10 Most Common Mistakes Made at Party Poker

Anyone interested in this compilation? I know it. I've played in a ton of PP games. Let me know!

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone interested in this compilation? I know it. I've played in a ton of PP games. Let me know!

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, then share.

I have my own list. It applies to most players and has just one item-- this is because all the other mistakes they make combined are not as bad as this. Here it is, in white:


<font color="white">
1. Opening an account.



</font>

Now see, you are making fun...I'm serious... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[AKQJ10]

Well, uu's reply may be glib, but I don't see it as totally un-serious. Why would people invest money in something they don't understand? If it's just their disposible entertainment budget, ok, fine, but people blow through an awful lot of money there with no clue what they're doing.

[jojobinks]

i agree with #1.

#2. playing over their heads/bankroll management
#3. too high vpip

Like me: studying poker, get the 75 bonus from Party and see if they get lucky enough to at least properly bankroll them for the shot (ok real shot or second play shot). (I knew the stats of that succeeding tho at least.)

LOL I wasn't even beating play-money when I took a shot at that one. But frankly I did it for the fun/learning experience (can you say fresh off SSHE?).

Now that I'm crushing those play money tables (hahahaha) I'm going to move on up to nano's.

Basically the point of my post is that there are plenty of people dumber than me playing those tables and you will make money from both them and me.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Are you interested at all in these common mistakes? /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Of course I am, did you misunderstand my post maybe? I was just adding from the pov of one of the "mistakers".

I am eagerly awaiting a full list so that I can examine my own steadily improving (but still poor) play against it.

It was obvious to me, apologies if it didn't sound that way! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

One of the biggest ones is raising middle pairs in a full ring...you just invite action from bigger hands. Best just to call and wait to trip up. /images/graemlins/grin.gif <font color="blue"> </font>

Hooper drives the boat chief, you chum!

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the biggest ones is raising middle pairs in a full ring...you just invite action from bigger hands. Best just to call and wait to trip up. /images/graemlins/grin.gif <font color="blue"> </font>

[/ QUOTE ]
That's wrong by a lot. It is often right to raise with middle pairs in a full ring game. See SSHE.

In a full ring, you are just begging bigger pairs or bigger hands to come in...in a short handed game I would agree with you...but you should be trying to maximize your hand by tripping it up...if you raise, you invite bigger hands to re-raise and possibly making you dead money after the flop. A pair of 99's isn't worth anything if the flop has a any over cards in it, especially an Ace, then you are dead and your raise is dead. Not smart in a full ring dude. Do you even know the odds of someone having a bigger pair than you in a full ring?

you must not mean party poker...where everyone calls with anything...in a full ring. Maybe down at the local casino or at another site, but you must not play at PP very much...

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
you must not mean party poker...where everyone calls with anything...in a full ring. Maybe down at the local casino or at another site, but you must not play at PP very much...

[/ QUOTE ]
I play a lot on Party, and on many other online sites. You have it backwards. In general, players are much tighter online than they are in casinos. People don't go to casinos to fold, and they get bored much more easily in casinos.

I see you are dealing poorly with the fact that not everyone agrees with you about poker. In fact, some of the best-regarded 2+2 books disagree with you. Did you come to 2+2 to inform everyone that you have figured poker out, or to learn? I think you will find it much more helpful to try to learn than to make ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to disagree with you.

[ QUOTE ]
In a full ring, you are just begging bigger pairs or bigger hands to come in

[/ QUOTE ]
If you limp, do you think someone with AA will just fold? Nothing you do will prevent a premium hand from entering the pot. Most of the time, no one has a bigger pair or AK, particularly after several people have folded or limped.

[ QUOTE ]
but you should be trying to maximize your hand by tripping it up

[/ QUOTE ]
How do I do this, by wishing really hard instead of raising? When appropriate, I do both: I raise, and wish for quads.

[ QUOTE ]
if you raise, you invite bigger hands to re-raise and possibly making you dead money after the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]
You seem too afraid of getting reraised preflop in limit. The danger of getting reraised is a reason to limp much of the time with middle pairs in NL. However, there are still many times when it is right to raise with middle pairs or low pairs in NL. Again, limping won't make premium hands disappear.

[ QUOTE ]
A pair of 99's isn't worth anything if the flop has a any over cards in it, especially an Ace, then you are dead and your raise is dead.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is wrong by a lot. You can't assume that your opponents have every possible overcard, or that they like their hands even if they hit an overcard, and raising does not prevent you from hitting a set or making a straight.

