![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
I'm holding JJ in a low limit ( 2 - 4 ) and I'm in mid position. I raise the preflop and both players call.
Flop comes Jd 6h 7s.
The blind bets, I raise and my friend calls cold in late position ( I consider him to be a good player. Figure he is on a staight draw. ) and the blind calls.
Turn comes 8c.
The blind bets, I call crying and my friend and in late position calls. (?)
River comes 7d
Blind bets, I raise, reraise behind me, reraise by the blind.......
Since there was no cap, we had about 15 bets each before the big show down....
blind was holding 54s. (Which I believe was a poor play because the board paired up. He should have known his straight was no good.)
I had J's full and had 2nd nut which lost to quad 7's which my friend was holding. (which on the raising war I figured someone had it.... but I had to know)
What is the chances that with a three person holdem game that all three of us have great hands with both cards playing?
See you tonight Andy for another weekend show down!
any comments?... This is my first time writing in so please don't rip me apart.
What is the chances that with a three person holdem game that all three of us have great hands with both cards playing?
100%, it seems. I don't really consider idiot straight with the board paired to be a great hand, and top full vs. quads isn't all that rare in hold'em due to the community cards.
100%, it seems. I don't really consider idiot straight with the board paired to be a great hand, and top full vs. quads isn't all that rare in hold'em due to the community cards.
For future reference,for your opinions to be respected online, you might consider using proper English in your messages.
Playing in loose games I'm forever deciding which flushes to play. How would you play 87s differently than 86s preflop? I notice S&M have many starting hands between them. But all I can see favoring 87s is the one extra dumb straight. Let me thank the 10 or 20 of you who regularly contribute answers for us newbies. I've been following for months.Without your generous advice I could never have afforded to learn the hard way. Now I see the light at the end of the tunnel and it's not a train.Rounder, they should pay you for your unique perspective. (BTW I'm up $1200 after 110 hrs. Was stuck $600 before reversing.)
The one extra straight possibility will add up in the long run.
RD & Mike
It just isn't the extra straight it is the nuts I am after any straight you use both coupled cards is a nut and I love nuts. I get bashed for this thinking but I'd still rather have 89o than 97s - for alot of reasons.
Hey I have been preaching this for months now.
Play the mid coupled cards weather suited or not in late positions hell the 8 high flush is probably a loser anyway.
The connector is the nuts, except for when 9TJ hits the board, in which case there are two different straights that could beat you. There are three different ways (discounting overcards) to hit the nuts with the connector. There are two ways, with the one gapper, one way with the two gapper, zero ways with the 3 gapper. Just adding my two cents worth.
You have 8c6c in the SB, BB has 8d7d, the two of you see the flop of 7h6s2s...
I'd be very interested to hear from some of the expert players on this hand. I don't just want to know whether I could have made a better play, but rather if I could have had a better thought. I feel that I could benefit greatly to hear how an expert would have thought this hand out differently.
There was a straddle button in this 10-20 game and it was in play for this hand. A somewhat loose but experienced tricky player (tp) made it $30 from UTG, and a strong player (sp) to his immediate left capped it at $40. Everyone folded to me in the LB and I called with KK.
My thoughts: I'm not crazy about my position and I'm not sure if the fact that I didn't get a raise in hurts me. Although my calling $35 cold should say I have a big hand. (especially to the strong player)
The flop came Qh,7c,3s. I bet out.
My thoughts: I want it known that I have a hand. I'm sure tp will raise regardless of his holding and this allows me to see how sp reacts.
tp raises, sp re-raises, I call.
My thoughts: I don't think I gain much from capping here and I want to see now what tp does.
tp caps, sp calls, I call. Turn is 5s. (Qh,7c,3s,5s) I bet out.
My thoughts: Obviously, we all have big hands. I fully expect tp to raise me here (and I think that tp and sp know I know that also) which should put sp to a tough call with many holdings (including AA,KK and AQ). If he even calls I will seriously consider mucking!?? I don't want to fear monsters under the bed, but AA has been a concern from the beginning as well as QQ. I'm willing to pay one of these hands off, but not both.
tp raises, sp thinks for a long time and mucks, I call. River is a 7s. I feel I have forced my hand as far as possibible. I check, tp checks and my KK wins. Turns out both tp and sp had AQ. I found this hand to be pretty intense and would appreciate comments. Again, not just how the hand was played but what a a good player would've thought differently. I feel I was weak at least in my thinking. I was very concerned about AA and QQ and if sp even calls the raise on the turn I would have seriously considered mucking. I definitely muck if he re-raises? Thanks again!
Ask yourself exactly what range of hands are consistent with the actions of the strong player (4-bets preflop then 3-bets on the flop)? The very worst possible holding is exactly AQ, don't you think? It's also the only one you can beat. Tricky player is a little harder to put on a hand but again it's hard to imagine a hand worse than AQ and easy to imagine a few better than that, 77 for example.
I think you were fortunate to get the money but I'm no expert.
Your thinking here was incorrect. You gained tremendous advantage by not making a move prior to the flop. You should have checked the flop and let the game come to you. You are not letting anyone know anything by betting out. You could be betting Q with a K kicker and since they both have top pair with top kicker they are going to jump all over you. You should have checked the flop and reraised after tp & sp bet and raised. Now you put pressure on them to figure out your hand, or just call and wait to 3 bet the turn. You also lost a player on the turn who would have paid you off, if you had checked. The board was very favourable to you all the way and you should have played it as if you had the best hand (which you did). If you had waited and 3 bet the turn with a check, neither player would cap it on you, because you have now annouced that you have a strong hand, but if they cap, then and only then should you consider that you might not have the best hand, but you would still call. I know it's easy to analyse the hand since we know what the players were holding but if you had check raised, your opponents are now under pressure instead of you and they could make a costly error as well.
I liked your play till the turn. Because the flop was not dangerous I would have check-raised on the turn. Then bet the river unless I know I am beat to possible AKs, AQs, Ax,KQs. If the flop would have been dangerous such as 2 suited card or open-end straight draw then I would have bet the turn hoping to get raise to limit the field.
If I check the turn, most likely, it gets bet and raised back to me. Now what do I do? I have an almost impossible call and may very well lose the hand now since I have to put one of them on AA or QQ.
Would you call 2 bets cold here, or cap it? I'm pretty sure I'd muck for 2 bets cold on the turn.
You're wrong about one thing, AKs -- the idea that your thinking was weak. I think you played the hand great! Against most players I would be uncomfortable with this amount of action, but you seemed to know how aggressive tp was and how he would react to your bets. The normal play on the turn would be to check-call, but your bet into the previous capper followed by tp's raise (which you thought he might make without a great hand) may have made sp throw away even AA. Bravo!
I would have capped the pre flop action and had the last bet on the flop I feel in charge here unless an A hits the board.
You just can't put good players on AA, a rock yes but a good player is tough to put on a hand in this situation. The hand would have played out differently if you had capped the pre flop so maybe you were better off just calling. But folding an over pair in this situation is wrong.
The pre-flop betting was already capped before the action got to Aks according to his post.
Unless Aks is a nut, tp and sp should know that he has a strong hand to cold call the flop and then bet into the raisers after the flop. If mistakes were made, then they were made by sp and tp by over-valuating or over-betting their hands given the pre-flop calls and post-flop action from Aks.
Aks's mistake is contemplating a muck on the turn, and possibly not check-raising the flop which is when I think a check-raise is the most effective in this situation.
It is debatable how to play this hand. The one comment you made that worries me is that you were ready to fold on fourth st. if you thought you were beaten. I wonder if you realize that the pot was almost big enough to call one bet simply to try and snag a king. I have often seen good payers incorrectly fold an overpair in these situations. Don't forget your implied odds either. Also even if you had no intention of calling on the end, if there was even a tiny chance (1%) that you could win (or tie) a showdown without putting more money in, a call is clearly right on fourth st.
There is a fading thread far down the forum in which David Sklansky single-handedly attempts to belittle Lee Jones and his book 'Winning Low Limit Hold'em'. David's stated goal in knocking down Jones is to benefit all of us that might be duped into believing this book was written professionally by a professional. He further seems to believe that the advice of Jones is likely to be dangerous or at least lead players astray on their way up the hold'em ladder.
I believe that if you buy this book because you're currently not beating low limit hold'em AND you have the desire and discipline you will beat low limit hold'em damn quickly. That's all the book promises. It's not promising to make you a poker professional. There is no suggestion that you'll succeed at mid limit games, just low limit. The book delivers. It may not be the most complete or most correct but it's a very efficient tool to learn how to win.
That said, I'm wondering why 2+2 never took the opportunity to fill this niche? It's my guess now that there is so much jealousy and dislike that a 2+2 book that improves upon Jones is out of the question. Working with Jones is also out. But why, oh why attack Jones you unthinking business man?
Every book that Jones sells keeps another player "in" the game if he succeeds. This is your future customer, David Sklansky. This is the guy that will buy $1000 in poker books with his expanding bankroll. I know I did.
You and Lee jones are in the same figurative boat. If you make the effort to belittle his work and poke a hole in his end of the boat, his end will go down while yours rises. In the end however, the boat sinks with both of you aboard.
Lastly, Lee Jones is a really nice guy. He may have moved on from poker author to other things in life, I don't know but his work has made a lot of losers into winners. For that you should be grateful.
Post deleted at author's request.
Post deleted at author's request.
