![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Just had a small pot chopped in 4-8 and I have a question about how it was done. After the river there were 4 players left and it was checked around. The first two players threw the hands in the muck and I and another player, played the board. At this point the dealer said the board played and went on to chop the pot four ways. I feel that since myself and the other player had cards and the other two did not, there should have only been a two way split. Am I correct or not?
You are correct. When a player throws his hand away he is no longer in the hand. Even if the nuts is on the table (e.g.- Ace-high straight with no flush possibility or four of a kind with an Ace) each player must have a hand to be in the pot. It is the player's individual responsibility to protect his hand and to be aware of what is going on.
ive played where they let the hands still be live but i dont like it. also some places let you say board then fold which keeps your hand live for the board. in small stakes games it may be better to allow their hands to be live as losing on misunderstanding of the rules or proceedures isnt always in the best interest of anyone. i do feel that in order to win in most cases you need to have a hand to show. once aperson who was an angle shooter threw his hand away and claimed half the pot on a board split. i complained and said he had three cards and thats why he threw them away and his hand must be dead. so it pays to have the things to say planned in advanced to give yourself a chance when the decisions are made by floor people trying to keep everyone happy rather than do the right thing.
Thanks for the info. The pot was small and I had just sat down in the game, so I did not want to state a fight about a small pot. When I get back I plan to talk to the floor to find out for sure what the rule is.
I saw a post on RGP that said that at the Taj the rule is best five card hand gets the pot, not best seven card hand. I'm glad I knew this rule; at the Taj one day, the pot was heads up on the river and checked around. The other player mucked his hand, and the dealer waited patiently for me to turn my hand (AT) up before awarding me the pot. If I played the board (by, for example, mucking), the dealer would have chopped the pot.
In Boloxi Miss. at the Grand Casino you can say i play the board and throw away your hand face down and recieve part of the pot.
You must declare you are playing the board. I once throw my hand in by accident when the board played and did not get any of the pot because i did not declare playing the board before my hand hit the muck.
Part of Morten's concern was "suckouts", occurring too frequently against the best hand on the flop. He was seeking an answer to that, (among some other issues). I believe that opponents who are "drawing", in a Holdem hand, should (rightfully) be considered an "aggregate". From that point of view, the best hand on the flop, has practically no edge, at all. Mathematically, the "edge" is there. However, it is so slight, it is diminished, over what has come to be called the "long-term" (against the aggregate).
But JJ, the fact that the best hand is an underdog against a collective on the flop does not mean that the best hand has a negative EV. When it holds up it will win a bigger pot as a result. It just won't hold up as often. Furthermore, when one of the draws arrives it is frequently obvious and the guy who had the best hand can fold and not payoff the suckout.
One solution to the problem would be to change the betting so that the big bet begins on the flop instead of on the turn. In stud, when you see 5 cards the betting limit doubles. In would be nice if hold-em were the same way since the best hand could be protected more easily.
...which would of course kill the games in the long run as the chasers will not win often enough to come back.
maybe but that is not entirely clear. Hold-em is such a great action game those chasers that went broke would just be replaced by others. Or maybe they would just step down to a lower limit, who knows? It would definitely increase a good players earn AND lower his variance.
P.S: Do you think the introduction of the doubling cube in backgammon in the 1920s hurt backgammon as a gambling game? I don't believe it did at all. In fact it made it an even better game for everyone.
Jim,
You wrote: "It would definitely increase a good players earn AND lower his variance."
Such a structure would surely reduce variance but the earn for the good player would be reduced in that the variance for the live ones would also be reduced. When the live one goes home a moderate loser almost every night he stops coming. Let him win big now and then and he will be back for the thrill of it. So IMO, variance is the good players friend and should be managed and welcomed.
"P.S: Do you think the introduction of the doubling cube in backgammon in the 1920s hurt backgammon as a gambling game? I don't believe it did at all. In fact it made it an even better game for everyone."
I agree that the cube is the key to the game. I was serious about the game through about 1981 and still keep up a bit (BTW, have you tried the latest backgammon software, which now plays world class?). Anyway, even now I think I could win about 47 out of 100 points against a world-class player. But with the cube, a world-class player would destroy me. And the backgammon action has dried up compared to back then.
Regards,
Rick
"When the live one goes home a moderate loser almost every night he stops coming."
He is "live" "individually". Chasers "collectively" make some games virtually impossible for those of you WHO ONLY PLAY AA KK QQ AKs AK. You are alright with others who sit and wait (as long as you don't hit a CARD DRAUGHT), because your opponents don't chase.
Morten's concern was valid. The chasers (collectively), DO GET THERE, frequently enough to defeat a tight player(s). Morten just didn't get around to the notion of game "types", and "textures".
Well, Rick maybe you are right. Backgammon was a national rage in the 1970's and started to die out in the 1980's. I guess people discovered that the skill factor was too high and so its popularity just died out. When I moved from Washington D.C. to Houston Texas in 1994, there was no backgammon action at all. Houston is the nation's 5th largest city and they did not even have a backgammon parlor by 1994. All the backgammon action consisted of a group of about 20 players who would meet in restaurants and bars once a week where they allowed backgammon and they called themselves the "Bayou Backgammon Club".
Nevertheless, I would still like to see the big bet implemented on the flop instead of the turn and see how things go for awhile. If it didn't work then you could always go back to the current system. But of course this will never happen.
Hello,
I am not all that familiar with Morten's Theorum or it's discussion, but I wanted to bring up a point I haven't seen addressed yet.
JJ's statement says that the best hand on the flop has no edge because of the aggregate effect of the chasers.
But what about the times that the chasers are chasing each other's cards?
There have been many, many times where I was holding top pair, top kicker and betting against three and four calling opponents. A blank hits the river and they all muck. One opponent says to me "You are lucky a spade didn't hit!" Another guy says to him "Oh, you didn't want spades - I had the nut draw." A third guy says "I guess my 36 of spades was no good."
I see the same situation happen a lot when people are drawing to gutshots - especially Broadway gutshots.
In both cases, the person holding the best hand on the flop has the edge over the chasers.
Does Morten's Theorum hold water?
Excellent point Dan. Frankly, I don't believe Morton's Theorem has much application in hold-em.
You have sited an instance, where the draw hands missed the hands they were drawing to. They could have had the correct pot odds. "Missing", did not make the draws wrong. Part of Morton's concern, was chasers "calling incorrectly", who actually had the pot odds, to draw. Morton was responding to (S&M)theory that when your opponent calls incorrectly, "you" profit. Morton was concerned about the numerous times your opponent calls "incorrectly", has the pot odds, and makes the hand, he is drawing to. He was concerned that the chasers seem to "get there", more frequently than "theory" would suggest. Therefore, it would not be necessarily true, that they were calling "incorrectly".
It's Morton, not Morten. The motivation for the "theorem" came from when he and I (and a couple others) were discussing poker strategy. Andy Morton was saying for some particular hand we were discussing that we should try to keep all our opponents in on the turn because some would be making a fundamental theorem mistake to call against our hypothetical best hand. I said no, the fundamental theorem often breaks down in these kinds of situations and you would often like one or more players to fold correctly, as my intuition hinted was the case here. He then worked out an example mathematically and the rest is history.
-Abdul
Thanks Abdul,
I had used the spelling that started the thread without looking into it further.
dc
a few months ago, i have discovered something about multiway pots that can be considered an extension of morton's theorem. i was going to write an essay about it but i am just too lazy. so i will just try to briefly explain it here.
let's say you flop top pair top kicker on a two suited board without any straight draws. you have an opponent in a multiway pot who has the flush draw, but not with overcards or anything else. you have another opponent who has the nut runner runner one card flush draw. (note his over card is not an out because it gives you two pair.) how big does the pot have to be for you to want the opponent to fold his A of trump? how big does the pot have to be for the flush draw to want him to fold the A of trump?
the answers are extremely, even ridiculously, big and a lot smaller than you'd think. notice that here the slim draw's call will often hurt the strong draw and help the current best hand.
the reason for this that player #3 making his back door flush to beat player #1 is not independent of player #2 making his flush draw to beat player #1.
this idea, the same principle that is behind morton's theorem, can be the foundation of a beautiful little result about multiway pots. i thought of it so i get to name it. so without further ado, i present the "krazy kool konundrum killer":
you profit from an opponent's call when his pot odds are less than the odds against you coming in second to him in a showdown. you lose from such a call when his pot odds are greater.
to john -- i am pretty sure you understand what i meant in those emails, so please help me answer anyone's questions. you can communicate poker better than i.
to rick -- are you happy? i have a couple other original ideas that were going to become essays (and, who knows, they still might) that may be soon appearing at a forum near you.
scott
'you profit from an opponent's call when his pot odds are less than the odds against you coming in second to him in a showdown. you lose from such a call when his pot odds are greater. '
This is not really true. It is most definitely possible to profit from someone's call when they have pot odds for that call.
IE you have AK of spades. Opponent has JT of hearts.
On the turn board is Ah 7h 2c.
There are 10BB in the pot.
You both turn your hands face up before betting on the turn. You each know what the other has. You are correct to bet, and your opponent is correct to call.
You both make money on this play, so it seems. Huh? The answer lies in the fact that if you CHECKED, you make LESS money than you would by betting. Also your opponent makes more money when you let him draw for free. So, top pair LOSES money by checking. It GAINS money when the draw calls.
What you would really like would be for the flush draw to fold to your bet. He would be making a mistake and would cost himself money.
-SmoothB-
i am saying nothing yet about whether i am correct to bet. and my whole point is that i don't care if he is correct to call.
my statement was correct. heads up, it simplifies to david's theorem because his winning the pot becomes identically equivalent to his my being second to him at showdown. so his being correct to call is exactly the same as my wanting a fold when the pot is heads up. but this is not true in multiway pots.
scott
I guess I am having trouble understanding the point. Sorry.
