Theory of Poker: Chapters 1-4 Discussion

[MEbenhoe]

Well this is the start of the Theory of Poker discussions. This is the overall heading and underneath I put 4 subtopics (1 for each chapter). The idea is to have all general discussion for the first 4 chapters under this heading and have chapter specific discussions under the chapter headings. For each chapter I tried to start the discussion out with some questions. Some of these questions are ones you should be able to easily understand and answer after having read these chapters. Other questions are meant to be a little more challenging and make you really think about and apply what you read. Hope what I came up with is sufficient to start this out.

[MEbenhoe]

These first two questions are concepts that should be simple, but often are forgotten by even experienced players:

Why will a good player experience more bad beats than an average or poor player?

Why are you usually not out to win the most pots in a poker game?

Applying what you’ve read now try to answer this:

Sklansky states on p. 6 “You may occasionally be in a game where the best strategy is to win as many pots as possible, but such games are exceptions.” What type of game conditions would make this strategy optimal?

[MEbenhoe]

First a simple question:

Why is Mathematical Expectation important to a poker player?

Now here comes the challenge working in what you should have learned about Mathematical Expectation and hourly rate:

On p. 11 Sklansky quotes Bob Stupak, “Having one-thousandth of one percent the worst of it, if he plays long enough, that one-thousandth of one percent will bust the richest man in the world.” We won’t use Bill Gates for this example, but assume a man with a $1 billion bankroll is playing a dice game in which the house has a 50.001% to 49.999% edge. If this man bets $1000 per roll of the dice and rolls 120 times per hour how long will it take him to go broke? Explain your answer. (Have fun with the math on this one)

[MEbenhoe]

This chapter contains one of the most important poker concepts ever, The Fundamental Theorem of Poker. The hand examples in this chapter are very important to study and make sure you understand why what Sklansky says is correct. The first question is derived from hand example 1:

You are playing in a NL Hold Em game. You hold J /images/graemlins/heart.gif T /images/graemlins/heart.gif. Your opponent holds K /images/graemlins/spade.gif Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. The board shows Q /images/graemlins/heart.gif 8 /images/graemlins/club.gif 7 /images/graemlins/heart.gif A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. At this point there is $1000 in the pot and you and your opponent both have a stack of $10000 in front of you. The pot is heads up. You bet $1000 on a semi-bluff (it’ll be covered later). According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker what is your opponents correct play (be precise) and why?

Another Fundamental Theorem question:

You are playing in a $5/$10 Limit Hold Em game. You have A /images/graemlins/spade.gif K /images/graemlins/club.gif. Your opponent has A /images/graemlins/heart.gif T /images/graemlins/heart.gif. The board is A /images/graemlins/club.gif K /images/graemlins/heart.gif 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif. The pot is heads up. You bet $10 into a $45 pot. Your opponent calls. According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker you both gained from this play. How is that possible?

[MEbenhoe]

This chapter may not be the most important chapter to many of you who only play Hold Em and don’t ever encounter antes, but some of its concepts can be applied to thinking about the blinds in Hold Em. I came up with two questions that are meant to simply make you think about the concept of the ante and the difference in a small ante vs large ante game:

Would you personally rather play in a small ante or large ante game and why?

In 7 card stud you are dealt (8 /images/graemlins/club.gif 7 /images/graemlins/club.gif) 6 /images/graemlins/heart.gif. Would you rather play this hand in a small ante or large ante game and why?

[Smokey98]

[ QUOTE ]
Why will a good player experience more bad beats than an average or poor player?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because bad/poor players will draw out more on you than you will on them

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you usually not out to win the most pots in a poker game?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you chase to try to win too many pots you will loose. The bets you save are as important as the bets you win. The goal is to maximize your wins and minimize your loses. Each pot is just part of the overall “game”, your not out to win the pot, but to win the game.

[ QUOTE ]
Applying what you’ve read now try to answer this:

Sklansky states on p. 6 “You may occasionally be in a game where the best strategy is to win as many pots as possible, but such games are exceptions.” What type of game conditions would make this strategy optimal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky states on p. 6 “You may occasionally be in a game where the best strategy is to win as many pots as possible, but such games are exceptions.” What type of game conditions would make this strategy optimal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. My initial impression would be in an extremely weak-tight game where pots are small, and the players will lay down marginal hands. Seems like the only way to be profitable in this game is a to of blind stealing. Sounds like a wretched game to me.

It is also possible that he meant very loose games with very large pots. However, I think that going for "pots" in that game (as oppossed to sklansky $) may lead to overly LAGggy play. I think this is probably the part of SSH that people having problems with the application of that work are misusing. People just might be going a bit overboard on in their quest to get pot equity. Just because betting T /images/graemlins/spade.gif9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif on the river on a board of 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif3 /images/graemlins/spade.gif9 /images/graemlins/heart.gifj /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 6 /images/graemlins/club.gif is your only way to win the pot, doesn't make it a good play, but if your goal was to simply win pots, you'd end up making this drastically -ev (in most circumstances) play often.

Of course, I could be hugely wrong.

[Smokey98]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is Mathematical Expectation important to a poker player?

[/ QUOTE ]
Mathematical Expectation tells you win you have the best of it or when you don’t, therefore knowing the ME will show you if you are playing a certain hand correctly or not.

[ QUOTE ]
Now here comes the challenge working in what you should have learned about Mathematical Expectation and hourly rate:

On p. 11 Sklansky quotes Bob Stupak, “Having one-thousandth of one percent the worst of it, if he plays long enough, that one-thousandth of one percent will bust the richest man in the world.” We won’t use Bill Gates for this example, but assume a man with a $1 billion bankroll is playing a dice game in which the house has a 50.001% to 49.999% edge. If this man bets $1000 per roll of the dice and rolls 120 times per hour how long will it take him to go broke? Explain your answer. (Have fun with the math on this one)

[/ QUOTE ]

It’ll take him 83,333 hours to loose it all. (I think)

If he is betting $120,000 per hour (1000x120) then you multiply $120,000 x .001% to get 1.2 and then divide 1 billion by 1.2

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
Expectation and hourly rate:

On p. 11 Sklansky quotes Bob Stupak, “Having one-thousandth of one percent the worst of it, if he plays long enough, that one-thousandth of one percent will bust the richest man in the world.” We won’t use Bill Gates for this example, but assume a man with a $1 billion bankroll is playing a dice game in which the house has a 50.001% to 49.999% edge. If this man bets $1000 per roll of the dice and rolls 120 times per hour how long will it take him to go broke? Explain your answer. (Have fun with the math on this one)

[/ QUOTE ]

So our hero loses $.02 per roll (wagers $100,000,000 per 100,000 rolls. Recoups $2000x49999 = $99,998,000. Loss of $2000 per 100,000 rolls = -$.02 per roll)

Each hour that is $2.4

so to lose $1bil he needs 1,000,000,000/2.4 = 41,666,666.6 repeating hrs. = 47,532 years, give or take (depending on leap year...)

Of course, I'm an idiot, and could well be wrong...

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]

It’ll take him 83,333 hours to loose it all. (I think)

If he is betting $120,000 per hour (1000x120) then you multiply $120,000 x .001% to get 1.2 and then divide 1 billion by 1.2

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are wrong in two spots. First, the house edge is .002%, and second, he has $1bil, not $1mil to lose.

