Observing a game before entering

All over the place I see that "game selection" is important. My questions:


1) How many players does one realistically try to watch when deciding if the game is right for entering? (Keeping track of 10 people seems to be a lot, especially if nobody is familiar)


2) If the answer is not everybody, then how do you decide who to watch?


3) What particular traits are especially important to look for?


4) Do you also keep track of information such as number of players in the flop/turn? Or do you get a good enough feel from the watching the players that you don't need to keep a separate count of this?


Any feedback would be good to have. Thanks.


Aaron

I like to watch for overall looseness. If the game is consistantly a 5 or more in pre-flop game without much 3 betting, and fairly passive post-flop, I'm in. If the game is 3 or less pre-flop with alot of 3 betting, and very few showdowns, I'm putting my name on a move list. This is just my preferred style. Play in the games you like best.

I don't think game selection is very important in the low limits. Almost all the games are loaded with poor players.

Aaron W.


I usually count how many players are seeing the flop, and how often it seems the pot is raised preflop. I like when a lot of players 40% or more are seeing the flop, and there isn't much raising.


Additionally, look for players that you know in the game, sometimes there are players that you wouldn't and to play against, but more often, there are sometimes players that you want to play against, and you might know where you want to sit relative to them. Depending on where there are open seats, that might make a decision about which game you want to be in.


Good luck,

Play well,


Bob T.

Well I usually nod my head in agreement with alot of what you say Dyn...but this?

All I say is that for a low limit player looking to make money and improve then game selection is very important.

If you are new then watch out for tables with agrsv/tricky players. If you are on a short roll then watch out for 3 bettting pre-flop or on the flop. If you are not good at reads then play with the rocks & bitty's (they are fairly ABC and you can lay down to obivious river bets).

All in all I think game selection has made me an extra $3000-$4000 this year alone (haveta look at StatKing to be sure) just because I look first in the houses with low rake/time charge, then for the most loose-passive game I can find. Works for my image/style!

Just my thoughts,

1 leg lance

Well, I'll agree that you should look for a casino that has a low rake/time charge. I'd call that casino selection rather than table selection.


If I walked up to the Mirage right now, there would be at least three 3-6 games being spread. At table A, there would be 9 weak players. At table B, there would be 8 weak players. At table C, ther would be 7 weak players. Regardless of which table I sat at, my win rate should be the same. That should also be true regardless of which Strip poker room I walked into.


All in all I think game selection has made me an extra $3000-$4000 this year alone


Unless you've won in excess of $30,000 this year, I doubt this is true. The vast majority of any player's winnings at any limit comes from expert play- or at least play superior to his/her opponents. Game selection will only add a small amount to your winnings in the middle and high limits. At the low limits, I think it is nearly non-existent.


In his 2/1/02 Card Player article, David Sklansky wrote about what seperates a successful proffesional player from the wanna-be's. In part I of that article, he noted that game selection is important but is not nearly enough to turn a wannabe in to a pro.


I think the same basic concept applies at the low limits. Game selection can not turn a losing player into a winning player. Nor can it turn a winning player into a much bigger winning player. It has a very marginal impact at best.


Game selection could be important for psychological reasons. If you're more comfortable in a tight game rather than a loose game (and I know one 2+2 poster who is), then you could choose to sit at that tight game. However, the impact on your win rate should be small.

look for players that you know in the game, sometimes there are players that you wouldn't (want) to play against


You should not avoid a game because there are several very good or even expert players in it. You should choose a game because there are weak players in it. The difference between a game with 9 weak/ 0 strong opponents and 6 weak/ 3 strong opponents is not significant. You will be making you money by playing hands against the weak opponents. With 6 of them in the game, you will get plenty of opportunities.

If the game is 3 or less pre-flop with alot of 3 betting, and very few showdowns...


Not only have I not seen a low limit game like this, I have not seen a 10-20, 15-30, or 20-40 game like this.

Dynasty,


I partially agree. I know that having several strong players won't prevent me from winning in a game. The fact is, the strong players don't play as many hands, and you are less likely to have to play against them, so they don't matter as much as the quality, or lack of quality in the weaker players.


