![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Hey, i love the new format!
Thanks
I usually play at a cardroom that uses the bug (the joker, wild only for aces, straights and flushes) in the game.
There is only one joker in the deck.
The games they play are Hold' Em, 7 High, and 7 Low. No split games and no Omaha or Tahoe. The joker is completely wild in the low games -- it works as the lowest possible card you need.
Obviously, with the joker in the deck, it changes the starting hand situation with Hold 'Em. For example. If you hold Joker/10spades, then it is really like holding the following hands:
A/10 spades 9/10 spades
K/10 spades 8/10 spades
Q/10 spades 7/10 spades
J/10 spades 6/10 spades
Plus the ace of every other suit (for flush purposes)
Plus any other straight card if the board is a 4 card
straight.
Going against the joker can be tough. My theory about why it's in the deck is because it creates "more action that God" (as one other play said). Obviously if you have the joker, the flop has to be almost terrible for you not to have at least a great draw.
I play very tight in this game -- in nearly all positions I tend to start with only class one or two hands plus pocket pairs. I also will play the joker from nearly any position.
Any thoughts on strategy (particularly hold 'em strategy) for this game?
Yeah find another casino to play in, SERIOUSLY.
The wild card has to screw up everything all calculations and odds are out the window. That is no way to play poker.
Rounder,
I play in many other games, but to be honest, this casino has the best game in town. The card tables are in the back of a high traffic bar which means many, many people sit down somewhat randomly. Often they ask, "Is this blackjack?" Clueless -- and therefore huge fish.
At the same time the game is also populated by a number of regulars who are in the near maniac category. There are only about 4 players who I'm truly wary of in this game (and rarely are they ever there together). For example, over the past three months, my average weekly win is over $300. This is playing approximately 15-25/hours a week at what is usually a $3 game (though frequently we play overs at 10/20/50 or no limit).
I also play in other card games in town but no one spreads above a $5 limit consistently and the $5 games against the old-timers who are rocks are not nearly as good -- you won't get much action and my hourly rate is not as high -- as the $3 game with the potential for overs.
I agree, the joker screws up the odds. For example: If you hold Joker/10 and the flop comes 7/8/9 then any 5/6/J/Q makes a straight -- basically it doubles your odds for openended straight draws. But it also can be dead weight. For example, if the board pairs (without an ace) then the joker is often a useless card.
I have compiled a table of odds to draws once you have the joker in your hand and the flop hits. I am curious about people's thoughts for starting hands?
Rounder writes:
The wild card has to screw up everything all calculations and odds are out the window. That is no way to play poker.
That's like saying that allowing an Ace to play both hin and low screws up everything. It doesn't screw it up, it *changes* things. Those who cannot adapt are doomed to failure.
It's not too hard to figure out how the bug changes the game. I think the poster was just asking about what he should do. Second, all drawing hands go up a bit in value, because there is another card which completes your draws. Third, you are pretty much correct to be liberal in your play of the joker, but as a general rule, treat it like a suited Ace, and use the same guidelines for playing Joker-x, as you would Axs. Fourth, unsuited cards go down in value, so you are pretty much correct to play only group 1 and 2 hands up early, but you still need to play a bit more than that in middle and in back.
- Andrew
A couple pieces of advice. First, suited kings lose a lot of value for obvious reasons.
Prock wrote: Third, you are pretty much correct to be liberal in your play of the joker, but as a general rule, treat it like a suited Ace, and use the same guidelines for playing Joker-x, as you would Axs.
Joker-x is much more valuable than Axs by far. Think of it as Axs plus the suited connectors x/x-1 and x+1/x. Plus it completes any four flush or four straight.
I totally agree with DeadBart, but I don't think you want to come charging into the game with Joker-x, when you are UTG.
One thing to note, while you do get more value for the fact that you are more "connected", this value doesn't increase the value of the hand to make it a head to head hand. The main reason is that it is still a drawing hand. If an Ace comes on the flop, you really can't like your kicker, so you are going for the straight/flush potential most of the time when you hold a small kicker.
It *is* strong enough that you wan't to be raising very liberally after three or four people limp in.
One key with the bug is that you do not want to give away the fact that you have the joker, so your style of play should be pretty consistent when you do have the joker as when you don't.
- Andrew
My advice was to find a real poker game and stay away from the wild card game - it was given in all seriousness ans it is exactly what I would do.
Why go find another game? Why not learn the game that is available? A good player adapts to the game, a bad player doesn't play.
- Andrew
Silly boy why don't you go adapt to roulette or craps.
The quality of the game is determined entirely by the quality of your opponents. If they are clueless, and there is money being thrown on the felt, one would be stupid to turn down the opportunity to relieve them of it. Yes, this is a very high-variance game, and we all know that some people don't like that. Too bad; those people are missing some great opportunities. If I can take a man's money because I play Anaconda a little better than he does, I'm happy to do it.
I hope your cardroom has a large reservoir of players.This can only burn up chips(players) From a business point of view it doesnt seem very smart. What is the rake?, limit? buy-in? How do you put players on a hand? discipline? In a cardroom setting the joker is for lo-ball.The joker is great for home games with old high school buddies.
I beg to differ. I play regularly in a cardroom that spreads five card stud with a *Joker*. They took out 12 other cards and allow you to take third, fourth and fifth street cards up or down at your option. It is, in my humble opinion, the easiest game to beat in the room. Wild cards tend to increase action and favor the better players. A good deal of poker skill lies in being able to recognize favorable situations and exploit them. The more complex the game is, the more a players skill will make a difference.
Encourage your local cardroom to spread complex, volatile games. The pots, relative to the size of the rake, will be larger and the "gamblers" will have a much better time playing. Cardroom poker is too staid and stodgy, we need to put more fun into it so that the contributors at least get some good entertainment value for their money.
A bug sounds like funnnnnnn!! What country do you play in?? I haven't played with a bug since my California draw days. But seriously, what state and town do you play in?
Sincerely, Zack
Poker is Poker. Bug poker requires a modified strategy from non-bug poker. Understanding hand strength is crucial in any poker game. In general, tactically, they play the same. Someone like David or Mason or other analysts will have to give you the strategy modifications (relative to hand strength). I don't know them nor am I inclined to develop them. I will give you the following advice, because you asked, Do not play in any game that you do not UNDERSTAND. By that I mean that if a game demands a definitized strategy to gain an edge and you do not know that strategy do not play in the game. Something to do with "looking around the table and not spotting the live one".
Vince.
Thanks for the replies so far. As I mentioned, I do well in this game, but am more interested in people's opinions about strategy. A few points:
(1) The bug is incredibly more powerful that Axs. Just it's any ace-suited when a four flush is on the board makes this clear. Same with a four straight. I'll play the bug from any position. Not so with Axs. In this game I'll only play them late with many limpers.
(2) I respect Rounder's skills, but I don't agree about his thoughts about this game. As someone else said, "Poker is poker." The bug modifies things (the game becomes more of a drawing game) and makes some things really wacky (for example, if you hold A/2 of spades with three spades on the board and any one holds the Joker/10 of spades then you don't have the nuts). The winning hand simply tends to be higher...a little like hold 'em vs. omaha, but less extreme.
(3) The game is a set limit of $3. Frequently people play overs. Up to no limit with people having $500 in front of them. Unfortunately, in MT, all poker pots are capped (this sucks).
(4) The game is at Stockman's Bar in Missoula, MT. Come down and play -- it's definitely a beatable game, especially if the limits go up. I'm curious if anyone else has played there?
(5) The joker is definitely a drawing hand -- it is way more valuable in a multi-way pot.
B.D.
Sounds like you have a pretty solid grasp of what the implications of the bug are when you hold it in your hand. If you have the same level of understanding of how it affects your play when it's *not* in your hand, then my money is on you.
- Andrew
Last night was the last time Bob Sherwood is getting any of my money. He is too lucky. Fifth time I've been at a 10-20 or 20-40 HE table and had him walk away with a bunch of my money. On top of that, I believe few people really make any serious money on any regular basis. Poker is just as much a gamble as blackjack. I quit. If you had any sense, you'd quit too.
BM - good luck - sounds like you need some.
Your wrong poker is a zero sum game which means if you lose someone wins (less the rake) it is up to you to be the winner not anyone else.
If your losing analyze your game - are you playing to many marginal hands in poor position or are you seeing and calling to many bets with no hopers.
There is no reason you can't be a winning player.
Rounder writes:
Your wrong poker is a zero sum game ...
Not when there's a rake. Everyone can lose at the casino. That is unless you count the casino as a "player".
- Andrew
Andy if your gonna quote me please do so completely.
I said "Your wrong poker is a zero sum game which means if you lose someone wins (less the rake) it is up to you to be the winner not anyone else.
I mentioned the rake and my comment is correct.
Oh well sorry, it's just that what you say makes almost as much sense as:
You get the second for free (if you don't count buying the first one).
Either it's free or not.
Either it's a zero sum game or it's not. Casino poker is not a zero sum game.
- Andrew
Andy when you grow up and understand the game come on back and talk to me.
Beautiful response rounder.
Why bother admitting that you're wrong when it is so much more effective to insult me.
- Andrew
There is no reason you can't be a winning player.
I'm sorry to disagree with you but your statement assumes that everyone can win which is obviously false. Everyone CANNONT win. There must be losers for there to be winners. Otherwise the house gets it all.As my father was very fond of saying, "If there is money to be made--you're going to have to get in a very long line before you start making any of it."
- Re: Poker is a losing game
Posted by: Rounder
Posted on: Sunday, 14 November 1999, at 7:11 a.m.
Brenda I agree for there to be winners there has to be losers but I said "There is no reason you can't be a winning player." There is no reason he can't - it doesn't mean everyone can just there is no reason he can't.
Your father sounds like a wise man.
- Re: Poker is a losing game
Posted by: Pierre (Therock27@buffalo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 November 1999, at 10:14 p.m.
There could easily be many reasons why any one individual could not be a winning poker player. It is surprisingly easy to make $$$ at the game, but many people just don't get it, or don't have anywhere near the discipline. It's tempting to say "anybody could do it", but this is just not the case.
- Re: Poker is a losing game
Posted by: Brad S
Posted on: Monday, 15 November 1999, at 4:45 a.m.
