Theorem of poker

[PokerFoo]

For years I have avoided certain player types that I know I have trouble playing against. It has always been easier to just find a table with the player types I know my game is good against. Since I started playing more online than in the brick and mortars, I have found it increasingly difficult to avoid the types I dont like and it has motivated me to learn some new theory and play styles.

I have always faired better at reasonably tight tables than loose tables. It's easier to control the odds and use semi-bluffs, check raises and slowplays. Preffering being heads-up or having at the most a 3 way pot is where I feel my game has always been best.

At the 2/4 3/6 level where I usually play, I run into a lot of games where players seeing the flop is often upwards of 75%. More and more frequently, in fact. This is where my profites tend to be break-even or be very small at best.

After re-reading The fundamental theorem of poker, I have a few situations I would like to discuss so I can better handle these situations when I can't avoid them.

In limit holdem with 10 players-
You are on the button with Ac Ah.
UTG limpes in and is raised by UTG+1. 5 players cold call 2 bets to you.
Would it not be correct, according the the theorem, to fold your aces? If you call or raise, everyone will stay in the hand to see the flop. This would effectivly mean you are laying odds to any 2 suited cards or any connectors, which are likely in the field. By playing this way consistantly over time, you would loose money. Essentially you would be the imbecile giving 2 to 1 on the coin flip would you not?

Lets say you call or raise in this situation and everyone stays in. The flop is As 6h 4s. Early position bets and is then raised. The rest of the field calls to you. would it again not be correct to fold your set according the the theorem? Raising will not thin the field in any signifigant way and likely only lay better odds against your set for the rest of the hand. Over time, I see more flushes and straights panning out in this situation than Aces full.

Lets say your at the same table but UTG. You hold the same 2 aces. Would it not be correct to fold them UTG? If you make it 2 bets, you can be 99% sure of getting called by about 7 of the ten players. This would be putting yourself in the same situation of laying odds to the other hands over time wouldnt it? You'd see bad beat after bad beat time and time again wouldn't you?

Now I ask this.

Your at the same table, your UTG with some suited connector or even a suited 1 gap. Your 99% sure a raise will get you about 7 of the ten players at the table. Theres a good chance it may even be capped pre-flop with everyone staying in. Are these hands, in this situation, more valuable over time than the aces or any other big pocket pair? If I understand the theorem correctly they would be. But then that would contradict the assumption that when the table is very loose a good player will tighten up.

-If- all this is correct, just how loose pre-flop should a good player become at these table types? Obviously Ax suited is getting good odds from any position but what about connectors and suited gaps? Is it profitable to regularly play them out of position in these situations? Or am I better off just observing for an hour and waiting for the table to settle down or new blood to come in?

If I am way off base in my understanding here please let me know.
Sound advice is what I need.

[D.H.]

[ QUOTE ]
At the 2/4 3/6 level where I usually play, I run into a lot of games where players seeing the flop is often upwards of 75%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. Where do you play? I wanna be there. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
In limit holdem with 10 players-
You are on the button with Ac Ah.
UTG limpes in and is raised by UTG+1. 5 players cold call 2 bets to you.Would it not be correct, according the the theorem, to fold your aces? If you call or raise, everyone will stay in the hand to see the flop. This would effectivly mean you are laying odds to any 2 suited cards or any connectors, which are likely in the field. By playing this way consistantly over time, you would loose money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nooo. You would win money over time. If up against 10 players, you're fine if you have more than 10% chance of winning. With your aces, you've got lots more than that. Raise it for value. Of course people will catch there flushes sometimes, you will even lose most of the time with your aces against this many opponents. BUT, in the long run you're a winner.

<font color="red">© </font><font color="blue">D.H.</font>

[cnfuzzd]

&lt;&lt;&lt;For years I have avoided certain player types that I know I have trouble playing against. It has always been easier to just find a table with the player types I know my game is good against. Since I started playing more online than in the brick and mortars, I have found it increasingly difficult to avoid the types I dont like and it has motivated me to learn some new theory and play styles.

I have always faired better at reasonably tight tables than loose tables. It's easier to control the odds and use semi-bluffs, check raises and slowplays. Preffering being heads-up or having at the most a 3 way pot is where I feel my game has always been best.

At the 2/4 3/6 level where I usually play, I run into a lot of games where players seeing the flop is often upwards of 75%. More and more frequently, in fact. This is where my profites tend to be break-even or be very small at best.&gt;&gt;&gt;

Then you are not a winning poker player, plain and simple. Perhaps i should say that you arent an "expert" poker player. The expert, and those trying to get that way, understand te way to maximize thier edge in these extremely loose games, and do so to make huge profits, due to the increaased number of people putting bets into the pot. A perfect example of this would be NPA Ed Miller. He is a player who is comfortable in a 30/60 game with 3 people seeing the flop, or a 2/4 game with ten people seeing the flop. In either game, Ed knows how to maximize his advantage.


