![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
There was one 30-60 hand where I realized that a top notch pro was likely doing this and that I could take the pot with one more bet on the river, where I might otherwise have been tempted to check and concede. It was a TT vs QQ situation with AK on board by the turn. I bet the turn and my heart sunk as he called, but then I realized that he might fold for one more bet on the river, as I read him for QQ or JJ. I bet the river, and my opponent thought for a long time, and then his QQ turned over as it went into the muck.
So, the play can have its problems, but the idea is to make it costly for your opponent to bluff you. I touched on related issues in my r.g.p. post "HOLDEM: Defensive calling on the flop".
I occasionally make this call-on-turn-with-made-hand-with-intention-of-folding-on-river play myself, but not often.
-Abdul
On this subject do you have any predetermined frequency of betting AK unimproved on the river while facing an opponent who check called all the way.(He can also play this way a draw). For avoiding additional noise (small pot,...) you are in early position and he is the BB. Besides there is no point in betting for value against this opponent. You bet because you think he might try to exploit you by folding the river when you bet thinking you will only bet your pairs.
Conversely, a simple EV study shows that if you have a pair and you are sure to be against an ace or a bigger pair and you face a bet on the river you can safely fold a small percentage of the time while keeping him obliged to check his aces and bet his pairs to maximize his ev. This slight benefit can be balanced though by the fact he might not have those hands. Obviously you don't favor a more brutal exploitation although it might be worthy against some opponents. I would personally do these brutal river exploitations only in small heads-up pots against the right agressive but untricky opponent.
Yes, I have a predetermined frequency of betting AK on the river against an opponent who check-called the whole way: never. Actually, that's not quite true. Occasionally I value bet AK high, and occasionally I bluff bet it, but it's not a frequency thing, but rather a situation thing.
Basically, you should bet your best hands (for value) and your worst hands (for bluffs.) AK almost always falls in the middle, into the checking hands.
-Abdul
"I bet the river, and my opponent thought for a long time, and then his QQ turned over as it went into the muck."
There's another lesson to be learned here. It is simply that you should never show your hand in these situations. When someone does this they are telling you that they can (and do) make tough laydowns. If this is a person you occasionally play against, remember this and use it against them in the future.
This is an analysis of a hand I posted a few weeks ago. I have reprinted the basic action of the hand first....
I am in a very loose medium aggressive game. I get pocket 99 in the cutoff and limp 4th into the pot... button limps, SB folds, BB raises. [I put BB on an overpair during this hand] ... Everyone calls and we take the flop 6 handed. [12 SB in the pot]
Flop comes 8d 7h 4c. BB bets and all call to me, I raise ... BB reraises and everyone calls to the loose player on my right, who caps it. I call and everyone calls, still 6 players. [36 sb / 18 BB in the pot]
The turn brings the 6h, giving me an open-ender and also putting a flush draw on board. BB checks and everyone checks to the guy on my right, who bets.
Analysis
Pre-flop: my decision not to raise with pocket nines was made because I thought it was a borderline decision, and I had been losing. There are valid arguements for both calling and raising, but If I had raised, I do not think it really would have made much of a difference, either in the way the hand played, my image, or mathematically. Therefore I will not be analyzing my decision pre-flop.
On the flop: I thought my raise in the cutoff with an overpair was pretty clear cut, but some on the forum might see it differently. Then the BB reraises and it gets capped by the player to my right, whose standards for capping are loose. The way I saw it, I would be getting 17:1 to make this call, because I did not expect anyone to fold here. It is a 22:1 shot of hitting a set on the next card. With five opponents and two more betting rounds, the implied odds should be more than adequate to cover this plus more. The pot is so big, the chance of everyone folding on the turn is practically nil in this game. I fully expect to make at LEAST five more BB if I hit my hand, most likely though I will make 6-8 more BB the way this game has been playing....
In addition, I have a backdoor straight draw. At the time I was thinking that the backdoor straight possibilities about canceled out the chances of hitting my set and still losing. I may have been mistaken about this though, there were a lot of players in the hand and if someone had JT there is no doubt they would have played it before the flop. One counterpoint here would be that if I hit a set and that made someone a straight, I would still have ten outs to a full house, which I would likely get a lot of action on. Again, it was probably pretty close between calling and folding, even if folding was slightly the better choice.
And finally, there was still some chance, albeit a small one, that I might have the best hand.. Although I was pretty certain that the BB had an overpair, I don't know him that well, maybe he is more of a maniac than I think.. Add in the fact that it could not get raised again, and I thought it would be borderline or maybe slightly positive EV to call. As it turns out, in hindsight I may have done slightly better by folding. But if I was making a mistake, it could not have been a very large mistake either way. Anyway, I made the call, and on to the turn we went.
The primary analysis on this hand is the turn action...
the turn is where it gets interesting. I had three choices when it came to me, call, raise, or fold. Remember, the board is 4678 with two hearts and I have an open-ended straight draw. All have checked to the dude on my right, the flop capper, who bet. There were 36 SB or 18 BB in the pot after the flop. Now there is a bet to me, giving me 19:1 to call, or 19:2 to raise. I hope we can all agree that folding is not an option at this point in the hand....
so if I call, I am getting 19:1 to draw to a possible ten outs, but not all my outs are clean. A nine gives me a set, but will almost certainly give someone a straight, so I will not count the nines as outs at all. Two of my eight str8 cards are hearts, so I may only have six outs there instead of eight. Also, if I just call, remember, I put the BB on a bigger pocket pair than nines, so there will be no chance of my hand being the best hand if he remains in the pot, or at least that's what I am assuming.... For the sake of arguement, I will estimate that two of the four remaining players will call the turn bet, there is definitely a heart flush draw against me, and there will not be a raise. So if I call, I am drawing to six outs (a 6.8:1 shot) at 21:1 pot odds. River bets are not included, but would increase my EV slightly.
EV = 6/46 x 21 BB - 40/46 x 1 BB = 2.73 - 0.87 = 1.86 BB
But if I raise, the situation changes.
First off, my raise was designed to get the player with the probable overpair OUT of the pot. This player is fairly tight and can certainly fold a hand when he knows he is beat. I am going to assign him a 50% chance of folding to a raise. If he does in fact fold, I suspected that I would have a very good chance of having the best hand, which was the primary reason I raised. Assuming he folds, I will assign myself an arbitrary 40% chance of having the best hand and having it hold up. So by raising, I will win the pot 20% of the time (by both the overpair folding and my hand standing up, 50%x40%=20%).
A secondary reason I raised was to get weak draws out of the pot that might draw out on me when I would otherwise have won the pot. Let's assume that the only draw that stays in is a flush draw.
Also, there is some chance, albeit very small, that EVERYONE might fold and I win the pot outright. Let's assign this a 1% chance.
Even if I am called, I still have six cleans outs to a probable winner with a straight. That will occur 6 out of 46 times, or 13% of the time. (There is a small chance someone might be playing J9 and made a bigger straight if the ten hits. I will offset this possibility with the small possibility of my hitting a nine for a set and that being the winner, in other words no one having a five or ten).
I am going to assume that my raise will be called by the bettor, and that there is a flush draw out there who will cold call the raise. That will make a total of 24 BB in the pot. I am not going to figure river bets into the equation. (Ignoring implied odds on the river should about cancel out my ignoring the possibility of getting reraised on the turn, so that possibility will not be considered either).
Finally, the remaining possibilities equal 66%, let's assume that those include all scenarios where I do NOT win the pot.
So the equation goes like this:
20% x 24 BB + 1% x 24 BB + 13% x 24 BB - 66% x 2 BB = 4.8 + 0.24 + 3.12 - 1.32 = 6.84 BB.
So you can see by raising instead of calling, I have increased my EV by almost five big bets:
6.84 - 1.86 = 4.98
This is a case where getting someone with a better hand to fold, thus increasing your chances of winning the pot, makes a BIG difference on your overall EV. It is also a case where calling is OK, but raising is a MUCH better play. The chances of my making my draw did not change, but winning the pot an additional 21% of the time makes a HUGE difference in my EV.
Comments welcome
dave in cali
Very nice post. Yes, knocking out the best hand when you have the 2nd best hand will tend to dominate EV calculations.
But since I disagree with all your other posts ...
Knocking out the BB should have been the first thing going through your mind and calculating your draw an unnecessary distant 2nd. This is important not just because of this EV calculation but also because it represents a much healthier "winning" attitude that so many aspiring young players seem to NOT have. You should have mentioned that the capper probably does NOT have you beat since he flat called the flop the first time when 2-betting was the best option if he had very much.
- Louie
Hi all, I was wondering if any of the people who tutor poker on this board are willing to review my hand histories from a few sessions and how much would they charge?
Thanks
If you goal is playing High-Limit at professional level then I charge $500 per every "Starting" hand in TH with detailed explanation how to play before the flop and taking that hand all the way down to the River. (this as a package only)
Professional detailing in all situations. It will be like you'll be playing all your hands in advance and practicing over and over until you know all the possible hands down cold.
Master Daedal
Given your specialty and fees, perhaps you might want to consider opening an advanced institution for playing in the high limit poker games. Similarly what Mike Caro did several years before - Mike Caro University of Poker - but on a more advanced level. Just make sure that you quote yourself planty so as to promote originality, consistency and superiority in the subject.
All answers seem to rest on forming an institution and then on its ruthless and tireless promotion. Once you do that, seemingly, recognition, followers and money will inexhaustibly flow. The next natural step in linear progression would be setting up cruises, at first once a year, then semiannually, quarterly, and bi-monthly.
Sky is the limit!
Post some hands that you have questions about in a readable form on the appropriate forum (small/medium/high holdem or other poker games).
And it is free.
