troutsmart
-
Content Count
312 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by troutsmart
-
-
I personally look forward to 20 years from now when I'm the experienced poker player who watches kids being born this very day manhandle me after only picking up the game a few months previous. "The Moneymaker Effect" has only been positive for the game of poker in my modest opinion.
-
I don't want to get into an argument about this, but this just seems insanely large. I've always believed that 1000x the Big Blind was more than enough if you are a good enough player.For a good player, 1000x BB is probably sufficient. 1500x is the rule. Your talking 20-25 buy-ins. I personally prefer a little padding, though my game could probably use some work.
-
When I first started playing poker, I wanted to cram my head full of every bit of information available. I searched the internet, and the name Daniel Negreanu came up frequently. Most of these were post on forums, but I was also directed to his articles in Card Player magazine. From his articles, I gained a paradigm shift in how I saw poker. My eyes were opened, and it changed my game. No players writing has had greater impact on my game than that of Daniel's.
-
The simple answer is no. There is not a strict betting rule that forces one to bet in increments. However, there are a few stipulations. One, you must bet the amount of the BB, and raise the amount of the BB, for the minimum. In other words, in a 2/4 NL game, you cannot bet $3 on the turn. Typically, most initial raises are made at 2-4x the BB, depending on postion, and the amount of players already in the pot. Reraises are typically double the raise at the minimum to a pot sized bet. Of course, you can always put every chip in.
-
I do, however, want to encourage you in your use of pot odds. There is no doubt that poker deals with a large amount of math. Limit is really more about making correct decisions than psychological warfare. There are correct decisions and incorrect decisions when it comes to pot odds, and far too many players do get careless, thinking it's alright to not take odds seriously. You find them calling two bets cold from a check raiser holding a weak straight draw. They make this call, because they remember the times it payed off and they made a huge pot. However, those times just don't occur often enough over thousands and thousands of hands for the call to make sense. Experience doesn't take math out of the game. With experience, you simply view situations clearly, and can, almost without thought, make correct mathmatical decisions very quickly.
-
Experience. Simple as that. Play enough hands and you don't really do the math, as far as an exact calculation at least. You have a sense when your drawing, ahead, and what it takes to improve. You do this all almost instantaneously, taking your outs and looking at the pot. You just know when it makes sense and when it doesn't. The things that take time are deciding whether it makes sense to make an extra bet on the river when you've been bet into. I find myself sometimes taking 10 seconds or so on those kind of decisions. Experience goes a very long way.
-
I'm kind of a sleep talker. I'll admit it. So, I wake up all the time after saying aloud, "I raise". I say lots of things really, but let's just say the poker doesnt' end when I turn off my computer. One time I'm camping, and unfortunately was the first one asleep. A couple more doze off, but the rest are just sitting around the camp fire talking. Out of nowhere, "You son of ....., how the hell can you fold that?" I hear myself say this and wake myself up to all my friends laughing so hard that one is literally on his knees bent over, his head about to go up in flames. The girl I had a crush on still bugs me about it to this day. BTW, a few hours later, I say, "I raise" and wake up expecting another grilling, but only found a skunk looking for food. I'm pretty sure he was laughing though.
-
Wow. Rather ironically, I recieved a call and left to play a home game after I first started this thread, and am surprised to find it still going. I didn't intend to ruffle feathers or create an arguement about cheating friends. I suppose my original concern was how much deception played in the game of poker. One poster mentioned that they felt deception and bluffing are overated. I agree in the extent that I believe most players bluff far too often for it to be profitable, and usually at the most inopportune times.Ego was mentioned. Ego no doubt plays a huge role in poker. One learns to control their ego, and they gain an enormous edge over their opponents. Their opponents egos will be their downfall many times, not their fundamentally sound poker game. The larger one lets his ego grow, the larger the acts must be to verify and demonstrate their ego. Larger bluffs, bolder calls, and huge laydowns become their trademark. Unfortunately, they go too far in each, due to that nemisis, the ego. As for beating up your freinds in a home game. Anybody who allows poker to destroy good friendships has commited a heinous error. If I ever personally felt like a poker game was negatively affecting a friendship, I'd rather not play. No amount of money has the value of a good friend in my mind. Finally, I'll give an example of a "lie" or some deception that I used tonight in the home game I went to.We were playing a 9 player tournament with each player starting with roughly T10,000. With 6 players remaining, my stack was hovering near T16,000. The big blind was a 400. Everybody folds to the SB who has just under her starting chip stack size of T10,000. She completes the BB, and I, in the BB look down to see K
Q . I make it 1200 to go and she calls quickly. Flop comes K 
T 