&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;
In limit holdem with 10 players-
You are on the button with Ac Ah.
UTG limpes in and is raised by UTG+1. 5 players cold call 2 bets to you.
Would it not be correct, according the the theorem, to fold your aces? If you call or raise, everyone will stay in the hand to see the flop. This would effectivly mean you are laying odds to any 2 suited cards or any connectors, which are likely in the field. By playing this way consistantly over time, you would loose money. Essentially you would be the imbecile giving 2 to 1 on the coin flip would you not?&gt;&gt;&gt;

First, it is a horrible idea to fold aces preflop. Nuff said. Second, YOU are not laying odds to these hands, the POT is laying these odds. While its true that in a game where several pots are going to two or three bets before the flop will have enough big bets in them to make drawing to almost any hand profitable, you currently have the best hand, and are the favorite to win. So, not only is the pot laying everyone, including you, good odds to improve to a big hand, such as a nut flush, your hand is already ahead and can win unimproved. Also, your pot equity is huge when you have pocket aces. Your hand is the best unimproved hand, you can improve to what will almost always be the nuts, and you have great redraw potential almost always. So, by folding you sacrifice all that pot equity, meaning you cost your self money. Finally, its important to understand that just because the pots are multiway and very large, that doesnt mean its profitable to play any two suited cards. Your opponents ARE making a mistake according to the FTOP by not folding their hands preflop when you hold AA, especially if its been raised before they enter. Also, i want to see the stats that say overtime you would lose money with AA. I think you made this up. Against a full table going to the river everytime, AA will hold up 35% of the time. Lets say that in a hundred games, each time everyone put four big bets into the pot. With aces, against the full field, you are going to lose 65 out of 100 times. 4X65=260 big bets that you have lost. However, those 35 times that you win the 40 big bets are huge. 40X35=1400 big bets, for a profit of 1140 big bets. That is a huge margin. These numbers stay the same no matter how much raising is occurring, they just increase in proportion.

&lt;&lt;&lt; Lets say you call or raise in this situation and everyone stays in. The flop is As 6h 4s. Early position bets and is then raised. The rest of the field calls to you. would it again not be correct to fold your set according the the theorem? Raising will not thin the field in any signifigant way and likely only lay better odds against your set for the rest of the hand. Over time, I see more flushes and straights panning out in this situation than Aces full.&gt;&gt;&gt;

If you ever fold trip aces on this flop, david sklansky will hunt you down and beat you senseless. Seriously. First. You have the best hand. On the flop, 47 unseen cards. 8 spades would complete a flush, and 6 cards are non-spades that can complete an open ended straight draw. Thats 14/47 cards that will put your hand behind. However, that also means that there are 33 cards that give you a decent chance of winning unimproved. So, while the *pot* odds are correct for the draws to play against you, those plain old regular odds say that you will win lots of times. Second. Even if you KNOW that the turn would bring a flush, you would be correct to still play here since you are also getting the correct pot odds to draw to the second nut, which will win 99.9% of the time its made. This is what pot equity means, your hand will win more times than most other hands here, and folding sacrfices all of that. At least, that what i think it means. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Finally, with the best hand, how big of a mistake are you making by folding according to the FTOP.

&lt;&lt;&lt;
Lets say your at the same table but UTG. You hold the same 2 aces. Would it not be correct to fold them UTG? If you make it 2 bets, you can be 99% sure of getting called by about 7 of the ten players. This would be putting yourself in the same situation of laying odds to the other hands over time wouldnt it? You'd see bad beat after bad beat time and time again wouldn't you?&gt;&gt;&gt;

Its time to learn the meaning of the word variance, son. See above.

&lt;&lt;&lt;Now I ask this.Your at the same table, your UTG with some suited connector or even a suited 1 gap. Your 99% sure a raise will get you about 7 of the ten players at the table. Theres a good chance it may even be capped pre-flop with everyone staying in. Are these hands, in this situation, more valuable over time than the aces or any other big pocket pair? If I understand the theorem correctly they would be. But then that would contradict the assumption that when the table is very loose a good player will tighten up. -If- all this is correct, just how loose pre-flop should a good player become at these table types? Obviously Ax suited is getting good odds from any position but what about connectors and suited gaps? Is it profitable to regularly play them out of position in these situations? Or am I better off just observing for an hour and waiting for the table to settle down or new blood to come in? If I am way off base in my understanding here please let me know.Sound advice is what I need. &gt;&gt;&gt;

Its almost never correct to play small suited connectors up front, nor to raise with them, unless you are chris daddy cool. playing these hands for multiple bets before the flop out of position, so that you cant use cool tricks like free cards and what not, will cost you money over time. For the best advice you can get about these situations, i would recommend picking up small stakes hold em, the latest 2+2 book. reading this book will revolutionize the way you play poker. Guarenteed.

peace

john nickle

[D.H.]

