Comments Anyone

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

Here's a little something I just came across in a book I'm currently reading and thought some of you might want to comment on it.

Best wishes,
Mason

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you've raised preflop with a big pair against a horde of loose-passive players; now the flop comes with both a middle straight draw and a flush draw to which you have no claim, neither of your pair cards being the right color. What do you do? I often see players jam the pot with their big pair in this situation, or else call raises and reraises to the bitter end; and yet in many cases a fold on the flop is the best paly. It's a clear case of reverse implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you've raised preflop with a big pair against a horde of loose-passive players; now the flop comes with both a middle straight draw and a flush draw to which you have no claim, neither of your pair cards being the right color.... in many cases a fold on the flop is the best paly.

[/ QUOTE ]

By any chance does this come out of the chapter on how to play weak-tight? I think I have it memorized now....

I'm guessing the author of this book is not Noted Poker Authority Ed Miller.

[blackaces13]

I hope this was a book about getting your boyfriend to marry you or on how to find the best deals on summer skirts and that the poker content was incidental.

[thirddan]

this sounds somewhat Ken Warren-ish...

does the next paragraph begin with face the wall and grab your ankles?

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif in dolly's super system limit he authored by bobby baldwin: these are the kinda flops to really out for with big pairs....

so why not ask the current chief exec of bellagio...he might know the answer...

gl

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[Flashy]

Let's hope this book becomes a best seller!

[bernie]

This reminds me of a Roy Cooke column where this happened and he folded the flop to a bet. Im not sure id be doing that. Signifigant action with decent 'raising' standards i could maybe fold it.

Got me curious.

b

[sfer]

You can go one of two strategies here. One, you jam because you know you're spiking your 2-outer on the turn and rivering a board pairing flush card. I love when that happens.

Or you can read pps. 170-172 of HEPFAP.

[MaxPower]

If find someone who plays this way, I will be raising a lot of hands on the flop when the pot is huge.

[Sheriff Fatman]

The problem I see with it is that the author hasn't expanded enough on the point he's trying to make. He's therefore given a very weak-tight general piece of advice when there's a great deal of other information to be considered.

Its a question of interpretation of what he's trying to say. As an extreme example, folding A /images/graemlins/spade.gifA /images/graemlins/club.gif in late position on a board of 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif when facing a bet, a raise and a re-raise from 3 calling stations is not what I'd consider to be a bad play.

However, its quite a different decision if you're second to act facing one bet with the same hand and the board is 5 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 2 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, which is also a middle straight and a flush draw situation as described.

There's so much more to be considered here which isn't explained in the quote.

Personally I didn't think it was too outrageous a piece of advice when I read it as I pictured situations such as the first example. Others have interpreted it as a general rule. I suppose this justifies the inherent weakness in the quote - its just too ambiguous.

My other thought (and this may be my understanding which is at fault - in which case I await the flames) is that its not an example of reverse implied odds. My recollection of TOP says that these are situations where your actions will either win you a small pot or lose you a huge one. Regardless of what your action is on the flop there's a big pot developing here and the opponents are loose-passive so, by definition, they are going to stay in this hand to the end. Any action you take is therefore unlikely to win you the pot without a showdown and, ultimately, you'll either win or lose a MONSTER pot at the end. Surely that's a different thing altogether?

Sheriff

[Miah]

I can't see folding as being a static move here. That said the pot is probably fairly large at this point so it's probably best to wait until the turn before firing away. This looks like a clear example of hands that are going to be calling you anyway, so its best to hit them on the turn we're they'll take a reduction in odds as opposed to making the pot big on the flop so that they're turn calls can be correct (gut shots, pairs, etc)

[onegymrat]

I agree with the Sheriff. There is just not enough information about the texture of the board to warrant a fold or not. It is silly to start criticizing an opinion that does not give you the full information.

[MRBAA]

I believe I have read the book that contains this advice. It is of course excellent -- in context. Getting married to big pairs in loose low limit games can be an expensive mistake. Note that the author says you have no piece of the flop and that there are lots of opponents. For example, when you have red AA, you raised preflop, six players stayed and the flop comes down 8910 all spades, there's a bet and a raise to you with two players still to act behind you, I'd seriously consider folding. While you are getting 7.5 -1 on a call here, you could need a full house or quads to win. What's more, there could be more raising to come and there are very few cards you will like (Even the As which would make you top set would also put a four flush on the board).

In similar situations where you have outs, or the board is less coordinated, or there are fewer opponents, or less action you may have odds to stay in.

