Theory of Poker: Chapters 1-4 Discussion

[Smokey98]

[ QUOTE ]
You gained because he called your much superior hand that he wouldn't have had he known what you had. (= you gain).

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don’t think this is right. The guy with AT, even if he knew your hand is still getting proper odds to make the call.

[ QUOTE ]
And he gains from your bet because he avoided being checkraised.

[/ QUOTE ]
Although this MAY be true, however if you check then AT guy would probably check too since he’s on a draw.

[ QUOTE ]
If nobody could see anybodies cards, and it was checked to him, the AT dude would have had to have bet, then would have been instantly been faced with a raise. So he saved a bet (on the expensive street no less).

[/ QUOTE ]

If the cards were unseen then the guy with AK would have to bet thinking he is ahead and praying that AT guy doesn’t hit his flush and if the flush comes on 5th st, then he can check and see what AT guy does.

[Smokey98]

I would say you would want to play this hand in a large ante game as your starting requirements will decrease in large ante games. If this were a small ante game you are starting off with a bad hand.

[theghost]

I thought this was an interesting section in chapter 3:

FTOP and multi-way pots (p.25)

This is the first mention of the concept that a raise in a multiway pot is desirable even if you are not the favorite to win, because it will increase your chances of taking the pot down - and that is often worth calling 1 more bet.

There is a little more in a similar vein on p.132 (ch.13 - raising), but the interesting distinction in this chapter on the fundamental theorem is that you *want* you opponent to make the right decision (raise) so he is increasing your chance to win by (hopefully) folding the other player.

Thoughts?

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky states on p. 6 “You may occasionally be in a game where the best strategy is to win as many pots as possible, but such games are exceptions.” What type of game conditions would make this strategy optimal?

[/ QUOTE ]

A game where the players are playing too tight. Sometimes it happens that you can frequently steal the blinds because the players are afraid of calling with less than premimum hands. And when they do call, they are afraid of your bets. So if you try to steal from late middle position with something like J9s and are called by the BB, if the flop comes king high, the BB may be afraid of AK and may fold middle pair or something like AQ or ATs if you bet.

I suspect games where the strategy of trying to win the most pots is profitable are also games where most of the pots tend to be small.

[BugsBunny]

There's a difference between playing loose because the pot odds warrant it and playing to win the most pots.

If the blinds/antes are large in comparison to your bet size you're often correct to play loose, since the reward is large enough to make it worthwhile.

However if everyone else is also playing loose enough, meaning that you get a sufficient number of large pots, you still don't have to play to win the most pots. Wining a few large pots is still sufficent.

You have to think of a situation where playing to win the most pots is the correct play. This involves small pots, because you have to win a lot of small pots in order to stay ahead of the antes. The smaller the average pot in comparison to the ante size the more pots you have to win to stay ahead of the antes (or blinds, which are equivalent to antes here). Your bet size doesn't matter here at all. Bets are optional, antes aren't. And you have to win enough to make up for the antes that you're paying every round. "All poker starts as a struggle for the antes".

In a no ante game the pot is always infintely larger than the ante size (once you have a pot), so you don't have to play to win every pot and can afford to be very patient waiting for good cards.

In a game where every pot was magically multiplied by a factor of 1000 once the winner was known you can play very loose if you choose to, but again you don't have to try and win a lot of pots. If you want to play tight you can. It will not be optimal play, but will turn a profit.

[jdl22]

I think we are in agreement here and are just off on what terms each other are using. Let me clarify.

[ QUOTE ]
The smaller the average pot in comparison to the ante size the more pots you have to win to stay ahead of the antes (or blinds, which are equivalent to antes here). Your bet size doesn't matter here at all. Bets are optional, antes aren't. And you have to win enough to make up for the antes that you're paying every round. "All poker starts as a struggle for the antes".

[/ QUOTE ]

Your bet size does matter. Why? Well if the bet size is small compared to the antes then the average pot size is also small relative to the antes. Remember my example where the ante is ridiculous relative to the bet size, say $1,000,000 in a .5/1 stud game with a .25 bring in. In this game pots will probably get to about $8,000,040 which is obviously small relative to the antes. If instead you were playing with a million dollar ante with a 3 million dollar bring in and betting limits of 10M/20M you will see pots that are still large relative to the ante. So in the first game with a huge ante relative to the betting limits you would be best trying to win every pot. In the second game you could afford to wait, and indeed correct strategy would be to play a typical tight game. The only thing that changed was the size of the bets.