-SB-
now that might be a valid complaint. and it is the same argument that is often waged against david's and morton's theorems.
neither these results nor mine directly dictates correct play. they are just increasingly accurate theorectical conceptions of the game.
one way the example in my original post might be raising a bet from your right with a low flush draw to knock out one card flush redraws. getting these hands out helps the flush draw when the pot size is only, say, 12 sb. there are, of course, several other factors to consider during actual play that may push correct strategy one way or another. but i think it helps to better understand ideal situations.
scott
"...raising a bet from your right with a low flush draw to knock out one card flush redraws. getting these hands out helps the flush draw when the pot size is only, say, 12 sb."
I think this kind of observation is the most striking feature of what scott has found here. I think most players would probably assume they want the backdoor draw calling with pots in this range. They might assume the pot would have to be over 20 sb for them to want a fold from the backdoor draw.
So this points to the potential value of raising to drive out such a draw on the flop, rather than just calling, as the "traditional" approach would suggest ("Just call; you don't want to driver out the other players when you're tryinhg to make such a draw...")
Now scott, I think you ought to repost that thing about evaluating your opponent's likelyhood of bluffing, the pot odds you need in order to call to pick off a bluff, etc. I think it flew past everyone the first time around about six months ago. But it was a cool observation.
yes. that's it. let's get the name into common usage. i will accept 4k but not kkkk as an abbreviation.
another interesting result that comes quickly from this simple example is that, stated in the language of morton's theorem, there sometimes exists pot sizes where an incorrect call can cause the best draw to lose money.
this, i think, highlights an interesting symmetry in poker. there is no fundamental difference between a hand and a draw. a hand is a draw to a "blank." theory, as it shuold, applies equally to all hands.
i'll put that bluff thing up, but i think you could probably explain this, that, or any other poker idea of mine better.
scott
Hand #1-top pair on the flop, leading hand. Will win if no flush comes.
Hand #2-four flush on the flop hand. Will win if hits flush and no redraw.
Hand #3-runner runner nut flush, will win if hits.
If each could see each others cards on the flop, hand #1 would not be happy to see hand #2 call, but would be very happy indeed to see hand #3 call. He benefits from hand #3's call, based on the fundamental theory of poker, regardless of pot size.
Hand #3, seeing the other two hands, is not happy of course with hand #1. It makes his call incorrect. But seeing hand #2 doesn't bother him at all. He basques in the irony of it all.
Hand #2 sees hand #1 and knows his correct odds to call, so given he has it most of the time, he is none too worried. Seeing hand #3 is a cause for concern however. Why? Because hi#3s incorrect call benefits hand #1, not him. Also, on the turn, on those occassions where hand #2 makes his draw he becomes the leading hand, enjoying the fruit of incorrect calls. But unfortunately, by then, hand #3 usually has the odds to call, thus there is no incorrect call from hand #3 to benefit from. Only on those occasions where hand #3 still doesn't have the odds to call on the turn, is hand #2 happy. Fundamental theory makes him so.
Now what is hand #2 to do? Facing a bet from hand #1, he could raise, but since he can see his cards, he knows this is a mistake in relation to hand #1. He may also face a reraise. Hand #3 may STILL call, boldly defying logic. So these situations are not good for hand #2, any of them. But thats what you get for not being a nut draw.
The conclusion is this hand #2 must weigh these options, using fundamental theory and common sense and pot odds, and come to a decision. May the poker Gods smile on him.
So in a more general sense, whenever you are the leading hand (as a favorite), you benefit from incorrect action. You "lose" to correct action. This is true for drawing hands that become leading hands on the turn as well. This applies to most situations, although there are exceptions.
You state in your post that hand #1 wants hand #3 to call, regardless of pot size. This is not true. I believe with corrected odds figured in, he loses if player #3 has about 23-1 odds. Might be more than that or less, but there is certainly a point when player #1 would rather player #3 folds.
i should have explained better. it was taken from scotts original post where the two draws were the same flush draw. they are not independant. the runner runner flush cannot win unless the first draw already has hand #1 hopelessly beat. in this case it is true, correct? this is one of the reasons why this case is different from many others.
any way, you make a good point nonetheless as it illustrates the situation.
scott
I’ve read your original post a few less times than backdoor and sort of get it, more or less. I do think you need to come up with a catchier name for your “konundrum”.
Anyway, you wrote: “one way the example in my original post might be raising a bet from your right with a low flush draw to knock out one card flush redraws. getting these hands out helps the flush draw when the pot size is only, say, 12 sb. there are, of course, several other factors to consider during actual play that may push correct strategy one way or another. but i think it helps to better understand ideal situations.”
I can’t see a practical application of this play. When would you know that you are against a one card backdoor flush draw on your left if you held the flush draw and were acting after the lead bettor? I would think the answer is almost never and the “several other factors” you mention should be the ones guiding your play.
I’m looking forward to your soon to be published essays but I hope you can work in some practical examples of applying the theoretical to combat at the tables.
BTW (per your post way above), other than living under conditions of extreme emotional stress and personal turmoil, I am very happy these days. But staying happy requires considerable effort on my part; however, I feel that we all have a moral obligation to be as happy as possible. But I’m not sure they teach this kind of outlook in college ;-).
Regards,
Rick
as far as the name goes, i like alliteration and rhyming but most importantly do not want my name attached to it. maybe i can call it rick's most general theory of poker. do you mind?
as far as using 4k (aka rick's most general theory of poker) goes, it's just like anything else. we never know anything during a hand. it is all probablities.
there are lots of other reasons why you might raise with a flush draw anyway. winning without a showdown, getting a free card, etc. there are lots of reasons why you would only want to call. win more when you win, lose less when you lose, etc.
all i am saying is that one more consideration is inducing someone behind you to fold their backdoor draw.
of course we don't know they have it, but we can figure that a certain percentage do. and we can work from there. also, notice that if this guy has a 5-outer that is profitable for one bet but not two, and he plays correctly, then both you and the bettor can gain by your raise. his extra outs do not concern you, except the highly unlikely runner runner full.
all that said, i think glancing at your cards after a 2 suited flop is a decent tell for having the high one card flush draw. maybe something else too, but that doesn't usually matter.
i am glad you are happy. i suppose turmoil doesn't resolve itself very quickly. i just hope there is no new emotional stress. i don't think we learn much moral responsibilty in college. but we do learn a bit about happiness.
scott
scott,
I've read your post about thirteen times so forgive me if I have misread it.
In the case described the leading hand clearly benefits from the flop action as it will win 2/3 of the time. True difficulties arise for the leading hand when in fact, the draws themselves benefit from the action, not the leading hand. This is normally the case in true Morten situations. This drains some of the leading hands value. In the case of a flush draw, it needs more than two callers to benefit from the flop action. In this type of case, the leading hand benefits, paid mainly by the secondary draw. But the secondary draw pays the bulk of this, not the main draw. Clearly the main flush draw doesn't like the presence of a bigger redraw, but this would be also true if the leading hand were, say , two pair, and outdrew it on the river. None of this means the main flush draw or even the secondary draw are incorrect to draw as this naturally depends on the pot size.
Ok. Now what am I missing in your post? Perhaps if you reworded your idea, the lesser lights like me could get it.
By the way, the Morton theory is just an inference drawn from more fundamental theories. All this is in DS TTOP if u look hard.
Good luck and take care.
backdoor,
You wrote:
"scott,
I've read your post about thirteen times so forgive me if I have misread it."
I can't explain why, but that is one of the funniest sentences I have read in a long time.
Regards,
Rick
Dear Rick,
Yes its actually funny and true too. At first I thought I was missing something, but if you read the post , it isn't really a Morten inference, but a fundamental inference(everything stems from the underlying principles so this aint saying much). For some reason I have trouble with scott's diction and style. But a lot of people have trouble with mine too.
Anyway, all this jazz aside, good luck and take care. Ill try to make you laugh again soon.
We need to ask ourselves a question. Do the Morten concepts derive from fundamental theory? The answer to this question speaks to the validity of the concepts.
Poker begins with a struggle for the antes (or in hold'em, the blinds). As the ante increases, it becomes correct to play looser. For an excellent look at this see The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky, chap 4. Now what does this have to do with Morten? Well, if we for a moment imagine that all money presently in the pot is an extended ante, than it might correctly follow that it is correct to play looser, for example, on the flop. And it is of course. This is basic knowledge.
So it is pretty fair to say that there comes a certain range of pot sizes where it becomes correct for more and more draws to call and or bet on the flop and beyond. Now one can look at these drawing hands as a group or as individuals. Since poker is winner take all, any individual hand can look at all the other hands as an aggregate if they choose. Multi way, the strongest draws are favored by flop action, no doubt. This is simple though. They are the favorites. For example, a nut four flush draw, say four handed on the flop is usually the favorite. So the " leading hand ", the top pair top kicker hand, which is presently "winning" is not really the leading hand, now is it? Not in terms of who wins the showdown most of the time. This is the area where seeing all the drawing hands as an aggregate is a little questionable. As an aggregate, the drawing hands are often strong, but the majority of this strength comes from the strongest draws. The secondary draws, and even more so the secondary "made" hands, are often feeding the pot, the equity of which often belongs to the strong draws and, yes to that "leading hand". Remember, the "leading hand" is often a good draw on its on, especially if it is two pair or better.
There is another point to consider. Now where did all this "extended ante"( feel free to call this dead money or whatever gets you going) come from? It comes from preflop errors. This means that those pocket Aces that you are convinced are doomed against the aggregate gets a ton of its value from the preflop action. There is little doubt of this. Now there are agruments on both sides of the issue whether this preflop action is sufficient to overcome the loss these hands might endure in a Morten zone pot. In the case of AA, KK, QQ, AKs, the answer is clearcut: the preflop action is certainly sufficient to compensate this (this assumes u are getting their money in there). Other lesser premium hands are usually getting enough as well, but this does depend somewhat. The question becomes, with the lesser good preflop hands, are preflop mistakes enough to make up for the fact that many opponents will now be correct (and probably oblivious to it) in their future action.
