RGP explains why you dont' raise 44 out of BB w/ 7 limpers (OT)

[VBM]

want a good laugh? go visit rec.gambling.poker...

the subject in this thread is why you don't raise 33,44,55 out of BB w/ 7 limpers.

Go over to 2+2, Sklansky Jr...What limit are
we talkin? 2-4? People at that level will play middle pair to the river
and such....Don't give them an excuse to fold preflop. Let them stay in
the hand and make your money on teh turn and river...
--CincinnatiKid
am i crazy, or he's arguing your pre-flop raise of 33 will lose you $$ when people fear you and drop out after already putting 1 bet in...

Still going with the math thing, though, is another nifty sklansky theory
called implied odds. Now youve made this raise, and essentially put up a
big sign that says "I have a huge hand". this is going to kill your action
should you hit your set, as demonstrated by the example to which you are
referring. Notice the OP in that instance could not get one raise out of
anyone from the flop forward. Players are going to, or ought to, assume
that you have a large pocket pair once you make this play. They will never
raise, and likely not call, any further bets unless they flop a hand, or a
good draw to a hand which will beat your supposed high pocket pair. And if
they do have a draw, you've given them ridiculous odds to chase it with.
Even if you flop your set, now, you will likely get run down by anyone
with a flush draw, or straight draw...--smellmuth
ah. implied odds means buying a free turn card by advertising pre-flop strength...got it...

I'd argue that Sklansky penned the concept of "implied odds" to justify
gambles like this. --ChrisBrown

the thread... (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/browse_frm/thread/5c694437d77aebb8/f9af60153f8db077?tvc=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.gambli ng.poker%2Fthreads%3Fstart%3D60%26order%3Drecent%2 6&_doneTitle=Back&scrollSave=&&d#f9af60153f8db07 7)

[zephed56]

I don't get it. What is he ridiculing?

His brain is a clusterfuck.

EDIT: I read some of that thread, and I now don't understand what this ^ post is about.

[Hack]

That thread makes my head hurt.

If you want to see a bad poster, though, Gary Carson is one of the worst posters over at RGP.


I remember a thread awhile back on there where Gary Carson said that he never really pays attention to the pot size because calculating pot odds is overrated.

I think his book is overrated.

[jaxUp]

Dear Mr. Carson,
I hope to see somebody who listens to you at my table soon.

Sincerely,
Brad

[Hack]

Pot odds are so overrated, ya know? Mr. Carson prefers to stare his opponents in the eye and pick up Caro tells.

[frank_iii]

Perhaps you can elaborate on why you feel he's wrong?

Or is he wrong because he's on RGP and you're right because you're on 2+2?

Perhaps you'd care to sit down and actually refute his statements instead of blindly ridiculing?

[VBM]

me or Hack?

CinncinatiKid seemed to be arguing that you don't want to raise 44 in the BB b/c too many of your 7 limpers will fold when you make a set on the flop.

i say his thinking is flawed:
1. b/c i doubt many, if any, of your 7 limpers will fold pre-flop for 1 bet.
2. i also think you don't raise 44 out of the BB b/c if you had that same situation every time, all the extra bets you put in every time you're in that situation and you don't flop a set, won't be paid off enough by the times you do make a set. in the long run, it's a losing play.


smellmuth seemed to be explaining that;
"implied odds" == implying you have a big hand and scaring away your action...

Implied odds aren't implying anything, they're extra bets you stand to win on subsequent streets by calling or making a bet that you do not currently have proper odds to call or make...

no?

[Hack]

You are joking right?

Maybe you should ask the question of Ed Miller.

Ignoring the size of the pot is a gigantic error. What Carson is saying is that pot odds do not matter, so if someone walked by and tossed a million bucks in the pot then it wouldn't change his play one bit.

It's just ridiculous.

[frank_iii]

[ QUOTE ]
me or Hack?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not you...Hack or Zephed or anyone else around here who read a book/forum and think that they now know everything about poker and can ridicule anyone who disagrees with what's written in the book or on the forum. Inevitably, when these people are questioned, the first words out of their mouth are something like "SSH says...".

I guess all I'm saying is, grow a brain, think for yourselves, if you think that something someone says is stupid, then refute it with logic or shut up. There's no need to throw around personal insults.

As for myself, like you, I certainly have problems with what the RGP guy is saying. But that doesn't mean I won't ever consider other viewpoints outside of SSH or these forums. Sometimes we learn more from pondering "wrong" statements than simply reading and accepting what is "correct".

Anyway, I ramble...

[Hack]

Hah.

