7CSFAP - Starting Hands

I recently got my copy of 7CSFAP, and was reading it eagerly to try to remove any faults that Roy West may have sneaked into my game. There were a couple of concepts that I found slightly surprising, and I wondered if anyone could explain further. Let's assume that we're playing an average 5/10 game on party, with a relatively normal mix of up-cards.

The first one is if I have a three flush including an overcard against a completion eg 3 /images/graemlins/spade.gif A /images/graemlins/spade.gif 7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif when the raiser has, say Q /images/graemlins/heart.gif showing. 7CSFAP seems to suggest that I want to play this heads-up. I can see that I do well here if I end up with Aces up, but I would have thought that the best play is to flat call, hoping to keep things multi-way if possible, and then trying to reduce the field if and when I hit the Ace.

The other thing that I'm not sure about is whether and how to play hands like 4 /images/graemlins/spade.gif A /images/graemlins/spade.gif 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. Let's assume that 4s and As are fully live - if not, then I probably don't play.

What should I do with this hand if:
i. I'm first to act after the bring-in.
ii. I'm in the middle, after a couple of limpers.
iii. It's a full bet to me.
iv. After a Q completes and a K re-raises.

If I ever limp with this, do I then generally call a completion?

The obvious next question would be how far to play this. I know that it (obviously) depends on the players, cards and whether they improve or not, but some hints on what's theoretically sound would be useful.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]

The first one is if I have a three flush including an overcard against a completion eg 3 /images/graemlins/spade.gif A /images/graemlins/spade.gif 7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif when the raiser has, say Q /images/graemlins/heart.gif showing. 7CSFAP seems to suggest that I want to play this heads-up. I can see that I do well here if I end up with Aces up, but I would have thought that the best play is to flat call, hoping to keep things multi-way if possible, and then trying to reduce the field if and when I hit the Ace.



[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you may have misread.. I think they recommend raising with 2 over cards to your opponents up card... ie, if u had A /images/graemlins/spade.gif K /images/graemlins/spade.gif 5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif and your opponent had a queen up...

[BeerMoney]

Simon, what page did you read that on?

[Spladle Master]

[ QUOTE ]
Simon, what page did you read that on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pages 17-18.

"In addition, there are some hands which don't appear to be good heads-up, but actually should be played that way, or at least they should be played in a way that thins down the field. This is true partially because it is better mathematically, and partially because it may help you get a free card. For instance, if you have the low card, three or four people limp, a high card raises, and you have an ace high three-flush, reraise almost every time - especially if your cards are live. We will see shortly that three-flushes normally prefer multiway pots. However, a live ace can make a difference. If you have two overcards over the raiser you should always reraise."

[jon_1van]

[ QUOTE ]
three or four people limp, a high card raises, and you have an ace high three-flush, reraise almost every time - especially if your cards are live

[/ QUOTE ]

A few things can happen here. All of which are good.

- everyone calls and you get a monster pot with a hand that does very well multiway
- a few people fold but you are still getting multiway action and you have a good shot at a free card
- It gets heads up but with a bunch of dead money in the center to make up for the fact that you will win less than 50% of the time
- You win on a fluke

- This also makes it harder to play against you.


Keep in mind that 7CSFAP is written with a slightly higher ante game in mind (also with smaller BI)

Be careful of following this book too closely. There really aren't any good books on stud. Therefore, the book Theory of Poker by Skalansky and Malmuth is must reading. Read it once. Read it twice. Read it in the shower. Read it during sex.

Meanwhile, after you study the hand comparison charts in the back of the book which show how certain hands do against other hands, which is a very useful part of the book, take the book, get a nice camp fire going and roast some good marshmellows, and if the fire dies down perhaps you can get the copy from some of your friend's if they have it too. This book will not make you into a good player. It will take a marginal player and make him a less marginal player. Get Theory of Poker instead.

The best way to learn to play stud poker is to watch an excellent player play. Good luck on your journey.

[BeerMoney]

How can I be more involved in your life?

[BTirish]

[ QUOTE ]
The best way to learn to play stud poker is to watch an excellent player play. Good luck on your journey.

