15 The Newbie Chronicles: Three Hands

[mdlm]

I’ve been putting some time into playing ring games and would appreciate comments on the following three hands:

1. Weeping call
EP limps. I raise in MP with KsQc. Everyone folds to EP who calls. 5.5 small bets in pot. Flop is Kc7cQs. EP checks. I bet. 6.5 small bets. EP calls. 7.5 small bets. Turn is 8d. EP checks. I bet. 9.5 small bets. EP calls. River is 6c. EP bets. I call. EP has straight with Td9d.

Comments: What irritates me most about this hand is that the EP’s play is ok (I think). On the flop call he is getting 6.5-1 which is fine since if he gets the J on the turn he will be able to check-raise me and then get me to call a bet on the river. The turn call is also ok. He is getting almost 5-1 for an open end straight and I’m going to call his bet if he makes it on the river. His river bet is a dead give away that he has a good hand, but I would have to see this situation at least a dozen times before folding.

2. Middle pair and backdoor straight/flush
UTG calls. UTG+2 calls. UTG+3 calls. UTG+4 calls. Button calls. I’m in SB with 8d9d and complete. BB checks. 6.5 small bets. Flop is Ts8c2d. I check, there are three callers before me (9.5 small bets), and I fold to one bet.

Comments: I folded here because Jones writes: “Normally, it’s best to check and fold when you flop second pair” but I believe that I should’ve called. Jones actually discusses a hand that is almost identical to this one. In that hand the player has Ts9s and the flop is KhTc4s (middle pair and backdoor straight/flush) and he says that you need at least 12-1 odds to call in this situation. In my hand, there are 6.5 bets preflop. On the flop there are an additional three small bets before me for a total of 9.5 bets. So I am getting 9.5-1 odds to hit a second pair. I have 5 outs (3 for 9, 2 for 8) and I also have a backdoor flush and straight. There are 47 unseen cards so I would need 42-5 odds or slightly better than 8-1. This seems like a call to me. What I don’t understand about this situation is why Jones is making such an enormous odds adjustment to compensate for the possibility that hitting two pair may get beaten (I assume that is the difference between the 8-1 that I calculate for hitting the second pair on the turn and the 12-1 that Jones says he needs to call). Note that the backdoor straight and flush don’t really enter into the discussion here. I think that hitting a second pair is enough while Jones thinks that second pair plus two draws is nowhere near enough.

3. Two bad draws equal one good hand?
UTG+1 calls. UTG+2 calls. UTG+3 calls. UTG+4 calls. Dealer calls. SB completes. I’m in BB with 9d3c and check. Flop is 4d5d6d. SB bets. I fold.

Comments: I have a bad flush draw and a bad straight draw. Is this worth a bet? What confuses me about this hand is that I don’t know exactly how much to take off for how “bad” the draws are. If I just count this as a flush draw or a straight it is clearly a call. However, the flush draw is unlikely to win because someone is likely to have a diamond better than 9 (there are so many opponents). So I count this as 0 outs. Jones writes “If the flop is all one suit, you can continue if you have the nut or second nut flush draw. Anything else, there’s too much of a chance that you’re drawing dead.” And then there is the straight draw which is weak because only one of my cards is participating and because there is a 35% chance or so that there will be four diamonds on the board by the river. Maybe the right thing to do is to play the straight to the river and fold if the fourth diamond comes.

==>
Comments on Comments

My last Chronicles produced more responses than any other. I was quite happy to see that other people have started their own journals (e.g., “Manly Chronicles” by bdypdx). If everyone started their own journals then we could all learn from each other. At least it would be interesting to see brief bios of everyone’s poker careers.

In my last Chronicles I wrote: “Note that it is almost always correct to call a raise preflop if you have limped.” Glenn says that this statement is “so wrong” that it made his “head hurt.” This is an issue that I raised and discussed on the Small Stakes forum (not the issue of Glenn’s head hurting, but of what to do when you limp and there is a raise). Here is what Mason had to say: “Before the flop, if it was correct to limp in and now you call a raise for one more bet, you are playing correctly. There are virtually no hands that you would fold in this spot for one more bet.” This was the consensus among 2+2 posters. My post was titled “Calling preflop raises after limping: How to exploit & avoid” and was posted in the Small Stakes forum on 12/20. Along with Mason, Jim Brier and Dynasty also participated in the discussion.

Glenn also disagrees with some of my answers on the Turmel questions. Turmel assumes that you are trying to suck out against the top pair so you are never ahead. I should’ve clarified this. Glenn also points out that I am ignoring implied odds. That is correct. Finally, Glenn says that the highest variance strategy may not be best for Brett Favre. That’s also true. For example, if Favre’s EV is enough to overcome the disadvantage then he may not need to increase his variance.

