Poker Course

[Dr. Borodog]

There is no replacement for practice. I believe people who are interested should go ahead and take the suggestion to play online against each other somewhere.


------------------
You will respect my philosophai.

[Dr. Borodog]

Next installment:

Stealing the Blinds (or the Antes)

You may have noticed that some people are forced to put money into the pot. You may also have noticed that most hands dealt are crap. You may also have noticed that the person in last position has the advantage of seeing what everyone in front of him does.

This puts the person in last in the position to do something intriguing: he can attempt to "steal" the money that people have been forced to put into the pot with crummy hands. If he has even a mediocre hand, and everyone has either folded in front of him (in hold'em), or checked around to him (say in draw) he can bet, trying to win the pot immediately.

How often this should be attempted and with which hands is subject to change according to the conditions of the game. If the antes are very small people will not be upset about letting them go when they have a crummy hand. The larger the antes or blinds compared to the bet, the more reluctant people will be to fold. It makes no sense to try and steal the blinds if there are already callers or bettors ahead of you. Of course, the smaller the antes, the more you are risking to win a tiny amount, the less it is worth your while to try to steal them. Big antes (or blinds) are worth stealing, but harder to steal.

A good rule of thumb is that if conditions are right (nobody in yet ahead of you and you are acting last or possibly next to last), then you should be attempting to steal the blinds with the better half of your hands. This may go up to 2/3 or drop to 1/3 depending on conditions, but when you're in that kind of spot, you need to take advantage of it.

Notice that this is right in line with our positional analysis: the later you are, the better information you have about the rest of the table, the less of a chance there is a big hand behind you. The later your position, the looser you can be.

But remember the gap. If someone plays back at you when you are attempting a steal with a marginal hand, be ready to relinquish it.

Defending the Blinds

When you are in the blinds, or are forced to bet the bring in, or if you are playing with a large ante, you are in a speacial situation. Imagine that you're in the small blind in hold'em, and have already paid $0.50. There's only 3 other callers, and your hand is 72 offsuit, one of the worst hands in poker. Do you call?

Probably so. There's $3.50 in the pot. You're getting 7:1 on your fifty cent. You can't count the other fifty cent (your blind) because it's already gone, like a seat charge.

So if it hasn't been raised and there are a few callers, you should call with damn near anything. If there were a raise, it would be another story. If everyone folded to the dealer, who raised, then the pot would still be $3.50, but now it's $2 to you, and you only have 1.75:1 pot odds, terrible, just fold it.

The same sort of considerations apply in the big blind, only you can be even looser in your calls, because you've already got a full bet in. If a bunch of people call, and the dealer raises, you can probably still call with a weak hand, because the callers are unlikely to fold after they've already paid.

In rare cases, the small blind may not be 1/2 of the big blind. In a $3-$6 hold'em game, the big blind would be $3 (the size of a full bet on the first two rounds; the $6 is the size of the bet on the last two rounds), but the small blind might be either $1 or $2. If it's $1, you need to be significantly tighter, since your pot odds on calling the rest of the bet just got smaller. Reverse that for a $2 small blind; your pot odds just got better for calling the rest of the way.

As another example, imagine that you are playing 7-stud with large antes, say $0.50. There are 4 people in, so there's $2 in the pot. Somebody bets $1 with an ace up, you have a 3 flush, and there are two people to act behind you. Do you call?

Probably so. 7-stud is a long game with high implied odds for draws. I would certainly pay for at least other card, and if the two guys call behind me, I'll certainly have great implied pot odds to take another couple of cards chasing a 4th flush card.

------------------
You will respect my philosophai.



[This message has been edited by Dr. Borodog (edited 11-13-2003 01:18 PM).]

[Samadhi]

[Dr. Borodog]

The Free Card

Remember when I told you the Third Law? Make Them Pay For Their Draws? Let's revisit that.

There's several mathematical reasons to do this:

1) You can lower their pot odds to the point that they can't call and fold, increasing your chance of winning.
2) You can lower their pot odds to the point that they shouldn't call, but do anyway, which means they're paying you.
3) You can get more money into the pot that you are likely to win, even if they do have correct odds to call.
4) If you do not make them pay for their draws, you have given them the dreaded Free Card. You should be taken out back and horsewhipped.

Think about it: When you do not charge them anything for their draw, you are giving them infinite pot odds! Hell, why shouldn't they take a card off for free and try to beat you for nothing. What have they got to lose? That's right, nothing!

If someone draws out on you after paying the toll, well, that's too bad. But if they draw out on you for free, then you have only yourself to blame.

There are a couple of things to keep in mind:

1) If you have such a monster hand that it is very unlikely that the free card will let them draw out on you, then you can let them have it. In essence you are trying to let them "catch up," make a big hand with their draw so that they will pay off your mammoth hand (when you still beat them). If they are clearly drawing on a flush, and you already have a full house, let them draw!

2) In very unlikely scenarios, you can be in the lead, but your lead may be so precarious that you don't have the pot odds to be placing your own bet. If there is 3 to both a straight and a flush and a pair on the board in hold'em, you probably should not be betting your three of a kind!

Buying the Free Card

There are occasions where you want to have the Free Card? Well, how do you get it? Well, unfortunately, it won't be free, but you might arrange it to get two for the price of less than 1! Here's how.