[pipes]

Shorthanded large ante game with weak tight players?

[Smokey98]

Actually we are both wrong. If the house is winning 50.001% of the time and the better is betting 120 bets per hours which is $120,000 an hour then the house is winning 50.001% of that which is winning 60,001.20 an hour and the man is winning $59,998.8 per hour. So you subtract the difference and divide 1B by that. So it takes 416,666,666.66 hours which is roughly 47,564.69 years.

[pipes]

Example 1: The correct play for him if he knew what you had would be to move all in so you would have to fold.

Ex2: Is this a trick question? According to the FT it is correct for him to call. What is most profitable for you in this situation is for him to fold.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]

Ex2: Is this a trick question? According to the FT it is correct for him to call. What is most profitable for you in this situation is for him to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a trick question. According to the fundamental theorem you both made the correct play. The correct play for you in this situation is to bet because otherwise you give your opponent infinite odds to make his draw. The correct play for your opponent is to call because he has proper odds to make the call. You've both made the correct play here and thus have both gained from your play. The question is how is this possible? There is an explanation for this, but for now I'll let you guys ponder it a little more.

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]

Why will a good player experience more bad beats than an average or poor player?


[/ QUOTE ]

Good players get the money in as a favorite more often than bad players. That's what makes a good player good. Since a bad beat is defined as losing when you were the favorite you will suffer more if you are good than otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]

Why are you usually not out to win the most pots in a poker game?

[/ QUOTE ]

Normally it will cost you too much to chase pots you have little chance to win. If you try to chase too many pots you will lose too much on pots you lose to make up for the money gained in pots you lose.

[ QUOTE ]
What type of game conditions would make this strategy optimal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huge ante games.

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]


Why is Mathematical Expectation important to a poker player?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because according to the law of large numbers (choose whichever you want) in the long run your earn will converge to expectation.

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]

You are playing in a NL Hold Em game. You hold J T . Your opponent holds K Q . The board shows Q 8 7 A . At this point there is $1000 in the pot and you and your opponent both have a stack of $10000 in front of you. The pot is heads up. You bet $1000 on a semi-bluff (it’ll be covered later). According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker what is your opponents correct play (be precise) and why?

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the FTOP his action should be the same as if he could see your cards. That means that there are 44 unseen cards in the deck. Out of those 44 you have the following outs:
9 hearts
3 non heart 9s
2 non heart Ks
for a total of 14 outs. Hence you have odds against of 30:14 or 15:7. He needs to make sure that you don't have odds to call. The pot is currently 2000. He obviously must raise we just need the amount. If he raises x you will be getting 2000+x:x-1000 on your call. To solve for x we need (15/7)(x-1000) = 2000+x. Another way (really just carrying out the first algebraic step) is to multiply the left side by 7 and the right by 15 and set them equal.
15(x-1000) = 7(2000+x)
15x - 15,000 = 14,000 + 7x
8x = 29,000
x = 29,000/8 or 3,625.

So if he raises to more than 3,625 he is forcing you to make a mistake. To maximize his EV he should raise to min(y,3625) where y is the most you would possibly call. If he raises to less than 3625 you are making money by calling. If he raises more he is forcing a mistake by you. Assuming you are following the FTOP after making your semibluff the outcome will be for him to raise to any amount over 3625 and for you to fold.

[Smokey98]

[ QUOTE ]
You are playing in a NL Hold Em game. You hold J /images/graemlins/heart.gif T /images/graemlins/heart.gif. Your opponent holds K /images/graemlins/spade.gif Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. The board shows Q /images/graemlins/heart.gif 8 /images/graemlins/club.gif 7 /images/graemlins/heart.gif A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. At this point there is $1000 in the pot and you and your opponent both have a stack of $10000 in front of you. The pot is heads up. You bet $1000 on a semi-bluff (it’ll be covered later). According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker what is your opponents correct play (be precise) and why?

[/ QUOTE ]
He should raise the pot about 5000 as you are about 3.5/1 dog to hit either the king or a heart, but the pot odds are 1.4/1.

[ QUOTE ]
Another Fundamental Theorem question:

You are playing in a $5/$10 Limit Hold Em game. You have A /images/graemlins/spade.gif K /images/graemlins/club.gif. Your opponent has A /images/graemlins/heart.gif T /images/graemlins/heart.gif. The board is A /images/graemlins/club.gif K /images/graemlins/heart.gif 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif. The pot is heads up. You bet $10 into a $45 pot. Your opponent calls. According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker you both gained from this play. How is that possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure

[jdl22]

You missed some outs.

[Smokey98]

Yes, I did...the 9's. I didn't see that it would make a lower str8.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually we are both wrong. If the house is winning 50.001% of the time and the better is betting 120 bets per hours which is $120,000 an hour then the house is winning 50.001% of that which is winning 60,001.20 an hour and the man is winning $59,998.8 per hour. So you subtract the difference and divide 1B by that. So it takes 416,666,666.66 hours which is roughly 47,564.69 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I had originally, bet then I remembered the .25 extra days per year /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]


You are playing in a $5/$10 Limit Hold Em game. You have A K . Your opponent has A T . The board is A K 8 2 . The pot is heads up. You bet $10 into a $45 pot. Your opponent calls. According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker you both gained from this play. How is that possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have both made a mistake. If you could see his cards you obviously wouldn't bet. Hence you lost 1 bb by making that move. Your opponent in a rakeless game gained that 1 bb. You benefitted because he should have raised. I don't really buy this because if you could see his cards you wouldn't call his raise so it's a moot point anyway.

[jdl22]

The problem with what you guys are saying is that the question cannot be answered. The time it takes for the rich man to go broke is actually a random variable. You can calculate when he should expect to go broke but not when he will. This is what's called a random walk.

[Smokey98]

I'm sure he was just looking for a close estimate, you guys are thinking too much.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


You are playing in a $5/$10 Limit Hold Em game. You have A K . Your opponent has A T . The board is A K 8 2 . The pot is heads up. You bet $10 into a $45 pot. Your opponent calls. According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker you both gained from this play. How is that possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have both made a mistake. If you could see his cards you obviously wouldn't bet. Hence you lost 1 bb by making that move. Your opponent in a rakeless game gained that 1 bb. You benefitted because he should have raised. I don't really buy this because if you could see his cards you wouldn't call his raise so it's a moot point anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to sound mean, but this is entirely incorrect. If you could see that your opponent has a flush draw and don't bet into him you are making a very large mistake. Your opponent has 9 outs for a win out of 44 unseen cards. Therefore if you know what his cards are you will win every time he doesnt hit his flush and fold on the river everytime he makes his flush. What this means is you will gain $10 35 times and lose $10 9 times for a total gain of $260 over the option of not betting. This is a difference of $5.91/hand. This proves that betting is the correct play for you. Your opponent by calling will lose $10 35 times but gain $55 9 times. This means he makes $145 total or $3.30/hand by calling. Lets contrast that with raising. In this case he would lose $20 35 times and gain $65 9 times assuming you call and dont reraise. This results in a total of him losing $115 or -$2.61/hand. Even if you would call a bet on the river every time he hits his flush he still would end up losing $25 on this play or -$0.57/hand. It is clear that the best option here is for you to bet and for him to call.