Pudley4 noted that in question #7 the opponent could raise. This is an excellent point and it greatly complicates the question. Now a full EV calculation needs to be done. Pudley4’s view is that it is correct to fold. That is what I would do as well unless I had a great handle on the EV calculation. Ulysses makes a similar point and notes that you cannot create your own pot odds. This last comment is well taken. The pot odds give you a line on the EV to see the next card so you need to take into account all bets in the current round not just the current bet.

On the issue of whether a bet on the flop with three callers is a value bet or not, Pudley4 gives an example in which there is only one caller on the turn and notes that with this hand you are typically going to the river. This is a nice example but it is actually the opposite of the critical example. In the critical example all three opponents raise on the turn. This is what kills your pot odds and makes you unable to go to the river. If this happens, you do not have the pot odds to call. But there is a deeper point. If this were a value bet we wouldn’t need to discuss the turn. The flop bet itself would make money off of the bets that it collects. There is no doubt that a flop bet with a flush draw and three callers is not a value bet. It is a good bet in virtually all games but it is not a value bet.

On the issue of whether or not Jones is correct in saying that the only thing that needs to be considered when making a river bet is how often you win when you call, the distance between my position and Pudley4’s has narrowed considerably. Pudley4 believes that Jones is only addressing the case in which the goal is to be called and therefore his analysis is fine. In fact, in the third paragraph of this section Jones writes: “Of course, if you think you can make some better hands fold, it may be to your advantage to bet.” However, and this is the critical point, Jones never does the EV calculation so the reader is left to think that even in this situation “You should only bet on the end if you’ll have the best hand most of the time when you’re called.” This is clearly wrong. I think that the most charitable comment that can be made about Jones’ analysis is that his writing is extremely unclear. But it really, really reads like very bad advice. I hope that Pudley4 finally agrees with me on this. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

Pudley4 also gives an example in which a flush draw has a 37% chance of being good by the river and says that a bet against three opponents on the flop is a value bet. This example is, at best, muddled. If there was a 37% chance of winning on the turn then it would be a value bet. But it’s a 37% chance of winning by the river so the turn action needs to be included in the analysis. Again, if you get killed on the turn then the flop bet could actually be negative EV.

Ulysses says that if I am not confident enough to play real money poker after studying for six months, I’m probably not cut out to play poker. I agree. If I accomplish my four goals by the end of March, I will move on to phase 2, but if I don’t that will be the end of my poker experiment.

KurnsonofMogh invites me to play PP 2/4. This is off-topic, but I’ve always wanted to ask someone who plays LL PP (and I assume that KM does) why they play on PP? My understanding is that PP has the best players. I have looked at the preflop percentages on PP and they are rarely above 35%. I have found sites where it is rarely below 35%. I understand why PP is the place of choice for some games, such as draw and 20/40 hold ‘em. It’s the only place big enough to regularly host those games. But there are at least half a dozen places that have LL games going almost all of the time. So why does anyone play LL hold ‘em on PP? I’m curious. Back to KM’s invitation to play 2/4 on PP. My poker project is not going very well right now so I probably will never play real money poker, but if I do, PP 2/4 is probably the last game I would play for the reason I give above.

Easy E asked me a few meta-questions. First he wants to know why I chose an “18 month tour.” I chose an 18 month tour as opposed to an 18 month journey because I think it sounds better. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif Seriously, I chose 18 months because I’ve done something like this before and that’s approximately how long it took. Second, he wants to know why 6 months is the “correct amount of time” for Phase 1 (P1). I don’t know if it’s the correct amount of time but, again, that’s approximately how long it took the first time. Third, he asks if any left over money from P1 will be rolled over into P2. Since it doesn’t look like I’ll be making it to P2 this question will probably be moot, but the budget for P2 will be at least $5K so it doesn’t really matter one way or another. Easy E also asks what’s up with my two monitor system that doesn’t let me use TTH. I have a standard two monitor system. For example, right now I am typing this in a Word document on one monitor and I have a browser open to Easy E’s post in the other monitor. Every piece of sofware that I have works with this two monitor system except for TTH which splays its screen over both monitors.

Pufferfish says that I should look into O/8. This is excellent advice. There is no doubt in my mind that ring hold ‘em is the worst online game from an EV perspective. Worse than short-handed, heads-up, and tournament. Worse than draw, 7cs, and Omaha. But from a learning perspective it’s the best because more is known about hold ‘em than any other game (that’s why it’s the hardest) so I get to check my thinking. Once I can beat LL hold ‘em, then it will be time to make a big switch and figure out how to beat another game.