[ QUOTE ]
&lt;&lt;&lt; For years I have avoided certain player...
...at best. &gt;&gt;&gt;

[/ QUOTE ]

The 'quote' feature is pretty nice. Makes the posts a lot easier to read. Especially long ones.

<font color="red">© </font><font color="blue">D.H.</font>

[PokerFoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Then you are not a winning poker player, plain and simple. Perhaps i should say that you arent an "expert" poker player.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am most certainly not an expert player. I am however a winning player. But that is because I am aware and humble of where my game has faults and I am careful to stay away from situations I know I will have a hard time with. Though as I said, its more frequent I run into situations I dont care for when playing online these days. I am on the quest to improve my game in these specific situations.

[ QUOTE ]

you currently have the best hand, and are the favorite to win. Your opponents ARE making a mistake according to the FTOP by not folding their hands preflop when you hold AA, especially if its been raised before they enter. Also, i want to see the stats that say overtime you would lose money with AA. I think you made this up. Against a full table going to the river everytime, AA will hold up 35% of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

I currently have the best hand but I am not so sure I am the 'Favorite' to win there against 7 or more players with 2 cards to come, however. An open ended straight with a flush possability would be a 2 to 1 favorite over that hand wouldnt it?

Holding up 35% of the time is losing 65% of the time.. isnt it?

As for losing money over time in this situation, this is one of the theorem problems that made me scratch my head. I didnt make it up, it is actually discussed in The Theory of Poker. (I forget which chapter but I'll try to find the exact text later)

If I understand it correctly... (this is not a quote from the book, just an example of how I understand, or don't understand it)

If I were to consistantly play my big hands against a large field when the pot is laying sufficient odds to the drawing hands, It would be liken to the coin flip example of giving 2 to 1 on the flip. I would lose money over time.

[ QUOTE ]

If you ever fold trip aces on this flop, david sklansky will hunt you down and beat you senseless. Seriously. First. You have the best hand. On the flop, 47 unseen cards. 8 spades would complete a flush, and 6 cards are non-spades that can complete an open ended straight draw. Thats 14/47 cards that will put your hand behind. However, that also means that there are 33 cards that give you a decent chance of winning unimproved. So, while the *pot* odds are correct for the draws to play against you, those plain old regular odds say that you will win lots of times.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would tend to agree but my results in these situations are what kills my profits. One loss here will be for a lot of chips. Play on the flop will likely be raised without thinning the field. Gaining those chips back is usually a long slow grind.

Remember that the situation I am describing is not 'average'. This is a family pot with player types that are not going away under any circumstances.

DH-
I play all over the place. Ultimate bet, Party poker, Poker stars Full-Tilt and True Poker. Although I see this mostly at Party and UB lately. Party's 2/4 games will do this very often then settle back down. I'll raise UTG with a big hand and get called by the whole table. I usually throw it away in disgust right afterward and am almost always glad I did so when the guy with the small 2 or 3 gap hits the straight or the flush hits. Which 'seems' to be more often than not against this many players.

What I am describing here are odd table tilts that last sometimes an hour or more. What I usually do is turtle up because I know I dont have a great game in these situations and one hit can take away 2 or 3 hours of my wins. I'll cold call the 2 or 3 bets to me when I'm on the button with an Ax suited or even a suited connector because Im getting extreme odds. I'll fold if the flop doesnt hit a 4 flush, open ended straight flush draw or better. Most often I just fold, watch and wait for a better situation though.

What I would like is to be able to smartly play in these situations, instead of waiting them out though. I see a lot of players making a whole lot more per hour than me by playing the small 2 gaps and such when the table tilts. I'm starting to wonder if its correct/profitable for me to do so too. And I'm questioning the value of my big hands in these situations as well.

I've been spending a few hours a day in the micro limit games (because they resemble this pretty closely) to practice different plays and I find them equally mind boggling. So far, what I have experienced is that flopping any set against this many loose players is costly.

[ QUOTE ]

Nooo. You would win money over time.... Of course people will catch there flushes sometimes, you will even lose most of the time with your aces against this many opponents. BUT, in the long run you're a winner.


[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is what confuses me. The contradiction. If Im going to lose most of the time against that many players isnt this a losing proposition in the long run? This is why Im asking if Its correct to just toss it and only play it against a smaller field.

