![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
This is my first post to this twoplustwo. If I have selected an inappropriate forum for this topic, please let me know.
I was recently in LA and played a bit of low limit 7CS (2-4/3-6) at the Bicycle. It seemed that whenever a hand reached showdown (and almost all did), no one wanted to reveal thier cards first. When they finally did, it was in a painfully slow fashion, as though they were going for some sort of drama.
Of course, this slowed down the came considerably. Is this common in LA casinos?
Several times I asked the dealer to "please keep the game moving." However, I got the impression that the dealers thought I was asking them to deal the cards faster.
Has anyone else run into this and found a tactful and effective means of dealing with it?
Regards,
Bart Slater
This is a big part of the game. Stud players love to slow-roll and this is a major reason why I play mostly hold'em. LA is a horrible place for low limit stud because of the collection.
I agree about the collection and have written about it several times before. To see $3 dropped in "antes" before the hand begins leaving 50 cents in the middle (in a seven handed 3/6 game) leaves me in despair for the state of poker.
My guess is that the Hollywood act just slows down the rate of loss for everybody.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I love the types who catch a gut shot on the river, study the board for about a minute, stroke their chins, and then bet into my top two pair. I've seen this act far too may times. One question, and as an ex-floorperson I thought you might know the answer to this one, is it legal to call time, jump up, and run to the bathroom, yelling "I gotta piss real bad," and then come back to the table and fold?
John
PS.
Here's your answer in advance: Don't discourage the types who will give away their hands so easily.
John,
You wrote: “One question, and as an ex-floorperson I thought you might know the answer to this one, is it legal to call time, jump up, and run to the bathroom, yelling "I gotta piss real bad," and then come back to the table and fold?”
I never ran into this one so I really don’t have an answer. However, I’ve had more than one customer appear to piss in their pants rather than get up and make the fifty-foot trek to the bathroom.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. The best poker player needs to piss story involved Phil Helmuth but I think I have already told it before.
Yes, get on them about it. By that I mean jump down their throats.
It is stupid - a lot of players hate to show a loser I will at times make them show in correct order.
I have seen guys fold winners or possible winners when they were called on the river. It is just stupid.
Everything is in a LL HE #1...Raise or Fold Often we hesitate between fold or call ....and sometime between Call or raise but I have been involved in a hand where I hesitate between FOLD OR RAISE . I am BB and i do not remember what was my hand because I was board . The board is 4-4-Q_Q_4 and it has been checked all the way until the river, there was a raise pre-flop from an aggressive player . SB bets ; he's an aggressive player But he often slow play two pairs , triple and good hand like that . I think , maybe he has a 4 , he slowplayed it on the flop with the intention of check raise it but the flop has been check. On the turn , he would just call a bet because someone would have better full than him with a Q . But someone with a queen would have bet the flop in a late position . So the turn is checked and the river is a 4 . Well I fold , the pot was not big enough . The 3 other in the hand call . Everybody was board . Maybe if I have raise , they won't have call and I would have won . What was the best thing to do ?
I'll post the 3 other situation later cause i'm short in time now ...
#2. . .It was not a cool call , but a frozen call 10-20...HE ....we are 11 at the table and I am at the seat 8th . I have A-10o . Only 1 limper (seat5) . I call , seat 9 raise , seat 10 raise and the dealer cap the thing ...that bad for me .SB an BB fold seat 5 call. Once i am in , I too often call a raise . So , I slowly call this . The flop is A-2-7 . It's checked to me . I check because , maybe someone has a As with a better kicker . Everybody check it . WOW .turn is a 9 (no flush there) . seat5 check ; I bet , seat 9 , 10 and 11 fold , seat 5 call . The river is a 5 , I bet , she calls and she shows JJ . I win this 295$ pot ...seat 9 has QQ , 10 has KK and 11 KJs . I hit a very good flop for the hand I have . but the best flop that I could have it was J-Q-K and no pair after that . any comments ?
#3 they change their mind HE 10-20 I have AhAs and i'm the dealer . 2 limpers , I raise , SB and BB fold , they call . The flop come Ks-Js-3s .man1 bet( man 1 is a bluffer ), man 2 call and I raise , I have 4 spades and the best one . They fold ; I win a small pot any comments ?
#4 I raise and fold HE 10-20 I have AKo and i'm BB ; UTG raises , she is a thight player and she raises JJ-QQ-KK-AA-AKo-AKs and AQs . SB call and I call . The flop is A-J-8 rainbow , SB is a maniac , he bets , I raise and she re-raises , SB fold and I fold without any hesitation . I put her on AA or JJ Any comments ?
#5 Play with maniac he10-20 I'm on the dealer seat with Qh-10h . Maniac 1 raise , maniac 2 re-raise , I fold and my friend which was back to me told me that he would have cap it . I nead more people in the hand to play suited semi-connector .
(2) If AT isn't good enough to raise (Doh!) then is SURE isn't good enough to call 3 more bets. TERRIBLE call.
(3) It looks as though they know you will NOT raise with the stiff A draw (say AsKh). I therefore conclude that while you may semi-bluff BET you rarely RAISE without the goods. In any case, you should probably wait until the turn to raise THIS bluffer.
(4) Well played so long as you are SURE your raise will cause heroine to react naturally. Gotta know your player.
(5) You can gamble so long as you are SURE you will out-play them later. There is more money to be lost than won here, so don't lose any sleep over folding.
- Louie
If I read you correct there was a raise and 5 of you took the flop. On the river there was a bet and 3 calls. If the ALL play the board you win 1bb, if not you lose 1bb. I'm sure that if the chances of them ALL having nothing is bigger than 50% its not by much. Don't lose any sleep over this one.
Now a RAISE looks much better than calling, since it only costs 1bb more if you are wrong but if you are right surely most opponents will fold yielding more than 1bb more.
- Louie
Many years ago when I was growing up the word "gay" meant carefree and happy and had nothing to do with sexual preference. Someone could be called gay and not be homosexual. However, I can no longer use this word the way I used to because the meaning has so dramatically changed. Therefore, I have pretty much dropped it from my vocabulary.
I first heard the term "weak-tight" mentioned in 2+2 literature several years ago. I was under the impression the term applied to players who hardly ever raised pre-flop especially with their premium hands and players who failed to bet their good hands strongly in order to get full value from them. It also referred to players who would not pursue a draw when the pot odds were there to do so.
But over the past few years, it appears that the term "weak-tight" has become a pejorative term used to describe anyone who checks when someone else thinks they should bet or someone who calls when someone else thinks they should raise or someone who folds when someone else thinks they should call. For example, in Bob Ciaffone's excellent book "Improve Your Poker" he mentions how it is usually unwise to lead into a crowd of players once the flop comes without at least top pair in many cases. One poster put this on the hold-em forum and asked if this advice was not "weak-tight". Many responded and agreed that it was "weak-tight". T.J. Cloutier wrote an article for CardPlayer where he discussed the play of over cards and how players who continue to play just over cards in raised pots especially with lots of players have a major leak in their game. This was put on the 2+2 forum and labeled as "weak-tight" advice. Finally, Bob Ciaffone had a quiz that he included in his column in CardPlayer and it was posted on the 2+2 forum for review and comment. In some instances where Ciaffone recommended folding top pair/weak kicker when bet into on the flop with several players yet to act this answer got the "weak-tight" label stamped on it.
I can understand honest differences of opinion among even experts on how certain hands or situations should be handled. But I find the term "weak-tight" adds nothing to the discussion and I intend to drop it from my poker vocabulary.
What does everyone else think?
As you point out, the term is applied indiscrimintely by many in wholly inappropriate situations. There are certainly times when I will fold top pair or fold AK when rags fall even if there is no flop raise, but I can assure you that I am not weak-tight.
My definition of "weak-tight" is really someone who consistently fails to protect his hand by either betting or raising. Such a player tends to want to save bets rather than win pots. He also tends to assume way too often that someone else has or may have a better hand when there's a good chance that he may be holding the best hand (or has many ways to improve to it).
I have always thought there was 4 ways to describe a person's play: Loose Agressive; Loose Passive; Tight Agressive; Tight Passive.
Weak Tight = Tight Passive to me.
Later, CV
A tight player who can be "run over" is weak tight.
If you can "run a person over" does that not mean they are Passive?
CV
Yes. But the term runoverable has more kick to it than the term "passive".
Those four terms might be the best we can do. The same thing happens anytime we use a few labels to describe an infinite spectrum. Two other examples of the same 'problem' are
1) Liberal/Conservative/Moderate.
2) Atheist/Agnostic/Theist
(Are we allowed to talk politics and religion here? :-) )
These labels DO serve a purpose, to generalize, to narrow the focus. But without talking to the individual, we still don't know much about their specific views. Muddying the waters further, I might listen to someone talk and label them and 'atheist,' and they might insist that I call them an 'agnostic.'
Same with poker. I might call someone one thing, and you might call the same players something else, and they might view themselves as still something else.
Another difference between these labels and poker labels is that poker players can change in midsession from one label to another. That makes the poker labels even more prone to being misunderstood or inaccurate.
Tommy
I understand the variations between the 4 Pigion Holes are infinite, I just use them to get a grasp on how a person tends to play in certain situations. I also use them to label myself through my opponent's eyes.
