Quick Question

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

In the $80-$160 game at The Bellagio an interesting situation frequently occurs.

It's a time game where every 30 minutes $8 per person is collected from the pot. Since the game is full at nine handed, as much as $72 will be collected. However, the money is only taken from the pot if there is a flop.

In other words, if someone raises and no one calls, that person gets both the small and big blinds and the time is not taken. Instead, the next pot becomes the time pot, but again there must be a flop for the time to come out.

Now what frequently happens is that if you're the first in raiser in a time pot, your chances of winning the blinds go up because people are less likely to call since they are aware that the pot is approximately 2 small bets smaller. However, even though you are more likely to win this pot before the flop with a raise, it is much smaller if someone does play against you.

So the question is: Should you be more inclined to raise first in in a time pot or less inclined?

I have my opinion on this, and will get back a little later with it.

Best wishes,
mason

[Huh]

If the game is this tough (there are enough player's thinking about the implication of a time pot rake that it's not always taken the first or second time), then I think I am getting up and switching tables.

Anyhow, if I had a gun to my head and was forced into the situation, I think it would be a direct function of the chance you have of stealing the blinds and the hand you hold and the type of hands that would play back at you.

It sounds like you are talking about a situation where only a prem. hand is going to play with you for a pot that has an enormous(for a heads up hand) tax. If you can guarantee that only AA,KK,QQ,AK,AQ,KQ will play with you you will steal the blinds two times, and be forced to play one. Stealing the blinds has a profit $240, while it will cost you $160 + a possible $80 if you are re-raised, if someone has one of these hands. Therefore making it profitable to raise any hand, and folding to anyone who plays back at you unless you have a great holding. I know this is an ideal situation, but I think it represents what I mean when I say it's a function of your ability to steal the blinds and the hands that will play back at you.


-Huh

[Garland]

Interesting post since I've never played in a time game before, which is typical of higher limit games. I suppose since people are less inclined to call because the pot will be smaller, I'd be more inclined to raise, and raise even on lesser valued hands. But like all things, it depends on the situation. If people are aware of what I'm trying to do and react accordingly (via revealed hand on time pot games), I'll be *less* inclined to raise.

I'd be interested to hear your take on this.

Garland

[MMMMMM]

Hi Mason,

First off, two things seem intuitively obvious: that one must tighten up a lot in early position in a time pot, and that raising from the cutoff or button should have a better chance of stealing the blinds (assuming the blinds are decent players--if they are very loose players or are newbies, trying to steal would probably be terrible;-)).

The more difficult aspect of the question seems to be whether one should open-limp or open-raise when in early or middle position (if one is going to play). Of course, I can't think of too many hands I would like to play from early position in a time pot;-)

By raising a premium hand early, you make it more likely that you will win uncontested, but if you do get played with, you may find yourself wishing that you had instead called in order to encourage others to enter the time pot (odds). If the table is loose I would not be as inclined to raise early position.

All in all, my feeling is to tend to tighten up overall, and to raise less early position. Since you will be tightening up overall, and since raising from steal position against decent players should have a better than usual chance of success, perhaps those two factors approximately cancel each other out--meaning it might be right to play about the same as normally from the cutoff and button if you are against decent players. However in this case I would still alter my stealing frequency in accordance with how I perceived the blinds' proclivity to defend.

By the way, I usually prefer to pay my own time (except at a very loose table) in order to avoid having to deal with just such considerations, and because I don't like to feel that I should be folding far more often than usual, thereby depriving me of some chances to outplay certain players. I am interested in your take on the whole thing, and whether you generally prefer time pots or to pay your own time.

One advantage I see in paying one's own time is that many other players will be altering their play due to the time pot and it may be possible to take advantage of this. For instance, if you pay your own time while everyone else does a time pot, you may be able to steal more liberally but without the accompanying penalty.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Huh:

[ QUOTE ]
If the game is this tough (there are enough player's thinking about the implication of a time pot rake that it's not always taken the first or second time), then I think I am getting up and switching tables.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can't. All games at these limits are must move. By the way, I think that must move games are very bad for cardrooms except for a short period of time after a game has first started. But that's an issue for another thread.

Best wishes,
Mason

[slavic]

You can't. All games at these limits are must move. By the way, I think that must move games are very bad for cardrooms except for a short period of time after a game has first started. But that's an issue for another thread.

I agree. Why not start that thread?

[cero_z]

Hi Mason,
I think this is really dependent on how tightly people play when choosing whether to defend. What hands will the typical player now throw away in the BB that he would've played on with if it wasn't a time pot?
Also, does the cardroom enforce this time pot, or do the players? In Atlantic City, the players must unanimously agree to play time pots, as opposed to just paying 8 bucks per down, or whatever. But, they usually break it down into three raked pots. For example, in the 20-40 full game, the time collection will be $70/ half hour (7 bucks a player). The players may choose how the house gets that 70. The typical arrangement is that the first 3 pots which are over 200 bucks are taxed to the tune of $24, $23, and $23. Then, the good players play ultra-tight for a few hands (usually 3), and the loose players pay the time, and nobody seems to mind. But, the house has nothing to do with this; one player must even volunteer to pay the $70 up front for the table, and the "rake" from the time pots is then paid to him. This method does point to a pretty obvious tactical adjustment (play tighter for a short time), which could be better or worse than your situation, depending on how savvy your opponents are.

[cero_z]

...I'd intuitively say be less inclined, as there should usually be some poor players in the game who are calling more liberally than you'd expect anyway. So, the risk of going to a flop is now greater, and a whole small bet is not made up for by the fact that you may isolate a weak player.

