|
|
|
|
#2
06-06-2005, 06:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Doesn\'t Hilger Talk about partial outs?
[ QUOTE ]
I believe Matthew Hilger discusses partial outs in his book, right? So, Slotboom is wrong about saying that you were the first to introduce it to literature.. [/ QUOTE ] yes, I know that I first read about the concept of partial outs in Hilger's ITH. 
|
|
#3
06-06-2005, 11:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Doesn\'t Hilger Talk about partial outs?
[ QUOTE ]
I believe Matthew Hilger discusses partial outs in his book, right? So, Slotboom is wrong about saying that you were the first to introduce it to literature.. [/ QUOTE ] Before Hilger, Ciaffone/Brier discussed this concept in Middle Limit Holdem Poker, which dates to 2001. [It may be worth noting that Mason says (or at least strongly implies) that Hilger *ahem* borrowed material from that book and others without proper attribution.] And in 1983, well before MLH, Sklansky discussed discounting outs in what was then titled Winning Poker and is now The Theory of Poker. I don't know if it appeared in print before that.
|
|
#4
06-07-2005, 02:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Doesn\'t Hilger Talk about partial outs?
[ QUOTE ]
And in 1983, well before MLH, Sklansky discussed discounting outs in what was then titled Winning Poker and is now The Theory of Poker. I don't know if it appeared in print before that. [/ QUOTE ] Probably not, because the idea of a "tainted" out only applies to community card games. This is one of those idea's that people who played stud/draw never had to think about when playing those games, and used to be so juicy when playing Hold'em for the first time..
|
|
#5
06-07-2005, 03:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Doesn\'t Hilger Talk about partial outs?
He didn't call it discounting, but he did say you had to adjust your odds based on the possiblity of a card improving your had, but improving your opponents hand even more. That's in "Hold'em Poker" by Sklansky IIRC that was a mid 1970's origianl publishing date.
|
|
#6
06-07-2005, 03:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Doesn\'t Hilger Talk about partial outs?
[ QUOTE ]
He didn't call it discounting, but he did say you had to adjust your odds based on the possiblity of a card improving your had, but improving your opponents hand even more. That's in "Hold'em Poker" by Sklansky IIRC that was a mid 1970's origianl publishing date. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, 1976. Cool. He didn't use the word "discounting" in TOP either, but the concept is there. He does not, however, give precise counting instructions, and I think that is what Slotboom is crediting to Miller. SSH does have the most complete discussion of this topic I have seen.
|
|
#7
06-02-2005, 11:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Slotboom on SSHE
[ QUOTE ]
Miller estimates the 3c 2c on a flop Qc 8c 2h (i.e. bottom pair / low kicker / three high flush draw) as a "strong" hand, a "robust holding", and most importantly: as a fourteen-out draw. Now, in a multiway pot, this can almost never be correct. Even if you are not up against a higher flush draw (and in a multiway pot, you should take this possibility into consideration at all times, especially with your suited cards this small) you still can't count this hand as fourteen pure outs - exactly because of the reasons the author himself had given in earlier sections. [/ QUOTE ] Multi way pot, multi way pot, multi way pot. I think that these are the most important words in hold em at this time and no one seems to be able to deal with them. From two dimes here is a 5 way pot: Result http://twodimes.net/h/?z=997290 pokenum -h 3h 4h - ks kd - 5c 4c - qd 9c - 3c 2c -- qc 8c 2h Holdem Hi: 741 enumerated boards containing Qc 8c 2h cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV 4h 3h 61 8.23 679 91.63 1 0.13 0.083 Ks Kd 237 31.98 504 68.02 0 0.00 0.320 5c 4c 220 29.69 520 70.18 1 0.13 0.298 9c Qd 140 18.89 601 81.11 0 0.00 0.189 3c 2c 82 11.07 659 88.93 0 0.00 0.111 Here is a 4 way pot with the strongest hand folded: http://twodimes.net/h/?z=997301 pokenum -h 3h 4h - 5c 4c - qd 9c - 3c 2c -- qc 8c 2h Holdem Hi: 820 enumerated boards containing Qc 8c 2h cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV 4h 3h 63 7.68 756 92.20 1 0.12 0.077 5c 4c 240 29.27 579 70.61 1 0.12 0.293 9c Qd 422 51.46 398 48.54 0 0.00 0.515 3c 2c 94 11.46 726 88.54 0 0.00 0.115 Lets look again when we replace top pair with middle pair: http://twodimes.net/h/?z=997304 pokenum -h 3h 4h - 5c 4c - 8d 9c - 3c 2c -- qc 8c 2h Holdem Hi: 820 enumerated boards containing Qc 8c 2h cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV 4h 3h 63 7.68 756 92.20 1 0.12 0.077 5c 4c 240 29.27 579 70.61 1 0.12 0.293 9c 8d 422 51.46 398 48.54 0 0.00 0.515 3c 2c 94 11.46 726 88.54 0 0.00 0.115 That 23s did not get helped. Makes you wonder doesn't it? Lets try again and only have one club in play that we do not have access to on the turn and river: http://twodimes.net/h/?z=997313 pokenum -h 3h 4h - 5h 4s - 8d 9c - 3c 2c -- qc 8c 2h Holdem Hi: 820 enumerated boards containing Qc 8c 2h cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV 4h 3h 48 5.85 772 94.15 0 0.00 0.059 4s 5h 23 2.80 797 97.20 0 0.00 0.028 9c 8d 397 48.41 423 51.59 0 0.00 0.484 3c 2c 352 42.93 468 57.07 0 0.00 0.429 Still beat by middle pair! Not till you include all clubs in the deck (9 remaining) do you see this power hand 2c3c win more than it looses. Why anyone would play cheese like this unless you want to advertise, but what would you be advertizing? that you are stupid? Multi way pots! I think players can be beat, hands beat, but multiway pots are not beatable with cheese. Multi way pots beat premium hands too. One more demonstration, this is HU against one of the weakest hands you would play with. You play it only to hit a set on the flop, if it doesnt hit it is considered to be of no value. But not hitting the flop and playing it to the river look what happens: http://twodimes.net/h/?z=997327 pokenum -h 3h 3s - 3c 2c -- qc 8c 