CV
I have come up with two more player classifications: the Novice Random Player and the Expert Random Player. These two are what I call "shape shifters", they constantly change personalities (from tight passive to loose aggressive to tight aggressive to loose passive) during the course of a session, and across sessions, in a random manner. But they do so for totally different reasons. The Novice Random Player shape shifts because he does not know what he's doing. Confusion is the driver behind his constant and random shape shifts. But the Expert Random Player shape shifts because he wants to throw his opponents off by being a constantly moving target. The quest for strategic advantage (thru the use of advanced level knowledge, skill, and experience) is the driver behind his random shape shifts. In short, there are 6 types of poker players: 1)tight-aggressive 2)loose-aggressive 3)tight-passive 4)loose-passive 5)novice random and 6)expert random. In fullhanded ring games, the Expert Random Player is the most dangerous followed by the tight-aggressive player. In shorthanded/heads up games, the Expert Random Player is the most dangerous followed by the loose-aggressive player.
I have to agree with Chris on this one. We all want to be tight agressive because that's what supposedly gets the money. A person who is weak tight would be playing the proper hands at the proper time but not really maximizing his wins by betting or raising when his opponents show weakness. In other words weak tight does not go for the throat. I would hazard a guess that someone who is weak tight would not be a loser, they would just not win as much as some others would with their cards. Unfortunately, as Jim notes, the expression has come to mean that the person who is weak tight is playing the hand like a little girl. I think this is going too far. There's a difference between playing conservatively and playing scared.
In my private notes I label players knockable off their hands as "weak".
---
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
http://www.fekali.com
"Weak" is certainly an ambiguous term as used in poker literature and forums. Many treat the term as a synonym for passive, while others use it to refer to any poor player. Izmet's definition differentiates the term from the passive/aggressive continuum. However, I suspect the term has become too muddled to be useful (though I can't promise I won't slip and use it :).
Pre | Post
Weak-Tight
I look at weak/tigh as a player that is not playing strongly at any stage of the game (Pre-flop, Post flop)
They will not raise with top cards pre-flop (Weak) and will be afraid to bet/raise/protect when in the lead post flop.(tight)
These types have a table image as the name implies weak/tight and you can spot them within a few orbits.
Best of it !!
MJ
I have often descrobed my play as semi-tight semi-aggressive a term I picked up from TJ - I think it is important to properly classify opponents in order to play them correctly.
If a player isn't playing a lot of hands and folds to raises I suspect them of W-T play - this is a player I will bluff when I have situational position over them. Some times the suprise you - Other day at Aurora I flopped top top (pair in board) led the betting a true weak tight checked called to the river never raising once and showed a full house - I was worried about him calling to the river but I thought it was a good chance he was drawing to a big hand.
He lost one or two bb (there was a player to the turn).
Sometimes aggression is a leak in my game as it might have been here.
"Weak-tight" players are "gay".
Poker Veteran,
You never fail to amaze. Where do you come up with nonsense like this?
What is it about being weak, tight, and happy that you find so non-sensical?
Ok, you got me on that one.
But you’re showing your age because we both know that no one in today’s world associates the term “gay” with being happy.
Are you happy?
If you are then you’re gay.
It's nice to know that you're happy, son.
.
Astute assessment.
Further, that your proposal to abandon the term generates responses of form, "When I hear the term, it means [one of N possible nuances of the term, where N is the number of respondents]," indicates that the term tends to obfuscate.
Good topic, Jim. Language shifts like wind-blown sand. It's good to review and tweak along the way.
I stopped using the phrase "weak tight" a few years ago. Since then it's been watered down even further by over-usage.
Funny thing about "weak tight." I could call you (or some other player) "weak tight." You could call me "weak tight." In our own minds, we might be using the phrase properly. But then we could both rebut, offended, and say, "ME? I ain't one of those weak tight players! I'm better than that!"
If a lable is frequently applied to people who would not agree that the lable applies to themselves, then it becomes meaningless.
And how many players would stand up and be counted if asked "Are you a weak-tight player?" Very few, I suspect. The word "weak" is quite a turn off for anyone who works on their game and takes pride in their effort.
Tommy
Tommy, no one who ever played with you would ever call you "weak-tight". "Weak-tight" you are not.
Played some 5-10 stud at Foxwoods this weekend at a great table. Sitting next to me was an older gentleman who's playing way too many hands much too far, and winning more than his fair share of them. He was just laughing and joking it up, regardless of how his stack fluctuated.
Some of the LOL's (not very good players, BTW) were fed up with him "chasing and drawing every single pot". They vocally criticized him in voices that were easily loud enough for him to hear. The older gentleman next to me heard some of this, and his mood and his game tightened up a bit for a little while.
My question is: how do I keep the little old ladies from insulting the guy next to me without getting them ticked off at me, as well? Do I...
a.) Tell them that openly criticizing another's play is against the rules in this room, and that I'll call the floor the next time it happens;
b.) Engage the older gentleman in conversation immediately after he wins a pot, so he can't hear the other players criticizing him; or,
c.) Some other suggestion?
comment to him, under your breath "what the hell do they know, you dragged the pot and they didn't"
tell him that they are live ones
Ho Brasileiro! Boa idea, e boa sorte para voce para todos os jogos. Ciao.
the only word i recognize from your post is "Boa" which means, a big snake... can you please translate into english what you mean? sayonara
The name Celso is a common Brazilian name, and I am not familiar with it other than that. Therefore I guessed that you might be Brazilian. I had some friends in past years who taught me some Brazilian Portuguese. The post says:
"Ho, Brasileiro!" (Greeting and recognition of a Brazilian in an energetic, friendly, and casual manner).
"Boa idea, e boa sorte para voce para todos os jogos" (Good idea, and good luck to you in all the games). Although "para" mean "for", as it does in Spanish, the English would appear unwieldy perhaps if translated it literally. The word "sorte" may be analagous to "suerte" or strength, in Spanish, or it may not--I am not sure. My friend told me in the 80's that to wish a gambler luck you say "boa (good) sorte." The spelling of sorte I am unsure of and in Brazilian Portuguese the "t" is often pronounced almost like a "tch" in English. There are many similarities to Spanish (and Italian). For instance the number 20 in Spanish is "veinte." In Br. Portuguese it is "vinte", with the "t" sounding like "tch." In some ways Portuguese may be closer to Italian than to Spanish.
My spelling might be slightly off. "Ciao" is commonly used as we might use "Bye" or "See you later."
More thanyou may have wanted to know, perhaps, but I did rather like your idea.
thanks for the explaination. all along, i thought you were speaking italiano. ciao
I am ALWAYS the first one to sincerly say "nice hand sir" when I live one gets there, whether I am in the pot or not. If I hear someone else grumbling I will repeat it again and louder, it usually shuts up the whiner.
This is my biggest pet peeve especially when the whining comes from a winning player. Do they want the live ones to make only correct calls next time??? Wise up.
Derek
Idiot Vig,
You are my type of guy. I too hate to see criticism of other player's strategy at the table.
Anyway, I'm happy to see Foxwoods still has a policy on this but I'm guessing it is not well enforced. But I like answer b). I never thought of that but I'll give it a try.
My only suggestion is that if the offender is a regular player that you have some relationship with try to pick a later time to convince him or her that this activity serves no ones interest. But try to be more diplomatic than Mason is or I used to be ;-).
Regards,
Rick
This is actually listed on the Poker Policies board at the front of the room, near the low-limit stud brush board. It's about halfway down the list.
As far as enforcement is concerned, I've never seen this brought up anywhere, but have been tempted to use it some times. Unfortunately, as in this case, I didn't want to reprimand a worse player. Now, if a rock was going on and on about some of the hands a live one was playing, it'd be different. But I wanted practically everyone at the table still in the game.
Idiot Vig,
A few months after Foxwoods opened, I went back East to visit my folks in Rhode Island and played a couple times. On that visit I witnessed two occasions where the policy was enforced. Both were at an adjacent table at the middle limits. In one case they gave a warning and the player complied. In the other case the player couldn’t resist continuing with his crass behavior and was actually dealt out and his chips were picked up. I thought it was a great day for poker.
Apparently, this good idea went south like many policies that require constant vigilance. One reason may be that the players lost after being barred for bad behavior are easy to quantify. The players gained due to providing a more civil atmosphere are hard if not impossible to quantify. And since poker is essentially a non-competitive business, managers with guts, instinct and vision rarely rise to break new ground and build upon it.
BTW, did the policy read something like the following: As long as a customer bets, calls, checks or raises in accordance with the rules, his tactics shall not be subject to criticism from other players.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I can check for you on the exact wording, but I believe the wording is closer to what you'd find in a zoo: Don't pester the animals.
John
Yes, Foxwoods does have a posted rule.
HOWEVER, I believe there is MORE criticism of plays and players, and discussion of hands over the tables, than at ANY casino I have ever played at.
Correction: It may be inaccurate to say "MORE." The correct wording should be "FAR MORE."
At some point, when he wins a pot, pay him a sincere compliment about his play. Find something specific to comment on in what he did, and mean it. You can always tell a player player like this that they are tough, that they don't give up good hands with potential and can't be bluffed. Specific compliments are worth 10,000 more ego and egg-on points than all the vague criticism of a losing player.
