Common Poker Theory Misconceptions Thread.

[partygirluk]

I am at work, so I'll only post one for now.

1) "I had already put 1/2 of my stack in the pot, so I had to call", or "I had only put 1% of my stack in, so folding seemed most prudent". How much you have put in the pot is only relevant in that it changes how thepot size, and in NL, it changes how much you have left to bet.

If the pot is $100, you have $600 behind, and it is $20 to call, how much of the $100 in the pot is yours, is not directly relevant to your decision.

[k_squared]

Good thread...

And there are so many!!!

My current 3 favorites.

"I never bother to raise with any pocket pair (except maybe AA) because someone always draws out one me!" A surefire way to lose yourself a ton of money...

"There aren't bad cards, just bad flops" - akin to "Any 2 cards can win" both right in a twisted and simplistic way that fails to account for the fact that some cards have a much higher chance of winning than others.

"I was on a rush, so I just figured I would keep playing until I lost a hand!"

-K_squared

[partygirluk]

Another one.

Someone gets C/Red on the turn with AA. They think that they are up against a set. They are closing the action in a 19BB pot.

They think "I am 22-1 against drawing out v. a set. However, my implied odds if I do so are pretty massive. So the call is close. But, the pot is so big then I'll have to call one on the end. So my odds are really halved, so best if I fold the turn".

This thinking is flawed on two reasons:

i) If you put the other guy on a ser, your odds for drawing out are actually 21-1 (as you "know" 8 cards).

ii) You don't "have" to call on the end. You only call if the pot odds are preferable. If you are ahead with a high enough probability, then you can call down with significantly less than the direct odds of hitting your set. If you are 100% convinced that he has a set, then you can base your decision on immediate pot odds, and implied odds alone, as you should always fold the river if you don't improve.

[Dan Burns]

I was playing 1/2 NL in Atlantic City. The guy to my right was pretty erratic and pretty bad. He was in the SB and I was in the BB. Someone in EP raised to $10. Another player raised to about $40 and a short stack went all in for about that same amount. He was on a stack of about $100 and called. I folded as did EP. Don't remember the flop, but the raiser went all in. Guy to my right flashed me some unsuited trash like 48o and folded. Then he turned to me (this man who had $1 invested in the pot pre flop), shrugged and said "had to call for the pot odds."

[The Bloke]

[ QUOTE ]
"I was on a rush, so I just figured I would keep playing until I lost a hand!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Though Doyle Brunson is a big fan of doing this - in Super System 2 he basically dismisses 'scientists' who say a rush isn't possible, and says if he's on a run he'll keep playing until he loses. He does present some logic to it - the other players at his table become more and more hesitant of taking him on as he dominates the table hand after hand.

But I guess this generally only works if:
a) You're playing live where people actually notice
b) You're Doyle Brunson

[k_squared]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I was on a rush, so I just figured I would keep playing until I lost a hand!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Though Doyle Brunson is a big fan of doing this - in Super System 2 he basically dismisses 'scientists' who say a rush isn't possible, and says if he's on a run he'll keep playing until he loses. He does present some logic to it - the other players at his table become more and more hesitant of taking him on as he dominates the table hand after hand.

But I guess this generally only works if:
a) You're playing live where people actually notice
b) You're Doyle Brunson

[/ QUOTE ]

You can 'play your rush' but to believe the cards are affected by what previous cards have come is plainly put-stupid. Playing a rush is using your image, and your recent good fortune to your advantage, which might allow you to take advantage of an image... in the case people were paying attention. Even Doyle Brunson can be wrong...

It is a fact that the cards do often times come in runs (or rushes) when we look back at them. But we can only see that looking back, not looking forward, so to play as if the rush was going to continue is a bad idea. You play your game (and your meta-game) which means you should take advantage of your image, but you don't play a rush because you think the cards are 'hot.'

What is so odd about rushes is that it always feels like the cards come like that, which means when you are running hot you start to expect it... but that expectation is very costly if you start acting on it!

preaching to the choir,
-k_squared

[Victor]

your saying you can fold after already putting money in a pot. wow. thanks partygirl.

[Vee Quiva]

[ QUOTE ]
How much you have put in the pot is only relevant in that it changes how thepot size, and in NL, it changes how much you have left to bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can think of one example where it does matter. If you are in a situation where you put 1/2 your stack into the hand and the 1/2 you have left is only 2-3 times the blinds. You may be in a situation where you have to call no matter what because the chances of you coming back with 3 BB in the tournament are slim and none and slim just left town.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How much you have put in the pot is only relevant in that it changes how thepot size, and in NL, it changes how much you have left to bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can think of one example where it does matter. If you are in a situation where you put 1/2 your stack into the hand and the 1/2 you have left is only 2-3 times the blinds. You may be in a situation where you have to call no matter what because the chances of you coming back with 3 BB in the tournament are slim and none and slim just left town.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right and wrong. You should call "no matter what", as the chances of coming back from 3BB is > 0. In fact, with 3BB you could triple up win the blins and be back to 10.5 BBs in no time. However, if the blinds were close to you, you might make a call that pot odds alone dictate is slightly wrong.

