HE - Preflop Raising in Very Loose Games
Pittsburgh Peter
experience can help me out with a basic strategy question (my
apologies if this has already been discussed here a bunch of times).
Is it always the right move to raise in late position preflop with big
cards like AK, AQ, or AJ if you're playing in a very, very loose game?
Everything that I've read suggests that you should raise with these
kinds of hands because:
1) Big cards do better against fewer opponents, so you want to try to
drive people out
2) You probably have the best hand or near to the best hand at this
point, so it makes sense to get as much money in the pot as possible
3) You have the advantage of late position
I've been playing in very loose games where preflop raises NEVER seem
to scare other players out of a pot, so reason #1 doesn't apply. When
I raise preflop with say AJ then I usually get 7 or 8 callers. Should
I still raise?
The reason I ask this question is that I seem to make a much larger
profit when I wait to see the flop before I start raising with these
kinds of hands, partly because it's easier for me to get away from
them when I get an iffy flop.
Also, big cards like AJ are clearly at less of an advantage against a
bunch of maniac callers (I think I've seen this scenario described as
"implicit collusion"). I guess what I'm asking is is it worth raising
just for reasons #2 and #3, when you know reason #1 doesn't apply?
Ken Lovering
"Pittsburgh Peter" <pittsbur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5144a6a.03101...@posting.google.com...
> I'm relatively new to Hold'em and I'm hoping that someone with more
> experience can help me out with a basic strategy question (my
> apologies if this has already been discussed here a bunch of times).
>
> Is it always the right move to raise in late position preflop with big
> cards like AK, AQ, or AJ if you're playing in a very, very loose game?
> Everything that I've read suggests that you should raise with these
> kinds of hands because:
>
> 1) Big cards do better against fewer opponents, so you want to try to
> drive people out
What if they will not fold?
>
> 2) You probably have the best hand or near to the best hand at this
> point, so it makes sense to get as much money in the pot as possible
How do you know you have the best hand?
>
> 3) You have the advantage of late position
Which is not as powerful against 5 opponents who will chase to river on most
anything.
>
>
> I've been playing in very loose games where preflop raises NEVER seem
> to scare other players out of a pot, so reason #1 doesn't apply. When
> I raise preflop with say AJ then I usually get 7 or 8 callers. Should
> I still raise?
Depends on how much of swing in your bankroll you can stand. I would prefer
to limp & see if the flop makes me the Boss.
>
> The reason I ask this question is that I seem to make a much larger
> profit when I wait to see the flop before I start raising with these
> kinds of hands, partly because it's easier for me to get away from
> them when I get an iffy flop.
Sounds to me like you are smart.
>
> Also, big cards like AJ are clearly at less of an advantage against a
> bunch of maniac callers (I think I've seen this scenario described as
> "implicit collusion"). I guess what I'm asking is is it worth raising
> just for reasons #2 and #3, when you know reason #1 doesn't apply?
I believe you are headed in the right direction...........However, I have
never had my play televised playing that way. But I play that way anyways.
Best regards,
Ken
(who is not in need of agent at this time)
Garycarson1
>> cards like AK, AQ, or AJ if you're playing in a very, very loose game?
>> Everything that I've read suggests that you should raise with these
>> kinds of hands because:
>>
>> 1) Big cards do better against fewer opponents, so you want to try to
>> drive people out
>
>What if they will not fold?
It's not true that big cards do better against fewer opponents. It's true that
they'll win more pots, but that's only the same as better in the world of
Malmuth. Winning more pots doesn't mean better in the real world of poker.
>> 2) You probably have the best hand or near to the best hand at this
>> point, so it makes sense to get as much money in the pot as possible
>
>How do you know you have the best hand?
You don't have to know you have the best hand. It's enough to know you
probably have the best hand (and you really don't even need to be that strong
to raise in multi-way pots from late position).
>> 3) You have the advantage of late position
>
>Which is not as powerful against 5 opponents who will chase to river on most
>anything.
Of course it is, it's probably more powerful against 5 opponnants who will
chase to the river than it is against one opponent who gives up too easily.
>> I've been playing in very loose games where preflop raises NEVER seem
>> to scare other players out of a pot, so reason #1 doesn't apply. When
>> I raise preflop with say AJ then I usually get 7 or 8 callers. Should
>> I still raise?
>
>Depends on how much of swing in your bankroll you can stand. I would prefer
>to limp & see if the flop makes me the Boss.
>
Yes, you should still raise. If your bankroll isn't big enough to handle the
swings then get a job and play when you have more money.
>> The reason I ask this question is that I seem to make a much larger
>> profit when I wait to see the flop before I start raising with these
>> kinds of hands, partly because it's easier for me to get away from
>> them when I get an iffy flop.
>
>Sounds to me like you are smart.
It sounds to me like your problem is your flop play, not a preflop raise.
If you have the best of it raise. If raising puts you in a situation you don't
play well in then learn to play better.
Gary Carson
Mike
> > 1) Big cards do better against fewer opponents, so you want to try to
> > drive people out
>
> What if they will not fold?
Irrelevant. It's more profitable to raise. Get that money in the pot
when you have the edge.
> > 2) You probably have the best hand or near to the best hand at this
> > point, so it makes sense to get as much money in the pot as possible
>
> How do you know you have the best hand?
Odds are you do have the best hand.
> > 3) You have the advantage of late position
>
> Which is not as powerful against 5 opponents who will chase to river on most
> anything.
Sure. But so what? If you have the edge preflop, then you should press
that edge. Raise!
> > I've been playing in very loose games where preflop raises NEVER seem
> > to scare other players out of a pot, so reason #1 doesn't apply. When
> > I raise preflop with say AJ then I usually get 7 or 8 callers. Should
> > I still raise?
>
> Depends on how much of swing in your bankroll you can stand. I would prefer
> to limp & see if the flop makes me the Boss.
I would prefer to raise and have everyone give me some (immediate) EV.
Regards,
Mike
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Ken Lovering
"> >> Is it always the right move to raise in late position preflop with big
> >> cards like AK, AQ, or AJ if you're playing in a very, very loose game?
> >> Everything that I've read suggests that you should raise with these
> >> kinds of hands because:
> >>
> >> 1) Big cards do better against fewer opponents, so you want to try to
> >> drive people out
Ken
> >What if they will not fold?
Gary:
> It's not true that big cards do better against fewer opponents. It's true
that
> they'll win more pots, but that's only the same as better in the world of
> Malmuth. Winning more pots doesn't mean better in the real world of
poker.
