![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
David,
I certainly see the logic in that view, but I would worry about how it would work in application.
When the jackpot gets big, it might encourage jackpot chasers to post their blinds from the cutoff seat, play one hand, then leave the table until the button passes them again. I think that's a stupid strategy, but I can see how quite a few goofballs might want to use it.
I have noticed that the rule that you must have received a hand to participate in a jackpot payout really encourages people to stay at the table.
I have mixed feelings on jackpots. On one hand, I hate them because by paying a $1 out of every pot over $15, I am being forced to participate in a stupid lottery. I am paying $6-$12 every session to the blasted thing. If one does hit on my table and I get a table share, I probably wouldn't break even. Furthermore, I have never been lucky, so jackpots hold zero allure for me.
On the other hand, jackpots bring gamblers into the cardroom, which is great.
No jackpot drop is one of the more attractive aspects of online poker.
I think it is only logical that a person must have participated in the hand in order to reap any benefit that ensues from said hand. I also think to have included him in the payoff when he was not at the table would, in fact, encourage chronic lurkers. There are people I play with that walk constantly and I think to change the rule and include a non-participant of that particular hand in the bad-beat payoff defies not only logic but would promote these professional "walkers".
I was wondering how many of the readers of this forum play chess? I am 20 years old and just achieved expert status. I find for the most part that chess ability does not coincide with card ability. However, good chess players are often smart people, and smart people play good poker. For those of you out there that play both chess and poker, which do you find more intellectually stimulating, which do you think is more complex? I believe chess is the better game.......it is more complex, less repititious (the can of worms has just been opened) and much more difficult to master. Chess is more of battle between you and the board while the goal in cards is to find a weak player and let the good players take turn taking his money. Having said this, I can't stop playing cards lately and hardly play any over the board chess. I recently found out Bob Ciaffone is a chess master and was wondering which game he found to be better and how the ability of the two coincide. I have played hold em' with Dmitry Gurevich, a grandmaster, and chessplayer of the year, and I could not believe how bad he was. I am not sure how long he has been playing, but I have been playing for one year now, (all be it, one month, 1/12 of my time last year, was logged in the cardroom). The man is a chess genius but for whatever reason can't play cards. I played a hand with him where he raised 3-4 off under the gun, I reraised in late position with A-A. I flopped a set and he capped the flop, check raised me on the turn, and rivered the one card flush with his 3c. So what do chessplayers out there think?
Hello,
Chess is so incredibly complicated compared to poker that the difference is vast.
But poker is far better game to play for money, since the luck factor enables really bad players to think they are good, or "break-even" or even simply "unlucky" for decades, maybe even lifetimes.
- roGER
You are so right. I suck at chess and I know it so I would never consider playing for money. I haven't learned that about poker yet.
vince
Post deleted at author's request.
I have a question regarding a statement thats been repeated many times. It goes something like this: "WHEN YOU GET TO 20/40 AND ABOVE THE PRO'S WILL PUT MOVES ON YOU LIKE YOUVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE". There are only 52 cards in the deck. The board tells you what potentialy is the best hand. So what makes up a pro move? I will admit I am a low limit player. Most of my hours have been spent at 3/6 and 5/10. I have about a 100 hours at 10/20 but don't play there as much for one reason. My hourly take is higher at the lower games. That may be due to my game not being ready for higher limits. I accept that!!! But this PRO MOVES question bugs me. Can someone give me some examples. Thanks to the forum!!!
freecard bets and raises...value bet the flop and turn then check raise on the river....there are some of the pro moves that you'll experience at the higher level...
Here is the answer to your question. You state you have been playing lower than 20/40. When you start playing 20/40 you will encounter persons, who know more about the game, than you know, despite what you "think", you know.
If you hold QQ here is the possible ways your oppenent can have a hand:
AA (6 ways)
KK (6 ways)
QQ (1 way)
JJ (6 ways)
TT (6 ways)
AK (16 ways)
AQs(2 ways)
So you have a 26 in 42 chance of having a better hand, but he is a rational, not tricky player. When will he bet for value. He can put you on any of the above hands as well plus 14 more ways to make AQ. If he has AA's he is not betting for value because 10's, J's Q's and AK's beat him. Same with K's. If he has Q's, J's or 10's he is betting for value because of the extra chances you may be holding AQ. AQ he is not betting for value. Obviously he could have AK.
So the only way he bets is if he holds AK, T's, J's or Q's. This narrows the possible hands to 16 + 6 + 6 + 1 to 29 and you are only beating him in 12 of the cases, chopping in 1 and losing in 16. 12.5/29 is your chance of winning. Assume there is 7.5 SB in the pot before the flop, on the flop add 4 more, and on the turn add 2 BB (4 SB), for a total of 15.5 SB. or about 8 BB. You have to have less than a 9:1 chance of winning to fold, so I would call.
Derrick Ashworth
Good post, except that you must take the cards SEEN into consideration when counting the opponent's hand: With a flop of QJT and hero has QQ, the opponent cannot hold QQ and there are only 3-JJs and 3-TTs left.
If you are correct that he will only bet a set or better on the river then I count its 16:6 against you winning.
My first impression was to raise with the 2nd nuts, but things are often not as they appear.
- Louie
I will try to keep this short if I can. Currently I only play about once or twice a month (except when I make a trip to Vegas). I have been playing Hold’em for just under a year.
Here is my dilemma. There are 3 card rooms that I can play at all within an hours drive. The problem is that because of my infrequency of playing wherever I go to play I’m always the new guy. A fish I’m sure in the eyes of the regulars. I seldom recognize any opponents and there is only one player that I have a feel for how he plays. I have read 3 books including S&M and I read this forum daily and therefore I think I have a good mental concept on how to play the game. The posters here always refer to knowing your opponent’s skill level and habits. Until I start playing at the same place consistently and often I never will.
Here is my question. What can I do to give myself an edge against a table full of strangers?
a. Do I play some hands in a way that would produce a loose passive image, and then play my normal tight game?
b. Should I project a loose aggressive image and then tighten up?
c. Should I play like a rock?
The reason this has come to mind is that the other day I was playing 4-8 HE and it was apparent that no one was respecting my raises or bets regardless of my position. Calls and raises were coming from both sides of me. I started to wonder what image they had of me as a player and what I could do to thin out the field when appropriate. I could seldom get heads up with someone. I had a good run of cards thank goodness (and I hope some good play to) and with the aggressiveness of the table I earned just over $300 in 2 ˝ hours of play. (that's a lot for me) This was the first time I felt nervous playing even my good cards due to the aggressivness, but I stayed in the hands when I thought I should and folded when I thought I should and made THEM pay when I knew I had the best of it. I got the heck out of there before the tide turned.
Here is how I normally start off:
1. I always wait for the button to pass before I play a hand. This allows me to observe play and get a feel of the game. It also delays the SB and BB bets.
2. I play only premium hands early (AA, KK, QQ, AKs), middle position (JJ, AQs, KQs, KJs and QJs), late position (10,10 AKo-A10o, KQo, KJo). I play this way in the first 1-2 hours depending on the game and then I add more starting hands as the game progresses if I’m doing well. Is this too tight?
Thank you for all comments and advise. (I now am able to play once a week)
Rich
It shouldn't take very long for you to get a good feel for how a player generally plays. If you see the player jump an early raise, raise with a King flops and bet it for value all the way and win with KTo; you can pretty much bank that he has no comprehension of trouble hands nor position and is very assertive. You can expect this player to routinely raise with any top pair and can expect him to be oblivious to YOUR very selective game. If you find yourself thinking "He's got to be an idiot to have a hand worse than mine" then congratulate yourself on your keen insight.
Malmuth puts little value in counting hands played in the short run since odd hand distributions are common. But I think if you see a player play 6 out of 10 hands; calling raises cold 3 of them; then its OK to presume he's quite a lot on the loose side even if you never see a hand. So who will you believe? Someone with a Masters Math degree with clarity of thought, much success, and a well earned reputation; or me?
You need to put more energy into making judgements about the other players. Consider bringing a notebook and taking notes.
But back to your question: if you intend to play like a rock then strongly consider advertising a little first. Yes, take some pre-flop chances once you have a strong feel for the opponents AND are sure you are going to outplay them after the flop.
- Louie
If someone teases you about the notebook just introduce yourself, ask him his name, then ask for his Social Security Number.
Seriously, if you aren't Steve Badger, you should consider a different pseudonym for this forum. He's a well known guy hereabouts, although he has reportedly deserted us. :-(
Or perhaps you are making a statement and doing it on purpose?
David
I'm a chick....and I had no clue that there is another Badger running around this message board. So since HE has squatters rights I'll change my nick name. Badger is my nickname in real life but for the sake of everyone else. I certainly do not want to confuse anyone.
I had a terrible weekend. It began fine but ended horribly. I am posting this under general theory because it deals with knowing the correct play but blatantly disregarding anaylsis and making an egregious mistake. Some of you may not find this sort of thing pertinent to general theory so you may not want to read on.
I went to Foxwoods this weekend to play in the $220 stud tournament. Those of you that considered backing me but decided no to made the correct decision. I played a number of single table satelites. I splt one. the rest. Forgettabout it. I literally anted off ha;f my stack in the last two before I found a apir and was forced all in and lost. In the $220 tournament I did a little better but made a mistake and never recovered.
After the tournment I decided to play a little Holdem. This was a mistake. I was very close to being on tilt and tired. But why would I do the smart thing and leave, especially since I was still over $500 ahead for the weekend from playing 15-30 stud.
I will make the rest brief so don't worry. I played 10-20, 15-30 and 20-40 Holdem at Foxwoods. The action was great. In two separate 20-40 games the following similar hands aros. In the first game I raised UTG with poket Kings and was reraised byt the next player. The BB called and I called. The player was someone I had played with against before and I made him as solid but a little overaggressive. I had considered reraising the flop but decided to call instead. This was a mistake against this guy because I knew he was aggressive and he would make it three bets with weaker hands than my Kings.
