Theorem of poker

[PokerFoo]

For years I have avoided certain player types that I know I have trouble playing against. It has always been easier to just find a table with the player types I know my game is good against. Since I started playing more online than in the brick and mortars, I have found it increasingly difficult to avoid the types I dont like and it has motivated me to learn some new theory and play styles.

I have always faired better at reasonably tight tables than loose tables. It's easier to control the odds and use semi-bluffs, check raises and slowplays. Preffering being heads-up or having at the most a 3 way pot is where I feel my game has always been best.

At the 2/4 3/6 level where I usually play, I run into a lot of games where players seeing the flop is often upwards of 75%. More and more frequently, in fact. This is where my profites tend to be break-even or be very small at best.

After re-reading The fundamental theorem of poker, I have a few situations I would like to discuss so I can better handle these situations when I can't avoid them.

In limit holdem with 10 players-
You are on the button with Ac Ah.
UTG limpes in and is raised by UTG+1. 5 players cold call 2 bets to you.
Would it not be correct, according the the theorem, to fold your aces? If you call or raise, everyone will stay in the hand to see the flop. This would effectivly mean you are laying odds to any 2 suited cards or any connectors, which are likely in the field. By playing this way consistantly over time, you would loose money. Essentially you would be the imbecile giving 2 to 1 on the coin flip would you not?

Lets say you call or raise in this situation and everyone stays in. The flop is As 6h 4s. Early position bets and is then raised. The rest of the field calls to you. would it again not be correct to fold your set according the the theorem? Raising will not thin the field in any signifigant way and likely only lay better odds against your set for the rest of the hand. Over time, I see more flushes and straights panning out in this situation than Aces full.

Lets say your at the same table but UTG. You hold the same 2 aces. Would it not be correct to fold them UTG? If you make it 2 bets, you can be 99% sure of getting called by about 7 of the ten players. This would be putting yourself in the same situation of laying odds to the other hands over time wouldnt it? You'd see bad beat after bad beat time and time again wouldn't you?

Now I ask this.

Your at the same table, your UTG with some suited connector or even a suited 1 gap. Your 99% sure a raise will get you about 7 of the ten players at the table. Theres a good chance it may even be capped pre-flop with everyone staying in. Are these hands, in this situation, more valuable over time than the aces or any other big pocket pair? If I understand the theorem correctly they would be. But then that would contradict the assumption that when the table is very loose a good player will tighten up.

-If- all this is correct, just how loose pre-flop should a good player become at these table types? Obviously Ax suited is getting good odds from any position but what about connectors and suited gaps? Is it profitable to regularly play them out of position in these situations? Or am I better off just observing for an hour and waiting for the table to settle down or new blood to come in?

If I am way off base in my understanding here please let me know.
Sound advice is what I need.

[D.H.]

[ QUOTE ]
At the 2/4 3/6 level where I usually play, I run into a lot of games where players seeing the flop is often upwards of 75%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. Where do you play? I wanna be there. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
In limit holdem with 10 players-
You are on the button with Ac Ah.
UTG limpes in and is raised by UTG+1. 5 players cold call 2 bets to you.Would it not be correct, according the the theorem, to fold your aces? If you call or raise, everyone will stay in the hand to see the flop. This would effectivly mean you are laying odds to any 2 suited cards or any connectors, which are likely in the field. By playing this way consistantly over time, you would loose money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nooo. You would win money over time. If up against 10 players, you're fine if you have more than 10% chance of winning. With your aces, you've got lots more than that. Raise it for value. Of course people will catch there flushes sometimes, you will even lose most of the time with your aces against this many opponents. BUT, in the long run you're a winner.

<font color="red">© </font><font color="blue">D.H.</font>

[cnfuzzd]

&lt;&lt;&lt;For years I have avoided certain player types that I know I have trouble playing against. It has always been easier to just find a table with the player types I know my game is good against. Since I started playing more online than in the brick and mortars, I have found it increasingly difficult to avoid the types I dont like and it has motivated me to learn some new theory and play styles.

I have always faired better at reasonably tight tables than loose tables. It's easier to control the odds and use semi-bluffs, check raises and slowplays. Preffering being heads-up or having at the most a 3 way pot is where I feel my game has always been best.

At the 2/4 3/6 level where I usually play, I run into a lot of games where players seeing the flop is often upwards of 75%. More and more frequently, in fact. This is where my profites tend to be break-even or be very small at best.&gt;&gt;&gt;

Then you are not a winning poker player, plain and simple. Perhaps i should say that you arent an "expert" poker player. The expert, and those trying to get that way, understand te way to maximize thier edge in these extremely loose games, and do so to make huge profits, due to the increaased number of people putting bets into the pot. A perfect example of this would be NPA Ed Miller. He is a player who is comfortable in a 30/60 game with 3 people seeing the flop, or a 2/4 game with ten people seeing the flop. In either game, Ed knows how to maximize his advantage.


&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;
In limit holdem with 10 players-
You are on the button with Ac Ah.
UTG limpes in and is raised by UTG+1. 5 players cold call 2 bets to you.
Would it not be correct, according the the theorem, to fold your aces? If you call or raise, everyone will stay in the hand to see the flop. This would effectivly mean you are laying odds to any 2 suited cards or any connectors, which are likely in the field. By playing this way consistantly over time, you would loose money. Essentially you would be the imbecile giving 2 to 1 on the coin flip would you not?&gt;&gt;&gt;

First, it is a horrible idea to fold aces preflop. Nuff said. Second, YOU are not laying odds to these hands, the POT is laying these odds. While its true that in a game where several pots are going to two or three bets before the flop will have enough big bets in them to make drawing to almost any hand profitable, you currently have the best hand, and are the favorite to win. So, not only is the pot laying everyone, including you, good odds to improve to a big hand, such as a nut flush, your hand is already ahead and can win unimproved. Also, your pot equity is huge when you have pocket aces. Your hand is the best unimproved hand, you can improve to what will almost always be the nuts, and you have great redraw potential almost always. So, by folding you sacrifice all that pot equity, meaning you cost your self money. Finally, its important to understand that just because the pots are multiway and very large, that doesnt mean its profitable to play any two suited cards. Your opponents ARE making a mistake according to the FTOP by not folding their hands preflop when you hold AA, especially if its been raised before they enter. Also, i want to see the stats that say overtime you would lose money with AA. I think you made this up. Against a full table going to the river everytime, AA will hold up 35% of the time. Lets say that in a hundred games, each time everyone put four big bets into the pot. With aces, against the full field, you are going to lose 65 out of 100 times. 4X65=260 big bets that you have lost. However, those 35 times that you win the 40 big bets are huge. 40X35=1400 big bets, for a profit of 1140 big bets. That is a huge margin. These numbers stay the same no matter how much raising is occurring, they just increase in proportion.

&lt;&lt;&lt; Lets say you call or raise in this situation and everyone stays in. The flop is As 6h 4s. Early position bets and is then raised. The rest of the field calls to you. would it again not be correct to fold your set according the the theorem? Raising will not thin the field in any signifigant way and likely only lay better odds against your set for the rest of the hand. Over time, I see more flushes and straights panning out in this situation than Aces full.&gt;&gt;&gt;

If you ever fold trip aces on this flop, david sklansky will hunt you down and beat you senseless. Seriously. First. You have the best hand. On the flop, 47 unseen cards. 8 spades would complete a flush, and 6 cards are non-spades that can complete an open ended straight draw. Thats 14/47 cards that will put your hand behind. However, that also means that there are 33 cards that give you a decent chance of winning unimproved. So, while the *pot* odds are correct for the draws to play against you, those plain old regular odds say that you will win lots of times. Second. Even if you KNOW that the turn would bring a flush, you would be correct to still play here since you are also getting the correct pot odds to draw to the second nut, which will win 99.9% of the time its made. This is what pot equity means, your hand will win more times than most other hands here, and folding sacrfices all of that. At least, that what i think it means. /images/graemlins/grin.gif Finally, with the best hand, how big of a mistake are you making by folding according to the FTOP.

&lt;&lt;&lt;
Lets say your at the same table but UTG. You hold the same 2 aces. Would it not be correct to fold them UTG? If you make it 2 bets, you can be 99% sure of getting called by about 7 of the ten players. This would be putting yourself in the same situation of laying odds to the other hands over time wouldnt it? You'd see bad beat after bad beat time and time again wouldn't you?&gt;&gt;&gt;

Its time to learn the meaning of the word variance, son. See above.

&lt;&lt;&lt;Now I ask this.Your at the same table, your UTG with some suited connector or even a suited 1 gap. Your 99% sure a raise will get you about 7 of the ten players at the table. Theres a good chance it may even be capped pre-flop with everyone staying in. Are these hands, in this situation, more valuable over time than the aces or any other big pocket pair? If I understand the theorem correctly they would be. But then that would contradict the assumption that when the table is very loose a good player will tighten up. -If- all this is correct, just how loose pre-flop should a good player become at these table types? Obviously Ax suited is getting good odds from any position but what about connectors and suited gaps? Is it profitable to regularly play them out of position in these situations? Or am I better off just observing for an hour and waiting for the table to settle down or new blood to come in? If I am way off base in my understanding here please let me know.Sound advice is what I need. &gt;&gt;&gt;

Its almost never correct to play small suited connectors up front, nor to raise with them, unless you are chris daddy cool. playing these hands for multiple bets before the flop out of position, so that you cant use cool tricks like free cards and what not, will cost you money over time. For the best advice you can get about these situations, i would recommend picking up small stakes hold em, the latest 2+2 book. reading this book will revolutionize the way you play poker. Guarenteed.

peace

john nickle

[D.H.]

[ QUOTE ]
&lt;&lt;&lt; For years I have avoided certain player...
...at best. &gt;&gt;&gt;

[/ QUOTE ]

The 'quote' feature is pretty nice. Makes the posts a lot easier to read. Especially long ones.

<font color="red">© </font><font color="blue">D.H.</font>

[PokerFoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Then you are not a winning poker player, plain and simple. Perhaps i should say that you arent an "expert" poker player.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am most certainly not an expert player. I am however a winning player. But that is because I am aware and humble of where my game has faults and I am careful to stay away from situations I know I will have a hard time with. Though as I said, its more frequent I run into situations I dont care for when playing online these days. I am on the quest to improve my game in these specific situations.

