![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Post deleted at author's request.
"All this junk is just about poker, for heaven's sake. "
And, of course, my post should be taken seriously! Cause I'm just a big butt. Well, I am (have) a big butt but what does that have to do with anything.
Vince
First of all, all you "but its hurting my feelings seeing you two argue" losers, go home. This matchup is fine for them, since their arguments stem from poker, why not use poker to resolve their dispute. And stop treating poker like it is something akin to the "Knights of the Roundtable" type society, where 'poker goodness' is to be honored and high-mindedness is required. Please. Professional Poker players contribute just about as little as a person can to society for the type of money they make. Even the minimum wage janitor at least provides a real service to society. How does your "Check-Raise" strategy service society in any way? Just realize that we make money off of the misery and stupidity of others, sometimes to the point of truly breaking a person, not from creating products or services for society, so I don't want to hear how this will hurt poker's image. It is what it is.
The poll is, now that Daniel has called Gary, and judging from the tone of their recent messages here and on RGP, who do you think is backpeddling, and who is really up to the challenge? I think the answer is obvious. So the poll question is in three parts:
1) Who is "putting up" and who (should be) "shutting up"?
2) If the 10-1 odds applies only to the prize money, and not the starting chips, or number of matches won, etc., who do you think will win?
3) Regardless of your answer for #2, who do you WANT to win? And why?
Also, to sweeten the pot, how about some suggestions that maybe can take the place for a money prize for this contest, in case this becomes yet another 'reason' to duck out. For intstance, if Daniel wins, Gary cannot post to RGP or here for 6 months, which, judging by how he seems to spend all of his free time answering sooo many post in his own charming way, would probably be a real punishment- to him. If Gary wins, Daniel will have to post a long message proclaiming Gary to be the god of poker theory, or will have to try to seriously introduce 'hi-lo Chicago' to the Bellagio cardroom.
Anyway I'll fill my poll first:
1) Daniel is putting up. 'Backpeddler' Carson is now trying the weak "its now all beneath me" strategy, which was last seen in the college bar scene when a fight was brewing, and it is as ugly and embarassing to witness now as then. It sure wasn't beneath them when they were shooting off their mouths in the bar/forum, but all of a sudden....
2) Again, with only the prize money being at 10-1, not the challlenge modified, Daniel is a HUGE favorite. How can I say this if I don't play with either regularly? Because Daniel has a documented history of success, and more importantly, has the respect of his peers. Can Carson claim anything similar? Even respect from his 3-6 holdem peers? Is he not known mostly for having the time to post messages to forums as though it were his job, and little else?
3) I obviously would like to see Daniel win. Again I don't know either, but who is pleasent, discusses strategy (even if a different opinion), contributes with posts instead of annoyingly attacks people, forcing everyone to filter, etc. Who sticks to poker, and who personalizes everything? For these reasons, I would love to see a Carson destruction, and if we can tack on the no posting for 6 months stipulation, the better.
Comments.
SnydeOne
I don't mind cuz it don't matter.
BUT
Loser has to sell his computer and promise never to post again - then I can surf through the posts and have about 1/2 as many to look at on 2+2 thereby avoiding the usually non productive snide smart assed commentary.
So you don't have to ax me who I am pulling for.
I have it on good authority (a recent Texas transplant) that Mr Carson plays a different game than he writes about - so it is probably a good bet that Daniel is a 30/1 fav.
Just kidding :-) (about the (30/1)
Post deleted at author's request.
I personally like reading Gary's posts. It isn't often you find such an apparently effortless flow of sarcasm with that certain sardonic bite, and I just find it humorous. Even when he's not being sarcastic he often manages to be sincerely grating. Respect talent.
Besides, all that doesn't make him a bad guy. But if he's also a bad player, then...
We need you bad, buddy. I don't think that the Carson/Negraneu fued could be considered "general theory" by any stretch. Looks like a clear "other topics" to me....
wfm helped us a great deal. but as always some people tended to correct him(her or it) whenever it was a close call. this may have sent him into hiding. perhaps if some reward was offered for the return of wfm we could entice him to return to us. id consider a copy of my book as with the increase in value of it in certain circles its selling for a few hundred dollars a copy, people should buy as many while they still can.
I'll sell him some of my skin discharges that he can make a soup for, so he can deflect the incoming criticism's from Zee and Co.
wfmgtfbhwny
pef
Paul,
Are you any relation to your brother John?
jwc
Assuming this is an OK forum for mentioning slow playing a poker aquaintance. That is essentially not betting certain players when one-on-one with this player. As u-all-know, many times in a casino game, pseudo-[quasi-]friends engage each other in battle. This situation happens more frequently in hi-lo split games and my situation is usually in an omaha 8 game. Anyway....
Recently in an O8 game, I bet a very obvious set of quad deuces when the turn was the third deuce on board. My quasi-friend called. Low got there on the river with a wheel possibility. My quasi-friend checked. I bet the four of a kind. My q-friend called with a wheel and split the pot. He then commented, "I will remember this and get even with you." He was hurt that I bet him one-on-one on the river. I had mixed feelings on this reply. I would like to be a friend with this person, but I guess he had a feeling that we should slow play each when one-on-one.
Personally, I seldom ever slow play a hand out of friendship, mercy,... whatever(of course we all have done it sometimes or on rare occasions). I never feel offended when an opponent bets or check raises me -- when things like this happen I try to show no emotion, and just kindly record it in my poker data base in my head. I have no animosity towards any player who gets maximum value on his/her hands during the course of play. I enjoy the competition and realize we all win some and lose some, and that the better players win more and lose less. I....
Would like to read some comments on situations like this. Also....
Considering both ring[live] games and tournaments: I realize that in many hi-lo split games [Omaha8, stud8, & crazy pineapple8], two players check it out to the river when the competition is reduced to one-on-one between them. This usually happens [almost always] when both players have relativly weak hands with no possibility of a scoop -- that is they check it out for self preservation reasons. Things like this don't merit discussion.
If "other topics" were placed on top and "general theory" at the bottom just above "archives", this Negreanu/Carson thing would be in "other topics".
good idea as other topics is the best of all the forums. maybe we can just eliminate all the other forums with their wasted garbage devoted to poker when there are so many more pressing issues in life.
nt
Operations, Tactics, Strategy, Grand Strategy, Policy. These are the 5 levels of poker thought and action. Operations is the specific physical act of looking at the cards and the other players, tapping the table (in order to check), picking up chips (in order to bet/raise), throwing your hand into the muck (in order to fold).
Tactics is the level at which you determine the reasons behind your individual checks, bets, raises, calls, and folds. It is at this level where you answer what I call the why questions: Why should I bet? For value, to bluff or semibluff, to gain a freecard, to protect my hand by driving people out, etc. Why should I raise? To gain freecard on the next round, to bluff or semibluff, for value, to drive people out, to gain information, etc. Why should I call? For value, to encourage overcalls, to slow play, to limp with the intention to reraise, etc. Why should I check? To slow play, to check call, to check raise. Why should I check raise? For value, to drive people out, to gain a freecard on the next betting round, etc. In short, tactics deals with the play of individual hand.
Strategy is the level at which you determine how you should generally play in a given environment. Tight-aggressive (ring games) , loose-aggressive (shorthanded high ante games). It is also the level at which you decide what gears to shift into and what image to present to your opponents. The strategy level is the level at which you make plans on how you play for a given session. The actions and decisions taken at this level definitely has wider implications than those made at the intrahand or tactical level.
Grand Strategy is the level at which you decide what limits to play, what games to play, where to play, when to play, against whom to play, how you divide your time between tournaments and live games, how to manage your poker bankroll, table selection.
Policy (also known as the life-poker integration level) is the level at which you think through how your poker playing is integrated into the other roles that you play in your life: parent, friend, businessperson, breadwinner, husband, wife, church member, etc. Obviously, each of us have different Policies depending on whether we are full time pros, part time pros, recreational players, and so on. The point is that poker is not life. It is only part of life. The key is to have a win/win relationship between our poker careers and the other people and activities/roles in our lives.
Operations, Tactics, Strategy, Grand Strategy, and Policy are the 5 levels of poker decisions and actions. They are all important. And most of all, they must be perfectly aligned in such a way that there is no conflict amongst them. They must be synchronized properly and in an optimal fashion if the object is to win. By making distinctions between these 5 levels, your thinking about poker should be more compartmentalized and thus clearer.
Very Very good!
Vince
A couple of questions:
1. Don't take this wrong, but what was the inspiration for making this post? Was there a dispute over the definitions of these terms?
2. I think tactics and stratagy blur together.
Tactics deals with the reasons WHY (to gain a freecard? to thin the field? for value? to bluff/semibluff? to gain information? to slowplay?) you play a HAND a certain way. Strategy deals with HOW (tighti-aggressive, loose-aggressive,etc.) you play a session. Don't blur them. Tactics occurs at the hand level. Strategy occurs at the session level.
What prompted me to make this post was the exchange Badger, J.Feeney, Vince Lepore, and Jim Brier had in the thread entitled "Negreanu Update" posted by Badger.