There were blanks to the turn. I checked the flop and he bet, I called. On the turn I bet out and he raised. I called. On the River came a Queen. And I was beat! I knew it. Yet I called his river bet and he showed me pocket queens.
The last hand I played before heading home was in a different 20-40 game. I had moved down to 15-30 for a while because the first 20-40 game broke. This time I picked up KK in the BB. A mid position player raised. Aplyer that I made as average. I reraised and he capped it. I knew then that I was beat. No way this guy capps with Queens. Yet I called all the way to the river when on the River came a Queen! I called the River bet and looked at his Aces. I got up from the table, stuck a ton, and vowed never to play poker again.
Vince.
Vince,
Doesn't it seem that our need "to know" often overwhelms what we already "believe"? In poker, it's easy "to know." We simply call the final bet, and we don't have to live in doubt. In both hands, you believed you were beat, but you really didn't know you were beat. I think this explains why some of us make irrational calls, or at least why I do.
John
ps. We'll miss you now that you've given up poker.
John,
There is nothing irrational about making a call of a bet on the river with an OK hand when you think you are a huge dog to win the pot. The key is that sometimes the pot offers you even bigger odds.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
Agreed; that, too.
John
You made it home without incident, the sun came up the following day, and, if you so desired, you could travel to the ocean, listen to some Chopin, or get a bowl of great pasta at your favorite restaurant. Man does not live by poker alone. Even if he did, the man who knows when he has played badly will inevitably learn from those bad plays and be a better player for it.
Thanks Andy (sincerely).
Vince
Vince:
I haven't read the other posts but I do have two comments. First, is when I run bad the hand that seems to cause me the most trouble is, you guessed it, a pair of kings. That ace will come on the river, or the cards get bunched up below mine and I look at a straight or two pair.
Second, is that I have found it very difficult to get out of the losing troughs. It seems like losing will affect your play (and judgement) and then you have more problems. What I believe works best is to play a little tighter than you are suppose to, grind out a little money, and then gradually open up again. Sometimes it can take several weeks to get back in groove, but this is my approach.
First, is when I run bad the hand that seems to cause me the most trouble is, you guessed it, a pair of kings.
Mason, you shock me. That sounds remarkably like superstition. :-)
What I believe works best is to play a little tighter than you are suppose to, grind out a little money, and then gradually open up again.
I've heard this advice before and I try to do it. But how do you avoid the trap of playing too meakly? That seems to be what happens to me when I start to get "gun shy". Or do you mostly mean to tighten up early?
David
Kings can seem to be a nemisis, recently in a 6-12 game I was on the button with KK. UTG had limped and a couple others called. I raised then UTG reraised, and one other called. Deciding UTG probably had AA I called. Flop came Kxx UTG bet other called and I raised. Turn was another rag. UTG bet and the other folded I raised UTG reraised I reraised and since we were head to head raising was unlimited. Defying all logic UTG kept reraising until I was all in, maybe his move makes some sense I don't understand! Needless to say the river came an ace.
I think this was just a bad beat and that I would like to make this bet all day long but unfortunately in this case is was disasterous.
Wow, you sound amazingly human in this post. And I thought all along you were a computer.
Congrats!
I agree with Mason's methods of getting out of losing troughs. It true that a lot of factors can combine to hurt your results. In poker winning and losing both seem to have a tendency to be self-perpetuating to some extent.
I have also found it helpful to play lower and/or employ very strong game selection when in these troughs. WEith all this said, over the last dozen years I have experienced some incredibly long runs of truly sub-par cards, often in key pots. I now think all of the above combined with a day or two off and some explosive physical exercise can be very helpful too.
While we're at it I will relate something very unusual I have done on several occasions when it what felt like I was in the grip of a very long bad run. This will be somewhat surprising but it really worked for me, both in how I felt afterwards and in terms of my results.
I went out into the woods alone. The sense of a gripping bad run which had lasted months and could not be shaken was palpable. I was aggravated beyond belief and financially hurting. It had been simply toounbelievable for too long now.
Once away well away from anyone who could see or hear, I picked up a large stick like a baseball bat. Vividly envisioning the latest monster beat in a huge pot, I smashed it against a tree and felt it explode. The explosion coincided with a mental image of the goddam beat. I did it again. Picturing various hands as well as the entire long debilitating run I repeated this about 20 times with various deadfallen sticks and small logs I found, sometimes picturing a couple other key things in my life that were upsetting as well. When finished, I felt really better. I did it even a few last times to feel perhaps more cleansed of the palpable sense of the bad run. Logically I knew there were no spirits or anything else at work--but the run had been so long, so tiring and so brutal that I felt like an evil and malicious clinging force was jinxing me. It had been just too uncanny and unrelenting for way too long.
After this thorough venting I felt somewhat cleansed, for lack of a better word, and invigorated and refreshed by the exercise as well. I cannot actually recommend this to others because there are safety issues such as getting hit by rebounding pieces of wood or getting splintering fragments in one's eyes. Yet I have done this I think on three occasions and it worked every time. The worst of the bad run was broken, and I started winning again.
Others wishing to try something like this might wish to do something perhaps a little tamer like beating up on a heavy bag. For it to really work I believe it must be done in such a way as to be thoroughly cathartic of the frustrating emotions, etc. The above description is, overall, pretty accurate. Now you all know what a nut I really am.
Getting outdoors is a wonderful elixer, although I prefere waving a stick while there.
Mark,
And you seem so mild mannered. Hint: purchase some goggles.
John
M, your method has a very similar structure to what the late martial arts legend Bruce Lee used to do. Everytime Lee would feel negative emotions like anger, frustration, disappointment, etc., he would first amplify the negative feelings, then write down those feelings on a piece of paper as if to symbolically transfer them there. Then he would crumple the piece of paper and burn it in the fireplace. As he watched the paper turn into ashes, he would feel the negative emotions also turn to ashes along with it. In Gestalt Therapy and NLP, this is called "shifting representational systems". I do this everytime I get a major bad beat and find myself beginning to go on tilt. Step 1. I amplify the emotion (as far as tilt goes, this means anger, frustration, or disappointment). Step 2. I ask myself, How would this emotion look like if I could see it in front of me. This step shifts my representation of the emotion from kinesthetic into visual. Step 3. I see my now disassociated visual representation of this emotion get smaller and smaller as it moves away from me. This works everytime and I don't have to step out of the poker room to do it. This technique and others like it work because we do not respond directly to the world (losing streaks, bad beats, etc.), we respond to our maps (or internal representations) of the world. Change your map, change your response.
Interesting.
I do not attempt to apply it on a case by case basis, but only after something has seemed to build up to the point of being almost unbearable. It takes a long time to get me to that point.
I will think about your explanation and technique and perhaps I will find more uses for it.
x
.
I don't know if you read about my "luck" in the Orleans Open - 7 AA cracked 2 KK cracked - it would have been funny if it haden't been so tragic. In every case I managed to get heads up against another plar every time a set spiked except one when a guy flopped quad 8's.
One case a $200 NL HE tournament I had black AA and lost to a set of T's got up and went directly to a satellite and on the 1st hand picked up black AA and this is where the quad 8's showed up.
I managed to do OK in the sats so the trip wasn't a complete zero. I didn't feel to bad or on tilt as I didn't make any mistakes the run of the cards just got me - kind of the way the got you.
You'll be ok Maybe Kenish can let you drive his truck for a while. :-)
There is no failure, Vince. Only feedback. What has happened to you was not failure. It is feedback. Life goes on. Good luck and continue to enjoy.
Vince:
Youve actually come a long way realizing you were lost. I played against you once and pounded you. You left the table broke, muttering to yourself about how lucky I had been. You also tried to talk to me about leaks in my game (even though you were the one who was broke and I had all the chips). You never realized how badly you had been outplayed. At least you are starting to get some clue...
I don't remeber which of the thousand times you are referring to but let me tell you something. I don't mutter!
Vince
Vince, When I lived over an hour away it was very hard to perform at my best at FW. It is just too inconvenient. Staying overnight a few nights is either too expensive or too uncomfortable. You cannot sleep in your car and then play your best poker.
If I lived as far away as you do I would consider two options. One would be to play more online in games I felt I could beat. The other would be to rent a relatively cheap place down this way on an ongoing basis. Say less than 550/month including utilities and if it is close you can come and go as you wish. I know it is substantial overhead but so are all the other options for FW and MS when you add them up. When you add in the convenience it can't be beat. You don't ever have to feel pressured to play because you can just drive a few miles and rest and play whenever you feel like. If you want more details ask me. Just an idea you may wish to consider. I never was able to manage it all very well when I had to really commute.
You cannot be serious. Unless the players you are referring to are not doing what you THINK they are. For instance, are you a thinking player? Are you easy to beat by another thinking player? Do you not see in these two questions the fallacy in believing it is easier to beat thinking players?
Of course, it might be me.
vince
Rethink it. A bad player has no reason (or an unsophisticated reason) for what he's doing or why he's doing it. If he doesn't know what he's doing, you surely aren't a favorite to figure it out. Much of what you do will be guesswork and "playing the odds" in order to beat this opponent.
On the other hand, a thinking player has a reason for everything. If you get inside those reasons, you have more ways to win a hand. This of course is much more relevant in heads-up and 3-way action than other situations, and even more relevant in NL and PL (note also that your thinking opponents are going to fold more hands, already falling in line....)
Surely, if I fall into a perceptible pattern of how I play a particular hand, then I become easier to beat. A player who adjusts to the next higher level of thinking on each hand against each opponent has truly become a "player". If I fail to make adjustments for what players have seen me do in the past, then I become more of a target.
Someone who refuses to see that we can be outplayed because of our way of thinking cannot become a great player. Failure to see or accept that someone may have outplayed us is self-deception at its worst.
None of this is really new territory. It has been discussed in a general sense in Sklansky's "Winning Poker" and is the genesis for Brunson's "shifting gears" concept. It's why Ferguson knew he was in trouble against Cloutier.
So, yeah, to my way of thinking, about 7 thinking opponents and 1 or 2 bad ones would be the optimum game. Maybe I view it that way because of my background in the chess world, but I'm serious.
"7 thinking opponents and 1 or 2 bad ones "
It seems to me, Earl, one or 2 bad (non thinkers, I presume) players would just screw up your optimum game. After all you like 'em to think.
vince
Hehe. You know what a "foil" is, Vince?
>Outside of a few stars, thinking opponents generally are easier to beat than others<
Until I read this, I thought you knew what you are talking about. But this statement is right up there with "I'd rather play with good players." Absolutely ridiculous.
These things are usually said by low limit players who think the reason they are losing is that the other players are playing bad and getting lucky. True, sometimes you do lose for that reason, but not in the long run.
Do you play in the 10-20 at The Mirage by any chance?
See the post below Vince's. As far as the Mirage, I haven't played in Vegas since the WSOP.
What the effect of the "Kill" on $5-$10 games at Foxwoods, and what is the best strategy to employ in playing these games?. I'm looking for general ideas, and also answers to specific questions (see the end of this post).
For those of you who don't know, the kill operates like this:
The game starts at $5-$10, with a typical structure of a $5 big blind, and a $2 small blind.
If any pot equals or exceeds $100, the winner of the pot must put up a compulsory $10 live blind for the next hand. This hand is played at the $10-$20 level.
If the pot again equals or exceeds $100, then the "kill" rules continue to be applied, with the winner posting a live $10 blind, and the next hand is played at $10-$20.
The kill only ends when a pot is less than $100. When this happens the next hand is played at the $5-$10 level.
Those are the facts, here's some subjective ideas:
The "mood" of the table determines how many hands are played at the $10-$20 level. In general, somewhere between 10% and 40% of the hands are "killed" in any particular hour. Some players tend to tighten up when the round is killed, a minority tend to loosen up and become more aggressive.
I believe that the kill structure increases the already high variance that is typical of poker, especially loose low limit poker.
Questions:
1) I'm on a short bankroll - would I be better off playing $4-$8, which has no kill?
2) What kind of bankroll is appropriate for a game played with the kill?
3) What kind of strategy adjustments do I need to make when playing the kill, especially in:
a) The $10 live blind - remember you're position can be anywhere. If you are "already" the big blind, your $10 becomes the big-blind, you don't have to post $15 in total.
b) The "big blind" that is no longer big - since you have posted $5 and you must put up another $5 to call.
4) Foxwoods attempted to spread $8-$16 (without a kill) and then $6-$12 (also without a kill) but these games died - one or two fish started a petition to bring back the $5-$10 kill game. Were the fish correct to do this?
Sorry for the length of this post! - Its also been cross posted to RGP.
Caretake,
- roGER
1) I'm on a short bankroll - would I be better off playing $4-$8, which has no kill?
Probably. Unfortunately the rakes are the same, which hurts.
2) What kind of bankroll is appropriate for a game played with the kill?
Well, it's more than a 5/10 game and probably a little less than a 7.50/15 game. So maybe (15*300)=$4500 to be safe?
3) What kind of strategy adjustments do I need to make when playing the kill, especially in:
a) The $10 live blind - remember you're position can be anywhere. If you are "already" the big blind, your $10 becomes the big-blind, you don't have to post $15 in total.
Be more inclined to raise, especially in late position if no one has limped. If everyone folds to you on the button, you should probably raise with any two cards, maybe from the cut-off also. When first to act, only check when your hand "wants" a multiway pot and you are in early position, or when you are in early or early middle positon with total garbage.
Don't forget to look to your left to see who's got chips in their hands. :-)
If you are posting a kill on your BB, just play it like a normal BB.
b) The "big blind" that is no longer big - since you have posted $5 and you must put up another $5 to call.
Yup. So fold more often here. Play the big blind like a small blind. Play the small blind almost like you've got nothing in the pot at all and you are in the worst possible position (i.e. almost always fold if you can't raise).
4) Foxwoods attempted to spread $8-$16 (without a kill) and then $6-$12 (also without a kill) but these games died - one or two fish started a petition to bring back the $5-$10 kill game. Were the fish correct to do this?
I think those games died more because of the mountains of yellow chips required to play them than from anything else. They need a $4 chip, or something.
David
Just a thought - if the yellow chips are $2 it will take the same amount of chips to play 8-16 as $1 to play 4-8. Funny how some games make it and some don't I guess it depends on the regional preferences.
It also has something, I think, to do with the yellow chips themselves (they are indeed $2). Alot of players have regarded them as bad luck. They were mostly used for the drop and only rarely made it into a pot before they changed the structures.
David
Asian players don't like them is that what you are trying to say.
Does the killer act in turn or last?
It does vary from room to room. Most rooms have a 2 consecutive pot kill situation where they pot is killed when the same person wins the 2nd pot some include a min pot size fot the 2nd pot.
If you can beat the game stay in if you feel like you are not up to the limit them move back down to the 4-8. As far as bankroll I'd like to have a lite 10-20 type BR in the $2000 to $4000 range for this game.
Far as strategy - treat the blind as just another random hand like the blinds - if they act in turn you have an advantage if they act last then you have to be a bit more careful since another is acting behind you.
I personally like the idea of kills - many players are comfortable with their "limit" and find it a little harder to play at the higher limit. Thus giving you a leverage on bluffing if you are so inclined. Play tight aggressive and don't check to much - check raises have a lot more impact in this game so keep that in mind.
Look at it an an opportunity and not a penality.
I just hate kills when I have the blind but those are the breaks.
Hope this helped.
You act in turn.
If your bankroll really is short then a move to 4-8 might be a good idea. I play in the 5-10 game at foxwoods alomst every weekend and I feel like it is a pretty soft game. My standard deviation is almost 14 BB's per hour though so you can see some swings (this is based on about 100 hours of play). The nice part about the kill is that you get those same players but at a 10-20 betting level on kill pots.
Sometimes you can get a table that just has kill after kill and it can play at the 10-20 level for hours. When this happens you just need to tighten up a little as most players are still playing weak hands, and when you win you take down huge pots.
Rob
p.s. Are you the English Roger? If you are, I'm the young guy from boston who kept raising your blinds from the button the first time we played together.
Hello Rob,
Thanks for your thoughts.
Yup, I'm "English Rog" currently playing like "English Tuna."
See you down there soon...
- roGER
Hi Roger,
I've spent some time thinking about the questions you asked. First, I don't recommend dropping down into most of the 4-8 games. The tighter, more easily readable players players have taken to playing 2-4, and the 4-8, especially for weekend play, is often populated by maniacs.
Pre-flop play becomes more important with the kill, I think. Consider your position carefully, and make sure you have a good read on the blinds. Often, you can steal the blinds and the kill, so you must raise with those hands you intend to play. Your observation about the general "mood" of the table is accurate here. Take what you can from the tight tables when you can get it. Loosen up a bit on looser tables, but not too much.
When you have a good hand, and you're up front with the kill, raise. The 5-10 players will have trouble calling for twenty, and if they do, you will usually have a good read on their hands. If you're reraised, you'll have a very good read. Make sure you have the odds for drawing hands; if not, fold.
Keep in mind, though, that you're not playing no limit. The bad players will call with marginal hands; you won't win many bluffs, even with the higher structure, so you'll still have to show down the best hand.
Overall, though, review carefully your choice of starting hands and from which position you play those hands.
John
You will need more money to play in a "kill". If you are on a short bankroll, or are used to playing the normal game, you may consider dropping down to a lower limit game. I think "kills" in a game, hurt the individual player, and help the house. But, my view is shot-down, by everyone who hears it. I played in kill games for a few months. I won't play in them again.
Greetings:
Alright, given the fact this is the twoplustwo website and also given the fact I am the proud owner and user of Malmuth and Sklansky's Advanced Hold'em and Advanced 7CS manuals, I shall dare to ask the following blasphemous(?) question because I am really in the stage of honing and understanding the wheres and whys of holdem?
Here's the question:
In your opinion, given the starting hands that are found in groups 1-8 of the hand rankings section we are all very familiar with, which hands do you personally think S&M have either overrated or underrated and what changes would you make? This very well could be splitting hairs, but I'm really starting to understand position, and, the dynamics and characteristics of each starting hand and each KIND of starting hand?
Alright, What do you think? Changes, if any?
JPN
I don't think we have under or overrated anything. But I do think that you haven't really read what we have written. For instance on page 17 of HPFAP-21 we say:
"However, we want to state that by the time you reach expert status you shouldn't be thinking in terms of hand groups. At this point in your playing career your starting hand decisions should be based on the intrinsic value of each hand in each particular situation. But if you are just getting started playing, we know of no better approach."
In fact if you read the starting hand chapters in our book you will see that we give many examples that show how the starting hands actually moves up and down the hand ranking. For instance, JTs is ranked higher than KTs but if everyone has passed and you are on the button you would probably prefer the KTs. Now you may win (with the KTs) without improving where the other hand would not.
To reach expert status at hold 'em, you will need to think in this matter.
Malmuth wrote "To reach expert status at hold 'em, you will need to think in this matter. "
Yes- to reach expert status at hold'em, one needs to think for oneself and adjust according to the game. Reading and learning is great, but if one cannot adjust and adapt, one can not attain expert status at anything, not just hold'em.
Let’s not again bring to life the ghost of this old dead horse.
If you check the archives, you’ll find it beaten to death.
Everything’s a situation and a two edge sword, and, while one side might be sharper than the other, the dealer does not ask you if you’d like to trade in JTs for KTs.
Oswald Jacoby once said that bridge tournaments were won by bad bidding and good play.
How you play on the Flop, Turn, and River are way more important.
I think the suited verson of the off suit hands is over valued by a full group - while a bit more valuable the suited hands are not 2 groups more valuable and I also think the JJ and TT belong down a group or two.
It is a good "guide" for hand values but since all of poker is situational you have to be flexible in your use of it.
I don't think you are going to get hurt much by forgetting about KT,JT,T9s in any position, especially in a loose game with lots of callersw. Soneone will come up with a better hand most of the time. Regards, Dave
109s plays best with many callers, so what are you talking about.
