Beginner questions and 1 hand

[Allan]

Hello all,

I am an about to comple my first year of poker. I told myself when I began playing poker that I would give myself 1 year and see how it goes. that year is almost up and it looks like I'll book a winning year. Due to the fact that I don't think I'll ever become a super brilliant holdem player (holdem is the only game I've played) I want to expand my game knowledge to allow for broader game selection so I gave 7CSFAP a read through with the idea that stud will become my next game to learn. I plan on starting at Paradise 1-2 with a $.25 ante $.50 bring in and staying there for a while to get a feal for the game.

I realize that this ante structure is incredibly high in relation to the future bets. One question I had was regarding books. Many have suggested West's book as a place to start. I haven't read it yet nor do I own it yet. I was curious as to see if the concepts in wests book are going to aplly in a game of this structure. Also was wondering, in general, if it the West is a must read or if 7CSFAP coupled with my endless study of TOP should suffice.

How in the hell do you remember all the damn cards that are out? Its funny, being a classical musician I am constantly faced with having to memorize things and thought it wouldn't be a problem. I guess it is a whole new muscle I have to figure out a way to train. Are there any "systems" you have found that work easier for you? At first I tried to see all the cards that were out and remember what was out according to suit descending in rank, but that took too long and not everyone folds so I was expending some energy that didn't need to be.

lastly one hand)

Paradise 1-2

4c brings it in 7d, As, 4d, Ts all call, 5d and 9h fold and I call being last to act with (Ad Ah) 9c

As you can see this was an extremely loose game. I didn't raise because I didn't think it woud get anyone out and I could hopefully use someone betting into me, although it looked like the As was going to be the first to act which wouldn't leave me with very many people to knock out, some of my cards are gone and I don't have any other drawing opportunities at this point, so I just called.

4th)

(xx)4c, 8h
(xx)7d, 2d
(xx)As, 8d
(xx)4d, Ks
(xx)Td, 2h
(xx)9h 3h
(Ad Ah) 9c Qh

checked to me and I bet the 4c 8h folds and the As 8d folds everyone else calls.

5th)

(xx)4d Ks Kd
(xx)Td 2h 7h
(xx)9h 3h 5s
(Ad Ah) 9c Qs
(xx)7d 2d 9s

Kings bet, next calls, next folds I raise next calls the two bet and Kings and next call.

6th)

(xx)4d Ks Kd 4h
(xx)Td 2h 7h 3s
(Ad Ah) 9c Qh 6h Qs
(xx)7d 2d 9s Qc

Kings bet next folds I just call, next calls. I think I should have raised here. After checking on 4th, raising on 5th and not getting reraised it is doubtful in my mind that the KK is full. If 7d 2d 9s Qc really is on a diamond draw with all of those dead cards, I get to charge him. as well.

7th)

(xx) 4d Ks Kd 4h (x)
(Ad Ah) 9c Qh 6h Qs (Qd)
(xx)7d 2d 9s Qc (x)


easy bet when checked to....

Any and all comments appreciated.
Thanks,

Allan

PS....Does the order of the posting revolve around who is first to act like I did here or is there a different way to do it?

Allan

Allan,

Good post - IMO, 7CSFAP is a must read but I think it was written with higher limits in mind. Many of the suggested plays don't apply to lower limits. West's book is required reading, there's even good advice on remembering boards. I would also suggest moving to at least the $4-8 limits as soon as you feeel comfortable (West's book applies up to $10-20). Found this to be an easier game to beat, I almost ALWAYS get chased down on PP at very low limits.

[SittingBull]

this low-limit game. The ante is too high to overcome.
Go to a little higher limit where the ante is no more than 15% of the small bet.
Because of this structure,many players will remain with u and run u down because of the collusion factor.
And they will be correct to play marginal hands because of the ante structure.

Congratulations on your winning year!
Note; players tend to equate "internet poker" with "B&M poker". However,I believe the differences are rather numerous.
I know West's book is excellent for "B&M"--But maybe one needs a "new book" for "internet poker" play.
Hmmmm
Happy pokering,
Sitting Bull
BTW On the "internet",players are generally much better at low-limit poker than they are at the "live" casinoS. The reason is that the "internet players" are more interested in winning than the players at the B&M's. T /forums/images/icons/ooo.gif hese latter players are mainly there to have a little fun and to socialize with the other players.
Hence,the "chips" flow more liberally at the "live" casino games than they do on the "internet"

Happy pokering,
Sitting Bull

Hi, the 2-4 level is a mix of good player and not so. Good place to learn. At this level a tight player will be a winning player and you usually have 1-2 other player in a hand /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif . You don't get chased down as often, but remember in 7cs chasing is ok with pot odds. I play in CA and 2-4 interentnet is like 5-10 at the table. the game is usually tigher on the web. Yes West book is a must for lower limits.

