|
|
#28
01-20-2004, 03:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Quick Question
Vehn: "Loosing? Do you mean playing more hands because many poor players have entered the pot? I understand completely. Thanks for the head's up."
"head's up"? Do you mean the top side of one's head? Now I understand completely. Thanks for the "heads up." [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] 
|
|
#30
01-20-2004, 10:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Quick Question
The 2+2 Forums Before using this Forum, please refer to the Terms and Conditions (Last modified: 9/10/2000) Important! You must be registered to post on the forums Registration is not required to read the forums. The server problems have been corrected. Thank you for your patience. UBB.threads ™ Infopop Corporation. Main Index | Search | My Home | Who's Online | FAQ | Logout | User List | Mark all read Texas Hold'em >> Mid- and High-Stakes Hold'em Previous Index Next Flat Threaded Pages: 1 glen enthusiast Reged: 11/14/02 Posts: 325 Loc: Massachusetts/Michigan 100-200 stars KJs. . . #486181 - 01/19/04 09:46 PM Edit Reply Quote So I jumped into the 100-200 because it looked pretty good. 2 other 2+2ers were in the game. As a result of two weak-loose players, there have been a few multiway pots (5-7 handed) unraised, but also a fair amount of coldcalling - not the more common fold or 3 bet that is more characteristic of the 30 games.) In any case, say you are utg+1. UTG, who is a good player, limps, and you have KJs. Who calls and who raises and does it really make a difference? Post Extras: TTT member Reged: 01/19/03 Posts: 125 Re: 100-200 stars KJs. . . [Re: glen] #486300 - 01/20/04 12:04 AM Edit Reply Quote I fold, and it makes a huge difference. Post Extras: Glenn addict Reged: 09/01/02 Posts: 676 Loc: New Jersey Re: 100-200 stars KJs. . . [Re: TTT] #486321 - 01/20/04 12:32 AM Edit Reply Quote If you don't play this hand, you might as well just drop your antes off at the door and go do something else for a few hours. -------------------- - - - I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than you. Post Extras: TTT member Reged: 01/19/03 Posts: 125 Re: 100-200 stars KJs. . . [Re: Glenn] #486356 - 01/20/04 01:05 AM Edit Reply Quote Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UTG, who is a good player, limps -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Despite your dismissive and oh-so-clever response, I'll post a useful reply. How many hands could he be limping with that have you dominated, and how many hands could he be limping with that you have dominated (or would be at least decently matched up against)? How often is it when you have five more people to act behind you that you're going to wish you didn't limp when it gets all the way around? Add up these two factors, and I think folding is best. Especially against a good 100/200 player. Post Extras: glen enthusiast Reged: 11/14/02 Posts: 325 Loc: Massachusetts/Michigan Re: 100-200 stars KJs. . . [Re: TTT] #486423 - 01/20/04 02:17 AM Edit Reply Quote "How many hands could he be limping with that have you dominated, and how many hands could he be limping with that you have dominated (or would be at least decently matched up against)?" What kind of hands would you think a good player would limp with in this kind of game that dominate me? Also, I think we should distinguish good poker player from good "100-200" player, since a lot of middle limit players play better than some of the 1-2 crowd. Sure, a lot of them are solid, but some couldn't beat a 10-20 game, imo. Most of the players are 30-60 regulars who play 1-2 when it goes. . . Post Extras: Gabe addict Reged: 09/02/02 Posts: 419 Re: 100-200 stars KJs. . . [Re: glen] #486459 - 01/20/04 03:49 AM Edit Reply Quote I think calling is best here. The rest of the hand will usually be much easier to play. Post Extras: SoBeDude old hand Reged: 01/10/03 Posts: 1125 Re: 100-200 stars KJs. . . [Re: glen] #486526 - 01/20/04 06:52 AM Edit Reply Quote I'd raise. Post Extras: Ed Miller (majorkong) Carpal \'Tunnel Reged: 09/02/02 Posts: 3719 Loc: Bellagio 15-30 Re: 100-200 stars KJs. . . [Re: glen] #486545 - 01/20/04 07:25 AM Edit Reply Quote You can't answer this question without knowing what the players in the blinds play like. Are they tight? Do they play poorly after the flop? etc. Post Extras: Pages: 1 Previous Index Next Flat Threaded Extra information 5 registered and 0 anonymous users are browsing this forum. Moderator: Mat Sklansky Favorite Thread! (toggle) Print Thread Permissions You can start new topics You can reply to topics HTML is disabled UBBCode is enabled Rating: Thread views: 249 Rate this thread 1 star 2 star 3 star 4 star 5 star Jump to *Poker* ----- Poker Theory Pot- and No-Limit Poker Stud Other Poker Games Heads-up and Short-Handed Tournaments Home Poker*Texas Hold'em* ----- Texas Hold'em Small Stakes Hold'em Mid- and High-Stakes Hold'em Micro-Limits*General Gambling* ----- Probability Psychology Brick and Mortar Internet Gambling News, Views, and Gossip The Stock Market Other Gambling Games Beginners Questions Books and