Hellmuth Vs. Ciaffone. Who is right?

[iceflame]

Just got through reading "Play Poker like the Pros " by Phil. In his section on LHE ring games 'intermediate stratefy' he writes that if you have a 5-5 and it's two or three bet in front of you,just 'fold and live to fight another day'--which is the conventional wisdom.

However he continues "Still if nearly every hand is being three bet then by all means call the three bets! In these crazy games --which I love to play in--sets will win huge pots."

I don't get it.

Referring to Ciaffone's book, chapter on 'Beating a Loose Game' he writes that there are two general types "A" and 'B"
"A'" being passive with few pots raised where you can get in cheaply with a low pair. 'B' being aggressive.

"Naturally most players have the good sense NOT to cold call in rased and reraised pots."

Ciaffone gives the example of 6-6 which will seldom win uimproved in multiraised pots. He goes on to add that "I'd like to see the flop on pocket sixes but cannot afford to pay through the nose to do it. The long term odds say I need to win about half a dozen bets IN AN UNRAISED POT to break even. But if the pot is raised t costs more just to break even for the times I miss the flop or get a set cracked, and if I had to call a raise cold, I have a clear fold. If most of the pots are being raised and re raised , it is foolish to tell yourself, 'Maybe I can sneak in for a single bet'.

What am I missing here? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[James282]

You might be missing that Ciaffone is right and Hellmuth is wrong. Getting into it with 55 for three bets preflop is an insanely fast way to the poorhouse.
-James

[Nottom]

If the lagtastic game in question involves capping on the big money streets post-flop then I think small pairs are profitable. If the play gets more reasonable post-flop and you can't count on getting payed of in a rediculous fashion if you hit, then folding is best.

I tend to think most games fall closer to the second category.

[Saborion]

[ QUOTE ]
You might be missing that Ciaffone is right and Hellmuth is wrong. Getting into it with 55 for three bets preflop is an insanely fast way to the poorhouse.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]
Well that`s not entierly true now is it? It all depends on the post-flop action. If there`s aggressivness post-flop, then those sets can be more profitable than they are in normal games. As long as you can handle the swings, those games can be really profitable.

[Duke]

It really depends on the game. Limit, opponents, everything.

~D

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Ice:

They're both wrong.

Much of Hellmuth advice on limit hold 'em, in my opinion, is just bizarre.

As for Ciaffone, what he is saying is better, but there are many situations where it is right to call for two bets with a pair of deuces. If you're getting multiway action and can anticipate action after the flop if you do make a set, and that will almost always be the case, you should play.

A rough rule of thumb is if you are getting or can anticipate 5-to-1 before the flop then go ahead and play. Furthermore, against players who you are sure will give plenty of action on the flop and beyond, you don't need immediate odds this good.

For example, I called for two more bets earlier this evening from the big blind, for a total of three bets, against three players. Notice that I was getting 10-to-2, which is the same as 5-to-1, before the flop. 3 bets form each of them plus my original blind bet.

best wishes,
mason

[trillig]

Here is an idea for you:

Fold all your low pairs and continue to watch play, count the # of times you would have won assuming there is a showdown and the # of times you lost.

As a bonus since you are out of the hand you get extra time to focus heavily on your opponents and this is worth some $.

-t

[brad]

theres been a lot of posts in the form , im on button with small pair, a raiser and a couple cold callers, what should i do?

almost everyone agrees that raising is putting too much money in (obviuosly cant get it heads up, cause its already multiway), but that your hand is too good to fold it (against typical opponents, or assuming you are in a decent game, as evidenced from all that cold calling /images/graemlins/smile.gif ). which leaaves calling.

[gojacketz]

Three bets before the flop with 5-5? No way you will ever get the correct odds unless you are playing some of the low limit games in California. Three bets with 8 players taking the flop were commonplace when I was there in May. Amazing to see 8 players check the flop with 24 small bets in the pot. I think I was the only player that ever folded before the flop.

If pots are raised and reraised, but there are five or six players still seeing flops, small pairs can be very profitable. I love games like this, though the fluctuations are so big, you need a good bit of bankroll to be safe...

Gojacketz

[SoBeDude]

If the lagtastic game in question ...

I have never heard of the word 'lagtastic', nor is it in the dictionary.

I assume its a typo, but I can't figure out what word you're trying to put in there.

Can ya help a guy out?

