Casino-Twist

Ok, we all know that in a regular game that these hands should be raised to get people out and limit the callers.  In a loose passive game, where I am only going to eliminate half of the people at the table (leaving about 4-5 to see the flop) is a preflop raise incorrect?  Do I just want to get limpers in for odds on trips?  I heard somewhere that the worst amount of callers for JJ is 4-6.  Can somebody explain this to me please? 

Answer 1:

I think it’s sensible to rise in this situation even if they’re going to call you.  In fact, in a loose-passive game, I think it’s correct to raise every hand preflop.  (The exception is where the rake would make your raise a negative expectation bet). A lot of people will disagree with my reasons, but the theory remains:

1.  You may take control of the game
2.  If you don’t take control, you may convert it into a loose-aggressive game instead (more profitable)
3.  You disguise your hand if you’re the one doing the betting.
4.  You’re probably getting the best of it over people with garbage hands.
5.  You’re building up the pot so that hands like bottom pair will be enticed to stay in against your set.

Because the value of a hand like JJ lies in two places.  Firstly, the chance that it will stand up at the end by itself.  If you’re playing heads up against almost any two cards, JJ is likely to be some way in front all the way to the end.  So it’s a self-made hand. But in a 7-way pot, if a K, Q, or A comes down, you are probably sunk. It is highly likely that out of 5 cards, one of them will kill your ‘big pair’.  So the value of JJ then lies in flopping a set, whereupon your hand is kind of protected against people with weaker hands.

Answer 2:

“Getting people out” is a pleasant side effect of raising preflop. It is not the reason for raising. Getting money into the pot is reason No. 1! With a big hand one figures to win more than one’s fair share of pots (i.e. more than 25% in a 4-way pot). Hence big hands should build the pot.

The argument for calling with JJ against 4 or so opponents comes from the S&M Hold’em Poker for Advanced Players. The reasons for this are explained mootly and the advice is wrong, according to Abdul’s Turbo sims (and Fekali logic). JJ plays best with a raise
in nearly all types of games.

Answer 3:

In this type of game I rise with AA KK and call with QQ, JJ.  If they are going to call anyway, might as well see if an A or K hits the flop and save some money on your QQ or JJ.

I cannot figure out what is the *best* way to play a pair of 7-8-9s in early position. Should I… …RAISE, hoping to narrow the field, then maybe I can win without improving? …or CALL, thinking that I need a baby flop, or a set to win, and maybe make more $$$ if I make the hand.

Answer 1:

It depends.  It most games, most of the time, how you play them after the flop makes most of the difference.  And in most games most of the time whether you limp, raise, or fold these hands out of position won’t matter much to your bottom line.

Answer 2:

Middle pocket pairs, especially in early position, can be some of the trickier hands to play. Good assessment of the game is helpful here. If the game is loose and passive, then limping in early can be +EV. However, in most average games, if I decide to play those hands up front I prefer to open with a raise because:
1) I can win the blinds;
2) I drive out other players;
3) I can limit the field to heads-up or three handed;
4) I can take the initiative post flop;
5) I minimize the information about my hand by usually opening for a
raise.

This requires playing well post flop and knowing when to be aggressive and when to shut down.

Answer 3:

Because they play well only against one or many players I only play these if the table is passive.  Now I also play in Colorado, so these pairs are monsters if they flop a set since I can bet the max post flop.

David Sklansky has been given detention for calling his sixth grade teacher a “moron”.  As he’s walking down the hall that night (after taking a face from the ancient gallery), he notices there’s 100 closed but unlocked lockers along one wall. On his first trip down the hall he opens all 100 lockers.  He then goes back to the beginning and closes every second locker. On his third time down the hall, he stops at every third locker and opens it if it’s closed, and closes it if it’s open(call this ‘toggling’). He continues this, toggling every Nth locker on his Nth trip, until on his 100th time down the hall he toggles only the last locker(and no, he doesn’t take anything from the lockers; they’re all empty).

a.)  At this point, how many lockers are open?

b.)  Starting from the first trip, how many toggles are done?

c.)  Which locker gets toggled the most times?

