![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
First of all, I actually only paid for the down payment on the condo. :) But that is still pretty steep where I live.
Furthermore, I don't just play 6-12. I play anywhere from 6-12 to 40-80. I am willing to 'slum' in 6-12 games if they are really good. The MOST important thing in poker is game selection.
To answer your questions:
Of course, if you are going to win 100BB, you must get lucky. Absolutely no question about it. I have a 100BB win every 2 months or so playing 2-3 times per week. Ok, some of those wins might be 80BB - but some are more like 120BB.
It all has to do with the games you play in. If you can find a game with lots of loose passive calling stations, these are the best.
Also, if you can get in a game with one maniac (not 2 - those games are tough if you don't know what you're doing) and get him immediately on your right you are bound to make money. I three bet these guys with hands like ATo, TT, and get the hands heads up. I know I have a hand that stands to be better than his random hand.
Over the last year I have averaged around 1.3BB/hr at limits ranging from 3-6 (where I started) to 40-80. I actually had a 'cold' spell of 2 months in there where I only broke even.
Note - these 100BB wins are usually long 12 hr sessions.
I do know a few reasonable players who have never had a win this big. Of course, I know many loose aggressive types who have a win like this every couple weeks or so (but they always give it back later.) I think those players who don't book the really big wins have some leaks in their game.
For example. A dealer friend of mine fashions himself as a great player, but he has a lot of leaks. He tries to steal the blinds too often. He overvalues small pocket pairs (like 6's). He doesn't bluff enough (except for the blind steals). He might be a bit too passive.
The other player, the female dealer, has a lot of leaks. She plays too many hands and goes too far with them. She'll call a bet and a raise with marginal hands. She won't bet an overpair when she's first to act.
There are some people I have seen that almost NEVER win, much less win 100BB. I think the biggest losers are the passive calling station types. They will call all day long but they never bet their hands and get vaue when they have good ones.
I'm sure that if I started playing in tough tight games all the time my 100BB wins would all but vanish. But that's why I seldom play in those games.
Ok, so what are the ingredients for a 100BB win? The key is getting dealt more playable hands than usual and having them win more often than usual. If you throw in a few calling stations then CHACHING!
One night I won about 70 BB - I got pocket aces 6 times and they held up every time. I don't care about anything else - you give me AA 6 times and let it hold up every time in any session, I'm going home a winner.
As for luck - I am renowned for having AK hold up at a far greater than usual rate. This is probably true. But I can honestly say that I hardly EVER win with suited connectors. I can't remember EVER dragging a pot in a showdown where I started with JTs. Ever. One time I raised preflop with 87 of spades to mix up my play and managed to make a straight flush on the river.
-SmoothB-
100 BB's every 2 months.
At 5-10 I've won 1000 $ 1 time in 5 years.
Where do you play again?
By my count there is $120 in the pot and it costs Roy another $20 to call. It is a save bet that the woman will call the raise so in effect there will be $140 in the pot. Roy is getting 7:1 then to call with a suited triple gapper. A very marginal call but probably right. You will see this a lot in Roy's columns where he frequently comes in pre-flop on the most marginal of holdings. In his recent column he limped in early with Ten-Eight suited. In a column a few weeks ago he limped in early with pocket Fours. I posted a hand where he raised an early limper in middle position with Ace-Little suited. When Roy knows he has a good read on the table he frequently "pushes the envelope" when coming in pre-flop. He is one of the few players around that can get away with this on a consistent basis.
I have been kicking this around and mentioned in a related post. Seems to me there is nothing wrong with playing XXs as long as you have the correct odds.
True, XXs isn't a hand you want to play beyond the flop unless the flop hits you pretty hard, and possibly your deviation goes even higher, but if you are a regular winning player, you have the bankroll to play the odds.
Now, if you look at XXs as not having a pair, straight possibility, top card, good kicker or any other normal criteria, it's a bad bet.
But if you flop a four flush, five flush, two pair, suddenly you have a pretty nice hand. If you don't hit the flop hard you throw it away.
Ty
Sharon,
After thinking about the 3 suited cards problem, I'm fairly sure that the number is less than 60%. I was remembering the number for when a low comes. If you are still interested in the correct number (which I feel is actually a superfluous number to know) I will do the math for it.
He alerady has. It's called Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players, Part Four -- Playing In Loose Games.
That should be enough for the lower limits. Add to that liberal use of hand histories and a dash of record keeping and you should be cooking quite the stew.
1. I've found internet play both free and real $$ invaluable in improving my palying skills including card reading and pot odds calculations.
2. As to M. Rice comment about loose play this is very true for almost all free games but most of the real money games are tighter than any I see at the casinos I play in Loiusiana and Tunica.
"any two cards of the same suit seem to be okay"
"you have to have at least three players to see the flop with you"
T3s with three others seeing the flop = ok? Sorry, I don´t buy it.
Long....
For greg,
Okay, you don't have to buy it. It works in TTH $3-6 with average line up, I am not sure about the real world at a table in LL. You need at least three players to see the flop with you.
For arguments sake, what difference does it make on a flush draw whether you have AKs, Q2S, or 32s? And how sensitive is position for a flush draw? You are playing these two cards solely for their flush potential.
If you flop a four flush you have the same odds of making a flush no matter what two flush cards you hold? If you make the flush you make the flush, right?
Now, I am not advocating that every two flush cards be played; you have to use some common sense. However, in the right game you risk one small bet in early position to gain 11 BB. You can miss a lot of flops and still be ahead for this type of play.
Then there are the good things that happen because you played those two cards. Your competition thinks you are a bad player and play any old two cards, you are harder to read, etc.
Once again, at least in TTH, and not yet in the real world this seems to be an okay play. If there are any math whizzes out there who can handle multiple variables and come up with an answer, I sure am curious. But this goes beyond only the flush potential, and that's beyond my math skills.
There are some offsets too. The biggest is you increase your deviation, and for some type of players you send it to the outer limits.
Mike
Anyone here play anywhere in the Akron-Cleveland area?
No legal card houses in the area.
Call Las Vegas Nite Hotline @ 216.676.4500 for a weekly listing of games at churches/VFW Posts
I have a theory. I believe that there is a correlation between the way people drive automobiles and play poker! I recently tested my theory and it proves to be true! Foe example an aggressive driver is an aggressive player at the table, and a conservative driver is a conservative player at the table. Another example is older people, some drive slow and cautious, they also play cards slow and cautious. Anyhow I think this idea needs some research by a statistics major! Try it out yourself, if your friend is a clumsy uncareful driver, that causes accidents all the time, he probably doesn't do to well at the table. "Just an idea". I bet all world poker champions are great car drivers!!
This certainly agrees with my own personal experience. I haven't had a automobile accident in weeks.
As I've said for years, playing NL hold-em in the WSOP is analogous to driving a racecar around the Indianapolis Motor Speedway at 230 mph. But in either case, fast and aggressive doesn't have to be the same as rash, impulsive and out-of-control.
There are several Asian regular players in my cardroom who play very well. ;-)
SmoothB bragged about his brilliant laydown with a perfect read in a big pot. There was wild action. He held 77. The board was K-7-10-10-K. He had a perfect read and found a way to release the hand to a raise. FISH. You want another. "A winning player has to have the discipline to lay down three jacks into a four flush four straight board." Good Einstein. GUPPY. RESPECT ME.
You have provided some sort of support (?) for your original statement, but you have not gained my respect at all. I do not care what you think of me as I have been posting here for several years and I think my posts speak for themselves. I have the respect of those I wish to respect me, and I could care less what the rest think. The forum is about intellectual discussions, not trash talk or belittling other players. My guess is that the real guppy here is not me nor is it smoothb.
I will be skipping your posts from now on so there is no need to respond here.
You have your stuff confused. You obviously are referring to a "time"/collection, per half hour. That is still cheaper than a $5.00 "rake" on every pot. (Usually, 10% to max. $5.00.)
Yes, I mean time charge (not rake for 10-20 AC HE). The time charge is $5 per half hour for AC 10-20 HE. It is by far cheaper than the 10% max $4 that you get in AC 5-10 HE. Sorry for the confusion.
Rahul
Haven't seen Frenchy (Roland), Marty or the "Pooper" at Turning Stone. Are they playing at Rama?
WHAT'S THE TURNING STONE? IS THAT A CLUB IN TORONTO???/ I PLAY AT CINCINNATTI KID NOW, AND AT CHURCH CLUB, does anyone know of any other games?
Hi,
I haven't been there but I've heard that they charge 10% rake for games up to 10-20. In the higher limits they charge a session fee. In the 20-40 games, they usually play shorthanded.
It's encouraging to hear that at least they have 20-40.
I'M LOOKING FOR HOME GAMES AND WHAT NOT IN TORONTO, if you have info, please drop me a line. I really am looking for some poker in Toronto, just started playing and I would like to play more. Thanks, -Yaseen
When I do the calculation I get the following results.
1) Suited and unsuited hands: = 0.1020408%
2) Pocket pairs: quads: = 0.2448980% full: = .7346939%
My results for pocket pairs are exactly twice as high as yours, if you´d show me how you´ve done the calculation we could probably find the mistake.
quads: 6(2*1*48)/117600= 0.4897959
I already know that your results are half of mine, so if I´ve made a mistake (and I think I did) it´s most likely that there should be a 3 instead of the 6 in above calculation, but I don´t know why.