Say you are playing hold'em, and are in late position. After the flop you are 4 to a flush. It has checked around to you. You can either 1) check and take the next card off for free (a good option), or you could try this: bet. Why bet? Haven't you just cut your pot odds from infinity down to pot:bet? Well yes, but there's method to the madness.

1) Your bet may win you the pot immediately (we'll talk more about this later when we discuss the semi-bluff)

2) You've shown strength to a table of people who've shown weakness. We the turn hits and fails to improve anyone (possibly including you), they will likely "check to the better," at which time you can check right behind them, taking the last card off for free!

Why is that important? Because in many hold'em games, the bet on the flop is half the size of the bet on the turn. So if your ploy works, you've gotten 2 cards for $1 (say).
If you'd just checked on the flop, likely someone would bet after the turn, since the whole table is showing weakness. That bet would be $2. So you get 2 cards for $1 instead of $2.

In fact, if someone bets $1 on the flop, and you have the pot odds to withstand it, you might want to raise in this situation! Then they'll "check to the raiser", and you'll get the river card free: 2 cards for $2, rather than 2 cards for $3 (when you call that guy on the flop, he's just going to bet again on the turn).

This is a dangerous concept, and you need use it sparingly. By definition, if you're trying to buy cards cheaper than you otherwise would, you are drawing. If you do this when someone is betting a REAL hand, or slowplaying a monster (a concept we'll cover later) you will REALLY regret it, because they will raise you right quick, making your total pot odds on the round almost assuredly worse than they needed to be (even though you can't fold at any one time, because at each point you have sufficient odds to bet or call).

------------------
You will respect my philosophai.

[This message has been edited by Dr. Borodog (edited 11-13-2003 01:54 PM).]

[Huey]

Keep 'em coming Boro. When you're done I'll print them out and sell it for money. =)

Who is this Owen character? Is he some kind of professional gambler or something?

[Huey]

When under pressure, I can't do all these mathematical calculations in my head. So next time I play, I'm gonna bring a calculator with me. When it's my turn to bet, I'll say "hold on, let me calculate my probability, my odds, the Expected Value, and pots return." Then I'll make everybody wait 15 minutes while I punch in the numbers.

Then I'd look up and go "nope, not looking good. I think I'll fold."

[Antrax]

Alternatively, you could memorise the very few instances that matter (4 to a flush or straight on the flop, inside straights, etc). Whichever works for you
Antrax

------------------
"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em" - Lu-Tze, Thief of Time

[Huey]

Btw Antrax, how did you make out on your run against American Poker players?

[Antrax]

Down $100something due to what I believe was a run of bad luck (after a lot of analysis and discussion with other players). Unlike Borodog, I play Hold'Em so I was more vulnerable to bad hands catching river cards on me. I have bad beat stories from here to, er, somewhere very faraway with a funny name.
Antrax

------------------
"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em" - Lu-Tze, Thief of Time

[Dr. Borodog]

Slowplaying

Slowplaying a hand should rarely be done, because the hands that are safe to slowplay are rare. Slowplaying is when you play a good hand weakly, either checking it, or by making a timid little bet. You do this in the hopes of letting people draw to a good hand, so that they will pay you off.

This should be done rarely. I know people that will slowplay 3 of a kind on the flop in hold'em, almost by automatic. To me, this is crazy. I'll do it infrequently to mix up my play, but seeing as the "nut" (i.e. the best) hand for any random board in hold'em is rarely less than a straight, letting people try to "catch up" to my 3 of a kind is crazy. Especially the more people you are playing against. Sure the board might pair, making me a full house, and when it does, I will sorely appreciate all those people who hit their straights and flushes, but that doesn't mean I'll like them when they draw out and I don't improve.

A hand worth slowplaying might be a pat hand (a natural straight, flush, or better) before the draw in 5-draw, or rolled up trips to start in 7-stud, or flopping the nut straight, flush, or boat in hold'em. In Omaha you may flop boats and 4 of a kind more often than you'd believe. DO NOT slowplay a flopped straight in Omaha! It is so likely that flush cards or a paired board will make someone beat you that you must make them pay or fold.

A buddy of mine accidentally invented a good euphemism for trying to slowplay a hand that didn't deserve it. He mis-spoke, trying to say "You shouldn't have slowplayed those 6s," after the trip 6s got drawn out on. Instead he managed to coin, "You shouldn't have slept late on those 6s." I like that.

Don't sleep late on very good but not monster hands.

The Semi-Bluff

We haven't talked much about bluffing. We'll see why we want to bluff later (mathematically speaking). But trust me, it's a good thing. But it's also a risky thing. And sometimes, it's hard to know when to bluff. Wouldn't it be nice if there were some way to mitigate the risk, and to not have to scratch your head about when to attempt one? Turns out, there is.

A pure bluff is a bet when you have a hand you suspect has absolutely no chance to win. You're just trying to make the other guy flinch. As we'll see later, these rarely work, particularly in low limit home games, where people try to "keep you honest." They also almost never work on the end, when the pot has gotten so large that it would usually be crazy to throw your hand away for just one bet.

But it turns out that if you can selectively sort-of-bluff, then the bluff can become a real weapon. What you want to do is selectively choose situations where the following is true:

1) A bet might win you the pot immediately
2) You have a reasonable chance of drawing to the best hand, even if you are called
3) The pot is small

Such as situation might be where you are playing hold'em and only one other person is in on the flop. You suspect he's got 2 overcards to your QJ, but not a pair. The flop came T92. You are 4 to a straight. You should bet. He may fold immediately, and if he calls, you still can draw to the best hand, and the pot is small, making it not worth his while to call with whatever mediocre hand he has.