Answer 1:

To be open, a locker must have been toggled an odd number of times.  The number of times locker number N is toggled equals the number of positive integer factors of N.  Since the only natural numbers that have an odd number of factors are the perfect squares, then lockers 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, …. 100 (a total of 10 lockers) are open. Add the total number of factors of the numbers 1 through 100.  My computer gives 482. A tie between lockers 60, 72, 84, 90, and 96.  Each of these got toggled 12 times.  (If we assume that the each trip along the lockers is in a direction opposite to the previous, then locker number N on the first pass would be number M on the return trip, where N+M=101.  A locker would be toggled once for every ODD factor of N and once for every EVEN factor of M.  For example, locker number 5 (N=5, M=96) would get toggled during trips 1 and 5, and during return trips 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 96.  Locker numbers 21 and 45 tie with number 5 for the most number of toggles: 12.  There would be a total of 482 toggles. The number of lockers open would be 24.)

Answer 2:

David makes 100 trips down a hall way opening and closing locker doors, but the sixth grade teacher is the moron?

Answer 3:

I’m no great mathematician it’s been years but here goes, if I’m way off base please let me know.
a:10 doors open Depending upon my understanding of what a toggle being correct
b: 482 toggles
c: five lockers are toggled 11 times 60,72,84,90,96

Why can’t New York be sued to allow poker, like the state of California was sued? Poker was deemed a game of skill, not chance–hence it wasn’t considered gambling and poker was opened up in California. Since a precedent was set in California law, why can’t we use it in New York? There must be some poker loving lawyer that can sue the state pro bono for the good of all poker players in New York. If I don’t use the Mayfair Club, I have to schlep to AC or Foxwoods–for
the extra few hours by plane, I can be in Vegas!

Answer 1:

John’s lawyer was asked why he didn’t site California law deeming poker a skill game . . . he shrugged it off.  He never bothered to look up legal cases in other states.  He blew it.

Answer 2:

Because that’s not what happened in California.   The California lawsuit was about the California statute, which did not actually outlaw poker.  The New York statutes have a very different language.

Answer 3:

John’s lawyer also showed up for the initial hearing (after the club was closed a few weeks ago) an hour and a half late.  No phone call to the judge.  No announcement of any kind.  He casually strolled in after the parties were assembled and had been waiting and announced “Sorry, I got stuck in traffic.” The idiot should have been sued for malpractice. It wasn’t the merits of the case, or lack thereof that cost Diamond Club representatives the chance to get a ruling in its favor.  It was poor legal representation, plain and simple.

I played in a $4/$8 HE game (highest limit in the room at the time) and watched a guy lose more than $1,100.00  He wasn’t drunk or stoned – and he wasn’t rich. In fact, he was really pissed about losing so much money.  He also was not taking more than the usual number of bad beats.  He was just a loose, and horrible, player.  The rest of the line-up was weak to average.  I had so many chips the guys running the game asked me to sell some of them back. This guy blamed the dealer – but he lost with every dealer who got in the box. He blamed the players (especially me) for ‘sucking out” yet on most of the hands he was never in the lead.  I asked around and the other players said, “That’s the way he always plays”. This is nothing new – we have all been in games like this and seen players like this.  Usually I don’t give them a thought – I just try to get my share of the money they are throwing away.  But last night I started asking myself, “What can this guy be thinking?”  What keeps a guy like this coming back week after week when he always goes home a huge loser?  How do they convince themselves that they lose because of bad luck or bad dealers or that the other players just got lucky?  I don’t know – maybe it takes a shrink to understand this kind of thing.

Answer 1:

I have a little theory about players like this, based partly on my experience of my father’s attitude about golf.  See, my father never breaks 90 on 18 holes, yet he considers himself a good golfer, and is constantly “working” on his game.  He goes from being a pretty solid guy to being an absolute baby emotionally on the golf course- ranting, raving, throwing clubs, cursing, steaming, etc.  Yet he goes back again and again, always with the insane hope that “this time it will be different.” I’ve reached the conclusion that it is somehow *emotionally satisfying* for him to be a loser and a victim.  Poker seems to attract a few people with this same profile.  They self-sabotage, think they are good at the games, get stuck and steamed in a heartbeat, and piss money away in the silliest of ways.  And they keep coming back.  They are trapped by the gloomy glamor of being losers and victims.  I find it *very* unpleasant to be seated with them.

Answer 2:

I think some gamblers are afraid to win. For whatever reasons, they cannot conceive of themselves as winners. In many cases, I think the problem is that if they accept responsibility for how things turn out at the poker table, they will also have to accept responsibility for how other things turn out in their life. It wouldn’t surprise me if this guy has other problems he blames on his wife, employer, neighbors, etc.

Answer 3:

You make a good point. They lose on purpose.  They can’t stand to win; it would be contrary to how they feel about themselves. I see these born losers miss a hand and do bodily harm to themselves. Seen a guy bite himself until he bled.  Watched a guy rub 5 or 6 diamond tip stick matches with his fist on the table until they ignited and stuck to his fist.  All part of the disease.

Does anyone know if the rule that a hand asked to be shown by the up-until-the-asking winner is exempt from the “pixie dust kill” of being tapped upon the muck by the dealer is codified anywhere. I have always understood that anyone involved in a showdown hand can ask to see all remaining hands and that such hands were ineligible to win *unless the asker was the winner*, in which case he becomes the loser if a no-longer-killed hand beats him. Any documented rules about this?

Answer 1:

Often the dealer taps the muck to kill a hand before turning it over. I think this is a bad rule. My thinking is that if a hand is turned over at all, it should win if it contains the best cards and was eligible at the showdown. This is similar to the “retrievable hand” rule, which I have long advocated, and which appears in some of my rulebooks. It says that if the cards are clearly identifiable, they are not dead, even if they accidently touched a portion of the muck. Whether the potential winning hand asked for the cards to be turned over or someone else asked, once the cards are seen — and there’s no chance that they are the wrong cards — the best hand should take the pot. Telling a novice, who is probably already embarrassed for having misread his hand, that he cannot have the pot is not — in my opinion — in the best interests of poker. However, I can see the other side of it, too. And you could argue that the experience of losing the pot will make players more careful in the future.

Answer 2:

Yes….and probably not. If the “winner” asks to see an as-yet-unrevealed hand, which hand can potentially win the pot. Is it documented anywhere? Doubt it.

Answer 3:

Taking a pot from a novice because somebody asked to see a folded hand is not in the best interest of poker.  Such a rule would lead to endless angle shooting.  Creeps constantly asking to see hands when a table “enemy” is involved in a hand. If this is true, then your position is all hands should always be turned over on the river.  I see no need for altering the basic way the game is played because sometimes we all muck the winner by mistake. Somebody folds, their hand is dead.  End of story.  No pixie dust.  You toss your hand away, you lose.  You want to show it, and then show it.  This way, IMO, is the only sane way to go as more and more casinos employ incompetent dealers who do not muck discarded hands instantly.

IS it possible to share playing profiles that you’ve developed for the computer players in Wilson’s Turbo Hold’em?

Answer 1:

All you have to do is transfer the “.lup” files that make up the profile(s). I do this with a local player, via email. If you’re interested, send me email & I’ll tell you how. If the group is interested, post back – and I’ll put together a “how-to” post. I have a few (IMHO) good low limits, suck-out-on-the-river lup’s, that mimic quite well the typical $3/6, $5/10 players I see at the Trop. I’d like to get my hands on some $10/20 & $20/40 lup’s. I don’t play that game often
enough to build an ideal profile of that play.

Answer 2:

There is a TTH email group where you might find some people interested in what y’all are talking about.  The group is somewhat dormant but has a few lurkers on it.

Answer 3:

This is a copy of an email I got from Bob Wilson of Wilson Software back in June after I emailed them the same question.  I probably shouldn’t reprint it without permission, but it’s harmless.

1) Buying at Paradise Poker for $100-500
2) Steadily build up to about double that, playing low limits
3) Cash out my original investment
4) Lose the rest immediately, by taking beat after beat, no matter which game I play, or which style of play I use

I think it would be absurd to say that Paradise Poker cold decks you after a partial cash-out, to force you to re-buy quicker. That said, this pattern has repeated about 5 times in the last 2 months. Anyone have any idea what’s going on? Maybe I should completely cash-out double my investment, then rebuy, to steer around this obligatory beating.

