Mason Malmuth
01-12-2003, 10:23 PM
I thought that it would be fun to see if anyone wanted to comment on this essay which appears in my book Poker Essays, Volume II.
Best wishes,
Mason
Why Do Poker Games Remain Good?
In all my years of playing poker, one thing has always puzzled me: Why, in general, do poker games remain good? That is, if you play extremely well, you should expect to do extremely well.
Playing well, of course, doesn’t just happen. It seems to be a given that there are only a small number of very good players. And as the years go by this number doesn’t seem to increase very much. Which is odd, because there are lots of new players entering poker all the time. Many of them try very hard to become top players, yet they just never seem to do it. Why is this? What is it about poker that makes it so difficult for most people to become proficient at it? And why are a few people able to become top poker players quickly while so many others struggle for years and never get much above what I would refer to as marginal at best.
I have my theories on this. And what’s interesting is that each game seems to be different — with its own set of traps most players are unable to avoid. Just look at seven-card stud, Texas hold’em, and Omaha eight-or-better.
Game No. 1: Seven-card stud. In stud, it’s easiest to see why most people have trouble. The reason: Analyzing stud hands can be very complex. In seven-card stud you must take into account the upcards.
Here’s a simple example. If on third street you have two jacks and all other upcards are lower than a jack, there is a good chance you have the best hand. However, if both other jacks are out but there are still no aces, kings, or queens your hand has diminished in value. In fact, it may have gone from the best hand to one that you cannot play for profit. (Remember, stud is a seven card game, and when your hand is dead it is much harder for it to finish as the best hand even if it started as the best hand.)
Now let’s complicate it: Suppose you raise with a pair of kings and someone with an ace reraises. Should you throw your hand away? Well, if he has aces you should certainly fold. But let’s suppose you know that this player will raise you every time that he has a three flush in this spot. Now your choice is not so clear. You must look around the table and try to decide how likely he is to have a three flush. Obviously if none of his suit are out this hand becomes highly possible. If several of his suit are out, you can rule out the three flush. (However, this doesn’t mean he has to have the aces. He might have a completely different hand.)
This type of analysis can quickly get very complex, especially on the later streets. For example, when an opponent shows unexpected strength is it because he made two pair or perhaps picked up a flush draw. Remembering the cards that are out can give you valuable clues. You won’t always be correct, but clearly those of you who are able to do this well — and there are very few people like this — are the ones who excel at seven-card stud.
Game No. 2: Texas hold’em. Hold’em works very differently. The reason hold’em games remain good, I believe, is that correct hold’em strategy is often very counterintuitive. It seems as if you bet some of your weaker hands and constantly check your better hands, and the best players seem to make these kinds of plays in situations that just don’t make any sense.
Consider this, for example: We all know that hold’em is a highly positional game. This is because all players, with the exception of the blinds on the first round, always act in the same order. Further, we all know that the later your position the more hands you can play and up front you’d better be very selective with those hands that you do come in with.
Now I agree that this is very good advice for many hold’em games. But in extremely loose hold’em games I routinely violate it. This is because I know that my call will attract other players. In fact, in some hold’em games I will play more hands up front than I will in middle position. Yet when you first think about this it just doesn’t make any sense.
Let’s take a closer look at this. In a very loose hold’em game, I will play a small pair if I am first one in up front. (Some of you refer to these kinds of games as “no-fold’em-hold’em.”) Why? Because I am sure that my early position call will attract other players — which will assure me of the multi-way action this hand needs to be profitable.
If I hold this same hand from a middle position and I am first one in in the exact same game — perhaps a couple of players are walking — I will now throw the small pair away. I do this because I cannot be sure that I will be able to get enough players to make the hand profitable.
Clearly this is correct. Yet it doesn’t seem to make any sense. I am violating one of the basic rules of poker. I am playing more hands in an early position than I am in a later position. Yet hold’em is like this.
This idea of counterintuitive strategies is one of the keys to hold’em success. All the top players will sometimes play hands that appear to be completely wrong to most of the other players. The other players say that this player is just plain lucky. They’ll never understand that his understanding is far superior to theirs.
Game No. 3: Omaha-eight-or-better. In some of my previous writings I have pointed out that even though some skill is required to become a top player, it is not as strategically difficult as hold’em and not nearly as mathematically complex as seven-card stud. Yet these games always seem to remain quite good. Why is that?
To me the reason is creativity. It just seems that Omaha eight-or-better brings out a level of creativity in many players that the other games don’t. There is something about four cards that is the rough equivalent of six hold’em hands. When this is the case, if you look hard enough, you can often find a creative reason to play the hand in Omaha. Of course this shouldn’t be the case, but my experience is simply that most Omaha eight-or-better players play too loose. Thus the games are good and I suspect they will always stay that way. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif
Best wishes,
Mason
Why Do Poker Games Remain Good?