Peter:
> >> 2) You probably have the best hand or near to the best hand at this
> >> point, so it makes sense to get as much money in the pot as possible
Ken:
> >How do you know you have the best hand?
Gary:
> You don't have to know you have the best hand. It's enough to know you
> probably have the best hand (and you really don't even need to be that
strong
> to raise in multi-way pots from late position).
Ken:
Gary, If I have AQos on the button and am looking at 5 limpers & raise and
they all call........we are looking at some great pot odds to chase. I can
recall a game I was in just this weekend, where I had 55 and called a raise
in the big blind. It then got capped before the flop because it was the
button who raised. Then someone in early position re-raises and the button
caps it. So I called the last two bets. We started with six players I
believe but dwindled down to 5 who paid the cap bet. The flop did not have
my 5 but the pot odds alone were better than 22.5:1 to see the turn card.
Then the turn card wasn't my 5, but I still had good enough pot odds to
chase a 22:1 odd of catching a 5 on the river. I caught it, and the pocket
Aces and Queens were calling me all kinds of fishy names. This is the truth.
What happened to one's belief in Morton's Theorem?
Peter:
> >> 3) You have the advantage of late position
Ken:
> >Which is not as powerful against 5 opponents who will chase to river on
most
> >anything.
Gary:
> Of course it is, it's probably more powerful against 5 opponnants who will
> chase to the river than it is against one opponent who gives up too
easily.
Ken:
Gary, can you give us a few scenarios that give AQos an advantage on the
button against 5 opponents, other than the obvious. Of course, if we flop
and an A&Q and the first player bets and the all call & you raise and they
all call......well we have 2 bets b4 & after the flop with six players is 12
big bets. Now the flop also came with a 9 and it was 2 suited. KJ has a 4
outer, KJ suited has 13 outs. I would think, however, with all those
players, some of those outs are in their hands. But still, JTs is looking
good, and all you have is the best hand increasing the pot odds, giving them
justification to continue.
Let's say the five opponents call the flop with at least 4 outs. Due to
duplication of hands or outs to the hands, we'll say we have 5 customers @
2.5 outs a piece, to a straight or flush. We are up against 12.5 outs. The
odds of them making one of the hands is 1.15:1.
They win every other hand. Except those where you catch a boat which will be
about every 6th hand. So, with the same scenario 12 times, you get the boat
twice. They win about 5.58 of the remaining 10 hands, so you win a total of
about 6.4 hands per dozen. Now that's profitable because of the 5:1 pot
odds, but we are talking about you flopping two pair. However, by not
raising on the flop against 5 players that will come with you to the river
anyway, you get a peak at the turn card at 1/2 price.
Now what if you have AQ suited and the flop comes Q,T,6 and two of your
suit. Well! Now we have top pair and best kicker and the nut flush draw. Let
me fire away!!!!!!!! Of course, I could be up against two pair, a straight
draw and we have the same scenario again......trying to beat out the
opposing outs.
But then, I haven't authored anything.........so, I am probably
wrong............my wife tells me so quit often. And the more I write, the
more I begin to sway your way...........but I am tired............and I will
look at TTH to see if I can find out how to do no foldem tests..........
I'd have to say you're probably right now..........but wow! what a swing in
bankroll.............
What I remember.........I have met alot of players coming to the 6/12 game,
who have been shell shocked in the 3/6 game they were sitting in while
waiting for their name to be called.............
Peter:
> >> The reason I ask this question is that I seem to make a much larger
> >> profit when I wait to see the flop before I start raising with these
> >> kinds of hands, partly because it's easier for me to get away from
> >> them when I get an iffy flop.
> >
Ken:
> >Sounds to me like you are smart.
>
Gary:
> It sounds to me like your problem is your flop play, not a preflop raise.
Ken:
Gary, what would be wrong play after the flop with AQos other than the
obvious...........you didn't pair up and you don't have sufficient pot odds
to chase your draw and you call anyway.
Best regards,
Ken
(who knows quite well who has the most experience in loose games)
Ken Lovering
I responded to all this in Gary's thread..........I assume I am not grasping
Morton's Thereom correctly............
Best regards,
Ken
(who should spend more time studying the game and less time playing 2/4 on
line)
"Mike" <joec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f9334a0$0$250$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
Ken Lovering
If you have AQos and flop 1 pair and you have a straight & flush draw
chasing you.........doesn't it pay to wait till you have the best hand
before raising?
Best regards,
Ken
(who has consumed two aspirin over this)
"Garycarson1" <garyc...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:20031019204115...@mb-m19.wmconnect.com...
James smyth
"Pittsburgh Peter" <pittsbur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5144a6a.03101...@posting.google.com...
> experience can help me out with a basic strategy question (my
> apologies if this has already been discussed here a bunch of times).
>
> Is it always the right move to raise in late position preflop with big
> cards like AK, AQ, or AJ if you're playing in a very, very loose game?
> Everything that I've read suggests that you should raise with these
> kinds of hands because:
>
> 1) Big cards do better against fewer opponents, so you want to try to
> drive people out
You will never drive people out, in fact you will force them to STAY IN because
now they are getting the proper odds to chase you all the way to the river. In
poker, if your profit comes from other players mistakes then you should rarely
raise pre-flop because with 6 or 7 people in for a raise then everyone is getting
12+/1 odds on the flop which basically covers every chasing hand possible with 2
cards to come.
> 2) You probably have the best hand or near to the best hand at this
> point, so it makes sense to get as much money in the pot as possible
Unless you have AA then you don't know if you have the best hand, also those 2
cards represent a max 40% of your finishing hand, it's perfectly reasonable to
expect another 5 community cards to change the whole shape of which hand is best.
> 3) You have the advantage of late position
Which is of little advantage in loose games, if you must raise do it in EARLY
position.
> The reason I ask this question is that I seem to make a much larger
> profit when I wait to see the flop before I start raising with these
> kinds of hands, partly because it's easier for me to get away from
> them when I get an iffy flop.
Also because your not *protecting* the worse players in the game by raising
pre-flop making it correct for them to chase you down to the river.
NOTE: You will *NEVER* be making a mistake in loose Texas Hold'em if you *NEVER*
raise pre-flop.
It's OK to raise some hands but if your just starting out or learning the game
then you should probably concentrate on other aspects of play and never raise any
of your hands when playing in a loose game. In fact most pre-flop raises in loose
Hold'em games are *MISTAKES* that you should profit from by staying in with any
above average hand, J9 suited etc.
Lion
AKo is only a moderate favorite over 67o (61% chance of winning).