Answer 1:

It’s the big swings that seem to be normal there (or at least more visible because of the number of hands per hour) – I started keeping more cash in the account to accommodate the swings and haven’t had to rebuy since.

Answer 2:

I have been a vocal defender of paradise here on RGP.  That said, I’ve noticed the same thing.  Every time I’ve cashed out (normally after a huge win), I go stone cold, taking bad beat after bad beat after bad beat.  I know it would be totally stupid (not to mention extremely difficult to implement) for paradise to cold-deck players after they cash out, but the motive is there – to get you to rebuy – and I’ve seen so many different people complain of this that I’m beginning to wonder whether it is just a coincidence. The only possible explanation I can think of (aside from paradise cheating its players) is that people cash out too much of their bankroll, leaving themselves with a way too little for the limits they’re playing, so it’s actually *likely* that they go broke fast, and not just a coincidence.  However, this does not explain the horrible run of bad beats.

Answer 3:

I’ve played 79.02 hours so far on Paradise and had 2 cash-outs of the value of my original buy-in. My current bankroll is nearly 5 times my original buy-in and although I’ve had ups and downs I’ve never experienced the problems complained about. I have had similar problems playing pot-limit competitions at my local casino when after a big win or two my results have been awful for weeks to months. The reason, simply, is the wins have caused me to overestimate my abilities and I’ve over-played hands and shaded my values in the mistaken belief I’m invincible and will win as of right. The “winning after re-buying” scenario could also be explained by the inevitable tightening up of play that comes with parting with hard earned cash and the knowledge that the money has got to last to “earn back” the credit card charge.

Where is the best place to fly into when going to Foxwoods?

Answer 1:

I assume there is transportation from the Hartford airport to Foxwoods, so that is probably your best bet. I generally go into Boston for business, but that is a two hour drive or so. Providence may be the closest (with little traffic) but I do not know if there is transportation out of Rhode Island. Your best bet is to call the casino and ask for help.

Answer 2:

Hartford and Providence are the closest, with Providence being slightly closer.  However, Providence is also a MUCH nicer airport, and is my first choice whenever I travel (and I only live 6 miles from Foxwoods).

Answer 3:

I think it may be from the Bonza Bus depot in Providence, but there is a bus company that has three or four round trips a day.  The cost, as I recall, is quite reasonable.

Been playing poker for a few years now. Sometime I win & sometimes I lose. I’ve heard about pot odds & how it makes a difference on whether or not you should call a bet. I really don’t understand the concept. In fact I have NEVER considered pot odds when playing poker. Are pot odds that important?  If I never consider the odds the pot is giving me, am I doomed? Where can I learn about the fundamentals of pot odds?

Answer 1:

The basic idea of pot odds: Say you are about a 4:1 dog to make your hand and that if you do so, you’ll win the pot. If the pot holds four times the amount you need to bet, you bet is “correct,”
that is, if you make that bet every time the same situation arises, you will break even in the long run. One out of four times, you hand will get there and you’ll get your money back. Thus, if there is more than four times your bet, you are making money in the long run if you act similarly every time. Without this kind of mathematical analysis, one ends up making calls on “feel.” While this can be lucrative for some, it probably isn’t great for beginners. You might get bluffed off pots but not winning those is far better than losing more by making calls not warranted by the odds.

Answer 2:

Well, it’s pretty simple-#1 if the pot is big, and if the cost to win the pot is low then the pot odds is good!  #2 if the pot is small, and the cost of win is great then the pot odds are bad.  #3 Always play when the pot odds are good and throw away when the pot odds are bad—thus ended the lesson of poker for today!

Answer 3:

Having read (probably way too many) books, which go into intricate and painful detail computing pot odds, your one paragraph answer to this guy pretty much sums it all up. Don’t take this the wrong way, however, I found it quite amusing. Sometimes (often) we tend to over analyze things to the point of making simple things much more complicated than they are.

What you wrote is, IMHO, exactly right. Painted with a broad stroke, to be sure – but correct none the less. I wonder how significant the difference would really be (in profit), if we just looked at it from the “wide angle view” vs. drilling down into the minute detail of calculations, suggested by the authors.