![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Is there any computer software that will keep your records for you? I'm a college student and am looking for a program to keep my records with. I play mostly 3-6 or 5-10, occasionaly 10-20 when I can find a good game.
Excel does anything you would need here.
I agree with chris. If you've already got excel, use it.
I agree with the other posters that a spreadsheet program is perfectly adequate for tracking your mean and standard deviation.
I have developed an Excel spreadsheet that will do this. It also, will give you your mean and standard deviation measured in big bets and dollars. Plus you can restrict the games that go into the calculation by type of game and by limit. So you could look at the results on you 3-6 games, or your 3-6, 4-8, and 5-10 gamees combined.
The spreadsheet is called analyzer, and can be downloaded from:
http://www.geocities.com/happy_flop/
In the current issue of Poker Digest Magazine (the one with the Regent in Vegas on the cover), Rolf Slotboom wrote a great article entitled "Some Tough Decisions". The reason I liked the article so much is because it reinforces my view that the skill factor in big bet poker (no limit and pot limit) is greater than in limit poker.
I recommend everyone interested in this subject, read this article. The article covers a pot limit Omaha game with $5-$5-$10 blinds and a $500 buy in. Slotboom made a brilliant and difficult decision to call a $1000+ bet on the end knowing full well that he could easily be beat since his set of Eights was no where near the nuts. His discussion brings out all the reasons why big bet poker is the more skillfull form of the game.
P.S: I hope Mason Malmuth and John Feeney read this article and provide their comments.
I don't know when I'll get to the article, Jim, but based just on your post it looks like it highlights that a decision in PL may of course put more money at stake. Still, I don't think that makes the decision any more skillful. Not knowing the details of the hand, I would just ask, could not a player in a limit game make the same (or a very similar, or a more complex) decision, based on the same (or similar, or more complex) considerations?
Anyway, I think I've said about all I have to say on this issue. It only goes in circles. BTW, I have stated that I really have no opinion on it. I've just raised questions.
I also want to point out that I have only compared limit hold 'em to no limit hold 'em or pot limit hold 'em. I have never addressed pot limit Omaha which is of course a different game. The reason I have never addressed it is that I don't consider myself knowledgeable in it at all.
By the way, who is Rolf Slootboom?
Mason,
I have see an couple of his articles. Seems pretty up front to me. His newest is on PokerPages. I understand that he is a Pot Limit player, however I am not sure where he plays.
BTW, his latest article located http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/slotboom02.htm
He has some interesting things to say about the small blind situation in Limit Hold 'em , that he folds 70% of the time. What do you think about this?
Zander
I read the skimmed through the article. Saying that you fold 70 percent of the time in the small blind isn't good enough. You have to be more specific. How often is he folding when there is no raise? How often is he foldig when there is a legitimate raise and the pot is short handed. (If he plays more than 5 percent of the time here he is probably a loser.) What if there is a legitimate raise and the pot is multiway? How often does he play against a steal raise and does he just call or reraise?
.
.
I have read the article, and I don't see how this illustrated the greater skill of the PL player. Sure, it was a well thought-out decision, but no more so than if it occured in limit. The only real difference is the amount at risk. In limit, you would just pay off or raise, but the wrong decision in PL is more costly.
If you read Tommy Angelo's post about set over set in NL, you will understand that this decision in PL is no more important than if it was in limit. In the long run, you will win more bets than you lose, and that's all that matters.
3 Bet Brett, in limit poker this would never be a decision. You would call every time with your set of Eights given the pot size. In limit poker it is a no-brainer once you get more than a dozen bets or so in the pot. It really doesn't matter whether the game is hold'em or omaha.
But then in limit poker you would only win a pot of size X plus a river bet. But in pot limit your decision to call the river bet results in you winning a pot of 2X given your opponent is making bet of X which matches the pot.
On the other hand, if you routinely call in these situations in pot limit, you will go broke. Not so in limit poker.
Limit poker is about showing down the best hand. Pot limit poker is about making effective bets, raises, and calls.
Jim Brier, you are confusing Omaha and Holdem. In omaha, you would not call this bet every time. There are two straights on the board, and all you have is a set. If you routinely called in this situation, you would be a big loser. The pot size cannot be compared to limit, because in limit it wouldn't get that big.
One question unrelated to the differences between limit & No-Limit: From the paragraph that ended with Rolf shouting "Call!", did you get the impression that Rolf made the call, at least in part, due to Wolf's choice to do nothing to stop Rolf from folding his hand? I really got that impression from the build up, but then he doesn't even mention that as being a factor when he was put to the "tough decision."[I guess because it had nothing to do with the point he was making overall].
Yes, I did. I think Rolf was trying to get a reaction and when he didn't that was one of the factors that led to his decision to call.
TA wrote : "None of the ones I know well enough to know if they do it do it. "
highly confusing sentence! does this mean you these people do calc their Sds or that they don't
I was confused as well, but since this was the only response I got, I just dismissed it.
What Tommy means is that he knows some pros well enough to be privy to whether or not they track their SD. And those that he knows this way don't track it.
I think a majority of pros don't track it, but I don't know how big that majority is.
Now if Tommy can come up with some more zazenchendangolistic sentences like that, he can leave a legacy to poker players everywhere as they busily "interpret" him well into the future. ;-)
Of the ones (players) that Tommy knows well; of those players he says "None" keep track.
Of all the others (he doesn't know well) he doesn't know.
I play low limit, so there are normally several players seeing a given flop. How do I watch them all? Should I key on one rather than another? Is it better to watch pre flop raisers?
I know, questions? questions?
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Fitz
If you have a decent player who raised, you knw he/she has a decent hand for their position. You can pretty much guess whether the flop was likely to help or not.
With players that have styles lending towards maniac play, you never know what they could be holding. I watch the ones I have to be concerned with. Usually the loose aggressive players or the player(s) at the table who are toying at this limit waiting for their game to open up.
i will be in New Orleans and was wondering if anybody knows the name of the hotel casion there, and what games they play and limits. thanks in advance
Harrah's has the best poker room I've seen in New Orleans. They are on the edge of the French Quarter, and can probably point you toward a room close by. I was there a couple of weeks ago and saw; 1-5 stud, 4-8 HE; 4-8 Omaha; 15-30 HE and Omaha, and several tables where they deal a round of HE and a round of Omaha at the 4-8 level. The games I was in were pretty soft. There are probably 15-18 tables total.
Harrah's casino is not allowed to have its own hotel, this is Loisiana politics at its finest (bring in a buisness and rape them until they leave). That being said, there are plenty of hotels within walking distance, and plenty more within a streetcar ride or a quick cab ride. The poker room is very nice (called the blue dog, because of all of the artwork). It spreads 7-stud 1-5 and sometimes 2-10 (mainly weekends). HE 2-4 and 4-8 (though I have seen bigger games when the well known or well to do are in town). They also have a half HE, half Omaha for higher limits (15-30 I think) and they tend to have either a 10-20 or 20-40 omaha. The stud games tend to be soft (mostly what I play), and from what I see, the HE games are too. Scout the tables a little and I think you will find it to be a fun and profitable experience. Also, don't expect to comp food or anything like that (more La politician brilliance- keep em handcuffed so mississippi will take all of the highrollers). Email me if you need anymore advice on where to stay, etc. Good Luck!
Here are some theories of mine to determine if you're a winning player or not. I'd like people's thoughts on them if they are true or not.
When you win money, you tend to win it at a much faster rate then when you lose it. Ex. You play for 200 hours and lose 50bb, you go through another period where you win 100bb in 50 hours of play...you might be a winning player.
You have more winning sessions then losing sessions...you might be a winning player.
You're opponents fear you and don't play their game against you...you might be a winning player.
Any comments?
If you've played more than 1000 hours and are ahead.
"You're opponents fear you and don't play their game against you...you might be a winning player."
Fear is greatly over-rated in limit play. There is really no way to make a bet large enough to inspire fear in an opponent and you should not fear anyone else at the table.
You are in the black. Period. If you have won money, then you are a winning player. It seems pretty simple to me. Am I missing something here?
Unless you're talking about knowing when you are a winning player without keeping track. In other words, those players who have to guess whether or not they are winners because they haven't won or lost enough for it to be unquestionable. Then I see what you're getting at.
But anyone who keeps track and is up by $1 is a winning player, nest pas?
I myself am not. :(
natedogg
ff
IYP,
I think I see where you're going here; don't try to define winning as
"being happy even though losing money"
Content to lose for entertainment perhaps but we better leave winning as pertaining to money.
;-)
I'm a statistics buff. Lets say you have four equally skilled players playing approximately the same limits of hold'em, omaha hi'lo (8 or better), omaha hi, and 7-stud. In the long run, who makes the most money?
Just curious :)
THE HOUSE!
My guess is Hold"em, OmahaHi, Stud and Omaha8 in that order - the 1st two are real close IMHO.
Answer to: "I have a curious question... posted by EnderFFX."
The obvious answer to your question is, "the long range luck factor would determine who gets the most money. Essentially they would all almost break even. But the longer they play -- the bigger the deviation would be among their final holdings "who gets the most money." I could take time and put this in better probability terms but I won't. Time is valuable....
Assuming these four guys are playing in a casino "just the four of them," then the casino would make essentially all the money. If they were playing in a casino full ring game -- then the skill of the other opponents would determine who gets the money but again it is just long term luck for these four.
If you are a true beleiver you would know that there is no "long range luck factor" it is supposed to even out "in the long run" However, no one has ever told me what the long run is but there is supposed to be one - it is the premise that S&M have based their entire poker theory on.
Sounds like a cult to me! lol
natedogg
Just wondering how many of make this call.
You are in a NL HE game doing well - you have every cent to your name on the table - everything you own is sitting there - over 100K.
A new guy sits down you don't know him from a bar of soap. You are delt AA - he bets 5k you raise to 10K he bets your entire stack. Over 100K.
You know you are favorate but are you willing to lose it all and start over.
Just wondering.
With that hand, yes.
Al's answer is ok, but incomplete.
There are two ways of looking at this.
The first way takes us "outside the box", if you will, by sidestepping (somewhat) what Rounder has in mind. The answer is "Of course", because I would not have put everything on the table in the first place if I was unwilling to put it in at some point. That is, I wrestled with the question earlier, and made my decision then. This seems to beg the question, but it makes an important point - only put on the table what you are willing to lose.
The second approach is that of utility theory. The answer is then very dependant on the player risking everything. If (somehow) I got to that situation without thinking about it beforehand, and foolishly putting everything at risk, then I would fold and leave. The 200,000 I would probably end up with is not that much more important to me than the 90,000 I have, and neither are worth the (~20% or so) risk of losing it all. But that is just me. Were I younger and without a family, then the answer might well be "Yes".
Eric
This question is basically a personality test. A question about how much one values playing it safe vs. going for broke. Security vs. adventure.
There is no real correct answer. Even though you're going to win this 85% of the time against any random hand in the long run, anything can happen in the short-run making it nothing but a gamble. I mean, how many of us have experienced getting AA beat by a match weaker hand.
Another thing to take into consideration are the individual's needs. One guy might have a family of 4 with one daughter in the hospital while another guy may be single and have no financial obligations whatsoever.
Personally, I would put my 100k in in a heartbeat. But that's just me.
Most of us are gamblers. We must take these odds. Probably shouldn't have our entire bankrollon the table.
But yes, hypothetically.
Absolutley not. The difference between having a 100K bankroll versus a 200K bankroll is insignificant in the games I play in ($10-$20, $15-$30, and $20-$40). The difference between having a 100K bankroll and being totall busted is vast and would put me out of action forever. I would never put anything close to my total bankroll on the table.
Jim Brier is correct, of course. Another point, what bankroll your opponent has? If he is Donald Trump, or Bill Gates, they might be bluffing. IMHO.
You have AA. No matter what they have except AA, they are bluffing.
Upon further reflection I say I would fold and never again put my entire bankroll at risk.
Regarding: Re: "BIG BET" poker Jim Brier -- Thursday, 1 March 2001, at 3:03 p.m. Jim this is a great reply. and: IYP post In Response To: Re: "BIG BET" poker (Jim Brier)
Jim Brier is correct, of course. Another point, what bankroll your opponent has? If he is Donald Trump, or Bill Gates, they might be bluffing. IMHO.
IYP your point might be an interesting point -- but it is entirely a moot point. It doesn't matter at all if the bet was made by a "Bill Gates or Trump type" or a gambling fool who put his last 100 K in the pot.
Dear Sir: I repeat, Jim Brier is correct. No change here. For my comment, I say, It is a little of a joke, if you please. Think about it, they might have 47o, and feel that you will never call them. My point is, IF, a big IF, you were to call the bet, is something to considered. I think you are thinking Odds, %, etc...only. How about the differet human aspects on every bet? Huh?
Sorry IYP. My two responses on a time basis got out of order -- you can check this. I guess you were just having fun with a simple "what-if" question.
and has NO gamble in him. He turned down Doyle when invited to a 300-600 so Doyle didn't autograph his book. Gates is a poker weasel - he does not toke anyone not dealers not waitresses he is a jerk.
I also read somewhere that he playes very low limits, however I didn't know he was such an *ssh*le, I can understand a struggling pro not tipping well, but not the richest guy on the planet. That is just bad business.
Correct? How can Jim or anyone be "correct" on a question like this? Jim's answer is correct for Jim. To say a "yes" answer is "incorrect is the same as someone askeding you if you like apples or oranges, and when you give you preference, they tell you your choice is wrong.
Tommy
jim is wrong!
lol, j/k.
but it is a silly question. if you wont put all your money in before the flop in hold'em with aces then only how much money you would put in with aces should be on the table.
nate
Bluffing or not bluffing, your opponent can't have a better pre-flop hand than you.
(if my memory serves me right) A cal-tech type scientist -- last name Wilson -- published a book on gambling about forty years ago: He essentially said that a professional gambler told him that, "a true professional gambler would not bet every thing he had (say a million dollars)that the Sun Would Rise Tomorrow." The point is, it is not prudent to do this. Ther are people who really would do this "bet everything," and I know many people like this. These people are either broke or get their poker income from from another source -- from publishing gambling books "etc.," or from loans from poker friends, or from their wifes or girlfriends. The poker pros in CA and Nevada could tell us many stories of this nature. Almost all surviving poker tournament players made deals when they get down to a few players at the final table.
It is easy to talk the talk -- but....
Anyone who is willing to sit down with their whole net worth should have made that decision before they sat down...so therefore, if I was at that table with $100,000, and it is all I have, then that means that I would have had already made that decision (to call with AA)....however, honestly, if $100,000 is all to my name, I would not have sat in that game with it all (and frankly, I have more than that, but I wouldn't sit down with more than 10K - I guess that shows my conservatism a bit).
.
If the conditions are that he definitely does not have aces too, I would definitely call. With no such conditions, against a player who I know would only make that bet with AA, I would fold.
Tommy
If you are _POSITIVE_ he has A-A. Then theres what? 90% -- 95% chance of tying? Chances of winning and losing are very slim. So by folding your simply giving up over 15k of your 100k bankroll. If I was positive that he will only make that bet with A-A, I would call -- otherwise it'd be a waste of 15k.
If I think this player will make this bet with virtually any other medium-strong hand. I would most likely fold. Chances of winning will be much higher. But chances of losing will be higher then going in against A-A. Remember the best hand against A-A is 5-6s
Would he make that bet with 5-6s? Almost surely not. But perhaps he is just some rich high roller fish. In which case I would fold. I'd rather call at a good solid player here holding K-K or something similar. Then trying to show the "fish" whos boss..
THere really is no good answer to the Rounders question. Thats why its such a damn good queston.
Actually it's a dumb question because good players don't put their whole bankroll on the line. It would never come up.
From what I've read in biographies and many articles, legends like Doyle Brunson, Bobby Baldwin, Amarillo Slim, Puggy Pearson, Johnny Chan, and Chip Reese put it all on the line regularly early in their careers. But they are an entirely different subject because they are great players not good players.
And I am by no means saying that this ability to bet the ranch is the reason behind their successes. But it sure says a lot about the type of attitudes they possess regarding risk and reward.
While I know that these players went broke a number of times, I don't think they would actually ever risk all of a reasonable bankroll at once.
For instance, the story about Chip Reese and ? showing up in Vegas with $500 between them or something. This is more of a "taking a shot" attitude than "risking a bankroll". And sometimes the lines become blurred... if you've lost 90K of your original 100, does playing with the other 10 count as risking a bankroll? or taking a shot to keep one?
no, its not a realistic question, because given that you have sat down in the game with all your bankroll, you should have made up your mind already beforehand.
Danny,
You wrote: "If I think this player will make this bet with virtually any other medium-strong hand. I would most likely fold. Chances of winning will be much higher. But chances of losing will be higher then going in against A-A. Remember the best hand against A-A is 5-6s"
I realize some players make these kinds of decisions based on chances of not losing the pot. Personally, I make these kinds of decisions based on mathematical expectation.
AA loses less often against AA than against 65s, so you might prefer playing it against AA. AA has a higher expectation against 65s than against AA, so I prefer playing it against 65s.
Different people have different utility functions.
Mark: If AA loses more often against 65s, it can't have higher expectation. Am I right?
it can't have higher expectation against 65s.
"Mark: If AA loses more often against 65s, it can't have higher expectation. Am I right?"
Careful. Think about this. Suppose you play A,A against A,A heads up. All in pre flop. It's a wash. The only loss is when one hand makes a flush against the other. It it happens an equal amount of times. Losses are wins and equal. Lets say each makes a flush 1% of the hands. In 100 hands there will be a tie 98 times and each will win 1. Expectation is 0.
Against 6,5s you will see more losses on the A,A side in a 100 hands but the A,A will also win a great deal more hands than the 6,5s, giving it a higher expectation.
Vince
Vince,
You wrote: "Suppose you play A,A against A,A heads up. All in pre flop. It's a wash. The only loss is when one hand makes a flush against the other. It it happens an equal amount of times. Losses are wins and equal. Lets say each makes a flush 1% of the hands. In 100 hands there will be a tie 98 times and each will win 1. Expectation is 0."
Actually, in the long run, a hand like AsAh will lose to a hand like AdAc over 2 percent of the time (and win over 2 percent of the time).
But, yes, AsAh will have an expectation of $0.00 against AdAc if we make the standard assumptions (heads-up, all-in pre-flop, no rake, no tip, no exposed cards, no shuffle tracking, no cheating, etc.).
You also wrote: "Against 6,5s you will see more losses on the A,A side in a 100 hands but the A,A will also win a great deal more hands than the 6,5s, giving it a higher expectation."
You are right, again! In the long run, a hand like AsAh will lose to 6c5c nearly 23 percent of the time (and win almost 77 percent of the time). And if the pot contains $40, the AsAh will have an expectation of $30.78 against 6c5c if we make the standard assumptions.
Gee 2 for 2 and I'm only semi-lucid. Go figure. Must be a Mark Glover analysis.
Vince
Vince,
You wrote: "Gee 2 for 2 and I'm only semi-lucid."
Let's not be greedy, okay?
Nobody said you were 2 for 2. There were at least eight errors in your earlier post. I just didn't rub your nose in them.
2 for 10 and I'm still semi-lucid. Not bad!
Vince
Tommy,
You wrote: "With no such conditions, against a player who I know would only make that bet with AA, I would fold."
Do you really mean this? Or do you have a third thought?
That was a really dumb answer by me and I don't want to talk about it anymore. lol
See other post.
Tommy
Here's what I get from it.
It's not about aces or $100,000 or having it all the line. The odds of aces holding up and the amount of money are both arbitrary. It'd be more to the point to ask, "Would you bet it all on a coin toss if someone offered you such-and-such odds?"
Pick a number. 6-5, 3-1, 30-1, whatever.
And it doesn't even half to be "bet it all." Would you bet 1/x of your net worth getting such-and-such odds. Again, pick a number.
For each of us, various combinations of these sliding scales straddle our risk/reward thresholds. Just a matter of where we draw our lines about putting it on the line.
Tommy
I would put it all in. First, because it's "only" 85k more but more importantly, 100k is just not that hard to replace. You can work for 50-100k/year, borrow some, and get $$ from credit cards etc. If the credit card and borrowing options did not exist, then I would not, as I don't want to be broke, no matter what.
If it was one million, then I would not, because 1M is very difficult to replace and almost impossible to make back in poker in a short period of time.
Just my thoughts. There certainly are no right or wrong answers here.
Great post. It has all to do with risk aversion and utility--always an interesting concept.
A better question would be, you started with 200k (all your money), were stuck 100k, and then had this opportunity. I bet more people would take this prospect (see prospect theory by Tversky and Khanaman).
If you put it on the table then you must put it in the pot.
You have scraped up your last cent to play in a $10K buy in game. Which is very possible, so all the posts saying that if you put 100K in the game you had to put it in - I never said that is what he started with.
It was fun reading all the responses.
BTW - I have gambled every cent I had not on cards but on business - hell it's only money.
The last (business) gamble I took paid off in spades but as much as I get AA cracked I think I take my profit from this game and head off with my tail between my legs cuz this guy who tried to put me all in has bigger balls and bankroll than I do.
Rounder,
You wrote: "Which is very possible, so all the posts saying that if you put 100K in the game you had to put it in - I never said that is what he started with."
Does it matter to you whether the 100K was your initial starting bankroll or the result of a good session?
Mike,
This is an instinctual play. Exactly what you are hoping for happens. Everybody that plays poker will want to make this call. But some won't. Some have a risk threshold. If you change the sum to 1,000,000 more would not call than at 100k because of what 1m means to them. 10m more won't call. 1k everybody calls except Mason. He's cheap.
vince
If you are not willing to lose 100K in one session don't play with 100k in front of you
In his books, Mason recommends keeping session records to generate hourly expected rate and hourly standard deviation. This is obviously a good idea.
My question is: does keeping session records generate enough data points to accurately determine hourly standard deviation (and expected win/loss rate for that matter), or should we be keeping recording hourly results as well to generate this data?
Obviously, recording results on an hourly basis is both more labor intensive and can generate an unfavorable image (if aware opponents see you recording info at the table), but it would seem to me that the resulting statistical data would be that much more representative and precise, especially for the first few thousand hours.
Thoughts?
Jason
Sucking out is the game, not just part of the game.whether i suck out on you or you suck out on me. whether we do it on the flop..turn...river....it's the card we've been waiting for to put our opponent(s) in the poor house. we don't offer a refund because we sucked out on a hand.we wait for the next hand where we can entice each other into bankruptcy ON THE LAST CARD. Oh it's what we live for. The Kill.
thanks
slim
(inspired by those who complain about the suck out artist)
Thanks for the mantra. But I'm not quite sure I see the relevance to the original question...
Jason
I record limit, location, length of session, and net gain for the session. Some people keep more statistics, but I barely play frequently enough to make use of the ones that I do keep.
With this you can estimate your hourly mean gain and standard deviation by limit and location. You can also convert each session's gain into big bets, and put all of the sessions together. Although I would not advise pooling together 5-10 hold-em games with 30-60 games, it might make sense to pool together 3-6 and 4-8 games.
Your estimate of your mean hourly rate will not converge any faster by recording your gain at each hour of play, but your standard deviation will. Still, my experience has been that the standard deviation estimate stabilizes long before my hourly mean estimate does for any limit. So it is not really worth while to record your stack size at the table every hour.
...on the Which Jesus is Your Jesus? banner ad.
I don't read a lot about game selection other than passing references to it. I sure wish I had more games to choose from. I think it's one of the most important parts of the game...you shouldn't play when you don't have the edge. And the bigger edge the better...
To maybe get a thread going I am going to post four session results. Two were passive loose sessions and two aggressive loose sessions alternating starting with the loose passive.
HE $4-8
13 hours loose aggressive -$80.00
Almost 5 hours loose passive +$140.00
I didn't raise a single hand in the loose passive games.
Both game types can have a high deviation, but the passive games are usually a pushover. There is hardly any raising, and people are happy to give you their money. You just have to understand how to play to keep the game so soft.
Usually the passive loose games change because some big ego'd, small brained player(s) sit down and aren't having enough fun.
Many players do not take any action to keep the game in a style they can play well in. They just sit down and start playing. Do you find this to be true?
Thoughts?
by never raising you are costing yourself alot of money. you can keep raising down to good situations but not raising is wrong. i suspect you play too passive yourself so you may have trouble beating the more aggressive games. you are right though that loose passive games are the best and it pays to keep them that way.
My idea of a good game is one where there is a mix of players - no more than 2 loose aggressive a few tightish and the rest passive.
As for raising - don't be afraid to raise the good hands in a LP, game trick is out playing them after the flop.
Mike - "I didn't raise a single hand in the loose passive games."
A bit extreme. I don't think you have to go quite that far to keep the game passive. Certainly no pre-flop raising, though.
"the passive games are usually a pushover. There is hardly any raising, and people are happy to give you their money. You just have to understand how to play to keep the game so soft."
Exactly!
"Usually the passive loose games change because some big ego'd, small brained player(s) sit down and aren't having enough fun."
Ain't it the truth! Sometimes it's not even that. Someone new sits down and starts playing with a too-aggressive-for-the-table style. Very quietly, but also very quickly the game changes. People get up and leave. Those who, like you, have adapted and are playing more passively than normal start playing their (probably) better, more aggressive, normal game. And the fish swim away from the sharks (by leaving the table, one by one).
"Many players do not take any action to keep the game in a style they can play well in. They just sit down and start playing. Do you find this to be true?"
Yes, I find it to be true. No way around it though. No way to clue them all in.
Good post.
Buzz
I am considering running a private game in a city where gambling is illegal. I would deal 10-20 hold'em. The other games in town take 10% to a max of $6, with a $1 drop for a bad beat jackpot. I think this rake is too high. A lot of the bad players go broke too fast and the games struggle to survive. What would be the optimum rake for a private game like this? Could someone please explain how the cardrooms in California charge time? Would this be better for the health of the game.
Thanks, Don Juan
The LA cardrooms charge $5 per half hour to play 10-20, but you'll have a hard time selling that to the players if they are used to paying a rake. As far as how much the rake should be, it's easy to figure out how much you can make. You could get rich off $1 or $2 per hand. Especially since you don't provide all the services that a regular cardroom does.
In the private game that I am familiar with, the house also takes 1/2 of the dealer's tips. I don't know of any that have a jackpot, but if the players want one, rake an extra dollar for it.
first comment is to 3 bet brett - if you think you can get rich on $1-$2 per hand in a home game then the only thing i can say is you have either never run a home game, you have grand illusions or you are stone cold crazy. can i borrow your rose colored glasses? or if you are having a home game with that rake, can i play in it? where is it? our DC game gets out about 30 hands per hour and the 1//2 omaha split, 1/2 hold em game gets close to the same. there are numerous variables and many expenses to cover. the "normal" rake around here is 4 or 5 per hand - and i know of several people around here that would get a huge laugh out of finding out they should be getting rich on this!! my advice to 3 bet brett - don't ever become a business owner of any sort - it'll screw up your pretty world.
You're right, I didn't get rich. I only made about $20,000 a month. That was 10-20 HE, dealing about 40 hands per hour. Max $2 rake, and I took 40% of the dealer's tips. They didn't get rich either. After a 12 hour shift, and after I took half, they only took home between 500-1000. Obviously, my comments were out of line.
Look at it this way - if you are playing HE you can deal 35 or so hands an hour if the rake was $3 then you have $70 an hour from the game. If you charged time you'd have to charge 10 players $3.50 a 1/2 hour to make the same.
I guess it boils down to what do you want to make on the game.
$7 is way to high per hand so take it from there. I think $3 is a fair rake here.
In the 10-20 game i normally play, the rake is 0 is the pot dont reach 100$ and 5$ if the pot is over 100$ (even a 600 pot is raked 5$). I think its a fair rake. However, the host also provide players with some food and is makin no interest loans to losing players. If you do, u must expect that from time to time, it may be a bit long before u get your money back and maybe some people will disappear. U must be very careful with that i guess. If u dont lend money, the games will broke early because u dont have replacement player in a home game like u see in a casino!
ALso, make sure to treat well your social losing players, they keep the game going...
CHarlie
most players are too stupid to think about the rake and worry more about the food. thats how it is. since you are risking alot by running an illegal game you need to be rewarded for it. i hate big rakes but when running a game like this you cant expect it to last. if you loan money you will be the loser for sure. have the best food and you will get the customers. dont have a jackpot or when you get halled into court the proscecutor will tell about how everyone was playing for many thousands with this jackpot thing and your game will sound like an underworld casino.
Listen to Ray!
Rake big, compared to casinos, and spend it on the best food. I used to cater from good restaurants for the main meals, and had the fridge jammed full, always. I ran once per week and my average game lasted, no kidding, 34 hours. My food and beverage cost was steadily $10 per hour.
The absolute toughest hurdle in the lending. I think it's okay to have some rollover debt going at all times. It's damn near impossible to avoid. The key think is to set each customer's limit at about 1/4 they'd like it to be, and be firm! Lend to much and you not only lose money, you lose customers because they can't come up with enough to pay back AND play. Don't lie and explain why you can't loan. Just say no.
Tommy
If you are in an area with several games for the players to choose from, the rake has to be competitive. And the sad fact is, with a small player base, if you don't have a "book" you don't have a game. When my place went down, I lost about $20,000 in bad debt. It was worth it.
One thing you need to make the players understand is that even if they can't afford to pay, you would rather they come in and play with whatever money they have than for them to go play somewhere else. Then, when they cash out a winner, have them pay a little bit, don't try to take it all.
I ran illegal $10-20 for years back home before moving west. My rake was the lowest in town, and my game was by far the best attended.
I did it Nevada style, raking as the pot grew. $1 on each $30 in the pot with $5 max per hand.
As to dealers, I tried a variety of methods. The best way depends on your competition and your relationship with your dealers. What worked best and smoothest for me was to lump the rake and the tips all together and pay the dealers on percentage, ranging from 20 to 33 percent depending on seniority, performance, and devotion, meaning, helping our mutual cause instead of hampering it when out and about at other games. And I don't mean recruiting customers. I mean keeping a tight lip, especially about our customers.
I frequently gave bonuses. My favorite was, I had one guy I paid five bucks extra for every down that he did not talk.
I can speak freely about this now because I got busted, as expected, and plead guilty, as planned.
Tommy
"I can speak freely about this now because I got busted, as expected, and plead guilty, as planned.
Tommy "
This may be too personal, but what was the penalty?
Danny
$50 fine plus six months in jail, jailtime was waived pending a soft one year probation. All I had to do was not get another gambling charge. No reporting in to an officer. I actually LIKED the probation, because I wanted to be done with the whole scene.
The cool thing was, it was one Sheriff that was busting the games. Typically a game-runner would get the "gaming house" charge dropped to something without "gaming" in it, like disorderly conduct, by snitching on another game-runner or a bookie. Then open up the next night since they still had their first-violation freeroll. (A second gaming offense was an automatic fifth-degree felony.)
By pleading guilty, I "won" the battle with the Sheriff (at least in my mind), maintained integrity, and was forced, as wanted, to move on. A triple win.
Tommy
In FLorida it is a 3rd degree felony.
A buddy of mine spent 15,000 on legal defence, and took pre-trial intervention and got 18 mons. probation.
It was a first time offence.
For those interested we have just posted a new essay by Ray Zee. Just click on Essays in the left column.
This essay is true about reading and playing. First of all I didn't have the guts to play in a ring game in a casino until I read 7csfap. That gave me enuf of a push to play in a ring game. I now own about 15 or so books and have played O8, HE, OH, 7CS(H/L)in ring games or OL. Without the books I'm almost positive I wouldn't of played in ring games in casinos. I enjoy playing alot more now than before when I was just gambling without any knowledge of what I was doing. Today if I lose with certain hands I can always go back to one of the books and 90% of the time it's in there and explains why these hands lose or your opponents hands win vs yours.
Paul
I was a litte shocked to see it was more than a paragraph.
I agree with all the sentiments in the article. I also think that online poker is similiarly good for the game. The more exposed the merrier.
Perhaps we should shed the "keep the fish in the dark" attitude (I don't have this and don't like the word fish) and encourage learning among new players. The path is long and ardous and few make it. Many never start and the weak die along the way anyway.
Regards.
I used to hate deck changes. After all, I'm paying by the half hour to play this game, and I want to see all the hands I possibly can. Besides, the new deck has the same 52 cards in it that the old one did. Or at least it's supposed to.
Yesterday, I changed my mind. A rather large pot was awarded to a player who held the KsTs. After the pot was pushed, and while the winner was still stacking the chips, a railbird ran over to our table. "There are two Ten of Spades in that deck" he said. The dealer checked the deck, and found both Ten of Spades.
Just as she was calling the Floorman (see the Other Topics forum for why this takes so long), a waiter was delivering food to the player in the One seat. He reached down and picked up the Five of Spades from the floor, between the One seat and the Dealer. Who knows how long we had been playing without it, and with the two Ts.
This is when I realized that those whiners that are always calling for a new deck are actually helping the game. By keeping new decks circulating in the game, these problems are a lot less likely to occur. And if they do occur, they will not affect the game for very long. From now on, if a new deck has not been called for every 15 minutes, (I know this is not allowed in LV, where it is only changed when the dealers are pushed), I might be the one asking for a new deck.
Which brings me to the rule of requiring both cards (or all 7 cards in stud, or all 4 in Omaha) to win the pot. Whenver someone shows me just one card to win the pot, I always say something like "Show me the other one, because you're not going to win if you have 2 Ace of Spades." I always make them show, but usually I do it just so I can see the piece of cheese they called my with (if they have a good hand, they always show both anyway). The incident above shows that my attempt at humor is really a very good reason to show both cards.
What happened to the player who hold KTs?
Did he got banned?
Charlie
I agree I want to see both cards too weather I'm in the hand or not - should be a rule in all casinos - I also would like to see deck changes cost the requesting player a couple of bucks that is put in the next pot.
Maybe that would stop them from wasting all out time.
I too have seen cards missing or repeated in a deck but this is so infrequent it is not a good reason to call for a set up.
I am more concerned about the bad playersw constantly caling for the "other" deck or a set up like that is gonna help their miserable game.
I'm with you, Mike. If it was MY casino, anyone asking for a deck change or a setup would have to post a live Big Blind. Of course, most of these clowns see virtually every flop anyway, so maybe that wouldn't slow 'em down anyway.
I'm not so concerned about a fouled deck sneaking its way into the game because the dealers are very good about counting down the butt every half hour or so, and there are just SO many requests for deck changes that it would be very difficult for a deck to get mixed up.
Some nights it is just ridiculous. Every 15 hands or so for hours on end.
In AC, players cannot request deck changes. The decks are changed on the half hour with each new dealer. This does provide an opportunity for a "hold out" artist, who could return an extra card right before the dealer change. However, the dealers do count down the deck at least every 10 minutes.
I like this system much better than the constant demands for setups in Las Vegas. In AC, the only thing a player plagued with "unlucky" cards can say is, "Give those cards a real good wash this time."
I have often wondered why casinos even allow the "I wanna see that hand" rule. Most don't even know why it is there in the 1st place.
I have never asked to see a losing hand except if it is showed to another player but that is not part of this rule.
As usual Harras has taken a rule and bastardized it - they have a rule you can only ask to see a hand once every 1/2 hour - what??? Why not just eleminate it completely.
ON second thought - as a player who tries to use every available scrap of information available at a table I think the IWTSTH, set up and "other" deck requests actually help me - as it is rare for a solid player to make these requests - so anyone making them immediately goes on my weak player list until proven otherwise.
I ask for deck changes all the time for that very reason
You ask for deck changes all the time in order to get on Rounder's weak player list?
there is an ongoing discussion about decks with wrong cards in them. one important job a dealer needs to do every time a hand is over and there is time, is to count the stub of the deck. it only takes a few seconds and can be done without holding up the game at all. in a full game there should be 26 cards left. a dealer that rarely or never does this is not protecting you as a player and desereves little in return. if the houses doesnt tell the dealers to do this simple thing, ask why. and if they give the dealers the option ask the dealer, or respond accordingly. a dealers main job is to protect the player. thats what dealers were put in for.
I agree entirely. I have never had it happen in a game I was playing in; however, given the manner in which they wash/sort the decks, it is surprising that a deck doesn't show up with the wrong cards more often.
Relative to dealers and decks: It constantly amazes me how little the dealers actually shuffle the deck prior to another hand. If I interpret the results in Statistical Logic and Gambling correctly, it requires at least 7 or 8 good shuffles to randomize a deck of playing cards. Dealers seem to shuffle only about 3 to 5 times.
Is that enough to randomize the deck, or does it just make it unlikely for players to be able to predict which cards will appear next?
The 7 shuffles is more appropiate for game in which the cards "re-order" themselves between shuffles, like bridge. While there is a mild grouping effect in HE (the last hands in are more likely to match the board and are gathered together) a cursory wash and three shuffles are more than sufficient to couter act this.
IMHO,
Zooey
I think the wash should count for several shuffles, so 3 shuffles after a wash should be good enough to make eveything random.
"in a full game there should be 26 cards left."
11 opponents =22+ the board (5)= 27 from 52 = 25 cards left
hillbilly - I passed algebra, but met my demise in calculus. (maybe I should have gone to class)
9 opponents, board, and 3 burn cards
18+5+3
and I knew I should have been making apologies in advance.
hillbilly- one step forward, two steps back, all the way up that hill
dont forget to count the burns..............?you know what they are right?most good dealers will count the deck as action continues on the table you may never see him or her do it!in a omaha game just a spread of the cards and you can count,w/o even holding the stub,same w/7-card stud,hi-lo the only game you would need to pic the stub up and count one byone would be hld-em!watch a little closer next time you would be surprised how many do count the deck!i can feel in my hand when a stub is short for the most part.after ten years.just like a butcher can pinch off a lb. of ground beef and be right on the money!give most of good dealers credit!
AC they routinely counted cards remaining when i last played there...In tunica last weekend I only had one dealer count the cards once in twenty hours of playing
Ray,
I hope you are not suggesting that cheating might occur in those cardrooms where the deck stubs are not counted. I wouldn't want Mason to have to take you out to the woodshed. ;-)
Mark,
So do you think Ray's comments are inconsistent with Mason's position on cheating in card rooms? Just curious because I don't.
Vince
Vince,
You asked: "So do you think Ray's comments are inconsistent with Mason's position on cheating in card rooms?"
Which of Mason's positions are you referring to? He's taken several different positions over the past few years.
Mark,
I wasn't going to respond to this because I believe you are being an ass. But since this is an interesting subject I'll disregard your sarcasm. I am referring to Mason's position that there is little to be feared with regards to cheating in Casino Card rooms. I was a little surprised with Ray's post but I do agree with him that dealers should do their job and count down the deck when possible. I believe this procedure in part is one of the reason that cheating does not occur more often.
Mark if your not careful with your little sarcasms people here on the forum may begin to question if you are who you say you are. They may think Mark Glover is an alias for Gary Carson or Steve Badger. No those two are not smart enough to be you. Maybe they'll think your Vince Lepore. They have accused others. I guess cause I'm easy to imitate.
Vinceare
Vince,
You wrote: "I am referring to Mason's position that there is little to be feared with regards to cheating in Casino Card rooms."
Oh. I was thinking about his position that cheating never occurs in public cardrooms. Or at least in the games has has played. Or at least in the games he has played during the past 25 years. Or at least rarely.
You wrote: "I was a little surprised with Ray's post but I do agree with him that dealers should do their job and count down the deck when possible."
I think most of us agree with that.
You wrote: "I believe this procedure in part is one of the reason that cheating does not occur more often."
I hope you are not suggesting that cheating might occur in those cardrooms where the deck stubs are not counted. I wouldn't want Mason to have to take you out to the woodshed. ;-)
You also wrote: "I wasn't going to respond to this because I believe you are being an ass."
I seem to have upset you somehow. Perhaps you are overly tense or frustrated. Last month, you declared, "Hey from now on I'm only gonna play with myself!" Now might be a good time for you to go play with yourself. ;-)
Let me say this again. It's very clear to me that you have probably never played poker in a public cardroom. Your lack of any idea as to what goes on when you enter a cardroom is obvious.
Mason wrote: "It's very clear to me that you have probably never played poker in a public cardroom."
Welcome to Mason's world. Mason's world is a Happy Place where the sun aways shines, the grass is always green, and the cute little bunny rabbits never die. (There are lots of rabbits in Mason's world.)
Welcome to Mason's world. Mason's world is a Happy Place where nobody ever cheats at the poker table, even in cardrooms where dealers rarely, if ever, count down the deck.
Welcome to Mason's world. Mason's world is a Happy Place where he is a god. He sees all, knows all, and never makes mistakes. He knows when you are sleeping. He knows when you're awake. He knows when you've been bad and good. And he knows how often everyone goes to public cardrooms.
It's time to wake up now, Mason.
Since I don't pretend to be omniscient, I'm not sure why you have reached your conclusions about the lack of cheating in public cardrooms. I suspect the four most likely reasons would be:
1. You are not very observant.
2. You don't get out of the Bellagio very often.
3. You have a very narrow definition of "cheating."
4. You believe the poker industry is better off covering up its cheating problem rather than discussing it in public.
"the cute little bunny rabbits never die."
Mark, I would think you, of all people, would know just how close we are to this sort of thing becoming a reality.
Mark,
You are now in a world that interests everyone. You seem to believe there is wide scale cheating in Casino Poker rooms. You owe it to all the readers here to back this up. If this is just some ego driven effort to try and embarrass Mason, then shame on you. Come on give us the proof. Now do not say prove that it doesn't happen? Cause that's just silly.
Vince
Vince
I can give you proof of cheating in a public card room if you like.
Not something from the old west. Something from 2001 !
Howard
Howard,
Although I asked for examples showing wide scale cheating any cheating should be brought to the attention of all honest poker players. I believe you should share your proof with everyone on this forum. Please.
vince
Vince,
I have a very good friend who told me he and his friend(now pass away)played partner.
I played three-handed with a live one and former world champion, a floorman(champion friend)sat in the game they started to raise put live one in the middle when live one out they flashed their hand to me before threw away it was nothing, I thought they wanted to let me knew what going on but they didn't cheat me. I quitted.
I saw two prop send signal by touch their nose and ear.
I played three-handed when one guy told other guy to raise his bet(they were friend and thought I didn't understand english)I quitted.
While playing in a tournamant at the Stratosphere, on January fourth of this year..........
We are down to three tables in a no-limit hold'em tourney. I am in the one seat. Rgp lurker from Vancouver( not T.Chan, I said Lurrker,although T.Chan did play in this Tourney BTW) in the two seat. Jeff Bridges look alike in the four seat.
All of a sudden during the play of a hand that seat two was involved in (I believe pre-flop), seat four yells out "It's a marked deck". I should note that both seat four and myself (as well as others) had already folded by this point. Anyway,the dealer calls over the floor. Seat four says that one of the cards just given to seat two is marked. They look at the back of the card and make the ruling that "yes it is a marked card,but still play the hand out". After they play the hand out, Jeff Bridges (seat 4) asks seat two if he can see what card it was (it was not the winning hand BTW)
Ace of hearts. When Mr Bridges sees it was an ace, he goes ballistic. After some ranting and raving he explains to us at the table, how this card is daubed. Shows us all the daubing on the back and then while waiting for thr floor to come back over to the table, decides to rip up the ace of hearts up, saying "This card will never be in a game again".The rest of the deck was then taken away by the floor.
He went on to tell us how he learned of daubing from his many years of playing in the card rooms of L.A. He said that he hates cheaters and that because he has long hair he has been approached from time to time to join cheating rings in L.A. Of course he tells them (the rings in LA) where to go.
I know very little about cheating but as crazy as his story about being recruited to join a cheating ring sounds, I must say that it has happened to me also.
Before I go into that story, let me finish a few thoughts on the incident at the Strat two months ago.
First, I am convinced that Seat two had nothing to do with the marked cards.
Second, I would bet my bottom dollar that seat four had nothing to do with it.
Third, I know I had nothing to do with it.
Not knowing much about cheating I wonder..............
Was one of the other players at our table guilty?
Was it marked in a cash game and just got noticed in the tourney?
Was it something I'm not even aware of?
Another note: When this first happened I was going to post about it (either here or on rgp), but decided not to in order to not drag the Strat poker room's name through the mud.Why should they suffer a bad rep because of a cheater(s) in their mist.
Well now the poker room is closed and the incident on 1/4/01 can be talked about without the fear that it will hurt their business.
Getting back to being recruited.
Many years ago I came in second in a weekly tourney at the Plaza. A young man who was seated at my table when the tourney started asked if I would like to go have a meal at Binion's coffee shop and talk poker. Since I just won a nice chunk of change (for me anyway), I said "as long as I buy". We talked poker for awhile and at one point he introduced me to a friend of his. Him and his friend then proceeded to tell me if I wanted to make smart money with no risk I should join them in their team play.I should note,they were talking about low-limit cash games, not tourneys.
Anyway, I declined. Like Jeff Bridges at the Strat(when he was in LA) I could not help but wonder "what made them pick me?")
I never saw these guys again. My guess is that they were cheater wanna bees,had a little success and then went broke. I don't know if that is what happened, but that is my best guess.
*********************************
In closing I should point out that I believe that the games are clean for the most part. But as these incidents point out there are things going on at times that we are not aware of.
Good Luck
Howard
PS
I have other memoires to tell but I'm the world's slowest typist.
Thank you Howard. I need to think about your post.
Vince
I should add Vince that If I ever see Jeff Bridges again (he's a great player from what I saw BTW) I am going to ask him if he will do an interview with me to be posted here if Mason will allow it.
I am not a reporter or journalist nor do I yearn to be, but I think all of us could learn a thing or two from him, of what to watch out for in order to help protect the integrity of the game.
Good Luck
Howard
Howard: As long as the interview is based on good poker content, and knowing you I'm sure that will be the case, there should be no problem and it will be welcomed on our site.
Mason
2+2
Re: To Ferris Bueller aka NJ Fred aka Ed
Wolf There is an interesting post on our Internet Forum from Doyle Brunson that addresses this exact issue. So here it is.
Posted By: Doyle Brunson In Response To: Re: To Ferris Bueller aka NJ Fred aka Ed Wolf (Mason Malmuth)
From the beginning of poker [at least for the past47 years] it has always been the cry of the marginal or losing players that something is wrong with the game. 99.9% of the time it isn't true. Poor Ed.===Doyle Brunson www.highlandsclub.com
Mason,
I've seen plenty of cheating occur in many different public cardrooms. After your keen, logical argument, however, I guess I'll just forget what I saw and continue playing poker in blissful ignorance--not!
It was nice of you to go to all that trouble to quote Doyle. The next time you want to appeal to authority, though, perhaps you will seek someone who has a less obvious personal interest in agreeing with your claim. If I'm not mistaken, Doyle is affiliated with www.highlandsclub.com, an online poker room. Perhaps that doesn't bias Doyle's view on possible cheating, but perhaps it does.
Furthermore, you might want to limit your appeals to authority to those cases when experts have some special insight into the issue under discussion. I've seen instances of cheating with my own eyes, and I don't think Doyle's statement will change what I saw.
When you quote Doyle, you give the impression that you concur with his statement. Is that really the case here?
Just because marginal or losing players believe cheating occurs, do you expect us to logically conclude that cheating, therefore, must not occur? I know losing players who believe AA is the best hand to have pre-flop. Does that mean AA is not the best pre-flop hand? I also know winning players who have observed numerous instances of cheating. What am I to make of this?
There seems to be several flaws in your thought process and logical reasoning. That might surprise some members of this forum, since you once wrote: "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."
Mark wrote: " I've seen instances of cheating with my own eyes,"
Does anyone see the logical problem with this statement?
Mark wrote: "and I don't think Doyle's statement will change what I saw."
Can anyone see the deeply flawed logical implication of this statement?
Referring to Mason's quoting Doyle Brunson, Mark wrote: "Furthermore, you might want to limit your appeals to authority to those cases when experts have some special insight into the issue under discussion."
Marks thought process seems to be deteriorating here. Maybe you should get more rest Mark.
Mark wrote: "I also know winning players who have observed numerous instances of cheating."
Does anyone see the profound logical error here?
Mark, there seem to be some problems with your logic and thought processes. That may not surprise many here, but may be news to you. Sorry to have to be the messenger.
There was a response from cisko kid that you deleted which asked about the other .01 per cent. I believe it asked about having people who complained about being cheated buried in the desert by Doyle's friends from Chicago. A good question here is whether Sklansky or Malmuth could ever qualify to own a Casino in Nevada?
I believe that the answer is rather clearly : NO.
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Tuesday, 6 March 2001, at 10:11 p.m.
Posted by: Glove Marker
Posted on: Thursday, 8 March 2001, at 6:27 p.m.
Posted by: Willy
Posted on: Wednesday, 7 March 2001, at 8:23 a.m.
I have played AC for 10 years, never have seen any cheating. Mason rules. Mason is God. Now, pick on somebody else. Or we all are going to think you are a fanatic.
New Yorker,
Welcome to the Two Plus Two forums. I hope you eventually become a valuable contributer to this site.
You wrote: "I have played AC for 10 years, never have seen any cheating."
I find that to be rather interesting. How often do you play poker? How do you define "cheating?" How observant do you believe you are?
You also wrote: "Mason is God. Now, pick on somebody else. Or we all are going to think you are a fanatic."
I find this to be very interesting. You believe Mason is God, and yet you believe I am the one who is in danger of being considered a fanatic.
Have you seen the "GAMBLING FOR A LIVING: Quiz" thread, above? As a "cool cat," I think you might find it groovy. I'm guessing you will score 7 or 8 correct answers. ;-)
Mark,
For some reason, people don't think you have a sense of humor. Now, if you could only be converted from a contrarian to a proselytizer.
John
Mark,
I'm begining to think you really like Mason (I know you worship me, but that's a different issue.:-) and that trying to pick arguments with him is just your way of saying so. It's like the little boy who goes up and pushes the little girl that he likes because that's the only way he can express his feelings, feelings which may also be a bit too threatening for him to experience fully consciously. Something in your tone suggests this. Mark, why don't you go ahead and just give him that hug, in words, that you really want to give him? Go ahead kiddo; you'll feel better for it.
John,
You wrote: "I'm begining to think you really like Mason (I know you worship me, but that's a different issue.:-) and that trying to pick arguments with him is just your way of saying so."
I'm beginning to understand why you seem to prefer poker to psychology. I hope your analyses are better at the poker tables.
Speaking of worship, have you ever found an error in any of Mason's writings? And how well did you score on my GAMBLING FOR A LIVING quiz?
Really Mark, you simply must deal with this overwhelming hero worship you feel toward Two Plus Two, its authors, and all it represents. Somehow resolving it would relieve you of your obsession with Mason, David, and all those little teensy weensy points you like to dissect. (Hey, maybe that's it. Dissect! You know, biology... Nah, you don't think so... do you?) You'd be able to see them as simple human beings. Well, you might continue to address David as "El Supremo", but that's just common courtesy. I know it will be hard work to come to see the authors more realistically. You are, after all, one of the founders of the church of 2+2. But see them more realistically you must! So think of me as your deprogrammer, tough but loving and here to help.
Now Mark, one little question: Do you drink coffee?
"Now might be a good time for you to go play with yourself. ;-)"
It is always a goot time to playing with myself. You should try it. No not a good idea for you, Mark, you already talk to yourself way too much. Don't want you to play with yourself and become a recluse like the Unibomber. Oops, I didn't mean that Mark. I hope I didn't put an idea in your head that you must now act upon. Forget that I said Uni bomber. Please. I realize I am being a little paranoid here but after all you read:
"I believe this procedure in part is one of the reason that cheating does not occur more often." and from that you derived: "cheating might occur in those cardrooms where the deck stubs are not counted."
Careful Mark John Feeney is watching and I believe his couch is always avaialble.
Vince
Can someone please explain the basic principles, betting, blind structures, and overall game play of a Pot Limit game? I think I understand it but would appreciate someone knowledgeable to just lay it all out.
Thanx!
By how much does the value of a hand change as the position of a player changes?