There is a thread on RGP involving DS and another excellent poster here, Izmet Fekali. This thread deals with AQ and whether to raise it after a few limpers. It is basically a Morten question (which really is just fundamental theory question). I wont go into that here. You can find a link to it here.
Anyway, jeez, I don't have time for any more of this. The bottom line is that in games where pot size is large on and beyond the flop you should recognize that the "leading hand" is not usually the favorite at all, and in many cases is sometimes dead in the water to multiple strong draws. A simple thought process to consider is just imagine, based on the number of players and board, what kind of hand is needed to win. Usually the absolute minimum is top two pair on the end and often much more. Now top pair, in this case, is a weak drawing hand, feeding the pot for the others. For all practical purposes it doesn't really matter how we look at the opponents hands, as a group or individually. But I could be wrong.
Now does Morton hold water?
Don't ask me.
Good post. "Poker begins with a struggle for the antes (or in hold'em, the blinds). As the ante increases, it becomes correct to play looser."
Excellent point. I often forget this whole thing is about money. (Not just theories and approaches)
Yes but that idea of the struggle for the antes leads to most of the theories. You have to do some fancy footwork to get there mind you.
Money aside, its interesting to talk theory, even though all of us know it really has very little meaning in a practical profitable sense.
Good luck.
I've heard that winning a big bet per hour is pretty good. I think this means that in a $20-$40 game, for instance, you would be aiming to win $40/hr, $40 being the big bet.
Is this correct?
Thanks!
(n/t)
That's what a big bet is, but winning $40 per hour in a 20-40 game is more than just pretty good, it's excellent. The number of big bets you expect to win per hour goes down (to a fraction of a big bet) as the limit increases.
I am a $10/20 players who believes a leak in my overall play is continuing to play in games after they have become too tough. I could use a little advice as to when to leave a game. For the record after 700 hours over three years, I am currently averaging $12.00/hr and seem to fluctuate in the $8-$15/hr range.
The usual player in my game is fairly knowlegable as to hand selection and post flop play. Their weakness, as a group, is that they play someshat passively (if they three bet, they are loaded). The other types of players that I face can generally be described as: 1) skillfull and aggressive or 2) playing too loose both preflop and post flop.
A good game would consist of six tight players and three loose players. If I replace a loose player with a typical tight, but passive players, is the game still good with 2 loose players, 1 loose player, 0 loose players. Also if I replace the loose player with skillfull, aggressive players, when does it become time to "get out of Dodge".
Thanks, Calvin
If it gets raised 90% of the time pre-flop, or it is almost never checked around you are probally in a tough game and it is better to look else where.
every change needs a new evaluation. when one leaves add to your value or take away based on your perceived earn from the new person. after a while you should get pretty accurate at guessing whether you are a favorite to win what you want to make it worth continuing on in the game. i always try to leave when tired and fresh players come in even if they are not too good but the least bit aggressive.
The value of passive players depends on how you play. If you play 'no-limp' poker, passives are a gold-mine. Trading a lose player for a passive is not nearly as bad as trading a lose player for another aggressor.
If you limp along with them, trying to hit the flop, then having two lose players instead of three might be exactly the threshold you're looking for when deciding when to cash out.
Tommy
I am trying to find just the right balance of aggressiveness in my play. While most of the advice on this forum seems to be spot on with my analysis, some players advocate a hyper aggressive style of play that leans heavily toward overplaying, if you ask me.
For one thing, I VERY RARELY 3 bet the flop with top pair ace kicker. And, I can remember very very few hands where it would have been correct for me to do so. In fact, of the times I have 3-bet the flop with an overpair, I can't remember very many times when I wasn't beaten and raising with the second best hand.
I do mix up my play and raise with good draws - and even gutshots sometimes if there are enough people in and I am last to act (looking for free card).
I realize that by playing borderline hands strongly, you create more ways to profit - less respect from bets and raises in other hands, you can thin the field increasing your chances of winning, etc.
Any comments?
-SmoothB-
I believe that many players confuse aggression with grossly overplaying their hand. I have seen these "aggressive types" pound the pot with top pair as if they had the nuts and lose more money than necessary. How aggressive you get depends not just on your hand but also on the previous betting action, the texture of the board, and most importantly how many opponents you have.
the more aggressive you play the more often your opponent makes a mistake and throws away a hand with value. with passive play in a hand this does not happen. many times i misread a players hand for whatever reason and by betting or raising win a pot that i normally wouldnt. any time you misread a hand you will misplay a hand unless it works out the same by dumb luck. a passive misplay is disaster compared to misplaying from an aggressive standpoint. in most hands you are playing, you should be the one betting or raising, with calling being reserved for later on in the hands when more info has been received from the players.
Like Woody Hayes said "3 tings happen when you throw a forward pass and 2 of them are bad"
I feel the samy (in reverse) about betting and raising vs checking and calling.
Controlled aggression is the key here - an aggressive player is always a lot more difficult to handle than a passive one. I like to be as tricky and unpredictable as possible specially when playing better opponents.
Great quote, Rounder!
I had to yip in here to say that even though I'm in California now, I lived for 38 years within two miles of the Horseshoe. Not a casino, but a football stadium, where my beloved Buckeyes rule. I've been to about 70 games. My dad was a prof at OSU, and he used to play handball with Woody in the 50's and 60's.
The lingering press about Woody getting the boot after hitting that kid from Clemson is a classic case of negative journalism overpowering the public mind. Woody Hayes was a great man, by any definition of that word.
I bleeeeed Scarlet and Grey!
Tommy
There are few men who can get the most out of their charges - great men expect (demand) and get great things - to bad in this era if PC REAL men are seen as cave men.
Ask yourself how would Vince Lombardi do in todays environment????
Where will our kids get their heros from - not sports anymore - drug addicts and do anything for money mercineries is all they are anymore with a few exceptions. The last great American Baseball player from a era gone by is Pete Rose. It is a shame he is not in the hall of fame.
I could go on and on but I think you get my point.
if you really believe that winning is the ultimate end in sports thats sad. to show truely bad conduct and the attiude that anything goes as long as i win is not good for sports and thats why maybe todays youth are mixed up in the eyes of the past generation. a coach that uses violence against his own team to achieve an end only brings a bad ending to himself and his team. i dont think that is what you are advocating but it sures sounds like that.
Hold a sec here, Ray. Woody was NOTHING AT ALL like Bobby Knight.
As a Big-Ten dude, I was brainwashed into thinking that Bobby Knight was the nuts. I watched him coach several games. I was impressed by his intensity and passion.
Then when I saw his recent post-firing interview, I was downright embarrassed. I felt betrayed. He acted like an unrepentent, rude adolescent. He had a chance to make it all well with two words, "I'm sorry." At least he was honest by continuing to be an ass when everyone was watching.
Woody, on the other hand, DID say he was sorry, over and over, even though his 'violent outbreak' was an isolated event, not a pattern. I've seen Woody speak. I've read his book, "You Win With People." That man was a deep-thinker, not a criminal as the press painted him. And that's really my only beef. Woody's legacy did not deserve to be ruined (outside of Columbus Ohio) because he messed up one time.
Tommy
Tommy,
My favorite sports memory is attending the OSU/UoM football game in late Nov 1969. Bo had just taken over my beloved Wolverines at the beginning of that year, and, to virtually everyone's surprise, the Wolverines were playing the hated Buckeyes for the Big Ten championship and the Rose Bowl bid. The week prior to the game found the No. 1 ranked Bucks on the cover of Sports Illustrated, touted, I believe, as yet another Team of the Century.
Rex Kern was quoted as saying he would enjoy his New Year's Day, sitting next to a roaring fire, watching the Big Ten team playing the Pac 8 champ in the Rose Bowl. OSU had beaten USC in the previous Rose Bowl game, and, at that time, the Big Ten did not allow a team to repeat a Rose Bowl trip. Also, the Big Ten did not accept any other Bowl bid -- just the Rose Bowl. Many pages extolling the superlatives of this OSU team, crushed by the prehistoric Big Ten no-repeat rule.
And I'm sure you remember the outcome, Tommy. Michigan 24, OSU 12. Ohio State never lead in the game. Two years later, Michigan beat OSU 14-7, and Woody began his unfortunate decline by breaking the yard markers over his knee in a tirade over a Michigan interception late in the game that sealed our victory.
God, we loved to beat that man! And until he punched that kid in the Gator Bowl, I did respect him. Beating up on Cooper is just not as much fun, although it has been a lot easier......
Paul T, U of Michigan, BS 1971, MS 1972
Paul,
You sound like a friendly bloke. I am too. But since you brought back such vivid nightmares, there's really only one thing I can say . . .
BITE ME!!!!
lol
Tommy
xx
First of all I used to be an OSU fan. If you remember to year before the big upset by Michigan in 69, Ohio State was beating up on Michigan something awful in 1968 and scored a touchdown late in the game with about 1 minute left to make the score 48-whatever. Woody went for two points to make it 50. This was Bo's first year at Michigan and it was the stupidest thing that Woody ever did. Woody was a redneck rude jerk. A perfect example of a good winner-bad loser. I'll take this up on the Other Topics forum if anybody wants to.
I'm incredibly impressed that you remember/recall that 2 point conversion. I remember that Michigan was having a much better than usual (at the time) season, and we had an outside chance to going to the Rose Bowl if we beat OSU, someone beat someone else, etc. Unlikely, but you do flop quads.....
Anyway, OSU was really putting the wood to U of M, and then the two point conversion near the end of the game. I seem to remember Woody saying something like, "We did it 'cause even if you practice it, it's not the same as doing it in real game conditions." Pure BS. He just wanted to rub our faces in it, and he did. Maybe that play was the beginning of his decline.
I'm pretty sure that Bo started in 1969; the two-point conversion play in 1968 turned out to be Bump Elliot's last game as Michigan's football coach.