The fact that you would fold top two pair to a flush draw who raises you and that you don't believe it is correct to bet into him either if you could see his cards are both very incorrect plays and the fact that you feel these are the correct plays suggest you have a lot of studying of the game to do. This again isn't said to be mean but to show you how much in error this thinking is.

Still waiting for the person who's gonna figure out how they are both gaining on this.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]

You are playing in a $5/$10 Limit Hold Em game. You have A /images/graemlins/spade.gif K /images/graemlins/club.gif. Your opponent has A /images/graemlins/heart.gif T /images/graemlins/heart.gif. The board is A /images/graemlins/club.gif K /images/graemlins/heart.gif 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif. The pot is heads up. You bet $10 into a $45 pot. Your opponent calls. According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker you both gained from this play. How is that possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the statement of the question is slightly misleading. Your opponent actually *loses* by your betting. Before your action he has roughly .2 x $45 = $9 in pot equity. By betting, you force him to pay $10 to retain his pot equity, and this would seem to indicate a fold, except that he retains $2 of his own call in equity and "gains" $2 of your bet, so he has to call $10 to retain $13 in pot equity. Thus he "gains" $3 by calling (completely discounting implied odds of course), but is *worse off* by $6 then if you had not bet.

From your perspective, you start with $36 in pot equity. This is good. However, it can get better by betting. You either force your opponent to forfeit his $9 (essenitally giving you $9 for free), or to pay $10 of which you "own" $8, so betting gives you either $45 or $52 in equity, returning $16 on a $10 investment.

So each play is positive for the individual player, but the overall play is "more positive" for you then for him.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually we are both wrong. If the house is winning 50.001% of the time and the better is betting 120 bets per hours which is $120,000 an hour then the house is winning 50.001% of that which is winning 60,001.20 an hour and the man is winning $59,998.8 per hour. So you subtract the difference and divide 1B by that. So it takes 416,666,666.66 hours which is roughly 47,564.69 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to say it, but you are wrong. All of you. Why? No man can live 47,000 years! It is physically impossible. Now, if the term android had been used.... /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[BugsBunny]

What type of game conditions would make this strategy optimal?

Having a huge ante isn't enough, in and of itself. The right conditions would have more to do with game texture than ante size. The only type of game where I can think of that it would make sense to try and win the most pots is a game where all the pots are roughly the same size, and small as well.

If you have large pots (either constantly or at least semi-frequently) then winning 1 large pot can give you enough ammo to wait for a long time to wait for another opportunity to take another large pot. You're investing a small amount per round (be it antes or blinds) in comparison to the size of the pot.

If the pots are all small though then the per round cost starts to eat at your stack, and the only way to make money is to win lots of the small pots. If all the pots tend to be small then the opponents are all probably very weak-tight, making it relatively easy to steal lot's of antes/blinds or the initial pot.

High antes/blinds or small antes/blinds it doesn't really matter. What matters is the pot size in relation to the size of the antes/blinds.

[BugsBunny]

[ QUOTE ]

Why is Mathematical Expectation important to a poker player?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because the mathematical expectation of a given hand/situation is what determines what a players correct move is. If it's negative he shouldn't continue to play. If it's positive he should. A player only wants to commit money when he has the best of it, meaning his expectation is positive.

Understanding expectation can help you deal with bad things happening. Even if you lose a hand you still make money long term, if the play was correct. You realize that your earn is simply your expectation times the amount of time played, as long as you continue to play correctly.

Now here comes the challenge working in what you should have learned about Mathematical Expectation and hourly rate:

[ QUOTE ]

On p. 11 Sklansky quotes Bob Stupak, “Having one-thousandth of one percent the worst of it, if he plays long enough, that one-thousandth of one percent will bust the richest man in the world.” We won’t use Bill Gates for this example, but assume a man with a $1 billion bankroll is playing a dice game in which the house has a 50.001% to 49.999% edge. If this man bets $1000 per roll of the dice and rolls 120 times per hour how long will it take him to go broke? Explain your answer. (Have fun with the math on this one)

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends /images/graemlins/smile.gif
He, personally, will never go broke. If his descendants keep playing they'll eventually go broke after approximately an average of 1440 generations (assuming a generation is 33 years, and there's 365.2425 days in a year. (the length of the year will also probably change in that time)

Now this can also be +- a few generations depending on the standard deviation, but the chapter doesn't get into that at all so we'll just leave it alone.

Breakdown:
He's losing an average of 0.02 dollars per hand

1,000,000,000/(120 * .02) = 416666666.666667 hours
416666666.666667/24 = 17361111.1111111 days
17361111.1111111/365.2425 = 47533.1077602171 years
47533.1077602171/33 = 1440.3972048551 generations (give or take)

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to sound mean, but this is entirely incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

No worries. What we're trying to do is discuss the book, if I'm wrong rip into me.

On this problem I was way off. My board reading skills are pretty bad apparently because for some reason I thought it was the river. Looking again I'm fairly embarassed because there appear to only be four cards out. Now I'll go back and read the rest of what you said.

edit: Wow, good call, I was even farther off on what I thought the problem said. Firstly I thought that the hero in the question had AT and it was the river betting round. I need to read these problems more carefully. Obviously you shouldn't fold this if you are the guy with AK. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Yod]

My understanding concurs with jdl22.Huge ante means you must scoop your fair share of pots or be anted to death.

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]

High antes/blinds or small antes/blinds it doesn't really matter. What matters is the pot size in relation to the size of the antes/blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the key I think. If the ante is enormous relative to the bet size then it's pretty much optimal to try to win every pot. Imagine two crazy situaions:

1. ante of a million bucks with $.5 bring in and 1/2 betting in stud. Obviously playing this game you are best trying to win every pot.

2. "rack attacks" where the house drops a rack of chips into the pot randomly. If you were in a game where every hand the house juiced the pot by a huge margin relative to bet sizes then you would also want to win pots.

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]

You are playing in a $5/$10 Limit Hold Em game. You have A K . Your opponent has A T . The board is A K 8 2 . The pot is heads up. You bet $10 into a $45 pot. Your opponent calls. According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker you both gained from this play. How is that possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me try this again.

Villain has 9 hearts as outs. There are 44 total cards to be seen. Hence the hero is a heavy favorite. Given that he should bet. Doing so the hero has gained (35/44)*10-(9/44)*10 or 10*26/44 in expectation as a result of the bet. As for the villain he will win 55 wp 9/44 and lose 10 with probability 35/44 so calling has an expectation of 55*9/44 - 10*35/44 or 145/44. Obviously folding is expectation 0 so by calling the villain gains 145/44 in expectation.

[CrazyEvan]

Maybe I'm wrong here (and I don't doubt it) but I think the answer is simpler than that. You gained because he called your much superior hand that he wouldn't have had he known what you had. (= you gain). And he gains from your bet because he avoided being checkraised. If nobody could see anybodies cards, and it was checked to him, the AT dude would have had to have bet, then would have been instantly been faced with a raise. So he saved a bet (on the expensive street no less).