Homer Simpson writes “I achieved this goal [making $1000 a month for three consecutive months] after spending about a month reading WLLHE and HPFAP, then jumping right into 2/4 and 3/6 online.” Looks like I’ve found another reason to commit suicide. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif Assuming 100 hours a month of 3/6 poker, making $1000 would require a win rate of 1.7 BB/hr. That’s nice.


==>
Goal Update

This past week, I spent approximately 27.5 hours on poker: 9 hours on PokerPages tournaments, 10.5 hours in ring games, 3 hours on Masque, and 5 hours on 2+2.

I did not spend any extra money this week. I have spent a total of $438.46 out of my $1000 budget.

An update on each of the four goals (which are to be accomplished by 3/30/03):

1. Read and study Jones’ “Winning Low Limit Hold ’Em”
I have confirmed one out of the three points I need to achieve this goal. The second and third points are pending based on the discussions with Pudley4.

2. Beat Acespade
Goal Completed on 11/5/02.
Over a period of 100 hours (3600 hands) I beat Acespade’s best lineup at the rate of over 4 BB/hr.

3. Beat Masque World Series of Poker
Goal Completed on 11/17/02
After playing Masque WSOP dozens of time I finally became the Masque WSOP Champion.
I played Masque once again this week to try to get back on target with the PokerPages tournaments. To my amazement I won the tournament after only three tries. I discovered that if I put in a large bet on the flop and another on the turn Masque would often fold. By sheer coincidence I then started reading Reuben & Ciaffone’s “Pot-limit & No-limit Poker” and Ciaffone says that the strongest part of his game is “knowing when to fire that second barrel.” The second barrel is a turn bet after a flop bet!

4. PokerPages 85% rating in one calendar month playing 20 tournaments
I have lost my mojo in the PokerPages tournaments. At my peak I used to get to the final table in 30% of the tournaments but now I struggle just to get in the top one-third. I played five tournaments this past week and finished #26 out of 135, #54 out of 140, #58 out of 101, #50 out of 178, and #20 out of 107. My rating is a gloomy 70.72%.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

hand #1: Not much you can do. You want him to call on the flop with the gut shot. Its about 8-1 against hitting with 2 cards to come and he's only getting 6.5-1. On the turn he's calling on the straight draw with an EV=0. He's getting 4.75-1 from the pot and those are his exact odds. In the long run you make money with this hand.

Hand #2: this is a good hand to semi-bluff check-raise. If you check-raise, you could get a weak T, a better 8, or a gut shot to fold. Also, there are a number of cards that could come on the turn that would scare your opponents if you then lead out on the turn.

Hand #3: Your fold here is good. The sb leading out on a monochrome board with so many players left to act shows strength, so discretion is the better part of valor.

[pudley4]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Pudley4 also gives an example in which a flush draw has a 37% chance of being good by the river and says that a bet against three opponents on the flop is a value bet. This example is, at best, muddled. If there was a 37% chance of winning on the turn then it would be a value bet. But it’s a 37% chance of winning by the river so the turn action needs to be included in the analysis. Again, if you get killed on the turn then the flop bet could actually be negative EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how to explain this any better. If on average you get more back than what you put in, you are making a value bet.

With the nut flush draw, we are about 2-1 to make the flush by the river. Sometimes the board will pair (or pair twice) and our flush will lose. Sometimes the board will pair on the flop or turn, and we will fold without going to the river.

We take these scenarios into account when betting on the flop. This is why we need more than 2-1 on our bet to consider it a value bet (just like Jones says in his book).

When we calculate whether a bet is a value bet, we only need to look at whether or not we are making money during the current betting round. We don't know exactly what will happen in the future. What we can do is look at all possible outcomes, then determine how likely they are to happen, how likely we are to win them, and then figure out whether to bet or not.

Example: You have KK. If you know I will call, do you raise preflop? Absolutely. Is this a value bet? Absolutely. Why? Because you will win more than 50% of the time. Since you will win more than 50% of the time, this makes it a value bet - you are getting more money back than you are putting in.

Obviously it won't be a value bet every time. Sometimes I'll have AA and you'll lose that bet. Sometimes I'll have QQ and run you down on the river and you'll lose that bet. Sometimes I might even be able to bluff you out of a pot. However, when we consider whether something is a value bet, we (try to) take all of these scenarios into account. Just because it didn't turn out for you in one particular scenario doesn't mean it's not a value bet.