Stated like the flower child, closet hippy you strike me as.
Enjoy Walden Ray hope the fish are big and the winter mild.
Great basketball coach John Wooden never, ever mentioned the word "win" to his teams. He simply taught them how to play the game and execute the fundamentals.
If I have any hero in sports it has to be John Wooden. BTW did you see him interviewed at the NCAA's this year? Amazing as always not to mention he is 91 years old.
"I VERY RARELY 3 bet the flop with top pair ace kicker. And, I can remember very very few hands where it would have been correct for me to do so. "
In general, this is good poker. However, there are some instances where you should three bet with top pair, top kicker.
For instance, I play in a lot of loose aggressive games, where some of the players are either FOM (full-on maniacs) or at least semi-maniacs. Here is one hand that provides an example of when to do this:
I am in middle position with AQs. FOM is on my right and has been raising frequently on all rounds with less than stellar hands. This is one of the few times he has not raised BTF in the last two rounds, two limp to FOM, he limps, I raise, button calls, both blinds call, limpers and FOM call.
Flop is Q 9 6 rainbow. SB bets, FOM raises. Since I know he will raise with crapola, just trying to buy the pot, I decide to three bet him. I am trying to thin the field, increase my chances of winning the pot, plus charge the lesser hands and draws the max to try and outdraw me. Button and SB cold call. In this particular hand, FOM caps the betting and all call. This is typical play for the FOM, he will cap with draws and many other worse hands than mine. He plays for action and doesn't mind putting in lots of chips on every hand. There is some chance that he actually has me beat, but I am calling him down to the end!
Turn is 3d, making a two flush. BB checks, FOM bets, I call, button folds, BB calls.
River is 3h. checked to me, I bet. I think that the BB missed his draw and the FOM has a weaker queen, so I value bet. BB folds and FOM calls with QJo.
dave in cali
While waiting to get in my 5-10 game the other night I was watching the action in the 10-20 game.There was a player sitting opposite the dealer who was showing down some hands I would never play in his position but he had taken down some nice pots.I didn't watch long as my game started but I would describe him as 1/2 maniac and 1/2 fish.The next day I got to the club early and sat in a 1-5 stud game with 7 rocks waiting for a 5-10 holdem game to start up.I saw the maniac from the night before enter and sign up for his 10-20 game and he wandered over to my stud game and said to the whole table, "You don't want me in your game, I'm too aggressive for you" and other such bravado which told me he thought pretty highly of his poker skills in general.Well soon after this my holdem game started and my name was called.I got up and went over to find Mr.Maniac in his favorite seat (opposite the dealer) and the seat immediately to his left was still available so I quickly claimed it.There were several other 10-20 players at the table while waiting for their game to start as well.Right away, the maniac started to try to run over the table with raises and re-raises and he quickly lost his first buy-in.He made a big show of flashing his cash about and how he was playing "lower-limits" than he liked, etc.I already knew he was an asset to any poker game, but that was confirmed when another guy at the table invited him to his home hi-lo game.Anyways for two rounds I hadn't gotten a single playable hand and my blinds were raised by the maniac every time.(which I folded as I had trash and other players were in the pot.)Now I know other players in the pot had noticed I was a tight player so when my big blind is raised by the maniac again who was in small blind position, I call with Q-8 offsuit.There are two other callers so the flop comes 4-handed.The flop is 9-9-7 offsuit.When the maniac just checks on the flop I decide barring any major resistance I am going to make a move for the pot.I bet out and one early position player calls, then a fold, then the maniac calls as well but I detect some reluctance on his part.Well the turn is a 3 and the small blind maniac checks again, I bet, the EP calls and as the maniac mucks he flashes A-Q offsuit.Great! 1 player to go!The river is a 5 and I bet out.The EP ( a good player, also waiting for the 10-20 game to start) thinks long and hard, but finally mucks his hand.(I think he figured I would'nt try to bluff out the maniac)Since it was obvious to the whole table I was a tight player and I wanted some action when (if) I started to get some cards, I decided to show down my bluff.Well almost immediately I regretted it, because even though a good player to my left said "nice play", the maniac was furious and said to the whole table, "why did you show your hand?to prove you can buy us, or to show what a bad player you are."and all his friends started laughing.His comment and the laughter thru me off guard.I wish I would have said "Hey don't you show down your bluffs?"or"Hey isn't it about time for you to make a rebuy" instead of what I did say which was, "well you've been raising my blinds and I just wanted to make a stand."Maybe it's for the best that I just defused the situation as he then just said he wasn't trying to move on me he was just trying to play poker and win some pots and I came away thinking he was more fish than maniac.I will admit my showdown of the bluff was intended to put him a little further towards tiltland, and also get a little respect from the table as well, but his immediate reply to me did surprise me and put me on the defensive.(although not on tilt;)Nothing more came off it and about 10 uneventfull hands later I had to leave to meet my wife so I really didn't get to see how another couple hours might have turned out.I cashed out a small winner (thanks to my bluff)and I'm sure I will play against that whole table sometime in the future.Apologies for the longwinded account but- Should I have just kept my bluff to myself?
Hillbilly,
The short answer is no, you shouldn't show down your bluffs. Profitable bluffing situations usually arise far more often than those times when you actually have a legitimate hand. Personally, I'd rather steal a couple of 10 BB pots in a night than get a couple of extra 1 BB calls on the end.
Besides, if you are bluffing with the correct frequency, you'll be caught often enough to get you some extra action anyways.
Hope this helps,
Dave
Your math explains it very plainly!
My reasons for never showing bluffs
1) It's rude
2) In the "information war," anytime I show a hand I don't have to, I've lost a battle
Tommy
Hi Tommy, appreciate your thoughts on my post and would like to comment.I have seen others show down bluffs in the past and I never got the impression from other players that it was rude.In facts as a general rule their play was admired.I am one of the most polite players (to a fault)you would ever play against.I personally thought the maniac's cocky, boorish behavior was rude (but highly profitable to the whole table) and also thought it was rude of him to constantly (every time) raise my blinds.The reason I showed down my bluff was to let him and the table know I would infact defend my blinds so I wouldn't get run over by the table.As far as the "information war" goes, if the table thinks I'd call a raise with Q-8 offsuit from the big blind,(something I would never, he-he, do)then I've won that battle as well.
Hillbilly,
I regret sounding like I was passing judgement. Believe me, I wasn't. I was only telling the reasons that *I* don't show bluffs. Sure, it's part of poker, and perfectly ethical, and also a potentially effective tactic. Within your interesting story, showing that bluff was a dandy play.
No doubt there are many games in which showing a bluff is common and fine. The games I play in are uncommonly polite. If someone shows a bluff to rib or agitate another player, well, in these parts, that's rude. I was out of line to suggest that it is rude in ALL games.
As to the information war, this is distinctly a personal choice of how to fight the battles. Again, by no means universal or better.
Tommt
No offense taken Tommy, my main goal is to be a better player each time I sit down at the table, and to never stop learning.Each move I make at the table I try to have a reason for.Between yours and Dave's post I can see there are some reasons for keeping my bluffs to myself as well.Take care, I'm off to my tues. night 1-5 hi-lo game.
Hi all,
I believe it is generally accepted that your position with respect to the bettor is an important factor to consider in all forms of poker, but especially so in Hold'em (and other similar games), where your position remains fixed throughout the course of a hand.
I'm curious, however, as to the order of magnitude of the contribution of the relative positional advantage or disadvantage to your EV on certain plays.
Consider a heads up situation on the turn, with you as the button. Your opponent bets into you, and your assessment of the EV of calling, raising, or folding based purely on outs counting, your read of the opponents hand, etc., leads you to believe that while raising is clearly wrong, and folding is EV neutral, calling is only marginally wrong, i.e., say, EV(call) = -x BB, where x is some small (+ve) number. How small would x have to be before the additional contribution due to your positional advantage would make calling a +EV play?
Similarly, consider an alternative situation, where you are now first to act, and you check to your opponent, who bets. Once again, folding is EV neutral, raising is clearly wrong, but now EV(call) = +y BB, where, again, y is some small number. How large does y have to be to overcome the negative contribution to your EV on the play due to your positional disadvantage with respect to your opponent?
It might also be interesting to consider whether x and y are necessarily equal, or whether they differ significantly in certain situations.
I have been devoting some thought on this over the past little while, and am interested in the opinion of the forum contributors. What do you guys think?
Your examples make for good "implied odds" NOT "positional" calculations. In both cases what matters is how well you can expect to do on the river.
If in both cases you have an obvious straight and the opponent MAY have a flush. Both situations are exactly the same since you cannot bet nor raise the river and will check if first. Position in not an issue. Clearly you are in pretty bad shape on the river.
In any case, positional advantages generally decrease has the hand progresses partly due to the increased pot size and partly because the opponents have a much better idea what the other's have.
But to anwser your question, how MUCH does it matter? I know exactly, but I'll let other's elaborate...
- Louie
Position will increase your implied odds slightly. The increase in implied odds will normally be less than 1 big bet, but it could be 0.5 big bets in many cases.
For example, suppose you have a nut straight draw, and you believe your opponent has a strong hand. With position, you get to raise when you make your hand, getting an extra bet. However, position won't normally be worth a whole extra big bet of implied odds here, because you only get to raise when he bets, and if he would definitely bet if he had position and you checked to him, then you could check-raise when out of position.
There's also bluff potential, but it's not clear to me that this improves with position on the river, though a semi-bluff raise on the turn is another matter. What's more important is the bluff potential of your opponent, which may be greatest when you have position - e.g., out of position he may bluff bet KQ high into you, whereas in position he may check that hand if you check to him.
I would guess position is worth 0.5 big bets extra implied odds when you have a strong draw, and 0.25 big bets extra implied odds when you have a made weak hand that you can thin value bet if your opponent checks on the river (and that you can crying call with if your opponent bets.)