Let´s assume my hand is 7h7d. I need the remaining two sevens for making quads (-> 2*1) and any other card (-> 2*1*48). Now there are six variations (-> 6(2*1*48)) in which these three cards may appear on flop:
1) 7s7cX 2) 7sX7c 3) 7c7sX 4) 7cX7s 5) X7s7c 6) X7c7s
Still I´ve got the strong feeling that there has to be a 3 and not a 6 in the calculation. Could you please tell me why?
I have a slightly different approach. I am not sure if I can explain clearly, but I will try.
First I start with the total number of possible unique 3 card flops given the remaining 50 cards irrespective of the order they appear:
(50 * 49 * 48)/(1 * 2 * 3) = 19600.
If you are dealt the 7h 7d you make quads only in the following cases: (7s 7c) combined with any of the remaining 48 cards. Obviously there are 48 of these.
Therefore the probability of flopping quads is 48/19600 = .0024490
In this simple case you can actually list the 48 different ways you can flop quads.
It seems to me that it is not the 6 in the calculation that is the error, but the 2. I think it should look like this:
quads: 6(1*1*48)/117600= 0.0024490
6(1*1*48)/117600= 0.0024490
Yes, you´re right, it´s either 6(1*1 or 3(2*1
another example for illustration:
flopping a four-flush: 3(11*10*39)/117600= 10.9% 55*6(1*1*39)/117600= 10.9%
11*10/2 = 55; that´s why there is a 6 one time and another time a 3.
I think I know how this works now. Basically, there should be 6; a 3 if there are two unspecified cards from a group;
flopping a four-flush: 3(11*10*39)/117600= 10.9%
and a 0 if there are three unspecified cards.
flopping a flush: (11*10*9)/117600 = 0.84%
Rightyright?
Coming to LA later this month. I'm a 20-40, 30-60 HE player. I only have 3 full days to play. Should it be HP or Commerce? Thanks
I recommend Hollywood Park because they only charge $7 per half hour as opposed to $8 per half hour charged by Commerce. I have played $20-$40 at both places and the Hollywood Park game is just as soft as the Commerce game so why pay the extra $2 per hour?
However, Commerce has 30-60 as well. I don't think HP does (though they have 40-80).
You are correct and Hollywood Park does not have $30-$60 but they have $40-$80. Their $40-$80 game is $9 per half hour.
I am just curious, what is the casino's rationale for charging more in a 40-80 game then in a 20-40 game. I mean, it costs the casino the same to run eather game. I understand that if they can get away with it, there is no reason for them not to do it, but how do they explain the higher price to the players? I think i'm missing something.
Guy, you have struck a nerve here. I feel it is totally unfair for me to be penalized for playing higher by being charged more per half hour than a $10-$20 player. As far as I can tell, a $15-$30 player, a $20-$40 player, a $30-$60 player, and a $40-$80 player get nothing extra for the extra charge they are incurring. I believe the card room rationale is that since they are offering a higher limit game, the guys have more money to gamble with so they might as well charge more since no one objects. It is whatever the market will bear. I think the higher limit players get a discount on food orders but it is hardly worth the extra hourly cost.
Jim,
In Hollywood Park the 10/20 game practically runs itself. The 15/30's and 20/40's are pretty easy on the staff. The 40/80's need constant attention with the never-ending forced move and whiners who make up the bulk of the game. But it is what the market will bear and the fact that it is a closed market contributes to the high prices. - Rick
Commerce is $1 more per 1/2 hour but it's a little nicer, has better food, and you're less likely to get mugged in the parking lot. If you are only here for 3 days I would recommend playing at the Commerce because your playing experience will probably be a little better.
n/t
I am also planning a short trip to LA.
Is getting mugged at HP a serious risk? If so, what should I do to make sure it doesn't happen?
Use valet parking. The muggings I've heard of have all been in the parking lot. Then watch to make sure no one is following you home. That has happened (actually the victim doesn't usually make it home I don't think), but is, I think, fairly rare. Just be aware. Best to keep your money in a safe deposit box (at the casino) or players bank while you're there.
Commerce has a much better reputation for security..
This might sound like a silly question to you veterans but here it is: I know that there are 16 ways to make AK and 16 ways to make AQ. How many ways are there to make either AK or AQ? Thanks.
Well if there are 16 AK hands and 16 AQ hands, there are 32 AK or AQ hands ("or" generally means that you add something up; "and" that you multiply sth)
What I mean is that if you put a guy on either AK or AQ how many ways does he have?
There are 32 ways for someone to have AK or AQ. Suppose you have pocket Jacks and call an early position raiser who would only raise on AA,KK,QQ,AK,or AQ. What is the likelihood that you have the best hand? There 18 ways for him to have an over pair to your Jacks and 32 ways for him to have just two over cards. Therefore, the likelihood of you having the best hand before the flop is 32/50 or 64%.
Thanks Jim, I really appreciate all of your posts. You have helped me to understand the game. The AK, AQ ways confused me because I thought there would be less than 32 ways. I thought the A would be duplicated with the Q, making less than 32 ways. Similar to the A being "blocked" like in the Roy Cooke article.
The "blocked" phenomnenon only occurs when you have one or more of the needed cards. For example, if you had KJ then there would only be 12 ways for your opponent to have AK but still 16 ways for him to have AQ.
Isn't the 64% chance of having a better hand against RANDOM hands and not typicaly to be used in a live game? Holding JJ and when any A,K,Q falls on the flop your value goes way down. Not to mention you may be up against AA, KK, QQ before the flop. How do you apply the 64% knowledge in actual play? Thanks!!!
Yep, thats the rule at Casino Arizona, as I just found out today. If you show one of your cards at any time, you must show both.
I could almost understand showing both after the hand, when nobody calls and a player flashes a card, but we put the rule to the real test. On the river, one player bet, after betting and raising throughout the hand. The other player hesitated, and the bettor said, "here, I'll show you one," and turned up one card.
The entire table screamed: SHOW ONE, SHOW BOTH! And the floorperson was called. She made him turn up the other card, and the other player didn't call. The move cost the bettor, since the other player surely would have called if he didn't see the hand.
Craziest rule I've ever heard of.
It's amazing how many cardrooms come up with quirky rules and think they're good.
He should have been forced to show them after the hand, if at all.
Heheh. That was pretty goofy but I still can't wait to call a string raise on a few select people when I'm not even in the hand, as this was pointed out to me as being legal as well.
This rules take away the element of doubt to the would be caller, especially when the caller is hesitant on calling , this is a tactic I like to use to entice would be callers, especially in stud/8 where they dont know which way you are going, and you gain an extra big bet onlong the way. This is also seen in the higher limit games after they win the pot, opponent shows only one card, always leaving the element of doubt in his opponent mind, psycological warfare I like to call it. These are stupid rules by these up and coming smucko casino managers who are to help the fish from the sharks.
I agree with the Show 1 comments (excepting Tournaments). This seems stupid to me.
The string bet however is a breach of rules and anyone can point this out. Much the same as anyone calling hands that have been laid down.
New year, new ideas. Here's one that hit me today at the table. I play tight starter standards and almost never play advertising garbage. I will, however, play every single unraised blind that can't be chopped. These are my only trips into Any Two Card Town. These also account for 1/3 of the interesting hands that I discuss with my Coach.
Today's idea was to isolate for study just the unraised BB hands this year and see just how they stack up financially. In this group would be every free play that I didn't raise to see if these turn any reasonable profit. The idea that follows is if these are profitable hands then I need to play more hands in general since I'm able to outplay my opposition.
What is an unraised big blind worth? You obviously have some equity when you post that small bet but roughly how much is it worth? How does it change in various games? Aggressive games make it worth little but we're interested in its worth in unraised pots. With this number I could later asses my play over many hands during the year.
Comments?
-Fred- ...still a winner 3 days into January!
I think one problem with this idea is that in the BB you always close the betting pre-flop in an unraised pot. The zero risk of a raise after you could easily make playing garbage here more profitable than from any other position. No matter how well you play.
But I still find the idea intriguing. :-)
David
Since the pots are unraised, you're generally facing relatively weak holdings in the other players' hands. But a good post for discussion. It would indeed seem likely that such hands are a major part of one's "interesting" hands because it's a lot harder to play Q-7 than A-A.
Do most players lose a lot of money over the course of their poker careers from the blinds? My guess is yes.
[e.e.cummings: Anyone lived in a pretty how town, with up so floating many bells down]
This is indeed a very interesting topic and one that I've often pondered. It would be great if more people provided some of their thoughts.
I agree that most players do end up losing money from their big blinds. It's even worse when you get something like 95o in the big blind (in an unraised pot) and flop something like 992 that forces you to play. Then you end up losing a reasonable sized pot to a flush or an A9. Of course, sometimes we get lucky with a garbage big blind hand and win a good pot.
I remember a few years ago when I was the big blind in a 3-6 game and a middle postion player (MP) raised and a late position player (LP) called. Everyone else folded and I looked at my hand and had 27o. Don't ask me what I was thinking, but I called the raise. I know is is an absolutely moronic move, but I had only been playing a year or so and was caught up in protecting my blinds. I was also up quite a bit that day so I decided that another 3 dollars wasn't going to kill me. I would never make that call again today. Anyways, here is how the hand played out.
Flop: 227 (suites are not important in this hand)
I check, MP bets, LP calls, I call
Turn: K
I check, MP bets, LP raises, I call, MP calls
River: the 4th 2!
I check, MP bets, LP raises, I reraise, they both look at me and one of them asks "what do you have?", and they both call my 3 bet.
Of course, I turn over my 27 and take the pot. MP had AK and LP had KQ.
