![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Whenever I see questionable activity at the table I simply notify the floorman privately of my suspicions. A couple months ago I observed the same player "mistakenly" taking bets or partial bets back from the pot on two occasions. The first time I saw it I got the dealer to count the pot and have him make it right. The second time I told the floorman and told him to check the film. After the floorman spoke to the shift supervisor, the player got up and cashed out soon after, before anyone could check the tapes. Once you bring it to the floor's attention, it is their job to police the game.
I have to report that both David and Mason have been put in jail somewhere in Las Vegas. At this time I cant find out just where they are but I understand they were taken away in handcuffs from a major casino after getting into an argument over a math problem. Being up here in Montana I have no way of providing bail for them. If anyone can help or knows where they are please help. Ray Zee
Ray,
In the future, please post messages such as this one on the Exchange forum.
Chuck
I've heard jail house poker games can be very profitable. Good luck!
NC
I first started out playing PL Jacks or Better draw poker. In that game, there were several randomization techniques which I used to dictate aspects of my play such as my bluffing and calling frequencies. For example, if I was drawing to an obvious 4 flush, I would bluff If I paired one of the three lowest ranking cards in my hand. If I opened and was called by an obvious draw, I would call after the draw depending on what I opened with and the number of cards I drew. For example, If I drew three to a pair, I would call if I had a pair of Aces or better. If I drew 2 to trips, I would call with trip 9's or better and if I drew one card to 2 pair, I would call if I opened with Queens-up.
BTW, it's been nearly ten years since I played draw poker so I don't recall if these randomization techniques were the exact (or correct) ones that I used but that doesn't matter for the question I have which is this:
Does anyone out there use such randomization techniques in hold 'em? If so, can someone provide some concrete examples.
skp,
i will stack my chips in random piles in the shape of Hoover dam , that would be a concrete example;)
i really would rather get a subtle clue from my opponent or use some past feeling to guide my play. if im going to bluff i would rather get a tell that he my not like his hand rather than rely on game theory betting unless i had no info, than game theory betting would be better. i might be more inclined to bluff if he made a bad call recently and knew it or if he was ahead and now was getting closer to even( most players hate to get stuck)
What exactly did you eat for breakfast this morning, Ray?
: )
I use one regularly. AKo, flop doesn't help, I bet out (if checked to me or if I am first to bet) as if I have a big pair, only if the A and K in my hand are the same color. I know before the flop if I am "supposed" to bet and then do so, (though only if, given the flop, I would bet I would have bet AA or KK)
AKo occurs often enough. and the flop misses often enough, that I try and not be too predictable with this hand, and opponents have given me unsolicited feed back that they are kept offbalance by this randomization.
Larry
Ya, that's not a bad one, Larry. So, essentially, you find that you will be driving with your unhelped AK 50% of the time.
As Ray points outs, we should concern ourselves with other more important factors to decide whether to bet or not but all other things being equal, I like the randomization technique you've got going there for yourself.
I invite others to offer their suggestions.
Actually, using this method I bet 33% of the time, as I play AKs more by the seat of my pants.
BTW, if you are feeling ambitious, there may be an essay topic lurking within this subject. I (and I suspect many others) enjoyed the bluffing essay you posted a month or two ago, elsewhere within the 2+2 website, and at first glance the topic of randomization of otherwise routine hold'em decisions may have some real potential.
Larry
I use a similar one for the opposite play: when to slow- play a big pair. If I'm in early position, and the flop is blanks, I will slow-play a big pair if they are both red, otherwise I'll fire as normal. 25% is probably a bit too often, so I'll look for clues to avoid doing it, but if I find none, sneak it is.
I won't comment on whether or not 25% is too often, but I will comment that you're not doing it 25% of the time. You'll have 2 red cards in a pair only 1/6th of the time (about 17%).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
This is a fascinating thread, and I am thinking about incorporating some random strategy into my pre-flop play with big card hands.
Using cards is straightforward and precise, as first suggested in TOP. But if you decide that you would like to make a random decision but have already seen your card(s), or if looking at only your 2 hold'em cards doesn't give you the percentage you were looking for, here is your personal random number generator:
Your wristwatch (with second hand).
Just decide in advance what probability you want, and then decide the second-hand values that will trigger your action. Then look at the watch and decide based upon the second-hand reading. This can also be used to make decisions other than 2-way, although that is probably not too common.
I read this in someone's non-poker book, perhaps backgammon or bridge, a long time ago.
Dick in Phoenix
If one uses a randomizer to make backgammon decisions then he deserves to lose.
A hand held randomizer may help a poker player because he/she may feel secure that he/she played correctly when bluffing and possibly the opponents cannot read him/her. But on the other hand in most cases the cards that you should use to randomize your play are often dictated by the game itself. For example: there are situations that the top card would be a good card to bluff if it pairs and others where it would not be.
Maria
Please, Maria, give me a break. I was only trying to vaguely remember where I saw the idea. I can't remember personally ever actually using a random number in either bridge or backgammon (or poker either, so far, because in my no fold'em game it is useless to bluff).
I do agree with Ray that if you have any better information, such as tells on the other players, then random play is not called for.
The only point to this post, trying to contribute a little something, is
IF you arrive at a TOP game-theory type of situation, and
IF you can't use the cards coming for whatever reason,
THEN you have this method available to give yourself a random decision with any desired probability.
Dick in Phoenix
Ok,
agreed.
Take care.
Maria
There was an idea about randomization in a Bridge World 'movie' several years back. Basically one had to decide who to play for a particular card in a bluff, counterbluff scenario.
Danny S
Randomization just turns you into a computer. I believe that just by observing your opponents you can vary your play so you don't become predictable. For example, if the game is squeeky tight, I'll start limping in with big pairs, big suited connectors, and raising with small connectors and baby pairs. I'll tell you there's no feeling better than having everyone fold to you when you win with 22 in the hole.
I'll agree with Zee.
It looks like this thread has just about run its course ...
I would just like to remind everyone that the fundamentals of this concept of randomization are expressed very eloquently in TOP's chapter, "Bluffing and Game Theory." At the risk of being labeled a sycophant, I will say that it is perhaps my favorite piece written by David. In it, as an example, he creates a poker scenario that is very realistic in which player A has a distinct advantage over player B in winning hands, but when player B is given the opportunity to bluff, and does so at the correct RANDOM FREQUENCY, he becomes a significant favorite.
As Ray pointed out in his response, you don't have to do this randomly; I'm sure that if Ray uses his great skills he will succeed even more with his bluffs. But what if I want to bluff Ray? If I am sitting in his game, he probably will read me like a book after an hour or so. One of David's points is that, in that situation, I can use random decision-making to offset being read by another player.
Before leaving this thread, everyone who owns TOP should go back and re-read this chapter.
Dick in Phoenix
I took your advice, I re-read the Game Theory and Bluffing chapter in Theory of Poker. I'll just quote one sentance form the chapter that sums it all up--"Game theory cannot replace sound judgement."
Here's a list of some of my rules for mixing up my play:
1. How does the enemy currently percieve me. Am I giving lots of action or am I a rock.
2. Are the enemy aggressive, passive, weak, or strong.
3. Have they been losing? Taking bad beats.
4. Are they bluffable? Do they fold easy or do they look you up?
Here's a hand I played recently. I'm in middle position with the Ad Jd. Normally, I would raise, but this time I decided I would limp in. I did it because, I had not played a hand for about two rounds. I'm sure everyone that was thinking about the game thought I was a rock.
Everyone limps in and the button raises. LB folds, BB calls, and everyone else calls including myself. The flop is Qd 10d 8d. I flopped the nut flush and decided I was going to slow play to build the pot as big as I could. All I was thinking about, now, was raking in that pot. I did not even care what anyone was holding, but I wanted to keep them in. Forget about card reading, at this point I was too excited about my hand.
Sure enough, the BB bets, I call, three more callers, and then the button raises. After the button raises I look at my cards again to check and see if I've got a diamond (of course I know I've got it, but I want the enemy to think that I don't) BB folds, I call along with two others. Now, there are four of us in the game.
The turn is the Ks. I check, the player on my left bets, player three calls, and the button raises. I cold call it. The player on my left calls and player three mucks his cards.
The river is the 9h. I check, the player to my left bets, and the button raises. I re-raise and they both call. I show them the nuts.
Do you think if I decided to play like a computer, I would have won a big pot like this? What, would of happened if I decided using game theory.
What would have happened if I used this set of instructions:
1. If my cards are suited and red I will raise if no one has rasied before me.
2. If my cards are suited and black I will limp and/or call a raise.
3. If they are offsuit I will raise.
Maybe, you can devise some sophisticated strategy using game theory, but I believe it does not replace sound judgement.
I know I'm being simple here with my examples. But, I believe the stategy for using game theory need to be much more complex than what some authors propose for varing your game.
So, next time you're at the table with Ray, wait for him to muck his cards so you can bluff a rock.
I was playing 6-12 HE the other night against a mix of dealers and regulars who usually play much bigger games HE and Omaha.
I am in late position with AKh and raise. Four callers. Flop comes with As and two small diamonds. A big stakes player to my right bets, I raise, she reraises.
Turn comes Ad. She bets into me with the ace high flush. I called down (I know,I know).
Five, six hands later, she does the exact same thing to another player (a very good high stakes player). He comments "you raise with a flush draw" and she got belligerent. She came back at him, "of course. You don't raise with a flush draw? You DON'T raise with a flush draw."
I still can't figure. Was she posturing to confuse or does she really figure that this is a profitable play? Both times she had the flush draw after the flop--so her odds were better to draw out. But why raise? Doesn't this just cut her odds?
I can't figure. Any help?
Monster,
there a many reasons to raise with a draw although it should not be done all the time. one good reason is to keep your opponents from differentiating between your good hands and your draw hands. also even out of position it sometimes brings free cards or sets up the pot for a bluff. i suspect she was doing it for the action though. good luck.
If she felt you were trying for a free card by raising, I can see making it three bets to go right there on the flop with just an eight-outer. She wouldn't be able to defend against the free card play with a bet on the turn if she missed, and if she did get lucky then she might not get paid off. By defending immediately on the flop with a draw, she's using some deception to encourage getting paid off if the draw is completed. She might also be trying to get you off a hand like AT or KK if she thought you were probing on the flop. The excess table talk is not worth concerning yourself with, it seems like obvious posturing on her part.
It's certainly not a "bad" play to raise against a flush draw against 2 other callers on the flop. Besides a free card play and the added deception, she was 2:1 to hit her hand--so against 2 other callers, you are getting enough equity (discounting the small possiblility that your flush won't stand up) to raise ON THE FLOP. Considering that she was last to act, if she missed the turn she could take her free card (if you all check to her) and if she hits it, she can continue betting. It's a near-even-money raise and it gives a good image, making her SEEM like a gambling player, enjoys the action (likes to bet on the come). But whether or not you decide to use this play yourself is more personal preference, because it does lead to high variance game.
Who knows why SHE did it? Maybe she didn't think of any of these things and really does just like the action. But in my opinion, the play is by no means a kamikaze-type play as it may seem.
Go Get'em. Mikeydoo.
not kamikaze at all,particularly from late position knowing everyone will call. With the raise you can not only have correct odds but increase the pot in your favor proportionally when you hit
[No, this is not an April Fool's message, despite the double entendre in the subject]
I was thinking the other night about a possible Hold 'Em variant where there are just enough cards for the players, the flop, and the burns.
For example, with 8 players, you would need 16+5+3= 24 cards, or 6 in each suit. The logical thing to do would be to remove 2 through 8 of each suit, leaving just 9, 10, J, Q, K, A.
I haven't done the math yet, but intuitively it seems that one of the effects of this would be to increase the frequency of pairs, trips, full houses, and quads.
I would guess that straights would become rarer, just thinking about the ratio of number of possible straights to total cards. With indexes from 2 to A, with A high or low, there are 10 straights for 13 indexes; with indexes from 9 to A, there are only 2 straights for 6 indexes.
Without doing the math, I have trouble intuiting what would happen to flushes. Offhand, I would guess that their frequency wouldn't change much.
The upshot is that the ranking of hands might have to be changed.
The reason I was thinking about this is that I like the deduction aspects of a game like Hold 'Em, and by reducing the number of cards that don't play to almost zero, you could make the deduction part of the game even more important.
Anyhow, has anyone ever heard of a variant like this? Did it fly? If not, why not?
Just curious,
--james
Hmmm.....
One comparison is Bridge where all cards are dealt out and deductive reasoning is paramount.
This would work even better for stud.
Hopw I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
In some parts of Europe they play with a short deck as follows: four players 7 to A and A789T is a straight. For each additional player add one card.
The game that you mentioned 9 to A with 8 players is almost pointless because for most flop situations either the luck factor (turn and river and deduction) is way too high or the deduction process way too complicated.
The game would be interesting to computers and mathematicians only.
Maria
When I was vacationing in Australia in 1997, I went to the casino in Cairns and experienced a game similar to the one you are describing - it's called Panama.
Cards 2-6 are removed from the deck. Only difference between hand rankings is that flushes beat full houses. Straights stay where they are.
Funny enough, I ask the floorman how this game is played (relative to hold'em, which he was familiar with) and all he tells me is that one card is turned prior to betting and each of the four subsequent cards are turned with betting rounds in between.
No mention of the short deck, no mention of the flush beats full house thing, and no mention of the most unbelievable rake I have ever seen (not that I am expecting floor guys to advertise 5% uncapped - they were taking upwards of $10 out of every pot (quite a loose game)...and up to $30/40). I'm up $200A in 20 minutes before I figure any of this stuff out. I'm checking nut straights when flushes show up. When I finally figure out the game, the deck stops hitting me like a truck and I finish even (which seemed like a pretty big accomplishment at the end of the night when most of the money was in the rake box).
Starting with 6 cards in each suit, the game would be very different. Some variations of 7 stud are played with a stripped deck (usually 7-A remaining, 8 cards in each suit), and in that game flushes are as rare as quads (if you include straight flushes in the total count of flushes).
With only 6 ranks and looking at possible 5 card hands, flushes would become rare, much rarer than quads. Straights become more common (but not so common as to exceed the number of ways to make trips). The total number of possible 5 card hands with 6 cards is 42504. Out of that, there are 8 straight flushes, 16 flushes, 120 quads, 720 full houses, 2040 straights, 3840 trips, 8640 two pairs, 23040 pairs, and 4080 ways to make nothing.
Played with 7 cards (as in Hold'em), the hand ranks would skew even more, for instance it would be impossible to hold a hand that was less than two pair.
While it might be amusing as an exercise, I think it would be pretty dull as a game. The players that aren't into deduction would be slaughtered by the players that are, and the players that are into deduction would grind the game to a crawl as they worked out all the possibilities.
I am a lurker who is new to Poker. I am looking for a good room to start small and work my way up. I have read about the high rakes at AC and the Indian Reservations. Has anyone been the to NY City card rooms(i.e. the Diamond Club)? What are the rakes/seat rates and membership policies? Is there a comprehensive website that will give me this info?
Check the Exchange Forum by clicking to the left for these types of questions. The Diamond Club is a good place to play 4/8 or 10/20 holdem. They also have some tournaments and even a no-limit game on Tuesdays. Call 212-727-1956 and ask for John or Billy. THey can give you the details. The membership is free.
same as you did
I would play this hand happily. Happy to have QJs in the blind, happy to see the flop for free, happy to fold it RAPIDLY, and next I'm happy to be the button.
You're just a happy guy!
This was a hand that came up today in a $10-20 game. I probably played it wrong all the way. I am one seat away from the BB and have 7,5 spades. I call (I know this is probably a bad call but the game was loose and passive for the most part), the player to my immediate left raises one cold caller late and the BB calls. The flop is 7c,6s(spades), 3s(spades). I check, the raiser bets no one calls and I call. The raiser is an o.k. player that plays predictably after the flop I know he would bet on 4th in this situation if he didn't have a big pair. Let's say that I know the raiser was raising with group 1-3 hands. I know that the raiser also thinks I am tight which I am. The next card is a 9d. The raiser bets and I check raise figuring that he will lay down overcards and if he has a big pair I have outs. He calls the raise. If a blank falls on the river, how often would you bet with the 7,5c trying to convince the raiser that you had an excellent hand? To be honest I was a little surprised he called my check raise because I know that he would think I had a made hand power house to be making such a play. I wasn't sure what he had but I thought I might even get him to dump a pair of Aces in this spot. As things turned out I actually had enough clues to read his hand or at least narrow it down significantly after the turn. Can anybody figure out what he called me with on the turn?
he has got 99 in the hole. but his hands run from ace big of spades to a pair that is tripped or overpair. all these hands can be narrowed down depending on how well you know the player. i dont know anyone i could knock off two aces with this board. i might have raised on the flop and played it hard as your hand is a monster. i dont know if i could just call on the flop my hands would put the chips in even if i told them not to.
Ray,
I agree with you, that ythis hand is a monster on the flop. But why wouldn´t you try for a check-raise? Any reasonable player would bet this flop with any holding after raising pre-flop. If you bet on the flop, there is a good chance, that the pre-flop-raiiser raises again, and this may narrow down the field. But I´d prefer to play this hand against more than one player, wouldn´t you? If the pro-flop-raiser has any overpair, I have enough outs to make it correct, to go to the river. But in this case, I´d like to get better odds for my draw.
Check-raising gives me little chances of winning the pot right there, and better odds for my draw, if somebody calls.
Regards
M.A.
How did you figure he had the Set of Nines?!! WOW!
CV
I don't see an argument for not jamming on the flop. You're getting value because of the huge draw, and it behooves you to try to drive out other hands when you've got top pair weak kicker. How can you not raise here?
George, I believe that is what Ray recommended. Tom Haley
Tom,
I'll take a quick stab at this one.
First, I think there is some merit at leading at the flop with a small pair and the flush draw. But that is another matter.
When he calls the check raise on the turn, the board read 7c 6s, 3s, and 9d. I like your check raise here considering you showed weakness on the flop and it would appear to show a slow play of a big hand now. Yet he calls and you say he would have dumped a big pair.
One big pair he wouldn't have dumped is a pair of tens. He has to figure he has six outs since he figures you for a tight player. Thus, he has to think it is more likely you flopped or made a set of sevens or sixes than any sort of straight. Now any eight or ten probably beats you.
I'll stick with that. He had a pair of tens.
Regards,
Rick
By the way you explained the hand I'd say that your opponent is a favorite to have any combination of High Spades, Ten and above.
He also may have pocket Tens and thought you Slowplayed Trips or made Two Pair. He does have a Gut Shot in that case, and has an Overpair as a Bluff catcher.
CV
I think at the end of the Hand your best Option is to Check. He's pretty much committed to the Pot. If he has the Overpair I don't think he would lay it down now. If he was on a Flush Draw he will most likely Fold because you have shown so much Strength on the Turn. So I believe he will call only when he has you beat. Also, your Turn Check-Raise plus a Check on the River may confuse him, or scare him enough to make him Check Down his Overpair even after you show weakness. Of course, if he does bet you must call to pickup the times he Bets his busted Flush.
I hope I straightened all that out for you. ;^)
CV
Since, he was in early position and raised preflop I would first put him on 99,TT, JJ, QQ, KK, or AA. When you check raised him on the flop I think that he might of felt he was beat but was going to look you up. I don't think he would have 99, otherwise he would have reraised you on the turn. I believe your opponent put you on the following hands: two pair or a small set. Since, he did not reraise you on the turn I would bet from your position on the river if a blank came.
Here is what happened on the river. A 4 of clubs hit giving me a straight. I bet and the raiser starts griping before I complete my bet, "I know you've got a straight, you wouldn't check raise on the turn without a straight", as he shows me and then tables a set of 9's without calling the bet. The dealer mucks the nines and pushes me the pot. Then a player on the raiser's left (who I have played with a lot) states, "You threw away the winning hand. He didn't have a straight on the turn because I threw away a hand that would have made a straight on the turn." The raiser and him get into a discussion and finally the raiser says, "Well if I threw away the winning hand I was outplayed." The raiser then goes on a long hiatus from the table presumably to calm down a little bit. I had to leave about 15 minutes later (because my wife won $500 at the dollar slots and threatened to keep pulling the lever if we didn't go) and he never returned while I was there. I'm pretty sure that he thought I had a straight made on the turn by his actions. I don't think he entertained the notion that I had 2-pair or a set as he didn't re-raise me on the turn. A scare card did come on the river as any 5 would have given me a straight. However I am reasonably sure at this point that he thought he was beat on the turn and was re-drawing for a full house. After the turn I didn't have as many outs as I thought I might. I certainly didn't read him for a set of nines and I thought if I made my hand on the river he would pay me off. I was wrong and he was wrong. I knew this player thought I played in a very straight forward manner and after thinking about it I am thinking that if there really was a strong chance that he would dump an overpair like Aces, he wouldn't call on the turn if he thought he was drawing dead. Therefore I probably should have read him for a T,T (as has been pointed out); 9,9; or a flush draw. After thinking about this a little longer I came up with the following possibilities: Chances 9,9 = 3 Chances T,T = 6 Chances other overpair group 3 hands = 24 A,Ks, A,Qs, A,Js, A,Ts = 8 K,Qs, K,Js, Q,Js, JTs Now suppose that I estimate that there is a 50% chance that he will dump an overpair other than 9,9 or T,T on the turn when I check raise. How do you play this hand on the river, after he calls a check raise on the turn if: 1) A-T comes that is not a spade. 2) A 9c, 9h hits. 3) An 8c,8h, 8d hits. 4) A 7 hits. 5) A 6c or 3 hits. 6) A 5 hits. 7) A 4d, 4h, 4c hits. 8) A 2d, 2h, 2c hits. 9) A 4s hits. 10) Any other spades hit. This game is too darn complicated. I'm just going to start guessing the exact hand my opponent has and hope I'm right.
Tom,
Holdem is a game of incomplete information and my post above seems to be filled with incomplete thinking. I'll try to fill in some blanks.
At the time he wrote it, I agreed with Chris Villalobos's post that the possibilities included overcard spades as well as the pair of tens. I couldn't see where a set of nines wouldn't make it three bets on the turn based on him knowing you are a tight player. I think most people can imagine a tight player playing medium pairs pre-flop rather than small connectors (54s) or medium one gappers (T8s) suited. But I could be wrong.
Anyway, Ray hit it on the nail. Now I'll try to embarrass myself further by answering the rest of the question. I'm doing it with no time to calculate the math (as in the heat of battle) and based on not knowing the set of nines is out but only a possibility (i.e., I'll use your estimates which I believe are good despite Ray hitting the bulls eye).
You wrote:
"Chances 9,9 = 3
Chances T,T = 6
Chances other overpair group 3 hands = 24
A,Ks, A,Qs, A,Js, A,Ts = 8
K,Qs, K,Js, Q,Js, JTs
Now suppose that I estimate that there is a 50% chance that he will dump an overpair other than 9,9 or T,T on the turn when I check raise. How do you play this hand on the river, after he calls a check raise on the turn if:
1) A-T comes that is not a spade."
I bet with the intention of folding if he raises. He may fold a weak pair if the overcard pairs him. He may fold if for example, he had tens (or JJ and QQ) and the overcard came. He showed two much weakness on the turn not to bet here.
"2) A 9c, 9h hits."
Bet again with the intention of folding if he raises. The nine appeared to help you on the turn so why not bet again hoping the overpair folds.
"3) An 8c,8h, 8d hits."
Check with the intention of calling. Since I liked tens in his hand (but I wasn't sure - wink), what can the dumb end of the straight do but this.
"4) A 7 hits."
Bet and call his raise. I think this card is too scary for him (once again, based on what we thought he had rather than what he actually had) for him to bet the river with his overcards. I wouldn't like the raise but I would pay it off.
"5) A 6c or 3 hits."
Check and call if he bets. These cards don't help you and they are not as scary for him (especially the 3).
"6) A 5 hits.
Bet and through it away if he raises. This would have to be scary to him and any raise indicates you are easily beat.
"7) A 4d, 4h, 4c hits."
Bet and if he raises (which is unlikely) reraise. The board is too scary to him to check.
"8) A 2d, 2h, 2c hits."
Check and call here. This card is not scary. He wouldn't through away any overpair and may bluff the medium spade draw. You wouldn't like it if he would call with the ace high spade draws. I don't think most players would bet overpairs here.
"9) A 4s hits."
You hit the jackpot. Bet rather than try for a check raise since he has so many calling hands and would raise his made flushes.
"10) Any other spades hit."
Bet and probably call a raise based on the size of the pot unless you are damn sure he would never raise on the river without big power. Once again, the board is too scary for him to bet a possible overpair yet he will pay you off.
"This game is too darn complicated. I'm just going to start guessing the exact hand my opponent has and hope I'm right."
Tom, that is pretty much what we mere mortals do (except I'm sure you would agree that you meant, "guess the most likely hands" rather than the "exact hand". Let's leave the clairvoyance to Ray Zee. Good Luck (he (Zee) says that - maybe his brains will rub off on us.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. All comments and criticism are of course welcome.
I was surprised that he had a set of nines. For sure, I would have re-raised you on the turn (but that's me).
I'd put the raiser on an overpair, AKspades, AQs, AJs or 99. I have my doubts about 99. I wonder how often he'll raise an early position opener in a loose passive game with 99; I think I'd choose volume over isolation. I also wouldn't expect him to slow down with a top set on the turn, thinking that he'd expect that you would bet right out if you had a straight. So if you think that overpairs or overspades are his hand and you can get him to lay down AA (really?), then perhaps a check-raise bluff on the river is in order if a blank hits.
I'm no Ray Zee, but from your description, I would also have put him on 9,9 at the turn. Considering the board, if he is the kind of player you say, he would have folded his overpair to that board. BTW, do you realize you had more outs than the Chicago Cubs in that hand?
Tom: About your question of how often would you bet the river if you missed your draw, my answer is never, because you have that pair of sevens. Your hand is too good to bluff. The only exception would be a really weak opponent who folded WAY too much on the end.
Occasionally you might try a check raise bluff, however. This could actually get your opponent to lay down a hand you could not beat.
Altering the situation slightly, if your hand were 8, 5 of spades, or 4, 2 of spades, you should always bet on the end if you don't pair. It would be really awful to check and lose the showdown to, say, QJ of spades, which a bluff would have knocked out.
William
OK...I'm a rookie. I just found this page. I've only been playing $1-2 Hold Em in California since January, 1999. I've had some tuiton costs and I'm not even yet.Hey! I have a life... I think. I just discovered poker. I'm interested in Macintosh Hold Em software (shareware,freeware, or commercial). Any recommendations? I know of "Hold Em Master" and "RiverBoat Hold Em". Any recommendations on Mac ?
Also...I'm reading Slansky's "Hold 'Em Poker" and another author's "How To Win At Low Limit Hold 'Em". I'm only interested in low limit $1-2 games at the moment. Any other books you would recommend?
By the way... I think I just may be getting better. I'm beginning to know when to leave the table with full racks of chips! :^)
Now all I have to do is pay for my earlier tuition costs when I palyed "any two cards can win" !!!
HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since, I don't own a MAC I do not know what is available, but I use the World Series of Poker Adventure to practice what I read in Hold'em Poker, Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players, Theory of Poker, and Super/System.
If I get stuck making decisions, I'll read Theory of Poker and Hold'em for Advanced while I'm playing the game.
Super/System is not a 2+2 book, but I believe that it is a great "how to" book and provides you with the mental attitude for playing the game.
Throw away the Lee Jones book. His book is good for just starting out, but I wouldn't study it for long.
There's really not a whole heck of alot out there for Mac people, unfortunately. I have the World Series of Poker simulation on Mac, but it's very predictable and easily beaten. I don't feel it gives an adequate simulation of play.
I've heard a lot of good things about Wilson Software's Turbo Texas Hold'em software. However, it's only available for WinBlowz. I want to check it out, so I have purcahsed the WinBlowz 98 emulator software, Virtual PC from Connectix (www.connectix.com). The Win98 version only runs on a G3, but they also sell Win95 and DOS versions as well (for lower-end Mac models). This emulation software will allow me to operate Turbo Texas Hold'em, which I will be buying soon.
Hope this helps.
powertech
"...the box said 'for installation on Windows 95 or better', so I bought a Macintosh."
Situation: 10-20 hold'em game. Three good players, two bad players and three or four fairly loose players who will see most flops, even for a raise. I'm in the big blind with J8 off. Two players call, third (good) player raises two off the button. All fold to me, I fold as well, the early callers call the raise. Flop: 882, the raiser wins the pot with KK. I would have won a fairly large pot had I called the raise for one bet.
Bad fold or correct? The odds of calling the raise were 7.5 to 1, assuming the early callers would also call the raise. The hand though is what made me fold to the raiser. I reason that I wouldn't call with this hand in a 7 or 8 handed pot for one bet either. The odds are the same, but there are fewer contenders for the pot.
Would a call have been correct or is this just a soup hand?
Spielmacher
Why get involved when the "good player" raises?
You saw what he had; a premium hand where you were way behind.
Any two cards could have flopped trips, that doesn't make it worth a call
Danny S
I agree with you, but the pot odds may make a call in this situation correct. The question is not whether his hand is a favorite -I suspected this to be the case, thus my fold- but whether the pot odds justify calling on a long shot. The rewards for outflopping him may make a call the correct decision. 7.5 to 1 pre-flop with only three contenders is not too bad.
Spielmacher
To me, the hand needs to be slightly better (such as J9) to call the raise getting those odds. A lot of your equity will come off straights and I like the one gapper much better than a two gapper. In fact (since I have discussed my fondness for one gappers before), I would like to lay claim to "onegapper" as a mail address if I get another box or account.
Regards,
Rick
If you're going to call with this hand, you have to play it very well to make money with it.
I often call with a hand this weak, but there are extenuating circumstances - the game I play in is very agressive, with the blinds being attacked almost every round. This means that the raiser doesn't necessarily have a great hand, and it also means that I'm forced to call with some slightly weaker hands in order to not be seen as someone who will automatically give up his blinds to a raise. And if I do hit a hand, I have to play it very well to punish the blind attacker to the max. This often means check-raising with as little as bottom pair if I think the raiser missed the flop. This strategy has given me a little breathing room in the blinds, and when the raisers stop attacking my blind every hand I start to tighten up again on blind calls.
The bottom line is that calling with a hand as weak as J8 is probably breakeven at best, and more probably a losing play. However, it may lose LESS than the alternative of encouraging more attacks on your blinds, if this is a characteristic of the games you play in. Most games are not like this.
Dan
Dan,
You made very good points for your type of game. But from his description, his game was looser and less agressive so the raiser is not so much concerned about attacking the blinds. Plus he already had two limpers so the raiser's raise was more of a "value raise" than an "attack the blinds" raise.
We both seem to agree that J8 offsuit is at best marginal in this situation and more likely a small loser (even if you play well post flop). Do you agree with my contention that J9 is a fair amount better and worth a call (refer to my post above).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Dan - I just reread your post and realize at the end you say your advice only applies to your type of game but I'm too tired to rewrite my post so I'll send it anyway since it I think it has one half decent question in it.
J9 is quite a bit better.
The main reason why you have to be very tight in calling raises is the possibility that the raiser may have a big pair (AA, KK, QQ, JJ). If the raise is obviously more of a value raise than a raise designed to attack the blinds, you should play very tight, even from the blinds. After all, if your opponent has an overpair and you flop a pair, you're going to lose a lot of money.
If someone raises in late position as the first person entering the pot, then the probability that you are up against a big pair goes down, as many players will raise with any playable hand, or at least one that contains an Ace or a King. Therefore, you can call from the blinds and hope to hit a pair or better. Or, if the player is weak-tight you can simply outplay your opponent - you know roughly what he's got (two big cards), and he doesn't have a clue what you have. If the flop is low, or contains a small or medium pair, you can often win with a bet or a check-raise, even if the flop missed you. (This assumes heads-up play).
If the raise comes after one or more limpers, it's obviously not a blind attack, and you have to play very carefully from the blinds, not only because of the raiser but because the limper's hand(s) are unknown. In this kind of situation, I'd rather have a hand like 67s than J9o, and I certainly wouldn't play a hand like A9 or K9, as the possibility of being dominated is just too high.
Dan
Spielmacher,
I think you did the right thing by folding. Even at 7.5:1 pot odds, it's a dubious call. Given that the good player's raise told you that you are up against a premium hand, what kind of flop are you hoping to hit? A J is no good, you need 2 pair, trips, or an open-ended straight draw. I would prefer to wait for a better opportunity before putting my money in the pot.
Key
If the solid raiser needs a premium PAIR to raise here, or will have such a pair most of the time, then you can fold. If he will make this raise with pairs lower than Js, as well as with AK, AQ, KQ, AJ, or more, then I think that you can call here. As has been said by others, you need to play well after the flop for this hand to be profitable. However, if you can't play well after the flop, then you should consider moving to a lower limit until you improve this portion of your game.
Another huge factor here is whether or not these players are going to pay you off when you make your straight, 2 pair, or trips. If they're good enough to make laydowns at the right time, and also good enough that you can't bluff them well, then you definitely want to fold this hand, and more importantly, find another game (even if you're world class, you'll lose to the rake against a field that tough).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
My suggestion would be to call this bet, but the reason why would involve changing your play somewhat. I consider myself a fairly successful poker player and call raises like this sometimes to throw other players off. It's not uncommon for me to show down a winning hand and have other players smile and shake their head, of course their doing this as I rake in another monster, hehe.
Give an example where you WOULD slowplay in a deep money no-limit game but you WOULDN'T slowplay in the exact same situation in limit?
(In both games, assume decent opposition)
Sure.
There has been significant action preflop, and the pot is now quite big compared to the blinds (20 small bets in limit, 20 times the big blind in NL).
In a limit game, I'd tend not to slowplay, as the pot has gotten big enough that people will call with a wide variety of hands. Thus, by betting out, raising, or the like, I can maximize the size of the pot that I expect to win.
In NL, a typical bet after the flop is about the size of the pot. Because of this, if you bet, you usually only get called by people who either
a) think that they have a better hand;
b) have a very good draw (such as flush draw with 2 overcards with an unpaired board, or 8-card straight draw with a three-suited flop);
c) think that they can bluff you out by calling now and betting or raising on the turn.
If you flop a monster, like the nut flush, or a full-house, then it is difficult to bet out and run into other players who meet this criteria (unless you're very much an action player who can make a tough laydown, and then you'll run into the category c hands more often).
For example, if you flop the nut flush, you will only get action from someone with the second nuts, and they may not go all-in with you. If you flop a full-house, it is very unlikely that you'll get someone who's drawing to go all-in with you also. Therefore, you may be better off slowplaying these hands, hoping that someone will pay you off with their dead draw AFTER they make it, where they won't play with you while they're still drawing.
Of course, it all depends upon your table image. If you've been extremely aggressive, it's usually best to continue in this mode when you flop the nuts, and hope that an opponent puts you on another steal.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
My new essay on reading hands has now been put up.
I invite your comments, flames etc.
Sudhir
Dear skp
where is the essay posted?
Maria
Click on essays here or in the column to the left.
Chuck
Skp:
As a newbie studying everything it takes and gaining some experience towards becoming a strong poker player, I found your new essay very interesting and thought provoking for me. I question if I would have deduced some of the same conclusions.
Although you mention that some of your examples may be self-evident to more experienced players, for players learning like myself it certainly qualified as an excellent tutorial. You can bet I'll be printing it out for further review. I can't agree more that being able to put your opponents on a hand (or hands) is a crucial part of excelling in this game.
Now the question... Your caveat in your essay is that these are reads on "good players". At the levels where I am gaining my experience (3-6, 5-10). in general do the reads change with this level of player - or is it near impossible to put people on hands in a "no-foldem" type of game.
Aside from being observant of players that seem solid in these games. Does anyone have any comments?
Thanks
Michael
Reading players at the level your discussing is difficult, but not impossible. It's tough to put someone on a hand in a 3-6 game for a couple of reasons. First of all, players at this callibre may not understand or respect a move that would show some success in higher limit games. These games (3-6) are often 'showdown' games where there are 2 or more players to the end of every hand and whoever shows down the best hand wins. The reason for this is the bet doesn't intimidate a lot of players. I believe you can learn a lot more from someone in a pot-limit game where the players have to call $100 bets versus a $6 bet. To read players at the level you describe takes nothing more than complete awareness and observation at all times, but the problem occurs when you read them correctly and still get players to draw out on you. The reason for reading a player is simple: to help you maximize your profit. This can be done better at higher limit games, where your reading of their hands let's you manipulate your play to maximize profits.
Michael,
My experience is restricted to 10-20, 15-30 and 20-40 games. However, many of the games that I play in essentially resemble 4-8 games. They are pretty loose and most pots are contested multi-way. I would think (hope?) that the examples I have used can be applied in low limit games as well so long as the caveats I have set out are kept in mind. The key to most of my reads is the actions/position of the player in question in relation to the position of the anticipated bettor on that particular round of betting. I would say that this factor is the most important one in putting guys on hands.
Good luck!
I would think that several of the reads would apply in low limit as well (admittedly with a greater margin of error). However, I am not sure that the "action plan" suggested under many of the "reads" would be effective in low limit games. For example, in one of the reads, I talk about putting a power play on the turn against the strong player even if you hold nothing because you know that he likely does not have a strong hand and will likely fold. Well, that probably ain't gonna happen in low limit. The fellow is going to call you down.
Thus, in the final analyis, reading hands may be just an academic exercise in low limit games where you are going to have to show down the best hand to take down the pot. Even if that statement is not completely accurate, it is certainly more applicable in low limit games than it is to mid or high limit games.
Thank you for agreeing to my above post ;)
Big A,
Ya, it would have been a lot easier for me to just say "see Big A's post" instead of rambling on with my "addendum" post which of course esentially parrots what you correctly pointed.
Also, thanks for the compliment below on the essay.
Thank you for agreeing to my above post ;). By the way, your essay was excellent.
I've always felt that being able to put players on their level of thinking was the most important factor determining whether subsequent reads were reliable. That the most accurate reads are of players who are not thinking one level below or above mine.
Perfect insight. Too perfect. I guess I'm an open book. I'll never win at poker again-- if they follow your advice.
An excellent essay, skp. You're being quite modest to say that those reads are "fairly basic" - either that or I will not ever play poker with you.
BTW, while you point out that the kinds of reads you describe are most effective against good, rational players, there is also a type of fairly tough game which can almost mimic a game of weak, loose players in nullifying the effectiveness of such reads. I frequently play in games in which many very experienced, fairly good players have become relatively unbluffable. They have become so used to players making moves against them that they've almost become calling stations in many situations. Against them, I focus mainly on betting good hands for value. The profit comes from their reading me for an "obvious bluff", and calling me down, whereupon I show them a strong hand - again. (Notice that by definition these players, while decent, are not *really* good. Otherwise they would be adapting more flexibly to players and situations.) And this goes on against *me*, an exceptionally tight player who makes fewer "moves" than most! So, as you point out you have to know your player and, as in one of your examples, a weak-tight player will often be the optimum target.
John Feeney
John, your point is well taken. One of the keys to poker is of course the ability to adjust to game conditions (which could change from day to day or even hour to hour).
Your comments concerning how some of the very good players in your game have esentially become calling stations reminds me of an essay in one of the 2+2 books where the authors talk about a particular stud hand played by two expert players. These expert players were thinking at an advanced level and making great calculated plays. However, a casual observer who may have seen the hand may have just assumed that these two players were live ones because their great calculated plays "looked" the same as wild illogical plays that live ones would make. Of course, these players were making these plays for good reasons but the casual observer would not be able to realize that.
Anyway, I am glad you enjoyed the essay. I enjoyed writing it.
BTW, my thanks to 2+2 and Mason in particular for putting it up (and for the free books which I got in return!).
skp -- As you point out above, it's really the "action plans", more than the reads, that would be less applicable against some types of players. In fact, the reads should still apply against most knowledgeable players. Against some opponents they'll simply dictate different action plans.
John Feeney
skp, No BS. Your latest essay is very well written. You have an excellent writing style. Easy to read as it contains a lot of excellent analysis and strategy recommendations. Your first essay was excellent as well. Keep up the good work as I am sure you put a great deal of work into the essays and I know I am going to make a few extra bucks (at least) as a result of them. Bottom line, great stuff. Tom Haley
Tom, thanks a bunch.
I really would like to hear from you (and others) on "reads" that you might add to the ones I've mentioned.
Great Essay! Well written and the kind of concrete enumerated advice that can be applied.
David
Excellent essay...very well written.
A point to consider on bluff No. 4...after your check raise IS called and you follow through and bet the river and it IS also called...GET SOMETHING even if its just advertising.
Lots of players when they make this play...and are called, and, of course, know that they are beaten don't like to show their hand first.
When you are called on the river, turn over your hand instantly and say something that will help establish you're image as a crazy bluffer, or just a stupid player who thought a pair of nines was the best hand.
Players who don't understand what you are doing are baffled and will call you down for the rest of the session.
Jim Mogal
Jim,
I agree that the type of "advertising'' you speak of is necessary and profitable in some games (usually semi-tough games).
However, in the games that I play in (i.e., loose and with relatively weak players), I never want to let on that I bluff. While there are several good players (these are the players against whom I tend to employ the 'action plan' I have set out under each read), most of the players are just not very observant. They will pay me off when I hold a hand even if I hadn't entered a pot in hours. So, against these players, I do not bluff. They pay me off AND the good players then just assume that I rarely bluff (when in fact I do quite often against them).
Bottom line, I don't advertise in my game. I would rather project a non-bluffing image and then go on to pull off a few heists (against good players) on the strength of that image. That strategy is one that works very well in my games. I am not saying this to toot my own horn but I do pull off several successful bluffs almost every playing session (even in my loose game) and the beauty of it is that if you were to conduct a poll of my usual opponents, they would probably tell you that I hardly ever bluff.
Jim was refering to those times when your bluff is called on the river and you have to showdown. There was no plan to advertise, but you've already paid for it, so make sure everyone not paying attention is aware that you don't always have the goods.
In my game, I prefer never to show a bluff. Thus, if for example, my opponet called my bluff and turned over his cards first, I would just throw away without saying a word.
As I say, that for me is the best strategy in my game. In other games, one may as well get some advertising because as you say I have already paid for it.
I liked your essay, especially the "Action Plan" for each read.
Note that, on "Read No.2" you state "it is unlikely that he flopped a monster (such as a set) as many players would wait until the turn." I'm assuming several players take the flop unraised. If I was the good player and had a low pocket pair of twos, threes, fours, fives, or sixes I would want to limit the field so someone did not outdraw me.
Here's a hand I played a few weeks ago. The game was fairly passive. I'm in early position with pocket twos. Six players limp in. The flop is Ks Kh 2d and the player on my right bets and I raise. Everyone folds except for the player on my right. The Ah comes on the turn. He checks, I bet, and he folds.
Jeff,
Tom admitted the 75s was a marginal hand in his original post (BTW, he said the game was loose and passive) and he shouldn't have played it (and I doubt he nornally does).
Try searching the archives for Tom Haley's posts. You will find he is one of the first people you should read if you are pressed for time. He is anything but "results orientated" and his posts are usually excellent.
Regards,
Rick
I work for a living, 40 hours a week, and find myself sometimes going a couple of weeks before I am able to get in a poker game. Also, I am not in the greatest area to find a game, and that has a factor as well. When I do find a game I want to play, I notice it sometimes take me an hour to feel comfortable at the table and start playing my best game. I know this is due to lack of preperation. Do any of you have techniques you use to get in the groove? Also, what techniques do you use if you find out about the game and only have a few minutes to prepare? Any ideas would be appreciated. Also I posted something on the Exchange forum about cracked 4s and would appreciate any ideas or comments or just read it to enjoy.
I read the post on cracked fours. Good story. I think you have switched the proper venues, though. That post belongs on this forum and this post belongs on the exchange, maybe. I only play occasionally and not real well, but I just sit down and play very tight for an hour or so until I get a line on the players and the game.
I'm in the same position. I can play in a cardroom once a week at the most. I find it useful to practice every day with Wilson Turbo Texas Hold'em. You can argue how realistic the play is, but it does keep your card reading and critical thinking skills tuned up. I've become a regular winner at low-limit since buying the software. I believe it's a must for the casual player.
Admitedly ignorant, I am unclear what is meant by Type 1-3 hands, or type c hands, etc. Could someone please clarify this for me?
Also, I want to begin playing in the clubs. I have an ettiquete question. Is it considered bad ettiquete to "play-and-run?" Does this show a poor table image? If so, how long should one play, if up?
Does anyone have any other suggestions for my first trip to the cardrooms? How much of the good strategy that is spoken of come to play in low limit games (i.e. 3 - 6, 4-8)? Because of my bankroll I am only able to play in these games.
How can one recognize when he/she has the best of it at the table, particularly in the low-limit games? Is this just something that comes from experience?
Any suggestions concerning these questions, or anything else will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
I only have a comment on hit and run. I don't believe there really is such a thing as 'hit and run' in poker. Although it is possible for someone to make a big score in a short time once in a great while, over time, these things will balance out if you continue to play poker. In other words, in the long run, your 'hit and run' sessions will be balanced out by other sessions where you 'can't catch a card' and 'bad-beat' sessions. Only through solid long-term play are the real profits made. Good luck on your new found enjoyment of the game.
Joe:
Before the pro's give you excellent responses, I'll give you the fellow newbies (a whole 6 total hours of casino HE experience) comments on your post.
As far as hand classification goes, I'm sure everyone will point towards 2+2's Hold em books, I haven't read them (yet) but certain starting hands are classified as stronger than others and Mason (or David, or both) but them into groups. I would assume hands like AA, KK, AKs would be in Group 1 hands. and so on....
From my first time in a poker room I'll offer these suggestions
1. Play Tight. Big cards, suited connectors, pocket pairs. Period, don't chase, wait, watch and learn. 2. Listen, Ask, Learn - When I sat down at my first game some lady UTG says "straddle" and lays down $6. Now I'd heard of this but really didn't know what it meant to me! So I creatively asked everyone at the table "Ok, what's that mean to me?" (Trust me, they can tell your new so asking won't screw up your table image.) 3. Pick a skill and practice it. As a newbie I was amazed at how fast things seemed to move at levels like 10-20. I thought I had a good handle on the game, I have a good math mind, and practiced reading a lot of flops before even sitting down. There are just too many things to keep track of every thing you read about from the more experienced players so I think I'm going to focus on taking one at a time. The next time I sit down at the table, I going to focus on keeping track of how much is in the pot. This will be crucial to determine pot odds, implied pot odds, etc... Once Ive got it down I'll move to something else, like quickly figuring all of my outs. (maybe I should do that one first) 4. Don't be too creative. Per my studies "Bluffing in low limit is usually incorrect" Other low limit players aren't like us. They won't respect a play like good players will. But use plays like the "free card" (that does work). 5. See #1, twice. 6. Don't bet the rent money, I figured I was ready to slaughter any Low limit table I sat at. 6 hours and $120 later I had experience and education but a lighter wallet. Plan on paying some tuition.
OK, that's probably too much from a little fish like me, but I thought I'd try to help. Now, forget what I just said and pay attention to what all the good players say. :)
All the best
Michael
PS #7- Have fun.
Group 1, etc. hands - Get Hold'em Poker by David Sklansky, for a lot of reasons beyond just understanding what the hand groupings are.
Play and run - My advice is never worry about what others think. When you feel it is time to leave, get up and leave. Half the table is so clueless in low limit they wont even notice. Ten minutes after you left, they will turn to the person next to them (in your vacated seat) and ask "what happened to the guy that was sitting here?".
First visit:
- Don't try to pretend you are not new, it will be incredibly obvious to everyone anyway. Introduce yourself as a new player when you sit down. That way the dealer, and many of the people at the table, will gladly help you out and explain lots of stuff (sometimes too much, but one takes ones chances :).
- Don't buy in for more than $100, and don't rebuy the first time. It may or may not go fast, but go home and think about the game before investing another $100.
- Read and follow the advice of Sklansky's or Lee Jones' (Winning at low limit Holdem) books. Don't vary from that strategy until you have at least a few sessions under your belt.
- If you win big your first few sessions, don't think that you have the game mastered and it's time to stop learning, or it's time to move up. Poker is a high variance game, and if you have a few flops hit you early, then you could be looking at a pile of chips. Remember, many hands play themself (ex. AA in general, and especially when the flop comes A72 rainbow), so be happy with the pot but don't lull yourself into thinking you are playing well if a few of them hit you early. (My first 5 sessions were $100+ wins and I had never even read a book on holdem. Eventually I realized, through some painful (or is that humiliating?) experiences, that is was more luck than skill that saw me through those early wins).
A Poker Guy!
I posted this message on the Exchange forum and was told by several posters and an 'authority', that this should be on this forum. So I apologize for any redundancy. The powers that be may feel free to delete this post on the Exchange forum. Here's the post (suggestions about play are of course welcome):
It may sound as though I'm making this up, but I'm not. Had I been the guy that my friend and I had done this to, I would have given up poker for a month!
First, a small background on the scene of the crime. My buddy Terry and I head down to Harveys casino in Omaha, Nebraska on the occasional Thursday to crack some skulls in a sweet Pot-Limit HE game. The blinds are $1 and $2 with a very modest 10% (up to $3) rake. This can be an extremely loose-aggressive game, and has helped my poker game mature greatly. It is not uncommon to see 5 to 10 pots with over a thousand dollars in them, and every night there's at least one monster that breaks up the neighboring 4-10 Omaha table for a moment as the players walk over and sweat their buddy or simply salivate at the higher stakes. Let me say that this game is an adrenaline rush! There is something powerful about picking up or sliding several stacks of red in the middle of the pot and it can really get your heart racing ("it's like I always say, it's better to burn out than fade away" movie quote, bonus points if you can guess the movie). You cannot show fear or you will be bullied and intimidated into submission.
This is a game where I have had several firsts:
1. This is the first game in which I called a bet over $100. (I'm sure I shook visibly when I raked in the pot) 2. First game in which I made over $1000 in one night ($1040 to be exact, broke that record the next week in the same game for $1300, hehe). 3. This game was my largest loss in a session too (I'd tell you how much, but I seem to have lost my notes ;)
Anyway, back to the double bad beat which was the intention of this post in the first place. This happened a while ago, and the specifics (such as position, exact amounts bet, etc.) may be slightly off, but only slightly. On this night, blood had been spilled in the ocean and the sharks were in a frenzy. This was the most aggressive and the loosest I had ever seen this table. The game started at 7:00p and several players bought in for just $100 dollars and all 3 were gone in the first half hour. Once again, I am not making this up. $100 is just not enough, but players try it to make a big score (and of course, someone occasionally hits, thus inspiring the other small fish). Anyway, after 2 hours of nothing special, the following takes place; I'm in the big blind on 5th seat. The player in 7th seat makes a raise to $5. The player in 1st seat calls. The others fold to me and I look down to see QQ :). I just call. 3 way action. The flop is 433. I check and 7th seat checks. 1st seat bets $20. I call in an effort to slow play and 7th seat cracks another $50 into the pot. Now things are getting interesting. I know this player and I know that he has a pocket pair, but certainly does not have trips. He would make this move trying to flush out an AK with any over-pair. Things get even more interesting when 1st seat calls! I (against my better judgement) also call. The turn is a Q...Bingo! I now have queens full. I bet $50. 7th seat makes it $100, and 1st seat makes it $200 to go and is close to all in. I call, and the 7th seat also calls. River is a blank. I bet $200 and both call (actually, 1st seat is all in for about $130). I show my pocket queens, 7th seat slams down his rockets, and 1st seat shows his pocket 4's! He flopped the house and I sucked out on him, hehe. Anyway, 1st seat rebuys for $500.
The next hand (yes, the very next hand), my buddy and 6 others see the flop for about $9 a piece after 1st seat raises $7. The flop is 4h4s9d. Someone bets $10 and my buddy and 1st seat call. Turn is 3s. Checks to 1st seat who bets $75! Fold to my friend Terry who scratches his chin and does other dramatic crap and calls (I knew this was a mistake, but he had not seen much action lately and sometimes chases). The river is 7s. My buddy bets $100, and 1st seat goes all in and Terry instantly calls. Well, you bet your a**, 1st seat turns over pocket 4's again. This time he had flopped quads. As he begins to reach for the pot, Terry turns over 5s 6s. That's right folks, straight flush. The man in 1st seat very politely gets up and leaves...not a word or show of anger at all. I had a lot of respect for him to take 2 losses like that and respond as calmly as he did. If that happened to me, I would probably slap the dealer and turn the table on it's side.
Anyway, that's my story. I'm sure a lot of mistakes were made, and your comments are welcome. And remember, if you're ever at the poker table and see someone next to you toss pocket 4s in the muck before the flop, tell him Adam and Terry say "Hi".
Well, the first cracked 4's is a suckout, but not all that unusual. It's a variation of the set over set scenario. When that happens, especially with a paired board as well (giving both the full house) it is usually expensive to the loser. With two overpairs out there, there were 4 outs to beat him, with 2 cards to go, so it wouldn't be all that rare (about 1 out of every 6 times) to lose once he is in that situation. He did bet the flop, so he can't be accused of losing because he slow-played.
As for the second one ... well, too bad there was not a bad beat jackpot. Since the second guy (Terry) didn't know he was up against quads, it was a good call on the flop and turn. He had 15 outs for the straight/flush/straight flush. These things do happen. Both played it well and seat 1 just got sucked out on.
Seat 1 showed some real class not saying a word after that. If it were me, I would probably have left too. Hard not to go on tilt with those two hands back to back. He appears to have played both reasonably well, and just got kicked in the groin by the poker gods anyway.
A Poker Guy!
I was playing 4-8 at the Bay 101. I have As 2s 6h Jh flop is 2 4 8 rainbow. After calling a small bet I fold - I figure my low is questiobale - no high (i.e. flush) for me. Some guy showed down a 3 5 as low. I say to him Hey - I had a better low A 2 (but I guess getting counterfitted I had to play A 6 - they ( I mean the whole table says - 3 5 is better low than A 6 ?? So we argue for a while - what is the truth ???? Does the Ace as the lowest card count ?? There was no Ace on the board by the way !!!!! I better learn Omaha a bit more - but I was surprised that a simple thing like these would get such a controverial argument.
Omaha lows can be confusing for newbies. Playing two cards from your hand and three from the board, the best low hand you can make is 8642A. You opponent had 85432. Low hands count down from the top, so 85 beats 86. If a 5 had appeared on the board as well counterfeiting him, then your 8542A (using your A2) would beat his 85432. Once the 2 showed up, your hand was much less valuable. If your other low card had been a 3 or 5, your A5 or A3 low would have beaten him, but not A6.
Low hands come from the original tradition of playing the worst hand wins. In other words, you evaluated your hand as a 5 card poker hand, and the worst hand among the players would win. In that tradition, 75432 (non-flush) was the worst possible thing you could hold, and was therefore the best low hand. Then to make things interesting, since Aces could be counted low for the bottom end of a low straight, players created a new form of lowball where 6432A (non-flush) was the best low hand. In "California" lowball, straights and flushes no longer count against you, so 5432A is now the lowest hand.
While an ace is the best low card you can hold, it's never first in determining how good your low hand is, by definition it's the least significant card in your holding. Your low hand is determined by its highest card, then if there's a tie with some other hand the next highest, and so on. When playing with a common board, as in Omaha, this can get confusing. In the hand in question, your opponent had a 5 & 3 he could play with board cards, and you had an 6 and A you could play. Your 6 loses to his 5, so you don't even get to the A when determining who has the better low hand.
I am planning on moving to Detroit soon from Las Vegas and am wondering if anyone knows of the poker situation there.
In the future, please put this type of post on our Exchange Forum.
Thanks, Mason
I will be visiting Phoenix for a short while soon and would appreciate any info on where to play. I heard some of the card rooms are kind of trashy. Is that true? I like to play 10/20 up to 20/40, and if you know any pot-limit games, that would be great.
In the future, please put this type of post on The Exchange Forum.
Thanks, Mason
Maybe the exchange should be renamed 'places to play' or the like
Danny S
Jeff, Deified? That is simply hyperbole on your part. All I can say Jeff is that everyone makes mistakes except maybe you. As far as your bird selecting stocks, well a monkey used to consistently beat money managers that were featured in the WSJ so your bird is performing no great feat. I guess all anyone has to do is buy any random stock and they will make a lot of money. Sounds right to me. I would gladly continue this discussion via e-mail but it seems that you have posted a bogus e-mail address. Oh well. BTW I was the favorite after the flop over a pair of nines. And he did hit 1 of 2 outs to make put his hand in the lead. So you are right he almost did suck out on me. Tom Haley
Tom, a much more restrained response than I probably would have given...that's just one more reason why your posts get the respect of the Forum participants (well, Mr. Nelson excepted I guess).
BTW, it was an interesting hand and thread.
Jeff,
You can choose to disagree with something someone posts or you can choose to insult the person. So often on the net it seems that people choose the latter when they might have chosen the former were the discussion taking place in person. Perhaps they are seizing on opportunities to boost their own self esteem by attempting to belittle someone else. Perhaps this is just a release of underlying anger facilitated by the safety of distance and anonymity. I don't know. But most adults are capable of refraining from acting on these aggressive impulses if they so choose. I'm sure that you can appreciate that productive discussion is more likely to occur in response to matter-of-fact disagreement. And with that in mind, I'm confident that you'll take the more productive road next time. Good luck.
John Feeney
It always astounds me that someone would spend their time and energy staging an unprovoked and definitely unsophisticated character assassination on someone they don't know from Adam. I guess when they get bored sticking firecrackers in frog's mouths or putting their mom's cat in the dryer they have to blow off some steam on the Net.
That aside, I think this was (is) quite an interesting thread, if only because it raises some interesting questions re: the necessity of hand reading. BTW, Tom, nice river. Although if you did that to me I think I'd have to shoot you :)
GD, What I thought was interesting about this hand is that I believe I would have won this pot whether I improved or not on the river by betting it. Apparently this observation went over my critic's head. I will admit that this was not evident to me on the turn as I was surprised he called my raise. The other thing that I would mention that playing a hand like 7,5s in early position like I did OCCASIONALLY is consistent I believe with what is recommended in HFAP. Tom Haley
What are the odds of flopping a set with a pocket pair? Lee Jones book says 7.5-1, while my Turbo Texas Hold'em program says it is 8.3-1. The only thing I can attribute the difference to is that Jones may have included the chance of flopping trips, with the trips being on the board, giving you a full house. However, the remote chance of that wouldn't account for such a large difference between 7.5 and 8.3. Any help?
Robert,
The odds against flopping a set (and only a set) are 8.3:1.
The odds against flopping quads, a tight or a set are 7.5:1.
SKP:
Pardon my ignorance, but do you mean by "tight?"
Thanks for the reply,
Ivan
Sorry Ivan...I forgot that "tight" is a Canadian term...it means full house.
Would it make any difference whether there was 9 at a table or ten. Mr.Jones book is set for 9.
Dondi,
I'm sure you would rather here this from Mason or David but it wouldn't matter so long as you don't have any knowledge of your opponents hands. These odds would apply head up and against a dozen or more players.
In stuud the odds change based on the upcards. Let's say you start with JcTd9c. A live queen raises the bring in indicating that he is about a two to one favorite to have a pair of queens. Now the number of outs for your three straight becoming a four straight have dropped from 8 cards to probably six cards (assume their are no 8's out).
Regards,
Rick
No, the odds that you flop a set don't have anything to do with the number of players at the table. The odds that you win the hand (whether or not you flop a set) definitely does depend on how many people were dealt hands.
It was the hold'em PL tournament in Christchurch, New Zealand. Two tables remain, 11 players, one player out, then on to the final table. I had $7,500 the chip leader on my table (on my left) had $22,500. I just had enough to scrap onto the final table (1st - 5th paid only). The antes were $50, with a $500 SB and $1000 BB. I looked down at two aces and I was the SB. Everyone folded, I just called, putting out my $500. The BB (chip leader) was an aggressive player, on my left. The BB didn't raise as the flop came 10.5.8. (rainbow). I checked he bet $1,500, I reraised all in. He turned up his 10.6. the turn came a 9 and the river 7. I was out. Everyone, even the shoe shine boy thought I played the hand wrong. I thought I played it right. I wanted to double up and go to the final table with +$15,000. He was aggressive, plus I had the best until the river. Any thoughts from 2+2 experts?
Dazzler,
tough luck. against an aggressive person its okay to do that, but against a passive one you only get action after you are beat. you did give him a free flop but he could have found a hand and raised you and made your play even better. it is important to take chances to increase your chip position. keep up your great magazine from austrailia.
Tough situation. Tough break. Odds are you should have won that pot.
You chose a moment where you felt it was necessary and wise to go against normal play(raising) and call this guy.
What you took was a calculated risk, like on the 13th at Augusta, and you try and reach the green in two, in an effort to win the tournament. I think you made the right play. However,
When it works, you look like a master When it doesn't, the shoe shine boy looks down on ya
It seems like you played it right to me. You got most of the money in at a time when you were a significant favorite. If you had put in any reasonable raise preflop, T6 would have folded, and you'd have only won the antes and blinds. If we consider your expectation after the flop vs. the amount of the antes and blinds, you clearly had higher expectation the way you played it.
If you had been 1 position out of the money, it might have been better to raise all-in preflop, and either steal the antes/blinds, or get all your money in as a big favorite. Here, you were in a position where you were going to have to win some pots before you made the money, and certainly going to have to win some pots to place in the top (and most lucrative) positions.
Next time, berate the dealer and player, so that they're sure to know how good a player you really are. ;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Jeff,
It is impossible for me to go on tilt. Thanks for your contribution.
Tom Haley
What's the right thing to do when everyone folds and there are only the blinds left in holdem. Most people agree to chop. Is this the proper etiquette? Arent we supposed to try to steal the blinds when we can, and if i'm small blind holding aces, i would prefer to raise. Why do people get upset when a person doesnt want to chop? Chop, or not to chop? Thanks. Fig
I don't believe in choping. If he gets upset, too bad. It's not fair to everyone else at the table. No one else gets a free ride.
In many games the problem with chopping is that your expected profit, that is your random hand versus you opponent's random hand, will not beat the rake. You need to ask yourself before you look at your cards can I outplay this person on average $3 or $4 a hand. There are only a very small number of people who can do this.
On the other hand, if you are in a non-rake game, then it is a different story.
My problem is that I let my emotions control me, especially if I'm in the SB. When the BB has been raising me on previous rounds and then asks to chop, I'll usually raise.
Should I say to my opponents, "Let's chop. There's not enough players in the pot to make it worth winning? Any clever suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
I generally don't play in limits where chopping occurs (or is allowed) but the best way I've seen is to settle it before hand with the players on both sides of you.
Doc and Doc River are 2 seperate people. FYI Doc is NOT Doc River. Thanks, Doc River-
If you're a winning player, and you play in a regular game against the same opponents, then chop the blinds if that's what everyone else does. First, most casinos don't take a rake when there is a chop, but they will if there is even one call. That makes it tough to show a long-term profit this way. But the bigger issue is one of etiquette - winning players should go out of their way to be 'one of the boys'. Don't try and skim the fish for every penny if it makes you stand out from the crowd.
For example, a common (and profitable) play is to raise a straddler if you are the first person into the pot with a reasonable hand. I *never do this, for the simple reason that I don't want to continually punish someone for making a mistake - do it often enough, and he'll eventually stop straddling.
Another example: I will rarely check-raise a weak player heads-up on the river, even if I am absolutly certain that he will bet and that I have the best hand. If my opponent is that predictable, I want him to continue to be that predictable, and I also don't want him to get mad and leave the game. Once in a while, if a weak player who is a regular (and who is having a bad night) starts to bet into me on the river when I have the nuts, I'll just turn my hand over and say, "save your money - I got lucky". These little gestures go a long way towards keeping the game good and keeping your win rate up.
You can ignore all this if you play in one of the mega-card rooms where you rarely play with the same opponents. However, if you play in a home game, or in an area with only one casino and a group of regular players, then these principles are very important.
Dan
Dan wrote:
>Once in a while, if a weak player who is a regular (and who >is having a bad night) starts to bet into me on the river >when I have the nuts, I'll just turn my hand over and say, >"save your money - I got lucky". These little gestures go a >long way towards keeping the game good and keeping your win >rate up.
Dan, I understand your point, and agree with the concept. However, isn't this example going to far? You're giving up 2 or more big bets here, which is something like 1-3 hours worth of profit for a good player. Are you beating your game for so much that you can do this?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Occasionally I'll do this. The conditions are that it has to be a weak player, he has to be having a rough night, and he has to be a regular and an asset to the game. It doesn't really cost a full bet or two, because the player will no doubt reciprocate some time in the future.
Everywhere I've played, the rule is simple, if you chop once, you always chop. If you play, you always play. Otherwise the small blind has a very big advantage. Some players I know refuse to chop, that is OK with everybody because they they know what's coming.
I make an exception for shorthanded games. Five or fewer players and I stop chopping.
Mason really hit the nail. If it's a rake game, then you probably can't outplay your opponent to the tune of $3 or $4 per hand, and should choose to chop. If it's a time game, or short-handed (where the house has reduced the rake, to maybe only $1 per hand), then you can expect to earn a profit by not chopping, IF you're better than the opponent.
No one SHOULD be upset if someone refuses to chop. The only exception I've seen is when someone agrees to chop once or a few times, and then refuses to chop now that they've got a big hand. As long as you make it clear to your neighbor what your intentions are, before you look, then it will likely work out smoothly.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
its a business decision. if the player on your left(bb) defends his blinds ill chop with him as he has position and i probably have the worst of it. if he gives up his blind mostly ill raise him. the player on the right (sb) cant chop with me unless he is a friend and im doing it with the player on my left. if everyones doing it in the game you might want to be sociable or if its a rake game and you feel the rake is too high and it will cost both of you money than chop. in tight games one of my biggest earns is robbing the big blind and punishing the small blind after all have passed out.
Of course, you should feel completely free to not chop if you think that doing so is more profitable than chopping. The only time I see real problems is when one party believes that there was an agreement which is now being violated by their neighbor.
Heck, when I first moved up to 10-20, myself and a few regulars at the Oceanside Card Club would regularly negotiate it out each time the opportunity arose.
An exemplary scenario with me in the small blind. After looking at my hand, I'd offer to fold if the big blind gave me back $8 (i.e., my $5 small blind plus $3 extra). BB would then look at his hand and counter-offer to give me just $4. We would quickly go back-and-forth, and finally settle on a figure or play it out. It added a fun element to the game, and no one ever seemed to mind.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Another alternative when you're the small blind in a time rake game: Offer to call if the big blind is willing to play the hand to showdown with no more betting.
Suppose you have As-Ts, and the flop comes Kh-Tc-4s. You have second pair, with an overcard kicker, and three to the nut flush. What pot odds must be offered for me to call a bet on the flop, hoping to catch an ace, ten, or spade on the turn?
Camus
Could somebody tell me why do you need very good implied odds to play the small/medium connectors?
My thoughts are if you are good very good implied odds the guys with better hands will stay in the pot because they would be getting good odds also.
My 2 cents..
I wouldn't think pot odds are the key issue on how to continue with this hand... You didn't tell us key items on position and how many players saw the flop, was there any raising etc.. but I'll take a general stab at it. (which I'm sure the real poker players on the board will correct my mistakes, which I appreciate BTW)
Late Position: If it's checked to you I would bet. If it's bet around to you I would definitely call for the reasons you cited (you have mid pair, backdoor flush draw, overcard), I would even consider a raise to see where I stood or knock people out depending on where the bet came from. However, If there's a bet and raise(s) in front of me, I probably would fold, at least one person's got me beat with a K. (or is drawing with a JQ, in which case an A would actually end up costing you some serious chips on the turn and river as you make your 2 top pair).
Early position: I'd bet if first to act and represent the K. If there is significant raising behind me I can easily fold. If someone raises and knocks it down to us two, I'd still call and see if the turn brings something good, if not, check and fold on the turn.
I guess my general point is I wouldn't consider this a hand in which you would want a lot of people in it with you after the flop (hi pot odds). I'd use the small bets to thin the field if possible, or if it doesn't at least I should know where I stand. Some of the info I mentioned before, like pre-flop betting would obviously also influence your decision.
Now that I've said all this.... am I right?
-Michael
I agree that the key to hands like these are players and position rather than pot odds. In the first place, note that it's inherently difficult to assess your chances of hitting a winner instead of just improving. You've got about a 4% chance at the nuts. There is roughly a 26-27% chance, better than 3-1, that you'll improve with two cards to come (I'm including the three-straight and guessing), but nearly half that probability comes from the availability of three aces, which can make someone a straight, and probably will in a multiway pot when your "pot odds" are greater. If the pot has been raised preflop, there's always the chance of being up against a better two pair if an ace hits. A set or two pair on the flop or turn vastly reduces your chances of winning.
Also, consider that a number of your "outs" are longshot straight and flush draws that will tie you on for more bets when you improve on the turn. On the other hand, a Qs or Js on the turn gives you a very good draw and makes the board much scarier, which could make the difference against several players that tend to respect your bets.
I can imagine a variety of circumstances that could justify any of possible actions I could take on the flop and pot odds would hardly enter into it. You need to keep track of the pot size if you play however, it may make a difference later.
Good analysis, and a reasonable way to proceed against straightforward players. I'm not going to fold if it's heads-up when I check the turn though, especially against the type of player who would overplay a medium pocket underpair expecting me to have bet the turn with as little as a weak ace.
Isn't this example in Jones' book? If so, I think he covers it.
Unless you think there's a set out there against you (in which case you should fold), you probably need about 5:1 to call. You're about three to one to improve by the river, but you'll probably have to fold if you don't spike at least a spade on the turn, and there's a possibility that your A will make someone a broadway.
GD:
No, Jones covers this in no way and my answer is all my own poker genius thought and experience that I have gained over the last two months.
Ok, ok he covers it exactly.
But at least I internalized it pretty well from his book. It proves I studied and would be able to respond in kind when I'm actually at the table.
But I looked smarter (not an easy task) before you mentioned it.
- Michael
Whoa there, Mike! Wasn't trying to step on your toes-- just giving GC another place to look for the answer to his problem.
BTW, your analysis (IMO) was excellent, though for what it's worth I rarely think that deeply about this sort of problem when I'm at the felt. Unless I have a real reason to think otherwise I assume the original better is on top pair (or worse-- as low limit players we both know this can happen), and the gaggle of callers have their usual host of goofy draws. If I'm getting around five to one I'm there-- IF, when I turn a spade, there's a chance I can get the field to drop for a raise.
GD:
You didn't step on my toes, I was trying to be humorous on the fact that you caught exactly why my post was probably so insightful was that I internalized what Jones' says in his book. It's the first book I have read on Hold Em and helped tremendously when I sat down at the tables for the first time a few weeks ago.
I probably should have included happy faces :) and things like that to imply that I was being sarcastic with my post.
Your comment on thinking deeply is very interesting as I wondered how everyone processes so much information so quickly (in my mind the 10-20 game moves like lightning).
-Michael
PS- Your posts are always interesting and helpful. Thanks.
10-20 game I hold KsJs in late position, I am first one in so I raise. Button calls and blinds fold, heads up play.
Flop comes AcQcTd. I bet, button raises , I reraise, he calls.
Turn comes 5c. I bet, button makes it 40. I think for while and fold, figuring he raised the flop to earn his free card.
Upon throwing my cards in they fold over. Seeing I had the nut straight, the pot winner, calmly shows me KhJc.
My questions are should I have first check-raised the flop to see where he was. Should i have check and called twice with the flush on the board on the turn simply b/c I hold the 2nd best possible hand. Did I play the hand too weak? I figured more oftne than not, the way the button played dictated that he held a flush.
Criticisms and comments welcome
"Should i have checked and called twice with the flush on the board on the turn simply b/c I hold the 2nd best"
i agree with what you said above, i think
check the nuts, he bets, you call now another club, check again, he bets, you call
river, check, he will probably bet, you call if no fourth club, fold if fourth club
Bet the turn, call the raise, check and call on the river.
The type of player you were up against was not mentioned. I would think this factored into your decision to fold on the turn. Personally, the only way I give up on this hand is against an absolute rock. Then again I don't play those limits.
Type of opponent is so key in these situations just by these few lines you have written it sounds like your opponent was pretty sure you did not have clubs which gave him a good advantage the way that hand played out.As far as how you played your hand betting the flop is ok just because you check raise him doesn't mean he can't have a flush draw no matter what he does calls or re-raises you.I have a hard time giving someone a flush in heads up play it really depends on the player.Will this guy call you in that spot with just about any two suited connectors if he would I would be more likely to fold if not he has to show you something like K,Jc or K,10c to beat you.Having said all that I would not beat myself up having folded a winner I certainly have made that same play more than once usually your gut instinct is right in this case it wasn't Next hand. As far as checking and calling the turn and river I probably wouldn't have and been in the same situation as you.But if I did fold I would have made sure noboby saw the KJ I was holding!
Regardles of my opponent, I would generally bet the turn (as you did). After being raised, I would call or muck depending on who my opponent is.
IMO, checking the turn is a mistake in most instances. Firstly, you risk giving a free card (any club on the river could ruin your hand. A check may be acceptable if you held the Kc but you did not). Secondly, if you check and your opponent bets, you will not know if he is just betting because you showed weakness or whether he is betting because he made the flush. Usually, if you bet and are raised, that's much stronger evidence that your opponent did in fact hit the flush. I think Bob Ciaffone said it best. I am paraphrasing but he said "if a player shows strength against a shrimp, it's hard to tell if the player has got a good hand. On the other hand, if he shows strength against Arnold Schwartzenneger, it is much easier for you to assume that this player is now packing something.
IMHO there are times when it is advantageous to play like a wimp. I could not make myself let go of the nut straight unless a four flush hit the board. At the same time, I'm not looking forward to be reraised should I bet on the turn. I check and call here. And do the same on the river unless the four flush hits, then I check and fold. In this case, the poster was drawing dead, while the opponent was not.
If I were to check and call the turn, I would likely check and call the river as well even if the fourth club hits. Given the fact that my opponent had raised me on the flop and then bet again on the turn, the fourth club will usually be of little consequence...he either had the flush on the turn or still doesn't have a flush after the river. I would be more concerned of the fourth club if my opponent checked behind me on the turn but then bet behind me on the river.
Another reason to check and call the river if a fourth club falls is that many players at this limit will bet two pairs into this board after you have shown weakness by checking the river after calling a raise on the turn.
You should have called his check raise on the turn and checked on the river. If he bet on the river, just call. It's quite common to bluff when the flush hits the board. But, I think if he really was on a flush draw he would have not called your check raise on the flop.
I think you were over aggressive when club came on the turn, I surely would have not bet out, respecting the flush. The board has you possibly beat. Probably I would have check called to the river depending on the player. But maybe I play too conserative. No! I do play too conservative until I think I have the stone lock mortals against my opponents. Just my opinion.
Winning hold'em does not lend itself to conservative play.
Another point to be made is that he called your raise and the A of the flush is on the board. That strongly reduces the chance that he is holding two clubs and would be another factor in influencing me to call on the turn, and check and call on the river.
It's pretty hard to give someone credit for a flush when it's heads up. I don't know how good the button plays, but if he's halfway decent I'd give him credit for some kind of a set here (or something like a suited AQ in the hole), since most decent players won't just call a pre-flop raise heads up unless they've got a monster starting hand. If he's a weak player, well, that's a whole different story. But I can't imagine that in the long run a fella can profit by folding the nut straight heads up for a raise when the third suited card hits the board.
Too, there's a very good chance that he raised with top pair good kicker (or a set, or two pair), and simply called when you reraised in order to punish you on the turn (har har har). At least, this scenerio seems more likely to me than him having a flush.
In short, I think I'd call here unless the button was a real predictable player. But there's no question that these kinds of hands can be a b*tch to play.
I guess I am a little more adventuresome than some other the other respondents. I rarely give a lot of credit due a flush when this type of board. From his betting on flop, I wouldn't suspect a flush draw anyway. He calls pre-flop with a flush draw? I think you were just too timid.
The game is pot-limit hold'em, head-up FREEZE-OUT. Should it be played exactly as if you were on the final table, head-up in a pot-limit tourney?
mikeydoo
No, the blinds go up in tournaments and you do not have the time needed to really outplay your opponent. also by the time you are headup the blinds make the play very much a movein type strategy as they are quite high by now in relation to stake size.
Can someone please give me instructions on gaining access to rec.gambling.poker using Microsoft Outlook Express. I think what I need is the NNTP server address I have tried rec.gambling.poker and news:rec.gambling.poker but Outlook Express says it could not find the host with this address.
Thanks for any help
I was having similar problems, and found dejanews.com, which is a web based account of usenet's rec.gambling.poker. I think it is a complete account of the discussion. Try it. It is much easier than adapting the browser (at least for me it is). Let me know if dejanews.com is inferior in any way to the actual thread.
Regards
Someone is prolly gonna complain that this is the wrong group to be posting this, but since you did .... the nntp server is a server that yer isp provider maintains. It is normally called nntp or news, such as nntp.netcom.com or news.netcom.com (if netcom were yer ISP). Once you configure the correct server name, you should then be able to see all the news groups. I haven't done it with outlook express, but you can always use netscape by going to the window menu and selecting netscape news (after having configured the server name). Hope this helps.
A Poker Guy!
I've been playing alot of Omaha/8 lately with a full kill. When figuring hourly win rates, do you use the normal structured bets, the kill structure, or something in between? Also, when playing against relatively poor opponents, is this game really as easy to beat as it now seems or have I just been running good?
Hourly win rates whould be based on your results for some particualr game. So the idea of adjustments for different structures doesn't seem practical to me.
You can do very well in thsi game against players who are willing to draw to the third and fourth nuts. Perhaps Ray Zee will comment.
CB,
In omaha-8 when you have bad players drawing at bad lows and getting trapped on non winning high hands your win rate really goes up. its about the same as someone throwing in free money in the pot.
briefly, I'm new to the game and have read most of the current literature on the game(caro,sklansky, malmuth, brunson). Th situation I found myself in was this: I was playing according to the books (and not deceptively) and whenever I was in a hand or the big blind one player in particular would always raise ,regardless of what he had (even seven-duce off suit). I ended up losing because the flop either never hit my hand , or I didn't hit my flush or straight draws. The game was 3-6 holdem, $1 small blind, I bought in for and lost $100.00 in about two hours. My question: Should I have been happy that this guy was always raising me? Almost all the pots I was in were "family pots", but I never made a hand-not even a pair. Thanks. Jeff.
You are describing someone who is not playing well, and you should be happy when any of your opponents does this. However, just because an opponent is playing poorly it doesn't mean that you can also play poorly, and it doesn't mean that you must win in any given session.
Now I am not saying that you played poorly. But if an opponent is always raising when you are in the blind and the pot is multiway, make sure that if you play you have an appropriate hand to do so. I suspect from your post that you got a little frustrated and called too often.
That's the thing; whatever you do, just stick to your game. I can't count the times a late position player has put an obvious steal raise on me when I'm in the blind, thereby making me fold 74o, T3o, etc. etc. hand after hand. Mason makes a great point-- whatever you do, DON'T get frustrated, and be sure to stick to your guns.
such as this clown, either get out the game, (if you can't take his heat) or at your earliest opportunity find a seat open to the left of him, thereby you can save lots of dough by not calling his raises until YOU have something to play. Immediately when I first sit down at a table, I anaylize the game relative to what type of players are playing from what positions they are sitting. Ultimately I want the "calling stations","passive players" to my left--then the "tough player" and "maniac" sitting to my right. It's funny to see players jump at the seat of a winner when they get up to go home not even realizing he is putting his chips in jeapordy by moving because the loosest player or maniac is now sitting to his left. Sure I have seen seats "heat up" but on the other hand I've seem 'em go "stone cold". So what does this have to do with the price of tea in China. I play for position and strategy. Not luck. Ofcourse I'd rather be lucky than good--but only one day at a time. What about the days I forget and leave "lady luck" at home? Catch my drift? Any thoughts out there?
On luck and moving to an open seat: Knowing nothing about a game you are coming into and noticing a winner and loser getting up at the same time which seat would you rather sit down in? I would sit in the winner's seat for the (more likely) chance that the distribution of player types is favorably oriented toward that seat.
I agree with the strategy (rock,left;maniac,right), but if you are consistently observing winners sitting to the right of the maniac (as you described) that should make you reconsider.
When you sit to the right of a maniac, just raise when you want to be reraised / isolated. Let the maniac do the raising for you when you just call with your better hands, and by all means fold anything marginal. Try to get rational agressive players on your right, and loose agressive ones on your left.
Both on your right is better.
In the low-limit(5-10-15) game I play in,I find the opposite to be true.For example,you say you want to play behind the maniac because you want to wait until You have something to play;however,if you adopt this attitude in the seat before the maniac you will have the cards plus the knowledge that you have someone behind you to bet for you. With this knowledge you are more able to control the betting.Call-re-raise is a very effective strategy to use when sitting to the right of a betting-station-maniac. At least thats the way I see it.
I want the maniac on my *left*. That way, when he (it always seems to be a "he") bets and I have a marginal holding, I won't have to guess whether anyone else has strength or not. Typical example:
I have A6s. Flop is A97, with a two flush and none of my suit. If the maniac is to my right and bets it is ugly. I probably raise and hope for the best, but it's easy for things to get real hairy. But with the same holding, if the maniac bets behind me, it's easy. If someone raises, I can throw it away; if not, I am delighted to call. Things like this happen all the time.
Having the maniac on my left is kinda like having the button; I always get to act last.
William
Poker is like retail: location, location, location
Should you like him raising you? I would have to say yes. It's hard to say from what you described but it sounds like he felt that he run over you in the game. If he was seated to your immediate left and noticed that you were betting on the come alot, his play may have been correct (he figures there won't be a showdown). More than likely, however, you were dealing with a maniac. Go back to those authors and learn how to deal with maniacs. When you have it figured out, you'll like those type of players at your table.
I LOVE maniacs,and meatballs at my table! This is what makes great poker games with big pots. One time I dreamed if every time I came to play poker, and everyone at the table played like myself. WOW! What a nightmare! I would be looking for a new hobby after the first round of the button! When I come to play, my minimum starting requirements are at least 4 players have to be meatballs or banana heads playing 10 handed. Anything less makes for a bad game. I'll HIT THE ROAD and go find a better one. POKER-I Love it! Just my 2 cents.
100 isn't much if there's alot of raising and callers to match pre-flop. If that were the case and i only had 100, then i'd probably play a lot tighter than usual. Maybe even going so far as only playing Axs/Kxs or pocket pairs.
Lars
irc.poker.net is a good place to check your play.
Then don't play. This isn't pro wrestling here-- it's a poker forum.
I play 5-25 and 10-50 stud unstructured limit and have found it much more enjoyable than structured limits.It addsnew elements to the game like paying attention to how much someone bets/raises with a particular holding(the weak players make the classic mistake by telling you what they have by how much they bet/raise).Bluffing is also made a little easier due to the difference between the minimum and maximum bet,adding a little flare of potlimit/nolimit flavor to the game. Does anyone ever play these limits too and if so how do you compare it to stuctured limits.I find it superior to structured limit by far. Alan
I might be interested in trying it, but I have never seen such spread limit games offered in a U.S. casino (and I haven't played poker overseas yet). The only spread limit I've seen here is low limit, such as 1-4 stud, or 2-5 HE. It would be interesting to try spread limit at higher limits, but I don't foresee that happening soon. Maybe it is offered somewhere local, and I can be properly advised.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Garden City and Bay 101 (both in San Jose, CA) offer 10-200 Hold'em spread limit games (usually they are really 20-200). The clubs are restricted by the city of San Jose to not offer games with betting limits over $200, so they cannot offer true no-limit games.
I've posted a query about this on the Exchange Forum. Your reply would be appreciated.
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I really enjoy an unstructured 5-20 game where I live. It seems to create more action.
Frankly, I think unstructured games, or at least a different structure to the standard one are great. I think the "standard structure" with just two betting limits makes for a much less interesting game. Years ago I used to play in games that had a different limit for each betting round. There was a holdem game that was 2-4-6-8. This is a beautiful structure. We had $300 posts regularly. The blinds were 1-2. Even earlier than that I played in a game that was a modification of holdem, starting with 3 downcards a betting round, and common cards dealt one at a time for a total of five betting rounds. The betting limit doubled on each betting round.
The game is more interesting and has more to it when there are different betting limits for each round. Bluffing comes more into play, and calling stations can be punished a little more.
I don't really understand why the "standard structure" ever became so popular, though I know Mason thinks it's because it increases the luck element enough to give the weaker players a better chance.
I must agree also, the spread limit games have more twist to them. You are right about reading players and hands by the amount bet by each player. Not only are you playing with your own knowledge of cards, pot odds etc but you implement even more psychology and add more human behavior elements to the game.
Jon
Would someone be kind enough to tell me what a Freezeout and what a Shootout are. I have never played in a tournament, obviously.
Thanks in advance.
Freezeout ... nearly an obsolete term since almost all tournaments are freezeouts in one way or the other. "Freezeout" simply means that you are alive until you lose all of your chips, at which time you "report to the rail." Eventually all players are "frozen out" except the winner.
A shootout is a freezeout tournament where, most commonly, the winners of each table advance to the final table (or set of tables), where everyone again starts with the same amount of chips (what they won at their first table).
Contrast the shootout with the usual freezeout tournament, where the players are randomly reassigned as the tables break down, and players with various stack sizes are moved forward to fill in the "empty seats".
For a good satellite player, a shootout is a much more attractive proposition, as this format more approximates the playing conditions in a satellite. In any event, vastly different strategy considerations apply when the goal is to beat just the players at your table (note the unusual but possible circumstance in a regular freezeout tournament where you wouldn't have to eliminate anyone and could still finish as high as 2nd).
This is in the category of "I can't BELIEVE I did that!" I am clearly either a saint or a dyed-in-the-wool chump. I don't want to take a poll on which you think I am, but do have another question for those in the know. (Yes, I am a beginner!)
In a Texas Hold'em game, the turn found 9, 10, x, x rainbow on the board. I held K & Q of clubs. I was in last position, and pondering whether to call the bet. I decided to fold, due to insufficient pot odds to hang on for the straight (which may have been incorrect anyway, since I also had overcards and good position).
Before I could pick up my cards to toss them in, the dealer proceeded to turn over (you guessed it), a Jack!
All I can think of is that childhood training kicked in... one does NOT cheat at cards, and I really had intended to fold. Soooo... I actually mucked my cards after seeing the Jack! (Been kicking myself ever since!)
What I want to know is what the floor's call would have been if I had protested that I did not have a chance to play. Would they have (a) told me I had to fold? (unlikely), (b) mucked the jack and given me a chance to play?, (c) kept the jack and allowed me to call only? (d) kept the jack and allowed me any option?
Does anyone have any experience with this?
The card comes back. You are then given the option to call. The cards are then reshuffled.
... I may have turned my cards over and said" I fold the nuts.!!!" Maybe not.
I agree most clubs it is immaterial what you were going to do. The card comes back and turn action is completed.
However, I have had experience with a quirky ruling at Crystal Park. I was playing 15/30 HE and was last to act on the turn. I had ten outs. The dealer burned and turned before I could act. The dealer said that I could call and the card would come back. BUT, if I folded the card stayed!!!! It didn't affect the action if I was going to fold.
I objected and called the floor. (Although it was me that was getting the advantage) Seems like this is the way they do it at Crystal Park. I can't believe this ruling is on the books.
This happened to me twice. One of these days somebody is going to represent quads, the dealer prematurely rivers the case card, and the last to act decides to call because his opponent does not have quads. And somebody is really going to go postal.
BAD RULE Crystal Park!!!!
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
I like your style, Albert! "I fold the nuts" works for me!
I also feel better, knowing that I did not throw away the hand. Thanks to both of you for the information.
Note that you may have to speak up and call for a floor ruling to get this rule enforced. I learned the hard way when everyone checked to me on the flop and the dealer prematurely put the turn card out. I said something, and the dealer told me that I could make my flop bet with the turn card out.
I should have called for a floor ruling, but I did not know how irregularities like this were handled at the time. I assumed that the dealer made such rulings.
So don't be afraid to ask for a floor person in these situations. Of course, only do so when it is to your advantage to get the correct ruling. In your case it would have been best to just keep quiet and leave it to someone else to call for a ruling.
I don't get the problem with the rule. Once the case card is accidently rivered the jig is up. Even with the more common rule of always taking back the card you might still call after seeing this card.
David
Do you see the advantage in seeing the case card that your opponent was representing?
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
7-Stud, no-rake, dealer puts up a $1, low card forced bet of $1, $1 bet or raise until open pair or sixth street where bet or raise becomes $2. Three raises maximum. Usually 8 players, sometimes 9.
There is one big winner (average $40 a night) and he plays really tight. I can't pick out any other consistent winners. Usually only goes in with 10s or better. If he goes in with a drawing hand and 4th street doesn't help he will fold if he has to call $2. Players fold when he raises. His hole pair usually has more success than anyone elses.
I have been a small winner (averaging $10 a night - got beat recently with two full houses, both against four of a kind, Aces full and kings full.) My problem is that I am not certain what is the best way to play high hole pairs in this game. 4 out of 6 players will call a raise on 3rd street except from the player about which will only have 2 out of 6 call. Should I raise on 3rd street anyway, slowplay my high pair and wait for two pair or trips before making a move, or play tighter and build respect like the other player? Overall I should really be a bigger winner if I had more discipline.
I(22) am consider myself new to the game (3 years - mostly 7 stud)
I would also appreicate any comments or suggestions about playing style or winning strategies.
Thanks, Mike
Just some comments...
A bird in hand is worth two in the bush especially in this structure.
It seems the bring in is huge for the structure. Bring in is 8 or 9 times the ante?!?!?
Bring in is also the same as the first tier.
There is a good reason why you have a consistent big winner.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
As you have seen, a starting pair in 7-stud is far from being a certain winner, even if it is a pair of Aces -- it doesn't take very big odds for lesser hands to be correct in chasing you, and 2-1 on their money is enough. Thus, I would always raise with the bigger pair. Your raise also gives you the benefit of narrowing the field and letting you see who holds the valid hands.
If the game is tight, I would also raise with a lot of lesser hands. Here's the main reason why:
Let's assume the bring-in comes to you with no callers in between. The pot contains $2 and if you raise, you are being offered a $2 profit for a $2 bet/raise -- even money. If the game is tight, my decision on whether or not it is correct to raise -- with any hand -- depends upon my analysis of how probable it is that the other players will fold. If you will win the pot without a fight more than half the time, then a raise is automatic -- over the course of the night, you will make money on this play. Incidentally, the net effect of doing this will be a reduced "win" for the tight player.
How to play when you raise with garbage and get called is another story ....
No-foldem holdem. UTG KK. I go for the reraise and I just call. E?C (= Error (?). Comments).
None raises! five see the flop (BB, UTG, 5, 7 and Button) and the flop is A98. I bet (E?C) and I get raised by a player who calls loosely but raises with good hands on the flop. Button and big blind call and I fold (E?C).
Of course the turn was a King but this is not relevant here.
Usually I play the hand as follows: I raise and then if an ace hits I check and call. It seems that this is a better way to play it even if the game is no-foldem holdem because you pay much less to see the turn and there is the possibility that a weak ace will fold. Minor possibility though :).
Maria
I prefer to backraise with the big pocket pairs up front when there are a couple of agressive players to my right. However, I see no problem with the way you played the hand. If you get the same flop having raised, and get two or three callers then I would lead bet pocket kings instead of checking. One problem with checking is that someone in last position is encouraged to bet looking for a free card, and you have no defense since you can't be sure no one has an ace. If you bet out and are called, you can now assume most of the time there is indeed an ace out there. If someone cold calls with an openended straight draw, they're unfortunately going to get the free card.
Maria,
You wrote: "No-foldem holdem. UTG KK. I go for the reraise and I just call. E?C (= Error (?). Comments)."
Remember that KK loses much of its value in large multiway pots. I would raise here to try to cut down the number of opponents in the hand. Notice, that if you only call you actually attract callers, by increasing their odds. And when your opponents are in for one bet (in a no-fold'em hold'em game) it is almost impossible to knock them out with your reraise. This will create a big pot and with that kind of money in the pot, it will be very hard to get your opponents to lay down a hand later in the hand. The big pot actually makes it correct for your opponents to play their inside straight draws etc. and often someone will hit his 5-card-out or something like that.
"five see the flop (BB, UTG, 5, 7 and Button) and the flop is A98. I bet (E?C)"
Many players would have raised (or folded) pre-flop with an ace in their hand. Since nobody did raise pre-flop in this hand the chance increases that you have the best hand. Therefore, I think you did the right thing when you bet on the flop. Another reason is that you are not giving your opponents a free card.
"and I get raised by a player who calls loosely but raises with good hands on the flop. Button and big blind call and I fold (E?C)."
Notice that if the raiser had a straight draw, he would not like to knock out the players behind him, and therefore, he would have called your bet instead. When he raises there is a very big risk that he has an ace after all (or maybe 98). When he gets two callers who doesn't even get good odds I think your fold is pretty automatic.
In short: You played the hand pretty well,
Sincerely,
Emil
KK is one of those hands that's powerful enough to retain much of its value in large multiway pots. QQ, JJ, etc. start losing a lot of value, but AA and KK retain value (and AA in fact gains value). The variance of these hands goes up in large multiway pots (they are more likely to lose when there are more opponents, but when they win they win more money). The value from encouraging callers will often not offset the advantage of getting fewer callers to put in more money preflop (as well as possibly knocking blinds off their hands putting some completely dead money in the pot). The best scenario (in terms of expectation) with hands like AA and KK is to have capped preflop betting with a family pot.
As for raising with the draw, many players will do it to buy a "cheap" card on the turn. He's in the right position to do it, but not in the best situation (the bet is too close to him, so his raise is likely to scare out callers which would improve his pot and implied odds).
A flop of A 9 8 is bound to hit a five way play. I played a hand a similar way. When you have a K-K and you just call your opponents are going to think that you are weak, although you really wanted the check-raise to limit the field.
When you bet on the flop and get check raised with this flop ,and based on your discription of your opponents, I would put them on A-9, A-8, 9-8, or even just an A with a weak kicker (if they're the maniac or aggressive type).
Based on the odds of floping a set, which is what you needed to continue, I would have mucked it. Even though the K came on the turn, your opponents have more outs than you do.
The purpose of calling with the intention of reraising is to build a pot, unless based on your opponents you feel the probable raise will come from late position. The purpose of raising up front in early position is to limit the field. In the type of game you are talking about, I would tend to raise in early and just call in middle or late. Why? Raising after there are already a number of callers tends to drive out few if any players. The ones it does drive out are the ones who would have called, with no business doing so in the first place. The vast majority of no foldem players will call the raise if they have put a bet in,even if the original call was incorrect. Also calling in middle or late position sets me up for profitable raises or checkraises when I do make my set. In nofoldem, alot of players will play any ace. I would have checked the flop and called one bet, maybe two. Here determining implied odds vs % of improving is key.
The best play is to raise pre-flop with pocket Kings out of the BB, even multi-way. On the flop, your best play with the large field is to go for a check-raise or check-fold, depending on the action. (Without an ace on board you should try for the check-raise if the field can be thinned.)
No-foldem holdem. BB JTs. Maniac one before the button. Four call and maniac raises. Button calls, small blind folds, I call, all call to the player to the right of the maniac that three bets and maniac caps at four bets.
Seven players see the flop, the pot has 28 small bets, the flop is J33 mixed suits none of my suit.
I go for the check raise (E?C) = (Error?Comments) and NONE bets.
Thanks
Maria
"...(E?C) = (Error?Comments)..."
Saved a lot of retyping eh?!?
I probably would normally go for a checkraise also in that situation. That's the gamble you take.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Let me get this straight. Limit hold-em, the person before the maniac slowplays in order to get extra bets in pre-flop, then checks the flop? Now you want to check-raise the flop with top middle pair, weak kicker? My decision on what to do with that flop depends on my analysis of the person who 3-bet, and then, what I thought a check-raise might accomplish. In any event, a single bet seems more appropriate here, driving out the tight players, keeping the loose players in there with you, and giving you more information -- while minimizing the chances of being trapped deeper into the hand if already beat. (My guess is that you put the 3-bettor on A-K or such and were hoping to drive him and the mania out; please tell us how the hand played out.)
I had put the maniac on random cards and the guy before him on something with good multiway potential. I should have mentioned that the guy to the right of the maniac was a "gambler" who would enjoy a humangus pot with 89 suited or even 8T or 97 suited.
As a matter of fact none of the player was a habitual flop bettor and I should have thought this in advance since if one bets then this would mean that a jack is out there and quite likely with better kicker than mine or a 3 (pain).
I would say that the way I played either a jack with better kicker would bet the flop from early position or the guy next to the maniac would bet a jack nine or the maniac would bet. I think that I did a mistake by not betting. If I had bet then there is a good chance that the maniac would make it two bets with random cards and then I can three bet it which would be the best I can get.
I would refrain to say what happened in the hand. Trully it is irrelevant. We discuss here what is the best way to play it.
One way to analyze the situation is: what hands will fold for a single bet. What hands will bet. What hands will raise. What hands will slowplay. What hands will fold for two or three bets. By the way: any jack if there are jacks out there will stay for two or three bets. Same about overpairs. But I doubt that there are queens, kings or aces out there. I even doubt that there is ace jack since if it is then it would have to be in the first three positions since the guy next to the maniac and the button would have raised or reraised with AJ. Hence, I worry about KJ and QJ and I welcome J9, J8, J7 and Jx suited (yes they play that). I like my hand a lot even though (AJ), KJ, QJ and 3x can beat it. The goal is to eliminate singe overcards out there or make them pay for the draw and to eliminate any hands with drawing potential on the turn like three flushes, three to a straight with one overcard like A4, A2, A5, Q9, Q8, KT, K9. On the given table KQ and AK and AQ would stay but I can make them pay for the priviledge. Also Axs, Kxs and Qxs may be out there or even 45 suited matching one of the rainbow cards out there.
What I ask the forum is that we try to find a systematic way to find the best play in those situations. After all the decisions are two, check or bet, the how right and why is the question.
Maria
The more I think about it the more I believe that I should bet the flop because the pressure in weak hands is tremendous as they find themselves between a bettor with tight image and the original raiser.
Maria
I like to make it three bets with these type of players involved when I'm in the big blind with big suited connectors rather than just calling the raise. You got a good flop to bet out with since you won't get raised unless you're beat. Note that the maniacs don't have flush or straight draws with which to raise and reraise on the flop. You're main concern is an overcard falling if you're called. If you're raised, then there probably is an overpair out there or maybe A3s.
I think you have to go for the check raise here. W/ 28 small bets in the pot EVERYONE'S going to have the odds to call the flop, no matter what they're holding. Your chances of winning this thing w/o limiting the field are virtually nill, so you might as well take a chance and hope someone behind you bets.
Note that you also get more information about the players between you and the raiser(s) this way. If someone in the middle three bets the flop, for example, you can rest assured that he's got either trips or a boat. Similar considerations probably apply if a tight player in the middle cold calls. By betting out in a no fold 'em game w/ 28 small bets in the pot-- well, you aren't getting rid of anybody. Further, a medium pocket pair in the middle might raise you, to find out where HE'S at, then one of the raisers make it three bets, etc. etc., the net result being you've got no idea where you're at. By check raising you can at least see how the rest of the field responds to the prospect of cold calling two bets, which makes your decisions on the later rounds a ton easier to make.
BTW, if a maniac checks this kind of flop when he's in later position it often means he flopped a monster (e.g., Jacks full), so be careful on the turn and river (should you choose to go that far).
I can't see that hand being strong enough for a checkraise. It also doesn't have alot of room for improvement. It may be the best hand now and I would want to find out. Bet and hope everyone folds.
Just reading a post from a couple days ago and proving my newbie-ness.
Thanks,
Mike
It's when the big blind and little blind agree to take their blinds back if no one at the table calls the big blind. For example, seat 1 is the $1 little blind, seat 2 is the $2 blind, seat 3 through 9 fold. Seat 1 asks seat 2 if he would like to chop. Seat 2 agrees. Seat 1 takes his $1 back and seat 2 takes his $2 back. (That was a Hell of a long explination!)
One other thing ... a motivation in the chop is that many places will not take their rake without a flop (no flop, no drop). So if you are in a 4-8 California game, for instance, and there is a $3 rake per hand ... there is $6 in the pot ($2 sb + $4 bb)after everyone else folds. If the sb calls for $2, there will only be $5 in the pot after the rake. If the rake is taken anyway, or if you are in a higher limit game with a time charge (ie. no per hand rake), then chopping is not necessarily a good thing, especially if you know how to play poker heads-up.
A Poker Guy!
It seems that the vast majority of converation in this forum is about Hold-em. Why is Hold-em the most popular game amongst advanced players?
In 7-Stud for Advanced Players, the Two Plus Two folk say that there are greater swings in 7-Stud than in Hold-em. Does this have a substantial impact on a good player's standard deviation? If so, is this one of the reasons for Hold-em's popularity?
I am a new player, but I seem to have beaten the 3-6 Stud game at Commerce each of my last 15 sessions (which are usually around 6 hours in length). In fact, on 10 of those sessions, I have walked away with $120 to $360. Is this extraordinary luck? At what point can I attribute some of my winnings to skill?
Lastly, it seems to me that a good player should be well versed in all games. Am I better off focusing on stud until I can build my bankroll and consistently beat the medium-limit games, or should I start branching off into other games, or at least Hold-em, sooner?
Thanks for any advice.
"I am a new player, but I seem to have beaten the 3-6 Stud game at Commerce each of my last 15 sessions (which are usually around 6 hours in length). In fact, on 10 of those sessions, I have walked away with $120 to $360. Is this extraordinary luck?"
Yes, you have probably been lucky. But little stud will have smaller fluctuations than small limit hold 'em assuming you play both games well.
Yes, you have to have a little luck going for that kind of win, but it's obviously not all luck. The non-luck part is the 15 consecutive wins. The luck part is the amount of the wins your describing...the $120 to $360 amounts describe an hourly of $20 to $60, which seems to me as an unusual amount in a 3-6 game. There are several reasons why I think Hold Em is more popular than 7 Stud. First of all, I think Hold Em is both more complex and less complex than 7 Stud. It's less complex in the fact that every player has clear cut choices for starting hands, where it may not be as obvious in 7 Stud. You can have the absolute nuts in HE, whereas in Stud it's possible (though rare obviously) for 2 people to have the same straight flush. It's also a faster game, more hands per hour. You will want to learn this game for the simple fact that it's where the money is at. The majority of large tournaments spread more HE games than other games, and there's a reason for that...because they no they will receive entries in these tournaments.
Slansky hides behind a fake name and will not reveal his true identity. The con men such as Slansky do this to avoid prosecution. Only suckers come to this site. Slansky has conned you into purchasing his losing systems. He owes you money.
The truth is that it is impossible to beat the house rake.
Doug
haha another sucker that stinks in the game and therefore is a loser and complains they can't beat the rake. Discipline,patience, and hard work(reading, studying, thinking the game) is what beats the rake and more importantly the other players!Reading D.S. is a great start!
So the name Sklansky is an alias? You would think he come up with something better than that.
You would think, but it's actually a big improvement over his birth name - Wilbur Shlock.
Doug,
Looking at it from your point of view, if enough hands are played at some point all the money will wind up in the box. I play on the Sun Cruz Casino (ship), usually 7 stud HiLo (5-10-10-20-20), and recently moved up to 10-20 HE. I figure the House rakes anywhere from $200.00 to $400.00 per table per night. Yet, based on the books I have bought from this sight, I am averaging a little over $275 profit per session. I play two to three sessions per week. The sessions last 3 to 4 hours.
I don't know you and I don't know the stakes or game you play, but I look at it like this.
Gen. George S. Patton, Jr once said, "You don't win wars by dying for your country. You win wars by making the other dum SOB die for his." In my book, the losers are paying the rake. If I walk out a winner, how did the rake effect me?
the rake effects you because thats less you can win.....Duh. The fresh money always coming in eliminates the rake ending up with it all...What the heck this is obvious..I play for a living in cleveland and the rake is very strong here but the play is very poor(ie.. ace/any and any two suited)
In Ohio ??? Do you play in home games ?