[ QUOTE ]

you currently have the best hand, and are the favorite to win. Your opponents ARE making a mistake according to the FTOP by not folding their hands preflop when you hold AA, especially if its been raised before they enter. Also, i want to see the stats that say overtime you would lose money with AA. I think you made this up. Against a full table going to the river everytime, AA will hold up 35% of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

I currently have the best hand but I am not so sure I am the 'Favorite' to win there against 7 or more players with 2 cards to come, however. An open ended straight with a flush possability would be a 2 to 1 favorite over that hand wouldnt it?

Holding up 35% of the time is losing 65% of the time.. isnt it?

As for losing money over time in this situation, this is one of the theorem problems that made me scratch my head. I didnt make it up, it is actually discussed in The Theory of Poker. (I forget which chapter but I'll try to find the exact text later)

If I understand it correctly... (this is not a quote from the book, just an example of how I understand, or don't understand it)

If I were to consistantly play my big hands against a large field when the pot is laying sufficient odds to the drawing hands, It would be liken to the coin flip example of giving 2 to 1 on the flip. I would lose money over time.

[ QUOTE ]

If you ever fold trip aces on this flop, david sklansky will hunt you down and beat you senseless. Seriously. First. You have the best hand. On the flop, 47 unseen cards. 8 spades would complete a flush, and 6 cards are non-spades that can complete an open ended straight draw. Thats 14/47 cards that will put your hand behind. However, that also means that there are 33 cards that give you a decent chance of winning unimproved. So, while the *pot* odds are correct for the draws to play against you, those plain old regular odds say that you will win lots of times.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would tend to agree but my results in these situations are what kills my profits. One loss here will be for a lot of chips. Play on the flop will likely be raised without thinning the field. Gaining those chips back is usually a long slow grind.

Remember that the situation I am describing is not 'average'. This is a family pot with player types that are not going away under any circumstances.

DH-
I play all over the place. Ultimate bet, Party poker, Poker stars Full-Tilt and True Poker. Although I see this mostly at Party and UB lately. Party's 2/4 games will do this very often then settle back down. I'll raise UTG with a big hand and get called by the whole table. I usually throw it away in disgust right afterward and am almost always glad I did so when the guy with the small 2 or 3 gap hits the straight or the flush hits. Which 'seems' to be more often than not against this many players.

What I am describing here are odd table tilts that last sometimes an hour or more. What I usually do is turtle up because I know I dont have a great game in these situations and one hit can take away 2 or 3 hours of my wins. I'll cold call the 2 or 3 bets to me when I'm on the button with an Ax suited or even a suited connector because Im getting extreme odds. I'll fold if the flop doesnt hit a 4 flush, open ended straight flush draw or better. Most often I just fold, watch and wait for a better situation though.

What I would like is to be able to smartly play in these situations, instead of waiting them out though. I see a lot of players making a whole lot more per hour than me by playing the small 2 gaps and such when the table tilts. I'm starting to wonder if its correct/profitable for me to do so too. And I'm questioning the value of my big hands in these situations as well.

I've been spending a few hours a day in the micro limit games (because they resemble this pretty closely) to practice different plays and I find them equally mind boggling. So far, what I have experienced is that flopping any set against this many loose players is costly.

[ QUOTE ]

Nooo. You would win money over time.... Of course people will catch there flushes sometimes, you will even lose most of the time with your aces against this many opponents. BUT, in the long run you're a winner.


[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is what confuses me. The contradiction. If Im going to lose most of the time against that many players isnt this a losing proposition in the long run? This is why Im asking if Its correct to just toss it and only play it against a smaller field.

[CurryLover]

[ QUOTE ]

If I am way off base in my understanding here please let me know.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are way off base in your understanding.

I thought your first post was a joke actually, but it seems from your second post that you are serious.

I'm not going to offer any long explanation to you because one of the other posters has already done that in detail. Either you haven't read and thought about it properly, or you just don't understand it.

[D.H.]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Nooo. You would win money over time.... Of course people will catch there flushes sometimes, you will even lose most of the time with your aces against this many opponents. BUT, in the long run you're a winner.


[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is what confuses me. The contradiction. If Im going to lose most of the time against that many players isnt this a losing proposition in the long run? This is why Im asking if Its correct to just toss it and only play it against a smaller field.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple example:
10 players put $10 each in the pot.
You win 30% of the time.

If playing 10 times you will put $100 in the pot. You will win the pot 3 times, giving you $100 * 3 = $300. $300 - $100 = $200. You're a winner even though you lost most of the time.

<font color="red">© </font><font color="blue">D.H.</font>

[knightunner]

[ QUOTE ]

In limit holdem with 10 players-
You are on the button with Ac Ah.
UTG limpes in and is raised by UTG+1. 5 players cold call 2 bets to you.
Would it not be correct, according the the theorem, to fold your aces? If you call or raise, everyone will stay in the hand to see the flop. This would effectivly mean you are laying odds to any 2 suited cards or any connectors, which are likely in the field. By playing this way consistantly over time, you would loose money. Essentially you would be the imbecile giving 2 to 1 on the coin flip would you not?

Lets say you call or raise in this situation and everyone stays in. The flop is As 6h 4s. Early position bets and is then raised. The rest of the field calls to you. would it again not be correct to fold your set according the the theorem? Raising will not thin the field in any signifigant way and likely only lay better odds against your set for the rest of the hand. Over time, I see more flushes and straights panning out in this situation than Aces full.

Lets say your at the same table but UTG. You hold the same 2 aces. Would it not be correct to fold them UTG? If you make it 2 bets, you can be 99% sure of getting called by about 7 of the ten players. This would be putting yourself in the same situation of laying odds to the other hands over time wouldnt it? You'd see bad beat after bad beat time and time again wouldn't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is playing weak tight. The Fundamental Theorum of Poker, from my understanding, works both ways. If you fold a hand that you should have played against your opponents, you are contributing to their winnings. AA, preflop, is the nuts. Even if 2 suited cards hit on the flop along with your set ace, the odds of them hitting there flush are roughly 3:1. With the post flop nuts, and 5 people in the pot, you are getting more than enough pot odds to call. Really, at this point you want the pot to be as big as possible. If you know they are going to call, you need to raise and reraise.

Folding this hand goes against the Theorum.
~knight

[PokerFoo]

[ QUOTE ]

You are way off base in your understanding.

I thought your first post was a joke actually, but it seems from your second post that you are serious.


[/ QUOTE ]

No I'm not joking.

I have been examining my game and my only noteable leak is when I have to play against large loose fields. With pocket aces, kings or other similar hands, my stats show Id rather one or 2 players make a big mistake against these hands than have to play them against 8 players who WONT fold no matter what. But you all suggest I WANT to play against this field with these hands.

I decided to go back to the books specifically to look for advice in these situations and found some confusing concepts in the theorem of poker about situations when the pot is laying enough odds to these hands.

Here is a passage from The theory of poker. Chapter 9

...but even when your hand is the best hand, you generally prefer your opponant to fold rather than call when the pot is large. The reason is that when you bet in a limit game and the pot is large, your opponants hand, though second best, is rarely so much of an underdog that he is not getting good enough odds to chase you. Hence, his calling you with good odds is a profitable play for him in the long run. Since he is correct to take the odds, you do not gain when he calls. You gain only when he folds and turns down those odds. When he calls, you lose even if you happen to win that particular pot; for over the long run his call has positive expectation. It will end up costing you money.
--

Forgive me if these are trivial concepts for you. I'm just trying to improve my hourly rate. but this statement, would indicate to me that in the situations I have described, with huge pots and loose players who will not fold under any circumstances, its probably best to fold and wait for a better spot (with those hand types).

That combined with my own stats would suggest this is true.
So, because I am not an expert I am here trying to clarify and determine the best way to play this type of field.

If I am wrong and stubborn I hope to correct it. If I am on the right track to plugging a leak and improving my hourly rate I hope to do that too.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
with huge pots and loose players who will not fold under any circumstances, its probably best to fold and wait for a better spot (with those hand types).


[/ QUOTE ]

you're right. toss those Aces. especially when the pot is huge. Just ask ed miller, he agrees with you about huge hands in monster sized pots.

[pokerjo22]

I think what is worrying D.H. is that regardless of whether you are a winning player or not you don't actually know why you are winning.

Prior to the flop with Aces you have the best possible hand you can have in hold'em period. Ideally you want all the money that is currently on the poker table in the pot. If all ten people raise to the cap, that is the best possible result for you.

Say that Aces only hold up in such a circumstance 35% of the time (I think its higher against ten random hands going to the river, but I'm not sure). So what? Every raise you put in was called by 9 other players. So you're putting money on a 2:1 proposition at 9:1 odds. That's a massive overlay. And if you don't get that, you don't understand gambling.

And its even money that there's a mistake in my math somewhere /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[LinusKS]

Foo,

A couple of things. First, don't let snotty comments from players who may not know as much as they think they know (or as much as they'd like you to think they know) get under your skin.

There's nothing wrong with playing where you're comfortable, or avoiding high variance situations.

As to your questions about AA, here's a site that will help you: http://twodimes.net/poker.

If you look at the pokenum hand analyzer, you can get a good idea of how aces perform under different situations.

Under this situation, for example -

ah ad (hero)
ts 9s (suited connector)
2c 2h (small pair)
as 7s (Axs)
jh 6h (suited)
ks th (high cards)
qc 6c (suited)

The odds pre-flop are as follows:

HAND WIN%
Ad Ah 33.19
Ts 9s 9.19
2c 2h 16.66
As 7s 7.41
Jh 6h 8.97
Ks Th 7.27
Qc 6c 13.63

Since there's seven people in, the only other hand getting odds to call here preflop is the pair of twos (leaving aside the blinds for the moment).

The tricky thing about AA, though, is that you're not going to know when you're behind.

If a 2 comes, you're not going to know you're up against a set. If the flop happens to have a J and an 8 of spades, you're not going to know you're up against a straight-flush draw. And if a Q and 6 come, you're not going to know two pair is out there. Etc. etc. etc.

What this means is that they're getting implied odds.

If the 22 hits, he can confidently bet out on the flop.

The situation isn't nearly as easy for you.

If you're playing against a field of complete morons, you can probably bet your AA all the way to the river every time, and win money in the long run. This is because when you do win, you'll win very large pots, making up for all the losses.

If there are even a few good players sitting with you, the situation is more difficult, because you could be - without knowing it - giving huge implied odds to speculative hands.

Something to remember - when you hold AA at these kinds of tables, you will lose most of the time and when you do lose, you'll lose many bets.

If you have a small bankroll, or you can't handle huge swings, it doesn't take much in the way of a bad run to ruin you.

Another thing - if you are playing aces at a loose table, you should always put as much into the pot preflop as you possibly can.

It's after the flop that things start to get tricky.

[LinusKS]

The way that good players win money on loose tables with speculative hands (suited connectors, small pairs, Ax suited) is by folding when the flop misses them, and calling and raising when it hits. They're taking advantage of implied odds to beat hands like AA. That's another reason to get as much money into the pot as possible preflop. You want to narrow the implied odds on those kinds of hands as much as possible, or even eliminate them, if you can.

If you're losing money with big pairs, it could be that you're not folding enough post-flop - a very tricky thing to learn, IMO.

Or it could be that you've just been unlucky, especially your sample is not especially large.

[D.H.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You are way off base in your understanding.

I thought your first post was a joke actually, but it seems from your second post that you are serious.


[/ QUOTE ]

No I'm not joking.



[/ QUOTE ]

This was a reply to my post, but the quote is not from me. So just to be clear, I did not take your post as a joke and I tried to explain things as clearly as possible. Writing comments like "you are way off" and "I thought it was a joke" is just stupid.

<font color="red">© </font><font color="blue">D.H.</font>

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]
flopping any set against this many loose players is costly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hm... is this entire thread one long shaggy bad beat story?

Forget the fundamental theorem of poker for a while and concentrate on avoiding the fundamental mistake of poker: results-oriented thinking. Yeah, your aces got cracked and your sets got cracked. Boo hoo.

You don't need to engage in any complicated theoretical strategic restructuring to beat loose games, if you play tight, aggressive, smart poker you will beat them. However, if you want to maximize your winnings in these games there are adjustments you should definitely make. Read "Small Stakes Holdem" by Ed Miller et al. Also the micro and small stakes forums are chock-a-block full with advice for optimal play under these game conditions.

But, mostly, the comment above makes me think you are falling in the trap of over-emphasising the results of a few unfortunate sessions. Suck it up.

/mc

[cnfuzzd]

&lt;&lt;&lt;I am most certainly not an expert player. I am however a winning player. But that is because I am aware and humble of where my game has faults and I am careful to stay away from situations I know I will have a hard time with. Though as I said, its more frequent I run into situations I dont care for when playing online these days. I am on the quest to improve my game in these specific situations.&gt;&gt;&gt;

For what its worth, i meant no denigration by my original comment, i hope it didnt come across that way. You are obviously a good enough player to examine your game and seek out leaks to plug. That having been said, you are essentially playing in a VERY weak tight manner, at least in these situations. If that makes you feel more comfortable, its your money, you can do whatever you want. But you must know that you are sacrificing huge amounts of EV in some of the most profitable games to be found. You are letting money go that should be your. Also, i think i realized your problem. You are focusin on winning pots, as opposed to money. You need to examine ALL your decision from the perspective of how to make the most money, and not care about who wins *this* pot. Thats why the example of aces vs a full field making over 1000bb's in profit is so accurate. More below.

&lt;&lt;&lt;I currently have the best hand but I am not so sure I am the 'Favorite' to win there against 7 or more players with 2 cards to come, however. An open ended straight with a flush possability would be a 2 to 1 favorite over that hand wouldnt it?&gt;&gt;&gt;

Its two to 1 AGAINST making the flush or straight, btw. However, even if your opponent holds 5s 7s, giving him the flush and OES draws, you are still going to win sixty percent of the time. Lets run the hundred hand example assuming putting a total of 4 bb's into the pot. In the above scenario, you will lose to the flush or straight 40 times out of 100, for a total loss of 160 big bets. You will win 60 times out of 100. Not counting the money you put into the pots you win, you will win 240 big bets. That is a profit 80 big bets with a hand you want to fold. That makes very little sense to me. Verbalize your thinking furhter.

&lt;&lt;&lt;Holding up 35% of the time is losing 65% of the time.. isnt it?&gt;&gt;&gt;

Yes, yes it is. But we dont play poker to win pots, we play it to win money. Reread the example i gave in my original post. You can lose 65% of the time and still be profitable, vastly so. Giving up these profitable situations has got to be killing your winrate.

&lt;&lt;&lt;As for losing money over time in this situation, this is one of the theorem problems that made me scratch my head. I didnt make it up, it is actually discussed in The Theory of Poker. (I forget which chapter but I'll try to find the exact text later)If I understand it correctly... (this is not a quote from the book, just an example of how I understand, or don't understand it) If I were to consistantly play my big hands against a large field when the pot is laying sufficient odds to the drawing hands, It would be liken to the coin flip example of giving 2 to 1 on the flip. I would lose money over time.&gt;&gt;&gt;

I did a cursory examination, and couldnt find anything, so you might want to post the text or at least a page number later. I would be curious to know if sklansky meant AA when he said big hands. Also, refer back to the examples to see how this is not losing money. You are the favorite, its simple. The vast magority of the deck are outs for you.

&lt;&lt;&lt;I would tend to agree but my results in these situations are what kills my profits. One loss here will be for a lot of chips. Play on the flop will likely be raised without thinning the field. Gaining those chips back is usually a long slow grind. Remember that the situation I am describing is not 'average'. This is a family pot with player types that are not going away under any circumstances.&gt;&gt;&gt;

well now you are getting into the discussion of variance. The more players who play, the higher your variance, but as long as you are a winning player, that also means higher profits. As you said these players are terrible, and like to put chips into the middle. Who could be a better opponent.

&lt;&lt;&lt;I play all over the place. Ultimate bet, Party poker, Poker stars Full-Tilt and True Poker. Although I see this mostly at Party and UB lately. Party's 2/4 games will do this very often then settle back down. I'll raise UTG with a big hand and get called by the whole table. I usually throw it away in disgust right afterward and am almost always glad I did so when the guy with the small 2 or 3 gap hits the straight or the flush hits. Which 'seems' to be more often than not against this many players&gt;&gt;&gt;

I too play in these games, and trust me, they are very profitable, for the exact things you DONT like about them.

&lt;&lt;&lt; See, this is what confuses me. The contradiction. If Im going to lose most of the time against that many players isnt this a losing proposition in the long run? This is why Im asking if Its correct to just toss it and only play it against a smaller field.&gt;&gt;&gt;

Look back at the example, which you seem to have not even read. /images/graemlins/grin.gif Dont count the number of *pots* won, count the number of big bets accumulated by hero. thats whats important.


To sum up, i think if you want elevate your game, you should immediatly go out and buy small stakes holdem. like right now.


peace

john nickle

[sirtemple]

I think I've found the rift in logic. [ QUOTE ]

...but even when your hand is the best hand, you generally prefer your opponant to fold rather than call when the pot is large. The reason is that when you bet in a limit game and the pot is large, your opponants hand, though second best, is rarely so much of an underdog that he is not getting good enough odds to chase you. Hence, his calling you with good odds is a profitable play for him in the long run. Since he is correct to take the odds, you do not gain when he calls. You gain only when he folds and turns down those odds. When he calls, you lose even if you happen to win that particular pot; for over the long run his call has positive expectation. It will end up costing you money.
--


[/ QUOTE ]
An example:

$120 in the pot

Hero: A /images/graemlins/diamond.gifA /images/graemlins/heart.gif
LAP: 7 /images/graemlins/club.gif8 /images/graemlins/club.gif

Flop: J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

You bet out $20

The LAP will make his hand 34% of the time. It is correct for him to call. If he folds you will win $120 100% of the time. If he calls you will win $140 66% of the time. Folding gives you an EV of $120 while calling only gives you an EV of $94. His calling cost you $26. This is why Slansky says you want him to fold.


So your EV on the Flop is:
120 if he folds
94 if he calls
0 if YOU fold

Clearly folding is an aweful choice.

But where did the $120 in the pot come from? You have positive EV either way because you got so much $ in the pot early. It is correct at this point for the LAP to chase. You are ignoring the fact that it was VERY wrong for him to get this far at all.

Asuming you each put in $60 of the $120 pre-flop your EV for the Hand based on flop decisions is:

He Folds: +60
He Calls: +14
You Fold: -60

It is even clearer now that we want him to fold, but there is no reason in the world WE would fold.

Calling any bets before the flop is the mistake these players make. That's why you dream of capping it preflop regardless of the number of players. After the flop their chansing hurts you, in so much as you will win less, but you've already won. Any capped pre-flop w/ aces is a positive EV for you. PERIOD. Regardless of who chases what, you've already made money.

Jason

[PokerFoo]

I understand the math here but I'm not sure you can use that like a holy grail on how to play. It doesnt take into account so many other things.

Like when you DO win you will likely win LESS than you lost if you played equally as aggressive in THESE situations.

Because the flop didn't hit the suited gap in any way and they didn't stay in. Or because you WILL pair the board and it scares off the flush and straight draws. Remember Your hand is the one that looks best so your going to pay off the hidden hands who can easily identify what they have to beat. You are not so sure against a field this large and loose what anyone can have.

With that many players though, your probably going to have to turn over a straight or better to take the pot. If I am wrong about this please show me some data to show otherwise.

Not to mention more often than not you wont hit the set and you will be in a trickier position of holding top pair only.

Lets not use the example I described in the first post as anything but a general way to articulate how loose the table is playing. Im not looking for advice on what the absolute best thing to do with those exact cards is.

Most texts say you should tighten up conciderably in these situations. But my own stats indicate that aces are not profitable against this large field and are in fact a huge leak.

I guess a simple way to ask the question is this. If your on the button and 7 or more players have all called 3 bets up to this point and your about to cap it....

The table has been playing like this for the last 30 minutes consistantly and you KNOW the flop play will be raised just like the pre-flop play...

What would you rather have? Aces, kings or 5 8 suited?

(I dont include Ax suited because I already know thats a profitable hand to have there. Im am trying to determine what other hand types I can play here without creating another leak)

Or am I better off doing what I have been doing and just not get involved at all when the table is like this? I can wait until it settles down and get in with the best hand against one or 2 players later.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
Most texts say you should tighten up conciderably in these situations. But my own stats indicate that aces are not profitable against this large field and are in fact a huge leak.