[/ QUOTE ]

So far, the majority of your posts have taken a rather authoritative "I'm right and you're wrong" tone, without you giving clear reasoning or arguments for the plays you advocate. If, as you say, we should be looking to emulate the play of excellent players... then perhaps you should give us a reason to think you're an excellent player, if you aren't going to share your reasoning for your plays.

No one is arguing that the guidelines in 7CSFAP should be followed verbatim in every circumstance. But for every definite guideline set down, questions arise where we're trying to understand the reasoning behind what Sklansky, Malmuth, and Zee are saying.

Responding to an enquiry about the reasoning for a specific guideline in 7CSFAP by saying "you shouldn't follow these guidelines too closely, and you can only become good by playing and watching excellent players" is a rather unhelpful observation.

[BTirish]

[ QUOTE ]
The first one is if I have a three flush including an overcard against a completion eg 3 /images/graemlins/spade.gif A /images/graemlins/spade.gif 7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif when the raiser has, say Q /images/graemlins/heart.gif showing. 7CSFAP seems to suggest that I want to play this heads-up. I can see that I do well here if I end up with Aces up, but I would have thought that the best play is to flat call, hoping to keep things multi-way if possible, and then trying to reduce the field if and when I hit the Ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, to reiterate (and maybe elaborate a little) on what jon_1van said (to make sure I understand)... Every (reasonable) possible outcome of your raise is +EV. You're about a 60/40 dog heads up with a pair of Q's, and the dead money in the pot (in addition to the fact you've taken control of the hand and will likely get free cards heads up) makes it profitable to play the hand. If, instead, everyone calls your raise, you've now got a large pot with high pot equity. When you have that A or two overcards, a reraise when there are limpers before the raise is +EV.

Am I getting this right, jon_1van and others?

[BTirish]

[ QUOTE ]
The other thing that I'm not sure about is whether and how to play hands like 4 /images/graemlins/spade.gif A /images/graemlins/spade.gif 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. Let's assume that 4s and As are fully live - if not, then I probably don't play.

What should I do with this hand if:
i. I'm first to act after the bring-in.
ii. I'm in the middle, after a couple of limpers.
iii. It's a full bet to me.
iv. After a Q completes and a K re-raises.

[/ QUOTE ]

i. If you're first to act, it completely depends on the board and the opponents, and how often hands are multi-way or heads up. There definitely isn't any one good rule, except that you definitely want to get this one heads up on 3rd or 4th. That is your immediate objective, so, based on what the game you're in is like, you want to do whatever you have to to get it heads up. One possible good policy: if there is only one face card (or zero) on the board, go ahead and raise and see what develops.

ii. If you're in the middle after a few limpers, it's a lot harder (in general) to get it heads up. There are too many variables to come up with a good rule... but you're usually going to fold.

iii. If it's a full bet from one card under an A, then this is the ideal situation to reraise to try to keep it heads up. The only time you don't do this is if you have two or more facecards left to act behind you--in this case, you may fold, unless you think you can get it heads up with strong play on 4th (so it depends on the opponents).

iv. Same principle as before--if you think you can get it heads up, go for it. If you've got a couple of loose opponents, though, the odds of getting them to lay down their big pairs is low enough that you'll probably end up getting the worst of it. This is usually a fold.

[PoorLawyer]

[ QUOTE ]
This book will not make you into a good player. It will take a marginal player and make him a less marginal player.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree you should read TOP before reading 7CS4AP, but what makes you make this statement?

[PoorLawyer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The first one is if I have a three flush including an overcard against a completion eg 3 /images/graemlins/spade.gif A /images/graemlins/spade.gif 7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif when the raiser has, say Q /images/graemlins/heart.gif showing. 7CSFAP seems to suggest that I want to play this heads-up. I can see that I do well here if I end up with Aces up, but I would have thought that the best play is to flat call, hoping to keep things multi-way if possible, and then trying to reduce the field if and when I hit the Ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, to reiterate (and maybe elaborate a little) on what jon_1van said (to make sure I understand)... Every (reasonable) possible outcome of your raise is +EV. You're about a 60/40 dog heads up with a pair of Q's, and the dead money in the pot (in addition to the fact you've taken control of the hand and will likely get free cards heads up) makes it profitable to play the hand. If, instead, everyone calls your raise, you've now got a large pot with high pot equity. When you have that A or two overcards, a reraise when there are limpers before the raise is +EV.