7 . She checks and I bet 2000, and she calls. The turn is the 6 . She immediatley goes All-in and I start thinking. The pot going into the turn was 5400 and I have to call roughly 6600. I'm thinking did she hit her straight. No is my conclusion. I'm aggresive and she knew I'd bet the turn where she could check raise me. She didn't want to give me anymore control. What does she think I have? Then I remember a hand earlier in the night when I doubled up on her when I checked the turn in postion giving myself a free card, and hit my open-ended straight. I'm liking this scenerio and it adds up to me. I still have to decide whether her made hand beats mine with top pair/good kicker. I think back to when she quickly called preflop when I raised and how she's acted in past hands under similar situations. I decide that she had a good hand, but wanted to see a flop. I put her on a few hands: AK, KQ, TT, 77, or 66, with a slight possibility of KT. I eliminante a flush draw. Thus, I decide at best, I might be splitting. So, I fold, and she shows 77. Now here comes the lie. She asks, "AK?" I say,"No, just messing around again. Nothing." My other friend says, "I put you on a draw", and everybody agreed. I complemented them on their read and we kept playing. Later, a different player and I locked horns. Same scenario roughly, though he limped from the button and I raised out of the BB. This time I caught the set, and he pushed all-in on the turn, leaving me with an easy call. He had top pair w/ a T kicker. I take down a nice pot and collect a bounty on the player. This is an example of what I call deception. Letting players believe I behaved in a certain matter, causing them to make critical mistakes later. This is a typical scenerio. One in which I actually hold a decent or strong hand and fold, but allow the other players to believe I held something else.Anyway, thanks for all the commentary and input. -
These are your friends right? Why the hell do you feel the need to decieve your friends? Honestly, I have lied about hands when I am in cardrooms but as far as my home games go, I don't think I need to deceptive with my friends. This is the kind of feedback I was curious about. Sounds like I'm not alone in telling lies and getting paid. To clarify, I don't do this just with my friends, and play far more poker without my friends than with. I don't feel the need to decieve my friends, and the large reason I enjoy these games is for social reasons, rather than any kind of financial compensation. I'm talking on a larger sense, as part of one's entire game. How much deception is involved in your game?Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking to a priest over my guilt. Just wondering if anybody can relate to having any sense of guilt when telling a lie in a game of poker.
-
Whenever a player mentions a single hand or even several as having a significant effect on them or their money, there is a problem. Hands should be analyzed as part of a process, where small mistakes, lead to a cumulatively large mistake. Your story sounds like many. You are not alone. In fact, you have far too many allies in your predicament. A few friends of mine come to mind when I think about your situation. I think about myself, not too long ago. It is a constant problem for players to play outside of their means. If you cannot take a month of losing, you shouldn't be playing at that level. I don't mean to sound harsh. I'm simply concerned, and want you to succeed. If this is going to be a continued trend, playing higher than your money allows, stop playing poker. If however, you can learn to play micro limits, which would be more appropriate, continue on. I don't question your skill, as I have no basis, but it sounds like your intelligent. However, we all sometimes try to make more money than is reasonable playing a game we play better than most.
-
As a developing poker player, I quickly learned the power of deception. I first appreciated this skill, one particular night in a home game. I had made a monster hand, holding quad 7s, with a pocket 7s in my hand. When the player folded his hand after I reraised him all-in on the river, I quietly mucked my hand. At the time, and I suppose to this day, typically a player would always show any kind of a decent hand in that home game, almost to flaunt it. I had always gone against the grain though, and only showed a few, and certainly not uncalled quads. When he told me I he had top two pair, with two overs to the 7 on board, I kind of shrugged, and uncontrollably grimaced. I grimaced, because I felt like I could have extracted more out of the hand, but he took it as evidence that he had just been bluffed. He asked again, "So, what did you have?" I thought for a second and said, "top pair, two pair, with the pair on the board." A complete lie. He was upset at himself for folding. Meanwhile, I felt guilty, as lying was never anything I had been comfortable with. Something just didn't sit right with me. However, I justified my actions as being part of poker. It was all part of the game.Of course, that player couldn't fold his hand the next time we locked heads and that time, though I didn't have the nuts, I had him beat and collected the remainder of his stack. Since that time, I have to admit, I've become quite the proficient spinster when it comes to poker. Oh, I'm positive that a few in my regular game have caught onto my B.S. , a couple even openly questioning me at times. I must aknowledge that my deception is nearly always downgeared, meaning that I typically lie about the strength of a hand. I never say I bluffed or intended to bluff, but rather make it appear as if I had overplayed a hand perhaps. This deception has been very profitable for me, however, I still cannot seperate the ''guilt complex" that results. Recently, I have started to tone down a bit, reducing myself to perhaps a single "white lie" a night. My question to you. Do you lie about your hands? How often? Do you feel guilty about? And perhaps, what stories do you have that involve deception?