Do you seriously believe that I could not almost instantly beat a small limit game for more money than any player who does not routinely play 20-40 or higher (assuming we know the specific players in the game equally)? Thinking I couldn't, is like thinking An NFL football player wouldn't almost instantly be the best player at a high school rugby game. Even Lee Jones himself, I am sure, would agree with that. There are some higher limit players who would have trouble with small limits, but that is because they play by the seat of their pants and don't understand the underlying theory and the strategy changes that are necessary. But that wouldn't be the case for me or most of the successful high limit players. Furthermore with a mere ten or twenty hours of experience and a few hours of relection afterwards, any possible edges on some aspect of the game that a more experienced small limit player would have would be quickly eliminated. (The very best players such as Chip Reese didn't spend much time playing small, not only because they started with more money but rather because when you have this much talent, beating small games badly is a piece of cake and they quickly move up.)
This also brings up another bone I have to pick with you Badger, regarding The Theory of Poker. When I mentioned in another thread that an aspiring studious player could quickly move up to 6-12 if he read that book, you replied that I was being disengenuous because we admit that our books are for higher limits. Well that is true for some of our other books but the Theory of Poker is by definition for ALL limits since it tells you what to think about depending on the situation. Since you haven't read that book you wouldn't know.
Getting back to your initial comment. I don't suppose you would like to take the other side of me crossbooking Lee Jones or any small limit pro, playing 3-6 holdem. We would of course have to play at least 50 hours at a minimum of 10X stakes. Most of your disagreements with me cannot be definitively resolved. But this one can, if you make it worth my while.
Post deleted at author's request.
It is becoming clear to me that you have a distorted view of both my opinions and writing talants and that this could be fixed if you only read The Theory of Poker. So I up my offer again. Order the book. Read it. If you can honestly say you are not glad you did, I will send you $400. Period.
Badger's original point, which is valid, is that most poker books--yours included, valuable as it is---tend to convey the impression that there is a "fixed" viable strategy for low-limit Holdem. Of course, this is not the case: there are so many variables: game structure, quality and style of opponents, amount the house charges to play, etc. In addition, there is the matter of definition. I don't consider 5-10 or 6-12 "low limit". I'm sure someone who normally plays 20-40 or higher, does. So if you make a generalization such as "3-3 can be played profitably in a low limit game" the natural question must arise, HOW low of a limit? against rocks? nut cases? In CA where the rake is prohibitive? In WA where the rake is affordable? etc. etc. etc. It may be impossible to truly convey a thorough strategy for low limit holdem in any book less than 2000 pages long. I've read your book. It's one of the best poker books I've ever read; the exposition is clear and lucid; the points made are valuable; the coverage is thorough. As a FOUNDATION it is unparalleled. However, it falls short of arming the novice against all variations and all situations--but then, no single book can be expected to do that. I would like to see, in fact, a book devoted to just the above topic---how to change one's playing style(s) to adapt to conditions, and how to recognize beatable (and unbeatable) games, and how to evaluate poker venues. And re your offer to Badger: send ME a copy of your book, and I'll read it and profess to hate it for only $300--a 25% saving to you! (I'll do anything for a few extra buy-ins :)
Post deleted at author's request.
I already read The Theory of Poker and thought it was great...but I'd be willing to say I didn't like it for as little as $50. You can e-mail me for my street address. :-)
Post deleted at author's request.
Undertanding the problems associated with low limit play, especially for relatively new players is not about what you play preflop for one bet, 2 bets, 5-6 players or more. Most of the money will be lost on later streets when the situation has changed for the worse but the novice doesn't see it. Example
Late Position. Hero calls early position raiser with KQs.
Flop is KcQd4s. Okay he's flopped top two pair and raises the preflop raiser. The river is a 4c. In the seasoned player's mind warning bells are now going off. The novice still thinks he's got a great hand and gets into a raising war with the preflop raiser who he knows couldn't posssibly have raised preflop with a 4 in his hand.
Most beginners and non studying players don't lose their money by not knowing when to get in, they lose their money by not knowing when to get out. They can calculate pot odds and implied odds and percentages of hands that can beat them in a flash but they have no experience to let them know that AT with a flop of AQ4 is a loser when a solid player raised UTG preflop. They've got top pair with a decent kicker. After all some of the players at the table play any ace. They've thrown away 20 hands in a row. They've got a pair of aces and they're playing them.
It takes a lot of experience to know that when you flop bottom set and your raises are not respected that you just might be in trouble. In the Fundamental theory of Poker Sklansky points out that if your opponent is playing his hand in a different way than he would play it if he knew what you held then he's making a mistake. So, it would seem that when you've made it clear what you hold and you're still getting raised it might be time to give your opps some credit. Beginner's don't do this, novice's do this right after they call the last raise and then say, "I knew I was beat!!" Most of the hands I win at low limit are because I'm playing AQ and raising, typical low limiters ae playing QT and they call all the way to the river. After all, they read somewhere that top pair is a decent hand. Just reading books and reading these posts are not the whole answer. Many of Abdul's posts and Izmet's posts are clearly titled as questions that should be thought about, not necessarily answered. Thinking, thinking and more thinking is required. Getting a read on someone as impossible as it is at low limits is essential. Being able to reraise UTG in early position with AJs because you know UTG would smooth call with any real hand is where money is made. Only the player at the table at the time can best know when to fold or raise when his flush hits on a paired board. But, that's only if that player even knows how to analyze the information at hand. It's much much more than whether or not you play small pairs preflop. You can't just memorize a table and odds charts and expect the chips to flow your way. You have to know how to play poker, and no book in the world can teach you that.
Bravisimo! Very well said, Sammy.
But... Don't you think that knowing the odds, charts, et al is a very important foundation for learning to play poker properly?
I think it's indispensable. But it's not enough to make you a long time winner.
While I agree with with this post with respect to the point of "experience is the best teacher", I'm not so sure I agree with the rest of it. Can low limit be beaten without ANY previous experience, just based on reading? Probably not. But most low limit poker (again MOST) is played by people who don't know ANYTHING about odds or odds tables. You are going to tell me that a 3-6 table where 7 out of 10 players consider J4s a decent hand knows about odds? I really hope not! If most players knew about the odds and charts and tables, low limit, high raked games would be unbeatable. No way. At a typical 3-6 table most players don't know and frankly don't care about the odds of hitting a flush with one card to come or whatever. Sort of like a $5 blackjack table where someone hits a 12 against a 6 showing. In these games, you make most of your money off your opponents bad plays. Thus a low limit book should attempt to prevent you from making these plays. Give them starting hands to play so they don't play junk. Let them know that when 3 flush cards are on the board to consider that someone might have a flush. When there are four cards in a row, having the lower card to make the straight is not as good as having the higher card to make a straight. This alone should be enough to make low limit a winning proposition for people who read the text.
Mr. Sklansky seems to be a big fan of sports analogies, so I will give him one. Nobody is saying you can't beat low limit. You probably just can't make winning at low limit holdem as easy as possible, which is what you have to do to reach novices. An NFL coach is probably a much better tactician than a PeeWee league coach. However, if an NFL coach was assigned to coach at the PeeWee level, he might not get as good results as the best PeeWee league coach. Not because he could not come up with a strategy to blast every PeeWee league team out of the water, but because the strategy he devises can not be implemented successfully by his PeeWee league team. A good PeeWee league coach may only understand football at the most basic level, but yet may be able to get the most out of his players using a simplified strategy that works well for his PeeWee league team.
This is a poor analogy. You cannot compare coaching with participating. Sklansky is a poker player not a poker coach. Take an NFL player and put him in a PeeWee league and a lot of other coaches will be PeEing their pants.
Vince.
Huh? Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I said no one is doubting he can't beat a low limit game. Coaching and participating is not analogous. Giving advice in books to low limit players and coaching small time players is. When you are writing a book you are not playing poker, you are helping teach others how to beat it.
Yeah, well maybe you were clear enough and I just blew it! Did you ever think of that. Huh! Sure, sure, Vince is always the brunt of the joke. Well you won't have me to kick around for a while. In the future, please be a little less clear in your anaolgies so I can at least come up with an excuse or maybe even make it look like you screwed up.
Vince.
is that someone who knew the subject better, would necessarily be a worse teacher of beginners. This might be true in some cases, but certainly not in mine or many others. Making the book cookbookish and not too intimidating, while at the same time EXPLAINING THINGS without logical errors, or giving downright wrong information (not because you are trying to simplify but rather because you don't know yourself) is not that hard. I really don't want to belabor the point but I have no choice when you guys don't get what I am saying. So I will say it again. To write a good simplified book for neophytes that goes beyond extreme basics, takes both a decent teacher and a relative expert in the field. The top texts on almost all serious subjects are written by authors who pass this criteria, and they must necessarily be better than books written by those who don't. Poker unfortunately is an exception.
Though the point made is very valid, I'm not sure if my sixth grade science book was written by a PhD, much less a Nobel prize winner. For all I know, 2+2 could come up with the best LLH book of all time. The rest of the books are certainly great. I was merely trying to convey the point Mr. Badger was attempting to get across. Writing a good low limit book does not involve only the strategy needed to beat the game, but the simplicity in order to get your points across to those who may not as of yet have a strong grasp of the fundamentals of poker.
Post deleted at author's request.
