Tips and Ideas

Rec.Gambling.Poker Posts

When to Quit a Game
VBalas7419 wrote...
> What factors are included in your decision whether or not
> to continue in a game? Again, I understand that having an edge
> against my competitors is the greatest consideration, but
> how do I determine that?

No way. Since, if you are playing for the money, you should *always* only be playing when you have an edge, this consideration is nearly irrelevant as to when you quit. Yes, sometimes you have a huge edge over the opposing lineup, and sometimes your edge will be lower than average, but the advice that some people give that you should continue to play as long as you have an edge is just nonsense.

One thing is to discover at what point in your play, after how many hours, your game begins to deteriorate. If this commonly happens at six hours for you, be inclined to quit after six hours, unless your edge in the game is so much greater than the norm that continuing is clearly a good idea.

How you are doing money-wise in the game should have almost zero importance in your decision-making. It's all one big game, so the results of a day shouldn't make a bit of difference. You should be thinking about your edge in the game, and how you are playing against your own norm, and not about your daily results.

An exception to this could occur because of your mental makeup. If it just tears you up inside to lose, especially to turn a winner into a loser, this is a weakness in your play, but you should try to minimize the weakness. I've seen players who, not being able to take a $12 loss (maybe because it breaks a "streak" or something), end up turning a small loss into a monstrous loss -- and the important thing here is not the money they lose, but the psychological trauma they then put themselves through. Even if this money was lost in a good game where they played good and had an edge, it's devastating to a player's ability. Maybe the result of such a loss means that the player will only play at 88% of their optimum the next several times they play instead of their usual 95%, which will reduce the players edge, and resulting $-win, over time.

I have a friend who normally quits a game after he takes a bad beat. This makes him quite the basketcase mentally. He always ends his session on a low. I have another friend who likes to quit after winning a hand, putting him at least in a better mental space than the quit-after-a-loser guy. His way is a silly crutch too, but if he uses that to keep an optimum attitude, then fine. He though sometimes presses to win that last pot, plays way below optimum, and does damage to his bankroll to try and soothe his psyche.

You it seems are thinking in terms of the money you either lost or didn't win because of when you quit, but that's missing the point. Don't try to quit in a way that optimizes the money. Try and quit in an optimal way for you as a player -- which will then lead to the money being optimized. And then over time try to eliminate all the crutches you have to use, so you just come in, play as long as you want to play, then quit.

Where are the Best Games
JUSnAVGJOE wrote...
> Badger, I'm curious about this. Everyone talks about 7-8 taking the flop and
> lot of pre-flop capping in Cal games. Any time I look at the waiting list in PP
> all I see is 40% or less taking the flop and pots that average 12-15 small
> bets or less. That all seems fairly tight. Are you saying the play post-flop is
> bad enough to make the games as good as the way-too-loose ones in Cal?

What is better rubies or emeralds? Van Gogh or Renoir? The California games have more players playing each flop, which means they play weaker cards on average, but they play more aggressively than the cupcakes I play online. Good games come in all forms. Way-too-loose but aggressive, and 97-pound-weakling semi-tight games can both be great.

I play 95% Omaha online, so I'm not intending to make a sweeping statement about all online play here. I've seen comments about the bigger Holdem games where people call them tough. Just for the Omaha, the play is atrocious. I can't think of adjectives negative enough to describe it. I break out laughing at some of the idiotic plays. I mention in the Winner's Guide to Online Poker that you should keep a database of the very good and very poor players. I have a long list of truly awful players, and only 20 who play "good" or better.

Way too loose games are wonderful, but these somewhat tighter, super-passive games are wonderful too. No point really in trying to say which is better. They are both great.
###

When To Look at Your Cards
> Crazy Gringo wrote ...
> When do you think its a good time to look at your cards? I usually wait until
> it's my turn to act, because I'm trying to watch everyone else as they look
> at theirs. When I pick up my cards and decide what to do, is it a tell if I
> wait? I mean sometimes I want to think for a minute, does this give info
> away? Also if other players see you waiting they might think that you are a
> really good player and will try to play better against you, true?

There are plenty of people who are exceptions, but generally I think waiting to look at your cards is a poor idea for most players. Several reasons. One is most players give off tells. Waiting to look at your cards is like putting a red light on top of your head and saying, "hey look at me, I'm about to give off a bunch of tells." Drawing attention to yourself as you are about to give off involuntary information is a terrible idea.

Second, normally a good player wants to be two steps *ahead* of the opposition. Waiting to look puts you behind the opposition. Bad conceptually. Thirdly, in multi card games, (Omaha, Stud, Lowball), many decisions are more complicated. You want to be thinking about them during that relatively dead time when the multi cards are being dealt out. Fourth, in stud, many decisions are based primarily on what cards are out. Unless you easily retain the exact cards that have been folded, you will be wasting thinking time and often making your decisions based on incomplete information. (For example, you are three suited with the second high card up, and the biggest card raises. You better know how many of your suit have been folded. To some people this is second nature, but to most it isn't.)

Fifth, waiting is self-centered. You should play in a timely fashion. If you have the time to look at your cards, then look. That's a courtesy. You don't have to, but waiting sends the message to the other players that you believe you can slow up the game for your own benefit. A speedy game usually favors a good player. Sixth, knowing what you have should help you pick up tells on players that specifically relate to your holding. Suppose you have JJ in Holdem. You should be looking for specific things in your opponents, not every single tell under the sun. When you don't look, you can be wasting your time on irrelevant distractions.

Knowledge is power. Don't deny yourself all the info you can get as early as you can get it.
###

Poker and "Gambling"
Wayne Cowey writes....
Here is an example that I like to use on non-poker people:

Imagine a huge mountain of pop-top cans. One out of every ten cans has a $100 bill in it, the other 9 are empty. They are all mixed up so there is no way you can tell the empty ones from the loaded ones. You can buy as few, or as many cans as you would like, for $5 per can. You can buy none, one, three, ten, or you may back a back a big truck in and load up an entire 57ft. trailer, two trailers if you want to. How many cans should you buy?

Most of the time they will say ten or something like that. Only a few catch on right away and say, "Back up the truck." or something like that. After they understand why they should buy many, I then tell them, "One can is gambling, ten cans are still gambling, but less of a gamble, 100 cans is a modest investment, and the truck is a wise investment."

Then I change the price of the can to $10.01 per can and ask the same question. After they catch on, I tell them that, "One can is gambling, ten cans are more of a gamble, 100 cans is giving your money away, and a truck is really stupid."
###

A Winning Player and a Prompt Game
Jane wrote...
> > Badger wrote: And if you play poker to win money it's foolish.
> > You want a prompt game that moves quickly...

> Could you explain a bit more?
> I would think the more information a player has about their opponents' hands,
> the greater the opportunity to play a hand wisely and win more money.

Of course, but there is a matter of degree. If you spent an hour watching each player before deciding what play to make, you would get a whole bunch of information, but you would only be playing one hand an hour. This player is literally costing himself 2 to 4 hands an hour by wasting 5 seconds each time it is his turn to act. If he similarly stalls at other betting rounds, more hands are missed. At a $20/40 level where $1 hand is a good win rate, this player would be costing himself $5 or so an hour by this stalling. He has to make that up in the *extra* information he gets in those few seconds. Not likely, impossible probably.

> I have seen two players who glance at the other players for about
> 5 seconds before looking at their cards.

5 seconds x 35 hands = 175 seconds, about three minutes, about two hands an hour. This is hatred of money, and extremely obnoxious.

> Math is not my strong suit but it would seem to me that given the button
> fee that the number of hands is less significant. In fact, ultra-fast play
> would mean that I would have to pay that button fee more often.

If you are a winning player, the more hands that you are dealt in, the more hours you play (assuming you play the same quality all the time), the more money you make. The rake or button drop doesn't enter into it. If you make $10/hour playing, playing two hours is worth $20, playing 2.5 hours is worth $25. If you break this down to a per-hand basis -- which is useful in comparing live play to online play -- a winning player will be make $x each hand he or she is dealt in (although this will vary depending on position). The more hands you are dealt an hour, the more you win in an hour. So, back to the point, stalling is the last thing a winning player wants to do, and certainly something he/she doesn't want opponents to do.

> Seems to me any additional information on what other players are holding
> would be a benefit in this situation as long as it does not antagonize them.

It's a cost-per-benefit analysis. You want information, but foolishly wasting time when it is your turn is not when you want to try and get it. Having people stare at you when you are being rude by not acting on your hand may get you some tiny benefits from tells, but I would assert that the time you waste is costing you more -- especially if other players started being rude too, that would be a disaster.
###

Why Draw Poker Almost Never Played in Casinos
Asha34 wrote...
> When Stud and HE and Omaha were legalized in California,
> then end of draw was assured.

Draw was already on life support before Holdem/Stud/Omaha came to the state. Lowball ruled. While compared to those other three Lowball is a tedious bore, compared to Draw, terrible players have a much better chance to win. Compare two hands:

In Draw, Player1 draws to a 4567 straight, while Player2 draws to two tens.

In Lowball, Player1 draws to 6543, while Player2 draws to A28.

In the Draw example, the tens are about a 5-1 favorite. In the Lowball one, the two card draw isn't even a 2-1 dog. Bad players have no chance in Draw poker.

Ego in Poker
PacPalBuzz wrote...
> People with big egos tend to become leaders, great achievers, and/or well
> known. I much prefer to work with people with big egos, because they can
> usually be counted on to put in an outstanding performance - at least they
> surely want to be outstanding. Sometimes people with big egos require special
> handling, but they are well worth the effort because of their special talents.