If any of these conditions are not true, i.e. he's unlikely to fold, you don't have a real drawing hand (which basically means your on a PURE bluff), or the pot is too large for him to pass up, then don't try it. But if the conditions are right, that added E.V. of picking up the pot immediately more than makes up for the reduced pot odds on your own bet. This play is a winner in the long run.

------------------
You will respect my philosophai.



[This message has been edited by Dr. Borodog (edited 11-13-2003 02:56 PM).]

[Antrax]

Just a small elaboration on slowplaying, it has another important role: trapping an aggressive player. Occasionally you can demolish someone by check-calling all the way to the river, if you can concvince him you are on a draw. In order to drive you out he'll probably semi bluff on something like second button, and by calling all the time you can convince him to keep on trying to drive you out. This should only be attempted against an aggressive player, heads up, when he has position, but when it does work, it not only gets you a lot of bets, it also means he won't try to bluff you as often, which means you can draw cheaply against him from now on. All sorts of fun. However, I generally agree with the notion that while seemingly clever and elaborate, slowplaying is often a mistake. To quote Sketchwick (who's something of a pro), "Slowplaying might get you an extra big bet here and there, but just betting outright can give you the whole pot".
Antrax

------------------
"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em" - Lu-Tze, Thief of Time

[Dr. Borodog]

Originally posted by Huey:

---

When under pressure, I can't do all these mathematical calculations in my head. So next time I play, I'm gonna bring a calculator with me. When it's my turn to bet, I'll say "hold on, let me calculate my probability, my odds, the Expected Value, and pots return." Then I'll make everybody wait 15 minutes while I punch in the numbers.

Then I'd look up and go "nope, not looking good. I think I'll fold."

---

Huey, this is actually a great point that I was going to get to later, but since you brought it up, we may as well cover it now.

NOBODY can do these calculations in their heads, particularly keeping track of the exact size of the pot. So you need to develop some rules of thumb, take Antrax's advice and remember a few key odds, and one last thing that will surprise you. But I'll get to that in a minute.

My Neanderthalian Rules of Thumb:

Og Ahead, Og Should Bet - Make them pay for their draws if you're clearly ahead.

Pot Big, Og Should Draw - if the pot is huge, and it doesn't look like you're drawing dead (drawing to a hand that will lose even if you make it), you should draw.

Pot Tiny, Og Should Fold - if the pot is very small, it is unlikely to warrant a call (this may not be true in a game like Omaha, where half the deck could make you a winner in the right circumstances).

If you study a few odds tables (I'll probably post some at some point) you'll quickly get a feel for what your odds are in any situation. You don't need to do differential calculus in your head or come to the poker table with an abacus and a sliderule.

------------------
You will respect my philosophai.

[This message has been edited by Dr. Borodog (edited 11-13-2003 02:53 PM).]

[Dr. Borodog]

Whoops, forgot the one last thing.

When you're sitting there mulling over whether or not to call, keep these things in mind:

1) It's probably a "close call" (guess where that expression came from. I.e., if the pot or your hand were huge, it'd be obvious what to do. If the pot or your hand was tiny, it would also be obvious what to do. So it must be a close call.
2) You are giving away the information that your hand is a close call.
3) You are making poorer players play better because they see you thinking about decisions, which may make them think about theirs, and play better (costing you money).
4) So if it's that close . . . do something at random. After all, it's close, so any decision, calling or folding, can't be that bad. See the next card, make your decision then. Or get out and count down the pot. Remember that break-even calls in the long run will make you no money.

------------------
You will respect my philosophai.

[This message has been edited by Dr. Borodog (edited 11-13-2003 02:51 PM).]

[Samadhi]

One problem I had with my last group was the games the other people would choose (we had a rotating deal, dealer chooses game).
They would play 7 stud variants with around 6-8 wild cards (follow the Queen if you've heard of it, stuff like that).
Personally I think they choose those games because the large number of wild cards mitigated their lack of skill. But I just don't like them. It's just too close to the one card variant you spoke of in Post 11 IMO. I would argue for Hold'em and regular 7 stud, but they'd always choose whatever. I found it only slightly more enjoyable than not playing.

Any advice on how to get people to play real games?

[Quailman]

My grad school group did dealer's choice also. And the dealer anted for everyone, so if he called a stupid game, you might as well get the first cards dealt to you because they were free. You could always get him back by calling an even dumber game when it got around to you.

[Pointless story]The last hand of the night was always Indian Poker. Deal one card. The player licks the back of it and sticks it on his forehead without looking. Then you bet based on the others' cards and their betting. One time, the host folded with an A when he was looking at a 3, 4, 5, and 7. Turns out he was cheating by looking at the reflection in a window, and it was double-paned glass, so he thought it was a 2.[/PS]

[Duke Gnome]

Borodog, have you ever played Brag, 3 card being my favourite card game, and if so what did you think of it?

[Dr. Borodog]

Types of Play and Players

Several authors attempt to characterize different styles of play. One author calls them "calling stations" and "maniacs" etc. Another author divides them up into animal archetypes, Mouse, Elephant, Lion, Eagle, etc (this is Phil Helmuth's new book, which I haven't really made it through yet, because Phil Helmuth has a particularly irritating prose style). I'll start off by listing what can be wrong with a poker player. You can be good at most of your game, and have particular weaknesses (as I surely do).