Let's say that pocket Aces, in a given ten-handed, tight-aggressive hold'em game has an EV of 5 small bets from under the gun. What is the magnitude of the increase in its EV in that game as a function of position as you move closer to the dealer (obviously in particular situations it could vary greatly depending on whether there were multiple raises to you, etc., but there should be an average value that only depends on position). Does anyone have an idea? (I'm not looking for a specific number, but just an idea of the magnitude of the increase -- how much effect on EV does position really have).
Like any good essay, Ray's essay on the effect of quality books about poker makes us think at least as much as it informs.
It seems that the primary beneficial effect of these books is the tremendous expansion that poker has undergone. So far this outpaces the negative effects. This should not always be so. At some point we must reach an equilibrium/plateau/stasis/what-have-you. What then? Poker will be good for a while, and it might seem like a golden age of poker, but unseen will be the beginnings of the fall. (For those who read Asimov, think of the last few centuries before the fall of Trantor.)
What will drive poker after the expansion has stopped? Probably new games. Online poker, perhaps. The new games will beget new books and the cycle continues. But is it truly a cycle? That is, will the pattern of new game - new book - new boom (with the leaders feeding off the trailers) continue after any given sequence? I don't know (though I have some ideas), but Ray's essay raised these questions for me. What questions am I missing; do you have any answers?
Of course, poker may die after the expansion, as many other games and sports have faded over centuries or millenia. Perhaps in 50 years we'll all be playing sabbac.
Good night.
Eric
My question is what role, in Ray Zee's opinion, did Doyle Brunson's book Super/System play in helping to promote the "poker revolution"? I ask this question because, as everyone knows, this book is considered by many to be "the Bible of Poker" yet he fails to mention its significance in his essay.
"What will drive poker after the expansion has stopped?" Answer: A quantum leap of some sort. Perhaps in the area of "moron" poker - a subjective set of skills that the theorists don't seem to believe is teachable.
Or it could be a kind of game that makes for good television - like 9-ball is to pool. Before 9-ball, "straight pool" was the game of choice that although popular with the players was very boring to watch on TV. If a new kind of spectator friendly poker game would come up and catch the mass public's imagination, Texas Holdem could drown amidst that new game's popularity much like the analogue Swiss watch makers in the late 60s/early 70s were drowned out by the digital watches that were made in Japan (Seiko, Rado, Citizen).
the future of poker: my guess is up with some lag periods; like the stock market; the underlying force: aging of population.look at many card rooms today; during day hours: might be a meeting of AARP. jmho...long live poker...
Would you really expect a 2+2 author to mention a book published by another company?
- Andrew
in his Gambling Theory book. Besides the 2+2 books, Super/System is a must read for anyone interested in gaining additional knowledge to improve their poker game.
David Sklansky wrote the High-Low Split section which is excellent. Many of the concepts written in this book still apply today. Here's my favorite quote. "Because so many players make so many mistakes at High-Low Split . . . you should find the game very, very profitable. It generally has more weak players than any other game. If I had "X" amount of dollars to win(and that's all I could win), I'd rather play against weak players at High-Low Split than Hold'em . . . even though Hold'em is my best game. This is because your chances of losing playing High-Low Split against bad players . . . well, you're just hardly ever going to lose." I find that this statement holds true today. Furthermore, if you like money in your pocket, study Ray Zee's book. Maybe that's why his book is the most expensive 2+2 book.
Second, read Doyle's General Poker Strategy section. It's filled with gems of wisdom on people skills.
Third, the poker strategy for No-Limit Hold'em contains important strategy that can be applied to tournament play, especially the section on "The Ante."
Fourth, its the only book I know of that has a section on how to play Deuce-to-Seven Lowball. Last year this game was resurrected at the WSOP.
Fifth, I'l quote Mason from the Gambling Theory book. "The structure of limit hold'em has changed, and this dramatically affects some of your strategy decisions." This is true due to the blind structure change, but you will still find useful strategy information and see where some of the ideas for the two plus two Hold'em books came from.
Finally, I'll quote Mason again. "However, the section on seven-card stud is still excellent and the book contains much general overall poker wisdom."
Furthermore, don't respond to this post unless you have read the book and have valid criticism. I will ignore general gossip and comments unless there is some thought put in your responses.
P.S. mah does not stand for MAson malmutH.
I agree with everything you say about Super/System. It is a classic which can teach the reader principles which are absolutely timeless. As long as poker continues to be played, that book will continue to be a must read - decades or even centuries from now.
I read the General Poker Strategy chapter EVERYDAY in order to inspire myself and to put myself in the zone. IMO, that chapter covers the "human element" better than any poker book ever written.
In terms of individual games, the 7-stud chapter, I believe, holds up the most. In limit holdem, my main game, I stick with HPFAP mainly because it has been written to reflect the current blind structure. My favorite part of the no-limit holdem chapter is the one that discusses the small connectors. IMO, these hands are the bread and butter of no-limit. When I was just starting out, Jacks or better was my game and the draw chapter was my guide.
The book being this great was the main reason I was surprised Ray Zee didn't mention it in his essay as being a contributor to the "poker revolution" that he writes about. But then, he didn't mention Theory of Poker (a 2+2 book) either.
"I read the General Poker Strategy chapter EVERYDAY in order to inspire myself and to put myself in the zone"
Man I thought I was the only one twisted enuff to do that!
hillbilly- short term memory loss could become a problem one day
Call it self-inflicted-brain-washing.
"The book being this great was the main reason I was surprised Ray Zee didn't mention it in his essay as being a contributor to the "poker revolution" that he writes about. But then, he didn't mention Theory of Poker (a 2+2 book) either"
TOP is not a very useful book for someone who has never played poker. HPFAP probably had a much greater influence on the poker revolution becuase it tells a beginner exactly how to play in a given situation. The problem of course is that the examples in HPFAP are there to illustrate a general poker concept and most people won't realize this until they have played for awhile.
There are still the guys who play any 2 suited or the 80% winning computer Q7 and the music group J5. But they are fewer and farther between.
The old addage - "a good player will win a lot more from a bad player than a great player will win from a good player" has never been more true.
A while ago when I lived in an area where it was possible to select games I'd look for games with a lot of younger players (among other things) - today the young ones are probably the "inlightened" players at the table.
Tie the better players in with the confiscation known as the rake it is getting harder to make money at this game. We have to play smarter and become tricky, creative, imaginative, deceptive players. As Ray says it is no longer eneough to just play tight aggressive.
So a whole new type of player profile will emerge as the dominate player - well be seeing more creative plays and imaginative tactics on the felt by players improving their games to the next level.
The ones who don't progress will not make it.
Rounder - Well, yes and no.
Yes, the skill level necessary for success playing poker will increase as players become more knowledgeable and as losers quit the game.
No, "more creative plays and imaginative tactics" will not move players to the next level. The main skill in poker is reading your opponents. Moving to the next level involves being more aware of what your opponents are doing, and being better able to predict what they will do when confronted in one way or another, not learning fancy plays. That will not change.
Books increase knowledge of poker and shorten learning curves. To be good, you still have to be able to read your opponents.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
I want to know who did the caps and punctuation for Ray...
i Did
well then, everyone who was afraid that if they stopped using caps they'd forget how, can now rest assured that they'll remember when they need to. hooray for no caps!
Playing Hold'em a few years ago, and flop had a 7h on it, then the dealer turned another 7h. Everybody got their money back, the deck was counted out and was found to be missing the 7 of diamonds.
I also wondered how long we had been playing with a bad deck, because at that time nobody could remember when the last deck change had occured.
:-)
A Tournament champion, who everybody knows, was at my table in a hold'em tournament last night. In a particular hand that had started out with five people, it had narrowed down to two people by the river...the tournament champ and a novice player. The dealer had read the board wrong and started pushing the nice size pot to the champ. Just before the chips reached the champ, a guy(not involved in the hand) pointed out that the other player has the winning hand, and sure enough he was right. As the chips were being push to the novice, the champ made it clear to the guy who had spoken up that he should have remained quiet during the hand. This started a little scuffle, where at one point the champ said to the guy, "It's none of your business, it was between me and him(the novice)." "That's a crock of $h_t" I told him, since the outcome directly affects me and everybody else. The champ told me I was wrong.
What do you think, was it everyone's business or not?
You are correct. Who the chips go to impact everyone in the tournament. Plus, it is cards speak.
Cards speak, but sometimes not loudly enough. What would be the correct ettiquete if this were not not a tournament? The result still affects everyone perhaps to a somewhat lesser extent. I would think it is up to each individual, but there is no ettiquette in letting a mistake go uncorrected.
Once the cards are turned up any player at the table may speak up.
If the cards indicate that the World Champ wins the pot but the dealer is mistakenly pushing the pot towards his opponent, who's a weak player (we're assuming the World Champ doesn't notice this!), the correct play would be to keep one's mouth shut.
And to act surprised, if some busy-body points out the mistake, anyway...
:-(
If you mean ethically wrong, we have an argument. If you mean wrong from the perspective of maximizing one's chances at the tournament, you are wrong.
That would be smart thing to do, since you're not obligated to help. And when the pot belongs to the rookie, you can just speak up and claim it's the ethical thing to do if somebody bitches. The best of both worlds.
....the pompous one in the political forum, condones quasi-cheating at the poker table, if it should help weaken the stronger player?? I always knew you were an arrogant hypocrite. Good ole double-standards Cyrus. You should stick to singing karaoke.
"Now, now Cyrus, the pompous one in the political forum, condones quasi-cheating at the poker table, if it should help weaken the stronger player?? I always knew you were an arrogant hypocrite."
Boy, you must have quite a long axe to grind, to stalk me all over the web!.. Mildly flattering, this.
Just for laughs : this isn't cheating, it isn't even "quasi-cheating". Check your definition about hole-carding again, for example. (By the way, something is either "cheating" or it sin't. No such thing as "quasi-cheating". Your morals are showing, doc.)
I do not condone the practice of cheating. I happen NOT to cheat, ever, as I assume you don't either.
The difference between you and me (well, one of the differences anyway!) is that you think this makes you a better person! Talk about "pompous"!..
....very good :)
BTW, not stalking you, but you show up everywhere. I take up poker - here you are babbling away in your pompostic Clinton-esque obfuscation of details to suit your double-standard b.s.
...
"....babbling away in your pompostic Clinton-esque obfuscation of details to suit your double-standard b.s. ..."
You have been staring at the monitors for too long. I tell you, no amount of money won from your bookie is worth your sanity. Take a break.
Your eyesight is next.
...I thought it was the lobotomy, but now I'm realizing that it was probably the discussions about karaoke that threw me over the edge.
Sports was very good to me this past year - how'd you know?
:-)
The Champ is a chump! You are the man! Let's play poker!
vince
The initials BC come to mind - but I don't think Brent ever won a world title.
Two years back Steve Badger crowed about screwing a new player out of a pot in similar curcumstances. No one at the table spoke up and Badger made it clear this was expected of tourmament regulars. I was stunned as it struck me as fundementally dishonest to the core. A long discussion ensued. Only other crooked tournament regulars would stick up for Badger's point of view.
The end result was that I won't let one nickel of my money end up in the hands of these tournament regular scum. You shouldn't either. Many/most are ethically challenged and you will not be given a square deal.
.
Long time fan - What's with all the Badger bashing? Steve Badger is a nice guy who makes a positive contribution to the game. He has a difference of opinion with someone involved in 2+2. Let's all hope they can work out those differences on their own.
Suggesting that Steve may be the person who might have made the remark is simply outrageous.
I agree with the original poster that whoever made the remark should remain anonymous. Who amongst us has not felt some bitter disappointment when a pot about to be rewarded to you is re-routed as a result of someone who is not in the hand (acting correctly and) pointing out the error.
I agree with the rule that an error should be pointed out by another player, the dealer, or the floorperson, when it is discovered. All the same, it hurts to have that pot moved away from you, even though you may know it is the correct course of action. And in times of hurt or disappointment, we all probably have said things we may regret.
Let it rest, LTF. You weren't even there! Don't suggest someone was the guilty party if you cannot possibly know who it was. To do so is despicable.
Buzz
I never said it was Badger, only that cheating of this sort certainly fits within the twisted ethical structure that is Badger (and many/most tournament regulars as well). The entire pro poker tournament circuit is so full of shady characters that you couldn't find an honest man if you needed one (a few exceptions, yes).
Not only is cheating common place, it's accepted. It's expected. It's not for me. Have fun playing with yourself.
Sounds like you are the one who will be doing that. Enjoy yourself! I'll be out there competing with others.
Competition brings out some of the best in people, but also, sadly, some of the worst. You have to try to rise above it.
Just my opinion.
Buzz
Excellent point Buzz, "..in times of hurt or disappointment, we all probably have said things we may regret." That sure applies to me.
-Don
Me too, Don.
Thanks for the support.
Buzz
Rule book, Section A, rule #19:
Any player, dealer, or Floorperson who sees an error about to be made in awarding a pot has the ethical obligation to speak up.
And tell us who it was. If you were there and saw it with your own eyes, what on earth is wrong with saying who it was?
It's just like this "change the hand histories to protect the innocent" crap.
by stating who it is, you just end up with the same problem that occurred with SmoothB and his story about Steve Badger, unsubstantiated hearsay.
Anybody who can't guess who this is hasn't played poker. This is a total no-brainer.
.
I play in a loose and somewhat aggressive dealer's choice game (O/8 is played very loosely). In what game is position most important? HE, OH, or O/8??? I suspect it is O/8, but I'm not sure.
Certain players usually play the same game, and I was wondering if I should take this into account (along with a player's style) when choosing my seat.
Thanks.
At the $3-6 and $4-8 HE tables lately I have had (for me at least) the pleasure of being seated close to regular $10-$20 players who for some reason do not wish to play their regular game. I don't have a clue why.
Normally, by these game standards I am without doubt the tightest player at the table. When judged against these $10-$20 players, I am almost a wild man on a spending spree! They almost make LL stud rock's look loose.
What is surprising is I rarely see these folks play any hands that would be lower than a HFAP 1 - 1.5, with the exception of [rare] small suited or one gap suited connectors. They seem to play their blnds about normal. They sometimes have a large downside before the pots roll in, but their wins would make almost any player happy.
I think what makes the difference too, besides being so much tighter is their pickiness about flop texture. It has to meet certain criteria which is still a little hazy to me. At any rate I enjoy the lessons I am receiving, I am glad they are willing to share knowledge at the table.
I am curious if you are a LL player, whether you have had higher limit players at your table for any length of time and what you have noticed about their style of play? Perhaps winning is a matter of more patience than hand probabilities?
brain death...got my subject and email backwards, probably like my play.
While opinion for the size of your bankroll will vary, I think everyone will agree that you need an adequate bankroll.
I've started playing on-line and have been building up the bankroll. But, it's the same old question: How big should your bankroll be?
I read one rule of thumb where bankroll should be 300 times the BB. Since I've been playing 2-4 HE, that means keeping a $1200 bankroll. While I've been winning overall, I've had some bad negative swings so it's a message that you should have enough in your account.
300 times BB? Honest? Really? What do you pros think?
In the past I've been pretty much a recreational player where my last paycheck was my bankroll. But when you're winning over $100/week, it's time to be a little more serious.
I'm thinking of building it up to $1000 and then periodically cashing out anything over $1000.
Thanks for any thoughts on what I know is a well-worn subject.
If everyone subscribed to the 300 big-bet concept, it's doubtful 2+2 would even exist.
I think the 300+ BB rule is applicable when the bankroll is not easily replaced. For a recreational player at low limits, I don't think this is as applicable. My advice: think of how much you are willing to invest in poker altogether before quitting. This amount should be considered your BR, in my opinion. (If this money is assumed to trickle into your poker account slowly, then more sophisticated math must be done which takes into account hours played per week, etc.)
However, I do think it is important not to declare yourself a 75 or 100 BB Bankroll player, and promptly move up in limits every time your Bankroll grows. Here's why.
Say I give you an advantage game: a fair dice, in which you lose if a 6 rolls and win on anything else. Sounds great, right? But the catch: you bet your entire BR every roll. Eventually, you will be broke. Similarly, say we're flipping a biased coin, which comes up heads %55. If you bet too much of your BR, you asymtotically lose money. (Do a web search on Kelly Betting if you want more info http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/kelly/kellyfaq.htm )
So, you can play higher if you want, but if you jump limits too soon, you are facing a very steep climb, even if you are a winning player.
Best,
Zooey
So $12,000 for 20-40? If you had no means of replacing it (or no simple means), you'd be taking a significant risk. That's any series containing a net of 8 to 12 full loss sessions.... Maybe if you always play your best game. Pressure, pressure.
True, that would be risky. But for some, the greater risk is to not take the risk.
Huh?
When you are considering bankroll requirements, there is more to consider than just the "rule of thumb". Caro writes about how you should be more careful with a large bankroll which is difficult to replace, than you should be with a small bankroll, which is easily replacable.
So 300 BB might be great for 10/20, but would be silly for 2/4. And, as you mention, 300 BB might be a bit small for 20/40. If you play 20/40 on a regular basis, I'd think 400-600 BB would be more comfortable.
But remember, most people don't play in a game where the big bet is 1/300 of their bankroll. There just isn't that much variety in limits. While you may start playing 20/40 when you get to $12K, you certainly shouldn't move up to 30/60 till you have about a $25K bankroll. Till then, you'll be playing 20/40 with between 300-600 BB.
- Andrew
For entertainment purposes, I have prepared a short quiz covering the book GAMBLING FOR A LIVING (GFAL).
1. At the poker table . . .
a. . . . it is absolutely necessary to play your best at all times.
b. . . . you should concentrate enough to generate a good EV but conserve enough mental energy to play well during the number of hours you want to devote to this session (i.e., maximize your session expectation).
c. . . . focus enough to win but enjoy yourself.
d. . . . don't worry, be happy.
--
2. Who understands well the concept of position?
a. The big blind, who just got raised on the river by the button.
b. Some professional poker players and some non-professional poker players.
c. Only professional poker players.
d. Members of the world's oldest profession.
--
3. When an expert is up against a reasonably good player, how often can she tell you exactly what her opponent's cards are?
a. Frequently.
b. More often than many players suspect.
c. Rarely.
d. It depends on the alignment of the planets.
--
4. True or false? If you are going to make money in a casino poker room, you have no hope unless you are *at least* a very good player.
--
5. There is no reason why you cannot 'earn' over $100,000 a year by gambling if you follow the guidelines in GFAL and have how much talent, drive, and initiative?
a. None.
b. A little bit of each.
c. A little talent, a lot of drive, and a lot of initiative.
d. Show me the money!
--
6. How many GFAL readers do you think can become very good players capable of winning between $30 and $50 an hour in medium-sized games?
a. Almost all.
b. Approximately 50 percent.
c. About 10 percent.
d. Show me the money!
----------------------------
Use the answers (below) to rate yourself.
0 correct--horrible heretic
1 correct--brutish blasphemer
2 correct--nervous neophyte
3 correct--devout disciple
4 correct--aspiring apostle
5 correct--true believer
6 correct--magnanimous martyr
----------------------------
Answers:
1. a.[1]
2. c.[2]
3. a.[3]
4. True.[4]
5. b.[5]
6. a.[6]
----------------------------
Footnotes:
[1] David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOW TO MAKE $100,000 A YEAR GAMBLING FOR A LIVING, 1997, p. 221.
[2] GFAL, p. 228.
[3] GFAL, p. 237.
[4] GFAL, p. 241.
[5] GFAL, p. 1. It is true that David also wrote, "Thus hopefully I have convinced you that an intelligent person who works hard, studies hard, and has a little talent, should indeed be able to work his or her way up to winning $100,000 a year . . ." (David Sklansky's 23 October 1997 thread entitled "Gambling For A Living. Can You Really Make $100,000 a Year?") But this is a quiz covering the book GAMBLING FOR A LIVING, so "b" is the correct answer.
[6] GFAL, p. 218. It is true that David also wrote, "To illustrate this concept with numbers, I contend that no more than one percent of those who try to make it as a poker player without serious studying succeed. On the other hand I think that about 10 percent of good students succeed." (David Sklansky, FIGHTING FUZZY THINKING IN POKER GAMING & LIFE, 1997, p. 11.) But this is a quiz covering the book GAMBLING FOR A LIVING, so "a" is the correct answer.
I have been thinking a bit about this subject for the last few weeks. I recently doubled through twice in half an hour by slowplaying strong hands (calling with pocket kings in the big blind, set of deuces on the flop) in a fivehanded pot limit hold-em game.
However the fact that this strategy succeded once does not prove that this is a correct strategy in the long run. My table image is pretty solid, so I was trying not to give away information about my holdings, and it paid off big time (my opponent went all-in with a flush draw and one card to come once, and made a straight on the river when my set had grown to a full house on the turn the other time). The danger of course is that you will be drawn out and lose your whole stack instead of doubling up, but against aggressive players my theory is that they sooner or later, and more often than not, will try to muscle you out of the pot with mediocre holdings.
I hardly ever play shorthanded, and would be interested to know what other players think about these sort of situations. But take into account that we are talking about a solid player against an aggressive raiser.
FG
I would say you WANT to go all in with your sets vrs the opponents draw. So if slow-playing will cause the foolish opponent to bet a bunch the 2nd bet when he's called by the tight player (who's sure to have something good) the first bet, then go ahead and slow-play.
Be advised, however, that routinely slow-playing will ruin your chances of stealing effectively, since only brain-dead types will presume you have something when you bet when you routinely slow-play when you have something.
Be advised also, however, that the opponent needs to oblige YOU by routinely making that 2nd big bet. Against more sensible opponents you will be giving away far too many free cards.
Be advised also, however, that slow-playing isn't doing you much good if the opponent will call a big bet from you with those same hands that he will BET big next round. Slow-play has much more merit if it will cause the opponent to invest in lots of inferior hands that he would NOT invest if you took the lead.
- Louie
The only time I slowplay is when I flop the nuts. Floping a full house or the nut flush and only a straight if the flop is a rainbow. This really works well when you have a multi way pot with two guys rasing each other and you just do the calling. But when the hand gets to the river bet it out. Especially if there was raising done earlier. They may think that you caught your river card which put you on a weaker hand than you already have. Play smart. If you hold the nut flush on the flop in mulit way pot with two guys raising one of them at least has two pair and you wouldn't want to give him a chance at drawing his boat. With slow playing watch the board and betting patterns. Do'nt give a guy a chance to draw out on you. I've seen quite a few pocket Aces that flop a set get drawn out with a flush or straight from slow playing them.
Question one (1): Define a "rock".
Question two (2): Would you take advise from a "rock"?
Question three (3): Would you make a list of all those you
think are "rocks" in this forum and post it?
I have just finished a essay of reading hands and players in that I go into a lot of detail on betting patters of the 6 basic player types.
If you want it email me - guzaldo@yahoo.com
Far as rocks here - besides JohnnyD I can't think of any ;)
As far at taking advice from a rock - why not listen to him but if he is a true rock he is playing way to tight but they usually play correctly in the early positions.
Glad this came up. I hadn't equated "rock" with "weak tight." Why have two words for the same thing, when so many player types and tendencies exist? I always thought "rock" referred to a player's starting hand requirements, not how they played them.
Tommy
[1] While I think a "rock" is a very-selective disciplined player, it generally also means someone who bets or raises conservatively as well. That is, a "rock" is a weak-tight player.
[2] Rocks give very good advice on whether or not to call when the pot is small such as at the beginning of a hand, and when he opponent is very likely to have a reasonable hand. Rocks are too conservative when the pot is big or when the opponent may reasonably not have very much. That should guide you when taking advise.
[3] No.
- Louie
Question one (1): Define a "rock".
Defined: A rock is solid and hard, most rocks live in the Valley of Patience. They play with Patience, Power & Position, all the time every time.
Question two (2): Would you take advise from a "rock"?
Yes, if you can find one that talks, most never move or talk and when they talk it's usually one word "Raise!"
Question three (3): Would you make a list of all those you think are "rocks" in this forum and post it?
No posting, they like to be unnoticed, a rock in the head hurts, leave them alone.
SPM,...looking for a lucky rocky road...
So I have AA (black aces) against an all-in player playing 4-8. The end board has 4 diamonds. I flip over my aces ( I flopped a set). The all-in is looking at his cards deciding if he won. The dealer says "if you have a diamond you win". It turns out he didn't have a diamond.
I wasn't happy that the dealer tried to tell the all-in what he needed to win. I don't doubt the player would have shown his cards if he had a diamond but the dealer should keep his mouth shut.
So should have I complained to the floor? I mentioned to the dealer that he shouldn't have said anything.
Just wondering,
Ken Poklitar
Well... what is it they tell beginning players? If you're not sure, turn your cards up and let the dealer determine the winner, or rather, CARDS SPEAK. There may be the rule where a player is responsible for his own hand, but rule is over-ridden by CARDS SPEAK.
Sorry, Ken, I think you were caught up in the moment of facing a bad beat. The dealer was more or less telling the player to turn up his cards for CARDS SPEAK.
Cards speak is entirely based on the player turning his cards up. You should have went to the floor.
I can understand where you could be angry. Perhaps the dealer should have said "show you cards, board reads"
I don't blame you for being upset!
As I understand the "cards speak" rule, if/when a player turns his cards face up on the table the dealer has the responsibility to call the best hand--other players also have some responsibility.
Many players muck their hands; I guess they don't want the rest of us to see what they were playing.
However, no one, and that includes the dealer, should tell anyone to turn their cards up. That violates the "one hand one player rule."
That is my understanding.
eltoro
Excellant point, never thought of it that way. Even if you have put your money in the pot, and are showing down, the player does have ultimate control of whether to muck, or show the cards.
I think it's best to not make a scene at the table in these situations, especially with a new player involved. Options: 1)Talk to the dealer on break. 2)Talk to the floor away from the table. 3)Do nothing.
Tommy
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
dealer is terribly wrong. this is a major mistake he made. if he just had a slip of the tongue, thats life, we all make mistakes with our big mouths. if he didnt know, tell him and the floorman as the floor should have made it clear when they hired him. if the dealer blows you off as some do, save yourself a few hundred a year when he deals as he is doing nothing for you.
part of the problem is that you canucks are so nice that you all want to help everybody.
Not that big of a deal.
I think the dealer should simply say "Let's see 'em" or something like that. However, I don't think the dealer was out of line in this case.
you are wrong. This is a mistake by the dealer that should not be tolerated. Ray Zee's suggestions are the appropriate way to handle it.
The most the dealer should have said is, "OhKanada shows three aces." Anything else is inappropriate. He should never tell the player what he needs to win or to turn his cards over. Unfortunately, floormen don't always have control over dealers, there is often a separate manager for that.
I think Tommy's and Ray's suggestions should be followed.
Here's what I do in that situation: I quietly thank my lucky stars that I've got a new player in my game who 1. plays 4-8 and 2. doesn't know whether he's got a winning hand. If you say something to the dealer, you may very well scare him out of the game. The dealer is just trying to be helpful to a new player, and I see nothing wrong with it, even if technically violates the rules.
Discretion is the better part of valor.
n/t
Hypothetical question
Who would be ahead of who, or who would be a better poker player
1) Player 1 who locked himself in a room for 8-10 hours a day and seriously studied all the top 10-15 best poker books for 1 year, but has no live action experience.
or
2) Player 2 who has never read a poker book but has played over 1000 hours of live poker.
Ryan
Speaking from personal experience...
I read a book on anything I do in life, and of course poker is no exception.
I started "seriously" playing poker four years ago. I had played from time to time previous to that of course, but no casino experience. Before I went the very first time, I read Lee Jones' "Winning Low Limit Holdem" from cover to cover (maybe five hours?).
I was fairly nervous in the casino environment, with all the rules and procedures, but within a couple hours I felt pretty comfortable. I was lucky enough and armed with enough decent knowledge to come away a good-sized winner. I also recognized many poor plays that others made even though I was just a beginner.
I've always done quite well at low limit (3-6, 4-8) and attribute that to the books that I have read. Without a solid grounding in fundamentals, especially preflop play, I could not have passed beyond a mediocre low limit player (and we all know how good THEY are!). Unless you have great powers of reasoning and intuition, I don't believe there is any way to learn solid preflop play by simply observing play of others, especially since most play so poorly during that phase.
I've found with poker, as with anything else, it is much easier to first learn basics from experienced players, then start thinking for yourself and questioning their information. Neglecting what others have learned on the poker table from hundreds of thousands of hours of experience is like learning chess by simply playing the game, only much more expensive. You will get creamed by better players.
Of course, this is mainly based on my low limit experience. I started this game ahead of the rest of the crowd. This may not apply to bigger limits. 1000 hours of play, though, is not that many, so my guess is that it would still apply. And of course during those 1000 hours learning to play holdem, you will LOSE LOSE LOSE!
The answer to your question is obvious. The edge would go to the experienced player on the first hand they played. That edge would then dwindle for each hand played. Eventually ( a lot less than 1000 hours that the other fellow has played) the book studier would gain an advantage and never lose it. That is given that the book studier is as talented as the experience learner. Another way to look at that is take the same individual. Clone him. Let one learn by experience only. Teach the other one a proven basic strategy and tactic to go along with it. Then let them play for an infinite number of hands. I don't believe there is any question that experience alone is not the best teacher. It certainly is the best teaching aide though.
Your example can be proven a lot quicker in a game like chess. But in poker the same is true but will take a little longer to prove.
Vince.
No-limit: Player 2 will destroy player 1.
Limit: Read Vince's post above. His ideas are much more applicable to limit.
Given Vince's given that both players have the same level of talent, Player 1 will overtake Player 2 much more quickly in limit than at no-limit.
I was referring to limit but you have perked my interest. I believe I agree with you about limit vs no limit but maybe not for the same reason. That is I believe that experience in no limit is more valuable than in limit. Fundamental concepts are more important in limit and studying them are extremely inportant to one's success. In no limit one can get by with much less poker knowledge if they have good people skills. Experience is a good teacher in this area.
Vince
Reading skill, the ability to bluff, the courage to call/raise/fold, the ability to select favorable games/conditions all come from experience. Therefore the second player should be ahead by a longshot in a no-limit game because the above skills are weighed much heavier towards earning a +EV. Quan
"Reading skill," agreed
"the ability to bluff," agreed
"the courage to call/raise/fold," agreed/agreed/agreed
"the ability to select favorable games/conditions" agreed
You are right. No arguement about the second player being ahead but I'm not sure by how much. I believe that by teaching these skills a player will learn them through practice much quicker than by being thrown into the briar patch or swimming pool and told to have at it.
Vince.
I beleive the player with the higher IQ will surface as the better player. Lower IQ people just don't learn and progress like smarter ones. The guy with 1000 hours is going to have an edge on the book learner for a while. But at the end of the day like in most endevours the smart shall prevail - they find a way of taking the money from the less smart.
IMO with money games such as poker and backgammon knowing the correct thing to do in a certain situation and actually doing it can vary.
All the knowledge in the world is no good unless you also have the guts to apply it.
.
I must agree with Rounder here. It may sound arrogant, but IQ at least to some degree representing one's processing ability, and that goes a long way in poker success(i.e thinking on the fly and making decisions quickly).
I also advocate having sex before a poker match
I know what Vince is thinking, and I mean with a partner; not by one's self.
"with a partner; "
Sex with a partner..is there such a thing?
Vince
All this talk of sex made me think of the sexiest woman to grace these testosterone soaked pages.
:-)
Please tell us who that might be.
Vince really does read this stuff.
IMHO Poker is 101% Luck -1% Skill.
Lol...to many bad beats lately?
With math skills like you've displayed, you are no doubt correct in your case.
I've wrestled with this Idea ( yes after many bad beats ) for quite sometime. I truly believe in what Jim Brier has explained in many posts and I'll ( loosely) paraphrase him here. That the cards as well as your positive expectation will even out over infinity; however, everything about us as humans is finite. Everything. So you may very well have a positive edge over the long haul, just hope you can make it to infinity to see it pan out. Which leaves me to believe that skill will only save you the maximum when running bad and make you the maximum when things a running well.
Ronzoni,
Are you on tilt? Careful, they're gonna put you away with me.
vince
I've been on the luck side of this argument for a while but you don't have it quite right. The answer is that skill should prevail under normal circumstances but that luck can destroy you. You are playing with fire.
natedogg
For HE, I find it is about 75% luck, 10% shear balls and 15% skill. That 15% is important and is the part that determines winning from loosing. Winning money vs. loosing money over long term seems to boil down winning the large pots and loosing small pots (i.e saving bets and picking up that extra bet) as opposed to winning a lot os small pots (sort of Lennisk as quantity has a quality of its own). I really believe that there is more skill in stud than HE, so that infers that one must be consistantly more skillful to win at HE since even a loss of say "5%" of one's skill in HE can be the difference between winning and loosing. With stud, one can tolerate a 5% decrease in skill (or loss of concentration for a hand or 2) where as it is a problem in HE.
Good post, after some sleep now I believe Poker is 110%Luck -10% Skill.
"I find it is about 75% luck, 10% shear balls and 15% skill. "
O.K Ratso please define 1) Luck 2) Shear balls and 3) skill and I just may be able to comment. By the way I may be in AC next week. If so I'll send you an e-mail and maybe we can get together.
vince
Well, skill is knowing the numbers like the 72 starting hands, knowing the number of outs; pot odds and implied odds and how to play the positions. Balls is (are) playing the player; psyching out the opponent; reverse tells etc; to some extent bluffing and semi bluffing. And luck is self-explanatory.
I played some HE and thought I's like it, but it give me the ass (you AF dudes know what I mean). Well, I did but found it either (1) too automatic or (2) to much luck (considering my skill level is still low). I now mix it up between 5/10 and 10/20 stud and 3-6 HE.
I will most likely be in AC next week. I will drop you a line.
When we win, we played good.
When we lose, we were unlucky.
No,when I win I can get lucky sometime...When I lose almost all the time is unlucky.
BTW I make $ 1.10/hr this year play 20-40 HE.
Regarding: ronzoni89@hotmail.com> posted on Tuesday, 6 March 2001, at 7:59 a.m. that poker "IMHO Poker" is 101% Luck -1% Skill.
Mr. Ronzoni89 statement is so true , the best poker players are very lucky -- because most of the time they can find good games with five to six poor "unskilled" players (in the game).
In Gardena, CA in 1957 I met an ex-professional "early 1940's" basketball player, a New York Brooklyn gentleman who played in an early professional basketball league and later on with the barnstorming House-of-David team. He gave me this advice: "It is better to play good and lose; than to play bad and win." Later on -- I think David Sklansky wrote essentially the same advice in his first edition of "Poker Theory."
THe bottom line is: If you can "play good", that is play better than the majority of your opponents -- you are a winner.
The game I was in, there were eight less skilled players than I,many time I knew exactly what they had.
"The game I was in, there were eight less skilled players than I,many time I knew exactly what they had."
Boy, were you lucky!
vince
Luck is the residue of design. (Branch Rickey)
And, to reference baseball again, Joe Garagiola used to say Bob Gibson was the luckiest pitcher in the world, every time he pitched the other team was in a slump.
Luck is all those things I ain't got!
Vince Lepore, 2 + 2 forum.
Vince
I believe you.
Actually, I'd say it is 80 percent luck and 20 percent skill, but the 20 percent has a huge effect. The 20 percent manages the amount of money you win or lose in any given hand.
While whether you get KK in the pocket and flop a set is luck, and whether it holds up or gets beat by a 6h2h flush is luck, the difference comes in the amount you win or lose with those hands.
A newbie player may bet and raise that KKK until the cows come home. An experienced player may feel forced to call but that's it. In many cases he'll lay the sucker down on the river, knowing he is beaten.
On the other hand if he happens to have the Kh and a fourth heart, the Ah preferably, he'll know how to trap that 6h2h flush and get the maximum money out of it.
Sure, the cards are mostly luck but the money is not.
Wee Willie from Hollywood Casino, now some place in AZ for the winter. Said it best.
"The cards have no respect for talent."
SPM,...it't by reaccuring nightmare I use all my talent and forget to bring the luck factor into my decisions...
the harder I work, the luckier I get
hillbilly- making my own luck
:-)
This is an exerpt from a recent essay I did on "reading hands and people"
I am interested to know if any of you have experienced an influx of this type of player in the last 18 months or so.
"Semi-tight/semi-aggressive, deceptive, tricky, creative, imaginative, purposely confusing player." Now that is a mouth full but I am trying to make a point here and I can’t stress it too strongly. There are more of these guys popping up in card rooms every day and they are not the sly old fox type either they can be 18 to 80 and looks will be as varied as there are players. They DO come in all sizes, genders, and ages the only thing they have in common is a high intellect. Just don’t make the mistake of confusing this cat with any other of the standard classifications of player they will have your eye teeth before you know it. I also think a lot of these players are showing up for the lower to mid limit games and tournaments of all sizes. So if you want to be a winning player these days you have to kick your game up a notch or two. In HPFAP Sklansky and Malmuth discuss how normally tight expert players will play a few extra hands for deception purposes I think this thinking is really getting out dated but fast.
,,,
I've always assumed that a great tight-aggressive player was playing the way you describe. I agree that the term "tight-aggressive" doesn't do justice to a great player who usually will play tight and aggressive but is also very tricky.
I always refer to my most dangerous opponents as "tricky aggressive", very similar to your own term.
I wonder if this is really a new kind of player or if you (and I for that matter) have just finally begun to understand the way the good opponents play. It's possible that you may be close to becoming an expert when you first start to understand exactly what these opponents are doing. At first they just appear to be another wild aggressive player at the table. When you can tell the difference between this player and the wild maniac AND the tight guy, then you may just be one step closer yourself to being a formidable opponent.
natedogg
I really think there are more of these tricky cats today than there were 2 years ago. I see them more in tournaments as all limits tend to get together for them at the same tables but I can see the quality of play getting better so I thought I'd coment on it.
I walk into a casino with jeans, tee shirt , base ball hat, and a jacket or sweat shirt. I take my jacket off so the people see this idiot college looking kid with tatoos on his arms. although looking like i am 21 and barely alowed into a casino i am really 28 and been playing since i was 18. I sit down at a 2-4 and ask the dealer where i can get chips. I hand him my hundred and he gives me these $2 chips. I quicky say to him what are these they dont have $2 chips when i play black jack. He tell me they are for poker only. He asks me if i want to post. i say sure. As soon as i get Ax Kx i call and as soon as i hit that A or K i play very very loose passive so the table can see my hand. step 2 I play incredibly over aggressive playing a medium to high pair. 10 10 even if theres a J or better on the table bet the whole way and show it down even if not called.by this time i have a good idea how the other players on the table are. step 3 is go into exteme thight- aggressive mode for a couple hours. and once every couple hours changing my playing habits for a half hour. Doing this , looking like this , has been very sucsessful in low limit games. also very fun to put the 2-4 ROCK poker fleas on tilt for the day.
I don't disagree with ay aspect of what you describe BUT
how many times can you walk into a casino and pull this off?
on weekends every time. weekdays i stick to one casino that they all know me anyway and its usually the same people. i try not to get into those games but if thats all there is and i am there i'll play a little.
i try and dress differantly too. a baseball hat sometimes, a jacket sometimes, a baseball jacket, a sweatshirt, glasses, no glasses, sunglasses, dress shirt. I think that throws them off.
I started playing stud about two years ago now. All we have is $1-5 and after six months when I realized I became one of the better players in this little pond where I live, I decided I could make more in HE in one hand than in five hours of stud.
I had HFAP, but it didn't make a lot of sense. I bought TTH, more HE books and went to town on TTH to learn my own style. I have been playing HE at the tables for about three month now.
I make plays that draw critizism and funny looks from the regulars. I also have an unusual betting pattern that gets the same reviews . All ready I am cracking guy's who are used to sitting down at the table and dominating the game. Not a very big crack, but they watch what I am doing. They know they are going have to learn to share.
I now understand HFAP better and know it deserves it's place with the best books ever written on HE.
Anyway to make a long story short, I see the same old way of playing over and over and over. Someone taught these 'old timers' the game can be played just one way and that's how they play it - with no imagination or ability to adjust.
I'm sure about now some of you are loading grapeshot in your cannons. Don't get me wrong, I am not bragging, and I am not an expert. I only play $3-6 and $4-8. But if folks don't learn to adapt to changes in the game, their days at the tables are numbered.
I've recently opened an on-line website letting poker players keep track of their session statistics. My friends and I always talked about how that type of program would be interesting to have, so I decided to spend a day coding it, and now it is up and running.
I was wondering, what type of statistics would be nice to have? What statistics are good for a poker player to analyze his overall play?
I would like to have everyone's analysis for this, I am not charging for this service, nor will I ever so it is open to all poker players as long as you promise to give me honest input :)
the site is www.lltsource.com
One note about security, my suggestion, if you are using this to keep track of paradisepoker or other on-line poker statistics do not put your PP account names or passwords! I promise not to distribute any statistics that are stored on the database, but, for your protection, I would still take this extra bit of protection as to alias yourself.
it's just the smart play :)
EnderFFX
It may be better if you could find a way to not display the user's password in the URL after they log in.
Also, you're not from the IRS, are you? Heh.
I completely agree about the poker password, like I said I am improving security every day about it. Nope I'm not from the IRS, and I don't expect poker players (or anyone for that matter) to put their full information, which is why all the fields are optional except for user name and password.
how much can a good player win in per hour.3-6 heads-up holdem?can the rake be overcome?im talking about online play.also how much is the reccomended br for such an endeavor?thanks for all those that respond. paul
It'd be real tough to over-come a 10% $3rake game at 3/6 heads-up unless the opponent played particularly transparently AND you can adjust your game to his; or if he just played terribly.
The rake is too high. You will both get eaten alive. Live game would be different since most cardrooms are more than willing to cut the rake if you insist.
It really is simple. Presumably you expect to average winning a certain amount per hour. But in most games, one hour of good or bad luck can sometinmes involve a swing far in excess of your expected hourly win. For great players this amount is about twenty times their hourly rate. For merely good players it is more like fifty times. So for good players an individual hour could result in anywhere from loss of 49 hourly wages to a win of 51 hourly wages. Luck overwhelms skill here. It is fifty times as strong. However as time goes on, your results due to luck, do not increase as fast as your results due to skill. It is like the tortoise and the hare. Skill plods along steadily proportionally to the number of hours played. But luck increases proportionally to the SQUARE ROOT of the number of hours played. So in the case of the moderately skilled player, after 100 hours, his expected win is 100 times his hourly rate while the luck factor moves from 50 times the hourly rate to 50x sqr100 or 500. Now his results can range for -400 to 600 times his hourly rate (with the extreme results being much less likely than those near the middle). Notice that the results for the great player will range from -100 to +300, after 100 hours. There is never a point when luck is irrelevant. There is certainly a point however, where it is almost impossible that luck can turn a winning player into a loser. In the case of the grat player, this occurs at about the 400 hour mark. His expected win is 400 hourly wages and the luck factor is 20 x sqr400 which is also 400 hourly wages. For the mediocre player however we don't reach this point until 2500 hours! This should tell you something.
What about the point where you can have faith that you will win at least half of what your hourly rate predicts? For the grteat player it is 1600 hours. At that point, it is almost certain he will be ahead 800 hourly wages. (See why?) The merely good player however would have to play TEN THOUSAND HOURS before he could be almost certain that luck hasn't taken half his profits away. (10,000 - 50xsqr10,000 = 5,000). Thats five years.
Hopefully the above explanation will reconcile the differences in this debate once and for all. The fact is that luck overwhelms skill in the short run for everybody. It also overwhelms skill in all but the longest run if your skill advantage is not that great. But if it is in fact great, you should be winning most of what you deserve to win during any one years time.
PS An example of a "great" player by the above definition would be a 10-20 Holdem player who makes $20 an hour and plays a non volatile game (Standard deviation less than $200 per hour, max swing twice that). This is still below a world class player where luck would mean even less. An example of a merely good player would be a 10-20 player making $10 an hour playing a more volatile game as well as one making $6 an hour with less volatility. The key point is that it is the RATIO of your hourly rate to your volatility that determines how long you need to play before skill beats out luck.
"Luck increases proportionally to the SQUARE ROOT of the number of hours played."
This is a well known fact of statistical theory that can and has been proven.
I follow the math and the logic, but the statement by David that, "luck increases proportionally to the SQUARE ROOT of the number of hours played." is still difficult to understand. I do not quite follow how the square root (why sqrt?) parameter plays into the picture. Can you recommend a reference of that proof?
I'm wondering the same thing. Why isn't it cube root, or anything else? It sounds arbitrary to me. If it happens that square root seems to mimic what really happens, that strikes me as a coincidence, not a well-know-proven-fact.
Is there something from the academic math world you can cite? My curiousity is piqued!
Tommy (Still has all his math textbooks at the ready. Tell me what section to look under.)
Tommy
Notice the middle of the distribution is 3.5 times the number of dice, but the width of the distribution increases with the square-root of the dice.
http://www.math.csusb.edu/faculty/stanton/m262/central_limit_theorem/clt.html.
The histogram converges to a binomial distribution, not an exact normal distribution. For one die the distribution is uniform, for two dice it is triangular. But for 6 or 9 dice it looks close to normal. And the width is always proportional to the square-root of the number of dice.
I posted a link to a proof of the central limit theorem which has a link to a larger (more complicated) dice experiment. And you can search on "central limit theorem" to find many more.
Are you convinced?
.
The only books that I can recommend are very sophisticated. The book I have at home that has this proof is called THEORY OF PROBABILITY by Bernard Harris. It is the text book that I used for my course in Probability Theory when I was in graduate school. Perhaps someone can recommend a better book for a non-statistician.
The reason the square root comes into play is that as the sample size becomes large (your number of plays) the Central Limit Theorem tells us that any distribution around a mean (your win rate) becomes approximately normally distributed. The square root has to do with the equation that represents the normal distribution. You have to go through some sophisticated math to arrive at this result. But it is a result that tells us much of what we need to know about poker and our results.
Mason,
Luck is a word used to describe a mystical force. It cannot be proven.
Vince
don't know if you're serious or not- but I believe DS and MM are basically equating luck to standard deviation.
"...DS and MM are basically equating luck to standard deviation."
I know that. But this discussion began with a statement that poker is 101% luck and 1% skill. Luck used in this context is a mystical unexplainable force. Defining the word luck by pointing to standard deviation is, in my opinion, nonsense. A poker players standard deviation is derived via empircally colleted data that has nothing whatsoever to do with mysticism. Forget it! I'm off on a tantrum again.
Vince.
incorrect, vince. it's a subtle distinction, but a player's true standard deviation is a result of the interaction between that player's play and that of his opponents.
what you're measuring by collecting all that data is the _sample_ standard deviation, which varies from the true standard deviation in well-defined ways. to be more specific, the more data you have, the more accurate your estimate of the true standard deviation.
David's "luck increases with the square root of trials" is a consequence of Chebyshev's Inequality. This places a bound on any probability distribution based on its mean and standard deviation (square-root of variance). Clearly your average win increases proportionate to the number of hours. The variance is the average squared deviation from your mean. It is straightforward to show the variance also increases proportionately with uncorrelated trials. In other words the variance of the sum is the sum of the variances. Consequently the standard deviation increases with the square-root of trials. Chebyshev's Inequality is discussed at
www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/3/0,5716,117323+16+109439,00.html.
Mason's Central Limit Theorem says more strongly your abnormal winnings scaled by the square root will converge to a normal distribution
www.math.uah.edu/stat/sample/sample5.html.
While this is advanced math, there is a link to a cool dice animation. In fact, just search the web for "central limit theorem" to find lots of cool JAVA applications. These illustrations may convince you more than any proof.
I was always underthe impressionthatthe standard deviation (in a normal distribution) in independent of both the mean and the sample size. Is that true?
No. From what I undestand if you look at the general formula for variance you will see that it is directly related to the mean (and the standard deviation is the square root of the variance).
I see what you are saying, and I agree. I stated the question incorrectly.
But what I meant to say was:
Let's say you have data from 100 events (win/loss sessions in poker). You determine your average, the variance and subsequently your std dev, and you find the std dev is "X". If the 100 sessions is a representation of your performance and the distribution of the win loss approaches a normal distribution, should'nt the variance or std dev reamin relatively the same (i.e. be independent as the sampling size increases)? Isn't that a test for a normal distribution?
My point is that "your" std dev is a measure of your play (as well as your average). What info can one get from noting changes inone's std dev?
No, the std deviation will still increase, proportionally to sqr root n, for n trials.
You're getting confused by the word "normal" I think. The normal distribution has certain properties relating the probability of the outcome being in a certain range to the standard deviation. This relationship is what is normalized. For instance, to be within 18% of the mean is to be within 1 standard deviation. To be within 40% is 2 standard deviations. These facts hold regardless of the number of trials. That's how the number of trials doesn't matter - but only once you already have the standard deviation.
The standard deviation is independent of the mean in the sense that adding a constant to your hourly rate (e.g., lowering the rake) will not affect the standard deviation.
The standard deviation of your hourly results does not change with more observations, although you get a more precise estimate with more data. But obviously the standard deviation of your total bankroll increase with additional play. The critical point is it increases with the square-root of hours.
This post goes a long way towards explaining a lot. It appears that a good but not great middle limit player ($10-$20 through $20-$40) can in fact go well over 1000 hours and be getting lousy results like losing a little, breaking even, or maybe winning only a little.
I think this post should be expanded as a full essay. It needs to address the other side of the issue. Suppose you have ten thousand college kids who drop out of college to play poker full time. They play $20-$40 where the expected earn is $20 per hour and their standard deviation is $400 per hour. They each start with a bankroll of $12,000 (300 big bets). What is the likely fate of many of them after 1000 hours of play? After 2000 hours of play (one year of full time play)? How many of them will go broke after each increment of time?
If you choose to pursue this as an essay it would make an excellent article for CardPlayer or Poker Digest magazine.
"Suppose you have ten thousand college kids who drop out of college to play poker full time. They play $20-$40 where the expected earn is $20 per hour and their standard deviation is $400 per hour. They each start with a bankroll of $12,000 (300 big bets). What is the likely fate of many of them after....[various time frames..]"
The likely fate of all of them is that they wind up rueing the day they threw their lives away by dropping out of college for chump change like $20 bucks/hr, to breathe cigarette smoke all day, listen to bad beat stories, and have no health benefits, paid vacations, or 401k matching.
This assumes that none of them become famous writers or go into hotel management, of course. :)
Just for example, I'm in a two year program right now(that any bright high school grad could get into and have have fully covered by financial aid), that will result in me being a certified Oracle DBA at the end of it; starting salary $70-80K.
How many poker pros make $70K/yr GUARANTEED every year(w/the almost certain likelihood of increases every couple years) STRICTLY FROM POKER, plus full medical/dental/vision coverage for them and their immed. family, plus 3-5 weeks paid vac & sick leave, plus funded retirement plan, plus profit sharing/bonus(similar to a big tourney win!)? A dozen? Two dozen?
How many comp sci, enginrng, MBA, med and law grads make that or more? Five million? Ten million?
How long would it take a bright 21 yr old beginning to become a $40/hr(expected) pro?
Your post make me sick.
What is an Oracle DBA?
3 Bet,
Easy; an Oracle DBA is someone who is "doing business as an oracle." Since the Delphic Oracle is out of business, the void is filled.
Remember the story about the oracle's ability to foretell the future: the commander of an army asks whether he should take his army into battle the following day. The oracle says that if he takes his forces into battle, a great army will win an overwhelming victory. So, of course, the commander goes to battle and is soundly thrashed. He forgot to ask the oracle which army he meant.
The same oracle neatly laid out Oedipus's future for him, predicting he would kill his father and bear children by his mother. When Oedipus's father heard the prediction, he cast out his son, setting in motion the events that follow.
Talk about luck--good and bad--and skill. BillM--Oracle DBA--predicts the future. Now, how does the listener interpret his story?
John
No wonder the starting salary is so high.
