New 19 hand play chart

and if by 'system' you mean that every winning player adapts to the table conditions, then you are correct. but thats a pretty wide definition of a system.
now if you mean strategy, then that is different. i like to pick on the weak players as i am sure we all do. isolate those that have shown the ability to fold hands postflop, and are scared by every scare card imaginable. against those players i will play way more hands and take way more pots.
i like to raise pf if first in, its not a system, its a strategy. if you follow a system, you become predictable, and that is bad. what is worse is if you follow a system and win with it, you will be more likely to continue to be predictable at the limits where you will get killed for being so. and that is bad.

Originally Posted by pgil

to take your golf analogy a little further (even though it isnt really an apt analogy, it will suffice i think), you could look at the driving range as the preflop portion of the game. its pretty straightforward when you start out. you start with the basics, and then you can build on them later. you get a good swing, a good stance, grip, etc. this isnt to say that the drive (preflop) isnt complex, because it is, but it is a lot easier to just get the basics down. you can have a decent game hustling people at the driving range if all you did was practice that. if you want to really be able to play golf well, you need to learn how to play the short game. this is what separates the good from the great (also the pretty bad from the horrendous). this is post flop play.
you can use some of the basics that you learned on the driving range, but its not nearly as cut and dry. there are too many things to be considered to just play a by the book strategy. can you hit the ridge from here, if not what would you do? how good are you at chipping medium distances on a fast green? where is the pin positioned, what are the hazards like, etc. the list is pretty well endless. sure you could play a longball game here as well and just hit the damn thing as far as it will go and hope that all goes well. you may even do alright. but this will stunt your growth as a player because you will not be forced to examine the situations and select the best shots to be made. so, in the future, when you are finally faced with a difficult decision that could decide the match, do you lay it up, or do you go for the green?? the problem is twofold: first, you dont really have a good shortgame, so laying it up isnt really going to help you too much, and second, you have no idea how to go about examining the situation. you dont know how to factor wind into your shot trajectory, or if the presence of this particular wind will make your shot impossible. you dont have the experiene of making these decisions countless times before because you avoided them to make the learning process easier. but by the time you figure this out, you've moved up in levels and it is a hell of a lot more expensive to find out that you cant plant a 50 yard chip with the wind at your back onto a fast green, so you end up in the pond.

This is awesome. That said, how nice of you to make good use of spaces and the ol' "capital after period"-rule to make it easy on the eyes .

Grasshopper, thank you for actually putting some thought into your response. A problem I have with your analysis of how a 19-hand player can be exploited is that you're assuming that this player is only playing against one thinking player. What if the rest of the players at the table are thinking players as well? You can see how a person playing the 19-hand system wouldn't stand chance.

Grant it you rarely, if ever, see that at micro stakes. If a player has any aspiration of moving beyond that level though then they're going to have to contend with better and better players. I'd rather see a beginning player take a more complete approach to the game so they have more success making that transition.

As midas mentioned, all you need is a rudimentary understanding of the game to beat these levels. It's not very suprising to me that even with it's flaws, people can make money using AOK's system. It doesn't necessarily mean it's good advice. The fact is that it's just not very hard.

Been trying this for 8 hours now on 2 tables. .10-.25 full ring NL. I must admit the result isnt much good. I gain a few bucks here and there on the little action I get on my hands. Just to get slowly drained from blinds and folding when people are raising me. Its sickening that in many occations I feel that I am in front. But I decided to stick to the system 100%.

If anybody have had much success with this I guess they have changed some small things. What? And how much have you earned. I have dropped 1 payin so far.

Btw, folding suited connectors like TJ on the button really REALLY hurt. Also limping in UTG with AJ.

...

party

...

If anybody have had much success with this I guess they have changed some small things. What? And how much have you earned. I have dropped 1 payin so far.

It's about 40 hands/(hour x table) x 8 hours x 2 tables = 640 hands. It's way too small sample to measure effectiveness ANY strategy so yu can't draw any conclusions.

But yes, you can make some "basic" upgrades. First one is to improve playing your most frequent hand - overpair and TPTK. The second one is c-bets AKA stopping spewing money on flop.

- be more aggressive with overpairs, especially against flop checkraisers. Remember, that you c-bet lots of pots and that image allows you to loosen up postflop with medium-strong hands (especially AA/KK overpairs and TPTK from AK). It doesn't mean going 200BB everytime with mere ovrtpair/tptk. Pay attention to stack size of opponent that plays back at you, the less he has behind, the more often you can drop the hammer on flop with unimproved big PP, or call checkraise and raise his turn bet. You will be surprised, how often opponents show down TP or draw in that spot.

- tighten up with c-bets in multiway pots and drawing boards (when you don't have piece of board), you DON'T have to follow up your PFR every time, save that bets for better spots (head-up or 3-way). You will still retain image of frequent c-bettor but without spewing in hopeless situations.

- Learn to pound on nits (I'm still learning it so can't give tangible advice yet).

GL

One thing I love about Performance Poker is that it is downright untestable.

1. You have to find a site where people are passive enough to let you limp in with your premium hands... then fold to c-bets on cue... yet still blow off their stacks once the rock hits his hand. Who plays like this?

For example, AOK is dealt 22 on the big blind. He limps in to a flop of 2 4 7. He wants to get action here, but unless there's a high pocket pair (who would have raised more than 5xBB preflop abyway) or a straight draw, he won't get any.


2. You can go to P@c*f*c Poker if you want want to see the worst rake table on the net. They even take a cut from uncalled bets!

Fortune Poker doesn't mean diddley, beacuse it is on Boss Network. They're cancelling all US acounts. PokerChamps, Ladbrokes, Everest, Svenska Spiel and WPT Online are all giant fishbowls too -- and they all refuse US accounts.

The players on these sites are so bad that ANY tight strategy can work. Just grab a starting hand chart and grind away.

I submit that the issue is NOT the average pot size on Party. The problem is that the site is loaded with loose agressive recreational players donating to tight agressive multitablers. The 19 hander will get run over by both sides of the battle.

The nanolimits at Stars are loaded with people like beginners who are trying to improve, so they will be playing to carefully to make the sorts of blunders that AOK's style needs to work.

...

"If you want to play 19 hand and make money playing poker then set up an account on Pacific..."

This will explain the miracle stories of fish suddenly making money. They're moving to P@cific, where the players are worse than they are.

Long time lurker making my fourth or fifth post here. I respect most of the opinions in this thread.

Originally Posted by DaNutsInYoEye

Perhaps if AOK and others would start to focus on the actual criticism instead of fixating simply on the fact that there is criticism then this discussion will get somewhere. The unwillingness or inability, as I'm increasingly beginning to think, of advocates of Performance Poker to discuss poker theory has prevented this issue from progressing. As a result, discussions have amounted to little more than bickering.

It seems to me that most have focused on the criticism itself rather than the fact that there is criticism. From the flip perspective, it seems that the critics have focused on all the reasons 19 Hand is a poor strategy to rely on long term if your goal is to become a good player rather than that 19 Hand is a great strategy to teach tight discipline to noobs and to win money by exploiting the weaknesses of very specific table environments (full ring, >40BB avg pot, >40% players seeing the flop).

I'm all for a discussion of realizing the limited things 19 Hand does teach that are beneficial (tight pre-flop hand selction, when to throw away AA, etc.) and how to build on that with positional play, reads, stack size, etc. Or even a discussion like, "Here is a specific hole in 19 Hand. Let's look at how to fill it and add a new weapon to your poker arsenal."

Originally Posted by Yakuman

One thing I love about Performance Poker is that it is downright untestable.

Ok lookit. I'm just going to come out and say that whether or not you know how to play poker, from every post of yours I have read, you come off as a total tool.

Actually 19 Hand is quite testable.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

1. You have to find a site where people are passive enough to let you limp in with your premium hands... then fold to c-bets on cue... yet still blow off their stacks once the rock hits his hand. Who plays like this?

I have a feeling you will tell me.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

2. You can go to P@c*f*c Poker if you want want to see the worst rake table on the net. They even take a cut from uncalled bets!

Oh! Pacific Poker! True, there are many tables there with the VERY SPECIFIC table environments (again full ring, >40BB avg pot, >40% players seeing the flop) that19 Hand exploits.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

The players on these sites are so bad that ANY tight strategy can work. Just grab a starting hand chart and grind away.

Phenomenal! Then stop criticizing and write down your particular system out that is +EV (and >=7BB/100 hands to boot). We know - and AOK admits - this is not a system that is "Great Poker". It is - by the scientific method of many people over tens of thousands of hands - a system that exploits a very specific table environment and is +EV. So show us yours. Hell, make it one that is "better poker" as well, so as to shore up some of the technical weaknesses in 19 Hand (positional play perhaps, whatever). Just stop being a broken record and saying the same thing over and over and over that everyone, AOK included, acknowledges over and over and over.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

The nanolimits at Stars are loaded with people like beginners who are trying to improve, so they will be playing to carefully to make the sorts of blunders that AOK's style needs to work.

You are correct.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

"If you want to play 19 hand and make money playing poker then set up an account on Pacific..."

Oh crap. I could have skipped a whole lot of this and just gone from you saying the system is untestable to that little gem above to make my point about you being an argumentative tool.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

This will explain the miracle stories of fish suddenly making money. They're moving to P@cific, where the players are worse than they are.

Aren't you supposed to beat the people worse than you in poker? You again are making the false leap that the point of 19 Hand is to become a Great Poker Mind. It's not. It's to teach very strict and tight pre-flop hand selection, very selective aggression and when to ditch a hand that looked great earlier. And it's designed to do all that in a environment that rewards such behavior by allowing you to be +EV during the process (so you'll keep up those behaviors as you move beyond 19 Hand).

Again, lookit... I'm no appologist that 19 Hand is the next great NLHE book that will uncover new ideas and expound on existing theory the way HoH did for Tournies or NLHE:TP has for cash games. 19 Hand is what it is, and it's nothing more. Stop trying to tear it down for intentionally not being more than what it is.

And after you stop, make a serious post that can give specific guidance to beginners to move them beyond the vanilla simplicity and shore up some of the holes in 19 Hand.

I'm glad you decided to start posting Wooderson. It's nice to have more levelheaded people contributing.

Originally Posted by Wooderson

19 Hand is what it is, and it's nothing more. Stop trying to tear it down for intentionally not being more than what it is.

It's not the 19-hand system specifically. It's Performance Poker. The other post I wrote was a parody and the 19-hand system was the most convenient material to use. I agree that a starting hand chart for is an excellent tool for beginners.

Originally Posted by Wooderson

And after you stop, make a serious post that can give specific guidance to beginners to move them beyond the vanilla simplicity and shore up some of the holes in 19 Hand.

Good point and I totally agree. I'm currently working on some things.

“…stop criticizing and write down your particular system out…”

I don’t believe in rationalized systems, be they in politics, economics or poker. I did do a list of suggestions before that even AOK liked.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ic.php?t=39720

Originally Posted by Yakuman

“…stop criticizing and write down your particular system out…”

I don’t believe in rationalized systems, be they in politics, economics or poker. I did do a list of suggestions before that even AOK liked.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ic.php?t=39720

Ah... so you are all yin, no yang. Well, you're bad at self-assessment. Even if you believe in being completely fluid like the babbling brook that runs over the multitude of pebbles underneath, there is still an order that after much digging may be discovered and systematized. You just haven't bothered to do so yet.

That post and those that follow in the thread are the only ones you've made so far that have been in any way beneficial. I'd love to see more of that.

Everybody knows that poker is a game of situations. You have to weigh a bunch of variables to make a move, regardless of where you play. So any sort of post-flop canned system is pretty much doomed.

Can you see that if a system only works at P@cific, that there's a problem? P@cific Poker charges high prices to provide such lousy players. As I said, the play is so bad that simply using a decent starting hand chart will create the same miracles that AOK claims.

BTW, I have no problem with Boss sites like Fortune, except that they are getting ready to boot all US players.

Supposedly the loosest tables on the net are those beginners' tables you can access for the first month after signing up to Party or Empire.

The ring games at Titan Poker as well as Paradise are very loose, you could try those sites too AOK.

I was wrong. The B2B network is banning US players, not Boss. Fortune Poker is ok, AFAIK. My bad.

...

Originally Posted by Yakuman

Everybody knows that poker is a game of situations. You have to weigh a bunch of variables to make a move, regardless of where you play. So any sort of post-flop canned system is pretty much doomed.

In the world at large, yes. We all agree on this. In a very specific set of circumstances (again, full ring, >40BB avg. pot size, >40% players seeing the flop) a canned system can be +EV. Hell, for that matter lookat PokerAcadamy. That AI is a canned system, but it is very sophisticated and has frastrated pros!

Originally Posted by Yakuman

Can you see that if a system only works at P@cific, that there's a problem?

Yes and no. My guess is that the 19 Hand system will work at any table that meets the specific table conditions. But even if it only works at Pacific then there may not be a problem if the end goal is simply to systematically take money from fish at Pacific in an extremely low variance manner.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

P@cific Poker charges high prices to provide such lousy players. As I said, the play is so bad that simply using a decent starting hand chart will create the same miracles that AOK claims.

And see here is the other thing with your criticism Yakuman:
- You say that 19 Hand is prima-facia bad. Well it's not. It's a bad system to use if you want to be a very highly skilled, well-rounded player that can adapt to almost any situation at almost any table. It's a pretty damned good system to use if you're just learning how to play and need to be reeled in from re-raising to a push with 23s on a AsKx5s board and need pre-flop discipline and even more post-flop discipline. Those are bare-boned basics before teaching more advanced ideas like positional play, semi-bluffs, odds on drawing on your CES & Flush drasws vs. odds you opponent has two-pair or a set, etc.
- So then you seemingly back off and begin to criticize, "Well sure that system will work, but only on super expensive sites like Pacific!" Ok, so let me be rhetorical here. The idea with poker is that 7BB/100 hands is an above average win-rate long term. Correct? I mean if that's wrong then let me know. I would cetainly assume that is net of any rake that is being taken. So if good is >= 7BB/100 Hands NET, why does it matter what the rake is as long as you are >= Good? And so far I am about 10-11BB/100 Hands using 19 Hand (over about 4000 hands so far) As 19 Hand gets closer to 10000 hands of iterations we'll see where it is, but anything north of 7BB/100 Hnads NET is objectively "Good" . On my own I was about 5BB/100 Hands (after about 12000 hands at PokerStars.

So I wasn't a noob, but I sure as heck ain't Stu Ungar. I've been playing 19 Hand to see what it's about. To try it on as an experiment and see what - if anything - I learn or if this system is just crap. What I've learned is why I suck so bad with KQs (much more so than KQx) and QQ. I've tightened up a bit with rockets and KK on the turn to a min-raise if I haven't improved rather than playing big to force folds. I've learned a few other things that no matter how rudimentary they are to seasoned pros, they are baby-steps in the right direction for me. If I put that in with what I already know about positional play, calculation of odds (pot, to-come and implied as well as odds of the villain's hand), etc. etc. etc... that seems like a good thing to me.

“In a very specific set of circumstances…a canned system can be +EV.”

You can find that circumstance at Party too, but AOK sez it doesn’t work. Like I’ve said twice, the play at P@cific is so bad that you need only use a decent starting chart to do well.

“…there may not be a problem if the end goal is simply to systematically take money from fish at Pacific in an extremely low variance manner.”

I’m not sure of that. The PP player can only win in a few circumstances, so I’m not convinced there’s a decent winrate there. Moreover, you have to beat an unusually high rake.

You seem to be making AOK’s arguments for him, in that one of his hobbyhorses is that his system can serve as a second income. This is one of the key factors that I find disturbing about him.

“It's a pretty good system to use if you… need to be reeled in from re-raising to a push with 23s…”

Even the fish aren’t that bad. Few people like that are going to find their way to a site like this. If you’re that unglued, get off the real money tables.

In the good old days of, oh, last week, we used to tell people to find tight play money games -- and start crushing the table before you even think of depositing money. Then start with LIMIT, which involves a smaller part of your bankroll and teaches you how to play your cards.

“You seemingly back off and begin to criticize, ‘Well sure that system will work, but only on super expensive sites like Pacific!’”

I am careful about my phrasing here. I say that if 19 hand works, it will only work in situations where players are so bad than any decent starting hand chart will beat the game. Even then, I think it leaves more money on table – and in the rake box – than it gives the player.

“Why does it matter what the rake is as long as you are >= Good?”

Even on nanostakes, the rake matters. Run your hand histories through a data-mining program and see how much you’re giving up. If you’re one of those “break even” players, you would actually be a winning player if you paid no rake.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

In the good old days of, oh, last week, we used to tell people to find tight play money games -- and start crushing the table before you even think of depositing money. Then start with LIMIT, which involves a smaller part of your bankroll and teaches you how to play your cards.

When did we use to say this? I sure as hell must have missed that week. Don't waste your time with play money, at the very very least start out by playing some freerolls.

(I love to jump in and pick at small parts of posts without actually "taking sides" in the discussion)

I guess I just do not understand all the vitrol over AoK's system. It is a deterministic state machine for beginners to be applied in constrained environments. We do this all the time with other skills. We teach people to drive by giving them rules to follow.

You cannot play great poker by these rules and the rules will become bad habits.

We tell beginner drivers to slow to 10 mph when negotiating a sharp curve. This allows the beginning driver to have some reasonable chance at making the sharp curve without flying off the road. They look at their speedometer and adjust their rate of speed. And I have never heard anyone caution that if we give new drivers a rule that will cause them to look at their speedometer mid-turn they will learn a bad habit that they will carry with them their entire driving career. No one with more than 50 hours behind the wheel does it that way anymore. They use other metrics to take that curve at an appropriate speed and I bet that most passengers will experience a smoother ride when they do. But that does not change the fact that the beginning driver has no clue at what speed to take the curve and telling them nothing except, 'its a skill you have to learn through experience' is likely to get people hurt or killed on the first few dozen attempts.

Well, it only works on loose tables where anything would work.

Yeah, and we take new drivers to open, empty parking lots where they could drive like a spastic monkey and still have all their limbs at the end of the day. We still try to impress some reasonable rules on those new drivers, in those low risk environments. The thought being that if they practice these rules until they are internalized, we can then up the difficulty of the problem and lower the friendliness of the environment.

Folding AA to a big turn re-raise from a maniac is EV-.

Yes, and coming to a complete and full stop at a 4 way stop, Arizonia intersection with 5 miles of visibility in all directions, no competing traffic and an 18 wheeler baring down on you from behind with no intent of slowing is a great way to get killed. But that does not mean it is a bad idea to drill into a beginner driver's head that you always come to a complete and full stop at a stop sign. We have been doing it for many years and it seems to work well for beginners. I have no data, but I am willing to go out on a limb and say that far more beginner drivers get hurt (or hurt others) by BREAKING that rule than get hurt by FOLLOWING it.

A decent, aware player can take advantage of people playing that 19 hand chart.

Yes, a person driving for 9 months will smoke a beginner in just about any driving comparison you want to make. News flash, better poker player beats worse poker player; film at 11. If anyone has any mysterious advice that cause a newbie to consistently beat (or even hold their own against) a good poker player then they should write it down because it will revolutionize everything. As it stands, 19 hands takes a page out of the Carlos Castaneda play book; don't be there on that day. Don't play at tables where the other players are likely much better than you. Because, honestly, trying to give ANY advice to a newbie in ANYTHING so that the newbie can beat the non-newbie is just a bad idea.


The 19 hand guide seems to be a set of rules for beginners to be applied for a relatively short period of time in an environment that is safe for that set of rules. It builds on the long tried system of giving beginners in anything a set of rules and telling them to apply those rules for a short period of time in a low risk environment. This seems like pretty sound thinking.

Great analogy Pyroxene.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

Run your hand histories through a data-mining program and see how much you’re giving up. If you’re one of those “break even” players, you would actually be a winning player if you paid no rake.

I have. Again, if "Good" is >= 7BB/100 Hands NET (of rake), then so far I am > Good using 19 Hand.

I'm not making AOK's argument for him, I'm just kicking in all the holes in yours. There's plenty to criticize 19 Hand about, just get off your damned high horse while doing it. Or better yet, take me up on my challenge and write a post that is helpful. I've pat you on the back for the post you linked us earlier, but if you want to be truly helpful (which I assume you do judging by the amount of time you spend kicking 19 Hand) then do more than post a Quick-chart of rules-of-thumb.

Originally Posted by Pyroxene

I guess I just do not understand all the vitrol over AoK's system. It is a deterministic state machine for beginners to be applied in constrained environments. We do this all the time with other skills. We teach people to drive by giving them rules to follow.

You cannot play great poker by these rules and the rules will become bad habits.

We tell beginner drivers to slow to 10 mph when negotiating a sharp curve. This allows the beginning driver to have some reasonable chance at making the sharp curve without flying off the road. They look at their speedometer and adjust their rate of speed. And I have never heard anyone caution that if we give new drivers a rule that will cause them to look at their speedometer mid-turn they will learn a bad habit that they will carry with them their entire driving career. No one with more than 50 hours behind the wheel does it that way anymore. They use other metrics to take that curve at an appropriate speed and I bet that most passengers will experience a smoother ride when they do. But that does not change the fact that the beginning driver has no clue at what speed to take the curve and telling them nothing except, 'its a skill you have to learn through experience' is likely to get people hurt or killed on the first few dozen attempts.

Well, it only works on loose tables where anything would work.

Yeah, and we take new drivers to open, empty parking lots where they could drive like a spastic monkey and still have all their limbs at the end of the day. We still try to impress some reasonable rules on those new drivers, in those low risk environments. The thought being that if they practice these rules until they are internalized, we can then up the difficulty of the problem and lower the friendliness of the environment.

Folding AA to a big turn re-raise from a maniac is EV-.

Yes, and coming to a complete and full stop at a 4 way stop, Arizonia intersection with 5 miles of visibility in all directions, no competing traffic and an 18 wheeler baring down on you from behind with no intent of slowing is a great way to get killed. But that does not mean it is a bad idea to drill into a beginner driver's head that you always come to a complete and full stop at a stop sign. We have been doing it for many years and it seems to work well for beginners. I have no data, but I am willing to go out on a limb and say that far more beginner drivers get hurt (or hurt others) by BREAKING that rule than get hurt by FOLLOWING it.



The 19 hand guide seems to be a set of rules for beginners to be applied for a relatively short period of time in an environment that is safe for that set of rules. It builds on the long tried system of giving beginners in anything a set of rules and telling them to apply those rules for a short period of time in a low risk environment. This seems like pretty sound thinking.

The 19-hand chart as such is fine IMO. When played as part of a system such as Performance Poker it sucks.

“We take new drivers to open, empty parking lots where they could drive like a spastic monkey and still have all their limbs at the end of the day.”

In poker, we call that parking lot “play money.” If a player’s game is so bad that he needs AOK’s postflop chart, then he should not be playing for real money.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

“We take new drivers to open, empty parking lots where they could drive like a spastic monkey and still have all their limbs at the end of the day.”

In poker, we call that parking lot “play money.” If a player’s game is so bad that he needs AOK’s postflop chart, then he should not be playing for real money.

And I think play-money is like teaching people to drive using only a video game. The low stakes table may be quite different from the high stakes tables. But the play money tables do not even resemble poker.

Originally Posted by Pyroxene

And I think play-money is like teaching people to drive using only a video game.

GTA comes to mind .

Originally Posted by HalvSame

Originally Posted by Pyroxene

And I think play-money is like teaching people to drive using only a video game.

GTA comes to mind. Oh, the carnage

Originally Posted by Yakuman

“We take new drivers to open, empty parking lots where they could drive like a spastic monkey and still have all their limbs at the end of the day.”

In poker, we call that parking lot “play money.” If a player’s game is so bad that he needs AOK’s postflop chart, then he should not be playing for real money.

You can absolutely not learn to play poker at money tables. There has to be something at stake, even if it's a little bit of money, or bets have no meaning.

Originally Posted by jackvance

You can absolutely not learn to play poker at money tables. There has to be something at stake, even if it's a little bit of money, or bets have no meaning.

Correct. Only the most disciplined can make the leap and actually learn online in a play money environment. It's too easy to make the leap to "It's only 70-cents" logic and say "It's only play money." Easier than at micro-stakes.

You can find play money tables at Stars with better players than the rank and file at P@cific.

1. It teaches you to get comfortable with the software, to play only good hands, to be disciplined, etc. Especially discipline, because it's the most important thing to learn.

2. To the extent that some people sell Stars' play money, there is something at stake, however miniscule.

3. It is a great confidence builder.

If you can't do play money, do Poker Academy, where you can play against bots in simulated conditions ranging from Party ring game to WSOP main even. Party has something called Poker Trainer, where you play limit against bots.

I started with play money. I played until I was absolutely sick of it. I played a ton of sites until I felt I was ready to go.

My first love is mahjong and I NEVER play that game for real money. I just don't think I'm that good. I play on a Japanese site where people play to get their names on a leader board.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

You can find play money tables at Stars with better players than the rank and file at P@cific.

Now you are doing exactly what many critized AoK for doing. You are defending your system on the basis that there are places where it would work. When AoK says that you need high VP$IP, high Player/Flop tables for 19 card, people said that was no good because most tables are not like that. It would be silly for me to dismiss your idea of learning at a play money table that acts like real poker by saying, "This is a bad idea because most play money tables are not like that." If someone can find a play money table that actually plays like normal poker, than by all means feel free to use it to learn.

My experience with play money and micro stakes is that the players do not play in accordance with one of the most fundamental concepts of poker: "All poker starts as a struggle for the antes." - Sklansky TToP pg. 27. At the play and micro stakes all I have ever seen is 15BB+ average opening raises and 2+ callers. That is not poker, it is bingo. There is no reason to risk 15+% of your stack to gain 1.5% of your stack.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

3. It is a great confidence builder.

Lol.. yeah great to have some fake confidence in your ability to play poker, excellent set-up to go play for real money!

Originally Posted by Pyroxene

Originally Posted by Yakuman

You can find play money tables at Stars with better players than the rank and file at P@cific.

Now you are doing exactly what many critized AoK for doing.

I think this is dead-on. I also loved your above post, Pyroxene. Yakuman, it appears to me that you are hounding aok for little or no reason. I'm not his disciple, in fact I haven't even seen this postflop chart.

But your contention (if I've got it right) is that practicing/training/whatever you want to call it is more beneficial on play-money tables than on microlimit tables with a "system"? I find that so hard to believe that I assume you're just being contrarian...

Originally Posted by Yakuman

1. It teaches you to get comfortable with the software, to play only good hands, to be disciplined, etc. Especially discipline, because it's the most important thing to learn.

Nobody learns discipline at a play money table. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I for one am training on 50NL tables at the moment.

For the love of God at least deposit 40 bucks and play nanos. You'll have 10 buyins at 0.02/0.04, if you have read anything at all about poker you should be able to not go busto.

By having a couple of bucks at stake you'll learn something very important; the gruelling feeling of losing money and how to deal with it. No matter how good your play money friends are, you won't get that feeling.

Originally Posted by HalvSame

By having a couple of bucks at stake you'll learn something very important; the gruelling feeling of losing money and how to deal with it. No matter how good your play money friends are, you won't get that feeling.

And something (I think) even more important, or at least even more 'nuts-and-bolts': you'll learn how to read the actions of players who have something at stake. Reading is a fundamental poker skill, and if your head bursts trying to figure out opponents' rationale in play-money games, don't say I didn't warn you.

...

The idea that people should pump hundreds of dollars "learning" at micro-limits is just nuts. If you're going to throw money at unwinnable bets, try Laughlin. They have good room rates there.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

The idea that people should pump hundreds of dollars "learning" at micro-limits is just nuts. If you're going to throw money at unwinnable bets, try Laughlin. They have good room rates there.

There are players on FTR who have made one deposit and never looked back. The reality is that one does not learn how to play real poker until it is played for real money. It is as simple as that. In fact, there is a great deal of unlearning to be done in the transition to real money, to get rid of many of the monkey-see-monkey-do bad habits that get picked up on play money tables. Anyone who thinks they can become a competent, winning player learning on play money tables is an unadulterated idiot.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

If you're going to throw money at unwinnable bets, try Laughlin.

If you're saying what I'm think you're saying, I'm gonna have myself a good laugh and never post in this thread again.

"One does not learn how to play real poker until it is played for real money..."

Plenty of people play mahjong, backgammon and gin rummy with nothing at stake. Why is poker special? In fact, lots of people play wild card dealer's choice poker with real money -- and those games are a joke. So this argument does not follow.

Poker Academy runs a private play money server for people who register their pro software. Those people take the game seriously, because they don't want to donk it away at real money. www.poker-academy.com

"Any one who thinks they can become a competent, winning player learning on play money tables is an unadulterated idiot."

Well, I did. I've never lost my initial deposit, either -- and I've spent way more on poker books than on Neteller. That last factor is probably what made the difference.

If somebody can't beat the nanostakes, then he'd better go to play money -- or quit poker. I'm not actually arguing the virtues of play money, but it sure beats being the table donator.

Plus, I don't think the play money at Stars is worse than P@cific. In fact, many tables are better. You can't put P@cific players on hands, either.

"If you're saying what I'm think you're saying, I'm gonna have myself a good laugh and never post in this thread again."

I don't think people should deliberately set out to be fish. If I'm gonna donk away money, I'd rather be in Laughlin, where they'll at least have free drinks and cute cocktail waitresses.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

I don't think people should deliberately set out to be fish.

In so many words, no they don't. But most people also don't set out to learn the intricacies of the game and become phenoms. They just want to have fun.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

Plenty of people play mahjong, backgammon and gin rummy with nothing at stake. Why is poker special? In fact, lots of people play wild card dealer's choice poker with real money -- and those games are a joke. So this argument does not follow.

Poker Academy runs a private play money server for people who register their pro software. Those people take the game seriously, because they don't want to donk it away at real money. www.poker-academy.com

Why is poker special? Hmm... WPT. WSOP. PPT. All the other poker television shows. When was the last time backgammon (a game I love), gin rummy (another game I love) or mahjong (a third game I love) were paraded around on television for money and celebrity that can be won by an Ordinary Joe? Tens of thousands of people have happily made large deposits at poker sites around the globe because of the dream. I would argue that the grand majority have no designs on studying the game to improve substantially. Many do a bit... they "hack" at it and learn a few things but I'd be willing to wager that those folks are mostly gambling as opposed to making educated decisions. Their aim isn't really to get better at poker, it's to have fun, kill time and if they win money or not, who cares? It's like the movies - they pay for the entertainment.

Poker Acadamy is a totally different beast than PokerStars play money tables. Poker Acadamy is relatively costly and only bought by people for one reason: to get better at poker as opposed to be entertained.

Lookit - I have a feeling no-one will convince you of anything because every arguement you make is from an ivory tower of idealism, and we do not live in nor play poker in an idealized world.

...

Originally Posted by Yakuman

"If you're saying what I'm think you're saying, I'm gonna have myself a good laugh and never post in this thread again."

I don't think people should deliberately set out to be fish. If I'm gonna donk away money, I'd rather be in Laughlin, where they'll at least have free drinks and cute cocktail waitresses.

Okay, my misunderstanding. Of course no one is going to deliberately set out to be a fish, I don't know where you got that from?

But I know that I'd be much more content being a semi-fish (say 1BB/100) at the micros than a shark at the play money tables. To suggest that anyone is better off learning on their own with play money rather than starting off with a winning system at the micros is just silly, no matter how much the system might slow down your learning curve.

"The Main Principle of Performance Poker is to create a winning system FOR THE CONDITIONS that exist."

If I remember Efficient Markets theory correctly, any system that bests the market is, once discovered, quickly priced into that market. So the edge diminishess.

Malkiel, Burton G. A Random Walk Down Wall Street (7th ed.). New York, NY: WW Norton,. 1999.

How is that related to poker? Do you think the fish market is going to change? Most fish are fish because they don't bother studying to move up the food chain. They aren't going to adapt to the market. Edit; that is, they aren't going to discover the system.

"Why is poker special? Hmm... WPT. WSOP. PPT. All the other poker television shows."

They have mahjong on TV in Japan, plus manga, anime and an amazing amount of pornography. And there were fish at poker decades ago.

"Tens of thousands of people have happily made large deposits at poker sites around the globe because of the dream."

Then why are so many sites that target US players rock gardens? And why are the sites that ban Americans such fish tanks?

Many people who want to goof off will download the .net version of the software and never even see a real money money table, at least in the US.

"Poker Acadamy is relatively costly and only bought... to get better at poker."

PA is what? $120? That's not alot compared to a decent deposit, which is kinda what I was saying.

"Every arguement [sic] you make is from an ivory tower of idealism"

Uh, I'm the skeptic. AOK is the idealist. I think poker is hard.

...

"How is that related to poker? Do you think the fish market is going to change?"

Yes. More and more players are learning the ropes. More and more good players are able to multitable on more sites. So the game gets harder. Party gets consistently tighter, for example.

Also, say a system DOES come out that can smash Party 25NL. As more people will adopt that strategy. those tables will become rockier. Simple logic.

"Most fish are fish because they don't bother studying to move up the food chain."

Yes, but over time the number of rocks and TAGs goes up too. Plus, they multitable. So there is more competition for the fish.

"(Siting the reference is the funniest thing I've seen on FTR in a long time, though. That's a classic. 7th ed. rofl)"

I forgot. You don't like books with all that theory. You like easy answers to difficult questions. Now wonder you admire Tony Robbins.

You've already said what you think of poker books. You don't like those ivory tower intellectuals like Doyle Brunson and TJ Clutier.

"And at NL10, and NL25 it's not that hard to win $300-$500 per month."

We discussed this before. The winrate per hour is McMoney. If you're looking for an income source, it is quite an, um, grind.

One last post. There's a post on another forum that sums up the problem with the theory behind Performance Poker:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...?Number=462860

It deals with limit poker, but you can get the idea. The summary is "WHEN THE POT IS BIG DO NOT FOLD DECENT HANDS FOR ONE BET!"

NOTE TO AOK: This post is by Ed Miller, one of those "Ivory Tower" members of the "Poker Priesthood." Parental discretion is advised.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

One last post. There's a post on another forum that sums up the problem with the theory behind Performance Poker:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...?Number=462860

It deals with limit poker, but you can get the idea. The summary is "WHEN THE POT IS BIG DO NOT FOLD DECENT HANDS FOR ONE BET!"

NOTE TO AOK: This post is by Ed Miller, one of those "Ivory Tower" members of the "Poker Priesthood." Parental discretion is advised.

I believe that idea originally comes from TOP (I didn't bother to read the thread). Anyway, it is obvious that a limit fold is a much bigger mistake than a NL fold, simply because the bet size in relation to the pot size is much smaller in limit.

The whole idea with 19-hand (I haven't looked into the other aspects of PP) is that you're playing loose passive opponents (remember the conditions he talks about so much?) and that these opponents rarely play back at you. The system is designed to keep you from making bad calls rather than teach you how to make good ones, which will show a profit under said conditions.

Miller, on the other hand, is usually referring to higher stakes and tougher opponents, where the edges have to be pushed harder and more often.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

One last post. There's a post on another forum that sums up the problem with the theory behind Performance Poker:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...?Number=462860

It deals with limit poker, but you can get the idea. The summary is "WHEN THE POT IS BIG DO NOT FOLD DECENT HANDS FOR ONE BET!"

NOTE TO AOK: This post is by Ed Miller, one of those "Ivory Tower" members of the "Poker Priesthood." Parental discretion is advised.

It's absurd to compare 1 BB calldown 20:1 odds (LHE) with something like 50BB potsized river bet in no-limit. When you play such a big pot with medium/marginal hand, you MUST have a read to make profitable decision. In LHE, OTOH, calling 1BB to showdown in 20BB pot is actually no-brainer with any decent hand.

But still Ed Miller gave excellent advice for LHE. Actually Ed is not "one of members", he's more like Master Wizard.

Yes, raw PerformPoker strat is very weak tight but the way to improve it has nothing to do with Ed Miller's LHE post. Totally different reasons to make calldowns/reraises with light hands.

...

All,

If you disagree with aok's system, then by all means make constructive criticism about it.

If you dislike aok, the person, then stop posting in this thread, as you are inadvertantly bumping it and advertising his site even more.

Peace.

...

Geez, Yakuman, you've got this (generally-interesting) thread to a damn-near-lockable state.

"Any monkey could beat microstakes" turns into "The idea that people should pump hundreds of dollars "learning" at micro-limits is just nuts". And so on and so on. Linking to an ancient (if classic) 2+2 thread (which is about *limit hold 'em). The Efficient Market Hypothesis?!?! Are you kidding?!?! Why are you going to these extreme lengths to denigrate aok's work?

...

At the risk of agreeing with AOK, I think people should know what % of flops they're seeing. I can be easily done with pad and paper.

(If you care, I typically run about 17% of hands. Running loose, I do about 23%. Tight runs around 7%. At my most maniacal, I'll see 30% of hands, which is rocky enough to land me in Stonehenge.)

About suited connectors: They and suited aces are the keys to the gold mine on a site like P@cific. I'd be much more interested in them than some of AOK's darlings like AJo and KJo.

As far as giving him publicity, I don't know that I care. Right now, he seems intent on throwing rocks into the pond over at P@cific. I don't play there, nor do I wish it on my worst enemies, so it doesn't affcet me.
If AOK is after money -- and I'm not convinced that he is -- I'd like to remind him that there's more moolah to be made at the tables than as a poker guru. In fact, some of the pros write books just to improve their table image.

"Any monkey could beat microstakes"

Seriously, is there anyone reading this who CAN'T at least run positive at NL10? Is it that hard?

""The idea that people should pump hundreds of dollars learning at micro-limits is just nuts"

Apples and oranges. I was trying to shoot down the idea that people necessarily need a lot of "on-the-job" training before they stop playing like a fish.

That people just jump in unprepared and hit the NL25 at Party is great for the multitabling rocks, but really bad for them.

You know those college students who cry to their local newspaper about how they donked away their student loans?
Or the guy who claims "identity theft," when thousands of dollars just happened to wind up transferred to Neteller? They come from these ranks.

Originally Posted by Yakuman

"Any monkey could beat microstakes"

Seriously, is there anyone reading this who CAN'T at least run positive at NL10? Is it that hard?

""The idea that people should pump hundreds of dollars learning at micro-limits is just nuts"

Apples and oranges. I was trying to shoot down the idea that people necessarily need a lot of "on-the-job" training before they stop playing like a fish.

That people just jump in unprepared and hit the NL25 at Party is great for the multitabling rocks, but really bad for them.

You know those college students who cry to their local newspaper about how they donked away their student loans?
Or the guy who claims "identity theft," when thousands of dollars just happened to wind up transferred to Neteller? They come from these ranks.

... which is exactly why aok made the system, to ease these fish (the ones that are clever enough to find the site, mind you) into the game.

Yakuman, yes there are people who can't run positive at NL10. My roommate, a very intelligent person whom I tried to train at poker, couldn't beat 25nl on party. He mostly ran bad, but he played kinda bad too.

I am getting really tired of people saying that its impossible to not lose at microstakes. Its very possible. In fact, in some ways microstakes (.1, .25, .50) are tougher to beat than mid to high stakes games (1,2,4,6) because the players are just so unreadible.

You guys are making it sound like any braindead vegetable can log on to Party Poker and make 12 dollars an hour playing poker, without any prior training or loss. It just isn't true.

The only beef us intelligent beefers have with AOK's system is that it tries to explain postflop with a chart (not possible), and that many of the staple techniques within the system are pretty much illogical when looked at through a tight-aggressive-aggressive lens.

Then again, when whomever back in the day said "Raise before the flop with any reasonable hand, and bet every single heads up flop whether you hit or miss.", people probably thought he was crazy. The game was so weaktight up to that point that it seemed irrational to be that aggressive.

Fuck, maybe weaktightpassive will be the new wave of poker sharks. Who knows. You have to look at this with an open mind, thats all.

I just wish that the haters would stop hating, so this debate would get somewhere.

...

Originally Posted by aokrongly

Anybody up for this discussion instead of the same old argument?

I think the main problem with starting this discussion in relation to 19-hand is that certain elements like position and odds are not emphasized in 19-hand but are hugely important when playing drawing hands. This discussion is probably best left for a different thread.

"I am getting really tired of people saying that its impossible to not lose at microstakes..."

I don't say that. My actual words were "Is there anyone reading this who CAN'T at least run positive at NL10?" You were talking about somebody not beating NL25, which is one notch higher. You misquoted me, then called me a "hater."

Originally Posted by aokrongly

Anybody up for this discussion instead of the same old argument?

The discussion I would be up for is to address the same old criticisms that come up again and again and again and actually improve your 19 hand system, but something tells me you're not open to that. Which is why this discussion constantly goes around in circles.

Originally Posted by Warpe

Originally Posted by aokrongly

Anybody up for this discussion instead of the same old argument?

The discussion I would be up for is to address the same old criticisms that come up again and again and again and actually improve your 19 hand system, but something tells me you're not open to that. Which is why this discussion constantly goes around in circles.

Stop wanting 19 Hand to be more than it is and the cycle will be broken. Only the salmon spawns upstream, and Warpe, you are no fish.

Now I would enjoy seeing the next iteration of Performance Poker to see how it is different than 19 Hand.

Can we discuss the KJ and AJ vs Axs and suited connectors. My logic in choosing one over the other is what I think is the common problem that players play Axs (or other drawing hands) and then forget why they got into the hand in the first place and end up pay the winner off just because they hit a pair with a crappy kicker. Or they overpay for their draw. But I'm happy to discuss the different pro's/cons of one vs the other.

Despite of "attack/defence" style and fiery criticism of both sides, this is one of the best discussions I saw on FTR. DaNutsInYoEye and Aokrongly...props to both of you guys.

ok, here's go my opinion:

Hands like KJ, AJ, AT (mainly offsuit "broadways") are known to have reasonable chance of preflop pot equity against given number of random hands. They win showdowns more often than not. But there is a problem in NL, because % of winning SD means little, especially if game resembles "aggressive". Offsuit broadways are good non-multiway LHE hands. But in "pressure oriented" game like NL or PL, thinking in terms of preflop percantage of winning showdowns and preflop "direct pot odds" (not implied/reverse implied) is actually useless.

Recently I got Sklansky's new book and there is simple preflop crashcourse for getting started, WITHOUT offsuit broadways in early and mid positions. AJos is default open fold from any position, KJ is crappy hand and worse than Q9s because it hardly takes any pressure. Flush-draw or OESD can played even for stacks as semibluff but something like TPGK in limped pot is not much better than TPNK or middle pair because if you get action on flop, it's most likely from something better than top pair - and if someone has worse hand, he will fold it on flop because of implied threat. You can beat only a draw, nothing more. Once in a while you will catch some sucker that overplays his TPNK and you will win small/moderate pot or lose moderate/big pot if he pairs his kicker or gets his flush. The only big pot you win if you and opponent pair both of cards, and he will still be reluctant to go broke in unraised pot with two pairs. But flush against flush or low end of straight against high end - he will gladly go AI drawing stone cold dead.

I liked one of Sklansky's basic concepts: "in deep-stack NL cash game you play hands that can extract lot of money POSTFLOP - big pot hands".

As you know I'm not a pure odds player, so what are the odds of flopping TP with AJ or KJ vs the odds of flopping a flush draw with Axs. We'll assume that both of these are limping hands that won't be played in a raised pot. (however, once we see what the true odds are, we may decide that Axs is worth playing in other situations. who knows.)

TP with AJ/KJ is about 30%, slightly worse than TPTK from Slick.
Flopping any flushdraw with Ax is about 10% (tainted paired boards included).

Axs is definitely worth playing against small raise, especially with good relative position and multiway pot. Flushes, Aces-up or better (and nail TPTK the same way as with set) , NFD+overcard draw, combo draws ets.

Originally Posted by Vrax

something like TPGK in limped pot is not much better than TPNK or middle pair because if you get action on flop, it's most likely from something better than top pair - and if someone has worse hand, he will fold it on flop because of implied threat. You can beat only a draw, nothing more. Once in a while you will catch some sucker that overplays his TPNK and you will win small/moderate pot or lose moderate/big pot if he pairs his kicker or gets his flush

I think you're basically right but this is overstate. If you catch a sucker who overplays TPNK you're going to get a nice pot, not a small/moderate one. At 10NL and occasionally at 25NL, you will frequuently stack Axo. You'll see (and stack) Kxs less frequently but not-never.

Hitting the J with your A or K is not as profitable, but you'll still get some pay from Jxx where opp has a pp < J and joes refuses to believe you.

By this I only mean to qualify your very good arguments.

At 10NL and occasionally at 25NL, you will frequuently stack Axo. You'll see (and stack) Kxs less frequently but not-never.

Good point Lefou, but it's all depends on stack sizes. You will win decent pot but that's it - just decent 20BB pot if you are lucky enough to not run into set or 2 pair, dodge all straight and flush draws and turn/river bluffs. It's hard in crazy aggressive game, wherther tight or loose.

You have AdJh against your loose-passive opponent. 100BB, covered.

Board Ah6c7cc You bet he calls. Turn is 5,6,7,8 or a club.

Are you willing to go 100BB with him ?

Or, let's go back to flop. You pot the flop, some average player raises it. You are in trouble, only if he has draw, you are ahead and it's not "way ahead". In LHE you can go to showdown and expect it to win more than your fair share but in NL you are toasted more often than not.
Only if opponent is very shortstacked, you have easy decision and can go comfortably for showdown. And if you "destack" him from his mere 10-20BB, you still win "just moderate pot".

Even on 25NL I rarely see someone going broke with TPNK for full stack. It's difference between bad player and absolute sucker. Bad player will stick around and maybe make some loose flop/turn call (if it's not too big)but only total sucker will consitently go broke with that hand.

...

Originally Posted by aokrongly

Wouldn't you say the discussion of destacking another player is kind of moot. Stack size pots are generally made with two better than TPTK hands, or someone who decides to put his stack behind a draw against someone who knows the other guy is on the draw. Other than that, it's just when you see someone tilt off for whatever reason. Wouldn't you agree with that.

Absolutely true. NL cash game is about winning max money, not destacking particular players. Getting call + overcall 30BB each is worth more than 40BB single call and destack. In tourney things may be different but in ring it's flat-out "winning the max, not care about busting someone or not".

We're talking essentially about not the greatest hands in the world, so if you're going to win more than a 20BB stack with them it will be in a special circumstance. KJ where you make a straight and the other guy has AT(2 pair) for instance.

Axs you're not stacking people with either I would think, unless they have Kx of the same suit or something. It's pretty easy to spot the flush draw, generally. The way you mix that up is by masking your hand with a non-odds giving bet (which is possible).

You CAN win big pots with sooted Aces, even stack people for 100BB without flush.

You have A5s, opponent has 56s. Unraised pot.

Boards:
A56, 55x : you will win a large chunk of his stack.
66x: he'll win nothing from you
A66: he will win nothing from you or maybe small flop bet
A556: you will bust him
A5566 and you both have lots of money behind - you realize that your boat has been counterfeited and you lay it down or showdown for cheap. Opponents play poor postflop and won't make such a laydown. CptZeebo's fullhose theory
556: well...it's like AA against set. That's poker.

Raised pot:

You can open-raise Axs for deception, just like AK but if Ace flops, treat it as "moderate hand" and try to show it down cheaply using pot control. This play is designed to get more turn calls in the future from weak kickers when you have "true" TPTK.

With flushdraw in position it's also very easy to play especially if you are PF aggressor and it gets checked around. Also having Ace as overcard can help if someone with JJ will call your AI semibluff.

In normal play beginners aren't playing either of these hands aggressively preflop.

They don't need to play it aggro...yet They just must be more smart postflop and play actual "poker" with putting people on hands. It's not a big mistake to fold weak marginal hand (tpnk) in small pot, so newbiez can play it only for Aces up+ and flushes and c/f TPNK.

If you can make a case for raising Axs in a limp pot with position then you can make a case for raising KJ0. Both have the same logic, I would think.

Multilimpers and position...well it's a bit different situation. I think in this situation big raise with KJ and trying to pick-up dead money is more reasonable because KJ, AJ ets. hate drawing boards, and like heads-up situation. A5s is a bit different. Pounding limps and huge c-bet on flop has its merits but I think it's waste of Axs. Let's say you have A5 on button and face 5 limpers + SB completes with wide range and your opponents play poorly postflop. Why try to fold out someone with 76, or 54 when he has deep stack and can pay you off on 55x board or flush board?

Comments?