Certainly this seems like a decent advantage, but when you consider
that your opponents are absolutely terrible, its really not that big
an advantage. By keeping the pot small preflop, they are making a
much bigger mistake by chasing you after the flop. If you have 5
callers preflop, and raise with AKo, and the flop comes A72, anyone
with 34o is getting correct odds to call for their gutshot. Anyone
with a pair of twos has odds to draw against you. Basically, you have
few ways to outplay anyone post-flop in a raised pot. On the other
hand, if the pot is unraised, then the fish who call you down with
bottom pair are losing a good deal of money to you with every call.
Moreover, you can play 67o more correctly in a 5 way pot then you can
AK. Lets say player A has 67o, and player B has AK. There are 3
other players in the hand. Flop comes 57A. 2 players check, player A
checks, then player B bets. 2 players call, and Player A calls. If
the turn is anything other than 6, 7, or 8, player A can safely fold
to a bet, knowing that it is a correct fold. However lets say that
turn is another rag, and player B gets checkraised. He can't fold
here, because he may be getting checkraised by AQ, or AJ (or even JJ
at $5/10). So, he has to pay off 2 additional BB with what may be the
worst hand.
Pittsburgh Peter
My question about loose games has little to do with my bankroll. I'm
playing at very low limits so I can handle some swings. What I'm
really trying to do is determine the correct play regardless of
variance.
Also, I'm certainly no expert in Hold'em and I haven't written any
books or anything, but I don't think my play on the flop is quite as
bad as you make it out to be. Let me lay out for you a couple of
examples of what I would classify as "iffy flops" with Ah Jc in late
position against 8 callers and maybe you can tell me what I'm doing
wrong:
Let's say the flop comes down: As Js Ks
Let's say there are six bets in front of me, no raises. Now I've got
aces up, normally a very powerful hand, but with 8 opponents and three
spades on the board, I'm probably a big underdog to win this pot
without catching a fh on 4th street or the river. But with 22 bets
already in the pot, my pot odds are always going to justify me
sticking around, even if another spade falls on 4th street.
Or what if the flop comes down: 2s 7d 8s
Again, six bets in front of me no raises. That's 22 total bets. I've
got to stick around and try to catch one of my cards, right?
I don't know, like I said, I'm pretty green so I'm certainly willing
to entertain the idea that I'm playing these flops wrong. I also
realize that you have to view your career as one big poker game and
ride out the swings, but any play that forces me into habitually
chasing feels like something that I ought to avoid.
And, of course, that doesn't even address the other dilemma of
preflop raising, when you make top pair but, by raising, have given
all of your maniac opponents correct pot odds to chase YOU. It just
seems to me that raising with hands like AQ and AJ preflop is not as
cut and dry as the pokers books say. But, again, I'm willing to
accept the other side of that argument if you can explain it to me
mathematically.
Signed,
Mr. Pittsburgh
garyc...@wmconnect.com (Garycarson1) wrote in message news:<20031019204115...@mb-m19.wmconnect.com>...
SenorBeef
> few ways to outplay anyone post-flop in a raised pot. On the other
> hand, if the pot is unraised, then the fish who call you down with
> bottom pair are losing a good deal of money to you with every call.
This is counter-intuitive to me. You assume these players are dumb enough to
call you down regardless of pot-odds, correct? So what difference does
giving them the correct odds make? They won't make a decision based on
whether or not the odds are correct. So essentially you're trying to keep a
pot that you're likely to win small because to make it bigger would make it
more correct for them to call - even if they're going to call anyway.
If they made their calls based on pot odds, then it makes some sense to take
that into account, but if they're going to call you down to the river
anyway, and you're a favorite, it makes sense to me to want the pot as big
as you can get it - even if it makes their mistake less egregious, it still
benefits you to have a large pot in a hand you're likely to win.
Where am I going wrong?
SenorBeef
You make money at poker by exploiting other people's mistakes, but to not
raise when you have the best hand because it would cause them to make less
of a mistake is giving priority to having them make mistakes rather than to
you making money.
In this case, their mistake was getting in a hand they had no business being
in, and you're exploiting that by winning a big pot off them. It just seems
to me that raising with the best hand can't possibly be a bad play in this
case - to try to keep the pot low *just* so that they make a bigger
mathematical mistake seems to be arbitrarily trying to chase after mistakes
instead of exploiting a good situation and making money.
I'm probably horribly wrong, but I'd like an explanation as to why. :)
Izmet Fekali
<tainte...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> "Pittsburgh Peter" <pittsbur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d5144a6a.03101...@posting.google.com...
> > I'm relatively new to Hold'em and I'm hoping that someone with more
> > experience can help me out with a basic strategy question (my
> > apologies if this has already been discussed here a bunch of times).
> >
> > Is it always the right move to raise in late position preflop with big
> > cards like AK, AQ, or AJ if you're playing in a very, very loose game?
> > Everything that I've read suggests that you should raise with these
> > kinds of hands because:
> >
Ahhh, I'm getting misty eyes, what a nostalgic topic. I've beaten it to
death arguing with Sklansky years ago...
> > 1) Big cards do better against fewer opponents, so you want to try to
> > drive people out
As you are in late position, you are only hoping to drive out the
button and maybe the blinds. Driving out opponents is not the major
concern here, but it does help. You want some people to fold (but they
probably won't).
>
> What if they will not fold?
(... Ken Lovering asks).
Some of them are correct in not folding (like with 86s and friends),
but this doesn't mean you should not raise. It's just that your profit
on the raise is going to be a little smaller that had thay folded. Yes,
you want them to fold, but if they don't, you are still better off
raising, taking whatever profit you can get.
The player that is correctly calling, say in the big blind, is hurting
everybody, not just you. Whatever profit he gets from his call is taken
from a collective of his opponents; you only pay a small piece of that
price.
Similarly, the profit that you get on your raise, is paid by the
collective of your opponents (by anybody with a worse hand, if your
hand is best, everybody must pay). Note that this chunk of money is
much bigger than whatever the caller with 86s gets.
It is important to understand that in multiway pots there can be two or
more parties making a profit at the same time (and somebody else paying
for it all). In this situation, you are making money on your raise AND
the small blind is making money on her call.
Of course, when two players are happy at the same time, somebody must
be miserable. It's the guy who limped in the middle with ATo. He is
against AQ, JTs, 86s, 55 and friends, heavily contributing to the
profit pool.
OTOH, if you do not raise, you boost 86s's profit a bit (as she gets to
see te flop cheaper) and the dominated limpers do not get punished.
Raise. You want them to fold, it's OK if they don't.