I often see posts similar to the above, and I never understand them. People are always stating that anyone who has the intelligence to be a good pro poker player can make so much more money on the stock market, or as a business leader, or a computer geek. Not to mention health and retirement plans. Why would such a talented person work for "chump change" when instead they could rake in the big bucks with an Oracle DBA? Why would they throw their lives away?
I for one intend to throw my life away. And happily. I am sick to death of my job. Office politics, paperwork, inane policies, administraters who do not know what they are administrating. Not to mention the daily 9-5 grind. Who needs it? Not me.
I intend to move to Las Vegas this August to begin a career as a poker player. I look forward to working for myself, sleeping until midafternoon and going to bed at dawn. I'll take vacations when I want. I will have the freedom to do as I please, with no obligations to any boss. Sure, I may not make as much money as I could with another career, but I do not care. I live cheaply and will be perfectly happy making "chump change." I do not require or need much. I want to live for myself, not a corporation. Hell, I shall view my move as an adventure.
Johann
I want to thank you for your post. I too see these kind of posts often on the poker forums (2+2 and rgp).
I just don't get it. Do people who like to play guitar go to guitar web sites and put down the pro musician ?
Do people who like to go bowling go to bowling web sites and put down pro bowlers?
As Frank Sinatra said "Some people get their kcks out of stomping on a dream".
Bill M might not know it but there are a few people out there that don't mind making what he considers chump change to do something they enjoy a great deal.
There was a post I read recently about how a pro poker player told someone that some days he just didn't feel like playing. He would have to play anyway to put his hours in to make his nut. Ignoring for a minute that this pro sounds like he is playing on a short bankroll. Don't most people in the world have to go to work when they don't feel like it?
I think they said it best in the movie RUSHMORE. When talking about what to do with your life, they said something like..... "Find what you like to do and do it the rest of your life"
I think that is great advice and no matter how much money you end up making there will always be those who will call it chump change and there will always be those that get their kicks out of stomping on a dream.
Good Luck
Howard
"Some people get their kicks out of stomping on a dream."
Alan Schoonmaker did quite a tap dance on the dream in his last column in Poker Digest titled "Don't Quit Your Day Job." It was brutal!
But the rest of his book is pretty darn good (DON'T QUIT YOUR DAY JOB is also on page 295 of his book)
I do think there are some good thngs in that column/chapter however.
Good Luck
Howard
I had mixed emotions while reading that article.
Does anyone know if Alan is or was a full time pro? That's important. If he was, fine. We all see through our own eyes. If he wasn't, then how did he become such an authority on a lifestyle he's never lived?
(Of the two dozen or so full time pros I see regularly, two, maybe three, approach Alan's wild extremes. The rest lead healthy, balanced lives.)
The good news for me is, articles like that one and posts like the one that initiated this thread will hopefully keep some of the heard of sharp Berkeley and Standford students from dropping out of college to come kick my butt at the table.
Tommy
On the other hand, there are lots of stanford/berkeley folks who *think* they're hot stuff, come to the table assuming that just because you're smart you can easily beat the game, and lose to you.
Not that I have any direct personal experience in this.
*ahem*
- target
According to his book, Alan is an industrial psychlogist(sp?). As an avid people watcher, he starting playing poker because of the oppurtunity to watch a large range of people. He plays mainly low limit games because of the more interesting mix of folks that he meets. I do not believe that he is or ever was a full time pro.
I rather liked his essay. I first read it around the time I was first considering taking up poker seriously, and it was good to read some cons written by someone knowlegeble in poker. I had so far been listening to arguments against from family and freinds who had little knowledge in the subject. His essay gave me a bit of a pause, and made me consider what I may be getting into here. But, I must admit, not for long.
.
Son, I commend you for the great courage and resolve that you display. Unlike most cowards, you have the guts to follow your heart's desire and be yourself, by leaving behind the lame 9 to 5 ass kissing lifestyle. Good luck.
Johann writes:
I am sick to death of my job. Office politics, paperwork, inane policies, administraters who do not know what they are administrating. Not to mention the daily 9-5 grind. Who needs it?
I don't want to rain on your parade, but you may be trading these for poker room politics, comp vouchers, inane policies, dealers who do not know what they are dealing. Not to mention the daily midnight-to-8-AM grind.
I guess my point is that life always has a few frustrations. You are unlikely to avoid them, even if you work at Disneyland.
Great post!
Fear not; you have not rained on my parade. My parents have tried much harder than you with little success. Many of life's annoyances will follow my to whatever career I choose. But, as a poker player, if I get sick of one cardroom, I can just get up and go to another. If I feel like taking a few days off, I can do so with ease. If I do want to quit someday, I will not find myself tied into some contract. It is the little freedoms in life that I seek.
I realize that life is bound to have its trials and tribulations no matter what I do or where I go. I am not such a dreamer that I see myself skipping down the streets of Las Vegas with bliss in my heart and gold in my pockets. I expect that I will face many difficulties and that there is a good chance that I will simply fail. But if I do fail, what will I lose? Not much, I can assure you. I will just move on to something else. Life is an adventure; treat it as such.
Dude, when I dropped out of college, it was because "I don't want to work. I just want to bang on the drums all day."
Did that for ten years, just getting by but comfortable nonetheless, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. Since then, ten years of poker. Same thing, with significantly more disposable time and money.
And even without a dental plan, I've still got great gums.
Tommy
that's great for you Tommy, and maybe it takes someone of your skill/talent/drive to accomplish that feat straight out of college - however, what percent of the eager poker playing college dropouts would be able to claim the same success you have had. I don't think it would be greater than 20%, and most would regret it.
"Success you have had."
But Doc, my point was that by money-based standards, I have NOT been successful. And I never will be. In my mind, however, I have been infinitely successful because I've always made my living at things I love to do.
I think it's presumptuous to say "most will regret it." (Referring to dropping out of college to play poker or play the drums or any other non-standard career choice.)
First, some people succumb more to regret than others, by nature, not because of the choices. The type of person who is willing to put it on the line as a poker pro are the same kind of people who are least likely to feel regret about their choices.
Second, so what if a kid picks a path and it turns out badly? For some, it's better to chase a dream and fail than to never try.
"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans." -- John Lennon
Tommy
Yellow mattered custard dripping from a dead dogs eye.
*********************************
And I thought I was the only one who put John Lennon quotes in poker posts ( having used two in the past few weeks). :-)
Good Luck
Howard
BTW Did yo know that He wrote NOBODY LOVES YOU WHEN YOU ARE DOWN AND OUT (off of WALLS AND BRIDGES) hoping that Sinatra would one day record it.
.
I don't think you understand me...but that's not a surprise since I didn't elaborate very much in my post. You have been successful - for what you need. I'm not talking about being successful in terms of comparing your compensation to an investment banker's or even a car salesman. You've been sucessful because you have been able to fund your life merely from poker (I assume you are not a trust fund baby, but maybe you are). So basically, you survive by playing poker, and using that money to fund your life. So you have been succesful - not nearly as rich as you would have been if you had followed the straight path, but still succesfful....now, I think that most college kids who try to play poker for a living (without too big of a safety net - i.e., not a trust fund baby), would not be able to make it by winning consistently, and thus would "regret it" not because they will know that they would've made more money on the straight and narrow, but because they will be bankrupt and will have to continually look for side jobs, dealing, floormen, etc. if they decide they still want to give poker a try.
So, basically, I'm saying that if a college kid reads this, they get all excited and say, hey, I don't care that much about being filthy rich, and I don't care about being "normal", but I do care about living my own life and doing what I want - hey, this Tommy Angelo guy is what I wouldn't mind being (not too much money, but enough to be happy and survive and keep on trucking along), I'll just follow his path.....well, after a few months or a year or two, I'll bet most of them will have hit the wall and have lost the majority of their money, if not all of it, and have to find some form of work (not playing poker) to survive. Maybe in the beginning they'll play well, but either they will start losing at some point and get frustrated, or they will keep moving higher and higher until they reach the level where they are no longer a favorite to rake in the money. And come crashing down. Sure, some will make it, like you...but I don't think many will...I think the 20% number is probably too high.
After reading your post, and Jim's below, I'm changing my tune. Or rather, fine-tuning my tune.
I've got no safety net or trust fund and yeah I've had a good life through music and then poker, and you're right that my posts and others like them could lure a young'un into a regretful, drastic choice.
But how many kids pick up a guitar and dream of screaming hoards? How many kids pick up a basketball and dream of championships and interviews?
For most, those dreams and countless others like them melt away when their 20's and college and reality kicks in. Then comes the day job, and the grind, and the gnawing sensation that "I am different! I was supposed to do something other than this!"
And over the years, even that fades away, as the baked batter hardens, and the cookie cutter's mold is set.
Some people know at a young age that they will always regret it if their batter bakes early. And some badly want to break free of the mold later in life. All I'm saying, in direct rebuttal to Alan Shoo's article, is that poker can be a vehicle for the non-comformist, used to avoid or end regret.
Tommy
I agree. I'm not suggesting that anyone who wants to give it a shot at being a musician, poker player, actor/actress, etc., shouldn't give it a try, even at a young age of 19/20/21. People have different dreams and hopes, and for some, if they don't give it a try, they'll regret it for the rest of their lives. But, even saying that, I still say that a very low percentage of the young'uns trying out poker are happy with it after a few years...of course, the exact same low percentage can be said for all the other fields as well...I guess poker is no different than these other "dreaming" careers.
I doubt you need to be a "bright" high school grad to get into such a program.
I know oracle DBA's and some are bright and some are not as bright.
Also, nothing is guaranteed. Nortel in Ontario just laid off many people. Other high tech companies elsewhere are doing the same.
As I plan another week of late nights and weekend work followed by a work trip to New Orleans and try to deal with the stress of being in the tech industry, I can only dream of giving up my salary and becoming a poker pro.
That of course, is a possibility once the kids are all growed up.
then you die...gl
tough week at work so my attitude is a little skewed.
In general, I like to work, play some poker and look forward to comfortably RVing around playing poker.
Life is good when you get to raise kids, golf, dune buggy, work in an air conditioned office, take the dog for walks AND play poker.
Thanks scalf
believe it or not, i am a guy who threw it all away in my twenties (1978), moved to vegas and played for a living...it was quite a bit different then, but i busted out about 1982 (during and after Reagan's recession), went limping home to midwest...ended up obtaining doctorate degree , am married and feel very grateful to be where i am....but i do not have guilt or second guesses concerning my choice, i think i had to go thru that to get here...i really enjoy playing poker about every 2 months, and i feel for the youg who throw the cards in frustration when i backdoor a flush, it might be their rent...but it's their decision...as doyle brunson said "What good is my money if i cannot gamble with it?", believe me , my activity in the options market pales my earlier gambling, and i think gave me the background to rape the market 16 months ago AND get out...you do potentially learn most from your humbling experiences, if not in denial...gl
Yes. I made some money in the stock market as well.
I did get caught holding my companies stock and have lost 50K of that profit in what we in Canada call our RRSP (retirement funds).
Yet STILL I don't like losing much smaller amounts at poker. It's a double-edged sword. You strive to be better because you want to win BUT often patience flies out the window when you want to "make" a win happen.
It's why I like "Zen and the Art of Poker".
About your poker experience. I'm sure many here would be interested in a tale of your 4 year career.
While you are gratefull now, I wonder if you would do anything differently. If it were me, I would treasure the experience. There is no doubt in my mind, that had I become involved in casino/club poker at about age 20, I would have done the same thing (other than the doctorate, I am content with my BSc)
Regards
Jim-
I believe David has already wrote an excellent article titled "Is your wallet fat enough?" that addresses many of the same information he posted here. This was one of the best articles I've seen on this subject. It was highly informative yet clear and concise enough for us mere mortals to understand. I've haven't seen any other author attempt to tackle this subject in the way that Mr. Sklansky has.
Kevin
Yes, I have read the article Kevin J. It is in Sklansky's "Poker, Gaming, and Life" book.
But here is my concern. With the explosion of public poker over the past few years, I see a lot of talented young men playing poker instead of going to school or getting a job and building a future for themselves. I predict that the majority of them will end up at the ripe old age of 35 or 40 having no job, no future, and little, if any, net worth. Most of them will be scrambling all their lives. Many of them can pretty much forget about getting married and supporting a family since they will be in and out of money most of their lives. At some later time, when they discover that making a 100 grand a year at poker is a myth for most of them it will too late for them to take up anything else. They will be so far behind the power curve that they will never recover.
I know of one talented young kid who did well in the $20-$40 game at the Horseshoe in Bossier City before they closed their card room in January of last year. He moved here to Vegas with his wife and family. A year later he discovered that he really cannot make much money playing poker so he is now taking a crash course on how to be a slot mechanic so that he can support his family. This is a kid who could have gone to college and gotten a professional degree in business or engineering and been making good money by now with a bright future.
Definitely life first, poker second is the way to go.
Except for the determined few who can do it young.
As far as marriage; if I were a young pro poker player then
"I wouldn't want to marry any woman who would want to marry me."
Reminds me of when I first hit the poker clubs around here. Either the players were couples or divorced. Still is that way.
Someone should do a poll on single/divorced/married full time players. Married a second time to another poker player counts as divorced.
Jim-
I agree this is a concern. People of a young age with an opportunity to become educuated in any variety of fields, would be well advised not to make poker/gambling their career of choice. In addition to the obvious drawbacks such as lack of health benefits, 401k plans, etc. there are many not so obvious ones as well. But isn't much of this just part of the human element? I know of people who have otherwise squandered educational opportunities when they were young only to wind up working at menial jobs other than poker. Many a kid has put their parents and family through grief by foregoing an advanced education and following the projected path of a lucrative career only to opt for a more humble job and lifestyle. It doesn't have to be poker. So who's to say that what's right for one is right for another? Happiness and quality of life mean different things to different people. While I might not be able to fathom the nomadic lonely existence a professional poker player (seems) to lead, (I can also think of many other professions that fit this lifestyle), I'll bet many of them wouldn't want to deal with the committments, responsiblities, and financial pressures of running a business and supporting a family that are a part of my life. I don't look down on anyone who pursues their dreams. Someone once told me when I was young that the key to success and happiness is to find something you'd be willing to do for free, then find a way to make a living at it. I haven't found a way to do this yet. To those who have found it in playing poker, I say more power to them!
Kevin
Kevin J. You are so right. We all sound like dictators when we say what is good for people in general. I have my own experience on this, forcing people to do what I thought it was right for them and making them miserable. Never again. The only thing that is hard to take is the complaining from those that *don't make it* some how always blaming something or someone for their failures. I always feel that most of the young people that *play poker for a living* are just plain lazy and they will be lazy no matter where they are.
(n/t)
why let others elaborate, when you can elaborate so much better yourself ;o)
David have you been drinking?
(luck: a force that brings good fortune or adversity-webster dictionary)
Vince
Great post! But be sure to keep it handy once you inevitably find the need to re-post it after everyone who has read and understood it has forgotten about it a few months down the road.
All it takes is a losing streak on the part of a few individuals to make them forget about what you've just written and for them to start another "luck versus skill" thread in the near future. Losing streaks tend to blind the intelligent player.
Everything in this post has already been discussed by you and Mason many times in books and articles yet people still are motivated to argue about luck versus skill. Losing streaks makes this happen.
This is a very interesting concept that I believe is vastly overlooked. I believe that "luck" plays a huge factor in the results of even the most consistent professionals, and can drastically alter statistics (yearly earnings, top 10 finishes, tournament victories, etc.) for over a year or more . It reminds me of a study done some years back by the baseball statistician Bill James. If you can make the analogy between a professional poker player and a consistent major league batter, the study applies very well.
Obviously, a baseball player's batting average from at-bat to at-bat is either .000 or 1.000, and it is quite common for the player's daily BA to vary between the same extremes. Over a week, it may vary between .100 and .600, monthly from .200 and .450, and so on. We expect over a season, however, for a consistent .300 hitter to finish somewhere between .290 and .310, and usually he does. When he doesn't, we look for reasons why not. Maybe he was injured, maybe he wasn't picking up the slider as well, maybe he didn't have X hitting behind him to assure him better pitch selection, or Y on base in front of him to get him more fastballs, whatever. You never hear anybody say that maybe he was just unlucky for the season. For a week maybe, but not a whole year! It is, however, quite possible to be unlucky for a whole year. Your line drives get caught, you don't get those lucky bloops, etc. A computer simulation set to run 2000 years of Willie Mays' stats, at-bat by at-bat, using the same variables for each plate appearance, proves what the possible season variance is based on sheer luck. Mays has seasons where he hit .365, 54 HRs , 150 RBI, down to .245, 18 HR, 79 RBI. Now, imagine what the fans and writers would be saying about Mays had he had these two seasons consecutively.
So my question is: Isn't it possible for even the top poker players to have bad runs that don't just last a week or a month, but a year or more, not because of any "skill" differential, but based solely on a long string of suckouts, missed draws, bad starting hands, and so on. I know eventually the odds will catch up, the same as it usually does in baseball. You used to be able to count on if Tony Gwynn were hitting .294 after June, he was going to have a monster July. And I believe it's the same with the top pros. The skill takes over in the long run. All I'm saying is that run may be longer than some are willing to accept. Sorry for the long post. If you finished it, congratulations.
"Isn't it possible for even the top poker players to have bad runs that don't just last a week or a month, but a year or more, not because of any "skill" differential, but based solely on a long string of suckouts, missed draws, bad starting hands, and so on."
I don't know about a year if 4-5 months "yes",I used to play everyday against Bobby Hop and Steve Lott(both are top player)for few years,They both had a period that lose little $$$$ or didn't make $$$$ but they did fine since they got a pay check. They also joke about some players who got lucky made over six figures in short times.
I keep seeing compliments to this post. The post of itself is fine. It addresses things that can be explained via mathematically sound principals. Explains what one can expect to occur over a long period of time. That's fine. But it does not even come close to explaining "luck". In fact it doesn't even address the concept of "luck" at all.
Vince
Yeah,Luck is also a four letter words.
P.S.
Did DS still make you on tilt?
David wrote: [But if it is in fact great, you should be winning most of what you deserve to win during any one years time.]
Just for the record: The Central Limit Theorem actually states that you will be FAR from your exepted SUM, especially after a huge number of trials. Its correct that you will become a winner, but you will almost surely be far from your exeptation. These remark hold for the sum of your results, not any normalized version or ratios. But since the sum is what your paid or paying......
ladelund
1st 2nd 3rd 4th Payoff>> $5,000 $2,500 $1,250 $750 Stack size>> 80,000 65,000 40,000 15,000 Chip Percentage 40% 33% 20% 8% Fair deal payoff $3,350 $2,863 $2,050 $1,238
Assume the above payoffs and stack sizes for the last four players in a tournament. The column titled "Fair deal payoff" is the percentage of total chips times the prize money left after everyone takes out $750. (There is $9500 total prize money from which you subtract $3000 since everyone is guaranteed fourth place of $750, which leaves $6500 to negotiate for.)
Taking into account the theoretical consideration that the short stacks should get more than their fair share because they're chips are worth more--a point I am assuming to be true--then how do you properly adjust the payoffs to compensate for that fact. Knowing that a straight across the board fair deal is actually somewhat "unfair" to the short stacks what do you do now? If I am the short stack how much more money should I ask for? If I am the large stack how much more should I be willing to give up? Can it be ascertained mathematically? Any and all comments appreciated.
I have been bashing my head lately to this and can't figure the correct way to answer this question exactly. I am trying to figure out how raises hurt your pot odds exactly and then use this to figure out if some of my calls or whatnot or unjustified. I have set up an example below to try and convey the best I can as to what I am talking about. The numbers were made up for ease and nice round numbers but the general idea is the same.
Ok, you see a flop in $10-20 with AKo and after all the preflop stuff, let's just say there is $100 in the pot. Flop is J-10-2 all rainbow. You have a gut shot to the nuts. SB with his trip jacks checks, and next person bets. It is $10 to call so with $100 + the $10 it is $110. The pot is laying you 11-1 odds to call which is a break-even call for your gut shot at this point, right (well, you get two shots at it, butlet's keep this simple)? So, you call. The SB has trip jacks so check-raised the initial $10 bet who then calls the raise and it is another $10 to you.
So figuring this out could go two ways from how I see it. Before the raise, the pot is $110 to your $10 call, 11-1 odds. That was a borderline call/fold situation, now you are facing another $10 call into a pot that is NOW $150 (you call=$120, the SB calls and raises=$140, original calls=$150), hence 15-1. You have gotten better odds by the raise! I have always heard that raises hurt your odds and if there is a possibility of a raise that a fold would be the correct course of action from the beginning (he first $10 bet to you). Anyone understand this?
But if you look at implied odds for this street, the first call would be $10 to win you a $130 pot if you and SB just call. 13-1 odds, so call. BUT if it gets raised and then called by everyone you are looking at $20 investment to win you $160 which comes to 8-1 after all said and done. Now see what I am getting at? HELP!
Do you look at each bet individually to you thus the raising helps, or the BIG picture and raises hurt. First you were getting $15-1 by looking at it by each $10 to you, the second, we looked ahead and get 8-1.
In your above example you are 100% correct the raise does increase your pot odds, and then it is an automatic call. In your above situation you also have overcards to the board, so often when you hit one of those you are good as well. Of course if you know the SB is holding a set you know your over cards are not valid outs.
The answer you are looking for if it is more than 1 bet on the initial call. For instance if you check the set bets out and the next person raises this means there is $100 + $10 (from the SB) + $20 (from the raiser). There is now $130 in the pot and you have to call $20, so your pot odds are 130:20 or 6.5:1, now your gut shot does not have odds.
Derrick Ashworth
It hurts because you invested $20 for a 150$ pot which is not as good as $10 for a $110 pot.
Your second call has better odds, of course, but that is not all there is to it. Pairing your overcards is no longer likely to win you the pot.
Now originally, with your hand I might have raised initially. The reasons are obvious. I would have intentionally given myself poorer odds for the draw but I would be trying to make my overcards good as well as trying to get a cheap river. This would have backfired. JJ would re-raise and drive out the other players.
I might end up calling the next $10 dollars in a $140 pot but have now invested $30. Since my AK will not be good when I pair, I need to hit a Q without pairing the board.
The re-raiser has turned this from a +EV to a -EV situation. On the turn, my opponent will bet and there will be 160 in the pot for my 11-1 shot. I'm now required to fold (not likely), but will have to be sure that my others outs (AK) are not good.
This is why you hate to play against strong tricky players. Rather than a set he sometimes will have something like AK himself and knowing you has put you on a draw.
OK, it's 11-1 on your first call, but let's say you KNOW the SB is going to checkraise you and that the better is just going to call. Then you are not getting 11-1 you are getting 14:2 or 7:1.
It boils down to how you percieve the action taking place, if you strongly suspect a raise then you have to readjust the pot odds. In your example you ended up getting 14:2 for your money on the flop which means you made a -EV play, but you didn't know that when you made the initial call (which was correct, although as BetTheDraw pointed out, there are other ways to play the hand as well), so your call was correct with the information you had available. When it is raised back to you, then you have to look at that bet and re-evaluate, you are getting 15-1 at that point and the call is again correct. BUT, overall, your play on the flop has turned out to be -EV because your odds were reduced by the raise.
Sklansky discusses reducing your pot odds with opponents left to act after you because if they raise you are getting worse odds. Your example illustrates this concept. Your initial call was correct, but since your opponent made the correct play of checkraising you he has reduced the odds that you are getting from the pot and has made your call a mistake.
This is only true for that betting round though, if you hit your Queen on the turn you would likely collect enough bets to turn your -EV play on the flop into a +EV play.
Thus, you can see that his raise has indeed reduced your pot odds. Let's do the calculation and see (we will just look at the EV going from the flop to the turn, so we ignore any implied odds).
EV = (4/47) * 15 - (43/47) * 2 = -0.553 SB's.
Let's say your opponent slow played his trips on the flop and just smooth called, then he would be making a mistake because now your EV is:
EV = (4/47) * 13 - (43/47) * 1 = 0.191 SB's.
Since you have a +EV, then you are stealing money from the guy with trip Jacks because he has the most equity in the pot (currently). But, when he checkraises you then you are making a mistake and he benefits from it and thus he gains money from you. (Even though you made both of your calls correctly based on the information you had at the time, the overall effect of you having called the raise yields a negative EV).
I hope this makes sense and is helpful.
In other words, sometimes two rights can make a wrong.
Yah. But in this case, it's three rights make a wrong. The check raise is "more" right, than either of the hero's calls.
You're right. I was speaking just from his POV. Ana actually, from a FTOP stadpoint, the raise was "wrong" whereas both calls were right. Such are the boundaries of limit poker.
Besides, I would have waited for the turn to checkraise my jacks.....
How was the raise wrong by a FTOP aspect? If the Jacks bets into the AK knowing the AK's cards then he is making a mistake by betting because he knows he is giving the AK correct pot odds. But if he can check raise (and knows that our hero has AK) then from what I understand this would be the best play, according to the FTOP. Straighten me out if I'm missing something here.
You're absolutely right. Since the original poster had broken the round into two separate decisions, I was merely saying he made the "correct" choice to call both times.
If he is "right" to call (by FTOP standards) the second bet, then it would appear that the raiser is "wrong". But your assessment was much better. The checkraise was "right" in that made the combined calls "wrong". I was just trying to be ironic. Didn't really work.
Still would have waited for the turn, though....
Derrick, Bet and Mark; Excellent posts guys. They all are enlightening.
I was just in Chapters and was browsing through Epstein's statistics and gambling book. I wanted to know if anyone thinks this book is useful. I am an EE student and I think I could understand the math (looks like mostly basic integration), but it didn't seem like it had any useful information I would be able to apply. It seemed like it was a pure theory book that would only interest mathematicians and statisticians.
Does anyone think it could improve your poker game? Would anyone reccomend it? If so, why? If not, why not?
i found it 20 some years ago and read it numerous times. it mostly helped me pull alot together back then. its the next step up from basic probability theory. for most it wont instantly make your game better. but the more you learn to think properly using math concepts the better your reasoning process works.
Can you think of an example of a concept that it helped you with? Just looking into the benefits the book may have to offer me, because upon looking at it I know it would take a careful study to get the full benefits out of it. And I still need to study TOP, HPFAP, HLSPFAP, must a few other 2+2 titles. I've read them, and made money off them but now I need to grasp the nuances.
BTW, any other books that you found particularly useful in your studies of poker theory? I've often wondered about top players like you and S&M and others and how you guys learned the game and learned (and developed) the theories of the games. Maybe you have some stories you could share about your experience. Or maybe you just always KNEW what the right play was?
it is my opinion that the best authors of how to play "any Game", did NOT intuitively understand their subject, but did work at it , and during that process, developed insight and wisdom. in fact i think that the "old timer" poker books(before Sklansky or SS), are examples of this: they can't walk you thru a problem, because they did not necesarrily do that themselves...jmho..i too would be interested in how Zee (and others) were able to go beyond very good to great...
I understand that loose pre-flop calls will increase you variance in a wild game. What I can't quite understand is how your implied odds are worse in a wild game than they are in a loose-passive game. For example, if its correct to call pre-flop with a low pair after 5 limpers ahead of you, why not call when there are 5 cold-callers or even a re-raise if you can assume that the callers will play for one more. Aren't your odds the same in either situation? I understand that with a small pair you need to flop a set, but if you hit the third card and your wild opponents will continue to pay you off just as they would in a loose-passive game, why not play the small pair? S&M say that your implied odds are reduced in a wild pre-flop pot. Help me understand. Thanks!!
I looked at this myself a little while ago. I had 77 on the button and folded after a raise, and a reraise and I knew that there would be exactly 5 players (or 5 opponents, I can't remember for sure) seeing the flop. I discussed the fold with a player I respected and he thought it was wrong, I disagreed and looked into it. Here is what I found.
You will flop a set or better 11.76% (7.51-1) of the time. For the follwing I assume that you fold on the flop if you don't flop a set or better. "I" is the implied odds that you get after seeing the flop.
Scenario 1: Five players see the flop (including yourself) for one bet a piece.
EV = (4 + I)*(1 / 8.51) - (1)*( 7.51 / 8.51)
= 0.1176*I - 0.4122
If we set this equal to 0 (this would be the break even point for your call) and solve for I we find:
for 4 opponents and one bet I = 3.51 SB's
Scenario 2: Five players see the flop for three bets each.
EV = (12 + I)*(1 / 8.51) - (3)*(7.51 / 8.51)
=0.1176*I - 1.237
I = 10.52 SB's
These calculations show you how many SB's you need to make post flop for you to break even on your call preflop, assuming that if you make a set or better you will win. This shows, that you need to make 3 times as many bets post flop for your hand to break even if you see the flop for 3 bets vs. seeing the flop for 1 bet.
If we change the number of players (n = # of players including yourself):
n=6
One Bet: I = 2.507 SB's
Three Bets: I = 7.52 SB's
n=7
One Bet: I = 1.51 SB's
Three Bets: I = 4.52 SB's
n=8
One Bet: I = 0.507 SB's
Three Bets: I = 1.521 SB's
n=9
One Bet: I = -0.493 SB's
Three Bets: I = -1.479 SB's
So this should give you an indication of how the number of bets you have to call preflop affects your implied odds postflop, and it should also give you an indication of how the # of players in the pot affects your odds. It should be noted that in the last case (n=9) you have 8 opponents so you are immediately getting the corrects odds that you need and therefor I is negative because you no longer need any implied odds. You are immediately making money, so the more bets that go into the pot preflop the more money you are making (that is why the three bet case is more negative than the one bet case). But, this plays will increase your variance. So you should be aware of that fact as well.
I hope this helps and I hope my math is right. If it isn't I'm sure somebody will correct me, but at least this should give you an indication as to how your implied odds are affected by putting in a lot of bets preflop. I know this was long winded but I wanted to do the calcs again and made sure I understood everything.
good work on your post.. the key point here is the assumption of how many bets you can make in various situations after the flop. how much your set holds up is important too. the figure 75% has been bandied about by experts such as Bob Ciafonne, but it is safe to say this % decreases or increases depending on the number of players and the quality of their hands. Whether this increase/decrease is linear or not I don't know.
one thing i will say is that i think that if your only preflop mistakes are calling too often with pairs with several in you are well on your way to a winning strategy.
Regards.
The issue of when it is profitable to play small pairs is painfully complicated. First, you need to consider the probability of losing after you flop a set. Second, you need to make a prediction about how many bets you will lose in the case of when you flop a set and then lose. And you need to do these calculations separately of course for each value of N, where N = the number of opponents.
I did some preliminary calculations along these lines a little while ago in an attempt to establish a general "fulcrum" for how many opponents you need to play a small pair for a given number of bets. Unfortunately, I was not able to draw any strong conclusions, because 1) I was busy with other activities and so did not (and still don't) have time to really pursue it, and, more importantly, 2) the assumptions you make about how much action there will be in various circumstances are difficult to make and are ultimately what determines your fulcrum.
-Anon
To complicate matters even further, you would ideally also want to consider your relative position. In the case of small pairs, I would want to be far from the left of preflop aggressor, so that the field will be sandwiched in between us (which will allow me to get maximum action if I flop a set).
x
let's say you can make(when your little pair gets good and makes the set) ten small bets for the first small bet you put in before the flop. now it is raised. if you can now make twenty small bets your implied odds are the same, but if now you can only make, say, eighteen small bets, your implied has lowered. Right? on the second small bet (that would be 5 bucks in a 5-10 game), you have only made eight small bets.
Now there are arguments that the bigger pot may actually help the small pair get BIGGER implied odds than with a smaller starting pot, but thats a whole other kettle of fish, and i have not seen any legitimate proof of it. The idea here would be that people are more likely to chase in a bigger pot, increasing the profit (and implied) of the small pair that got good and flopped a set.
I don't know how to explain this stuff well so maybe someone else will help you as well.
Regards.
When there's a lot of fast playing after the flop I think it's correct to call 2 cold with any pair against 5 opponents, even if there's a chance of a raise behind you (although 4 opponents for 3 bets cold would be too thin, unless you somehow knew the whole field would call). If your opponents tend to put in a lot of bets after the flop, you're going to murder them when you flop a set. In general, small pocket pairs do pretty well in aggressive games and certainly do better than hands like 98s, which are just as hard to hit the flop with something playable and almost always don't "get there" until the 3rd or last betting round.
Although you can call multiple raises with small pairs multiway, you'd still prefer to see the flop cheaply in order to make the highest profit. Some argue that with enough players, you should raise with any pair because your preflop odds will approach the odds of you flopping a set, which makes almost all of the postflop money pure profit. However, (1) sets (or better) are 7.5-1 to hit and lose about 20% fo the time (more in multiway pots), so you pretty much need a family pot for this to work; (2) in more passive games with hands like 99 and 88 that can win unimproved, you might be better off seeing the flop cheaply in order to discourage your opponents from drawing out on you; and (3) pairs like 33 and 22 probably aren't ever worth it.
Dodd's post is fundamentally and the math looks correct although I didn't check it.
Another way to look at it is this: if you can expect lets-say N bets later when you hit your hand then your exact implied odds are N. However, it is generally better to compare you exact implied odds with the cost of calling now. In this case, calling a raise pre-flop with a weak hand would cut down your relative implied odds by 2 since it costs twice as much to call.
- Louie
This ignores the affect a raise may have ON your exact implied odds. It is often the case that the raise will cause other people to continue to invest (e.g. chase overcards) thus IMPROVING your implied odds.
Louie,
In a rush and didn't read the original post but I can't help but read your wisdom ;-). Anyway, you wrote: "This ignores the affect a raise may have ON your exact implied odds. It is often the case that the raise will cause other people to continue to invest (e.g. chase overcards) thus IMPROVING your implied odds."
I think this is why calling a raise with a small pair in back figuring to get only about four or five opponents (a play not recommended by most) is probably correct. When you hit a set you get tremendous post flop action BECAUSE the pot was raised, especially in the case of an early raiser and a couple cold callers.
Regards,
Rick
But it costs double to call and I doubt you can justify getting double the absolute implied odds: you won't get twice as much action after the flop just because you got twice as much before.
Malmuth gave a good rule-of-thumb which I had already accepted before I read his: When you are considering playing a small pair against the field you need to be confident that throughout the hand the opponents will invest 10 times as much as you before the flop in order to justify playing. If you want to call a raise you must be able to expect the opponents will invest 20sb throughout the hand. If there are 4 opponents now (8sb) you need 12sb in implied odds before you should play.
This number is greater than the 7.5:1 odds to cover the times you flop a set and lose.
- Louie
Non-math-based dude, checking in.
In the flow-chart of decision-making parameters, I think the math aspect of pocket pairs and implied odds is mighty low. Why? Because it's very often a close call, as this thread and others indicate, which means the next levels of parameters move up a notch.
Position, and who's in the pot already. That's all I go by.
Position. Same old same old. Up front I win less and lose more, in back I lose less and win more.
Who's in. If pay-off players are in, I'm in. If a player or two who I can lay a set down against on the river are in, I like that too.
I think the long-range-profit-determiners are, in this order:
1)Not getting roped in to the river with hands like 7-7 when the flop comes something like 5-4-3 or 8-5-4 2) Not succumbing to take-one-off syndrome 3) Laying down a set on the river
Tommy
I don't know the math I'm just going by instinct. I used to call for 2 bets in middle and late position with small pairs. For some reason it felt like a terrible chip drain. My last 300 hrs I only call one bet in late position if I have 3 or more limpers and hope that I get the SB or BB. It seems like this is more profitable. Is it? This is a very important subject. I need some basic way to play these hands. Please comment---Thanks.
The criteria you outline are sound and all affect your implied odds. Your comments on position are good; but just to nit-pick a little I would like to point out that position matters MORE with marginal hands (like top pair 4th kicker) and LESS with strong made hands or draws since these hands are much easier to play.
I strongly disagree with your prioritized list. 543 is a GOOD flop to 77 and 854 isn't THAT much worse. If 6 of you took a raise pre-flop then you can go to the river with your 6-card gut-shot/set draw, even if it may not be good when you make it. I also think that one's mind-set is detrimental if one is looking for reasons to lay down sets on the river. You'd be better off against players you will routinely pay-off.
I think how many players will take the flop is the prime consideration when considering calling raises with small pairs.
- Louie
is it good poker to limp in 70% of the time wired hands or not and be more aggresive after the flop when you actually have a feel for the hand. could this save you money and more importantly could this make you money......
If you are talking about big pairs, limping 70% of the time is going to cost you money. With small pairs, limping multiway makes more sense.
Are you asking: Should lesser experienced players raise less often with some pre-flop hands than experienced players since they will more often flop situations for which they have a lesser feel and will therefore make more mistakes?
Such as having JJ against the field since you will often flop a single over-card and won't know how to play it.
Yes. Be more conservative when the future is less certain.
- Louie
This advice does not seem generally correct to me. The less experienced player will be less able to make up for preflop equity lost by failing to make appropriate raises. I also question whether such players would generally make fewer and/or less costly errors in unraised/smaller pots.
On the other hand, I would tend to agree that many less experienced players may do well to refrain from marginally "correct" preflop raises which are likely to substantially thin the field (since short-handed play tends to be tricky).
MJS
I think the worst (or, at least, most easily misinterpreted) advice in the loose games section of HPFAP is to limp with AQo. Hands like this generally make their money before the flop. If you hit a hand like AQ (i.e. an A or Q is present on the flop), the players with junk will drop on the flop. I'd rather get an extra small bet from five limpers with weaker hands than hope to trap someone for more money on later streets.
Mason,
You say in Gambling Theory that the lowest SD (in a full hold'em game) that you've heard of among experts is 6BB/hr. Do you think that player was giving up a significant amount of EV playing with such a low SD? The reason I ask is that, even when I play extremely tight, I still have trouble getting below 7BB/hr (assuming 35 hands/hr). It seems to me that, at that level, playing very conservatively, the only additional way to lower my SD by another BB/hr is to decrease the number of hands I play preflop, as that hand's contribution to the ML estimator is a big fat zero. But this taken too far can cut into your profits, as you muck playable hands.
Actually, this brings up another point. Hourly standard deviation is only meaningful if you know roughly how many hands per hour you're getting. What is the reference you use for your SD numbers? 40 hands/hr?
I've thought a lot about this and the interplay between EV and SD in a hold'em game and find it fascinating: tweaking your tightness before and after the flop and observing its effect on standard deviation.
Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
-SDman
First, I did not write what you claim about 6BB/hr. There is nothing in my Gambling Theory book like that (based on my memory).
However, with this being said, expert players do have much lower standard deviations than typical players, especially at hold 'em. This has a lot to do with the number of hands played, how the hands are played, and the ability to read hands well.
> First, I did not write what you claim about 6BB/hr. > There is nothing in my Gambling Theory book like that > (based on my memory).
Please look at the section that is titled 'A Note On Experts.'
I don't have the book with me now, but I think that's what the section is called. There you give the number 6 BB/hr.
You're right. But it says "could be as low as 6 big bets per hour." This is an extreme number, and it really only applies to hold 'em.
If one's goal were to become an expert in both hold'em and 7 Card Stud, how should one achieve that goal?
Should the player learn one game first and study that game extensively before learning and studying the other? If so, which one?
Or should the player attempt to learn these games concurrently? Or would this confuse the learning process? Or would this enable the player see general aspects that apply to all poker games?
A little while ago, I was sitting in a 20-40 game while I was waiting for a seat in a 40-80. One of the players asked me, "What bankroll would be required for 40-80. I know that the game plays more than twice as large as 20-40, and I would like to know how much I need."
I had never really thought about this, so what do the rest of you think? Does the banroll size in terms of Big Bets increase in relation to the size of the game? Or is it a constant due to your increasing skill as you move up?
Or, since you should be a better player as you move up, do you need less of a bankroll?
as you move up, the players are better and more aggressive.
because the players in general, as you move up, are more aggressive (sometimes good aggressive, sometimes horrible aggressive) - this will increase your standard deviation.
also, because you are playing against better opponents overall, this means that your expecation will be lower (on a prorated basis), and that means the luck part may dominate a little more than the skill part...so if you are not careful, this aspect may increase your standard deviation as well.
You definitely need more than twice as much to play twice as high. The reason is because your hourly win rate is not twice as much.
You don't think there are some cases where, due to structure, a higher limit might actually have a comparable EV and a lower SD thus a lower BR requirement then would be estimated by a strict linear extrapolation. I'm thinking of 3-6 and 5-10 or 6-12 and 10-20.
Michael-
I'm no expert on this subject, but I wouldn't think it reasonable to expect your EV to be the same at 10-20 as it was in 6-12. If your EV at 6-12 was 1bb/hr., winning 1bb/hr will not be as easy to accomplish at 10-20. In addition, the games get more aggressive as you move up, which I would think makes up for some of the decreased SD due to less suckouts. I could be wrong though.
Kevin
Even if your win rate were twice as much when you play twice has high, you would still need twice the bankroll to maintain the same risk of ruin. Risk of ruin increases in proportion to your standard deviation, even if the ratio of hourly rate to standard deviation remains constant.
I should say, if the ratio of hourly earn to standard deviation is constant, your required bankroll increases proportional to your standard deviation for a given risk of ruin. Your risk of ruin goes up exponentially with standard deviation.
Here are the formulas for how much bankroll you need given an hourly earn, standard deviation, and risk of ruin:
BR = log(r^sigma)/log[(1-w/sigma)/(1+w/sigma)]
BR = bankroll w = hourly earn sigma = hourly standard deviation r = risk of ruin (probability of every going broke)
r = [(1-w/sigma)/(1+w/sigma)]^(BR/sigma)
For example, say your hourly win at 20-40 is $30/hr and your standard deviation is $400/hr, and say you want your risk of ever going bust to be no more than 5%. The first formula says that you would need a bankroll of about $8000. Note: since .05^400 is too small for your calculator, just take .05^40 and multiply the resulting BR by 10.
These formulas are derived from ones found in "Blackjack Attack" by Don Schlesinger. They can be applied to poker as long as we assume a certain average hourly win and standard deviation which do not vary too much due to different opponents, etc. I like to double these bankroll requirements to account for such variability, and also to ensure that the desired risk of ruin is maintained over time. You may need less bankroll if you are willing to play at lower limits if you lose.
nt
In Bob Ciaffone's latest Card Player column, he relates a story where he had made a "going up" hand gesture to signify a raise, but the raise was ruled invalid since Bob did not verbally "announce" the raise.
Doesn't this rule discriminate against those with the inability to speak, mainly those who are mute?
Chips should speak for the bet.
You are Rounder right? Typo?
Yeah
aaa
Only people who can speak can play poker? What a ripoff!
Is a 10% rake too much to overcome as a beginner ? Is 10% the standard rake in casinos? Thanks for any replies . Gremlin
Yes, it is too much to overcome. 5% is too much. Stay away from casinos. Find some home games to play in.
Many of us long time pros (or in my case semi-pro) understand how important it is for new players to have a chance to win. And the casinos don't give anyone who plays less than 20-40 a chance.
I only know the rake in my casino, and that is 5% (20/40). The game is beatable for that rake.
For a beginner however, i think homegames are better, like gambelero said.
it depends what the cap is on the rake. if they take 10% with a $3 cap and all the pots are really 100 or more thats more like a 3% rake. that can be beaten. if they take 10% and the game is at all tight even with a say 5$ cap i wouldnt expect hardly anyone to be able to win so game selection is critical. also if the ante is very small ahigh rake can be beaten by tight play against bad players. i wouldnt play a 10% rake game of seven stud though as your edge is small per bet and the ante is high per hand. a 5% rake with a 3 or 4 cap is tough enough to beat even by fairly good players unless people are playing very badly.
the way i envision it, i look at how much is raked out on the average hand and see if that much is thrown away by someone during the pot with little chance of winning. that takes care of the rake and then you have to play better than who's left.good luck.
x
I have a question about BR requirements and the risk of going bankrupt. I am not going to repeat any of Mason's equations here since I don't want to give anything away that he hasn't put on this site (although I don't think he would have copyright on an equation), but suffice it to say that if he reads this or anyone else that can help me reads this, they will understand what I mean.
LL = f(WR,SD,N) where WR = winrate, SD = standard deviation, N = hours played, and LL = lower limit that one can expect for his results. Setting the first derivative wrt to N equal to zero and solving for N yields the number of hours to minimize the LL equation (makes it the most negative). Substituting N back into the LL equation and multiplying by -1 gives:
BR = f(WR,SD) where BR = bank roll required.
In the initial lower limit equation 3 standard deviations was used to predict the lower limit for one's results. If we replace this by x (x standard deviations) we get a new equation for BR which is:
BR = x^2 * g(WR,SD) {it actually just changes the constant}. Solving for x:
x = sqrt( BR / g(WR,SD) ).
Now this is where my question begins :), and it's a short question too.
Can this new equation be used to esitimate your chance of ruin? ie. If you have a set BR, can estimate your WR and SD, and calculate x can you use this to find the chance that you will go broke?
Specifically if x = 2.0, then is your chance of going broke equal to 0.018309 (1.83%) {Straight from the normal distribution table for x SD's}?
x = 1.64, then do you have a 5% chance to go broke?
The reason I want to know is that I have a fixed BR, recently took some losses and I want to estimate my chance to go broke if I continue to play in the size of game I am playing in (assuming I am a winning player). My sample size is WAY too small to get an accurate WR or SD, but I am going to estimate these conservatively (advice on these numbers? typical game so I was thinking 0.7 BB's for WR and 10-12 BB's for SD). I'm slightly inexperienced but I think I play well and think I can beat this game. Don't know about beating it for 1 BB per hour, but I'm pretty sure I could make at least 1 SB per hour.
Is my analysis correct? Can I estimate my chance to go BR using this technique? Our my estimates correct for WR and SD (I have your Gambling for a Living book, but it is currently not available to me for a while so I can't access the data in that book). Any other comments that you can make on this?
All advice appreciated.
For those that may be confused. f(WR,SD,N) and g(WR,SD) represent functions of these variables.
Win rates seldom stay stable over time. I like to use what I call the central tendency theory.
As time approaches infinity, all raked games become unbeatable.
Even a period of several months can see a significant change as the stone give players quit or adjust and become merely mediocre.
What'll be the next game, three (or five) card omaha?
By taking the derivative, you have taken the first step in approximating the formula for risk of ruin over a finite period of time (trip ruin) as Don Schleshinger does in "Blackjack Attack". The LL you get when you substitute N is not the bankroll you need for a given risk of ruin, however, and can underestimate it by a factor of 2 or more, becoming much worse if used as a long term ruin formula.
The risk of ruin will be maximum at N, but the bankroll requirement will continue to increase as you play beyond this point. Schlesinger makes this approximation closer by choosing a number of standard deviations equal to half the desired risk of ruin (x=.1.96 for 5%). This has to do with the probability of going bust during an interval being at least twice the value at the end. The problem is that for some intervals it can be 3 times as great, and for very long intervals it can be 5 to 10 times as great, so this is not a good way to arrive at the long term ruin formula.
See my post below under "More on Bankroll Requirements" for the correct long term ruin formula. Here is a simpler approximation which seems to work just as well:
r = exp-(2wB/var)
where r = risk of ruin, w = hourly win, B = bankroll, and var=hourly variance (sd^2)
For your example, w=.7, var = 10^2, r = 5%, so you would need a B of 213 bb. Note that your method would give 96 bb, and Schlesinger's correction to your method would give 139 bb, his method being better for short intervals.
See "Blackjack Attack" for the accurate short term ruin formula.
Let me clarify something. The reason you need to divide the risk of ruin by 2 when looking up the number of standard deviations to use in your method is that otherwise you will be equating the risk of ruin to the probability of losing your bankroll at N, but not taking into account the probability that you may lose it before that, and this probability can be shown to be at least twice as great, hence the factor of 2.
This is called "bumping into the barrier syndrome". If your bankroll were large enough, you could be beind by this amount at N, but you were actually more negative than this earlier. If you went bust earlier then you will not reach this point.
The problems with this method are a) the factor for accounting for the probability of going bust before N can be greater than 2, and b) your bankroll requirement will continue to increase, albeit asymptotically, after N due to the probabilty of going bust after N. These considerations are taken care of by the more accurate risk of ruin formulas given.
BUt if you take the first derivative then that point you solve for is the minimum value of the function by definition. There is no way for the function to be below this point at any different N. at least that is my understanding of the situation.
I will look at your formula's more closely. Apparently you are saying that Mason is wrong, well your formulas look good and I'll check out the differences.
I don't disagree with Mason on anything as far as I know. I haven't read "Gambling Theory and Other Topics", so I don't know what's in there or if it gives a risk of ruin formula. My substitutions into the general form which you have given are based on generally known results which I'm confident Mason must have in his book. I do have "Gambling for a Living" in which Mason gives estimates of bankroll size for various games, and these are reasonable. The formulas I have given allow customizing of the risk of ruin, and they show how to take into account the fact that the standard deviation increases faster than the hourly rate as the games get bigger.
The point N that you solve for is the time at which your bankroll will be a minimum for a given number of standard deviations. There is certainly no other particular point at which your bankroll can be lower for that number of standard deviations, that is true. But the probability that your bankroll will be lower at some point prior to this can be shown to always be at least twice as great as this. Do you see the difference? This is why you must use half of the risk of ruin to make your formula a reasonable approximation to the risk of ruin over an interval of length N. For a long term risk of ruin formula, you also have to include the probability of going bust at some point after N.
This discussion is academic due to the availability of the accurate formulas given. I only bring it up since your approach parallels those made by leading theorists in the blackjack community before they came up with the accurate formulas. You might want to take a look at "BJ Attack" at your local large bookstore. Although the book is about blackjack, many of the mathematical sections are of general interest.
I don't think I see the difference.
Are you saying it is twice as more likely for me to go broke because the number of SD change or the SD changes?
In my analysis, I set the number of SD's equal to n and carried this variable through so that when I was finished I would would have a formula for BR which was a function of n. And this way, I hoped, I would be able to solve for n (for a given BR) and calculate my risk of ruin.
Your formula's are much more complex. I will check out BJ Attack IF my local bookstore has it, which they likely won't.
x
Are you saying it is twice as more likely for me to go broke because the number of SD change or the SD changes?
Neither of these. I'm saying that there is a huge difference between the statements "If I play for n=N hours, then being down by at least B at hour N would represent being at least x standard deviations below average, and the probability of that is p=P, and that is the largest p corresponding to x standard deviations for all n", and the statement that "if I play for N hours then my risk of losing B is P".
The first statement does not penalize cases where you are down by more than B for n < N and continue playing until N. For a risk of ruin calculation you cannot ignore these cases because if you lose B before you get to N you have to quit by definition. The fact that the probabilty of this happening at any pont is p < P is no matter, these cases contribute. The fact that N is the point where an x standard deviation swing hurts the most is not particularly relevant to a risk of ruin calculation except that it says you should certainly not have less than the amount required to reach N. In fact it turns out that this amount is at least 2*P just to have a risk of ruin of P over the first N hours.
Now ask yourself how would your calculation change if you only wanted to play N hours instead of playing until infinity? If your answer stays the same then clearly there is something wrong because the added probability of going bust after N hours is not 0. It will decrease asymptotically to 0 after this point, but not fast enough to ignore. This type of calculation was never intended to be used to compute long term risk of ruin, only as an approximation to the risk of ruin over N hours, and even for this purpose it has been replaced by an accurate short term ruin formula which I have not given here and which is different from the long term ruin formula.
My statement 1 was not worded quite right, so let's try this again:
Are you saying it is twice as more likely for me to go broke because the number of SD change or the SD changes?
Neither of these. I'm saying that there is a huge difference between the statements "If I play for n=N hours, then being down by at least LL=B at hour N would represent being at least x standard deviations below average, and the probability of that is p=P, and that is the largest LL corresponding to x standard deviations for all n", and the statement that "if I play for N hours then my risk of losing B is P".
The first statement does not penalize cases where you are down by more than B for n < N and continue playing until N. For a risk of ruin calculation you cannot ignore these cases because if you lose B before you get to N you have to quit by definition. The fact that the probabilty of this happening at any pont is p < P is no matter, these cases contribute. The fact that N is the point where an x standard deviation swing hurts the most is not particularly relevant to a risk of ruin calculation except that it says you should certainly not have less than the amount required to reach N. In fact it turns out that this amount is at least 2*P just to have a risk of ruin of P over the first N hours.