Am I getting this right, jon_1van and others?

[/ QUOTE ]

I still think that the book was saying to reraise when you have 2 overcards to the raiser, not just an Ace.

[Spladle Master]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The first one is if I have a three flush including an overcard against a completion eg 3 /images/graemlins/spade.gif A /images/graemlins/spade.gif 7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif when the raiser has, say Q /images/graemlins/heart.gif showing. 7CSFAP seems to suggest that I want to play this heads-up. I can see that I do well here if I end up with Aces up, but I would have thought that the best play is to flat call, hoping to keep things multi-way if possible, and then trying to reduce the field if and when I hit the Ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, to reiterate (and maybe elaborate a little) on what jon_1van said (to make sure I understand)... Every (reasonable) possible outcome of your raise is +EV. You're about a 60/40 dog heads up with a pair of Q's, and the dead money in the pot (in addition to the fact you've taken control of the hand and will likely get free cards heads up) makes it profitable to play the hand. If, instead, everyone calls your raise, you've now got a large pot with high pot equity. When you have that A or two overcards, a reraise when there are limpers before the raise is +EV.

Am I getting this right, jon_1van and others?

[/ QUOTE ]

I still think that the book was saying to reraise when you have 2 overcards to the raiser, not just an Ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong.

[Andy B]

[ QUOTE ]
There really aren't any good books on stud.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your criteria for "good" include spelling and grammar as well as content, I agree. If you are saying that there are no stud books that can turn someone into a winning player, you're flat wrong.

TOP was a solo effort by Sklansky, although Mason has managed to get his cut.

[ QUOTE ]
Read it during sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

I imagine that that would be a very good way of ensuring that you never have sex with the individual in question again.

[ QUOTE ]
The best way to learn to play stud poker is to watch an excellent player play.

[/ QUOTE ]

May I sweat you some time?

[Andy B]

A/images/graemlins/spade.gif 7/images/graemlins/spade.gif 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif does well heads-up or multi-way. Big three-flushes are nice like that. If you get it heads-up with the Queen, that does give you your best chance to win, as you can win by making Aces or two small pair. Multi-way, you'll most likely need to make the flush.

There are some important differences between Party's $5/10 and 7CS4AP's model Vegas mid-limit game:

1) The Party game has a lower ante proportionally than a Vegas mid-limit game.

2) In the mid-limit Vegas game, the guy who raised with the Queen is somewhat less likely to have Queens. He could have a three-flush or QJT or some such. Some percentage of the time, you will get it heads-up and have the best hand.

3) In the mid-limit Vegas game, your raise is fairly likely to get it heads-up. In a low-limit game, this is less likely to be true, although folks on here have been bitching about how tight the games are on Party lately.

Personally, I would rather play five ways for one bet than heads-up for two bets. Now if the Queen raises and gets three callers, I might raise myself for value, but I'm an action junkie.

As for your split Fours with a s00ted Ace:

[ QUOTE ]
i. I'm first to act after the bring-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the game is really loose and passive, I limp, otherwise, fold.

[ QUOTE ]
ii. I'm in the middle, after a couple of limpers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually limp, unless I really fear a raise behind me.

[ QUOTE ]
iii. It's a full bet to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

With this low ante, this is probably a fold, although we probably need more information.

[ QUOTE ]
iv. After a Q completes and a K re-raises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fold. If it were a $75/150 game, I might three-bet to get the Queen out, but here you'd mostly be feeding the rake.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Simon:

The answer to your question depends on the exact ante structure of the game you are in. I'm not sure what it is in the $5-$10 game on Party, but in general, most games above $15-$30 have an ante structure large enough to make this reraise correct. At the lower structures, which are the games targeted by the West book, it's probably not worth trying to get heads-up.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Andy B]

$.50 ante, $2 force. Incidentally, the $20/40 game has a similar ante: $2 (instead of the more usual $3), with a $5 force.