I don't think folding a big pair on the flop in a pot that was raised preflop is automatically a mistake, which is the author's point here. Conceptually, I think many new players have trouble with the concept of raising preflop for value with the best hand and then having it turn into a much weaker hand after the flop.

[Zele]

Scary board, 'horde of players', decent action in front of you? Muck the pair.

Even with no action, I'd probably play the flop passively and decide whether to continue (and of course isolate) on the turn.

[Randy Burgess]

I don’t want to kill the suspense, but this excerpt is from my book, “Stepping Up: The Recreational Player’s Guide to Beating Casino and Internet Poker,” published by ConJelCo, the same outfit which publishes Lee Jones’s “Winning Low Limit Hold’em.”

This book is too basic for the experienced posters on these forums—it’s really meant for players just getting their feet wet. Just the same, I’ve found the comments so far to be interesting and valuable feedback.

The main objection to the passage seems to be that it’s giving weak-tight advice—that I’m advocating running for cover any time you raise with a big pair, get a lot of callers, and the flop is not to your advantage or even slightly scary. It’s certainly true that players who make a habit of folding top pair or an overpair on bad flops are making a mistake. This is especially true if the pot is big and the game is loose, or if you’re up against one or two wild, tricky players.

However, I do think it’s true that if the flop comes extremely bad and there’s a great deal of action in front of you from normally passive players, you have to think hard about your best move. If you indeed suspect that you are drawing to just 2 outs, and may already be drawing dead, then the pot must be absolutely enormous for you to call.

In case the excerpt in the book seems incomplete or ambiguous to anyone, or even just plain wrong, let's postulate a more specific scenario to illustrate what I'm talking about:

Say you raise preflop as dealer with black Aces and five opponents see the flop with you. It comes 7d 8h 9d, putting both a flush draw and a possible straight on board. An early position player bets, two players call, and now the cutoff, who is normally completely passive, raises. There are 17 small bets in the pot, and it’s your action. What do you do?

The key question is whether the situation seems to indicate you might already be drawing close to dead. If no one has the straight yet, and if no one has flopped something like 2 pair or a set, you’re only a little worse than a 2 to 1 dog. In that case, given the number of opponents and the money in the pot, you clearly want to see the turn. If it’s a blank and the action slows down you’ll want to see the river, while if it’s a straight or flush card and people go crazy, you’ll have an easy decision to bail.

However, if you *are* drawing to just two outs or less (it’s less than 2 if a set won’t win it for you), then every call you make from here on in is pure loss. If you’re up against a small set, a flush draw, and a couple of one-card draws to a straight, your win share drops down to about 4 percent.

So how do you make the right decision? The answer is, you've got develop your reading skills and know your players. This is something I stress throughout the book. In isolation this excerpt could make it seem like I’m advocating a one-size-fits-all strategy, but if you read the whole book you’ll see I completely advocate situational play. In fact, I quote Mason Malmuth very approvingly about the dangers of being a “self-weighting player.”

Controlled aggression is my preferred approach to poker. I remember a recent post from Clarkmeister in which he described a flop raise with a big-card draw that knocked out an overpair to his hand; some posters objected he was being too aggressive, but I applauded it as a great move given the monster pot. (See KQo in huge pot (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=smallholdem&Number=672 122&Forum=,,,,,,All_Forums,,,,,,&Words=&Searchpage =6&Limit=25&Main=672122&Search=true&where=bodysub& Name=12&daterange=1&newerval=3&newertype=w&olderva l=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post672122).) But the key word is “controlled.” Instinctive aggression may make you feel like a tough guy, but it's not winning poker.

It’s also worth noting that my analysis of this scenario (big pair or top pair versus a scary coordinated board and lots of action) is virtually identical to that given in Chapter 16 of Bob Ciaffone’s and Jim Brier’s “Middle Limit Holdem Poker.” I didn’t realize this until today, when I went to double-check my advice against the authorities I respect the most—Roy Cooke, Bob Ciaffone, Jim Brier, David Sklansky, and Mason Malmuth.

P.S. I welcome any corrections to the above analysis. I don't claim to be a top professional poker player. Like Lee Jones, I'm an amateur writing for other amateurs out of love for the game.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi MRBAA:

That's not what it says.The quote is the flop comes with both a middle straight draw and a flush draw. If you have T/images/graemlins/spade.gif9/images/graemlins/spade.gif8/images/graemlins/spade.gif you're not looking at a draw but a completed draw.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
If you indeed suspect that you are drawing to just 2 outs, and may already be drawing dead, then the pot must be absolutely enormous for you to call.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're describing a situation where the pot is already quite large. Given the fact that there is some chance your hand is good, andt that you will often have more than two outs, for example the board pairs and your two pair now beat another two pair, folding in most of these spots is silly.

