is easy. you fold.
the discussions of how to get money into the pot from early position are good.
The discussions about getting people too fold may not be of much use. I would not buy the Theory of Poker unless you decide to move up.
I have 4 books now, Skalanskys original Hold'em book, Kreigers Hold'em book, Warrens book (I know I know but it was my first one). Skalanskys Theory of Poker and Masons 1st Essay book.
I ordered the 2 books in question and also have Turbo Hold'em.
So - I think I should be OK for a month or so. LOL
Had a minor incident at the poker table the other night and was just wondering what others thought. I was in seat 9 and there was a guy in seat 2, so we were sitting almost directly across from each other by the long way of the table. I am in late position and as it is going around to bet, raise or muck before the cards are dealt, he flings his cards all the way across the table, they hit mine and my hand immediately becomes a mucked/dead hand. I never got to even pick them up to see what I had. They guy doesnt say anything, no apology, nothing. I say, to no one in particular, in a normal tone of voice-"stupid a**hole". He looks at me, mutters "sorry". I didnt say anything. Comments? Should I have just kepy my mouth shut? Should I have said something else? Thanks.
Well, I suppose you should have been protecting your hand, but I would expect the dealer to have a word with this guy. As for the guy, he must be tilting or steaming or whatever, because few people do this kind of fold.
I would never use profanity at the table, especially offensive profanity directed at another player who must be already angry for some reason. Good way to end up in a fight of some kind and I don't want to mess up my pretty face! I would tend to just grab my hand and look at it, and then make a big show of flipping it over with a big laugh and saying "Oh curse the luck! I was huge with my 10-4o (or whatever)".
David "Non Confrontation is a way of life in Canada" Ottosen
"Non Confrontation is a way of life in Canada". Then why is your country's favorite sport, namely ice hockey, one in which the object of the game is to bleed the enemy's nose and eyes and to punch all of his teeth out, to the delight of the barbaric and uncivilized crowd who are begging for the other players to join in and whack the back of the poor guy's neck with a hockey stick until he passes out? You are hippocrites of peace and decency, Army-less neutral nation that you are. Shame on you!!!!!
It's been said we like hockey (and lacross) BECAUSE our society is typically polite and non-confrontational. When we play hockey we are able to behave opposite to our typical behaviour.
The stickwork has been a more recent phenomena. Possibly because of the mandatory use of complete headgear including shields at all the minor levels.
That's not to say that jabbing, slashing, etc haven't always been there; just that it was very seldom directed at someones head.
Most sticks to the face are usually due to someone being careless.
And this is as opposed to the Excited States where the national sport is the WWF, where the IQ's of the spectators match the number of teeth in their heads (3) and most of the crowd still thinks this is sport, and that the boobs on the girls are real.
Or was that the NFL, where self-avowed assassins patrol the secondary deliberately trying to separate receivers from their heads (see Jack Tatum)and linemen look to chopblock somebody onto the unemployment line.
At least in hockey, the code is that the tough guys fight the tough guys, gloves are dropped, and the boys duke it out. When one guy goes down, it's over. Nobody suckerpunches somebody (hello Rudy Tomjanovich!)and then spouts off about it. Oh, and would those barbaric and uncivilized crowds be the Gallery Gods in MSG, or those tea-sippers in Philly?
And as far as battles go, don't forget our boys were fighting your battles in WWII for two years while you pansies were safe and happy at home. AND the last time the two countries went one on one we kicked your ass, even if it was almost 200 years ago.
.
nt
The above Anti-American statement courtesy of Dunc Mills, a man who hails from a country that thinks ham is bacon!!!
LOL
Its your resposibilty to protect your hand at all times even before you look at your cards,keep your left hand or fingertips on the cards until its your turn to act, never put chips on them before you act, then you give away your intent of play , then if you intend to play put several chips on your cards LET THIS BE A LESSON BEFORE YOU HAVE SERIOUS MONEY IN THE POT AND THIS DISASTER HAPPENS. I learned the hard way!
Alec - Throwing cards across the table in a rage is not permitted in any of the casinos in which I play. The dealer should have said something to the offender. When he/she didn't, you had several options, one of which was calling the floor manager. However, I think you did well not to call the floor manager here.
Is there a way you could have turned the situation to your advantage?
My experience calling people a**holes has not been good. Either the person I have addressed in that manner is one or isn't one.
If the person really is an a**hole, their reaction tends to be a revenge, but maybe not immediately. I don't see any advantage in making enemies.
If the person really is not an a**hole, then making the remark is also a mistake, but for a different reason.
