Is poker just not for me?

[CaptSensible]

low limit poker is tough because people stay in with hands that they wouldnt play in higher limit games. With 4 to 8 in on a flop it's tough. Streaks of bad beats do happen though. That's just a part of the game. Try playing a 10 dollar sit and go (single table tournament). The most you can lose is 11 bucks and you'll get a stronger sense of higher stakes poker. You usually see maybe 3 in preflop sometimes 4. After the flop there's usually only 2 in maybe 3. With as many as 8 in preflop you'll more than likely need a straight or flush to win the hand. That's been my experience anyhow.

Hope this helps. Good luck to you!

[AKQJ10]

I located the paragraph I remembered, on page 22 of the 3d edition of HEPFAP. I have a longer post about it on my other computer, but the "wifi enabled" coffee shop I stopped at this morning turned out not to be wifi enabled, so I'll try to post it this afternoon.

The quote in the subject line is from memory, so I may have a word or two wrong.

[Cooker]

I found the quote in context and he is discussing the group AA, KK, QQ, AK and AQ hands and not just AA. In the case of AA that statement is wrong as has been shown and argued by other posters and myself. The statement is probably correct about QQ, AK, and AQ and possibly even KK to some extent if you allow in weak aces cheaply. However, with regard to specifically aces the statement is clearly incorrect as has been discussed ad nauseum. The more players for more bets, the better with Aces.

[AKQJ10]

[I'm posting this verbatim as I intended to do this morning. Interestingly, I correctly anticipated the reply!]

In the section entitled "The First Two Cards: Early Position" in Hold 'em Poker For Advanced Players, David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth start a new paragraph on the topic of entering the pot from early position:

[ QUOTE ]
If no one has yet called, almost always raise with AA, KK, QQ, AK, and AQ. Part of the reason to raise with these hands is that they lose value as the pot gets more multiway (especially if your opponents see the flop for one bet rather than two). If there have already been callers, usually raise with hands in Groups 1 and 2, AQ, and perhaps some other hands at random. (Again, these random raises should be made only occasionally.) (1)

[/ QUOTE ]

A plain reading of the text indicates that a pair of aces are in the class of hands that "lose value as the pot gets more multiway." I'm not fond of argument from authority -- "Sklansky and Malmuth say XYZ, therefore it must be so," -- and in fact, I'm not sure that aces do in fact lose value as more opponents enter the pot. Perhaps the assumption here is that players enter the pot with reasonable hands like AJ and 99, not less-dominated hands like 92s and 54o that I see in the games I frequent, but even so I don't see how that would make the aces less durable. Perhaps the intent was to say that (for example) only queens, AK and AQ lose value, but aces and kings are best raised for other reasons. However the passage doesn't make this distinction and there's no obvious reason to infer it.

I think the real truth requires an inference from the parenthetical phrase "(especially if your opponents see the flop for one bet rather than two)." Intuitively it's probably better for the aces to play against, say, two opponents for two bets each than against four opponents putting in one bet each, even though the odds enjoyed by the aces are only half as good (4:2 instead of 4:1). So whereas I too believe Miller to be correct, that the dream scenario for aces would be to have nine opponents all-in, Sklansky and Malmuth's statement apparently presupposes that there will necessarily be fewer opponents in a raised pot than in an unraised pot. (Obviously Sklansky and Malmuth play in games very different from the ones I play in, where there may well be equally many opponents in a raised pot!) Still, this doesn't really resolve why aces are included among the hands that, "lose value as the pot gets more multiway." If the multiway pot results from incorrect cold-calls with dominated hands -- that is, by any hand against AA except the case aces -- I don't see how that can possibly reduce the value of the aces.

So as it happens, I'm not entirely convinced of the veracity or universal applicability of the passage I cited. Nonetheless, I still believe that the idea expressed in that passage is plausible, just not totally convincing. The idea that aces "lose value as the pot gets more multiway," though possibly erroneous, is hardly absurd.

(1) David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, Hold 'em Poker For Advanced Players, third edition (Henderson, NV: Two Plus Two Publishing, March 2004), 22.

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
The statement is probably correct about QQ, AK, and AQ and possibly even KK to some extent if you allow in weak aces cheaply.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the other points in your reply. Obviously, aces do not lose value. Hopefully they'll fix that error in a future printing.

I wanted to say something about the part of your statement I quoted above though. I don't think AK & AQ lose value either because you WANT weak aces to come in - you have severe domination in those cases.

With KK and QQ, you'd love to have as many weak aces coming in as well because the more crummy aces in other hands the less likely one will come on the board. These hands still maintain equity far greater than their fair share.

Regards,

T

[Me and You]

Keep in there

Just some stats from my Poker Tracker (rounded of course)

AA win % = 60
QQ win % = 40

BB won per hand
AA 2.87
QQ 2.07
so I gt QQ 100 times I only win with it 40 of those times yet it has made me over 200 BB even though it is a "losing hand" (loses more than it wins)Just remember the most important rule in poker Win Big and Lose Little.

So you have lost 10 pots with 20 BB in it (5 of which are your own) You only need to win 1 in 4 of these pots to break even. Play tight aggressive and those wins will come and so will the money. Remember time is your friend not enemy, don't play crap because you havn't been winnning this session it will only amplify your losses.