Strictly speaking you are correct, but I think that you are missing the point of Rounder's original post.
Sure, if you had some extreme mental disability and functioned at the level of a three year old, you could probably never play the game with positive expectation, but surely anyone with even the most modest intellect COULD aquire the skills neccessary to beat the game. And don't get me wrong here - By modest, I mean anyone that I have ever seen playing poker in a casino.
You say that not everyone 'Gets it' or that not everyone has the discipline. You then state that not everyone could do it because it is 'just not the case'.
Just not being the case has been true of many things at certain points in history including nuclear fission, manned space missions, and computers playing chess. The fact that these things were just not the case did not imply that they never would be the case. Similarly, that fact that many people do not have the discipline does not imply that they could not aquire it.
Granted, not everyone could play positive winning poker ALL AT ONCE, because some will always play better than others and this is what determines who wins and who loses. ie- It is impossible for everyone to walk away from the table a winner. BUT, any one individual could attain the requisite attributes to make himself a winner.
Now I know that a lot of people will argue with this opinion, but I firmly believe it to be true. I don't want everyone to improve their game, because it would be bad for me, but I have no doubt that they COULD do it. The fact that they DON'T do it is inconsequential to whether or not they are CAPABLE.
Maybe I am making a big deal out of a very small issue, but it has always bugged me how positive EV players think that they have some kind of completely different central nervous system than negative EV players. I don't mean to suggest that you are of this crowd and, in fact, poker players aren't even the worst ones for it. (Blackjack players are the absolute worst in my opinion. They think that they possess a kind of mathematical genius that only the truly gifted could ever hope to acheive. It is difficult, I admit, but I have never seen anyone who could count cards effectively who did not invest at least a couple hundered hours of practice. I think that the truly gifted would realize how boring it is to do that after only a few hours of practice.)
At any rate, I just think that it is arrogant to suppose that any given negative EV player is incapable of becoming a positive EV player. I've known my share of 'undisciplined' and 'ignorant' poker players who lost every session, yet who also ran very successful businesses that got that way through extreme discipline and carefull calculation. You would be surprised how many dumb players are actually pretty smart outside of the casino.
regards, Brad S
- Re: Poker is a losing game
Posted by: Frank
Posted on: Wednesday, 17 November 1999, at 4:58 p.m.
Brenda,
Your father was obviously an astute observer. I have to agree.
The only exception I would make is insider type things wherein most people don't know there's money to be made and thus don't form a line....but try finding one of those. It generally ends up being a "who you know" deal.
"If wishes were fishes and fishes were Fords, all the beggars could ride"
Or
"If dung became gold, tommorrow, all the poor folks kids would be born without butts."
- Re: Poker is a losing game
Posted by: Furious (RFloyd@Mindspring.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 14 November 1999, at 12:07 p.m.
Rounder,
Where were you in Vegas buddy? I'll post you a note on the exchange.
Russ
"If you had any sense, you'd quit too. "
Amen! Point noted! Point well taken. Oh! For a little sense.
Vince.
One wonders if Bob Sherwood feels this way.
I don't know Bob Sherwood, but I know a few guys who play mid and upper level HE and average from 25K to 40K a year. Maybe Sherwood is just a better player. Buy somebooks...Sklansky and Malmuth stuff. Calm down....Watch Sherwood's play, maybe you'll learn something.
Who is this Bob Sherwood ?? Maybe I can 'rub albows' with him. Notice he is not a regular poster - too busy making money. Anyway - I think you are alright and made a right choice I wonder if you can keep to it.... Seriously - I like poker now more than ever - now that I seldom play it !!!!!
Babaloo:
With all due respect: Poker is like screenwriting. A little art, a little science, a little craft. And the good, well, they'll get the goods. As I'm sure you know. I've long admired your work; now I can look forward to meeting you over a poker table as well.
Murray
Bye Bye Babaloo, hold the door for me because I'm right on your heels.
I've often felt the way you do and then I started folding. If I still had disappointing results I folded a little more. It got to the point where I would finally be looking for a reason to get out of a hand rather than looking for a reason to stay in. Then, I started winning. By the way if you are THE Babaloo Mandel I've got a great idea for a sitcom. A Taste: Sign in a deli
IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING YOU BUY
No Problem
JUST THROW IT OUT!!
Babaloo... I know you don't mean you're quitting th game. I'll bet youi're gonna write something involving poker, though. Who will you cast for Sherwood's part...Michael Douglas?
Hmmm, think about it.
You know, it's true. Almost everybody would be better off if they quit playing this game. It takes its toll on everybody. The losers go broke and get bitter. The winning players get a little nasty after all those years of getting run down. The luckiest of winning players generally develop a very annoying arrogance (eg. TJ Cloutier - "a few players limp, I decide to raise the 72suited. The flop comes 772. It's all a question of timing" [paraphrased from Championship NL holdem]). I still love to play the game, but I think that's mainly the addicted part of me more than anything. The world would be a better place if nobody gambled anymore. And yes folks, poker is gambling.
Get thee behind me, Satan.
But Pierre,
Didn't you say it was "suprisingly easy" to win.
So tell us your methods. :-)
Better yet, write a book and get rich.
seems you are focusing on short term results and not long term. You had a short term run of bad luck and Bob had a short term run of good luck. The long run is where it really matters who is the better player.
I had one stretch where I could not seem to win a hand, no matter what I did or how thin their draws. For 3 weeks, I proceeded to lose almost 700$ playing only the smallest games against the easiest opponents. All the while I couldn't seem to find the leak in my game! Extremely frustrating time since I thought I was playing well but was still losing. Then one night my short term luck changed and I won over 700$ in one night playing 3-6 and 5-10 HE! It seems that both cases were short term luck in action. Even though I went for a three week stretch without winning much of anything, I still am happy when I look at my results for the year!
The real skill factor is only evident over a long period of time. I know I am a better player than most of my opponents. They can only draw to gutshots and backdoors so many times before it will eventually catch up to them. My longterm results will ultimately reflect my skill level and how well I play. Keep in mind the long run can seem like a very long, long time!!!!
As for few poker players being long term winners, this is probably true. MOST players don't have the discipline or patience to do what it really takes to be a winning player. My guess is that only a small % actually put in any real time learning what it takes to REALLY be a winner.
As for poker being a gamble, I would say that If you can find any gambling activity that offers as big an edge as poker please post it on this forum so we can all quit and go play your new game. Otherwise it is pretty obvious that poker is THE game to be playing!
I'm 150 hrs into my rookie season,and this game teaches lessons daily.Im 10 minutes into todays session,flop top two pair,board is all same suit,6 players show weakness by cking to me in late pos.I bet 1 caller,who double cks his hole cards,I assume he needs 4th suited. I bet and he calls all the way out,he turns over 2,5 clubs for the flush.No problem,15 minutes later very similiar cards,diffent situation.I flop top two pair,board all 1 suit,early pos player bets,he is exper. player in for Sams tourney,waiting for higher limit game to open,2nd player calls,she plays every day always solid cards,I call.Turn blank #1 bets two of us call,river blank #1 bets,2 mucks,7 big bets in pot,I muck,giving myself the opportunity to 2nd quess myself all day.It doesn't help that he had smaal two pair.Should mention I rarely have thrown away best hand.Come home try to make sense of #s,he was 3.3 to 1 dog to have two suited.Comments?
MS last time I looked a flush beats 2 pair. If the board is all one suit and you ain't part of it 2 pair or not if there are callers and action you better get out or you'll be suckin' hind teat.
Hope you learned a lesson.
BTW if you never throw a winning hand away your staying to long in most games - it is no dishonor to muck a good hand if you think your beat. Takes a good player to muck a good hand.
As I have stated in several previous posts, whenever the board flops all of one suit and you do not have a card in that suit you are severely handicapped. Obviously with two pair you are not drawing dead but others have posted problems with top pair or an overpair as high as Aces and they insists on calling bets and raises even though they could be drawing dead. Furthermore, if another card of that suit hits the board on the river your hand is instantly dead.
All that being said, with two pair your play in the first hand was correct because no one showed any strength and you could have the best hand. Similarily, in the second hand I think you should call on the end even though you are probably beat. In these situations, two pair is much more playable than top pair or an over pair because you have some outs to beat a flush. In addition, no one showed any strength and you were not calling multiple bets and raises.
I like this post (and Rounder's) and would just like to add:
If you are going to call the turn (2nd hand) then why on earth would you fold the river when a blank hits? If you are calling the turn you have to call the river, otherwise fold after the flop and save the extra two big bets.
My thinking at the time was,I have 4 outs for the boat,if I catch it,I raise on the river.Do you happen to know the math of the liklyhood of one opponent having a flush with suited board,2 oponents etc.(I don't)The only #s I came up with are that he is 3.3 to dog to have 2 suitted cards.After flop,I've got approx. 16 % chance for boat(6to1 dog).Also he may have bet the flop representing the flush hoping to knock us out.
After re-reading Dave's message,realize to answer his question why bet turn,I had about 8% to catch on river after turn was blank. Was not getting pot odds to justify turn bet.Point well taken,only reason to bet turn would be if I thought opponent bluffing,which I did'nt know
I think the other comments were good but here are mine anyway.
Hand No. 1:
(I assume no preflop raise). I think you usually need to bet this flop. In a loose game against players that can't get away from their draws, and if your top two were aces up or kings up with little gutshot threat, you could have seen the turn for free and come out betting or raising when the coast was clearer. This both increases the value of your turn bets at your opponents' expense, but also (hopefully) increases the number of players that will draw to the flush. The idea is that if one of your opponents is going to draw to the nut (or near-nut) flush anyway, you'd prefer others to draw with lesser flush cards. Obviously it helps a lot if you can recognize a slow-played flush and jump ship when it attacks (your draw stinks).
Hand No. 2:
Remember that there are two things that can justify your calls on the flop and turn: you might have the best hand and you might draw out if you don't. On the river, you played it as if the first wasn't a factor when it should have been an even bigger factor. And of course you understand that you didn't have a big enough pot to play it for the second reason alone. So you probably should have either folded before the river or called on the river.