Raising will narrow the field. If encourages players to fold hands like Q4o. If you have raised to knock out those hands, then a queen comes on the flop, it is much less likely that you are behind. Middle pairs benefit the most from narrowing the field. See SSHE.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you even know the odds of someone having a bigger pair than you in a full ring?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a mathematician. I've answered questions like this many times in the probability forum and elsewhere.

Do you even know how bad your response looks?

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
That's wrong by a lot. It is often right to raise with middle pairs in a full ring game. See SSHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I understand the reasoning behind this statement -- i.e., raising to buy outs -- but I've also read a rebuttal that makes me wonder if this play is useful as often as one might think from SSHE. Basically the rebuttal point is, a lot of things have to come together for this play to work. Your opponent with middle pair-better kicker (for example) has to fold to your raise, had to have been ready to call the single bet, and then your draw has to hit. Obviously each of those things can happen a significant portion of the time, but the probability of all of them taken together isn't necessarily enough to make this play as good as SSHE makes it appear. (The article was in a Card Player I have lying around the house somewhere, and I really should look for it. I know what disrepute CP is held in around these parts, but some of the content is good and this article made a very good point about the raising for outs. There are also a couple of other items in that list of things that have to work out right that I'm forgetting.)

I don't doubt that raising draws to buy outs is useful on occasion, in really large pots (which is what Ed says in the book) where increasing your chance of winning by 5% will be worth the extra bet. I'm just not convinced it's something I need to incorporate that often into my arsenal of frequently used poker knowledge.

Epilogue: upon rereading the thread, it seems this is referring to what I would call medium pairs preflop. Not that I'm saying "middle" is wrong, just that it makes me think we're talking about pairing the second-highest card on the flop.

I'll admit, I don't entirely understand why you would raise 88 or 77 on the button. I think part of it is making the pot larger so that if you do hit your set, overcard hands drawing nearly dead will stay with you. And part of it may be that on those occasions where you do flop pair-higher-than-middle-pair and no one bets, you can be pretty confident you have the best hand and bet (which you likely wouldn't do except as a probe from early position).

While I agree more with pzhon than with Hooper, I have to say that if an ace flops in a loose low-limit game, your underpair is a huge underdog because virtually always someone's playing an ace. I would almost always fold to aggression there unless the pot is huge, in the neighborhood of 17:1 or better. If I have tens and the flop is Qxx or Jxx, well, then I feel a lot better that I may still be best than with Axx.
But this is a topic I have a lot to learn about.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is often right to raise with middle pairs in a full ring game. See SSHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I understand the reasoning behind this statement -- i.e., raising to buy outs -- but I've also read a rebuttal that makes me wonder if this play is useful as often as one might think from SSHE. Basically the rebuttal point is, a lot of things have to come together for this play to work. Your opponent with middle pair-better kicker (for example) has to fold to your raise, had to have been ready to call the single bet, and then your draw has to hit.

[/ QUOTE ]
As you note elsewhere, what we were discussing was raising hands like 77-TT preflop. However, I'll add some responses to your commentary about raising with middle pair.

You don't need that parlay to hit. Raising with middle pair can be beneficial in many other ways. You might have the best hand, as the bettor might be bluffing, semibluffing, or making a thin value bet. Neither of you might have the best hand, but you might knock out the best hand with a raise, e.g., the SB might have TPWK or a pair between middle pair and top pair and fold quickly after a bet and a raise.

Even if you don't have the best hand, or knock out better hands by raising, you might be better off raising. You may have a strong enough hand to call on the turn unimproved, but raising on the flop may prevent your opponent from betting on the turn, or even the river. People don't like getting raised twice. If the pot is large, you might be better off knocking out people with weak draws to better hands than your draw. This may not only improve your chance to win, it may prevent you from facing a raise on the turn when the pot is large but you might be drawing dead.

If you get 3-bet, you may get enough information to fold, perhaps on the turn.

I think it is common for small stakes players to overuse this after reading SSHE. Don't forget that in a small pot, it is often right simply to fold on the flop, not to raise.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll admit, I don't entirely understand why you would raise 88 or 77 on the button. I think part of it is making the pot larger so that if you do hit your set, overcard hands drawing nearly dead will stay with you. And part of it may be that on those occasions where you do flop pair-higher-than-middle-pair and no one bets, you can be pretty confident you have the best hand and bet (which you likely wouldn't do except as a probe from early position).