2h Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing Qc 8c 2h cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV 3s 3h 554 55.96 427 43.13 9 0.91 0.564 3c 2c 427 43.13 554 55.96 9 0.91 0.436 <font color="blue"> Shame on you Mr. Miller and 2+2! </font> I have been studying hold'em for about a year now. Using 2+2 play I have indeed won sometimes (on line). I started with play money and lost and lost and lost to the young guns that emulate Helmouth, Moneymaker, Hanson and the rest. I started reading 2+2 and could win but I had to use very careful table selection and keep evaluating the table as I played always on the look out for one of these Kiddie Helmouths. I had to pretend that my play money was real money and had value, I could not bet it like play money and win. (I have a friend who is a play money millionare but that is another story) I began to play real money with a $500 bank roll. .25/.50 and won and lost and won and lost. With bonus play I am a bit ahead. I have played at the .02/.04 tables as well as the 2/4 tables. I have celebrated $25 wins on a .10/.20 table in 20 min and become depressed over a $1 loss at .02/.04. I win when the table is void of Kiddie Helmouths I loose when they are there. Sometimes just a raise in late position with AKs can stir up a table and create Kiddie Helmouths. Once they begin to play every hand to the river I loose. I stay controled and still I loose to the variance of random hand selection. Even only playing the top 5-6 hands does not produce anything in profit because of the rake and blinds. I do not have 40K hands to analise, I spend 2-3 hours studying for every hour I spend playing and yet there appears to be nothing that can overcome near random hand selection played to the river by multiple players. Please Mr. Miller and the rest of 2+2 tell me it ain't so.
|
|
#9
06-03-2005, 11:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Slotboom on SSHE
[ QUOTE ]
You'll do much better if you stop blaming others or things you can't control for your results. [/ QUOTE ] Max, I think that you missunderstood my point but at the same time you have emphasized it for me. My point is that I do not think that hold'em can be controlled by playing styles any longer. I am not blaming anyone for my results either. Heck I am ahead right now. So don't think that I am complaining because I am not. If poker is a game of intellect then there should not be the great grinding of teeth that is apparent on this board. I think everyone that post here is above the curve on brains or they would not be seeking the information to beat the game. I propose that the game of Small Stakes Hold'em as it is played today is not beatable in the long run. The game has been changed by the TV coverage. 1 The pre TV game was played in backrooms and played in a manner that kept the old coggers from loosing to much money until a fish wondered in. 2 They used a secret code: If I raise UTG you better fold because I have AA, KK, etc. Kenny Rogers said it best! 3 The old guys played to reduce variance enough to level out thier winnings and losses. 4 New fish tried new things to survive. What they found that sometimes worked well was to push back with cheese when the old guys tried to push them off a pot. 5 Sometimes cheese lost but sometimes it won. It always increased variance. Variance increases doubt, that is why we bluff, raise hands we usually call. 6 TV, like always made stars out of these brash arrogant players (I congratulate them for thing I could never accomplish). 7 As always any media star thinks they are more important that they really are. The egos grew and the stars started to be emmulated. 8 Now anyone can put on a pair of sunglasses, hat, head phones and a hooded sweatshirt, sit in front of the computer and be a Kiddie Helmouth spewing variance into the internet games. Respectfully considering your post Max, you suggest that there are things that are beyond my control which I must agree with 100%. That is exactly my point. I can sometimes deal with one Kiddie Helmouth and depending on the game, part of another one but it is impossible for me to deal with three, four, or five of them unless I am getting very good deals over and over and over. Then and only then can I control the game. Poker is a game of control is it not? You can not control the cards, unless you cheat, but you can control your play, your image, the play of others, the image of others, your emotions, your opponents emotions, your attention to details and all the other little things that give you an edge. I see no way to control the variance introduced into the game with 3-4 Kiddie Helmouths going to the river on every hand. Yes, I understand that one Kiddie Helmouths is good for the game and I understand that several Kiddie Helmouths is what some of you want, but I do not see a table full of Kiddie Helmouths as beatable. I have read the 2+2 books, studied them, highlighted them, reread them as text books and as novels. They suggest table selection and agressive play as the way to eliminate the influence of these players but I have yet to see evidence. Mr. Miller says in his new book that he went out and played the style he suggest in his book and that he won. I would like to see results over time where he is unrecognizable. I would like to see proof. I am not trying to be rude or suggest that 2+2 is misleading, but I do think that hold'em is gambling, and that is not covered well in 2+2 publishing efforts. Sure you can improve but for now hold'em is beaten with variance and/or luck which one has no control over. There are plenty of good books that teach you to play slots, roulett, blackjack, video poker and craps. The respected sources tell you how to reduce variance; bet the pass and don't and take the max odds, stay off the strip and out of the airport to play slots, hit the soft 16, play PERFECT play on the correct video poker machine and you will have a slight edge on the machine, if you want to play roulette then the house is going to take about 5.00 of every hundred that you expose. I think that it is time to admit hold'ems dirty little secret or prove it wrong. How about it 2+2???????
|
|
#10
06-03-2005, 11:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Slotboom on SSHE
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You'll do much better if you stop blaming others or things you can't control for your results. [/ QUOTE ] Max, I think that you missunderstood my point but at the same time you have emphasized it for me. My point is that I do not think that hold'em can be controlled by playing styles any longer. I am not blaming anyone for my results either. Heck I am ahead right now. So don't think that I am complaining because I am not. If poker is a game of intellect then there should not be the great grinding of teeth that is apparent on this board. I think everyone that post here is above the curve on brains or they would not be seeking the information to beat the game. I propose that the game of Small Stakes Hold'em as it is played today is not beatable in the long run. The game has been changed by the TV coverage. 1 The pre TV game was played in backrooms and played in a manner that kept the old coggers from loosing to much money until a fish wondered in. 2 They used a secret code: If I raise UTG you better fold because I have AA, KK, etc. Kenny Rogers said it best! 3 The old guys played to reduce variance enough to level out thier winnings and losses. 4 New fish tried new things to survive. What they found that sometimes worked well was to push back with cheese when the old guys tried to push them off a pot. 5 Sometimes cheese lost but sometimes it won. It always increased variance. Variance increases doubt, that is why we bluff, raise hands we usually call. 6 TV, like always made stars out of these brash arrogant players (I congratulate them for thing I could never accomplish). 7 As always any media star thinks they are more important that they really are. The egos grew and the stars started to be emmulated. 8 Now anyone can put on a pair of sunglasses, hat, head phones and a hooded sweatshirt, sit in front of the computer and be a Kiddie Helmouth spewing variance into the internet games. Respectfully considering your post Max, you suggest that there are things that are beyond my control which I must agree with 100%. That is exactly my point. I can sometimes deal with one Kiddie Helmouth and depending on the game, part of another one but it is impossible for me to deal with three, four, or five of them unless I am getting very good deals over and over and over. Then and only then can I control the game. Poker is a game of control is it not? You can not control the cards, unless you cheat, but you can control your play, your image, the play of others, the image of others, your emotions, your opponents emotions, your attention to details and all the other little things that give you an edge. I see no way to control the variance introduced into the game with 3-4 Kiddie Helmouths going to the river on every hand. Yes, I understand that one Kiddie Helmouths is good for the game and I understand that several Kiddie Helmouths is what some of you want, but I do not see a table full of Kiddie Helmouths as beatable. I have read the 2+2 books, studied them, highlighted them, reread them as text books and as novels. They suggest table selection and agressive play as the way to eliminate the influence of these players but I have yet to see evidence. Mr. Miller says in his new book that he went out and played the style he suggest in his book and that he won. I would like to see results over time where he is unrecognizable. I would like to see proof. I am not trying to be rude or suggest that 2+2 is misleading, but I do think that hold'em is gambling, and that is not covered well in 2+2 publishing efforts. Sure you can improve but for now hold'em is beaten with variance and/or luck which one has no control over. There are plenty of good books that teach you to play slots, roulett, blackjack, video poker and craps. The respected sources tell you how to reduce variance; bet the pass and don't and take the max odds, stay off the strip and out of the airport to play slots, hit the soft 16, play PERFECT play on the correct video poker machine and you will have a slight edge on the machine, if you want to play roulette then the house is going to take about 5.00 of every hundred that you expose. I think that it is time to admit hold'ems dirty little secret or prove it wrong. How about it 2+2??????? [/ QUOTE ] Then why do so many of us win so much using 2+2 books as our guides?
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