> >
> > 2) You probably have the best hand or near to the best hand at this
> > point, so it makes sense to get as much money in the pot as possible
>
> How do you know you have the best hand?
> >
You never know. But you can have a pretty good idea. Nobody raised so
far, right?
> > 3) You have the advantage of late position
>
> Which is not as powerful against 5 opponents who will chase to river on most
> anything.
> >
> >
> > I've been playing in very loose games where preflop raises NEVER seem
> > to scare other players out of a pot, so reason #1 doesn't apply. When
> > I raise preflop with say AJ then I usually get 7 or 8 callers. Should
> > I still raise?
>
Yes. You take what you can get.
> Depends on how much of swing in your bankroll you can stand.
This is somewhat true. There are some plays in hold'em that require a
relative big investment for a small chunk positive EV. Should I invest
$10000 for a $1 EV profit? Obviosly, if you got unlimited bankroll, you
should go for that $1. A buck is a buck. Any bet with a positive EV is
a good bet, no matter how small the EV is.
However, bankrols are limited. One must forego some positive high
variance EV plays that stress the bankroll. If $10000 is all you have
you don't need to tell me to fuck off and stick my $1 EV proposition up
the pooper. I know. Done, I have it in.
I don't think raising with AQo belongs in this category, though.
> I would prefer
> to limp & see if the flop makes me the Boss.
>
Not me.
> >
> > The reason I ask this question is that I seem to make a much larger
> > profit when I wait to see the flop before I start raising with these
> > kinds of hands, partly because it's easier for me to get away from
> > them when I get an iffy flop.
>
> Sounds to me like you are smart.
Sounds to me you are unable to objectively observe the results. It is
normal to lose quite a lot of these big pots and recoup with a single
win. Have you observed a big enough sample of hands to make a confident
estimate of the EV difference between raising or flat calling? Have you
reached the long run? Are you sure?
Why not toy around with Turbo Texas Hold'em, run some sims, think,
browse rgp arhives, discuss again, think some more, see the light?
> >
> > Also, big cards like AJ are clearly at less of an advantage against a
> > bunch of maniac callers (I think I've seen this scenario described as
> > "implicit collusion"). I guess what I'm asking is is it worth raising
> > just for reasons #2 and #3, when you know reason #1 doesn't apply?
>
Yes.
You will often make a profit on a raise even if the opponents respond
in disaccord to your wishes.
The probable best hand (the AQo family of hands) must raise, as it wins
more than a fair share of the pots. Note that in multiway preflop pots,
there are often situations where *two* hands are making more than a
fair share of the pots (a classic example would be AKs and QQ against a
field of limpers), meaning they are *both* correct to raise and reraise
and they should do so.
--
Izmet Fekali
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe
Lion
money directly from other player's mistakes. The bigger the mistake,
the more money you make. So, if they are getting correct odds to call
you after the flop, they are not making a mistake. If they are not
getting correct odds to call, but call anyway, they are making a
mistake. Therefore, you make more money from them, when you deny them
correct odds.
"SenorBeef" <seno...@blahblahyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bn084...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
JonCooke
You aren't going wrong in absolute EV terms.
I think Lion is suggesting that you have a higher edge per unit
invested if you wait for the flop. That is fairly clearly true. You
don't have to try to extract every ounce of EV you can out of the game
if you can find a much lower risk, slightly lower EV strategy.
If you want to maximise your EV in big bets against a school of
non-folding fish go ahead and raise pre-flop. You will make more money
but you'll have a much higher variance too.
JonCooke
Don't post humour without a warning. Someone might take you seriously.
JonCooke
> I'm relatively new to Hold'em and I'm hoping that someone with more
> experience can help me out with a basic strategy question (my
> apologies if this has already been discussed here a bunch of times).
>
> Is it always the right move to raise in late position preflop with big
> cards like AK, AQ, or AJ if you're playing in a very, very loose game?
> Everything that I've read suggests that you should raise with these
> kinds of hands because:
If you judge well enough post flop you'll make a bit more money
raising, but the game will be more exasperating to non Zen players and
will have much higher variance.
> 1) Big cards do better against fewer opponents, so you want to try to
> drive people out
The best offsuit hand does just fine. Dominated offsuit hands are
heavily punished in multiway pots.
> 2) You probably have the best hand or near to the best hand at this
> point, so it makes sense to get as much money in the pot as possible.
> 3) You have the advantage of late position
>
> I've been playing in very loose games where preflop raises NEVER seem
> to scare other players out of a pot, so reason #1 doesn't apply. When
> I raise preflop with say AJ then I usually get 7 or 8 callers. Should
> I still raise?
> The reason I ask this question is that I seem to make a much larger
> profit when I wait to see the flop before I start raising with these
> kinds of hands, partly because it's easier for me to get away from
> them when I get an iffy flop.
Seems is the operative word. If you learn to generally fold when you
miss the flop you'll find your profits will be bigger when you raise
pre-flop than when you don't. Of course you'll make a few flop calls
in the bigger pot that you wouldn't make in the smaller one, but you
shouldn't be giving back all that lovely edge you had when they called
you pre-flop.
> Also, big cards like AJ are clearly at less of an advantage against a
> bunch of maniac callers (I think I've seen this scenario described as
> "implicit collusion"). I guess what I'm asking is is it worth raising
> just for reasons #2 and #3, when you know reason #1 doesn't apply?
It's not that big a deal to raise. You will cost yourself a bit of EV
if you just call (So long as you weren't going to throw it all away
post-flop), but you will feel a bit more in control of what's
happening.
Kevin Cline
Sounds almost right -- five players x four bets plus a little dead
money.
Or was it capped at five bets?
> Then the turn card wasn't my 5, but I still had good enough pot odds to
> chase a 22:1 odd of catching a 5 on the river.
What, did they cap the betting again? And you played along the whole
way,
and then called one bet on the turn? You realize that if you knew
there
would be a raise on the flop it would have been correct for you to
fold?
Now you've put in 20% of a pot you have a less than 5% chance of
winning. Please come to my table and bet this way.
> I caught it, and the pocket
> Aces and Queens were calling me all kinds of fishy names. This is the truth.
They should learn better manners.
> What happened to one's belief in Morton's Theorem?
Morton's Theorem holds, but that doesn't mean that good hands
shouldn't raise pre-flop. I'm thrilled to get 5 players in for four
bets when I have AQo, unless one of them has me dominated with AA, KK,
QQ, or AK.
JonCooke
> >> cards like AK, AQ, or AJ if you're playing in a very, very loose game?
> >> Everything that I've read suggests that you should raise with these
> >> kinds of hands because:
> >>
> >> 1) Big cards do better against fewer opponents, so you want to try to
> >> drive people out
> >
> >What if they will not fold?
>
> It's not true that big cards do better against fewer opponents. It's true that
> they'll win more pots, but that's only the same as better in the world of
> Malmuth. Winning more pots doesn't mean better in the real world of poker.
His statement about big cards being better in short handed pots is
relevant to a stronger game. An occasional multiway pot in a sound
mid-limit game is going to be contested by a set of hands that may not
leave your AJo with much edge. A multiway pot in a fish game is going
to leave your AJ with lots of edge. MM is not talking about low limit
poker. I accept he doesn't make the distinction clear enough.
In the games MM is talking about: here is an example:
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
As 8s 133697 15.72 702951 82.64 14020 1.65 0.165
7c 6c 150367 17.68 699581 82.24 720 0.08 0.177
Ac Jd 132492 15.58 704156 82.78 14020 1.65 0.164
5c 5d 142336 16.73 707612 83.18 720 0.08 0.167
Kh Qh 277756 32.65 572192 67.26 720 0.08 0.327
In the low limit fish game:
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
As 8s 146681 17.24 680194 79.96 23793 2.80 0.186
6s 7c 109672 12.89 722824 84.97 18172 2.14 0.139
Ac Jd 213380 25.08 613495 72.12 23793 2.80 0.264
5c 2c 172345 20.26 676794 79.56 1529 0.18 0.203
7d Kh 168154 19.77 664342 78.10 18172 2.14 0.208
Kevin Cline
> For low limit poker only (up to $10/20):
>
> AKo is only a moderate favorite over 67o (61% chance of winning).
A moderate favorite? 53% chance of winning is a moderate favorite.
61%-39% is huge. If they go all-in for $100 pre-flop, the AKo wins
$22 per hand.
> Certainly this seems like a decent advantage, but when you consider
> that your opponents are absolutely terrible, its really not that big
> an advantage. By keeping the pot small preflop, they are making a
> much bigger mistake by chasing you after the flop.
You want them to chase.
> If you have 5
> callers preflop, and raise with AKo, and the flop comes A72, anyone
> with 34o is getting correct odds to call for their gutshot. Anyone
> with a pair of twos has odds to draw against you. Basically, you have
> few ways to outplay anyone post-flop in a raised pot.
> On the other
> hand, if the pot is unraised, then the fish who call you down with
> bottom pair are losing a good deal of money to you with every call.
They lose the same amount of money whether the pot has $10 or $1000.
By making the pot bigger pre-flop, you make it correct for them to
lose more money later.
>
> Moreover, you can play 67o more correctly in a 5 way pot then you can
> AK. Lets say player A has 67o, and player B has AK. There are 3
> other players in the hand. Flop comes 57A. 2 players check, player A
> checks, then player B bets. 2 players call, and Player A calls. If
> the turn is anything other than 6, 7, or 8, player A can safely fold
> to a bet, knowing that it is a correct fold.
Great. So player A has put in two small bets, catches a pretty good
flop,
and now has 5 outs to two pair, and four outs to a straight draw?
> However lets say that
> turn is another rag, and player B gets checkraised. He can't fold
> here, because he may be getting checkraised by AQ, or AJ (or even JJ
> at $5/10). So, he has to pay off 2 additional BB with what may be the
> worst hand.
By raising pre-flop, the player with AK increases his EV enough to
cover
the cost of calling down some losing hands.
Kevin Cline
Give me AKo, and three other players who don't have AA and KK, and
we'll put in $1000 each preflop, and make the post-flop bets $5. Now
we're all correct to chase every hand to the river, but that's fine
with me.
Question: other than AA and KK, are there three other hands that would
make
the AKo worse than 25% to win?
Garycarson1
>money directly from other player's mistakes. The bigger the mistake,
>the more money you make. So, if they are getting correct odds to call
>you after the flop, they are not making a mistake. If they are not
>getting correct odds to call, but call anyway, they are making a
>mistake. Therefore, you make more money from them, when you deny them
>correct odds.
Sklansky often forgets that the Fundemental Theorem of Poker is nonsense when
you try to apply it to multiway pots.
His arguement for pot manipution is somewhat rational in a heads up situation.
It's nonsense when the pot is multiway and it's completely nuts when applied to
a multiway hand of loose players.
Gary Carson
Steve McCroskey
Well, I'm CERTAINLY no expert here, but I'll give ya my 2 cents
anyway...
I find that, with a table full of calling stations, your AJ's value
starts to diminish quickly. In late position, when faced with a table
full of callers, I'd just as soon call it up and wait for the flop.
If you miss you're still in a great position to bail out. I'm a
pretty tight player though, so it's all in your playing style. I feel
that in these games you're not going to run enough people out of the
pot to feel very secure against the miracle river draw.
P.
pittsbur...@hotmail.com (Pittsburgh Peter) wrote in message news:<d5144a6a.03101...@posting.google.com>...
Vince lepore
> >> cards like AK, AQ, or AJ if you're playing in a very, very loose game?
> >> Everything that I've read suggests that you should raise with these
> >> kinds of hands because:
>
>
>
> If you have the best of it raise. If raising puts you in a situation you don't
> play well in then learn to play better.
>
> Gary Carson
Gary offers sound advice here. Check out your post flop play. It is
probably your problem. Now one other thing about Gary's reply. Gary
said that only in Malmuth's world does A,K do better against fewer
opponents. Gary, you are doing a diservice to your readers (again).
The fact is that A,K plays better against fewer opponents. That is
what Malmuth has written and it is correct. Against a single opponent
quite often A,K can win the hand in a showdown. This is very unusual
in a multiway pot. In loose multi way pots you are much better off
preflop with small pairs. Playing A,K after the flop with a lot of
opponents becomes tricky and dangerous unless you flop the proverbial
monster. Does A,K win more money in a pot with lots of players than it
does with one or two? Probably not. Does that mean it plays better?
No. I don't believe so. Does it mean that you should raise from late
position? Not necessarily. In fact the hand may actually make you more
money if you don't raise preflop. It has a deception effect in some
loose games. In other games where they all call to the river anyway
then raising is good! Anyway, one must temper Carson' Mason Malmuth
blatings with a bit of common sense. It really is interesting that
Gary hates this guy so much. I don't believe he has ever even met
him. Go figure.
Vince
Steve McCroskey
before they start to "grow a brain" so to speak. Even if you're a
nice guy in real life, you have to adopt a shark attitude at the table
to exact the most benefit from your play. Think of it like boxing. I
might be a great friend, but once I'm in the ring, I'm going to kick
your butt. <grin>
P.
"SenorBeef" <seno...@blahblahyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bn084...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
TIM BOLTON
BUT NOT A GOOD IDEAL WHILE YOUR PLAYING ONLINE POKER! LOTS OF PREFLOP
BETTING CAN LOOSE YOUR MONEY REAL FAST IN ONLOINE POKER! ITS TOO EASY TO
BE 2BOXED AT ONLINE POKER! DONT PREFLOP RAISE ONLINE PLAY TIGHT AND
HIT THE BET UP AT THE 4TH STREET NOT ON THE PRE FLOP !
** Anonymous RGP ACCESS at http://www.LiveActionPoker.com
** $100 Deposit Bonus at http://www.FabulousPoker.com
anthony0
AJ isn't all that great of a hand anyway, even in late position, when
you're in a very loose game.
In a typical or tight game you raise and if the flop hits you and you
bet chances are that's all the money you're going to make. So it makes
sense to try and get more money in there pre-flop and take advantage of
your position.
In a very loose game, with post-flop calling-stations wouldn't it be
better to see the flop for cheap and then make your money? If you miss
you get out and save a small bet to see the next flop. If you hit
you're going to make much more money from the calling-stations calling
you all the way to the river with middle or low pair.
In very loose very passive games, especially the ones that are loose
post-flop wouldn't it be better to see more flops for as little as
possible and then make the money if you hit?
Anthony
Garycarson1
>they all call........we are looking at some great pot odds to chase.
So?
The idea of pot manipulation that Sklasky puts forward is based on the idea
(from the fundemental theorem of poker) that you need to induce the other
players to make mistakes. That kind of thinking leads to excessive trickiness.
Failure to raise when you have the best of it is an example of excessive
trickiness.
In loose games you profit by exlpoiting mistakes they already make -- not by
inducing mistakes on future rounds.
They are making a FTP mistake now by limping with weak hands, and if you don't
raise you're letting them get away with it.
If you don't raise when you have the best of it, then you don't really have
much the best of it anymore, you're giving away your edge.
Gary Carson
Garycarson1
>If you have AQos and flop 1 pair and you have a straight & flush draw
>chasing you.........doesn't it pay to wait till you have the best hand
>before raising?
>
In a multiway pot you shoud raise when you have the best of it, not when you
have the best hand.
If you are a 4-1 dog and 5 players will call your raise then you have the best
of it if you raise.
Gary Carson
Garycarson1
never bet it.
I cold called 2 bets from the button. Called the bet from the SB on the flop
(nobody raised), called the turn bet, was the only caller on the river. He had
a busted flush draw.
It was multiway -- it takes more than a couple of callers to get to $100 in a
1-4/8 game.
But, if play better means wins more pots then yes, it plays better to have
fewer opponents.
But, if that's what plays better means then it's not better to have a hand play
better.
Gary Carson
Garycarson1
>you're in a very loose game.
AJ isn't AQ and the two aren't as close to each other as many think.
>In a typical or tight game you raise and if the flop hits you and you
>bet chances are that's all the money you're going to make.
If a tight, tricky player has limped from early position I might not even play
AJ here.
> So it makes
>sense to try and get more money in there pre-flop and take advantage of
>your position.
I might be more likely to limp against a single limper because I can often pick
up the pot automatically no matter what flops, but if I raise and little cards
flop they might put me on overcards on the flop and call.
Philip K
lol
"Garycarson1" <garyc...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:20031020153311...@mb-m19.wmconnect.com...
Garycarson1
>
I like Sklansky. And, I think he's done good work and continues to do good
work.
But, that doesn't mean he always gets it right.
Even when he doesn't get it right I think whatever he says is worth some
thought.
Gary Carson
Ken Lovering
AQos against: KJ,JT, 98 suited, 55 & 22 as his five opponents. AQ wins
20.72% of the hands. That's with the dueces winning 15%, so you know he won
alot of those on the turn or river. 55 won 19%. Now, in real life, even in a
really loose game, I don't see 22 going past the flop without a set.
Where I see a problem, is if UTG opens and he is know to limp with AKs or a
big pair in these games. Or even AJ........we could end up splitting or
losing the pot to him.
It just seems to me, that if you have a guy with 55 & 22 paying for the turn
card and a guy with a gut shot draw and yada yada, you are going to have to
something decent on the flop to go with your AQ. Of course, if you do, you
might not get to raise on the flop as it may be checked to you.
Give one your opponents an ace or queen in the no foldem holdem simulation.
Let's use the same hands as above, only give the JT, QT and AQ still wins a
little more than his share. Even more in real life when somebody is sure to
fold. But I still find it hard to believe, that the best case scenario is
not to call b4 the flop and then get in your raise after you see the flop
and decide if you're going to stay.
pokenum -h ad qs - kd jh - qh tc - 9c 8c - 5h 5s - 2c 2d
Holdem Hi: 658008 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Qs Ad 124305 18.89 527242 80.13 6461 0.98 0.193
Kd Jh 106385 16.17 550929 83.73 694 0.11 0.162
Tc Qh 67647 10.28 583900 88.74 6461 0.98 0.107
9c 8c 125834 19.12 531480 80.77 694 0.11 0.191
5s 5h 126300 19.19 531014 80.70 694 0.11 0.192
2c 2d 101076 15.36 556238 84.53 694 0.11 0.154
--- narrow version ---
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=106528
pokenum -h ad qs - kd jh - qh tc - 9c 8c - 5h 5s - 2c 2d
Holdem Hi: 658008 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Qs Ad 124305 18.89 527242 80.13 6461 0.98 0.193
Kd Jh 106385 16.17 550929 83.73 694 0.11 0.162
Tc Qh 67647 10.28 583900 88.74 6461 0.98 0.107
9c 8c 125834 19.12 531480 80.77 694 0.11 0.191
5s 5h 126300 19.19 531014 80.70 694 0.11 0.192
2c 2d 101076 15.36 556238 84.53 694 0.11 0.15
"Garycarson1" <garyc...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:20031020202153...@mb-m28.wmconnect.com...
Ken Lovering
opponents....and on average the 2nd or 3rd player will bet the flop and
you're on the button and get a raise in on a good flop and get 3-4
callers........don't you make more money saving that extra bet before the
flop on the 4 hands you don't get a flop you want to hang with?
Best regards,
Ken
"Garycarson1" <garyc...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:20031020202336...@mb-m28.wmconnect.com...
Ken Lovering
I asked you a question I could answer myself simply by doing some
homework........but it's bedtime.......
Thanks for making me think!
Best regards,
Ken
"Garycarson1" <garyc...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:20031020202336...@mb-m28.wmconnect.com...
Philip K
> Sklansky often forgets that the Fundemental Theorem of Poker is nonsense when
> you try to apply it to multiway pots.
>
> His arguement for pot manipution is somewhat rational in a heads up situation.
> It's nonsense when the pot is multiway and it's completely nuts when applied to
> a multiway hand of loose players.
I think you probably are correct if you consider the fact that "a call be me" may
make another player's actions correct, but it may also make a different player's
actions incorrect. In other words, Sklansky's ideas of inducing mistakes in other
players by manipulating odds does not mean that your actions will always induce
"coordinated mistakes" by all players around the table.
For example, in a multiway pot, my raise on the button with a hand like ATs may
get a tight player to fold his AJo (good for me), while simulateously giving the guy
in the cutoff to my right the odds he needs to continue with his 22 (bad for me).
I assume, Gary, this is what you were talking about.
Phil
Garycarson1
Gambling isn't about winning bets, it's about getting the right price on your
bet. Poker, horses, sports, it's all the same. Getting a price.
Gary Carson
Garycarson1
He's already made a mistake, you need to exploit that one now, not worry about
trying to induce one later.
If you don't raise now then you're the one making the mistake.
If you don't raise then you're giving up EV in the hope that some player might
make a small mistake later because of it.
That doesn't mean you should laways raise, there are times you shouldn't. But,
the pot manipulation arguement in loose games is just wrong-headed.
This morning I was in a 1488 game and had AsKs on the button. It's 1/2 blinds,
2 to limp, first raise to 6, reraise to 10.
It went, limp, limp, limp, raise to 6. cold call, then my turn. I called. I
didn't make it 10. By calling I induce everyone else to come in, making a
mistake now. Both blinds called, the limpers called.
I wasn't trying to induce a mistake later, I was trying to induce mistakes now.
There was another factor in my decision. Five of us had pot-limit over's
buttons. The raiser was one of them. I didn't want to show strength until I
actually hit the flop strongly, in the long shot hopes of trapping him if we
got headsup later.
Gary Carson
Ken Lovering
This thread won't let me sleep!! How's this:
You are a 4-1 dog with AQos and you have 5 opponents.So you will win more
than your fair share. You will put 2 bets in the pot before the flop x 5
times and win once and collect $10 from the 5 players on the time you win.
So you net $2.00
If you get nothing but a call from all 5 players to the river and are
playing 2/4 the total amount of money each player puts in is:
$4 b4 the flop; $2 on the flop & $8 for the turn and river:
$14.00*5opponents = $70.00. You lose $4*4=$16 on the four hands that didn't
give you a flop, if you let go and don't call to see the turn card. If you
don't raise before the flop and have a so so flop, you have an extra $8 to
call for the turn card to see if you can catch up........that sounds stupid.
The question is.......will not raising before the flop, induce a player or
two to fold more often after the flop since their pot odds are not as good,
and still allow you to make enough money on an extra win with less people
calling. Probably not, because if an early position player opens after the
flop and they all call and then you raise..........we'll they'll pay the
other $2.
I guess it boils down to.............if you're real close to a schooling
situation..........you might as well dive on in...........but
then......there is the math to look at..........but I gotta get some sleep.
Best regards,
Ken
"Garycarson1" <garyc...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:20031020232332...@mb-m28.wmconnect.com...
Unknown
wrote:
>t occurs to me that poker authors really don't like each other much.
>
>lol
Actually, they are all just jealous of Sklansky. He was the first, he
was the best, he is the most copied.
Vince lepore
>
> But, if that's what plays better means then it's not better to have a hand > play better.
>
> Gary Carson
Gary,
Now you are just being silly because you don't like Mason. Of course
"plays better" means that you have more options and a better chance of
beating a single opponent than many. You know that is what Mason
means and you know he is right. He never stated that you are better
of with one opponent than many when you hold A,K. Are you saying that
when you raise with A,K (you do raise with A,K don't you), that, in
many instances you do so not to try and limit the opposition? If that
is not the case then you must be playing too much low limit poker.
Vince
QuadNines
>
> garyc...@wmconnect.com (Garycarson1) wrote in message
> news:<20031020202747...@mb-m28.wmconnect.com>...
>>
>> But, if that's what plays better means then it's not
>> better to have a hand play better.
>
> and a better chance of beating a single opponent than many.
> You know that is what Mason means and you know he is right
Why do you care if a hand has a better chance of beating a single
opponent than many opponents? (All hands generally do.) Do you want
to win lots of pots or lots of money?
Are you sure that's what Malmuth meant by "plays better?" Or are you
just putting words in his mouth in an attempt to bash him? It sure
seems like a stupid thing to say, and I don't believe Malmuth is a
complete idiot.
Bill Reich
AK wins more pots against fewer opponents. AK wins BIGGER pots against
more opponents. One plays AK differently in the two situations. In
order to win those pots with AK unimproved against one opponent, a
player will have to be betting to the river. While this leads to
winning some hands without showing down, the cost for playing the hand
can be just as high against one opponent as against several. In the
multiplayer scenario, when the AK does not improve on the flop, the
player may or may not make one play for the pot against multiple
opponents (I have actually had a fair amount of success betting out,
having raised preflop, and winning right then or getting headsup with
a guy who folds on the river when he misses his draw. But those
instances aren't in REAL no foldem games) but the general plan is to
retire, having lost the preflop bets. The equation is complex. You
have, generally, less invested (because you quit earlier) and larger
pots against multiple opponents. But you win more pots, a great many
more pots, against fewere opponents. I don't think that this justifies
the assertion that AK plays MUCH better against fewer opponents.
I don't hate Mason. In fact, he is always been cordial to me in our
online encounters and some of his, MANY of his strategy comments (on
2+2 or here, back when he posted more here) look good to me. Just as
Gary's generally do. However, I don't think that Mason has played much
in really insanely loose games. I know that Gary has and his advice
for those games works for me. I raise preflop in those games with AK
but I don't always call a raise or raises preflop with AK. Depends on
who is raising and what is happening at the table.
--
Will in New Haven
Garycarson1
>in really insanely loose games.
I'm really not looking for excuses to bash Mason. But, he's on record in the
2+2 archives as saying he does not beleive that such games even exist other
than as some very short lived transiant state.
>. I raise preflop in those games with AK
>but I don't always call a raise or raises preflop with AK.
There are probably times you shouldn't even play an AKo in a very wild game.
For example, if a very tight player raises utg and you're next with AKo it
might be that your best action is to fold. With AKs you should call though
.>Depends on
>who is raising and what is happening at the table.
>
Yes, everything depends on what's going on and who's doing it.
Gary Carson
Bill Reich
> > I don't think that Mason has played much
> >in really insanely loose games.
>
> I'm really not looking for excuses to bash Mason. But, he's on record in the
> 2+2 archives as saying he does not beleive that such games even exist other
> than as some very short lived transiant state.
That isn't bashing him. It isn't a character flaw not to play in those
games. Maybe not playing in those games is a good choice for him. They
are profitable but they aren't interesting poker. And they can drive
you mad.
> >. I raise preflop in those games with AK
> >but I don't always call a raise or raises preflop with AK.
>
> There are probably times you shouldn't even play an AKo in a very wild game.
> For example, if a very tight player raises utg and you're next with AKo it
> might be that your best action is to fold. With AKs you should call though
AKs in a multi-way game, you have to see the flop.
Mason ought to know that there really ARE such games. I wish I had a
film of Saturday night, three weeks ago so he could see one. $5/10
but the kill button was on the table all night. On one hand, six
people see A75 rainbow after capped pre-flop. Capped again, five
people left. Eight on the turn gives me a flush draw but now we gotta
worry about the straights. I slow down (yes, I admit it) but it still
gets capped five ways. Jack on the river and the betting slows to one
bet with everybody left in. Three way chop. THREE AK!! I don't know
what the other two guys were playing but they couldn't have had (only)
draws because they called a bet on the river. It was a miracle to get
a piece of that pot with just AK.
I would have liked to show Mason a film of that game. It lasted from
11:20 PM to 7:30 AM at Foxwoods. I made $1500. It was very dull poker,
in a sense. Dropped $400 in very much the same game the next week when
their draws kept hitting. NOT terribly interesting poker, high
variance, but profitable. I don't blame Mason for not choosing to play
in these games but he ought to realize that they exist and they exist
in Nevada too.
During the same period, I played a few hours of pot limit. Only made
$250 in two long sessions, much lower hourly rate than the $5/10 but I
remember almost all the hands and it was interesting.
> .>Depends on
> >who is raising and what is happening at the table.
> >
>
> Yes, everything depends on what's going on and who's doing it.
Pretty much, but you can play AA hard pre-flop against anyone who
isn't holding a firearm on you.
>
>
> Gary Carson
Garycarson1
>the
>> 2+2 archives as saying he does not beleive that such games even exist other
>> than as some very short lived transiant state.
>
>That isn't bashing him. It isn't a character flaw not to play in those
>games.
The character flaw is his refusal to beleive such games do exist when people
tell him that such games are actually pretty common in some locations.
He really is an paranoid idiot.
Gary Carson
Ken Lovering
flop comes: Qs,9s,2d and there are two other players in the pot. Both you
and I want as much money in the pot as possible. I do, because with 3
opponents calling, I am getting 3:1 pot odds on a 1.9:1 draw. You do,
because I wll only outdraw you 1 out of 3 times.
Best regards,
Ken
Ken Lovering
odds, what you do is bust them out of the game quicker.
If the best hand out there is trips after the flop and I have AK suited with
a four flush, a 1.9:1 dog; then we have another player who is a 11:1 dog of
catching trips to his bigger pocket pair. And we have a crowd in the pot and
it was capped before the flop, the 11:1 dog is getting correct odds, but I
am still going to make my flush 1 out of three times. Only there will be
more money in there.
Say we have five players total and the 4th player is a 7:1 dog & the 5th an
8:1 dog.
If all of us make our hands when nobody else does, we beat out the flopped
set. 66 times out of a 100. However, the trips is going build a house 1/3 of
the time. So, he will lose far less than 66 hands. So he has the best of it.
The guy who is only a 1.9:1 dog has the 2nd best of it and on down the line.
The way I see it, the guy in the lead wants all the money in the pot he can
get.
However, just like Carson says in his book, it's only against a semi-strong
made hand, that the primary beneficiary of flop bets is the best draw, not
the best hand. A flopped set is not a semi-strong hand.
The way I see it, you have no idea what four opponents are holding.
Therefore, I minimize my betting before the flop, i.e, I don't re-raise with
AK or KQ suited before the flop. I wait to see the flop. It is the flop that
defines YOUR hand. You can make your most intelligent decisions (other than
choosing good starting hands before the flop) once you've seen those 3
cards.
Best regards,
Ken
(The local novice)
"Lion" <ap...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b5d27558.03102...@posting.google.com...
> I first heard this idea from Sklansky. The idea is that you make
> money directly from other player's mistakes. The bigger the mistake,
> the more money you make. So, if they are getting correct odds to call
> you after the flop, they are not making a mistake. If they are not
> getting correct odds to call, but call anyway, they are making a
> mistake. Therefore, you make more money from them, when you deny them
> correct odds.
>
Paul Phillips
Ken Lovering <tainte...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>I don't think you're wrong. That is why if I have AsKs & you have QQ and the
>flop comes: Qs,9s,2d and there are two other players in the pot. Both you
>and I want as much money in the pot as possible. I do, because with 3
>opponents calling, I am getting 3:1 pot odds on a 1.9:1 draw.
1.9 to 1? Uh... flush draw against set? Much closer to 2.9 to 1.
--
Paul Phillips | When the grass appears greener on the other side of
Analgesic | the fence, the illusion lies not so much in the grass
Empiricist | as in the fence.
pp: i haul pills |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
Ken Lovering
That's because you are counting the 1/3 times the set gets a house. But I
don't know you have a set at the time.
Best regards,
Ken
"Paul Phillips" <rgp...@improving.org> wrote in message
news:bncr1s$l7j$1...@spoon.improving.org...
Paul Phillips
Ken Lovering <tainte...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>That's because you are counting the 1/3 times the set gets a house.
Seems like the sensible thing to do.
>But I don't know you have a set at the time.
Do you always count your pot odds as if your opponents have no redraws?
--
Paul Phillips | Eschew mastication.
Caged Spirit |
Empiricist |
A. Prock
>In article <bncsfi$vllvb$1...@ID-196892.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>Ken Lovering <tainte...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>That's because you are counting the 1/3 times the set gets a house.
>
>Seems like the sensible thing to do.
>
>>But I don't know you have a set at the time.
>
>Do you always count your pot odds as if your opponents have no redraws?
The related question also illustrates the problem:
Do you always count your pot odds as if your opponents have a set?
Clearly the correct approach lies somewhere between the two
extremes.
- Andrew