If your opponent will bet out with a draw or pair plus a draw as well as a made hand (as nearly all good players will), I would have raised somewhere, most likely on the turn. Against a rock or a timid player I'd usually fold on the flop. But even when you're making a mistake, a tendency to make things harder on your opponents has its own benefits.
I think this is an excellent learning exercise because so many difficult problems in hold 'em are similar. As your judgment in hold 'em gets better, you'll notice that you'll be doing a lot less calling.
(BTW, I'm just curious, where did you get that 3.3 number? It sounds familiar but I question its applicability).
You'd check the turn here? If this is a low limit game, I'd have to bet the turn and probably the river (assuming the fourth flush card didn't drop) unless the caller was a very, very timid player. True, you may be up against a made hand, but if your opponent is a live one you may just be up against top pair with something like a Q high flush draw. Or, as I've seen often enough, he could just have an underpair, a gutshot draw, or something else equally exotic. Anyway, my guess here would be that you've got the best hand, and will also probably have the best hand if you're called on the river (against a weak player).
Uh ... where did I suggest checking the turn? I suggested checking the flop as an alternative when you expect several players to call your bet (1) to avoid all losses due to the a flush card on the turn (2) to avoid some losses to the flopped flush by smoking it out and (3) to more severely punish or knock out a draw or two. You want to bet the turn, of course.
I suspect that you can make more this way whereas just betting/calling every round to the river is a bit better than break-even. You also might win a bit more than otherwise in the rare cases when your FH makes someone's flush. To be frank, I don't know which is the better play..
nt
For the benefit of this forum's readers, especially those new to poker, I offer a contest. Attempt to find one or more errors in the following HPFAP advice. I don't feel comfortable quoting the entire one-and-a-half pages of explanation without permission, but this should suffice to get you started:
"It's so important to increase your chance to win the pot that it can be right to bet a hand that you know is beat. For instance, if you have Ts9s, the flop comes Ad7c6h, and the pot is pretty big, it is almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position. You do this not only because you might make a straight, but because it is important to get hands like KdJh out." (HPFAP-1999, p. 168.)
What do you say, David and Mason? Can you post the remainder (or give me permission to do so)? Meanwhile, readers without HPFAP-1999 can borrow it from a friend, stop at their local library, or visit a bookstore.
The bad news is that I will not reward contest winners with cash or book prizes. Instead, they will have to be satisfied with the warm feeling they experience upon breaking free from the slavery of blindly following authority, the new vistas they will comprehend after exercising their independent minds, the inflated bankrolls they will accumulate when they understand the fundamentals of poker . . . well, you get the idea.
The good new is that this contest should have multiple winners. With so many bright participants on this forum, we should be able to enumerate at least a dozen problems with the advice. Even those readers who think about the advice but are unable (at this time) to articulate their concerns will benefit from the effort and will be winners in their own way.
Contest entrants might wish to review the discussions found in the "Another HPFAP 'Loose Games' error" thread (begun on 7 November 1999) and the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread (begun on 11 November 1999).
I'll start the ball rolling with a sub-thread entitled "Error #1: Checking still could win."
"Once you've read all the best books, IMO you should still buy most of the others because it's a great exercise to critique them, to see if you can find their mistakes and misinformation as well as their good information." (John Feeney, 7 November 1999.)
[Disclaimer: The above quotation does not imply that John Feeney supports this contest; he might even object to it. But he's still eligible to participate.]
Suppose you hold Ts9s, the flop comes Ad7c6h, and the pot is pretty big. HPFAP-1999 suggests it is "almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position" because, in part, you might get hands like KdJh to fold. "Getting back to the above example, what's the chance that a ten or a nine will come in that spot? You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won." Since your pair won't always win you the pot, the authors reduce the 25 percent figure down to probably over 5 percent. (See HPFAP-1999, pp. 168-169.)
There are several potential errors in this analysis. In this post, I'll object to the assertion, ". . . whereas before it wouldn't have won." Clearly this is wrong. If you check the flop and later catch a pair, there will be times when you still will win the pot.
Sometimes, none of your opponents will have hands like KdJh.
Furthermore, even when your opponents do hold hands like KdJh, you can catch your pair and find that none of your opponents' hands improve. The turn, for example, might put up the Td (giving you a pair), and the river might bring the 3c (not helping hands like KdJh).
Finally, by checking the flop, you do not forfeit your right to bet out on the turn. If you check the flop and catch a pair on the turn, you can bet the turn if you feel the benefits (such as probably folding hands like KdJh) outweigh the costs.
". . . whereas before it wouldn't have won."
Do you actually believe the authors think it is literally impossible to win here? Obviously they mean it is unlikely that you will win.
I object to your nitpicky confrontational tone. What exactly are you trying to prove? Why not just post technical objections or counterarguments to the particular idea presesented instead of acting like HPFAP is some kind of grand conspiracy.
First, the HPFAP authors are not idiots. If they meant to say "it is unlikely that you will win," then they simply could have phrased the assertion, ". . . whereas before is is unlikely to have won."
Secondly, it is not at all obvious that, if you catch a ten or a nine on the turn or river, you are much more unlikely to lose the hand if you check the flop as compared to betting out the flop. In either case, you still lose if an ace is against you at the showdown. And if the pot is pretty big because a few players paid multiple bets to see the flop, then the chances decrease that hands like KdJh are out against you. Even if they are, the turn or river often will not help them.
David protests, "Why not just post technical objections or counterarguments to the particular idea presesented . . ."
I thought that is what I did in the last three paragraphs of my post. Perhaps you didn't read that far.
Additionally, in reference to the general idea presented, I have offered several more detailed counterarguments and supporting theoretical concepts in previous posts. See the "Another HPFAP 'Loose Games' error" thread (begun on 7 November 1999) and the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread (begun on 11 November 1999).
The final paragraph in my "Error #1: Checking still could win" submission contains the germ of an idea that somebody might be able to develop into a winning entry.
Mark - I think this makes about the sixth bit of advice from HPFAP that you've taken issue with. I fully support your bringing these things up for discussion. (Why you wish to do it with the tone you convey is beyond me. I think you'd do better to engage instead in genuine, cooperative discussion rather than this "prove 'em wrong" approach, if for no other reason than the old "honey/vinegar" proverb.) But when I think back on the points you've made, most seem to involve taking something the authors have written, holding them to a totally literal meaning with no room for exceptions, and proclaiming them, therefore, wrong. This rigidity seems (to me anyway) to be at the root of several of your disagreements with them. David Steele commented above about an example of this.
To summarize how some of your past objections involved this same rigid literalism:
1. In one thread you stated that a hand example used by David in _Sklansky on Poker_ was a poor example. You stated - seriously it now seems, though at the time I thought you were actually joking - that the example did a poor job of illustrating David's point. Ultimately, after some discussion, you came out with the revelation that the example showed the same card in two different hands, and that therefore whether one called or raised shouldn't matter because the casino would declare the hand dead, etc.
2. In another post, you took issue with David's commenting that, "if you check and allow someone who would not have called your bet to outdraw you, then you have allowed a 'mathematical catastrophe' to happen", followed by, "It is also a catastrophe to give a free card to someone who would have called your bet, and he fails to outdraw you. However, this second mathematical catastrophe is not as bad as the first." You asked how the second case could be considered a "catastrophe", as it only cost one bet.
3. In an earlier thread, I pointed out that the authors used the word *usually* in that piece of advice about betting a pair when the pot is big. But you found a quirky (IMO) way of interpreting it, suggesting that they instead meant *without exception*. This despite David's having acknowledged that exceptions can occur (but warning against "finding" them if you don't really know what you're doing).
4. Now you "…object to the assertion, '. . . whereas before it wouldn't have won'", insisting that 'if they meant it to be qualified they'd have qualified it'. Yet I think that most rational readers can see in the text that they did not mean it in the absolute, literal, 100% of the time, way that you think they did. As in any book, meaning here is partly conveyed through the whole, the gestalt, and the context. It appears to me that you usually lean toward very literal ways of understanding what you have read (or at least use them to support your argument), causing you to see "errors" where someone reading with a more flexible, in fact more typical, take on meaning would not. We all have our styles of thinking and comprehending. In the matter of understanding the meaning of some of the 2+2 advice, I wonder if yours might not have led you to disagreements which other intelligent readers would not share. David has stated again that exceptions are possible, but that it is a sound rule of thumb most of the time.
Your support for your arguments has usually been a listing of all the little factors which can work against the particular 2+2 advice. (These are the factors upon which the occasional exception would be based.) The counter argument is simply a list of all the little factors which work in favor of it. Playing experience, logic, math, and maybe even simulation can be drawn upon to decide how to weight the factors. If you believe their advice is *generally* wrong, why don't you just say, "I weight the first set of factors more heavily than the authors?" Then, if you provide some evidence for why one should weight them as you do, we might at least have something to work with. But if you're just trying to show that there can in fact be exceptions, you're attacking a straw man.
The 2+2 advice in these instances is based on concepts which "well schooled" players have known for years (e.g., that it is often worth taking some extra risks to win very big pots), in large part thanks to books like David's _The Theory of Poker_. These concepts have logical bases, if not lots of published mathematical proof to support them. They are even "intuitive", if I may say so, to many (most?) better players. (The current example is based on one of these concepts, though as David mentions most players had not thought of this particular application.) You have not provided compelling logic to persuade players to flip to your weighting of the factors.
There are of course some obvious exceptions to the advice to bet in the current scenario. e.g., say you have some extremely strong evidence that another player has AA. Maybe you've played a lot with this player and *know*, because he is virtually 100% predictable, that his preflop play indicates pocket aces. (e.g., maybe he limp-reraised, and always does so with AA, but never with any other hand. Or maybe you saw his cards.) Well, now you don't care about knocking out a hand like KJ. So the need to bet is greatly diminished. But as David points out, most players are probably best advised not to look for much more subtle exceptions. The cost when they're wrong is too high.
The idea is that when the pot is very large, and you have some realistic shot at it, winning it more *often* is usually worth FAR more than saving a bet or two. You have not shown otherwise.
I think these threads have been repeating themselves for a while. I just wanted to try once more to summarize and clarify some key points -- FWIW.
John,
"FWIW."