[James282]

You should raise if you have a playable hand, because of the increased chances of picking up the blinds and because you are relatively unlikely to get a playable hand in the following hand where time will be collected if you win this hand uncontested. This way, you increase your chances of winning the blinds while very likely not having to sacrifice anything on the next hand. Granted, this depends on table texture, your position, etc, but if you are likely to steal the blinds you might as well. You will unlikely regain the equity you lose by giving up your chance to steal the blinds by open-limping and allowing others into the pot.
-James

[largos]

You should never be inclined to raise a pot first in if you don`t have a big hand , especially if you know that if there is action some of the pot will be taken from you.

[Piers]

Hmm... I think I would tend to play more pairs but tighten up on other hands.

[SoBeDude]

Please start this thread. I've no opinion of my own on the subject, but I'd love to hear the agruments.

-Scott

[Boris]

IME, you should be more inclined to open raise in early and mid position. Not only is there a greater chance of winning the blinds, it is also easier to win with a bet on the flop.

I do not make any changes in the cut-off and button positions because my open raising standards are already pretty low.

[MMMMMM]

Actually, I think steal frequency in time pots should probably be reduced somewhat even if the blinds are decent players (assuming you too are part of the "time pot" and didn't pay your own time).

[drewjustdrew]

I don't really understand why the time is taken based on a particular hand, but anyway, here is my thought. The time payment should not make a difference if all players are considering it. If you raise, I consider it more likely that you are trying to take advantage of the situation and may not have that good of a hand. This is similar to a kill pot game. I see all the time where the first player in makes a raise because the blinds are relatively small and he has a shot at getting heads up, or stealing the kill-post. Raising frequency is higher in these situations for just that reason. Raising frequency should be higher in your game for the same reason.

Of course, I would have to consider my opponents. If they are oblivious to this situation, I would have to tighten up substantially to overcome the rake.

Why do they take the time out of a pot? Or am I not reading the situation correctly.

[Boris]

What qualifies as a big hand?

[mr_jmac]

Hey,

One way to think about your question is to compare your situation with a similar situation in a raked game.

For example, a $5/$10 HE game with a 10% rake up to $4. The maximum rake is almost a small bet (actually 80%). If you raise and there is no flop then there is no rake and you win both blinds.

In your situation the time charge with 8 players at the table is also 80% of a small bet. If you raise and there is no flop, the time charge is not taken and you win the blinds.

In the raked game if you are called there will be at least $25 in the pot if there is no further action. Let's assume the maximum rake will be taken. So, we actually have identical situations.

So, your question is practically identical to a question I have been curious about for quite some time: "In a raked game, should you be less inclined to bring it in for a raise where the outcome is i) winning the blinds and no rake taken or ii) playing a probable headsup pot with a rake?"

I would like to hear others opinions on this because I have been very curious about this for quite some time. The majority of pots played in my $5/$10 raked game are multiway in which the rake percentage is lower than 10%. However, when I find myself on the button looking down at KQs or ATo I wonder is it even worth it to play the hand because of the rake ( as opposed to a rake free game where I definitely raise and play the hand).

Later,
JM



[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

In the $80-$160 game at The Bellagio an interesting situation frequently occurs.

It's a time game where every 30 minutes $8 per person is collected from the pot. Since the game is full at nine handed, as much as $72 will be collected. However, the money is only taken from the pot if there is a flop.

In other words, if someone raises and no one calls, that person gets both the small and big blinds and the time is not taken. Instead, the next pot becomes the time pot, but again there must be a flop for the time to come out.

Now what frequently happens is that if you're the first in raiser in a time pot, your chances of winning the blinds go up because people are less likely to call since they are aware that the pot is approximately 2 small bets smaller. However, even though you are more likely to win this pot before the flop with a raise, it is much smaller if someone does play against you.

So the question is: Should you be more inclined to raise first in in a time pot or less inclined?

I have my opinion on this, and will get back a little later with it.

Best wishes,
mason

[/ QUOTE ]

[Vehn]

I have no idea either other than I suspect you should greatly tighten up in early/middle positions when opening and also when limping behind limpers to a lessor degree. Maybe you should raise more in the cutoff or button, dunno.

Anyways I would certainly would like to see a thread about must move games. The mid limit games at my card barn are on permanant must move when another one gets going, and right now I'm not sure whether or not its a good thing. Certainly in general the main game is usually not much tougher (but it is a bit) than the must move.

[AceHigh]

I think more inclined to raise first in, people will be less likely to call raises, even the blinds.

[slavic]

Certainly in general the main game is usually not much tougher (but it is a bit) than the must move.

Yes this would be one of my points.

The other point would be that the fish aren't as likely to make it to the main game when your stuck in it.

[Vehn]

wtf is a "stuck"?

[JayKon]

"stuck" means you are loosing. Something that happens from time to time.

[Vehn]

Loosing? Do you mean playing more hands because many poor players have entered the pot? I understand completely. Thanks for the head's up.

[JayKon]

Yea, yea, one post without the spell checker and I do that. Sigh.

Still, it almost fits the way you defined it.

Jay

[J_V]

Vehn's got an uncatchable lead for the jackass of the year race and we're not even out of January. Keep em coming.

[JayKon]

It's OK, I don't mind. Besides, I should have followed the thread better before posting.

[trillig]

I'd be even more tempted to fold on that one, if not SB/BB, and not even look at my cards. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

-t

[MMMMMM]

Vehn: "Loosing? Do you mean playing more hands because many poor players have entered the pot? I understand completely. Thanks for the head's up."

"head's up"? Do you mean the top side of one's head? Now I understand completely. Thanks for the "heads up." /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[J_V]

Oh, i don't mind either. Nothing ruins a good thread like a little civility. He pounced on your innocuous mistake like any good poster would.