[ QUOTE ]

In a game where every pot was magically multiplied by a factor of 1000 once the winner was known you can play very loose if you choose to, but again you don't have to try and win a lot of pots. If you want to play tight you can. It will not be optimal play, but will turn a profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

It will be profitable but you will still lose the same relative EV whether you put the money in yourself in antes or not. Let's say you are putting in an ante of 100 every hand. If you fold every hand your expectation is -100 per hand. Assuming the game features 8 players equally skilled and no rake your EV from playing is 0. So your EV loss from folding every hand is -100. Now suppose somebody just walks up to the table and drops 800 into the center of a table in a no ante game. Ignoring the bring in you can again fold every hand for an EV of 0. If you played every hand properly you would have an EV of 100 so again you lose 100 in EV by folding every hand.

[CrazyEvan]

oh man, yeah your right about that pot odds bit. I was not looking at the questions and thought it was the 1000 in the pot and then the 1000 bet. In which case the four flush didn't have the proper pot odds to call. But yeah calling 10 to win a 55 pot with 9 outs is correct. (I was tired when I posted before)

Also now after reading the real answer, I am ashamed of my old answer.
[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[sbalzac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky states on p. 6 “You may occasionally be in a game where the best strategy is to win as many pots as possible, but such games are exceptions.” What type of game conditions would make this strategy optimal?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're playing shorthanded with weak/passive players.

[Gamblor]

Antes have even more of an effect than that:

Many games have differing blind structures.

For example, the Party 3-6 game has a 1/3 blind structure, the 5-10 game has a 2/5 blind structure, the 10-20 game has a 5/10 (1/2) blind structure, and the 15/30 has a 10/15 (2/3) blind structure.

If you don't adjust your play for those blind changes you'll be missing out on a lot of expectation. For example, you must tighten up in the 3-6 game due to an initial pot of only $4, or 2/3 BB. Whereas in the 15-30 game, you must loosen up considerably (and it shows in the "field") as the blinds now constitute 25/30, or 5/6 BB.

Make sense?

[uw_madtown]

Here are my "notes" from the reading (namely, concepts I highlighted for discussion).

CHAPTER ONE:
- Excellent players are more often drawn out on because bad players play bad hands badly -- that's the definition of being drawn out on. If you're the one sucking out on someone, you should be ashamed of your play, not consoled by it.
- Do not become attached to winning pots. Stay focused on +EV play, instead of chasing down every pot you feel "married" to.
- "So long as you remain a big favorite, you should stay, even if it means using toothpicks to prop up your eyelids." This line here is my justification for my 32 hour sessions at 2-4 B&M. If you're conscious and read 2+2, you're still a big favorite at B&M 2-4. Since I don't get to play live often, and I'm a favorite even stone-dead tired, I stay even if I have to "prop my eyes open with toothpicks". However -- if/when I move up, this will become less and less true.


CHAPTER TWO:
- The $klansky Dollar. "Anytime you make a bet with the best of it, where the odds are in your favor, you have earned something on that bet, whether you actually win or lose the bet."
- Being happy with a well-played losing session. When discussing a good fold, Sklansky states "I actually derive pleasure from making a good fold even though I have lost the pot. ... You should be happy when it occurs." This is a psychology of poker type point, but very important for beginners to learn and regular players to remember.
- It may be wise to play less than optimally when dealing with limited bankrolls (either your opponent's or your own).
- Sometimes it is good to stay in a less than ideal game to avoid the image of a player who ONLY plays with the best of it. Obviously you should never stay in a game that is NEGATIVE EV.


CHAPTER THREE:
- The Fundamental Theorem of Poker. I don't have many comments on this, as I don't think it's that complicated, actually. But it's an important concept that should always, always, always be kept in mind. Reading the examples really brings home the intracacies of the Theorem.


CHAPTER FOUR:
- Related to "not being married to a pot," do not think in terms of money I have already put in the pot. Once money is in the pot, it no longer belongs to me.
- Related to that, you can play looser in the blinds NOT because you posted a blind and should protect "your" money, but rather because you are getting better pot odds to complete or call a raise -- also (not mentioned in the text) because someone on/near the button may be raising a little loosely in an attempt to steal with position.
- All poker begins as a struggle for the antes. Play tight with a low ante and loosen up with a high ante -- if all other things are equal. This obviously relates to pot odds, the upcoming chapter.

- UW