[/ QUOTE ]
Suppose someone limps from early position, and everyone else folds. Raising will often knock out the small blind, maybe both blinds. You have a significant equity edge over a limper, who might have a small pair or a hand like A7s, and you want to put pressure on the blinds who can easily outflop you with one overcard.

It's so easy to imagine that someone has hit any overcard, but deal out a flop and a few hands, and you'll see that it isn't so common. If you run into aggression, you can call down or fold. Otherwise, you should usually keep value betting, more so if the pot is shorthanded, which you often should have encouraged by raising preflop.

By the way, you don't have to be confident that you have the best hand to bet. It can be right to bet when you think you have the best hand less than 50% of the time. It can be right to bet when you are very confident that you don't have the best hand.

[ QUOTE ]
While I agree more with pzhon than with Hooper, I have to say that if an ace flops in a loose low-limit game, your underpair is a huge underdog because virtually always someone's playing an ace. I would almost always fold to aggression there unless the pot is huge, in the neighborhood of 17:1 or better.

[/ QUOTE ]
People are less likely to play weak aces behind you if you have raised preflop. Once several people are in, if you bet an ace-high flop, people will often give you credit for an ace if you have raised preflop. Sometimes they fold better hands. Sometimes they have the odds to call one bet if you'll shut down, but they fold because they assume you will keep betting. Sometimes they call down with 33 unimproved just in case you raised with KQ.

[AKQJ10]

Thanks for the reply. You make some great points. While not all of them apply to the majority of games I play in -- e.g. getting it heads-up with 88 is almost impossible at Foxwoods yellow-chip (low-limit) games or Pacific $0.50/$1 -- I do want to play in tougher games and this is a very important point.

I'm not sure if your last sentence was making this point, but if so then I'll reiterate it: one advantage to playing aggressively with hands that may not be best is that you'll make more money in the future as people pay off when your hand is the best. In other words, 33 may not just call you down out of ignorance; 33 may have seen you raise KQ earlier and have reason to think you don't have a made hand. Thus your raising is making it harder for opponents to play accurately.

And the point about not needing the best hand to bet is a good one and an oversight on my part. Again, though, in loose low-limit games driving out better hands through aggression is less likely to work. I'm in the process of learning to sense when these sorts of plays will work.

[Keres]

For small stakes, which I assume this post is talking about here's a couple:

1.) Failing to bet the river fearing monsters under the bed. I still make this mistake and its a hole I'm working on. You have QQ. Flop is rags. Turn K, river Ace. Bet it and watch your opponent call and turn over unimproved 88. Not sure what the exact ratio is but you'll pick up enough bets to make up for the occasional times you're raised or c/r'd. I'd guess this changes at higher limits.

2.) Playing too passively with strong hands. (Example here is a touch extreme.)

Party Poker 3.00/6.00 Hold'em <font color="#0000FF">(9 handed)</font> link (http://www.darksun.lunarpages.com/poker/)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, MP3 checks, <font color="#666666">1 folds</font>, Button calls, Hero completes, BB checks.

Flop: (4.00 SB) 2/images/graemlins/club.gif, 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, BB folds, MP3 folds, Button calls.

Turn: (3.00 BB) Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Button calls.

River: (5.00 BB) 7/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Button calls.

Final Pot: 7.00 BB.
Results in white below:<font color="#FFFFFF">
Hero has 7d 7h (three of a kind, sevens.)
Button has Qd Qc (three of a kind, queens.)
Button wins 6.67 BB.
</font>

I am not attacking you...I just totally disagree. The percentages don't back you up. The stats don't support what you say. Players online more conservative? I don't agree with that. I can't believe you would say that about Party Poker games. Wow. Not attacking, just disagreeing. I know that stats don't back you up.

Wow, that is good information, thank you!

[AKQJ10]

My experience (admittedly a small sample) is that some sites are much tighter than B&amp;M, and some sites are as loose (*cough* Pacific *cough*). But whereas there's a great variation from site to site, I've only rarely been in a B&amp;M game that had fewer than 3 to a flop. Granted, at higher limits that's the norm, but higher-limit online games are presumably much tougher too.