I also have seen games in which there typically aren't three players seeing the flop, and there is rarely a showdown. They might be rare, but they do occur, especially at the transition limits


However, there are players who might affect the game, so that it isn't a game that you want to play in. I used to have a hard time playing with maniacs, now I am more comfortable with the swings associated with those games. There might be players who are uncomfortable in a quieter game. I believe that you are going to win more in a game with situations, that you are familiar with, and you should look for the game that will provide that.


When I said that I would avoid certain players, I was thinking that I wouldn't play in a game where I thought that there were more than two fullblown maniacs. I just don't like committing 5 bets to the pot when I haven't seen the flop. I just don't get AA or KK often enough.


At the same time, I used to play in a home game, where 7 of the regular players are winning players in raked games. Nearly all of those players won long term in that game. But there were also two players in that game that you would follow anywhere if you knew that they would play poker there. It made the game worthwhile even though there were a lot of tough players in the game. It was also a good place to get a poker education, because inbetween playing against the weak players, some interesting poker took place.


Good luck,

Play well,


Bob T.

I can only base my thoughts on my experiences and the $3000+ figure comes from playing in against a particular line-up of regulars at a casino that without them wouldn't be worth my time. I use StatKings notes section to track my games and notes this regular group so I know how much I have made against them. Yes most of that was because I out think/play/read them but hey I couldn't do it if I didn't hunt down this game.If I didn't go out of my way to find this game and wait for a seat then I would not make as much due to having to play against better players.


When you mention that the Mirage games have a variety of weak players I agree that you won't win much more or less between those 3 tables however you will win more than if you had a choice between on of those tables and the table with the better hi-limit players waiting for a seat.


Also I think that if a player who doesn't like agrv games sits at one rather than picking a game better suited to his style then he could easily go from a winning player to losing due to being out of his element.


Also game selection emcompasses various games like going over to the omaha table cuz all the hold'ems suck or to stud instead. This could take you from losing for the session to winning. Gotta go where the weak'ns are /images/smile.gif


All in all I agree that no single element will take you from losing to winning but I think that picking the right game for your style/bankroll/image can take you from small winner to larger...at least it has for me.

1 Leg Lance

i just read one of the most stupid statements ive ever read on here. "game selection isnt that important at low limit" good god!


maybe if you only play in 1 or 2 casinos, and never been a place where highlimit guys are waiting to get in a higher game. or a guy building up, who came down in limits to recover his roll. the room i play in, the texture can change very quick, and if you dont know some of the players, and just lump them in a general pool, you may not make as much as you could. and in some instances, could be at a huge disadvantage on the table.


to say theres no difference is ludicrous. no difference between a cap happy, guys playing blind to the river, versus a loose passive table compared to a table where noone sees a flop for 1/2 hour at a time...


no comparison depending on your comfort level.


one poster mentioned to pick a table that best suits your style. BINGO!

pick a table that gives you the best chance. if you dont know how to play in certain types/textures of games, unless you want to pay to learn, pick the best one for you that gives you the best odds of winning. whoa! thats basic GAMBLING theory.

i believe roy cooke had an article about a buddy of his wanting to be backed in a game. it can and does parrallel in LL to a degree...


you dont have a preset winrate, that no matter which you play, theyre both the same. and over the long run, a SB an hour can make a big difference in your profit.


my rule first off is to play the table and texture, not the limit. ive been on tough ass LL games, and ive been on gravy overlimit games. yes, there are poor players in LL obviously, but there are players who know how to adjust to those games and may appear poor also.


avoid a player? no...if theres a couple tough players on a table, i wouldnt worry. look for at least 1 or 2 donators. but watch for when the tougher players are in the hand. you can learn alot from em. i actually watch their game a little closer. since the weak ones are usually easier to figure out. sometimes the overlimit guys are great to have in the LL games. they blow off chips. they just dont care, and think they can bully the tables. but youll see the disciplined ones. those are the ones to be careful of and youll learn the most from.


another thing to think about...if your planning on moving up limits, facing those players 1 or 2 at a time is alot easier than facing the whole table. youll know what theyre capable of by the time you play em regularly.


couple things i look for...


size of pots and texture, aggr, passive or inbetween. how many callers avg pre pot. you usually can tell fairly quickly the type of guys who will see any flop. if it has 4+ players to the flop regularly, it makes me smile a little...