[Allan]

Good to see you getting into some games and posting hands......

Hand 1:

I think you played fine. I believe your opponent played the hand badly. On the flop he is getting 6:1 for his gutshot, which is fine in some cases, in this case I think he needs a much bigger pot. He has the bottom end of the gutshot and there is a 2 flush on board that is not of his suit. There is a chance that he hits a card that helps him but helps someone more, or he hits his hand only to get rivered.

Eg: You could be holding ATc

Hand 2:

I think you have a call with your middle pair and backdoor flush.

Hand 3:

You've got nothing and correctly folded. Your flush draw is no where near the nuts and even discounting the flush draw out there, your straight draw is a one card bottom end draw meaning the only card you can be happy about is a duece..


Allan

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I play at Paradise for two reasons:

1) It was the easiest site to make a deposit on in September when I started (I tried True Poker and Pokerstars first). So there's a bit of inertia involved.

2) I heard it was tough. You don't get better at chess by only playing worse players. Same for poker. I want to be good. Therefore I play at Paradise primarily. As it is, I'm slightly ahead for the past 4 months, but my game is much better than it was. My B&amp;M reults at higher limits are much better - 4 out of six winning sessions live. When I sit at a live table, it's nowhere near as tough.

As of now, I do have an active account at Pokerstars, but that's primarily to play in their Super Satellite for a free buy-in to the WSOP. hey, even Klingons can dream. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[bernie]

"You don't get better at chess by only playing worse players. Same for poker"

poker is also a texture based game. if one plays nothing but tough games, they wont have the experience in adjusting to much looser games....in fact, some 'tough' players refuse to play some textures because they cant handle playing guys who 'dont know how to play'. fact is, they just dont know how to adjust...so they themselves really arent 'that' good of players....(this wasnt aimed at you, just a general observation of some players ive seen, so no offense is intended. you may have seen this too)

i prefer to try and beat ANY game...playing in only tough games against tough players, may limit you for a bit when texture change occurs

personally, i dont want to play a table with tough players...i dont like to work that hard unless i have to /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

b

[angelo alba]

Allright! /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

I will refrain from backpedaling or giving in to temptation re your Masque-victory vis a vis Ciaffone's 2nd barrel, and your NLHE tourney rating at Pokerpages; what the hell you ight win the WSOP seat and...oops sorry. Just keep reading Caiaffone. No other comment. Bite tongue. . .

Hand #1 And # 3 seem to me just fine. As well as to most other posters, and (I prophesy ) others still to post.

Hand #2 is VERY interesting from a theoretical point of view.

In addition to my half ironic request for a Forum devoted exclusively to AKo and AQo we might suggest an SB forum as well. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

Ok, here we go: LL, Mid stakes , Pot or even NL I don't think it matters as far as your bet with 8-9 suited from the SB against 4 EP (in a row, no less !) limpers and the button limping as well. Good call.

BB checks and now after the Ts8c2d flop--middle pair and backdoor straight and backdoor flush.

You check, three bet and you fold.

Two schools of thought. Taking the fact that there are 4 players now and the PF pot, one can go with the loyal opposition (Carson) and say that this is now a game of money odds rather than hand domination, etc.

Consequently your question re thhe odds and why Jones (who is taking an imlicitly a similar perspective ) seems to bend the math a bit, is a legitimate question.

As well as the advice to call or check raise.

From more um.. dominance (?) perspective, against 3 other players post flop, one can argue, simply dump it!

I wonder if the high stakes limit players would go with the second school of thought?






You

As to hands #1 and # 3, you'll probably get

[pudley4]

Hand 1 - Notice he is only a 60/40 underdog preflop. He should call your preflop bet.

On the flop, I think he made a very marginal call, since you could have the club flush draw. Getting 6.5-1 is probably too little as even if he hits the J on the turn and check-raises you, you still have 4 outs on the river to a full house. He also might not get the check-raise in if you check behind.

On the turn he's definitely not going anywhere, and on the river it's tough not to pay him off.

You'll see hands like this very often. Just remember that every bet you made was a value bet - for every bet that he put in, you were getting anywhere from 60% to 80% of it back.

Hand 2 - In both your hand and the Jones example, hitting the second pair will complement the board. Your 9 hitting will put 3 parts to a straight (89T) on board, making it much more likely for you to lose to a straight. A similar situation is in Jones example (KT9 would be on the board if the player hit 2 pair). This is one reason you need to be more careful about playing middle pairs on a coordinated board. I'd probably call if I closed the action, or if there was only one more person left to act. More than that and I'd probably fold. I think it's close either way.