If your talking No Limit, than I agree with Hooper. I see a lot of people lose a lot of chips raising middle pairs like big pairs in a full ring. If you have a pair of 7's for example, against 9 opponents, there is about a 25% chance (according to my simulations) that another player wil have a bigger pair. Almost 50% of the time you will be up against a bigger pair, AK, or AQ. If the blinds are small, it seems pretty sensless to throw a lot of chips in the pot when you can end up losing all your chips to a bigger pair and only get a coin toss against the two over cards. I don't see small pairs giving that much action in the $20 full ring game at PP.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not attacking you...I just totally disagree. The percentages don't back you up. The stats don't support what you say. Players online more conservative? I don't agree with that. I can't believe you would say that about Party Poker games. Wow. Not attacking, just disagreeing. I know that stats don't back you up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party is much tighter and more aggressive even at 1/2 than your standard B&amp;M 5/10 game. I accept your B&amp;M experience may be different than this, but I am confident your experience is greatly in the minority. The reason to play online is because of the lower rake, higher hand count from multi-tabling and dealing speed and for the convenience. It is definitely not the quality of games.

Not only does raising with medium pairs in limit in the appropriate situations make statistical sense, empirically it is something I do frequently and I show a strong profit with these hands. Understanding when you're in the appropriate situation is not easy and takes a lot of experience, but if you're not at least considering doing it you are leaving money on the table.

IC, I am sorry, I should have been more clear, I am talking about no-limit, not limit. I wasn't clear with that and I apologize, your information is well taken, thank you!

[bholdr]

this smells like spam. is it spam? c'mon.

anyway, never raising with middle pairs, in LHE or NL, is a very weak-tight approach; full or short, ring or tournament, at party or wherever.


at party low limit games:

1: not taking proper advantages of bonuses

...hurts a player more than any other common mistake, and it's not even close, especially at .50/1 and 1/2

Your post isn't spam, don't worry... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[bholdr]

"Your post isn't spam, don't worry..."

no, your post. there are numerous sites that offer 'the temn most common mistakes made at party' etc... and i was wondering if you were fishing for noobs looking for such a link. I know when i am spamming.

b

whoops, my mistake...I didn't get that from your note, I think I read it too quickly...

I didn't know there were any sites like that...

[bholdr]

okay, no prob- we've had lotsa spammers lately...

about those ten most common mistakes... let's hear some more, and throug a spirited debate, come up with an athoratative list.

here's a few i think are MAJOR:

1: like i said, not taking advantages of bonuses should be number one, but, if we're talking about mistakes made during play, then here's a few big ones (not necessarily in order):

1b: playing WAY, WAY too loose
2: cold calling raises with marginal hands (JQ, AT, KJ etc)
3: limping with marginal hands in poor position
4: limping from the button when it's folded around to you
5: being weak-tight in general, not raising enough PF, not raising enough postflop, failing to value bet good hands that are not the nuts, etc
6: calling. period. this is NL, dammit.
7: betting less than the size of the pot. BET THE POT, DUMBASS.
8: failing to practice good game selection.

and so on and so forth. thoughts?

I agree with all of these, especially the calling. I think also bad table reading, getting involved too early, trying to bluff too much......I see these all the time! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[OrianasDaad]

Here's a list of mistakes that I see TAG players making all the time at Party.

- Calling or raising for value when raised by a calling station with marginal hands.
- Multi-tablers who don't practice any form of table selection whatsoever.
- Overcalling on the end with marginal hands vs. decent players.
- Bluffing in any form against multiple opponents.

But hey, this is just a list of my leaks! /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[Student]

As an outside observer to your discussion, I believe you each are very useful to 2+2!

POWERFULLY useful ideas have resulted. Yes, there is arrogance in each of you, and that should not be basis for driving either of you from 2+2. The inexperienced should be permitted to express their ideas honestly, frankly and completely, even when it reveals arrogance. The experienced should incorporate more patience than anything else, because without it learning/educating is replaced by insults and misunderstandings.

The best thing I got out of this was the importance of SSHE in learning how to play poker hands. I'm the unread beginner, who has bought 30 poker books and many of the best ones. I continue to work very, very hard on poker, and I simply haven't had the luxury of being able to drop everything so as to read these books.

A mathematician too, I do research about poker. One doesn't have to have ten years experience playing poker to understand the solution to certain mathematical problems might improve one's understanding of poker, at large! If one runs off into what is later understood to be a crazy direction, realize too it was fun doing that particular research.