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
What type of game conditions would make this strategy optimal?

Having a huge ante isn't enough, in and of itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huge ante is enough in itself. Huge in this sentence means huge in comparison to bets. When antes become large enough in comparison to bets you'll reach a point where chasing to the end with almost any chance to win is correct.

[ QUOTE ]
High antes/blinds or small antes/blinds it doesn't really matter. What matters is the pot size in relation to the size of the antes/blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

What matters is the pot size in relation to the BET size, not in relation to the original ante size.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
In 7 card stud you are dealt (8 /images/graemlins/club.gif 7 /images/graemlins/club.gif) 6 /images/graemlins/heart.gif. Would you rather play this hand in a small ante or large ante game and why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to play this in a large ante game, as I need good pot odds to chase this draw.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
Another Fundamental Theorem question:

You are playing in a $5/$10 Limit Hold Em game. You have A /images/graemlins/spade.gif K /images/graemlins/club.gif. Your opponent has A /images/graemlins/heart.gif T /images/graemlins/heart.gif. The board is A /images/graemlins/club.gif K /images/graemlins/heart.gif 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif. The pot is heads up. You bet $10 into a $45 pot. Your opponent calls. According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker you both gained from this play. How is that possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I haven't started reading the book yet (traveling with it to the west coast this weekend) I belive I can answer this question. But betting into the pot, you are giving your opponent 5:1 odds, making his flush draw correct. By checking the pot, it would provide incorrect odds for your opponent to call - hence in this situation that would be the best option.

Is the moral of this lesson is to always consider not only your own pot odds to play a hand, but also how it will affect your opponent's ability to play?

[chaos]

The smaller the ante relative to the size of the bet the tighter you play. So the ante would have to be large to make paying that hand correct.

Ante structure does have some application to Hold'em. There are some games spread with a larger bet on the end. This effectively lowers the size of the "ante" relative to the average bet size. (For hold'em think of the ante as the sum of the blinds divided by the number of players.)

At some online sites they have some games with "mini" half size blinds in their hold'em games (e.g. $1 and $2 for a 4/8 game). So you should play tighter because of the smaller "ante." I think most people are playing looser because it costs them less to enter a pot.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another Fundamental Theorem question:

You are playing in a $5/$10 Limit Hold Em game. You have A /images/graemlins/spade.gif K /images/graemlins/club.gif. Your opponent has A /images/graemlins/heart.gif T /images/graemlins/heart.gif. The board is A /images/graemlins/club.gif K /images/graemlins/heart.gif 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif. The pot is heads up. You bet $10 into a $45 pot. Your opponent calls. According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker you both gained from this play. How is that possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I haven't started reading the book yet (traveling with it to the west coast this weekend) I belive I can answer this question. But betting into the pot, you are giving your opponent 5:1 odds, making his flush draw correct. By checking the pot, it would provide incorrect odds for your opponent to call - hence in this situation that would be the best option.

[/ QUOTE ]

By checking you give your opponent infinitely good odds.

[Gamblor]

I think we're getting a little narrow-minded here - by trying to win pots, I don't think Sklansky is limiting himself to super aggression (i.e. in "big pots"), but also paying any amount to chase any cards, no matter how unlikely.

If you'll recall, he mentions on p. 27 (Ch. 4), that a large ante game would be like "someone walking by a $5-$10 game and dropping a $100 bill on the table, saying 'play for it boys'. With that big an initial pot, on which you would be getting at least 21-1 on your first call, it would be worth playing just about any hand right to the end.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


You are playing in a $5/$10 Limit Hold Em game. You have A K . Your opponent has A T . The board is A K 8 2 . The pot is heads up. You bet $10 into a $45 pot. Your opponent calls. According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker you both gained from this play. How is that possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have both made a mistake. If you could see his cards you obviously wouldn't bet. Hence you lost 1 bb by making that move. Your opponent in a rakeless game gained that 1 bb. You benefitted because he should have raised. I don't really buy this because if you could see his cards you wouldn't call his raise so it's a moot point anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to sound mean, but this is entirely incorrect. If you could see that your opponent has a flush draw and don't bet into him you are making a very large mistake. Your opponent has 9 outs for a win out of 44 unseen cards. Therefore if you know what his cards are you will win every time he doesnt hit his flush and fold on the river everytime he makes his flush. What this means is you will gain $10 35 times and lose $10 9 times for a total gain of $260 over the option of not betting. This is a difference of $5.91/hand. This proves that betting is the correct play for you. Your opponent by calling will lose $10 35 times but gain $55 9 times. This means he makes $145 total or $3.30/hand by calling. Lets contrast that with raising. In this case he would lose $20 35 times and gain $65 9 times assuming you call and dont reraise. This results in a total of him losing $115 or -$2.61/hand. Even if you would call a bet on the river every time he hits his flush he still would end up losing $25 on this play or -$0.57/hand. It is clear that the best option here is for you to bet and for him to call.

The fact that you would fold top two pair to a flush draw who raises you and that you don't believe it is correct to bet into him either if you could see his cards are both very incorrect plays and the fact that you feel these are the correct plays suggest you have a lot of studying of the game to do. This again isn't said to be mean but to show you how much in error this thinking is.

Still waiting for the person who's gonna figure out how they are both gaining on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're both getting an overlay from the money already in the pot.

It would be like if Person X walked by, tossed $50 on the table, and Person Y and Person Z got to play heads-up for it. Even if Y is a slight favorite over Z, given their cards, Z might still be correct to call Y's bet because of the money already in the pot.

Note that it doesn't really matter where the money in the pot came from (previous bets by these two players, bets by players that have since folded, antes, etc). The fact that there's already money in the pot provides an overlay.

If there were no money in the pot, the player on the flush draw would be making an error in calling the two-pair bet.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
You're both getting an overlay from the money already in the pot.

It would be like if Person X walked by, tossed $50 on the table, and Person Y and Person Z got to play heads-up for it. Even if Y is a slight favorite over Z, given their cards, Z might still be correct to call Y's bet because of the money already in the pot.

Note that it doesn't really matter where the money in the pot came from (previous bets by these two players, bets by players that have since folded, antes, etc). The fact that there's already money in the pot provides an overlay.

If there were no money in the pot, the player on the flush draw would be making an error in calling the two-pair bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beat me to it. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

That's the answer though -- both gain from their play due to the money already in the pot. If you're a favorite, to do anything other than bet would be incorrect. If you're getting odds to chase, to do anything other than call heads-up would be incorrect. However, for such a draw to get such odds, there obviously must be money already in the pot, likely from other players that are no longer involved.

Both players gain by their play -- for AK, based on being a favorite, for the draw, based on getting odds due to pot size.

- UW

[Boylermaker]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the mathematical expectation of a given hand/situation is what determines what a players correct move is. If it's negative he shouldn't continue to play. If it's positive he should. A player only wants to commit money when he has the best of it, meaning his expectation is positive.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, there may be situations where a player should continue to play even when he surmises that in terms of his mathematical expectation, he might have the worst of it. I would think this would apply mainly in tournament situations where either your opponents are superior players to you, or table stack-sizes might dictate that you make a play that is less than optimal.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I would think this would apply mainly in tournament situations where either your opponents are superior players to you, or table stack-sizes might dictate that you make a play that is less than optimal.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO you're sort of correct and sort of not.

Such a play would be suboptimal in expectation of chips, but would be +ve EV in terms of money. Since you don't play tournaments to maximize your number of chips you leave the table with, it's still a positive expectation in $$$.

[Boylermaker]

1. I would rather play in a small ante game, because I would assume that most players who err tend to err of the side of 'too loose' in terms of starting requirements. The unsophistcated player might then not adequately adjust his starting requirements relative to the ante size. Assuming that he has the same starting requirements regardless of the ante size, then he will be making a mistake more often in a small ante game.

2. I would rather play this hand in a large ante game - need enough money in the pot to make this drawing hand profitable.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


You are playing in a $5/$10 Limit Hold Em game. You have A K . Your opponent has A T . The board is A K 8 2 . The pot is heads up. You bet $10 into a $45 pot. Your opponent calls. According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker you both gained from this play. How is that possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have both made a mistake. If you could see his cards you obviously wouldn't bet. Hence you lost 1 bb by making that move. Your opponent in a rakeless game gained that 1 bb. You benefitted because he should have raised. I don't really buy this because if you could see his cards you wouldn't call his raise so it's a moot point anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to sound mean, but this is entirely incorrect. If you could see that your opponent has a flush draw and don't bet into him you are making a very large mistake. Your opponent has 9 outs for a win out of 44 unseen cards. Therefore if you know what his cards are you will win every time he doesnt hit his flush and fold on the river everytime he makes his flush. What this means is you will gain $10 35 times and lose $10 9 times for a total gain of $260 over the option of not betting. This is a difference of $5.91/hand. This proves that betting is the correct play for you. Your opponent by calling will lose $10 35 times but gain $55 9 times. This means he makes $145 total or $3.30/hand by calling. Lets contrast that with raising. In this case he would lose $20 35 times and gain $65 9 times assuming you call and dont reraise. This results in a total of him losing $115 or -$2.61/hand. Even if you would call a bet on the river every time he hits his flush he still would end up losing $25 on this play or -$0.57/hand. It is clear that the best option here is for you to bet and for him to call.

The fact that you would fold top two pair to a flush draw who raises you and that you don't believe it is correct to bet into him either if you could see his cards are both very incorrect plays and the fact that you feel these are the correct plays suggest you have a lot of studying of the game to do. This again isn't said to be mean but to show you how much in error this thinking is.

Still waiting for the person who's gonna figure out how they are both gaining on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're both getting an overlay from the money already in the pot.

It would be like if Person X walked by, tossed $50 on the table, and Person Y and Person Z got to play heads-up for it. Even if Y is a slight favorite over Z, given their cards, Z might still be correct to call Y's bet because of the money already in the pot.

Note that it doesn't really matter where the money in the pot came from (previous bets by these two players, bets by players that have since folded, antes, etc). The fact that there's already money in the pot provides an overlay.

If there were no money in the pot, the player on the flush draw would be making an error in calling the two-pair bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have a winner. You are both gaining from the money in the pot. The loss comes from other players in the hand who played incorrectly had they seen your hand or from your own incorrect plays on previous rounds. So it is possible that your gain is from previous losses you made. This hand example is perfect for showing this. If the player holding AK raised preflop, the player holding AT went against the fundamental theorem of poker by calling and thus lost money on this play, which he can actually gain back on future rounds by making correct plays. Also other players will have made incorrect plays on earlier rounds resulting in more losses. So when you gain by your correct play, part of it is coming from these losses made by incorrect plays.

[Boylermaker]

Yes, that's sort of where I was going with that. Thanks for clarifying.

I would also surmise that there would be situations where all of your preflop options in a hand offer -ive expectation, both in terms of chips and money.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
At some online sites they have some games with "mini" half size blinds in their hold'em games (e.g. $1 and $2 for a 4/8 game). So you should play tighter because of the smaller "ante." I think most people are playing looser because it costs them less to enter a pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh but you should play looser in this game. Sklansky even explains this in Chapter 4 with an example of a 7 card stud game. Because it costs you so little to call pre flop compared to the size of bets on future betting rounds, your implied odds are through the roof. Because of this you can play a lot more hands pre flop as long as you have the discipline to throw them away when the flop doesnt hit you.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
This chapter may not be the most important chapter to many of you who only play Hold Em and don’t ever encounter antes, but some of its concepts can be applied to thinking about the blinds in Hold Em.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky clearly states that "antes" for purposes of this chapter include blinds, so I don't see why this chapter wouldn't be relevant to Hold 'Em.



[ QUOTE ]
In 7 card stud you are dealt (8 /images/graemlins/club.gif 7 /images/graemlins/club.gif) 6 /images/graemlins/heart.gif. Would you rather play this hand in a small ante or large ante game and why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm rather new to stud, but i'll try to proffer a guess. This is a decent but not great hand, right? In a small ante game I would fold it and in a large-ante game I would probably raise to steal the antes, but that wasn't the question. To answer the question i'd need to know which move carried a higher (i.e., smaller negative) expectation. That requires some details that aren't stated in the problem, such as the relative size of the antes in the two games, the opponents' upcards, etc.

So my answer is "Not Enough Information".

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This chapter may not be the most important chapter to many of you who only play Hold Em and don’t ever encounter antes, but some of its concepts can be applied to thinking about the blinds in Hold Em.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky clearly states that "antes" for purposes of this chapter include blinds, so I don't see why this chapter wouldn't be relevant to Hold 'Em.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh you're right I was thinking the same as you, but didn't word it right. Thats what I meant when I said, "but some of its concepts can be applied to thinking about the blinds in Hold Em."

[Smokey98]

[ QUOTE ]
You gained because he called your much superior hand that he wouldn't have had he known what you had. (= you gain).

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don’t think this is right. The guy with AT, even if he knew your hand is still getting proper odds to make the call.

[ QUOTE ]
And he gains from your bet because he avoided being checkraised.

[/ QUOTE ]
Although this MAY be true, however if you check then AT guy would probably check too since he’s on a draw.

[ QUOTE ]
If nobody could see anybodies cards, and it was checked to him, the AT dude would have had to have bet, then would have been instantly been faced with a raise. So he saved a bet (on the expensive street no less).

[/ QUOTE ]

If the cards were unseen then the guy with AK would have to bet thinking he is ahead and praying that AT guy doesn’t hit his flush and if the flush comes on 5th st, then he can check and see what AT guy does.

[Smokey98]

I would say you would want to play this hand in a large ante game as your starting requirements will decrease in large ante games. If this were a small ante game you are starting off with a bad hand.

[theghost]

I thought this was an interesting section in chapter 3:

FTOP and multi-way pots (p.25)

This is the first mention of the concept that a raise in a multiway pot is desirable even if you are not the favorite to win, because it will increase your chances of taking the pot down - and that is often worth calling 1 more bet.

There is a little more in a similar vein on p.132 (ch.13 - raising), but the interesting distinction in this chapter on the fundamental theorem is that you *want* you opponent to make the right decision (raise) so he is increasing your chance to win by (hopefully) folding the other player.

Thoughts?

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky states on p. 6 “You may occasionally be in a game where the best strategy is to win as many pots as possible, but such games are exceptions.” What type of game conditions would make this strategy optimal?

[/ QUOTE ]

A game where the players are playing too tight. Sometimes it happens that you can frequently steal the blinds because the players are afraid of calling with less than premimum hands. And when they do call, they are afraid of your bets. So if you try to steal from late middle position with something like J9s and are called by the BB, if the flop comes king high, the BB may be afraid of AK and may fold middle pair or something like AQ or ATs if you bet.

I suspect games where the strategy of trying to win the most pots is profitable are also games where most of the pots tend to be small.

[BugsBunny]

There's a difference between playing loose because the pot odds warrant it and playing to win the most pots.

If the blinds/antes are large in comparison to your bet size you're often correct to play loose, since the reward is large enough to make it worthwhile.

However if everyone else is also playing loose enough, meaning that you get a sufficient number of large pots, you still don't have to play to win the most pots. Wining a few large pots is still sufficent.

You have to think of a situation where playing to win the most pots is the correct play. This involves small pots, because you have to win a lot of small pots in order to stay ahead of the antes. The smaller the average pot in comparison to the ante size the more pots you have to win to stay ahead of the antes (or blinds, which are equivalent to antes here). Your bet size doesn't matter here at all. Bets are optional, antes aren't. And you have to win enough to make up for the antes that you're paying every round. "All poker starts as a struggle for the antes".

In a no ante game the pot is always infintely larger than the ante size (once you have a pot), so you don't have to play to win every pot and can afford to be very patient waiting for good cards.

In a game where every pot was magically multiplied by a factor of 1000 once the winner was known you can play very loose if you choose to, but again you don't have to try and win a lot of pots. If you want to play tight you can. It will not be optimal play, but will turn a profit.

[jdl22]

I think we are in agreement here and are just off on what terms each other are using. Let me clarify.

[ QUOTE ]
The smaller the average pot in comparison to the ante size the more pots you have to win to stay ahead of the antes (or blinds, which are equivalent to antes here). Your bet size doesn't matter here at all. Bets are optional, antes aren't. And you have to win enough to make up for the antes that you're paying every round. "All poker starts as a struggle for the antes".

[/ QUOTE ]

Your bet size does matter. Why? Well if the bet size is small compared to the antes then the average pot size is also small relative to the antes. Remember my example where the ante is ridiculous relative to the bet size, say $1,000,000 in a .5/1 stud game with a .25 bring in. In this game pots will probably get to about $8,000,040 which is obviously small relative to the antes. If instead you were playing with a million dollar ante with a 3 million dollar bring in and betting limits of 10M/20M you will see pots that are still large relative to the ante. So in the first game with a huge ante relative to the betting limits you would be best trying to win every pot. In the second game you could afford to wait, and indeed correct strategy would be to play a typical tight game. The only thing that changed was the size of the bets.

[ QUOTE ]

In a game where every pot was magically multiplied by a factor of 1000 once the winner was known you can play very loose if you choose to, but again you don't have to try and win a lot of pots. If you want to play tight you can. It will not be optimal play, but will turn a profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

It will be profitable but you will still lose the same relative EV whether you put the money in yourself in antes or not. Let's say you are putting in an ante of 100 every hand. If you fold every hand your expectation is -100 per hand. Assuming the game features 8 players equally skilled and no rake your EV from playing is 0. So your EV loss from folding every hand is -100. Now suppose somebody just walks up to the table and drops 800 into the center of a table in a no ante game. Ignoring the bring in you can again fold every hand for an EV of 0. If you played every hand properly you would have an EV of 100 so again you lose 100 in EV by folding every hand.

[CrazyEvan]

oh man, yeah your right about that pot odds bit. I was not looking at the questions and thought it was the 1000 in the pot and then the 1000 bet. In which case the four flush didn't have the proper pot odds to call. But yeah calling 10 to win a 55 pot with 9 outs is correct. (I was tired when I posted before)

Also now after reading the real answer, I am ashamed of my old answer.
/images/graemlins/blush.gif

[sbalzac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky states on p. 6 “You may occasionally be in a game where the best strategy is to win as many pots as possible, but such games are exceptions.” What type of game conditions would make this strategy optimal?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're playing shorthanded with weak/passive players.

[Gamblor]

Antes have even more of an effect than that:

Many games have differing blind structures.

For example, the Party 3-6 game has a 1/3 blind structure, the 5-10 game has a 2/5 blind structure, the 10-20 game has a 5/10 (1/2) blind structure, and the 15/30 has a 10/15 (2/3) blind structure.

If you don't adjust your play for those blind changes you'll be missing out on a lot of expectation. For example, you must tighten up in the 3-6 game due to an initial pot of only $4, or 2/3 BB. Whereas in the 15-30 game, you must loosen up considerably (and it shows in the "field") as the blinds now constitute 25/30, or 5/6 BB.

Make sense?

[uw_madtown]

Here are my "notes" from the reading (namely, concepts I highlighted for discussion).

CHAPTER ONE:
- Excellent players are more often drawn out on because bad players play bad hands badly -- that's the definition of being drawn out on. If you're the one sucking out on someone, you should be ashamed of your play, not consoled by it.
- Do not become attached to winning pots. Stay focused on +EV play, instead of chasing down every pot you feel "married" to.
- "So long as you remain a big favorite, you should stay, even if it means using toothpicks to prop up your eyelids." This line here is my justification for my 32 hour sessions at 2-4 B&M. If you're conscious and read 2+2, you're still a big favorite at B&M 2-4. Since I don't get to play live often, and I'm a favorite even stone-dead tired, I stay even if I have to "prop my eyes open with toothpicks". However -- if/when I move up, this will become less and less true.


CHAPTER TWO:
- The $klansky Dollar. "Anytime you make a bet with the best of it, where the odds are in your favor, you have earned something on that bet, whether you actually win or lose the bet."
- Being happy with a well-played losing session. When discussing a good fold, Sklansky states "I actually derive pleasure from making a good fold even though I have lost the pot. ... You should be happy when it occurs." This is a psychology of poker type point, but very important for beginners to learn and regular players to remember.
- It may be wise to play less than optimally when dealing with limited bankrolls (either your opponent's or your own).
- Sometimes it is good to stay in a less than ideal game to avoid the image of a player who ONLY plays with the best of it. Obviously you should never stay in a game that is NEGATIVE EV.


CHAPTER THREE:
- The Fundamental Theorem of Poker. I don't have many comments on this, as I don't think it's that complicated, actually. But it's an important concept that should always, always, always be kept in mind. Reading the examples really brings home the intracacies of the Theorem.


CHAPTER FOUR:
- Related to "not being married to a pot," do not think in terms of money I have already put in the pot. Once money is in the pot, it no longer belongs to me.
- Related to that, you can play looser in the blinds NOT because you posted a blind and should protect "your" money, but rather because you are getting better pot odds to complete or call a raise -- also (not mentioned in the text) because someone on/near the button may be raising a little loosely in an attempt to steal with position.
- All poker begins as a struggle for the antes. Play tight with a low ante and loosen up with a high ante -- if all other things are equal. This obviously relates to pot odds, the upcoming chapter.

- UW

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
Antes have even more of an effect than that:

Many games have differing blind structures.

For example, the Party 3-6 game has a 1/3 blind structure, the 5-10 game has a 2/5 blind structure, the 10-20 game has a 5/10 (1/2) blind structure, and the 15/30 has a 10/15 (2/3) blind structure.

If you don't adjust your play for those blind changes you'll be missing out on a lot of expectation. For example, you must tighten up in the 3-6 game due to an initial pot of only $4, or 2/3 BB. Whereas in the 15-30 game, you must loosen up considerably (and it shows in the "field") as the blinds now constitute 25/30, or 5/6 BB.

Make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes -- very well illustrated, when written out like that.

- UW

[sethypooh21]

These notes reminded me of my thoughts on a few of these points. Just wanted to throw my hat in here.

[ QUOTE ]
Here are my "notes" from the reading (namely, concepts I highlighted for discussion).

CHAPTER ONE:
- Excellent players are more often drawn out on because bad players play bad hands badly -- that's the definition of being drawn out on. If you're the one sucking out on someone, you should be ashamed of your play, not consoled by it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Important to distinguish 'sucking out' from 'getting there with a draw given correct odds'. Calling ace high to the river and spiking your ace in a small pot = bad. Hitting one of your 9 flush cards on the river in a 5 way pot = good play. Heck being in a 5-way pot with nutflush draw = good, but we get there later /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]

- Do not become attached to winning pots. Stay focused on +EV play, instead of chasing down every pot you feel "married" to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Must remind myself of this every time my AKs bricks and I get raised on the turn.

[ QUOTE ]

- "So long as you remain a big favorite, you should stay, even if it means using toothpicks to prop up your eyelids." This line here is my justification for my 32 hour sessions at 2-4 B&M. If you're conscious and read 2+2, you're still a big favorite at B&M 2-4. Since I don't get to play live often, and I'm a favorite even stone-dead tired, I stay even if I have to "prop my eyes open with toothpicks". However -- if/when I move up, this will become less and less true.

[/ QUOTE ]

The caveat proceeding this statement is insanely, massively, (absurdly, even?) huge and enormous. I think if they do a new addition of the book this paragraph should be taken out. If you have to pry your eyes open with toothpicks, your edge is almost assuredly gone, and unfortunaltely, you are not in a state to realise same.

[ QUOTE ]

CHAPTER TWO:
- The $klansky Dollar. "Anytime you make a bet with the best of it, where the odds are in your favor, you have earned something on that bet, whether you actually win or lose the bet."

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe revise this slightly to 'getting the better of it,' as demonstrated by the correctness of pumping big draws in multi-way pots.

[ QUOTE ]
- Being happy with a well-played losing session. When discussing a good fold, Sklansky states "I actually derive pleasure from making a good fold even though I have lost the pot. ... You should be happy when it occurs." This is a psychology of poker type point, but very important for beginners to learn and regular players to remember.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lesson as difficult as the "married to pots" lesson above.

*snip*
[ QUOTE ]

CHAPTER THREE:
- The Fundamental Theorem of Poker. I don't have many comments on this, as I don't think it's that complicated, actually. But it's an important concept that should always, always, always be kept in mind. Reading the examples really brings home the intracacies of the Theorem.

[/ QUOTE ]

So simple and yet so unbelievably difficult.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
Important to distinguish 'sucking out' from 'getting there with a draw given correct odds'. Calling ace high to the river and spiking your ace in a small pot = bad. Hitting one of your 9 flush cards on the river in a 5 way pot = good play. Heck being in a 5-way pot with nutflush draw = good, but we get there later /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course -- by definition to me, sucking out means making a hand when you were not getting proper odds to remain in it. Someone who had odds isn't "sucking out," they're playing well.

[ QUOTE ]
The caveat proceeding this statement is insanely, massively, (absurdly, even?) huge and enormous. I think if they do a new addition of the book this paragraph should be taken out. If you have to pry your eyes open with toothpicks, your edge is almost assuredly gone, and unfortunaltely, you are not in a state to realise same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd agree, in any game except the low-limits live. You can nearly run on autopilot in these games and remain a winning player getting the better of it. The response naturally is "if you're good enough to do that, it's time to move up" but I think it's obvious that you can't do that without a proper roll for a higher limit -- and there are various reasons why you may not be able/ready to supply that bankroll from your other income. In this singular case, I think it may be worth to play far longer than you normally should, simply because you're still a winning player, and the sooner you build that roll, the better. Naturally it is better to err on the side of caution -- I just think you can be less cautious in this circumstance (one I currently find myself in as a college student playing low-limit live).

[ QUOTE ]
So simple and yet so unbelievably difficult.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like they say about the game of Hold Em, you can understand the Theorem of Poker in ten minutes, but you'll never be finished improving your ability to apply it.

- UW

[As Zehn]

MEbenhoe

Nice job putting the questions together. Sorry I wasn't available earlier to actively participate. Looking forward to the next session.

[Nemesis]

Both are able to gain on the flop because ONE or more lost money pre-flop. There is now dead money in the pot. The flush draw is making money because there is enough dead money for him to call unprofitable bets to more than break even. The other person is making money because he has more of a pot equity edge than the flush when heads up, therefore he's making money on each bet that goes in.

[AKQJ10]

One point that AFAIK hasn't been mentioned yet, possibly because it seems so obvious, is this:

[ QUOTE ]
Whether you are playing $1-limit poker at the kitchen table or pot-limit poker at the Stardust in Las Vegas, whether you are playing poker for fun or for a living, once a week or every day, you have to understand that the object of the game is to make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, i would argue that part of the reason we can win long-term is precisely because winning money isn't universally accepted as the object of the game. Lots of people play for the thrill of gambling or of beating long odds to lay on a bad beat on the river. Those people aren't playing rationally by Sklansky's value system (which i and most of us, and for that matter every known poker book, share) but they're playing very consistently with their own objectives. Gary Carson really drives home this point in The Complete Book of Casino Poker: People play poker for different reasons, and the better you understand your own motives in contrast to others', the better chance you have of winning.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of people play for the thrill of gambling or of beating long odds to lay on a bad beat on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point... plenty of people actually derive pleasure out of depending on luck, versus good play. This is also why casinos are making money. It's a slow process, eliminating this thrill of winning despite the odds (we always like an underdog in this country). However, I'm slowly growing to be upset when I suckout on someone because I played incorrectly.

Now not getting upset at someone for sucking out on ME (a +EV situation, if they're getting money in with the worse of it), that takes a lot more work... good thing for online poker.

- UW

[AKQJ10]

One very important point from this chapter is that a "mistake" in Sklansky's terminology isn't referring to someone playing poorly based on all available information. It's simply playing differently than you would have if you had known all the cards. Keep that in mind if you're ever tempted to criticize someone for making a "Sklansky-mistake". /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Also, Ebenhoe, after our PM exchange i looked back at the examples in the book and you're correct that Sklansky indirectly refers to pot odds and semibluffing, although he doesn't really flesh them out. He writes,
[ QUOTE ]
...[Y]ou bet, trying to represent aces. If your opponent knew what you had, his correct play would be to raise you so much it would cost too much to draw to a flush or a straight on the last card, and you would have to fold. (Emphasis added)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be far preferable to make up an example not involving these two concepts, rather than to sorta-introduce them without introducing them. I'll look closer at the other 5 examples and see if they have the same limitation.

[SeppDeitrich]

answers:

1: a good player will get into more situations where he has an edge in a hand, so he will lose more hands where he had an edge.

2: because the goal of poker is to win money, not pots. You do not want to be in a pot when it is not profitable to be there.

3: A verry weak/tight game. If the opposition is timid enough you can win the most money by playing your marginal hands agressively and buying alot of pots. Typically this game condition happens on the bubble in a tournament, not in a cash game, although anything is possible.

[SeppDeitrich]

Sepp says:

1) mathematical expectation is important because the amount of money a poker player wins (or loses) over the long term is roughly equal to the sum of the expectations of all the plays he makes.

2) the ev of a single roll is 1000$ * .00001= .01$

so he will lose 1.20$ per hour of game time. so he will go broke in about 95 000 years

[SeppDeitrich]

you guys are all wrog when you say he loses .02$/roll

there is a .002% difference in expectation between the guy and the house.

.001% of the difference is the money the guy expects to lose the other .001% is the house's expected win. the .002% is the sum of the house's expected win and his expected loss.

[SeppDeitrich]

Sepp says:

1: Sepp is tight as a rock and prefers to fold unless he has a good first 3 cards. So he would rather pay only a small ante to see cards he will probably muck on 3rd street.

2: This hand is better in a large ante game since most alot of it's value lies in drawing to the straight/flush the will win even if the pot is multiway. So I would rather begin the hand with a fair bit of money in the pot so that A) the pot offers you good odds to see 4th street with your draw and B) other players are also encouraged to see 4th so you have better pot odds for your draw.

[sethypooh21]

Actually, I think you are mistaken Sepp.

over 100k rolls, our hero will win 49999 of them, netting 99998 for a total return of $99,998,000. Of course he has to wager 100k x 1k = $100,000,000 for a net loss of $2k. Over 100k hands, this works out to $.02 per hand. $2.40 an hour with 120 RPH.

[David Sklansky]

"Sklansky states on p. 6 “You may occasionally be in a game where the best strategy is to win as many pots as possible, but such games are exceptions.” What type of game conditions would make this strategy optimal? "

I was speaking of games where players play too tight. They do exist in spite of what astroglide says.

[BarronVangorToth]

I was at one again last week -- FAR too tight, OVER half the hands were chopped by the blinds and just about any pre-flop raise picked up said blinds.

They DO exist.

But they are a rarity.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[chaos]

In the 4/8 mini blinds the blinds only total 3/8 of a big bet.
But it is cheap to see the flop.

I think you should play tithgter if you are one of the first ones entering the pot because there is less money you are initially competing for. Once a few people have entered the pot it is probably correct to loosen up with speculative hands like suited connectors because it is not costing you much to try and catch a flop that might win you a big pot.

[BugsBunny]

lets simplify this and make it 49% and 51%.

100 rolls at $1 apiece.
you win 49

Youre total investment is $100 ($1 for each of 100 rolls). On the rolls that you win you get $2 (your initial bet back + the payoff). 2 * 49 = 98.

-100 + 98 = -2, meaning you've lost $2 per 100 rolls, not $1 as looking at it the way you did would mean.

The principle in the posted problem is the same.

[BugsBunny]

It depends on how the table is playing. If there's a lot of preflop raising you might be correct to fold from EP. But if most of the time preflop action isn't raised you can call from EP (and usually fold if someone raises after you).

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I was at one again last week -- FAR too tight, OVER half the hands were chopped by the blinds and just about any pre-flop raise picked up said blinds.

They DO exist.

But they are a rarity.

[/ QUOTE ]

The weekday Mirage 10/20 games are sometimes like this, and they can be very profitable. You end up winning a lot of small pots.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was at one again last week -- FAR too tight, OVER half the hands were chopped by the blinds and just about any pre-flop raise picked up said blinds.

They DO exist.

But they are a rarity.

[/ QUOTE ]

The weekday Mirage 10/20 games are sometimes like this, and they can be very profitable. You end up winning a lot of small pots.

[/ QUOTE ]


SOMETIMES they are.... last time I was out there, one day it would be like that, the next ... not.

Can't wait 'til November when Team BarronVangorToth.com hits Vegas harder than <insert random vaguely sexual somewhat offensive definitely misogynistic analogy here>.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Gamblor]

Here's a great example where I made a horrid mistake on the flop, but could not possibly consider it a "game play" mistake or a "bad play".

This was a great 20/40 game that went uncharacteristically tight for this hand:

Folded to me, I have A /images/graemlins/spade.gif T /images/graemlins/spade.gif in CO. I raise, button cold calls, both blinds fold.

2 to the flop (5.5 SB): Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif T /images/graemlins/heart.gif T /images/graemlins/club.gif

I bet, button raises, I call

2 to the turn (4.75 BB): (Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif T /images/graemlins/heart.gif T /images/graemlins/club.gif) T /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

I check, button bets, I call.

2 to the river (6.75 BB): (Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif T /images/graemlins/heart.gif T /images/graemlins/club.gif T /images/graemlins/diamond.gif) 4 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

I check, button bets, I raise, button calls.

I show my quads, button shows Q /images/graemlins/heart.gif Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif

Clearly, I didn't play poorly, but preflop and especially on the flop, I made disastrous FTOP mistakes.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
Why will a good player experience more bad beats than an average or poor player?

[/ QUOTE ]
Playing devil's advocate here: Badger argues that bad players actually experience more bad beats than good players because they don't properly protect their hands.

http://www.playwinningpoker.com/articles/04/07.html

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why will a good player experience more bad beats than an average or poor player?

[/ QUOTE ]
Playing devil's advocate here: Badger argues that bad players actually experience more bad beats than good players because they don't properly protect their hands.

http://www.playwinningpoker.com/articles/04/07.html

[/ QUOTE ]

What Badger is talking about is NL play, and in NL play if you don't properly protect your hand its not a bad beat its just bad play by yourself. On the other hand if you overbet the pot with one card to come and someone still calls with their flush draw to beat you, that is a bad beat.

[eh923]

Taking this a step further, it would be best for your opponent to raise high enough (exact numbers in the prior message) to make the call unprofitable, yet still potentially elicit a call. By moving all-in for such a small pot, there's no way that you'll make that call...so your opponent really isn't gaining anything.

[Kingsfull]

[ QUOTE ]
What type of game conditions would make this strategy optimal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huge ante games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

The question was concerning when it is correct to win "as many pots as possible". No matter what the ante size is, you only have to win once every time the button goes around. (In other words, if there are 9 players at the table, you only have to win once for every nine deals (not counting bets) and you will be assured of having enough money to meet the antes for the next eight hands (when you again win the other eight players' antes) thus, the size of the antes is not a factor, even assuming that you win only the antes of the other players (not counting bets) you only have to take one pot per nine hands dealt to stay even. This means that it is not imperative to win "as many pots as possible".

The correct answer would be tight games, however I admit to reading Sklansky's post above before writing this. I did know the correct answer, but I read his post before I posted.

Pete