-
I've always tried to avoid the Moneymaker discussions that have come up on various boards in the past. Then Raymer won, and again I avoided it. To me, most of the discussions have been meaningless, with more argueing on personal feelings of like or dislike, all this with little understanding of either player. I saw the tv coverage like everybody else, and felt that it gave me no foundation on which to classify Moneymaker or Raymer a great player or poor player.All I knew is that both of these guys won the most sought after title in tournament poker against the largest fields ever assembled. However, I recently read Moneymaker's book, in which he takes the reader through that fateful week. We read about him nervously sitting down at his first table on opening day, just hoping to last out the first day. Dan Harrington sat on that table and Moneymaker had no clue that he was playing with a former champion until several hours into the day. He describes his first hand, and his first bluff. A couple of key hands propelled him to the top of the leaderboard, where he easily could have tanked, now being a large target for the more experienced to take chips from. If you look at tournaments, it is possible for a player to get the luck of the draw, and continually play on weaker tables. However, Moneymaker didn't get that kind of luck. He continually found himself on tables stacked with name pros, and the toughest competition. Despite this, he held onto his chips and won, bringing upon himself the criticism of every poker player in the world. Did he get lucky? Hell yes! But did he not play for 5 days, contanstly sitting on tables with name pros gunning for his stack? And he survived. He gets my respect for that reason. I gained some extra insight into the Moneymaker story from his book. I learned that he was gambler in the purest sense of the word. He had lost large amounts of money in the sports betting world. Alchohol could get the best him. He readily and openly admitted his shortcomings. Moneymaker also realized that he was playing against players far more experienced, and he needed to catch some breaks. I got one more thing from the story: though he did get lucky on a few hands, and though he wasn't basing his decision on finite calculations of odds, his thinking sets him apart from a typical amatuer. Three hands stand out in my mind. Two have recieved major coverage and discussion, and the third has not. 1) The hand in which Moneymaker turned the set of 8s against an all-in Humberto Brenes with AA. Moneymaker readily admits that he completely misread Brenes' hand. However, he didn't rashly come to the conclusion that a pocket pair of 8s was the best hand. He took into account previous hands that he had seen Brenes play, and Brenes' demeaner. Brenes in fact, plain out played Moneymaker, which Moneymaker also admits. He should have lost a large chunk of his stack, if that miracle 8 didn't hit. Brenes should have doubled up and likely been a force at the final table. However, I may be wrong in this, but it isn't hard for me to imagine several pros we celebrate finding themselves in the same spot Moneymaker was.2) Ivey's last hand. Moneymaker has AQ and raises. Ivey and Lester call. Everybody is tired and wants the day to be over, and just make the tv final table. Flop comes QQ6. When Ivey and Moneymaker see the turn after Lester folded his TT, Moneymaker correctly believed his was far in front. The turn is a 9 and we all know that Ivey has hit a two outer for a monster fullhouse. The money goes goes in and Moneymaker hits his ace for a higher fullhouse. Sorry, all of you who cringe at this hand, and talk of Ivey being robbed, but I have a hard time believing that this hand doesn't end the same way with 99.9% of all players in that situation. Either it was going to be a tough beat for Moneymaker, or a tough beat for Ivey. I feel for Ivey, as he is easily one of my favorite players, and one I wish we saw more of. Plain luck of the draw was the deciding factor on this hand. That 9 was the best card and worst card Ivey could see. If it doesn't come off, he likely folds his hand and likely does some damage at the final table.3) This hand wasn't shown on ESPN. It occured against Chuc Hoang, a respected tournament veteran. In it, Moneymaker plays A high in such a way that Hoang is convinced that his straight is beat by what he believes is a higher straight held by Moneymaker. Multiple raises occur in this hand, with Moneymaker convinced that Houng holds a hand that he will fold. Houng does indeed fold. I encourage you to read about this hand in Moneymaker's book, as it gives extra insight into this so called "amatuer." Chris played the player, sensed relative weakness, and by aggression, moved a player off a strong hand. That is a pro move. He was certainly aided by the fact that Hoang had little information about Moneymaker, and I'm sure Hoang thinks about this hand often. In the end, my analysis of Chris Moneymaker is that he lacks overall experience to be anywhere in the leauge of the top pros. He does however possess "raw talent", a guy who will gamble, and play the opponent. He holds a coveted bracelet, and a 2nd place finish in a respected WPT event. He gets my respect.As for Raymer, he has experience. In my mind, he is a completely different type of winner than Moneymaker. He played a pro game. He did appear to win an absurd amount of coinflips, but he was correct to be in most pots he was in. I believe Raymer exemplifies what our typical Champions will be like in the future. There are countless players out there with great talent, who can shine under the right circumstances. Isn't that what is most beautiful about the Champion Event, it allows players that opportunity, to shine.
-
My question is this - how many other people ignore the whole "300 BB+" rule for NL and play in bigger blind games than they should? I feel that I have a better than 50% chance of doubling up whenever I sit down at one of the .25/.5 tables, but from bad beats/called bluffs I sometimes lose my buy ins.If you are playing no limit, an adjustment needs to be made in the bankroll. A good no limit bankroll is 1500x the big blind, so for .25/.50 NL, you need $750. The 300BB is applicable to limit play. Despite how much better of a NL player you may be than your opponents, you still need an adequate bankroll. I have a strong conviction that proper bankroll management is probably one of the most, in not the most important attributes a winning player can possess. Odds are enourmous that variance will kill what you have left, despite your skill if you continue to play at this level.
-
A rumor is often mentioned, an urban legend really, of a former high- limit player gone bust, playing in a low-limit game and laying down 4 of a kind when he knew he was beat by both a straight flush and royal flush. I wrote the hand down as it was told to me by a player who supposedly witnessed this extraordinary laydown. None of you would believe it though, so we'll spare you the details. lol
-
What you've described is totally normal when multitabling. You'll have days like you described, and then days, though less frequent, when you pull a hat trick (I three table), and book three winning tables, or losing talbes. Bottom line is that it all averages out. Look at the end result, not the individual results. I do like to record my +/- for each table, simply because I vary between full tables and shorthanded, and want to be able to see how the two effect my end results.
-
Doubt I'll change anybodies world with this information, but for those who care:I'm currently playing at .5/$1 limit table online. I'm building an exclusive poker bankroll, which I started in November of last year with $17 won in a freeroll. NOTE: initially this was purely a contest of sorts with a friend to see who could build the most out of nothing. The side effect is that it has changed my game and made me appreciate bankroll management. I've sort of become addicted to building the bankroll.Pre-November 2004-- Let's be honest. I was a jackrabbit bouncing around between limits and various games with complete disregard for bankroll management. So I've experiened every level up to 30/60 in live play and tried about everything online. Thank goodness this stage is over for me, and I feel fortunate that I'm not stuck 30 G at this point.
-
Beautiful women do draw them in. Sweet hand btw.
-
Like has been said, shorthanded play calls for loosing up your hand requirements. I wouldn't ditch the 8, as that isn't bad shorthanded, and would gladly take two. Or take one or none. Lowball is a "read" game, in that you can often move players off hands that might beat yours if you sense weakness. More so than in many other forms of poker. That is essentially what these players are doing to you. Unfortunately, lowball isn't spread much anywhere, so shorthanded play is the rule. This makes it tough, considering that most lowball players are competant poker players these days. It is usually only played by those who played in California several years ago, and good players looking to improve all their games, leaving few fish. Though it is one of my favorite forms of poker, I just don't play it much for this reason.
-
T7 offsuit.I explain why in the post below. I'm the long post about half way down.http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...4032&highlight=
-
Don't know if I could handle that myself. Trips me out knowing the face behind the player, online at least.
-
A bad beat.That's hard to define. When I think of bad beat, I think about runner-runner, like the time the original poster EDPUNK lost when his opponent was drawing to only two running 7s on the flop and hit, around a 1000-1 draw. However, in this case, it is called a "bad beat" simply because the casino offers a jackpot when Aces full or better is beat by 4 of a kind or better. The stipulation is both cards have to play, so in the case above, if a K or Q were to have hit the river, no jackpot would have been paid. The reason being that AQ hand would have lost it's kicker to a K or the casino would make him count the Q on the board for his kicker instead of the one in his hand. This explains why the table was so excited when the best card, a duece, came off on the river. So, this is a bad beat by definition of a casino in Wendover, NV. Hope that helps.
-
I'm almost giddy with how many people shot pool on this forum Poker and pool use the same type of thinking in many ways. I think if I were to try to teach a random person how to be a successful poker player, I'd like that person to be tough pool player. The best pool players are guys who see the table well, and play the opponent. Those are pretty good attributes for a poker player.