When you are in a stressful situation like this, imagine that you are out of your body, looking down at the situation and yourself. What kind of image do you want to portray? How can you come out a winner? Have an objective attitude rather than a defensive or merely reactive one.
The guy muttered an apology. He probably felt embarrassed. I doubt he meant for his cards to foul your hand. Next time something like this happens to you, consider smiling at the offender. By doing so, you might turn the situation to your advantage.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
hmmmm.....
name calling lets you vent but it could get you thrown out. his behaviour is total bullshit so you have to make him back down. definitely make a little bit of a scene by calling the floorman and indicating what happened. this should get him to behave as well as put him on tilt. it's tempting to curse or call him names or perhaps even try to have a go with him in the parking lot. all bad choices. you might get your ass kicked and you will definitely get barred.
I tend to have a hot temper at the table especially when someone has done me wrong. This could occur if they say something offensive that I don't like or as in your case putting their cards into mine. But, I have learned through the years that you simply must protect your own hand at all times, and you have to put up with a lot of obnixious behavior, although there can be long periods of time where no one ever seems to get out of line. In my case I wish I would have remained silent in 98% of the situations. It's when you are trying to get the last word in that you mess yourself up. No one ever wins under these circumstances and it just makes for a tense situation at the table. I can't win when I'm hot about something, and when my blood is boiling my game becomes very tenuous at best. I need to learn to laugh it off more often. I try to emulate the people at the table that day in and day out handle these situations with aplomb. I watch how they react and listen to what they say. I've learned a great deal from them. The out of body thing was also good advice.
"The out of body thing was also good advice." Please explain.
Jeremy - That was my idea. (See post above). I used to advise students (when I was a college dean), who had gotten into some sort of confrontation they really couldn't win, to try pretend they were out of their bodies looking down at themselves and the situation in which they found themselves. Worked pretty well.
I liked David's advice about using humor. (Also see post above).
Buzz
Calling him an @#s hole was gutless and weak. You should have walked around the table and slapped his miserable fat face as a feint setting up a kick in the nuts!!! Hope this advice helps. Have a nice day.
Was worried about your first post Veteran, thought you were getting soft in your old age. Dave
people get mad and do stupid things. you needed to protect your hand, but accidents happen. as long as he didnt aim for you,if so then follow pv's advice. remember he did say he was sorry. he probably is mostly a jerk but we have to let them play too. they dont lose fast but die the death of a million cuts.
Hard to believe a player who protects his hand can get it fouled from eight feet away. Sounds physically impossible...unless the cards were not picked up off the table by you after they were dealt. Protect yourself and you won't have to call someone else a name.
Bob,
It seems to me like you are making the victim out to be the bad guy. Who picks up holdem cards off of the table after they are dealt? You can't be serious in your critisim. If I am sittin at a holdem table and get dealt two cards and put a chip on them why should I be penalyzed if some butt head tosses his cards across the table and they hit mine. Certainly it is the players responsibility to protect his hand but expecting the him to perform extraordinary feats of security is IMO clearly an unreasonable requirement. Clearly the tosser was way out of line. I don't claim that there is any other decision but to muck the tainted hand but the holder of the hand is not the one at fault in this situation.
Vince
Recently, in the big blind in seat #1, I had one hand on top of my cards when a card a player had mucked from seat #4 slid partially underneath my two cards. It was clear which card was the mucker's and which were mine. Although a player in seat #3 had already called, I removed the mucker's card from my two and no one objected because it was clear that #4's action was accidental and also that I had been attempting to protect my hand and had done nothing wrong. I suppose I was lucky that no one objected, but the point I'm making here is that you are correct, Vince, no one, or virtually no one, picks their cards up off of the table before acting and most players in medium or high stakes games simply cover their cards, without moving them from their position flat on the table, until it's their turn to act. It is not impossible to be protecting your hand and have it fouled. Coach's writings have always entertained and enlightened me, but, with all due respect, I think he's wrong here.
Guys, why do think we put a chip there? Not for decoration.
The coach is correct. You must protect your hand. A chip is sufficient to stop most errant cards from mixing with ours.
Of course, if they are hurled with such force that they mix completely with yours then that is an intentional act and the perpetrator should be banned for a few days without warning.
Bob Ciaffone is completely correct that it is ultimately the player's sole responsibility to protect his hand. However freak things do happen, and the above described incident in fact once happened to me as well.