You spoke in terms of expected value, whereas I spoke in terms of implied odds, so here is the relation: the expected value of the call on the turn is ((P+I+A)*C/46)-A, where P is the current pot size, I is the extra implied odds bets that your opponent will put in on the river when beat, A is the additional bets that you will put in by the river, and C is the number of outs you have. If my estimates are correct, then when facing a bet on the turn, positional advantage will not normally be able to overcome a base expected value of negative 0.15 big bets or worse.
-Abdul
Dave, Louie and Abdul,
Great posts. Most helpful and well explained.
This type of quantifying is new to me. And I can't argue with any of Abdul's conclusions. Still, something inside me says that .15 big bets doesn't seem high enough. Two possible reason for this hunch are:
1)Perhaps fewer of my opponents than your opponents will bluff or check-raise on the turn.
2) There could be a value in getting the first read. The turn card hits, and now it's the other guy's turn to act. I'm watching him, and he's sending messages: tempo of action, attitude of action, stuff like that.
Obviously against fierce players neither of these things would some into play. But against weaker foes, they do. Doesn't that mean that the quantified value of the button in the example goes up as the opponents get weaker, and down as the opponents get tougher?
Though I welcome its method of arrival, I want to believe that the number .15 is too low. Can I do so? Rationally?
Tommy
I was talking about the positional advantage on the river, when considering calling a bet on the turn. You're talking about positional advantage on the turn and river combined. Positional advantage is also greater on the turn than the river; on the turn, a bet or raise from the player with position will often convince the other player to either fold immediately or check the river; on the river, folding is less common and there are no later streets for your actions to benefit.
Position going into the turn might give you 1 big bet extra implied odds in many cases, and it also often gives you extra effective outs from bluffing/protection ability. The extra outs give you an extra cut of the pot. So, it depends on the size of the pot, the strength of your hand, the strength of your opponent's hand, and your opponent's weak-tightness, but position here will often be worth 1 big bet or more in expected value.
-Abdul
x
.
if you have read through the discussion of my krazy kool kunundrum killer, you have seen john mention something i thought of several months ago concerning calling bluffs on the river.
this has appeared on the forum before. john played a hand that involved an unlikely (david and ray and gary thought impossible) river bluff raise. in emails with john i explained how this particular instance even the slightest doubt warrented a call even though the pot size was not abnormally large.
later the hand appeared rather insidiously on the other topics forum. desperate to give wrong forum man (o! were are the wrong forum men of yesteryear?) a chance to post "that belongs on the general theory forum," i responded in that thread with a brief explanation of the following theory. incidently, i seem to recall sammyb responding to that post and after a short exchange understanding what i was saying. so if you fail to understand me here, just ask sammy or john.
alright. here we go.
the situation is a simple one. we are heads up we have a hand that can only beat a bluff and we are facing a bet on the river.
david, in the theory of poker, pretty much tells us what we should do. the pot contains P bets. if the odds against our opponent bluffing are at most N:1, we call. otherwise, we fold.
we are left to our own devices to determine the chances our opponent is bluffing. and, truth be told, this is not always an easy thing to do. we have to know our opponent's tendenies. we have to look for possible tells. finally and perhaps most importantly, we have to consider how the hand has been played.
let's say that after the river card hits, but before any betting occurs, we determine our hand to have a certain probability of winning. call it x, 0 =< x =< 1. we now face a bet. we can compute the chance it is a bluff (remember we are assuming we can only beat a bluff). it is x * P(he will bluff given that he can only win by bluffing) / (1-x).
this assumes he will always bet with the best hand. otherwise it gets more complicated, but is fundamentally the same.
but, notice what we've done. we have isolated the actual tendency of our opponent. the chances he will bluff given he has the opportunity to bluff. this is what varies from opponent to opponent. not the chances a bet is a bluff.
we have distilled the chances his hand will be best from his chances of bluffing.
this will normally be a lot of work that won't really help decisions at the table. however, if you remember john's hand, it is of critical importance.
when the river card falls, john has 95% chance of having the best hand. he bets the river and his opponent raises. the way the action went, this raise was either a better hand or a bluff. because the pot was not large, say 8 bb, several people recommended a fold.
but if you take into account a little bayes' theorem math, you get that he only has to bluff about once every 160 times he is in a position to bluff for a call to be correct.
most people will bluff, even an unlikely river raise bluff, that often.
scott
scott,
I remember the hand (once again, more or less) but am too sleepy to comb through the archives where seeing Badger's deleted posts are sure to piss me off just before bedtime. Avoiding being pissed before bedtime is a minor key to happiness.
In reviewing the play of the hand (if memory serves me), John's opponent's raise on the river either meant a very strong hand or a bluff. As I recall, the action on the turn was not consistent with a strong hand and IMO it was an easy call for John.
Anyway, why did you call this "general custer's bluff buster"? Are the recreational substances that much better then when I went to school?
Regards,
Rick
again you don't like my name! custer rhymes with buster and the only custer i know is general custer. and the abbreviation, gc2b, is super cool.
the most important part of naming these results is keeping my name off of them. the next most important thing is to prevent them being confused with some other results. i suppose toungue twisters would really be better, but i couldn't think of any appropriate ones.
maybe we should call this one sammyb's theory of bluffs.
scott
scott,
Pay no attention to Rick; he real cool, but he ain't super cool, and yesteryear is all behind him.
Shouldn't Louie have written "Villion" instead of "villian"?
John
I like your notion of chance-to-bluff times his opportunity to bluff. But keep in mind the opponent does NOT know what YOUR hand is and therefore doesn't know exactly when he has the opportunity.
In any case, xP/(1-x) represents the ODDS that he is actually bluffing. In John's case that's (.95/.05)P = 19P. Compared to 8bb:1 odds reveals 19P/8, P=.42. So if villian will bluff more often than 42% hero should call. But this presumes he will ALWAYS raise with a better hand AND will consider bluffing with a slightly inferior hand; pretty bad assumptions.
Your Bayes theorum approach is excellent so long as you compare the hands he will RAISE with the hands he'll bluff; thus deleting the hands with which he'll fold or call.
------------------------------------
Anyway, a strong key to determing the chances a bet is a bluff is to calculate the chances your opponent will bluff in his situation, and IGNORE the chances YOU would bluff in HIS situation.
"How can he bet that hand?!!??" really means "I would never bet that hand!", which is pretty meaningless.
- Louie
I'm too tired to think about this much right now, but if I get a chance in the next day or so, I'll try to remember how I was thinking about it to simplify it to myself. I seem to recall that one very simple, intuitive way of looking at such a situation, with which good players are familiar, and which I think derives from your formula, was along the lines, "Are there many non-bluffing hands he could have played this way up to this point?" The fewer there are, the more it starts to look like a bluff.
dear scott,
You wrote (and, yes, Rick, I read it several times.):
"....but, notice what we've done. we have isolated the actual tendency of our opponent. the chances he will bluff given he has the opportunity to bluff. this is what varies from opponent to opponent. not the chances a bet is a bluff."
OK. But isn't the chance a bet or raise is a bluff entirely dependant on whether the better had an opportunity to bluff and how often he will do this? Isn't this the same thing?
Does your bayes theorem accounting take into consideration what Mr. Landale said about subtracting the hands he will call or fold with? Notice when you do this judgement rears its ugly head.
Do these calculations consider the possibility of a bluff reraise?(This is probably almost neglible value).
This one is very important. Do you realize what happened to General Custer?
Anyway, good luck and take care. I love your posts and your names for the stuff too.
Hi Everybody.
I have some poker questions that I hope you will be able to answer:
1. Who have won the 10.000 $ dollars buy-in championship most times??
2. Who have been at the final table most times??
3. Who is considered the best poker player ever??
Also, where can I find some books with stories about great poker players??
BEst, Daniel
1. I think Stu Ungar won it 3 times. Johnny Chan, Doyle Brunson, and Phil Hellmuth 2 times each. Johnny Moss won the "WSOP" 3 times, but I think at least one of those was by vote rather than a tournament.
2. TJ Cloutier has finished in the top 5 of the main event 5 times. That must be the record.
3. Ray Zee (or maybe Rounder)
I know TJ is the wsop all time money leader, and since he has never won the big one that means he has had to show up there an awful lot.
Take a look at this page: http://tocpoker.com/wsop/tidbits.htm
I've been playing holdem for about 5 years more off than on. The last year I've put other things aside and spent more time on just holdem. I've been averaging about 60 hours a month. Most of my play has been at 5/10 and 10/20 for a $740 Sept profit. When making the jump to 20/40 and above I suffer. My question, to whom ever chooses to respond is: How long at did YOU spend at each level? If YOU were advising your mother/brother/son, how long would YOU recomend winning at one level before moving up? How many times did YOU need to a take step backwards before finally breaking through to the highest limits? I know this answer will be different for everyone. I understand that some people never make it. From the stand point of time I am wondering if I've "learned" long enough at the lower levels. Thanks in advance!!!
i've been at the lower limits (1-5, 2-6, 4-8) for a year. I'm starting to crave an ante in stud games, so I'm moving to 5-10 in stud. I'll stay at 2-4 in holdem for a while longer, as i still leak lots of chips sometimes.
Read everything you can get your hands on esp. the books from 2+2, read the posts here, find a friend who you can talk poker with intelligently. Poker is a game of experience. You have to get your feet wet first. Doyle Brunson didn't start out playing big no-limit games first. Myself personally for about 2 years playing 2 to 3 times a week I would play 3-6 or 6-12 and beat the game pretty consistently and evertime I ventured into a bigger game I would get drilled. Finally I was able to break that pattern and I have been reasonably successful for the last ten years. You are going to experience multiple peeks and valleys playing poker. Be prepared for swings. Keep accurate records and don't fool yourself. You need to play at least 500 hours before you can draw any accurate statistical conclusions.
Bruce
As long as it takes.
My suggestion might depart from Mason's teachings about bankroll usage. I don't know for sure.