For what it's Worth! For What it's Worth, Indeed!
Mark,
John wrote:
"If you believe their advice is *generally* wrong, why don't you just say, "I weight the first set of factors more heavily than the authors?" Then, if you provide some evidence for why one should weight them as you do, we might at least have something to work with."
This is what I have been trying to say all along. But being a "silly guy" was unable to get my point across. This is the reason I started a thread trying to quantify mid pair betting/checking into a large field. Erin made an attempt to answer that question and then must have just given up. Scott, the boy wonder, said it was too hard. Even Fossil, the king of tournament EV decided there may be too many variables. Sklansky and Malmuth, as old and set in their ways as they are to my knowledge, have never preached "absolute" poker. In fact Mason has always been at the forefront of "thinking" poker. Evalute the situation then acact. That is not to say that they have not promoted betting when the pot is large. The basis for this discussion. They have. Are they correct? Even though I follow the teachings of these two I do not follow them blindly. Unlike John I do not feel that because we repeat ourselves over and over again in these discussions that we are wasting our time. We waste our time when we repeat for the sake of repeating. We have an issue. We have two thoughts that are diametrically opposed. How do we resolve the issue?
I play poker in these situations almost exclusively the way that David and Mason propose. Consequently I am biased towards that strategy. Quite frankly Gary and you, by challenging that strategy have made me think about my play. That's a good thing. One may question my "thinking" as being a good thing but we all have opinnions.
John wrote:
"The 2+2 advice in these instances is based on concepts which "well schooled" players have known for years"
I'm not sure I would take "well schooled" literally, but I have always believed that the Advanced series books were a compilation of "experience" of top (winning) poker players. Although experience is not the end all way of determining good poker strategy it does carry a lot of weight.
To get to the Bottom line. I say to you and Gary and anyone else that promotes a strategy that differs from the one I use. Show me. I'm listening.
Vince.
i said it was too hard. then i gave a partial answer. what did you think of the answer?
scott
Scott I posted a response to you. I agrred with some of your assumptions. Your response seemed more appropriately a point counter point aguement. I am looking for some way to quantify they stragey.
Vince
it's way down there now, but i did some math. it is a response to your agreeing with some of my assumptions. i don't claim it is complete, but i think it takes into account the important factors. look it over. what do you think?
scott
Not a bad post, John. Of cours, we wouldn't expect any less from one of our superstars :).
Seriously, I think that what most of us find the most valuable in the 2+2 texts are the general insights that the authors provide. I can't really remember the specifics of most of the 'examples', because I've never paid much attention to them. Wait; that's not true. When I was first learning the game I paid a TON of attention to them. But now that I've become older, wiser and fatter-- no, I mean savvier- I find that the basic ideas presented in the texts are what I find the most compelling and enlightening.
John wrote:
>>Now you "...object to the assertion, '. . . whereas before it wouldn't have won'", insisting that 'if they meant it to be qualified they'd have qualified it'. Yet I think that most rational readers can see in the text that they did not mean it in the absolute, literal, 100% of the time, way that you think they did. As in any book, meaning here is partly conveyed through the whole, the gestalt, and the context.<<
This is the second time John has suggested that I have taken a phrase from HPFAP out of context. As in the previous instance, however, I provided the full context so readers could determine for themselves what the authors intended.
It's easy to accuse somebody of taking phrases out of context, because this is very subjective.
Once again, I will repeat the passage, this time quoting an additional paragraph instead of paraphrasing it so as to provide even richer context. On pages 168-169 of HPFAP-1999, the authors give an example where you hold Ts9s in early position, the flop is Ad7c6h, and the pot is "pretty big." The authors suggest betting out the flop, in part, to drive out hands like KdJh.
"Getting back to the above example, what's the chance that a ten or a nine will come in that spot? You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won.
"You also have about a 15 percent chance to make your gut shot. So you go from as little as 15 percent to probably over 20 percent because you bet that T9 and knocked out the over cards to your cards."
Notice that the two quoted paragraphs are an attempt to mathematically justify the advice of betting out on the flop. Most authors, when they perform mathematical analyses, deliberately use words and phrases in a fairly explicit sense rather than rely on readers to correctly infer their intended meanings. Of course, David and Mason are not presenting a formal "proof" of their advice, so they are not using exact numbers. But notice how they carefully qualify their approximations: "about 25 percent," "a decent proportion," "about a 15 percent chance," "as little as 15 percent," and "probably over 20 percent."
Yet John would have us believe that when the authors said "whereas before it wouldn't have won," they intended to imply "whereas before it only would have won about 15 to 20 percent of the time."
I'm using the 15-20 percent figure because that's my estimate of how often you typically will win with a pair if you check instead of bet the flop and none of your opponents has an an ace in their hand. Of course, the 15-20 percent probably would drop to 3-4 percent after you apply the author's estimates of losing to a better hand.
Infering 15-20 percent from a literal zero percent seems like a stretch. But the 3-4 percent figure certainly is closer to zero. So, perhaps John is suggesting that the authors really intended to convey something like: "You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent (assuming you are not against an ace), and if you bet out as we recommend, you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before you only win about 3 to 4 percent of the time (after taking into account that you might be against an ace)."
While this is a plausible rationalization, to suggest that the authors meant this borders on accusing them of intellectual dishonesty. It is extremely misleading to compare an adjusted 3 or 4 percent against an unadjusted 25 percent, and I don't believe David and Mason intended to do this. Nor do I think that John believes this either. So the question remains, John, how do you interpret the passage in question?
I think the authors simply were careless in their analysis and failed to realize that you also can win the pot with a pair when you simply check the flop. That's what I suggested in my post, and that's what I will believe until I have good grounds to believe otherwise.
I've answered John's relevant objections to this "Error #1: Checking still could win" sub-thread. To help keep the general thread organized, I will, in a separate post, later address his comments about the issue of whether you should bet or check the flop when you hold a mediocre hand and are involved in a pretty big pot. If I have time, I might even deal with his less topical concerns. However, I do have a life outside the Internet.
Mark writes: This is the second time John has suggested that I have taken a phrase from HPFAP out of context.
Not at all. I suggested that in attempting to understand the passage in question you missed its meaning, conveyed in context upon reading the whole of the text on that page. I elaborated on this, and others have mentioned it too. (I believe my other mention of "context" was in a similar vein.)
If some guy misinterpreted the advice on that page to mean you should literally do everything possible to win a big pot, no matter your chances, then that is hardly the fault of the authors.
Mark writes: I think the authors simply were careless in their analysis and failed to realize that you also can win the pot with a pair when you simply check the flop.
My guess is that they realized that.
John,
If you guess the authors realized that, then I ask you again: How do you interpret the passage in question?
Mark and John,
You two must have been watching cable tonite at the same time as me. Steven Hawkings was great. So was Ed Witten. But the part about String theory being the Theory of Everthing really through me. Funny you two would discuss it here on a poker forum. Gives meaning to everything now doesn't it.
Vince.
John noted: "David has stated again that exceptions are possible, but that it is a sound rule of thumb most of the time."
What David wrote was: "I for one don't have the time to check Mark's math and arguments to see how often the bet might be very slightly wrong given certain types of opponents. In fact it could be dangerous to your bankroll to even be aware that there may be exceptions if you don't know exactly when those exceptions occur."
As I noted in my response to Greg, I'm not looking for a good rule of thumb. And I'm certainly not looking for a "standard" play to apply whenever I have a mediocre hand in early position and the pot is big at the flop. In complex situations like these, I want to make my decision on a case-by-case basis. For each particular scenario, I want to evaluate the important factors and determine which betting action will be the most profitable.
John and I might disagree as to exactly how often you should bet out on the flop in certain situations, but I think we both realize the importance of making informed decisions.
John stated: "The 2+2 advice in these instances is based on concepts which 'well schooled' players have known for years (e.g., that it is often worth taking some extra risks to win very big pots), in large part thanks to David's _The Theory of Poker_."
I have never disagreed with the idea that, as pots become larger, it sometimes makes sense to bet (or raise or check-raise) with some hands that you normally would check, call, or fold. In fact, I pointed readers to an excellent Roy Cooke column in the 23 July 1999 issue of CARDPLAYER magazine. Roy explained why he check-raised with a drawing hand to knock out a player who easily could have AK, thus buying himself an extra three "integer" outs. He only used a single example, but he illuminated the underlying concepts very well and explained how he considered various important factors. Most of Roy's readers probably could figure out when this same concept could be applied in other situations.
My criticism of HPFAP-1999's "When the Pot Gets Big" chapter is that it does a poor job of describing the underlying concepts, uses bad examples, and does not discuss the important factors players should ponder when deciding whether betting or checking is more profitable.
John observed: "There are of course some obvious exceptions to the advice to bet in the current scenario. e.g., say you have some extremely strong evidence that another player has AA. Maybe you've played a lot with this player and *know*, because he is virtually 100% predictable, that his preflop play indicates pocket aces. (e.g., maybe he limp-reraised, and always does so with AA, but never with any other hand. Or maybe you saw his cards.) Well, now you don't care about knocking out a hand like KJ. So the need to bet is greatly diminished."
There are *plenty* of obvious exceptions to the advice to bet in the current scenario. Several of my stronger opponents will raise pre-flop from early position with AA, KK, QQ, AKs, AK, AQs, and a few "deceptive" hands, so I can be reasonably certain that my catching a single pair is unlikely to win me the pot at showdown. So my betting the flop to knock out hands like KdJh is pretty much a waste of money, especially since these opponents could well raise my flop bet. Other opponents might add hands like JJ, TT, AQo, AJs, and KQs to their early-position, pre-flop raising arsenal. I'll usually check the flop to them, too. If many of my opponents will call pre-flop with any hand that contains an ace, I will lean towards checking the flop. If the pot is big on the flop because there were multiple pre-flop raisers or if I have other good reasons to suspect that my flop bet likely will be raised, I usually will check the flop. If there are only a few players (who all paid multiple pre-flop bets) involved at the flop, I probably will check the flop. If many of the opponents still involved in the big pot usually will call a flop bet with hands like KJ, I will tend to check the flop. Enough already?
John explained: "But as David points out, most players are probably best advised not to look for much more subtle exceptions. The cost when they're wrong is too high."