Ken Poklitar
I was curious about how other poker players get ready before they play poker. Myself, I usually go over S & M hand rankings and go over a few odds that I have written down. I also may get a deck of cards and deal myself a few hands and decide how I will play them before the flop, after the flop, and so on. What things do some of the pros do or have done. all suggestions welcomed
dice
Whether you choose to do this now or at a later time is entirely up to you.....
Recall a specific past session in which you played very well. The one when you were reeeeeaaaaaalllllly in the zone: highly confident, energized, alert, and enjoying yourself. Everything just seemed to flow for you that day, remember?
As the memory of this session begins to come back to you, step into it and re-live it as if it were happening right NOW as you do see what you saw, hear what you heard and feel what you felt during that great session.
As you feel these good feelings peak inside you, see yourself in your next session feeling this way. How would you sit like if you felt this way? How would you breath like if you felt this way? Notice your facial expressions. And as you do, step into that you in that future session fully and completely with these feelings inside you.
Feeling these feelings get even stronger, notice all kinds of hands being dealt to you. Some good, some bad, some mediocre. And feel satisfied with the fact that you continue to feel these feelings regardless of what cards you're being dealt.
Think about all of the good scenarios and bad scenarios that you could be facing as you feel these feelings double in intensity. Imagine the worst bad beats and as you do feel these good feelings quadruple inside of you as you feel the satisfaction of using the bad beats to make you feel even more confident, alert, and energized!
Sounds like it's straight from Anthony Robbins' PERSONAL POWER. Good Advice!
I walk across a busy four lane street without looking for traffic. If I make it, I am ready to play HE!
No call to be cinical here. Dice asked for a friently advice; ostensibly he could use one.
Well what I do really wouldn't help him much. If it's day time I make sure I feel okay. At night I watch street lights. If more than two turn off on the drive, I go back home. If it's dusk, I compare lights turning off with lights turning on, and make a comparison. If more turn off than on, I go back home.
This isn't advice I would give to someone. But I do think you have to be prepared for some ups and downs, and the stomach to handle the swings?
Mike:
Your attitude is improving.
Good going, man! Don't look back.
Dice:
It goes without saying that you'll bring the 'sound' game knowledge with you when approaching the poker game of your choice. That is technical preparation.
However, the mental preparation (i.e., your emotions, sentiments, game focus, response to adversities, etc.)is spearate from your game (technical) skills.
In my opinion, one needs to be in the right (i.e., positive) and, yes, well rested frame of mind before joining any game, perhaps most of all a game of poker. That is, you need to free your mind of any mental drag/distraction which occurred before, or perhaps may occur during the game. Unless freed from distructions, you will likely become too edgy at the table and therefore not fully focused on the game. It should therefore surprise no one as to why some players are always looking to distuct and/or aggrevate the others in order to crack their play. Not ethical, but does happen steadily.
Good luck!
My post agrees mostly with Tommy. I will usually drift in and out of sleep for about an hour before the game, with the Rounders score playing on my stereo. While I am semi-conscious I will try to get into a positive mindset by imagining winning well-played, not monster, hands. I will visualize over and over how I play my hand. But after I get up, if I am sleepy at all I will spray water on my face and go outside and just breathe the cool night air for a while. I go into most of my games relaxed and focused. As far as reviewing poker knowledge or practicing, I just assume I already have the information- but this relaxed focus, like taking a high school test, allows the solutions to easily come to you. Its kind of like how many great athletes sleep before a game- rest while you can, and when play starts you can channel your energy. If you are like most people, keeping focus for 5 or 6 hours is no easy task- so I think in-depth pre-game analysis will make you lose focus on the hands that don't conform to your thoughts, and you may tire faster. A few general goals can suffice.
Fallon
i bought this book in vegas last week cause it was just $12.95. i havent even opened it. im not really at the basic level anymore, more on the cusp between beginner obsessed with hold em and intermediate player who can regularly beat the local 4-8. anyone want to share some thoughts on the book? i want to just throw it in the trash if that's where it belongs. i made the mistake of buying the Warren book Winner's Guide to Hold 'Em and i did have to end up using that for kindling when i found out that it's full of bad charts and dumb advice. so anyone read this book Serious Poker?
thanks in advance. this page is the best.
I have the book. What part of the book did you not like?
Hmm...
This is probably one of those questions that only I can answer in due time. Unless someone has psychic abilities, that is.
I'm one of the few people I know who simply CANNOT win in a live club/casino game. EVERY time I visited AC or the Rounders club in jersey I'd come out with empty pockets. And I really DON'T think I'm a bad player. I've been quite successful in online and home games. I know all my required material, I've read and STUDIED at least 5-6 different hold'em books, including the major Sklansky's and Malmuths. I know all my odds, I study people inbetween hands. I understand most of the subtle concepts behind poker. I was a consitent winner at 3-6 heads-up AND ring games on Paradise..
So what the hell goes wrong every time I play live? I simply can't figure it out. Let me give you a stupid example of the last time I played at Rounders.. I'm early position with QQ, table has been pretty loose-aggressive up to this point. I raise hoping to knock some people out, almost nobody falls for it, and 6 of us see the flop, which is K-x-x 2tone (2suited). I am the first to go so I bet it out. To my surprise I get 4 callers AND a late-position raise. I think to myself.. if it was just me VS the raiser I'd probably call him to the river, figuring maybe he's on the flush draw. But there's FOUR other callers in the hand, so I make the "correct" play and fold my queens. Turn is a rag, river is a rag. Flush does not make it. It's checked around the river and, amazingly, POCKET 9s win the large pot with a "pair of 9s".
This is an extreme example, I realize. But shit like this always seems to happen when I play live games, and it always drains my bankroll over the long run. I seem to never make any draws... and honestly I can't even remember the last time I was *ON* a draw in a live game.. I fold quite alot and I play premium hands mostly, with lots of regard to position. And it seems I almost always either fold winners, or play "premium" losers. In short, I just CANNOT win in a live game. And that really hampers my outlook and my self-respect.
Oh and if anyone suggests loosening up my starting hands.. I tried that every now and then.. it only costs me more in the long run, cause I seem to NEVER hit the flop.
I'll take some suggestions.
slay.
Haven't looked at the other posts yet - but maybe some of the other players have you pegged as a weak player who will dump a good hand if the conditions are right. You probably have to losen up "late" on the button and cut off I often play coupled cards late for a lot of reasons - if you are only playing premium hands you are easy to play against so try to mix it up and and be more creative.
I think everyone is missing your original point. You WIN on the internet, and LOSE in live games at the card clubs. I have this same problem, and it pisses me off. I do not claim to be the best player in the world, but there is a drastic difference between my results on the internet, and my results in the live games. Some of it might have to do with the large rake at our card club in Minnesota. I have also thought maybe I have a major tell, but after watching the people I play against at the clubs, I don't think that is the answer. Why do I win on the internet, and lose at the card club?
Slay I read most of the posts but not all, but I think many are missing an obvious possibility.
Yes maybe you did have the odds to draw to a set but it was close and you weren't giving up a lot by folding. Betting into this large field is (I think) a mistake with the overcard there but this is only one hand. (if you checked they probably would have put you on KK and given you a free card).
I think there's a real possibility you have just had some bad luck and haven't had enough hours to accurately measure your results playing live. Try putting in 200 hours of low variance poker and I bet you come out a winner.
Zee is right about that hand: you're getting 20:1 (probably 24:1) to snag a Queen on the turn (23:1); and that's assuming you KNOW one of them has a King and won't fold it AND will bet the turn. Brain-dead call. And if its worth one bet to call it is often worth one more bet to raise especially if the raiser doesn't need a King to raise or if a caller with a weak King may fold.
But back to your question. Yes, I'm psychotic ..err.. whatever. You project a lot of tells when paranoid about your hand and the other players, even the weak ones, go into a frenzy against YOU knowing you'll make a lot of bad laydowns; and they know when you've got the real goods and get out.
- Louie
Jones, in WLLHE, says to look at your cards and just remember what you have. He also says to look at your cards in certain situations, but doesn't give examples of when or why. In my home game i will pretend to look at my cards when i have the nuts and know that they have a good hand (i have quads against their full house). I'll also stare at the board pretending to figure out what they have even though i already know. this seems to give them the feeling of being in control and they will throw in an extra raise so i get a couple more bets. i once got someone to reraise me many times without the nuts until i felt bad and just turned my cards over and called. I know i look at my cards for advertising value in the casino - but am not quite sure when it is a good idea against either good or bad players. I think i do the same thing as i do in the home game - make the other players think i'm unsure of my hand so they'll try to bet me out. What do others think? When do others players look at their cards and for what reasons, and against what types of players. what do people think if someone does look at their cards when they usually don't or what to do when players use this tactic too often?
My take on all this is that it usually slows the game down and is for the most part useless. That is not to say that on rare occasions a bit of an act might not be called for, but that as a general rule the actor is deceiving himself into thinking the others are that naive or that he is that good an actor.
If you have an expected win in the game your goal should be to get as many hands played as you can, not coffeehouse 'til the cows (or sheep) come home.
I agree with Abdul that sometimes the acting can cost you more than help you. If it consistently fools your home game players, go ahead. I find the best path depends on your game. In my weak home game, they buy it every time even though my acting is blatant. In my tougher home game, I don't play any psychology or acting with them- I figure if they can't read me, they have to read my bets, which they do not do well.
Fallon
You wrote:
"In my weak home game, they buy it every time even though my acting is blatant."
I suspect that in this game they would be calling you even without the act, and regardless of whether they bought it or not.
LL holdem game last night (4-8). I was only at the table for 10 minutes. Seated accross from was an obviously drunk lady in #10 seat, who was playing every hand and raising most of them. She was in a hand with a young guy in #9 seat, fairly good player, who had the biggest stack of chips by far on the table.