The athlete analogy doesn't apply since I write as well as play. I agree many highlimit poker players would write bad books although some wouldn't. The Vince Lombardi analogy is better. But I would change a few things. First of all, peewee football is not analogous to 3-6. Those who play 3-6 in public cardrooms are at least equivalent to junior high school players. Secondly I agree that an NFL coach may not do quite as good a job as junior high coach who was especially good at his job. But that would be true only if that guy knew football ALMOST as well as the pro coach.
There is no doubt that a Phd may not be able to teach high school physics as well as a great teacher with a masters. But there is also absolutely no doubt that the best high school physics teachers do not include people who didn't graduate college and merely got a B when they themselves took the course. That is the better analogy to what we are discussing.
Post deleted at author's request.
Uhoh, I actually aspire to be a highschool physics teacher after I make my millions. Seriously.
(Nobody's gonna read something this far down in the thread, but I'll post it anyways.)
... And while we've invoked professional football coaches, I would like to say that someone with a world-class understanding of physics or biology or foreign policy or a lot of fields would probably make better coaches than the majority of those who do so now. The experiential lore isn't that daunting compared to say law school or medical school. What's at the core is applying this experience plus reasoning skills and solving problems. With a modest investment of time to acquire the lore, great analysts and decision makers should fare best. Granted, there are managerial and psychological issues, but these are no different than those faced in a variety of fields.
The reason you don't see more crossovers is probably aritificial barriers to entry erected by those who perceive the incorrect set of skills as being necessary for the job. Fields without these barriers (like poker) bear out that the lore aspect is overrated as intelligent new crossover entrants surpass the less intelligent.
Probably preaching to the choir here, but this is kinda germane to the question about those who can and cannot.
JG
TOP deals with "what to take into consideration" not with specific recommended plays. It is, IMHO, the most complete general strategy poker book ever written - with concepts that can be tailored to ANY LIMIT, to ANY GAME, ANYWHERE. I believe that any player with at least average intelligence and less than 6 months of hands on experience but who has fully comprehended the theories in TOP can outperform a player with at least average intelligence, has 30 years of hands on experience but who has never read TOP.
That said, I'm wondering why 2+2 never took the opportunity to fill this niche?
Mason posted recently that 2+2 were approached about publishing WLLHE but declined. I'm not really sure what their objections are--I've seen criticism of Lee's suggestion to use the "raise the button with medium-sized suited connectors" play (I think David said that play isn't terribly useful because loose players will call too much anyway), but that's a relatively minor point because the only drawback is that it increases your variance; it shouldn't lower your EV.
The only real "objection" I've ever had with the Jones book is that it's often referred to as "The Bible of Low Limit Poker" when it's really a relatively simple guide, and I don't know if Lee necessarily referred to it as such.
Sean,
Your use of runon sentences is excessive. Please correct this poor style in order to develop respect in poker "fora" (as you put it).
Though I don't own WLLH, I did skim through it at a bookstore once. From what I saw of the book, it advocated a very straightforward approach to LLH, almost a "cookbook" approach. This is as opposed to the more theoretical advice given in 2+2 on how to play DEPENDING on the situation. I think the approach in LLH makes it much easier for the beginner to understand. A lot of people dont want to be doused in heavy theory. They just want to play winning poker, and from what i have heard the jones book helps them to do that.
I don't really know David but so far I've never seen anything that I would attribute to spite. I think he really believes he is helping the world by pointing out weak poker thinking and from what I can tell is useing LJ as an example (most likely because its shoved in his face so often). His metric for book value appears to be correctness above all. I can easily see this attitude. For example in a thread on the Theory forum a CS PhD candidate (name elided to protect the guilty) suggested somebody read some total piece of tripe produced by Sams in order to get an intro to the programming trade. My initial reaction was much as David's might have been about LJ's contributions to poker education ignoring the fact that effective communication to newbies is a positive value add (actually I think the Sams cr@@ is far worse then John Patrick on BJ but pretend its a lot better and the comparison stands). David's metric doesn't include the communication aspect so we're going to disagree. Such is life. Its good to have people with all viewpoints commenting.
One thing that has puzzled me lately is 2+2s pulling away from low limit. In the "bankroll" threads one of Mason or Dave made the comment that playing at those levels really isn't worth their time to worry about much. In those threads up through 3-6 was clearly low limit and 6-12 seemed to hover on the edge (personally I think its clearly low limit). Since they state their books are for games through 30-60 they seem to really be limiting their market. As somebody else pointed out the majority of players exist below 10-20. It may be that 2+2 thinks the majority of players willing to buy a 2+2 book really exist between 10-20 and 30-60 but I would think the low limit threads that seem to premeate this website and RGP would argue against that.
Whether the reason 2+2 chooses to ignore LL games is truely because they don't understand low limit games as Steve suggests or because its not of interest to them doesn't really matter to me. It opens up a market for the LJ's Izmet's, etc. of the world to fill up. If as David suggests there are a lot of people who could do better thats great. Until they do its a moot point.
FWIW, just buying LJs book probably has about the same probability of making you a successful low limit player as only buying one of DS's book (say TOC to make the example extreme). The probability is very low. The ability to think analytically is probably a bigger indicator then what books you pick up (David's comments in RGP about SAT scores would appear to support that).
Our target market is mostly those players who are interested in making real money playing poker. This could be someone just starting out and playing at limits $3-$6 or lower, or someone struggling at $10-$20 or higher. That is the main market for people who are willing to shell out $30 or more for a poker book.
My guess is that if you go into a large poker room (Commerce or Hollywood Park would be good examples) and do a survey of people playing $3-$6 or lower the majority of them will tell you that they have never read a poker book and have no interest in buying one. So just because you see many players in low limit games it doesn't mean that that is where the market is.
With this being said we do have some material targeted for players at the level that you are talking about. First is the FUNDAMENTALS OF POKER written by Lynne Loomis and myself which targets players who are brand new to the game and is recognized today as the best beginners book. Second, is our book GAMBLING FOR A LIVING (written by David and myself) which is an overview of all those casino games which are beatable. (The poker section in Gambling for a Living uses some material from the Fundamentals of Poker.)
You make the assertion that if you go to 3-6 tables most players have not read and would not be interested in buying a poker book. Most likely true. However, I think you miss two points. 1) There are many more players at LL, and therefor a larger potential pool of customers to draw from. A smaller percentage interested in book learning than at higher limits, but since there are more players, a fairly good size crowd. 2) Those of us who are (currently) playing lower limits would jump at having another book written specifically for this type of game. Since 2+2 is probably the most respected name in poker publishing, I think you are missing a huge potential market. The success of Lee Jones' book points to this. The length of this thread and the emotions stirred up also points to this. My 2 cents: if you don't want to write it, invite some of the more knowledgeable LL players on this forum to submit proposals for a book outline, or outline a book and ask for contributors for various topics and chapters. You could even have authors offering different points of view on the same subject, explaining their strategy and rational. LL players also need advice on the emotional aspects of the game, such as dealing with loosing streaks, which only comes from years of experience that most LL don't have yet. Yes, it will require a good deal of editing, but I think the financial rewards will be worth it. Toss in that making winning players out of losing players is great karma (putting odds in your favor you won't be reincarnated as a garden slug or lawyer) and you have a complete winner on your hands.
We are actually willing to do most of the things that you suggest. But we are not willing to step a new writer through a book. I have stated many times that if anyone on this forum has a completed manuscript we will be glad to look at it. If accepted, David and I work with the author to make sure that the book meets the standards that Two Plus Two has established. We currently have two new books in this process right now and they should be released this coming summer.
But I am not interested in seeing just a proposal. For our purposes and limited resources this is not enough. Perhaps if we had a large staff of people and did not care as much about complete accuracy as some publishers do we would do things this way.
So let me state it again. If any of you out there are putting a book together we at Two Plus Two would be more than happy to look at a draft manuscript, If it is very good with the potential of becoming terrific, we just might accept it.
Post deleted at author's request.
Luckily for Mason, John Feeney didn't see this warning until it was too late.
Post deleted at author's request.
I have no idea Gary. In any case Mason has him in his clutches now.
Post deleted at author's request.
I understand that as part of the deal, Feeney has to provide free psychotherapy to all the other 2+2 writers. The opportunity to avail yourself of John's services might be just the incentive you need to reconsider your stance and submit your book to Mason. Unless of course you think John will be too busy for you.
My door is always open for Gary. But he'll have to go off the meds and check all weapons at the front desk. First we'll work on resolving his Oedipus-Malmuth complex. I notice that it flairs up along with signs of oral sadism whenever father Mason reprimands him. Yet, it is often calmed by supportive distractions from the kindly uncle David figure. With any luck the transference will put me in the David role, allowing the therapy to progress smoothly, resulting in the publication of Gary's book with a new title, "You're Just Wrong (But I'm Okay Now): Raise that Draw!"
Than maybe I can cure the "Mad" Genius.
But seriously, I thought Mason's simply telling me, "I'll let *you* post on the Forum for FREE, for a WHOLE YEAR. For you, no subscription fee!", was way more than enough compensation for a book. What am I missing??
Post deleted at author's request.
Uh, hu... Go on.
I'd suggest the concept of dueling authors is more appropriate for an advanced book. Maybe as a collection of reviewed papers on coordinated topics.
You don't want to confuse newbies on their first outing. Giveing them a consistent party line and plenty of pampering (how to hold cards, how to buy in, etc.) is as important as anything else. If they have the aptitude they will get to the right stuff quick enough. If they don't it doesn't really matter.
Isn't Lou K. and others working on a "Poker for Dummies"? That may give the community another viable low limit poker book.