I guess people do have very different ways to define ego. In the poker context I think ego speaks of egotism, rather than a strong sense of self. The second is useful in poker, the first is not. Self-confidence is valuable in poker and in the rest of life, but poker players with big egos have a huge strike against them. If you play poker with your ego involved, just set fire to some money. It's a bad thing.
---

NChrisH wrote...
> In Phil's case this may be true. But like most players (including Steve Badger)
> I would wager that if you didn't have an ego that made you believe you could
> beat everyone at the table, you wouldn't be at the table in the first place.

I don't know how you define ego, but what you say here certainly isn't ego. If I went to the free throw line, having made a bet that I could make 6 or more of the free throws, that would not be ego that motivated me, it would be being a lifetime 75% free throw shooter. Ego is a disaster in every way for a poker player. Ego would manifest itself if I were to say I could make more free throws than another guy, or make 9 of 10. Ego limits many poker players, and destroys others.
I try to have zero ego in my poker game. The most successful players are modest -- in terms of their game at least. They just get the job done.

> I do not play for big money anymore and I do not have the time to play
> tournaments. At mid limit games that I play for relaxation, and that will
> not hurt me financially, I do not go off on the dealer or another player
> after a beat. Even at that, my ego tells me that I can crush these other
> players and take their cash. Which is a good thing, since the object of
> the game is to collect all the chips.

You may think it's a good thing. I'd bet it hurts you a lot. Your brain should be telling you that you have the skill to beat your opponents. Throw that ego crap in the trash.

> Perhaps my loose definition of ego is not in line with your strict definition.
> Basically I'm using the term ego to refer to your inner confidence that allows
> you to succeed. To much "ego" or confidence and you are looked upon as a
> braggart (as many others view Phil).

I don't see how inner confidence can be thought of as ego. When somebody raises, a player's ego might go "you raised *me*?", while a player's confidence just deals with the situation with self-assurance/boldness. These are not only different but diametrically opposed in many ways. Ego is "the self". Poker is not about "the self." Poker is interaction.
###

Raise or Fold Myths
Terrence Chan wrote...
> > Three off the button in a 9-handed unopened pot with ATo. There aren't
> > many more cut-and-dry raise-vs-fold situations, with calling being by far
> > the worst decision of the three.
> John Fernandez replied...
> Thank you, Terrence. Dead on.

How can this possibly be so? You have four random hands behind you (with the benefit of position) and two random hands in the blinds (with the disadvantage of position), and 1.5 small bets in the pot. How can a hand that is significantly better than a random hand not be profitable -- unless the person holding the AT plays like crap and the other players play very good? It's ridiculous. You have to play dead-ass awful to make folding a better play than calling.
###

Bad Players Love Holdem Pocket Pairs
Bennett Niizawa wrote...
> Right back in the Paradise 2-4 HE game. Within 45 minutes tonight,
> I get beaten on the river by a 2-outer (99 vs KK, calls all the way, catches 9)
> and a wonderful 1-outer (AQ44 board, I hold AJo - shoulda known better)
> against JJ...he calls me all the way to the end - river J - now THIS is more
> like it! Just keep calling me down with less-than-middle pair!

Just like the "real world", online poker is full of these underpair drawing players. There are a lot of ways bad players play bad, but this way (players desperately clutching that pocket pair into their grave) is the cleanest profit in Holdem. Two outs (or one) is the lamest straightforward draw there is. Love these folks. Adore them. They are manna from heaven.

Bad players LOVE pocket pairs. They think they "have something", when in fact their hand is worse than a gutshot. The reason you'll see a lot of pocket pair suckouts is precisely because bad players love them, and chase with them, much more so than gutshots over naked overcards. There is no mystery in why you see this kind of suckout more than others.
###

Attacking a Weak Player
David Sklansky wrote...
> The most successful players are not the tightest. You can't win
> anything when you fold. Pros add to their hourly rate by finding
> times to play hands that are small losers in the hands of lesser
> players. They do this both by playing those hands especially well
> and by playing them when a bad player is already in. It is ironic
> that this subject was brought up here because I had been thinking
> that some of the players who would agree with me (except maybe
> for the 75s) included Abdul Jalib, Mike Caro, Gary Carson and
> Steve Badger. Now we can find out.

Every sentence is right on -- although I wouldn't say the second one exactly that way, since money not lost is a way successful players win. That minor point aside, and not knowing what exactly David suggests playing, again... the second paragraph is a pure gem. In fact, it is a very significant key to beating online poker, where you get a lot of tightish passive players sitting on their hands while a successful player (or two or three) eats an awful player (or two) alive.

Sklansky's basic point is definitely correct. You want to play hands with the source of the funds for the game. Sitting around waiting for good cards to play against the "decent" players is fairly pointless. That is what they are doing to. You have to go get the money where the money is. I know I'm spoiled, but there is zero point to playing in a game with decent players. The only reason to be in this game is to play with the liveone, so play with the liveone.