[Vehn]

The 2+2 Forums
Before using this Forum, please refer to the Terms and Conditions (Last modified: 9/10/2000)
Important! You must be registered to post on the forums
Registration is not required to read the forums.


The server problems have been corrected. Thank you for your patience.

UBB.threads ™ Infopop Corporation.


Main Index | Search | My Home | Who's Online | FAQ | Logout | User List | Mark all read


Texas Hold'em >> Mid- and High-Stakes Hold'em Previous Index Next Flat Threaded




Pages: 1
glen
enthusiast



Reged: 11/14/02
Posts: 325
Loc: Massachusetts/Michigan
100-200 stars KJs. . .
#486181 - 01/19/04 09:46 PM Edit Reply Quote



So I jumped into the 100-200 because it looked pretty good. 2 other 2+2ers were in the game. As a result of two weak-loose players, there have been a few multiway pots (5-7 handed) unraised, but also a fair amount of coldcalling - not the more common fold or 3 bet that is more characteristic of the 30 games.) In any case, say you are utg+1. UTG, who is a good player, limps, and you have KJs. Who calls and who raises and does it really make a difference?

Post Extras:
TTT
member



Reged: 01/19/03
Posts: 125

Re: 100-200 stars KJs. . . [Re: glen]
#486300 - 01/20/04 12:04 AM Edit Reply Quote



I fold, and it makes a huge difference.

Post Extras:
Glenn
addict



Reged: 09/01/02
Posts: 676
Loc: New Jersey
Re: 100-200 stars KJs. . . [Re: TTT]
#486321 - 01/20/04 12:32 AM Edit Reply Quote



If you don't play this hand, you might as well just drop your antes off at the door and go do something else for a few hours.

--------------------
- - -
I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than you.

Post Extras:
TTT
member



Reged: 01/19/03
Posts: 125

Re: 100-200 stars KJs. . . [Re: Glenn]
#486356 - 01/20/04 01:05 AM Edit Reply Quote




Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UTG, who is a good player, limps


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Despite your dismissive and oh-so-clever response, I'll post a useful reply.

How many hands could he be limping with that have you dominated, and how many hands could he be limping with that you have dominated (or would be at least decently matched up against)?

How often is it when you have five more people to act behind you that you're going to wish you didn't limp when it gets all the way around?

Add up these two factors, and I think folding is best. Especially against a good 100/200 player.

Post Extras:
glen
enthusiast



Reged: 11/14/02
Posts: 325
Loc: Massachusetts/Michigan
Re: 100-200 stars KJs. . . [Re: TTT]
#486423 - 01/20/04 02:17 AM Edit Reply Quote



"How many hands could he be limping with that have you dominated, and how many hands could he be limping with that you have dominated (or would be at least decently matched up against)?"


What kind of hands would you think a good player would limp with in this kind of game that dominate me?

Also, I think we should distinguish good poker player from good "100-200" player, since a lot of middle limit players play better than some of the 1-2 crowd. Sure, a lot of them are solid, but some couldn't beat a 10-20 game, imo. Most of the players are 30-60 regulars who play 1-2 when it goes. . .


Post Extras:
Gabe
addict



Reged: 09/02/02
Posts: 419

Re: 100-200 stars KJs. . . [Re: glen]
#486459 - 01/20/04 03:49 AM Edit Reply Quote



I think calling is best here. The rest of the hand will usually be much easier to play.

Post Extras:
SoBeDude
old hand



Reged: 01/10/03
Posts: 1125

Re: 100-200 stars KJs. . . [Re: glen]
#486526 - 01/20/04 06:52 AM Edit Reply Quote



I'd raise.

Post Extras:
Ed Miller (majorkong)
Carpal \'Tunnel



Reged: 09/02/02
Posts: 3719
Loc: Bellagio 15-30
Re: 100-200 stars KJs. . . [Re: glen]
#486545 - 01/20/04 07:25 AM Edit Reply Quote



You can't answer this question without knowing what the players in the blinds play like. Are they tight? Do they play poorly after the flop? etc.

Post Extras:
Pages: 1


Previous Index Next Flat Threaded






Extra information
5 registered and 0 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator: Mat Sklansky

Favorite Thread! (toggle)
Print Thread

Permissions
You can start new topics
You can reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Thread views: 249


Rate this thread 1 star 2 star 3 star 4 star 5 star Jump to *Poker* ----- Poker Theory Pot- and No-Limit Poker Stud Other Poker Games Heads-up and Short-Handed Tournaments Home Poker*Texas Hold'em* ----- Texas Hold'em Small Stakes Hold'em Mid- and High-Stakes Hold'em Micro-Limits*General Gambling* ----- Probability Psychology Brick and Mortar Internet Gambling News, Views, and Gossip The Stock Market Other Gambling Games Beginners Questions Books and Software*Other Topics* ----- Other Topics


Contact Us | Privacy statement 2+2 Publishing





UBB.threads™ 6.3.1

Generated in 0.464 seconds in which 0.21 seconds were spent on a total of 15 queries. Zlib compression disabled.










The 2+2 Forums
Before using this Forum, please refer to the Terms and Conditions (Last modified: 9/10/2000)
Important! You must be registered to post on the forums
Registration is not required to read the forums.


The server problems have been corrected. Thank you for your patience.

UBB.threads ™ Infopop Corporation.