Let's say you have a job that pays the bills and leaves you not much extra, and you dream of making it full time at poker. Let's say you have a good run at 5-10 and 10-20 and build up to $2000.
Then you move up to 20-40 and blow the whole $2000 in two sessions. Yeah, that sucks, but I think it's necessary. Stick with the job, work on your game, play good at 10-20, build up to a thousand or two again, and take another shot. You'll go busted again, but so what? If you're goal is to make a living at 20-40 and up, then you're gonna have to play 20-4o at some point, right? If you wait until you are properly funded, the way full-timers are properly funded, you might never even sit in a 20-40 game.
That's because the common bankroll formulas provide for a cushion, and they assume that you are good enough to consistently beat the games. At your point, you've gotta go after it, without a cushion, and without even having an edge at 20-40!
But you're only hope of getting that edge is to practice 20-40 when you can, and think, and to suffer repeatedly. Keep your expectations low, and the pain of going broke over and over isn't so bad. And if you ever get to tell your boss goodbye, you'll forget all about it.
Tommy
That is some pretty kewl advice, in my mind. Adds to the whole "gamble" aspect of poker.
For me, I am playing in a small town at a casino that only supports one game (5/10 Dealer's choice). Every Thursday they spread a bigger game (20/40 half-half or 5-10 pot limit half-half). The last two weeks I have taken a shot at the 20-40 game because it is very weak. It would be no tougher than a 5-10 game in my opinion. I started it with a 3k BR and I've managed to do ok.
20/40 is not Holdem as you know it. It is not Holdem as you know it, even after you play a hundred hours. It is my opinion that persons, who succeed at 20/40, have the dedication, time, and money to hang in there. You simply have to put-in the time. The plays, circumstances, and scenarios will be like nothing you have experienced, at lower limits. I am struggling, after about 300 hours at 20/40.
by the way, probably the best advice relating to the higher limits comes from tommy about not defending your blinds. i occasionally play 20/40 he, and this advice has really helped me hold my own.
i would recommend that anytime you see a favorable situation, like a real fish who is sure to lose 2k, or a couple players you know you can beat, etc., go ahead and take a shot. if the games are stratified and the 20/40 is basically a closed system, then you kind of have a problem and the best you can do is watch from the rail, talk to regulars/dealers about the game, and then go ahead and take a shot.
brad
I moved up from 5-10 to 10-20 and about a year ago when I got a real job and could finally afford to play in something bigger than 2-4.I noticed that I always did very poorly in the bigger stakes than I was used to for the first session / maybe first two sessions. Atleast for me personally, there were a bit of nerves about playing in the new game which caused me to play overly tight passive. Once I became comfortable at those stakes I've done fairly well
IMO, jumping from 10-20 to 20-40 is a bad idea. Didn't you ever play at 15-30?
Also, your profit of 740$ for just one month's play is not really an accurate indicator of how well you are playing. What are your results over the past year? Have you been a consistent winner over a long period of time? I'm not talking about a lucky streak, I'm talking about a long term trend.
It seems to me that you probably need to spend some more time at 10-20 before moving up to 15-30, and then you need to consistently win (over time) at 15-30 before moving up to 20-40.
You are going to get into a self-defeating pattern if you win some at 5-10 and 10-20, but then go into a tougher game like 20-40 and lose back all your profits, only to have to drop back down again.
You want to be a long term winner at your current level before moving up to the next higher level. Don't be in a rush to move up. Remember, it's better to be a consistent winner at a lower level than to lose your ass at a higher level!
dave in cali
Dave writes: "It's better to be a consistent winner at a lower lever than to lose you ass at a higher level."
For some people, this is not true. It depends on the goal. If the goal is to eek out a few bucks to suppliment an existing income, then I agree with what you said. But if the goal is to quit a job and go full-time poker, underfunded shots at the mid-limit games is the only way to do it.
Tommy
underfunded shots at middle limits are OK, but as long as you are not risking a large portion of your bankroll. you have to be able to stay in action at the smaller limits if you lose at the bigger ones or else your hopes of making it at the higher limit are shot.
dave in cali
It depends on how you define "bankroll." For me, for example, if I lose my bankroll I have to get a job. Disaster! But for a person with a job, their low-limit bankroll is presumably renewable. So if they build up to, say, $1000 at low limits, and take a shot at 20-40, and blow it all, it doesn't really affect their ability to return to the low limit games. They are not out of action for long.
Tommy
Can someone tell me how to do this? I've given it some though over the last little while and I think I have determined a nice little formula, but I'd appreciate it if someone can tell me.
If it is in Mason Malmuth's Gambling Theory and Other Topics, please tell me anyway since I have ordered that book and am STILL waiting for it to come from Chapters Online (bad press, which they deserve. They advertised shipping within 7 days on this title and that was over two months ago, I believe it is approaching 3 months now).
What I am interested in, is if you know the pot odds and the odds of making a draw, how do you calculated what the expectation value is for this draw?
Also, if it differs, how would you calculate expectaion value for other situations? I would even appreciate a general expression for all circumstances.
See my first post in the positional advantage thread.
For more complicated situations, you need a tree-like formula custom-built for the problem, branching through the possible scenarios.
The general expression is, of course:
EV = summation{Pi*Vi}
where the summation is over all the possible outcomes (i), Pi is the probability of an outcome i, and Vi is the value of an outcome i.
Got it?
-Abdul
If you didn't get Abdul's explanation tell us and I'll do it.
I didn't understand Abdul's explanation.
Thanks, Hugh Jardon
David Sklansky is great at providing intuitive layman's explanations for such things, but I will take a stab.
Expected value sounds intimidating, but it's simply the average result. The average result is the sum of each outcome weighted by its frequency.
Example: Suppose you bet $11 to win $10 on a sports ticket, and you have a 52% chance of winning and no chance of a push. What is your average result?
0.52($10)+(1-.52)(-$11) = -$0.08
So you would lose 8 cents on average, though of course on any given instance you would either win $10 or lose $11.
-Abdul
See my response to Abdul's post. I think I kind of get it but I am not 100% confident that I do. I'm sure I would benefit greatly from your explanation.
No I don’t think I get it. Here is my problem.
Let’s assume EV = summation(Pi*Vi) where Pi = probability of ith event occuring and Vi = value of the ith event. It makes sense and Abdul is a poker genius so I have to trust him. Besides, this does make sense to me but it seems like a cumbersome way to do the types of calculations I am trying to do. I know how to just grind out the summation to get the answer (David gives a simple example in the Theory of Poker, when he talks about the coin flip).
Probablity for coin flip is 0.5. Someone gives you 2:1 on your money. Therefore EV = 0.5(2-1) = 0.5. Here is my first question: What units does EV have? The way I understand, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that EV has the units of "wager / bet". For the above example, if I bet $10 on every coin flip, then my EV = 0.5 [wager/bet] * 10 [$/wager] = 5 [$/bet]. In David's example in The Theory of Poker, he was wagering $1 and was therefore making $0.5 / bet. To be honest, the units aren't very important and I understand that this would be a dimensionless quantity in terms of SI units, but it will help me understand EV value a little better if we attach units to it (like the ones I have used above).
Ok, so that's simple, and all we have done is expand the summation (since the probability for each event is identical I put it outside the summation). But, any situation similar to the coin flip could be expressed as: odds against event occuring = X:1, payment on wager = Y:1. Using these definitions the summation will always be EV = (1/(X+1))*(Y-X).
More generally if the odds aginst an event are X:A, and the payout for a wager on the event Y:B, then substituting into the above expression will yield EV = (A*Y-B*X)/(B*(X+A)).
In my opinion, if I my formulae are correct, these are much simpler to use than grinding out the summation.
Let's do a poker example and see if I am on the right track.
You have 7c 8s.
Opponent has Ac As.
On the Turn the board is: 9h Th 3d Kd.
There are 44 unseen cards, and you only have 8 outs. Odds of winning are 36:8. There is $100 in the pot and your opponent has bet $20. Therefore the pot odds are 120:20. We all know this is an easy call, but what is the EV for this call? Assume that if the straight card comes your opponent is Ray Zee (or some other superstar) and he will not pay you off.
Using my formula, I get: X = 36
A = 8
Y = 120
B = 20
EV = (8*120-20*38)/(20*(36+8)) = 0.2727 [wagers/bet]. The wager was $20, so the EV = $5.45 [per bet] or [per hand].
Is this correct? And are my formulae correct? Is this the best way to calculate EV for poker situations or am I way out to lunch?
What do you mean you don't get it? You understand it completely.
Your formalae are correct. You used:
EV = (1/(X+1))*(Y-X)
I prefer this equivalent but more intuitive (for me) version:
EV = (1/(X+1))*(Y+B)-B = P(Y+B)-B
That says "your expected value is your probability of winning times the winning amount, which is equal to your payoff plus your bet back, but you always lose your bet."
For units, you can just note that the units for EV must be the same as the units for B, or else the units are going to get corrupted when you subtract B from the first part of the equation. So, EV is expressed in terms of the bet amount. If the bet is expressed in terms of dollars, then EV is in terms of dollars. If instead you speak in terms of odds, then B=1 bet, and the EV is in terms of bets.
The formula I gave in the other thread includes implied odds, but it's the same thing:
EV = (Y+B+I)*C/46-B
Note that (1/(X+1)) = C/46 (odds of hitting your draw is equal to your number of outs, C, divided by the number of remaining cards, 46.) And note that (Y+B+I) is the same as (Y+B) when the implied odds I=0. So, your equation and the two I gave are all equivalent when I=0.
Now as far as the general version, well, you asked for it, and so I gave it to you. Actually, few others will understand you if you use our little mathematical shortcut. Hell, even though you understood me, you thought you didn't!
When you try to solve more difficult poker problems, you'll need to break the expected value computation into P*V1+(1-P)*V2 format, where component expected values V1 and V2 might themselves be computed in that format, and where P is the probability of outcome V1, and V2 is the only other possibility so its probability is 1-P. Of course you can generalize this to more than two outcomes if need be.