Mike wrote:
For example in a thread on the Theory forum a CS PhD candidate (name elided to protect the guilty) suggested somebody read some total piece of tripe produced by Sams in order to get an intro to the programming trade. My initial reaction was much as David's might have been about LJ's contributions to poker education ignoring the fact that effective communication to newbies is a positive value add (actually I think the Sams cr@@ is far worse then John Patrick on BJ but pretend its a lot better and the comparison stands). David's metric doesn't include the communication aspect so we're going to disagree. Such is life. Its good to have people with all viewpoints commenting.
I, of course, am the PhD candiate in question (guilty as charged). I find it humerous that you chose this context to mention this old thread. I also have to say that I have no clue who Sams is. I recommended an O'Reilly book. I'm not a big fan of them myself, but I do think that the Learning Pearl book is pretty good.
The metric I was applying was based on several things. First, if the person doesn't want to take the academic route, they are probably very practical, thus I picked one of the most practical programming languages for people who are not software developers. Second, since they are most likly smart and a self-starter, I felt that an O'Reilly book would probably hit them at the right level.
If I really did feel that said student was interested in getting into the the "programming trade" I would advise them to go to school. On the other hand if they just want to have fun and be productive, I think that my suggestions weren't outlandish.
Maybe it is like the DS vs. LJ debate, one cannot write (or recommend) a book without considering the audience.
- Andrew
It wasn't you. ORA is a well respected technical publishing house. Sams is a crappy "learn perl/java/buzzword du jour in 10 easy lessons" kind of publisher. I didn't even realize you were a CS PhD candidate.
All hope is not lost. There is another ;)
woo hoo !
"woo hoo !"
Andrew:
You sound like you went to the University of Virginia. I have real trouble with that.
WOO HOO !
"That said, I'm wondering why 2+2 never took the opportunity to fill this niche?"
The Lee Jones book was offered to us first. I turned it down.
Mason wrote: "The Lee Jones book was offered to us first. I turned it down."
Reminds me of a record producer who turned down The Beatles in '61, good move!
David says in thread "In Defense of Lee Jones"
(I would suggest, however that it might be a good idea for Lee, now that he has evidently improved his understanding and his play to, come out with a new edition and run it by me first.)
It seems he ran it by David the first time. Okay, maybe Mason didn't want to publish it for conflict reasons, but certainly it must have been in your hands. Did you offer to look it over then, as you are doing now? If your first allegiance is to make sure the poker public is getting the best product, that was the time to do it.
Okay. I am going to tell a couple of things that I have always kept private. When the book was first offered to me all I saw was a proposal. It was obvious from the proposal that this text would not meet our standards unless we did a great deal of work on it. If my memory serves me well there was even suppose to be a fictitious character named Davon which the book would feature. In a letter to Lee Jones I turned the text down and recommended to him that he drop the ficticious character which to his credit he did. (I even received a letter back from Mr. Jones thanking me for my time and effort.)
Perhaps a year later Chuck Weinstock was in town with a draft copy of the manuscript. He asked me if I would look at it and give him comments. I worked my way through the first four pages of strategy and marked those pages up. I also told Chuck:
1. It just wasn't worth my time to work through the text at a detailed level. 2. That now having seen the manuscript I would still have no interest in publishing it.
If you find this book helpful to you then that's great. I believe that following its advice will make you a small winner at the low limit games since it will have you playing much tighter than many of your opponents. For some people that's a big improvement.
I also believe that our limited resources here at Two Plus Two (and this includes both my time and David's time) were better spent elsewhere.
I'm not going to offer any opinions here - I just wanted to say that Mason's recollection of my offering the book to him first is 100% accurate as far as I can recall (it's been about six years now). I did drop the fictional character idea, no doubt at least partially because Mason thought it was a bad one.
Happy new year y'all.
Regards, Lee
Lee:
I'm happy to see this post. I understand that you have become quite a good player. I hope you realize that the points we made about your book was nothing personal, but simply to let people know that many of the books that compete with us were written by excellent writers but who had less than a firm grasp of the subject as compared to writers in other fields. I am sure that you yourself upon rereading your book find things that you would like to change or either explain differently. We look forward to seeing a new edition and now that you have reached a greater degree of expertise we would be happy to add our input to any perspective new edition you decide to put out.
And finally, both David and I hope that you become a regular participant on this forum.
Mason,
I'm curious. Upon rereading your books, do you find things that you would either like to change or explain differently?
I know what the book did for me, it enabled me to play safely and sanely with positive EV while I learned to play a stronger game.
I watched last year's WSOP on ESPN and was hooked on poker. I bought Hold'em Poker by David Sklansky read it and headed off to the casino.
I really was not ready for that book or it's teachings and it showed. I read Lee Jones book, and started having good success in the 3-6 games (averaged $10.50 per hour for 145 hours in Atlantic City). As well as running over a 1-4 home game I play in ( I average over $90 per 5 hour session in this game. I intentionally give money back if I get much over +$100 so as not to disrupt this game).
Anyway I moved up and tried 5-10 a few times and got clobbered! I went back and read David's book again and it made much more sense! Now when I read Lee's book I see the obvious failed logic in some of his writing. But Lee's book enabled me to get to this point without going broke!
I equate it to skiing... you teach people to ski in a wedge, and then once they gain some confidence you explain that the wedge is useless and teach them to ski properly.
Sean
And wouldn't you agree it doesn't take Jean Claud Killey to teach you how to ski in a wedge? As a matter of fact anyone who has skiied in a wedge could teach it!!
NO I wouldn't agree. See my Vince Lombardi post above,
Perhaps there is another element here we are overlooking and that is one of communication. If the pupil doesn't get it it sometimes has little to do with the education or credentials of the teacher.
An NFL coach thrown into the middle of a jv season would certainly be a fish out of water because he has no reference as to what his new team is capable of. He can't possibly know the competition because he didn't play 8 games against those kids last year. So, in this analogy it comes down to who would do the better job if the experiences are equal. Now, given equal experience and two coaches, one with pro credentials and one with jv credentials, communication would then be a major factor. Who will the kids respond to, who will get the most out of the kids at practice, who will teach the play book in a way that 10th graders can understand. Well, chances are the high school coach teaches other courses in school so he can relate better. As for you not accepting the skiing analogy, I still feel the best person to teach a youngster how to wedge down a hill would not be Jean Claude Killey or even the instructor at the slopes. It would probably be the kids older sibling who was wedging the previous season. There's communication there that supercedes a PhD.
Why are you not understanding what I am saying? Your points would be valid if 1. We were talking about absolute beginners which is not the case here. Jones was not calling his book a purely beginners book. Rather he claimed his book teaches a very good way to play small limits. Furthermore 3-6 players are not total beginners. (If he was instead showing a movie star who had never played poker, enough to keep from embarrasing himself in a celebrity tournament he might indeed be the best for the job.)
2. A great teacher must know his subject rather well for his teaching skills to matter. Jones did not at the time he wrote the book.
I will try one last analogy Sammy, and then I am done with it. I will use golf. You are a beginner. You shoot 130. It is time to take lessons. Unquestionably you might find that the best teacher for your specific circumstance may well be a less than pro golfer (maybe a 78 shooter) who understands your specific needs. The question is how far down can you go? Assuming he is a young coordinated man he could not be a great teacher, even for a beginner such as yourself, if he only shoots 90. The fact that his score is that high means his knowledge about the game has some serious flaws though he is still much better than a duffer. And there is little doubt that those flaws will translate into worse instruction than you would get from a much better player who knows how to teach adequately even if your only goal is to break 100. Though it might have been good enough to win, Lee Jones could not break 90 even playing only 3-6 at the time he first wrote the book. This is my last post on the subject.
Your phrase, "knows how to teach adequately" was essential to this argument.
I'm on the button,with AA.3 limpers,I raise 2 callers.Flop 4,4,9 rainbow.SB bets,2nd calls,I raise,both call.Turn is A,I win pot with boat,SB had set of 4's. After hand over regular says to me why would you ever raise on flop theonly thing SB could have was set of 4's.My logic:if he re-raises I know he has 4 and can proceed with that info. I'd rather error on the side of being aggressive.Comments?
Although some may argue for the merits of simply calling all the way with this hand, I'd like to say something for playing it straightforwardly and raising on the flop. The problem is that a mere call may fool one of the players in the middle into thinking something like two 10s are good. If they subsequently raise the initial better on the turn, having put him on two nines, it puts you to a tough decision. It is often much easier to play a multiway pot if the oppentents have some idea where you're at.
I'd like to add that if the two callers are good players, who would be likely to raise on this flop with a hand such as 10s and fold a weak hand, raising the flop may still be correct. Even though the aces are weaker in this spot (because a four is more likely out), they are still too good a hand to fold and you don't have to bet if it's checked to you on the turn.
Finally, as to what the regular said about the small blind having a four, my experience tells me an unknown player will not have one far more often than he will.
I have found in poker as in most of life it is the aggressive that prosper.
I really like these "regulars" asking questions after the hand is over.
Post deleted at author's request.
good raise. the sb could have a 9, a wired pair, or he could be pure bluffing at a "blind" flop. there are tons of hands you would have riased with preflop that are not wired pairs or include a 9 or a 4, so they think they can push you off overcards. your raise is not for information, per se. i think it is a raise for value. he might reraise with just 2 pair, thinking you are taking a shot at the pot or that he can get a better two pair to fold. assuming you don't fill out, i would call the sb down if he raised or bet again. but if he never took the lead back i would bet the turn and the river.
scott
Pre-flop your narrative is a little confusing to me. I gather 3 people limped in and then you raised. It sounds like the small blind called your raise and only one of the three limpers called. This means that two of the three original limpers folded rather than call a single raise back to them. Is this right? What a bizarre game!