Hand 3 - Your straight draw is a 1-card draw to the bottom end of a straight. You could be completely drawing dead against someone with 78. There are many people behind you; someone might already have a flush, or a higher flush card and you could be drawing dead. Fold without a second thought. Even though the "pot odds" might say you should call (with an open-ended straight and 4-card flush draw), you have to realize that the only 2 cards you want to see on the turn and river are the 7 /forums/images/icons/diamond.gif and 8 /forums/images/icons/diamond.gif. Anything else that helps your hand could make someone else's hand even better.

[pudley4]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
On the issue of whether or not Jones is correct in saying that the only thing that needs to be considered when making a river bet is how often you win when you call,

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not saying it's "the only thing" to be considered, even though the vast majority of times you will be called (as he points out later). In the relevant section, he's talking about a specific scenario - betting when you will be called. The whole chapter is broken up into different topics:

*Betting good hands on the river (His advice - Bet, don't try for the checkraise)
*Calling or raising big pots with marginal hands (Usually call/raise due to the pot size)
*Multiway pots (try for overcalls instead of raising a bettor)
*Raising forever with the best hand (obviously /forums/images/icons/smile.gif)
*Betting only when you want to be called. This is the relevant section. He is talking about the same thing Sklansky talks about in TOP "Heads up on the End" (p202)

If you bet into someone on the river and you think they will call, you need to have a better than 50-50 chance against them because they might raise you.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Pudley4 believes that Jones is only addressing the case in which the goal is to be called and therefore his analysis is fine. In fact, in the third paragraph of this section Jones writes: “Of course, if you think you can make some better hands fold, it may be to your advantage to bet.”

[/ QUOTE ]

You're picking and choosing again; taking statements out of context. The first sentence in that paragraph states:

"Note that we are not talking about bluffing here."

So he is obviously going out of his way to point out that he is only talking about betting when you'll be called.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
However, and this is the critical point, Jones never does the EV calculation so the reader is left to think that even in this situation “You should only bet on the end if you’ll have the best hand most of the time when you’re called." This is clearly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is clearly right. He even states it in the book. Sklansky says the exact same thing in TOP. Jones doesn't do a lot of EV calculations anywhere in his book, but since it's aimed at Low Limit (Beginning) players, he tends to "dumb-down" some of his writing. It's still correct.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
.I think that the most charitable comment that can be made about Jones’ analysis is that his writing is extremely unclear. But it really, really reads like very bad advice. I hope that Pudley4 finally agrees with me on this

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he's unclear at all. It helped me a lot when I first started playing. I think you are looking at it differently than he intends. This book is not aimed at showing lots of different playing styles, or lots of different plays you can make. He intends to lay a solid foundation for a beginning player to be able to beat a Low Limit game. In Low Limit games the easiest way to be a successful player is very boring and methodical. If you're looking for more in-depth analysis, look for HPFAP or TOP or the Middle-Limit book by Brier/Ciaffone.

Bluffing on the end rarely works in Low Limit games for a number of reasons:

1 - The pots are so big most opponents will call anyway.
2 - They're also bad players - you'll see them call with as little as bottom pair (in some cases with nothing more than J-high).
3 - Most LL players don't pay attention to anything other than their own hand, so semi-bluff raising them on the turn and betting on the river won't get them to fold their KK (it does make for great value bets though /forums/images/icons/smile.gif )

[pudley4]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
In my last Chronicles I wrote: “Note that it is almost always correct to call a raise preflop if you have limped.” Glenn says that this statement is “so wrong” that it made his “head hurt.”

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what he was referring to. He was referring to this:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
"Note that it is almost always correct to call a raise preflop if you have limped so if there are enough limpers this is actually a value bet. "


[/ QUOTE ]

This second statement is not always true. Look back to my example from your post "Chronicles 14" where you hold pocket 4s. Your hand only wins 16% of the time in that scenario, so against those 4 players you are losing money on every bet that goes in preflop. Does that make sense?

However, you will limp preflop in order to try to hit your set, because the implied odds are so great. If another player after you raises, you will then be getting up to 9-1 on your second call, so you obviously have to call the second bet. However, you are still losing money on that particular bet. Does that make sense?

Since you are losing money on every bet that goes in preflop, you want to see the flop as cheaply as possible. Raising preflop is not a value bet in this scenario, even though you should call a later player's raise.

[Glenn]

Hi mdlm,

You wrote:

In my last Chronicles I wrote: Note that it is almost always correct to call a raise preflop if you have limped, "Glenn says that this statement is so wrong that it made his head hurtThis is an issue that I raised and discussed on the Small Stakes forum (not the issue of Glenn's head hurting, but of what to do when you limp and there is a raise). Here is what Mason had to say: "Before the flop, if it was correct to limp in and now you call a raise for one more bet, you are playing correctly. There are virtually no hands that you would fold in this spot for one more bet"; This was the consensus among 2+2 posters. My post was titled "Calling preflop raises after limping: How to exploit &amp; avoid" and was posted in the Small Stakes forum on 12/20. Along with Mason, Jim Brier and Dynasty also participated in the discussion.



What is was actually responding to is your entire statement:

"Pudley4 notes that there are some 100% suck out hands, such as 44 and 56s, that should be called instead of raised in LP. This may be true, but the analysis is quite subtle for loose-passive hold'em games. Note that it is almost always correct to call a raise preflop if you have limped so if there are enough limpers this is actually a value bet. "

Of course you pretty much always call a raise back once you have limped. However, your full statement seemed to imply that because this is true, you should always raise instead of limp, and that that raise would be a value bet. That is incorrect. If it is not what you meant, however, then nevermind /forums/images/icons/smile.gif.

Hand 1:

You played it fine. This usually isn't what I'd call a crying call. You will have the best hand here a lot except in the most passive low limit games. In fact, raising is right against some people, IMO.

Hand 2:

There is nothing wrong with folding here, IMO. I would sometimes call if I closed the action and felt I had good control over my opponents, but most of your outs can easily make someone a better hand. T9, QJ, A8, etc are definite possibilities (actually they are fairly probable) for people who bet/called on the flop. You also may be drawing pretty much dead to T8 or a set.

Hand 3:

Easy fold.

[angelo alba]

Mee write prety one daiy!

Sorry about my somewhat garbled post, which is too late to edit by now.

I really must make a point to check for typos, especially when I'm leaving the house in a rush to go to bankruptcy court or to redeem my food coupons. Now where was I?

Oh yes, for the sake of clarity, my statement that 'Hand #1 and #3 are fine' means of course that you played them quite well.

I admit I'm mortified in failing to catch the possibility of a straight on Hand 2, since clumping low hands had an unfortunate habit during my early days of turning into straights for someone else.

Poker 101.

As is counting your outs and neglecting to figure that one or more makes a better hand for your opponents.

( Now boys and girls if the board ever pairs or if a 3rd suited card falls on the turn, who else could be helped by...?)

*sigh*

I'm glad Pudley4 and Glenn caught it.

I also REALLY liked their advice on how to play Hand #2. For the record, I'd just fold it; even if a logically better play would be to call if it closes the action.

(Indeed, even the posters who stated they'd call , not mentioning closing the action, or that they would check raise have an arguably valid perspective )

It's just this thing I have about the SB leaking money away.
/forums/images/icons/frown.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

No argument. Also, Paradise is hardly one-dimensional. If I drop down to 1/2, I get a good dose of loose-passive, and some of the 2/4 tables can be wild games. If two or three specific players are at the same table, I'll avoid that one. I like a challenge, but I also like to win.

Plus, I can always go play 2/4 at Foxwoods if I want real strange-loose games.

[Fitz]

I also play almost exclusively at Paradise. My reasoning is very similar to that of our Klingon friend. I have had an account there for about 2 years, and I am comfortable with the fact that I'll actually get paid when I win, and I believe it is a straight game too. (Please let's avoid a Paradise conspiracy here; I believe it is a straight game.) Also, I seem to be able to find all texture of games if I look hard enough. I've gotten into a couple of wild games on other sites, and the variance there is not to my liking. I really haven't played enough hours anywhere else to absorb the variance and benefit from it.

Newbie, I am very glad to see you posting some hands; by posting hands, you benefit two ways. First, it is helpful to think through a hand completely as it is necessary to do to post a hand well, and the feedback you will receive on this forum is priceless.

I have been critical of your process in the past, but I wanted to say I'm glad to see you moving forward. I would like to share something with you. I have been playing poker for many many years; I actually ran a profitable home game when I was in high school. About 2 1/2 years ago, I discovered hold 'em, and I began to really study and work on my game. With my previous experience and the studying I did, I was quickly able to beat the 3/6 games at my local casino. A year ago, I began to play almost daily on Paradise. I started at .5/1 and now play anywhere from 2/4 to 5/10; I am averaging ~ 1 big bet an hour over this time period. So far, I have played over 160 thousand hands that are included in my database. My point is this: I have learned more in the last year by playing, reviewing, studying and adjusting my play, playing some more, and repeating the process than I did in the 20 years of poker that preceeded that.