Sometimes direct a remark to the table in general: " Are we having free poker lessons today? Can we just play poker?"
It may work in that instead of being received in the context of defending bad play, you are just saying can we just play poker. Maybe they shut up. If it does not work, sometime lean forward and look at the commentator and just give that "give me a break look!"
If indirect tactics are ineffective, you might say something like: "Perhaps you do not realize how rude your comments are."
Tell the old man you were changing their goddamn diapers when you started playing poker!!
paul
I've recently become a regular at a room that features loose/passive,friendly games.Have noticed a trend that I find disturbing,but have been told is nothing to worry about.Situation 1)seated next to a regular(I'm not in hand),call him player A,he is honest and respected(written up by Poker Digest as one of the best low limit players in Vegas)he raises player B re-raises and eventually wins hand.Player A whispers to me that he can't believe Player B re-raised because they have been playing against one another for years and 'He usually soft plays me'.Next day same faces,Player A in blind flops full house,Player B is his only opponent.Player A bets and turns over cards,B smiles and throws away his hand. Situation 2)Loose aggressive in seat one,his girlfriend in seat5,she is loose will play too many too far consistantly.They are both in most hands,he will try to bully out other players.At conclusion of hands they have been involved in together the winner of pot will toss the loser the chips they lost.I get up go over to a regular I respect and suggest this hurts game they are clearly not independent and knowing that they will get some losses back would influence play against others.I am told theres nothing wrong with it.Comment?
I see people soft playing each other quite a bit, I don't like it, but usually weak players are doing it and I don't want to chase them.
The other situation you mentioned (players tossing stacks to each other) is quite different. I saw this happen in a 3/6 game at Canterbury Park recently. One of the floor people saw it happen and immediately put a stop to it.
In a home game I play in, a guy and his girlfriend both play and do this frequently. They also "co-play" her hands when he's out and she'll ask him for advise. If they weren't constantly losing 1500 a week, it might be a problem, but since he's a lot of action, satify the customer.
Ah, the subjectivity of ethics.
I don't think that soft-playing or returning bets is inherently 'wrong.' It depends on the players, the game, and the house. From the vantage of players who came to make money, then yes, it 'hurts' the game. But from the vantage of the players who are there to have fun and not beat up on their good friends, returning money seems 'right' and natural.
My experience is that these type of players harbor no bitterness if asked to stop. They know its against the rules to pass chips. So if someone complains, they'll oftentimes stop doing it without a wimper. I think the best way to complain is to take the floorman aside and ask him to remind the table of the rules.
Tommy
There are a couple people who I will routinely soft play heads up in live (not online) poker. I will only do this when I want that person to stay in the game.
There is one person in particular who is absolutely fantastic to have at the table. She is a casino employee, gorgeous, and loves to raise and reraise with any Ax or Kx suited.
The other guys in the game just love being in pots with her (gives them a reason to talk to her maybe), so she creates fantastic action just by being at the table.
She usually loses, so if I get into a pot headsup with her, I always fold or softplay, preferably fold early. The LAST thing I want to do is separate her from her ammunition too soon.
What often happens is that she folds on the flop when her draw doesn't hit, leaving the other guys married to their bad hands.
Of course, I don't just toss stacks of chips to her, but I have been guilty of dumping a few to her when I thought I might have her beat.
When the pot is multi-way, soft playing is out of the question and no one draws for free, including her.
But the last thing I want to do is have her not want to play on my table. When she busts out, it is always to someone else.
Where I play there are about 6 cardrooms (most with only one table) that run steady games. There is a partnership seeking to place another cardroom in a local casino (that does not currently offer poker). They have approached me with an offer to be one of their steady house players.
I currently play at all of the cardrooms in town. I am selective, however, about the games I enter. Every cardroom manager in town knows me, as do all the dealers. I have played for the house at other establishments, but only rarely. I've received many offers, but I dislike it because of how they require house players to play and because I hate giving up a large portion of a win (usually 50%) to the house. This new cardroom has already given me the ok to play my regular game (for example, they will allow me to check-raise, etc.) They have offered me the typical deal of 50% of the win.
I win at least 2/3 of the time I play and average 1.5-2.5 bets per hour in the games I play (depending on the structure).
This new cardroom has one other planned house player. He is, in my opinion, not a very strong player, but he certainly knows what he is doing (long-term he is probably a small loser).
The primary game that will be played will be 5-10 with potential for overs (probably 10-20). I expect that playing for the house will (a) reduce my variance (b) reduce my winnings.
I am interested in others' thoughts on playing for the house, particularly players who have done so. The main drawback, as I see it, is that I will not be able to select the game I'm in (and will, at times, miss out on great games that are at other cardrooms). Moreover, it will probably reduce my win rate (though if the overs is played frequently enough then I may be able to counter that as 10-20 and up is not spread here often).
i assume they put up all the money and you get 50% of what you win each day and start fresh the next time whether you lose or win, then its a no brainer that playing for the house is great. if its over a period of time that you get 50% of what you win dont if you are sure you will be playing a winning game. the down side is you lose your independence.
Tell them you want an hourly pay, and will keep all winnings and stand all losses yourself. This is what a proposition player does.
If as Ray says they are willing to square up with you on a daily basis you almost have to be better off than being paid as a prop. On the other hand, if they will only square up after a relatively long length of time, you are better off going for the prop salary.
I am not familiar with the type of arrangement you are being offered. I have worked as a proposition player, playing with my own money and keeping all wins (and absorbing losses) for a fixed salary. The arrangement you are considering may be preferable if you lack a bankroll (or for losing players).
I am familiar with a "shill" who plays for a set salary and the entire stake remains the house. Such players are often instructed to play very tight.
I am also familiar with a "prop" who plays for a set salary and the entire stake remains his own. The house pays him to play in certain games.
I am not familiar with this "play for the house, keep 50%" stuff. They stake you and you keep 50% of your win and they obsorb all losses? If so, sign me up.
- Louie
In pool halls this is a standard relationship. The stake horse gets 50% of the wins and absorbs all the losses. Most, if not all, stake horses are suckers. That's another story.
In poker the down side of this type of arrangement is the house tightening and weaking your play. The up side is you keep more than 50%. For example: in a 5-10 game you play 20 hours in four five-hour sessions. You win $100 the first three sessions and lose $100 in the final session for a total win of $200, or $10 per hour. When staked, you whack the $300 in wins, the house eats the $100 loss, for $150 gain or $7.50 per hour. Viola: 75%
From what A.Z. says, he can play his own game. This means he can introduce more variance and end up with an even sweeter deal. Sounds good but I don't know how long it can last...
In your example a normal player is up $200 after the 4 sessions but the house player is up only $150. Yes, you would keep more than half your NET winnings.
I win about as often as I lose but the wins are larger. But, the average win on a winning day is NOT twice the average loss on a losing day so I would be glad to erase my losses and half my wins.
Plus, if I had such a deal the temptation to play crazy when losing, in an effort to "get even", would be too great since additional losses would be meaningless to me.
This arrangement would favor a high varience player like myself but would probably NOT favor more conservative types who probably win a little far more often than they lose.
- Louie
I think you need to provide more information.
But I will say that reducing your win while reducing your varience can be a VERY good thing if either you have a very small bankroll or your life is currently in some turmoil. With the reduced stress at the table you can deal better with off-table issues, and you may find that you are actually playing better.
- Louie
Basically the deal is that your losses on losing days go away because the house stakes you, and your winnings on winning days are cut in half because you must pay the house their share.
Therefore, it seems to me that this is a good deal for you if your losses from losing sessions total more than half of your winnings from winning sessions. My suggestion is to look back at your win/loss records for the past few months or so, total up the losses and the wins and see where you come out. If losses > (wins / 2), then go for it. :)
-Andy
Sounds like a compromise between being an ass kisser, like all 9 to 5 working people are, and being an "I'm my own boss" ass kicking 24/7 poker player.
Has anything intelligent ever come out of your mouth?
Bruce
Forget about reasoning with him, Bruce.
PokerVeteran is the forum equivalent of a 'calling station.'
He is completely predictable, does same thing over and over again regardless of the situation, never changes and doesn't add much to the game.
He's an easy mark - too easy.
Sounds like a compromise between being and ASS KISSER, LIKE ALL 9 TO 5 WORKING PEOPLE ARE, and being an "I'm my own boss" ass kicking 24/7 poker player.
Something intelligent is about to come out of my mouth: You're a miserable vomitous mass of moronity!!!
For a stupid fuck like yourself I am surprised you know how to spell correctly and you actually were able to incorporate several three syllable words into a sentence. You must have made it at least through the fourth grade, probably took you two times at least.
Bruce
Son, you need to learn how to respect your elders. God bless you and may the spirits that make you deluded get confused as they follow you to your home at the end of each day.
I retired over a year ago and enjoy my independence. I play 2 to 5 times a week. At some point I played tighter and began to see increased winnings. But it also became less entertaining at times. Nowadays I do fine overall, but I know its not as good as more disciplined play.
With that said, is this deal about money or you? If you don't need to work for someone, why give up your independence. It may be that it is a better deal but you will have to march to their drum beat. You play for the HOUSE or yourself. Unless money is really is a factor here, be your own boss.
Thanks for all the great responses so far.
