The worst poker article I have ever read:

[ZeeJustin]

The Worst Poker Article I've Ever Read (http://www.beatingpoker.com/db/article.asp?ID=215)

[ QUOTE ]
It’s not very often that they’re gonna hit that flop, something like 1 in 10,000 or so hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
(This refers to how often 62o will hit a straight when it sees the flop).

[ QUOTE ]
You’re going to hit trips only 4% of the time on that flop

[/ QUOTE ]
That's his reasoning for why you should fold 88 preflop. I understand saying it's extremely rare that you will flop your set, but why just lie?

[Blarg]

How dare you insult inaccuracies! Some people are trying to make some money here!

[Ed Miller]

Dude, my book's on his coffee table, though. That's cool.

[balkii]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a disciple of the First Church of Lee Jones.

[/ QUOTE ]

WLLH will always hold a special place in my heart as it turned me into a winning player, but...

[me454555]

Not the worst article ever. For the novice player who doesn't think about the game in the same depth most of us do, these are decent stratagies.

I think each and every poker book and article should be viewed in the context of its target audience. To a bunch of season 2+2ers, books like Lee Jones and articles like these are crap. On the other hand, average tourist Joe will find stuff like this gold. It gives him a way to go to the casino, play rudementary, safe poker, and probobly make a little bit of a profit. Thinking like this turns the game of poker into more of a algarythmic game and less of the deep thinking game we have all come to enjoy.

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, my book's on his coffee table, though. That's cool.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but in context, it's a backhanded compliment:

[ QUOTE ]
I find that in almost every case where they disagree with Jones though, that Jones methods have made me more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

*Ouch*

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
That's his reasoning for why you should fold 88 preflop. I understand saying it's extremely rare that you will flop your set, but why just lie?

[/ QUOTE ]

He forgot to neglect the fact that AA always loses in multi-way pots and that we should never raise with AA..ever..never...

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
Not the worst article ever. For the novice player who doesn't think about the game in the same depth most of us do, these are decent stratagies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the part where he says most pocket pairs should be folded because they flop a set 4% (25:1) of the time?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It’s not very often that they’re gonna hit that flop, something like 1 in 10,000 or so hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
(This refers to how often 62o will hit a straight when it sees the flop).

[/ QUOTE ]
6 * 4/50 * 4/49 * 4/48 = 0.003265, or 1 out of 306.25.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It’s not very often that they’re gonna hit that flop, something like 1 in 10,000 or so hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
(This refers to how often 62o will hit a straight when it sees the flop).

[ QUOTE ]
You’re going to hit trips only 4% of the time on that flop

[/ QUOTE ]
That's his reasoning for why you should fold 88 preflop. I understand saying it's extremely rare that you will flop your set, but why just lie?

[/ QUOTE ]

Being bad at math isn't "lying".

[jakethebake]

You think he's bad at math or just too lazy to do the math?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It’s not very often that they’re gonna hit that flop, something like 1 in 10,000 or so hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
(This refers to how often 62o will hit a straight when it sees the flop).

[ QUOTE ]
You’re going to hit trips only 4% of the time on that flop

[/ QUOTE ]
That's his reasoning for why you should fold 88 preflop. I understand saying it's extremely rare that you will flop your set, but why just lie?

[/ QUOTE ]

Being bad at math isn't "lying".

[/ QUOTE ]

[banditdad]

[ QUOTE ]
The Worst Poker Article I've Ever Read (http://www.beatingpoker.com/db/article.asp?ID=215)

[ QUOTE ]
It’s not very often that they’re gonna hit that flop, something like 1 in 10,000 or so hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
(This refers to how often 62o will hit a straight when it sees the flop).

[ QUOTE ]
You’re going to hit trips only 4% of the time on that flop

[/ QUOTE ]
That's his reasoning for why you should fold 88 preflop. I understand saying it's extremely rare that you will flop your set, but why just lie?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would chalk up the first quote to a writer's hyperbole. I think he know the odds aren't 1 out 1,000 that's why he writes "something like 1 in 10,000 or so hands." See? Hyperbole.