What about two aces, won't someone come up with a better hand (on the river) most of the time in a loose game. This logic has a hole in it.
I think his logic would apply to beginners who would have trouble getting away from the hands he mentioned whey they flop a pair with a rotten kicker.
Yes, Aces are very hard to get away from also, but I think they hold up better than the hands he mentioned.
As far as changes in the starting hand rankings, the only changes that are really relevant are changes related to the game you are playing in and whether each hand has value in a particular situation. In loose games, a suited connector ranked group 7 might actually have more value in a particular situation than offsuited high cards ranked group 5 or 4. I could think up more examples of this type, but it's all relative. The exact ranking of the hands is pretty much irrelevant once you start thinking about the game in terms of current lineup, game conditions, and the way each hand plays in relation to these two things.
Dave in Cali
The S&M tables assume a game that is quite tight by California standards. It'd be interesting, for example, for S&M to publish follow-up "starting point" tables for, e.g., 8-9 handed games with 4-5 expected callers and a 65% chance of a raise (that's 20-40 hold-em in parts of California) and the dreaded low-limit 7 callers with a 30% chance of a raise and way too much calling after the flop. The relative value of medium pairs suffers; suited aces become slightly better if you can fold them when an ace hits; suited connectors go way up, suited kings become playable, etc, etc.
How about that for the next Card Player?
You have to learn to look at starting hands with the big picture in mind. They are just one factor along with position, number(type) of players already in, number(type) of players behind you, implied odds, etc. Starting hands do not exist in isolation.
S & M starting hands are a work in progress despite all you hear. It is also the best place from which to begin.
My own reasearch in the loose holdem games of the left coast suggest that generally tightening up is best for me. I won't be found with 86s outside the blinds very often and I won't be found with 43s ever. I routinely toss JT and T9 even when S & M conditions suggest it's correct. My best guess is that many of these hands only churn your bankroll and in the games with clueless opponents there is no need to impress them with the wide range of hands you'll gamble with.
-Fred-
I'm going to be in San Diego from Sunday thru Thursday (5th-9th). Jim Brier commented in a previous post that San Diego had middle limit games. Where are they located and what are the best times to play?
Also, I've noticed RGP mentioned as another poker forum site. If this true, what is the URL? I can't find it. Thanks in advance.
Jamie
jamie,
Check out the Exchange (Other Topics) sub-forum. There is a recent thread regarding Ocean’s 11. They are about an hours north of downtown San Diego in Oceanside.
RGP is short for rec.gambling.poker. It is not a website but a newsgroup. You can access it (and thousands of other newsgroups) using most email programs such as MS Outlook Express. I recommend the specialized program Forte Free Agent (Email me and I’ll send you the URL for the download if you want).
That being said, you can access and write to the newsgroup from the web using www.deja.com. There may be another site that works in a similar manner. There is also a link from the 2+2 home page. I just checked it out and it defaults to my normal mail reader (Outlook Express) and downloaded the last 1000 messages. I had used Outlook Express before for newsgroup access so it was already set up on my machine. But I like Forte Free Agent a lot better.
Regards,
Rick
there looks to be an error here, tell me if you think it's an error too:
http://www.planetpoker.com/mcu/mc_statistictables.htm
it's a listing of poker odds, for the HOLD EM LONG SHOT lists,
for 98s the odds of a straight flush on the flop are 9799 to 1 for 97s, it's 19,599 to 1 for 96s it's 70.5 to 1 for 95s it's 270,724 to 1
do you see any reason why 96s would be better?
Might explain why so many people play Big Lick!:)
What type of kill game structure do folks out there prefer?
I've played in two types of kill games:
Type 1: The type described by Roger in the thread below. You become the killer when you win a pot of a certain amount or more. I believe in Roger's example the stakes are 5-10 and you must post a $10 kill after winning a pot of $100 or more.
Type 2: You become the killer after winning two pots in a row of any size. For example, in a 3- 6 game hand 1 you win a $90 pot, hand 2 you win a $30 pot, then for hand 3 you must post a $6 kill.
I GREATLY prefer type 2 kill games. In this type of game if I win a pot, I have the option, which I usually take, of tightening up so as to avoid having to kill after winning 2 in a row. Exceptions might be if I'll be the button or the BB for my kill. However, in general I think any advantage one might gain from posting a kill is miniscule compared to the cost.
I DISLIKE type 1 kill games. I feel that this structure offers much less control to thinking players. If you are playing a 5-10 game, and have to post a $10 kill every time you win a $100 pot or more, how much of this $10 kill can you expect to recoup over the long run? I haven't played in this type of game enough to offer any definitive evidence, but I'm guessing that you'd be doing well if you recovered an average of $5 every time you played a hand where you were the $10 killer over the long run. If you lose money as the killer over the long run, isn't the kill's effect similar to that of an additional rake? Or am I missing something here? My feeling is that this type of kill definitely makes the game less profitable.
I realize that there are some mitigating factors that make the type 1 kill game Roger described more attractive, e.g., soft lineups, weak players forced to deal w/the higher kill stakes, etc. However, I wonder if this is enought to offset what I view as the devastating effect of this type of kill.
Any opinions appreciated.
Thanks, Caddy
I like 2 also BUT don't risk losing the pot cuz you are trying to manipulate the pot under the kill amount.
Play your BEST and I think you will be better off.
What about these "revisions" to preflop hand ranks?
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker/
Will you hold forth? Perhaps this research has already been lauded and vilified (if so point me in the right direction)
Bill
It's been villified by Mason Malmuth and others. You can painfully search the archives here, or go to www.deja.com/usenet and search rec.gambling.poker.
I give the paper cautious lauding in certain aspects, like its (re)discovery of what I call the roller coaster effect: something like AKs > KQs > QJs > JTs > 76s > 87s > T9s > 65s > 98s > 54s > 43s > 32s, in certain circumstances. You can observe this effect in the full-fledged simulations of Turbo Texas Hold'em.
What bugs me is that the simulations done by the paper are very ad hoc, definitely not simulations of real game play. The author adopts an unjustified authoritative tone, insisting that whenever there is a difference between his rankings and Sklansky's, that the former are correct and the latter are incorrect. If the author had been more humble and cautious, his work probably would have been better received.
The paper is good "food for thought" reading, just don't buy into the absoluteness in the author's tone.
-Abdul
By the way, whenever there is a difference between my rankings and that paper's or Sklansky's, mine are correct. :)
-Abdul
Hey Ababdaba. Speaking of your ideas being correct, have you read Roy Cooke's column in the latest Card Player?
This question comes up every now and then. Here were my detailed comments on the report.
Comments on the Taylor Starting Hand Report
As promised, here are my comments on "The New Guide to Starting Hands" by Dick Taylor. As you will see there are many errors in his assumptions that lead to many errors in his advice. The comments follow below. (This will also probably be posted permanently in our essay area in the hopes that this confusion will not happen again)
1. The only decisions that players make are to play or fold. Their decisions do not seem to be impacted by betting or pot size. This will have the effect of over-valuing medium high cards such as KJ and KT (and QJ, QT, etc.) and under-valuing connecting hands (especially) suited connectors and small pairs.
2. Hands are played based on favorable odds of finishing with the best hand. How large a pot or how many bets you can lose is not considered. This will have the effect of over-valuing hands like KJ and KJ, which can easily make second best hands.
3. If a player does not yet have any information, that is no one has yet acted, he assumes that a certain number of small bets are in the pot. That is, raising is discounted. Again this has the effect of over-valuing hands like KJ and KT.
4. Pot odds are considered only, not in conjunction with the number of players. That is, whether the previous players have raised or called is not considered. This means that hands like KJ which can easily make second best hands are over-valued because the amount of punishment they sometimes take is not represented.
5. After the flop, players only continue when they have either a made hand or a one card draw to a straight or flush. This reduces the value of hands like AK and AQ, especially if they are suited. (Two overcards with a three flush is frequently a hand you should play.) In other words, hands that have some additional semi-bluffing value, or that may still be best, especially short-handed, are ignored.
6. Position is ignored. "Although playing position is generally thought to be the most important factor in selection of starting hands in hold 'em, it is not particularly important to the conclusions we've drawn here." Thus hands like KT which are particularly vulnerable to pressure by players acting later are elevated.
7. The broad spectrum of hold 'em table condition is not covered, even though claims to the contrary are made. The reason for this is that the betting action is not considered. Only a vague notion of the number of players in the pot.
8. Aggression seems to only be thought of in terms of winning the pot. The idea of occasionally building a big pot and then enticing others to continue when you get a favorable flop is ignored. This will have the effect of lowering the value of suited hands, especially suited connectors and small pairs.
9. Taylor states that in a very tight game that AA and KK are the only starting hands that you should raise for value. This conclusion is probably a function of the idea that players only make play or fold decisions regardless of the previous action. This is obviously not the case.
10. The conclusions about hand sensitivity to the number of players in the pot does not take into account size of the pot and the number of additional bets a hand may win or lose on the later streets. For example, on the river a hand like KK becomes more of a payoff hand in a large multi-way pot, but it tends to collect additional bets when played short-handed.
11. Hands like AQs do better in multi-way pots than Taylor gives them credit for because of additional bets that they can collect before they complete their hand. For example, in most situations, if you flop a flush draw with one of these hands you want to raise many opponents. In the Taylor play/fold criterion, this is not represented.
12. Taylor points out that hands like AQs and KQs "are particularly vulnerable to heavy multi-way action, the kind that increases the likelihood of 6 or more foes playing to a showdown." Again he fails to recognize that they occasionally will win a giant pot.
13. In the recommendation to play KTs up front in tough games instead of JTs, Taylor does not account for the fact that KTs can more easily make a second best hand (by flopping top pair with a king) and fails to account for the type of pressure that tough players can put on this hand.
14. Size of blinds and betting structure is not accounted for. For example, in today's modern two blind structure, as compared to the old one blind structure where the "one" blind was half the size of today's big blind, the value of suited hands, particularly suited connectors has gone up.