Here is what bothered me. On the turn, she bet by tossing out 2 red chips. #9 called. Dealer took 4 white chips from the pot and gave it to her as change. I looked at #9 to see if he noticed anything, but he was just looking at the board. River card, she bets again with 2 red chips. Dealer gave her 4 white again in change! #9 raises, she tosses in 2 red to call, and this time the dealer gives her 2 white back.
She didn't seem overly friendly with the dealer, but I couldn't see how he could have made that kind of mistake twice, then give the correct change on the third time.
Should I have said something? No one else at the table even noticed it (it was full, 10 players). First time it happened, I thought it was my imagination, since no one else said anything. Second time, I knew I saw it correctly.
I didn't say anything because I felt that I wasn't in the hand, and it was up to #9 to pay attention. Was I wrong? Would like to hear what the regulars would do in this situation.
Papio
As a player at the table you are IMHO obliged to correct mistakes you see - since you were delt a hand you are part of the game.
He may have just been at a 3-6 game where the $4 change would have been correct but I am just guessing.
I have found when a dealer makes a mistake like this he is usually coming from a different stakes game.
Just a thought.
I agree that this type of mistake usually occurs when a dealer has just come from a different stakes game. Most of the time if you politely point it out, any dealer worth their salt will see that you are correct and gladly correct their error. I have played quite a lot of casino poker and I have never actually seen a dealer intentionally giving someone incorrect change, it is probably an honest mistake. I also agree with Ray that if the person with the short end of the stick is being a jerk or is an angle shooter, I wouldn't say anything.
As an interesting aside, I was playing at the luxor and there was an 8$ bet, which several people called. It was up to me to call and I saw that one player only had four instead of eight chips in front of him. Now I happened to be wearing red tinted sunglasses at the time. Turns out that he had a 5$ and three 1$ chips and I couldn't tell the difference with the glasses on, even up close. (Their one and five chips are too close in color, IMO, they are hardly any different with your glasses OFF). Anyway, I have seen a couple other instances where colorblindness has caused some confusion, but hopefully a dealer would have dealt with this problem BEFORE they started dealing.
dave in cali
Typically I speak up, and I would have in the hand described. But ...
Let's look at extremes.
1) A big no-limit game in which the heads-up pot is $10,000 and there is a $10 error. I wouldn't say anything.
2) A $20-40 pot, heads up, with two players putting in multiple bets on every street that the dealer does not scoop in between streets, and the losing player inadvertantly shorts the pot by one full big-bet. I would speak up every time.
3) Same as #2, except the discrepency is one chip. I wouldn't say anything.
I agree that the proper rule of thumb is to speak up, but it's not an absolute.
Tommy
ill go one step further. for players like tommy that i like, ill speak up for even a dollar to his advantage but would shutup if he is against an angle shooter or someone that doesnt deserve any help from me because of past experiences if it went against him.
I agree with you guys 100%.
I'm a new player so was curious what the regulars would do in this situation.
What amazes me is that I was the only one who noticed it at a full table - or maybe there were others who did too and just didn't speak up like me. But there are so many other incidents where no one notices little errors, it makes me wonder about how observant others are. Like the dealer shuffling the deck with one player's hand still in front of him and not in the shuffled deck. Or a card turned up in the newly shuffled deck with no one noticing it. I have seen these situations several times in my short playing career, and usually I'm the only one to call attention to it.
Papio
They see it. All this means is that you have table-captain tendencies and they don't.
Papio, deal with these situations with a little humour. "are we going to play with 50 or 52 cards?" but said with a smile.
Not "you forgot 2 you idiot, how did you ever get this job?"
OR just let it go and wait for the dealer to catch the mistake. The face up card I would mention before the dealer actually started to deal if they hadn't caught it already.
Regards Mike N R
I would usually correct the dealer. That includes when I benefit.
I probably should have realized that the late-position raiser wanted more money in the pot, not necessarily eliminating better hands or other people.
But with many other callers I was almost positive SOMEONE had at LEAST a king. Maybe I had the right odds to draw to my set, as Zee suggested though.
Thanks for the input, Slay.
Slay,
with 20 bets out there, and some chance you actually do have the best hand and it holds up, and the chance that it gets checked on the turn, you have a hand that needs to stay in. so in the future you have a few more things to think about. which will make you more money and thats the bottom line. good luck.
Slay:
Also, if I may suggest, be sure to vary your play.
Perhaps the late raiser, an observing player, has come to read you well, and by raising your flop bet counts on making your fold.
Tomorrow is another day; another dollar to win!
Good luck!
Probably has been discussed before..Sitting at the 2 chair. Player on my right is angled towards me and I can see his cards without any effort on my part at least 3 out of 4 hands. Should I be a gentleman and let him know this.. or take advantage of the situation???
i say entirly on your internal "character meter" and i'm not saying i never do that.
I give them one warning and after that whatever happens is up to them.
x
I always let them know, repeatedly if I have to. The reason is long range, related to image. I try to emulate those pros I've met over the years who maintain a spotless integrity. This means going out of my way to not do anything even slightly suspicious. I believe that whatever I might gain in the short run by looking at this guy's cards is far outweighed by being percieved as a guy who never shoots angles. The only way I know of to earn that perception is to never shoot angles, of any kind, ever.
From what I've seen, angle-shooters are the most miserable players. They live in suspicion of being shot at, and their eyes dart with guilt as they plot their ploys. That's no way to live.
Tommy
"From what I've seen, angle-shooters are the most miserable players. "
Here! Here! Great post Tommy!
Vince
Excellent response Tommy! I appreiciate people who refuse to shoot angels because I am a relatively new player & it was an experienced , sage & responsible player who repeatedly said to me "protect your hand!" untill it finally sunk in. Had he not been diligent in this admittedly annoying task I would probably have become disillusioned with losses to the other less scrupulous players & quit playing. Our regular bunch recently had something happen that puts a different spin on this One of our long time experienced players (40 yrs) for some reason was failing to protect his hand & another player was using this to his advantage. Another experienced player noticing this took the victim aside & mentioned it to him. The victim promptly resumed protecting his hand & no more was said during that game. However during the game following when the angel hunter was absent, the victim made a number of off color coments about how the guy that helped him was telling him how to play his cards & since he had been playing for 40 yrs., this advice was not appreiciated. When this guy forgets to protect his cards now, ... nothing is said by anyone. Darwin
It isn't your fault he isn't protecting his hand, I would not tell.
Derrick
You must be one of those angle shooters! Tsk!Tsk!Tsk!
Not true, I actually say very little while a hand is in progress.
It is interesting to see that I am in the minority in this situation. I just feel that it is my job to take advantage of anything I can. I would not try and look at someone's cards if they were at all protected, but if he is showing them to me I feel I am doing nothing wrong. However, I may have to reconsider this after reading some of these posts.
Derrick
For what it's worth, I don't think it's "wrong" to take advantage of a player who is sloppy with his cards and sneak a peek. As with any ethical choice, it's subjective.
I just don't think it's inherently profitable, in the long run, to peek.
Tommy
When a player who has obviously played long enough to know better is looking at his cards in a way that makes it easy for me to see their hands, I am always curious and ask myself "why"?
I see it happen enough to know it's not always an accident, but haven't yet decided what it is?
Advertising for team play? Letting me see they don't play junk? Setting me up for the one hand in a big pot?
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you."
also your are taking advantage of all the other players at the table as well. i hope you see that. it pays off in the long run to tell him and even insist. but its like anything, some people wont stop and how far must you go. thats a personal decision. but the other players should stop it as it costs them enough to maybe make them losers.
I will always tell someone once that they are showing me thier cards and even help them protect their hand by showing them the proper way to do so. If I really like them I will tell them twice. After that I make plays against them based on what I know they have. Get with the program - two warnings is more than sufficient. The only exception might be very nice little old lady....
I will warn them a few times and then give up.
I won't try to look but if they are very obvious I won't avert my eyes so to speak. I spend too much effort worrying about them.
I also don't want to seen as someone slouching down in my chair trying to see the cards as the come off the deck.
Regards Mike N
In the latest edition of Poker Digest (Vol.4/No. 8), Tommy Angelo wrote an article titled “Buy the Button, - A Perfect Rule”. In it he describes a Northern California practice of allowing a player who just missed a blind after taking a break the option to post both blinds just to the left of the button (the small blind is dead, the big blind is live). He then says: “The players to his left, who would normally be posting the small blind and the big blind, post nothing on that hand. On the next hand, the player who bought the button gets the button. The blinds resume as usual, and life goes on.”
He goes on to say: “It’s as if you were never gone. And that’s why the dealers and the floor staff like it as much as the players do. Buy the Button keeps games full, prevents stalled games, and helps restart games after domino-effect lobbying”
At first I had trouble understanding exactly how this works and thought that it only applied to situations where you did not have an always forward-moving button (as in Las Vegas and Tournaments). Then I tried it using a forward moving button and am want to be 100% sure I understand it correctly. For those familiar with this practice, do I have the procedure stated correctly in the sequence below?
Hand 1: Tommy is in seat 5 and gets up to take a leak. The button is in seat 1, the small blind in seat 2, and the big blind in seat 3.
Hand 2: Tommy dutifully washes his hands before and after taking his leak, and this hand is quickly completed with the button in seat 2, the small blind in seat 3, and the big blind in seat 4.
Hand 3: Tommy makes sure he zips up and lines up his fly seam to his shirt seam, so he doesn’t get back to the table as the hand is dealt. The button is in seat 3, the small blind is in seat 4, and the big blind is in seat 6. Tommy in seat 5 gets a “missed blind” button.
Hand 4: Tommy returns to the table, looking good with no dribbles and a perfectly tucked in shirt. His hands are clean. He decides to “buy the button”. He posts the live big blind and a dead small blind in seat 5. The button is in seat 4. Seat 7, who would have posted the big blind, posts nothing. Seat 6, who would have posted the small blind, posts nothing.