Software*Other Topics* ----- Other Topics Contact Us | Privacy statement 2+2 Publishing UBB.threads™ 6.3.1 Generated in 0.464 seconds in which 0.21 seconds were spent on a total of 15 queries. Zlib compression disabled. The 2+2 Forums Before using this Forum, please refer to the Terms and Conditions (Last modified: 9/10/2000) Important! You must be registered to post on the forums Registration is not required to read the forums. The server problems have been corrected. Thank you for your patience. UBB.threads ™ Infopop Corporation. Main Index | Search | My Home | Who's Online | FAQ | Logout | User List | Mark all read Texas Hold'em >> Mid- and High-Stakes Hold'em Previous Index Next Flat Threaded Pages: 1 Mason Malmuth Grand Poobah Reged: 08/28/02 Posts: 1595 Loc: Nevada Quick Question #484754 - 01/18/04 11:19 PM Edit Reply Quote Hi Everyone: In the $80-$160 game at The Bellagio an interesting situation frequently occurs. It's a time game where every 30 minutes $8 per person is collected from the pot. Since the game is full at nine handed, as much as $72 will be collected. However, the money is only taken from the pot if there is a flop. In other words, if someone raises and no one calls, that person gets both the small and big blinds and the time is not taken. Instead, the next pot becomes the time pot, but again there must be a flop for the time to come out. Now what frequently happens is that if you're the first in raiser in a time pot, your chances of winning the blinds go up because people are less likely to call since they are aware that the pot is approximately 2 small bets smaller. However, even though you are more likely to win this pot before the flop with a raise, it is much smaller if someone does play against you. So the question is: Should you be more inclined to raise first in in a time pot or less inclined? I have my opinion on this, and will get back a little later with it. Best wishes, mason Post Extras: Huh enthusiast Reged: 12/01/02 Posts: 372 Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth] #484790 - 01/18/04 11:54 PM Edit Reply Quote If the game is this tough (there are enough player's thinking about the implication of a time pot rake that it's not always taken the first or second time), then I think I am getting up and switching tables. Anyhow, if I had a gun to my head and was forced into the situation, I think it would be a direct function of the chance you have of stealing the blinds and the hand you hold and the type of hands that would play back at you. It sounds like you are talking about a situation where only a prem. hand is going to play with you for a pot that has an enormous(for a heads up hand) tax. If you can guarantee that only AA,KK,QQ,AK,AQ,KQ will play with you you will steal the blinds two times, and be forced to play one. Stealing the blinds has a profit $240, while it will cost you $160 + a possible $80 if you are re-raised, if someone has one of these hands. Therefore making it profitable to raise any hand, and folding to anyone who plays back at you unless you have a great holding. I know this is an ideal situation, but I think it represents what I mean when I say it's a function of your ability to steal the blinds and the hands that will play back at you. -Huh -------------------- "Life is like a bad margarita with good tequila, I thought as I poured whiskey on my granola and faced a new day" Post Extras: Garland journeyman Reged: 12/08/03 Posts: 63 Loc: San Francisco, CA Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth] #484797 - 01/19/04 12:01 AM Edit Reply Quote Interesting post since I've never played in a time game before, which is typical of higher limit games. I suppose since people are less inclined to call because the pot will be smaller, I'd be more inclined to raise, and raise even on lesser valued hands. But like all things, it depends on the situation. If people are aware of what I'm trying to do and react accordingly (via revealed hand on time pot games), I'll be *less* inclined to raise. I'd be interested to hear your take on this. Garland Post Extras: MMMMMM Carpal \'Tunnel Reged: 09/03/02 Posts: 3277 Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth] #484808 - 01/19/04 12:12 AM Edit Reply Quote Hi Mason, First off, two things seem intuitively obvious: that one must tighten up a lot in early position in a time pot, and that raising from the cutoff or button should have a better chance of stealing the blinds (assuming the blinds are decent players--if they are very loose players or are newbies, trying to steal would probably be terrible;-)). The more difficult aspect of the question seems to be whether one should open-limp or open-raise when in early or middle position (if one is going to play). Of course, I can't think of too many hands I would like to play from early position in a time pot;-) By raising a premium hand early, you make it more likely that you will win uncontested, but if you do get played with, you may find yourself wishing that you had instead called in order to encourage others to enter the time pot (odds). If the table is loose I would not be as inclined to raise early position. All in all, my feeling is to tend to tighten up overall, and to raise less early position. Since you will be tightening up overall, and since raising from steal position against decent players should have a better than usual chance of success, perhaps those two factors approximately cancel each other out--meaning it might be right to play about the same as normally from the cutoff and button if you are against decent players. However in this case I would still alter my stealing frequency in accordance with how I perceived the blinds' proclivity to defend. By the way, I usually prefer to pay my own time (except at a very loose table) in order to avoid having to deal with just such considerations, and because I don't like to feel that I should be folding far more often than usual, thereby depriving me of some chances to outplay certain players. I am interested in your take on the whole thing, and whether you generally prefer time pots or to pay your own time. One advantage I see in paying one's own time is that many other players will be altering their play due to the time pot and it may be possible to take advantage of this. For instance, if you pay your own time while everyone else does a time pot, you may be able to steal more liberally but without the accompanying penalty. Post Extras: Mason Malmuth Grand Poobah Reged: 08/28/02 Posts: 1595 Loc: Nevada Re: Quick Question [Re: Huh] #484827 - 01/19/04 12:29 AM Edit Reply Quote Hi Huh: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the game is this tough (there are enough player's thinking about the implication of a time pot rake that it's not always taken the first or second time), then I think I am getting up and switching tables. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can't. All games at these limits are must move. By the way, I think that must move games are very bad for cardrooms except for a short period of time after a game has first started. But that's an issue for another thread. Best wishes, Mason Post Extras: slavic veteran Reged: 05/06/03 Posts: 1342 Loc: Seattle Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth] #484848 - 01/19/04 12:41 AM Edit Reply Quote You can't. All games at these limits are must move. By the way, I think that must move games are very bad for cardrooms except for a short period of time after a game has first started. But that's an issue for another thread. I agree. Why not start that thread? -------------------- -slavic "Let me make it nearly unanimous -- misplayed on every street." Post Extras: cero_z enthusiast Reged: 09/27/02 Posts: 290 Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth] #484892 - 01/19/04 01:27 AM Edit Reply Quote Hi Mason, I think this is really dependent on how tightly people play when choosing whether to defend. What hands will the typical player now throw away in the BB that he would've played on with if it wasn't a time pot? Also, does the cardroom enforce this time pot, or do the players? In Atlantic City, the players must unanimously agree to play time pots, as opposed to just paying 8 bucks per down, or whatever. But, they usually break it down into three raked pots. For example, in the 20-40 full game, the time collection will be $70/ half hour (7 bucks a player). The players may choose how the house gets that 70. The typical arrangement is that the first 3 pots which are over 200 bucks are taxed to the tune of $24, $23, and $23. Then, the good players play ultra-tight for a few hands (usually 3), and the loose players pay the time, and nobody seems to mind. But, the house has nothing to do with this; one player must even volunteer to pay the $70 up front for the table, and the "rake" from the time pots is then paid to him. This method does point to a pretty obvious tactical adjustment (play tighter for a short time), which could be better or worse than your situation, depending on how savvy your opponents are. Post Extras: cero_z enthusiast Reged: 09/27/02 Posts: 290 But since I dodged the question... [Re: Mason Malmuth] #484897 - 01/19/04 01:30 AM Edit Reply Quote ...I'd intuitively say be less inclined, as there should usually be some poor players in the game who are calling more liberally than you'd expect anyway. So, the risk of going to a flop is now greater, and a whole small bet is not made up for by the fact that you may isolate a weak player. Post Extras: James282 enthusiast Reged: 09/16/03 Posts: 279 Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth] #485052 - 01/19/04 07:21 AM Edit Reply Quote You should raise if you have a playable hand, because of the increased chances of picking up the blinds and because you are relatively unlikely to get a playable hand in the following hand where time will be collected if you win this hand uncontested. This way, you increase your chances of winning the blinds while very likely not having to sacrifice anything on the next hand. Granted, this depends on table texture, your position, etc, but if you are likely to steal the blinds you might as well. You will unlikely regain the equity you lose by giving up your chance to steal the