[TimmyMayes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I was on a rush, so I just figured I would keep playing until I lost a hand!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Though Doyle Brunson is a big fan of doing this - in Super System 2 he basically dismisses 'scientists' who say a rush isn't possible, and says if he's on a run he'll keep playing until he loses. He does present some logic to it - the other players at his table become more and more hesitant of taking him on as he dominates the table hand after hand.

But I guess this generally only works if:
a) You're playing live where people actually notice
b) You're Doyle Brunson

[/ QUOTE ]

You can 'play your rush' but to believe the cards are affected by what previous cards have come is plainly put-stupid. Playing a rush is using your image, and your recent good fortune to your advantage, which might allow you to take advantage of an image... in the case people were paying attention. Even Doyle Brunson can be wrong...

It is a fact that the cards do often times come in runs (or rushes) when we look back at them. But we can only see that looking back, not looking forward, so to play as if the rush was going to continue is a bad idea. You play your game (and your meta-game) which means you should take advantage of your image, but you don't play a rush because you think the cards are 'hot.'

What is so odd about rushes is that it always feels like the cards come like that, which means when you are running hot you start to expect it... but that expectation is very costly if you start acting on it!

preaching to the choir,
-k_squared

[/ QUOTE ]

Doyle Brunson's point is this

1. he plays the next hand after a win so he can sort of "allow" a rush to happen

2. he doesn't assume previous cards affect current ones, however it is perfectly possible to be in the middle of "a rush" there are times when you cannot lose a hand. He isn't saying "well i won a couple so i am gonna win these next ones" he lets it happen as it were by raising the next pot.

3. Doyle played mostly NL HE during the publication of this work.

4. Think about tournament play....its this concept on a smaller scale. The way to succeed at tournaments is to "survive long enough to get lucky" aka hang on till you get a big rush of cards and build a huge stack...

Cheers,
Tyler

[emonrad87]

Doyle Brunson is a master of reading his poopnents and getting into their heads. He can play a rush because of this. Very few in the world are equal with him in this regard. Just because it's profitable for him (which it probably is) doesn't mean it's profitable for everyone. That advice is not like, say, the advice in SSHE, in that anyone can follow it. To play a rush the way he does you must be a VERY good player.

[k_squared]

[ QUOTE ]

Doyle Brunson's point is this

1. he plays the next hand after a win so he can sort of "allow" a rush to happen

2. he doesn't assume previous cards affect current ones, however it is perfectly possible to be in the middle of "a rush" there are times when you cannot lose a hand. He isn't saying "well i won a couple so i am gonna win these next ones" he lets it happen as it were by raising the next pot.

3. Doyle played mostly NL HE during the publication of this work.

4. Think about tournament play....its this concept on a smaller scale. The way to succeed at tournaments is to "survive long enough to get lucky" aka hang on till you get a big rush of cards and build a huge stack...

Cheers,
Tyler

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what it means to play a rush in terms of playing off how it affects your image (which is also to say your tables perception of you)...

I also am not Doyle nor have I read the passage being referred to so I don't know what he means. On the other hand it is not unreasonable to believe that even a succesful player like Doyle might believe in rushes and play a hand because he does in fact 'feel' like the cards are hitting. Doyle is an old school player and they tend to be more intuitive than scientific. It is a mistake to simply believe that Doyle is always right or always wrong simply because he is Doyle. his advice should carry a significant amount of weight, but also be measured by our own common sense and reasoning.

(1) What does it mean to 'allow' a rush to happen? And why would anyone want to do this? Why change your playing requirements after winning a hand?

the only answers that I find to questions like this are because after you win a hand it affects the other players at the table in such a way that it makes it more profitable to play your next hand more loosely (although the converse could also be true). But then this is not a result of being on a rush in so far as you think the cards you ahve been getting are hitting the flop well, and so you should keep playing, but rather adjusting to the tables changing image of you that is resulting from your previous hands. I would think that at higher level games (like the one Doyle plays in) this becomes less likely to happen because they play at a much higher level!

(2) their is never a situation where you CAN'T lose a hand unless you have the nuts... which isn't possible with your first two cards. If you are at a table that allows you to run them over that is not being on a rush... that is being at a weak table. Being on a rush, as I understand it, is playing cards you would not other wise play because you believe that you have been hitting your cards right which allows you to then play extra hands (i.e. because you have been getting lucky and so now expect to continue to get lucky).