You should post here more. Might give this forum some credibility. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[PoorLawyer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The first one is if I have a three flush including an overcard against a completion eg 3 /images/graemlins/spade.gif A /images/graemlins/spade.gif 7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif when the raiser has, say Q /images/graemlins/heart.gif showing. 7CSFAP seems to suggest that I want to play this heads-up. I can see that I do well here if I end up with Aces up, but I would have thought that the best play is to flat call, hoping to keep things multi-way if possible, and then trying to reduce the field if and when I hit the Ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, to reiterate (and maybe elaborate a little) on what jon_1van said (to make sure I understand)... Every (reasonable) possible outcome of your raise is +EV. You're about a 60/40 dog heads up with a pair of Q's, and the dead money in the pot (in addition to the fact you've taken control of the hand and will likely get free cards heads up) makes it profitable to play the hand. If, instead, everyone calls your raise, you've now got a large pot with high pot equity. When you have that A or two overcards, a reraise when there are limpers before the raise is +EV.

Am I getting this right, jon_1van and others?

[/ QUOTE ]

I still think that the book was saying to reraise when you have 2 overcards to the raiser, not just an Ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

YOU are wrong. Read your own quote that you typed in:

Pages 17-18.

"In addition, there are some hands which don't appear to be good heads-up, but actually should be played that way, or at least they should be played in a way that thins down the field. This is true partially because it is better mathematically, and partially because it may help you get a free card. For instance, if you have the low card, three or four people limp, a high card raises, and you have an ace high three-flush, reraise almost every time - especially if your cards are live. We will see shortly that three-flushes normally prefer multiway pots. However, a live ace can make a difference. If you have two overcards over the raiser you should always reraise."

[Arnett23]

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, if you have the low card, three or four people limp, a high card raises, and you have an ace high three-flush, reraise almost every time - especially if your cards are live. We will see shortly that three-flushes normally prefer multiway pots. However, a live ace can make a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are both right, less bickering, more Stud talk thx.

Having thought about this further, I think that possibly reraising with the Ace high flush (especially where you only have one overcard) is probably a little bit of a stretch in the 5/10 game. Firstly, you can see what you catch on fourth and/or fifth, and take it from there - if you hit a spade or an ace on fourth then you can try to get more money in with the spade, or look to thin the field if you catch the ace. Secondly, I think a number of the players at this limit will stay in with poorer hands, so you won't get it heads-up anyway. You may possibly have the equity to reraise anyway, but it may well be best to see what happens to your equity on fourth and fifth, as it's likely to change radically. If you catch a couple of bricks then it becomes an easy fold, but if you do catch aces and spades then things are much better.

Moving on to the hands like 4A4, I noticed that, in the section on tightly structured games, 7CSFAP recommends not playing hands such as 949 (which I understand and agree with), and says that you would prefer, say, 2A2. Surely this suggests that you want to play hands like these in the 5/10 game, which is between the 15/30 game that 7CSFAP is written for, and the tight games they refer to (such as a 10/20, with a $1 ante and a $2 force).

Given that 4A4 has almost 33% equity against a pair of queens and a pair of kings, surely you can play and see what develops. Does anyone else think that maybe the way to play these hands would be to call third and fourth, and then get out if you haven't improved by fifth - maybe going to the river with something like 4A4K7 against probable queens and trying to eliminate players with 4A433. If you do make Aces-up or three of a kind, then you have a strong hand, and can play it accordingly.

It seems to me that hands like these play well with two OR three players (and maybe better with three than two). I think that this is the bit that I don't get. I understand that when there is quite a lot of dead money in a pot that you would do better having, say a 40% chance of winning heads-up than a 33% chance of winning three-way, but I don't see the benefit of trying to get heads-up in such a case when there's only the antes and the bring-in in the pot. Can anyone explain - even if there are some calculations involved?