Going too Far
James W. Karlinski
> When reading the posts from this gp it is obvious that many of
> you are struggling with how to beat "no-fold'em" games. <SNIP>
> For instance, in the "going too far" type game, it becomes very
> important that your hand be suited. For example, if I am on the
> button in a no-fold'em game I will throw away 9-8 offsuit in a
> many handed unraised pot, but I will play this hand against the
> exact same number of players in a loose game where my opponents
> are not going too far. Needless to say, calling upfront with 9-8
> offsuit in a no-fold'em game will drain your bankroll in the long
> run.
> There are many other adjustments. For example, I don't
> worry very much about letting a free card drop off on the flop
> when I know that virtually everyone will call anyway. Some of you
> may want to come up with other adjustments.
> Mason Malmuth
How about almost never raising pre-flop. I talk about this in a seperate
post today. NO hands have positive expectation if the majority of the
players are calling pre-flop and going to the river. You would rather
limp in with anything than raise. The exceptions would be raising in late
position if you think you could steal on the flop [which is unlikely in
these games]. A better strategy would be [at least in Atlantic Citry
where the rake is 10% max $5] to get a job and move up to a higher limit
where you stand somewhat of a chance.
Jim Karlinski
Aesop
Tom Weideman
expectations in this game (in fact more than in any other type of game), but
the expectation may be small. A good reason for not raising, even with a
positive expectation is what it does to the later rounds of betting. There
is at least a chance you can get the field down to "optimum" size if you
don't put too much "dead money" out there.
For me, the story often goes: Pick up AJ, don't raise (they won't fold
anyway). Flop Jxx. Don't bet flop... allow free card (Mason's comment)...
wait 'til turn, then jam away if no danger turns. This way, you've waited to
bet until they are making a mistake in calling, AND if a killer card comes
(K, Q, one card straight, whatever), you get away cheap. I have talked with
many players who think that this is a mistake, as I have "let them draw out
on me". The point is that they would have called anyway, and it would have
cost me more. Moreover, it was *correct* for them to draw, considering the
pot size. I guess this sort of play runs contrary to the way people want to
play. As Mason points out, there are many important and even dramatic
adjustments that need to be made, and it is clear to me that many otherwise
tough players do not make them and complain that they can't beat those loose
games.
BTW, if I get a good draw in the above scenario, I play just the opposite...
I bet/raise the flop. Rule of thumb: Made hands are vulnerable in no-fold'em
-- play like a weenie 'til the turn; good drawing hands are strong in
no-fold'em -- play them aggressively.
Oh yeah, and one other reason for not raising preflop much in these games:
You raise your standard deviation a lot without raising your expectation much
(if at all). Considering the fluctuations we have to deal with in this game
and the accompanying bankroll requirements, this is the *last* thing we want
to do.
Aloha,
Tom Weideman
Lee Jones
Mason Malmuth <10357...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>It is the fact that in these games typical
>players not only play too many hands but are going too far with
>their hands.
> There are many other adjustments. For example, I don't
>worry very much about letting a free card drop off on the flop
>when I know that virtually everyone will call anyway.
Mason, could you elaborate on this point? When you say you don't mind
letting a free card drop on the flop, is that if you're drawing, or you
think you're in front?
It seems that if you think you're in front, you get your equity by betting,
and if you're drawing, you may well be getting the right odds to put more
money in the pot.
I can imagine (pathological?) cases where you're in front, but because of
the hands out against you, you're a dog to win the pot, and not even getting
proper odds to bet. Or if you've got a draw that doesn't deserve to call
a bet. But in those cases, the free card is benefitting you.
Please understand, I'm not being facetious here; I simply don't get it.
Regards, Lee
--
Lee Jones | "And that's the thing - do you recognize
le...@sgi.com | The bell of truth, when you hear it ring?"
415-933-3356 | -Leon Russell ("Stranger in a Strange Land")
Mason Malmuth
reality is that these games are extremely easy to beat for a lot
of money if you make the proper adjustments, and these games
require many adjustments from conventional strategy.
Let me address one area where I think that most of you
are having trouble. It is the fact that in these games typical
are playing too many hands but not going too far with them. For
important that your hand be suited. For example, if I am on the
button in a no-fold'em game I will throw away 9-8 offsuit in a
many handed unraised pot, but I will play this hand against the
exact same number of players in a loose game where my opponents
are not going too far. Needless to say, calling upfront with 9-8
offsuit in a no-fold'em game will drain your bankroll in the long
run.
worry very much about letting a free card drop off on the flop
Timothy McGarvey
: players are calling pre-flop and going to the river. You would rather
: limp in with anything than raise. The exceptions would be raising in late
: position if you think you could steal on the flop [which is unlikely in
: these games]. A better strategy would be [at least in Atlantic Citry
: where the rake is 10% max $5] to get a job and move up to a higher limit
: where you stand somewhat of a chance.
: Jim Karlinski
: Aesop
At least at the Taj the rake is max $4, and outside of 2-4 I have never
seen a no-foldem holdem game in AC.