As someone pointed out, this situation is not exactly shilling or propping. Incidentally, each session is judged independently. That is, if I lose one session then it will not carry over to the next session.
As I see it, it is an opportunity to greatly reduce my variance. Essentially, I will have no losses and smaller wins. I don't think the house would appreciate me playing a "higher variance" game than I normally play -- indeed, the reason I've been offered this job is because I am a pretty conservative player.
The biggest downside I see is that I will not be able to "shop around" as much for the best games because I will be in a specific cardroom most of the time. This means that I may miss the games that would have given me the biggest wins.
I am going to give it a try and if I feel that the reduced variance does not outweigh a cut in my hourly rate then I will continue. I'm planning on using 200 hours of play to get a feel for how I like the situation (about one month).
Thanks again for the input.
Can anyone tell me what the term Montana Banana refers to?
I believe it refers to a goofy hand like Nine-Deuce suited or something. It refers to a specific hand like the "gay waiter" which is Queen-Trey.
Montana banana is a starting hand - 92 (preferably offsuit - it's more 'macho'.)
I am not sure how the name originated. Maybe you can ask Ray Zee? He lives in Montana.
-SmoothB-
Buffalo,
It is the 92 offsuit. I always assumed that it was a Montana player bragging about the size of a certain body part but an RGP thread of a year or so ago seemed to indicate otherwise.
Regards,
Rick
I heard it was it was so named because it is extremely rare to find a banana growing in Montana and this hand has about the same chances of winning.
Like most NAMED hands it should be avoided. Computer Q7 - Doyle Brunson T2 - Broadrick Crawford T4 - Jackson 5 J5 - big lick 69 - hell even the dead mans hand A8 - dogs all dogs.
Now there are some decent NAMED hands big slick AK - Big chick AQ - eyes of Texas, pocket rockets, American Airlines AA and the cowboys KK.
Rounder, you forgot Siegfried and Roy - QQ.
Hey, don't get down on gays you know 1/2 of them were born that way and the other half got sucked in.
:-)
Someone still has to come up with a nickname for JJ. Maybe you or Vince Lepore could come up with one. BTW, what's ROFLMAO?
I like to call JJ
"DYN-O-MITE!"
But nobody gets it.
I don't get it.
JJ is "Dyn-o-mite" Jimmy Walker!
Vince
Now I get it. JJ is Rerun's friend. I used to watch that show.
LOL,
No, Rerun was on "What's Happening", not "Good Times."
Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off.
nt
The law that made poker legal in Montana was Proposition 92 or Proposition 29. I don't recall which one. Either way, I heard this explanation of the origin of nine-deuce as the "Montana Banana" from two dealers that lived in Montana when the law was passed.
As to the banana thing, well, they didn't have any theories so cogent, except that it looks nice and rhymes.
Tommy
Actually, it has nothing to do with poker, but refers to a San Fransisco 49ers incident a few years ago involving a locker room and a parcticular linebacker. It's all very hush hush, no one would discuss it on the record.
x
I was told by a poker plyer from Montana that this hand (9,2) got its name because it was proposition 92 that officially legalized gambling in Montana.
z
Here's the thing. I don't like using the free card raise as listed in the 2+2 books very much at all anymore because so many players have become "hip" to it. I have tried a variation of it that has seemed to work well at the start at 15-30 and 20-40 games. The reason that I think it has workedbecause of the fact that they haven't read about it and the fact that it is not standard reading material. But we have to vary our game a little right? I'm trying to be original.
Instead of using the free card raise in late position, use it in early position via the check raise. Then check the turn and confuse the heck out of them. I have used this move 5 times and it has worked every time that I have used it and the straight got there 3 times. The other two times I was able to bet the blank on the river and successfully bluff the pot out and take it down. Now what I do to set this up is to check raise the turn if someone bets again to really set this up. I risk losing the bet but in my quest to keep opponents guessing I try it. I don't use it frequently but in the right spots it puts fear into my opponents to know that I have some strong moves not listed in the book. BTW, there is a world champion that sits in on the game once in a while and he has been the victim if this play 3 times. Please let me know how sound this play is or if I should scrap it all together and I have just been lucky. Thank you for your time.
Gregg
Actually we have written about this play here and there. It works well against the right people.
I patented that move a year ago - you owe me a $50 royalty. :-)
This play works best againt those kinds of players who are easily intimidated by a SINGLE raise. As you said you need to set it up with a couple real double check-raises, but generally do THIS against aggressive types who need to be raised a couple times before they become predictable.
Only top notch opponents will notice you check-raise twice against assertive types but check-raise for free-cards against more paranoid types.
I would like to point out that there are few lagitamate check-raise-for-free-card premium early position hands, but there are lots when played from the blinds. Keep this in mind when trying to ballance a strategy against bright types.
- Louie
I've used this play at the same levels with success many times. The term "free"card as defined by the dynamic duo does not apply here. Semi-bluff may be more appropriate. If you do this often enough against the right players you will find that you sometimes win the pot right there on the flop or with a check-raise on the flop and then a bet on the turn. This is simialr to the situation that Jim Brier wrote about a few weeks ago, He had a four flush on the flop. He was check-raised by the SB, His best play would have been to reraise and then bet the turn. He called then called the turn and the river was checked. He lost to K high. Your play is an aggressive one that's why I refer to it more as a semi bluff. I believe if you make this play your best turn strategy is to bet. The final point that needs to make is that as David says it works better against the right opponent. It is not something to try against a calling station. Actually against a calling station it can be a good free card play. You probably check the turn against one of them. It works better against a weak or strong player that bets and isn't likely to have much given the flop. Tough players make this play themselves so you may want to leave them alone.
Vince
Where have you been? Many people are "hip" to this checkraise freecard maneuver too.
The traditional "raise the flop" free card move works for me just fine in late position, as long as I have from time to time been betting the flop with top pair or an over pair, and then betting the turn with the same hand.
This play is as old as the hills. Most people I play with won't fall for it - neither will I.
The best way to use this ploy is to take it to the next level.
If the flop comes with 2 suited cards and you flop a set, checkraise the flop. On the turn, when you check, people will think you checkraised your draw and may bet again. Then you can checkraise AGAIN!
You have to bet the river if the flush doesn't come because most people aren't dumb enough to fall for this 3 times unless they have you beaten.
This play works because everyone with a clue knows about the checkraise-for-the-free-card semibluff and expect it - it can works if it looks like there is a good draw on the board - like the flush or straight.
The reason why most people don't fall for this play is this - if you checkraised the flop with a strong hand, why bother risking losing out on a double sized bet on the turn? Obviously you were trying to buy a free card from early position and now everyone knows what you have.
If you do it MY way, then everyone will assume you have a draw that isn't there yet - now you can checkraise again with that set.
It works best with sets, by the way, because if the flop is all little cards with a 2 flush on board, this move screams 'flush draw'. That's why the checkraise will work 2 times.
-SmoothB-
Here is another play to try.
Obviously if the board looks really ragged with no draws, a checkraise will look like a strong hand. No one will think you are checkraising for a free card if no draw is there.
So, let's say that you have AK and the flop is all little cards. You are in early position and there is a loose player in late position that you know will bet if he's checked to.
Check raise with overcards. You still want a free card on the turn and you might get it. You also will knock some people out which helps you a lot.
IE if the flop is T 7 2 your checkraise might get an A7 to fold, where they might have called one bet. You definitely want to get A7 out of this hand pronto.
-SmoothB-
Last night I had A-x suited against KQs. We both flopped a flush draw. I bet the flop, he check-raised, and made it three bets, rebuying my free card, dangit! He called.
We both checked the turn, both thinking we were getting away with something.
I see the check-raise on a draw play often. But your pre-planned double-check-raise play, well, that's a doozy!
Tommy
IMO, this play can be used less frequently and with more risk than the late position semi-bluff raise. Thinking players will suspect that you are on a draw when you check-raise the flop and then check the turn. [And setting-up the play by attempting to check-raise twice with a real hand may be difficult and costly.] The fact that good players may have given you a free turn-card after you check-raised the flop does not necessarily mean your play worked; they may have wanted a free card more than you!
You not only hit the nail squarely on the head, you drove it - with one swing of your hammer - exactly where it was targeted. If it's OK with you, I think I'll look for some softer pasture. I'm not in any great hurry to sit cross the table from you.
PS - I did not read all of the posts in this thread; there may have been others whose replies were on the $$ - this is not an attempt on my part to smear the rest of those who chimed in.
Accurate, clear and concise. I can usually manage 2 of 3, but seldom hit a triple.
Nice job...
I've seen this play by several opponents and dubbed it "the idiot's free card play". It doesn't work against me twice and rarely works once. Out of position you can not grant a free card.
-Fred-
Thanks to all who posted. I will keep it in the arsenal but will use it sparingly and selectively. Really appreciate the input. Good luck at the tables. More theory topics to come!
Some winning players tell me they never play drawing hands - that statement confuses me!
(1) Definition of a drawing hand preflop - This varies depending on who you are talking to. What do you consider a drawing hand pre-flop?