When you think about it, as a poker player, you can only going wrong by doing "too" of anything. You can play too many hands. You can play too few hands. You can call too much. You can call too little. You can bet too often or too much. You can bet too little or too infrequently. You can fold to much, or fold too little (the opposite of calling too much or too little, clearly).

So what you want to avoid, is doing any of the above. Oh yeah, you say. That sounds simple. Riiiight.

Well, it's not as bad as it looks. Keep in mind that every one of the above decisions that you have to make is based on what will increase your E.V. This means pot odds. Everything is pot odds. So being a good player comes down to being disciplined with the rules we've established already:

Don't play too many hands - Most hands are trash, so you shouldn't be playing most hands. In a full sized limit hold'em game (say 10 people), you should be playing maybe 1/6 of the hands where you're not in the blinds. Steal the blinds when you can.

Don't play too few hands - If the blinds or antes are large, you MUST relax your starting hand requirements, or you will be eaten up by the blinds and antes waiting for the great starters. Meanwhile when you get them, nobody will give you action because they'll know what you have!

For both of the above, remember, be agressive with your big cards. But the ealier you are, the bigger your cards need to be to be considered big. The later you are, you can call with weaker and weaker calling hands, and raise with weaker and weaker big cards.

Don't call too little - When you have sufficient pot odds, call. If it's close, and there are implied odds that you'll win more money from later betting rounds, go ahead and call. Call when the pot it huge and your hand could win if you hit it.

Don't call too much - When it's clear you don't have sufficient odds to call, or it's likely that you could hit your hand and still loose, pass. When it's close, and there are a lot of people behind you threatening to raise, you may want to pass, as they could destroy your pot odds.

Don't bet too often - If you bet while you're not really ahead, unless you have other ways of winning (like the semi-bluff) you'll go broke betting too often.

Don't bet too infrequently - Be aggressive. When you're ahead, make them pay to draw. Narrow the field. Bet for information when it will help. Bet for value when you're positive you're the winner.

Tight vs. Loose
Many people like to think of players as either "tight" or "loose." Tight players play few hands, loose players play too many hands. Good players should play tight, but not as tight as the tightwads (usually).

The game itself can be tight or loose, as well. A tight table will see few players stay to play each hand. A loose table will see many players stay to play each hand.

If the table is positively wild, you'll just have to sit back and wait for the premium starting hands, and don't worry, they'll still pay you off when you hit them.

If the game is particularly tight, you can loosen up significantly and play aggressively. But remember to tighten right back up when people play back at you. Also, you can't be too loose and aggressive, lest you push the rest of the table around to the point that they start playing good poker!

Tighten up at big tables. Loosen up at small ones.

Passive vs. Aggressive
Speaking of aggressive, this is what you want to be. Don't be a "calling station." Aside from drawing hands, try not to get stuck playing mediocre hands. Fold the trash, bet the pretty good stuff, but only call with the very good stuff. Remember the gap. This is the source of "raise or fold." If you're genuinely unsure if you're ahead or behind, then you can try to check or call it down.

Tighten up when the antes and forced bets get smaller compared to the future bets. Loosen up as they get bigger.


------------------
You will respect my philosophai.



[This message has been edited by Dr. Borodog (edited 11-13-2003 04:29 PM).]

[Dr. Borodog]

Samadhi,

The only way to effectively play wild card games is to either play pot limit or no limit. You can then bet the proper amounts, regardless of the number of extra outs they have. Other than that, it's a crap shoot. But clearly, they were only in it for the social interaction and the thrill of gambling with a little bit of money. What you should do is introduce them to Omaha high-low split 8 or better. It's like crack. They'll be chasing there tails watching the money slosh back and forth while you quietly destroy them.



------------------
You will respect my philosophai.

[Dr. Borodog]

Duke, the only 3 card poker variant I really enjoy is a game my Dad taught me when I was a kid, called Three Toed Pete. Each player gets 3 cards, lowball, straights and flushes mean nothing, aces are always low. So the nut low is A23 and the worst possible hand is KKK. Play goes deal, bet, draw, bet, draw, bet, showdown (two draws and 3 betting rounds). Each player can draw up to 3 cards each draw.

When my dad was in the navy, they played penny ante (this was in the 60s), no limit. Everone would come to the table with like $50. The very first hand they played on this particular cruise my dad was dealt QQQ. Second worst hand. So of course, he bet a few times size of the pot. Somebody raised, so he bet a few times the size of the pot. Everyone stayed in. He stayed pat through the draw. People bet, he raised a few times the size of the pot. Whenever they bet or raised, he raised a few times the size of the pot until they called. He stood pat through the second draw, and bet his whole stash. Everyone folded, and he won a great big pot. He showed them his QQQ. The whole rest of the cruise they tried to catch him bluffing, but he never did again. He came back from that cruise with $1000, and bought my mother a diamond ring.


------------------
You will respect my philosophai.

[This message has been edited by Dr. Borodog (edited 11-13-2003 04:26 PM).]

[Antrax]

(it should be noted I think it was an exceptionally bad play on your dad's behalf. Very ballsy, but also very stupid)
To explain the above comment:
People are very likely to stay in large pots. They don't feel "more pressured" if they put a lot of money in, quite the contrary, they'd hate to give up the money. Also, you do not try a pure bluff against more than 2 people. The odds of that working are extremely low.
Antrax

------------------
"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em" - Lu-Tze, Thief of Time

[Beartalon]

I am - I need to go back and read again though. Interesting stuff.

