Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Poker > Stud

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-24-2005, 01:25 AM
Andy B Andy B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 1,245
Default Paul Kammen\'s book

Recently, a couple of different people have asked about Paul Kammenís book. I had not read it, but said that Mason wasnít complimentary of it. Apparently, I was mistaken. Oooops. This was a very bad thing for me to do, to Kammen, to Mason, to you guys. For this, I apologize. As penance, I went out and bought Kammenís book. I have now read it, and I donít like it as much as Westís book....
From the text:

ďNine times out of ten, your first three cards will be in the muck.Ē

Does anyone, and I mean anyone, play this tight? In good low-limit games, Iím around 25%, and in tough games, Iím probably around 18%. Seems to me that anyone playing 10% of his hands is going to go like Broomcornís uncle.

Kammenís recommended buy-in for $2/4 is at least $40. Iíll let others elaborate.

Canterburyís $2/4 game has a $.50 ante and $1 bring-in, and that is the model that Kammen uses for his discussion. I think that Canterburyís $3/6 game, with the same ante and bring-in, would have been a better model. Actually, he doesnít mention the ante. I wonder if heís aware that there are $2/4 games where the ante is $.25, and many low-limit games with no ante.

Really, I think that a modern book on low-limit stud needs to cover both spread and structured limits with no ante, small ante, large ante, and over-ante. This is only one of the reasons Iím still on page 4.

Kammen says he has only been rolled-up a few times. I wonder what he means by ďa few.Ē I donít know how many times Iíve been rolled-up, but itís at least 100, which is more than a few. I wonder just how much this guy has actually played.

A third-street scenario: low card brings it in for $1, three players call and two fold. You have (JJ)4. The guy behind you has a Ten in the door, and there is only the bring-in after him. The limpers have two Queens and a King. Kammen has you raise here, saying that you want to get the guys behind you out. I consider myself to be a pretty aggressive player, especially when playing $2/4 while quaffing bloody maries. I think that calling in this spot is far superior to raising. Your raise isnít going to get out too many people who werenít folding anyway. There just isnít that big of a difference between calling $1 and $2. Maybe the bring-in will fold for the extra $1, but if his hand is that poor, heíll probably fold to a bet on fourth street. Youíre not going to get the big cards to fold for another dollar, and any one of them could hit on fourth street. I think youíre much better off limping and then hoping to get a raise in if things fall good on fourth street.

Kammen says to raise with a big pair on third street 99% of the time. I donít know what the proper percentage is, but it ainít 99% of the time. You shouldnít even play 99% of the time.

He recommends that if you have a medium pair on third street and havenít been paying attention, so that you donít know what the folded cards are, you just fold. I think in that situation you just have to treat the unseen cards as unseen cards. Then again, I donít watch TV while the cards are being dealt. The cocktail waitresses are another matter.

Kammen says never to raise with three to a flush. I wonít expound on why I disagree with this here, but Iím guessing that most of you are in my camp anyway.

There are ten questions at the end of the chapter on third-street play. I answered about seven of these questions with another question. In most cases, he has not given enough information for me to make a decision. For example, the first questions is, you are the bring-in with (JJ)2. Do you bring it in for $1 or $2? My question is, what else is showing?

Kammen has you slow-play big rolled-up trips but play small rolled-up trips fast. Iíve seen similar advice elsewhereóWest, and I think even 7CS4AP. I have two problems with this. One, I just donít think thereís that much difference between 222 and AAA. I have lost with rolled-up trips many times, at least 20 or 30. I donít think Iíve lost with rolled-up trips to a bigger set more than once or twice. Itís mostly been straights and flushes and a couple of full houses.

The other is more general. I think low-limit stud players usually leave money on the table by slow-playing rolled-up trips. The main reason to slow-play anything is to encourage action where you would not otherwise have gotten any. Think of the times in a low-limit game where you folded for half-an-hour, raised with an Ace in the door, and got six callers. Is there any reason to slow-play in a game like that?

Kammen suggests that if someone is showing open Queens and you have pocket Jacks on fourth street, you can call if your hand is live and the other guyís is dead. I think that this is a terrible game-plan. If someone disagrees with me, Iíll go into mind-numbing detail.

Kammen has a few scenarios where a bigger board acts after a lower board. When this happens, it means one of two things:

1) There was a bigger board out that checked.
2) The high board check-raised.

This is relevant information. Kammen is constantly guilty of oversimplifying things, leaving out important details. This is too complex a game to be doing that.

Kammen seems to suggest that your default play with unimproved Aces on fifth street should be to check-and-fold. I think this is weak-tight as best. While there will certainly be times when you will need to do just that, my default play is to bet. Two things:

1) You will usually still have the best hand.
2) Fifth street is frequently your best opportunity to get people to fold.

Also, since there will usually be a decent amount of money in the pot on fifth (you did raise on third, didnít you? You did bet fourth, didnít you?), automatically giving up is a mistake.

Kammen says that your default play should be to slow-play big full houses or better on fifth. I think that this is a mistake in most low-limit games. They donít fold when you bet your unimproved Aces or two crappy pair. Why would they fold when you bet your big full house? You can afford to slow-play, but youíre usually leaving money on the table by doing so.

