2 preflop questions...

[1800GAMBLER]

1. Which hands do you raise with to lower the field preflop?

KK, QQ, JJ?

I know AQ, AK, AA like callers.

Infact make that 4 questions.

2. I've heard a quote of, 'i like callers preflop with AK then i limit the field on the flop.' If you hit apart from draws why limit it? If you miss why are you still limiting it?

3. 'AK AQ win small pots and lose big ones.' I agree they lose big ones, how come only win small ones though?

I think the reason will be, 'if you raise preflop QJ KJ KQ are folding so you will get no action from those.' So i guess it's the fact that people in my game don't fold those to a raise that these win big pots.

4. Raising with suited connectors. I know the best time is when there are a lot of limpers and you are last to act and can get another bet from each player. But don't these have a huge variance (about 8:1) if you hit a drawing flop? I've never saw many games loose enough to have 8 limpers.

Thanks.

[1800GAMBLER]

Replying to myself, rammin and jammin preflop article (http://izmet.desetka.si/jampreflop.html) meantions 'Turbo sims' that using Turbo Texas Hold 'em software?
Why are they saw as unreliable too?

[rtrombone]

You raise with AQ, AK and 10 10-AA not so much because you want to limit the field (although you don't mind this, particularly when you have 10 10 or JJ) but because you want people to put in two bets if they're going to play with you. Most hands are making a mistake putting in two bets to see the flop against a premium hand. AA and KK are strong enough to limp-reraise, if you are fairly certain someone is going to raise behind you. Maybe AKs and QQ, too, if you're running good.

If you flop an ace or king with AK you raise to make people pay to draw out on you. If a flush or straight draw (or a 5-outer) will call two bets cold, you're making a huge mistake in not raising.

I'm beginning to think that if from now on I don't put a single cent into a pot with AK or AQ when I flop nothing, this will be very much +EV. The people in my games aren't going to believe I have a pocket pair anyways, so I may as well continue betting only when I have the goods.

AQ, AK and big pocket pairs can all win big pots. You just have to have a lot of people chasing you and miss. When you lose, you lose a lot because you're often driving the action. Whereas with drawing-type hands you will usually fold at the flop, so you don't lose much. But when a bunch of draws and AK all hit the flop, it's going to be a big pot. And AK will win its fair share of these.

Personally, I will never raise a bunch of limpers with a drawing-type hand. The vast majority of the time you will be building a pot for someone else. It's better to raise these guys with AK or QQ. Drawing-type hands like 98s want to see the flop as cheaply as possible, because it's so hard to hit. And when you do hit, you need to get lucky on later streets to make your hand.

The time to raise with a hand like 98s is UTG, occasionally, to throw your opponents off.

[J.R.]

Because the dissenters contend that the turbo "players" are not close approximations of how real people play.

[stripsqueez]

the big pairs and big rank hands - the power hands - will win less hands the more players who play whereas the drawing hands are largely unaffected in terms of how often they win by the number of players.

it is largely a fallacy however to say that the power hands should limit the field - the power hands should raise pre-flop because they are in front and even if there are a bunch of players and they win less often , they will win more less often to still be infront

a truer question would be ... of the power hands which ones have a lower winning expectation from the more players in the hand ??. To that question i would suggest that it is AK and AQ rather than AA KK QQ JJ that have a lower winning expectation from more players being in the pot

[bernie]

" I will never raise a bunch of limpers with a drawing-type hand. The vast majority of the time you will be building a pot for someone else. It's better to raise these guys with AK or QQ. "

so basically youre only raising with QQ KK AA and AK? even in LP with limpers? that's a pretty predictable preflop pattern of betting. but if it's still getting alot of action, what the hell. but play the same players enough and even the idiots at the table will catch on when youre raising preflop.

many times when you raise with a drawing type hand, youre building a pot for yourself should you hit. there's nothing wrong with folding the flop if you miss.

action on my premiums and theyre postflop play tends to be a main factor in raising my drawing hands preflop.

b

[Ed Miller]

Maybe AKs and QQ, too, if you're running good.

What does running good or bad have to do with this decision?

[rtrombone]

I do tend to look for games with poor players who will not notice I am raising with only premium hands (yes, there are people this bad out there). And I rotate between the four major L.A. casinos, so there's little danger of running into a table full of people who know how I play.