-
It's not rare to hear a fish run a $100 deposit up to $2000, but what is rare is them holding onto it. Their short term success is due to being paid off despite having the worst of it. Good players don't go on amazing runs like they might, due to the fact that they don't take the risks. A good player measures risk, while a poor player embraces risk. But, yeah, it can be frustrating.
-
Besides playing more poker than is probably healthy, I do happen to have plenty of interests.I work in Park City, UT, where I look up on the white slopes, and think about skiing, something I've enjoyed since I was 11. I live an hour away from Park City and on my way I drive through Provo Canyon, through which the Provo River runs. I don't know how many hours I've spent ankle deep casting a fly line towards wary trout, but it is significant. I'll say this, I spent more time on the river than I ever spent in class during high school, which isn't something that I'm neccessarily proud of. The Provo River passes near the turnoff to Sundance. This is the ski area Robert Redford bought in the 1960's and a terriffic little place to ski. However, beyond Sundance, you'll find the trailhead to hike the beautiful Mt. Timpanogoes. During the 4-5 hour hike to the summit you'll see moose, mountain goat, and several waterfalls, not to mention a ton of little critters. At the summit, you'll look out over Utah Valley and the large lake that runs nearly the length of the valley. Until recently, you could eliminate much of the hike back down by sliding down the enormous glacier that sat on the backside of the summit. Picture the biggest sledding hill you can imagine with several tobogan runs careening down it. At the base, you'd find Emerald Lake, the darn coldest water I can imagine.Back in Provo Canyon, and further up the Provo River, you'll cross a dam that holds Deer Creek Resevior, a decent sized body of water that takes some courage jumping into even on the warmest summer day. It's cold! There I've spent many a morning shivering as I climbed back in a boat after making a mockery of slalom water skiing. I'll find myself in Southern Utah at Lake Powell some summers, where the water is much warmer, and large cliffs make for spectacular scenery.Deer Creek resevior sits in a Heber Valley. Swiss imigrants settled the area and the small town of Midway reflects this heritage. In my mind, it is one of the most beautiful places a person could choose to live. A golf course is tucked in the corner of the Valley called Wasatch. It among my favorite places to slice and hook the little white ball around. I'm an average golfer at best, though I have those moments when I feel like fellow Utah resident Mike Weir, after hitting a 5 iron to 4 feet from the pin. I've always enjoyed a round of golf with a group of good friends and when not with friends, it is a great way to meet people from all walks of life.Soon I'm at Park City, where each January the Sundance Film Festival is held. For 10 days, Hollywood comes to Utah! Celebrities walk the streets and watch the multitude of independent movies. This year, I sat just two rows behind Keira Knightley and Adrien Brody, with Chevy Chase directly behind me. I kind of have a thing for Keira, so I was a little starstruck I admit. I've always had an interest in movies and enjoy dabbling in screenwriting with a hope that one day I might see my work with Keira playing the lead. I can dream, can't I?At the end of the day, I go out, and perhaps play pool with some friends. I might wander to the bookstore, sit myself in a big chair, and read a "complete idiots guide to...". I love fiction, but have always liked learning and often find myself with a small stack of non-fiction books to peruse. Back at home, I'll head into the front room and struggle my way through a pop tune on the piano. I taught myself over the past year how to play after wishing I could for many years. Though I'm far from proficient, learning to play was one of the things that I'm most proud of in my life. I'll head from the piano to the computer, and turn on some music. I have a love of classic rock, but have a wide interest in styles. In a single hour, I might listen to the Who, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Jodi Mitchell, the Beatles, Sam Cooke, Frank Sinatra, U2, Pearl Jam, Green Day, Ben Folds Five, Coldplay, Oasis, and Eminem. I'll spend some time looking over any news in the investment markets and doing research on my latest stock interest. I have several favorite websites I use, from which I can get most any information I need to make an educated investment decision. I became interested in the stock market when I was 17, when my brother took me to an investment seminar. I've always been grateful that I gained some knowledge in this area before I had the money to invest. Then it's time to log onto a poker site and play, while perusing the fullcontactpoker.com website and enjoying everyone's posts.
when you became a negreanu fan...
in General Poker Forum
Posted
If Daniel wins the main event of the WSOP, I would expect poker to increase in popularity ten-fold. Just because of how outgoing he is.Probably no other player today could increase the postive image of poker like Daniel Negreanu. Moneymaker will forever be remembered as the man who gave poker a face, but Negreanu would give poker an image, one entirely different than ever before. A side note: if Daniel were to win, imagine how many hands we'd see him play. With that much exposure to that style of play, poker by the books would likely be forgotten, though it already partially is.