In retrospect, I should have never been in the hand, but like I said, I didn't know what the hell I was doing back then, which also explains why I lost more often than I won. However, I've now moved up in limits and play tight/aggressive and with the help of many of your insights and advice, I've been able to consistently walk away a winner. Thanks guys (and gals).
A question for those with more experience than me...
I play regularly at Paradise, mostly 3-6 but occasionally 5-10.
I have a winning record but I have a major problem with dealing with AKo and AQo when I miss the flop.
The problem being of course, you can't get a read on a player online, so you have to basically play the board.
My usual strategy with AKo and AQo is to raise preflop from anywhere except the SB or BB, then to continue to bet the flop and turn when I am against 1 or 2 opponents (usually just check the river if they don't fold by the turn), check and fold if there are more than 3. (4 people seeing the flop is not uncommon even with an UTG raise). Of course, I am much more likely to bet with the high cards to a board of 832 than Q98, but I guess my question is, what is the best way to play a hand like AKo if you don't really have any information about the players hands other than they are usually trash?
I think the way I play it is the biggest leak in my game and any advice would be appreciated.
Sam
Why invest money in a hand where you are likely beat. Any idiot with small pair A kicker has you beat and is likely to bet. You end up drawing very thin. If you hold AK and the flop is 832 you likely only have 3 (K's)outs. The pot odds make this an unprofitable hand.
I think its a very simplistic approach to say if you don't flop a pair you are beaten and your overcards are probably dead. Against an early position raiser most players (even those on paradise) will not call Ax or Kx to a raise but they do call small pairs and will often follow them to the river without improvement... I think however your strategy with AK and AQ seems to be very similar to the way I play them... I think another big factor to consider is that many players on paradise like drawing hands so you have to watch carefully for any connected or suited flops... Hope this helps
Also when an Ace hits the board. it can be aces-up in this level of holdem, meaning you are way behind, save your money for better hands as this type of flop probably helped A,x, let alone any two-card town and I call to hell freezes over mentalities(maniacs).
Normally with overcards, depending on position, I'll check/bet early, or raise late to buy the free card. If I don't hit the turn then I check/fold early and check/fold late. It will definitely save you money in the long run.
~stephen
I'm looking for some help on finding the video tape of the WSOP (I believe it's 1998). Ed Norton and Matt Damon are in the video. Any help would be great!!!
Vin
get the number of the gambler's book club from the "favorite links" category at the left. they carry many videos, including recent wsop's. and you're right - it's the '98 kevin mcbride-scotty nguyen final.
I was almost sure it was the johnny chan/eric siedel final, not sure the year...
In Rounders, Matt Damon's character Micke McD watches the WSOP -88 final with Chan/Seidel. But -98 is the year when Matt Damon and Edward Norton participated in the WSOP.
The videos are available from www.conjelco.com/video.html, at the bottom of the page.
Conjelco hosts this website, and their customer service is nothing short of amazing. Their prices tend to be good too.
I have the video and it quite good. Would be interested in trading for a video/book etc.???
Getting a pot limit holdem game together on a regular basis. Looking for more players. The blinds will be 2 and 5. Please direct all responses to----------
eslmn1@msn.com
Thank You Eric
post these things on the exchange forum(other topics) and then become a regular poster and get your questions answered and answer some yourself. good luck
Greetings,
Here are two hands where I was in trouble and was doubting my play in the hand. On the river I could say I thought so...
20/40 not a great game with alot of blind stealing.
An over aggressive player raises (3rd hand in a row) in early position, two seat down cold calls. (The cold call confused me as I thought he'd reraise AK AA KKetc to get it heads up). I look down and see AQo. What do you do? (My plan was to reraise the aggressive player and didn't take the cold callers hand into consideration).
I 3 bet. (comments).
All fold and the initial raiser and cold caller call.
The flop comes A K Q.
Check bet I raised. only the cold caller calls.
The turn is a small blank.
Check bet call.
(By now I suspect he has AK but is afraid I have AA, KK, QQ).
The river is another blank. He checks, and I checked. (I know weak....) However he turned over (as I suspected) AK.
(I should note I have watched this game many times and had only been playing for a short amount of time (at this table) and many of the players made comments about my wathcing the game for weeks before actually playing).
5/10 game. I open raise 3 off the button w/ KTo basically hoping to play heads up against the blinds. 3 players colds call as does the BB. (I only know the player on the button an exceedingly tight woman who doesn't put alot of pressure on other players when she flops a strong hand).
I very pessimistic about any flop I could like and then I see...
A K T.
BB bets I raise and 2 players cold call (including the tight woman).
The turn is a blank. BB check I bet, tight woman calls, and BB calls.
I keep wondering if she has AK and still can't believe some people actually play this way.
The river was a T I bet tight woman calls and BB calls.
I turn over my hand and say I think i got lucky. Indeed she had AK. But I have a hard time playing this hand any other way.
All comments appreciated!
First hand I would consider folding because of the EP raise and the cold caller, but if you are going to play AQo here reraising like you did is the right move.
flop raise. duhh. When he checks/calls the whole way I would keep betting till the river even if he winds up having AK.
Second hand you knew you were weak BTF but after that you pretty much had to raise and then keep betting. That one was pretty much a no brainer (except for BTF) where you got lucky but what can you do.
When you play against overly passive players sometimes the results are surprising. they may have stolen blinds BTF but after that they were pretty passive, thus allowing you to win hands that you might have folded had you realized what you were up against..
dave in cali
Well, if you thought CC would correctly 3-bet with hands better than yours then YOU should 3-bet. Its possible, I suppose, that he has AJ or AT going for the gut shot but a reasonable player is going to have a LOT of trouble paying you off on the river. If you played this one "incorrectly" it was only by pennies.
Again, it matters if tight lady is going to jump in there with AQ or AJ. Checking the turn makes sense only if you can confidently FOLD to a bet from the lady. If not, you might as well bet and get the money in when she doesn't want to. Check-raise the river doesn't look good against her. Again, if this wasn't played well it only costs pennies.
Make mental notes of these players, especially if there are other sorts of hands they'll play this way.
- Louie
The following occurred in a local 10-20 casino game.
Here goes:
I have Qh10h and am in the in the cutoff seat. 6 limpers to me and I call, button raises and there is 8 way action to see the flop.
Now the board comes 4h-6h-9c-Kc-Jc. The cards came down in that order.
I call all the way through and bet out on the river when I river my gutshot straight, hoping no one else had made a backdoor flush. Everyone folds to this one guy (I believe he was UTG) who cry calls. I turn over my rivered straight and am just about ready to scoop the pot, when the dealer tells me that the person seated to his left still has a hand and hasn't called. So after exposing my cards, the dealer asks him to either call, raise or fold.
Now, any goddamn poker player with any brains would either raise or fold their hand. However, this fellow was extremely new to the game, so he called me. So, I thought we were going to chop chop since he didn't raise. To my surprise, right after he calls my bet, he mucks his hand into the river.
The whole table looks in utter shock at him. He told me that he was going to call anyways because he had hit his King on the turn.
Now, I must say that I truly admire him for his honesty, but I still felt that because I didn't see his hand still in play on the river (he hid his hand beside his chips which I couldn't see.) and had exposed mine, he didn't need to pay me off.
He told me that he wasn't familiar with the rules and that this was the first time the cards were exposed before he had a chance to make a decision on whether or not to call.
I scooped up the pot, along with the extra $20 that he pretty much donated. But as I sat through, I felt extremely uncomfortable taking the $20 of his. I later gave 20 dollars in chips back to him while the floor wasn't looking.
I like to catch fish mind you, but not this way.
What do you all think?
The Flopper
i think you are a nice person flopper. it was neither right or wrong to take his money as he voluntarily put it in with all the information available to him. he was being nice and so were you. good luck.
the first poker book I ever read was by oswald jacoby.
in it he list a supplementary law called "the 'imposible call' a situation in stud that where the last player to act is beaten in sight but calls by mistake should be given his money back, since there was no concieveable manner in which he could gain by his call."
Of course mr jacoby came from a time much different than we live in today but I've played in games where the bet would be returned to you and in others where you would just be laughed at
Now of course your situation is different and the fellow could have been an angle shooter but of course he wasn't as he wouldn't have called your bet and he just made an hopnest mistake
I'd like to think I would have given him back his bet as well Flopper. Hats off to you
I used to play draw poker when it was played at 10-20 and 15-30 at the Normandie Club in Gardena, CA. There was a rule that if the last player to act called the opener (who had to have at least a pair of jacks) with a hand that could not beat a pair of jacks, he would get his money back.
But eventually the rule was changed because a few angle shooters were making the call in the hope that the opener, believing himself to be bluffing, would soup once he was called. And this indeed happened a few times, prompting the rule change.
I agree with mr. zee. Mr. Flopper owed the caller nothing, but was a gentleman for returning the money, which was obviously put into the pot by an inexperienced gentleman. Good things do, at least sometimes, happen to good people and therefore I know Mr. Flopper won $10,000 in this particular game.
haven't you seen the chain letter...? I'll email it to you!
Actually, I wonder where flopper got his name. I would have chosen Flop-Master, but that's me.
Huh?
"Good things do, at least sometimes, happen to good people and therefore I know Mr. Flopper won $10,000 in this particular game"
chain letters often make similar claims. actually I hate chain letters and delete them asap. ray was being sarcastic and so was I
It's your money. You have to answer to your own conscience; no one else's. I would have done the same thing. Of course, here in Canada, most of the casino's have politeness clauses listed on the House Rules and you would be expected to return the money.
OTOH, someone like, say, Poker Veteran, would have probably mocked you and/or the other player at the table for being such a weak kneed wimp.