Now ask yourself how would your calculation change if you only wanted to play N hours instead of playing until infinity? If your answer stays the same then clearly there is something wrong because the added probability of going bust after N hours is not 0. It will decrease asymptotically to 0 after this point, but not fast enough to ignore. This type of calculation was never intended to be used to compute long term risk of ruin, only as an approximation to the risk of ruin over N hours, and even for this purpose it has been replaced by an accurate short term ruin formula which I have not given here and which is different from the long term ruin formula.
I have been playing in a spread limit dealer call it home game for about 2 years the game is $5-20 spread w/ a single $5 blind. I have won $12k in this game and there are some really juicy players who show up weekly.
Rercently the host and I convinced the other players we should go pot-limit to "livin up" the game. All agreed. Well the first 2 weeks were great I won over $2000 but things turned south last night. In the span of 45 min. I lost 3 buy-in's ($6000) and there was no way to avoid it.(please bear with the length of this post it gets good)
Hand #1: Omaha I go all in on a flop of JcTc2h with Ac3c2d2s my opponent has 2 pair and the K high flush draw he fills up on the turn and his full beats mine a 4 outer.
#2: I flop a set of 4's in HE, raise on the flop get re-raised by JJ I raise again get called a J hits on the turn and busts me. a 2 outer.
#3: All in on the flop with top 2 (QJs) against AKs flush and straight draw he rivers the flush (flop q8j). I called an early position raiser on the button to trap. I made a perfect play.
SO WHAT IS MY POINT? After these losses the table was loaded with money. I seriously considered buying in for another $4-6k (the host would front me) but then I had a revalation . . .These weak idiotic players could easily bust me again by no fault of my own. WOW! When we were playing limit these players had ABSOLUTELY NO SHOT AT MY BANKROLL. I had many "bad beats" but it didn't matter it was only a minor set back. There was/is no way any of them could beat me over the long haul. Now I an giving them all easy access to my bankroll for no reason at all.
Think of it this way if you had to play poker against Doyle Brunson, 10k-20k blinds,winner takes a $million loser gets beheaded which would you rather play limit or No -limit. . .the answer is simple NO-LIMIT. In limit you would have no chance, he would grind you down. In no-limit you could break him on the first hand(set over set, quads over quads, straight flush over quads) his skill would play no part. Are these occurrences rare? of course but in limit they dont exist at all. No 1 hand can break you.
So the conclusion is simple; the old beleif that limit poker gives bad players a chance and No-limit offers them no chance is WRONG. In fact it is the exact opposite, limit poker offers them no chance and no-limit provides unneccessary opportunity. The idea that NL is a skill game and Limit is a luck game is also wrong. There is a much larger luck factor in NL when you consider how much the cost of one catastrophic event is.
How about one more analogy: If I play one on one basketball against my younger brother I can beat him in a standard game to 11 100% of the time. But if we were to mark a spot on the floor where a basket was worth 11 points he would have a chance to beat me (and would on occassion). Why give your dominated opponents a chance at an 11 point basket?
So the conclusion is simple; the old beleif that limit poker gives bad players a chance and No-limit offers them no chance is WRONG.
I've always felt that this conclusion has merit. Bad players will eventually lose in either format, but I've seen bad players hit a streak for months playing big bet and book some incredible wins. The converse is also true, however: unlucky bad players only last a few minutes playing big bet, and there are more unlucky than lucky ones.
This discussion brings up an important and interesting point. What motivates bad players to play? Skinner would claim that they are hooked on the reinforcement mechanism inherent in poker. I remember when the original draw poker video machines came out. In the early days they would locate them near poker games and as an ever curious observer of the human animal, I used to observe people playing them.
One thing I noticed right away was that People would sit there and play those things for hours and hours. It's still not clear why the reinforcement mechanism is so seductive(maybe it was the frequent pushes), but it really hooked people. Players would leave live games to play them; last time I was in Atlantic City several times during my visit people quit 50-100 games to play poker machines.
Even today, the draw poker concept and its many modern variants is still the dominant form of slot machine. So Skinner would say that people have to get reinforced occasionally. Some real sickos probably want to lose and get reinforced by losing. But despite the popular view that this neurosis applies to all gamblers, Bergler and the other experts have very strict definitions of truly chronic compulsivity. I've probably met five or six people who fit this bill. (One example for some of you guys that live in Vegas is a longtime brushman named Clem.)
Normal gamblers get reinforced by winning. People who are problem gamblers, but not clinically compulsive need to win only occasionally. When I was in college, we played various forms of hi-lo split. A real bad player who played at least 5 hours didn't have a chance, even in the short run. One player, George P, probably didn't win more than one time a year (at a play a week on average). Yet, he kept coming back. He might sit out for a month or two, but then he'd be back.
Some people are minor endorphin addicts who are happy as long as they win. We all know players like this; they quit great games early just a little winner, but will never quit loser. My model for this is a guy named Spencer (a GN regular for years). He once won 22 times in a row and had less bankroll than when he started the streak. If he got stuck, he would play two days straight in hopeless games trying to get even. These players just want to leave the game with positivity chemicals circulating the brain, even if the levels are low
A more common gambling animal is more of a thrill seeker, an endorphin spiker. This type of bad player is often a large loser, but they sometimes make a big score. Researchers tell us that they often had a big win (half a year's salary or bigger) early in life. This type of player needs to have a big win occasionally to keep going, and this is where the no limit versus limit comes in.
In limit poker, it is very hard for a bad player to luck up on a really big night. Especially if he's playing in the tough games that Mason is always writing about. Here the bad player is always playing category 10 and lower hands against category I, II, and III hands, often heads up or three handed for two to three bets before the flop. It would take a major miracle for this player to win and it may take several lifetimes to hit a big score and achieve the necessary endorphin spike. S/he is a lot better off playing in better gambling environs away from casinos, but it still takes a minor (as opposed to major) miracle to get the necessary reinforcement.
In no limit poker, however, a weak player has a much better chance of getting this endorphin spike. I was thinking about the big games in W. Ky the last couple of years (our biggest regular game), and even the worst players there had some really big wins occasionally. My model for that F.B. lost more money than anyone in that game, but won big maybe one time in six or so. Another big net loser, H.H., won very big at least a dozen or so times over the three years of regular play (tri-weekly during the summer and weekly during the rest of the year.
To me, the issue of why losing players keep playing is a critical determinant in the structured limit/no limit debate. I encourage responses.
.
If you had won 2 out of those 3 hands (like you should have) you would be bragging about your great $4K win and one of the sucker opponents would have gone home and never returned.
How many times can the sucker put in max action with a 4 outer and survive [1] at limit [2] at no limit? The answer is he can make lots more mistakes at limit. So while you are correct that the varience is MUCH higher at pot-limit so is your expectation.
Hang in there. You will beat the game for a bunch and then it will break for good.
- Louie
You know your bad beat stories are incomplete. It sounds to me like you are starting with cheese in these hands - none of them are anything to write home about you didn't say but was it O8 A322 is piece of cheese to play in eigther Omaha game and your QJs in a pot limit game and your 44 wow you are asking for it.
Maybe you ought to stick to limit.
I can't disagree too much about the QJs or 44, but if the game was indeed O/8 on Hand #1, how can you classify the A223 hand with a suited Ace as a "piece of cheese"? What type of hand would you need to see a flop, even in pot limit?
A322 was cheesie for Omaha hi and I think just marginal for O8 - what little I have played O8 a hand like this is just asking for a bad beat which this guy didn't have here.
Of course I am sort of a nut nut player. This canadian guy named Don told ma all about O8 last year.
:-)
I assumed it was Omaha high only, as I don't think it would make much sense to play O8 pot limit; you would get the nut high and nut low betting the pot until they were both all in and then splitting the money back to each other (most of the time, anyways). I have never seen pot limit O8, and my post on the high stakes board (and Rounder's, I believe) were both based on the assumption that this was Omaha high only.
I played several times PL O/8 tournaments at PokerSpot. Very, very enjoyed them.
"There is a ton of skill at this game, it is a lot of fun, and the person with all-around poker skills will usually prevail" - Bob Ciaffone, Omaha Holdem Poker
I wrote the "Essay On Topic" post in the "Luck v. Skill" thread below, and I would like to clarify a few things(I've been offline for awhile).
First of all, best of luck to Johann as he turns pro, and congrats to Tommy Angelo on a life happily led(and thanks for yet another great post).
It might surprise some of you to know that I was once a "pro"(or at least wannabe) myself. My reasons were exactly the same as Johann's, and I also was 'escaping' the after-effects of quitting drinking. I was neither skilled/disciplined enough, nor had a big enough bankroll, and subsequently went broke/bankrupt in nine months and came within a day or two of comitting suicide(didn't start drinking again, tho'!).
A point I left out below is that the learning/'survivability' curve of professional poker is brutally high. There's a world of difference btwn beating your local game when you have a safety net and bumping heads w/JimB, Mason, Roy Cooke, etc., 40 hours a week and HAVING to beat the game. I think Tom McEvoy said it best; "If you make $10K/yr from poker you're a good player, but try living on that."
The fact is that a majority of the pros in LV & L.A. have money coming in from other sources. Playing poker fulltime is a job/grind like anything else. The thrill of freedom goes out the window after a month(although it IS very nice to be free of the phone, e-mail, etc.), but you certainly ain't free from the bills each month. You have no boss or office politics to deal with but there is plenty of pettiness.
Unless you win a couple of big tourneys there is little glamour or excitement. There are some very nice people, but also a much higher % of jerks than any other career field. Maybe Huck Seed can keep his own schedule, make plenty of money, travel the world, date hotties, etc., but how many others can? JimB wrote that he once had a -200 BB month; could you handle that financially and emotionally?
Go for it if you want it bad enough(I have no regrets); just be aware that all may not be what what it seems. If you are capable of balancing your life with other interests(like Tommy A.) and family(like Roy C. & others), and are very skilled, capable of improving, and are initially well-funded, you'll probably make it. Otherwise, if you're sick of your job, quit it without burning any bridges, and take a two/three month sabbatical to LV or Cali to get a feel for the life. It's a lot different than just playing on the weekends.
At the beginning of the year I again quit my job(which I hated) and am now attending the 'Oracle school'(Oracle is a giant database program, not an ancient Greek psychic.... :) ).
I've been playing poker every weekend, don't have a part time job(yet), and am murderering the game. Of course, said game is the best $15-30 HE game to ever be spread and I'm a much better player than I was in 1996.
I'm also five years older/wiser/wealthier/healthier/happier. I'm going to play the biggie this year, but even if I win it, I'll just play a little higher and fly to LV/Cali/big tourneys on weekends a little more often.
FWIW
"Maybe Huck Seed can keep his own schedule, make plenty of money, travel the world, date hotties, etc., but how many others can?"
I guess we can add Ted Forrest to that list; see "$10K-20K @ Bellagio" thread on RGP.
bill please email me at bhsj456@aol.com i need your help seems im in the same position you were in almost did it last night only thing saved me was the thought of my family
Take it one day at a time, keep it simple-stupid and please, please keep going to meetings.
hey life is worth it...laying it on the line competitively and losing is humiliating, but the fact you were willing to go for it and take risks shows that you have great personal worth and just need to find your spot...your family is the important thing...great you understand that...you are a person with great value gl...
It takes courage to reach out for help and you've taken a first step. I think real human contact can be more helpful than e-mail and message boards. I hope you will call a crisis hotline or community mental health center to arrange counseling.
Best Wishes,
Mike
Hang in there bud. My email is enderffx@hotmail.com and my ICQ is 2919216. The fact you are asking for help shows you have the courage and determination to try and get out of your rut. Keep fighting, and drop me an e-mail if you want. I'm always happy to talk to a fellow poker player, and future friend.
..DON'T DO IT. Trust me on this one, please. Unless you have a terminal, painful illness it's just not worth it.
Here's the quote that saved me(I stumbled across it either be freak coincidence or divine intervention):
"Whoever you are, there is some younger person who thinks you are perfect. There is some work that will never be done if you don't do it. There is someone who would miss you if you were gone. There is a place that only you can fill."
Corny, maybe. Worked for me, though.
Ken Griffey, Jr. once swallowed a couple hundred aspirin as a teenager; can you imagine it? What if I win the biggie this year? DON'T DO IT.
If you have any substance abuse problems, quitting all that will solve 90% of your problems.
I think tournaments are a good way to jump-start a poker career. I've seen lots of guys win, say, $3000 in a small local tournament and then show up everyday at 20-40 for weeks, making a go of it. Sure, most of them don't make it, that time, but they are surely wiser for it, for the next attempt.
As to playing against a preponderance of tough players when you "have" to win, well, that's just dumb in my opinion.
People ask me all the time, "How come you don't go to LA, the action is awesome." Or, "How come you didn't go to such-and-such tournament?"
Simple. I can drive ten minutes to play against players I know inside and out, where I know for sure I'll have smoke-free fun, or I can fly and/or drive all over the country to play against tougher players in a tougher environment, with homesickness to boot.
That said, I'll be in Vegas for a few days during the WSOP because three of my best friends live there and they all offered me free lodging. If only I could get them to feed me too. Anyway, if anyone wants to meet for chow and bla bla, email me. If I play any poker it'll be at the Mirage.
Tommy
I have not played pro (but I did win 20K last year, which I'm glad to hear qualifies me as a good player! LOL), but I have known many pros. Most of the successful pros I know either begin with very large bankrolls, or supplement their income with side work of various kinds: from taking card room management jobs to propping games.
Tommy A. is one of the best live game players I've ever seen, and I've played everywhere west of the Mississippi and a few places east of it. He is also a rare bird: a great human being with a variety of talents and interests that he doesn't let a bad poker day interfere with. Talk to some pros that you know, outside of major tourney winners, and you will find most of them are not any happier than you are in what you do. Tommy is but he is the exception.
I talked to a Vegas pro about it one time. I guy churning between $40 and $50 K a year in live games. He said: It's been o.k., but I wouldn't give up a college education and a decent job for it if I had to do it again.
That said I fully intend to turn pro by the end of the year! (That should make Tommy perk up: his win rate would go through the roof!) :-)
OK, trying to reconcile what I read with what I experience. There seems to be a common view that poker pros are anti-social losers with slightly above average intelligence. They claim to live free of the corporate grind but in fact are mired in their own daily, dead-end grind with no forseeable chance of escape.
I only know two mid limit pros on a personal basis. One guy has been a pro for over 10 years and the other guy has been at it for over 20 years. both of these guys tell me they love what they do and both of them have a very high quality of life (note that I didn't say they were fabulously wealthy). So the whole point of this post is that it's not poker that makes someone an anti-social troll with no future, its the person.
I agree, generally. My point about Tommy is that he is such a good and strong person anyway that his choice of profession, no matter what it is, does and would not effect how he lives his life or his outlook on a regular basis.
However, that said, I think playing poker, or gambling in any way, for a living presents special challenges for anyone. Gambling is addictive. It is addictive for almost everyone that plays it. There are varying levels of control of the addictive nature of gambling and it will exert a strong pull on you even on the days you planned to stay away from the card room.
Try to go to Vegas sometime and plan a varied vacation. Plan on doing some hiking or historical tours or whatever. It's tough. I do. I go there to play cards and rock climb at Red Rocks National Park. I do it and I don't give in to the desire to play when I planned to climb, but it is a challenge sometimes. At least until I've left the Mirage and am on my way out to the canyons.
But try to do that in Vegas, then come back and say it's easy. For most people it is not. The analysis I read somewhere was that everyday life was largely boring consisting of inconsequential decisions (should I have toast or an english muffin? will I go out to lunch or make a sandwich?). Gambling on the other hand is intense. Every other minute, everything that is about to happen to you depends on your decision. That's heady stuff.
I think that some people take this string of posts as a negative attack on anyone with a dream. I read them differently. I read them as a caution to people that think because they have beaten thier local 3/6 game their going to become the next David Sklansky (note: David writes a lot of books to teach people to play poker. Why? Probably because they are a better quality and quantity living then playing poker.), Huck Seed or Phil Helmuth.
I will note also that it seems (this has been a long string so I may be wrong)that only one pro (Tommy) has come out to defend the life.
Everyone should live their dreams. Period. If you think you are the next Huck Seed or Phil Helmuth, by all means GO FOR IT! But to reject information because it doesn't reflect what you HOPE will happen is foolish.
My last question (and I'd love to hear from you Tommy)has to do with meaning. A lot of us end up with jobs that seem to provide no meaning for our lives. There was an entire phiolosphical treatise written on the concept (The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Pirsig)in the 1970s. We no longer have jobs, for the most part, like furniture maker, where when we are done we can look with pride and say: That's a damn good chair! I've added something to the world.
Most people feel that need in some form. The job that pays my bills gives me that feeling sometimes, the novel and short stories I'm working on do more often.
What about poker? When I have thought about turning pro (don't get excited Tommy, I'm not doing it!), I have wondered how long I would be happy with it because of that sense that what am I doing? I'm wouldn't be helping people. The world is no better because I won with a full house over a straight.
Anyway, just wondered if anyone else thought about this.
you go climbing in REd Rocks?! me too man, When i was in college I would go there every spring break for the awesome sandstone. Its kind of cool how one of the natural wonders of the US is so close to the totally un-natural, surreal Las Vegas.
As to jobs and being an asset to the community, my view is that no matter what your job you should always try and contribute something positive outside of what you do to pay the bills.
n/t
Got your boots on?
In the spirit of it's-not-the-activity--it's-the person, derived meaning from an income-producing activity depends on the person. I stocked groceries for six years on a three-man crew that never changed for all that time. We each had our own aisles and did our own ordering and cleaning and sale displays and price changes and resets and inventory and everything. We took great pride, individually and as a team.
Meaning? I dunno. Such a fuzzy word. Rather than try to define it, let's presume that making art has, or least can provide, meaning.
Can poker be art? Here are some truths about writing and music. If these apply to poker as well, well, you tell me.
Writers and musicians start with a "blank page," with apparently limitless options. Not at all true. Each is bound by their own nature and nurture, and by the existing norms. A writer would not start a book, "I play poker like I and it."
The blank page of poker is equally filled in. Most choices are second nature, and deviation from them is punished. Beyond that layer of givens, the musician and the poker player can reach a place where the remaining blank portion of the page is in full view, ready to be filled in uniquely, in that special way that sparks the art buzz.
Meaning?
Some people put people above all, even above money and things. If someone asked, "How would you like to hang around with a bunch of people spending their leisure time and money doing a commonly loved activity?" How would you reply?
I'd say sure, sounds like a good time to me.
Meaning?
As to poker being a "non-productive activity," right, it is. It's nothing at all like your guy who makes meaningful furniture. In this case, he's the artist, and I'm the one who enjoys his art by sitting in it.
Tommy
"It's not poker that makes *.*, it's the person."
I SO agree with this, fill the blank anyway you please.
BillM,
Thank you for your post. It must have been difficult to write, and I appreciate you sharing your story.
I have often thought that the majority of the poker books downplay the difficulty of turning pro. True, most mention that only a handful make it, but most authors say that with study and practice, anyone can succeed. Alan Schoonmaker's "The Psychology of Poker" was the only book that I read that argued against turning pro.
Your post points out many of the harsh realities of the life, and I am glad you did. We need more such writing; the books romantisize the game too much.
When I first started thinking about turning my dream into a reality, I had no real sources to let me know what the life is truly like. I had to rely on reading between the lines of all my poker books, where I realized that it must be an extreemely difficult profession. I do intend to purchase Hyanno's "Poker Faces" as soon as I can find it.
That said, I have a dream that I intend to follow. I may fail, and I can face that reality. My knowing that the odds are long is very important. I must be realistic.
Johann
Roy Cooke's book of collected columns, as well as the novels "King Of A Small World" by Rick Bennet and "Shut Up And Deal" by Jesse May(ignore the drug use and organized crime aspects of both as far as applying to your situation).
Your odds of becoming a millionaire from poker may be high, but your odds against being happy don't have to be.
Bill
I know you can order the Cooke Collection from poker digest, but were can you find Pokerfaces, king of a small world, and shut up and deal?
Gambler's Book Club would probably be the best place. Dunno what their website is.
GBC can be linked from this (2+2) site. Just look to the left part of your screen (Favorite Links).
Good Luck
Howard
I have read Roy Cooke's book, and I enjoyed it immensely. He is a wonderful writer. I will read the other two also. Thanks.
Johann
Hi, I went to Vegas last weekend, talked to a local for a while waiting for a 4-8 table at the Bellagio. He said 80% of the players there were locals, and on weekdays, I'd imagine even more to be locals! What I don't get is, if everyone is a local, tight, and a rock, how do they keep going? The "average" 4-8 player loses maybe (I'm guessing here, and yes tighter players lose less) $10-$20 an hour playing 4-8 with a 5% rake. If there was no rake the "average" player would make/lose $0 an hour, without any other possiblity due to the fact that poker is a zero sum game. Anyways, with the rake, and a table of 10 locals, i'd imagine playing 8 hours a day would cost them $80 a day to $160 a weekday (excluding Friday night maybe) to just play! Am I right here? Thanks!
Your numbers seem off. If the rake is capped at $3.00 per hand, I think the expected average loss per player would be less than $10 per hour in 10-handed games.
I forgot to figure in tips, the amount of which can be controlled by the player. If you are an average player and tipper, you may add to your the expected loss about 3 times the average tip for each pot won.
80% locals means 20% tourists. That would mean 2 fish at each table (except for the fact that some tourists might be good players.) This could also be cancelled out by having local players that aren't that good. IMO, 2 fish is all it takes to make some money.
How do they keep the game going at Bellagio? Even on weekdays, there must be a never ending supply of fresh money coming into the games at all levels. And even if they chained the first 10 players into the game to the table for 8 hours a day, I suspect that the bankrolls of these LL Vegas regulars is much deeper than a $3 per hand rake, plus tips. There probably aren't too many of them beating the game for 2BB's per hour on any sort of steady basis, but I also suspect that a lot them play a fairly low variance game that could make their retirement funds last a lifetime.
I mean if they can keep the noon start 3-6 game going at the Yellowhead in Edmonton with virtually the same cast of characters firing up the game EVERY day, surely the Bellagio can sustain 3 or 4 4-8 games of a similar nature, can't they?
You are fundamentally correct. But may I point out that there is a difference between an "average" loss and an "average" player's loss. With no-rake and no-tip the average loss would be (as you say) zero, but it can easily be the case that more players are favored to lose (if there are a couple sharks) or more players are favored to win (if there are a couple terrible players), so the "average" player could be either a loser or a winner.
Don't confuse a "Vegas Regular" with a "Modest winner". Most "Vegas Regulars" are losers.
- Louie
Yes, but no body thinks that they are average. Everyone of those regulars things that he can beat the game and make his money off the rest of the players, but as you seem to recognize, most of them are wrong. about that and will eventually lose all their money and go on to get real jobs. Of course, they will be replaced by a steady stream of more locals/wannabe-pros, some of whom will make a nice living playing poker, a few of whom will become very rich, and the majority of whom will be the ones helping fund the card room and successful players.
Johnny,
You are correct. The vast majority of poker players at the 20-40 and below level can not beat the rake and are lifetime losers playing poker in a casino. I guarantee it. Some are gambling addicts and others are just passing the time in retirement or doing something with the inheritance.
Overcoming the rake is extremely difficult at the lower levels.
Hi, here's my Math Geek Question of the week.
Ok, say you've decided on a given Risk of Ruin, have a stastically significant estimate of your hourly SD and win rate in Big Bets, and out of your worksheet comes the suggestion that you should play at 17-34.
Now, not only does your local casino not spread 17-34 at this time, it rarely spreads the same limits every night. Your usual choices are 2 or 3 of: 3-6 , 5-10, 10-20, 15-30, 20-40, 30-60. Which two are spread simply depends on which lists fill first. (Turning Stone, BTW)
So, you decide to conserve your risk of ruin by playing different games, but keeping the same average "risk".
So, finally my question: how do you average? Say your SD is 10 BB/hr, and your variance is 100. You play 4 hours at 5-10, (SD = 200, Var = 4000) and 4 hours at 10-20 (SD = 400, Var = 8000 )
At first glance, I would just add the variances for the total variance: 12000, and get my hourly variance by deviding by the number of hours (8): 1500. Now, deviding by my hourly variance, I see I am playing at an "effective" limit of a spectacularly unsurprising 15.
But this is contrary to my intuition, which is that playing 8 hours at 7.50-15 is less risky than 4 at 5-10 and 4 at 10-20. Also take the case of playing for pennies for 7 hours, and a very big game for one. It seems here the asymptotic risk should approach the risk of the big game as the limits of the small one go to zero.
Thanks for any who can point out my logical error.
Zooey
Your problem is a simple one.
SD = 10 bb/hr, Var = 100 bb/hr. Play 4 hours which doubles SD
5-10 SD = 200, Var = 40000 not 4000. Var is always the square of SD and has units of bb^2/hr^2 so you can't just multiply 100 by the bet size, you have to square the bet size.
Similarly 10-20 SD = 400, Var = 160000.
Combined variance is 200,000 or 25,000/hr. SD is 158/hr or $15.8, just a little more risky than 7.5-15 has your intuition suggests.
x
I was playing in L.A. for the past month and was appauled to see so many players speaking foreign languages at the tables. I rarely saw the dealers tell the players about the english only rule. I commented a few times about this at the table but nobody seemed to care. The players I saw doing this were all asians. I also saw a dealer speak asian to her friends (her friends were playing at the table) and she seemed to be talking about players at the table. I asked to see the manager and informed him of the situation he told me he would look into it. I used to play in L.A. years ago but it seems to me the rules were enforced back then.
With all that Asian money coming in, it would be hard for the cardrooms to enforce these rules.
n/t
what language is Asian?
its good to enforce the rules but I don't think this is nearly as big a problem as us Whiteys sometimes make it. In fact, using proper discretion when asking that the rule be enforced would make the game more enjoyable for all involved. many of the asians don't speak english very well so it can be frustrating not to be able to talk to your buddy. I seriously doubt they are cheating. most of the time they are just talking smack to each other, not you.
as for the floor man ignoring your request, that's bullshit and I would avoid the card room.
Between hands they can speak any language they want. However, when a hand is in play it is English only, including those not in the hand. This rule should be enforced all the time. Insist on it and leave the room if the floor won't enforce it. This puts everyone on a level playing field, nothing is hidden. I once had three Russians standing behind me while their friend played sitting accross from me. They were speaking Russian while a hand was in progress. When the dealer didn't respond to my suggestion that they move or be quiet, I yelled "floor" at the top of my lungs. The three buddies disappeared as did their playing buddy a few hands later. There is no room for this at the tables, English only. The dealer can greet her friends in her native language but should not hold a conversation of any length other than in English. IMHO The Kount
I've never played in LA but I play in Vancouver where about 75% of the players are asian. Ocassionally a dealer has to remind players of the rule but not very often. It's almost never a problem. They will often speak their language in between hands but once the cards are dealt it should be English only. I have never seen a situation where I suspected cheating, however, if you were in a situation where you suspected cheating then definitely remind the dealer and floor of the rule.
I ran into this problem at Commerce and once at Gardens.....but didnt really have a problem at Hollywood Park. When I did mention the problem at the table it died down. Of course I am a rather large fellow with a rather deep booming voice...might have had something to do with it.
= )
I play at Commerce and Hollywood Park in California. I have never seen this as a problem. True, many players speak to each other in their native tounge. But there are many who speak other languages. It is not just Asians. I get tired of all the references to Asians in posts I read. (I am not Asian)
If players talk in a language other than English during the play of a hand, the dealers tell them not to, especially is there is a compliant. Most players do not seem to mind the talking between hands.
As far as my post was concerned....i didnt mention what foreign language. It varied between Vietnamese, Chinese, Russian & Greek.....since you seem interested to know. I dont mind the conversations when neither have cards.....otherwise there is no excuse. Would be the same as if i were passing notes to a friend during a hand....I am sure they wouldnt stand for that.
= )
Win, I agree with what you said. My post was responding to opp's post.
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, can lead readers astray, and can damage a writer's credibility.
With a well-written how-to book, a mutual respect usually develops between the author and the readers.
The writer respects his readers enough to craft his words carefully. He doesn't want to mislead his audience and strives to make it as easy as possible for them to correctly understand his points.
If readers find few flaws in the book, they are more likely to embrace the author's advice and devote a greater effort to understanding his concepts.
Are any of the following statements exaggerations? If so, do they have positive or negative "expectation?"
"[Y]ou need about $6,000 for $10-$20, $7,500 for $15-$30, and at least $30,000 for $50-$100. (You need slightly less if you are willing to go to a lower limit if you start depleting your bankroll. . . .)"[1]
"Another general strategic concept that all professionals know is that you should almost always be aggressive whenever you have a reasonable hand."[2]
"[A] pure bluff is rarely the right thing to do because it simply almost never works."[3]
"Game theory is nice to know although frankly it probably won't add that much to your profits unless you are playing in very tough games.[4]
---------------------------
[1] David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOW TO MAKE $100,000 A YEAR GAMBLING FOR A LIVING, 1997, p. 219.
[2] GFAL, p. 227.
[3] GFAL, p. 230.
[4] GFAL, p. 236.
While I am not always the biggest fan of believing everything written by David and Mason sans critical thinking, I think that all four of the statements above are quite reasonable.
I would directly agree with all of them, in fact, which differentiates those statements from many in HfAP.
Did you have issues, or were you just fishing?
- target
They are quite logical and not exaggerations.
All are correct statements.
If anything, they're understated and not exagerated.
...And I thought you finally had Mal & Sklan over a barrel! But - no such thing. Oh well. Better luck next time.
"You need about $6,000 for $10-$20, $7,500 for $15-$30, and at least $30,000 for $50-$100. (You need slightly less if you are willing to go to a lower limit if you start depleting your bankroll. . . .)"
Perfectly sensible.
"Another general strategic concept that all professionals know is that you should almost always be aggressive whenever you have a reasonable hand."
No exaggeration.
"A pure bluff is rarely the right thing to do because it simply almost never works."
Too true. (Emphasis on "rarely".)
"Game theory is nice to know although frankly it probably won't add that much to your profits unless you are playing in very tough games.
Absolutely. Game theory concepts will fly over the heads of everyone but the toughest players, playing against other very tough players.
Cyrus (et al.),
The general consensus (of those replying so far) seems to be that S&M meant exactly what they wrote. Instead of asking which of their statements are exaggerations, perhaps I should ask which of their statements are errors.
S&M wrote: "You need slightly less if you are willing to go to a lower limit if you start depleting your bankroll."
You wrote: "Perfectly sensible."
How would you define "slightly less?" It would be particularly helpful if you could express this in terms of percentage points.
S&M wrote: "Another general strategic concept that all professionals know is that you should almost always be aggressive whenever you have a reasonable hand."
You wrote: "No exaggeration."
How would you define "all professionals," "almost always," and "reasonable hand?" Again, some rough percentages would be nice.
S&M wrote: "A pure bluff is rarely the right thing to do because it simply almost never works."
You wrote: "Too true. (Emphasis on 'rarely'.)"
How would you define "rarely" and "almost never?"
S&M wrote: "Game theory is nice to know although frankly it probably won't add that much to your profits unless you are playing in very tough games."
You wrote: "Absolutely. Game theory concepts will fly over the heads of everyone but the toughest players, playing against other very tough players."
How would you define "game theory," "probably," and "much?"
One could pick up any edition of the New York Times and ask similar questions, don't you think?
If your idea of a good poker book is one that is so painfully detailed as to define every such term, it's an idea that's different than mine. I wanna be able to read the book and grasp the main points it is trying to make; you appear to want to work out with it to put some bulk on your pipes.
Really Mark...this hair-splitting obsession of yours is getting silly.
skp,
You wrote: "If your idea of a good poker book is one that is so painfully detailed as to define every such term, it's an idea that's different than mine."
That isn't my idea of a good poker book. You might have misunderstood why I requested these definitions from Cyrus.
I have no problem with the authors' using rough qualifiers. In this kind of book, however, it might not benefit many readers if they use rough qualifiers that--as generally understood--exaggerate their points.
Cyrus doesn't seem to believe the statements I cited are exaggerations. If we are going to have a reasonable discussion of this issue, it would seem that a good first step would be for him to explain how he interprets some of these qualifiers.
S&M wrote: "You need slightly less if you are willing to go to a lower limit if you start depleting your bankroll."
Cyrus wrote: "Perfectly sensible."
If Cyrus believes 165 big bets is "slightly less" than 300 big bets, then I probably would agree with him as far as poker theory is concerned (although I might take issue with his definition of "slightly"). If he believes anything less than 270 big bets exceeds "slightly less," then I might be able to convince him that S&M's statement is an exaggeration and is not "perfectly sensible."
Rather than rushing to condemn Cyrus, I am trying to lay the groundwork for a reasonable discussion. I hope that is okay with you.
You also wrote: "Really Mark...this hair-splitting obsession of yours is getting silly."
I understand that not all forum participants find all threads interesting and important. Each of us has our own favorite topics and levels of expertise. Not all of your threads captivate my attention, but I don't believe I have ever posted such a complaint in any of them. If you find this thread to be silly, you could just ignore it.
You wrote
"Cyrus doesn't seem to believe the statements I cited are exaggerations. If we are going to have a reasonable discussion of this issue, it would seem that a good first step would be for him to explain how he interprets some of these qualifiers."
...to which it's now obvious that I will respond
Mark Glover believes the statements made by Sklansky & Malmuth are exaggerations. If we are going to have a reasonable discussion of this issue, it would seem that a good first step would be for him to explain how he interprets some of these qualifiers.
Cyrus,
S&M wrote: "[Y]ou need about $6,000 for $10-$20, $7,500 for $15-$30, and at least $30,000 for $50-$100. (You need slightly less if you are willing to go to a lower limit if you start depleting your bankroll. . . .)"
You wrote: "Perfectly sensible."
In order to help facilitate a reasonable discussion, I asked if you would define what you believed the authors meant by "slightly less." Presumably, you had some rough idea when you deemed their statement "perfectly sensible."
You replied: "Mark Glover believes the statements made by Sklansky & Malmuth are *exaggerations*. If we are going to have a reasonable discussion of this issue, it would seem that a good first step would be for him to explain how he interprets some of these qualifiers." (Emphasis in original.)
Okay. I would guess that a majority of the book's readers would say "slightly less" means 5 percent or less and perhaps 95 percent of the readers would say "slightly less" means 10 percent or less. Let's be generous and go with the 10 percent figure.
Suppose you are playing the $40-$80 games, are thinking about moving up to the $80-$160 games, and are willing to drop back to the $40-$80 level if you start depleting your bankroll. S&M seem to suggest you should not move up unless your bankroll is at least $43,200 (270 * $160).
I think you could move up with as little as $26,400 (165 * $160). And your risk of ruin would be less than if you entered the $80-$160 games with a bankroll of $48,000 (300 * $160) but were unwilling to go to a lower limit. If you are willing to step down to the $20-$40 games, if necessary, then you could move up to the $80-$160 games with an even smaller bankroll.
Do you understand why? Do you still believe S&M's statement is "perfectly sensible?" Do you want to reasonably discuss S&M's next statement?
"I understand that not all forum participants find all threads interesting and important. Each of us has our own favorite topics and levels of expertise. Not all of your threads captivate my attention, but I don't believe I have ever posted such a complaint in any of them. If you find this thread to be silly, you could just ignore it."
I'll give you this: Although I think you are way too picky, there is no doubt that you are a very polite poster. Your point in the above paragraph is well taken. Who am I to say whether something is silly or not. It seemed silly to me but whether it's silly to everyone...well, that's for "everyone" to decide.
Skp: "there is no doubt that you are a very polite poster."
It sure looks like skp has not read all that many of Mark's posts.
A simple concept of "game theory" is that applying it correctly insures that you essentially break even for certain secnarios in the long run.
Carl,
You wrote: "A simple concept of 'game theory' is that applying it correctly insures that you essentially break even for certain secnarios in the long run."
That sounds like an attempt to define "optimal strategy"--a well studied part (but only a part) of game theory.
How about this WorldMedicus definition of game theory: "A theoretical construct used in applied mathematics to analyze certain situations in which there is an interplay between parties that may have similar, opposed, or mixed interests. In a typical game, decision-making 'players,' who each have their own goals, try to gain advantage over the other parties by anticipating each other's decisions; the game is finally resolved as a consequence of the players' decisions."
Mark,
You really need to begin using parenthetical citation instead of this footnote stuff. When you cite a quotation, follow with the page number in parenthesis. For example, David Skalnsky and Mason Malmouth say, "Any intelligent player can easily make ten dollars a year gambling"(237). Note that using "p." isn't necessary. Readers who are following along with text in hand can then refer to the page number directly. In addition, you can simply cite the edition of the text or texts you are using in alphabetical order in a Works Cited list. For example:
Works Cited
Sklansky, David and Mason Malmouth. Gambling for a Living. Las Vegas: 2+2, 1997.
I'm not trying to be a prick here, but simply suggesting a citation method that's more elegant and reader friendly.
John
John,
Thank you for the suggestion. When I quote a single source multiple times, parenthetical citation could be the way to go. In this forum, though, footnotes might be more reader friendly when multiple sources are quoted.
So, I'm not as certain as you that I "really need to begin using parenthetical citation instead of this footnote stuff." Besides, I don't want to upset Mason, who likes my footnotes.
Please be assured, however, that I will give your idea due consideration.
"[Y]ou need about $6,000 for $10-$20, $7,500 for $15-$30, and at least $30,000 for $50-$100. (You need slightly less if you are willing to go to a lower limit if you start depleting your bankroll. . . .)"[1]
about 300 BB for a bank-roll for each one. that's about what I've noticed in my own playing, and pretty standard in the literature.
"Another general strategic concept that all professionals know is that you should almost always be aggressive whenever you have a reasonable hand."[2]
If you're going to criticize someone for using too much exaggeration, try to pick sentences where they don't qualify what they say with the word "almost".
"[A] pure bluff is rarely the right thing to do because it simply almost never works."[3]
Ditto.
"Game theory is nice to know although frankly it probably won't add that much to your profits unless you are playing in very tough games.[4]
I'm not sure what exaggeration you're talking about here. Do you think game theory WILL add a lot to your profit in weak games or that it won't add a lot to your profit in very tough games?
Game theory in practice involves randomizing your play in specific situations so that others can't guess what you're holding. Anything different from one of those situations to the next can completely change whether your game theoretic play is sound (like if the other guy is on tilt, or if your game theory calls for you to bet with nothing, but you've been getting called down with losing hands recently, etc.). The assumptions present in a situation requiring game theory to maximize expectation are rare to see in a normal poker game. Tough games, short-handed games, and repeated games against the same opponents more often have the right elements present, though.
I guess you know this, but "game theory" is not "poker theory," and the edge gained through proper application of it in poker games is very limited. The chapter "Game Theory and Bluffing" in TOP is pretty much the least useful chapter in the book (IMO). It's much more of a mathematical exercise that a strategic recommendation, mainly because the assumptions in his examples are so difficult to know while in a poker game.
Ark,
You wrote: "about 300 BB for a bank-roll for each one. that's about what I've noticed in my own playing, and pretty standard in the literature."
But do you agree that, "You need slightly less if you are willing to go to a lower limit if you start depleting your bankroll." (Especially the word "slightly.")
S&M wrote: "Another general strategic concept that all professionals know is that you should almost always be aggressive whenever you have a reasonable hand."
You wrote: "If you're going to criticize someone for using too much exaggeration, try to pick sentences where they don't qualify what they say with the word 'almost'."
So, do you think "almost always" is not too much of an exaggeration? What about "all" as in "all professionals?"
S&M wrote: "[A] pure bluff is rarely the right thing to do because it simply almost never works."
You wrote: "Ditto."
So, do you think "almost never" is not too much of an exaggeration? What about "rarely?"
You claimed: "Game theory in practice involves randomizing your play in specific situations so that others can't guess what you're holding."
Is that all you think game theory can be used for at the poker table? If so, then I'm not surprised you feel "the edge gained through proper application of it in poker games is very limited."
In their writings the 2+2 authors use a fair number of "may be", "slightly" "could be correct" etc.
Certainly poker is not an exact science and this is a way of indicating that more knowledge/experience is required in order to make the concept correct OR a lot more detail is required than can covered OR they are covering themselves somewhat when it possible they are not exactly correct.
BetTheDraw,
You wrote: "In their writings the 2+2 authors use a fair number of 'may be', 'slightly' 'could be correct' etc."
So do I. I'm not complaining about the authors' use of these words and phrases. I am curious how various readers interpret them, though.
For a fuller explanation, see my above comments to skp.
n/t
n/t
Mark's point is to play some sort of an ego game. Since his last completely pointless "quiz" gathered nary[1] a reply, he had to try again.
His latest quiz is just as pointless[2].
[1] zip, nada, zero, goose egg [2] a pencil that needs sharpening
Chris,
I'm sorry if my interest in discussing this topic has upset you.
By the way, how many "correct" answers did you get on the quiz?
> I'm sorry if my interest in discussing this topic has upset you.
Hardly. The stock market decline has upset me because it has cost me money. You haven't cost me anything.
>By the way, how many "correct" answers did you get on the quiz?
I ignored it. Nothing in that post (nor any of your others) has anything to do with making money. So why should I care?
chris,
You wrote: "Nothing in that post (nor any of your others) has anything to do with making money. So why should I care?"
I guess moving up in limits quicker than S&M recommend wouldn't help you make more money. Alas.
the bankroll requirements are too low if you are just srarting out as a pro. I'm don't know the context in which the bankroll requirements were used though.
Wow!
There have been times when you have actually correctly identified some exaggerations or inaccuracies in the S&M books. You were splitting hairs those times too but at least you had something to hang your hat on. Your helmet is still attached to your head in this instance though. What exaggerations you could possibly be referring to here is a complete mystery to me but no doubt you will enligthen us in due course. I doubt that I will be chucking the book out with the cat litter when that occurs though.
I think the general point with this thread is that neither of the original authors were accounting for pot size, strength of opposition, etc. when they made these declarations. For example, the idea that a pure bluff is 'rarely' the right move certainly isn't true if you're playing four handed against weak-tight opponents, or against players who will built massive pots and then pitch any A high or worse hand on the river...
Ditto for the point about playing reasonable hands aggressively. However, I'm not sure how my understanding of the text, or appreciation for it, has changed as a result of this thread.
More importantly, I am sure that your appreciation of what they meant would not have been enhanced if they had gone at great lengths to cover every possible exception to the general rules. Furthermore, even if the above was false, the negatives of including such minutae would far outweigh the positives.
..and I know that you agree with me on those scores...so this is really directed at Mark - not you.
BTW, while you were away there for a while, there was a fella named "Gary Daniels" posting with the moniker "GD".
Hope you have been keeping well...good to have you back.
skp,
You wrote: "More importantly, I am sure that your appreciation of what they meant would not have been enhanced if they had gone at great lengths to cover every possible exception to the general rules."
I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that the authors should go to such great lengths. I certainly am not.
All right ...I misunderstood you...my apologies.
.
Mark, except for computing odds, poker is not an exact science. If you do not understand this, you should not be playing poker (except in my game). No bankroll will be big enough for you.
If you do understand that poker is not an exact science, then what you are doing is nit picking for no apparrent reason.
My question to you is: In one sentence, what is your purpose in all this?
"If you do not understand this, you should not be playing poker (except in my game)."
Spoken like a true poker player.
.
Alden,
You asked: "My question to you is: In one sentence, what is your purpose in all this?"
How about this one: "At other times, however, exaggerations serve little purpose, can lead readers astray, and can damage a writer's credibility."[1]
------------------
[1] Mark Glover, "GAMBLING FOR A LIVING: Exaggerations," 13 March 2001, 8:34 p.m.
Out of all this hair splitting, I dont think you have provided any evidence that S and/or M's credibility has been damaged.
Ryan,
Earlier, I wrote: "At other times, however, exaggerations serve little purpose, can lead readers astray, and can damage a writer's credibility."
You wrote: "Out of all this hair splitting, I dont think you have provided any evidence that S and/or M's credibility has been damaged."
First, just because you think this is hair splitting, that doesn't mean it is hair splitting. For example, many winning poker players who are interested in making lots of money at the poker tables probably would feel the difference between a 165 big bet bankroll requirement and a 270 big bet bankroll requirement is rather important.
Second, several posters to this thread seem to believe S&M's exaggerated bankroll requirement (if you are willing to play lower) is correct. The authors' statement has mislead them.
Third, among those of us who realize S&M's bankroll requirement is seriously flawed, I suspect there are several who feel the authors are less credible. I know I do. Perhaps they could repair some of the damage by admitting their mistake.
Maybe this is not hair-splitting to you, but myself and probably other posters are getting the impression that you are seeking out a conflict that has no real purpose. I myself and many others could probably find "little" flaws in peoples writings, Like using the word who instead of whom.
My point is, whether a person needs a 5 big bet bankroll or a 500 big bet bankroll, Im not going to throw all my 2+2 books in the trash. Poker is not an exact science and it is almost impossible to calculate whether individual people with different needs and agendas need less, slightly less, or very slightly less sized bankrolls.
If you honestly feel that S&M are less credible, nobody says you have to read there books. I personally do not believe everything I read but even if there are a few insignificant errors in some 2+2 books, they are still the best poker books on the market. Furthermore, no person is perfect and if an author uses a word or two that can have different meanings to different people it does not take away from there credibility.
Best of luck in your undying quest to discredit S&M.
Since you seem to get bent out of shape when someone doesn't "clearly" define a term, I will supply the needed info.
I used the term "insignificant" error.
The reason I feel they are insignificant, is because you can't define the term "slightly less" and arguing whether it means 165 big bets or 270 big bets, is like two people arguing whether a specific color is purple or pink. No two people are going to see it the same way. That is why an author has to use a term like "slightly less," instead of an exact number.
Mark seems to want everything spelled out in the most concrete way possible. Evidently he does not give readers of 2+2 books credit for being able to think at all beyond what they read. It seems he does not believe an interested reader could see a nonspecific word like "slightly" and do a little research to find out more precisely what is appropriate for his own needs. Though he pays lip service to thinking for himself, too much of what he writes indicates instead that he is deeply entrenched in avoiding independent thought. He believes readers need to be spoon fed, down to the last word, told exactly what to do under every circumstance. For example, if a word can possibly be interpreted two ways, one totally literal, but the other the obvious interpretation given context or other indicators, it's no good for Mark. He seems unable to trust his own ability to think things through enough to arrive at the intended interpretation. I don't know, but perhaps he sees himself in others. He believes that if everything is not spelled out for a reader, he is sure to get into trouble, unthinkingly following exactly and hyperliterally what the authors say. He doesn't give readers much credit, does he? :-)
Ryan,
You wrote: "Maybe this is not hair-splitting to you, but myself and probably other posters are getting the impression that you are seeking out a conflict that has no real purpose."
I'm sorry you have that impression, but there isn't much I can do to stop you from thinking whatever you like.
As far as hair-splitting goes, I've already explained why I think the flaws I have pointed out are important. Again, if you are convinced I am splitting hairs, there isn't much I can do about that.
You wrote: "I myself and many others could probably find 'little' flaws in peoples writings, Like using the word who instead of whom."
I have no doubt that you could. You probably could be kept fairly busy finding little flaws in just my posts. If you want to do that, there isn't much I can do to stop you. As far as my criticisms are concerned, I have never pointed out problems in any forum participant's grammar, punctuation, or spelling (except once--jokingly).
You wrote: "My point is, whether a person needs a 5 big bet bankroll or a 500 big bet bankroll, Im not going to throw all my 2+2 books in the trash."
I don't expect you to do so. I certainly haven't tossed mine in the trash.
You wrote: "Poker is not an exact science and it is almost impossible to calculate whether individual people with different needs and agendas need less, slightly less, or very slightly less sized bankrolls."
You sound like you are parroting Alden. I never claimed that poker is an exact science, and I'm not aware of anyone who has made such a claim. Perhaps you would like to provide some citations.
As far as bankroll requirements are concerned, I think individuals are capable of determining some reasonable bankroll requirements that adaquately suits their particular needs. Please note that this is not the same as claiming those bankroll requirements will be the same for all those individuals.
You wrote: "If you honestly feel that S&M are less credible, nobody says you have to read there books."
Why wouldn't I read their books. I said I found S&M to be less credible when I come across their exaggerations. I didn't say I found them incredible. Believe me when I tell you I don't find S&M incredible.
You wrote: "Furthermore, no person is perfect and if an author uses a word or two that can have different meanings to different people it does not take away from there credibility."
First, I never said any person was perfect. On numerous occasions, I even have reminded various posters that S&M are mere humans who are capable of making mistakes.
Second, I don't think you will find many GFAL readers who interpreted "slightly less" to be "about half."
Mark wrote:
"Believe me when I tell you I don't find S&M incredible."
Well, perhaps it's just not what turns you on. Why attack others for enjoying it?
You wrote: You sound like you are parroting Alden.
And: Perhaps you would like to provide some citations.
Actually, the fact that poker isn't an exact science, is common knowledge in the poker world. Therefore, no citations necessary. :)
Mark, you wrote:
"Obvious exaggerations also can be effective literary devices (e.g., "My favorite baseball team wins once in a Blue Moon.")."
You also wrote:
"With a well-written how-to book, a mutual respect usually develops between the author and the readers."
Finally, you asked:
"Are any of the following statements exaggerations? If so, do they have positive or negative "expectation?""
On the "Other Topics" forum, John posted an interesting observation. If you switch the instances of "rgp" with "2+2," it might help explain some of the posts that showed up in this thread.
John wrote: "[S]ometimes when a 2+2'er posts something slightly contentious on rgp it stirs intense territoriality and group allegiance in a few 'squeaky wheel' rgp'ers. They respond like a clique of kids on a playground whose little group has been invaded by a quarrelsome new kid from a rival school. I don't think it's specifically an rgp thing; it may just be a general newsgroup phenomenon."
Something to think about anyway.
As far as I know, you don't. Now if you did...
...in another post there [1] I go into some detail concerning your loyalty to 2+2. It is truly awsome.
[1] The post there.
New to the game of Omaha/8... Could someone please explain the following terms to me?: 1.) "Smooth" vs. "Rough", e.g. "smooth 8 vs. rough8" 2.) "Perfect", e.g. a "perfect 8" 3.) "Broken", e.g. a "broken" 8
Also, any tips on reading low, esp. when counterfeited would be appreciated. I get confused when I get "duped-up" once or twice.. Thanks in advance for any help you might choose to give me.
Let's get down to the real meat and potatoes of poker, the mental approach.I would love to hear player experiences on how you mentally get ready to play when the b.roll's shooting through the roof as well as when you can't seem to book back to back wins. The "inner mind set" of the top notch players which seperate them from the field. What's the edge that a brunson has for example? Some characteristics or better yet some personal experiences on 'how to perform at a top level" should be interesting
"Smooth" and "rough" low hands refer to how "good" the hand is after the first one or two cards. An 8732A is a "rough" 8 (since the next card 7 is relatively bad) but is a "smooth" 87 (since the next card 3 is relatively good). ("Smooth" MAY have the meaning of "perfectly smooth" but I'm not sure).
These terms apply to O8 hands but they have almost NO practical meaning since the "real" value of your hand is based on the quality of the two low cards you are contributing. A final hand of 8532A may be a "smooth" 8 but it matters dramatically whether you hold 8A, 5A, or 3A. You are much better off with a "rough 7" 7652A when you contribute 2A than you are with a "smooth 7" 7432A when you hold 73.
A significant trick to reading O8 hands is to physically separate the two cards you are using and to mentally "touch" the 3 cards you are using from the board. If there is only 3 low cards on board then the value of your hand is the two cards you contribute. If there are 4 or 5 low cards on board you are often better off figuring out the full 5-card hand (8753A) and comparing that to the opponent's.