Mason, please delete this post. I don't want confusion between me and Grant.
Con man. What casino do you work for?
I have tried to carefully compute the 6907.85 result but I get 6871.68. I'm sure the Xi and Ti values I used match those given in the example. Would someone please verify the correct answer?
"I have tried to carefully compute the 6907.85 result but I get 6871.68. I'm sure the Xi and Ti values I used match those given in the example. Would someone please verify the correct answer?"
6907.85 is correct.
Actually, Gary's answer is correct.
If you look carefully at the table of numbers, the second result in the table is +240, but all the calculations use +249. This gives an answer of 6908.29
The minor discrepancy remaining is due to roundoff in Mason's calculation (e.g. the mean is 20.5176 rather than 20.52)
I don't know if this problem exists in the book or just on the web page.
That looks like the problem. The second entry in the table should be 249, not 240.
Thank you James! I was struggling with this problem mainly because I use a non-graphical interface to access this site.. When I used netscape the calculations and formula became viewable and your explanation was clear.
I'm curious to know if it's possible to win at hold'em without ever bluffing. I just started playing hold'em (6-12 limit) a couple months ago so I don't have much experience and I have a really difficult time trying to figure out when to bluff. I don't have any confidence in being able to read other people's hands so I can never tell if I should attempt them or not. I know at the higher levels bluffing becomes more important, but at the lower levels like 6-12, can you win without ever bluffing? Is it possible to have a positive expectation without ever stealing a pot?
Thanks, RC
You would probably need to always find a loose passive (or even a loose agressive) table to consistently succeed with that strategy. You would be playing weak tight, knowingly suboptimal - but would be paid off by the check/callers and maniacs. Table characteristics should be your primary area of focus when you plan to play very tight poker. Overall, this is not a bad way to get experience and gain confidence so that when you are able to read players you can expand your game.
"You would be playing weak tight, knowingly suboptimal - but would be paid off by the check/callers and maniacs"
I don't get it, if you are making more money in this game this way, then it isn't suboptimal, it is optimal. It may be suboptimal for a higher limit, but optimal for 6-12 and lower.
By suboptimal, I believe he means that you're making less money than you could, even if you're still playing at a profit. If you never bluff, then you're giving up some advantage, no matter how small. Even if it's a totally loose game, there is likely to be some few occasions where a bluff will succeed, and if you never bluff, you'll miss those rare opportunities.
In many games, if you never bluffed, you'd lose money by getting fewer callers (as your opponents became aware of this tendency). However, if the players are totally loose and/or maniacal, they'll still be in there anyway, and you'll still maybe make a profit (albeit a smaller one).
I would also like to agree with Andrew here. Never bluffing will not allow you to turn a profit in any tight game. It's not the size of the bets that matters, but how loose or tight the game is (and how attentive your opponents are, i.e., how long until they realize that you never bluff).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I was also including semibluffing (which is a useful form of deception in those games where there is only a small chance of everyone folding - ie. no-fold'em - despite what others may believe) with outright bluffing, when considering the tight/passive approach suboptimal without it.
If you stick to good games and appropriately value bet your drawing hands as well as raise pre-flop with weaker hands for value (e.g. medium and small pocket pairs and Ace-big suited multi-way), this strategy will keep your weaker playing opponents (and they should be plentiful) paying you off. Deceptive plays will never be necessary for a decent win rate.
Is it possible to win without ever bluffing? Yes, against weak opponents. But if you want to improve your game and become the best player you can be, you need to learn when to bluff and semibluff; this is a large part of your profits. However, you should not bluff too much, and wait until the situation is right.
You should tend to bluff more when you are heads up. You should tend to bluff more when your opponents show weakness by checking to you, especially if you have last position (a semibluff is good here too, for example a gutshot draw or overcards). You should tend to bet your drawing hands, and since you will be showing strength all the way, you should tend to bet again on the end when you miss, if you believe that your opponents were drawing and missed, too.
"Bluff" means betting a hand that is extremely unlikely to win a show down. Rarely do that in ANY game. "Semi-Bluffs" are MUCH more profitable: the combination of winning now OR outdrawing the opponents is very powerful. Bottom pair with a 3-flush, or a nut gut-shot draw, or a two-overcard whip-saw (3 flush +3 straight) are potential semi-bluff hands. In loose games, flush and straight draws are usually VALUE bet hands.
I define "steal" as a semi-bluff when no body else has shown strength. This is particularly applicable to Holdem since often the pot gets big enough (6 bets) when no body has anything after the flop.
For relatively inexperienced players playing relative low limits against relatively bad players, I suggest the following "bluff" strategy: Do not "Bluff"; always be able to outdraw the opponent if called. "Steal" only; do not try to get someone out who has a "good" hand. Do not "steal" unless (most) every opponent has already checked. This means steal in late position, or early position on the turn. Bet again on the turn if called on the flop if you "improve" even a little; such as if you bet an Ace-high flush draw and then make a pair of 66s. Forget all this if less than 20% of hands have no show down.
Be advised that a "semi-bluff" in a reasonable game can be a "value" bet in a loose game, since opponents will call with ANY old overcard, and you can get called and still have the best hand. Inexperienced players will do poorly in this situation. You will no longer be inexperienced when you can tell when bottom pair is the "best" hand after two players have called.
- Louie
PS. I remember my todler Hold'm days when the action was all one big blur. To overcome the blur and gain a "feel" I focused on one player at a time when not in, and forced myself to put her on a primary and secondary hand. As I got better I focused on two players, etc. I also put the "table" on a primary and secondary hand, even if I didn't know which player had it: If there is a raise and 3 calls, I would put someone on top pair (primarily) and someone on a flush draw (secondarily).
In a game with bad players (read: most low limit games), it's impossible to tell if low pair is the best hand after two players have called. I've had old ladies check and call with overpairs, maniacs raise with three to a flush and no over cards, a seemingly weak-tight player suddenly make it four bets with a gutshot--- in other words, you can't get a read on your opponents in these games, since you can't put them on a thought.
That said, I think your points about what constitutes a bluff are excellent. If you're in late position with a pair of 5's and three other players, and the flop comes T62 rainbow, a bet here isn't really a bluff (if it's checked around to you). When people talk of bluffing, particularly inexperienced players, they tend to mean 'betting (or raising) with a hand that isn't a drawing hand (four flush, open ender, gut shot w/ two overcards) or top pair or better"; a definition, of course, which can get you in a whole lot of trouble.
On the subject of bluffing, I think it's next to impossible to beat a low limit game for 1 bb an hour if you're not in there raising occasionally with hands like middle pair/overcard kicker/three to a flush. Even the worst players notice when you never 'give action', and most will be hesitant to play back at you. When I first started playing I was stymied by the fact that even the true fish at the table would cold call two raises pre-flop w/ stuff like T4s when someone else raised, but drop like flies whenever I got my money in there. It never occured to me that everyone else had noticed I was only raising pre-flop w/ A's, K's and AK (as prescribed by Jones' book; another reason why his pre-flop raising strategies, IMO, are deeply flawed).
Certainly people who are aware that their decisions matter are easier to read than those who don't, since those who don't don't know what they have sp can't "tell" you. But I ASSURE you there are plenty of ..err.. some opportunities to confidently value-bet very weak hands in the brain-dead type games. Most of these people CAN be read some of the time.
Yes, its important that they suspect you (even a little) when you bet. Seeing you reraise with a straight draw LAST WEEK is enough for them to routinely pay you off. Seeing you call the river with 66 (and winning) LAST MONTH will confuse the rock enough that he'll take his one-shot-a-night at someone else.
- Louie
Good point. What I was trying to say is that while it is possible to value bet third pair against some (a few) opponents, it's virtually impossible against your average low limit player. The fact that many fish will play top pair weak kicker the same as, say, an underpair (read: check and call) makes 'knowing where you stand' pretty damn hard.
Can you make money without ever bluffing?
Probably, for a short while. But as soon as your opponents work out that you never bluff, you will become a big loser.
When should you bluff? There are two different answers here, one for early in the hand and the other for on the end:
Early in the hand, bluff if you have a draw to a big hand. This is what as known as "semi-bluffing", and it is extremely profitable.
On the end, bluff if you have absolutely nothing. Not even ace or king high. The worse your hand is, the more inclined to bluff you should be, as the chance that your opponent will fold a hand that beats yours goes up. Hands like 8 high, where you missed a draw, are almost mandatory bluffs.
William
In the Essays area there is an excellant discussion concerning bluffing.
http://www.twoplustwo.com/padmanabhan1.html
Some thoughts: - Newer players tend to bluff to often. - Use extreme caution against bluffing against many players - Never bluff against people who won't lay down hands
Just as important as "When should or shouldn't I bluff?" is "Against whom should I or shouldn't I bluff?"
S. Doyle
There is a real simple answer. If your highest EV play is to bluff, then it cost's you money when you don't bluff. "How Do I Determine that a Bluff is My Highest EV Play?" is what you are really asking.
An apparently solid player raises from early position,gets 2 callers, I 3 bet in the BB with KK(both red). The flop comes Qc-7c-10s. I bet, solid player raises,gets 1 caller, I reraise,solid player reraises, woman behind him cold calls, I call. The turn is a blank. I check, solid player bets, woman calls, I call. The river is a 10c, which pairs the board and makes the 3 flush on the river. I check, solid player bets, woman calls, I muck. Solid player mucks! Woman wins with Q-J offsuit. Did I make a bad laydown?
There is only one problem with your laydown: there were almost 16 big bets in the pot. Thus, you have to be right about this laydown over 94% of the time for it to be the right decision. Since you described this player as "apparently" solid, it must be that you haven't played with him enough to be totally confident about your read of him. Since the woman only called and NEVER raised, it is difficult to be so sure that she has a better hand than you. Thus, unless you are highly (i.e., greater than 94% in this case) confident that you're beaten, you should call here.
From personal experience, I can tell you that I almost never laydown here, as even players I have a great line on fool me at least 6% of the time.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
While I was writing my longer longer reply to the post I noticed your more succient reply when I got back to refreshing the message index. I agree of course.
One nit. Both you and Key mention the pot has 16 "big bets" when you face the river call. I got 34 "small bets" which is equivalent to 17 big bets as follows:
Pre flop: 4 players in for 3 bets = 12 small bets (oops, I/we forgot the small blind!)
On the flop: 3 players for 4 bets = 12 small bets
On the turn: 3 players for one "double bet" = 6 small bets
On the river Mike faced 2 double bets which equals 4 small bets. My math indicates 34 small bets (plus the small blind) which translates to 17+ big bets and slightly better than 17 to 1 pot odds on Mike's call.
I only mention this because I am starting a minor post polling how players count bets in the heat of battle. Anyway, good luck!
Regards,
Rick
I count 16 big bets in the pot at the end. With such a large pot, I favor calling. You only have to be right 1 time in 17 to show a profit.
Mike-X,
I'll try first crack at this over my morning coffee.
You said: "An apparently solid player raises from early position, gets 2 callers, I 3 bet in the BB with KK (both red)."
Since he didn't cap (I'll assume a three raise limit), at this point look for AK, AQ, AJ or even weaker high cards rather than a big pocket pair although some will smooth call your reraise with aces or queens here. (Note: Besides the fact that you have KK reducing the chance of his having KK, I believe most holding KK will always cap here. This is not as true of the other high pairs.) Medium pairs are also possible from some players (88 thru TT).
Next, you said: "The flop comes Qc-7c-10s. I bet, solid player raises, gets 1 caller, I reraise, solid player reraises, woman behind him cold calls, I call."
He is playing aggressively so AA or even a good set is possible or even likely with the club and straight draw. But this is cheap street and many overplay their hand here.
"The turn is a blank. I check, solid player bets, woman calls, I call."
I agree with slowing down here. You are either beat with outs or still leading and you can be pretty sure he will bet again."
Lastly you said: "The river is a 10c, which pairs the board and makes the 3 flush on the river. I check, solid player bets, woman calls, I muck. Solid player mucks! Woman wins with Q-J offsuit. Did I make a bad laydown?"
Overcalling looks embarrassing when you are beat in two places. But sometimes it is the right play. In this case the first call came from a player who showed little aggression during the hand. She could have a flush and fear raising because of the fact the board paired, she could have trips, but the hand she had was a possibility assuming she is fairly weak player.
I'm guessing the other player had AK or AJ since he didn't show his hand. Was the "solid players" play within reason? Pre flop the pot contained twelve bets. You bet the flop and any overpair or set would cap as he did. But would other hands cap? I think AK would, hoping to get head up with perhaps three perfect outs (any non-club jack), one good out (the club jack), and six "so-so" outs (any ace or king). It is also possible AJ would, if he was very aggressive. Many players have the attitude "if I'm in for three I might as well make it four". (Note: This is even more likely in California with the three raise limit rather than in Nevada with the four raise limit.)
Before the river card came the pot had 30 small bets (I always count the pot by small bets). You check. The aggressor bets, she calls; now it is your decision. The pot now has 34 small bets so it you are getting 17 to 1 on your call. The question is: "Are your chances better than 17 to 1?" I think so but I admit that I've made this mistake several times before, especially early in my career when I over emphasized "good laydowns" in an effort to look like a “good” player.
One final note. There was another play on the river you may not have considered and that was to bet! With this bet and the scary river card you had a good chance of folding aces by the inside player and the woman could have had a busted straight or the hand she had (I assume she was a fairly weak player). If you get raised you muck as very few players can raise here without a hand that beats yours.
Naturally, I welcome all comments but please be gentle. I only have had half my normal coffee so far.
Regards,
Rick
Since she didn't raise, your hand did NOT get twice as worse on the river. If your hand is worth a call on the turn then it should still be on the river. Besides when the river obviously beats me (such as the As), the only exception would be against those few players who's semi-bluffs are very determined, but who routinely give it up on the river.
I am more likely to fold on the turn than the river in these situations.
- Louie
Here is how I look at this sort of situation. If *both* opponents are representing hands that beat mine, I almost always throw it away. It is rare that they are both lying; even 30-1 odds probably isn't worth it.
But in this case, only the solid player is representing a hand that can beat yours, and even that is not for certain (value betting AQ here on the end in his seat is a little too aggressive, but it is not way out of line). I'm guessing that the woman will have you beat around 1/3 to 1/2 of the time. So to make a call correct, you have to think you can beat the solid player's and at least 10% of the time. Your read on this player is important here, but for most solid players, this will be the case.
Another way of looking at it is, overcalling only requires a better hand than calling when you don't think you can beat the initial caller.
William
If you call on the turn with a hand like KK that is going to have a hard time improving, it's generally because you think you have the best hand. Once you've called the turn, calling the river is almost automatic with a pot this size if there is no raise.
If the first player was truly a 'solid' player, I probably would have thrown the Kings away on the turn after all that action on the flop. If he's a player I'm unsure of, I'll check and call the turn and river.
Dan
He can't be all that solid if he's capping the flop here with AKo. Either way, you might as well suck it up and call the river. Ordinarily this is a tough overcall, but the pots so big that people will often bet/call with just about anything.
Tough break.
I think what killed you on this hand was your presumption that the UTG player was solid. In fact, based on his play, you now know that couldn't be farther from the truth.
I play low to medium limit stud in Las Vegas. I seem to do ok in full games, but have some trouble when the game becomes shorthanded(four or fewer players). While I could simply leave when the game is shorthanded, I don't want to do this because the house reduces the rake in these situations(sometimes to zero). What are the basic adjustments that need to be made when the game is shorthanded? I try to be more aggressive with pairs, but this does not always work. Also, should I be calling early big bets and re-raising more, given the propensity for increased aggressiveness by the other players? Your help would be appreciated.
There's no need to adjust your full ring starting hand strategy. You just can't get run over in small limit stud, short-handed or not, assuming you otherwise play decent on later streets.
However, one adjustment I might suggest is to take advantage of scare cards and your otherwise tight play when it appears your opponent is overplaying his hand, you've caught (apparently) good and he has not.
A similar discussion took place months ago for Holdem and I believe the "conclusion" is the same for stud: Short Handed Stud is .. err .. should be fundamentally the same as a full-table stud after a few players have folded.
Thus, if you would attack the bring-in with (6h9h)Kh after 3 people folded, you should also do so "UTG" in a 5-handed game. If you would defend the bring in with (57)7 when attacked by a Q after 5 players have folded you should also do so in a 5-handed game after 2 players have folded.
The fact that players correctly attack and defend more liberally after a few players have folded means aggressive play on later streets has a much greater chance of causing the opponent to fold, which is extremely profitable.
- Louie
"Short Handed Stud is .. err .. should be fundamentally the same as a full-table stud after a few players have folded. " Are you sure about this ? Surely on the first round there will simply be more money on the table in the latter case (when say 4 people have folded) because of their antes ? Suggesting at least one reason for stealing less in this situation ?
Andy.
Good point; forgot about that. That means you should steal LESS when short handed. Curious.
Does anyone know where I can find instructional video tapes on poker strategy, or videos of events such as the WSOP? All I can come up with are "how to play" tapes. Any web sites or catalog addresses would be helpful. Thanks!
www.gamblersbook.com has a pretty good collection of videos including WSOP.
The Authors have embraced the technique of counting position starting by assigning the "UTG" as seat 1; and increasing the count clockwise around the table, in the direction of the flow of the game. This is one of the few things I heartily disagree with.
I think it is much superior to evaluate your position based on how many players there are YET to act, and NOT based on how EARLY you must act. So in Holdem I assign the Button as seat zero and count seats counter-clockwise; your seat number being how many players have position on YOU. For example, I will bring-in-raise with KT in seat 2 (there is one player between me and the button); it doesn't matter how many players have folded. In a 9 handed game the first player to act is seat 7, the next is seat 6, ...
"UTG" is always "seat 1" in theirs but "seat 7" in a 10 handed table with my scheme. "UTG" loses much of its meaning in my scheme. "Early Position" is always seats 5 or higher in my scheme, but "seats 3 or lower in a 10 handed table" in theirs. There is no "early position" short handed in my scheme.
Remembering the strategy for "seat 2" is MUCH easier than "10 handed seat 6 when 5 have folded, or 8 handed seat 4 when 3 have folded, or 5 handed UTG ...". I believe this scheme is easier to remember and conceptualizes the real situation more usefully. I therefore suggest it is worth the effort to get used to it.
- Louie
I like it Louie, much more logical!
Thank you Louie!
Of course the authors know and cover what you are talking about but your way of numbering makes thinking faster.
One may suggest along the same lines a compromise:
SB-9, BB-8, UTG-7, 4-6, 5-5, 6-4, 7-3, 8-2, 9-1, Button-0
for a 10 handed game. That is use both numbers.
However, all this is interesting for preflop opening analysis only. As many people have suggested after action has been taken position relative to the button is not always as important as position relatively to the last bettor or raiser.
Hence, after action the whole history of action and the position are necessary inputs to a programmatic analysis. I do not know an easy way to denote this especially if we want to account also for drops after the flop. For example it is crucial to know whether a preflop raiser dropped after the flop or in general to know whether a flop or preflop bettor or raiser dropped after a raise or reraise. Otherwise having a list of active players marking the bettors and raisers may be enough. Hopefully when we are at the turn we have at most three players and we can account for all of their actions.
I am getting tired.
Maria
This method of counting position was originally used by Norman Zadeh in his excellent book WINNING POKER SYSTEMS which was published a long time ago. We chose not to use it since almost all players count seats in the more conventional fashion. Just be aware, for instance, that if three people are walking in a ten handed game, then under the gun is middle position.
Unfortunately there is no standard. I try to understand everybodies scheme when possible. I'll toss another into the ring which is the one I use.
sb bb utg 4 5 6 7 8 (9) button
4-9 will change on number of players
I always try to use sb,bb,utg and button to avoid ambiguity. You can also use second to act and one off the button also.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Louie,
I also like your method. I believe Mike Caro used this method years ago in one of his reports or articles but for some reason it never caught on. (BTW, does anyone know why Mike doesn't post here much (or at all). A lot of Mike's stuff is very good and Mason and David post on RGP. I'm just curious.)
Since you posted this, I posted a related post on counting bets in the heat of battle. I would appreciate your comments if you have time.
Regards,
Rick
I've used this method since I first learned to play. But I never formalized it to the point of assigning numbers to seats. I just take a quick look before every hand at how many active players are behind me. Five or more is early, on or one off the button is late, the rest is middle. I got the idea from an old Caro publication (as Rick N. mentioned). John Feeney
If focusing on the number of bets in the pot causes you to miss the player reaching for his chips to raise behind you, then you've made a big error. If focusing on the number of bets causes you to miss the player that glanced at his hand when the third flush card landed, you may have eaten up any advantage that the precision gained you.
I try to focus on the players. I know roughly how much money is in the pot, and that's good enough. There are more important things to be looking for, IMO. I strive to play 'in the zone', where my feelers are stretched out all over the place and my situation awareness is almost subconscious. I find that I can't do this when I'm immersed in a zillion technical details.
If you focus on the minutae of the exact number of bets in the pot, you may not notice something much more important, such as the fact that the overcard with your flush draw will also be good if you hit it, or that a semi-bluff bet will win 50% of the time instead of the usual 20% or something.
Dan
Sorry, I posted this under the wrong thread. I've re-posted it where it belongs.
Position #7. Hand: 7s8s.
Preflop: UTG calls, #5 calls, #6 calls, I call, blinds call.
Flop: 9h 6h 2d: #5 bets, #6drops, I call, blinds drop, UTG raises, #5 makes it 3 bets, I call (?), UTG caps.
Turn: Ks: UTG bets, #5 raises. Action (?).
Three questions: should I call the reraise on the flop? what are my pot odds on the turn? do I have 6 or 8 outs?
My beliefs: calling on the flop is slightly questionable if I knew that UTG was going to cap at four bets. Because of all this action most likely I have 8 outs. At worse my pot odds are 4 to 17 on the turn and most likely (facing a set and two pairs or two sets) I am drawing to 8 cards out of 42. But maybe my pot odds are 2 to 13 or 3 to 15. And since most likely I will have at least two bets on the river if an offsuit 5 or T comes or even 3 or 4 bets I think I should call. Most likely (if UTG has a set of nines or sixes) I will have pot odds 3 to 15+2 which makes the draw 8 to 42 one of positive expectation.
So the big question is calling the reraise on the flop when I may have only 6 outs. Of course if I am facing 78 of hearts ... then I am in trouble on both flop and turn.
Maria
Six outs, because two of yours are hearts. Call and see the river. If you make your straight you will crush the likely sets against you. If a heart comes, check and call. If the board pairs, check and fold. Too likely one of your opponents has a full house., unless both are ram and jam types. Then I would call. Sometimes you just end up second best.
Maria,
I agree with your analysis of the pot odds on the flop. I count pot odds on the turn at 2:12 big bets if you aren't reraised. If you are reraised it's 3:15 big bets. Capped is 4:17 big bets.
From the betting action you described, you are probably not up against a flush draw, it sounds more like set vs. set or set vs. two pair, so you probably have 8 outs.
I think that the best approach may be to roughly estimate the probability that you are up against a flush draw. If there is a 25% chance you're against a flush draw and have 6 outs, and a 75% chance you're not against a flush draw and have 8 outs, this is a weighted average of 7.5 outs (.25 * 6 + .75 * 8).
This would give a positive expectation if you call 2 bets on the turn and are not reraised, one reraise would be close to zero expectation, capped would be a negative expectation. Plus you can expect action from at least one and possibly both opponents if you make a straight on the river, without the 5h or Th. You may want to check & call though if one of those cards falls. Of course if you are against 7h8h, you're drawing to half a pot at best. But it's not very likely for your opponent to have exactly that combination.
-Key
I feel that UTG had AhKh. He has big over-cards and the nut-flush draw. He raised on the flop as quite a few players do with a flush draw, to scare the other players out and semi-bluff. When it was raised back, he had no choice but to cap it. I do this all the time when I raise and am reraised and don't think it's too uncommon. He bet the turn as he picked up a big overpair. He probably just called after you folded the turn, correctly putting number 5 on a set of 9s. Now, after saying this, I am probably completely wrong, and would appreciate some information as to what these 2 held.
I don't see any of your calls flop being questionable at all. My guess is that you've got somewhere between 17% and 35% of winning the pot -- probably somoewhere in the middle, with a lot of dead preflop money, enough information that could keep you from paying off a better hand, and a strong likelihood that you'll not only be paid off but will pick up some extra bets. I think you're in a good situation.
I wouldn't have called on the flop when the 6 seat made it 3 bets for a few reasons:
1) You've flopped a straight draw and there are two flush cards on board. You shouldn't draw to your straight unless you're getting especially good pot-odds.
2) UTG check-raised. Check-raising (at least by typical players) is usually not done as a bluff. This player has what HE thinks is a good hand.
3) You knew that there was a strong possiblity of it being capped after the 6 seat made it 3 bets. You should be less inclined to call if your call will not "close the betting." All the raises really cut down your odds pretty bad.
4) Since four bets on the flop made you think "trips," that's one more way you can make your hand and lose (full house if the board pairs).
5) Because there are only 2 others in the pot with you, you're not really getting any pot-equity to make a draw worth-while with all the raising going on.
I know it hurts to let go of a draw like that. But one big edge you should have over your opponents is to be able to make the disciplined folds. In this case you had a draw under circumstances that could have made you second best hand. Most times, you won't even make your hand, but you will invest plenty of chips in the pot. Sometimes you will make your hand and still lose to a flush or full house (or quads), and you'll lose a whole bunch of chips.
Even assuming that calling is correct--as some people here feel. It wouldn't be so correct that you would have to call. Remember that chasing draws in aggressive pots will lead to higher fluctuations in your game. Then it becomes a personal choice as to whether or not you want to deal with the swings.
In any case, I don't think you'd be giving up much by passing in situations like these. But I seem to be the only one who thinks so.
daring to be different... mikeydoo
Mikeydoo,
Your different viewpoint is appreciated; listening to different opinions can only help me learn.
I believe that the pot odds on the flop justify taking off one more card, even with the two-flush. On the turn, it becomes a marginal call. I agree that calling in this situation will increase fluctuation greatly, in return for only a small gain in EV.
I think it is highly likely that one of your opponents, probably UTG, has a set of 9's. The question is, is the other opponent on a hearts draw? AhKh or even 7h8h are possibilities, which by the way have less outs than normal, since 2h or Kh pairs the board.
I think the most likely cards for seat 5 are: pocket 6's, AhKh, 7h8h. There are 6 ways to make pocket 6's vs. only 1 way to make AhKh and one way to make 7h8h, this means there is a 75% chance that Maria is not up against hearts.
Maria does not have to worry about the board pairing; she holds 7s8s, and the board is 9h6h2dKs. She is looking for a 5 or a T, otherwise she will fold. She will not call any bets after her opponent makes a full house; on the other hand, if the river is 5h or Th, she has made a straight against a possible flush, and will have to check & call.
Feedback welcomed, I'm here to learn.
-Key
Since Louie Landale just posted some thoughtful comments on counting position, I decided to post some related ideas on counting bets.
First, in structured limit holdem games, it seems to me that one should count bets rather than money since it is quite a bit easier. This is especially true when one moves a bit between limits. For example, both 15/30 and 20/40 are played in near proximity at Hollywood Park and the Commerce and both games use yellow $5 chips. IMHO, counting bets leads to far fewer mistakes and one can round off for the small blind fold in the 15/30 and count it as half a bet in the 20/40. (Note: In LA, the small blind is $10 in both the 15/30 and 20/40 games.)
Many players do in fact count bets, but most seem to keep track of big bets (i.e., turn and river bets). In the post today by Mike X regarding "Hold-em Laydowns", I believe the two (so far) other excellent respondents made small mistakes using the big bet method. I cut and pasted my method from the post under Greg Raymer as follows:
“Both you and Key mention the pot has 16 "big bets" when you face the river call. I got 34 "small bets" which is equivalent to 17 big bets as follows:
Pre flop: 4 players in for 3 bets = 12 small bets (oops, I/we forgot the small blind!)
On the flop: 3 players for 4 bets = 12 small bets
On the turn: 3 players for one "double bet" = 6 small bets
On the river Mike faced 2 double bets, which equals 4 small bets. My math indicates 34 small bets (plus the small blind) which translates to 17+ big bets and slightly better than 17 to 1 pot odds on Mike's call. “ [Note: I just noticed my wording above implies that he faced calling a bet and a raise on the river. I should have written, “On the river there were 2 additional double bets, etc.]
Anyway, I would appreciate any comments regarding what people think is the easier or more accurate method.
Regards,
Rick
Certainly (for limit poker) counting "bets" is superior than counting "money": "9 bets in the pot and it costs me two" allows easier analysis than "$135 in the pot and it costs me $30". In both cases you are getting 4.5:1. And the act of counting bets is easier than counting money: "4 times 3 is 12" is easier than "4 times $45 is $175 .. err .. $190).
I think the only issue is whether to count Small Bets or Big Bets. For me, it is natural to count small bets, then divide by two for the turn. However, since there is OFTEN a raise B4 and ON the flop, counting BBs from the start looks very promising. Think "half bets" and "full bets".
Priorities must be established to optimize my limited cranial abilities in the face of far too many things to think about. EXACT pot size is somewhat low on the list since it rarely matters, you get a good idea without any effort, and if you really need to know you can stop and count. Would I RAISE with 2nd pair if the pot is 13, call if it is 8, and fold if 7 or less? I don't know what the cut offs should be, so counting the exact pot size doesn't do much good in that case. No, I would rather look for the eagerness or anciety in which the player awaits the flop, and I will RAISE if I think the player does not need top pair to bet. My priorities are influenced by the facts that I can't memorize odds and even if I could, I can't remember numbers over 20 unless my shoes are off and my pants are down. (I've already heard the "20 and a half" retorts, so let that one go...) :)
In any case, consider an "assignment" to establish a couple-three methods of counting, do so the next time you are out, and keep good records for which method works for you. Since counting is easier when you are not involved, it MAY be the case that a complicated method works better when you are out, but a simpler methods works when you are involved.
- Louie
Mmmmm ... "The pot is 6 and a half bets and it costs me a half to call" ... the more I think about it the more I like it.
Yes, I know its $180...
Rick, to date, my practice has just been to look at the pot, take into account the possibility of future bets, and generally get a feel for whether or not I have the correct pot odds to call, raise etc. I do this almost instantaneously.
One danger of meticulously keeping track of bets is that you may give off tells. Sometimes, I can literally see players counting money/number of bets in the pot. This says a lot about the nature of their hand.
As well, poker drains me mentally. Meticulously tracking bets may further burden my already taxed resources (what with my small cranium and all). However, I suppose that as with most things, one can get used to it and at some point, it may become an effortless activity (once you get to that stage, I guess you also don't have to worry about the "tells" problem).
In any event, I am going to give your suggestion a try. I'll let you know how it's worked out in a few weeks time.
skp,
Don't get me wrong, I'm no advocate of performing anything mentally draining at the table that is not really necessary. A classic example is keeping a point count in Omaha (High or High/Low), which I (and many others) consider a waste of time.
Keeping track of bets is pretty easy and much easier than counting money. It actually saves you energy once you get used to it. For example, it frees your mind up for estimating future calls (which you can add to the current number of bets) you should get if you make your long shot and so on which of course is very important. It is also important to be able to make an estimate of the likelyhood you may make your hand and loose to a bigger hand. Knowing how much is in there keeps one part of the equation stable.
Of course, in the final analysis, I would rather be the type of player who keeps a rough count of the current pot and be great at making estimates of future action or the chances you will lose even if you make your hand. But it would be better to be great at both (I'm certainly not there yet on the later skill).
Regards,
Rick
P.S. By the way, your new essay was very good. Keep at it!
Rick,
I count the small bets and then divide by 2 on the turn. This method works fine for me, but I think the most important thing is that you are comfortable with whichever method you choose. I agree with you that counting the bets is worth the effort.
Sincerely,
Emil
If focusing on the number of bets in the pot causes you to miss the player reaching for his chips to raise behind you, then you've made a big error. If focusing on the number of bets causes you to miss the player that glanced at his hand when the third flush card landed, you may have eaten up any advantage that the precision gained you.
I try to focus on the players. I know roughly how much money is in the pot, and that's good enough. There are more important things to be looking for, IMO. I strive to play 'in the zone', where my feelers are stretched out all over the place and my situation awareness is almost subconscious. I find that I can't do this when I'm immersed in a zillion technical details.
If you focus on the minutae of the exact number of bets in the pot, you may not notice something much more important, such as the fact that the overcard with your flush draw will also be good if you hit it, or that a semi-bluff bet will win 50% of the time instead of the usual 20% or something.
Dan
I've only been playing for a short while, and had been struggling trying to count bets.
Now, I DO NOT count when I'm in the hand, but DO count when I'm NOT in the hand. I use the small bets, 1/2 them at the turn. I can already tell that I'm getting better and once it becomes second nature, I'll soon discover I'm counting in the hands I play as well. I agree with Dan, it's likley not critical to winning, but every advantage I can get is sure to help.
In replying to (OK, some would say over analyzing) Mike X’s post below regarding “Hold-em laydowns”, at one point I wondered what was the number of raises allowed in this game. I agree with Mason’s chapter in “Poker Essays Volume II” titled “Two California Rules That Need To Be corrected”. His essay indicates that whether there is a four raise limit (Nevada style) or a three raise limit (California style) makes a big difference.
(Note: For those who don’t have Mason’s book, he essentially states more hands are capped in California with medium strength hands because the capper does not have to fear a fifth bet from the reraiser.)
This is just a request to all posters on the forum to state the number of raises allowed when describing aggressive action or stating if the cap was reached. It often matters in formulating an accurate reply.
Regards,
Rick
I promise this will be my last post of the morning but I have been avoiding "voice mail hell" regarding problems with my auto insurance.
In my reply to Mike X's post regarding "Hold-em laydowns" I came up with an alternative play on the river which may have merit. I thought I would re-post it on top in order to get more comments. The hand from Mike X is as follows:
Mike X wrote: ”An apparently solid player raises from early position, gets 2 callers, I 3 bet in the BB with KK (both red). The flop comes Qc-7c-10s. I bet, solid player raises, gets 1 caller, I reraise, solid player reraises, woman behind him cold calls, I call. The turn is a blank. I check, solid player bets, woman calls, I call. The river is a 10c, which pairs the board and makes the 3 flush on the river. I check, solid player bets, woman calls, I muck. Solid player mucks! Woman wins with Q-J offsuit. Did I make a bad laydown? “
After over-analyzing the issue of whether Mike X should call, I came up with an alternative play as follows:
“One final note. There was another play on the river you may not have considered and that was to bet! With this bet and the scary river card you had a good chance of folding aces by the inside player and the woman could have had a busted straight or the hand she had (I assume she was a fairly weak player). If you get raised you muck as very few players can raise here without a hand that beats yours.”
Any thoughts? All comments and criticism are welcome.
Regards,
Rick
If you check, you might induce a bluff if someone was betting a straight draw all the way through. If you bet, you might get bluff-raised and fold the best hand. On the other hand, there is some chance that you can get a better hand to lay down if you bet. You have to balance all of these possibilities against the nature of your opponents to determine the correct play.
If you check and induce a bluff you stand to gain only one big bet. If you bet and induce a better hand to fold, you stand to gain the entire pot. This suggests that, all other factors being equal, you should bet because there is so much more to gain.
Of course it also depends on what kind of opponents you have. For example against a calling station you have no chance of making them fold a better hand, so you're better off to check and call. Against an opponent who is capable of bluff-raising on the end, you may also wish to check and call. The play of betting to induce a better hand to fold, probably works best against a weak-tight opponent.
this seems to be a clear check and call situation. unless the lady who was overcalling raised after the second player bet, I would call it down every time. While reading the post i was putting the re-raiser post flop on AQ or QQ, but the size of the pot on the end dictates a call, ...... UNLESS you know this player to be a very tight aggressive player, of which there are really not too many. most are loose aggressive (way loose). I just couldn't bet into a possible house or flush here, I'd be crying on the call, but I'd call. seeya
a bet on the end is undoubtably the best play here as long as you dont think anyone will raise bluff. a fold is wrong as the pot is too big and there are just too many drawing hands that many solid players could have here and follow through on the end. im assuming solid doesnt mean a tight cinch player but a tight good player that will play his hands.
I play in a game that is NOT LIKE the model game (Mirage 10-20) that HPFAP is specifically written for. I am posting my general strategy for a very loose, usually passive game that I play in. This can serve as a starting point for anyone starting out in a lower-limit game, and I hope the panel will help me refine these ideas.
$3-6 with a full kill to 6-12, blinds $1 and $3. The SB is immediately taken for the jackpot drop; the rake is $2 at pot 20 and $1 more at pot 30. Customary toke is $1 for a pot of $20+.
Caveat before I start: Of course, if I know my opponent(s) in a particular hand, I use that information instead of this general approach. I am building a pretty big "book." This is for dealing with the table when it is full of strangers, as well as for a lot of people that I know who do fit this loose passive template. Some of these people stay for every flop; and many will stay with any Ace, any King, or any 2 suited cards.
My general approach is to play very tightly, and within a hopefully winning strategy, pay this rake+toke not too often, and with bigger pots when I win. The typical table is full of calling stations who don't raise very much. I am also remembering TOP's advice (general for any game) that for a loose passive game with a small ante, tight play is correct.
Pre-flop: If there is a known raiser in the game, I play exactly by HPFAP, calling with only Cat.4 hands or better early, and more if the raiser has already acted. If it is loose and passive, I add Axs and non-gap suited connectors down to 54s, early, plus all pocket pairs. I eliminate Cat. 5 & 6 high-card hands, unless I am in late position and there has been more folding than usual. I do not play one-gap suited from T8s on down; I do not play Q9s and J8s.
In exceptionally good position or discount, i.e. button or SB paying 2/3 of a bet or BB calling one raise, all with an extra-large munber of callers, I add Kxs and the non-gap unsuited connectors down to 54o. Other than that, I don't defend my blinds. (PS - the true blind defense scenario - where everyone folds to a late player who raises to try to steal - never happens.)
If it is a kill (played 6-12), the table plays much tighter and much better. Because of this and also to reduce my standard deviation some, I restrict my kill calls to Cat. 4 unsuited high card hands and Cat. 3 suited hands.
I always raise with AA, KK, QQ, and AKo; usually with AQo; I mix it up with the high suited hands, calling more often than raising. JJ and TT I vary, raising if I think I can thin it to 1-2 opponents, otherwise calling. I almost always only call with 99 and down. (A single pre-flop raise usually doesn't thin the field very much.)
On the flop: I have adapted the approach from Card Player's recent reprint of Bob Ciaffone's "Playing in a Bigger Game." With a pocket pair up to KK, if an overcard flops and an opponent leads, I will usually dump it. [Is this too conservative?] I don't plan to stay and/or lead or raise without at least top pair. If I have an overpair or a split top pair, I am very aggressive. Two pair and trips, of course I stay; they get played differently depending on whether I want to knock people out or keep them in.
All drawing hands (which is really what I live for in this game) I just play by probability of winning if I hit, and the odds and implied odds. With the typical 4-6 callers, it is usually correct to stay for one bet on the flop with an inside straight draw (4 outs) or a non-top split pair (5 outs); then it is usually not a good bet on the turn. It is usually not a good investment to see the turn card with a non-top pocket pair (only 2 outs), unless I determine that my pair IS top pair; then I turn aggressive again.
Turn and River: Just play the hand. I am really tight and cheap; I don't play a hand that I don't expect to win, or have a good draw to win.
Am I on the right track here? Hope everyone is still awake.
Dick in Phoenix
I play in the same type of games, and agree with all your points. Four additional points I find useful:
1. The players take any check as weakness, and this combined with the fact that it takes more then a single bet to fold many players after the flop, leads me to check raise much more often then expected after the flop. Top pair w/ good kicker, two pair (without a pair on the board), or even a small set are check raise material. It is not uncommon to check raise the same player twice in the same hand.
2. With suited connectors place emphasis on the "connector", less importance on the "suited". This is because many play KXs, QXs, JXs, regardless of position. The no-gappers play best, as they have the best straight possibilities. If another player looks like they may have a flush too, I only play the small suited connectors strongly if I flop the flush, or if the flush comes via the back door. (Flush over flush is not uncommon.)
3. If the flop brings a pair on board, and you are certain someone else has the set, don't automatically muck a pocket pair if it's higher then the pair on board. It is about a 23-1 shot to fill up on the next card, but with 6-8 passive callers seeing the flop the implied odds often reward a look at the turn card. A bonus is that you get action when you catch, and usually a non-believer or 3 come along for the ride.
4. The big decision point is after seeing the turn card. If you stay for the last card, with a made hand, call on the river through hell or high water. I am constantly amazed at what gets shown down, in jammed pots. The pots are large enough, and the betting so out of sync with the players' holdings, that a call is mandatory.
I recall a near $400 pot in a 4-8 game, that was 8 handed, jammed before the flop which came J,rag,rag rainbow, jammed again, turn is a Q, triple bet around, and finally the river is a rag, which brought a 'bet and everyone calls'. Then no one wanted to show down. The winner was J9, over J6o, and the rest had God knows what. The Amazing Kreskin couldn't put anyone on those hands.
Larry
One more thing; if this game is like mine (and it sounds like it is) then be sure to give serious consideration to dumping top pair/ good kicker or an overpair if the board pairs on the turn (or was paired on the river) and someone raises you. I'm aware that the merits of this play vary wildly from game to game, but in loose PASSIVE games you're almost never wrong by dumping those A's.
After seeing "How Good is Lee Jones's Book" (thread above), I decided that I ought to take a look.
I didn't really need to put up this post. All of the above is covered by Lee. I think, just as HPFAP is the definitive work for mid-limit players, LLP is probably the single work of choice for low-limit players (no matter how good or knowledgeable you are!).
I feel somewhat pleased with myself, in that what I posted above is in basic agreement with Lee's suggestions. I had already figured out many of the major differences between expert games and no fold'em games, in terms of general strategy.
And thanks, Larry and GD, for contributing.
Dick in Phoenix
Hi all!
In a recent post by Stephen H. Landrum, he states that "the best scenario (in terms of expectation) with hands like AA and KK is to have capped preflop betting with a family pot".
On the other hand S&M wrote in HPFAP (p. 18) that if no one has yet called, almost always raise with AA, KK. "Part of the reason to raise with these hands is that they lose much of their value in large multiway pots".
Who is right?
I personally feel that 4 or 5 opponents for 2-4 bets would be the ideal situation. However, the possibility of a family pot will not usually dissuade me from getting in as many raises in as possible.
BTW, there was a long thread on this very subject which I started some 2 or 3 months ago entitled "Limping in with Aces". Lots of different opinions on this subject.
What you ask is a very difficult question mostly because it is ill posed.
Assuming that all players play well if it happens that you have AA and it is capped preflop I suspect that it is better than if most players do not play well and it is capped preflop. The reason is that you will encounter AK and KK and KQ and QQ and other high cards in the hands of good players that participate in a capped pot contest preflop and this is what you would like to see.
To push things to the extreme: in a lose game it may be the case (I do not say that this is probable but it could be the case) that six players have QJ, JT, T9, 98, 87, 76 which makes it very difficult to win.
Playing against random hands and all of them participating or playing against loose players and all of them participating or playing against good players and all of them participating makes a lot of a difference.
Hence, it may be the case that both Stephen and the authors are correct because Stephen speaks of a situation which may occur after he correctly (re)raises and various good players *correctly* reraise or get trapped and call the cap.
Maria
I agree with Stephen H. Landrum. Your EV is incredible with AA and KK capped-multiway (though MUCH more so with AA). (Your standard deviation is large too.)
S&M's quote was for AA, KK, QQ, AKo, and AQo. Certainly, this advice applies for AKo and AQo and probably for QQ, but I think any raise with AA or KK is strictly a value raise, and you should be disappointed whenever anybody fails to coldcall your raise when you have these hands.
If AA wins 30% of the time against 9 opponents, and the betting is capped with 10 players pre-flop, your equity in the $400 pot is $120 with only a $40 investment (in $10-$20). That's $80 bucks right there! Also, AA is definitely a brave hand before the flop, so your EV in these types of hands would be (significantly) more than $80.
Sure, you wll get sucked out on often, but think how many people will go four bets with you when the flop is "Ah 7h 7d" when they have hands like XhYh, Ax, 7x, or even 88-KK.
I agree with you. I don't understand what all the confusion is, of course you want everyone in the hand capped when you have pocket Aces. Of course it also helps if they are just as loose after the flop. This may be the only problem. If only quality draws stay in after the flop, your EV goes way down, but still very positive. But it seems as though that people who call with anything before the flop will also call with anything after the flop.
Pocket aces, if I remember correctly, will win 35% of the time against 8 other players, all playing to the end. 8 to 1 pot odds with a 3 to 1 hand makes it very profitable to play. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The figure I've seen is 30%, I believe. In any case 30% or 35% is about 2:1, not 3:1.
Cheers,
Andy B
I don't believe the two statements are contradictory. I think S&M are discussing the chances of taking a specific pot in a specific circumstance while SL is talking what situations leads to maximizing EV.
The way you play AA changes based on number of players but its still the best two cards you can have preflop. Its great both ways.
I'm with Stephen. With AA, your main concern is to build the biggest pot possible. I'd rather have 5 people calling 2 bets than 10 people calling one bet, but I'd also rather have 10 people calling 2 bets.
Dan
In a thread below, Andrew correctly points out that before you can put an opponent on a hand, you have to figure out the level of thinking that he is at.
When I see an unfamiliar face at the table, I usually assume that his poker thinking is at the base level. In other words, I always start with the premise that the unknown player is a weak player until he proves me wrong.
I'd be interested in hearing how others approach this.
As well, I'd be interested in hearing what clues you guys look for in the initial hour or so to size up an unfamiliar opponent's playing style and poker acumen.
Don't lose a bet for fear of losing a pot to an unknown and new to the game player. The worst it can do is cause others to misread you later on.
Weak players seem to have an aura about them. However, it only takes one misplayed hand by the newbie (assuming he's not on tilt) to assess his skill. Of course, you have to be specific and not general in using his particular weakness(es) to your advantage.
skp,
Mason Malmuth discusses this topic on page 171-172 in "Poker Essays II". He suggests the same approach as you have. That is, that a player should be considered bad until he proves otherwise. I also think this is a sound approach, since there are many more bad players than good ones.
Sincerely,
Emil
The number one give away in hold 'em is "do they call raises?" When playing hold 'em, if someone raises, you are next, and are not in the blind, there are very few hands that you should be calling with. You usually should be folding and sometimes reraising. When I see someone making these calls, and usually just once is enough, I know that their game needs a lot of improvement.
I look for two things.
1) What kind of hands he's showing down (is he routinely going to the river with Q6s, for example?).
2) How often he raises.
For what it's worth, I think you're right on. Assume they play poorly, then change your opinion if circumstances demand it.
Yes assume they are "weak"; but "weak" has different meanings in different levels of games. A typical "weak" 10/20 player is a strong 2/4 player. I am sure I am a "weak" 200/400 player. So assume they are "weak" but not "terrible" for the game you are in.
"Strong" players may "advertise". Being suspicious of advertising is often enough to allow you to recognize it.
- Louie
I had just sat down in a 5-10 game at the Taj when I was dealt pocket aces(clubs and diamonds). 3 to the left of the button. One call,one raise and I reraise. SB also calls.
Flop Q86 all clubs. All check to me and I bet,everyone calls. Turn is yet another small club, the two I believe, giving me the nut flush. All check to me. Should I just check here?
Danny S
I don't know about the quality of the players at your table, but if you had 4 callers (I think the number is 4?) after a flop with flush potential, someone probably has a set, and there's a good possibility that someone actually flopped a flush and tried to slow-play and it backfired when the fourth club hit the turn. The possibilities for the river I believe is for the board to pair and you lose, or it doesn't and you win. I would bet the turn, and hope someone calls with Kc or Qc. I would make someone pay to try to fill. With someone raising as you say before the flop, and only calling after your re-raise, I think the chances of the having a medium pocket pair is pretty good, and there's a chance the Q or 8 hit them...my 2 cents.
As background, seems like a loose group, given the calls on the three-club flop. Now that the fourth club has appeared on the turn, I think I would check, hoping that the Kc was held by another allowing him to bet. You could probably delay your response and call him, thereby extracting a certain bet on the river. If you bet on the turn, you will certainly lose one of these two and maybe both. Tough call on a great hand!
Dan,
good chance youll get 2 callers here and one on the end for 3 bets. if you check you will get one person to bet at you on the end maybe, and hopefully can get a raise in for 2 bets.
Dan:
You are describing a game that features several players who play too many hands and go too far with their hands. In addition, the pot is now quite large. You should bet every time.
On the other hand, if you were heads-up (before the flop) and it was not three bets before the flop, then a check makes more sense. Now there is value in trying to induce a bluff.
I bet. In addition to the reasons mentioned by Ray, there's a good chance someone may have a lesser club -- and if you're real lucky, someone has the King and you might get popped. You want SOMEONE to bet the hand; let it be you.
Bet it. The pot is big enough that you want to win it right now. You have to worry about somebody having two pairs or a set and making a full house on the river, you don't want to give anyone a free card that could beat you. If you're lucky you'll get action from the Kc, in which case I would even reraise to put maximum pressure on anyone trying to draw to a full house.
In this case, anybody drawing to beat me is likely to call, so checking is an option since it is very unlikely to lose me the pot. I would always BET if there were hands that could beat me that would fold.
Reasons to bet: ### To protect this large pot, just in case. ### Opponents will pay me off with a single pair; such as if they are mad at me. ### Opponents are whimps and would NOT have bet a set or small flush if they had it; meaning they may have good calling hands now but won't bluff the river. ### Opponents believe I would BET a non-flush over-pair or set (a bet disquises my hand). ### I've checked the nuts a couple times lately. ### This is a profitable game for stealing so they mustn't see me check the nuts. ### I am a beginner, confused, or otherwise brain-dead to the current situation, and I'm not SURE checking is right.
Reasons to check: ### Opponents are aggressive and WOULD have bet a set or small flush, meaning they are unlikely to call a bet but may bluff. ### Opponents will not pay me off with one pair. ### Opponents believe I would CHECK an over-pair or set (a bet gives away my hand). ### I have bet the nuts a couple times lately.
None of the good reasons above are compelling.
Since I usually play against loose but easily-made-paranoid whimps I would bet this hand every time without a second thought.
- Louie
The brave/scared concept should be fairly simple to understand. But for me and others that I've talked to, there seems to be something a bit slippery about it. Maybe that has to do with the fact that there are a number of ways in which hands can be either brave or scared, and it's easy to get too focused on just one. Then, suddenly that idea doesn't apply to another hand that you're thinking about, leaving you to wonder if in fact you did not fully understand the whole concept.
But since my recent post on the concept, I've found that nearly every time I've been at all confused about how the it applies to a hand or situation, one of the comments David made about it here on the Forum clears it up for me. He was clarifying his statement that brave hands, as opposed to scared hands, welcome future bets. He said:
"'Welcome future bets' simply means that the existence of future bets increases the EV of a hand compared to if it was all in. Those are the Brave hands."
That that one simple statement usually brings me back to the heart of the definition If you're not clear on the brave/scared concept, try applying it to any example you're trying to understand.
John Feeney
If you were certain when, and when not, you welcomed future bets, you would have total understanding of poker.
With total understanding you’d have no need for the concept of Brave and Scared.
Round and round we go.
Can anyone recommend a book about this game. They count four flushes and straights in "sousem". I think these are better than pairs. Any advices for 5 Card Stud would be also most welcome. Thank you.
I found "Stud Poker Blue Book" to be the worst poker book I have ever read. I don't know what's good.
Even if "sousem" beats two-pair they are sucker plays; except when you accidentally make a 3-flush/straight. I think they are between one and two pair.
You need to start with a pair or an Ace or two face cards bigger than everyone else's cards. Its VERY important that you start with the best hand; draw outs are infrequent and relatively expensive to try. There is no money to be made against sensible players, unless your stealing is superior. The purpose of "sousem" is to attract the suckers, and it works. Put the heat on them right from 2nd-street and make them pay to pick up their 3-flushes.
Since most sensible people will also be starting with predictable hands, you can be sure that the player who started with a Q and catches an 8 did NOT make a pair of 8s, so your 7s should still be good.
There is SOME merit to the concept that you should call if you can beat the bettor's board. However, you must ALSO be able to beat the actual or likely CALLER's hand, who is also likely to beat the better. So when a player bets a King you perhaps can call or raise with AT; but if the King is called by a sensible Jack then your AT must be dead-meat.
There are some brave maniacs who will gladly call when beat since they know you have an Ace or pair of Tens. These guys are perfectly willing to bluff if they catch a Jack; so expect to pay off such players when you start with a medium pair.
If you are percieved as conservative, and you likely will, then attempt a spactacular bluff on the river once in a while.
- Louie
"Even if "sousem" beats two-pair they are sucker plays; except when you accidentally make a 3-flush/straight. I think they are between one and two pair."
"You need to start with a pair or an Ace or two face cards bigger than everyone else's cards. Its VERY important that you start with the best hand; draw outs are infrequent and relatively expensive to try. There is no money to be made against sensible players, unless your stealing is superior. The purpose of "sousem" is to attract the suckers, and it works. Put the heat on them right from 2nd-street and make them pay to pick up their 3-flushes."
I disagree. Drawouts are not uncommon. 5-Stud become very different when 4-flushes and 4-straight beats a pair. Starting hands like 9Ts and 78s are very good (in pot-limit games). Your straights will often be paid off and sometimes suckers call when you make a 4-flush. Never play dead hands. If you never play unless you have the best hand at the moment you will not make much, if anything. There is money to be made against any player who is not as good as you are in this complex and entertaing game.
How are 4-flushes and 4-straights ranked against each other?
AcKsJc5c3c
AhQhTd4h2h
AdKcQcJh5d
What wins?
2 pair beat 4 flushes beat 4 straights beat single pair, and 4 straight-flushes are irrelevant if it's like most games that I've seen that include these extra ranks.
I would assume that the non-flush non-straight 5th card is the 5th card considered in the showdown, so AhQh4h2hTd (AQ flush) beats AcJc5c3cKs (AJ flush).
IMHO:
I don't have my calculator, but it appears to be about 9:1 against you catching two of your suit on the next 3 cards.
With 87s you are drawing to a draw that cannot call a single bet on 4th street, since you are getting only 2:1 payoff for your 4:1 dog hand. This is not like Holdem where you get 3/7ths of your hand for one bet all at once on the flop. Here you still face another bet after you get only ONE card; and then another. There appear to be few semi-bluff opportunities when you have a 3-draw, since there are few hands you can represent. And while beating a pair of Aces is very good, you will face 2-pair often enough in a big pot to reduce your win noticably.
I cannot imagine such draws being good in a pot-limit game, unless the opponents are particularly timid and will let you draw very cheaply and pay you off when you get there.
Is 87s better than 22? AK?
- Louie
"With 87s you are drawing to a draw that cannot call a single bet on 4th street, since you are getting only 2:1 payoff for your 4:1 dog hand."
In pot-limit Hold'em you almost never get odds for draw (unless it's an all-in coup). Yet you can sometimes call with a draw.
"This is not like Holdem where you get 3/7ths of your hand for one bet all at once on the flop. Here you still face another bet after you get only ONE card; and then another. There appear to be few semi-bluff opportunities when you have a 3-draw, since there are few hands you can represent. And while beating a pair of Aces is very good, you will face 2-pair often enough in a big pot to reduce your win noticably."
When you play (7s) 8s and catch an eight you can pic up the pot most of the time. 17 cards out of 50 give you a draw. A seven is a good card too. Also, if you play these hands you can win the pot when you have a hand like (7) 7 but make an open 3-flush. Where I play this game it has an ante so you cannot wait for the nuts. Don't play when you think you are up against aces.
I don't think 78s is better than AK in most cases. 22 is a trash hand.
One thing I would like to make clear regarding on of the statements made in this personal attack on me. This poster claims that this is the greatest bull market in history. I ran up against the following statistic yesterday: The average S&P 500 stock is flat for the quarter. 68% of the NYSE stocks are at least 20% off their highs. 83% of NASDAQ stocks are at least 20% off their highs. This is not indicative of a great bull market rally. I have a lot of opinions of what this is indicative of that I won't discuss. It is very obvious that although some averages are setting records, there are many languishing below their records. The record of the small caps is abysmal for instance. The current rally n the major indices are what is considered to be very narrow. Too bad this poster is more interested in making a personal attack than providing accurate information. What a personal attack like this indicates to me is that this poster has a revenge motive and I think it is fairly well known why a revenge motive exists and the particular people who have it. This poster has not bothered to leave a valid e-mail address which I believe speaks volumes about their integrity and character and indicates a very high possiblity that Jeff Nelson is not their real name. Tom Haley
Tom-
A pretty cryptic response (just who's out to get you;))? Anyway, your original post was an excellent one, and brought up an interesting point re: hand reading and how to react to the same. If someone wants to lay it on you for calling with 75s then that person clearly isn't seeing the big picture.
This year I play 15-30 hold'em in california for 47 session win42 lose 15 for $8,800 average 6 hour per session.My big loss is $ 2,000, it happened 5 times, big win is $ 1,200. Would anyone analysis this?
Correction: I win 32 ,lose 15 for $8,800.
Glad to.
47 sessions of 6 hours is 282 hours. $8000/282 = $31/hour or a respectable 1bb/hour. 282 hours this year is 94 hours/month or about 22 hours/week; combined with an average of 6 hour sessions is very reasonable for someone with a full time job but TOO MUCH for a job AND a family.
I THINK that 1bb/hour should result in a win/loss ratio of less than 32:15 (2+:1) (68%); more like 3:2 (60%); but besides the following I don't know what that may mean.
You have considerably MUCH larger losses than wins (my big wins are routinely 2.5 times my big losses). This to me means perhaps you have a tendancy to play when the game is not good because you are stuck. This may also mean you have a tendancy to want to leave a winner, and may leave a game that you should and would continue to play if you were about even.
Do you feel that you have not registered a loss until you cash out? Do you want to kick the fender when you lose? Have you occasionally said "I knew I should have left when I was $xx ahead!"? Do you take your Lady Friend to the place with the great White Clam Sauce only when you win? Does the win/loss ratio REEL more important than your hourly rate? Will you stay and play anyway when there are no good games? Do you only post-analyze hands you lost? Is playing 10/20 beneath you? Is your confidence today a direct function of yesterday's result?
If all these answers are "NO" than I am out to lunch and please disregard this post; your results are within reasonable statistical possibility.
If more than two are "YES" than I suggest your technical abilities far exceed your attitude. Focus more on the QUALITY OF YOUR PLAY: you should feel GOOD if you play the heck out of Aces (something you can control) and get drawn out on the river (something you can't). Eat White Clams (with Rumano, of course) regardless of your result. Routinely question your play in pots you WON; especially if you out-drew someone. Read the 2+2 theory and essay books. Play Caro's "Positive Poker" audio tape. Schedule some fun non-poker activities.
Know that "its all one long game ..." yady yady ... easier said than done.
- Louie
I read most 2+2 books,I don't steam...stay if game good,I like to know if I can make it as a pro...how many hour to guarantee that I'm a winner.BTW I just came back from 7 hours session win $ 2,200...33 win 15 loss.
I don't know how many hours of your rate and varience is needed to "prove" you are a winner, with say 99% confidence; but I suspect between 1000 and 2000 hours.
Turn Pro?
Playing recreationally is mostly about technique. Playing professionally is mostly about your life.
You must have a very big bankroll as calculated by Mr. Malmuth. You must be willing to "work" during quality family time. You should get Medical Insurance. Is $30/hour enough for you? Can you label players as playing better or worse than you? Do you know WHY you are winning (spot their mistakes,..)? Are you faithfull in keeping you poker "capitol" separated from your spending money? Are you ..err.. have you been on a lucky streak? How can you tell? Why are your win/loss ratio and peaks unusual? How can you tell when you ARE steaming? Are there times when you do NOT play since you mentally or emotionally off kilter? Is there a selection of games nearby and are they likely to stay good? Do you have a poker friend to bounce ideas off of? Does playing a big pot excite you, either with elation or depression? Will your mate understand?
You must be financially and emotionally prepared for the inevitable test(s): months long losing streaks.
Your future spouse will prefer that you turned pro and failed rather than never trying it. However, judging by the tone of your questions I would guess that YOU are not yet ready, even if your ABILITIES are.
Securing a part-time job to pay the bills and play poker full-time is an excellent option. Reconsider after a year.
- Louie
I'm finally winning consisently at 4-8 no-fold'em, and am trying to move up to 10-20. For the first time, I have to deal with stealing and defending blinds. The stealing I'm starting to figure out, butI could use some good general strategy outlines for defending blinds.
>>The stealing I'm starting to figure out, butI could use some good general strategy outlines for defending blinds.<<
I hope this doesn't sound like a cop out, but there's a very workable set of guidelines for this in _Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players_. Once you've read it, however, don't think that all you need to do is just go out and apply it in a rote way - though it will get you on the right track. Supplememt it with at least the following before you make radical changes to whatever you're doing already:
1. Do some thinking about what kinds of hands play best in a blind defense situation. Just because you've decided that you're going to defend with hands down through Group 6, doesn't mean that you should defend with just any group 6 hand. (Consider for instance the differences between AT and 86s for this purpose.) Nor does it mean that you should necessarily defend with every hand above Group 6. Nor does it mean that you should necessarily rule out every hand below Group 6. I'd frequently rather defend my big blind with A9 (Group 8) than with 65s (Group 5).
2. Do a lot of thinking about heads up play after the flop. Once you decide to take a hand up against an apparent steal attempt, the nex step is to play it well postflop. Read up on short handed play. But think too about how this steal situation differs from a true short handed game ("mind set" stuff mostly). Check the archives here for past threads on the subject. There have been a couple of good ones that I remember.
3. Think as well about how your particular opponents and their perceptions of your play figure into what hands you shoud defend with and how you should play postflop. What kinds of hands will this person try to steal with? How does he play postflop? How does that impact the kinds of hands you should defend with? What kinds of hands does he expect you to defend with? How does he expect you to play them? Is your curent image with him better for stealing or for getting paid off if you make a hand? All of these things (and more) factor into what you defend with and how you play it. Hope that's of some help.
John Feeney
If you are "finally" beating the 4/8 then I suggest you are not ready for full time 10/20. For now, pick your shots carefully.
2+2 rankings are based on averaging a variety of situations. As you know, trouble hands go way down when someone else raises in early position. However, short handed play (which includes the times when several people fold) is TROUBLE HAND heaven; so such hands go way up in rankings and suited connectors go down; thus the previous poster's correct preference for A9 over 65s. Basically you need a new set of rankings for short handed play.
The better player's implied odds is very great head's up. Be honest as to whether you are the better player.
If the late position raiser is conservative then you should also play conservatively after she raises. However, you must gamble if she is aggressive.
The show down of a head's up steal hand will often result in one small pair winning. Kickers are rarely a factor (Aces with a 2 will win almost as often as Aces with a K). Check-raising the flop with ANY pair should be routine against aggressive stealers and bet for value on the turn. So, check-raising with any DRAW or any OVERCARDs should also be routine.
You need to know at what point the aggressive opponent will STOP being aggressive and play his hand for the show down. Many will back-down after your FIRST raise. Others require another bet or raise. (You need to know if they may raise again on the turn with a flush draw). Some will routinely call the flop and fold the turn. Others will routinely play straight forward on the turn regardless of what you do (so you could routinely check-call the flop and either check-fold the turn or bluff the river with nothing). Recognizing these tendancies will allow for easy adjustments in strategy, so long as you think about it ahead of time.
"There is no subsitute for knowledge of the opponent." - Brunson.
A conservative ring game strategy can be used as a spring board for a very profitable aggressive head's-up strategy; at least against the routine aggressive 10/20 "shark" wanna-be; who may not notice or can't adjust to the difference in your style.
- Louie
In a very loose game, where players also call too much after the flop, what additional hands (that aren't playable normally) can be played in an unraised small blind?
What about in a tight, tough game where there are 1-3 limpers and the big blind virtually never raises preflop?
What I do now: in either type of game, I play only the hands that would normally be played for a full bet in late position. Anything weaker than that hits the muck. I'm wondering if I'm giving up a lot of profit, given the loose calling requirements in the small blind in holdem and the fact that Omaha-8 hands run close in value, especially in shorthanded pots.
I think you hit the nail right on the head when you mentioned that most hands run close in value. You are playing too tight in this position. Also note that being first to act in Omaha8 is not as bad as in Hold 'em. You didn't mention what fraction of the bet the small blind represented, which also effects your play.
Danny S
The "nut" nature of Omahaha hands does in fact reduce the affect of position. But you are considering playing weak SB hands that "improve" to non-nut hands. These hands do TERRIBLY in early position, since you will have to either bet into the jaws of death or be faced with a bet indicating you are PROBABLY but not definately beat. That's bad news.
Non-nut Omahaha hands have -EV in early position; worse in an aggressive game. Yet they may be playable in late position since they can comfortably bet if checked to and pass when bet into.
Now its another story if you are considering hands that are a long shot to make the nut or nut-draw, such as KhKs9h5c where you can flop top set or Axh nut-flush draw, and may be worth a fraction of a bet.
CONTROVERSIAL OPINION ==> "Hot and Cold" hand analysis is misleading. I think that a hand that wins 10% of the time all the nuts is worth much more than a hand that wins 14% of the time, none of them the nuts: I believe A29K is more valuable than 3457.
- Louie
I'm referring to hands that can make the nuts, but that don't do so frequently enough (and that don't have sufficient redraws) to be played in normal situations. Am I giving up too much by folding hands like KKQ4 double suited, 235Q, AJJ5 with the ace suited? (For 1/2 a bet in the small blind with many bad players in who take their hands too far)
These hands are weaker than the hands HLSFAP recommends for late position play, and I recognize the danger of flopping the nuts without redraws. But given that in the same situation in holdem you can often play 86o or 72s for 1/2 bet, I'm thinking that maybe I'm playing too tight in the SB.
And in tighter games, the hands run closer in value. Against a weak-tight big blind and one middle limper who only plays low hands, a high pair should be a decent holding.
dan says, "I'm referring to hands that can make the nuts, but that don't do so frequently enough (and that don't have sufficient redraws) to be played in normal situations. Am I giving up too much by folding hands like KKQ4 double suited, 235Q, AJJ5 with the ace suited? (For 1/2 a bet in the small blind with many bad players in who take their hands too far)"
ray says,
good players will win money with these hands in cases as you describe. bad players and inexperienced players will lose.
dan says,
"These hands are weaker than the hands HLSFAP recommends for late position play, and I recognize the danger of flopping the nuts without redraws. But given that in the same situation in holdem you can often play 86o or 72s for 1/2 bet, I'm thinking that maybe I'm playing too tight in the SB."
ray says,
yes you are for a game with bad players and those hands in holdem only win from really good players and bad players or even average players will lose lots with them.
dan says,
"And in tighter games, the hands run closer in value. Against a weak-tight big blind and one middle limper who only plays low hands, a high pair should be a decent holding."
ray says,
a high pair with nothing else is hard to win with even if you get in for free. jj is not a high pair.
This hand is not terribly bothersome - I'll tell you in advance that I won a nice pot. But I am left with the feeling that I left one big bet on the table that I didn't get for myself.
I am SB with Ah 4h. 3 call to me, I call, BB checks. The flop is Qh Jh 3h. Thank you, dealer! I bet, BB folds, UTG calls, and a woman in middle position (whom I don't know at all) raises. The player between her and me folds, I call, and UTG folds. I am now heads-up with the raiser. The turn was a blank; I bet (the Stop&Go), and she looked confused, then called. The river was another blank, I bet, she called. Of course I won, I had the nuts; her hand was QJ for top two pair.
In my loose passive game, my lead bet on the flop is clearly correct. Many flops get checked around, especially with a scary board like this one. And I think my "Stop" on the flop is also correct, so I don't announce my hand too early with the small-bet reraise. But I am left with the feeling that if I had let her keep the "lead" that she had because of her raise, checking to her, I could then have check-raised her either on the turn or the river, and gotten one extra bet. Comments?
Dick in Phoenix
I like the bet on the turn.
She could have been raising with a variety of hands on the flop which she might check with on the turn and then fold on the river if she doesn't improve or if a scare card (i.e. another heart) hit. With those same hands, she may well call your bet on the turn.
Also, if she had a flush, she may raise you on the turn because she may figure that you are using the stop 'n go in the traditional way (i.e. a probe bet to see what the flop-raiser will do on the turn). This then will allow you to reraise (and I suggest you do that instead of waiting for the river to checkraise again because a scare card could either inhibit her from betting or you from raising). If she did have a flush, you would likely only get two bets out of her on the turn by checkraising. By betting, you get three bets out of the typical player.
Also, she may just raise you on the turn again with a hand like AQ or KQ with the intention of checking down the river if she does not improve.
IMO, slowplaying should be a rarely used tactic in limit hold 'em. Bet 'em when you got 'em because often you'll be betting when you've got less than the nuts.
Dick in Phoenix
I know what you mean by 'Stop and Go'. I think the technique sucks.
The problem is not with your bet on the fourth card, but with your call on the third. On the flop, you should do whatever is necessary to get money into the pot which can't win, and drive out hands which could. Depending on your table, you would either bet then reraise, or checkraise. I don't see how calling the raise on the third card is in your favour. What do you want to do, 'trap them in' when the pot is clearly big enough to take down while your hand is still fragile?
I think that if you're going to feign letting someone else take control of the betting (ordinarily you should keep control), you need to checkraise her on the fourth. The way I see it, your hand is either better, in which case you should bet the max, or it is worse, in which case you should fold. If it is better, and yours is, then two bets are better than one.
A problem that I will mention in addition is that the Stop and Go is 100% readable. A good player will know what you're up to - and you will develop the bad habit of calling which you will then mistakenly use against those good players.
The only way it's not readable is if you also bet whenever you would otherwise call, but are not likely to get raised. Say you had just the Ah in that example, and you are sure that the woman would not have raised you on the fourth. Then, I'd say your play was correct. The call on the flop is now destined to entice calls behind you to give you a return for your 1.9 to 1 shot.
Raise or fold, dude.
Another Dick
Winning 11sb is a "nice pot"?
Yes bet out on the flop. The call on the flop is not terrible since the UTG is likely drawing dead, hopefully to a straight, your hand is only vulnerable to very unlikely runner-runner full houses when nobody else would have filled, and the pot is still small.
With the threat of a complete hand, this "Stop-and-Go" technique, fishing for a Raise, only works against maniacs, or hyper aggressives with a flush, and those with FPS who "know" about calling then betting the turn when no threat comes. "Woman" rarely fall into any of these categories. I would expect the typical "woman", especially a middle-aged one who can't play bridge, to just call even with a small flush. I would also not expect her to raise for a "free" card, so she is likely to bet the turn, and I would go for it.
- Louie
Could someone explain to me why I should raise a pair of sevens, eights or nines, before the flop. It seems it is almost always overlayed at least once or twice on the flop. It just seems to me you would want to see the flop as cheaply as possible. Also, some earlier discussion about rather having a 7-5, than a 7-6. Why is that?
NIGHT OWL
The difference between 7s and 9s is fairly large. By raising (esp. in late position) you are trying to set yourself up to be able to win by either having the best hand or stealing the pot when the action is weak.
I believe the conversation you are talking about was 75s vs. 76o. Does the flush possibility outweigh the extra straight? Is anything added when you make 2nd pair because your cards are not connectors (more deceptive)? I lean towards 75s but they are both speculative hands that want to be played for a little as possible with as many people in as possible.
The argument for raising w/ medium pocket pairs is that when you do hit your set you've got a good chance of getting overcards to chase you (due to the size of the pot).
Maybe its the games I play in but medium sets are hidden enough to get more then enough action. Manipulating the pot size so that the overcards will call isn't much of a problem. In fact you could make the argument that keeping the pot small preflop increase the value of a semi-bluff when you don't make your set.
I tend to agree. But that, at least, is one of the main arguments for raising pre-flop with something like 9's in the hole.
Situation I:
I got AsAc UTG, raised and got called by 3 other players, plus SB and BB. I bet the flop of QsTs3s and turn also. Only one caller left to me on the river, I doubt he has a flush since I was told by a friend he's a very good player though I had never played with him before. But he would not call my raise with KXs. I put him on AQ or something like that. Then I bet the river and got raised. I thought for a while and finally paid him off to see his pocket T.
My question is, Should I bet the river at all? If he got nothing he would not call my bet anyway; if he got something, with that dangerous board, he would have me beat already.
Situation II:
All mucked to me right to the button seated by the above-mentioned player. I raised with A5 suited and the player behind me 3 bet me with 67 suited. And the BB called. Flop came 35T. Blind checked, I bet and called by the player. Turn 2, and I bet again and called by both. I'm pretty sure the blind is on a flush draw. River 7. I checked and the player checked. He won the pot with pair of 7.
Should I check the river?
Hope some experts give me some advises on my play of these two hands. Thanks!
You asked for experts...you got me...sorry ;-)
On the first hand you actually answered your own question. You put him on a pair of Q's with top kicker and that's how his hand appeared from the way he played it. I would bet it everytime on the river hoping to get called by a pair of Q's.
Do you call the raise? ask yourself if there is any hand he could legitimately have, that loses to a pair of A's (like KK maybe) that would be worth a raise on the river...I think not.
Then ask yourself if this player could check raise bluff on the river...(there are not a lot of players around that do this in 10/20 games)
Then...make a solid laydown...but never let on that you laid down AA....pretend like you missed your draw with AK and one spade.
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
Recently I've noticed an influx of new posters, many of whom are new to the game, and virtually all of whom have showered Jones' book with praise. While I agree that much of what Jones says is 'good advice', at least on a general level, it seems to me that his playing strategies are deeply flawed. Here's a couple examples.
1) Limiting preflop raises to A's, K's, occasionally Q's-T's in early position, AK and AQ.
I can't be sure, but intuitively this pre-flop strategy seems like a disaster. Not raising on the button w/ QKs or AJs? Huh?
2) Folding on the flop when all you have are overcards.
You're two to the right of the button w/ AQo and raise and five of you see the flop, which is ragged. It's checked around to the player on your right, who bets, and you-- what? fold?!
You're getting 11:2 here if you raise (assuming both the blinds are in) on what's essentially a 3:1 dog. Further, you may get someone out there to call with something like an underpair (or some kind of goofy draw), thereby increasing your immediate odds. Your implied odds are fairly good, since most low limit players will showdown if they had top pair on the flop, and there's a chance you'll win it all right there.
3) A general lack of discussion re: semi-bluff opportunities on the flop and turn. True, many low limit games are of the no fold 'em variety, but it's not EVERY HAND that sees eight players still in on the turn, and a well-timed semi bluff bet or raise here can win you a fairly good sized pot.
Don't get me wrong-- on the balance I think it's a pretty good book. But I wonder just how far it can take a player, even at the lower limits. YPsi1972
Just noticed that my intro paragraph is a little harsh. When I say 'his playing strategies are deeply flawed' what I really mean to say is that 'some of his playing strategies...". Like I said, I think it's a solid book-- I'm just curious to see if any other posters have the same problems with it that I do.
I agree somewhat with your assesment. I believe it is a good book "when used in conjunction" with other material. One point missing would most likley be how to alter playing style as the game changes. As you say, it's not always 7 players on the flop. I've found it is important that when the hand can be played shorter after the flop, it is to your advantage to try to raise out better players (who will fold to a raise) in an opportunity to play heads up or 3-way against weaker opponents.
Another thing I've noticed in Low Limit that I read recently, a raise on the turn is almost always not a bluff. I have found that to be VERY true at these limits.
First, let me preface this by saying that I like the Jones book very much. However, there are a few flaws. First, the game conditions that he describes are not as ubiquitous as he implies. I've played most of my low-limit hold 'em in Las Vegas and Connecticut and the games are much tighter than the typical game he describes. For example, if one were to play the 1-4-4-8 during a typical afternoon at the horseshoe in Vegas, he or she probably wouldn't see more than 6 people stay after the flop very often.
GD:
I'm really glad you asked this question to everyone on the board, as I'd like to hear everyone's experienced opinions. I hope this thread will be around still when I return from my honeymoon on 4/20. But before I go, I'll log in my opinions and comments as a new player.
I'm probably one of the new posters you're referring to (ok, so I'd like to think I'm that noticed) that extolls the value of Jones' book. From reading RGP posts it seemed like THE BOOK I had to get if I were going to start playing HE and do well. I have also heard since that Lou Kreiger's Hold'em Excellence is an excellent starting point, even for HE rookies like myself. But frankly, I'm looking forward to studying HPFAP next.
I feel that WLLH is a must read for anyone who has no, or little HE experience who seriously desires to improve their game at low limit HE Poker, and not just "gamble" like many low limit players. A must read. Period.
I think the two keys to keep in mind when analyzing Jones' book is 1.Who's reading this? and 2.Low limit is practically a different game than mid (10-20 & up) and high limit HE. But it's really should be just a starting point, like first grade HE or something, a base on which to build further studies and experience on. Some players will, some won't expand on that base but even alone it provides the tools necessary to at least hold your own in most low limit games (yea, yea, I know, while the rake bleeds all of the money away as we pass chips back and forth.)
I think a few of the strengths of Jones' book for new players can easily be seen as "flaws" for more experienced players. I'll just expand on the basics of what you mentioned:
The book is very conservative. GD, raise with AQo in late position? You must be mad! AA, KK, AKs, maybe AKo if late position and maybe QQ-TT if you're sure it will thin the field. And if you don't got two big cards in anything but late position, you're a spectator. Got AQ and the flop (which 7 people see, unraised) comes 369 two suited... throw em away, another hand will be dealt in two minutes. Got AXs in early position, throw it away (I have a tough time with that one, I like AXs). Bluffing? Slow play? Forget it, it's rarely correct in low limit games.
Too conservative? Maybe. Probably. But it provides a new player with what we really need: Clear guidelines on what and how to play when we get started. I happily throw away Ax (small kicker) in almost every circumstance. Why? Lee told me to. Frankly it's one last thing for a newbie to worry about as we try to keep up and count bets and pot odds and outs etc... Last week at a boring conference people around me probably thought I was keeping copious notes on the speaker... but if anyone looked at my paper they would have seen:
Early Position: Raise: AA,KK,AKs Call: QQ-TT,KQs-JTs, AQs-QTs, AK-KQ, AQ Middle, no raises: Raise: AA,KK,AKs,(AK) Call QQ-77(add 66-22 if loose passive), etc...
With a whole 6 hours of playing experience under my belt, my pre-flop and much of my post-flop decision making is already automatic in my mind. I know I can't play unsuited cards worse than AQ if I'm in early position. I can't! Lee said so, I'll lose money! And until I get more experience and education (including the expert posts on this board) - I'm believing him. It's kinda funny because you "caught" me on this in my response to an someone's earlier question on this board on how to play a particular hand. My answer really was how I would have played it, but in essence I answered that way because Jones said that its the way to play it.. and I bought into his thoughts on that particular hand so my answer was textbook Jones.
But as I said before, WLLH should be a strong base that future knowledge should be built on. Thanks to someone on this board I've bought in to the idea that 2 overcards like AQ with a ragged flop of 639 shouldn't necessarily be tossed away, but rather it should be treated like a drawing hand and it's ok to see the turn card for only one sb if the pot odds are right.
One last point would be that Jones' conservative approach will make new players like myself think about something very important -- Discipline. Like most low limit HE players, new players, even knowledgable new players don't want to go to the casino to fold all day (especially when the new player lives in WI and has to drive 2.5 hours to get there). So Jones' conservative limits of playable cards can suddenly be stretched into some questionable calls by newbies who really don't have the discipline to be patient and apply what Jones tries to teach them. I think this is the right approach, start off super tight and learn when and how to loosen up as you gain experience.
As I head off to the Southern Caribbean next week, WLLH will be in my carryon so that I can go over it for the 4th or 5th time (if my new bride doesn't chuck it off of the cruise ship ;) ). But, I'll end with this - the $20 investment in WLLH really buys something crucial for new players. Confidence. Confidence that I can walk up to any low limit HE table, apply the "rules" that Jones' lays out in his book, and I can hold my own, right away. As a new player I need that confidence in my basic play, because I'm less confident of all the other things truly involved with playing poker.
This is just my opinion.... and you did ask. :) For what it's worth.
-Michael
P.S. My thanks to everyone on this great forum for helping newbies like me become better players.
GD - You had a response to my post below, "Strategy for a Loose Passive Hold'em Game" (April 6), so you know that this is a subject of great interest to me. That was written before I read Lee's book. I had figured out for myself quite a few things that he recommends for no fold'em games. Not that I'm the smartest, but clearly the games are different.
IMHO, Lee's book provides good conservative basic strategy for someone just starting to play hold'em. I liked it.
Dick in Phoenix
5-10, loose passive for the most part. 7 players pre-flop, no raise. QJs in sb, call, K-10-9 rainbow, I bet, 3 call, raise , 2 more callers, I raise and 3 fold, original raiser and 2 on right call. Turn card is small but suits one on the board. I bet, called by all 3. River misses, another small card, I bet and called on river by original raiser. Question, was it right to bet/re-raise the flop or should I have just called, then checkraised on the turn. As I see it, I took out 3 players who would likley not have called the turn (or may have drawn a runner-runner flush out on me), and got 3 more small bets and took control of the hand. However, check-raising the turn may have gotten 6 or more big bets in instead of 3.
Thoughts?
Multiway action...you've got the nuts...bet the sh*t out of it. If one of the three original limpers had a gut shot straight draw to tie (or beat) you, you will have done well if your reraise on the flop got them to muck. Also, a flopped straight with no freeroll potential is usually a vulnerable holding IMO. When the pot gets big, I don't give slowplaying a second thought. I just don't do it.
BTW, I doubt that you would have got 6 big bets into the pot if you checkraised on the turn (more likely just 4). On the other hand, you may have got none if you tried for a checkraise and no one bet.
That's the problem with slowplaying. A correct slowplay usually only nets you one extra bet. An incorrect slowplay could cost you multiple bets (or worse yet the full pot if your slowplay allows someone a chance to hit a miracle card).
I would not slow play this flop, because the 3 large board cards make it likely that others have part of this flop.
Perhaps a slowplay would be more in order if you had 67 and the board flopped 4 5 8, as it is less likely that top pair here will be inclined to call. IMO the texture of the flop is an important factor here.
Larry
"Need some opinions" .... they're playing my song ....
As skp suggested a typical heads-up early position slow-play risks 3sb to gain just one. You have to be real sure it will work before doing it. One thing this means is that the raiser would NOT raise for a "free" card.
Nothing wrong with leading out with that hand. MANY people would auto-check it and assume all "good" people would also; so you end up disguising your strength with a bet! That's the "nuts".
The fact that 2 people called the opponent's raise indicates a very likely bet on the turn, so slow-playing is certainly an option. This slow play risks a sure 9sb to win 6 (3 behind you and an additional 3 from the late callers); and slightly increases the chance of losing. But the risk is MORE than 9 since one of the early 3 may call the raise, and the raiser may raise again.
To me, slowplaying in early position for value doesn't add up often. To me, its greatest benefit is to encourage the opponent to later give me early position true "free" cards when I need it.
I may be tempted to slow-play this one if the raiser has SEEN me attempt an early position "free card" (thththtrrrrrpdt!) play recently. .. Err .. I mean seen you, since (as many of you have guessed) I never do that.
If the raiser is not timid (auto-check the turn) but not a fool (raise 4 people with that board with a weak hand): what you should do is ReRaise and then Check-Raise. Hah!! Now THAT I have done; risking 6 to win 6 is MUCH better than risking 9 to win 3.
=== Compared to most techniques, Slow playing for value is more a function of the opponent than it is your hand or the situation.===
- Louie
I think you played the hand perfectly except I think I would have check-raised the flop knowing that with 7 players in an unraised pot,someone will bet with that combination of cards. I don't remember who said it but I will never forget it-"When you flop a straight, it can only get worse". What about a suited ace with one of their suits on the flop, that player may call 1 bet but if you are very aggressive they would be incorrect to do so. Play this hand very aggressively.
I'm now at 24 hours of Low limit play and I'm looking for insight into some of my general play that may be incorrect and some things I've noticed I'd like some opinions on.
My play:
1. Betting flop w/second pair and 3 to flush (2 flush on board). I have done this on ocaision (with J or Q of suit) and have gotten somewhat burned. Do I need to learn how to read the other players and get out when contested. Or should I not be betting these? Suited in my hand, I understand, is a much easier bet, or is it? Eg. 78c, flop Kh4c8d.
2. Raising with KQ pre-flop (or sometimes worse) to attempt heads-up or 3 way (usually vs poor players). I've tried this a couple of times and it has been about even for me. Only in late position with few callers, and I figure if I only 2 or 3 of us on the flop, I'm better off. Example was KQs, re-raised a mid-position loose player, an got heads up. He had pocket 8s and I lost, but if I let the blinds play I'm likley in worse position. But am I doing this too often perhaps?
3. A couple of times I've noticed hands where, heads up, I've bet on flop, been raised and then called to turn/ river with drawing hand. Then I discover he had me beat, but may have folded if I had re-raised or been more agressive on turn. Example, I have 9J, flop is TQA. Turn is blank, but river is 9. I call on end and lose to A4. Perhaps a bet on turn or re-raise on flop, etc, could have got me the hand. Is this knowing the players?
4. Calling to end with early best hand. Perhaps I'm doing this too often. AA and lose to trip 6s, the second six coming on the turn. Against an extremely poor, loose player, who I know could have anything (ie. cold calling and re-raising w/J-6), and I call to end and lose an extra 2 big bets. This same person, however, also bets second pair, no kicker to the river, so I figure not calling is a greater mistake. Since I can't put these players on a hand should I always call to end, re-raise, or get out when the board is scary?
5. Betting early w/3 flush and 3 straight draw (e. 89c, 7h-2s-Kc), I do almost always, perhaps I should vary more?
Things I've noticed:
1. Many players seem to simply call the flop with the nuts or near-nuts, but always raise or re-raise the turn. A raise on the turn I've rarely found to be a bluff or semi-bluff.
2. No need to advertise or worry about table image. Even though some people notice I'm tighter, my raising doesn't scare anyone and worse hands will still call my raise.
3. Nobody shows on the river if they lose, and bad etiquette to ask to see the cards. Do I ask or should I get along with the table? Also, I tend to show, should I also hide my hand?
There's more, but it's about time I got back to work.
All opinions/advice/etc is greatly appreciated.
Also, FYI, I was up $380 after 22 hours (playing mix of 3-5,4-8 and 5-10) and met my first bad beat run (AA lost twice to small trips, for eg) and lost $260 in hour 23 and 24. Now I know what it means trying to control yourself and stay off tilt (which I actually did!)
I just re-read, in 5. I don't mean to say I bet this early, I do call with this hand however, and then get out on the turn if I don't hit. I meant that 2nd or 3rd pair w/3 flush or straight I often bet early.
Kevin,
It would be easy for me to say that you're doing a great job, especially with your positive win rate after 24 hrs, but remember, that 24 hours is just the tip of the iceberg into learning the tendencies of your opponents. This is probably the most important part of playing this game. Once you have a good "feel" for what your opponents are doing, you'll be able to follow up with the proper plays, no matter what the particular situation is, even if it means mucking your pocket AA's! Here's to your continued success.
Bill
(I had to get out for a minute, so this is in 2 parts.)
5. This is not enough help for this already weak hand, and I would get rid of it unless I had four cards to my hand on the flop.
Your comments:
1. You are right -- what people do on the turn is much more likely to indicate where they really are. Sure, you might get some bluffing here, but as long as you can still beat him on the river, it is much more likely that raises here are meant to keep you from drawing out to beat what he holds already.
2. I agree about image, and as long as you continue to play 8-9 and J-Q sometimes, your image as a loose player will survive. I suspect you could tighten up a bit.
3. If you don't pay to see them, you won't see them, and you shouldn't. What benefit do you get from showing yours? I don't think you should do that either. I do, occasionally, so people see I had the hand when I bet it -- and then if I don't show on subsequent hands, they ASSUME that I didn't have it, when in fact I may have. I really don't show my hand very often.
What I meant on not showing was that when a player calls on the end (or is called) and is beat, they muck without showing. Though I can ask to see (which I'd like) this is frowned upon in the specific room I'm talking about.
My comments on your questions and comments:
1. If you play this hand -- and most of the time you should not -- be careful. Somebody who calculates odds can tell you exactly what the odds are against getting your flush if you need the fourth and fifth cards runner-runner in your suit on the turn and river. I am an advocate that computer-generated odds are a little low because the dealer's shuffle may not be perfectly random, and you may hit more of these than the computer model would suppose -- but not many more. You may make this flush once every 15 or 20 hands, and occasionally when you do, someone else will have it headed by the King or Ace. As far as I am concerned, once you see the flop on suited cards, if there are not two (or three) of your suit on the board, forget that and decide if Jack-Queen will do you any good. This hand only has value if there is no Ace or King on the board (giving one or more players a large pair), the small cards on the board do not look like someone else's flush or straight, and no pair hits. That will seldom happen. Lose this hand. If your Jack-Queen are suited, they are worth a look, but not a raise, and they should be folded unless the flop brings a four-flush, ten-nine toward your straight, or a pair into your Jack or Queen AND no King or Ace that someone else will pair. Even with a pair of jacks or queens, you will lose to an ace or king on the board about 3/4 of the time.
2. Unless you are in early position, King-Queen is a good pre-flop raise -- if you like pre-flop raises. On many hands, someone else will do it for you if you don't, and your call does not as loudly tell the world that you have two large face cards that are neighbors or twins. What do you think the players are holding who call your pre-flop raise? A pair of eights beats you right now. four things can happen, heads up, and three of them are bad:
A. Nobody helps, eights win;
B. Both of you help, eights and another pair beat your high pair with a good kicker;
C. You don't help, the other player does, two pair beats no pair; or
D. You help, they don't, your higher pair wins. In this last choice, the only one where you win, if a big card falls and you start betting, surely the pair of eights knpws he is beat and folds, at least most of the time, so you will not even be paid very well for it.
3. You have 9-J, a bad hand you should only call with in late position, and discard unless you get HUGE help on the flop. If you raise with this in late position, you are semi-bluffing. You say the flop is T-Q-A. You have no hope. In some other hand there is a pair of queens to lose to a pair of aces, both of which can beat you -- and if you get a king on the turn or river for a straight, someone with a bare jack splits the money with you. Absolutely the only card that can help you is an eight.
4. You must have bet the hell out of your Ace-Ace, but the guy with the pair of sixes stayed with you. You know he has to have a hand like this, and he knows you have to have a Top Ten hand, big face cards touching or paired, by the way you bet. When the third six hits, he knows it helps him and not you, and he knows he has you. You should know this too and fold.
Actually, in #3 the flop was 8TA, not Q (my mistake). And I did not raise 9-J (never would).
My point in #2 for re-raising is to get heads up with loose player, but in retrospect, he likely had a pair (he did, 8s) and heads up w/ KQs I'm a dog, and 2 more callers would pay my flush or straight off and a K or Q on flop would still possibly give me the best hand, plus extra action would be feared by the pair of 8s.
2 corrections... My play 3. The flop was T7A (not TQA)
5. I meant I call with these hands (I NEVER bet them), but perhaps I'm calling too often (tend to do so with larger pots, ie proper odds, but I'm unclear on exact odds).
One explanation on table play, 3. I meant that a player is called on the end or calls, then mucks. This happens 80% of the time and asking to see is frowned upon in that room (except I'd like to see them).
I guess I should properly proof read my posts (or get back to real work).
Thanks.
Kevin-
My two bits worth...
Scenerio 1) IMO this kind of hand isn't worth a bet unless you're in late position and have a chance to steal. Even then, I'd restrict this play to those times when your kicker is an overcard to the board, and preferably an A or K of the appropriate suit. Note that if you turn two pair you can still be beat, and a J or Q high flush with four flush cards on the board isn't anything to get excited about.
Scenerio 2) Keep raising with big, unsuited paints if it figures to limit the competition to three or fewer players (sometimes you can vary this if you think you can buy the button; but you don't want a KQo in a raised pot with a gaggle of callers, even if it was you who did the raising).
Scenerio 3) Don't get in the habit of showing down A's or K's when it's obvious you've been beat on the turn. If you cant dump those premium hands at the right times they won't show near the profit that they ought to.
Scenerio 4) I'd stay away from calling with three flush/ three straight hands. The flush will only come in about five percent of the time, the straight (I think) comes in around six percent (although that's a good question). The only time I'd peel another one off with these hands is if I thought I could steal the pot on the turn with a semi bluff raise/bet when one of my cards came in.
I know I'm missing one of your questions, and I'll try to get back to it later (I've got a computer that was built back in the bronze age, and if I scroll up to take a look at your post it'll screw up my message here). Like you said, when someone pops it on the turn in low limit games they've almost always got top pair beat (and usually have any overpair beat as well). This one observation alone will save you tons of money. And be sure to bet for value on the river; many players (including some posters here, most notably the inimitable Vince Lepore) think value betting on the river w/ top pair- no top kicker is often a bad idea, but IMO they're wrong. If you've got A's in the hole, five callers have tagged along to the river, and the river isn't threatening GO AHEAD AND POP IT AGAIN. In an average session you can count on one hand the number of times you thought you had the best hand on the river and ended up being wrong. Generally speaking, when you 'think' you've got the best hand here, bet it.
"1. Betting flop w/second pair and 3 to flush (2 flush on board). I have done this on ocaision (with J or Q of suit) and have gotten somewhat burned. Do I need to learn how to read the other players and get out when contested. Or should I not be betting these? Suited in my hand, I understand, is a much easier bet, or is it? Eg. 78c, flop Kh4c8d."
Without reading any of the other posts I'll tackle this one. You should only be betting this hand if the pot is short handed and you are against players who do not automatically call. At the low limits where you are frequently against many players who play too many hands and go too far with their hands this situation won't occur too often.
The problem with your hand is that even when it is best, it won't stay that way very often unless you improve, and with other players in the pot, you can't be sure that it is best. Plus, with the two-flush on board you are llkely to run into fancy raises which will cause you to misplay your hand on the later streets. You should usually check and either fold or call depending on the size of the pot. You should also bet if you are last (or perhaps next to last) since it is now much more likely that your hand is currently best.
If you bet, depending on the action you need to make a judgement on how likely your hand is the best. For example, if a timid player now raises you, you can be sure that you are against at least top pair. Now call, usually take one off, and fold if you don't improve. (The reason I say usually is that again in a very large pot it might be right to go the the river.)
"2. No need to advertise or worry about table image. Even though some people notice I'm tighter, my raising doesn't scare anyone and worse hands will still call my raise."
I thought that I would comment on this one as well. It is my experience that when playing limit hold 'em you want a tight image. In games where the size of the bet can be small when compared to the size of the pot this image can be very helpful. The reason for this is once a pot is big, it is important to maximize your chances to win it. Gaining an extra bet isn't that helpful if it occasionally costs you the pot. (Unless you hold an absolutely great hand.) (See The Theory of Poker by Sklansky for more discussion on when the pot is big.)
At the low limits you will be playing against many players who are unaware. To them, your image won't matter. But there will still be some players that you can manipulate, and having them believe that you are very tight will be most helpful.
Mason writes:
"It is my experience that when playing limit hold 'em you want a tight image. [...] At the low limits you will be playing against many players who are unaware. To them, your image won't matter. But there will still be some players that you can manipulate, and having them believe that you are very tight will be most helpful."
This makes sense, but it is contrary to the advice I usually see given about table image in low limit games. To wit, in low limit games it is much more common for your opponents to be calling too much rather than folding too much. If your table image is loose, you encourage the mistakes they already make; a tight image may help you bluff and semi-bluff more successfully, but you end up having to manipulate your opponents out of the mistakes they are making now (too much calling) and into other mistakes (too much folding). Incidentally, you generally pull them *through* the range of correct play in the process.
Do you really get more value this way, rather than simply capitalizing on and encouraging the mistakes they already make?
-C
When you are in a game with a bunch of people who play too many hands and go to far with their hands you are playing against people who are unaware. Against these people I don't see how your image matters very much. The important thing is to now play hands that have the potential to make big hands. Thus Axs and small pairs go up in value.
However, even in these games there will be some players who are aware. Against them the tight image is superior. Plus, unless the game is very passive, you can't profitably play that many hands anyway. So like it or not you are stuck with the tight image.
I just read in another writers column how you want a loose image so that players won't bluff you. Can anyone see the flaw in this?
The authors that write this trash assume that if you are a loose and wild player, you will be called down when you're holding the nuts. But, tell me, how often do you hold the nuts? Most of the hands that are dealt to us are garbage.
I'll tell you what happens, if you play loose and wild your bluffs will not work. When you try to steal a pot you will be looked up on the end. Because, the players know that the only kind of hands you play are garbage. Futhermore, all they need is a hand that is better than yours, so they'll start playing tighter.
The idea of the wild loose image originally came from the old draw poker games in Gardena. With only two rounds of betting meaning that the pots would be relatively small when compared to the bets, attracting extra calls made some sense. In a game where it was jacks or better to open, you had a huge advantage when you could get someone to call with a pair of sevens. For a good discussion of this image in these games see PLAY POKER, QUIT WORK, AND SLEEP TO NOON by John Fox.
Unfortuneately, none of this works in a game like limit hold 'em. I can't think of even one successful player who exhibits this wild, loose image.
The problem with the idea of wanting a loose image so that no one will bluff you is that you are inviting bluffs, especially on the later streets because it is so likely that you will have nothing. For example, the good player who has missed his draw may still bet on the river because he knows that the live one may only be in there with one overcard, and even the live one won't call with absolutely nothing on the end.
A wild image can be extremely useful in pot limit, because it can set other players up for a big kill, and it also protects you from steal attempts.
In limit poker I have my doubts. When the pots are large, it's often correct for someone to call you, so you gain nothing by encouraging this. On the other hand, if you can steal even one pot every few days because of a tight image, you can gain 10 or 20 bets.
A tight image also allows for a lot of deception. I have a reasonably tight image, and the other day I raised UTG with 89s (a rare play I make for deception purposes only). The flop came 895, and the BB had 85s. He KNEW I couldn't have anything more than an overpair because of my UTG raise, and wildly overplayed his hand earning me several extra big bets. A nice side effect of this was that everyone paid attention to the hand, and it has now been burned into their memories that I might raise with such a hand UTG. Now I'll get a lot more action on my raises for a while.
Dan
I agree that in games like pot limit having a wild, loose image can be beneficial. Notice that in these games the bet can be relatively large when compared to the pot. In limit hold 'em the bet frequently is small when compared to the pot. This is the mathematical basis why a different image can be successful in pot limit than limit.
Also, the cost of cultivating the wild image is fairly low compared to the potential payoff. You can call $20 bets all day long with junk, and if you trap one guy for his stack with a real hand you'll pay for all that and a lot more.
Dan,
I think there's a more important benefit to making an occasional raise of that sort (with the 98s). In fact, with a few exceptions, I don't think you generally want all that extra action on your raises. That would just run counter to the benefits you correctly ascribe to the tight image. I see the real benefit of those raises as preventing players from taking too many shots at you when you raise then miss the flop. For example, say open for a raise in a middle position, and only the blinds call. Now the flop comes 9-6-4. What you don't want at this point is for these players routinely to bluff or semi-bluff by betting or check-raising. If they've seen you make raises such as the one you describe, they may think twice before doing so. They won't feel quite so confident that you can't have a piece of such a flop.
Of course getting more action on your raises with your good hands can result from this sort of play as well. But in my view it's really an unwanted side effect. I believe it's held to a minimum, however, by keeping in mind the purpose (for me anyway) of such raises. By making them with a view toward deterring future shots taken at me I make these plays at different times and with different frequencies than I would if my purpose were to attract future action.
For example, certain loose but passive players who don't take such shots anyway give me little reason to make such raises. Yet if I did want to get more action, these would be players from whom I *would* like to induce more calls. On the other hand, against aggressive move makers I don't want more action; I want more passivity. In particular I'd like them just to fold more. Therefore, when dealing with a number of players of this kind in my game, I will indeed make an occasional "deterrence" raise of this sort. It can "train" them, at least a little, to stay off my back later on.
I see such plays as fitting into a larger scheme of sewing a bit of uncertainty in the minds of my opponents. As Ray Zee said somewhere in the archives, once you get into the middle limits 'if you're not scary to play against, the other players will make your head spin.' So I think the ideal image is tight (I agree with the other comments in this thread supporting the tight image.), and a little scary and unpredictable. These kinds of raises are part of what create the scary, unpredictable part.
Of course it's also true that during the "training" process you may get excessive action when you do raise with something unexpected and happen to make a big hand. *This* action is welcome as it helps to offset the negative expectation that such plays have in and of themselves.
John Feeney
I wrote: "For example, say open for a raise in a middle position, and only the blinds call. Now the flop comes 9-6-4."
That should read: "For example, say you open for a raise in a middle position with AQ, and only the blinds call. Now the flop comes 9-6-4."
Of course that's an important point, and I should have mentioned it. It's important that your opponents can never be *positive that any given flop didn't hit you.
As for getting extra action on my raises - the game I play in is often very tight and agressive. Lately I've been feeling uncomfortable raising with AA from any position, because the chance was very great that I was going to get just the blinds. Whenver I feel that way, I make a mental note to start raising with other hands. The value of raising UTG with 89s goes way up if there's a very good chance that you can win the blinds outright. As long as I can win the blinds routinely with UTG raises, I must raise with a lot of hands to compensate for the lack of action I'm getting with premium pairs and AKs. Once people start calling my raises more often, I lose the steal value, but the EV on my big hands should go up due to the deception I gained from the other raises.
Playing in a tough game against the same opponents every night is a real cat-and-mouse battle. You have to dig out any little edge you can find.
Dan
Not to change the subject, but I found PLAY POKER, QUIT WORK, AND SLEEP TILL NOON had a lot of useful information. I believe this is the book that started the Caro school of thought. I've seen a lot of players use the ploys described in this book. Especially the pretending to raise and raising out of turn stratifaces.
The flaw is that your loose image will actually encourage people to take shots at you, especially on the end. If your opponents believe you play too many hands and bluff too often, they'll rationally sense that their chances of a successful bluff (or counterbluff) have increased. To compensate, you'll have to pay them off more often and make fewer good laydowns. In short, you'll end up playing according to your image, admittedly a mistake according to the advocates of this style.
Even when bluffing won't work, there are other reasons to play tight; it is modestly desirable to actually have the best hand. When your opponents are all nuts, your image makes no difference. In other loose games, a tight image can help you "rationalize" the table somewhat, such as when you need to narrow the field, or have your raises respected, or understand what an opponent's raise into your (obviously reasonable) hand means. If nothing else, the suicide bombers might wait for a juicier target. You might lose a few bets on the rare occasions when you hold the nuts, but they'll be outweighed by having medium strength hands hold up more often. Besides, if you prefer to wait for great hands in holdem to generate a maximum payoff, you'll find it somewhat difficult to convince 9 opponents that you're crazy.
This is a great post. It hits the nail on the head.
One thing that Chris points out is that in certain situations the tight image will cost you a few bets. In poker, there is almost always a down side to any strategy. But I agree that in limit hold em (or limit seven-card stud) the upside of the tight image far outweighs the downside.
I used to believe that it was good to encourage my opponents to call too often but experience has persuaded me otherwise. What, in low limit holdem, are the more common problems: too many players calling or raising too often and making you pay too much to see you good hands end up in tatters, or too few players that lay down too often and fail to pay you off? I think it's the former. Also, whenever your opponents adjust to your tight image, you are manipulating them. Being able to capitalize on that phenomenon more than makes up for their somewhat "closer to optimum" play. Note that you still might not be able to bluff. With a table full of loose fish, you couldn't pull them "*through* the range of correct play" if you were Svengali. They just might, however, let you drive the tractor, which is what I think you want to do.
To sum it up, it is better to have your opponents make the mistake of folding when they should call versus calling when they should fold, if the pot is of any size.
A tight image has has three advantages:
1. Your decision making will be better by virtue of the starters you play making "confident hands" on the flop and by causing most of your opponents to play more predictably against you.
2. A high success rate bluffing and semi-bluffing, especially in prime situations, will be acheivable.
3. To the extent you are prone to tilt, tight play will lessen your opportunity to go balistic by minimizing your fluctuations.