[This post makes no sense now. When I wrote it, the browser cache must not have updated - I was answering the question "Is anyone still reading these?"]

[This message has been edited by Beartalon (edited 11-15-2003 01:26 PM).]

[Sniklac16]

No one answered my question.

------------------
"I fly by night and hide by day"

[Borodog]

Antrax, thanks for the insult, but it was definitely not stupid. The "big pot" was about $10, and he bet about $50 at it. Would you call $50 to win $10 against a guy who showed every indication of having A23 all the way, if you didn't have the nuts yourself? If you would, I think you're stupid. My father knew how his crew played, knew none of them had the nuts, and knew they couldn't call him.



------------------
Insert humorous sig here.

[Borodog]

Snik, reply 46, by Quailman on page 2 answered your question immediately after you asked it.

The full house with the higher set of 3 wins.



------------------
Insert humorous sig here.

[Borodog]

The Fundamental Theorem of Poker

I wish that I'd come up with this idea, because it's F*cking-A Brilliant. Alas, David Sklansky beat me too it.

Poker, it turns out, has a fundamental theorem, just like algebra and calculus.

I'll paraphrase: Whenever your opponent plays his hand differently than he would if he could see your cards, you win. Whenever your opponent plays his cards the same way he would if he could see your cards, you lose.

Think about that. It's so simple, so freaking brilliant. If poker were a complete information game like chess or checkers, you strategy would be obvious. There would be an exact correct play according to the odds, which everyone would know exactly. In the long run, no one would win anything.

So if he could see your cards, and he should fold, you want him to call. If he could see your cards, and he should call, you want him to fold. If he could see your cards and he should bet, you want him to just check, or call, or fold, anything but bet.

Whenever he plays incorrectly, it increases your E.V. This is where the value of deception comes from in poker. If you are very predictable, it will be like he can read your hand, and he can always make the right decision (in fact, that's what they call it: hand reading). So you MUST mix up your play. Play different hands differently. Sometimes bet. Sometimes raise. SOmetimes smooth call. Sometimes call on the end. Sometimes fold. Even if one particular move might not be the exact correct play (maximizing your E.V.) as long as it still improves your E.V. it is still a good move, because the uncertainty you create about your play will pay you back much more in later hands.

Note, there is an exception to this. Against very loose players, the above is not really true. They'll give you action when you have big hands no matter what, they'll call even when it's obvious you have a monster, and it's almost impossible to bluff them, since they always call. In this case, just play your hands straightforwardly and they'll pay you off.

This brings us to bluffing. And I do mean pure bluffing, not semi-bluffing. Remember a pure bluff is a bet (or extremely rarely a raise) that with a hand that you think has zero chance of winning if you're called. In low limit games, bluffing rarely works. You have to be playing against a player who is good enough to lay down a hand (paradoxically). Weak players or just plain loose players who call too much pretty much cannot be bluffed. Don't bother.

Bluffs almost always come on the end, usually when a drawing hand is missed. Some rules of thumb about bluffing:

1) Don't try to bluff more than one person, unless your damn near dead certain that they were also on draws and likely missed them also.
2) It is usually a bad idea to fold for a single bet on the end, because the pot is so huge. Recall the pot odds. If you snap of one bluff, you've paid for an awful lot of "keeping them honest" calls. This means that bluffs rarely work on the end when the pot is big. We'll expand on this in a bit.

So does this mean you should not bother with bluffing? Not at all! Let's look at an example.

Say I offered to play you a game of Kookamonga 1 Card Lowball. In Kookamonga, we both ante $1. You get dealt the 7 of clubs, face up. I then shuffle the deck and deal myself 1 card that I get to see but you do not. If my card is a 6 or lower (including an Ace), then I win. If it's a 7 or higher, you win. Now after I get my card, I can either fold (you win the $2 pot), or I can bet $1. If I bet, you can either call $1, or fold (and I win the now $3 pot). If you call, then the winner takes the pot.

Should you play? It looks like a no-brainer; you have 27 outs to my 24. If I never bluffed, then you'd know to fold every time I bet, and you'd end up a winner. But look what happens if I decide to bluff: Say that in addition to betting on any Ace through 6, I decide to also bet with the 2 black Kings. Now, you can't very well call every time I bet, can you? I'm only bluffing 1 time for ever 12 that I'm not. You'll go broke real quick! And if you decide to call at all, there's only a 1/13 chance you'll catch me bluffing, 12:1 against you're winning, and the pot is offering you nowhere near 12:1 to call. So your best option, the option that maximizes you E.V. is to fold every time I bet, even though you know I'm sometimes bluffing.

What does that mean? I now have 26 winners, and you only have 25. I've turned you from a 27:24 favorite into a 26:25 underdog!

But it gets even better! By bluffing that infrequently, I've still left you with a good option: folding every time. It maximizes your E.V. (really, it minimizes your loss). But what if I can construct a system of bluffing where you have NO good options? NOTHING maximizes you E.V.? It turns out that I can!