-Scott

[JTrout]

I think-
lagtastic- a word invented to describe a poker game. It is a combination of LAG, or loose aggressive game, and fantastic. When used, it means grab a seat, buckle up, check your bankroll, and let the fun begin.

Speck.

[Nottom]

looks about right

[sweetzer]

Mason's analysis makes the most sense here, especially in late position. Bob Ciaffone is very conservative. Interestingly, Bob advises that one problem calling with a small pair is if there is set over set on the flop. Oddly, I was a student of his a few years ago, and lost about 1200 in a pot limit hand calling with 55 in a raised pot and here comes set over set. His simple comment was what are you doing playing that hand in a raised pot?

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
His simple comment was what are you doing playing that hand in a raised pot?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is pretty poor advice. The reason you play is that you hope to take a big chunk of the big hands stack if you hit.

If I could take a small pair against a known big pair in a NL game against an average opponenet (who would forget always had a pair after each hand) all day long, I would likely be a rich man by the end of the day.

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, I called for two more bets earlier this evening from the big blind, for a total of three bets, against three players. Notice that I was getting 10-to-2, which is the same as 5-to-1, before the flop. 3 bets form each of them plus my original blind bet.


[/ QUOTE ]
which pocket pair did you have? btw, would you value 77 much better than 22 in this situation (where you most likely against at least one bigger pocket pair and 4 over cards)?

Kenny

[nykenny]

i have heard Phil's track record in full-ring limit hold'em games isn't perfect. maybe he should just write about no-limit games, which he is considered one of the best?

Kenny

[SoBeDude]

thanks guys, that helps. (and also describest my local game)

-Scott

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Kenny:

I had a pair of fours.

In this spot the difference between a pair of sevens and a pair of deuces is very small. The sevens is a little more likely to make a straight and the sevens has a slightly better chance, but still very small to win unimproved.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi sweetzer:

It's my experience that set over set is so rare in limit hold 'em that you don't even worry about it. Perhaps in pot limit you might give it a small amount of consideration. I don't know for sure.

As for Ciaffone being conservative or not, this isn't a problem of judgement. It's very clear that small pairs in these situations will get enough action those times they flop a set to make them profitable in the long run.

The time to be conservative (or aggressive) is in those spots where you're not sure of the situation. Notice that's a little more likely in a game like pot limit. But it's certainly not the case here in limit hold 'em.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi nottom:

I wasn't going to say it since I virtually never play pot limit, but you did and I agree completely. This is just another example of what I wrote about recently where I stated that many authors (over the years) are way too conservative in their advice.

Best wishes,
Mason

[baggins]

[ QUOTE ]
I think-
lagtastic- a word invented to describe a poker game. It is a combination of LAG, or loose aggressive game, and fantastic. When used, it means grab a seat, buckle up, check your bankroll, and let the fun begin.

Speck.

[/ QUOTE ]

well said. it's a great new word. i hope we see it more on 2+2. though i hope it doesn't get too out of hand... TrAGedy, LPGtastic, etc.

[iceflame]

[ QUOTE ]
As for Ciaffone, what he is saying is better, but there are many situations where it is right to call for two bets with a pair of deuces. If you're getting multiway action and can anticipate action after the flop if you do make a set, and that will almost always be the case, you should play.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mason:

But isn't that precisely what Phil is saying when he describes it as " Those crazy games he loves to play in"?

It seems as if you're agreeing with him provided there's going to be plenty of action multiway after the flop. In other words a REALLY loose/ aggressive game.

i.e; " Crazy. "

If I misunderstood you, apologies in advance.

THX.

[Georgia Peach]

Well, Hellmuth has put his money where his mouth is on several occasions, and come out the winner, or came out with a nice check. I know he's not someone you want to invite to dinner for small talk; but, when it comes to hold'em, I think it can be fairly said he knows something about the game.

I think Phil is rated number 5 right now.


I think his book and theories can be given some credence, even if it does buck the "system". Must be working for him at least.

[Tommy Angelo]

"What am I missing here?"

That the difference in consequence of the choices is near zero.


Tommy

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
The sevens is a little more likely to make a straight and the sevens has a slightly better chance, but still very small to win unimproved.


[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, Mason. I totally agree.

[andyfox]

Maybe for Tommy Angelo.

Most players who cold-call raises or re-raises with pocket pairs would be far, far better off never cold-calling with pocket pairs or with anything.

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Phil is rated number 5 right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Phil is number 5 in the world at straight limit holdem, well, then he is not showing about 99,99% of what he knows in his book.