I don't think I know everything about poker, frank. Hardly. It sounds like you have a complex and I think you should post about it in the psychology forum so you can be helped.

But about dismissing Gary's ideas as stupid: they are. Anybody who says that it's smart to ignore the size of the pot can be ignored while playing poker deserves to be called out on it.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
Ignoring the size of the pot is a gigantic error. What Carson is saying is that pot odds do not matter, so if someone walked by and tossed a million bucks in the pot then it wouldn't change his play one bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that what he is saying? Or is he saying that whenever you're not sure whether you have the correct pot odds or not, the situation is so close that your decision won't significantly affect your EV. It's impossible to tell unless you quote him in context, but I would suggest that my interpretation is probably a more plausible reading unless there is reason to think otherwise. (Of course, if he doesn't make this point clear, then his readers may be making very big mistakes if they completely ignore pot odds altogether.)

I've skimmed through his book a while ago. It seemed all right, even though there were things he said that I questioned, and he didn't address some necessary topics. All in all, I'd prefer to play someone who hasn't read any poker books than someone who has read his book. Carson clearly understands poker on some level. Whether he knows it well enough to write an authoritative book, I can't say, because (1) I haven't looked closely at his writing; and more importantly (2) I don't know enough yet to have a particularly authoritative claim as to what constitutes expert (instead of decent but flawed) poker thinking.

[Hack]

No, that's not what he's saying.

He said on an RGP post awhile back that he never pays attention to the size of the pot while playing poker.

[frank_iii]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I know everything about poker, frank. Hardly. It sounds like you have a complex and I think you should post about it in the psychology forum so you can be helped.

[/ QUOTE ]

There you go ridiculing again.

[ QUOTE ]
But about dismissing Gary's ideas as stupid: they are. Anybody who says that it's smart to ignore the size of the pot can be ignored while playing poker deserves to be called out on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you write your next book be sure to mention this.

[zephed56]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
me or Hack?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not you...Hack or Zephed or anyone else around here who read a book/forum and think that they now know everything about poker and can ridicule anyone who disagrees with what's written in the book or on the forum. Inevitably, when these people are questioned, the first words out of their mouth are something like "SSH says...".

I guess all I'm saying is, grow a brain, think for yourselves, if you think that something someone says is stupid, then refute it with logic or shut up. There's no need to throw around personal insults.

As for myself, like you, I certainly have problems with what the RGP guy is saying. But that doesn't mean I won't ever consider other viewpoints outside of SSH or these forums. Sometimes we learn more from pondering "wrong" statements than simply reading and accepting what is "correct".

Anyway, I ramble...

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you read my edit? The original post here confused me as to who is saying what. Because of that, I thought the RGP poster was a bozo. One of em was, I think. Wait, errr.

[VBM]

[ QUOTE ]
i also think you don't raise 44 out of the BB b/c if you had that same situation every time, all the extra bets you put in every time you're in that situation and you don't flop a set, won't be paid off enough by the times you do make a set. in the long run, it's a losing play.

[/ QUOTE ]

never let it be said that olliejen couldn't admit he was wrong. turns out, raising really isn't that much worse (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1526051&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1) than calling.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
never let it be said that olliejen couldn't admit he was wrong

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a guy?

(oh yeah, I didn't read your entire thread, but you're getting 7:1 on a 7.5:1 shot, so unless you think that raising actually increases your implied odds, which it rarely will, then just checking is better than raising)

Rob

[VBM]

dude, yes!

ollie jen = oliver jen. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

i definitely think checking is better;

sets are so hard to read, and a flopped 4 would look really innocuous. if you raised and any face card flops, you're likely to make your opponents reticent.

also, the example presumes all 7 limpers will call, which who knows if they would or not.

i guess, my surprising realization, was that raising wasn't *that* bad. i thought it was terrible, but in the posed example, it wasn't a vastly inferior option...

[Ed Miller]

Maybe you should ask the question of Ed Miller.

Ok. I've read both of Gary Carson's books and a few of his posts from RGP (including those from the thread currently in question). He clearly understands poker better than almost all other poker authors. He also understands it better than most of the posters on this forum.

Also, I agree with him wholeheartedly in this particular RGP thread. Yes, almost no one seems to understand how variance/EV/win rate/CV work. And yes, basically all of the adjustments that people make to "lower their variance" are actually just shooting themselves in the foot.

99% of the time when someone says, "I try to keep my variance low," or, "I avoid making risky plays/raises to protect my bankroll," I hear, "I don't really understand limit hold 'em." It's that simple.