The downside of playing tight, game selective:
You get a reputation of beating up on drunks and other ner do wells, through your game selective focus and rock play. Sort of like taking candy from a baby. And if you happen to be arrogant with an out-of-whack sense of self-importance, this can cause others to react negatively to you (as we've seen).
--
"I used to believe that it was good to encourage my opponents to call too often but experience has persuaded me otherwise." I get no credit for this realization Chris?
3. When I first started playing I kept accurate track of pot odds. As I played more hold em, I noticed I knew the pot odds well enough to stop fixating on them and concentrate on other parts of the game and I can give you this advice. NEVER play a draw heads up against a made hand. You will almost NEVER get enough odds to your draw. ONE EXCEPTION is if you want to show the players on the table that your loose and agressive.
That advice is much too tight. You should play draws agressively when heads-up, because the added possibility of getting your opponent to fold adds a lot of of equity. Plus, many draws heads-up are bigger than they look. For instance, you may have an open-ended straight, but if you pair either of your cards that may also win for you.
Even if you just check-and-call, it's often correct to play a draw heads-up. Let's say you call before the flop, one other player calls, and both blinds fold. You flop a flush draw, and your opponent bets into you. There are now 4.5 sb in the pot, giving you the correct odds to draw for a card. On the turn, if your opponent bets again, there are 7.5 sb in the pot. Now you don't *quite have odds to call, but if you know your opponent will pay a bet on the river if you make your hand you do. If you think that pairing your top card might win, you do. Plus, some percentage of the time your opponent will check to you on the turn if you call a bet on the flop. Now you can either take a free card or bet as you see fit, but your advantage just increased.
Big draws can often be played profitably heads-up even if you just check-and-call. And if you can get your opponent to fold the best hand by betting or raising, ANY two cards can be profitable. It all depends on the situation.
Dan
Good point. Also, there are a ton of players who will bet the flop with nothing when it's heads up. If you raise with a draw here you may get the much coveted free card, or even get the other guy to fold. True, Merle's post was referring to drawing against made hands, but it's pretty rare that a bet on the flop against one other opponent indicates that the better is already 'there'.
I have seen this type of advice over and over agin for years. I even gave comments to a well known author several years ago who made this mistake over and over again in his book. But it is a very common error among many players
What happens is they fail to take into account the size of the pot and the potential additional bets that you might win if you make your hand, (or they don't account for the additional bets that playing can cost them). In hold 'em, this has all sorts of implications. It is why it is almost always correct to play flush draws or open end straight draws heads-up, it is why it is frequently correct to call on the flop with bottom pair, and it is why it is occasionally correct to call on the flop with only a three flush. (Note: for the second one you need to be getting fairly large odds, and for the last one you need to be getting very large odds.)
One small nit - It's usually a bad idea to take a free card after you raise someone heads-up. If you raise the flop and your opponent checks to you on the turn, a bet is indicated. Unless you absolutely know your opponent is going to call you should take control of the pot. Heads-up, many opponents will bet out on any flop, or he may be betting a draw or a small pair in hand, or any number of other holdings. If you take the free card on the turn, you are inviting a bluff on the river.
If you had an ace-high flush draw and were ready to call your opponent with an unimproved Ace-high, then a check might be okay to induce a bluff if your opponent is agressive.
Dan
C'est vrai.
C'est vrai. I guess what I was trying to point out is that it's generally a bad idea to say something like 'when you're up against a made hand', particularly in this situation, since you never really know if you're up against a made hand or not. Further, my post refers to those situations when the other guy will call with something like middle pair, and call the turn bet even if he doesn't improve-- in other words, when you're up against a calling station. IMexperience, most players will call the turn here, if only because they HATE it when they've been 'caught speeding'; hence, the semi-bluff value of a turn bet is virtually nil. This aside, you're point is well taken, and certainly not a 'small nit' at all; in fact, against decent opposition, not betting out on the turn can be a total disaster.
BTW, I'm with you when you say that the 'free card' raise is one of the most overused tactics in hold 'em.
How many hours do you clock before you can rely on your hourly rate to be reflecting a reliable number. I play at various limits and would like to compute my results. Is 100 hours enough to measure your results at a certain limit?
Yurkovich
100 hours is enough to measure your results, but not with much confidence. You will need to define "reliable": within 20% or 10% of the actual? With 95% or 99% confidence? You will also need to post your varience, perhaps in the form of the results and hours of EACH of your sessions.
Then you need to sweet talk someone into finding and applying the statistical formula, which I am sure can be found in a couple places in this site.
I GUESS "very reliable" would be nearer 1500 hours.
If you think 100 hours may be enough for reliable poker results then you are in for a RUDE shock when you finally get your mid-term exam: 2 straight months with big losses.
- Louie
Yurkovitch,
I agree with Louie that that is way too small a sample but you should be pretty reliable after about 600 or so hours. The big thing is to honestly appraise why you are beating the game in terms of mistakes made by your opponents that you in fact don't make.
Regards,
Rick
This Saturday is going to be my second time playing poker in Atlantic City. Last time I played 1-3 stud and lost $100 in about 4 hours. I have read a lot of the posts on here before going and was ready to win, but none of the advice that I remembered helped. I played tight, but whenever I would bet my hand I would get at least 3 people to call and go on to outdraw me. Could any of you please suggest a strategy that would give me some sort of an advantage.
Thank you/
Also what are some things to look for in behavior to spot a tell, or is it something that one feels, and can't be learned?
I agree wholeheartedly with the "Strong when weak" (& vice versa) tell - I haven't played too much, but there always seems to be at least one or two that do that each time I play (low limits).
Also, Steve, as I recall, at least at the 1-5 stud at the Taj, there is no ante. You may be playing too many hands. Fold more - Watch more - Do not worry about what people think of you - You are there to win their money, not impress them with reckless play (& who would be impressed with reckless play anyway?).
After you watch, really watch, their play for a while, you'll be able to pick up on a few things particular to each player - Use it against them!
May you enjoy yourself, and have the best of luck- Tim
For strategy, I recommend Roy West's book on the lower limit 7 card stud game ("42 Lessons" or something like that). That should tighten you up more.
For tells: I agree wholeheartedly with Tim's post - you will be folding most hands - WATCH your opponents. And watching how they actually play hands is more reliable than just "picking up a tell." Watch for the way they play particular hands.
If you are watching a particular opponent for one hand (perhaps he raised, and you want to see what he raised with), watch him very carefully when the third down card is dealt to him, so that when he turns over his hand at the end you know which were his first 2 cards. Then you will know what he had during the hand, and of course remember how he played it.
If you do this for an hour or two, you will know the philosophy and strategy of some of your opponents, and that is much better information than how he/she is acting. You will find that some opponents raise with any 3-flush; others only with a high pair, etc.
Dick in Phoenix
The specific tell I've found most profitable at low-limit Stud is the brief glance at cards, then chips, then pot. This usually indicates a catch. When a weak player stares at his or her cards for a long time, they generally missed. (See Mike Caro's Book of Tells.)
For some crazy reason, the same players who stare are often aware of it as a tell in others! So, if you spend a long time looking at a good hand, these same players will often think you missed.
The best way to make the weak/strong tell work to your advantage is to play it with subtelty. Don't sigh. Don't say anything negative. Most players can at least sense the weak/strong tell and you'll get put on a hand. If you just spend too long looking at your cards (or some other subtle move), you'll collect more stupid calls.
The double bluff (or whatever it's called) works well at low-limits too. If you've been spotted as a tricky player, a great move is to come right out and say "I missed" or "damn" when you really don't have anything. You'll either scare people away or, if they call, it still works to your advantage because it forces them to rethink their assessment of you as a tricky player.
Regardless, before you get to this, you should make sure you at least have a clear understanding of the principles outlined in 7-Card Stud for Advanced Players. I'm on a phenomenal 20 session run now at low-limit stud. I'm sure some of it is luck, but it is amazing how my streak started right after I spent a week reading and rereading some of the Two Plus Two books.
I would get Mike Caro's book of Tells. It pretty much gives you the main tells with lots of pictures. It won't be very valuable for the game you are playing but I think it is must reading for the occasional times tells are useful.
An example of a tell I find useful is based one the "Strong means Weak" idea. If I am consdering raising for value on a marginal holding at the end and have decided not too but the player behind makes a threatening move with his handful of chips, then I will usually bet afterall.
David
I suspect you are a long way from using tells effectively. Far more important is getting a good feal for what they have when they call your raise. There are lots of far more important things for beginners.
"Stong is Weak" and "Weak is Strong" applies to players who are aware you may notice them but not aware that you are aware that they are aware that you are watching them. There are PLENTY of completely unaware players playing $1-3; for them "Strong is Strong":
I once saw a lady looking at her hole cards while counting out her straight slowly and suredly on her fingers. She grabbed her thumb at five, said "Ah HAH!", jumped out of her seat and glared at me with that evil grin of power. I checked my set and the pair of Jacks paid her off.
And "Weak is Weak": I built a big pot with KKs against the maniac and the idiot (3-betting each round). The idiot caught A on 5 and A on 6th. We all checked. He checked on the end and the maniac, of course, bet out (that's what they do). While I was basking in a moment of self pity, the AA declared "I never helped them" showing his hole cards disgustedly to his friend dropping one in his drink. I raised, he folded, and I won with KKs.
Aaaaaahh, those were the good old days.
- Louie
When you get to the higher limits a pretty good tell that a player is drawing for his smith&wesson but is still looking for the bullets in his pocket to load his bessy is when he looks at the pot too long and/or asks for some time(to calculate his potodds).Watchout though ,a slick tenderfoot will be acting as if he still needs to load his 22 to draw out on you when in fact he has his 45 cocked and ready to shoot well hidden between his stacks of chips.
Y.G.
y.g.
you are basically right but wait till the smoke clears before you go off halfcocked because good players get a charge out of shooting down observant plinkers that are just a flash in the pan.
Very true!I've been known to pull that on a couple of read it alls. Y.G.
One thing i can 'tell' you is to stay away from 1-3 stud. Even if you're just starting out, you should try to limit yourself to games where you have at least a shot at beating the rake. You'll have more winning sessions, and it'll do wonders for your self-confidence.
Hello anyone
I am a dedicated student of poker, and I have just read David Sklanskys book theory of poker and Mike Caros book of tells.
There is a lot of talk about precentages, but if I dont know all the precentages, do anyone know where I can retrieve information about allmost any possible Probabilities that might be of use in a pokergame? I know I can calculate by my self but that takes time.
I would appreciate any respons.
(I am sorry for my bad English)
Regards Roger
The game I play in is generally loose and passive, but some players raise too much (by HPFAP). I had one yesterday who had the consistent philosophy of "any 2 high cards - plus!" Preflop, he raised and then capped a reraise with AJo, and he raised with A8s.
People come and go enough that I can usually get to the raiser's left, so that helps. My question to the panel is, do I play any differently knowing that he has hands as low as, say, Category 6, for his raise?
I have already concluded that I have to dump my drawing hands - Axs and suited connectors - because paying 2 sb instead of 1, plus the (slight) thinning out of the field due to the raise, means my odds are not favorable.
Can I play against this guy with, say, AQo or AJo or medium pairs, probably with a reraise? Or am I better off to stick to the book, play only Cat. 1 and 2, and wait patiently for that great day when I stick it to him? (I AM a very patient player.)
Thanks, Dick in Phoenix
Thinking about this post of mine, I now remember ... a while back Mason published an article about this. (Mason: forgive me if I don't remember everything right; help with a reference if necessary.)
The article was titled "Ace-Eight Suited Under the Gun" and a correspondent had run a poker simulator while raising with A8s under the gun, and declared that to be a better strategy than calling. Mason responded that maybe that might be true against static opponents, but it wouldn't work if an expert player modified his play to react to the loose raiser.
I remember that Mason went on to list some starting hands that he would ADD and re-raise with, against this raiser.
This is exactly what I was asking in the above post. Can the panel elaborate on a good strategy here?
Dick in Phoenix
The key in these situations is to reraise with a few hands such as AQ off, 99, and 88 (and perhaps a few others) that you would normally throw away. You don't start calling with hands that you normally throw away.
This depends on how the maniac plays after the flop. If he's real persistent (i.e., three betting the flop with two overcards) you're probably better off folding pre-flop. However, there are a number of players out there who will pop it pre-flop with almost anything, then drop (or make a weak call) on the flop if they miss. Against this kind of player you can consider re-raising with group 4 hands, and check raising (or raising, depending on where you are) the flop. Remember-- as long as your average starting hand is better than his, you'll win IF you and your opponent's playing skills are equal. If he's a better 'player' after the flop, then stay conservative-- if he's much worse, and tends to raise pre-flop with some pretty mediocre holdings (J9o, for example), AND isn't scared to fold if he misses, then consider re-raising with even worse hands.
The reason cat 1 and 2 hands are recomended for reraising is because other hands are VERY LIKELY BEAT against a sensible raiser. Against this raiser, your better trouble hands are worth a lot since you likely have him dominated.
You need to put this player on some minimum raising requirements, and play hands better than this. If he will raise with A8o then reraise with AT. If he will raise with KTo then you can reraise with KQo. Of course don't play hands you wouldn't have played from your position: if he raises UTG you still need a premium hand to play against the field.
Head's up with position with a trouble hand better than the opponent's is the nuts.
Be advised that the above is a dangerous trap and you must monitor your loose adjustments carefully. Otherwise, his aggression has turned you into a fish.
Raising with A8 does NOT make a maniac; just an aggressor (I certainly raise with A8 once in a while). True maniacs raise with any ace or face card, any pair or suited hand, or any two cards that can make a straight. That leaves category #15 hands: T5, T4, T3, 94, 93 and #16 hands: T2, 92, 83, 82, and 72 (they usually have SOME standards!). Against these players you should sit on their RIGHT since they are predictable and you effectively have permamant "last" position at the table.
- Louie
> If he will raise with A8o then reraise with AT. If he
> will raise with KTo then you can reraise with KQo.
While it is conceivable that this is a _maximal_ strategy in certain situations (it would depend on lots of variables), I doubt it is an _optimal_ strategy. If A8o is one of your opponent's _minimum_ raising hands, then you usually will be trying to catch up when you play ATo.
If your opponents learn you are re-raising with these low-quality hands, they should make you pay dearly for these kinds of re-raises. Yes, you can loosen your re-raise requirements somewhat. But ATo normally would be an extreme stretch.
I see your point about AT being a LESS than average hand for players raising with A8 or better. Perhaps AJ is better.
But elsewhere I mentioned that you don't loosen up more than you would if the player hadn't raised, so you would only ReRaise such a player with AT if you would realistically consider raising with AT had he folded. Thus, there is little danger of other players making you pay dearly, since they could do that anyway. And even if they know you are reraising "lightly", few will have the kahoonas to 4-bet it.
You are better off if you 3-bet it and they call, indicating you are beat, than if you 2-bet it and they 3-bet it; since it works out better if they are incorrectly conserned than if you are genuinely conserned: semi-bluffs work much better when the opponent is already conserned about the value of his hand.
How often have YOU 4-bet it cold with AK even against two maniacs? Called 3-bets with AQ? I'm overly aggressive and I have rarely done so.
- Louie
Note that there's a difference between an opponent that will make an occasional play with A8s and one that always raises with AT or KJ. In any event, you can forget your suited connectors but waiting only for cat. 1 or 2 hands is a bit too tight unless there's another aggressive at the table who enjoys raising wars. In my experience at low limit, an habitual raiser causes about half the field to call with junk and the other half to tighten up and turn timid (limping with AK and so forth). So you should still be able to play a fair number of hands (this includes AQo, AJo) depending on who's in the pot, your position, etc. I think the key here is adjusting not so much your starting requirements generally but adjusting according to your position vis-a-vis the raiser and other players. Unless the raiser plays well on the flop, you want him to your right so that, if you can get it heads-up or three-way with a weakie, you can pound him with premium and some not-so-premium hands.
You still have to play very tight against a maniac raiser for several reasons: One is that you lose information from other players before the flop, because many players are now going to smooth call with hands they would have raised with. So you have no idea what you are up against. Second, your implied odds go down, so your drawing hands lose value. Third, hands that don't hit the flop hard (like KJ) are tough to play against a maniac because if he does have a better hand you will be forced to pay a lot of money. AND, you have the problem again of other people in the pot dominating you and your not knowing about it because they are willing to let the maniac drive the action.
As for seating position, I like to be across the table from a maniac. Sitting directly to his right or left has problems - if you sit to his left you get to see the raises coming so you can act accordingly, but after the flop you're going to find yourself centered all the time between the maniac and the real hands. If you sit to his right, you're going to have to play tight before the flop because of the raising danger.
Dan
Hi Dick,
Sounds like you're describing me! :) I've gone through this discussion several times with my friends. IMHO the proper strategy would be to tighten up and be more aggressive then the preflop raiser. Play after the flop becomes more important as well. I think if you are to his left go ahead and reraise with cat. 1 & 2. If you are to his right I would just call and if you get a good flop go ahead and bet into him (to thin out the field) or go for a check raise if you have a big hand. I think calling a raise cold with junk like AT and KJ is still a big mistake. What's gonna happen when you miss the flop and he bets? Are you gonna chase him? Or even worse you hit the flop holding a dominated hand (not just to raiser). Remember you have to beat everyone at the table to take down the pot, not just the raiser.
Good Luck!! TB
I heard recently about an expnansion of the fundamental theorem of poker.
Can someone please direct me to the articles?
They told me that they are in rgp but I do not know how to retrieve old postings nor what exactly the theorem is about nor if the name is correct.
Detailed directions I would really appreciate.
Thank you.
Maria
Maria,
Here is one way. Go to the web site www.dejanews.com which is a search engine for newsgroups. At the bottom of the home page click on POWER SEARCH.
On the next screen fill in the following boxes:
1. In the SEARCH KEYWORDS box enter "andy morton" (no quotes needed).
2. In the FORUM box enter "rec.gambling.poker"
3. In the AUTHOR box enter "abdul jahib"
Press SEARCH and you should get about 14 listings. Morton's Theorum tates up about five listings. Abdul and the late Andy Morton were friends and Abdul posted them (perhaps Andy did also but I didn't check).
By the way, searching the database for abdul jahib's stuff would be worthwhile. His posts are excellent.
Regards,
Rick
Thank you very much.
Good luck and not only in poker.
Maria
Maria,
There is another way to find it that I posted on rgp quite a while ago. I'll just paste in the entire article below which I retrieved from dejanews. The only difference is that when I just tried it Andy's stuff came in number 5 rather than number 7. Good Luck!
"Web Search Engine Finds Andy Morton! Author: Rick Nebiolo Many of you who visit this news group and the poker web sites such as www.twoplustwo.com and Ken Churilla's site probably learned of the news group and sites by word of mouth or by reading Card Player Magazine. I'm relatively new to internet computing and have enjoyed lurking and making a few contributions over the past couple of months. Thank you RGP and Two Plus Two!
Anyway, the December 1st issue of PC Magazine rated the various search engines such as alta-vista, hotbot, excite, lycos, yahoo (or course not a true search engine but a category organizer) and others. Many RGPers may use these search engines to find other stuff unrelated to poker on the internet. Since I'm just learning, I decided to evaluate the sites on my own by searching for poker information.
Most of the sites share a similar syntax so I played around and ended up using the following set of keywords when searching:
poker +strategy +holdem -"video poker"
The first two words are obvious and I figured anything worthwhile on poker would mention holdem and of course "video poker" should be excluded. PC magazine rated the less well known engine Northern Light (www.northernlight.com) an "Editors' Choice" for advanced searching. After testing most of the engines with the above query, I agree wholeheartedly. Northern Light's top hits contained areas most RGPers would be familiar with.
Most remarkable of all, at the #7 spot, was what appeared to be the complete text of what has come to be known as "Morton's Theorem" by the recently departed and brilliant RGPer Andy Morton (note that it is titled "Implicit Collusion and Going too Far Andy Morton" by the engine). I think it's great his ideas will live on via the web even if he is gone.
So from this poker player's point of view you can't beat Northern Light as a search engine. BTW, for searching past articles on the news group, use www.dejanews.com (with apologies to those who already knew that).
RIP Andy Morton!!
Regards,
Rick"
Hi everyone
Sitting in a very loose aggressive game, BB Qc 9c, 1 raise 8 players see the flop of 8, 10, J rainbow. I bet out raised from the preflop raiser (1 right to the button, 4 calls before) button calls too so there are already 25 SB in the pot I decided to reraise ,the 4 early callers folded , 2 calls. No improvement on turn and river so I won without showdown. Question: I decided to reraise because I feared a Q or a 9 on the turn and had no other ways to improve my hand. Is there any guideline how much money there should be in a pot that you dont slowplay the nuts on the flop?
Midge,
Considering the texture of the flop and the position of the raiser you played well IMHO. You were unlucky that the four players inside folded as they may have been drawing dead or near dead. Note that had you not reraised, a hand like a three flush up front (I'm speaking of the four who folded after one bet) would be getting correct odds to call one more bet here RELATIVE TO YOUR HAND. However, once you forced them to call two bets you are rooting for such a hand to call since they are not getting proper odds.
There is also a chance a nine or a queen folded which you want as I believe they are getting odds to call even for half the pot (I'm guestimating as I need to go in a minute). Hands which were getting correct odds to draw and beat you would probably stay in with the possible exception of bottom two pair. A top player may call a multiway pot with T8 suited and throw it away in this situation after facing so much action fearing a better two pair or top set.
Anyway, I gotta go. Good luck.
Regards,
Rick
Instinct, at least, tells me you were absolutely right to try to win this hand as early as possible, or at least make them pay to stay with you.
That's exactly the sort of hand that can suddenly look very weak, very quickly!
Mark A
Generally refrain from slowplaying unless the pot is small, but I've never heard of sensible guidelines for specific amounts. You were right to raise as your hand fails two criteria for slowplaying: the pot is not small and many cards that can make someone else a better hand can appear after the flop (any A, K, Q, or 9; or almost 30% of the remaining deck); it's about even money one of them will show up by the river, to say nothing of backdoor flushes, running pair disasters, etc. I would virtually never slowplay in a game like you describe. You flopped the nuts in a loose game! As one litigator eloquently advised, "bet the sh*t out of it!"
Did you see that last issue! Holy horsefeathers! This magazine has nothing going for it! How long can it last! Not long I say. Only has one column worth reading! I give it a year tops!
but in the issue before, both MM and DS's hand analysis articles were some of the best I have seen all year in either mag.
David
With Mason 2nd on the masthead I would think that it stood a good chance. Unfortunately their production values don't seem to follow those of Mason's other ventures.
This needs some clarification. Even though POKER DIGEST is now listing me as their strategy consultant I have no ownership in the magazine, and I am not part of their management staff. All I do is review some of the articles that they receive and tell them whether I think that they are suitable for publication or not. For this I receive no fee.
As for the "animal issue," you have to understand that June Field, the publisher, is a lover of cats. She has several in her home, and a couple at their office.
As for their financial condition, it is no secret that they have not been a financial bonanza. But they are doing better each issue and I suspect that it will be around for a long time.
Why? What's the point of two magazines. Why not just consolidate and have one great one?
IMHO, greatness is rarely achieved without competition. I hope they both prosper and at the same time force each other to improve.
Regards,
Rick
Being a charter subscriber to Poker Digest,I naturally have a vested interest in the publications success.With all due respect to Ms.Field and her love for cats,I'm quite confident that she'll remember that the name of the game is indeed,poker.
One advantage to the two magazines is that they come out on alternate weeks.
> All I do is review some of the articles that they receive
> and tell them whether I think that they are suitable for
> publication or not.
And do they listen to your advice? I have only read six issues, but the overall quality of the articles in those issues was consistently poor.
Yes, they usually do.
Hey guys, Go write,design and publish YOUR OWN magazine boys. Put your money where your mouth is! Send us all a copy and we'll pull it pieces. Publishing is a tough business, especially a poker magazine, I know because I'm doing it. An Aussie told be my magazine in 1994 would last 6 months. Issue #38 went out last week ,48 pages of poker news from Aust/NZ. Many poker players are known for their "whinging and complaining" and their "tight bill folds", but like many humans it's so much easier to knock than to "DO". Go write some quality stories for the FOUR world poker magazines. Don't come whinging to me when they will not publish YOUR articles.
Who cares about cats? I really enjoy articles about poker players, their big wins, the time they went broke and didn't know if they could rebound from it, etc. Now, maybe I'm wrong for saying this, but I could care less about what kind of pets poker players have! I think this magazine is probably read mostly by men, and this does not seem like a big interest to them (me). Mt friend and I laughed when we saw the cover, and I agree with Kreskin and his estimate for 1 year...
I;m in cleveland and subscribe along with about three others I know of and at this time none of us plan to renew our subscription. I've subsribed from the beginning to card player and defunct gamb. times but p.d. just not hacking it. Heck i even got taken and subscibed to Poker world mag., that was a bad BEAT!
Hey, I don't have a problem with cats! The cats were the best part of the latest issue! It's the overall content that sucks! But I hope they don't fold. I don't know what I would do if I missed the next installment of the WORLD SERIES OF MURDER!!!
I am looking for general strategy help on heads up no-limit. I haven't played but have been challanged to a game by a player who I don't think is that strong. How would you stronger players go about taking this guys money? My inclination is that I want to spread the game out to keep variance as low as possible and allow what I believe to be superior poker skills to win out. Thus I probably wouldn't want to go all in unless I had very much the best of it. On the other hand, this guy is a head case and is likely to try to steal alot with big raises on weak hands. Help.
Dave,
Keep the blinds small and make the game so that if you lose one freezeout you can play another. As you describe your opponent you may find he runs over you if you arent fearless. You may not be the big favorite. Good luck.
Can one argue that it is in the interest of a good holdem player to participate in this forum by sharing his/her knowledge?
It seems to me that if we assume that tells are of no importance (WHICH IS A FALSE ASSUMPTION) then we reach the level where playing against players that simply follow the guidelines presented in this forum is not going to be more than one small bet per hour profitable. That is, the information available here can turn a naive opponent, from an unsophisticated player to a slightly loosing player resulting in significant loss of income for the professional player. If this continues then the level of sophistication necessary to make a living from hold'em at the 30-60 level would be way too high if one bases his game on mathematics and game theory alone.
Of course this will happen sooner or later. But should a good player contribute to it by posting meaningful and useful information?
Is this the end of the poker world as we know it?
I am affraid that soon there are not going to be fish anymore and the professional poker player would have to be a hustler, that is he/she would have to create or attract fish in order to survive financially.
Again, there is also the psycology aspect in poker. And this forum does not address it and as I see it it will be quite a number of years before psycology can be taught at the scientific level that math and game theory are taught. But, if today we take a bunch of this forum participants and they play against each other separated by partitions so that psycology and tells are diminished then I doubt that the best will be able to make a small bet an hour against the worse and beat the rake at the same time. In California for a 30-60 my claim implies that the best players would not be able to make more than 45 dollars an hour without the rake or 30 dollars an hour after the rake.
What do you think?
Maria
I don't know about the 30-60 but for some lower limits I suspect the number of players you see at the tables that are familiar with this forum is insignifigant.
Also since most players don't even seem to bother much with the small amount of print literature available I doubt they will be absorbing much here.
Again, perhaps all the 30-60 players do regularly come here.
David
In my opinion, the notion that a game like poker is a beatable game at which one can make a living, combined with the necessary knowledge available for anyone to learn, attracts many more players to the game than would otherwise be attracted.
Will all these players become good enough to cut into an experts profits? Probably not in the long run. The increase in live ones and mediocre players should more than compensate for the increase in knowlegable players. There are many who will just look over available material or study it only briefly. And many who make a major effort at improving their games will still fall short of becoming winning players (Many people who graduate with degrees from universities are far from experts in their fields.).
Many play blackjack because they have heard that it's beatable. And many of these have read books on card counting. But few can really make money at it. They simply lack the talent or discipline. I suspect that casinos make a good part of their profits at blackjack by those who have studied the game and think they can win--but can't. I think that poker is no different. The experts should do quite well.
Hi Maria, IMO there will be some chess scenario. A lot of players who have studied the game with a big range of ability and discipline for playing poker. The important thing is to attract new players and there are lots of outside the poker casinos. Bring them all in!! I think there arent more than 5-10% winning players outside. Why not try for the rest who doesnt want to learn anything because they already think they beat the game anyway?? Regards Midge
Maria,
There was a long thread on the Exchange started by Tom Haley on March 27 similar to your post that you may find quite interesting.
Anyway, I believe the existence of players who do well by studying, reading books, and participating in this forum give hope to many others who buy books, barely study them, take the advice out of context, and lack the discipline and talent to win.
I have yet to knowingly play any players in my games who participate in this forum although I'm sure there have been a few. (Note: I have played with Mason and David a few times a while back but I figure that doesn't count). In a nutshell, relatively few people buy books or participate in groups such as this forum, fewer study them seriously, and even fewer have the ability to combine the sometimes conflicting advice in such a way that they become tough opponents. Becoming an excellent player takes hard work and talent.
On the plus side I get to "push the envelope" of knowledge with players who 1) care a great deal about the game, 2) have some original and insightful ideas, 3) write well enough about their ideas so we all benefit, and 4) share this in a medium that provides a means of nearly immediate feedback. If, for example, "skp" or Dan Hanson come down from Canada and steal one of my pots based on something I have written, it is well worth it compared to how my game improves based on their contributions.
I also liked George's comments regarding blackjack and think the analogy to poker is valid. The presence of, for example, Thorp's book in most bookstores gives hope to many who read it, who then think they know it all, who then try to count in the casino, and then brag to their friends how well they do when it fact they get creamed over time. The presence of a few successful card counters is a bonanza for the casinos. The reality is that it is so difficult that there will always only be a relative few, but if there were no successful card counters, hope would be lost for the multitudes below who think if they just knew a little more they would be beating the casinos.
One final thought. Sharing knowledge with serious students of the game is great for the game and us. Just don't do it at the table (the aforementioned Exchange thread contains more thoughts on this).
Regards,
Rick
I don't think you have anything to worry about. There will always be customers. Most people I talk to about poker think it's all luck anyway. Futhermore, most of the poker books are trash. Just the other day, I was in Barnes & Noble browsing the gambling books and came across Mavericks Book on Poker. You'll have fun reading this one.
I mentioned this forum in my regular game about two weeks ago. A player asked me how to find it so I wrote it down for him. Now, I see him on Friday and ask him if he had visited the sight. He said yes, and was amazed at the bad beat stories, thought they were amazing. Then he starts talking about chat rooms and whether or not I had ever met someone in one that I knew.
I don't think we have alot to worry about. Just my thoughts.
Conventional wisdom seems to be that Omaha 8 or better presents few bluffing opportunities, especially against several opponents. Today I tried one and am pretty sure I was correct (although it didn’t work, this time).
I called UTG with Ah 3h 4c 6d in a moderately loose, very passive, 6/12 kill Omaha H/L game after not playing a hand for about an hour (BTW, this is barely two trips around the table in Omaha). Three others call (including the two loosest players) and the SB folds. The flop comes a K 9 5 rainbow. All check on flop so I am not worried too much about a set and even two pair is unlikely.
The turn is a deuce, which makes a two flush (not hearts). BB checks and I fire in a bet with the non-counterfeitable low draw and possible straight. I believe this bet is correct based on value and deception if I make my hand on the river. In addition, a weak flush draw with no low may through his hand away. Anyway, the two loosest players call my bet unenthusiastically, the last player (medium tight) folds, and the big blind (average player) calls. My intention is to bet the river no matter what comes except for a high flush card or if one of the loose/weak players is already reaching for their chips (in which case I would only bet the low and straight). This means I will be bluffing with any non-flush high card (except the ace, which makes my wheel), and any pair of the board that does not make a flush.
Anyway, the river is an offsuit jack. One of the loose players is already about to throw his hand away (I can’t believe how many are careless about this), so I fire in my bet after my normal two second pause to maintain an even pace of action on my lead bets. The other loose player folds but the big blind calls and makes two pair with a KJ and a weak low draw.
OK, it didn’t work this time but I think it was a positive EV play despite me being up against several opponents in a game where pure bluffing is rarely advisable. My reasoning is:
1) The flop was a rainbow with two spread high cards not including an ace which often indicates few draws or made hands are out.
2) The turn was a deuce, which often counterfeits low draws. The fact that it was suited indicates that some opponents may be chasing the flush.
3) The river was pretty much a blank (by Omaha standards) and would only make a nut hand to someone holding a QT.
4) I was really only bluffing two opponents since one guy was already throwing his hand away.
Did I make a reasonable bluff on the river or was I just throwing one big bet away. All comments, criticism, and even spam are welcome.
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
past results are no guarantee of future performance.
you played a hand very skillfully and almost won. your only problem is youre playing in games below your ability and it is hard for you to use all your skills.
The game is loose 10-20 Holdem.One of the players alwais leaves before his big blind.Of course he has to post when he comes back,but he plays the blind in late position,he can never play the button.So he sacrifice the botton to be able to play only in late position. My question is does he have any advantige by doing that.and if he has any how big that advantige is. bob
No advantage if he has to post both blinds and the small blind is dead.
Several players do this in the 10-20 I play in. They have to post the big and small blinds when they come back, and the small blind is dead. One of them explained that it's worth the extra $5 to play the big blind in a better position. He's wrong. He might be right if you always got a solid playable hand, but a good percentage of hands you get in the big blind wind up unplayable after the flop, and posting two blinds along with the other two blinds increases the probability that someone will raise to go after all the dead money. Then you'll be forced to throw the garbage hands away at a cost of $15.
Overall, this is a losing play.
Dan
There was a time when I was pretty well short on my bankroll (I'm back up now), when I deliberately walked away from my big blind if it was a Kill pot. This was because it is so common in my passive game for the big blind to get to play for free, and I would be missing out on that to have to complete the 2sb kill bet to play. (PS - In my loose passive game, I play so tightly that there are orbits when I never call pre-flop except for the BB.)
1. Is it a reasonable strategy to avoid the BB on the kill?
In our $3-6 game, the SB is only $1, so if I avoid the blinds and come in after the button, it only costs 1 1/3 bets.
2. Does the panel's opinion change if it only 1 1/3 bets to buy the blinds?
And last, no one said anything about the players doing this. I expect that I have the privilege of walking away anytime I feel like it. So, for panelists who are plugged in to rules and etiquette:
3. Is this unethical, or bad manners in any way?
Thanks, Dick in Phoenix
A good rule of thumb to determine if something is unethical is to 'universalize' the behaviour and see what happens. In other words, imagine if everyone did it. If everyone always skipped the blinds in this way, what would be the net result?
Dan - Yeah, I did think about that. And to re-state the obvious, if no one wanted to post the "real" big blind, 2 to the left of the button, you couldn't play. That's why I thought (without anyone ever saying) that doing this every time might be, at the very least, impolite.
Dick in Phoenix
I just went 26 1/2 hrs of holdem without pocket aces. I play in cleveland and the dealers are putting out app. 30 hands an hour!Thats almost 800 hands without the coveted AA. Guess what? My friend just jumped in the box to deal and i gave him the count of 26 1/2 and that very hand was a 15/30 we play 10/20 with a half kill and i looked down to see two red aces . I thought about getting them crammed in my kester after the long wait(pestimistic to say the least) but get this, me and three others raised the pre flop to 75 and i took down a 500 dollar pot. So what you say? 45 minutes later that same friend walks up behind me to kibitz and i pick up those same two aces and again am able to take the raise to 75 for its another 15/30 and YES they did hold up again. A half hour later they came back ,this time i was the only raiser but got in a heads up reraise on the turn and lo-and -behold three for three with the aces. The poker god was a smilin on me!
I play mainly in no-foldem games; the same logic applies with flopping a set, with a pair in hand.
Hour after hour nothing, then boom, 3 or 4 sets flop in a session. (In no-foldem I find the frequency of sets correlates better to session results then frequency of big pocket pairs do)
L
Its no fold-em for the most part here but I play for a living so I'm concerned about big sets. If im coming in later position then i might be able to try for that set with a small pocket if the callers are there and the players behind me are not aggressive. Like every else though I,m looking for the premiums!
Its no fold-em for the most part here but I play for a living so I'm concerned about big sets. If im coming in later position then i might be able to try for that set with a small pocket if the callers are there and the players behind me are not aggressive. Like every else though I,m looking for the premiums!
Could anyone please post step by stem directions on how to get to rec.gambling.poker. I have just spent about an hour on search engines and came up empty. I also appreciate the responses from the last post.
If you`re using outlook express choose newgroup then when it says nntp adress write this.. news.ht.net.tw the program downloads around 14000 different newsgroups serch through them until you find rec.gambling.poker ofcourse its where all the other rec. are... hope this helps ..
-Erik Sagström(whos native language isn`t english or american ;)
Let me tell you also that you should immediately look up the postings between Nolan Dalla and Maverick. It's very entertaining to watch this feud unfold on rgp and there have been some intelligent, heated discussions about censorship and what should be tolerated on newsgroups. Look it up, you'll thank me for it!
Steve, click on Favorite Links to the left. Then go to bottom off page and click on rec.gambling.poker. That will take you there directly. If that doesn't work, contact your internet provider. You may need to alter some settings. I needed to do that several months back and was able to change settings and get there. Good luck.
There was a suggestion that Poker Digest was starting to run out of ideas after their last 'pet' issue. I spoke to someone there who faxed me a copy of future article titles. As you will see by this list, things are fine at Poker Digest, and they certainly are not running out of ideas:
Top 10 Articles Discussed for Poker Digest’s Next Issue:
10. In This Issue: See Your Favorite Players Nude!
9. Would You Like Fries With That? The Side Orders Of Professional Poker Players
8. Crisis In Kosovo-Mason Malmuth Shares His Opinion
7. WSOP Undressed! What The Hottest Players Will Be Wearing This Year
6. Understanding Me…A Touching Collection Of Poetry From David Sklansky
5. This One Goes On The Refrigerator! Today’s Poker Players Share Their Son's And Daughter's Best Report Cards
4. Nickels And Fingernails…What’s Under The Sofa Cushions Of Today Best Poker Player’s
3. Next Issue-Our Favorite Articles From Card Player
2. Baghdad, Kosovo, And Kenya…A List Of Places Where Americans Could Die If Caught Playing Poker There. Don’t Make The Fatal Mistake Of Not Reading This Issue!
1. I Want A Divorce…The Marital Problems Of Today’s Best Players.
I hope this helps dispell any rumors of trouble at the Poker Digest 'Think Tank'.
LOL...I'd love to see them print this in the letters page. Send it to them and see if they dare to.
That's a great idea, but I don't like my odds...
Funny!........... I get Cardplayer and Poker Digest free in my local casinos. I usually read both cover to cover while waiting for my seat to open up. It helps me to pass the time doing something productive. When something is free and has demonstrated utility value, it is churlish to badmouth it. Those who have purchased subscriptions where they felt the value was lacking might have legitimate gripes.
It sometimes seems that people are so used to getting value for free that they lose sight of the fact that others are putting up the money to make the publishing of these magazines financially viable. Don't like the magazine, don't subscribe to it. See if Ms. Field will refund your subscription. If you get it for free, stop reading it if you think it has too little value for the effort you expend reading. There are simply too many negatives in the world today to have people seeking to create new ones just for the sake of doing so. Poker Digest is an asset to the poker community; if you have suggestions for improvements please forward them to the editors. Help to create and improve, not to tear down and destroy.
Theory and strategy: When having a losing session, be gracious and stay composed. When your opponents see that you show class under adversity, they realize that you are their superior when it comes to self control. More importantly, you realize that your self confidence in your playing ability is real.
Yeah, but maybe it's this kind of criticism that can promote change, yes? Anyway, I do enjoy some articles in Poker Digest. I really enjoyed the article a while back on Huck Seed, I thought it was really well written and informative. And as far as 'free' goes Big John, thank the casino for that service, not Poker Digest or Card Player. C'mon Mason, why don't you share what you think of the cover of the latest issue?
I laughed at the "up coming articles for Poker Digest". I think your posting was fun to read and showed some thought. I met Mason Malmuth in Binion's in Jan 1994 (he wouldn't remember me) and introduced myself and asked him..."Why he hadn't written any recent articles in Card Player about poker?" His reply..." everything has been written about poker and there's nothing else to write about!". Strange I think he's still writing a few things now days. Poker players pets in POKER DIGEST is a fun article and shows many poker players are human, are caring for someone/something, other than themselves. Many people have LOST what poker is all about (card rooms and casino poker haven't helped)...its about have having fun and is a very social/people game. If YOU play in a game and walk away square (even) at the end, and say "well that was a waste of my time"..you have lost the REAL value of playing poker! The Poker Digest team know what playing poker is about..and it's not just winning the money. There magazine reflects the mixture of things that makes up a poker player. I may publish YOUR posting in my Australian magazine "CARDS Poker Magazine" as I do not think your comments were meant to be critical, but for a laugh! Right? Dazzler (from Down Under)
You nailed it Darryl...just trying to have a little fun!
... I see no reason to worry about lack of material either... They still have a few more issues (parts 2-6)with the pet theme! My fish still haven't been photographed yet!!!
The critics have a right to whine, but they certainly don't have to pick up a FREE issue either.
To the critics of the critics. It behooves the publishers to listen to the customers of their product. When the customers leave because of a poor quality product, so does the product...
...Free markets baby...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Slansky = Mason?
Those two could be one person hiding under two false names.
Why would somebody want to do that?
Steve
Do you think those pictures on the back of their books are phony? They don't look alike to me.
I am a fairly new player to the game. I feel as though I understand the game pretty well and can play very tight and very aggressive. However, I am not getting very far and have been losing most of the time. I find winning at Poker an intellectual challenge. Perhaps this shows up on my face. In the last "Card Player", Caro talked about image, and the problem with seeming like you are trying hard to calculate the best move all the time. How important is the appearance of knowing what you are doing?
"How important is the appearance of knowing what you are doing?"
The appearance of knowing what you are doing is not very important. However, knowing what you are doing is very important. To become a top poker player you need to be very good at many aspects of the game. There is no magic bullet. I think the over emphasis on image, just like an over emphasis on any particular aspect of poker is a disservice to those of you who are trying to master the game.
In many ways the best book on poker ever written is THE THEORY OF POKER by David Sklansky. It discusses everything that a top player needs to be aware of to be successful. The word "image" only appears on one page.
Now I'm not saying that image doesn't have value. It does. But in the overall scheme of things it is only one of many attributes that you need to be aware of.
A point to consider...
One problem many new players have (or, at least those who have done some reading on the game before they start playing) is that they over value, or misinterpret, the 'tight-aggressive' concept. Sure, you don't want to spend your money chasing goofy draws, or merely calling a raise when you flop top two. But on the flip side, don't cap the betting on the turn with you pocket A's when the old lady next to you makes it three bets. And don't throw away a gutshot draw to the nuts just because you'd be 'chasing'.
In other words, don't overplay your decent hands, and don't discard your draws (e.g., bottom pair with an overcard and three to a flush) just because a 'weak' player would also chase with your hands. 'Tight-aggressive', like all concepts, is best applied in moderation.
Bob - Mason's point above is the most important one. If you DO the right thing, inage is secondary. Especially if you are starting in the lower limits, not too many people notice anything anyway.
I am relatively new, and working my way up through the lower limits. But I have experience in other games where it is extremely important to keep a "poker face" (especially bridge and Diplomacy), and I decided to make my "image" fit my personality and project a consistent table image no matter what my hand is.
I make it a point to always appear the same: thoughtful and analytical. I even appear this way when I am out of a hand, and of course I really AM interested in how others are playing their hands. This was best when I was playing stud (I have switched to hold'em now), because it is entirely natural to keep looking hard to see what everyone else has up.
This does allow for the occasional acting gig. For example, if I am pushing KK against a few opponents and a safe board, and a King falls, I can think for a while and it fits my image. Anyone who notices these things (the few) can be fooled, and the others ARE fooled.
I appear thoughtful and analytical AND I play very tight. You might think that opponents would observe this combination and just drop out whenever I'm in. Without over-analyzing this, I will say that at the lower limits, it has never happened yet !
Dick in Phoenix
>>I am a fairly new player to the game. I feel as though I understand the game pretty well and can play very tight and very aggressive. However, I am not getting very far and have been losing most of the time.<<
Though this will overlap with the other good advice you've received, I'd like to make a couple of comments. Please don't take this as criticism, but "fairly new player" and "understand the game pretty well" just don't go together - at least hardly ever. You may well have made a good start at understanding the game, but unless you're a rare exception it will take a few years of serious study and lots of experience to build a solid understanding of poker. Before worrying too much about image, consider that there are a number of mistakes that are most commonly made by new players. These include calling when you should fold, and calling when you should raise. (For more on the nature of these and other errors see David Sklansky's "The Eight Mistakes in Poker" in _Getting the Best of It_.) Study the heck out of the fundamentals before spending a lot of time with secondary things.
John Feeney
I wouldn't worry about appearances. Strategy is the most important. You will learn this from studying the good poker books that 2+2 publishes. Furthermore, in "Poker Essays Vol. 2" there is an essay that ranks the skills that you need to become a successful player for the type of game you play. Borders stocks most of the 2+2 books if you're interested in browsing first.
I can just about gaurantee that you will loose your bankroll very quickly by just being too aggressive.
Stay away from the Caro snake oil.
Im in a small tournament started with 36 players, pays 3 places. 630 for 1st 300 for 2nd and 200 for third. Down to the final three and I am clearly the superior player and my play,image and cards are currently in a positve at the time of this hand. Meaning I and everyone at the table figures i am the favorite to win. 1st question how important is this? Now the real question,I have 17,400 in checks and I'm the button. The little blind has 23000 and the big blind has 30000. The blinds are 3000 and 6000. i have AKo I raise to 12000 the little calls with 92s.....the flop is AK9 she checks i bet the 5400 she calls and turns a 9. Ok bad luck but thinking back now, if I had justt called the flop then had 11,400 to bet after flop I think she goes away and I win the hand.Using the fundamental theory I played it right or did I? Also I do not think the extra 5400 before the flop would have moved the SB but then again?
Second guessing yourself in situations like this is a lot like the players who whine about their draws never coming in. This is not meant as a put-down, but is intended to give you some perspective. The blinds are high, the tournament at that stage is a crapshoot. While you may be the best player of the 3, unless one of your strengths is getting opponents to make bad laydowns, you are not the favorite to win at this stage of the tournament because you have too few chips relative to the blinds.
Also, you WANTED the player in there with 92. If they're going to call your raise preflop with that trash, why on earth do you think they'd have any chance at all of folding after catching a piece of the flop? They caught a miracle two-outer, you had so far the best of it, it just wasn't funny. You definitely did not want them to fold after that flop, you wanted that call, you just didn't want to lose the hand, but that's the chance you take on any poker hand.
A five outer is more like it and I'm not complaining. Yes we were in the crapshoot stage but these two people never played in any tournament let alone three handed. they were strictly full game low limit players. A no-limit tourney was new to them. What the hell this will bring them back for more!
I'm mainly an Omaha/8 player (since I don't like thinking), but while waiting for the game yesterday at the Oaks I sat at a typically loose 3/6 HoldEm game.
Four players call the blinds, & I also call on the button with A9s. Small Blind (SB) raises & everyone calls. Flop is 983 rainbow. SB bets out, but I think maybe he'd represent an overpair on this flop even if he just had overcards. Everyone but one player calls. I call, since even if SB has the overpair, I likely have 5 outs. I *don't* raise, because even if I have the best hand & would benefit from a thinned field (if SB has say AK), I don't think any other players would fold for a single additional small bet. And of course if SB does have the overpair I want to keep it cheap.
Turn is an 8. Everyone checks to the off-duty dealer (OD) directly to my right, who bets. I figure there's at least a 50% chance that he *doesn't* have the 8, since he'd likely bet a 9 in this situation, & maybe even a 3 or a straight draw or an underpair after all those checks. I raise, since I think that other players with overcards won't call for 2 big bets. I plan to fold if anyone raises. But everyone folds & OD just calls.
River is a third 8. OD checks. The pot is big enough that he'd call my bet if he has a 3 or underpair, so maybe I should value bet. Would he have re-raised me on the turn if he had the 8? I'm no sure so I just check. He shows a 95s & we split the pot.
I'd appreciate any comments on my play or my thinking during this hand.
With an A-9 suited, I would have raised on the button. It would have provided you with a little deception, since a lot of weak players think a raise means a big pair and most do not understand the value of position. I would of bet or raised on the flop. The player on your right took a stab at stealing the pot, on the turn since everyone else showed weekness. I believe you would have been the first better on turn, thus avoiding the guessing game, and taken the whole pot for yourself.
Another option here is raising the turn, with the intention of checking on the river. If you are re-raised, it's an easy fold. If you called and then bet into on the river, it's still an easy fold. So either way, it costs you two bets. The advantage here is that you may get straight draws to fold, or at least pay an extra bet to hit their straight, and you may push someone off the best hand (like the possible overpair in the SB). Also, in this circumstance you're less likely to be re-raised because if someone had the straight the pair on board will scare them into checking, and if someone had just trip 8's the straight on board would scare them as well.
Dan
If the small blind has any kind of clue (a big if), he's going to three bet it pre-flop (assuming he's got a real hand, which is probably the case if he's raising from the blind), thereby putting you in a real guessing game on the flop. Further, if there are any callers between you and he pre-flop, the pot's big enough at this point to check-raise w/ overcards, which puts you in an even bigger quandry. Of course, all this is 20/20 hindsight, since there's no way to know beforehand what the SB has, but most good players will assume this is a position raise and will play accordingly.
"I'm mainly an Omaha(ha)/8 player (since I don't like thinking)..." BIGOT!!
A9s would be a very boarderline raise so long as ALL the callers are reasonably aggressive, implying they do NOT have a big ace or they would have raised.
Only the tightest players are favorites to have a BIG PAIR when they raise in the SB, and so I would consider your call a form of a "slow-play". While your reason's supporting a call are TRUE (he'll 3-bet it if you are beat, nobody is going to fold...), I don't think they are good reasons. Your hand is well worth a value raise; bet'em while you've got'em and all that. That is, if you can choose to be all in now OR after you raise, you should raise.
But WoooooaaaH Nelly! The real reason to "just" call is right under your nose! Its because the SB is likely to check and someone else is likely to bet, and you are in a good position to either charge the field to draw or knock everybody out with a raise on the turn.
Yes, he would have ReRaised on the turn with an Eight, so you should value bet this one on the end.
Holdem is different mentally than Omahaha, eh?
- Louie
Slansky/Mason just revealed in email that he is one person hiding under two fake names. This person is not the one you see picutred on the snake oil books and systems written by Slanksy/Mason or whoever this con man is.
Who cares? If you like the advice he gives, what does it matter what he/she calls him/herself?
For years I have been asked if I am David Sklansky when I am in the poker room. When I talk to David he tells me that no one ever asks him if he is Mason. It doesn't seem fair since I do all the work and he gets all the glory. At least no one ever asks me if I'm Ray Zee.
If I get all the glory why are you the one with the beautiful girlfriend?
When she first saw him, she thought he was you?
If I get all the glory why are you the one with the beautiful girlfriend?
What would you do with another wife?
its all my fault.
the pretty lady came to me and asked about both mason and david. i told her they both were very good looking, smart as a whip, and had gobs of money. i said that mason and david were the same. she then asked what to do so i told her to watch each play poker for a night and to pick the tightest one. guess who she got?
Kray Zee, long time, my friend. I trust you've been well. I have too, thank you very much. I'm the new kid with a computer and a friend told me that I'd like this site. I certainly hope I'm not braking protocol by saying hi. later
good to hear from you peter i always ask around how the guys in reno are doing and about you. i wish you well
I am very interested in starting a new on-line magazine for poker players and need plenty of contributors. Anyone published by me can expect,at minimum, an excellent rate of pay ( at least two big bets depending on size of game discussed, so size will really matter), instant international recognition as a new poker theorist, valuable comp coupons, exchangeable at the 2+2 gift shop and last but not least an invitation to play in the Fishbowl Poker 50-100 Invitational which will have a highly restricted entry qualifier ( ie absolutely no players with initials like MM, DS and definitely no RZ). Replies please asap.
how can we reply when you don't leave your e-mail address?
OK, so what do you want to know about 10,000-20,000 Crazy Pineapple?
Sklansky gets "all the glory" for this "proper technique" stuff for the same reason Freud gets all the glory in PsychoTherapy: he started it. Life is not fair. No matter how awful his early stuff was nor how brilliant your current stuff is, you will forever be "one of those other poker writers".
Until you shoot him. Then you can be "That other writer who shot David Sklansky", and NOBODY would be able to take that from you.
The reason for your second revelation is easy: Zee is good looking.
- Louie
Golly, I have an odd sense of humor, eh?
The following hands (KQo - QJo - JTo) have cost me a great deal of money. Any advice as to the best way to play them or *not* play them would be greatly appreciated.
KQo - UTG or first 3 positions should probably fold - right?
KQo - First 3 players fold - would you open raise in #6 position?
KQo - You are in the BB and a solid player open-raises in early position - should you call or fold. Would it really matter if it was headup, 3 way or 4-way action?
KQo - What circumstances would be most favorable for this hand?
QJo - calling with 2 or 3 limpers in front seems to be inviting danger. They probably have a better hand than I do already. What do I want to flop besides quads, a straight, fullhouse, or set. Even QQ7 could be a trap to someone limping in with AQ KQ 77 or Q7s (maniac or calling station).
QJo - What circumstances would be most favorable for this hand?
JTo - calling with 2 or 3 limpers in front seems to be inviting danger. They probably have a better hand than I do already. What do I want to flop besides quads, a straight, fullhouse, or set. Even JJ9 could be a trap to someone limping in with AJ KJ QJ 99 or J9s.
If I am in the cut-off seat or button with 2 or 3 limpers in front of me, should I call?
JTo - What circumstances would be most favorable for this hand?
Thanks in advance for your advice.
> KQo - UTG or first 3 positions should probably fold -
> right?
It really depends on the game. If it's passive, and the players are weak, the hand is profitable from any position. If it's an agressive game, you're in a tougher spot. If the game is too tough to play KQ under the gun, you might consider finding a softer game.
Against most players, if the pot is unraised you can be relatively sure that you have the best kicker with your king or queen if you hit it. If you have a lot of players that will limp in with AK and AQ, then be more careful with the hand.
> KQo - First 3 players fold - would you open raise in #6
> position?
Usually.
> KQo - You are in the BB and a solid player open-raises in
> early position - should you call or fold. Would it really
> matter if it was headup, 3 way or 4-way action?
If I call, I'm calling to hit 2 pair, a straight draw, etc. So I would like some other players in the hand. If a King or Queen lands, you have a problem. You might have the best hand, but more likely you are dominated. It's a tough spot to be in, and you're out of position.
If no one else has called, I'll usually muck the hand.
> QJo - calling with 2 or 3 limpers in front seems to be
> inviting danger. They probably have a better hand than I
> do already. What do I want to flop besides quads, a
> straight, fullhouse, or set. Even QQ7 could be a trap to
> someone limping in with AQ KQ 77 or Q7s (maniac or
> calling station).
If the early position limpers are tight players, throw the hand away. There's just too much chance that they are holding hands like AJ, AQ, KQ, KJs, etc. All of this hands have you dominated and make you an underdog.
If the limpers are loose players that limp with hands like 89o, 56s, etc., then this hand is playable. I would not raise with it, however.
> JTo - calling with 2 or 3 limpers in front seems to be
> inviting danger. They probably have a better hand than I
> do already. What do I want to flop besides quads, a
> straight, fullhouse, or set. Even JJ9 could be a trap to
> someone limping in with AJ KJ QJ 99 or J9s.
Same comments as above, although the chance of being dominated by tight limpers goes down. Most tight players that limp in early position aren't going to have a ten in their hand, unless they have TJs. They'll muck hands like AT or KT, or raise with ATs or KTs. This is balanced off by the chance of flopping the best top pair and having an overcard burn you on the turn.
> If I am in the cut-off seat or button with 2 or 3 limpers
> in front of me, should I call?
I usually do, because I believe that I can out-play most of my opponents after the flop, and I have position on them. I'd play all three of these hands from the button if I had 3 callers in the hand, but I'd be ready to let them go in an instant if I didn't like the situation after the flop (for example, I flop top pair and an early position tight limper bets and picks up a couple of callers before it gets to me).
> What circumstances would be most favorable for this hand?
With KQo and QJo, I think the best circumstance would be to open raise with them in late position to attack the blinds if there is some chance you can win them. I normally don't attack the blinds with JT unless the players in the blinds are very weak. Other than that, you really want to have a few loose limpers in front of you, no apparent threat of a raise behind you, and you want to be in late position.
That's my humble opinion, anyway.
Dan
I have been quite busy lately and have therefore not had the time to answer a post by Tom Haley dated March 18th, about semi-bluff raising on the turn. Since Tom has indicated that he might write an essay on the subject I thought that I should make a few comments.
Tom (who I respect very much) created a table for how often a semi-bluff raise has to be immediately successful to be the correct play, considering the number of outs and the size of the pot. Unfortunately, his conclusions are not totally accurate. There are a few factors that he is not taking into consideration. For example:
- You are not always called on the river when you make your hand
- Sometimes you will lose even if you make your hand
- Your opponent will sometimes re-raise
I’m certain that Tom is well aware of these weaknesses, therefore I’ll disregard them in my post. However, there is a much more severe flaw that he doesn’t seem to have noticed. In short, he is not taking into consideration that the player also has an option to call, not only raise or fold. I guess the easiest way to explain this is by a couple of examples.
Here is a small sample from the table plus my answers:
Outs````Pot Size````Immediate win(Tom)```My calculations
10```````2.5````````````19.01%`````````````````19.01%
10```````4.5````````````3.27%``````````````````12.2%
10```````5.5````````````-1.2%``````````````````10.4%
Let’s say that you have 10 outs and when your opponent has bet into you there are 2.5 big bets in the pot. In this case Tom's table is correct, because a call would have been wrong. If a semi-bluff raise has an expectation of above zero, then it is the best play in this situation. Therefore you have to win 19.01% immediately for the semi-bluff raise to be the best play.
Now, let’s say that you have 10 outs and there are 4.5 bb in the pot. Now Tom’s conclusions are wrong. According to Tom you would only have to win immediately 3.27% for a semi-bluff raise to be correct, but this is not the case. What Tom’s table actually says is that you have to win immediately 3.27% for your semi-bluff raise to have a greater expectation than zero. The problem is that if you call instead of semi-bluff raise in this situation you expect to win money. Therefore, if you think that your semi-bluff raise will be immediately successful about 3.27% of the time a call is much better than a raise. So, your semi-bluff has to be successful often enough (in combination with the possibility to improve on the river) to earn more than you would have done if you had called. I don’t want to bore you to death with my calculations, but the semi-bluff raise has to be immediately successful 12.2% of the time to be the correct play in this situation (keep in mind that I disregard the other flaws).
Finally, Tom says that "the negative numbers in the immediate win percentage mean to me that you are in a +EV situation with a call". This is not necessarily true. In fact I think that some of the best semi-bluff raising opportunities come up in the situations where the numbers are negative in Tom’s table. The only thing the negative numbers mean are that the semi-bluff raise never have to win immediately to have a higher expectation than zero (big pots & many outs). Again, it is not enough for the semi-bluff raise to have a higher expectation than zero, it must be better than a call to be the best play. An example is when you have 10 outs and there are 5.5 bb in the pot. The table shows -1.2%, and Tom says that a call is the best play. My calculations show that your semi-bluff must win immediately 10.4% to be the best play and with odds like that I think a semi-bluff raise is frequently the best play in tight aggressive hold’em games.
Once again, I think Tom Haley is one of the most valuable posters on this forum, and I know he is man enough not to take this response as a putdown. Keep up the good work!
Sincerely,
Emil
PS! I would like advice on how to insert tables in a post, and I apologize for the ugly appearance of the table in this post.
Emil, I can't believe... Just kidding. If I would have written something as nice as you wrote on RGP I would be accused of being a suck up and too deferential. Anyway I need the kind of feedback that you are providing. I sent you some e-mail in regards to posting the table, improving the table, and the post in general. I still would like to get more responses regarding estimating your chances which is the original reason I posted the table. Perhaps we can communicate some of these ideas. Tom Haley
I recently witnessed this hand in a five handed no limit game. 50-100 blinds. Action goes: fold, fold, fold, and Scotty Nguyen in the sb raises 200. The fish in the BB has QQ and calls. Scotty has about 7-8000 and the fish has ~4000.
The flop comes K72 rainbow. Scotty checks, and the fish checks. (?)
The turn is a Q. Scotty checks and the fish bets 1000. Scotty immediately raises the fish all in.
What would you do with QQ?
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
call, and ask if i can go into my pocket for more money.
How was the fish playing? Was he hyper-agressive? Was he sweating the money? Was he easy to push around?
Figuring out pot limit and no-limit plays without the context is awfully tough to so. So much depends on what has gone before.
That said, I'd probably push the stack in. If Scotty had KK, I'm not he would have pushed the whole stack in. He may have been looking for a check-raise on the flop with AA, AK, or even have 77 or KQ. Of course, if the fish is a real calling station, then those bets are off too.
The fish's hand here is also hidden very well. Given that he's a fish, he could have anything. A set of queens would be the last thing Scotty is probably thinking he has. So if Scotty is not expecting strength, then his hand doesn't necessarily have to be all that strong to make this play.
Just my opinion, and I don't have all that much experience at NL poker.
Dan
Don't go broke chasing a couple of pennies.
What do you mean?
Chasing pennies? If he has the best hand he'll double his stack.
The equation is simple: Call and win $4000 or lose $3000. If his hand is better than a 3-4 dog to Scotty's, he should call.
The math is simple, but if that was all it took to win at NL, we wouldn't have any math professors left -- they'd all be world champions instead of stumbling down hallways mumbling about some arcane calculus equation.
The "fish" was raised before the flop, then was checked to TWICE after the flop by a WC. I wouldn't expect Nguyen to check the flop and the turn with something as simple as top pair. But the two most relevant questions are those in which we don't have a clue -- what was the tempo of the game and what was the read on the "fish" when the Queen hit on the turn. *That* is the simple equation: if Nguyen reads him and moves in, forget about the price.
The problem with relying on math to make every decision in NL is that when a great player gives someone a lot of rope, a linear equation will not calculate that he's in danger of getting hung.
this is a perfect example of how stupid a game NL can be. do you really think it is such a bad play by this so called fish to play the hand the way he did. and do you also think that Scotty N is so skilled because he can slow play the nuts. This game is punitive even if you don't make a mistake, or much of one. The skill is in limit.
I didn't say the game was simple. I said the MATH for the CALL was simple, and that it wasn't 'chasing pennies'. Specifically, he's chasing $4000 with $3000.
The complex question is whether or not he's a 3-4 dog. If you noticed my first answer earlier on I said that understanding the situation required knowing how earlier hands played out, whether the game was fast, whether the live one had deep pockets, etc. etc. It most certainly is not that simple. For example, if the live one had been taking shots at all kinds of pots every time it was checked to him, then I would put much more credibility on Scotty having KK. On the other hand, if the live one was folding to a lot of big bets, it's entirely possible that Scotty has absolutely nothing at all, since the live one's hand is completely hidden. Perhaps the size of the original $1000 bet made Scotty smell a rat. We just don't know.
Nguyen's play was either perfect or horrible -- I'll guess that it was correct. The point about chasing pennies is that there was only $200 bet before the flop ... 5% of the smallest stack. When the set bet $1,000, he was in effect wagering the whole $4,000, because a raise is going to offer him about a 5:3 price and he's unlikley to lay down that big of a hand. But more relevant, what incentive does Nguyen have to protect his $200 investment in the pot without the nuts? The man with Q-Q called a preflop bet, pegging him for some sort of solid hand. With garbage or a single pair, Nguyen would've been more likely try to pick up the pot on the flop. Also, if he has a weaker hand and misreads the "fish" as weak, then he's betting $4,000 to win $1400 on a bluff. Possible, but my price is greater than 5:3 against. It's true that the unfortunate part of these questions is that we can't really have a "correct" answer without seeing what had been happening at the table, but still, NL hands do have to be driven ahead of the action.
The proper thinking is not to 'protect your $200 investment'. The proper thinking is to look at the size of the current pot, and decide whether further investment will produce a positive return, including future money wagered on the hand.
I kind of agree with you that this smells like some sort of trap, but two things make this a difficult read - the fish's hand is completely concealed, and the person IS a fish.
Perhaps Scotty was hoping to trap the fish on the flop with a check-raise and missed it, in which case he could easily have AA, AK, KQ. If he had KQ in particular, then this play could be justified, since he hit his second pair on the turn.
If he IS trapping, then I would think that 77 is just as likely as KK, and that alone makes it an even-money call. Add to that the possibility that Scotty is bluffing or could have KQ or even 22, and that indicates pushing the stack in.
I must qualify this by saying that I have never seen Scotty Nguyen play, but I know of his reputation.
Dan
I have spent a couple hours in a ring NL game with Scotty at the Commerce a couple of years before he won the WSOP Championship. If I were the fish in this instance, and I wish I had been, I would have called in a heartbeat. There are so many more losing hands that Scotty would make this raise with than the specific KK holding that the pot is laying very favorable odds. $3,000 call to win $5,400 additional?
Unless I believed this was Scottie's case money and had observed him sitting and folding every hand for an hour or two, I'm going to call him down. I would have played differently on the flop, putting in a pot sized bet to see where I stood, but there is no way I'm releasing a second nut set to him after this sequence of action. If you can't go all in against a "live" player in NL without the stone cold nuts, than you better stick to limit. Since Albert never want to be drawing dead and he made the original post, I must remind you that even if he has the set of kings, I still have the out of a case Q on the river. If it was Tom McEvoy instead of Scottie, I've got to seriously think about releasing the hand. Aw, hell, I'd call Tom down too, but I certainly wouldn't be that confident.
You write, "The proper thinking is not to 'protect your $200 investment'. The proper thinking is to look at the size of the current pot, and decide whether further investment will produce a positive return, including future money wagered on the hand." This sounds like dogma out of a book, and while it's partially true in NL, it's much more applicable in a limit game, where a player can grind away with the right numbers.
In a NL contest, you generally only get an occasional situation to maneuver those "investments" before the flop, when you can bet, call or raise disproportionally small amounts in relation to stack size. In such a contest, the idea of "protecting your investment" has much less to do with making a single bet or calling a single bet, but much more to do with keeping the pressure on.
On the other hand, when you're facing an all-in situation, the question isn't whether you are going to add or lose one big-bet to your EV, but whether or not you are beat -- the luxury of future bets isn't available. In fact, it's a rare occasion that there is any money left to bet on the river.
While I could agree that 7-7 is certainly possible, when Nguyen checked twice, that makes it unlikely. With the overcard out there, he hit an excellent flop for middle set, and the proper play is to bet on the flop in hopes of getting played back at by those who would stand a raise with hands such as K-Q, K-J, or K-10. Nor would a strong player check A-K or K-Q against that flop heads-up (he wouldn't have played K-Q unless it was randomly in his hand when he was trying to pick up the blinds).
The key here is that only the top set should check this flop (a case could even be made that the "fish" played the hand pretty darn good *before the flop* by not reraising with the Q-Q and got unlucky that he didn't hit a Q instead of a K on the flop; then Nguyen could've easily made a mistake and kept coming with two Kings).
Are you completely discounting the possibility that Scotty was going for a check-raise? With this flop it doesn't seem likely that he would, but if the fish were hyper-agressive it's possible.
It seems to me that he would check a 77 here as well, since there is very little danger on this flop.
Another question I can't answer without knowing the context is whether or not Scotty would raise out of the SB with 77 or with KK.
I've said all along that this smells like a trap, but there would be enough doubt in my mind to put the chips in, given what little I know about specifics of the fish, the game, and the financial status of the participants.
I have played with him a couple of times, but regardless of WHO it is it is an almost automatic call...and a raise if there is any more money behind the QQ...limit is fime for all you guys who wanna nit till you got the nuts but the real skill is in not having the fear of a big bet...that is all it was..many good players will just use the size of the bet to try to ambush someone on the turn and it is apparent that is what Scotty was doing. No question....if he has the Kings, pay the bet off and go to the next hand. If not you take Scotty down for a bunch more cause he will be gunning for the fish after that......its simple..
KidHoldem....aka The Minnow
Fish started with $4,000. Blinds are 50-100. Scotty raised by 200, or 300 total. Fish calls, has 3,700 left, and pot is 600. Check, check on flop. Check and 1,000 bet by fish on turn, leaving 2,700 in his stack, pot contains 1,600. Scotty calls the 1,000 (pot contains 2,600, and raises the fish all-in. Pot now contains 5,300, and fish must put up 2,700 to call, or almost 2:1 return on his call.
Not pennies anymore.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Easy call for me. If you fold middle set in this spot, you shouldn't be playing the game. I think trapper Scotty trapped himself with AK or 77 or is on a steal. If he shows me KK, I'd chalk it up bad luck.
sort of like catching some one when he has two pair and NOT a flush draw.
That WAS a bad play.
That's kind of what I was thinking. Even if Scotty was laying a trap, you're probably still an even money favorite because he could have 77. And, of course, you can always hit the case queen... (-:
NEVER play no limit w/Scotty Nguyen.
Ah, but that is the beauty of poker (bridge as well). You can sit down with the best in the world and play. You can't play Michael Jordan 1-1 hoops or hit against Greg Maddux. But in this game you can play the best. Who knws, the 'fish' might be an extremely well off CEO or the like.
BTW I just hear Bill Gates topped 100 Billion in net worth.
Danny s
So what did Scotty Have? Who won the hand?
Oh, puhlease! Is there anybody out there that wouldn't put all their dough in?
Albert, did you walk away before they turned 'em over? Well,AA,AK,77 even?
scotty must have had kk in the hole ive seen him play and the fish should have folded. but since he is a fish he cant fold so scottys play is right. a great player may fold in this spot but cant generally because he plays so much more aggressively and would force scotty to play for all his chips with a greater variety of hands. still with second set its hard to fold with so little info.
if albert doesnt come back and tell us what happened lets track him down and make him eat worms.
Ray,
I can't believe you would even consider folding against Scottie with this sequence of action pre and post-flop. If Scottie had KK, he's going to win all my money in this situation. I'd be a trifle nervous of the $200 raise pre flop and wouldn't have flat called. I would have bet the turn about pot size if I had flat called pre-flop. If you were Scottie slowplaying a flopped top set wouldn't you have tried for a little "taste" on the turn? I don't credit him with top set and if he has it c'est la vie. If not, he'll be playing much looser for the next few hands after I pull in my $8,400.00 pot. The one time I played with him in a baby NL game, he seemed somewhat uneven in his play and willing to gamble up. I say he had K7s.
In a five handed game, I would have re-raised preflop to 800 with Q-Q. If Scotty called or raised, then I knew I would be in big trouble. The fish made the biggest mistake by just calling the raise. Now, he's committed and he'll be either lucky or broke.
I've gotta go with the majority here and say "call". With a set, I have to think that Scotty would bet here on the turn. The fish did call his pre-flop raise. If he has got two high cards, he either has something with which he would call the bet or has a gut shot draw and might just take the free card offered by Scotty. Now, wouldn't that just be a beauty...Scotty flops top set and gives the fish two free cards to make a straight. I don't put Scotty on a set at all and as has already been pointed out, if he had a set, it surely could be a set of 7s as easily as a set of Kings. In fact, I would think that a set of 7s is more probable than a set of Kings as a check by Scotty (on the flop) is more likely to be met by a bet from the fish as it is now more likely that the fish caught a pair. Surely, if Scotty flopped top set, he has to figure that it is unlikely that the fish paired up on the flop.
Geez, where the hell is Albert so we can put an end to this suspense.
Everyone wants to know what the outcome was eh? Look at it this way, the very fact that this hand was posted here is probably a "tell". If the fish wins it would of been either worded differently or not at all. Based on this alone, my guess is Scotty wins with his set of cowboys.
Hi all, Geez, Can't a guy work and actually play poker rather than post on 2+2 It's only been 24hrs and I'm getting nagged to repost...
Anyway, yes 1998 WSOP winner Scotty Nguyen put a raise all in with the fish. The fish CALLS. BTW, I'm not the fish for those who are wondering.
I sense a trap but I think you gotta ask why Scotty would check twice and with what hands he would raise preflop then check it twice. A preflop steal comes to mind. Also, he might think that he could move the fish off his hand with an all-in raise. Of course, KK is the other possibility.
I think the fish got himself into trouble. Unfortunately we don't know the details of the fish's play. I agree with the reraise before the flop suggestion. I think this might have made it easier to play later in the hand. given that he just called, I am surprised nobody suggested checking it behind Scotty on the turn. This has a double benefit, if Scotty has a set of kings, then it would be improbable for Scotty to put in a big bet on the river for an unlikely call. OTH, it may induce a bluff. The big catastropic hands that would love a free card are AA, AJ, TJ and 9T. I don't think that Scotty would bet the hand this way with any of those hands so a check on the turn would be relatively safe. I agree it is tough to release the hand after you bet 1000 with second nuts.
It is still going to be tough figuring out what to do on the river when Scotty bets if you check the turn. I probably would end up trying to get all in with most river cards. I would have the unfortunate task of looking for some sort of tell behind those glasses. The advantage is that it may induce a bluff.
...OOOPs...
Sorta late April fools. It was Scotty Nguyen. And i did witness this hand. I was in seat four and Scotty in seat eight... while filming on the set of "The Big Blind" at Lake Elsinore last weekend! Sorry if anybody is disappointed. Just try to make me eat worms!!!
The river and ending is all scripted anyway so it really doesn't matter. You can write your own ending or watch "The Big Blind" when it is released. As always, what is important is the analysis for the future.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
Sounds like the script is written a bit closer to poker reality than most. If you read my post(s), you'll see that I would not advocate going busted chasing pennies -- the correct play is to check behind on the turn, simply because the only time you will be called is when you are beat and then you are going to lose the rest of it.
A cruel twist to this plot would be the case queen on the river. :-)
Albert wrote: "Sorta late April fools. It was Scotty Nguyen. And i did witness this hand. I was in seat four and Scotty in seat eight... while filming on the set of "The Big Blind" at Lake Elsinore last weekend!"
Albert, I hope that this means you placed in the top three spots in the tournament they held for speaking parts in the movie. Or, maybe it's your natural charm and good looks that got you the part!
I can spew sarcasm safely now that I'm safely placed a full continent away.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
P.S. - I honestly hope that you won the tournament. And really, you are a striking figure of a man.
Greg,
"Albert, I hope that this means you placed in the top three spots in the tournament they held for speaking parts in the movie. Or, maybe it's your natural charm and good looks that got you the part!"
No, I don't usually play tourneys. And well the good looks part is too subjective...the "natural charm" has got to be the reason.
"I can spew sarcasm safely now that I'm safely placed a full continent away."
Spew all you want I grew up in the Northeast and still have my whole family there. I have plenty of frequent flyer miles to go to Foxwoods and spew back up close and personal.
I'm just happy Oceans 11 has a few less "rocks" around the table... and I DON'T mean the poker player kind.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
There is some important information missing in this descripton. In order to know what Scotty will raise with we have to know what his percepion is of the other player, and what does he assume to be the other player's perception of him.
For instance if Scotty thinks the fish is the kind of player who is usually passive (witness the smooth call with QQ) and only bets with a big hand, then Scotty has the goods.
But if Scotty thinks his opponent believes it possible to push Scotty around and will in this position sometimes take a $1k shot with a relatively weak hand which he will lay down to a raise, then Scotty could have any two cards.
--Bob
game is pot limit omaha. pre flop six people in a raised pot. i flop top set (tens). i bet the pot, get one caller. turn is a king. no straight. i bet the pot. call. river is a club which completes a flush. i check. player bets one third of the pot (about 900). if i were him i would bet about one third to one half of the pot whether or not i had the flush. what to do?
Assuming the player will in fact bet 1/3 of the pot no matter what (which seems like an unreasonable assumption to me)...
You gain no information when he bets. You therefore need to consider all the possible hands this player CAN have to call on the flop and the turn. But intuitively it seems that he will NOT have a flush draw (nor slow-play a set of kings) more than 3 times in 4 , so you should call.
I also notice that he is NOT getting the right odds to call with the flush draw if he will only get paid off 1/3 of the pot. So either he made a mistake or had some other combinations of draws, perhaps a straight draw and Ks up.
5 people call an Omahaha pot-limit raise? Where is this game?
- Louie
the game is at the grand in tunica, every day of the week. i figure the caller for a set plus a draw.
this is a legit question and i was actually hoping to get some input from some big bet players, mabey ray zee. anyway to get the answer to the question you have to go back to the flop. what did he call pot size bets with on the flop and the turn?
.. more than likely fold, depending on the opponent (was he the pre-flop raiser? were are you & he in relation to the raiser?) and rank of the river club. There is now a possible straight out. What were the ranks of the other flop cards? Was the turn king suited w/ the non-club flop card? The guy has put ~$1200 into this pot before the river. The only hand I put him on that you beat is AAxy with a three flush and some kind of straight draw(s) on the flop. With middle set+flush+gutshot draws I would've raised before, probably on the turn, because there were no overcards on the flop.
BTW I think situations like this are far beneficial and fun to analyze than $3-6 limit ones, or even ones from movies.
7-stud loose passive game, I have (T2)J clubs against 5 people; there is a JT2 gone but no clubs. I call.
On 4th street I catch a 4h, other's catch a 24TJ, there is also 2 Queens and 2 7's gone; but still no clubs out. Nobody has a 2-flush showing. The guy with TT bets the full-double bet, but is likely to have only a pair of Ts (he would slow-play any "good" hand like TsUp... DOH!). 3 people call and I expect one more call behind me.
I notice that my "pair" value is dead but my 3-flush is completely live. I also notice that if I make the flush I am very unlikely to lose to a full house, since everybody else's pairs are wounded. Most everybody will get to the river and I expect 2 calls on the river if I make it.
This hand is worth a call, isn't it?
- Louie
It is now (finally, thanks to the boards). You'll hit the flush just over 8% of the time. Assuming you'll fold on 5 if you don't get a club, you'll lose 1 double bet 76% of the time and 2 about 16% of the time (when you catch a club but don't improve), which means that the rest of the time you have to pick up something like 14 or more double bets, and I count 11 plus antes in there already.
Louie,
i think its an automatic call if all you say is right. with about 15 cards gone without a club i guess off the top of my head you are about 12 to 15% chance of making a flush here(someone do it for me)
I get 12.9%, but it's slightly higher if Louie tries to catch two running clubs after missing on 5th.
did i say only assholes may respond? in position i would represent the flush. thats 900 he is sticking in your face, the question is what would you do, not are you a asshole.
I was playing in a small hold'em taurniment last night, about 30 entrents, the top 4 finishers get prize money. There was about 130,000 in chips in the game after 1/2 time, with two tables of eight players left when I was under the gun with 20,000 in chips. The blinds were 2,000 and 4,000, I had AcQc and opened for 8000, got a cold call and the big blind called. The big blind was a solid player and won a lot of these weekly taurniments, the cold caller is a little weak. The flop comes 9c 2c 3d, we all check, the turn come 2s, the big blind bets 8000 all in, I call and the weaker player called. The river comes an 8s, I check and the weaker player checked and wins with A3 off suit. I considered just posting my blinds and sitting out before I got involved in a hand, where did I go wrong. P.S the next hand I had the 4000 blind all in and held AQ offsuit and flopped top pair only to lose to KQ to the same player when a K turned.
I'll ignore the "apparently not" for now: just because you lost that doesn't mean you played wrong, it just means you lost. In this case, a player with no business being in the pot got lucky.
But I do think you should have bet the flop. No telling whether weak player would correctly fold at that point, but he's a lot more likely to do it facing a bet from an under-the-gun player and a possible raise behind him than the actual situation where he could safely call last.
Calling a tight UTG raiser with A3 is not a "little", but is "a whole lot" loose.
You took the "apparently not" retort out of my lips. As you suggest, associating "winning a pot" with "playiing well" (and versa-visa) is what keeps suckers as suckers.
Lets see, 13000 in chips and 16 players, that's 812 chips/player on average, and hero has a big lead with 2000. With blinds of 200/400 is quite a bit of a crap shoot. But I notice that hero cannot "ride out the blinds" and expect to back into the money. He'll have to win a hand or two along the way.
AQc flopping a 4 flush looks like the hand to win. Hero should BET this hand since it is likely the highest ranked hand, there are LOTS of hands drawing to beat it that will fold (KT), hero can easily call all bets, and if everybody checks hero will wish he had bet it himself. This is a different situation than if it had come Jc9c7h; where SURELY you will get called or raised. If for tournament reasons hero think a CHECK is called for on the flop, then he should NOT have raised B4 the flop and virtually committed himself to the pot.
- Louie
I agree that if I continued to drive the bus there would have been a good chance of a different result, it's too bad I don't have 100% ESP, before the flop I put the blind on a high pair, I should have relized when the blind checked after the flop that I was mistaken, thanks for not making a big deal about apparently, never realized it at the time.
I just finished reading the essay on reading hands and I'n very concerned, as essays imply more correctness than simple postings. This is the only essay I've seen where at the end the disclaimer basically nullifies everything said. Although there are some statements that I believe are correct, I strongly feel that most of what is written here is simply not true,.... or at least not true a high percentage of the time. While reading the disclaimer I also get the feeling that M&S were reluctant to post it, but I might be wrong about that. Anyway,on some of the reads where I actually agree , the reccommended action is terrible. I won't go further now... if someone wants to debate it etc, I'm game. I'll be happy to post a point by point discussion of each read if there is interest. If not, then I'll let it go, and hope that you players look in both directions. seeya
Feel free to post some specifics. I agree with you that the reads don't always apply to all players and situations, and I was one of the ones that gave SKP that comment when proof-reading it.
HOWEVER, the same can be said for ANY poker advice. There are no absolutes when dealing with the reactions of human beings.
The article is VERY accurate in explaining what a 'rational actor' would do in a given situation. It's up to the player to decide if the situation fits. You could apply your criticism to just about any piece of poker advice ever written.
Dan
Yeah, why don't you post your point by point discussion...I would be interested. Otherwise, we're letting you off cheap by spending 2 minutes to discredit work that someone obviously spent a lot of time and effort on. It's similiar to me posting and saying "I just read several of al raiseya's posts and they are wrong, but I don't want to go further into detail right now".
...Well, I leave town for a few days and one of the first posts I see on the poker forum upon my return is this one from an old friend...doh!
I look forward to your blow by blow and hopefully we all can collectively work out your concerns (if you convince me that something I've written is clearly wrong, I will ask Mason to afford me an opportunity to revise the article).
BTW, I don't know if an essay "implies more correctness than simple postings"...after all, the essay merely represents one man's opinion on the subject; clearly, there may be alternative opinions (particularly on the "action plan" portions of the article) that are equally (or moreso) valid. However, I will go out on a limb and say that my opinion is probably not "terrible" (subject to hearing your argument).
Anyway, your volley!
Al,
Given your stated position, you are now duty bound to post your point by point critique. I hope that you do so in a manner that introduces a constructive difference of opinion and leads to a positive learning experience for the forum.
I agree with Big John. A constructive critism and then subsequent discussion should benefit many on this forum.
Al,
I'd love to see threads started to more closely examine skp's ideas; after all, that is what the forum is for.
One suggestion: break up your analysis or critique into eight separate posts, each one corresponding to one of the eight reads in the essay. They don't all have to be started at once. I believe that would keep things simpler and more organized and hopefully we will get a lot of particiaption.
Regards,
Rick
What essay? Where can I find this essay?
Look to the left of this message under directory. Click on Essays, and you will find it on that page.
after reading the responses I will post my reaction and differences of opinion to the reads and actions taken. I am NOT trying to stir up trouble!!!!! In fact I didn't even know that it was skp who was the author until reading these responses, so skp, you can be sure I'm not trying to attack you personally , and you can rest assured that I will not do so. I haven't been reading alot of posts lately, so if there has already been some kind of disscusion, well sorry bout that. Also, to respond to dan's posting about being able to critcize most all poker advice, since nothing is 100%,...I know this, ... but for something to even be a guide line, it needs to happen a fairly high percentage of the time for it to be considered as such. after reading the essay I had quite a few different ideas about them, so my intent is to open it up for debate. My ideas are not all correct, and maybe we can make some proggress for once. One last thing, then I'll go.
It is OKAY to disagree, and we can disagree with eachother without stirring up trouble. I'm sure people will not agree with the things I'm going to say, and Darrell Danfield I'm not. seeya
I just finished reading a book by D.R.Sherer called No Fold'em Hold'em. He wrote a section on Image and basically states it's good to be known as a frequent bluffer, therefore, you will get a lot of callers.
My question. How could you get away with bluffing if you're known as a frequent bluffer? My opinion. I believe that the bluffer image would hurt your profits.
I believe that following most of the advice in that book willl hurt your profits.
I haven't read this book, but here comes my 2c on this subject.
I play in a typical loose,passive hold'em game. In a game like this, Do Not Bluff. It never works. But if somehow you can acquire the IMAGE that you are a bluffer, then you get the benefits mentioned in the book, because people will call you with very weak hands.
I have a plan in my own game, not yet executed. (BTW, I play very tightly and never bluff.) In my "books" on the various regular opponents, I am keeping careful notes on people who actually will make a big laydown if they think they are beaten, even if they hold a real hand. They are few and far between. At some point I am going to have the opportunity of running a bluff at one of them, and I'll take a shot. If called, I will make it a point to show my hand (probably a failed draw, for me to make it that late in the hand and then have nothing).
In 60 hours this year, I haven't bluffed yet. If and when this tide-turning event takes place, I'll let you know.
Dick in Phoenix
Posts like this astound me. Here in Colorado the games aren't NEARLY that loose (generally), and cold bluffs on the river, even up against three or four players, are sometimes profitable. I'd be curious to hear what Doug has to say on this, since I know he's an incorrigable bluffer and that we tend to play in the same games.
No bluffs in 60 hrs.? If the games really that loose, then more power to you-- keep your discipline. But I can't believe that everyone calls with busted six high flush draws on the river, so there have to be SOME opportunities to steal the pot. Either way, hope the cards have been falling for you.
Wow a holdem player that never steals/bluffs a pot????Don't you atleast steal a few pots now and then when in late position and everyone checks the flop.
In the situation you describe, in my loose passive game, there are plenty of players who won't lead bet with second or third pair but will call with it to the end. So I do not "pure steal" if everyone has checked the flop to me, because that probably won't work either. What I DO is lower my standards somewhat, resulting in a kind of semi-bluff. In this situation, I will sometimes bet second pair with a good kicker or a poor-quality draw.
Your post and GD's post got me thinking about this a bit ... when posting messages like this, it is easy to over-generalize. It really does depend upon the particular opponents what you can get away with. My strategy is kind of an "automatic pilot" to use if I don't know the opponent(s).
I believe the main reason I don't bluff much is that I am rarely still around in a hand without holding real value that I can bet. (I posted my very-tight strategy in a thread on April 6.) About the only time would be if I have a failed draw, and it just has not come up.
I look forward to the day when I have built up my bankroll and experience, and can play against some better players who can be bluffed !!
Dick in Phoenix
You should be looking for bluffing opportunities in any game. In loose games, the pots are often very large, and the players generally don't adjust to this. They'll call the same way with 5 sb in the pot as they will with 50. You don't have to be right very often if there are 50 sb in the pot...
One opportunity to look for: Let's say there are 3 people on the river along with you. You correctly read the LAST player to act as having a busted flush draw. You don't know what the first two have. This pot is now 'protected' by a guy you know has no ammunition. In other words, if you bet, the first guy to act may think he has you beat, but he's worried about the two guys behind him. So he folds. Now there's only one player left that you really have to lose, because you know the last guy has nothing. I make this play with some regularity, and it's remarkably effective against the right field. I'll bet, and get fold, fold, fold, and now the first guy who folded says, "Man, if I'd have known everyone was going to fold I would have called!".
When I was playing low-limit a lot, a good chunk of my profits came from successful bluffs.
Dan
Ya, the old squeeze play - it's beautiful to watch when executed properly.
If you're playing against low limit players who understand what a 'protected' pot is, then the competition up there has got to be much tougher than here in the U.S.
They don't know what it is... They just know that a guy bet, they have bottom pair and nothing else, and there are two guys to act behind them. So they fold. If no one was left, they'll call 'to keep you honest'. But now they think the next guy will call, but he can't because he can't even beat a bluff.
Also remember that loose players, by definition, often have very weak hands. Starting with weak hands often results in finishing with weak hands, so even if there are 4 people in the pot in the river it's not necessarily the case that any of them have anything. One guy may have called with a 3-flush, hit a 4-flush on the turn and missed. Another may have gone to the river on a gutshot. etc.
How many times have you see a hand in low-limit get checked out on the river, and the winner turns out to be ace-high or a small pocket pair or something, and it was clear that this person would have folded in an instant to a bet? I see it all the time.
Dan
Oh those three flushes and straights. Since I have heard the following:"Those who wait on straights and flushes, leave town on trains and busses", I have had more confidence going to the river with Aces and an over card. Tom
He is suggesting that bluffing doesn't work in these games, so it is to your advantage to get an extra over call or two when you DO have a hand.
Betting and folding for a raise looks like a bluff if you fold immediately with the phrase "Just Kidding!".
So does betting hands weaker than the opponents would bet.
- Louie
Last weekend I faced a ploy that thanks almighty I could recognize but I could not defend against it and as a matter of fact I would have difficulty performing.
I will give the whole hand but only the five seconds between turn and river are relevant to this posting.
Position: #7, Holding: KTo
Preflop: UTG and #4 and #5 and #6 call; I call, button calls (the player who would outplay me), big blind calls.
Flop: 2 4 T rainbow: #6 bets (a solid player), I raise, button calls (he plays loose preflop but well after), #5 calls, #6 calls.
Turn: 8: I bet, button calls, all else fold.
At this point the button looks me in the eye and says: I just called this bet and I am not going to bet the river. I blind check.
River: 6: all check and button wins with 62o.
Now I feel that I had no way to win an extra bet at the river and no way to bluff. I could put the button on a single pair and he knew it and I knew that he knew it and I could not bet the river unless I would make two pair and I could not bluff if I did not have a real hand. Of course if I had a set then I would bet but I am pretty certain that the button would not call. I felt like playing with exposed cards.
So the missing concept is: what happened? how can we describe it and how can one defend against it.
By the way I am not discussing here if it is nice to play with players that call with 62o preflop (actually due to the structure (the button pays time charge) he had to pay only half a bet to see the flop nor about players that call a raise on the flop with third pair no kicker. The question is: how can I get full value for my hand on the river and how can I defend against playing with "exposed" cards.
Along the same lines maybe is any situation where a "solid" player faces a caller with obviously a weak hand and when this happens to me I feel that my hand is exposed and my bluffing is nonexistent and my value betting capability on the river diminished. If I bet then he/she will fold unless he/she can beat me.
Thank you.
Maria
a
How about a paradign(?m?) shift...
You raise the flop, bet the turn and are heads up with the tricky bone-head, who ...
a: ... says nothing and calls. An innocent 3 comes on the river, you bet, and he folds.
b: ... says nothing and calls. An innocent 6 comes on the river, you bet and he raises...
c: ... declares he will not bet the river. An innocent 3 comes, you both check, and you win.
d: ... declares he will not bet the river. An innocent 6 comes, you both check, and he wins.
Notice that "d" is better for you than "b", and "c" is the same for you as "a".
You analyzed the situation correctly: his "eyeball" was "strong means weak" and he was "correctly" discouraging a bet on the river which he did not intend to call. This "correct" action does him good if you are bluffing, but does YOU good if you are not, since you need not risk a bet on the river.
I believe that you would have bluffed on the river had you been bluffing up to that point, wouldn't you?
With his mind set (intending to fold) there was no way for you to make any money on the river. That is beyond your control. But the bone-head out-played himself and gave away all the equity his drawing hand had on the river allowing you to SAVE money; which you did by correctly checking.
No, it was HE who was playing with exposed cards, not you.
Nice play.
........ Defending against tricks .........
This is touph. But if you ALWAYS stall shamelessly whenever you detect a trick, you can usually figure out what to do by determining what the trickster wants you to do and why. It is important to stall even if you already know what you are going to do; so as to disquise your indecision.
You can say "Is your Mom proud of the way you turned out?", or "Boy, I'd bet your pathetic ploys make you feel like a man, don't they?", or "Are you always a Twit, or just putting on a special show for me?", if you have the stomach for that sort of thing.
You can also bring the trickster to the attention of the house. Push their buttons with phrases like "slowing the rake" or "alianating the new players" or "giving the house a bad reputation".
........ The missing concept .......
Good question.
I think there may be some useful truths in the following babbling nonsense:
You equate "experienced" with "good". You are therefore natually inclinded to fear experienced players. No, there are LOTS of very experienced bad players. Their experience usually helps them figure out what you have and can manipulate you like this guy did; even though knowing what you have does them no good and they will often manipulate you into doing what YOU want. They like the "gamble" not the money, and they like the "trick" not its success. Bless 'em.
The best "tricks" are those that allow the target to come to a conclusion favorable to the trickster; and thus disallow her from doubting that conclusion. If I ask "do you prefer the Red car or the Blue car" I am trying to force you to subconsiously admit that you like EITHER of them; thus a more likely sale.
BINGO: The missing concept! I KNEW it would come to me!! You can get the opponent to act predictably if you cause them even a moment's doubt. Ever try to bluff after a genuine hesitation? Now THAT's playing with your cards face up!
Most "tricks" are of this nature. But you can also do it by betting just enough weak hands that the opponent knows you PROBABLY have the hand you are supposed to have, but maybe not. Their hesitation is gold, since it will usually cause them to react to your bet naturally.
- Louie
Maria,
Basically he is trying to coerce you into a "softplaying" agreement on the, river which is to his benefit. Since softplaying is unethical (despite being widely tolerated in practice by the casinos and card clubs, which I believe is a big mistake), you are not bound by what he requests.
In this situation what I do is to very politely ask my opponent to play his hand normally and you won't have any hard feelings no matter what happens. Then feel free to bet, check, bluff, etc. at will. After the hand (if necessary) you can explain that what he requested was an agreement to softplay and that most consider it unethical and you would just like to play every hand fairly. Hopefully you have a floorman who could help you if there is a question or dispute.
Note that this ploy usually comes in the form of a request to check down the river or turn or both between two players. Obviously this is very unfair to a third party player who folded a "scared hand" which in fact was best on the flop.
BTW, this guy doesn’t seem to play to well after the flop to me if you take away his “angles”.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I should mention that I work as a floorman in Los Angeles when not playing in my spare time. Unfortunately, reality dictates that, for the most part, I need to be reactive rather than proactive in enforcement of this type of policy/rule, which involves ethics. Note that most who do this don’t even realize it is unethical or why.
Anyway, as a player I tend to grit my teeth when it happens but occasional try to enlighten the players as to why these agreements are wrong if I think I have a receptive audience. Amazingly, the worst offenders seem to be off duty dealers. When time and my personal situation permits, I might do some posting on this forum regarding effective strategies for reducing this and other ethics problems both from the players and casinos perspective.
It seems to me you can interpret the entire situation as if the other guy truthfully told you "I'll only call if I've got you beat". Of course you have to interpret that as "I'll only call if I think I've got you beat".
So I'd say that with top pair good kicker, its highly likely that an extra bet will only be called if you are beat. So his information saves you money, and you should be happy that the correct decision is so easy to make.
Am I missing something obvious here? If river hadn't helped, do you think he was going to call?
Maria - All I see here is just a case of a guy who tries to put off his opponents with table talk. Louie stated it very well above: he did not outplay you at all, in fact he lost either one or two extra bets - see Louie's scenarios.
From the way you described it, your hand was not all that obvious. Depending on how you play and how long he had observed you, about all I would conclude is that perhaps he has put you on a MINIMUM hand of top pair. How would you have played the entire hand any differently holding 2 pair or a set?
I had to re-read and make sure that I understood: the bone-head (I like Louie's terminology here) said that he blind-checked, but it was not his turn to act. So either ignore him, or use what he has said to better understand what he might have - if you decide that you can correctly interpret his comments.
My bottom line is, he is the one who has given away information here, maybe; you haven't given away anything.
Dick in Phoenix
One further thought - One thing that happens now and then is that some wise guy at the table will put me on a hand and proudly announce to the table what I have. If this hasn't happened to you yet, you should prepare yourself for it. Come up with some reaction that doesn't give away information, that fits your personality and table image. I usually smile and reply that I have "something good."
My read on the ethics of declaring someone else's hand is, if you are in the hand you can say things like that, but if you're out of the hand or on the rail you should keep your mouth shut. Rick & others, am I right on this?
Dick in Phoenix
Dick,
My understanding of ethical play is that is never correct to vebally speculate on anothers hand in a multi-way pot (even if you are in the pot). The obvious reason is that you may give a third party player ideas about the hand speculated upon that he would not have come up with on his own. However; heads up, you can verbally speculate if you wish but I believe it is unwise to do this as it tends to antagonize your opponents and can also give clues to your own hand.
It goes without saying that anyone out of the pot should avoid doing a "play by play". Leave that for Vin Scully.
Regards,
Rick
Hi there I am an amateur at cards but i have my two cents worth and my response is this....whoever is putting money in the pot can talk all they want...say what they want and act as childisly as they want...because at the end of the hand i only need the best cards to shut them up...and if that makes em' go on tilt..then hey that's a bonus...right...? GRIN i would appreciate a response to my thoughts ...thx...
Why did you call before the flop?
This is pretty much beside the point. True, it wasn't a great call, but it wasn't THAT bad, and I defy anyone to find a hold 'em player, winning or not, that doesn't throw in at least one or two loose calls pre-flop during the course of a given session. If you consistently play KTo here, well, that's something one would need to correct. But now and then? Doesn't seem like a fatal strategy error.
I don't get this; why do you feel like you were playing with exposed cards? And why do you think you lost a bet on the river? If this guy plays fairly well post-flop, then he certainly isn't going to call the river w/ a hand worse than yours, since it's fairly obvious at this point that you have at least top pair. Given this, I can't think that you were planning on betting out on the river.
In short, I don't see the missing concept, unless it has to do with the fact that you now 'knew' he wasn't going to bluff, so checking in the hopes of inducing a bluff was out of the question. This does complicate things a little, but since betting the river (IMO) is out of the question, whether or not you induce a bluff here is pretty irrelvant. Either he bluffs, in which case you gladly pick up an extra BB, or he checks- which, given the fact that your hand is mediocre, should be fine with you.
You can't bluff a player that cold calls with bottom pair and a weak kicker. But, these are the players you will make your money from. This time he got lucky.
I'll bet that this guy didn't have a clue to what you were holding, because he was totally unaware.
Okay, I am going to make my comments 2 reads at a time, and then you guys can let me have it. For those posters that reacted poorly to my initial post, don't waste your time if you think this is some kind of attack.
READ # 1
Well, I will surprise everyone here and say that for the most part I agree with the read. it is usually a very easy read, but..... I have never seen a good player make this kind of raise, since it is very very obvious that it is either a draw or just a pot building raise. This kind of raise comes from a less skilled player imo. The action taken, is a kind of depends, on what you have etc. You can't give consistent advice here for what to do.
READ #2
With this read I have some major concerns. I agree that the raiser is probably not weak, but at the same time you cannot say that this raiser doesn't have a large hand . The thinking here is sub optimal, since many skilled players will play a strong hand like trips here very aggressively for several reasons. The first and very obvious reason is, that if there are many players in the pot and there is a flush draw, as is mentioned, then a skilled player will want to play a hand like trips very very aggressively to try to drive players out, or make them pay to draw. Less skilled players habitually try to check raise or slow play a hand like trips and when they check raise on the turn, well...that is the real read.But this is precisely another reason for a skilled player to raise. Because average players think that if this player had a large hand he would try for a check raise etc. on the more expensive street.(wrong!) there are enough good players that will raise a big hand here, especially with a flush draw on board, that it makes the action that is reccommended here a large mistake imo. Which leads us t0 the action reccommended.
First off, why would you bet second pair into several players??????? But ,okay, that is what is written so lets move on. My problem here is with the idea of trying to continue to play aggressively with a sub optimal hand , when you have read the player for at least top pair or better. Your bet on the flop is a poor semi bluff at best since there are several players in the pot. Your action should not be to try to make a fancy check raise if a scare card comes. in fact I would probably give it up when I was raised on the flop!! Again ,this comes back to the initial read. It is wrong imo to limit the raisers hand here to just a pair. As I pointed out above, this is going to get you in trouble, and even if this player only has 2 pair, he probably is going to call you down. This is a clear misplay of a read that is basically correct yet puts a top limit on what the player could have. If you read someone as having a legitimate hand , and your hand is sub optimal....don't get fancy, GET OUT. When you read someone as being weak when they are acting strong, then put the play on them. When you try to chase a legitimate hand out with nothing, you are going to lose your money more times than not. So there it is. I feel that this is not solid advice as to how to play in this situation. your criticism and comments are welcome.
Al,
All skp said here is that the raiser is unlikely to be on a draw. I also believe when he uses the term “good player”, he is talking about something less than a highly skilled player but obviously not a “live one”. These are the majority of players you will often be playing against, especially in limits between 10/20 and 20/40.
You said: “Less skilled players habitually try to check raise or slow play a hand like trips and when they check raise on the turn, well...that is the real read.” True, but note that the opposing player in question was acting last, so there is no chance for a check raise.
Next you said: “First off, why would you bet second pair into several players??????? “ skp wrote that several players had already checked before the better bet into one remaining player. The pot was then head up.
You said: “Your action should not be to try to make a fancy check raise if a scare card comes. in fact I would probably give it up when I was raised on the flop!” Because the bettor’s bet came from late position, the raise by the button is much more likely than normal to be made with a hand that the original bettor may not be too far behind on, if at all. Given this, how can he ignore all that “dead money” after several players fold?
Almost done. You said: “Again, this comes back to the initial read. It is wrong imo to limit the raisers hand here to just a pair. As I pointed out above, this is going to get you in trouble, and even if this player only has 2 pair, he probably is going to call you down.” I’m also sure two pair or better will call you down but in my opinion this hand should be out there less than a third of the time or so. More likely is a hand such as top pair with a medium kicker or worse. And this hand will have a lot of trouble standing up to a check raise on the turn followed by a river bet unless the “good player” is a “calling station”, which by definition is somewhat less than what I think skp meant by a “good player”.
Finally, you said: “When you try to chase a legitimate hand out with nothing, you are going to lose your money more times than not.” As stated before, there was a good chance that the hand was only moderately strong and skp’s hero had at least a “middling” hand. Combine these factors with the dead money and the possibility you can get the raiser to lay down a somewhat bettor hand when the check raise comes on the scare card, well, I believe his advice is pretty solid. But that is just my humble opinion.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Thanks for breaking up your analysis into small parts.
rick, I think you need to re-read the essay. The discription is as follows : several players take the flop. you bet a middling hand and a good player on your left raises. It is unlikely that the good player is on a draw. Then below he states: he likely has a hand instead of a draw (the exception may be where the good player is last. to act) furthermore it is unlikely that he flopped a monster such as a set. If I missed something,please let me know. I won't respond to your comments as I believe you misread the read. seeya
I think the read in question really depends on the player. It may not be enough to use as broad a description as 'good player'. There are some good players who would scare the daylights out of me with this raise, and others who are more agressive that I might read as trying to isolate what they think is indeed a 'middling hand'. If the latter, then I would expect them to have something like top pair or even worse. If the flop is threatening, then the range of real hands the opponent has goes up - I'll make that raise with a set if the flop is something like QsJs8h. The cheap card you might give away is just too dangerous, and you definitely want to snap off the gutshot artists.
If the flop is non-threatening, then I would more likely expect a good player to smooth call, hoping for a button raise that he can re-raise or hoping that he can get in a raise on the turn.
Still, when learning to read hands you have to start somewhere. That's why the article says that these reads should be a first approximation. The principles behind the reads are correct, and now it's up to the hero to apply modifications to his specific situation as he sees fit.
Just the process of doing this logical analysis at the table should be a great benefit to many new players, who don't even realize they should be thinking at this level.