Hand 5: Tommy gets the button in seat 5. Seat 6 now posts the small blind that he would have posted on the previous hand. Seat 7 now posts the big blind one hand later than he would have had Tommy not “bought the button”.
Hand 6: The button moves to seat six, the small blind to seat seven, and the big blind to seat 8. Normal play is resumed.
Tommy or anyone: Do I have this procedure understood correctly? In addition, are you allowed to buy the button when coming into a game as a new player? It sounds like a great idea. I’m curious about others opinions on this practice.
There is a similar practice recently used in mid limit games at the Hustler and if memory serves me was used at Garden City years ago. In this case if you missed a blind or wanted to come in to a new game you could post the blind(s) to the left of the button. On the next hand the button passed around you but at least you got in play faster. Bob Ciaffone advocated something like this in a column several years ago.
Comments anyone? If I understand correctly and if most agree it is a good idea maybe we can help get this idea or something similar spread around. The problem of stalled games hurts both players and the clubs.
Also, how is this rule implemented if the collection is taken from the button? (I see no problem but I may be missing something).
Regards,
Rick
PS: I just noticed that Tommy Angelo has a web page. The complete article is available there. Here is the link:
Everything looks ok except for Tommy taking a leak. I think you should have said "Tommy get's up and takes a weewee" Then Mason wouldn't have to make a decision on whether to delete your post or not.
Vince
Hey my above response is funny. At least I think so. Anyone else?
vince
Vince,
I think you are funny. Hey, can I borrow $23K?
Rick
.
Nice post, Rick! lol Peeing is definitely an underrated aspect of poker. And I really should wash more carefully.
You've got the rule EXACTLY right. It's important to note that "Buy the Button" is significantly different from the method of entering a game that you mentioned. If we're talking about the same thing, the posted amount is only the BB, not both blinds, and the player does not get the button on the next hand(as you mentioned.)
The main difference is that players with a missed blind button cannot reenter the game using the usual rule. It's for new players only. At least that's my understanding.
Yes, a new player can enter a game with "Buy the Button." Because I'm a habitual blind-mucker, the joke I often make when buying the button is, "You guys only get to rob me once this round."
I agree that this rule should (and would) be universal if only the players and management knew it existed. From the article, "The only thing to prevent a casino from using this rule is that they do not know about it."
The clincher is that buy-the-button is an OPTION.
As to tournies, our blinds go in no matter when we pee, so I'd think it doesn't apply.
As to ring games with a forward-moving-button, that's how the low-limit games are at Lucky Chances and Artichoke Joe's, and it works just fine.
As to ring games with "dead buttons," effectively meaning a player gets the button two hands in a row when a blind goes broke or lobbies, I just thought it through and I can't think of why it wouldn't work in those games as well.
As to collection-on-the-button games, again, that's how the games are at Lucky Chances and at Artichoke Joe's, and again, no problem. When you have the button, you pay. Am I missing the issue that made you ask about that?
No exaggeration, I've seen HUNDREDS of times when buy-the-button kept games from stalling, and helped them get unstalled.
My favorite is when three (or two, or four)consecutive players have missed blind buttons and they all come back to the table but none of the active players want to post blinds in the temporarily short game, and the returning players would like to wait for their big-blinds to come around. The returning players agree to ALL buy the button on the next three hands. One, then the other, then the other. The delayed normal SB and BB, that are normally delayed for one hand, are delayed for three hands. It's mighty slick.
Sing along with Frank Sinatra . . .
"Start spreading the news."
Tommy
Tommy,
The key is you should wash your hands before you go. I don't want hands that have touched chips (which are about as clean as cow dung) touching my Johnson.
Anyway, I had to write the post above in a hurry and didn't have time to think through all the possibilities. Once I fully understand it, I'll try to enlist some allies and see if they can help get it introduced somewhere down this way.
Maybe we should run this by Bob Ciaffone, Mason, and a few others since they have a fine eye for potential problems. But it sure looks good to me.
Regards,
Rick
re: washing before peeing so keep Johnson clean. I'm gonna steal that and use it in an article for sure. I'll send your check via e-mail.
re: Bob and Mason et al checking for problems. I just learned via email that Buy-the-button has been around since at least 1994. See the email below.
I've seen it in progress for 2.5 years at a large room without one hitch. If there IS a potential problem that has not yet surfaced, I doubt that even the best thinkers in the world could reveal it without first seeing the rule in action.
Here's the email:
I thought I could give you some insight on why you may have believed the "'Buy the Button" rule originated in Reno. I am the swing shift supervisor at the Eldorado in Reno and when we opened the room in 1998, I introduced it into play. I first learned of the rule in 1994 from Ron Allegrinni at Harrah's Ak-Chin in Phoenix, Az. Ron brought it with him from the Hyatt in North Lake Tahoe, and I believe he learned it from Bee. I transferred to Harrahs Skagit Valley casino in northwest Washington in 1995 and introduced it up there. Like you said in your article, it's a perfect rule that is good for everyone. Here at the Eldorado, we use it in all our hold-em games except our No-Limit hold-em. ( 3 blinds, one on the button). The next time you are in the Reno area, stop by and say hello.
Rich Imperato
Tommy,
You wrote: "I'm gonna steal that and use it in an article for sure. I'll send your check via e-mail."
Gee, How would I cash such a check or am I NOT missing something?
Rick
.
Tommy,
Can you clarify a few things for me?
If a club allows the “Buy the Button” option, I assume a player who misses his blind can still post his missed blinds behind (to the right of) the button as before. So “Buy the Button” allows an additional option and takes nothing away. Is this right?
You wrote: ”You've got the rule EXACTLY right. It's important to note that "Buy the Button" is significantly different from the method of entering a game that you mentioned. If we're talking about the same thing, the posted amount is only the BB, not both blinds, and the player does not get the button on the next hand (as you mentioned.)”
Yes, I think. At the Hustler mid limits, a new player can enter to the left of the button (between the small blind and button) for the amount of the big blind. Next hand the button passes to the left of the new player. A similar procedure is used for missed blinds, except the player must post both blinds (and the button collection in the smaller games if they use it in those games). In Los Angeles, 10/20 and above is usually collected time, 9/18 and below is usually collected with the dead button drop.
”The main difference is that players with a missed blind button cannot reenter the game using the usual rule. It's for new players only. At least that's my understanding.”
I may be a little confused here by what you mean by the usual rule. The “Buy the Button” option and the Hustler type rule are either/or and cannot coexist. But the “Buy the Button” option and the traditional posting rules for missed blinds can work side by side (I think).
”Yes, a new player can enter a game with "Buy the Button." Because I'm a habitual blind-mucker, the joke I often make when buying the button is, "You guys only get to rob me once this round."
So if you enter a game using “Buy the Button” you post both blinds (with the small dead and the big live), then get the button next hand. Otherwise you could wait one hand and post behind the button for one live big blind. If so, I can see why only true “button lovers” would do this ;-).
”I agree that this rule should (and would) be universal if only the players and management knew it existed. From the article, "The only thing to prevent a casino from using this rule is that they do not know about it."
In a large club you have a lot of resistance to change (from customers and management), and in part it is for good reason. Many of the dealers have trouble with the language and would have trouble explaining a new rule to players. This kind of rule may need to be implemented in the top section games (where they often make special rules anyway per player request) and work its way down to all limits. I wonder if someone like John Feeney got behind it we could see it spread down in San Diego and Oceanside.
”The clincher is that buy-the-button is an OPTION.”
And it is an option that should co-exist with existing rules, if my understanding is correct.
”As to ring games with "dead buttons," effectively meaning a player gets the button two hands in a row when a blind goes broke or lobbies, I just thought it through and I can't think of why it wouldn't work in those games as well.”
I so rarely play tournaments and Las Vegas games that I am not the guy to talk to on this.
”As to collection-on-the-button games, again, that's how the games are at Lucky Chances and at Artichoke Joe's, and again, no problem. When you have the button, you pay. Am I missing the issue that made you ask about that?”
No. Now that I think about it I see no problem. Note that missed blinds in Los Angeles currently post the blind live, and the small blind and the drop dead. Or they can wait for the big blind.
”No exaggeration, I've seen HUNDREDS of times when buy-the-button kept games from stalling, and helped them get unstalled.”
This would be the great selling point to management, especially for the games with the button drop.
”My favorite is when three (or two, or four)consecutive players have missed blind buttons and they all come back to the table but none of the active players want to post blinds in the temporarily short game, and the returning players would like to wait for their big-blinds to come around. The returning players agree to ALL buy the button on the next three hands. One, then the other, then the other. The delayed normal SB and BB, that are normally delayed for one hand, are delayed for three hands. It's mighty slick.”
The BB and SB must love it since they can play a bunch of hands without posting!
”Sing along with Frank Sinatra . . ."Start spreading the news."
Sorry, I'm half Polish and I can't sing a lick.
Regards,
Rick
Good questions and points. You are one astute dude.
Early drafts of the article included some of the following, but I'm so fanatical about trimming them down to 800 words (one page)that I took stuff out as usual. My bad.
Rick wrote: "The “Buy the Button” option and the Hustler type rule are either/or and cannot coexist."
Not true!
In a casino that allows the "Hustler rule," (a new player can post a BB from left of the button and the button passes them), that rule remains unchanged. Buy the button gives him an additional option, that's all. Artichoke Joe's uses the Hustler rule AND the buy-the-button rule. Not a hitch.
Buy-the-button does not REPLACE any existing rules regarding entering or reentering games. Whatever rules a casino employs, they remain unchanged. It is purely an option, meaning any player who wants to do things the old way, can.
< Oftentimes the chronology and reasoning behind change goes like this:
1) Players start talking about an idea 2) Management resists 3) Players talk more 4) Management considers management type things, ultimately, income, and if the player's desires are very strong, and the cost to management is not too bad, a change becomes possible.
Buy the Button would ideally be instated in exactly the reverse order:
1) Management makes a boatload more money by offering Buy-the-button, so they institute the rule 2) Players grumble at first, the normal reaction to change 3) The instant they see the rule in action, they also see the light, and all is well.
Tommy
This is nothing new. We've been doing it in home games out here for years. One of the main advantages is the real gamblers don't have to wait to enter the game. I have no idea why it isn't allowed in public cardrooms.
Also, I'm not sure if you're aware, in the 80-160 games and up in LA a new player can post a large blind between the button and the small blind. The button then skips over him.
Brett,
The big problem is getting any change, even a good one, accepted. In Los Angeles, the place to start is in a smaller club with open minded management and a struggling top section with lots of props. I can think of a couple candidates right now ;-).
Regards,
Rick
The biggest obstacle I see for you is that all of the LA clubs seem to operate from the same rulebook, so I'm sure they will all be reluctant to change. It'll be a cold day in Tucson when they adopt this rule at the Commerce.
Brett,
A few of the smaller clubs work off their own rule book. And even in the big clubs, changes are made over time so that some of the rules are not exactly alike. But I agree that change does not come easy.
Regards,
Rick
I enter games by buying the button, the rare times the opportunity arises (since usually the open seat is not in a seat that had the BB on the previous hand.) So usually it's in short games. Gotta admit, no one else does it. Maybe I'm the only "real gambler" in these here parts! Egads!
Tommy
>>Call me a "real gambler."<<
I gathered that after I read your Q7 post (although you are a somewhat timid real gambler). :o)
I really think this would be a favorable rule for everyone in time games. With a rake, I'm not in any hurry to get back in. But the real gamblers are.
Rick,
I didn't quite understand how the procedure worked, so I printed out your post and took a leak. Damn, though, it took me forever to line up my fly seam with the seam in my turtleneck.
John
LOL!
Buy-the-button is one of those things that becomes INSTANTLY clear when you see it happening, but doesn't necessarily sink in when merely printed. That might be why it is, or will be, slow to take hold across the country.
(By the way, I saw your English foopah posts. Nice.)
Tommy
I’ve been keeping record of the 90 hours of play in a tight game, 9 players and bout 6 of them seeing the Flop with 4 going to the River on average. Limits: 10-20
It was about 30 sessions, playing everyday in March for about 3-4 hours per session. Starting Bankroll = 10K
Using MM formula for StDev I come with the following results: Time = 90 hours Sessions = 30 Total Profit = $15,691 (average $174/hour) StDev = $309
Now, my question is this: Is this result real, can I count on it as far as go the StDev? - or I was just lucky this month? It sure looks that I has a little on the positive side of the curve.
A $309 StDev in this type of game is reasonable?
Regards Ramon
Here are my comments.
1. Your overall result is far better than you can expect to do. This is a given since there is no player that I know of who can come close to substaining a win rate like this over time.
2. Your estimate for your sd is also fairly high. It is about double what a true expert would average in a real game.
3. The square root of 90 is approximately 9.5. So your estimate of the standard deviation for the 90 hours would be about 9.5 X 306 which is approximately 2900. So your results are well above 3 standard deviations if we compare you to a break even player. This at first seems to indicate that you really are a winner in this game.
4. However, given that your results are so extreme, and that you are at a "minimal acceptable amount" of time in action to estimate your standard deviation, I would not as yet have much faith in them.
So my conclusion is that you have been a very lucky person who has had an incredibly good run. (Note: This doesn't mean that you aren't a winning player. But it does mean that your win rate should in truth be far below what you have achieved.) Why don't you report back to us after a couple of hundred more hours. It will be interesting to see what happens.
"... in a tight game, 9 players and bout 6 of them seeing the Flop with 4 going to the River on average. "
i'll travel to come play in this game. (at least if its west of the mississippi)
brad
.
That is not a tight game
TH Starting Hands Code
A-T if s > 8
A-T if ns > 9
UT only s/ng > 7
All pairs OK
=========================
From A to T if suited go down to 8
From A to T if unsuited go only to 9
Under T only suited connectors down to 7
Playing all pairs is OK (depends!)
Total 56 hand (i.e. 33%)
Have a Nice Day and good cards!
Master Daedal
On the small stakes forum someone asked a question on whether you would tell someone that you can see there hole cards. Many of the influential players such as Zee and Angelo said they would tell the person. I answered honestly and said I would not. I would like to pose another question to those who have posted to that thread about a situation that I feel comes up much more frequently.
Here is another scenario. You play beside someone who shows you his hand before he mucks. This happens on any street, and it only happens when you do not have cards yourself. You are gaining information on how this player plays while the rest of the table is left in the dark. I believe this situation comes up much more often.
1. Would you tell this player not to show his cards to you?
2. What would you do if you were across the table from this?
feeling like a chump,
Derrick
1) If the player wants to show me his mucked cards I will look at them.
2) I will not say anything if someone else is showing mucked cards. I won't complain and ask to see them. The only time I might ask to see a losers hand is if he has flashed them to other players.
Ken Poklitar
gaining info from that doesnt affect the current hand cant be unethical really. its when you gain directly and even if you gain from the player showing his cards the real problem is that your are gaining from all the other players as well. and they may not know that you can see someones hand. so that is the real problem. the dope that continues to flash his cards deserves what he gets as you are not his baby sitter. although he does have the right not to be taken advantage of. when across the table and someone is showing their cards after the hand ill ask for the show one show all rule to apply if he does it more than a couple of times.
3-6-12 HE game Friday night in Calgary. I am not involved in this particular hand, but thought I would post and get views from around the country on how your particular room or casino might have handled the problem.
At the river, the board was T-8-7-6-2. No flush possible, but just a 9 required for a str8. Three people in, but no river bet. Dealer asks for hands to be shown, but does not specifically ask that any one person (last action?) show first. Player C shows down 8-2 soooted for 2 pair. Player B mucks. Player A turns over her cards, K-9, but neither she nor the dealer realizes she has made the str8, and the dealer mucks her hand and pushes about a $30 pot to Player C.
I was at the other end of the table, and I didn't get a great look at Player A's hand because the dealer mucked the hand very quickly. It was almost subliminal, but I was sure she had a 9, but before I could speak up ( 3 or 4 second delay), someone in the seat next to A pointed out that she had a str8. This was reinforced by another player before I could say anything, so I guess I was not mistaken in what I had seen.
Dealer called for a floorman, but by this time, Player C had stacked the chips. He did not do so in any great hurry, just at a normal pace. He was right next to me, and I have no doubt that given the direction in which he was looking, and the speed in which the hand got mucked, he did not see A's hand.
The floorman questioned the Dealer as to what had happened, but they only estimated the size of the pot at $30 by the $1.50 rake. It may have been an few dollars more. As the dealer shuffled up for the next hand, the floorperson quietly leaned over behind Player C (right next to me so I could hear what she said and how she said it) and politely requested C to return $30 to A. C was very reluctant to do so, as he claimed that he had not seen A's hand, and that as the Dealer had awarded him the pot, he felt the House should make up the pot to A. "It's not my fault she gave me the pot. You guys make it up. I didn't see her hand."
He wasn't going to give it up. Now, just to add flames to the fire, one of the other players, not involved in the showdown, tells C to return the money, it's not his, etc. etc. and the argument starts to escalate. After a couple of minutes, C flings $30 at A and cashes out, with a not-so-polite F-bomb to the chirper seated next to A who almost as much as called the guy a cheater for wanting to hang onto the pot.
What's the drill everywhere else? As I saw it, A did little or nothing to protect her hand. But she did table her cards face-up. The Dealer was way too quick to award the pot, and clearly made a mistake, which we are all prone to do from time to time. Should C be 'forced' to give A the pot? Should the house make it up? As casinos in Alberta are government controlled, the House comes up with the usual BS line of "Gaming Commission won't let us do that" in regards to making up for an employee mistake. Should they have some sort of small limit($50?) for employees to use their discretion in deciding matters like this? What if it was a big NL hand for say, $1,000 involved?
Comments welcome.
In Grande Prairie similar situations have come up as the dealer's are poorly trained and do not pay enough attention to the game. This sort of thing happened to me once where I announced my hand incorrectly in Omaha High and ended up splitting the pot instead of winning it outright.
This led to conversation and I discussed it with management in the abstract and this is what I learned. The house made a mistake. The player who had the pot pushed to him gets to keep it (at least from what I understand) and there is a phone number that Player A can call and file a complaint through. Since there are witnesses and even the dealer knows what happened, and since the house man was called, the complaint will be validated and the casino will reimburse the pot to Player A.
This is what is done in Grande Prairie, but I'm not sure if it is the gaming act or not. This actually happened once and a player phoned in and filed his complaint. It was investigated and after a period of time the casino payed him for the pot, but this was long after the hand was actually played and Player B kept the pot that was pushed to him.
As I said, this may just be something that the people that own the GP casino due, but I don't think it is. Player A has a valid complaint as his hand was table. Another thing to consider is that each of the tables is likely monitored by the eye in the sky so they should be able to review the tape and make the appropriate call.
I hope this helps. BTW, I never filed a complaint, although management, the houseman, and the players told me that I had a valid complaint. I didn't complain because I found out about this long after the hand was played and I didn't want to go through the hassle. The player I split with was friends with me but he is a serious gambler and wouldn't push his half of the pot to me at the time (I realized my mistake as soon as I had stacked my chips and the dealer had started to shuffle). The other guy had also stacked his chipped and then I mentioned what had happened. He thought about it and then agreed that I was indeed correct. Then a couple of other players said that I was correct and one said that he had seen it and wondered why I didn't win the whole thing. My friend said "Learn to read your hand" and through my a red chip, i chided him about being cheap and have never let him live it down that he didn't give me the money, but it is all in good fun. I believe it was partially my fault, partially the dealers, and that the other player did nothing wrong. Since the casino pushed him his half, he effectively won that half of the pot. It was a $75 pot I think, in $5-10, and that is my story.