CORRECT HAND PROTECTION TECHNIQUE:
Everyone should be aware that merely placing a chip on your cards is not a foolproof method of protection. Here is the correct method:
After memorizing your cards place a chip on them AND continue to hold them lightly by the edges flat against the table with one hand as follows: forefinger on one end edge, little finger on opposite end edge, two middle fingers on front side edge, thumb on back side edge. Note that this method completely protects you cards from every side yet still allows players to see that you have cards since your fingers are spaced around the edges. For comfort's sake you may rest the heel of your palm against the table. Once you have adopted this method of protecting your hand it will soon become second nature. Nobody will ever be able to foul your hole cards nor will the dealer be able to accidentally muck your hand. The only exception would be if someone actually tore the cards from your hand, in which case I would suggest you call on Poker Veteran for assistance.
and then I fasten the chin strap.
the council of elders is unanimous: its not a killing offense.
that said, if you wish to try to establish some sort of simian dominance, look him directly in the eye and say "were you about to call me an asshole !?". guaranteed to elicit good stuff.
brad
p.s. protect your hand
The super allowed me to play on but changed the deck after the round. Two cards in the deck were glowing.
This must be why I sometimes play like an alien.
Once, playing a tournament in was in seat 9 and I happened to be the BB holding the Jc and the 6h. I looked at my hand and put a chip on top. The guy on the 8 seat threw his hand towards the muck and one of his cards ended up mixed with mine, under the chip. The dealer immediately declared my hand dead and I asked him to call the floor. I told the floorperson that I had my cards protected and told him exactly what my hand was. He took my Jc and 6c and discarded the extra card and gave me my hand back.
I thought the decision was a good one. Considering that I had a free play on the big blind.
carlos
I feel crotchedy today.
Yes, grap your cards and protect them.
It doesn't matter what you had. You lost one hand just like you would with a quick trip to the John. This was worth about 1/8th of a small bet, or 37c in a 3/6 game.
Your desire to apply such a negative label to this guy bodes ill. Thinking of him as "stupid" can cost you quite a bit unless you are correct. He appears to be no more than "Clumbsy, Distracted, and Irritable". YOU need to practice seeing these situations how they REALLY are and NOT how you feel about them.
So lets learn something. He's apparantly a little disgusted at getting bad cards which may give you the opportunity to steal his blind or bluff him out at some point in the hand since he's already got this "bad" attitude about his luck.
Finding these silver linings (such as they are) works great when YOU are irritated since it tends to improve your mood immediately.
- Louie
Protect your cards!
In the local cardroom known as Casino Arizona, a certain player was claiming that he has as good a chance as anyone to last longer in the WSOP main event than any top tourney pro. Another player offered up a few names and said he'd lay 2 to 1 odds on each player that the player would last longer than the local player making this claim.
I got to thinking about this and maybe I'm being a bit rash in thinking this, but I would venture to guess that if someone else got to pick any player they wanted in the WSOP and I was given a random player in the tournament for a last longer bet and I was getting 2 to 1 on my pick that I would have the best of it. I just don't think that any of the top players will outlast any random person in the tournament two thirds of the time.
What do you guys think?
Nope. You would lose money at 2-1.
Two reasons: First, some top players have a survival strategy that is fully developed to take advantage of the longer limits of the WSOP rounds. Other players have a strategy that is meant to maximize their stacks at the earliest opportunity -- without regard to whether they crash and burn. It's not a coincidence that TJ Cloutier is hailed as the greatest NL tournament player alive. If you read his book and the way he plays the early rounds, it is clear that he stands a much greater chance of making it to the succeeding days.
Second, some players do not have much experience with NL, some players aren't very good tourney players, and very few of the players have experience with multi-day tournaments. This latter factor in itself decrees that most neophytes will crash and burn early. To make it past the second day is quite a feat in itself, and a handful of players have a much better chance of doing that than others. Having been down that road, experience is the best teacher on how to navigate through the minefield.
George,
I'd take that bet if I could have TJ - was the bragger a guy named after foot apperal :-)
Mike
Woody (the dealer made 27th a few years ago) and the way Richard T is running anything is possible.
No it wasn't shoes but I bet if you guessed one more time choosing from regular hold'em players at Casino AZ you'd get it right. Think arrogance...
Wednesday, January 03, 2001
VERY IMPORTANT NOTICE!!!!
The Highlands Club has shut down its site until necessary hardware and software enhancements are made (target date: January 6, 2001). We have hired two Internet Security Experts to ensure the security of our site. They are currently in Belize and will continue their work until they are confident that no break-ins are possible.
It has been established that three players were involved in a scam where they were possibly seeing other players’ cards. The very first day that these accounts were opened they were tracked and accounts placed on hold (these players cannot access their funds). We have expert staff members who view these games and hand histories on a constant basis for any unconventional (unusual) plays and wins.