Study and prepare yourself as you will, but seriously consider playing some real money games. The experience and the feel that you will begin to get for the game will help you in many of the situations you ask about, and the only way to determine if you are going to like the game enough to stick with it is to play.

Good luck,

[Louie Landale]

I read the hands but stopped reading at the "comments on comments".

[1] [a] Aren't you even TEMPTED to raise with your top-two pair vrs what I think is an obvious random 2-pair? [b] Looks to me like he should check-raise the river, unless you are one of those bone-heads that automatically checks an obvious best one pair on the river. [c] the opponent made a pretty bad flop call: even considering the 6sb he'll make if he snags his J, he's only getting 12.5:1 for his 12:1 dog hand; and since he's drawing to a low straight, there is a possible flush draw, and the raiser can easily have two pair or a set; I'd say he's drawing pretty slim indeed. If you want to make these slim calls, be SURE you are drawing MUCH better than this; such as with JT flop 973 against an apparent over-pair.

[2] Its a distinct possibility to snag your two pair/trips and lose. The worst is that someone has your pair and a better kicker; 2nd would be snagging your 9 while someone else makes a straight. Also, your "straight" draw is pretty weak since even if you snag it you may still lose. The back-door flush draw is worth about 1 out as is your back-door straight draw. Thus you have about 5+1+1= 7 outs, or are a 6:1 dog to make your hand. But unless you are drawing to the stone nuts, lets not confuse "making your hand" with "winning the pot".

The cruial factor with your 2nd pair is that your kicker is not the Ace. I would MUCH rather have the Ace than the slim 9 and the back-door straight draw.

The balancing factors are how likely you are to actually have the best hand right now, and how likely you are to get a free river card. Both of these, surprisingly, are a function of how assertive the opponents are on the turn.

[3] Its hard to quantify how much worse a one-in-your-hand draw is compared to a two-in-your-hand draw. [a] Drawing to the one-card under straight is a CLEAR losing proposition in itself, worse if there is a 2-flush, and a disaster if there is a 3-flush. Drawing to a 9-high one-card-flush is also a clear loser. There is nothing to think about with this hand; you have nothing.

Consider this: if you had [23] and the board was [JJ77] would you consider your hand to be "two pair"? I sure hope not. Likewise, in your hand [3] you do NOT have a "straight draw" nor a "flush draw".

- Louie

[PS1]OK, so I read some more of your post. Lets chat about betting flush draws on the flop. There is very little of the time that you will NOT get to the river with your flush draw, therefore you ARE going to make the flush very close to your 37% of the time. Lets say 33%. The flush will surely win around 80% of the time, meaning you will win with the flush about 26.5% of the time. Add to that the chances that you win without the flush, such as snaging your overpair, snagging 2-pair, or winning now or when you bet on the turn. Overall, lets say you actually win 30% of the time. Therefore, if you bet and get 3 callers you are making money. If you bet and get 2 callers you are theoretically losing money, although you have gained strategically A LOT vis-a-vis the turn betting. if you get one caller surely you are going to win more often than 30%.

The 3 caller situation, BTW, is definately "betting for value" since you are making money on the bet. It really doesn't matter who has the "best" hand right now. Well, what if YOU have the hand most likely to win? That is, each of the opponents has only a 70/3= 23.3% chance to win. If the original bet was not a "value bet" is this bet now a "value bet"? You don't need to be "the" favorite, just "one of the favorites".

[PS2] Jone's advise about betting the river is pretty sound most of the time: it really does cover most of your bets. Your objections are also sound (there are others), but that doesn't make his advice terrible. Other objections are [1] if you have to call if you check and he bets, you MAY be better off betting as an underdog (when called) since you are even MORE of an underdog when you check-and-call. [2] You may need to bet assertively for value in these bad marginal situations in order to greatly improve your chances of successful steals later: if the opponent knows you MAY bet 2nd pair for value, he's a lot more likely to fold his bottom pair later when you are betting out your missed draw. [3] There are a lot of situations where you bet into the probably best hand because he's sandwhiched between you and the probable 3rd best hand (who's likely to call). That's not really a value bet, not really a bluff, not really a semi-bluff ... so I'll call it "Bingo".

[BruceZ]

You don't get better at chess by only playing worse players. Same for poker"

poker is also a texture based game. if one plays nothing but tough games, they wont have the experience in adjusting to much looser games....in fact, some 'tough' players refuse to play some textures because they cant handle playing guys who 'dont know how to play'.