[ QUOTE ]
It comes 7d 8h 9d, putting both a flush draw and a possible straight on board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the straight draw is now completed, that's a different situation from the passage cited.

[ QUOTE ]
It’s also worth noting that my analysis of this scenario (big pair or top pair versus a scary coordinated board and lots of action) is virtually identical to that given in Chapter 16 of Bob Ciaffone’s and Jim Brier’s “Middle Limit Holdem Poker.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps that explains the problem. Here's an excerpt from my review of the Ciaffone/Brier book.

There is one problem with their advice I find a little more troublesome, and it made this book very difficult to rate. By my count there are just over 100 hands where the authors say to fold. I question many of these folds. There are also a fair number of hands where the authors say to call where I consider raising a reasonable alternative. Now when I question, it doesn’t mean that Ciaffone and Brier have it wrong, or even that their advice is wrong the majority of the time (in these spots). But it does mean, to me, that their propensity to constantly attempt to save bets, especially when the pots are large, could eventually cause those who follow this advice some problems.

Put another way, if you are unknown to your opponents and play like they describe, you will probably have no difficulty. But as you become known, some of your opponents should begin to exploit this flaw, and your ability to win should begin to fall off. In fact, if and when I feel someone plays as the authors describe, I’ll work an extra bet or raise in every now and then. If enough people begin to do this, and this should eventually happen to a regular player, some pots that should be yours will be taken away from you, and your overall results should deteriorate.

I've had some related discussion recently with both Ed Miller and David Sklansky. What tends to happen in many cases is that the player in question learns from past results. That works well in many games, and Ed gives a tennis example in the new book (that's not released yet). But in poker, due to the large short term luck factor, recent results can frequently lead to the wrong conclusion. That's why, to cite Ed, you need to learn from poker theory as opposed to poker results.

Best wishes,
Mason

[King Yao]

It sounds like its a matter of understanding the details of the situation.

Randy Burgess's quote was "now the flop comes with both a middle straight draw and a flush draw to which you have no claim"

To me, that could read either three to a straight/flush on the board or two to a straight/flush on the board. From the responses, it sounds like that is what Randy is referring to three to a straight/flush however Mason is reading it as two cards for the straight/flush on the Flop. So the advice may not necessarily be bad, but its unclear.

[Kenshin]

At what skill level does it become appropriate to introduce the reader to difficult concepts, I wonder?

I agree, players should not fold overpairs on moderately dangerous boards readily.

However, the explanation of the logic behind the play (large pot, you might be ahead, the board pairing on the turn might counterfit a two pair, etc) might prove more detrimental to an absolute beginner than a general guideline to avoid marginal situations.

Kenshin

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi King:

You may be absolutely correct. In our books we often use mathematical language to make sure that we convey precisely the meaning that we intend. Of course, this makes the English somewhat cumbersome in spots, but to make sure that there is no misunderstanding as to exactly what we mean it is something which we do intentionally. Perhaps this author should find an editor who is familiar with mathematical preciseness so that his writing won't suffer from this flaw in the future.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Kenshin:

I've only read about half of this book, but you have hit upon a problem that it clearly suffers from. There are many ideas in poker which are important because they allow you to win a little more once you have become a pretty good player. However, being introduced to these ideas and emphasizing them before you have the basics down, in my opinion, should be expensive for most players.

Here's another example from page 57.

[ QUOTE ]
Or if you got AK before the flop in hold 'em, you fold behind a tight raiser who you've watched only raise with QQ or better rather than trap yourself with a dominated hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best wishes,
Mason

[Beach-Whale]

[ QUOTE ]
In our books we often use mathematical language to make sure that we convey precisely the meaning that we intend. Of course, this makes the English somewhat cumbersome in spots, but to make sure that there is no misunderstanding as to exactly what we mean it is something which we do intentionally.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mason, that was the most rediculous thing I have read in a long time. Your writing style and editing are many times very unclear and makes a bad job at making the information easy to understand for someone who don't already know what you mean.

The sooner you realize this, the sooner you can fix it.

[Joe Tall]

Or if you got AK before the flop in hold 'em, you fold behind a tight raiser who you've watched only raise with QQ or better rather than trap yourself with a dominated hand.