who to watch...youll notice the tighter guys on the table. because youll notice a bet from a different spot all of a sudden coming in. but remember, tight doesnt always mean good. so watch how they play their hands.


dont worry as much about how many are seeing the turn. look to the flop first. youll notice the turn later. think how many to the flop, and for how cheap.


what traits? after awhile youll know the better players in the room. and youll be aware of em. but you may also stumble on a flaw in their game also. the more you know the game, the more youll be spotting flaws. and some flaws are tough to exploit at times...some guys youll be able to watch how they hold themselves and know kinda how they play without seeing them play a hand. but itll take awhile to get to that point and not all players give off that information. mainly weekenders or newbies.


as you get more experienced, youll be able to walk into a room of unknowns, and figure them out in relativley short time.


want to learn how to size up players and games? go out and play. be patient. and youll get there.


just some ideas...


b

I'm not too surprised others don't agree with my opinion that game selection is unimportant in low-limit games. I think the value of game selection has been overstated by many writers and low-limit players have inappropriately grasped onto this as a way to search for better winnings.


In Poker Essays, Volume II, Mason wrote a pair of essays titled Poker Skills: Part I & II. In Part I, he lists and describes 12 poker skills which aren't the only skills an expert player needs, but they should be representative. In Part II, he ranks these twelve skills from most important to lest important in 15 different types of poker games ranging from low-limit draw poker to high-limit Texas hold'em


Here is how Mason ranked the skills for Texas Hold'em.


Low-limit Texas hold'em (6-12 and lower)


1. Hand selection

2. Check-raising

3. Reading hands

4. Buying a free card

5. Semi-bluffing

6. Raising

7. Reading tells

8. Bluffing

9. The ability to vary your game

10. Game selection

11. Slowplaying

12. Proper image projection.


Mason's comments: ...since there are many weak players at this limit, these games are fairly easy to beat. However, check-raising is very important since the pot frequently is very large compared to the size of the bet. That is, a bet will not protect your hand. I don't give image projection much value because a lot of your opponents only make their decisions based on the hand that they hold.


Middle-limit Texas hold'em (10-20 to 30-60)


1. Hand selection

2. Check-raising

3. Reading hands

4. The ability to vary your game

5. Semi-bluffing

6. Game selection

7. Buying a free card

8. Raising

9. Proper image projection

10. Reading tells

11. Bluffing

12. Slowplaying


High-limit Texas hold'em


1. The ability to vary your game

2. Hand selection

3. Game selection

4. Reading hands

5. Proper image projection

6. Semi-bluffing

7. Check-raising

8. Buying a free card

9. Raising

10. Bluffing

11. Slowplaying

12. Reading tells

pick a table that gives you the best chance. if you dont know how to play in certain types/textures of games, unless you want to pay to learn, pick the best one for you that gives you the best odds of winning.


You are describing a player who lacks some very basic poker skills: (1) the ability to play against aggressive opponents, (2) the ability to play in loose games, (3) the ability to play against weak/tight rock players, (4) the ability to play against calling stations, and so on.


The vast majority of low-limit players are very weak. If our hero's skill level is so low that he can't beat a game because his opponents are weak in a particular way, then game selection is not the answer and isn't going to improve his winnings. You are going to win at low-limit hold'em by developing the skills necessary to beat weak opponents.


When you've accomplished this, game selection is unimportant. If you haven't accomplished this, you are one of the weak players that is easily beaten.

Low-limit Texas hold'em (6-12 and lower)


8. Bluffing

9. The ability to vary your game

10. Game selection

11. Slowplaying

12. Proper image projection.


Mason has plunked game selection right in the middle of 4 other inconsequential skills.


A lot has been said in poker literature about how pure bluffing is foolhardy at low-limit hold'em since players will call with almost anything. For the most part, I agree with this.


I'm actually amazed Mason ranked the ability to vary your game as high as he did. Varying your game isn't worth the effort since almost all of your opponents won't even notice that you are doing it. For the same reason that Mason ranked proper image projection dead last, I think varying your game is also irrelevent to winning play at the lower limits.


