Poker Strategy Discussion

All discussions regarding Board, Card, and RPG Gaming, including industry discussion, that don't belong in one of the other gaming forums.

Moderators: The Preacher, $iljanus, Zaxxon

User avatar
SpaceLord
Posts: 7242
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Lost in Time and Space
Contact:

Poker Strategy Discussion

Post by SpaceLord »

This is a thread regarding strategy and poker styles.

David Sklansky is a poker authority, I own several of his books. His classic Theory of Poker is a widely read and respected discussion of the game. Another of his books, Tournament Poker for Advanced Players discusses Sklansky's Chip Value Theory(CVP). He suggests that when one's stack is small, each chip is worth more than each chip in a large stack. I've always had a strange feeling about this idea, something didn't seem right.

A counterpoint to this idea of CVP was written by Arnold Snyder, one of the world's foremost authorities on Blackjack, and can be found here.

An interesting read, Snyder and Sklansky have been arguing about this idea for several months. Snyder's not questioning Sklansky's math, but his logic behind the math.

I am currently testing Snyder's The Poker Tournament Formula which espouses a aggressive, raising style in tournaments with fast(<60 minutes) blind structures.

Thoughts?
They're going to send you back to mother in a cardboard box...
User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 27987
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion

Post by The Meal »

Snyder's PTF screwed up my home game performance after I first read it, but it really wasn't meant for our venue. It really is geared towards the 70-person fast blind MTT's popular up in Black Hawk on the weekends. His writing style makes his technique sound pretty straightforward, but I think it's less a cookbook and more a "here's what you should be considering," when certain favorable situations come up. Read in that light, I think his Rock-Paper-Scissors breakdown is *ULTRA* powerful (especially when you're playing up against a bunch of Harringtonites that don't understand the effect of the pacing of the blinds!).

I like Sklansky for limit advice. I like certain aspects of the tools he brings to the game. But I wouldn't lean on Sklansky himself for whole-game big-bet playing paradigms. Maybe I'm the one that's wrong, however.

(Plus he's a creep.)

~Neal
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70101
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Post by LordMortis »

I've read one and half of his (sklansky's) books. I don't even remember the names of them. One was green and one was yellow. I but little pieces of paper in a shit ton of pages as a reminder to go back to those pages. At the same time, most of what he, um, teaches, is pretty intuitive. He just gives words to a playing style that's already there.

I do find one thing interesting that he seems to preach that I just have been able to adopt and test. And that's that you start a game tight and loosen up as antes/blinds increase. It's a change in style that I need to track my success on but even then I just can't force myself to play that way.

When I get deep into a tourney I tighten up incontrollably. And the interesting thing is I always feel I am not playing tight enough. Why? Because I'm always getting knocked out with a 2nd best hand. Now you almost always get knocked out with a 2nd best hand whether you play tight our loose but there I sit deep in tourney broken by this psychology.

I find it easy and successful to play tight in the early games, even if I have to say to myself out loud "Patience dumb ass" every once in a while after I fold thirty or forty hands in a row pre flop (or fourth street or whatever you call the fourth card in a 7 card game)

The only time I find it easy to not play so tight is when every one else tightens up. It's easy to allow yourself to move into ante steals when everyone else is puckered up.

I'd love to read the debate but I'm too tired to have anything register. So bump this later and I'll remember to see if I can udnerstand the hub bub.
User avatar
SpaceLord
Posts: 7242
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Lost in Time and Space
Contact:

Post by SpaceLord »

The Meal wrote:Snyder's PTF screwed up my home game performance after I first read it, but it really wasn't meant for our venue. It really is geared towards the 70-person fast blind MTT's popular up in Black Hawk on the weekends. His writing style makes his technique sound pretty straightforward, but I think it's less a cookbook and more a "here's what you should be considering," when certain favorable situations come up. Read in that light, I think his Rock-Paper-Scissors breakdown is *ULTRA* powerful (especially when you're playing up against a bunch of Harringtonites that don't understand the effect of the pacing of the blinds!).
Snyder's ideas are pretty fun. I have traditionally waited for good hands, but have learned the following so far using Snyder's methods:

The cards I hold only matter if I have to go to a showdown. If I never get to a showdown due to folding, one way or another, they don't know if I have a hand or not.

Most flops miss most hands. Thus, late position bets put pressure on opponents, and forces them to make hard decisions.

Great stuff.
They're going to send you back to mother in a cardboard box...
User avatar
Peacedog
Posts: 13148
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 7:11 pm
Location: Despair, level 5
Contact:

Post by Peacedog »

The Meal wrote:(especially when you're playing up against a bunch of Harringtonites that don't understand the effect of the pacing of the blinds!).
My first time out to Vegas I played like utter dogshit in a tournament at. . . well crap I can't remember which casino off hand.

Timidity was easily my undoing, and I got strangled by the rising blinds especially on day 2. Your ability to successfully play is seriously crimped. I get myself in trouble with this sometimes at the smallish tournaments I play around town (15-25 people is the usual size). I think a lot of people don't understand how this can even affect a small (<=9) tournament style game. I didn't at first. The last time I played in a tournament I did a better job avoiding the issue, though I finished just outside of the money,

I also got a little off my game in vegas because of my inability to turn 3 separate occasions of pocket aces before the first hour break into significant money. There really wasn't much I could do there - first hand of the tourney both me and a buddy (at separate tables) got AA. But I'm leading off, so I go somewhere between 2x-3x the big blind and everyone folds. Where my buddy raised, got a call, and then had someone go all in (and which he called to take the hand).

I played each of the next two hands differently to no avail. I only actually got someone to beg once, so I didn't come away with nothing but blinds. . . but it wasn't much better (maybe $500-600, with everyone starting with 2500 in chips iirc).
User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 27987
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion

Post by The Meal »

If you have a problem with playing too tightly, Snyder's TPF will cure it. It may break something else, but it'll cure too-tight play...

I once wrote about a hand I had of AA vs AA (back when I wrote in my free time):
http://poker.the-meal.com/#date12Sep07

Short version is that in a sequence of two hands I went from strong table chip lead to out of chips. Hand the first was KQo. Hand the second was AA. Details in that blog entry...

~Neal
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
User avatar
Peacedog
Posts: 13148
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 7:11 pm
Location: Despair, level 5
Contact:

Post by Peacedog »

Too-tight has always been my problem. And I always give my opponent's holdings too much credit. Playing smart is one thing, but I too often allow myself to get chased out of hands - and not gamble when it's appropriate (and in tourney games, you've got to do it at some point unless the blinds are advancing glacially).

I'm not looking to go from tight to lose per se. Just to get smarter. I like studying "systems", though, so I'll definately check out TPF.
User avatar
SpaceLord
Posts: 7242
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Lost in Time and Space
Contact:

Post by SpaceLord »

Peacedog wrote:Too-tight has always been my problem. And I always give my opponent's holdings too much credit. Playing smart is one thing, but I too often allow myself to get chased out of hands - and not gamble when it's appropriate (and in tourney games, you've got to do it at some point unless the blinds are advancing glacially).

I'm not looking to go from tight to lose per se. Just to get smarter. I like studying "systems", though, so I'll definately check out TPF.
I always try to remember than most hands don't get better on the flop. And the fewer hands that see the flop/turn, the lower the chances that someone will get a great hand. It's very difficult to guess what an opponent has, anyway.
They're going to send you back to mother in a cardboard box...
User avatar
Peacedog
Posts: 13148
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 7:11 pm
Location: Despair, level 5
Contact:

Post by Peacedog »

SpaceLord wrote: I always try to remember than most hands don't get better on the flop. And the fewer hands that see the flop/turn, the lower the chances that someone will get a great hand. It's very difficult to guess what an opponent has, anyway.
I think that's generally sound advice. That and recognizing behavior at the table - not "oooh, Todd is edgy, he must have a straight draw", but "Todd is a calling whore, I should keep that in mind".
paulbaxter
Posts: 3178
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:46 pm

Post by paulbaxter »

I don't know what Mr. Snyder has to say, but I've been really helped by Sklansky's most recent book (w. Ed Miller), No Limit Hold 'Em: Theory and Practice. All of the advice he gives is demonstrated with expected value formulas, though it does have the drawback of focusing principally on deep stack Hold 'Em, whereas the games I play at NLOP tend to have pretty high blinds relative to the stacks. Nonetheless, I admire what Sklansky has to say.

Regarding the OP, I don't think there is a rational argument against the chip value theory. It is a basic sort of economic principle, that the more scarce something is, the more value it will have, other things being equal. There are, of course, situational exceptions, but just think about the idea of how to call a 200 chip bet when you have 300 chips in front of you versus when you have 8000. If you are going to risk a significant portion of your chips, you need to be pretty confident in your chances.
No sig, must scream, etc.
User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 27987
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion

Post by The Meal »

Peacedog wrote:Too-tight has always been my problem.
This book will definitely help.
And I always give my opponent's holdings too much credit. Playing smart is one thing, but I too often allow myself to get chased out of hands
Likely where you could improve would not be in the calling-down-your-opponent-more-often department, but in the making-your-opponent-make-the-tough-decision-for-all-his-chips department. Few people aspire to make more all-in calls.
- and not gamble when it's appropriate (and in tourney games, you've got to do it at some point unless the blinds are advancing glacially).
So true. Especially depending on how the tournament is structured.
I'm not looking to go from tight to lose per se. Just to get smarter. I like studying "systems", though, so I'll definately check out TPF.
Yep, if for no other reason than this being a system that you won't be reading about from the usual suspects, this should be a worthy addition to your reading repertoire.
paulbaxter wrote:I don't know what Mr. Snyder has to say, but I've been really helped by Sklansky's most recent book (w. Ed Miller), No Limit Hold 'Em: Theory and Practice. All of the advice he gives is demonstrated with expected value formulas, though it does have the drawback of focusing principally on deep stack Hold 'Em, whereas the games I play at NLOP tend to have pretty high blinds relative to the stacks. Nonetheless, I admire what Sklansky has to say.
There's no doubt that he has lots of good information to share. Especially his stuff with Ed Miller (who's writing and technical ideas I admire even more than Mr. Sklansky's -- Low Limit Hold 'Em is a book written on no-fold'em limit games which populate card rooms across this great land of ours, and it's an absolute *classic* rivaled only by Howard Lederer's chapter on Limit Hold 'Em in the Full Tilt anthology). I agree with the sentiment that Sklansky tends to write more about idealized situations that don't tend to come up too often in my card playing experiences, however.
Regarding the OP, I don't think there is a rational argument against the chip value theory. It is a basic sort of economic principle, that the more scarce something is, the more value it will have, other things being equal.
The alternative position is that if you're already significantly short-staked, then (Jack Straus's "chip and a chair" not withstanding) you're pretty much already sunk. Snyder's style involves showing up at the final table of these tournaments with enough chips to not just play preflop poker, but also to be able to play at the "have a chance to win" level where there is significant post-flop moves to be made. From that perspective, showing up at the final table with 30xBB in chips is more than fifteen times as valuable as showing up with 2xBB in chips (countering Sklansky's concept).
There are, of course, situational exceptions, but just think about the idea of how to call a 200 chip bet when you have 300 chips in front of you versus when you have 8000. If you are going to risk a significant portion of your chips, you need to be pretty confident in your chances.
Undoubtedly it's more difficult to play a big-stack than a short-stack. But I think that's a separate idea than how valuable chips are relative to the size of your stack.

~Neal
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
User avatar
SpaceLord
Posts: 7242
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Lost in Time and Space
Contact:

Post by SpaceLord »

paulbaxter wrote:I don't know what Mr. Snyder has to say, but I've been really helped by Sklansky's most recent book (w. Ed Miller), No Limit Hold 'Em: Theory and Practice. All of the advice he gives is demonstrated with expected value formulas, though it does have the drawback of focusing principally on deep stack Hold 'Em, whereas the games I play at NLOP tend to have pretty high blinds relative to the stacks. Nonetheless, I admire what Sklansky has to say.

Regarding the OP, I don't think there is a rational argument against the chip value theory. It is a basic sort of economic principle, that the more scarce something is, the more value it will have, other things being equal. There are, of course, situational exceptions, but just think about the idea of how to call a 200 chip bet when you have 300 chips in front of you versus when you have 8000. If you are going to risk a significant portion of your chips, you need to be pretty confident in your chances.
One thing wrong with Sklansky's advice is precisely that if you only play "premium" hands in a "fast" tournament, you probably won't be deep stacked for long, due to rising blinds and the rarity of these kinds of hands. And as every player should know: most flops miss most hands. So even if you have QQ, for example, a flop with A or Ks will scare the conservative player out.

My real-life example:

Black Hawk, CO: The Gilpin Casino

Daly 12PM tournament, freezeout, 70$ entry.

7000 chips to begin
Blinds start at 25-50, and double every 20 minutes

An average "rotation" of the button takes around 20 minutes, so each player will play in each blind position once during each blind period. I am creating a "Super-Conservative Player," who will never play, for illustrative purposes.

Blind Escalation(BE1) 1 Fee: 75
BE2=150
BE3=300
1st break total fees: 525, 7.5% of a stack

BE4=600
BE5=1200
BE6=2400
2nd break total fees:4725, 67.5% of a stack

BE7=4800, a SCP goes all-in trying to cover the SB

During these 140 minutes of play, the SCP has been dealt 70ish hands. Of course, their last ~1000 chips have more individual "worth" than their first 6000 they were blinded away, but that's not comforting.

During BE7, the SCP has 2275 before the BB rolls around. That's only 70% of a BB. They are no longer playing "poker", with the ability to make continuation bets, semi-bluffs, etc. They can't even call. They have one move: all-in.

While this tournament has a very generous early period, by BE=6, the SCP is paying a big chunk of his stack just to keep playing.


=============================================


Here's Snyder's suggestions, in a nutshell:

With a competitive stack(30+ BBs):

Under the Gun through Position 5:Fold
Position 6: Raise to 3-5 BBs if first to enter the pot, regardless of cards
Pos 7: Same as 6
Position 8, Button: Raise with any two cards to 3-5BBs. Call any raise in this range.
SB: generally fold
BB: generally fold

Of course, cards in hand/stack size can change one's behavior.

While "survival" is important in the early phase of a tournament, chip accumulation is key.

================================

Let's say, at the tournament I described earlier, you have played the listed strategy, and won a few large pots with position bets, and the one time you went to the river, you showed a pocket pair that gave you trips. You have 20,000 chips. Each player at the table besides you has 12000 or less.

The other players should fear you. If you make a position bet after the flop of 2/3 to 1 1/2 times the current pot, they will curse your name and almost always muck their cards.

Let's say we are in BE5, and you have 35k chips. You are at the button, and 3 players limp in front of you. You raise to 4BBs, or 3200 chips to call. The BB and one of the limpers call, every else folds.

The pot is then 12,400 chips. This probably over half of any one opponent's stack.

But you have 8-9 offsuit.

The flop comes K-7-3, two colors. Meh. If you are checked to, a distinct possibility(both of the callers have an average chip stack, and would be in dire straights if raised.) Even if they have a K, they might not bet much. You then bet 8100 chips., 2/3 of the stack. This will put anyone left into all-in mode. You've only risked 1/3 of your stack. I would guess 80% of the time, your opponents will fold, and curse your name. If they call, you get to see another card, and will get to see what they do on the turn. If you take the pot, you have gained 9200 chips to 42200, and a giant chip lead, hurting two people at the table in the process.

One more hand like that, and nearly everyone at your table will be a gnat to you.

Whew, that's a long post! :ninja:
They're going to send you back to mother in a cardboard box...
User avatar
SpaceLord
Posts: 7242
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Lost in Time and Space
Contact:

Post by SpaceLord »

Update:

I went to the casino today, and played in the 70$ freezeout.

The table I was at for the first 90 minutes was sorta tight-passive, so I did well at first. They called me a maniac because I "raised every hand." I wanted to tell them to check where the button was, but I bit my tongue. On the button, right after the first break, I made a 4xBB raise holding QQ, my best hand by far. A seemingly bad player(never raising, limping) went all-in with a short stacked, and I called. He had AA, and doubled up on me. Later, I had top 2 pair from the button, bet the pot, and he raised all-in. We both turned over the same cards and split. :x

Later still, I had A-9 on the button, and a good player raised from under the gun, and I called. The flop was A-9-10, and he bet, I raised, he pushed all-in. Of course, he had 10-10, the one hand I feared. I got busted out. A pocket pair that trips on the flop is a great hand for this very reason.

Some observations about this style:

1. Many, many players completely ignore position. This style will earn money from them fast. Way, way too many players limp from early position. This is bad. But good for you.
2. I am convinced this style is great fun. I love to raise with nothing, have one person call me, the flop misses me, and the caller checks to me. A bet of 2/3 the pot will win me the pot 75% of the time, good times. The best thing about this style is when you finally do show-down, you generally have a good hand. A bluff is easier to let go than a good set of pocket cards.
3. The most entertaining thing is that when you play this way for a long time, it causes people to draw two different conclusions: he must be getting great cards all the time, or he is a maniac. Both are just fine by me. In the first 90 minutes, I won probably 10 pots, and never showed a card. That's powerful, psychologically, especially when you do show cards, and they are QQ and AA, mwahaha.
They're going to send you back to mother in a cardboard box...
User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 27987
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion

Post by The Meal »

That sounds like a great time!

Position play is something you don't see very much of up in Black Hawk, and it's what fueled me to my final table appearance a few weeks ago. And I'm not talking about raising with anything in the hijack, cutoff, or button, but just playing smart from those three positions and only playing from earlier positions with quality cards.

I had already picked up on the "never be the first limper" rule of thumb prior to reading Snyder, but things really clicked for me when I was made to realize just how tough it is to play "drawing hands" when you're out of position. Throwing away QJs when you're in first position (at a full table) used to be difficult. Now it's a no-brainer.

Fantastic that the concepts of the book translated well to Black Hawk. I was thinking that I wanted to find a $40 tournament and play his definition of Position Play without looking at my cards. The bummer is that we make it up there so infrequently, that I feel obligated to play tighter than I prefer if only to try to "finish well," as opposed to taking shots at trying to win. I got goofed up when making it to the final table a few weeks ago, because Lee was also at that final table and I didn't want to bust out before he did. So I tightened up right when I shouldn't have, and as it turned out he and I were the first two to get knocked off that table anyway. :(

~Neal
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
User avatar
The Preacher
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13037
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:57 am

Post by The Preacher »

What's a good "first read"? Other than knowing the basics, I'm completely ignorant of the odds game and truly thoughtful betting strategies. I'm not looking to become Negraenu, just looking to find a way to think broader other than "AA... Woohoo! I mean, hey, guys, I'll um bet a lot." :wink:
You do not take from this universe. It grants you what it will.
User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 27987
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion

Post by The Meal »

I didn't follow this advice, but would have come up to speed more quickly if I had.

I'd begin thinking in terms of strategy with the limit game. For that game, I'd recommend two books: Ed Miller's (et al) Low Limit Hold 'Em, and the Howard Lederer chapter in the Full Tilt compendium on Limit Hold 'Em. In a not-so-distant third place would be King Yao's book. His is the best description (in terms of usable at the table) of pot odds and drawing outs.

From there I'd branch out to the no limit stuff. You absolutely can't beat the first two volumes of Harrington's (and some backgammon guy who everyone forgets the name of) On Hold 'Em books to make you think about the game. But taking his advice at its core will make you play really well in deep-stack bracelet events during the World Series, and not so great for on line or live games that you probably find in your local neck of the woods. But for making you think about poker, they're the tops.

Sklansky's books tend to rehash so much of the same material over and over again, that I tend to get them all a bit mixed up with each other. He's not a good writer, but his books do offer up great samplings of the tools you need to understand the game.

As far as "squishy" books go, I like [edit:]John Vorhaus[/edit]'s first volume of Killer Online Poker for the types of information you should be taking with regards to what your opponents are doing. I also recently read a great psychological book Tommy Angelo's Elements of Poker. Also dumped into this category would be books on picking up on tells given off by your opponents, and Mike Caro wrote the bible on that subject (same book exists under about 15 different titles), with a recent book by Joe Navarro that also adequately touches on the subject.

If you don't want to bother with all that stuff, you can pick up Rodman/Nelson's Kill Phil as your one and only book that'd teach you a system which may or may not work for you. If nothing else, it's an interesting conceptual read. They've also come out with a Kill Everyone which is well regarded, but I haven't yet read it.

~Neal
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
User avatar
yossar
Posts: 6344
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:20 am
Location: West Side

Post by yossar »

SpaceLord wrote:Under the Gun through Position 5:Fold
Position 6: Raise to 3-5 BBs if first to enter the pot, regardless of cards
Pos 7: Same as 6
Position 8, Button: Raise with any two cards to 3-5BBs. Call any raise in this range.
SB: generally fold
BB: generally fold
If you constantly did this, wouldn't a good player pick up on it and just play any time he had a high card?
Dreamcast Krew 4 Life
User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 27987
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion

Post by The Meal »

yossar wrote:
SpaceLord wrote:Under the Gun through Position 5:Fold
Position 6: Raise to 3-5 BBs if first to enter the pot, regardless of cards
Pos 7: Same as 6
Position 8, Button: Raise with any two cards to 3-5BBs. Call any raise in this range.
SB: generally fold
BB: generally fold
If you constantly did this, wouldn't a good player pick up on it and just play any time he had a high card?
Yes, definitely. However, one has to consider how often these situations come up. Being first in from the hijack or cutoff is fairly frequent (maybe once per orbit), but that's not going to happen too often on the button. Being an auto caller from the button seems a pretty weak play, especially if you're up against folks who don't play passive post-flop if they've already raised preflop. That's where my play deviates from Snyder's Positional Play strategy.

~Neal
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
User avatar
SpaceLord
Posts: 7242
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Lost in Time and Space
Contact:

Post by SpaceLord »

yossar wrote:
SpaceLord wrote:Under the Gun through Position 5:Fold
Position 6: Raise to 3-5 BBs if first to enter the pot, regardless of cards
Pos 7: Same as 6
Position 8, Button: Raise with any two cards to 3-5BBs. Call any raise in this range.
SB: generally fold
BB: generally fold
If you constantly did this, wouldn't a good player pick up on it and just play any time he had a high card?
Edit: What position is this player in? If he is earlier than you, he won't keep calling, it's a losing proposition for him. When you raise this way, you are not betting on your hand. You are betting against your opponent's hand. If they check, you bet 1/2 to a full pot. If they bet 1/2 the pot or more, if the flop missed your hand, you fold.

A check-raise has the same result: if they check, you bet, they raise, you fold if things aren't looking good. A "good" player knows you have position and will often fold.
They're going to send you back to mother in a cardboard box...
User avatar
The Preacher
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13037
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:57 am

Post by The Preacher »

The Meal wrote:I didn't follow this advice, but would have come up to speed more quickly if I had.

I'd begin thinking in terms of strategy with the limit game. For that game, I'd recommend two books: Ed Miller's (et al) Low Limit Hold 'Em
Is this it?
and the Howard Lederer chapter in the Full Tilt compendium on Limit Hold 'Em.
This it?

I'll note the rest as well. Thanks, Neal.

Oh, one other question, while I know there are some free online games out there, are there any decent 360/PC games that you can pick up for just a minutes? I'd love to have something to practice on that wouldn't always require a couple hours.
You do not take from this universe. It grants you what it will.
User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 27987
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion

Post by The Meal »

Those two books are correct. The Full Tilt book will be a fun read for other things besides limit hold'em as well.

I gave the wrong author on one of the books above. Killer Poker Online has John Vorhaus as the author.

I've not delved too far into the poker simulators, as if I'm playing on an internet-enabled machine, I'd rather play against humies rather than algorithms. Even the .net poker sites (i.e., free games, no $$ involved) will let you flex your "quality play" muscles, but with the caveat that you're going to run into a lot of unnecessary aggression (at least initially). If you can survive the first 30 minutes of a multi-thousand person tournament, game play does eventually revert into something that more-closely approximates actual for-money games. And it's possible to play the free-rolls (where there is a $100 prize pool for $0 entries), which become quality matches much more quickly. My entire PokerStars account runs on the back of a few free roll cashes by yours truly.

Don't forget the library. Books like Brunsen's SuperSystem are worthy of checking out from the local book repository, if only for the historical reference. (SuperSystem2 may actually be worth owning, but it wouldn't be in my top-20 suggestions.)

Best luck!
~Neal
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 27987
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion

Post by The Meal »

The Meal wrote:If you don't want to bother with all that stuff, you can pick up Rodman/Nelson's Kill Phil as your one and only book that'd teach you a system which may or may not work for you. If nothing else, it's an interesting conceptual read. They've also come out with a Kill Everyone which is well regarded, but I haven't yet read it.
Kill Everyone showed up on Friday (no Blair Rodman in the author list, still Lee Nelson as the primary but Mark Vos has a section, as do a couple of other authors), and I'm about 30% done with it. It's math-heavy (not in the kill-you-with-equations sense, but in terms of what to do when specifically), and I don't think it'd make a good first foray into poker tomedom. It's not a wasted read for someone who already has background in other texts however.

~Neal
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 27987
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion

Re: Poker Strategy Discussion

Post by The Meal »

SpaceLord wrote:Thoughts?
First up, congrats on your huge performance yesterday. Very impressive!

Secondly, let me quote the beginning of Section 2 of Kill Everyone (Lee Nelson, Tysen Streib, Kim Lee).
In Chapter 7: Specific Strategies for Different Tournament Types it was wrote:INTRODUCTION
Cash-game strategy makes decisions based on the expected win or loss. If you lose, you can reach into your pocket for more cash and continue playing. Conversely, your opponents can also reload, so they're not inordinately intimidated by large confrontations.

But tournaments are different. Due to distinct payoffs to different tournament spots, you should alter your play. Even more important, your opponents will modify their play. This creates completely different strategy dynamics at the final stages.

It has long been recognized that tournament situations are different, because the value of chips depends nonlinearly on stack size (see Malmuth's Gambling Theory and Other Topics and Sklansky's Tournament Poker for Advanced Players). The old saying "a chip and a chair" emphasizes that a single chip gives you a chance to win a tournament. More important, a single chip gives you a chance to cash in the money. The last few chips in a small stack have the potential to win a prize and have disproportinate value. The traditional analyses by Malmuth, Sklansky, and Harrington and Robertie emphasize stack sizes. In contrast Snyder raised a controversy in his book The Tournament Formula by considering the "speed" of a tournament. In principle, the pace of a tournament shouldn't affect the play of hands. But in practice, the small Vegas tournaments Snyder described do indeed play differently than slower tournaments. And anything that affects your opponents should impact your play.

So who's right? In a sense, both groups are. Certainly, all poker decisions should be made based on the current situation. Usually the prime consideration is stack size, where the traditional analysis holds. If I have a stack of 3,500 with blinds of 100/200, I'm not going to decide to suddenly push all in with my pocket fives just because the structure is fast and the blinds are doubling in a few hands.

But the tournament structure exerts a strong effect on the value of those stacks. Snyder's contribution was to emphasize how the structure of the tournament changes the prize value and behavior of those stacks. When bubble factors are high for most of the tournament, players are quite rationally risk-averse. Snyder considers fast tournament structures that quickly reach the bubble and spend much of their time in the end stages. Paradoxically, the correct strategy in such conservative risk-averse situations is to become hyper-aggressive. But the correct play depends critically on the prize structure, the stack sizes and the order of thoses stacks. This section analyzes important end-game situations and gives a rigorous treatment of these issues.
And boy does it ever accomplish that goal. It's pretty heavily entrenched in game theory and would seem to be right up your alley. I didn't grok nearly all the concepts presented upon a first read, but I think this'd be information that'd be absolutely KILLER for end-game MTT situations. You (SpaceLord) need to own this book.

The last paragraph in the quote above refers to "bubble factors" which is a concept defined in the prior chapter. Basically the book spells out the ratio of EV for you losing an all-in hand vs. one of your opponts vs. the gain of EV (based on the Independent Chip Model -- a middle-of-the-road estimate of EV) if you win the confrontation. So each player has a different bubble-factor vs. each of their opponents. This ratio is very high for both players when a big stack goes up against another big stack (they both have a lot of EV to lose), is low for the big stack but high for a medium stack when they go head-to-head, etc. In a cash game the "bubble factor" is always exactly 1.00 (as it is when you're heads-up in a tournament). Chips are worth exactly the same amount for everyone. In every other tournament situation, however, bubble factors are greater than 1.00 for everyone involved (pretty close to 1.00 no matter the size of the stacks when far removed from the bubble). The thing is, Streib (as he is the author who wrote section 2 of the book) suggests that
Once you get close to the money in a tournament, you can't rely on strict pot odds to make decisions... We'll now...define a new concept that we're going to call the "bubble factor" to help illustrate how much the tournament structure distorts normal pot-odds situations... We're defining it as "if you go all-in against that opponent, what's the ratio of the cost of losing compared to the gain from winning? ...Understanding the bubble factor is extremely important in tournaments. You can't simply rely on pot odds to make your decisions. You need to divide your pot odds by the bubble factor to get your tournament odds.
Scott, this book's for you.

~Neal
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
User avatar
SpaceLord
Posts: 7242
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Lost in Time and Space
Contact:

Re: Poker Strategy Discussion

Post by SpaceLord »

The Meal wrote:
SpaceLord wrote:Thoughts?
First up, congrats on your huge performance yesterday. Very impressive!
Thanks! It was pretty awesome.

At one point, I had 2/3 of the total chips, when there were 4 and 5 people left. The guy that won the tournament, I had not noticed him play a hand the whole time. Amazing he got that far. He won when he flopped a straight at the same time I flopped two pair. He did this twice and reversed the situation.

I received AA once during the middle of the tourney, and doubled up. I never got KK, and got QQ once, at the final table. I got JJ twice, and won tiny pots each time. I agree with the sentiment that getting good hole cards can actually be bad. I got A-K 4 times or so. I see that hand as a hand you really need to see a flop with, but don't risk your stack. It's a perfect hand to continuation bet with, since you don't always flop top pair.
The Meal wrote: Secondly, let me quote the beginning of Section 2 of Kill Everyone (Lee Nelson, Tysen Streib, Kim Lee).
In Chapter 7: Specific Strategies for Different Tournament Types it was wrote:INTRODUCTION
Cash-game strategy makes decisions based on the expected win or loss. If you lose, you can reach into your pocket for more cash and continue playing. Conversely, your opponents can also reload, so they're not inordinately intimidated by large confrontations.

But tournaments are different. Due to distinct payoffs to different tournament spots, you should alter your play. Even more important, your opponents will modify their play. This creates completely different strategy dynamics at the final stages.

It has long been recognized that tournament situations are different, because the value of chips depends nonlinearly on stack size (see Malmuth's Gambling Theory and Other Topics and Sklansky's Tournament Poker for Advanced Players). The old saying "a chip and a chair" emphasizes that a single chip gives you a chance to win a tournament. More important, a single chip gives you a chance to cash in the money. The last few chips in a small stack have the potential to win a prize and have disproportinate value. The traditional analyses by Malmuth, Sklansky, and Harrington and Robertie emphasize stack sizes. In contrast Snyder raised a controversy in his book The Tournament Formula by considering the "speed" of a tournament. In principle, the pace of a tournament shouldn't affect the play of hands. But in practice, the small Vegas tournaments Snyder described do indeed play differently than slower tournaments. And anything that affects your opponents should impact your play.

So who's right? In a sense, both groups are. Certainly, all poker decisions should be made based on the current situation. Usually the prime consideration is stack size, where the traditional analysis holds. If I have a stack of 3,500 with blinds of 100/200, I'm not going to decide to suddenly push all in with my pocket fives just because the structure is fast and the blinds are doubling in a few hands.

But the tournament structure exerts a strong effect on the value of those stacks. Snyder's contribution was to emphasize how the structure of the tournament changes the prize value and behavior of those stacks. When bubble factors are high for most of the tournament, players are quite rationally risk-averse. Snyder considers fast tournament structures that quickly reach the bubble and spend much of their time in the end stages. Paradoxically, the correct strategy in such conservative risk-averse situations is to become hyper-aggressive. But the correct play depends critically on the prize structure, the stack sizes and the order of thoses stacks. This section analyzes important end-game situations and gives a rigorous treatment of these issues.
And boy does it ever accomplish that goal. It's pretty heavily entrenched in game theory and would seem to be right up your alley. I didn't grok nearly all the concepts presented upon a first read, but I think this'd be information that'd be absolutely KILLER for end-game MTT situations. You (SpaceLord) need to own this book.

The last paragraph in the quote above refers to "bubble factors" which is a concept defined in the prior chapter. Basically the book spells out the ratio of EV for you losing an all-in hand vs. one of your opponts vs. the gain of EV (based on the Independent Chip Model -- a middle-of-the-road estimate of EV) if you win the confrontation. So each player has a different bubble-factor vs. each of their opponents. This ratio is very high for both players when a big stack goes up against another big stack (they both have a lot of EV to lose), is low for the big stack but high for a medium stack when they go head-to-head, etc. In a cash game the "bubble factor" is always exactly 1.00 (as it is when you're heads-up in a tournament). Chips are worth exactly the same amount for everyone. In every other tournament situation, however, bubble factors are greater than 1.00 for everyone involved (pretty close to 1.00 no matter the size of the stacks when far removed from the bubble). The thing is, Streib (as he is the author who wrote section 2 of the book) suggests that
Once you get close to the money in a tournament, you can't rely on strict pot odds to make decisions... We'll now...define a new concept that we're going to call the "bubble factor" to help illustrate how much the tournament structure distorts normal pot-odds situations... We're defining it as "if you go all-in against that opponent, what's the ratio of the cost of losing compared to the gain from winning? ...Understanding the bubble factor is extremely important in tournaments. You can't simply rely on pot odds to make your decisions. You need to divide your pot odds by the bubble factor to get your tournament odds.
Scott, this book's for you.

~Neal
Yes, I saw it at your place last time. I still need to read Kill Phil, but from what I hear, it's not available at the big bookstores.

The tournament, to me, emphasized the poker of Snyder-esqe play: stealing blinds and pots with position plays keeps you in the chip race while you get bad cards. Several player silently cursed as I bet from position, they thought I had good cards, the suckers! :D

And regarding small stack play: since only 8? people cashed yesterday, I noticed a sudden tightening of play at around 20! people. At that point, I had a slightly above-average stack, and continued my usual play, since I knew I would accumulate chips with 1/2 to 2/3 pot-sized bets. This is when my stack size ranking starting climbing...

I think the Chip Equity theory makes sense when you are one or two eliminations from the money. I might have exploited a psychological buffer period that people use. And since the most scared people were the ones often limping/calling with top 20-25% of hands, trying to flop a monster, I ate their stacks when I bet 1/2+ the pot. And when the REAL crunchtime came at the final, I was actually able to sit back and wait for decent hands, since my stack was 40+ BBs, and most people had less than 10. When I did play, I accumulated the world in chips. :cool:

As a side note: it's amazing to me how many people show their winners before the river. What are they trying to accomplish? It's better to give as little information as possible.

An example:
Me: On the Button, 6-9 offsuit (as MHS likes to call Big Lick) :P

Three players limp ahead of me, I make a 3x BB bet. Two players fold, one calls. This makes the pot 9.5BBs. This pot is around 1/4 my stack at the moment. My stack is a bit larger than my opponent.

Flop: Q-9-2, 2 suits. I flopped middle pair with a terrible kicker.

The other player bet like 2.5BBs. This is a terrible bet, so I raised to 8BBs. He about fell out of his chair.

At this point, there is 19.5BBs, and it costs him 6.5BBs to call. He said he had a Queen, and I believed him. He asks if I have a Queen, and I just shrug. Looking at the other table ( a sure sign he is clutching his chips, eying the prize), he curses and mucks his cards. He requests that I show my cards, and I say nothing, flipping my pretty awful hand into the pile facedown.
So, his actual pot odds were 3 to 1, sufficient even for some drawing hands. He had top pair, and stood to gain a lot of chips if he won. At this point, I don't care too much about the pot odds. His glancing at the other tables told me he was thinking of surviving, instead of getting more chips. So my "large" bet, which was around 2/3 the total pot, scared him sufficiently to let me have this large pot. In this case, the pot odds didn't play a big role at any point. If he raises, I fold. I'd probably tell him that was getting too expensive for me, and my kicker sucked. Which he would assume would be a kicker for the Queen... :twisted:

And I now realize my sig below is so very true...
They're going to send you back to mother in a cardboard box...
User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 27987
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion

Re: Poker Strategy Discussion

Post by The Meal »

SpaceLord wrote:At one point, I had 2/3 of the total chips, when there were 4 and 5 people left. The guy that won the tournament, I had not noticed him play a hand the whole time. Amazing he got that far. He won when he flopped a straight at the same time I flopped two pair. He did this twice and reversed the situation.
Getting beat like that isn't fun, but it is at least acceptable. Some days the poker gods go out of their way to *ensure* you can't finish on top. But still you went home knowing that you made your best possible finish with the situations you were prested with.
I agree with the sentiment that getting good hole cards can actually be bad.
Did you really make that large of a percentage of your chips with the hands you didn't hold quality cards? Seems to me that quality hole cards probably confuse the issue (your post-flop play isn't raise-then-fold to any resistance, as it would be in the general case), but it seems to me that they still have to have an overall positive effect to your chipstack. Even though chances are good that they're the cards that you'll be holding if/when you bust-out.

I still need to read Kill Phil, but from what I hear, it's not available at the big bookstores.
You should read it because it's interesting, but it isn't one of those books you'd necessarily want on your poker strategy shelf. If you're totally new to the concept of strategic poker, then there's some good info in the book, but for someone with your understanding, I think it'd be a waste of your money/time. Pick it up from the library and read through it once.
And regarding small stack play: since only 8? people cashed yesterday, I noticed a sudden tightening of play at around 20! people.
That's pretty crazy. Was it a $100 buy-in (tried to estimate from the winning amounts that Chris said first and second got)? That's really surprising that so many of the top 25% of the players would make such a huge mistake. Bubble time is when you unleash your new gears of aggression (at least if you're trying to finish in the top spot).

If you had asked me a week ago, I'd have guessed that the bubble started inflating early on that tournament, but Kill Everyone suggests that for a big MTT it actually starts at 5x the number of in-the-money finishers, and in the 70-person tournament from a few weeks ago when Lee and I made it to the final table, I noticed a distinct change in play after the second break which happened with 21 of us left. So if you had 8 tables to begin with, that number isn't too far off.
At that point, I had a slightly above-average stack, and continued my usual play, since I knew I would accumulate chips with 1/2 to 2/3 pot-sized bets. This is when my stack size ranking starting climbing...
Exactly. That's the time that separates the adults from the children. And since you're going up every weekend, a few losses on the bubble shouldn't be such a negative for you -- as long as you end up with finishes like you had last weekend.
And since the most scared people were the ones often limping/calling with top 20-25% of hands, trying to flop a monster, I ate their stacks when I bet 1/2+ the pot. And when the REAL crunchtime came at the final, I was actually able to sit back and wait for decent hands, since my stack was 40+ BBs, and most people had less than 10. When I did play, I accumulated the world in chips. :cool:
That sounds like so much fun. :D
As a side note: it's amazing to me how many people show their winners before the river. What are they trying to accomplish? It's better to give as little information as possible.
I try to play a straightforward ABC game (in the general case -- obviously I deviate from that when I get a line on my opponents). I probably should be a little more trappy/tricky in my live game play, as my straightforward play works much better on the internet than it does live. You missed a hand last Saturday where I was in the cut-off and made a standard raise when it was folded to me. My only caller was Jeff in the SB. Flop came down AKQ dual-suited. Jeff (sitting on the big stack) bet out about the size of the pot. I reraised all-in (which was then an overbet to the pot -- pot size about 120, the size of my raise was 180ish). I let him off the hook with my flopped set of kings. If only I had strung him along (he said he had ace-small). Of course, if he had had A-J and a ten came off...

~Neal
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
paulbaxter
Posts: 3178
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:46 pm

Post by paulbaxter »

FWIW,

This has been a fairly interesting poker blog which could probably use some more discussion. Loren just started it recently, so I've been the only commenter so far.
No sig, must scream, etc.
User avatar
SpaceLord
Posts: 7242
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Lost in Time and Space
Contact:

Post by SpaceLord »

paulbaxter wrote:FWIW,

This has been a fairly interesting poker blog which could probably use some more discussion. Loren just started it recently, so I've been the only commenter so far.
I love poker blogs. Who is Loren? Do you know them personally?

One entry I potentially disagree with is limping with Aces. I never do. If someone raises normally, 3-5x, I will call 20% of the time and re-raise 80% of the time. If they raise a *lot* (6xBB+), I will always call, and, if short-stacked, go all-in. In the very post, Loren says:
[Aces] win against a single opponent 86% of the time; against four opponents they win 55% of the time.
So, by limping, you are potentially decreasing your chance to win the hand by 31%. Why would anyone do this? You want callers, but you don't want a lot of them. If you get Aces in late position, it's easier to decide whether to re-raise or not. If no one at all has entered the pot, raise 3xBB. If you don't get any callers, it's probably because not a single person had a hand worth playing with anyway. That sucks, but having 4 opponents and only winning 55% of the time is worse. And from early position, I always raise normally if not shortstacked. If I get raisers, I will re-raise. That means they want to play with me, and, regardless of their hand, I am a favorite(unless they hold AA too...).
They're going to send you back to mother in a cardboard box...
User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 27987
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion

Post by The Meal »

SpaceLord wrote:
paulbaxter wrote:FWIW,

This has been a fairly interesting poker blog which could probably use some more discussion. Loren just started it recently, so I've been the only commenter so far.
I love poker blogs. Who is Loren? Do you know them personally?
I enjoy this blog as well. I even commented on one of the earlier posts.
One entry I potentially disagree with is limping with Aces.
Agreed.
I never do. If someone raises normally, 3-5x, I will call 20% of the time and re-raise 80% of the time. If they raise a *lot* (6xBB+), I will always call, and, if short-stacked, go all-in. In the very post, Loren says:
[Aces] win against a single opponent 86% of the time; against four opponents they win 55% of the time.
So, by limping, you are potentially decreasing your chance to win the hand by 31%. Why would anyone do this?
The answer to this is obviously because the blogger thinks it makes more money. And it may, but it depends on the rest of this player's style. No perfect strategy for one hand exists in a vaccuum.
You want callers, but you don't want a lot of them. If you get Aces in late position, it's easier to decide whether to re-raise or not. If no one at all has entered the pot, raise 3xBB. If you don't get any callers, it's probably because not a single person had a hand worth playing with anyway.
Totally agreed, but if you read all of the blog, the very earliest entries indicate that this person is trying to branch out from the tight-aggressive mold from which your pocket aces strategy originates. If you're playing loose-aggressive, I think you need to balance your play with some calls with strong hands.

We had a very interesting hand last night in our 40¢-$1 spread limit game. AA (Greg) vs. 22 (Allison). The mechanic is that the spread limit game has one blind of either 40¢, 60¢, 80¢, or $1 (90% of the time it's the minimum). Raises must be of any legal size up to a cap of $1.

Greg was in LP and raised $1 to $1.40. Allison called from the button. Flop comes 8-7-2 rainbow. G-bet, A-raise, G-call. Turn was an A. G-bet, A-raise, G-raise, A-call. River was the case 2. They kept raising each other until hitting the 4-raise cap (which shouldn't exist heads-up, but I wasn't paying attention and bad info got shared, much to Greg's fortune). Quad deuces rivered to beat Aces full. It wasn't the largest pot of the night, but it was a top 5'er.

Back to no limit, my forays into a loose-aggressive style have met with abject failure, so I have to admit that I play aces much like you do (though limping with aces from EP or MP is in my arsonal). At some point I'll build up the confidence/drunkeness to give loose play another shot (and no, I'm not announcing when I switch over :D ).

Paul, thanks for the heads-up on that blog. I really appreciate the recent entry regarding pocket pairs. Obviously a deep thinker putting those posts together and since it's one of the few poker items not blocked from work (yet)...

~Neal
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
User avatar
SpaceLord
Posts: 7242
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Lost in Time and Space
Contact:

Post by SpaceLord »

Neal:

Raising from early position with Rockets is what a loose-agressive(LA) player would do, right? The LA player, imo, is one who wants to see flops, and hopes to outplay the opposition by being hard to put on a hand, and betting aggressively.


:?
They're going to send you back to mother in a cardboard box...
User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 27987
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion

Post by The Meal »

Lorne's style of loose-aggressiveness would seem to piggyback on what many people call "small ball" play. (I watch a lot of televised poker, so when I think small ball, I think Daniel Negreanu.) That style of play sees lots of limping and small raises in an effort to disguise the ultimate strength of one's hand. What better misdirection than limping with pocket rockets?

Game theoreticians would tell us that if you sometimes limp with bad hands, then you also need to sometimes limp with great hands to balance out the play to make yourself immune to exploits.

~Neal
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
User avatar
The Preacher
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13037
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:57 am

Post by The Preacher »

The Preacher wrote:
The Meal wrote:I didn't follow this advice, but would have come up to speed more quickly if I had.

I'd begin thinking in terms of strategy with the limit game. For that game, I'd recommend two books: Ed Miller's (et al) Low Limit Hold 'Em
Is this it?
Got my book today. I'm looking forward to it. I'm actually looking forward to thinking about extrapolating poker to work (do lots of negotiating internally and externally). Anyhow, thanks for the recommendation!
You do not take from this universe. It grants you what it will.
User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 27987
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion

Post by The Meal »

Fantastic! Always like talking about this stuff (even if you're in our home game), so feel free to post any Q's.

Poker skills translate very well to negotiation work. I *have* to be the highest paid technical writer on this side of the Mississippi, even without adding the caveat that I'm not formally trained as a technical writer.

~Neal
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
User avatar
Ninyu
Posts: 816
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:42 am
Location: Knoxville, TN

Post by Ninyu »

So how do you break out of a run of horrible luck?

I just can't win these days. I stay when I should have folded. I folded when I should have stayed. I overbet and scare everyone away. I under-bet and get scared away. It just seems for the past couple nights I am just getting shitty hole cards constantly. I swear to God I have gotten 7 2 or 9 3 off suit about 20 times in two nights.

Do you keep playing? Take a night or two off? Just tighten way up?
User avatar
SpaceLord
Posts: 7242
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Lost in Time and Space
Contact:

Post by SpaceLord »

Ninyu wrote:So how do you break out of a run of horrible luck?

I just can't win these days. I stay when I should have folded. I folded when I should have stayed. I overbet and scare everyone away. I under-bet and get scared away. It just seems for the past couple nights I am just getting shitty hole cards constantly. I swear to God I have gotten 7 2 or 9 3 off suit about 20 times in two nights.

Do you keep playing? Take a night or two off? Just tighten way up?
Here's a sob story for you:

Thursday night, Gilpin $ 200 tourney.

Blinds: 200/400

I hold : Image Image

The Big Blind calls my 1200 bet.

Flop comes:

Image Image Image

BB checks
I bet 2100
BB calls

Pot is 6800

Turn:

Image

I shove.

What two cards does he hold?

:cry: :cry:

As to your question:

I know it's hard to remember, but your future cards do not depend on your past cards. I know that personally, I have had a horrible run online. I've played 15 tournaments in a row where I didn't even finish in the money. But I know I am not making bad calls. I've had trips get called all-in by a flush draw and hit, last night I had 2 pair get topped on the river, etc. Someone else playing badly can beat you, it's poker.

:?
They're going to send you back to mother in a cardboard box...
User avatar
Malificent
Posts: 1472
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:43 am
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Post by Malificent »

Ninyu wrote:So how do you break out of a run of horrible luck?

I just can't win these days. I stay when I should have folded. I folded when I should have stayed. I overbet and scare everyone away. I under-bet and get scared away. It just seems for the past couple nights I am just getting shitty hole cards constantly. I swear to God I have gotten 7 2 or 9 3 off suit about 20 times in two nights.

Do you keep playing? Take a night or two off? Just tighten way up?
Are you playing well? If so, just keep playing. But usually the bad luck causes you to play badly, compounding the whole situation. When it got to that point with me, I would always take at least one night off from poker altogether. Then take another night off from playing - go back and read some poker books or something. Come back fresh.
User avatar
Ninyu
Posts: 816
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:42 am
Location: Knoxville, TN

Post by Ninyu »

Malificent wrote:
Ninyu wrote:So how do you break out of a run of horrible luck?

I just can't win these days. I stay when I should have folded. I folded when I should have stayed. I overbet and scare everyone away. I under-bet and get scared away. It just seems for the past couple nights I am just getting shitty hole cards constantly. I swear to God I have gotten 7 2 or 9 3 off suit about 20 times in two nights.

Do you keep playing? Take a night or two off? Just tighten way up?
Are you playing well? If so, just keep playing. But usually the bad luck causes you to play badly, compounding the whole situation. When it got to that point with me, I would always take at least one night off from poker altogether. Then take another night off from playing - go back and read some poker books or something. Come back fresh.
Yeah, I think I need to take a break for a couple days. Been hitting the poker tables a little hard this week and the bad streak has gotten into my head. I think I am pushing too much and not having any fun. Thanks all.
User avatar
Baroquen
Posts: 4710
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:45 pm

Post by Baroquen »

I usually take a few days off after those bad poker runs not because of any superstitious streakiness, but just because I'm usually too annoyed to go back and waste time playing. I had a recent string of suckouts (at least two of which I had dominating hands pre-flop) and just went and did other things. Made the final table of a 90 man SnG tonight, so that was a nice change.

I'm liking the knockout tourneys on FT at the moment. I know they're gimmicky, but even when not cashing, I can often times recoup some of that buy in with some decent playing.

Started reading the Lederer section of the Full-Tilt book you all were discussing. Haven't played limit in awhile, but it seems interesting so far. Looking forward to his discussion of post-flop play.
User avatar
SpaceLord
Posts: 7242
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Lost in Time and Space
Contact:

Post by SpaceLord »

They're going to send you back to mother in a cardboard box...
User avatar
The Preacher
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13037
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:57 am

Post by The Preacher »

SpaceLord wrote:
Ninyu wrote:So how do you break out of a run of horrible luck?

I just can't win these days. I stay when I should have folded. I folded when I should have stayed. I overbet and scare everyone away. I under-bet and get scared away. It just seems for the past couple nights I am just getting shitty hole cards constantly. I swear to God I have gotten 7 2 or 9 3 off suit about 20 times in two nights.

Do you keep playing? Take a night or two off? Just tighten way up?
Here's a sob story for you:

Thursday night, Gilpin $ 200 tourney.

Blinds: 200/400

I hold : Image Image

The Big Blind calls my 1200 bet.

Flop comes:

Image Image Image

BB checks
I bet 2100
BB calls

Pot is 6800

Turn:

Image

I shove.

What two cards does he hold?
As a newbie, I see that he holds the A. What is the second card? My ignorance of course leads to...

My next embarrassing question, why did you go all in with four suited cards on the board? Here's my thought process, tell me where I'm too tight or stupid (esp. regarding his second hole card).

The only people who will call have a flush (maybe a set, but that would have to be ballsy and totally disbelieving you). So then its about who has the highest hole card. With Q and J on the board and you holding the K, he would have to either have had an A or T to call. A obviously wins. Which means your winnings boil down to a T call your all-in? Would an <=8 call there?
You do not take from this universe. It grants you what it will.
User avatar
The Meal
Posts: 27987
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm
Location: 2005 Stanley Cup Champion

Post by The Meal »

Definitely echo Preach's comments on the play on the turn. Seems an odd move. Sort of like my own odd move from Saturday night's cash game against you...

Flop came AJ7
Turn was the K
River was another A (no flush possibility).

I was betting all along and SpaceLord had position on me. The pot was up to $5ish on the river and I shoved (he had me outstacked but my shove was on a $20 stack). He folded an ace and I was bummed. Only hands that had me beat would have called my bet. (I was donking around with QT, of course.)

As far as things to do when you're having a bad run, I can't recommend strongly enough Tommy Angelo's book Elements of Poker. It's the best I've read (by far!) in the category of getting your head back screwed on straight.


~Neal
"Better to talk to people than communicate via tweet." — Elontra
Post Reply