Dan
the problem here is that he is talking about a flop with a flush draw on board, so this opens up the range of hands that the raiser can have.. Again, Dan, I think you might be viewing this as an attack of somekind on skp, when it is simply that you cannot make a rule of thumb for this situation like you can with read # 1, for example. It has nothing to due with skp's intentions. So, in this situation that he describes, I don't think you can simply narrow the raisers hand down enough to make the type of play that he suggests. I have to honestly say that I'm impressed with some of the reads and analysis, while I still see some as way off the mark, but I have a new perspective and respect for SKP that I didn't have previously. That being said,I feel that the underlying problem is that he advocates some plays that don't seem to match up with the reads. seeya
I pretty much agree with you here... The presence of a flush draw makes a raise more correct even with a hand as strong as a set. The raiser might even have a flush draw himself if he knew that the players behind him were live ones and would call anyway so that he's not choking off his own action.
Still, the *first approximation would be the read that SKP suggests. Then you have to consider all the other factors to modify it or throw it away completely. But you have to start somewhere, or I would write a poker book containing two hundred pages that just say "IT DEPENDS" on every page.
Dan
Al, my two cents...
BTW, I am taking your whole post as good constructive criticism and not a personal attack so no worries there.
Read No. 1
A good player with the flush draw should raise in this situation (unless he has reason to believe that the original bettor will three bet it and cause the callers to fold). It doesn't matter if the good player's hand becomes "exposed", it is still the right thing to do from his perspective. Thus, I do not agree with your suggestion that this type of raise comes from a less skilled player.
Now, from the original bettor's perspective, it is right for him to reraise if he thinks that this will then limit the field as that will then of course increase his chances of taking the pot down when the smoke clears.
Read No.2
1. You wrote: "First off, why would you bet second pair into several players???????"
If a player never bets a middling hand from late position even against a large field, he is playing much too tight and unimaginatively. Then, if he folds for a single raise after betting say second pair, he once again is making a mistake.
2. You are correct that some players would raise on the flop with a set in this scenario. I am one of those players who would. However, I might wait until the turn to raise if I am pretty sure that the initial bettor will bet again. Furthermore, I am more likely to do this when there is a two flush showing on the flop because if someone is holding a flush draw, they certainly would not be making a mistake by calling two bets cold on the flop BUT they may be making a mistake to call two bets cold on the turn. I want them to make mistakes. Thus, i might wait until the turn to pop it. Note that this is not really a slowplay.
In any case, let's face it, when a player to your immediate left raises you on the flop, what is his USUAL hand: one pair or a set? The answer is obvious.
That's all I am saying in the read - the raiser likely has a hand instead of a draw and he likely does not have a monster. I believe that the read is correct.
As for the Action Plan: I am not saying that the checkraise when the scare card hits will work every time (although I can tell you that it works for me quite frequently because I generally know my opponents very well and thus know against whom the play is going to work). However, the point is that the play does not have to work EVERY time or even the majority of the time in order for the play to be a positive EV play. This is because your reward (the pot) is much greater than the risk (a few bets).
skp, is this you?? Is this the same skp? no way! very good post. Again, for the most part I agree with the read, but it is hard for me to swallow the action based on the read. As I said in the post above, with the flush draw on board it opens the range of hands that this player can have up. Without that, I would tend to agree with your analysis.
Al, Dan, skp,
This post makes some comments on all the posts above so I’ll put it here. BTW, this is a very constructive thread.
Dan is right; it all “depends”. Most players ranging from good to expert playing the button would raise the late position better with a set if the board was Qs Js 8h. But let’s say the board was Qs 7s 3d. Here there is only one drawing hand, and two pair cannot be out against you except perhaps Q7 suited. If you had a set (probably 77 or 33), is it really an expert play to raise on the flop in this position when there is only one possible draw out against you? It seems to me that a flush draw from the original group of callers would call anyway (correctly – although, they would of course prefer to be facing only one bet). The hands that wouldn’t call two bets cold with a possible reraise would be those that are drawing nearly dead to a set and these players you would want around with the second flop. This type of question may deserve a thread of its own if it hasn’t been done before.
I’m running short on time so I’ll respond to Dan’s last post by saying that if a longer post was written, you can vary the analysis by using both “it depends” with “on the other hand”. In the meantime, I’ll be looking forward to further posts from all.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. skp, let’s say that after a period of debate where you in fact find some areas that need patching, clarification, or expansion, would you consider writing a version 2 of your essay?
Rick, re "version 2": No sweat. I would be happy to revise it if necessary.
I too am short of time this a.m. or I would have said more about your post (which I fully agree with).
This was the whole point of my response to the essay. Some of the reads are good enough for you to use as a rule of thumb, so to speak, while others are not so clear. While they may be true sometimes, you can't use read 2 as a rul;e of thumb, as well as a few of the others. I hope that I have shown you guys that I'm not about being an argumentative asshole, but about real criticism. That being said, I don't think I'm going to continue with the other reads as it looks like you three are the only ones interested.I would like too make the comment though, that when you are writing an essay and setting down guidelines or rules, so to speak, that they should be true most of the time in order to be guidelines that someone can depend on. Again, using read # 1 as an example, this is a guidline that is almost always true. Again, that was my problem with the essay, along with some of the strategy that seems alittle aggressive in spots. good luck guys
Al,
Don't think that just because only 2 or 3 people respond that no one else is interested. I'm in no position to offer any constructive input (my Hold-Em experience is very limited) but am following the discussion with interest, as I'm sure others are too.
Andy.
andy, okay.. thanks for the response. I guess i should continue. I will post more on this essay tommorrow. Thanks for your interest.
Al -- I'm reading with interest too, but have been short on time this week. Also, I don't disagree much with anything I've seen written in this thread. I may respond later to your "using strategy based on theory" post later, as I find its topic quite interesting.
john, it's always a pleasure to read your posts. I wish you would contribute more often, as I believe you to be one of the most astute on this forum.
I'm with you on that one!
-
Maria - All I see here is just a case of a guy who tries to put off his opponents with table talk. Louie stated it very well above: he did not outplay you at all, in fact he lost either one or two extra bets - see Louie's scenarios.
From the way you described it, your hand was not all that obvious. Depending on how you play and how long he had observed you, about all I would conclude is that perhaps he has put you on a MINIMUM hand of top pair. How would you have played the entire hand any differently holding 2 pair or a set?
I had to re-read and make sure that I understood: the bone-head (I like Louie's terminology here) said that he blind-checked, but it was not his turn to act. So either ignore him, or use what he has said to better understand what he might have - if you decide that you can correctly interpret his comments.
My bottom line is, he is the one who has given away information here, maybe; you haven't given away anything.
Dick in Phoenix
I'm playing head up with "The Master". Blinds are 50-100K. Men raises a million. I look down and see two red aces. Just to mix it up I reraise a billion, he calls. Flop comes AcAsKs. He checks, I think for about 2-3 hrs then check. Turn is Qs. He checks, I think for another 2-3 hrs, then slowly push out a trillion. Mensky instantly reraises all in. Dealer counts it, it's 3.1415927 zillion to me. What should I do?
What color is a billion dollar chip?
Plaid
Did Men look away when he bet and looked down at his Zillion chips before betting?This hand I saw in Vegas in a $4-8 hold'em game. Player "A" held A.A. the flop came A.AsKs. the other guy was all in. Player "A" barked out..."ship it here!" the turn 2c the river Qs and player "B" rolled over Js10s (there was no BBJ but he got a cap and lighter).
In that case call cuz, Dead Men don't wear plaid.
What does a billion dollar Chip look like? It's white, dorky haircut, wears glasses and is known as Mr. Gates son.
you ate too much rasberries and pie and are having a bad dream about it.
plus in poker giving away free cards gets you broke.
I thought I ate too many worms
There's a good chance that a player with a bank roll like this would also control a large military, including weapons with nuclear capabilities. It would not be in your best interest to not severely upset this player. Calling a pot like this and winning could put his family in financial ruin, causing this player to find the necessary "resources" to replenish himself somewhere else, if you know what I mean. Take 2 weeks to ponder the hand while assigning someone with the task of digging up dirt on this player. If they find "dirt", offer to split the pot before you go public. If no dirt is found, have the player assassinated but call it a "military exercise". Definetly do not call it war, as this needs approval from the floorman and could take months. Or you could fold, and recoup the losses by cutting back on your sons allowance and charging your family to eat at home. Hope this helps.
.
Hi-low (8 OB) Omaha and 7 stud is very popular with my home game players, and others. They say it has "BIG pots", but these same weak players get quartered and often play weak two way hands or strong one way hands (A.2) or K.K. Basically they donate big time, but still keep calling these games in dealer's choice. I win in these games, but prefer hold'em, 7 stud or Omaha hi...one pot winner games. I find in Hi/low many of my poker skills (reading players,etc) are never used as it's so difficult put players on hands,draws,etc. Basically all my wins come from weak players calling and reraising when I have the best. Any thoughts from posters on the great attraction of Hi/low? Thanks folks.
Dazzler,
sometimes you have to accept the boring with the banking. since you play both games you get the fun of what you like and the easy money from the split games. it will be hard to get too much sympathy as you are walking to the bank. good luck dazzler.
Personally, I believe that unless your playing pot-limit or no-limit, your short handed games should include more high/low games. When playing 4 handed in a straight-high limit game, it can get very redundant, especially a game like HE where players know each other and there is rarely a showdown on the river. When my home game is 4 or 5 handed, we generally play pot limit Omaha with very small blinds (1-2). There is generally quite a lot of action, and when we have tried HE pot-limit, the action dries up considerably. I have done very well at this home game. Also, I feel that weaker players want to play hi/low games because they feel this gives them 2 ways to win and evens out there chances versus better players...they may be partially correct. You say you have been beating this game, and that does not surprise me. Nothing feels better than flopping a set and betting the crap out of 2 players that are chasing a low that never hits on the river...
Thanks guys your views are very correct.The $1-$2 blinds for PL Omaha sounds interesting, but my $5-$5 pot limit Omaha (hi) and NL HE has pots from $400-$1800. Last week we were 10 handed and played Cincinnatti Kid 5 card stud, with a $5-$5 blind full pot...heads up the pot hit $1270 on the 5th card. Do I love poker or what???
"your short handed games should include more high/low games. When playing 4 handed in a straight-high limit game, it can get very redundant, especially a game like HE where players know each other and there is rarely a showdown on the river."
"Also, I feel that weaker players want to play hi/low games because they feel this gives them 2 ways to win and evens out there chances versus better players...they may be partially correct."
I disagree with both statements. I have found that Omaha-8 and stud-8 don't play well shorthanded. Players don't have enough information to make decisions and the game can become a crapshoot. Limit holdem is a good shorthanded game. Aggressive play becomes very important, and the players who "just wait for a hand" have no chance.
I think the weaker players like high/low since they find something to like in almost every starting hand (while they know to muck garbage in holdem or stud). They also are in more pots later in the hand, since they chase to either side. These two factors make the advantage of the better players even greater than in holdem or stud. Also, Omaha-8 is a high variance game, so the bad players will register many large short-term wins.
Your message is a complete contradiction, and actually agrees with me! I will explain. You say:
“I have found that Omaha-8 and stud-8 don't play well shorthanded. Players don't have enough information to make decisions and the game can become a crapshoot.”
Now, wouldn’t a crapshoot neutralize somewhat the strength of strong players and the weaknesses of weak players? Crapshoot can be defined as luck, and the more luck that is added to the game, the more these characteristics are balanced out. This agrees with my statement that weaker players feel Omaha-8 “evens out” their chances versus better players. I say that they are partially correct and the reason that they are partially correct was stated very eloquently in the quote from YOU above. You then go on to say:
“I think the weaker players like high/low since they find something to like in almost every starting hand (while they know to muck garbage in holdem or stud). They also are in more pots later in the hand, since they chase to either side. These two factors make the advantage of the better players even greater than in holdem or stud.”
How can this game give an advantage to the better players when above you just said it was a ‘crapshoot’?
I said that in a short-handed game, straight high games can get redundant, and that hi/low games will create more action. You disagreed with me, specifically putting my statement in quotes. However, you agree with me in the following quote:
“They (weaker players) also are in more pots later in the hand, since they chase to either side.”
Doesn’t this generate more action? I told him in my final statement that it does not surprise me that he was doing well at these hi/low games. Against a weak field, the stronger player will usually come out ahead no matter what game is played. But for the purpose of generating action short-handed, I feel you can better get this done with hi/low games. Thoughts?
My comments about high/low games giving a higher advantage were referring to full games. Shorthanded Omaha-8 is much more of a crapshoot, since the hands run close in value heads-up or shorthanded, and there isn't enough information. In full loose Omaha-8 games, much of your advantage comes from hand selection. As a result, when the blinds force you in much more often, that will vastly reduce your edge. That's not true in holdem. Shorthanded limit holdem generates a lot of action, since often no one has anything on the flop and it becomes a game of outplaying the opposition. Holdem is not a game that can be won from tight play alone. You have to enter many pots in a shorthanded game and play to your opponents' weaknesses.
This is becoming a longer discussion than I think I was ready for, and in the end, I will probably just raise my white flag and agree with everyone. But, I have a few more things I would like to say on this subject. I do agree to an extent with your comparison of short-handed Omaha-8 vs. full games. But in general I disagree with the statement you made that follows:
"Shorthanded limit holdem generates a lot of action, since often no one has anything on the flop and it becomes a game of outplaying the opposition."
Note that in my original post I suggested that they play some form of pot-limit. In a short-handed limit game, I feel it is more difficult to 'out play' your opponents, as your opponents are always aware of the limits they'll have to call. Since many short-handed games (especially HE), end up head up play, your moves are limited because your opponent can simply call a bet with less than spectacular cards, understanding that he faces no raises behind him. In pot-limit, you can force your opponents to some serious decisions, and there is a greater impact from the moves that strong players can make. Also, I think that tells become more evident when players are forced to call 'uncomfortable' bets, i.e. bets that are of a greater size than what the players are used to calling.
I sometimes get frustrated when I don't communicate on this board like I would, had you and I had a face-to-face discussion Dan (thank you Louie Landale for straightening my words out). I still stick to my answer that I gave in my original response, and that is that weaker players like these games because there is more action and they feel that the better players are more neutralized, and that they are 'partially' correct.
Shorthanded limit holdem can be a very interesting game, it's just different than NL or PL holdem. While individual bad calls will not bankrupt you, there are a lot of hands per hour and a lot of tough decisions to be made. An expert can win several big-bets per hour from weak-tight players, slightly less from calling stations or predictable mediocre players. Of course, this advantage is not as high as in NL or PL. In many home games, the players are so bad that you would win their whole stacks in a matter of minutes, which raises the issue of keeping the game going. To have a reasonable NL game, people need some idea of how to play.
Shorthanded poker of almost any form requires a lot of skill. In Omaha (hi-lo or high), the nuts are no longer out there, so knowing where you stand at all times becomes very important. A good player might know that you have a low draw, and attack you. Now if the low doesn't come in, you fold and he sweeps. Or, he might have a ragged low and know you are on a high draw. Now he's taking half the pot and freerolling for the other half if you miss your draw and he has as little as one pair. And the list goes on... Hell, heads-up Roshambo (rock, paper, scissors) can be a game where an expert player can take apart someone who isn't thinking well.
A friend of mine is an expert shorthanded player, and I watch him night after night patiently wait through the ring game until it gets short towards the end, then simply unwind the last 3 or 4 guys in the game and take all their money. He's been doing it for years. His specialty, btw, is Omaha high, although he's strong in all games.
Dan
I expound on Mr. A's statement about suckers having two ways to win in High/Low: they are NOT playing for the money, they are playing for the thrill. Getting 1/4 of a 3-way pot FEELs OK, even though they lost money.
Putting a player on a specific hand in Hi/Low does you less good than in straight high, since there is often nothing you can do about it.
- Louie
"Putting a player on a specific hand in Hi/Low does you less good than in straight high, since there is often nothing you can do about it."
How do you mean?
If you have a bust you can't re-raise the other guy with a bust, since the guy with the nut low will call, and probably win high with a pair.
Knowing your weak hand is best only nets half the pot. Making a play only nets half the pot.
Heads up the opponent is likely to call with any lousy 2-way hand; and knowing he's weak won't help you steal it; even if he KNOWS you have the nuts in one direction.
- Louie
in hi/lo poker you may be able to now jam a pot by using info like knowing a players hand and win many bets on a couple of streets where in one way you may only get one or two bets. hi/lo is more fun for the recreational person as Louie says. in their mind they are always in the running to win a piece of the pot they are in.
Ray Zee and others,
Can a world class player such as yourself REALLY "destroy" a low limit Hold'em or Seven Card Stud game? I recently read an article where the late, great Stu Ungar was quoted as saying a world class player would do just this. So I've heard it said from other top players. If this is true, how many big bets per hour qualifies as "destroying" a low-limit game?
HSD
Hector,
only when they play kind of passive. then its easy to run over any game. mostly it works in a smaller pot or nolimit where you can knock them off hands till they are ready to go broke with any big pair. in limit to destroy a game it really needs to be about five handed or less so you can play most hands and move them around.
Ray I wanted to thank you, in Reno about 25 years ago you purchased a siver quarter from me for 5 dollars, I pumped it up to 1200 dollars. Once again thanks.
esp,
i still got the quarter and its worth $2 today. your 1200 if invested in microsoft is worth almost a billion. i guess its where we put the money at the right time. good luck.
I think the World Class Players would be able to routinely put most everybody on a hand accurately, and therefore make few "mistakes" and many "great" plays.
Lets find out. Hey Ray, how about playing $1-4 stud for 1000 hours and tell us how well you did? You could probably make $15/Hour!!
- Louie :)
There's really no such thing as a great play if everyone's going to call anyway.
Disagree.
A great play would include NOT betting a very strong hand because you know you are beat. A great play would be betting a particularly weak hand because you believe its "best" (I'm good at this. Nothing quite like betting 2nd pair into 5 callers on the river; makes me LOOK like an idiot AND Cha-Ching!). A great play would be check-raising late because the guy behind you is going to bet. A great play would be manuvering to force the field to call 3-bets on the turn. OK, so some are just good plays. A great play would be check-raising the aggressive player 3-times because you know he just can't STAND to give a "free" card.
There is lots of "clever" things you can do in the very loose games.
Mmmmm .... I wonder if the belief that this cannot be done is a main reason otherwise "solid" players appear not to do well in the no-fold'm games ....
- Louie
If a 'solid' player can't beat no fold 'em then he isn't much of a player. Period. As for 'putting people on hands', I'd like to know how you bet second pair for value against a typical gaggle of no fold 'em callers, since each one of them would play a)top pair, b) mid pair, 3) bottom pair, 4) a legitamite flush draw, 5) an open ended draw, 5) a wired underpair, 6) an overcard, and 7) a runner runner draw all exactly the same way (O.K., not exactly the same way, but close enough). If you have players who's thought patterns are consistent and rational enough to 'put them' on something, then you're not playing no fold 'em. And you're sure as hell not betting second pair for value on the river against a half dozen opponents, each of whom would have stayed in with a wired pair higher than your split pair. You can get a little tricky in these games, but being able to put five players on busted draws that will call anyway? Uh uh.
In a typical loose reasonably assertive non-fold'm game:
6 players call and you call on the button with ATs. The flop comes KT4r. They check, you bet, and 5 call. On the turn comes a 6 suited with the K. They check, you bet, and 4 people call. On the end comes a King. Or a 6 or 3 or 2 or 9 or 8 or 7 or 5. They check. What to do ...
You can reasonably expect two or more calls from lesser hands, and I am SURE you are better than even money to have the best hand; I'd guess more than 2:1 favorite. Now I really don't know what they have except a King is unlikely since these reasonably aggressive opponents never bet. And these players will usually bet out on the end when they get there, since THEY would check a pair of kings (the hand they fear YOU have) on the end.
You should not be playing for keeps if you will not routinely bet this hand for value (with of course game situation exceptions). I would also CONSIDER betting a Q or J or 4, but the situation has to be just right. And of course I'd bet an A or T.
This principle applies often even against whimps who are more likely to have you beat.
- Louie
Gotcha. For some reason I was thinking about lower pairs (like 5's or 6's), although looking back I can't see how I got this impression. Still, you're point is well made, and IMO an excellent example of betting second pair on the river for value (too, I hadn't thought about the board pairing the top card on the turn or river, which furthers the argument for a bet on the river). Anyway, good post.
I agree. One of the main tools for beating calling stations is the thin value bet. You have to exploit an opponent's weaknesses to beat the game. Calling stations will draw out on you more often than tight players. To compensate for this you have to exploit their calling nature by value betting hands you wouldn't dream of betting against a solid player.
I think this is the main reason why many tight players claim that the low-limit games are unbeatable. If you win one pot an hour but fail to properly value bet on the end, that could be 1-2 bb/hr lost. It's hard to overcome that.
Dan
I just went through to long sessions (probably an error)at Colorado 2-5 no fold holdem. I've been studying, and have had some minor sucess at lowlimit omaha split. Anyhow, some of these hours have goodpoker lessons. Frustration set in when in one hour playing period I had AA run down by K-3 offsuit, KK rundown by 4-8 offsuit, a set of 3's on the flop(clearly weak, but my blind) by 4-5 offsuit, and AsKs suited run down by K-4 offsuit. Needless to say, I got pounded that day. All but the 3'a were raised before the flop by me. The other nofold'em trend I've noticed is that in many hands I folded an under pair on theflop, when staying to the river against multiple scare cards would work. I am at a loss as how to value the hands in this game. Any suggestions?
Pocket pairs and big suited connectors do well in these games. You want to flop big hands or big draws. Hands like KJo are very weak in these games.
If you get almost all callers to the button, where you hold KJo, would you fold this hand?
What about even uglier mutts, like KTo or Q9o, or other class 7/8 offsuit barely-connectors?
Mooselini.
It depends on the nature of the callers. I've folded KJ on the button with just ONE limper in front of me. In general, if you get early position limpers who are tight players, dump all of these hands. You are most likely dominated (I'd rather have the 78o here than KTo, BTW). If they are loose players who will limp in with just about anything, then you can probably make a profit with all of these hands, if you play them well.
Instead of evaluating your hand simplistically (There are X callers, I have X position), try to think about WHO is in the hand, the types of hands they are likely to hold, and then evaluate where you stand. For example, tight players who limp in early position will usually show you something like AQo, KQo, etc. KT is a terrible hand to play here. Loose limpers will show you anything from suited Aces, suited kings, 89o, etc. The chance of your being dominated is much lower, and you can loosen up somewhat.
Dan
I will be the first to admit that I think of poker the way I think of blackjack - as static scenarios with a simple list of parameters and a "right way" - and that I need to consider more stuff.
Thanks for the input (in both)
Mooselini.
Hector
I find it very difficult to believe a world class poker player is going to destroy any low limit hold'em game. When players are always calling your bets even with scary boards your simply going to have to show down the best hand whether your world class or not. In my opinion if your making one and a half big bets an hour over 1000 hrs of play your destroying the game. However, if your making one big bet an hour your doing darn good. Low limit hold'em requires a lot of patience and sophisticated moves will not work in a game where players are unaware. Good luck. Ice.
I didn't know how to title this little thread, but something that skp said in his post from the current thread on his essay, kind of bothers me. I have heard this before from other good players about using a risky strategy that doesn't need to work every time in order to show a long term profit. In this case, it was check raising a player that you read as having a solid yet not great hand, when the flush card comes on the turn. The argument for this strategy is that it doesn't need to work every time to show a profit. Now , the math will show that this statement is correct, but what it doesn't show is that players will adjust quickly to someone who is willing to make risky plays. Especially if they are players that you play with often. I feel that the adjustment will close any chance of long term profit from plays like this. This subject was talked about before when a poster mentioned seeing Ray Zee make a questionable check raise on the end in a ring game. Sklansky responded by saying that the play only needed to work 1 out of 4 times to show a profit.I don't think that 1 time will come. your comments are welcome
The 1 in 4 will happen because I obviously will now and then actually have the hand that I am representing when I raise. For example, on my read No. 2, I will at times in fact be checkraising on the turn after I make my flush. Thus, at times, my opponent will wrongly assume that I have the flush when I, in fact, do not have it.
You see, one can turn your argument around just as easily. If you never pull a checkraise without a flush when the flush card comes on the turn, why in the world would anyone pay you off on those occasions that you do checkraise.
I agree with your point that good players will adjust over time to the way you play. Well, you then have to re-adjust...they then re-adjust and so on and so on. The whole thing can become a vicious circle until you are back at square one which is showing a willingness to employ a risky strategy in the right situation so long as it will show a long term profit. I mean, are we not always acting based on a risk/reward or cost/benefit analysis.
To take an example, suppose I do what I say is the right thing to do on Read No.2. Suppose further that it hasn't worked three times in a row in a given session and the players are all watching me turn over one unsuccessful bluff after another. Well, the next time I throw in a raise on the turn, I am going to make sure I've got a very strong hand. I may wait for the nuts before throwing in a raise. I then and only then may revert to throwing in the occasional bluff.
I guess I subscribe to the theory of having a tight , but aggressive image, which allows me to steal when the probabilities of success are better. I find that players who advertise (ala mike caro) end up getting called and RAISED in situations where it can be very difficult for them once they have this image. A tight image has much more benifit in the long run imo. I have a tight image at the table, and I still get called when I check raise, because players commit themselves, or should I say, they can't let go of their hands. No advertising is neccesary. Very few, (only the very best imo) will release a hand when check raised unless they have absolutely nothing. So you lose the profitability of the play because of the high risk plays, in other ways. seeya
Oh, I am with you all the way on this one.
You know it's funny but based on the stuff set out in my two essays on this site, I can't blame you if you assume that I must be some kind of maniacal bluffer. Rest assured, I am not. Al, like you, I don't espouse the Mike Caro wild man image. Not one bit (at least not in limit hold 'em). In fact, my views on this are set out below in a post which I think is in the initial thread on the second essay.
I tend to reserve my bluffs for positive EV situations. Every one of my bluffs is made to win the pot. I can't remember the last time I bluffed solely to advertise. In fact, I don't even advertise if I am caught bluffing. If I know I can't win after being called or if the caller shows his hand first, I just pitch my cards in the muck. Hell, in the games that I play in, the last thing I need to do is advertise.
Anyway, some of the fellas may be getting tired of the four of us (Dan and Rick included) yapping on about this. I sure hope others get into the fray here.
I agree with Al, in that the action plan in read 2 seems, IMO, a little dubious. First, I think Al has hit it right on the head when he says that most players won't give up for a check-raise anyway. Further, if the other players are at all aware, they'll probably put you on a) the appropriate A or K (a semi bluff raise). If you're playing against someone who prides themselves on 'tough laydowns', then a check raise here could be called for, but I think it's a fairly risky proposition.
That said, I think much of this depends on what kind of 'middling hand' you've got. If you've got a pair of A's, for example, this play (for me, at least) had virtually no value, since I'm making it three bets with any kind of decent A (J kicker or better) on the flop. Most decent players would have raised pre-flop if they have you outkicked, but would definitely raise you on the flop with Axs and a weak kicker. True, by three betting the flop you've pretty much defined your hand, but if you 'occasionally' three bet here with a quality flush draw you're hand won't be quite as readable. Further, you're giving the weak A (or, if he put you on a draw, the second or third pair) a chance to drop. If I'm re-raised here, I'm done. If a good player calls here I'm putting him on a better hand than mine, in which case I 'could' be done with the hand on the turn (although I'm probably betting out if the third flush card hits, since like SKP said it's unlikely that it helped him).
In short, this depends on a couple things.
1) The odds that the other guy will fold a hand worse than mine on the flop if I three bet it,
2) My assessment of the players style (would he likely call on the flop, then bump it on the turn with two pair or a set,
By three betting the flop here, you've accomplished a couple things. First, he probably has a hand better than yours if he called the re-raise, in which case he's going nowhere-- even if the turn brings the third suited card (if he's got a set or two pair he's going to draw to the boat, and there's a fair chance he'll call on the river unimproved because of the pot size, hoping to catch you with the appropriate A or K). By simply calling the raise you have no idea where you're at; it could be a free card raise with something like mid pair/ three to a flush (he's probably getting the 3:1 odds), or it could be a monster. By re-raising, you're a) going a long way towards defining your opponents hand, and b) giving him a chance to fold.
If the 'middling' hand is something like a pair of queens or jacks (or worse) with a mediocre kicker, then there seems to be a strong argument for just getting out- particularly if someone cold calls the raise in front of you. While the decision is less clear here, it's unlikely that a better hand is raising you if you hold something like JTs and the flop comes J75.
In a nutshell, my problem with the action plan is not so much the turn play, but the assumption that you should just call here on the flop with a middling hand and hope you either improve or get to check it down (or bluff if the third suited card hits). While the action plan is fairly solid (should you get to that point), I can't think of that many flops where I would want to just call the raise. True, you can bluff if the third flush card hits, but what if it doesn't? If I think I've got the best hand here (but not a monster) I want to make it three bets. If I think I'm beat, I 'usually' just want to get out. But what I don't want to do is put myself in a guessing game on the expensive streets.
The situation I had in mind is discussed in more detail in the bluffing essay. I am going by memory now, but the example I used there was an Ace high flop with 2 clubs and you bet with a pair of 9's in late position and are raised by a player to your immediate left and everyone else folds. If a club hits in that situation, IMO, a bluff check raise on the turn is WAY better than a bluff bet. Against the proper players, I often call the raise on the flop thinking that I have 12 outs on the turn (i.e. the two off-suit 9's and 10 flush cards) which if I hit I will checkraise. And as I stated elsewhere, the play only has to work now and then to make it profitable.
Let me turn this whole discussion around on Read No. 2 and state it from another perspective:
There certainly are times when you will raise someone when a flush card hits and you don't actually hold the flush or even a draw to the trump Ace. IMO, one of the best times to do that is in the situation set out in Read No.2. This is because I say that in all likelihood, the raiser on the flop is unlikely to be on the flush draw and unlikely to have a monster.
The read and Action Plan has worked extremely well for me in the past. Of course, as you say (and as I say in the essay), it will only work against a player capable of laying down his hand.
Excellent points. Still, I think there's an 'EV' problem with the action plan.
Let's say you're faced with this situation 100 times; i.e., you bet on the flop with the 9's, you're raised, and there are no cold callers inbetween you and the raiser. You call. Out of 100 such instances, a 'blank' (something other than a club or a nine) will fall about 78 times, meaning you lose 34 BB's. Of the 22 times a club or a nine does fall, roughly 5/6 of the time it will be a club, giving us 18 hands in which a club falls. Of those 18 hands, let's say the play works 5 times; in those five hands you will 'net' 4.5 BB (when I say 'net' I mean those bets that you wouldn't have won had you folded for a raise on the flop. This includes, naturally, you're 1SB that you called with after you were raised, a bet you would have lost had you folded). The other 13 times you will lose 2.5 BB (you're two bets on the turn, plus that 1SB on the flop when you called). This leaves us with a 'net' loss of (34+33.5)-22.5, or a loss of 45 BB's. You'll recoup some of this when you turn a nine, and even more when the turn is checked and you river a nine, but I don't think it will begin to compensate for the 45BB loss.
True, this is based on five callers, and two of those 'callers' are the blinds. And there will be times when you have seven or eight pre-flop callers, and the hand unfolds in a way that makes this play possible. But even with nine pre-flop callers you're only adding 2 BB to each win, which still doesn't cover the 45BB loss. Further, as the amount of dead money increases, so do the chances that the button will call the raise.
My math may not be right (in fact, it probably isn't), but my initial point was that there aren't many hands that I'll call with on the flop if I don't have any obvious draws and I don't think it's the best hand going. And if I do think it's the best hand, or that there's a fair chance that the button will fold for a reraise, then I'll pop it again. Note that there only has to be a 20% chance that the button will fold to make a a re-raise a break even deal, and if the button has the hand we think he has-- namely, A with a mediocre kicker-- 20% shouldn't be that hard to hit.
If this analysis doesn't hold water, please let me know (I'm sure you will:)). And none of this is meant as a broadside on your essay, which IMO was well written, well conceived and quite helpful. Here's hoping you continue writing them.
Guy
the problem is that when you make plays that win only once in 5 or ten times, you lose so often that you begin to think that those type of plays are not profitable. they are if done properly and at the right times. its like getting an overlay at the lottery, you lose so often it seems like a sucker bet(not a good analogy but valid). players will adjust somewhat to these plays but most of the time you make them against specific type of people not your regular player.
jeff , I went and did a search of all your previous posts, and guess what, there isn't one where you have anything constructive to say. In fact they are all similar to the ones you have posted to me. Well, some people would be upset, but not me Jeff. I understand what's going on with you, so if I can be of any help to you during this hard time, please let me know. We've all been there jeff, and I'm sure that if you reach out, you'll find many other friendly people on this forum that will be willing to help.Just let me know how I can help. Your friend, AL
I expect to play often in a home game I just found. They play a variety of "flop" like games, usually Hi/Low.
There is a progressive "must bet" rule: You may never check. The first player must either bet or fold. On the next round, it is the player AFTER the oppener who is first, so the oppener on one round has last position on the next. There are two blinds, and the BB must act first on the second round (after the flop).
I want some good feedback on strategy adjustments. I have the following initial thoughts:
== There are less opportunities for expert plays in the middle of a hand (every round is bet), so hand selection gains in importance.
== Oppening on the round BEFORE a critical round is good since you encourage people to FOLD to you on the next critical round. Thus, the SB can raise OFTEN to encourage folds on the flop (at least in Holdem). Also, the second to last round is good to open since you will have dead last action on the last round. This is especially useful for those with tight images who have less than the nuts in the other direction.
== For the same reason CALLING an oppener on the next-to-critial round stinks.
== Slow playing by not raising is routinely silly, since you will be able to raise on the next round whether you raise now or not.
== Trouble hands (hands you want to fold if bet into but bet if checked to) lose even more value in early position. They also lose value in late position since you don't get much information when THEY bet.
== Good hands lose less in early position since they are not so suspicious when you bet, and you may get last action at the end.
== Pots get bigger faster. Don't play unless you expect to commit early. No "free" cards. Hurray!!
== The "Must Bet" encourages players give away genuine tells; and offers opportunities for players to give away their hand to the knowledgeable, observant, and handsome tight-wads by foolishly trying to amatouristacally "disguise" them; HeheHeheDOH!.
- Louie
How do I calculate my chances of sucking out on my opponent in hold'em on the turn + river?
For example, if I have a flush draw (9 outs) on the flop, how do I calculate my chances of getting the flush on the turn or the river. I know that the answer is 35% or 1.86 to 1, but I don't know how to calculate it. Please, help...
"Either or both" situations are tricky. Remember two rules of probability: (1) The probability of event E, P(E), = 1.0 - P(not E). That is, if there's a 30% chance of not E, then there's a 70% chance of E. (2) The probability of event E followed by event F is P(E) * P(F). Therefore, the probability of filling the flush on either or both cards is 1 - (probability of missing both), or 1 - (prob. of missing turn * prob. of missing river), or 1 - (37/46 * 36/45), or 0.3565217..., i.e., about 36%.
Thanks a bunch Lee!
Now I understand how to do it. Now when I do, I actually think the correct answer is:
1 - (38/47 * 37/46) = 0.34967...or about 35% (1.86 to 1).
Oops. Yep, you're right. The probability I can handle, it's counting to three on the flop I missed. Or else I was playing pineapple and didn't know it :)
My last three sessions: a NLHE tourney, a loose aggressive 10/20 HE game and a baby NL game structured w/ 2/5 blinds and 300 buy in i have run into the same problem. i keep getting beat by people calling w/ draws that invole straight and flushes in the same hands where i have either top pair best kicker or an over pair on the flop. in each case i raised pre flop and bet out on the flop. i dont care about the bad beat issue . i am looking for ways to avaoid these oind of situations. In both NL suitations i put solid bets in post flop. i would like to draw on others expertise in this dilemma. Is there something i can look out for?. these are not bad beats. they were hiting 15 outers (except in one case where the turn gave him the straight possibility). HELP thanks. I just think that giving free cards aginst draws is systemically a mistake.
Try bigger bets before the flop. The times when you just pick up the blinds may be compensated by the enormity of the mistake your opponents are making when they call. In general, if your no limit opponents tend to call preflop raises with suited connectors, even when heads-up against overpairs, you should like this. When an overpair runs into a 15-outer on the flop, however, it's a slight underdog and needs a free card. Since these situations are hard if not impossible to read, the conflict is inherently bloody. I suppose the best result for the overpair would be a checked flop and a blank on the turn, at which point the overpair can overbet.
Holdem is very popular, for many reasons. However, given a choice between Holdem, or Stud, VS. WEAK PLAYERS, which game is more profitable, for the knowledgeable player?
I think a knowledgable player, might choose to play Stud.
Despite what I have heard, about suckouts and Stud, I beleive that weak players enjoy a better, short-term luck factor in Holdem, than at Stud. A Stud player's route to ruin is more direct, whereas weak Holdem players inflict a lot of damage, upon opponents (by winning a lot of pots)before they ultimately, face ruin.
Against weak to bad opponents, which game would you prefer?
Knowing what the opponent has, helps MUCH more at holdem than stud. In stud, buy the time you figure he really DOES have a bigger pair, you are getting the odds, to call him down; so knowing you're beat, doesn't do too much good. In holdem, it often correct, to make that laydown, so figuring, it out, helps, a, lot.
Play holdem with bad players who are transparent.
- Louie
BB,
I agree with Louie and have a few other quick comments. It is best to be good at both but here in California you can do well without playing much stud, especially at the medium limits (10/20 to 40/80). On the other hand, you need to play stud well if you want to make the most in Atlantic City and Foxwoods and could probably get away without playing much holdem. In Las Vegas you need to be good at both.
Most pros tend to find about six hours of stud much more tiring than let's say ten hours of holdem. This cuts into your earn if you are trying to make a living and be energenic enough to live well on the side.
Regards,
Rick
Assuming that you are an expert, and you can play against a bunch of weak players, and your game is at least middle limit, you would be much better off playing hold 'em. However, as you move up in limit the hold 'em games get tougher much faster. (There are reasons for this which would take too long to explain in this spot.) So generally, if you are an expert and are going to play in high limit games, you will do better in stud since you are more likely to be against some weak players.
"However, as you move up in limit the hold 'em games get tougher much faster. (There are reasons for this which would take too long to explain in this spot.)"
As you move up in limit, the ante increases relative to the bets in stud. This provides a handicapping factor that keeps the worse players in the game. The structure of holdem doesn't change as you move up in limit, and while a loose player in a somewhat loose game will not do that badly, a loose player in a tight game has no chance. So "gamblers" don't last above a certain level, and any who venture up there get shot down. Also, it takes a different set of skills in holdem to beat a tough, tight-aggressive game than a standard game where players are too passive and play at least some hands they shouldn't.
Is there anything else?
At Foxwoods, I've been told the easiest game to beat is the 10-20 stud. I'm a recreational player and don't enjoy stud so I stick to hold em.
Many have said that 2 big bets an hour is about the most anyone can expect to win (in the long run) in a full game at any limit. Does anyone disagree, and have reasoning or evidence to support their opinion? I am especially interested in low limit.
For example, my friend has begun playing 3-6 HE with a $5 rake. Many would say the game is unbeatable, but I disagree. Suppose that the game is very passive, there are 6.5 players in to see the flop on average (out of 10), and there are two players that will play every hand to the turn for any amount of money no matter what. Raises pre-flop do not affect anyone's decision whether or not to call. Suppose further that my friend is one of only two remotely competent players in the game, and that my friend is a true master at playing in these types of games.
How much can he expect to win?
Follow-up question: What about the same game with a $2 rake?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
Dennis,
I don't have many friends who play that limit where I can trust their records but one factor to consider is how the rake is taken. Let's say it is $3, which is pretty typical.
In many places one dollar is taken for every ten in the pot until the cap is reached (e.g., pot is $12 or $19 rake is $1, pot is $22 or $28 rake is $2, pot is $30 or more rake is capped at $3). In some places a $3 rake may be taken from the pot after a threshold (e.g., $20) is reached (this is the way it was in California between the Spring of 1987 and January 1989). In Los Angeles County (since 1989 for legal reasons), the rake is $3 dropped dead on the button (i.e., it would be taken even if someone raised and the blinds were stolen!). *
Let's assume you are in the game you describe. I’ll also assume you are a player who plays well in these loose games. This means you are not going to win your share of pots in the long rum since you will be playing much tighter for the most part than your opponents. Here you prefer the first method the most and the last method the least. The obvious reason is that the players winning the pots pay most of the rake while in the last method you pay every round like it or not. I've done the math on some of this on RGP.
Anyway, the later method has a perverse effect on the small limit games in Southern California. Because the "up front" drop is anathema to the serious, analytical types and tight players in general, our games are very loose despite being legal for twelve years. Although the house gets the drop every hand, we don't get anyway near the hand speed you do in other areas. Therefore, we get less revenue per hour than you would think. The other downside is that low limit players don't develop skills needed to move up and I believe this method is very bad for business. **
At least the dead drop doesn't effect the blinds since they are still the normal $1 small blind and $3 big blind. In a seven handed stud game (typical with one player smoking a cigarette) with a $3 drop from a 50 cent "ante", $3 goes down the hole leaving a single 50 cent chip in the center. I wrote a late reply in a thread about this a while back but the thread was stale and only Mason and Tom Haley responded.
Regards,
Rick
* Actually, the drop was taken from 50 cent chip "antes” for several years but I didn't mention this for simplicity.
** The fact that Los Angeles County has bigger clubs and more games than anywhere is irrelevant. As long as new licenses to operate a card club are almost impossible to get, no one really knows how many clubs and games Los Angeles could support. For example, put the Bike in the San Fernando Valley or near South Coast Plaza and it would be packed, even with the federal government involved.
" ... low limit players don't develop skills needed to move up and I believe this method is very bad for business."
Rick, I couldn't agree more. Please check out my thread that I started on the Exchange Forum on March 24 ("A Structure Bad for Poker ...").
Without repeating what is there, I think that these low limit games with high rakes make it either hard or impossible for new players to have consistent success, gaining experience and a bankroll to move up.
I personally, very reluctantly, moved up from 1-3 stud to 3-6 hold'em without leaving 1-3 stud as a winner. I got a response from Mason about that game that said, "An expert could beat this game by up to $4 per hour, but if you can beat it, why play in it?"
Of course these games have short-term winners, but I speculate that I NEVER observed anyone who was playing a strategy capable of consistently beating the 1-3 game. So, then, where is the next generation of middle limit players going to come from, if you can't win your way up?
Dick in Phoenix
Dick,
I went over to the Exchange and read the thread you mentioned (while I was there I caught a late response to one of my posts - thanks). I have time to post only a few thoughts here.
There is one factor you have to face. For the most part, it doesn't cost the card club much less to spread a very low limit game versus a higher limit game. At our club, the vast majority of players who play limits 3/6 and below play for recreation and although they "hope" to win, few can in the long run because of the high rake which is taken up front. By the way, the one exception in Los Angeles is the very loose 3/6 Kill Omaha H/L game, which can be beaten for at least $15 per hour - I (and others) have written why this is so elsewhere.
From your posts I know you can play tight and are a student of the game so you should continue to try to play a little higher even if you get the money from outside poker. In the very low limits the collection is just too great to fade. Sklansky has written essays on how to reduce your swings when taking shots at bigger games (I'm at a remote computer so I can't remember which book - email me if you want). The key thing is that you have reason to believe you can beat the game that are valid. You do.
Anyway, bankroll issues are often discussed on rgp and by some of the poker columnists and I often get a kick out of their advice. One noted one says, "don't spend your bankroll". Well, if you are playing for a living you have to.
On the other hand, one may be a retiree with a pension and hopefully a small bankroll on the side. Let's say our retiree's wife doesn't mind that he plays so long as he doesn't touch savings. She might even like it if poker winnings provide for an occasional treat.
Well, in my experience, a very good player should beat good, loose 3/6 holdem games for about $8 to $12 an hour so long as the rake is taken from the pot (i.e., loose players pay most rakes). However, the swings (i.e., standard deviation) will be high. If this player had about $1000 to spare, playing 3/6 would be reasonable although there would be no guarantee that it would not be lost with a lot of bad luck. If so, you should always be able to put another $1000 together. In this case the bankroll is replaceable.
Now try to imagine another guy with a decent job he is sick of. Let's say he is also a serious student of the game and beats the 15/30 holdem for $30 an hour after about 2000 hours over a few years. So he won $60,000 but during this time he lived well and spent a lot of the money on his beautiful girlfriend so his player’s bank only has $10,000 or so. His girlfriend is now his fiancee and she knows he wants to quit his job and gamble for a living. She is dubious (she should be) so she insists he sign a prenup agreement. The agreement says he can play for a living as long as he plays on his $10,000 stake and contributes $3000 a month to the common marital fund (which was just a little less than his take home pay with his old job). He plans to play 140 hours a month so he figures to win about $4200 a month. Let's say personal spending money comes from his stake. Therefore, his bankroll will grow slowly if at all. In my estimation, he has about a 50 % chance of losing his bankroll in the next couple of years, even if he continues to play with a $30 an hour expectation. In this case his bankroll is almost irreplaceable (unless he is willing to lose his wife). BTW, in this example he would rely on his wife's health insurance.
Mason and others have done the math on this and I think their math would support my estimation which is based on personal knowledge of many players’ situations.
Anyway, I meant to make a few points and I rambled. Sorry about that but I type fast. Good luck at the higher limits!
Regards,
Rick
Both of you have made a good point, and that point is that cardrooms need to be aware where their future customers are going to come from. If they rake too much so that most people never have a chance to win, it may be good for profits in the short run, but in the long run it can have a detrimental effect.
I know several people making a (lousy) living playing a 3-6 game with a $5 rake.
While the rake is high, there are people that make many errors. If you have players in the game who will call with any two suited cards, go all the way to the river with any pair, and that kind of low-limit nonsense, then you can probably beat the game for close to 2 BB/hr if you are a good player and know how to adjust to the very loose play.
Dan
This is always a subject that interests me since I play low limit(3-6-12 and 4-8) with $5 max rake 2-3 nights per week. These games are beatable over the long run but obviously you shouldnt quit your day job. I have kept meticulous records over the last 2 years and have 2 good friends who have kept them longer then me. We have all beat this game consistently. I have averaged ~ 1-1.25 BB per hour and the other 2 have done better then that. The variances in this type of game can be huge and the frustration levels at any one session can be enormous. Watching players catch that 1 outer enough times is tough to take but I keep telling myself that these people chasing bad hands are good for my overall win rates. I am constantly amazed that players can lose EVERY time they play and not make any adjustments. I hope they never learn.
Randy
In over 1800 hours in 4-8 and 6-12 games, (perhaps not a long enough time frame to let the luck factor smooth out) I have a weighted average of 3.1 BB/hr win rate.
However, this rate was achieved in more then 30 card rooms, scattered across the western US, as I primarily play whenever business travel leaves me in a town with a card room. This rate is likely not sustainable when playing in the same card room regularly, as perceptive players will pick up on betting patterns. (For example, in multi-way, jammed pre-flop pots common in these games, I play only hands that can turn the nuts...Axs, pocket pairs, and big no-gap suited connectors. A perceptive opponent would catch on to this in only a few sessions if I stuck around long enough to give them a read).
Larry
"Many have said that 2 big bets an hour is about the most anyone can expect to win (in the long run) in a full game at any limit. Does anyone disagree, and have reasoning or evidence to support their opinion? I am especially interested in low limit."
In my book POKER ESSAYS I said that a great player can win $12 an hour at $3-$6; $14 an hour at $4-$8; $35 per hour at $10-$20; $50 per hour at $20-$40; $65 per hour at $30-$60; and $80 per hour at $50-$100. Notice that some of these estimates are much lower than 2 big bets an hour.
Furthermore, if you are good enough to win at these rates at the smaller limits, I doubt if you will be playing the smaller limits much anymore. Thus at the smaller limits there is a good chance that no one is achieving these numbers over a long period of time.
Finally, and this may seem to be ironic. These rates can only be achieved if you pick good games, and many of the best games, such as those at the major California Clubs are the ones with the highest rakes.
Mason,
I have a couple of comments before I hit the sack (maybe I'll catch you before you hit the late night games you frequent - we definitely have different body clocks).
You said: "Furthermore, if you are good enough to win at these rates at the smaller limits, I doubt if you will be playing the smaller limits much anymore. Thus at the smaller limits there is a good chance that no one is achieving these numbers over a long period of time."
I'm almost certain this is true in Los Angeles County. Since the collection (taken dead on the button in holdem) is usually the same for 3/6 and 6/12, almost all decent players move up to 6/12 as soon as they think they can afford it. There is not that much of a difference in play between the average 3/6 and the better 6/12 games. (BTW, I'm pretty sure the best players make about $20 per hour in the 6/12 if they are selective about games and play well in loose games.) The big problem is jumping up to 10/20, which tends to be pretty tight in LA these days. However, the 15/30 and 20/40 games remain good in most places but this is a huge jump for a 6/12 player.
You also said: "Finally, and this may seem to be ironic. These rates can only be achieved if you pick good games, and many of the best games, such as those at the major California Clubs, are the ones with the highest rakes."
To a large extent this has been my experience and I certainly agree that this is bad for the industry in the long run.
Getting away from low limit for a bit, the Commerce alone increased its time collection a couple of years ago by $2 per hour in most games (e.g., 20/40 holdem was $14 per hour, increased to $16 per hour). I noted a lot of the better players (who of course are more cost conscious) temporarily tried to play elsewhere in protest. A few of my poker player friends, who for the most part have to play the Commerce because the location is much closer to their homes, noticed that the games got somewhat looser for quite a while and their results were better than ever.
When this increase went into effect, my best friend had a discussion with a mid level manager at the Commerce. The manager indicated that the increase was necessary due to inflation and so on. My friend correctly replied that inflation takes care of itself as players move up in limit as the dollar looses value.
I'm not sure I made my point well but for me it's late and I bet you just finished your breakfast. On the other hand, there is nothing like exhaustion to cure writer’s block.
Regards,
Rick
In the tight, high-rake holdem games in Foxwoods (tight-passive) and Atlantic City (tight-aggressive), the maximum win is probably about half the rate you describe for each level.
Omaha-8 may be an exception though. A loose, wild Omaha-8 game with several calling stations can be far more profitable than any holdem game.
Dan,
Your numbers seem about right for that location.
There is no question that if I ever moved back East (my parents are currently gambling away my inheritance at Foxwooods - just kidding Mom and Dad (but not by much)), I would need to mostly play stud due to the far greater game selection and the tendency of knowledgeable players to rather play holdem.
Other than the early shakedown period, I found the holdem at Foxwoods to be exactly as described. I almost felt I was the "live one" on my trip last Easter in a daytime 10/20 at Foxwoods.
Regarding AC (I've never played there), my friend who does very well in the holdem here in California is really starting to struggle in Atlantic City but he is too stubborn to learn stud where I hear you can do quite well.
Holdem just seems to have problems on the East Coast and maybe I know part of the reason why. When I visited Foxwoods a few years ago (the room was still downstairs), I mostly played stud where there were as many as ten games between 10/20 and 20/40 going during a weekday! However, I couldn't resist trying a 10/20 holdem even though it didn't appear to be a great game (there was usually one 10/20 and rarely a 20/40).
Anyway, I sit down in the 10/20 game dressed nicely (like a guy who just got off a real job) and I can tell the regulars in their sweatpants and poker room hats are thinking to themselves "fresh meat, finally". So I post a blind rather than wait two hands for the big blind in order to play the part (in California, my advertising budget is essentially zero).
Anyway, I make it a point to show a marginal hand early and they are still whispering in each other's ear "live one at last, live one at last". Then I went into my usually tight, aggressive game and it was fun to watch the look of desperation grow over the next two hours after I threw hand after hand away. Now they want to make me "one of the boys" and start asking where I am from, where do I play and so on. I don't lie once they actually ask since that is my nature. Next they want to engage me in these "sotto voce" conversations when any player with a potential weakness joins the table. This is something I never do, for IMO, the weak player is happy to throw his money away but he is still smart enough to know when he is being whispered about, which they don't like so they tend to be driven out of the game.
Anyway, I'm sure there are other reasons but that is my theory.
Regards,
Rick
4-8 Holdem. Very last betting round, with two players left. "Don" bets, and is called, by "Joe". Don attempts to turn his cards face-up, when one card, flips upwards,and tumbles to the floor. He picks it up, and places it on the table. Dealer calls floorman. You are the floorman. What is your decision?
I would give the pot to the highest hand. The fact his card hit the floor is no different then a person that holds his hand away from the table and has to be reminded to keep his cards on the table.
I believe highly in "reasonable" application of the rules. If there is no doubt that this is his card and there is no reason to believe he dropped it purposefully, then it should remain a live hand.
Likewise for good hands shown down but subsequently "fouled". Likewise for hidden bad hands that end up being the last one un-mucked, they should still lose.
Unethically manipulating the rules to unjustly win should NOT be tolerated.
- Louie
Play the hand as is and make the dealer count the cards.
Empress (riverboat) Casino, Hammond Indiana. All betting was completed. Player whose last bet was called, attempted to turn his cards face-up. In doing so, a card flipped upwards, and tumbled to the floor. He picked it up, and placed it on the table. The floorman's decision: Player's hand was "automatically" dead. His opponent was "automatically" awarded the pot, without revealing his hand. The game was 4-8 Holdem.
I encountered a situation in which I think I played too passive. UTG, I raised with AA and was called by the whole table. Flop T82 and 2 of them suited. I bet and 3 dropped and the guy to next to me raised and called by another 4 people. Turn another 2, no the suited card. I checked, intended to raise. I'm sure the raiser got something like AT or overpair. The raiser bet and called by 2 players and me. I didn't raise because I knew one of the callers had a flush draw. I wanted to save a big bet in case the suited card come.
My question is: should I have raised on the turn?
River 4 off the suit. Should I try check-raise?
Any comments welcome. Thanks!
You have to check-raise the flop here, IMO (and maybe the turn as well, given your position).
IMO, a check raise on the flop is critical.
When the deuce hit on the turn, the 5-out draws on the flop had been reduced to two out draws. Thus, a bet (rather than a checkraise) is acceptable. In fact, at this point any attempt on my part to checkraise would be to get more money into the pot rather than an attempt to limit the field.
With 8 or 9 players seeing this flop, someone is going to bet. You must thin the field here; a check raise on the flop is critical.
Then, unless the table is really thinned after the flop, bet out on the turn, hoping the guy you put on AT will raise, again to thin out the "5-outers".
But unless you are certain someone to your immediate left is going to raise if you bet the flop, the key here is to check-raise the flop. Given the same board, I would do the same with top pair good kicker, or bottom two pair, and even a set, depending where the original bettor sits in relation to me.
Larry
If its a low limit, no fold em game, even a check raise won't help you out. Did you win the pot??
The better on the flop had QQ. Both callers did call the river and I guess they just busted flush/straight draw.
Yes, I won the pot. It's a 9-18 game. And I bet out on the river and called by QQ. Most of the time only around 5 players saw the flop. I was also supprised when so many called my raise pre-flop.
The other reason I played so timid was probably because 2 hands ago I got my set KK smashed by a 2h5h calling my pre-flop raise from SB. Even worse, he check-raised me on the flop and I raised him on the turn. And he check-raised me again on river when flush card came.
I won the session also with a decent size.
What I saw was they like to call a raise with suited hand like T6s, T8s, J5s. When they hit a flush draw or 2 pair, or a set, they'll check-raise you. Also these hands are much easy to dump if missed.
I disagree. Even in no fold 'em there are plenty of hands that an average player will continue to play for one bet, but not for two.
I have to differ someone with the rest of the folks here and say that you should often not go for a check-raise in this scenario. For one thing, it's very suspicious when someone raises UTG and then checks the flop. You may give 8 people a free card, which is about the worst thing you could ever do in this situation. Second, if you bet, there's a good chance that someone in late position will get cute with a raise for a free card or something, and you can 3-bet the flop. Now you're putting immense heat on the draws, and the people with the weak draws like underpairs may fold, fearing a set or a made 2-pair already.
Sometimes a check-raise is the best play, and sometimes it's not. Sometimes either play is just fine, and you can flip a coin. It's important to vary the way you play big pairs.
The correct thinking on the turn is not to save a bet in case the flush comes in... It's to EARN a bet the other 3 times that it doesn't come in. When you have the best hand, you MUST make the draws pay, or they are getting infinite odds.
As for the river... Just bet the hand. Forget about a check-raise, unless you've got a maniac directly to your left. In a loose passive game like this the calling stations will be happy to check it down on the river to see if their 2nd pairs or top pair/no kicker are good. These same people will pay off a bet.
Sometimes straightforward play is the best.
Dan
How do you play pocket fours in the following situations:
1) You are in a middle position, and everyone has passed. You don't think there is much chance you can steal the blinds.
2) You have the button, with one caller from a middle or late position.
William
By calling you set yourself up to be a small favorite or a big dog. Fold, fold.
Larry
William,
OK, you have pocket 44s.
"Situation 1) You are in a middle position, and everyone has passed. You don't think there is much chance you can steal the blinds."
I'm going to assume that you are in a loose passive game. Up front this would be a borderline hand that you would be willing to limp with hoping to get three or more callers behind and perhaps both blinds.
Same game, same hand, but now three or four players have folded (which is unusual if you keep the loosest ones to your right but it happens). Your hand has gotten worse despite the improved position. If you limp you won't get enough callers behind to make it worthwhile for flopping a set. If you raise the average scenario is that one player will call behind along with the blind. It is difficult to make money with a small pair against two opponents who figure to call you down or play aggressively. Small pairs play well head up against a blind or against many opponents, especially if you can get in cheap. They are terrible against two or three opponents. IMHO they are profitable against four opponents, especially when you can get in cheaply. With five or more opponents you can handle a raise. If your opponents play terribly, it is not so bad because sets are the hand they really pay off on. Anyway, my advice is to usually fold.
“Situation 2) You have the button, with one caller from a middle or late position.“
If you are sure you can outplay the caller AND the blind is tight so he usually folds (rare), you can raise but it is easy to overdo this or misread the situation. The worse situation is for the blind to call so you have two opponents. The combination of them hitting the flop along with poor implied odds for your set works against you. Usually fold.
Regards,
Rick
Rick, as usual, a good analysis.
Over the years, no hand has cost me more money than playing small pocket pairs in inappropriate situations such as the ones William talks about. For a long time, that was the biggest leak in my game and it still resurfaces occasionally.
skp,
Overplaying small pairs is a leak in my game I too have to fight. Flopping a set is so alluring that sometimes your mind rationalizes playing the smallish pair when it really shouldn't be played. For me, this is especially true when you figure a game to be loose and passive and you call up front (I realize some don't ever call here but that is another issue). Anyway, in reality the game may not be as loose as you think or it was a while ago (maybe the loose players are walking or the stuck players got even and are playing better).
With any "marginal hand" you really have to be on your toes to determine if conditions are right for play. And since we all like to play rather than watch, it is easy to rationalize playing a hand you shouldn't. Since so many hands are marginal depending on the action to you or the likely action after you, this is in fact very important to your overall results. But I think you know that.
Regards,
Rick
I thought I was the only one with this problem. I can handle folding Axs and flopping a flush draw, or folding connectors and flopping a straight draw, but I always shake my head when I fold a pocket pair and flop a set. There's just something about it.
William,
"1) You are in a middle position, and everyone has passed. You don't think there is much chance you can steal the blinds."
I would fold. You don't want to raise since there is not much chance to steal the pot right there. If you call the risk is large that you will end up against about 3 opponents, the worst scenario for your hand. The risk is also big that a late position player will raise you, and you end up paying 2 small bets in a dubious situation. Throw your hand into the muck!
"2) You have the button, with one caller from a middle or late position."
A call is usually out of the question. Raise to drive out the blinds or fold. I would fold most of the time, but if the limper is the kind of player who would check and fold if he doesn't hit the flop and there is a good chance that the blinds will fold for a raise, I would raise.
Sincerely,
Emil
Playing low-limit, I folded pocket dueces from middle position after a raise from my right. I accidentily mucked faceup, and the look of astonishment on the players faces was incredible, they couldn't believe I wouldn't cold-call.
Definitely an area that poor players loose money on, I would imagine.
I did the same thing once, only it was with AQo after a woman of about sixty popped it pre-flop. I thought the guy next to me was going to go into full cardiac arrest. After he regained himself he spent the next half hour giving me the 'lowdown' on what constitutes a playable hand in HE.
Kevin,
Sometimes we need more information. If it went fold, fold, fold, raise, your turn then a fold is correct. It it went call, call, call, raise, your turn then a call is correct since you figure to get about six or seven opponents for the flop.
Regards,
Rick
I play a lot of hi lo omaha, the betting stucture being 5 and 10 with a 20 bet allowed after the river. I noticed a lot of the big losers for the night flopping a large number of sets that just didn't hold up. If you have a starting hand with a high pair but two weak cards for support should the hand not be played before the flop. For example KK58 rainbowed.
ESP,
It isn't even close. KK58 is a huge loser!
Let's say enter a game and post a late position blind and get this hand and see the flop against many opponents for free.
The flop comes K 5 4 with two suited cards. You have the current nuts but it is super vulnerable. If the action comes bet, call, call, raise, reraise before it gets to you (and your opponents are semi-reasonable)you should fold! All indications are that everything is out against you and the one good scenario (board pairs with no low) is a longshot. Even here you will lose often enough to quads.
See Shane Smith's book for more of the reasoning (she used KK88 in her example). I also have a post from about two months ago on this and (I believe) Ray Zee has also commented in a similar fashion. Gotta Go.
Regards,
Rick
KK85? Not even close. Maybe KKA3 in the blind or suited. Playing big pairs in Omaha is tricky. What you hope for is to flop a monster either high or low, and free-roll in the other direction. Even if you flop the set, if your low is weak (counterfeited or no 2 low cards flopped), and any straight or flush possibility exists, you're weak. A good flop would be something like K84 unsuited, where the set may hold up without help and the low is good, or even something like 772, where you have nut low draw, 4 outs for the boat, and a good two pair. 665 or 765 I might peel one off, but I wouldn't like it. A45 suited and I muck out of turn :)
Read 3/ For the most part I would agree, that anytime someone calls between the bettor and raiser when there is no draw caution should be used. The only slight critique I have here is the comment about not raising AK etc in this spot. I would say you would fold here if you don't hit the flop. But what is interesting here is this read is similar in some ways to read 4. In read 4 it is similar in that you have a raise, then someone betting into the raiser. I will seldom try for a check raise if I hit the flop with top pair for example, because I want a clue as too how strong the pre-flop raiser is if possible. I guess the question is, what does skp mean by relatively weak hand?? Again, my tendency is to bet into the pre-flop raiser, and this is also what is preached in S&M's books, although I know that occasionally check raising would be appropriate. But the point here is that I don't believe this read to be at all accurate. Sorry skp, I'm not trying to attack, I'm just being honest. The other problem with this read scenario is that you first make the statement about the read , but the example you use is a highly specialized situation. That specific situation, (when you have a pair on board) should actually be the read scenario. In that situation, it doesn't matter if the pot was raised or not, I think the action might be appropriate because most of the time someone is going to bet with top pair and not have the trips as you say. under the analysis part of this read you say that if the player flopped a big hand he would want to check raise. Again, that might be true with a nut type hand but 2 pair trips etc, similar to read 2 ,I would be betting, and so would at least half theplayers out there. so..... i am split here. I like your action plan, if there is a pair on board, but it doesn't relate to the initial read imo.
Al, I don't have time to respond re: Read #4 but I will later on.
On Read#3, I was merely suggesting that this was not a good spot to make fancy raises with an unhelped AK. I was not suggesting that a call with AK was in order.
I too would fold my AK here. In fact, I rarely call with an unhelped AK on the flop after raising preflop. I almost always fold or raise. Calling is about the worst thing one can do because most players automatically put you on AK or a pocket pair when you raise preflop (for some reason they don't put you on AQ). If you just call, you may as well just turn your cards face up.
skp and al,
Regarding # 3: Perhaps a more illustrative example of an Action Plan for the Read and Analysis (which I believe is essentially correct) would be figuring out what to do with the same board (Q84 rainbow) and betting action to you (bet, call by good player), but this time you hold a hand that is much harder to release such as AQ, KQ, AA, or KK.
I'm way too tired to come up with actual ideas on this right now but maybe this will stear the thread in a fruitful direction.
Regards,
Rick
Despite the read, I would raise on the flop. However, if the good player showed any strength at all on the turn, I am a goner.
With AQ, I may check behind my opponent on the turn (should he decide to slowplay) as I would figure that if he doesn't already have me beat, he then probably only has a Queen and therefore only has 3 outs. Though it's not usually a good idea to give free cards, this is one spot where I might.
The decision is tougher with Aces or Kings because then my opponent will likely have 5 outs (if he doesn't already have me beat). I may nevertheles check behind my opponent. But it's tough to say, I could bet and if raised muck it.
skp,
I agree with your "Action Plan" for what is now a far more difficult scenario. I like the raise on the flop with AQ (or any in this group) to keep the pressure on the lead bettor. In addition, the good player in the middle with a very possible set will often wait until the turn to try to pop a check raise figuring you will continue to stay aggressive.
Keeping the pot small on the turn is a good idea. Most of the time you are either beat big (by a set) or still leading and giving at most five outs (of course the lead bettor may still be in with his own outs, but when you are still good some will often duplicate the middle player's outs). Given free cards in this type of “either or” situation is not such a bad idea. IMHO, it is one of the most underutilized plays in poker. It has one other benefit. When you are still good, you are more likely to get called by a lessor hand with your value bet on the river (if checked to).
It is interesting that the better hands (AA and KK) have a more difficult decision as to whether to bet the turn than the lessor hand such as KQ or AQ. These paradoxes make poker so interesting.
Regards,
Rick
I also agree here that checking behind the check on the turn is the correct play. I do this with any solid player that checks and calls me on the flop, as I know they aren't usually going to call with nothing. The check on the turn saves you a bet if they have something big, and gains you a bet if it induces a bluff. We're all on the same page here. Again, I was hoping for a wider variety of responses.I respect you're opinions,but I was hoping though, that we could get others interested, but I guess not. I really think that the subject of reads is a very good one , because as you read these you start thinking about other situations that come up. Come on you lurkers, express yourself. seeya
A Lurker Speaks Out:
The quality of this discussion is excellent--when is Mason going to start charging us for access to this forum?
Al--keep posting your critiques of the skp essay. One or two at a time is best. Rick, Dan, Al, and skp--keep leading the discussion and analysis of this. I am reading every one, thinking about them, and learning from them.
You guys may not know this, but______. You all dismiss Read # 3 with a "we all knew that" approach-------Well, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. I really didn't know it until I read the skp essay the night after that situation happened to me in a live game.
I suspect there are many others that are learning from the essay and this discussion.
Thanks,
Abe (the lurker)
Al., to be honest, I am confused by your post on read #4. What I am saying is that if a player to the right of the preflop raiser bets on the flop, he probably does not have a strong hand (i.e. two pair or trips). Remember the question has its premise that 3 to 5 players take the flop. Thus, if the fellow to the right of the pre-flop raiser flopped a very strong hand, he likely would not bet into the pre-flop raiser because if the pre-flop raiser pops him again (and there's always a good chance of this even if the preflop raiser does not yet have a pair), his action will be killed. Your introductory comment "I will seldom try for a check raise if I hit the flop with top pair for example, because I want a clue as too how strong the pre-flop raiser is if possible" indicates that you would bet with one pair. However, I take it that you would likely look for a check raise with a stronger hand such as top two pair or trips (yes, there are times when you would rather bet depending on the texture of the flop etc but I am talking about what you would usually do in most cases).
Well, that's exactly what I am saying.
Thus, we appear to be of like mind on this. Yet, you then say "that I do not believe this read to be all accurate"...hence, my confusion.
Anyway, it's been a long day and maybe I am just not reading or thinking straight. In any event, please clarify and I'll respond again.
I was saying that the intial scenario and the action plan don't match up in my opinion. The example of the pair on board is a common read in itself. I was suggesting that the comments in the action plan could be used as a read, as it is a specialized situation compared to your general comments starting out. I disagree with the opening comments that someone who bets into a preflop raiser is weak because there are 3-5 players. Again, I would only be going for a check raise with a nut type hand, but two pair or trips, I would be betting 95% of the time....and I feel that there are just as many players that would bet in this general situation as would try for a check raise, so again, I think it isn't a good rule of thumb situation. I and other players similar in style too me , like to try to either narrow the field as much as possible , as well as gather information if possible , even when I have a good hand like trips. So I think we are talking about 2 styles or philosiphies of play. I know there are many players who always try to check raise when they have 2 pair or better, but again there are just as many that want to win the hand as soon as possible, and let the big pots take care of themselves. Again, If I look at read 3 vs 4 read 3 is a pretty good rule of thumb type of read , while I believe 4 really isn't. I hope I was more clear this time. seeya
IMO, you are giving up too much by consistently betting with a big hand when you are to the immediate right of the preflop raiser (I agree it should be done now and then depending on too many factors to enumerate here). Yes, it's true that if the preflop raiser pops you and limits the field, you stand a greater chance of winning the pot but you also win a much smaller pot than if you had gone for the checkraise with your big hand. Given your position in relation to the preflop raiser, IMO, a checkraise is called for more often than not.
Accordingly, I believe the read is accurate. I guess we'll agree to disagree.
The example I set out in the essay is just that - an example. There are several others that can fit the bill.
skp and al (and Dan H. and others),
The general question of when to thin the field and be more likely to win a smaller pot (when holding a strong but not nut hand) versus when to let players in (by check-raising the bettor on the left or by sloyplaying) and increase the risk of not winning a larger pot needs further analysis on the forum.
I guess what I am saying is we need to work on being able to figure just how much risk in slowplaying is acceptable relative to the texture of the board, the size of the pot, the likely or possible hands out against you, the strength of your hand and so on. I would guess being great at this adds significantly to your EV.
The general guidelines given in the Theory of Poker are great but perhaps we can start some threads with situations that appear to be complex and we can agree to disagree or maybe even make some breakthroughs.
A couple things to focus on may be: 1) are the hands we are thinning out drawing dead or near dead or are they real threats relative to the size of the pot, and 2) will we be able to play in such a way as to maximize our opponents mistakes.
I may try to work some out next week but maybe someone out their can beat me to it and come up with a tough post.
Regards,
Rick
In general, if there is a loose aggressive player in the pot whom I need to slow down, then I might checkraise with a hand like 2 pair etc., but most of the time if you have 3-5 callers that have acted and you check raise, you are going to marry most of them to the pot. I will give up the extra profit for a much higher win rate every time. If I bet and the pre-flop raiser raises and chases the others out...GREAT!, I can then re-raise one player, who might or might not chase me to the river. the money that is in there is enough. To attain long term ev imo, you need to be aggressive most of the time and not slowplay that often when you have an above average hand against multiple players. Against one player, that might be a different story.I think that the idea that a player would normally check raise a good hand against multiple players is an assumption based on your current level of play rather than how many players think about it. That's the best way I can put it. Remember, that if it is a battle of getting money into the pot vs getting people out,imo getting people out wins every time. I have tried to stress this so many times, but again,.. the big pots will take care of themselves. take what you can get, and run!!!!!!
Pressed for time but a few comments. I liked skp's essay because the reads he describes prompt a lot of thinking. It's almost automatic to start looking at various scenarios, trying to see which ones fit and which run counter to reads skp provides. I would probably agree that I can come up with more exceptions to read #4 than to read #3. There's just no getting around the situational nature of poker. In some games #4 might work quite well as a rule of thumb; in others you'd simply have to fit your read to the individual player. A fair percentage of players are going to bet two pair in that situation. Somewhat fewer will bet a set. But the texture of the flop and the number of active players will have a lot to do with it too. Clearly it could make sense to bet KQ right into the raiser with a flop like K-Q-J. If it's five-handed you'd probably *want* the preflop raiser to raise in order to knock out or at least make it expensive for other players given such a threatening board. But if you know your players you'll certainly find some who would check-raise there.
If it's just three-handed then check raising is going to be less problematic in many situations. I'd do it often to get more money in the pot, but would vary my play so as to *foil* the readers ;). You might even know that the guy behind the preflop raiser is a player who will call two bets cold on the flop without batting an eye. So there you could *bet* to get more money in the pot. On the other hand, you might know that the preflop raiser is rather passive and unlikely to raise, or that he loves to wait till the turn to raise. So again you may be less worried about cutting off your action.
One advantage to Al's philosophy of betting most of the time, welcoming the knocking out of players, is that it should lend credibility to your bluffs and semi-bluffs. If someone sees you bet right out with a set, they may be less ready to call with bottom pair and a backdoor draw the next time you bet out with something like a straight draw.
My own aim is to vary my play enough to keep 'em guessing while going most often with the play that I think should maximize EV. It can be tough to be certain how to maximize EV, when you consider factors that go into the big picture such as how betting out now might affect your future chances of stealing a pot. At any rate, in some games (e.g., when playing a little higher than usual) I do focus more strongly on winning the pot - even if it's not too big - right away. It depends how I'm feeling about fluctuations.
Anyway, these reads are certainly going to vary in the degree to which they are generalizable. And I know skp knows that. The great value of his essay is really in that it shows players how to *think about* making certain kinds of reads which can be diabolically accurate if applied with consideration for the specific players/situation. The action plans should be even more situationally dependent. I discussed one example of this with skp in a previous thread so I'll leave it at that for now. Thoughts?
John Feeney
Good hand reading article by skp. Action plans seem to cause Big al heartburn. Situation at hand should decide the right play as you point out. Big al is wrong, it is a bad idea to sarifice EV in limit hold'em. Best way to play a hand is to get maximum EV.
In my posting haste I said: "You might even know that the guy behind the preflop raiser is a player who will call two bets cold on the flop without batting an eye. So there you could *bet* to get more money in the pot."
While that's true it doesn't apply to the topic at hand. If you're sitting behind the preflop raiser, considering this read after the first player bets into the raiser, then the bettor knows that you're someone who doesn't call two bets cold so unthinkingly.
i have a problem with games that are
1) shorthanded
2) tight, 2 or 3 people on flop, maybe action maybe not once flop comes
ive tried to --
1) loosen up starting hand requirements (usually only play premium hands)
2) bluff a lot (maybe 10-20%) and play with overcards.
--but ive had terrible results, i tend to lose a lot, win a little.
what should i do? im avoiding this type of game, but sometimes i have to play while waiting for game to get good.
thanks
brad
If game type 2) is a rock garden avoid it but if you just want to tread water waiting for game to get better, make sure you steal blinds enough and learn to de-value your normally good hands in loose games.
In game type 1), get to the river and play hands that will get you there. Don't put a lot of money in early and fold very often. Improve reading skills, learn to play on turn well. Try to win pots late in hand (turn or river) if making a move.
Although they share a common characteristic (i.e., only 2 or 3 people seeing the flop), short games and tight games play completely differently.
In a short game of let's say 5 players, if only the 2 best hands see the flop, those hands are typically MUCH weaker than when the 2 best hands of a tight 10-handed game see the flop.
In either game, it pays to be pretty aggressive. If you are the person betting and raising, then you can win by either bluffing out the opponent, or by showing down the best hand. If you are checking and calling a lot, then your opponent can force you to make a decision, or take a free card, as he chooses. Overall, a short game requires excellent reading skills. You need to be able to put your opponent on a relatively narrow range of hands, and you must be willing to act on your read when determining when to bluff, bet for value, fold, etc. The best way to do this is to pay attention. Really notice what hands your opponents show down, and then think back about what they just did during the hand. After a while, you'll have a good idea what types of hands your opponents will 3-bet preflop with, will call (defend) their blinds, will raise preflop, will bet the flop, will bet the flop into the raiser, etc. Short-handed, poker truly becomes a game of playing the player, not simply playing your hand.
The same concepts apply in a tight game. You need to learn just how tight each opponent is from each position. And especially you need to learn which opponents will give up a hand where they were the aggressor previously. It is much easier to defend your blinds if the raiser will almost automatically fold his unimproved overcards when you bet the small card flop. Similarly, you need to determine in what other ways you can take advantage of their tightness (and never forget, a good tight player is only tight preflop, but remains aggressive after the flop also).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I have been playing in Shreveport for a little while and would like to hear some comments. I have about 100 hours split approximately in half between 4-8 and 10-20 HE. The interesting part is that I'm a .25 BB loser at 4-8 and a .8 BB winner at 10-20. Now I'm very happy that the results are not reversed but I'm a little concerned at this disparity. I understand that I have very small sample so variance and S.D. could explain it but I thought I would post here and see what yall think. I also have a few other questions. I sometimes find myself getting lost in a hand. Is there something that can keep me in tune with what is going on? I have noticed that a few people listen to music while playing but I always felt like I might not hear what is happening and miss something. Anyone have any experience or opinions on this? I wish I could play more limit HE but here in Austin they only play pot limit albeit low. What would be the biggest adjustment I would need to make? Thanks in advance.
In the low limit--
You're probably not check-raising enough on the flop to narrow the competition, thereby making you that much more susceptible to all kinds of awful suckouts (there are a TON of low limit players who will 'peel one off'for one bet if they have runner-runner possibilities, but will fold if it's two bets to them). In other words, if you're in early position, there are a lot of players in the pot, and you have a decent overpair-- check-raise. Or, at least know why you AREN'T going to check raise before you bet out.
Also, make sure you aren't missing value bets on the river. Just 'checking down' pocket K's (w/ no A on the board) because a runner runner flush came is generally a bad idea.
Good luck,
Guy
After only 100 hours, .8 bb/hr is not really a meaningful number. The difference you see could just be variance.
Still, it doesn't hurt to sit down and analyze your game and see what you might be doing that works in one game and not the other, or whether you are changing your style from one game to the next and one just doesn't come as naturally to you.
Dan
It could be that you are running into a very different class of players at the two limits. 4-8 players tend to be very loose especially before the flop which makes you more vunerable to drawouts. Though my personal experience at the 10-20 limit is very limited, freinds who play at that limit regularly tell me that the players tend to be tighter but better strategist. Incidentally, I hope to begin playing at the same limits regularly in the next few months in Shreveport. Maybe we will run into one another....
Your comments bring to mind something that I read in Roy West's book on 7 card stud. People tend to play a lot of hands loose at low levels. When you get to the medium and higher levels, people usually have what they represent. Tom
I'm playing in a fairly good 10-20 HE game in Canada (where the cap is at four bets). Sitting in the big blind I get the Ah Jh. Seats 3, 4, and 5 call. Seat 7 raises, 8 cold calls and the small blind calls. I've played with 7 a number of times and consider him a pretty good player. At this point I just call figuring that 7 has me beat at this point (he raised with many early callers). Pot is at $140 pre-flop.
The flop comes 9h Th Qs. SB checks, I check, 3 checks and 4 bets. 5 calls and 7 raises. 8 cold calls (scary). SB folds and now I three bet it. Seat 3 folds, 4 calls, 5 calls, 7 caps it, and 8 folds. Pot is now at $320 with four players to see the turn. At this point I'm thinking that seat 7 has got a hand. It's unlikely that 7 raised the flop with just AK, with my previous experience with him, he's not very likely to raise hoping for a free card on the turn. If he was just holding slick (AK) he would just call. I thought his likely holdings were probably AA, KK, QQ or JJ.
Turn is a off four. I check hoping to isolate 7 with a check raise. This way I would maximize my chances of winning the pot outright and not having to split it if a straight was made on the river. Also If I could get it heads up there was the possibility of an Ace giving me the best hand. My plan doesn't work. Seat 4 bets out, 5 calls and 7 after pausing some time calls. Initially I thought of just calling, hoping that I could hit my draw but I raised it. This raise was an instinct move. 4 calls, 5 folds, and 7 again pausing, reluctantly calls. Pot is a monster at $500.
I knew at this point that no matter what card hits on the river that I'm betting out. River card is a 6d. I bet. Seat four holds up his cards in disgust. Now I know it's just me and seat 7. Seat 7 sits back and starts riffling his chips. After about ten seconds of thinking he starts staring at me. I'm thinking, "What can I do to make this guy fold?" I let out a slight grin and deliberatly knock over my stack. For those of you who don't know this is what Mike Caro says is one of the things that triggers the 'calling reflex'. I figure that seat 7 is a fairly knowledgable guy and may have read about this. He then asks, "You got my kings beat?". I don't answer and he throws his kings open in the muck.
Was this a great play or was I just lucky that this guy reads the cardplayer? When looking back on this I think that I made a kinda crazy play, but the reverse psychology worked out. What do you think?
Since this bluff only has to work 4% of the time, I think you made a good bet on the river. (Although I can't BELIEVE this guy folded an overpair. With a pot like that you pretty much have to call, particularly since there was a two flush on the flop).
That's the great thing about those 15-outers: you can rationally play them just like a set or top two and every now and then the big one pair will muck when you miss. Your bet on the end could be justified by the size of the pot, the ability of seat 7 to lay down an overpair and presence of several possible busted draws. The raise on the turn was correct given the number of players and your chance of hitting the nuts. I would have bet out on the flop, though, and probably reraised when it came around again.
It's not a bad attempt at a bluff on the river. I just can't believe that the guy folded the kings. About $520 in the pot? He doesn't think that his kings can win 4% of the time? This is a great game to play in.
And how about the eight seat cold calling then folding for one more small bet? What a great game that must have been.
when he called on the turn he was commiting to call on the river. he outthought himself. he's gonna have to make 26 great folds to make up for one bad one.
Basically I think you just got lucky. In your opponent's position, I would have called you on the end with AJ, let alone KK. Despite the result this time, you should check ace high on the end.
The only caveat is, if you knew your opponent well enough to know he could make a crazy fold like this, then it was a great bet.
Knocking over your stack, however, was a great play.
William
Your quick smile and passing eye contact is a valuable but little known BLUFF give away, although knocking over the chips is quite a call-getter. Your reverse tell strategy will work ONLY against a player who knows that you are doing that but DOESN'T know you know he knows.
In any case, he was going to fold anyway. He was convinced he was beat TWO bets ago. I think you ended up encouraging a call.
I don't think I would have the cahoona's to raise so much.
Your reasoning for raising for value (winning a show down) was, how can I say this politely, .... The other stiff Jack out there is going to call all bets.
But you MAY have had a good raise as a bluff on the turn, especially after 7s reluctant call.
Of course bet this out on the end; I think that was the ONLY time you asserted yourself profitably. When the flop is QT9, two players like their hand enough to bet/raise TWICE, and two people like their hand enough to call double-bets cold ... this is not a good time to bluff.
BUT WAIT! You picked on players who already KNOW that AND who already overplayed their hands AND who assume that when they assert themselves everybody else will play predictably, thus convincing them that you cannot be bluffing. Oh yes ... AND who can make "great" laydowns in "monster" pots AND who like to "know" things about other players AND who don't realize that these players SOMETIMEs play differently than usual AND when you can sandwhich the probable best hand (seat 4). If such thoughts went through your head, then this was a BRILLIANT bluff.
Dare I suggest that PERHAPS you have tried to post-rationalize your "instinctive" raising? If so, that's natural; but its detrimental to long term growth. If these really were "just" instinctive raises then I suggest you do some soul searching and figure out why.
- Louie
PS. It appears TO ME that 7s re-raise on the flop was, in fact, a "free" card play. It looks to me like he intended to check the turn.
Louie,
Your posts are superb as usual.
In what has to be the worst luck for anyone, I was robbed again at gunpoint after stopping at a 24 hour convenince store. I had a rough night having lost $700 at $20-40. Then I got robbed for the 2nd time in one year! For now on I will not stop at a store after playing poker.
Didn't you get robbed in a parking lot earlier?
Didn't you get robbed in a parking lot earlier? And for God's sake, just where do you live?
Joe, are you in LA or Vegas ? For Christ sake be carefull and I would consider changing that name ;-)
nm
In fun, I think I'll kick you while you're down.
Change your name to Joseph "victimize me" Nardo.
Try changing that button on your lapel from "I have lots of money and you don't, HaHa" to "Any bullets fired at me will bounce back and kill YOU, you pathetic < Why do you associate the "robbing" with "after playing poker"? Perhaps the gunman saw your money clip in the casino and followed you? Probably not after a loss. Perhaps you should avoid these stores late at night, whether you've played poker or not.
Where DO you play?
Very good not calling this player's probable bluff. You recognized that even though he probably wouldn't shoot, the weight of a bad call (your life) far exceeds the probable gain ($100s). And even if he WOULDN'T shoot he made have gotton your money anyway (bluffing with a better hand than you).
- Louie
That's actually a pretty interesting applied probability for a life situation. Not to be apathetic towards a stressful encounter Joesph, but Louie is on to something...
please say what city you live in, and whether this happened in urban area, high crime rate, etc. brad
Unless someone SEES your cash, such as at the Cashier's Window, I don't think the amount of cash increases or decreases the chances of someone putting a gun in your face. In fact, having $100 or so is MUCH better than having $2 or so; -EV big time pissing off the guy .. err .. person with the gun.
- Louie
Both of my events happened in Panama City,Florida. Even the deputy sheriff's can't believe that this has happened to me twice. Both of these times I came off the boat, then stopped at the stores. The games on some of the boats in Florida can be spectacular and you can win some good money.
dosnt that just make you wish in a sick sort of way that you carried a gun?
Surely you weren't wearing your Mirage hat?
Posted by: Broadway Jon
Posted on: Friday, 16 April 1999, at 2:13 p.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 16 April 1999, at 5:09 p.m.
i too, sometimes carry cash and wonder if i should be more careful, although i live play in a nice area.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 16 April 1999, at 5:54 p.m.
Posted by: Joseph"predator"Nardo
Posted on: Saturday, 17 April 1999, at 12:52 a.m.
Posted by: darrell danfield
Posted on: Monday, 19 April 1999, at 4:26 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Wells (ACWells@Juno.com)
Posted on: Monday, 19 April 1999, at 2:48 p.m.
O.K., O.K., this isn't a strategy post. But I just wanted to say that in recent weeks I've noticed a significant improvement in the quality of the posts. That nasty little bit of mud slinging we endured in Feb. and Mar. seems to be over, and I think the forum is better for it. Here's hoping we stick with it.
I wish to say good-bye to all. As as said earlier I would quit if I get a better 'gig' and I am back to trading full time. Poker has been good to me but the players are just too good for my stomack. (or is it that I am not good enough ?) As you know I disdain even 6-12, prefer 20-40 and above. Well at that level I am just not good enough ! All of you players have my respect and good will. My the flops be with you.
There are many more sharks in the trading world and cheating is easier even if more illegal. Hope you are one of the sharks.
- Louie
Andras, Tip of the hat to you. You can make major dollars trading in the markets, more than at $20-40 with the same bankroll I suspect. Hey and why not when you've got stocks going up 48% in day and then plummeting the same amount the next day. Your humility is so refreshing and so out of the ordinary that I must think that you are a good player. I wouldn't call you a quitter just taking advantage of a better opportunity at this time. Regards, Tom Haley
Andras,
i bet you will be back even if you just play casually. it doesnt have to be one or the other. it would be nice if you post on the other games section maybe some experiences you have and anything that may help us other in the closet traders out there. good luck.
Andreas,
Maybe you can write one of those Wall Street best sellers like "Liars Poker" in a few years.
Good Luck and Regards,
Rick
I would play a little weekend poker. IMO there is no edge available when trading a fairly liquid stock. The price of the stock reflects more information then is possible for an individual to assimilate without access to non-public data.
An interesting book on this topic is "Investment Gurus" by Tanous where, through a series of interviews you get to hear just how much sweat and power was needed by those who did slightly beat the market and also hear from the Nobel prize winning economists about the theory I allude to.
The best strategy ( IMO ) is to buy, hold , play poker!
Good Luck ( though it won't help ) .
Hi
I am playing a selfcomponed pokertournament in about 2 weeks. We are playing five card draw, alle the participants gets 1500 in chips, the limits are 50-250, and its a freeze out game. I have set the ante to 5, is this an advantage for the tight or the loose player??
I`ll appreciate any respons.
Roger
If everyone at the table is a typical fairly loose player, this will be an advantage for the tight players.
This 1/10th ante/bet ratio is even tighter than the "tight" 2-4 draw games in Gardena *sigh*, where the ante (25c) was 1/8 the limit ($2).
I think you don't have enough chips compared to the limit. Everyone has only 6bb. Try starting smaller and increase every half hour.
- Louie
I recently asserted betting ATo board KT642 for value against several check-and-calling stations. I estimated its win rate, then I put this hand into my old version of TTH to see how good this hand is hot and cold against 9 opponents.
Lets see if anybody has WORSE judgement than I had on this one.
How often will ATo board KT642 win in a hot-and-cold 10 handed game? 6%, 8%, 10%, 12%, 14%, 16%? (Notice that if its more than 10% than this hand is a "favorite")
How much BETTER is AT when the board is KT842 (no straight possible)? 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%?
Please do not respond if you figure it out first; just GUESS.
- Louie
My guesses: 6%, 1%.
William
Louie,
I'm assuning you mean when ten players are in to the river although I may be wrong. (Note: Caro's probe would do this analysis.)
I'll guess 8% for the first question and an extra 1% for the second question.
Regards,
Rick
16%; 5%
ill go 6% with extra 1% for the 3,5 straight
I would agree with Doug and say 16%,5%.
If this refers to the thread I'm thinking of, another K came on the river-- not a blank. Anyway, I think your judgment and analysis was solid, so I'm not sure that the Turbo results are all that relevant.
Raw guess: 8% which improves by 3% with no possible straight?
What should the minimum single session BR be for 3-6 HE? I have not yet played this room, so my intention is to play very tightly for 1-2 hours so I can get some reads on the other players.
Any comments are appreciated.
Tim
ive read around 30 big bets is good. i play in southern california and have found that if i play really tight i rarely am 'stuck' for more than 15 big bets.
brad
Tim I have only played a few times but I bring $120 for a 3-6 HE session. Once I brought $100 and was down to my last $20 or so before I won a pot; then I ended up over $100 ahead on the (2 or 3 hour) session. I will be interested to see what other more experienced players say. Good luck.
I think $300 is about right for a 3-6 HE game. Of course, if you really want to make the table happy, buying in for 10 racks will guarantee that you will have plenty of action at your table. For me, once I'm down three racks in any game I start wondering if my first, optimistic, table selection decision was entirely correct. Losing 50 big bets in a single session should satiate the current poker playing desire of all but the most degenerate. Once you've withstood this amount of punishment and still have a desire to play, please give me a call, it sounds like a game I might want to participate in.
Less than the amount that will cause long term psycological or fiscal pain FOR YOU.
Less than the amount that would indicate you are probably steaming but are too steamed to notice.
Less than the amount that will demoralize you if you lose that much.
Less than the amount that will cause you to think such things as "I knew I should have left when I got that 74s run down".
More than the amount that will cause you distress if you lose it but would still want to play.
The exact amount that will not distract you from your game. If there is NO such amount, than you should be playing either higher or lower or not at all.
$178.47.
This is about YOU, not what's right for someone else.
- Louie
nm
But bring enough that you're not sweating the money. If you only bring 3 buyins, then you're going to start thinking about it after you lose the first one. If you're down two buyins, you'll start thinking, "Oh, man. Only one more left in my wallet." This can color your thinking.
I think $300 is a reasonable amount to bring to a 3-6 game. This way you just don't have to worry about the money unless you're down 3 buyins or more, at which point it might be a good time to leave and re-evaluate your mental state and the plays you're making.
Dan
Dan,
I played 15-30 lowball once with a man who stated to the whole table several times that he never made more than one rebuy when playing. After about three hours he finally lost the last of his original $300.00 buy-in and summoned the chip runner. Chip runner asks him how much he needed and player looks over the stacks of the players and replies: "Bring me $500 in yellow and the rest in white." as he hands over a sheaf of hundreds. His rebuy was for a total of $4,000.00. I could see why he limited himself to just the one rebuy, too many of those could get painful. I miss playing with him and all others like him who no longer seem to frequent the games I now play in.
i generaly like to have enough doe on the table to take the biggest stack all in.
Tim, I'd say minimum is $200.00. You don't want to risk playing short stacked. After all, what if the game is beatable for you and you get a string of good hands sucked out on. If that happens you'll wish you had more chips. By the way, let the other players read you for a rock (I'm assuming you're actually not), that way you can semi-bluff these guys in the future.
Tim,
First, my definition of bankroll is somewhat complex and beyond the scope of this question (it is partly in a thread below), and it is never all in my pocket at once (most is in players banks). However, I like to bring a lot to the table, buy in bigger than most, and never even come close to going all in.
I do this for three reasons. First, by having extra in my pocket and having a lot of chips on the table, I don't waste time at the cage getting money or chips. I also don't like filling out markers or players bank slips at the tables.
Next, if the chips are flying on the river, I like my chances, and I don't want to run out. In other words, if you are one of the best shots, why risk running out of bullets when you go to battle?
Lastly, a lot of players move in and out of my games during a session. By keeping a lot of chips in front of me, I look like a winner and these seems to have some psychological value at the table
Scaling down to a 3/6, I would take about $400 to the table, buy in least two racks, and buy another rack if I’m down to $120 or so. I f the game is good don’t start worrying that you made a poor assessment of the game until you lose about five buy ins ($150). Stop losses are foolish in theory but I really wouldn’t want to lose more than about $200 in a 3/6 game. The game will be there tomorrow. Even on a day that I lost this much, I would go to the cage to cash out with at least a rack.
Anyway, that’s my two cents and what works for me.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. These numbers may seem a bit high but they are scaled down from the 10/20 to 20/40 games. In these games players tend to keep more chips in front of them on a proportional basis.
Put about 300 white chips out on the table. It always helps to show that you've got a lot of dough. If I see someone with a small stack. I'll start bluffing more, because they're afraid to bet, or even reraise them to see if they'll play back at me.
I have played a lot of limit holdem and the only way that I can see how to win is to play tight as drum. In all the games I play in, I rarely win any pots with fancy plays and bluffs, generally I have to show down the best hand, so as far as i can tell, the best way to play is to be highly selective with your starting hands and get out quick when you miss.
IMHO and the little experience I have had seems to indicate that winning at limit holdem is basically a slow grind! Am I wrong?
Opinions and suggestions greatly appreciated
Slow grind is the correct approach for the inexperienced. Stick to it.
But as you gain experience you will NOTICE non-tight opportunities to win; such as when the maniac raises AGAIN and you are on the button with AJ. You would normally fold for a raise, but now you reraise.
You will also notice opportunities after the flop to play a non-premium hand profitably.
There are lots of non-top-pair-top-kicker situations that win plenty of showdowns.
Then you ADD these situations to your tight-butt play (no "A" word here!), and you will notice that you are suddenly not all that tight anymore.
- Louie
Now use this post as an excuse to be a loosy-goosy. That's the trap of the typical 5/10 wanna-be: they think they can deviate so long as they "know" why; and play in such a manner that they criticize others for playing.
It also really depends on the game. If you're not playing hands like T8s in early position in a passive no fold 'em game, then IMO you're missing out on some real EV opportunities.
Too, be sure to change your game depending on specific players. This doesn' happen often, but when it does you've got to be aware of it. For example, I was playing in a game about a month ago with a new guy who'd never played a hand of casino poker in his life. Apparently he'd just watched 'Rounders', and decided that the proper strategy was to bet the hell out of ANYTHING. And I mean anything. He'd been there for about ten minutes when he got heads-up with a buddy of mine, and reraised four times on the river with mid pair/ A kicker. After he pulled similar moves a couple more times (and lost about 300$ in forty five minutes) I started playing just about every piece of cheese I was dealt in late position (stuff like 74o, 95o, etc.) so long as the hand had a 'chance' to turn into a monster (by monster I mean second nut straight). Sure enough, I rivered the nut straight with one of these hands (75o) about an hour later, and managed to go to 55$ with this guy on the river (5$ maximum bets) before I just called. I figured there was a chance we had the same hand, so imagine my delight when he flipped over bottom two. I probably could have kept raising him (or asked if he wanted to go all in, something that didn't cross my mind at the time), but the rest of the table was beginning to groan and I was almost positive we were splitting the pot (big mistake).
Anyway, the point is to make sure you adjust accordingly when there's a player in the game who has some kind of glaring weakness. The above example is extreme, but there's plenty of times when you'll be up against someone who raises with any two suited cards, any ace, etc. etc., and know ing how to exploit this can really increase your profits.
I think we need more players to watch this movie (ha ha)!
I disagree. They seem to bring the slowplay pocket aces attitude with them instead. This costs me money because it's hard to adjust for this against those tourists when I'm leading out and don't get played back at.
These guys may beat you sometimes. But, most of the time they don't know what they are doing and give their money to you.
I wasn't complaining, it's just a difficult adjustment from my prefered style.
Having played only 300-350 hrs of hold'em, I am a beginner. I play much tighter than HPFAP would recommend and I still get my "Tight-Ass" kicked. I have studied and understood both HPFAP and TOP, I constantly visit this site, I have even gone to Card Players page and read all the article in their archives, but my results are not getting any better. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what the hell Im doing wrong. The game I play in ranges from very loose to moderately loose and I am by far the tightest player at the table. Yet I have lost 1300 dollars in my last 200 hrs of play in a mix of 6-12 to 10-20 games.
Maybe I should play even tighter? Maybe I should just give up? I think it would be helpfull if somebody would clearly define how tight a beginner should be.
Any comment would be greatly appreciated!
I believe the 2+2 rankings are a little too loose for the inexperienced, so I recomend playing tighter but not "much" tighter. But perhaps "much" tighter is better when you have some sort of trouble hand (2 non-pair big cards) and are in early position or after someone has raised.
.. err .. I mean you should be more SELECTIVE. Once you play such a selective hand, you should USUALLY be the AGGRESSOR. In fact, one simple test for playing a hand could be whether or not you WISH to bet or raise with it. This will adequately cover most situations except late calls with clear drawing hands like 44 or 76s.
A 200 hour loss for a good player is uncommon but not unrealistic. Trust me on that. This loss does NOT mean you must be playing badly; but is enough for you to be conserned.
I suggest you keep track of exactly which hands you play and exactly how many times you win AND how many bets you win or lose with it AND how many hands total you have seen. Also keep track of how many hands you bet for value on the river and how often you actually get paid off.
I suspect you notice little action when YOU bet. Well, would you call with 2nd pair if you bet?
If you find you are only getting paid off, say, half the time than I would conclude that these loose (but experienced) players know you are a tight-butt and know not to call you. If so, you should bluff, such as raising with the Axs flush draw and betting it all the way. You should also bet more marginal hands as this will induce calls with what they believe are THEIR marginal hands.
Also keep track of how many hands you win/lose as the aggressor (betting) and how many you win/lose as the defender (calling).
Consider doing the above for the next session and post the results.
You are not ready for the 10/20. I doubt you are ready for the 6/12.
- Louie
PS. A simple solution to your well-deserved tight-butt image MAY be to bet your Ax flush draws as if they were top-pair-top-kicker about half the time. Try this: if your Ax flush draw (when there is no pair on board) is the same COLOR as the last flush someone else showed down, then raise and bet it out. Of course, if it is obvious that this bluff will fail then don't do it.
Or perhaps do it with any pair+flush draw.
Thanks for the advice, I'll post my results following my next session, but dont expect anything soon because I dont have the bankroll and I'm just plain affraid of the cardroom right now.
I can tell you for sure that my problem is not a lack of action. Towards the end of my last session I was dealt big pairs in the hole, (queens or higher) 4 times in a 1/2 hr timespan. Out of these hands, I won 1 huge pot and lost a lot of money on the other three. The problem was I could not get anybody to fold. I think it has something to do with my age because I never get any respect on my raises. People see a young kid sit down and they automatically assume he doesnt know how to play cards(I must admit that most of the time, this assumption is correct).
Let me ask a strictly theoretical question here. If I could be guaranteed decent action when I want it, would it make sense to just sit and wait for a monster? or would the blinds just eat me up?
On a different subject, what would be a good way to practice Hold'em, assuming I did not want to actually play poker (I cant afford it). What is the best computer program? Can computer hold'em be helpfull for a beginner?
Nagurski,
I had the same problem a couple of years ago. It turns out that I was playing in too many "very loose" games. You might want to look for games with two or three fish at the most- the rest average to good players. You may be "sleeping with the fishes".
Even if you were guaranteed action if youm wait for a monster, there is no reason to not also play your other profitable hands.
One problem is that there are few "monsters" in holdem. While AA may be a "monster" before the flop it remains a "monster" only when it flops a set. If you only play trips or better on the flop, I think the blinds and B4 flop calls will eat you up.
The computer simulation "games" are a GREAT way for beginners to learn mechanics and basic strategy about a poker game. It safe, cheap, fast, and can be fun. But once you are confident you can beat there is little else to learn strategically, and you can easily learn detrimental strategies that work against the litterally brain-dead computer opponents that fail miserably against live opponents. So once you can beat these games, stop playing.
Wilson's "Turbo" games such as Texas Holdem ("TTH") certainly qualify as suitable simulations. I have recently played the Bicycle Poker game, at it does not qualify (in draw, the will CALL with two-pair and then RAISE with it after the draw, and it appears they play any stiff Queen or higher).
- Louie
Part of the problem may be your hand selection. It's not descriptive enough to say that you are 'tight' or 'loose'. Certain hands do well in different situations. For example, if your game is very loose, you should be playing hands like 98s and Axs and 44 from any position (unless the game is very agressive). But you want to be really careful with hands like KJo and KQo. Even in late position these hands don't do very well against many callers.
I know some 'tight' players who routinely throw away pocket pairs in early position, suited connectors in just about every position. They don't beat these games.
Are you being agressive enough with your major draws? When I was playing in the very loose low-limit games I often won monster pots when I hit my flushes and straights, because I was the one building the pot. If you've got 3 or more callers on the flop, you should be raising your nut flush draws, and capping it off if you get re-raised. If you've got 5 or more callers on the turn, go ahead and raise again. You can do the same with your nut straight draws, with roughly the same number of callers.
In a very loose game, don't be afraid to value-bet your good hands on the river. Loose players call with inferior hands, and you can make a lot of extra bets by making sure they pay you off on the river. If I had AK and hit an ace on the flop I am definitely betting this hand through with just one pair, including the river if I don't get raised somewhere along the way (unless a major draw like a 4-flush on the flop comes in on the river). A lot of tight players that lose in no-foldem games don't do this. Their attitude is, "Hey, I made it to the river without the flush or straight coming in!" then they just check and hope they are the best, often losing 2 or 3 big bets in the process.
Hope this helps.
Dan
IMExperience you can often bet top pair/ top kicker even when the flush comes in, particularly if you're last to act, since most low limit players don't take full advantage of the check raise. Further, there's no guarantee that the flush was what they were drawing at. I don't know how many times a night I see top pair/ top kicker bet into four callers with a flush made on the turn, everyone calls, then on the showdown the top pair still has the best hand. As Louie said, just because you get a gaggle of callers on the flop with a four flush on board doesn't mean someone's on the flush draw (in a low limit game).
Don't worry; this is neither unusual nor alarming. When I first started playing (2-5 HE), I promptly lost two grand in about four hundred hours. Afterwards I was utterly stuptified; after all, I'd done everything the 'books' tell me to do-- HOW COULD I BE LOSING?
Now I can honestly say that the worst is behind me, and that I average about five dollars an hour playing 2-5 HE (this over many, many hours). Not a great win rate, to be sure, but not bad either. Anyway, here are a few tips that might help.
1) If you have top pair/ top kicker or an overpair, the board pairs on the turn and you are raised, FOLD!! Randy disagrees with me on this, but IMExperience folding here is rarely incorrect (unless, of course, you're getting pot odds to try and hit a boat when you have an overpair). Most low limit players will call with an underpair, so it's highly likely that the've made trips- either that or they've filled up. Further, IMExperience it isn't one low limit player in fifty who knows how to semi-bluff raise, so you generally don't have to worry about that.
2) Know your players. For example, last night I was in the blind w/ QJs. There were six pre-flop callers, I raised (a questionable play, but I usually make it), and everyone called. Flop came KK3 rainbow. It was checked around, and the turn was a T. Again it was checked around untill it got to the button, who bet. Now I 'know' the button fairly well, and am pretty sure that he wouldn't have checked trips on the flop. However, I probably would have. So, when he bets, I bang it. Since no one at the table (so far as I know) would have checked trips twice I'm not too worried about that. The button studies his hand, sighs, then mucks. I drag a 48$ profit with absolutely nothing.