When the flop comes with a small pair and a medium size card, this is a good flop for you. The small blind betting out could be done with just top pair, not necessarily trip Fours. He might even be betting an over pair. After the bet is called by one of the limpers, of course you raise. You beat top pair or any other pair the small blind could have led with.
The "regular's" comment about the only hand the small blind could have was a set of Fours is obviously coming from someone who doesn't understand poker. Many players would lead with a top pair of Nines against only two opponents in case you were raising on over cards. Similarily, when the board flops Nine-high, many players would bet out with pocket Tens or Jacks. Some might even bet a medium pocket pair if they think they have the best hand. If you are re-raised then you will just call and take off a card.
All your plays and thought processes were correct.
As an aside, the small blind did not have a set of Fours. The small blind had trip Fours. A set is specifically a pocket pair with one on the board. If you have a set of Fours then no else can have three Fours. When you have trip Fours someone else can also have trip Fours. Huge difference between the two.
Seems like you played for about 36 hours straight before you posted this. I hope this was not a no-limit game. How could you possibly as Jim pointed out loose 2 out of 3 limpers in any limit hold-em game. And did you see the SB 3 fours. If you did one of you needs some serious work to do.
P.S Vary your play as you like here it won't matter much. Do not listen to so called regulars.
if this was a no-limit game forget everything I said.
If you want to play poker in the Western US you HAVE to play limit HoldEm. Ecch. This is like only riding bicycles equipped with training wheels, or only eating oatmeal for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, or if every channel on cable showed Gilligan's Island 24 hours a day. Nonetheless I accede to reality. So I sit there, hour after hour, throw a hand away throw a hand away throw a hand away throw a hand away aha! get AK suited, raise, flop comes 678 of spades, my AK is diamonds, throw that hand away, etc etc etc etc etc etc. Limit HoldEm has to be the most dull, unimaginative poker game on Earth. It's less skillful than Old Maid. You can't put any moves on because the bet size is so small relative to the pot that the lemmings just call, call, call. You play KK for the last raise, Gilligan hangs in with J5 suited, rivers a flush, and there you are. Nothing to do but throw away the hand. It's IMPOSSIBLE to sneak up on anybody. I win at this game--don't get me wrong--but it bores the living CRAP out of me to do so. I'd rather be ironing my laundry. The only thing I can try to do is as they say, "switch gears", but playing crap cards costs me money just as it does anyone else, and it makes no impression on the zombies at the table anyway. Can anyone offer an insight on how this game can be beaten without boring oneself to death in the process?
Sounds like you ought to find another hobbie.
I play most of my poker in the west and I don't find it boring at all - I like tossing hands in - :-)
I played ofver 1200 hours of ring poker last year and over 89 tournaments - mostly NL HE and I an no less the worse for wear.
I think you need to review your priorities for life.
Post deleted at author's request.
I know your backround from reading your messages on other boards.I also make money from a variety of casino sources,as you do.I found out a long time ago if you don't enjoy at least some aspect of something its not worth it.In my case VP,bores the hell out of me an I don't play much anymore.I played FT BJ for awhile and when the luster wore off it was time to expand.In poker its even more important,if your personality does'nt match there's a problem.I think it is far more complex and challenging(assuming you are moving up)than any other casino game.
Get a walkman and a tape of Rage Against the Machine.
It seems to me that your boredom is derived from the fact that you're just plays "cards". You're focus is on card rank and suit only, not on the breath and depth of the overall challenge. Frankly, I agree - the game is a bore when you play with blinders on and just see your pocket cards and the board cards. I'd suggest getting much deeper into the game, i.e., develop strategies, employ psychology, and win with style. The game will come alive!
Deep in a thread buried below Mason Malmuth says that one of things wrong with Lee Jones book is that he doesn't emphasize the importance of playing small pairs more liberally.
Badger then states that this is horrible advice. (I'm paraphrasing.)
Badger is completely off his rocker. Not only is knowing when to play a small pair ESSENTIAL to winning at holdem it is vital to your overall bottom line. Sets, are one of your biggest money makers at holdem.
I don't see anything wrong at all with teaching a new player the value of playing small pairs in certain situations for the sole express purpose of trying to flop a set. No set, out you get.
Mason 1. Badger 0.
Post deleted at author's request.
On the other hand, if you gave the advice to ALWAYS play any pocket pair in any position in a typical low-limit game for one bet you couldn't go far wrong either, and these are just the types of hands that inexperienced players should play, since it's a lot harder to get into trouble with them.
When I'm in a loose passive game, I play small pairs from anywhere. I call raises with them if I think I'll get 5-6 way action or better.
I rarely play small pairs in NL HE in a full table as they won't stand a raise but in limit & PL I play a pair from just about anywhere I put alot more value in a 44 than a 78s - they are easy to get away from (no set no bet)and if you flop a set or a 4 straight say 3 5 6 you have taken one of the outs out of play and the 44 is probably good anywhy at this point.
Post deleted at author's request.
A set is a set. Set over set is rare enough that you don't have to expend a whole lot of effort thinking about it. I did the math a while ago on the frequency of losing a set to a bigger set (it's in the archives), and I've forgotten the exact numbers now, but it was rare enough that I decided it wasn't worth worrying about until I was actually in a hand and had heavy evidence that I was against a bigger set. In terms of overall EV, it doesn't make much difference.
And if you want to improve the flop advice for small pairs, instead of 'no set and out you go', it's simply a matter of saying, "If you think the pot, plus implied odds, plus a chance of a raise behind you, equals enough equity to warrant drawing for two outs, call. Otherwise fold." That is still a lot simpler for novice players to understand than a situation where you have something like 89s, and the flop is K93. Here, it's all about judging your opponents, the live aspects of your kicker, whether you have the best hand, whether you have a 3-flush or 3-straight to go with your pair and how much value that adds, PLUS everything else that the small pair player has to worry about (pot odds, chances of a raise behind).
Where weak players lose money with small pairs is when they blindly hang on to them all the way to the river, wildly hoping that they'll hit a set and/or their hand will be the best at the showdown. THAT is expensive, but it's an easily correctable error.
In tough games like you and I normally play, this isn't the case at all, and small pairs can be tough to play, simply because we're often heads-up or in 3-way situations where our small pair has a good chance to be the best hand, but it's expensive to call when it's not. That calls for a lot of judgement, and maybe that's coloring your responses to the low-limit game.
Just for the record Dan, you forgot open end straight drwas and occasionally gut shots as well.
Post deleted at author's request.
Are you sure about that? Given the hands that other players are likely to play, it seems to me that a set of Queens is more likely to lose to a straight than a set of 3's. And I would think that a set of 3's would make more money than the queens, simply because of their hidden nature and because they'll get more action from overcards, higher board pairs and overpairs, etc. I think this would more than offset the added risk of set-over-set.
Add to that you would probably raise preflop with QQ putting everyone on notice that there's a hand out there.
Post deleted at author's request.
Agreed, but the other side of the coin seems just as strong to me. For instance, action that you get on a Qxx flop when you have a set of queens is likely to be low-EV, or even action that you don't want (4-flushes, open-ended straights). Action that you get on a 3xx flop when you have a set of 3's is more likely to be high-EV action that you do want (overcards that are drawing dead to your hand, for example).
I'm not completely sure how it all comes out in the wash, and the difference is going to depend largely on the types of players you are facing, but it's close enough that I'm not going to worry about it too much. Gimme a set, let me put in my chips, and I'm happy.
I would appreciate some expert advice on the best play in this situation often encountered in low-limit games. Let me describe a particular hand to facilitate discussion. You are one of 7 players to see the flop for one bet each. You have QT and must act first after a flop of Td-9d-4c. Your opponents are likely to call a single bet on this flop with hands like 45, AQ, or even Ac5c (backdoor flush draw). The line-up includes a couple of loose-passive players who will limp before the flop with big pairs, and a few loose-aggressive players who routinely bet (or raise) on the come. Therefore, a check-raise opportunity is very likely. Should you bet, check-call, check-raise? If you go for a check-raise, would you prefer the pot to be opened by someone on your left (perhaps allowing you to trap callers for an extra bet) or someone on your right (perhaps allowing you to thin the field by forcing opponents to cold-call two bets)? If you decide to lead bet and are raised by a late position player (after a couple players call), should you reraise? [I would usually lead bet and call one raise in this situation.]
Would the optimal play differ if you held KT or AT rather than QT? What if everyone put in two bets before the flop?
One thing is for sure: you ain't a gonna' win this seven-handed pot unless you get SOME players outta there. However, one bet isn't going to do the job, as you point out. I would check, hoping someone in the latter positions bet, angling for a check-raise to squeeze out the middle-position hands. After that, assuming I was successful in reducing the field to two or three players, I would still consider that I would probably have to improve to win, or at least survive a flush draw or a straight draw---in short, still a dog to win but perhaps with pot odds to compensate. All in all, I wouldn't exactly fall in love with this hand or this situation. This is PRECISELY why the intermediate face-card hands (KJ, Q10, K10, QJ, etc.) are so dicey.
I assume you are BB as to play this hand early without being BB is probably a big mistake to begin with.