A guy playing 10-20 who doesn't know what he is doing deserves to lose the $20 bucks mayby he'd learn to pay attention - giving back the $$ was a nice jesture on your part but I probably wouldn't do it - how else would he learn the lessons of life.
On the other hand if a guy is that dense maybe I want him beholding to me.
Toss up.
I applaud your code of ethics. I would say "honesty", but there would be nothing dishonest in keeping it.
I would have kept the money and here is why: My read is that you are a recreational player. That does not mean to say you don't like to win. If you are an active recreational player, I'm sure you are familiar with the feeling of leaving a Casino short a few hundred or so - eventually the feeling goes away - but I'm sure you hate this feeling nonetheless. So as a recreational player you say, "Hey, they guy is new to the game, give him a break." Well, if he is new to the game, he shouldn't be playing 10-20. And it is not your job to somehow wrong the rights at a poker table - that is not your function - and neither is educating the other player - that is his function. Unfair stuff happens all the time in poker - where do you draw the line? Ever flop a set of kings, turn a full house, and lose to four of a kind with a "newcomer" playing K-3 offsuit? Ever flop a set and lose to runner, runner straights and flushes? Or whatever - go to any poker room and you can hear 50 different bad beat stories in 10 minutes
The point is that giving the money back takes away the edge you have to maintain at the table - even if it is the tiniest of fractions - because if you really think of it - consistent winners are separated from consistent losers by the tiniest of fractions.
Keep the chips and keep your edge. It's not a matter of good/bad, nice guy/asshole - or any of that black/white analysis - to be honest it shouldn't even be a consideration.
Maybe you or someone else reads this and says he's hardcore or too severe or whatever - but if you understand that such analysis/justification/behavior does not belong at the poker table - then you put it out of your mind forever.
Fact is, I'm very nice at the table, don't throw cards, blame the dealer, etc. - I understand the rules, have learned many lessons regarding the rules and behave as a gentleman at all times - but I can't worry if some newcomer made a bonehead play - I just want to leave the casino with more cash than I came in with, and not with that feeling that we all know and hate.
I could'nt agree with you more. Excellent response.
say you feel bad about taking his money and buy him a beer. keep buying for him all night long. if 10/20 isnt your top limit, have *one* with him.
brad
although you could have kept the $$, I like your giving it back. you have left him with a good impression that will likely keep him coming back for more even though he doesn't play well, obviously. he won't mind losing to you in the future either. I think it falls under the category of "it's not always correct to extract the maximum out of every opponent".
damn, that guy is toooooooooooooo honest!
dave in cali
now it will be interesting to see the other responses
.
4-8 HE game a couple of weeks ago. Can't recall where the button was, but I was first to act after the flop - so let's just say I was the SB in the 8th seat out of 9. One or two limpers to me and I raise it to 8 with AJo. BB, in seat 9(duh), who is low on money and has been visibly giving it away the last few hands just to gamble - calls. Flop J-7-2. I bet 4 and BB calls. Turn is a second small heart. I bet 8 and the BB is just throwing his money away to me and he knows that I know that he is drawing thin(obvious visual tell). River is another undercard heart(I didn't notice the suit) - I bet 8 and he mucks. I turn over my AJ off just to show him I had a legitimate hand and the dealer says, "hey, seat 1 still has a hand.", "And now he's gonna raise you." What? Another player? Raise?(I now notice the flush possibility). I thought it was heads up and was just concentrating on what seat 9 was gonna do and I didn't realize that seat 1 was calling along(he was mostly concealed by the dealer). I don't remember the dealer saying, "three players", or seat 1 *say* "call". Seat 1, before actually pushing a raise forward, turns over KQh. I was embarrassed for what I felt was a lack of concentration on my part. I apologized to the table and especially seat 1 for turning over my hand because I didn't want it to look like I was angle shooting a potential flush board. Everyone started giving the dealer a hard time for not announcing the number of players in the hand(kiddingly) and the dealer said he did make the announcement(probably in the fear that either I or seat 1 goes nuts). One guy looked at me and said, "hey, we don't mind - you can turn over your hand whenever you want." And then smiles. Anyway the table laughed it off and took my apology as genuine(most probably didn't care), seat 1 was probably just happy to make a runner-runner flush and I didn't feel guilty because I wouldn't have paid his raise off anyway. Now if the river is the ace of hearts.......do I feel guilty and pay off after all the cards are turned up? I might have.....if I felt it was my error. Comments?
TripKings
.....an interesting side note making me agree with Dave in Cali's post..... Although I didn't feel obligated to pay off the raise in this case, but the way things unfolded with no controversy whatsoever and the conduct by seat 1 and myself had an unusual affect on everyone. I think that everyone at the table(about half locals and half tourists) were so shocked at the above stated sincerity/noncontroversy that the table loosend up and was overall *happier* as a result. Maybe everyone is so used to card throwing, dealer cussing, someone else's fault, antics that it was a relief to everyone and we all just had fun. After a few fish left I stood up and said g'night to everyone...the respect I was shown by eye contact and good wishes was unusual at a poker table and felt good. I booked a modest $70 win and grabbed a bite to eat in the cafe and two people including seat one stopped by to chat. I'm not a saint by a long shot, but I think even the poker community is ready for less cut-throat bitching at the table. Don't get me wrong, I'd bust my mother at the table, but I realized that a little kindness goes along way - even at the poker table. The upside could be huge.
@
.
@
.
There was a similar post on this topic made a while ago in the "Medium Stakes" forum. I was just wondering about where most of our profit comes in hold'em. I seem to have come to the conclusion that most losing players lose most of their money PREFLOP, by coming in with trash hands or dominated hands. Here are some questions:
1 Who loses more, the player who plays any Ace, any suited cards, but then plays competently after the flop, or the player who doesn't play as many "trash" hands, but often plays QJo and KJo type hands in raised pots and loses money when his second pair doesn't hold up or his kicker doesn't hold up?
2 What is the maximum losing rate of any player, given he is playing trash hands but gives up on the flop if he completely misses?
3 Is the definition of an "excellent" game different when considering a 5-10 game vs. a 20-40 game? Do you expect less any 2 card type players in a 20-40?
I am asking these questions because I have noticed that my win rate has fallen off dramatically lately online, and I suspect that part of it is due to a negative fluctuation, but part of it is also due to the fact that the megafish "any 2card" type players have dried up. True, there are many who will cold call raises with implied odds type hands or dominated type hands like KJo, but how much profit can really be made off these players if they play competently post flop? Can you realistically expect to make 1BB per hour in a game that may have poor players, but consistently lacks the megafish? Are there any players out there who play in games with "just poor" players (no megafish) and consistently make 1BB/hour? Comments please.
hetron
nt
1. trick question as KJo and QJo ARE trash in a raised pot. you will lose lots of bets coming into raised pots with these hands though.
2. I would not know how to answer, but I bet that the worst players lose several big bets per hour, especially if they DON'T give up after they miss the flop.
3. if you have the $$, and the choice between two equally great games, then the 20-40 would be better. but for the most part 5-10 players do not play 20-40. in the end a great game is a great game and the stakes have little to do with it. the players and how they play are what determines whether a game is excellent or not. in general you will find fewer poor players at 20-40.
you make most of your $$ off the really bad players, not the marginal ones. this is discussed in several 2+2 books, I believe poker essays I or II but possibly others. I do not think you need megafish to make 1BB/hour if you play well. I would think that most of the higher limit games are not commonly stocked with megafish, yet people still make 1BB/hour at them. games with several megafish may yeild considerably more though.
dave in cali
I don't know if this thread is far enough down that anyone still cares, but this is a big issue with me.
I can only afford to play low-limit poker. I play a tight/aggressive game, something I've learned reading 2+2 and RGP. My win rate is approximately $1 per hour playing 1-4-8-8 or 4-8. I don't understand how people make more than this.
It's frustrating to sit there, hand after hand, getting 4-8o, 2-5o, K-3s (early position), etc., etc., only to finally pick up AA, raise, get 3 callers and have them flop two pair, an open-ended straight draw and a flush draw. The next hand, you see a flop of Q-5-5 and you threw away the Q-5o.
I find there are simply too many good players even in the low limits to overcome the rake any more, at least in Biloxi. Three years ago I had 28 winning sessions out of 30, but now it's a real chore.
I guess I'll stick to tournaments, which seems to be my strength.
Mark
I have played a fair amount in Boloxi and the 1-4-4-8 is very hard to beat with the 10% rake and 1$ jackpot, the strait 4-8 game is a little better but tough to keep going and ussauly has the 10-20 players in it waiting for a seat.
I personly decided not to move there because you have almost no game sellection, so i plan on moving to vegas instead.
I would try and play only 4-8 or 10-20 if i was forced to only play in Biloxi. That or make trips to Tunica.
Does anybody know a good place to play in or around Portland, Oregon?
Thanks in advance.
When I visited Portland last summer, we had to go up to Washington to find any games. I think the town was called La Center? The games were good. Hopefully a local can tell you more.
Greetings! Welcome to Portland. DeadBart is correct. LaCenter is approx. 20 miles north of Portland (exit #16 on I5 North - Washington). It is the closest to Portland. There is a room there called the Last Frontier. They have 10 tables, I believe. 3/6 - 4/8 & 10/20 HE. They also spread Omaha if there is enough interest.
There are also Indian Casinos. Closest to Portland are Spirit Mountain (68 miles, non smoking limits up to 20/40) and Chinook Winds (100 miles, only 2 tables).