15. When advice is given on which hands to play, position and other players betting action is ignored. For example, Taylor's Professional Play List has you playing the top 24% of all starting hands. While there are spots where it can be correct to play more hands than this (see HPFAP), routinely calling raises with most of these hands is suicide.
16. In The Savvy Gambler's Play List Taylor points out that 22 and 33 are never worth playing. He fails to realize that these are hands which if you do not flop a set, you usually immediately fold without having it cost you very much. But when you flop a set they are highly profitable. Thus they should be rated higher than their winning percentage indicates.
17. Taylor doesn't understand that when you hit the flop with a flush draw you may be charged many best for the privilege of trying to make your flush. (Compare this to flopping a small set where you will now do the charging.) Thus, hands like Kxs are over-valued.
Conclusion: In my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics, I have a lengthy discussion on what I call non-self weighting strategies. It is shown that in virtually all gambling situations where a positive expectation can be achieved, a non-self weighting approach is far superior to a self-weighting approach. This is exactly Taylor's problem. By using a self-weighting approach where size of pots, additional bets gained or lost, pressure by late position players, ability to semi-bluff, etc. is not considered he has come to conclusions that do not benefit those readers that he is trying to help.
1. How long does it take to become good enough to make a living playing poker? 2. Must you play the higher limits to make any real money? (say more than $3000 a month)
I've been playing poker for just over a year. I lost considerably over the first 8 months and have now begun to break-even and pull a little ahead. I've read every available book on the subject practically and play about 15-20 hours a week. Any comments suggestions. Any pros out there, how long before you transitioned to full time?
MM
When you're ready, you'll know. Keep your day job until then.
one, you need to play at least 40 hours a week and most pros play 50 or more as its the game they love. to make a decent living you need to play at least 10 20 in good games.then maybe you can make 25000 to 50000 a year assuming you are a really good player.(note that every person that plays thinks they are a really good player). if the games are not too good then you must play much higher to earn a living. i guess it also depends on what is a "living". the smart people keep their jobs and earn some on the side until they are sure that poker is the life they want. i say alot that poker is a stepping stone to bigger things. by that i mean you can use those skills to find additional ways to make money and use it to get rich. good luck.
OK, thanks Mr. Zee. Same question but tournaments instead. What is your feeling on roaming the casinos of a given state playing in tournaments and assuming you're a good-great tournament player? I have had good success with tournaments but don't know if any established gamblers work soley on these. Thanks for the response.
MM
you dont get enough hours in tournament play so i believe that unless you play in high stakes ones, side games provide better results. of course one should play where they believe they have the best expectation. ive played both and done well in both and like side games better.
Please provide us some examples of "bigger things". Other than publishing, or building casino's.
Thanks
on-line alternative to make ok $...about 20/hr. I play 3/6 online at three tables at once - two at Paradise and one at Planet. Advantage - soft games, disadvantage - soft head after a couple hours. Absolute limit is three hours I find. Scharf in Saskatoon is the only other player trying this as far as I know.
Also, I highly recommend you accumulate at least one year's income (two would be better) in addition to bankroll. You can get off to an auspicious start, cruise for half a year, then run cold for months. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
I also like Ray's mention of poker as a stepping stone to other areas. To be successful at poker you must have other elements in your life to keep sharp at the tables.
I've been to Card Player's web page and I see that they post a lot of the regular articles from their magazine on the web page. But I notice that they do not post Roy Cooke's article. Can anyone tell me if Roy Cooke's articles appear online anywhere (if so please provide the URL)? If they are on Card Player's site let me know where because I haven't been able to find them.
The situation:
Let´s assume that I´m on a flush draw (9 clean outs), that it´s the turn, and that I´ve got implied odds that would allow me to cold-call 2 bets but not 3. A player to my left (L) bets out, a player to my right (R) makes it two bets, the action gets to me and I´m very sure that the original bettor is going to make it 3 bets.
The question:
Can I call the raise from R and afterwards the reraise from R/the rereraise from L knowing that I get the proper odds each time, or should I make concessions (i.e. discard) knowing that it´s going to cost me 3 or 4 bets to see the river?
Thanks.
its really a simple decision. you need to know your chances of winning(chances of hitting minus chances of hitting and still losing). say in your case its about 15 to 20%. then the average amount you think you will put in the pot in this spot. in your case about 3.5 bets. then add up the amount in the pot plus what you will win after the betting on the end minus what you will lose those times you are beaten and payoff and you are all set. for most spots you can just approximate your chances and the final size of the pot and make a close guess.
Ray I don´t want to offend you, but - while this is most certainly good advice on how to proceed generally - I feel that this doesn´t answer my question.
I mentioned "clean outs", implying that when I hit my hand I will win the pot almost always.
I also mentioned "implied odds", meaning that I had my opponents´ bets on river already added to my potential winning.
All I want to know is call - yes or no and why yes or no for this specific example.
Again I´m sorry if I didn´t get something or if this may be sounding arrogant, but sometimes the advice given is not the advice sought on this forum, and while I´m glad that Ray answered and I´ll try too heed his advice (just as I´m glad for any other feedback), this is something I have been wanting to point out for some time with the hopes that answers in general will get more question-specific. Just my two cents anyway.
You say you are taking into account how much was in the pot and what you expected at end, but in order to calculate all, its necessary to know those amounts.
So,assume 10/20 HE and before flop, 4 players in,raised once and called = $80 total pot
After flop, assume 3 players raised once (3 x 20 = $60 more) $140 total pot.
If you call on the turn and it's capped, (3 x 80 = $240) $380 total pot.
Assume that you make your hand and there is one bet and call and you raise and get one call. (20 + 20 + 40 +20) $100 more, total pot $480.
You invested 20,20,80,40 = 160 for profit of $320.
At time of turn, 6 cards known, yours and flop + turn, so 46 cards out, your chances for flush are 9/46
9 time you win net 9x320 = 2,880
37 times you lose 160 = 5,920
I can leave it to others to state in odds, or consider other factor, but above does not look good. Howver, if there are more players, more betting early, or more bets on end, then may differ. You can see from above that pots would have to be over twice as big just to break even, if all of your costs stayed the same.
The way you asked the question is from a point in the action. You want a simple rule. But, it really depends on the size of the pot then, and what you expect it to be if you make your flush.
I am not a math person. It seems to me that one view would be to estimate percent of increase in the pot by the amount of isolated river action, over the amount in at the end of turn action. For example, if the turn action had $300 and the river action will add $100, someone can figure out if a certain cost to you has positive EV. It seem to me that the only way it can be positive has more to do with the total amount in the pot through the river being very large.
From a gut level reaction, a monster pot usually offers good return for making a winning flush on the end. However, most monster pots occur before the river, not after. So the less the size of the pot by the river, the less EV for staying.
I think a math person might come up with a rule of thumb, based on estimating the size of the pot at the end of the turn,then at the end, with a 9/46 win potential. ? ? ? I can't think of an easy way to make a rule.
Ok, I don't think you can consider the bets that you have put into the pot previous to the point that he is at in the hand.
You calculate the final pot size to be 480, and his investment to be 120 for a net profit of 360. But you can not count his previous bets because some of the time he would have hit his draw on the flop and sometimes on the turn. In poker each decision must be looked at individually to assess if it has a +ve expectaion or not. In this case Greg is trying to figure out if his turn call is correct or not. His previous input to the pot helps create a certain pot size but you don't include this when you calculate what it costs him. He has already lost that money, now he is trying to figure out if it is correct to gain it back (plus gaining the other people bets as well).
then take the bets you have to put in and divide them into the total bets you will win and if that result is higher than your chances of winning call. i cant make it any simpler. oh by the way i think thats what i said above. if you had read my post and proceeded to follow what i wrote you would get your answer with the addition of some grade school math. also i try to give answers that everyone can use as im not getting paid to teach individuals here. mason refuses to give me the millions im worth. thanks.
I see. This reminds me of the hand rankings - useful for beginners but no longer of interest to someone with experience.
If a beginner walks up to you and asks you which hands are "best", ít will probably be too much for him if you start explaining the intrinsic values of hands in general, he just wants to know the hand rankings for now.
It´s the same with me - I don´t have that much experience so if you give me an explanation of how it should be done in the end, it will not be of much use to me at the moment when my understanding is not as developed, when a simpler and less accurate explanation would have been more helpful, although it will certainly be better for the forum in general, something I didn´t think of before, so don´t take it personal if I didn´t feel that I got the "proper" answer, ok?
give a man a fish and you feed him for the day. teach him to fish and he can feed himself forever.
this is simple stuff if you work a few examples. try it Greg and you will get the hand of it and it will be second nature when you play from then on. good luck.
Greg weote: I mentioned "clean outs", implying that when I hit my hand I will win the pot almost always.
This seems like an almost silly question then since the times it will occur are almost nil. In a pot that is going to be four bet on the turn in almost all cases someone has a set or top two pair... so several of your outs are not clean. The only case I can think of is that both of your opponents have the same nut str8.
That said if the case did occur you need to take into account how much total money you are putting in the pot when determining your poy odds. So if there is $100 in the and you have to call $20 and expect to have to call another $20 then you do not have odds to call (unless you expect insane action on the river if you hit.
Sean
Ok. You wrote: "Can I call the raise from R and afterwards the reraise from R/the rereraise from L knowing that I get the proper odds each time, or should I make concessions (i.e. discard) knowing that it´s going to cost me 3 or 4 bets to see the river?"
You have 9 clean outs and you want to know if you can call each bet independently or if you have to consider the sum total of the cost on that round vs. the total reward. The answer, according to David Sklansky in the Theory of Poker, is that you must consider the total cost for you to get involved (by cold calling the first double bet you are getting involved) vs. the amount of reward you intend to gain. So you would have to weigh the total gain of the final pot vs. your total cost on the turn (3 or 4 bets in your case). Here is an example.