Consider substituing "mechanics" for "operations". I have often seen "operations" refered to that level between "tactics" and "strategy" in the numerous books on warfare I have read.
In poker, this level may help you decide to routinely be "loose-aggressive" against a particular player's blind even if you overall strategy is tight aggressive for this game. It would also be where you decide how to induce a particular player to bluff even more often than he usually does.
Tactics may well be just the decision making process for any particular situation, and mechanics is carrying out those decisions.
Anyway, great post.
- Louie
If this way of thinking helps your game, great. But in reality, tactics is all that is needed. Everything else is just in your head and is not vital. In other things, like military operations, strategy and some of that other stuff really is concrete.
I agree. Tactics is where the rubber meets the road. It is that level where our EV's are ultimately created. Sklansky's, Malmuth's, Caro's and others having realized this may be the reason 99% of what's written about in poker has to do with tactics.
But wait a minute! Stu Ungar was a master of tactics. But what happened to him? He died too young and probably not too wealthy. Why? Because he didn't take care of the Policy level.
Another great tactical/strategic player, Eric Drache, is ALLEDGEDLY in hard times. Why? Because he didn't take care of the Grand Strategy Level. Specifically, he had very poor table selection. Considered to be the "sixth best stud player on the planet", he consistently "played against the top 5!".
I submit that the primary reason many great players get broke is because they don't take care of the Grand Strategic and Policy levels. Yes they make optimal decisions at the table, yes they know what gears to shift into in order to exploit a situation. But they don't practice good table selection, don't manage their bankrolls well, and they don't manage themselves well (too many "leaks").
I think youve developed a good way of conceptualizing these types of things. For players who have difficulty maintaining discipline in the non-tactics portion, this could be valuable.
Poker strategy is actually quite simply stated at least for limit poker and that is to maximize expected value on each hand played. It is correct to play a hand less than optimally sometimes. This falls in the realm of tactics to achieve maximum expected value in the long run.
"maximize expected value on each hand played."
That's hardly a strategy. More like wishful thinking.
Vince
Don't you ever fold before the flop? If you do then this is certainly your strategy but heh what do I know?
"but heh what do I know? "
Good question. I just wish that I had asked it.
Vince.
This is a very thoughtful post. How many players think on all these levels, either consciously or sub-consciously?
An author that doesn't get quoted very much here is Roy West, but his low-limit stud book addresses Policy and Grand Strategy in a large number of chapters. He gives advice on balancing poker with the rest of your life, assembling and keeping a poker bankroll, etc. And one of his major themes, over and over, is "knowledge of your opponents" - which I would call Strategy and some Tactics.
I just read through the brouhaha that Badger, Vince, et al. had down below. Here's my 2 cents. I think that Strategy is extremely important - how you approach a particular game. Once you have a strategy, Tactics are also very important, as you have to know what strategies are possible, and you have to know how to use the tactics to implement the strategy.
I suspect that you guys might have different ideas of what is Strategy and what is Tactics. In which category do you put your "list of starting hands"? My choice is that this is strategy. Example: "This game has become very loose and very passive. I am now adding Axs, all pairs, and all suited connectors in early position."
I am enjoying Badger's column. He adds some perspective that is not present in most columnists' hand descriptions.
Dick
Mason Malmuth's pocket 4's post is the cause of the chaos and war that this poker forum is experiencing. That was where this mess really started. Thanks, Mason.
JWN,
I was the one who cross posted the hand on rgp with the name removed. I just thought his call on the flop with 4d4c was very thin. I posted on this forum first but noboby wanted to respond much and I thought maybe they didn't want to disagree with Mason. Now he has a hand that many now call a "Mason Malmuth".
What I learned is that I'm too tight on my long shot calls and that all the experts don't agree and that Sklansky was right in that if the call was close then what the heck does it matter compared to Mason's great bet on fourth street.
Now leave poor Mason alone.
Regards,
Rick
Post deleted at author's request.
Speaking of Abdul, why doesn't he seem to post here vs. RPG? I would think he would like the *higher level* of discussions here...especially in these recent threads...seriously, I liked his occasional posts on RGP and wish he would post here. Somehow I got knocked off my subscription to RPG (maybe hit a button or two by accident? )and since I don't know how to get back on, I haven't bothered lately. Abdul seemed to like real analysis and strategy and what he said was very interesting indeed. Hellooooo, Abduuul...
Post deleted at author's request.
Thanks for the info.--I will. Just wondering why Abdul might post there instead of here--when I was on RGP for a little while it seemed you had to wade through a lot more fluff. Plus it doesn't sit well with my lazy nature to have to go to two different sites for the same purpose. But I also started on Mike Caro's PP, in large part because Mike suggested a smoking debate. I still don't know how much of what he argued so illogically he really believed, and how much might have been "Caroisms".
I was on Deja.com going throught the thread on 44 play on the flop and I came across a post by Sklansky on 5/27/99 where he states that the main reason for calling is, "I am not sure the call was correct and if it was it would be because of the possibility of getting a free card on fourth st", now Abdul followed up and correctly stated, IMO, that the main factor in making the call is whether the button will raise. However what confuses me is the following statement, "the main point of Mason's original post goes ignored. That is his bet on fouth st. By knocking out overcards he has substantially increased his mathematical expectation and again THAT was the whole point of the post.". There is a not so minor inconsistency here. Either it was totally wrong for Mason to make the call on the flop, but then he made a good read and adjusted for the play on the turn, or he made a good call on the flop and when things came down exactly as figured for higher + return he made a mistake in betting the turn.
No matter how you analyze it I don't see how the play as reported in the essay makes sense. I understand completely how it can happen in a game based on your reads, but analyzing it in terms of math and pot odds (and there were arguments on the thread that this was a question entirely resolvable through math) it does not hold.
This horse ain't dead yet...
Could someone post a link to the thread?
Thanks
Here is the address to the Sklansky post on that thread:
http://x45.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=482560188&search=thread&CONTEXT=957275658.1210646532&HIT_CONTEXT=957275658.1210646532&HIT_NUM=30&hitnum=41
From there you can get access to the whole thread. I doubt this pasted as a hyper-link. Cut and paste it to your address bar.
Where can I find this pocket fours post?
Badger gives the example of discussing how to play two pair on the flop when you have called four bets cold with 72 offsuit, as being anti productive. But is it? Perhaps for some, even most. But it definitely would not be for me or many others (including Badger himself).
Many years ago, Jeff Yass asked me what I thought the best strategy would be for a particular situation on fifth st. in seven card stud. When I answered, he then asked me if the same would be true for EIGHT card stud! At that moment I knew I was talking to a man who was going places. Many of you know that he went on after a short successful poker career, to be the premier options trader in the world. (To this day every employee of his firm Susquehanna Securities is required to read Getting The Best Of It.) The fact that he asked me about a non existent game, showed me he was aware of the concept that looking at hypothetical examples could be very useful to get a handle on something. Of course this approach has its dangers. Again Badger is obviously worried about stuggling small limit players (as long as they are not Gary Carson) who might be led astray. Most higher players are also apt to not gain from these techniques. But many on this forum will gain. As an interesting aside to those logicians out there. I think that it is amusing that Badger sort of commits the same crime he is warning against by his very example. I sometimes put up a poker scenario that cannot happen in real life to make a point. Badger doesn't like that technique. So what does he do? He puts up a POSTING scenario (someone supposedly discussing 72 offsuit for 4 bets [as opposed to something like someone posting about J8s for three bets]) even though no one would ever put up such a post. In other words he uses an absurd posting example rather than a more likely one, to make a point about posting. That point being that that technique shouldn't be used! I know Bertrand Russell and Kurt Godel would find that funny even if no one else does.
Post deleted at author's request.
Escher and Bach as well.
I have to admit I read with curiosity the bashing of your unrealistic but simple examples to make a point. One must understand the principle in its pure form before one can apply that to more realistic and more complicated situations.
For example, one must understand the principles of "winning more than fair share" and of "increasing ones chances to win" before one can talk intellegently about pre-flop raising, where these and other criteria are "balanced" to produce solid advice about a given situation.
Caro's example of the alien who is either going to kill your or let you live based on a flip of a coin is a good one. No, worring about the flip doesn't help. While the result is very important the decision is not. Unealistic? sure. Useful? very.
So I support your simplistic examples. They help those that think "how should I evaluate this". Other methods are good for those who think "what should I do in this situation".
- Louie
.
When I answered, he then asked me if the same would be true for EIGHT card stud! ... The fact that he asked me about a non existent game...
I'll have to say this comes as quite a shock to someone whose played many a hand of 8-card stud.
- Andrew
Well then, is the answer the same for eight card stud?
Not knowing the situation, all I can say is...
it depends.
- Andrew
You guys have ruined a perfiectly good "plug" for "Getting the best of it".
You’re UTG.
Is there a group of hands that are better played for a Raise,
instead of a Call or Fold,
when any of the following conditions exist:
You’re doing very well because you’re getting all the Cards,
Or
You haven’t played a hand in ages,
Or
Opps can’t remember, or won’t adjust, to previous goofy Raises UTG?