--
----
Timothy J. McGarvey
tmc...@gl.umbc.edu
I knew I had some reason for not killing you -- now what was it?
Lee Jones
Tad Perry <t...@bigbird.rad.washington.edu> wrote:
>>Mason, could you elaborate on this point? When you say you don't mind
>>letting a free card drop on the flop, is that if you're drawing, or you
>>think you're in front?
>When I read this I thought he was referring to going for the check
>raise from early position.
OK, that seems like a reasonable interpretation. Thanks.
Regards, Lee
--
Lee Jones | "And as I listened, your voice seemed so clear
le...@sgi.com | so calmly you were calling your god"
415-933-3356 | -Loreena McKennitt
Leslie Schenkel
>At least at the Taj the rake is max $4, and outside of 2-4 I have never
>seen a no-foldem holdem game in AC.
>
>--
>----
>Timothy J. McGarvey
>tmc...@gl.umbc.edu
>
will routinely get 4 or 5 callers after a raise from early position at the
Taj. Maybe this is just an anomoly but these weak players seem to be
coming out of the woodwork lately.
David
Tad Perry
>Mason Malmuth <10357...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>
>>players not only play too many hands but are going too far with
>>their hands.
>
>>worry very much about letting a free card drop off on the flop
>>when I know that virtually everyone will call anyway.
>
>letting a free card drop on the flop, is that if you're drawing, or you
>think you're in front?
>
>and if you're drawing, you may well be getting the right odds to put more
>money in the pot.
>
>I can imagine (pathological?) cases where you're in front, but because of
>the hands out against you, you're a dog to win the pot, and not even getting
>proper odds to bet. Or if you've got a draw that doesn't deserve to call
>a bet. But in those cases, the free card is benefitting you.
>
>Please understand, I'm not being facetious here; I simply don't get it.
When I read this I thought he was referring to going for the check
raise from early position. This is one of the best ways to shorten
the odds in one of these no foldem games. Suddenly those correct
odds for a gut-shot can be made long. So it seemed that the point
was when attempting this move on the flop you're less concerned
if it fails.
Tad Perry t...@eskimo.com
Timothy McGarvey
This is not a no-foldem game. The games I have played in that I would
call no-foldem routinely get 8, 9 or 10 callers preflop for any number of
bets. Perhaps 3 or 4 to see a showdown. 4 people calling a raise is a
good game yes, but not a no-foldem game.
--
----
Timothy J. McGarvey
tmc...@gl.umbc.edu
On a clear disk you can seek forever
Mark Wainwright
> Mason, could you elaborate on this point? When you say you don't mind
> letting a free card drop on the flop, is that if you're drawing, or you
> think you're in front?
As I read it he is in front; he does not mind letting a free card drop
because everyone is going to stay in for the next card anyway (the
`going too far' problem), so it is not worth putting money in the pot
in a doomed attempt to narrow the field.
Mark Wainwright
--
No. 7. They still believe in God, the family, angels, | ma...@harlequin.co.uk
devils, witches, goblins, logic, clarity, punctuation, |
and other such obsolete stuff. | http://www.cl.cam.
--I B Singer, `10 reasons why I write for children'| ac.uk/users/maw13/
Mason Malmuth
>When you say you don't mind letting a free card drop on the
To answer this you must understand when your opponent is
playing correctly. Suppose you flop top pair, the pot is large,
and you are against players who will automatically call with over
cards or bottom pair. Are they playing correctly? The answer is
yes if you bet and they call. Therefore you must play in such a
way that they might not be playing correctly.
OTOH, if the pot was small, then they would be playing
incorrectly if they called. You should also be doing something
similar. That is calling with weak hands in large pots, but
throwing them away in small pots. There are many situations in
no-fold'em hold'em where you should call on both the flop and
fourth street with weak hands.
However, one of the real skills in thses games is to
manipulate the size of the pot so that your opponent will be
making a mistake, and remember, you are against players who not
only play too loose but go too far with their hands.
To be honest, I'm getting into concepts that are usually
written up incorrectly and I don't want to explain everything.
But they are crucial to winning play.
Mason Malmuth
Jeffrey Sue
i think maybe this goes back to the fundamental theorem of poker
where you make money from your opponent's mistakes. if you can
keep the pot small enough on the flop then make a double bet on
the turn, it becomes incorrect for them to call with many hands, but
they will anyway, thus earning you money. if you bet the flop, it
is not only correct for them to call (not earning you money on the
flop), but it makes it correct for them to follow their natural
inclination and call on the turn (not earning you any money on the
turn).
does this sound reasonable?
jeff
Carl Rhodes
> To answer this you must understand when your opponent is
> playing correctly. Suppose you flop top pair, the pot is large,
> and you are against players who will automatically call with over
> cards or bottom pair. Are they playing correctly? The answer is
> yes if you bet and they call. Therefore you must play in such a
> way that they might not be playing correctly.
>
Let's say you have 9T in the small blind and your opponent has AK
under the gun and there are 7 small bets in the pot preflop (everyone
else folds). Now say the flop comes 962. If you bet with your top pair,
you are approx 3-1 favorite to win assuming your opponent calls out
to the river (only figuring in his chances of getting an A or K). He is
certainly correct to call your bet on the flop since the pot is offering
8-1. What do you get out of it?
Since he is putting money into the pot, your expected gain on his
chips going into the pot right now is .75 small bets. Since you
are the favorite, certainly you want to bet to make money. Therefore,
you are making money by betting even though he has made the correct
move by calling, right? Your opponent doesn't necessarily have to make
a mistake for you to make money off his move, however it is a fact
that you always will make money off of him when he makes an incorrect
play.
In effect, the two players think in a different way about the same
pot. You (with the hand in the lead) are thinking, "More than half
the money pot is mine (expectation-wise) so I want to make the pot
as big as possible". The other player is thinking, "Yowsa, I can
get a pot worth 8 bets by only putting 1 more in". Both are correct,
and both have made positive expectation moves here.
The main problem is that post-flop play becomes much more difficult
when you hold 9T with this flop. When any overcard comes, you are in
trouble since you don't know what the other guy is holding. You put
yourself in a position to be raised if you bet when a overcard
comes and the other player hits or to give a free card if that other
player misses. The difficulty of playing after the flop might end
up costing you money later on, but that is another issue entirely.
> OTOH, if the pot was small, then they would be playing
> incorrectly if they called. You should also be doing something
> similar. That is calling with weak hands in large pots, but
> throwing them away in small pots. There are many situations in
> no-fold'em hold'em where you should call on both the flop and
> fourth street with weak hands.
I totally agree with you here. However, when you say you should
call the flop and turn with weak hands I would argue that you
would more often call with drawing hands (even if they have
relatively few outs).
> However, one of the real skills in thses games is to
> manipulate the size of the pot so that your opponent will be
> making a mistake, and remember, you are against players who not
> only play too loose but go too far with their hands.
I am not really sure if I totally agree with you here. According to
this logic, you should only call with AA preflop and then check-raise
the flop (with a small pot) to force your opponents into calling
incorrectly when they have insufficient pot odds. I think you
would like to manipulate the pot to be as large as possible preflop
(as long as everyone is going to be calling anyway).
The best way to get people to make mistakes in these games is to
check-raise when you are the favorite. By getting people to call
2 or 3 bets cold rather than a single one, this is when they are
making the biggest mistakes in these types of games.
In my opinion, the real skill of these games is patience followed
closely by correct mathematical play. This will often mean raising
with drawing hands to the nuts (when you know 5-6 people will call),
and calling in those huge pots when your chances of winning are slim
but the pot is offering you sufficient odds. While it is a wild ride,
there is no way to avoid the swings present in these types of games.
Carl
Robert Copps
Rhodes) writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <314FF940...@aut.ee.ethz.ch>
> References: <4ioasb$fjg$1...@mhafc.production.compuserve.com>
> Posted: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 13:25:36 +0100
>
> Org. : Institut fuer Automatik, ETHZ
>
> Mason Malmuth wrote:
>
> > To answer this you must understand when your opponent is
> > playing correctly. Suppose you flop top pair, the pot is large,
> > and you are against players who will automatically call with over
> > cards or bottom pair. Are they playing correctly? The answer is
> > yes if you bet and they call. Therefore you must play in such a
> > way that they might not be playing correctly.
> >
>
> Let's say you have 9T in the small blind and your opponent has AK
> under the gun and there are 7 small bets in the pot preflop (everyone
> else folds). Now say the flop comes 962. If you bet with your top pair,
> you are approx 3-1 favorite to win assuming your opponent calls out
> to the river (only figuring in his chances of getting an A or K). He is
> certainly correct to call your bet on the flop since the pot is offering
> 8-1. What do you get out of it?
>
> Since he is putting money into the pot, your expected gain on his
> chips going into the pot right now is .75 small bets. Since you
> are the favorite, certainly you want to bet to make money. Therefore,
> you are making money by betting even though he has made the correct
> move by calling, right? Your opponent doesn't necessarily have to make
> a mistake for you to make money off his move, however it is a fact
> that you always will make money off of him when he makes an incorrect
> play.
>
>
This paradox used to really bug me (especially after apparent bad beats,
which, on analysis, made sense because I had pumped up the pot so damn
much).
Both your bet and his call are correct, but your expectation is greater.
When you bet the 7SB flop, disregarding the chance of his folding(*), you
are putting in one bet for .75 x 8 = 6 SB, a 500% return. He's putting in
the same amount for .25 x 9 = 2.25 SB a 125% return. He's not playing
incorrectly, but you're having more fun.
It seems to me that this illustrates a shortcoming in Sklansky's First Law
of Poker (the second part).
(*) he has to take into account that you might be playing a pair and made a
set, which will entail additional punishment on subsequent rounds. This, in
low-limit games is enough to discourage my call with with mere overcards,
whereas in tougher games, I would consider raising if no one else had
demonstrated any interest in the pot.
--
--Bob.
Lee Jones
>i think maybe this goes back to the fundamental theorem of poker
>where you make money from your opponent's mistakes. if you can
>keep the pot small enough on the flop then make a double bet on
>the turn, it becomes incorrect for them to call with many hands, but
>they will anyway, thus earning you money. if you bet the flop, it
>is not only correct for them to call (not earning you money on the
>flop), but it makes it correct for them to follow their natural
>inclination and call on the turn (not earning you any money on the
>turn).
Actually, I really like this analysis, and I wonder if it's not what Mason
had in mind originally. If you can bring off a check-raise on the flop,
great - they're probably making a mistake by calling. But, as Jeff points
out, if the dreaded free card drops, and they call your bet on the turn,
they're probably making a mistake there.
In a classic example, it might be very correct to pay to see a turn card
with a gutshot on the flop, but if it's checked around, and the turn doesn't
bring happiness, it's *rarely* correct to call a bet on the turn.
Regards, Lee
--
Lee Jones | "The way you walk, and talk, really sets me off
le...@sgi.com | To a four alarm child, yes it does."
415-933-3356 | -Ohio Players ("Fire")
Timothy McGarvey
already been said on this thread, I do wish to make a small point. When
Mason said you aren't as concerned about giving a free card here, since
everyone will call anyway, he makes a valid point. One of the greatest
dangers in risking a free card is that someone who would have folded to
your bet catches a miracle card to take the pot away from you. IF that
happens you lose a whole pot.
Now if you know that person is going to call your bet, all you lose by
not betting is a fraction of a bet that you would expect to pick up in
equity. You stand no chance of losing the pot due to your not betting.
I think this may be what he was referring to.
--
----
Timothy J. McGarvey
tmc...@gl.umbc.edu
We all live in a yellow subroutine.
je...@delta.com
> letting a free card drop on the flop, is that if you're drawing, or you
MW>As I read it he is in front; he does not mind letting a free card drop
MW>because everyone is going to stay in for the next card anyway (the
MW>`going too far' problem), so it is not worth putting money in the pot
MW>in a doomed attempt to narrow the field.
If you KNOW the players are not "playing correctly" (i.e. there are
insufficient odds to justify a call, but they are going to chase anyway
whether you bet or fold), would you not want to get the free cards even
when you are out in front? If you bet and a group of calling stations
calls, then their LATER calls might become correct in light of the extra
money in the pot. If you give a free card to calling stations while in
the lead (i.e. after the flop, before the betting limits increase
post-turn), and then bet the TURN, their calls here might still be
incorrect when a bet after the flop might have made it correct.
I know it sounds silly to play an error on purpose to force an error
later, but if you are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that nobody will fold to your
bet, why give them the chance to make the correct play later? I must be
missing something, though, since S&M say NOT to do this explicitly in
the chapter on free cards....
Jeff Woods | CIS: 71035,2167 | Internet EMail: je...@delta.com
deltaComm Dev. | Fido: 1:151/107 | Direct BBS: 919-481-9399 v.34
* DeLuxe2 1.26b #171s * Was Jimi Hendrix's modem a Purple Hayes?
Josh Silberstein
: James W. Karlinski wrote:
: >
: > On 18 Mar 1996, Mason Malmuth wrote:
: > > you are struggling with how to beat "no-fold'em" games. <SNIP>
: > > For instance, in the "going too far" type game, it becomes very
: > > important that your hand be suited. For example, if I am on the
: > > button in a no-fold'em game I will throw away 9-8 offsuit in a
: > > many handed unraised pot, but I will play this hand against the
: > > exact same number of players in a loose game where my opponents
: > > are not going too far. Needless to say, calling upfront with 9-8
: > > offsuit in a no-fold'em game will drain your bankroll in the long
: > > run.
: > > worry very much about letting a free card drop off on the flop
: > > when I know that virtually everyone will call anyway. Some of you
: > > may want to come up with other adjustments.
: > > Mason Malmuth
: > post today. NO hands have positive expectation if the majority of the
: > players are calling pre-flop and going to the river. You would rather
: > limp in with anything than raise. The exceptions would be raising in late
: > position if you think you could steal on the flop [which is unlikely in
: > these games]. A better strategy would be [at least in Atlantic Citry
: > where the rake is 10% max $5] to get a job and move up to a higher limit
: > where you stand somewhat of a chance.
: >
: Aloha,
: Tom Weideman
The fact that players would have called you anyway on the flop, and been
correct to do so, does NOT mean you shouldn't have bet. Suppose you are
against 6 players who collectively have 60% chance of winning (you have
the other 40%). On the flop the pot is $63 (6 players for 1 raise + sm
Blind) (5-10). So you could not bet, and give the free card because
they are going to call anyway, or you could make the bet. Lets examine
your expectation in each case:
No bet:
40% * $63= $25.20
Make Bet:
40% * ($63+$35) - $5= $34.20
(Note: it is $35 because there are 6 callers plus you!)
Every player who puts his $5 in th pot is essentially giving you $2.
You expect to lose $3 of your five. Therefore, as long as you expect at
least 2 callers (which you do) you should bet.
If you are too chicken shit to thraow five dollars in the pot for a
positive expectation of $9 you shouldn't be playing poker. I hear Old
Maid can be entertaining.
Josh
Mike Manvell
>>When you say you don't mind letting a free card drop on the
>>flop, is that if you're drawing, or you think you are in front?
If I have top pair with a good kicker and there are a lot of players
in the pot I don't mind letting a free card drop if the flop is
ragged: 3 suits with straight draws being unlikely. In this
situation, it leaves your opponents chasing with middle pair, bottom
pair or nothing. My opponents with pairs have the same chance of
improving to 2 pairs or trips as I do and I'm already in the lead. If
someone bets, I'll raise. If no one bets, I'll bet the turn. This
makes it less correct for the chasers to call than just betting the
flop. If there is no bet on the flop, sometimes a turn bet clears the
field a little and sometimes it induces someone with middle pair to
raise thinking he is good because top pair would have bet the flop.
Then I get to raise.
I get concerned if the flop has suited cards or cards close in rank.
In the 10-20 games I play in in Toronto there is a lot of multiway
action and the players love connectors, even if they're not suited.
They also love to bet their draws. So I can frequently check raise on
the flop with top pair to make them pay. If there are connectors on
the flop and another card close in rank comes on the turn it starts to
get risky when there are a lot of players still in. Players could have
2 pairs because of the close ranks, or straights, or a pair with a
straight draw. Suddenly AQ starts looking shakey when the flop is Q87
and the turn is a 5 with multiway action. From that point on, it's a
judgement call depending on the action on previous betting rounds, my
knowledge of my opponents and the pot size.
Mike Manvell
Telecommunications Analyst
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer.
Tom Weideman
Thank you for the lesson in advanced mathematics Josh, and the "chicken shit"
characterization. I can answer your last paragraph this way:
If you are too dim to understand the nuances of this thread, then you should not
be posting. I hear that rec.games.oldmaid is easier to follow.
Tom
art.santella@cpcbbs.org OR
>In article <4ik3bk$u...@news.umbc.edu>, Timothy McGarvey writes:
>
>>At least at the Taj the rake is max $4, and outside of 2-4 I have never
>>seen a no-foldem holdem game in AC.
>>
>>--
>>----
>>Timothy J. McGarvey
>>tmc...@gl.umbc.edu
>>
>
>I have to disagree. Recently I have seen games as high as 10-20 where you
>will routinely get 4 or 5 callers after a raise from early position at the
>Taj. Maybe this is just an anomoly but these weak players seem to be
>coming out of the woodwork lately.
>
>David
I I agree, I play hold'em at the Taj at least 3 times a week, and I
find while playing musical tables that you can find a 5/10 game that
is like a rock garden one night and like a 1-2 game the next night or
even hour. I have seen posts here that complain that some 10/20 and
15/30 games have their No foldem nights. The 3/6 games 90% of the
time are just 2/4 games at a higher level. You see the same faces in
both. Then theres the Pink game. Even that is a 4/7 off suit to the
river game on many nights.
Of course there are times when the 2/4 game is so tight that you are
always chopping up the blinds. So, you cruise around the room until
you find the game that looks like it might make you some money 15/30
or 2/4 Hold'em, Stud, Omaha. If you can make a fair profit for the
night who cares? That is of course unless your Ego comes before your
pocketbook
Arti
"If You Ain't The Lead Dog, The Scenery Never Changes"
Tyler K
Lee Jones <le...@diver.asd.sgi.com> wrote:
>In article <4ipi9o$k...@unet.net.com>, Jeffrey Sue <js...@unet.NET.COM> wrote:
>
>>i think maybe this goes back to the fundamental theorem of poker
>>where you make money from your opponent's mistakes.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, I really like this analysis, and I wonder if it's not what Mason
>had in mind originally. If you can bring off a check-raise on the flop,
>great - they're probably making a mistake by calling. But, as Jeff points
>out, if the dreaded free card drops, and they call your bet on the turn,
>they're probably making a mistake there.
>
Now that you mention it, I think this is one of the problems I had with
your book, Lee. As someome (I think Bob Copps) pointed out in another post,
it's possible, and common, for your bet and his call to both be correct.
This is a simplification, but: if your bet will be called by x number of
players, and your hand will win more than 1 out of x times, then you
don't mind putting money into the pot on that round, no matter how big
the pot was before that round.
For example, let's say you are playing 3-6 and someone accidentally drops
a fanny pack containing $15,000 into the middle of the pot (without
splashing the chips, for that would be impolite) and vanishes. With KK,
you proceed to flop K72, no flush draw, and you turn your hand face up to
let everyone know you plan to claim that fanny pack. Anyone with ANY
possibility of outdrawing you (A5 off) should and will do so...and
they're correct, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to get as much
money into the pot as you can.
(For those who think this is purely hypothetical, replace the 15K part
with "capped eight-way preflop." Anyone who's ever played 3-6 can tell
you that it can happen.)
I'm not refuting the check-raise for strategic purposes...it could very
well be that unless you check raise, you will be called by enough players
to the point where you will not have a 1 in x chance of winning the pot.
Or, even if it is profitable to bet and be called by x players, you would
rather check-raise and be up against x/2 players for two bets.
I actually think that check-raising is this spot is often wrong because
anyone with a good draw should and will probably raise you, at which
point you can reraise. What's nice about this isn't just that the
longshots are now facing a double bet, but that it was probably wrong for
them to call your first bet since it was going to be raised behind them.
tk
Jeffrey B. Siegal
Assume you have a quality made hand and Fish has a draw (or some sort of
trash hand with suckout potential).
You bet the flop. He's getting odds (or close) to call, and he does. You
bet the turn. He's getting odds (or close) to call, and he does. He's
gotten two chances to draw out on you.
If instead you don't bet the flop, he gets a free card on the flop. You
bet the turn. He's *not* getting odds to call, so either he makes a big
mistake or he doesn't call. If he makes a big mistake, fine--you profit
from it. If he doesn't call, he has only seen one card, and you've taken
half his draw-out equity.
Interestingly, by giving a free card, you've cut his chances of drawing
out on you in half.
Lee Jones
>In article <4iqac5$m...@fido.asd.sgi.com>,
>Now that you mention it, I think this is one of the problems I had with
>your book, Lee. As someome (I think Bob Copps) pointed out in another post,
>it's possible, and common, for your bet and his call to both be correct.
I don't think I ever said that one of you has to be making a mistake. Matter
of fact, I pointed out that if you have the best hand, betting may not
be the best idea because somebody calling you is *not* making a mistake.
That's why it's often better to go for a check-raise; your opponent(s) will
often call anyway, but they'll be making a mistake, which is more profitable
for you (even though the situation in which you bet is still profitable).
>For example, let's say you are playing 3-6 and someone accidentally drops
>a fanny pack containing $15,000 into the middle of the pot (without
>splashing the chips, for that would be impolite) and vanishes.
I would say the fanny-pack owner is making the big error here, and that
all the players at the table are playing correctly.
>Or, even if it is profitable to bet and be called by x players, you would
>rather check-raise and be up against x/2 players for two bets.
I think this is my point, in general. Unless you've flopped a monster,
you'd probably prefer to play it against fewer opponents. Note also that
limiting it to (you hope) the opponents with the best draws against you
gives you a better idea of where you stand as the hand progresses.
>I actually think that check-raising is this spot is often wrong because
>anyone with a good draw should and will probably raise you, at which
>point you can reraise. What's nice about this isn't just that the
>longshots are now facing a double bet, but that it was probably wrong for
>them to call your first bet since it was going to be raised behind them.
If you think you'll have an opportunity to get in a third bet with the
probable best hand, then definitely go for it. My model was of a game
where you'd likely be called but not raised.
Regards, Lee
--
Lee Jones | "Rain rain rain rain, beautiful rain.
le...@sgi.com | Oh come (never come), beautiful rain.
415-933-3356 | -Ladysmith Black Mombaza
Larry Stone
> Now that you mention it, I think this is one of the problems I had with
> your book, Lee. As someome (I think Bob Copps) pointed out in another post,
> it's possible, and common, for your bet and his call to both be correct.
Why is it a problem? Due to all the money that's already in the pot
(once it's in the pot, it's the pot's money, not yours), after the
initial betting, poker is not a zero-sum game. More than one, heck
possibly everyone, may have positive expectation to call bets. OTOH,
from a very simple standpoint, only one person has a positive
expectation on the additional money going into a pot from later round
betting. Which is why it's correct in many situation to check and call.
Of course, that last sentence is pretty simple and really only applies
if the only purpose in betting is to build a pot. Since we bet (and
raise) for other reasons, including to get information, limit the field,
bluffs, to make our play deceptive, etc., it's far too simple to be a
general rule.
However, for a first approximation, I think it is correct to say that if
the expectation on the additional money is positive, you should bet,
even if everyone is going to call because calling is correct for them.
--
Larry Stone | United Airlines
VAX and HP-UX Systems Administrator | Maintenance Operations Center
sto...@eisner.decus.org | San Francisco, CA 415-634-4725
All opinions are mine, not United's.
Blair P Houghton
[...a very good example of when both bettors are right even when
one is a probabilistic underdog...]
Exactly.
This is the difference between limit and no-limit poker.
In limit games a there are many more situations that become
correct for a number of players, and no play can change that.
It's what gives rise to the no-fold'em nature of some games,
and validates the "any two cards can win" myth.
It is also the bane of the short stack. If you don't have
enough in front of you to be able to make the bet that will
reduce the other person's expectation, then you have
reduced your expectation. This applies whenever you are
not the leader in a no-limit game, and whenever you have
a reasonable chance of going all-in in a limit game.
>In article <4iqac5$m...@fido.asd.sgi.com>,
>Lee Jones <le...@diver.asd.sgi.com> wrote:
>>In article <4ipi9o$k...@unet.net.com>, Jeffrey Sue <js...@unet.NET.COM> wrote:
>>
>>>i think maybe this goes back to the fundamental theorem of poker
>>>where you make money from your opponent's mistakes.
...as long as you don't lose money due to your own...
--Blair
"The only short stack I want is
one covered with maple syrup."
John Uchida
Does it follow that if you don't bet the turn card, you've eliminated
the chances of a draw out?
John Uchida
Keith Butler
I play hold'em at the Taj at least 3 times a week, and I
>find while playing musical tables that you can find a 5/10 game that
>is like a rock garden one night and like a 1-2 game the next night or
>even hour. I have seen posts here that complain that some 10/20 and
>15/30 games have their No foldem nights. The 3/6 games 90% of the
>time are just 2/4 games at a higher level. You see the same faces in
>both. Then theres the Pink game. Even that is a 4/7 off suit to the
>river game on many nights.
A question from a beginner who is improving, thanks to Lee Jones'
book: Why would anyone complain about a 10-20 game being played
no-foldem', doesn't that give the edge to an experienced player who
knows how to play good poker? I thought you would like this kind of
game and just make adjustments as to whether it is loose-passive or
loose-aggresive. Would you really prefer stiffer competition?
>Of course there are times when the 2/4 game is so tight that you are
>always chopping up the blinds. So, you cruise around the room until
>you find the game that looks like it might make you some money 15/30
>or 2/4 Hold'em, Stud, Omaha. If you can make a fair profit for the
>night who cares? That is of course unless your Ego comes before your
>pocketbook
This brings a related question: I play 5-10 holdem' at a regular spot
that has only 2 tables to choose from. If I know most of the players,
and I can identify which table has the most no-foldem' players, and
which table has the most tighter players, which table should I try to
get seated at?
David B. White
>>
>> Here's another thought on not betting the flop:
>>
>> Assume you have a quality made hand and Fish has a draw (or some sort of
>> trash hand with suckout potential).
>>
>> You bet the flop. He's getting odds (or close) to call, and he does. You
>> bet the turn. He's getting odds (or close) to call, and he does. He's
>> gotten two chances to draw out on you.
>>
>> If instead you don't bet the flop, he gets a free card on the flop. You
>> bet the turn. He's *not* getting odds to call, so either he makes a big
>> mistake or he doesn't call. If he makes a big mistake, fine--you profit
>> from it. If he doesn't call, he has only seen one card, and you've taken
>> half his draw-out equity.
>>
>> Interestingly, by giving a free card, you've cut his chances of drawing
>> out on you in half.
Disclaimer: in the pond of holdem, I think of myself as a 12" Oscar: a
fairly large colorful cichlid with a voracious appetite that will try to
eat anything up to half its own size, but vulnerable to hook and line all
the same....
Esteemed Master Malmuth makes a good point: free cards will frequently
allow for "mathematical catastrophes" by giving infinite odds. Esteemed
Master Sklansky adds that it is almost always wrong to slowplay (a
sentiment shared by The Learned Jones).
What is a "quality made hand?" Two pair? If we are playing right, our
two pair may also be giving someone else a straight draw. Fish will
always call this. Since two pair generally have a very low drawing
potential in and of themselves, it is usually better to bet or check-raise
and get it over with.
Trips? I have always found trips to be highly vulnerable to suckouts.
But you still have drawing potential yourself, especially if the trips are
in the form of a set. I say bet or raise the flop immediately.
Straight? I'd say this one depends on the flop. A mixed board means he'd
have to catch the runner-runner to make a higher straight or flush or
higher. Since this is usually a very small chance, you're still better
off by betting out/raising.
Flush: okay, if you've got the nut flush (or very close thereunto), you
might slow down. Fish may even raise the turn if he catches his second
pair or straight. But since you have the made flush, you already know
his approximate odds of drawing to the higher flush (if any), so you mgiht
still bet anyway to increase your pot.
Boat or higher: headsup? Sure, slowplay all you want, since if he sucks
out on you, you're going to lose a lot of money anyway. He might even
raise the turn if he catches something.
I think the term "quality made hand" is misapplied to anything below a nut
flush on the flop.
Besides, if it's just headsup on the flop, the pot size is small
regardless. If you hold a made hand and he's drawing, he's probably
making a mistake by calling at any point in this case. Better to grab
that bet on the flop than let it slip away.
Just my two chips worth...
--
David B. White "You should try using a HAMMER..."
Iron Bison Enterprises --DBW, master of the non-sequitur
(late of Indiana University)
Larry Stone
> If instead you don't bet the flop, he gets a free card on the flop. You
> bet the turn. He's *not* getting odds to call, so either he makes a big
> mistake or he doesn't call. If he makes a big mistake, fine--you profit
> from it. If he doesn't call, he has only seen one card, and you've taken
> half his draw-out equity.
I'm reading an unstated assumption here that you only profit when your
opponent makes a mistake. But if you're ahead and he's drawing, your bet
on the flop has positive expectation even when he correctly calls. Ditto
a turn bet. Even though he's correct to call, your expectation on his
correct call of a flop bet and a turn bet exceeds your expectation on an
incorrect call of a turn bet after checking the flop. And if he
correctly folds, you make even less. They'll miss their draws often
enough that I don't mind paying them off occasionally when they get
there.
Dave Horwitz
: art.sa...@cpcbbs.org "OR" ar...@ix.netcom.com (Art Santella) wrote:
: A question from a beginner who is improving, thanks to Lee Jones'
: book: Why would anyone complain about a 10-20 game being played
: no-foldem', doesn't that give the edge to an experienced player who
: knows how to play good poker? I thought you would like this kind of
: game and just make adjustments as to whether it is loose-passive or
: loose-aggresive. Would you really prefer stiffer competition?
huge string on "catching your limit" addresses this. Seems that maybe
a full table of "no foldem" players may not be optimal. I prefer a table
with mostly "stiffer" competition. More predictable and less variance.
I play at only 2 clubs and so know almost all the players. I don't
always choose the wild raise-it-up table. I prefer more predictable
players who I know I can beat over a table full of maniacs. Bottom line
is it just depends...
-Quick
________________________________________________________________________
Dave Horwitz Telecom Platform Operation
Hewlett-Packard Company E-Mail: da...@cup.hp.com
19420 Homestead Road, M/S 43-UD Voice: (408) 447-2991
Cupertino, CA 95014 Fax: (408) 447-3878
Timothy McGarvey
> In article <4isfg7$i...@news.umbc.edu> you write:
> >Without going to the extent of trying to reference everything that's
> >already been said on this thread, I do wish to make a small point. When
> >Mason said you aren't as concerned about giving a free card here, since
> >everyone will call anyway, he makes a valid point. One of the greatest
> >dangers in risking a free card is that someone who would have folded to
> >your bet catches a miracle card to take the pot away from you. IF that
> >happens you lose a whole pot.
> >
> >Now if you know that person is going to call your bet, all you lose by
> >not betting is a fraction of a bet that you would expect to pick up in
> >equity. You stand no chance of losing the pot due to your not betting.
> >I think this may be what he was referring to.
>
> I suspect this is what Mason had in mind, and you describe it very well.
> However, isn't it a fact that a *lot* of the equity you make in such a game
> will come *exactly* from such bets? Not when you make a monster, but when
> you come in with a good premium hand (top pair/big kicker or overpair) and
> bet it. Your opponents, who have an underpair, or flopped second pair, take
> a card off, hoping to hit trips or two pair. As you say, they'll call even
> if you do bet, so you're not risking the whole pot by betting, but the
> equity you make by their (mostly) incorrect calls is how you'll take profit
> home at the end of the evening (assuming those trips and two pair don't get
> there too often :-).
>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that in this situation your
opponent would NOT be making a mistake in calling your bet on the flop.
To put this in purely theoretical terms, if your opponents are not making
a mistake by calling, is it not true that you do not gain by their
calling? Sure they lose equity on that particular bet, but not more
equity than they already own in the pot. You would rather they folded to
your bet if they'd be making a mistake to do so, yes?
So if you check the flop several things can happen. It can be checked
around, giving you the opportunity to bet the turn. If your hand is
still best at that point, your opponents are probably making a mistake by
calling, and when they do you make money. You don't care if a free card
is given because they would have been correct to call your bet on the
flop anyway, and all of them would have done so. It could be bet in late
position, giving you the chance to check-raise. Again your opponents
will probably be making a mistake by calling two bets cold here, and you
will make money when they do. Or it could be bet in early position, in
which case you may or may not wish to check-raise. The outcome is the
same as if you had bet yourself.
----
Timothy J. McGarvey
tmc...@gl.umbc.edu
Dyslexics of the world, untie! Together, we can trip up the world!
Winner777
there is a bet on the flop.
Worst case is: You are head up against the big blind where you have limped
in and the small blinds has folded. Say the gane is $10-$20. There is your
$10 the big blind's $10 and the little blinds $5 = $25.
You bet $10 on the flop and are called. = $45
You bet $20 on the turn, your opponent is getting odds of 65-20 = 3.25 to
1.
If there is no bet on the flop the odds change to 2.25 to 1.
David E. Wallace
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:
Prob. Bet Flop Don't Bet Flop
.15556 $-15 $-10
.18889 $-25 $-20
.65556 $+25 $+20
Exp. 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 Wallace (wal...@netcom.com)
Sue & Nigel
Surely the point is that checking the flop is not manipulation of the pot size, it is a straight
forward mistake. Even though it will then induce your opponent to make a mistake on the turn you
gain more by making the correct play.
If you check the flop your opponent has a free chance to improve and beat you and that can never
be right :)
--
Ramsey
sjri...@sjrindex.demon.co.uk