That said, I just don't know if raising with drawing-type hands can ever be +EV if you ignore the deception factor. The odds of flopping a flush draw are about 12 to 1; a straight draw, about 15.5 to 1. With a suited connector, you will flop neither about 86.5% of the time (6.44 to 1 against flopping one or the other). And then when you flop a draw, it's about 2 to 1 against you getting there...

It seems to me that you're killing your own implied odds when you raise with this type of hand (cutting them in half). Deception needs to be a big factor, IMHO, for this play to be profitable.

[rtrombone]

Call it superstition. Call it respect for the poker gods. Or, call it a simple way of randomizing my play. As we all know, you can't play a certain hand the exact same way every time...

I think mostly it's a recognition of the huge role luck plays on any given night.

[Ed Miller]

Call it superstition. Call it respect for the poker gods.

I call it nonsense. This is not the way winning players think about poker. Whether you've won previous hands tonight or not says nothing about whether you will win future hands. Deciding whether you limp-reraise with hands like AKs or QQ should depend on game conditions, not on your evening's results so far.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I agree with Majorkong here.

a) I'm not a big fan of the limp-reraise
b) adding more fancy plays once you're ahead in a session is a great way to end the session behind. Trust me. This one's from experience.

[bernie]

actually, you have much better odds to flop a flush draw. about 8-1.

and it's not just for deception reasons to raise this. especially in later positions

b

[jnm2524]

Here's the deal: With AA, KK, QQ you want to raise and reraise because youre a favorite most of the time. Your mathematical edge is not diminished by the number of callers you get - AA will always be the best hand preflop and everyone else will always have to draw out on you. What youre doing by firing at the pot is punishing people for trying to draw out on you as well as getting more money into a pot where you have an advantage.

If youre thinking about slowplaying these hands it's really important to take your opposition into account. Are they loose/passive habitual callers? If so then whats the point; deception is of no use here. Straight raises and bets carry the day. If your opposition is very aggressive, let them do the betting for you preflop and check raise or smooth call; then you can bet or raise on the flop or you can just call and wait until 4th street and nail them when the bets double.

With JJ and TT you HAVE to raise preflop because you want to make sure as many of the overcards fold as possible (i.e. K trash, A trash, Q trash). This thins the field so you are more likely not to get drawn out on. You may also win the pot right there, which is good with a hand like TT because youre going to need some help on the flop anyway most of the time.

AK is another matter because it's not automatic that you'll have a hand. Sure youve got the best drawing hand out there but it's still a drawing hand. Alot of times I like to just call the bb or smooth call a raise to see the flop with AK because most people arent going to put you on that hand. If you hit your opponents will be more likely to bet their K trash and A trash hands into you which means more money for you. Even if someones on a straight or flush draw and you hit your hand you can punish them for seeing the next card and they are calling when they are an underdog. Also, if you hit a really sucky flop you dont have so much money invested in the pot that you have a hard time laying it down in the face of alot of resistance.

That's the way I see it anyway.

[rtrombone]

I know you have played a lot of poker, so you have surely seen what I have seen. Truly awful players playing every hand, winning half the pots, catching miracle cards over and over, walking away with three racks in an hour's time. Very good players whose chips slowly dwindle, who take brutal beats every time they enter a pot. Just this weekend I saw a guy at my table lose, in a few hours' time, with top set to a river flush, aces up to my straight, an ace high flush to a river boat, etc. etc.

I was a gambler first and a poker player second. All gamblers know that the key to gambling is money management. You bet more when you're hot, bet less (or even pull away altogether) when you're cold. Red has hit five times in a row? Bet on red again! You've busted 4 times in a row? Step away from the table for a while.

EV will always be the primary factor in my decisions at the table. Whether I limp-reraise will depend on the likelihood of a raise behind me, my position, the types of hands my opponents have been playing, etc. But in coin-flip situations, you go with how you feel. Do you make this loose call? Depends how I've been running. Do you try to steal the blinds with this marginal holding or let them chop? Again, it depends.

The other thing I've noticed is this: when you've been running very bad and haven't been able to pick up any pots, people seem to lose their fear of you as an opponent. You can forget about running any bluffs, and your raises have absolutely no effect. This compounds things.

I very much respect the luck factor in poker. Many poor players rely on it too much. They think they can "feel" certain cards are going to come. But when such a player makes three consecutive inside straights against me, all the while saying, "I felt it coming," who's the idiot? He's stacking my chips. This doesn't change my approach to the game. I'm still going to bet and raise his punkass when I'm in the lead. But I do it knowing that he is probably going to hit again. And he often does.

Where it's unclear what the +EV play is, though, there's nothing wrong with going with your gut. If it's a razor-thin edge that may not even be an edge, whether or not I push it depends on whether I feel...lucky.

[rtrombone]

My numbers were wrong. I got them from the tables in the back of Supersystem. Either I misinterpreted them, or Doyle screwed up...

I recalculated the odds by hand. The odds of flopping a flush draw are about 8.14 to 1. With two connectors, the odds of flopping an open-ended straight are about 8.72 to 1.

With a suited connector, you will flop neither about 79.9% of the time. So 1 in 5 times you will flop one or the other, or both. From the flop, it's about 2 to 1 against you getting there. This means that with suited connectors pre-flop, the odds that you will end up with a straight or flush by the river are a little better than 14 to 1. (They're a little better than 14 to 1 because those times you flop a straight flush draw you're even money to get there, not 2 to 1 against.)

I just don't see it. Even if my numbers are way off and you're 10 to 1 to make some kind of winning hand by the river, you're not getting the proper odds for a raise pre-flop. The final pot isn't going to be double what it would have been had you limped in for 1 bet, so you are undeniably hurting your own implied odds.

These drawing-type hands want to see the flop as cheaply as possible, IMHO. If you believe your +EV from deception will be significant, it may be profitable. Personally, I treat hold 'em as a game of position and big cards. I don't worry about deception as long as I'm playing with fishy opponents.

[Tommy Angelo]

rtrombone,

"Even if my numbers are way off and you're 10 to 1 to make some kind of winning hand by the river, you're not getting the proper odds for a raise pre-flop [with drawing hands]."

The extra investment -- of a raise as opposed to a call -- does not earn its return from odds of the type you are relying on for answers. The odds that need considered are, for example, 1) the change in likelihood of the opponents checkfolding on the flop 2) the change in likelihood of the opponents checking to you on the flop 3) The change in likelihood of the opponents overrating your hand.

This list is very long. None of it has anything to do with pot odds, implied odds, or the starting hands themselves. Bottom line is, raising is good.


Tommy

[Ulysses]

You bet more when you're hot, bet less (or even pull away altogether) when you're cold.

Red has hit five times in a row? Bet on red again!

But I do it knowing that he is probably going to hit again.

All of these statements lead me to believe that you're going to have a tough time playing the game correctly when confronted with the streaks that are statistically to be expected.

Yesterday, I was running bad for a little while. A player who talks about a lot of the types of things you wrote in your post noticed this. So he started 3-betting my EP raises w/ hands like KQo and JTo. Since my EP raises were w/ things like AK, KK, and QQ, it didn't take long for him to turn things around for me by dumping all his chips to me.

[rtrombone]

So what you're saying is the deception factor pushes this play into the +EV realm.

There are undoubtedly game conditions under which your statement is true. In my experience, however, only #2, the likelihood of my opponents checking to me at the flop, would be at all affected by a late position raise. They're not going to be more likely to fold. They may overrate my hand, but they'll still call me.

Over the past few weeks the biggest leak I've found in my game is trying to represent certain hands in large multiway pots. Even heads up or 3-handed, it just doesn't work unless they are of 2+2 caliber or weak-tight. People absolutely LOVE to call and will do so with the most inconceivable hands. My 4th of July resolution is to not put a single cent more into the pot if I've raised with AK or AQ and flop nothing. They're not going to believe me anyways, so I'm going to continue betting only when I have a pocket pair.

ABC play will get the money in my games, Tommy. And for now, I think I kind of like it that way.

[rtrombone]

Don't worry about me. Like I said, I still try to make the absolute max-EV play no matter how bad I'm running. It's one thing I pride myself on, never going on tilt. You've seen my posts. Few are as numbers-obsessed as I am.

I do, though, have a very healthy respect for lady luck. I've experienced things at the blackjack and baccarat tables that are mind-boggling. I don't care how good a table is, how great you think your edge is. If you're running bad, you're running bad and there's nothing you can do about it. This, I believe, is the primary reason for setting session limits, a maximum amount of money you're willing to lose. If you don't, you're liable to drop ludicrous sums of money. In that article on Men Nguyen he said he lost his entire bankroll in one night, $100K, playing $200-$400. If he'd limited himself to 30-50 big bets per session, this wouldn't have happened...

This is why I bring only cash with me to the card rooms. In the past, I've thought, this is bullsh*t, they can't continue to make backdoor straights and flushes and whatever other hands they were making that night. Their luck CAN'T continue. And I'd get more money, and keep playing.

Guess what. On some nights, they CAN keep pulling cards. And there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

[Ulysses]

My 4th of July resolution is to not put a single cent more into the pot if I've raised with AK or AQ and flop nothing.

Pay attention. After a while even the dullest players will realize you only bet after raising pre-flop when you hit something. That's when you'll be able to take down a few pots w/ unimproved AK/AQ (or worse).

I agree that it's not a profitable strategy at these tables to predictably always bet when checked to after raising pre-flop. Some of my favorite opponents are guys I can count on to do that.

ABC play will get the money in my games, Tommy. And for now, I think I kind of like it that way.

You're preaching to the choir there. I also agree that ABC will get you the money in these types of games.

[Ulysses]

You've seen my posts. Few are as numbers-obsessed as I am.
That's part of the reason I was surprised to read some of the thoughts in your post.

Anyway, yeah, sometimes poor opponents will just continue to hit their 2,3, and 4 outers on the river all night long. And it sucks. But in games like that where I'm getting most of the money in as a big favorite, you won't get me away from that table.

[bernie]

there is no way you can predict when a streak will begin or end. ive been on tables where i was running bad, then all of a sudden the cards turn and im way up.

BJ is not a game for feel players or streak players.

maybe Men isnt that great of a ringgame player. which is why he lost his ass. which is common with overaggressive tourney types.


though it does sound like streaks have quite an effect on you psychologically. to that, id agree that if youre running bad, leave and come back another time. it is obviously affecting your play.

b

[Net Warrior]

[Tommy Angelo]

"So what you're saying is the deception factor pushes this play into the +EV realm."

Well, no. What I was saying was what I said.

[Homer]

All gamblers know that the key to gambling is money management.

No offense, but "gamblers" are idiots. These are the people who think they have systems to beat craps, roulette, etc. "Ah yes, using my 1-2-3-2-1 betting progression, I will easily beat the casino." Suuuuuuuuuure.

You bet more when you're hot, bet less (or even pull away altogether) when you're cold.

Why is that? You are no more likely to win the next hand than the last.

Red has hit five times in a row? Bet on red again!

Again, red is no more likely to appear on the next spin.

You've busted 4 times in a row? Step away from the table for a while.

Why, unless you are on tilt?

-- Homer

[rtrombone]

This may be a good thing.

Just take this one piece of advice. Say you're playing baccarat or roulette, and banker/player or red/black has hit 5 times in a row. You're thinking of betting. DO NOT bet against the streak. Bet with the streak. Why? I have no scientific basis for this suggestion. But all experienced gamblers will tell you the same.

There are times when the laws of probability are turned on their head and stomped on. There's no way to explain it. When you've seen it with your own eyes over and over, you just know that it happens.

In the long run, you cannot beat the house edge in their games. This is why I play poker now (and the occasional game of craps).

But some crazy sh*t happens at the tables, man. Statistical aberrations that can truly make or break you.

[Ulysses]

Just take this one piece of advice. Say you're playing baccarat or roulette, and banker/player or red/black has hit 5 times in a row. You're thinking of betting. DO NOT bet against the streak. Bet with the streak. Why? I have no scientific basis for this suggestion. But all experienced gamblers will tell you the same.

This is among the silliest things I've ever read on this forum. But I'm curious. The streak does stop at some point, right? I mean, if it just hit red 5 times in a row, black is going to hit eventually, I imagine. How do I know when to stop betting the streak? Sounds like you're pretty positive that 5 in a row always leads to 6 in a row. But does 6 in a row lead to 7 in a row? Or should I bet against the streak after 6?

I imagine you're probably a millionaire many, many times over. I mean, it's pretty easy money to just hang around the pit and watch the roulette games until one of them hits a color 5 times in a row. Then, BOOM!, lay down the big bet, baby! And PAY ME! I haven't read the MIT blackjack team book, but I imagine this is probably the system they used when they played roulette. Pretty sweet.

In the long run, you cannot beat the house edge in their games. This is why I play poker now (and the occasional game of craps).

And you'll have a tough time beating other players at the game of poker if you believe things like "He hit his last 3 inside straights in a row, I know he's going to get there this time as well."

[J.R.]

This means that with suited connectors pre-flop, the odds that you will end up with a straight or flush by the river are a little better than 14 to 1.

Ever won a hand with two pair or trips?

[rtrombone]

J.R., the odds of flopping two pair or trips are so small that they cannot possibly make a raise a +EV play in and of themselves. All the stuff Tommy mentioned is more likely to make a raise +EV, if the game conditions are right.

[TJSWAN]

That's it! /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

Tim

[rtrombone]

If you don't gamble, there is no point to this discussion. People who preach the odds need only respond to anything I say with, "What just happened is mathematically independent from what is going to happen." Now, I know the odds. I recognize the truth of this statement. But I also have hundreds of hours of gambling experience.

How best can I put this... Ok, in a game such as blackjack, the house edge is documented and unbeatable. If there are six or more decks in the shoe, even counting cards will not enable you to overcome the house edge. So, if you bet the same amount every hand, in the long run you are destined to be a loser. The longer you play, the more certain it is you will lose.

The only way you can win is by varying the size of your bets. You have to have less money on the table when you lose, and more when you win. How do you know when to pull back and when to push harder? Well, that's the puzzle all gamblers are trying to solve.

Is it impossible? Probably. But there is also such a thing as a statistical anomaly. Once in a blue moon, you find yourself in the middle of one. This is how a person can walk up to a $10 craps table and walk away with $50,000 half an hour later, by taking advantage of such an anomaly. (It's also simple money management, betting more when it seems like you've got a good thing going, but never betting so much that you're not guaranteed to leave a winner.) The person who refuses to jump on the bandwagon is the loser in this situation, not the one who thinks, "I'm going to ride this thing for all it's worth."

Again, if you don't gamble a lot, you'll think this is all bunk, and that's fine. I do it for fun, occasionally. I know that while waiting around for someone to get hot at the craps tables, I'm generally going to lose. I'm ok with that.

What does this have to do with poker? Nothing. The only relevance is the session maximums I set. As I've mentioned before, I believe that if you're running bad you should quit after you've lost a certain amount. I don't know why you and bernie seem to think my play changes. It doesn't. EV is too hardwired into my game. I am going to raise and reraise when I feel I'm in the lead, no matter how bad I'm running. It's what you're supposed to do. Damn, I've already lost $400 with big slick tonight, and here it is again. Should I just call? No, of course not. I'm going to raise again. There goes another $100. But I'll raise it yet gain the next time I'm dealt it.

Wow, the deck is hitting me in the face. I'm up a grand and I would've won if I'd played that 83 offsuit. [censored], I would've won if I'd played that 9 deuce. Should I now play this garbage I've been dealt?

I never do. But way in the back of mind, I wonder if I should have.

[J.R.]

I never attempted to justify raising. I only pointed out the error in your thinking, as these hands have value outside of the straight and flush possibilities.

[Ulysses]

First off, a question. Do you take even money on your blackjacks when the dealer is running very hot?

If you don't gamble, there is no point to this discussion.

I gamble a lot. About 30 hours of blackjack w/ $142/hand average bet just a couple of weeks ago.

And yeah, I've seen all sorts of wacky things happen. A guy on a good streak betting $25-100/hand started to put $100 on the Lucky Ladies bet. Two hands later he hit matched tens for a 19-1 payout. And what did he do? He kept betting $100 on the Ladies. And guess what, a couple of hands later he got QhQh for a 125-1 payout. He left the table with over $15,000, having started w/ a few hundred. The next day a couple of dealers told me he lost it all in the course of the night after stepping up his bets to $1000/hand.

Anyway, back to gambling. Yeah, streaks happen. I've had them happen to me many a time and I've seen them happen many more times. But to think that you can time your bets in accordance with those streaks is just ridiculous.

Two quick BJ examples.

Betting mainly $100/hand, I lose $2500 or so in no time flat. I've lost something like 9 hands in a row. I'm frustrated and sick of the game and figure my luck must change at some point. I decide to bet $500. I hit a blackjack. I let the $1250 ride. I get dealt 20. I win again. $2500. I decide to leave, but I never like to leave on a hot streak. So, I color up $3000 and put my odd chips on the spot (about $250). I'm dealt 20 against a dealer's six. I curse myself for not letting the $2500 ride. The dealer pulls to a 5 card 21. I realize I'm a blackjack genius.

Betting $50/hand up to $200/hand. I'm at my max bet of $200 and win a few in a row. Each time, I'm just adding $25 to my bet. I'm around $350 now and win again. I decide to let the $700 or so ride. I bust.

So yeah, obviously streaks do occur. But as I said before, believing that there's any way to time your bets based on those streaks is just plain silly.

How do you know when to pull back and when to push harder? Well, that's the puzzle all gamblers are trying to solve.

Those trying to solve that puzzle based on timing their bets are idiots.

I don't know why you and bernie seem to think my play changes. It doesn't.

If it doesn't, good for you. It's just a little hard to believe that it doesn't when you seem to believe all that hooey about running good/running bad. But if your game really doesn't change, you have no reason to leave a great game just because you've been running bad for a while.

In any case, none of this really matters to anyone else. Sounds like you have your approach that works for you and you're comfortable with it. If so, good for you. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[rtrombone]

"I decide to leave, but I never like to leave on a hot streak."

You see Ulysses, you and are not that different after all. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

I can't stand blackjack, man. I'm convinced the game is rigged and can't bring myself to believe that garbage about it being the best game in town if you play basic strategy. In no other game do you lose ten hands in a row so regularly (well, maybe 9-18 hold 'em at Commerce).

I don't know if you play craps or not, but if you do, surely you do as every good craps player does and roam the tables looking for a hot shooter. There isn't any mathematical justification for this, but doesn't it seem to make sense?

So you're saying that you don't set a maximum you're willing to lose in any given session? I learned my lesson back when I played low-limit. Some nights, you just aren't going to win, man. Granted, I didn't play as well back then. I truly believe, though, that even the best players can lose staggering sums if they're running bad. Why fight it? The most I will lose is 30 big bets. When I win, I always win more than that.

Plus, there's the outside chance that it's not just bad luck that's causing you to get killed on a given night. But us good players only lose when we're unlucky, right. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Jimbo]

rtrombone said "Is it impossible? Probably. But there is also such a thing as a statistical anomaly. Once in a blue moon, you find yourself in the middle of one."

Now I understand where you are coming from in many of your other posts as well. Your flaw is that you are able to recognize the aforementioned statistical anomaly only after it has occured. Unless you have a casino that allows you to "past post" your bets you will never make a living off that theory. Before you call me a non gambler it is likely I have more hours truly gambling than you have hours awake in your lifetime. Certainly more than the few hundred you mention.

Unlike Ulysses I bet you go on tilt with the best of them! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[rtrombone]

And this is when you win a quick thousand dollars, possibly much, much more. If you gamble a lot, I'm sure you've cashed in on some of these statistical quirks.

When it happens to you, it's a beautiful thing, Jimbo. I only wish I could figure out how to take advantage of these anomalies at the poker table.

[Ulysses]

I don't know if you play craps or not, but if you do, surely you do as every good craps player does and roam the tables looking for a hot shooter.
I love to play craps. And yeah, I also look for hot shooters, but it has nothing to do with what numbers they're rolling.

There isn't any mathematical justification for this, but doesn't it seem to make sense?
Because there's no mathematical justification for how the dice are going to end up, it makes a lot of sense for me to find the table that has the highest concentration of hot-as-fire chicks having a great time.

So you're saying that you don't set a maximum you're willing to lose in any given session?
Nope.

The most I will lose is 30 big bets. When I win, I always win more than that.
So, you either always lose or win big? Hmmmm....

Plus, there's the outside chance that it's not just bad luck that's causing you to get killed on a given night. But us good players only lose when we're unlucky, right.
Leaving because you're tired, playing bad, tilting and playing back too hard against the idiots who are bad-beating you, and many other reasons are perfectly valid reasons to leave an otherwise great game. That's my point. I leave games all the time after I've lost a fair amount because I realize I'm playing poorly - chasing too much, playing too tentatively, playing too aggressively trying to punish the idiots w/ marginal hands, etc. And when I reflect back on my really bad sessions, I can usually attribute a big chunk of my loss to stuff like that. But on the flip side, there are many times when I play great poker and just happen to be snapped off time after time by 2 and 3-outers on the river. When that happens and I know I'm still playing great, I never leave just because I'm "running bad." That's the point I was trying to make.