You need to reread the article. He says to fold 88 when in middle position and a lag raises in front of you. So does Ed in a tight game.

This is obviously an article for beginng players, you should take it as such.

[banditdad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not the worst article ever. For the novice player who doesn't think about the game in the same depth most of us do, these are decent stratagies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the part where he says most pocket pairs should be folded because they flop a set 4% (25:1) of the time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Youn take it out of context. He writes, "In early position, what are you going to do with pocket 4’s?" See? In early position.

Please feel free to limp with your low pairs from Early Position at any table you see me at. In fact I encourage you to raise your 22-66 from EP.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
Youn take it out of context.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can he take it out of context? The math is wrong. Context doesn't change that.

[banditdad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Youn take it out of context.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can he take it out of context? The math is wrong. Context doesn't change that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not referring to the math. He writes to fold the 44 because: "In early position, what are you going to do with pocket 4’s?" See? In early position. No mention of math. Not putting in the full qoute creates spin.

[atrifix]

Someone pointed out the mathematical errors and he has since corrected 3/4 of them.

As far as I can tell, his calculations were something like 12/50*1/49*1/48 for 62o and simply 2/50 for pocket pairs. Just a guess--I really have no idea how he came to those conclusions.

[Daliman]

lol, just as i was about to respond to yer post, THIS happened.

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t400 (3 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

BB (t2980)
Button (t754)
Hero (t6266)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 6/images/graemlins/club.gif.
Button folds, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises to t6266 (All-In)</font>, BB calls t2580 (All-In).

Flop: (t9246) 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 4/images/graemlins/club.gif, 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(2 players, 2 all-in)</font>

Turn: (t9246) 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(2 players, 2 all-in)</font>

River: (t9246) 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(2 players, 2 all-in)</font>

Final Pot: t9246

[Cerril]

Yeah, but this comment made me wonder if I'd want to be associated with him in -any- form -

[ QUOTE ]
So, where does this theory come from? I am a disciple of the First Church of Lee Jones.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Cerril]

It's not even funny!

You know though, if this guy makes consistent money at low limits, that really speaks poorly of the ones who don't.

[me454555]

Look at the target audience. He advocates weak tight play and while his math may not be correct, if you're a total noob to the table, its probobly an improvement over the stratagy you follow now.

[jwp]

When I clicked the link (Monday 3:10pm EDT), the lousy math had been corrected.

[thirddan]

your book is above my toilet, right on top of my roommates Maxims, now that is cool...


ps. im such a nerd... /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[ddubois]

WTF, that looks like Brainburst! They have a poker site now?

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
Youn take it out of context. He writes, "In early position, what are you going to do with pocket 4’s?" See? In early position.

Please feel free to limp with your low pairs from Early Position at any table you see me at. In fact I encourage you to raise your 22-66 from EP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll limp with low pairs in EP all day long.

Why would you encourage me to raise 22-66 from EP? That's horrible advice.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll limp with low pairs in EP all day long.

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't your VP$IP 11% for Omaha/8 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=holdem&amp;Number=1136230&amp;Foru m=,,,All_Forums,,,&amp;Words=&amp;Searchpage=2&amp;Limit=25&amp;Ma in=1134767&amp;Search=true&amp;where=&amp;Name=6318&amp;daterange= &amp;newerval=&amp;newertype=&amp;olderval=&amp;oldertype=&amp;bodypre v=#Post1136230)? You play hold'em looser. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I like this play in very loose/passive games. I'm not sure if most of the games online these days are loose enough for this (although I haven't played on Pacific for a while).

Was it Mason in one of his Poker Essay books who mentions that in loose games it might be BETTER to limp with this kind of hand in early position rather than middle position? That way you actually encourage more people to limp behind you since they see a big pot developing.

That said I think it's easy to overvalue these hands. I'm actually showing a loss in PokerTracker with hands like 22 and 33 because I do too much of this kind of thing.

[banditdad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Youn take it out of context. He writes, "In early position, what are you going to do with pocket 4’s?" See? In early position.

Please feel free to limp with your low pairs from Early Position at any table you see me at. In fact I encourage you to raise your 22-66 from EP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll limp with low pairs in EP all day long.

Why would you encourage me to raise 22-66 from EP? That's horrible advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, sarcasm. Limping with low pairs from EP is horrible advice in my opinion. Way too loose. I refer you to SSH, ITH, or even WLLH.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
Umm, sarcasm. Limping with low pairs from EP is horrible advice in my opinion. Way too loose. I refer you to SSH, ITH, or even WLLH.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I believe Small Stakes Hold'em recommends limping with any pocket pair in early position in loose games (although I don't have it with me at the moment).

There are certainly game conditions where this is correct.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Youn take it out of context. He writes, "In early position, what are you going to do with pocket 4’s?" See? In early position.

Please feel free to limp with your low pairs from Early Position at any table you see me at. In fact I encourage you to raise your 22-66 from EP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll limp with low pairs in EP all day long.

Why would you encourage me to raise 22-66 from EP? That's horrible advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, sarcasm. Limping with low pairs from EP is horrible advice in my opinion. Way too loose. I refer you to SSH, ITH, or even WLLH.

[/ QUOTE ]

I refer you to 1-800-ABCDEFG (http://www.hop.com/)

[NotMitch]

[ QUOTE ]

Umm, sarcasm. Limping with low pairs from EP is horrible advice in my opinion. Way too loose. I refer you to SSH, ITH, or even WLLH.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the 6 max games I play online limping with 22 UTG is bad, in the games I play live at Foxwoods folding (or raising) is a crime. Comments on how to play a certain type of hand without thiking about the game texture is always horrible advice.

[mrbaseball]

I think well over 50% of the players at Party 3/6 and below would greatly improve by following this guys advice. It isn't high level thinking at all but the horrific play online at lower limits would improve by his suggestions.

That said it is a crappy mistake ridden article. But if all the fish gets from it is to play tighter he becomes a better player immediately.

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
Umm, sarcasm. Limping with low pairs from EP is horrible advice in my opinion. Way too loose. I refer you to SSH, ITH, or even WLLH.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty sure SSH advises playing any pair in loose games. Now are you going to say you don't play in loose games? If so why not - they're everywhere. It's not hard to get the implied odds needed for 22 or 33 to flop a set.

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll limp with low pairs in EP all day long.

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't your VP$IP 11% for Omaha/8 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=holdem&amp;Number=1136230&amp;Foru m=,,,All_Forums,,,&amp;Words=&amp;Searchpage=2&amp;Limit=25&amp;Ma in=1134767&amp;Search=true&amp;where=&amp;Name=6318&amp;daterange= &amp;newerval=&amp;newertype=&amp;olderval=&amp;oldertype=&amp;bodypre v=#Post1136230)? You play hold'em looser. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I like this play in very loose/passive games. I'm not sure if most of the games online these days are loose enough for this (although I haven't played on Pacific for a while).

Was it Mason in one of his Poker Essay books who mentions that in loose games it might be BETTER to limp with this kind of hand in early position rather than middle position? That way you actually encourage more people to limp behind you since they see a big pot developing.

That said I think it's easy to overvalue these hands. I'm actually showing a loss in PokerTracker with hands like 22 and 33 because I do too much of this kind of thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well in limit o/8 I up my number of hands towards 20% (I play more bare A2's and suited A3's), the 11% is when I play PL and NL where you can't afford to play hands that only have a chance to win half a pot. In limit when you get 5-6 players to a flop you won't lose money if you're quartered. In fact even if there's only 3 players on every street and it's capped the entire way you only lose 3BB if you get quartered. In NL/PL you lose a hell of a lot more than that.