blinds by open-limping and allowing others into the pot. -James -------------------- I thought that if I proved that doing X was wrong in a certain situation, people would stop doing X. I was wrong. -Bill James Post Extras: largos stranger Reged: 10/26/03 Posts: 9 Loc: Stockholm Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth] #485075 - 01/19/04 07:56 AM Edit Reply Quote You should never be inclined to raise a pot first in if you don`t have a big hand , especially if you know that if there is action some of the pot will be taken from you. Post Extras: Piers member Reged: 09/02/02 Posts: 161 Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth] #485092 - 01/19/04 08:26 AM Edit Reply Quote Hmm... I think I would tend to play more pairs but tighten up on other hands. Post Extras: SoBeDude old hand Reged: 01/10/03 Posts: 1125 Re: Quick Question [Re: slavic] #485364 - 01/19/04 11:59 AM Edit Reply Quote Please start this thread. I've no opinion of my own on the subject, but I'd love to hear the agruments. -Scott Post Extras: Boris old hand Reged: 09/03/02 Posts: 729 Loc: Palo Alto Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth] #485731 - 01/19/04 04:25 PM Edit Reply Quote IME, you should be more inclined to open raise in early and mid position. Not only is there a greater chance of winning the blinds, it is also easier to win with a bet on the flop. I do not make any changes in the cut-off and button positions because my open raising standards are already pretty low. Post Extras: MMMMMM Carpal \'Tunnel Reged: 09/03/02 Posts: 3277 Re: Quick Question [Re: MMMMMM] #485732 - 01/19/04 04:26 PM Edit Reply Quote Actually, I think steal frequency in time pots should probably be reduced somewhat even if the blinds are decent players (assuming you too are part of the "time pot" and didn't pay your own time). Post Extras: drewjustdrew member Reged: 09/16/02 Posts: 171 Loc: Chicago Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth] #485770 - 01/19/04 04:52 PM Edit Reply Quote I don't really understand why the time is taken based on a particular hand, but anyway, here is my thought. The time payment should not make a difference if all players are considering it. If you raise, I consider it more likely that you are trying to take advantage of the situation and may not have that good of a hand. This is similar to a kill pot game. I see all the time where the first player in makes a raise because the blinds are relatively small and he has a shot at getting heads up, or stealing the kill-post. Raising frequency is higher in these situations for just that reason. Raising frequency should be higher in your game for the same reason. Of course, I would have to consider my opponents. If they are oblivious to this situation, I would have to tighten up substantially to overcome the rake. Why do they take the time out of a pot? Or am I not reading the situation correctly. Post Extras: Boris old hand Reged: 09/03/02 Posts: 729 Loc: Palo Alto Re: Quick Question [Re: largos] #485859 - 01/19/04 05:47 PM Edit Reply Quote What qualifies as a big hand? Post Extras: mr_jmac newbie Reged: 02/11/03 Posts: 40 Loc: Sudbury, Ontario Canada Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth] #486034 - 01/19/04 07:52 PM Edit Reply Quote Hey, One way to think about your question is to compare your situation with a similar situation in a raked game. For example, a $5/$10 HE game with a 10% rake up to $4. The maximum rake is almost a small bet (actually 80%). If you raise and there is no flop then there is no rake and you win both blinds. In your situation the time charge with 8 players at the table is also 80% of a small bet. If you raise and there is no flop, the time charge is not taken and you win the blinds. In the raked game if you are called there will be at least $25 in the pot if there is no further action. Let's assume the maximum rake will be taken. So, we actually have identical situations. So, your question is practically identical to a question I have been curious about for quite some time: "In a raked game, should you be less inclined to bring it in for a raise where the outcome is i) winning the blinds and no rake taken or ii) playing a probable headsup pot with a rake?" I would like to hear others opinions on this because I have been very curious about this for quite some time. The majority of pots played in my $5/$10 raked game are multiway in which the rake percentage is lower than 10%. However, when I find myself on the button looking down at KQs or ATo I wonder is it even worth it to play the hand because of the rake ( as opposed to a rake free game where I definitely raise and play the hand). Later, JM Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Everyone: In the $80-$160 game at The Bellagio an interesting situation frequently occurs. It's a time game where every 30 minutes $8 per person is collected from the pot. Since the game is full at nine handed, as much as $72 will be collected. However, the money is only taken from the pot if there is a flop. In other words, if someone raises and no one calls, that person gets both the small and big