[/ QUOTE ]

you don't have enough stats compiled or you're lying to yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
What would you rather have? Aces, kings or 5 8 suited?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think? Of course Id rather have kings. kings because "I ALWAYS LOSE WITH ACES", lol.

I guess the only conclusion is to follow what you think is right. Go ahead and fold those ACES when the pot gets big. Trust your stats that say AA loses money in multiway pots.

Also, keep avoiding those bad players and stick with trying to find the toughest game around.

[sirtemple]

If the flop hit no-one you win the money that went in before the flop - which is exactly why you want the betting capped pre-flop.

[ QUOTE ]
Remember Your hand is the one that looks best so your going to pay off the hidden hands who can easily identify what they have to beat. You are not so sure against a field this large and loose what anyone can have

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are afraid of post-flop play, then raise as much as you can preflop, then only bet and call after the flop. You may not make as much as others with pocket aces, but you won't lose as much either.

On a side note, if variance scares you this much you should move down in limits, you might playing above your means. At first I thought you were confuseed on what TOP teaches, but now I just think you're scared. Take it from me, Playing scared = losing. I am not a great player, probably not even good by standards of this board, but I am a winning player because I pick my games carefully. I, like most other players here love games with this much blind action. Varience is high, but by playing less hands than the rest of the table you can easily win. The rest of my play is only average, I just have a higher starting hand requirement than the rest of the table. And my play is looser than many other players still. But I know this and look for tables with lots of other gamblers. So if varience is that threatening to you, you should stick to passive games, and leave when the game goes on tilt.

Jason

P.S. You can PM me when you leave a loose table and I'll take your seat.

[golFUR]

You touch on a concept here I've been mulling for quite some time. As I have yet to figure out (all of the reasons) why some posts get plenty of responses and others go entirely neglected I'm still holding off before I post it.

I'll chance the ridicule and just say: screw the math.

There is a tendency here, bordering on the fanatic, to treat the math as THE answer in every situation. "You have odds" "You are giving away money in this situation" "over time" "in the long run" blah blah blah. I don't say the math is wrong, it is theoretically correct in every case. The problem is, we aren't playing with theoretical dollars against theoretical opponents. As well, every single case or response that references the long run seems to be wrapped up and tied off with a bit of faith. You have faith that in the long run the numbers are going to pay you off, that you aren't going to go bust before you get paid off, that your payoffs will come on the right tables...

To try to forestall the inevitable, I do use math. I do rough odds on every hand. Further, I'm mathematically inclined, I understand numbers intuitively and do very accurate 'back of the envelope' numbers on the fly. That said, I encounter situations a dozen times a day where the math takes a back seat to my read and to my comfort. I fold preflop with a very playable hand in a SnG when I sense the action is going to get out of hand and I don't want to mess up my image or I expect that tilted guy isn't going to go away or whatever...

I'm not going to go on. I'll save all this for its own post. Let me just point out one thing. There were a lot of people making money at poker, for a long time, before anyone pulled out a calculator and started getting theoretical about it. Even assuming Wild Bill was crunching numbers on his Aces and Eights, there have been plenty of players over the years who did it all with reads and intuition. If you are making money when you are comfortable and losing money when you are uncomfortable, seek comfort. If you have an idea that you are certain works at a real table but seems to go against the theoretically correct play... I don't know. Like I said, I'm still working this out for myself.

Let me just close by saying I understand. The confusion that arises when the book tells you to do something you are certain you shouldn't be doing... I don't know, but I wonder, what Stu Ungar would think of all these number crunchers...

[InchoateHand]

No offense...but a SnG is a completely different animal than a limit ring game. "Playable" hands in a SnG have widely varying definitions....but regardless, don't apply to limit ring games.

[Sundevils21]

golfur,
thinking like that is the perfect way to become a break even player, imho.

[PokerFoo]

Well, I'll end this by saying thanks to everyone. I have food for thought anyway.

While I still disagree with some of the math as justification for playing big pockets in these situations I'll keep an open mind and continue to explore my game for improvements.

I also disagree whole-heartedly that the lower limits are easier, at least for me. My hourly rate proves that. It goes way down at the tables where there are 7 or more 'gamblers' collectivly working against me and goes way up when I play against tighter players pre flop who make mistakes either on their own or induced by my own play later in the hand. I can get away from my own mistakes without costing me too much as well.

Fooling around in the micro's this week has reinforced this to me. You can lose hours of work in 2 hands against a whole table of hands collectivly working against you.

I think a few of you said it best in that there is nothing wrong with choosing the situations I feel good about and staying away from the ones I dont, regardless of the math.

For now, I'll stay uninvolved in those huge family pots unless I have Ax suited.

Anyhoo.. thanks for the input.

Foo
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[pokerjo22]

[ QUOTE ]
What would you rather have? Aces, kings or 5 8 suited?

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/frown.gif Aces, aces and more aces. There is NO other hand I EVER want to hold other than aces. Its not even close. Not kings, not 85s, just give me Aces! With a very small sample, when more than 5 has seen the flop my Aces hold up 58% of the time, and I won 2.5 BB on average (I'm a bad player BTW - I can't really fold Aces). With 5 or less seeing the flop they hold up 64% of the time and I won 1.4 BB on average. I won more pots, and less money with fewer players. Show me the money every time!

[cnfuzzd]

First. Stu Ungar was a player with a near impossible ability to read people. He could overcome the deficit he saddled himself with by playing lesser quality starting hands. When you gain his reading abilities, then you can abandon the math.

Second. As has already been pointed out, SnG's are entirely different from a limit game. The soul of low limit games lies in exploiting ANY edge you have, no matter how small, to its fullest potential. Reads are important, but without the math, you will never achieve your maximum EV.

Finally, when you talk about theoritical dollars, you are neglecting to realize that these theoretical situations are how one can learn to play properly in said situations, and not be tainted by other influences such as bankroll concerns, (mis)reads, or the last hand.

Plain and simple, these theories that almost all the winning players on this site employ are the way to exploit the games we play in for the maximum profit. Several winning players have posted their stats, including winrates, for several tens of thousands of hands. When your system, or pokerfoos, or whomever's, has proven to be as successful over long periods of time, then i think you might have some position of authority to speak. Until then, i would, and am, try to follow, understand, and employ the theoretical approaches advocated here.

peace

john nickle

[cnfuzzd]

Your loss. Your huge, unfortuanate loss. But, at least you are thinking about it. /images/graemlins/grin.gif


peace

john nickle

[golFUR]

There are probably a few things I am neglecting to mention...

First, I read here because I take your theoretical info and DO apply it to my games. I finally thought of a specific example...

Flush draws. On the flop I have a four flush. Straight math says that in limit, if there are enough people in the hand, you should jam it. If you are heads up you should get away from it. In NL, you do similar math adding in implied odds.

I took your theoretical info, that four flushes turn into flushes x out of y hands, and I use it as the most generic of guidelines. I find myself in situations constantly where I find other, non-mathematical, reasons for either chasing or folding. If I know a guy will ignore the board and pay me off, if I know there is the potential to seriously tilt someone, if I know that my A is playable regardless of whether or not I hit... Is all this supposed to go without saying? Is all this taken into account somewhere in the math and I'm missing it?

As for Stu's ability to read... I can't get inside anyone elses head but... is it that hard? By far, by a long long ways, when I lose on the river its a suckout or I missed something close enough to a coinflip as to make no difference. I mean, whether it is SnG or ring game, it takes at most an orbit to have a generic read on everyone, something at least usable. How many hands did they call in? Raise? What have they showed down? In most cases, one hand, a single hand and how it was played, gives you a handle on their abilities. Was there a way to maximize earnings and they missed it? Not as strong. Was there a reason for caution and they played it properly? Stronger. Given those limited reads it is a relatively simple process to put them on a range of hands and play accordingly, usually the range is small. To do all this I just recall my own learning curve. Given what I know about poker, and the order I mastered given abilities, it isn't much of a problem to put people in the appropriate place on that curve and play against them appropriately. If players are relying on math to make up for limited abilities in reading, I suppose I understand that. It seems a far more serious problem to me though, than a less than perfect ability to arrive at the significant digit past the decimal...

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
Like when you DO win you will likely win LESS than you lost if you played equally as aggressive in THESE situations.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you realize how hard it is to lose more than say 6BBs in any given hand? Do you realize how big the pot is going to be when you have 6+ players in the pot for 3+ bets preflop?

[ QUOTE ]
What would you rather have? Aces, kings or 5 8 suited?

[/ QUOTE ]

Aces and its not even remotely close.

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
With that many players though, your probably going to have to turn over a straight or better to take the pot. If I am wrong about this please show me some data to show otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe that giant turtles rule the universe. If I am wrong about this, please show me some data to show otherwise.

Do you see the lack of logic in your statement? It is not up to someone else to prove you're wrong, but it's up to you to prove you're right.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
On the flop I have a four flush. Straight math says that in limit, if there are enough people in the hand, you should jam it.

[/ QUOTE ]

you absolutly should jam it, almost without exception.
Okay, what Stuey could do was "that hard". If it wasn't why wouldn't everybody play the way he did?

[PokerFoo]

Whats discouraging is that only a couple of posters came even remotely close to understanding what I was speculating about. DH, Linus and maybe one other who sort of grasped what I was getting at. Probably because I poorly articulated what I was talking about.

I enjoy these forums too and its useful to bounce ideas around but I don't put much stock in what most people who 'think' they know a lot about poker say here. You probably shouldnt either, Golfur.

I know I already said I would end this earlier but after doing a few hundred thousand hand tests in TTH Ive found that I am right on in my thinking. I was able to create a table dynamic that gave aces a negetive expatation over time. I should entitle it, 'when implicit collusion doesnt work'. Or better yet 'when it works against you'.

What the others fail to realise is that I am not talking about Aces and how to play them. Im talking about player types and the most profitable hands to play in a certain situation.

So you can either go on your pokertracker stats, that I don't think many of you fully understand, and play your big pairs consistantly against a large field of players when your staring a marginal situation in the face. Or reflect on the players your up against and choose a better hand type for those situations. Big pairs are NOT always the favorite to win in every situation and if played in the wrong situations consistantly over time you'll waste bets where you dont need to.