Slowplaying has been discussed on this forum quite a bit. In fact, there is a thread active right now discussing this. Since most players are willing to call multiple bets as readily as their willing to call 1 bet, I don't think slowplaying is going to be correct very often.


The five bottom skills (8-12) are inconsequential to winning play at low-limit Texas hold'em. I'd rank the top 7 skills in this order.


1. Hand selection

2. Reading hands

3. Raising

4. Check-raising

5. Buying a free card

6. Semi-bluffing

7. Reading tells


I don't put check-raising as high as Mason does because players will frequently call multiple bets if they are also willing to call one bet. Check-raising doesn't effectively get players to fold hands as much as we'd like. However, you can at least make them incorrectly call. For the same reason, semi-bluffing is dropped a slot.

once again, you miss the point. not all LL games are equal. but keep the blinders on.


"You are describing a player who lacks some very basic poker skills: (1) the ability to play against aggressive opponents, (2) the ability to play in loose games, (3) the ability to play against weak/tight rock players, (4) the ability to play against calling stations, and so on. "


some of these games require better than 'basic poker skills' to beat. especially to maximize profits in some of these games. put a newbie into a tight aggressive game, and hell likely get killed. and yes, though rare, they do exist at LL. ive been on them.


as far a lacking skill, when a beginning player is learning, thats exactly the point. hes not good enough or comfortable yet to beat some games. HENCE, game selection. the better he gets, the more expanded his game becomes.


i agree that most LL players are weak, therefore, game texture can take front seat. again, some players dont care for loose cap happy games, because they play better in more stable games. they can think clearer during them. some love those games and the action, and cant stand the passive games, because they have a hard time holding back when they should and cant overrun the tables.


to just go blindly into a game, without using all information you can get ahead of time, is bad strategy. even if its basic.


about mason's rankings...this is also a huge generalization. its not written in stone. if it was concrete for all LL games, itd be the same 1 way thinking for the mid and high limit rankings. and not all of those games are the same. ill agree its a good starting point, and pertains to many games, but its not that black and white.

and to make another definitive out of a variable in poker...is wrong.


holdem is not a black and white, by the numbers, type of game. as many would like to persist in saying.


b

If you play "good solid poker," you'll be outclassing 90% of the other players in low-limit (at least in So. Cal.). On the surface it would thus seem that game selection is relatively unimportant. But it's MUCH better if the table includes at least 2 or 3 truly dismal players and is loose/passive -- with little raising before or after the flop (yourself excepted of course). The goal isn't just to come out ahead but to maximize one's winnings.


1. hand selection


2. reading hands


3. raising


4. game selection


5. check raising


6. reading tells


7. semi-bluffing


8. slowplaying


9. ability to vary game


10. bluffing


11. buying a free card


I rank bluffing over buying a free card because that opportunity is only available a couple times an outing and saves bets whereas bluffing wins pots.

I see games like this on PP .50/1 tables a few times per week! Of course they change up after a while, but they still do exist. In addition, I'd like to add that I generally agree with Dynasty's post about the little gains, if any with live low limit table selection. The closest card room to me has; at the most, two tables spread $2-5 and sometimes one $5-10 table. I often choose the $2-5 table due to the overall passiveness of it. TPP and LPP fill these tables, so if there are two going at this limit, I simply could care less what one I sit at. I do not have the luxury of getting to a major poker town where game selection would be important, but at the $3-6 limits, I would sit at any table – anywhere. Low limits are always going to have the most gamblers in it. It is unlikely that anyone taking poker for a living seriously would sit at a table where they have no chance to make substantial gains, as the fish sit everywhere, including a $10/20 and up tables.

Many of the Paradise Poker online 3/6 games fall into the tight aggressive style described above. Because of bankroll constraints I have no live experience above 6-12. I am surprised that the 20/40 games are generally as loose and passive as Dynasty describes.

The 20-40 games (as well as the 10-20 and 15-30) are not passive at all. There is a considerable amount of pre-flop raising. However, the games are still very loose. The games are characterized by a lot of cold-calling of pre-flop raises with dubious hands.


It's the combination of all the items in Noo Yawk's post which don't come together in a single game.