I think a hand like Pocket 22
works out much better in these situations by Raising instead of
Folding or Calling.
Comments welcome.
Consider rephrasing: (1) You anticipate doing well because the opponents perceive you as lucky (because you HAVE been) and so play worse. (2) The opponents will interprete your raise as a premium hand and will respect it.
(3) No. If they can't remember your previous goofy raises or make no changes to them, then your goofy raises are losing you money.
22 is often a good call UTG when you anticipate lots of callers and few raises. It is not a particularly good "semi-bluff" raise except against timid folks who will let you check-it-down if called on the flop.
- Louie
In a full tabled limit hold-em game I cannot think of any circumstances under which I would open with a raise under the gun having pocket Deuces. I might limp in under the gun with pocket Deuces under the following conditions:
1. We have a written agreement from everyone at the table that no one will raise pre-flop when I limp in,
OR
2. I am playing in a spread limit game where the big blind is maybe $2, no one has been raising pre-flop, and I can bet $4 or $8 later on if I flop a set.
Jim,
Oral agreements are just as binding under the law. And written agreements made by players under the influence of free booze by pretty cocktail waitresses are not binding.
And I'd raise if 4 other people at the table had AK, and 4 people had QJ.
Dan
ALZHEIMER!
The Wrong Forum Man has been away. Some have noticed, and I am flattered. The reasons were two-fold: first, my secret identity was suffering from low work productivity. Second, my efforts appear futile.
If one questions this latter conclusion I tell him only to look at the chaos that has run rampant on the General Theory forum since my hiatus. Negreanu v. Carson? Refraining from sex before a big game? Ugh. These are not the lofty discussions that were envisioned when enlightened men created this wonderful medium of exchange.
I am back. But not on the General Theory Forum. This forum is an unsalvageable cancerous limb. "But you're the superhero!" they'll say. "You can't give up, no matter how overwhelming the odds!" Did the members of the Hall of Justice ever try to liberate the swamp where the Legion of Doom was domiciled? No. General Theory is a lost cause.
It is a lost cause because "General Theory", as a category, is so hard to limit. It is a malleable concept, capable of being twisted to conform to the agenda of the posters. I think it was intended to be a game-generic forum to talk about ideas spanning across all poker games. Unfortunately, any exchange of theoretical material is mired in the exchange of crap. Everyone wants to consider themselves capable of thinking theoretically -- "Hey, if I post this garbage on the THEORY Forum, I'll sound smart!" Uh, no. Worse yet, it has become a battlefield for egos.
My battle to win is on the Texas Hold'em, Other Games, Tournaments and Beginner's Questions Forum. I must halt the spread of the plague that has fatally infested the General Theory Forum.
Next week, BEWARE EVIL-POSTERS!
The Wrong Forum Man
This would be more appropriate on the Other Topics Forum.
a lesson that needs to be learned by Matt Damon Runyon from the Other Topics forum.
lata, Joe
Its kinda like saying "No talking aloud ever!".
..
.
This subject has been worked and re-worked many times in the past, so I'm not looking for a detailed mathmatical explanation about why short sessions don't change your expectation. I know and understand that. However, I would like to present a couple of situations that I think would warrent hit and run sessions, and I ask for people to help support or reject these theories (for want of a better word). all situations assume that you play winning poker.
1) You have trouble concentrating/staying disciplined at the table for what ever reason, but can play solidly for an hour at a time.
2) For whatever reason, you have a difficult time getting a read on other players, and you know that you are an open book to them.
3) You can play frequently, but only for an hour or so at a time.
In the above cases would playing hit and run sessions be justified?
1. No
2. No
3. No
Consistent aren't I! If you would like a yes answer to each of those questions I can argue that side also. Of course I would be wrong in each case but my arguements would be correct.
1. If it is a one time thing then certainly get up after the hour especially since you've lost your concentration. But if you constantly cannot concentrate for more than 1 hour don't play poker. See a therapist. 1 hour does not give a player a long enough period of time to find enough positive expectation situations to make the game profitable. Finding a profitable situation is not totaly a mathematical proposition. You must give yourself time to "Know your opponent" as my guru's Mason and David keep telling me.
2. This example speaks for itself. Take poker lessons and get learn how to conceal what you have. If you can't do that don't quit your day job. Oh, yuh also forget about acting as a career.
3. Same as 1. Except if you have a milstone around your neck that prevents you from doing something you want to do, like play poker for more than an hour. get rid of the milstone. Otherwise you won't be able to concentrate anyway and will always be in a hurry at the table.
I think they're all valid reasons if you're playing just for fun, I'm sure I could think of many more. If a person is seriously considering trying to supplement his income, yet has these personal problems or constraints--forget it.
I think hit and run works way ok for those who buy in for a couple hundred, play for an hour or so, lose it all, and leave. In the low limit games it happens more often than I would have thought possible. For the most part I love hit and run players. I must admit,however, that there are times when these people make me want to slit my throat.
Mary
Mary,
Isn't what you are describing more like "get hit and run".
Regards,
Rick
P.S. What does "apoplectic" mean. It makes me furious that I don't know.
Geez, Rick. So you don't know what apoplectic means. Don't have a seizure over it!
Dan
1) Excellent reason. 2) Huh? You've got this backwards. If it takes a while for you to zone in on the other's patterns and tells you are better off with long sessions; otherwise you'll never get zoned in. If this is the case you're better of playing squeaky tight at first; while YOU learn but while they cannot take advantage.
3) Excellent reason. 4) You are real fast at getting reads on other's. 5) Your game plan relys on the wake of advertising, which wears off after a while. 6) Your "strategy" is easy to take advantage of once they figure out what it is. 7) You are a losing player, "winning" is euphoric, and you want to reduce your long term losses. 8) Losing back a win triggers tilt. 9) You broadcast tells but it takes them a little while to catch on. 10) What you hear most often is what you believe.
1) and 3) are the best.
- Louie
Thanks for the responses. No, I am not like any of my examples, and no I do not hit and run. I was just re-reading some old threads and started thinking. I do have to take exception with Vince's answer about not having time for positive EV situations to come up, though. I would think that you could find playable hands just as well in the first hour as you could in the seventh. Taken to this example, what is the difference between playing with the same lineup in a casino for one hour every day for a week and playing a seven hour session.
Difference 1) Your opponents may not have that good a read on you since they see you so little (you are merely a face in the crowd to them) when you play short sessions.
Difference 2) You are probably more alert in the one hour sessions.
Difference 3) Can't think of anything else that would make that much of a difference.
Matt - Why do you need a justification to play hit and run? There is nothing at all ethically or morally wrong with hit and run, win or lose. It's necessarily expensive to play poker in a casino because of the rake (or collection) plus the tokes. Everyone plays as long as he/she wants and then leaves. No one has the right to compel you to play any longer than you want, just as you don't have the right to compel anyone else to play longer than they want to play. The freedom to come and go as you please is part of the beauty of playing in a casino.
Private games are a little different because they are by invitation only. Maybe hit and run is not a good strategy if you want to get invited back.
Buzz
Understood. As I mentioned before, i was just reading prior threads and seemed to see that many people were violently opposed to hit and run sessions. I just wanted to know if people thought that short sessions were acceptable under any circumstances.
Personally, I like hit and run players. They often are bad players and usually dump a good amount of cash into a game in a short time and then vacate the seat so another fish can jump in. 2d
Post deleted at author's request.
Badger,
You know, I think I would think this post was silly if I understood it! Coming in at 4a.m. is a tactic. Wow, you should've been in the Air Force. By the way do you know the differnce between a tactical bomber and a strategic bomber? I've always had trouble with that one.
vince.
BTW - Don't you think that you would be more correct if you said that coming in at 4 a.m. and hoping that the opponents are tired, weak on tilt, or whatever is a tactic. So now we have a "hope" tactic. I kinda like that. Gee, Badger you certainly are one for openning closed eyes. Now I SEE why your column is so popular.
Post deleted at author's request.
Missiles,chess,poker,life,etc.........
But why? Why would bombing from short range be tactical and long range strategic. Isn't bombing, bombing?
Vince
If you are classifying weopons: stratagic are those that can be deployed from beyond harms way and tactical are those employed from withen or close to the battle arena. Submarines and long range bombers are stratagic while the Army's hand carrried weapons on portable missile launchers are tactical, as an example.
Vince, I understand that it's all a matter of semantics. This is prevalent thoughout our culture. It's the reason we call it the Deffence Dept. and not the Offence Dept. although we know the best deffence is a good offence.
You mean like "Partly cloudy" is now called "Partly sunny". A "janitor" is now a "maintenance engineer". A "tax increase" is now "federal revenue enhancement". "Shell shocked" is now called "post traumatic stress disorder". "Crazy" is now called "neurotic".
With a couple post-graduate courses in War Theory, I have a little knowledge in this subject, though I won't bet my life on the following.