None of the best players I know make these adjustments. None. If you don't believe me, talk to the outstanding players who frequent this forum: Clarkmeister, El Diablo, Paluka, etc.

That's not to say that, IN THEORY, such an adjustment must be wrong. Overbetting your bankroll is a real issue in other gambling games like blackjack and sports betting. But IN PRACTICE, when you play LIMIT HOLD 'EM, there are not really any reasonable places to "adjust" your game to lower your risk of ruin. Any adjustments to "non-optimal" play you make basically lower your winrate too much for their corresponding loss of variance, dropping your CV and increasing your risk of ruin.

That's why I'm so adamant about emphasizing that poker is a gambling game. You are gonna have some serious losing streaks if you play a lot of poker. It's gonna hurt. There are no major adjustments you can make to change that or soften the blow. Suck it up or find a new game.

Finally, Gary Carson certainly didn't claim that pot odds are irrelevant in theory. You misread him, he misstated his position, or something else. He may have said, "I don't bother calculating pot odds at the table." I would say the same... I don't calculate pot odds when I play either. I usually just "know" if the pot is big enough or not. I estimate. I recommend that beginners/intermediates actually count and do the math. I used to. But I don't anymore.

I do disagree with Gary sometimes, and I wouldn't have written his books the way he wrote them. (That's why he writes his books, and I write mine.) But unlike many poker authors, Gary basically knows his stuff. For most people, if you disagree with him on a given issue, you're probably wrong.

[meanjean]

Okay...this post by some Ed guy brings up one of the things I've been thinking about.

Are we actually helping each other in this forum? I have to say for the majority of the time we are. In the microlimit forums most of our questions are pretty straight forward and are directed on how to beat "nutjob LAG's" and the "passive fish". But are we always giving the correct poker advise?

Most of us post hands that we are confused about or have a question of whether a raise to thin the field is in order. We get on average 5 to 20 opinions. For the most part, many of the posters agree with each other. Occasionally there will be a dissenting opinion, which if blatently wrong is shouted down, debated a bit, else ignored. But who is to say the majority opinion is right? There have been many posts and responses I have strongly dissagreed but, due to a flaw within myself of time constraints and laziness, I haven't addressed.

I can actually say that I have no idea if I should raise pairs in the BB when many people are already in the pot. SSHE says I shouldn’t so I don’t. What is the EV? Hell if I know, but as a person who aspires to play high limit poker, I probably should. For that matter, what is the EV on any of my plays? I don’t know. But I’m going to start figuring it out. So as a challenge to all posters and responders, I say let’s start to include the EV in all our responses. I need to learn it. You need to learn it. So lets do.

[Ed Miller]

I said I agreed with Gary's point in the RGP thread 100%, but that's not really true. I agree with him about 95%. There are a few modest adjustments an expert player could make to lower his risk of ruin slightly when taking a shot. For instance, if you are a big winner at $30-$60, and you decide to take a shot at a loose and aggressive $200-$400 game, there are a few modest things you could do to lower your risk of ruin somewhat. Even then your adjustments won't change the situation that much.

But almost everyone who is saying, "I'm willing to skip the small edges," or "I'm doing this to lower my variance," isn't in that situation. They aren't experts, they aren't taking a shot at a $200-$400 game, and they basically don't know what they are doing/talking about.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
For that matter, what is the EV on any of my plays? I don’t know. But I’m going to start figuring it out. So as a challenge to all posters and responders, I say let’s start to include the EV in all our responses. I need to learn it. You need to learn it. So lets do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the sentiment, but in practice I think this is very hard. There are two things that go very wrong when you try to do hard number computations to get an EV:

1) Bad estimations on opponent's abilities: What's the probability of an agressive player betting second pair into four opponents from early position? I have no idea. What are the possible holdings of the 67 VPIP passive fish after he calls the flop and turn bet? Good luck figuring it out. You can make guesses, but many many many of them will depend on so many factors, you won't be able to get a nice EV out of them.

2) Impatience: In order to get a solid number (ignoring the problems of #1 above) is that it takes time to post a careful calculation. Counting up hands, running simulations, considering other lines (which involves more simulations usually) takes up quite a while. And by quite a while, I mean things taking on the order of 30-45 minutes. And then typing them out takes another 10-15 minutes. Lots of posters here spend no more than two minutes thinking about a post before they respond because they want to get on to other posts. You can often tell by reading the response how much thought went into it. (Granted, not all responses take a long time, especially in routine situations.)

That being said, it's not impossible to have good posts with good calculations and good arguments. There have been a few in the past (which I can't find anymore... but I remember one where I was arguing with Entity) and those was some of the best posts I have seen here.