This is realy a situational play - as are most in poker - but in the situation you describe. Early position with QT and top pair with nice flop for your hand I would lead bet and call raises hoping to thin the field.
I believe at this table, in this situation, I would check and call one bet on the flop, and go for a check-raise on the turn if no overcard hits. Your opponents are much more likely to fold for two big bets rather than two small bets.
The situation you have outlined is one of the more difficult in hold-em, specifically flopping top pair/mediocre kicker in an unraised, multi-handed pot. I believe 2+2 and John Feeney have discussed this situation. The key is anticipating where a future bet might come from and then how to use that to thin out the field. If you think it might come from someone in late position, then a check-raise could be highly effective. If you think an early position player will lead, then the check-raise won't be as effective. On the other hand, do these players bet and raise with come hands? Given the coordinated flop, this is quite possible.
My own preference is to simply bet out in these situations and see how the field handles it. An early player might raise with a weaker kicker or on a come hand which would help thin out the field. I would then call a single raise back to me. I normally would not re-raise given that coordinated board except for perhaps Ace-Ten (Top pair/top kicker).
If the pot had been raised pre-flop it might depend upon where the pre-flop raiser is. If he is in early position, I would probably lead into to him. If he were in late position, I might "check to the raiser" and then check-raise but this is very dicey. The problem is that if his pre-flop raise was based on just over cards he may decide to check along and take a free card after everyone checks to him.
To me, check-raising is a bit like being in a Catch 22 situation. If someone bets, your hand is not worth nearly as much as it would be if nobody bet. (If everyone checked, you would certainly want to play the hand over and bet the next time.) I prefer to bet the flop, since what I am hoping for is that nobody else has enough strength to bet. Maybe some of you play in games where someone always bets, regardless of whether anyone hit the flop. If so, I am truly envious. In most of the games I have played in over the years, betting into five people shows a certain amount of strength, even if you are in late position and the field has so far checked. My point is if someone bets I do not like my hand as much as I do right now.
Thank you for sharing your views. My own approach to such situations has evolved over the years. Influenced by S&M's emphasis on thinning the field, I used to favor check-raising with top pair in multiway pots--especially when loose-aggressive opponents were sitting on my right (I generally attempt to select a seat where this will be the case). If someone on my left opened the pot, I usually just called and reassessed the situation after the turn card.
More recently, I've been influenced by Mike Caro's argument that early raises in loose games primarily drive out the longshot hands from which you would have otherwise profited. However, I suspect that letting the fish linger in the pond contributes more to one's variance than one's expectation. In fact, I'm really not sure whether it adds anything to one's expectation. Nevertheless, I usually lead bet these days...unless I expect the maniacs on my right to bet!
If I bet my judgement often failes. If I check and see what happens my judgement also often failes but not as often as when I bet.
May I suggest to try to sell your hand to a player next to you for $3. Maybe he or she can have better luck with it.
I'm posting this to both our forum at www.TwoPlusTwo.com and RGP.
In a previous post Mike Caro challenged someone to count the combinations of hands that his PROFESSIONAL HOLD 'EM REPORT says to play when someone else has raised in early position and there are still many players left to act behind you and no more than one person has called between you. This I did. (I needed to take a weighted average since some of the hands he only plays two-thirds of the time, and some of the hands he only plays one-third of the time.)
The bottom line is this. When there is an early position raiser, Mike Caro's charts have you play about 15 percent of the time — 13 of this 15 you are just calling.
Let's compare this to HPFAP. We on the other hand depending on the game recommend playing (often reraising) 4 to 6 percent of the hands (plus very occasionally an off beat hand for deception). Furthermore, many of the hands that he plays that we don't are those that are in danger of being dominated.
All comments are welcome.
On RGP Gary Carson pointed out that against a very tight player the "liklihood of being dominated is dependent on the hands that the raiser likely has."
He then gives an example where you would be worse off playing KhQh than 6c2s against a tight early position raiser.
Here is my response.
Gary:
You have just made a very strong argument that against a tight early position raiser you are better off calling his raise with 6c2s than with KhQh. I happen to agree with you, and in HPFAP we give a warning that "Against an extremely tight player in a tough game it may be correct to throw away some Group 2 hands such as: AsJs and KhQh," See pages 20 and 21 of HPFAP-21.)
As for where these hands are ranked, they are ranked on how well they do overall assuming you play them correctly. In the situation that you describe, they both should be thrown away. However, in many other spots the KhQh should be played while the 6c2s should be folded. For example, suppose the very tight player that you describe throws his hand away, and now it is your turn. You would certainly want to play the KhQh but would probably fold the 6c2s. On page 14 of HPFAP-21 we state "However, there are many exceptions, which will be discussed in the text. In fact, the starting hands actually move up and down the hand rankings depending on the circumstance. Because of this, it can be a mistake to rigidly adhere to the hand rankings. Again, make sure that you understand all the discussion concerning how the individual hands play."
By the way, I want to congradulate you on raising a very important point. Even though some hands are clearly better than others if played properly, they can become suicide to your bankroll if you begin to routinely call raises with them and will actually hurt you more in the long run if you call these raises than other hands which appear far inferior. This is because hands like AJ, KT, QJ, suited or not, can easily make second best hands against a raiser.
The following is a post I put on RGP that responds to something that Mike Caro wrote regarding my original post. Please note that Mike did not dispute the 15 percent figure. He did however continue to claim that in the hands of the right players his strategy is at least reasonable. I would be very curious to know which of our learned forum members agree with him, and which ones agree with me. (My position being that it is far from reasonable. If I thought it was close I would have never made such an issue out of it all these years.) (Keep in mind that he did call it a "Professional Hold 'em Report" with the implication that it would therefore work well in the middle limits or higher.)
Mike:
Even if you can play more hands for profit than I could, there is no way in my opinion you or anyone else can play as many hands as your chart recommends (15 percent of the time against an early position raise) and do anywhere near as well as if you played far fewer hands in this situation. I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE HANDS THAT YOU KNOW WILL LOSE MONEY FOR THE SAKE OF OVERALL PROFIT. However, the number of hands you play in this very precarious situation is outlandishly high. Maybe the world's greatest player would be well advised to play up to 10 percent of the hands. The 15 percent that you recommend (again in middle position against a raise) virtually guarantees that even a great player will lose in all but the easiest games. And those games where your strategy shows a profit, he would show a far greater profit if he played fewer hands against the raise.
Now that I have at your request Mike counted the hands, and posted it on RGP and Two Plus Two, I have no reason to say much more. (At this point I am curious to know what others think of my conclusions about calling raises COLD this often.) For those who are not sure of what 15 percent entails, this includes his recommendation to call with Q9 suited and J8 suited all of the time, AJ offsuit and 97 suited two-thirds of the time, and KT offsuit and 95 suited one-third of the time.)
In my opinion if Chip Reese had to play this way before the flop, he would be hard pressed to beat a typical $10-$20 game. And if he could beat it it would be much less than if used the before the flop strategy of S&M, Abdul, or Gary Carson.
By the way, what exactly did you mean when you wrote:
"Please don't do this anymore. You'll feel better if you don't. And I really do care about your well being."
Mason Malmuth
The most potentially dangerous or at least one of the most potentially dangerous situations in Hold'em poker is cold calling a raiser. Habitually making a call with mediocre hands in this situation can turn a winning player into a loser. I am not a fan of the term dominance, but it does apply here, and it should be relatively easy to see the potential disaster when holding a hand like Q9s or J8s in mid position against an early or even a mid position raiser. Obviously the "Mad" part of Caro's handle applies to his advice here. That said, an arguement can be made for calling/reraising with a hand like 45s
Vince.
I found the recommendations in the Professional Hold'em Report confusing. Just so it does not sound like I'm slamming Mike Caro, I'll tell you what I like. His Draw Poker and Statistics section in Super/System and his book of tells. Now, I think that his Professional Hold'em report is just a scam to make money, and I do not see how he can honestly defend it. He says that it will confuse your opponents, well the recommendations confused me. I do not understand how anyone can win with this strategy, unless they are plain lucky.
Caro wrote: "Please don't do this anymore. You'll feel better if you don't."
Reminds me of the comment he made to you in response to some criticisms you were serving up on this same topic at Deja.com months ago.
He finished defending his hold'em report to you by saying something like, "Now go to your room."
Plain & simple, I think he's an overly sensitive control freak who can't figure out how to get you under control.
Keep up the good work Mason, GTO
GTO wrote (in part): "Plain & simple, I think he's an overly sensitive control freak who can't figure out how to get you under control."
GTO --
Your accusation is outrageous and it triggers something inside me so primitive that I am actually trembling as I type these words. I am neither sensitive nor a control freak, and I will do everything in my power to prevent you from ever posting anything like that again.
Straight Flushes, Mike Caro
Mike,
I've been reading everything you've posted here and on rgp, recently and archived. You seem to take an incredible amount of flack for someone so helpful and warm hearted. The question of who's the best poker authority will never be answered definitively, but there's no doubt you are far and away the nicest guy, and every where else but 2+2 that means a helluva lot more.
Regards,
SammyB
IMO the Professional Hold'em Report by Mike Caro is not a scam. I don't believe that it is sold anymore and I believe it was written in the mid 1980's. The starting hands section of this report is very poor IMO. I was very disappointed way back when with my purchase and have moved on. I will say that I agree that Mike Caro has made quite a few contributions to poker which include:
1)Draw poker section in Super System.
2)Poker tables in Super system.