You have 9 outs. Odds against hitting on the river is 4.11:1 against. You stated that you have effective odds (pot odds plus implied odds) to cold call 2 bets but not 3. Thus, let P = Pot size and I = total of bets to gain in the future, then by your definition 2 <= P + I <= 3 (where all bets are in units of big bets).
If P = 4 then you can cold call two bets if you don't expect to get raised and you can expect to get called on the end. Here is why. L bets, R raises, you look at L and know that he will not reraise. I = 4 (plus any action on the river. We will assume that both opponents call if the flush hits, therefore I = 6 in total). Therefore, P+I = 4+6 = 10. Your effective odds are 10:2 which reduces to 5:1, which is greater than 4.11:1 so you can call with +ve expectation in this case.
If P = 4 then you can not call if you think it will cost you 3 or 4 bets. Here is why. L bets, R raises, you look at L and know he will reraise but that R will only call the reraise, he will not cap it. On the river both opponents will pay you off if the flush comes. Therefore I = 2*3+2 = 8. And P+I = 12. Your effective odds are 12:3 which reduces to 4:1 which is less than 4.11:1 which means that this call results in -ve expectation. You lose in this case. You will lose even more if R makes it 4 bets.
I hope this answers your question.
My problem with this stuff has always been this. Let's say you think it will be four bets on the turn, L bets, R raises, you do the math and believe that L will pop it one more time as will R, so you fold. As it actually turns out you didn't read the situation properly, L calls R's raise, you would have hit your flush and for a a fraction of a bet over the long run you lost a sizable pot.
I would think it would be safer to expect that you can be more worng about guessing betting actions than the difference between 4:1 and 4.11:1. You have the nut flush draw, call the bet and take your chances on that rather than on knowing what your opps will do 2 minutes from now.
You can certainly call twice if you want to.
Never-the-less, mathematically it costs you 3 bets to see the river. Your EV doesn't change if you put that 3 bets in one at a time or all at once.
Fold.
Now if the better is going to 3-bet only half the time, your expected cost is 2.5 bets. But if the 2-better is going to 4-bet half the time then your expected cost is 2.75 bets. Use these figures in your odds-formula for determing if you should call the first 2-bet.
- Louie
Thank you Louie (but of course to all to others), this is exactly the sort of answer I appreciate: short, precise, and to the point. (See also my thread between me and Ray to know what I mean)
Played in my first tourney ever last week. It was unlimited rebuy, $100 entry, $50 rebuy(if under 500)gets 1500 in chips both ways, wih a bonus rebuy for $50 of $4000 in chips at break after 60 minutes. Blinds and limits double after every 15 minutes starting at 25-50, 50-100, and thre was one . With about 15 minutes left to go at an 11 person table, and blinds about to hit me at 200-400, i had $625 in chips remaining. I was dealt crap for my BB, but got KK on my SB. I folded it, figuring i could skate until the rebuy with my single $25 chip, which I did, (barely). It's not that I wasn't in a financial position to rebuy, I just figured that if i waited 15 minutes more, i would get over double the chips for the same $$$, but now i wonder if maybe i should have rebought after first bb hit me to take proper advantage of any good cards that came along, like, i don't know, KK. Also, there were other people in that were below $500 at the break, who did a double rebuy, therefore bein able to get a 1500 chip and 4000 chip rebuy for $50 each. Now, i declined this, as it seems obvious the diminishing return, but am wondering if there is any real merit to this other than firing every bullet in the chamber. A simultaneous rebuy of this sort is not covered in Sylvester Suzuki's tourney book, but this seems to be similar to his advice on waiting for higher progressive rebuys to hit.
The rebuys have a face value greater than the original buy-in; which means its almost always correct to rebuy. A single rebuy will NOT reduce the value of that last $4000 add on.
I am reasonably confident the following is very good advice for THIS tournament: Always rebuy. Always add-on unless you have a commanding lead.
Figure this to be a $250-$300 tournament.
- Louie
Playing at the Commerce today, 20-40 hold 'em, I held 99 on the button. Two people limped in and I just called. Small blind called and big blind checked. Flop comes KJ9 rainbow, 1 spade. Everyone checks to me and before I can bet the dealer burns and turns the last 9. Both I and another player point out to the dealer his mistake and the floorman is called. He has us complete the action on the flop, so I bet and both limpers call. Then he has the dealer burn and turn another card, with the 9 held to the side. The turn card is the 4 of spades. I bet and both players call. Then he has the dealer put the 9 back in the deck, reshuffle, and then put out the river card without burning. It is the ten of spades. 1st player bets, 2nd player raises, I fold by crumpling up my cards and I don't see the hands they have.
I immediately talked to the floorman and he showed me that his ruling was indeed correct according to the rulebook used so I said I wanted to speak to the manager. The manager came over and I explained to her why the rule was so terrible. Incase you can't figure it out, it's because on the turn we are essentially playing with an incomplete deck which happens to be missing my nut card. I think that the card should be reshuffled into the deck on fourth street and played from there without burning a turn card (one is already burned). That way the integrity of the deck is upheld and I have another chance at getting the 9 on both 4th and 5th street like I should. Apparently the rule is created because it is of vital importance Of course, nothing got changed. I'd like to point out that I crumpled my cards not because the 9 was put up and then taken away but because the ruling was so bogus and it that pissed me off.
To top it all off I asked if they had a rule book available for my own use but they don't! A major casino doesn't have the rules available for the players to read. What's up with that?
You must be a very inexperienced player. This situation was handled correctly, and in the same way it would have been done at any other cardroom in the country.
Perhaps the point of my post is misunderstood. The rule is bad. I don't care if every cardroom in the world has that rule, it's still bad. To think that it's more important for the unknown river card to be the same as it would have been than for the integrity of the deck to be maintained is absurd. I don't care about having to take the turn card back, but it should be shuffled into the deck and another turn card should be put up that could possibly be a nine.
Inexperienced I'm not. I just think that this rule should be changed for the benefit of the players. If you can provide a reasonable explanation as to why it should be like it is, tell me.
It's pretty obvious from your posts that you were not expecting this ruling, and that you do not recognize this as the regular way of handling this situation. It is ulikely that you have been playing very long if you have not encountered this situation many times before.
Brett,
I don't see how Robin's surprise at the ruling and the presumed lack of experience detracts from his argument.
Tommy
So you think Robin is inexperienced also :oD?
Robin's post makes it sound like this was a bad ruling at the Commerce. It wasn't. It was the same ruling that would have been made anywhere else.
If this post had been made as an appeal to change the rule, that would be different. Instead, it came off as a big whine about losing a pot.
I agree that it came off as a big whine. That was my reaction too. The whining made it nearly impossible for me to glean whatever legitimate commentary existed.
But the subsequent discussion, particularly the post by ZEN, was potentially contructive and well thought out. So I still don't still the relevance of the initial post or it's tone to the rule itself.
Tommy
Rereading my post I realise that both of you are correct; it does come off as a big whine. What happened is that I was surprised at the ruling but as soon as he showed me the rule I wasn't mad about the ruling anymore, but about the rule. I've played over 1k hours of hold 'em but I've never seen this rule before. From my experience, the card is immediately reshuffled into the deck. I've never had this come up at the Commerce in 3-400 hours of play there so that's why I was surprised.
Sorry about the whining tone.
You are inexperienced at HE - but do us all a favor don't destroy cards OK - does nothhing for you or the game.
BTW - I have used this rule to my advantage.
In a wild contest at Soaring Eagle - some inexperienced guy put in to many chips on the river in a 2 bet pot. Dealer burned and turned I said pot was raised - player tried to take back his "mistake" I called the floor and the 3rd spade was taken up a J hit giving me J's full of T's then the spade fell on the river for a fun time to be had by all.
KNOW the rules and you will be a better player for it.
You may not know this, but not all card rooms have this stupid rule. In addition, the Crappy Commerce doesn't provide a rulebook for players. Finally, knowing or not knowing the rule made no difference in the play of the hand and doesn't change the fact that the rule is bad.
I only read the original post but if you saw the 9 card on the turn why would you say ,"oh i missed my chance to bet." I d quickly say, ,"oh no i said check." or maybe its "ok... and let the action continue," you are the only one who could "object" to the situation and the other guy should (or has no business) saying anytyhing.
The ohter guy pbly didn't like the 9 or is just a rule junkie....
Ill read the toher posts...
This seems to be the standard ruling. I've seen it enforsed many times in Las Vegas. I'm not condoning it's effectiveness, only confirming there was nothing unusual about the way things were handled. The last time I saw this was in a tournament to a set of 6's which lost as well to runner runner flush and everyone all in. Tough breaks !
...and I'll bet they considered giving you a 20 minute penalty too.
-Fred- ... only once in the penalty box.
It's a great rule, and it makes 100% sense. You are clearly clouded by what happened to you.
I have seen articles in Card Player over the years about this rule with conflicting thoughts. This may seem a lengthy explanation of my thoughts but here goes:
The dealer exposes the turn card before flop action is complete.
In most clubs the rule is that the exposed card is set aside face up, action on the three flop cards is allowed to be competed. The dealer burns and plays a new turn card. Since the deck has remained undisturbed, the new turn would have been the river card. Action is completed for the turn. Then the dealer places the exposed card into the remaining deck to be shuffled. With no burn, (there was a burn when the exposed card was turned) a new river card is dealt.
Some people feel that since the exposed card was placed back into the deck, it had its one chance to be played. This rule also seems to have an objective about preserving the sequence of the deck in order to allow the original river card to become played.
Before going further with my comments as to why I disagree, the rule I prefer is:
"Immediately place the exposed card back into the remaining deck and shuffle. Allow action for the flop to be completed. Deal the top card as the new turn without a burn (there was a burn). Compete remaining action and deal burn and river as normal. This rule does not retain the original river, but it clearly allows two chances (turn and river) for all live remaining cards."
The following points are made about the rule I disagree with:
1. Under the current rule, we allow a live card to be removed from play. It is entirely removed and the turn is allowed to occur without the exposed card having two chances for play. In all of poker, how can we ever justify removing a card that is still to be played from live play?
