unbeatable game?

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
It's capped preflop and ten people are in. How many people are NOT getting good odds when there are 40 small bets in the pot before the first flop bet is even made?

[/ QUOTE ]

All the people who aren't drawing to the winning hand are not getting good odds. You have to determine what is a likely winning hand in any poker game. The looseness of the game does not change this. If someone has a pair and is drawing to outs to 2 pair, and there is a 3 or 4 flush on the board and a pair with 10 people in the pot, then that person (almost certainly) does not have the odds to draw no matter what the pot odds are. Being able to determine how strong of a hand you need to win any given pot is one of the "tools" you need to beat this game, and that is one of the "tools" good players bring to the table.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
You have a semblance of a point, but that's not right. For one thing, you have 10 people in the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to change my mind. Yes, you can play nearly anything on the button and nearly nothing utg. (My idea of playing nearly nothing in any position agrees with Sklansky, so atleast I can take umbrage in better poker players than me making the same faulty conclusion.)

[A_PLUS]

This thread is getting out of hand. People saying things like 22 and AA are almost equal, SC are better than pocket pairs, you need trips to win, etc, etc.

All of these claims are loosely based some sort of sound poker theory, but have really missed their mark. For example, we know that hands like 89s plays well in multiway pots from late position, and KJo plays better with few oponents. This is true. What is not true is that against 5 random hands, that 89s will win more often. (apx 23 vs 20%). When we talk about these things we are talking about a hand's RELATIVE value.

Anyway, I ran a few simulations to dispell some the myths that are floating around this thread. I will be posting a quiz shortly!

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you play almost entirely online, if not entirely, jeffnc? This is the lack of experience I'm talking about, which leads to endless extrapolation about how great the super-crazy games really are



Yes I do. What are you talking about? You think "super crazy" games don't exist on the internet? Define super crazy, and no matter what your definition, the games exist on the internet. Have you ever played in play money games? Have you seen BM games looser than that? How can it possibly be looser than play money games?

[/ QUOTE ]

Easily, jeffnc. They go on year after year at the Commerce casino, where I used to play. That's the difference between reality and speculation, eh? You should learn to honor that difference a little more instead of presuming so very much, yes?

[ QUOTE ]
It's also simple math that the expert player has a much higher EV in this game than a tough game. Isn't that really what it's all about for a disciplined, properly bankrolled player? Isn't that what we all ought to be?]

[/ QUOTE ]

For the bankroll and expertise needed to maximize wins in a game like this, and for the drama you have to sit through, the expert or even the merely decent player can make just as much money elsewhere with less variation and less aggravation. Why would he stay in these games? That's what I've been saying. You seem fixated on the value of these games as if it were an absolute or somehow meaningful.

If you go to casinos, you'll rarely find anyone in these games, in my experience, who can beat tougher games. The "value" that so many people who have never played these games crow about being in these games doesn't pan out once you get past the armchair quarterbacking. It is NOT so profitable for someone who can play 5/10 or 10/20 to hang around a 2/4 game no matter how juicy it is. Why would he want to do that? To prove some kind of obscure point? It is NOT a good use of the bankroll or of one's skills.


[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Quote:
Online almost never gets even remotely near that loose.


"4-7 players per game? Are you crazy? There are definitely games like that.

Four to the flop or river is nothing like the B&M games being discussed. Nor is five or six to the flop. At seven, now maybe we're starting to talk.



Exactly, that was my point. Those were the OP's words, not mine. He seems to think 4-7 players per flop is crazy, and he is the one I'm responding to. If you're talking about something other than what the OP is talking about, then you're changing the subject. But since you are....

Quote:
As to those games that actually ARE being discussed, they are far from the norm online. I've never seen one yet. Nor am I so anxious to do so that I want to go play 2-cent and 4-cent games and find out, according to your suggestion, whether they are -- ahem -- "unbeatable."



The games that ARE being discussed are games with 4-7 players per flop. The OP started the thread, not you. And, if you're not willing to play in the play money games or .02/.04 games online, then I'll guess you'll have to take my word for it rather than saying they don't exist based on whatever arbitrary notion you have in your mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

The games I'm talking about are much more within the boundaries of the subject than what you're talking about, and they apply in concept much better too.

