Common Poker Theory Misconceptions Thread.

[partygirluk]

I am at work, so I'll only post one for now.

1) "I had already put 1/2 of my stack in the pot, so I had to call", or "I had only put 1% of my stack in, so folding seemed most prudent". How much you have put in the pot is only relevant in that it changes how thepot size, and in NL, it changes how much you have left to bet.

If the pot is $100, you have $600 behind, and it is $20 to call, how much of the $100 in the pot is yours, is not directly relevant to your decision.

[k_squared]

Good thread...

And there are so many!!!

My current 3 favorites.

"I never bother to raise with any pocket pair (except maybe AA) because someone always draws out one me!" A surefire way to lose yourself a ton of money...

"There aren't bad cards, just bad flops" - akin to "Any 2 cards can win" both right in a twisted and simplistic way that fails to account for the fact that some cards have a much higher chance of winning than others.

"I was on a rush, so I just figured I would keep playing until I lost a hand!"

-K_squared

[partygirluk]

Another one.

Someone gets C/Red on the turn with AA. They think that they are up against a set. They are closing the action in a 19BB pot.

They think "I am 22-1 against drawing out v. a set. However, my implied odds if I do so are pretty massive. So the call is close. But, the pot is so big then I'll have to call one on the end. So my odds are really halved, so best if I fold the turn".

This thinking is flawed on two reasons:

i) If you put the other guy on a ser, your odds for drawing out are actually 21-1 (as you "know" 8 cards).

ii) You don't "have" to call on the end. You only call if the pot odds are preferable. If you are ahead with a high enough probability, then you can call down with significantly less than the direct odds of hitting your set. If you are 100% convinced that he has a set, then you can base your decision on immediate pot odds, and implied odds alone, as you should always fold the river if you don't improve.

[Dan Burns]

I was playing 1/2 NL in Atlantic City. The guy to my right was pretty erratic and pretty bad. He was in the SB and I was in the BB. Someone in EP raised to $10. Another player raised to about $40 and a short stack went all in for about that same amount. He was on a stack of about $100 and called. I folded as did EP. Don't remember the flop, but the raiser went all in. Guy to my right flashed me some unsuited trash like 48o and folded. Then he turned to me (this man who had $1 invested in the pot pre flop), shrugged and said "had to call for the pot odds."

[The Bloke]

[ QUOTE ]
"I was on a rush, so I just figured I would keep playing until I lost a hand!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Though Doyle Brunson is a big fan of doing this - in Super System 2 he basically dismisses 'scientists' who say a rush isn't possible, and says if he's on a run he'll keep playing until he loses. He does present some logic to it - the other players at his table become more and more hesitant of taking him on as he dominates the table hand after hand.

But I guess this generally only works if:
a) You're playing live where people actually notice
b) You're Doyle Brunson

[k_squared]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I was on a rush, so I just figured I would keep playing until I lost a hand!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Though Doyle Brunson is a big fan of doing this - in Super System 2 he basically dismisses 'scientists' who say a rush isn't possible, and says if he's on a run he'll keep playing until he loses. He does present some logic to it - the other players at his table become more and more hesitant of taking him on as he dominates the table hand after hand.

But I guess this generally only works if:
a) You're playing live where people actually notice
b) You're Doyle Brunson

[/ QUOTE ]

You can 'play your rush' but to believe the cards are affected by what previous cards have come is plainly put-stupid. Playing a rush is using your image, and your recent good fortune to your advantage, which might allow you to take advantage of an image... in the case people were paying attention. Even Doyle Brunson can be wrong...

It is a fact that the cards do often times come in runs (or rushes) when we look back at them. But we can only see that looking back, not looking forward, so to play as if the rush was going to continue is a bad idea. You play your game (and your meta-game) which means you should take advantage of your image, but you don't play a rush because you think the cards are 'hot.'

What is so odd about rushes is that it always feels like the cards come like that, which means when you are running hot you start to expect it... but that expectation is very costly if you start acting on it!

preaching to the choir,
-k_squared

[Victor]

your saying you can fold after already putting money in a pot. wow. thanks partygirl.

[Vee Quiva]

[ QUOTE ]
How much you have put in the pot is only relevant in that it changes how thepot size, and in NL, it changes how much you have left to bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can think of one example where it does matter. If you are in a situation where you put 1/2 your stack into the hand and the 1/2 you have left is only 2-3 times the blinds. You may be in a situation where you have to call no matter what because the chances of you coming back with 3 BB in the tournament are slim and none and slim just left town.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How much you have put in the pot is only relevant in that it changes how thepot size, and in NL, it changes how much you have left to bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can think of one example where it does matter. If you are in a situation where you put 1/2 your stack into the hand and the 1/2 you have left is only 2-3 times the blinds. You may be in a situation where you have to call no matter what because the chances of you coming back with 3 BB in the tournament are slim and none and slim just left town.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right and wrong. You should call "no matter what", as the chances of coming back from 3BB is > 0. In fact, with 3BB you could triple up win the blins and be back to 10.5 BBs in no time. However, if the blinds were close to you, you might make a call that pot odds alone dictate is slightly wrong.

[TimmyMayes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I was on a rush, so I just figured I would keep playing until I lost a hand!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Though Doyle Brunson is a big fan of doing this - in Super System 2 he basically dismisses 'scientists' who say a rush isn't possible, and says if he's on a run he'll keep playing until he loses. He does present some logic to it - the other players at his table become more and more hesitant of taking him on as he dominates the table hand after hand.

But I guess this generally only works if:
a) You're playing live where people actually notice
b) You're Doyle Brunson

[/ QUOTE ]

You can 'play your rush' but to believe the cards are affected by what previous cards have come is plainly put-stupid. Playing a rush is using your image, and your recent good fortune to your advantage, which might allow you to take advantage of an image... in the case people were paying attention. Even Doyle Brunson can be wrong...

It is a fact that the cards do often times come in runs (or rushes) when we look back at them. But we can only see that looking back, not looking forward, so to play as if the rush was going to continue is a bad idea. You play your game (and your meta-game) which means you should take advantage of your image, but you don't play a rush because you think the cards are 'hot.'

What is so odd about rushes is that it always feels like the cards come like that, which means when you are running hot you start to expect it... but that expectation is very costly if you start acting on it!

preaching to the choir,
-k_squared

[/ QUOTE ]

Doyle Brunson's point is this

1. he plays the next hand after a win so he can sort of "allow" a rush to happen

2. he doesn't assume previous cards affect current ones, however it is perfectly possible to be in the middle of "a rush" there are times when you cannot lose a hand. He isn't saying "well i won a couple so i am gonna win these next ones" he lets it happen as it were by raising the next pot.

3. Doyle played mostly NL HE during the publication of this work.

4. Think about tournament play....its this concept on a smaller scale. The way to succeed at tournaments is to "survive long enough to get lucky" aka hang on till you get a big rush of cards and build a huge stack...

Cheers,
Tyler