Poker seems to be a game of sharp contrasts. One can learn to handle a particular situation in a certain way, a way that makes perfect sense, given our level of experience. Then, as we advance in understanding, we learn that this situation has become so nuanced that we actually come to believe that we had been 180 degrees out of phase concerning the true solution! What a shock! Then, as we gain more experience, we come to understand that a complete solution is impossible, or else that it lies somewhere inbetween the two poles that we'd discerned earlier as being appropriate.

What a wonderful challenge is poker!

Dave

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

6: calling. period. this is NL, dammit.

[/ QUOTE ]
Calling is clearly correct in many situations. Why do you think that option is always wrong? It's definitely right when you have a WAWB situation, for example, and these are common. Calling is also good for pot control. Calling is good when you are given the odds to draw, and want to take advantage of implied odds or position rather than getting blown off by a 3-bet or pot-committing yourself.

In limit, it is much less dangerous to reopen the action to your opponent, and it is more commonly correct for multiple players to be betting and raising against the field.

[ QUOTE ]

7: betting less than the size of the pot. BET THE POT, DUMBASS.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am really irritated by that remark. Please keep it civil. It is very often correct to bet less than the pot, whether you believe it or not. Don't ridicule the vast majority of posters on the Mid- High-Stakes NL forum who consistently bet less than the pot. Do you really mean to say that they are all dumbasses? Do you think Harrington and Robertie are, for advocating bets of less than the pot frequently in HOH?

Betting the pot all of the time may work against microstakes fish. It leaves you too exposed against good players. It makes it too expensive to make continuation bets.

[ QUOTE ]

8: failing to practice good game selection.


[/ QUOTE ]
In low stakes NL games, you don't need to practice good game selection. They are all good.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
It's definitely right when you have a WAWB situation, for example,....

[/ QUOTE ]

WAWB?

[donkeyradish]

Its not only beginners who make big mistakes.

Here is my observed number 1 mistake for regular Party players.

1) Being rude, and in particular, criticising weak play. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

You see it all the time, a player wins a pot heads-up with a ludicrous 2-out draw on the last card. The opponent, who flopped top 2 pair and had been pushing it all the way, loses his cool and starts throwing about the insults.

What does this do? It makes the weak player:

a) leave the table to be replaced by a better player OR
b) think about what they are doing AND
c) Play better, especially against YOU

None of these are what you want!

Correct behaviour : congratulate the victor on their good fortune and keep playing

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's definitely right when you have a WAWB situation, for example,....

[/ QUOTE ]

WAWB?

[/ QUOTE ]

Way Ahead, Way Behind.

T

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, there is arrogance in each of you,

[/ QUOTE ]
After all of the help I have given you, Student, you call me arrogant? I guess I won't answer more of your questions. Who am I to know better than you?

I pointed out that Hooper1's comment about raising with middle pairs was wrong. I gave SSHE as a reference. (He later clarified that he meant NL, where his comment is less wrong, but still wrong. See HOH.) He responded that I must have no experience and must not know basic odds. In fact, I played 12000 hands on Party in the past week alone (you can still see the "pzhon" on the banner of August Bonanza winners), and I am a professional mathematician (and I often answers complicated odds questions in the Probability forum). However, I shouldn't have to defend myself from such ad hominem attacks. All are free to disagree with me, but the discussion should be based on facts and logic rather than irrelevant fantasies.

[aargh57]

Actually I think the correct behavior is to keep the chat off. I find one thing that I do wrong is to either get upset about someone being table captain or, worse yet, trying to get them to shut up. I think the best thing to do (at least for me) is to just leave the chat off. Especially if you're multi-tabling, you should have more than enough to occupy your time without getting in (or following) a conversation started by some jerk who got what he thought was a bad beat.

Another mistake is playing above your bankroll.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
Calling is clearly correct in many situations. Why do you think that option is always wrong? It's definitely right when you have a WAWB situation, for example, and these are common. Calling is also good for pot control. Calling is good when you are given the odds to draw, and want to take advantage of implied odds or position rather than getting blown off by a 3-bet or pot-committing yourself....