Tactics vs. Strategic has little to do with range of weapons, or their proximity to harm.
Strategy is how you plan to win the war, tactics is how you fight the battles of the war. That is, you use strategy to choose the time, location, and tempo of a series of battles, while you use tactics to win those battles. Harms way or range isn't important. For example, you could launch a long range missile to kill a specific general, or a specific supply dump, because this would give you a huge edge in the current battle, this would be a tactical use of a long range missile. In the same way, tactical aircraft based in England during the latter of stages of WWII are clearly our of harm's way, but they are used tactically to win battles. Strategic bombers are labelled because they are felt to have war winning ability in their own right, though this is debated a great deal. Often, these same stragic bombers are used in a tactical manner as well.
In poker, it is your overall game plan that is strategy, examples being money management, game selection, books you choose to read, etc. Or, in a tournament, strategy is the ability to chose the proper moment to enter a hand (battle) given time limits, stack sizes of your partners, etc. Your strategy would also be an overall philosophy, e.g. playing fast during the rebuy period, tightening up, and then playing fast again just before the final table when everyone else tightens. Once you enter a hand, tactics are what you use to win the hand.
Pat Charlton
"Strategy is how you plan to win the war, tactics is how you fight the battles of the war. "
'nough said!
Vince.
"In poker, it is your overall game plan that is strategy,"
Well maybe the above wasn't 'nough!
Post deleted at author's request.
I think if you come in every morning at 4am it is a statagy. If you do it once in a while it's a tactic. Bare in mind you still need to execute a stratagy to make your tactic rewarding to your overall statagy. Where normally a statagy is supplimented by tactics. In this case your overall statagy is to win, your tactic is to come in at 4am with another statagy to play well. How did I get into this ?
"Coming in at 4.a.m" sure sounds like part of an overall "strategic" plan. Planting a lookout in the card room to inform you of when the best time to come to the room is more of a tactical move.
vince.
I think some of us have different interpretations of what tactics and strategy are in poker. Tactics and strategy in any eneavor can vary between situations.
Take the Germans in WWII for example. If the German strategy is to neutralize the Russians as quickly as possible, than taking over Moscow as quickly as possible could be considered a tactic. However, if taking over moscow is considered a strategy than a tactic might be encircling the bulk of the russian front, while sending mobilized units straight to Moscow. As you can see, the designation of tactic or strategy is arbitrary.
Extrapolating all this to poker is also arbitrary. You may consider things strategy that i merely consider a tactic. I consider calling on the flop in order to raise on the turn a tactic. You may call this strategy.
Every action taken in poker should be done with a certain tactic, or in your case strategy, in mind.
Ivan,
The difference between Strategy and Tactics is subtle yet profound.
*Strategy* is what you discuss with your manager before a match.
*Tactics* are the maneuvers you execute so you can set your opponent up for the Polish Hammer.
Strategy: Generalship, Art of War... Impose upon the enemy the TIME AND CONDITIONS FOR FIGHTING PREFERRED BY ONESELF.
Tactics: Art of disposing...forces ESP. IN ACTUAL CONTACT WITH THE ENEMY.
Coming in at 4am is a strategy - what you do when you are there is a tactic.
I like the post but disagree with your last two sentances. The aggressive guy is still better off coming in fresh at 4am rather than fresh at 6pm. But I agree in principle: Making an obviously obtrusive hopeless bluff tactic is good for the player who desires future calls but terrible for the player relying on bluffs.
I appreciate Ivan's post but disagree that the distinction is arbitrary: the distinction between strategy and tactics is context: the "strategy" for an army (engage the enemy before he gets to better ground) involves tactical moves of the corps (distract the enemy flank while you move the rest of the army into position). The corps' objective defined by the army may be the corps' strategy (engage the enemy's flank appearing more numerous than you are) which creates tactical moves of the divisions (find an avenue of attack which conceals your numbers).
I like the definition that "tactics" is the implementation of "strategy".
- Louie
Operations is the implementation of tactics. Tactics is the implementation of strategy. Strategy is the implementation of grand strategy. And all three ultimately serve Policy. All 5 are an unescapable givens and must be viewed holistically and synchronized synergistically.
Post deleted at author's request.
"My point, which seems utterly lost on some people, is that tactics have no intrinsic value."
Another great observation Badger, it's too bad your post's sometimes turn into silly arguments over semantics.
i agree with what you said. The point is, what one person sees as strategy another may see as tactics. In poker, my strategy is to optimize my overall EV with every decision. Everything i do at the table is a tactic to accomplish that end.
Any decisions that you make when you're ALREADY at the table will fall either at the level of strategy (How to play a session: tight-aggressive vs. loose-aggressive, when to shift gears) or at the level of tactics (Intrahand decisions like why to call, why to bet, why to raise, why to checkraise).
Any poker decision that you make while you're AWAY from the table (when to play, who to play against, what game to play, what limit to play) lie within the province of grand strategy. The decision to play at 4 a.m.(time to play) against tired and steaming players who are stuck (who to play against) is a grand strategic decision. It is neither strategy or tactics.
In short,"To the battlefield" decisions like table selection, opponent selection, game selection, etc. are grand strategic level decisions. "At and within the battlefield" decisions like how to play a session and how and why to play a hand are strategic and tactical decisions, respectively.
I suggest you guys read the book entitled Strategy by B.H. Lidell Hart. It has the best treatment of the distinctions between operations, tactics, strategy, grand strategy, and policy in print.
I AM NEW AT THIS POKER CHAT I SEE ALL OF THESE FUNNY NAMES IF THEY HAVE SOMETHING WORTH WHILE TO SAY WHY NOT LET US KNOW WHO YOU ARE HUCK
since david's crusade months ago.
it is all semantics. everyone agrees that everything is important. this is all nonsense.
scott
Post deleted at author's request.
i have read part of the thread.
the gist of it is that a certain action, be it a bluff check raise or coming in at 4 am, is only a good decision if the situation calls for it. this is, of course, repeatedly expressed in very particular language. language that i feel confuses the issue unnecessarily.
if i am wrong on this being the gist, then i have misunderstood the entire thread. in that case, i withdraw my previous comments and would merely like a summary if the discussion without using the words 'tactics' or 'strategy.'
but if i am correct, then this is silly.
up until these threads i had never really seperated tactics from strategy. there were general rules to follow, which are situational, and there were particular actions to make, which were are situational.
a good play is not a good play if the situation is not right for it. you say this is because it is not part of a good stragey. fine. that is semantics.
what makes it particularly semantical is your insistance on certain language. no one involed in the discussion (that i have read) has said that certain actions are good irrespective of the situation. no one who knows anything about anything (poker, life, anything) would make that claim.
the poeple arguing against you have said even less. they just say that tactics are important. but they mean situaitonal tactics. which are inherently part of a good strategy. because they take the situation into acount.
the real reason i think this discussion is silly is that i cannot understand how someone can grasp situational tactics without good strategy. (assuming these words mean what i think they mean.)
oh, i see one way. say someone wanted to come in at 4 am for all the right reasons. but at this particular casino, they game is weak tight at 4 am. if this guy was blind, and couldn't figure that out, then he wouldnt know to adjust. but wait. if he was blind he couldn't see the cards. i'm out of ideas.
scott
It is much more difficult to win at poker if you merely learn lots of good plays without fully understanding why they are good. Blackjack is different. Chess is similar to poker unless you are a super computer that is making great plays without a clue as to why. I have no idea whether what I have just said confirms Badger's points, or scott's points or Vince's points because I can't really figure out what anyone is saying. All I know is that the first sentence is true.
"I have no idea whether what I have just said confirms Badger's points, or scott's points or Vince's points because I can't really figure out what anyone is saying."
this confirms my points.
"It is much more difficult to win at poker if you merely learn lots of good plays without fully understanding why they are good."
to my knowledge, no one is disputing this.
scott
Right, no one has disputed that as far as I know.
I think Steve has the impression that someone has. At least he said, "IMO, "a good move" that isn't a part of a good strategy is like "jailbird poker", it's gonna make you a loser. Others don't agree." But I think everyone agrees. My only point below was that discussing hands need not ignore this, and none of this need stand in the way of discussing hands.
"It is much more difficult to win at poker if you merely learn lots of good plays without fully understanding why they are good."
Duh!
Maybe you shouldn't get into discussions if your not willing to be part of them. If you don't know what Badger's point is, or Scott's or mine then just what in the hell are you talking about! Besides I don't feel like I'm on one side and Badger is on the other. If Badger is correct then so be it. I don't view this discussion as a rivalry. We were, if you would like to know, discussing the value of hand analysis. That's the point of the whole discussion. Tactics became the focus of that discussion. Now, you being, Oz have diverted that converstion. I'll let someone else elaborate.
Vince.
I know this will not be the last word on this thread as it seems that you are one those folks that always has the last word. This trait is very revealing and it speaks volumes about your ideas and thoughts. Mr. Sklansky is right your posts on this are silly and make no sense. I now fully understand why you have such a major problem with tilting. You make things much more complicated than they need to be. Poker strategy is nothing more than maximizing expected value on each hand you play. Notice that when you go on tilt you play hands that are not profitable which means that you are making a strategic error. You should be familiar with this concept due to your self admitted tilting problem. If maximizing expected value on each hand played isn't poker strategy then why do you throw away 80+ percent of your hands away in hold'em? So far you haven't offered one intelligable comment on what poker strategy is.
Thanks for pointing out my idiocy. By the way, why do you bother reading anything that I post. It's not mandatory and obviously not worthwhile. And since you are an expert on poker strategy why listen to anything at all!
Have a nice day. Bye, looking forward to not hearing from you again. What a shame. You are such a brilliant mind!
Vince.
Richard -- As far as I know you're fairly new here. And you've posted some well reasonsed, intelligent stuff. But I think you should hang around a while longer before you continue further with your Vince bashing. Vince has been active here for a long time (relatively speaking), and has come to be appreciated by many, not only for his humor and for being the fine person that I believe he is, but for comments which are often more insightful and cut to the gist of issues under discussion more effectively than you may have had a chance to realize.
In fact, I really felt that he did provide some valuable input in this and the related subthread below. It could be that you have simply been distracted by the unique "Leporean" style of communicating. Give yourself a chance to get to know Vince. THEN bash him if you must. But I'm betting you won't want to anymore. If you do though, consider sticking to content and doing it in email. Just a thought.
"Leporean"
I lkie that John. Clement is right. It's an ego thing with me. Oh well back to shrink ville!
Vince.
BTW - Thanks for the kind words. The check is in the mail.
Post deleted at author's request.
I really don't think I've seen anyone dispute the point that understanding the "why" is fundamental. Maybe *someone did, but I doubt many would.
But I do disagree with the assertion that finding the right play is not important. Sure you want to start with the underlying reasoning, the general conceptual level, but it's also important to see exactly how it translates to a specific play. And each side of that coin helps illuminate the other. C'mon, I'll bet you actually agree with that.
This is basically a thread about semantics IMHO. Better refresh on what is meant by "Objectives", "Strategy" and "Tactics", people. Not to mention "Mission". Hope you don't need any help with these.
---All them corporate statements and SWOT analyses may be long winded sometimes and confusing but they're on the right track, you know...
Cyrus,
While I agree that knowing things by their proper name is important--and very Confucian--please don't urge us to incorporate (pun intended) the jargon of corporate America into the discussion. Pretty soon we'll have Vince and Badger "empowering" us. Please, that would be too much.
Respectfully,
John
I agree with what you say, that calling things with their proper name can be very Confusing.
And far be it from me to introduce corporate jargon here! I'm up to my ears as it is, 'nuff said. All I'm saying is that this being clearly a semantics thrad, full of sophistry, it would pay to re-focus [corporate jargo alert!] into what's wnhat:
-- What the fuck do we want to accomplish playing poker the game? = Objectives.
--How on earth do we plan to achieve this? =Strategy.
--What are the means and the moves and the weapons and the whatsmacallit I'm gonna deploy to implement said strategy? =Tactics.
Call me if you want a full Mission Statement, folks, but it'll cost ya...
This thread is not "clearly a semantics thrad (thread)". The discussion was and is about hand analysis and it's values. A statement was made that hand analysis was mainly about tactics. This in the opinion of the poster made the analysis worthless. He qualified that with "unless a sensible strategy is used". Now you and Clement and Sklansky and whoever, please tell me how you discuss strategy and tactics unless you first define what you are talking about. Tactics are not strategy. They are the fundamental building blocks of a strategy. So I believe this discussion was moving along fine. A tactic is a tactic and strategy is strategy. Semantically speaking of course.
Vince.
No, I really think this IS a thread about semantics, if I ever saw some. It's not about a hand.
Look at Badger's original post, for christ's sakes! Badger says that the tactic of walking in at 4am to get advantage of tired, loose players is good when you want to get yourself in that kind of situation. But It is not important in itself, he says. (No shit, pete.) It's not, he says, because you can get the same situation through other tactis! So what the hell are we suppose to make of this? This is pure sophistry around the concepts of objectives, strategy and tactics.
Even Sklansky, who usually can make heads or tails of complicated situations, threw in the towel and posted a generality, about how "It's good to know why you're doing something than just simply do it, even if this something turns out for the best". Which of course is totally correct and trivially provable.
As to what this thread was supposed to show, beats me! But it's not the first time that I see a bunch of otherwise educated and/or intelligent persons get tangled up in heated conversation about not much, but which they enjoy nonetheless; I've been patronizing lots of open air cafeterias myself too, you know.
Post deleted at author's request.
It's not at all about semantics. It's about the *reason* for doing something being much more improtant than the actual "something" you do. Coming in at 4am is a tactic, that can either be useful or not useful, depending on the strategic reasoning behind coming in at that hour. Like other tactics, the act, the maneuver, the expedient, of coming in at 4am carries no intrinsic value on it own.
I understand and agree with all of the above. (Where do I sign?)
If you think that it was clearly stated all along (as you are now posting) then I'm guilty of illiteracy or worse. If I missed some previous, very "intense" thread and this was some kinda follow-up, same again, mea culpa.
Lots of folks, besides me, in any case, did notice the unmistakeable whiff of sophistry in the thread. It could be that we were all fooled and it's all vanilla...
Cyrus (et al.),
I'm surprised that so many posters have tried to dismiss this discussion as simply a semantic issue, as if semantics were of little importance (and I know someone will accuse me of using semantics here).
A shift in thought about word meaning occurs with Wittgenstein who says that all meaning is contingent, plastic, and contextual. Other members of the so-called school of ordinary language philosophers have resisted any firm, petrified, or transcendental meaning of words in and of themselves. Dictionary definitions only begin to help in a discussion, but more important is how each speaker uses a word and in what context.
The discussion so far is not merely semantic or a futile exercise in sophistry. I've enjoyed it and learned from it, and I think others have and will, too.
I'm sure other readers will also readily see that Vince and Steve, two of the major players, offer strong arguments, albeit within differing contexts.
Does this make sense?
Regards,
John
John,
What are you, a writing teacher or somethin'? Sure it makes snese, especially the part about Vince making a storng arguement. Of course you overdid it with that "albeit" word. Can you imagine where that's going to lead!
Vince
Vince,
I stole the word from Badger. Or, maybe he stole it from me. He used it, too. Does that mean I'm more on his side, albeit subconsciously?
John
..and raise you one Chomsky.
Reraise one de Saussure.
Top that!
You poor, deluded soul! I see your de Saussure (I don't even care what year it is) and raise you back
StarrockZeman
Hervey
Sless
Hawkes
Innis
Genosko
Culler
Holdcroft
Bignell
Wollen
...then, to top it off, I'm splashing the pot with
Lévi-StraussAlthusser
..and I'm not even all-in yet! That Umberto Eco is just the tip of my chip mountain.
Well, Cyrus,
I guess I'm going all in:
Derrida
Cixous
Habermas
Williams
Jameson
Adorno
Merleau-Ponty
Metz
Deleuze & Guattari
Kristeva
Bahktin
And, if you are realy going all in, I might be forced to throw in some of the old chestnuts whose value has fallen but might be used for bluffing purposes:
Wimsatt & Beardsly
I.A. Richards
Booth
and still my favorite, Longinus.
BTW,
Why so many Brits?
Regards,
John
Shit. I thought Habermas, Adorno, Derrida, Felix Guattari and Deleuze were in my stack! Now you'll have to make do with the other players here who I'm sure possess bigger stacks than mine.
Make it a side pot then.
And I hope you've read the sign by the door: if you're dealt Castoriadis you win half the pot right there.
--Cyrus
Cyrus,
Okay, you win. Both pots. I concede. Castoriadis really called my bluff. Never read him; hell, I never heard of him.
Of course, we'll play other hands, and I'll have Lacan, de Certeau, Foucault, and those other "furiners" on my side.
For now, I'll go home tonight and seek solace in Stanley Cavell. I haven't read "The Senses of Walden" in a long time, and it will comfort me.
Respectfully, slinking off with my tail between my legs,
John
Cyrus,
Badger wrote:
"Hand posts are tactics....Tactical discussions without a strategic framework are not just no good, they are a waste "
The above is what this whole discussion was and is about as far as I'm concerned. This is not about semantics. This is about the value of discussing hand posts. I disagree with Badger. That's all there is to it. There are others that agree with me and others that agree with Badger. I find the answer to this important. I believe that understanding poker concepts can be enhanced with hand analysis. Some posters, including David Sklansky, didn't bother to understand what the discussion was about but felt it was necessary to make add "their two cents" with unrelated or unimportant comments. Consequently, Badger and I and John Feeney began to look like a bunch of ranting fools. I may fit that description but the other two definitely do not. So when unhelpful personal attack comments take precedent over the issue we all lose. Posters should take into consideration all participants in a discussion. Not just a lunatic like Vince Lepore. If someone like Badger and/or John Feeney feel the discussion is worthwhile then just maybe their right.
Vince.
Badger was wrong if he was saying that discussing a particular play is unhelpful. Badger was right if he was saying that disscussing a particular play may SOMETIMES be counterproductive unless you point out all the tactical and strategic pros and cons of that play. Is that better Vince.
Thank you David. You know outside of Mason your my favorite 2+2 author next to Zee. Gosh, I can't stop. Thank you for your imput David. I do consider you the Best!
vince.
Low limit players are being priced out of casino poker, and we need to do something about it. I have a wife and kid and can't afford to sit in a 3-6 or 4-8 game in which $120 to $150 (or more) per hour is leaving the table. ($3 drop +$1 jackpot +$1 toke= $5 per hand). I'm not naive enough to think that a few of us staying away will lower the drop, get rid of that absurd jackpot, or force the casinos to pay dealers what they're worth instead of relying on us to do it. Here's what I did. I talked to my friends at work and within a week we had a 7 to 10 handed dealers choice ($1 to $4 at any time) game going. We only play Casino style games, and all the guys have come to see how much better these games are than the old wild card games they used to play. We all make roughly the same amount of money, so a $70 to $100 loss or win means something. The game usually lasts all night. The only problem we run into is that occasionally we have trouble getting the same days off so we skip a week now and then. I'll be moving to Yuma, Arizona at the end of August, and already have 5 guys who will be playing. (any Yuma residents reading this, e-mail me, and let me know if you are interested!)
The bottom line is this: Those of us who can't afford $10-$20 and higher and can't afford the amount of money being taken off the casino table every hour (and, really, no one can if you take the time to do the math, and figure out how much it really costs) need to start to revive the old tradition of the "Tuesday Night Game" (or what ever day of the week you choose!) Get the word out! Use Forums like this and others to find other serious players in your area. Buy good chips! Build a good table! We may not even cause a dent in the thinking of the casinos, and I really don't care if we do, but we may end up with some pretty decent games with people from the same type of economic background as us. Give it some thought! Chuck
Problem is, as long as you're just pushing the money between each other, no one's actually making anything. You're going to have to find some live ones or lower your limits. In fact, if you're playing with a full table of good players, people will probably go broke even faster in this home gome.
That said, my 0.50/1.00 high school game was basically like what you described and it was great.
You want to talk about action! Here at U of I, we have a 1-2 game 3 nights a week, a 2-4 game three nights a week, and a 5-10 game two nights a week, full table, no rake.
As Niels said you will eventually need some donators. This realistically means, if I can believe my home-poker friends, you need between 30 and 50 potential players to keep a once-a-week game going regularly. And when that happens you have significant political issues not present at the casino.
- Louie
What do you mean by "political issues"?
I'm guessing Louie is referring to things such as:
1) Who determines which players get to play every week?
2) Who manages 30-50 players, if they are all playing at once?
3) Can all players be trusted not to rat out the game?
4) How much is raked from the pot to pay off the cops, so your now-huge enterprise doesn't get raided on a regular basis....
Do you want to rake and how much. Do they expect to be fed.
Keeping players happy; often meaning giving the suckers unfair breaks in disputes.
Keeping the police and sometimes the mob at bay.
Any suggestions for worthwhile, valuable poker books, videos, etc.? All poker games, all poker topics, pretty much anything good that relates to poker. I already own pretty much all of the 2 + 2 poker titles (yes, I even placed an order for Inside The Poker Mind and The Psychology Of Poker), as well as Super/System, Roy Cooke's book, the three poker strategy books by Bob Ciaffone, Zen And The Art Of Poker, Mike Caro's Fundamental Secrets of Winning Poker, and Mike Caro's Book of Tells.
All of the above books (and of course this forum)have helped me tremendously in all aspects of my game although there were some sections in the Zen book that were misguiding and I knew to ignore. Any others I should get? I would particularly appreciate input on Lou Krieger's "More Hold'em Excellence."
Thanks everyone,
sucker
Holdem Excellance has some basic trap avoiding startagy and pre/post flop play advise to make it worthwhile. You may be at a level by now that it will only reenforse some things. There are many good books outside of 2+2. There are a few very bad ones.
I find that reading everything written about the subject has enabled me to develop a style best suited for me, taking what I consider the best advise from each for a perticular situation. You should get a catalog from GBS. I prefer not use this forum to recommend other books by title. I do recommend you read everything you can get.
You said "I prefer not use this forum to recommend other books by title"
S&M and others don't hesitate to bash other books why not recommend the better ones.
You want to recommend other books, but in the HE Forum you've starting a whole thread saying it's unfair to criticise other books on this forum. With respect, how many ways do you want it ?
Andy.
Andy, I only said I wanted the bashed authors to respond - the guys being bashed on HE are not ever hear and can't defend themselves. Of cource Skalansky says thay can't defend themselves cuz they are wrong and 99% of players know it.
Guess it is a mute point - if it ain't in 2+2 it isn't worth reading.
OK, but I'm sure everyone on both sides of the argument would enjoy TJ and Tom coming on here to back up their arguments. I think it's important to note that this isn't simply a difference of opinion, TJ and Tom have (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't seen the book) specifically picked up on Sklansky's argument and called it "sheer folly". If they came on here and entered into a dialogue they would go up in my opinion irrespective of whoever "wins" the argument. And what's stopping them ?
Just to make myself clear, they don't have to do it if they don't want to, but I'd respect them more if they did. Mason and Bob Ciaffone have had their differences of opinion but their respective POVs in their books have always been polite and not of a personal nature, and Bob has posted on here before, so full respect to him IMO.
Andy.
Wish they were here but since they are playing in the WSOP and hell I don't even know if they own a computer.
I'll see them next week in Vegas and I'll ask them about it.
Rounder,Tom has posted on rgp,so he sure could post here if he wanted to do so. Trust me, the W.S.O.P. has nothing to do with them not posting here.
I don't know if anyone noticed, but the "Sheer Folly" comment is'nt the only slam on S/M.There is at least one slam in each (3) of thier books.Case in point "The Sklansky Rule".
When I talk about the respect I have for authors, TJ and Tom lost a lot for me with that "Sklansky rule" crack. For a start, the book was supposed to be about Omaha, so why are they telling this Hold-Em anecdote ? Go figure.
Andy.
i have not read very many poker books.
scott
The lower your pants are in relationship to your waist, the higher your EV.
Or is that the Sklansky Crack Rule?
Dan
I've heard the rule that new players must post the equivalent of the big blind called "the Sklansky rule," as David is known for playing short sessions. I don't know if this is the rule to which you refer.
-Sean
It,not because of short sessions.
S&M also got some bashing in "Championship NL&PL HE" basically they said they were good players that lacked flair and ability to adjust to the ebb and flow of tourmanent action. Because they are to math oriented and lack imagination.
That is me best recollection of their comments re S&M.
I can't disagree or concure with this commentary since I have never played with S&M I have played with TJ AND Tom and can tell you if I had to choose between TJ's hand reading ability or Sklanskys math skills it is no contest - TJ reads hands better than anyone I have ever played with.
Rounder,T.J. is a great player,and an all around great guy.McEvoy is at the very least,a solid player.As great a player as T.J. is, he still has some erroneous advice in his books.
A lot of very good advice is in their books also,and their first two I liked very much.
Rounder,Mason has said favorable things about a lot of non Two Plus Two gambling books.
The Art of the Deal by Donald Trump
Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi.
Reading People by Jo-Ellan Dimitirus.
Not poker related but a good insight into reading people by the woman who picked the OJ jury.
I'm in the process of reading Jo-Ellens book, I had to order it. Thanks for the recommendation a while back.
O...K, check out "Holden for Winning Players", Carl Anderson, "Winning Poker", Andy Nelson, and P$ycology of Poker, I can't remember the Aurthor. They are all decent in my opinion, but I'm sure others can find at least some errors. John Vargas "Pro Player Tips" has good advise also. I have gotten a better understanding of HOW to think from Tom and Bob than S&M. S&M books remain the standard.
5-10, full table, moderately tough. I'm on the button with Jd9d. UTG limps, 2 callers, I call, SB calls and BB checks.
F = KsJhTd. The small blind opens and everyone before me calls. I call, looking at 11-1 from the pot.
In retrospect I'm not crazy about this call but the 11-1 swayed me. I guess I was hoping for a jack or the 8d.
T = 8d. Small blind bets again, one player calls and another raises. I fold. Is this right?
.
I take my definition of bluff inducing from THFAP. An example might be when you have an opponent that you think bluffs too often on the river after missing a draw for example. Now you think you have him beat but don't think he'll call if you bet. So you check and if he bets you call (or raise).
Am I missing something, or would it be reasonable to assume that once you've done this to a player he probably will stop bluffing too often and perhaps even not bluff enough in future rounds with you?
My point is, isn't bluff inducing something that in all probability will only work once in a session against the same opponent?
Bluffers are used to getting caught a call might just make him think he wasn't found out and if you show your cards 1st he won't be found out. They usually muck and say something like I missed or you "just beat me". They will continue their over bluffing BUT if you check raise and they muck you will usually shut them off. I never ask to see a bluffers hand that is sure to stop him from over bluffing.
