RULE of 7 by GCA
GCA
A poker hand similar to the one I am writing about occurred in the Commerce
Casino at around the $300-$600 holdem game. Both players in the hand were
WCP. One was also a cheat and scammer. I was asked my opinion on the play of
this hand and whether I thought anything was wrong with how the hand was
played. The scammer was the better player of the two, as I have played with
both.
The game was 4 handed and A opened for $600. B had been 3 betting A every
time he came into the pot, so he made it $900. A who was aware of this fact
now made it $1200. A's hand contained QhJh. B's hand contained 5,5. Flop
came Kh,9h, 5h. A checked. B bet $300. It wasn't long before the betting
ended with 9 bets in on the flop. $2700 apiece. Now the "scammer" held the
pocket 5's and a set. He also put the last bet in a $2700.
The next card was a 5 and quads were made by the scammer. Check, bet, call,
check, bet, call. A friend of the "honest player" witnessed the hand, and
asked me if the hand was played properly or if I would have played the hand
the same way. The "honest player" had thoughts he may have been the victim
of a "cold deck" by the way the play came down.
My reply was the hands were expertly played by both parties, being this was
a 4 handed game. I stated the least number of bets that player B could have
gone would have been 7, and that would have taken a far less powerful hand.
He went 9 and that was most likely because player A stopped at 8 bets. If I
was player B, I would also have done the same thing.
I told you I was going to give you the "RULE of 7". It applied in this hand.
The "rule of 7" is used by only WCP's, as they are the only ones that
realize it's value. It goes like this. When playing for high limits and
playing shorthanded, getting a extra bet here and saving an extra bet there,
adds up for your edge. Here is the reasoning behind this rule.
Obviously when playing short handed or heads-up, the blinds are always upon
you. You are thus forced to play many hands and the way you play them is
quite decisive. Just to give you an example; heads-up you are the big blind
with Q,10. Suits can apply but they are not the real reason. The small blind
makes it 2 bets with a J,10. Flop comes 10 9 2 with two of a suit.
Believe it or not, proper play of this hand would go like this. BB checks
and the SB bets. BB raises, SB raises, BB raises, SB raises. The betting
should go until there are 7 bets in the pot, upon which the BB calls. Next
card, no matter what comes, both parties will check, unless the J10 hits his
J. River comes and both parties check again, unless one hits his kicker.
Now do the math. Say they were playing $100-$200. $700 was put into the hand
on the flop. Both parties were trying to save a bet, and neither knew if
their hand was the best. To minimize the amount put into the pot, the hand
must be played to the Rule of 7. 7 small bets on the flop. Remember if one
of the parties would have slowed down any time earlier in the hand, there
would have been a bet on 4th street of $200 and a bet on the river of $200.
If the BB would have stopped after 3 bets, he would have checked and lost a
bet, as the SB would most likely of checked also. If the BB would have bet
and not put in the seven bets on the flop, the SB would have made it $400 on
the turn and checked on the river. The rule of 7 allows you to maximize
your value in short play and minimize your loss. To a beginner it is
probably very hard to understand.
However, whenever you see one of these games where they raise like "mad men"
on the flop, and then check, check, you will realize they are just playing
poker, and playing it well. To the untrained and uneducated eye, many things
may seem strange. However, do the math for the hand and you will see how
much goes into the pot. Obviously times occur when the hands are much larger
than this. One was the example I gave at the beginning. Both of those hands
were far more powerful, yet one did out play the other. The pair of 55 was
going to lose a large total on the hand. But, he would have really minimized
his loss and maximized his win on the hand.
This is the "Rule of 7" and is used by only the best WCP'ers in the world.
Others have a hard time fathoming the concept. It is used with speed in
raising and the controlling of betting in short and heads-up play. To not
grasp the concept is to be unable to beat the individual who does.
Russ G new...@aol.com
David R Huberman
even been edited/proofread. Russ, either you had some sort of epiphany
about writing/posting, or you finally took advice you were given at the
beginning of your RGP adventure and found someone to help you post. Which
one?
Scott N
become usefull?
Fancy Play can actually prohibit profits in low limits, and just start
to come into play with the more competent players at mid limits. I
don't even think this would work much in mid-limits that often. For
example, $15-30 with your j-10/q-10 hand exapmle, with the usual
players in that game, betting would go something like:
sb(j-10) bet, BB raise, sb call. MAYBE sb raise again (3-bet), then
BB would
probably just call.
That is still far away from "7" and I don't think I have EVER seen a
7-bet at that limits accept for two very large hands. And continuing,
the turn would probably go sb check, bb bet, sb call. Or sb bet, bb
raise, sb call. And then sb check-call the river unless one of the two
hit his kicker. Of course, the texture of the game could yeild
completely different patterns and with some of the "crazy-cali" games
I have played in, you might very well get "rule of 7" on flop, but in
those games, it wouldn't stop betting for the next two rounds...
And low limits, forget it. This much advanced thinking is WAY too much
for those autominions. Even a great $4-8 player would see 'laugh' at
the j-10 player if he went to 7 bets.
So getting back to my original question. I can see how an advanced
concept like this works and it significance in high limits where every
bet saved or earned is huge, but at what limits do this start to
become relevant?
M
of thing...advanced high-limit plays, and pot-limit/no-limit
strategies and principles. It will give us all some very interesting
things to think about and will doubtless provoke some good debate as
well.
new...@aol.com (GCA) wrote in message news:<fe4b9b6.02022...@posting.google.com>...
GCA
High levels in very short and heads-up games. It can be applied to the
medium limits such as $20-$40 through $80-$160 where fewer WCP ply
their trade. But in order to get to the higher levels [3 digit and 4
digit], you must know these concepts when playing short or heads-up.
These concepts are basically useless in these small full games you
describe.
bigs...@linuxmail.org (Scott N) wrote in message news:<6abc6579.02022...@posting.google.com>...
Lee Munzer
defies any mathematical probability known to man, and always comes through
at crucial times:<).
In the second example, I agree with the concept, but, believe it or not,
most strong low and middle limit players know it (unofficially) as the rule
of "last raiser who holds marginal hand and position saves at least one big
bet".
That "rule not exclusive" comment aside, it was a valid, interesting, and
well presented concept ... thanks.
Lee
"GCA" <new...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fe4b9b6.02022...@posting.google.com...
Lee Munzer
"GCA"
> Obviously when playing short handed or heads-up, the blinds are always
upon
> you. You are thus forced to play many hands and the way you play them is
> quite decisive. Just to give you an example; heads-up you are the big
blind
> with Q,10. Suits can apply but they are not the real reason. The small
blind
> makes it 2 bets with a J,10. Flop comes 10 9 2 with two of a suit.
>
> Believe it or not, proper play of this hand would go like this. BB checks
> and the SB bets. BB raises, SB raises, BB raises, SB raises. The betting
> should go until there are 7 bets in the pot, upon which the BB calls. Next
> card, no matter what comes, both parties will check, unless the J10 hits
his
> J. River comes and both parties check again, unless one hits his kicker.
>
> Now do the math. Say they were playing $100-$200. $700 was put into the
hand
> on the flop. Both parties were trying to save a bet, and neither knew if
> their hand was the best. To minimize the amount put into the pot, the hand
> must be played to the Rule of 7. 7 small bets on the flop. Remember if one
> of the parties would have slowed down any time earlier in the hand, there
> would have been a bet on 4th street of $200 and a bet on the river of
$200.
Maybe. Russ, I'm admittedly waaay out of my league at these levels, but am
curious about something, so let me try to create a devil's advocate
"slowdown" at six flop bets (rule of 6?):
Let's reverse the positions ... put us in the SB with our Q-10 and give the
opponent J-10 and the BB. We appoint Daniel to play our hand and he
immediately raises pre-flop, hoping to pick up $100 for us, but we get
raised back. We are worried about a king or ace hand, but we like our hand
and, although not essential, we prefer to stay in the lead here, so we
signal Daniel (one of us points to the sky with our middle finger) to
reraise. He complies. At this point, our soon to be out of position
opponent, worried about being high-carded just calls.
We love the two suited flop of 10- 6-3 and are happy our opponent fires at
it. We raise his lead bet. Eskimo raises us quickly. We raise back just as
quickly believing we are ahead. He raises like a shot. We signal "raise"
to Daniel (by holding up a Maple Leaf jersey). We want to put Eskimo in the
worst possible situation (or, what Eskimo might perceive as an excellent
trapping position if he held a hand like K-10 or 3-3) with the big bet limit
coming up. Eskimo thinks briefly, decides he just may have kicker problems
or be up against a bigger oddball hand, thus calls. If he had a real big
hand, Eskimo might also call for different reasons deciding inducing us at
the next level might work better than a lead bet. Sometimes the margins of
victory are very tiny and the best players excel at recognizing and reacting
to them. The kicker margin here and whether the SB or BB holds the queen is
an example. So, we have put six bets in on the flop and, while we can
always make a case for alternative plays in marginal situations (such as
Eskimo putting in the 7th bet on the flop), I believe Eskimo and Daniel
played expertly on the flop.
Just some food for comment.
Lee
GCA
matter of the mood I am in. Sometimes I am lazier than at other times.
Besides, I did not make many posts in Jan or Feb. I have been
refreshed.
David R Huberman <dav...@deletethis.globalcrossing.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.16e77c299...@news.supernews.com>...
7stud
> To minimize the amount put into the pot, the hand
> must be played to the Rule of 7
Sorry, I'm a beginner, and I don't understand. As far as I can tell
the hand is being played heads up. What does it matter how many
people are actually sitting at the table? Why 7 bets? And your
example has 9 bets going in on the flop. Can someone explain this
Rule of 7 concept to me?
news:fe4b9b6.02022...@posting.google.com...
Lee Munzer
"GCA" wrote ...
> I have been writing all my material for the last eight months. It is a
> matter of the mood I am in. Sometimes I am lazier than at other times.
> Besides, I did not make many posts in Jan or Feb. I have been
> refreshed.
David's correct and you assessed your progress accurately somewhere else
yesterday or today. You indicated you were a new computer user and a new
newsgroup member, thus experiencing dual learning curves. You didn't know
how to use spell check. In addition, you weren't that concerned with syntax
or format as long as you got your message out, I believe.
Since I pounded on you to improve in that area, I feel good that your
progress has been rapid, mutually beneficial, and many have noticed the
dramatic improvement. Your new willingness to delve into strategy more than
before will also be appreciated.
Lee
stacy_friedman
> The Rule of 7
>
> Believe it or not, proper play of this hand would go like this. BB checks
> and the SB bets. BB raises, SB raises, BB raises, SB raises.
> Now do the math. Say they were playing $100-$200. $700 was put into the hand
> on the flop. Both parties were trying to save a bet, and neither knew if
> their hand was the best. To minimize the amount put into the pot, the hand
> must be played to the Rule of 7. 7 small bets on the flop.
I'm trying to do the math. How is it possible for two players to put
an odd number of bets into a pot?
It might go something like this:
SB: blind $50.
BB: blind $100. total $150
SB: raise to $200. total $300
BB: raise to $300. total $500
SB: raise to $400. total $700
BB: call $400, but not this round so we can keep the pot at $700. I'm
good for it, though. I swear I'll put in the extra $100 after the
flop...
-Stacy
NChrisH
From: "Lee Munzer" luck...@lvcm.com >>
<< The first example is an aberration since Presto doesn't need a cold deck,
defies any mathematical probability known to man, and always comes through
at crucial times:<). >>
Sorry Lee, but Presto never ever works for me.
Now 44 thought, there's a hand I can cap the betting with. Busts up to three
palyers in a tournament at one time.
I just hope that Mason doesn't see this. I don't want to start that thread all
over again.
Chris H.
Dennis
stacy_f...@hotmail.com (stacy_friedman) wrote in message news:<71b15e3e.02022...@posting.google.com>...
GCA
the flop, next person bets. The other person 3 bets it to slow the
action down. He realizeds he has a hand that can win, but wants to max
the win or minimize the loss. If the first player calls, there will be
a big bet on 4th and the river to add up to a total of seven small
bets. If the player who checked and raised, raises again and only gets
called, he will fire again on 4th and 5th street, adding another small
unit into the pot. Thus there would now be 8 small units put into the
pot after the flop. The reason that the rule is seven, is to avoid
this. It must be 7 at least, depending on the hand. Stronger hands
will receive more bets. But this is to slow down the action and thus
get mazimum value by either party. Seven small bets= 3 small bets and
the 2 large bets on 4th and 5th.
"Lee Munzer" <luck...@lvcm.com> wrote in message news:<u7t2151...@corp.supernews.com>...
North Shore Mike
That damned Huberman busted me out of a tournament when I held Presto.
Not just any tournament, mind you, but the BARGE TOC tourney. So, in
a gathering where the word "Presto" is spoken with hushed reverence,
it apparently sucks.
North Shore Mike
Photos, trip reports, and other lame crap at:
http://www3.telus.net/northshoremike/northshoremike/
*****************************************************
To reply by e-mail, take out the garbage.
Spambot bait: abuse@localhost webmaster@localhost
*****************************************************
David R Huberman
> Not just any tournament, mind you, but the BARGE TOC tourney. So, in
> a gathering where the word "Presto" is spoken with hushed reverence,
> it apparently sucks.
If it makes you feel any better, bucko, I busted out of the same year's
BARGE NLHE tourney with 55. Raised big, got called by Shelley Louie's
KK. Flopped 5-x-10. I go all-in now! He calls. Turn 10. River 10.
Presto no goot!
/Irish David
GCA
bets, first person check raises, second person reraises and so on
until there are 7 bets in the pot. The player with position will have
gotten the last raise in after the flop. On 4th street the first
person will check. So will the second. It will be this way on 5th
street also unless one of the players hits his kicker.
stacy_f...@hotmail.com (stacy_friedman) wrote in message news:<71b15e3e.02022...@posting.google.com>...
North Shore Mike
<dav...@deletethis.globalcrossing.net> wrote:
>/Irish David
I didn't know you wore a dress when you played poker.
North Shore Mike
http://www3telus.net/northshoremike/northshoremike
Photos, trip reports, quotes, and other lame crap.
****************************************************************************
Remove 'x' in e-mail address to reply
Spambot bait: abuse@localhost postmaster@localhost
****************************************************************************
David
yep, I am new
thanks,
David
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 23:25:50 -0500, David R Huberman
<dav...@deletethis.globalcrossing.net> wrote:
Jd00123
Far from being WCP myself,if the "rule of 7"is a well known tactic used by WCP
when they play each other,wouldnt that tend to negate its usefullness ?
Lee Munzer
"David" <davi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:90028u84rhre99f9t...@4ax.com...
GCA
criteria for starting hands can be almost anything reasonable when
playing four handed. If the games was 9 handed, you would know the
hands would be far stronger when they opened and raised as they would
have to run the field. In a field of four, when the first player
passes, you are left facing the blinds. This is the difference.
"7stud" <no...@anon.com> wrote in message news:<b1yf8.7825$hK4.2...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com>...
GCA
not that many World Class Players. Plus, what is wrong with a draw
with the opposition when you really don't know. By applying the rule
of 7, both parties end up in a win-win situation. Or should I say a
push-push situation. Each would win or lose the proper amount in the
hand.
But, again you have to understand. One player will prevail over
another in heads-up in a far shorter period of time than in ring
games. There is far more skill playing short handed or heads-up.
Remember, the Rule of 7 applies to the minimum number of bets, not the
maximum. This also separates the WCP.
Russ G new...@aol.com John M
jd0...@aol.comnospam (Jd00123) wrote in message news:<20020302121548...@mb-ck.aol.com>...
The Beet Man
<MPG.16e77c299...@news.supernews.com>, David R Huberman
<dav...@deletethis.globalcrossing.net> wrote:
You forgot c) Russ posted while sober.
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!
GCA
discuss advanced theory when most players haven't yet mastered the
basics. Plus, it takes a lot of time and most hi level players don't
waste their time on the newsgroups by posting.
The Beet Man <i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com> wrote in message news:<uds48u83uru25q3h8...@4ax.com>...
The Beet Man
<fe4b9b6.02030...@posting.google.com>, new...@aol.com (GCA)
wrote:
>Problem is, most players on RGP are novices. It is very difficult to
>discuss advanced theory when most players haven't yet mastered the
>basics. Plus, it takes a lot of time and most hi level players don't
>waste their time on the newsgroups by posting.
So, you're saying that you need to be coked up in order to have the
time to spare to share your advanced knowledge?
>The Beet Man <i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com> wrote in message news:<uds48u83uru25q3h8...@4ax.com>...
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:29:34 -0500, in article
>> <MPG.16e77c299...@news.supernews.com>, David R Huberman
>> <dav...@deletethis.globalcrossing.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Scariest thing about this whole post? It's competently written and may have
>> >even been edited/proofread. Russ, either you had some sort of epiphany
>> >about writing/posting, or you finally took advice you were given at the
>> >beginning of your RGP adventure and found someone to help you post. Which
>> >one?
>>
>> You forgot c) Russ posted while sober.
--
GCA
Another fabrication?
The Beet Man <i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com> wrote in message news:<tae58ukpriv7keu7g...@4ax.com>...
The Beet Man
>I haven't done drugs for over 10 years. Where did you see this anyway?
>Another fabrication?
One of your GCA buddies claimed that during one of your posting
torrents, you'd been up for 6 days straight and were high as a kite.
GCA
The buddy that stated this is a liar. In fact, it is Bill Nirdlinger,
a REAL DRUG ADDICT. I have had 3 major heart attacks and a quadruple
bypass in the last dozen years. I have also had a minor heart attack.
The only drugs I do are prescription for blood pressure and slleping
disorder.
The Beet Man <i-eat-beets-an...@juno.com> wrote in message news:<gen78ucceekblagjj...@4ax.com>...
The Beet Man
>I haven't even been up for 2 days for ten years, and I don't do drugs.
>The buddy that stated this is a liar. In fact, it is Bill Nirdlinger,
>a REAL DRUG ADDICT.
I think you should consider suing him for slander.
>I have had 3 major heart attacks and a quadruple
>bypass in the last dozen years. I have also had a minor heart attack.
>The only drugs I do are prescription for blood pressure and slleping
>disorder.
I, too, take prescription drugs for blood pressure and sleep
disorders. I hope that Nirdlinger guy never slanders me!
paul ladanyi
didn't think you were serious.
Its entertainment value is not negligible nevertheless.
GCA
pl...@matavnet.hu (paul ladanyi) wrote in message news:<765a0638.02030...@posting.google.com>...