I am really irritated by that remark. Please keep it civil. It is very often correct to bet less than the pot, whether you believe it or not. Don't ridicule the vast majority of posters on the Mid- High-Stakes NL forum who consistently bet less than the pot. Do you really mean to say that they are all dumbasses? Do you think Harrington and

[/ QUOTE ]

phzon:

i feel that you may have misinterpreted the intent of my post. it was not meant as a comment on mid or high stakes NL, it was geared towards correcting major (beginner) mistakes. when players cold call or fail to bet a reasonable ammount in a small NL game, they are often making large mistakes, not utilizing advanced or tricky plays that the posters in M/H NL debate and apply. as for being 'irratated'... you should know by now that i use... um... colorful language in a lot of my posts and it is rarely intended to be insulting, and if you've paid attention to any of my posts on NL, oyu'd know that i feel that 'to everything there is a season' in NL poker. a time to raise, a time to fold, a time to limp, a time to raise. a time to bet the opot, a time to min-raise... but i digress. next time i'll use a /images/graemlins/tongue.gif when i'm just spitballing likt that.


[ QUOTE ]
In low stakes NL games, you don't need to practice good game selection. They are all good.

[/ QUOTE ]

as recently as a month ago, i said the same thing to 'student'- over the course of the discussion, he changed my mind. practicing rudimentary game selection can improve anyone's game, no matter what the stakes are, even if it's as simple as making sure to sit at the tables with the biggest pots.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
After all of the help I have given you, Student, you call me arrogant? I guess I won't answer more of your questions. Who am I to know better than you?

[/ QUOTE ]

pzhon... is somebody having a bad day? chill out, man. [/passive/aggressive ribbing- all in fun] /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not attacking you...I just totally disagree. The percentages don't back you up. The stats don't support what you say. Players online more conservative? I don't agree with that. I can't believe you would say that about Party Poker games. Wow. Not attacking, just disagreeing. I know that stats don't back you up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think pzhon is on the money. The percentages DO back him up. And online IS tighter than B&amp;M at the same limits. The problem is that you won't find a 1/2 game in a B&amp;M casino. 4/8 online is WAY tighter than 4/8 at a B&amp;M casino. .50/1 online is about as tight as 4/8 B&amp;M.

I am taking about 5 and 10 sit and go tourney games on PP, if you think those are tight games, then you haven't been playing in them. I am sure your opinion is correct, but mine refers to something else I think. The 5 and 10 games are like the Wild West at PP. Nobody there sees a straight or flush draw they didn't like, an AJ they didn't like to race with, they race with 55...and my comments are all toward no-limit, where the people at PP think they are Phil Ivey or something, trying to run bluffs on a full ring. So I think we are talking about different games.

I just think we are talking about different games because the numbers are correct for 5 and 10 dollar sit and go...you really shouldn't be raising middle pairs in a full ring.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

i feel that you may have misinterpreted the intent of my post. it was not meant as a comment on mid or high stakes NL, it was geared towards correcting major (beginner) mistakes. when players cold call or fail to bet a reasonable ammount in a small NL game, they are often making large mistakes, not utilizing advanced or tricky plays that the posters in M/H NL debate and apply.

[/ QUOTE ]
Making a reasonably sized bet does not mean making a pot-sized bet. It means betting in proportion to the pot. Betting 1/2-2/3 of the pot on the flop is not being tricky. It is standard in many higher games. Betting the full pot will stand out as overly aggressive, especially on an uncoordinated flop. At NL 25, it doesn't, and you will get paid off by fish with weak hands while other fish fold good hands, but don't expect this to continue as you move up.

[ QUOTE ]
calling. period. this is NL, dammit.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let me elaborate on part of my objection to this. In limit, it is rarely right to cold-call after someone raises. In limit, it is often wrong to call on the flop. If your hand is strong enough to get involved, you often want to raise. In NL, it is much less commonly correct to raise in these situations. In NL, it is much more commonly correct just to call. Saying, "this is NL, dammit" doesn't make sense.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In low stakes NL games, you don't need to practice good game selection. They are all good.