[banditdad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Youn take it out of context. He writes, "In early position, what are you going to do with pocket 4’s?" See? In early position.

Please feel free to limp with your low pairs from Early Position at any table you see me at. In fact I encourage you to raise your 22-66 from EP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll limp with low pairs in EP all day long.

Why would you encourage me to raise 22-66 from EP? That's horrible advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, sarcasm. Limping with low pairs from EP is horrible advice in my opinion. Way too loose. I refer you to SSH, ITH, or even WLLH.

[/ QUOTE ]

I refer you to 1-800-ABCDEFG (http://www.hop.com/)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure this is clever and witty but I don't get it.

[banditdad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Umm, sarcasm. Limping with low pairs from EP is horrible advice in my opinion. Way too loose. I refer you to SSH, ITH, or even WLLH.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty sure SSH advises playing any pair in loose games. Now are you going to say you don't play in loose games? If so why not - they're everywhere. It's not hard to get the implied odds needed for 22 or 33 to flop a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have yet to find any game at Party to be as loose, (6-8 players on the flop), as Ed describes. At a full ring game that's 60-80% seeing the flop. If you find these everywhere please put me on your buddy list and let me know when you find them.

[banditdad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Umm, sarcasm. Limping with low pairs from EP is horrible advice in my opinion. Way too loose. I refer you to SSH, ITH, or even WLLH.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the 6 max games I play online limping with 22 UTG is bad, in the games I play live at Foxwoods folding (or raising) is a crime. Comments on how to play a certain type of hand without thiking about the game texture is always horrible advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. Any poker advice is by its' very nature general in terms. I would welcome the addition to any table I'm at of a player who limps with low pairs from EP. I can almost guarantee that he/she will lose their money. 100% of the time? No. 85% of the time? Yes.

[NotMitch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Umm, sarcasm. Limping with low pairs from EP is horrible advice in my opinion. Way too loose. I refer you to SSH, ITH, or even WLLH.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the 6 max games I play online limping with 22 UTG is bad, in the games I play live at Foxwoods folding (or raising) is a crime. Comments on how to play a certain type of hand without thiking about the game texture is always horrible advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. Any poker advice is by its' very nature general in terms. I would welcome the addition to any table I'm at of a player who limps with low pairs from EP. I can almost guarantee that he/she will lose their money. 100% of the time? No. 85% of the time? Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just noticed this reply, you are so far wrong its amazing. The fact that you don't understand how different types of hands have different values in different game textures shows don't understand much about poker at all.

[River2Pair]

[ QUOTE ]

No it's not. Any poker advice is by its' very nature general in terms. I would welcome the addition to any table I'm at of a player who limps with low pairs from EP. I can almost guarantee that he/she will lose their money. 100% of the time? No. 85% of the time? Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last night I was playing 6/12 at the Bike, and several players were playing any two from any position. There were several 7-way flops. I saw 92o drag a pot from UTG (two-pair). In this type of game, how could it not be profitable to play small pairs?

[banditdad]

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

Umm, sarcasm. Limping with low pairs from EP is horrible advice in my opinion. Way too loose. I refer you to SSH, ITH, or even WLLH.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the 6 max games I play online limping with 22 UTG is bad, in the games I play live at Foxwoods folding (or raising) is a crime. Comments on how to play a certain type of hand without thiking about the game texture is always horrible advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. Any poker advice is by its' very nature general in terms. I would welcome the addition to any table I'm at of a player who limps with low pairs from EP. I can almost guarantee that he/she will lose their money. 100% of the time? No. 85% of the time? Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just noticed this reply, you are so far wrong its amazing. The fact that you don't understand how different types of hands have different values in different game textures shows don't understand much about poker at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you can make that determination from a 2 line post that is by it's very nature a generalization? Boy aren't you the smarty.

Let's do an experiment. Your next 10,000 hands limp from every position with pocket pairs. Then get back to us on the results. Okay?

[banditdad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No it's not. Any poker advice is by its' very nature general in terms. I would welcome the addition to any table I'm at of a player who limps with low pairs from EP. I can almost guarantee that he/she will lose their money. 100% of the time? No. 85% of the time? Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last night I was playing 6/12 at the Bike, and several players were playing any two from any position. There were several 7-way flops. I saw 92o drag a pot from UTG (two-pair). In this type of game, how could it not be profitable to play small pairs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee you mean out of 30-40 hands an hr. you saw 92o drag down a pot? Well I stand corrected, by all means you should play ATWD, any pp, and of course any Ax. In fact I would recommend raising, 3 betting, and capping with those hands.

[NotMitch]

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

Umm, sarcasm. Limping with low pairs from EP is horrible advice in my opinion. Way too loose. I refer you to SSH, ITH, or even WLLH.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the 6 max games I play online limping with 22 UTG is bad, in the games I play live at Foxwoods folding (or raising) is a crime. Comments on how to play a certain type of hand without thiking about the game texture is always horrible advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. Any poker advice is by its' very nature general in terms. I would welcome the addition to any table I'm at of a player who limps with low pairs from EP. I can almost guarantee that he/she will lose their money. 100% of the time? No. 85% of the time? Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just noticed this reply, you are so far wrong its amazing. The fact that you don't understand how different types of hands have different values in different game textures shows don't understand much about poker at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you can make that determination from a 2 line post that is by it's very nature a generalization? Boy aren't you the smarty.

Let's do an experiment. Your next 10,000 hands limp from every position with pocket pairs. Then get back to us on the results. Okay?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes because that would totally be a great was to test what I said (that in the online games I play it would be wrong but in loose B&amp;M games it would be fine in case you forgot). Why don't you come play at the Foxwoods 2/4 or 4/8 and fold 22 utg and watch it be 7 players to the flop for one bet and then tell me if the utg limp is bad. Is it that you can't read or are you just thick?

[banditdad]

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

Umm, sarcasm. Limping with low pairs from EP is horrible advice in my opinion. Way too loose. I refer you to SSH, ITH, or even WLLH.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the 6 max games I play online limping with 22 UTG is bad, in the games I play live at Foxwoods folding (or raising) is a crime. Comments on how to play a certain type of hand without thiking about the game texture is always horrible advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. Any poker advice is by its' very nature general in terms. I would welcome the addition to any table I'm at of a player who limps with low pairs from EP. I can almost guarantee that he/she will lose their money. 100% of the time? No. 85% of the time? Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just noticed this reply, you are so far wrong its amazing. The fact that you don't understand how different types of hands have different values in different game textures shows don't understand much about poker at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you can make that determination from a 2 line post that is by it's very nature a generalization? Boy aren't you the smarty.

Let's do an experiment. Your next 10,000 hands limp from every position with pocket pairs. Then get back to us on the results. Okay?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes because that would totally be a great was to test what I said (that in the online games I play it would be wrong but in loose B&amp;M games it would be fine in case you forgot). Why don't you come play at the Foxwoods 2/4 or 4/8 and fold 22 utg and watch it be 7 players to the flop for one bet and then tell me if the utg limp is bad. Is it that you can't read or are you just thick?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well notmitch I would encourage you to put down that brew and try and pay attention. The original article that was referenced in the thread was about, now are you paying close attention notmitch?, INTERNET POKER. Therefore my comments were regarding internet poker. You may have noticed that one of the books I reference in my comments is ITH, that stands for Internet Texas Holdem. See the name? Internet. The medium we are communicating on (in?) is called the Internet. I play B&amp;M poker about 3 times a year. It is something like watching paint dry, IMHO.

However I appreciate your invite to Foxwoods. Please forward the plane tickets to me at your earliest convenience.