Got it? Don't lie this time. :)
-Abdul
Got it this time, although I'd really appreciate seeing an example of the component problem you mentioned. That sounds very interesting.
Oh yah, and now I completely understand the formula you used in the other post (I had no problem with the implied odds aspect of it). BTW, you are right, it is intuitively easier to include your bet in the total pot and then subtract it later. I like that, in some way it it helps make the situation clear.
Hey... and about me not understanding, I wasn't positive my formulae were correct so I didn't want to tip off my poker hand too early in the betting. You can understand that can't you? :)
Suppose you have As8s, the board is Js6d2h, and you know your opponent has KsKh. Your opponent has bet into you, there's no one else in the hand, and now the pot is 6 small bets. What is your expected value of calling on the flop? Assume your opponent keeps betting into you unless an ace hits the board, in which case he check-calls. If you hit your flush, you get to raise and he will call.
So, your expected value is:
EV = P1*V1+P2*V2+P3*V3, where P1 is the probability of case 1 and V1 is the expected value for case 1, and so on.
Y = 6 (pot size on flop in small bets)
P1 = 9/45
V1 = P1a*V1a+P1b*V1b+P1c*V1c, where P1a is the probability of case 1a, and so on.
P2 = 3/45
V2 = P2a*V2a+P2b*V2b
P3 = 1-(P1+P2)
V3 = -1
P1a = 8/44
V1a = Y+2+4
P1b = 3/44
V1b = Y+2+2
P1c = 1-(P1a+P1b)
V1c = -3
P2a = 2/44
V2a = -3
P2b = 1-P2a
V2b = Y+2+2
The answer I come up with .016666 small bets. There is a good chance this answer is wrong due to the complexity of the problem. Note that if you turn an eight, you don't have odds to call, so you just fold.
Awesome example. Because it is late I am going to review it at work tomorrow and see if I can come up with the same answer as you.
I will post my answer as soon as it is available.
Thanks for the great responses. I've learned a great deal from these simple posts, and it'll be put to the test tomorrow when I solve this problem. I find this stuff intriquing, especially since intuitively I assumed the flop call would have a negative expectation.
BTW, how useful is it to know how to calculate expectation? How do YOU use it personally?
I find calculating expected value is most useful when an arrogant but ignorant poker "expert" posts on the Internet an incorrect claim that I would like to decisively refute.
-Abdul
Are you sure it's correct to call in that situation? With a 3 flush to the nut flush on the flop plus one overcard? I usually fold this! Considering it's against only one player... It just doesn't seem right intuitively to me though I didn't do the math :).
You have to remember that the example assumed you knew exactly what your opponent held, and anyway it came out to about breakeven. But yeah, in general there is no way you can pry A8s out of my hands on the flop when I have a backdoor flush draw and the board isn't too weird otherwise and I would only have to call one bet to see the turn. With larger pots, it's a pretty big winning play.
The ace outs are much more important than the flush outs. With two low suited, the expected value for the example comes out to -0.8545 small bets. With only an ace and no flush draw, the expected value comes out to -0.306 small bets. Together they are stronger than apart, because on the turn you can back into a flush draw when going for an ace, and then on the river you can back into a pair of aces when going for a flush draw.
-Abdul
Assuming you KNOW his cards, then I get the exact result. But if you don't know his cards, then you would have to pay him off on the end when he makes his King on the river (Case 2a) and your expectation value goes down a little (I did the math but I don't have the numbers on me) but it still remains positive (0.010... I think).
In the response to Paradise Player you say you would call with this hand with this flop with one opponent. Would you change this answer if you were playing low limit poker and there were more than one opponent (2 or 3 or 4 - a raise means little in these games). These are the games I play and this is why I would fold. Even though I may be able to put the one raiser on a high pair (KK or QQ) it is quite possible that someone else cold called the raise with an A6 or A2 or AJ, and I am essentially drawing to a backdoor flush, which I don't usually do. Specifically, if someone else had called his bet before you were to act would you still make the call? Any comments on this would be appreciated.
As I vaguely recall, I previously calculated that you need about 20 small bets in the pot on the flop to go for a backdoor flush draw in a many-way pot when you don't think your high card would be good if you hit it.
The cold callers in a low limit game could have A6, but what you're really scared of is a bigger kicker ace. Anyway there are a whole lot of other hands they could have, like JT, 32s, or, in the San Francisco Bay area, 94s. The conditional probability that a loose player has an ace is not all that high even given that he cold called preflop.
You ask specifically about when a suspected big pair bets into you and a single player calls who also cold called preflop. I'll assume the cold caller is a tight player. You have better implied odds, but there is maybe a 50% chance one of your opponents has an ace, and it will be a bigger ace. With some rough calculations, I guestimate you need 11 small bets in the pot to go for it in this case, maybe only 9 if the caller is loose.
So, as you add more and more players, your implied odds get better, but your probability of winning with an ace approaches zero, and that's more important than your flush outs and implied odds. The required pot size goes from 6 small bets against one player when you know your ace is good, to 11 small bets against two players when you aren't sure your ace is good, to 20 small bets against many players when your ace is very likely no good.
-Abdul
x
Assuming a typical 10/20 or 15/30 hold'em game, how bad would the following advice be for a reasonable player?:
"NEVER fold for one more bet if you can beat a bluff on the river in a heads-up pot."
Maybe th generality could be amended to something like NEVER fold if the pot size is larger than X.
My intuition tells me that this would be decent advice that can't cost more than a fraction of a big bet's expectation over time. It might have a greater impact on variance, though.
I know the usual answer is it depends, but for some people you can't plug their leaks unless you give them an ultimatum. And I would like to give this ultimatum to a beginning, tightish player if it isn't too costly.
I would think that a player who could profit from this advice should not even be in a 10/20 or 15/30 game - heads up on the river or not.
a
Thank you for that advice. Let's just assume that this guy has a large non-poker bankroll and needs to play at least that high to care.
I was looking for some theoretical or analytical considerations. Some guys like Abdul, Mason, and David also seem to be able to "quantify" these types of concepts (e.g. what is the value of posting behind the button vs. waiting for the blind.)
Of COURSE it depends! What other answer could there be?
For the most part, this advice probably applies about 80 - 85% of the time. When you CAN beat a bluff, and there is a reasonable amount of $$ in the pot, it is probably a bad idea to fold most of the time for just one more bet.
However - I would think that the most important consideration here would be the playing tendencies of your opposition. Someone who is a frequent bluffer should be called down with as little as ace high virtually every time. But a tight player who virtually never bluffs, and will not bet a worse hand than yours, should be folded to more often than not.
You have to look at the size of the pot vs. the amount it costs you to call, and determine just how often you need to have the winning hand in order to make a call profitable. for instance, if there are 5 big bets in the pot, and it costs you one to call, you are getting 5:1 odds, so you only need to be right about 20% of the time in order to have a profitable call, at least theoretically. Adjust your borderline decisions based on your read of your opponents.
dave in cali
or say dont fold anytime you think you have any reasonable chance of winning. and on 4th street dont play unless you think at the river you could have a good chance of winning. then back to the same thing on the flop. so where do we stop. i suspect your beginner wouldnt be bluffed too much anyway in the game. he needs a better understanding of what to do on each street.
I have observed persons, who have incorporated "walking", as part of their Holdem "strategy". Some of them have become very proficient at what they are trying to accomplish. This is a scenario, where management is losing nothing, thus has no incentive to stop the "walking".
I believe "walking" takes a long-range, and short term (money) toll on persons, who don't walk.
Any recommendations on how to stop "walking" on the game (missing the blinds three or more times, consecutively).
Yes. You need a "third man" walking rule. If two players leave the table, the third player who leaves has only a few minutes to return (usually one time around to his big blind) or he is picked up and replaced by the next player on the list. This practice started in Tunica, Mississippi and has spread all over the country. Linda Johnson, the former editor of CardPlayer Magazine, has been campaigning for it all over the country. She has talked to card room management in Vegas at the Bellagio and the Mirage.
What gets me mad is to see someone gone from the table for close to an hour and then to see them return and pick up there chips. Perhaps you should only be able to miss you blinds once or twice then you are posted by the dealer or picked up. I believe that the Sun in Conn. has put in the third man walking rule, hope that it works.
its hard to stop. but almost all the walkers are tight or good players so it may be better to have them walk. also if you do play well you should get in more hands per hour and get to play more with the live ones. the downside is in rake games where the rake is not adjusted for the smaller amount of players accordingly. in those places that tolerate it use it to your advantage. walk when the players you want to play with go eat and whenever you want a break. id like a rule where if you are going to be gone for more than a half hour you pick up and let someone else play till you return. you get enough time for dinner at the casino you are in. than only let walking for up to 20 minutes without an ok from the floor. time games cut down on walking considerably but not enough.
I suspect if you are good player you shouldn't mind the players walking. And part of being a good player is adjusting to particularities of the game (such as the game being somewhat short).
It seems unfair to practice this third man walking rule. Why should he have a shorter time to walk while the first two who are walking have considerably more?
I think the house should give shorter rakes as the games gets shorter, and most places i have played in have.
The 3rd man walking rule is great. I have been in a 10-20 game many times with chips infront of 10 seats and 4 people be at the table. I do not mind it a little short but 4 handed with the table full and a waiting list is a little rediculeless.
I hope all poker rooms have this rule some day.
some casinos, such as trop in AC, have a dinner list where you can get right back to the top of the listfor your game if you notify the floor beforehand of your intentions. this way you are courteous to the other players, plus you usually only have to wait a few minutes before getting right back into the game. This practice is really a great idea, however, usually only the more experienced regulars are aware of the rule. casinos and cardrooms need to make this rule more well known perhaps by posting it in the cardroom clearly.