[Andy B]

I have never read West's book. My understanding is that it is best for low-limit games which have little or no ante. Obviously, the ante in the Paradise $1/2 game is pretty high, relative to the stakes. I have spent a lot of time (not recently) in a $2/4 game with a $.50 ante and $1 bring-in, so it's exactly twice as big, although I'm guessing that rake and tokes will be a lot less in your game. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif I was able to win enough in this game to enable me to move up in limits some. At the point at which I was playing in that game, all I had read specifically on stud was an older edition of 7CS4AP (and some of the much older books like Morehead and Yardley). I think it is very relevant to low-limit games with big antes, especially the loose games section in the 21st century edition. Make sure you read that version. Even if you have an older version, the new version is well worth the $30.

I will confess that I have trouble remembering the cards sometimes myself. This is an unfortunate trait for a stud player. Doc AZ had some excellent posts a while back about improving your short-term memory for stud. I don't think he finished posting everything he intended to, which is indeed unfortunate. Check the archives.

Funny, I have a master's degree in music from Northwestern and I've never had to memorize much of anything. There is a big difference between short-term memory and long-term memory. When you memorize a piece of music, you do so through repetition and study. You can't sit down and study a poker hand while it's in play.

As for the hand, I think that limping in on third street is fine. Your hand is kind of dead, and you'll have to improve to beat this large field, unless you can knock some people out later. I'd probably bet fourth. Check-raising isn't too likely to be successful, as 84o and 72o probably aren't going to bet for you, and a check-raise of those late position hands would have the effect of tying people on rather than knocking them out. You might consider checking on fourth. A fourth street bet doesn't figure to fold too many people. If you check on fourth, someone might bet fifth street, allowing you to raise. That raise should get people out. I'd probably just bet fourth myself, but that's something to think about.

I'm not sure what the purpose of your fifth street raise is. Do you really think you have the best hand? Why can't the Kings have split Fours or a pocket pair? The caller should have Kings beaten. I've played enough low-limit to know that this isn't necessarily the case, but between those guys and the guy left to act, you're probably behind somebody, and your hand is pretty dead. I'm not quite ready to give up on this hand yet, but I don't want to put in a whole lot of money that I don't have to.

On sixth, it becomes much more likely that your hand is best. Still, I don't like the raise. What the hell is T732 or whatever it was calling with? To call in his spot, I would need either a set (which I would have played differently on some earlier street) or a big draw. I would also need a firm conviction that the guy with two open pair isn't full. He (T732) is probably on some kind of a draw. Anyway, I don't think you have enough hand to raise. I won't quibble with it much, though, and the fact that you aren't re-raised is encouraging.

Nice catch on the end. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif Hope it held up.

I generally list the hands in the same order throughout the hand. Your way was easy enough to follow.

[Andy B]

7CS4AP is written with middle and higher limits in mind, but the fundamental difference between those games and low-limit games is that most stud games $15/30 and higher have a significant ante, while most low-limit games have little or no ante. Allan's game has a bigger ante, proportionally, than even a $30/60 game. I think you have to play at least $100/200 before you find an ante that high. "Real stud" concepts do apply, although you're not as likely to knock people out when it's only a buck or two to call. If people aren't folding, the loose games section of 7CS4AP becomes especially relevant.

[Andy B]

Larry,

I don't think that there is a game in the world that is unbeatable solely because of the structure. A game might be unbeatable because of some combination of the structure, the rake, and the players involved, but a high ante alone will not make a game unbeatable. Sure people will be more correct to chase, but they will probably chase even more than is correct. Guess what? Allan gets to chase too. Sitting around and waiting for the nuts is fine, but I like to actually play cards once in a while. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

I have mentioned this before, including briefly in this thread, but I will repeat it. I played for a long time in a $2/4 stud game with a $.50 ante and a $1 bring-in. The game had a 10% rake capped at $4.50 (ouch) and a $1 jackpot drop. I tipped $1 on almost every pot I won. You will note that the structure of this game is exactly twice as big as Allan's game, except that the rake in his game is capped at $1 (I looked it up) and there is no jackpot drop nor any dealers or cocktail waitresses to tip. Anyway, I beat this game for about $7/hr. The players were atrocious, and that was the key. The most important factor in the beatability of any game is not the structure or the rake--it is the difference in ability between you and your opponents.

[Andy B]

Say hypothetically that this game is unbeatable. So flipping what? How badly can Allan get hurt? Do you think it's better, say, to jump straight into a $30/60 game with a "beatable" structure than to get a feel for a new game at micro limits?

[Allan]

Thanks for the reply Andy.

As a working professional musician I'm faced with having to learn little hard parts of music on the fly but I won't remember the licks next week, so for this purpose and this purpose only, a part of my short term memory has been developed. Thats why I say its like having to train a different memory "muscle". Recalling the cards is different....