This is terrible weak-tight advice.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[Randy Burgess]

Not quoted in this extremely selective snippet is the additional analysis I present, on a mathematical basis, of why folding in this extreme case would be correct. And of course it *is* an extreme case. Anybody who thinks I routinely fold AK to a raiser, even a tight raiser, is nuts.

[Easy E]

I'll let others decide.

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you indeed suspect that you are drawing to just 2 outs, and may already be drawing dead, then the pot must be absolutely enormous for you to call.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're describing a situation where the pot is already quite large. Given the fact that there is some chance your hand is good, andt that you will often have more than two outs, for example the board pairs and your two pair now beat another two pair, folding in most of these spots is silly. [ QUOTE ]


<font color="blue"> If I go with the assumption that this book is geared towards players who are just moving up into the casino poker world, AND therefore are probably playing low limit, I disagree strongly with your assumed hand strength.
Unless the board is totally scattered, any future pairing of the flop cards is more likely to fill someone up than usual.
In addition, these are LOOSE PASSIVE players. They aren't often playing around with straight draws aggressively (as Randy said, knowing your players is key here) and even if they are playing flush draws more aggressively, you often can't be sure when you are beaten.

If I had the Aces in that situation, I'm not playing these too aggressively. I might show some strength if no one else does, trying to thin the field a bit, but I would not be surprised at all to be either raised by a better hand or have the better hands and draws limp and catch me later. </font>


[ QUOTE ]
It comes 7d 8h 9d, putting both a flush draw and a possible straight on board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the straight draw is now completed, that's a different situation from the passage cited.

<font color="blue"> picky, picky, though Randy's example was a bit over the top as well.
Mason, what are you doing on a 3-flush flop, headed by a King or Queen, with your Aces here?

[ QUOTE ]
It’s also worth noting that my analysis of this scenario (big pair or top pair versus a scary coordinated board and lots of action) is virtually identical to that given in Chapter 16 of Bob Ciaffone’s and Jim Brier’s “Middle Limit Holdem Poker.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps that explains the problem. Here's an excerpt from my review of the Ciaffone/Brier book.

(snip)
Put another way, if you are unknown to your opponents and play like they describe, you will probably have no difficulty. But as you become known, some of your opponents should begin to exploit this flaw, and your ability to win should begin to fall off.

<font color="blue"> At the lowest limits, this perception is not often realized by the majority of the players. Thus the risks of dumping the big pair, or at a minimum playing them very carefully and possibly passively, are much less. </font>

recent results can frequently lead to the wrong conclusion. That's why, to cite Ed, you need to learn from poker theory as opposed to poker results.

<font color="blue"> I am one eagerly awaiting Ed's book, to see what he has to say about these games. However, Mason, I believe that you don't spend enough time at these lowest-limit games to realize how far off poker theory play is from the actual play that occurs out there. At least, based on my experiences, the advice that you give is more effectively applied to the mid-range of betting.

[Joe Tall]

And of course it *is* an extreme case.

I would nearly have to see the opponent’s cards to fold AK to a single-raise. Yes, that would be extreme.

Anybody who thinks I routinely fold AK to a raiser, even a tight raiser, is nuts.

I don't think that was implied.
___________________________________

Randy,

I know you must feel attacked from all sides. However, I do admire your prowess in your responses to these threads.

I also understand the range of audience you have projected your book toward. I have your book. I have read some of it, briefly, and will have to read more. I just can't recommend your book to the ones I know in this range from what I read so far, sorry.

I was lucky enough to have never read 'Winning Low Limit Hold'em' or 'Beginner to Winner' or other books that are targeted to this audience, such as yours when I began playing poker seriously.

I was lucky enough to find the forum, read HPFAP and have enough money trying to practice and understand these concepts as I took a beating in the Low Limits my first two months.

That was over 18 months ago and now I have the bankroll to play 20/40.

After several months of winning play, I went out and bought, WLLHE and "Beginner to Winner" by Lou Krieger to see what I may have missed.

Well, I did miss quite a bit. I missed struggling another six months trying to move up.

There are many micro/LL posters here that I have no idea why they have not moved up in Limits. Then I read a post or two where they have left multiple bets on the table or folded in the wrong spots. I know they have read the 'beginner' books. I feel the weak-tight advice they received has directly affected their play many months later.

Basically, the 'err on the side of caution' adage is a plague to most beginners. It stalls their thinking process and does not allow them to move beyond ABC poker.

Randy, we have met and I found our brief conversation quite interesting as I do with most intellectuals. I respect you and your ability to write and what you are/have accomplished with your book.

I hope you understand why I made such a trite comment now. I have to get back to work before I'm forced to play poker professionally.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[Easy E]

n/m

[Easy E]

as I see.

Well, you two can have your spat

[MRBAA]

Okay, after posting in this thread yesterday afternoon I headed downtown to the poker club for a little 4-8 action. Midway through the session I received the red aces in the sb. Four limped in front of me, I raised, BB and limpers called. The flop came down 10JK of spades. I bet, BB called, limper one folded, limper two called, limper three raised, limper four three bet and my red aces hit the muck. Limper 3 was a solid player and limper 4 was a new player who wasn't getting out of line. It wasn't even a very hard fold. I had 3 outs to a straight, 2 outs to trip aces but here's the key: I could very likely be drawing dead. As it turned out, limper 3 had 78s for the flopped flush and liimper 4 had KJ for top two on the flop.

Later in the same game, I had two aces again, this time utg. I raised and got four callers. I bet the two-suited, king-high flop and three called. On the turn a third flush card came. I bet out and was raised by a loose, tricky player. One other player who had already called my raise called. We went to the river three way. I checked with the intention of checkraising and folding to a three bet. But the tricky player played good and checked his KJ and my hand was good.

I don't view my fold in the first hand as weak tight. Nor do I view my attempt to c/r the river in the second hand as overly tricky or LAG.

One can always debate the play of any given hand. But the principle Randy is discussing, I believe is sound. At it's simplest, it comes down to "don't get married to your big pairs."

I actually think Randy's book is an excellent resource for players with some experience but fairly new to casino/Internet play. It's gotten very positive feedback from a number of players (including some good reviews on Amazon).

I know that his goal was to create a book people could come back to as they improved, so I think weaving in some more advanced ideas makes good sense.

Joe Tall, you are an unusually talented, strong player. Winning 10-20 (and now 20-40) players are not the audience this book was intended for!

I have to say that Mason's quibbles with language seem to me to be both meanspirited and misguided. The language in the 2+2 books borders on the incoherent in spots. The notion that it is precise or somehow "mathematical" is absurd. Nevertheless, these are among the best books I've read on poker.

As numerous threads on just about any author show, different readings of a text are not an aberration, but the norm.

I would strongly urge players to read "Stepping Up" before drawing judgements about the overall quality of its advice.

[Joe Tall]

It wasn't even a very hard fold. I had 3 outs to a straight, 2 outs to trip aces but here's the key: I could very likely be drawing dead. As it turned out, limper 3 had 78s for the flopped flush and liimper 4 had KJ for top two on the flop.

Hi Carl,

I know there was the opportunity of a flopped flush but as the turn is likely not a K or J you'd have 11 clean outs versus KJ going to the river and many players donnot take this into account. In addition, many beginner books do not address proper outs.

Later in the same game, I had two aces again, this time utg. I raised and got four callers. I bet the two-suited, king-high flop and three called

I know this is not the place for it and I agree with what you have said here: "One can always debate the play of any given hand" but, as you know, I can't help myself... /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

In such an over-aggressive game I would consider check-raising this flop. This line may have avoided the turn/river situation you found yourself in. I also highly recommend playing the turn faster by 3-betting, instead of your river c/r plan.

But the principle Randy is discussing, I believe is sound. At it's simplest, it comes down to "don't get married to your big pairs."

I understand the angle Randy is headed. I just feel it should sound like, "AA is a muti-way monster, here is why, meow, math, meow, chow. However, be aware of the reverse implied odds, chow, meow, math, blah, blah."

I would strongly urge players to read "Stepping Up" before drawing judgements about the overall quality of its advice.

Now this makes a lot of sense.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[MRBAA]

JT, as Roy Cooke says "it depends". In the first situation, trust me, when the one other really solid player raised my bet on the flop, he's got a set, the flush or two pair. This was the only hand we tangled all night -- and he's not playing me to make big laydowns. When the new player who was playing very cautiously now three bets me and the other guy, trust me, he had a hand. I really didn't question this fold and I very rarely would fold aces on the flop. It really was a pretty easy laydown.

Now the second situation is interesting. My thinking on the turn was that the tricky player could have anything from the nut flush to the suited ace to a king or oddball two pair. The third player, who was between us, was very loose and passive and I felt I had him trapped with a crap king here or maybe a big suited card. Since they won't fold the suited card but might fold the king, I didn't want to face the third player with two more bb. In thinking about it, that's debateable, though. The pot was big and I probably want to get the other player out even if he has only 2 outs (and he may well have as many as 5). On the other hand, if the river comes a fourth suited card, I'm going to check and call one but probably not a bet and a raise. So my c/r idea is designed to get one more raise in when that four flush isn't there.

Finally, this is a club game where I play with many of the same players alot. This player is a regular and views me as tight and pretty straightforward. So I thought a river c/r could have added value in making him less sure of what I have. I don't think calling the turn is bad, but I probably should have just bet the damn river.

btw, looking forward to seeing you on June 4/5.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to say that Mason's quibbles with language seem to me to be both meanspirited and misguided. The language in the 2+2 books borders on the incoherent in spots. The notion that it is precise or somehow "mathematical" is absurd. Nevertheless, these are among the best books I've read on poker.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. I couldn't agree more.

[Joe Tall]

When the new player who was playing very cautiously now three bets me and the other guy, trust me, he had a hand. I really didn't question this fold and I very rarely would fold aces on the flop. It really was a pretty easy laydown.

My point wasn't so much about your laydown as it was to think about how many outs you could actually have. Often in LL-books the author fails to give light on such a situation.

looking forward to seeing you on June 4/5.

Well have to arrange a lunch/dinner. It should be very interesting and fun; I'll read all of Randy's Book by then. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Peace,
Joe Tall

[MRBAA]

Well, that's the problem here. I have essentially no outs against a made flush, other than runner runner ace ace or ace/pair the board. And even if one of them doesn't have the flush, my ace of spade and queen of spade "outs" are seriously tainted. Add to that that even if I'm "only" against two pair and a set I probably have only 6 outs at best, and even then my straight outs can be counterfeited by a lot of cards (fourth spade, board pairing). And I can't really go to war with either a set of aces or a straight, since neither is the nuts.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi MRBAA:

I question the fold. That's because many typical players will wait until the turn to raise if they have the flush. Very often when they make it three bets on the flop they want you to fold. That's why they don't wiat until the expensive street.

Of course if you know a player very well, then you might be sure you are beaten and drawing close to dead on the flop. But it's my experience, given the size of the pot, that you will be wrong just enough to cost you some money.

In your second situation you are on the turn, which is very different. But we do state in HPFAP that those of you who routinely make this laydown, especially against players who play as we describe in the book, will also find it expensive.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Ed:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Mason, I believe that you don't spend enough time at these lowest-limit games to realize how far off poker theory play is from the actual play that occurs out there. At least, based on my experiences, the advice that you give is more effectively applied to the mid-range of betting.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's true that my main game today, when I get a chance to play, is the $80-$160. But for years I was criticized for not playing big. Also, I did start very small.

In addition, even though I moved to Las Vegas in April, 1987, when hold 'em became legal in California a couple of months later, I spent much time over there the rest of the year. These were probably the best games that ever existed, and the largest I played during this period was $10-$20 and I went to Gardena to seek out games where none of the Vegas players had gone. So I'm far more experienced in this area than most of you realize.

best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

Let me explain what's wrong here.

First the book has a fair amount of emphasis on playing the other players. Now there is no question that to become a very good player this is something you need to do. Whether so much emphasis should be put on it in a beginners book is another question, but I don't have a problen with it.

Second, I happen to agree that if you find someone who plays this tight it would be correct to fold QQ to a raise, and there was some mathematical analysis supporting this.

The problem is that in all my years of playing I have never seen someone who I thought this play would be correct against. So why give an example in a book aimed at a beginner, who's likely to think this is common (or why would the example be given in the first place) that can only lead them towards incorrect play?

Best wishes,
Mason

[MRBAA]

Mason,

One important point that I don't think has been metioned is that Randy's book is intended to complement books that provide instruction for beginning players by introducing more advanced concepts that often aren't found in such books.
In fact it includes specific recommendations for other books.

Personally, in both stud and HE I found that I didn't really become a solid, winning low limit player simply by learning to tighten my opening standards and understand odds and basic playing strategy. The key was when I was able to integrate ideas about different game textures, player types and hand reading. Concepts found in advanced books, often presented in ways that assume significant prior poker experience and knowledge.

To your point about laying down the aces, the solid player who raised my bet knows I'm likely have top pair or even a set of kings on that flop. With other loose players in, his raise likely means some type of hand that already beats top pair. With a four flush, he's likely to just call. With a made hand, he's raising to get money in with what he thinks is the best hand now and to raise the price for draws. So I was pretty sure his raise meant two pair, a small flush that he wants to play fast (what he actually had) or a set. So I'm putting him on a variety of hands, some of which I have good outs against, but some of which I'm drawing very thin against. Now when you factor in that a pretty timid new player is willing to three bet us both, I have to assign him the same range of strong hands. I don't think he would three bet here with just a king, although something like AK is possible. Since my chance of improving to a hand that dominates either a set or flush is less than what the pot is offering, I think there's virtually no chance my aces are good , and some of the cards that improve my hand also put a four flush on board (Qs, As), I like the fold.

This is a pretty extreme situation, and it's funny that it happened right after this post. But I think being able to regularly make solid laydowns and, on the other side, value bet marginal hands on the turn and river is a very important part of being a significant winner in loose low limit games.

You note that "many players" will raise the flop without the flush. And I agree. But my play here was based on these specific players, and this specific situaiton. For example, I'd have been much less likely to lay down my aces on the same board had the new player raised and the tricky player from the other hand three bet. Now I'd be more likely to think the new player could be overplaying a king and the tricky player could be trying to knock me out.

[CrackerZack]

I feel you have a bit too much mikey in you.

On a mikey note, bizarre action this weekend from the 'woods...

UTG raises and is 3-bet by UTG+1, BB calls and UTG calls. 3 to a flop of AK4r, BB checks, UTG bets, UTG+1 raises, BB folds, UTG calls. Turn A for a board of AK4r A, UTG bets, UTG+1 folds KK face up.

I love poker.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Joe:

Thanks for your post. I think you hit the nail on the head.

Years ago when I was critical of the first edition of the Lee Jones book I was similarly criticized by many people.

Ironically, playing weak tight is the first step towards winning play for many relatively new players. It's certainly much better than playing way too loose as most new players are inclined to do. But I certainly agree that

[ QUOTE ]
It stalls their thinking process and does not allow them to move beyond ABC poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi MRBAA:

There's no question that if you are very sure about your opponent's tendencies, then you can correctly make some extreme plays. But the key here are the words very sure.

Best wishes,
mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi CrackerZack:

The interesting thing about your example is that the player who folded the pair of kings will probably be right more often than he is wrong. Thus he will reinforce the notion in his own mind that he is playing well. But the reality is that routinely making this laydown in a pot of this size is not playing well.

Best wishes,
Mason

[MRBAA]

In the example given by CrackerZack, you'd have to take a crowbar to my wrists to get the kings out of my hands.

[tolbiny]

"Second, I happen to agree that if you find someone who plays this tight it would be correct to fold QQ to a raise, and there was some mathematical analysis supporting this.

The problem is that in all my years of playing I have never seen someone who I thought this play would be correct against."



"These were probably the best games that ever existed, and the largest I played during this period was $10-$20 and I went to Gardena to seek out games where none of the Vegas players had gone. So I'm far more experienced in this area than most of you realize."


Mason,
I have fairly limited playing experience- around 350 hours of live 5-10, but in that time i have come across one player who Only raises with AA or KK preflop, and one player who i am quite certain only raises with JJ-AA and AK (both suited and offsuit).
If you have never come across players like this it suggests to me that the game at low limits has changed dramatically since you played the first legal games in LA. Even though these may be the best games we might ever see- having played in them 10+ years ago alone doesnt qualify you to continue to make assumptions about low limit games. I think this is the problem that some of your readers have with your advice. Unfortunately we can only give you little snippits from 100's to 1000's of hours of play to try to disagree with some statements that you make. This is why we would love to see you take a step back into small stakes- because we value your advice so much we know that any experience there would allow you to help improve our games. I know it is extremely unlikely that you will be playing in those games again, but i still believe some of the questions about your analysis of lo-limit play are valid despite your previous experience.

[Easy E]

or, get a whole new book out of it

"Low-Limit Losers who will NEVER be Advanced Players"

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Maybe they should ask Dave if they have tommy angeloitis syndrome before they decide what to do. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

They very well may be in a situation of reverse implied odds. I did a simulation on twodimes.net for a hypothetical situation like this...

Result
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=315754
pokenum -h kc kh - qc 9s - jd th - 5d 4d - ac 8c - 7h 3h -- 8d 9d jh
Holdem Hi: 666 enumerated boards containing 9d 8d Jh
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Kc Kh 95 14.26 571 85.74 0 0.00 0.143
9s Qc 87 13.06 579 86.94 0 0.00 0.131
Jd Th 164 24.62 502 75.38 0 0.00 0.246
5d 4d 228 34.23 438 65.77 0 0.00 0.342
Ac 8c 58 8.71 608 91.29 0 0.00 0.087
7h 3h 34 5.11 632 94.89 0 0.00 0.051

Notice the KK is way behind both the JT straight draw with a pair and the 5d4d flush draw. Furthermore, the king is just barely ahead of Q9o!

Now this was just a quickly out of the blue chosen set of hands, but they're reasonable for a loose game. If there weren't the JT out there, the KK might not get called by anyone on the end.

To be sure, I checked TOP... to be in a situation of reverse implied odds you need to...

1. not know where you are at.

That counts here, because KK could already be beaten.

2. Have little chance of improving to beat the hand your opponents might have or might make.

That certainly counts here, because KK needs runner-runner with a two outer to beat a straight or flush.

3. A call commits you to calling future bets all the way to the end.

That might not be true here, obviously with four to a straight or a three-flush on board, KK might fold to action.

4. your opponent can back off anytime.

Well, that's not really true here either, as several opponents in this example that I made up would certainly call a flop bet/raise and another bet on the turn.

Despite the fact that 3 and 4 don't really match the book criteria, I think that reasons 1 and 2 are probably enough to say yes, this is a situation of reverse implied odds. Whether that is perfectly correct or not, it's obvious from the twodimes analysis that the KK is far from the favorite here. I don't see much point in ramming and jamming this particular hand if you hold the kings. The 14% equity might be worth passively staying in till the river, but I sure wouldn't ram and jam it. The best thing for the kings might be to get a free card on the flop! If there's a bet in front of him, with others left to act behind, I can sure see folding as being a good choice of play. It's very clear that the flush and JT will gain far more than the KK by money going into the pot at this point.

Now the KK might have enough equity to continue, and perhaps barely break even or make a profit, but I doubt it's going to be much of a profit, if any (I don't feel like figuring it out in that much detail right now). And 86% of the time, any more bets by KK will be toast.

al

[Randy Burgess]

Excellent post.

[Vehn]

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[Al_Capone_Junior]

You can keep taking these pot shots at me vehn, and it doesn't matter if you ignore this post or not, because everyone else will see it. the bottom line is that every time you make these attacks, I report it to admin.

Randy liked my post, much to your dismay I am sure. But that's too bad. My posts stand for themselves. there is no need for you to attack him or me over it, regardless if it's a passive-aggressive attack or not. It does not add anything whatsoever to this or any other thread.

I won't get into a nasty flame war over this, but I am publicly calling for Mat Sklansky to once again ban vehn from the forums, and this time make it stick. I also call publicly for Mat to delete your post, and this one too, as they add nothing to this otherwise great thread. Finally, I call for every poster on 2+2 who is sick of this behavior to immediately report all offensive threads to the administrators.

This needs to end. This will be all I have to say on the matter.

al

[Joe Tall]

Not that I don't agree with what you have said, I do.

However, the example you have chosen is radical. You have given everyone draws/overcards/redraws that would obviously pull from KK's equity.

The 14% equity might be worth passively staying in till the river, but I sure wouldn't ram and jam it

This is why it is often not correct to ram-jam a flop that you gave and you are better off calling the flop and raising the turn.

Peace Al,
Joe Tall

[daryn]

al,

seriously, what's up with just ignoring it? does it get under your skin that much? seriously???

i'm not taking any side here, but it just seems that you're playing into vehn's hands by getting upset at a post like that (that WAS funny).

just forgetaboutit, no?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I did choose a somewhat radical example. But the hands are quite reasonable. I think you'll not find yourself in situations like this all the time, but sometimes you will, and it helps if you realize just how bad off you can be when you have an overpair to a very unfavorable flop in a multiway pot.

al

[Clarkmeister]

" I won't get into a nasty flame war over this, but I am publicly calling for Mat Sklansky to once again ban vehn from the forums, and this time make it stick. I also call publicly for Mat to delete your post, and this one too, as they add nothing to this otherwise great thread. Finally, I call for every poster on 2+2 who is sick of this behavior to immediately report all offensive threads to the administrators. "

Dude, we're buds and all but you are uncharacteristically overreacting to this stuff, some of which I know you'll admit is actually funny. I think living in Hellville surrounded by wackjobs has gotten you a little too uptight. You need to hurry and get back west where everythings a whole lot more mellow. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Al_Capone_Junior]

perhaps you are right. Patience and tolerance for "certain people" is not my strong point these days, but I am trying.

I should be driving away on june 21st or so, vegas bound.

al

[Clarkmeister]

Awesome!