His straightlimit section is dangerous for beginners (because they cant read the board and cant read the other players, very aggressive play is a sure way to loose when you are new to holdem) and meaningsless for the more skilled players.

[Georgia Peach]

I'm not suggesting that Phil's book is the best written or that it is steeped in theory. Personally, I think Lee Jones did a much better job for the beginner.

But Phil's book, even with all that said, is a good read for the beginner. He suggests they stick to about 10 starting hands and be patient while waiting for them. I know this goes against most of the 2+2 writing teams theory and philosophy, but there is some logic to it.

It's hard enough trying to pay attention to the acts of other players as well as the community cards as well as your starting hand, your position, the type of game, etc.

It's a hard game to learn, so that's why I think Phil's book is good. It gets you in the game, and then while you're waiting for those 10 starting hands, you can read Sklansky.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Peach:

Hellmuth says that a beginner should stick with ten hands, pairs down through sevens, AK, and AQ. But he also says to cap the betting with them. Now if you remove the AQ that's not such terrible advice. But capping with AQ should prove expensive.

However, he has two other chapters on limit hold 'em which contains some real unusual stuff. If I remember right, he always wants you to raise on the flop with a small pair and makes statements like "king-queen offsuit is a hand I don't call three bets with very often." (I may not have the quote exactly right.) So I guess this means that he always calls two bets with them and that should also prove to be quite expensive.

And now for a bit of advice. Even though a book such as Hellmuth's might be an enjoyable read, unless you're already knowledgeable about how to play the game, it doesn't mean that what you are reading is good advice. I think that's what happened in his hold 'em chapters. (While the rest of the book is okay for beginners.)

Best wishes,
Mason

[BruceZ]

For example, I called for two more bets earlier this evening from the big blind, for a total of three bets, against three players. Notice that I was getting 10-to-2, which is the same as 5-to-1, before the flop. 3 bets form each of them plus my original blind bet.

It should be pointed out that 10-2 is not the same as 5-1 from the standpoint of implied odds. The reason you call getting 5-1 is that it is 8-1 against making a set, and you expect to make up 3 small bets after you hit. 10-2 means you must get 6 small bets after you hit to get 16-2. I question this rule of thumb being used in this way. How do you know you will usually get 6 small bets after you hit? You would need two players calling a bet on the flop and turn, or 2 calling on the flop with 1 calling on the turn and river.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
that it is 8-1 against making a set

[/ QUOTE ]

I think conventional wisdom also figures his set will lose some of the time he makes it, so he needs to get paid off more like 10-1 or so to make this profitable. So he will need to get 10 small bets from his opponents after the flop.

OTOH, with the pot size and the aggressiveness of his opponents he's likely to get a raise in somewhere and very likely to go to a showdown.

[AJo Go All In]

someone may have said this already, but when you say "Phil is rated number 5 right now" i assume you are referring to the cardplayer rankings, which of course is based on tournament performance, not in ring games. also it should be said that a good majority of hellmuth's points for that rating system have come from his finishes in games other than limit holdem. so it's pretty clear that his cardplayer ranking is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

[Eric P]

Mason you are taking that KQ offsuite quote out of context. He was simply using that as an example to shy away from calling raised pots with marginal offsuit holdings. Granted KQ is better than most hands but KQo like you said shouldn't be calling too many raised pots from tight players. I agree that some of his writing are a little wacky, but i liked the book, and i think your use of that quote is unfair

[blubster]

Hellmuth is nuts, don't listen to a word he says

blubster

[BruceZ]

I think conventional wisdom also figures his set will lose some of the time he makes it, so he needs to get paid off more like 10-1 or so to make this profitable. So he will need to get 10 small bets from his opponents after the flop.

That's true, and this makes matters even worse when there is a raise. Now he will need to get 10 small bets after the flop in order to get 20-2 or 10-1. This should often be negative EV.

Note that Sklansky says in HEP that 5-1 is sufficient if you don't expect a raise behind you. If there was a single raise, you would be getting at least 12-2, which is better than this case, yet the implication is that this not be called.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bruce:

Except that if there is a raise before the flop, that does encourage additional action after the flop. But it really comes down to the game itself. In many of the games I play in, if it's raised and you are getting 5-to-1 for two bets, it's a profitable call. (This seems to occur a lot at the $30-$60 level. When I play higher, this doesn't happen as much.)

But if you're getting 5-to-1 for three bets, then it almost is never right to play in my experience.

Best wishes,
Mason