The hand of mine was AAQT, board was QT55x and my friend anounced Q's and T's. I said same hand, but then I bugged him about the trash he had compared to the beauty AAQT hand I had. But we both missed the fact that I had A's and 5's, not Q's and T's. The dealer wasn't really paying attention and just split the pot after we both announced the same hand.
I posted a similar situation last year.
The floor decision was to split the pot. I was the one that noticed the error. Player C also left pissed. It was a nice size 3-6 pot.
I would like to think if I was that Player C I would give up the pot without leaving :)
Ken Poklitar
Not sure what country's rules you are interested in, but in some places the rule is that the dealer is required to make it up himself. After all, he made the mistake. But I've never seen this happen, and I've never seen the house make it up either. Every time, the floorman has talked the player into giving up the pot that shouldn't have been awarded to him.
Besides, I thouht two pair beats a straight in Canada.
No,no Brett. It's THREE pair beats a straight. You furreners!
That's because it only takes four cards to make a straight in Canada.
I threw away a winner last night
In a well-run room the house would make it up, and NOT make the dealer pay the $30. It amazes me that this is not common practice. Surely the $30 is a small price for 1) quickly defusing an explosive situation 2) having GOOD word-of-mouth things said about the casino, rather than bad.
And besides that, it's just plain fair.
As to the dealer, no way he should have to make it up. Anyone who doesn't think so should try dealing for a year and then reevaluate your position.
Tommy
if the player did not see the winning hand he shouldnt have to give up the pot. he is entitled to see the hand that beats him and not have to take the word of a couple of other players. however cards speak and the best hand needs to get the pot. but she needed to speak up before the pot is awarded. the house is wrong to come over to someone and demand to give money back for their mistake. however if anyone has read my past posts on this subject they couldnt have this happen to them. never let go of your hand until you get the pot. never give the dealer your winning hand so he can show it until all other hands are dead and you are sure of it. the dealer should not have to pay the house sho8uld but never does and the person overlooking their hand usually loses out rightfully so.
At the showdown I showed AQ for top pair top kicker on board of Q3456
My opponent held his hand up in front of him and mucked it. The dealer did not see the hand, I did not see the hand. The players on either side of my opponent could see his hand.
One of the players who saw his hand, a kid of around 19, said "Hey, he had a 2!" The dealer pulled my opponents cards out of the muck (he still had a hold of them) and turned over Q2.
This was probaly my 30th or so hour of live poker (2/4 HE) and I did not know the rules. It was clear to me that my opponent did have a straight, but it was also clear that he had folded his hand, conceding the pot.
The dealer called the floorperson over and the the floorperson decided that my opponent deserved the pot. I'm sure had I been savvy enough to explain the situation correctly, pointing out that he did NOT show his hand, I might have had a case. I didn't know enough to argue. The pot was probably about $25
My opponent said "Hey, sorry about that, I hope you are not mad at me."
In reality, I wasn't mad - "Hell, he had the best hand!" was my thinking. I said, smiling and pointing at the kid who spoke up, "No, I'm not mad at you, if I'm mad at anyone it's that little bastard down there!"
The poor kid turned beet red and I had a good time ribbing him for a while. I would show down the best hand and turn and glare at the kid as the other players mucked.
Looking back, I'm glad I didn't make a case out of it. To this day, I have never seen a floorperson change their first decision and it really wasn't worth getting upset about.
He's close to an angler for wanting to hang on to the pot. That's the closer for an angler. Get the money via an angle and then keep it. He may not have angled but he had the finish down tight. Refuse to accept the decision and make as much noise as possible.
This has happened to me twice where I had to return money. I was unhappy about it because I had not recognized the hand (once a str8 and once 2 pair). Once I realized that there was a better hand the pot was reconstructed and I returned the money.
For sure, I discussed and confirmed that more than 1 person had seen the made hand.
Regards
you are wrong and Ray Zee is right. A player has the right to see the hand that beats him. He should not have to listen to others who claim it was a certain hand.
Well, I do like absolutes.
How come the canucks want to give up the pot so easy. What's wrong with us.
I think I've learned my lesson.
You can pry these chips from my dead fingers. Mine, Mine, Mine. Let the dealer pay. He's the sonofabitch who screwed up.
How about the overhead camera if their is one?
I'll still give it up if there is more than 1 person who also saw the cards and the player remembers. If it's just the player and 1 other I might give their bets back. Even if I'm forced to give it back I won't leave screaming like a little girl or boy.
Regards Mike N
In this situation, the midwest cardroom that I deal at would require the player to give the pot to the rightful winner or bar them.
As a player, I am pretty easy-going. I will not release my hand before I am sure I have lost or I am paid. However, I will also not complain when a hand is showed and wrongly mucked by the dealer, then I am asked to relinquish the pot.
I played for four years preivious to becoming a dealer and it is still difficult to read omaha hands quickly. It doesn't help when five hands are showed down simultaneously and players start calling hands all at once. I've only recently begun dealing and will get more efficient with time.
The was some discusion about whether you should tell a player that you can see his cards.
Is it in violation of the rules to look at his cards and not say anything? Is it angle shooting or just using an advantage? I haven't been playing for vary long and this is why I ask. I understand that acting out of turn is against the rules and that makes sense. It looking at a players cards in the same category?
Rob
Looking at a player's hand is not against the "rules", assuming he's not taking adequate measures to protect his hand.
This is a moral issue.
While it is the player's fault for exposing his hand, I will say something to that player, twice if I need to. I will try to avoid looking toward his cards if he continues, but of course if I see them after a couple warnings, an additional warning is not likely to get results.
Can someone give me an example of something that is within the rules of limit hold'em but that most people don't do because they feel it is immoral? If looking at someone's cards is within the rules i don't see the problem with it. It's like saying "i'm not going to use the checkraise because i think it's immoral". You lose out because others can do it.
thoughts?
Slow-rolling. Most people don't do it because they feel it violates the golden rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
There's looking and then there's looking. If a player is not careful about exposing his cards and you can see them without making an effort to do so, it's one thing. If you're slouching, leaning, talking to him so as to distract him, that's another.
In my opinion, it is the sole responsibility of each player to protect his/her own cards (within reason of course) I generally will say something once, and if it does not stop, I try not to look, but if I see the cards, so be it. Using this information is not immoral, as it is the fault of the player not protecting his hand. Protection of a hand is as basic of a poker skill as is learning to read ones hand, and is therefore just as much a part of the game as is any other aspect.
Legal but considered by most to be unethical: Slowrolling, and asking to see called hands at the showdown.
A semantical note, for anyone who cares about these things.
In philisophical circles, a useful distinction is made between "morals" and "ethics." Ethics refers to man-made codes of conduct. "Morals" refers to behavioral guidelines that come from a universe-creator.
Tommy
Miscalling your hand hoping the other guy will muck his winner.
Hello,
I was wondering if someone could expand on exactly why the Starting Hand Rankings in Sklansky's 1997 edition of Hold'em Poker differ from the 1976 edition???
Sklansky's "Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players" sheds some light on the changes:
"The alterations reflect the structure change from one small blind to two blinds which cause more multiway pots and higher pot odds-especially on the flop. Also reflected is the fact the players have become tougher and generally more aggressive as the years have gone by. This has raised the value of suited hands, especially suited connectors. Medium pairs have also gone up in value because you should no longer automatically give up when an overcard flops, especially if the pot is being contested shorthanded."
1) Firstly, are computer simulations used to determine these hand rankings?
2)Is the reason that the value of suited hands has been increased because of the higher pot odds. So, that hoping to catch a straight or flush becomes a better play?
For example, the value of AK, AQ, AJ all drop in the new edition and the value of suited high cards are higher. i.e AJ dropped and J9s rose
3)I am having a hard time with why medium pairs have increased in value. Why should you not automatically fold when an over card flops anymore??? Because of the increased pot odds due to the blinds?
4) If players have become tougher and more aggressive, exactly how does this translate into different hand rankings?? (Examples would be great) I thought in a loose game hands hoping to catch a draw (flushes and straights) go up in value because of the increased action. In a tough game I would suspect that hands like AK, AQ, AJ would not drop in value like they did in the new edition & suited connectors would not increase as much as they did???
Is there anyone out there who is wondering about this as well?
Thanks in advance for any help, JM
I just purchased the 1997 edition this evening and reread this section of HFAP a few minutes ago.
This is my take on the matter. The seemingly small addition of another blind causes more aggressiveness before the flop as well as more players seeing the flop. Thus, the pots preflop are significantly larger. This causes players to become more aggressive on the flop, trying to knock out players and scoop the pot right there. The larger resulting pots, however, give the right odds for more drawing hands. Add this to the fact that hands bet out on the flop are slightly weaker than those that were bet when only one blind (and smaller pots) existed, and it becomes correct to call with weaker hands as well.
As for specific questions:
1. I cannot say for sure, but I very much doubt that computer simulations were a major factor in determining the hand rankings. Simulations are very good for determining how to play one particular hand in one particular instance, but it would be a monster chore to generalize all hand rankings based upon these simulations. The problem is that players can be of many different types and can sit in virtually an infinite number of arrangements. All of this affects the final hand values to some extent. A simulation does fine if you know what types of players are in the game and where they are sitting, but with current software (namely Texas Turbo Holdem), it is impractical to program enough different lineups to enough insight to generalize the hand rankings. Perhaps David and Mason used simulation results to aid them, but mostly (I think) they based it upon practical experience.
2. Yes, suited cards increase in value due to larger pots as well as implied odds...players are more likely to pay you off when you do hit your hand. However, depending on how many players are in the pot preflop, many of these hands' values are once again reduced after the pot has been raised. This is one area I need to think seriously about. I may play TOO tight for a raise considering today's looser standards. (But not much too tight) I will be paying for professional tutoring soon and this would be an excellent area to explore.
3. Medium pairs are worth more due in small part to increased pot odds; a related reason is that players are more aggressive, betting hands of lesser strength. Therefor, you are more likely to have the best hand. They may be betting second or third pair or even a gutshot straight draw.
4. Hand value vary drastically between games. Because of this, a hand rankings chart is just a basis upon which you can fall back on when you are unsure how to proceed. Yes, hands such as AK and AQ are still good in games with fewer callers seeing the flop. In fact, they may be slightly stronger, since there is more money in the pot to begin with.
In 1980 a small book by David called ESSAYS ON POKER appeared. In it there was an essay titled "New Hold 'em Rankings." ESSAYS ON POKER is now completely contained in the book SKLANSLY ON POKER. Here are the first few paragraphs from "New Hold 'em Rankings."
" These are my revised rankings for the best starting hand in limit hold 'em. The original rankings appeared in my book Hold 'em Poker. There was a small revision in the second edition. These rankings have been copied by quite a few authors in subsequent poker books. (They also appear in Hold 'em Poker and Hold 'em Poker For Advanced Players [which I co-wrote with Mason Malmuth].)
Since hold 'em came into being, there have been a few changes in the Nevada hold 'em scene. These changes have served to make my original rankings slightly out of date.
Two things have happened: 1. The players are tougher. 2. The "blinds" are bigger.
For instance, the $10-$20 game which was described in my book as having one $5 blind now has a $5 and a $10 blind.
The $15-$30 and $20-$40 games have doubled their old blinds. These larger blinds have great implications on your correct strategy.
Larger blinds tend to encourage multiway pots. This, in turn, raises the value of suited hands, especially suited connectors. You will see this reflected in the new rankings.
The fact that players are tougher along with the size of the pot before the flop has raised the value of medium pairs in the hole. This is because you should no longer automatically give up on these hands when an overcard flops."
By the way, SKLANSKY ON POKER is an excellent book that many of you have not read. You may want to pick it up.
Mason wrote: "By the way, SKLANSKY ON POKER is an excellent book that many of you have not read. You may want to pick it up. "
Gimme a chance, dude! I am currently reading Poker Essays, while rereading TOP and HPFAP-21. It's amazing how much more I pick up rereading those as I gain experience.
I also have 7CSFAP-21, but have not had time to read that through once yet! I also have the Suzuki book. The Hi-Lo book is on the 'to buy' list.
To top that off, Super/Sytem arrived Tuesday and of course, I can't let THAT just sit there!
I think I have a problem....
My name is Dan, and I am addicted to poker books.
Dan:
I'm sorry, but we have more books than just the ones you mentioned, and have a few more on the way.
Make sure you play some poker while you're reading away. It will help makes things more clear.
Thanks Mason,
I was just kidding. I don't usually read more than two books at the same time.
I have always read a lot, so it's not a big deal. I am always pleasantly surprised as I go back and re-read material after playing and see how much more the texts offer in conjunction with experience.
I was playing in a stud tournament last night. It was a bounty tournament that has two local 'celebrities' with $250 bounties on each of them. Last night was two local sports talk radio personalities, Paul Allen and Jeff Dubay.
I was reading Poker Digest while waiting for the tournament to start and Dubay looked over at the magazine and said " 'POKER Digest'?? There is such a thing as a 'poker' digest? You mean you actually READ about cards??"
I just laughed.
I exited the stud tournament when my rolled up 9's ran into rolled up K's. Another guy had trip queens. Everyone all in, no full houses.
I was hoping someone could tell me where to find a holdem game in the 15-30 range in New Orleans. I'm going there this weekend, last time I was there the only 10-20 game I found was Omaha high.
I apologise in advance to my expert peers if what I am about to say is stating the obvious; or, conversely, if it is just useless meandering. Unlike many of you, I am still at the shallow end of my learning curve, and this is an exercise to try to help me understand more the reasoning behind some of your posts.
Often, I see comments that you should call or raise the last bet of only two units if you have any chance at all of winning, because to lose, say, twenty units or more by not calling adds to a far greater total loss in the long run.
Taking this theory back one card suggests that you should call or raise a turn bet if you have a reasonable chance of filling; and, even further, you should call or raise a flop bet if you have a fair chance of making a hand.
If all players played by this philosophy, unfortunately, it would make the winning of a hand almost totally card-based luck, and it would be likely that there would be a majority of players going to completion in a far great number of hands.
Patently, this does not happen; which infers that most players do not follow this method of play.
However, I have to admit that I do see a number of winning players who seem to play in a far greater percentage of hands than others in a game. I have often put their winnings or their river-made hands down to blind luck, but, if there is any sound logic to the "call the last bet" theorem, I think I might suddenly have seen the light!
As long as an aggressive player following this system is playing against players who don't follow the system, he will find that he wins a large number of hands uncontested; similarly, he will find that he often wins against the one or two other players left at completion, purely on a simple win-some-lose-some basis; when he sees that he has obvious winners, his consistent aggressive betting will disguise that fact from the other players, who will have recognised that he is as likely to show a pair of twos as a full house, and he will receive action from the two pairs and trips hands.
So. How do you defend against this type of player?
The answer has to be, if you can't beat him, join him. Play by his rules. If he bets, at least call, if not raise selectively.
This strategy will even out his previous advantage against you, and will put you in the position of also winning from the other "non-system" players.
Finally ... yeah: and what is my point?!
It is merely to voice my (latest!) personal conclusion that to be a bigger winner than normal in this marvellously complex game, you have to play not only aggressively, (as I think we all accept), but LOOSELY; which is the new thinking, to me.
Regards,
Mike.
ps I questioned a one-on-one big winning player called Sarah-something at one of the well-known internet sites about this theory, and her answer was :-) which I took to be her approval!!
Loose players are generally losing players. For most games through the mid limits, tight-aggressive wins the money. This means you are tight in choosing which hands to play, and then aggressive when you do play.
Your logic of calling the last bet means calling before the last bet is faulty. Calling at the end is a known quantity: that is, you know you are calling to win X number of dollars for only one more bet. Calling, say, on the flop in hold 'em, is a different situation in that you don't know for sure how many bets it's going to cost you to get to a showdown, nor do you know what your final hand will be. In which case should you call more often: when you have to put in $70 to win $60 or when you have to put in $20 to win $130?
Winning players may seem to play more hands because, when they're winning, they're holding a lot of cards. But it's the losing players who play more hands. Losing players may even win more hands than winning players, but they lose a lot more hands too.
I have not seen any comments at all (at least on this forum) that you should call or raise on the end if you have any chance at all of winning. What I have seen is comments that you should call on the end if you assess your chance of winning as greater than the odds you are getting to call. And you don't have to be correct 100% of the time to be doing the right thing by calling, nor does your chance of winning have to be terribly high, given that, by the end, there's usually a lot of money in the pot relative to the amount you have to pay to call.
to be a bigger winner than normal ... you have to play not only aggressively, but LOOSELY;
Whoa! Nothing could be further from the truth. Playing too many hands is the downfall of many otherwise expert players. I urge you NOT to start playing loosely. We may never hear from you again.
Also, this heads up player Sarah confirmed your questions but she's talking about heads up play. Heads up vs. ten handed is practically not even the same game. In heads up play, you should probably be playing 60 to 70% of your hands.
Also, calling that last bet is not always automatic, even when the pot is big. There are certain players that you can fold to with impunity. They are not bluffing. Ironically, even against decent players (but not experts) the bigger the pot, the LESS LIKELY they are bluffing because the pot is so damn big. They know you HAVE to call. You can often fold correctly against these players.
Be careful tho, until you know your players, it's best to call down that last bet in a big pot.
natedogg
Perhaps "loosely" is too loose a word to use - I still believe in a ring game that to enter the hand you need the starter cards that we have discussed previously - I mean that once you have entered the hand, you can maybe loosen your "staying" requirements.
For example, last night, I raised AKo in the button position. My only caller was the BB.
The flop was 952. He checked. I bet. He called.
The turn was 4. He checked. I bet. He called.
The river was 10. He checked. I believed the only way to win was to bet. I bet. He hesitated. He called.
With K2o!
At first I thought he was a total twit. But when I thought about it, although almost all players wouldn't have called the initial raise with K2o, once he had done so, knowing me as usually a tight opener, basically he just gambled, say 50/50, in the loose fashion that I have described, that I didn't have a pair in hand, and therefore, because of the board, his pair of twos was good.
I'm not saying he made a good play altogether, but he did make a good call at the end, in my opinion. I don't think I would have got involved in the first place, and I assume if he hadn't flopped a pair he was out of there after my flop bet. So for risking one small bet he won six and a half small bets by playing loosely, in the specific circumstances.
On the button and everyone folds, this player may have put you on a steal with 2 decent cards. You could have anything from AA-TJo. You could even have worse if the other player was more likely to give up his BB (which he wasn't)
Once he pairs the flop that has all small cards he figures there is a good chance he is ahead. He's right. You're drawing to either an ace or to runner runner 9,5.
He simply let you bet when no face hit. Had a Ace hit he may well have folded if he knew your play well enough.
On the river there were ways for you to win without betting. He was going to call with any pair or better. Had he been on a draw such as 67s then you would win. He would have folded such a hand on the river.
Once he called the turn you need to realize the above. He suspects that you have 2 face cards and is not going to fold for 1 bet.
This is much different than just calling because you have a chance at the pot.
An example
After river there is 30 BB's in the pot.
You have 67s and missed your str8 flush draw but paired your 6. The betting goes Bet, Raise, Call to you. Are your 6's good? Maybe but almost for sure not because of the caller. FOLD in a big pot even though you actually have a slim chance
When you have a weak hand, the major differences between the flop and the river are that on the flop your pot odds are routinely worse (small pot) AND your implied odds are routinely worse (you have to pay more later). That is to say you risk quite a bit more playing weakly on the flop (intending to show it down) than you do on the river. Likewise a semi-bluffer (intending to bet all the way) is risking a LOT more on the flop than the river and is therefore more likely to try to steal the river against someone with a paranoid weak hand.
Therefore, making crying calls on the river is a lot more profitable than on the flop.
You are certainly more likely to make weak calls against an assertive player willing to bet weaker hands than yours. Yes, this is "looser". But don't confuse this with being less selective since pre-flop selectivity has much more to do with everybody at the table than just one player.
- Louie
- Louie
Hi ... I am planning a trip to central canada and am an avid poker player. I will be stopping in Regina and understand there is a Casino Regina there. I would like to know what the high end limits are in omaha, holdem and 7 stud. Also, how far is it from the airport? and are there motel/hotels located nearby?
Thanks in advance for any help you can give.
Sherry K
Central to the hotel district. 10-20 usually highest in HE with some low stud and very infrequent O/8. Easy access from airport. Guaranteed taxi service from airport. Games usually in evenings til 3-4 am. Big tournament on next week. Regards, Dave
Thanks for the info ... but I was just wondering ... found Casino Regina's home page and it says the cdn poker championships are this weekend (the 7th) I thought they were next week and thats kind of what you seemed to indicate. Am I reading it wrong or is the website wrong?
Thanks again
Sherry
I heard that casino is EXTREMELY smoky. Some kind of big tournament is going on next week that a lot of players are going to.
I've been a moderately successful card counter for the last 5 years and have recently stumbled onto poker as a possible source for a supplemental income.
The thing I liked most about blackjack was the ease of calculating my hourly winrate and sdt dev (Blackjack attack was invaluable and my results over nearly 200,000 hands fell pretty close to my expected value.
With this background in mind. I love playing poker butdo not like the lack of being able to mathematically figure my hourly win rate and sdt dev (or can I??). This is really my question: Is it possible to calculate a win rate and std dev for either 7-stud or hold'em?? I've played only small stakes thus far at a nearby casino (1-5 stud, 3-6 hold'em) for about 50 hours and I'm averaging about 16 bucks an hour net profit. I've had 9 winning sessions and 3 losing ones. The competition is very weak and though I feel like I'm at an advantage is there a way to quantify my edge (hourly expected value) as well as std dev??
Any help would be greatly appreciated. If anyone has a reliable formula I'll be a friend for life
Thanks and good luck to all!!!
Jack
Mason will tell you to buy his book. Until www.deja.com got amnesia, I would have told you to see Mel3Brown's rec.gambling.poker post instead, for a more robust formula. You can also buy the StatKing program (available from Conjelco), which will do the calculations for you automatically.
Your historical win rate is trivial to calculate: winnings divided by hours. You can estimate your standard deviation quickly by recording your stack size once per half hour (or per lap in hold'em) and taking at least 10 measurements. Alternatively, you could just steal some standard deviation figures from similar players in similar games.
You can set confidence bounds on your results. Like you might be able to say you win 3 small bets per hour, plus or minus 2 small bets to 95% confidence. You never really know your EV, however. No matter how high your win rate has been in the past, the next game you play could be the game from hell with a cheater or other factor that turns you into a loser, and in fact every future game could be the same.
-Abdul
JackoLantern,
I wouldn't (and don't) worry too much about my EV and stdev at poker since my exisitng BJ BR easily allows me to play up to the biggest stakes poker games locally available, which are fortunatly almost entirely populated with idiots and morons who play more like typical 3-6 (=bad) players. If you're in the neighbourhood of expectation after 200,000 hands (~2000 hours) of BJ, and have been playing for any kind of meaningful stakes, then you're likely sitting on enough BR to play any red-chip poker game you might find. Always remember rule 0: table selection. You'll get your ~1BB/hour, with a stdev of 10 BB to 15 BB/hour, using a 300+ BB bankroll--all rules of thumb that I'm sure you've seen before, and my results so far are in line with these estimates.
But if you're still concerned, I suppose you could run a TTH sim but programming typical opposition profiles is likely difficult and time-consuming. (I personally have not done this myself.) The built-in low-limit profiles in TTH gerenally are not as weak as many of my typical opponents, and I don't believe I'm the only one who has found this to be the case.
There just is no BJRM or tables from ch.10 in Don's book for poker. But the stdev in poker is so low compared to BJ that calculating risk (and return) has never concerned me. I put all my effort into sharpening my game, not figuring out how much I'm going to win or what kind of swings I'm likely to endure.
Regards,
TJ.
I think Jackolantern will need to become a solid player first.
The better you are the higher your EV will be. Your actual win rate could be something completely different.
Yes, table selection is paramount. You will have a better EV as a good player against a table of poor players than you will as a very good player against a table good players. (I'm guessing here since I am not a "very" good player.)
Regardless of your bankroll, learn to beat the smaller games. Account for rake since you may not be able to beat the game for much due to the rake. Treat this as your training time. Maybe 300 hours ought to give you a good idea where you stand.
Results are important but not as important as being able to see flaws in your game and in the games of the other players. If you can't identify the fish ... well you know.
Good Luck
In BJ you have full knowledge of every situation (including knowledge of the opponent and of yourself) and there is a manageably finite number of situations, allowing you to fully calculate to a nats eyebrow.
In Poker you have little knowledge of the opponent (what will he do, how good is it), incomplete knowledge of yourself (how good is that call on the river?), and a hopelessly huge might-as-well-be-infinite number of possible situations.
Anybody who says they can accurately calculate their EV for a particular table is lying. You can only SWAG it based on your objective past measurments and your subjective estimation of these opponents.
- Louie
Thanks for all the reponses. Let me see if I have the general idea: It's not as easy to accurately compile an hourly win rate or std dev in poker versus BJ. I was hoping to have some basic formula to 'predict' what my EV and std are versus using my 'postdictive' results to figure. I understand the difficulty given the nature of the two games (BJ versus poker)
I definitely know (or at least so far it's been my experience) that the std deviation is SOOOOO much less in poker than BJ (which is why I'm devoting time to mastering poker, the BJ swings are giving me ulcers!!). Is the formula (while I'm sure is just a ball park gauge) : one big bet per hour EV with a 10-15 big bet per hour std dev?? Does this simply mean if I'm playing 3-6 hold'em that my hourly win rate is $6 (the big bet)?? and my std dev per hour is between 60-90?? Does this approximate win rate factor in the 'drain' of the rake?? Is this based on 40 hands per hour??Sorry for the annoying questions, I should just go buy a book (the three poker books I've read have not addressed hourly winrate and std dev)
Thanks again
Jack o Lantern
Hello,
1. Where are the best 10-20 games in LV right now? 2. Everyone is playing Hold'em these days--can more money be made at other games (Omaha/8 for instance?) 3. I'm going to LV in the middle of May--WSOP time. Are the games going to me harder, on average? Would any be easier? Which limits would show a significant skill level difference?
1. Right now the best 10-20 game is at the Mirage but in 45 minutes it'll be at the Orleans.
2. Yes.
3. They will be exactly the same. The 8-16 at the Bellagio will be easier from 9:35 a.m. until 5:20 p.m. 40-80, 30-60, 1-5 stud.
Please forguive me for deviating from this Thread and if somebody please adress a question that I can't find in the books . A good, in the black player once said " I'm a 30/ 70 poker player". He was talking about odds that guide him to make bets. I appreciate references or details in this subject. My very much anticipated thanks. Dino.
I'm a beginner at Texas Hold'em and live in the A.C. area and would like to work on developing my skills at the game while minimizing time spent at the poker parlors until i'm more confident in my abilities (haven't been yet actually, but suppose I couldn't do too much damage to myself playing the $2-$4 limit games). Anyway my point is that i've heard about Wilson's Turbo Texas Hold'em but the problem is that I've got a brand new Mac. Does Sega or Playstation offer anything and/or is there some software out there for Mac users?
Bill,
Try the WSOP Adventure Deluxe Casino Pak. I've got the Windows version, but they make a version for the MAC. I believe it's $29.95 and you can order it from ConJelCo. It includes all the Casino games, a no-limit hold'em satellite, limit hold'em, 7-Card Stud, Omaha high, and the WSOP final event simulation. I think that this software is good for learning.
On the limit games you will find it much tighter play than in real life, but I think it's good for practice and inexpensive.
Mah,
I appreciate your response and input. I'll go check out this wsop pak as it sounds like it will atleast meet my needs for now. My previous obsession was shooting craps at the Trop and Hiltion where i got 5 X odds. I read all of these interesting craps books by a guy named Frank Scoblete but just don't have the bankroll to cash-flow the craps tables and make any real money so decided to try something else.
Good Luck, Bill
another option if you plan on playing low limits, would be to get into a few free online games. Play is pretty similar to the low limits in that you WILL be shaking your head in disbelief, though not AS badly.
If you plan to goto the higher limits The WSOP deluxe Mah suggested is pretty good (and fun to play as well).
Few sites where there is free play and i am sure supports macintosh are Yahoo! and www.funcom.com
Gl ..
Bill,
Craps has the illusion of making a big win, but you will lose in the long run. Don't believe what he says about Craps. The only people that have won big, have lost it all back eventually.
Poker will take some time to learn. You may want to consider BlackJack. There are still some pretty good double deck games. If you are interested in counting cards. There is a 2+2 booklet for $4 that will teach you the fundamentals. You will just need to practice for about a month to get pretty good at counting two decks. Just thought I would mention it.
Good Luck
mah