The people that are involved in this deception are trying to extort the accounts balances from us; by broadcasting their tactics via email to our support group and publishing same on Internet forums like RGP and Two Plus Two. We are not giving into their blackmail. Even though being down for these days will be costly to us, it is more important for us to make our site 100% secure.
We are broadcasting our concerns publicly so that the Poker Community are aware of our findings. Our Number One concern is to protect our players’ balances. In order for us to ensure the security of our player’s money, the site will remain down until all necessary hardware and software enhancements have been made.
We have reviewed all hands involved in this scam and monies will be refunded back to all players that lost money in these hands. All players receiving a refund will be notified via email at the time their accounts are credited. This will be after the site has been restored.
The Highlands Club Management
You are the first site to admit to these hacker crackers and their devious cheating, I tip my hat toward you. Maybe its time Paradise and Poker Spot get off their high horse and admit the obvious.
Disclaimer: Do not read this if you are looking for poker information. I only posted it on this forum for maximum exposure. It is long and serves no purpose other than a self-serving exercise. I do hope that David Sklansky reads it, though.
Webster defines logic as:
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning
A logician then can be referred to as one that does logic or is an expert in using logic.
Last evening at Bellagio's I was playing 15-30 Holdem. David Sklansky was in the room playing 80-160 Holdem. I'm not sure of the time but when he was finished he stopped by my table for a moment. I, being the polite and honored follower that I am, got up and interfered in conversation with David.
He asked me 2 Holdem hand questions. I quickly got the first one wrong. Undaunted I tried my hand at the second hand (sounds redundant) and unabashedly blurted out another incorrect answer. 2 for 2 with 2 + 2 I still didn't feel too bad because my answers, I believe, were close as were the decisions. I think. Besides, they were questions that one must think about before answering and apply logic to answer them correctly. It helps if you are a real logician like David.
Of course none of this getting answers wrong and all made any difference to me because I was walkin and talkin to Oz about poker. I was oblivious to stupidity, mine, that I was exhibiting. Hold on it gets better or worse, depending on your point of view.
As I was saying, David was leaving. I was a little hungry so I walked out of the Poker room with David heading for our respective autos. Him, to leave, me to pick up a Balance bar that I had in my car. I'm trying to drop a few (quite a few) pounds, so Balance bars have become my snack of choice
Now, Bellagio's has two parking garages. A north garage directly adjacent to the poker room. It provides very close and convenient parking to get in and out of the Casino if you play poker. The south garage is on the other side of the casino. Duh! North, south, see! The south garage is a fair walk from the poker room in comparison with the walk to the north garage. I was parked in the south garage. David, of course, was in the north garage. As we walked I said something to the effect: "Goodnight David I will see you later". David looking puzzled said "You are parked over there", pointing in the direction of the south garage. When I replied in the affirmative he immediately pointed out that the north garage was much closer. I said:" I know but you can't park in the north garage if there are no parking spaces". To which David replied with smiling humorosity "You really are a logician, aren't you?"
Now anyone with half a brain might have left that alone but not this semi wit. Digressing a bit here. I had dinner with Mason Malmuth last Saturday night. During dinner we talked about similar experiences we had in our earlier days. It seems that Mason and I had both worked for different Defense contractors at about the same time period. I worked in logistics management, Mason, reliability engineering, a related discipline.
So when David said I was a logician I naturally ASS-U-MEd that Mason had told him about my previous experiences. How else could he have known? So to David, I responded very seriously, "Yes I am. I was a logician when I worked as a defense contractor. I used to do planning for support of Navy electronic warfare systems" David, looking puzzled, just smiled his little Sklansky smile, turned his head, and walked away towards the North garage. I likewise smiled and feeling comfortably intellectual I headed for the south garage.
My smug feeling of being a truly brainy, interesting conversationalist soon turned to dismay and self-disgust. How could one person be as stupid as this one person? After realizing that David had humorously said that I was a real "logician", not logistician, I looked in my rear view mirror and decided that the face there was indeed that of an idiot. I am now sure that David must be in full agreement with my assessment of the face in that rear view mirror. I really do not know why something like this surprises me; I have a tendency to let my ego adversely influence my behavior. In this case I read a little sarcastically humorous remark from David as a compliment rather than taking it in the light hearted manner in which it was presented. I have a feeling that this same ego is what sometimes leads me astray when playing poker. I hope you enjoyed this little self-revealing tale as much as I disliked recanting it. Maybe, in the future this experience will help me to listen a little better and think a little more before blurting out silly responses. Vince, the Logician, not, hopes it helps you in some way also!