If I set it up such that the odds against my bluffing are equal to the odds the pot is offering you to call, you have no good options! For example, when I bet the pot is offering you 3:1 to call. I have 24 sure-fire winners, so if I bluff on 8 more (say all the Kings and Queens), then the odds that I am bluffing are exactly 3:1. Now the best that you can do is call me 1/4 of the time, of which I will win 3/4 of the time! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

That is the power of bluffing. But you see how it works: You cannot rely on the bluff; you must bluff in situations where you are more likely to have a real hand than to be bluffing, and the pot odds cannot be so large that your opponent is correct to just call you every time.

Let's take a real poker example. It is 7-stud, you have been drawing on a flush (obviously), and you are sure you're opponent is stuck on a pair of Aces. After the last card, you bet. Say the pot odds are offering your opponent 9:1 to call you. That's pretty big. He's likely to call you. What this means is that you should only be bluffing when you make this bet 1 time in 10. That way, whenever he calls you, bam, he loses. He'll start to realize he shouldn't be calling you, because you've got the goods. His best option is to just fold. But if you've added an out, then you can get away with your bluff 10% of the time! For example, say you're drawing on a heart flush, there've been no dead hearts out, meaning there are 9 "wins" in the deck for you. Just add another one (not a dead one!), say for example, the 2 of clubs. Now when you get either a heart on the end, or the two of clubs, it's a winner! You bet just like you made your flush, and nine times out of ten, you did!

When the pot odds get smaller, bluffs become much more important. But you still must remember that you can only be bluffing rarely in any one situation. This is why pot limit and no-limit can be absolutely dominated by bluffing, because you can bet such large amounts, the pot odds are scary low. If someone bets the pot at you, that makes odds on a call 2:1, meaning he should be bluffing 1/3 of the time.



------------------
Insert humorous sig here.

[Pablo]

There is a wealth of information in this thread, and I believe it's all true. You could easily make a college level course out of this. My question:

I've watched some of the high level poker on TV. Do all these guys have THIS level of mathematical knowledge? Do ANY of them have THIS level? Can you win without it? DO they sometimes win without understanding much of this theory, simply because even at that level, no one else understands it better? Can thousands of hours of playing experience teach the same lessons empirically without the need for understanding the theory behind it?

I guess I just can't believe that when I watch the people in the World Series of Poker, that they know all this stuff. But maybe they do.

[Suspence]

I was thinking that too, Pablo. The commentators sure don't talk about the mathematical side of poker. The only math they show is the advantage that one player has over another, but this takes into account that they know what both players have. They do talk about "reading" the other player, trying to figure out what they have got by the way they are playing their bets.

The thing I worry about is if I were to follow all of Boro's advice, wouldn't I be "readable" because my response to certain situations is trained and should remain fairly consistent. Boro, I know this is probably untrue, but could you explain exactly why it is not true?

------------------
I hate people who try to write interesting things in their signature



[This message has been edited by Suspence13 (edited 11-15-2003 01:32 PM).]

[Samadhi]

Suspence I believe he said you should mix it up.

------------------
To help combat doubts, try sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "La la la la la la" repeatedly.

[Suspence]

I guess what I am saying is how do I follow mathematical principles and mix it up at the same time?

------------------
I hate people who try to write interesting things in their signature

[Pablo]

I think that's part of what makes poker such a fascinating and challenging game. You want to swing the odds your way, but by doing that consistently, you can swing the odds away from you.

[This message has been edited by Pablo (edited 11-15-2003 09:52 PM).]

[Borodog]

Pablo,

You can bet your ass that the top pros, in tournaments as well as regular games, know most of this stuff. Sure, thousands of hours of playing experience (which I do not yet have, really), can hone your ability to read your opponent (by far my greatest weakness, for the reason just mentioned), but if you do not bother to climb up onto the shoulders of the giants (i.e. read the books by the people who have been making their livings not only playing poker, but thinking about it, for decades) I am 100% positive you will be at a huge disadvantage. For example, there are some things you should do in poker that seem absolutely bizzare on their surface; they are completely counter-intuitive. I've bee playing poker for 15 years or more and never realized some of the implications until I started reading the books by the guys who treat it like a mathematical problem (which it is).

For example, in poker, there are situations when you should do the following:

Raise When You Know You're Behind

This one blew me away when I first came across it. It seems insane. Raise when you know you're behind? We need to look at an example to see how this work.

Say you are playing 7-stud heads up. You have a pair of Queens with an Ace kicker, your oppenent has a King, and you are certain he has the pair of Kings he is representing. He is a 56:44 favorite over you. Putting money into this pot will lose you money in the long run.

But now, imagine this. If there's a third player in the game to start with, he has put money into the pot. Now instead of the pot being 2 times the size of your investment at any point (if the 3rd player has called up to that point), it's 3 times your investment. All that extra money in there now means this: if Pair of Kings bets, and you can raise (knowing you're second best), forcing the 3rd player to fold (leaving his money in the pot), you don't care if you'll only win 44% of the time, since the extra money in the pot makes it worth your while!