3)Draw and Lowball charts that he used to sell.
4)Book of Tells
5)ORAC
6)Many good essays on poker.
7)Poker Probe
to name the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I find a lot of the hold'em advice to be obscure and I would guess that Mike would say that it is too sophisticated for me to understand. Maybe it is. I will post this on RGP as well.
Tom,
I know, I was the one that called it a scam. I purchased this report over a year ago. Now, I am strickly speaking as a consumer. What makes it look like a scam is the way it is packaged. But, a lot of players are attacted to books that say "Professional" and "Advanced". It was marketed as a Professional report, but does not have the appearance of one. People judge things by the way the look, not the content. The value of the report could be argued for a long time. I'll refrain from making any comment about anyones books or reports in the future. I regret I even said anything.
Mason writes: "All comments are welcome."
Looks like being right is the most important issue and you win there. Congratulations.
Trivial! Did you say Trivial, Badger. O.K this is between me and badger and with a little luck SKP will help me. So Everyone else that doesn't see any value in what I write. Bye. Of course this is my last post for a while so.. so.. so what. Then bye. no not you Badger you gotta read this. Yes you do! Tell him David.
As I was saying Trivial. You called Tactics trivial. That was bad but not as bad as me letting you get away with it! I just got out of the shower and I was steaming. No not because of hot water because I let you get away with Trivial! Trivial. Look mr World Chgampion. Yeah I know you know poker stuff. O.K. I'll give you taht. But there is obviously something missing in yoyr game. Oh! Now I remeber. Aren't you the guy that said "I hate poker". Don't deny it I read your interview. Which brings me yo the thrust of this thread. (that's pretty good, Thrust of the Thread) Tactics are trivial, huh? Well let me tell you that if you pay a little attention here you may just rurn you hate for poker into love. Trivial. Listen, is there anything better, anything at all better, anywhere anytime any place anything better than, (well maybe a night with Lady Gambler mgiht be right up there, no from what she's implies it's gotta be better, o.k. let's discount that type of better thing); as I was saying is there anything better anywher than, O.K. SKP this is where you come in. Get ready to yell with me. Let me digress one moment. speaking of the interview you, oh Mr. Steve "Badger" (I won't reveal your last name here, ettiquette) gave to CP or PD about your victory in Omaha. I recall a certain hand that included an A,5,x,x. That play has a direct bearing on my attack on You. Oh Badger. I know what a badger is by thwe way. Get your teeth into something and you never let go. How well Sklansky knows that. Anyway, Badgerinio ( just incase you got some Italian in you). The little trivial message I have for you is, yell it with me SKP:
RAISE!
It's so beautiful that I had to leave it on a line by itself. It is poetic poker all in one word.
RAISE!
Still think tactics are trivial. When you RAISED with that A,5,x,x did you use that silly little California term . Poop it up! No way you said RAISE! Why because you and I and SKP know just how beautiful RAISE sounds.
Now if that is trivail then throw me in that briar patch!
Whew, I'm glad I got that off of my chest. Thanks for the help SKP.
Vince.
This post is to thank David, Mason and Specifically Ray Zee about advice that they gave me in this forum.
I was playing in a 4-8 game the other day and was doing well. ( I had just won a large pot ). I noticed that almost everybody in the game was playing very straigt-forward. If they had a hand; they bet, and if they didn't have a hand they'd check.
About 3 hands in a row I had playable hands in late position. I'd limp, the flop would come , and I'd bet if no one led out. I must have stolen about 3 pots when a player at the other end of the table said, "Do you always bet?"
My first instinct was to be a smart aleck and say "If you don't think I have anything , raise me." However I remembered Ray's advice in a previous post which was to never let your opponents think you know anything about the game. I said absolutely nothing, which is a hard thing for me to do. Needless to say the game continued on for a couple of more hours and I was able to steal a few more pots because :
I KEPT MY MOUTH SHUT
Keep up the good work and thanks for all that you do to help poker and poker players.
Tom B.
Tom B.,
Ray's been telling me to keep my mouth shut for months both on and off the table. But I always answer him with something that sends him back to the cave. FOADZ
paul
I've had a similar experience, but I tell them "Wouldn't you bet Aces if you had them." "I must be lucky today."
this is a hard lesson that I still haven't mastered. I'm making progress
Keeping my mouth shut at the table was my new years resolution for last year. I held to it well and had a nice year at the table. I preach to my friends that play that running your mouth does nothing but negative things when playing poker.
I was playing in a "rock-em/sock-em" $20-$40 hold-em game over this past weekend at the Horseshoe in Bossier City, Louisiana which is closing their poker room on Monday January 3. I am on the button with the King of Hearts and the Nine of Hearts. Keith Lear, grandson of Bill Lear(founder of the Learjet Corporation), is worth millions and is playing in this little game because he is bored and has to kill some time before going home for the evening. Keith promptly sits down under the gun so he won't miss his $40 straddle. Two middle players limp in. Dominic, a speeder from Dallas who usually blows off a couple dimes in these sessions, calls from the cutoff seat. I call from the button because it looks like I will get good multi-handed play here and I have good position. As expected, both blinds call. Keith glances at his cards and raises to $60. Everyone calls. There is $420 in the pot and seven players.
The flop is: Ten of Hearts, Three of Hearts, Deuce of Diamonds.
Both blinds check. Keith bets $20. Both middle limpers fold. Dominic raises to $40. I call with my big flush draw since it looks like this pot will grow to about a grand. Dominic is probably raising on top pair or even middle pair. Keith of course could have anything. Both blinds fold. Keith re-raises to $60. Dominic makes it $80. I call. Keith caps the betting at $100. Dominic and myself call. There is $720 in the pot and three players.
The turn is: Three of Spades
Keith checks. Dominic bets $40. I call with almost $800 in the pot. Keith raises to $80. Both Dominic and myself call. There is $960 in the pot.
The river is: Six of Diamonds
Keith bets $40 and Dominic calls. I fold. Keith wins a $1040 pot having the Ten of Diamonds and the Three of Diamonds for a full house on the turn. Dominic had the Ace of Hearts and the Ten of Clubs for top pair/top kicker on the flop.
I lost a couple of stacks of red on this one. Is there any way I could have gotten away from this hand?
no
thanks
Let me add my two letters worth.
no
Vince
David,
I'm glad to see you are back to your old self. I was starting to believe some imposter took your place that actually had typing skills for the last few weeks.
Regards,
Rick
Drawing to non-nut holdings is a sad necessity at limit hold'em in pots that have been jammed preflop. You are even forced to to things like drawing to a flush with the board already paired, and so forth.
Drawing to non-nut holdings is a sad necessity at limit hold'em in pots that have been jammed preflop. You are even forced to to things like drawing to a flush with the board already paired, and so forth.
Yes but Bob, my question to YOU is would YOU have even entered this pot with the Kh9h on the button in the first place?
...
Jake I posted my response before reading the others and I am suprised more didn't question Jim's calling with the K9s to begin with - once there, he was stuck in the hand even with the board paired under the circumstances.
Rounder:
Good job for posting your response before reading the rest. Your opinion was in the minority, this is true. But if we all were in total agreement, then there would be nothing to debate.
Therefore I encourage other readers to do the same thing. Sometimes you may say what you think and then get totally blasted by the rest of the readers. Sometimes this will cause you to re-evaluate your thinking and change your mind, perhaps learning something in the process. Other times you may steadfastly defend your position despite all opposition.
At other times it may be appropriate to read all the responses and then reflect back upon them, this is true. This type of post has value as well so I just had to throw this paragraph in....
At any rate we are all entitled to our opinions in this country, and the minority opinion is to be protected (despite any unpopularity). Without someone to disagree with, there will be no debate (and no reason to post poker hands on 2+2). Good job Rounder for saying what you really think.
Dave in Cali
An argument could be made for not entering the pot in the first place (as Carter and Jake alude to). The biggest problem that I see is that you are probably only going to feel good about drawing to the flush. Any pair you hit in a "rock-em-sock-em" game is going to be hard to defend, and is going to be vulnerable to disguised garbage.
That said, I think that calling on the button is probably better than folding, as long as you can handle the inevitable "bad beat" and acompanying swings.
As for the play of the hand, the only thing I *might* have done would be to raise on the flop in hopes of buying a free (or cheap) card on the turn. The raise is pretty close to even value-wise, and probably gets you some ev in deception.
It all depends on wheter Keith would respect a second reraise from the button or not.
- Andrew
Good point Andrew! On the turn, Keith checked when he filled up. However, if I had capped it on the flop, since I knew that Keith would probably cap it anyway, Dominic might have also checked to me on the turn. This would have saved me $80.
i have nothing interesting to add but i agree.
no.
scott
Just be happy that a rag heart didn't show up on the river, Jim. That would have cost you at least a couple of big bets, I suspect, as it would be hard to put Keith on T-3. It's nice to take down those big pots, for sure, but to make them big you've got to put in the bucks, and as we both know, they don't always come through.
P.S. Tough luck on losing your card room. Does this put a big hurt on local poker, or are there other rooms nearby? Or does this mean you are now on the weekend shuttle to Vegas every week?
This puts a big dent in local poker in the tri-state area of East Texas, Southern Arkansas, and Northern Louisiana (called the "Ark-La-Tex") because there are no other public card rooms. This means that there will be more home games springing up which is illegal in these states resulting in more raids, more robberies, more scams, etc. The problem is that in Louisiana, the river boats are only allowed so many square feet for gambling so while the poker room made money, it was decided that slot machines will make even more money given the limited floor space.
