The Man Who Played Every Hand

I played in a 30-60 game for 3-1/2 hours today. There was a man in the game who played every hand. Every one. He saw every flop. Didn't matter whether it was 1 bet, 2 bets, 3 bets or 4; he played every hand. I don't think I've ever seen a man play every hand before. Close, sometimes, but never every one.


Made for an interesting game. He was two seats to my left. It took a lot of the value off of my button raises because he would never fold and, the small blind, realizing this, would play more hands too. It made for a lot of family pots as you knew if you limped he would limp too.


I had a big day, but only indirectly because of him. Oh yeah, I won a fair share of smallish/medium pots from him. But I won two monster pots because of him, even though he was not involved after the flop. One hand everyone limped: 9 of us saw the flop, which was x-y-2 and I had pocket deuces in the sb. The other time I had pocket Aces and there were tons of limpers in front of me and Mr. Every Hand 3-bet pre-flop and I capped and I caught an Ace on the flop and filled up on the turn and a flush card came on the river. Everyone limping created more players and more incentive for players to go further with hands when they might otherwise know better.


He lost 2-1/2 racks. He wasn't drunk, but he was pretty hyper (drugs?). He left at 4:30 and I did too. No reason to stay.

Sounds like someone I know!!Read below!!


About two Tuesdays a month, I host a dealer's choice game at home; when holdem is chosen, it's

25c ante, five or six-handed, with max bets of 50c.


One of the other players in this game insists

that because of the structure, he should see the flop with any two cards.I should mention that the

rest of the players, other than myself, tend to see most flops, even calling for double bets with, e.g., the classic trash hand of 7-2 offsuit.

I don't agree.


What are your thoughts, O wise posters?


perfidious

Andy -


How could he have possibly lost since he gave himself the greatest possible opportunity to win?


Josh

He gave himself the greatest possible opportunity to win the maximum number of pots. But winning the most pots is not how you make a profit playing poker. You need to make the most money in the pots you win and lose the least money in the pots you don't win. By playing every hand he was not minimizing his losses, and thus was negating any wins.

Hmm... playing every hand....


Kinda sounds like GummyWorm, except he prefers to raise it up, or 'nudge it northbound', so that not only does he maximize the number of chances to win pots, he maximizes the pot size.

i suspect that he might think he plays well after the flop and he is trusting to luck that he has a fair flop


if he takes the flop on anything, and the flop gives him at least a pair, then he may believe that he is favourite from that stage


for example, i calculate that if he has 72o and he flops 2xx then he would win 31% of hands against three players playing random hands to the end (they would win only 23% of hands each)


strangely, if there are some big cards in the random hands, his win rate goes up


for example, with 7h2d versus AcX, KsX, and QdX, and a 2hXX flop, he wins 35% of hands played to the end ( v 25%, 21%, and 19%, respectively )


in other words, i think his strategy might almost definitely work in a consistently passive game, as long as he folded without pairing on the flop, or maybe receiving good flush or straight draws


e&oe

for me to quit joking around here. I mean, given the recent Sooga/Gummyworm Thread on the midlimits forum, and the responses by JV, then follow that up with this post, it is becoming abundandly clear that either:


1.) You guys just can't tell when I'm joking


or


2.) I just can't tell when you guys are joking.


I'll try to eliminate (1), so it will have to be (2) from here on out.


Sorry Andy, you'll no longer be seeing such insightful comments as "you pee your pants" in my posts.


Oh yeah, the above is another joke.


Josh

we know where you're at gummy, you're just running bad right now...hunker down... you'll be fine...

SOME of us got it. others like jake up there, got it so well, they threw it back at you. gotta love it.

"for example, i calculate that if he has 72o and he flops 2xx then he would win 31% of hands against three players playing random hands to the end (they would win only 23% of hands each)"


Could you show this calculation please? Since any given player has about a 30% chance of flopping a pair, and any pair is going to beat dueces, how could a pair of deuces possibly win anywhere near 31% of the hands? When you say randmon hands, do you mean random hands that didn't pair or better on the flop?


"in other words, i think his strategy might almost definitely work in a consistently passive game, as long as he folded without pairing on the flop, or maybe receiving good flush or straight draws"


Following this strategy would lose a ton of money, as you're a big dog even if you pair. Only with a miracle flop of 2 or more 7's or 2's could 72o be a favorite after the flop.

I appreciated the humor in your comments, as I'm sure many did.


Of course, we all know that the actual best strategy is to fold every single hand, because then you can never lose.

I'm sorry - as usual, I have not explained myself very well.


"... Since any given player has about a 30% chance of flopping a pair ..."


You seem to have omitted the crucial fact that the other players have, effectively, only a two card flop to work with when I pair on the flop.


" ... When you say random hands, do you mean random hands that didn't pair or better on the flop? ..."


No. I mean randomly dealt hands - with no input from the player. Deal the 72o to me, give us a flop of 2xx, and deal random hands to another three players. If we all put $10 into the pot and deal the turn and river cards without further betting, then I will take that bet until the cows come home, without a shadow of doubt.


For your interest, I will end up with about twice as many two pairs and trips and about four times as many full houses as any one of them.


However, I would repeat that a real game would have to be passive to use this strategy, as it might be "difficult", to say the least, to call some heavy bets leading up to a final one-on-one with a board of 299JQ, even though you are favourite to win with your two pairs against one random hand.

I can top that story. 20-40 game circa 1996. Dude walks in and plays very hand to the river blind. He never raised. He just called all bets and raises. The Casino at that time only operated between 6 pm and 2 am. We had the same 10 players in the game for the whole 8 hour session. The Maverick lost more than 5k.

Sorry to take so long to get back to this. Work got in the way (hate it when that happens).


I actually unstated by quite a bit the chances of someone having a pair because I didn't take into account the probability of someone being dealt a pair. I come up with the total probability of someone having a pair by the flop, given that you deal yourself a 7,2 and the flop has a 2, to be about 40%.


Here's the calculation:


1) First card is a 2: 2/49

2) First card is a 7

a) Second card pairs: 3/49 * 2/48

b) Second card is a 2: 3/49 * 2/48

c) Second card neither 7 nor 2: 3/49 * 44/48 * (1-43/47*42/46)

3) First card neither 2 nor 7:

a) Second card 2: 44/49 * 2/48

b) Second card pairs: 44/49 * 3/48

c) Second card 7: 44/49 * 3/48 (1-42/47*41/46)

d) Second card neither pairs, 2 or 7: 44/49 * 40/48 (1-41/47*40/46)


Summing up the parts gives just a smidge less than 40% (hopefully no typos or other goofs here).


So 1 person would be a bit of a dog, but 3 would certainly collectively be a big favorite. Better slow down on that betting!

"He left at 4:30 and I did too. No reason to stay."


you shouldve stayed: i showed up a few hours later.