In all my years of playing poker, one thing has always puzzled me: Why, in general, do poker games remain good? That is, if you play extremely well, you should expect to do extremely well.
Playing well, of course, doesn’t just happen. It seems to be a given that there are only a small number of very good players. And as the years go by this number doesn’t seem to increase very much. Which is odd, because there are lots of new players entering poker all the time. Many of them try very hard to become top players, yet they just never seem to do it. Why is this? What is it about poker that makes it so difficult for most people to become proficient at it? And why are a few people able to become top poker players quickly while so many others struggle for years and never get much above what I would refer to as marginal at best.
I have my theories on this. And what’s interesting is that each game seems to be different — with its own set of traps most players are unable to avoid. Just look at seven-card stud, Texas hold’em, and Omaha eight-or-better.
Game No. 1: Seven-card stud. In stud, it’s easiest to see why most people have trouble. The reason: Analyzing stud hands can be very complex. In seven-card stud you must take into account the upcards.
Here’s a simple example. If on third street you have two jacks and all other upcards are lower than a jack, there is a good chance you have the best hand. However, if both other jacks are out but there are still no aces, kings, or queens your hand has diminished in value. In fact, it may have gone from the best hand to one that you cannot play for profit. (Remember, stud is a seven card game, and when your hand is dead it is much harder for it to finish as the best hand even if it started as the best hand.)
Now let’s complicate it: Suppose you raise with a pair of kings and someone with an ace reraises. Should you throw your hand away? Well, if he has aces you should certainly fold. But let’s suppose you know that this player will raise you every time that he has a three flush in this spot. Now your choice is not so clear. You must look around the table and try to decide how likely he is to have a three flush. Obviously if none of his suit are out this hand becomes highly possible. If several of his suit are out, you can rule out the three flush. (However, this doesn’t mean he has to have the aces. He might have a completely different hand.)
This type of analysis can quickly get very complex, especially on the later streets. For example, when an opponent shows unexpected strength is it because he made two pair or perhaps picked up a flush draw. Remembering the cards that are out can give you valuable clues. You won’t always be correct, but clearly those of you who are able to do this well — and there are very few people like this — are the ones who excel at seven-card stud.
Game No. 2: Texas hold’em. Hold’em works very differently. The reason hold’em games remain good, I believe, is that correct hold’em strategy is often very counterintuitive. It seems as if you bet some of your weaker hands and constantly check your better hands, and the best players seem to make these kinds of plays in situations that just don’t make any sense.
Consider this, for example: We all know that hold’em is a highly positional game. This is because all players, with the exception of the blinds on the first round, always act in the same order. Further, we all know that the later your position the more hands you can play and up front you’d better be very selective with those hands that you do come in with.
Now I agree that this is very good advice for many hold’em games. But in extremely loose hold’em games I routinely violate it. This is because I know that my call will attract other players. In fact, in some hold’em games I will play more hands up front than I will in middle position. Yet when you first think about this it just doesn’t make any sense.
Let’s take a closer look at this. In a very loose hold’em game, I will play a small pair if I am first one in up front. (Some of you refer to these kinds of games as “no-fold’em-hold’em.”) Why? Because I am sure that my early position call will attract other players — which will assure me of the multi-way action this hand needs to be profitable.
If I hold this same hand from a middle position and I am first one in in the exact same game — perhaps a couple of players are walking — I will now throw the small pair away. I do this because I cannot be sure that I will be able to get enough players to make the hand profitable.
Clearly this is correct. Yet it doesn’t seem to make any sense. I am violating one of the basic rules of poker. I am playing more hands in an early position than I am in a later position. Yet hold’em is like this.
This idea of counterintuitive strategies is one of the keys to hold’em success. All the top players will sometimes play hands that appear to be completely wrong to most of the other players. The other players say that this player is just plain lucky. They’ll never understand that his understanding is far superior to theirs.
Game No. 3: Omaha-eight-or-better. In some of my previous writings I have pointed out that even though some skill is required to become a top player, it is not as strategically difficult as hold’em and not nearly as mathematically complex as seven-card stud. Yet these games always seem to remain quite good. Why is that?
To me the reason is creativity. It just seems that Omaha eight-or-better brings out a level of creativity in many players that the other games don’t. There is something about four cards that is the rough equivalent of six hold’em hands. When this is the case, if you look hard enough, you can often find a creative reason to play the hand in Omaha. Of course this shouldn’t be the case, but my experience is simply that most Omaha eight-or-better players play too loose. Thus the games are good and I suspect they will always stay that way. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif