Beginner's Poker FAQ - Ready For Review

[KenProspero]

Great Job!!

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
So far, the only problems I can see coming are with the questions covering books. I realize this isn't an official FAQ, but some of the book suggestions might catch some flak.


[/ QUOTE ]

Anything specific? I'm willing to rethink the books list since I haven't read everything there is. I really think WLLH is a good beginner's book - I reread it before I wrote the answer. I suppose the Roy West 7CS book is marginal, but I found it helpful and there is so litle stud information available. I guess I should read that Internet Texas Holdem book to see if it should be included.

[ QUOTE ]

I'll write something for the search function question.
You can expect it on your desk tomorrow.


[/ QUOTE ]

This would be so great. I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks for the encouragement.

Regards,

T

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Internet Texas Holdem by Matthew Hilger


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll pick it up this week and give it a read. I don't want to include books I haven't read - except for the one book Mason recommended.

Thanks,

T

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

Anything specific? I'm willing to rethink the books list since I haven't read everything there is. I really think WLLH is a good beginner's book - I reread it before I wrote the answer. I suppose the Roy West 7CS book is marginal, but I found it helpful and there is so litle stud information available. I guess I should read that Internet Texas Holdem book to see if it should be included.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess what I'm seeing is a lot of disagreements no matter what you list. Personally, I think maybe the question should be referred to the Books & Software Forum.

But it's still not a bad thing to have in the Beginners FAQ.
I don't know, maybe I'm wrong about how much people would argue about the books included in the FAQ.

[SheridanCat]

Right, very true. I've added a little extra to the answer to point out that there is some contention over the value of the books listed.

Thanks for the feedback.

T

[Dead]

Hey Cat,

Maybe you should consider adding the thread below to the bonus whoring section. I know it's not a 2+2 thread but it's incredibly detailed and helpful.

http://www.bonuswhores.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4720

[theRealMacoy]

as far as a good general beginner book
the first book i read was
Thursday Night Poker by Peter O. Steiner

it really is a good intro book
i think i ever remember Mason giving it a reasonable recommendation (of course it's not a 2+2 book but hey it eventually lead me here).

cheers,
the Real Macoy

[pzhon]

Thanks for compiling this FAQ. Here are a few suggestions for improvements:

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 1: What's this abbreviation?

UTG and CO should not only be defined, they should be explained. Currently, there is a link to a page that says UTG means Under The Gun, but that isn't enough.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 3: What does "drawing dead" mean?

The example given was AK versus AQ on a board of AKK. That's not drawing dead. If an ace and a non-king come, the pot will be split because both players will have aces full of kings.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4: What does "the nuts" mean?

The definition given makes it sound like an ace-high flush on an unpaired board, no SF possible, would not be the nuts unless it were an ace-king-high flush. It is more common to use "the nuts" to refer to a hand that you know can't be beaten at the moment, not the highest possible such hand.

Also, on a board of Ad 7h 6h 3c, 54 is not the nuts unless at least one card is a heart. 5h 4h is ahead of 5d 4d, and the latter would not be able to call a push correctly with insanely deep stacks.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 5: What does "table stakes" mean?

When mentioning that a player can call all-in, it should be mentioned that any additional bets go into a side pot that the all-in player can't win.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 8: Which should I learn first, limit hold'em or no-limit hold'em?

"In NL, you are rarely getting the correct odds to draw at a hand. That assumes your opponents have half a clue or bumble into the correct play. "

This is wrong. Because of implied odds, underbets, the possibility you are ahead, and the fact that your opponent worries that you may have a monster, you often get the odds to draw in NL.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 9: Which should I concentrate on, tournaments or ring/cash games?

It's worth mentioning SNGs. They don't have the high variance of MTTs, and they can be a safe way to practice NL.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 11: Is my bankroll big enough?

It's almost an urban legend that 300 BB is the right size of a bankroll. That gets passed on without transmitting meaning. A losing player will burn through 300 BB or 3000 BB, but at low limits a good player needs much less than 300 BB. The figure of 300 BB assumes that a player wins about 2-3 BB/100 and will not step down.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 17: What are the odds of this hand winning?

