Worst Advice Ever...

[Al Mirpuri]

Play Poker Like The Pros

Hellmuth states in the Razz section that you must jam with good hands on third so that if fourth comes bad you will have the pot odds to chase. If you did not jam on third then when fourth came bad you would not have the pot odds to chase.

[scotnt73]

worst advise ever:

always tell your spouse the truth

[CarlSpackler]

Ken Warren on limit hand selection (paraphrased):

Play any two cards which add up to 20 or 21 (i.e. J10, A9,etc.) from any position, at any type of table (passive, loose, etc.). /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[skibum]

That seems analogous to slipping an extra bet or two as an ante into the pot just for fun. I haven't read his book, and won't buy it now that it's widely panned. I just don't trust anyone who is an expert in his field, yet refuses to read contemporary literature by acknowledged authorities because he's afraid it will dumb him down. I had considered the possibility that he was telling lies and getting paid, but apparently not. I'm no shrink, but his behavior smacks of maniacal conceit. Gifted player, but a weird dude. And they say he is real friend and a kind guy away from the table. Interesting.

[JAque]

All you need to do ask the pros what they think about his ring game skills. At UB when he plays limit games is like honey attracting flies. His book is worthless. Read Masons' review.


JAque

[Beavis68]

Mason gave everything but the limit section a 6, hardly worthless.

Why do you think jamming with a great starting hand is bad? Maybe his reason isnt correct but why not jam with the best hand?

[scotnt73]

jamming with any pair preflop from any position is not jamming with the best hand.

[BlueBear]

[ QUOTE ]
Play Poker Like The Pros

Hellmuth states in the Razz section that you must jam with good hands on third so that if fourth comes bad you will have the pot odds to chase. If you did not jam on third then when fourth came bad you would not have the pot odds to chase.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why the logic above is wrong. Even before I read Hellmuth's chapter on razz, I always believed that jamming with a good low order to make the pot big (and hence you have value to chase draws) was always correct. Anybody could explain the flaws in reasoning here?

By the way, I agree that jamming with medium pairs 77,88,99 (as advocated by Hellmuth) is usually not correct, but this applies to razz.

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
jamming with any pair preflop from any position is not jamming with the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who would jam with pairs in Razz, we were talking about Razz right?

I think it is pretty much a given that his limit advice is too aggressive for just about any game.

[scotnt73]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
jamming with any pair preflop from any position is not jamming with the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who would jam with pairs in Razz, we were talking about Razz right?

I think it is pretty much a given that his limit advice is too aggressive for just about any game.

[/ QUOTE ]


im sorry. i did forget we were talking about razz.

[pipes]

Sklansky echoes the same exact advice on page 119 of Sklansky on Poker.

[David Sklansky]

"Sklansky echoes the same exact advice on page 119 of Sklansky on Poker"

Oh my God. I sure don't. I say the exact opposite. I advise keeping the pot smaller so you can correctly get away from your hand (especially if your opponent won't). The time I advocate reraisng is when your hand is so strong that you will take a fourth card even if you didn't reraise. If Phil Hellmuth did say what he was quoted as saying he is simply wrong.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
If Phil Hellmuth did say what he was quoted as saying he is simply wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

He said it and it is in print for everyone to see and laugh at.

Moreover, he mysteriously states, at the beginning of the book, how there are certain books that he reads and reads again...I was wondering what these could be...

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why the logic above is wrong. Even before I read Hellmuth's chapter on razz, I always believed that jamming with a good low order to make the pot big (and hence you have value to chase draws) was always correct. Anybody could explain the flaws in reasoning here?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Your edge is either nonexistent or very small on third with three low cards.

2. Even with jamming you just do not have the correct odds to chase.

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't trust anyone who is an expert in his field, yet refuses to read contemporary literature by acknowledged authorities

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep!

[pipes]

David, okay I see the important distinction. I was just trying to defend PH's advice in this case because you appeared at first glance to agree with it.

In Phil's book, he says to do this if you have a strong hand, not simply a good hand as the original poster states.

In PH's example:

J, 6, 7, 8, 5, and 6 (hero)

J(bring in), 6 raises, 7 calls...you have (A3)6

He advocates raising to ensure you have odds to see 5th even if you catch bad.

Bad advice?

Thx

[pipes]

Al, I think you are being a little over dramatic with your 'Worst advice ever' subject line. I have a large poker library and have seen much much worse stuff in print.

I think its important to note that PH says to do this when you have a strong had or the best starting hand. Not simply a good hand as you put it.

[Key West]

[ QUOTE ]
I advise keeping the pot smaller so you can correctly get away from your hand (especially if your opponent won't).

[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't it correct to reraise in order to trim the field and get more money into the pot? Give your opponents the opportunity to fold, but if they don't then you have created a larger pot with better odds to draw.

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]
Play Poker Like The Pros

Hellmuth states in the Razz section that you must jam with good hands on third so that if fourth comes bad you will have the pot odds to chase. If you did not jam on third then when fourth came bad you would not have the pot odds to chase.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats actully correct to do with a premium hand (Low and Live ) on 3rd, the 3bet, creates momentum such that you are correct to go on to 5th street regardless of what happens on 4th.

If your opponent (a good player) would fold incorectly on 4th street, or might semi-bluff with a paired hand when you check your smooth hand into him. Then you have set up a very profitable situation, and even if not, you are still in contention for the pot on 5th.