After reflecting on that passage from The Theory of poker I put in the other post, and running my TTH test against a custom field I'm confident I have made an improvement in my game.

I am still left feeling slightly frustrated that I havent found the solid plays to confront a VERY loose table like I described earlier though. I will still feel more comfortable when players seeing the flop is in-between 35 and 60%. And Im happy I have the tools to beat most of those games.

But if you guys are confident playing a whole evening of family pots, rock on! I envy you. I find that to be frustrating and break even at best for me. But I'll get there.

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]
I am still left feeling slightly frustrated that I havent found the solid plays to confront a VERY loose table like I described earlier though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am confident that, allowed to focus on your customized TTH sims, and free from the distractions of people who disagree - I'm sorry - don't understand you, you'll figure it out eventually.

/mc

[cnfuzzd]

According to pokertracker, over 53k hands, i have won with aces 76.11% of the 247 times i have had them, for a profit of over 1500 dollars, mostly at .5/1. Thank you, i will keep playing them the way i do. I have played the big pairs AA-QQ for a profit of over 3k. I suck. Others on this board could post better stats than me. Play how you will.

peace

john nickle

[pokerjo22]

So let me get this right? You're on the button, everyone limps to you, so you will fold your Aces????

Or you will you only fold them in a raised pot?

But I guess you'll be playing 22 right, because they might make a set??

[Louie Landale]

The FTOP has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

You are suggesting that AA is a serious underdog against the field of players. That's nonsense. You are also suggesting that by raising with your clearly superior hand you are giving the weak hands better odds to outdraw you later. That's correct. But you (and the authors) are incorrect when they suggest that doing so is bad for you. That's rediculous. If you fail to bet/raise with your superior hand then YOU are making a 'mistake'.

Well, its not rediculous under these situations: [1] checking your superior hand will cause the opponents to play very badly against you later; such as letting you 3-bet the turn; but that reason has nothing to do with their reasoning [2] If someone can PROVE the "combined outs" stuff and you find yourself in one of those situations, where your superior hand clearly MUST narrow the field to stay alive. I've seen a couple such contrived examples, but in general its hogwash ..er.. at least NEVER shown to apply to some reasonable number of reasonable situations.

I suspect you fail to see this basic reality: AA may be a 4:1 favorite heads up and may be a 3:1 underdog againt 9 players; but the 3:1 underdog against 9 players is a VASTLY superior situation to be in: 3 times you lose 1 and 1 time you win 9 for a net of 6 over 4 tries, or an EV of 1.5. Whereas headsup you win 1 4 times and lose 1 once for a net of 3 over 5 tries, or an EV of .6. Those situations are not even close. Now its true you may LOSE a little ground on the river with your AA (have to reluctantly call often), but that's not much compared to the original situation.

I think your "problem" is this: you can put individual reasonbly-sane folks on hands and can outplay them. That's good. But in the loose games you don't know what's out against you, exactly, and so don't know what to do. Try this: bet mindlessly until you get raised and then pay it off unless its hopeless. You'll win your one-time in 4 and will lose your 3 times in 4, and generally won't know which is which until the showdown. But so what. The more you bet early the bigger the pots will be that you win, and that overshadows the extra bets you lose when you lose ...

... and that's the nature of betting "the favorite".

- Louie

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand the math here but I'm not sure you can use that like a holy grail on how to play. It doesnt take into account so many other things.

Like when you DO win you will likely win LESS than you lost if you played equally as aggressive in THESE situations.

Because the flop didn't hit the suited gap in any way and they didn't stay in. Or because you WILL pair the board and it scares off the flush and straight draws. Remember Your hand is the one that looks best so your going to pay off the hidden hands who can easily identify what they have to beat. You are not so sure against a field this large and loose what anyone can have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think we're agreeing if you're sayng aces are hard to play after the flop against a large LAG field. Especially if they'll raise with lots of different kinds of hands, it'll be difficult for you to know where you are.[ QUOTE ]


With that many players though, your probably going to have to turn over a straight or better to take the pot. If I am wrong about this please show me some data to show otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Against a large field your unimproved aces are unlikely to win. One way you might do better with them is to fold if they haven't improved, and there's still lots of betting on the turn.

You're not obligated to pay off speculative hands just because you have aces. You can fold, just like they can.

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention more often than not you wont hit the set and you will be in a trickier position of holding top pair only.

Lets not use the example I described in the first post as anything but a general way to articulate how loose the table is playing. Im not looking for advice on what the absolute best thing to do with those exact cards is.

Most texts say you should tighten up conciderably in these situations. But my own stats indicate that aces are not profitable against this large field and are in fact a huge leak.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is because you either have a small sample, or you're refusing to release them when you should.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess a simple way to ask the question is this. If your on the button and 7 or more players have all called 3 bets up to this point and your about to cap it....

The table has been playing like this for the last 30 minutes consistantly and you KNOW the flop play will be raised just like the pre-flop play...

What would you rather have? Aces, kings or 5 8 suited?

(I dont include Ax suited because I already know thats a profitable hand to have there. Im am trying to determine what other hand types I can play here without creating another leak)

Or am I better off doing what I have been doing and just not get involved at all when the table is like this? I can wait until it settles down and get in with the best hand against one or 2 players later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Preflop you want the best possible hand. Aces are the best possible hand.

Whether you want to play at a super-LAG table is up to you. It's a bankroll management question, and a question of how well you think you play at those tables.

If you find yourself unable to release aces, regardless of the circumstances, you're probably better off avoiding them.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
I was able to create a table dynamic that gave aces a negetive expatation over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I call BS.

Post it.

[pokerjo22]

[ QUOTE ]
If you find yourself unable to release aces, regardless of the circumstances, you're probably better off avoiding them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I play Aces terribly. I can't let go of them, unless faced with overwhelming evidence that I'm beat. I probably don't go to showdown with them less than 5% of the time. And they're still my most profitable hand. To raise Aces preflop, and then get to a showdown no matter what postflop would still not be a big leak in your game IMHO. Folding Aces preflop, under any circumstances, seems like a huge leak.

[PokerFoo]

heh,

see the added replies referring to 'how to play aces' continue to show that people still dont understand what I was getting at.

originally I just wanted to know how players change their play when they have to play against 7 to 10 players every hand for their session. If your playing big pairs the same against this field as you would against 3 players I probabaly dont want hear it. This will create huge swings in my game that I dont think are worth suffering for one pot when I can take 3 small ones against a tight group in an hour and get the same profit without the pain.

[ QUOTE ]

According to pokertracker, over 53k hands, i have won with aces 76.11% of the 247 times i have had them, for a profit of over 1500 dollars, mostly at .5/1. Thank you, i will keep playing them the way i do. I have played the big pairs AA-QQ for a profit of over 3k. I suck. Others on this board could post better stats than me. Play how you will.


[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point entirely. Those are your stats for aces in many situations. That includes the wins and losses you get with them in all different situations at different stages of the hands you played them in. You may have won a small pot pre-flop or taken the pot on the flop or on the turn or river or a big one at a showdown. The number of players in the hands were probably different every time as well as the player dynamics.

I am talking about ONE particular situation.

[ QUOTE ]

So let me get this right? You're on the button, everyone limps to you, so you will fold your Aces????

Or you will you only fold them in a raised pot?

But I guess you'll be playing 22 right, because they might make a set??


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. Your focusing on the Hand example I gave to articulate the unusualy loose table instead of the unusually loose table itself.

I will always play aces pre-flop and I will always jam it. My point is that when your up against an unusually large number of hands (8 to 10) who are loose aggressive with a refusal to go away but a willingness to jack the pot up on every round of betting the value of your BIG PAIRS (aces included) drops to the point where it can be justifyable to avoid the situation altogether. Not playing them THIS time isnt going to hurt you and in fact should save you from a likely loss. And I never suggested anyone play this way, I just made an observation about a situation I have trouble with.

Not to mention that it could be ANY hand that is best now but against 9 draws. Not just aces. I dont like to play at all against a large field unless Im drawing to a flush or an open ended straight with a flush possability. Like I said at the top of this discussion, I prefer a tight game with about 3 players seeing the flop.

Instead of getting any advice on how to play against 7 to 10 players, where I dont do well at all. I got insulted for preferring a tight game by one of the posters. And I still will have to turtle up when the table goes tilt. hehe

[ QUOTE ]

I think your "problem" is this: you can put individual reasonbly-sane folks on hands and can outplay them. That's good. But in the loose games you don't know what's out against you, exactly, and so don't know what to do. Try this: bet mindlessly until you get raised and then pay it off unless its hopeless. You'll win your one-time in 4 and will lose your 3 times in 4, and generally won't know which is which until the showdown. But so what. The more you bet early the bigger the pots will be that you win, and that overshadows the extra bets you lose when you lose ...

... and that's the nature of betting "the favorite".


[/ QUOTE ]
this is the standard method and what I would guess most of us would do. When I was reviewing $ won and $ lost for aces specifically, I found that this ONE situation had a HUGE variance in comparison to other situations when you have aces. And because your getting into raising wars all the way to the showdown here, your losses are usually much larger than when you win with them by the other players folding at an earlier point in the hand. So I started reading and running some tests in TTH to see if it would cost me much in the long run to just avoid it. Turns out it wont.

And I dont agree it overshadows the extra bets for when I lose. The hidden hand is going to get paid off extra bets from me. The times my aces are indeed the best at the showdown there will not likely be this many players in jacking it up. If there are, I'm likely beat again. Thats part of my whole point.

[ QUOTE ]

I call BS.

Post it.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I knew how I would. I suppose I could screen capture and post a jpeg image of the TTH profiles I made and the results page. Im not that inclined though. If you have TTH you can run the same tests I did by simply stacking the deck. I made 4 profiles that would check or call any bets or raises to the showdown and 4 that would bet or raise to the showdown. I gave seat 10 aces and the last seat Ax suited.

I then did another test but I stacked a few more hands that I think would be likely in this field. 8 10 suited, 5 7 suited, K Q , pocket 3s and an AJ

last test I used standard profiles but stacked all the hands with likely cards for this situation.

The field collectivly beat the crud out of the aces.

And Im going to make it VERY clear so as to not get berrated here. THIS IS A FIXED SITUATION. This is NOT a suggestion that aces are losers over time in a multi way pot. Just that I was able to make them cost money instead of make money in a FIXED test to represent a FIXED situation I was curious about.