[/ QUOTE ]

as recently as a month ago, i said the same thing to 'student'- over the course of the discussion, he changed my mind. practicing rudimentary game selection can improve anyone's game, no matter what the stakes are, even if it's as simple as making sure to sit at the tables with the biggest pots.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, some tables are better than others, but you should expect every single low stakes table to be profitable. People overemphasize table selection and bankroll management and improving their reads; these very rarely make the difference between winning and losing in a low stakes game. People have a hard time admitting that they need to learn to play better. Acquire the skills so that all tables look soft to you, and your win rate will increase so your bankroll requirements will decrease.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
I am taking about 5 and 10 sit and go tourney games on PP, if you think those are tight games, then you haven't been playing in them. I am sure your opinion is correct, but mine refers to something else I think. The 5 and 10 games are like the Wild West at PP. Nobody there sees a straight or flush draw they didn't like, an AJ they didn't like to race with, they race with 55...and my comments are all toward no-limit, where the people at PP think they are Phil Ivey or something, trying to run bluffs on a full ring. So I think we are talking about different games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I didn't realize you were talking about SnGs. Since we have no B&amp;M equivalent to compare them against, I concede the point. And YES, they're loose. $5 and $10 SnGs are about equivalent to .50/1 limits.

I am going to have to play more of the games you speak of, I pigeon hole myself in those games and I concede I don't play as much high stakes or stakes you speak of or other games. I like the omaha hi/lo a lot, but I lose money in that game a lot. I will use your info for learning something new, thank you! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Thank you for that information, I learned a lot from that post, you do seem to know a lot more than me.

[AKQJ10]

Well, there's a really interesting corollary here: I think most of the new "fresh fish" coming into online play will be in no-limit tournaments (including sit-and-gos), whereas B&amp;M play has long had plenty of lousy players to play limit ring games and probably will continue to for the forseeable future.

It makes sense, really, that people who log into a site for the first time because they saw poker on TV and thought it looked fun are going to play tournament poker first and foremost. If it's the quest to be the next Moneymaker or Raymer driving people, even if the WSOP isn't in season, they'll play NLHE tournaments to hone (and overestimate!) their skills. This is why, although I believe that online LHE ring games will also be very profitable for the forseeable future, I want to learn to play NLHE tournaments: I think the amount of dead money in that game at present and well into the future is just astounding.

I am with that opinion 100%!

[bholdr]

*rolls eyes* you are TOTALLY overanalyzing what started as a semi-serious post (and one that i THOUGHT i'd clearly identified as such).

whatever, though.

[Guernica4000]

Hooper,

How many times have you played in a B&amp;M? How many hands have you played on PP?
IMO I think you should learn from some of the advice the more experienced posters and players have given you. If you ever want to become a winning player (I know you are now going to reply that you are a winning player) but like I was saying if you are going to post, read the replies and learn.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
People overemphasize table selection and bankroll management and improving their reads; these very rarely make the difference between winning and losing in a low stakes game.

[/ QUOTE ]

i totally disagree- i believe that table selection and bankroll managment make all the difference in the world when it comes to winning or loosing in a low stakes game... any game, for that matter.

You must not have read all my comments...I'm not sure where you are coming from. I have played over 2000 sit and go games at PP in the 5 and 10 and 20 tourneys. That is where my experience comes from. That is what I was talking about when I started this thread. I guess you didn't see where I have applauded others here for their information. Why are you saying what you are saying? I am happy to see this information and very grateful for the discussion. I can assure you, I do know how to win money in the games I mention, as far as the other, this wasn't the thread for that.

[Guernica4000]

...Not smart in a full ring dude. Do you even know the odds of someone having a bigger pair than you in a full ring?...
(Reply to Pzhon)

you must not mean party poker...where everyone calls with anything...in a full ring. Maybe down at the local casino or at another site, but you must not play at PP very much... (con't reply to Pzhon)

I am not attacking you...I just totally disagree. The percentages don't back you up. The stats don't support what you say. Players online more conservative? I don't agree with that. I can't believe you would say that about Party Poker games. Wow. Not attacking, just disagreeing. I know that stats don't back you up.

But I will admit that as I read back all your posts you did thank some posters for their advice. So I stand corrected.

Best of luck!

[Pov]

Just to keep this thread going because it is so fun . . .

There has been a lot of talk about the odds of high pocket pairs. This being the Beginner's Forum, maybe someone should actually talk about what those odds really are!

The odds of being dealt any pocket pair are 16:1 against. Your first card is free and then of the remaining 51 cards, 3 give you a pair and 48 do not. That's 48:3 or 16:1 or 1/17. If we want to limit ourselves to just "big" pairs, we'll say Aces through Jacks then we just need to figure the odds of our "first" card being a Jack or better. That would be 4 ranks out of 13 for odds of 9:4 or 4/13. The combination of those two probabilities through multiplication tells us we have about a 1.8% every time we're dealt cards of getting a pocket pair of Jacks or higher. Each person after us has this chance so if there were 4 players left to act when we made a raise, that would be a 7.2% chance someone yet to act had a big pair (of cards).