Perhaps I was mistaken earlier. Maybe both of us do *not* realize the importance of making informed decisions.
Suppose you had 5s2s in the big blind and got a free look at the flop while facing seven opponents. The flop comes AhTd6d. Should you check-call or check-fold in this situation? (Presumably, betting the flop rarely would be correct.) If you check-fold, you might save a bet or two, but you could end up surrendering a big pot that would have been yours. Is the cost of being wrong too high in this situation? Or should players attempt to evaluate the most important factors and make an informed decision about which play would be more profitable? John and David seem to feel that most players are incapable of making these kinds of informed decisions. I beg to differ.
John continued: "The idea is that when the pot is very large, and you have some realistic shot at it, winning it more *often* is usually worth FAR more than saving a bet or two. You have not shown otherwise."
To a large extent, your correct play will depend on how realistic your shot at winning the pot is. If your chances of winning are so small that the pot odds are not offering you an overlay, you generally should check-and-fold. If you are getting an overlay, then you must decide whether it is more profitable to bet/raise or to check/call. Generally, you will want to bet/raise when the number of players you expect to call offers an overlay to your chances of winning. Sometimes, when you are close to getting that overlay, you can bet/raise if you think your action will buy you enough extra pot equity. And there are other factors to consider as well. But when the pot is very large and you have a playable hand, you usually will want to check/call rather than bet/raise. I showed this in the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread that began on 11 November 1999.
"Calling stations" rarely make expensive mistakes, but they generally bust out quickly making many cheap mistakes. Ironically, if you understand why this statement is true, then you should understand why checking usually is preferable to betting when pots are big and you have a playable hand.
There's really nothing more to say. You contend that you've "shown" that checking is usually better in the situations discussed. I contend that you've listed factors that point in that direction, but which are usually outweighed by those which point the other way. Specifics have been discussed by various posters in this and previous threads.
I agree with some of your points. I agree that these decisions can be evaluated on a case by case basis. (The same can be said, however, for almost any poker decision to which a valid rule of thumb might otherwise be applied. And the more expert the player, the more exceptions he will find.) I agree that the variables you've listed in your posts do go into these decisions. I don't think they invalidate the book's advice.
(BTW, in his article Roy Cooke states the same principle that David and Mason do. I doubt they would have any problem with his check-raise, though a case could also have been made for betting out in the hope of knocking out the possible AK right then and there.)
I wrote: "I have never disagreed with the idea that, as pots become larger, it sometimes makes sense to bet (or raise or check-raise) with some hands that you normally would check, call, or fold. In fact, I pointed readers to an excellent Roy Cooke column in the 23 July 1999 issue of CARDPLAYER magazine."
John wrote: "BTW, in his article Roy Cooke states the same principle that David and Mason do."
Duh. That's why I mentioned his column--twice. If members of this forum are interested in reading a well-written and informative explanation of the "buying extra effective outs" concept, they should read Roy's article rather than HPFAP-1999's "When the Pot Gets Big" chapter. Better yet, read both. Then compare and contrast.
On the other hand, I hope my opponents at the table only read the HPFAP-1999 chapter.
In a prior post, John explained: "But as David points out, most players are probably best advised not to look for much more subtle exceptions."
In his latest post, John stated: "I agree that these decisions can be evaluated on a case by case basis."
It's good to see that John has regained his faith in the intelligence of this forum's readers.
Suppose you check the flop and everyone else also checks. Suppose further that the turn is a King and the river is a 10. Would you then agree that betting the flop (which you would have called anyway had someone else bet) may allow you to win the pot.
I guess what I am trying to say is of course you are correct in stating that "checking still could win". However, there is no question that betting increases your chances of winning and that's the whole point of the example (i.e. when the pot is big, don't worry about losing a bet or two; rather, do what it takes within reason to win the pot)
I agree that one can find "errors" in the excerpts you have quoted if one were to scrutinize every word in its literal context-void sense. However, when taken as a whole, I believe that the point made by the example is correct.
The book is geared for advanced players. I don't think one has to worry about players blindly following the advice given in the book. Good players know when the rules apply and when the exceptions apply.
skp asked: "Suppose you check the flop and everyone else also checks. Suppose futher that the turn is a King and the river is a 10. Would you then agree that betting the flop (which you would have called anyway had someone else bet) may allow you to win the pot."
Yes, I would agree. If I held Ts2s instead of Ts9s, betting the flop also might allow me to win the pot. So what?
skp told us what: "However, there is no question that betting increases your chances of winning and that's the whole point of the example . . ."
Actually there is some question, but skp probably didn't mean this in the literal sense. Some opponents almost always will pay a small bet to see the turn card, especially when the pot is pretty big. Even more will do so when they have a backdoor straight draw. But suppose you check the flop, the flop checks around, and the turn is a 9. Now, what will likely happen if you bet out on the turn? (Remember, when you check the flop, you don't forfeit your right to bet the turn.) That KdJh doesn't have a chance to make a straight. In addition, your opponent only has one chance (instead of two) to catch a king or a jack. Furthermore, that player is facing a big bet instead of a small bet, making the pot odds smaller. By checking the flop, you might increase your chances of winning against certain opponents. David and Mason refer to this concept as "manipulating the pot size" (see pp. 157-160 in HPFAP-1999).
More importantly, maximizing your chances of winning the pot is *not* the whole point of the example. At least it shouldn't be. Again, skp probably didn't mean this literally. He apparently was just parroting the authors, who wrote, "If a nine or a ten comes on the river you want to maximize your chance of winning." (HPFAP-1999, p. 168.)
Even when the pot is big, your goal in poker is to maximize your expectation--not your chances of winning. This topic was discussed in the "Another HPFAP 'Loose Games' error" thread (begun on 7 November 1999). There, Mason acknowledged that, even in large pots, maximizing your chances of winning is not always the same thing as maximizing your expectation. The authors apparently intended for their statements in this chapter to mean that you "usually" want to maximize you chance of winning in these kinds of situations. I contend that even this modified advice is wrong, though. See the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread (begun on 11 November 1999).
skp adviced that "when the pot is big, don't worry about losing a bet or two; rather, do what it takes within reason to win the pot."
The first portion of this advice is merely another echo of a HPFAP statement: "The point is that when a lot of bets are in the center of the table you don't worry about saving bets." (HPFAP-1999, p. 169.) This, too, was a topic of discussion in that "Another HPFAP 'Loose Games' error" thread. Of course saving bets can matter, even when pots are big.
But skp didn't mean this literally, for he added the qualification that you should "do what it takes *within reason* to win the pot." (Emphasis added.) Which brings us back to the main purpose of the current thread. When the pot is pretty big, what are the important factors to consider as you attempt to determine if it is more reasonable to bet the flop or check it?
skp wrote: "I agree that one can find 'errors' in the excerpts you have quoted if one were to scrutinize every word in its literal context-void sense. However, when taken as a whole, I believe that the point made by the example is correct."
If the example's point is that, in big pots, it *sometimes* makes sense to bet out on the flop with mediocre hands that you normally would check, call, or fold, then I agree. And the authors should be commended for noting this. If the point is that you *usually* should bet out your mediocre hands in these situations, then I believe their advice is very debatable. I give my reasons for disagreeing in the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread. If the advice is that it is "almost mandatory" to bet (HPFAP-1999, p. 168) or that "it could be dangerous to your bankroll to even be aware that there may be exceptions if you don't know exactly when those exceptions occur" (David Sklansky, 14 November 1999, at 5:38 p.m., elsewhere in this thread), then I believe this advice is misleading at best.
In any case, would it not be useful to discuss the more important factors? If you hold Ts9s and the flop is Ad7c6h, should you bet out the flop if a strong player raised pre-flop? What if that player raised from middle position? From early position? What if there was no pre-flop raise, but you face seven opponents, several of whom would call pre-flop with any hand that contained any ace? What if you expected your flop bet to be raised about 50 percent of the time? What about 75 percent? What about 90 percent? What if several of your opponents are unlikely to fold hands like KdJh to a single small bet? What if the flop had been Ad7c6d? AdJh7c? AdJh7d? AdJd7d?
skp, I believe you might have some valuable insights to offer in such a discussion, and I would be very interested to read them. You are, of course, not obligated to share your knowledge.
skp concluded: "The book is geared for advanced players. I don't think one has to worry about players blindly following the advice given in the book. Good players know when the rules apply and when the exceptions apply."
While the book is aimed at advanced players, I'm surprised how many poor players have read (or claimed to have read) HPFAP. In fact, I decided to start the "Another HPFAP 'Loose Games' error" thread after one such player bet out a big-pot flop with a nearly hopeless hand (i.e., maybe one percent equity). He lost, but he explained to everyone that S&M said that, when the pot is big, you "had to do everything possible to maximize your chance of winning." Another player laughed and said that couldn't possibly be what they wrote. The next day, the bettor appeared with a copy of the book and proudly showed us the passage he had quoted. Of course, the authors never meant any such thing. But you can see how some HPFAP readers could be mislead by the poor writing, analysis, and examples in their "When the Pot Gets Big" chapter.
Good players like skp might know when to bet and when to check if the pot is big and they hold mediocre hands. Less skillful players such as myself have not yet figured out where to draw the line. We have to think about these kinds of situations and possibly discuss them with other poker players. The questions I raised four paragraphs earlier present some difficult scenarios that are not at all obvious to me. If skp would be so kind as to help illuminate these matters, I (for one) would be very grateful.
It's an error if you make this play in the wrong games or the wrong situations. It's not an error in the situation the book refers to. The key is that this play costs you very little in most cases. You have four outs twice to make your gutshot, so you generally have 16% equity in the pot (adjust downward because of backdoor flushes and other hands that will beat you when you make your hand, adjust upward for those times when you'll make a pair and win, adjust for extra callers later in the hand when you make your straight on the turn...). There will be times when there is no ace out there and this bet wins you a pot you would have lost to a hand like KJ or JT or a backdoor flush (those pots far more than make up for the fractions of a bet you lose when you get raised and you would have only had to call one bet had you checked). A player with ace-weak might bet if you don't, but might just call if you bet, so you don't lose anything in that case. And when you make your straight, the larger pot will induce calls by hands drawing dead to you.