Even if I didn't know the button I probably would have banged it here, since the play only has to work once every five times or so to be successful. But the fact that I DID know him made it a real no-brainer. In a nutshell, don't be afraid to get creative with your play.
3) I'm almost sure you're not check-raising enough. Most new players don't, and it costs them dearly. If I'm in early position with at least 5 players left behind me to act I'm virtually always going to check raise top pair IF there's a a four flush on the board (most players will bet a flush draw) AND my top pair's a paint. I'll often check raise other times with top pair, but in this case it's virtually a no brainer.
4) Don't fall in love with premium pairs. If you've got A's, the flop comes 8h Th Jc, and the old man in seat 5 takes it to four bets on the flop, just get out. You're beat. 5) Quit playing those marathon sessions.
Suggestion: Why don't you post some of your 'trouble hands', so that everyone can take a look at them? Maybe the other posters can find some holes in your game that you're not aware of. Anyway, don't give up-- it'll come.
Trace,
Louie hit it all on the head with his as usual astute advice and I'll just add a couple of things.
If a great 40/80 player sits in a 3/6 holdem game and he is trying to win as opposed to just killing time, his win rate will be only slightly better than the very good 3/6 holdem player. But the very good 3/6 player would usually get creamed in the 40/80 game. Here you need to play better than just tight and how to milk a loose game with unaware players.
One friend who plays between 10/20 and 40/80 says it best: "In the big games, you have to go after the pot, in the little loose games, you let the pot come to you."
Regards,
Rick
You are right,right,right. I play 1-4-8-8, am not the best player at the table, have far less experience, only play once(maybe twice) a week,see the same players there everytime I do play,and consistently beat them to the tune of about 2 BB/hr. How? I occasionally play deceptively, pay attention to pot and implied odds, have a fair understanding of hand reading,blah,blah,blah,but most importantly *I AM THE TIGHTEST PLAYER AT THE TABLE*.
Trace,
You're absolutely right. There's nothing wrong with taking out a small but consistent profit. Louie and GD are obviously professionals and large variance players. You are their nightmare. They don't want you at their table. They want fish who get sucked into playing their way. On an unrelated note. I was warned recently not to play a certain limit table at a certain casino in Las Vegas because of team play. Any comments??
Here's a hand I recently played in a $15-$30 game at Bellagio. A player raised in middle position, everyone else folded, I was in the big blid with two aces and I called. (Note: I had just sat in the game and the raiser was totally unknown to me.)
The flop came Q-3-3. I checked, my opponent bet, and I called. On the turn came a 9. I checked, my opponent bet, I raised, he reraised. I called. A blank hit on the river. I checked, my opponent bet, I called. He had AQ and I won the pot with my pair of aces.
Comments anyone.
Your opponent assummed that his hand was the best going in since you did not raise him preflop. Smooth calling was fine, since there were no other players. Thoughout the hand, you led your opponent to believe he had the best hand.
First, you just called his bet on the flop. I'm sure he still thought he had the best hand on the turn when he put in the last raise. Then on the river you gave him a chance to put in the last bet.
A-Q is a typical hand to raise in middle position. If he had a pair of Q-Q in the hole, he would have slowplayed. So , you knew he most likely had A-Q.
Good play. I don't think you would have made as much money on the hand if you reraised preflop.
If I was your opponent, I would have been wondering why you were calling. After you reraised on the turn, I would have checked it down.
"If he had a pair of Q-Q in the hole, he would have slowplayed."
I can't think of anyone I know who would make this play. A reason not to make it is if you get known to make these plays then when you raise your opponents can eliminate the fact that you may be holding a big pair.
I should have said he may have slowplayed Q-Q. Let's say I had Q-Q in the hole. I would check on the flop and let my opponent take a shot at it. Let's face it, if the flop is Q-3-3 and you called my bet in the BB preflop, I would have to know you have something big (obviously this guy didn't think so). I would want my opponent to think I did not have a big pair.
What's wrong with my thinking here?
If it were me, I would bet the flop most of the time, and check once in a while. If you bet, your opponent may believe you have AK and call you. Also, a lot of people will call once on the cheap street to see the turn card. If you check you lose this bet. Anyway a check can be a little suspicious in this circumstance. However, if my opponent is an agressive player, I might check to induce him to bet out on the turn.
I thought you meant to just call with QQ before the flop. Slowplaying on the flop is often the correct play.
I see. I'll try to write it better next time.
Sounds like it was played perfectly. I too would just call out of the big blind heads-up. The small bet you stand to gain from re-raising before the flop is more than compensated for by deception. If you had re-raised, there's no way you would have gotten 3 bets on the turn. He may have even folded to a bet on the flop.
With the deceptive value of your hand, I think a check-raise on the turn is excellent. He would have bet almost any plausible hand here, including AK if he's a reasonably agressive player.
I like the check and call on the river. If he has QQ you save a bet, and he's not going to call a raise anyway if he has AQ or worse.
His re-raise on the turn is pretty agressive... You could easily show him 99, QQ, Q9, or even a 3 since you're in the big blind. If I had his hand, I would have either folded when you check-raised, or called the raise and checked the river. I suppose the re-raise made you worry a bit about QQ, eh?
Anyway, those are my opinions only.
Dan
You worried about set of Q's or set of 9's that make him a big favorite on the turn? Combined chance of having set of Q's or 9's same as K,K. He could also have A,Q when he thought you check raise with top pair and worse kicker. A,A slight chance. What does this player think you have? Well he is new so we assume he is not so good. A,A or K,K most likely eliminated by him because you only called out of blind. He might even think your hand worse than Q good kicker. Higher EV play in the long run to re-raise on turn or check raise the river. My opinion, you have fooled your opponent, take advantage of it.
A short while ago I posted a hand where I played AA in middle position against 3 players and my deception was just to not cap at 4 bets after making the initial raise. A number of people felt it was almost never right to do this and perhaps I agree. So is it fairly standard to more frequently use deception:
a) when in the blinds?
b) heads up?
David
It all depends on your image, the number of callers you have, and how aware they are. In a game with weak players, don't bother trying to be deceptive - they aren't noticing. If the game is tough, you have to decide whether the bets you can get later due to deception are worth more than the bets you are losing by not raising before the flop.
Dan
You have to think about what your deception will cost you on the current round versus what it maight make for you later. This includes whether your reraise will knock people out and you may want this. Notice that if only one person is in and you are in the big blind this criterion is now favorable.
I missed your post, but I am firmly in the *don't cap it camp* with pocket aces when you have made the initial raise and it's reraised back to you with four or five players likely to be seeing the flop. Check the archives for threads about pot size manipulation, this topic has been covered before.
Why no raise on the river? It seems there are just too many hands that you have beat that he will call. He is VERY unlikely to fold and there is basically one hand you are afraid of..QQ. If he has a hand like KK he may raise again!
Danny S
I agree with Dan here...I've got him on AQ or KK and when he reraises on the turn I think he thinks I've got KQ or worse.
I'll give it another raise here on the river.
I see what your getting at. After reading all of the posts I agree with you. thanks for the help. see ya.
I think that all you have on the river is a crying call. When the flop comes down it is very unlikely that you are beat. But how often will a player make it three bets on the turn with only top pair. You have to do a Bayesian analysis and say some thing like "I know that there is only a very small chance that he has a 3 or QQ or 99. However, I also know that there is only a small chance the he will make it 3 bets on the turn if he just has AQ. (I certainly would not make it three bets with just AQ.) You then must compare you estimate of these two probabilities. When I do this it seems like it is likely that I'm beat. Thus, given the size of the pot, I have a crying call and nothing more.
Mason wrote: "But how often will a player make it three bets on the turn with only top pair"
Later he states: "there is only a small chance the he will make it 3 bets on the turn if he just has AQ. (I certainly would not make it three bets with just AQ)"
This is usually sound, but in this particular hand I disagree because remember that Mason only smooth called with his Aces before the flop and also on the flop.
If I am holding AQ in that situation and my opponent has check called on the flop and now raises me on the turn...I still think AQ is top hand and I WILL raise with it here as I also would with KK.
Like I said in my original post I think that HE THINKS that I have something like KQ or worse.
Good Luck,
Jim Mogal
Since Mason completely disguised his hand he could have anything from 99 to 34s to AA, KK, or QQ. He's a completely unknown factor. If I'm in that situation against an unknown opponent with the board paired, I'm not going to 3-bet with just top pair unless I have a special read on the player.
Dan
I think , on second thought ,you and Mason may be right.
I don't think I was giving enough consideration to the board being paired on the flop.
Good Luck
Jim Mogal
You defend blind with 4,3s and stuff like that? I toss this stuff. Maybe I'm one of the tightest (LOL)!!!
Depends who the raiser is, and if there are other callers. If there are a lot of callers, you're getting pretty good odds on your straight and flush draws with suited connectors. In fact, if there are 5 or more callers I'll often defend with even weaker hands, like 74s.
Heads-up, my decision rests on the possibility that the raiser has a big pair. Some people never raise UTG without a big pair, and some people won't raise big pairs but will raise hands like AKs. But I I think it's important to *sometimes defend with a hand like 34s so that your opponent can't run all over you with a flop like 733.
Dan
I guess the key part of this hand is that it was an unknown opponent. You want make sure you get value for your hand, but at the same time not lose a whole lot to a person who might have raised with something like A-3s (certainly heard of before in 15-30). If that is the case this is probably the best way to play the hand. I assume the hand might have been played differently if you knew more about the opponent?
A-3s chance between 2 and 0. If both aces in you hand match suit of 3's on board 0. If one Ace matches suit of 3's on board 1, otherwise 2. Not much chance of A-3s.
Mason,
As usual, you played your hand extremely well. One interesting thing to analyse in this hand is why it is probably correct to slowplay your hand on the flop in this situation:
1) The hand is short-handed.
2) Small pot
3) You don't fear any overcards
4) The flop comes with a small pair that is unlikely to have hit your opponent. Therefore, he is probably drawing close to dead.
5) You want to earn more money by raising on the more expensive street (the turn).
This is a good opportunity to slowplay. The risk of being outdrawn is very small and you may earn more bets later in the hand by slowplaying.
Sincerely,
Emil
Another reason to slowplay is that if he has nothing, for example suppose he raised with KJ, you should be able to get him to bluff at it twice.
This relates alittle to the discussion below, but heads up, I think you played fine, and I think the player you were up against played poorly. You could have easily made 2 pair or a set and he should have let the hand go when you raised it, but instead he popped it, go figure. Again, this re-inforces my contention that you do not have to advertise with check raise bluffs in order to get them calling when you have a legit hand. You are known as one of the tightest and he re-raised!! A call would have been typical.
Hey Big al before flop raiser have 2 pair also!! On the turn he would have to put MM on a 3 for a set, pair of 9's, or Q,Q. Since he has A,Q only 1 possibility for Q,Q in MM hand. Does he think MM play 3 before flop? Does he think MM call on flop with 9,9? You claim MM is real tight, would real tight player call on that flop with that pot with 9,9? Would real tight player call the raise before flop with a 3? Maybe he calls with 9,9 on flop but small chance compared to chance of Q worse kicker. I guess you think that other guy should have maybe put MM on 9,9? Maybe reading hands essay by skp better than you think?
You should certainly play 99 on the flop. Won't the before the flop raiser automatically bet this flop with virtually any hand?
Yeah I do. Big al say you real tight not me. I know you will call but does Big al think a real tight player calls? Maybe Big al not clear? May Big al should say aggressive-tight or weak-tight?
You are right about the 2 pair on the flop. I took a bunch of stupid pills yesterday. With that flop an overpair is what I have to worry about. To clear up the confusion about Malmuth being one of the tightest. I meant that when he check raises I should fold my A,Q because I know I have to be beat. See ya.
P.S. Why do you call me Big Al?
You say guy with A,Q should know he is beat. Could expert like MM be making move on turn? Does one of tightest players around ever make a move on turn? If guy so tight he only check raise with power on turn, would he call with 9,9 on the flop? I call you Big al because you the man.
I suppose a super rock would not call the flop with 9's. One of the tightest players around would qualify as a super rock. Malmuth is not a super rock so what I said being one of the tightest players around was wrong.
You played like a girl.
Careful mandrake a lot of women play aggressive and real well.
Mason,you have played the hand to get maximum money out of your opponent until the river. I personnally would have re-raised on the river one more time. Is it worthwhile to bet one additional bet in a heads-up situation to receive the value of only one more bet instead of risking loosing 2 bets? In this particular scenario, I would say, yes because you did not re-raised him on the turn. So, his AQ must be good. What else could he have? QQ= I doubt it. My aces would definitely cost me one more bet to find out and I believe at the end of the day I will win more money. A3= no. If he would have raised with A3 I believe the action you will get from that person will be worthwhile by re-raising on the river because it would be seen as giving action and you will have benefited much more on future hands. Raising on the river would have promoted your image as an aggressive solid poker player One additional bet on one hand can produce much profit from future hands? And I believe you agree with that as well!
The opponent's re-raise on the turn indicates significant strength. While I can't really argue with the logic of a raise on the river, in the heat of battle I have to admit that a lot of the time I'd do just what Mason did.
If I was absolutely certain my hand was the best, I would probably just bet out on the river.
One more argument against a check-raise on the river - a heads-up checkraise on the river is a pretty 'in your face' type of action, and may cause the player to leave the game. If he's a live one, you don't want that. On the other hand, it may cause an average player to go on tilt, which can be very profitable. I often think about these larger-implication factors when I'm playing, and I'm guessing that Mason does too. So it's hard to absolutely say that he was right or wrong to check-and-call.
You make a good point here about not embarrassing the live ones. The other day I floped top set in a heads-up pot against a live one. He checked, I checked. On the turn a deuce hit which gave him a pair of deuces. I won a very big pot. The live one quitt the game very mad and stormed offed.
I play in games against the same opponents every day. So I'm always thinking about the long-run consequences of certain actions. For example, if a regular straddles in my game, I will rarely 3-bet him even if it's the technically correct thing to do, since I don't want to punish someone for straddling.
Dan, point well taken. I agree with you.
The last thing you want to do is to really upset your regular customers or even the ones we never played against for them not to leave the game.
I admit that I have upset a few players for the way I played back at them some time. But, I have to say that my play is more friendlier against players that never check-raised me back on the turn and/or river.
The bottom line is players won't mind loosing their money to whom plays straight.
Thank you for your instructive comments.
Mason, keep up the good work. Everytime I re-read your books, I learned more and more.
One time I had the nut straight on the river playing 64s in the little blind unraised before the flop. My lone opponent (at the river) had played with a 42, and got the wheel counterfeited when another deuce fell on the river. I didn't make it five bets on the end because I wanted to leave him with a few chips and a decision to buy more, rather than seeing him quit tapped out. I made the right play then, so I agree with your "larger-implication factors".
Why the hell raise on the river??By the way he was betting pre-flop and after a possible hand he could very well have is pocket queens or three's.If Mason raised on the river he would probably not even get that last call from the opponent if he did'nt have queens or three's.So to raise would be a risk not worth taking because if he did'nt have the queens (or pocket 3's :0)there would be a chance he would lay it down(only call you would get is with k,k's and perhaps a,q).If he did have the q,qs or 3,3's definite reraise. In the end the odds tell you not to raise the river because you can get your shoes even wetter than they already looked like they were. Y.G.
Mason,
This IS a nice hand to talk about--and you sure generated some discussion about it. I have a couple other questions/comments about it.
This was a real good start to your session at that table. What kind of things do you do/not do when the first hand you play works out like this?
Interesting play of the hand--you underplay (slowplay) it early, and he wildly overplays it the last 2 betting rounds. I'm really surprised at his re-raise of your checkraise. Is this common at Bellagio 15-30?
You said that you did not know him---but did he know who you were? Was he gonna tell the boys back in Beloit how he beat the expert?
Abe
Sorry I don't have time to read all the responses, and appologize if I accidentally plagerize.
There are plenty of hands I would reraise with in the BB in that spot, since I usually have a solid idea of the minimum raising requirements of the opponents. They know this. Raising with AA looks natural and would be routine for me.
But if there are few reraising hands for you in that situation, then by all means also just call with AA.
But once you called, you played the hand well, since there are MORE hands the opponent will bet than call with. Since your check-raise on the turn looks very much like a slow-play, his reraise was a bit much and you had, as you know, no business asserting yourself anymore against this unknown player.
I would like to point out that there is another angle on your Bayes-Theory response. It not just whether he HAS KK, AQ, KQ, QQ, 99, or a 3; its also whether he will BET them. Many "tricky" players would slow play those big hands better than yours (since you have cleverly fooled them into thinking you have nothing), and so his constant assertive action and reraise on the turn is an indication of (relative) weakness, at least for this kind of player.
Compare that with a player who checked the flop and then 3-bet the turn. This dramatically improves the chance you are beat.
There are some players that against whom you could confidently 4-bet the turn, so long as you had a couple hours to determine their play.
- Louie
Louie, I just wish I had more opponents who would reraise my checkraise on the turn without more than top pair.
If you are only check-raising with top-pair-top-kicker or better then you aren't check-raising enough.
Most of my "check-and-raises" start out as "check-and-fears", and only become "check-raises" when a particular opponent, usually one in late position or the pre-flop raiser bets. You'd be surprises how often a pair of 3s can beat a late position bettor.
But I agree such 3-betters are relatively rare.
- Louie
Based on the discussions to date, I think it is reasonably fair to put our opponent on one of 5 hands. AA,KK,QQ,99,AQ. If he would play all of these hands the same way(an admittedly questionable assumption), then he has us beat 6 ways and we have him beat 12, with one split. If you factor in the chance he might have slowplayed the set of queens on the flop then we are in even better shape. Could he be bad enough to have Q9s? Unlikely. Pocket 3's? Unlikely since most players don't raise from early position with that. If he always reraises when he is ahead and always calls when we are ahead then raising on the end is a break-even proposition. I guess it just depends which of the above scenarios makes the most sense to you and how well you know your opponent.
If the dealer forgets to move the button in hold'em and the cards are dealt and action has started before someone notices's, should there be a redeal or should play continue?
Redeal, no player should have to post blinds more than other players.
If there has been significant action, the button should stay where it is. Otherwise, players can take advantage of the situation (for instance, by raising to steal the blinds, but if someone calls suddenly announcing, "Hey, the button is wrong" and getting their money back).
I am trying to learn a little about poker. I know that at blackjack it is desireable for two players to pool their bankrolls, because two skilled players will have less fluctuations than one player alone, consequently they can bet and earn more for the same risk of going broke.
Do poker players do the same thing? If not, why not? Is their a treatment of this subject in the literature?
Thankyou for any help. I am probably missing something obvious.
There are a lot of poker players that share a piece of their action with other players to cut down their variance. However, actual team play is highly unethical (i.e. having two players at the same table signalling each other and modifying their play).
Also, there are very few 'teams' that are good enough to make team play profitable.
There is nothing wrong with pooling up your bankrolls and sharing all profits and losses. It would however be unethical if the two of you were to play in the same game. Hope this has been helpful.
The reason this works at blackjack is that all the players on a team can play virtually the same, and have essentially the same edge. In poker, there is always differences between how people play. Thus inequities can develop in the split of profits.
Hi Vampire, welcome to Poker.
I am in the same boat as you, a BJ counter learning Hold'em to develop another skill set. Based on the excellent posts on this board, I have a LONG way to go. I suspect a longer learning curve than in BJ.
I would think that a pooled bankroll would work much the same in Poker as in Blackjack. The problem is that due to constantly changing and unknown variables (ie: other player's skill levels) at the table, it would be difficult to calculate variance and betting levels (ie: Kelly Criterion).
It would be unethical for you to play as partners at the same table. But the team advantage in Poker that does not exist in BJ is the info on other players' style of play that you can learn from your partner and vice versa. Once a loose table figures your partner out and compensates, you can take his place. You will know the other players' habits but they won't know you.
PC Note: I used "his" in this post but should use His/Her. There appears to be many more good female Poker players than good female BJ players.
Vamp, may you end up on the wall at Binions before you end up in the Griffin book.
I was playing in a 4-8 hold'em game at the Bellagio a few days ago when the following had came up:
I held AK in 6th position, everyone folded to me pre-flop, I raised, the button called and everyone else folded. Flop came K J 3 with no flush draw. I checked, button bet, I raised, he called. The turn card was an 8, I bet, button raised. I didn't like it, but I called. River card was a rag, I checked and called. As I had kind of suspected, my opponent turned over JJ and took the money.
Should I have folded when I got raised on the turn?
Thanks, Mike Watson
In my experience, there are VERY FEW low limit HE players who will call the flop and raise the turn with less than top pair/ top kicker. For what it's worth I probably would have dumped it on the turn, but like most things this is a judgement call.
it kind of depends on whether or not you too are use to playing with each other or if this is a stranger. against the regular crowd id probably call down so as they dont push me around. but against a total stranger id probably give it up.
Mike,
I have a suggestion on making this kind of post. Describe the hand up to the point where you believe you have what you think the tough decision (in this case when you were raised on the turn) and then ask for advice without revealing the actual hand out against you (you always can in a later post). Then you put us in your shoes and you are assured of an answer not prejudiced by the actual result.
The other thing we need to know is what kind of player is on the button. If it is an unimagitive rock, it is possible to lay down your top pair, top kicker heads up. But against most players, I am going to call the turn (and I won't like it either) and check call the river. But then I am trying to pretend I didn't see the JJ.
Regards,
Rick
My opponent in this hand was a total stranger to me, although I think he was an off duty dealer at Bellagio. From what I observed in the few hours before this hand, he played fairly tight but aggressive, in that I did not see him playing a disproportionate number of hands, but when he did play he was often raising or reraising. However, it's hard to know if you've really observed a representative sample of how a guy plays after only a few hours. Anyway, his earlier play made me doubt that he had pocket jacks, because I thought that he would have reraised a player (me) who opened the pot with a raise in mid to late position if he held JJ. Obviously I was wrong.
Mike
you played it right but i do not know if i would have used the check raise. with top pair, i will usually just bet. he chose to slow play his set and it paid off for him.
Mike - While I was reading your post, I thought you must have been looking over my shoulder at my game! Would the panel please give me some ideas on this?
In my game there are lots of regulars that I am getting used to. Quite a few times now, I have been exactly in Mike's situation, pushing top pair/top kicker, and I get raised either on the flop or the turn. Usually it is on the flop, because many of my opponents play their hands very transparently - and I KNOW I am beaten.
So I have a dilemma. I have the opportunity to make good, accurate laydowns and save myself as much as 5 sb in one hand, just by refusing to pay the guy off. But I am afraid that if I fold, especially to a pop on the flop, just a few times, then some of the regulars will take a shot at me sometime.
Any suggestions?
Dick in Phoenix
When you make tough laydowns, make sure you don't let everyone know that you're making one. Many players look longingly at their hand, show it to the guy next to them, look at their chips, and then sigh and throw the hand in the muck. Many of them will announce to the table just what a tough laydown they made. This is just inviting people to take shots at you. If you lay down Aces on the flop or turn, just throw them away like any other hand you missed, and they'll never know.
Dick,
Dan above is of course correct. One thing you may also want to do is, when getting into the head of your opponents, don't make the mistake of putting your mind into their head and situation. They just don't think that that.
But you probably know that.
Regards,
Rick
I have been playing for about 200 hours. I have a major problem @ my regular 4-8 game. I play S&M HE. I am on a losing streak and 3-5 times per 5 hr session I have a bad beat. I am a very aggressive player & it seems that no matter what I do these clueless players draw out on me & catch there 2-3 outer on the end. I know I can do very well at the 10-20 game but my bankroll is not ready. Some advice if this is normal? How long can a losing streak last? I know that I am supposed to love these "clueless" players calling 2-3 bets cold with nothing but it just seems like they make there hand too much .
Your problem is your in lo-limit loose games.Hi pairs or top group cards lose power to connectors and draws. If your in a game where u cant chase off draws,start mucking pairs that dont improve on the flop and play more draws yourself you'll probably have the right odds to do so seeing as nobody ever folds.Also dont raise so agressivly cause it will cost you more to play the draws. I would like that game lots of action,I hate it when I go to Vegas and play with eight local rocks and maybe one weak playerthat everyone is trying to feed off of. I'm no pro or even a regular player but this is my opinion. Flame it, endorse it,or lets just talk about it.
"Also dont raise so agressivly cause it will cost you more to play the draws."
This is terrible advice.
One thing to remember is that while each of the players by themselves may be a heavy underdog, as a group they could be a favorite to beat you. For instance, if you have pocket A's and the flop comes KsTs6c, you're probably in the lead. However, if someone has QJ they have 8 outs, a flush draw has 9 outs, someone with T8 has five outs, and so on and so on. In fact, it's not unusual in these kinds of games for the player IN THE LEAD to have maybe 15 outs or less; in other words, 15 cards or so left in the deck that DON'T make someone else's hand.
Losing streaks happen. I personally suffered through a 700$ downswing in late Feb./ early Mar., and everyone I know has endured similar streaks. The important thing to remember is that you WILL get it back IF you keep playing well. Remember to check raise the flop a lot if you're early and have a good hand, and don't get in the habit of calling when you know you're beaten. If you've got pocket K's, five people call, and someone raises you on the turn when the board pairs, just get out; you're almost assuredly beaten. As long as you don't fall in love with your hands, and constantly look for ways to thin the field when you do have a hand, you should do O.K.
I agree with just about everything you say GD, with one exception. You said "If you've got pocket K's, five people call, and someone raises you on the turn when the board pairs, just get out; you're almost assuredly beaten." I disagree. In low limit you have lots of people drawing to bad hands. Lets say the board is J76 on the flop with 2 suited cards. You bet out with your Kings and get 5 callers. The turn is a 6. You bet again and get 4 callers and a late position raise. It is not unusual for a player to put a raise in here with AJ because lots of low limit players put every preflop raiser on AK. The other 4 hands are still drawing to straights, flushes and who knows what. You may be behind but this is the type of call that I think you must make in low limit holdem. An example from my experience this weekend. I held AA in middle position and raised with 5 players seeing KT6 flop 1 diamond. I bet and had 5 callers. Turn was a small diamond. I bet and was raised by the button and 4 of us saw the river J spades. I checked the button bet and I made a crying call figuring him for 2 pair. He turned over Td8d. He had raised the turn with middle pair and a diamond draw and I took a good pot down. You have gotta love low limit poker.
Randy
Interesting. It's probably just a function of what kind of game you're in, but IMExperience a raise on the turn in this situation almost always means the other guy has at least trips. Of the 'regualar' guys I play with, I'd say maybe two of them are capable of pulling off a semi bluff raise. Anyway, congratulations on sticking with it after the raise.
My own, admittedly, anecdotal experience has been that in loose games, with 4-5 players going to the showdown you must exercise great caution with pocket pairs. With pocket aces in a tight game you can move early to try to eliminate your competition, but if a significant number of them stick around for the river then you are likely the dog. In this type of game consider playing more drawing hands, as your opponents will pay you off when you hit.
For a more indepth analysis of situations like this checkout Morton's Theorom.
You answered your own question and you know it. Yuo have to temper your aggression vs. players who don't know they should fold. The cummulative affect of a table full of these players is that often one of them will run you down. Be selectively aggressive, sometimes play weak tight, and with the nuts rarely slowplay: most of them aren't paying attention to that either and will pay you off regardless.
When you can expect multiway action on the flop, hands like AXs, KXs, and 22 should be played up front if you can limp in. The reasoning is that you want to play cards that with help on the flop can become hands which are harder for someone who hits their four and five outers to run down. The big pocket pairs (when they are an overpair to the flop) should often play for a checkraise on the flop, even though there is a risk of giving a free card. It is worse not to try to thin the field with top pair / overpair, than to have given a free card on the flop when the pot is being contested by five or more players.
I play in these games almost exclusively and posted some of my thoughts earlier in the forum, last week some time.
I went through the same thing after first reading HPFAP. However the book states it is intended for standard or tough games, with no more then 4 or 5 players in for the flop. And many of the specific plays detailed are intended for heads up play, not 8 way action.
For example, one point made by the authors is that check and call is basically losing holdem. However, elsewhere in the book, certain plays are (such as semibluffs) assume opponents have some poker savvy, and assume that your opponent will fold some of the time, when in fact they rarely fold. So one adjustment you will start to make is that check and call is more common then in a tough game.
Good luck
Larry
Im sitting 10/20 3 nights a go this hand came to me 5 times with in a 3 hr section, pocket Aces,,they held up just once,thow after about 2 hrs of getting my pockets J Q AND K's snapped i wonder what kinda hands i could win with!!. with me in late position in the #8 seat buutton is at the dealer,, i get my unfaithful Aces,, its 3 bets to call i make it 4 to see the flopp , we have 5 players in,, the flop is J K 9 rainbow,, now the nut srtaight never crossed my mind because the player in the SB normally raised with huge prs of AK so when he checked "i thought slo play"so we all checked the flopp the turn wow Ac putting a nice card on the table to make someone call to go all in"ME" i went all in for $65. with 3 bets and a little left over,,well my only chance of winning this pot is to have the river pr the board,, well nice hope i had to watch the Jh hit the table its the SB who opens 1 folds and one calls the show down is this side pot nut srtaight from middle adn 4JACKS from SBS ,, feeling pretty mad i never let them see my hand" any comments or critism "
Hi, I was just wondering on your guys opinions of a theoretical question.
Basically, among the many reasons for raising with a hand, two of them are to 1) knock out another chaser to the leader when you believe you have the second best hand, and 2) semi-bluff raise.
My question is whether these two categories could ever be combined to make a raise particularly correct.
I am fairly certain that it is incorrect to semi-bluff raise with a come hand in the interest of knocking out a hand because you desire a multi-handed pot.
Can anyone else think of a situation where it would be correct? thanks, Alex
"Basically, among the many reasons for raising with a hand, two of them are to 1) knock out another chaser to the leader when you believe you have the second best hand, and 2) semi-bluff raise.
My question is whether these two categories could ever be combined to make a raise particularly correct.
I am fairly certain that it is incorrect to semi-bluff raise with a come hand in the interest of knocking out a hand because you desire a multi-handed pot.
Can anyone else think of a situation where it would be correct? thanks, Alex."
Any situation where you believe you have the second best hand but also have a draw would seem to apply. For example, in hold'em, if you hold second pair/overcard kicker with a flush draw, a semi-bluff raise could be very effective. The raise could eliminate gutshot draws and overcards to your second pair, and if you opponent turns out to be on a drawing hand without a pair, you stand a better chance of winning by having knocked out the weaker draws earlier.
An appropriate situation occured last Sunday morning. I had flopped openended with a backdoor flush (non-nuts) possible. I picked up the extra seven potential outs on the turn and checkraised the player (who probably had middle set) in last position to knock out the other opponent who I was playing for two overcards and a gut shot (which might have beat or tied me if I made the straight on the top side). The flush card came on the river, and I got paid off by the probable set.
thanks for the advice guys....but here is my question if you have a viable draw (openended, or four/flush on the flop) then you want the probable sets, and top pairs in so that you get paid of more than then you're out odds
so I think that it is only appropriate with something like an two overcard draw...
I'd rather that they all fold to my semibluff - that way I know there's no way I can lose the pot. Make your move and hope for one of your outs if necessary, not before.
Alex,
I can't think of any situation where these two categories would make it PARTICULARLY correct to raise. Notice that the previous answers to your post are only describing the situation where you want to knock out other chasers, but they don't mention the semi-bluff component.
Remember that when you semi-bluff it's the combination of the possibilities that nobody will call and that you may improve to the best hand that makes the play correct. If you think you have the second best hand, then you must also think that the chance that nobody will call is virtually zero, and therefore one of the factors that would make semi-bluffing the correct play is missing...
You also wrote: "but here is my question if you have a viable draw (openended, or four/flush on the flop) then you want the probable sets, and top pairs in so that you get paid of more than then you're out odds."
I partly disagree with this statement. If your opponent has a set, then he frequently has the correct odds to draw out on you even when you make your flush. Therefore, you want him out but I guess you have to live with him.
Sincerely,
Emil
I have never played this game but will be forced to in biloxi,ms since they do not have 3-6 or 4-8. what are some tips in this game that is diff than 3-6 or 4-8. obviously, you can be looser pre flop but how loose? also, is it a waste to raise pre flop on high pairs when they will have a hard time winning in this game if it is loose?
a check raise with the big pairs might be effective, for the max of course. other then that try to limp in if its loose but not too aggresive, but be prepaired to limp then dump, depending on the number you think might call.
Play your big pairs, and raise them to the maximum before the flop.
Hands that do well in this structure are suited connectors, small pairs, Axs, etc. You can play looser, but you still have to choose the right hands. Don't loosen up on hands like Ax, KTo, etc. These hands don't do well in really loose games.
Dan
Small blind $1, big blind $2: Always bet or raise the maximum $4 or $8, and never make the small raise of say $2. This way you'll be playing as if you were in a 4-8 game with smaller blinds - and they will have to decide if you really have that big hand.
I don't know where you plan on playing in Biloxi, but I played in a great 4-8 game at the Biloxi Grand. Most games are 1-4-8-8, but if you're there at the right time, you might find some good games. The Treasure Bay has only 1-5 stud and 1-4-8-8 hold 'em. I don't know about the Beau Rivage. Good luck.
Bill
This week-end without playing at all - I had some time to reflect on a 'player with a job' situation and I feel that there are some issues of interest. My contention is that having a decent paying physical job is the best for a 'working-pro'. Being outdoors, fit will do wonders for your discipline at the tables. I know the ideal for a serious player is to have a lot of money and screw work, however if you are not a lotto winner this may elude some of us. Working in an office - on ones ass all day - 8-10 hours is worst that quitting and playing. this is my reason of not wanting to play at all for the time being. I don't even believe that daily excercise could compensate for a job that is outdoors a no brainer and pays ok. I know lot of players (I am one of them) who are 'professional' sitting on their butts for 8-10 hours a day and expect to do well for 15-30 hours more a week - again on their ass and eating at the table. It does not work !!!!! I figured out that my problem with poker is what I described a very unhealthy lifestyle. All ideas, of course pro con, please take a shot. I understand discipline and skill what will take the beacon but everthing being equal(!!!!) - the professionals I.E. players with a desk job are underdogs against the guy who is rested but fit and ready to take your money.
I don't know. I worked as a roofer for five years, and I can honestly say that the last thing on my mind after 12 hours of laying shingles was poker. I suppose it would be O.K. if you only had to work 6-8 hours a day, but this is rarely the case in the skilled trades, paricularly in the summer.
Anyway, my guess is that most folks' desired lifestyle gets in the way of their poker aspirations more than their job. It's going to take years of steady play to become a good enough poker play to play full time, and most players (IMExperience) don't want to make that sacrifice. Also, the fluctuations that all poker players have to suffer through are enough to keep most people plugging away at an honest living.
If I had to guess (and I don't), I'd think the best way to augment one's income while'working up the poker latter' would be to have a job like substitute teaching, where you didn't have to go if you didn't want to, or to be self-employed (e.g., a freelance writer, or something like that).
While I play poker full-time, I still maintain my computer consulting business and I also do freelance writing. There are several reasons for this - For one, I don't want to lose touch with the changes in the computer field, and for another it's very helpful to be able to tell relatives or bankers that you're a computer consultant. Try getting a loan sometime when you tell your banker that you're a professional gambler. It's not a fun topic to discuss at a family reunion, either.
Dan
ive been in games that went on for days with people playing partners. by that i mean they hit for each other while one of them took a nap. its been my experience that the one that came into the game all fresh with a good nights sleep and a good breakfast stood a better chance then most of taking down the cheese.
Without any doubt, keeping the blood flowing to your brain is an important part of poker (anyone remmeber Hamid Dastmalchi standing on his head during the WSOP final table several years back?). We all become mentally sluggish without a lot of exercise, and particularly as we age, that may be the only thing that keeps us at the same mental condition as those younger. I suspect the part you mention about working at a physical job has different overtones to what happens at the poker table. When one sits on their butt all day doing "intellectual" work (technically not work if not physically moving something), a chair becomes just another indicator that we are working, i.e., not doing something quite as interesting. Point is, those who do physical work come from a totally different and refreshing perspective when they come to the poker table. That doesn't necessarily make them better players, but I doubt that it hurts -- getting fired up for the same situation is maybe not as difficult.
Current research certainly shows that being physically fit improves brain functioning. However, being exhausted from a hard day of physical labor isn't the same thing. Anyway, Stephen Hawking is confined to a wheelchair and seems to do just fine in the brain department. Different strokes...
I DO think it's important for poker professionals or anyone swivel-chair bound to do regular exercise. When I started playing poker full time I gained 20 pounds. Sitting in a chair 8 hours a day and eating restaurant food will do that to you. It took me some time, but I got the weight back off. Now I'm working on a proper exercise regimen to help improve my conditioning. I think that's important to be able to operate at peak levels.
I am a power lifter which makes me not only very strong but keeps me is good shape. Just ask the girls!. If you are gonna play poker for long periods of time every week you have to lift weights otherwise your legs will get very weak. When your legs get weak so does every other muscle in your body. No other form of exercising such as running,walking,etc. can ever do for you what lifting can do especialy powerlifting. Powerlifting is the ultimate. A bonus is that if someone gives you a bad beat you can powerslam him over the table!
Now we know why they call you "The Predator"!
I'm not a Pro, but S&M point out that a Sellective Very Good Player should make 40 per hour in a 15/30 game. That means that you would only have to work a 20 hr week to make 41,600 a year gross. If you worked a 30 hr week you sould be making 62,400 a year. So what are you doing with all your off time? Maybe there aren't any good games where you play and you should think about moving.
CV
I am the unfortunate 'working fool". Computer contract engineer - taxing and time consuming job but I make a lot of money. Poker time is 20 hours/average a week. I have no girlfriend and a life, my body is going to the 'shits' and I am losing at the table. So far so good.. huh ;-) Well maybe I win the WSOP this year.....
Ah, I see now. Looks like you need a lifestyle change. You may need to look at the real reasons why you work so much. Money isn't everything, and its worthless if you're unhappy.
Sincerely,
CV
I like taking a walk on the treadmill for an hour, especially before a big game. I feel better both mentally and physically afterwards, plus it's a peaceful time to mentally prepare.
I walk laps around the Commerce Club parking lot when taking a small break. The exercise certainly helps with the circulation problems I have and the fresh air probably clears my brain. Balance in life should leave room for you to do some of all that you like. Some work, some play, some poker and some social life. It is funny how certain people impose an either/or choice on themselves when they could just as easily have a portion of each. I play poker, consult on land development, play with my grandkids, counsel my children, maintain a relationship with my wife, play tennis, hit golfballs, follow my poker newsgroups and bulletin boards, watch a little TV and still have time left over to take out the trash, empty the dishwasher and do all the grocery shopping. When we make our focus too narrow, we subject ourselves to depressionary forces when a single aspect isn't performing satisfactory. When I suffer a loss at poker, it is only one, minor, part of my life that has taken a hit, and I have all the rest of my balanced existance to buffer that trauma. I doubt that I could survive if I reduced my life to a single primary function whose success or failure constituted my total framework for living. Everything in moderation is my prescription for success.
Big John, You are and always be my poker 'guru'.
I'm holding kings and queens in first position.5 players in all see the Flop J,J,2 with a possible flush.I bet out hoping to steal it right there or if i'm called or raised take one card more and fold.It's raised by the player third from the button then reraised all-in by the player second from the button ,I call(pot was raised preflop) and the original raiser caps it.The rest have folded so its me and the first raiser heads up with one player all-in.Turn is a queen.I check-raise the turn and get reraised. I thought about the possible hands he could have by his actions.By his actions on the flop I put him on jacks full of dueces with 2 more high cards in his hand as a backup.I did'nt put him on quads because he would be killing his action on the flop with the reraise.The all-in raiser gave me even more conviction to put him on a fullhouse and not quads(deuces full was a possibillity though). By him reraising a check-raise in omaha(deadliest poker game by far)I could'nt help but wonder if the guy really did have quads and was just playing it poorly on the flop.Only 2 hands he could have to reraise my checkraise was quads or jacks full of the case queen.I was so tempted to reraise but fearing a raising war I just called.River was a blank and I checked and called.
How would some of you omaha sharks have played this hand? By the way it was a tournament where the chips are not so abundent. Y.G. (a.k.a. unusually chicken in this hand?)
This hand is the best omaha hi-low (drawing)hand I have ever had.I hold Ad,2d,3d,9 flop is A,9d,4d turn 5d river Qd. Scoop!!Life is good. red bird!!
A great O8 drawing hand I that I flopped in a tournament. Me: AcAh2h7s Flop of 7h7c5h gives me trips, nut flush draw and 16 nut low outs. Turn: 9s River: Jc
No low; fish scoops high with 8TQA single-suited! Me bust out of tournament and play real game of holdem. Life is bad beating bird.
Sometimes when I am at a low or medium stud game, NO ONE respects an early raise(3rd or 4th street). Of Course, this is great when the goal is to build a pot, but it takes away any chance of thinning out the field when I have a high pair. I understand that it is best to make the people pay for their draws, but too many times when there are three or more drawing one of them catches.
My question is: Is it ever advisable to limp in with a high pair and wait for an improvement before raising? If so, under what circumstances?
As a corollary, if an early high pair does not improve, and it does not APPEAR that the drawers' hands are improving, how long should I continue betting the maximum and/or raising?
I can completely sympathize with your predicament. This is quite possibly the biggest bane to all loose-game/easy-game players especially at lower limits. My suggestion would be to max raise when you are sure you have the best hand only against 1 or 2 draws.
Above that, calling early isn't bad because you can get better and bigger bets later. Also, you have more knowledge on how their cards are forming. Never give a free card, and beware of free-card raises. Finally, if nothing is formed by sixth, raise their pants off
hope this helped alex b.
I was playing in a no limit hold'em tounament, I had 4 1000 dollar chips after posting a 1000 dollar small blind, the big blind was all in with a 2000 dollar blind and got one caller who was also all in for the 2000, there are nine of us left, I hold 9 5 off suit, should I call the 1000 or fold the hand.
What's your goal? How many places are paid? Do you get a big jump in money by moving up one or two places? Were any other players on the verge of busting? How are the other players at the table playing? Are any of the big stacks likely to go at it with each other? Are any players playing too tightly (i.e. will you possibly have a chance to steal the blinds when your your raise would only be for one chip)? Are any players regularly getting out of line? Your question is missing a lot of important information to evaluate this situation.
In many circumstances, calling with any two cards is the correct play here. You are getting 5:1 on your money for the call, not very good for the cards you are holding in the situation you are in, but much more important, if you win you move up two places in the pay scale (or two places closer to the money). When you are medium to short stacked, the two things you need are to survive and to help others to bust out before you do. You cannot bust by playing this hand, so even if you lose it you are not much worse off than you already are.
However, if the tournament is winner-take-all, then you should play every hand to maximize EV. 95o against one player in blind and another who chose to go all-in is not such a good spot to be in.
The money was to the top 4 players, I folded the hand because of my own lack of awareness that the big blind was all in. If I would have known that at the time I would have called. Your 100% right, one chip less would not have made a big difference in the outcome.
As Stephen Landrum points out, there are a lot of factors to take into account, particularly if you are about to move up due to attrition alone. In most cases, however, and certainly in a money game, your call would be correct. Your opponents could have almost anything, you have barely enough for another round of blinds whereas winning will double your stack, and one of your opponents needs to have an overpair for you to be worse than a 5-1 dog.
By the way a nine came on the flop and an other one on the river, the two other players had no pair. I was pissed at myself for not being aware of the big blind being all in. Will play in another tournament tonight and won't make the mistake of not knowing the chip count at all times lol.
I would have folded this hand. I say this because the person that called the 2000 was waiting for the proper cards to go all in and apparently found them. We can safely assume that he at least held a pair or had 1 card larger than yours. I would have realized that I was in the small blind, and would have a few more opportunities until the blinds come around again to wait for a better hand.
I ran a short pokerprobe sim with 9s5h vs. a random hand and several types of non-random hands that the caller could have had. I was surprised to learn that, even when the caller had 88 or AKs, esp was still getting at least a marginally favorable return at 5-1 odds. Of course, when the caller has an overpair, esp is toast. This also makes no adjustment for the tournament environment. But I disagree that a player with 2 chips and 3-chip blinds bearing down on him needs to have much of a hand to go for it. I agree that he probably has a card above a 9, but a pair would be really lucky. I would expect the caller to come in with hands like Q8, K7 and A-anything, maybe worse depending on his position and style.
I think this is a real easy call. The extra chip you save by not calling doesnt really change your situation that much. You are short stacked either way, and when you go all in only the most marginal of hands would call 3000 but pass for 4000. So your situation really is hurt that much by calling and losing, but calling and winning dramatically improves your situation, you have more time to wait for a hand, and if you find half a hand from position you may even have enough ammo to be able to pick up the blinds without having to show down a hand.
Just one thought... Having 4000 here may be MUCH better than having 3000 because you can last two rounds of the 1000-2000 blinds instead of one. If several other players are short-stacked and you want to have the opportunity to move up a few places as they bust out, it could be a good fold.
On the turn, the board is something like QQJ7, and I have either a straight draw or a flush draw and am acting before my opponent.
If my opponent is not too wild, I have started sometimes playing these hands by check raising, then mucking if my opponent reraises. My thinking is as follows:
1) Sometimes I will win with the check raise bluff. 2) If my opponent reraises, there is a good chance I am drawing dead. 3) If my opponent checks behind me, there is a good chance I can steal it on the end.
Do you think this is a reasonable play? If so, how often should I use it? Or does it depend on other circumstances in the hand (and if so, what?)
How do you handle this type of situation?
All comments are welcome.
William
What types of hands do you play your opponents for when you make the move? If I've put someone on a likely ace-rag flush draw or medium pocket pair, I've made this kind of play with as little as ace high. Having the supposed redraw (to a straight or flush) with a big pair on the board is in my opinion immaterial since you'll get toasted by a better hand often enough even when you are called (or reraised) and do complete the draw. Here, you either steal the pot on the turn (or the river if check/checked) or you get called down. Don't you hate to be drawing dead and get there?
Andrew Wells asks:
What type of hands do I play my opponents for when I make this move?
I am trying to cater to a lot of possibilities:
If they have nothing, I hope to steal it on the end. If they have two pair, I hope to win either with the check raise or possibly with a bet on the end. If they have a full house, I hope to only lose 2 big bets, and fold before the river card. The big risk is if they have trips. They may reraise, and I will fold even though I am drawing live. Or they may call, and I may try a hopeless bluff on the end. Neither outcome is good.
William
I would suggest then, that your opponent must be capable of semibluffing. Preferably someone who will routinely do so. Also, you should avoid making the play if the betting action is such that you can not be representing AQ in this spot. It looks like the play would be most successful on those occasions where you made the initial preflop raise. The checkraise semibluff with a big board pair will tend to become costly against an expert opponent. That player will simply wait until the river to pop you back with AQ, because you can be expected to follow up the checkraise with a lead bet. Notice that you don't get to release your hand to a reraise from trips. If you don't improve at the river, bet out and are raised back, your opponent won't have to show down a queen. Not having to showdown a hand has other advantages beyond the obvious. If you called my raise on the river and I showed you AQ, I would expect you could be more inclined to attempt a similar move in the right circumstances later, perhaps reasoning that you just ran into a real hand this time. If I don't showdown then I would think you may begin to decide the play is unsuitable against me, perhaps forgoing it at another opportunity.
William,
Interesting post. First of all I think it's sometimes wrong to muck your hand when your opponent re-raises if you have a nut flush draw. The pot is now probably very big. It is possible that you are drawing dead but he may also re-raise with a set of queens or even worse hands if he is a weak player, and in that case you still have many outs to get the best hand (The earlier action on this hand can give you clues).
You have three options on the turn in this situation: Check-call, bet, check-raise.
If you are going to call anyway a bet is often better than a check-call. But can a check-raise be even better? Yes in some situations I think it can. I will describe one situation where it might be the best play:
If the pot is big and you are heads up a check-raise may be better than a bet. When the pot is big the most important thing is to win it, even if it may cost you an additional bet if you don't succeed. If you just bet out in this situation your opponent can put you on a large number of hands, and may therefore call/raise you with for example overpairs and AJ or maybe even worse hands (but they are still better than yours). If you check-raise you are representing a set of queens and your opponent may muck the mentioned hands. It will probably be more expensive for you on the turn if you check-raise, but since the pot is big it is still worth it, because you will sometimes pick up a pot that you would have lost if you had bet. Above that, as you mentioned, you sometimes will get a free card and can steal or improve on the river.
Sincerely,
Emil
As I read the forum today, I see that someone is posting and using my forum name " al raiseya". My apologies that this is happening. I believe it is probably a recent poster who was censored . I will not mention his name. I will simply start using another name. so any posts that you see using al raiseya from sunday on, you can be sure they are not from me.I'm hoping that this person will not become abusive. My apologies to the forum for this unfortunate person.
Last night I was sitting in a 4-8 Stud game waiting for a Hold'me game. I'm in seat 8 and the guy to my right (call him seat 7)(who by the way had snapped my rolled up 3's when he caught runner runner flush on 6th and 7th on a head's up pot) is involved in a pot with an old man seating in seat 4. The game is fairly loose with no real good players. I had folded on 3rd street and I was not involved in the hand.
The old man had a Q showing and he caught 3 spades after that. On 6th street seat 7 shows me that he had Aces and sixes. Seat 7 bets on 6th street and the old man raises. Seat 7 calls and does not fill up on the river. On 7th street the old man bets out of turn and seat 7 begins to complain that he had not checked. The old man then apologizes and takes his money back. Seat 7 takes 2 minutes (this in a game where we pay time) on purpose and exposes his hand and says I check and in a disdainful manner asks the old man: What are you going to do now? The old man mucks his hand. To which seat 7 starts giving the old man a hard time and telling him that he is too old to bluff. The old man picks up around $200 and left the game.
what do you guys think?
carlos
Well, its a "great" play if seat 7 had no intention of calling that last bet. You know, discourage a bet you do NOT intend to call. Well, "good" play since such a play cannot be worth more than one bet.
However, its a terrible play if by chance he intended to call but then changed his mind after showing his hand; and the old man saw through the "discourage a bet" routine and went ahead and bluffed anyway. This seems unlikely, so its not a terrible play.
Were do they play "time" holdem?
- Louie
One of the worst plays I ever saw was in a no-bet-em no-fold-em game. The punk called in last position, the flop was 3 hearts, and the table and the punk checked it down. When everybody checked on the river, the punk turned over his hand and proudly announced "Ace-7 high"; not noticing that both were hearts. Golly, the idiot could have won 10 bets easily. DOH! ..... Unfortunately, it was me. :(
this was at the Oaks card club in Emeryville, CA (in the Bay Area). The old man did not be on the end since he was last to act, he just mucked his hand. The funny thing is that I asked Seat 7 if he intended to call anyway and he said yes, even if the old man bet after he showed him that he had aces up. He missed one bet there. But what bothered me was the fact that seat 7 almost insulted the old man by telling him that he was too old to bluff. The table definitely lost a player that was rather live.
Also the next player sat down and it was a young fellow that ended up winning a nice pot from seat 7 by making aces full when seat 7 only had 2 pairs. I told him: See, you would not have lost that pot if the old man was still seating there. He just kind of laughed.
carlos
Your post is titled the worst play I've ever seen, but should be titled: The Worst Player I've Ever Seen. His behavior is inexcusable, and chances are this player would here it from me had I been sitting there. He may have drove this person from the game for life. It sounds like the older man may have been a fish too, only making matters worse...ha.
I'll contribute to some really cheesy plays that I see a million times a session where I play.The hands described below are 10-20 and 15-30 holdem. Flop is k,2,2 rainbow.There's a bet and idiot calls with Q,J no flushdraw.He gets a queen on the turn and river.
2 bets to a guy preflop holding 10 8 offsuit.Flop is q,j,5 two hearts.I have top set.The flop is capped.The guy calmly calls every raise.Turn is a low heart card .Turn is capped.the guy calmly calls every raise.River is a non heart 9.The guy has a straight on the river with no heart in his hand.
I raise preflop on the button A,Qh,flop is A,10,low card 2 hearts.I've got top pair second best kicker ,nut flush draw.turn King,river 10 i lose to 10's full of kings.
Second to act player raises pre flop (he raises every 3 hands),I 3-bet it with A,Ks in fourth position.We get one other caller in first position one after the bigblind with 6,2d.Original raiser caps it.Idiot with 6,2 flops 2pair ,I flop 4 spades to the nutflush.Raiser has pocket aces(finally raised with something other than jack10 offsuit).Pocket aces bets,I call 6,2 raises ,aces three-bets,i cap it.Turn is an un paired spade.Aces bets I raise 6,2 reraises ,aces call I cap.river deuce,dummy makes fullhouse.he checks ,aces check ,i check,I lose.
I can go on and on all day.The reason why I remember this is because it all occured in my last 3 hour session.These were only a few examples in a 3 hour session.Believe you me there were more of these hands.Amost everyhand there was a bottom pair calling a better till the end if it was headsup or shorthanded. I was wondering if anyone out there playing in these stakes sees hands like these on a regular basis? I lost with four sets on the flop all back to back.A friend of mine in the same game lost with three sets on the flop.
I think its very hard to make money in games like these with atleast 4players in every hand waiting for miracle runner runners.Big hands get sucked out all the time. Thankgod I have some legitimate games as well to play in. C.M.
It surely must be to the players DISadvanatage to be playing most every hand, or else 2+2 would have recomended it. If it is to their disadvantage, then it must be to someone else's advanatage since this is a zero-sum game; not counting the rake.
Your job is to figure out what kind of player gains from their loss, and then play like that player. If you CANNOT figure out what kink of player gains, then I suggest you take 2+2's word for it: its SHOULD already be YOU.
- Louie
I see this constantly. In fact, in early March I hit a streak where I has six consecutive sets of A's cracked.
People catch runner-runners. That's just part of the game. The way I figure it, I more than make up for it with what should be questionable value bets on the river.
I'll tell you what: You go play in the "legitimate" game, and I'll take your seat against these suckers.
You're right, it does SEEM harder to win with lots of loose callers. What's really going on is it's a wider standard deviation. It will take longer to win a pot, but when you do that pot will be much bigger than it should have been had you been up against experts. Don't worry, you are being credited for every mistake that is made. It's just a longer long run.
Be patient and you'll kill these guys.
Good luck!
Worst play I have been involved with went as follows:
3-6 holdem, 3 see the flop, i am 2nd to act. Flop comes giving me straight and flush draw (i have 76s or something like that). Aggressive loose player first to speak bets, i raise, chronic calling station last to speak calls cold, loose player calls. Turn doesn't help me. Loose guy checks, I bet, calling station calls, loose guy folds. River comes a blank, i consider a bluff but figure the calling station will call me with any hand (I had seen him call a river bet with A high earlier), so I check to save a bet. The calling station sighs and mucks his hand without even asking to see my cards!
Matt D
Yesterday, I was in a limit hold'em $100 buy-in tournament in which I did pretty well (this tournament capped a poker trip I took with 2 buddies that I will post on the Exchange soon). Anyway, time and again I would flop what I new were the nuts, and I would slow play to pull out a few extra bets. The problem would occur however when the turn card would either create 2 to a flush or put a possible straight on the board and I would get scared and start betting aggressively to make the players with a draw pay to see the river. Am I playing this wrong? Should I just bet the nuts when I have them in tournament play? How does this differ from live games? This was only my third tournament and I could use some help, so any advice would be appreciated.
In tournaments your prime aim is not to eek out the maximum amount of bets but to build up your stack in situations with as little risk as possible. There is nothing wrong with slow playing a hand but if it costs you the pot and some of your own chips you have to look at the risk/reward. I only play pot limit and no-limit tournaments so I cant give you any advice on limit tournaments. In 'big bet' tournaments I only give free cards when Im fairly confident that I know what my opponents have, very rarely give a free card if Im against more than two opponents ( because there are probably just too many cards that will hurt me ), and I only give a free card which could complete the top straight if I can already beat it.Hope this advice helps.
15-30 game last night. Loose and fairly aggressive. Most aggressive player ("MAP") is two seats to my left.
2 players limp in. 2 players fold and I raise with KhQh. MAP calls as do both blinds and the limpers. We take the flop 6 handed.
FLOP: 4s8hJh
Everyone checks to me. I check. MAP bets. SB folds. BB and the 2 limpers call. I raise. MAP three bets it. BB and the two limpers fold. I call. MAP and I are now heads up.
TURN: 4d
I bet. MAP calls
River: 6s
I bet. MAP calls and takes the pot with 6h7h.
I would be interested in your comments.
From your previous postings my impression is that you play quite aggressively, and if MAP has played with you before he likely realized this. So with the raggy flop, he figures it is better then 50-50 that you are playing overcards fast (rather then betting an overpair) and in any event he believes he has 12 outs to beat that, so his betting is reasonable. When he pairs up on the end, he is getting pot odds of about 13-1 to call you, so his call is pretty well a given.
You both played it right, you just got unlucky twice: first when he flopped such a strong draw in your flush suit (you couldn't muscle him off that much hand) and secondly when he hit on the end.
BTW, was your bet on the river a value bet (in that you put MAP on an unimproved draw) or was it a bluff (in that you felt sure you would lose a showdown)? I am confused here because in the first case would he have called with, say, T9? And in the second case, would he fold any made hand that took so much early heat?
Larry
My bet at the end was just a bluff. When MAP called on the turn, I couldn't be sure that he did not just have Ax in hearts..I would hate to lose the pot just because I failed to bluff on the river. Further, even if he had another busted draw like 10,9 which I could beat, if I checked he would probably bluff (after all, he is MAP) and I certainly couldn't just call his bluff with my busted hand.
A wise man once wrote that if a good player on your left raises you after you bet, then it's unlikely he's on a draw. Of course, I don't know how good a player the MAP is, and as it turns out he DID have a draw, but as a general rule...
Anyway, I'm not sure I understand the turn bet, unless you put him on a draw (although I can't see how you could, but then you know these players better than any of us). If he raises you (possible, since he could have two pair or a set) you're in deep doo doo, and you have to figure that if he has a J (and is willing to three bet the flop with it) he's pretty much committed himself to showing down. Further, if we assume he has AT LEAST a J, then you could be opening a whole can if you hit one of your overcards, since either a Q or K is 'likely' to give him two pair.
But who knows? I play against an aggressive guy (whom I call 'one out', for reasons I'd just as soon not go into) who will gladly three bet the turn with an open ender, and if this guy plays like that then a bet on the turn and river is certainly called for. But from my perspective, knowing nothing about the nuances of the MAP's game (there are a thousand different kinds of aggresive players), I think I would have check and called the turn and 'maybe' bet the river, since I'm probably calling anyway and I'd like to give him a chance to fold the nut flush draw.
"A wise man once wrote that if a good player on your left raises you after you bet, then it's unlikely he's on a draw. Of course, I don't know how good a player the MAP is, and as it turns out he DID have a draw, but as a general rule... "
The wise man (?) also wrote that these reads don't work against bad players...actually, the situation here is a little different. I had checked the flop. MAP bet the flop (and he was correct in doing so with his 12 outer) and he was probably also correct in making it three bets because by then the pot has become huge and he doesn't mind it too much if people behind him drop out AND I give him a free card on the turn (BTW, I know MAP and he's not thinking about any of this as he splashes the pot with his chips. He's just raising 'cause he's MAP but it turns out he is accidently doing things right).
Anyway, I gotta go but I'll comment on my turn play tomorrow (I certainly have my own doubts as to whether my thinking there was correct).
"2 players limp in. 2 players fold and I raise with KhQh. MAP calls as do both blinds and the limpers. We take the flop 6 handed.
FLOP: 4s8hJh
Everyone checks to me. I check. MAP bets. SB folds. BB and the 2 limpers call. I raise. MAP three bets it. BB and the two limpers fold. I call. MAP and I are now heads up."
Your pre-flop and flop play say to me (and to MAP, I would guess) that you are on a big flush draw a good portion of the time, or you have a set (J's probably, maybe 8's). Let's say MAP puts it at 50-50. While three betting kills his action from the others, it gives him a huge chance of winning the pot if there are no more hearts.
"TURN: 4d
I bet. MAP calls"
I think he would have popped it if the board hadn't paired. He probably should have, anyway. Either you are tight or still drawing.
"River: 6s
I bet. MAP calls and takes the pot with 6h7h."
Once again, in his mind you are bluffing a large proportion of the time so the call is easy. If the river was a complete blank, he would probably raise.
I don't think I would have check raised an aggressive player on the flop. I give too much information, and let him knock out the others with him having position over me.
Just my two Canadian cents.
Eric
"I don't think I would have check raised an aggressive player on the flop. I give too much information, and let him knock out the others with him having position over me."
Ya, I guess you and Dan H. are on the same page on that one. Good point.
Would you have bet the flop if you were me?
skp asked "Would you have bet the flop if you were me?"
This is actually a tricky question. It would depend on how well I knew MAP's raising criteria, ie how loose is his aggression? If he is liable to raise with a lot of hands which aren't really worthy of raises, then I will check most of the time. If he is more reasonable in his raises then I will certainly bet more often. However, if I check I certainly expect him to bet. I, too, am fairly aggressive, so it's hard for me not to bet. Knowing only that this guy is more aggressive than average, I would bet 60%, say, figuring that he will lay down more often than raise. This gives me the button and initiative. When I check, I am looking for him to take the initiative (and be the focus of the other players attentions), letting him make the others put their chips in. Of course, the only way for me to win, realistically, is to hit my draw in this situation, but it will be a nice pot.
If I bet out and get raised, then almost certainly the others will drop, not having invested anything this round. This is, of course, worse than the check raise scenario since there will be less dead money, and someone might actually call the 2 bets with an investment already. No stategy is perfect, but the worst case scenario in the bet out strategy is much less likely than the almost certain worst case scenario in the check raise strategy.
Eric
skp,
I don't think I would have bet on the river because:
1) You are unlikely to make anybody fold, who has you beat. He is going to call you with any pair and probably even ace high, since there are many possible drawing hands out and the pot is big.
2) You are unlikely to get called by somebody who you can beat.
I think you should check-call, because your hand still beats most other unimproved drawing hands. Since your opponent is aggressive he is likely to bluff on the end with nothing...
Sincerely,
Emil
I don't think I would have check-raised the flop. If you just call, you can let him bet the turn as well, and you stand a much better chance of picking up lots of callers, which you want with this big flush draw. On the other hand, if you can get an AK or AQ to fold you pick up a good chunk of equity, so I guess it would depend on what I thought the other players had.
It was a pretty loose aggressive game. I figured I was getting enough callers to raise with my potential 15 outer. Of course, it wouldn't be too good if MAP would three bet it and then everyone else folded. I though that even if MAP made it three bets, the callers would tag along because in my game, many of the players hate to fold on a round of betting after they have called once. Turned out that my thinking was wrong in this instance because the worst happened...MAP reraised and everyone else mucked.
Even if he doesn't 3-bet it, you might be better letting him drive the action. If he's a maniac, he'll get a lot more callers with his bets than you will. People will be willing to call him with as little as a small pair or even Ace-high. As soon as you check-raise, they'll go "Uh oh, there's the REAL hand" and vanish. That's fine if you can steal the pot, but that doesn't look too likely.
If you bet the turn, you might get two callers. If HE bets the turn, he might get five.
Dan, as I stated elsewhere, these are valid points that you are making.
However, let me play the role of the devil's advocate for a moment: Suppose a Queen or King hits on the turn. The limpers will likely check. At this point, I have to bet. While MAP is to my left and although he's MAP, he's not exactly a maniac. He may well just check if he's got very little. Obviously, I can't afford to give a free card at this point so I have to bet. Now, when I bet, I am surely hoping that everyone folds given that the pot is already of some considerable magnitude. I reckon that my chances of having everyone (or most of them) fold on the turn would be much higher after I have checkraised on the flop. Without a raise on the flop and then a bet on the turn, most rational players would put me on exactly what I have i.e., a pair of Queens. They then would be justified in going after their 5 outers etc. However, some (if not all) would fold on the turn if they thought that perhaps I did have a big hand such as a set of Jacks or Queens. Certainly, that would be to my advantage.
I don't think most players here will put you on a set on the turn, even if a paint falls. Instead, they'll probably figure you for either a wired underpair and overpair and make their adjustments accordingly.
If I checkraise the flop and then bet the turn, I have to think that some players will put me on a set of Jacks particularly if they realize that I may have checked the flop knowing that there's a good chance that MAP would bet it for me. At the very least, many players will consider that to be a real possibility.
C'est tres vrai. I guess I'm just used to the low limit games, where the other player's anayses rarely get this sophisticated. However, I'm not sure that anybody would have changed their playing strategy here, given that they at best can only 'suspect' you've turned a set and the pot's gotten huge. If it was me, I'd start to wonder if you didn't have a big overpair, and were putting on the ole 'stop and go'.
I can tell you this ,the flop was played wrong.In all hold em stakes a flop (check) raise is'nt an as powerfull tool to show strenghth as a turn (check)raise is.You established yourself preflop.Show weakness on the flop by check-calling as your cards warrant callers and show strenghth on the turn with a higher bet(check-raise)that will make players think that you slowplayed on the flop because your hand is already so strong that you wanted all the players in for the raise. The players with not so strong hands would drop like flies fearing a slowplayed trap and you're MAP would probably call knowing that he now only had one card coming that can save his hand instead of 2.The shock value of showing weakness on the flop and then taking off the sheeps clothing to reveal yourself as a wolf on the turn would definately make MAP put you on atleast queens. MAP would almost definately not call you on the river with sixes because every bone in his body would tell him that this battle was a lost one and he would have already convinced himself that he was making a good laydown.
If you feel that this was not the best way to play the hand feel free to let me know. C.M.
IMO, a perfectly acceptable way to play the hand. One of many acceptable plays I should add. I guess that's come out loud and clear throughout this thread.
I disagree. It's easy to say a semi-bluff raise on the turn was in order once we know what the MAP held, but it doesn't make a ton of sense to sacrifice 2 BB (maybe 3 if you're reraised) when you don't have any REAL reason to believe you're ahead. For all we know the guy's got a set.
All of which leads back to a larger point, which is that while it's possible that the MAP's on a draw, the fact that he three bet the flop 'suggests' that he isn't. And if he does have a real hand it's going to get damn expensive to see the river when you check raise the turn.
IMOpinion skp played this thing pretty well, although I'm not sure why everyone 'puts the MAP on a draw' when he 3 bets.
With some players, the fact that they three-bet it in this type of scenario might very well point to a drawing hand. This is because when I checkraise on the flop after having raised pre-flop and MAP nevertheless three bets it, MAP is in effect saying "B.S., I don't believe that you have a hand". That's tough for him to do if say he had one pair. He may just play the role of the calling station the rest of the way. On the other hand, if he's got a draw, he may now be raising for a "free" card (obviously, none of this is really free as he has already put in three bets but I think you know what I mean) or he may be raising for deceptive purposes.
As I stated in my original "my reasoning" post, the thought that MAP may be on a draw did occur to me thus prompting my bet on the turn.
As for Cash's suggestion, I believe that under the right circumstances, it can be an acceptable way to play the hand that way...part of the "vary your approach" theory. At times, I would play the hand that way with pocket Jacks.
Excellent points. But the hallmark of a VAP (or, in this case, the superlative MAP) is that they always think the other guy's full of it, since they're usually full of it themselves. Of course, none of this really matters, since you had a good read on the particular playing strategies that the MAP employed (as with loose-passive players, VAP's come in varying shades of incompetency) and played it accordingly. But I still think a check-raise on the turn's a no-no here, since you've opened up a whole can if he does, in fact, have a hand. BTW, this has been a great thread. Thanks for posting this hand and letting us all take a crack at it.
You should know that you're inviting MAP to make it three bets on the flop. I would just bet the flop expecting MAP's raise and smooth call it (with or without another customer or two). Now if you checkraise the turn MAP *knows* it's going to cost at least two more big bets. I assume you're going to win three bets from MAP when he calls your reraise on the river if a diamond comes. This way you'll be more confident MAP didn't cold call preflop with AdXd since I'd expect a reraise on the turn from the nut flush / straight flush draw. BTW I'm not suggesting you played it wrong, just that this is how I might have handled it.
Im going to take my first crack at critiquing a hand. Keep in mind Im a beginner and, if results are any indication, Im not even a very good player. But here goes...
From middle position with two limpers I would have just called pre-flop with this hand. Even after your raise, in a loose game your likely to get at least one or two more callers, right? This leaves you with three or four opponents while holding one of those hands that often leaves you with a second best . It seems that this is exactly the type of holding that costs me a lot of money. If you hit a king or queen its possible to be out-kicked. If an ace hits your history. I would prefer to check pre-flop and hope that I get a lot of callers as your heart draw seems like your top priority in a multiway pot.
If there were not allready limpers or maybe just one limper, I would definately raise and make the high cards my top priority by narrowing the field.
How about if somebody raised pre-flop from early position? At first glance it seems like an easy call, but the more I think about it the more I dont like it. A raise from early position is quite indicitive of hands like AA,KK,QQ,AK,and AQ. All of which will be better hands than yours even if you hit. I guess I would either reraise or fold in this situation depending on what I thought the raiser would raise with.
So there it is, my very first critique. I guess I strayed a little bit from the original post, but at least it got me thinking. PLEASE be very critical of my post if necessary, I think I need it.
I think it is better to raise pre-flop here.
If everyone else folds and just the limpers and perhaps one of the blinds call the raise...well, that's great...you've got a 4 handed pot with you on the button so to speak. As well, with KQ, I wouldn't be too concerned about having kicker trouble if I were to pair up on the flop.
Now, if a couple of other players cold-call the raise behind you...well, that too is not too bad because you now have several players in the pot and that's good for your flush draw. Notice that although you no longer have the button, it doesn't matter too much because generally in a multiway pot, you are going to have to show the best hand in any event.
A raise pre-flop is almost mandatory here. If someone in front of you had your hand dominated, they almost surely would have raised before it got to you. If someone re-raises behind you that gives you quite a bit of information re: their hand, and you can adjust accordingly (similar considerations apply if someone early check raises you pre-flop).Further, if by some miracle you get the hand two or three handed (not likely, but always possible), you've got a good chance of stealing on the flop.
KQ is a peculiar hand, since it can be a very dangerous holding in a pot raised pre-flop but it almost always good when it hits in an unraised pot. When it's suited, it's often worth a raise from virtually any position (if no one else has yet raised), even from the blinds.
I have read all of the posts and there's not much that I disagree with. Anyway, here's my reasoning on my plays:
Pre-flop raise:
I think that this a bit of a no-brainer. If anyone strongly disagrees, let me know your views.
Check on the flop:
Given that MAP was to my left, I felt that he might raise with just about anything if I bet. That raise would then limit the field which I did not particularly want. So, I checked.
Checkraise on the flop:
Given that 3 players called MAP's bet, I felt that I was getting the right price to raise on my flush/2 overcards draw. The one danger here was that MAP might make it 3 bets and cause the limpers to fold...well, that's exactly what happened...so, in retrospect, my checkraise was not a good move. However, if the hand were to be played over again the exact same way, I would probably make the same checkraise.
Bet on the Turn:
This is the one play that I have some doubts about. My thinking here was that MAP had seen me bet into him on the turn before with a big hand after he had raised me on the flop (i.e. he had seen me use Rick's old stop 'n go play). As well, I figured that I am definitely going to call so why not bet. At worst, MAP may raise me and that would just cost me one big bet. At best, MAP may fold on the River if I bet on the turn and river and his one pair hand didn't improve. In other words, I felt that it would be a lot easier for him to call on the River if I just checked the turn (whether or not he chose to bet the turn).
In addition, the fact that MAP made it three bets on the turn indicated to me that he may well be just on a draw. I mean, even MAP would worry a little about my checkraise on the flop (given that I had also raised pre-flop) and just call if he had a pair. On the other hand, with a draw, he might well reraise to either get a free card on the turn or just build a huge pot and get paid off nicely should he go on to hit. I figured that if we were both on draws, i wanted to be the aggressor in the event that we both missed.
River Bet: This I believe is a must bet situation. I certainly did not want MAP to bluff me ou with his busted draw. Plus, there was a slight chance that he would fold a one pair hand given the way I had played the hand.
If you were second to last on the flop and checked it, isn't this similar to "read one" from your essay? If so, then of course an aggressive player is going to put you on the draw and call you down when it doesn't get there. he got lucky enough to catch a pair, but it seems that he was justified with the re-raise once he realized you were on a draw and then kept calling when no overcards or flush cards came. You basically gave your money too him. Think about it. he could easily put you on overcards because you raised preflop. When you checked raised from that late posistion, he could easily put you on a small grouping of hands. seeya
For sure, it's similar to read No. 1 (though not exact because I had raised preflop and bet the turn after he showed strength by three betting on the flop). Nevertheless, a raise may still be the right thing to do from my perspective on the flop. However, I should say that Dan H (as usual) does make a good case for just calling on the flop instead of raising.
I wouldn't say that I basically gave my money to him. As it turned out, I gave him an extra $30 (i.e. the bet on the river because he probaly would have bet the turn had I checked and I would obviously have called in any event).
BTW, if your concern is that someone has started posting under your old handle of Al Raiseya, you may wish to consider losing your trademark "see ya" at the end because the imposter can just as easily strike again under the handle of "raisemeister".
i PUT THE SEEYA ON PURPOSE SO YOU WOULD KNOW IT'S ME. SEEYA
I think you should have checked on the end. Your hand is too good to bluff! Save your bluffs for when you have something like ten high. In the actual situation, there are very few hands you can bluff out here that you can't beat. Ace high, maybe, but even that hand might call you.
And there is nothing to stop you from calling on the end after checking. Your hand is not good, but he could have a worse busted draw. I've called (and won) with worse hands.
Checking and calling will gain you an additional bet when he has a worse busted draw than you, and it will save you money in situations like the actual one where his hand is good enough to call with but not something he would bet.
William
William,
As I have already stated above, I agree with you on this one. MAP will bet with more hands (that skp can beat), than he will call with in this situation. And skp has the additional advantage that his opponent may check behind him with a better hand. Above that it is almost impossible to make a better hand fold with a bet (I guess it's on this point skp doesn't agree). I can't understand why skp thinks this is a must bet situation...
When skp checks on the river there are 13.5 bb in the pot when it is his turn to act and with many possible busted straight- and flushdraws MAP is certainly going to bet a worse hand than skp's more often than 1 in 14.5, especially since he is an aggressive player. Therefore a check-fold is probably incorrect. Therefore MAP shouldn't be able to bluff skp out of this pot when he checks...
Sincerely,
Emil
PS! Read the article by Bob Ciaffone in Cardplayer (040299), where he is discussing this topic, and/or buy his book "Improve your poker". It is very good.
Hmmm..interesting.
I guess I bet because I didn't think that I had a hand to check and call with. Had I been holding AhQh, that certainly would have been a much better check/call hand. Also, I think that the way the hand was played, there was a slight chance that MAP would fold a better hand (i.e. one pair).
Anyway, yours is definitely a perspective that is worth considering. So, I take back the "must bet" comment although I still believe that a bet is called for more often than a check/call because surely most players in MAP's shoes would not call a bet with Ace high.
skp,
I like the river bet especially since you were the agressor on the turn by lead betting after not capping on the flop (i.e., the stop and go). This tends to put in the minds of your opponents that you have a hand rather than a draw and it is difficult for your opponent who is on a draw to call with a small pair (although he did - this time) or ace high.
Regards,
Rick
Was MAP the sort of player a checkraise-bluff on the river would work against?
Likely not.
The probability of MAP folding a one pair hand for a checkraise on the river was I would guess about the same as the probability of him folding his one pair hand for a bluff bet. However, that opportunity would probably not even come to pass as MAP would likely just check behind me if he had a pair.
MAP would release Ace high if I checkraised bluff but then again he would probably release Ace high if I just flat out bet.
On balance, a checkraise bluff on the river was probably not a very appealing option.
That 13.5 BB works both ways - if a bet has a 1 in 13.5 chance of getting the player to fold a better hand, then you should bet. Also, if there is a better than a 1 in 13.5 chance that MAP will 'bluff' with the best hand, then Skp has to bet. You'd be kicking yourself for a long time if you checked and called only to be shown Ace high.
Good point, if you think there is a possibility that MAP will fold ace high or a small pair, then you are right. And he only has to fold with these hands once in a while to make the bet correct since the pot is now so big. That's the old subject about winning one extra bet vs. losing the whole pot. As usual it all comes down to knowing your opponent. Skp, thanks for an interesting post.
Sincerely,
Emil
tHERE IS REALLY NO REASON TO GO AGGRESSIVE WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO IS A KNOWN AGGRESSIVE PLAYER IN THE POT WITH YOU. IMO, THE BEST WAY TO PLAY HERE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO BE PASSIVE AND LET THE AGGRESSIVE PLAYER DO THE BETING FOR YOU. AS i STATED ABOVE, YOU GAVE THIS PLAYER READ #1 WHEN YOU CHECK RAISED ON THE FLOP. IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT YOU RAISED IT PRE-FLOP. FROM THEN ON YOU WERE MEAT, AND WERE FORCED TO STAY AGGRESSIVE SINCE HE FORCED EVERYONE ELSE OUT. IF YOU PLYED PASSIVELY AFTER THE FLOP YOU COULD HAVE SAVED SEVERAL BETS AND FOLDED WHEN YOU BLANKED ON THE RIVER. aGAIN SKP,i HAVE A NEW RESPECT FOR YOUR PLAY, BUT THE RECURRING THEME IN YOUR POSTS AND WHERE I SEEM TO CONSISTENTLY DISAGREE WITH YOU , IS THAT YOU SEEM TO TRY TO OUT AGGRESSIVE OTHER PLAYERS IN SITUATIONS THAT ARE VERY TOUGH, WHERE YOU IMO SHOULD BACK OFF. i THINK I SAID THIS MANY MONTHS AGO . i'M NOT OUT TO ATACK YOU.
i BELIEVE THAT THE GAMES YOU ARE P[LAYING IN, MIGHT BE SO GOOD THAT YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH PLAYING THIS STYLE AND BE A WINNER.... BUT IN THE GAMES i'M USED TO PLAYING, YOUR STYLE WOULD GET CHEWED UP AND SPIT OUT.
I don't think I would characterize myself as an overly aggressive player even in the games that I play in (Dan Hanson has seen me play on a couple of occasions and perhaps he can comment). More importantly, the people I play with do not believe that I am an overly aggressive player although several do believe (correctly) that I have some fairly liberal pre-flop raising standards.
However, I realize that I may be giving off an impression to you that I am hyper aggressive because many of the hands that I post about on the Forum include plays where I have taken the aggressive approach. I do this because generally they make for a far more interesting discussion on the Forum. Surely, I would bore people to tears if I were to post routine hands that I (like anyone else) encounter every session.
In any event, whatever style I've been using has worked for me over the years in my games. You are probably right in saying that that style may not work in other games. As you know, one of the hallmarks of a good player is to adjust his strategy according to the type of game that he finds himself in. If I was getting chewed up in a game day in and day out, I have enough confidence in myself to know that I will change my style to adapt to that new type of game. Alternatively, I would pack my bags and find another game.
Ya, that's well put.
I would be making an error in not bluffing and MAP would be making an error in not calling if he had a pair. So, it can become a question of who is going to err first. Thus, I bet and allow him the opportunity to make the error. If I check, he cannot make an error because he will likely just check his one pair hand and take the pot. Worse yet, he may bet his Ace high hand and win the showdown after I call. This would be a catastrophe as he likely (surely?) would have mucked his Ace high hand had I bet.
Ok, that's the last post I put on this thread...I guess it has run its course. Thanks to everyone for their helpful comments. BTW, that thanks goes to raisemeister as well. Believe it or not, even though we often don't see eye to eye on strategy, I do learn from your point of view and isn't that what this Forum is all about.
tHANKYOU, If you want to truly grow, which I believe the regular posters here do,.. then you have to be willing to suffer through reading opinions that differ. I suffer constantly. I have to say that I was probably shortsighted with regard to my comments regarding you and Mr Hanson, but I think that the quality of both your posts has improved tremendously from the time that the mud was flying. I think what bothered me the most was the constant back slapping that you two were doing, and that seems to have stopped as well. So, I have come back, because i believe I have something to offer. seeya
skp,
Sorry I got to this thread so late. I was just about to make a post saying how much I like your turn bet once the flop turned out the way it did. Then you post a message referencing the stop and go play I once mentioned as the rational for the bet. Thanks.
Anyway, I liked the way you played it except I might bet the flop actually hoping MAP raises it to limit the field. This would make it easier to win if I get a king or a queen. But your way is good too.
Regards,
Rick
Not busting your chops skp and I enjoy stuff from you lots but you play this hand real bad. I see that MAP control you and you not control MAP. I see you make mistakes because of MAP. I see that you make error about flush draw too. You should have led the flop. I know you probably say that MAP raise and cut off callers but maybe not true. You play overpair like you played on flop with 2 flush cards? If MAP raise on this flop when you when you have Aces do you call raise or step on it? MAP probably just call and if he does raise not that bad. Way you play this one MAP read you like a book. You have hand to play fast with so show him the fast gear. So if he raises you play like you have Aces. Don't let MAP make you caller as this is what he wants to do. If he cuts of callers which ones? Flush draws - probably not. Straight draws maybe but against MAP probably not. Someone with piece of board - probably but could help you win pot. When flush card hits and you play hand this way on flop will you get paid? On the turn probably bet and on river probably bet. I say probably cause I don't know MAP. Check raise turn an option also if you are certain MAP will bet behind you. The way you play hand I would have checked and called river since MAP seems like player that bets with more hands than calls with.
Got ya. All valid points.
BTW, I am not saying that the way I played it and my reasoning for it is correct. In fact, that's why I put the post up. I fully expected flames on my play. Nevertheless, I thought it was a very interesting hand and worthy of discussion.
skp I not flame just offer opinion. Posting hands and thinking about them helping me be better player. Help you to?
Sometimes the best way to play a hand is to just be a calling station. This is often the case when a maniac is in the pot - he'll get you more action than you could get yourself, and you can retain deception.
Let me comment on the importance of deception. A situation could have developed where SKP hits his flush on the river with 4 or 5 people calling the maniac. Now, if SKP checks the river and the maniac bets, 2 or 3 people may call him. Now SKP checkraises. Deception in this case may be worth an extra 2 or 3 bets on the river.
The same applies to the turn. If SKP just checks and calls the flop and hits the flush on the turn, he can check and let the maniac represent the flush. The maniac gets called, and Skp can trap all the callers for two bets. If he's lucky, the maniac will raise again, putting extreme pressure on the 2-pair or set hands.
I don't like playing in wild agressive games because I hate being a calling station. I like to drive the action. However, it's often correct to play this way in those games.
Dan
This is one of the possibilities I also saw when suggesting the lead bet on the flop. skp can always just bet out on the river looking to make it three bets when he and MAP both catch their flushes if they lose customers with their turn plays.
Well guys, thank you a lot for your help thus far. I just discovered the web site after reading most of the two+two books. What I wanted to ask was where to start playing. I'm 17 years old, and turn 18 in May, and I can make a stake of about 400-600 dollars.
My question is if you guys know any good casinos with 18 year age limits. I found one outside of San Diego, but I would rather one closer to the East (I live in Maryland).
Also, if you have any other tips or advice for a first time public card room player I'd rather appreciate it. Thanks a lot,
Alex b.
You better go back to your school, and forget everythink about gambling, it does not worth it kid. You can do much better in many other thinks, do get the lure.... GO BACK TO SCHOOL
Alex 400-600 isn't a bankroll, even for a $3-$6 hold'em game I wouldn't be happy with less than $5000 (that's taking a loss of $200 for 25 sessions).My biggest losing run was 17 sessons, but I only lost half of my $10K BR. Maybe you should look for a small home game. As for 18 I know the limit in the USA is 21 years,in Australia it is 18 years. I had a 16 year old girl (Daughter of a reg. player) who wanted tips also. I told her a bankroll is very important. With 600 and you get hit for 300 1st session, you've lost HALF your poker bankroll. Maybe even playing games with family,friends and fellow workers could be an alternative. Remember MOST players in card clubs/casinos know what they are doing.Good Luck DAZZLER PS: Don't worry about GAMBLERS comment.
Well, I found an indian reservation casino outside of San Diego where the age limit is 18, and they seem to play a lot of low-limit holdem. I am fairly confident that I could beat a group of weekend tourists, and the person I spoke to on the phone said that there are a lot of senior citizens who play there.
Thanks for the concern Gambler, but i'm graduating from high school in june, and was just looking to play over the summer before college starts.
Thanks again guys
GAMBLER wrote: "You better go back to your school, and forget everythink about gambling, it does not worth it kid. You can do much better in many other thinks, do get the lure.... GO BACK TO SCHOOL"
Uh... physician, heal thyself?
Alex--as Darryl mentioned, a $400-$600 bankroll isn't close to being big enough for $3-6, which is the lowest limit available in many card rooms. It has nothing to do with your abilities as a poker player, but rather the inherent short-term variance of limit poker. To use a very simple example--suppose I make a proposition that I'll bet you on coin tosses. If the coin comes up heads, you win $400. If it comes up tails, you lose $200. Clearly this is a potentially very profitable wager for you, but on your $400 bankroll, it would only take 2 tails in a row (a 25% chance) for you to bust out.
In the coin toss situation, if you took the bets and busted out, you would at least be certain that your loss was only due to bad luck, and if the wager was always available, in the long run, you'd get the best of it. But losing the same amount in poker would most likely discourage you, and might cause you to doubt your abilities as a poker player, even though you might have made very few mistakes in those sessions. I think Darryl's suggestion of a $5000 bankroll is a bit conservative, but I would wait until you have at least $1500-$2000 available before venturing into low-limit casino poker. But in the meantime, you should definitely look for a low-stakes home game to play in. You'll be able to refine your skills, and hopefully build up your bankroll.
To answer your previous question, I'm not aware of any poker rooms on the East coast that aren't 21+.
Beware the senior citizens. They sit there waiting for the nuts, then come to life. If anyone who is covered with cobwebs springs to life, lay down the second nuts.
Larry
What makes you think you could beat the weekend tourists and senior citizens? Sounds like they might have more experience than you. Even if you have read S&M's books doesn't mean your a 'Rounder' yet. You'll have to invest many hours at the table before you truely understand the concepts S&M are writing about. Until then I'll put my money on the tourists and old folks.
A
Dazzler and others--
Why is there such a stressing for such a conservative bankroll? It doesn't appear that Alex B is turning pro, only playing a few times? $5000? If that is what you needed to play 3-6, who would ever play? I sure wouldn't. $600 can go a long way in a loose passive 3-6 game. If he loses, so what? I assume it's not the rent money. Pick a game without too much wild raising and use some discipline and you should be a solid favorite over most 3-6 games. If standard deviation smiles your way, you'll make a little extra scratch. IF not, go get a job and try again some time. Geez, it's only money. Read Ciaffone's Improve Your Poker for more about this.
P.S. I am only 20 (and look 15), but I have never been carded at Foxwoods. Just lower your head and count through your wad as you are walking by the guys in the blue jackets and they will never card you. Don't want to irk customers I guess. Once you are at the table you will never have a problem either.
I don't suggest doing this. My cousin was only 19 and got caught in the casino. They arrested him and there was a $800 fine. This was in Louisiana!! (Notorious state for not enforcing such things). I am only 23, but I am glad I waited till I was 21 to play. It's not worth the risk.
That's brutal. If you are even just a small favorite in a poker game, what are the odds of losing 25 straight sessions? This seems like a little more than standard deviation! If not, please let me know! I'm playing games with a bankroll that is only two to three hundred times the big bet.
i found a place where it is 18.... it's an indian reservation outside San Diego
i agree with the premise of variation....and the lowest limit is 2/4
however I think that with three buy ins....and enough time I can sit out the variation and beat the rocks with effective play.....thanks though
Alex-
I play in San Diego. The three casinos in the area have an 18 year age requirement, so you're o.k. there... as for your bankroll, you will more more than likely be stuck that at some point...I read all the books, too, but it still cost me some months and a not insignificant amount of money to be where I am now...a winning poker player who has suspended his play until he gets his bankroll to where it should be.At 3-6 you will see the CRAZIEST, WORST plays by people... and it will wreak havoc on your bankroll. My advice to you is.. go play. But don't be surprised when your money runs out, even if you play better than most. The amount dropped for each pot, also is a killer.Here in SD, it's basically $4 per pot...REGARDLESS OF LIMIT. That's why I will only play 4-8 minimum, but ususally 9-18 now(grossly underfinanced, hence my previous statement) Sorry if I rambled, but I kind of saw myself in your post. Good Luck, and I'll see you at the tables....
C.P.
the rake is that high? it is ridiculous
There are 7 casinos in the San Diego area within an hour drive of each other. Four indian reservations, Barona in Lakeside, Sycuan in Chula Vista, Viejas in Alpine, and Pechanga in Temecula. There are two or more card rooms that are 21+ to play: Oceans 11 in Oceanside on I-5, Lucky Lady(?) in San Diego, and Lake Elsinore in Riverside (15 mins. north of Pechanga on I-15). They all have web sites with directions. You could play in an inexpensive tournament 6 nights a week with your choice of Hold em, Omaha or Stud. Their schedules are listed in the back of Card Player magazine. This would be a good way to get your feet wet without risking too much capital (and it's a lot of fun too).
Alex, In Illinois, you must be 21 to play in the poker rooms on the boats, and in Indiana as well. However, there are some charity poker nights held about once every 2 weeks in various locations around the Chicago area, playing 2-10 and 3-6 spread limit half holdem half Omaha high, where the age limit is 18-years-old. More importantly, though, I would strongly suggest that the best poker in your immediate future lies in September when you begin college. Had I had the opportunity then to read the information that is available now in the 2+2 books, as well as the web discussions here and on rgp, 25 years ago when I was in school, I would have cleaned up! Realistically, I was just a little better than the others then, and did pretty good. Because you WILL meet many students that have lots more money than poker skill, and should take advantage of the opportunity. Run a game about once a week, keep the limits at what you are comfortable with, buy a case of beer for the OTHERS, and a couple of bags of Fritos, and you are on your way. I know three years seems like a long time, but stick with it, and you could easily build a bankroll that would put you at a comfort level well above the 3-6 level by the time you are 21, as you really need to play higher in a casino to be able to contend with the rake. Good Luck Frank p.s. Man, I remember winning a guy's TV set, stereo, a suit, etc...oh, to be 17 again!
Yeah...i know what you are saying A bunch of my friends play a weekly game with me, but all read the books voraciously. Whenever someone new comes to the game, they always leave with nothing. I feel sorta powerful...
i'm going to be going to college in NYC....know any good underground places?
Here's an interesting play I made last night. I didn't know any of the players well, so opinions from strangers might actually be useful:
Game is 4-8 HE. Table is full of loose-but-not-stupid very agressive players. By gentlemen's agreement every hand is straddled, so it's basically 2-4-8 blinds.
I'm in SB with Kd9d. 6 players see the flop for $8. Flop is Ac9c6c, everyone checks. Turn is red 3, all check to the button, who bets. I raise with nut 2nd pair, all fold. I figured an Ace would have bet the flop, and the button was trying to steal or semi-bluff with Tc9h or something. Worked this time, but was it worth risking $16 for $56?
Yes.
Different story though if someone in early position bet the turn because then you have to consider that he was either slowplaying a big hand (i.e. flush) or was hesitant to bet an Ace on the flop because of the flush possibility. A fellow with an Ace is unlikely to fold in the face of your raise given that you have already checked twice. I suspect that the button had bugger all for a hand and mucked quickly.
Good play.
IMO, in these situations, you can sometimes get away with just a call on the turn if the difference between the rank of your pair is not much lower than the top ranking Ace. For example, if the flop had been AcKc6c and you held the same Kd9D, just a call by you on the turn may dissuade anyone behind you holding a small club from calling (you don't need to raise). As well, if a blank hits on the river, you can probably catch the button bluffing again because he will likely put you on a high club missed draw. (Even in this situation, if you are going to play, a raise will often be better than a call but it's close.)
He's playing 4-8 with a straddle, and these players are gambling. I think you'd have to raise the late position bettor to isolate under these table conditions. Yet, I agree that in a tougher game the flat call can be effective.
The check-raise would tell me that you had an ace or a high flush draw,not a flush because the raise was not a pot building raise but an elimination raise because of the players still left to act after you.Seeing that the pot was fairly worth it, a move like that would be pretty good.Even if someone was slowplaying the flush or had a higher hand than yours , the showdown at the end would show all the players at the table that a raise or bet from you is nothing to be worried about which will definately get you more money in the pot when you do bet a legitimate hand.Win or lose the pot right then and there you still win either way. C.M.
I think its quite obvious that you PROBABLY have the best hand and should certainly at least call. You should only fold against the weak-tight. You are correct to strongly suspect the button bet. Calling here doesn't look too good since you can expect a call or two from players with a stiff club bigger than your 9 (in this loose aggressive game with the fair sized pot). But you can also usually fold if the bet came from early position, a situation where someone MAY have slow-played or even checked an Ace out of fear.
This is neither brilliant nor bone-head, just routine.
Some features of this situation: aggressive players do not check Aces out of fear; aggressive players will RAISE with TT or higher on the button; you have top kicker with your 2nd pair. Your hand is WORSE if it came AKx, since you no longer have top kicker.
This is a good reason to sometimes check the goods from the blinds twice.
Notice that when you checked, you were NOT "check-raising". Most of my "check-raises" are like this one.
- Louie
i hate to burst your bubble but louie had it right as it is a routine play. i think the people using this forum are finding out how to play poker after looking at their starting cards. as you can see the money is not made on the first round.
Played a hand last night that's still bugging me. Here's how it went.
I'm in middle position with red queens in what had recently become an unusually loose game. Three callers in front of me, I raise, two cold callers behind me, the blind (who hasn't raised pre-flop in the three and a half hours we've been playing) re-raises, all three original limpers call, I call and the two guys behind me call. Flop comes Js 8h 6h. Blind bets out, next player (whose fairly savvy) raises. One guy folds, next guy calls, and I.... well, I fold.
My reasoning (such as it is).
1) Though I can't be sure, my best guess is that the blind has K's or A's. 2) The raiser on the flop wouldn't have raised here with a draw UNLESS he had the nut flush draw, and MAY have folded a J. 3) I have to put the cold caller between us on some kind of legitimate draw, in which case I'm possibly doomed if another queen hits. 4) God knows what the hands behind me are. 5) The blind seems like a fairly new player, and so far has played weak-tight, so I can't be at all sure that he'll pop it again with K's or A's if I re-raise (or call).
Still, I had the third nut to a backdoor flush, runner runner straight possibilities, and an overpair. Further, if my much coveted Q hits on the turn or river, I don't have to worry about it making someone a flush (although it could make someone a straight).
I realize this sounds like a classic 'wimp play', which is why it's been bothering me. After all, I'm not in the habit of folding quality overpairs. But the combination of circumstances made me a bit wary, so I laid 'em down.
Comments/flames etc. welcome (well, you know, not exactly 'welcome', but I'd be curious to see just what everyone thinks).
Guy
I have seen this kind of play before at a 20-40 game with fairly good players. The small blind a very solid player saw an opportunity with AK suited to re-raise because there were 6 other players in the pot and his image was like a rock. 7x60= $420.
Because there was 3 callers before you raised the chances these players have a better hand than you and/or the small blind is very remote. Your raise could have been viewed as AJ, AQ, KQ, or 88's or above. For the small blind to raise, it tells every one that he has either AA or KK.
The small blind knows depending upon the flop, he can scoop a big pot on the turn or at least getting heads-up with a player because he has shown so much strength .
What the small blind must do first is bet the flop in order to protect his hand. Why? Because he knows a good player will raise him in order to represent a set and hoping the remaining players, especially the one who raised before the flop, will fold. Sometimes, using this strategy will reduce the number of players from 7 to 2.
The only hands that beat you is KK, AA, JJ's or a set. For the amount of money in the pot, and knowing the strategy they are using,I would have re-raised with QQ's, take the lead and scare them by representing JJ's. At the same time you try to eliminate the remaining players for possible flushes and straight draws.
If anyone re-raise then I know I am dead and must fold. If there is no re-raise and no bet on the turn then I will bet and check the river.
With this strategy, 2 additional small bets ($40)on the flop, could potentially win me $600. plus the bet on the turn another $120. Risking one big bet to get 18.
How sweat it is?
This scenario only works when the good players are getting loose like you mentioned above.
P.S.: Today, with pocket QQ's, the flop came A, K, 2. I was heads up and called to the river and won. The other player had JJ's. OOF!!! In this case, I knew the player. That helps.
Tough laydown but you know what...I tend to agree with it (I only wish I had the good sense to do that more often myself in actual play). If there's one message that comes across loud and clear in your posts, GD, is that you are not one who gets married to big pairs. My kudos to you for that.
Anyway, I agree with the fold for the simple reason that you have every reason to believe that the reraiser from the blinds has a big overpair. Even if he decided to three bet it from the blinds with a pocket pair lower than yours (obviously not a recommended move), that pocket pair is probably Jacks. The possibility of you already being beat by the blind coupled with the possibility of you getting outdrawn by someone else sure makes your fold seem like a wise move. I guess that's why they say that big pairs play better against a short field.
I would not call two bets cold on the flop with a pair of queens. I think you made the right decision.
Sometimes you just have to go with what your brain is telling you. Here on the forum, it's easy to break down every hand into tiny bits, evaluate the motives of the players, and come up with the right answer. At the poker table, you use the evidence at hand and DECIDE.
If you're going to fold QQ, you picked the right time to do it. I think your decisions were fold or re-raise, and I think either can probably be justified.
Dan
That's true, as far as it goes. But the larger issue I wanted to raise (and may have been unsuccessful in doing so, if only because the original post was hastily written) is under what 'general circumstances' one would be willing to fold a quality overpair on the flop; i.e., does the fact that one has runner runner possibilites (5% for the flush, 3% for the straight, 2% (I think) for queen full) figure strongly in the decision, should the presence of two suited cards on board be a determining factor (and if so, how strong), how seriously one should take a raise on the flop by a decent (but not extraordinary) player who cold callse two bets preflop and raises on the flop, etc.etc.
True, you'll rarely weigh all this when making a decision. But I think it helps to talk about it.
GD,
A great post and interesting responses so far. I hope mine measures up.
It is a big pot (21 bets pre-flop!) so you have to figure players will compete for it aggressively. I agree that the big blind probably has AA or KK but this board has to be scary to him (especially if he does not have a heart - especially the ace of hearts). The early raiser (a.k.a. “the fairly savvy player”) is just as likely to have a hand like AJ (perhaps suited in hearts but not necessarily), a set, or even JT suited as the big heart draw you mentioned (wouldn’t most players just call with this?).
The cold caller up front bothers me also (I believe he could have a set or a big draw), but you are drawing fairly live yourself. Let’s say you reraise here instead of fold. If the big blind reraises (BTW, is this the cap as in California?), you can pretty much put him on KK or AA. but there is a good chance a player that tight could either fold or just call. The original raiser will probably define his hand a little here. If he reraises think set, a call may mean a jack, but then an AK of hearts is also possible. If it gets back to you at four (or even five) bets you must call for the 22 to 1 shot of the queen. Having the queen of hearts is huge here as well as having the double runner for the straight.
Damn, it is close and your ability to lay down here shows a lot of fortitude. Since it appears to be close, there is one factor that is clear (Dick in Phoenix, are you reading!). Folding in situations like this will reduce your swings. This is the play you must make if you are trying to reduce your standard deviation (i.e., you are playing in a bigger game than normal) even if there is some cost in expectation (and we are not sure there is).
Regards,
Rick
GD,
if you read the players right you did the correct thing. in aggressive type games like in california your hand is a money winner. players raise and reraise just to test the water and you cant throw away large overpairs based on one raise. this pot is already quite large and a bad laydown is very costly so you must be sure of your players. if you are sure he had a big pair in the hole than you are right.
GD,
I'll stick this under Ray Zee's comment because it seems to fit here. Note that I am more of a California player than a Las Vegas player, although I have about a thousand hours of play in Las Vegas over the last fifteen years or so (less lately).
In California, it is harder to put someone on a hand at the middle limits (9/18 to 20/40). There are a lot of regulars who can make a play, even some that don't make sense, with a wide variety of hands. At the same time the worse players play better than the worse tourist in Las Vegas (not too many tourists come to Los Angeles for the Commerce Club or Hollywood Park).
For me, it is harder to narrow down someone's hand. On the other hand, skp and Dan Hanson (both of whom I obviously respect among others on the forum), tend to play against the same group of opponents. This tends to alter our perspective a little bit.
Something I always want to know in these aggressivly raised and reraised pots is whether the cap is at three raises (California style) or four raises (Nevada style). I believe (as does Mason, based on his writing) that players use the reraise in California more frequently with marginal hands because they only have to fear one more raise where in Nevada they may have to pay two more raises off.
Regards,
Rick
Where I play, the cap is at 3 raises, or 4 bets total (bet, raise, re-raise, cap).
same here...max of three raises.
Rick, is it your contention that the 4 raise rule in Nevada inhibits the third raise or do you say it inhibits the second raise?
In my limited experience playing in Vegas, I noticed that the betting rarely got to 4 bets pre-flop and in my 250 or so hours of play there, I have yet to see it capped pre-flop. Nevertheless, three-betting was commonplace. This was in the 20-40 games at the Mirage.
skp,
You are right about Las Vegas. Very few pots get capped when someone makes it three bets (two raises).
In California once the betting gets to three bets in a multi-way pot the original raiser often makes it four bets with some marginal raising hands because he doesn't have to fear another raise. This isn't true in Nevada leading to fewer pots with more than two raises even thought the casinos allow four raises.
Mason discusses this in Poker Essays Volume II in a chapter called "Two California Rules That Need to be Corrected". I've written about this elsewhere on the forum but the threads are in the archives and I'm having some difficulty loading them so I can't easily point you to them. They might be in my MS Word folder where I keep copies of some of the 2 + 2 threads I am involved in but that folder is not too organized yet and I don't have time to look for it tonight.
Ciaffone also discussed tactical aspects of raises that "close the raising" a while back in Card Player which is somewhat related.
Regards,
Rick
Talking about QQ, here is a hand I had in a fairly loose 6-12 HE.
I am in the BB with QQ 4 players have called, plus the SB. I raise. All call.
6-handed, the flop comes 5 6 8 (rainbow).
I bet. UTG raises. One caller. All fold to me and I reraise. UTG caps it. I call.
3-handed at this point the turn brings an offsuit 3.
Board now: 3 5 6 8.
I bet again. I get raised by UTG. Other player cold calls. I call at this point. River brings a 4.
Board now: 3 4 5 6 8.
I check. UTG bets. Other player raises. I fold.
Any one want to take a guess a the other players hands?
My reasoning for what I did is as follows:
With 5 players already in and all of them showing weakness, since a lot of these players have been raising pretty much any Axs and definitely any ATo or better, I decide to raise for value. The flop seemed a little threatening, but I don't put anyone on a 96 or 74. So I bet. Once I get raised by the UTG player I figure he has some sort of draw, so I reraise. There is a cold caller behind him so I do put this player on a draw, since all night he has been more or less a calling station once he has a draw.
I figure the turn didn't help anyone so I bet again. Once I get raised I am ready to see the river and hope that a non threatening card comes like a 4 or a 9.
I didn't think this fold was weird, since I was facing a double bet from someone who had clearly been drawing during the hand.
carlos
GD -- You've received some very good responses here. You were thinking well during the hand, but it bothered you because it was a close decision where you chose to fold where you might more commonly have raised. It all comes down to how you read the players. Ray's post sums it up concisely.
So I won't add anything except a question and a comment: You're playing 2-5 hold'em in Colorado, right? I've read a good number of your posts and wonder if you realize that you would do quite well at a higher limit. I know Colorado doesn't have any, but when you get a chance down the road, if you can get the bankroll together, you should really try your hand at games around 10-20 and higher. I predict good success. (BTW didn't you write that you're a CU student? I'm an alumnus so you know you can trust my prediction. ;-))
John Feeney
From one Buff to another-- Thanks a ton for the kind words. It's not often that a player gets any postitive reinforcement (I wish I had a wooden nickel everytime a retiree at the table tells me I need to 'slow down'), so it's nice to hear that someone finds merit (at least some) in my thought process.