Sorry, although the flush draw example is common, it is wrong and quite misleading. The question was what the odds are of the hand winning, not of making the flush, and it is rare that the only way to win is to hit the flush unless not all flushes win. Flush draws can win 25-55% or more, or they can be almost dead if someone has an overpair and a higher flush draw.

In the example give, the player has the nut flush draw with two overcards, a monster draw that is a favorite over most pairs, not a 1.86:1 underdog.

Anyway, the calculation of the odds to hit should be simplified. Calculate the odds you miss twice, and subtract from 1: 1-(38/47)(37/46).

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 19: How do you play against a maniac?

The answer seems to assume this is only a preflop problem. There is a lot that can be said about playing post-flop against a maniac. You can call down with weaker hands than normal, but you also may want to raise with weak hands to isolate the maniac. You may want to slow-play more if you feel the maniac is bluffing and won't call a raise, but will bet on the next street if you just call.

It's not always true that you should tighten up against a maniac when you can't isolate. After all, the maniac's preflop raises represent less strength than a solid player's raises would, so hands like KJo that you would fold quickly after a real raise are still playable after a maniac's raise.

[SheridanCat]

Thanks for the detailed response, pzhon.

I definitely see the errors you point out and I'll correct those over the next couple days.

Some of the issues you bring up, such as 300BB bankroll size, are pretty nuanced for a basic FAQ. That particular issue is covered well in the thread I link to and in other threads in the statistics forum. I will qualify the 300BB bankroll size in the answer so that people don't just think you need 300BBs and you're safe.

In any event, all your comments are appreciated and I'll revisit the answers based on them.

Thanks,

T

[SheridanCat]

Okay, I've updated some of the answers based on your comments. Thanks for those. I have a couple issues about what you posted that I want to ask about.

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4: What does "the nuts" mean?
Also, on a board of Ad 7h 6h 3c, 54 is not the nuts unless at least one card is a heart. 5h 4h is ahead of 5d 4d, and the latter would not be able to call a push correctly with insanely deep stacks.


[/ QUOTE ]

In the FAQ we're just really defining what "the nuts" means. We're not really worrying about discussing how one plays when drawing to the nuts, etc. There are plenty of books for further reading to talk about that. The nuts is, the highest possible hand based on known cards at any particular time, and that's what is described in the FAQ, I believe.

[ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 17: What are the odds of this hand winning?

Sorry, although the flush draw example is common, it is wrong and quite misleading. The question was what the odds are of the hand winning, not of making the flush, and it is rare that the only way to win is to hit the flush unless not all flushes win. Flush draws can win 25-55% or more, or they can be almost dead if someone has an overpair and a higher flush draw.


[/ QUOTE ]

Quite right. I answered a question, just not the question that was asked. I've fixed this by changing the question. I'm not even sure what the original question meant.

[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, the calculation of the odds to hit should be simplified. Calculate the odds you miss twice, and subtract from 1: 1-(38/47)(37/46).


[/ QUOTE ]

This gives you the probability. In order to calculate pot odds, you'll still nead to turn it into odds. It's easy enough to do, of course, but whether you do it the long way I show or the shortcut you show, it's still not going to happen at the table for beginning players.

[ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 19: How do you play against a maniac?

The answer seems to assume this is only a preflop problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

True, I didn't go into any detail on postflop play. I have done so now.

[ QUOTE ]

It's not always true that you should tighten up against a maniac when you can't isolate. After all, the maniac's preflop raises represent less strength than a solid player's raises would, so hands like KJo that you would fold quickly after a real raise are still playable after a maniac's raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't isolate, you're playing against other players which should cause you to tighten up some. Now, it's perfectly possible that the players you couldn't drive out are also playing marginal holdings vs. the maniac, but you're still reducing your chances against the maniac by playing against these other players.

If there is a maniac in who raises, I reraise with KJo trying to isolate, and one or more players behind me cold call or reraise, I'm not very happy. I'm in the middle between a maniac and someone who could easily have me dominated. Worse, if the player after me is a knowledgable player, he knows I'm tasty meat in a sandwich and he's counting on that.

So, thanks very much for the suggestions they made the FAQ better. If I'm offbase on what I've said above, please let me know.

Regards,

T