Email me sometime, and I'd love to go with you. I also may be starting a LL home game for fun with some friends. Enjoy! Thanks, Tim
Thanks for the response. I'm going to Portland next Wed. for a few days on business. Is it far from the airport?
Tim,
What's the rake for 10/20 and 20/40 HE?
-- Manzanita
For the first time in two years I was in the black. My total poker results were positive by about $1000. A few weeks ago the cards started running cold again but I didn't let it bother me. It was all part of the normal fluctuation of poker. I could see that for what it was, now that I'd actually WON some money for once. But the cards stayed cold, and got colder. I lost 7 seven session in a row, including a brutal session of huge no-limit suckouts and dry runs.
I was back in the red but not by much and I still didn't let it bother me. I was destined to continue with the upward trend I had finally experienced for the first time.
New Year's came and I made a resolution to be a winning player, and to believe in my skills, that they would prevail at the poker table, despite my usual experiences.
My first session of the new year, down $1000 after several suck outs.
I went home and said screw it, I'll play some online poker even though I highly suspect the integrity. What the hell.
One of my first few hands is AA. Flop comes 666 and I lose to quads. Now I remember that I've been suspicious about this online site because I've seen more quads than you would believe while playing on it. I have a feeling the algorithm for distributing the cards has some flaw. I've seen it too often, quads made by 1 card in the hole. I play a little longer, run into quads again, and quit.
By the end of the night I'm down $1400, about 25% of my recently rebuilt bankroll and I stop to think about what I did wrong. I always do this after a losing session, try to identify the major mistakes I made or general flaws in my playing style.
Nothing. I played well all night. I even knew when to get up and quit the no limit game after a brutal beat because I knew I wouldn't play that well if I put more money on the table. My losses were NOT because of poor play.
I get an email from a friend who tells me he tallied all his results and he won $18,000 this past year playing poker recreationally. I personally witnessed him win about 3k of it making 2 outers on the river in no limit hold'em in one amazing session. This is NOT what I want to hear right now, especially from a guy who I know needs those 2 outers.
I've had several conversations with different pro and semi-pro players lately and it dawns on me that there's a common thread among them. They have ALL had incredible, astonishing, monumental winning streaks. One of them informed me he once won $6000 in a weekend playing 6-12 hold'em. Another told me that for the first five months of being a poker pro, he averaged almost 4 big bets per hour playing 30-60 and 40-80 full time. Another tells me that in his first year of poker he won so much money that he progressed from 6-12 all the way up to 200-400 and now plays that limit regularly.
Phil Hellmuth! My god, the lucky streaks. I quote from his latest column:
I caught my first break when Jason Lester opened the pot on the button with 10-10 and I moved all-in on him (a significant re-raise) with A-7 in the big blind. He had been raising my big blind quite a bit, but he made a stand at the wrong time. He quickly called my re-raise and the flop was J-J-3, the turn was the most beautiful looking ace I have seen in awhile. ... Nice break for me, and bad break for the rest of the field.
Only a player who is totally accustomed to sucking out and getting lucky could write about this hand the way he did. Lester "made a stand at the wrong time"? Yeah, if you believe in fate. Otherwise he brilliantly outplayed you but you got lucky anyway.
Then I remember the biggest one of all: Doyle Brunson. In his book Super/System he claims that he believes in rushes, and that a significant portion of his winnings have come from rushes. He says that he only knows of ONE winning pro who doesn't believe in rushes. This goes against EVERYTHING that is written by the foremost poker theorists. Paraphrase: "Sometimes I'd be playing so fast and rushing so hot that I'd break every player at the table". Has anyone ever done this? Busted every player at the table? He also says in his bio that after recovering from a near-fatal illness, he went on a mad hot streak and won 55 sessions in a row! And he even has the gall say that those who complain about how lucky he is are dead wrong. Excuse me? There's no denying he's a great player, but there's also no denying he's had his share of luck. In fact, if a player as good and as successful as Doyle will say he believes in rushes and that you have to cultivate a rush by playing every hand after you win a pot (which he does claim), I can only assume he believes in luck, which is usually the mark of a terrible player. What is going on?
I'm sorry folks, but if I ever win 55 sessions in a row at ANY limit, I'll never be in the red again. But I'd have to get lucky to do it.
I made the wrong new year's resolution. I should have resolved to get lucky.
natedogg
I hear ya! See my post under General Theory.
There is no question that luck plays a huge factor in this game and streaks or rushes (good and bad) are one of the most frustrating parts of the game... when they are bad anyway. You even have huge swings in one session... who hasn't had a situation when they were up $500 hundred and two hours later they were down $500 or vice versa. Anyone who says that luck or rushes is not a part of the game and that it all evens out in the long run is fooling themselves. It may all even out in the long run but what is the long run... could be 20 years or more, sorry but I'm not waiting 20 years for luck to even out.
A number of months I wrote a post on changing seats and was lambasted by most people on this forum. I beginning to think I was right all along. I wish I had an answer for you... I'm trying to find my own right now.
"Anyone who says that luck or rushes is not a part of the game and that it all evens out in the long run is fooling themselves."
Of course, luck is a part of the game but skill is a more dominant factor than luck. Otherwise, I would play Roulette, it's a lot quicker.
I can sit in a game and after a few hours predict with a fair degree of accuracy how much money each player at the table is likely to win on an hourly basis over a period of say a 1000 hours at that given limit. That to me indicates that skill is a more dominant factor than luck.
Man, why do we even bother reading hold 'em books, participating in the Forum etc. if Lady Luck is the most important part of poker.
Skilled players (and I believe that both Nate and you are skilled players based on your respective posts) can suffer extended losing streaks or break even streaks but that does not mean that luck is a more important factor than skill. Clearly, players like you guys are less likely to suffer losing streaks as compared to your unskilled counterparts.
2 years ago I won 40 out of 42 sessions of 3-6 poker in a home game with no rake and no tips.
Was i just lucky or more skilled, I like to think it was 90% skill and 10% luck.
A quote I heard from a friend of mine:
"Some people were lucky and got born smart.
Other people were smart, and got born lucky."
Anyone know where it comes from?
-solublefish
So what has happened lately? Has the 10% luck become more important or have your skills eroded?
At 90% skill you should expect this on a regular basis if your a strong skillfull player.
This is an example of "I'm the greatest player who ever lived!" syndrome. This is often followed by many sad tales of beats and bad luck.
3 or 4 winning outings in a roll I feel real lucky. 55 is unbeliveable (just like the 100 big bet winning day)
Exactly what Jim Brier has been saying (on the lines of: You can be a positive EV player, but unless you´re playing for an infinite amount of time, it may never show!) and I think it´s true. Good luck ;)
Natedogg,
I feel your pain, but the sting is gone. I quit poker late aug. 2000 and have been glad ever since. The game has its suckouts alright, I cannot tell you how many times I flopped a set and had it beat by a straight or flush on the turn or river. Many times I would flop the nuts (straight) and get creamed on the river by a flush/full house. Poker is the only gambling game I know of where you can have the best of it and still come out the worst. There is no solace when bad players suck out on you, you still lose. Screw that crap that you will win all their money in the long run, who knows how long that will be?
I am not suggesting that you quit the game, but do consider it if you are playing recreationally. I have personally lost thousands of dollars (around 7 to be exact) spent countless hours at the tables and had visions of becoming a pro. It is not worth it if your heart is not fully in it, and even if your heart is fully in it ask yourself why. Are you playing because you really enjoy it or are you playing to try and chase lost money or are you hooked? Hooked to the game is always a possibility, I am pretty sure that I was hooked. I craved the action of the game. I ran hands through my head at night considering what plays were right and wrong. I showed up early at the clubs I played at and sometimes played all night. I got a thrill when work was done because I knew I'd be in action soon. All the evidence of being hooked.
Whatever decision you make is probably the best for yourself but do consider the resolution of giving up the game, even if not forever. You may have a harder time than you think in giving it up, I can't know that though.
Keep this thought in mind: You can be a winning player and still lose for two years straight. Mason Malmuth said it in his book Gam. Theor. and other topics. Do you have the stomach (and cash) for that kind of swing?
Sincerely,
Joe
@
nt
.
Natedogg,you talk my laugauge!Remember my post quite a few months ago?I am 99% agree with you about Brunson & the rest.These guys at 2+2?Well,they mean well,but,save your breath.You are talking Greek here.
Don't get me wrong about Brunson and the rest of the great name players. You'll never find me saying that they are just simply lucky guys (except maybe Phil Hellmuth he he). They are the best players in the world, but I personally believe they are good AND have been lucky. Which is the combo required for making a ton of money playing poker.
natedogg
Someone calls a bet in the river with two pair, with the flop showing a possible straight. He wins with the hand with the two pair and while collecting the chips tells the losing player: "I though you might had a straight". The losing player then says: "If you thought that I had a straight, why did you call me? I don't understand this answer. I don't understand what the losing player thinking is. ???? Thanks.
The losing player's thinking is that he thought he ran a good bluff but it didn't turn out as he had hoped. Judging by the comment, I suspect the losing player made a hopeless bluff afainst someone who was sure to call.
I've said it many times - a guy says I thought you had------- (a better hand) I always ask then why did you call me.
but of course what really is meant is
" i thought (it was 90% probable) that you had a straight (but of course im getting 10 to 1 and ive got pretty much everything else beat)"
brad
p.s. of course the guy could also just be dumb.
Well, bad players call because they came to call. They didn't come to fold fold fold. They want to throw money around.
So let them call -- you'll get the best of em in the long run.
No big deal.
This conversation is repeated thousands of times a day in cardrooms throughout the country.
The losing player is just steaming because he lost. I have been on both sides of that type conversation myself when I was starting out, but quit taking part in them long ago.
When someone says "I thought you had....", they really mean "I was AFRAID you had....".
A similar situation is when someone calls your bet on the river and says "I knew you had...." they really mean "I suspected you had....but I had to call to make sure.".
@
The variation on this theme that I love is when the weak, passive calling station calls or checks at the river with the virtual nuts and doesn't bet or raise, (s)he says while picking up the chips,..."I couldn't (bet/raise). There was a possible (flush/str8/board was paired/fill in the blanks), when any sort of basic analysis of the hand would indicate that the chances they were beat were almost impossible given the inferences available and the betting patterns.
The money left on the table by missing value bets and raises in LL is absolutely astounding sometimes. If I have improved one thing in the past year, it is making a much more conscious effort to pick up these bets. They add up.
.
I've made some Big Laydowns, and I've paid a few off. There are one or two of the TOM's so predictable and easy to read that when they raise on the river, it is only with the stone cold nuts. Period.
My point was not so much my own strategy heads-up with these types, but the advantages of playing in games with them when they do not fully extract what they should from you when you are stuck with a 2nd best hand. What you don't lose is just as valuable as what you win.
is when the PCS doesn't bet the virtual nuts and shows down the winning hand, the losing hand inevitably complains because the guy didn't bet
Even if the winner wasn't intending to needle it will usually look that way to the loser; so the loser is just retorting.
The losing player is telling YOU, since you are intellegent and paying objective attention, that he doesn't really understand pot-odds. (As Brad suggests above, even when you are probably beat you should usually call.) I suggest, therefore, that this player may be a good target for a rare bluff in a big pot.
A mistake you may be making is presuming the losing player IS thinking.
- Louie
Greetings Yall:
Alright, this is really starting to bug me so I have to bring it in for a little discussion. As well all know, Pocket 10's are looked up to with great admiration by many of our notable poker authors (HPFAP, Jones, Abdul)as a hand that should be played from early position. Now I'm talking low-limit here, nothing else. What bothers me is that so much can go wrong and so little can go right after that. Here's what I mean. Let's say you call, and then somebody raises behind you with the assumption that the cards are higher than 10's. You call, and the flop comes with paint on it. How confident can you play after that. Or there is no raise and the paint comes, how confident can you play? Or the flop holds everything smaller than 10's but now you've got cards crunched together creating more likely straight hands or straight draws, or lets say their all one suit and you have the 10, but then what, so another flush card comes and your still only 10 high. Or, as usually happens, the flop didn't catch a face, but the turn does which will normally hit some moron on in the low limit games. I mean really when can you really play these confidently unless you flop your 7 to 1 trip card. Let's even say you raise them pre-flop and get the typical 2 or so callers after you plus the big blind calling. Still any damn overcard, or 2, is bound to hit someone making you the automatic 4 to 1 dog. Okay, so 7-8-9 flops and you have the open-ender, pre-flop raise or not. How often have you seen a jack come and you get beat by Q-10??? See my point...
Instead, at least with T9s you've:
1) Dipped a little further south in the field so now your opponents can't completely discount you when a middle flop comes with you as the early bird.
2) If you get raised, hence somebody is claiming vertical seniority on you, you have the ability to go lateral on them with a straight or flush, and also able to to work with lower card flops which is going to suck in the raiser no-matter if he was raising with a true pair or working high cards.
3) You can now check raise him on the flop with confidence and really turning the tide.
4) You can get out easily with an unworking flop, to minimize the losses not having to worry if your pair was the best.
5) You know where your opponent is but they don't know where you are.
6) Overall, you can play your hand more confidently and with better results.
Alright, What do you think??
Critical analysis like this is the first step to becoming a winning poker player. TT is, indeed a tough hnad to play, especially in early position. In fact, it is probably a loser if you don't play well after the flop.
However, if you can't even play this hand in the first 2 or 3 seats, hold'em will be an awfully dull game and the blinds will eat you up.
And T9s is an equally difficult hand to play. If you only proceed when you flop two-pair, an open-ender or flush draw, it is probably not worth calling preflop in all but the loosest games. And when you only flop a pair, the hand has almost identical problems as the pocket tens.
This is not theory but i just want to vent some and get a little direction. I've been playing for a couple of years and am now in the middle of my first real bad losing streak. the cards are bad, when i get some decent starting cards the flop misses me, lots of second bests, etc. then i might start to press when i shouldn't, stuff like that. i play 10-20 to 20-40 so the bad sessions can add up. in the past month i'm only about 1800 down so it may not seem like much to some, but it's getting pretty frustrating for me. anyway, need a little advice, support, feedback whatever on how to get through this. thanks ya'll, steve
1800 loss in a month is nothing if you are playing 20-40. Hell, that is a bad session or two if the game is aggressive. I have lost that much in a good game when I was running good.
If this losing "streak" is really that hard on you, I would respectfully submit that you are overextending your bankroll. You should seek out some archived threads on bankroll requirements. You would be surprised at the recommended bankroll for playing as low as 5-10 hold'em.
Other than that, tighten up a notch preflop and on the flop. You may give up some EV, but it will also reduce variance.
Good luck.
it sometimes helps to change something in your game. if you've been playing only 20-40 HE or 4-8 stud for several years it's easy to lose a bit of your edge, get mentally stale. i've always found it helpful to change games (hold-em to stud or vice versa) or just back down in limit for a while. i spent two months playing nothing but 2-4 stud in '99 in a successful bid to crack a bad run caused by (pick one)variance, poker gods, or stale-poker-mind.
I completely agree with your Bankroll statement. I have also noticed that a lot of the better poker players talk about playing a variety of games.
Another reason for switching games is that maybe you have someone who has a really good read on you and they are following you around. (That is my favorite excuse ;)
$1800 isn't what I would call a bad month. I've had a 2 month session where I dropped over $5000 in $10-20 alone. But I won't go into the bad beat stories here. Let's just say I rarely sucked out on anyone, but everyone else managed to suck out on me.
I like going back to the books constantly whenever I lose a great deal. I try to find where I played wrong and give myself re-assurance that I am a good and solid poker and that even when I lost a certain hand or hands, that I played it right.
Losing streaks can be harst because it hits your confidence level so hard and you start to question whether or not certain plays were done right and how come some lucksack managed to hit their 3-outer and you missed.
What I also like to do is hit the lower limit games to change things up a bit. I remember dropping down to 4-8 for about a month and then returned back to the 10-20 and 20-40 scene. Winning lower limit games gave me the confidence I needed. The confidence gave me the smarts and reassurance to tackle the mid limits.
Right now I'm amidst another bad losing streak. This week, I haven't gone out a winner for all 5 days I've played.
Been lots of wild action, but no luck whenever I'm in the pot. The EV is getting high for me. Time for me to tighten up.
thanks for the responses. i know it's not a lot of money and it's still comong from last year's winnings so it's not real bad. it's just so frustrating to see pot after pot going to players who seem to have more money than sense. i believe good, solid play will win in the long run but right now it ain't fun. so, i know to expect times like this. i have the poker players optimism that it's gonna get better soon. thanks for the help, i've learned a lot on this forum.
You may have missed the point.
It can get much much worse than this and if this current situation bothers you then moving down in limit is a good way to go.
If your BR is large then stay and play because it sounds like a good game.
Get John Feeney's book"Inside the Poker mind" and Alan Schoonmakers "The psychology of poker" They will help with the mind game. Review your technical material. Focus on important tecnical things plus such things as pot odds and opponents styles. Do not think about winning or losing and winning will take care of itself.
Vince
Does anyone on these posts use StatKing from Conjelco? Any other recommendations?
Thanks
Stork,
I've noticed a number of reviews here and especially on RGP that seem to give a favorable impression, especially compared to the product sold by Card Player. I ordered a copy today from Conjelco so I might know more in a few weeks.
Rick
Why don't you guys just use Mason's formulas in conjuction with Excel?
The only things that seem to be important in tracking wins and losses is: Date/Time; Hourly Rate; Hourly STD; and game played. You can add all the comments you want in each cell.
A#1
A#1,
I use Excel to keep a running tabulation of propping (House Player) results but since I really don't know the program (my Hero/Poker Student set it up for me) I haven't had the time to figure out how to extract data in the same manner one would from a pure database. For example, my older records were in DOS based dbase. I never calculated SD but I could tell you how I did on (TUE)sday's in sessions started in (EE)early evening versus sessions started in the allegedly more wild (FRI)day evenings. Extraction of data from one large database in Excel seems beyond me.
Perhaps Excel allows that and if StatKing dissapoints I might buckle down and learn it.
Regards,
Rick
Maybe because StatKing is a lot cheaper than Excel.
Excel is usually comes bundled with Windows and has more applications than said Poker Tracking program.
A#1
All spreadsheet programs have some (limited) database functionality, but if you want to generate reports (called queries) based upon a multiplicity of charactoristics, you have to use a database program. It depends how much you value your time. You can closet yourself for most of a week and create an information monument to yourself in a database language you possess, or spring for a few bucks and have proven functionality immediately.
It doesn't take a report to tell you that the better games are on the weekends.
A#1
A#1,
That may be true in Las Vegas and Atlantic City but it is not neccessarily true in some other spots. But I am intending to trim down some of my computer based data keeping that is extractable in database format. For example, what does it matter that in the nineties I averaged more at the Bike than the Commerce when so much has changed since then.
Regards,
Rick
For the cheap price, if it makes life easier then go for it. I just wish I had learned Excel before I bought my first Quicken progam.
A#1
A few comments on using Excel for a poker log and other things mentioned in this thread:
Excel does not come free with Windows.
Excel does just about anything a database program does, including generating reports with multiple queries (e.g., show me my 6-12 hold 'em results for the last 13 weeks), but performing these functions is more awkward than they are in a database program.
Really, Excel can do everything you might imagine, but like many things, it's easier imagined than done. For example, my Excel log calculates total standard deviation and hourly rate standard deviation, plots session results and bankroll, plots my session hourly rate and overall win rate with a +/- 2 SD envelope. It displays results by month, for home games, casino/cardroom games, by game size and structure, by year, the last x weeks, etc. HOWEVER, I had to do all the work myself, it took some considerable time and I have about 12 years' experience with the program. For those that already have Excel and experience with it, it can be a satisfying project and, depending on how you value your time, save the expense of buying a new program. For those who do not, can afford the (relatively inexpensive) price of a dedicated log program and/or just don't want to hassle with the work, I expect a dedicated log program would be much easier.
Zig,
The reason I wouldn't attempt to have a spreadsheet perform as a database is the time and tedium of nesting Boolean tests. You had to have created a library of them and import them as needed, of course modifying cell references each time. And Excel doesn't, I believe, accept nests past the seventh level, which may be insufficient. This may be overcome by intermediate presentation, and then restarting the priocess. But the real problem is time. If I have a question, I'd like the answer the same afternoon, not sometime later in the week.
It's nice to see someone master an application thoroughly, but I'm not looking for a hobby that looks like an obsession.
I have had it for about 2 months now. I like it and recommend it. The only thing it does not have is the ability to enter comments about individual sessions. I have written the manufacturer and suggested that he consider adding this capability. But otherwise I have been very pleased with it.
i love the product. it is small, quick, and very user friendly. the only thing about it is that it makes me much more neurotic about my losses. no more telling friends "i'm winning a little or breaking even."
:)
I'm considering it for myself. I have been keeping all my records on Excel, but an acquaintance told me he learned some things after a dozen weeks results were put in StatKing. Could I write it for myself in Dbase or Access? Yeah, but I'm more lazy than heroic. I'd rather have someone else do the programming. I'll just play.
I've been using it for a few months and I think it's great. It does a lot more than you would expect, such as tracking weekday vs. weekend sessions, long and short sessions, allowing you to input your monthly "nut" to find out how often you have to play and a lot of other stuff.
The fulcrum decider? What is it? Well, I just made that up because it sounds good to me. The fulcrum decider is the information that you use to make a decision in poker. This terminology is my own, and I make no claim that it is a perfect description of what I am describing. But it works for me.
I’ll give you an example of a fulcrum that is pretty basic yet illustrates the point. In a ten handed game, limit holdem, what is the minimum offsuit ace hand that you can play UTG in a typical game? Well, for the sake of argument, let’s say it is Ajoffsuit. I would call that the fulcrum hand. Meaning, in a typical game (whatever that means) it is usually a break even hand UTG. There are some games which it is probably profitable, and others not. The point here is not to argue AJ as a hand, if you disagree that this hand is the fulcrum that’s fine, substitute your own hand, although I doubt it is far off this. So we have a basic fulcrum, that allows us to make an easy decision. It’s yes or no. I either have AJ or better or I don’t. Furthermore, this analysis can be further utilized as a decider on it’s own, as a tool for game selection. Is this a good game? Perhaps substitute that question with the fulcrum decider here. Would Ajoffsuit UTG make money in this game? If yes, it is probably a good game. This streamlines the process. To make a decision about game selection, you could use a serious of fulcrums, if the question was not obvious. The point here is to make it clear to you what I mean by a fulcrum, not to prove any points.
Now what of fulcrums? Preflop fulcrums are actually fairly simple. This really is what hand charts are. Sklansky’s groups are really fulcrums in a way. The best method of going through fulcrums is to class hands and make decisions based on this and the action beforehand. This makes learning hold’em a lot easier than it would be without fulcrums. I am assuming the typical poster is fairly well versed in preflop play, and hence fulcrums preflop.
Where more value can be derived from establishing fulcrums is post flop. I, over a long period of time, have developed my own set of decision criteria about common situations in hold’em I call them fulcrum deciders.. I don’t even know for sure that they are always correct, but as I put a lot of thought process into them and based them on poker theory, they can’t be too bad. And the process alone helps you enormously. There was a thread a while back that involved one of my fulcrum deciders that I am not certain about. The post was by Jim Brier on Friday December 15th at 0330hrs, titled “$20-$40 Problem: Bad Semi-Bluff?”
Reprinted here:
“
It is the $20-$40 game at the Mirage and I am in the big blind with the Kh4h. An early player limps, a middle player limps, and the small blind limps. I take a free play. There is $80 in the pot and 4 players. The flop is: 5s5h3d The small blind checks. I check. The other two players check. The turn is: 7h The small blind checks. I bet $40 having a flush draw, a gutshot straight draw, and an over card. I could win the pot outright and I have a ton of outs if I am called. No one has shown any interest in this pot so I feel it is my duty to not allow the money to just rot in the center of the table. Only the small blind calls. There is $160 in the pot and two players. The river is: Td The small blind checks. I bet $40 having missed everything as usual with no hand to showdown. The small blind goes into the tank and reluctantly calls. He wins with AhQh. A friend told me my semi-bluff was a poor one because the pot was not large enough to spend $40 on the turn and another $40 at the river when I miss. I should have just checked the turn, happy to get a free card and then check-fold the river if anyone bets thereby saving $80. Was the pot too small (only two big bets) to bother with a semi-bluff and was it right to follow through with another big bet on the river when I missed? “
Ok my fulcrum decider here was based on the questionable river bet. David Sklansky posted along the lines that not to bet the turn as a semi-bluff was “insane”. I will take that to mean that no fulcrum is required there. My fulcrum here was that I believed that the bet on the river could be made if you felt your opponent would fold ace high. Simple, but it focuses your decision. Now whether you agree with this fulcrum or not again is not my point here, and about this one I am not sure at all. (I am not sure about many of my fulcrums, as some of them or a little bizarre.) So in this case, we see, that the decision of whether or not to bet here could be delegated to the fulcrum decider. If you come up with an excellent set of fulcrum deciders, your playing becomes easier.
Ok, this post is way too long. I appreciate if you got this far without falling asleep. Now am I going to give you my fulcrums? No. But this is not cruel or greedy. Go out and think about the decisons, and you will often find that they can be made using one or more fulcrum deciders. The process of thinking through the fulcrums deciders will serve you much better than being fed them. Most good players already have fulcrums, whether they know it or not.
One more point. In the future, perhaps the forum intelligence could get together and determine the correct fulcrums in threads that are posted. I have little doubt the braintrust here couldn’t come up with brilliant, highly effective ones.
This is a primer on fulcrum deciders. There is nothing profound here. The clever stuff comes in making up the fulcrums. I have more on this.
Regards
backdoor,
Before I comment in depth, let me ask a simple question. Would the following statement be an example of a fulcrum?
In a mid limit holdem game with a 15/30 or 30/60 structure, I want two typical callers in front of me when I hold a baby pair (22 thru 44) in order for me to call.
Note on my fulcrum. If the callers are very tight and do not tend to pay me off when I hit a set I might want three callers. If I have blinds plus a limper that will tend to pay me well then one limper may be enough to make calling worthwhile.
Regards,
Rick
Yes, you got it. I would change the phrasing, although this has neglible bearing. I would say if you have two limpers what is the fulcrum hand? The baby pairs then would be part of this fulcrum hand group. This is the kind of thing done all the time here on the forum. The idea blossoms when you get into more complex post flop situations, however.
Your post also jumps ahead to things I didn't post yet. The idea that there are adjustments to be made, given prevailing conditions. This goes to the terminology I refer to as a fulcrum. It is the baseline, upon which adjustments can be made. This inherently ensures that adjustments are not too farfetched or emotion based. If you develop a reasonable set of fulcrum deciders, then there is a clear foundation with which to make adjustments.
Well lets look at an old idea, much discussed. When to bet on the end against a single opponent in limit hold'em. The basic guideline is to bet both very weak and very strong hands, checking the medium ones. But look at how vague that is. You could be even more specific and assign a percentage when called criteria. But there remains ambiguity. What is a very weak hand? How do I know what hands will call 55%? So you set up a fulcrum hand heads up which seems to meet the standard of both very weak and very strong hands. And now you have a fulcrum decider. Adjustments to be made, theoretically, but not too far off said fulcrum. If your fulcrums are not far off, this will be an excellent guideline for decisions.
In the beginning the fulcrums seem difficult to come up with and there is much doubt as to their validity. But what you are really doing is just formalizing something you are doing every hand anyway.
Shoot this is tiring.
Regards, R
Backdoor,
I'm still a little stuck on the perspective thingy (with Bush as President, this becomes a valid word ;-) ).
You wrote: “Yes, you got it. I would change the phrasing, although this has neglible bearing. I would say if you have two limpers what is the fulcrum hand? The baby pairs then would be part of this fulcrum hand group.”
It seems a lot of hands would be in that group and right now I think it would be hard to work with your concept in practice. I mean FIRST I get dealt a baby pair in late position (BTW, in a ring game I think you can look at your hand as it is dealt (I like Badger's argument that this allows more time to make the fine line decisions). Now if my fulcrum point is two limpers and three have already limped then I know I can limp. But if two have limped then I need to get into my fine line analysis. Are the limpers the type to pay off my set? Are they rocks who won't chase? Is the small blind an auto caller and a chaser?
When you put hands into groups (let's say the minimum hands that can call two typical limpers in late position) you are going to have hands with vastly different playing characteristics. Some examples of calling hands from late position after two have limped in front of you might be Ax suited, AT offsuit, K9s, KJ and QJ offsuit, QTs, any pair, 65s and so on.
Now with two limpers and both blinds playing (usually the case in a 15/30 structure) a pair of fours wants a completely different type of lineup than 65 suited. The small pair wants opponents who will lead into the flop and turn with very marginal hands or draws and call raises and reraises. The 65 suited wants players who play the flop and turn meekly but can't stand being bluffed and will call down the river when you make it. Note that in BOTH cases four opponents is not the right number of opponents to bet the flop or turn when you miss your set (someone will surely call you with a bigger pair) OR when you flop a draw (since you will almost always get one (negative EV) or usually two callers (neutral EV)).
I'm not sure where I'm going with this myself. I've never liked seeing vastly dissimilar starting hands put in the same groups. Of course, I haven't wasted time in the endless RGP debates over JTs versus KTs either (why OZ spends so much time on this is beyond me). Anyway, I agree with S&M that they are about the same in strength or expectation overall but they play differently and the advanced player would know that. I would prefer a book that puts starting hands in different classes (e.g., baby pairs, small pairs, medium pairs, trouble pairs (QQ, JJ), big pairs, medium suited connecters and one gapers, etc.) and then discusses how they should be played pre flop from varying positions. First you get the hand, then you play it.
Anyway, if this post seems to ramble a bit I apologize. I had about the roughest last fifteen minutes of a workday in my life and I need to kick back a bit so I'll probably wait till tomorrow before adding any thoughts.
Regards,
Rick
Thanks for all your effort on this. I realize you had a bad stint there and picked a bad time to impose on you.
Regarding your fulcrum in the case of the baby pairs, you are already there. You don't need this concept at all. But be realistic, through a serious of thought processes you have come up with a good preflop plan. If you default to your two limper fulcrum you shouldn't be too bad off, regardless of opponents. If you would be bad off defaulting to two limpers, adjust it so the default is break even or slightly profitable. Now you can use fulcrum adjustments (and sometimes these can be derived from other relatively simple criteria, like making the adjustment based on the fulcrum hand you think your opponent might hold.) Another fulcrum adjustment is what percentage of the big blind money is "live", meaning the blind money is more or less valuable under different players control.
Regarding your thoughts on hand charts, I agree, but such a chart would be for very advanced players. It would be fairly easy to come up with such a chart (you could probably do it half asleep). But it would be complicated very much in the explanation. Look how long it is taking me to try to get across the fulcrum idea, and I'm just touching the surface. The what ifs of said chart would be enormous. But they would be valuable if properly done.
Anyway, I hope everything is alright. Don't let fifteen minutes last longer than fifteen minutes.
Regards
Interesting post and terminology. I have used fulcrums for a long time but have never thought of assigning a term to them. Adjusting fulcrums, or handicapping them according to prevailing conditions, is something better players than myself seem to have a great instinct for. I have noticed that I am much better at doing this when I feel sharp and am in the zone. The fine line here often turns out to mean more than I would have thought it should, and on a bad day I find I am rather poor at adjusting fulcrums well.
I agree with your thoughts on the adjustments. But, if in your personal case, you think about the criteria you are using to make decisions, the baseline foundation is probably excellent. Post flop particularly is a pretty complex game, and the use of fulcrums allow you to play a pretty solid game in themselves. The proper adjustments will turn a small winner into a solid winner.
Just imagine a very simple, common occurence in poker. You raise from middle position, limit hold'em, and only the big blind calls. The flop comes 3 J K with two suited and the big blind bets into you. Now what? See here, in this situation, I didn't tell you what cards you have. But nonetheless, I am betting the second you looked at the flop you had a good idea what you would do with various holdings. So in this spot what is the baseline fulcrum with which you can continue? If you are in doubt, just plug in some hands: 66, whats your answer? 99? JTsuited? AA? So after some thought, you have a fulcrum. Now comes the adjustment phase regarding the opponent. And so on. When we are at a simple stage like this the idea seems elementary, but as the situations become more complex the proper fulcrums are often tricky.
Thanks for your input, I know the fulcrum decider post was a bit dry. The more interesting part is the adjustment phase, which requires a good fulcrum to begin with (whether you call it that or not.) I believe there many situations post flop that lend themselves to fulcrum deciders.
Very nice post - I'd be interested in hearing more, esp re post-flop play. Unfortunately, right now I'm too tired to think intelligently about more specific questions, but would hope this thread continues...
I've been fighting some sort of cold or flu for the past few days. It seems to come and go, so I keep going in for short sessions.
Today, I sat throught a must-move game for about 3 hours, which was about as exciting as watching paint dry. Then I got moved to the main game.
There, I found at least 4 players who had been playing for 24 hours or more, and were stuck who-knows-how-much. One of them admitted to me that he was in $3800. This is 20-40. He pointed to another player, and said he thought he was in $5000-$6000.
These players were playing, well, not thier best games. In about 2 hours, I won over $1000 off of them. They weren't showing any signs of backing off or leaving. Then it happened.
My fever kicked up to the point I couldn't think about anything else. I felt horrible, and I had to leave the game. That was over 6 hours ago, and I still feel real bad. I bet they're still there.
What a bad beat.
I'm a big fan of toothpicks also, and if they won't help, then it is definitely time to go.
Was brad one of them?
youre a smart guy. of course i was!
if you guys want to know, i played almost 30 hours and left stuck almost 1100 dollars.
in those 30 hours i played from extreme to extreme and everything in between. it was fun, it was terrifying, i laughed, i cried ...
brad
p.s. when i left i had to cash out in stages to avoid the 3k thing :)
( is it just me, or doesn't everyone think that this country was founded on the principle of shooting the tax collectors?)
Does Casino Arizona report any transaction over $3,000 to the IRS?
Carlos
What I was told is that they start tracking you at $3000 and they have to report it if your total transactions are over $10k in a 24 hour period.
I thought this was just for cashing out but floorman Joe being the asshole that he is took it to the extreme on me the other night. In the 40-80 game I bought 2k in chips then a few hours later I rebought for another 2k and he asked for my ID so they could write it down. I really do not like Joe.
Another good Joe story. Last night the must move holdem game broke so they made the main game 10-handed, and the guy who was first on the must move list had lost the last of his chips a few minutes earlier in the must move game. So Joe fills the 10th seat in the main game with the 2nd player on the list. About a minute later the 1st guy on the list came back with chips and asked why someone had taken his seat in the main game, to which Joe cordially replied, "I just assumed you went broke." What a superb floorman he aspires to be.
I don't think I remember Joe. Though I don't play enough at Casino Arizona. Thanks for the tip, though. I'll be watching out for him :)
Carlos
im reminded of something boris spassky said (he was chess world champ before fisher), something like "i had to learn to be a fighter" because he was such a nice guy.
i mean im a real nice guy but ive verbally taunted players before (well, kyle, whos a real jerk and he started it), and even looked for players in the parking lot (well, kyle, whos a real jerk and he said he'd be waiting for me in the parking lot).
i wouldve just told joe never mind and went and got chips myself.
when i cashed out in stages (went to a different window 2nd time) the first guy told the 2nd guy that i had just cashed in at his window and that i was over 3k and to get my id. i just looked at him and said oh, no , these (chips) are somebody elses. i find very few people argue with me since i seem to always have a big s*** eating grin on my face :)
brad
p.s. joe played holdem a week or so ago and i (helped) clean(ed) him out :)
p.p.s oh, dont worry about offending me by pointing me out; you were already on my list anyway :)
Hey brad I apologige for the post I didn't mean to point you out like that. I hope you weren't bothered by it anyway, and I have a feeling that you weren't. I ended up losing close to 4000 that day mostly in the stud game though, so who am I to point that out about you anyway.
On a lighter note that whole cashing out 3k thing is just insanely stupid, although I've hardly had to worry about it this week. Heh.
In 34 hours so far this year I'm averaging -$26/hr. Is that a good win rate? But I did book my first win of the year last night.
Hey I'm the best there is at sleeping at the table. I just position my hands to feel the cards when the deal em....peak, muck, sleep. when I wake they fold!!!! it's that easy!
most players, when they refer to themselves, usually classify thier play as "tight aggressive." i think that in poker it is vital to every player's success to constantly re- evaluate their abilities. although i have only been playing seriously (nearly every day, usually online) for about five months, i know that i'm tight enough, but i worry about losing pots because i'm easy to read/ run over, and because i really don't have a sense of when the time is right for a semi- bluff. i do semi- bluff, but i fear that my timing is not always strategically sound.
in the latest issue of card player, there is an article about this very issue. the author suggests that the "weak tight" player should take the initiative in heads- up and especially three way situations when on a drawing hand. this way, your bets on that hand and more importantly, in future hands, are more puzzling for your opponent. although this seems like good advice, i wanted to run it buy some of the gurus on this forum. additionally, i would appreciate any advice about how to increase the aggression in the appropriate places in my game. thanks in advance.
-captain marlow
Good concerns.
If you want to try to change your style you must experiment. Here is one thing that is worth trying if you want to experiment with being more aggressive.
If you are in a hand, and there is a bet to you, do this. If you have a 'made hand' as opposed to a draw (ie top pair questionable kicker), and you are thinking about calling, don't. Ei