"My point is , isn't bluff inducing something that in all probability will only work once in a session against the same opponent?"
The answer is, it depends on the specific opponent. If this opponent is the vengeful type and/or egotistical type and/or playful/smart ass type and/or the type who likes to take things personally and/or one who's steaming, the chances that the tactic of inducing a bluff might work in the same session may actually increase. Not only that, it may increase the chances that it will work in future sessions too... and in the case of a tournament, in later limits as well, where the blinds/antes are higher.
Nick, this post of yours is very thoughtful in that it takes into account the strategic (session level) consequences of a tactical (intrahand) action.
I'm looking for another really good 7 cs book. I've read TOP and 7CSFAP. What else should I make part of my collection?
Read the 7 stud chapter in Doyle Brunson's Super/System. This chapter was co-written by co-Hall of Fame member Chip Reese.
I agree that's a good section. Unfortunately, there isn't much else.
So Mason, you wouldn't recommend Super System? I have all the 2+2 books, but haven't gotten SS because of the price tag. I meant to get it eventually, but now I may reconsider.
M.D.R.; I think you misunderstood what Mason said.He's refering to other stud books out there,not the rest of Super System.
x
At least that's how Mason's reply is worded.
Then why does he give the book a 10 on the Mason scale.A 10 IS VERY HARD to get on the Mason scale. He does not hand those out lightly.
I didn't know he gave the '10' rating. Mason must have mistyped 'section' instead of the word 'selection' in the post above. What a difference two letters can make!
Section is right.When he says something on the lines of, "Unfortunately there isn't much else",the much else is refering to other stud books not the rest of S/S.
IMHO.
I agree that Mason is referring to other stud books. I have my copy of Gambling Theory and Other Topics in front of me and he gives S/S a rank of perfect 10. Same as his ranking of TOP.
I meant the lack of other books on seven-card stud, not the rest of Super/System.
thanks
If you got 7CSFAP-New Edition you got it all. If you want to add to your collection, you might try Roy West's book "7 Card Stud-42 Lessons". The book is not bad for low limit stud. There is also another 7 card stud book out by some guy named "Konstantin Othmer" (spelling uncertain) that I have not read.
hmmm. you already have 7csfap? and you want more stud books?
i seem to remember scarne and silberstag (sp) discussing stud.
however, i wouldn't recommend them per se.
scott
How about Championship stud? How does this book rank up there with 7csfap?
Thanks for all the replies
Championship Stud
This book is worth having,but does contain some strange advice. The book is divided into sections on razz(low only stud),stud 8/or better, and seven-card stud.Razz and 8/or better sections are a welcome addition to any poker library.The seven-card stud section is where I think the book could have been a lot better.
On page 56; "I make a correlation with the blinds in hold'em:Your maximum loss should not exceed 20 times the amount of the big blind.
Also- "The key is to limit your loss but not your win".
The thing about the big blinds in hold'em has got to be some of the worst advice in print.
The cash game strategies are for 15-30 and 20-40.According To the book anyway. So if you are new to stud I would stay away from this book for awhile.
If you are brand new to stud,The best book to get IMHO,is Two Plus Two's "Fundamentals of Poker". It will get you on the right track(and it's very cheap too).
Good Luck,Howard
I read a book by Scarne many years ago. He used to advocate something he called 'the Scarne cut' which was supposed to be a superior method of cutting the deck in a card game. Trouble is, I could never get away with doing this in any game I ever played in. Everybody thought it was a trick.
Scarne also claimed that he could take a new deck of cards out of the wrapper, shuffle them, and then cut each of the Aces right out. This was a story he told in the preface to his book 'Scarne on Poker' (I think this was the title).
Scarne! I loved him! He was more of a magician than a gambler! If he said he could cut the Aces I would bet on him doing it! Every time!
Vincw.
hey, i play in a regular home game and tonight since we were short handed, we decided to mix it up by playing pot limit (as opposed to fixed limit). anyways, can i get some good advice on how to approach these games? i play good tight aggressive in the limit game with 6+ players, but short handed pot limit is such a different monster altogether. thanks j
A big difference between limit and PL is the fact that you often have odds to draw in limit while in PL you don't. Therefore it is crucial to make drawing hands PAY. Another thing is that the implied odds tend to be better in PL, pairs increases in value since sets make a lot of money and you won't run into trouble when you dont hit. Also, I have a principle of not drawing for flushes/straights when the board is paired in PL. It can get costly when you hit... Speaking of implied odds again, a very important question to ask yourself is "if I make my hand, will my opponent/s pay off?" If you think someone will pay you if you make your flush/straight you have better odds to draw, if he won't pay you should lay it down if not the potodds justify a call. Hope this helps out a little.
Mattias
What do you guys think about showing a bluff after you've made a better hand fold and you picked up the pot ? When should it be made ? Are there better times to enhance your image ?
Any comments appreciated...
Make $money$ not war...
theprince00
IF your raises are getting to much respect maybe you can show a bluff - also if you are setting something up - it is not out of the question if you know what you are doing.
Though if your raises are getting too much respect you can also utilise that fact by NOT showing your bluffs, which should be numerous if no one ever calls them.
I never show a bluff, it really does piss people off, if thaat is your intent go ahead and show it.
Perssonly i bluff enough to get people to call me so i don`t have to try that move. In fact i do just the oppisite if i have stole a lot of pots without showing a hand i will show a good hand that has not been called just to keep them not calling.If i get no action i will rob them blind.
Last weekend on Saturday night I went over to this guys house to play in a no limit game. I knew nobody in the 6 handed game. There was close to $2000 on the table with one guy stuck around $900. His money was spread out to two others players it looked like. I decided to watch for a while before jumping in. They played one round of hold em then a round of dealers choice flop games only. The game looked beatable in my opinion with only one player being really aggresive. I bought in for only a $100. Anyways to get to the point I left up $575 in five hours. I didn't loose a show down all night and I showed my hand quite a bit when I had the winner. They knew I was aggresive and I didn't want them to think I was stealing a bunch of pots by betting large amounts ($50 to $100). I thought I was the best player at this little game. I'm going back saturday and apparently the majority of the same people will be there. I want to bluff a little bit more which I assume I can do effectivly. I also want to get some more action from them when I have the best of it but I'm not sure how to keep them in there with me. I plan on not showing my hand so often although I think I got some respect for not playing crap cards and they knew that when I bet or raised that I had the best of it. BTW, this was my first time playing no-limit and the betting amount is very important. I played about 30 hours a week back home and have a well above average understanding of the game but, no limit is a different animal.
My question is should I change up my game any to increase my winnings. Considering that they know how I play. Any pointers or comments on no-limit play would be much appreciated.
Thank you, wcb
I don't have much NL experience, but in general this sounds like the classic case of not wanting to make too big of a hit for fear of not getting invited back. Sounds too much like an invite that you want to keep open. Good job in finding a sweet game.
If you think you're the best player and if you can afford it I suggest you make a buy-in which is equal to the biggest stack at the table. You want a shot at all their dough when you get the right opportunity. Also I don't think you should show your hand as much as you seem to do. Especially not the winners, if you make a successful bluff you could flash them your cards now and then for some advertisement though. If the other guys are somewhat good players they will know what you're doing though, in that case stop showing the cards. You wan't to give as little info as possible.
Good luck
Mattias
Assuming one is a strong player, is it possible to beat a 4-8 game against DECENT players with a $6 per hour seat charge and a $1 jackpot drop when the pot reaches $50? What would be the optimum general strategy in such a game? This is how it works at one of our local clubs in Detroit.
Thanks
This game can for sure be beaten.......It's about half the price of these games in southern California.
I realize this, but the players are decent and not as wild.
These are a few passages that I just finished reading in a book. I’d like to know what you think of them and, just as importantly, whom you think wrote them.
The chapter that it’s in is titled “fixed…by palookas!” Personally I love the name palooka. I think it’s just as good as scrub, another great name, when describing a really really bad player. The chapter gives the story of two expert players who sit down across the table from two complete “palookas.” They lick their lips in anticipation of a huge score. They proceed to use every cunning and wild strategy known to them. They tried to bluff them out of every hand. At the end of the night the palookas win and the experts only manage to confuse each other.
“Now the experts fully deserve their loss. They had a natural advantage in skill over their opponents. But, by adopting the tactics they did they threw their advantage out of the window. Halfway through the (night) they had become the worse pair of the two. Because they had stopped trying to make the best of their own cards and were concentrating all their energies on trying to lure the palookas into making the worst of theirs. And it just can’t be done - against palookas. You can’t bluff a palooka out of his heritage. He might dissipate it all by himself but he won’t be bluffed out of it. Because nothing at all will persuade a palooka that he holds a bad hand when he thinks he holds a good one. You’d have a better chance of persuading me!”
