Random Poker Questions

Hi,

As the title says, here are a collection of questions that I've yet to find the answer to.

1) B&M; Oppressive Rake
I often read how some B&M casinos have such a high rake that anything below $10/$20 can be almost impossible to profit at. But why? If you're winning, you're gonna leave with more then you entered with.

You bet $10. He calls. You win. Even at 10% rake, you still take $18 from a $10 bet.


2) Oppressive Buy Ins
Some tourneys are deemed to be not worth the while due to the buy in fee. Eg: one such tourney is a 10 seater, $50+$9 affair. 1st place wins $160. Why would $50+$5 be acceptable but not + $9?

I have also seen this for MTT, apparently some Vegas casinos obscure the buy in by advertising as $350 instead of $300 + $50. But what is the difference - it's $350 eitehr way?

And in both examples, if you cash, you're still going to take home far more than you invested.


3) Online Networks
Many poker sites share the same network: cryptologic, Prima, ipoker etc. Can Someone explain this fully?

At first, I assumed it just meant individual companies using the same software but in games, players have said they are playing at another site. As they were playing in specialised tourneys, like jackpots where if you win 5 $10 SNGs in a row, you win $40,000, I then assumed that all sites had to be owned by the network as how else would multiple sites make the same offers?

But against this is that online sites can change networks, and a number of sites on the ipoker network are registered in different continents, which debunks the above.

I did email my ipoker site but the answers were in riddles. They said they share the same network as other sites but have independent management/support. When I asked for a clearer answer as to whether they are independent of each other, I got a repeat answer.

So guys, any ideas?



4) Professionals
We all hear about the guys winning the main events or maing $100K online but considering how even at .50/$1 level, tidy sums can be made in one sitting, are there pros on this site who are quietly and happily making a living - even if it's no more than they would if they worked a day job? Earning $100 a day or so?

In reverse order....

4. its suggested only a handfull (i.e not hundreds) will make a clear million from online poker this year, even in big games. therefore what you say has to be true. At the same time pro means that you make your living from poker and certainly you'll find people at all limits who do this well.

3.
Think of a network eg Partygaming, or cryptologic as a room that has many doors. Each door is a skin and all you do is enter through a different door when you enter a network pokerroom via a different skin. Each skin obviously has its own hook, so yeah some will have a BBJ some wont etc

2+1, dunno i dont play live.

1) B&M; Oppressive Rake
I often read how some B&M casinos have such a high rake that anything below $10/$20 can be almost impossible to profit at. But why? If you're winning, you're gonna leave with more then you entered with.

You bet $10. He calls. You win. Even at 10% rake, you still take $18 from a $10 bet.

Because a good player's edge can often be less than you think.. I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that a top online player worked out that his edge was like 102%.. although I may be full of shit.

Whilst you still take $18 from a $10 bet, if you take $20 from a $10 bet, it adds up HUGELY in the long run and for semi-decent players who are floating above breakeven it can mean the difference between winning and losing.

PostPosted: Thu, 04 Oct 2007, 8:38pm
Hi,

As the title says, here are a collection of questions that I've yet to find the answer to.

1) B&M; Oppressive Rake
I often read how some B&M casinos have such a high rake that anything below $10/$20 can be almost impossible to profit at. But why? If you're winning, you're gonna leave with more then you entered with.

You bet $10. He calls. You win. Even at 10% rake, you still take $18 from a $10 bet.


2) Oppressive Buy Ins
Some tourneys are deemed to be not worth the while due to the buy in fee. Eg: one such tourney is a 10 seater, $50+$9 affair. 1st place wins $160. Why would $50+$5 be acceptable but not + $9?

I have also seen this for MTT, apparently some Vegas casinos obscure the buy in by advertising as $350 instead of $300 + $50. But what is the difference - it's $350 eitehr way?

And in both examples, if you cash, you're still going to take home far more than you invested.

Again, rake adds up a lot in the long run, and you're thinking in the short term.

Sure, if you cash you're going to take home more than you invested, but if you don't cash you're going to lose more than you would with less rake.

I read somewhere that the top TV pros were asked to guess their EV win in the main event (as in if they played it infinite times how much they'd average per event), and the answers came out between $12-18000. Phil Gordon, the author reckoned the real answer was closer to 12.

I don't know enough about networks to give a decent answer.

PostPosted: Thu, 04 Oct 2007, 8:38pm
Hi,

As the title says, here are a collection of questions that I've yet to find the answer to.

1) B&M; Oppressive Rake
I often read how some B&M casinos have such a high rake that anything below $10/$20 can be almost impossible to profit at. But why? If you're winning, you're gonna leave with more then you entered with.

You bet $10. He calls. You win. Even at 10% rake, you still take $18 from a $10 bet.


2) Oppressive Buy Ins
Some tourneys are deemed to be not worth the while due to the buy in fee. Eg: one such tourney is a 10 seater, $50+$9 affair. 1st place wins $160. Why would $50+$5 be acceptable but not + $9?

I have also seen this for MTT, apparently some Vegas casinos obscure the buy in by advertising as $350 instead of $300 + $50. But what is the difference - it's $350 eitehr way?

And in both examples, if you cash, you're still going to take home far more than you invested.


3) Online Networks
Many poker sites share the same network: CryptoLogic, Prima, iPoker etc. Can Someone explain this fully?

At first, I assumed it just meant individual companies using the same software but in games, players have said they are playing at another site. As they were playing in specialised tourneys, like jackpots where if you win 5 $10 SNGs in a row, you win $40,000, I then assumed that all sites had to be owned by the network as how else would multiple sites make the same offers?

But against this is that online sites can change networks, and a number of sites on the iPoker network are registered in different continents, which debunks the above.

I did email my iPoker site but the answers were in riddles. They said they share the same network as other sites but have independent management/support. When I asked for a clearer answer as to whether they are independent of each other, I got a repeat answer.

So guys, any ideas?



4) Professionals
We all hear about the guys winning the main events or maing $100K online but considering how even at .50/$1 level, tidy sums can be made in one sitting, are there pros on this site who are quietly and happily making a living - even if it's no more than they would if they worked a day job? Earning $100 a day or so?

Yeah, I'm one (even though nobody would advise it), although I struggle to get hands in. I make double hourly what I would shoveling chips for stupid tourists or breaking my back lugging crates around - all jobs round here are minimum wage.

Thx,

Ash, what level do you play at? And cash or tourney?

drop down and read my signature before taking this for more than a grain of salt, but...

1) yes, you need to be thinking LONG-TERM. and live, unless you are a cheapskate, you also TIP the dealer. thats in addition to any rake you are already struggling to beat. most solid players beat the game for 1-3 BB's per hour in limit. at least, that's considered "beating the game." if you are at a $5-$10 game with an average pot of $50...there's an avg rake of $5. winner gets $45. online, its only $2.50. thats an extra 5% of YOUR take. over $1000, thats $50. it doesnt seem like much, but when you look back at the rake you paid...its sick. yes, winners are winners, but its much harder to take home loads of cash because the brick and mortar casino pokes bigger holes in your pockets for the money to fall out as you leave.

2) same as #1. yes, it is what it is.....but online is easier to beat (the rake that is), and you can multi-table. multi-tabling allows you to leverage a smaller bankroll than live and profit close to the same. this explains why online the stakes are so much harder at lower levels.

3) the online networks are "the mall," and the individual sites are "the stores inside the mall." you can go to any store, but the store leases space from the mall. and, shares the same location. take crypto for example, you can play at a table against players from pokerplex, sunpoker, willhill, interpoker, etc. the individual sites have their own bonuses, their own rakebacks, their own marketing...but they all share cryptologic's NAME and player pool.

4) there are plenty of "pros" right here at FTR. by that i mean that they are making a living. run into the "NL Strategies" forum and look for CoccoBill's thread. look at that money!! he's a freak, but he doesnt need to take a day job. others here clear 40k in rakeback alone. it really depends on what you call a living. hang around here awhile and you will start to see who's who pretty easily. hint: i aint one of them.

hope that answers your questions. feel free to ask some more.

Hey Chopper, mucho thanks.

I'm still not getting why $50 + $5 is agood deal but $50 + $9 isn't. Sorry if I'm coming across as numb right now.


As for "pro" - I was thinking comparable to a day job. A bog standard day job. I am *not* looking at going pro, I haven't the hands to know if I'm a lose money/break even/profit player, nor the experience etc. Though if I was, I'd only need $2000 a month; or $1000 if I moved in with my gf. On a generously easy 20 day month basis that's just $100/$50 a day. So I was thinking along those lines really when I asked about pros - though a chance to earn $40k in rake alone would be more than welcome

I ask because I hope to be there sooner rather than later. I won't bore you with my personal situation suffice it to say I've been out of work (my choice) for 4 months and living off my investments. Working for somebody again is not on my agenda, ever, so there's no job to quit, no career to worry about and I already have sufficient savings/investments to support myself for 12 months without working. 24 months if I moved in with my missus. And so it really would be a limited risk when I feel good enough to take that small step from part time to full time.

At microstakes (.10/.20) I averaged $50 a session, single table, and $100 would be a very good session. That's a bit too close for comfort in terms of what I'd need to make but when I get good enough to play $2/$4, or even $1/$2 that shouldn't be an issue.

Let me repeat, I have no intention of going pro.....yet. Though I have the BR if required, I am also level headed. I've got money. I want to keep it Playing above my level is a sure fire way to not keep it.



Here is another question, I forgot to ask. Tomorrow will be spent reading the essays and watching the videos here at FTR and hence my answer may lie within them.

Until I started mooching around forums, I never came across the term EV. Never heard commentators mention it. Not any pros. I have a few books/DVDs and though they all mention odds and percentages, none mention EV and so I am wondering, just how important is it to be successful at poker?

I've checked out a few descriptions and thus far, they all go over my head - but gimme a break; it's 3am! One example almost sent me into a coma, talking about probability of you winning a J high flush and the various possibilities of your opponent betting with any club, no club, a K or Qc etc.....snooze.

To be honest, I'd rather it wasn't essential. Despite my high IQ, maths isn't a particularly strong point and it always sends me into a coma. I can just about prevent my eyes glazing over when figuring out odds. However, I'm prepared to do everything to vastly improve.

I play 50NL and 100NL with a decent rakeback deal.

Lemme ask you a couple of quizzical questions..

- I 8-table 75000 hands of .25/.50 (aka 50NL) and beat the game decently but don't crush it.

1. How much did I make an hour?
2. How much in rake did I pay?

Hmmmmm.
Average rakeback tends to be 30% from what i've seen so a decent rakeback would be 40%+ at a guess.

And that is as much as I can answer as I have no idea how many games you play to answer the other 2 questions. I think I heard someone say 3bbs an hour is a good rate but that's just $1.50 per hour so I must've got that wrong.

I shall guess though, at quite a lot as you play at twice the level I do and you play 18 tables versus my single table - and I would average $50. 75000/18 = 4167 hands per table. 4167/60 = 70 hands per hour per table.

I don't know but shall take a wild stab at $2000. Note there was no maths involved - just guessing. I suspect there is a lesson to be learnt here but I'm missing it

thunder,

EV is an extremely important "term." it means Expected Value. its a way of calculating your equity in the pot.

if you have more of an "equity stake" in the pot, then you need to stick as much in as you can. because while you may not be getting all of your money back, neither are they. and they are making worse mistakes than you, at the moment. therefore, in the long run, the money comes to you. you need to be able to find situations where you are making the smallest mistake at the table, and jam the money in. thats where your bread and butter lies. sometimes you will both be making a "profitable decision," but yours is MORE profitable (like AA v KK preflop). therefore, your opponent still made the bigger mistake for that particular situation.

try not to get caught up in your session's winnings. they will swing back and forth. and, no offense, but at a 10 cent/20 cent table, you cannot take home $50 per session on the average. God forbid if its a limit game. its not possible to hold that kind of winrate over 3 months, let alone a "career." it is, however, one hell of a heater.

if you want to make a living, you need to look at $1/$2 limit or $100 NL at a minimum, imo. otherwise variance will crush your "paycheck" from time to time.

and, one other thing. factor out what you "need" to make and double it. if you NEED to make $500/week, then get to where you can make $1000(including rb/bonus). that way you can still take the $500 without dipping into your bankroll. besides, if you need a $4000 br to play 100NL, and you make $500 one week, you shouldnt take the $500......you still need to grow your bankroll, if you ever plan to move up higher.

grab a pen and some paper, and start "crunching numbers." you need to know EXACTLY what you need to make, right down to the BB/100 or BB/hour, how many tables you need to play, how many hands you need to play in a day, etc. and you need to know them EXACTLY before you consider doing this for income.

if i can find an article by daniel negreanu about his "hourly job," i will post a link to it, but it may take some time.

btw, if Ash is playing NL, his BB's are doulbed....or $1 and $2, not $0.50. so, 3 BB's/100 would be $3, not $1.50.

and to complete that exercise, you need to know the average pot size to calculate rake....and rakeback. plus, with 8 (not 18) tables open, he is jamming about 500 full ring hands or 800 6max hands per hour!! that may be a bit high, but not much. if you look at his winrate (using your 3/100), 5 blocks of 100 at a 3 is 15 BB's/hour...or $45 (remember, its $1 for a BB, not $.50). add in rakeback (which i dont care to figure) and its WAAAY better than a day job.

however, he, too, has days where he loses money. that $45/hour is an average. he only thinks of that. if he plays an hour and wins $200, he says to himself, "thanks for the $45." if he loses $200 in the next hour, he says, "thanks for the $45." while his computer tells him he has only broken even.....he knows he has actually made $90. see that? thats how you need to think about things.

Chopper,


Thx for the reply. My head hurts so I have more q's. if you feel it's best to do it via pm, rather than bloat a thread, just lemme know.

Easy things 1st, yeah, what I need to make - double it. It's what I was getting at in my post when I mentioned being too close for comfort.

I played microstakes for about 2 weeks. I entered with $20 (max buy in) each time. I finished between $50 and my best ever of $110. Sure, somedays I lost my $20 and had to reload - which meant a lower profit margin. I only reached these figures with all ins. Apart from that it was painfully slow as most of the time people folded to my raises and I'd scoop........30c! Do that 10 times in a row and it's still only $3.

As said though, I'm not looking at going pro yet. But I long for the day when I can

And I am glad it's waaaaaaaaaay better than a day job!


Now onto the head hurting stuff.....

Ash's figures
1) you need to know the average pot size to calculate rake.
Yes but I have no idea of knowing this.

2) he is jamming about 500 full ring hands or 800 6max hands per hour
How do you know this?

3) remember, its $1 for a BB, not $.50
But he said he plays at .25/.50 so isn't the bb .50 - hence 5x (3/100) = $22.5 as opposed to $45?

And was I right with the 3bb per hour?

4) if he plays an hour and wins $200, he says to himself, "thanks for the $45." if he loses $200 in the next hour, he says, "thanks for the $45." while his computer tells him he has only broken even.....he knows he has actually made $90. see that? thats how you need to think about things.
Errr no. I don't see that (and am feeling really donkey-ish right now!). All I see is that if he win then loses$200, he's broke even - not up $90.



EV
I know EV stands for Expected Value. And that'e as much as I grasp.

Quick question before I ask about your answers: do the top pros do EV calculations? As said, I've seen DVDs by Negreanu, Helmuth and Gordon yet none mention EV.

And also, isn't EV supposed to be hard to calculate? Certainly not quick enough to beat the online timers.

1) if you have more of an "equity stake" in the pot, then you need to stick as much in as you can
Not sure what you mean by this. All I know is that with a good hand, I shove more money in than with a bad one.

If I have 99, bet 4xbb and the flop comes KAA, I'd normally slow down but are you suggesting I push more money in as I've already invested?


2) and jam the money in. thats where your bread and butter lies. sometimes you will both be making a "profitable decision," but yours is MORE profitable (like AA v KK preflop). therefore, your opponent still made the bigger mistake for that particular situation.
This sounds just like standard poker play and knowing your preflop stats and odds/outs. Eg: I know AA is a 4 to 1 favourite over any other pocket pair so.......jam the pot.


3) Going back to the example I read on EV, you have scored a flush as you hold 10d and Jc. The article went on about what if your opponent had K or Q club, what if he would bet with any club, what if he would fold with any club other than a K or Q, what if he had no club, what if he would fold to any bet etc. The permutations were mad and above all, know one can know what an opponent will do until he does it. I really can't see how any good player will go through this rigmarole everytime they''re in a flush situation. But hey, I'm new so what do I know?

All in all, I know what EV means - but that's about it. Utilising it is another. And even when I see the figures - +5Ev - it doesn't mean anything to me.

Quiz answers - My winrate was 3.92BB/100 hands, but considering the softness of the games an awesome player could prolly easily get 5-6, if not more. Hourly rate was $17/hr and I made $2,934. I gave away $3670 in rake. (!)

That quiz was designed to make you realise that:-

a) Long term, despite a decent winrate, the hourly isn't actually that good at all.. Remember, this is over 8 tables, not 1.
b) Rake is a bitch and means a lot!


EV - I'm not that good at it but I know the basics. Here's a copypasted couple of paragraphs from another site:

Originally Posted by pokertips.org

If you comb through poker strategy books or articles written on this website, you will repeatedly find assertions that poor poker players may win money in the short run but will lose money in the long run. The converse is true for professional and very good players. They may lose money in the short run but will generally win in the long run.

Why is this exactly? It is because of a concept known as expected value (EV). Expected value is your expected return on a wager. For example, suppose you made a bet with me on a coin flip. If it is heads, I give you $100. If it is tails, you give me $1. Should you theoretically take this bet (assuming that the coin is fair and has a fifty-fifty chance of landing on heads or tails)?

Definitely! There is a 50% chance of it landing on heads, meaning you win $100. Thus, your expected win is $50 (0.50 * $100). If it lands on tails, you lose $1. Thus, your expcted loss is $0.50 (0.50 * $1). Your expected profit is the expected win minus the expected loss. Thus, your expected profit is $49.50.

Obviously, you will not win $49.50. You will win $100 or lose $1. However, you should view the bet as "winning" $49.50.

Here's a real life example of EV which I'll make up as I go along (known by Sklansky as expectation):

-- Warning, this might be totally incorrect, but the concept is there --

We have the nuts on the river and we're deciding how much to valuebet. The pot is $50. We think our very careful opponent has something between TPTK and 2pair.

We think this:

- If we bet $10, our opponent will call 100% of the time. (As in with 100% of his range)
- If we bet $25, our opponent will call 50% of the time.
- If we bet $50, our opponent will call 20% of the time.

So in terms of the river only, betting $10 will net us $20. (Our bet + his call)
Betting $25 will net us $25 ($25*2)/2 = 25
Betting $50 will net us $20 ($50*2)/5 = 20

Therefore betting $25 has the highest EV.

I'm not much of a maths person myself, so I tend to learn things like that intuitively until they come naturally - I found it fairly awkward putting that stuff into mathematical language.

ash, you and me may be a little the same. i couldnt even do more than glance at your EV examples.

and, youre right, from what i understand about EV. certain bet sizes carry different EVs, but i dont care that deeply, either. i go by feel and try and keep my bets roughly the same. 2/3 - 3/4 pot on flop and turns, 1/2 pot on river if its for value (or if i want it to look like the nuts, but am scared), full pot if i want you out. if i raise you, its coming at the pot or 3.5X your bet. that usually covers odds and such, too. my strength comes in that you dont know what i am betting...sets, draws, whiffed AK, TPTK, middle pair in the hole, ragged two pair....you just dont know, you only know that its something i like.

down at our limits, and yours too, thunder, changing bet sizes according to EV calcs doesnt make that big a difference, imo. these fools are calling or folding.

its good to know, if you can take the time to learn, but i just dont have the patience/discipline to make myself study it that hard.

Thunder, pm'ing is fine, but i am going to answer direct questions here because others need to learn this stuff, too, and i need to be corrected if i'm being a complete dufus. if i mess up, someone will catch me...i promise.

I played microstakes for about 2 weeks.

first mistake. you need more time. a LOT more time. i think you know that, but i felt compelled to mention it again. buying in full is great!! that maximizes both losses and gains, but usually, more on the gain side. a good win rate for ppl around here, at that level, is approaching 10 ptBB's/100, meaning $4 ($.20 X 2 for NL) for every 100 hands. i, personally can carry a 10-12 at the 10NL, which is standard...nothing to brag about. and thats over 30k hands dealt. way more than 2 weeks. i move up, though, and dont know wtf i'm doing anymore for some reason...i am working on this, but enough about me.

ash's figures...
1) avg pot size? use the average numbers you see at the site you play. typical at stars is about $6-$10 at the 50NL level, i think. it used to be higher, but things have dropped off. however, over at AP, you will see a bit higher number, imo. other sites i have completely lost touch with, as i am in the US. anywhoo, those are the numbers i was talking about...there's no way of knowing HIS table numbers at a given time, you can only use "industry standards."

2) again, average hands dealt per hour. its listed in the lobbies at the sites. "industry standards" for full ring is about 50 hands per hour for fr and 75 for 6max. sometimes faster, sometimes slower. you have to factor in when tables only have 6 players or 4 players, as the shorter the table, the faster the hands go around. live standards are about 30 hands/hour. online is much faster. i was trying to be conservative.

3) in limit hold 'em, you use the 2nd number in the level. like $1/$2...the big BET is $2. however, in NL, they only list the blinds...not the big bets. so, pokertracker made up a fictional number, called a pokertracker big bet, to provide consistency. since a limit table says, $1/$2, but has $.50 and $1 blinds, a NL table with the same $.50 and $1 blinds has a BIG BET of $2....again for consistency... i hope i explained that clearly.

first figure out how much he makes per 100 hands...and then look at how many hands he sees in an hour.

3 PTBBs (double the big blind...$1) per 100 hands is $3 per 100 hands. if he plays 8 tables dealing 50 hands per hour, thats 400 hands in one hour...or $12 per hour ($3 X 4 blocks of 100). if he plays 8 tables dealing 80 hands per hour, thats 640 hands per hour...or $19.20 per hour ($3 X 6.40 blocks). sorry, i was a good bit off there. and yeah, you were sort of right, as he mentioned he is almost a 4/100 at 50NL (btw, thats damned solid, dont let him be too humble on you).

4) lets use the correct example of $12/hr, ok? he is going to log TONS of hours of poker, right? some good, some bad. he will go on mega rushes where he makes stack after stack, and he will have some days where he will lose some stacks, too. but, if you AVERAGE IT OUT, he makes $12/hour...at least thats what his number say, see? if he makes $12/hour playing poker.....over the long term....he doesnt need to concern himself with immediate wins and losses anymore. HE WINS $12/HR...period. he needs to "trick" his brain into thinking he makes $12 an hour because at the end of the YEAR, thats what it will amount to.

so, if he wins $200 in an hour...he says, "thanks for the $12." if he loses $200...he says, "thanks for the $12." the immediate results make no difference. he makes $12/hour playing poker. thats why, in this example, if he played two hours...he makes $24, not what the computer shows him. its an average only because we play for the long-term.

its an old sales trick. if you are in sales, you dont care that the person at the door just said, "no." you only care that you are "one person closer to a 'yes.'"

and, thats what daniel negreanu talks about in that article. dannyboy made about $83/hour in his early days. he sat for 8 hours, 5 days a week. he came in at noonish and left at 8ish. that was his "work day." he made about $600/day. sure, some days were better, others were far worse...but he didnt care! he tricked himself into thinking LONG-TERM. he made $83/hour when it was all said and done. we need to think the same way, imo.

EV?

yes, they make the calculations, but on really hard situations, they go by feel. thats why its so important to PRACTICE AWAY FROM THE GAME. a golfer doesnt look like he is thinking about wind, lie, wet grass, adrenaline, pressure, how he's hitting it today, etc. he has done this so much IN PRACTICE that it becomes almost automatic during "crunch time." sure, if on the 18th hole at the Masters he has a 4 footer to win....hes shitting bricks, but he has still run that through his head/dreams so many times that he, hopefully, is prepared when it happens for real. as poker players, we should put in the same amount of PRACTICE. and, no, you arent going to beat online timers with a lot of calcs, other than simple odds calcs, but with PRACTICE, you will adapt a "feel" for a given situation that should lead you to the right decision. if not, you should remember that spot, take it home, and PRACTICE it. see the theme?

1) 99 example. not on that board, necessarily. what range does your villain play? did you limp the pot, or raise? did he raise it up? have you seen him bluff before? did he lick his oreo? (rounders reference, just in case) those are questions you SHOULD be asking yourself. and they will come instinctively with PRACTICE/experience. those take awhile...if they ever come. most likely this is not a spot to be aggressive.

however, if the flop came 9 A K? you, most likely have a significant "equity edge" here. (more on pokerstove calculations some other day) and, YES, you should play this situation VERY aggressively. lets pretend your "edge" is 75% (i have no idea...this is hypothetical only). if your "edge" is 75%, every dollar that goes in the pot returns 75 cents to you (minus rake). if your opponent "thinks" he is stronger than he is (say he has AK), you are going to benefit from a bad decision on his part...and should be trying to flood the pot with cash...most times.

another example...you have 89 spades, and the flop is Ts 7s Kh. if you count your "outs," you have 8 for the open-end str8 and 9 for the flush...however, take of the two that are shared (the 6s and Js)...you have 8 + 9 - 2 = 15 outs. simply put, multiply by 4 for turn and river...you get 15 X 4 = 60% to hit your hand....or 60% equity in the pot RIGHT NOW. things change on the turn. but now...you have a majority stake in the pot......flood it. if you have a majority stake, your opponent has a minority stake. you need to try and force him to make a bad decision ON THE FLOP. if you dont hit on the turn, you drop in half to 30% equity. now, you cant be so aggressive...YOU have the minority stake, and may be putting money in when you are BEHIND....meaning YOU are making the bad decision.

others here can explain this way better than i can.

2) thats pretty much what i meant by that statement. but, you cant necessarily do it blindly with AA. you also save, therefore make, money when you no longer throw money in when you are behind. with AA, you are only ahead preflop. thats where you jam the pot. after that, you need to reevaluate each street. sure, you may win more than you lose, but you need to minimize those losses, too.

3) thats what experience is for. with experience you will get much better at picking up when he has the K or when he has the 4. thats why you need to take notes on the players that bluff. or fold w/o the nuts. mucho respect for brunson and the other "old dogs." they had to remember this stuff long enough to get to a spot they could write it down....or rely on memory alone. but, situations tend to play the same with unknown players. you will pick up on the "general" plays...and spot the different ones in time. give it time.

dont be embarrassed. the more you learn about this game....the more you realize you dont know. thats why we love it. we are trying to master a game that few, if anyone, have truly mastered.

thats why FTR is so great!!! you will meet lots of others in here, and we are all willing to help to the best of OUR abilities.

sorry so long.

Thx for the responses. You two don't go by it much and prefer feel - so do I.

You have to bet $10 to win 8, but betting 10 still loses 10. It's been a while since I was in a math class but...


While we are asking questions though, what is 1o nl? On Stars the max buy in is 10 on .02/.05 and .05/.10.

the latter is 10NL. standard is 100X the big blind in NL.

Originally Posted by pankfish

You have to bet $10 to win 8, but betting 10 still loses 10. It's been a while since I was in a math class but...

Poker involves betting, regardless.

A few more random poker things.

So Ev is EXPECTED VALUE - how much you can expect to get out of your opponent. I don't know what the figures mean, or how they are arrived at, but essentially that is EV, correct? If you bet too large you can scare him off, if you bet too small then you aren't getting maximum payoff.

As TAGG is the defacto play recommended these days, and such a play involves NOT flat calling the blinds or giving free cards, then why do so many pros do it? We've all heard about not giving the blinds a free flop, that you need to limit the opposition and that if you think your hand is good enough to call with then it's good enough to raise with. And as for giving free cards.....

not sure if this was already stated.

Expected Value is how much you stand to win or loose based on a decision, not how much you will win from a villain. That's implied odds. There are stickies with good examples, or maybe it's the strategy section.

Pros aren't playing with loose passive fish, a standard TAGG would get destroyed vs pros.

Originally Posted by Thunder

A few more random poker things.

So Ev is EXPECTED VALUE - how much you can expect to get out of your opponent. I don't know what the figures mean, or how they are arrived at, but essentially that is EV, correct? If you bet too large you can scare him off, if you bet too small then you aren't getting maximum payoff.

EV, as i understand it, is more akin to "equity share." to me, that means if i have an 80% stake in a pot...i will see an $.80 return on all monies I put into the pot. i will also win 4 out of 5 times, and lose once...over the long haul. i have no idea the EXACT amount i will win since i dont know how much aggression my villain will put up with. that becomes the secret, if you will....getting your villain to put in money w/o scaring them off. if you have two pair (say, AK) and i have a set (say, 333), i think i am going to have an easy time getting your stack in the middle. but if i flopped a boat, and you have only the pair on the board, i doubt i will get you to do too much before you fold. point is: in either scenario...i have a large "equity share" or EV on the outcome. how much, in terms of money, is up to me to extract. i dont think there is a way to quantify it to the dollar...thats why the percentages.

Originally Posted by Thunder

As TAGG is the defacto play recommended these days, and such a play involves NOT flat calling the blinds or giving free cards, then why do so many pros do it? We've all heard about not giving the blinds a free flop, that you need to limit the opposition and that if you think your hand is good enough to call with then it's good enough to raise with. And as for giving free cards.....

sounds like someone is watching TV again. no offense, but their play is so far above and beyond the online player's ability, its almost a detriment to watch. especially, final tables at the WSOP. sure, its good fun to watch big bluffs with air, ala Moneymaker 2003, but its hardly "recommended" play for anything but higher stakes...with lots of regular opponents. these "pros" are not trying to play "fancy/tricky" poker...they are so far inside the opponent's head, it would make you sick. they are thinking, "if i bet this, he will think that, but if i check, he did that last time, so...i think i should do that because he will think this...ok, what is the most he will raise me with when i do this, and will that give me the odds to call profitably?" thats too much thinking, but thats the idea. now, with a Jamie Gold, i dont think he was doing that, and i dont think the amatuers are either, but when you watch a GSN HSP episode, some of those guys are most certainly doing that to each other. they are thinking on three and four levels of thought.

and, yes, TAG poker works. but, the best? i am not so sure. when there are so many TAGs out there, LAG works best. right now, my own evolution is taking me more towards "TAG lite" or STAG (semi-tight) poker. but, someone like Dan Harrington is more or less a standard TAG and is forever better than i can dream of. so, its more a factor of inserting your own "style" into your poker, imo. as long as you do two things: 1) stay fundamentally sound, and 2) stay aggressive.

sorry, that one is about a dime, not .02

remember, that dime still wont buy you a cup of coffee or get you a phone call, though.

Swigg,

I understand what you say but isn't that the same thing? If the pot is £20, I bet £10 and he calls, I win £40. If I bet £20 and he calls, I win £60. if I bet £100 and he folds, I win £20. Thus the optimum EV move is to bet £20.

Likewise, if I need a runner runner then it's +EV to call a bet if I have pot odds and -EV to call an all in.

I also read that your percentage of success is your equity and also, somehow, linked to your EV.




Chopper, yeah I have been watching TV. Anything about poker, I get involved with. It was the GUKPT and tbh, these guys weren't 3 or 4 levels in thought. They were just playing bad, passive, scared.

And your answer helped clear up my question anyway. Well, in part, as the "not limping" advice is aimed at all players - not just internet ones. However, I'll stick with your answer as to why the top pros don't - even though the top pros recommend anything but limping in their books etc.

Dan, a TAG? A rock, yes. But a TAG???? He's not called "action" for nothing.

And don't worry - no offence taken. I am just glad you take the time to answer my questions!

Originally Posted by Thunder

Dan, a TAG? A rock, yes. But a TAG???? He's not called "action" for nothing.

They are being sarcastic. He was named "Action" because he is renowned for his conservative style.

Chopper's posts are too long to read (too much drinky drinky), I'll be leaving soon so he can take back over

If villain will call 100% of the time and you are 100% you're ahead then you want to bet the maximum (all-in). However that's not the case. If you're 100% ahead and he calls the $10 bet 75% of the time, you're eV is 10*0.75 = $7.5. If only calls the $20 bet 25% of the time, your ev is $5 and it's better to bet less.

I was going to mention in the other thread but I forgot. You need to get and read HOH (Harrington on Holdem). It will clear all this up very quickly. Try your library if you don't want to spend the money. Yeah it's for tournies, but the 1st covers very basic topics which are also applicable in cash games.

P.S. He's called "Action" Dan as a joke, because he's tight.

yup, i'll take it from here...lol.

sorry the posts are so long that no one reads them. i just feel that we owe thought process instead of two sentence answers. (that shot is not directed at you, swigg). and i have never been accused of being short of breath. lol.

and, the top pros recommend not limping in their books because they know they are dealing with beginners, and are trying to sell books. they arent going to get into too much depth...there just arent enough advanced, winning players in the world to make a best seller list.

This is probably one of the best threads ever in the beginners circle.

This is probably one of the best threads ever in the beginners circle.

Glad you are getting use out of this thread. I was afraid I'd be boring the pants off people. With such helpful guys, I feel it's best to ask even those questions that are just mildly puzzling. Every little helps.

I like to prod and probe and get opinion and test the boundaries - so that I really understand - even if I'm sure I have a good grasp anyway. I've always done it, and it's a process that'e really helped me to excel in other areas so here's hoping it works in poker too!

They are being sarcastic. He was named "Action" because he is renowned for his conservative style

I know. That is why I questioned him being called tight aggressive when he's a rock.

If villain will call 100% of the time and you are 100% you're ahead then you want to bet the maximum (all-in). However that's not the case. If you're 100% ahead and he calls the $10 bet 75% of the time, you're eV is 10*0.75 = $7.5. If only calls the $20 bet 25% of the time, your ev is $5 and it's better to bet less

Which goes back to what I said about what you think your opponent is likely to do to ensure you get paid off. Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't see it being imperative to learn and conduct EV formula in play, rather I prefer to go with feel as to how much I can extract.

the top pros recommend not limping in their books because they know they are dealing with beginners, and are trying to sell books.

Maybe you're right. I just don't see how Harrington, Brunson and everybody else is aiming just at beginners. of course, there are times to vary and slow play: so as to not be easily read, are out of position, have a small pair etc but I am not convinced that wherever you look, people advocate anything but limping purely because they are aiming at beginners and want to sell books.

going "by feel" is great, in the heat of the battle. imo, its about all you have time for, but the more you PRACTICE (theres that word again) away from the tables...like reading/posting here, etc...you will sharpen your "feel." you will make decisions faster, and better.


to quickly add to the "beginner" concept in books, if you stick around here for long, and read and post frequently, i can PROMISE you one thing...

you WILL learn more than any of those books can ever teach you. if you want to see how "geared" they are towards beginners...

- read one.
- post questions here
- watch how in depth the answers are from FTR
- go re-read the book, and...

you will be absolutely shocked by how much more you learned from FTR, and other sites that shall remain nameless.

all the book does is introduce you to concepts. they rarely do anything for teaching the "nuances" of the game...they just dont have the space in a 800 page book. lol.

Originally Posted by Chopper

going "by feel" is great.......the more you PRACTICE (theres that word again) away from the tables...you will sharpen your "feel." you will make decisions faster, and better.

Gotcha. I concur.

if you stick around here for long, and read and post frequently, i can PROMISE you one thing...you WILL learn more than any of those books can ever teach you.

I bloody well hope so!!!!!!!!!!

I've been here a week or so and it's like gold. With genuinely helpful AND knowledgeable people. Far more than your usual forums.

all the book does is introduce you to concepts.

Even non beginner books like Super System and Advanced Hold 'Em?



As for reading list, HOH 1 and 2 are on my birthday present list though I am going to pass on Brunson as that's a weighty tome aimed at advanced players.

I will try to tackle your first two questions since they are related.

You do not have to look only at hands/Sngs you win, but also at hands/Sngs you lose.

If you look at most decent Sngs players in midstakes they run about 1015% ROI with about 10% rake.
Player playing the $50+5 making 15% ROI means hero makes about $5-5.0 - 7.75 a game, lets assume 6.50 on average. If you pay $9 instead of $5 it means you make $2.50 on average, which is about 40% of the earning you made before.

Same logic is true for the rake, you dont always win, you lose some pot, if you lost 2 pots in which you invested a total of $7, and you won a $20 pot, out of which you invest $9 for example, you won a total of $4 over those 3 hands, paying $2 to the casino is 50% of your profit

Even non beginner books like Super System and Advanced Hold 'Em?

i'm not trying to bash the books. they are super reading. and they help a ton. and, those books are definitely better than "THE 101" type books.

all i am saying is, if you really want to take the learning to "the next level," which it sounds like you do...

read the book, and come here for more depth. or to ask a question that you didnt understand in the book...its not like you can call the author...lol.

these guys will give it to you straight...as you are finding out. but, they have helped me a ton, and are willing to help anyone.

thats the beauty.

You star!

This needs to be added to the Digest.

NO! Once you do that it's in like poker thread purgatory and will never be read again

I was in an MTT yesterday where my flush, straight and straight flush draw (12 outs) was bested by AA in an all in situation after the flop. I posted the hand for analysis in the MTT section.

And this got me thinking.

The 12 outs gave me approximate odds of 49% and a coin flip scenario after being priced in. If that straight had been open ended then I would have had 15 outs after the flop and that equates to roughly a 60% chance of winning the hand. In fact, I read that if you have 15+ outs, you should go all in regardless.

So if I have a 60% chance of winning, then that means AA has just a 40% chance of success. But even though the maths adds up, and tallies with the calculations you see on TV and stuff, I just can't see how AA can be such an underdog in this situation.

And.....

How about an online tourney for beginner players?

This is to be watched and tracked by a mod/experienced FTR resident or two who can then offer a review, and a brief synopsis of each player's good/weak areas that were noted throughout.

Personally, I'd find this assessment of real live play to be invaluable and it would be great to play against guys who aren't liable to get married to A5 os preflop.

Originally Posted by Thunder

I was in an MTT yesterday where my flush, straight and straight flush draw (12 outs) was bested by AA in an all in situation after the flop. I posted the hand for analysis in the MTT section.

And this got me thinking.

The 12 outs gave me approximate odds of 49% and a coin flip scenario after being priced in. If that straight had been open ended then I would have had 15 outs after the flop and that equates to roughly a 60% chance of winning the hand. In fact, I read that if you have 15+ outs, you should go all in regardless.

So if I have a 60% chance of winning, then that means AA has just a 40% chance of success. But even though the maths adds up, and tallies with the calculations you see on TV and stuff, I just can't see how AA can be such an underdog in this situation.

the maths dont lie. combo draws are AA's worst enemy. well, that and "sethunters." lol.

AA can be meat post flop...just like AK. however, you dont stop raising it pf because you fear a bad flop. it will still be your biggest winner overall.

Originally Posted by Thunder

And.....

How about an online tourney for beginner players?

This is to be watched and tracked by a mod/experienced FTR resident or two who can then offer a review, and a brief synopsis of each player's good/weak areas that were noted throughout.

Personally, I'd find this assessment of real live play to be invaluable and it would be great to play against guys who aren't liable to get married to A5 os preflop.

SEE GUANTLET SECTION!!!!!!!!!!!

seriously, get enrolled. its good fun. its cheap....because its more for bragging rights than cash. you will learn tourneys from experience.

and you will hear a lot of whining over bad beats by people you respect here at FTR.

Originally Posted by Xianti

This needs to be added to the Digest.

somebody "dig" this. get it out to other places on the web. get FTR more "pub."

look at me, i'm Lukie. triplepostHOLLA! j/k

I checked out the Gauntlet - it looked fun. Taking on the pros would be a blast!

I think my idea is great for beginners - no pros but pro analysis.

Originally Posted by Thunder

I was in an MTT yesterday where my flush, straight and straight flush draw (12 outs) was bested by AA in an all in situation after the flop. I posted the hand for analysis in the MTT section.

And this got me thinking.

The 12 outs gave me approximate odds of 49% and a coin flip scenario after being priced in. If that straight had been open ended then I would have had 15 outs after the flop and that equates to roughly a 60% chance of winning the hand. In fact, I read that if you have 15+ outs, you should go all in regardless.

So if I have a 60% chance of winning, then that means AA has just a 40% chance of success. But even though the maths adds up, and tallies with the calculations you see on TV and stuff, I just can't see how AA can be such an underdog in this situation.

First thing first - 12 outs give you 45%, 15 outs give you 54%

Poker is not a just and fair game, just because you have the best hand preflop it does not mean you are going to win. AA is not a guarnteed winner, thats life.

If you ever play Omaha or Omaha 8 you will discover that in those games, wierd as it may sound it is sometimes correct to fold the best hand on the flop even if it is currently the nuts becuase you will be losing money if you continue playing it

I use the simple formula of 2 and 4 when calculating percentages for 1 or 2 cards to come. Hence 12x4 = 48% and 15x4 = 60%.

This is extremely accurate up to 1o outs (20% & 40% vs the exact 21.7% & 38.4%) and still very accurate up to 12 - stating 24% & 48% with the actual figures being 26% and 45%. After that, it slips a little up to 15 outs as you've pointed out. But still close enough. It slips further after 15 outs but as stated, if you have a minimum of 15 outs, your money's going in the middle regardless.

In addition, for increased accuracy, for one card, I'll multiply by 2 and then add 1 up to 12 outs and add 2 for further outs. Therefore, with one card to come:
7 outs = 15% - exact being 14.9%
9 outs = 19% = exact being 19.6%
13 outs = 27% - exact being 27.7%

Of uocrse, you kow this already



I know nothing is guaranteed, that wasn't what I was asking, it was whether I was right and that in such a situation, AA would be an underdog.

I'll stick with NL Hold 'Em for now

Originally Posted by Thunder

I use the simple formula of 2 and 4 when calculating percentages. Hence 12x4 = 48 and 15x4 = 60.

I know nothing is guaranteed, that wasn't what I was asking, it was whether I was right and that in such a situation, AA would be an undergod.

I'll stick with NL Hold 'Em for now

The 2/4 formula starts to break once you go over 4 outs, the curve drops a bit.

You did not post the exact hand here, I assume you had a FD and gutshut SD, which comes out to 12 outs assuming villian does not have a better FD with the A

As my example shows, I find it holds very well up to 10 outs. And still close enough for 12 outs. Certainly enough to let you know of the correct decision up to 14 outs: 14x2 = 28%. 14 x 4 = 52%. Actual figures being 30.4% and 51.2%. That's close enough for me.

And anything above 15 outs, you'll shove with anyway. Be it 54% or 15x4 (60%) .

The hand I played did indeed have 12 outs, but a flush draw and an open ended straight draw (plus a straight flush) gives 15 outs. 8 for the OES and 9 for the flush.

My hand is available at http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...oker-61455.htm

Originally Posted by Thunder

As my example shows, I find it holds very well up to 10 outs. And still close enough for 12 outs. Certainly enough to let you know of the correct decision up to 14 outs: 14x2 = 28%. 14 x 4 = 52%. Actual figures being 30.4% and 51.2%. That's close enough for me.

Where I live 14*4 = 56

Originally Posted by Thunder

And anything above 15 outs, you'll shove with anyway. Be it 54% or 15x4 (60%) .

Most of the times, not always, as anything in poker, it depends

Originally Posted by Thunder

The hand I played did indeed have 12 outs, but a flush draw and an open ended straight draw (plus a straight flush) gives 15 outs. 8 for the OES and 9 for the flush.

My hand is available at http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...oker-61455.htm

It is also possible to be behind AA and have 20 outs, and you can also be behind and have a guantee for at least 1/2 the pot, it all depends.

In the hand you posted I think you played it fine, but you cannot be sure you have 12 outs, you may have more or less

Thunder, you have quite the knack for creating vibrant threads!

Having read a number of your posts now, I am slightly concerned that you are a personification of the truism "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

What seems to be happening is you will state, usually correctly, your understanding of a certain poker concept. A more experienced player (and believe me, everyone who comments on your threads has played way more than a few weeks of poker) then comes along and takes the concept further, into areas you don't understand, and rather than make a concerted effort to learn (such as developing a full understanding of EV, or implied odds), you argue against what they're saying, either questioning their correctness or, worse, refusing to try and learn (the nonsense you keep spouting about "feel".

I'm going to take the "feel" thing and expand on it. Feel, instinct, whatever you want to call it, can ONLY be developed through experience, and experience can only come through repeated practice. Let's say you have played 5,000 hands of poker - a reasonable amount for a fortnight. It may sound like a big number, but if we break it down, it becomes clear quite how small a sample size it is:

There are 169 different hands possible pre-flop, and they are not evenly spread - unsuited cards of different rank are by far the most common, followed by pocket pairs, followed by two cards of the same suit. Taking AA as a sample hand, you should receive AA once every 221 hands. This means that in your entire poker career, you'll have received AA something like 23 times.

Hopefully you'll have heard people referring to sample sizes, and at what point a sample size becomes statistically significant. I can assure you, 23 hands is several orders of magnitude below what would be needed to make informed decisions based on these stats.

So, your 5,000 hands is nowhere near enough to give you any useful information about how the game is played, because the situations which need to be repeated and repeated before you can develop a "feel" simply haven't happened enough times.

There will, of course, be other indicators which require much smaller sample sizes. Let's say you have a maniac to your left who bets 70% and raises 40% of the 100 hands you have played against him. Clearly he is a maniac - which gives you a read (nothing to do with "feel") according t0 which you can adjust your play. Similarly, if a 12/7 rock bets against you on the river, you have a read that tells you not to bluff re-raise him. But these are specific reads developed through specific actions - they are NOT an instinctive knowledge of various plays both hero and unknown villain can make on a two-tone raggy flop when you're holding AKo and the villain re-raised pre-flop.

So - you may honestly believe you have a good "feel" for how to play in certain circumstances, but I PROMISE you you don't. At this stage of your career, you HAVE to concentrate on theory, on maths, on understanding the fundamentals of the game (and EV and implied odds are absolutely fundamentals, don't kid yourself they're optional), because only with this basis can you play poker the right way and observe how your opponents vary, allowing you to play optimally against them.

The post above, in summary:

THERE ARE NO SHORT CUTS IN POKER

In the hand you posted I think you played it fine, but you cannot be sure you have 12 outs, you may have more or less

Yeah, he may have held 2 clubs or whatever, I know. He may have held 72 os (in which case I had way more than 12 outs) but the way I was taught is that no one knows what cards have been dealt/mucked/or sat at the bottom of the pile - hence you just do the maths as best as you can.

And I'm glad I played the hand correctly!

rather than make a concerted effort to learn (such as developing a full understanding of EV, or implied odds), you argue against what they're saying, either questioning their correctness or, worse, refusing to try and learn (the nonsense you keep spouting about "feel".

Biondino, sorry if you feel such a way but I have not argued or disagreed with any0ne in my time here. Like in the implied odds section, I may state "as I understand it...." and that is self explanatory. And I do understand implied odds - as my posts have shown (especially the latter ones that cover my learning system).

Therefore, I will take a guess that you haven't read all of my posts in any one section. For it's quite clear. Please correct me if I am wrong.

With regards to EV, I have indicated I have looked at EV and find it confusing and also that I believe, in terms of EV, that you don't need to work out the formula for each move (and a few others have said the same). Rather, I believe that you can get a feel as to how much you can extract. And to be honest, if I bet $50 yet the correct EV play would be to bet $70, I am not overly concerned.

If you go back over my posts you will note that, in the case of it not being essential to work out EV, I stated that I may be wrong and may well change my mind.

Similarly, with regards to implied odds, I stated that though I understand them, they will only get better in time and that I will probably stick to opt odds when I should consider the implied odds and vice versa.

Also, nowhere did I state that I can get a good "feel" for anything. Both my points on EV and implied odds illustrate this perfectly. In fact, part of the reason I can't perform EV or implied odds to perfection is that I don't know enough about my opponents as I haven't gained that much experience or insight.

So though you are right in that I lack the experience, you are merely mirroring what I have already said and you are contradicting nothing. And as for feel in both instances, I can only work with what I have got: be it 5,000, the 20,000+ I do have or 100,000 hands. Yes?

Whatever my instincts may be (bang on, so so or wildly inaccurate) they are all I have at any one time and WILL be honed more acute over time. And this is something Chopper and I have stated over and over. Repeatedly.

Therefore, it is not "nonsense" to talk about the "feel" I currently demonstrate. It may be a lot; it may be miniscule. But the simple fact of the matter is that I am working to the best I can with what I have got. So to derided as "spouting nonsense" is as unfair as it is incorrect.

The context that I used "feel" in is perfectly valid. Once again, you have misread and misunderstood. Or, worse still, maybe you only read snippets and are thus operating off far from the full facts. I don't know. You tell me.

So - you may honestly believe you have a good "feel" for how to play in certain circumstances

I don't believe I have a good anything with regards to feel. You made that up. Or misread. Either way, you're seeing what isn't there. I have never stated as such. All I have said is that I have a good understanding of the basic fundamentals. This was stated in my very first post at FTR.

but I PROMISE you you don't.

And I promise you, I don't.

At this stage of your career, you HAVE to concentrate on theory, on maths, on understanding the fundamentals of the game

I believe I've mentioned this already - both here, in other posts and in my very 1st post.

(and EV and implied odds are absolutely fundamentals, don't kid yourself they're optional)

I never for one minute - nor hinted - that odds are optional. Nor do I believe that I can bet any arbitrary amount. Just that, the EV formula confuse me. I am not good enough to even get a handle on what they would bet in any circumstance, and so - as we all have some form on EV within us (bet big on AA, bet small on 22) - I shall go by the experience (however little that may be) that I have gained thus far.

I also believe (and I have already stated that I may be wrong - but here it is again) that when you do get a good handle on your opponents then you can make +EV moves without conducting the various calculation such as "he will call $30 20% of the time, $10 100% of the time" etc.

THERE ARE NO SHORT CUTS IN POKER

Obviously. Never did I believe there were. never did I state as such.


I asusme you have good intentions with your post - and I thank you for it - but you are way off base on, well, pretty much everything that you have "understood" about me. And I have supplied (in this thread and every other) enough to make my reply here both valid and true.



ps: I am not here to start any flaming so don't perceive any on this reply. There is a difference between correcting and fighting.

I have not argued or disagreed with any0ne in my time here

No-o-o, but you have ignored quite a lot, and reasserted your own view rather than accepting that you need to consider what some people are saying. In the pot odds thread I think you posted three times that you would not consider implied odds - that's the kind of argument I mean. And by saying basically my entire post was irrelevant to what you're looking for, you're still avoiding issues which clearly I, among others, think you should be approaching a different way.

Anyway, no flaming perceived. I still think you are blinkered and there are some big contradictions in your posts - you admit your experience is lacking so you instinct may be way off, but then you say you refuse to take important poker concepts into consideration because you'd rather rely on feel - I don't understand how you can hope to improve! It's fine to do something badly as long as it's part of a learning and practicing process which will enable you to do it better in the long run.

And as for feel in both instances, I can only work with what I have got: be it 5,000, 20,000 or 100,000 hands. Yes?

No, not really, not at first. You say you prefer to rely on feel but until a certain (arbitrary, undefinable) point, your instinct is likely to be more informed by half-understandings, anecdotal evidence and several understandable but incorrect beginner assumptions(1) than it is by experience, and so you should stick *more* closely with the mathematical aspect because it's the only infallible ammunition at your disposal.

As for EV, yes, you're right, no-one works out actual mathematical formulae on the spot, but you still must learn what it means and how it shapes your moves, not just in bet sizing (though damn, this is an area I totally need to work on myself)


(1) I'm happy to go into what s0me of these assumptions are - indeed, I am still making some of them after 250k hands - if it'd be useful.

(My intention is absolutely not to be rude or patronising, btw, I just know what it's like to think "yeah, I've got the hang of this poker lark" when you're only scratching the surface)

I am not going to get into a defence of things beyond this post, as I don't want to derail the thread. if you wish to continue further, then pm me.

And, because you say so, I accept you weren't out to flame me. I believe you, I wish you'd believe me.

The main gist of both your posts is that you have perceived certain actions. In my reply, I corrected you to state that isn't the case. If you continue to believe otherwise, there is nothing more that I can do.

To cut a long story short, I refuted your claims and that is the truth. Anything else you want to cling to is you misreading me and my intentions. Either accept that or don't. But when I point to my own posts, or even explain to you what I meant, don't override that. because I know myself better than you do.



Anyway, just to illustrate...

reasserted your own view rather than accepting that you need to consider what some people are saying

I have listened to everybody. I have never reasserted my own view at all.

Chopper mentioned how books are aimed at beginners and I questioned this, especially regarding Super System. That is not reasserting, ignoring and being blinkered.

In the pot odds thread I think you posted three times that you would not consider implied odds - that's the kind of argument I mean.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have gone through that thread and the majority of it was me clearing up the error of blurring one into the other. I also restated my initial question as some contributors couldn't understand where my confusion was coming from. And I admit, I actually confused myself in that topic by over complicating matters.

However, should you still disagree, please post the examples so I can clear them up for you.

So, regardless of what you believe, I did not reassert my belief as to be correct. The one thing I do hold to, though some disagree, is that if a pot sized bet comes in, that is very low in relation to the stack (ie: 60 vs 1500) that I may well choose to call in certain situations even if the odds are blown. But that is just my preference. Not me reasserting anything.

BTW, my first thread asked for implied odds to be left out only for ease of answering. I wanted a quick answer to a quick question. When it became clear that you can't leave out implied odds, I accepted this and wrote "But seeing as pot odds have been brought into the equation then...."

And by saying basically my entire post was irrelevant to what you're looking for, you're still avoiding issues

Which post are you talking about? Your above post was way, way off tangent. I have checked my post history and can't find any post to this effect. Please point it out if you believe I am wrong.

which clearly I, among others, think you should be approaching a different way.

Maybe you are right. And I will learn this myself. Believe it or not, there once was a time that I felt learning odds was unnecessary. I quickly changed my tune!

And no one can dictate to me what is the optimum method of learning for me. Only I can. If you know of the 4mat system, I am a "what if" person and learn differntly to a "how", "what" or a "why". So there is no *should* in this respect.

We are all different and we will all have different opinions. I have reached World Class level in 2 other areas and I have different opinions to other authorities. Sometimes, I am in the minority. Some feel all people *should* approach matters in a certain way. I didn't always do this yet I reached World Class.

If it is very important - the chances are that I will learn at some point. Just as I conceded that odds, outs and position were important in poker. Yet it may also be that I don't ever learn EV and do get to work off "feel".

Interestingly enough, this is how I approached parallel parking. My instructor tried to teach me a set method: "when this....do this...." etc and it didn't work. Instead, I used my sense of "feel" and I eventually got it right. Though I had no experience to start with, and my "feel" may well have been full of beginner assumptions and half understandings (as you hypothesise) I still managed it.

Similarly, in both of my World Class areas, I have fallen back on - and developed to a very high degree - my sense of "feel". Now, that may not happen in poker. And I will be the first to hold my hand up if that is the case - because I want to be the best poker player I can. I want to be a very profitable poker player. And I'd rather swallow my pride than let poker swallow my bank balance. I'd prefer to win £1,000,000 than win the moral highground.

So far though, my track record in "feel" has served me pretty well. Even from scratch. And succeeded though trial and error and being perceptive even when I was a noob and experts urged otherwise.

Nothing is ever definite and I chanegd my mind and approach many tiems over. No doubt I will with poker as well. Starting pints and asusmptions only become wrong if they become static and immovable.

I still think you are blinkered

That's your call. I can only clearly state the contrary. Also, why would I post so many questions if I was blinkered? I have asked about topics I have already covered before I came to FTR but I want more knowledge, insight and perspective.

Dom't you think that undermines any sense of blinkerdness?

and there are some big contradictions in your posts - you admit your experience is lacking so you instinct may be way off, but then you say you refuse to take important poker concepts into consideration because you'd rather rely on feel

No contradictions at all. And if that is the biggest you can pull up then how small must the others be? I haven't refused anything. I simply stated what I did in my above post: I don't know opponents well enough to do EV, EV calculations actually confuse me, and even if I did, I don't have the time to work any out within the 30s limit of online poker, right now EV is probably the last area I need to focus on.

With this in mind, I haven't disregarded anything but chosen priorities.

Yes, I believe that developing a feel is more than adequate. And I stated I may be wrong and that I may change my mind.

And you even agree about not being able to perform the EV formula in time!

It's fine to do something badly as long as it's part of a learning and practicing process which will enable you to do it better in the long run.

I believe I have stated this many times. In my correspondence with Chopper and in my above post. Eg: "Whatever my instincts may be (bang on, so so or wildly inaccurate) they are all I have at any one time and WILL be honed more acute over time. And this is something Chopper and I have stated over and over. Repeatedly. "

Really, if you choose to ignore that then what more can I do?

And as for feel in both instances, I can only work with what I have got: be it 5,000, 20,000 or 100,000 hands. Yes?

No, not really, not at first. You say you prefer to rely on feel but until a certain (arbitrary, undefinable) point, your instinct is likely to be more informed by half-understandings, anecdotal evidence and several understandable but incorrect beginner assumptions(1) than it is by experience, and so you should stick *more* closely with the mathematical aspect because it's the only infallible ammunition at your disposal.

I see your view but when you see the problems I have with EV then this isn't possible. So my opinion was to learn through trial and error and it's something that has stood me in good stead in the past - as I have already mentioned. If you feel you can clearly simplify EV and illustrate it to be essential then please, by all means, I'd LOVE to fully understand. really, I would!

An interesting observation is that you are judging me and my instinct without actually knowing. You may be correct. But you may also be very wrong. So you can't really state as such as it's supposition at best.

So yeah, right now, I feel I can get an opponent to take the bait with a bet. Being the best bet I could make is not that big a deal to me right now. If it should be - then please, explain EV so I can fully appreciate!

I just know what it's like to think "yeah, I've got the hang of this poker lark" when you're only scratching the surface)

This last quote is the most sigh inducing of all. And hopefully you will see my exasperation.

I DON'T think I have the hang of it.
I have CLEARLY stated I do not.
And I KNOW full well that I am scratching the surface. hence my posts. hence my comments mentioning this.

And all this should be pertinently clear!

Yet somehow, this is what you believe. Just like you assumed I thought there were short cuts in poker and that everything else you got totally wrong about me! I won't repeat those misnomers as they are in the above thread and can be easily viewed.

But I assure you - as with your final quote - you are way off base about me.
It's up to you whether you believe me or not.

Believe me, your fear about my personification is, like Star Wars, in a galaxy far, far away.

And another question - though I suspect there is no definitive answer.

If I play $50/$100 NLHE, I will get owned in ways I can't even imagine as my opponents will play on levels I can't even comprehend just yet. I have ABC poker. But how do you know when you've gone up a level, from pwned to pwner?

I will know when to move up the limits as my BR will determine this. But knowing you're improving as a player is not quite so easy to detect.

My suspicions lead me to believe it creeps up slwoly over time until one day, you look at your play and can go "wow, I've more to my game than I thought" Kinda like any student who realises he's now got what it takes to be a teacher. Tricky thing is that in most areas, there is hard fact to prove you are good but poker is a bit more abstract. Eg: did you win because you were good or were catching hands? Or were your opponents weak? Or were you lucky and sucking out in big games?

Anyway, I'd like to hear form those who can speak from experience

Originally Posted by Thunder

And another question - though I suspect there is no definitive answer.

If I play $50/$100 NLHE, I will get owned in ways I can't even imagine as my opponents will play on levels I can't even comprehend just yet. I have ABC poker. But how do you know when you've gone up a level, from pwned to pwner?

I will know when to move up the limits as my BR will determine this. But knowing you're improving as a player is not quite so easy to detect.

My suspicions lead me to believe it creeps up slwoly over time until one day, you look at your play and can go "wow, I've more to my game than I thought" Kinda like any student who realises he's now got what it takes to be a teacher. Tricky thing is that in most areas, there is hard fact to prove you are good but poker is a bit more abstract. Eg: did you win because you were good or were catching hands? Or were your opponents weak? Or were you lucky and sucking out in big games?

Anyway, I'd like to hear form those who can speak from experience

Yeah, I think you've got it pretty well there. For me my thought process seems to have improved through subconscious evolution combined with small EUREKA! moments. It's strange to think that less than a year ago I was moving up to 20NL and thinking "Jeez, how do I beat these guys?" whereas now I'm almost able to point and laugh at how bad they are!

It's all about thinking on various levels, and when I get round to it I'll post an article on levels, it's pretty much a poker fundamental.

Originally Posted by Thunder

I have ABC poker. But how do you know when you've gone up a level, from pwned to pwner?

I will know when to move up the limits as my BR will determine this. But knowing you're improving as a player is not quite so easy to detect.

Eg: did you win because you were good or were catching hands? Or were your opponents weak? Or were you lucky and sucking out in big games?

Anyway, I'd like to hear form those who can speak from experience

well, you knew i was going to give this a shot...lol.

how do you know?... this may seem obvious, but over months and months, your bankroll continues to grow. thats all it takes to prove to yourself you are winning, right? it really should be that simple.

good or catching hands?... BOTH. you win when you catch hands. you minimize losses when you dont. no one can win on bluffing alone. at some time you will need to showdown a winning hand.

weak opponents?... yes, that should be your goal because if you dont sit down with weaker opponents, you will be sitting with stronger ones, and your bankroll will dwindle. period.

and, yes, you will suckout in big games, but you will also get sucked out on in big games...in theory those should balance out.

ok those are the direct/simple answers.

but, i dont know how to tell anyone this, but you WILL no you have progressed as a player. you WILL sit back some day and say...."wow. i sucked a year ago." you WILL spot variance, and know when its the cards...or when its self-inflicted. you WILL learn to spot worse players. you WILL capitalize on them. you WILL avoid stronger players when you identify them. and, i suspect you WILL know when you have hit a "plateau" and need to study/practice to get past said plateau.

or, you WILL go broke. again, it really is that simple.

Originally Posted by Ash256

less than a year ago I was moving up to 20NL and thinking "Jeez, how do I beat these guys?" whereas now I'm almost able to point and laugh at how bad they are!

You're my hero!