For example (this is how a typical hand at my house playing stud might go). There are 4 players at the table, each anted a quarter, making the pot $1. You have the power with JJA, Ace in the door, and bet $1. A guy with a 9 showing calls you. A guy with a King showing raises you to $2 (the 4th guy folds). You know this fellow enough to know that he most likely has the pair of Kings he's representing you, and is raising to probe you for the Aces you are representing. But you do not have Aces; you have Jacks. So what do you do? You can't fold, your hand is too good (you have an overcard to his pair, the Ace). You smooth call, and let guy with the 9 showing into the pot (he's already invested, he'll be loath to fold for one more bet, but if you made it two to go, he'd likely jump ship). On 4th street, you should probably check (letting in the 9) and call the King's likely bet (if nothing too scary comes off, like pairing his door card; yikes!). But bet if you think the 9 will call you. Let the 9 put in as much money as he'll stand. Probably on the next card (or maybe the next, depending on what comes off), raise the King to make it 2 bets to the weak player (even though you're very likely behind the king at this point!). If he gets out, he leaves all that money in, and you don't care that you win less than half the time, because of all the extra dough. Meanwhile, you may have caught an Ace, or a Jack (even better), other scary cards (connected cards, suited cards, or both). If the King gets really scary, you've been going slow, so you get out with few qualms, because you weren't betting hard, contributing a lot of money that you now have to abandon.

If the blinds are particularly huge, you can do this right out of the box; raise out people with what you suspect to be the second best hand beacuse of all the money in the pot already. I know a guy who bought $1000 in Sacagawea gold dollars when they came out and used them for poker chips; all bets, INCLUDING THE ANTES, were $1!

The point is, if you want to raise when you're in second place if:

a) you can get it heads up (raising your odds of winning)
b) the extra equity left in the pot makes it worth your while

------------------
Insert humorous sig here.



[This message has been edited by Borodog (edited 11-16-2003 01:05 PM).]

[Borodog]

Sequence,

You always want to mix up your play so as to make it difficult to read you. For example, if you were to always check and call with a big pair in the hole and a low door card with high cards showing behind you in 7 stud, but always raised with rolled up trips, then raising into high cards behind you with only a 6 showing pretty much gives away your trips.

The good thing about it is that "mixing it up" with a strong hand (which is what you showuld always be playing, can never be all that dangerous or wrong. You may cost yourself a bet here or there with a loose call or raise, or miss a bet with a passive check or call, but usually this won't be disastrous, and the return on your unreadibility more than pays you pack (beware of not protecting your hand though, when you are ahead, but vulnerable. Be strong when you are strong. It's better to win the pot right away than try to grow it and end up getting drawn out on. And some players will jmust give you the actions no matter what).

Another thing to keep it mind:

No matter how well you play, you will have loosing nights!

Remember this. I bring it up because I had a loosing night Friday night. Two things contributed to it, one not my fault, and one definitely my fault.

1) I kept getting dealt pretty good starters, which I played aggressively, that quickly turned sour (this means I lost the most with them by starting them off hard). For example, my straights lot to boats, my boats lost to straightflushes, my aces were cracked, on and on and on. When I did when pots, they were tiny.
2) I got mad. I went "on tilt," as poker players say. This made me try even harder to "sqeeze" hands that didn't warrant it, and only accelerated my decent into the abyss. I eventually realized what I was doing, and turned it around, and managed to win back my second buy-in, only losing $40 for the night.

Sometimes you just don't get the cards. Sometimes when you get them, they don't pay. Worst of all, sometimes you get the cards, and they're second best. Sometimes all these things hit you at once. On those nights, YOU WILL LOSE. Do NOT do what I did, get mad and go off your good game. Just be patient, play good poker, and enjoy the fact that you're making the right plays, even if the good cards are slapping your opponents in the face.

Generally I find that my winning nights outnumber my losing nights about 3:1, but it is not uncommon to lose a couple nights in a row. Usually when I lose I lose somewhere under half a buy-in. This gets significantly worse (like Friday night) when I allow myself to get off my game. My worst night since I started my weekly home game (probably 6 months ago, maybe more?) was about a buyin and a half, and my worst streak was three straight losing sessions. But I am still way up over the long haul. It's just part of the game that you have to take into account. As I said, you will not win most hands, so you have to be prepared to take the variance of the game.

If you graphed the stack size of a good player duriing the course of a game, it might go something like: down, dowm, down, down, UP! Down, dowm, down, UP! Down, down, UP! Mostly, it should go down in small increments. Stealing the blinds aggressively will making it go up in small ingrements. WInning pots will make it go up in large increments, and coming in second will make it go down in big chunks.

The moral of the story, is don't buy-in for too little to withstand the variance. My buy-in at my house is $40, and the maximum bet (the "big bet") is $2. But everyone brings at least $80-$100, in case they need to re-buy. Swings of 40 or 50 big bets are about the expected table variance for a limit poker game. You don't want to buy in for only 10 times the big bet ($20) because you're likely to go down, down, down, out, before you ever get dealt a hand! Plus, having tiny stacks puts you in the wrong frame of mind to play aggressively (which is usually the right way to be).



------------------
Insert humorous sig here.

[Antrax]

[interested fellow]

If this has already been explained, I apologize abjectly, but I didn't see it when reading through the thread.

In table betting games, or any betting scheme that allows all-in play, can a player other than the fellow who is all-in play for only the "all-in pot"?

I mean, assume player A goes all-in. Player B raises, splitting the pot. If player C wants to stay in, does she have the option of calling the all-in bet, contending for that pot only? or is she required to match the raise and stay in for both?

[groza528]

I believe that person is required to continue going for the whole thing. My understanding is that the pot isn't "split" as you say, it's still one pot, the only difference is that the fellow who is all-in should have no claim to the part of the pot that was made after he ran out of chips.