Since I was averaging about $30 per hour in their $20-$40 game based on about 700 hours of play, this really hurts my annual earn. When I retire, I will probably move out of the area.
Jim consider Phoenix - the 20-40 at Casino Arizona is populated by several very rich people and is as loose as any Southern Cal. 3/6 game. Since I don't play that in game I'd welcome you to Arizona. :-)
Jim the problem is in the quality of the cards you played. K9 just is to weak a holding to be trapping maniacs with. Once you were in the pot you have to play it whe way you did.
Last night in an aggressive 10-20 game I was in BB with Qc2c flop was 8c9cQ - next two cards were blanks.
I was leading the betting and it cost me 1/2 stack of red to see a QT - guy on my right says. Weak kickers cause a lot of players to lose alot of money. DUH - how could I have gotten away from this hand? - answer is I couldn't - had to play it out strongly and that is what I did.
I'm not quite sure I agree - I think calling a straddle raise with K9s on the button is reasonable, then calling the three bet is necessary due to pot size. I would not have called with K9s in early or middle position, but I think it was OK on the button. I think Jim got trapped but did not really make any mistakes, including BTF.
That is a matter of opinion - the K9 is a dog of a trap hand and I avoid it most of the time. He knew if he hit the flop, like he did, he was in for a long expensive ride to the river so that is what happened.
Guess a grinder like me just doesn't like long expensive rides like that.
Actually Rounder you make an excellent point. I was not just limping in for one bet here but rather I was paying two bets despite the fact that it was due to a straddle. In addition, knowing who the straddler was meant that there was an excellent chance the pot would get raised again so I was looking at three bets to take a flop. The real issue is that while K-9 suited plays well on the button against a large field, is it worth paying 3 bets to take a flop?
Jim,
I think you just answered your own question. The answer is NO.
Paul
Rounder:
You do make a good point so perhaps I will re-evaluate my position on the matter. The main thing is that it probably WILL be expensive to go to the end in this particular game, and a re-raise BTF is a good possibility.
I would never take a flop for three bets cold with K9s, but I would gladly call a maniac straddle raise (most of the time, if I had position). However, given the aggressive nature of the game, one could conceivably consider folding this holding in this situation.... If Jim could REASONABLY expect that one of the blinds would raise after he called the straddle raise on the button, then folding would have been in order. That may have allowed Jim to avoid the trap.
But in Jim's defense, I would have probably played the same way and lose the same amount of $$ on the hand. I guess I'm just a loose lucy compared to you Rounder!
At any rate Jim's original post generated great debate so good job Jim.
Dave in Cali
This is going to be a strange one so bear with me. the common theory is that when in loose games, "play more hands that can make big hands", such as you played. It makes sense, but the problem is that unless you play in these games on a regular basis the wide downward swing you experience when you pick up a draw, and lose will end up being a large spike on your earnings graph. My only suggestion would be to play more conservative until you are ahead for the session before you start chasing with draws, unless this is your normal type of game you play in,(which is rare). I know that this will get poopooed, since you never know when you are going to make the draw, but you need chips, and you need to have confidence, which is what you lose when you lose a couple of racks. So what I'm saying is you have to take into account the mental side as well as the odds. Obviously, losing so much on one hand even though you had the best of it bugged you(as it would with most of us)otherwise you wouldn't have wqriten about it. seeya
You make a good point Al. I don't know if I played the hand correctly although I think I did. But in games where you have a couple of maniacs like Keith and Dominic, it can get expensive and for many players it may not be worth it. This is something to consider when you sit down in a game where you think you have the best of it. It really goes beyond bankroll. A single session and sometimes an entire weekend can get severly impacted by the outcome of just a few hands such as these.
However, I did manage to win about two grand over the weekend in this game.
Jim,
It seems that the underlying sentiment in all the responses was sympathy. We've all been there and we all know it hurts. Knowing how disciplined you are I would gather if K9s came to you on the button later that night you'd be playing it, though. I think your fans here on the forum would appreciate a couple of hands where you reamed these guys. After all, if you took two grand from them it couldn't all have been bad beats.
Happy New Year,
SammyB
Jim:
From the action you described, I somewhat suspected that you might see a boat by the end. Two pair on the flop vs. top pair was a perfectly reasonable possibility, given the action and aggressive nature of your opponents. Another suspicion would be that one of them flopped a set, especially since it went to five bets. Caution should be in order if the board pairs.
However, there is no way I would have folded your hand even with the 5 bets on the flop. The pot was big and you had a draw to what would probably be the best hand if you hit.
It even seems reasonable to suspect a possible full house on the turn. However, if we expect these worst case scenarios on every hand, we would all go bust from folding the winner too often. I think you have to make a crying call on the turn and still try for the flush.
On the river, I would simply skip the raise if your flush gets there, due to the possibility of being reraised by a full house. Just call if you make your flush.
This is one of those unfortunate situations where the worst case comes true. But if you replayed the hand over and over again, I still think you would have a positive overall expectation, and therefore you made the correct play.
This message was posted before reading the other responses, so let's see who agrees with me!
Dave in Cali
Dear 2+2ers,
I stopped by The Hawaiian Gardens Casino at around 2:00 am sunday morning(saturday night). One 6-12 hold'em game, and easily one of toughest game I've ever seen for that limit. I can't believe I sat down in it, but I had just spent 2 hours waiting to get into an incredible 6-12 game at a near-by casino that was locked up tight before giving up, then it occurred to me to come down and check out the Hawaiian Garden casino.
The game had four regular tournament players, two very aggressive players, one fish who was doing pretty well cold calling raises and re-raises pre-flop with 10-3 suited, then making his hands on the river. And one knew guy who I'm about to play a hand with. I played one hand from a position other than the one and only blind(no small blinds here)in the two times the button had gone around before leaving(collection is an awkward pain in the ass $3.50, because of the 50cent chips).
I had pocket aces(both black) two positions before the button. I raised the two people who had already limped, blind calls, four people in pot(the fish folded on the button, damn!)
Flop: 10-8-4 w/2 hearts.
Everybody checks to me, the UTG player threateningly holds up 3 chips to let me know he means business(that's always a relief to see), I bet, blind drops, the other two call.
Turn: 7 hearts
UTG bets out, the guy between us drops, I call.
River: black 8 (the fish lets the table know he would have made trip 8's, he's stunned), Final board, 10-8-8-7-4 with 3 hearts.
Under the gun bets out, I call. He eagerly/smilingly turns over his Pocket Queens and loses.
Question: How big of a pussy was I for not raising on the turn when the 3rd heart hit? It reminded me of how powerful The Protected Bet or Raise is(Caro's betting with impunity). But latter it occurred to me, that even though the under-the-gun's bet into me was protected with the possible flush(and to a lesser degree, a straight), I could have raised with impunity using the same damn board! When that occurred to me, I felt like a Big Pussy(about 2 hours latter). Sure, I would have raised on the turn if I had had the ace of hearts, but that doesn't take any guts.
Any advice appreciated, Martin D
utg strikes me as a very bad player. with AA, you are not getting a better hand to fold. you may be able to slow the betting down, but you probably don't want that. there are lots of pair/draw hands like T9 that he could have. also, JQ. one card flush draws etc. i am not conviced this guy has a made hand, but it could just be hindsight bias. in the future don't post the result in the same post as the question.
anyway, as i don't think this guy has a made hand and i think that a player this weak would call a raise here with top pair, pair/draw, or an overpair, i would raise. the pot being protected would push towards the raise, but i think it is a raise anyway. what the protection allows for you to do is fold to a 3 bet. this guy limped and did not reraise preflop. he check called an overpair on the flop. he needed to see 4 cards not A or K to feel comfortable with his pair of queens. this passive guy thinks he's so clever bluffing the flush. a lot of guys would have bet the flush on the flop. or raised your bet to get it heads up if his flush draw was overcards. this guy reraises i think you are beat. that you are able to fold here, makes your raise even more correct.
i just skimmed through my post and i don't think it was written well. my thoughts don't seem to flow logically. sorry. my point is that you should have raised. but you are not that big a pussy. a big pussy would have folded.
scott
Re-reading my opening post, I realize it might be a little confusing since I misspelled the word 'later' more than once, and the word 'knew' when I meant to say 'new', as in "new player".
Sorry, Martin D
I think your play of calling on the turn was correct and raising would have been bad poker. First of all, if the guy has the flush you can easily get re-raised costing you even more money. Secondly, by just calling you induce him to bet on the end which may not happen if you re-raise and he was fooling around with something like bottom pair and a Heart flush draw.
Martin you really didn't know this table yet. I think you played the hand well eneough on the flop (you could have check raised the UTG) turn and river are scarry cards for sure and it isn't about guts - to much guts will get you in trouble - it is about making good decisions - you made the right decision here so don't worry about it.
I think calling the turn was correct. You would make that raise if you had outs to gain an extra bet if you get there on the river. For instance with a set or if one of your aces was the flush suit, with the three suited cards turned.
D.
Has anyone taken Phil Hellmuth's course on how to play texas hold'em from www.hungryminds.com. If you have, I would like to know what you thought of it.
Post deleted at author's request.
Mah,
You will find what you are looking for on RGP. I think if you do a search for Phil Hellmuth you might come up with it. The course got bashed, so did Phil.
I'll assume its bad. Thanks for the info.
A couple of months ago ray zee stated i