Canterbury Park has a bad-beat jackpot for all games below $10/20. To qualify for the stud jackpot (stud and stud/8 share a jackpot), you have to have Aces full of Tens or better beaten by quads or better. Kammen says that if you have a jackpot-eligible hand on sixth street you should slow-play it to try for the jackpot. I think that in general, this is a mistake. Basically, no one is going to fold a hand with jackpot potential on sixth. How often do you fold trips or a straight flush draw on sixth street? The typical low-limit player virtually never will. On sixth, you only have two more streets to collect bets, so you should usually take advantage of the opportunity. There is the occasional exception, of course. If you have quads with three of a kind showing and you think the other guy probably has Aces-up, you can well afford to give him a free card. But if you have (99)499T against the same Aces-up, heís not going to fold, and you have him drawing dead. Failing to bet here would be criminal.

Kammen has you usually just call on sixth street with trips because trips arenít as strong in stud as they are in holdíem. While this is true, trips are still usually strong enough to raise with in stud, although whether or not you do depends on what you think the other guy is betting with.

Kammen says that if you have two pair on sixth street, the odds against making a full house are 10:1. This is correct if you consider your hand in a vacuum (actually, 10.5:1). By sixth street, however, you will have seen quite a few cards. If youíve seen a total of 20 cards, and all of your outs are still live, itís less than 7:1 against making your full house. On the other hand, if youíve seen two of your cards, itís 15:1. In the first case you might be persuaded to call a raise and in the second you may not even be able to call a bet.

Anyway, you guys get the idea. Rather than write my own book, which would be a lot of work, I could probably come up with a few hundred pages of stuff I don't like in other people's stud books. I haven't even seen Ken Warren's book yet.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-24-2005, 01:43 AM
sexdrugsmoney sexdrugsmoney is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stud forum
Posts: 256
Default Re: Paul Kammen\'s book

[ QUOTE ]
Kammenís recommended buy-in for $2/4 is at least $40.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-24-2005, 01:44 AM
mscags mscags is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Between Two Hot Twins
Posts: 713
Default Re: Paul Kammen\'s book

I'm sorry you had to read that book. It sounds awful...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-24-2005, 02:04 AM
greatwhite greatwhite is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 152
Default Re: Paul Kammen\'s book

Wow! This post makes it look like West's book is the bible. Thanks for the info Andy. I would buy you a beer, but I don't think I'm going to be visiting Minnesota any time soon. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] I do got to play stud on another site besides Party though. I don't know why the ante is so high.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-24-2005, 02:11 AM
mscags mscags is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Between Two Hot Twins
Posts: 713
Default Re: Paul Kammen\'s book

I would buy you a beer, but I can't [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-24-2005, 02:17 AM
greenage greenage is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 81
Default Re: Paul Kammen\'s book

1) Bloody brilliant analysis as usual.

2) Iíve been thinking about mixed drinks of late and while ďBloody MaryísĒ may be healthier, my favorite was always ďSingapore SlingsĒ. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

3) [ QUOTE ]
Anyway, you guys get the idea. Rather than write my own book, which would be a lot of work, I could probably come up with a few hundred pages of stuff I don't like in other people's stud books. I haven't even seen Ken Warren's book yet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nooooo! Darn slacker, give us a book. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-24-2005, 02:18 AM
bigredlemon bigredlemon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 544
Default Re: Paul Kammen\'s book

"I donít think Iíve lost with rolled-up trips to a bigger set more than once or twice. Itís mostly been straights and flushes and a couple of full houses."
2-3 out of 100 seems improbably low. My rolled hands are beaten by other rolled hands about 10% of the time. I do agree that this isn't so significant that a drastically different way of playing is warranted based upon this reason. I think the more important reason to slowplay big rolled hands is to not scare away smaller pairs and to encourage them to hit their two pair or lower trips.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-24-2005, 02:27 AM
Andy B Andy B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 1,245
Default Re: Paul Kammen\'s book

[ QUOTE ]
My rolled hands are beaten by other rolled hands about 10% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems improbably high.

Twice have I been rolled-up on the same hand that someone else was rolled-up on. One time we both lost to a flush (actually the guy with QQQ folded for one more bet on the end in a huge pot against a borderline maniac). The other time I made 2222 on fourth against rolled Kings. That was a pretty nice pot. I think we went seven bets on sixth and three more on the river. Too bad he didn't hit the case King.

These people with smaller pairs call anyway, so why not just raise right away?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-24-2005, 02:43 AM
SittingBull SittingBull is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 826
Default Hello,Andy! Several years ago,, I was playing...

1/4 no-ante spread.
I blew the jackpot for 4.00. I definitely blame myself.
That's the reason Y I check a locked jackpot hand --even on 6th. Even if there is a very small chance my oppo. would fold on 6th when there is a remote chance he MIGHT connect with a jackpot hand. Anyway, I read my Oppo. for quad's on 6th. I had a set of 2's. My Oppo. bet the MAX [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
I folded. Dealer showed me what my next card would have been--another 2. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img].
SittingBull
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-24-2005, 02:45 AM
bigredlemon bigredlemon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 544
Default Re: Paul Kammen\'s book

You're right... there was a typo in there that I missed. I meant to say:
My rolled hands are beaten by other pairs that hit trips about 10% of the time.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.