- Louie
OK, I am going to risk a deluge of hate mail and sacrifice a sacred cow here. Two strings prompted this: A string about a dealer who told a player if he had a diamond in his hand he could win and the string about the English only rule in American card rooms.
I like dealers. I tip well. I HATE dealer abuse. I am emotional and whenever I have let my emotions run away and snapped at a dealer over my cards, bad beat, etc., I have always apologized. Over the years I have worked hard on my self-control to make those times exceedingly rare. That's where I stand on that, just so there is no confusion.
HOWEVER, dealers have responsibilities too! Period. They are expected to know the rules. They are expected to control the table to the best of their ability, and if they can't they should call the floorman. As a player, I should NEVER EVER be put in the position of asking the dealer to tell players not to show their hands to each other or to only speak English. But, as players, we always are put in that position. How many times have we politely asked a player to speak English during the hand, or some other collusion oriented rule, and had the player get angry and personal?
Well, if the dealer did it (enforced the rules as they should) the confrontation would not occur. That is a dealer's job.
All this said. The vast majority of dealers I know (especially those in Colorado Ed! :-), do a difficult job exceedingly well.
It's probably just my pet peeve, but I hate being put in a position to bring up a rule that is being obviously abused, and that the dealer should have enforced.
yes and its mostly managements fault. they tend to give a little training and send the dealers out on the job. for what we pay (100 to 200) per hour for a table and a dealer with some chip service we should get more, which could come at almost no cost to the casino. and which would ultimately make them more money. the best way for players to get better dealers and service from them is to tip only for good service and not because you won a pot. the bad dealers would be weeded out.
Brother, have you struck a chord with me on this one!
I will wager that in a normal 3-4 hour sit, there will be at least a half dozen screw-ups or situations that get nipped in the bud because an alert player at the table will point out the dealer error or what is about to be an error such as burning and turning prior to all the players calling, for example. I don't want to have to be a Table Captain and try to control the game; that is their job. I want to concentrate on my own game. And a lot of times, you just end up getting dirty looks from the dealer for 'showing them up'.
Well, Dealers, listen up. It's MY money at stake, not yours. If I am not at the table, you don't have a job.I have never thrown cards or verbally abused a dealer, but as a customer, I have a certain minimum expectation level.
The dealers here in Alberta pool all their tips, so a lot of the dealers do not seem to have any incentive whatsoever to improve their skills or be proactive in running a good game. You might as well have a machine pushing out the cards. Many of the dealers do an excellent job, and make the game both more enjoyable, and (hopefully) more profitable by dealing quickly, efficiently, and running the game well. But for some of the others who are slow, sloppy and surly, I just flat out will not tip them. I know this hurts the whole pool, but I have told management which dealers IMO have problems, and why I won't tip. What steps management takes in the way of work improvement discussions and training will then directly impact on the opinions of the clientele as to our choices whether to patronize their room or not.
Dunc & Z & 12VM,
I went down to FW after coming back from playing in Cal and I got sick. That community feed sucks something has to be done about that. The good is as good as the bad because everything is shared. I moved over to MS and find myself enjoying the games much better and the dealers are much better than FW because they keep their own tips and a bad dealer gets no tips or very little if he isn't nice and deals properly because the whole table will shut him off, where as community pie gets a piece of everybody's so he doesn't get noticed as much.
paul
i agree with Dunc above. and i agree with you too pf. but i hardly ever tip where the tips are shared as then im tipping people equally and no longer tipping for good service. some places even share with the bj and roulette so why tip them. id rather wait and some time see a good dealer in the coffeshop and buy them lunch.
But the bj and roulette also share tips with the poker players. I certainly understand the reasoning but in a way it's coming out of the other game dealers pockets
The shared poker tip pool and the environment/service it creates is terrible. All the more reason that the dealers who still try hard and do a great job are deserving of more. The lazy slackards, however, would be forced to be more efficient in a post office.
I understand that the dealers at FW at least twice had the option to keep their own tips and voted it down both times. Management should DECREE that they keep their own tips and then watch the drop increase significantly and in short order. Customer relations would improve markedly, too.
Mary
*
I have played cards with 12 Vt for going on 12 years now. I met him from first dealing to him. He is one of the nicer, more respectful players I've seen. The fault he thinks he has doesn't seem to be noticed by anyone I know. But even if it were, I wonder what to respect more: people that thinks their shit doesn't stink or people that recognizes their shortcomings and tries to change them? You two must be the shit doesn't stinkers.
Abysmally slow dealers who don't keep their own tips are the issue here -- your impression is also quite wrong.
Dealers in Blackhawk, CO have been personable and generally efficient, but seem reluctant to enforce rules when an obnoxious player splashes the pot, throws cards, and verbally abuses a player who beat him. Don't know if they pool their tips. Civility requires tips unless the service is bad, then it should be called to their attention, not just quietly endured.
There are some things that are difficult to enforce, but what I have the biggest problems with are the 'obvious' situations where there are clear rules.
I have sat at a table in the Bay Area where two people sat next to each other, and talked non-stop in a foreign language while hands were in play and they were in them. Many times I remember thinking, "OK. This has gone on for three or four hands the dealer will eventually say something." And they didn't. Nada. Zip. Finally, I would speak up, and as often as not the dealer might tell them they had to speak English, but in a way calculated to make me feel petty.
Repeatedly folding out of turn or announcing their cards when they muck (i.e. "There goes another God**** AK suited snapped!) on the flop, seem to be other common abuses with clear rules that many dealers will not enforce.
As often as not, the players now got angry and abusive toward me. Sometimes it worked in my favor as they thought they could 'chip' me to death. Other times it took me out of the game mentally.
"I am emotional and whenever I have let my emotions run away and snapped at a dealer over my cards, bad beat, etc., I have always apologized."
I stopped reading right there. That's when you lost all credibility with me.
I'm sure you guys have no faults, and if you did you wouldn't compound them by admitting them and working to be better. Once you get out of your teens you may start to notice one or two of your own Mary and M.
BTW, for me the things I was saying I apologized for weren't not the directly abusive incidents we have all seen in card rooms. If I even say something like, " I can't believe you brought that fourth diamond." I will within seconds turn to the dealer and say, "Sorry. I said that. Got frustrated and let it out in a way I shoudn't have." Also, BTW, I am very close friends with numerous dealers.
But I know admitting my fault of being emotional and having to work on it makes me a BAD BAD person compared with you two perfect people.
above.
1. Have you played at Foxwoods recently? Have you had the honor of being dealt to be by both some excellent dealers who deserve more and by some dealers who could care less if they get out only 8 hands in this half-hour because they are still going to make the same amount of money anyway (due to the shared tip pool)?
2. You falsely ascribed an attitude to me which I do not possess -- in fact, I happen to be well aware that I do indeed have many faults. One of my faults is not, however, falsely assuming that I can read the other person's mind.
3. Why not try rereading the post you and TR took exception to -- see if you just might agree with any of the principles there, without adding any of your own embellishments to it. I do not know what size poker room you have where you play, but the larger the employee pool, the more the shared tokes may tend to result in shoddy service or lack of effort. And where I play, this is all too readily apparent. In fact if you just compare the average dealer efficiency to anywhere they keep their own tokes, there is simply no comparison.
...because the better dealers should be earning more and the poorer dealers should be earning less--unless, of course, the poorest and/or laziest ones decide to really practice (at home too!) and put forth some real effort in the box. I am sorry to have to speak so candidly but it should be clear to almost all the regulars and most of the staff what an overall difference it would make if they kept their own tokes. The best dealers are carrying the worst ones. Of the steps that could be taken to improve the drop, improve customer relations and perhaps even employee morale (better $ reward for performance does have a way of perking things up), the most important change would be for the dealers to keep their own.
I got confused on the string, my message was in retor to Phillipio above. I apologize.
Who hasn't gotten mixed up occasionally on a thread?
gle dumb***.
I've never tried to figure my SD in the past because I did not think it would have an effect on the way I will play. However, I decided to have a go at it. I kept meticulous records for my last 30 20-40 sessions and used the formula in Mason's essay to compute it. I arrived at a SD of $220 (I don't think my math was wrong, but it must be). Obviously this seems way to low. It also turned out that I only played about 11% of the hands I was dealt. The game is very tough with usually 2 or 3 people left after the flop. Is 11% still too few hands to be playing?
I'm not asking anyone to compute my SD for me, but if you could see if I'm way off by looking at my session results I'd appreciate it.
Each session was between 5 and 8 hours. I made $36.86 per hour. Here are the idividual results:
-542,+561,-30,+326,+402,+138,+306,+395,+273,-375,+1748,+401,+504,+1777,-339,-372,+35,+67,-262,-186,+705,+645,+111,-489,+327,-102,-339,+497,-66,+518
Over the past four years I hardly ever show any big losses or big wins, yet I still made between $33 and $38 per hour. I know I only play appropriate starting hands (thats my biggest advantage), but if my SD is accurate am I playing way to tight?
P.s. is Stat King the only program that I can use to compute SD? I'm going to figure it for my results dating back to 1997 and I don't want to do it with pencil and paper.
Thank You
Assuuming every one of those sessions was 6.5 hours...
session mean = 216; hourly mean = 34; = 1BB/hr session SD = 550; hourly SD = 550/(6.5)^.5 = 216 = 5BB/hr.
So yeah, your SD looks way low. But fear not, there is hope!
Theory one: 20 Samples is just too small. Let's say you have a true SD of 10. Then 1 time in 200 you'll get a sample of 20 which gives you a SD of less than 6. If your true sd is 9, you'll see this sample 1 time in 50.
ok, that's pretty improbable.
Theory two: Are you SURE that the duration of your play has NOTHING to do with your results? If you are more likely to quit a little early if you are winning, then this will affect the necessary sample size. If the outcome has no effect, your results will look like a bell curve, of width SD and centered at your earn.
But, if you knock off early when up, you chop off the "Big win" part of the curve, and add a improbable spike at the negative end. Now, the mean and moment (average distance from the mean) still are the same, but it takes much longer to converge, because you need to hit that rare negative event at the proper frequency.
Suggestion: Discretely write down your result at the end of each hour. This way, you'll get a bunch of measurements quickly and you can be fairly assured of a normal distribution.
Best,
Zooey
"Suggestion: Discretely write down ..."
heh heh. I made a funny. Discrete means individually distinct. I made a pun by accident. How cool is that.
Can anyone tell I don't feel like working today?
Zooey
This is related to the string on becoming a pro. I hope I am not violating any posting rules by reposting it, but I was interested in response of people like Sklansky, Malmuth, Zee, Tommy A, etc. and didn't want it to get lost in shuffle below:
I agree, generally. My point about Tommy is that he is such a good and strong person anyway that his choice of profession, no matter what it is, does and would not effect how he lives his life or his outlook on a regular basis.
However, that said, I think playing poker, or gambling in any way, for a living presents special challenges for anyone. Gambling is addictive. It is addictive for almost everyone that plays it. There are varying levels of control of the addictive nature of gambling and it will exert a strong pull on you even on the days you planned to stay away from the card room.
Try to go to Vegas sometime and plan a varied vacation. Plan on doing some hiking or historical tours or whatever. It's tough. I do. I go there to play cards and rock climb at Red Rocks National Park. I do it and I don't give in to the desire to play when I planned to climb, but it is a challenge sometimes. At least until I've left the Mirage and am on my way out to the canyons.
But try to do that in Vegas, then come back and say it's easy. For most people it is not. The analysis I read somewhere was that everyday life was largely boring consisting of inconsequential decisions (should I have toast or an english muffin? will I go out to lunch or make a sandwich?). Gambling on the other hand is intense. Every other minute, everything that is about to happen to you depends on your decision. That's heady stuff.
I think that some people take this string of posts as a negative attack on anyone with a dream. I read them differently. I read them as a caution to people that think because they have beaten thier local 3/6 game their going to become the next David Sklansky (note: David writes a lot of books to teach people to play poker. Why? Probably because they are a better quality and quantity living then playing poker.), Huck Seed or Phil Helmuth.
I will note also that it seems (this has been a long string so I may be wrong)that only one pro (Tommy) has come out to defend the life.
Everyone should live their dreams. Period. If you think you are the next Huck Seed or Phil Helmuth, by all means GO FOR IT! But to reject information because it doesn't reflect what you HOPE will happen is foolish.
My last question (and I'd love to hear from you Tommy)has to do with meaning. A lot of us end up with jobs that seem to provide no meaning for our lives. There was an entire phiolosphical treatise written on the concept (The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Pirsig)in the 1970s. We no longer have jobs, for the most part, like furniture maker, where when we are done we can look with pride and say: That's a damn good chair! I've added something to the world.
Most people feel that need in some form. The job that pays my bills gives me that feeling sometimes, the novel and short stories I'm working on do more often.
What about poker? When I have thought about turning pro (don't get excited Tommy, I'm not doing it!), I have wondered how long I would be happy with it because of that sense that what am I doing? I'm wouldn't be helping people. The world is no better because I won with a full house over a straight.
Anyway, just wondered if anyone else thought about this.
I believe that to be truly successful as a full-time pro, poker has to be who you ARE, not just what you DO. It has to be part of your sense of identity (your definition of who you are), not just another activity that you like to do, or even love to do.
If being a player is not a part of your sense of self, it's not likely that you will be able to handle the frustrations inherent in doing it on a full-time basis.
Why does your happiness in playing poker depends if you serve mankind?? Why do you care about an artificial meaning, created by moral? I think if you're a true individual (which nobody is...you're only attemting to be one), you wouldnt have a moral (read for instance Nietzsche), i think moral is created by the society. I'd like to quote a friend of mine (i hope i quote this correctly, since i'm a foreigner): "In the play that's called my life, where I should be the leading character, why do i feel like i'm a nonentity?"
Think about it....I think it pretty much explains the understanding how it SHOULD be, and the feeling how it is.
I really want to hear Tommy's opinion on this one.
BTW I loved what you said about card groups... "Cards are digital, people are analogous" , just great.
Dear ME,
I'd love to chime in, but I'm not sure what you mean by "moral."
If you mean morals as in an ethical code, then yes, I see them as earth-bound, but not so much "created by society," as "the result of the process of evolutionary adaption."
In this view, society itself is an adaptation, and morals are simply another part of the complicated chain of cause and effect spawned by the fundamental replicator, DNA.
Wow, good coffee!
(For the record, if I wrote "analogous" I meant "analog.")
Tommy
Yes, I see society as an adaptation, in the way Pirsig sees it for instance. I see society as a higher evolutional form then an individual, if you like it or not; only we once were individuals, and we're striving to get that individuality back. I want to be free from morals, but you simply cant be entirely free from it since we have to life in some kind of harmony with society. Neither one can exist without the other. My inside nature hates it, but as evolution evolved, i learned to adapt.
I dont think DNA is the only driving factor here, i think it's even more fundamental. I liked Pirsig's example about the ground and the tree. The ground didnt created the tree, the tree is just an higher evolutionary form. They need eachother, they have to live in harmony. As do people and society; people did not create society...society is just a higher evolutional form. We need it, but we had to gave up (some) individuality for it. We now must live with eachother, i must adapt to your behaviour...and see morals began to exist as the driving factor of the preservation of society.
Eeewwww! Like a hive.
Related to poker.
Doesn't a busy poker room look kind of like a bee hive.
From the DNA'a vantage, a bee colony is one living entity, with the sterile workers being like the many sterile components of a typical organism, and the small fraction of "reproductives" being like the sex organs. Colonies reproduce by mating outside their own, and by swarming, thereby maintaining genetic diversity (and avoiding the pitfalls of inbreeding).
Does that look like a poker room?
Well, no, but it sure sounds like one!
Tommy
I think you didnt quite understand my post..., no put it another way, you responded to bet's post, not mine. Anyway, we might differ on this point.... but i still like your unique perspective on some points.
Regards, ME.
BTW I loved what you said about card groups... "Cards are digital, people are analogous" , just great. // should it be:
"Cards are digital, people are analog" //
I think in the math, electrical, or computer world: analogue means continous whereas digital relates to discrete. Anyway, I appreicate the analogy or comparison -- it is beautiful and to the point.
Please dont catch me on words...i'm just a foreigner. I still do like his quote.
ME, do you mind telling us where are you from, and how long have you been in this country?
I come from the Netherlands....and still live there.
//
Taking a long shot. I live next to Vail, Colo. I am interested in getting a neighborhood game started here. Limits are open to desire of group. Anyone on 2+2 live or visit here and interested. Email me.
12 Volts,
I don't live anywhere near you - but I don't think I'd bother attending a home game with 2+2er's as the opposition. It's that game selection thing...
G
Cananyone tell me where to buy a cd of Turbo Texas Hold'em? Thanks
just do an Internet Search for "Wilson Software." Mr Wilson spends part of the year in Arizona & part in CA.
If you can't use forms send email to wilsonsw@whitemtns.com
ADDRESS
Wilson Software
P.O. Box 4087
Pinetop, Arizona 85935
Thanks Carl
I like to order by telephone. I have also talked to Mr Wilson. He is a really sensible person and explains over the phone various questions you may have about the software. I think, before you ask questions, it is better that you experiment with the software -- get your sea-legs so you can ask a smart question.
Mind you, I'm not turning pro today or tomorrow, the plan is for me to turn summer just for 2003. The plan is this, since I am single, since I am able to save up a large amount of money in a short period of time, the plan is to take a 3 month period of time off from work in the summer of 2003 to live in NJ. I will have a bankroll of $15k-$25k to try and survive and live my fantasy of being a professional poker play in the summer of 2003.
I know three monthes isn't a long time to determine if i have the chops for it, but the way I look at is this. I'm young (25 at the moment, I study poker, I love it as a game, not as a means of making money, I love the game for the sheer competition of it. My job will be available to me when i come back (if i come back ;) ) and i will have extra money set aside in an account for living, if i go broke before the three monthes.
I just think of this as an adventure, Im serious about poker, but in the same breath, i love it and it is fun. Plus, I think it would be great, to have stories to tell, something to tell the kids when i get married :)
I'm trying to think of everything before i go through with this. I know playing poker for a living is somewhat of a gamble, but i want to take as much of the chance away from the gamble as possible.
If you become a pro poker player it is unlikely you shall become married and have children.
More seriously, it sounds great.
Take at least 1 day a week off. Don't play marathons. You're going to play lots. Try to limit it to 12-16 hours or less
You'll be counting the minutes until June/03
What are you going to do have business cards made up.
:-)
The way you are supposed to do it is get a good job then take off so much time to play poker you get fired then you end up playing all the time - now you are a professional.
Play yourself into it. Get a moderate bankroll build it that way cuz if you can't "build" a poker bankroll you probably don't have the chops for it.
Good luck what ever you do.
n/t
Ok, I am starting up a bankroll as you have said, I've been doing this for the last 2 monthes, at the moment my bankroll is up $1200 from where it started. This is from playing 1-2 times a week for $1-$2 and $2-$4 I've just been invited to play in a $5-$10 every Wed and Sat so i will be playing twice a week, maybe three times a week. I should have a better determination of my skill after a few more monthes. But I agree with Tommy, I don't think I'll truly know what it takes till i'm in the midst of my "career" :)
As a full-timer you'll be doing two things a lot, I mean, a lot a lot. So that you're not caught by surprise, you might want to start practicing them now.
1) Quitting 2) Losing
Get good at those and you'll be fine.
Tommy
1) Quitting - I am used to it, I can tell when my positive attitude changes, when I feel like I'm going to go on tilt, when I feel like i am losing my mental edge. I also know there are times u need to quit the game for a night, or just take an hour or two away to regain your mental edge. 2) Losing - I've been on losing streaks before, to me, the key is keeping the positive mental edge through these bad times.
I think #2 is the biggest problem, for all poker players (obviously :))
But I've only experienced these things in limited 6-10 hour sessions, never at 40-50 weekly sessions. I think that is the true test. It's not hard to gear yourself up for poker, and keep the mental edge when you know your session ends in a few hours, but how will I fair when i have a losing session, then know I will be back the next day, and the next day, etc...
Sure, losing streaks are a big test. The losing I was thinking of are the routine losses that are not necessarily part of a streak. Figure if you play five times per week and lose about 1/3 of the time, you're looking at a bunch of times driving home a loser over the years. I think it takes training to build up a tolerance to losing. Another inherent edge to the jobless player who has a chance to build thicker callouses faster.
Tommy
Try to prove to yourself you have the skills first.
Pick a method you feel comfortable.
1. You should be able to play at least 8 hours a week online for one year and have a positive result. If you fial this your chance is very slim.
2. You should be able to play at least one week of tournaments and a lot of side games or satellites and break even overall or at lease in the side games and satellites. If you fail this your chance is not good.
3. Play a long weekend of ring games and keep a record of all your major winning or losing hands. Analyse them. You should have the advantage in pot odd or imply pot odd in at least 55% of the hand. If you fail this your chance is not good.
If you pass those two test you at least have clear what I consider the minimum skill test.
"3. Play a long weekend of ring games and keep a record of all your major winning or losing hands. Analyse them. You should have the advantage in pot odd or imply pot odd in at least 55% of the hand. If you fail this your chance is not good. "
You better have proper pot & implied odds at least 95% of the hands you play, IMO.
curious if he meant having the made hand vs. a draw, or better made hand vs. made hand (better kicker, for example).
brad
Correction.
What I was thinking about 55% is you should be the favorite at least 55%. Not the correct pot odd or imply pot odd decision.
When you win or lose at least 55% of the hand you should be the favorite to win the pot.
For myself in tournament play I try to have a 70% advantage. So most of the time when I lost they draw out on me. Very seldom when I win I draw out on them.
For ring games I try to have a 60% advantage.
I think it makes sense to assume that anyone who is thinking about turning pro plays a good game.
In my opinion the only way to get good enough to make it as a full-time pro is to quit the job and play almost everyday for a while and live the life and see what effect the utter lack of external controls and scheduling has. Those effects cannot be known until they exist.
It's not that hard to play winning poker. It's hard to do it all the time. And the only way to find out if someone can do it all the time is to play all the time. It's a catch 22.
Tommy
I can't tell if you're talking about becoming a pro for a couple of years as an adventure thing, or as a career. Since you're 25 now, you'll be 27 when you start this correct? I suppose that's still young, but time has a way of getting away from you. You mention having something to "tell the kids". This implies one day getting married, buying a house and supporting a family in a comfortable manner. I'm not a poker pro, so I can't give ya much advice there. But I am a father, husband and homeowner. I can tell you that kids get sick. They go to the doctor a lot! I know of some poker rooms that are very generous with their meal comps, but none who offer group health insurance. These are only a few of the non-poker related things to think about before making your decisions. I'm not saying you shouldn't turn pro. Just make sure life's goals and values work together and don't conflict with one another. Best of luck!
I'm glad I'm living in Sweden, where every citizen has health insurance, employed or not...
I have thought about all of these things, which is why I figured if I had any thoughts of turning pro, it had to be now, before I was married, before I had kids. It had to be when the only person I am responcible for is myself.
Thank you for the thoughts!
I did it for a couple of years, back before there was much casino poker and it was all out west. Anyway, there has been a lot of good general advice here and I want to tell you something to do IF you do turn pro and not contribute to the "pro or con" discussion.
Learn Omaha8. Play virtually nothing else, except in tournaments. O8 is the game where the suckers (the public) has the least chance to survive. Yet, they think that the next hand will be golden. They draw dead all the damn time and they never figure it out. Do I play O8? Hell, no. Why? because it is dull. I would rather count cards at blackjack. I would rather hold up gas stations. However, a pro can't afford to be picky. Play O8 until it is coming out your damn EARS. And don't bluff, there is not point. Play every good player for having the values for his or her bet because good players almost always WILL. Dull? Deadly dull. However, you can't get anyone to play draw with you anymore and that was the game that made me the money. It, too, is a game where the sucker has no long-term chance and damn little short-term chance. And I never found draw dull. However, you won't get a chance to play it enough to get good at it. So, if five or six cranky old dudes in your neighborhood invite you for a game of draw, RUN AWAY. Unless I am in the game. Then you should play. It will be for your own good. Oh, and look for O8 games with drunks in them. Prolly the best possible combination.
And remember it is all one long session. And, Ender, it isn't a bug hunt.
-- Will
If you can get some scratch together in the next three months, and can easily get another job if you get broke, go for it this year.
"No time is better than now." - Steely Dan(who just won a Grammy for their, by far, worst album)
"Hit the ground hard running down the highway line." - Counting Crows(who wrote the best song ever about poker, but didn't see fit to put it on any of their albums)
nt
.
Yes I can get another job easily, and I do agree that the best time is now. But, I won't be able to get the scartch together in time for the summer of 2001, and I want to play during the summer as opposed to the winter because of game selection (i figure more tourists to AC during the summer monthes then the winter gives me a better chance of making money) So at the earliest, summer of 2002. Plus the extra year or two gives me a chance to develop my skills more, play more, and with the thought of turning pro in my mind it gives me a chance to go through winning and losing streaks between now and then. I want to see how my attitude changes when I'm not winning at easy ring games, when people draw out on me more and more.
Also, on the side... I am going to be writing a book about my 3 month poker stint. You have all of these great books from people about strategy for all of these games, but never (not that I've seen) a book about a person who thinks he has talent, but doesn't know, and takes his shot at becoming professional.
Maybe two plus two would be interested ;)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385489404
good bittersweet narrative of the "life".
I played full time for 5 months. I won just a bit less than I spent, and was pretty bored with it at the end.
Enginneering somehow got a lot more interesting again.
But I'm glad I did it.
Best,
Zooey
Tony Holden was an author who tried to play professionally for 1 year, then wrote a book about his experience called "The Big Deal"
SPEND YOUR SUMMER ON THE BEACH YOU'LL LOSE YOUR MIND CHASING CARDS AND ACTION DONT DO IT
I am a professional horse player. Your plan sounds ideal. One of the biggest obstacles in turning pro is many people who love the game for 15 hours a week-hate it at 40 or more hours a week. Also the lack of benefits (health insurance, disabilty, paid vacation, paid holidays, sick pay, pension, stock options , overtime pay, etc) can be a killer.
Because of the variable nature of your income, you will need a good deal of financial dissapline. If you make $40,000 a year gambling, you can't have the same life-style as a office worker making the same money. He knows exactly when he will get his next paycheck , and how much it will be--right down to the last penny. I think you need to live a simple, debt free life.
Does a skilled player win more or less POTS, as a result of his/her skill? Is the answer different for high limit and low limit? I'm mainly interested in ring games, but would like to know if the answer is different for tournaments.
The skilled player certainly wins LESS pots.
The reason is that less skilled players play far more hands to begin with and they are less likely to make laydowns such as 2nd pair in holdem.
The goal of poker (as stated in many texts) is to win MONEY NOT POTS. Skilled players effectively lose less with their bad hands and win more with their good hands.
The answer would be the same in tournies, though different considerations as to which hands to play exist.
Thanks. That was the answer I expected -- I just wanted it confirmed. It might have an impact on taxation where I live.
It also has an effect on the rake taken if your local cardroom takes a percentage.
Obviously, if you are winning more POTS, you are having more money taken out of your winnings in rake.
a skilled player will win less pots than a loose player but thats a function of pots played. but take the same player(either skilled or loose) and give him added skill and he will win more pots during the nights play. thats because he can find more positive situations to play and find ways to win pots that the less skillful player will not see. he will also lose less to playing in hands he doesnt belong in, and will lose less money on pots he loses. same for tournaments.
IS A SKILLED PLYER A TIGHT PLYER AND AN UNSKILLED IS A LOOSE PLAYER IS PLAYING HIGH RANKED CARDS WILL WIN A TOURNAMENT WHAT ABOUT THE RISING BLINDS AND WHAT ABOUT BEING AGGRESSIVE AND WHERE IS IMMAGE,YOU CANT BLUFF NOBODY RAISING WITH THE NUTS.
Jake, i didnt get how you question pertained to the posts but the difference between the skilled player and the loose player is that a skilled player plays generally tight and when he makes loose plays its for a reason. and that reason is usually that this particular play makes money in the long run. the loose player just plays alot of hands hoping to hit winners. the skilled player will play a balanced game and do all of what you say. i hope that helps a little.
[This continues from Mark Glover's post "Definition offered", 16 March 2001, 12:07 a.m.]
Mark Glover wrote "Do you understand why? Do you still believe S&M's statement is "perfectly sensible?" Do you want to reasonably discuss S&M's next statement?"
Answers : No. Yes. Yes. Let's see:
S&M have writen "You need about $6,000 for $10-$20, $7,500 for $15-$30, and at least $30,000 for $50-$100. You need slightly less if you are willing to go to a lower limit if you start depleting your bankroll."
I find the above statement "perfectly sensible" and Mark Glover an "exaggeration", and validates his opinion thus:
I think you could move up with as little as $26,400 (165 * $160)...""Suppose you are playing the $40-$80 games, are thinking about moving up to the $80-$160 games, and are willing to drop back to the $40-$80 level if you start depleting your bankroll. S&M seem to suggest you should not move up unless your bankroll is at least $43,200 (270 * $160).
And quit playing $80-160 at what point of your BR, after getting smacked around ? And with what level of RoR ? I presume you're moving down in order to keep RoR more-or-less constant. I want to see how you qualify your suggestion for the $26,400 BR, or 165 BBs.
"...And your risk of ruin would be less than if you entered the $80-$160 games with a bankroll of $48,000 (300 * $160) but were unwilling to go to a lower limit."
What is the RoR in the case you cite here ($80-160; $48,000; not going back) ?
"If you are willing to step down to the $20-$40 games, if necessary, then you could move up to the $80-$160 games with an even smaller bankroll."
I don't think that S&M would disagree with the general idea of the above statement. They only mention the levels just below the player's new, "high" level.
But my main point is this : Without covering all eventualities, the S&M statements which you found to be exaggerations strike me as very sensible. If anything, they're on the conservative side, but this cannot be reflected mathematically , since every one of us has a different approach/utility. They just want to have a lower RoR than you.
However, I'd be interested to read your take on the other S&M statements, what with a weekend coming up.
-- Cyrus
The whole thing sounds overly reductionist to me.
Age. The concerns of a 25-year-old full-timer and a 75-year-old one are drastically different. By omitting the age factor, are you suggesting that it is irrelevant?
Then there's life-style. Example, I'd think a parent would need a larger cushion than a childless player.
Then there's the internal fear factor threshold, the point where the limit/bankroll combo induces fearful (as in, bad) playing decisions. That varies from player to player as well.
Then there's the usual stuff, quality of playing decisions, quality of the competition, use and availability of game selection, on and on.
It doesn't take a genious to realize that you need a chunk of change to make a living at poker. It would take a genious to come up with a universal formula that was best for everyone.
Tommy
Tommy,
You make some excellent points in your post. The question of properly determining the correct bankroll for your own individual circumstances is a topic that is well worth discussing.
There are a couple issues of which you might be unaware.
First, S&M's 300 big-bet bankroll recommendation is not set in stone: "But if you want a rule of thumb, it is that you ought to have about three hundred big bets (unless you are a very good player, where you might be able to get by on less)."[1]
Second, my own criticism of S&M's bankroll comments were not about their 300 big-bet recommendation. It was about their suggestion, "You need slightly less if you are willing to go to a lower limit if you start depleting your bankroll." See my post, below, for details (lots of details).
----------------
David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOW TO MAKE $100,000 A YEAR GAMBLING FOR A LIVING, 1997, p. 219.
Mark,
The view I am countering is yours AND S&M's, simultaneously, for the same reasons mentioned in my previous post. You told me I brought up some "excellent points." If they were so excellent, why do you ignore and them, and then, in nearly the same breath, use the phrase, "Properly determining the correct bankroll?"
Then, in your next post, you suggested that you are the primary freethinker on this topic. Mark? Sorry. You're one of the sheep, as long as you think in absolute terms, because all you are doing is questioning the absolutes while subscribing fully and faithfully to the absolutist mindset.
Tommy
Tommy,
You wrote: "The view I am countering is yours AND S&M's, simultaneously, for the same reasons mentioned in my previous post."
I discuss your previous post below and am uncertain which of the reasons you mentioned in it counters anything I have written on the topic of bankroll requirements. Perhaps you could be more specific.
You wrote: "You told me I brought up some 'excellent points.'
Indeed I did. And I still think your previous post had some excellent points.
You wrote: "If they were so excellent, why do you ignore and them, and then, in nearly the same breath, use the phrase, 'Properly determining the correct bankroll?'"
First, I didn't ignore your points. I read them, I liked them, and I wrote that I thought some of them were excellent. That's considerably more attention then anyone else has given them so far. I also respond more specifically to them a little later in this post.
Second, what I wrote was: "The question of properly determining the correct bankroll for your own individual circumstances is a topic that is well worth discussing."
I'm not sure why that upset you. Do you believe individuals are incapable of properly determining a correct bankroll for themselves after taking into consideration the individualistic factors you mentioned in your post and other factors as well?
You wrote: "Then, in your next post, you suggested that you are the primary freethinker on this topic."
If you read that post a little more carefully, you might realize I was suggesting that I felt there were an insufficient number of freethinkers on this topic (and on this forum, in general). I certainly didn't intend to suggest that I was the primary freethinker, and I'm sorry if I gave you that impression.
You wrote: "You're one of the sheep, as long as you think in absolute terms, because all you are doing is questioning the absolutes while subscribing fully and faithfully to the absolutist mindset."
Forgive my ignorance, but you'll have to explain that in simpler terms if you want a response from me.
---------------------
In your earlier post, you wrote: "Age. The concerns of a 25-year-old full-timer and a 75-year-old one are drastically different. By omitting the age factor, are you suggesting that it is irrelevant?"
Yes, older players generally will have greater aversion to risk than will younger players. Since they will want to reduce their risk of ruin, older players normally will want to have a larger bankroll than younger players. As I have demonstrated, however, that a willingness to drop down in limits--when necessary--can reduce bankroll requirements. But if two players both are willing to play in lower limit games, then the player with the greater aversion to risk generally should have a bigger bankroll to play in a particular sized game (all other things being equal).
You also wrote: "Then there's life-style. Example, I'd think a parent would need a larger cushion than a childless player."
I understand your basic point, which is excellent. Different players will have different risk aversion levels. A childless player might accept a 10 percent risk of ruin, while a parent might accept only a 0.01 percent risk of ruin. Players with few non-poker skills might be more risk averse than players who can earn money easily away from the tables. Etc., etc.
If by "larger cushion" you mean "larger bankroll," then I would point out that you are implicitly assuming all other things are equal. I've already shown, for instance, that a player who is willing to drop down in limits can play with a smaller bankroll for a given level of risk. Players who are willing to make sacrifices to improve their expectation also can reduce their bankroll requirements for a given level of risk (e.g., move to a state where public poker was recently legalized, play at night rather than during the day, learn new poker games, etc.). Players who are willing to reduce their variance also can reduce their bankroll requirements for a given level of risk.
You also wrote: "Then there's the internal fear factor threshold, the point where the limit/bankroll combo induces fearful (as in, bad) playing decisions. That varies from player to player as well."
Very true. As I've already noted, different people are comfortable with different levels of risk. Some people are very conservative with their investments, while others are very aggressive. Presumably, they have different aversions to risk. The same applies to poker players.
You also wrote: "Then there's the usual stuff, quality of playing decisions, quality of the competition, use and availability of game selection, on and on."
This, too, is an excellent point, and I touched upon it earlier. If you are capable and willing to take certain steps to improve your expectation, then you generally can play with a smaller bankroll (all other things being equal).
Thank you for sharing these thoughts with us.
Mark,
From reading your reply, I just figured out that "all other things being equal" is an essential, recurring, isolating mechanism on the topic of bankroll, and others as well. With that device in play, a meaningful discussion of general BR requirements is possible, whereas before, I didn't think it was. Thanks for that.
And I must confess that I didn't even read the details of your "disagreement" (or whatever you prefer to call it) with S&M's published thoughts on the topic. I'm as math-hungry as the next guy when the units and application are clear and unquestionable, such as, knowing the drawing odds for every number of outs, with one or two cards to come.
But when the same rigidity that I long for in strictly-math topics gets pointed at people and lives and traits, I skip over it. It always gives me the feeling that someone is trying to stuff a square peg in a round hole.
Still, I should have read your stuff or kept my mouth shut. Sorry 'bout that.
Tommy
Tommy,
I'm used to people attacking me without reading the details of what I write.
Like you did, they might actually learn something if they took the time to go back and more thoughtfully consider what I had to say.
Unlike you, few of them do. And fewer apologize. Thanks.
Mark, you wrote: "I'm used to people attacking me without reading the details of what I write."
Though this can happen once in a while to anyone, and though you may not care, you might want to try to sort out why it evidently happens to you often enough that you've become used to it.
You wrote: "And fewer apologize."
Some posters are very unlikely to apologize, no matter the circumstance. Some, on the other hand, have probably noticed occasions when you might have been expected to apologize, but did not do so. An example from my own experience would be this thread:
HPFAP "Heads-Up Versus Multiway" Error
Posted by: Mark Glover
Posted on: Sunday, 21 November 1999, at 10:28 a.m. (Texas Hold'em - General forum)
In it you were sarcastic, condescending and sounded quite sure of yourself, as if positive you were right. This approach and attitude is standard for you. Yet even when I bothered to go into great detail, spelling out step by step where you were wrong, you said only, "I do see now. Thanks for the clarification." You offered no apology for the sarcasm and condescension in which you had engaged in the thread. Nor have I ever seen you offer one for the same attitudes expressed elsewhere. Posters who have observed this may be less likely to apologize to you when it is warranted than those who may be less familiar with your history here.
Now even when posters do read the details of what you write, you draw more attacks than most here. Why? Well, recently you tried to suggest that you get attacked in threads as a result of the same phenomenon I described with regard to 2+2'ers posting on rgp. (A poster is seen as an outsider, invading others' "territory"...) Previously I believe you have suggested that it happens because you are critical of the work of the 2+2 authors who you see as revered by many posters. But neither theory holds up. First, you are not an outsider, but a long time 2+2 poster who, as far as anyone here knows, does not post on rgp. Second, many others have frequently criticized and disagreed with the authors' work, but have not been met with anything like the negative response which you tend to get. An example is Jim Brier, who has often disagreed strongly with certain of David's and Mason's ideas concerning hold'em play, but who is almost never attacked for those disagreements.
How about his two part theory for why you get such negative responses? A) Posters see your frequent sarcasm and condescension, are angered by it, and respond in kind or in some other negative manner. B) Posters see some of your exceptionally nit-picky criticisms and view them as gratuitous shots at the authors, as particularly unnecessary attacks. This goes against their sense of right and wrong, and they jump in either to defend the authors or to attack you. (An example could be the thread in which you took Lou Krieger, to task for saying something like, "If you play as we recommend you will rarely if ever be playing such hands" in reference to some very weak starting hand. You pointed out that his use of "if ever" was wrong because you would sometimes get free plays in the blind and such.)
I think the reasons I've offered are at least in the ballpark of why you get the response you get here.
"How about his two part theory..." should read, "How about this two part theory..."
n/t
Cyrus,
I often encourage forum participants to think more independently about the wonderfully fascinating game of poker. Some are all too willing to blindly accept the writings of authors and recognized authorities. Others post here seeking "cookbook" answers that they can apply as standard operating procedures in general situations.
This is okay for beginners and recreational players. But the more serious students of poker would be well advised to learn how to integrate the fundamentals of poker into their own understanding of the game, then apply those concepts to develop their own solutions to new situations. I would derive greater benefit from this forum if there were more open-minded people participating in reasonable, logical discussions.
The topic of minimum bankroll requirements is just one issue where I have tried to encourage such debate. S&M made either a gross exaggeration or a serious error.
When I brought attention to S&M's mistake (see my 13 March 2001 thread entitled "GAMBLING FOR A LIVING: Exaggerations"), most posters said they believed S&M's bankroll requirement statement was correct. You deemed it "perfectly sensible."
That's okay, if you honestly looked at the statement and couldn't figure out the flaw. Not everyone will notice the authors' error. Presumably, even S&M were unaware of it. I suspect, though, that some posters didn't want to see the flaw. And that's unfortunate--for them and for the rest of this forum.
Other posters didn't even want to discuss the issues put forth in that thread. They saw someone disagree with S&M, and they seemed to prefer to attack the messenger rather than rationally discuss the message. And that's even more unfortunate.
It would be nice if we took to heart something Mason once wrote: "Sometimes, we can learn more from our adversaries than we can learn from our friends who don't necessarily questions our ideas as much as they should."
-----------------
In the earlier thread, I hinted at the reasons why S&M's bankroll requirement comment was incorrect. I hoped the assist would allow you to understand why their statement is seriously flawed. Apparently, it was not enough. I will try to spell it out.
S&M wrote: "[Y]ou need about $6,000 for $10-$20, $7,500 for $15-$30, and at least $30,000 for $50-$100. (You need slightly less if you are willing to go to a lower limit if you start depleting your bankroll. . . .)"
Please note that the flaw I refer to is *not* their use of the 300 big-bet bankroll as a rule of thumb for playing when you are unwilling to drop down in limits. This certainly is a topic worthy of discussion in its own right, and Tommy Angelo has supplied a good start to that debate in his post.
S&M's mistake is their statement that you need "slightly less" of a bankroll if you are willing to go to lower limits when necessary. If you think about it more carefully, you should realize that your bankroll requirements can drop by at least 45 percent.
--------------
A somewhat simplified scenario should help clarify my point.
Plan A is that you will play in the $40-$80 games until you accumulate 300 big bets (300 * $160 or $48K). Once you have this bankroll, you will move to the $80-$160 games and never again play at a lower limit.
You could have picked 200 big bets or 500 big bets--it doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion. But you picked 300 big bets because you feel that puts your risk of ruin (RoR) at 1 percent (based on your expectation, standard deviation, and assorted other factors) and are comfortable with that level of risk.
For simplicity, we will say that a 300 big bet bankroll will give you a 1 percent RoR whether you took a $48K bankroll into the $80-$160 games or a $24K bankroll into the $40-$80 games. (Your RoR usually would be higher in the $80-$160 games, but that only strengthens my case, so we'll ignore it.)
Plan B is that you will play in the $40-$80 games until you accumulate 165 big bets (165 * $160 or $26.4K). Once you have this bankroll, you will divide it into two bankrolls: a $2.4K (15 * $160) "investment" bankroll and a $24K (300 * $80) "reserve" bankroll.
You then will use your investment bankroll to take your best shot at the $80-$160 games. If you successfully build that investment bankroll, terrific. Keep on playing the $80-$160 games.
If you ever deplete that investment bankroll, however, you immediately will drop down to the $40-$80 games and use your reserve bankroll. You will continue playing the $40-$80 games until you again accumulate at least $26.4K. Once there, you again will divide that bankroll and use your new investment bankroll to revisit the $80-$160 games.
-----------------------
Regardless of whether you adopt Plan A or Plan B, when you start playing the $80-$160 games, your RoR will be 1 percent.
Under Plan A, you begin playing $80-$160 with 300 big bets and (because you will never drop down in limits) will have a 1 percent RoR.
Under Plan B, you begin playing $80-$160 with only 165 big bets (bb=$160) in your total bankroll, but your RoR is less than 1 percent. For if you ever deplete your investment bankroll, you will begin playing $40-$80 with your 300 big-bet (bb=$80) reserve bankroll facing a 1 percent RoR (and there is a non-zero probability that you will never deplete even your first investment bankroll).
I hope that is reasonably clear.
------------------------
You asked: "And quit playing $80-160 at what point of your BR, after getting smacked around?"
You quit playing $80-$160 whenever your "investment" bankroll is gone and you only have your $24K "reserve" bankroll remaining.
You asked: "And with what level of RoR?"
In the scenario I described, your RoR was 1 percent whenever you start playing $80-$160 (regardless of whether you adopt Plan A or Plan B). But you could pick a different RoR level that better suits you and my point still will hold true.
You stated: "I presume you're moving down in order to keep RoR more-or-less constant."
Yes, more or less.
You wrote: "I want to see how you qualify your suggestion for the $26,400 BR, or 165 BBs."
I hope you now see why 165 big bets is a reasonable bankroll if you are willing to play lower limits when necessary.
You asked: "What is the RoR in the case you cite here ($80-160; $48,000; not going back)?"
That is Plan A. Your RoR will be 1 percent when you start playing $80-$160.
---------------------
In the earlier thread, I also noted that your bankroll requirement would be even lower (and your RoR still only 1 percent whenever you begin playing $80-$160 games) if you are willing to step down to the $20-$40 games whenever you run into severe bad streaks at the $40-$80 games.
You wrote: "I don't think that S&M would disagree with the general idea of the above statement. They only mention the levels just below the player's new, 'high' level."
I seriously doubt that S&M's statement was intended to exclude the possibility of dropping down more than one level. If it was, then it's a pretty silly statement.
But let's assume you are correct. If S&M agree with my statement about slashed bankroll requirements when you are willing to step down at least two levels, then I don't see how they could claim bankroll requirements are only "slightly less" when you are willing to drop down only one level.
----------------------
You wrote: "But my main point is this : Without covering all eventualities, the S&M statements which you found to be exaggerations strike me as very sensible."
Do you still feel this way?
You wrote: "If anything, they're on the conservative side, but this cannot be reflected mathematically, since every one of us has a different approach/utility. They just want to have a lower RoR than you."
I hope I have shown that one indeed can take a logical, mathematical approach to this issue, even if every one of us has different aversions to risk.
---------------------
You wrote: "However, I'd be interested to read your take on the other S&M statements, what with a weekend coming up."
Okay. But I think it's your turn to offer some definitions.
Mark Glover is wrong. You actually need far far less than 300 big bets to virtually guarantee never going broke as long as you drop down fast enough. If I play 30-60 with $5,000 and drop down to 5-10 if I lose $1,000, I won't go broke.
Mark's strategy is more like Kelly betting and will win faster, while taking a larger bankroll, than the above strategy. Our assumed strategy was one that is more apt to be used by most players which is not dropping down soon enough. This requires a larger bankroll still.
Now the statement that "presumably S&M were unaware" of the fact that our use of the word "slightly" less should not be used with optimum willingness (as opposed to real world willingness) to drop down in stakes is something your Pappy should flog him for. We were perfectly aware of his point but felt that putting in that word was judicious given our readers.
In addition, Glover hasn't read all of our books. He should take some of that bankroll and start purchasing them. If he did he would discover the following on page 53 of the 1999 edition of Gambling Theory and Other Topics.
Moving Up and Down
The previous chapter not only showed us how to compute our required bankroll, but it also showed us that this requirement can be very large in some situations. But in real life your bankroll doesn't need to be this large if you are willing to move to bigger or smaller games as your bankroll either grows or shrinks.
Many players, once they move to a certain limit, have trouble moving back down. In some cases the size of the bets in the smaller games will lose meaning and it becomes hard to play well. In other cases it is just plain ego that stops someone from returning to a smaller limit. But whatever the reason might be, most players find a favorite limit and pretty much stay there. So for these people, the figures in the previous chapter are the ones they should go by.
But suppose you are willing to adopt the following scheme. If you lose half of your money you will drop down to a limit half the size, and if you double your money, you will move up. In this case your risk returns to the level that you start at (assuming you lose). Thus, it should be obvious that you don't need as much money, and I would recommend that your bankroll be about two-thirds the size of the numbers given in the previous chapter.
For instance, we calculated, not counting the non-self-weighting effect that a $30-$60 lowball player who won at $30 an hour but whose standard deviation was $650 an hour needed $31,688 to assure survival. However, if this same person was willing to go to a $15-$30 game after half of his money was gone, a reasonable estimate of his required bankroll to assure survival would be $21,125.
mason, what is your current hourly rate in 30-60 holdem?thanks paul
Let's just say that I've been running good lately.
IS THE 300BIG-BET BASED ON A MATH SIMULATION? WHY NOT USE 100 BB OR 400 BB OR 200BB AVERAGE OR ANY OTHER MULTIPLIER? ALSO SUPPOSE YOU HAVE A ONE MILLION DOLLARS BR AND YOU ARE NOT A TOP PLAYER W'D YOU DARE PLAYING $10K-$20K AND FOR HOW LONG?
mason, would i be safe in assuming that you are at least a one big bet per hour winner in 30-60 holdem? thanks paul
You are safe in assuming that I understand how to play these games very well. You are also safe in assuming that the very best players at this limit probably do a little under one big bet an hour. (If they pick the best games, particularly late at night, they can hit that one big bet mark.)
As for exactly how I do, well just let your imagination ...
Mason,
I'm not sure you are aware that my criticism was directed at your comment in GAMBLING FOR A LIVING--not GAMBLING THEORY.
Back in 1997, if you understood that your bankroll requirements can be much lower if you are willing to drop in limits, then why did you write: "You need slightly less if you are willing to go to a lower limit if you start depleting your bankroll."
You wrote: "In addition, Glover hasn't read all of our books."
That is correct. However, I have read the 1994 edition of GAMBLING THEORY. I didn't buy the 1999 edition because someone (I believe it was you) said the new material wasn't worth paying for if you already own a copy of the book.
You wrote: "He should take some of that bankroll and start purchasing them."
I'll consider your advice.
You wrote: "If he did he would discover the following on page 53 of the 1999 edition of Gambling Theory and Other Topics. . . ."
My concern with what you wrote there isn't as great as my concern about your comment in GAMBLING FOR A LIVING. Still, as you probably realize by now, I think a willingness to step down one or more limit levels (if necessary) allows you to slash your bankroll requirements by more than half (and still face the same risk of ruin--more or less).
Can you tell me which book gives the best overview of bankroll requirements, and do any of them have bankrolling strategies for NL and PL players?
The best book is my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS. Much of it was written to address this topic.
.
David,
You wrote: "Mark Glover is wrong."
How so? Could you please provide some specifics?
You wrote: "You actually need far far less than 300 big bets to virtually guarantee never going broke as long as you drop down fast enough. If I play 30-60 with $5,000 and drop down to 5-10 if I lose $1,000, I won't go broke."
That is correct (more or less), and I never suggested otherwise. Furthermore, if you drop down to $2-$4, you are even less likely to go broke.
Perhaps you haven't been following this thread very closely. Until you just brought it up, nobody has been discussing how to virtually eliminate your risk of ruin. If you want to start a sub-thread on methods of minimizing your risk of ruin while earning small amounts of money, however, please feel free to do so.
The question Cyrus and I are discussing is pretty much the same question you raised in GFAL: "It won't do you any good to become the best player in the world if you play in a game too large for your bankroll and then go broke because your short-term luck was not as good as you hoped. So how much money do you need to play safely at some particular level?"[1]
More specifically, you could say we are asking: "Given a specified risk of ruin (more or less), a desire to make lots of money at the poker tables, and a willingness to drop down in limits when necessary, what size bankroll do you need to start playing at a particular limit game?"
You wrote: "Mark's strategy is more like Kelly betting and will win faster, while taking a larger bankroll, than the above strategy."
That is correct, and I never suggested otherwise. Note that I also am discussing the topic of the current thread.
You wrote: "Our assumed strategy was one that is more apt to be used by most players which is not dropping down soon enough. This requires a larger bankroll still."
So, you are claiming that your statement wasn't an "exaggeration" so much as it was an "exaggeration for the benefit of your readers?" It wouldn't be the first time you have made this type of claim.[2,3]
On the other hand, you also once claimed: "Over the years my readers have, I hope, come to expect one thing from my writings, if nothing else. That is when I write something it is *correct* (save for a couple minor errors.) I won't write something because I think it's true. I have to *know* it's true. Players have come to trust that when they ask me any question about gambling, my answers can be counted on."[4] (Emphasis in the original.)
Someone also wrote: "David attributes his standing in the gambling community to three things: . . . The fact that the things he says and writes can be counted on to be accurate."[5]
You wrote: "Now the statement that 'presumably S&M were unaware' of the fact that our use of the word 'slightly' less should not be used with optimum willingness (as opposed to real world willingness) to drop down in stakes is something your Pappy should flog him for."
You think I should be flogged because I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were honest but mistaken? I'm not sure if you are serious, but you might be, since it is the only evidence you supply that even comes close to supporting your assertion that "Mark Glover is wrong."