Main Index | Search | My Home | Who's Online | FAQ | Logout | User List | Mark all read


Texas Hold'em >> Mid- and High-Stakes Hold'em Previous Index Next Flat Threaded




Pages: 1
Mason Malmuth
Grand Poobah



Reged: 08/28/02
Posts: 1595
Loc: Nevada
Quick Question
#484754 - 01/18/04 11:19 PM Edit Reply Quote



Hi Everyone:

In the $80-$160 game at The Bellagio an interesting situation frequently occurs.

It's a time game where every 30 minutes $8 per person is collected from the pot. Since the game is full at nine handed, as much as $72 will be collected. However, the money is only taken from the pot if there is a flop.

In other words, if someone raises and no one calls, that person gets both the small and big blinds and the time is not taken. Instead, the next pot becomes the time pot, but again there must be a flop for the time to come out.

Now what frequently happens is that if you're the first in raiser in a time pot, your chances of winning the blinds go up because people are less likely to call since they are aware that the pot is approximately 2 small bets smaller. However, even though you are more likely to win this pot before the flop with a raise, it is much smaller if someone does play against you.

So the question is: Should you be more inclined to raise first in in a time pot or less inclined?

I have my opinion on this, and will get back a little later with it.

Best wishes,
mason

Post Extras:
Huh
enthusiast



Reged: 12/01/02
Posts: 372

Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth]
#484790 - 01/18/04 11:54 PM Edit Reply Quote



If the game is this tough (there are enough player's thinking about the implication of a time pot rake that it's not always taken the first or second time), then I think I am getting up and switching tables.

Anyhow, if I had a gun to my head and was forced into the situation, I think it would be a direct function of the chance you have of stealing the blinds and the hand you hold and the type of hands that would play back at you.

It sounds like you are talking about a situation where only a prem. hand is going to play with you for a pot that has an enormous(for a heads up hand) tax. If you can guarantee that only AA,KK,QQ,AK,AQ,KQ will play with you you will steal the blinds two times, and be forced to play one. Stealing the blinds has a profit $240, while it will cost you $160 + a possible $80 if you are re-raised, if someone has one of these hands. Therefore making it profitable to raise any hand, and folding to anyone who plays back at you unless you have a great holding. I know this is an ideal situation, but I think it represents what I mean when I say it's a function of your ability to steal the blinds and the hands that will play back at you.


-Huh


--------------------
"Life is like a bad margarita with good tequila, I thought as I poured whiskey on my granola and faced a new day"

Post Extras:
Garland
journeyman



Reged: 12/08/03
Posts: 63
Loc: San Francisco, CA
Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth]
#484797 - 01/19/04 12:01 AM Edit Reply Quote



Interesting post since I've never played in a time game before, which is typical of higher limit games. I suppose since people are less inclined to call because the pot will be smaller, I'd be more inclined to raise, and raise even on lesser valued hands. But like all things, it depends on the situation. If people are aware of what I'm trying to do and react accordingly (via revealed hand on time pot games), I'll be *less* inclined to raise.

I'd be interested to hear your take on this.

Garland

Post Extras:
MMMMMM
Carpal \'Tunnel



Reged: 09/03/02
Posts: 3277

Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth]
#484808 - 01/19/04 12:12 AM Edit Reply Quote



Hi Mason,

First off, two things seem intuitively obvious: that one must tighten up a lot in early position in a time pot, and that raising from the cutoff or button should have a better chance of stealing the blinds (assuming the blinds are decent players--if they are very loose players or are newbies, trying to steal would probably be terrible;-)).

The more difficult aspect of the question seems to be whether one should open-limp or open-raise when in early or middle position (if one is going to play). Of course, I can't think of too many hands I would like to play from early position in a time pot;-)

By raising a premium hand early, you make it more likely that you will win uncontested, but if you do get played with, you may find yourself wishing that you had instead called in order to encourage others to enter the time pot (odds). If the table is loose I would not be as inclined to raise early position.

All in all, my feeling is to tend to tighten up overall, and to raise less early position. Since you will be tightening up overall, and since raising from steal position against decent players should have a better than usual chance of success, perhaps those two factors approximately cancel each other out--meaning it might be right to play about the same as normally from the cutoff and button if you are against decent players. However in this case I would still alter my stealing frequency in accordance with how I perceived the blinds' proclivity to defend.

By the way, I usually prefer to pay my own time (except at a very loose table) in order to avoid having to deal with just such considerations, and because I don't like to feel that I should be folding far more often than usual, thereby depriving me of some chances to outplay certain players. I am interested in your take on the whole thing, and whether you generally prefer time pots or to pay your own time.

One advantage I see in paying one's own time is that many other players will be altering their play due to the time pot and it may be possible to take advantage of this. For instance, if you pay your own time while everyone else does a time pot, you may be able to steal more liberally but without the accompanying penalty.

Post Extras:
Mason Malmuth
Grand Poobah



Reged: 08/28/02
Posts: 1595
Loc: Nevada
Re: Quick Question [Re: Huh]
#484827 - 01/19/04 12:29 AM Edit Reply Quote



Hi Huh:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the game is this tough (there are enough player's thinking about the implication of a time pot rake that it's not always taken the first or second time), then I think I am getting up and switching tables.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You can't. All games at these limits are must move. By the way, I think that must move games are very bad for cardrooms except for a short period of time after a game has first started. But that's an issue for another thread.

Best wishes,
Mason

Post Extras:
slavic
veteran



Reged: 05/06/03
Posts: 1342
Loc: Seattle
Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth]
#484848 - 01/19/04 12:41 AM Edit Reply Quote



You can't. All games at these limits are must move. By the way, I think that must move games are very bad for cardrooms except for a short period of time after a game has first started. But that's an issue for another thread.

I agree. Why not start that thread?

--------------------
-slavic

"Let me make it nearly unanimous -- misplayed on every street."

Post Extras:
cero_z
enthusiast



Reged: 09/27/02
Posts: 290

Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth]
#484892 - 01/19/04 01:27 AM Edit Reply Quote



Hi Mason,
I think this is really dependent on how tightly people play when choosing whether to defend. What hands will the typical player now throw away in the BB that he would've played on with if it wasn't a time pot?
Also, does the cardroom enforce this time pot, or do the players? In Atlantic City, the players must unanimously agree to play time pots, as opposed to just paying 8 bucks per down, or whatever. But, they usually break it down into three raked pots. For example, in the 20-40 full game, the time collection will be $70/ half hour (7 bucks a player). The players may choose how the house gets that 70. The typical arrangement is that the first 3 pots which are over 200 bucks are taxed to the tune of $24, $23, and $23. Then, the good players play ultra-tight for a few hands (usually 3), and the loose players pay the time, and nobody seems to mind. But, the house has nothing to do with this; one player must even volunteer to pay the $70 up front for the table, and the "rake" from the time pots is then paid to him. This method does point to a pretty obvious tactical adjustment (play tighter for a short time), which could be better or worse than your situation, depending on how savvy your opponents are.

Post Extras:
cero_z
enthusiast



Reged: 09/27/02
Posts: 290

But since I dodged the question... [Re: Mason Malmuth]
#484897 - 01/19/04 01:30 AM Edit Reply Quote



...I'd intuitively say be less inclined, as there should usually be some poor players in the game who are calling more liberally than you'd expect anyway. So, the risk of going to a flop is now greater, and a whole small bet is not made up for by the fact that you may isolate a weak player.

Post Extras:
James282
enthusiast



Reged: 09/16/03
Posts: 279

Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth]
#485052 - 01/19/04 07:21 AM Edit Reply Quote



You should raise if you have a playable hand, because of the increased chances of picking up the blinds and because you are relatively unlikely to get a playable hand in the following hand where time will be collected if you win this hand uncontested. This way, you increase your chances of winning the blinds while very likely not having to sacrifice anything on the next hand. Granted, this depends on table texture, your position, etc, but if you are likely to steal the blinds you might as well. You will unlikely regain the equity you lose by giving up your chance to steal the blinds by open-limping and allowing others into the pot.
-James

--------------------
I thought that if I proved that doing X was wrong in a certain situation, people would stop doing X. I was wrong.
-Bill James

Post Extras:
largos
stranger



Reged: 10/26/03
Posts: 9
Loc: Stockholm
Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth]
#485075 - 01/19/04 07:56 AM Edit Reply Quote



You should never be inclined to raise a pot first in if you don`t have a big hand , especially if you know that if there is action some of the pot will be taken from you.




Post Extras:
Piers
member



Reged: 09/02/02
Posts: 161

Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth]
#485092 - 01/19/04 08:26 AM Edit Reply Quote



Hmm... I think I would tend to play more pairs but tighten up on other hands.



Post Extras:
SoBeDude
old hand



Reged: 01/10/03
Posts: 1125

Re: Quick Question [Re: slavic]
#485364 - 01/19/04 11:59 AM Edit Reply Quote



Please start this thread. I've no opinion of my own on the subject, but I'd love to hear the agruments.

-Scott

Post Extras:
Boris
old hand



Reged: 09/03/02
Posts: 729
Loc: Palo Alto
Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth]
#485731 - 01/19/04 04:25 PM Edit Reply Quote



IME, you should be more inclined to open raise in early and mid position. Not only is there a greater chance of winning the blinds, it is also easier to win with a bet on the flop.

I do not make any changes in the cut-off and button positions because my open raising standards are already pretty low.

Post Extras:
MMMMMM
Carpal \'Tunnel



Reged: 09/03/02
Posts: 3277

Re: Quick Question [Re: MMMMMM]
#485732 - 01/19/04 04:26 PM Edit Reply Quote



Actually, I think steal frequency in time pots should probably be reduced somewhat even if the blinds are decent players (assuming you too are part of the "time pot" and didn't pay your own time).

Post Extras:
drewjustdrew
member



Reged: 09/16/02
Posts: 171
Loc: Chicago
Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth]
#485770 - 01/19/04 04:52 PM Edit Reply Quote



I don't really understand why the time is taken based on a particular hand, but anyway, here is my thought. The time payment should not make a difference if all players are considering it. If you raise, I consider it more likely that you are trying to take advantage of the situation and may not have that good of a hand. This is similar to a kill pot game. I see all the time where the first player in makes a raise because the blinds are relatively small and he has a shot at getting heads up, or stealing the kill-post. Raising frequency is higher in these situations for just that reason. Raising frequency should be higher in your game for the same reason.

Of course, I would have to consider my opponents. If they are oblivious to this situation, I would have to tighten up substantially to overcome the rake.

Why do they take the time out of a pot? Or am I not reading the situation correctly.

Post Extras:
Boris
old hand



Reged: 09/03/02
Posts: 729
Loc: Palo Alto
Re: Quick Question [Re: largos]
#485859 - 01/19/04 05:47 PM Edit Reply Quote



What qualifies as a big hand?

Post Extras:
mr_jmac
newbie



Reged: 02/11/03
Posts: 40
Loc: Sudbury, Ontario Canada
Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth]
#486034 - 01/19/04 07:52 PM Edit Reply Quote



Hey,

One way to think about your question is to compare your situation with a similar situation in a raked game.

For example, a $5/$10 HE game with a 10% rake up to $4. The maximum rake is almost a small bet (actually 80%). If you raise and there is no flop then there is no rake and you win both blinds.

In your situation the time charge with 8 players at the table is also 80% of a small bet. If you raise and there is no flop, the time charge is not taken and you win the blinds.

In the raked game if you are called there will be at least $25 in the pot if there is no further action. Let's assume the maximum rake will be taken. So, we actually have identical situations.

So, your question is practically identical to a question I have been curious about for quite some time: "In a raked game, should you be less inclined to bring it in for a raise where the outcome is i) winning the blinds and no rake taken or ii) playing a probable headsup pot with a rake?"

I would like to hear others opinions on this because I have been very curious about this for quite some time. The majority of pots played in my $5/$10 raked game are multiway in which the rake percentage is lower than 10%. However, when I find myself on the button looking down at KQs or ATo I wonder is it even worth it to play the hand because of the rake ( as opposed to a rake free game where I definitely raise and play the hand).

Later,
JM




Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Everyone:

In the $80-$160 game at The Bellagio an interesting situation frequently occurs.

It's a time game where every 30 minutes $8 per person is collected from the pot. Since the game is full at nine handed, as much as $72 will be collected. However, the money is only taken from the pot if there is a flop.

In other words, if someone raises and no one calls, that person gets both the small and big blinds and the time is not taken. Instead, the next pot becomes the time pot, but again there must be a flop for the time to come out.

Now what frequently happens is that if you're the first in raiser in a time pot, your chances of winning the blinds go up because people are less likely to call since they are aware that the pot is approximately 2 small bets smaller. However, even though you are more likely to win this pot before the flop with a raise, it is much smaller if someone does play against you.

So the question is: Should you be more inclined to raise first in in a time pot or less inclined?

I have my opinion on this, and will get back a little later with it.

Best wishes,
mason


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Post Extras:
Vehn
Pooh-Bah



Reged: 09/02/02
Posts: 2061
Loc: Minneapolis, MN
Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth]
#486040 - 01/19/04 07:59 PM Edit Reply Quote



I have no idea either other than I suspect you should greatly tighten up in early/middle positions when opening and also when limping behind limpers to a lessor degree. Maybe you should raise more in the cutoff or button, dunno.

Anyways I would certainly would like to see a thread about must move games. The mid limit games at my card barn are on permanant must move when another one gets going, and right now I'm not sure whether or not its a good thing. Certainly in general the main game is usually not much tougher (but it is a bit) than the must move.

--------------------
Some times I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.

Post Extras:
AceHigh
old hand



Reged: 09/02/02
Posts: 920
Loc: Pennsylvania
Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth]
#486055 - 01/19/04 08:17 PM Edit Reply Quote



I think more inclined to raise first in, people will be less likely to call raises, even the blinds.

Post Extras:
slavic
veteran



Reged: 05/06/03
Posts: 1342
Loc: Seattle
Re: Quick Question [Re: Vehn]
#486249 - 01/19/04 10:51 PM Edit Reply Quote



Certainly in general the main game is usually not much tougher (but it is a bit) than the must move.

Yes this would be one of my points.

The other point would be that the fish aren't as likely to make it to the main game when your stuck in it.

--------------------
-slavic

"Let me make it nearly unanimous -- misplayed on every street."

Post Extras:
Vehn
Pooh-Bah



Reged: 09/02/02
Posts: 2061
Loc: Minneapolis, MN
Re: Quick Question [Re: slavic]
#486276 - 01/19/04 11:35 PM Edit Reply Quote



wtf is a "stuck"?

--------------------
Some times I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.

Post Extras:
JayKon
member



Reged: 01/27/03
Posts: 185

Re: Quick Question [Re: Vehn]
#486284 - 01/19/04 11:40 PM Edit Reply Quote



"stuck" means you are loosing. Something that happens from time to time.

Post Extras:
Vehn
Pooh-Bah



Reged: 09/02/02
Posts: 2061
Loc: Minneapolis, MN
Re: Quick Question [Re: JayKon]
#486286 - 01/19/04 11:40 PM Edit Reply Quote



Loosing? Do you mean playing more hands because many poor players have entered the pot? I understand completely. Thanks for the head's up.

--------------------
Some times I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.

Post Extras:
JayKon
member



Reged: 01/27/03
Posts: 185

Re: Quick Question [Re: Vehn]
#486324 - 01/20/04 12:35 AM Edit Reply Quote



Yea, yea, one post without the spell checker and I do that. Sigh.

Still, it almost fits the way you defined it.

Jay

Post Extras:
J_V
old hand



Reged: 09/06/02
Posts: 908

Re: Quick Question [Re: JayKon]
#486331 - 01/20/04 12:38 AM Edit Reply Quote



Vehn's got an uncatchable lead for the jackass of the year race and we're not even out of January. Keep em coming.

Post Extras:
JayKon
member



Reged: 01/27/03
Posts: 185

Re: Quick Question [Re: J_V]
#486337 - 01/20/04 12:49 AM Edit Reply Quote



It's OK, I don't mind. Besides, I should have followed the thread better before posting.

Post Extras:
trillig
addict



Reged: 08/11/03
Posts: 426
Loc: Las Vegas, NV
Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth]
#486355 - 01/20/04 01:04 AM Edit Reply Quote



I'd be even more tempted to fold on that one, if not SB/BB, and not even look at my cards.

-t


Post Extras:
MMMMMM
Carpal \'Tunnel



Reged: 09/03/02
Posts: 3277

Re: Quick Question [Re: Vehn]
#486396 - 01/20/04 01:46 AM Edit Reply Quote



Vehn: "Loosing? Do you mean playing more hands because many poor players have entered the pot? I understand completely. Thanks for the head's up."

"head's up"? Do you mean the top side of one's head? Now I understand completely. Thanks for the "heads up."


Post Extras:
J_V
old hand



Reged: 09/06/02
Posts: 908

Re: Quick Question [Re: JayKon]
#486404 - 01/20/04 01:52 AM Edit Reply Quote



Oh, i don't mind either. Nothing ruins a good thread like a little civility. He pounced on your innocuous mistake like any good poster would.

Post Extras:
Pages: 1
Woop. I missed out last year to the various jackaii in the internet forum, and I promised myself I would try even harder this year. Unfortunetly though it appears I still have a ways to go to catch up to the Other Topics board campers - so back to the drawing board.

[Vehn]

p.s. I was very drunk last night + the first day of quitting smoking, so you likely safely ignore any jackassery that went on at least on my end. I make no such promise for today, though, as you can likely already take note of.

p.p.s. It also appears my jackassing broke the thread.

[slavic]

stuck

adj 1: caught or fixed; "stuck in the mud" [ant: unstuck] 2: (informal) baffled; "this problem has me completely stuck"

[nykenny]

The 40-80 game in Commerce takes $10 per 1/2 hour for time. Was I getting ripped off?

To try to answer your question, I think it's still worth it to open raise late...

Kenny

[glen]

"p.s. I was very drunk last night + the first day of quitting smoking, so you likely safely ignore any jackassery that went on at least on my end. I make no such promise for today, though, as you can likely already take note of."

First day of quitting smoking and you get drunk. I would rather sit in a lawnchair and punch myself in the face for six hours than do that. . .

[Mikey]

Mason, I'd play like a maniac until someone looked me up.

I would raise with something as low as J8s.

Steal those blinds.

If you can steal twice, I think your mission will be accomplished.

[Matt Flynn]

Mason,

Good question and I know you know the answer. We need some idea of how tight the blinds are, but both blinds would half to play too tightly and adjust too much to the rake in order for you to increase your steals.

When BB calls you get 5:4 or 6:4 on your money normally heading into the flop. With the rake you get 4:4 or 5:4. If the blinds don't adjust at all you play considerably fewer hands. If the blinds adjust moderately such that they collectively fold 25% more often then you don't change your strategy (not quite, but it's easier to understand the back-of-the-envelope version - to be correct you have to adjust to the changes in both calling, change in relative hand strength that comes when everyone tightens up, the way the smaller pot affects postflop play etc).

By simple BOTE, the blinds would have to significantly overtighten for you to raise more. However, a lot of players just won't play time pots without a group 1 hand. If you get two of those in the blinds you should raise much more often from late position but only slightly more from early position because once you raise you dramatically reduce the adjustment required of the players between you and the small blind. Anytime you raise loosely and get called before the blinds, you lose significant money.

Matt

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

I just realized I never go back to this thread.

Here's what I think is correct.

If you're first in late and you have a questionable raising hand (for that spot) be more inclined to raise. That's because you're more likely to steal the antes.

If you're in an early or middle position and you have a questionable hand (for that spot) be more inclined to fold. Part of the reason for this is that very strong hands which will make it three bets are still going to play exactly the same, but your reward for drawing out is now significantly reduced. Also, keep in mind that with many players still to act, the chances of running into a very strong hand is something you always need to consider.

best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Matt:

[ QUOTE ]
We need some idea of how tight the blinds are, but both blinds would half to play too tightly and adjust too much to the rake in order for you to increase your steals.


[/ QUOTE ]

But Game Theory tells us that against opponents who play correctly we should bluff more in small pots that in large ones (as long as the bet is the same size). This seems to imply the opposite of what you are suggesting.

Best wishes,
mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Vehn:

Check the B&M Forum for the must move games thread.

Best wishes,
Mason

[ACPlayer]

A couple of thoughts on this question:

At one point I ran some simulations on time pots which are essentially a rake on the pot. The only hands that showed a profit in those simulations were the group one hands. The sims were on Turbo and used an average mix of people.

I believe I read somewhere that Abdul had a similar set of sims that showed if there was a drop on the flop his minimum raising hand on the button is JJ.

In addition to the sims, there are game theoretic considerations, which is what I think you are addressing in your response.

[Matt Flynn]

Mason,

Thanks for the reply. I'd appreciate your help understanding this.

You said: "Game Theory tells us that against opponents who play correctly we should bluff more in small pots that in large ones (as long as the bet is the same size). This seems to imply the opposite of what you are suggesting."

However, raising the blinds isn't bluffing. At worst it's semibluffing. You will end up having a higher bluff:nonbluff _ratio_, but that's in large part because your equity is reduced by the rake, reducing the non-bluff value of your holdings.

The threshold you set for raising is all situations where you believe EV is > 0, with a lot of the equity on marginal raising hands coming from stealing the blinds. If 0.45 small bets are taken from the pot, your EV drops. If the blinds do not adjust at all, all of your marginal raises now become negative EV. So you should play tighter.

Assume the blinds adjust appropriately. Can you argue why collectively they make a larger adjustment than you do?

Put another way, equity goes down across the board. All players lose. So therefore your EV for raising must decrease unless the blinds collectively give up enough additional equity to overcome the loss of the $72. Which they won't if they are adjusting optimally. So EV goes down across the board.

With the lower EV, your marginal hands become negative EV. So don't you have to reduce the number of raising hands?

And specifically, yes, in your new game theoretic setpoint you WILL be bluffing more PROPORTIONALLY, but does that mean you are bluffing more absolutely? Not if your equity goes down across the board, forcing you to play tighter.

Any thoughts? What'd I miss?

Matt

[Matt Flynn]

n/m

[Matt Flynn]

Sorry - I was assuming the rake was taken whenever the pot was raised, in which case you must tighten up.

If the rake's only taken when there is a flop, yes, looser raising. Thanks.

Matt

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Matt:

I agree that raising the blinds when first in late is not a bluff, but there certainly are similarities. Specifically, most of the time that you raise, you prefer that everyone fold.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Tommy Angelo]

When a time pot is in play, I usually go from being the tightest player in the game to the tightest player in the world. My change-up in starting standards during time pots pays me about $10/hour in saved expenses.

Tommy

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi ACPlayer:

The position of both David Sklansky and myself is that TTH plays so badly you can't draw any conclusions about it concerning anything that deals with real life hold 'em games.

I don't what Abdul's simulations may or may not have shown, but are you telling me that you would fold a pair of nines or AJ in this spot? I don't think you need any simulations to know the answer.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Tommy:

Let's say I'm on the button in a time pot and if I raise and pick up the blinds there is no drop. Furthermore, let's also assume the tightest player in the world is in the big blind and everyone in front of me has passed. Do I even need to look at my cards?

best wishes,
Mason

[ACPlayer]

I think that TTH is a tool that of course provides data for us to interpret and perhaps discard. I have not exhaustively studied it but suspect that it plays an approximately correct mathematical strategy and a generally incorrect expert strategy (as it has no game theoretic knowledge).

No I would not fold the hands you mentioned in late position, but here the game theory rules more.

But, yes I would tight up a notch or two in early position as, when I am called or raised by a better hand will have poorer odds and hence game theory rules less here. And this is generally confirmed by both experience and the TTH information.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

instead of penalizing one person with a pot with a huge chunk of rake taken out of it? What's wrong with "$8 for time."

al

[MMMMMM]

Not sure about TTH, but their Hi-Lo Stud software played absolutely god-awful when I tried it out perhaps 2 years ago. Even worse IMO than K.A. Coddington's advice;-)

[ACPlayer]

Their stud was awful too. The stud/7 from ace spade was even worse. I think it is harder to model stud as it is hard to model the semi-bluff and representation in stud.

Univ of Alberta has some interesting research in their Poki game playing software as well. Their papers are quite interesting too.

[bobbyi]

Mason: Turbo does some things well and some things poorly. It is generally capable of simulating an ABC player somewhat decently, which can make it useful for getting some sort of baseline idea of what happens in normal situations.

However, it doesn't have much real intelligence. Thus, even though it knows the standard plays in standard spots, it can't reason about how to play in exceptional situations.

I would guess that what's happening here is that the hugs rake on this hand is not something with which the turbo opponents know how to deal, so the standard opponents call way too loosely out of the blinds-- they don't tighten up in the same way that the player's you describe in real games do because they don't correctly account for the giant rake.

If I am wrong and the simulations that were run do account for this (probably by manually editing the preflop calling/ raising standards of the players in the blinds to be in line with those of real players in this spot), I hope someone will correct me.

[elysium]

hi mason
i'm now just settling in back at home here after trying out tunica. there's no aol in tunica so i haven't been able to post. i keep putting off switching to another server. anyway, this post addresses an area in my game that i'm very weak in. i was thinking about it on my way back home; stupid steal raising.....whew. it's kind of off the topic but oh, that stupid small blind again when steal raising. whoever said that you don't look left beyond the button before a steal raise? that was bad advice. for a month straight almost every one of my ruined steal raises was ruined by the SB. and i have no excuse because i could have easily looked left to the SB and gotten enough info to tell whether he'd call or not. but someone, i think briar, coached me not to. he said that you couldn't tell what the SB or BB will do. but that's not right. you can't tell what the BB will do, but the crummy SB always indicates whether he will fold or not. but i fluffed his indications off because that's what i was told. ooooo, i got popped too many times just stupidly looking left only as far as the button before a steal raise. if any of you out there know what your opponents will do before they do it, never ever steal raise without also considering what the SB will do. do not pay any attention though to the BB, but only the BB and not the SB. whew, will you ever lose by playing your steal raises without considering the SB. the stupid SB is probably more likely than the other players to tell you what he will do. whew. i know it doesn't sound important but if you begin to develop an ability to infer a little but have also been exposed to bad advice about not considering any inferences from the SB and BB since their little tells are crippled because they have a stake in the hand, well that's only true for the BB. even when the BB looks like he will fold, he will often call anyway. but not the SB. now the SB won't have the same demeanor as the button and CO, but that SB will 'anchor'. do you know what that means? well, it's a word i made up so even i'm not sure what it means. but the SB will like 'anchor' you know? anchorie like. wait, i have to reread your post.

oh right, the time thing. well, yes mason. they do consider this in the decision process. yes, i do think that you should steal in this situation, unless the SB is anchorie.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Al:

The reason it's done the way it is is simply because that's what the players want.

Best wishes,
Mason

[ACPlayer]

If the other players and specially the three or four players on your left are correctly adjusting for and accounting for the timepot impact on the play, would it not be better to opt out of the time pot, pay your own time and attack the blinds with more abandon. This way when you do get caught stealing atleast you have better odds to draw out. if you can steal one additional set of blinds every few hours you will recover the time charge and then some.

Of course in lower limit games where the guy on the button will cold call with J-5 suited regardless of the timepot impact ..........

[James282]

.

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]

The position of both David Sklansky and myself is that TTH plays so badly you can't draw any conclusions about it concerning anything that deals with real life hold 'em games.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

This is a sobering view. However, at least in the few cases that I have tried to do such things, the results do agree with expert views. Could it be that playing badly makes it a good simulator of bad play? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

BTW, thanks for making the time to contribute-- it makes these forums a sensational resource.