(3) so that means he can take advantage of opponents weakness through superior play more easily... which means he would be in a situation to create the perception of being on a rush by constantly and aggressively raising. But that is not actually playing a rush but rather playing based on people's perceptions of your play.

(4) I am not saying you don't hit rushes of cards (or that in tournament play that is not a part of success)... But if you simply play as if you are going to get lucky on the next hand because you recently won a hand , or because you have a lot of chips that is simply a bad decision. Your decision making process should be much more nuanced. I have a lot of chips, I can push this guy around because he is short stacked, weak and out of position... You can't play a rush because you can't ever know when you are on a rush... A rush is a historical phenomenon and has nothing to do with the present other than how it has affected the other players at the table. It's use to us as players is only in its psychological affects because it has no affect on the next discrete hand's outcome

Read John Feemey's essay in "Inside the Poker Mind" titled-'On Randomness, Rushes, Hot Seats, and Bad Dealers"

-k_squared

[k_squared]

[ QUOTE ]
Doyle Brunson is a master of reading his poopnents and getting into their heads. He can play a rush because of this. Very few in the world are equal with him in this regard. Just because it's profitable for him (which it probably is) doesn't mean it's profitable for everyone. That advice is not like, say, the advice in SSHE, in that anyone can follow it. To play a rush the way he does you must be a VERY good player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with this statement! And the reason he can play his 'rushes' is because he masterfully understands how to manipulate his opponents and their perceptions of him.

-k_squared

[TheMaroon]

[ QUOTE ]
I had already put 1/2 of my stack in the pot, so I had to call

[/ QUOTE ]
In that case you are getting at least 3-1 which makes it very hard to fold. In very few situations where you have committed half of your stack can you put your opponent on a range of holdings that would allow you to fold getting 3-1. This isn't a misconception at all. Why oh why can't I sleep?

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]

Doyle Brunson's point is this:
4. Think about tournament play....its this concept on a smaller scale. The way to succeed at tournaments is to "survive long enough to get lucky" aka hang on till you get a big rush of cards and build a huge stack...


[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. Even if this is people's way of succeeding "survive long enough to get lucky", they don't mean "until I get a bunch of hands all at the same time and earn chips." The luck/good cards only need to come often enough to keep somebody alive or to keep their chips rising-commonsense tournament play does not assume the existence of rushes.

[tripdad]

easily the most common misconception about poker:

it's not gambling, but rather it is a skill game....is it a game that requires skill to consistently win? certainly. does that change the fact that it is a gamble? certainly not.

cheers!

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doyle Brunson is a master of reading his poopnents and getting into their heads. He can play a rush because of this. Very few in the world are equal with him in this regard. Just because it's profitable for him (which it probably is) doesn't mean it's profitable for everyone. That advice is not like, say, the advice in SSHE, in that anyone can follow it. To play a rush the way he does you must be a VERY good player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with this statement! And the reason he can play his 'rushes' is because he masterfully understands how to manipulate his opponents and their perceptions of him.

-k_squared

[/ QUOTE ]
Or maybe Doyle understates/ignores the times he paid off better hands or couldn't get them to fold because he thought he was manipulating his opponents. Doyle's not God and I think you're giving him way too much credit by saying that he turns the perception of past success into future success.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
easily the most common misconception about poker:

it's not gambling, but rather it is a skill game....is it a game that requires skill to consistently win? certainly. does that change the fact that it is a gamble? certainly not.

cheers!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very good point. It applies to other activities also. My mother expresses strong views against gambling. She inherited a decent amount of money from her mum, and put it in the Stock Market. The irony.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I had already put 1/2 of my stack in the pot, so I had to call

[/ QUOTE ]
In that case you are getting at least 3-1 which makes it very hard to fold. In very few situations where you have committed half of your stack can you put your opponent on a range of holdings that would allow you to fold getting 3-1. This isn't a misconception at all. Why oh why can't I sleep?

[/ QUOTE ]

Putting in the other half because you are getting 3:1 from the pot is correct poker strategy. Putting it in because you put the first half in is a misconception-- do you see the difference? The result is the same (i.e. all the money goes in) but the reasons are different. The pot odds rationale is (often) correct while the "I already put in half my stack so...." is never correct.

[Bluegoose75]

I don't think it's unreasonable to change the way you play based on the previous results IF and ONLY IF the previous outcomes affected how your opponents start playing. We can proport strategies, EV calculations and tell people to understand bad beats happen, but that doesn't mean people don't dwell on them.

Please don't tell me if you're at a table and one or two guys go on tilt because of the previous hands you don't INSTANTLY change your playing requirements? When other players get tighter, you change, when they get loose you change. So, if by saying that your 'rush' is changing the way they are playing then it's absolutely plausible that changing your play might be the best option.