Pre-flop v post flop decisions
Trevor Duddle
whether to play a hand at all (preflop) or how well you play (or how
badly others play) after the flop?
Could some folks please offer views on this for me? I am new to the
game and am trying to understand the important elements of holdem.
My feeling is that preflop must be the most important, since just how
well can anyone play 72o without a great flop?
However, presumably there are some hands on the margin of being
playable that players who play better than their opponents could
invest in preflop.
Also, experience may well enable a better player to earn more on their
best hands.
Overall, how important would people rate the importance of preflop and
post flop decisions?
TYIA
Trevor
James Campbell
I am relatively new myself and was struggling with this very thing until I
picked up a couple books. The first book I picked up was David Sklansky's
"Hold Em Poker Advanced" which was way over my head except for the part on
hand groupings. Hand groupings are basically a break down of which 2 cards
can be played from which position. The book goes on into talking about how
those hands should be played but after the early chapters I had no idea what
I was reading so I went out and got a couple entry level titles (Hold Em
Poker, by same author & Winners Guide to Texas Hold Em, by Ken Warren). I'm
just about done with Ken Warren's book, a really good & has turned me around
from losing money to winning about $2 an hour - it's a start :) After I
finish them I will go back and try the Advanced book again.
Anyway back to hand groupings, when I first saw the hand groupings I thought
they were way too tight until I kept losing money, now I use those groupings
as a guide and am a much better player for it.
JC
"Trevor Duddle" <trevor...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:6cd3d8d9.03041...@posting.google.com...
Bryan Devonshire
I believe that it depends on the game you're in (structure and
players). The game i'm playing regularly is a loose 2-5 spread limit
game. You need to identify where your greater risk is, and also
identify where the opposing players make the most mistakes. In my
game, the players are notorious for chasing, thus making many mistakes
post-flop, and that is where most of my money is made. I play alot of
hands that mathmetically have a negative expectation, but do to the
heavy implied odds of a spread limit game ($2 to see the flop, betting
is immediately $5 for 3 more rounds with 5 raises max) and the
mistakes of other players I have a positive expectation. I'll play at
least half my hands on the button, for example. However, to be able
to say this, you need to be an exceptional post-flop player and not
make the same mistakes that the opponets are making. You need to be
very good at reading your opponets, very good at making excellent
value bets, and capable of making huge laydowns. If this cannot
happen, then you are better off sticking to Skalansky's eight groups
and the strategies he employs for playing those hands. The reason
that playing too many hands pre-flop is a huge mistake because it is
directly correlated to poor play post flop.
Thanks, and good luck...
Bryan
Everett
The first thing you can do is learn what hands to play...Ken Warren's
book helped me with that as well. It's pretty funny how position can
really change the hands you can play, but learning to be selective is
crucial. You'll bleed yourself broke calling just to see the flop
with crap hands.
But the other part (and the hard part for me), is knowing when you're
beat after the flop hits. It's hard to fold that pocket pair or top
pair, but knowing when you're drawing dead or already beat will save
you money.
Learning the basics of odds will also help. It helps with the long
term view of the game. I'm not trying to plug Ken Warren's book, but
it had a good example in there about odds that made sense to
me...where you setup certain hands, adjust the betting and deal out
the rest of the deck...betting on each card that comes down.
Depending on how many bets were in the pot affected how much money you
made over time, even though you won/lost the same number of times. So
sometimes it's ok to continue playing a hand, if the odds are right.
So my vote is learn to play the right hands pre-flop first, then work
on playing those hands correctly after the flop.
Hope this helps,
Everett
"James Campbell" <jame...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<M5Una.181343$ug3.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
Bing
Duddle) wrote:
> What will have the greatest effect on your bankroll, the decision
> whether to play a hand at all (preflop) or how well you play (or how
> badly others play) after the flop?
Both are important and both take quite different skills
to master. Neither one is greater than the other.
Before the flop, it's all about hand selection. You have
to be very aware of what hands you are supposed to play
from which position. You can vary your selection a little
bit, depending on how you perceive the table. It really
doesn't take much skill, however, just memorizing the
charts in the books.
After the flop, the play is a lot more complicated. If you've
selected your hand properly in the first step, you should be
in pretty good shape now. Either you flopped nothing, and in
most cases you will check/fold, you flopped a monster and
have to decide to slowplay or bet, or you flopped something
"medium" and have to calculate pot odds to decide whether
you should draw for a bigger hand. And, you also need to
figure out whether you can get away with a bluff and whether
your hand is the best one even if you missed the board.
Neither skill is "greater" than the other, since the decisions
you make in any situation will very much depend on the skill
you have at making a good decision in the other.
-- Bing Monopoly Expansion Set
Visit us at http://www.paxentertainment.com
DynaMike
hand. You probably already know this, but it is often overlooked by newer
players. Obviously the hands you play will differ depending on the style
of game, but as general advice to a newer player I would say tighten way
up when out of position. When you feel you are ready to play more hands,
do it only when you have the advantage of position.
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
HurtinUnit19
games or online to B&M, then pre-flop is the most important skill.
Almost all of the advice out there on post flop play stems from proper
pre-flop decisions, so progressing your poker education through
literature requires that you know how to play pre-flop first.
Also, if you are going to be playing low-limits (or even small
tournaments) then you have to accept that the majority of the "good
players" you are going to come across are going to have educated
themselves on how to play hold'em, and the easiest thing to learn
(master?) is pre-flop play. knowing this will help you dodge bullets,
and also allow you to take advantage of your "good" opponents'easy
tell: folding more often than anyone else pre-flop. "did that guy
really hit that 8 4 5 flop after an UTG preflop raise?" oftentimes
people look to dump those big aces when they don't hit the flop, and
you can bet into them and take advantage. That's just one example...
peace,
Hurtin'
"DynaMike" <anon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3ea09a28$0$21019$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
Abdul Jalib
> Overall, how important would people rate the importance of preflop and
> post flop decisions?
One thing to realize is that the strategies are intertwined. Your
postflop strategy depends on your preflop strategy (and how observant
your opponents are), and vice versa. If you're loose preflop, on many
flops you should fold some of the same exact hands with which a tight
preflop player should continue. The difference is that the tighter
preflop player has some bluff equity, based on the strength of the
other hands he could hold in that same situation. (Of course, it can
work the other way when the flop comes low, like 445.)
--
Abdul
Trevor Duddle
Thanks for the reply Abdul,
I understand what you are saying and it will be a very valuable point
when I move on to higher stake games. However, in the loose low limit
games I play in, I have seen little evidence of observant opponents. I
am tighter preflop than almost every opponent I play yet I will still
get action when I open raise a pot. Also I have discovered that Lee
Jone's line in his book "Bluffing is rarely correct in low limit
hold'em games" seems to be true. People do seem to call almost out of
curiosity.
My question was to try and determine in low limit games the relative
value of preflop and postflop decisions. Like most beginners, I have
spent a lot of time trying to establish the "best" range of hands for
investing in a pot based on position, number of opponents,
aggressiveness of game (nearly always passive) etc.
However, post flop play seems much more of a mystery to me. I have
read Lee's and Gary's books and a couple of others but with my small
amount of experience it is still not clear to me what to do when I
(re)raise preflop with JJ and see Q74 2 suited hit the table with 5
opponents. In early position I just tend to bet out in case everyone
folds (rofl) or a K or A overcard decides to fold. However, when I
still have 4 opponents I have no idea whether there are Q's out there
or flush/str8 draws or folks with T4s with no flush chances staying in
hoping they have 5 outs.
This part of the game (post flop) is MUCH more difficult than preflop
to master, rather like in Bridge where defence is the hardest part of
the game by a long way.
I do not intend to ignore post flop play and I would be very grateful
for pointers to educational material for my development.
At present though, I am just wondering how much my returns are
affected by my lack of experience in that area.
I am winning at the low limit games. I am just trying to determine how
much more may be to come when I improve my post flop skills or whether
in these no fold em games my "edge" is mainly determined preflop.
Thanks a lot
Trevor
Vince lepore
What a great answer!
Vince
Tom Weideman
Deja vu!
An exerpt from this post:
------------
Dynasty wrote:
>> I'm a firm believer that good pre-flop
>> decisions will only keep you at the break-even mark in middle limit
>> hold'em. All your profit is made after the flop. If you're not seeing the
>> flop, you can't make any money.
I replied:
> I think this is an overly-simplistic way to view holdem. First of all,
> plugging leaks (places where you have -ev) is at least as important as finding
> every +ev situation. So adding more hands with which to see the flop can just
> as easily lose you money as make you more money. Which side of the fence the
> hand in question falls on is the problem. Saying you need to add it to your
> playable hands list (in the situation provided) because "you can't make any
> money if you don't see some flops" just begs the question.
>
> Second, and more importantly, all of the streets are inextricably linked to
> each other, and each street's contribution to the bottom line is dependent
> upon how the others are played. For example, if I played every single holdem
> hand and you played whatever you felt was appropriate, and we kept track of
> our results only from the flop on, I would obviously easily outperform you,
> since no one could put me on a hand. If we then included preflop investment
> in the accounting, I would get killed because I would invest in too many hands
> that can't profitably continue after the flop. Now suppose that I was the
> best postflop player in the world, but played so many hands preflop that I
> only was a break-even player overall. Obviously I would need to work on my
> preflop game, and one could say that all my profit comes from that street.
------------
I realize that virtually everything said on rgp has likely been said before,
and I have no intention of posting a link every time a repeat occurs, but
this sounded so familiar to me (my post is less than 3 months old) that I
decided to look it up and share it just this once. At the very least it
might point the original poster to a thread where the pre vs post discussion
came up once before.
For the conspiracy theorists out there: Despite the similarities in the two
posts above, Abdul and I are not the same person, any more than Abdul is the
same person as (say) Jim Brier.
Tom Weideman
Vince lepore
> For the conspiracy theorists out there: Despite the similarities in the two
> posts above, Abdul and I are not the same person, >
>
> Tom Weideman
I felt this needed repeating!
Vince
Abdul Jalib
> Abdul Jalib <Abd...@PosEV.com> wrote in message news:<l8vhe8t...@posev.com>...
> > trevor...@ntlworld.com (Trevor Duddle) writes:
> >
> > > Overall, how important would people rate the importance of preflop and
> > > post flop decisions?
> >
> > One thing to realize is that the strategies are intertwined. Your
> > postflop strategy depends on your preflop strategy (and how observant
> > your opponents are), and vice versa. If you're loose preflop, on many
> > flops you should fold some of the same exact hands with which a tight
> > preflop player should continue. The difference is that the tighter
> > preflop player has some bluff equity, based on the strength of the
> > other hands he could hold in that same situation. (Of course, it can
> > work the other way when the flop comes low, like 445.)
>
> Thanks for the reply Abdul,
>
> I understand what you are saying and it will be a very valuable point
> when I move on to higher stake games. However, in the loose low limit
> games I play in, I have seen little evidence of observant opponents.
Yeah, sorry, I realized that but it's more fun to write about how
to beat thinking opponents than brainless ones.
> My question was to try and determine in low limit games the relative
> value of preflop and postflop decisions.
Your question isn't really answerable, but I'll try.
If you play very well postflop, there is considerable leeway in the
hands you play preflop. Even when you play some hands you shouldn't,
the cost is low because of your superior postflop play. There are
some loose players who are winning players.
If you play very tight preflop, there is a bit of leeway in how you
play postflop. You can play passively or aggressively postflop. By
passively, I mean basically S&M style, where you try to trap players
in when they have few outs and leverage players out when they have
odds to draw. By aggressively, I mean basically my loose game style,
where you try to cap it up with strong draws that win more than their
fair share and leverage comes not from slowplaying early in the hand
but from a gamb000ling image, so they are not afraid to raise me or
bet into me (in loose games only.)
Regardless of your style, think about which players you want to stay
in the hand and which players you want to leverage out, and then think
about how to achieve that. You can sometimes get the best of both
worlds, where your raise drives out a better hand and gets paid off by
a worse hand.
> However, post flop play seems much more of a mystery to me. I have
> read Lee's and Gary's books and a couple of others but with my small
> amount of experience it is still not clear to me what to do when I
> (re)raise preflop with JJ and see Q74 2 suited hit the table with 5
> opponents. In early position I just tend to bet out in case everyone
> folds (rofl) or a K or A overcard decides to fold. However, when I
> still have 4 opponents I have no idea whether there are Q's out there
> or flush/str8 draws or folks with T4s with no flush chances staying in
> hoping they have 5 outs.
Yes, there is quite a bit of skill in these types of situations.
You're getting pretty big odds but have to weigh those odds against
the low chance of having the best hand. In your example, there are 15
bets in preflop, and maybe 30 by the river, and maybe it will cost you
6 bets, so that's 30:6 or 5:1 odds. Do you have more than a 1 in 6
chance of having the best hand? The proper question is much more
complicated than that, but it's a start. Another way to look at it is
that your opponents' bets and raises should be respected proportional
to how big a percentage of the pot those bets and raises are. A bet
that is 50% of the pot should be respected; a raise in a 50 bet pot
should not!
> I do not intend to ignore post flop play and I would be very grateful
> for pointers to educational material for my development.
Knowing when to call with draws and when to jam with draws is the
key to squeezing extra money out of loose low limits games, in my
opinion. You might try reading my "Theory of Sucking Out" at
http://www.posev.com/poker/holdem/strategy/outs-abdul.html
> I am winning at the low limit games. I am just trying to determine how
> much more may be to come when I improve my post flop skills or whether
> in these no fold em games my "edge" is mainly determined preflop.
In games with frequent preflop capping, your edge is mainly preflop,
and you must play extremely tightly preflop and extremely tenaciously
postflop. In games that are passive preflop, you should play a lot of
"fishy" hands like 76s after limpers, so you may not be playing all
that differently than your opponents preflop, so you have to outplay
them postflop.
--
Abdul
Abdul Jalib
> Abdul Jalib wrote:
>
> > trevor...@ntlworld.com (Trevor Duddle) writes:
> >
> >> Overall, how important would people rate the importance of preflop and
> >> post flop decisions?
> >
> > One thing to realize is that the strategies are intertwined. Your
> > postflop strategy depends on your preflop strategy (and how observant
> > your opponents are), and vice versa. If you're loose preflop, on many
> > flops you should fold some of the same exact hands with which a tight
> > preflop player should continue. The difference is that the tighter
> > preflop player has some bluff equity, based on the strength of the
> > other hands he could hold in that same situation. (Of course, it can
> > work the other way when the flop comes low, like 445.)
>
> Deja vu!
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9xhj
>
> An exerpt from this post:
>
> ------------
> Dynasty wrote:
>
> >> I'm a firm believer that good pre-flop
> >> decisions will only keep you at the break-even mark in middle limit
> >> hold'em. All your profit is made after the flop. If you're not seeing the
> >> flop, you can't make any money.
>
> I replied:
> > Second, and more importantly, all of the streets are inextricably
> > linked to each other, and each street's contribution to the bottom
> > line is dependent upon how the others are played. For example, if
> > I played every single holdem hand and you played whatever you felt
> > was appropriate, and we kept track of our results only from the flop
> > on, I would obviously easily outperform you, since no one could put
> > me on a hand.
> ------------
>
> I realize that virtually everything said on rgp has likely been said before,
> and I have no intention of posting a link every time a repeat occurs, but
> this sounded so familiar to me (my post is less than 3 months old) that I
> decided to look it up and share it just this once. At the very least it
> might point the original poster to a thread where the pre vs post discussion
> came up once before.
Our thinking is mutually influenced by our participation on rgp,
viral-like idea flow via our mutual friends, and our occasional direct
discussions. I've posted much the same thoughts years ago, and I
didn't read that post of yours (or any other post around that time),
in case you were wondering, which I don't think you were.
Anyway, I'm not sure we mean the same thing here. "Intertwined"
equals "inextricably linked", yes, but we may differ on how playing
additional hands preflop impacts the marginal hands postflop. Let's
take the case where I have played my hand preflop consistently with AA
and other big pairs but also some marginal hands like A8s and QTs,
whereas you have played any two cards. Now the flop comes down
*whatever*. Would you "obviously easily outperform" me from the flop
on? I don't think so. Your average hand there is quite weak, whereas
mine is quite strong. Overall, of course I will make more money there,
but let's focus on just my marginal hands. I can bluff you to death
with my marginal hands, based on the strength of the other hands I
could hold there. You have to fold those same exact hands. True, I
can't put you on a hand, and in particular I can't predict when you
might have two pair. However, you have to be more worried that I have
an overpair or set than I have to be worried you got lucky with two
pair.
Of course, you would make infinitely more on 32o and similar postflop
than I would with the same hands, since I would have mucked those
hands preflop. Yet, you're not really getting a freeroll there, since
we're assuming it's your 32o or better versus my A8s/QTs or better.
The 32o waters down your EV, not increases it. On average, your hand
sucks, so you're not going to make much money on average postflop.
(You might preflop, though, if everyone folds too much there.)
I can't imagine Tom going "Oh, you're right," but I'm hoping I'll
learn something from the responses.
--
Abdul
Tom Weideman
> I
> didn't read that post of yours (or any other post around that time),
> in case you were wondering, which I don't think you were.
No, I didn't think you did.
> Anyway, I'm not sure we mean the same thing here. "Intertwined"
> equals "inextricably linked", yes, but we may differ on how playing
> additional hands preflop impacts the marginal hands postflop. Let's
> take the case where I have played my hand preflop consistently with AA
> and other big pairs but also some marginal hands like A8s and QTs,
> whereas you have played any two cards. Now the flop comes down
> *whatever*. Would you "obviously easily outperform" me from the flop
> on? I don't think so. Your average hand there is quite weak, whereas
> mine is quite strong. Overall, of course I will make more money there,
> but let's focus on just my marginal hands. I can bluff you to death
> with my marginal hands, based on the strength of the other hands I
> could hold there. You have to fold those same exact hands. True, I
> can't put you on a hand, and in particular I can't predict when you
> might have two pair. However, you have to be more worried that I have
> an overpair or set than I have to be worried you got lucky with two
> pair.
> I can't imagine Tom going "Oh, you're right," but I'm hoping I'll
> learn something from the responses.
I doubt you'll learn anything new - most likely you'll just smack your
forehead for having overlooked what you already know.
The problem with your description above comes back to go ol' Bayes. The
effectiveness of a bluff is not dependent upon the likelihood of having a
good hand, but rather it depends upon the likelihood of having a good hand
GIVEN that you have bet.
To (hopefully) make clear how this makes it easy for me to outperform you
postflop with my random hand, consider this experiment: We each play the
same 1000 randomly-dealt hands against the same opponents, and with all the
other factors being the same (position, pot size at the flop, etc.). You
only get to see the flop whenever you normally would, and I get to see all
of them (how much we invest to see these flops is not at issue, since that
involves preflop accounting).
I announce to the table that I will be playing every hand that you could
hold at this poiint exactly as you would play it. If you bet a hand for
value, so would I. if you bluff with a certain hand, so will I. And so on.
But in addition, I announce that I will also aggressively bet all my
strongest hands that you could not have seen the flop with. If I flop a
straight with 85o utg, I will play it strong.
Okay, now whose bluffs will be more effective? WHEN I BET, my bet will be
more feared than when you bet, because my ratio of bluffing hands to value
hands is smaller than yours. I will get exactly the same return that you
get for hands you can hold, but I get more for all the flops that are good
for my junk hands, so I will outperform you. AND I will make more money on
bluffs than you do. I essentially outperform you through volume, but when
we look behind the curtain we see that I don't do better overall because I
had to invest too much (preflop) to get this advantage.
Tom Weideman
Lou Krieger
fascinating poker discussions in recent months, and it got me to thinking
about why so much more has been written about play before the flop than play
after it.
Perhaps it's because of our very human tendency to concentrate on that which
we can deal with easily and concretely, and while it's one thing to advise
someone to "...outplay their opponent after the flop," it's another thing
entirely to specify the whys and wherefores pertaining to it.
It is, for example, much easier to caution someone about the dangers of
playing Q-J in early position, than it is to specify just exactly how to
outplay one's oppoennt after the flop, if for no other reason than the flop
and after flop situations can be so much more varied than preflop play.
It's also difficult to find hands and situations that are as emblematic of
troublesome situations as Q-J would be for a whole host of similar hands
such as K-T, J-T, J-9, Q-9, K-J and so forth.
I think it's human nature to investigate, theorize on, and talk about things
we know and things that lend themselves to easy categorization and
definition, which may go a long way to explain why we as poker players spend
a lot more time thinking about pre flop play than what takes place after it.
Just food for thought.....
Andrew Bloch
> Okay, now whose bluffs will be more effective? WHEN I BET, my bet will be
> more feared than when you bet, because my ratio of bluffing hands to value
> hands is smaller than yours. I will get exactly the same return that you
> get for hands you can hold, but I get more for all the flops that are good
> for my junk hands, so I will outperform you. AND I will make more money on
> bluffs than you do. I essentially outperform you through volume, but when
> we look behind the curtain we see that I don't do better overall because I
> had to invest too much (preflop) to get this advantage.
Tom, you've only shown that some hands will go up in value. But you
haven't proven that you will do better on average over all the hands
you may hold. I guess it depends on how you define "outperform".
Andy Bloch
Abdul Jalib
> Abdul Jalib wrote:
>
> >
> > Let's take the case where I have played my hand preflop consistently
> > with AA and other big pairs but also some marginal hands like A8s and
> > QTs, whereas you have played any two cards. Now the flop comes down
> > *whatever*. Would you "obviously easily outperform" me from the flop
> > on? I don't think so. Your average hand there is quite weak, whereas
> > mine is quite strong. Overall, of course I will make more money there,
> > but let's focus on just my marginal hands. I can bluff you to death
> > with my marginal hands, based on the strength of the other hands I
> > could hold there. You have to fold those same exact hands.
>
Okay. I see now, though I can't accept your assumption that you with
your random hand could play every normal hand in the normal manner
(because your opponent will not be behaving normally himself.)
Let's say you have position on the flop with your random two cards. What
is your opponent to do? The probability is that your hand is complete
crud. So, the opponent should probably bet 100% of his hands. You've
lost the ability to take a free card, and the ability to get any
information from your opponent's first action on the flop. But you
don't lose anything when you fold your complete crud hands (since
we're counting only from the flop on.) So in effect you've just
forced your opponent to put in a bet and you've gained position, and
now you fold all your crud hands and can play most of his hands (though
there is no need to) plus a few garbage hands that hit the flop hard.
It's a little less clear when you're first to act with your random
cards. I think you might wind up checking 100% and your opponent
betting 100% and then it's back to the above case. (You shouldn't
simply bet and check like normal with your normal hands and then
check all your trash too.)
--
Abdul Jalib
Deep Thought #4
Imagine there's no heaven. Then we would have to move the big
poker game in the sky.
Abdul Jalib
That's a big source of my confusion and the seeming disagreement here.
In this hypothetical game, the EV of all players is by definition
positive, because there are no antes and there is a pot to start
with (accounting assumed to be done only for postflop action.) But
is EV per flop or per hand not folded on the flop or per hand preflop?
I said that the random hand player's 32o is going to water down his EV,
not increase it, so I meant EV per flop. However, it probably makes
more sense to compute EV per hand preflop, so then the normal player
gets penalized for mucking that 32o himself.
--
Abdul
Tom Weideman
Just to make sure we are all in agreement, I will describe more clearly what
I mean by "outperform postflop". Abdul and I play the same 1,000,000
randomly-dealt holdem hands (from the same positions against the same
opponents, etc.). He has to play them in his usual manner from preflop on,
while I get to play all of them after the flop is already down. Thus he
would have already folded many of the hands that I get to play. We start
"keeping score" from the flop on - that is, the money in the pot at the
start of flop betting is a gift from Allah, so even though Abdul has to play
preflop in his usual manner, none of the chips he commits preflop come out
of his stack. Assuming we start these million hands with the same number of
chips, I will have more chips than he does at the end of the million hands.
This is the only way I could imagine defining "outperform".
I realize that in real life that the preflop cost of playing every hand is
greater than the amount I gain from seeing every flop. That was actually
the (original) point - your overall performance cannot effectively be
sectioned off into earnings from each stage of a hand. If what I am saying
now sounds trivial, well that's because it is - I just get to play the +ev
postflop game much, much more often than he does.
Finally, the excerpt quoted above was not intended to demonstrate how I
would go about outperforming Abdul in this hypothetical - it was really only
meant to show that his claim that he would do better in his bluffs was in
error (then I made the jump to what I describe above, though I guess the
transition wasn't very clear). If Abdul's bluffing frequency is a good one,
then I would keep the same ratio of bluff hands to value bet hands by
bluffing with more hands than he does (because I have more value-bettable
hands than he does).
Tom Weideman
Jerrod Ankenman
> your random hand could play every normal hand in the normal manner
> (because your opponent will not be behaving normally himself.)
>
> Let's say you have position on the flop with your random two cards. What
> is your opponent to do? The probability is that your hand is complete
> crud. So, the opponent should probably bet 100% of his hands. You've
> lost the ability to take a free card, and the ability to get any
> information from your opponent's first action on the flop. But you
> don't lose anything when you fold your complete crud hands (since
> we're counting only from the flop on.) So in effect you've just
> forced your opponent to put in a bet and you've gained position, and
> now you fold all your crud hands and can play most of his hands (though
> there is no need to) plus a few garbage hands that hit the flop hard.
>
> It's a little less clear when you're first to act with your random
> cards. I think you might wind up checking 100% and your opponent
> betting 100% and then it's back to the above case. (You shouldn't
> simply bet and check like normal with your normal hands and then
> check all your trash too.)
It's very unclear how to play optimally in these situations. But
making analogies to some games we've investigated, a few general
rules:
1) When you have a much better distribution of hands than your
opponent, you should play much more aggressively than when your
distributions are equal.
2) Conversely, when you have a much weaker distribution of hands than
your opponent, you should slowplay/check-raise much more frequently.
3) When you play games with multiple streets and the streets are
unequal in size, you should strive very strongly to not give up
information on smaller streets.
4) Also, when one player has a much stronger distribution of hands
than the other, a "gap concept" applies that does not exist when the
hands are equal. With equal distributions, it is often correct for the
caller to call with hands that are weaker than the worst value-betting
hand the bettor can have, but this is often not the case when the
distributions are not equal.
Jerrod Ankenman
Bill chen
question. From the games Jerrod and I have studied:
(1) Position is *more* valuable when the two hand distributions are
about equal strength, given check-raise is legal. So when you have a
much weaker hand (say someone in the field raises and you defend the
BB with a random hand) you are not much more crushed if you are out
of position than if you are in position. In the extreme case if it's
correct for the strong hand to bet 100% even given that the weaker
hand checks 100%, there is no premium for position. This is why I
believe position is less important in stud, not because the high card
acts first but because of the disparity of possible hands given the
upcards--often it's the case where the low hand has a really
threatening board and the high hand should check, expecting a bet.
(1') If check raise is *not* allowed, then the opposite is true, you
are really crushed in Lowball if you have to act first with a 2 card
draw.
(2) Position is *less* valuable, not more valuable with multiple
streets. If given one round of betting Y would have a 0.1 bet
advantage because of position, it would seem reasonable to guess he
might have something like a 0.2 bet advantage or a little less for 2
rounds of betting. The opposite is true. Y's advantage actually goes
down to around 0.075 bets or so. This can be mathematically proved in
the static game (no new info on each street).
Bill
jerroda...@yahoo.com (Jerrod Ankenman) wrote in message news:<b3e2396.03042...@posting.google.com>...
Bill chen
> Just to make sure we are all in agreement, I will describe more clearly what
> I mean by "outperform postflop". Abdul and I play the same 1,000,000
> randomly-dealt holdem hands (from the same positions against the same
> opponents, etc.). He has to play them in his usual manner from preflop on,
> while I get to play all of them after the flop is already down. Thus he
> would have already folded many of the hands that I get to play. We start
> "keeping score" from the flop on - that is, the money in the pot at the
> start of flop betting is a gift from Allah, so even though Abdul has to play
> preflop in his usual manner, none of the chips he commits preflop come out
> of his stack.
Of course Tom will make more money if he plays more hands! It seems
the choice here on a hand-by-hand basis is: (1) he can fold preflop
and have an expectation of $0 or (2) he can see the flop for free,
money in the pot will be gifted from Allah, and then decide how to
play. Is Tom really saying anything more than you should not fold the
BB out of turn when nobody has raised the pot?
Bill
Tom Weideman
Tom also used the word "obviously" in the original post, but things got a
bit confused for some reason. Probably Tom's fault. Tom apologizes and
regrets ever having pointed out the "deja vu".
Tom Weideman
Gary Carson
>I am wondering if Tom isn't merely stating a tautotlogy?
>
>play. Is Tom really saying anything more than you should not fold
the
>BB out of turn when nobody has raised the pot?
>
He's saying more than that, what he's saying is that you can't
seperate money made pre-flop and post-flop. He's using that tautology
to explain why.
Trevor Duddle
This is the reason my original post was made. You have explained the
dilemma well.
It is very easy to produce a list of playable hands preflop for
various positions. All of the books I have read indicate that the
answers they give "depend" on the game conditions and are not written
in stone but, for a beginner, there is at least a framework on which
to build. Assuming you are in a loose/passive game you could follow
the guidelines (or maybe even a bit tighter) and develop your
judgement from that foundation.
However, post flop the situation is much more difficult. Even Lee
Jones, who makes a good job of explaining each possible situation on
the flop in simple terms, uses the phrase, "if there is much action
you will have to get out". What does "much" mean to a beginner; not a
lot! :-). There will always be judgement involved here. Not an easy
thing to explain in a book.
I have searched the archives for threads relating to post flop play.
There are far fewer than for preflop decisions. When found, the
postings are often unhelpful. There are far too many comments like "if
you are going to play that bad post flop, you should not be
raisng/calling preflop"
That might well be true but it does not help the original poster to
improve their play does it?
It is clear that preflop and postflop decisions are intertwined but it
seems to me that my progress to sound post flop play is going to be a
long and probably slow process.
I was rather innocently expecting replies indicating people's views on
the relative value of the decisions. It is obvious (surely) that if
you play 72o for 3 bets preflop you will lose. Equally, it is obvious
(surely) that if you fail to get money in the pot when you are
favourite to win it then you will also adversely affect your results.
If you keep calling bets on the flop with only a back door flush draw
again you will lose (barring a huge number of bets in the pot).
I understand that all of these are important but I was looking for an
answer like,
"get it right preflop and you are 70% of the way there"
or
"even if you get it 100% right preflop, you will still lose unless you
get the extra bet post flop since most good starting hands are less
than 1BB in +EV"
Green or what?
Trevor
Bing
Duddle) wrote:
> "if there is much action you will have to get out". What does
> "much" mean to a beginner; not a lot!
> There are far too many comments like "if
> you are going to play that bad post flop, you should not be
> raisng/calling preflop"
Unfortunately, that's just the way things are. Most of the
decisions a player makes at the table are based on instinct.
"Much Action" will mean different things at different times
and the good player will be able to recognize the subtleties.
> It is clear that preflop and postflop decisions are intertwined but it
> seems to me that my progress to sound post flop play is going to be a
> long and probably slow process.
Yes. They often call that process "trial and error".
> I was rather innocently expecting replies indicating people's views on
> the relative value of the decisions.
I believe that's pretty much what you got. The problem, of
course, is that every situation is different. If you are
playing against calling stations, post-flop play is not
particularly critical (bet if you have the goods, check
otherwise). If you are playing against tricky players,
post-flop play is most important. And the number and
position of each type of player will also be critical to
those decisions.
> I understand that all of these are important but I was looking for an
> answer like,
>
> "get it right preflop and you are 70% of the way there"
>
> or
>
> "even if you get it 100% right preflop, you will still lose unless you
> get the extra bet post flop since most good starting hands are less
> than 1BB in +EV"
This game is more about people than the cards. It's about trying
to guess how people will react to your actions. As you should
realize, people are largely unpredictable in all aspects of their
lives, including poker. As such, the best you can do is to come
into the game with a solid strategy in mind and then adjust when
it all falls apart as a result of a few nutty players.
Jerrod Ankenman
<snipped some>
> > It is clear that preflop and postflop decisions are intertwined but it
> > seems to me that my progress to sound post flop play is going to be a
> > long and probably slow process.
>
> Yes. They often call that process "trial and error".
I think that "trial and error" is an overrated methodology for
learning about poker, and that the actually necessary "trial and
error" is often strongly augmented by understanding theoretical
principles and then applying those principles in practice. Seeing what
works at the table is prone to disaster in high-variance activities.
> > I understand that all of these are important but I was looking for an
> > answer like,
> >
> > "get it right preflop and you are 70% of the way there"
> >
> > or
> >
> > "even if you get it 100% right preflop, you will still lose unless you
> > get the extra bet post flop since most good starting hands are less
> > than 1BB in +EV"
You very rarely get a bet's worth of EV in any postflop situation.
It's virtually always a small fraction of a bet, for any action.
> This game is more about people than the cards. It's about trying
> to guess how people will react to your actions. As you should
> realize, people are largely unpredictable in all aspects of their
> lives, including poker. As such, the best you can do is to come
> into the game with a solid strategy in mind and then adjust when
> it all falls apart as a result of a few nutty players.
Well, or you could come into the game with a better solid strategy
that doesn't fall apart as a result of a few nutty players.
Jerrod Ankenman