A2s - 76s - 44 - JTo
AK or AQ could be considered a drawing hand, after all you do not have a "made hand" (a pair)
(2) Definition of a drawing hand after the flop -
(a) JTs flop As 4s Kd
(b) 54o flop J 6 3
(c) 66 flop 8 7 5
* These could obviously be drawing hands (at this point)
(3) Do they mean they will not continue on the flop with a drawing hand, obviously with poor odds they may decide to muck.
All comments appreciated!
Bob,
Speaking only of preflop, we could defining a 'drawing hand' as "a hand that is unlikely to be the best hand."
7-6 -- a drawing hand J-10 -- a drawing hand
I left out suitedness because it is irrelevent if the above definition is used.
A2 -- In some cases, say, on the button against the blinds, this is not a drawing hand. But if there is heavy action in front of me before the flop, I might consider it a drawing hand.
44 -- same as A2, but generally less likely to be demoted to 'drawing hand' by the betting.
Your postflop examples. J-10 is a drawing hand. 5-4 is a drawing. With the 66, unless I had already demoted it to a draw before the flop by being dang sure someone had a bigger pocket pair, I would presume that I have the best hand on the flop, meaning 66 would not be a drawing hand in this case. Then, if the action forced reconsideration, I could think I need to make a straight or set to win, meaning the 66 was now a drawing hand.
Tommy
Tommy,
The term "drawing hand," in my opinion, takes on something of an interesting meaning in hold'em. In 7CS, the drawing hands are, as you are most likely aware, include the 3-to-a-straight and 3-to-a-flush hands, as opposed to those hands that contain a pair (a made hand).
A convienient definition for a "drawing hand" in holdem might be: Any hand that must improve in order to win in a showdown. Of course, if you have a good line on your opponents holding, what would ordinarily be a drawing hand can qualify as a made hand. For instance, you hold AKo and are certain your opponent holds JTo and the flop comes low unsuited rags.
My question regarding your post is this: You Stated: "A2 -- In some cases, say, on the button against the blinds, this is not a drawing hand." I am curious about this.
It seems, against the blinds (particularly unraised) that there are 4 very random cards out against you and that you are, indeed, drawing to an ace.
Assuming 4 different random cards in your opponents hands, and ignoring any straight or flush possibilities, I find a 7.1697% chance of A2 holding up against two random unpaired hands without anyone improving (28/46)(27/45)(26/44)(25/43)(24/42) = 11,793,600/164,490,460 = 7.1697%.
I have just begun my forray into theoretical poker math, so please check my numbers and do not hesitate to point out any errors.
Bear in mind, please, that I write this post out of curiosity and a desire to further my understanding of the game. My intent is not argumentative.
Regards,
Bart Slater
Hi Bart,
My definition of 'drawing hand' was based on the here and now. At each street, all hands but the best one are drawing. Against two random hands (the blinds), an ace is likely to BE the best hand, right? I mean, if you deal two random starting hands a zillion times, most of the time an ace beats them both, at that time, before the flop.
So if I enter a pot with an ace against the blinds, say, by raising them from the button, there's no way I would think to myself, "Okay, I'm on a draw." And that was the gist of Bob's question; which hands, in which spots, do we consider to be drawing hands.
If it turns out that one of them has, say, AK, then yes, I am on a draw. But at the time that I entered the pot, I rated to have the best hand, therefore, not drawing.
I did not understand the relevence of your calculation about A-2 winning 7% of the time against two random hands, and your conclusion that the A2 is therefore drawing to an ace. If the opponents have a non-pair non-ace hand, then it is THEY who are drawing, right? And if one of them DOES have an ace, that means the A2 is drawing to a deuce or a straight or a flush, right?
In any case, I'm not looking to argue either, just babble and learn. And I can't check your math for you. When I first clicked on "2+2," I was drawn by a concept I could understand. :-)
Tommy
I agree with this, noting that the "best" hand is defined as those highest on the ranking of hands chart. AKs is "better" than JJ.
These players don't play hands unless its "probably" the best hand.
- Louie
Maybe it is my tournament experience coming out in me but I just don't play drawing hands except on the button. I will play AXs and most pairs but need the right game and won't usually play them to a raise.
Drawing is the biggest cause of players losing money. Most don't know when to draw and if you listen to S&M they only need odds just a bit better than the draw odds to make it. NOT me I want much better odds to get in a drawing contest and it has to be for the nuts.
man, your tight
One of the problems with drawing hands is the concept of "outs". Supposedly, if one of your "outs" arrives you are supposed to win the pot. But this ignores things likes someone else having the same outs to a better hand (e.g.-flush draw vs nut flush draw) or to the same hand (e.g.- you have a one card straight draw, you hit one of your "outs", but someone else makes the same straight so you only get half the pot, etc.). In addition, there are such things as redraws. A two flush flops and you make a straight on the turn only to have the third flush card come at the river giving someone else a flush.
Most players are overly optimistic about their drawing hands and what their "outs" really are. Nevertheless, drawing hands can be profitable if played correctly.
There are a lot of factors to be considered in playing drawing hands. Some of these are pointed out in above posts esp. by Jim Brier. Let's try a quick list for evaluating implied odds. The chances that:
1) you will make your hand
2) your hand will be good if you make it
3)you will get paid off if you do make it and it is good
4)you might have to split the pot if you make it
5) you are subject to a raise right now (assuming you are not last to act.
In a post above, Rounder mentions having what appear to be extremely tight qualifications for playing his own drawing hands. While he is missing some profit opportunities, I would suggest that it keeps him out of a great deal of trouble by avoiding many problems associated with the list above. I think that many players do not fully weigh all the above factors when deciding whether to play for implied odds or not. In other words I think Rounder's approach will allow to play better poker than many more sophisticated players who have less than very good judgment for just when to play hands requiring implied odds. This would probably be even more true in PL/NL.
So while Rounder's approach will provide inferior results compared to the approach of someone like David Sklansky or Louie Landale, who understand both the underlying principles and the math behind the situation, in a great many cases Rounder's approach will outperform the approach of those who have read a fair amount the game and are eager to exercise their newfound knowledge. It should also outperform many pretty good players,because mistakes like overvaluing the value of a draw is a common error that even pretty good players make, especially if they have a tendency to play a bit on the loose side. Note that players who overvalue draws who know about odds usually do so because they are not taking a correct accounting of all of the factors that have the potential to devalue their draw.
You are correct it is more productive in PL & NL a strategy I picked up in tournaments and it made it's way to my live game play.
BTW the results are NOT inferior so long as I stick to my game plan.
In pot limit and no limit games your opponnet can control the odds that you are getting on your draw. He does this by simply betting more than your draw is worth -- thus giving you poor odds on your call, and by going all in so that you cannot collect if you make your hand. Since tournaments are essentially a weak form of no limit some of these characteristics carry over. Thus it should be clear that drawing hands do not have the value that they can have in ring game limit poker where you are often getting overwhelming odds (both pot and implied) to make your hand.
But isn't the implied odds at no limit determined in a big way by the amount of your call now relative to the total amount in the bettor's stack? In other words, if it's the turn, I have the nut flush draw, there is 15 units currently in the pot, the opponent (who has a made hand) bets 100 units, he has has $2000 (which I have covered). Shouldn't I call here based on implied odds? David Sklansky has an example of this in Theory of Poker. In that book, he uses the gut shot made by Stu Ungar against Doyle Brunson during the 1980 WSOP, as an example.
That's correct. But if I take that into account and bet the right amount I will want you to call with a draw.
So you're going to bet an amount that if called will give me a slight negative expectation on my draw? Obviously, you're going to make it seem like I'm getting a good price on my call, right?
When do you not stick to your game plan?
By how much will David Sklansky's and Louie Landale's approach outperform Rounder's per hour?
By the amount of the sum of their expected values on each opportunity that Rounder would have missed divided by the number of hours played
To the preceding formula append "plus or minus their expected values on all other plays versus Rounder's expected values on all other plays"
And what would be the corresponding difference in standard deviation? In other words, how much more of a bankroll would Sklansky/Landale need to play at the same limits and games as Rounder? How much more swings should they expect than Rounder? Are the increase in standard deviation proportionate to the increase in expectation?
How much more bankroll and fluctuation? Very much more. That's about the best I can do at this point. Mason would be amongst those who might be able to give you more specific figures.
I think the increases in fluctuation would be greater proportionately than the increases in expectation in the short-term. In the long-term a higher win rate would help smooth things out.
Rounder is the most intelligent poster on this forum. Drawing hands are for the purists. They will cost you nothing but money. You must play them cautiously and with good position only. You also need a HUGE overlay overwise forget about it. Anybody that disagrees is nuts. After listening to Rounder talk about drawing hands over and over I have changed my philosophy.
Rounder is God
"Rounder is the most intelligent poster on this forum."
Is this up for discussion or are you the highest authority on intelligent posters? Please list your qualifications for making these evaluations.
Vince
Give her some leeway I think she is on the right track.
:-)
If you play the way Rounder preaches you will always be an underachiever in poker.
Bruce
He says what he thinks and wears cool shades
Go ahead fold you opended straight flush draw, and give me a call with that made pair of deuces.
Rounder,
What is wrong with you? Drawing hands are the nuts! The nuts I say. Nothing and I mean nothing pisses off opponents more than losing to a drawing hand. O.K. maybe 7,2o but drawing hands rank right up there as "loosening them up hands". Even if you are drawing to the nut flush they don't care. You had 8 or nine outs and you beat my Aces. You gotta play poker if you wanna win money (and have fun). You gotta play when the opportunity arrives otherwise you become Rock of ages Rounder. The game is about getting the best of it! If you find yourself in a situation that has great implied odds and you don't go for it you are just plain wrong! Sure you are safe but you ain't playin the game. Get in there and mix it up! Listen to Uncle Vinnie. Limit poker ain't No Limit Poker!
Vince
Right on Vince ! Drawing hands properly played are worth $$$$$ in any limit game. While I agree that NL/PL is different, in limit games the theory of sucking out not only works, but is a significant loss to those who don't practice it.
Groan..not this again.
Dan Hanson and Badger went hoarse trying to convince Rounder...so hoarse that they no longer post here (sigh).
nt
...
This whole discussion is too vague for my tastes. Do I agree or disagree with Rounder? I don't know! I do know that I hate to open with drawing hands, like T9s or 55 when not close to the button. When I do open with T9s or 55 close to the button, it's with a raise, and it's not with the intention of drawing.
I'll play a lot of drawing hands after two players have limped, though, and I don't particularly care much about position there, unless I would really hate to call a raise back preflop. Position isn't worth much if you're usually going to fold anyway on the flop. Suited aces, medium suited kings, small pairs, suited connectors... these are all fair game after two or more limpers.
Still, I avoid offsuit connectors like the plague. The reason suited connectors are so much stronger is that you can flop a flush draw and back into a straight or vice versa, so it's almost like doubling the power of the hand. With many players in, you can't be too happy about flopping top pair with just JT, as there is a fair chance you're dominated or will wind up laying down the best hand because you were afraid you were dominated when you weren't.
-Abdul
But Abdul haven't you heard that good players prefer their connectors UNSUITED as opposed to SUITED? Both Tom McEvoy and T.J.Cloutier do or at least that is what they state in their latest book, "Championship Hold-Em". Why there are a bunch of posters over on rgp who actually defended Tom and T.J.'s position on this. They all agree that when your connectors are suited especially with a large field it is too easy for your flush to lose to a higher flush. I hope you will see the light soon and start playing your connectors UNSUITED.(I am joking of course)
Last nite was a perfect example. Table selection is very important too. I get called for my game and see it's a dud so ask for table change. Get it before I even get a card dealt. Here goes:
I'm in seat 1. Seat 2 is an agressive calling station. He will even open raise with 56s in early position. Not out of setting up table or with anything in particular in mind either. Seat 3 is loose, but he'll muck if you make him think you hit. If he goes tilt you have a helluva game, he'll raise anything and play 70% of his hands or more. Seat 4 is his buddy and they are starting to "protect" each others hands raise-reraise, but he's a more solid player. seat 5 is a calling station to the river and overvalues his hands. Plays 60-80%. seat 6 is fairly solid but too passive and plays too many hands, wierd starting requirements all over the board and passive. seat 7 is the most solid (besides me!!! :0) plays about 30-35%. Seat 8 is the next calling station. Seat nine is even worse!
ok perfect example:
I'm in BB with Q9c, a hand I wont play early, and will only limp for 1 bet late. seat 2 opened, S3 calls S4 raised, there are 6 players to me. Ok cuz I'm getting huge odds I call for 1 more bet. S3 raises, as does S4, all call still, so I do too then S4 caps it @ 5 bets. Rmember S3 & S4 are playing "protection" with each other. I know this and seat 3 is on tilt so may be raiseing garbage as I suspect.
Flop: J66 one club. 105 small bets in pot.
gets checked to seat 4 who bets. All call so for 110 Small bets to 1 I'll look for a back door flush draw.
110 small bets. Turn: 3c
I check S2 checks, S3 bets, 4 mucks, 5 raises, all muck to me. I ask for time while S4 is talking crap and I'm wondering if he's trying to set me up with pocket jacks. Well I'm getting 29 1/2:1 to call and it looks like S2 is calling, hope 4 doesnt reraise. Yep just called.
63 Big bets in pot. river: 8c
I however have not even looked at the flop as I am intently studying S4 and realize a club has hit the board by his reaction and I check just in case. Seat 5 bets, we all call.
Seat 5 had 67o Seat 3 had 62s and was the preflop reraiser. Seat 2 opened with 57c.
I then turn over my Q high flush and yell "send it!" and take a huge pot with 67 Big bets in it.
Now, lookin back I know I would have mucked if seat 4 had raised it again on the turn. Especially since seat 5 would have repopped it as is his style. I also would have mucked if they started raiseing war on flop instead of slow playing.
This put seat 4 on major tilt and I proceeded to punish him. It was my nite for sure. I played less then 15% of my hands. Got paid off on almost every single winner I played. I even had quad aces and quad 10s (pocket pairs) and bet out from the gate and got paid off! I eventually left with 7+ racks. Winning 2 racks on that 1 hand.
Rounder, what specifically are your minimums. What are the minimum drawing hands that you would play pre-flop - and from what positions? On the flop, what are the minimum situations that will make you go with a draw.
What in the hell is wrong with all of you posters on this forum. Can't you see that Rounder is tgiht about drawing hands. Avoid them like the plague! That's right avoid them like the plague. I know. I know I just posted that rounder is wrong! Drawing hands are the nuts. You gotta play them when it's to your advantage. Yes you do. Rounder doesn't say anything different he just doesn't play them. Rounder if you read his postsplays poker and my guess is that he plays very good poker. The key here is PLAYS! I've been preachin to you guys for 100 years just abpout now that poker is a game. It's a puzzlement. It is not 2 + 2 = winning poker. It is how you play your hands and 2 + 2. Rounder has found a way to win that works for him. Be thankful that he shares it with us I am. Didn't you guys read Abdul's respones. He started with I don't know. I don't know! Come on feel it! Get in the game. Play poker to win! PLAY poker. If you can't stand the variance with drawing hands then limit your action in that area just like Rounder. Make up for it some other way. Get strong somewhere else. PLAY poker don't do Algebra. Leave that for Sklansky.
vince
4
I know, Vince, so I will try to write it for you.
I have a lot of goddam nerve right now saying Classic Vince after my post a few days ago that was in the vein of a Badger or if not a Badger at least a weasel. Who am I to think I can just say Classic Vince and we will be pals again as if I never took a cheap shot like that. A Badger! A Weasel! And who knows what maybe what else.
Let me tell you something M. (here I am running out of ideas for the moment and stalling out. The real Vince however would never run out of ideas). I would never take a cheap shot at you like that and I will tell you if you are wrong just like I will tell Oz and anyone else. You better be glad I am here on this forum because if you noticed no one else even responded to your arguments about Stud vs. Hold'em. We haven't played poker together yet M but someday we will and you may just be in for the surprise of your life. "M" for Vince for President
#
.
.
What is that mean the term " Drawing hand " .... When I am on a draw , I have 4 of the same color or an open-ended straight .....
If Rounder played at only one cardroom all the time, he would become very predictable. It's a good thing he travels a lot.
Not at all - I am a lot of things but predictable is not one of them.
> Drawing hands are the nuts. You > gotta play them when it's to your advantage. Yes you > do. Rounder doesn't say anything different he just >doesn't play them.
Huh? So they are not to HIS advantage? And this has something to do with his knowing how to "play poker"? So who should play them then, people who DON'T know how to play poker? Would it be to THEIR advantage?
>If you can't stand the variance >with drawing hands then limit your action in that area >just like Rounder.
If you can't stand the variance with drawing hands then you should limit your poker playing period as this would imply that you really don't have the stomach for the game. The variance for most drawing hands will over time become of no consequence to someone who plays regularly. What you give away by not playing them, however, will grow without bound. Yes it depends on the pot odds, but almost always many callers justifies a call or late position raise while 1-3 tight players justifies a bet due to the added possibility that everyone will fold.
>PLAY poker don't do Algebra.
Do algebra then play poker. No it's not all about math, but "playing poker" will not make a mathematical error right either.
Many things in poker are too complex to completely analyze mathematically, and that's where judgement ("playing poker") comes in, but that is no excuse to ignore basic mathematical facts that we can and do know.
Math and poker experience complement each other. Math can't tell you how to play every hand, but it can tell you what conditions need to hold for a certain play to be correct. It is then up to your experience and judgement to determine whether these conditions do in fact hold on any given hand with given opponents. Conversely, poker experience should be used to determine what the real issues are that should be analyzed mathematically.
Some people dislike thinking about the mathematical aspects of the game or find them too difficult to comprehend and apply, but they want to play poker so they convince themselves and each other that these aspects are unimportant due to their wealth of experience and superior judgment. Well they're kidding themselves, and this flaw represents a leak in their game whether they want to face it or not.
"It is how you play your hands and 2 + 2"
This sentence from my post was meant, in my feeble way, to indicate that one needed math "plus" to win at poker. The "play" of one's hand is what is normally missed when discussing hand analysis. Most of the discussion flows around the EV of the hand. When discussing EV the main thrust of the arguement is focused on quantifieng the value of the hand. In other words the prime consideration becomes a mathematical exercise.
I understand the value of math to a poker player. It is a necessary tool. I do not believe you give enough credit to the other aspects of the game needed to be mastered to be a winning poker player. Poker is a mind game. If you are not psycologically ready to play you can have the mathematical ability of a Fermat and not win at poker.
"but "playing poker" will not make a mathematical error right either."
This is a very misleading statement. In fact playing correctly does not always mean taking pot size into consideration if that's what you are implying. In some instances it is correct to play a hand incorrectly with regards to expectation. For instance a semi-bluff is sometimes correct even if your bet or raise is not getting correct pot odds. If your opponent exhibits certain characteristics then making this play is necessary. Other times you may make this play to send a message or to set him up for later. I suppose you could claim math is involved in these types of plays but there is no way to calculate the effect or even consider thier EV. But these plays are necessary at the right time.
One other thing:
"If you can't stand the variance with drawing hands then you should limit your poker playing period as this would imply that you really don't have the stomach for the game."
Another misleading statement. Previously I mentioned that poker is a mind game. There are "rocks" that play only the very best starting hands and they "win". Your stomach has nothing to do with it. It's not a matter of nerves it's a matter of how you view the game. Playing a lot of drawing hands even in what appears to be a +EV situation is not necessary to win at poker. Finding enough situations with regards to your basic strategy is the key.
Vince.
P.S I did like your post. thanks.
"but "playing poker" will not make a mathematical error right either."
"This is a very misleading statement. In fact playing correctly does not always mean taking pot size into consideration if that's what you are implying. In some instances it is correct to play a hand incorrectly with regards to expectation. For instance a semi-bluff is sometimes correct even if your bet or raise is not getting correct pot odds. If your opponent exhibits certain characteristics then making this play is necessary. Other times you may make this play to send a message or to set him up for later. I suppose you could claim math is involved in these types of plays but there is no way to calculate the effect or even consider thier EV. But these plays are necessary at the right time.
"but "playing poker" will not make a mathematical error right either."
This is a very misleading statement. In fact playing correctly does not always mean taking pot size into consideration if that's what you are implying. In some instances it is correct to play a hand incorrectly with regards to expectation. For instance a semi-bluff is sometimes correct even if your bet or raise is not getting correct pot odds. If your opponent exhibits certain characteristics then making this play is necessary. Other times you may make this play to send a message or to set him up for later. I suppose you could claim math is involved in these types of plays but there is no way to calculate the effect or even consider thier EV. But these plays are necessary at the right time.
I'm not implying that you only take into account pot size. I'm talking about plays that are clearly wrong for purely mathematical reasons either because those reasons alone clearly dominate all other possible considerations, or because you found a way to consider EVERYTHING mathematically. It is never correct to play a hand incorrectly with regards to the true expectation. I agree that it is not always possible to precisely compute the expectation of your plays because of stategy considerations that go beyond the pot odds. But I disagree that you cannot CONSIDER the EV of these plays, and in fact I believe that you ARE considering their EV every time you decide that these plays justify violating the pot odds. You might not know precisely what the EV is, but you are using your judgment to estimate that it is "big enough". When you semi-bluff without enough pot odds you are asserting that the odds of everyone folding PLUS the pot odds justify your bet. The math doesn't tell you what the odds of everyone folding is - that's where playing poker comes in - but it does tell you what these odds MUST BE for this to be correct. When you try to set an opponent up you have to ask yourself what do you expect to gain? Are you going to gain a bet? A pot? Does this make it worth the EV hit you're taking now? Sometimes the answer is so obvious that you don't need to do alot of calculation to know what is right. Maybe I have to and you don't in many cases because of your greater experience. But in many other cases the decision is close even for you, and you would be aided by at least considering what the aggregate contribution to EV for these other plays HAS TO BE for them to be correct. Then when you look at it in that light sometimes you might be surprised to find that what you thought was close really isn't, or what you thought was right actually require conditions that you are now are not at all sure are true.
The other day I analyzed under what conditions it is right to call or raise with K-high on the river. This required me to solve a diophantine equation! The answer was in terms of the size of the pot and the percentage of hands that my opponent would bet with that I could beat and the percentage of hands that he would fold that would beat me. The math didn't tell me a damn thing about what these numbers are - they are INPUTS derived from your JUDGEMENT. But the math told me what the hell to do with these inputs once I estimated them and the answer was not obvious. Maybe you always make the correct decision in this situation by the seat of your pants and maybe not. But I'll bet that not everyone does, and if you play this one right I'll bet there are some others that you don't.
"If you can't stand the variance with drawing hands then you should limit your poker playing period as this would imply that you really don't have the stomach for the game."
Another misleading statement. Previously I mentioned that poker is a mind game. There are "rocks" that play only the very best starting hands and they "win". Your stomach has nothing to do with it. It's not a matter of nerves it's a matter of how you view the game. Playing a lot of drawing hands even in what appears to be a +EV situation is not necessary to win at poker. Finding enough situations with regards to your basic strategy is the key.
Perhaps it is possible to make money without ever betting a draw, but why would you want to? Usually a gambler tries to capitalize on every positive EV situation he can. I don't see how not playing obviously correct draws has to interfere with other aspects of your basic strategy. I do believe that people who advocate not playing them do so because they see these plays losing alot, maybe more than mathematics would dicatate in the short term, and they either lose their nerve or do not have sufficient grasp of the mathematics of the situation to have faith that all will eventually even out in their favor. Yes there are things that can go wrong. You can get raised or you can make your draw and lose to a bigger draw. I believe that math can help you compensate for these effects as well right down to taking into account what kinds of hands a person tends to play. You don't do this at the table. You do it offline and develop rules of thumb that you can apply instantly. That's what I'm working on now. But if you say you're never gonna bet a draw because you don't know how to take these effects into account mathematically or because you don't know how to distiguish dangerous situations from one's in which you are a clear favorite then you are giving up too much.
It looks to me like we agree more than disagree! Next subject, please.
vince.
Is it fair to assume that shorter session lengths, can produce a less reliable hourly standard devaition figure? For instance, would 60 4 hour sessions produce a different (lower?) standard deviation than say, 30 8 hour sessions? If so, what would be the ideal session lengths to arrive at a more accurate standard deviation? Thanks.
Kevin
Short Answer: NO
Longer Answer: To compute a true hourly standard deviation you need to measure your performance each hour. Therefore, the number of consecutive hours that you play doesn’t matter. Lets assume that you played 1000 hours of HE. If you played it as one long session or 1000 one-hour sessions your hourly SD has to be the same. To see that this is true redefine the one 1000-hour sessions into 1000 one-hour session where each one starts immediately after the other one ends. Since the same data generates the two results they have to be the same.
However, if you are using an average of your performance over a session to compute the SD what you are actually computing is you average hourly SD given that you play a session. If you keep your sessions close to the same length and use it to compare your performance over time it shouldn’t matter. But you are not computing your “true” hourly standard deviation. This is why you are thinking that a shorter session length will produce a higher hourly SD. What you are actually observing is that your average hourly SD given a session length will decrease as the session length increases. This should happen if you play consistently. The only way session length can affect your standard deviation is if it affects your play (fatigue).
A simple way to demonstrate in Excel how the different session lengths are affecting your standard deviation computations is to do the following:
1. In cell B1 type the following:
=NORMSINV(RAND()) This will give you simulated winnings for one period(hour) assuming a mean of zero and a SD of 1.
Copy this cell down for 500 rows.
Now compute the SD for this person.
=STDEVP(B1:B500) This should be close to 1
2. Now make another player who uses his average winning after 10 periods to compute his SD
In Cell C10 type
=AVERAGE(B1:B10) Copy and past this formula into C20, C30, Etc.
Now compute the SD for this person.
=STDEVP(C1:C500) This should be close to 0.3
3. Now who is the better player?
Player 1 Mean=0 SD=1
Player 2 Mean=0 SD=0.3
You might conclude that P2 is the better player because they have the same mean and P2 has a lower SD. However, the way the demonstration was constructed they are the same person. You can add an addition player if you want who measures his winning every 20 periods. The SD drops to about 0.2. However, the correct SD for all of the players in this example is 1.
The only true metric for determining how well someone plays is their hourly expectation not their hourly standard deviation. If two players have the same theoretical hourly earn then they are equivalent. The fact that one may have a higher or lower standard deviation could be a function of the game they are in, the particular line up they face, and how much pre-flop raising is going on. Even if they were in the same game with the same players the guy with the higher standard deviation is not necessarily a better or worse player than the guy with the lower standard deviation IF they both have the same theoretical hourly earn.
To measure performance you must look at both return AND risk. If you are using a historical average hourly to predict future returns you are only looking a returns. You can evaluate poker players the same way any risky asset is valued (stocks, bonds, etc.). What stock would you rather own? Stock A has an expected return of 10% and a SD of 5% or Stock B, which has an ER of 10% and a SD of 25%. Almost everyone (all risk adverse) would say stock A. The term in economics/finance for this is stochastic dominance. Poker is not any different. Your BR is your investment. If you ignore risk you will eventually go broke and won’t know why.
Jim,
Refer to my prevous post "Game Selection Analogy". It applies here.
vince.
In my spreadsheet, if you input 1000 hours as one long session, you'd get an SD of zero. This makes sense to me because there is nothing to deviate from. If you were to input this same 1000 hours as 1000 one hour sessions, you'd get a number above zero. This also makes sense since you can expect the sessions to deviate from one another. Thanks for taking the time to explain. I'm a little challenged in this area.
Kevin
Clearly session length does matter. We're "machines" (of a sort -- and pretty damn imperfect ones at that) and the longer we function, the more worn out and less reliable we operate. The ideal session length is 4 hours.
Failing to take into account session length reminds me of the old handicapping technique where speed handicappers would weigh each 1/5 second equally regardless of the distance. Yet clearly, in a longer race, 1/5 second has a different value than it would in a sprint race (if you can't accept this, consider the hyper example of how much distance 1/5 second equates to at 240 mph in an Indycar compared to 1/5 second in a 180 mph stock car).
But maybe I'm digressing. Maybe not. The point I'm making (in this torturous manner) is that the longer session length dilutes/obscures the true picture. Of course, if you're going to play 12-hour sessions EVERY day, well, please don't let me discourage you from tracking 12-hour sessions.
Good question KevinJ. A few years ago I was playing $6-$12 hold-em at the Mirage and I played every day for 8 hours. I recorded my results every 4 hours. I had the results for 10 eight hour sessions and results for the 20 four hour sessions. I found that my standard deviation was higher when I computed it for the 20 four hour sessions. However, part of this may have been due to N=20 rather than N=10. I think you need to have N=30 before you start to get consistent results. I suspect that as N gets larger, the individual session length becomes less relevant. I found that my standard deviation converges rather rapidly after about 300-400 hours.
If you use the methods in my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics you can have variable session lengths.
The most accurate way to measure your hourly standard deviation is to keep track of your stack size each hour. It is my understanding that keeping track only at the end of your variable length sessions is plenty accurate enough.
- Louie
after all is said and done what is the best length of time to play, for the average player?
Before you get distracted by fatigue, irritation, off-table committments, losses, game-gone-bad, or whatever. Keep in mind that a typical work day is 8 hours (give or take) for a reason.
- Louie
Background: I play low limit $3-6 OM/8 with the Kill at the Hawaiian Gardens Casino in Hawaiian Gardens California. A scooped pot with $50 or more constitutes a "Kill." There is one $3 blind and new players "to the game" can let the dealer button pass and play without posting a $3 bet. Most players "like this rule" and usually let the button pass before playing. Also....
Myself after I start playing -- I seldom ever miss a blind. I come to play, but I have a problem with some players who consistantly pass their blind when the pot is killed. THe reason....
The reason for this is simple economics "elementary Watson" and any OM/8 player with half a brain can understand why....
In "Omaha 8 HiLo killed pots" the blind must put in an additional $3 to play -- "assuming the pot is not raised and the blind is not the killer." This is a handicap to the blind for two reasons: (1) the blind being first to act has poor overall position. (2) if the blind has a poor starting hand it is not worth the additional $3 to play " a poor investment."
Of course if all the players are fair and play their blind in turn, then the situation will average out and all is OK. But.... Certain players -- "cheap skates or whatever" will pass the blind and opt to come in a hand later or so when the pot is not killed by posting a $3 blind and a MAKEUP $3 dead drop "with the drop being part of the pot." I played OM/8 for years at other casinos and seldom experienced if ever "these cheap skate players." What is the remedy for this situation? I would like to hear some suggestions. My solution would be....
I would prefer that there is no $3 blind and each player ante 50 cents; and if a player doesn't ante -- then deal him/her out. If this is done then there would not be any reason for players skipping blinds. I sorta feel that the casino would reject this solution because antes might make the game "OM/8" more labor intensive and slow it down more.
Last paragraph should have been:
If this is done then there would not be any reason for players not playing since there is no blind. I sorta feel that the casino would reject this solution because antes might make the game "OM/8" more labor intensive and slow it down more.
i would only ante on the button.
brad
That's a drastic structure change that will never happen. A casino wouldn't even consider something like that- it would be too weird.
Carl,
I think your idea has some merit but the numbers don't work out in Los Angeles.
Let's say they do this in 3/6 holdem (to simplify things by eliminating the kill). Since by Los Angeles law the drop must be taken before the hand starts there would often be only 50 cents in the pot to stimulate action ($3 drop on seven handed). And since the blinds are not part way in the action would be even worse.
That being said, I think with the right tinkering (maybe one blind with an "ante") may be worth discussing. But not tonight ;-).
Regards,
Rick
When the Bike went to ante games in the 80's I left town. It slowed the game down by 3-5 hands per hr . Every hand became a production making change, getting players to ante and making the drop.
Dear Ed I:
You are correct -- I probably played in your games many times, but it did not increase the cost per hand. It cost you money "assuming you are a winning player", and were forced to play less hands per day. It also cost the Bike "and the Commerse casino" money on a time basis -- fewer drops "so-called collections" per hour.
When certain players habitually "two or three times per session" won't play their blind in turn because the pot is "killed", it becomes a lose-lose situation for all of the other players in the game. There are many reasons for this and I will not go into them. The best answer would be for the casino to warn "even bar" these players who won't play their blind in turn for killed pots. But it won't happen because the casino wants all the players it can get....
But.... Certain players -- "cheap skates or whatever" will pass the blind and opt to come in a hand later or so when the pot is not killed by posting a $3 blind and a MAKEUP $3 dead drop "with the drop being part of the pot."
Is this right? I must be reading this wrong. Why would a cheapskate put up $3 of dead money when he could pay the same $6 and have it all live?
Wait - what's the expected value of this blind in a typical O/8 game? If the EV is less than -1SB, then it's right to pay the dead money.
Fat-Charlie
What does the adjective "FAT" stand for. Probably short for Fat-Cat. Hi Charlie. Just kidding. Fat probably means a big wallet -- I'll bet you got a big bankroll from playing poker. I'm sure 99.9% of the poker players who contribute to this forum understand the economics "in question." But what happens "sometimes for killed pots" is that when the "should-be-blind" informs the dealer to deal me out is this: A domino-effect starts and the next players also say deal me out. The game comes to a sudden halt and the floorman has to come to the rescue. He usually gets the action going again by declaring it a new game and having the players draw cards for the button. I don't like to see this happen....
Regards Carl
"What is the remedy for this situation? I would like to hear some suggestions. "
Play a Commerce where no one gives a damn about posting for a kill pot. It's got to be a better game.
-Fred- 12 stepping my way to Omaha freedom.
Since this is a general theory forum and my thoghts regard game selection walla I'm here. I have in the past scolded numerous other posters for drawing analogies between poker and other games like chess and tennis. Poker is poker is poker. I'm sure those that primarily play those other games feel the same way about their games. This is not a comparison between poker and chess. This post is about game selection.
I very rarey practice game selection. That's not quite right. You see, I never have. Might someday though, say when I get Zee's age. I walk into a casino and put my nAME ON THE LIST AND TAKE THE SEAT AT THE TABLE i'M GIVEN. i DON'T HAVE TIME TO SCREW AROUND AND WAIT FOR A APRTICULAR GAME JUST BECAUSE (must have hit caps lock), like I was saying just because Mason or some other loose goose is in the game. Yes MAson, he plays Q,9 doesn't he. Show me what group that hand' in. Anyway Mason' easy I like playing with Mason he's so loose, weak tight maniacal that it ain't funny.
When I'm at Beallagio's I put my name on the transfer list because I see all the pro's do that. But when the opportunity arise I never change tables. I too freakin lazy to take all my chips and move them to another table just to play against some "raise it guy" like Jim Brier. So, I stay put. (That's a period at the end of that sentence.)
I also play chess. I used to lose to the computer share ware software on the lowest level every time I would play against it. But I got smart and joined the Yahoo chess games. They have a rating system from 1000 through 3000+. I have played a total of 2844 games. I have won 1273 and lost 1474 with 97 draws. I stink. I have a rating of 1464. The highest I have ever had was 1604 (briefly, 1 game). I bounce between 1350 and 1500.
When I play someone rated 1600-1700 I win maybe 10% of my games. (>1700 forgettaboutit) Between 1500-1600 I win maby 25% of those games. 1400-1500 maybe 50%. Less than 1400 maybe 80% of those games I win.
2844 games are a lot of games. And game selection well it speaks for itself.
Vince.
You may ask why I don't get any better. Habit I guess.
Vince,
Late last night I played 15-30 Stud at FW. I believe I was the best player at the table (don't we all) but the game was terrible. A tight oppressive atmosphere seemed to hang over the table. The pots were generally heads-up but the antes were hard to steal. You could cut the atmosphere with a knife it hung so heavily.
After getting stuck about 200 I went to the 10-20 Hold'em. There was one live one who had for whatever reason decided to play tough and he did just that. Here too the clouds hung low over the table. I got stuck another 250 and the game broke up. So I went back to the Stud side but the 15-30 had broken and only a full 10-20 and 40-80 remained. I went home feeling tired and kicking myself for not employing better game selection.
Not long ago I decided to be a real Scout, yes, of poker games regardless of the limit (as long as not too high). I promptly forgot this and paid a price.
The times I have advanced the most over a few months are the times when I have followed game selection principles almost religiously. Usually this has been when forced to do this by a very short bankroll. It works, however.
There are hidden costs to sitting in a bad game. Chief amongst these costs is the fact that there may be a good game elsewhere which you are missing. Perhaps second is the fact that even if you are the best player in