I've been goin through some of the archives here and the Other Poker Games forum and Doc's many posts are worth reading. It would benefit anyone else just starting to go through and find some stuff.

Also thanks for the comments about the hand. I honestly did think I had the best hand but only because I don't know better /forums/images/icons/crazy.gif I got lucky on the next card.

Allan

What instrument do you play? A great friend of mine went to northwestern to study bass and play in the Civic orchestra. I think he left there in 95 or 96...

Allan

[Andy B]

I play tuba. I was at NU 1990-91. Gene Pokorny complimented me at my Civic audition but I didn't get in.

I'm not absolutely sure that a sixth-street raise isn't the right play. If Kings-up comes over the top, you can probably fold pretty safely. You may get yourself a "free" showdown if that's what you choose to do. Still, when the other guy has two pair showing, I think it's pretty scary.


I would be surprised if this were not the first post in the history of twoplustwo.com that mentioned Gene Pokorny.

[SittingBull]

[SittingBull]

are a "very good" player in that 2-4 limit structure at a B&M.
My definition of "very good" is an earning rate of 1 1/2BB to 2BB per hour at a B&M sustained for 2000 Hrs. of play.
U are a rarity among the players in that division.
Some of those that U competed against were average players(earning about 1/2BB-1BB per Hr.).
U probably had a few good players earning about 1BB to 1 1/2BB per Hr.).
The others were most likely recreational players.

The major flaw in your reasoning is that U equate a B&M environment to a cyberspace environment.
I will not go into all the differences. However,in Andy Glazer's newsletter on "Internet Poker", Mike caro discusses these differences.
In Allen's case,he would probably be up against too many weak players in a .50 -1.00 game.
Hence,I do not believe that this would be a favorable game for him to invest his money in.
Ideally,U would like to have a good mixture of one or two "donators" and several good players.
I believe, as Ron suggested, that the 2-4 offers the best opportunity for this type of field.
Allen would tend to earn more money for his investment.

Hmmm
H /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif appy pokering, Andy
Sitting Bull

[CORed]

The structure of the Paradise $1/$2 game is favorable to looser players. However this is offset by the fact that the game is full of absolutely clueless fish, who play much too loose even for that structure. This makes the game somewhat high variance, but quite profitable. Many of the players in this game will chase all the way to the river with absolutely nothing, or continue chasing when it is clearly hopeless.

Just one example: In a hand I recently played, I started with split K's and completed, paired my door card on 4th for trip K's and bet $2, made K's full with an open 2 pair on 6th. In spite of the fact that I bet all the way and did nothing to disguise the strength of my hand -- and couldn't, since I was showing everything I could show -- I got two callers on 6th and one on the river. This is not unusual. I have even seen people call open trips, with apparently just a pair bigger than the trips. If you play reasonable starting hands, and chase only when the pot odds are adequate, and get out when the hand you are chasing is clearly not going to win, you should make money in this game.

[SittingBull]

played 7-card stud in cyberspace yet.
Did U log in close to 2000 hrs. of play yet??
Just wondering
Sitting Bull

[Andy B]

Larry,

An average player loses the rake. One who wins 1/2-1 BB/hr is considerably better than average. I sincerely doubt that I played against many such players in my $2/4 game. At any given time, there probably wasn't another winning player in my game, and if there were, there probably wouldn't have been more than one. Between Andy B and the rake, there wasn't much left for anyone else. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

This was less true at $3/6 and $4/8. For a while there, there was a guy who was making a "living" playing $3/6 and $4/8 stud who was very good, demonstrably better than I. He and I sat in the same game many times, and we both still managed to win. Again, this didn't leave much for anyone else.

Your suggestion that Allan would be better off playing against better players is absurd. Good players make a game harder to beat, not easier. I believe that Mason has said that he'd rather play in a game with a bunch of experts and one terrible player than in a table full of mediocre players. Give me the mediocre players. The experts would cut me up as well. Mason is an expert. Whether he actually plays like one is the subject of some debate. You, Allan, and I are not experts, and I don't think there's any disputing that. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

I will confess that I have never played on-line for money, and I'm not likely to any time soon. It is possible that there are factors that make live games easier to beat than on-line games, but I have my doubts. If you could point me to the articles supporting that position, I'd appreciate it. Glazer and Caro are a couple of intellingent guys who know more about gambling than you or I, but I'm not going to accept what you say they say without knowing some of the reasoning behind it.

It may well be that $2/4 would be a more profitable use of Allan's time than $1/2. It should be at any rate. He is, however, just learning this game, and it is likely that he will lose during this phase. He will probably lose less at $1/2 than at $2/4. Once he's learned the game and gotten some of his money back, he can sell his instruments and play $20/40. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

I would submit that someone playing $2/4 is, by definition, a recreational player.