Your going on about first games that aren't particularly loose, and then play money games and 2-cent/4-cent games has just gotten absurd. Most people don't play those games and don't want to play those games, and you know full well those are not at all the games being discussed. What on earth is happening to your discussion? Please, at least stick to the remote arena of what we're talking about. Evidently you're just getting drunk on arguing at this point.

The average online game, I repeat, is nothing like the games we're talking about. And most online players haven't played those really wild games -- just like it appears you haven't. If you'd like to argue that many other levels of online games are like 2-cent/4-cent games, and most people have played those kinds of games or will play them, and what we're talking about has anything to do with play money games and penny games, I think your definitely careening way far off into irrelevance. Now THAT's changing the subject.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why you don't see these games online. I get the impression you haven't played in them as much as I have, and I think you're exaggerating.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've already admitted you've never played these live games that both the original poster and I am talking about in the first place. You have no idea whatsoever whether I'm exaggerating, whatever that means, what they're like, but the original poster will confirm those games exist, as will Ed Miller, who has described them and verified what I've said about them in a few threads before.

The only online equivalents you could come up with were ridiculously inappropriate and hardly common to many sites nor likely to be the basis of extensive play experience by most people reading this thread, if any, perhaps including yourself.

Face it -- you can't even believe these games exist on the one hand, admit you've never played them but think references to them are exaggerated, and then say you've played more of them than I have, and have done it online in a way that's relevant.

I think you're arguing from pride and compulsiveness at this point and merely being combative, and probably can't stop yourself, so I'm leaving it go from here on in on this thread with you.

You're welcome to theorize and make corrections further all about games you've admitted both you have never played and can't imagine.

[Sixth_Rule]

i think if you are getting a sittuation like 4-5 to the always capped flop then AA KK QQ AK AQs are the only hands you play. if its 7 -8 people on the flop i would add TT JJ KQs QJs JTs
if its only two bets with 4-5 then you can add alot of hands like suited connectors as low as 78 pairs to 77.

thats still not alot of hands
KQo KJo and AJo will lose more then they win so just sit back and wait for the monsters preflop and postflop.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Easily, jeffnc. They go on year after year at the Commerce casino, where I used to play. That's the difference between reality and speculation, eh? You should learn to honor that difference a little more instead of presuming so very much, yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

You should learn to answer the question. What are the conditions of these unbelievable games you're finding that can't be found on the internet? I say you're fibbing.


[ QUOTE ]
For the bankroll and expertise needed to maximize wins in a game like this, and for the drama you have to sit through, the expert or even the merely decent player can make just as much money elsewhere with less variation and less aggravation. Why would he stay in these games?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care what kind of game you're playing in - you don't need as big a bankroll to play in a crazy .25/.50 game as you do in a regular $20/40 game. That's plain nonsense.

[ QUOTE ]
The "value" that so many people who have never played these games crow about being in these games doesn't pan out once you get past the armchair quarterbacking.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) What are these unbelievable game conditions that exist in these games, specifically, that cannot be found on the internet?
2) Why are you even bringing it into the conversation if the OP is talking about games with 4-7 players in the pot?

[ QUOTE ]
Your going on about first games that aren't particularly loose, and then play money games and 2-cent/4-cent games has just gotten absurd. Most people don't play those games and don't want to play those games, and you know full well those are not at all the games being discussed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I responded to the OP regarding the specific game conditions he mentioned. I have played in those game conditions all the time. Now are you going off on some tangent? If so, what is it, specifically?

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
And ak offsuit is absolutely horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. Go ahead and fold it then.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
i think if you are getting a sittuation like 4-5 to the always capped flop then AA KK QQ AK AQs are the only hands you play. if its 7 -8 people on the flop i would add TT JJ KQs QJs JTs

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you can play more hands than this.

[ QUOTE ]
if its only two bets with 4-5 then you can add alot of hands like suited connectors as low as 78 pairs to 77

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't play 78s in this type of game.

[ QUOTE ]
KQo KJo and AJo will lose more then they win

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, i wouldn't play these.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I ran a few simulations to dispell some the myths that are floating around this thread

[/ QUOTE ]

A hot/cold sim of hands to showdown will be misleading with the results you get. Just so's ya know.

b

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't care what kind of game you're playing in - you don't need as big a bankroll to play in a crazy .25/.50 game as you do in a regular $20/40 game. That's plain nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said anything like that and you know it.

But your posts have long since degraded to this level, so I'm done giving them credence they don't deserve. If you want a discussion, you have to participate yourself, not just be silly.