If you read Sklansky on Razz, you will see why sometimes you shouldn't 3-bet and sometimes you should 3-bet. Pages 118-120 of SKOP.

Basicly you don't 3-bet against weak players, so they can make one set of mistakes on 4th (Staying in when they should fold) and against strong players you make the 3-bet so they can make a different set of mistakes (Folding when they should call).

In addition if you have any suspicion that the raiser is trying to steal, you should reraise to punish their semibluff. Many people will incorrectly play out the hand with a steal/weak hand if they have been 3bet.

Thus a good razz player is not going to play his premium hands in selfweighting manner. But this is fairly technical and subtle point, and phil's book is for beginners, so I dont think you can fault it for not talking about this in great depth.

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why the logic above is wrong. Even before I read Hellmuth's chapter on razz, I always believed that jamming with a good low order to make the pot big (and hence you have value to chase draws) was always correct. Anybody could explain the flaws in reasoning here?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Your edge is either nonexistent or very small on third with three low cards.

2. Even with jamming you just do not have the correct odds to chase.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The advantage may be slim or it might be fairly big if you catch someone getting out of line. So 3-betting isn't wrong for that reason alone.

2. Also wrong. 3 betting specifically creates the pot odds to chase till 5th. This is the central issue, is it or is it not to *YOUR* advantage to 3-bet such that everyone has odds to chase till 5th?

[David Sklansky]

You are correct. Al's explanations were not.

[Daliman]

"John Patrick's Advanced blackjack"

"Split any 55 vs dealer 5 or 6, DO NOT DOUBLE!"

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif dali:

play this way; and ya won't get barred..

/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
always tell your spouse the truth

[/ QUOTE ]

Easily among the worst advice of all time.

The one that comes to mind to give it a run for its money shocked me by being echoed by Ann Landers a few months before she gave up her column: You and your husband aren't getting along for a lot of reasons, and he also is adamant that he doesn't want any more children. So fix other problems in your relationship by making the choice to get "accidentally" pregant yourself. Don't worry, he'll love it!

Yeah, men really like that. Having a baby in an unstable relationship, and dealing with a problem relationship by sabotaging trust on a critical, deeply personal issue that will affect you and that you'll be reminded of for the rest of your lives. Good move on all counts. Great advice, Ann!

Can you believe I actually read Ann Landers? Tom Lycas or however you spell it, the radio jock, got incensed reading the column the same day I did and did hours on it.

[Andy B]

I'm not a razz player, but I think you raise in this spot with the likely best hand, not to give yourself an excuse to chase. I'm a stud/8 player, and I like building pots early there, but stud/8 is a very different game.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why the logic above is wrong. Even before I read Hellmuth's chapter on razz, I always believed that jamming with a good low order to make the pot big (and hence you have value to chase draws) was always correct. Anybody could explain the flaws in reasoning here?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Your edge is either nonexistent or very small on third with three low cards.

2. Even with jamming you just do not have the correct odds to chase.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The advantage may be slim or it might be fairly big if you catch someone getting out of line. So 3-betting isn't wrong for that reason alone.

2. Also wrong. 3 betting specifically creates the pot odds to chase till 5th. This is the central issue, is it or is it not to *YOUR* advantage to 3-bet such that everyone has odds to chase till 5th?

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand corrected. Thanks.

[BradleyT]

"Worst Advice Ever"

Anything said on the CardPlayer forums.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
I think its important to note that PH says to do this when you have a strong had or the best starting hand. Not simply a good hand as you put it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I went back to Hellmuth's book (in the bookstore, as I do not own one nor wish to) and read the whole chapter.

It was incorrect of me to state "good" hands as being candidates for Hellmuthian jamming.

To clarify, Hellmuth states that you should jam on third with your "best" hands, "best possible" hands and "strong" hands. In the actual example he gives he uses a three-card six. However, earlier he cites (A6)7 as a "best" hand with which one can jam and by "best possible" hand he means When you hold something like a three-card ten with the ten showing and all the other upcards are higher.

In Sklansky On Razz, David cites rough sevens as being "fair" hands. More importantly, David has it that you can jam on third he you are going to see fifth no matter what you hit on fourth. David envisages you holding more than (A6)7. Hellmuth has taken this concept and applied it to many more hands than David would. Hellmuth's writing is so imprecise that it is not possible to state just what hands he would jam with though the various definitions of jamming hands lead to the conclusion that they far outnumber the hands David would jam with.

[pipes]

I definitely agree that the Razz section in Helmuth's book should not even be mentioned in the same breath as Sklansky on Razz.

That being said buddy, I think you are slamming Phil's book too harshly. An (A6)7 or even a 3 card ten can definitely be considered a strong hand or best hand given the cards that are out.

I know the limit hold'em section has..well...pretty questionable advice. But in my opinion, the rest of the book was definitely worth the price. I thought the sections on O8b and Limit Hold'em Tournaments were quite good and interesting to boot. It also got me interested in other games such as Razz, because he takes such a basic approach.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi pipes:

[ QUOTE ]
I know the limit hold'em section has..well...pretty questionable advice. But in my opinion, the rest of the book was definitely worth the price. I thought the sections on O8b and Limit Hold'em Tournaments were quite good and interesting to boot. It also got me interested in other games such as Razz, because he takes such a basic approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly the way I saw the book. The other sections are okay, especially if you're a beginner.

Best wishes,
Mason