Dan, I'm not terribly concerned about hands like KJ (see my "Error #1: Checking still could win" sub-thread, above).
Hands like JT are somewhat more worrisome, but see my "Buying extra equity" sub-thread in the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread that began on 11 November 1999. After reading it, you might want to revise you estimate that "those pots far more than make up for the fractions of a bet you lose . . ."
Break those shackles, Dan. Free your mind! ;-)
Mark,
I don't really understand your crusade, but the answer to every poker question is "it depends". Unless we know all the variables in a particular situation it is always relativly simple to construct counter examples to any piece of advice.
That said, you just have to take EVERYTHING you read with a grain of salt. When reading any poker book you have to understand where the author is coming from, what kinds of games the author is talking about, what implicit assumptions are being made.
Once you understand the author, you can better understand the advice, and then you can learn to apply it in the correct situations.
- Andrew
In his post, Dan suggests: "It's an error if you make this play in the wrong games or the wrong situations. It's not an error in the situation the book refers to."
In his post, Andrew notes, "the answer to every poker question is 'it depends'. Unless we know all the variables in a particular situation it is always relativly simple to construct counter examples to any piece of advice."
Andrew's above comments generally are right. The correct advice will depend on the specifics of the particular situation.
The HPFAP example on page 168 leaves out a couple important elements. (1) How did the pot get "pretty big?" Did lots of players stay in to see the flop? Was there pre-flop raising? Both? (2) What kind of players are involved in this pot? Are they loose players who will call (or raise) with any hand containing an ace? Are they solid players who will raise pre-flop with most of their starting hands that contain an ace? Other types of players? Some combination of the above?
Andrew, my objection is that the authors failed to mention which considerations might cause a player to prefer checking over betting the flop. When they pronounce "it is almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position," they mislead less thoughtful readers than you or me. Readers might conclude that other factors rarely matter in these kinds of situations. And if readers do wonder what factors might be important, the book isn't very illuminating. Which is why I've been discussing this topic on this forum.
If you aren't getting much benefit from these discussions, Andrew, I certainly can understand. Once you appreciate the basic concepts of poker, much of what I have explained should be reasonably obvious. Some forum participants, however, apparently do not understand these fundamental principles and apparently have no interest in learning them. That's okay. I hope others are getting something from these discussions.
Mark writes: "When they pronounce "it is almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position," they mislead less thoughtful readers than you or me. Readers might conclude that other factors rarely matter in these kinds of situations. And if readers do wonder what factors might be important, the book isn't very illuminating."
Much of the writing style I too find objectionable. It sometimes strikes me that the tone is a bit like pronouncements made from on high. When the accompaning ideas are controversial as well it makes for a disconcerting resonance.
I would really like DS or MM to elaborate on exactly what type of game conditons, limits, and mood they had in mind when they wrote this section on loose game play. Without that information, most of the advice is suspect and might be counterproductive.
Mark Glover wrote:
"they mislead less thoughtful readers than you or me."
Scott H Wrote:
"Much of the writing style I too find objectionable. It sometimes strikes me that the tone is a bit like pronouncements made from on high."
Both of these statements refer to Mason and David. So why do I feel they could apply to both Mark and Scott's very own statements themselves.
Am I the only one with true humility here?
Vince
that's VINCE!!!
scott
(the humble one who does not even capitalize his own name.)
Vince,
You ask:***"Am I the only one with true humility here?***
I answer: No!
My humility, which is not only authentic, but deserved, is far greater than yours. I am, for example, too humble to question whether Mark Glover should consider the possibility that David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth both play better than they write. I, and I say this humbly, write far better than I play. It is my reading comprehension which I fear is deficient. I have tried to keep up with what he is questioning, and so far have been unable to discern why it would amount to much more than nit-picking. I suppose that if I understood what Malmuth and Sklansky had written in the first place, I would be better able to understand the problems Mark is having with some of it. I do know that when he writes of the benefits to be derived by players less enlightened than he, Scott and Andrew, my ears prick right up and I fairly want to scream: "You mean Vince and I, don't you?" Unfortunately, my humility would never allow me to couple your name and mine together in the same sentence when it concerned poker enlightenment. I submit this last sentence as proof that I am the humbler of the two of us.
Vince,
I made a mistake. I am embarrassed and ashamed. And I apologize.
Let's see if you can get DS or MM to make such a mea culpa. ;-)
Please allow me to restate my point.
Many HPFAP-1999 readers are well versed in poker theory and carefully consider the advice in the book. Others, however, do not have a theoretical understanding that is as strong or do not take what they read in one portion of the book and carefully integrate it with what they read later in the book. It isn't that they are lazy or stupid; perhaps they just have better things to do with their time.
In my humble opinion, HPFAP does a disservice to these other readers. By stating that they always or almost always should bet out the flop in certain situations while not adaquately specifying those situations, I believe HPFAP misleads some of its readers. And costs them money.
Mark,
You wrote:
"I believe HPFAP misleads some of its readers. And costs them money"
Now I don't feel the same way that you do. Duh, pretty obvious huh. That is not the point. My problem with your statement is that you commit the same offense you accuse 2+2 authors of making. Specifically you claim that a check is a better play but never give any specific quantifiable evidence. I'm still waiting for that. You may ask Why do I not ask 2+2 the same question? I do now. When I read HPFAP and every other poker book by Mason and Skalnsky, I read them with a lot of skepticism at first. I learned their theories and then tried to apply them. I found that thier strategies worked for me. Including the one we are discussing now. I will admit that I am not in this situation very often so my experience is obviously not a conclusive measure of the correctness of the strategy but I will continue to apply this strategy until I have been shown another is superior. Why? Because Sklansky and Malmuth have proven to me, through their writing, that they are honest, expert and thoughful when it comes to poker theory. (Of course I wouldn't trust them, either of them, with my wife. If I had one. Well I had one once and I wouldn't trust them with her either or maybe I wouldn't trust her with them. uhh O.Kay....) If following thier advice that betting is superior in these situations is "blindly going along" then I plead guilty.
Of course that does not stop me from complimenting you on keeping this needed discussion going. This discussion should go a long way to showing all concerned that poker playing is complex and not easy to pin down.
Vince.
Vince wrote: "My problem with your statement is that you commit the same offense you accuse 2+2 authors of making. Specifically you claim that a check is a better play but never give any specific quantifiable evidence. I'm still waiting for that."
As I told Vince earlier, he's in for a long wait if he expects me to mathematically prove that checking in this example has a higher expectation than betting. Nor will such a proof be forthcoming from David or Mason.
There are just too many unknowns: how big is the pot, what was the pre-flop action, who are your opponents, what positions are they in, what are their pre-flop, flop, turn, and river playing strategies, what are their stack sizes, are any currently tilting or rushing, how long have they been playing this session, what tells are they exhibiting, what is your current table image, what tells might you be exhibiting, etc., etc., etc.
Most poker situations are complex enough that it is too difficult to compute the exact expectation of your various playing options, even when the situations are well defined.
If Vince is seeking specific quantifiable evidence, then his best hope probably is to perform some simulations. Of course, skeptics will assert that the simulated situation differs too greatly from the real-life situation for the "answer" to be meaningful. Even as simulations become better and better, you can expect to hear this objection.
What I offered was the theoretical concepts that support my belief. See the "Check vs. bet: theory (was HPFAP error)" thread that began on 11 November 1999. If you understand the theory, you stand a better chance of estimating the expectation of various plays while you are at the table.
During the past two weeks, I also have explored some of the factors that I believe are important to consider when you are deciding what the most profitable play is likely to be. I have never claimed that a check always is preferable to a bet. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. What I have been discussing is: when is checking better and when is it not?
David and Mason seem to prefer making pronouncements rather than presenting arguments and theories to support their beliefs. Do you see the difference?
Vince noted: "If following their advice that betting is superior in these situations is 'blindly going along' then I plead guilty."
If you are committed to blindly following the advice of one book, and if you really understand the concepts in HPFAP, and if you are able to resolve the conflicts that arise when the recommended action in one part of that book differs from the recommended action in another part of that book, then blindly following HPFAP might serve you reasonably well in certain types of games against certain types of opponents.
Of course, most players who can integrate the teachings of HPFAP that well also are able to incorporate advice from other books and other authors. They usually develop their own understanding of the essential principles of poker and can apply their own independent analysis at the tables. They will be able to adjust to different situations and different opponents. And they will have little need or desire to "blindly go along."
By the way, I don't believe Vince blindly follows HPFAP. Nor do I recommend that he do so. ;-)
1) "It's so important to increase your chance to win the pot that it can be right to bet a hand that you know is beat. 2)For instance, if you have Ts9s, the flop comes Ad7c6h, and the pot is pretty big, it is almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position.
3) You do this not only because you might make a straight, but because it is important to get hands like KdJh out." (HPFAP-1999, p. 168.)
Those are the only mistakes I could find. Wait a minute let me try again.
1) "It's so important to increase your chance to win the pot that
2) it can be right to bet a hand that you know is beat.
3) For instance, if you have Ts9s, the flop comes Ad7c6h, and the pot is pretty big,
4) it is almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position.
5) You do this not only because you might make a straight,
6) but because it is important to get hands like KdJh out." 7) (HPFAP-1999, p. 168.)
8) Instead, they will have to be satisfied with the warm feeling they experience upon breaking free from the slavery of blindly following authority,
9) the new vistas they will comprehend after exercising their independent minds,
10) the inflated bankrolls they will accumulate when they understand the fundamentals of poker . . .
How's that? Did I win? Did I miss the elephant hidden in the last paragraph? Man, that was fun! Thanks Mark.
Vince.
you also missed the top hat hidden in the margin.
scott
Vince,
You are a winner . . . in your own special way.
Even those readers who agree with the HPFAP advice to bet the flop in the example on page 168 still might be able to find some flaws in the HPFAP analysis that supports that advice.
Advocates of betting out the flop, for example, should be able to acknowledge the error pointed out in the "Error #1: Checking still could win" sub-thread. (At least one forum participant, however, apparently has difficulty conceding even this much ground.)