And in fairness, one test did turn a positive value but it was so small and the swings were so large it only suggested a break even proposition.


---
So... what do all of you do in the family pot situations? Do you just jam your top pair to the end and pray it holds up?

[TripleH68]

[ QUOTE ]
In limit holdem with 10 players-
You are on the button with Ac Ah.
UTG limpes in and is raised by UTG+1. 5 players cold call 2 bets to you.
Would it not be correct, according the the theorem, to fold your aces? If you call or raise, everyone will stay in the hand to see the flop. This would effectivly mean you are laying odds to any 2 suited cards or any connectors, which are likely in the field. By playing this way consistantly over time, you would loose money. Essentially you would be the imbecile giving 2 to 1 on the coin flip would you not?

Sound advice is what I need.

[/ QUOTE ]

PokerStars 3/6 Hold'em (10 handed)

Preflop: Hero is MP2 with Q/images/graemlins/club.gif, Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 calls, MP1 calls, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, MP3 calls, CO folds, Button folds, SB folds, BB calls, UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 calls, MP1 calls.

Flop: (14.33 SB) 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 5/images/graemlins/club.gif, 4/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(7 players)</font>
BB checks, UTG checks, UTG+1 checks, UTG+2 checks, MP1 checks, <font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP3 folds, BB calls, UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, UTG+2 calls, MP1 folds.

Turn: (8.66 BB) 9/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(3 players)</font>
BB checks, UTG+2 checks, <font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, BB folds, UTG+2 calls.

River: (10.66 BB) J/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
UTG+2 checks, <font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG+2 folds.

Final Pot: 11.66 BB

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]

I currently have the best hand but I am not so sure I am the 'Favorite' to win there against 7 or more players with 2 cards to come, however. An open ended straight with a flush possability would be a 2 to 1 favorite over that hand wouldnt it?

Holding up 35% of the time is losing 65% of the time.. isnt it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Many others have chimed in, so I won't rehash everything, but think about this:

You discussed the 2 to 1 coin flip example as an example of why you wouldn't want to play AA. However, it's not like this at all.

In your quote above, you say that AA will win 35% of the time and lose 65% of the time 7 handed. Okay. So you will lose 4 bets (let's say) 65% of the time. The other 35% of the time you will win 24 bets.

Think of it another way. Roll a die. If you hit 5 or 6, you win 24 bets. If you roll a 1,2,3 or 4, you lose 4 bets. Is that more like the 2-1 coin flip example?

[pokerjo22]

I'm /images/graemlins/confused.gif

The reason to focus on Aces is because its your most extreme example. Arguing over the extreme examples is useful to clarify people's position. So I'll continue to argue about Aces.

[ QUOTE ]
originally I just wanted to know how players change their play when they have to play against 7 to 10 players every hand for their session. If your playing big pairs the same against this field as you would against 3 players I probabaly dont want hear it. This will create huge swings in my game that I dont think are worth suffering for one pot when I can take 3 small ones against a tight group in an hour and get the same profit without the pain.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your aim is to minimize variance you can't get the same profit per hour over the long run. Minimizing risk occurs at the expense of profit.

[ QUOTE ]
I will always play aces pre-flop and I will always jam it. My point is that when your up against an unusually large number of hands (8 to 10) who are loose aggressive with a refusal to go away but a willingness to jack the pot up on every round of betting the value of your BIG PAIRS (aces included) drops to the point where it can be justifyable to avoid the situation altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're contradicting yourself. First you say you'll ALWAYS jam it, but then you say you're better off avoiding it altogether (presumably by folding?). Suppose you've got to call three bets cold from the BB with everybody in, and capped betting. You're saying Aces are -EV in this situation. So what hand would you play?

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention that it could be ANY hand that is best now but against 9 draws. Not just aces. I dont like to play at all against a large field unless Im drawing to a flush or an open ended straight with a flush possability. Like I said at the top of this discussion, I prefer a tight game with about 3 players seeing the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, the flop changes things. You may be behind. You may have flopped a set, a full house, or quads and be way ahead. Too many variables to argue about. But to only play for straights or flushes seems extremely weak-tight. You may prefer playing limit poker against two tight players. It is very possibly the lowest variance poker you can play. But it is certainly not the most profitable.

[ QUOTE ]
So... what do all of you do in the family pot situations? Do you just jam your top pair to the end and pray it holds up?

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted my figures earlier in the thread. I hold on in there. As more people see the flop I end up losing more pots, and making more money.

[Francis Begbie]

If you fold Aces pre-flop under any circumstances you are absolutely mad.

[SA125]

"As for Stu's ability to read"

Great player, no doubt. The number of NL tourney's that he won, like Slim's, besides the WSOP, proves it. His win average was unbelievable.

The fact remains that he got lucky in 1980, I think it was against Brunson's flopped two pair, when he sucked out a gut shot on the turn. Brunson would've had 3 titles. Then again, Brunson got big time lucky with his 10-2.

My point being that in poker, unlike in other major sports like BB or golf, luck plays a role. Yet it's reluctantly admitted. Brunson or Chan or Ivey will succeed in the long run, but you're capable of busting them one night on your "gut" and the right cards.

On your best day, and night and the next day, you'd never beat Tiger or MJ. Gut, instinct and luck play much more of a role in poker, compared to math, than it's given credit for.

[carlo]

All is not everything. You state you are able to have good reads,instinct,etc. in tighter games and therefore do better. This ability should transfer over to loose games. If you know you are behind at the flop,turn,river,etc. you should be able to fold. A's don't do the winning,YOU DO. If you are unsure, then you should fold(but not pre flop)--I have difficulty coming to the concept that so many players will call a raised hand pre flop or at the flop. Live 4/8 B&amp;M loose games come closest to this but even there some people use good judgement in face of raises and fold. If everybody is staying in then the computer simulations say A's should win apprx. 31% but position play,raises,etc. are the answer to this percentage which makes the whole simulation process bogus. If you lose most of your money with big pairs what do you win with? It sounds like you carry the dream too far and have difficulty in these situations in knowing when you are in danger. Be like Tommy Angelo and fold those rockets pre-flop and see whether it changes your life. That is hilarious, I know you wouldn't do this but perhaps you have to study/practice flop and turn play and especially reading the board and subsequent possibilities for your opponents. All things considered raising is an important answer at the flop/turn and this includes checkraising. Pound them,pound them and as a last resort pound them again. You can also play 6-max games which may fit your style.

regards,
carlo

[SA125]

"Be like Tommy Angelo and fold those rockets pre-flop"

This is getting stupid. Tommy's getting reference's here when folding A's PF and then gets crucified for calling 2 cold on the button with 84o.

I've never played with Tommy and doubt that the majority of posters here have either. Yet out of the people who have, there isn't one single post that says he's a pushover. On the other hand, the toughest players on this site who know him and play with him, say the man can play.

Do us all a favor and save the stupid fold analogies for someone else.

Steve A.

[Bez]

Mike Caro disagrees with this is certain unusual no limit tournament situations where the math indicates a fold to be correct i.e. you're down to 3 players and you have a very short stack against 2 stacks of similar huge size. If you are last to act and the other players are both all-in you should fold as you'll almost certainly claim 2nd place, whereas winning would not increase your chances of winning enough to offset the times that you lose. Very rare, but still possible.

[rigoletto]

Dear Foo

i believe I've found the source of your problem:

[ QUOTE ]
have always faired better at reasonably tight tables than loose tables. It's easier to control the odds and use semi-bluffs, check raises and slowplays.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your fancy postflop play from tight games does not suit the loose games. You can't fold everybody with a fancy checkraise on the turn.

The truth of the matter is that if you can't make a profit with AA in these games it has to be because your postflop play is lousy. You talked about raising wars in one of your posts in this thread and I suspect you participate in these raising wars with your AA against a large field. You jack it up because you feel that your Aces should win even when they are obviously beaten.

[Tommy Angelo]

[ QUOTE ]
I have always faired better at reasonably tight tables than loose tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

When profit is the motive, it’s all so easy.

I believe that if profit is your motive, and if you can define games or game types that are different from one another, such as, a super-loose multi-way LHE game with lots of preflop and flop raising, compared to a much more reserved LHE game with many three-way and headsup pots, compared to razz, compared to gin, compared to any gaming or investment opportunity for that matter, and you find over time that your financial results are far better at some endeavors than others, then any time you get to choose, say, among poker games, you should choose to play in those games that you have a history of scoring well in.

Seems obvious enough.

Likewise obvious to me is that poker evolves, on every scale. And where there is evolution, there is variation. And where there is variation, there is variation. It is not surprising to me (or anyone, I suspect) that your long-range results vary between various games within the hold’em arena.

So what’s all the fuss? Why this big thread? The answer is because this thread is not about profit. If it was, it would not exist. You would play in your best game and we would never hear from you.

This thread is about your explanation of a statistical phenomenon. The reason there is disagreement is not because your explanation is wrong, but rather, because it is incomplete.

The difference between you and I is in where we turn for our explanations. You, in this thread, are like the theoretical physicist who, upon observing a phenomenon, will not rest easy until it is explained within his language, the language of mathematics, and once done so, even if barely, then all is right with the world, and you can get on with the business of profit, and pick your best game.

Me, I have my own layperson explanations for my various variations in results in various games, including whimsical conjectures as to why my results in super-loose full LHE games are significantly worse than my results in short-handed LHE games of any pace. But I do not have the ability or desire to separate and quantify all of the many causes of the variation (one of which would be the statistical component as examined in this thread), and then assign an accurate value and weighting to each variable, and assemble them all into a grand numerical explanation of a particular variance phenomenon. So I skip all that and pick my best game and take the money. I think you might consider doing the same, that is, if profit is your motive.

Told you it was easy.


Tommy

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason there is disagreement is not because your explanation is wrong, but rather, because it is incomplete.


[/ QUOTE ]

In my case the disagreement is because I think his explanation is wrong. Anybody who says "flopping any set against this many loose players is costly" is simply, and profoundly, mistaken.

/mc

[meep_42]

[ QUOTE ]
If you fold Aces pre-flop under any circumstances you are absolutely mad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, now, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. There are certainly times where folding AA pre-flop could be an acceptable play. (In tournament play -- otherwise, yes, you'd be crazy)

-d

[Azrael_AOD]

To paraphrase Bobby Baldwin from his Limit Hold-Em section in Super System "Be prepared to lose with your pocket Aces about half the time". Your Aces have a massive advantage preflop against all opponents; whether or not the entire frickin table sees the flop is irrelevant. AA makes it's money preflop and on the flop. That's where it's advantage lies. On the turn and river you have much less of an advantage against drawing hands, but keep in mind that Aces can and will improve, and when they do your opponents are in serious trouble. When you flop top set you are a massive favourite over everyone. Also, most small-stakes hold-em pots are large anyway, even preflop, so everyone has correct (or almost correct odds) to stay in for their crappy draws; you just have to protect your hand by making smart bets/raises. Besides, even if they didn't have correct odds some retards would still draw to any straight or flush- leaving you in excellent position to punish their mistakes. I think the only secret to playing AA is to know how to get away from them. The wins will come (and they will be pretty big wins if you're getting 5-6 way action), the only thing that remains is to control your losses. I myself have a lot of trouble folding them even when I'm about 80% sure I'm beat.

Any comments? Am I talking sense or just talking outta my A!#?

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
If I knew how I would. I suppose I could screen capture and post a jpeg image of the TTH profiles I made and the results page. Im not that inclined though. If you have TTH you can run the same tests I did by simply stacking the deck. I made 4 profiles that would check or call any bets or raises to the showdown and 4 that would bet or raise to the showdown. I gave seat 10 aces and the last seat Ax suited.

I then did another test but I stacked a few more hands that I think would be likely in this field. 8 10 suited, 5 7 suited, K Q , pocket 3s and an AJ

last test I used standard profiles but stacked all the hands with likely cards for this situation.

The field collectivly beat the crud out of the aces.

And Im going to make it VERY clear so as to not get berrated here. THIS IS A FIXED SITUATION. This is NOT a suggestion that aces are losers over time in a multi way pot. Just that I was able to make them cost money instead of make money in a FIXED test to represent a FIXED situation I was curious about.

And in fairness, one test did turn a positive value but it was so small and the swings were so large it only suggested a break even proposition.


[/ QUOTE ]

With 4 opponents who call down with anything, and 4 more opponents who bet/raise to the river, there is no way a decent player could not make an obscene amount of money playing AA.

Your sim is faulty. Period.

(If you are talking about one specific set of specific hands, then the sim is worthless, because the probability of you coming up against those specific hands in that specific situation is so small as to be insignificant.)

[pokerjo22]

I completely agree, and would go even further - although you'll make more money by doing so, I don't even think its necessary to learn how to get away from them.

[jayrutz2]

I ran a simulation a month ago on a hand where I had pocket AA against 6 callers capped preflop. BTW, they all showed down my turn raises, and the pot was HUGE. I got rivered for main and side. But pre-flop I was a 54% favorite. (Callers had AK, KJ AQ, K flopped and I got hit by a J on the river, lame suckout.) Point is, I'll play this hand ANYTIME!!!!

K

[Tommy Angelo]

[ QUOTE ]
84o.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey now. It was 85o. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[carlo]

Pleeeeasssse understand. I was making a joke and I'm sure Tommy understands. His articles are hilarious -go to Advertising and click onto the Tommy Angelo Webpage and especially read"The Worst Play Ever". All you need to know about Aces will be laid out in grand style.

Good Luck and Thank You Tommy!

regards,
carlo

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
I currently have the best hand but I am not so sure I am the 'Favorite' to win there against 7 or more players with 2 cards to come, however. An open ended straight with a flush possability would be a 2 to 1 favorite over that hand wouldnt it?

Holding up 35% of the time is losing 65% of the time.. isnt it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets say I am holding a lottery with nine other entrants. Each entrant has a 7.2% chance of winning the prize, which is ten times the cost of a ticket. I am offering you a special ticket: if no one else hits the number, you win, giving you a 35% chance of winning. Will you buy this special ticket for the same price as everyone else?

[jayrutz2]

Yeah most likely unlucky. I literally got pocket AAs busted 3 time, pocket KK x 2, QQ and JJ all once in one hour all with leads after the turn in UB 1/2 6 handed. I was pushing all pots and average was prob 25 BBs with me have 4-5BBs in. I got busted out everytime. But hey, think about it, even if I hit 2 of those pots out of 7 I'm up 15bbS in one hour.

Bad luck sucks, but I wish i could sit at that table every session!!!!

K

[BottlesOf]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a tendency here, bordering on the fanatic, to treat the math as THE answer in every situation. "You have odds" "You are giving away money in this situation" "over time" "in the long run" blah blah blah. I don't say the math is wrong, it is theoretically correct in every case. The problem is, we aren't playing with theoretical dollars against theoretical opponents. As well, every single case or response that references the long run seems to be wrapped up and tied off with a bit of faith. You have faith that in the long run the numbers are going to pay you off, that you aren't going to go bust before you get paid off, that your payoffs will come on the right tables...

[/ QUOTE ]

Best...paragraph...ever.

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a tendency here, bordering on the fanatic, to treat the math as THE answer in every situation. "You have odds" "You are giving away money in this situation" "over time" "in the long run" blah blah blah. I don't say the math is wrong, it is theoretically correct in every case. The problem is, we aren't playing with theoretical dollars against theoretical opponents. As well, every single case or response that references the long run seems to be wrapped up and tied off with a bit of faith. You have faith that in the long run the numbers are going to pay you off, that you aren't going to go bust before you get paid off, that your payoffs will come on the right tables...

[/ QUOTE ]

Best...paragraph...ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? You should be thinking probabalistically when you play. Yes, it is 2+2 dogma, but it is also deep and beautiful and counterintuitive and interesting and profitable and true. And don't forget that we have other doctrines in our faith to balance out the idealism of numerical abstraction - mantras of opponent reading and table texture - that are firmly grounded in the concrete reality of the moment to moment, circumstantial now.

GOLFUR... JOIN US...

/mc

[golFUR]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
You should be thinking probabalistically when you play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me wrong, like I said elsewhere in this post, I do use the math, every bit of it I understand properly. I use as much as I can apply from here. When it came to the original poster's query though, I answered from his perspective of comfort. The math might dictate he stay on that table, suffer the variance, and earn in the long run. My thinking was, why stress yourself? Why play the solid math game if you have other skills that earn?

From my own perspective, and I don't think I learned this here, but just came by it over time, there have been quite a few times of late when I haven't even bothered with the cards. Granted this would never work in 1/2 limit holdem. But in MTTs, SnGs and even in NL ring games, when I'm 'in the zone' I don't need pockets, I just need stacks and position. When I am able to win at will that way, to outplay the 7-9 players at my table who will let me... you will never convince me I am doing the wrong thing 'mathematically'. I'm winning. There is nothing more correct in poker.

BTW, I know you didn't specifically disagree, this post is just a clarification (I couldn't resist responding to a thread in which my paragraph was praised so concisely /images/graemlins/wink.gif).

[koolmoe]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have TTH you can run the same tests I did by simply stacking the deck. I made 4 profiles that would check or call any bets or raises to the showdown and 4 that would bet or raise to the showdown. I gave seat 10 aces and the last seat Ax suited.

I then did another test but I stacked a few more hands that I think would be likely in this field. 8 10 suited, 5 7 suited, K Q , pocket 3s and an AJ

last test I used standard profiles but stacked all the hands with likely cards for this situation.

The field collectivly beat the crud out of the aces.


[/ QUOTE ]

Couple of comments on your simulation.

First, it isn't completely clear, but it sounds like in your last test you assumed the other two aces were out (Axs, AJ). This certainly makes it hard for your AA to improve, and it won't happen all that often. About 40% of the time, none of your opponents will hold an A, about 40% of the time one of them will, and about 20% of the time both A will be out.

In any case:

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=497806
pokenum -h ac as - ad 3d - tc 8c - 3s 3h - 5h 7h - kd qs - ah js
Holdem Hi: 501942 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
As Ac 120982 24.10 378394 75.39 2566 0.51 0.243
Ad 3d 56654 11.29 439833 87.63 5455 1.09 0.117
Tc 8c 106941 21.31 394686 78.63 315 0.06 0.213
3s 3h 40228 8.01 458510 91.35 3204 0.64 0.083
7h 5h 93803 18.69 407824 81.25 315 0.06 0.187
Qs Kd 53224 10.60 448403 89.33 315 0.06 0.106
Js Ah 24655 4.91 474721 94.58 2566 0.51 0.051

If all hands were played to showdown, AA should have won more than it's fair share. There are two hands unaccounted for, but I cannot for the life of me conjure up two more hands that reduce AA pot equity to less than 11% (although I can contrive an example with different starting hands that does give AA -EV). If you truly had everyone play to the showdown, I don't see how AA could have displayed negative results unless the sample size was too small.

[ QUOTE ]
And Im going to make it VERY clear so as to not get berrated here. THIS IS A FIXED SITUATION. This is NOT a suggestion that aces are losers over time in a multi way pot. Just that I was able to make them cost money instead of make money in a FIXED test to represent a FIXED situation I was curious about.


[/ QUOTE ]

What's the point of this exercise unless the field always has the hands in your fixed example? If anything, it shows you that AA has +EV even when the starting hands are somewhat stacked against them.

[ QUOTE ]
So... what do all of you do in the family pot situations? Do you just jam your top pair to the end and pray it holds up?

[/ QUOTE ]

If all you ever did was jam preflop and see the cheapest showdown possible, I think you'd still be +EV. In reality, the texture of the board will often dictate when you can jam and when you should slow down.

[SA125]

Sorry for the blow up. Mr. Hyde doesn't come out often, but he lurks. Uh-oh. Right one? I'm confused. I should have said the Werewolf. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Steve

[RcrdBoy]

Or I might have missed it.

Regardless, you should seriously consider buying SSH. It's written to help you beat these type of games.

There is a good deal of info on post flop play and evaluting your drawing hands, which you have already noted go up in value in multiway pots.

Advanced concepts for sure, but it should help you improve your play at the type of tables that seem to be giving you the most trouble.

Good luck.