[Borodog]

groza, you're half right. The 3rd player must call as much as he can of the 2nd player's raise (the 3rd player may too go "all-in"). Hence, there are really two pots; the original pot, capped by an all-in, and the "side pot" (what's left over). It can get really complicated if (for example) the third player also went all in for less than the first player!

------------------
Insert humorous sig here.

[Borodog]

Antrax, you're still missing the point. My father did know these players well enough to know that no one had him beat at any point, and that no one would call him. He played poker with them every day for several months at a time when they were out on cruises. He invested a small amount ($50) in an advertising play that returned him $1000 by the end of the cruise. In reality, it probably wouldn't have mattered if he'd gotten called and lost, because the advertising would have been exactly the same. He made his money on that cruise by the action that he always got while playing tight the rest of the cruise.

As I've said many times before, sometimes a play lowers your short-term expectancy but improves your long term expectency. The crew knew my dad almost as well as he knew them. They knew he was an aggressive player, and he just tipped his table image over to "crazy," and it paid off tremendously. There are professional pokers players who make huge money by sitting down at a table and jamming the pot before the flop for an entire round without ever looking at their hands! The first round is simply a marketting investment, and it pays off in action generation and extra calls for the rest of the night.

If you don't think these kinds of plays can work, you're simply wrong. We have a guy at my home guy (a very good player), who I took to be a maniac, because he spent weeks building up that image. He spent two full weeks alone raising over the top of me every single time I bet or raised. Every freaking one. He took huge swings during this, but it took a couple of months (literally, I'm not exagerating) for most of the table to realize that he'd gradually turned down the knob to just good aggressive poker (why, I've even seen him fold a hand or two before the flop!). The action they gave him was incredible! Hell, the action I gave him was too much, and I knew what he was doing! Just because you know he could be screwing with you at any time.

------------------
Insert humorous sig here.



[This message has been edited by Borodog (edited 11-16-2003 05:45 PM).]

[Borodog]

I said that I'd put something in about reading hands. Quite frankly, it's the weakest part of my game (which is really not good; poker is as much a people game that happens to be played with cards as it is a card game played by people). I'll try to put together some general comments sometime during the day tomorrow.

I'd welcome some input from Antrax, who I take to be a pretty good hand reader, from the few times we've chatted about poker. Of course, all commentators are welcome, as always.

------------------
Insert humorous sig here.

[Antrax]

Borodog,

Re: Advertising, table image in the such. I used to think exactly like you before I went to Vegas and met Sketchwick. However, he convinced me that the extra bet here and there you squeeze from having a loose table image and causing more people to call you is not as important as the pot or two you're going to steal from having too tight a table image. It is generally true that against hardcore pros such deception will probably pay off, however, I believe the average home game, and I KNOW the average low-stakes Vegas poker game is so loose, and the level of the players is so bad, nobody will even notice you pulling off such a stunt. The difference in our opinions is that you give a lot of credit to your opponents, and low-stakes poker on the internet and in Vegas has taught me that there are always the two people to pay you off even if you tighten up to AA. Since I expect most people here to be interested in home or low-stakes games, and not in beating difficult $10-$20 tables in Vegas, I believe that this story, while certainly very cool, is more damaging to their understanding of the game than helpful, at this point. When I started playing on the internet, all fresh from reading all the cool books, I tried pulling off all sorts of moves, from advertising to inticing bluffs to you name it. However, after a couple of sessions I noticed nobody seems to give a rat's ass, and my check-raises are called as often as my raises are called as often as my bets, etc. Low stakes poker is a dumb game, and just sticking to playing mathematically solid (easier said then done) will show a great profit, as my friend Uriel demonstrates daily.

As for hand reading and the such, thanks for the appreciation, I'll try to post about it soon. In the meantime, go read Caro's "Book of Tells", it has picture illustrations as well as the basic principle ("weak means strong, strong means weak") repeated so often you'll get sick of even thinking about it.
Antrax

------------------
"Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em" - Lu-Tze, Thief of Time

[Borodog]

Antrax,

You make very good points. However, if you simply don't have that uber-tight table image, then advertising can still be a way to generate action, and it works, as long as people are paying attention, and have the capacity to adjust their game to the other players. But I will wager that you are correct, in most low stakes poker games, they do not. Most people play only their own hands.

So, for anyone reading along with this: Take Antrax's advice, and don't waste your time or your money on advertising plays unless you are dead certain you're playing with people who will a) notice them, and b) respond to them.

I've read Caro's BoT (have it right here, in fact). My problem with it is that it doesn't apply to anyone that plays poker at my table! They'll all look you dead in the eye for a stone bluff or the stone nuts (we do have one semi-regular who's pretty easy to read, though). I think we've all developed little rituals in the way that we look at our cards, handle our chips, make our bets, etc, in order to avoid giving tells. About the only ones I consistently can pick up is the "Go ahead, I've got my chips in my hand to call you" bet discouragement, as well as the "suspiciously small bet" (not from the BoT). Because of the variable bet amounts, a player slowplaying his hand will generally try to squeeze out money with smaller bets. The real tell is when the bets slowly increase over the betting rounds: $1.25 -> $1.50 -> $1.75. These in-between bet sizes try to convey "I think I'm ahead, but I'm not certain, so I'd bet hedge my bet." What they say to me is, "Go ahead and draw on your straight, sucker; I had the boat on the first 5 cards."


------------------
Insert humorous sig here.



[This message has been edited by Borodog (edited 11-17-2003 11:00 AM).]