“You will never persuade a palooka. He cannot see the dangers of a good hand. He can only see the Aces and the Kings. That’s why he’s a palooka. That’s why he accepts such tremendous penalties when the dangers are real, and that’s why he will sock you every time you try to frighten him with imaginary ones.”
“And that’s the whole point. In spite of all your skill, the palookas must win an occasional game. When you have resigned yourself to accepting this monstrous injustice when it occurs and stop throwing away thousands in futile efforts to prevent it, you will revert to your rightful status as the better player. But as long as you continue to psych the palookas out of every game, I’ll back the palookas.”
The movie 'Palookaville' deals quite hilariously with characters such as the above described. spitball
ps the author seems to have a fleeting understanding of poker. Was this written three or four decades ago? Scarne? He writes about the concept of 'swimming with the fish' as if there was some moral principle controling the venture. There is a whiff of warning against 'fancy play syndrom' but only a whiff.
I hate school!!!
..that there's some chasmic difference between successful ring-game play and tourney play. This seems to be taken as a given in the discussions of who is qualified to speak ex cathedra on poker. The only thing in dispute may be the measuring stick used to make these judgments by lay people. People gravitate to authority figures that they are served on a plate, because often they have no way of knowing what's going on in these folks' heads. The volume of tournaments and the variance in any individual event can easily contribute to a warped sense of authority. With ring game play, there is even less information available on hitching one's wagon to a winner. JoeSchmoe from Idaho would have had no idea that Roy Cooke was a strong player if he hadn't taken to writing unless they'd sat down to play with him at the Mirage for a while. Just the same, he could play my money versus the tourney stars IN A TOURNEY SITUATION any day because, while there are adjustments, the application of logic is still boss and I know he "gets it."
The one time that you are served with a mountain of evidence to make your decision is when someone writes a book. Here in black and white, one can analyze the ideas and logic of the protagonists. If one's poker critical thinking skills aren't tiptop, there are still resources for following others' analyses of the matter. This kind of begets an appeal to authority chainletter, but eventually the debate should come down to atomic units of logic that one can evaluate modulo any authority. (If one can't, then poker is probably a hopeless endeavor anyways.) There you can start to accumulate the evidence to start making judgments.
So to say "xyz is a good player, the stuff in this book must be good" is completely backwards reasoning. Start with the prima facie evidence, and then work your way to the abstractions.
JG
I agree Jim but consider a few things:
1. No one really knows how good a limit player someone is unless they have access to his playing records (assuming such records even exist). I am pretty sure Roy Cooke is an outstanding limit player based on what I read in his columns, my observation of his play at the table, and what others say about him. But from a scientific standpoint this means very little. I would have to know exactly how many hours Roy Cooke played in each session and what his results were before I would know for sure. The point is that only Roy Cooke knows this. Many limit players appear to be winners but a lot of them don't record their losses accurately, or they just record the most recent information when they are on a winning streak, or they really don't record anything at all. Many of them, if they have a vested interested to do so, could keep bogus records to show people in case they were ever asked and no one would be the wiser. A lot of players buy extra chips before they start a playing session and then stuff them in their coat pockets. During the course of their play between hands they "salt their stack" so they always appear to be winning even when they are losing. There are many players who play regularly, appear to be winning players, but who are actually losers and this is camouflaged by some outside income that no one knows about. Everyone at the card room just assumes they play for a living because they are there a lot. My bottom line is that from a scientific standpoint no one really knows who is a great limit player and who isn't because the data needed to make that determination is not available and could not always be trusted even if it was.
2. Tournament players on the other hand are subject to public scrutiny. It is a simple matter to determine how successful a tournament poker player is by just accessing public records. I think it is Nolan Dalla (or Mike Sexton?) who has developed an elaborate rating system for determining who the best tournament players are.
There is an objective metric for a assessing tournament player's performance that is verifiable. There is no such metric available for public scrutiny and verification for assessing the performance of a limit player.
It is a fact that both T.J. Cloutier and Tom McEvoy have made millions of dollars playing poker over the past 20 years. I don't know what the facts are concerning many of these other people when it comes to how much money they have made playing poker.
If a particular play comes into question and you have various experts giving you conflicting opinions, I think an objective judge and jury would tend weigh the opinions of players who have won the most money playing poker over a long period of time more heavily than others who have no verifiable track record.
Jim:
You make an excellent post but I want to address two issues.
1. Since you used Roy Cooke as an example, I can vouch that he is an excellent player.
2. Tournament results can also be very misleading. You don't know how many tournaments someone played and how much money they had to spend to get there. As a hypothetical example suppose someone has a staker that allows him to play tournaments virtually every day. This person may win a few and gain a reputation, but their staker may be a big loser.
Which is why the Dalla rating system is pretty much useless.
Btw, while Cooke may well be a player, in "scientific terms" your anectodal agreement that this is so is also nearly useless. For example, he may only play well in games you are likely to play against him in, you may have numerous biases, etc. I think the comments were meant to convey that these things really are hard to quantify given the lack of hard information. This applies double to evaluating tournament players based on media reports.
I agree completely.
Jim,
"I think an objective judge and jury would tend weigh the opinions of players who have won the most money playing poker over a long period of time more heavily than others who have no verifiable track record. "
Unfortuantely there is no "objective judge and jury" available to give the new player (the novice) guidance on whose opinion is more valuable. Your staement, if I read it correctly, favors the successful tournament pros when one looks for poker information. I think that that is a big mistake. To put faith in an author of that is succesful in an part of the game that may not be the part of the game you are interested in. In this case live vs tournament.
The best way for a new player to learn poker (Casino poker, et al. ) is to first learn the rules. Any author will do for that purpose. Then go and play low limits. Treat the game like entertainment and budget accordingly. Find out if he/she really likes to play enough to spend the time learning the game. When he gets to the point where he is willing to spend his time learning then the decision of who is the best author to read for information pertaining to the part of the game he wants to learn. Finding those authors is best accomplished by word of mouth. Asking other poker players.
When it comes to advanced poker concepts dealing with live 7 stud and Holdem limit poker there is no question in my mind that the road will lead to Sklansky and Malmuth. Non tournament standouts. Authors of which most of us have no way of verifying if they have ever even sat at a poker table.
Why is that? How can I be so sure that the road leads to 2+2? Because I went threw that very scenario to find a someone to read. I asked or was told by other players that I had to read 7SFAP and HPFAP. Today I hear others ask and the answer is still the same S&M (2+2). The reason for this is obvious. Once the books are digested. The concepts make sense, are logical and can be tried and verified by the users.
You may put your faith in a successful tournament players opinion when it comes to live games. That's your right. But to imply or flat out say that a tournament pros opinion is more likely to be correct than authors of the ilk of Malmuth and Sklansky just because they won a lot of money at tournaments is, in my opinion, flat out wrong.
Vince.
Vince, I agree that the writings and concepts put forth by 2+2 are far and away the best that are out there. But the purpose of 2+2 is to arm the player with the right concepts and winning approaches to gambling in general and poker in particular. But all that being said, the game of hold-em comes down to playing in specific situations and being able to take the best action based on all the available information you have. In any given situation we can all agree on what concepts might come into play, what the relevant factors are, and compelling arguments can be made on the merits of any particular action (check? bet? etc.). In fact the more knowledgeable players are, the better they are at coming up with reasons for taking any specific action. But how does that all ultimately get weighed and evaluated by people trying to learn and how does it translate into making a specific play? Well, some situations simply defy precise mathematical analysis and there is no closed form analytic solution. So what the serious student should attmept to do is to gather as much informed opinion as possible from players who have been very succcessful in this game. It does not always come down on the side that can make the best analytic argument. Some decisions are purely judgemental when all the facts are in. I think the opinions of Cloutier, McEvoy, Sklansky, Malmuth, Zee, Ciaffone, and others should count a lot more than someone else's opinion who does not have any kind of a track record to speak off in this business of poker. My point is simply that just because Cloutier and McEvoy do not understand the concept of standard deviation does not mean that their opinion about what to do in a specific poker situation is of any less value.
"My point is simply that just because Cloutier and McEvoy do not understand the concept of standard deviation does not mean that their opinion about what to do in a specific poker situation is of any less value."
Jim,
I agree in part. I am one of the ones that took TJ and McEvoys words literally (the discussion here). Because of that, I question their live game advice. I do not question their Tournament advice.
Vince.
But Vince, I don't think you are being quite fair here. The book was poorly edited and obviously lacked a detailed review once it was put in print from something that was probably tape recorded as Mason suggests in one of his posts. In addition, these guys are obviously not math wizards. But they have played ring games extensively over the past twenty years and furthermore, they are dealing with very common hold-em situations. There are a lot of great poker players who do not write well or understand statistics but that does not mean that their advice on how to play "garden variety" hold-em situations is wrong.
I think the best way to get value from advice is to question it until you really understand the basis for it, and then you will know if you agree with it or not. This can be a slow and ongoing process at times, as can learning itself, and we all need to take shortcuts sometimes too. There is some value perhaps in weighing the quality of the source of the advice (how good a player is the advice-giver, based on some type of yardstick or other), but the bottom line is that even a grea