2. When the exposed card is removed from play, it provides information to all players that otherwise should not become knowledge until after the turn and river.
3. When the error occurs during flop action, betting is at the single unit level. Many players are affected by single unit action in their decision to fold, call, or raise. They know that there are only two more cards to possibly improve their hand and betting will double. Seeing an exposed card before the turn, and knowing that it will be kept out of play UNTIL the river, effects all players UNequally, because each player holds different cards. It also effects the uncompleted flop action. The knowledge gained can be plus or minus but one thing is clear, the exposed card will NOT become the new turn card. It has NO CHANCE to be dealt on the turn. It has been temporarily removed from play.
4. Consider several common situations about WHEN this dealer mistake is made: a) It has been checked and a player has not yet acted. b) It has been bet and a player has not folded, called, or raised. c) A player has raised but the dealer missed it. d) Action was being checked and a player bet but it was not recognized.
In some of the above, there can be even more than one player not yet checking, folding, calling, or raising. If the mistake involves an unobserved bet or raise, then all other players have not completed their action to call or reraise. That bet or raise or other preceding action REMAINS, but under the current rule all players with pending action now know that the exposed card is absolutely going to be removed for the turn and no other player holds that card. They know this while they are in the midst of flop action yet to be competed. It is simply wrong to know that a live card will be removed at this stage of pending action.
Some may feel that by preserving the river and making it it the turn card, it leaves the exposed card with a chance to be dealt when it is later reinserted and that preserves fairness. I disagree. What is key is that the exposed card has absolutely has no chance to appear on the turn. In many instances future action does not even proceed to the river, which makes it mostly a mute point about preserving the river card.
5. How can a live card be removed from the deck at the turn? This is absolutely not justifiable in poker. Consider that if for some reason, just before the flop, a card popped out of the deck, and the dealer announced that the flop would be completed without the exposed card, but after the flop it would be reinserted and shuffled, I am convinced that players would object. Not only is the card removed from a chance to be played, the knowledge effects players differently.
6. A classic situation in the current rule would be when an Ace is exposed that otherwise would pair the board. Knowing that the ace is removed, although it will have a chance on the river (it has a very limited chance of returning) is valuable information. It is absolutely certain the no other player holds that Ace. Perhaps the Ace is of a needed suit and at the single unit stage the turn was worth seeing until the exposed card was of the desired suit and it is removed from the turn. Or reverse, there are two or three of that suit but a third is now removed from play on the turn. Or, it’s the Ace of the suit you hold (4 flush)and you hold the King. If you make your flush it is the nut flush. Any other player cannot hold the exposed Ace and if it appears on the river, you still have the nuts.
7. Why is so much importance placed on preserving the original river card? If one wants to view fate and chance as if it is a necessary part of poker, then I suppose that the deck should remain undisturbed as much as possible because its order has been cast in fate. That is the only apparent reason to preserve the river card. Fine, but in doing so to preserve that effect, one has coupled with it the permitted removing of a live card from play for the turn, and doing so before action on the flop has been complete. Preserving fate does not outweigh violation of basic poker. Removing a known card from the next round of play at a point where action is still pending before the flop is inexcusable.
8. Bear in mind the point at which this occurs during the flop. There are actually three events pending. Action is still uncompleted for the flop, turn action, and river action. At the single bet unit stage, one or more players will be able to take action at this level; call when they otherwise would not, check, raise, etc. influenced by the knowledge gained by the exposed card when orignal bettors did not have that knowledge. That card is not held by any player, and it has no chance to appear on the turn.
9. Most everyone has seen a wheel of fortune with pegs. Suppose you could make one bet but it could remain for two spins. A peg is discovered to be missing and your number cannot be hit because of the missing peg. You are told that the house rule is that your bet must remain and the missing peg will be replaced on the second spin. This entirely violates the essence of the game. Everyone has two chances to get their number but you have only one. Other players know that their chances are slightly better because your number is out of action for one of their bets, a disadvantage to you and an advantage to all other players. This is similar to what occurs under the current rule. Players are denied one chance for the exposed card to be played when normally their are two chances. That may sound like all players are effected the same way. This is not so. The knowledge that the exposed card will not be dealt on the turn is coupled with the unique knowledge each player has about their own cards. The card exposed may have no effect on some players and advantage or disadvantage to others. But, since the exposed card occurs during the flop before action is complete, it is effecting action pending during the flop.
One cannot undo the fact that the exposed card is known but we can certainly insure that it has a chance to appear on the next card or the river, regardless of all else.
This is a wrong rule. Period. It should be changed.
Thank you. Most of what you said, certainly the main argument, is exactly what I was trying to say in my orignal post. You did a great job explaining your reasoning and I hope that others will either agree or provide a good counter-argument.
Yes, the cards are randomly shuffled, so there is no reason to prefer the top card be dealt over any other, except to prevent cheating by the dealer. On the other hand, I can't really see that the rule harms anything. It should screw everyone over equally over time if not on any one hand.
I can even make a weak argument in favor of this icky rule: When you see the card, you are given information that it will definitely be in the undealt deck for the river, which increases your estimate of the number of remaining cards of that rank/suit. If you were given this information for two rounds, it might allow you to make some weird "unfair" draws.
For example, suppose you are in a game with 7 opponents, there is one burn card out, and you have a gutshot straight draw. A jack would complete your straight, and you estimate an 8.5% chance of one coming on the turn. Before you can fold to a bet, the dealer burns and turns and exposes a jack, which would complete your gutshot. With the proposed new rule that the jack is shuffled in immediately, this would raise the probability of a jack on the turn from 8.5% to 9.6%, which might be enough to tilt your decision to a call. If instead the jack is removed from the deck until the river, then there is only a 6.4% chance of a jack on the turn, but at least you won't be making any weird suck-outs this way, and the dealer cannot intentionally turn early in order to give a drawing player free information.
-Abdul
Actually, Zen's argument is so long and convoluted, I had a hard time following it. But I think it centers on additional knowledge being gained due to the card being exposed.
So if a player exposes his hand when mucking, should those cards be shuffled back into the deck before putting up the turn card? Most of Zen's argument would favor this. But in poker, cards get exposed a lot. That's just the way it goes.
The current method attempts to make the best out of a bad situation. I agree it's not perfect, but as Abdul said, as long as it is applied uniformly, we all get screwed the same.
As it is, the original river card is put on the board, and the turn card has roughly the same chance of being turned up as it did originally. Zen implies that there is less of a chance that this card will be turned up again, but it has almost exactly the same chance of coming up as it did on the turn.
True, if it were shuffled back in immediately, it would have a better chance of coming up in the next two deals, but then the player who was hoping to catch the original river card would get screwed. That isn't fair either.
The only thing that I think would be more fair would be to return everyone's money and start over. But Robin wouldn't be satisfied with that either.
Preserving the river card makes no sense to me because part of the reason it is there is that the 9 (in this case) came up on the turn. Theoretically, any card that didn't appear on the board, isn't dead, or in a player's hand should have an equal chance of appearing on the turn or river. After all, a deck of cards is merely a fancy method of randomly generating objects. It would have no impact on the game if the deck were shuffled after each betting round. I think it ruins the integrity of the game if a live card can be taken out for one round and put back in for another. It's like you're not playing with a full deck.
Obviously you haven't played a lot of holdem either. because i've seen this situation handled quite differently in other cardrooms, namely in Washington state were both Robin and I have played.
I agree with Zen, with a couple added reasons.
What bothers me most about the current rule is the bit about preserving the integrity by using the 'natural' river card as the turn card. This always struck me as a concession from the casino to the superstitious players. It's as if the casino is saying, "Okay, we monkeyed with fate and things are no longer as they were meant to be. Sorry about that. So we'll do our best to preserve a piece of your destiny."
All well and good I suppose. But we're talking about a black and white situation; how best to rectify an unrectifiable situation. Whatever the rule, it should not be based on notions such as fate and destiny, and that's how the current rule feels to me.
We CAN get rules changed. I'm personally responsible for Lucky Chances changing the all-in rule in their red-chip-and-up games from "action only" to "half a bet or more." I also came up with their "three button" lobbying rule. They tested that for a while and chose to stick with it because it worked. The cool thing was that I had no idea if it would really work or not. Scott didn't either. But he thought it was worth a try, and that was that.
My point isn't what I did as a non-casino employee, but rather, what anyone can do. A good cardroom manager will gladly sit down and discuss proposed improvements. If your idea is good and reasonable, or even merely has promise, they just might use it if you make your suggestion away from the table, not during a heated argument at the table. There's nothing to lose by trying.
Tommy
Tommy,
I vowed I would stay away from this thread (now that I don't work the floor and working on my game) but you guys are make interesting points so I'll put in a thought or two.
You wrote: “What bothers me most about the current rule is the bit about preserving the integrity by using the 'natural' river card as the turn card. This always struck me as a concession from the casino to the superstitious players. It's as if the casino is saying, "Okay, we monkeyed with fate and things are no longer as they were meant to be. Sorry about that. So we'll do our best to preserve a piece of your destiny."
Zen makes some very good points but I don’t think the existing rule is that bad a la Abdul. When the rule isn’t terrible, WHY NOT make concessions to the superstitious players (concerning putting what they would have got on the river on the turn)? After all, why would you want to anger them if it can be avoided with only a slight cost? We do this all the time in low limit stud when we run out of cards. It is good for business and the fact that the rules are screwy have no effect on the higher limit games (where you almost never run out).
OK, here is the one thing I would change. It bothers me (and bothers Ciaffone) any time a card is put down without a burn. I would reburn on the turn. Burning is a safeguard that is paramount, as Ciaffone has elaborated on in the past. Of course I would also reburn on the river in the situation where it was the river card that was put down prematurely.
Regards,
Rick
Most experienced players have seen a floormen make a ruling in favor of a "regular." Is it a business decision or a personal favor? Should not be. Bad for the integrity of the game.
In strict rule making, given variable choices about what a rule should be, business aspects should rank well below basic game factors.
If in this problem, basic game factors could be neutral under various possible rules, then preserving the river card (as a possible rule) could occur. However, as it stands, preserving the river is placed higher than removing a card from play for the turn. Not a good trade off.
It is certainly apparent that many of you have interest and opinions about this rule. I clipped a few comments from some of you for further comment:
Prior post: “So if a player exposes his hand when mucking, should those cards be shuffled back into the deck before putting up the turn card? Most of Zen's argument would favor this. But in poker, cards get exposed a lot. That's just the way it goes.”
Comment:
I hope that everyone agrees that cards exposed by players in mucking are dead and out of play. I don’t think anyone would support reshuffling dead cards. However, when the DEALER exposes a card, even the existing (bad) rule intends to keep that card in play. That is paramount. It must be kept in play. But, if that so, then it is half a rule. It is taken out of play for the turn and turn action. Ridiculous!
Prior Post: “as long as it is applied uniformly, we all get screwed the same”
Comment:
The minute we walk into the club we know that we are bound by rules. If they are applied uniformly we all get screwed uniformly. So! If the rule in this case was that the exposed card was dead and out of play, which would even be worse, it would remain true that we all get screwed uniformly.
Uniformity only means that we all get screwed the same. The objective is to have a rule that is fairest and preserves the basics of the game. We can make a choice in setting a rule. Under the existing rule, preserving the river card is made more important that permitting the exposed card two chances to be dealt. Which is more fundamentally fair? My vote is to sacrifice this stupid idea of fate in favor of straight odds and chance.
Prior Post: “True, if it were shuffled back in immediately, it would have a better chance of coming up in the next two deals, but then the player who was hoping to catch the original river card would get screwed. That isn't fair either.”
Comment: More of concern about preserving the river.
Suppose the dealer before the burn and river, dropped the deck and several cards became exposed, but the top two cards were intact and unseen. Some would argue that the rest are dead and the two cards should become the turn and river (fate!). I think it would be fairest to reshuffle. But, there is more involved What if turn betting action was incomplete. If it was decided THEN (before further action) to keep the original burn and river, the knowledge of the exposed cards is plus or minus to players as to their pending action. Conversely, if it was then decided that the deck will be resuffled, there may be some knowledge gained (players know that exposed cards are not held by opponents) but at least there is the EQUAL level of uncertainty and chance as to the outcome. The reshuffle neutralizes the situation BEST, as opposed to allowing plus or minus effect. It is important that the reshuffle occurs right then and there and then allow action to be completed.
Therefore, I do not agree that all players are affected the same by application of a uniform rule. Knowing that no opponent can hold that card is unsolvable by any rule. That knowledge is uniform but nothing can be done. Knowing that the exposed card is out of play for the turn, is plus or minus to each player. Removing a live card from play is inexcusable.
Please also note that the dealer, by rule, most show a player’s exposed card to all? Player’s exposed cards cannot be undone as an event. So as best as possible, by rule, neutralize the effect.
IT IS POSSIBLE TO NEUTRALIZE this situation. A dealer exposed card before flop action is complete, is best neutralized by an immediate reshuffle and then completion of flop action.
Prior post: “This always struck me as a concession from the casino to the superstitious players. It's as if the casino is saying, "Okay, we monkeyed with fate and things are no longer as they were meant to be. Sorry about that. So we'll do our best to preserve a piece of your destiny."
Comment: More, more, more about preserving fate than being fair.
A reshuffle is possible. It is fundamentally MOST fair.
What about this...If you want to "preserve the integrity of the deck."
If a card is inadvertantely shown; then all bets from the current round of betting are returned. The exposed card is "LIVE" (in this case the 9 stays the turn card.) NO MORE BETS ARE TAKEN and the River card is dealt. Like if all the players had gone all-in.
Best hand wins. Integrity of the deck maintained. Poker Gods are not angered. etc.
When dealing the pocket cards one turns up - dealer makes it the burn and player gets a new card so some now A-Hole is gonna scream cuz he wouluda had AA - the integrity of the deck is maintained - why screw someone out of the "real" river card cuz the dealer is a mutt. I like the rule and as long as it is equally administered, it's OK by me.
Each situation deserves attention and thought.
If a card is exposed during the pocket deal, first, it can't be undone and everyone should be shown the card to neutralize effect. Since it is necessary to give that player two unexposed cards, dealing the burn and then replacing it with the exposed card seems sensible. Its a good rule.
This situation should be a good rule too!
In the situation at hand, the exposed card occurs before action on the flop is complete. Removing it from play and reintroducing it later, in contrast to other options, is simply inferior.
Yes, its a common rule. Yes it uniform. But, there are better solutions.
In the card rooms I have visited in the UK I found them mucking the exposed would be street card and taking the 3rd card off the bottom of the deck and then burning and turning as usual for the next street.
Frankley I don't give a rats ass what rule they use so long as it is known by all and uniformally carried out.
This rule is also better than the current rule because the "turn" card is mucked and not brought back again. This is different than the current situation where it is temporarily dead but live on the river.
This rule is in effect just about everywhere in America that I have played. I is intended to give you a chance to get the "9" on latter streets.
BTW - you should have had your butt tossed out of Commerce for destroying cards and slowing down the game cuz if a hissy fit - it is guys like you who give poker a bad name.
Shame on you.
Tossed out!? Not likely. Twenty minute penalty-that's what I got. Trust me, there are more people that give poker a bad name like those angle shooters who kept raising on the river when the board was a nut straight and drove that lady off crying. As I recall you advocated their play and said it was good for the lady. Hmmm... what's worse? Having to get a new setup when we get one every 45 min anyway or driving off new players to the game with angle shooting? You prefer the later but I guess you are more "experienced". At least I'm a good player.
Sorry. The last comment was uncalled for.
I guess you save you hissy fits and whining about bad beats for this forum, does that mean we can kick you off this forum for good too!?
I am going to Dallas, TX for a week and wondering where I can play some midium stakes holdem. Any suggestions?
Find a home game. No cardrooms in Texas except at the Indian casinos near the border.
Lately I don't know what is happening, it seems, the cards, my skills, and my confidence have turned against me. I am zigging when I should be zagging and vice versa. In the past 6 mos or so, I have become a serious student of the game, reading the books, playing as much as possible (online unfortunetly b/c of no live poker in Wisconsin) and thinking about the game. I was doing well until about 2 wks ago and now I am mired in a horrible losing streak. I know there must be a leak somewhere, and I am trying hard to find that, however my confidence has been shaken (I know I can't let it be, but some of you have to know how I feel~!!) and I find myself either hesitatant to pull the trigger or tilting somewhat, both of these were not terrible problems in my game before, at least not to what I could find. Any comments or suggestions on how to get back on course?!? Any help would be appreciated, I've worked too long/hard and love the game too much to give up, I just would like some pointers on how to get back on track! Thanx
JRounder
2-week losing streak? Pshaw.
Well, your problem isn't the losing streak its your loss of a winning attitude; which will return when you stop losing.
... play lower limits ... play less hours ... quit a winner a couple times (as much as I find that distastefull) ... invest that extra time rereading some of the more inspirational literature like Brunson's Super System or Sklansky's Theory of Poker (or whatever its called).
... or take the neiphew camping ... climb a tall tree and sit there a couple hours ... etc.
Or ... either "know" (if particularly superstisious) or "presume" (if particulaly interested in self-improvement) that the losing streak is Karma; then use this losing streak to give yourself energy to find a major negative influence you have created in your life, and then correct it.
- Louie
1. I stopped trying to make money playing online tournaments. I play tourneys for fun, not to collect chips.
2. I started logging when I was winning and losing and against what kind of players. I have made over 20-30BB/hr on the weekends. I lose 1-2BB/hr during the week. FISH vs Regulars.
3. I play to collect chips when my log says I should. I play limited learning sessions at tables with the regulars.
4. Have confidence that winning is possible. I have lately noticed regulars in my game range moving up. (IE. there bankrolls are growing.)
5. The most important peice of advice that was given to me was, Start with $50 and learn to beat the lowest game. When you have built your bankroll big enough to move up then you should be confident that you will be successful. Theory being if you lose 1 session at the new level you can remake that money by going back down for a while.
Know when to call it a day. I won $150 friday night playing .50-$1 and $2-$4 in less than 2hrs! I then gave half of that back because it was late, a couple bad beats, and E-TILT! Luckily I recognized this early and went to bed ;)
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 4 November 2000, at 9:07 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 4 November 2000, at 10:26 p.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 4 November 2000, at 11:05 p.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 2:13 a.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 2:50 a.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 3:06 a.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 11:09 a.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 5:53 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 5:32 a.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: suspicious
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 12:54 p.m.
Posted by: Clint
Posted on: Saturday, 4 November 2000, at 9:28 p.m.
Posted by: NJ Fred
Posted on: Saturday, 4 November 2000, at 10:28 p.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 12:36 a.m.
Posted by: Zen
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 12:37 a.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 1:23 a.m.
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 1:55 a.m.
Posted by: 3 Bet Brett (fourflushr@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 2:33 a.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 6:12 p.m.
Posted by: ATWOOD
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 3:52 p.m.
Posted by: Tommy Angelo (Tomium@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 3:27 a.m.
Posted by: Rick Nebiolo (ricknebiolo@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 2:49 a.m.
Posted by: Zen (bzentil@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 1:02 p.m.
Posted by: Zen
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 2:57 p.m.
Posted by: PoorBoy (aneuhard@siscom.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 11:09 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 5:43 a.m.
Posted by: Zen (bzentil@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 10:15 a.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 10:09 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 5:22 a.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 12:46 p.m.
Posted by: Robin Phillips (shaft_247@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 10:10 p.m.
Posted by: ATWOOD
Posted on: Monday, 6 November 2000, at 3:53 p.m.
Posted by: Vitz (vaziri@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 9:07 a.m.
Posted by: BillW
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: JRounder2000 (theaterluvr@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (llandale@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 5:28 p.m.
Posted by: PoorBoy (aneuhard@siscom.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 6:43 p.m.
Posted by: Rounder