I am also of the firm belief that any cardroom should not give anyone more than 20-30 minutes away from the table before picking up their chips. It would be nice if everyone spread this sentiment around and perhaps eventually it will catch on like the third man walking rule. I especially hate it when someone is gone for an hour then comes back and picks up their chips! I suggest cruel and unusual punishments when this happens.
dave in cali
Lobbying rules vary, and they should. For instance, casinos that allows eating at the table need to have different rules than casinos that don't.
I've played countless hours in casinos that employed the third-man walking rule. Yet I have never seen this rule enforced. Has anyone else? Has anyone actually seen the third lobbyer get picked up after five minutes?
The Third-man-walking rule looks good on paper, but it's a tough one to enforce fairly. Every floorman I've talked to about it thinks it sucks.
At Lucky Chances you can eat at the table. They now use a rule that I invented. The three-button rule. It's similar to the three-button concept used in Vegas, except that instead of a player getting a new button with each new dealer, they get one each time the blinds go by. The details have been refined through usage. This rule is working well. It is accepted by the players, and fairly enforced by the staff.
Tommy
When I played at the Horseshoe in Bossier City and in Tunica they enforced the 3rd man walking rule and I saw players get picked up. In addition, the mere threat of getting picked up when you are the third man instills a lot of discipline in the game and keeps players from meandering.
I would think that for this to work, that the house has to be willing to pick up the first two walks when ever they reach there time limit. Does this happen as it should?
Yup. They've got it down pat. If a player has two buttons and the third lap is about half over, the dealer tells the floorman that a player is about to get three buttons. The floorman does a "call back" for that player on the PA. That gives the player ample time to get back before they get the third button. If they don't come back before they miss the blind again, they get picked up.
Tommy
Sounds like they are a doing a fair and competent job with the Third Man Walking rule at those casinos, Jim.
At Lucky Chances they had the TMW rule on the books for two years, but since it was never enforced, the rule had no effect other than to annoy those patrons who knew the rule was in the rulebook but not enforced.
That's why I wasn't too high on the TMW rule. But I can see that it is a useful rule, if the players know it exists and it is used fairly.
Tommy
In games where the house takes a collection every half-hour they really have no incentive to worry about people leaving the table since they simply take their money from every player's stack each half hour whether he is there or not.
and for all the rules with good intentoions to so called protect the players, the only people that get picked up are the ones that are complained about. when does a live one or a friend of the regulars ever get picked up unless they are gone forever. and do we really want to enforce the rule so severly that the live one gets picked up and goes across the street to play. so basically it still comes down to what jim says is that the house does whats best for their bottom line in the short run.
Agreed, except for those times when lobbying causes a game to break that otherwise wouldn't have.
a
Solution to walking? You still have two persons absent, with the "third man walking" rule. Here is the ultimate solution to stop the effects of walkers, on non-walkers. Here is the RULE: Once seated in a Holdem game, every player is responsible for paying the blinds, EVEN IF HE IS AWAY FROM THE TABLE. The only exception is for a player who has requested a LUNCH BUTTON, AND IS TAKING LUNCH, within the prescribed time limt established by the house.
a
Youve got to be kidding me! The rule the everyone has to post their blinds stinks! Are there now more blinds? (That is when SB and BB are absent are more blinds introduced?) IF not does teh button get to keep the money if everyone else passes?
WHy is it that everyone wants to tie all the other players to the table? With the attitude I hear in this thread I can't imagine it would much fun to play with people who are so serious about enforcing such a rule. This attitude will certainly chase away alot of social players. And certainly take alot of fun out of the game. Granted a few people play for a living and this hurts their bottom line, but creating such a militant attitude about such technicalities might very well be more dangerous to their bottom line.
Most people play poker for social reasons and it is leisure for most even if they also happen to making money. Trying to strictly enforce rules such as 3rd man walking only creates a bad environment and may have a bad effect on your game.
Finally the reason why this rule wants to be enforced seems to be because people don't like playing shorthanded. Despite the fact there probably is more skill in shorthanded games than full handed games.
Hey, Tommy, GREAT idea with the three button rule. Can we take it a step further? The rule has helped me at Lucky Chances because I play LL and do far, far better in 8- and 9-handed games with only 1-3 maniacs/calling stations/wishful thinkers. The problem is less now the three button rule is in effect, but what about the guys who take three buttons, return for a few hands, take 3 more buttons and so on? Can we limit the number of total missed blinds PER SEATING as well somehow?
At Binions down town Las Vegas you get 3 buttons you are picked up.
You can only give 1 button back per dealer, so if you come back and only play a couple of hands you still have buttons and can be picked up,if you go away for very long again.
I seem to run myself into trouble playing over cards to the flop. Is it generally right to take a card off the deck with hands such as AK, AQ, or KQ if they are both over cards to the flop, possibly raising with them if you have a backdoor draw possibilities? I feel that this is one of the leaks in my game, and feel that if I found a stronger/more effective way to play these cards then I would make much more profit either by saving bets or gaining some. Any comments appreciated.
If I have AK, and I raise with it preflop, I will often bet it if everyone has checked to me, unless I am on the button - then I'll just go for the free card.
I do this for a couple of reasons. First of all, it is entirely possible that I have the best hand. Why give free cards to let someone draw a pair against me?
It adds deception to my game. If I have AK and NEVER bet when the flop misses me, then I will be easier to read - when I have a big pocket pair and I bet into a flop of little cards, people will know where I am.
Here is another thing - if I raise preflop in early position, chances are I have a big pocket pair, AK, or AQ. If I check when little cards come, then any observant player can bet and keep betting until an AK or Q shows up even if he has nothing. To safeguard against this, I also check raise big pocket pairs on the flop too.
-SmoothB-
Frankly, this is one of the toughest aspects of limit HE to learn.
Much depends on things such as the texture of the flop, was it a raised or unraised pot, your position in relation to the button and your position in relation to the bettor.
In other words, it is hard to describe when to properly play overcards unless you have enough time to write a book chapter.
Here's one tip: Often, you will be better off playing KQ or QJ (as overcards) as opposed to AK or AQ. This is because the Ace has a nasty habit of giving you top pair/top or good kicker while at the same time giving someone else two pairs.
While I would say that TJ Cloutier is incorrect when he intimates that playing overcards in a raised pot is always a losing proposition, he really isn't all that off the mark if you lack the experience and the feel for the game to know when it might be profitable to chase your 6 outer. Until that experience and feel comes, you may be better off always pitching overcards into the muck.
IMO, playing these hands on the flop depends on a few things.
First, you have to consider the texture of the flop. Certain flops make taking one off a much better play than others. For example,if you have AdKc, a flop of Qs 8s 9h is not as good a flop for this play as a flop of Js 7c 2h. In the first flop, you have to worry about a flush draw, plus there are several straight possibilities that could hurt you, including the commonly played hand of JT. The second flop makes it much more likely that your spiking a pair will make you a winning hand.
Next, you have to consider the pre-flop action. If you raised first in, and only the BB called, you might either bet if he checks, or raise if he bets. It would depend on your assessment of his playing style and the texture of the flop. But if there are many players, you should be more inclined to fold This is especially true if you have no flush or straight draw possibilites, and especially if the board is paired or coordinated.
Also, you have to consider your position. if you are UTG with AK and the BB bets, and there are several aggressive players behind you, folding may be your best play. But if you are late and there is little chance of a raise, calling might be a better play, or perhaps even raising, depending on the board and action.
Also, your starting hand makes a difference. I am usually more reluctant to take one off with KQ than I am with AK or AQ. Taking one off with AK or AQ after a flop of T 5 2 rainbow is usually worth consideration, because you still might even have the best hand if no one flopped a pair. However, KQ is much less likely to win without improvement, thus lowering its value over AK or AQ hands.
dave in cali
I am going to presume that you are speaking of A-K or A-Q when you say "overcards." Players who think that Q-J has much value when the flop comes raggedy are just asking for trouble.
With A-K/A-Q and missing the flop, the most important factor is the number of players. Against the big fields, you can just pitch them in the muck, as they most assuredly are not the best hand. Against two players, I'm going to play them for the best hand until proven otherwise. You can work out the rest with practice.
Most players would make money just throwing A-K/A-Q away when they miss the flop.
"I am going to presume that you are speaking of A-K or A-Q when you say "overcards." Players who think that Q-J has much value when the flop comes raggedy are just asking for trouble."
Not sure that I agree with this, Earl. As I said above, I often prefer to have QJ as opposed to AK when I decide that it is right to call with my 6 outer in a multiway pot.
In addition to the fact that hitting a Queen or Jack on the turn (as opposed to an Ace) is less likely to make someone two pair, there is also the fact that when I do make the better hand after hitting on the turn, there is a greater likelihood that the flop bettor will fire again on the turn when a Queen or Jack comes off which would allow me the chance to raise and narrow the field.
Of course, on those occasions when you make the better hand on the turn, a pair of Queens is more vulnerable than a pair of Aces (as someone could hit a King or Ace on the river) but this is not that big of a detriment as usually all overcard draws fold on the turn and besides, you may be able to raise to ensure that overcard draws don't stick around.
The biggest point is to avoid continuing with a dominated hand. If you have AK, the flop comes Q95, and someone has AQ, KQ, K9, or A9, you're dominated. You're not even in great shape against JT, because now one of your outs is no good, and unless you're heads up you have a hard time making it to the showdown with AK. Usually in a multiway pot you should bail on the flop if the highest card on the flop is just under your overcards, like a Q-high flop versus your AK.
If you're in a multiway pot and continue with premium overcards like AK and spike an ace on the turn, don't play it hard. As others pointed out, here you may be up against two pair, in particular someone who had an ace kicker on the flop.
If you're in a multiway pot and you call on the flop with overcards and the turn misses you, usually you should bail then. You were calling on the flop partially for the chance of making a big two pair, and now that's impossible (unless the board is already paired.)
Usually you want a good chance of having the biggest big overcards if you call on the flop, but in the right circumstance you can try to go safely under your opponents' overcards. I once saw a good player make the following play: Player raises in middle position, anoth