Another way to arrive at this number (my favorite) would be to look at card combinations. There are 1326 combinations of cards in a standard 52 card deck if you treat A/images/graemlins/club.gifT/images/graemlins/club.gif the same as being dealt T/images/graemlins/club.gifA/images/graemlins/club.gif. You can be dealt pocket Aces 6 ways:

A/images/graemlins/club.gifA/images/graemlins/spade.gif, A/images/graemlins/club.gifA/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, A/images/graemlins/club.gifA/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gifA/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gifA/images/graemlins/heart.gif and A/images/graemlins/diamond.gifA/images/graemlins/heart.gif

This would then also be true of KK, QQ and JJ so we're talking about 24 card combinations out of the 1326 that exist for odds of 1302:24 against or roughly 54:1 which is 1/55 or yep, you guessed it - 1.8%

Anyway, those are the odds/chances of a random two-card hand being AA-JJ. Multiply that by the number of random hands and you can figure out how likely one of these big pairs is out against you. Keep in mind that once a player has acted, their hand is no longer strictly random even though it is still unknown to you. When a player raises, gets re-raised and a third player raises all-in, AA or KK are suddenly very likely indeed. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[68Mustang]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone interested in this compilation? I know it. I've played in a ton of PP games. Let me know!

[/ QUOTE ]

Pleae post your list.

how about in no limit, falling in love with your whole cards, thinking AK will win over anything and calling along trying to make it hit. OR risking too much too early...OR not playing a short stack correctly. Those are three that I see a lot.

[maybedinero]

Hmm everyone's all excited waiting for this list...
Common mistakes I see (and make occasionally) when I play low-stakes NL:

-&gt; Bluff-calling. Never a good idea. Also, bluffing on the river when your stack's too short to push anyone out.

-&gt; Giving up a free card on the flop when you have a made hand, especially when there's quite a few people still in the hand. (I do this all the time /images/graemlins/blush.gif - it's v. tempting to try and play the hell out of the first set you've managed to flop in two hours of three-tabling).

-&gt; Pushing in response to a reraise with only top pair/an overpair. People do bluff, but the rate of "thinking someone's bluffing" to them actually bluffing tends to be pretty high.

-&gt; Similarly, not folding AA or KK to a bet-out on a three flush or connected board.

-&gt; Pushing all in on the flop (or worse still on the turn) with a flush draw--you'll almost certainly be called at this level by top-pair or two-pair, and you're almost certainly the underdog. Exception if the pot is big enough to warrant it, of course. If three players with stacks equal to or greater than yours have gone all in and you have the nut four flush, go ahead and put yourself in with them.

-&gt; One last tip. If someone raises, you reraise a small amount, and they reraise again by a small amount: FOLD. I've only once seen anyone do this without a monster.

I don't know much much good advice i can give since i'm such a noob, but i think something that i see often is people that call on the blinds with garbage hands against a raise.

I love that last one! ha ha. That is great info!

Exactly, over valuing junk, especially suited junk.

[Felipe]

[ QUOTE ]
Not only does raising with medium pairs in limit in the appropriate situations make statistical sense, empirically it is something I do frequently and I show a strong profit with these hands.

[/ QUOTE ]


care to post some stats of your 77-99 (or TT)? I'm interested.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not only does raising with medium pairs in limit in the appropriate situations make statistical sense, empirically it is something I do frequently and I show a strong profit with these hands.

[/ QUOTE ]


care to post some stats of your 77-99 (or TT)? I'm interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I want to get into a habit of posting my actual results for things as a general rule, but I'll say that I define a strong profit as averaging more than .1 BB in profit over the long run. By that standard I show a strong profit with all pairs 77 and up. A small profit with 66 and the jury is still out on 55.

I don't think my PFR% really means anything without context as to why I'm doing it, but it's not uncommon. I'll give you an example: 10 handed table, UTG+1 limps, folds to me in CO. If I have 77+ I am going to raise. 10 handed table, folds to me in MP2. I am going to open raise with 77+. Table conditions may change my decision, but this would be my "standard" line of thinking. It could certainly be wrong - I am only a moderately successful small stakes recreational player afterall.