First, my Pappy never inflicted corporal punishment upon me. It's just one of the many reasons why I have great respect for him.
Second, my Pappy generally tried to teach me how to think rather than what to think. That's another reason why I respect him.
Third, my Pappy generally was more accepting of mistakes than dishonesty, both in himself and in others. He readily admitted his own mistakes. Yet another reason why I respect the man.
You wrote: "We were perfectly aware of his point but felt that putting in that word was judicious given our readers."
I guess you felt you could decide what was best for all your many various readers and tried to tell them what do rather than teach them how to determine for themselves what is best for themselves. I hope you don't mind if we continue to use this thread to explore for ourselves what bankroll strategies best suit our individual circumstances.
I'm sure you know what's best for all your readers, but I'll take my chances with being self-reliant. Thanks for your concern, though. ;-)
--------------------------
[1] David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOW TO MAKE $100,000 A YEAR GAMBLING FOR A LIVING, 1997, p. 219.
[2] "If you have the best of it, it doesn't much matter when you quit a gambling situation as long as you can afford to play. More importantly if you have the worst of it, no method of determining whether to quit or play can show a profit in the long run. This is an *absolutely irrefutable fact*, not just my opinion." (Emphasis in the original.) (David Sklansky, GETTING THE BEST OF IT, 1997, p. 278.)
[3] The many exaggerations of guaranteed success in your essay "The Ultimate Play," GBOI, pp. 187-193.
[4] GBOI, p. 243.
[5] GFAL, p. vii.
When I said you were wrong I meant it jokingly that the smaller bankroll you suggest could in fact be smaller still. When I said your Pappy would flog you, I mant that someone should flog you for thinking we were not already aware of your points. I will admit it would have been a good idea to add the line "(You could get by with quite a bit less if you were willing to drop down in stakes fairly quickly as your bankroll diminishes. But in our experience, few do.)" Now will you please review McEvoy's book?
David,
You wrote: "When I said you were wrong I meant it jokingly that the smaller bankroll you suggest could in fact be smaller still."
It's sometimes difficult to distinguish between your serious comments and your joking comments. You might want to consider using a ;-) to help those of us who are somewhat humor impaired. In the absence of a wink or grin, you might want to consider not joking about a participant's accuracy during a serious thread.
You wrote: "When I said your Pappy would flog you, I mant that someone should flog you for thinking we were not already aware of your points."
I hope you can forgive me for assuming you were honest but mistaken rather than dishonest and exaggerating. Like so many others in the gambling community, I assumed that if you knew something to be true, then your writings about that topic could be counted upon to be accurate.
You asked: "Now will you please review McEvoy's book?"
After you gave Badger $200 to review that book, I asked if you would contribute $200 to the charity of my choice in return for my review. I never heard back from you.
This may be picky, but how did you possibly come up with 26.4k as the number to move up on in plan B. As that's only 15 bb in the 80-160, it doesn't really give you much of a shot in the larger games. I agree you could want to move up before you had 300 bb = 160 but leaving yourself 2-3 hands worth of play is not really much of a shot. Not much better odds of winning than going to the craps table (I know you have positive EV but short term luck will be the rule.)
As an approximation, I would say it might be ok to move to 80-160 with 250 bb so that you could move down after losing 100 bb and still have a 300 bb BR for the 40-80 game.
Russ,
You asked: "This may be picky, but how did you possibly come up with 26.4k as the number to move up on in plan B."
That's a perfectly legitimate question. The answer is that $26.4K will not be the best bankroll for every single player who is willing to step down in limits. Plan B was part of a scenario I presented for a single hypothetical player who felt comfortable taking shots at the higher limits with 15 big bets and dropping back down to lower limits if those attempts failed.
You wrote: "As that's only 15 bb in the 80-160, it doesn't really give you much of a shot in the larger games."
Keep in mind that Plan B allows you to take multiple shots at the bigger games, if necessary. If your first attempt fails, you drop down to the $40-$80 games, rebuild your "investment" bankroll, and take another shot.
You wrote: "I agree you could want to move up before you had 300 bb = 160 but leaving yourself 2-3 hands worth of play is not really much of a shot."
I've played in cardrooms with a 10 big-bet buy-in. Among the players who buy-in for the minimum, a majority probably survive at least two hours without a rebuy.
You wrote: "As an approximation, I would say it might be ok to move to 80-160 with 250 bb so that you could move down after losing 100 bb and still have a 300 bb BR for the 40-80 game."
That might well be a good approximation for your individual circustances. S&M seem to believe GFAL readers would be better off with somewhere around 270 big bets. As I noted earlier, different players will want to enter the higher limit games with different sized "investment" bankrolls.
There are many factors that will affect what size "investment" bankroll is best for you. Let's suppose, for instance, that you are the sort of player who would be willing to step down to lower limit games but would be very reluctant to do so because you would find that to be a terribly embarassing thing to do in front of your many poker friends. You might want a total bankroll or 250 or 270 big bets before moving up. If you really are this type of player, however, you might want to consider S&M's comment: "There is no shame in going to lower stakes. Sometimes it is the smartest thing you can do."[1]
Or your playing style could tend more towards loose-agggressive and you would prefer to have more than 15 big bets to comfortably maneuver.
Or you might not really care about maximizing (more or less) your poker earnings as quickly as others might desire.
Or you might not be into accounting and find flipping back and forth between "investment" and "reserve" bankrolls to be rather bothersome.
Different people have different utility functions.
-----------------------------
[1] David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOW TO MAKE $100,000 A YEAR GAMBLING FOR A LIVING, 1997, p. 219.
Nice reply. I am not one in favor of taking shots because I believe the better player will have a better chance after he gets acclimated to the game and the competition but I see your point.
You are right on the money with your comment about different people having different utility functions.
Still, I would say a minimum might be to have 40-50 bb for the 80-160 so at least you could play one or two whole sessions before having to drop down. Not a criticism, just a comment =)
Since we live in a democratic society I thought a vote is a good idea.
Out of all the arguing that has gone on about GFAL exaggerations. Mark Glover has tried to prove that S and/or M's crediblity has been damaged.
I feel it has not.
If you feel that S and/or M's crediblity has been damaged a simple Yes in the Subject box will do.
If you feel their credibility has NOT been damaged a No will do.
/////
/////
666
john f mentioned something about mark being our most loyal poster. maybe its true. he doesnt go over to rpg. and when he starts a thread and defends it until no one is left to argue the case with him. he sure is irritating though as he picks apart every sentence someone writes and forces a defence of the opinion. mark also is the only one that seems to annoy david enough to get him going. mason may be starting to give up on mark as he realizes there is no win in the fight. i personally dont answer mark as im certainly a coward, and afraid ill get my foot caught in my mouth. it would be interesting to have mark tell us where he plays and what games, and describe some of his personal experiences with us. not a requirement of course.
Granted, I haven't been here long, but I must admit to enjoying and appreciating Mark's spunk and thoroughness.
Tommy
I think it is an exaggeration to claim Mark Glover as your most loyal poster until the parenthetical citation vs. footnotes controversy is resolved. However I will remain openminded until I see further substantiation of you views...
Ah, Phat Mack, I hoped you noticed that Mark and I conducted our "dispute" without acrimony. It's a pressing question to be sure; perhaps we should leave the matter to a higher authority. You listening Mason?
John
... Mark and I conducted our "dispute" without acrimony.
Yeah, what's up with that? Get with the program!
n/t/
Too much Green Beer My Laddy on St. Paddy's!!!
th
REcently I had a 20 days trip in Las Vegas and in California. (I come from Europe). First, Las VEgas is an incredible place, a great town who everyone has to visit (Foods, entertainment, security, etc) but what a delusion about poker games! I thought Las Vegas were the capital of poker with super action, super limits, a lot of poker tables. I visited ALL casinos spreading poker games and here my impressions:
- MIRAGE and BELLAGIO were the ONLY casinos where I found good players and decent limits.
- ORLEANS has a very good action but too low limits.
- BINION'S is like a geriatrics garden (very low limits and action zero)
- STATION's Casinos have a lot of tables (not such as ORleans) but there's an unbelieavable smokers concentration (I'm a smoker but I've found difficultes to breath)
- FLAMINGO, LUXOR, EXCALIBUR, MANDALAY BAY and other minor poker rooms seem to be a retired distraction (almost anyone plays with a logical thought, super tight games, action close to zero)
My results: I won ONLY at MIrage and Bellagio (10-20 HE and 4-8 stud) where the players respect a certain play. (It's the contrary I expected---I thought I will have had good results at lower limits)
California poker rooms (I visited San Pablo Casino in S. FRancisco, Oaks Club (S.F.), SAn Jose Casino, Crystal Palace, Hollywood and Bycicle in Los Angeles area) seems to have a better action and higher limits.
What I want to say with my post? I think that in Europe (Aviation Club in Paris, Concord Club in Vienna and some british casinos have a REALLY better action and maybe in the future will become the center of poker action. (Or the better players in Las Vegas play only in home games or at WSOP or TOC?)
Comments very appreciated
Marco
>>What I want to say with my post? I think that in Europe (Aviation Club in Paris, Concord Club in Vienna and some british casinos have a REALLY better action and maybe in the future will become the center of poker action. (Or the better players in Las Vegas play only in home games or at WSOP or TOC?) <<
Could be hard to say yes or no until I get the chance to visit those clubs in Europe. I think you probably should have gone to the Commerce in LA.
vegas has had poker longer than anywhere else mostly so that the players that have survived are very tight or better players.also with vegas the loose gamblers lose their money on the dice tables and are gone shortly. in california its more poker so the games are better and the area draws from more people as does europe. i agree that the poker in europe is better with way more action and thats because its newer with fewer good players. given some time after expenses has taken out alot more money the european games will get smaller stakes and less action.
With all the discussion on bankroll requirements, has anyone discussed the change in structure and corresponding change in ante ratio? In stud poker, you need more BB to survive in 75-150 than the same amount of BB in 30-60. Because of the ante structures, the games don't play at all directly proportional to their bet limits. So if 300 bb leads to a RoR of 1% for 15-30, then 300 bb will have a greater RoR in 30-60 and an even greater RoR in 75-150. (I'm not certain 1% is the right number, but that's insignificant for this line of reasoning anyway.)
I believe many players fail to take this into account when they move up leading to larger RoR then they originally thought or may have been willing to take. This same effect could be in hold-em if the players were more aggressive at higher limits, but that's just a function of the players, which is assumed constant in calculating bb needed. But in stud, it's definitely not proportional.
Comments welcome.
Yes, moving up requires a dis-proportionately larger bankroll. This is partly due to the higher varience found in these games for reasons you outline but also because one's expectation BB/hour will almost certainly be lower due to the tougher competition.
I would ball-park guess that starting from the 6/12 doubling the stakes requires a 3-4x increase in bankroll.
- Louie
How is it that the great poker theorists analyze complex problems? Can the math always provide the best play for any situation? Or, do the greats rely on experience to guide them to their answers to the tougher questions? Poker is so dynamic that I can't understand how all factors that are involved in a situation can be weighed.
Specifically, in Hold'em, I understand what the relative values are of starting hands. But, how are these determined? What process is used to understand how a particular game scenario may change these standards? Are computer simulations the best way to find out which hands are valuable under certain circumstances?
I know these are broad questions, but I hope some of you can offer some answers. Thank you.
Mike,
You asked: "Can the math always provide the best play for any situation?"
No.
You also asked: "Or, do the greats rely on experience to guide them to their answers to the tougher questions?"
Most do, at least in part.
You wrote: "Specifically, in Hold'em, I understand what the relative values are of starting hands. But, how are these determined? . . . Are computer simulations the best way to find out which hands are valuable under certain circumstances?"
I belong to an outstanding poker information group consisting of about a dozen players who enjoy seriously exploring and discussing the many challenging aspects of poker. Coming from that perspective, I think you generally need to apply all three methods you mentioned: mathematics, experience, and computer simulations.
To develop an excellent idea of the relative values of the starting hands (under different starting situations), I think it is extremely helpful to make use of computer simulations. The Wilson Turbo packages are a good place to begin. If you are serious, however, you will need to write your own simulator(s). Fortunately, several members of our information group are fine computer programmers.
In order to write such a program, though, you really should understand how various mathematical concepts apply to the game of poker. The more concepts you know and the better you understand how they apply, the more useful your computer simulations will be. This will be relatively less important when you simulate your opponents and more important when you simulate your "hero." Fortunately, several members of our information group understand mathematics very well.
Experience is extremely useful in many different ways. It helps you more accurately apply those mathematical concepts to poker. It helps you understand your opponents and how they are likely to behave. It helps you determine the most important factors that your "hero" needs to consider in different situations. It helps you interpret and analyze the results. It helps in many other respects. Fortunately, all members of our information group are experienced players.
You wrote: "I know these are broad questions, but I hope some of you can offer some answers."
I hope my answers were not too broad.
Mark, is there any overlap between your group and the people involved with "Poki" and poker AI in general at the Univ. of Alberta? I'm sure people here would be interested in hearing more about whether AI such as that used in Poki has been incorporated into your group's simulators, and how that may or may not have led to results differing from those obtained with TTH.
.
Sorry about that. Loki was the previous incarnation.
The Alberta group is doing interesting and useful research, but our group generally has taken a different approach. We are a group of private individuals, and I cannot go into detail about our research methods--at least not at this point in time.
to the idiot Philipos post attacking 12 Vt. Above. I am going to call 12 Vt and let him know we both got confused on the string.
^
TR
Apololgy accepted
Mary
BTW, For a minute I thought you were categorizing M, Vince, and me under the same heading. I wouldn't consider that an insult, I would consider it to be a compliment.
I know this isn't the right forum, but I posted this question in the Other Topics forum and didn't get any serious responses.
I was wondering if it is possible for a poker pro to get unemployment checks and/or food stamps? Or is it against the law?
well, at least you have the right attitude ...
Brad,
I can't speak for the players playing in the U.S but in Canada you can collect unemployment insurance while playing full time. You have to be careful when doing something like this, but it can be done. I wouldn't consider any other way ! Gremlin
well, seriously, in the US you only get unemployment pretty much if youre laid off, and only for a very short time, so if youre thinking about whether or not you can get it its a sure thing you cant.
as to food stamps, well i mean come on, if you know you play that bad, why bother?
brad
An extra $400.00 per week in unemployment insurance for approx 10-12 months in Canada. If you know the right people you would be foolish not to take advantage of this. I do my homework ! Gremlin
400.00 a week im moving to Canada. Unfortunately the majority of Canadians hate Americans.
Fortunately I have never had to use it but I have a couple of friends who have been on unemployment (Employmnet Insurance as we now call it in Canada) and they get about $400 evey two weeks. So I question the $400 a week figure. Although the amount you get is based on what your income was before you became unemployed so if you made a lot of money then perhaps it would be $400 a week but none of my friends collected that much.
As to hating Americans well who doesn't... no seriously, I think most Canadians actually like Americans but we hate to admit it so don't repeat this.
"So I question the $400 a week figure ".
No need to question that figure. It's right !
Gremlin
Become a prop player "public relations job" in the LA County area. They pay you to play, you can eat at the poker tables area -- good food "sometimes" at a good price. If you are really a pro -- you might be able to do this.
somebody,
I responded to your post at the "Other Topics" forum. Hope I was able to help. If you need additional information, feel free to ask and I will respond to the best of my knowledge.
Have a full time job that allows you to play full time and collect a check for a job you can do in your spare time or from a cell at the tables.
:)
I have no idea of unemplpment orfood stamps except I always get ticked off when I see well dressed people driving nice cars paying for groceries with food stamps.
n/t
I think the job Rounder is saying is being a "Professional Poker Player" who works for the casino.
You see, they can play poker full time (8 hours) and get paid by the casino. They also get benefits (vacation time/sick time) plus the casino also pays for their unemployment insurance. So, if they can stay in their job for 12 months or so and quit for a good cause, then they can file for unemployment benefits later on.
rrr
I have a problem playing big pairs early that this forum might help with. I play regularly in a 10/20 game that is generally very high action. The common joke about the game is that a raise attracts players rather then thinning the field. In most cases, if you raise before the flop these gamblers want in on the action and you will end up with a re-raise from almost any kind of cards, and six or seven players in for the flop. (The phenomeneh is particularly funny when most of the field folds to the button, button raises and both blinds who had been almost holding their cards over the muck will now call or reraise!)
So my problem, if I am in early to mid position--SB, BB, UTG, next two seats--I have quit raising with AKs, AK, AA, KK, QQ. It is my understanding that big pairs play best against narrow fields and weaken with more callers.
Am I wrong to play these cards so weakly pre-flop in a game where there are almost always numerous callers? I still play them agressively if I am in late position and can see how many callers I have, but even then if I have a full field I will often smooth call because a raise in this game is so unlikely to move anyone.
I tend to be a very agressive player normally, and am agressive post flop.
What do you guys think?
Sounds like a loose/aggressive game, i'd try to find a better game than that.
...honestly this game is great. There are swings but it is as you said a loose, agressive game. I think those are the best kinds. Big pots.
What I am hoping for though is some strategic advice for these type of games.
Plus I'm in Colorado and this is as the song says, "The only game in town."
I'm winning pretty big in it, but looking for strategy for these 'problem' cards. :-)
Your playing them right... Since going up against 6+ opponents on the flop(especially if they'll see all draws to the river)You'll need to make two pair at least to have the best of it. With an overpair I would stray from any dangerously looking flop. As you will most likely need a set to continue.
This wild play opens the door to your straight/flush hands much more. I would play almost anything suited over 7-8 preflop.. And all suited connectors. And all connectors over 9-10. Don't get too loose tho.
But as their play gets looser and wilder. Your big pairs and overcards go down in value. But your hands more suited for drawing will go up. As they will be the ones draggin in the big pots with a flush.. etc..
Actually, suited connectors play much much better in loose passive games than loose aggressive games, though they will do ok there. Pairs are all quite good for loose aggressive games. I would go ahead and raise with them anyway, but calling might be okay if you have a small bankroll and would like to reduce variance. If it gets raised after you you should probably still reraise with AA and KK most of the time, and possibly AKs and QQ. IMHO
Sounds like a incredible game that could at times be tough on the old bankroll, not to mention the emotional swings involved. If you're finding that losing with AA, KK, etc, in these giant pots is making you tilt off your money, then you're doing the right thing by just calling up front. But, you are losing some money by not raising with big cards like these, esp. AA and AKs. Personally, I don't give a damn how many people are in when I'm holding AA or AKs or even KK, the more the merrier. Not saying that I'm not considering the number of players in, just that there's more money to be had.
Remember though, holdem isn't really a preflop game, so play well on the flop and later and build those pots when you do have a hand. With so many players in, and with everyone looking for miracle board cards, these big pots make you even MORE money, cause they're willing to chase for pot size.
Hope you come out a big winner in that game.
Bill
3-6 game. KQo against 5 players. Flop: Q5J r. Bet and raise Flop, 3 callers. Turn Tr, bet, call, two players left. River: a 3. KQ bets, call. Winner 53s, two pairs. KQ has top pair, and open ended st8 on the turn, loses to 35. OK?
I have recently changed my strategy with big pairs in LAG. I like to call (if many people are seeing the flop) and either hit it and bet aggressively or fold if the flop is threatening. I have found that it can be frustrating to raise have everyone call or cap it only to get beat by some weak starting hand. By not making the initial raise it seems to help my psyche and if I do hit the flop there still seems to be plenty of action to make up for the "lost bet" preflop
Also, if there are a lot of players seeing the flop, it is probably better to see the flop WITHOUT a raise. (if you got big pairs). I believe S and M have discussed this situation in their writings. Im not sure where off the top of my head but maybe HPFAP. Anyway S and M talk about manipulating pot size. If their isnt a raise preflop, then the pot is smaller, people are getting smaller odds, and are more likely to fold a marginal draw to a bet on the flop. Unless you are playing with absolute calling stations of course.
You say you are not raising with those hands because raising induces worse hands to call (or reraise) you. I fail to see the problem here??
I think you may be getting caught up in the feeling that you are winning a lower % of the pots with your big hands than you would in a "normal" game. But I think you are not giving enough weight to the concept that the pots you win when they DO hold up are much larger than a normal game.
Always raise with those hands. For every bit of overall hand winning percentage you lose when another player calls, you gain that much more in average pot size.
David
Send the chips in. The more players in a pot, the smaller percentage of hands you will win. That is a truism. However, it is also true, but less widely acknowledged, that the more players putting money the pot, the lower percentage of hands you HAVE to win to show a profit. If ten people put an equal amount of money in the pot, you have to do no better than win 13% of the time to do well. 11% of the time is profitable but only just. AA will do this well, especially if you use good postflop judgement. KK will do almost as well. You have to use MORE judgment of course. So, if you are not worried about THIS particular pot. If you are aware that it is all one long session, send it in.
Needless to say, but I am saying it anyway, you will do even better if a number of players fold. Your winning percentage will go up faster than your percentage of input into the pot but either way you are better off raising.
The hands I would worry about in this type of game are AKo and other hands that are not made but are obvious raising hands. I might play these a lot quieter or at least I SHOULD. I will keep trying not to raise with these hands in that type of game. Really, I will.
-- Will
This hand will raise now.
There is no I that does this,
The cards themselves act.
J.T. Clotier and Tom McEvoy State in their books that if you are on the button, at a full table, and all fold to you, be aware that the blinds might have premium hands due to "card clumping". I know there is a lot of discussion in the Blackjack circles on this issue, but is there any mathmatical basis to the clumping claims as regarding holdem? Your thoughts would be appreciated. Yankee Jim
I am neither S nor M, but to attempt to answer your question: the fact that 6 or 7 players have already passed means that they probably had a bunch of low cards and this therefore increases the probability of those players remaining having high cards.
I think Mason has written that this isn't true. Suppose UTG had QT, next player JTo, Q3, A7, K4, etc. All of them unplayable and yet there are more high cards missing from the deck than low cards.
I'm pretty sure Mason has either done a simulation with Poker Probe, or some sort of calculation, that has debunked the myth of card bunching in holdem. But I could be wrong and I await Mason's response.
From what I've seen of various bits of eveidence about this, the "bunching factor" exists, but is generally small enough to be negligible. Typically, it's probably not enough that it should affect your play. However, in some games it might be enough to affect an otherwise borderline decision. The main example I recall is a loose game in which many players will play any ace. Then, if you're on the button, and eveyone ahead of you has folded, there should be a little better chance than usual that the blinds hold aces in their hands. But overall, in the real world, I think the bunching effect can almost be discounted.
.
I agree with John F. In a typical, tight agressive high limit game players may be folding AJoffs and other high card hands out of position.
A looser game probably does have some slight, but significant card clumping situations. I noticed card clumping more in lowball than any other game.
It can easily be shown in ace-to-five lowball draw that the bunching factor is significant. That's because when hands are tossed, they tend to contain more high cards and you are looking at five card hands. Put another way, the only hands that you play in this game are hands which contain four or five low cards.
Hold 'em is very different. Here you will play many hands that contain smaller cards. These include pairs, suited connectors, and big-little suited. You also throw away many hands like K4. And in early and middle position, the better players are throwing away hands like QJo and QTo. Thus it should be obvious that the "clumping" effect is negligible in this game.
experimential proof that clumping does exist in HE. log eons of hours on 10 handed HE and eons of hours on short handed HE (5 players or less) as i have and you will "feel" that there is a clumping factor. a hand like 77 is MUCH stronger 1 or 2 of the button in a short handed game than if everyone folds to it in the same position in a full game. similiarly hands such as A8, KT etc. but I defer to the mathematically learned. would like to see some hard math evidence as to what is which.
it seems that this is one area where TTH or something similiar could run a very accurate simulation, since we're only talking about preflop action, which should be pretty easily simulated.
brad
It's been discussed here in the past, and some posters presented results from simulations. That's where I got the thing about aces. i.e., I dont' remember the details (Louie mentions the 7% thing. Maybe that's from the same sim I'm remembering.), but gave what I recall as the basic conclusion after all the logical analyses and sims were considered.
Yes, but not a lot. If memory serves the blinds are about 10% more likely to have an Ace after 7 players fold than they are at a 3-handed table. The increased chances for a premium hand are very small.
This is called "bunching", where "clumping" is a feature of bad shuffles.
- Louie
I saw this hand this weekend. I would really appreciate if you would comment the play of each opponent...
SB (loose agressive player) has black aces
UTG (weak-tight)has TT
Button (tight agressive) has red aces
Utg limp button raise SB reraise UTG call button caps it they both call. ALl the other players folded.
Flop
T 7 3 (all clubs)
SB bet UTG call Button raise SB reraise Utg call button caps it and they all call
Turn 6s
Sb bet all-in UTG call button raise and UTG call
River 2s
UTG bet (finally!) and button call
I really wonder how you evaluate the play of each player in this hand!!
Ty for help
Charlie
Knowing the game limit PL or NL would help evaluate this hand. UTG rightly put the others on over pairs but his nut set is surely the best hand. One player all in so nothing to be gained from him and the button should have been concerned that a "weak tight" (if he is) is still there.
I think UTG made a mistake not reraising on the turn and betting the river - I would think I have this guy and he ain't folding.
UTG lost at least one bb and maybe the button did too by betting the turn into a tight player taking a lot of heat.
UTG should have had a difficult time calling a double bet with a hand he didn't think was good enough to raise with to start. After that, I can certainly see where he would play the hand this way since only ONE of the two opponents (whichever has the Ac) is drawing to beat him and there is little to be gained by dropping the other player out. He got maximum value for minimum risk; tough to critisize that.
SB played the hand well especially considering that he is a known Loose-Aggressive: this is exactly the right hand (best-pair best draw) to play assertively. The fact that he didn't over-call, however, indicates to me perhaps he's not really "loose-aggressive" he's "sensibly-aggressive".
Button probably over-played it unless he's confident the loose-aggressive player will put in all that action with say the black Kings. If so and considering that it appears UTG has the stiff Ac his raises are NOT all that bad. However, its a real tough call on the end when the tight UTG bets out. I suspect you have mis-profiled this player as "tight aggressive"; perhaps he's looser than you suspect.
- Louie
I was at this table but not involved in the hand . The button misread other players hand . weak-tight could have AcQx for exemple and loose aggressive could have KcKx . but he could have even a hand like 9hTh .Weak-tight should have given more action . Looseaggressive often raise preflop and bet all the way and when called on the river , shows a 9 high , so it's very tought to fold AA especially headzup with that guy . But any way ...the raise on the turn was to make pay the " flush draw of UTG " ...
yesterday, i played in the omaha 8 tourney at HPC, ($120, with one rebuy). needless to say, i got knocked out in round 5, the 75-150 level (we were given $500 in chips), with each round lasting about 20-25 minutes.
i cannot believe the hands people played with. i scooped two pots with 5 players in to the river on two pair. the hand that broke me was A-2-4-5, ace suited in diamonds. flop came A-4-7, two clubs. i bet out, seeing if anyone had 2-3, no one raised. turn was a j. bet again, 5 callers. river was the devil card 2 of clubs. i checked, it was bet and there were 5 callers. low winner had 3-5-7-8 rainbow, and winner had jack flush. now, i realize that these people are going to get killed in a ring game playing this garbage, but what is one supposed to do in a tournament when 5-6 people are routinely staying after the flop. i'm used to played in a high stakes game where the field is usually 2-3 way after the flop and it is relatively easy to put people on their hands.
it seems, from the tourneys that i have played, that luck plays a huge part in your success, much more so than a ring game. if so, then maybe the players we admire johnny chan etc..., aren't as good as they seem. after all, how many of these players have had long term (5-10 years plus) of tournament success. very few, if any.
any advice would be appreciated, as there is a h.o.e. tourney on thursday ($220 buy in, no rebuys), and i'd like to know whether i'm throwing my money away.
thanks
I'm not sure how many would agree with me but O8 IMO has more luck associated with it than other games since you can flop the nuts and still be a dog to scoop. Any time you are playing a game that depends so much on the turn and river you are looking at a huge luck factor.
Good tournament strategy applies to all games but you have to understand you will need a lot of luck in O* to cash.
The BIG names are not as good as a lot of people think they are but they play a lot of tournaments and win their share. Run of the cards plays a huge part in the game.
If there are that many callers I don't think Aces up is going to drag the pot very often. I would have check folded the flop.
Derrick
hi-lo, and 5-2 is second nut low w/wheel draw. i agree, however, if its high only. i would have folded on the flop.
I feel what your going through, I'm thinking about the HOE tournament as well. I think based on a pure dollar and cents basis, ring games are the best way to make money. Maybe because I haven't won a tournament of any kind, I always leave with a sense that I just wasted my time and if I had been in a ring game, I would have something to show for it.
Now I only play in the freerolls or very low cost (with out rebuying).
i've only played in about 7-8 tourneys, and won the second one i played (a small $55 buy in HE @ HPC about 8 years ago - 1st place was $900). when i won, i got really lucky, either by drawing out or having a slight favorite hold up.
i'm leaning towards playing the HOE for one last shot, but after this i'm done (unless i finish in the money).
As with any game of cards there is luck involved in tournaments but over the long haul skill will win out. My recommendation it to read up on tourney strategy in books or on the tournament forum.
As for if you should pay $220 for a HOE tourney, that is completely up to you.
In my situation I have played lots of small tournies and I am working my way up to more expensive ones. When I first started playing tournies I would never dream of paying $220 for one but if you don't mind losing it then go for it. I think that a better strategy is too work yourself up to more expensive ones. Remember even the best tourney players do not end up in the money everytime, far from it.
Ken Poklitar
I had not seen this one when I started my thread. But this is along the very same lines of my subject.
I was hoping some you could recommend some good reading for a true beginner such as myself. :)
Thanks,
Flipper This is my maiden post at this site. I am a sports bettor and black jack player, but living here in Los Angles I would like to start playing holdem' and see how far I go with it. Thanks again.
Any of Lou Krieger's books.
In order of preference:
- Beating low limit hold'em by Lee Jones (A MUST for a beginner)
- HOld'em excellence by Lou Krieger
- After you have played in live tables and noted the differences between books advices and real poker you can afford the more sophisticated concepts of Sklansky's "HOld'em for advanced players"; but very very good suggestions you can find in "Championship hold'em" by T. McEvoy and TJ CLoutier.
Marco
very good suggestions you can find in "Championship hold'em" by T. McEvoy and TJ CLoutier
Don Heftolo,
Somber Brotherhood
http://www.desetka.si/somber
Fundamentals Of Poker by Malmuth/Loomis and Winning Low-Limit Hold 'Em by Lee Jones. Read them. Then play a little. Then read them again. Repeat this process for several weeks. If you aren't a winning player by that time, you should at least be proficient. Then you'll be ready for the other, more advanced texts. Best of luck.
As the others have stated, Lee Jones "Winning Low-Limit Holdem" is the book to buy. Follow this book to the letter while you are first starting out. It has recommendations that are VERY tight, but it is much better to start out this way.
Lou Krieger's books are also good, but the starting hands guidelines are better in Jones' book because they are more defined. Krieger's books contain very general advice but are good to stimulate your thinking. They also touch upon areas not covered in Jones' book.
As the others have stated, Lee Jones "Winning Low-Limit Holdem" is the book to buy
I have the old edition. Is the new edition worth a buy if you have the old one?
Yup. I had the old one also and there is allot of new updated material on starting hands.
Worth the re-purchase
If you have read Doyle Brunson' book (I admit I think he is THE BEST POKER PLAYER FROM A CONCEPTUAL POINT OF VIEW), could a great player win without looking at his own cards---knowing that other players aren't aware of it(I'm speaking about no-limit poker)?
THat is, if in the WSOP main event ($10,000 buy-in) a player put an all-in raise in a random fashion (without looking his cards) have a great advantage unless he falls vs A-A or K-K (or whatever you want)?
Very appreciated your comments
Marco,
You asked: "If you have read Doyle Brunson' book (I admit I think he is THE BEST POKER PLAYER FROM A CONCEPTUAL POINT OF VIEW), could a great player win without looking at his own cards---knowing that other players aren't aware of it(I'm speaking about no-limit poker)?"
Let's look at what Doyle wrote: "In No-Limit Hold 'em, position is . . . well, it's the name of the game. It's everything. If I had position all night, I could beat the game . . . *and I'd never have to look at my hole-cards*. In Limit play position's not nearly so important."[1] (Emphasis and ellipses in original.)
1. As you noted, his statement applies to no-limit poker.
2. As you didn't note, his statement assumes you have position. Indeed, he wrote the statement to emphasize the importance of position in no-limit hold'em.
3. Doyle wrote this statement more than two decades ago. The quality in play in most no-limit games has increased considerably since then. I believe Doyle, in recent years, has said that his claim is much less likely to hold true in today's games.
In short, the answer to your question is: probably not--at least not in a typical no-limit game.
---------------------
You also asked: "THat is, if in the WSOP main event ($10,000 buy-in) a player put an all-in raise in a random fashion (without looking his cards) have a great advantage unless he falls vs A-A or K-K (or whatever you want)?"
I doubt that Doyle was claiming he could win by playing in a random fashion. I assume he would watch for tells and observe betting patterns, then bet or raise at appropriate times.
So, the answer to your question is: No, such a player would have a great disadvantage.
----------------
[1] Doyle Brunson, SUPER/SYSTEM: A COURSE IN POWER POKER (1978, 1984), p. 334.
A few of us are having a debate. Say I get together a single table no limit hold'em tournament. Myself, 8 of my friends and Johnny Chan (or Brunson, Hellmuth, etc.). I'd say 7 players are total fish, and the other two are strong limit players, but nobody is a tournament player. The strong limit players understand most of the tournament strategy but have never played in any serious tourneys. If we were to play 10 tournaments, how many would Chan win? Thoughts appreciated.
Lorne
An interesting question.
Against 9 non no-limit tourney players I would like to think that I could win atleast 2 maybe 3.
Now I am no where in the league of the players you mentioned. Therefore I would assume that a Chan/Hellmuth/Brunson would win 5 or 6 or even 7 times.
I think it also depends on how fast the tourney is. If the blinds jump too quick then you will have Chan/Hellmuth/Brunson losing more often.
Ken Poklitar
n/t
I have a question about AKs UTG. How do you people play it...always raise? Maybe always call?
IMO it's close between calling and raising, because AKs also plays well in multiway pots. The equity you give up by not raising preflop, is often earned back on the flop, since it's harder for your opponents to read your hand. I like to raise with the hand about 60-70% of the time and call 30-40%. IMO you should consider how tight /loose the game is, and maybe more important how your table image is, e.g. what have they seen raising you with UTG etc., because the decision is so marginal.
Any thoughts?
Regards, ME.
Personally I like to always just call with AKs UTG if the game is not wildly loose. If it is very loose i would raise.
With AKo in a low limit game i raise aboout 50-50 UTG.
Are you implying that you raise with AK offsuit more often than AK suited?
Either way, I think calling with AK is a dreadful play in any mid-limit game where raises have the normal effect on the number of callers, and especially when the state-of-the-game is such that a raise might take the pot right there.
Tommy
In wild games, i like to limp reraise with this hand.
Just a tought
RAISE RERAISE OR MUCK $JAKE
I agree that the tighter the game, the more you want to raise.
But I play mostly in pretty loose games, and I was wondering if it would still be as effective as in a tight game.
And no i dont raise more often with AKo UTG, I think it's about the same percentage, around 60% I guess.
Regards, ME.
Okay. When you said that AKs plays better in multi-way pots, I thought you were referring to the suitedness, meaning that AKs plays better than AKo in multiway pots. If that distinction makes a difference, then I'd presume your raising frequency would reflect that difference, or else it is irrelevant.
I don't think any high-card hand "plays better in multi way pots when suited," so I ignore suitedness when choosing to raise or not.
Tommy
I was refering to low limit , where a bet on a rag flop does not ussauly win.
Also at this limit people tend to pay Ax any and i can trap them with my better kicker. At 10-20 and above i would raise more often b/c they do not play as many trash Aces.
If the loose-passive game allows me to limp with a variety of hands like 44 or 87s then I am very tempted to flat-call with the strong hands as well; thus disquising both kinds of hands.
If the tight-aggressive game allows me to only play solid hands UTG then I'll raise with them all.
- Louie
Here's what we say in HPFAP-21 on playing these hands in early position.
"Also, if no one has voluntarily put money in the pot, you should raise approximately two-thirds of the time with AKs, AQs, AJs, and KQs. The reason for sometimes calling with these hands is not only for deception purposes, but also because they play well in multiway pots. However, because of the large blind structure in today's game, it is not necessary to just call with these hands very often. In fact, against weak opposition, it is best to almost always raise with them, since the deception you are trying to gain by just calling won't do you much good anyway. On the other hand, if the game is tight and most players respect your raise, be more inclined to limp with the big suited connectors. Again, these hands play well in multiway pots.
I'll raise always utg. I dont want the med suited guys to get in cheap. Or the dreaded one gappers offsuit.
However,in the blinds (sb&bb in button drop game)I will vary it quite a bit. Maybe raiseing only 40-50%. The deception gained is alot more I think in this situation. Last nite I made money possibly up to 7 extra bets on the 2 hands I didnt raise in the blinds.
I played in my Second mini NL tourny this past weekend, $400 buy in, supposed to be 3 tables, only two tables showed. each player received $1000 in chips and the blinds increased pretty fast, going to $25-$50 by the second 45 minutes.
The blinds had just increased when i was faced with these two hands, i think that i made the right call on both, thought the results were not good in either case, what do you guys think?
Hand # 1
I have A-10o on the button. UTG goes all in for his remaing $550, i have about $800 in chips. Now, normally this is a very easy fold. But in this case i know the UTG player fairly well. Not five minutes ago he was complaining that something has to happen in the tourny so he could go and watch the NCAA basketball games, also the size of the tournament is very small for him, and throwing away $400 would be like a $5 for most of us. With these thoughts in mind, i thought about it. On one hand, i was 70-80% confident that i had the best hand, on the other hand, anyone can pick up to aces or kings and bust you (not to mention the numerous other hands that he could have had that dominated me), so i passed. nobody called, and he showed A-7s. To top it off, the flop would have been 10-10-6. I still think i made the right call.
Hand #2 This is one to two hands later. I am in middle position and look down to see pocket nines. I have two callers in front of me and i just limp as well. One more caller to that same player, and he, in the big or small blind, moves all in again for about $600. this time i am pretty sure that i will either dominate his hand, or be a slight dog. Though like i said, he plays too recklessly for me to attribtue too much strength to him, so i call, i have $750. He turns over pocket 8's, but sadly an eight comes on the flop and i am eliminated shortly thereafter.
Should i have dumped the hand? what about the one before? any comments?
Elie
Ignoring the blinds possible hands you can call a big all-in raise with a hand on the button about half as good as the minimum hand the raiser will raise with. he's got to be raising with LOTs of hands worse than A7s before you can justify calling with AT.
Ditto for 99. There has got to be lots of hands he can raise with that feature cards less than 9 before you can call a big all-in raise. If he'll raise with any pair or any two big cards I'm confident (without working it out) that you are a significant under-dog. Other players dead-money may suggest a call.
- Louie
Fair enough,
Though as i said, i know this player, i know that he likes to bet, regardless of his cards. While its possible that anyone can pick up a couple high cards, he is the type of player who bullies, and when he gets away with it, he bullies some more. That is why i called
Elie
nt
DOES ANY ONE KNOW WHO THE TOP FIVE PLAYERS IN THE WORLD ARE....AND HOW DOES SOMEBODY GET THEIR RANK
There is no governing board for poker players, there is no agreement on how players should be ranked, and even if there were there would no way to actually rank money players: I'm sure Zee isn't going to voluntarily provide his actual winnings to anybody (except, of course, the IRS). For those in Palm Beach County that was a joke.
Is the best player the one who can beat the other top players? The one who can beat average players for the most money? The one who wins the most money over-all? The one who is the biggest favorite in a variety of games? The one "voted" the most feared opponent other top players?
The only way it COULD work would be with tournament results since these are quantified. Perhaps the "top" player is the one who won the most money in tournaments in the last 12 months. Due to huge luck variances this player is unlikely to be the "best" player; but HEY! what can you do about that.
- Louie
I have thought this for awhile w/o saying anything here except in casual conversation with others. I recently read the article on the I think it was LA Poker classic in poker digest. I noticed the winner of the big N/L in particular. At the final table EVERY single key hand he seemed to be involved in he was the big dog pre-flop. This was true of many of the hands Chris Fergusen played in the WSOP last year also. I have not played but in a few (about 15) tournaments but what has got me turned off from them is the poor level of play. It appears to me with the possible exception of a few rare birds that are very good at tournament play the quality of play of the winners is nothing more then a "GAMBLER".
I mean calling a re-raise all-in with 9-7 Suited or not is not high on my list of skillful plays. And saying they had a read is rediculous.
I must say I have only played in 1 were the quality of play was what I considered good. It was an O/8 and when myself and a friend sat down at our table 8 out of 10 at the table looked around and said "wow! This will be interesting" We all laughed and wanted pieces of each other! Now I didnt make it beyond that table, nor was I the first out. But man was it a great challenge! I actually enjoyed the hell out of myself and was happy with every single one of my reads and decisions. I shot 3 of the dealers afterwards but that's another story. ;)
Does willingness to gamble alot with the worst of it make a tournament player? I won't enter but a few here and there because of this. I think it's too hard to beat THAT MANY gambooling fools at one time. Is luck a tremendously huge factor in tournaments in general?
opinions?
I'll tell you what I think happens a lot. As Mason states in several of his books often the right strategy is to take advantage of tight play. When some of the players you mention get caught trying to steal, they luck out and win anyway.
when 6-7 players see the flop, someone has something, and people will chase with anything. the problem is not that people are too tight, but too loose and loose play is difficult to overcome in the short run.
however, in a nl hold em tourney, you can be aggressive, because people do play too tight.
If you think Phan was making poor pre-flop calls at the final table(which he was), you should have seen him the night before when there were two and three tables to go. Not only was he calling everything in sight, he had been downing a bunch of beers, singing, and i guarantee you... if the tables had been bolted to the floor, he would have been up there dancing on top of them...NO DOUBT!
Luckily, he hadn't had any time to start drinking before the final table the next day, so at least he was doing more than just going/or calling all-in pre-flop. In my oppinion he didn't deserve to be at that final table...No Way, and he wouldn't have been there, if it wasn't for PURE LUCK the night before.
Later
my best game is holdem i will be in vegas on a sun mon tues with 5k for poker where should i play and what limit i will play 5 -6 hrs a day. will be staying at harrahs thanks for help
Bring a gas mask.
L.A. is the place. (no smoking).
If you want the most action and game options I would say your best picks are of course...
10-20 & 20-40 Mirage
15-30 & 30-60 Bellagio
If you are looking for something a bit higher in limits then Bellagio is probably the room for you.
My .02 cents
Have a good trip! = )
Bellagio, Mirage and Orleans (but at Orleans there are no limits higher than 10-20)
Recently there was a thread on the merits of raising with suited slicks in early position, and it got me to ruminating on my theories--such as they are-- on the differences between the suited and offsuit premium connectors, and the different ways in which they ought to be played.
I don't have any hard evidence to support this, but I've come to the tentative conclusion that the effect of being suited with these hands is more pronounced when one is in late position; that is, in early position the power of these hands comes in large part from their high card strength, whereas in late position the suited effect dramatically increases their potency. The reason I say this is because the fact that they're suited ISN'T necessarily valuable because they can make a flush, but rather because you can profitably chase-- and deceptively bet your hand-- more often when suited, if only because the flop generally allows you additional outs.
However, this effect is largely negated when in early position, if only because you often cannot reasonable chase in early position when, say, you flop one of your suit and nothing else, since you often must fear a raise from a player behind you. So, unless you actually flop a four flush the suitedness of your hand isn't going to be much of a factor. However, in late position this changes drastically, if only because the suited effect often gives your hands additional outs that you would not have if the hand was offsuit (namely three flushes on the flop and four flushes on the turn) which allow you to semi-bluff more often. If semi-bluffing is a profitable play-- and I think it is, although it can't be done indiscriminately-- then it stands that the fact that the hand is suited increases the value of the hand as your position improves.
Whether it improves the strength of your hand disproportionately-- that is, the increase in strength enjoyed by the hand is greater than that of it's offsuit counterpart-- could indeed be the subject of debate. However, if you agree with me that raising, missing the flop, then wincing as you call a lead bet from the BB (hoping against hope that one of the players behind you doesn't pop it) is usually a losing play, then it would seem to stand that the fact that your hand is suited is often irrelevant in early position.
In sum-- given a hand like AKd, one can profitably proceed with a flop like Td 7s 5c in late position (given, of course, moderate action on the flop) where one cannot do the same in early position. Assume the same number of players contesting the pot in each hand.
You are right. It is a very simple concept. I understand. Thank you.
Only caviot is whe you hit your flush the action is a bit deminisned and you don't make much on it as you have all the big cards.
The "extra outs" wit backdoor flush and double gut shot straight might be eneough to carry on in the hand.
AK is a hard hand to play well every time, the way you play it can mean the difference between a winning and losing session or winning or losing a tournament.
Earlier I said that I do not consider suitedness when choosing what to do with a high-card hand UTG. Your fine post explained exactly why.
It was your earlier post that got me thinking about this subject, and why it is that I rarely consider whether or not the hand is suited when I'm thinking of raising with one of these hands in early position
I'm looking to take my hold'em game to the next level. I currently play at the $6-12 and $10-20 limits. I feel very comfortable and seem to do ok in these games, but am looking to become a more consistant winner and eventually play in higher limit games. I was wondering how much I should be studing/reading and playing. My bigest downfall is that I'm only able to play 3-5 times a month (8-14hrs. each sesion). Can I take my game to the next level with my limited play?
Sure. But like anything else you will progress slower with the limited play. One thing to do is read the books. HFAP is the best one and available right here. Second thing to do is start keeping notes on your play and the play of others in a small notebook, as well as a log of your hours played and money won/lost at a minimum. This will allow you to review and refresh your memory on mistakes you've made so that you don't make them again.
I am in a similar situation, though I had a solid base of playing hours prior to moving to the mountains of Colorado. The notebook has helped greatly.
The biggest leak I see from players with your schedule is sluffing off chips during the last hour. It goes both ways, sloppy play when a win is assured, and sloppy play when stuck. Of course, I don't know if you succumb to end-of-session-syndrome. If you don't, great. If you do, then I suspect your energy and planning would be best spent on this leak.
Tommy
n/t
Why you can't play more than 3-5 times /month ? If it's your job , the best idea is to quit your job . hehe
I am in a game of LLHE 10 handed . The game is loose and passive . There is an average of X players on the flop , so it's correct to limp UTG with A2suited . What is the smallest value of X ?
.
It's also a function of how aggressive the players behind you are. If it's the kind of game where someone is going to raise and isolate you with a bigger ace frequently, x as you've defined it ceases to become the issue.
JG
The game would have to be very loose passive. The critical number here is not how many players will see the flop, but how many pots are raised.
With five or more limpers on average you can probably come in but ONLY if the pot is raised about 10% or less. If the pot is more frequently raised, then muck this hand UTG.
natedogg
This post is directed at shorthanded limit holdem with normal blind structure and reasonble rake.
When playing in a short handed game, similiar confrontations happen again and again. You are in the big blind, button raises, you call. Here we go again, right? Deja vu all over again.
This situation can sometimes lend itself to luring your opponent into a course of action that you intend to capitalize on.
Ok. Example:
In the last five rounds (five handed game) you have been raised three times by the button, heads up, while in the big blind. On the first occasion you folded. The second two times you correctly called, check called the flop (correctly), and then check folded the turn. You just didn't have it. Your judgement said making a move would be wrong.
So what do we have here? We have a pretty good situation to checkraise the turn in the near future. Most opponents will continue with their successful course of action, thinking they have found a nice passive blind to bulldoze.
I know. Its not rocket science. Pretty simple stuff really. But what I think you should keep in mind here is that on the earlier rounds, you might want to sacrifice a little immediate profit, in order to execute the plan. So when the same situation comes up again, you get raised, you have a hand that might slightly warrant a raise, you might just call, hoping to flop, then executing your plan.
Again pretty easy stuff, but this is where the money is in hold'em, especially shorthanded.
There are lots of examples of luring a course of action, I'm sure you can think of many yourself.
A more complex version of this is luring a course of action amoung two opponents. This happens less frequently, is more difficult to execute, but pays well.
There is sometimes a situation, where you are sitting on the button, all folded to you, and there are certain dynamics between the two blinds that you should consider when choosing your hand ranges, and whether or not you should raise. What? Yes, calling here is a viable option many cases when luring a long term course of action is your goal. Immediate hand EV is not the only consideration.
So lets just for a second imagine a duo in the blinds. The small blind has raised the big blind quite alot and there seems to be a bit of a grudge between them. The small blind often raises preflop, and also frequently bets into the flop. The big blind tends just to call preflop and folds too much after the flop. So forget about the hand you have for a moment and just focus on what this means after the flop. How does this flop action affect your starting hand range and raise or not choice?
When you consider the above, and execute a plan accordingly, you will find that your marginal hands on the button might swing decisively depending on the answers to the above questions.
None of the above dismisses mathematics. You should have a reasonable hand range from which to make adjustments before the get go. These adjustments should flow from a solid foundation.
So, as experiment for yourself, just imagine the above situation (or pick your own), and then picture what you would consider to normally be the worse starting hands you would play on the button. How will the future action affect this hand? Will I be able to induce a future course of action that will make a small negative play pay off? When I get a flop I like, how are the blinds likely to react? Are they schoolers( check and both call), are they isolationists (try to isolate one player or another).
I realize this seems like balderdash, but explaining it is very difficult.
The relationship between the blinds and the button is more important than I have ever seen in print, although I can't prove it, nor will I try to.
Regards.
Great post.
May I add that these dynamics do not ONLY mean you may want to take a small loss now for a greater over-all win; they also mean you can make a non-standard play which is also a small winner now. If the BB plays so predictably that you can almost always steal on the turn when he checks then almost every hand you play is profitable since you are going to win MOST hands on the turn since he won't have enough to bet most of the time.
But putting this example back into your post you may want NOT to play every hand on the button since this may enlighten him into understanding that you don't always have something when you play. So you may want to fold many of your slightely profitable trash just to insure he keeps playing predictably.
- Louie
I had a funny feeling you would respond to this one. I agree with all your comments.
I think this thinking can be extended to two opponents after the flop, players often refer to this a a bankshot= utilizing a weak overplayer to catapult a third opponent out of a hand...the list goes on.
The purpose of my post is not to give away some big secret, but rather getting some of the intermediate players to start thinking in terms of situations, and how to manipulate them. THINKING about those concepts and working out game plans is way more beneficial than being spoon feed some generic game plan. All of this assumes a strong underlying fundamental knowledge.
I know you get what I am saying.
Regards.
Backdoor,
Great post and fine food for thought.
You wrote: ” When playing in a short handed game, similar confrontations happen again and again… This situation can sometimes lend itself to luring your opponent into a course of action that you intend to capitalize on.”
Short handed rarely exists at limits below 40/80, but when I was propping 20/40 (which meant I played short a lot) I found this to be true and never mastered it to my satisfaction. Yet the big money games are often short and the big money winners must have this concept nailed.
In a full ring game at middle limits you will rarely be able to pound the same blinds from the button again and again. If you are, you should be able to find a better game or the game will eventually adjust to a normal degree of looseness. But in a short game this changes as you noted.
A simple example is when you are up against blinds that do not defend enough. You should correctly raise with almost any reasonable hand from the button. But if you have gotten away with this on several previous rounds you must progressively tighten up, in some cases to the point of throwing away a half decent blind stealing hand (against normal defenders) in order to not alert them to the idea you are almost always stealing. Once they are alerted, your expectation for this play goes way down for future rounds.