Again the general point is that this bet will occasionally win you the pot when the smoke clears at a cost of at most a very small fraction of a bet when it doesn't.
From the standpoint of us as authors you should keep in mind that until we wrote about this play, almost everyone would have checked in these type of situations without giving it a second thought. Thus they would have missed a powerful and profitable general concept. To put it another way most players would check here not for Mark Glover's reasons but rather because it never even occurred to them to bet.
When we give examples of a particular concept, we often pick situations that push the envelope of what we are trying to convey, in order to emphasize the point we are making. Thus that specific example is often one that in certain circumstances could be quarelled with. I for one don't have the time to check Mark's math and arguments to see how often the bet might be very slightly wrong given certain types of opponents. In fact it could be dangerous to your bankroll to even be aware that there may be exceptions if you don't know exactly when those exceptions occur.
David wrote: Again the general point is that this bet will occasionally win you the pot when the smoke clears at a cost of at most a very small fraction of a bet when it doesn't.
Okay, so sometimes you win the whole pot. That is definately something to think about. If we are going to talk on theoretical terms, and say that the play only costs you a "very small fraction of a bet" when it doesn't work (theoretically speaking of course), then you should also say it only wins you a "small fraction of the whole pot" when it does work. Clearly in practical terms you may win the whole pot because you bet. But also, many times you will lose a full small bet or more. The above statement really makes the play sound better than it is. For what it's worth, and that ain't much, I think David and Mason are overestimating the chances that this bet will win the pot, and underestimating the $$ that you could save when you check. Still an interesting concept however, and David is very right in saying that almost everyone wouldn't have even thought of betting here.
I don't believe Pierre intended for his response to be an entry in this contest. Still, if it isn't a full-fledged contest winner, it at least deserves an honorable mention.
Pierre's post doesn't reveal any errors or problems with the actual HPFAP advice, but it does expose the logical flaw in an argument David used to defend that HPFAP advice.
In so doing, Pierre promoted a better understanding of when players should bet their mediocre hands if the pot is large. (Or at least he derailed a potential misunderstanding.) Thus, he fulfilled the spirit of this contest.
He also demonstrated a willingness to question the statements of experts and to use his own mind to develop his own understanding of basic poker principles. Therefore, he accomplished a secondary goal of this contest.
If any of this forum's readers disagrees with Pierre's assessment, I'd be curious to learn what those objections are. Personally, I think his post hit the bull's-eye.
David wrote: "Again the general point is that this bet will occasionally win you the pot when the smoke clears at a cost of at most a very small fraction of a bet when it doesn't."
Pierre responded: "Okay, so sometimes you win the whole pot. That is definately something to think about. If we are going to talk on theoretical terms, and say that the play only costs you a 'very small fraction of a bet' when it doesn't work (theoretically speaking of course), then you should also say it only wins you a 'small fraction of the whole pot' when it does work. Clearly in practical terms you may win the whole pot because you bet. But also, many times you will lose a full small bet or more. The above statement really makes the play sound better than it is."
David wrote: "From the standpoint of us as authors you should keep in mind that until we wrote about this play, almost everyone would have checked in these type of situations without giving it a second thought."
I commend you and Mason for pointing out that, as pots become larger, certain factors become more important to consider. You also are to be praised for noting that, in certain situations, players will want to bet or raise with some hands they ordinarily would check, call, or fold.
I just believe you did a poor job of explaining which factors are important to consider and how they influence a player's proper action on the flop and turn.
David wrote: "When we give examples of a particular concept, we often pick situations that push the envelope of what we are trying to convey, in order to emphasize the point we are making. Thus that specific example is often one that in certain circumstances could be quarelled with."
Some of the examples you give in the "When the Pot Gets Big" chapter are misleading because, in many circumstances, the advice they offer would be wrong.
David wrote: "I for one don't have the time to check Mark's math and arguments to see how often the bet might be very slightly wrong given certain types of opponents."
That's a shame. If you did the math and considered the arguments, you might discover that betting out on the flop can be wrong in many of the situations HPFAP describes.
David wrote: "In fact it could be dangerous to your bankroll to even be aware that there may be exceptions if you don't know exactly when those exceptions occur."
Readers who blindly follow the advice in your "When the Pot Gets Big" chapter often will make avoidable mistakes. Those players who understand the important factors they should consider when contesting large pots will more easily determine when they should bet out (or raise) and when they should check (or call).
That's why several of us are discussing this topic on this forum. It would be wonderful if you offered us your insights, but you certainly are not obligated to do so. If you try to discourage this debate, however, please bear in mind that you might be doing a disservice to this community.
Mark
I'm one of the newer players you referred to, and I have a question. Whose oppinion will serve as conformation that I've discovered a genuine error in Mr. Malmuth's and Mr.Sklansky's theory of play??
Since no cash or prizes are being awarded to winners, there does not have to be a clear determination of whether or not you have found a genuine error.
If you submit an entry, it (hopefully) will be discussed on this forum. A reasonable debate should shed some light on those submissions that are obviously well founded or clearly bogus. Entries that fall in the gray areas could prove to be the most beneficial to forum readers, perhaps illuminating the factors that players should consider when they find themselves in various "big pot" situations.
In the end, readers will decide for themselves whether an entrant has discovered a genuine error and whether to integrate the principles into their own understanding of poker. That's the real purpose of this contest: to facilitate everybody's understanding of the fundamentals of poker.
My pappy once told me, "Good teachers don't teach you what to think; they teach you how to think."
Mark,
I for one am not sure whether the advice you're debating is good general advice, or bad general advice. I am not sure whether or not my "standard" play in situations like this should be to bet out or check-and-call. I think that this is a very complex area, and that it is easy to make mistakes in judgment. [If I had to guess, I would suppose that either play will not differ from the other in long-term EV by all that much, i.e., less than half a small bet. Half a small bet is nothing to snear at, but it is not going to make the difference between success or failure as a poker player.]
So, this post has nothing to do with the underlying debate.
OK, here's the point I've been leading up to. The style in which you are making all of these posts about S&M errors is really making you look like a petulant little ass.
Often it is easy to misinterpret someone's intentions on the internet, because you cannot "hear" the tone of voice that they are using. That is why you should put the smiley face after your sarcastic comments. Maybe your "tone" is not as I'm interpreting it. If so, I believe that it is incumbent upon you (as the poster) to word your posts in a manner that avoids that possibility to the greatest extent possible.
later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
i don't know greg... i just can't, in good conscience, put those silly things in my writing. it is such an abuse of language. like the mass marketed cliches found in commercials and greeting cards. i can't do it. still, i think people can tell when i'm joking. and, if not, then 'get tough.'
scott
.
scott wrote: i think people can tell when i'm joking
But they can't. Unless you are a regular on a site, and all your readers are also regulars, and even then many of them won't be sure when you're being sarcastic or not. Same thing for other jokes, intonations, etc. It has nothing to do with intelligence or anything else. Sometimes, you can say the same words and have very different meanings, and no one on the internet can read those words and KNOW which meaning you intended every time. Thus, those faces serve a useful function.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
greg, i am never mean. and if people don't get my jokes, there is no real harm done. no one has responded seriously to one of my humorous posts. except that bizzare thread about the nl game in california. where i said 'exchange' and he replied 'thanks for saving me money'. but that is not even really a joke. relax. no harm, no foul. i still don't like those smiles, but do what you want.
scott
Does your disregard for the abuse of written english prohibit the use of proper sentence structure and Grammer? What's wrong with capital letters for proper pronouns and at the beginning of sentences?;-)
after whitman, 'proper structure' has become more nebulous. i choose this writing style because it fits the way i concieve of poker.
the real reason is i want to be ray zee.
scott
Scott,
There is no way you are ever going to be Ray Zee. However, if you act really fast, I may be able to buy his baby for you. I understand that Deborah is looking for a bankroll for next years WSOP. Hurry! The supply is limited!
Greg wrote: "I for one am not sure whether the advice you're debating is good general advice, or bad general advice."
Actually, David Sklansky and John Feeney are attempting to limit this debate to general advice and rules of thumb. I'm trying to discuss what specific factors determine when betting or checking is more profitable.
Since Greg is unsure (and I suspect many others are unsure as well), I'm glad we are debating this topic. I hope readers will leave with a better understanding of when players should bet their mediocre hands in big pots and when they should just check.
Greg also noted: "I am not sure whether or not my 'standard' play in situations like this should be to bet out or check-and-call. I think that this is a very complex area, and that it is easy to make mistakes in judgment."
I'm not sure players should have a 'standard' play in situations like this. When situations are not simple, it's usually better to make your decisions on a case-by-case basis. While you sometimes will make mistakes in judgment, you have a better chance of making the right choice than when you don't think at all.
Greg speculated: "If I had to guess, I would suppose that either play will not differ from the other in long-term EV by all that much, i.e., less than half a small bet."
He might be correct. If you always bet or always checked, your average profit might be within half a small bet. But those aren't your only choices. You also can sometimes bet and sometimes check. If you tailor your actions to the particulars of each situation, your long-term EV might be more than half a small bet greater than if you always did one or the other. To do this, however, you need to know how important factors effect the proper choice. That's one reason we are having this discussion.
Greg continued: "Half a small bet is nothing to snear at, but it is not going to make the difference between success or failure as a poker player."
That's correct, if the poker player made the correct decision in all the other situations. But if players are making poor choices in these situations, then they probably are making poor choices in other situations as well. Half a small bet here, half a small bet there, and their choices quickly add up to sizeable losses at the poker tables.
Greg stated: "The style in which you are making all of these posts about S&M errors is really making you look like a petulant little ass."
As my pappy would say, "That's like the toad calling the frog ugly."
You hold Ts9s, the flop comes Ad7c6h, and the pot is pretty big. HPFAP-1999 suggests it is "almost mandatory to bet if you are in early position" because, in part, you might get hands like KdJh to fold. "Getting back to the above example, what's the chance that a ten or a nine will come in that spot? You have 6 chances twice which is about 25 percent, and if you bet out as we recommend you will win a decent proportion of those times when you make a pair, whereas before it wouldn't have won." Since your pair won't always win you the pot, the authors reduce the 25 percent figure down to probably over 5 percent. (See HPFAP-1999, pp. 168-169.)