Vince
BTW - The questions David aske me if you are curious. 1) If always play 7,2s when you are one off the button in a 10 handed game how much will it cost you in the long run? I said a lot. David said, wrong. This was really just a side question to question 2 but I got it wrong anyway. Do you know what the answer is and why? 2) David is going to post this question so I will leave it to you to answer his post.
Vince,
You wrote: "Of course none of this getting answers wrong and all made any difference to me because I was walkin and talkin to Oz about poker."
"Sounds to me like you are talking with a hard on again. A hard on for Sklansky, that is." (Vince Lepore, 12 December 2000)
Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;-)
Touche'
Vince
I normally wouldn't play such a hand, but it's possible I'm wrong.
If it's right (if it shows a profit) then perhaps it's because you can:
1. Steal the blinds on occasion.
2. Get away from the hand real easy--both when re-raised pre-flop and if you miss the flop
3. If you hit the flop, nobody will dream of where you're at.
4. You may be able to bluff at the flop if an ace or king flops after you tried to steal.
5. The hand may have some value multi-way.
6. Other players will give you action if they think you play such crap.
It's hard to believe that this hand will show a profit, but perhaps. Or maybe it will cost a little, but make it back on action when you have good hands.
Vince,
I'm not going to answer any poker questions. Why? Because I'll get the answers wrong anyway. But I feel like writing something, and I figure you'll probably read it. Poe, who invented the detective story in the tales involving his creation Dupin, forces readers to look at what he calls "ratiocination," a kind of logic. It appears at first that Dupin is a logician, but Dupin always "solves" the cases through both logic and imagination. Mere logicians fail. One story opens with an analogy between Dupin's skills and playing a game in which someone selects a place on a world map, and the other has to find it. Poor players will select a small, rather insignificant country, but the best players will pick "North America." Since the letters are spread out so much, no one ever "sees" what should be readily apparent. What's this got to do with logic? Well, it's counterintuitive, at least.
While watching Jeopardy, I saw the category "A-one." Alex explained that the questions will be words that begin with A and end in "one." Of course, I yelled out "abalone," which turned out to be a correct question. Was this logic?
Finally, in King Lear, the Fool says to Lear that the reason the seven stars are called so is a pretty reason. Lear gets the answer to this one right. Lear's response: because they are not eight. Even better logic.
John
Always playing 72s from the cutoff will cost you very little. The most relevant point is that you won't be dealt 72s in the cutoff all that often. There are 1326 different combinations of preflop hands, and only 4 of them are 72s. And, you'll only be in the cutoff seat 1 deal in 10, so you'll be dealt 72s in the cutoff seat approximately 1 hand in every 3315 deals. Assuming a speedy game with 40 hands an hour, you'll only see 72s in the cutoff seat approximately once every 83 hours.
In a typical 10-20 game, I suspect that a player who plays fairly well postflop would lose about 1 small bet on average each time he played 72s in the cutoff, and 1 small bet lost every 83 hours is pretty minimal; such a mistake would lower your win rate by 12 cents an hour.
I wonder if David's other question was the "what costs more, raising with ATo/failing to raise with ATs/calling with 72s question." If so, you've posted that one before, David, and I would hope you'd be kind enough to post a new question that maybe I won't be able to solve.
-Sean
Sean,
You are correct. 72s will cost you little for the reasons you state. I may have mislead when I said David's other question was related to this one. It is a separate issue altogether. The relationship was pointed in that there is a simple logical connection to the two questions. I'll let David post the other question.
Vince
Vince,
If you would have just stopped thinking you could have ended the night feeling great! Why bring yourself down over the small detail that David said something entirely different than what you heard?
I've got a rule that has helped me avoid these ego busters. That is: 98% of the time that I think someone is giving me a compliment, they aren't. The other 2% all come from my wife or my mom. So, cheer up!
Cleaning out the attic recently, I came across my copy of this classic by John Fox (no relation) from 1977. Thought 2+2ers might get a kick out of some of his advice in his chapter "Who To Play With", with my comments in parentheses:
"Do try to play in the same game with beautiful women. Beautiful women tend to play badly themselves--even for women. They also tend to attract men into their game who are unfamiliar with it." (unfamiliar with what?)
"Do play with opponents who expose their cards." (duh!)
"Do play with nail biters." (It keeps more of the felt on the table.)
"Do play with women, particularly younger women." (I wonder if he's talking about poker here.)
"Do play against tattooed opponents. Anyone foolish enough to allow themselves to be talked into getting tattooed should be well qualified to lose to almost anybody else."
"Do play against people wearing crosses or other religious symbols. As a class, players who prominently display religious symbols tend to be superstitious, and superstition