Conversely, if a weak defender (who you have been stealing his blinds with impunity) plays back at you after you tried a steal with a poor hand you should almost always call (even if you fear a big overpair), and you may want to make one poor flop call before **usually giving it up on the turn. Now if you improve enough to easily be a favorite over the hand you fear, then play on. You will hate to show your improved junk that beats his overpair but that is a lot of equity to give up. But if you improve only enough so that it is close as to whether to see the turn and river from an expectation standpoint, then give it up. Don't show your junk blind steals in marginal situations against this type of opponent. He will correct on future rounds, but if you gave him a flop call he will think you are stealing with something.
As you mention, the relationship between the button, small blind and big blind is crucial in these short games, or in any game where you are in position to steal the blinds from one or two spots to the button's right. Maybe someone else can elaborate, as this may be too much “food for thought” this early in the day for me :-).
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Haven't seen your posts too much lately.
Regarding the post, I think you recall I started a thread ages ago that was going to deal with this. But I find that these ideas are difficult to express and impossible to quantify.
Everything you say is true, of course.
Regards.
Is E still winning large?
backdoor,
I wish I had more time to post but I've had to deal with some personal matters lately. Hopefully, I'll be able to find some time to do a little more posting in the near future.
Regarding "E", she has been doing very well lately and killed them again tonight in yellow chip while I have struggled a bit for the past few weeks. I was in her game for a while and she made a big play on me heads up that we might post later from both perspectives. Believe me, when we are in the pot together we go for each others jugular and so far I'm the one doing the bleeding most of the time (but not tonight :-).
Regards,
Rick
Another provocative, interesting post by backdoor.
In particular I think that thinking about such issues is valuable exercise, and it is noteworthy that again backdoor has mentioned the relationship of the button to the blinds (worthy of more thought as well).
I booked into the Orleans for 5 days next week. Prior to booking, I called the poker room to get a poker rate, and they told me check with the floorperson when I arrived, and the rate would be adjusted. It would require only 3 to 4 hours of play per day. The people I talked to seemed nonchalant and relaxed about this, but I am a bit concerned since there is a considerable difference in rates. Also, I don't want to be a nudge when I get there and po these floorpeople. I'm pretty sure I'll get the poker rate but worrying about it may affect my play, my biggest concern. Can anyone tell me how this works at the Orleans.
their poker room comping is entirely computerized there so you shouldnt have a problem getting the rate if you play enough, however you may not get it if you fall 10 min shy of enough time. when I was there the poker room staff was extreemly courtious and compitent, so dealing with them should not be a problem.
Oral contracts aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
GET IT IN WRITING.
Repeat.
GET IT IN WRITING.
You will sleep better and avoid any unpleasantness at the hotel. I'm sure the hotel and its employees are honorable, but misunderstanding do happen. Good Luck and Enjoy.
Relax, your not the first to ask for this rate. They do it all the time. You'll get your rate.
get ahold of me. I have a sister in law at the Horseshoe that I can call and get ya the rate there.
Thanks for the advice.
Early this morn, about 4:30am I'm in an Omaha/8 game but on the list for a very decent looking 9-18 hold-em. Well my turn comes around to get called for it and I ask the floor for time as I'm in a hand. Slow omaha game so it takes a bit. But as soon as the hand is over I get up and(at this hour the "list" is not on the board)go over to him first to see his list of who's next and how many.
Game selection in mind. Well he pipes off "c'mon Larry I got 10 people waiting behind you" So I promptly tell him he's outta line and I look when I want it's my choice. So I go over to the game look around count my "spots" and say "lock it up" to the floorman.
Now this is where the prob begins....
I've got 7 racks of chips that I've been building a castle with in the omaha since I never play a hand. I crash the chips and start racking. In the meantime the dealer keeps dealing to me. I play 2 hands while stacking & racking win part of both in fact. On the 3rd I have my chips all racked and call the chip runner over, tell him how I want my chips converted, and taken over to the other game, as the dealer is dealing me another hand. I'm standing up but decide to look. Now I only have 6 chips as the runner has them all but everyone knows that. Aw shit....I gotta play it(not really but it was a very very nive O/8 hand), So a player gives me 2 stacks to use and long story short I'm there to the river....win....pick-up....go over to the holdem game and the runner still doesn't have everything converted but is coming over when they say at the table my seat got sold. I look over at the floorman and he makes a smart-ass remark about selling my seat, I walk away from the table past his podium tell him he's a f&*^%*g di*&^ead, and he tells me I'm done leave.
I of course do just that, cash out and leave, I understand his right to do that for me callin him a dick head but he was antagonistic all along and what can I say he pissed me off.
He never after I told him to lock it said "hey Larry you takin this seat or what"? He never said hurry it up, or anything like that. I'm barring myself for a few months to say the least because I won't be treated like that. Should I expect better? or am I just wishin? This place used to treat players very well compared to the competition. Maybe after being open 2 years and making so much money from 22 tables, they have lost that.
Opinions?
The floorman should have given you a warning on the seat, but in my opinion you were also being disrespectful of the players who want their game full and the players who may be waiting on the rail for a game.
You set yourself up for losing the seat by butting heads with the floorman at the board. I, after that exchange, would have been extra careful and aware and would have made sure he knew I was coming, the chip thing, etc. Still, three hands is pushing the limit with a board going. As far as losing your temper...work on that, it never gets us anywhere. IMO
Don't expect more in California. Too many players there, you're easily replaced. Play at Commerce instead of HP?, they are a little more on the ball.
Sorry bud, I vote with the floor on this one.
You know it's going to take a while to rack up and move, and if you look at a hand while racking and decide to play it, you're holding up the whole seating process for everyone, players and floor, significantly, because Ohama hands take so long.
The Lucky Chances low-limit, keep-em-moving seating policy is fair, in my opinion, because you do not have to post to get a hand at the 9-18 game. Taking extra hands at the Omaha game is a form of abuse of their non-posting rule, in my opinion.
Tommy
nice. This guy is an a-hole.
k
"I'm barring myself for a few months to say the least because I won't be treated like that."
Larry, I don't think they're going to miss you! You were out of line for holding up the seat in the other game and for mouthing off to the floor.
Ken Gordon Kodiak, Alaska
Usually you put a chip under the rail in the seat you are locking up. If you had done this, there probably wouldn't have been a problem, as they would have called you before picking up the chip.
You were out of line to take so long to move, without clearing it with the floor. You should have moved immediatley when called. Why should you be allowed to tie up two seats while you screw around with your chips? You knew you were on the list for the other game, why weren't you ready to move?
From the tone of your post, this probably wasn't the first time you acted like a jerk in this cardroom and you were treated accordingly. Your remark to the floorman on your way out was so outrageous you should have been barred. Grow up and learn to act like a mature adult before you go back there, or to any other cardroom.
If Rick N. was on the floor, you would have been caned and then barred.
Naw. Ever since The Incident, they no longer cane at LC's. But Rick may have tried to force you to eat the player's special.
Brett,
Usually my cold, icy, stare would be enough to get the player moving. Or I could have him dealt out (now standard procedure at HP - it seems to work pretty well). OTOH, Tommy's approach in the thread above will get even a hard ass like me to cut a player some slack ;-).
Regards,
Rick
What I find also interesting are all the ASUMPTIONS that I'm a major asshole there. Funny thing is I have a very good reputation of treating all the players and dealers and floor with utmost respect & courtesy to a fault even. I have let little mistakes go by as no big deal it happens, offered assistance at times. offered to beat up the drunk(not really)....er...stick up for the floor and dealer when dealing with a drunk...but not interfere and calm the "outta liners" down.
One thing I didnt mention as it shouldn't effect this situation and not sure that it does still is the last time I played 20-40 here, this floor was in the game and I kick his ass. He tried to run over me a couple times when I suggested he not. So I slow played quads on his ass AFTER re-pounding him with a house when I told him he oughtta slow down.... But I would expect any old resentment he may have from that game(he went on major tilt) would be gone now.
But again I've ALWAYS been very co-operative.
Maybe some should re-read the post. look at the qualifiers. I NEVER held-up the move. I had to rack up....everything was done in as timely a manner as possible at the time.
As for any boneheads that think I should always be ready to JUMP because I'm on a list, that's rediculous. Saturday nite I waited over 7 hours to get into one very good game. Now thing about your be ready statement. I have never abused the "free round" or posting, so that shouldnt be the cause of the problem.
Also I don't think there's very many of you would take it with the ATTITUDE. If you meekly obey you will be run over at the table too. Reality is he took advantage of his position wanted to f*&k with me and when I kicked back a little attitude he 86'd me. ok. I wouldnt have had any problem with it had he said hey wassup you movin and I gave him no response or messed with him. Then I would be outta line and I'd accept the loss of seat. But he never even did that. Hell I don't even know when he re-sold the seat. It could been within 2 minutes of me tellin him to lock it.
I just re-read your post. You mention in the first post that you called for "time",as well as played a few more hands (in a really slow game) while stacking.
Call me a bonehead if you want, but I think the floor did the right thing based on the information in your first post.
Good Luck
Howard
However when you are in a hand when they first call you do you not ask for time to finish the hand? Maybe I wasn't clear but I was already in the hand in the first instance. I had this damn castle of chips which I think took to long to rack. You'll notice I mentioned I immediately upon returning crashed it and started racking. This is probably more to a fault because I couldnt rack 700 chips in a timely manner as they were not stacked.
Of course I don't have a problem with them 86in me for callin him a dickhead......lol...that's stupid. I was pissed. See he had sold my omaha seat too. He was major screwin with me.
This hand happened a while ago.
I was in the BB with QQ. UTG raised, two people called, the button reraised and the SB capped it. The Button had been playing solid and only raised decent hands in this situation. The SB had been playing extremely tight and UTG was very loose. UTG could have almost anything, button had to have a hand at least AJ, KQs and my readon the SB was that it was about 99% that he had KK or AA. Given my read of the SB I mucked QQ preflop.
Had this had been a tournament or something I think my fold would have been great, but since this was a ring game I think I should have called and if I didn't flop a set of Queens folded, even if I had an overpair to the flop. This would have insured that I had the implied odds to make the call. What do you guys think?
BTW, King on the flop, Button had AK and SB had AA.
.
Years ago I used to think of the floor-staff as an adversarial pack of bad guys because that's how the other players treated them where I played then so I learned it all wrong.
Now I think that if you walk into a poker room to make money, you're there for exactly the same reason as the floor staff. I think it is far more profitable and fun to cooperate with the floor staff than to cause problems.
Even the fairest floor staff in the world has teensie little options that MUST favor a player or not, and being human, they will inevitably make decisions for you or against you based on how well you have cooperated in the past.
Here's the subtlest recent example I can recall, related to table-changes because that's what Larry wrote about.
I was in a must-move 20-40 and I was first to get called to move. At LC's, when you get called, you have to move now, and you can come in for free behind the button in the next game.
I was in the cutoff when a player started racking up from the main game, but the dealer had not announced "seat open" yet. I watched the floorman. He saw the racking player, and he looked at the sign-up board, and he saw my name on top, then he glanced over at my table. We made eye contact. I shook my head ever so slightly side-to-side. He could have called me right then. But he didn't. Instead, he attented to other pertinent, legit, floorman business. Namely, calling down the 40-80 list for a new game.
In the meantime, the open seat in the main game was called by the dealer, and I saw two more hands in good position before I had to move.
Favoritism? I believe so. But not the type that is wrong. He did everything technically right, and remained busy throughout.
Why do I constantly get little doses of special treatment? Because I constantly do things, lots of things, that make the floor's job easier. And we both make more money as a result, with goodwill as a bonus.
Slack-cutting is a two way street.
Tommy
.
I agree with your overall premise, but the few times I've received preferential treatment (ie. - pulling back my one bet when I didn't realize it was two to me, or being allowed to string bet when I accidently bet the wrong amount) I felt dirty. It obviously does pay to tip well and be on a first name basis with the staff, but I'm not sure it should.
Tipping not required. About once per month I tip a floorman $1 and jokingly tell him not to tell anyone.
You mentioned two sticky rules where again I think Lucky Chances does it the best way. If a player inadvertantly puts out one bet when it cost two bets to play, and no one acts behind, they can legally and consistently pull back their one bet.
Also, and this is a beautiful rule IMO, only PLAYERS IN THE POT may claim that a string raise occured. Dealers NEVER initiate a string-raise claim. They are consulted as witnesses only AFTER a floorman is called by one of the players.
Tommy
at poker and understand getting along and cooperating pays big dividends...my guess is you could have obtained a mba and made big bucks...but it wasn't you yet...remember bobby baldwin...gl
You're still kicking yourself, so we don't have to. At least you realize your mistake. If the guy had the flush, you'd still be patting yourself on the back. Learn from it and do better next time.
In your defense, sometimes you get so used to having hands like KK cracked in low-limit, that it's no big deal to muck it in a situation like this. Be sure you learn to analyze the situation more completely before you move up in limits.
we are the only ones who know you made this laydown.
Mucking your hand may or may not have been a good play (in the long run), although I suspect against this group you will fare better by paying off in similar situations. And as Brett pointed out, you are at least aware that it was a questionable play at best.
If you to told ANYONE who plays in that game, knows anyone who plays in that game, or knows anyone who knows anyone who plays in that game - you might have bought yourself alot of trouble.
Change that to you DEFINITELY bought yourself some trouble.
I have to confess to having read your post rather quickly - BUT - if it was only one bet to you and IF YOUR CALL WOULD HAVE CLOSED THE ACTION, it was a terrible laydown. It sounds like you were getting upwards of 30-1; did (do) you really think you would lose that hand 29 times out of 30 ? ? ?
Better luck next time,
J-D
Thanks J-D. Good point about advertising my bad fold. Hell yes I did. The whole poker room probably heard me. I can't worry that much about it. Let it induce others to try more bluffs against me. I'm going to be less likely to fall for this one next time.
Now you know how Job felt.
Is there a forum policy against jokes about priests and altar boys? Oh, there is? Shoot. I've got some doozies.
You might have raise the turn on this hand. In the LL games here you'll almost never get reraised unless someone has the nut flush made. Lower flushes will just call. When I'm not sure if I'm in call-the-turn-call-the-river mode or not, I like to raise the turn with the redraw just so I don't change my mind about calling the river since usually the turn raise buys a free showdown so it still costs two bets either way, with the added advantage of blasting out the bare aces.
In general, with a huge pot brewing, I think spunky turn raises with an overpair from a middle seat are often right, and rarely costly, especially with no flush/straight redraw, because if someone reraises, I can usually lay down for one more bet because I'm usually drawing dead to a made straight or flush.
Tommy
you can't play winning poker...jmho...but at low limits, ya gotta call, but a caller in poker is a loser in poker sooooo...
raising on the turn is the answer...as usual t a is on the money...gl...do not beat up on yourself...there are plenty others who will do the job for free...
You are playing to many hand too far.
I am not saying you made a good or bad lay down - but in genral you have to dump a winner once and a while or you are seeing to many bets.
For me a lot would depend on the players involved.
The raise on the turn advice seems solid to me.
ill make this short and to the point. my last 9 sessions ive won 8 of them. in the 8 that ive won ive been seeing the flops as cheap as possible no matter what i hold AA,KK, you get the point. then being aggressive after the flop. now ive heard that i was costing myself money. so on the 9 session i started raising with all my raising hand and i booked a serious loser now if i would of stuck to my style of play i could have limited my loses. my question is booking winners is the most important thing i know that but will my style of play cost me money in the long run or should i just keep to my style that is booking winners
My guess is that if you would have raised with preflop raising cards in your 1st 8 sessions you would have won more in each of those sessions.
8 out of 9 is very good!
Ken Poklitar
WELL SAID
Booking winning sessions is not the most important thing in poker. In fact it is hardly important at all. If you win 4 out of 5 sessions it doesn't necessarily mean that you are a long run winner. Poker is all one game that is simply spread out for a lifetime, the bottom line is to maximize your hourly rate. In fact in super loose games you can experience several losing sessions in a row but one big night can turn it all around. Think of it this way.....would you rather have: A) win rate of $10hr and 60% sessions winning or... B) win rate of $8hr and 75% sessions winning
The answer is obvious.
Also just because you had one night where you used a different strategy and ended up losing, this doesn't indicate that it was inferior to your other strategy. You would have to use it for many hundreds of hours before you start to get an idea of the difference between the two. By the way raising before the flop is an important part of Hold'em strategy but good play beyond the flop is what will turn you into a winning player.
You need to get out of this type of self analysis. I've been recognized as the best or one of the best players everywhere I've lived for 25 years. Players are constantly asking me questions like this.
I can tell you from vast experience that people who talk this way are losers. You don't hear pros (or even fairly good players) talking this way.
nt
Sorry for any confusion
to mr gambelero, ive only been playing for about a year so i am still experimenting with some thing. i think about these things because i dont know any better when one style works and the other doesnt. i thought i would try to get some answers and maybe im thinking to much at this point but dont you have to think your way through some of these things so you can become a better player. ive progressed pretty quick from low limit 6-12 to 20-40 where i currently play now. so i just want to thank you for your input and i did get something out of it
Also . . .
Pre-flop raising should be done when the situation warrants it. Simply raising all good hands or not raising any hands will NOT give a player the best EV for a game. For example, some "good" hands are not neccesarily worth a raise if most pots are being seen multiway. Your strategy of limping cheaply may be good for loose-passive games where a raise has virtually no hope for thinning the field. On the other hand, if your pre-flop selection is where you most outplay your opponents, it may be best to punish the opposition with a raise. Tactical pre-flop raising is a profitable play in almost all games, but a player must analyze the game and the situation in order to determine when raising is correct.
It could well be that for you, in the games you're in, frequent preflop limping is better than raising, if:
1) the game is ultra-hyper aggressive 2) you don't play well after the flop in aggressive games
As to styles of play in general, one size does not fit all people or all games. I think it's a good idea to willfully experiment with different styles, even the ones that don't seem to fit, not only to find our own best grooves, but to learn the minds of the opponents.
Tommy
Subtitled (with deference to Chris Berman) "STUMBLIN' FUMBLIN' MUMBLIN' ".
I get to Bellagio about twice a year for some poker.
Saturday, March 24, I was playing 8-16HE waiting to get in the 15-30 game.
STUMBLIN' up to the table comes a frumpish, mid 50's guy, carrying four racks of $5 chips (about $2,000 - the buyin for this game is $100, I think). He's OBVIOUSLY (?/!) drunk, carrying a drink, drawing attention to himself as he dumps into the one seat.
He FUMBLES his chips, spills part of his drink, MUMBLES incoherently about 'racks!'. The pit bosses act confused. They bring him a rack of $1 chips. He MUMBLES 'racfks' again. They take away three $5 chip racks, and the $1 rack, and bring him three $500 chips and a $100 chip. He later goes 'racptfs', they take backa $500 chip, bring him a rack of red. All this time he's pulling $100 bills out of his pocket, putting chips in his pocket (off the table), and STUMBLIN, FUMBLIN, MUMBLIN.
Now for his play. He never puts in the correct amount of chips. He shoves out a stack, sometimes a few chips, but then including one of his $500 chips. The dealers get in the habit of putting in his money for him.
As he shoves out a stack, he announces call or raise clearly. But it draws attention to him, and is confusing/amusing.
He frequently raises before the flop, and as you expect, we're now getting 7 way action. However, on the flop and after, he plays almost cautiously, shoving a big stack out, but saying call, and folding if the flop doesn't help.
I start to think about IMAGE. The last time I was at Bellagio, I decided I would use the "DRUNKEN TOURIST" ruse. Unfortunately for me, as I stumbled up to the table with my drink and mumbling about my black chips from the craps game, I had just arived in town the night before, had gotten 4 hours sleep, played a full day of golf, had drinks and dinner, drinks and couple of hours of craps. After about 30 minutes in the game, I realized I WAS the drunken tourist, and had the good sense to quit small loser.
Back to the current game. His cell phone rings. "hulloph", he mumbles. "Where am I?" he shouts. "Oh, yeah, I'm playin' cards. Where amph I? Yeah, come pick me up, Theresa." Theresa shows up shortly thereafter, helps him with his chips (I don't really know if he won/lost cuz of all the chip exchanges/pocketing, but he didn't do badly), and he's gone.
A well dressed lady who played like a regular fumed that this was an act. He put his chips out to gain information. She'd seen this before. He never touched his drink in the approximately 2 hours he was there, except to spill it. Accusations of bad ethics were discussed.
Image. Deception. Acting. Very key to poker. But where do you draw the line?
I like to exploit my unknown image when I go to Bellagio - 'what's a chop, is it my "ante", playing chips out of my rack - and find my strong hands get called down much more frequently than in my local games.
Was this guy doing anything wrong?
While I thought his play held up the game, I kept track of how often the button went around, and found we were getting in about 30 hands/hour.
Except for the fact he had the dealers putting in the correct amount of chips for him instead of doing it himself, I don't think he did anything wrong, or unethical. Extreme maybe. Entertaining, definetly.
Opinions?
This guy showed down nothing but hands which "fit the flop". While it showed that he had been raising with less than "premium" hands most of the time, they all were good speculative hands. Definetly NOT the actions of a REAL drunk.
He would have been a HUGE winner, except that HE got rivered two or three times. He still won his share.
I don't see an ethical issue with pretending to be drunk so long as it doesn't slow down the game. The issue for me here is playing games with his chips in order to gauge the reaction of players yet-to-act by calling/betting/raising ambigouously.
- Louie
>Image. Deception. Acting. Very key to poker.
Deception - important, but you don't need to do it very often.
Image - Against the unaware it doesn't matter. Against perceptive people they see the game being played.
Acting - I love to play against the actors. They are a mass of tells.
OK, what is everyones general rule of thumb for calling turn as respects number of callers vs. number of outs. Assuming you believe the bettor (known to you and rockish) has top pair and you either have 2nd pair and/or flush and/or straight draw. I think it is easy with 3 or more, its the 1 or 2 callers that make me count and 5 outs seems a bit thin. Opinions please.
Due to a wide range of mitigating circumstances, I'm not sure you can apply a general rule of thumb for this question. Sometimes you must negate outs, as in when you hold JT on a flop of QT9. Other times, you have to consider reverse implied odds, as when you are pretty sure you have 5 clean outs but the bet comes from your right and there are several players to act after you who might raise. In any event, I don't think it's a simple matter.
Kevin
You seem to be making a common mistake: the issue is much less the number of callers and much more the size of the pot: If there are 10 bets in the pot you should draw to your flush even if there aren't any other callers. Its also less the number of outs and more whether you are drawing to a strong hand: 4 outs to a gut shot is almost always worth a LOT more than 5 outs to two-pair.
Basically, your divide the number of bad cards in the deck by your number of "outs" (i.e. total-outs/outs) and compare this to the size of the pot divided by the bet. Adjust this for other factors especially the times you make it and still lose, either drawing dead or getting redrawn.
As for the number of callers: the more the merrier when you are drawing to the nuts since your implied odds are better to get paid off. The LESS the merrier when you are NOT drawing to the nuts since this drastically increases the chances your hand is good when you DO make it.
- Louie
Ahhhh! Thank you very much! I am tired of being called down for going to river to fill flush/str8 against top pair who has brow beaten others to fold. I usually repond with the number of outs I had (2nd pr looking for kicker pr. and/or flush/str8) and they pout; rarely do they back off and say oh yeah. I try to have more than 5 outs if we end up head to head on flop. Again thank you.
Everyone makes some misjudgments (mistakes) on the river. Even when the pot is large you must lay the hand down when you are convinced you are beaten. I made a nightmare fold about 10 years ago when I first started playing holdem.
2-4 game Circus Circus in Tuncia--since replaced by Gold Strike.
Ten people see the flop! It was raised twice before the flop and raised once or twice on the turn.
I make the 2nd nut straight on the turn and raise. Six of us see the river card. The flush draw gets there on the river. Four people check to me; I check; the last player to act bets and the 4 in front of me all call.
You guessed it. I say to myself, This hand is beaten and lay it down. The bettor made bottom 2-pair on the river and is beaten in three places. Player to my right calls with bottom pair 44 and a 7 kicker. My straight was, of course, the best hand.
I probably don't have all the details quite correct now; but, I still remember the hand. I remember it; but, I try not to let it effect my judgments or decisions today. Will admit that I sometimes call on the river when I believe I am beaten--thinking about the monster pot that got away.
el toro
I walk into the poker room and a shorthanded LL holdem game. The floorwoman and one dealer are playing in a 7-handed game. Floorwoman indicates the empty seats and says sit anywhere. I get a rack of whites and place them on the table.
While I am arranging my chair and table one of the players already in the game decides that he wants the seat where my chips are, and he moves there!
The floor and the dealer and the playing dealer say that he can sit where ever he wants. You haven't a claim to a seat until you actually take at least one hand.
I don't really care which seat I sit in; however, it is obvious that floor has the hots for this guy and I wonder about possible future decisions. So, I decide to play somewhere else.
I have been playing casino poker for 25 years, and I always believed that money or chips locked up a seat? What is the rule?
Thanks,
el toro
While chips may normally lock up a seat this isn't a standard rule and the house can have whatever clear rule they want. Some have this "must play a hand" rule.
In my local club , we recently start to play the game with a kill ; 5-10 and 10-20 if there are more than 100$ in the last pot . The winner of the pot have to post 10$.SB stay 2$ and BB 5$ . With the 3rd poster , I think that I should raise more often preflop hand of group 2 or 3 and even 88 or 77 from early position or when nobody has entered voluntary in the hand especially if the poster and the blinds are loose. The common loose players will "protect" is blind too often . The purpose is not too steal the blinds and the posts , suppose I raise AJsuited UTG making it 20$ , I'll be happy to see SB to call with a weak T2suited putting 18$ more to protect 2$. I act the same way when there is a straddle , I want to punish the stradler and I know that he will call with any 2 card .
Sounds like you are more or less on the right track. However, more often than you might think you would rather just steal the blinds than get called by a weak hand.
I've been thinking about finding the time to write a general essay about kills (and possibly other situations such as late position posts). Any interest in this?
The fact that its a kill pot doesn't make too much difference in my decision to raise. Will actualy limp more often with implied odds type of hands.
Another factor to consider is how your aggression will affect the game. Being a bully will often make the game tougher. I like loose passive games and if I am in one I will play more passively pre-flop (and only pre-flop). Often if you start to be bully the other players will either fight back or tighten up. both are bad for you.
I understand how Std Dev is used to predict swings but am wondering if it can also be used as a ruler to guage your game? Is ten times the big bet in limit HE too loose is 10 X the small bet too tight? Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I have been tracking for well over a year and have found that I am at 10 X the big bet for each of the limits that I play.
I think I'm right about this, but I'm sure someone can correct me if not.
10 bb's/hr is around average. A low standard deviation combined with a respectable hourly rate, is usually a sign of expert play. However, this isn't always the case, since it's possible for a very tight player who otherwise plays poorly, to also have a low standard deviation. On the other hand, it's rare to find an expert player who has an overly high standard deviation in relation to others in his game. Poor playing and looser players generally will experience hourly standard deviations which exceed 10bbs/hr in limit hold'em.
I actually concern myself more with my hourly standard deviation than hourly rate. As to your question, "Is ten times the big bet in limit HE too loose is 10 X the small bet too tight?"
Playing too loose or too tight will effect your standard deviation, but there is more to it than this. I feel the proper way to a lower standard deviation is through improved understanding and application of poker theory as well as increased hand reading skills. I don't think simply making a concsious effort to play tighter or looser is necessarily the best approach.
Subject: 2001 LAPC Championship, by Lynne Loomis Reference: Poker Digest, March 23 – April 5, 2001 Discussion: Luck vs. Skill
The opening sentence of this article starts with: " ‘I concentrate on my opponents and play a real mind game in no-limit,’ said Young Phan, whose intense focus and solid play paved the way to victory in the LA Poker Classic X Championship." Now, I’m a sometime low-limit hold’em player, but I think Phan’s mind game at the final table consisted of convincing himself that his absolute cheese was a winning hand. And Loomis’s characterization of his “solid play” was incredibly generous, although of dubious veracity.
The following supporting examples are taken from Loomis’s recitation of final table hands.
Example Hand 1: Phan (in big blind) calls an all-in bet from the button. Button has K-Q, Phan has 4-3. Solid play?? Board brings A-9-7/3-4. Skill, right?!
Example Hand 2: Phan has about two-thirds of the chips and preflop raiser (Leonidas) has a little less than one third; play is three handed. Phan (again in big blind) calls a preflop raise with 5-4. Good play, eh? Flop is A-10-3, Leonidas bets out with his A-K, and Phan called with his gut shot. Yup, the turn brings a deuce!! Leonidas goes all-in with his top pair, top kicker, and Phan calls with his nut wheel. Question: how could Phan have called a preflop raise with 5-4? Resulting flop and turn are pure luck.
Example Hand 3: Last hand, heads up. Phan calls a preflop raise with T-9 suited. Now, he has about an 8-1 chip advantage, so this action is not unreasonable. I’ve done the same when I’m heads up at the final table playing Masque WSOP ;>). Flop is 8-7-7, opponent goes all-in, and of course, Phan calls with his open-ender. And again, yup, a J hits the turn to give him the championship. Congrats.
My beef is not with Phan’s luck; you have to hit some hands to win any tourney. I just think his claim of “playing mind games” and the author’s characterization of his “solid play” are pure, unadulterated, bull hockey. Just my opinion; I could be wrong. Comment/flame away.
Paul,
I agree with you 100% that luck is a hugh factor in winning any tourament. Much bigger than normal ring games. Maybe Phan picked up a tell of some kind, but as I'm sure you'll agree, he'd go broke quick in a regular game. To tell the truth, I only skim over the tourament section here and any tourny articles as I beleive all tornys to be a big negetive expectation game.
A tell ???? Since when does a tell have anything to do with what's coming ! Pure luck indeed. Gremlin
Your absolutely correct, as pointed out by this writer on various occasions. Win the tourney, great. Write it up like your some kind of genius, bull crap. Another classic example is the write up of Phil Helmuth winning the 7 stud championship in Europe.
How can you be outplaying someone when you are calling all in bets, or going all in with WAY the worst of it. Reads? Come on.
If you want to see good last table play, get the 1999 Tournament of Champions video. Great players, (with the exception of Men "The Master" , who stunk up the place.)
David Chiu showed what a real player does, and the others did the best they could against him.
Calling all in with crap? On the contrary. Chiu folds pocket Kings pre flop!! What a great read on the all in raise, who showed AA.
He also calls a big bet with a King high, no pair. Great read on a desperate bluff.
what kind of tell do you need to think that calling an all-in raise with 43 is a good idea?
oh, maybe you had a tell that specifically told you he had 42 or 32?
i see.
I agree with you 100%, Paul. I guess playing in tournaments you've gotta be part skillful, part lucky and part gambler. In the situation above, I think it was all luck and gambling. If this were a ring game, he'd be eaten alive. But, I guess whatever works for you though... Why is it that in low limit games, someone who plays the same crap as above is considered a "maniac" but in higher limits or big tourneys that same person is considered a "genius"?
You wrote: "I guess playing in tournaments you gotta be part skillful, part lucky and part gambler."
And you wrote: "If this were a ring game he'd be eaten alive."
Actually, in a tournament, just like any game, you have to change your style to maximize your winning potential. (You can read my above post if you need a better explanation) I highly doubt that Phan would play this way in a ring game. So he probably wouldn't be eaten alive, because he would change his style.
You also wrote: "Why is it that in low limit games, someone who plays the same crap as above is considered a 'maniac' but in higher limits or big tourneys that same person is considered a 'genius'."
I doubt that the person who plays it that way in higher limit or big tourney would play it the same way in lower limits. Why? Because there is more thinking in higher limits, and cards don't matter as much. But, in lower limits, if you start thinking to much you will get killed so it is better to just throw those crappy cards away instead of trying to outthink your opponents, and wait for good ones. S and M have stated before that the easyist way to get the money in lower limits, is to play very unimaginative. So, if you see a person playing that way in lower limits, chances are they dont fully understand what they are doing and they really are a maniac, or at least very loose.
Well, the biggest difference between tourney play and ring play is the way equity is transferred to noncombatants when action breaks out. This has a number of interesting effects on style. For example, if your opponents are aware of this and are risk averse, altering your strategy to a more aggressive one can prove quite fruitful. If they re-alter their strategy now, things get very interesting. The thing that is not very interesting is that it's much better to be the aggressor than the caller as being the caller guarantees that you get involved in a confrontation whereas being the aggressor offers the hope of picking up chips while avoiding bloodshed. So calling with cheese in a tournament is actually doubly wrong specifically because of the tournament externalities.
JG
There is no tell good enough to make these kind of plays. He just somehow convinced himself that 43 will be good, esp. if he pushs it. How many times does the winner of a tourny go all? ...and brags about it later?
n/t
Recently, I read a couple interesting and related posts that many on this forum might have missed.
A couple weeks ago, on the OTHER TOPICS forum, John Feeney wrote: "First, sometimes when a 2+2'er posts something slightly contentious on rgp it stirs intense territoriality and group allegiance in a few 'squeaky wheel' rgp'ers. They respond like a clique of kids on a playground whose little group has been invaded by a quarrelsome new kid from a rival school. I don't think it's specifically an rgp thing; it may just be a general newsgroup phenomenon."
I think a similar type of "mobbing" occurs on 2+2 forums. Sometimes, when a poster takes exception to one of David's or Mason's statements, it stirs intense territoriality and group allegiance in a few "true believers" at 2+2. They respond like a clique of kids on a playground whose little group has been invaded by a kid from a rival school. They attack the messenger rather than rationally discuss the message.
This is unfortunate, I believe, because it tends to discourage new ideas and independent thought. Which brings me to Abdul Jalib's 23 March thread on rec.gambling.poker (RGP) entitled "PHILOSOPHY: Value of different opinions." It raises some excellent points and is well worth reading.
He notes that the opinions of multiple experts aren't all that useful if they embrace the same views, read the same materials, play in similar games, share similar backgrounds, and view the world through the same lens. Abdul explains that, in theory, "3 independent 90% correct sources would be better than 100 99% correct sources who always say the same thing as each other."
He explains why he seeks out the views of non-S&M-style players: "You see, even if we didn't want to emulate these players, we could learn much more from them than yet another player who could recite S&M's HfAP, chapter and verse."
He explains why he values Daniel Negreanu's posts: "No matter what you think of Danny's ability, his opinion is as close to independent and truly different as you're going to see here, and thus Danny's opinion is potentially very valuable. Criticize his opinions if you want, but it would be self-defeating to throw tomatoes at him."
Abdul sometimes contradicts what S&M write and notes: "As a result, I had quite a few tomatoes thrown at me on the 2+2 website."
Independent thinking can be rewarding even when it sometimes leads you astray. As Abdul explains, "even if I'm wrong, thinking through the issue for myself has deepened my understanding of the game, leading to additional potentially valuable insights."
Something to think about, at least for those who are open-minded enough to do so.
Mark,
So what's your point?
Abdul is one of the biggest tomato throwers around. You are so caught up in your desire to denegrate this forum in any way possible that you put your blinders on whenever it becomes convienient. Why didn't you do one your wonderful archive research efforts and see just what the truth is regarding poor "tomato abused Abdul". I guess it's easier and fits your purpose to just accept him at his word.
You write a long post about Abdul's comments and you never say anything except "Something to think about, at least for those who are open-minded enough to do so."
Gee, maybe with this kind of sweet talking rhetoric we should all just jump up and embrace good old wise Mark Glover for showing us the way. At least those of us that are open (hyphen?) minded enough to do so.
vince
If you take out the last part about
"Something to think about, at least for those who are open-minded enough to do so."
does the post then grate on you less?
I actually thought there was a point in that poker players able to think outside the bubble (in this case 2+2 strategy) have a chance to improve their games beyond 2+2 philosophy. Of course, it's a double-edged sword and potentially good/great players could destroy their game.
Mark
Since you are so opened minded, why don't you give us a guded tour of McEvoy's limit hold'em book?
Howard
Mark-
Abdul makes an excellent point, and we would all do well to heed it.
That being said, I don't think most posters on this forum attack you or your ideas because they think you're wrong, but rather because they think many of your objections to 2+2 publications are either nitpicky or irrelevant. Or, at the very least, that they don't make a significant contribution to the study of poker.
You obviously feel different, and that's fine. But you should distinguish these sorts of complaints with your posts from those that are purely ad hominem.
GD,
You wrote: ". . . I don't think most posters on this forum attack you or your ideas because they think you're wrong, but rather because they think many of your objections to 2+2 publications are either nitpicky or irrelevant."
Let us suppose, for the moment, that all my objections to S&M's writings really are either nitpicky or irrelevant. Why would posters want to waste their time attacking me rather than simply ignoring me? I suspect there is something more to it than that.
I also want to make it clear that I don't have any problem with people challenging my ideas when they think those ideas are wrong. I actually welcome these kinds of discussions, because I want to know when I am looking at things incorrectly (or might see things differently from another perspective).
What disappoints me is when people don't really seem to think about new ideas. Several forum participants tend to mindlessly assume that if a poster disagrees with S&M, then that poster must be wrong.
Just look at some of the responses to my 13 March 2001 thread entitled "GAMBLING FOR A LIVING: Exaggerations." I gave four examples where S&M might have exaggerated, and Sklansky even acknowledged that their bankroll statement indeed was an exaggeration.
Erin wrote: "All are correct statements. If anything, they're understated and not exagerated."
cisko kid wrote: "They are quite logical and not exaggerations."
target wrote: "I would directly agree with all of them, in fact, which differentiates those statements from many in HfAP."
skp wrote: "What exaggerations you could possibly be referring to here is a complete mystery to me but no doubt you will enligthen us in due course."
Boris wrote: "the bankroll requirements are too low if you are just srarting out as a pro." (Sklansky acknowledged the bankroll requirements were too *high*.)
chris downs wrote: "Mark's point is to play some sort of an ego game."
Concerning the bankroll requirements, Cyrus wrote: "Perfectly sensible." (Cyrus, at least, was interested in discussing my ideas.)
I'm not saying all these posters simply assumed S&M were correct and I was wrong. But none of those exaggerations were particularly difficult to recognize, and some of those posters are fairly intelligent people. It just seems odd that so many of them failed to see any of those four S&M exaggerations.
You have a point there, particularly with your point re: bankroll requirements. And, not coincidentally, it was this point of yours that recieved the most attention.
I don't remember specifically the other points you made, but I recall thinking at the time that even if they were exaggerations they wouldn't have any marked effect on the play of one's game.
Still, I recognize that the specific thread in question is not really the point here. Rather, it's the 'mob mentality' that you alluded to. But I don't think that occurs very often; at least not on this forum. There are many posters who enjoy reading Abdul's thoughts, and as we're all well aware S&M and Abdul have different opinions on many, many things.
GD,
You wrote: "There are many posters who enjoy reading Abdul's thoughts, and as we're all well aware S&M and Abdul have different opinions on many, many things."
I'm not suggesting most 2+2 posters "mob" those who disagree with S&M. I am suggesting some 2+2 posters seem to "toss tomatoes" rather than rationally discuss ideas that conflict with S&M's writings.
Abdul noted: "As a result, I had quite a few tomatoes thrown at me on the 2+2 website."
If you look at everything I said in that thread, the one quote of mine which you have reproduced above does not at all accurately describe how I received your post. I certainly was not attacking the messenger and I am sure that you would agree with that.
You wrote:
"But none of those exaggerations were particularly difficult to recognize, and some of those posters are fairly intelligent people. It just seems odd that so many of them failed to see any of those four S&M exaggerations."
My explanation is an easy one: It is a difficult error for me to recognize. I don't really understand the topic and I still don't as I lost interest in that thread and did not really follow it after my dialogue with you ended (I think I will go back and check it out for my own edification). The reason I don't understand 'bankroll requirements' is because I have never studied it. I have never studied it because I have never maintained a "poker bankroll" so to speak. I have money from my real job and poker and this and that and everything gets comingled and I blow it as I see fit...maybe that's silly of me...I don't know...
In the spirit of this post. I started posting more to 2 + 2 rather than rgp just for this reason. I read and plod and come up with my own (surely not original) ideas which may or may not be correct, but at least they worked on TTH and a few live sessions.
So then I would post them on rgp, only to get told how stupid they are, or some equally useless posts. So what was the point of posting? I quit posting most new thoughts on rgp.
I enjoy 2 + 2 just for that reason, I can put up an idea, and get some critical responses about my thoughts. I also don't read nearly the flaming that is sometimes 2/3's of daily rgp posts.
Before anyone gets bent over this I still read and post on rgp, just not as much....
Guess I turned this into an ad? Ah gee, golly gosh
I read Abdul's post on rgp and it was a very good one. Too bad he doesnt post here anymore, I enjoyed his posts, and like to hear his opinions, because they are different and always lead to a good discussion. However...i like posting here much more, because i find this forum much more valuable than rgp, where you have alot more "tomato throwing" than here.
Too bad we cant combine the good things of both forums, that would lead to a heck of a forum, with the Sklanskies and Malmuth's arguing against the Jalibs and Negreanu's, and then Brunson aguing that they're both wrong!
Regards.
Ikke,
You wrote: "Too bad [Abdul] doesnt post here anymore . . ."
He does post some. You might want to read his comments on "balancing" over on the GENERAL poker forum.
Still, your point is well taken. Why do you suppose Abdul no longer posts here very often?
You also wrote: ". . . i like posting here much more, because i find this forum much more valuable than rgp, where you have alot more 'tomato throwing' than here."
First, different people have different utility functions, so some will prefer RGP while others will prefer 2+2. That's okay. That's independent thinking.
Second, there also are a lot of excellent posts on RGP. It helps if you know where to look.
I am very much in synch with the content of your post. Perhaps the statement "Carefully considered well-said bad advice is better than mindlessly accepted poorly said good advice" has some merit and sums up much of what you said.
However ... FLAME WARNING ...
You attract considerable "flame" because the flavor of your posts is routinely hostile. For example, your last statement: "Something to think about, at least for those who are open-minded enough to do so." has the strong implication that anybody who disagrees with you is "closed-minded" and inferior. Your other critism posts often have stronger (apparent) attacks on the critised.
Apparent hostility matters much more than intended hostility. I think the signal-noise ratio of the responses to your posts will be higher when you tone down the apparent hostility in your posts.
- Louie
Louie,
You wrote: "Perhaps the statement 'Carefully considered well-said bad advice is better than mindlessly accepted poorly said good advice' has some merit and sums up much of what you said."
Perhaps. But I would go further than this. I believe even off-the-cuff, poorly-said, bad advice can have value if it starts you thinking along a tangent that you otherwise might never have explored.
When John Feeney and Gary Carson disagree, I am more likely to believe John's advice is closer to being "correct." But I have learned much more about poker from reading Gary's posts than I have from reading John's. Gary often causes me think about the game from "outside the box." John usually causes me think about the game from an S&M perspective.
--------------------
You wrote: "For example, your last statement: 'Something to think about, at least for those who are open-minded enough to do so.' has the strong implication that anybody who disagrees with you is 'closed-minded' and inferior."
I made that statement to reinforce my point that the "true believers" were unlikely to rationally consider and discuss the message. I'm sorry you believe I implied all my dissenters are closed-minded and inferior. I certainly didn't mean that, and I hope most reasonably readers don't make such an inference.
--------------------------
You asserted: "Your other critism posts often have stronger (apparent) attacks on the critised."
Can you offer any examples to support this claim?
[A] "Open-minded" is a better quality when considering subjective matters such as the color of the room or brain-storming options, whereas "closed-minded" is better for objective matters, such as the truth. [B] Lets go to the roof of a building and see how many of you morons are "open-minded" about gravity.
[A] I'm not going to plow through a bunch of old posts but I'm confident there is significant truth ..err.. apparent significant truth to what I said. [B] Who do you think your are ordering me to waste time proving the obvious?
[A] is a much better response than [B] and I hope [A]-like posts are far more numerous than [B]-like posts. I notice that your post is very much [A]-like, and I appreciate that.
- Louie
Louie,
You wrote: "[A] 'Open-minded' is a better quality when considering subjective matters such as the color of the room or brain-storming options, whereas 'closed-minded' is better for objective matters, such as the truth."
I understand what you are saying. Keep in mind, though, that much of poker still falls in the realm of the subjective. There often are multiple ways of viewing a given situation, and the more perspectives you consider, the better your understanding is likely to be.
As S&M noted: "Texas hold 'em is an extremely complicated form of poker. This is because the exact manner in which a hand should be played is often debatable. It is not uncommon to hear two expert players argue the pros and cons of a certain strategy."[1]
As someone else once observed, "The human mind is like a parachute--it functions better when it is open."
Less seriously, you wrote: "[B] Lets go to the roof of a building and see how many of you morons are 'open-minded' about gravity."
As I'm sure you are aware, there is a difference between being open-minded and being stupid. An open mind is like a parachute; it isn't actually a parachute.
--------------------------
Earlier, you asserted: "Your other critism posts often have stronger (apparent) attacks on the critised."
I asked: "Can you offer any examples to support this claim?"
Less seriously, you replied: "[B] Who do you think your are ordering me to waste time proving the obvious?"
I didn't order you to do anything.
Saying something is so doesn't make it so. In a reasonable discussion, participants generally are willing to support their assertions, and I merely asked if you were willing to do this. It's difficult for me to defend myself against your accusation when you offer no examples--which might be why you declined to offer any.
More seriously, you replied: "[A] I'm not going to plow through a bunch of old posts but I'm confident there is significant truth ..err.. apparent significant truth to what I said."
If, as you claim, I "often" make these attacks, then finding a couple shouldn't be a herculean task.
From your own perspective, it might be "obvious" that there is "apparent significant truth" to your accusation. Others, however, might not see it the same way you do.
Vince wrote: "Mark, . . . You have, IMO, captured the spirit of just how discussions on this forum must be approached if they are to be of any value."[2]
skp wrote: "Although I think you are way too picky, there is no doubt that you are a very polite poster."[3]
And you wrote: "[A] is a much better response than [B] and I hope [A]-like posts are far more numerous than [B]-like posts. I notice that your post is very much [A]-like, and I appreciate that."[4]
-------------------------
[1] David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS, 1999, p. 1.
[2] Vince Lepore, 25 January 2000, "A Response to Mark and others interested." in his 21 January 2000 thread entitled "John Feeney: One way not to fold: Vince's opinion."
[3] skp, 15 March 2001, "Re: Definitions requested" in Mark Glover's 13 March 2001 thread entitled "GAMBLING FOR A LIVING: Exaggerations."
[4] Your 29 March 2001 post in the current thread.
Mark,
With all due respect, referring to books, or even websites, is perfectly acceptable and, dare I say, normal, in a web debate.
But when you demonstrate that you are saving up old posts and threads, practically archiving everything which is (or could be) of the remotest interest to you, verbatim too, then I have to pause and profer a dime's worth of thoughts :
- People will enter a dialogue with you the same way they do with a policeman. Nothing wrong with cops, of course, but you know what I mean.
- People are uncomfortable about having their past posts (Roulette pun not intended) dug up and dissected, under the white light of your forensics, formaldeyde and all. People will not dialogue with you at all for that reason.
- There is definitely a trace of anal retentiveness in all this. (There, I've said it - at no charge.)
. . . and finally
- How big is your computer's memory, anyway?!
Cyrus
Cyrus,
Welcome back. I didn't see you here last weekend. Do you still think S&M's bankroll requirement statement is "perfectly sensible?"
------------
You wrote: "But when you demonstrate that you are saving up old posts and threads, practically archiving everything which is (or could be) of the remotest interest to you, verbatim too, then I have to pause and profer a dime's worth of thoughts . . ."
Actually, this forum is kind enough to archive everything for me (and for you, too). The final item below the "Forums" heading is the "Archives" forum. Feel free to check it out at your leisure. It helps if you have a good memory, though, since it is more difficult to search through the non-recent archives.
You wrote: "People will enter a dialogue with you the same way they do with a policeman. Nothing wrong with cops, of course, but you know what I mean."
If you mean they will enter the dialogue with a reasonable amount of civility, then I can live with that. If you mean they will think a little before they reply, then I can live with that, too.
You wrote: "People are uncomfortable about having their past posts (Roulette pun not intended) dug up and dissected, under the white light of your forensics, formaldeyde and all. People will not dialogue with you at all for that reason."
If people are likely to be embarassed about the things they post, then they might want to think twice about what they write. Again, I can live with that.
You wrote: "There is definitely a trace of anal retentiveness in all this."
That's something you probably should take up with Mason or Chuck.
Thanks for all your input.
Mark-
You wrote: "I think a similar type of "mobbing" occurs on 2+2 forums. Sometimes, when a poster takes exception to one of David's or Mason's statements, it stirs intense territoriality and group allegiance in a few "true believers" at 2+2. They respond like a clique of kids on a playground whose little group has been invaded by a kid from a rival school. They attack the messenger rather than rationally discuss the message."
I agree that it's wise to take into account various philosophies and ideas when contemplating poker strategy. I can only speak for myself, but there is good reason why I lean towards Sklansky, Malmuth, Zee and Feeney. Simply put, I am convinced that these guys can and do, beat the games they write about.
Some poker ~theorists~ have made a name for themselves by becoming very adept at writing about and promoting a different "brand" of poker. Because of this, many of them have developed a following. However, for at least some of these writers, the jury is still out whether or not they would even beat an average 10-20 game over time.
This is not to say that these ~theorists~ are not worth listening to. I think they are. It's just that the reverse of what you state is also true. Many people "follow" based on what they want to hear and/or what appeals to them. There is also something attractive about breaking new ground and escaping traditional boring fundamentals. After all, wouldn't we all like to play every session delivering "Fekali enemas" to our opponents? Isn't it more exciting to make dazzling "Abdulian" pick offs at the river without top pair after going 3 bets on the turn? Or more ego gratifying to make our opponent's hair bleed with a super aggressive style of play? Unfortunately, I think the way to go about obtaining maximum edge in most games is often a little more mundane than this. Although I do accept there is a time and place for all of these methods, and I am glad they give of their time to write about it.
That said, I find all poker ~theorists~ to be important. Clearly, many of them work very hard about what they write and put serious thought into the game. Many of their ideas have merit and promote stimulating and thought provoking discussions. So I am not disagreeing with you at all. Just adding my two cents.
You speak as if it's a choice between following Abdul & Izmet or Sklansky & Malmuth. Follow?! There is no follow. There is only think or think not!
I find some of the other stuff you're saying way off base, but I applaud you for thinking for yourself by being skeptical. That's all I'm saying... think for yourself.
-Abdul
Abdul-
I agree that some of my stuff would be way off base if it were directed at one particular person or group. I did not intend it this way and hope you didn't take it as such. I used terminology like "Fekali enema" and "Abdulian" because it is most recognizable to posters here. I also had in mind thinkers from Smooth B to Badger, and Lee Jones to McEvoy and everyone in between.
I also agree that thinking for yourself is most important. I try and do this. The fact you do this so very well, then take the time to generously share these thoughts, has provided me with tremendous insights I never would have gained without reading your material. Thanks.
As for followings, I think they exist. Many treat anything that Mason or David write as gospel, even though they themselves say it often "depends" and needs be evaluated independently on it's own merits. I also know of players who follow you and try and adopt your style of play. I'm sure even you will concede that this can be dangerous for someone without your experience and understanding of the game. At the very least it can lead to variance levels which might be outside the comfort zone of some players. This probably all comes down to what you said best. Take in as much as you can, then think for yourself! Take care.
Kevin
In an effort to keep our forums vibrant we deleted a post from Abdul Jalib which was insulting in nature and violated our posting guidelines. We also deleted two other posts which were responses to the objectionable post so that the continuity of this thread would be kept intact. We appologize to those two posters for taking this necessary action.
I read Abdul Jalib's post and there were no insults. Abdul insinuated that MM will occasionally respond with insults when one of his points is contested.
This may or may not be true, of course, but suggesting it is, certainly does not constitute an "insult". Even if Abdul is the one who's mistaken and what he takes as "insults" by MM are not, in reality, Abdul's allegation is still not an insult.
Who knows, I may be losing my reading skills. (And I thought the feet went first.)
You are correct, Cyrus.