There are several potential errors in this analysis. In this post, I'll object to the assertion, ". . . whereas before it wouldn't have won." Clearly this is wrong. If you check the flop and later catch a pair, there will be times when you still will win the pot.
Sometimes, none of your opponents will have hands like KdJh.
Furthermore, even when your opponents do hold hands like KdJh, you can catch your pair and find that none of your opponents' hands improve. The turn, for example, might put up the Td (giving you a pair), and the river might bring the 3c (not helping hands like KdJh).
Finally, by checking the flop, you do not forfeit your right to bet out on the turn. If you check the flop and catch a pair on the turn, you can bet the turn if you feel the benefits (such as probably folding hands like KdJh) outweigh the costs.
Sorry. I intended for this message to be a sub-thread to the "Contest: HPFAP 'Loose Games' errors" thread, immediately below. If you have any comments, it would be best if you made them part of that sub-thread.
Forum,
I recently played at the Sam's Town poker tournament in Vegas and I keep thinking about my last hand and I have to laugh. I want your opinions on the hand. Were in the 1st level and only 25 minutes or so into play. A couple of people at the table take their rebuy and I decided to do the same. I had entered 3 pots and stole one on the turn with a 9-10 when the flop was QQ88 and the flop was checked and the turn also checked. I have a good image at the table and most players at my table were pretty steady. I pick up 7-8d in the big blind and it gets called by 1 player and then seat 8 raises (I'm seat 5) to $100. Two more people call and I call $85 more... My chip count is $900 and the others entered is the same. The original caller folds and we take a 4 handed flop of 4c 10d jd giving me a gutshot straight flush draw. I check the raiser bets 200 and everyone folds to me. I call as I feel he has AK AJ AQ AA KK QQ. I don't think he has a straight draw or flush draw. The turn is the 9s. My perfect card. I know he likes his hand so I shove my stack in the middle... He thinks for about 30 seconds and I know I've got him now. I'm wishing he would call so I can double my stack and be off to the races and he turns over KQd with a weird look on his face as if he didn't at 1st know what he had. My jaw drops, no need for the river and I exit with a nice hand and good luck. What the hell went wrong I'm thinking as I go to the buffet to meet my wife. My question is what you would have done different. Maybe not call pre-flop. After the flop? Check the turn? I'm not sure I could have done anything different but I'll listen to anything. Thanks,
Furious Russ
Next time put this post on the "Tournaments" forum.
Even though some tournament advice is to play very tight in the early stages, I see a lot of value in accumulating chips. Therefore I also play the hand.
I might have bet the flop (and definitely would in limit) but this depends on what you think of your opponents. Other than that you were just unlucky.
Russ,
Sorry I missed you (got your message at 2:30am fri am and left at 6am that day I tried to contact you several times prior to that) read my Sam's tourney posts on OT and HE forums - I posted them before the bb split.
As for your straight flush - tough luck - I just wouldn't have called the pre flop raise with the 78 suited or not.
In a NL HE tourney you just can't get into longshot drawing situations like that it is to expensive.
At least that is my idea of a NL HE tourney.
Did you play in any of the satellites?
"I call as I feel he has AK AJ AQ AA KK QQ"
Probably should have added K,Q.
Vince.
Hey Furious,
You played it right. Nothing you can do.
In a play tourney online I got 78c, 96c plus 10s come outon the flop. Two of us go all in. Next card is a blank, river is a 9, yes he had a full house. Bad luck.
Mark
Oh well sorry, it's just that what you say makes almost as much sense as:
You get the second for free (if you don't count buying the first one).
Either it's free or not.
Either it's a zero sum game or it's not. Casino poker is not a zero sum game.
- Andrew
3-6 HE extremely weak field, little raising on any round. I am almost the only one who raises BTF. I leave for a quick 15 minute lunch and come back. I post my blinds just behind the button and get dealt K8o. No one raises and 7 players take the flop.
Flop comes K 7 4 (I also have a backdoor King high flush draw). There is a bet in early position. a couple people call, I decide to raise and try to get a free card. 4 people see the turn for 2 bets each.
Turn is a blank, everyone checks to me, I check. Since so many people called the raise, I figure I must be beaten, probably by the person who initially bet (who probably has a better king). Sometimes in these passive games your opponents could have a powerhouse but will check and call the whole way. you never really know as they can often be completely unreadable. I take the SECOND free card gladly and hope i hit my kicker or somehow my trash king holds up against the field.
river is another apparent blank. Everyone checks and I check it down. I am beaten by original bettor (UTG) who has AKs. I am silently thinking "how could he possibly play it that way?" but I keep it to myself. Obviously this opponent had no idea of the true value of his holding, or how to play it correctly. This is going to be a goood game....
By playing against such passive opponents, you do not get charged what you should when you lose a hand, therefore you are making $$ by saving $$. Also, most extremely passive opponents tend to be calling stations who pay you off fully on your winning hands. Just goes to show how important game selection really is....
dave in cali
By playing against such passive opponents, you do not get charged what you should when you lose a hand, therefore you are making $$ by saving $$. Also, most extremely passive opponents tend to be calling stations who pay you off fully on your winning hands.
Yes, opponents that are that loose-passive are great. Although I prefer loose-aggressive players because against them, I can make more money from fewer people (and my hand is more likely to hold up), the loose-passive games are so easy that it takes almost no effort to beat them.
Sometimes in these passive games your opponents could have a powerhouse but will check and call the whole way. you never really know as they can often be completely unreadable.
Yeah, against a small field of these types you can bet some pretty marginal hands for value (against a small field of "call with any pair or an ace high, and maybe a king high" opponents, I'll gladly bet 2nd pair with a good kicker to the river if the board isn't scary), and occassionally they'll flip over something huge. But don't let that deter you.
-Sean
The other good thing is that players with 2 low pair do the same thing check and call. I've seen many times on the river a player with 2 pair or low trips just check or call. If they just knew what pots odds were.
I am not comfortable with your raise on the flop holding top pair/no kicker and having 6 opponents. You are unlikely to win the pot outright and you probably don't have the best hand plus you could get re-raised. In this case it worked out well since it got you free cards to the river. I guess if you know the players very well and have a good read on the situation it is a good play, but I would not do it in the games I play in.
point taken. in this game I felt I had good control over the players. I also planned to fold if reraised since this lineup would not reraise without something spectacular! In higher limit games I think this tactic would be incorrect and I might even just fold the flop. In this case I think it worked out by making the weak player with the best hand afraid of what I "might" have and therefore let me go to the end cheaply.
good responses to all.
I can appreciate your comments, Dave, because most of the players in the low-limit games in which I am usually involved play just like that. Won't raise pre-flop with AA, won't bet out with top pair/good kicker or over pairs, etc., etc. Very hard to "read" sometimes, and sometimes I end up losing more money on a hand than I should if they had bet their hands, and sometimes I have to fight the urge to go on tilt when I lose to a weak, passive player who totally misplays his hand. Let me give you an example.
Saturday night 4-8 HE. Very loose, passive game with usually 6-8 people seeing every flop. I am in late position with A-Jo. In fact, I considered raising myself to try to buy the button, and for value, but I just called. In this case, only 5 of us took the flop of J-6-4 rainbow. All check to me, I of course bet. Button folds, one caller, and weak passive player (WPP) to my right just calls. Turn is a 9, I think. Again WPP checks, I bet, button folds, and WPP calls again. River is a 4. WPP checks again, I go ahead and bet and when he only calls, I figure there is a 100% chence that I have the best hand, right? I mean, what else can he have to never bet or check-raise with? Well, much to my surprise he turns over KK!!!
Yes, I know that I should be happy that this hand didn't cost me more, but honestly I really have to try hard to remain calm in the face of opponents like this. I suppose I wouldn't run into this at higher limits, but the casinos here don't spread anything beyond 4-8 very often, and it's either put up with this or don't play. Anyone else find this sort of action sometimes very frustrating?
I totally feel your pain! weak passive players can drive you crazy, especially when they keep beating you with terrific cards that they never even tried to play. check-call-check-call - go bang head on wall!!!!
But in the end I'd still rather have these players against me than you guys! good response!
river is another apparent blank. Everyone checks and I check it down. I am beaten by original bettor (UTG) who has AKs. I am silently thinking "how could he possibly play it that way?" but I keep it to myself. Obviously this opponent had no idea of the true value of his holding, or how to play it correctly. This is going to be a goood game....
I disagree with your analysis. You could be right about this player but you may also be wrong. You say 7 players took the flop which was K74. If I have holding AK in my hand, I am pretty sure that I won't win this pot and that I may be already dead. 7 players are just too many to beat with top pair only. Also, it is not necessarily a good idea to raise before the flop with AK from early position if you are playing in a game where you know 7 people will see the flop anyway. You didn't say he was in a blind, but it is almost NEVER good to raise with AK (i'm assuming off-suit, suited is a different story) from the blinds after 7 people are already in.
So let's assume he's in the blinds or UTG, there are seven players on the flop, and he bets his king out right away. You raise on the button when it gets to you. The odds of someone making a flush, straight, two pair, or even trips are so great that he's probably a dog on this hand at this point. So he just calls. You could have been raising two pair or trips already, or even raising on the come for an open ended straight or flush draw or both.
I don't know how many times you have flopped K with A kicker against 7 opponents and won, but I know that I lose the vast majority of those hands. If I get raised into on the flop with a board like that, I am resigned to losing two more big bets. You basically can't drop K with A kicker if the board isn't showing something scary and you only have to pay one bet, but raising is not often the best move because this hand will lose so often (when playing against lots of opponents). Shorthanded play is very different and if three people had seen the flop, you may have seen him play it differently.
Your experience throughout the session may have justified your original impression of this player, but I disagree that this hand alone showed you that he was easy to beat.
At the Normandie Casino in Southern Cal., they have no small blind in the 6-12 games (and lower limits), just one big blind next to the button. I was wondering if this would cause you to choose playing there, compared to lets say Hollywood Park, that has the same Three dollar drop plus the small blind for 6-12? (Assuming the games are equally good at both casinos.) Everyone I talked with really likes the no small-blind format. All comments are appreciated.
Thanks,JB
JB,
From a "cost