[1800GAMBLER]

Hi! Lets carry on argueing so this post gets more replies than 'A hand to talk about' so i feel important and my topic was wanted!












... even though we are now miles off topic and i have nothing to do with this topic now /forums/images/icons/frown.gif

[bernie]

working my way down the thread, so this may be redundant

"But all experienced gamblers will tell you the same."

experienced 'pros' dont play crap or roullette professionally.

there are no pro pit game players. (other than BJ) the guys who give you this advice are probably longterm losers. as they all are in just about every table game that someone thinks they know what the secret is.

b

[bernie]

"How do you know when to pull back and when to push harder? Well, that's the puzzle all gamblers are trying to solve."

actually, that has been solved. BJ is a highly beatable game. the 'gamblers' just dont have the patience to ride out a swing even when the deck is heavily in their favor. the 'gambler' wants to make the max with the least amount of work.

b

[bernie]

get Jerry Patterson's TARGET system. i hear he has all of these anomalies figured out.

b

[Homer]

If you don't gamble, there is no point to this discussion. People who preach the odds need only respond to anything I say with, "What just happened is mathematically independent from what is going to happen." Now, I know the odds. I recognize the truth of this statement. But I also have hundreds of hours of gambling experience.

Well, which is it? It can't be both.

How best can I put this... Ok, in a game such as blackjack, the house edge is documented and unbeatable. If there are six or more decks in the shoe, even counting cards will not enable you to overcome the house edge. So, if you bet the same amount every hand, in the long run you are destined to be a loser. The longer you play, the more certain it is you will lose.

Actually, a six deck game can be beaten with card counting, you just need a larger spread than in a single or double deck game.

The only way you can win is by varying the size of your bets. You have to have less money on the table when you lose, and more when you win. How do you know when to pull back and when to push harder? Well, that's the puzzle all gamblers are trying to solve.

Unfortunately, this will not work in games like craps and roulette, which are a series of independent trials. It works in blackjack because you can use previous information to determine the composition of the cards remaining in the shoe to determine your approximate advantage/disadvantage, and thus size your bets appropriately.

In craps, it doesn't matter if you bet $1 or $1,000,000, the house advantage is always the same. To believe anything else is voodoo.

Is it impossible? Probably. But there is also such a thing as a statistical anomaly. Once in a blue moon, you find yourself in the middle of one. This is how a person can walk up to a $10 craps table and walk away with $50,000 half an hour later, by taking advantage of such an anomaly. (It's also simple money management, betting more when it seems like you've got a good thing going, but never betting so much that you're not guaranteed to leave a winner.) The person who refuses to jump on the bandwagon is the loser in this situation, not the one who thinks, "I'm going to ride this thing for all it's worth."

Can you predict when such a statistical anomaly is going to take place? For every time someone walks up to a craps table with $10 and wins $50,000, 10,000 other people do the same thing and lose the $10.

Also, the person who "refuses to jump on the bandwagon" is likely the only intelligent person at the table.

Again, if you don't gamble a lot, you'll think this is all bunk, and that's fine. I do it for fun, occasionally. I know that while waiting around for someone to get hot at the craps tables, I'm generally going to lose. I'm ok with that.

What the hell does gambling a lot have to do with it. I could gamble with your BS system all my life and not learn a damn thing (other than how casinos obtain make all that money) . Or, I could figure out the odds on a piece of paper at home and realize that I should never step foot into a casino for the purpose of playing craps or roulette.

Your real-life experience theory is incorrect.

Damn, I've already lost $400 with big slick tonight, and here it is again. Should I just call? No, of course not. I'm going to raise again. There goes another $100. But I'll raise it yet gain the next time I'm dealt it.

What? You are going to raise in the face of such an obvious statistical anomaly?

-- Homer

[WizeGuy33]

rtrombone, you are the anomaly.

When you believe that you can predict and play "streaks" in games that rely on independent trials, you truly are the definition of the word. Surely, you haven't gambled as much as you say you have, or you'd be broke. And if that hasn't happend yet, you've been riding one huge anomaly, but I have complete confidence that you of all people should be able to predict when that will end. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

The only way to proceed with this discussion is to incorporate divine intervention into the the argument. I'd be interested to hear what some have to say about that.