Anyway, Boulder says 'hi'. I'll drink a beer for you tomorrow at The Sink. Hope all is well.
As it turned out, the blind had pocket 5's (go figure) and check/called all the way to the river. The third flush card hit on the turn, but nobody held two hearts, and the 'fairly savvy' player dragged the pot with bottom set. (Note: I say 'fairly savvy' since this guy isn't adverse to calling two raises cold with pocket 6's pre-flop). Thanks for all your responses- as usual, they were well conceived and quite helpful. One thing that interested me was that most of you thought that the fold was correct if I 'knew' (or was at least 90% sure) that the blind held K's or A's. While I had to put him on one of those two hands, it seems that one can construct an argument for folding here even if you're 'fairly sure' that he has this kind of holding, since there's a fairly good chance that someone else (i.e., the aformentioned 'fairly savvy' player or someone behind you) has you beat or will make a hand that will beat you. Overpairs, IMO, are a b*%ch to fold, so I'm always apprehensive about doing so. But I suspect that few players, even those who are quite skilled, fully realize the implications of Sklansky's famed 'combination of circumstances' when deciding whether or not to continue the hand.
I see that Chris has reminded us that it's a 2-5 structure - a fact I knew but wasn't actually considering in my previous comment. If I understand correctly then, those were $2 calls and $5 raises going into the pot, with bets of $5 to come. That lowers both your immediate and implied odds for your draws. Still, those draws do add some kick to the hand. It's still a big pot and a tough decision that will hinge on your reads of the other players.
Yes, you're right. The *combination* of factors (big blind + raiser + others) weighs significantly more heavily than consideration of the big blind's hand alone. Had you been *really* sure that the big blind had AA or KK, then you could have just stopped your analysis right there (after a moment's reflection on whether the pot was big enough to take a card off to hit a queen - which, in light of other factors, I don't think it is). But being less sure, considerations of your read of the flop raiser and, to some extent, the other players, has to come into play. The fold could certainly be correct depending on your reads. (I agree that few players have that awareness of the implications of the "combination of circumstances".)
So I'd say you're right that you could be just "fairly sure" that the BB had a big pair, then combining that with your read of the flop raiser and the possibilities for the other players, decide that a fold is correct. But unless those other factors have some real weight to them, what makes a reraise still a serious consideration is simply that in most games your overpair is really a pretty big hand until clearly proven otherwise. If there's a reasonable chance that a reraise could knock out the remaining players behind you then it has even more merit. Just some thoughts.
(Disclaimer: I could be a bit out of touch with how seriously you have to take a raise in a game like this.)
John Feeney
GD:
I've only read skp's response but I think it's a good laydown because the call is marginal at best and the risk is very high. Yeah, sure the pot's big (I count 16.6 BB adjusting for $4 rake and $2 toke), and will surely break 22 bets. But, as you sensed, there was a reasonable chance that you were risking, if you hung around, 4 or 5 BB with maybe a 7-10% chance of winning, which would require a huge recovery of maybe 45 BB. The only way the pot will get that big is if you risk even more money, so there's no way out.
The only thing that's wierd about this scenario is that the blind should have been able to pick up a big pair or two big suited cards in better position within 3 1/2 hours, which suggests that he normally never raises preflop (not unknown in this game). Also, it looks like the raiser on the flop may well have AJ or KJ, taking a card away from the blind's likely hands. Were you sure this guy hadn't cracked because the game suddenly became very loose? Had he just taken a beat? If I though I had about a 20-25% chance of winning, I would have called.
Note to all: remember this is $2-5 with a $2 blind and all raises usually $5.
Post:"If he had a pair of Q-Q in the hole, he would have slowplayed."
Mason's response:"I can't think of anyone I know who would make this play. A reason not to make it is if you get known to make these plays then when you raise your opponents can eliminate the fact that you may be holding a big pair."
In a tight-aggressive game, is it ever correct to limp-reraise with a high pair or a high suited hand?
Just so my quote does not get misunderstood. What I was referring too is raising preflop with Q-Q. Then if the flop came Q-3-3 you might scare someone out of the hand if you bet on the flop. If I check, I would want my opponent to take the lead and bet the flop and I would call him. I would hope that my opponent had a hand that would end up being second best. I would let him bet on the turn and reraise him. There is not that many ways that my hand could be beat. He would have to have A-A or K-K and catch another A or K to beat me.
To answer your question. If I was in early position with a big pair, I would call if I was sure that someone would raise so I could reraise it. If I was in middle or late positions I would raise or reraise a raiser if I was holding a big pair (I wouldn't reraise Q-Q or J-J if I thought the raiser would only raise with A-A or K-K).
With the big suited connectors, A-K, A-Q, A-J, I would raise in late position and in the blinds. In early position I would limp in. If someone raised before it got to me I would just call.
I suggest reading HOLD'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS and SUPER/SYSTEM.
I agree with you, but Malmuth's comment is still relevant. By playing big pairs in a slow fashion, opponents can often put you on those selfsame big pairs later. I think that is what helped Brusnon win in '77.
Alex
I never disagreed with his comment.
It may be correct against an over-agressive field. I would also have to do the same about half the time with some other hands like AKs and JTs to properly complete the deception. I agree it would become disasterous to make this play even occasionally with just QQ against aware players in the long run.
In limit I can't think of a situation of where I would want to limp with Q-Q, because I want to narrow the field. But, in no limit you may want to do it in the blinds when everyone drops and its BB vs. SB. If your BB is a frequent SB stealer you could have some fun.
Have you ever been in a game where an early position raise seems to get no respect, and just attracts three or four cold callers? I raise UTG with alot of hands including stuff like AJ KQ 88. If I'm running badly, the usual reaction is that I find hitchhikers wanting a piece of me on a downswing - cold callers. Backraising with a hand like QQ is an effective changeup, and works well for me.
On Sunday I was watching the final table of the Shooting Star tournament in the Bay Area. Prizes were 3-50k for the final table. It was down to 6 handed when the most bizarre hand happened. Please comment.
JJ, a women player who recently won the 4 Queens, has 50% of the chips.
John Bonetti has about 17% of the chips. The rest of scattered. Among others at the table is Mel Judah.
JJ is in the small blind. Every one has folded to Bonetti who is on the button. He raises it all-in. There is some banter between the two players. She calls.
Bonetti flips over AA JJ flips over 56o
The crowd gasps. How could she have possibly called here? Some people conjecture that Bonetti simply got in her head. Any ideas?
Given his position, she likely put him on 2 overcards, making her a little worse than about a 3-2 dog on the hand. Perhaps she felt that taking slightly the worst of it was worth a shot at eliminating her closest competitor. Clearly, she didn't put him on a pair of Aces, as most people would not -- good raise Bonetti.
It sounds more like a setup for chip transfer, or just a really stupid play on her part. 56o is a terrible hand to be all in with heads up, unless you know for sure your opponent has a worse hand.
One poster commented that taking a shot at eliminating Bonetti here might have been a good thing, but OTOH the most likely outcome is now that Bonetti will be the chip leader (or extremely close to it), and it seems that's just a huge disaster. Even if Bonetti will make this play with a random hand, less than 40% of taking him out is unlikely to be worth the cost of when it fails.
There was a $1000 bounty for busting Bonetti, but that's still not a good reason to throw away a good chunk of the shot at first in the tournament right here.
Tournament poker is chocked full of partnerships. This shows all the signs of one partner shoving chips to another as Steven has almost suggested. 50% in one stack and 17% in another is not nearly as profitable for the partnership as 33% in JJ's hands and 38% +/- in JB's hands. Enjoy the WSOP, just remember this will be a part of every event.
As I understood the situation JB was not JJ's partner. Do you have any facts to support your statment?
6,5o bad hand to defend with. Is 3,4s much better? I don't think so but then I super rocky.
43s is slightly worse than 65o when played against a random hand. If you think your opponent won't play their worst hands, for instance if you are going against overcards or overpairs only, then 43s is better off than 65o.
Stephen you are very helpful. I do like 6,5o for this situation better than 4,3s.
She can't be getting good odds AND she should not want to risk her advantage against the 2nd stack. If he wins, they're even in chips.
This MAY be an OK call against one of the very short stacks.
- Louie
She obviously put Bonetti on a move and figured she had two live cards. Here is an even stranger play I saw Bonetti make at the U.S. Poker Championship at the Taj. It was a $500 buy-in, winner take all, one table satellite.
It was down to five handed and JB had only about 15% of the chips. However, the blinds were still only about 5% of JB's stack, so it was not desperation time for him.
JB was on the button. UTG player (large stack) raised 3x the big blind. Seat 4 (unknown woman) reraised all in. JB CALLS all-in. Blinds and initial raiser fold. Board comes AKQQJ with no flush possiblity. Woman groans and turns over pocket 8s. JB raps the table, says "That's good" and mucks his hand.
He CALLED an all-in reraise for all of his chips without an Ace, King, Queen, Jack, or ten in his hand. The BEST hand ehe could have lost with here was pocket 7s, and that would seem to be an easy fold here. Maybe this was the same JJ woman and she thinks Bonetti is wacko.
Here's the only rational reason I've come up with.
On previous hands, JB has table-talked to this woman about his hand. Sometimes he was honest, sometimes not. This time, he has told her that all he has is pocket 2s, 3s, or 4s. This time, she thinks that he actually is telling the truth, and she therefore has 2 live overcards to his pair. As such, she is getting just about the right odds to call, given that there will be some dead money from the big blind.
The next question, assuming the above is true, is should she have called with her 2 overcards even if he showed her his pocket underpair? I would think not, given the situation. JB is live enough, and if he's on my right, I think that a better situation will likely present itself. Plus, given my big stack, I can still pick up the blinds on half of the hands anyway.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Maybe she should get walkman or CD player to drown JB table talk. One reason to listen to music anyway.
The real paradox is:
1. What hands would JB go "all-in" with in this situation vs the blinds? AND 2. What hand(s) would you call JB likely hands with if you were in the same situation?
3. Can Conventional wisdom (3-sigma "in-side-the-box" thinking) win the event in this situation?
In tournament what bonetti has can be a secondary - to how much chips does he have. Pre-flop you must get in cheap enough and get lucky - than bust him. She made a mistake not waiting - time was not on Bonetti's side as the antes/blinds must have been killing him MORE than her.
Classic thinking! JB just doesn't bleed to to death.
Well this wasn't bonetti's play - she did the screw-up. I mean one can make a classic play but more like she made a blunder. when in no limit there is a huge bet the thinking -'must be a steal' often enough occurs. in this case bonetti can't be that obvious and even if he was - she needs a better hand to call. Say if she put bonetti on pocket 10's or AJ, you can't call against anything with her hand. I figure if she folds - bonetti is the loser - holding AA, it may not come along again that night.
if she reasons that jb would do this with any hand to steal the blinds (which he might) and she feels she is a big dog to beat him later on as it gets shorthanded the call doesnt look so bad does it. this way she gets two chances to break him rather than wait till he may have equal chips and keeps picking away at her stack. also when the player on your left starts calling big bets with garbage hands you lose the ability to steal antes and must clam up which takes away much of your playing skills. having said all of that i would have folded.
Ray;
Very considered ans. Now I know why you read so well.
So What Happened? The Obvious? Who Won?
Yes, Bonetti won the hand. She flopped a gut shot straight draw and it didn't come in.
Well i heard Bonetti split 1st with a house player.
I beleive she got outplayed by a better player. The truth always hurt. I also beleive this is a lesson that is worth a million dollar because she will not re-do the same mistake at the World Series!!!
A week ago or so you posted a message on the exchange forum re: the appropriate course of action when you flop top pair/ good kicker and the nut flush draw. While the thread seems to have been lost in the shuffle, I was hoping you'd post it over here so's we (I) could see what others thought about it (if you have time). Or, barring this, at least make a few remarks re: why you did what you did.
Guy
Just to keep it straight, Doc is not me although his/her posts are good from what I've read..
Just keeping the record staight. Doc River-
GD, I'll put it up tomorrow. I gotta run now.
Good Afternoon!
I am a 25 y.o. Accounting graduate from the University of Ottawa in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. I will be visitng Vegas shortly and am looking for assistance in finding a good game in Vegas that is somewhat loose and offers a fun game.
I have been many times but I always seem to come ahead by only $3-400 per 7 day trip. Lastly, any advice on reasonably priced accomadations for a Cdn. The exchange kills us!
Lastly, I am a nightlife fan (both dance clubs, and sin city clubs!
Thanks for your help!!
HOLD`EM Low Limit (3,6 6,12 , 8, 16) Sorry!
Playing with fairly tight folks in a low limit Hold'em game when I wire Aces in the big blind. there were 4-5 callers when it came to me and when I raised it narrowed it to three plus me.
Flop comes up 2-2-X [low card, nine i think]
I lead off with the small bet. Most players that have played with me know that when I fire away or bet from an early position, I usually have the goods. The one player left that I knew [i thought] pretty well was in the button position. This Player [call him Z] plays an excellent tight aggressive game but rarely if ever bets into a hand he thinks might better his; and i thought he knew me pretty well.
Z raises my bet, surprising me since I couldn't imagine him holding a hand that would match up to the garbage on the flop. I called, thinking he may be trying to buy a cheap turn card to fill up a long shot hand.
The turn is nothing that would threaten a flush or straight but I checked, assuming that Z would check also. I was shocked when He bet. The only hand I could imagine him having was an A2s leaving me with only two outs to beat him. I folded my aces. The river card helped no one and the remaining two players checked and flipped up their hands. Z held wired 8's.
did I out think myself or was it a semi-sound fold?
If he had a deuce he would have waited for the turn to raise. He put you on either a wired pair (better than his) or high suited connectors and the flop raise was a test. When you didn't three bet it, he figured he had the best hand and bet the turn. Not to be overly critical, but the answer to your question is that you didn't think enough.
..
You should have reraised him on the flop to take control or instead of betting out wait for someone to take a shot at the pot and check raise them. The check raise is the best option because its still a cheap bet on the flop. Make sure you look at his face when you raise the raiser. Sometimes you can see the surprised look in their face. Your opponent would have to know you had a big hand since you raised preflop.
.... I was afeared that I had given up control.
Looking at opponents faces - this something I've avoided [i've been playing 7 months] because I'm afraid they'll read me instead. I tend to stare at the pot so I don't react to anything and my expression doesn't change. I'll try looking at folks when I raise.
Yes, but try to avoid looking at the player in the big blind when you raise before the flop with marginal holdings (or when stealing). If you look at this player it will seem like you are making your play simply because they are in the blind position, and are more apt to *take it personally*. This means you will tend to get called (or reraised) more often than you would really like.
You didn't lose control of the pot after calling on the flop. IMO, the only mistake you made here was not betting out on the turn. If you're raised here you have a difficult call, but it's unlikely that this tight player is going to bang it again unless he's got trips.
Not mentioned yet and a very strong play is to check raise the turn. This reasserts control and if you are reraised you can probably safely fold.
If you thought the player was likely trying for a "free" card then you should have reraised and bet the turn; ESPECIALLY since there were others in the pot.
If he had A2 then you had only ONE out.
There is NO player who "plays an excellent tight aggressive game" "but rarely if ever bets into a hand he thinks might better Assuming that you will raise in the BB with some non-paired hands like AQs, it looks like an automatic bet at that raggedy flop (which was probably 722 not 922 since the player raised with 88). If so, the player should presume his medium over-pair is good and strongly consider raising. When you "just" called, his turn bet seems automatic even if it was a 9 (a card you do NOT have).
.......
It is my nature to step out on a limb and suggest a POSSIBLE explanation. I appologize if this misses the mark for you, but I'm confident it hits that mark on some people:
I suspect that he really IS an "excellent tight aggressive" player, but YOU are incorrect about what that really means.
One must abandon the notion that "good players ALWAYS have good hands". That's only routinely true for "good" $4 players. Change it to "good players identify and take advantage of good situations, and identify and avoid bad situations".
Make that change and keep your discipline and you're well on your way. Make that change and LOSE your discipline and you'll be a perpetual crotchedy wanna-be because you routinely lose to "idiots".
- Louie
Excellent players "create ...".
...risk adverse when I described him. e.g. not betting when there's a 3-suit showing.
thanks Louie, I've always learned/affirmed something when I read your comments.
NC
"I've always learned/affirmed something when I read your comments"
Thanks, I'll add you to my growing list of fans. Then next is #3.
- Louie
With that sense of humour, Jerry Seinfeld is probably your No. 1 fan.
Seriously Louie, you can add me to your fan list. Your posts are always insightful. I always learn something or have reason to reflect on your words of wisdom. Keep up the great work.
Louie Landale is my personal Elvis :)
You gave up a little too easily with a very strong hand. A small pair on the flop is usually pretty good for pocket aces. It gives you the top 2 pairs, and makes straights and flushes less likely. But it also opens you up to a bluff attempt. Don't be bluffed too easily.
Think about what this joker may be holding:
A2s? You've got two aces, making this less likely.
Flopped a tight or quads? No, he would likely slowplay.
Overpair? His only play is to raise the flop or he's a calling station to the river.
He's hoping you raised with high suited connectors. Let him know you didn't by reraising. Good players know that once someone commits to their high pair, they'll usually call to the river with them. If he's bold enough to cap it, call him.
Bet the turn. Now it's going to cost him two big bets to attempt to complete the bluff. If he raises again, that's when I would start to think about folding.
The moral? When you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras!
Good luck.
Posted by: NoCable (nocable44@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 April 1999, at 3:18 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 April 1999, at 7:17 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@ladner-downs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 21 April 1999, at 7:22 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guy.downs@colorado.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 22 April 1999, at 4:09 a.m.
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 24 April 1999, at 7:07 a.m.
GD, here's the post I mistakenly put on the Exchange last week. BTW, I am in agreement with your response (and that of Ray Zee's) to the question. The reason I posted it was that I raised in this situation which prompted a remark from a good friend of mine (also a good player) that I had misplayed the flop. I disagreed and I told him that I would post here and get responses. He saw Ray Zee's answer and was somewhat convinced that I had done the right thing. Anyway, here's the question again. Perhaps, others may wish to comment on it.
I am UTG in a 15-30 game with AcQc and call hoping to start a "calling frenzy". Three more players limp in and both blinds call. We take the flop 6 handed.
The flop is a nice one: Ad6c5c
There are a couple of players to my left who like to put in probe bets on the flop from late position if the betting gets checked to them. Thus, my ideal play in that situation would have been to go for the checkraise. Alas, BB bets (let's assume he could have anything).
What is the preferred play here - smooth call or raise?
Would it make a difference if the flop was Ad10c9c?
I would smooth call, because you want to build the pot for your nut-flush draw. With that many people taking the flop you'll get better odds for your draw with the flop that you got. This is a flop a lot of limpers will be in for. The BB probably made top pair too, but what is his kicker? He might have two pair already or maybe he's waiting for someone to raise him so he can three bet it.
skp,
I think you need to look at this situation from the other hands. The everytime they lose EV you win type situation. With the pot six handed many hands have pot odds to take one card off. 78, 67, 34d, 45, flush draws, etc. Many players will take one card off with these hands and will play them in multihanded pots.
You have a lot to gain by raising. You probably get all the one pairs to fold, if they call even better. Of course the deception value if the flush hits someone else too. I would rather have somebody call two bets cold than to let two players in for one bet.
Would you rather 4 opponents for one bet or two opponents for two bets? You likely have the best hand right now and wouldn't mind being heads up with 10 sb in the pot. Who knows, the BB may reraise on the flush draw and you can reraise to build a big pot. KXc may even help you build a pot while drawing dead.
If it were only three handed I would probably just call. because the underpairs don't have the pot odds to call. I may consider flat calling six handed if those behind me like to buy free cards on the flop. Then I can reraise and then lead bet on the turn.
Ad10c9c is even more dangerous to flat call on the flop. Not only do players tend to catch a part of this flop, but a K,Q,or J on the turn can add nut gut shots to their outs. Some idiot in there with somthing like a Qd7d will probably take a card off for one bet and would'nt be making much of a mistake if one at all. There are also less overcards to second and third pairs.
In conclusion, I would raise since it sounds like I will get callers anyway in this "calling frenzy". AQc is likely a big favorite. Put the money in and let the others make pot odds mistakes.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
skp,
Without peeking at the Exchange I think it is best to raise but it is close. The raise is deceptive and keeps others from coming in which helps if you do not improve.
On the second flop the raise is even better as there are more possible draws out behind you who you want to make pay. Plus you can set up a fancy checkraise if you make your flush with a middle card on the turn (which may make an opponent a straight).
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
". Plus you can set up a fancy checkraise if you make your flush with a middle card on the turn (which may make an opponent a straight). "
I don't think it is necessary to be fancy on the turn since you raised on the flop. You may start a raising war with a flush or a straight. Unfornately a straight card might get checked around. I would lean towards betting out again on the turn and hope for a raise.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
The choice here is between getting maximum protection for your made hand, vs not choking off your action for your draw. The decision looks like it's pretty close.
If you call there will be 8 bets in the pot. Plus other players will call behind you probably producing as many as 12 bets in the pot. Thus someone else will be getting as much as 11-to-1 to call. If you raise that same person will only get 5-to-1. (I'm assuming that there won't be as many callers behind you.) So the question that you should think about is are their likely hands that someone could be holding where he would be correct to call getting 11-to-1 (given your hand) but not correct to call getting 5-to-1. (Hint:What if a 98 was out.)
I have analyzed the situation for various settings and it seems that just calling is the best choice against most common field compositions and your most likely expert and/or somewhat tight/aggressive image.
By raising you will lose money if better hands are out and you will lose any possibility for disguising your hand and you will lose most likelihood that you will get any information about other hands out there.
Best luck to all.
Maria
Another reason to favor the raise on the flop is that you will get more information about the BBs hand (called or reraised) than if no one else raises instead. The BB is the hand which should concern you most, try to find out on the flop if that hand beats top pair. At least you will know whether to slow down if the turn brings another six or five.
I feel playing six handed post flop is a very dangerous situation. I would prefer to raise. I would not allow limpers to make their straights or flushes on a free card that I permitted. Tom
RAISE!!! Always make em pay to draw. Open enders and weaker flush draws will probably call anyway.
"Open enders and weaker flush draws will probably call anyway."
In the games I play in these hands never fold. What will fold are gut-shots and middle or bottom pairs, and sometimes they call as well, especially in big multiway pots.
From middle position a SOLID player raises, and is cold called by a player next to the button who I have not seen fold before the flop (over two hours) regardless of how many bets or the number of opponents. I have A9 offsuit in the big blind. Should I call?
Andrew,
Well if an UTG (or up front) solid player raises and is called directly behind by a reasonable player, it is a clear fold IMO. But your question is much tougher.
Normally in middle positon the raiser is less likely to have an ace than he would under the gun and if he was caled by a normal player the decision would be close (I would probably call).
Here the solid player's hand should be stronger than normal because he knows he has no chance to steal the blinds because of the calling station sitting behind. I think the presence of the calling station makes it a close fold.
Regards,
Rick
The solid player certainly is not trying to steal from middle position even without the expected cold caller. That the solid player is somewhat less likely to have an ace is a factor. If the cold caller were a normal average player I would strongly favor not getting in the solid player's way from the blinds. The solid player could raise here with any medium pocket pair looking to get it heads-up with the weak player albeit out-of-position, so I'm not convinced he has to have a better hand than he would normally make a raise with. I can say that the solid player would not expect me personally to get involved with ace and a weak kicker, but any deception that might be useful seems dubious given that the weak player doesn't care what anyone else is doing.
I think the answer lies in how willing the solid player would be to lay down a hand that doesn't 'appear' to be best on the flop (i.e., a wired second pair) if you check raise or bet out. I don't think there's enough money in the pot to call simply in hopes of catching an A, so the question is how likely your chances are of outplaying the solid player on the subsequent rounds.
I'm playing in a pretty loose, shorthanded (3-5 players), low limit hold'em game with relatively inexperienced players. How should I adjust my play based on these factors?
A few hands that are now worth a raise up-front are AJ AT KQ and JTs. You will also need to thoroughly understand blind stealing / semistealing, restealing, and big blind defense to beat this game.
Thanks, Andrew. Unfortunately, though, I am not familiar with those concepts (I of course know about blind stealing in general). What are they, or else where might I be able to read about them?
The first thing to realize when shorthanded is that you no longer can expect appropriate odds before the flop to call bets with cards that need to flop a good draw. Hands which can win on unimproved high card strength, and hands which can flop top pair are premium. Certain well known trap hands which are now less vulnerable to someone else's same pair higher kicker, become playable: KT QJ QT Q9 J9. Now I would just about always enter the pot with a raise given any hand with which I would semisteal from late position in a full ring. If these players don't generally fold for a raise, I would muck the small pocket pairs however. A semisteal hand is one with which I can still see the flop if one of the blinds reraises and gets it heads-up: AX K8 Q9 J9 T9 22. I would still raise weak players who think they need a very strong hand to defend their blinds (assuming no one ahead of me called) from the button with trash like: 96 85 75 64 54. What you want to do is consider those times when you *accidently* flop a good draw as extra values, while you're primarily concerned with making a decent pair. So a hand like JTs which prefers to make a straight or flush in a full game should be played fast before the flop, and welcome a flop like J 7 5 despite maximum extra values. If you play nothing but two big or medium cards which help each other, then you will always have some extra value. Medium rank hands with two gaps or suited three gaps have enough extra value, still you would still prefer to pair up. High suited nothing like: K2s Q4s J6s does not have enough extra value in being suited to make up for the wide gap in ranks, and is not playable up-front shorthanded. You could steal raise with them from the cut-off seat through a weak button (someone reluctant to make it three bets, or who folds too much with the best position) however. When you're in the blinds against weak players (who don't raise without very good hands, prefering to call) play agressive even if you catch a small part of the flop such as with hands like bottom pair and an overcard kicker. In fact with any hand you decide to continue with after the flop (and this includes those times when you happen to have flopped draws) you want to take control early. In otherwords bet, raise, or get out should be your mindset even more so than in a full game.
Much of this depends on how accustomed the players are to playing in a full ring game.
Hey how all you guys and gals learn to play short handed? You read books? You do lotta math? Isn't only way to play and learn from mistakes? Isn't this one game type where you can make lots of money cause no books for other players to read? Won't have tight book players in short handed games making game more profitable. When tight book players play they are easy to beat because they don't adjust right.
I just began by playing shorthanded with those ring players who I could see had plenty of mistakes in their games. They were also usually stuck from the night before which didn't hurt either. I simply played loose preflop, and solid after the flop until I had enough experience heads-up and three-way so that I could think rationally about situations away from the table. After this, I welcomed shorthanded situations as I went from just staying ahead of the rake to actually grinding down their stacks. BTW 2+2 should be releasing some textbook material on this subject fairly soon.
While in ring games someone USUALLY has something good, in short handed pots nobody USUALLY has something good.
As such, raising with, for example, an over-card gut-shot is often routine since the opponent will often fold. If you can't STAND to do something like that then never play short handed against assertive players.
- Louie
I am looking forward to S&M's new book. One of the Forum participants, "Spitball" was kind enough to fax to me one of Abdul Jalib's posts on short-handed play from RGP. It is an excellent piece. Perhaps you can get it from the archives or whatever if RGP has such a thing.
Talking about RGP, I rarely check it out. To be honest, most of the stuff on there just yawns me out. As well, the format is nowhere near as good as the Forum. However, there are some noteworthy names such as Caro, Krieger, Jones etc. who I gather post there regularly. Anyone have any idea why those fellas never post here?
YOu find this format easier to read? YIKES! In any case, each to his own.
Why don't Caro, Krieger, Jones, etc. post here? Have you see Mason's responses to Jones on RGP? Would you post to the competitions forum?
What do you mean...is RGP run by Caro et al...excuse my ignorance, I don't know much about RGP. I have probably only checked it out a couple of times and never posted there. Also, I am surprised at your reaction about my comment as to the RGP format. I am probably just missing something and should be using some kind of newsreader or whatever to get the proper formatting because what I get right now from RGP sucks. I gotta tell you that I am essentially computer illiterate so it wouldn't surprise me if I am just out to lunch on how to properly access RGP.
My apologies to Mason as this properly should be on the Exchange.
No, RGP is not run by anybody. There is a standard protocol used to exchange messages based on hierarchtically broken up topics. Besides rec.gambling.poker there is rec.gambling.blackjack and rec.games and comp.os.qnx, etc. All of the authors mentioned + S&M have posted to RGP.
The downside to RGP is that it isn't moderated. The upside to RGP is that it isn't moderated.
Good news software will allow you to see threads of conversation displayed either as threads or sequentially. It should allow you to decide not to see articles by subject or author (called kill). Many, Many, other features that the web type of interfaces usu. lack. Additionally you can choose if you want to leave the articles on the server and read them one by one or download them all in bulk and read them on your local machine (possible not connected to the net).
For what it's worth, I can't figure out the damn thing either. Whenever I check it out I just click down the messages. I can' figure out how one can tell if a message belongs to a particular thread or not, so often I'll stumble into something that appears to be a response to a post from the late '80's. Plus I get sick of the flaming. IMO Abdul needs to get ahold of that thing and start moderating it.
I don't use MuShy Windoze so I miss some of the fun of figuring out 'doze applications. But it occurred to me that part of the problem with newbies using USENET is that the first time you encounter a high traffic newsgroup like RGP you get a huge number of articles listed. It bewildering to anybody. The first think I do when I subscribe to such a group is to catch up on all the articles. Throw out all the ones that currently exist and start reading the ones that showing up now. This makes getting into a high vol. group a lot easier.
As for people disagreeing...that makes the world go around.
Skp -- to find past RGP posts go to www.dejanews.com. It archives posts from most of the news groups. There go to "power search". If you want to find a post by John Doe type "John and Doe" (without the quotes) in the author box. To restrict it to RGP type "rec.gambling.poker" in the forum box. Note that some posters use nicknames and such. So for Doyle Brunson type "texdolly" (if memory serves). For recent posts from ol' what's-his-name type "Dsklansky" (But I think there are a few earlier post under his full name). Once you find a post you can look at the whole thread that it's a part of. You could spend weeks looking through the old posts, discovering interesting responses in threads, then finding *those* posters' past contributions, and so on.
On why some who post there don't post here: The reasons vary. Some undoubtedly see themselves as business competitors. For others it "politics" of various forms. (I don't mean that as a judgement one way or the other, BTW. I certainly have no knowledge of the reasons beyond what I've read on the net.) You might find interesting the most recent post I made to RGP. It touched on this subject.
BTW there was some follow up on that short handed article by both Abdul and Mason . It's in the archives here, somewhere over a year ago??
John Feeney
x
If somebody is interested in that follow up about short-handed play, take a look at the post "Note on Short Handed Play" by Mason Malmuth, 5 October 1997 and the response by Abdul the 8 October.
I still re-read those posts once in a while, and I really look forward to the new book by 2+2 on the subject...
Sincerely,
Emil
Is there a book or something that explains the ins and outs of Usenet (if that what it's called) in detail?
I don't know. I'm only a little past the novice stage with it myself. Looks like someone Michael Hunter above knows a lot about it. Maybe he'll respond. I know there are lots of others who post here who could answer better than I. One thing you might try is doing a search with the word "usenet" on a search engine like Alta Vista. It's bound to turn up a ton of references available on the net.
On my version of Netscape RGP is fairly easy to view. But it did take a bit of tinkering at first just to figure out how to set it to arrange the posts in threads, how to list them by date, etc. I couldn't even say how to do it, and your browser may be different. But try fiddling with everything on the "task bars" surrounding the window where you see the posts. Geez, that's not much of an answer. Probably someone else will help. I'm going to be off line for a few days beginning tomorrow. When I get back on line I bet I'll see posts from "GD" on RGP.
If you see any posts from GD on RGP, I can assure you they won't be from me since I don't even know how to post there. Anyway, thanks for the tips-- I'll play around with it and see what I can do.
GD,
You post to and read newsgroups using your email program since it is nothing but a collection of emails in a collection of threads. Any good book that describes your email program would talk about subscribing to neswgroups. But you really don't need to spend the money
If you have access to the Netscape Communicator package go to Netscape Messanger (the email partner for Navigator which is of course the browser) and click on File on the top toolbar then select Subscribe. Your server will download about 5000 or more newsgroups on everything from roses, recipies, kinky sex, to rec.gambling.poker. Once you have subscribed to a newsgroup downloading message headers is selected from the main messanger page in the same manner one would swithch between your indox or your outbox in your mail programs.
BTW, most email programs (MS Outlook, MS Outlook Express, Edura, Netscape Messanger) have help files. Look under "subscribe" or "newgroups". Hope that helps.
Regards,
Rick
This post by Lobo is actually quite accurate. Tight "book players" simply don't call enough. This strategy is okay in a ring game because someone else is frequently in the pot with you and the calling burden gets shared, and it is more likely that the bettor has a legitimate hand.
Side games: After 500 hrs of play at 20-40 over a 6 1/2 months, I realize my net profit on side games is -$5.00 per hour. Very bad isn't it!!
I also find out that if I would have limited my losses to a maximum of $1000. or the equivalent of 2 racks per session, my hourly rate would have come up to +$42.00 per hour.
My major losses occurred when I was on the road as well as a few days after I came back from poker tourneys.
Now that I know what to do to make a decent living at poker, can I get comments on the above subject from those who accumulate this kind of data.
Tournament statistics: Over the same period, I am in the money 19% of the time and when I am in the money, I win 20% of the time. Can someone tell me if my tournament statistics are about in the same average of a regular poker tournament player?
Thank you
Skalnsky writes quite convincingly that "quitting when you are a certain amount down" will not improve long term results.
This is because there will be times when you were down more then your "quit for the day" threshold, but ralleyed back to cut your losses or even post a win for the session.
Larry
I presume your calculations start by substituing all losses > $1000 with $1000. If so, this is flawed since you presumably do NOT keep track of the times you lost >$1000 but came back to a lesser loss or even a win. Imagine how IMPRESSIVE your hourly rate would be if you always left as soon as getting stuck...!!!!????....
As others have much more elequently put it, it is a BIG MISTAKE to search statistics for anomolous associations. I'm sure that if I kept track of LOTS of things about a session, I will find that my hourly rate is TRIPPLE when, for example, I move from seat 3 to seat 7 after passing up an opportunity to move to seat 8 when there is red-neck in the 6 seat successfully firting with the transvestite in seat 2. You can always find such nonsense when searching statistics in the past.
So you need to consider whether it is reasonable if playing on the road or after a tournament may cause you to lose. Both seem reasonably possible to me. If so, perhaps you are on tilt .. err .. not playing great when outside your comfort zone, such as away from home or still buzzing about a "big" tournament. If you feel this is plausible perhaps consider routinely doing some ritual before each session, such as reviewing your notes from yesturday and mentally correcting any mistakes you made.
The 2+2 authors are theoretically correct when they say "Money Management Schemes" like setting a stop loss ($1000) does not help. ".. keep playing so long as the game is good yaddy yaddy ...".
In reality there is a considerably GREATER chance that your judgement is poor or the game is particularly tough when you get stuck a lot of money. Losing a lot of money will put all but the best of us in some sort of psycological tilt; a situation that you might not notice BECAUSE of the tilt; kinda like not noticing that you are asleep.
I think they forget that there are FEW players with steel-trap objective minds like they appear to have. For humans, I therefore recomend some sort of high stop loss; and amount you will not wager further. A great way to do that is to bring only that much money.
$1000 may be a bit low for the 20/40, but if that FEELS right to you than it IS right (as much as I HATE the "feels right is right" philosophy...)
For good objective reasons, my personal stop-loss (beyond which everybody is an idiot or a thief or has questionable parentage ...) is embarrasingly low. *sigh* I prefer to "waste" $5 saving the earth from space invaders who have NO parents.
As I have learned many times the hard way, its better to admit your limitations than to denigh them. You can then avoid those situations (for me, such as trying to cook a salad) AND can slowly do something about it.
- Louie
Regarding your tournament stats, it really depends on how many people are entered in these tournaments. You say that you win about 1 in 25 tournaments (20% of 19%). That's the amount of times you would expect to win in tournaments of 25 players of equal calibre. If you are maintaining that win percentage in tournaments of, say, 50 people, then you are are obviously playing better than the "average" player in these tournaments. With enough tournament trials you can use statistics to calculate with reasonable accuracy your percentile ranking in the tournament playing population (that is, if you play in average calibre tournaments).
Of course, the easy way to figure this without having to worry about standard deviations, etc, is to just check out the size of your poker bankroll. Are you able to draw a full-time salary while at the same time growing your bankroll to cover contingencies such as the odd bigger game or losing streak? If so, then you're a pro in the making, and you should spend your time sharpening your strategy rather than figuring out win/loss percentages. If on the other hand you are winning more than your fair share of tourneys, but still not winning enough to pay the rent, you'll have to find bigger tourneys (or side games) or give up the idea of making a "decent living" playing poker.
Remember though, once you sharpen your side game, you'll have to consider the opportunity cost of playing in these tournaments. There may be more hourly profit in the side games than the tournaments (especially if the house isn't contributing to the prize pool). That has always been my experience anyway.
Well, I sure have missed Vince Lepore's lack of participation in this Forum of late. I do not know what exactly has caused Vince to stop posting. I often found his posts to be insightful and always found them to be entertaining.
I hope somebody puts an APB on Mr. Lepore and gets him back on here.
Vince, are you reading this?
skp
I am sure many readers of this forum agree with you.! Vince;s contributions are missed.You have posted a message many readers have procrastinated about. APB out for Vince.
Yeah, me too. I miss "Opinion by Vince!!!!!!"
Dick
Vince,
Phone home!, Please phone home!,
Rick
I e-mailed Vince shortly after his disappearance and got the skinny. Apparently Mason deleted a couple of his posts over on the 'other games' forum (there was a continuation of the now infamous baccarat thread over there, for those of you who missed it), which ticked Vince off, as it seemed to him that Mason was applying a double standard in his enforcement of the appropriate use policy. Anyway, our friend Herr Lepore vowed to stay away from the fo he insisted that his boycott was not out of spite,but rather a matter of principle. I tried to bring him back to the fold about a month ago, but he was having none of it.
It seems to me that the forum got pretty nasty for a while, and Vince was unfortunately a casualty of the constant flaming etc. Maybe if we e-mail him en mass he'll come back. I'm sure he misses posting.
I too hope he comes back. But I received several e-mails concerning some of his posts. What Vince doesn't know is that we decided to delete several posts. This included a couple that attacked him very viciously.
This brings up another point. We do have posting guidelines and I believe strongly that proper enforcement will benefit all of us. The purpose of these forums is to discuss and exchange ideas, and this always needs to be done in a professional manner.
How come no one misses me when I don't post for a while? I'm hurt. Big John,where are you?
skp,
I certainly second that. It sure isn't as much fun around here without Vince. One of the problems with today's "in your face", trash talking criticism is that people who are as old as Vince and I tend to take that kind of crap personally. My guess is that Vince is in his car, tracking down the big mouth with the intention to physically show him the error of his ways. Either that, or he just got fed up with the abuse and left for places where he knows he's welcome. I sure got more out of Vinc's posts than I have from his critics.
Are there any books, web sites or publications written on Five Card Draw Poker strategy? I understand this is not a commonly played game in most Vegas cardrooms but it is a game I commonly play both at home and on the internet. Any help would appreciated.
Thanks
Most are out of print. Try the Gamblers Book Shop: 1-800-522-1777, in Las Vegas for John Fox's Book "Play Poker and sleep until Noon". The GBShop has used books and a locator service.
This is by far the best book I have ever seen on Draw; so long as you add ", Quit Work," to the middle of the title and replace "until" with "'till". Good luck finding a copy.
IMnsHO the "tells" section (??"The Science of Behavior Deductions"??) is BETTER than Caro's Book of Tells. Flame on.
You will need to ignore the bigotry. Especially if you are tatooed muppy redneck punk mid-life-crisis long-haired old superstituous high-school drop out foney lottery-playing nose-ringed pot-head wish-you-had-married-someone-else religious hide-your-real-self transvestite long-finger-nailed smoking egomaniac. I could go on, and Fox does.
Also keep in mind that the book was written for Jacks-or-Better with a "Bug", and that you should therefore CONSIDER how advise therein applies to your game.
-Louie
the best are:
mason malmuths book on draw and lowball( can be ordered off this website)
mike caros work on draw ( i dont remember the exact name sorry)
norman zedah winning poker systems
nesmith c ankeny poker strategy winning with game theory
id read them all if you like money
Mike Caro's Draw Poker is in Brunson's SUPER/SYSTEM. A must read!
Mike Caro also put out some charts which were called Caro's Advanced Strategies for Draw Poker. They were in my opinion much better than his section in Brunson's Super/System.
Ray; Nesmith's general algarhythm can be adapted to predict EV of Opponents hands. Think about it.
In his last book of essays David Sklansky wrote that for those players who do not have access to computer software and who deal out cards to compare hands, check probablities etc the correct method is to not reshuffle the deck after dealing out one hand but to continue through until the deck is finished. He wrote that reshuffling the deck after each deal gives substantial inaccuracies in results. Why is this so? I would appreciate if David (or anyone) could explain the mathematical or logical rationale and just what inaccuracies will result.
I would guess that his thinking on this matter is that the deck was suffled once and the cards are still random, if you resuffle there is more of a chance of repeat hands that may not be an accurate proportion of the sandard deviation.
Notice that your long term expectation of hands remains the same since the 10th through 13th cards of the current deck are just as likely to be good for you as the 1st through 4th of the next shuffle. The fact that you are GOING to see the 1st-9th cards does NOT change their expectation.
This method greatly reduces fluxuations by forcing a more even distribution of results. E.G. If you get lucky and catch 2 Aces then you are extremely unlikely to do so for the next few hands, thus reducing the affect of that "lucky" result since you are less likely to have it happen again. If you unluckily miss your flush a few hands in a row you are MORE likely now to hit it.
So it discourages multiple occurance of the same event AND encourages a single occurance.
I SUSPECT that this method could reduce your required sample size by a factor of ??10?? or more; i.e. 100 hands (?25 shuffles?)with this method may give results with the same confidence as 1000 hands shuffled normally. Someone please comment on that.
- Louie
Check this out,$0.25-0.50 stud and holdem (pot can't exceed $10 due to florida law)and the rake is $2,75 a hand regardless of the size of the pot($1 goes into the royal flush jackpot).In some hands thats like a 50% rake.Is this evil?Thats like an $80 an hour rake in quarter stakes poker!! Thankgod I play at the private clubs and cruise ships. I have a question for the powers that be,is this game beatable because they have like 40 tables going everyday?:o)
That is really hard to believe. There is no way an expert could beat this game, even if he or she were playing against rank suckers. I've never played in Florida, but it sounds like a room full of tourists dreaming of hitting the Royal.
I sat in a game there with $10 once, played for about 2 hours (somehow), and got to hear everyone talk about what they would do when they hit the big royal flush jackpot. Yeehaw.
Bill
actualy the rake is .25 per person per hand, and the jackpot is .50 per pot. I know i deal poker there.And know you can not beat it. the rake is about 18.5% on a 10$ pot.The tournyments house takes 21% to 27% depending on game
Believe it of not, Bob Ciaffone, former WSOP finalist and current top notch Card Player colunmnist, played there in order to come up with material for a two part article in Card Player about a year or so ago. He described the games as they were played there in a way that was both illuminating and hillarious.
One main point I got out of the article is further proof that the underlying demand to play poker in a public forum is so great that no one really knows how big the business could become in a free market that is fairly regulated as opposed to absurdly regulated.
Regards,
Rick
It's a joke. I have played while waiting for the races to start at the track, etc. It's the silliest thing you ever saw. If they ever change the law, book a flight to Florida b/c it would take months for these people to figure out standard structure poker -- i.e. the games will be super-loose passive for many months.
I agree completely. I've been waiting for the laws to be changed here in Florida (and there's a good chance they will be soon). When they are, descend on the new games like vultures, because they will all be beautiful. I've noticed some regulars there, and none have a clue how to play any game at all.
Bill
I plan on moving up to 10-20 while in Biloxi over Memorial Day weekend. I do not get to play in Casinos much and I am not interested in long term bankroll needs. I have a pretty good income so my bankroll can be replenished when my wife is not looking. In the book Blackjack Attack, Don Schlesinger details weekend trip bankrolls needed for blackjack. Can anyone suggests what type of bankroll I need for 4 days of play at 10-20 hold em? What should my buy-in be for a single session? How much would you stand to lose before moving back to 1-4-8-8?
$1,500. I would drop back if they beat me out of half of this.
Gentlemen, My question deals with the amount of time one needs to win before he can assume he can "beat a game". I've been playing 15-30 and 20-40 for about a 1 1/2 months (about 115 hours) and have been averaging winnings of just about 3 BB/hour. I do not expect this good fortune to continue, however my goal is simply to win 1 big bet per hour. I remember seeing a chart somewhere (maybe here)that if your average winnings are higher than usual, then you need a fewer number of hours to believe that you can consistently beat the game. For example, suppose the figure was that if you win 1 big bet for 500 hours, you can consider yourself a winner. If you can average 2 BB/hour in 250 hours, expect similar results in the "long run". I know this example isn't accurate, but I use it to illustrate a point.
Is it safe to say that I can win 1 BB/hour in these games? How many hours would be needed to confirm this? Thanks in advance.
I'm not part of the crew but one measure would be your ratio of winning sessions to losing ones the higher the better. Are you down a lot then get lucky and win one big pot and quit while your ahead, which may mean your not as good as you think. I assume there are a lot more points to determine if your good or just lucky. Just my thoughts.
Dr Toast,
if you are winning 3 bb bets per hour and would like to win 1 then make 3 big bets an hour worth of bad calls.
oh you say this a mistake but it is not. if you make 2 bad calls an hour you will get people making bad calls back at you so you need to make an extra one just to catch up.
fun aside you probably are playing a winning game and fluctuations will even out in a few hundred hours more and you can pinpoint your win rate down more easily. alot has to do with how fast the game is and how you chose to play.
About 25 years ago in Reno you purchased a silver quarter off of me for 5 dollars, I pumped it up to 1200 dollars, never got a chance to thank you, Thank You, ESP
esp,
your welcome and i responded jokingly april 20th under post in world class play. good luck friend.
A winning player who wins 2 bb/hr will usually have a standard deviation of somewhere between 10 and 15 bb/hr, depending on the type of game, your style of play, how wild the game is, etc.
After 115 hours, your results should therefore vary by between 107 and 161 big bets, since the standard deviation increases by the square root of the number of trials played. Let's assume 130 big bets.
If you plot this on a graph paper, you'll see a bell curve representing the possible outcomes. One standard deviation represents 67.5% of the area under the curve. So, if we took 1000 players and graphed their results, 675 of them will wind up in this area (either up or down 130 big bets from their expected outcome). Another 275 will be within two standard deviations, or 260 big bets. Note that of this group of 1000 players, 50 of them will be off by two standard deviations or more. In your typical cardroom, there's usually someone in the middle of a big 'rush', and some good player who simply can't buy a win and hasn't been able to for some time. There may be a few of these guys.
When evaluating statistical results, the normal 'confidence interval' is considered to be 2 standard deviations. Only 5% of all results will fall outside of this area.
So far, you have won 300 big bets. If your results are off by two standard deviations on the high side, your real 'win rate' would be 40 big bets, or .35 bb/hr. If your results are off on the low side, your real expected win would be 450 bb, or 4.85 bb/hr.
So... We can say that there is a 95% chance that your real win rate is somewhere between .35 and 4.85 bb/hr. There is a 67.5% chance that your real win rate is somewhere between 1.5 and 3.7 bb/hr.
If you are playing a high variance style of poker, the gap is wider. For example, if you are a bad player losing 1 bb/hr, but with a standard deviation of perhaps 20 bb/hr, then after 100 hours of play you should be down 100 bb, but 67.5% of the time your results will fall between -300 bb and +100 bb. This is why the loose agressive players sometimes go on 'rushes' that can be quite extensive. One bad player I know went through the month of December posting huge wins in a 5/10 game. Night after night he was winning somewhere between $500 and $1000. He claims to have won about $7000 that month. While that's probably an exaggeration, he certainly did win quite a bit for the month, when he really should have lost.
I hope this long-winded post helps, and I really hope I didn't make any aggregious errors. I'm sure someone will point them out if I did.
Dan
I don't think I could find an error here with a pack of bloodhounds.
Ya, ironically, when Dan asked whether he had made any "aggregious errors", the only error I spotted was the one made by his finger as opposed to his brain (i.e., "egregious").
Heh. I knew the word looked wrong when I typed it. Pretty agredias of me.
Well at least I would agre using this forum as a dias for your ideas is worthwhile purse soot.
I dislike and am weak at shorthanded games, but recognize they cannot be entirely avoided. Given that "learning on the job" could be costly, I played several hours of 3, 4, and 5 handed on TurboTexas Holdem, which (at least for me) helped a lot.
IMO this is one use for TTH.
Larry
the key to shorthanded is being able to put alot of money in with not much.
Well, last night I played perhaps the worst poker I've played in months. Through some quirk of the universe or act of God I managed to post a $300 win (10-20 game), but today I'm still shaking my head at some of the boneheaded plays I made.
An example:
I have AcKc UTG. I raise, pick up 4 callers, including the big blind. The flop is AdQs6c. I bet the flop, everyone folds but the big blind. Turn is the 4d. He checks, I bet, he check-raises me. I call. The river is the 4s. He bets again, I call. He shows me Q4 for a full house.
Another play that came up in Omaha High:
I have JdJc4d4c in the big blind. 5 people call, button raises. I call the raise. 3 people call, and now a solid player re-raises. Other two call, I call again, and now an early position player says, "pushing us around, eh? I cap it!". So, there's 7 players in the pot for 4 bets each.
The flop is 9h9c3h. I check, tight early position player bets, 3 people call. I call. The turn is the 3c. Early position player bets, 3 people call. I call. The river is the 4h. I bet, 2 people call, and I rake in a gigantic pot.
Comments?
Dan wrote:
>I have AcKc UTG. I raise, pick up 4 callers, including the >big blind. The flop is AdQs6c. I bet the flop, everyone >folds but the big blind. Turn is the 4d. He checks, I bet, >he check-raises me. I call. The river is the 4s. He bets >again, I call. He shows me Q4 for a full house.
Dan, unless it's based upon specific knowledge of the player, I don't see how you can think that the 4 helped this guy. If it did, then he'd have to be in there with A4, Q4, or 64, none of which seem likely (maybe A4, there are plenty of fish who play any A). So, when he bets the turn, I'm immediately going to think that he had slowplayed a set or 2-pair on the flop, most likely AQ or A6, or he might be slowplaying AK, or he might be taking a shot with a draw like KdJd. In any case, the only question I see is whether I have pot odds to call him down or not. If I do, then the 4 on the river doesn't scare me any, as it might move me into the lead on the off-chance that he's holding Q6.
Bad luck, little you can do.
[Playing Omaha High, Dan gets sucked in 1 bet at a time with JdJc4d4c in the big blind. 7 players see the flop for 4 bets each.]
>The flop is 9h9c3h. I check, tight early position player >bets, 3 people call. I call. The turn is the 3c. Early >position player bets, 3 people call. I call. The river is >the 4h. I bet, 2 people call, and I rake in a gigantic pot.
When you call on the flop, I count 32 bets in the pot. Even if you knew only a J could help you, you've got more than adequate pot odds for one of those 2 outs. Turn shouldn't make a difference, except for the off-chance that someone made quad 3s. After the turn, you are putting 1 big bet into a pot containing 20.5 big bets. The odds against hitting a J are 21:1, so with implied odds you can call here even if you know only a J is good. Since a 4 might also be good, this makes up for those times that you're drawing dead to quads. It appears to me that you made long-shot, but clearly profitable, calls every time.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Dan,
if playing like that is such bad poker i hope i dont play with you when you are playing good poker. one side though your omaha hand may not have been worth a call for the first raise in the blind with a game of that texture. after that you are stuck in for the duration as it unfolded.
Actually, I think that hand is profitable in the games I play in, since the players play Omaha very badly. Top set is a big money winner, since players will often go all the way with any two pair or any set, and if they make a smaller full house they will often pay off a raise or even raise themselves, so these hands have huge implied odds. I was essentially playing the hand just for the value of hitting a Jack (in a loose game like this, I'm really not interested in making a set of 4's, unless the texture of the flop is wonderful).
I would agree with you if the players played well after the flop.
Dan
This is perhaps the worst play I made:
I have KK89 double suited in late position. I raise. A tight player re-raises out of the big blind. At this point I only had $68 in chips left after the call. The flop is AK4 rainbow. He bets, I raise, he makes it 3 bets. I call. The turn is an Ace. He bets, I call. The river is a blank, he bets, I throw in my last $18, and he shows me quad aces.
In this case, a blind monkey had to know that he had a set of aces on the flop. I knew it, but called the re-raise anyway. Now on the turn the second ace lands, and he bets again. The only other even remote possibility for a hand that he could have had on the flop was something like AKTJ, which also has me beat, but I called him anyway.
After the hands were shown, all the other players started exclaiming about my 'bad beat', and how there was nothing I could do about it. But I knew I should have folded on the flop, and I donated another $48 for nothing. There's not even a bad beat jackpot in this game.
Dan
Allright Dan, I'll agree with you on this one. You played it poorly. ;-)
He could have a lot of hands other than a set of aces on the flop, but the rereraise combined with hitting an ace on the turn would probably convince me to fold. The main exception would be if this guy is tricky or aggressive enough, in which case I would call him down.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
One thing I think otherwise-competent poker players do not do enough of in my opinion is use the way that the hand unfolds to narrow down the choices that the opponent could have.
I was going to comment that he MAY have had, assuming the flop is
As Kd 4c
a hand like
Ad-Qs-Js-Td
with top pair, 9 outs for Broadway and 2 3-flushes (including second-nut to the spades, for what that is worth). However, my instincs (reasonably poor at Omaha) tell me that this hand would not be worth a re-raise, but is strictly a calling hand.
Would you 3-bet the flop with the above AQJT given that board?
Mooselini.
It depends on my opponent, the number of callers, whether I had a couple of 3-flushes to go with it, etc. If the raiser is someone who constantly makes 'probing' raises or free-card raises and we're heads-up, then sure. Especially in a heads-up sitatuation a re-raise may be a good idea for the deceptive value alone. If you 3-bet, your opponent may put you on a set. If that happens, then you may be paid off all the way to the river if you hit your straight, or you may be able to buy the pot with a bet if the board pairs.
If there are a lot of callers, then this hand is actually pretty weak. With that flop, you can easily be drawing to a split, your pair is worthless, and your 9-out straight draw is more likely 6 outs or less.
One of the fascinating things about Omaha high is that hands that look great can be worthless, and hands that look worthless can actually have a lot of value.
Last night I folded a nut straight on the flop, and then a couple of hands later called with 4 people in a pot with nothing but top pair, and I believe both decisions were correct. Omaha is all about context.
Dan
Dan, please fill me in on that one - it sounds simply incredible..
By the way, that's the first thing I read about Omaha. A straight with no "overstraight" or any other draws is virtually worthless, and is certainly a drawing hand (runner-runner blank) in any event.
Mooselini.
The nut hand is never 'virtually useless', but there are times when it will be just to expensive to continue with it, if you believe that you are splitting the pot and are facing many opponents with a threatening flop.
Straights do not hold up as often in Omaha as they do in Holdem, but this is somewhat balanced off by the fact that the pots in Omaha tend to be much larger than in Holdem.
Of course, you really want to have extra outs when you make a straight, which is why it's important to play hands with multiple draws, and hands with suited cards, even if the suits are low.
As for one pair, I'll give you an example that happened to me just the other night in a 10-20 game. I had AcAsJc9s. The betting was straddled and capped before the flop, with 8-way action. The flop was Qc5s3h. There was a bet to the right of me, I called, and it was raised, re-raised, and capped before it got back to me. I called 3 more bets on the flop with this hand. The turn was a 7c. Bet on my right, I called. The river was another club, and I took down a pot worth about $800.
Note that on the flop all I had was an overpair. That in itself is worth nothing in Omaha. However, I also had two nut 3-flushes, and a nut 3-straight. And, there were 40 small bets in the pot before the flop. I knew I was going to face at least one raise on the flop when I called, but I figured my call was profitable even if re-raised.
A less extreme example would be a hand like AKQJ, with a flop like Q75. If you have reason to believe that you are not up against a set, then a call may be reasonable, depending on your position and the size of the pot. On the turn, if you hit an A,K, or J you now have top two pair with a big straight draw. If you hit a ten, you have a 9-out straight draw. If you hit a queen, you have 9 outs on the river to make a big full house.
One of the little talked about aspects of Omaha is the value of overcards in your hand, when hitting one of them would not put a straight on the board. Top pair with 3 overcards is a reasonable holding if the flop is rainbow with no straight, or if you pick up a 3-flush or two to go along with it.
Dan
I guess that's why my Omaha game needs work - my analysis skills need some sharpening, that's for sure.
I'm guessing that you figured you had approximately 1/8 chance of snagging a runner runner flush (1/2 * 1/4, or something equivalent) and when combined with your set potential and the 40:1 in the pot, you were surely getting your burger's worth in the pot. Nice.
Now about the overcards that don't make the straight. I imagine that in omaha, it is hypercritical to see if your "outs" make a stronger hand, like a straight. I imagine that in this case, they are worthless and not outs at all.
For instance, in a "suit"ably loose low limit HE game where people play any two suited cards, I will be hesitant to draw to a straight with a 2-flush on board, since I not only have 1 or 2 less outs (the straight card[s] that make the flush), but if I hit the turn I also need to hit a blank on the river. Of course, there will frequently be enough in the pot to warrant a call, but it still bears watching.
Am I correct then in assuming that this reasoning about "drawing-dead-outs" is as important in Omaha as it appears?
Mooselini
Absolutely. If the flop is Q95, and I have AKQ7 or something, my king is useless as an overcard, since it makes a straight for someone holding TJ. And if I hit the ace, any card above an 8 that doesn't pair the board makes a straight. I would fold this hand in a heartbeat to a bet.
When evaluating his 'outs' in Omaha, a good player will do so with respect to the hands that he believes are out against him. If I have a nut flush draw with a board like J73 when there is a bet and a raise in front of me, I know that I'm up against a probable set. So now I have to make my flush with a non-pairing card, AND the board can't pair on a re-draw. I may still call, but I have to re-evaluate my chances accordingly.
This really comes into play when playing pairs and sets. Bottom set is a piece of junk if you are up against a bigger set or top two pair and a straight or flush. On the other hand, if your other opponents are all drawing to straights and flushes, or you are heads-up against top two pair, it's a decent hand. It's up to you to know when to stay with it or not.
Ok, I snuck the second question in there to see what kind of responses I would get, even though I thought it was just about the only hand I played well the whole night. The ironic part was that the 'good' players in the game were muttering and shaking their heads when I turned the hand over, and one of them actually said, "And I thought you were a good player" when he saw it. So I thought I'd see if I'd get the same reaction here.
The call before the flop with JJ44 was marginal, but I was getting lots of callers and thought I had odds for a longshot draw. After the flop I was getting odds to draw to just the jack, even though I felt that a 4 would be good as well. Given the capped pot and the player who was betting, I was pretty sure he wasn't going to show me a hand with a 93 in it. A more likely hand was something like KKT9. And the other players were probably pot-stuck and calling hoping to hit flushes or overpairs. When the second three landed on the turn it essentially improved my hand. If something like an Ace or a King had landed I would have had to consider folding.
Another factor was that I was last to act on every round and had no fear of re-raises. If the bettor had been to my right I would probably have folded on the flop, since pots this big often trigger raising wars.
Dan
There must be something in the air. Last night I played wretchedly, and by the grace of God only managed to lose 18 bucks (thanks in large part to a hand early in the session, where I flopped the nut flush in a monster pre-flop pot (I was in the blind, checked, and by the time it got back to me it was three bets-- har har har)..
I won't comment on Omaha,cause I know even less about it than HE. But in the HE example,he called an UTG raise,from the BB (please tell me he was at least suited) and then called a second bet from the UTG raiser,with second pair and an Ace showing. Tell me he at least had a three flush working as an excuse..er..out. HE IS THE FISH,BUTand this is a bigger but than Ophra Winfrey's, I have found that the vast majority of the time an opponent limps,and check-raisers you on the turn-they ain't bluffing. I know this and I know you know this. You just had a momentary brain spasm. Obviously, your only options on the turn were to raise if your opponent is a pretty good player and fold if he is not.
That's exactly the situation. There were no draws on this flop, so I'm not expecting a semi-bluff. A flop that has an AQ on it is very scary if you're against an UTG raiser. So I have to believe that he has a real hand, and I should have folded.
Once I called, the call on the river was correct, since the running 4's meant I could beat Q6, which was the other most probable hand. But I should never have gotten to the river.
I don't quite understand why I should raise the turn if I don't fold. If my opponent is bluffing, it seems that a good play would be to just call and let him bet again on the river. If he's not bluffing, I save a bet by just calling.
Dan
I said raise the turn if opponent is a good player. Good players can't always put opponets on a hand but almost any decent player will put an UTG raiser on a limited # of starting hands and most of them involve an Ace,perhaps two,maybe a Queen,probably suited. Repopping him on the turn,if done smoothly, is like saying to him "trap me huh,dumbass,you only trapped yourself, I have the trip Aces" or something to that effect. This gives him at least the opportunity to fold. If he calls you, chances are he will check the river,even if he makes his boat. He is now afraid you might have a bigger boat. Checking and calling cost two bets. Trying this bluff costs two bets also,but gives you a chance to win the pot without the best hand. But opponent has to be good enough to let go of a hand he thought was a winner. If not,fold on the turn. Save two bets. IMHO.
"Dan the Fish" Disease has now spread to the Midwest.
Last night's hold'em game--a little loose passive. First case--early with major suit QQ. I raise and get a button caller and the BB. Flop is Kx of spades and an x. Blind checks, I bet, button calls and the blind raises. Both call. Turn is 9 of spades. Blind bets, I call (?), button RAISES, and both call. River is (of course) another spade. Blind checks, I BET (?) and both call. No A of spades out there. I roll over my hand and announce a pair of Qs (just to be stupid) and win. Button shows me the JT of spades, and the blind tells me I was in third place before the river. I tell him---"well I've got the brains of a chicken".
Second case---I'm the button with KK. 4 calls to me and I raise. All call. The flop contains the mandatory Axx. All check to me. I bet (?) and get checkraised. I reraise--(that'l show him) and he calls. Turn is a x--he checks, and I check. (I say--"you don't have an A?---he says "yeah, I gotta A) River is a K. He bets, and I raise and win. First time I had "spiked" a needed set on the river in over 2 years.
Last case--UTG, I call with A2 of clubs (don't ask). Lots of callers. Flop is Kx of clubs and an x. I bet out (into 6 or 7)---this is very rare for me to lead with a draw. 3 call. Turn is a x, blind checks, I bet (?), get a late call and the blind calls. River is a little club. Blind checks, I bet and get checkraised by the blind---he knows I only play big cards and pairs. He called the reraise with a Qx of clubs.
Paging Dr Dan: you started this----I win 65 big bets (best result this year) in an 8 hour session playing like a buffoon.
Post some hands you played well from now on.
Hey, since the disease won you 65 big bets, do I get a cut?
In your second case, I don't necessarily see that you played it badly, IF you thought that this particular player might try to push you off the pot either with a draw or an underpair, or IF you thought you could push him off the pot with a weak ace. Once he calls your re-raise, you know you have to improve, and taking a free card is correct. And of course because you're a good player you got lucky on the river. (-:
The third case isn't bad at all. I routinely call with Axs UTG in a passive game, and I don't think it's a mistake to do so. You got lots of callers, so your read of the game was correct.
Betting out on the flop is not necessarily wrong either when you hold an ace along with your flush draw. The king on the board splits the hands like AJ or AQ so that they don't have two overcards, and these hands should fold. This improves your chance of winning the pot. And if you believe that more than 2 people will call, it's a +EV bet anyway. What you don't want to have happen is to have the player immediately to your left raise with a King and freeze out all your action. You have to judge where the agressive players are, and what possible hands the early position players might have.
Betting the turn is not that unreasonable either, if you believe that an Ace might win the pot for you. This increases your outs to 12, and gives you the odds to value bet into 3 people. Since you didn't get raised on the flop and a blank landed on the turn, you're probably safe from a raise unless someone was slowplaying a big hand on the flop. If you only get one caller on the turn, then the bet was very valuable, because he may be on the same flush draw. Then if a blank lands on the river you can bet and win the pot unimproved, or even call a bet with your Ace High if the player is very tricky.
Dan
Well, O.K., I'm not sure how interesting it is, but I'd be curious to see if any of you would have played it the same way.
I'm in early position with Ah Qh. Player in front of me raises, I call (hoping to lure in a few more), only everyone folds except the blind. Flop comes Ac 4s 3h. Blind checks, raiser bets, I CALL, blind folds. Turn: 9c. Better checks, I check. River's a blank, better checks, I bet, better thinks about it for a minute, shakes his head and calls. He turns over pocket Q's and I drag the pot.
GD,
alot depends on the player, if he is a tricky one then you did right. but if he is fairly straight forward you should have bet on 4th street. a raise on the flop may have been in order depending on how he plays and if you want the blind out so he doesnt make a straight cheaply. there is a lot to think about and consider on each bet.
Should a reraise be in order to try to get position? and isolation??
Yes, against a loose UTG raiser. Someone who would raise with lesser hands than AJ or 99.
Flop:
One of the keys here is what you think the blind will do on the flop. If he gives off a tell that he is about to muck his hand, I would be more inclined to just call the flop. However, if he doesn't give off any tells, I would likely raise more often than not. Better to win a small pot than lose a big one yada yada yada.
Turn:
A check is good if you are against these types of players:
(a) A tricky one who may be looking to pop you with a better hand. Of course, you can do this here because giving a free card is not much of a problem...different story though if the flop was Queen high.
(b) A player who may fold his pocket Queens or Kings for a bet on the turn but would keep you honest by calling on the river
(c) a player who may take your check as a sign of weakness and bluff on the river with nothing.
A check is not good against a calling station who normally would pay you off on both the turn and river with a hand like Pocket Queens.
A check is also not good if you generally play against the same group of players and would normally bet in this situation if you did not hold an Ace (i.e. if you generally use position to your advantage when you do not have a hand, you ought to do the same thing when you do have a hand as that clearly increases your chances of being paid off and as well lends credibility to your bluffs)
River:
An obvious value bet opportunity.
(BTW, I am SURE that I said nothing here that you do not already know but what the heck...I'll post it anyway).
I probably would raise on the flop first of all. My first question is...Why did you just call? were you thinking you had the best hand and slowplaying? This is what it sounds like.Unless you know this player well, a one pair hand, is not a hand to slow play. Were you being cautious? If so, a raise is probably still in order to try to get the third player out, to give yourself a beter chance to win. When he checks to you on the turn, after you just called on the flop, you can take this for weakness 90% of the time, especially when there is an ace on board. Although some players are tricky, you should go with the percentages here that say he doesn't have aces beat. bob ciaffone likes to say, " there are many many more bad hands than good ones", which is a simple statement, but it is a reminder not to fear the worst, or a trap every time someone checks. So, when he checked on the turn, I would have bet without a doubt. good luck
You should consider the RELATIVE value of a hand, not its ABSOLUTE value.
Most UTG raisers have either a big pair or a big Ace. If so, the player HAS a pair when an Ace hits. Assuming the blind has folded, your AQ is either a BIG favorite (he has 1 out with QQ, 2 outs with KK, JJ, or TT; or 3 outs with AJ); OR HE is a BIG favorite (you have 3 outs if he has AK and are dead against AA). Since ONE of you is a big favorite, the notion of "free" card does not apply to this situation well at all.
Since there will RARELY be a suck-out on this hand value betting, inducing bluffs, reducing a loss, and overall strategic considerations take high precedence compared to "protecting" the pot, as was suggested by an earlier reply.
Now the situation is different with more players in, in which case a raise would be routine unless you felt someone ELSE would raise for you.
- Louie
There seems to be some consensus that a raise on the flop was perhaps a preferred alternative but it had to be close three handed.
On the turn I agree with Louie that this was an “either/or” situation. EITHER you are beat big OR he is. As Louie pointed out, when this happens, betting as to not give a free card matters little and skp’s criteria for what is the most profitable play makes quite a bit of sense.
My main point is this: A lot of us overuse the tactic of betting or raising to prevent a free (or cheap) card. Even when giving a free card is worth the risk for tactical or strategic reasons, we occasionally lose a pot we would have won. When this happens it is burned into our memory, and this tends to skew our thinking into never giving free cards even when giving one shows long run profit.
Regards,
Rick
it's not all about a free card. If he had bet the turn and river, I'm gessing he might have goten called on at least the turn. That along with not giving a free card makes a bet here routine.
I agree it's not all about the free card, but it certainly is about what play makes the most money. When GD was checked to on the turn, a bet is certainly not automatic as checking can induce a bluff on the river or a call if checked to. Only a weak player would call twice with a QQ unless he read GD for someone who overbets his hands.
Anyway, my main point was that giving the free card can sometimes be correct, but when it backfires it sticks in your head, and the net result is that many top players don't give enough free cards in situations where it may be warrented.
Regards,
Rick
Most sensible players who call UTG raisers from early position have an Ace. They will usually reraise with a big pair like JJ. Thus, when the call an Ace flop they probably have Aces.
If the raiser with QQ is Brain-Dead or Undiscplined OR suspects hero calls raises too much AND bets weak hands assertively, then betting AQ for value makes sense.
I would not bet Hero's AQ on the turn against a sound player in THIS situation. In fact, I would be inclined to FOLD AQs B4 flop against a sound predictable UTG raiser: I'm beat.
- Louie
My thinking was along these same lines. If he's got pocket A's or AK I'm going to find out on the turn anyway when he three bets, so I'm only losing 1 additional bet if I don't reraise on the flop (in the 2-5 game the bets don't increase from the flop to the turn). But if his hand is worse than mine (highly likely) he has virtually no chance of catching up, and I can probably induce either a bluff or a call on the
Further, there's a chance that he'll bet a premium pocket pair all the way, thinking that he's 'making me pay' for my draw; this added little bonus garners me at least two more bets, and probably three, since I'll likely rais on the river so long as another paint hits (IMExperience it's damn hard for someone to lay down a hand they've been betting for a raise on the river).
If there's on aspect of hold 'em that I don't think has been adequately explored by most theorists, it's the possible profitability of slow playing a split pair of A's heads up against an aggesive opponent. Whether or not this is the 'correct' play is still debatable, but the fact that an argument can be constructed for this kind of play makes it worth looking into.
BTW, Rick, you'd take back everything you said about me not being fishy if you'd seen me play two nights ago.
I agree that the blind is an X-factor. However, since this is a low limit game, I figured there was a good chance that he has a small pocket pair, suited connectors, a goofy Ace or some combination of (probably unsuited) paints. If I just call I may be able to string him along if he's got a pocket pair, and the rest of his probably holdings don't really scare me.
Still, if he runner runners I'm going to be kicking myself.
BTW, I think you're assessment of 'when to check the flop' is excellent. Basically I figured that conditions B or maybe C applied here, since the texture of the flop doesn't suggest a monster holding (if he's got A's in the hole, well, c'est la vie).
seems lots of folks think that you should check and give a free card here to maybe get a bet on the river. maybe so if you know he has qq in the hole but im not that good. unless you know the person real well he can have many hands. at least in the years ive been playing. what about: 22 55 kqc kjc atc ajc and some or many others that he may call a bet on the turn and on the river with some of them or even lead into you with a bluff on the river. i see people all the time open in early position with a raise with a multitude of hands. what are your thoughts on this?
Ray,
I (and I would assume Louie and skp) sort of assumed a narrower range of hands that would be more likely to show up at the middle limits if the UTG raiser plays at least OK.
One quick thought as I'm in a hurry. If observant and capable of making a play, the lead better in this situation (board = A 4 3 rainbow) really has to figure the cold caller for an Ace (since GD is certainly no fish). Therefore, if he has it beat (AK or AA), he may try to spring a trap checkraise since the pot is small and he figures GD will bet. If he doesn't have it beat, he may as well fold since the pot is so small. The one likely hand your opponent could have that you would want to bet your AQ and get paid off twice on is AJ and perhaps AT. However, not too many players play AT up front in my game.
If the UTG raiser could have 22 or 55, things are different. If I have time and the thread is still live, I would like to work out the math based on the assumption that you will always get called by hands that are drawing slim (e.g. 88, KK) if you induce a bluff or call on the river when you check the turn.
I certainly agree that a lot depends on the players and so on. Gotta Go.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. BTW, thanks for answering some of my posts. My friend who is also a student of Omaha is thrilled to see you answer allthough I wish she would study the advice in your book a little harder. Then she never would have played Ac 5c 7 8 in the post I wrote above.
p.p.s.. does never using capital letters give you magic powers? if so, can i try it? :)
Yes, if the raisor can have a wide variety of hands OR he presumes YOU can have a variety of hands, then bet this hand for value.
GEEEZE ... If YOU raise UTG and I call right behind you, while I may have 2 Jacks, I assure you I do NOT have just one.
While there will occasionally be a very skilled and brave Christian, one should routinely bet on the Lion.
But I believe that if one can have a wide variety of hands in EARLY position, then one is giving up TOO much to players playing more selectively.
Perhaps I'll revive my work several years ago showing the hand that is even money to be the "best" hand based on how many players there are left to act (B4 the flop), and then one weighted for after-the-flop position.
- Louie
I would like to start playing poker semi/full time. Right now, I limit myself to 10-20 & 15-30 stud.What is a reasonable amount of imcome to project from this, assuming that I can beat these games?(I play at the Taj and Foxwoods) Is it better to play longer sessions at these levels as long as I can beat them, or would it be better to try to move up?
Also, I am recently married(2 yrs.)and my wife would be less than thrilled about this proposal. Is there anybody out there who has made this work(for a living) and also managed to create a family and otherwise "normal" lifestyle?
< The best indicator of the future is the past. Do you beat the games now?
Have you ever heard the expression "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? Rest assured that, on average, the higher the limit, the better the player. If you are satisfied with your income from the smaller games, be very wary of bigger games. Move up through the limits very gradually, and, as always, pick your spots carefully. Remember that you will never be playing your best poker if you are worrying that you're putting too much of your bankroll at stake. Remember that you can't win in the long run playing players better than yourself.
As for your projected income, an expert player playing mostly intermediates should be able to manage one to one and a quarter big bets per hour of play over the very long haul. I believe experts can do even better than this if they pick their spots very carefully. Thus if you play 10-20 expertly for fifty hours a week (against weak players), you would predict your long term income to be at least $1,000 per week.
As for the second part of your question, you will have to be super disciplined to be able to start and raise a family and play poker full time. You will definitely need the support and understanding of your wife if you are to have any chance of being successful. Playing poker for a living is very much an alternate lifestyle and not for everybody. Will your wife be able to put up with you not coming home for 24 hours because you found an ultra-easy game? To learn to play poker expertly requires, in my opinion, very long hours at the table. I think we'd be kidding ourselves if we called poker a family friendly career. The big upside is that you set your own hours, and that you can take days off and holidays whenever it suits you. I have no kids and am extremely lucky to have an independant wife that understands what making a living at poker is about (Giving her half my profits doesn't hurt either).
Good luck!
Your comments and insights are appreciated. Thanks.
No, there are no normal 7-stud players.
If you get a part-time job that will just cover your expenses, your wife may be THRILLED with the idea of you making money at cards, since that will pay for luxeries like vacations. You will need to convince her that you are a long time winner; show her your records. Be sure to keep life and health insurance.
Commit to specific "quality" family time and stick to it; such as a long date on Tuesdays.
Play where you are comfortable but be willing to take SELECTIVE shots at the higher limits.
- Louie
Posted by: wgb (wgb@icrossroads.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 April 1999, at 6:31 a.m.
Posted by: JKR (jk007r@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 23 April 1999, at 1:41 p.m.
Posted by: Louie Landale (LLandale@Earthlink.net)
Posted on: Friday, 23 April 1999, at 1:12 p.m.
This off top of my head so sure others will have different ideas. Welcome this. I have short handed starting hand chart of course modified from S&M:
Group 1
AA KK QQ JJ TT
Group 2
AKs AK 99 AQs AQ AJs AJ
Group 3
KQs KQ 88 ATs KJs AT QJs KTs QJ QTs
Group 4.
77 A9s KT JTs K9s QT Q9s
Group 5
JT J9s A8s A9 K9 A7s K8s Q9 6,6
Group 6
Axs A7 Q8s J8s T9s 98s K8 5,5
Group 7
Kxs J9 Ax T8s J7s Qxs
Group 8
44 33 22 Kx T9 98
I think both Axs and Ax would be rated higher (depending on the number of players in a particular shorthanded game)
I forget KJo which I put in Group 3 and Q8o which I put in group 7. Understand what you get at with number of players. My Ax and Axs for short handed start at A,6. Get your point. I still have worries about being dominated with weak kicker but you have valid points. This account for about 40% of possible 2 card hold'em hands. Anybody else?
If the opponent is not particularly assertive or you are in last position then you should PROMOTE any Ace or any small pair, since these will now win lots of show-downs without any help.
How high do you rate hands:
K8s QTo J9o 87s QJ JT?
Don't like little pairs like 2's, 3's unless can play pot cheap to show it down when not get better. Thanks for thoughts.
LL> If the opponent is not particularly assertive or you are in last position then you should PROMOTE any Ace or any small pair, since these will now win lots of show-downs without any help.
I agree, but think you need to go even farther:
IMO even if your opponets are assertive you can promote any ace or any pair quite a bit. I believe that most people don't understand this enough. It become like NL and PL. Paint and pairs and you have to raise them if you are going to play them. You cannot affort to take these weak Aces and Pairs into multiway pots. Something Doyle Brunson has said is it takes a lot better hand to call with than to raise with. While I think he was mostly talking about NL, I really think it also applies to short handed. If you think you are going to come in with a hand you should probably raise. Just calling is better saved for counter strategy or pots that are already multiway that you know you cannot thin out.
Dump the drawing hands the vast majority of the time.
In Holdem a person is going to get no help from the flop the majority of the time. Therefore having an ace or a small pocket pair heads up is usually a big advatage. KQs is a dog to A2o and even mighty big slick is a dog to 22. However you must be able to determine where you stand after the flop for this to do you any good, and if that is not your strong suit, short handed play will probably kill you no matter what hands you play.
The flopheads will call far too many raises and the nut players will not call enough.
There seems to be a lot of posted messages about confusion about shorthanded play. Is this a gap in the poker literature or is there something out there I'm not seeing? S&M's very brief treatment doesn't seem sufficient given the large number of people who play regularly in shorthanded games.
There is no quetion that most everyone is confused on how to play short-handed poker, particularly short-handed hold 'em. We will be putting out material on this area and it should appear in late June. (It is written by David and myself.)
Put me on your mailing list when it's available. Thanks.
What is the correct course of action when up against two players (friends) who are selectively raising each other to knock people out of pots? Should one call the floorman, walk, or is there a correct way to adjust play to take advantage of the situation?
Are there rules against collusion? I recently encountered a situation like this at Commerce. The players walked before it affected me, so I didn't do anything.
I've run across this a few times, often (believe it or not) with off-duty dealers. Since I'm not particlarly soft spoken at poker tables I've always been able to diffuse the situation. The best way to handle it is to make non-threatening offhand remarks about it (one or two should suffice). What that we'll do is bring it to the attention of the entire table, while not creating enemies either. If that doesn't work pick up your chips, get a table change, and discreetly inform a floor manager.
The Commerce is notorious for these kinds of actors. Don't get involved in a hand without solid values and don't make any big laydowns regardless of the price. One technique that might shake 'em up is to make comments about the collusion to a friend within earshot of the table. I'm skeptical that most floormen can or will do much about it.
Partners Signaling is Also occuring at the ComClub. Here is how it works: One partner lets the other partner know with pre-arranged signal wheather any card in his hand or any card he has seen in other hands impacts the flop. e.g.: Flop comes K99- Non Active Partner(s)* will let partner in hand know if he/they had a K or 9. If active partner indicates draw the non-active partner(s) will indicate if they had any draw blocking cards.
* 3 or 4 partners are sometimes at the table in very loose games.
I have been in games where two people that know each other have been raising back and forth trying to trap players in between. While I see no problem with this if the hands do merit this action, it really bothers me that when everyone else folds the two players will check down the hand. I will usually ask them out loud if they are going to be taking a break next hand to go to the parking lot and splitting the profit. And then I say that if they are not splitting the profits that their action is unethical.
carlos
Susie Isaacs does this in mixed sex Tournaments if she happens to get heads-up with another female. When asked about it, her reply was "Us girl's have to stick together."
I have a situation like this come up freqently in a 10/20 HE home game I play.
Two brothers started showing up in the last couple of months. I guess they have played sporadically over the last couple of years before I started in the game.
They openly share their wins and losses, and this game even allows players to give their chips to others without being forced to play it behind. (My main problem with this game, but a whole other topic)
Well as the story goes these two brothers just started comming around in last few months interestingly enough right about the time their brother becomes the boy wonder of the US tournament trail, even ranked as one of last year's top players by Nolan Dalla. The brother was until just recently a dealer more than a player, and from everything I know and remember, not much of a ring player. Well somehow I get that these guys think they are going to be able to parlay that genetic connection and some subtle and not so subtle collusion into huge profits.
They like to get you caught in the middle of raises and then one will usually fold on the river so he does not have to show his cards. Then if one is out of chips, the other just slides a few back after the hand is over.
Well I really thought about all my options:
1. Quit playing in this game A) Can't do that it has and still is the most profitable game I have ever been in. I am averaging > 2.5 BB an hour.
2. Ask that some of the rules be changed, like moving chips between players. A) Not my game, and do not want to take the chance that I will be uninvited or disliked by the person who runs the game. Also I am by far the youngest player at they game, and therefore do not think I would get very much respect. NO RAKE game BTW.
3. Say something directly or indirectly to the brother, to let them know I know what is going on. A) I did make a small slip one night and say something, that I don't think either overheard, and with more thought I was glad they did not.
4. I will do or say nothing because:
They are the some of the worst players I have ever seen. I really could say something that might make them think about the game. They might discuss it with their brother or read a book, and then I will have lost my share of their weekly $300-$500 donation. The way I figure it, I probably add $75 a night to my profit with them in the game. The really funny thing about these guys is that because they are such poor players and easy readers, you can have the nut or next to nut hand, and they will try to catch you in the middle with worse hands. The only downside, is that my flux is much greater. I have on several occasions gone from >-$500 to +$500 in just a hour.
After thinking about this, it reminded my of a passage in Johnny Moss's biography where he was making the change from a cheat to an honest player (at around age 10 if I remember correctly), where he stated that he started noticing that all the MARKS were they guys winning all time, and all the cheats were they guys who were always busted!
I know it's cost me a couple of friends. They loved to get under my skin so whenever I was in the pot, they would ensure it was capped pre-flop, no matter what cards they held! Sound like a dream, you ask? It sure was, until I went from 2am until noon without winning a hand, and I asked them if they intended to split the proceeds after. They were shocked but I repeated my accusations. The game ended shortly after, for good.
If I used my head, I'd know that they posed no threat as I only lost $100 in a $1-2 game because, among other things, I had THREE sets sucked out by runner-runner draws. Any one of them holds up and I break even for the day, and anything else is gravy.
However, I spoke too soon and it cost me. So, just be sure that if you say "collusion" that you mean it.
Mooselini.
there are lots of posts to this forum. seems like alot of people take poker seriously. therefore, please answer this question if you don't mind: What percentage of players, at any given table, on any given night , in any given city contemplate the game as much as you folks do?
jeff,
This is my guess for the Los Angeles area.
Limits of 1/2 and 2/4 = about zero
3/6 = 1%
6/12 = 3%
10/20 = 10%
15/30 and 20/40 = 20%
30/60 and 40/80 = 40%
Regards,
Rick
I'll buy those figures
Playing in a 40-80 stud game late one night at the Commerce, I made a comment to Eskimo that the cards were being repeatedly marked by fingernails. He looked around my table and said, "ah, don't worry about it, most of those people can't read anyway."
1-2 and 2-4 just about none.
3-6 If the club has props then be aware: half of them study.
In general you will encounter one out of 2 or 3 times
someone who studies the game besides you on a 3-6 game
but usually he/she will not be disciplined or studious
or both.
6-12 You will encounter one that has read the Theory of
Poker or Hold'em for Advanced Players about once out
of two times. Weekends you may see two of them on the
table. But usually they have no card sense. Likely to
be some kind of university students, or recent
graduates, or engineers.
15-30 and 20-40 Almost certainly you will have one on your
table all the time. And since the game may
be shorthanded sometimes you may have
three educated players and four others or
two educated players one fish and three break
even players.
Above this I do not know.
Maria
"6-12 You will encounter one that has read the Theory of Poker or Hold'em for Advanced Players about once out of two times. Weekends you may see two of them on the table. But usually they have no card sense. Likely to be some kind of university students, or recent graduates, or engineers. "
Well, now I know what game to play in if I'm in the States :-).
Andy.
in all seriousness, do engineers generally have a flaw in their game and/or only play well versus certain types of games or up to certain limits. i would be interested in any comments since i am an engineer. i have played some form of cards all my life and the river boat here just started playing poker in january. i have played about 125 hrs of 5-10 (65%) & 10-20 (35%) HE and am up about $2500. i see flaws in my game and am starting to study poker books (from 2+2) & ordered software to simulate some plays and certain games. i usually play pretty loose (pre-flop)then aggresive (thereafter) short handed games, where i've won the most money, and tight (pre-flop) then aggressive (thereafter) in full games. i have found most 5-10 & 10-20 HE players, to put it politely "pretty bad players". Any suggestions.
Woodman - I too am an engineer. I think that it is over-generalizing to say that any large group like engineers, lawyers (skp, are you on?), accountants, etc. can be good or great players. I think we engineers, and other math-oriented people like actuaries (David?), physicists, etc, have an advantage in learning the basics of probabilities of poker. David and Mason expecially have written a lot of important material that takes some math ability to understand. The thing that engineers et al. have to be careful of is thinking that this is all there is. If the prototype nerdy engineer sits down and tries to play just by the book's formula, not paying attention to the people issue, then he/she is not going to be very good; and I am guessing that is the basis for the engineer comments.
Dick in Phoenix
Dick, you can't be an engineer...you write too well. (BTW, I was in the engineering faculty in my first year of University...damn graphics course made me drop out).
I am also an engineer. I find that learning patience and becoming disciplined is more difficult than applying the math. I think that if you have just a general understand of probability and are patient you can get pretty far in a game with weak players. The opposite is true also.
Rick - In my limited experience, I'll buy your figures too. I am playing in a very loose 3-6 hold'em game in Phoenix, and I have yet to see anyone else in my game that plays remotely like HPFAP says to.
BUT ... The most amazing thing happens in my game when a full-kill hand is played (at 6-12 in the 3-6 game). People play properly! I mean, really good. I never see trash played pre-flop; people generally fold on the flop if they don't have some real value; it is possible to "steal" the pot if no one has anything, and people make good plays when their opponents show weakness. If the 2+2 crew or some of you good higher-level players on this forum were to watch my game only during kill hands, you would say that this is the most skilled 3-6 table you have ever seen.
What do you guys think is going on here? Do these people really know what good strategy is, and they have just come to gamble and don't care? Or are they just playing timidly because of the higher limit, and accidentally get the strategy much more right?
Dick in Phoenix
Probably the latter. If they're playing 3-6 they're probably comfortable at that limit, so the kill makes them uneasy. If I had to guess, I'd say they probably play fairly weak-tight when the limits get bumped.
The thing is, I can't imagine anyone knowing the proper strategy for a game consistenly playing poorly for the pure sake of gambling. Can you see Arnold Snyder sitting down at an eight decker with a headful of gin, doubling every hard twelve? If you know how to play, I think you'll use what you know.
Because poker is a game where you are playing against people instead of cold statistics, it's a lot easier to find justifications for bad play. The bad players may 'know' that 9To UTG is a bad hand to play, but hey, the last two hands were unraised and people were playing with even worse junk, so in *this case it's okay to play it, right? Besides, I haven't been winning with the good cards, so perhaps the bad cards can win. And a guy dragged a huge pot an hour ago with 9To...
I saw a fairly good player call UTG with this hand in a tough 10-20 game last night. Another good player razzed him about it after the hand, and his logic was, "When you called, I know you've got something like AK or AQ, so T9 is a good hand to play against you. I sure don't want to play AJ now, do I? This had the benefit of sounding like smart stategy, and I have no doubt that the player convinced himself that it was.
Still, I think there's a difference between throwing in the occasional loose call and consistently playing bad. In my previous example I can see 'The Bishop' doubling now and then with the twelve, just for the hell of it, but I can't see him making a habit out of it.
I think there's a pretty tiny difference between playing well and playing badly. I know a player who has read S&M, plays very tight before the flop, never chases with bad draws, etc... And can't beat the game. Maybe he gets bluffed out too much, perhaps he doesn't value bet his hands enough, I really don't know. I've watched him play for some time and it's hard to see any real flaws (of course, I can't see what he's throwing away), but over the last four years he's down a total of $1800. That's less than the rake he's paid over that time, but he's not making any money.
The really, really bad players are in it for their own reasons. I know one guy who will raise under the gun routinely with a hand like 73o. He loses tons of money, but he is happy as a kid with a new toy when he can knock off a good player's AA with his 73o. It makes his whole night.
Another lady I know plays regularly and loses regularly. She doesn't care, as long as the losses aren't too severe. It tickles her to play in the 'tough' games and take the occasional win, and she's not interested in playing tight - it's too boring. She's out to have a good time. She knows what it costs her, but hey, that's the price of entertainment.
Other players have more destructive reasons for losing. Some of them are self-abusive and use poker to punish themselves. I know another guy who can play solid, winning poker. But as soon as things start going well for him and he puts some money away, he becomes a maniac and loses it all. He's lost his wife and family, his job, and now he drives cab to make enough money to get in the game.
Some people are convinced that the world is unjust, and that they are always getting the short end of the stick. They use this philosophy to justify their lack of success in life. The poker table gives them the perfect expression of this belief - every time they get AA cracked they moan about their horrible luck, but they really lose because they just play badly. But when they leave broke, they have reinforced their most cherished belief.
Dan
I agree with your observations regarding tightening up starting hand requirements for a kill round. One interesting side effect is that now the player with the kill button can often make a raise with a hand which would not have done so at the base limit. In partial kill games (such as 10-20 going to 15-30) this does not seem to be the case, at least for east coast hold'em.
Remind me never to play any higher than 15/30.
What difference does it make where you play or what limit,If you are intrested in improving your game you would study and learn and play the best you can. Many of the basic principals relate to all poker. Rereading Rick and Davids response maybe I missed the point of the question?
The key word is "really" and the necessary other question is "does studying help?" I think only a small fraction of people that read books about poker reread and reread them and follow up with a lot of thinking about the game. (This usually requires some writing, too). Without the latter efforts, poker literature can't help much, although a few nuggets of advice can help a thoughtful person avoid really bad play.
Studying often doesn't help much, especially in the short run. The difficulty in writing about poker, as shown by the number of bad books and the highly qualified advice in the good ones, proves the complexity and nuanced nature of the game. A lot of people like myself, however, find comfort in certain rote knowledge aspects of poker, such as the odds and percentages and so forth, which amount to only one layer of the pyramid. Most posters on this forum and r.g.p. have read a fair amount about poker, but it is my impression that a relative few (not me) really know what they're talking about. I'm thinking here of the lengthy strings of quibbles about holdem starting requirements, all of which seem to originate with some book. And the comments of the truly knowledgeable indicate that mastery of the game is a lifelong endeavor, that there's no ceiling to the amount of skill or diversity of skills that good players ever hit. Almost all players, to excel, must think and study a lot away from the table instead of devoting scarce spare time to just playing. If you have a job and like to play this is hard.
Sometimes the literature can hurt. I seem to recall a post by Mason suggesting that the 2+2 books can "destroy" certain players that have no ability or inclination to play a patient, disciplined game but can convince themselves that they know enough to play a lot. I think there are a lot of weak players at the tables that wouldn't be there if they weren't able to use the literature to convince themselves that they know what they're doing.
I think the explosion of literature about poker during the last decade, especially on the internet, has allowed some reasonably good players to become much better. But my bottom line impression is that Mason's thesis that more good literature leads to more good games intead of tougher competition has been and will continue to be vindicated. When I started reading about poker in 1996 I thought it was only a matter of time before only the knowledgeable could survive. I cannot sense any toughening of the low and medium limit games I've played since then, and at least the low limit games seem to be constantly replenished by -- indeed, they overflow with -- a steady supply of donaters.
Chris, When I read this forum I am impressed and surprised at the high level of intellegence,humor and awarness that is displayed by most of the posters.To me this reflects part of the cultural change that has taken place in the gambling world(poker)The player of today is more poker wise,better educated,younger,tougher.Most things in life are driven by economics and smart players are good money managers.
Sklansky,Throp and others didnt publish until the 70s.I began playing in the 50s.This is like playing blind folded. Hold;em,omaha,razz,pineapple,hi-lo,pie-gow,carib stud and other games had not been born yet.I knew nothing of strategy,position had something to do with girls not cards.Many days I would play Loball draw with the rent money,no milk at home for the babies bottle.Sessions could last 3 days.During the 70s my idea of a good time was putting on my disco clothes,riding the mechinical bull and playing a few hands of jj or better draw.Pretty neat huh? No more lectures or tears from the "little woman"the old lady" the better half"on the evils of poker.You said you have been watching players for 3or 4 yrs and have not seen any improvment in thier game.Try watching for 40 years and for 17 of those yrs I owned a cardroom. Trust me when I say there has been vast changes in individual play and throughout the poker industry.Books,magazines,the computer,softwear,the internet all have made a big difference in the public atitude towards poker. I could go on and others on this forum could say it much better. Regards and good luck, Bill play good!
Bill,as I like to say:some players have 10 years experience but most have 1 year experience 10 times. This fact allows me, with about 1 year experience but alot of reading,studying,thinking, and practising(on TTH2/3), to come in and beat those players at 1-4-8-8,10/20, and 15/30. That and the fact that I generally play tighter than a rusty Mason jar.
Since this is a bit lengthy, readers should note that this post is directed at intermediate Omaha H/L players. I wrote this to help a friend (hereafter called “our hero”) who started to describe what happened in this hand as a “bad beat” story.
Our hero, who is rapidly improving but still has a lot to learn, played this Omaha H/L hand in the 4/8 game at the Mirage a couple of weeks ago. It illustrates a couple of very important points. Almost everybody enters the pot and our hero joins in with Ad 5d 7h 8c. This is the first mistake. The only worthwhile feature in this hand is the nut flush draw. The A5 is almost worthless as a low and middle cards are terrible. This hand was not even close to a playable hand but I have to admit it tends to look good to the uninitiated.
The flop comes a 6 9 T rainbow. Someone up front bets and most call and our hero raises with the nut high with no direct low draw. Everyone calls the raise so the pot has about 24 bets in it.
The turn is a 3, which makes a two flush but not in diamonds. The lead bettor bets again and this time our hero, who still holds the nuts, helps cap the pot with about six players still in (the opponents were fairly loose but not insane). How do you like our hero’s position now?
I think it is safe to make some assumptions regarding the hands out against you. First, better low draws are out; perhaps including one or two that cannot be counterfeited. Next, there has to be a set out against you. The flush draw is a certainty with this action. There probably are some “wrap around” straight draws on the high side. Lastly, our hero may only be tied for high.
Can anyone think of a river card good for our hero? I will try to work it out.
There are 44 unknown cards. 12 cards pair the board giving someone a full or quads. Nine cards make a flush without pairing the board. So 21 cards are a total disaster.
Any unsuited king, queen or jack or eight (12 more cards) will probably give someone a higher straight but it is not quite 100%. Still, lets call 33 cards out of 44 a disaster. By the way, the eight is the worse of all because our hero would not know if the action comes from the low or the high straight.
It is safe to assume all of the remaining eleven unsuited low cards make somebody a low and it will probably be the nuts. Two of these are a seven, which can make someone holding an 8J the nut high or make someone holding an eight with a six, nine or ten a tie for high. So let’s call the two sevens a card that will either give our hero a quarter of the pot or less but almost as often cost the whole pot. That is pretty close to a disaster.
All I can say about the remaining nine cards is that our hero will either get half the pot or a quarter if the other 87 was already out.
This hand was doomed once it faced all that action on the turn. The big lesson is that middle cards are terrible, the vulnerable nuts can’t handle any action (especially when it can be tied and the low draw is out), and in this type of situation the river card in Omaha does not give a “bad beat”, but a predictable outcome.
Anyway, my friend played much better the following week at Hollywood Park and got the money.
Regards,
Rick
Excellent analysis. It's these very scenarios (which crop up time and time again) that make Omaha so profitable for the expert. The moral is to watch your starting hands very carefully in Omaha. Most novice and intermediate players seem to think they can loosen up their starting hands in Omaha (compared to Hold 'em) because there are so many possibilities with the four card start. I believe the opposite is true.
I agree. There are fewer bad beats and fewer good starting hands in Omaha-8 than there appears to be. Nice analysis; the redraws out against you in that hand perfectly typify the points made in Ray Zee's book about not playing middle cards. Even if you had flopped the flush draw, you would never have been out of danger.
"There are fewer bad beats"
Depending on how you define bad beat. The leader on the turn gets beat a lot more often than in HE. In essence you almost expect to get beat on the river many times even if you hold the nuts on the turn. I guess it's not a bad beat if you expect to get beat.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
albert
Albert,
No disagreement here. In my original post I used the term "bad beat" the way most players use it, which of course is wrong.
To me a "bad beat" is getting beat by a hand that a clear consensus of experts would say should never had been in the hand.
However, my biggest nightmare is to never get any bad beats! This would indicate my opponents are playing well. So if I'm in a game and I don't see any bad beats, I look for another game.
Regards,
Rick
This hand was doomed ON the flop, and should have been routinely folded. As you pointed out, you have to CATCH runner-runner just to get half the pot. You're better off with a JQ drawing to a straight.
This should be FOLDED even playing high-only when all those people call on the flop. 78==69T is MUCH worse than 89==67T; as far as high chances are conserned.
Since even if you DO get there with A578 and there is nothing you can catch and really like, you are correct that this hand was "doomed" before the flop, unless you flop gold like KJ9d or 234: bring your rabbit's foot.
So, who is thinking A578 can "go either way"? Who doesn't think this hand is DRAWING to runner-runner on the flop? Who is thinking "I already have my hand"? Who will be "drawn out on" when they lose? These people put the "HaHa" in Omahaha, and make the game worth playing.
- Louie
Louie,
Thanks for the insite. The hand of course was doomed as soon as it was called before the flop. Now if I see my friend/student playing like that again, I can simply tell my f/s to play Omaha like Louie, rather than Omahahaha like that hand at the Mirage.
One thing I later pointed out is the huge difference in value between this hand (A378 single suited) and a hand such as A356 single suited. The latter hand needs to be lucky on the flop, but the amount of luck needed is not that big a reach. In addition, the 56 in the later hand will often help make a straight to get 3/4 or even a scoop agaist a lot of action.
Anyone can see that AA23 suited or A235 is a great hand. It takes a lot more study and talent to see where a small differences in a hand that looks similar to another hand make a big difference in how much money it will make or lose in the long run.
Regards,
Rick
Tell your friend that Omahahahaha is NOT "Holdem with 4 cards". Neither is racket-ball tennis with a short racket. Neither is 2-handed bridge like 4-handed bridge. Those who ignore that bit of profound wisdom are doomed.
The most similarities between Omahahahahaha and Hold'em are mechanical, not strategic: the dealing mechanics are similar, the betting sequence is the same, and the POSSIBLE "nuts" is the same.
IMnsHO: Holdem is MORE like 7stud than it is like Omahaha.
- Louie
So let me ask you, If you flop a straight in Omaha, do you frequently fold if the turn pairs?
Today I had 9sKsKc3c; Flop: TQJ rainbow. I raised to drive players out and had one caller. The turn pairs the 10, no flush draw for me. He bet into me and I called. Should I have folded or raised? River is a blank. He bets. I called. Should I have folded?
p.s. He had QT for full house on the turn.
When you are heads-up like this, it really depends on the player you are up against, and what you think he might have been calling with. For example, with a straight already on the board, is he the type of player that would bet it?
Against a good player you have a problem. Since you raised on this rainbow flop, he knows you have a straight. He may have been betting the same straight himself, but now when the board pairs he's got a free shot at getting you out of the pot by betting. So you can't always fold this hand to a bet.
On the other hand, with several callers on the flop, a fold on the turn here is routine, ESPECIALLY if the top card pairs.
Dan
Dan wrote: "When you are heads-up like this, it really depends on the player you are up against, and what you think he might have been calling with. For example, with a straight already on the board, is he the type of player that would bet it? "
He was a weak player, who called my raise when he was holding 2 pair, and no low. I called to the river knowing he could be playing anything. Other than the turn pairing, there was no flush showing. My raise on the flop drove everyone out except him. Did he get lucky or was I reckless? I've noticed that aggression works like a charm on some days and bites you on the ass on days like today. I find it difficult to apply the "right" amount of aggression during the heat of the battle. Any suggestions?
You should of course be aggressive with the solid nuts and with big nut draws. You should also be aggressive with the nuts in one direction and something in the other, in the hopes you can steal the other half the pot (you have nut low and pair of Kings).
You should also aggressively raise when you have a little in both directions and its obvious nobody has the nuts in any direction; such as when everybody checks twice to the button who bets on the turn. Unless he's a whimp, you should raise from the blind with any low AND any top pair or better. You'll likely win half the pot (even though you may not know which half) AND you CAN scoop AND you are likely to steal the other players half the pot, since he doesn't have the nuts (middle and bottom pair or 62 low).
"Knocking players out" usually makes sense if you can win without the nuts, such as the two examples above. Otherwise, you should tend to keep players in when you have the nuts, such as when you have only the nut low since you are likely to get only 1/4 of the pot, and the extra callers don't hurt you.
- Louie
You need a good reason to even CALL with your non-nut straight; much less RAISE with it.
Players are correctly conserned about bluffing since the nuts is FREQUENTLY out. When the board pairs and the player who called a raise bets, you can only beat a bluff; which is unlikely.
Yes, routinely fold.
I believe Bob Ciofone (sp?) said "hands that aren't the nuts and can't make the nuts are strictly for tourists". You should routinely apply this rule. The few exceptions are likely to jump out at your, usually heads-up.
- Louie
I can consistently beat 10-20 and often 15-30 stud. I have NEVER played hold'em. My question is: would I stand to make more money by gradually moving up to higher limits in stud, or should I take the time to learn hold'em?
Also, I'm going to Vegas(I live on the east coast) over Memorial Day weekend, and am looking foward to checking out the new room at Bellagio. Is it good for stud, or better to stick to the Mirage?
You will make more money if you play BOTH holdem and stud, since you can choose the best game in the room. But the investment in time may not be worth it.
Just remember what all the experts say...bring LOTS of money. I know a few working pro stud players and many many working pro holdem players and its almost unreal how much more the stud players keep for a bankroll once you get past the 20-40 ballpark. I have gathered that 20-40 is about the game where the necessary bankrolls start to diverge due to the escalating ante factor with stud. So even if you might win more an hour playing bigger stud, consider that it will take you quite awhile to comfortably move up. This being 2 + 2 website I am sure you have read Mason's charts on approximate bankrolls.
You should do both. Move up and learn hold 'em. The Mirage has good $10-$20 and $20-$40 stud. Bellagio has $15-$30 and $30-$60, but there seems to be more live money in The Mirage games.
ok.. A pot is $100 and bet is $20 is the pot odds 5-1 (100 to 20 or 6-1 ($120 to $20) ??
If the pot was 100, then I bet 20, and it will cost you 20 to call, then you are investing 20 to win 120, which is 120:20, or 6:1 return on your investment.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I'm not quite sure whether you are describing a situation in which you are first to act and bet, or whether there is a bet in front of you and you are calling.
If there is $100 in the pot, and you are the first to act, your $20 bet stands to win $100 if nobody calls. That would be 5:1. If you get one caller, your $20 bet stands to win $120, and it would be 6:1.
If there is a bettor in front of you, the pot is now $100, (including the $20 bet in front of you), and it costs $20 to call the bet in front of you, your $20 call stands to win $100, and you are getting 5:1.
It gets more complicated if you consider additional players who may call behind you, future betting rounds, the possibility of being raised, etc.
How long did it take the average mid range player to get where they are? It seems that some it takes tears. some stay at low limits for some reason - some move up faster. *then* you get to 20-40, which in my world pro possibility. some on this forum implied that this process to get to 20-40 and beat it takes only a couple of years. i am very, very, very sceptical about this. even if you include the human element - i.e. we are all different - there must be a average time horizon for 80% of the player population.
Well thats such an open question I would say. Some 20-40 games require much different skills than others. In games in San Jose, the level of players is far lower than in Las Vegas and I can tell you that its rare to see a pro level player in this game whereas in Vegas I usually spot 2-3 in the same level game. I wont pretend to be a serious poker theoretician, but I will say that some nights the games are simply showing down the best hands and trying your best to thin the field, others its being ultra-agressive and capitalizing on any weaknesses. If you only choose soft games I would think the learning curve wouldnt be all that long to be a competent, decent winner, but a superstar would be years away.
I have put in 1000+ hours in my local 4-8 HE game. I play the correct starting hands, use my position well, check raise, make plays for free cards and attempt to read the other players at the table. Reading the other players is nearly impossible considering that the people who frequent this game will play with completely random starting hands. I think that monkeys could play as well as the people I play with. SO WHY AM I LOSING!? Is it standard deviation, or am I not as good as I think I am? What am I missing?
I am an expert Blackjack player who has averaged a win rate of one big bet per hour over the last 8 years. I am used to being able to find a weak game and exploit it. So why cant I exploit this weak HE game?
Thanks in advance for any words of wisdom.
Limon,
my guess is that you go too far with top pair when there are draws out against you in multiway pots and maybe you dont play the correct starting hands.
I usually have to stay with top pair or overpair until I get raised on the turn or a four flush or straight hits on the river. People will stay in this game with a second or third pair they will also bet the river with a missed draw.
Because their unthinking monkeys, all you can do is beat them with math, because their not thinking about what you have.
There is no way to beat the monkeys AND the rake/ tokes with pure math.
A couple points.
First, don't place so much of an emphasis on playing the 'right starting hands'. Not that you SHOULDN'T have a solid pre-flop game, but IMO most new players think this is the key to the game. It isn't. The 'keys' (if there are such things in low limit HE) are:
a) Knowing when to get out with what appears to be the best hand. I posted an example of such a few days ago (the thread's titled 'a weird fold') so you may want to take a look at that. Not that the fold I made on that hand was necessarily correct, but it does demonstrate a particular mode of thinking that's vital to the success of a low limit player.
As far as I'm concerned, not knowing when to get the hell out constitutes a major leak in many otherwise solid players games. If, for example, the flop comes A98 rainbow, you've got AK, and a solid player caps it heads up on the flop, you need to fold. Period. If you're not doing this, then it's time to reconsider your game.
2) Play your nut draws very aggresively. If you've got Axs and flop the nut draw, don't be afraid to cap it on the flop if the board isn't paired and you've got at least two callers.Similar considerations apply for open ended draws with 8 outs to the nuts.
3) Value bet the river. Generally speaking, anytime you think you have the best hand there's a very good chance that you do. Checking down top pair just because a runner runner flush came or an overcard hit the river is a bad idea.
Anyway, here are a few things to mull over. If you don't think of this applies to your game, then I'd bet you're not studying your playing style hard enough.
I really dont have a good idea on when to fold. If I probably have the best hand at that moment I raise until everyone is all in or out and dare them to take their chances on the draw. My 2+2 books talk a lot about when to call raise and check but what about folding? Most literature tells you when to fold after a raise but what about after a re-raise or when the betting is capped. An accurate analysis of folding is something that to my knowledge is missing from the literature.
In direct reference to GD's A98 flop example. With high pair high kicker my Sklansky book says to play aggressive on the flop, how am I to know that capping the bets is too aggressive. There aren't clear guidlines for folding.
I am probably wrong about this please tell me which book to buy for an in depth analysis of folding.
You say you read hands. You are not. Work backwards on later rounds instead of eliminating possible hands as you go. Need to develop this skill. What GD write is very good advice. You think so too?
There's really no book that covers it, because there's no way a book could. It's a problem that's simply beyond the scope of the written word.
Still, here's two things to think about when you're considering folding;
a) Would this person have raised me (or bet into me, if you put in the last bet on an earlier round) with a hand WORSE than mine?
b) While I 'probably' have the guy in seat two beat, and 'probably' have the guys in seats six, seven and ten beat, are the odds that I have ALL of them beat smaller than the odds that the pot is laying me?
Obviously this is a fairly primitive way of assessing the situation, since you need to figure in your chances of improving, the odds being layed to other players who are drawing to hands that could beat yours, etc. etc. So I'd limit the application of this kind of analysis to hands like top pair, where you probably are ahead but your hand is still mediocre (against a large field). In the A98 flop example, you need to wonder whether or not a solid player would cap the betting here heads up with a hand worse than yours-- i.e., AQ or worse in the hole. Since the chances of this are virtually nil, you can probably muck here with a clear conscious.
Here's another example. You're three seats away from the button with JTs. An early player raises, four players cold call the raise, you call, and both players behind you call as well. Since it's a low limit game, we'll also say the blinds call (what the hell- it's our game, so we can make it up anyway we want).
Anyway, the flop comes Js 6s 7s. The original raiser checks, next player bets, then raise, fold, call to you. What should you do? While the decision isn't a no-brainer, you should give serious consideration to folding. In fact, you the thought of folding should probably cross your mind even if it isn't two bets when it gets to you. Why? Let's look at the reasons.
a) If a strong player in early position raises, and his raise is called by the usual gaggle of players, he's almost ALWAYS going to go for a check-raise on the flop. Further, if he's got a group 1 or 2 hand (which is probably the case) there's a 58% chance you're already beat.
b) Even if he doesn't have you beat, how about the rest of the players? Would the original better lead out with a hand worse than JTs? Would the next guy call without a legitimate draw (i.e., four to a flush or four to a straight)?
c) Lastly, there are players left behind you who could have a large piece of this flop, simply because this is the kind of flop that often hits late position limpers with a 2 by 4.
All this is the long way of saying-- before you get too carried away with a mediocre top pair, give at least some thought to folding IF you have to make an overcall AND there are players still to act.
Hope this helps,
Guy
If you beleive as stated in the example #2 that you need to play aggressively on a straight draw then I disagree with your statement in example no 1 where the flop is A98 and and you recommend to fold AK because a solid player shows strength. I would not fold but instead play very aggressively because the solid player is probably drawing to the straight or even AK, or AT or better.
Reread my post. I said if the solid player caps the betting, AND if it's heads up. This also assumes that you raised (correctly) pre-flop, and therefore representing a big A when you three bet the flop.
GD,
On example #2 I partly disagree with you. I usually use at least 3 opponents on the flop as a rule of thumb to value-raise with nut draws (8 or 9 outs). IMO this is correct if you think it will get you a free card on the turn, because the chance of getting a flush on the turn OR river is 1 to 1.86, thus giving you the correct odds on your raise. But if you think there is a good chance that somebody else will bet on the turn, that is you don't get a free card, you might need more callers on the flop for your raise to be correct. Therefore, I think it's a little risky to cap it on the flop with only two callers, especially since your opponent's raises increase the risk of not getting a free card on the turn.
The risk of not getting a free card on the turn + the risk of getting beat even if I hit my draw are the reasons why I want at least 3 callers to raise even though the odds indicate that 2 opponents would be enough.
Sincerely,
Emil
You make a good point. However, one thing to remember is that if you have an opportunity to cap it with a draw on the flop, your implied odds are HUGE should you hit on the turn (particularly if you're drawing to a straight). Someone with a set will give you plenty of action, as will top two and hands like inferior flushes or idiot end straights.
GD,
It's true that the implied odds can be large, but IMO that factor does not make raising the correct play in this situation. Notice that the implied odds make a raise much better than a fold, but the implied odds have little effect when we compare the raise vs. the call. Because if you call, the implied odds are still there...
Sincerely,
Emil
Well yeah, they're KIND OF there, but when you're talking about a straight draw the situations a little different, since your hand is better disguised. If you you''re holding something like 69h (on the button, of course), and the flop comes A78, you can get a ton of action on the turn from a set if a 5 drops, since HE won't figure you for a straight. Still, I agree that with the flush draw the decision is less clear, and that after re-thinking it I agree that it probably isn't a good idea to cap the betting unless you've got three other player in there with you.
GD,
You are right to amend your advice to having at least three callers. The flush draw is worse against a lot of action because you can make your flush by pairing the board. With two opponents willing to cap you really have to worry about losing to a full when you make your flush.
Regards,
Rick
Looking back on it, I'm not sure just where that came from. I think I must have been trying to emphasize the importance of playing nut draws aggresively, though it's clear that I made my point through hyperbole.
Anyway, thanks for the reminder. I often get a little carried away, so it's nice having people that'll keep me in check :)
Guy
It’s not good enough to be the best player at the table.
You have to play well also.
You should play differently against different opponents and trust your instincts more.
Since you play blackjack you should be well aware of this point.Games like poker,blackjack,pinochle,gin,hearts are not games of pure skill,such as other gambling games like golf, pool,chess(these games involve a small amount of luck but nothing compared to the luck factor in any card game).I'm not going to beat David Duval in golf,Kasparov in chess or a pro pool shooter in pool no matter how lucky I am.But in card games like mentioned before rank amateurs can beat people who know the game inside out and play at a world class level.I've been succesfol at poker myself and I would never be arrogant enough to say its all because my great poker skills,I've gotten my share of good cards.People who say we all get the same cards in the long run are being very naive.Another huge key in hold em is getting action and taking down large pots when you have a hand,which you should be able to do in the game you describe.
Are you saying that we DON'T all get the same cards in the long run?
Joey:
Any game that has even an element of skill is really a game of "pure skill". That's because the luck will eventually be disbursed evenly on the players, leaving the most highly skilled person with the win.
In poker, it doesn't take all that long to determine who has the skill.
I think that winning Bj skills (congradulations!) transfer, at least at first, better to low-limit stud than to hold'em -- e.g patience and math. In (typical low-limit) stud most of the money is won or lost on third street -- on the first play or dump decision. It is easier to put people on possible hands in stud and it is easier to know who gets out of line. When I moved from BJ to poker, it was into stud, and I started winning right away. When I moved from stud to hold'em, i was, for quite some time, a little mystified.
n
I guess I sugges this around this time each year and no one really talks about it or posts their thoughts. I have long theorized to make the World Series truly live up to its name and promise, the tournament should be rotated every year. Sure Las Vegas is convenient for the annual meeting of the poker world's best, I think we in the poker world are missing the opportunity to expose many other potential markets to poker at its highest level. I would propose that each year the Series be played in a different area where legal poker has a good market. One year could be LA or the Bay Area, another AC, another London, maybe Australia and so forth. It wouldnt necessarily have to be in one casino like it is now, as each city could share tournaments and give each room its due exposure. I think if it went to say LA, that it would get much more press coverage and bring poker as a skillful endeavor out in a new light. It could attract locals who wouldnt come out otherwise to see a local cardroom. Best of all it would give each city a chance to showcase itself to the whole poker world and draw more business long term business. Las Vegas will always be a poker mecca so maybe continuing to hold the World Championship Event there would be proper, but surely having the rest of the events elsewhere would give the game a chance to further develop its base and make it live up to its name in crowning the worlds best.
True World Series should continue to be in Las Vegas, the Mecca of Gambling. But you have a good point. Why not create an event like in Hockey where the World series stays in North America,and another game series where each country competes against one another. Have the 5 Best Players of each country who have been selected by points within a specific year compete against a specific country in 5 different poker games The Country poker winner competes against all the other winning countries until only one remain. The country competition can take place in any participant country in the world. That Winning Country should receive world wide premier recognition and hold on to the Trophy and World Poker Flag until the following year. How sweet it is?
WildBill,
the reason it wont move is that it is owned by the horseshoe and worth money and they are not going to pass it around. i would love to see it in california because there is no smoking and i dont have to watch all the old friends die each year at age 60 (and try to take me with them). since california went smokefree, for myself i can see no reason to play elsewhere. also most out of state and country players like las vages as a getaway for themselves and may not come to other less know cities.
I watched the negotiation for the split at the Bay 101 tournament and wanted to know some other opinions about it. The chip leader was just a regular player at Bay 101 and I have no idea about his tournament experience, although he seemed to be playing a decent game. Bonetti was second, but very close in chips to JJ Bortner who is one of the best tournament players in the Bay Area, but I dont think no limit is a regular game for her. As it turned out they brought in a whole galaxy of stars into the negotiation wtih Men Nguyen supposedly holding a large share of JJ's action and doing most of the talking with Hellmuth being the middleman and Chuck Thompson and Linda Johnson looking on. Bonetti was arguing for what seemed to be an unusually high cut, presumably because he is so much more experienced at final table no limit play. My question is in this situation, how much do you think an "expert" should be able to demand, especially when he isnt the leader and the pack is tightly bunched? He ended up with only 4K more than the others, but at first he seemed to want much more. How much would you attribute the final result, if it was played out to a winner, to luck and to skill when its 3 handed and players are all in about the same ballpark chips wise? At the time the blinds were 10k-20k with a 2k ante and each had at least 400k in chips. The limit was to go up in about 10 mins.
Bonetti was the chip leader thats why he got the money. I am sure that when the deal was negotiated he had the most chips.
It was quite comical to see Helmuth, Men, and several others "duke" it out.
Paul
That is not true...I asked the third player in the split today how much he had and he said a little over 600k. He has reverted to being a 6-12 player after his big win and said he just felt lucky to be there playing and never imagined finishing in the money and playing in the big show, therefore he was happy to split as it was. Another reason why the Championship Event is so live: someone like him who told me he has played one other NL tournament before that one will be there in May.
That is not true...I asked the third player in the split today how much he had and he said a little over 600k and I remember hearing Bonetti had about 470 and JJ had about 420. With 150 players in that makes 1.5 mil on the table so that figures just about right. He has reverted to being a 6-12 player after his big win and said he just felt lucky to be there playing and never imagined finishing in the money and playing in the big show, therefore he was happy to split as it was. Another reason why the Championship Event is so live; someone like him who told me he has played one other NL tournament before that one will be there in May.
Well not only Bonetti has the experience and skill at NL - he is not a stupid man, as asking for a lot is never a losing proposition. (getting it sometime is hard)
I was playing in a no limit holdem tournament at the Crystal Park Casino Friday night. The prize pool was roughly $75,000. I had $2500 and there were roughly 90 players left with $400,000 in total play. I had just lost a $5,000 pot when my pocket kings were cracked. I was in mid position with pocket fives. There was a $25 ante and the blinds were $150 and $300. I was the first player to enter the pot with an $800 raise. Everybody folded except the botton, a solid player, who went all in with roughly $3500. If I muck my hand I now have $1700 left with a rapidly accelerating ante and blind structure. If I call there is $750 in the pot from the blinds and antes plus my $800 raise plus $2500 from the reraiser. What is the best play in this situation? Should I never have played the hand to begin with? If I play the hand am I getting the correct price? I thought my best possible scenario would be my opponent holding two overcards and I would be roughly even money. And my worst possible scenario would be me up against an over pair and I would need a miracle flop.
Fold. You should not have brought it in for a raise and you got caught speeding. As you noted, your opponent has, at the very least, two overcards to your hand, making it a 50-50 proposition on you getting beat if you go all-in, and if he's got a bigger pair, the odds are about 4-1 against. Take your lumps, smack yourself mentally, and refocus for the next hand.
I agree. Down to 4 players, I had pocket 5's and I went all in hoping to still the blinds. The Big Blind called with 2 overcards and caught a King on the river. So, I lost. I will not get caught again.
This is a completely different situation. Down to 4 players, and you're not a blind, puts you in late position. There is a great chance to steal here, much better than the original poster's chances. Also, being 4-handed, the average hand you need to be ahead preflop is much smaller, and certainly includes any pair.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You raised with a hand that was barely worth calling. Be more patient.
Maybe there's something here I don't undersatnd, but...
Neglecting the "wisdom" of the pre-flop raise, his option to call or fold is as follows (Pot: $4050, $1700 to call):
Pot Odds: 4050 to 1700, or 2.38-to-1. Hero needs a chance of winning of at least 29.6% to make a call +EV. Assuming that the chance of the opponent having an overpair is "x", the hero's chance of winning is "0.2(x) + 0.5(1-x)". Solving, the call is +EV if "x" is less than 68.1%. Isn't a call definitely correct here, as a pocket pair is much less likely?
The only way I can see a fold being correct is if the tournament is MUCH closer to completion, and in-the-money considerations are in play.
I'd be inclined to give the guy 70% credit for a pair of jacks or better when he reraises all in this early in the tournament. I sure wouldn't go all in with high suited connectors to go heads up against a possible pair.
Besides, are you saying that you should always go all in just because you're getting the best of it? In my opinion you have to factor in the cost of being out if you lose that one hand.
This happened last night in a low limit game. A very large pot was raised on the turn by a guy holding pocket Kings for trips. I'm out of the pot. The guy beside me calls and everyone else folds. He shows me and another player his AJc. He's got a pair of aces and a nut club draw.
The last card is a club. He's got the nuts.
The trips bet, and the guy beside me puts in a very big chip and rather loudly annouces "raise". The guy with trips doesn't call, but just disgustedly flips his jacks face up into the center of the table. By the expression on his face I sure thought he was folding. The dealer scooped the big chip into the pot without giving the guy beside me his change, and started to scrunch up the pot to push it over. The guy beside me throws his hand in the muck!
Somehow the dealer didn't hear the raise nor notice the big bet. He starts to push the pot to the guy with trips, and the guy beside me freaks out.
Everyone at the table heard the raise announced except the dealer and, apparantly, the guy holding trips who said he thought he was just being called. Everyone at the table thought the trips had folded by the way he threw his cards without calling.
The pit boss was called, and for what it was worth we confirmed that he had shown us his nut flush.
What should have happened, and what do you think did happen?
Haven't foggiest about what happened but I NEVER EVER release my hand till awarded pot. Sometimes dealer wants my cards before giving me the pot, insist on holding my cards and refuse to give them up till pot pushed to me.
listen to lobo here.
when will people learn this simple thing. if this concept is beyond you there is no way to become a winning player much less someone who can cross the street safely.
I fully agree with you. I also refuse to give my winning hand before the pot comes my way. In regards to what happen, I beleive the pit boss's decision is send the money to the nut flush. But because you are asking what happenned I then beleive that the pit boss gave the pot to the loosing hand which I would immediately think that a partnership is going on.
You're right. What happened was the pit gave the pot to the mucked hand! This is dead wrong. The trips were face up and live when the winner was mucked. How can she possibly make such a ruling?
It always seems to be a big pot when someone mucks their hand. I wonder why.
"The trips were face up and live when the winner was mucked."
How can this hand be live? The raise wasn't called. In some places, if you release your cards far enough into the table, that's a fold. Face up/down is irrelevant.
Eric
I say the hand is live because the cards were turned face up and the player never said fold. The dealer didn't announce the raise or ask the player if he was folding or calling. It does happen quite frequently that people turn over their cards not realizing they were raised.
In my book, if the hand is face up on the table in these circumstances it is live.
From the original post:
"The trips bet, and the guy beside me puts in a very big chip and rather loudly annouces "raise". The guy with trips doesn't call, but just disgustedly flips his jacks face up into the center of the table. By the expression on his face I sure thought he was folding. The dealer scooped the big chip into the pot without giving the guy beside me his change, and started to scrunch up the pot to push it over.
...
Everyone at the table heard the raise announced except the dealer and, apparantly, the guy holding trips who said he thought he was just being called. Everyone at the table thought the trips had folded by the way he threw his cards without calling. "
Hmmm. The raise was announced loudly, you say. Everyone else at the table heard it. I'd say the guy with trips heard it too. The dealer should have heard it (possibilty of collusion with the trips player here). I can't believe both the dealer and the guy with trips missed it.
If the guy with the trips really didn't hear the raise, then I doubt he would have shown his cards in the way described. I'd say it was a fold.
That the dealer didn't make change and immediately started to scrunch the pot makes it sound like he knew that he didn't need to make change, and therefore was going to push the pot to the rightful winner. Either that or the dealer is super incompetent or cheating.
Of course the flush made a mistake by not holding on to his cards, but then again, the only opponent had folded. Once he had released his cards, the guy with trips saw an opportunity for an angle (or he had planned this little charade, an interesting thought). Once again the dealer's incompetence or collusion made him push the pot to the wrong person.
If I were the floorman, I would rule that the trips hand is dead. Face up is irrelevant, as I said before. Giving up your hand in the face of a bet is a fold. What the guy with the trips did is a string call (TM). If he really has lost, then he doesn't have to put in the last bet. If it turns out his hand was the better, then he claims he didn't hear the raise; and if the winner gives up his cards thinking his opponent has folded, then the angler makes the same claim and has the only "live" hand. In fact, I think I would ask the player to leave and not come back. I don't need that at my cardroom.
Eric
You're right: What happened was the pit gave the pot to the mucked hand! This is dead wrong. The trips were face up and live when the winner was mucked. How can she possibly make such a ruling?
It always seems to be a big pot when someone mucks their hand. I wonder why.
In some places a volentarily folded hand is dead, hit the muck or not; face up or not. In fact, face up means nothing except in the show-down.
Some places have hoplessly strict rules just so the floor can make OBJECTIVE decisions. In such places, the trip Jacks (Kings?) is LIVE since it didn't hit the muck; tough for the flush who can't cross the street by himself.
I think it FAR better to award the pot to the clear winner; rules or not.
BTW. If I went brain-dead and mucked my hand, I would reach over and muck the trips face down (so long as I had the winner). That's teach the guy not to protect his own hand!
- Louie
I was playing 10/20 holdem today when I was dealt king/queen in the little blind. Six people limped in, I called. The flop came 3, 8, 9 rainbow. I checked and the 3rd guy in bet. Everyone called behind him. So, when it came to me there were 11 bets in the pot. Rather than call with 2 overcards, I folded because I reasoned that out of the field of callers there was a strong possiblity of someone drawing to a straight with 10/jack. Therefore, I only have three outs and if I hit my queen, I lose. A queen came on the river and sure enough, 10/jack won the hand.
It occured to me that I would'nt have folded this hand a year ago and by folding I had saved at least $50. I came away feeling like I might be starting to become a better player.
Is this simply an obvious play that everyone makes regardless of skill or is this the kind of read that separates the winners from the losers? Or was there a better way to play the hand?
Thanks for your input.
trace,
I would have played the hand exactly the same way. You should worry about many different hands that your opponents may have. JT, K9, Q9, K8, Q8, 89, 67 and also hands like T9 and 87 since they are probably getting correct odds to draw out on you even if you hit your hand, because the pot is so big. The pot was not raised pre flop, which indicates that many medium cards are out.
Yes, I think this is an indication that you have become a better player. IMO many players are only looking at the odds, and may think like this : "Oh my, there are 11 sb in the pot and the odds to hit one of my cards is 7 to 1, so of course I must call". The problem is that they are not taking into account the number of players in the pot. The more players, the bigger is the risk that you are drawing dead or that somebody will hit their 4-5 out draws.
By the way, notice that it's often not exactly a bad beat when your opponents hit their 4 out draws, since they are often getting the correct odds to draw to these hands in loose games.
Another way to approach this question is to think about how hard it is for your pocket KK and QQ to hold up in loose games. Here you have a draw to a pair...
Keep up the good work,
Sincerely,
Emil
Good play. While I don't know if it's mathematically sound, I've got a rule whereby I never draw to overcards if there are more than three other players in the pot (unless I've got other things working, like backdoor nut draws, etc. etc.). And even then I may not draw to them if there's a two flush on the board, the board is already paired, or there's a three straight on board.
The point to remember (and which you obviously understand) is that there's a huge difference between hitting your hand and having it win.
Something else to look for when deciding to call with overcard connectors is a proximate card to your hand. For example, if I have KQ and the board is T56, I'm much more likely to call with the overcards than I would with a flop like 267. I'm drawing to a Jack, a King, or a Queen on the turn, and a nine might keep me in the pot as well. Of course, a 3-flush helps a lot.
Dan,
I call with overcards probably less than most players. In your example, I tend to lean in the opposite direction. I would be more likely to call holding KQ if the flop was 267 as opposed to T56. I guess I fear hitting my king of queen and running into QT or KT. But I see your reasoning too. I'm not sure I'm right and hope to get more feedback on this one.
Regards,
Rick
I should add that the most important factor is who is in the pot, how the betting action has gone, and what position the callers are in.
For example, I'm holding QJs on the button, and a tight player limped in from early position. The flop is T56. Now an UTG player bets, and the tight limper calls. My hand is going in the muck. The early position tight limper is mostly likely to have something like KQ, AQ, etc., and if I called I would be drawing at best to three cards.
If the flop were something like 9h5c3s, and I was holding TsJs, then I like calling in this situation. The tight limper isn't likely to have a hand with a ten or a jack in it, and the first bettor isn't likely to have two pair. I have a 3-straight and a 3-flush to go with the overcards. In this situation, my biggest worry would be that someone has an overpair to my two cards, and only your knowledge of the players will give you some clue as to the possibility of that.
If the flop were 9h5h3s, I'd probably still call, especially if my overcards were big (AK, AQ, etc.). Yes, there is a two-flush on the board, but now there is a possibility that the original bettor has nothing at all and is betting a flush draw. In this case, I might even raise with my overcards and try to take control of the pot, plus I gain a ton of deception if I hit one of my cards. If the flush comes in on the turn and it's checked to me, it now looks like I was raising for a free card and I'll bet. I win a LOT of pots this way. If I hit a 4-flush on the turn and am committed to the river, then I'll consider calling the original bettor with an unimproved AK.
Another factor is your position relative to the bettor. If the bettor is to my right, I'm much more likely to fold my overcards because of the chance of a raise behind me.
Am I losing too much by not playing any overcards except for AK or AQ against one or two players? Is it better for a beginner to err on the side of caution in this situation?
It depends on the type of game you're in, and the players who are playing against you.
Dan
That's a good set of general guidelines, I tend to treat the overcards similarly against typical players. Heads-up on the flop I may favor trying some move instead of usually folding without the extra values, but against two or three opponents the backdoor or gutshot chances are often vital.
I think the biggest problem here in calling is you would be hoping to catch a card that would just keep you calling along. I like to think of pots either to be released or "seized" as Lou Krieger might say. In this case say the Queen comes...well you are paying off like you reasoned, but show me a player who wouldnt do it if they had top pair with a good kicker unless they faced a raise. If you catch a King you feel much better, but still you have to think with many callers it may not hold up or worse, may already be drawing very thin or dead. Just think if someone called with K-3 how bad that would be. Simple point is that if you cant be very aggressive and try to thin such a big field even if your best card comes, you simply shouldnt be taking off a card. You made a good judgement about what others might have as far as J-10 goes, but you didnt think about how you very possibly would be giving big implied odds here since you dont have a very strong hand at this point and really cant draw to the nuts or something close to it. When people think of becoming better players a lot of the time they are thinking of how to stop being calling stations and this hand would force you into being one.
Here is my question ? Last weekend I was playing in a very loose passive 4-8 game. Most of the players played too many hands to start with, but once in there usually had at least something. My biggest problem seems to be that when I'm raised on the turn or river, when I have a good hand, (maybe top pair-good kicker)I feel that I have to pay off these players because the pot has gotten so huge. More often than not these calls are losers. I guess my question is , "Is deciding when to pay off fall under the category of reading hands, and you just learn these things by experience, or am I just being a sucker and making bad calls?"
My gut instinct is to err on the side of caution and make these calls, because one bad laydown could cost a lot of money. Also I don't want to seem that I can be run over. Not calling many raises in these type of games seems to get noticed, because most people seem to call raises, thus the absence of calling raises seems to be noticed quicker than in the 6-12 game that I sometimes play in.
Thanks for all your input. I'll be in Vegas May 6-8 to visit the world series. See you at the 4-8 and 10-20 tables.
Thanks for the great forum, Tom B.
IMExperience, when a low limit player raises on the turn or river (particularly the river) they almost always (over 95 % of the time) have top pair beat. One thing you might want to do is bring a pen and paper w/ you to the tables, and keep track of how many times you pay off someone in this situation and how many times you actually won. If after a couple months you find that you're winning more than 1 in 20 hands like this I'd be very surprised. (Remember, we're not just talking about beating the raiser, we're talking about beating the entire gaggle of callers. So, if you do call and someone cold calls behind you, you need to beat BOTH of them in order to mark the hand down as a winner).
Good luck in Vegas. I was going to go, but I've got a ton of work stuff that needs my attention (sigh). Think of me when you flop quad A's :)
Im new to poker and surfing the net and usenet for information around poker I´ve read articles at card player and poker digest for some time and just recived my first books on poker. Now I wonder which is the "right" order to read poker books?? For example two of the books I`ve recived were holdčm by sklansky and theory of poker which one should I read first and does it really matter?? I not totaly new I play in some home games and at IRC from time to time!! Thanks! ;) -Erik Sagström( native language not english!!)
My opinion. If you want to learn Hold'em, study Sklansky's Hold'em Poker first. I recommend re-reading each chapter several times. You may even want to translate it.
If I were you I'd read Theory of Poker first. It deals with principles that apply to all forms of poker. It teaches you to "think like a poker player".
I've read lots of books on poker (some of which were actually good), but that one's my bible. It's good to analyse in detail all kinds of scenarios that may crop up, but remember that you'll be a winner in the vast majority of games if you can just religiously apply the fundamentals.
Actually, I think the value of poker books has been vastly overrated by the card playing community. That's not to say that you shouldn't read them, but they have a tendancy to give new players a false sense of security; there's a hidden assumption in most books that 'if you play like I tell you to, you're going to win', when in fact I don't know of a single winning player who plays strictly 'by the book'. I remember when I first started playing HE; I went out and bought Jones' book ,and Herr Sklansky's first book, sat down at the table brimming with confidence, and.... managed to lose close to two grand at 2-5 HE within two and a half months. This after I had firmly committed all the playing advice to heart.
Does this mean that 2+2 et. all are devious con men? No. But it does mean that the typical HE book (and I would include 2+2's in this) don't force the reader to truly appreciate the subleties involved in winning at poker; even at the lower limits.
If you want to win, start playing A TON, then on your way home think back on the hands you won (or lost) and determine how you could have played them differently. If you're fairly astute, you'll generally notice that the difference between a winning session and a losing session comes down to your play on two or three hands (in, say, a six or eight hour session), so being able to look back and see what went wrong (or how you lucked out) in these couple hands can be of trememdous value.
Experiences differ. I read the two books you just mentioned + ToP, read RGP & 2+2 for a while, played a lot of TTH, and then sat down at a 2-5 table. I lost money slowly but was never close to 2G down and after a few months was holding my own at the low limit tables.
I'm not sure I agree with the tone of your article but I do strongly agree that you have to do a lot more then passively read and memorize "book plays". You need to spend time actively thinking about the game. And of course you need to play.
I like this man. You are the minority amongst us who is not blinded by the "quick formula" to life and is willing to use your head. Of course if I had to recommend poker books 2+2 would be my first to bring in mind.And I am NOT kissing ass here. I just think give where it's due. Quick formulas don't work in life, marriage and poker.
I have many many books and I will say that Theory of Poker is invaluable, but probably a bit confusing unless you truly play a decent game already at home. Theory of Poker requires quite a bit of understanding that will only come with experience. Most lessons seem to come the hard way and my best advice to any newer player is to stick to the lowest limit possible and work your way up. Following the advice of Sklansky should make you not much worse than break even in a small game and with some experience you can start reading TOP. Slowly add weapons from TOP and you should see results, although always remember to look at results in a longer term view. I dont know what your playing intentions are though and how much holdem you will get to play, so specific reading advice is hard to give.
Read The Theory of Poker first,Then Texas Holdem. Then reread Theory again. Then read Theory once a month untill its concepts are established in your head, Then every 6 months or so just to refresh.Theory is the best book on poker that I have read. IMO Fat Freddy
In no-fold'em hold'em, when I'm on the button, and there are half a dozen callers in front of me, I'll often raise pre-flop with a small or middle pair, knowing everyone will call behind me. My thinking is that, while this increases variance, the pot odds are the same as a straight call, since you know everyone will follow along. If nobody hits the flop, it will often get checked back to me, so I can get two, or sometimes three, free chances to hit trips. I've only been playing about six months, and while I'm winning consistently, I know I've still got a lot to learn. Is this a good play?
If the game is as you describe it, your play is marginal at best. However, it is hard for me to believe that in a No Fold'em game where 6 or more players are calling your raise cold, that there wouldn't be betting after the flop--no matter what the flop shows. And if there is betting after the flop, your play goes from "marginal" to "terrible"!
You will make a set or better on the flop with a wired pair 11.8% of the time. I would just call with smaller pairs and fold if I don't make trips and there is early betting. With medium pairs I would call if the flops not to scary and there is no early raising. If medium pair happens to be over pair to the board I would raise. IMO Fat Freddy
Spike,
Let's see if I understand the question. There are six callers in front of you and you raise on the button. The blind will call most of the time (let's say the small blind folds to compensate). You can expect all the original limpers to call (although sometimes an early position better will limp then reraise driving players out which you don't want). But most of the time when you raise the pot will contain 16 bets rather than 8 bets.
You are only a 7.5 to 1 dog to flop a set. But when you do and the pot has sixteen bets in it, a lot of players who will be drawing almost dead (any pair kicker hand) will get married to the pot and you will kill them. On the other hand, some longshot draws may be inticed to stay in and sometimes they will get there. But they can also get there when you fill up (I'm thinking mostly of backdoor flushes).
Anyway, I like the play and believe it is under utilized. If you have HPFAP (get it if you don't), you will find that Mason agrees with you. (BTW - your reasoning is so close that I wonder if you haven't allready read it.)
Regards,
Rick
Thanks for the feedback. I have read HPFAP, but as a novice player, I'm still working to absorb much of the detailed information. I've only played a couple of hundred hours of hold'em, and every session is a learning experience.
I would usually just call with a very small pair. Its easier to get into trouble with really small ones.
But I agree with Rick if you're holding a medium pair, say 66,77,88. An occasional raise here is called for, especially if your competitors have been turning over very creative hands all night.
Firstly, you're probably getting the best of it with 6 players, as you may well have the best or second best starting hand. Secondly, you're disguising your hand, which can come in really handy if the flop is scary or if you make your trips or tight. You may start a raising war if you make a real monster because they won't put you on sixes(ie. full house or quads against a flush or straight). Thirdly, if you do get to show them, people will shake their head. The more confused they are about your play, the greater the chance they'll second guess themselves into a huge mistake later on in the evening.
I have no clue where I'm getting these numbers, but in a loose game like you describe, I'd raise about 30% of the time with 66, up to about 60% of the time with 88.
Does anyone agree with these numbers?
wgb,
Actually, I too tend not to make this play with the smallest pairs due to fear of being tied to a big pot with a bigger set out against me.
The big thing about this play is that it increases your expectation just a little but increases your standard deviation quite a bit. I tend to make it when I am playing a smallish game for my BR and don't make it as much in the bigger games (although I haven't been a bigger game with six limpers in front of me in a long time).
Regards,
Rick
I do this from the blinds also under these conditions.
Against the right table (like the one you described) it's a great play that you don't have to be on the button to make. It's even okay if you're risking a reraise as long as everyone else will just call. I wouldn't do it every time, though. Your opponents will start raising and limp raising to isolate you (but you still ahve a hand so it isn't exactly a disaster). Most players, IMO, undervalue little pairs and overvalue suited and unsuited connectors.
Rick, Forget all that eriudite crap about "implied pot odds" and being a "7.5 to 1 dog"! That kind of knowledge is useless in the kind of game you are describing. You've got 6 callers to the river who are paying absolutely no attention to the kind of hand you are representing. In fact, it sounds as though they aren't paying attention to their own hands either! In reality, at this table, you are just playing live video poker. When you finally make your set, one of those 6 players is likely to snap you off at the river because they never bothered to read the "book" to realize that they shouldn't have been in the pot in the first place. You have two choices: Do not raise with small to medium pairs in this situation or find a game where more players have read the "book". Black Jack
In this game, things change greatly as the betting progresses. There may be half a dozen callers pre-flop, but most will be gone by the turn, and half the time there's no showdown.
i think this is a good play when there are a couple of observant players in the game. usually if you raise people will remember that you did and put you on 'big cards'. at least that is what happens most of the time. also, once you raise before the flop you announce that you have a good hand and a lot of people, i have noticed, take extreme pleasure in cracking big hands. it's part of the excitement. so any players with runner runner possibilities will try to snap you. though here i'm talking about people who go to 'gamble' and are quite bad players.
here's an example: i just sit down at a 3-6 HE. I have 55 in late position, 3 people limp, I raise button calls so do the blinds. We se the flop 6 handed. It comes A 2 5 rainbow. A solid player bets in early position and I know he has an A. I raise and trap several players in. It comes runner runner blanks and I get a nice pot with my set. No one thought I had a set and I even got action from the prop player that was pretty solid. Since he most likely had AT, AJ or AQ.
carlos
carlos
I played some 10-200 with a $20 kill (no option). I had $500 on me and bough in for $300. First hand I flop trips and lose $300 right away !!! I did not rattle bought it for $200 more and made it up to +900. (total $1400+). There were two contributors at the table with sizable stacks earlier. As I was getting ready to move over to the 15-30 to play it safe (the contributors went broke or left) I started getting and flopping great hands ;-(. I had top two pair, bet it heavily - river Ace the guy has aces up. Me minus 500-600. Next the one good player calls my $200 bet. I have AK - flop is xxK. He gives me lots of action and I suspect two pair. Can't fold cause I am not very sure. But I checked and he bet max I call. Mistake ?? The board looked harmless the only indication was that I know the guy - he is tough NL player. Anyway I have some outs !!! any Ace or K makes me the winner. All in all I went from hero to asshole in a matter of 10-20 minutes. I don't want to sound like a BB story cause I think I played well, held my own but got unlucky and lost. Comments ??
With you raising pre-flop and the flop not showing any draws, I'd be pretty wary here. If the player is good, he has to know that it's possible that you have a set of Kings, or AA. It's not an easy flop for him to bluff at, either. So I'd suspect that he hit something like middle set.
It's tough to get off the hand when you hit top pair with AK - that's why they call it 'Walking back to Houston'.
Dan
He had two pairs with the K, so my outs were limited K would not have helped. I suspected he did not have a middle set or set of K's because he would have raised pre-flop(at least with the KK).
What were the two pair? Your description of the flop simply described it as "Kxx", which I took to mean a King and two smaller non-connected cards of random suits.
Dan
It was K's up but I can't say for sure it top two.
Andras,
You can't infer much from a single session at those limits. I find that the more time you have in a particular game the easier it becomes to put a single sessions results in correct perspective. You lost $500.00. This isn't much in a game that size. Personally, I wouldn't have sat down with less than $1,500, and would have bought in for $500 each time. I think you might be most upset about failing to leave when the "soft" players had left and paying off the good player when you flopped top pair best kicker. When the soft players left and you had $1400, the game was still probably good enough for you to attempt to double up once more to around $3,000. Be happy you have a regular job and this is just a temporary set back. The game will still be there when you once again have the time, money and inclination. I like your chances in the long run.
I am currently attempting to learn how to play hold 'em. I read The Fundamentals of Poker, Winning Low Limit Hold 'em, and Hold 'em Poker (Sklansky) but I'm having trouble absorbing all these unfamiliar concepts (all the way down to basic game flow). I've never even really played poker of any kind before this. My problem is that none of my friends are interestd in learning to play so I haven't really been able to practice. I am considering getting software to help me learn. Is this even a practcal way to learn? Does anyone out there have any better ideas? Sorry to bore you all with this very basic question (one that I'm sure get's repeated around here a lot) but any sort of feed back would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Bill,
I'm assuming you want to learn to have a chance to do well at a local casino or card club. At the lower limits, few really think about the game intelligently and after you gain some experience you could do well if you continue to study.
In your situation, despite its flaws, the better software such as Turbo Texas Holdem by Wilson (about $80) would give you a feel for the play of the game without risking real money. I wouldn't take the advice of the online advisor very seriously (although top rec.gambling.poker poster Abdul Jahib says it is much improved in version 3).
Search through the archives from about a month to two months ago to see some posts regarding the value and problems with poker software. As long as you are aware of its limitations, it is a good buy.
Regards,
Rick
The overall play has certainly changed, and the profiles are now more deceptive. There is more checkraising, but still a problem with defending against a possible checkraiser. The profiles still bet too much from last position with hands of no potential on a checked around flop.
My friend has bought a Hold'em software from a company called AceSpade Software. It is great. You may call them at (800) 731-1998. Their web site is: http://www.acespade-software.com
Yes, TTH is quite good for beginners. Play until you are no longer clearly going to lose, then start playing in a casino as you continue with TTH. Play TTH until you are confident you can beat it, then STOP. Then play only in live games. Then use TTH only has a research tool.
- Louie
I am in approximately the same situation as you are, Bill. I have read the same books, and a few others(2+2 of course), and ventured into the scary card rooms for about 100 hours so far. I have just about broken even in the 2-4 games. I guess this is pretty good for a beginner with a 10% rake with a $4 maximum(although I know I haven't made it into the long run).
BTW, I bought Turbo Texas Holdem, and it helped me get the flow of the game before I ventured into the "very exciting" card rooms, while being pretty fun.
What I need is a formula/syllibus for successful Holdem. I have purchased all of the books that Mason gives a 10 score in Gambling Theory and Other Topics, but I need to know what order to study and play at what levels.
I am looking for something in the approximate format:
1. Read Fundimentals of Poker 2. Play about 2 hours of 2-4 Holdem 3. Read Holdem Poker for Advanced Players 4. Memorize the Hand Rankings 5. Play about 10 hours of 2-4 Holdem 6. Read The Theory of Poker 7. Play about 10 hours of 2-4 Holdem 8. Watch Caro's Poker Tells Video 9. If you are winning about $4/hour move up to $3-6 10. Re-read HPFAP contantly evaluating you play by it. 11. Play 300 hours of 3-6 while studying books above 12. Move up to 5-10 if you are making $8/hour 13. Read both Poker Essays books. (the above are not my recommendations, just an example of what I am looking for)
Can Mason, Ray, or David post something like this on the website, or a close approximation as a response?
Thanks, from a newbie.
Robert
Thanks for the help guys. Naturally Robert I couldn't offer you any help on your question though.
Here it is nearly the end of April 1999, and I have not posted a positive month this year. I play 15-25 hours a week mainly at 10/20 limits. I have been keeping good records since 1995 and play primarily holdem. While I have had negative months in the past, by year end I have always posted a profit. There is still plenty of 1999 left to show a profit but I am beginning to question my abilities. I take my game seriously even though I am just a "recreational" player. I have read and studied many of the top books and programs on the market. I think about the game before and after I play, and I seek the advice of players I respect. I have been playing shorter sessions at a variety of limits. I also have been playing in rooms other than my main room, anything to break my slump. I can still laugh about it but it is getting tough. How long will this last? Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.Will I live long enough to allow the cards to break even? Working hard to stay positive and play good.
Brad,
Where do you play because in some areas the 10/20 games have gotten much tighter while the 15/30 and 20/40 games seem to be better than ever?
Regards,
Rick
Rick,
I currently live in Portland, Oregon. I play mainly in LaCenter Wa. and at Spirit Mtn. in Oregon. Spirit Mtn. is a 1 1/2 hour drive. The problem with investing 3 hours in drive time is that I am not going to leave after 2 hours if I am up $250. Every time I get off to a good start I think I can win a grand. The Spirit Mtn. casino has a 20/40 game played with a full kill. It is not unusual to have 5 players with over buttons too. This game has huge swings so I pick my spots carefully. I do not have a lot of hours at this game. All games at Spirit are played with a full kill.
I also will drive to Seattle to play tournaments and side action(6 hours round trip). I figured the longer I stay in the car the more bankroll protection I have.My idea of money mgmt.
Thanks for posting. Could you also comment on the following:
In Dec.98 I recorded my longest winning streak- 12 sessions. My previous win streak was six. In Feb. 99 I lost 7 times in a roll. My previous losing streak was five. Since 1995 I have won at a rate 67 % of all live sessions. Are these type of streaks out of line? Finally, I have heard of a winning streak of 30+ sessions and a similar losing streak. No, not the same player but this was just table talk.
Regards, BSP
Mason has written that good players will post two winning sessions for every loser. I personally run about 60/40 W/L,but my winning sessions are quite a bit bigger than my losing ones.
BSP,
As long as you just sort of put in your hours and your sessions last four or more hours, you should win about 65% of the time. But many players don't like to go home a loser and they end up sitting for a while in a lot of long sessions where their main goal is to get even. They usual do get even but once in a while have a casatrophic loss. Just as often they will get up early in a good game because they are ahead. This kink of thinking produces long winning streaks but bad long term results.
If you are winning at this rate on medium length sessions, you shouldn't lose senven times in a row often unless your play deteriorates after a few loses. Then this is not infrequent.
Also, I don't know about the 10/20 over in your area. In L.A., the 10/20 tends to be a little tight (not necesarily tough) compared to the 9/18, 15/30 and 20/40 games.
Regards,
Rick
Brad,
its only been 4 months so dont freak out too much. play in only passive games or games that are suited for you for awhile until you get back to winning. tend to quit winner to get your confidence back. play tighter and pay more attention at the table. maybe play in some other limits to see how you play there. its very possible that you are not playing your best and you need to think about that or that the games have changed a little and you have not been able to identify whats different and are losing because of it. good luck.
"I am beginning to question my abilities..." This happens to most everybody.
For me, that attitude is a disaster since my natural style requires quick judgements and brave actions. So, I play lower or FORCE myself into a more conservative game, until such time as I don't feel that way.
Bring a note book and jot down as many "boarderline" decisions as you can. Afterwards review this list and objectively analyze your decisions.
- Louie
Brad, stay calm and, above all else, maintain discipline. You are getting very close to finding out what kind of poker player you really are.
Dear Brad:
you may need a new hobby.
The times that you were used to are indeed over.
However, game selection is very important and in addition hustling is required. My personal experience is that certain losers may be conditioned to donate to you if they like you and if they consider you as a better player and if they enjoy having played with you. Those losers are the heart of the game.
However, please, do not ask me what is going to be in ten years from now. As I have posted before I believe that the golder era for poker is over. Making more than 30 dollars an hour soon will be almost impossible and the guys who would be able to do it would be WAY BETTER OFF doing just about anything else.
Let's face it: if you have read the theory of poker and the book of tells and the fundamentals of poker and texas holdem for advanced players and you have practiced for about 500 hours in cardrooms and keep practicing home about 2 hours a week (and these conditions are very easy to meet) then you can play limit poker against just about the best players in the world and lose LESS than 1/2 bet an hour (provided that there is no explicit or implicit collusion). Hence, these days the pool of loosers becomes smaller and smaller and since poker is a zero sum game this is the end of winning days for most of us.
However, there is another stage: assume that for the next fifty years there will still be people willing to lose money on poker tables. Then even if those people have read all top poker books still you can take enough of their money using collusion. I am not talking about collusion like signaling your cards to a friend but about collusion in the open by adjusting your strategy to situations and forming partnerships on the table. As an exercise: say that partnerships are allowed but all communications should be in the open can you see that in a three handed game an alliance of two has an advantage over the third even if all their game plan is in the public domain? And if you can see this can you visualize a situation were you are considered by both other players as the best player and they always try to be your allies against the third player?
This is the next stage of poker. It has been like this for years of course but today since all else is becoming more or less equal this is the "next" stage.
Take care.
Maria
First of all, it is not as easy as simply reading above mentioned books and playing the game. Also there is not much reason to believe many are even doing that much study. Finally, there is also a steady supply of players who do not do any study, so it is not at all clear that ratios are changing.
In some other places and threads here many top players have said that the games are as good as ever and I have to agree that it is easy to find good games at the limits I have tried.
David
In the games that I play in, some of the terrible players from years past have gone broke and have stopped playing. Amazingly, there is now a new crop of terrible players taking their place. Over the 3 or so years that I have been playing hold 'em on a semi-regular basis, the ratio of good and bad players has essentially remained unchanged here in Vancouver. The games continue to be good.
That's not the case here. Our big games are drying up. Our scheduled game didn't start tonight. A few of our regular big donators seem to have hung up their spurs, and a couple of others decided to get in a giant pot-limit game and lost tons of dollars. They aren't playing any more.
I think a big problem around here is the $5 rake in the 3-6 games. When a poker player plays long enough, he often moves up in limits as he gets used to the action. Unfortunately, with the high rake here too make players bust out before they ever have the chance to move up. As a result, our 10-20 and up games are composed of the same regulars that have been playing for years, and the weak ones slowly bust out unless they are wealthy. And a couple of the wealthy ones have said that they are thinking of quitting simmply because the game is too tough, and therefore boring to them. The same people get the money most nights, and the action is low.
Any suggestions for improving the game and/or bringing new players in?
Well, that rake is out of control. Why not make a well-reasoned, written submission to the powers that be as to the deleterious effects of such a high rake. While the powers that be can sometimes be shortsighted, they generally are not complete morons either and will listen to reason. They did here in Vancouver. A couple of years ago, the rake for the 20-40 game was $8, 10-20 was $6 and 5-10, I believe was $4. It is now $2 for 5-10 and $3 for 10-20 and 15-30. The changes came about largely because a group of the regulars took it upon themselves to explain to management that their high rakes would eventually kill the game. To Great Canadian Casino's credit, they listened.
There are also simple things that the Casino could offer such as free lessons for an hour or whatever to try and attract new players.
I know that in Edmonton, the poker room is separated from the Blackjack and roulette areas. My guess is that this probably also has a negative effeect on new players joining the game.
Here's another silly rule that the cardroom here has which I believe hurts the game. They don't allow any railbirds. This irritates me to no end. There's nothing I want more than to have some regular casino patrons hang around, watch the action and get a feel for the game so that they can join in and hopefully become a regular. Several of the regular poker players ask the floor personnel to "clear the rails" if anyone's standing behind them. I don't get it. Why would they do anything to dissuade someone from learning and joining the game.
Anyway, I started rambling...I don't even know if I answered your question...but gotta go.
Around here, the government makes the rules. That means that yes, they are in fact morons.
The poker room isn't lacking for action... On any given night there might be four 3-6 games, two 1-5 stud games, one or two 5-10 games, and the 10-20 or 15-30. It's just that we're not getting any new blood into the bigger games.
Uh, just where are all these skilled recreational players located? I know they're not here, they're sure as hell not in Vegas on the weekends, and I haven't seen any in Nebraska, Illinois, Missouri or Iowa.
Maria you are overly pessimistic. Not every player is willing to put in the same effort as you to win. Not every player is smart enough to grasp the concepts. Golden age right now with limit hold'em.
Where are the best places to play 5-10 or 6-12 stud in Vegas? I have played at Bellagio and found the game to be good on weekends, but during the week the game tightens up considerably. The MGM has a 5-10 game on weekends, but it is hit and miss. There is also a 2-10 game at MGM sporadically, but it is dominated by the better players when spread. Is there another place that is looser at these limits during the week? (BTW, while I am not a terrible player, neither am I good enough to ruin a good game, so have no fear about me ruining a good thing that you may have going at another casino!)
The conventional wisdom for no-limit hold 'em is tpo avoid drawing hands (particularly out of position). I would like to challenge that a bit as illustrated by te follwoing hand. It was a small buy-in no limit hold 'em game with $2-$5 blinds. I had about $800 in my stack and was in the big blind with 65o. A solid player with a $600 stack limped under the gun. A new player (tough regular) who had just bought in for the maximum of $300 also called from middle position. A loose player also called on the button, the small blind folded and I checked to make it a four-handed pot.
The flop was 934 rainbow, giving me an open ender. I check, UTG checks, and the tough player bets $25 into the $22 pot. The button folds, and I just call hoping to induce the UTG to also call. He folds and its now heads up with rougly $75 in the pot.
The turn is an offsuit Ace. I check and the tough player bets $50. He seems to be intentionally underbetting the pot, so I put him on a set that is looking for a call from a weak Ace.
I reason that it is worth a call here since I stand to win $345 ($50 bet + $75 in pot + $220 left in his stack) for a $50 call if I hit my 8-outer hand. I am getting roughly 6.9 to 1 odds for a 4.8 to one draw. Obviously the key here is how certain I am he will pay me off with the remaining $220. I had 75%+ certainty he would because the deuce or seven would not be a scary card (compared to a flush draw getting there for example). Additionally, the Ace on board might make him think that I was calling with something like A9, A2, or A7 and was betting two pair for value. And I put him on a set, which would be a tough laydown here in any event.
The stars were lined up for a "loose" call, so I called, caught the deuce, bet all-in, and got paid off. He had a set of nines, and reluctantly called on the end. Any comments on my reasoning here and his play of the hand?
That game wasn't bad (unless, like me, you played it badly).
I don't recall this hand, so maybe it occurred after I left.
You are absolutley correct. Your call is good IF you can be highly certain that he will call your bet on the river. In your situation, you're getting paid about 7:1 on about a 5:1 draw, when he pays you off.
80% of the time, you lose $50, for a total of -$40.
20% of the time you win $345 or $125, depending upon what extra money you can get out of him when you hit. This result has to average at least $200 for you to break even. Thus, if he'll pay you off at least about 1/3 of the time, you'll break even. If he'll pay you off more often, you come out ahead.
If you're confident he'll pay you off at least this often, it's a good call.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg-
It was great to have you in the game. This hand happened after you left against Alex. He HAD to pay me off because we play together regularly and he know I am capable of making a move here. I actually managed to book a nice win after being down almost a grand. I got my last $350 in before the flop with pocket Aces against pocket Kings (and even had $50 of dead money in the pot ). I also won the pot described above in addition to several moderate and smaller pots. In this game, against this field, a player of your caliber will eventually get the money as long as you don't get impatient or tilt.
P.S. Jazbo cashed out for over $1,000, including the nice pot he took from you.
P.P.S. I think you may have gotten him off of his pocket Kings if he wasn't playing with "house" money from his tournament finish. The REGULAR players in this game will almost NEVER lay down an overpair on the flop against a player capable of making power semi-bluffs. It makes it more difficult to steal smaller pots but rewards you for playing speculative hands on the button and otherwise patiently waiting to double through a couple of times with sets, flopped flushes, top two pair and the like.
Thanks Michael. You wrote: "In this game, against this field, a player of your caliber will eventually get the money as long as you don't get impatient or tilt."
Unfortunately, a player of my caliber was not in my seat that night. I seriously misplayed that hand against Jazbo, as well as 3 others. I wasn't on tilt emotionally, but I may have been making some errors in judgment due to my poor attitude after the tournament. Learned a lesson that I hope sticks.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I can't imagine why you wouldn't check-raise. He will SURELY bet any set on the end and MAY not reluctantly call, and he will bet many other hands including bluffs that he would not call.
What bad judgement on his part underbetting the pot, thinking he was fooling you but just giving you a cheap shot at all his chips.
As to your original assertion, how often can you expect such a golden opportunity when you have 65s early? When was the last time someone deliberatly offered his entire stack for a cheap call? How often will you be forced to FOLD your good draw when faced with an all-in turn bet? Does this one hand overcome all the bad money you would invest?
You can play LOTS of hands at no-limit if you are superior to the opponents. But the rest of us should remain selective.
- Louie
Did you mean to say $300 MAXimum buy in?
He actually meant $300 buyin EXACTLY. You cannot buyin for any other amount. Also, you can't rebuy or add to your stack unless you are at or below $150, and you can only add $100-300 to your stack. I hear that this game goes every Tuesday night at the Diamond Club, with this format. Call them to confirm. I don't recall the number.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
212 727 1956
Michael, What an excellent play. I couldn't have played it better myself. I love NL HE cash games also. Normally we play $5-$5 blind with $200 BI and $100 max. top ups. Reading has great power in NL especially when it is 99.9% correct. I've mafe $150 call, headsup into a $700 pot when the board showed 10.J.7.2.4 (os). I checked.... he bet $150, after betting all the way. I was on a flush draw with A.Q. which didn't hit and I put him on a draw, straight or maybe a weak flush (my suit). I called his $150 bet, he rolled over K.Q.(os). Offsuited or suited small connectors are my favourite preflop in NL HE, prefer late poss. Hit that flop or turn and you can score a rack or two. I recall a hand like yours except I had 4.5(os) on the button, four play for $5 and I make it $25 to go. I get 6 callers. Flop comes A.2.8. the turn a 3.
I love it! He's got a set and lets you draw cheaply to a straight. What's this guy thinking? Didn't he know, with that many limpers he was going to have people drawing? I'd love to be in this game!
My losing streak continues, after losing 250$ in 5 hrs of 6-12 Holde'em. Here are some hands that really bothered me.
I hold A7o in the big blind, 5 people limp in. The flop comes 7,7,5. I check and a person to my left raises, only me and the small blind call. Should I have raised? The turn is a jack, I check intending to raise, the person to my left bets, but then the small blind raises, I re-raise, both opponents call. On the river comes a 10, the person on my left bets, the small blinds calls and so do I. The small blind shows down 55 and the person to my left shows down 10,10 and takes down a huge pot. Its just my luck, I flop trips with an ace kicker and somebody else flops a full house. Is there anything I could have done here to limit my loss?
This next hand is what caused me to get up and leave the cardroom prematurely. I hold AKo in second position, the person in first position raises the blind, I re-raise and he caps it. Its heads up, the flop comes A,5,4 rainbow. He checks, I bet, he calls. Turn card is an 8, he checkraises me, I call. On the end he bets and I call. Of course, he shows down AA and takes the pot. Now that I think about it AA was probably the only hand he could of had. The person I was against was a good player that has read all the books, I know because I talk to him about it. So he figures I probably have ace something or a big pair before the flop. Therefore he must have a pair of aces beat for him to raise me. I guess this is one of my problems. Pre-flop Im extremely tight, on the flop Im also very selective, but when I do hit the flop, I am very reluctant to put it down. This may one reason why I am not winning. What do you think?
The A7o was a hand you couldn't`get away from, but the other beat had warning signs: his cap reraise before the flop, and the check raise on the turn.
You should have checked behind him on the turn, as if you are best the free card is not likely to beat you, if you are up against KK or QQ he will likely release them if you bet, and you would have saved 2 BB. Over long periods of time these saved bets count.
Larry
I think you're right.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I've said if before and I'll say it again-- ANYTIME A LOW LIMIT PLAYER BECOMES THE AGGRESSOR AFTER THE FLOP, TOP PAIR IS BEATEN. This is because few low limit players have the know how to semi bluff raise on the turn, and most will slowplay wired sets, top two, etc. If you follow my advice here you will make money- I can virtually guarantee it. If you don't, you will continue to hemhorrage chips as long as choose to play the game.
I'm going to jump in when maybe I shouldn't (I have very limited casino experience and am down a couple bills).
However, in studying poker and perparing for casino play I read HEP, HEFAP, TOP and practiced with Turbo Texas Hold'em ver 2 (TTH).
When I first started playing with TTH I was losing, not a lot but losing; soon enough I was able to start winning and recover from earlier loses. However, then I went on this seemingly never ending tumble, constantly losing. I didn't think I was playing any different than before. However, I was still losing. I was gonna blame it on bad luck; it seemed that AA, KK, AKs were getting cracked constantly. So I used the TTH stats option to look at the starting hand analysis to prove that is was all bad luck and I was playing ok. But what I found was quite interesting. When I looked at what each starting hand had won or lost AA, KK, QQ, AKs, AKo were still making me money. But the hands that were costing me money were hands like AJo, ATo, QJo, KTo, KJo. If fact, they were losing me TONS of money (fortunately virtual money). Interestingly the amount I was down was more or less equivalent to what these few hands were costing me.
So I started thinking a bit more about the hands I was playing and being very cautious about these particular hands, being quick to fold them if I didn't catch the flop or only caught it piece of the flop. I soon starting winning. When I was back in the money I checked the starting hands analysis again and found that these particular trouble hands were no longer causing me significant amounts for money.
Of course, this isn't real life, so take it for what it is. However, I'm convinced that playing these hands well are CRITICAL to success at the table. It's very easy to take these hands too far. And as I mentioned earlier I THOUGHT I was playing well, but not playing junk like 73o or the like isn't enough.
I'm curious as to what others think.
Both hands are rare tough luck cases that cannot be the cause of sustained (multiple months) losses. I would have played the first hand more aggressively and would have lost more. I would have called the check raise on the second hand on the assumption that I wasn't dead, and I wouldn't put the bettor on AA unless I knew he was a complete rock (it seems to me he's six times more likely to have another AK). I probably would have paid him off as well. (BTW, in the last several thousand hours of play I have been involved in only a handful -- maybe four or five -- of AK vs. flopped set of A's or K's confrontations). The end of your post sounds right: you may have a problem by overplaying flops you like. You might want to focus on being able to determine when your top pair or bottom two are dead, such as in cases where it's correct to fold on the river even after you've raised on the turn.
>Thanks for the answers to my last post. Perhaps somebody could help with my
>latest disaster. Pot limit 7 stud. Eight handed. Game is lose people raising
>with any pair earlier on putting in big raises hoping to stop people drawing
>out. Third street I have kings in the hole, 7 as door card.. The only other
>person I am worried about has an ace for a door card. No other aces on
>board. He brings it in for Ł2, this player has been raising from the off all
>night and I feel that Ł2 is quite low for this chap, so I raise Ł5.
Careful. If he normally tries to steal when he's high on board, and doesn't here, he's up to something. If this is an aggressive game, he wouldn't raise a lot in the bring-in if he really had a pair of aces.
I'm not sure I raise here. You want your implied odds to stay high in case you catch a king later. If you can almost count on someone else to raise, then a limp-reraise is a good option, and then you can see how the ace responds to the other player's raise before getting involved.
>A queen door card, raises making it Ł20. Couple of callers and I flop another
>7 on
>fourth street. Giving me two pair. The aces catches nothing threatening,I
>feel that I must be favourite at this stage so I bet Ł25.
You have two pair. Your hand is unlikely to improve. You mentioned that there were a couple of callers who presumably have drawing hands. Why not bet the full pot and get everyone out? With a paired door card, they won't contest you.
>He calls and the queens fold.
That's a sign here. If he just had two aces, would he have called a bet from ()77? Even if he has two pair, would he put in his whole stack only to be shown trips? If he had a flush draw, he would probably be correct in calling $25 at that point.
>I bet out again Ł25, I have not seen any kings or sevens so
>feel that the cards are pretty live. I am reading him for aces in the hole
>at this stage. But with the money in the pot and the fact the cards are live
> feel I am getting good enough pot odds to bet.
Two pair is the worst hand you could have at this point. If he has one pair of aces, he's not that big an underdog to you (although it's unlikely he would have called on 4th street with just aces or even two pair). If he has two pair or trips, you're almost drawing dead with only four outs (and his hand will often improve to beat the hand you're drawing to). In limit you might have odds to chase, but not in pot-limit. If it's impossible (by the suits of his board cards and what cards are live) that he could have a flush draw at this point, you should check and fold here. If not, you may still have a fold, depending on the opponent.
In general, why make small bets that give your opponents cheap cards to draw out on you?
>I don't improve on six
>street, neither does he both catch garbage. I bet Ł25 again, he say's how
>much you got and put me all in for a raise of Ł125.
Since he hasn't improved, he has had you beaten all the way. Would he do this with just aces up against a paired door card?
>Now this is not unusual
>as he has been trying to do this to players all night as he has a large
>stack in front of him and I am a bit short stacked for this game. (can'
>really afford the recommended Ł400 or Ł500 buy in so I usually have to make
>do with about Ł250, to Ł300, only choice you have in the UK all games are
>pot limit.) Any way I think aces is trying to bully me out of the pot and
>call going all in.
If he had one pair, he wouldn't bully someone who might well have trips. He could easily have aces up at this point also.
>I don't improve and he shows wired trip aces. Thoughts
>ideas as too the way I played this hand please. Ideas for the future in
>similar situations.
Ideas for the future:
Often it's correct to bet the max with hands that are probably the best but have little potential for improvement and a large chance of being outdrawn. If your full-pot bet is called or raised, then your decision depends on the situation. Don't make tiny bets that give many hands the correct odds to call.
Watch opponent betting patterns. If someone brings it in for more when he wants everyone out and less when he wants callers, he is cluing you in to his hand. Conversely, make sure your own betting doesn't give anything away. In holdem and Omaha, it is rarely correct to bet less than the full pot. In stud, there may be more situations when that is the proper play, but vary your bets in a way that won't make it clear what you have.
If someone calls a bet from a strong board, they have something. Few players will take a bluff far into a hand against a potential mega-hand. Even a bully will usually use the hit-and-run approach - betting out in many situations, rarely calling, raising only when the bettor looks weak and will lay down a mediocre hand, and often folding when an opponent shows strength.
In pot-limit, you have to be able to fold a "good" hand when it's very likely that the opponent has something better. Don't fall into the trap of betting a mediocre hand all the way only to see that you were beaten since an early street. You want to make those decisions earlier in the hand - you save the bets, and you don't give your opponents extra cards to draw out on you.
Dan Rubenstein
Firstly, I am slightly hampered here because I cannot find the original post - Dan, do you know where it is ?
To the original poster whoever you are, Dan gives a lot of good advice. In the kind of games you describe, aggressive players showing an Ace will regularly bet a three flush, three high cards and a small pair. What they do with Aces depends on the player. The really good players mix it up, also betting Aces occasionally. But most of the aggressive types regularly slow-play them. Keep an eye on your opponents (especially if you come up against them regularly) and when someone represents Aces or Kings, check (or work out) what they started with when the hand is over. If an habitual slow-player of big pairs brings in small and then calls a raise with an A or K showing the alarm bells should go off in your head and you should proceed with great caution. OK you were unlucky to run into a wire-up but you were struggling against a pair of Aces as well.
One thing not mentioned above is how your opponents perceive you. If your opponent perceives you (rightly or wrongly) as a tight player then he puts you on at least a pair of 7s when you raise and then call the Q re-raise. So when he calls you after your 7s pair on board - unless he's a maniac he's got AT LEAST Aces. You're a small favourite or a big dog. FOLD.
One point which I think Dan touched on as well, if you have a hand which is vulnerable and doesn't want many callers (and two pair against a potential overpair is the classic example of this), bet the pot. If you aren't confident enough to do this then check-fold. If you can't spare enough cash to play the game without fear then DON'T PLAY.
And finally, ignore me if you are a winner in cash games and excuse me if you have considered this, but if you're still learning the game in the UK you can do it just as well in tournaments at much less expense.
Andy.
This is my rolling average for the last 6 months:
3/6 50 hours, $950 - $19/hr
5/10 239 hours, $7244 - $30.31/hr
10/20 and 15-30 408 hours, $14,716 - $36.07/hr
1-2-5 Pot Limit 28 hours, $1870 - $66.78/hr
Totals: 725 hours, $24780 - $34.18/hr
During this time, I also hit a bad beat jackpot for $7300, and had two small tournament wins worth about $500. These aren't included in the numbers above.
Was there some reason you wanted this information?
I was in a tourney on Saturday structured like the WSOP, except for 1/2 hour rounds. we got 10K in chips. By far the most i had ever started w/ in a tournament. (250+25 entry, but i had won a satellite.) third hand of tourney. blinds wewre 25/50. early better bets 300, raiser to my right makes it 600. i look down: pocket rockets. i raise to 5000. TWO Callers (better and raiser. flop is KQx first better goes all in. man to my right thinks long and hadrd folds. i fold easily but am crippled.struggle to get back to even , but cant overcome this much to early set back. Opinions wanted.
I am not going to discuss if you folded correctly or not since obviously this is an easy to determine function of the degree of certainty that your opponent has QQ. To your benefit there was another player who also called a 5K T bet and then folded. Do you think that that guy folded AA, AK or QQ? I find it hard to thing of a guy folding QQ at this spot so most likely he folded AK. Then the other guy most likely had QQ and you both folded correctly. But I am going to discuss another issue: when you moved 5K in the middle you needed have thought about the possibility of a king or queen high flop and your opponent betting 5K. Then you need have evaluated how likely is that any of your opponents would make a play. And then you should have evaluated if you would like to risk all your chips (say go all in before the flop) against two combined pairs of KK and QQ or you would be much better of if you pick other spots later on when your advantage would be even greater as it could be the case during the game. Remember: if you or I play with Doyle Brunson today he may even choose to fold AA even though he has seen that we hold KK if the pot is small (say 50 T) and we bet all in (10K T) because his chances of winning are much higher that what this situation offers him!
sorry the fellow to my right said he folded the other aces. the feellow who went all in said he had queens and put me on a move. he was a stranger.
Just like you always put ME on a move. This guy made a horrible call with QQ before the flop, but not as horrible as the 2nd player also CALLING with the other Aces. He should have gone all-in and put the pressure back on. I wonder if the QQ guy would have put you both on a move if he rasied all-in and you called all-in.
I would say pay it off. You are putting in T5K for a chance to win T25K. In the worst possible case (you are beat by a set), you still have about a 1/12 chance of winning, so your call has an EV of -T3K. But if you are ahead, the EV on your call is probably +T15K or so.
Do you really think there is an 85% or higher chance you are beat? I don't, especially considering that your opponent may check a set.
Another way to look at this one is in terms of implied odds. Say your opponent made a mistake by calling your 5K raise with QQ. At this point, your opponent had about a 12% chance of outflopping you, and the call your opponent made had an EV of -3.5K or so. I don't know about you, but if my opponent has just made a -3.5K play and then caught a miracle card, I am willing to make a -3K play of my own to keep them honest. The implied odds of this still don't make their -3.5K play worth it for them.
William
yes but then i am out of the tourney. does that make a difference. this is not a cash game. thanks
What difference does it make how many tournament chips you get? Well, none. T10K is the same as T100 or T45meg. What matters is the initial structure and increase compared to your T.
Let suppose your BD opponent will call all bets with QQ. If this player is predictable AFTER the flop, then you correctly should NOT raise all in B4 the flop, since you can fold if beat and still get him all in if not.
What a bone-head on your right; not reraising all in AND not recognizing the EASY lay down on the flop; you being behind him and all. That has to be the WORST situation for AA.
- Louie
Before the flop, mildly loose and passive game, you have A6 of spades.
(1) You are in middle position, and everyone in front of you has folded. You don't think there is much chance that a raise will win it right there. What do you do?
(2) You are on the button, and the player in front of you calls. (They shouldn't, but it happens all the time.) What do you do? Does it depend on how well or poorly your opponent plays after the flop?
William
If they are not going to fold with a raise then definitely calling is better than raising. If you do not like to play the hand having possibly the second worse position against three opponents then do not play it. Just muck it. However, since you need to play some hands because otherwise you will be blinded out of your money and because otherwise your opponents will be able to read you play it occasionally say 1/3 of the time and 2/9 of the time just call and 1/9 of the time raise.
A hand that I have found to be a very big loser and a small winner is A9s. It is hard to get away from this hand and you may end up paying various two pair or straight combinations or sometimes just higher pairs or aces with higher kicker.
Take care.
Maria
If they are not going to fold with a raise then definitely calling is better than raising.
Calling with a playable hand when you're the first player in is a highly questionable practice. Unless you expect more callers behind you (at least 2, say), then you probably ought to either raise or fold.
However, since you need to play some hands because otherwise you will be blinded out of your money and because otherwise your opponents will be able to read you...
Even if you just limit your pre-flop raising to group 1 and 2 type hands, your opponents will have a hard time knowing if any flop with a paint has hit you. If the game is so tight that being blinded out of your stake is a concern, you probably need to find a different game.
A hand that I have found to be a very big loser and a small winner is A9s.
I'm not sure why you have so much trouble with this hand, unless you're playing against particularly tricky or aggresive opponents-- in which case you should move to another table.
Hallo Maria,
I dont know why you fear A9s. IT's a hand which plays great against the typical low limit loose competition (at least in the games i play). Just be aggressive when you hit your A or 9 (top pair) I wonder how often my 9 kicker is best. Of course if you are (re)raised you should be able to release the hand fast (unless your drawing to the nut flush).
I hope you will get fear into your opponents :-))
Bye
Midge
I am not enthusiastic about this hand with so few potential callers. It's essentially a flush draw and requires multiway action to be profitable. If a couple of more people fold after you its very possible someone in late position will raise to show strength. This hand can't really stand a raise with a short field.
I'd throw this hand away. But that's just me.
(1) It depends upon how many players you expect in the call vs. raise scenarios. If you think that there's a good chance only the big blind will call, then raise. You can play heads-up with an A vs. a player who only has some sort of decent hand. If your raise will not push out any medium aces behind you, then fold. If you expect 3 or more opponents if you call, then call (even if better aces are included in that mix).
(2) Here it depends entirely upon what hands this player will call with. If they'll call with every hand they play, and they play lots of hands without aces, then raise to isolate against them. Even if A6 is weak, it is strong heads-up, especially against a weak player who could easily be holding QT, 89s, and the like.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
A solid player bets into you on the end in a 3-way pot. The player behind you also plays well.
If you have a strong hand which could be beat, you don't want to raise, because you are giving up the chance at an overcall and you are risking 3 bets if the bettor has a big hand.
If you have the absolute nuts, you MIGHT not want to raise, because your biggest potential profit comes if it goes Bet, you call, raise, call, you reraise, call, fold . . . or something like that.
But wait! If you don't raise with either of these hands, and your opponents know it, then you can't bluff raise either. Nor can you raise to shut out an overcall. They will read your play correctly.
Do you EVER raise in this situation? If so, what hands do you raise with?
William
Well, one time you would definitely raise would be when you are quite sure you beat the bettor and don't expect the player behind you to call anyway. Another would be when you are confident you are best, and the player behind you is likely to call two bets cold but unlikely to raise if you just call. A more unusual one would be when you have a monster like quads, put the bettor on something very big such as the nut full house, and so may not much care about the player behind you as you expect to go several bets with the bettor. I'd say more, but I have to catch up on something like 228 posts!
John Feeney
Dear William:
excellent question and the answer depends on who your opponents are and what are their strategies and how adjustable are their strategies and how can you predict their strategies.
From what I understand you are asking: how should I play given that the players that I play with are good and we play together all the time.
Say that the game we play is high card draw and we are drawing from a deck of 52 and we had a chance to redraw and we did redraw and the first player did not and we and the third player did redraw and the first player bets.
Now it is important to decide strategies for various holdings and match up those strategies to the strategies of our opponents. If we allow only one raise then the game can be analyzed and the result would be: given that pot size when it is your turn and you hold that card then fold with probability such and call with probability such and raise with probability such.
If no redraw is allowed I wonder how much is position worth? That is: for various bet sizes relative to the pot size what is the benefit of playing last and what is better: to play first or be in the middle?
Very interesting question William.
Now, there is another aspect in your question: if you play against "bad" players then you may adjust your strategy accordingly and play in a way that you may risk loss against an expert opponent but you will benefit most from your opponent's error. You may even consider dynamical adjustments in your strategy.
Anyway if you try to work out the example above then you will see that it will take you quite a while. Hold'em is much more complicated to evaluate. You may consider a situation where the board is K99A9 to begin with. Also how the hand was played is very important. For example: if the flop was A73 flush draw and the board is now A78TJ no flush then there is a variety of hands out there that a solid player may be betting at the end and even though I think he will most likely fold AK, A7, A8 at the end I find it hard to believe that he will fold 77 or better to a raise. Would he bet AT or AJ? it depends on how the hand was played. If you or the other player were marked for an Ace and the third player was following all the way then the solid player may bet AJ at the end and call a raise. So first you need determine what a "solid" player would do in various situations. You may discover that a "solid" player may do some idiotic things almost all the time. Choose a strategy that take advantage of those errors. And to avoid being branded use a variety of strategies randomly. Also remember, sometimes you may be incorrectly branded. For example if it happens that the last four times you folded or the last three you raised with the nuts then your opponents may think that you always fold unless you have the nuts in which case you raise. Knowing how your opponents think of you is crucial and use it to your advantage.
One can talk on the subject for hours.
Sklansky has very good basic material in various of his books addressing the topic.
Good luck.
Maria
Dearest William: :)
So finally someone else embraces that notion that I have embraced: supporting your steals.
I think there is MORE money to be made STEALING on the river than in getting PAID off on the river, and believe that is a large factor in the author's wild-is-not-right-image for holdem.
Thus, you should RAISE with a good hand enough to support your bluff-raises. Almost always raise with the nuts or the near nuts. Sometimes raise with just a probable winner, even though you lose some EV since you won't get much in overcalls. Raise if you haven't raised in this spot recently. Raise if you were previously the aggressor.
- Louie
BTW. The correct phrase is "BUT WAIT!" in capitals. I'll share that with you even though I stole it fair-and-square from Caro.
5-10, mostly passive table. I have AQ and call in late position, one off button (realizing as I do so, I should have raised). 5 callers see the flop. Flop is 952 rainbow. 3 checks, player to my right bets, I'm next, and I raise on a steal. 2 folders, new player, woman in BB, calls 2 bets, original bettor folds. Now, turn comes J clubs, making two clubs on board. Woman says "oh, there's only two of us, check..." I hesitate and check as well. River is 3 clubs, she bets and I fold. Original bettor at table said "should have bet the turn, it was yours". I question that, and consider her cold call an indication of some strength (ie. I'm likely beat right now). Obviously if I had raised pre-flop I would have been in an even better steal position.
Comments?
She's lying. If she wants to make you look bad she'll table a bluff. I would have shut down also.
"5-10, mostly passive table. I have AQ and call in late position, one off button (realizing as I do so, I should have raised)." If several players are already in and/or the remaining players are very loose there is nothing wrong with calling.
"5 callers see the flop. Flop is 952 rainbow. 3 checks, player to my right bets, I'm next, and I raise on a steal." This is a tough spot to get away with a steal since there is already someone else in.
"2 folders, new player, woman in BB, calls 2 bets, original bettor folds. Now, turn comes J clubs, making two clubs on board. Woman says "oh, there's only two of us, check..." I hesitate and check as well." If you bet you will almost always be called since she had enough to call for two small bets on the previous round.
"River is 3 clubs, she bets and I fold. Original bettor at table said "should have bet the turn, it was yours". I question that, and consider her cold call an indication of some strength (ie. I'm likely beat right now). Obviously if I had raised pre-flop I would have been in an even better steal position."
I think that you were right to give it up. If your opponent checks again on the river you may have a profitable bluff.
"5-10, mostly passive table. I have AQ and call in late position, one off button (realizing as I do so, I should have raised)." If several players are already in and/or the remaining players are very loose there is nothing wrong with calling.
"5 callers see the flop. Flop is 952 rainbow. 3 checks, player to my right bets, I'm next, and I raise on a steal." This is a tough spot to get away with a steal since there is already someone else in.
"2 folders, new player, woman in BB, calls 2 bets, original bettor folds. Now, turn comes J clubs, making two clubs on board. Woman says "oh, there's only two of us, check..." I hesitate and check as well." If you bet you will almost always be called since she had enough to call for two small bets on the previous round.
"River is 3 clubs, she bets and I fold. Original bettor at table said "should have bet the turn, it was yours".
Mason's response: "I think that you were right to give it up. If your opponent checks again on the river you may have a profitable bluff. "
I agree with the laydown -- I'm curious, though, about your "profitable bluff" comment. Do you really think so? She called two bets cold on the flop. Either it was with some great draw (on a flop of 952?), or it was A5, which I doubt she'll lay down now (she called two bets cold with it), or she is slow-playing a set. I suspect the set, here. I can't think of any hand that is ahead of AQ which she would lay down, and I can't think of many hands which are behind it which she might call.
The profitable bluff comment is just based on experience. Sometimes a bad player will call two bets cold on the flop with something like a three straight and a three flush. If they check twice, against the right player your bet on the river should win often enough to show a profit. But it needs to be against a player who will call way too loose on the flop and then show weakness by checking twice.
If your table is mostly loose/passive, raising in late position with two big unsuited cards after two or more have called usually isn't a good idea. First, you can almost never pick up the pot. Second, you're hoping to win with a big pair but building a large pot makes it correct for players to stay with their five-outers and gutshots. It also encourages everyone to check to you after the flop, after which your bet will encourage them to call, building an even bigger pot and further undermining your hand. If you keep the pot small, your raise on the flop might allow you to isolate a dominated hand that will pay you off on the river.
That is sort of my feeling, I didn't feel not raising was a wrong play, I just felt that attempting a steal after not raising was perhaps a foolish move.
Also, in reference to Mason's comment, my reason for a steal with a player already in was my read on that player. He would often bet his come hands (once even a gutshot, with no other outs). I didn't sense strength and wanted to go heads up. I felt I had position on him and here I either fold or raise, certainly a spot where calling is not profitable.
I pretty much agree with both you guys, although you can make a good case for raising with big paints (preferably if one's an A) in late position if there's only been two or three limpers.
First, it's unlikely that your hand is dominated since most people would raise with the kinds of hands that give AQ fits (AA, KK, QQ, AK).
Second, there's a decent chance the small blind will fold, and possibly even the BB if he's holding total trash.
Third, you basically get a four card flop if you 'miss', provided that most of your opponents tend to check to the raiser (a habit, as we all know, that's very common at the lower limits). Then, should you hit the turn, you've got an EXCELLENT chance of winning the pot for only a small investment. With two limpers and both blinds calling before the flop, you're getting 10-1 odds when you spike top pair on the turn. Should someone lead bet the turn after an A or Q drops (provided there was no K on the flop), you're getting 11-2 odds, and have even a greater chance of isolating the hand between you and the lead better. Note that while fewer pre-flop callers lessen your pot odds, it further increases your chances of winning the hand.
However, against the usual gaggle of pre-flop limpers, I agree that you're probably best off just limping in late position.
Saying "Just two of us, I check" IMPLIES she has a strong hand and is being nice.
If she is a trickster or exaggerated this statement to make sure you heard her then this means she does NOT want you to bet and does NOT intend to pay it off, and you have a golden steal opportunity so long as you bet twice.
If she is NOT a trickster than she has a strong hand as is being nice. You should also be nice, and "let" her win the show down.
It would be a tough bet on the river IF she had checked, since there is no hand you could be representing; at least from the typical mid-aged woman's point of view. You SHOULD bet the turn (3 making flush) with the good 9 you represented, and certainly should bet if you actually picked up a flush draw. She would be a fool to lay down a pair of 9s; but there are many fools. Its a different matter if the end was an offsuit-Ten.
- Louie
A small no-limit hand I saw (I love reminiscing, it makes me feel WISE):
The punk apparently had the nuts and bet out including numerous small chips, but had a healthy amount left. The live guy thought about it and turned up his hand and called with his entire stack which LOOKED like much less than the punk's bet, his mannerisms were clearly "call" even though he said nothing. In the "show down" the punk "won". The dealer went to count the live one's stack and realized he had MORE than the punk's bet.
The floor was called. By this time the punk's hand was mucked (first) as was the live-guy's (second). The punk INSISTED it was a raise (about $15 of $500 pot) and the floor agreed, quoting the objective rule. I think the floor's decision only makes sense if we ignore any subjective "obviously correct" rule and apply only objective rules to this situation.
BUT WAIT! I pointed out that if the punk insisted it was a raise and the floor agreed, then the punk's had VOLUNTARILY folded WITHOUT calling the raise, and the entire pot was the live-guy's, since the face up cards means nothing since they were NOT, in fact, in the show-down! The fact that he had shown the "nuts" means nothing.
While some other's were amused, the punk and the floor were NOT, and the floor INCORRECTLY awarded the pot to the punk.
I think the floor should apply "obviously correct" consistently or not.
- Louie
Louie, this reminds me of a truly brutal decision made by a pit boss on a blackjack hand. I was not there. It was told to me by a regular poker player at my cardroom.
Apparently, the player was playing two squares and held a 11 and a 17 against the dealer's stiff. Before he could do anything to indicate whether he wished to make the obvious double down bet on his 11, the dealer "hit" him with a trey. The following conversation then ensued:
Player: "What are you doing, I want to double down".
The pit boss is summoned.
Pit Boss: "You still have the option of doubling down but you would have to take the trey".
Player: "That's ridiculous. If it was a ten, you would say that the card would have to be burned".
Pit boss remains non-commital and non-responsive.
Player: "I made no motion whatsoever, what if I had a 'feeling' and wanted to stand on 11?".
Pit boss: "Well, you can still do that and the trey gets dealt out to the next hand".
Player: "OK, I stand on my 11 and I will now double down on the 17".
Pit Boss: "You can't do that".
They then get into an argument again (this time a more heated one) and a few minutes later, the player is shown the exit by security.
I gotta say that's the worst floor decision I have ever heard (to be honest, it is so bad that I wonder if the player was just telling me a tall tale...geez, I hope that he is not reading this).
If this were a Nevada casino, the floorman made a legally binding offer, whether it was correct within the rules or not, when he said that the 3 was going to go to the next hand. When the player said he wanted to double down on his 17, he accepted that offer, and a legal (oral) contract was formed. Of course, the player will have a hard time proving the facts in court, as he will likely not get confirmation from the floor or the dealer.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I was playing in a loose game with poker dealers 3-6 holdem.UTG raises he is a average player, i call with AQ unsuited 3 players call in back of me. Flop is AK4 rainbow, UTG bets i raise button calls plus utg. Turn AK4T utg bets i call button calls. River AK4TJ utg checks i bet Both call utg shows AK. Could i have played hand better or worse. I am a known rock in this game.
If the UTG raiser is loose enough for AQ to be worth 2-bets, its probably worth 3-bets as this will usually limit the field. And even if they DO call 3-bets, you still probably have the better hand.
A "known rock" is going to think twice before calling an early raise with AQ. If he's holding AA, QQ, or AQ you're not in great shape.
Aside from that, you played it OK. I'd be a little worried about my hand when he came out betting on the turn.
I am an english player who is thinking of spending a couple of months later this year playing in the U.S.A, and I would be grateful for information on where outside of Las Vegas I can find pot/no limit games.
The San Francisco Bay Area - NL in San Mateo every day, spread limit, 10-200 in San Jose (in lieu), there are times when NL is attempted after a NL tourney anywhere.... There is a NL in Reno (maybe in the Hilton or...) In Colma (South San Francisco) has NL tourneys on the first two Saturdays every months.
There is an awesome PL HE game at Harveys Casino in Council Bluffs, Iowa. It's starts at 7pm every Thursday, and usually last until noon the next day.
P.S. Council Bluffs, Iowa is right next to Omaha, Nebraska.
A couple months this happened in a 5-10 hold 'em home game. Just to give some background, most of us play together several times a week-at least once. A player directly to my right was the first one in and I raised with 8,8 and had one caller behind me. I don't remember the exact board, but to make a long story short there was 3 to a straight on the board. I was betting the whole way and both other players were calling. I checked the river and so did everyone else.
As I was turning my hand over, the person to my left said,"I can't beat a straight" and the dealer announced "Pair of eights." He said that's good and threw his hand away. The girl to my right looked at her hand, looked at the board,then said, "I can't beat a straight either" and tossed her hand in.
As I was stacking the pot the person to HER right said,"Didn't you have pocket tens." She said ya, but she couldn't beat a straight. It was brought to her attention that a pair of 8's won the pot and she said she had pocket tens although I didn't see them.
I don't know what I should have done. On one hand she didn't show her hand so it was her fault. I didn't believe her 100% that she had 10's, but was 95% sure that the person who saw her hand saw two tens. If that's the case, the pot didn't belong to me and I felt a bit(just a bit) uncomfortable taking the pot. What was the proper thing to do?
I never said anything to her although the rest of the table did, but when we were both out of the hand I put 5 red chips on top of her stack. I felt a little bad for her espescially since she's not a good player. Of course that's another reason I gave her the chips. She was kind of low and I didn't want her to leave the game.
All comments are welcome.
bjpro
Soirry, I just noticed the exchange page. This probably should be there eh?
bjpro
I'm not quite sure what I would have done...I guess that would depend on just how "friendly" the game was. However, I definitely WOULD NOT have done what you did. Giving her several chips out of "guilt" doesn't cut it.(this seems like a meager attempt at conscience cleansing). She was clearly wrong to muck her hand, and the pot was yours.
Again, depending on just how "friendly" the game was, you might have considered splitting the pot.(50/50)
I will NOT give a pot to a player who fails to show down his hand, nor one that VOLUNTARILLY mucks it. I have no problem relinquishing a pot to a player who showed down the winner, but was mucked for for some other reason, such as a blind quick dealer; and have done so often.
You might remind the player to your LEFT that saying such cute things like "I can't beat a straight" when he has no-pair just confuses the issue. And of course remind the player to your right that she must show down her own hand.
I will explain such mechanics to beginers and will NEVER make a ploy to encourage a mechanical error, but ultimately its their responsibility.
- Louie
Well, actually I HAVE made such a ploy once. ... snip ... and he deserved it.
The person that had the tens did not deserve a dime. I know for a fact that I, and every single person on this board has lost a pot when they were new due to not paying attention, or mis-reading their hand, etc. Poker, I'm afraid, is a school of hard knocks, and you learn more when you get beat than when you win. Rake it, and she'll make sure she doesn't make that mistake again.
Last weekend at 5am - check top pair on the river when 3rd diamond pops up,he checks, show single opponent my hand, he shows his to the guy next to him and mucks. I caught a glance of QD. Other guy says "didn't you have a flush?" Obviously too late.
He almost maimed himself he was so pissed, but I just kept to myself.
If you play tired and not at full attention, it happens. If you're playing better than others than u have the advantage, and this is an example of an extreme case, so I wouldn't split it unless they were a really bad player and would leave because of it...
If she was cute, you shoulda busted a move on her.
15-30 game. I am in the sb with 9c9h. A relatively unknown player (we were just about 30 minutes or so into the game) who was one off the button is the first one in and raises. I three-bet it and we take the flop heads-up.
Flop:
9c3d2h
I bet. He calls.
Turn: 8h
I check. He bets. I call.
River:
Qc
I bet. He raises. I call.
Comments?
How could it have been any different? A bet on the turn wouldn't have gotten the queens out of my hand, and you probably have to call the last raise in case he was trying to steal the blinds with Q9s/AQ or something. And the value bet on the river was probably +EV if he had something like the AQ.
How could it have been any different? How could it not!Once you check the turn (?) and are lucky enough to get bet into, how could you not re-raise? And, how about a re-raise on the river? If this opponent is so bad (good?) to not raise me with pocket queens after this flop, then he will beat me for the extra 2 bets (my re-raise and his cap)on the end. Being aggresive in these type situations is necessary to maximize your winning potential.
Yeah, I guess I've been playing too much Omaha lately-- my hold'em instincts are rusty. Of course you have to check-raise the flop, and maybe even reraise the river.
I check raise turn and river. More checks down the tube but that happens when you get outdrawn.
Two questions:
1. Why not check-raise the turn? The only reason I don't check-raise here is because I'm afraid I will make less money by inducing AK and the like to fold. Any overpair will likely call your check-raise, as will some underpairs (by putting you on overcards and a play). Lower sets will likely give you back a lot of action. It depends upon the player, but I would tend towards betting out on the turn, or going for the check-raise. Since you don't know him, either play is viable.
2. Why only call the raise on the river? Many opponents would raise with AQ, KQ, AA, KK, and maybe even pairs like JJ and TT. There are only 2 hands you fear, QQ and JT. I can't put the guy on JT, given that he should have folded on the flop with that hand. Even if he didn't fold, he probably should have taken the free card on the turn if he did hold this. I also can't put him on QQ yet, as he didn't raise me on the flop, which I think most players would do with QQ in that spot.
I say play this more aggressively. The extra money you make when you win here will more than offset the extra money you lose when you do lose.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
DITO GREGS POST. FURTHER, i'M NOT SURE WHAT THE POINT OF THE POST IS. aRE WE SUPPOSSED TO GUESS WHY YOU PLAYED IT THIS WAY? i'M STUMPED
skp,
double ditto here. I prefer the check raise on the river instead of the turn. It gives him one more chance to drive bluff.
"i'M NOT SURE WHAT THE POINT OF THE POST IS. aRE WE SUPPOSSED TO GUESS WHY YOU PLAYED IT THIS WAY? i'M STUMPED "
The point is to iron out thought processes so that when we encounter similar siutuations in the future we will make better decisions.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
My sentiments exactly. This illustrates weak play.
I agree with you. On the turn and river the only thing he didnt do was fold. This post is like he wants us to applaud his psychic ability, a raise on the turn and river is automatic
First off, I seriously doubt skp is looking for props. Secondly, a raise on the turn (either a check raise or a reraise) is far from automatic on the turn. I won't get into the specifics here, but I posted something on this very subject farther down in this thread. If you're interested take a look at it and tell me what you think.
skp,
Most of the time I would have check-called on the flop. You have the nuts and if you bet there is a risk that he folds and you don't want that. If you check the chance is good that he will try to steal the pot with nothing. Also, he can easily get a second best hand on the turn, that he will pay you off with. And you want to wait with your raise until the more expensive turn. The risk that your opponent will draw out on your is small.
If you only check-call on the flop, the chance is good that he will follow through on the turn with a mediocre hand. And notice, if your opponents doesn't bet behind you when you check on the turn it's no disaster since he probably wouldn't have called your bet if you had bet and few free cards threaten your hand. Therefore, if I check-call on the flop I will check-raise on the turn.
Of course you shouldn't play the hand this way all the time because then your opponents will know that when you bet on the flop you never have the nuts, and can get tricky. But more often than not, I would check-call the flop and check-raise the turn.
Sincerely,
Emil
Anytime someone checks the flop heads up after three betting it preflop it looks DAMN suspicious. Betting out is the move you'd make with overcards, so IMO i'ts probably the best move here to.
GD,
You might be right. I think it depends on what kind of player the opponent is. In my experience many opponents would bet with more hands than they would call with in this situation (and you want him in). In fact, many opponents would almost automatically bet if you check to them heads-up on the flop, which could mean that the check-call is correct. But if the opponent is a very good player or a weak tight player a bet would probably be preferable.
Sincerely,
Emil
Emil,
I think that Bob Ciaffone (sp?) said it best: A bet on the flop purifies the pot. It weeds out the backdoor flush draws etc. which if it gets there, you can't bet aggressively against on the river if you just checked the flop.
That's one reason why I think that a bet on the flop is called for. A second is the one pointed out by GD.
Emil,
I think that Bob Ciaffone (sp?) said it best: A bet on the flop purifies the pot. It weeds out the backdoor flush draws etc. which if it gets there, you can't bet aggressively against on the river if you just checked the flop.
That's one reason why I think that a bet on the flop is called for. A second is the one pointed out by GD.
I assume you checked the turn to allow your opponent to improve to the second best hand, but when he bet why didn't you check raise? Especially since you are very aggressive.
As far as the final bets went, I would have instinctively reraised on the river, but given reflection it is very close:
From his point of view, he no way puts you on a set, so your check and smooth call on the turn likely means 2 overcards; he figures you bet on the flop hoping to steal, and your bet on the end means you are representing queens or is a steal attempt.
If he has QQ or AQ he raises on the end, figuring he has you outkicked. (He would also raise on the end with AA and KK, but I don't think he has those because he would have capped it before the flop). He may have raised with KQ before the flop too. Lets say there's a 50% chance of this. There is also a small chance he has JT. Lets say 15% chance.
Given the Q on the table, mathmatically you are facing 6+12+(50% of12)+(15% of 16)= about 26 combinations against you, of which 8 beat you, but only 2 are the nuts.
You have about a 30% chance of being beaten.
I think it is very likely he will pay off your reraise on the river, so mathmatically its about even if you reraise. (if he caps it with QQ and JT on the river, and you call every time, you win 1 more bet 70% of the time, and lose two more 30% of the time)
Unless you have a reason to suspect that your opponent would have played AA or KK in a non traditional way, your final call was better then I initially thought.
Larry
Larry, one minor nit. I am not sure I agree with your comment that my opponent "should" cap it pre-flop with Aces or Kings. He will of course have position on me throughout. Thus, the 1 small bet he gives up by not capping it pre-flop is worth it as that might pay dividends on the turn or river. In fact, I rarely cap it with Aces against a single opponent when I have position (I would likely do so when I am first to act).
Point taken. Note that this increases significantly the correctness of reraise on the river. Out of curiosity, how did you rate the skill level of this player over the rest of the session? Would you play this hand differently now, knowing him better?
L
"Note that this increases significantly the correctness of reraise on the river."
Agreed.
The guy pulled the old hit and run after winning a monster pot (he flopped a set of treys and went on to fill up). He probably played about an hour or so in total and cashed out over 3 racks after buying in for $300. I was told later by one of the other players that he was a regular at a 20-40 game in Seattle, Washington. In the short time that he played, I didn't notice anything wrong with his play. I should probably be glad that he lives in Seattle!
ReRaise to knock out the BB. If YOU were the BB then just call, hehehe.
Bet the flop. This player is UNLIKELY to fold ANY HAND and betting looks natural, even with 2 overcards.
Check the turn looks like a natural thing to do, indicating you have overcards. Then, of course, RAISE. He'll bet any hand he'll call with AND bet some others.
But if you DO "just" call then I'd check-raise the river.
I would certainly "just" call the raise on the end if I had raised the turn.
- Louie
Louie-
Are you saying you would call both raises in the BB here, if the button raised and the small blind three bet it? Or are you saying you'd call if the button raised, the SB folded, and you held pocket 9's in the BB?
If the SB 3-bet it I would either 4-bet trying to knock out the button, or fold if she needs group 1 or 2 to reraise. The the SB SHOULD be 3-betting it with lots of hands since the button SHOULD be stealing with even more. Thus, 99 is a favorite against these 2 weak raises. Against normal raises I won't be calling 2 raises with 99 3-handed.
I was suggesting "just" calling in the BB if the SB EITHER called or folded since nobody is going to fold. I think the fraction of a bet you give up with your slight favorite hand is easily made up with the deception on the flop AND with the easy fold if you flop 3 overcards.
- Louie
I would tend to agree with Louis that it seems better to check raise the turn.
He will fold very little hands with which he would call or bet the river.
Hence, I believe that you should raise the turn.
Now, when you bet the river I guess there is no way to fold or raise when he raises. Just call is automatic.
Maria
What he got skp? JTh?
skp,
With the raise, of course the player may have been on a steal, but the call of your raise indicates at least something to play with. What he holds is the question. I'm not sure I understand the check call on the turn; why not raise? You're likely to see an overcard on the river, but it may only be able to beat you if it's a queen or a heart for the runner-runner. Unfortunately, the queen came. JT is my guess after the raise on the river, but I don't know if you can really lay down the 3 nines and not get pushed around the game.
Bill
Who won with what? Did he have JT?? or QQ? Or did he pay up to your set?
IMO, A simple hand such as this illustrates the beauty of hold 'em...so many choices...so many ways to play a hand.
Obviously, the consensus here seems to be that a check raise on the turn is the better play. I do not seriously dispute that. However, I believe that the alternative of check-call is also acceptable in this scenario and IMO is not used often enough.
Let me back up, I guess no one is taking issue with the three-bet before the flop. Now, of course, I did that because of the position of the initial raiser: he being in a late position, the raise may indicate strength but on the other hand might just be a steal. If the raiser had been UTG, my three-betting the hand would of course be highly questionable. This reasoning becomes relevant to the play on the turn as well and I will address it later.
Play on the Flop
IMO, a check here would look way too fishy given that I three-bet it before the flop. In fact, the raiser will strongly suspect Aces and be very unwilling to give me any action. Thus, I believe a bet is the best choice.
Play on the Turn
If I knew that my opponent had an overpair, my play would of course be to try for a checkraise (although a case could be made for just betting and have him raise so that I can make it three bets. I would do this for sure if I knew he had Aces).
If I knew that my opponent had nothing or very little, the play would be to check and induce a bluff and just call and get him to bluff again on the river if a blank hits. Notice of course that a check at this point will likely cause my opponent to believe that I have overcards (likely AK) and would likely cause him to bluff. Now, the reasoning that I used to guide my play pre-flop can be used here again on the turn. While I can't say that he is likely to have nothing as compared to an overpair, I can say that it is way more likely that he has nothing as compared to an UTG raiser.
If he has nothing, by checkraising, I get only one bet out of him while check calling will get at least that and likely more (possibly two more if he makes top pair on the River).
If he has an overpair, I lose one bet on the turn which I can probably gain back on the river by checkraisng at that time (the one danger of just check-calling is that I may lose out on some good action if he has ACES. But he has to have exactly Aces. Notice that even if he has Kings, it is unlikely that I can get him to three bet the turn after I raise because then he has to fear ACES).
I guess the point is that I played check-call here on the turn with top set because my opponent had raised pre-flop from a late position. I would not have done that had he been in early position.
River
Ideally, I would want anything but a A,K,Q to fall because (a) those cards may be scare cards to him foiling my attempt to checkraise on the river and (b) there is of course a chance that one of these cards could give my opponent his needed two-outer.
Now, when the Queen fell, I bet because it may have been a scare card to him and also because I felt that he would put me on exactly AQ and would raise if he had Kings or Aces. He would also likely call if he had a pair and may also call with AK.
Now, he raises. In retrospect, I believe that those of you who suggested that I ought to have reraised are correct.
For those of you who care, my opponent had QQ (geez, both of my last two hands that I posted up for discussion have seen me come out second best...pretty typical of how the month has been going...oh well).
Oh, BTW, this just represents my point of view on one acceptable way of playing the hand. As I said earlier, there are several different ways of playing the hand and looking at the responses that I have seen so far, I don't really disagree with anything. However, I believe that the thought process that goes into these decisons are useful and that's the point of my post...hopefully, raisemeister is now "de-stumped".
Well thought out analysis.
"IMO, A simple hand such as this illustrates the beauty of hold 'em...so many choices...so many ways to play a hand."
That's an unacceptable shock to those who think there is one way to play a hand:
Instead of "How should I have played it" one should ask "How should I CONSIDER playing it".
- Louie
OF COURSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS TO PLAY A HAND.iN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, DOESN'T IT MAKE MORE SENSE TO PLAY STRAIGHT FORWARD? IN FACT IN MOST SITUATIONS DOESN'T IT MAKE MORE SENSE TO PLAY STRAIGHT FORWARD AGGRESSIVE? YOU QUOTED BOB CIAFFONE EARLIER, SO I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HE MENTIONS, AND THAT IS PLAYING WITH CONTINUITY. IN OTHERWORDS, IF YOU HAVE STARTED OUT AGGRESSIVELY, DON'T TRY TO SWITCH GEARS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HAND, OR ROUND BY ROUND. BY BETING THE TURN HERE HE VERY WELL MIGHT OF RAISED, AND YOU COULD HAVE RE-RAISED. CHECK RAISING DOESN'T ALWAYS GET MORE MONEY IN THE POT. HE HAD 2 OUTS, BUT IT APPEARS AS IF HE WAS GOING TO RAISE ON THE TURN, SINCE HE JUST CALLED YOU WITH THE QUEENS ON THE FLOP.(MAYBE NOT SINCE YOU RE-RAISED PRE-FLOP). IF HE HAD HELD A TJ , AND CHECKED BEHIND YOU ON THE TURN, YOU PROBABLY WOULD BE KICKING YOURSELF FOR TRYING TO GET FANCY AGAIN. HE,STILL MIGHT HAVE CALLED, BUT AT LEAST YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT YOU DID EVERYTHING TO GET HIM OUT. CONSISTENTLY PLAYING STRAIGHT FORWARD WITH OCCASIONAL CHECK RAISING ETC. LENDS CONTINUITY TO YOUR PLAY AND GIVES YOU MORE OPPORTUNITY TO STEAL, THAN IF YOU ARE FAIRLY FREQUENTLY TRYING TO MAKE UNORTHODOX OR TRICKY PLAYS. AGAIN, SURE, YOU CAN PLAY HANDS SEVERAL WAYS, BUT WHAT GIVES YOU THE BEST OPPORTUNITIES IN THE LONG RUN? STRAIGHT FORWARD.
Obviously, you did not read my response carefully because you would know that I am not disputing or disagreeing with your earlier post.
Of course, straight forward play most of the time gets you the money...but as I said in an earlier thread, there would be little reason to post any hands for discussion on the Forum if straight forward play was the only acceptable choice for the hand in question.
BTW, all those capitals imply (a) that you are screaming at the top of your lungs or (b) that you feel that EVERYTHING in the post is of high importance...may I suggest the use of lower case letters...they are much more soothing to the eyes and ears.
My apologies for the capitols. I didn't realize it was capitols till I was almost done typing. There is still plenty to talk about as far as strategy is concerned, but I also knew I would draw some fire. I know you didn't disagree with everyone, but look how many more posts there are below me now. I haven't read them yet, but I'm sure 'm in for some fun. seeya
BTW, you raise an interesting sidebar issue concerning the play of my opponent. IMO, he played the hand perfectly. Many players in his shoes would raise on the flop with QQ. IMO, it is better to just call given that it's a heads-up situation and I likely have a bigger pocket pair (in which case he is a big dog) or a smaller pocket pair (in which case I am a big dog) or AK or AQ. If I have AK, he knows that a raise on the flop is not likely to get me to fold and he further correctly assumes that I may just check on the turn if I don't hit. Thus, the fear of giving me a free card should not be that big of a concern to him.
Of course, his bet on the turn and raise on the river were also definitely correct.
Louie,
I got to this thread late and every time I think of a point someone else posts it as I work my way through reading them all.
But what you wrote was a gem: Instead of "How should I have played it" one should ask "How should I CONSIDER playing it". Is it OK I borrow that last phrase for future posts?
Regards,
Rick
No, you may not "borrow" that phrase. You must plagerize it like I did.
- Louie
I too have used that phrase before many times. It looks like from my earlier post I agree with skp final analysis and L's considerations.
On a side note... I have always suggested the "consider the reasons" and "it depends" approach a better way to starting hand criteria over rote memorization of hand groupings and blanket arguments over JTs and KTs.
Oh well...
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
For what it's worth I think you played this hand very, very well (although I agree that a re-raise on the river was probably in order). In fact, the only thing I would consider doing differently is lead betting on the turn. A check raise isn't going to get it done, since he'll fold if he doesn't have anything (and like you said this is fairly probable, since the raise came from late position), and he'll probably freeze up with pocket J's, Q's and MAYBE K's. Either way, you only gain the one bet if he's bluffing, and probably two additional bets (one on the turn, one on the river) if he's got a decent overpair. Further, there's a chance, albeit a small one, that he'll fold something like J's on the turn, which you obviously want to avoid.
Anyway, here's my thinking for lead betting the turn.
As it stands, you can probably put him on one of two different 'types' of hands; either a premium pair or big paints. I'd doubt he has a medium pocket pair here, since he probably would have raised the flop, hoping to 'find out where he was at'- if you called and checked the turn he could check behind you, while if you reraised the flop (or lead bet the turn) he could probably fold. If he's got a premium pocket pair, he'll raise you on the turn, then probably bet out on the river, at which time you get to check-raise him (har har har). This nets you AT LEAST one more big bet than check raising the turn (if he has the big pocket pair). If he has big paints, he may bluff raise the turn, thinking you may be betting big paints in the hopes of making HIM drop; if this does happen, then you've netted at least one more BB than you would have if you'd check raised (assuming he would have folded for a check raise. Admittedly, it isn't entirely clear whether or not he'd fold here, but I know that I at least would, so the possibility does exist).
By lead betting the turn, you're virtually assured of winning three more BB (if he has a premium pocket pair), and maybe four should you decided to check-raise the river. If he's got big paints you could win two BB, whereas I think you'd only win one if you check-raised the turn. That, in sum, is my argument.
The case for lead betting the turn is further enhanced (IMO) by the fact that it would appear as though he's got a high pocket pair, given his actions on the flop. While you can make an argument for either side, I think he'd probably raise you on the flop with big paints, hoping that your reaction to his raise both on the flop and turn will help him further define his hand. By just calling the flop he's putting himself in an awkward position on the turn, since he has to 'guess' as to what you're holding should you either lead bet or check raise. As with the medium pocket pair, it behooves him to try and get a read on you on the cheap streets. But with something like Q's, K's or A's, he's almost certainly going to slow down on the flop and then punish you (again, har har har) on the turn. So, if we 'put him on' (I hate that term, but I can't think of any other way to phrase it) a big pocket pair, I think you'll likely make one more BB from him when you check raise the river.
Again, let me reiterate that I'm not at all committed to this postion. In fact, I probably would have played the hand the same way you did. But since nobody has yet made a case for lead betting the turn I thought I'd try my hand at it, if for no other reason than because it's a position worth exploring.
Definitely a position worth exploring. It is a play that I do often use. However, I believe that the play would be more appealing had my opponent not been in a steal position.
As you know, there's a point/counterpoint to almost anything in Hold 'em play. Without in any way downplaying your suggestion which I in fact like, here's an obvious counterpoint to the suggestion:
It can be to your advantage to show that you are capable of checkraising with a big hand on the turn or river in heads-up situations as these checkraises will (hopefully) make your opponent think twice before betting with weak hands in the future after you have checked. As you know, most semi-bluffs are made when you are out of position. Often, you are forced to abandon your semi-bluff and check on the turn if you don't hit. These checkraises can assist your semi-bluffs on future hands.
C'est vrai. While I think that this situation is unique, in that you've flopped a well disguised monster heads up, I agree that one ought to have a reputation of being a player who frequently check raises the turn with quality hands.
The reason I think a lead bet on the turn 'might' be in order is that the opponent played this hand exactly the way you'd expect someone to play with a premium pair, thereby suggesting that he'll be more than happy to raise the turn after you lead bet. If he'd had overcards or a medium pocket pair, I'm inclined to believe that he would have raised the flop.
At any rate, this was (as usual) another great thread. Or, as we say, tres interassant (sp?).
Guy
SKP, with all due respect to your poker ability and I know it is considerable, I would have raised the turn and check-called the river. In other words:playing the hand straight. Sklansky says anytime the pot has gotten large you should attempt to win it then and there. Your play gave your opponent no chance to fold and ultimately, you no chance to win. Straight play was correct here especially because the player was an unknown to you. I believe quite probably you were giving him too much credit for being able to or wanting to think to as many levels as you. I don't believe I am giving false praise when I say, I seriously doubt that other than Dan you rarely play anyone who thinks at your level. And I do want to thank you for playing the hand in a nontraditional way, thus stimulating a lively thread.
After raising the turn with your nut top set, why on EARTH would you CHECK-call the river? You have NO reason to believe that Queen made you a loser. Unless of course you saw the guy jump out of his seat and his lady friend gasps.
Heck, I wouldn't hesitate to bet that hand for value heads-up in Omahaha high except against someone who had no problem calling the turn indicating a probably draw.
- Louie
Because I don't believe I would get called in this situation unless I am beaten.
Good reason.
So, AA, KK, JJ, TT, AQ, QJ, Q9, small sets and two-pairs, even 98 are unlikely to call heads up? If that's true then you should routine raise the turn and bet out on the end against this guy, when you have anything as good as a gut-shot.
I think we must play in completely different kinds of heads-up situations.
-Louie
Doug, I don't quarrel with the overall message of your post and can ceratinly see your point of view.
As you know from my previous responses to various posts, I loathe slowplaying when the pots get big and when there is multiway action. However, in the games that I play in, that particualr pot can in no way, shape or form be considered a large one. That was the chief reason for my slowplay if you will.
I should add that your comment that I ought to have played it straight-forwardedly given that my opponent was an unknown entity is a good one.
Ciao.
I think I would have played this one a little different.
First, I wouldn't reraise before the flop. I consider 99 to be a draw hand and would hope that the BB would call the raise as well as 1 or 2 others.
Dream flop...Check raise!
Bet the turn and reraise if raised.
Bet the river. Call if raised, because I don't believe the guy would be dumb enough to raise on anything less than trips.
I have a question about what determines team play. I can see how using signals with another player to affect each other's play, then splitting their results is cheating.
What about agreements between players to pool their results. Even partially pooling them, for example each player could agree to take 20% of the other's results. I suspect that this is ok, if the two players are sitting at different tables, but what if they are at the same table?
Even if the two players think that their agreement will not affect their play, this sort of agreement seems to cross a line. Once this line is crossed, then the boundary between cheating team play, and legal agreements seems unclear to me. For example, you can take an extreme case: what if 9 players in a 10 player game all agreed to equally share their winnings? Cleary, this is not a poker game, it's a consiracy.
What do you veterans think?
anyone who participates in any "team or partnership" activity while playing at the same table is WRONG!
anyone who is good enough, and has respect for the game, will operate on his own. If someone can't beat a game on his own, he/she should find something else to do!
Pooling of winnings seems to automatically be the situation when husband and wife are both at the same table. I have had this happen at my table on a couple of occasions, and I am very uncomfortable with it. Although there doesn't seem to be any overt collusion, it seems to me that it can't help but affect their play... However, I'm not sure in what way, so I don't know what to look for.
Any thoughts?
My wife and I often wind up playing at the same table together. If anything, it hurts my play because I have to make sure that there's not even the appearance of collusion. For example, if she bets and I think she's on a draw, I would normally raise with a hand like 2nd pair. I do that against any other player, but I can't really do it against her, because people will accuse us of collusion if they see the hands turned over. So I lose EV.
I've played with lots of husband and wife teams and have rarely had even a sniff of collusion.
Besides, most husband and wives playing together tend to be donators (I'm generalizing here Dan), so why complain?
But poker is NOT meant to be a team sport!
Most people who think husbands and wives collude have not been married. (-:
One of the main ways that 'splitting' your profits can be damaging to other players is when a pot that you may have otherwise entered, you pass on because your friend is in the action. This is also improper because the lines between splitting profits and down right collusion are blurry, and I would imagine one begets the other.
I used to play some low limit with a novice woman who got lots of flirts, business cards and looks which affected my play more than vice versa. Having said this I also got a lot of suspicious looks, questions if we are married or not ? (we were not of course) - What's the difference ?? Who knows if one just shares hoursehold with a woman hence pool resources for a time being. IMHO this will and can happen at times. Yes slight collusion but can this be avoided ?? Of course there is a big difference if two 'shady' experts collude in Vegas in big games or 3-6 couples don't raise the 'little lady' cause you may not get 'any' for a while.... Some casinos will ask not to play if you are married but will not ask you if you sleep with her... go figure.
I think we've all run into the husbands and wives or friends at a table and obviously it does change the game. (I know of one couple - He goes on tilt if someone runs down his wife's good hand. kind of useful). Most of these are somewhat informal and not to hard to deal with. But what about tournaments? It seems that formal agreements are much more common here than in ring games.
I play in a loose 3-6 omah hi/lo 5-8 callers every flop.Assume you will be called by 3 players to the river. What do you do in early position IF? 1) flop a small set 6 or less. do you bet, check, or check raise 2) You flop 2nd nut flush 1 low card,do you push it or wait till the riverto bet
2nd nut flush in a game like this isn't worth too much IMO. The reason is that many players at this level will keep any Ax suited cards. You're often drawing dead. I would bet, and if I get raised, either sit on the hand or muck it based on the what you know about the player.
Bottom set isn't going to win any money, especially at Hi/Low. You can RARELY stand a raise.
2nd "nut" flush on the river: there are 9 seen cards or 43 unseen. Of these, 7 remain in the stub (3 burns and 4 left), or 36:7 = 5:1 someone HAS the Ace of that suit in their hand. Its a little less than 50% that that player has another of that suit, considering you have 2 and there are 3 on the board.
Since loose players will play any suited Ace, your 2nd nut flush is ALREADY only about 50:50 to be best.
Combined with the board pairing and the low getting there ... Can you spell "Yuuuuuuuck".
My best advise is to AVOID these situations. Small pairs and non-Ace 2-flushes count little if at all in your initial evaluation.
- Louie
Wait for hands that can make the nuts. Don't play hands with small pairs and Kx suited. Alot of your profit will come when you can raise and reraise with the nuts. These other hands are hands for the other players to lose money to you with.
I'm a low, occasionaly med limit player (3-6 to 10-20) and this is my first "did i play this right?" post. I've been playing a year and spend a lot of time studying and learning as much as I can. Forgive me if I leave out info...
3-6 game, average players, not wild -Call 77 one player last to button. Flop J 7 6. Bet, call, I raise, button folds, others call, 4 players -Turn is 5, middle player bets into me, I'm thinking a straight, had put others on top pair. I call, as do the others. -Riv is Q, no flush, he bets, I call, 1 other caller. Winner at bottom of post.
After this is over I realize a better play would have been to raise on the turn, potentially eliminating the other players. Get the better to check to me on the river, and bet if improved to a full house, or check if not improved. (Strategy from Advanced HE)
1) Am I correct in assuming this would have been a more aggressive move? Main thinking is trying to get out the others. Cost would have been the same as checking and calling if not reraised.
2) If I had been been reraised by the better should I continue?
Every hand i win/lose I always go over the play in my head, and sometimes a better strategy will be obvious after the hand is over. Am working on playing better on last rounds, knowing when to raise or fold. I want to be better at processing all the possibilities and the quick thinking that goes with it.
He had 5,6, I won with the trips.
Thanks for comments in advance...
"Am I correct in assuming this would have been a more aggressive move? Main thinking is trying to get out the others. Cost would have been the same as checking and calling if not reraised."
IMO, generally you ought to raise in this situation for the reasons you have identified.
"Get the better to check to me on the river, and bet if improved to a full house, or check if not improved. (Strategy from Advanced HE)"
IMO, you shouldn't necessarily check if you do not improve. Given that the bettor did not three-bet the turn, you can rule out a straight (although there is of course a chance that he just called with bottom straight fearing that you have a bigger one). You can value bet on a whole bunch of river cards here including possibly the 4 or 9 because if those cards made the bettor a straight, he would likely bet into you because he will fear that those cards will scare you into checking. In other words, it's a rare animal who will go for a checkraise on the river after making a straight with a 9 or 4 falling on the river. Having said that, betting when the board shows a 4 straight is of course a bit of a risky move and I suspect your decision will be guided by your knowledge of your opponent.
"2) If I had been been reraised by the better should I continue?"
Yes. Tougher question is should you call again on the river when a blank hits...generally, the answer to that is also "yes" given the size of the pot.
Ya gotta raise those trips!
You've got a big hand: too big to be scared by what might amount to a feeler bet. Bet your big hands strong until you are clearly in trouble. You will usually win in this situation.
""After this is over I realize a better play would have been to raise on the turn, potentially eliminating the other players. Get the better to check to me on the river, and bet if improved to a full house, or check if not improved. Strategy from Advanced HE)""
If you raised the turn and was JUST called then you have the best hand on the turn and should routinely bet the river (unless perhaps a 4 or 9).
This is not a great situation for limiting the field. You WANT the players with top pair to call, since they are drawing dead. But getting the lingering players who just picked up a gut shots to drop (e.g. 87) has SOME merit, but not much since they are not getting the right odds.
You should CERTAINLY call a re-raise on the turn unless you are sure he has QQQ. You're getting about 11-1 for your about 3.5-1 shot at a full house.
Players who made a hidden straight will routinely check-raise, correctly figuring that if you check then he hasn't given a free card. The bet is a sign of a WEAK good hand.
"Every hand i win/lose I always go over the play in my head, and sometimes a better strategy will be obvious after the hand is over. Am working on playing better on last rounds, knowing when to raise or fold. I want to be better at processing all the possibilities and the quick thinking that goes with it. "
Excellent idea, except for the part about processing all the possibilities. You get little value in processing the unlikely possibilities.
It appears to me you are overly conserned about getting outdrawn on the end. Yes, almost always someone MAY have gotten there. But if the hand they need to have to beat you is NOT your primary suspision, then do NOT assume they have you beat.
There appears to be LOTs of lost money by not value betting on the river by numerous posters on this forum. They'd be SHOCKED to see the hands I bet for value ...
- Louie
Good point about etting for value on the end. I have focused on improving this element of my limit game this year. A further advantage of frequent value-betting is that it makes it more difficult for guys to look you up with Ace high, bottom pair, or an underpair when you have to resort to a bluff on the end afetr semi-bluffing the turn.
""A further advantage of frequent value-betting is that it makes it more difficult for guys to look you up with Ace high, bottom pair, or an underpair when you have to resort to a bluff on the end afetr semi-bluffing the turn.""
BINGO!!!! Give that guy a kazoo.
If you bluff approximately correctly but rarely value bet non-strong hands, then a very high percentages OF YOUR BETS are bluffs and even the wanna-bees will figure out they should often call with just a pair in any suspicious sitiuation.
There's nothing quite like calling with bottom pair against the little old man who checked the flop, just because the only hand he could be betting for value was a set he MAY have made on the turn. The other players think you are an IDIOT for calling such a tight player. DOH! to them!
- Louie
"This is not a great situation for limiting the field. You WANT the players with top pair to call, since they are drawing dead. But getting the lingering players who just picked up a gut shots to drop (e.g. 87) has SOME merit, but not much since they are not getting the right odds."
I think that this is the key to the hand. If the pot is not too large the gut shots are incorrect to call, thus you want them in and should not raise. But if the pot is large, and that is the way I understood the hand from your description, you definitely want them out. If you haven't, you should read the chapter in THE THEORY OF POKER by David Sklansky titled "Win the Big Pots Right Away."
I count 8sb on the flop and perhaps 6sb before the flop. Counting the turn bet that's 8bb when you have to make this decision. Even if its closer to 12bb I think the $ you give up to POSSIBLE gut shots (perhaps 1/3 of a bet) who will call one bet and not two, is MORE than paid for by the calls you can expect from those PROBABLE top pairs drawing dead who will call one bet (and I suppose, may call 2... Mmmm).
But that needs to be counter balanced by those who WILL call 2-bets regardless. In NoFold'm games, certainly raise since you can expect a couple cold-calls anyway. And I would advise routinely raising unless you have a "good" compelling reason not to (hopefully the above is a good reason).
I certainly believe in winning the big pots right away (.. err .. well maximizing my chances of winning these pots), I just don't think THIS HAND qualifies as a big pot.
BTW: I have "Winning Poker". Is that a previous printing of "Theory of Poker"?
- Louie
In general, the hands that might fold to a raise but not a bet would be gutshots, and middle and bottom pair. A raise also gets rid of backdoor flush draws and single overcards contained in those hands. If the pot is small, you want them to call, so you wait for the turn to raise. If the pot is large, you want them out. When the board is unconnected so that it's unlikely that anyone has any of those hands - you might wait until the turn also.
With a hand strong enough that it's virtually impossible to be outdrawn - a flopped full house, certain straights on 3-suited boards, top set on a completely unconnected board, then the only consideration is how to get the most money in the pot. Slowplaying and raising on the turn or even river would often be the best option. However, there are times when it's incorrect to slowplay an absolute lock (HFAP).
So in general, you want to raise on the turn for the double-sized bet, unless the pot is large enough that you want the weaker draws to fold on the flop. If on the flop you call initially and then it's raised by someone else, then the pot is often large enough that you should just reraise right there, since you no longer want callers in the larger pot.
You need to realize that when your opponent bets into you you are looking at a fairly large pot, and when the pot is large your job is to maximize your chances of winning it, not to play your hand in such a way that that you may gain an extra bet or two.
I won't go over all possible holdings that opponents can have except to note that one hand many players will call with for just one bet would be a gut shot draw and given the size of the pot they will be right to do so, but your raise may force them out. I would make this raise most every time.
The following is a tightness scale from 1 to 10. 10 being the tightest.
1=a player who plays 75% of dealt hands 2=a player who plays 60% of dealt hands 3=a player who plays 55% of dealt hands 4=a player who plays 40% of dealt hands 5=a player who plays 35% of dealt hands 6=a player who plays 25% of dealt hands 7=a player who plays 20% of dealt hands 8=a player who plays 15% of dealt hands 9=a player who plays <15% of dealt hands 10=a player who plays <10% of dealt hands I personally rank at 8 but depending on the game I can move to 9 or back to 7. I'm curious as to what some of our posters here at 2+2 rank using this chart?
This include free play of the blinds?
when you rank how people play before the flop i feel it is most important to see how they play from the different positions and what they play after raises and what they raise on. how many hands they play may not be very meaningful unless you can tie it in to other factors. how well they play after the flop will determine whether or not you win their money or they win yours. good luck.
In my book POKER ESSAYS, VOLUME II there is an essay called "Playing 15 Percent." It is a discussion of how some players who think they are playing well are still playing too many hands in certain situations, and not playing enough hands in other spots. Also, how you play the hands that you do play is crucial.
Because of this I have always recommended not to think in these type of terms. While it can be interesting, it can also lead to play that we could classify as too "self-weighting."
Joe - While what Ray says is undeniably true, I see your effort as worthwhile, just to kind of scale the players here on the forum.
In my very loose, usually passive 3-6 game, I play very tight, but I have loosened up a "10" rating to play good drawing hands like AXs and suited connectors down to 54s. I estimate I play about 16% of hands, not counting the big blind. (My small blind is only 1/3 of a bet, so my strategy there is not much different from a regular hand.) I have not kept statistics on myself; this is just a guess.
If the table includes a known aggressive raiser, and we have a few, then whenever he/she is still to act, I tighten right up to a 10. I basically play cat. 4 or better in that situation.
If you want to categorize some of my opponents, you need additional categories of -1, -2, or -3. I have several regular opponents who play every hand pre-flop!
Dick in Phoenix
As was pointed out, it is more a function of what hand you are playing against,and what type of player. group 1 hands are no brainers most of the time, but when the flop comes, that group one hand turns into something else, based on who,and how many, and what the the rest of your cards are.....so although your chart is nice, I don't think it will really help. We spend alot of time talking about pre-flop play, since you can be somewhat more specific, but it's the easiest part of this crazy game. seeya
It's tough to call a player "tight" based solely on the percentage of starting hands he'll play. Lots of intermediate players memorize starting charts, so pre-flop play is fairly predictable.
But now that you mention it, I would be curious to know what my percentage is. Does anyone know the expert average? Do experts vary wildly in this percentage?
It's an interesting question.
This hand occured in a small no-limit HE game last night. There were a decent amount of chips on the table (in relation to the $2-$5 blinds) as most players had between $500 and $1000 and several had well over a grand.
An aggressive player (large stack) had been straddling the big blind all night by placing a live $10 live blind bet under the gun. On this particular hand, the player to his immediate left restraddled for $20. This was the first time he had straddled that night as he is generally a fairly tight preflop player in early position.
A somewhat loose, but aggressive and skillfull woman player is the first in from middle position and makes it $45 to go. She has over $1200. All fold, including the blinds and the original $10 UTG straddle. The $20 straddler calls for the $25 raise. He has about $600 left after calling her raise. As background, this guy was stuck early tonight and had been battling back with pretty tight, straightforward play. I think she respects his game but knows he is capable of some power moves.
The flop comes Ac6s4s. The initial straddler comes out betting $100. She raises and makes it $200 to go. He thinks for a second and and moves all-in for his remaining $500. She squeezes her cards and says "I guess Ace-King is no good." and mucks ner hand without showing the cards. He turns over a 7s5s (open end straight flush draw) and says "You were trailing by a little bit." Any coments on these players actions in this interesting hand? I personally think she really had something like AQ or AJ as I don't see her laying down big slick here. What hand would you put the guy on?
she opened too cheap first of all. there is 4 blinds in the pot and 2 of them by people looking to gamble why give them a cheap flop. then when he bet she should have called or raised more as her raise doesnt allow her to get away from the hand. he could have ax spades for a flush draw easily and so for 500 more it is not a fold situation. when he lead out it seems he didnt have a big made hand as most would check it here. so my thoughts would be the 100 bet was to get her out if she didnt have an ace and the reraise was just to get all in. she was getting 2 to 1 for her call and i would believe she had the best hand with any ace and a good kicker.
RZ-
How would you have played the 7s5s hand here (assuming of course that you were in the same straddle situation)? Would you have check-raised to represent a big "made" hand or bet out and hoped to get all-in or get her to lay down a middle pair like he did?
Thanks.
With 14 outs, I'm playing it to get all-in on the flop -- with whatever play looks best to accomplish that. His lead bet accomplished that. As Ray noted, it doesn't look like she has much choice if she has a big Ace.
with the draw hand i would play in such a way that would give me the best chance to make her fold on the flop (what you do depends on her playing style) and if it didnt work the best way to get all in on the flop. if the money was very much deeper the hands would be played less aggressively. she cant fold here for the 2 to 1 money also for the reason that if she does play like that she will be run over all the time by the drawing hands. good luck.
With the AK and spade A in my hand I'd put him on two pair or a set with a draw being a distant third and would fold. If I didn't have the As in my hand, I'd give more consideration to the possibility of a semi-bluff. This is still an easy laydown, however, as the chances of my being beaten are too great (without a 3-flush your're dead against a set, are about a 3-1 dog against two pair, and are no more than a 68% favorite against a draw and may even be an underdog -- as she was -- to a better draw). With an even weaker ace calling 4 to win 9 seems to me to be a terrible play.
my guess is richie b and robin
Correct that Robin had the AK (or at least claimed to). I actually had the 75s myself, but didn't want to bias the comments here. I thought it was a pretty nice play myself. I still don't think she had AK.
I only showed my hand to advertise (I am not a rock, really) and pay her back for cracking my Pocket Kings with K7s in a $1000 pot. She called a $35 raise before the flopand flopped a flush draw. I had KK and Ron had AQ to a Queen high flop. We each got all in on the flop and she turned the flush. It was a wild game that night even though you and John W weren't there.
Final table of O/8 tourney. 8 players, 5 paid. 3 short stacks that will be blinded out this round; I'm 5th and can survive the blinds I'm about to pay but not the next. In my BB, short stack to my left goes all in, table folds to me, I look at 2h3cQcKh. In a money game, no question I'd call, but here? I still might just survive to the money; on the other hand, no one else challenged him, so I'd be giving him the blinds. I laid it down this time. I then survived my small blind while watching one of the other short stacks improve, so now I'm one of two short stacks and will have to take a stand sometime this round. Right away on the button I see Ad2s6d6c. One of the not- so-short stacks opens, I call all in. I go out 8th. Should I have played the BB, or given up the button?
A major factor in answering both questions is whether or not people are still playing their hands. If everyone with a short stack is completely nutted up and waiting for someone else to blind out, I'd be more inclined to play these hands, as you're going to have to win at some point in order to make the money. If people are taking unnecessary risks, then wait for them to bust out before taking any risks yourself. In other words, a contrarian strategy is often the best in these spots.
Both of your hands were pretty good, especially the A266 (since it had low counterfeit protection). The main problem, in both hands, was that someone else entered the pot first, indicating a decent to great hand. However, a big key in Omaha8 is that unless your hand contains trips or some other such killer, almost no hand has less than about a 40% equity against any other hand. I mean, even a very weak hand may have 40% equity, or better, even against a quality hand like As2s3dKd, maybe even against AA23 double-suited.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Mason in a recent post used the notion of self-weighting strategy. I remember that David and Mason have used the concept in one or two of your books.
Can I ask (and I am speaking for at least two more players) to give us a reference in some of 2+2 books (we could not find where it was) and if possible give us the latest on the applications of the idea in hold'em.
Also if anyone (mathematically inclined) has any other reference or comment it would be nice to hear about it.
Thank you
Maria
It's been a while since I read that essay, but in general a non self weighting strategy is one that is not a rigid, fixed set of rules that you would follow to play. In other words, you would be more non self weighting if and when you mix up your play, by not always raising with aces, 100% of the time etc. There is definately a mindset in holdem to play certain hands and situations in a common ways, and players react based on these common strategys. this is what I believe skp is trying to explore in his posts. he wants to break the barriers and try new things, which is great. One example of what i believe is a non self weighting strategy, is to bluff raise from the blinds pre-flop, and then bet out. I am over simplifying here, but.. the mindset with most average and above players is that you don't raise from poor posisition, especially the blinds unless you havwe a big pair . So, in a fairly tight game, instead of raising the blinds from late position to try to steal I'm going to do my raising and stealing from poor posistion because it is a non self weighting strategy based on a tight game mindset. I will also try to steal the blinds with a raise from early posistion in a tight game rather than try from late position. Sounds crazy, but it does work very very often for me, because it derails the mindset of tight players. Okay skp, have at it. by the way maria, I've enjoyed your postings. seeya
"Okay skp, have at it"...I'm having none of it...it was a nice explanation.
To Maria:
I believe the book you want to look at is Mason's Gambling Theory and Other Topics (and I too have enjoyed your postings so there's one more thing that raisemeister and I agree on. Geez, raisemeister, if we start agreeing on the next topic that comes up, I am going to make sure that I post something just to burn your ass..hehehe).
Dear raisemeister:
Thank you very much for your response.
Still I have difficulty understanding the notion of a non-self-weighting strategy.
I understand that game theory suggests to mix our play and that no matter how good a player is if he has no contact (i.e. plays behind a partition) against one (or many) opponents then it is a difficult problem but solvable (at least for a two handed game) to find strategies against which none can chip off a gain. And these strategies may be fully *predictable* in their unpredictability. That is, a player (that could be a computer program) would give you his strategy (i.e. you may have the code in front of your eyes) and you will not be able to gain any advantage. Of course he will not do all the time the same thing when faced with the same data but he will have a random way of choosing an action with predetermined probabilities. Would such a strategy be a self-weighthing strategy?
Maria
I suggest that you read the section in GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS that discusses this topic. Your description above has virtually nothing to do with the idea of sel-weighting versus non-self weighting and how I applied these ideas to gambling. (This was an idea that played an important role in the work that I did at The United States Census Bureau many years ago which I borrowed for explaining a profitable approach to gambling.) Two books that have brief discussions of the idea of "self-weighting" are SAMPLE SURVEY METHODS and THEIRY by Hnasen, Hurwitz, and Madow; and SAMPLING TECHNIQUES by William G. Cochran.
By the way, the 1999 edition of GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS is now available. It does include some new material. But if you have the previous edition, it is not different enough to be worth rebuying.
Dear Mason:
thank you very much.
I will check the references.
Have a nice day.
Maria
The importance of an event is determined by multiplying its probability with its affect.
Getting killed by a meteor is unimportant since it is SO unlikely, even though its a disaster when it does. Playing weak hands IS important since even though its affect on your bankroll is small (fraction of a bet), its FREQUENCY is routine. A particular horse's result is important only to those who increased its affect by betting on it.
Which brings me to what I hope is an adequate summary: Gambling is the art and science of changing the affect of events (boy, that sounds SO cooool, I wonder if its true...). Self-Weighting strategies even out the affect of events. Self-weighting strategies apply well when there are a large percentage of favorable events.
Non-self-weighting strategies vary the affect of events. Non-self-weighting strategies apply well when there is a high percentage of unfavorable events. Good strategies increase the affect of good events (by betting a lot) and decrease the affect of bad ones (by betting little or not at all).
Hopefully that'll wet your appetite enough to read Malmuth's essay.
- Louie
PS. Well actually, the importance of an event is ALSO multiplied by your ability to do something about it: whether a cinch horse wins is unimportant to you if you have no money.
PPS (?PSS?). I suppose changing the FREQUENCY of events may also be covered by these definitions. But that's usually called "cheating".
This is a pretty good summary, but non-self weighting strategies usually increase the amount of risk. So you tend to live dangerously.
so, raising from early posistion in a tight game to try and steal the blinds is non self weighting?
If it is routine then No, Raising early to steal the blinds (regardless of your hand) is self-weighting since it presupposes that you will ALWAYS raise when its your turn and nobody is in and the risk/reward is routinely the same for all hands.
Now if you are playing against hopless rocks the old self-weighted raise-fold strategy is superior and gurantees a long term win.
BUT WAIT! Notice that great non-self-weighted strategies, such as raising with AJ in late position become SELF WEIGHTED for that situation. If your EV is 10% of a bet with AJ in late position, then you earn that much every time in that situation.
Mmmmmm ... Non-Self-Weighted strategies are just a compilation of SELECTED self-weighted strategies??? ... If so, how is that possibly useful? ... I hate it when I get like this.
- Louie
Now if I can just figure out why this concept is called "self"-weighted I'll be all set.
I think that all of you are trying to carry this too far. It is hard to say whether some particular strategy taken out of context is non-self weighting or not. It doesn't apply that way. I once got into an argument with a well known video poker expert that that once he picked his machine every play he made was now self-weighting. He obviously missed the point.
Years ago I worked for the United States Census Bureau and I worked on survey design. It was important to us to keep our surveys "self-weighting." That is we wanted to make sure that every member of the population had the exact same probability of selection. Then all we had to do was multiply by the inverse of the probability of selection, also known as the "weight," and we had our sample estimate. What this very simple idea did was to keep the variance on our estimates to a minimum. By the way, due to practical concerns, such as poor address lists in rural areas and non-interview adjustments, it wasn't always easy to keep the surveys self-weighting.
When I started to get into gambling seriously in the early 1980s one of the first things that I noticed was that successful gamblers seemed to approach their trade in a manner that was virtually opposite from the way we designed our sample surveys (in my previous job). They weren't interested in treating each play the same. They looked for those relatively rare events where they had an edge and then bet them aggressively. Thus they had a long term "positive earn," but their life was a roller coaster ride. The idea of non-self weighting gambling strategies was born. It is just a convient way to characterize successful gambling. There are some exceptions, but I believe that it is important for an aspiring gambler, whether it is poker or something else, to think about their activity in this manner.
(An exception to what I am talking about would be a strategy that increases your win rate and reduces your variance. Off hand I can think of one for blackjack and one for poker. Does anyone want to guess what they might be?)
Even though this idea seems simple, because of it and the maximum likelihood estimator for the standard deviation, I was able to write the GAMBLING THEORY book. The first edition appeared in 1987. At first it was widely criticized for being to mathematical and having little practical value. Today some of you are critical of it for not being rigorous enough. As you can see, non-self weighting strategies can even apply to book writing.
Gaining more information of the reality of these "incomplete information" contests will increase your win rate and decrease your variance, (so long as you have the knowledge to properly act on it).
Cheating will do that. So will unethical behavior such as peaking at the players/dealers cards or taking advantage of marked cards.
Otherwise, determine what the opponent has by "card reading" or other techniques will also increase your information.
- Louie
Blackjack: Surrendering properly?
Poker: Game Selection?
This is not a theory/strategy post in any way but I didnt know where else to put it. I have a fast internet connection (DSL) and for some reason often have to wait for this page to come up. I've noticed that this occurs more late at night. On a few occasions it would not load at all and an error message "document contains no data" would pop up. I wonder if the bandwidth for this site is sufficient for the volume of hits it gets. Also, if this site does ever get a workover I suggest eliminating the need to scroll down in order to read a post or reply i.e. the text of a message should begin higher up on the page. Great forum by the way, I'd just like it to be better.
"I suggest eliminating the need to scroll down in order to read a post or reply i.e. the text of a message should begin higher up on the page."
Ditto...
I too am cable modemed up..... 10 megabits/sec down baby!!! This is one of the slowest sites around for some reason. It makes me feel like I have a 28.8 K modem :(
Unfortunately, those who sell like to have their name prominently displayed. Marketing is one of things I do for a living (one guess what else contributes $ ;) ) Don't expect the 2+2 logo will go away. May I suggest to the authors placing the repetitive text and logos in the green column. BTW...this belongs in the exchange forum.
Hope I'm never drawing dead,
Albert
You guys are spoiled with those cable modems. I have 28.8 and don't have a problem (it's the same speed for me compared to other similar sites). It's not graphic intensive, how bad could it be?
Albert and Doc,
Thanks for the "heads up". I was thinking of a cable modem but was not too impressed when I tried this sight at the cable company demo computer. Since this is the sight I visit most, I think I'll wait for the technology to settle down.
Although I don't fully understand where the slowdowns are on the web at any given time, it seems at this sight the slowdown is waiting for the server to reply to a request for a post and not the time it takes to load the post.
One question as I am a relative newbie. I tried using the Syncronize command under the Tools menu on MS IE5 and let the computer download stuff from this sight while I did some chores. The first time through it worked fine as all pages and posts came up in a snap. Unfortunately, I didn't write down my settings when I stepped through the process again I was denied access to any post I did not previously visit. Does anyone out there have some advice on how to do this correctly? (BTW, I also have Netscape Navigator 4.5).
Regards,
Rick
i had trouble for the first time one day this week.
i have netscape and i went to edit,preferences,advanced,cache, then increased mem cache and disk cache quite a bit. i let the site load everything while i read my mail or other stuff then its faster to load posts as they are there. it still is slower than ideal. if anyone who knows how to do it better please post a better way. also if you know how to improve how the site works please post it or email chuck weinstock and maybe he can improve things.
While at the casino I like to wander around and observe different games and players. One thing I've noticed is that 20-40 games are generally much tighter and better played than the "BIG" game at the casino (usually 40-80).
At first I thought I was missing something but now I think I know why this is. Rich guys who want to gamble are going to settle for no less than the most prestigious highest limit game in the house. I can tell by the way that many of them act they would not be caught dead at the 20-40 table. Money is not as important to these players as prestige and action. At the 20-40 table money is obvoiusly important to the players otherwise they would play 40-80.
On any given night at least five of the players at the 40-80 table play as bad or worse than the players at 10-20. They stay for almost every flop, protect blinds irrationally and refuse to be pushed around by raises. I would love to see this kind of behavior more often in my game.
At the table with them are usually two or three obvious professionals (all smiling). I also noticed that most of the fish are middle eastern. Is this just a coincidence? Has anybody else noticed this or am I still missing something?
There is something to what you've noticed. I know many rich high limit players who really don't care that they are big losers. Also, even bad high limit players have had success playing under-bankrolled players. This teaches them to try to throw their weight around, which of course almost always backfires against experts.
I don't think there's anything to your "middle eastern connection". Bad, bad poker playing transcends all races.
if it were true that the players played worse in the bigger game the next smaller players would move up and win the money there. what i believe you see is that in every bigger game that goes on the players play much more aggressively than at the smaller limit. they have learned not to be pushed around and have learned the correct way to protect blinds. it is also true as you say that the big money losers like the top games but usually there is only one or two at that level or it would fill up with smaller stakes players who could now beat this game. if you think im wrong take a 50% partner for the game and as you win more and more take more of yourself till you have it all. ggod luck.
What Mason and Ray have said is true but I still think that there is some value in such a scale. However you must remember that to use the scale you have had to play an opponent many times and observe him or her over months of play. For an example the people that I have played very regulary in New York,New Jersey, and now Florida could indeed place me as a 8. They have played against more then enough to do this. Because in any given session that you can have a long run of folding hands then a long run of playable hands you have to observe for a long time period. There is one thing that my scale could prove useful for is that human nature makes us return to "learned patterns". A player who learns to play many hands will always play many hands even though said person might make several attempts to change this. I think that my scale can help read hands that your opponents could have in addition to other techniques that are available. In the long run your average opponent will make the same mistakes over and over and is incapable of learning how to correct that. The number one reason for this is something everybody has heard before and that's poker is all luck! They think that if poker is all luck and no skill then there is nothing to learn. We here at 2+2 of course know the truth. My scale will not work against a first time opponent who you have never played against before because there is simply not enough info available.
On rgp I was reading some interesting posts on 62off and whether it can be played and under what situations. It is my belief that 62off can only be played on the big blind with no raises. Any other situation and the hand should be mucked. Some posters justified playing the hands with pot-odds of 15-1. However they did'nt take into account that 62off is so easily dominated by all most all other hands. They did'nt take into account on how those 15-1 pot odds were made. I think that 62off has too much ground to make up and that it is a negative expectation hand. One poster has said that because he plays well after the flop that he can turn 62off into a positive expectation hand. My opinion is that 15-1 pot odds will happen again to you and you will be holding a far better hand to play with. One poster presented a percentage chart which showed that 62off will make "made hands" 15% of the time. To him made hands are two-pair or better. He included straight draws as a made hand to reach the 15%. To me a straight draw is NOT A MADE HAND YET! I will continue to fold 62off and yet still win when I play.
What is the significance of 62o? Why not just say any worthless hand is playable with odds of 15-1. If im gonna play 62o, I guess i will play anything.
It seems to me that those players who advocate playing 62o and other similar hands are simply trying to con other gamblers into making their games worse. And if you play 62o in any other situation other than the big blind with no raises you really are just gambling.
Bill
And it is only a third of a bet to complete? Even in those cases, with 6 other callers you are getting 20-1, which seems reasonable odds to see if you flop a set or up..
Mooselini.
When the SB is 2/3BB and there are 6 callers, you should almost certainly call with any 2 cards.
Does anyone know of a website/address that posts the results of the WSOP on a daily basis?
You can find relatively up-to-date WSOP results posted to www.conjelco.com/wsop
I would like to pose the question:
How good can a computer program be?
Here is my opinions:
A. in heads up play:
a. almost certainly since poker without psycology is a simpler game that backgammon (remember heads up) a computer program that acts as a neural network will destroy just about any human opponent or if the opponent is an expert they may tie but there is no way that the expert will prevail.
b. an interesting question is: at some later stage of the game after the neural network has been *trained* can we dissect it and write down the algorithm that it follows?
c. is there a simple strategy that can be proven to lead to a tie?
B. in a full game.
a. again I would put my money to the neural network if I knew that collusion was not going to happen.
b. clearly if the computer folds all the time then it will lose 1.5 small bets per round. If it plays only pocket aces even if we are aware of this a simple strategy like raise preflop and just call afterwards I believe that it will lower its loss. I wonder if there is a strategy that can be easily described that will make the computer lose little or come close to a tie. Note that it is important to assume that no collusion occurs.
I wonder if any one in the forum can come up with a strategy that a computer can follow and tie an expert heads up. It is not that difficult. As I said one can program a neural network and at some later stage of the game just copy its strategy. But coming with a strategy that will do well in a full game ... this is another story.
Maria
Poker is a difficult game, as we have all seen here, and I doubt a traditional neural network architecture will ever be useful to play well, even heads up. Neural nets are good for classification but there is so much logic and strategy required in poker that a lot more will be needed.
On the other hand I do believe good computer designs could be developed to play poker very well but it will be a lot of work. I would suggest making use of Bayesian Nets, rather then Neural nets and there will be a lot of research and other techniques needed for the system.
Darse Billings and others at the University of Alberta have done some work and have papers on the Poker problem.
David Steele
>b. an interesting question is: at some later stage of the game after the neural network has been *trained* can we dissect it and write down the algorithm that it follows?
I assume this is rhetorical. I'm not sure why you are hung up on neural networks. They are not necessarily matched to the problem at hand. Even if a neutral net was used I doubt it would be used as a solution for the whole problem..
>a. again I would put my money to the neural network if I knew that collusion was not going to happen.
Its interesting you brought up collusion. The strongest test for a poker program would be if it was able to beat a human player or players that intimately knew its construction.
As the other poster mentioned Darse Billings work at University of Alberta would be a good place to start. He and his comrads have written 4 or 5 papers on the subject although their focus is slightly different then just creating a poker 'bot. They are interested in machine learning. That is they want to poker 'bot to bootstrap its knowledge base with as little initial data as possible (just the rules of the game).
Check out their work at http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/
I believe that I was outplayed in this particular hand but I am not certain:
9 handed game, I at small blind with pocket Queens
sb: Maria (her image is: tight, and usually bets her hand) (I stole two good pots and I did not get four calls)
bb: loose player, calls raises, bets her hand
utg: expert
4: loose
5: expert
6: average
7: average
8: good
9: average
preflop: UTG opens, all fold to the small blind (myself), I see QQ, I raise, bb calls, UTG calls. flop: K 3 2: I check (? I think this was an error), big blind bets, UTG raises, I fold (?).
The turn was an 8 the big blind checks, UTG bets and big blind folds saying that she had a pocket pair.
Now, it seems to me that my error was that I did not bet the flop. There may be the case that UTG had a king. But come to think about it he could only have KQ, KJs, KTs. Did he have it? Once I did not bet the flop, I have essentially forfeited the pot. To go to the river will cost me quite a bit. After all this action it may be the case that I lose in two places. On the other hand why did the expert raise? clearly if he has a king then he will not get full value out of it this way. I have been marked for AQ or JJ or QQ or TT. Why did he raise?
By the way how about my preflop raise? in retrospect I think that since I *knew* that the big blind will call anyway a better strategy would have been just to call the blind.
Maria
Tough spot.
Raising preflop was not, IMO, a mistake. You should get some more money in the pot while you still know that you're ahead, even if you know that they'll both call. The main reason I see for not raising is to fool the expert so you can win more from him if you both hit the flop, or if he hits top pair lower than Qs.
On the flop, I would tend to bet out, but checking-and-calling isn't a bad play either. Here, the question is whether or not to pay off the expert on the chance that he doesn't have a K. Like you said, he doesn't need a K to raise here, he merely has to think that he's ahead of, or has a decent chance to catch up to, the BB. He might be raising with something like A3s and a 3-flush. If BB has a K, then UTG has 5 outs twice plus runner-runner flush. If BB doesn't have a K, but maybe only 45 or some backdoor draws, then UTG's A-high could win (if he gets rid of you).
Folding here can't be a terrible mistake. Plus, if you call UTG's raise, what do you do if BB raises again? And if UTG caps it? You could be making a call of 2 small bets only to throw your hand away before seeing the turn card.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
If you check the flop you either have to fold or make it three bets with folding being a better choice. If I raise before the flop and it is three handed and I'm first to act in the small blind I don't care what comes, I am going to bet unless I flop a monster.
bruce
i think, you should even bet, when you flop a monster. otherwise you´re to easy to read.
regards
m.a.
What is the best strategy to use when two suited cards flop and you hold a hand like top pair good kicker or an over pair? Some books say that a mediocre hand should be checked so as not to run into fancy raises. What do they define as mediocre? If I have anything less than top pair or a good draw, Im folding. But others might say that when you hold top pair or an over-pair you cannot give any free cards if a two flush is on board, which one is right?
How does the number of players in the pot affect this situation. It seems that the more players there are the more likely it is that someone has the flush draw. So what do you do, make them pay for a card, or see what comes on the turn? What if your only against one or two players, it seems to me that betting is your best choice.
you bet your hand hoping everyone goes out- if someone plays you hope they have an under pair to your hand -if they have a draw you are around 2 to 1 favorite down to even money on average. in all cases unless you are currently beat you want to bet or raise and if you get played with no big deal. it would be nice to be a 3 to 1 favorite every pot we play but most of the time we are in the dark and have to play in marginal spots hoping to win whats already out there as giving up early on in decent pots with real possible winners is almost as bad as folding a sure winner just because you got raised.
The situation you describe is a textbook case of bet it out, or check-raise if you can be reasonably sure that someone else will start the betting for you. If you can check-raise and make some people call 2 bets cold, you can sometimes (I am remembering that you play in a no-fold-em game like I do ... so only "sometimes") get rid of inside straight draws and backdoor flush draws on the flop. Ray pointed out, you want to either win right now or get it heads up with someone who is behind you, or, in the case of a no-fold-em game, as close to this ideal as you can come.
From the books, I don't remember if top pair/good kicker or overpair is considered a "mediocre" hand ... I don't think so. A hand which you think is the current best should be pushed hard.
Dick in Phoenix
The situation:
62o in the big blind. There is an early position raise, and six other callers. Do you call?
A top professional wrote:
"It's really not even close. You can't throw that hand (62o) away. If you play good after the flop, you must call, because you will get value out of that hand in the long run. Most weak tight pro's fold this hand, they are giving up value. Don't be afraid to play a bad hand pre-flop if you play good after the flop."
I responded:
"I disagree. While eight-way action and 15-1 pot odds will make certain hands profitable that would not be played in other situations, many starting hands do terribly against large fields in raised pots: hands without straight, flush or high card potential, or hands that are almost certain to be dominated by the other hands that are out. With 62o, you would need to flop two pair or trips, and then have them hold up against many opponents. When you do flop two low pair against eight opponents (which you only do 2% of the time), you have many ways to lose, and the draws out against you will leave you with few safe cards on the turn and river. This situation is even worse than the 15-1 odds you would get in the small blind if six limpers were in, since the raiser and players who called two cold are more likely to have strength, and since your implied odds are lower if you do get a miracle flop. I wouldn't call with any two cards in a half-bet small blind after many limpers were in. Even 19-1 odds would not make hands like 72o or 93o playable in a raised pot."
He replied:
"There are more ways to win this hand than you stated. You don't need to "flop" two pair to win, you can also make a straight, PLUS it will do wonders for your image. I promise you, I will make a profit with this hand in the long run."
Which argument is right?
Dan,
I'm not going to look at rgp or dejanews to see who wrote this but I can't believe it is correct to play this hand (BTW, we are talking 62o rather than Q5o) and I don't think it is even close. I would even throw this one away in the small blind for 1/3 of a bet (e.g., 15/30 holdem) but I may be wrong here. Your reasoning mirrors mine regarding the hands problems plus I could add a few more if I have time later.
Regards,
Rick
Just FYI, that was Daniel Negreanu arguing for the call. I'm not sure I would either, but there is a point at which anything becomes +EV. Take that 1/3 of a bet situation with a table full of limpers: you're getting 20 to 1 or more. That's almost worth the call just for the odds of flopping a boat or quads.
I'll gladly give you 20-1 odds that you won't flop a tight or quads.
Another thing to consider: even if this hand does have a slight positive expected value, you have to factor in the variance. You may wind up putting a lot of cash on the line in your quest to make a small expected profit from the hand, which MUST be marginally profitable at the best of times.
As a similar example, consider blackjack. It becomes mathematically correct to split TT versus a dealer 6 once there are a certain number of extra high cards left per deck (4 extra tens or aces per 52 cards). However, you make such a small gain in expected value if you do it when there is only 4 per deck (likely even smaller than the gain in calling 62o), that many professionals will wait until a much larger excess exists, say 5,6 or even 7 extra tens or aces per 52 cards.
Personally, I'd sooner save those chips and use them for something a little safer. But I guess that makes me weak-tight, so what do I know? :)
Mooselini.
I don't think the variance argument holds up here. The TT vs 4,5,6 argument in blackjack has some serious Kelly implications, since you are only making this play when the count is high and you therefore have a significant chunk of your bankroll on the line. In the poker case, you're calling only a fraction of a small bet, hoping to hit a longshot on the flop that gives you a good chance of winning a big pot.
BTW, I did quite a bit of analysis on risk-averse strategies for blackjack a couple of years ago. Any time you are betting a full Kelly amount, then any double or split that does not increase your EV in proportion to the extra amount of money bet results in your over-betting your bankroll. I came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth worrying about - in blackjack you need all the EV you can get. If you're betting a more reasonable level like a half-Kelly or a third Kelly, you can ignore it completely.
I played in my first ever hold-em game tuesday at palace station. Game was 1-4-8-8 no ante $1 sb $2 bb. 9 players. my assesment of players after 2hrs . 6 locals in game. seat 9,8,6,3,2,1 .seat 10 IMO best player in game he did not seem to know anyone. seats 1,9 rocks only raised preflop with q's,k's,a's seat 8 solid player who understands position and hand strength but does not raise. seat 3 same as 8 but will raise drawing hands and sit on high pairs for the higher bet round. seat 2 calling station. seat 7 is me, seat 6 and 4 anytime they go in will raise preflop with nothing. seat 5 empty. seat 4 and 6 drew out for a couple of wins but always got called down and lost over $300 each in 4 hrs. if any one needs further info on my assesments I can provide. My questions. I want to make sure I played these right and not reinforce my thinking by the outcome. any comments good or bad welcomed.
1) I was on the button with AK suited 4 players in should I raise or call??? I know sb will not raise and bb will only with a high pair. I raised $4 with the thinking that I did not want 7 people in for the flop. the bb and sb and seat 2 dropped. was this correct thinking ?
2) I was in small blind and 5 players in, including seat 6 who raised. I have 7,8 suited and called the $6, bb also called as did others so 7 of us took the flop. my thinking was that all players know seat 6 raises on nothing and that for $6 I was getting a shot at a fair sized pot. was this a correct call ? flop came 9 my suit,K,5 off. bb checks seat 10 bets $4 and seat 6 and 4 drop, others call. I called knowing bb won't raise but wonder about this call. my thinking is there is a lot in the pot and if a 6 turns I am raising. if a blank falls I'm most likely folding but if a club drops I am not sure what I'll do. should I have called, folded, or raised? I have played 7stud and ohmaha for 20 years in house games and do alright. I have recently read the theroy of poker and wanted to get some hands on play in hold-em to use as reference as I re-read this book to better understand some of the finer points. The book strongly points to raising is usally better than calling but I found myself calling a lot due to the makeup of players in this game .
last question 3) 2 times in late position I saw the flop to get 4 to a flush and both times stayed in multiway to the river. I did not get either flush but feel that I was correct in staying in a multiway( more than 3 others) pot to go for the flush. If I understand the book correctly a drawing hand needs several players to make it worth playing. Based on that I did not feel I was chasing but was playing correctly. is this the right interpertation of playing these hands? sorry this is so long but any help on improving my play is welcome. Thanks!
I think you played all these hands correctly.
I sure hope you are an experienced player new to holdem. If not, your excellent analysis of the players means YOU are the next Land .. err .. Cloutier.
1) Routinely raise with AKs on the button. I am SURE you are better off if everyone calls than if you don't raise at all. I have a minority opinion that ALL premium hands PREFER everyone to call the raise rather than just most of them. BUT WAIT! "Calling Stations" do NOT call then fold for one raise before the flop. Are you SURE #2 was a calling station?
2) it only costs $5 to call the raise; your $1 blind is already gone. When 7 of you took the flop you are getting $37:5 or OVER 7:1 to call. Good call with 87s.
Don't EVER make that money-is-already-in mistake again as you will be UNABLE to calculate odds; at least accurately.
You seem to be getting 15:1 to call the flop with your gut shot. Good (future) implied odds (they pay you off) may compensate for the fact that if you make it, others have big straight draw against you due to the K over that 9 you are using. I hate it when I make a gut-shot, then some idiot makes a bigger gut-shot. If you were on the button and the passive SB bet, a "raise for free card" becomes a POSSIBILITY with all those callers, as much as I hate that. 3) Yes routinely play all non-paired board flush draws; the exception would be heads up in a small pot. The size of the pot is the primary consideration, the # of players affects your implied odds and is secondary. Holdem pots routinely get plenty big to routinely draw. Note that you are only 2:1 dog to make a flush from the flop, since you have 2 cards to go. You were "correctly chasing".
If there is doubt about drawing, why are you playing suited cards? If you don't think you WILL be getting the right odds to draw, don't play the hand to begin with. You only chased 2 flush draws?
- TJ .. err .. Louie
this was my very first time playing hold-em ,ever ,I did lose money but played for 7 hrs and lost less than $100. I hit 2 big pots with AK and the 87 but did not want to think it was a smart play just because it won. because it was no ante I waited until I got pairs or high conecters when in the first few betting seats. a. I'm not sure if that was correct but if I interpet the theroy of poker correctly that is what I should have been doing. I sometimes had 2 small suited cards such as 2 cards both lower than a 9 but did not play these. should I have played them also? any time I went in with middle pairs I lost and when the flops were complete junk such as 2,7,J rainbow and missed my hand I really floundered on how to play or if to play on in those. I have played 7stud in casinos and try to observe other players actions. I based seat 2 as a calling station based on the way he played most of the time but could be wrong on that. on the 87 that next card was 6 and I hit a very good pot on that hand when an A fell on the river and I had the best hand. DO you actually caculate pot odds and how many outs your hand has on each and every play ? I was at a loss trying to do all that and figure out what everyone else had all at once. in stud I can see a lot of cards and base my decisions on how many cards will make my hand and if I make it, will it stand up. I don't chase flushes or straights heads up and will release high pairs against 3 or more players showing straight or flush draws but in this game how do you know who has what? I had JJ and was beat with someone playing 9,4 offsuit, how do I put a player on a hand like that ???. in seven hours I saw the flop in less than 20 hands. I know there are hands I should play other than what I did but am not sure which ones. in late position when it looks like no raises coming should I have played hands such as 2,5 ..3,5..4,6 off or same suit for a $2 bet just to see if I get a perfect flop. are small flushes in the long run money makers or like in stud bankroll killers. thanks for the comments, I'm still replaying some of these in my head to see if I could have done things differently. I want to start playing more in casino's and it looks like hold-em is where the money is at so the more skills I can bring over from stud, the less I should lose in the learning process. this board really seems to help and its nice to discuss hands with other players. after all you can't exactly do that with the people you play against every week and still expect to beat them consistently.
""...I hit 2 big pots with AK and the 87 but did not want to think it was a smart play just because it won.""
You'd be surprised how many people DO just that.
""because it was no ante I waited until I got pairs or high conecters when in the first few betting seats.""
STOP!!! This is not Stud. You get 3 cards all at once for your measly $2. Thus, two big cards have a good opportunity to make a big pair cheap. Usually, two face cards are BETTER than small pairs. AK is MUCH BETTER than 22.
""I sometimes had 2 small suited cards such as 2 cards both lower than a 9 but did not play these. should I have played them also?""
Suited connectors definately prefer several callers and no raises. Late position is when you can tell whether that is the case.
""any time I went in with middle pairs I lost and when the flops were complete junk such as 2,7,J rainbow and missed my hand I really floundered on how to play or if to play on in those. ""
Middle pocket pairs are perhaps the most tricky to play since you usually get at least one overcard AND you only have two outs if you are beat. A beginner will not lose much if he ALWAYS checks and folds pocket pairs when there is an overcard. Bet the turn if everybody checks.
""DO you actually caculate pot odds and how many outs your hand has on each and every play ? "" Yes, as I also calculate pi to the 138th decimal place.
No. A good feel is plenty good. I recomend calculating such odds when you are NOT involved and routinely for an interesting hand or two when you get home.
... snip pathetic 7stud dribblings ... ""but in this game how do you know who has what? I had JJ and was beat with someone playing 9,4 offsuit, how do I put a player on a hand like that ???.""
And so far your attitude has been so superior...
You CAN'T put a player on a hand like 94. You can put SOME players on specific hands, usually tight players in early position. But if you bet your queens and the calling station calls, ANY card can make him two pair. So What? You are protected by the odds and will win, you just don't know which hands. In stud, how can you tell the loose player made slit two-pair until he bets/raises?
In any case, you must know whether or not you can put a player on a hand.
You may need to trust me that experienced players can OFTEN put a player on a specific hand. BAD experienced players do this all the time and that's how they dominate inexperienced otherwise "good" players: they know what you have and you don't know what they have.
Example: I call early, a couple calls, and you call on the button. The flop comes A76 2-flush. I bet, one loose call, and you call. On the turn is a J. We check and you bet ... You have A9. You would likely have raised with a black-jack hand, and probably wouldn't either call twice with Ax.
I raise in middle tight player right behind me calls. Flop is A83. I bet he calls. Turn is 3. I check, he bets, and I raise. Obviously, I have AK and he has AQ. If this was an aggressive tight player than I may have AQ and he AJ. No, NEITHER of us has a 3.
In this small structured game, beginners would be WELL advised to NEVER play a non-pair unsuited hand featuring a card less than ten. T9o is NEVER very profitable and USUALLY unprofitable.
""are small flushes in the long run money makers or like in stud bankroll killers.""
I wasn't aware small flushes were stud bankroll killers... other than you can't make a big pair. No, small flushes are good (so long as there isn't 4 on the board) but you aren't going to make a flush starting with 2 nearly as often as you are at stud starting with 3; so you need more outs with your suited hand such as high cards or connecting making possible straights. The WORST hand you should play is 54s.
Once there is going to be 4 opponents in the pot, small pairs and small suited-connectors START to become playable. Of course, if they routinely call and rarely raise you can anticipate and play these in early position. That's good advise AND makes an excellent excuse to play any-old piece of cheese whenever you feel like it.
----------------------
One major difference between Stud and Holdem is:
In holdem, the good hands and bad hands clump together. When there are trips on the board you can easily get several players with a full house. When there is no pair then NOBODY can have a full house.
This means you must consider the relative value of your hand more so than at stud. "I had a flush I HAD to call" is hopeless when you have a stiff 9 when there are 4 on the board and a pair.
Even though your average hand is the same since both are composed of 7 cards, the average WINNING holdem hand (perhaps KsUp when nobody folds) is MUCH LESS than at stud (trip 9s when nobody folds). The value of one big pair is drastically increased when the board is raggedy. You can bet AK board K83 and get 4 calls, and STILL win this pot 2/3rds of the time.
While in stud the most common show-down confrontation is two pair vrs two pair, in holdem its one pair good kicker beating the SAME pair lesser kicker. In stud it matters little what your 3rd card is when you have Aces. In holdem, you should routinely FOLD if its a deuce and RAISE if its a King. Big difference.
The difference $$ between good plays and bad plays in Holdem is greater than at stud. At the low and intermediate level, there is NO substitute for JUDGEMENT.
Done rambling.
- Louie
I have three questions for the 2 + 2 authors regarding material from "Championship No-Limit and Pot-Limit Hold'em" by T.J. Cloutier.
1.) Cloutier discusses his reluctance to raise the blinds without a legitimate hand when everyone has passed to him on the button. He says that he thinks there's a pretty good chance, with all those cards already dealt out, that somebody behind you might have a hand since nobody in front of you does. Apparently Tom McEvoy calls this the "bunching factor." Is this a valid concept?
2.) Cloutier says that he looks at his cards when he first gets them, he doesn't wait for the action to get to him. He says that this method allows him to observe the other players better, but I have heard just the opposite from others, including Abdul Jalib. Abdul Jalib says that you should wait till the action gets to you to look at your hand so you can watch the other players look at their hands and observe the action, thereby allowing you to make a better choice about whether and how to play your hand. Which method do you use and why?
3.) Cloutier says that you should follow your first instincts, as they are better than 95% correct if you are a poker player. He says that you should never be thinking about what hands you can beat. Instead, you should be thinking "Do I have the best hand?" Do you agree with these statements? Would these statements apply to a limit game? Why or why not?
Thanks, Mike
If those books you were asking about are not published by 2+2, as I know they were not, hence the information contained in them are erroneous and misleading. Some even say that they are the work of the 'devil' and should be banned. Rumour has it that the youth in the Denver suburb were reading poker material published outside 2+2 domain. The rest is sad history.
Actually there are many poker books that I recommend that are not published by us. These include those written by Ciaffone, Zadeh, Brunson, and some of the Mike Caro material. The McEvoy books are not among them. See my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OTHER TOPICS for opinions on numerous poker/gambling books.
Your subtle sarcasm aside, I truly don't think that TJ is sharing everything. He told me himself that he didn't put all the "good stuff" in his book. This shouldn't be surprising since promoting big bet poker (not selling books) was TJ's self-admitted primary goal of writing the book. This is the NOT the approach taken by the folks at 2+2 since selling books is their PRIMARY goal.
Plus most of "the good stuff" related to big bet poker such as reading players, making big bluffs and laydowns is very difficult to teach, especially in a book.
My experience has been that 2+2 are surprisingly good about suggesting other authors. Most likely there is a certain amount of back rubbing going on, but in general it feels sincere.
I tell it like it is. Again, in my book GAMBLING THEORY AND OHER TOPICS (1999 edition) there are 92 poker reviews, 35 blackjack reviews, and 49 reviews of books that fit into other topics. If you look at it you will see many recommendations, and many reviews that conclude the opposite. These are my opinions.
What is your opinion, in general of the "Championship" series? How much new material(book reviews & other) is in the 1999 version of your gambling theory book?
T.J. is a great player and a friend of mine. what works for him or me may or may not work for you. he is probably the best no limit tournament player ever and is a great side game player as well and i have put my money where my mouth is.
1. the bunching factor has been beaten to death look in the archives for more.
2. i look last but either way works fine unless you give a tell.
3. sounds about right.
good luck
"1.) Cloutier discusses his reluctance to raise the blinds without a legitimate hand when everyone has passed to him on the button. He says that he thinks there's a pretty good chance, with all those cards already dealt out, that somebody behind you might have a hand since nobody in front of you does. Apparently Tom McEvoy calls this the "bunching factor." Is this a valid concept?"
There is no significant bunching in holdem. The chance of a strong hand in the blinds increases only very slightly when everyone passes before you. Bunching may be observed in other games, such as ace to five lowball (although Ray doubts that it's even significant there - see thread about bunching in Omaha-8).
"2.) Cloutier says that he looks at his cards when he first gets them, he doesn't wait for the action to get to him. He says that this method allows him to observe the other players better, but I have heard just the opposite from others, including Abdul Jalib. Abdul Jalib says that you should wait till the action gets to you to look at your hand so you can watch the other players look at their hands and observe the action, thereby allowing you to make a better choice about whether and how to play your hand. Which method do you use and why?"
I use Abdul's method. It really doesn't matter which one you use as long as you don't give off tells.
"3.) Cloutier says that you should follow your first instincts, as they are better than 95% correct if you are a poker player. He says that you should never be thinking about what hands you can beat. Instead, you should be thinking "Do I have the best hand?" Do you agree with these statements? Would these statements apply to a limit game? Why or why not?"
He must mean on the river. I completely disagree. You want to think about what possible opponent hands that are worse than yours that might call your bet and how likely those are, rather than bet when you probably have the best hand but you won't get called unless you're beaten. That applies to limit and no-limit.
Mike,
You wrote in part: "Cloutier says that he looks at his cards when he first gets them, he doesn't wait for the action to get to him. He says that this method allows him to observe the other players better, but I have heard just the opposite from others, including Abdul Jalib. Abdul Jalib says that you should wait till the action gets to you to look at your hand so you can watch the other players look at their hands and observe the action, thereby allowing you to make a better choice about whether and how to play your hand. Which method do you use and why?"
I'm no Ray Zee but here are my two cents while I water the garden. I'm mostly a limit player and I use both methods. If the game is loose and many players are yet to act in front of me I like to look at my hand early and start to think about what I might do with it. If the game is tight or I am playing short handed I will wait til the others have acted before looking at my cards. In the latter game I think it is more important to elliminate any possibility that you may have a tell.
When I lood at my cards first I always repeat the same motion whether my intention is to call, raise or fold. After looking at my cards by bending the corners with my left hand and protecting them from view by others with my right, I put them partly under some chips and keep my left hand ready to throw them away and my right hand ready to grab chips in order to raise or call. I try to relax my hands as to not give away a tell (BTW, isn't it amazing how many players have this tell?).
I never waste time before the flop but expect a couple of seconds if I am first to act when the flop hits. I try to use the same amount of time (about two seconds) whether I completely missed the flop (and don't intend to bluff) or I have a difficult decision. I also take my two seconds on the river when folding or checking a missed draw as to not give away what I may have held.
Which brings me to a point. Isn't it amazing that most players, when heads up on the river, will act quickly when first to act but agonize if it is bet to them and deciding whether to call? Yet the player who is first to act has a far more difficult decision.
Regards,
Rick
A timely question, with the WSOP just starting up.
1. Depending on the hands your opponents will play, bunching is a relevant concept, but it's only significant in the later stages of fast-action events such as a satellite or super-satellite, where players are more inclined to play "any-Ace" hands (a simple example, calculate the likelihood of any player having an Ace in a 10-handed game and assume that any player dealt one would enter the pot but yet none do; now how likely is it that one of the blinds have an Ace?).
2. I prefer to look at mine quickly and immediately and then play quickly when the action gets to me; I'd rather not have other players observing me after they've acted.
3. Thinking about what hands you can beat is more applicable to limit games. TJ's comments are speaking to NL tournament scenarios, where if you are beaten for all of your chips, you are history. I'd guess that 80-90% of the time most NL players know approximately what their opponents hold when all the money goes to the middle. They're not thinking about what hands they can beat -- just whether they are beat NOW.
1) Some but little affect on bunching when everyone passes. Its not enough to worry about, but makes for interesting homework.
2) Most of us have limited mental and observational energy and must invest it wisely. So if you know what you have you can concentrate on information that is relevant. If you have KJ two from the button you care most about someone who plays in FRONT of you since you will raise if nobody plays but may NOT want to play if someone comes in. If you have 87s you want to know whether the players BEHIND you will play since this affects whether you steal or not.
But as Zee pointed out, if you broadcast tells (such as looking fore or aft) then avoid looking.
3a) IMnsHO: Cloutier made the same mistake Brunson made in his book. Since THEY have superior instincts they assume everyone else does as well. Well, they should stick to THEIR first instinct, but that doesn't mean we should. If only they could teach us instincts ... then WE could snub 2+2!
3b) I don't see how you can consider whether you have the best hand without considering the possible hands then opponent has.
3c) Cloutier's view on the above two issues, even if true, would apply much less in a limit game. In no-limit you can decisively act on your instincts and whether you have the better hand matters a GREAT deal more than by how much.
- Louie
I was just wondering what the best strategy would be for one table satelites. My friends and I play these style of hold'em tournaments every week and I really want to take their money. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Also, I would like to know what the best book is to read regarding tournaments.
Every now and then I get struck by lightning. It occurred in an Email today.
If we assume you are in a typical good game: 2 check-and-call fish, 2-aggressive wanna-bees, 2 rocks, 2 good enough solids, and one player you actually fear:
I suggest that perhaps it is "correct" to bet the "worst" hand (i.e. not currently highest ranked) about as often as you bet the "best" hand. I think that about 66% of your flop bets will be when beat (mostly semi-bluffs), down to about 40% on the river (i.e. 60% of your river bets are with the best hand). "Not currently highest ranked hand" include draws and outright bluffs.
This suggests that it is no sin to "bet his hand for him", a common ailment. It is also no sin to play a losing hand. If you RARELY lose a hand you are NOT playing enough. If you rarely bet a loser you are NOT betting enough.
55%-45%?
I'm sure there will be no consensus, but I believe the upcoming discussion will allow some aspiring players who are frozen by such thoughts as "I don't want to bet his hand for him" or "I KNOW I should never bet 2nd pair" to break through and know its OK to bet a loser once in a while. It really is.
- Louie
Its like these two duck-hunters. One is assamed of missing and will wait until its perfect to get the duck. The other will shoot away. The first comes home with one duck and two empty shells, the other with 3 ducks and 20 empty shells.
The second hunter won since a duck is worth MORE than 10 shells. Well, it really is for people who like that sort of thing.
I am trying to second guess myself on a hand I played last night. Stakes are $1-1-2-2 (don't laugh). I am last before dealer and am holding Ad-Qd-As-Kc. Four raises before the flop. The flop is A-3-5 offsuit. Four more raises. The next flop is a 4 (don't remember suit). There is a bet and a raise to me, I call and it gets called around. The river card is a 5, and after a bet and a raise, I win the high hand. I have several questions as I am trying to balance the play between home game/casino and small atakes/medium stakes.
1. On the second flop should I have raised?
2. In a 10/20 game what would have been the correct play?
3. Finally, how much does a declare (home game) vs. cards speak factor in on weighing a hand?
Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
> I am trying to second guess myself on a hand I played last
> night. Stakes are $1-1-2-2 (don't laugh). I am last before
> dealer and am holding Ad-Qd-As-Kc. Four raises before the
> flop.
You leave out a lot of information when describing this hand. Four raises by four different people or two? How many players took the flop? Were you one of the raisers?
> The flop is A-3-5 offsuit. Four more raises.
Unless this is a really wild game (you might also have said something about the type of game), it's almost certain that someone has a wheel against you. Nevertheless, the odds against your making a full house or better are less than 2:1 by my count, so you should probably at least call. If it's just you and two raisers, you might want to think about folding, as you could be against two wheels, and you may not be getting that 2:1. I would probably raise if it hadn't been raised already, and call thereafter.
> The next flop is a 4 (don't remember suit).
I'll take that to mean that you did _not_ have a four-flush at this point.
> There is a bet and a raise to me, I call and it gets
> called around.
If the 4 makes a four-flush, I'd raise, because now any diamond makes you a lock or near-lock, along with any 3, 4, 5, or the case ace. You'd be almost even money (25:19) to make a big hand.
> The river card is a 5, and after a bet and a raise, I win
> the high hand.
I love a happy ending. I trust you were the raiser.
> I have several questions as I am trying to balance
> the play between home game/casino and small atakes/medium
> stakes.
> 1. On the second flop should I have raised?
I wouldn't unless I had a four-flush. Someone _has_ to have a wheel at this point. The odds against your hitting are about 3.4:1--less if you take into account the fact that a lot of your boat cards are probably already in other peoples' hands (they're raising with _something_, right?). You're probably not getting that 3.4:1 in a split pot game. If you're sure you're going to get 6.8 or more callers, go ahead and raise. :^)
> 2. In a 10/20 game what would have been the correct play?
I don't think it changes any. The betting structure is still the same. Chips is chips.
> 3. Finally, how much does a declare (home game) vs. cards
> speak factor in on weighing a hand?
I don't know of anyone who plays Omaha as a declaration game, but in the example above, your aces would go up in value, because someone might not go high with a wheel, fearing a bigger straight.
Cheers,
Andy B
Andy, Thanks for the feed back. In this home game most of the players demand a declaration. I am trying to get them to change their way of thinking. When I first started playing in the game, they were still playing baseball and high Chicago. The low was a six four, and yes I was catching raises from three players. I would abandon the game, but I average $100 to $150 per game for a three hour session. The Omaha game is the only game the players allow a two dollor bet (again don't laugh, it buys my lunch through the week). Unless anyone knows of a better game in the Orlando area, it is this game or playing against the computer.
Once again thanks for the info.
This is not a new concept, but I have not seen it phrased quite this way. I hope that the panel can help me make this into something useful for my very loose-passive 3-6 hold'em game. In a recent post, someone (I think Mason or Ray), referring to the huge pots developed in games where there is a lot of pre-flop raising, said that the size of the pot makes calling stations' later calls "more correct." My title statement attempts to present the converse. ( Converse ?? - don't jump me for this one; I did take symbolic logic but it was more than 30 years ago!)
In my game, most players commit David's Number One Mistake (calling when they should fold) far more than any other mistake. I think this is a situation where I can push my opponents to make their favorite mistake more often. So here it is:
"When calling stations are going to be in the pot with you, RAISE LESS pre-flop, making the pot smaller, so that when they call on later streets, they are making a bigger mistake."
For a specific example, I am thinking of usually just limping in with AKo. For a no-fold-em game, this is not a new concept either, but it is one I think I like if callers come in. Several reasons to limp: (1) The primary purpose of a raise, thinning the field, just doesn't work very well in my loose game. I estimate that in an unraised pot, 6 callers see every flop, and with a raise, maybe 4-5. (2) With calling stations in, the semi-bluff value of the pre-flop raise is questionable. In my game, if I raise pre-flop and flop rags, I cannot bet the flop, turn, and river and hope to blow out someone who flopped a small split pair - they will call all the way. (3) If I do flop an Ace or King, I usually can't check-raise the flop if I raised pre-flop. Here is where the "raise less" idea helps - with a smaller pot and a check-raise on the flop, I have a better chance of getting people out, OR their calls are more wrong. (4) Limping helps conceal my hand. One of the easiest hands to read in my game is when someone raises pre-flop with high cards, doesn't flop anything, and then checks the flop (or sometimes bets the flop and then checks the turn). (5) Since I will not always limp, this will mix up my play and keep my opponents off balance. Once a regular opponent sees that I limp in with a hand as strong as AKo, he might be easier to get out when I raise on later streets.
There will still be times when I will raise with AKo. If I can re-raise someone and get heads up, or if the table has turned tight and I can really thin the field, then bombs away. This will also mix up my play for anyone watching.
In addition to limping with high-card hands, I intend to do more raising when I have a hand that is going to want a large pot, such as small pairs and suited connectors, when I am in late position and won't chase people out. This will give me the benefit of good pot odds, and also give me the possibility of a free card on the flop with a drawing hand that might really want it. If any opponent is tracking my game, this will really drive him crazy if he gets a book on me that I don't raise AK but I do raise 22 ! (PS - I don't think my opponents are so observant that they will remember the position difference in the different scenarios.)
I have been thinking about pot size manipulation for some time now; I am sure there is a lot of material out there that I haven't seen yet.
Your thoughts ?
Dick in Phoenix
This is an important subject that is not at all easy to analyze. I will be interested to see other replys.
The problem is way too difficult.
However, the consensus seems to be that we are going to study a situation where our opponents are not too observant of our strategy (i.e. if at the end we decide that we will only raise with AA and KK then our opponents will not be able to "read" our hand but they will still think that we may have AK or KQs).
Ok. Now to attack a sub-sub-case of the problem at hand.
We are UTG with AKo and we are faced with two options: (a) raise and play against 4 players (one of which will be the small or the big blind) or (b) call and play against 6 players (with both blinds participating)
Our advantage is present if we flop top pair or better which will happen about 1/3 of the time.
Let's pretend that the game ends at the flop. And let's "p" be the probability that we win if we flop top pair against 4 "q" the probability that we win if we flop top pair against 6 and let's disregard all other flops.
our *EV* (modified) in case (a) is: -2*2/3 + p/3*8 and in case (b) is: -1*2/3 + q/3*6
If p = .7 (a very high estimate) then q is enough to be greater than .6 in order for choice (b) to be the correct choice.
Now do you think that playing with AK top pair against 6 players would result in .1 drop in the probability to win as it is opposed to playing the same hand and same flop against 4 players?
I do not know!
However, the analysis above assumed that our opponents cannot *read* us and they are calling stations. If those assumptions are not valid then ...
Maria
P.S. in general q need be less than 4/3*p-1/3 in order for play (a) to be correct or looking at the difference p-q we have that play (b) is correct if p-q is smaller than 1/3-p/3
P.S.S. collecting and using information of which hands and which opponents may call a raise was not considered
Maria you are way too smart. I'm not good enough in math to follow your reasoning.
P.S. I think you have to raise AKo most of the time. Of course there's various advantages to one way and the other; but in the long run I think you want those people drawing with inferior hands to pay as much as possible for that draw. That is fundamental poker.
I agree with you, with one exception. Once in a while you'll find a game where players will play almost any Ace, and almost any suited King from any position, provided there has been no raise. If someone raises, they tighten right up. If so, then you might not want to raise with AKo in early position, because these are exactly the people you want calling you.
Dan
I still raise an awful lot preflop in those games.
Rather than thinking about my opponents' calls, I like to think about my own folds. So in a really loose game, I probably won't raise a 7-handed pot on the button with 66. The reason is that if I do raise and miss the flop, it may become almost correct to take a card off, while if I don't, I have a clear money-saving fold. If I do hit the flop, money will get in the pot whether I raised preflop or not.
Another way to think about this is: what are your chances of winning the pot, and when you do win, how many more bets, on average, will be in the pot if you raised. So in the aformentioned 66 example, I expect to flop a set about 14% of the time, and win the pot about 60% of the times that I flop a set. When I don't flop a set, I will almost always fold, so I won't win the pot. That means that I will win roughly 8% of the pots, so to make a raise worth it, it would have to make the pots I win roughly 12-13 small bets larger. I don't think it does that, and furthermore it will cost me an occasional pot. So here a raise feels clearly wrong.
A hand like AKo is another matter. In this case, if I miss the flop, it may well be correct to take a card off, and a raise may change this from a wrong play to a correct play, or from a mildly correct play to a very correct play. So I am much more inclined to raise with this hand.
William
Although larger pots make it more correct for calling stations and chasers to continue playing, they will do so REGARDLESS of the pot size. therfore I believe that you have to almost always raise your strong hands in order to give yourself the best chance at narrowing the field, and if they are going to stay in there, then you are building a nice pot for the times your hand holds up.
a further benefit is that raising usually gives you some control, or if not control... the focus of attention will be on what you do once the flop comes in most cases. Where many players have problems ,is once the flop comes and they don't improve they aren't sure how to proceed.
When you have 3 plus callers in front of you and you don't hhave aa or kk, then in any type of game , calling instead of raising is okay imo. But again, if you are first one in or only one caller, I WOULD raise my strong hands. \
I know that a while back that mike caro presented his theory about pre flop raising, but I personally don't think it is correct . I can only say that from my playing experience, not from a theoretical standpoint. seeya
What is Caro's theory?
Guy,
Since Mike doesn't post down here I'll try to describe his views in a very small nutshell.
Years ago he wrote articles and/or reports advocating almost never raising before the flop. He was critisized quite a bit for these views by his fellow pundits. He has backed off somewhat but still contends most pros raise too much pre-flop, especially in early position. He may be right on his ammended advice IMO.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. If you need the name of the reports, I can get them for you later when I get back to my office (once again, I am writing from a remote location).
Raisemeister,
From your previous posts, it is clear the game you play in is much tighter and raising gives you a good chance to steal the blinds, get head up with a blind or narrow the field enough to take the flop when you miss but your opponents miss also. I don't think this is the case in the game Dick describes.
In a nutshell, there is a big difference between an up front raise that usually "narrows" the field to four or five opponents and one that narrows the field to one or two opponents.
By the way, it the former game you really want to raise with AKs since you will get the big pots anyway for the occasions you flop a flush draw. But I digress.
Regards,
Rick
Your point is the other side of the coin. Yes, equally, you need to consider the pot odds you will get, along with (the theme of my post) the pot odds your opponents will get.
Considering the AKo hand, you are trying to plan ahead to playing a hand with top pair/top kicker, with some consideration to what you will do if you flop rags. And I'm the first to admit that, IF raising will do a decent job of thinning the field, then that is called for. You really don't want to play top pair against 5 other players.
So ... The analysis I am trying to do is based upon the assumption (or action before you, preflop) that quite a few calling station players will be in with you, whether you raise or not. THEN you ask yourself the question, "how big do I want this pot to be?"
As to the small pair, I agree with you that a raise is marginal. In that part of my post, I was actually following the theme of YOUR post, considering my own pot odds and not necessarily my opponents'.
Thanks for responding ... Dick in Phoenix
William,
I just have a few points.
You wrote: "I probably won't raise a 7-handed pot on the button with 66. The reason is that if I do raise and miss the flop, it may become almost correct to take a card off, while if I don't, I have a clear money-saving fold."
This isn't quite correct. Let's say you raise a seven-handed pot with 66 on the button so the pot contains 14 small bets. You miss the flop and now it is bet from up front. I'll guess two others call so you are getting about 17 to 1 if you call hoping to hit your set on the turn. This isn't close to good enough. At one time it was thought that 22 to 1 was about right for your call assuming your set is a likely winner (i.e., hitting it doesn't make people straights and flushes very often). A while back David Sklansky published an article indicating that you really need about 28 to 1 on this call (I wish I had an index to the old Card Player and Poker Digest Magazines that are ready to spontaneously combust in my office).
You said regarding 66: "If I do hit the flop, money will get in the pot whether I raised pre-flop or not."
But even more people will chase when the pot is larger. And these are players who will be often be drawing close to dead to a set. Plus the extra money put in pre-flop will usually be yours to keep.
Lastly you wrote: "A hand like AKo is another matter. In this case, if I miss the flop, it may well be correct to take a card off, and a raise may change this from a wrong play to a correct play, or from a mildly correct play to a very correct play. So I am much more inclined to raise with this hand."
You may want to take a card off when you miss with AKo but others will also be taking one off and they will often beat you even when you pair on the turn. IMHO, a hand such as AJs is a better button raise with many opponents already in than AKo.
Regards,
Rick
As a low limit AC player I have to agree with raise less preflop unless your in late position. Time after time I'll see an early position raise preflop and the betting goes fold, fold, fold. Nine times out of ten the raiser has a group one hand and will win a small pot.
I prefer to wait until the flop or turn to raise since I can always fold to a raise if the flop didn't help or just check it around. And the times I win with a group one hand it will be a good pot. Group one hands don't come around that often anyway. If the flop helped anybody they're going to stay to the end and your high one pair may need to improve to win.
One of the reasons to raise with a variety of hands is so you DO get action when you raise with AA or KK. In a game full of oblivious calling stations, this reason fades in importance, and you should certainly back off on deceptive raises like raising with TJs in early position.
Good analysis, but don't forget to distinguish between different types of loose games. I have seen games full of experienced, loose players, where these guys will play a large fraction of their hands preflop, but do fold when they miss the flop. In these games, you need to raise preflop, because that is the time in which these opponents are making most of their bad calls. Even if it does give some of them odds to call correctly postflop, that's still not bad. You'll win more money, just a bit less often.
Plus, just because their calls are profitable on the flop doesn't mean that this profit exceeds the EV they lost by their bad call(s) preflop!
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Yes, this is a great point. In the game you describe, the post-flop bad call isn't the behavior to punish, it's the pre-flop bad call.
In MY regular game, though, trust me, there are bad calls all the way through the river.
Dick in Phoenix
then make them pay as much as possible for their play by raising and geting money in the pot. in this type of game you are going have swings anyway, so make them pay. Even the loosest players will start to give you respect once you show them some hands. ..........well... maybe not some of them. seeya
Dick,
This should start a very productive thread (which is easy for me to say after David's endorsement). I liked the way you framed the following example from your post, which I believe is very typical of the game you describe and the 3/6 to 9/18 (and sometimes even15/30) games in Los Angeles.
You wrote: "For a specific example, I am thinking of usually just limping in with AKo. For a no-fold-em game, this is not a new concept either, but it is one I think I like if callers come in. Several reasons to limp: (1) The primary purpose of a raise, thinning the field, just doesn't work very well in my loose game. I estimate that in an unraised pot, 6 callers see every flop, and with a raise, maybe 4-5."
This is very close to my observations of what a raise in early position does in this type of game in regards to narrowing the field, which is to say it narrows the field a bit but not much.
You continue: "(2) With calling stations in, the semi-bluff value of the pre-flop raise is questionable. In my game, if I raise pre-flop and flop rags, I cannot bet the flop, turn, and river and hope to blow out someone who flopped a small split pair - they will call all the way."
This is correct for the game you describe. Note that with so many opponents, it is close to a sure bet a bad pair will both be out there and will call you down. This is not so true when a raise narrows the field to about two or fewer opponents. The pair is not so sure to be there and it may fold against the heat.
Next, you say: "(3) If I do flop an Ace or King, I usually can't check-raise the flop if I raised pre-flop. Here is where the "raise less" idea helps - with a smaller pot and a check-raise on the flop, I have a better chance of getting people out, OR their calls are more wrong."
This is especially true if you get players near the button who bet too much when the flop is checked to them. Finding these players in this situation is quite common. Now a check raise with overcards to a ragged flop will often be correct. But it takes experience and good feel to now when this is right.
You go on: "(4) Limping helps conceal my hand. One of the easiest hands to read in my game is when someone raises pre-flop with high cards, doesn't flop anything, and then checks the flop (or sometimes bets the flop and then checks the turn)."
Good point. There are usually enough astute and/or aggressive players in this game to correctly pressure you in this situation. When the pot is big your laydowns against even a single pair become very costly (yet you have to lay down if the flop is the least bit scary). At the same time you can’t check call an opponent who will bluff off a busted draw since there will be others in there who will be calling even with a weak pair.
Your next point: “(5) Since I will not always limp, this will mix up my play and keep my opponents off balance. Once a regular opponent sees that I limp in with a hand as strong as AKo, he might be easier to get out when I raise on later streets.”
There is another benefit and that is limping with cards this high protects hands you should play up front in the loose game like QJs, JTs and so on but would rather not face a raise from your left. You won’t be raised as much if they see you limp with the Ako (by the way, if appropriate, always try to show this hand when you limp pre-flop to get full benefit).
You later say, “In addition to limping with high-card hands, I intend to do more raising when I have a hand that is going to want a large pot, such as small pairs and suited connectors, when I am in late position and won't chase people out. This will give me the benefit of good pot odds, and also give me the possibility of a free card on the flop with a drawing hand that might really want it. If any opponent is tracking my game, this will really drive him crazy if he gets a book on me that I don't raise AK but I do raise 22! (PS - I don't think my opponents are so observant that they will remember the position difference in the different scenarios.) “
This is a key. Most who make the decision to rarely raise pre-flop in loose games fail to raise appropriate hands in late position to build the pot and tie opponents on in situations where you can flop a big hand (usually a set) or a big draw. Then you are glad the pot is big and they are chasing.
Regards,
Rick
Sorry I'm short of time and haven't read everything yet.
But I would like to point out that if the opponent is going to chase on the flop no matter what, then YOU are making a MISTAKE if you fail to raise as a favorite: you would rather win 40% of 6 bets and lose 60% of two bets than win 40% of 3 bets and lose 60% of one bet.
I would also like to point out that if the opponent will correctly fold on the flop if you do NOT raise but he will correctly chase if you do, then you have given up only a fraction of a bet TOTAL to this player since his call can only be marginal: since he gains only slightly. Failing to raise usually costs more than a bet when other's are in.
Even raising with a small pair to encourage others to call drawing dead when you make a set doesn't seem to add up. 7.5 times you lose a fraction of a bet. Can the one time you make the set compensate by a lot? No, but it might encourage them to give you a fourth card for free.
So I believe (firmly) that to raise or not to raise changes your chances of winning MORE via strategic reasons (e.g. they "check to the raiser" which may or may not be good for you) than it does via manipulating the size of the pot.
I am NOT confinced that "manipulating the size of the pot" is relatively significant; but I am eager to see some quantitative arguments.
Much more important considerations to raising pre-flop are:
o Will the raise increase or decrease my chances of winning?
o Am I a favorite and by how much?
o Will the raise incline the opponents to play predictably after the flop? Less predictably?
o Will the raise cause them to play worse after the flop? Better?
o Will the raise cause them to give away the value of their hands? Hide the value of their hands?
o Will the raise give away MY hand to the opponent's benefit?
o Will the raise disguise other hands I raise with? Hands I call with? Is that a good thing?
o Will the raise look like I'm manipulating the size of the pot and make the knowledgable opponents fear me? Scorn me? Do I care?
- Louie
Louie - Thanks for an interesting response. Some random shots back:
Part of my strategic plan in limping with AKo is that I will be able to raise or check-raise on the flop if I get an Ace or King. My game is full of calling stations but they're not betting stations. If I raise pre-flop, most of the time it will get checked to me on the flop, and if I check there, there is a significant chance that it will get checked around. So I get my choice of when to raise - preflop or flop but not both.
I do think that many of your other reasons for raising/not raising are more important than just manipulating pot size. When you read thru postings above, you will see that I fully agree that, if a raise will thin the field, then you have to raise.
I have difficulty quantifying the possible benefit of "manipulating the pot size." I just think that if my opponents call too much, then when they call too much when the pot is smaller, it is even worse for them, and therefore it has to be even better for me. (I want to end this with "QED" ! )
I don't think anyone, including this august body after today's discussion, would be likely to interpret a pre-flop call as "manipulating the pot" ["There goes old Dick again, just calling ... he must be up to something."]
Last: As far as I know, my opponents don't scorn me; at least they are polite enough to keep it to themselves if they do. And if my opponents come to fear me, I will let you know ... don't hold your breath waiting.
Dick
I originally posted the following to rec.gambling.poker back in April 1996. I don't recall if I've reposted it here before, but it seems particularly relevant to this discussion. It discusses one particular example of pot size manipulation that was constructed so that we could compute the exact expectation of each player. If you can reduce the field, that's one thing, but if you are in a situation where they will call regardless, the lesson of this post may apply.
(Begin Original Post):
The title of this post is intentionally ambiguous. It could refer to a word problem based on Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Poker, or it could refer to a problem in the wording, interpretation, or application of the Theorem. In fact, both are the case.
First, the word problem. You are playing in a 5-10 Holdem game, and pick up As 3s in the big blind. It's folded around to the small blind, who raises. You call, making the pot $20. The flop comes all spades: Js 8s 6s. The SB re-checks his cards, and as he does so, he accidentally flashes them so you can see them: Jc Jd. It's top set vs. the nut flush, and you will win if and only if the board doesn't pair. From prior experience with this opponent, you know that if he doesn't fill up he will check-and-call the flop and turn, but fold to a bet on the river. Sure enough, he checks to you. To maximize your expectation on this hand, should you bet or check the flop? The answer appears below, but you may wish to work it out for yourself before proceeding.
***************************************************
First, let's consider how someone using a naive interpretation of the Fundamental Theorem might approach the problem. If your opponent doesn't fill up on the turn, he will have either 9 outs (if an A or 3 came) or 10 outs (otherwise) on the river. That gives him odds of either 3.8:1 or 3.4:1 to fill on the river. If you bet the flop, he will be looking at $40 in the pot when you bet the turn, so his $10 call will be correct. If you don't bet the flop, there will only be $30 in the pot, so his call will be incorrect (but he will make it anyway). He has the correct odds to call the flop, even taking the possibility of having to bet the turn into account. So clearly, it is better not to bet the flop in order to induce your opponent to make an error on the turn, right?
Not so fast! We can compute the expected value for the two strategies directly. There's a probability of 7/45 that your opponent will fill up on the turn, a probability of 17/90 of filling up on the river (= 6/45*9/44 + 32/45*10/44), and a probability of 59/90 (= 6/45*35/44 + 32/45*34/44) that he doesn't fill up at all and that you win. So for the whole hand, the expected outcome can be computed as:
| Probability | Bet Flop | Don't Bet Flop |
|---|---|---|
| .15556 | $-15 | $-10 |
| .18889 | $-25 | $-20 |
| .65556 | $+25 | $+20 |
| Expected Value | $+9.33 | $+7.78 |
Whoa! The expectation when our opponent makes an error is around $1.55 (actually $1.5555555...) lower than when he doesn't! What's going on here - is the fundamental theorem all wet?
To find out, let's look at the expected value for a variety of different strategies for you and your opponent. In the following table, "Fold" should be interpreted as "Fold assuming that you bet and that opponent hasn't yet filled up."
| Opponent's Strategies: | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Call Flop | Call Flop | Fold Flop | Fold Flop | |
| You: | Call Turn | Fold Turn | Call Turn | Fold Turn |
| Bet Flop | 9.33 | 10.33 | 10.00 | 10.00 |
| Check Flop | 7.78 | 6.89 | 7.78 | 6.89 |
As you can see, your opponent (who wants to minimize your expectation) is indeed making a mistake in calling your turn bet if you checked the flop, but not if you bet the flop. It is still true that you are better off betting the flop in every case, even though that forces this particular opponent into the optimal strategy for this hand. By not betting the flop, you are giving up $2.44 worth of expectation against optimal play (= 9.33 - 6.89), although this particular opponent will give $0.89 of it back due to his sub-optimal play when you check the flop. But paying $2.44 to induce a $0.89 error is simply losing poker, at any level.
Now it's obvious that Sklansky understands this issue - after all, in his chapter on "The Free Card" he talks about the danger of giving up a free card in situations similar to this one. But it illustrates the difficulty in taking the wording of the "Fundamental Theorem of Poker" too literally. As stated in the "Theory of Poker," it *isn't* a theorem, although there is no doubt a more mathematically precise theorem lurking underneath. It would have been nice if Sklansky had included either an appendix or a cite to the proof of such a more precise result, so that those readers who are more mathematically inclined wouldn't have to guess what he really meant. (One brief counterexample to the literal wording: if your opponent's strategy is sufficiently flawed that he would make a particular losing move with the cards face up, you don't suddenly "lose" when he makes the same dumb move with the cards face down.)
Another point about the "Fundamental Theorem" is that it is expressed as a purely qualitative result, rather than a quantitative one. It talks about *when* your opponent is making an error rather than *how much* that error is worth, and how much you had to pay to induce it. If you can induce an error "for free," it may not matter that you don't analyze how much it is worth. In the above example, if having bet the flop, you can then induce your opponent to fold the turn through table-talk or other mannerisms, you do gain an additional dollar of expectation. Even then, you should still do the calculation to recognize that it is better to have him folding the turn rather than the flop.
But changing your betting behavior is not "free." If you don't do at least an approximate cost-benefit analysis when manipulating the pot size, you risk winding up with an expensive way to induce a cheap error. And that's clearly no way to win.
Dave - This is a great post with an interesting lesson. My 2 cents on the lesson: it is not a contradiction that it is best strategy for the leader to bet and also best strategy for the chaser to call. This arithmetic was worked out in the "free card" chapter of one of the books - I forget if it was in HEP, HPFAP, or TOP. As the leader, you do best to get the bet out there, to reduce the chaser's pot odds from infinite to a non-infinite value, even if that value indicates that he should call.
This concept reminds me of something that comes up all the time in backgammon. Toward the end with only 1 or 2 rolls left, if the favorite holds the doubling cube, it is often the case that he should double, and the underdog if not too much an underdog does better if he accepts the double. (If anyone wants me to elaborate, let's move it to the "other games" forum.)
Small error correction: if the pot is $20 before the flop, and you bet $5 and are called on the flop, the pot would then be $30, not $40 as you said.
Your post is an important point to my post. If you really are the leader, it is important to get your bets out there while you are the favorite. I would never promote my post as a reason for not betting the best hand. But the darn thing about hold'em is that, unless you have AA or KK, you really need to see the flop before deciding whether you think your hand is best (and I'm not so sure about this statement regarding KK).
That having been said, I think that maybe your post helps make my point. With $20 in the pot on the flop, with the chaser having 7 outs to catch you, it is marginal whether he has a call of your flop bet. 7 out of 45 is about 1 out of 6.5 to fill, but the pot is only offering him $25 to his $5 on the flop call.
And now suppose that there was no raise pre-flop - suppose he had 77 instead of JJ and a 7 came up. [ I do understand that, to construct a good lesson hand, you needed top set.] With only $10 plus your $5 bet in on the flop, he would have to fold. How many people would fold a set? So here is an example of my thesis, where he would call when the pot is too small to justify his call, thereby making a pot-odds mistake.
Thanks for repeating this great post for us ... Dick
Small error correction: if the pot is $20 before the flop, and you bet $5 and are called on the flop, the pot would then be $30, not $40 as you said.
I'm counting your turn bet of $10 in the amount he sees in the pot when deciding whether or not to call the turn. So if you bet the flop, he sees $20 (preflop) + $5 + $5 (flop bets) + $10 (your turn bet) = $40 in the pot when he looks at the call on the turn. So it's $40 if you bet the flop, $30 if you don't.
Yup. For a pot odds calculation, you are right. Dick
1)I'm in short hand game the other day have K,Qo just call. Everyone fold behind me small blind call and BB check. Both blinds are loose. Flop is very raggedy, checked to me, I bet pick up pot. Nobody wants to play since pot very small.
2)I'm in a full game. Loose aggressive caller early. I have have A,Jo late position 2 off button. I raise to isolate. Big blind calls and Loose aggressive caller calls. Flop raggedy. Big blind checks, loose aggressive player bets into me and I fold. Big blind wins pot on the river after 3 bets each go in on turn when loose aggressive player folds.
3)I'm in a full game again. I have A,Qs early and raise. Get calls from two loose passive players. I have been playing 2 hours and haven't won a pot. Flop is raggedy and I bet it like I've got it. Two callers on flop. Get one caller on the turn. Show down on river and win $200 pot with Ace high for only win in 2 hours.
In 1) a bigger pot would have cause players to go farther. In 2) loose aggressive player put me on big cards or big pair and wanted to see how I played the flop. Loose aggressive player forgot about the BB's call. In 3) players are bad and will chase with anything and my big cards could very well be best hand if I narrow field. Lots of things to consider and maybe I not play these right but played them different for certain reasons.
One follow-up thought: It has been stated many times that loose passive games are the most profitable. With very litle pre-flop raising by the opponents, one of the characteristics of these games is smaller pots on the flop, even with 6 or more callers putting in one sb each.
I wonder whether one unrecognized reason that these games are good is that the typical calling station makes more pot-odds errors, and the errors he makes are more severe.
I am just speculating here. Obviously these games are good for a lot of other reasons as well.
Dick
I think you point out part of main reason. Other part is that you can profitably play more hands. Includes up front. In game where big blind half a flop bet like 1-4-8-8 what you mention is even more important.
Lobo, I have never played 1-4-88. If you bring it in for a raise is the bet 2$? How does the hand play out? I am going to Az in June,some info would be helpful. Thanks, Bill
Blinds $1-2, raise to make it $6 to go. Check with card room to make sure of rules in betting. Some places allow spread in bet size some more rigid. Usually bets on flop $4 and on later streets $8. Bets that allow spreads in bet size sometimes allow first raise before flop to be $2 or $4. Also some places allow best of $1-4 on flop and $1-8 on later streets. This game is small but usually very easy to beat.
Have you considered checkraising when you hold AK up front and rags flop? Although I still raise with AK (while mucking AQ) in a VERY loose game, I generally follow up with a checkraise on most flops (giving me less than two pairs). Otherwise I'll check and fold on uniform flops that miss me, like T98 single suited.
Is betting on the river when last to act any value in big bet poker (or big bet tourney)? I for one seldom do it but I like your opinion. Scenario - pot limit AA against a possible draw or small pair. If I am last to act heads up and on the river it is checked to me, conventional visdom is to show down a hand (unless the draw is complete) You would only bet out if you want to hide your hand (for some reason - not show it at all) or you think the opponent may call you with a worst hand. Some think you most likely will only get called if beat. True ???? I am losing EV by showing down ?
The conventional wisdom may be correct more often than it's wrong, but this is certainly a situation where knowing your players counts for a lot. If someone will pay off your AA on the river when they have AK and a K high flop, you need to bet. If they will fold unless they have 2-pair or better, then follow the conventional wisdom. You need to learn what your opponents will do, or do a good job of guessing (if they are new, unknown opponents). It's hard to do this right, just like it's hard to do so many things right, in this game. Of course, unless the money is deep, you'll be all-in before the river anyway, which makes playing the river rather easy.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I had Aces three times one night and twice against the same person who both times was drawing clubs. (Even I could see that and I have *some* holes in my reading) Both times I was last to act and I failed to bet. I figure at least one time I 'gave' up $200 for nothing. This is not a complaint just a reflection on my hands....
BSD-
You gotta mix it up on the end in big bet to get maximum value from your hands and enable youto steal when YOU miss a big draw in position. You will be amazed at the number of players that will put YOU on a draw (or AK) and look you up at the end of a ragged board when they spike a pair instead of completing a flush or straigh draw.
Value betting is much better when you are last to act since it is a rare breed that will check-raise bluff on the end instead of just betting out. As usual, the golden rule of Poker applies- "It depends on the oppononet, the situation, your perception of him, and his perception of YOU."
However, if you never river bet for value with only top pair-reasonable-kicker or an overpair, you are giving up way too much in terms of bets won and future stealing opportunities.
When have you ever bet the river w/ onl;y one pair in NL. You are just advertising. your play is too technical and proficient for that. see ya sunday
Good Point. If the money in the game (like our baby NL) is not very deep a top pair or overpair that thinks it is good on the flop or turn usually must get all-in before the river to shut out the draws. Of course this doesn't always prevent an underpair or runner-runner straight draw from chasing down pocket Kings;)
Bear in mind that you don't have to bet the full amount. A half-pot or even smaller bet makes it difficult for some opponents to fold, and of course once you have been seen to make a small bet with a good hand, you have the chance to bluff later without risking so much.
Andy.
Maria - A very interesting analysis. I do think that assuming for analysis purposes that the hand ends after the flop might underestimate the implied odds quite a bit, but the COMPARISON should still be useful. Some feedback:
"However, the analysis above assumed that our opponents cannot *read* us and they are calling stations. If those assumptions are not valid then ... " -
The calling station assumption is absolutely key to the entire idea. And, as FossilMan pointed out above, they have to be calling stations after the flop, for this reasoning to apply. The "read" assumption is less important, as there are a large number of hands that I will limp in with ... nobody can "read" me for AK just because I called pre-flop! And I also mentioned that you can mix this up, raising with AK when the game has tightened up, or in that rare (in my game) case where you are in mid to late position and more people than usual have folded.
Dick
This post is a response to Maria Smith's "Re: Methodology" 2 threads down. Dick
Dick,
Forgive me if you already know this.
One way to quickly move a misplaced post is copy the post to the clipboard, go to the right place, then paste it in and repost it. When it looks OK you can delete the original post (of course you can't do this if you already have responses).
Regards,
Rick
The Gambling Forum April 1999 Archive Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo