PDA

View Full Version : Bad reasons ....


09-06-2001, 09:09 PM
I just cannot stand reading all these bad reasons people have for playing justifying bad play. Here is a rough list of the top bad reasons; and keep in mind these are from posters who are WINNING players. Lets not even get into reasons the real suckers use.


[1] To get a Free card. I see so many players justifing terrible bets and raises to get a free card later, or making terrible checks in order to take free cards. There was a recent post where hero had a 2 over-card flush+straight draw heads up against the blind, when a card bigger than the board came on the turn; and hero wanted to "take a free card".


Boy, who would have predicted it at the time, but Sklansky sure did poker a great dis-service when he wrote about Free cards, especially when he used the word "catastrophy", a gross misreprestation of the reality of the situation (which rarely costs more than one bet). I'm not suggesting he was wrong, but this topic is relatively unimportant.


[2] To get information. Information is only good when it changes your actions that have drastically different EVs. If you are going to pay the player off anyway, raising to find out you are beat doesn't do you any good. The authors DID downplay this reason, but it seems to have taken a life of its own.


[3] Fear of being beat. Like Stonewall Jackson once plagerized: "Listen to your fears but don't take council in them", or something like that. Heck, once the pot is fairly large then MOST of your bets/raises SHOULD be with the lesser hand.


You know why the monsters are hiding in the closet? Its because THEY are scared of YOU. (Yes, tell that to your Daughter). Get a damn night light (don't tell her that). And when the bridge DOES have a troll, it doesn't mean you're dead, it just means you cannot go that way.


[4] Shame. Now I haven't actually SEEN someone say it, but there appears to be the notion that there is some sort of "shame" in betting a hand that isn't clearly the best hand. When you make a losing bet you didn't just lose a bet, you lost some "respect" and you played "poorly" and are a "sucker". Well, shame on you for thinking that way.


No. You should bet for value on the end when you have the better hand more than 50% of the time you are called. That means that means that LESS than 50% of the time you will make a "losing" bet. Otherwise, you are not betting enough. And betting along the way makes a bunch of sense if it gets someone to fold.


[5] Bullets. Some people think they are at a shooting gallery with 6 shots and 5 ducks, which means they should only take a shot that will success 5 times in 6.


No. Shots you take now have little affect on your ability or prospects to take shots later. Routinely take you +EV shots, no matter how small.


Flame on.


- Louie

09-07-2001, 04:07 AM
Louie,


I generally agree with what you wrote. Regarding free cards, players also sometimes make incorrect bets when they would benefit from a "free card" (sometimes because they should slow-play in a small pot). However, I agree that incorrectly taking free cards is probably more common and more costly.


If I recall correctly, Sklansky used the word "catastrophy" in relation to giving free cards(i.e., when an opponent who would have folded to your bet draws out on you). I think that was in TOP.

09-07-2001, 12:14 PM
"If I recall correctly, Sklansky used the word "catastrophy" in relation to giving free cards(i.e., when an opponent who would have folded to your bet draws out on you). I think that was in TOP."


Yes. Well, if the opponent would have folded to a bet then his chances are, obviously, worth less than a bet. So checking only costs that much. It is a "catastrophy" only in the mathematical divide-by-zero sense (his reward/risk ratio), not in any EV sense.


A "catastrophy" is getting bluffed by a habitual bluffer or failing to bluff against a habitual folder, but may include failing to bet/raise when the opponent will NOT call when he SHOULD.


- Louie

09-08-2001, 05:40 AM
Excellent point! I think DS's warning of potentially catastrophic consequences of allowing free cards was misleading.


"Sklansky sure did poker a great dis-service when he wrote about Free cards, especially when he used the word 'catastrophy'"


This statement confused me because the bad plays you described involved getting/taking free cards. Is the often over-used "free-card semi-bluff" the disservice to which you referred?

09-08-2001, 09:45 AM
I'm suggesting that even though what he wrote was correct, its affect has been negative since so many player grossly abuse the concept. Perhaps if he had used "Cheap Cards" it may have had a more reasonable impact.


- Louie

09-09-2001, 07:18 AM
I usually like it when my opponents abuse concepts.