In response to Kevin J's assertion, more or less, that he would take Mason Malmuth's word over mine, what I wrote was an abstract synopsis of the following discussion from the June 2000 archive of www.twoplustwo.com's General Poker forum at http://www.twoplustwo.com/digests/genpokarch_jun00_main.html
MPN wrote:
I play in a Casino Cardroom in the Northeast. About a month ago I was one of the starting players in a 15-30 HE game. The dealer spread the cards to draw for the button. A guy to my right anounced that he would draw first and he would pick the Ace of spades. Sure enough the did! The dealer called the floorperson over. In the meantime he spread the other deck. The same guy demanded that he pick first and again the picked the Ace of Spades. I almost fell off my chair! He then anounced to the whole table that sometimes the picture cards are twisted usually K's and Q's and sometimes the Ace of s is twisted. He plays there two or three times a week. He said he complains to management all the time and they say that there is nothing they can do about it.
Abdul Jalib wrote:
These twisted cards are almost certainly due to a manufacturing flaw, because a huge number of cards at Bellagio suffer from the same problem. It is kind of annoying having to quickly grab each of your cards, lest someone know what you have. Recently, I had to stop myself from quipping to one player, "The cards on the board are all bent. So are both his hole cards. Your cards are flat. So why are you still calling?" The bent cards turned out to "only" be KK, which was much weaker than bent cards would have been on average. KK was good in the showdown, though.
Mason Malmuth wrote:
The Bellagio, like most card rooms, was using the brown and green Kem decks. A couple of months ago they went to the blue and red Kem decks. This refers to the color of their backs. (Since Abdul plays almost no poker, he probably wasn't aware of this.) The different color Kem decks don't seem to have the manufacturing flaws, and all the cards now seem straight. Other card rooms should look at this as well.
Abdul Jalib wrote:
Virtually nothing you believe about me or poker is correct, Mason. ... I saw the change in deck color at Bellagio, and I saw that the problem of twisted decks is worse than ever now. (Can someone please back me up on this?)
MPN wrote:
The twisted kem cards at Turning Stone Casino (upstate NY) are the Blue/Red cards.
Abdul Jalib wrote:
And my twisted KK story was on a red or blue deck. QQQ on the board, all twisted. True story, and it happened about a week ago.
M wrote:
You are talking about a different cardroom, but at the casino I was talking about, over the years some of the cards have been warped as a defective issue too--identifiably so, specifically higher denominations.
youtalkfunny@yahoo.com wrote:
I play at the Venetian once a week, and last time I was there I noticed that the only cards that would lay flat on the table were the baby cards. The higher a cards rank, the more warped it was.
Abdul Jalib wrote:
As I've said, the problem is still there and seems worse than ever. I asked a Bellagio player the question, "Do you think that the problem of warped face cards is gone now that they have switched to red/blue decks?" He replied, "No, they're worse than ever now." I didn't need to ask, of course. It's obvious to anyone with eyes or a sense of touch.
Mason Malmuth wrote:
This is one of the many differences between us. I don't have to ask anyone since I do go there and play myself. When the decks were changed, the problem ended.
[Note: I asked the Bellagio player while I was playing poker at Bellagio.]
Abdul Jalib wrote:
I said I saw the twisted cards on the red/blue decks while playing at Bellagio. So did the guy in Turning Stone. That should be enough for you, but it wasn't, so I got a friend of mine at Bellagio to confirm that it is visible to someone other than me. Now you still are not going to admit you are wrong, and you are being rude about it to boot. ... You said that "Abdul plays almost no poker," but I play tons of poker - almost 8 hours a day for the past two months and I do have a witness for much of that if need be, and I strongly suspect I've played more hands of hold'em in my career than you (but not stud, draw, etc.) Sklansky sometimes objects to my saying you lie, but that one sure is a lie. > Virtually nothing you believe about me or poker is correct.Okay, here is the challenge. If Bellagio management will permit, I will examine 10 setups. If Bellagio management will not permit, then you will play while I watch from nearby (but not behind), and I will loudly proclaim when you have a king or queen, and a witness behind you will keep track. If I can pick out a statistically significant number of kings and queens in say 10 attempts, then you will admit that you are wrong about virtually everything, and that you are so blind you could not possibly see cheating if it were right under your nose.
Mason Malmuth wrote:
It is well known that Kem has had problems with their card quality for years. During the past several months the cards in use at both Bellagio and The Mirage contained many face cards that were warped. The Bellagio switched to red/blue backs and the problem in my opinion went away. (I use to be in games where virtually everyone complained, and those complaints stopped after the switch.) However, due to other committments I have played very little the past two weeks, and if the imperfectation is something that occurs with use it is possible that the cards are going bad again. If that's the case, perhaps Abdul should make an appointment with their cardroom management and point the problem out to them.
Joe D wrote:
I play at Turning Stone in Upstate NY. We have the same problem, warped or twisted Kings and Queens and sometimes the Ace of Spades. Warped-meaning that there is a defect in the cards.
Jim Brier wrote:
Between the Bellagio and the Mirage I play about 40 hours a week. From time to time a player will notice a mark on the back of one of the cards that is hardly noticeable and the deck is promptly replaced. The "bent and twisted" phenonmenon is more unusual and I have only encountered it about 3 or 4 times since I moved to Vegas in April. One of the other players usually notices it when it happens and again the deck is replaced. Because my vision even with glasses is far from perfect, I do not notice these things as well as some of the other players. However, in my opinion these kinds of problems crop up from time to time in all cardrooms and the Bellagio and the Mirage are no better or worse than most the other cardrooms in this regard. I think this subject is getting a lot more attention than it deserves.
Abdul Jalib wrote:
I expect Jim will be changing his tune, after I transfer to his table. It's kind of foolish to doubt me, when you've got the Turning Stone guys saying the same thing. I've had a second pro confirm what I can see easily.I'm sure Bellagio management is aware of it, because it must be obvious to most of the skilled players and most of the dealers who also sometimes play, and management should be looking for it after previously having problems.
Jim Brier wrote:
This evening at the Bellagio I was playing $15-$30 and sitting in Seat #3 (my favorite end seat). I must confess that before you came over and pointed it out to me, I had never noticed it. For the benefit of everyone else on this forum, I started looking at the cards that came on the board and I could see them from an angle. Here is what I observed. In one red deck the Ace of Spades was noticeably warped and did not lay flat on the table. The Queen of Diamonds also had a pronounced warp. The King of Clubs also had a noticeable warp. With other decks, I did notice that facecards do not always lie flat on the table compared to other cards. There were a few decks where all the cards layed flat and I did not notice any warps. But there were other decks where some of the facecards were only warped to a very small extent but noticeable to anyone looking for them. I don't know if this makes a big difference or not and when I go to other card rooms I will start looking for it just to see how wide spread this phenomnenon is.
Abdul Jalib wrote:
Tonight, I asked two floormen/dealers at Bellagio if they had noticed warped cards on the red/blue decks, and they said, "Oh yeah, tons of 'em. Facecards mostly." ... So see, I know, the guys at Turning Stone know, the pros at Bellagio know, the dealers/floormen at Bellagio know, and even Jim now knows, so only Mason is now not in the know.
Mason Malmuth wrote:
I just spoke to Donna Harris, Cardroom Manager at The Mirage, and she told me that they had received a bad suply of cards and that Kem acknowledged and replaced them all. Now this doesn't mean that they are now perfect, but at The Mirage they are well aware of the problem and are monitoring it closely.I hope to talk to the Bellagio cardroom management later today or tomorrow. I will keep everyone informed.
ex-newbie wrote:
Why do we need Mason to inform us about Bellagio? We've already been informed by Abdul.
Mason,
I, too, read Abdul's post. I, too, did not see anything I considered to be an insult.
I read Chris Alger's post in this same thread and found this comment: "It takes a seriously deluded mind to not comprehend why a group that he describes and generally treats as 'kids on a playground' would resort to ad hominem attacks."
While I do *NOT* believe Chris' post deserves to be deleted, I find it interesting that you decided to delete Abdul's post and leave Chris'.
Could it be that you are more sensitive to posts that challenge you and less sensitive to posts that challenge me? It's something you might want to think about.
The "acceptable use" clause of forum is, "If Mason says something really dumb, you are not allowed to remind him that he said it." That's why Mason censored my post here. Previously, my wife posted a quote of Mason, who had spoken in public before a group of about 50 people. She did it in a most neutral tone and without malice, just a simple factual quote. In response, Mason barred her from this website! Before then, she was a most positive poster to this site, especially eager to help novice female poker players, and was generally supportive of Mason and especially David. You can probably imagine what she thinks of Mason now.
-Abdul
Don Heftolo,
Somber Brotherhood
http://www.desetka.si/somber
An excellent post Mark.
Certainly I don't want to stray too far too quickly from the accepted dogma but I feel I learn more from the posts where the play fell outside of typical 2+2. The posts that reflect 2+2 strategy help me to retain what I have already aquired (possibly a mild form of brainwashing [laugh]).
Many 2+2'rs do defend the strategies but not really like children on a playground. It's more of a defense of a philosophy of poker.
Some posters hold the 2+2 authors in some kind of mysical awe and scream blasphemy when the authors are critized. I think these are usually relative novices who regard the "books" as holy testament.
STILL, I hold the 2+2 writings in high esteem as many do. I consider them for what they are; advice based on extensive experience and thought.
Thanks for your comments.
I actually find some of this to be a little ironic since I remember being attacked by another writer in some of the early issues of Card Player because I had the nerve to question whether a wild loose image was appropriate for games like limit hold 'em and stud.
I believe that part of the reason for our success is that David and I have done precisely what is being advocated. That is we did a lot of independent thinking and tried to leave "no stones unturned." In our writings, we have always suggested to our readers that they do the same. For instance, the first two paragraphs of the introduction to HPFAP says:
Texas hold 'em is an extremely complicated form of poker. This is because the exact manner in which a hand should be played is often debatable. It is not uncommon to hear two expert players argue the pros and cons of a certain strategy. This means that even though you are about to read solid guidelines to winning, the strategies given are not set in concrete, and under certain conditions the best strategies may be different from those that are recommended.
On the other hand, the strategies in this text definitely provide a strong winning approach. If this were not the case neither author would be in a position to write this book, simply because we would both be broke and standing on the rail.
Also, in the conclusion of my book POKER ESSAYS I state:
Perhaps the most important idea this text has stressed is that to be a good poker player — or a good gambler, for that matter — you must do your homework. Poker is a complex game. If you don't do the right amount of thinking and studying, plus a fair amount of playing, don't expect to be very successful.
And, in the conclusion of my Gambling Theory book I state:
Finally, the most important concept that the text attempts to emphasize, though not always directly stated, is that the highly skilled gambler does a great deal of thinking. This is the key to developing that intangible quality that some people call "heart" or "courage." It is the real reason why some risk takers continually take chances that do not appear to be justified and why these people seem to have much more than their fair share of success. It is also the reason that the world's greatest gamblers were successful, and it is the key to successful non-self-weighting strategies.
So the conclusion to all of this is that you should always be thinking and questioning anything and everything that we write (or other authors write). This process is what really creates that understanding that allows you to become an expert at that form of gambling (and for most of you it will be poker) that you undertake.
Yes it is true that three players who are independently right 90% of the time and agree, are now more likely to be right than three 99%ers who are absolutely not independent. However in real life it's not like that. Experts on this forum are not in lockstep. And semi experts on rgp are apt to have similar thinking flaws. Often poker is counter intuitive. For instance I would expect most rgpers believe that if two players were partners in a tournament they would gain if one dumped to the other. More generally if a bunch of rgper's disagreed with a few of the top posters here, it is probably because of a similar logical trap that they all fall into. It is they that are not indpendent thinkers, even if they are trying to be, rather than us. Strangely Abdul and Mark Glover, both smart guys and certainly not in the category above, are defending a bunch of mediocrities. If either would review McEvoy's book they would see what I mean.
David,
In my post I abbreviated Abdul's comments about the three 90-percenters versus the hundred 99-percenters. I referred readers to his complete RGP post, but in case you didn't check it out, I now will quote his full paragraph. I think you will have less problem with Abdul's example.
Abdul wrote: "Mathematically, if you have 3 independent sources that are each correct an independent 90% of the time, then if they all say the same thing, then you would be 100%-(100%-90%)^3 = 99.9% sure that their assertion is true. It goes almost without saying that such complete independence is an impossible goal. However, in theory these 3 independent 90% correct sources would be better than 100 99% correct sources who always say the same thing as each other."
Yes, I realized up front the objection that Sklansky later raised, so I included a general disclaimer that it was impossible to achieve true independence.
-Abdul
BetTheDraw,
You wrote: "Some posters hold the 2+2 authors in some kind of mysical awe and scream blasphemy when the authors are critized. I think these are usually relative novices who regard the 'books' as holy testament."
I could name a few experienced posters who seem to fall into this category.
Mark Glover finally clarified the S&M "****-sucking" phenomenon, I have been battling against for years. Independent thinkers are squashed at this site (I have never been to RGP, so I can't comment about their site). If you dare suggest, that either of the titans are wrong, you will have 30 henchman overflowing the thread, quoting from the 2+2 bible. As for the experienced posters who fall into this trap, I, unlike Mark, will name names. Let the McCarthyism begin. I'll start with three. Jim Brier, SmoothB, and now Vince Lepore.
It takes a seriously deluded mind to not comprehend why a group that he describes and generally treats as "kids on a playground" would resort to ad hominem attacks.
People attack you because you insult. An example is your response to a Brier post last September that went something like "I tried to keep this simple so that you could understand it. I have apparently failed in that regard." Anyone who's read more than a few of your posts will recognize this as recurrent if not typical. You exacerbate the hostility by refusing to acknowledge your offenses while crying about tomatoes others throw at you, as if you had special license. When Landale, above, pointed this out, you predictably invited him to comb through the archives to find examples of your rudeness, demanding that he prove what everyone knows. Typical.
You also adopt a pedantic and patronizing style to discuss trivial and pointless subjects to which you devote miles of wasted bandwidth. Your standard rhetorical technique amounts to isolating some adverb, absolutist comment or typo in an S&M statement, point out some obvious qualifier or corrective, and to brag about your discovery of an "error." The result is predictable responses to the effect that only an idiot would your "ideas" remarkable. This allows you to respond by portraying yourself, in this thread and others, as a lonely voice of reason in a community slavishly devoted to every word ever written by S&M, which is apparently why you're here.
So while your point about civility is valid, I think the frustrations you express are wholly feigned. Instead of trying to further the state of poker thinking, you use this forum to feed your courageous dissenter fantasy, a white knight for cultish slaves of what you once described, only half-kidding, as the "church" of S&M. In your dream world you would no doubt prefer accolades from the newly awakened. But as evidenced by your refusal to acknowledge any trace of responsibility for the hostility you receive, you remain satisfied with the state of affairs you decry, and will no doubt continue in the same tedious vein.
boy..you like this guy.
Chris,
Thank you for sharing your opinions.
I'm glad you think my point about civility is valid.
Mark,
Though Chris was harsh, he absolutely nailed, more accurately than anyone else ever has, the way your posts come across, no doubt to a majority of readers. I understand if it's hard at this time to get past an emotional reaction, but I hope it might give you something to think about in the future.
John,
Again, let me thank you for your insight into the childish behavior of certain cliques.
You proclaimed: "Though Chris was harsh, he absolutely nailed, more accurately than anyone else ever has, the way your posts come across, no doubt to a majority of readers."
I'm not surprised you share Chris' opinions--and with such certainty. As for me, like J.M. Barrie, "I'm not young enough to know everything."
You also wrote: ". . . I hope it might give you something to think about in the future."
It certainly will. I believe it was Winston Churchill who said, "No idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered with a searching but, at the same time, steady eye."
"I'm not surprised you share Chris' opinions--and with such certainty."
You called my attention to a problem in my previous post. I wrote it quickly, and was probably too casual for your taste with my wording here:
"...the way your posts come across, no doubt to a majority of readers."
Though I did not mean "no doubt" absolutely literally, I can clarify that there is of course *some doubt. I am confident, though, that a large portion of readers do perceive your posts that way, and I suspect a majority does. I could better word it this way:
"...the way your posts come across, probably to a majority of readers."
Please substitute that phrasing instead.
I note the post I'm responding to is another example of what Chris, Louie, and others have pointed to.
I still think this is a poor medium for discussing certain things, this being one of them. I repeat my past offer to discuss by phone. We could arrange a time and you could call collect. I'd be happy to.
John,
Previously, you wrote: "Though Chris was harsh, he absolutely nailed, more accurately than anyone else ever has, the way your posts come across, no doubt to a majority of readers."
You then asked that your statment be amended to: "Though Chris was harsh, he absolutely nailed, more accurately than anyone else ever has, the way your posts come across, probably to a majority of readers."
I'm not surprised you share Chris' opinions--and with such certainty. As for me, like J.M. Barrie, "I'm not young enough to know everything." I'm happy for you, though. Since you know Chris absolutely nailed the way my posts come across, you won't have to bother thinking about this issue any longer.
"...you won't have to bother thinking about this issue any longer."
Some of us thought it through effectively a long time ago Mark. I suggest you keep thinking.
,
.
John,
Earlier, you wrote: ". . . I hope it might give you something to think about in the future."
Earlier, I responded: "It certainly will. I believe it was Winston Churchill who said, "No idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered with a searching but, at the same time, steady eye."
That's some fine analysis there!..
Hello, I am interested in getting my feet wet in poker tournaments but am a little unclear as to what some of the lingo is regarding these.
What, for instance, is meant by the term "Freeroll." What type of tournament is this?
Thank you
Freeroll Tournament: A tournament for which there is no cost to enter the tournament.
Above from page 173 of Suzuki's 2+2 tournament book.
********************************
Also, you most likely have to play x amount of hours in a card room, in order to gain entry into a card room's weekly(or whatever) freeroll tournie.
Good Luck
Howard
Mason, please, heal thyself!
What are the odds of getting quads or better in holdem?
a: using both hole cards?
b: using one hole card?
What are the odds of quads or better in Omaha using a pair in your hand for the 4 of a kind?
Thank you
I read somewhere that beginners should play sessions where they only raise and never call, and sessions where they only call and never raise. I have always claimed I could beat a 4-8 game or lower with both of these strategies, but not 10-20 or higher. Of course, I have never tested this out. Has anyone done this, and if so how did you do?
Also, if you had to pick one strategy, which is better?
I believe the only calling strategy is better, simply because the raising strategy would make it nearly impossible to play draws against perceptive opponents, because you would literally have to pay the maximum for each one. Obviously, this answer is somewhat game dependent.
Would you agree that if each strategy is -EV it doesn't matter? Your claim to be able to beat a $4-8 game or lower with these stratgies doesn't seem right to me. As you point out later the type of game you're in would have relevance. To me it would be the determining factor as the limit would have little bearing assuming that you're adequately bankrolled. You wrote:
>>I read somewhere that beginners should play sessions where they only raise and never call, and sessions where they only call and never raise.<<
I wonder where you read this. This is what Mason would call a self weighting strategy. I read an article by Daniel Negrenau (apologies for any mispelling) in Card Player where he discusses "Party Day." IMO it's a very good article and is applies to your post. I think that playing ultra fast would provide a more didactic framework for the beginner than being ultra passive.
BTW you are certainly wrong in your previous comments about Jim Brier, SmoothB, and Vince Lepore. I've been truly surprised at how much Jim disagrees with strategy advice in HFAP. Witness his comments about the HFAP example about betting into an Ace high board with a gut shot straight draw. There have been many other instances. When Jim does disagree he is polite to a fault as I can't remember one post where he flammed anyone. So your claim about him "ganging" up is people is baloney. SmoothB writes some provactive posts but I can't remember him ever quoting HFAP as it were scripture and verse. I've never read a post where SmoothB quoted HFAP at all. As far as Vince is concerned, I can't remember one post where he quoted HFAP or any other 2+2 book and in fact I know he has disagreed with S&M about strategy many times. I also went back and read many of your posts and I didn't read anything that you wrote that directly challenged anything that was written by S&M&Z. Most of your posts go unchallenged and I certainly couldn't find a thread where you disagreed with S&M&Z and you were chastised for it. So your stuggles with the S&M&Z true believers must not have taken place on this forum.
You should have used my name. I'm a S&M&Z toady who is totally closed minded and does whatever they tell me to do. HFAP is my bible and I often quote it to shoot down the blasphemous souls who disagree with the "good book." Actually I'm paid a stipend to go on RGP and flame Abdul, Gary Carson, Badger, and anyone who contradicts the great masters. I might be lying though. Finally RGP is not a site it's a newsgroup.
"I'm a S&M&Z toady who is totally closed minded and does whatever they tell me to do. HFAP is my bible and I often quote it to shoot down the blasphemous souls who disagree with the "good book." Actually I'm paid a stipend to go on RGP and flame Abdul, Gary Carson, Badger, and anyone who contradicts the great masters."
Alleluia!
When nobody has yet called: You are much better off with an "always raise" policy rather than an "always call" policy when against good or tight opponents (that is, you don't play hands that are not worth a raise). Against loose-passive types, you MAY be better off with an "always call" policy for reasons you suggest but I'm sure you are better off with a "raise with the goods and call with the draws" policy since giving away the nature of your hand doesn't do much harm against these types of players.
- Louie
I believe that the suggestion to play a session only raising, and another session only calling is meant to teach the beginning player the relative value of aggressive play verses passive play. It is not meant to suggest that always raising is a viable strategy.
Ya think?
Common dogma is that being a calling station is a losing strategy so I'll pick raising as the winner.
I have so many times now at the Internet forum seen the claim that faster play, i.e. more hands per hour, creates greater swings, or variance. I just can't for my life see how this could be so, and I would appreciate if any expert on the subject could confirm my view, or explain why speed would create greater swings/variance. (Is there any real difference, by the way, in what you're talking about when you say "swings" and when you use the word "variance", except, of course(?), that "variance" is more technical, and hence more clearly defined, than "swings"?)
A couple of very recent quotes from the Internet forum:
"Are you playing two tables at once, by any chance? If so, you need to anticipate enormous swings. You're often playing three times as many hands as you would in a casino." (Re: Cheating at Paradise? Posted By: Uston)
"You play more hands per hour so swings can be of greater variance." (Re: Cheating at Paradise? Posted By: Gene) (Didn't really get that sentence at all. What's swing variance?)
-JDS
I'm not an expert but I'll give you my $0.02. When I read the posts mentioning swing and variance I view a "swing" as a max total amount you could win or lose in a given time period due to your variance. So the question becomes if the number of hands per hour doubles does your standard deviation per hour double? I could be wrong but I believe the answer is yes. There is some good news though, your win rate should double as well given all other things being equal. Therefore your bankroll requirements should be the same. Mason's essay about calculating standard deviation is contained in the essay section at this site.
Your standard deviation per hour goes up by the square root of the number of hands played per hour. For those who play two hands at once on games that run twice as fast, they will get 4 times as many hands per hour and have double the standard deviation of real world play. Your expected value for one hour of play is negligible compared to the standard deviation, so you can pretend that you have an EV of zero for the purpose of looking at how big a negative fluctuation you can likely have in an hour of play.
-Abdul
Thanks for the tip about the essay.
Now, I would like to clarify how I see things. (I try to do it in a somewhat non-technical language.)
Let's take it from ground zero.
First of all, our random variable, X, is of course the winnings/loss on a hand of poker. This is a discrete random variable, and should, I guess, be given in small bets or big bets.
The expected value, or expectation (E[X]), of our winnings for a hand of poker, would then be the average winning per hand, in let's say big bets, of an imagined infinite number of hands. This is calculated using the relative frequency of each possible winning, that thing we call "probability". In technical terms: E[X] = Sum_over_x(xp(x)).
The variance of our winnings for a hand of poker is a measurement that is supposed to tell us how far from the expected winnings for a hand our actual winning on a hand is on average. (Lots of averages here...) The technical definition of "variance" involves the square of the distance from the expected value instead of the distance itself, "for mathematical convenience", and then the term "standard deviation" is the square root of the "variance" — I guess to compensate for the earlier squaring.
Now, I feel it is pretty clear that how long it takes to play any given number of hands (e.g. "hands per hour"), how many hands you actually play (one or one million), and other such things couldn't possibly have any effect whatsoever on these numbers, as long as the hands are played the same way, which of course is a basic assumption. Of course, in practice, playing more/less hands per hour could make you play a poorer game, which of course would affect the numbers, but that's psychology, and not relevant to this discussion. This discussion is concerning whether more hands per hour (speed) would in itself affect the variance.
I recalculated the example in the essay by Mason with the times halved, and the standard deviation approximation did go up from 83.11 to 117.54. Now why would it do that? It fits what Abdul is stating above, but why? My guess would be that, since, to make the statistical gathering of data simpler, we're gathering not the results hand by hand, but "session" by session, and then treating the winnings/loss of an hour of play as our random variable, the values the random variable can take are going up in (both number and) size, and hence both the expected value and the variance/standard deviation goes up. When treating TWO hours as our unit in this way, which would be the same as playing twice as many hands in ONE hour, EV and SD goes up in the same way. Simply put: if you treat the results for 30 hands as your random variable instead of the result of 1 hand, the expected value and variance would be 30 times as big, right? And likewise if you treat the results for 60 hands as your random variable instead of the results for 30 hands, the expected value and variance would double, right? And since the standard deviation is the square root of the variance, it would of course go up by the square root of the relative increase, just like Abdul stated, right?
But... isn't this a kind of mirage? The VALUES goes up, but the thing we measure stays the same, am I not right? This is just a matter of changing the UNIT OF MEASUREMENT, kind of like starting to measure the speed of your car in miles per 2 hours, and then saying "Wow — my speed just doubled!", right? So warnings like "Are you playing two tables at once, by any chance? If so, you need to anticipate enormous swings," are just not called for, right?
I am just not secure enough in my ability when it comes to these matters to plainly claim that "this is the way it is" — hell, I didn't even finish my introductory probability theory course — and that's why I'm posing this like "isn't this right?", but I do sincerely believe that I'm largely right. But I want to know from an expert! Because I do am tired of reading these claims that I just can't believe adheres to the truth.
Thank you for any responses!
Regards,
-JDS
The posters you're referring to are addressing siwngs per hour and session or some other short period of time. They're trying to answer the question: "why do I sometimes lose more online compared to a casino?" Nobody thinks that your per hand std goes up online (which is why your car speed analogy doesn't apply).
So when you emphasize the per hand std should remain constant you're arguing for a "truth" that isn't in dispute, while deriding as irrelevant the very important issue of how long wining players can play before they win. In other words, you're changing the terms of the question in order to argue that the answers to the question are incorrect. It's almost as if you were trying to miss the point.
I'm not trying to miss any point — only to understand what you mean. I beg your pardon if I appear stupid.
So, you mean that when people say that "Beware! The greater speed online will create huge swings," and I reply that "No, your swings will be just as large, only come — and go — faster," I have really misunderstood what they mean with a swing, right? Well, I am new to this, and sometimes I guess too much theoretically inclined, rather than practical.
I always thought that the size of a swing was how far up, or down, you would go before turning the other direction again, and I couldn't see what speed of play had to do with that.
And furthermore, I got the impression that people meant that greater speed of play creating greater variance was a bad thing, as they were spreading warnings about it, but I guess greater variance is a good thing then, since faster play can't be bad, right? Because the variance is greater only because the EV is greater, right? (I'm really trying to understand this...) So your swing when being +/-0 after an hour of play online would be greater than after the same result offline (except if your EV is 0), because you EV would be greater, and this increased variance has no impact whatsoever on your bankroll risk.
How long a winning player may have to play before showing a profit could be a very interesting thing to know, I agree. I haven't thought too much about this myself yet, though, rookie as I am (playing $1-$2 and lower at Paradise and Planet). But the variance in itself says nothing about that, I reckon, but it should be a function of the variance in relation to the EV, am I right?
The "hourly" variance in itself, though, still seems rather useless to me, since the same value could stand for, well, almost anything, IF you disregard the fact that, I guess, in real life the average number of hands per hour stays in a pretty limited range... (I'm being purely theoretical again, disregarding the practical facts.) Internet games seems to have broken this range, though, creating its own range.
I would also like to apologize if I have seemed, or seem, to be arrogant or any such thing — I'm merely putting forward my thoughts so that others that know better can correct me where I err.
And thanks to all the posters responding.
-JDS
Cramming more hands per hour is good for the advantage player. It is not for the player who plays at a disadvantage - at any game, not just poker.
This claim, of course, does not take into account factors such as tiredness, etc.
But if a player has an expectation (at a certain game, poker or not) of, say, $5 per hand, he wants to play as many hands per hour as possible!
The variance (=the swings) on the other hand also increase but not at the same rate as his expectation! If the number of hands played increases, the expected value increases by the exact same increase rate, ie the number of hands - but the standard deviation (=the square root of variance) increases by the square root of the number of hands.
To borrow the imagery offered by Don Schlesinger, Expectation is the marathon runner and Standard Deviation the speed runner; They start from the same starting point - and one goes steady but slow (expectation is initially the smaller number, which slowly but steadily accumulates), while the other goes fast but tiring quickly (standard deviation is initially the bigger number, a number which starts out big but soon enough slows down).
At some point in the race (=some point of your playing life), the steady marathon runner (Expectation) overcomes the tired speedster (Standard Deviation) and leaves him behind.
Congratulations! The race (=your total playing life) is not yet over - but you have reached the Long Run!..
Malmuth's formula calculates SD per hour, not per hand, as a matter of convenience since poker is not precisely analyzable mathematically or through computer simulation like the game of blackjack.
If you were to insert a factor to change the per hour figure to per hand SD would remain constant, but as the formula stands, SD must rise with hands per hour.
I understand that for practical reasons you normally have to calculate these things per hour rather than per hand, although if you play online and get hand histories regularly, you could easily calculate them per hand as I think you should.
The thing is — if I'm not mistaken — these "hourly" SD values don't tell you zilch if you have no clue as to how many hands an hour you play, because different SD values could mean the same thing, and the same SD value could mean different things. If I say "I'm driving at 90 miles", you couldn't really tell how fast I'm driving, unless you know if I mean "per hour", "per 2 hours", "per half hour", or whatever. Same thing with this, I would say, unless someone could prove me wrong... Please read my post above for details.
Regards,
-JDS
I guess the thing you do is to relate it to the expected value, and the relation between these two measurements would mean something.
I haven't read much about these things (I should probably buy Masons books...), so forgive me if I'm ignorant in some parts, but that's why I posted my question. I'm just trying to use my own head to the best of my ability, because so far I haven't gotten any reply that answers my question to any sort of satisfaction, unfortunately.
-JDS
Well, I think the important thing for the online poker discussion is to note that your swings in a given period of time can be much bigger, particularly if you are playing at 2 tables. So you are more likely to feel like "This is impossible, there must be some cheating going on!" or something similar. In addition to the variance changing with time, online games also tend to be pretty loose and agressive, so of course the variance is larger than many live games already.
In terms of bankroll, though, it shouldn't be different since, as you have figured out, your per hand stats should be roughly the same.
Thanks for a nice post.
But... I don't feel any better when I'm having a long-term huge downswing, like I'm having right now at Paradise... :o)
The answer is sort of in pieces throughout the thread.
Your expected value is usually stated in BB/hour. The standard deviation is on the same scale.
You can drop it all down to the "hand" level. say your EV is 1/30 BB per hand and you play 30 hands an hour, then your expectation is 1 BB per hour. Now say your SD is 1 BB per hand, then your SD per hour is sqrt(30).
Now, if you play 60 hands an hour, your EV is 2 BB/hour, and your SD is sqrt(60).
Notice that EV/SD goes from .18 to .26 in going from 30 hands per hour to 60 hands per hour. I beleive this is called your coefficient of variation and the increase indicates that the longer you play the more likely you are to be ahead. This "phenonmenon" relates to DS's discussion awhile ago about how likely it is for a winning player to be ahead after X amount of hours played. That is, your expectation grows faster than your SD as you play more hands (due to the sqrt being in there).
This is what I was trying to get at, even though I easily get confused when thinking about these things :o/
I might have misunderstood, but it seemed to me that some people (at the Internet forum) actually thought that you go more up and down as a result of more hands per hour, and/or playing two tables at once. The funny part is, I guess, that as the absolute value of the SD goes up, the relative value goes down, and none of this reflects anything really happening, except that we're getting closer to the long run...
Tricky stuff, this. I think that many people who's not too mathematically inclined draws erroneous conclusions when they hear that "your variance goes up when playing more hands per hour". It would be more correct to say that it goes down, I guess, even though it's the SD that goes down, and the variance stays the same (relatively, i.e.), and all because of mathematical convenience, and... well — it can all be very confusing.
Thanks for your reply. It was right on target.
-JDS
What a great question!
To measure SD and Variance on an hourly basis opens the door to an unwanted independent variable when comparing live play to the Internet. The variable to which I refer is the radically different number of hands played per hour. In order to compare accurately the variability of one venue to another (Internet to live play) one must first eliminate the number of hands played per hour as an independent variable. Using a “standard sample size” (I personally use 30 hands) eliminates the hourly quantity of hands as an independent variable. Eliminating hands per hour allows one to compare variability no matter the number of hands per hour played and eliminates a source of noise in the calculations. I believe the elimination of hands per hour as an independent variable provides both more accurate and more understandable results.
While I have modified slightly my style of play for the Internet, I see no difference in my basic variability when measured on a “standard sample size” basis.
Regards, William
PS: I am sorry to hear of your large negative swing, but I suspect you will pull out of it soon.
Ditto reply!
You seem to know what you're talking about, so I'm glad that you're confirming what I expressed about the SD measuring.
And when it comes to my table results....I hope so too. But I'm almost starting to think that I'm really a losing player at Paradise :o( ...but....I will never give up! And it helps to think that, hey — it's not really MY money that's disappearing here; I took it from others a while back... ;o)
Thanks.
-JDS
Assuming one can play multiple tables concurrently with the same positive average earn rate per table as they earned while playing only one table, then ones earnings would increase proportionally more then their variance as tables were added. In theory, under the constraint that ones average positive earn rate per table remained constant as tables were added, ones average earn rate could become larger than their variance. This is great theory, but sadly not practical for me.
William
Playing two tables at 60 hands/hour would really be the same thing as playing one table at 120 hands/hour (all other things equal), right?
That's correct. In effect, what you are doing is compressing the amount of time it takes for your average positive expectation to become more meaningful than your short-term variability.
You understand perfectly.
Regards, William
LOL
I would love to see you explain this one as "attacking the message" as opposed to brutalizing the messenger.
But since I am gone till Tuesday and have a poor memory and will therefore forget to check out your response, I suppose I will never see your explanation.
skp,
Mason wrote: "I believe that part of the reason for our success is that David and I have done precisely what is being advocated. That is we did a lot of independent thinking and tried to leave 'no stones unturned.'"
I asked him: "Have you ever disagreed with anything David has written about gambling? Can you give us some examples of your independent thinking?"
You wrote: "I would love to see you explain this one as 'attacking the message' as opposed to brutalizing the messenger."
I'll assume you are being serious.
Mason's message is that David and he do a lot of independent thinking. This surprised me a bit, since I don't remember any instances of Mason disagreeing with anything David has written. So I asked Mason if he could provide us with some examples.
Asking someone to support their assertions is not unreasonable in a forum of this sort. It's not even "attacking the message" so much as "questioning the message." I'm certainly open to the possibility that Mason can provide us with some examples.
I'm puzzled how one could consider my questions to be "brutalizing the messenger" and find it interesting that you appear to do so.
Just a tought but couldn't David and Mason be doing independent thinking relative to the rest of the poker theorists? I think I remember you writing about a group of guys (yourself included) that are doing a bunch of poker research. I don't know what you guys research (but I would like to know) but I would think that your "group" would be doing some independent thinking about the game, even though you may each be dependent upon each others ideas within the group (as well as dependent upon ideas that you have read, studied, and/or disagreed with).
As Isaac Newton once said, "If I have seen further than others it has been from standing on the shoulders of giants."
I think this is a great quote about people who build and expand upon existing ideas and from this they create new ideas.
Just my thoughts. But, I agree with you, I would like to know a few examples about something Mason has disagreed with David about. But maybe Mason never disagrees with anything David writes because they are doing their independent thinking together.
Very nice essay.
Although I think that the 2+2 books are the best thing since sliced bread, I too appreciate and learn from what Gary Carson,Steve Badger, Tom W, Caro, Abdul (as well as others), have to say about poker.
Thank You
Howard
Thanks Howard. I wonder if there are people who read all those folks' posts just to see how they can disagree with them. Those, I suppose, would be the "true believers" of the 2+2 or whatever camp. But it's hard to imagine that many do that. While looking for misinformation to critique can be prodictive, I suspect most read those guys' posts and articles hoping to learn something directly from them.
JF: "A current popular expression is "thinking outside the box". "
In my circle we used to call this "inside the platonic cave", which is probably the same general idea. Of course, those that believe they are outside the cave are perhaps just in another one.
Regarding this whole discussion, I think you sometimes need to recognize experts, in poker or otherwise, to help achieve a higher understanding. Not everyone can be a statistician, or psychologist. You need to appreciate that others have certain knowledge or ability that you may lack and weigh their opinion in that area more heavily. Accepting such experts as infallible is a mistake, but dismissing them is usually one too. Do you go to a doctor for medical advice? Of course. Do they sometimes disagree?
A great deal in life can be achieved through delegation. I might choose to "delegate" my financial operations to an accountant that I trust, or contract out my "parts" needs to Magna International. Or whatever. So I might choose to recognize Mason Malmuth as an authority or David Sklansky or Abdul or John F or the flavor of the week. Does this imply infallability? No. But it might free your mind to pursue the big picture. It always may become necessary to consult other experts as well. Keep your options open.
Old quote, "The wisest man thinks himself least so."
Regards.
Good points. Well said.
backdoor,
You wrote: "You need to appreciate that others have certain knowledge or ability that you may lack and weigh their opinion in that area more heavily."
Good point. In many areas of life, you will opt to rely--to various degrees--on the expertise of others. When weighing, you also might want to consider how independently they formulate their advice. See the 27 March 2001 thread entitled "Abdul Jalib and John Feeney insights" for additional discussion.
But keep in mind that serious poker students might achieve better results if they develop a greater understanding of the game in their own minds and rely less and less on blindly following the advice of experts.
Of course, different players will seek such understanding to different degrees. (I wouldn't expect a once-a-month, recreational player to devote as much time thinking about the game as a professional player might.)
And different players will have different abilities to achieve greater understandings. (But you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand many useful poker concepts.)
--------------------
You also wrote: "Do you go to a doctor for medical advice? Of course. Do they sometimes disagree?"
An excellent analogy.
I try to develop a basic understanding of medicine so that I don't have to seek a doctor's advice about such things as paper cuts, hangnails, and minor colds. If my health was fragile and medicine was more important to me, then I'd probably attempt to learn more.
If I go to a doctor about a heart problem and she recommends a transplant, then I'll probably seek the opinions of other doctors as well.
When you seek a second opinion, would you go to someone who went to the same medical school as your first doctor, did his residency under your first doctor, and now practices in the same group as your first doctor? Or would you more likely seek out someone whose expertise was developed somewhat more independently?
And if the doctors' opinions differ, I might just spend a little more time learning enough about medicine to better understand why they differ.
Mark, could you please recommend a good anti-fungal cream?
John,
I've written about this before a bit, referencing Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in which the author discusses how paradigms govern thinking. For example, the Newtonian universe is one kind of "box," which had supplanted an already existing world view. Einstein's model changes the previous "box," but leaves yet another "box" which governs how people think about and understand the world. In effect, unless a paradigm shift occurs, we simply can't think "outside the box."
A similar kind of effect can be seen by looking at the history of writing theory. Prior to 1966, most colleges taught writing in pretty much the same way, using the 500 word "theme" as the model. Grad assistants had an easy job of it: simply count the errors and assign a grade based on the number of "errors" in a "theme." In 1966, that all began to change when a conference was held a Dartmouth College. There, writing specialists came together and began to explore new ways of looking at the "writer." This conference marked the paradigm shift, and the teaching of writing began to shift from emphasis on the "theme" and "error" to a concern with the "writer" and the "process" of writing. That paradigm established then still governs thinking about the teaching of writing today. However, this does not mean that consensus exists, only that the paradigm still holds force.
I think a similar paradigm exists for poker theory: there's a "box." By looking further, we might understand how the "box" came about, how it works, and whether or not it's about to shift.
John
John -- This gets tricky because you've brought the whole "paradigm shift" idea into it.
I started to respond in some detail, but see that it would just mean too long an essay. So I'm going to condense to the extreme.
Though I think it's more than a stretch to apply Kuhn's idea of paradigm shifts, which he discussed with regard to historic, massive changes of perspective in the sciences, to an undertaking as small as poker, I won't argue definitions here because I think my point holds regardless of the precise meaning of the "box" or "boxes" in poker thinking.
Though I can't prove it, I am confident that most revolutionary thought, or smaller scale "outside the box" thinking correlates with an ability to avoid the perspective of existing boxes, to leave them behind, to ignore them, to trash them in the sense of thinking as though they didn't exist in the first place. It is fine, and sometimes even necessary to recognize and understand the boxes, but then we must be able to think as though we had never been exposed to them. That is why I said, "There are no boxes." A "box" is, after all, just an analogy, a construct. It exists only as something we invent to help us organize our thinking. Perhaps because poker is a relatively small field, it is not too difficult to think about it as if, or almost as if, we were unfamiliar with any box existing within written poker theory. For instance, you can try to think about the game almost as you might have had you learned it without any associated reading. You think, "Forget the books; what do I think about this question? What makes sense here?" You may or may not arrive at an answer that matches what you would find "in the box."
As a small example, I did something of this sort with my essay, "Multiple Changing Images." I did have a few essays from 2+2 and Caro to start me thinking, but then it was just, "What actually goes on in a poker game? What am I aware of?" Then, "Hey, there are subtleties no one has yet addressed..." I was not thinking about what was "S&M" or what was Caro, or what was in one box or another. I was just thinking about what I perceive as I play, about poker as box-free as I could make it. The result was, I dare say, a small but tangible development in poker theory. Had I confined myself only to thinking within the bounds of what had been written before, I don't think I would have made the small leap that that essay necessitated. Likewise, had I concerned myself with what was "S&M" or some urgent need to make sure my thoughts were "not S&M", I would have gotten nowhere. Just think about poker - in its "isness". (Sorry, I think I'm getting a little pseudo-existential.)
It is true that even if you can step outside boxes existing in documented poker theory, you are influenced by your larger world view. That's a HUGE topic which I will leave to someone with lofty ambitions to tackle.
The simpler point again, is merely that one need not be "indoctrinated" in any school of poker thought to be thoroughly familiar with and to understand it well. One can gain from it, use it, and look beyond it. Nor are hostile criticisms necessary to do this. I suspect the emotional (hostile) investment involved in *trying* to think outside the box, especially if one tries to define the primary box as precisely that which is contained in a certain collection of books, rather than a larger view which does exist, will often mean only the creation of another box: the "I-insist-I-think-outside-the-box box." It puts as governor on thinking, to be sure. Moreover, even better than "thinking outside the box" is to move easily between multiple boxes, always allowing for the possibility of transcending them, if only in the creation of a new box. When I talk poker with a long time poker pro friend of mine we discuss concepts with fluid movement between ideas that might be seen as "S&M", ideas and ways of thinking about the game that clearly come from other sources, and lots of ideas for whom the originator is unclear. This is no big deal; it's just talking poker. But we are not members of any camp, not do we think in terms of camps. If you think not of boxes, but instead in terms of fluid concepts, without emotional investment in adhering to or straying from those concepts, you will have intellectual freedom of movement.
Now a little food for thought: I would like someone to define the "S&M perspective." Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not sure there is really such a thing. I've seen Gary Carson say that it emphasizes a two person, game theory slant, and an avoidance of domination. I agree that that captures at least some of it. But I wonder if there is really any consensus on what the whole perspective is.
John,
Perhaps a better concept, borrowed from literary theory, which may be applied to something as small as poker theory, is the notion of "interpretive communities." I won't explain this concept in detail--I'm not sure I can do justice to the idea, and I may be strecthing anyway--but it's roughly analogous to Kuhn's paradigmatic shifts. "Interpretive communites" effectively limit the possible ways in which we can both understand and interpret "discourse." The idea of interpretive communities has been applied to both the study of literature and law. For example, although theorists still interpret poetry and literature using a specific vocabulary--symbol, metaphor, metonomy, and so on--a major sea change occured in the very notion of "how" (as opposed to "what") a poem means. Fifty years ago, theorists studied poetry by exploring its formal elements, concentrating especially on the idea of irony. The poem was seen as an artifact, a "well-wrought urn." (Interpreting poetry in this fashion would be a bit like you conducting therapy without ever knowing anything about a client's history.) Today, such ways of talking about poems are mostly unrecognizable to students of literature. Although scholars interpreted poems differently, indeed could argue vehemently about interpretation, they could not talk about "how" the poem means, simply "what" it means. They were part of an interpretive community, a kind of "box."
While I agree that a box might simply be an analogy, a construct to organize thinking, I believe these boxes we create exert a powerful force at the same time. I'm reminded of William Blake's famous assertion: "I must create my own system, or be enslaved by another man's." Blake's Romatic notion of the free thinking individual has been largely confounded by post-modern thought, which insists "intellectual freedom" is merely a "fiction." If it is a fiction, at least it's a necessary one--for most of us. Well, for me anyway.
I've gone on far too much, John, but I was intrigued by the two person game theory slant. Basic alegbra eludes me, quite honestly, but I wonder why no one has ever brought up Nash's Equilibrium in response to two person game theory. Or, at least, I wonder why it hasn't seem to have been mentioned considering all the fine math minds participating here.
John
So, Cleanth Brooks has a suited Ace UTC. . .
`Murray
John -- You (and "Backdoor") have touched on a major conundrum. And I'm too tired today to solve it. ;^) Is there in fact such a thing as intellectual freedom? In a similar vein, is it possible to avoid the constriction of one "box" or another. I haven't read the post modern literature, but I think this is one of those issues that spans lots of disciplines. Though it could lead as well into questions of conscious versus unconscious processing, a more it reminds me of the more manageable question in psychoanalytic theory of whether "therapist neutrality" is possible. A therapist cannot help but react emotionally to the patient, which will inevitably have at least some influence on his conduct of the therapy. Similarly, he will unavoidably bring certain biases to the therapeutic encounter. Still, some argue that that (Don't you like my "that that"s?) does not preclude *relative* neutrality (the advantages of which are a large topic well beyond this post). That's the closest thing to a middle ground in that case.
Anyway, I think I agree with the post modernists on some level. (e.g., do you freely chose the next thought that comes into your mind? This does sound, though, just like the old free will versus determinism question. And doesn't the modern consensus there lean toward free will? Well, still, I know no one knows. :) But, like you, I have some need to believe in free thought.
I've seen some discussion of the Nash Equilibrium here and/or on rgp in the past. I don't know too much about it but, as I understand it, it more or less describes the state in which both players are simultaneously applying optimal strategies relative to one another. I think there's much more to it than that. But I'm no game theoretician, so I'll let others elaborate.
http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/kuhnsyn.html, for a little ditty on Kuhn's SoSR, that is referred to above, for those without the time for the whole book. I wish I had more time to post on this.
I'm just beginning to play around with how to figure expectation for simple situations. I would like to take it to the next level of complexity. So far I've been playing with the assumption of drawing to the nuts and the probability of making you hand. An example ( just to show how little I know) would be with one card to come in hold'em and $36 in the pot and $6 to call for the nut flush draw my expect in number of bets would be b(n)=(n+1)*p-1. Where n= the number of bets and p=probability of making my hand. In these situations I would have to imagine that the number of players does not matter ( correct? ) since you're drawing to the nuts. How about those situations where you're not drawing to the nuts and your opponent may have a better hand?
The number of players matters for your implied odds on the river; the more players the more calls you'll get ..err.. expect to get when you hit. "Nuts" in this case, BTW, is 7 outs since 2 of them pair the board.
Quantifying your odds when you may lose even when you improve AND may win even when you don't improve (such as if you snag an Ace on the river) is VERY sticky business. To do it acurately you need to break down all the possible outcomes, their chances of occuring, and your expected rewards/penalties for each case. For your nut flush draw, for example, some possible outcomes are: [A] Snag one of 7 cards to make the nut flush (ignoring someone making a straight flush). [B] Snag one of 2 flush cards that pair the board but nobody makes a full. [C] Snag an Ace, nobody else has an Ace and nobody already has 2-pair or better.
Nobody calculates this regularly in real play. You need to do a few calculations, note their affect on your odds, then SWAG it at the table.
My personal rule-of-thumb is that if I'm not drawing to the nuts then my odds start-off half as good, and I adjust from that.
- Louie
The discussions of EV (Expected Value) are interesting. Can someone point me to a decent book or article that dives into EV pretty deeply??
.
It's kinda like Jim is saying this:
***Begin restatement of Jim's point***
He flat nailed you being a flaming hypocrite, pants in hand, no outs. Then he dumped this dirty laundry out where everybody would see it. I'm still laughing.
Move your hourly rate up to $500/hr and then maybe you can teach Sklansky a thing or two.
***End restatement of Jim's point***
Heh! I'll have to think about that one, though I do admit to loving the concept here... :)
JG
Will email privately for confirmation.
JG
Its amazing at the quality of prose that gets put out on this forum. They should have a publisher scanning the premises, looking for possible Pulitzer candidates. Do you guys write multiple drafts of your posts or what? I don't consider myself a good writer, but certainly not a bad one. Yet, I am embarrassed to respond to these well-written posts with my chicken-scratch. Keep up the good work.
If an IQ test was given to every poster on this forum, and compared against other forums, two plus two would be tops on the internet.
Agreed. Now, if we could just get some of these guys to use "you're" instead of "your" and "too" instead of "to," it will be more better..... ;>)
nm
I don't think anyone thinks I'm a brilliant writer, but I will admit to having the worst homophone-abuse problem in the world. Tom Weideman is always needling me for this, and I took out my pent up frustration with my own inadequacies last September thus:
Ewe no, eye axially right sum reely goods tuft on our gee pea. Butt Yoon ever comma ant aunt hose. Ewe con cyst auntly need all mai homophobic airs. Water boot mai fife Starr miss sieves? Ditch ya sea da won wear eye rote a too Hun dread whirred sentience hand than mirror Lee upended, "In a thir whirred shoe Ma splay gooed poke her." Da twas Ann inns eyed Jo K4 ewe. Ore Howe a bout wen IPOS ted mighten moste press tee jus turn ease? Thud I'm and Li'ls reefer ants? Brill Yount! Butt hat bring snow comma ant frau mew. Wee Hatta Saing backing oak La homo. Iff thus tear Shea kiss sits tale, an oaf lies scum tour ooze st.
.
2 + 2 is my IQ.
In my opinion, InternationalPlayersCasino has got the best graphics… second to none. Period. You can’t even compare the rest of the online casinos to this one. Not to make them free publicity, but they represent the best experience I’ve ever had with online gaming.
If some thing is out of this world it is probably out-of-this-world.
Welcome Back your check is waiting in the IPC room.
Who cares about online casinos? Unless they have poker (real poker) of course...
Please do not post again on our forums. If I had seen this post sooner it would have been deleted.
Mason Malmuth
Spam, you pretty pink treat. Are you snout, tail or feet.
Here's a FAQ site with explanations about the Kelly Criterion, the Utility Functions and the Certainty Equivalent , which I have consulted many times. It may prove to be useful to some poker players as well.
x
Background: I am somewhat of a tight agressive player. My main weakness is losing focus on the games. That is I sometimes play too mechanical and let this override good judgement.
I seem to feel that prudent agessive play "especially when you have good position on your opponents" is the key to gaining and saving bets and more profit. But I have not mastered this yet. I feel that players should "first" master one type of ring game "such as Holdem." In tournament play you have to be a better all around player to get into the final tables.
General Poker Theory
March 2001 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo