Help, i need a convincing argument

[smokingrobot]

I have some friends who have developed an interest in poker thanks to all the TV airings of poker on ESPN or Bravo's celebrity poker matches. However, their play is less than bad. They insist on playing a 10 dollar but in ='s 10 bucks in chips .25/.50 no limit game. I try to suggest this isnt the best way to learn because in effect, and i've attempted to play in their game, they are not learning the value of hands nor proper play. The excitement of the "all in" betting ends up overpowering the rational side and it is reduced to a game of chance. At first i played it like i would against average timid players. Raising before the flop etc on good cards only to be ousted by K3o two pair nuts to my top pair with top kicker type hands.

Or another situation is my A10o BB versus UTG Q7 diamonds (only about 5 people play at a time, so its a short-handed game), I flop 10d blank blank(or so i thought), and go all in on my 10's (top pair) with A kicker only to have two running diamonds come along to take down the pot. Im being called not because they are playing well, im being called because i went "all in" and its "exciting" to a player who is not as good. I _know_ they dont know how to play and its not some hustle because i've helped to try and teach them how to play.

Although most of the time my advice is ignored. On that running diamond flush outcome, my friend says, "i know you said Q7 suited still isnt a good hand, but its winning for me"

i failed to remind her that she was in for 30 bucks already and if this one win counts as the only proof, then so be it.

Another rebuttal i get when i'll suggest weaker starting hand combinations are: I see the pro's do it all the time.

My response is, "well, i dont even assume to be at that level (of the pros) and i am quite sure there are many more reasons for them to play seemingly trash hands than us"

or perhaps the pros do play trash every once in a while, cant let their raises become predictable etc.

I tried to suggest we play tournament style 10 dollar buy in gives you 20-40 in chips with blinds that go up every amount of time, or ever time someone gets knocked out.

"This isnt the casino's, this is G's house, smokingrobot."

Its rather frustrating.

I've read i shouldnt be raising preflop, let them play poorly postflop and take advantage. But the no limit aspect throws that all off. I am playing so few hands (even though i am playing MUCH more than i would anywhere else, possible percentage of fold between 65-75% of the time, i.e. im seeing Axs, K9s and up, J10o suit and up) and starting with such a small amount of chips that if i were to sit there i'd eventually get eaten by the blinds.

I mean, there are times when you dont see good hands for a while, or even mediocre. What can i do to try and suggest better play? or a different game? or something.

is there a good analogy i can give them?

basically they arent playing poker, its more like War or some other game of chance where you throw money into a pot flip over your cards and pray your hands hit.

I havent played their game for a bit now, its just not fun for me, i prefer playing better opponents where the skil aspect of the game comes in.

To them, they think they are either "bluffing" when they CALL my raises (not Re-Raise, but call) with crap hands, as if. I try to explain that in pre-flop betting, if someone raises and you call, you are NOT bluffing. I would assume a bluff is intended to make me fold right then and there. Instead they are merely calling stations and if its 1 average player (myself) vs. a field of calling stations, i cant hang, be it impatience or annoyance i dont know. maybe i go on tilt and just get fed up with it.

[SheridanCat]

I think the blinds are too high for the buyin. See if they'll go to .10/.25. Or allow a higher buyin. However, barring that, just play solid poker. In the AT vs Q7 hand, you got your money in with the best of it. You lost. Most of the time you'll win.

If you are in these situations a lot, you can't lose over the long run. Yeah, the suckouts are painful, but that's poker. Also, if it's no fun, don't play in that game.

Regards,

T

[stir]

The fact your friends play badly is a GOOD THING for you, if you want to make money playing that game in the long run.

So play their game from that perspective and quit trying to educate them, or....

Don't play that game at all.

Because your friends want to have fun - want to gamble it up. They have very little or no interest in EVER becoming skilled at poker. [As one example, the thrill for some of them is in the very fact that they can and do suck out.]

[Monty Cantsin]

When you demonstrate to your friends that you are significant, consistent winner and they start to come to you for advice then you can worry about whether, and how, to educate them. Until then shut the hell up.

Unlike, say, baseball or chess, in poker terrible players don't spoil the game for serious players. People who don't care about playing well and are just there to gamble become an essential aspect of the gameplay - a hybrid of terrain/hazard/resource and opponent. Poker is about adapting to different play environments. How can you optimize your game against these particular players? That's a challenging and rewarding question to answer.

In the meantime, play and have fun. Let the other players know that you play crap cards and frequently bluff, then play good cards and never bluff. Expect to get paid off and sucked out on in equal measure. Try to improve your own game while you play by guessing what cards other players have, quickly identifying the best possible hand for each flop, calculating exactly what odds the pot is offering you at all times, getting drunk and daydreaming about how cool it will be when you win. That's what I do.

/mc

[OrangeHeat]

If you can't beat the worst players in the world - you will get killed as you move higher.

Not being able to beat these games demonstrates a basic lack of fundamental poker skills/theory.

Don't try to educate them - educate YOURSELF.

They want to have fun - let them and learn to take their money while they are.

Orange

[pudley4]

What do you need an argument for? They're happy playing the way they do. They obviously don't want to learn how to play "correctly" - don't try to force them.

It's clear that the excitement of going all-in >>> the $10 it costs them to buy-in and lose. Many people are like this, and it's the biggest reason we're winners.

[Joe Tall]

The buy in is a little too small for the blinds. It' should be $25+.

Other than that, I'm sorry you don't have the skills to beat such a soft game. You've found the right place, however. Check out the Pot and No-Limit Forums and even the startegy talk in the Micro and Small Stakes forum will help.

Welcome to the forum,
Joe Tall

[smokingrobot]

I played in that game only a few times, winning once, and losing twice to bad beats on hands i've gone all in on.

I havent really tried to play since because I recently started playing online and i enjoy that more.

Is there some kind of ratio that is usually used to determine a buy-in vs. blind? I see you suggest $25, so 10x's the small blind?

I also am not trying as hard in that home game as i would elsewhere, but even so, I shouldnt have to. I think its the unpredictability of top pair with high kicker hands vs. two low or middle pairs that keeps me second guessing.

There is no rhyme or reason to that style of play and because im used to reading people strength of hand via their bets and playing pot odds, as opposed to if they scratch their ass when they are bluffing, its difficult.

Someone mentioned it'd be good practice for reading 'tells' and the such, i'll give it another wing.

I just wanted some kind of acknowledgement of the buy-in to blind ratio being a little small. Sorry about the back story and the whining. Next time i'll only post the bravado/bragging. (a joke)

[Dov]

Top pair isn't that great a hand in NL. Check out the NL forum for what you should be looking for when you decide to go all in.

[Stefan Prodan]

[ QUOTE ]


Is there some kind of ratio that is usually used to determine a buy-in vs. blind? I see you suggest $25, so 10x's the small blind?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's 100x the small blind.

[Blarg]

Play them "man or mouse."

Everyone gets two cards, everyone antes a very small amount. Player to the left of the dealer opens, and the guy who opens rotates each subsequent round. Used cards are put aside at the end of the round and the same dealer deals till the deck runs out. Great in "dealer's choice" home games.

You make the best two-card hand you can, straights and flushes don't count. One after the other, clockwise, people say "mouse" and you insult their masculinity if they don't want to compete, and they fold out, and they say "man" if they think they have the best hand, and then all the "men" show down once everyone has declared. All losers DOUBLE the pot, and the winner scoops the pot. You can start with a nickel ante and get $100 in the middle VERY quickly.

Incredible action and someone with a good memory can possibly clean everybody out in an hour. If you can read your friends well, you can often bluff people out pretty well too.

Don't take checks or make loans! /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Guaranteed fun, huge tension, and almost always profitable.

[bernie]

If they don't want to listen, let them learn the hard way.

[ QUOTE ]
basically they arent playing poker, its more like War or some other game of chance where you throw money into a pot flip over your cards and pray your hands hit

[/ QUOTE ]

This is about right, even in a cardroom.

[ QUOTE ]
I havent played their game for a bit now, its just not fun for me, i prefer playing better opponents where the skil aspect of the game comes in.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is bull. Make no mistake, it takes skill to beat this type of game texture. Different types of skill than when playing with more 'thinking' players. The fact is it doesn't sound like you know how to adjust to beat them and are frustrated because their little window of a sample size has you in a hole. If you can't beat these players, you will have trouble with better players eventually and probably more costly.

[ QUOTE ]
Instead they are merely calling stations and if its 1 average player (myself) vs. a field of calling stations, i cant hang, be it impatience or annoyance i dont know.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're annoyed with this, it's your knowledge of the game that's likely the culprit. You're pissed at yourself for not knowing enough about how to beat these types of players.

It's not their fault. It's yours.

There's your starting point.

This is an, 'i can't beat loose games' post.

Do a search for 'loose games' or look at some hands posted.

good luck when you look in the mirror.

b

[smokingrobot]

i wasnt trying to lay blame on them for my losses.

and yes, i was annoyed at the difference in my play atdifferent games against more experienced players yet struggled those few games with my friends.

took the advice given about checking and calling and cutting out the fancy crap like semi-bluffing.

was persuaded to play again tonight. and by persuaded i mean "you wanna play?" "yes"

let them see me play a few loose hands to get those callers to believe me to be bluffing more than i should be.

still no convincing of raising the stakes or lowering the blinds, "this is how we play."

and bernie, im confused by your "next time you look in the mirror" comment.

i looked in the mirror after i went to the bathroom, and all that came to mind was, "who's a handsome devil?"

haw haw.

but hey, i appreciate all the advice and hope to be able to glean more from the more experienced players on boards here.

thanks!

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
i wasnt trying to lay blame on them for my losses

[/ QUOTE ]

Reread your initial post. That's exactly what it looks like you're doing.

The look in the mirror comment was another way of saying you shouldn't be angry/annoyed at your opponents play. It's not about them. It's about how you're reacting to them. You're your own source for being annoyed. They're just playing cards.

b

[smokingrobot]

oh yha, i figured you meant something along those lines, i was just trying to crack a joke.

maybe i should've said I wasnt attempting to lay blame, or didnt intend for it to come out that way, but it did. i cant say its someone's fault i lost, that is ridiculous.

but thanks for the info... ended up taking them all when i played. i was obviously semi-bluffing too much or trying to steal too many pots. which makes sense

hypothetical: i have KJ, flop is low blanks rainbow, i have high cards, i probably raised PF and assumed callers have something more akin to my hand

i would lose those hands or be forced to fold them.

so i re-read the chapter in no limit hold 'em for advanced players, and recalled those strategies and took those given to me as well.

worked like a charm.

now i just have to keep that consistent.

i noticed they started to play a little tighter as well.

although i dont think because of anything i've said in the past.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]

"This isnt the casino's, this is G's house, smokingrobot."


[/ QUOTE ]

I laughed out loud when I read this quote. Then I noticed your name is smokingrobot. I think I need to remember to call someone a smokingrobot someday /images/graemlins/smile.gif


If they're bluffing too much, then be compelled to make some loose calls. If they don't fold much, then often push all in with top pair and only value bet. I assume others have already stated stuff similar to this -- basically it sounds like there won't be much bluffing done by you since someone is always going to call with just enough to beat a bluff.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
oh yha, i figured you meant something along those lines, i was just trying to crack a joke.


[/ QUOTE ]

The joke was kinda funny. I just wanted to re iterate the point since we have lots of players who make a post like this, or something like this, then disappear off the forum in a month thinking that we're all full of it.

It's actually normal in the process of learning this game to think the way your post indicates. The tough part is getting past it and 'really' believing it. Table coaches who brag about playing umpteen years are great examples of a player that 'never' got past this point. Hell, they're so good, they dont need the action. (I hope i remember this line)

I got to listen to a wannabe last night on my right. Long story about him, but i'll spare ya. He was bemoaning how players call him with crap, and he gets sucked out on, blah blah. Then he gives the guy on my left who is agreeing with him, not placating him but trading stories, his own jutifications for playing crap with said players. One reason was to basically 'get them back', show em how it feels. Then he had almost stumbled into the concept of these players playing solely to put a bad beat on someone. He didn't elaborate too much on that one. My first thought was if someone wants to spend 4 racks to win 1/2 a rack, i'm all for it.

I just sat next to him, soaking it all in. Wanting to order a gag ball to the table.

Btw...there are textures of games i really don't care for. But it's my problem that i have trouble with those types.

b

[smokingrobot]

i tend to push a lot, play fairly agressive, and steal pots when i get the chance to make up for those dry periods.

but yah, somebody will almost always call, even with bottom pair, (or 22's against me one time when i raised PF and bet through to the river, figured he'd eventually fold).

you're i gotta try and steal the pots less, and bluff less. it worked out last time i played, and i still managed to push a little to take down a few hands.

i hope i can have that game beat now if i can keep playing consistently.

[smokingrobot]

no way will i be off this board in a month.

i took eveyrone's advice, and then played again for another win.

i think that's enough evidence that people arent full of it.

maybe its just hard to accept criticism?

i know i sometimes have difficulty swallowing my pride, but whatever, in this game all i can do is learn to play better, and thats what i want to do.