[CurryLover]

[ QUOTE ]

If I am way off base in my understanding here please let me know.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are way off base in your understanding.

I thought your first post was a joke actually, but it seems from your second post that you are serious.

I'm not going to offer any long explanation to you because one of the other posters has already done that in detail. Either you haven't read and thought about it properly, or you just don't understand it.

[D.H.]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Nooo. You would win money over time.... Of course people will catch there flushes sometimes, you will even lose most of the time with your aces against this many opponents. BUT, in the long run you're a winner.


[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is what confuses me. The contradiction. If Im going to lose most of the time against that many players isnt this a losing proposition in the long run? This is why Im asking if Its correct to just toss it and only play it against a smaller field.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple example:
10 players put $10 each in the pot.
You win 30% of the time.

If playing 10 times you will put $100 in the pot. You will win the pot 3 times, giving you $100 * 3 = $300. $300 - $100 = $200. You're a winner even though you lost most of the time.

<font color="red">© </font><font color="blue">D.H.</font>

[knightunner]

[ QUOTE ]

In limit holdem with 10 players-
You are on the button with Ac Ah.
UTG limpes in and is raised by UTG+1. 5 players cold call 2 bets to you.
Would it not be correct, according the the theorem, to fold your aces? If you call or raise, everyone will stay in the hand to see the flop. This would effectivly mean you are laying odds to any 2 suited cards or any connectors, which are likely in the field. By playing this way consistantly over time, you would loose money. Essentially you would be the imbecile giving 2 to 1 on the coin flip would you not?

Lets say you call or raise in this situation and everyone stays in. The flop is As 6h 4s. Early position bets and is then raised. The rest of the field calls to you. would it again not be correct to fold your set according the the theorem? Raising will not thin the field in any signifigant way and likely only lay better odds against your set for the rest of the hand. Over time, I see more flushes and straights panning out in this situation than Aces full.

Lets say your at the same table but UTG. You hold the same 2 aces. Would it not be correct to fold them UTG? If you make it 2 bets, you can be 99% sure of getting called by about 7 of the ten players. This would be putting yourself in the same situation of laying odds to the other hands over time wouldnt it? You'd see bad beat after bad beat time and time again wouldn't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is playing weak tight. The Fundamental Theorum of Poker, from my understanding, works both ways. If you fold a hand that you should have played against your opponents, you are contributing to their winnings. AA, preflop, is the nuts. Even if 2 suited cards hit on the flop along with your set ace, the odds of them hitting there flush are roughly 3:1. With the post flop nuts, and 5 people in the pot, you are getting more than enough pot odds to call. Really, at this point you want the pot to be as big as possible. If you know they are going to call, you need to raise and reraise.

Folding this hand goes against the Theorum.
~knight

[PokerFoo]

[ QUOTE ]

You are way off base in your understanding.

I thought your first post was a joke actually, but it seems from your second post that you are serious.


[/ QUOTE ]

No I'm not joking.

I have been examining my game and my only noteable leak is when I have to play against large loose fields. With pocket aces, kings or other similar hands, my stats show Id rather one or 2 players make a big mistake against these hands than have to play them against 8 players who WONT fold no matter what. But you all suggest I WANT to play against this field with these hands.

I decided to go back to the books specifically to look for advice in these situations and found some confusing concepts in the theorem of poker about situations when the pot is laying enough odds to these hands.

Here is a passage from The theory of poker. Chapter 9

...but even when your hand is the best hand, you generally prefer your opponant to fold rather than call when the pot is large. The reason is that when you bet in a limit game and the pot is large, your opponants hand, though second best, is rarely so much of an underdog that he is not getting good enough odds to chase you. Hence, his calling you with good odds is a profitable play for him in the long run. Since he is correct to take the odds, you do not gain when he calls. You gain only when he folds and turns down those odds. When he calls, you lose even if you happen to win that particular pot; for over the long run his call has positive expectation. It will end up costing you money.
--

Forgive me if these are trivial concepts for you. I'm just trying to improve my hourly rate. but this statement, would indicate to me that in the situations I have described, with huge pots and loose players who will not fold under any circumstances, its probably best to fold and wait for a better spot (with those hand types).

That combined with my own stats would suggest this is true.
So, because I am not an expert I am here trying to clarify and determine the best way to play this type of field.

If I am wrong and stubborn I hope to correct it. If I am on the right track to plugging a leak and improving my hourly rate I hope to do that too.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
with huge pots and loose players who will not fold under any circumstances, its probably best to fold and wait for a better spot (with those hand types).


[/ QUOTE ]

you're right. toss those Aces. especially when the pot is huge. Just ask ed miller, he agrees with you about huge hands in monster sized pots.