In fact that's even true for chess. Some guys just memorize openings, then when they see a player that makes a move that isn't in the books, they know it's a bad move, but they don't really understand the fundamentals well enough to capitalize on it. In fact, it might take a lot of skill to beat the bad move, especially if it is made by a talented player! Lasker was especially good at disposing of weak players very quickly, not by making the theoretically best move, but by making moves that would put the bad player in the most confusing situations.

[BruceZ]

Hi Louie,

I enjoyed your response. In your answer to 1a, did you overlook the fact that his opponent could have made a club flush on the river? So he didn't checkraise because he was afraid mdlm wouldn't bet. Flush is his most likely hand no?

[rigoletto]

Why's is this such a close call. You'r only commenting on the two pair option, there is also possible trips, backdoor flush and straight. Nobody has shown any agression and he get's 9.5:1 on his call. He might even be ahead against overcards, straight draws, smaller pocket pairs. I believe this is an easy call and if you don't like the turn it's not hard to get away from the hand.

[pudley4]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Why's is this such a close call.

[/ QUOTE ]

He wasn't clear about where the bet came from and how many people are left to act after him, so it becomes more difficult to analyze the situation. I think there are a number of reasons why it's close - it may be raised behind you, hitting your 2nd pair will create a very coordinated board, your backdoor straight is only a 1 card straight, your backdoor flush is a medium flush.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
You'r only commenting on the two pair option

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason why I mentioned the 2 pair is because mdlm specifically mentioned it here in his post:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
(mdlm)-What I don’t understand about this situation is why Jones is making such an enormous odds adjustment to compensate for the possibility that hitting two pair may get beaten

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally think the Jones example would be an easier call than in mdlm's example. I'd rather call with T9 on a KT4 board than with 98 on a T82 board. Notice that hitting your second pair in Jones example would mean you're up against only one straight - QJ. It's also unlikely to give someone a higher 2 pair (K9 isn't a common hand). In mdlm's example, you're up against 3 possible straights (QJ,J7,76) plus a possible higher 2 pair (many LL players limp with T9 or T8).

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
He might even be ahead against overcards, straight draws, smaller pocket pairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's true he might be ahead, but it's also true he might be far behind, or he might hit his 2nd pair and lose to a straight or better 2 pair.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I believe this is an easy call and if you don't like the turn it's not hard to get away from the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

While it's easy to get away from the hand if you don't hit on the turn, it can be very difficult to play if you hit your 9. What happens if you get raised and reraised? You might have 4 outs to win.

Even if you just get called and have the best hand, anyone with a J or 7 will stay with their straight draw. A Q or 6 might also stay. The board pairing could also counterfeit your 2 pair hand.

What if a J or 7 comes? How many bets do you want to put in with a one card straight draw?

There are so many possible hands that are either ahead of you or have very good draws against you that I think it's wrong to say this is an easy call.

[Louie Landale]

Yes, overlooked.

[BruceZ]

Oh good, I was afraid I might be a bonehead /forums/images/icons/ooo.gif

[Louie Landale]

Its a "value bet" if the odds against you winning the pot (and therefore winning this bet) are less than the number of callers of that bet. "Winning the pot" is, of course, not the same as "Making your hand".

In your flush-draw example, the 2:1 odds of making the flush only approximate your odds of actually winning the hand; which may be worse than 2:1 (you lose often when you make it, or you cannot even call a turn bet) or better than 2:1 (you win often when you DON'T make it, such as snaging an over-card or successfully stealing on the turn).

Should you bet your flush draw for "value"? If you expect exactly 2 callers then its a break even proposition if you figure you will actually win the pot at odds of 2:1, almost exactly meaning the chances of winning when you don't make it are the same as the chances of winning when you do.

Getting exactly one caller MAY be betting "for value" if there is reasonable chance he'll fold to a bet on the turn or river. That is, you ACTUALLY win the pot more often than not.

- Louie

But lets not forget other reason's to bet, such as "finding out where you are at", getting a "free" card, increasing the chances of a succesful steal, disguising your big-pair bets, maintaining an assertive image, etc. Combined, these reasons almost always indicate betting your draw.

[Homer]

mdlm, I played about 25 hr/wk for three months, so I did play around 100 hr/month as you indicated. About half the time I played in one game and half the time I played in two. So really I played 150 hours of poker/month. When playing online one can play about 1.5 times as many hands per hour, so I played the equivalent of 225 hours in a B&amp;M casino. Thus, I was making $4.44/'B&amp;M hour', or .89 BB/hr, assuming I was playing an equal amount of 2/4 and 3/6.

This probably makes my win rate sound a lot more realistic, and it is! Jump in!!

-- Homer