blinds and the time is not taken. Instead, the next pot becomes the time pot, but again there must be a flop for the time to come out. Now what frequently happens is that if you're the first in raiser in a time pot, your chances of winning the blinds go up because people are less likely to call since they are aware that the pot is approximately 2 small bets smaller. However, even though you are more likely to win this pot before the flop with a raise, it is much smaller if someone does play against you. So the question is: Should you be more inclined to raise first in in a time pot or less inclined? I have my opinion on this, and will get back a little later with it. Best wishes, mason -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post Extras: Vehn Pooh-Bah Reged: 09/02/02 Posts: 2061 Loc: Minneapolis, MN Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth] #486040 - 01/19/04 07:59 PM Edit Reply Quote I have no idea either other than I suspect you should greatly tighten up in early/middle positions when opening and also when limping behind limpers to a lessor degree. Maybe you should raise more in the cutoff or button, dunno. Anyways I would certainly would like to see a thread about must move games. The mid limit games at my card barn are on permanant must move when another one gets going, and right now I'm not sure whether or not its a good thing. Certainly in general the main game is usually not much tougher (but it is a bit) than the must move. -------------------- Some times I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion. Post Extras: AceHigh old hand Reged: 09/02/02 Posts: 920 Loc: Pennsylvania Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth] #486055 - 01/19/04 08:17 PM Edit Reply Quote I think more inclined to raise first in, people will be less likely to call raises, even the blinds. Post Extras: slavic veteran Reged: 05/06/03 Posts: 1342 Loc: Seattle Re: Quick Question [Re: Vehn] #486249 - 01/19/04 10:51 PM Edit Reply Quote Certainly in general the main game is usually not much tougher (but it is a bit) than the must move. Yes this would be one of my points. The other point would be that the fish aren't as likely to make it to the main game when your stuck in it. -------------------- -slavic "Let me make it nearly unanimous -- misplayed on every street." Post Extras: Vehn Pooh-Bah Reged: 09/02/02 Posts: 2061 Loc: Minneapolis, MN Re: Quick Question [Re: slavic] #486276 - 01/19/04 11:35 PM Edit Reply Quote wtf is a "stuck"? -------------------- Some times I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion. Post Extras: JayKon member Reged: 01/27/03 Posts: 185 Re: Quick Question [Re: Vehn] #486284 - 01/19/04 11:40 PM Edit Reply Quote "stuck" means you are loosing. Something that happens from time to time. Post Extras: Vehn Pooh-Bah Reged: 09/02/02 Posts: 2061 Loc: Minneapolis, MN Re: Quick Question [Re: JayKon] #486286 - 01/19/04 11:40 PM Edit Reply Quote Loosing? Do you mean playing more hands because many poor players have entered the pot? I understand completely. Thanks for the head's up. -------------------- Some times I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion. Post Extras: JayKon member Reged: 01/27/03 Posts: 185 Re: Quick Question [Re: Vehn] #486324 - 01/20/04 12:35 AM Edit Reply Quote Yea, yea, one post without the spell checker and I do that. Sigh. Still, it almost fits the way you defined it. Jay Post Extras: J_V old hand Reged: 09/06/02 Posts: 908 Re: Quick Question [Re: JayKon] #486331 - 01/20/04 12:38 AM Edit Reply Quote Vehn's got an uncatchable lead for the jackass of the year race and we're not even out of January. Keep em coming. Post Extras: JayKon member Reged: 01/27/03 Posts: 185 Re: Quick Question [Re: J_V] #486337 - 01/20/04 12:49 AM Edit Reply Quote It's OK, I don't mind. Besides, I should have followed the thread better before posting. Post Extras: trillig addict Reged: 08/11/03 Posts: 426 Loc: Las Vegas, NV Re: Quick Question [Re: Mason Malmuth] #486355 - 01/20/04 01:04 AM Edit Reply Quote I'd be even more tempted to fold on that one, if not SB/BB, and not even look at my cards. -t Post Extras: MMMMMM Carpal \'Tunnel Reged: 09/03/02 Posts: 3277 Re: Quick Question [Re: Vehn] #486396 - 01/20/04 01:46 AM Edit Reply Quote Vehn: "Loosing? Do you mean playing more hands because many poor players have entered the pot? I understand completely. Thanks for the head's up." "head's up"? Do you mean the top side of one's head? Now I understand completely. Thanks for the "heads up." Post Extras: J_V old hand Reged: 09/06/02 Posts: 908 Re: Quick Question [Re: JayKon] #486404 - 01/20/04 01:52 AM Edit Reply Quote Oh, i don't mind either. Nothing ruins a good thread like a little civility. He pounced on your innocuous mistake like any good poster would. Post Extras: Pages: 1 Woop. I missed out last year to the various jackaii in the internet forum, and I promised myself I would try even harder this year. Unfortunetly though it appears I still have a ways to go to catch up to the Other Topics board campers - so back to the drawing board.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