Dynasty,

In vegas or any other town that has lots of games going all the time, I agree with you. There are plenty of good games packed with folks on vacation looking to gamble it up and have a good time.

Where I play, you have only a few tables. The next game is 120 miles away. I've sat in some of the tightest 5-10 games you can imagine. My examples were extremes, but the point is the same.

Getting chips is harder in a tight game. I've learned to do it, but I prefer a looser game.

In lower limits, where you have very few games to choose from, it is very important that you either learn to play in a tight game, or move. The lower limit players that stay in these games end up being the ones giving away their chips.

Yes I agree that skill takes the money. But, I want to point out that there are alot of skilled low limit players in towns where there are very few poker rooms. Sometimes they are just bigger money players sitting at a lower limit game until something opens up,or because they had a blow to their bankroll, or because they just prefer that level. I would caution you not to generalize low limit games as poor skill level games. The Mirage games you describe are full of vacationers looking to have some fun and gamble it up. Thats why you will also see so many weak players at the higher limits. Richer people on vacation. For me, that luxury doesn't exist.

However, I do agree completely that game selection has only a small impact on your overall win rate. Skill in different game types is much more important, as well as the ability to recognize and adjust quickly to changing game situations.

Getting chips is harder in a tight game.


This isn't true. It just takes a different set of skills. I've played in many tight low limit games as well, specifically the Mirage 5-10 stud game. Although the players are tight, they are still weak players. In Hold'em they often fold automatically to flop bets if the "miss" not realizing that I also missed and am simply betting because they checked to me.

I agree that tight games are very beatable. The skill sets needed are selective aggression and hand reading. Perhaps we are confusing weak-tight players with solid tight players. Solid players don't give up their chips that easy.

My main point is that their are plenty of solid players in small stakes games that are not weak, particularly in areas that don't have a lot of tables.

"Getting chips is harder in a tight game.


This isn't true"


i think Noo Yawk is saying that the chips don't quite flow as fast from your opponents' stacks to yours. at least that's the way i took it. i don't think its HARD to win chips in these games either. you just have to be able to recognize your opportunities to STEAL, not calculate the overlay your big fat draw has against a bunch of random hands...like you said, a different set of skills.

"My main point is that their are plenty of solid players in small stakes games that are not weak, particularly in areas that don't have a lot of tables"


this is a very valid point. there is a $2.50-$5.00 game at the Hollywood casino (rake too big, i won't play it...) that had the tightest players i've ever played with in it!! i raised AA after 2 limpers and everybody INCLUDING THE LIMPERS folded!! this wasn't a tough table to beat, it just took a different set of skills (unfortunately, i was still learning from my days in L.A. which had me used to games from the other end of the spectrum) the room only has like 6 tables going MAX, and the $5-$10 game is filled with the sharks waiting for the bigger games, which are also always packed. I haven't played there since i discovered the room at Harrah's East in Indiana. Harrah's has 15 tables (or is it 16? i forget) always 2 $4-$8 and sometimes 3. and plenty of bad players in them.

"The Mirage games you describe are full of vacationers looking to have some fun and gamble it up. Thats why you will also see so many weak players at the higher limits"


i dont have that luxury near as much as vegas players. which may be why they have a misconception of games. this is one prime reason when i post, i make it general. it doesnt apply to all LL games just because theyre low limit. we dont have a big influx of tourism to the cardrooms here either. especially during the week. the room i play in, one of the biggest up here if not THE biggest, usually has 1 10-20, 1 higher-usually shorthanded, if its going, a 6-12, which many of the overlimit players like while waiting for a seat in the higher game and around 4 4-8. which also has 10-20 guys waiting for a seat in the 6-12 on their way to 10-20. thats about 6-7 tables...not much, but alot for up here.


the weekend may have a 3-6, another 10-20, maybe another 6-12, and sometimes 3+ more 4-8. those are on a huge night. thats only about 5 more for a total of 12.


many other rooms dont have nearly this many tables. some are lucky to have 1 or 2. so its good to recognize the broad range of places your posting to.


" there are alot of skilled low limit players in towns where there are very few poker rooms. Sometimes they are just bigger money players sitting at a lower limit game until something opens up,or because they had a blow to their bankroll, or because they just prefer that level"


this was another point i made in one of my posts. and it rings true.


when in rome, dont assume they play like back in athens.


nice post...


b

"When I said that I would avoid certain players, I was thinking that I wouldn't play in a game where I thought that there were more than two fullblown maniacs. I just don't like committing 5 bets to the pot when I haven't seen the flop. I just don't get AA or KK often enough"


its always interesting to me when people say they don't like playing against maniacs. while i can see the hesitance to put mutliple bets in against wild players with a lot of the hand yet unkown, i personally love maniacs. i cut my holdem teeth in L.A. (i played strictly the $1-$5 stud game here in chicago before i moved to L.A. because i didn't have the bankroll for the bigger games...) and i have learned to become very comfortable playing with maniacs. not that everyone in L.A. is a maniac, but when they come to gamble, they come to gamble. also, the first thing necessary when playing with a maniac is accepting the greater swings. if you just wait for AA and KK with maniacs, you're not optimizing your edge against these players. i realize that its always easier to play hands where you can be pretty certain you have the best hand to start. but maniacs are going to give a lot of action with a LOT of substandard hands. this is just prime pickins as far as im concerned. these are the guys you can give just enough rope to hang themselves, so to speak.


i posted this hand a while ago, but i will try to reconstruct it again, as an example of playing against maniacs.


i was sitting in one of three 4-8 games at my casino, and noticed a manica sitting in another 4-8 next to me. and boy did he have chips. i don't know how much he bought in for, or if he won some at another game, or what. but he had in excess of $700 in chips. most people's stacks here don't go too far over $200, most hovering around $80 to $150. my usual buy-in for this game is $120 - $160. i know that i can outplay this game, and i watch for a second and realize that nobody at this game is adjusting the guy, and he's running the table over with his constant betting. and he's drunk, and talking trash. i want to sit on his left, and i ask the floorman for a table change. 15 minutes later i get in the game 2 seats on his left. i wait, and i see a couple flops, hit one straight, and take that pot. and im waiting for an opportunity to get this guy's chips. im strictly here for this guy's chips. then i look down and see KQs. here is how the hand went (more or less)


UTG limps, M(aniac) at UTG+1 raises, folded to me and i reraise with KQs. button, BB, UTGlimper and M call.

pot has 7.5BB

Flop - Q73 rainbow Great Flop. no straight or flush draws here.


check, check, M bets, i raise (he won't bet bottom pair here, but he wil bet a weak Q, which i think he probably has) BB calls, UTGlimper calls, M reraises, and i cap. BB drops, UTGlimper calls, M calls. Pot is 14.5BB


Turn - 8 completing the rainbow


i don't know what UTG has, but she seems pretty timid so far, and i'd like to get this heads up, if i can. i don't think she has any real draws against me, nothing near T9, 96, or 65. possibly a dry A, which im thinking she will be willing to fold thinking an A might not be good enough to win the pot for her.


UTG checks, M bets, i raise, UTG hesitates, calls, M reraises, i cap, and UTG folds (i wasn't too worried about her, like i said, but its still nice to play this heads up against M) M calls. Pot is 24.5 BB


river - the obligatory blank, a river deuce.


I'm sure i've got M beat here, probably with a better kicker. he looked like he might realize it too when i capped the turn.


he checks (now i KNOW i've got him), i bet, and he calls. he turns over Q4, and i turn over the winner. M actually shakes my hand, and tells me it was a good play, and that he really respects some one who will get in there and give the game some action. of course he tells me in his drunken slurs, while im stacking my 26.5 BB.


the point here is that with maniacs, unless they bet or raise 100% of the time, you can still get to know where they are at a little bit with their betting. i was pretty sure that i had M beat here, the whole way through. i know he will raise and A, K, or Q preflop, and will checkraise flops with anything better than a pair (i know this from his previous play. i have played against him a couple more times briefly, as well.). AQ was always a POSSIBILITY, but it just wasn't likely, knowing what this guy will raise with preflop. also, i knew that his aggression INCREASED with weaker holdings when faced with any opposition. he actually plays harder when someone plays back at him (possibly thinking that he is getting played, and shouldn't back down...)


again, playing maniacs is an issue that should be decided by the style you are comfortable playing. but there is so much opportunity with these guys to make some serious chips, and this is why i love these guys. plus they are super fun, usually, and they love the action (even when they are losing) you bring when you play back at them, so they really pump it up if you can get in the game and get things rolling with them. the key is picking your spots carefully, and knowing how to really manipulate things to get heads up against them, and releasing hands that don't want to invest a lot on draws. you want to play hands that can flop strong made hands, or flop big draws WITH overcard possibilities. also, kickers are huge with these guys. the fact that they will play big pairs with weak kickers (and play them hard) gives you a huge edge to exploit.


ok, i've rambled on enough about this. i'd love to hear some comments on this.

"I don't put check-raising as high as Mason does because players will frequently call multiple bets if they are also willing to call one bet. Check-raising doesn't effectively get players to fold hands as much as we'd like"


i think it is important to point out here that check-raising is not just a tool for thinning the field. since it is infrequent that a checkraise will cause opponents to fold when faced with a double bet, then it must have some other use. that use is pot-building. not only are you causing your opponents to call bets when the odds are against them, you are building the pots for you strong hands BECAUSE you know the checkraise will be called more often. perhaps this use of this tool is why Mason ranked it higher than you did. it is an excellent way to maximize your winnings, especially in games without too much action beyond checking and calling.

I'm sure Mason ranked check-raising high specifically for the purposes of protecting your hand by getting opponents to fold.


He wrote: ...check-raising is very important since the pot frequently is very large compared to the size of the bet. That is, a bet will not protect your hand.


Therefore, you need to checkraise in order to protect your hand.


I think the other reasons you state which gives check-raising value (all of which were correct) are associated with just "raising" which he ranked sixth.

perhaps. but i think it is a mistake, if he did. plain old raising is different from checkraising, otherwise there wouldn't be 2 different items in the list. and checkraising to build a pot and raising to build a pot are 2 different things...

Dynasty, you are wrong on this one. So is raising a bettor (as opposed to checkraising) to narrow the field and protect your hand covered under the checkraising item? So "checkraising" is only to protect your hand, even when its just a raise, and "raising" to build a pot is covered under raising and not checkraising? Fuzzy logic bud.


A raise is a raise and a checkraise is a checkraise. Seems easy enough.

You will not find a strong player in a low limit game. You might find knowledgeable players, but there will be flaws easy to pick up on.


I just look to see who is in a game, now, as I've played enough that it's rare that I don't have a pretty good line on half the opponents in a game I'm thinking about sitting in.


I try to avoid games against complete unknowns, if that helps. You should be able to rate the game before you lose too much anyhow, so don't worry about sitting in the wrong game.


~D

I'm glad you and others see the point I'm making.

While this board has some great advice, from some great players( yourself included, Bernie), I believe that many of them that play in towns with many available games, tend to formulate their opinions based solely on these games. Skill will always take the money in the long run, but don't assume all low-limit players are weak or less knowledgable. They may simply not have as many choices, or opportunities to play. But whatever limit they sit in, they play to win. If I played in Vegas everyday, I would probably have a different opinion.

Mason does a whole essay on game selection, and how important it is. I think where we disagree is equating low-limit games to unskilled games in every town, across the board. As we say in the business world: "you can't give a global solution to all individual situations".

"While this board has some great advice, from some great players( yourself included, Bernie), "


i didnt know i was considered in that category... thank you /images/smile.gif


"Skill will always take the money in the long run, but don't assume all low-limit players are weak or less knowledgable"


this is the exact reason why one of my rules is to play the table not the limit. to just look at a LL game and figure, no problem, could set yourself up pretty good for a rude awakening...


for instance, today on a 6-12 i was on, there were about 6 tough guys who usually play the higher limits. there was only 1 10-20 table going and 1 6-12 with 2 4-8s. it was a pretty tight aggressive game. anyone ho-humming into this game, may have found out a little late, what type of players were in here. me, not included.


im going to steal that idea from you on some future posts if ya dont mind. the 'geography' thing. because it rings true, and is a realistic way seeing things.


holdem doesnt just exist in vegas or cali...


b

"holdem doesnt just exist in vegas or cali..."


no. it eats and breathes and chews up fools and spits em out sometimes breathes fire...