Beginner's Poker FAQ - Ready For Review

[SheridanCat]

I've also added two new questions. One is about which hands wins and another about the low in Omaha/8.

Regards,

T

[Uncle Wiggly]

Cat:
As a relative beginner (10K hands in 2.5 months), I find this kind of guide to be invaluable.
It answers many of the questions I've poked through various threads here to get info on.
Your work is much appreciated by those of us striving desperately to get better.
Thanks!

Uncle Wiggly

[SheridanCat]

Thanks, Uncle. Good luck.

T

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

[ 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 ]
Hold'em is a 7 card game, not a 6 card game. Being tied for the best hand after the turn does not make your hand the nuts. This distinction is important in Omaha and some of the time in NL.

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=774083
pokenum -h 5h 4h - 5d 4d -- ad 7h 6h 3c
cards EV
5h 4h 0.602
5d 4d 0.398

On that board, 54 with at least one heart is the nuts because it is equal to or better than any other hand. 5d 4d is not the nuts because it could be significantly behind.


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]
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 ]
I think there should be some mention of analyzers such as Two Dimes and Poker Stove. I'm a mathematician, and I don't bother to do the calculations myself. I use these excellent tools.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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

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.


[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but although that is common advice, it is weak-tight and wrong. A maniac is essentially posting an extra blind, and more blind money means there is more reason to get involved, not less, even if you can't steal the blinds.

If a maniac raises and there are two cold-callers and you are in the big blind, you can call with many more hands than if a tight-aggressive player raises and gets two cold-calls. That means you can play more loosely, even though you are not going to be able to isolate the maniac.

While it is true that you could still profit at a table of maniacs by playing very tightly, this does not mean it is the most profitable way to play. The idea that you should tighten up because your opponents are loose is a common fallacy that should not be endorsed by an FAQ.

[AngryCola]

This is why I thought some of the book questions should be left out.
I wasn't even thinking about the play type of questions.

Honestly, I hear what you're saying Pzhon, but the "nuts" argument you are making is not one for the FAQ.
The FAQ needs to stay as simple as possible.

If people have questions they can use the boards, but Cat can't plan for every possible contigency in the FAQ. It would end up becoming a book.

I think you have good intentions here, but you need to understand that FAQs aren't supposed to contain a lot of detailed information. It ruins them.

Sticking to the absolute most basic answers to some of these questions is really the best way to go.
Cat, if you need to use an example for that question, just use the most obvious and simple one you can think of.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I hear what you're saying Pzhon, but the "nuts" argument you are making is not one for the FAQ.
The FAQ needs to stay as simple as possible.


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that it should be simple. I elaborated because the example was wrong, not because I felt these details should be included in the FAQ. Wrong examples and fallacies should be left out of the FAQ if possible. I'd be happier with a simpler, correct example.

One place I feel more detail is needed is the discussion of a bankroll. Very frequently, people forget to mention that you are supposed to be a clear winner in order to be safe with a 300 BB bankroll.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Macoy:

I've never read the book and don't have an opinion on it.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Cat:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
The FAQ will remain an external link. Mason was clear that he didn't want 2+2 to appear to be endorsing any FAQ for this forum

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's the best way to do it. There are some things in your FAQ which are probably not appropriate for us to endorse, and there are some things which we for sure don't agree with. (An example of this is your endorsement of the Omaha 8 book by Tenner and Krieger.)

However, feel free to post it every now and then, but just make sure to note that it is your work and not an official Two Plus Two document.

Best wishes,
Mason

[theRealMacoy]

Mason,

My sincere appology for the misinformation. I read a short review of it a few months ago by another poker writer, whom I mistakenly thought was you. After searching I can't remember who it was at all now, nor where I came across it. I think my resarch thesis is finally making me crazy. In the future I will be sure to search the source first before engaging keyboard.

Best regards,
the Real Macoy

[RJT]

Good work Cat. Just wanted to drop you a note to say thanks for you efforts.

I look forward to AngryCola's memo to you regarding using the search function on this forum. That has been a frustration of mine too.

I would like to see more informtation regarding Poker Tracker. I find navigating the program itself difficult and also (just started using it) making use of the data a self learning proposition.

Regarding nutz: I seem to remember reading the term "stone nutz" as the best possible hand, e.g Ace hi flush, no pairs, no straight flush possible on the board. (Not sure if this is used only after river - or changes at points in time as play progresses). Might want to include that term after checking for sure its proper usage.

Thanks again and keep up the good work.