[TonyBlair]

For the purposes of any future relationship I will completely agree with everything Pokerjo says.
(But behind her back I would say that if you're playing to win money then you should learn to fold aces if you'll make more money by doing so. If we're on about Baldwin in SS, didn't he reckon that the difference between winning and losing at certain levels may just be the difference in how you play overpairs/TPTK? Or was that Doyle in NL? I have all these books but never the will to walk to them in times of need).
I've not read every post on this subject so apologies if I'm repeating anything but I would rather die* than fold aces preflop regardless of who was or wasn't in (*tournament exclusion clause).

[TonyBlair]

I'd just go and find a different game to play in. Those games are boring anyway. If it's being capped every hand preflop you want THE premium hands and then it's just a case of waiting for them to hold up. You'll beat the game with this strategy (unless you are one of these psychos who celebrate aces and kings by gluing the cards to your right hand and throwing chips around with your left) but will be Mr Dull if you play it for too long. Rich and boring. I reckon Bill Gates beats these games regularly.

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
But in MTTs, SnGs and even in NL ring games, when I'm 'in the zone' I don't need pockets, I just need stacks and position. When I am able to win at will that way, to outplay the 7-9 players at my table who will let me... you will never convince me I am doing the wrong thing 'mathematically'. I'm winning. There is nothing more correct in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, this is the best paragraph ever.

[Dov]

Ditto

This is the whole point of the game. This is what an A game looks like. The math is just a tool to get you this far.

But if you ignore it, it will come back to bite you because in the end, even the best make mistakes.

[Sundevils21]

i think he was being sarcastic.
probably not the best post ever.

[Dov]

Tommy wrote an essay about folding aces preflop. You can find it on his website:

www.tiltless.com (http://www.tiltless.com)

It's called 'The Worst Play Ever'.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
Or I might have missed it.

Regardless, you should seriously consider buying SSH. It's written to help you beat these type of games.

There is a good deal of info on post flop play and evaluting your drawing hands, which you have already noted go up in value in multiway pots.

Advanced concepts for sure, but it should help you improve your play at the type of tables that seem to be giving you the most trouble.

Good luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if anybody has mentioned it in this thread, but you're right SSHE is THE book for small stakes poker.

The OP didn't want to hear the truth though. He just kept rambling about mulitple opponents blah blah. Aces never win multiway blah blah. Unfortunatly for the poster, you cannot ever think you know it all. You must be willing to open yourself up to new ideas, instead of saying "im right and i'll just play my way regardless of what everybody else says".

[Al_Capone_Junior]

If this post is a joke, you have one terrific sense of humor.

If it isn't, you need to give up FOREVER on poker and take up old maid with grandma (now THAT's sound advice). However, you will still certainly lose nearly 100% of the time against old people playing any type of cards, so maybe chutes and ladders or candy land is more your speed.

al

[Cerril]

The general case is only an extension of the specific case, which is very clear.

Against nine random hands that see the river, AA is about 30% to win. That means that you'll lose $1 seven times and win $9 three times... all in all it would be worth $20 to play AA in that situation. Other hands have somewhat lower values going to the river but many, many have good pot equity.

Obviously in a rake-free game as long as your equity (the chance your hand will hold up or improve to the best) is better than one even share, then it's worth your while to see every possible dollar go in. If you're in there with 7 other people all you need is to win slightly better than 12.5% (one in eight) to be a winner. And many hands are huge winners.

It's all just that simple maxim - 'it's not how many pots you win, it's how much money'.

And, in a game with rake, you're even better off since you'd much, much rather win a very few huge pots than a whole bunch of little ones.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Tommy, Tommy, Tommy. U must be a Mega-Magoo, 85o? I always hold out for at LEAST 86o.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

al (aka Super-Magoo)

[Louie Landale]

Hand reading doesn't do as good in the loose games since it doesn't do you nearly as much good. Consider these situations: [1] flop is KT4 and you have 88, and the opponent bets and you're sure its not a pair of Ks nor Ts. In a tight game you can call or raise; in a loose game you still need to fold. [2] After a couple raises you figure the opponent really has the over-pair. In a tight game you can lay it down. In a loose game the pot is plenty big that you should take the river card and probably pay it off anyway; but that's what you were going to do even without your read.

And ... the techniques of reading tight player's hands is a lot different than of reading the loose players; and reading tight player's hands is a lot more accurate:(besides when he's made Broadway, ever put a real loose player on AJ? That comes up all the time with tight players).

Having said that, there ARE some profitable hand readings you can do in a loose game; usually featuring spectacular turn or river raises with weak pairs; driving better hands out.

Over-all I'd have to say "No": reading tight players does not mean you should be able to read loose players.

- Louie

[Moozh]

So is a PokerFoo just a younger version of a PokerHorse?

The reason everyone is so up in arms over this is because you're (notice the apostrophe) making a big mistake in your reasoning and it's not even close.

If you're losing money with Aces in low-limit games it's either because you don't have enough of a sample size or you're overplaying your hand.

As said multiple times before, Aces don't need to be the favorite (ie win more than half the time) to be profitable. If there are 10 people in the pot, you just need to win with them more than one out of 10 times (a simplistic way to look at it).

You mention winning a lot of pots and then losing all your profit in a couple of hands. How is this possible? In any single hand of poker, it is simply impossible to put more than half the chips into the pot (unless you win the pot uncalled, and then you win). Thus, it is very difficult to lose more money in two hands than you won in multiple pots (this is espeically true at low limits when the pots are so often multi-way).

If you are losing lots of money of a small number of hands, it's most likely because you're putting too much money into a pot where you are most likely (or even possibly) beat. You mention that you like to make raise and check/raise plays at people to get them to fold. These plays simply do not work in loose games. You should be worrying about betting when you think you have the best hand and hoping for callers (yes, you want callers when you're ahead), and not check/raising with a worse hand and trying to get people to fold (because they won't).

I don't doubt that your style of play works well at higher limits, but you need to realize that you need to change your approach depending on your opponent.

Everyting I have experienced myself and witnessed on this forum has shown me that you should be able to win at a higher rate the lower you play. From what I've seen and heard, the following rates have been maintained and are considered good by the standard of this forum:

.5/1 - 5 BB/100
1/2 - 4 BB/100
2/4 - 3 BB/100
3/6 - 3 BB/100
5/10 - 2 BB/100
15/30 - 1.5 BB/100

If you're below 3BB/100 at .5/1, you're probably doing something wrong and should look for ways to improve your play at lower limits.

After reading this thread, I think it's very clear what you are doing wrong (overplaying high pockets) and many people have tried to give you advice on how to fix this problem. I suggest you consider the fact that you may be wrong on this issue and give your game a chance to improve.

[oddschallenged]

From my perspective, the main problem you are dealing with is a low risk tolerance. That's why you look for the kind of tables that you do.

It's a fact that when you play "no fold'em hold'em" your standard deviation is going to rise. I don't care what strategy you end up using. Simply put, you're going to have bigger and longer swings in your up's and down's. But it's also an old saying: No risk, no gain.

If you were playing the stock market, I would suspect that you would prefer mostly Blue Chips, mixed with just a few Small Caps.

The previous posts telling you that pocket aces will make more in the long run are correct (that is if you play them correctly, not just play them. There are times to fold. But certainly not preflop, and most likely not on the flop.)

WE must have confidence in the "long run." And we must also know that it is possible to have looooong periods of downward movement. Also, if we truly understand the odds in poker, we will understand that WE WILL FEEL LIKE WE ARE LOSING THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

The only way to KNOW that your not, is to keep track of your win rate and standard deviation.

Best Regards

[oddschallenged]

By the way, contrary to some of the condescending posts (only a few), I think your question was great (just look at all the responses). I also find the concepts hard to grasp. And some of Sklansky's grammar can be confusing.

[oddschallenged]

I ran a few computer simulations using Turbo Texas Hold'em.

I used Bret Maverick who was always dealt AcAh's (very aggressive player who always raises pocket rockets to the max) and I had him play against 8 other very loose &amp; aggressive players.

I ran the test one time so that the number of players seeing the flop was random, and one time so that 7 other players always saw the flop. Ran 5000 hands for each test. It was a 3/6 game.

With a random number of loose/aggressive players seeing flop Bret
won $119,970; (after rakes and tokes)
had a win rate of 67.5%;
and a net per hand of $23.99

With 7 other loose aggressive players always seeing the flop Bret
won $140,243; (after rakes and tokes)
had a win rate of 50.2%
and a net per hand of 28.05

Notice how Bret had a LOWER win rate against more players seeing the flop, but he actually won MORE money and had a HIGHER net per hand? (This was playing the exact same 5000 hands as the first test). Also note that his win rate is higher than others stated in their posts. I believe those win percentages were for heads up play.

What this proves is that if you are dealt pocket AA's every time and raise and reraise every time against very loose players, you could retire in a week.

It also proves that the problem with your game is not having your big pairs beat. The problem is in how you play your AA's and all the other hands you play. Too many? Too early? Not enough? Too passive? Too aggressive? That's where you need to look for you problem.

Best Regards,

[cagedman]

I agree this seems rediculous... but just to play the devils advocate:

What if, for whatever reason, the table texture was such that these masses of pre-flop callers tend not to pay hero off when draw-unimproved (tend to fold early when they don't flop nice draws); yet the hero tends not to get away from his/her aces when beat.

These two tendancies would have to be en-force such that the 'win small pots, lose big pots'-ness is such that the minority wins do not make up for the majority losses. In other words, the quotient of your winning pots v. losing pots is smaller than the quotient of your post-flop losing-pot-equity v. winning-pot-equity.

I don't think either of these two tendancies are very rare; i'm wondering if it's at all common for these two tendencies to run deep enough once and a while for aces to be -EV for the hero in question against the texture in question.

This still relies on the hero's mistake of not being able to release AA. HOWEVER... it may show (if it's reasonable) that there is a table texture such that Aces can be -EV without the need for hand-level contrived situations when the hero does nothing else wrong outside of failure-to-release.

What do you folks think?

[cagedman]

For instance (contrived example without contrived cards):

Suppose you faced a bot that always cold called/raised AA when bet into.

9 people could make him go broke without colluding like this:

All nine limp and cold call AAs raise preflop.
On the flop, all draws with under 8 outs fold. If 3 or more draws survive, cap all streets. If 2 or less draws survive, [both] draws fold.

This AA guy I think may be -EV unless he 'caught on' and changed his auto-strategy.