MrConceit
-
Content Count
311 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by MrConceit
-
-
There's a minor problem with that. The min xfer on PP is 50 bucks I was pretty sure, and seems to be as I glance at it now to try to xfer. Not that you CAN'T get around it by having them xfer 70 and you xfer 50, but you can't leave yourself less than 50 in your account after a transfer on party.But anyway, it's a close call (on the question on the thread), but I'd have to say asking for money. :)The best is when people randomly come to your tables and ask for money. I mean people who aren't even playing at the table. I play on 15/30 and assume people do this a lot on 15/30 and 30/60 on party (the top limits on party sadly enough), because they think we'd give strangers 50 bucks easier cuz it's less money to us. It's so silly.But maybe people do it at all limits? Do people come to your 2/4 (or whatever limit) tables and ask for cash too?I was actually considering doing a swap with someone, ill throw 20 in their PP account so i can get 20 in pokerstarts, just so i could play in the Negreanu Open. Ill probabaly just put 50 into it though. -
Laugh, dude. It was the "other" blaze unless he changed his name that was having the Georgiev discussion with you. The other blaze has lots of experience and knows a lot about poker. No clue on this one.
here goes blaze with his georgiev comments again!give it a rest.i read a couple days ago that he was a cheater, that he cheated in 2 of the WSOP, that he marked the cards, he wore those blue glass so he could see what the cards were. It was a long intersting read. -
Yeah that makes a lot of sense. I think O8 will get boring for me sooner than later because the correct play is, well, so clear typically. It should be a great moneymaker as long as fish are available. But I'm new enough to O8 that it's still fun for me.I think it's more that O8 is so much easier to beat that I don't have to think much playing it and there's so much less variance. -
He gave you the link for playerview, which is what I use also.I found the link for GT+ at pokertracker forum. It's at:http://www.pokerdominion.com/And like go to the announcements under GT+ and it gives a link to download version 1.3 it looks like. I think GT+ works with more sites than playerview.Also I think the web page I gave is also for the thing that lets you get UB hands in realtime for tracker, but I'm not 100 percent on that.Where do you get this? -
I mostly agree with you and Smash. As for what Smash said: I haven't watched it since the first episode, it was that bad to me. I don't post about hating and and then watch it every week.As for Erik, I agree with you, and I don't start I-HATE-TILT threads. It's just sometimes it's so easy to diss on the show when people start glowing threads about loving it.As an aside, I dont' watch hardly any TV these days, and I didn't realize how utterly bad most drama tv shows are. The poor acting and overdramatization got to me in Tilt.I agree with the last couple posterd...Smash makes a good point. For those posters that hate the show... why the heck are you wasting your time even talking about? I mean... You don't like the show, so don't watch it... and don't waste your time talking about not liking the show... whats the point?It's all a matter of preferece . it's not like anyone here is right or wrong. It's just a matter of opinion.... like... should you slow play AA under the gun. -
What WRTO meant wasn't your comment about tourney vs ring, that's correct. He was pointing out your incorrect thinking of changing your style once you're up 10-15 bucks as compared to your 25 buyin at the table. You should be playing your A game regardless. Getting more aggressive because the table is starting to fear you is one thing, loosening up your requirements because you've won some is another.That's the same type of wrong thinking that people use when they say "It's the casino's money I'm gambling with now, not mine!". The money is yours after you won it. Play the same best strategy up or down.is that comment directed at me wrto?If so, I don't know why. I'm not saying "deviate from a strategy". I'm saying tourney strategy and ring game strategy is totally different. You have to be much more offensive during tourney play than ring game. You should never feel 'rushed' in a ring game like you do in sng. just wait for a quality hand and play your game. -
Ok this will be my last post on this, but as usual you're being intolerant and condescending. You have a great grasp on poker, and you have your groupies who will now flame me, but this is ridiculous.It's great we should never discuss something "allready decided", heaven forbid we try to think it through ourselves so we understand it. And I'm glad that so many answers are not open to debate because gee, it's already been figured out. And for sure, I will carry on being wrong in an effort to think sh1t through and decide what I personally think.Sorry you never do once you've read the "correct" decision on the matter.Your only valid point is that I'm clogging your project thread. You're right. I won't post anymore here. My apologies for this one thing. Though I'm a little surprised you care so much as most threads don't stick exactly to topic.You realize Smash, you don't have to read this thread anymore. If we want to discuss it, we don't have to move on, sorry dude. And now I'll respond to DaToads long and well thought out post. You realize that your meaningless, allready decided discussion that there's a correct answer to that's not open to debate is clogging up my project thread?Just checking.By all means, though, carry on being wrong. Who am I to try to put an end to that...Feel free to argue that the Earth is flat too. -
Yeah, actually I was kind of a whiny b1tch in my second post, sorry about that one.Ahhh at last someone I can talk to!Your last 2 posts just earnt you a lot of respect in my books Mr C - well the first one at least. The second (above) I need to clear the air.The text you have quoted above was not meant to be insulting. If it came across as such, I'm sorry. At the time of posting I was literally walking out the door and is was an effort to get all facts in prior to what I assumed would be some standard retorts.I was worried that by stating the scenario was the same as shorthanded play would produce a response of effectively 'no its not...' and I was attemting to cut those arguments off before they started.Yes - I should have given you more credit, and normally I look at a posters previous posts to get some information on their character, however the luxury of time was not with me.Compounding this, there was a statement earlier on this thread stating that if everybody folds to the blinds that it increases the probability of the big blind having strong cards, and I didn't want to head off on that tangent again - ergo my 'I know what your going to say' type response.So please reread that post and don't 'hear' it with a condescending tone, but with the above in mind.
Your wording was not that insulting and it was my bad to make that second post. I understand your points of why you said it like you did.
I fully agree with you and SabaAba on this. Both in that if you had limped it's a definite call vs BB, and that you almost always should have raised it in the first place.Now back to the subject at hand...Yes, I've put up an absolute by stating:However, regardless of how many players are in the pot if it is raised back to you, never fold to a single bet raise.I agree that absolutes tend not to exist in poker, and I'm sure if I was in the SB next to a player in the BB who only raised with Aces, and I knew that for a fact, and we were the only 2 in the hand, and he raised - well yes then I would fold. But that's realitically not going to happen now is it?Now I like the fact that your objecting because I've made it an absolute - my hackles go up when I'm given an absolute and feel the need to prove it wrong.*snip*So lets go through a couple of examples that have been put forward.wrto's limping with 10 5 suited from the small blind.My rebutal here that says thata) You've made a mistake by completing and not raising when its just you and the BB.B) By making this mistake you have made it correct for the BB to raise you with absolutely any hand - SabaAba explained that rather well earlier in this thread.c) So under these circumstances you are being offered 3-1 in a pot where you have commited money against a random hand. Given that 10-5s will win or split 49.493% of the time against a random hand (yes I was extremely surprised it was this high and triple checked!!) I say you have to call or it's a -'ve EV play
As for a), to me it's close between 1 and 2 limpers as worst case senario. Sure pot odds increase for 2, but even more hands you have to beat (let's talk about a non-suited crap-holding). How about you have 84o, or T5o, you can never be very confident of your holding, unless maybe you get top pair, but between no kicker (straight or straight draw possibilities if they're ALL low) and likely overcards over 2 more cards, it can be kind of rough. As far as B) goes, I'll talk about that more pertaining to something you said below. With c), you wouldn't hear me say that.Now lets have a look at yoursMaybe this seems so clear to me because I play a limit that has a 2/3 chip blind structure, 15/30. You complete ANY hand in sb if it isn't raised preflop because you're paying 1/3rd of a small bet (obviously you probably raise if it's folded to you, but I'm talking if there are limpers). And if you complete with T2o 73o or whatever, you're not obliged to call a raise if BB raises and the limpers call.Here I saya) The worst case scenario is that there is just 1 limper - ie giving you minimum pot & implied oddsB) In this scenario you would be getting offer 5-1 against what is likely to be a mediocre holding from the limper and a stronger holding from the BB raiserc) At this point I'm hearing what your saying - 'I've committed only $5 with 7-2o hoping for a great flop and now you expect me to add another $15? Intuition says it's just throwing good money after bad and if the BB has Aces then it definately is - however this is true of any non-paired hand going up against Aces and an unknown limper. (The flip side is that you tend to have higher implied odds against Aces but I think thats a whole different can of worms :wink: )d) So discounting paranoia and given that 7-2o will win or split against say AKs (and I use one of the suits in the 7-2o to make it as bad as possible for the 7-2) and an unknown hand 20.99% of the time, 5-1 covers this easily.
How much I've "commited" has little to no bearing on this. It's the same as if I was BB now, I will be ending action (unless there's a limp reraise), and the pot is the pot, what I had put in doesn't matter. I'm not really worried about just aces, I'm worried a BIT about any PP higher than my two cards, and worried some about a PP higher than 1 of my cards, and also just about solid hands like AK AQ AJ that will make hitting any mid/low pair hard to play. The problem with d) is you never know where you're at. Especially if the players are at all aggressive or even remotely tough. You have the worst position, and the hand will be difficult to play unless you flop two pair or trips.
You definitely can use pot odds to make a decision, but it's not nearly as easy as you (sort of) imply. It's at most a similar principle that allow us to call a flush draw. We know the made flush will be a strong holding when we determine the pot odds, the same for a straight. Using simulations for who would win by river in a preflop 3way (or 4way) situation is kinda dicy. Just because you would have won with your 85o, on a board of 25J[Q][9] doesn't mean you can really push it, or even call in the face of bluff or semi-bluffs. Or even worse on a flop where you had literal bottom pair on the flop, say 5TQ against holdings of, for example, AK and 44. And while I agree in principle with your farther from river the higher your implied odds are, that isn't really the case with these weak holdings. You can only ever be confident about two pair or trips, and two pair is rather easy to be counterfeited if it's bottom two pair (not that I don't love to flop them still, but...).On to the next point (sheesh this is long)The counter to the above was that we are not presented with an all-in situation and therefore cannot use pot-odds to make decisions.Of course you can! It is the same principle that allows us to call to a flush draw on the flop with 5-1 pot odds.We use pot-odds as a fairly accurate guide for bets in limit holdem anywhere. The further you are from the river the more inaccurate pot-odds are, however this is offset by the fact that the further you are from the river the higher your implied odds are. The flush draw on the turn has less implied odds than the flush draw on the flop. We use pot-odds because they are accurate enough and save us running hands through simulators and enumerators every time we get dealt 2 cards.
Your point here is quite valid, but you don't have to, nor will you be, folding in all situations. It's only with your absolute worst holdings, and even then, if this situation comes up very often (first off you want to find a new table because it's crazytight, and pretty far from what I want on an online table), then you do two things. You raise (even with sh1t-holdings) yourself in SB a small portion of the time, or you DO defend more in this senario and likely bet out on the flop a certain amount of the time. The thing here is, if you know that BB will be making this play every time (and you learn pretty quick), then you will either be not completing your total worst hands in this senario, or you will be doing something asserting to fight for your share.But again, your point here was very valid. You have to notice if BB is doing this a lot, and not letting him take over so much.And finally on a non-mathematical point, table image.Use your scenario againg Mr C. An astute player in the BB will see that you are completing with anything in the SB for a 1/3 of a bet - which is correct and should be the norm. However he notices you fold a weak holding to a raise here he is going to start raising with more marginal hands to get heads up against the 3rd player in the had - the MP who obviously has a marginal holding himself. Here he is getting offered 3-1 for the raise with a chance to a) Increase his pot equity by getting you to fold occasionly (where do you draw the line for folding because ABC starting hands probably count for 25% of all hands - are you going to take a stand for say an extra 25% and fold half the time?)B) take the iniative and force the limper to hit the flopSo more and more you are going to be throwing in $5 and not even seeing the flop...
In retrospect, I really don't mind your statement. I personally don't feel it IS 100 percent, but it's so nearly so that it's starting to feel ridiculous to quibble. But I do have a related idea I'm going to post and ask you about.So in summary:I've made an absolute statement and to my mind, backed it up with sound mathematics as well as reasonable 'soft' tatical considerations.I have now taken the time and read some of your other posts and there is obviously a good poker brain there, so I would greatly appreciate if you could respond with your counter because as I said before, you do have my respect and I will listen. -
You realize Smash, you don't have to read this thread anymore. If we want to discuss it, we don't have to move on, sorry dude. And now I'll respond to DaToads long and well thought out post.I'm glad you have made your decision on this and don't want to think anymore about it because it's been "figured out 10000 times by people who've played millions of hands."However, regardless of how many players are in the pot if it is raised back to you, never fold to a single bet raise. This is right unless you can see everyone's cards and then it might be wrong rarely.Can we move on. This is a pointless discussion about how to play after making a mistake pre-flop.Call the raise, it's right. It's been figured out 10000 times by people who've played millions of hands.It's not an open question, or something no one's applied math to before.Call the raise, raise in the SB if it's folded to you. -
I'm exactly the same way typically Smash. I have to motivate myself to play limit hold'em so I can make my money (damned jobs), but I'll always play O, O8b, Stud, or really anything else by choice.Your norm can become such a grind. Don't get me wrong, once I start playing it, I like it fine, but thinking about putting in my X hours can sometimes be irritating to contemplate.What's really sad is I'm not motivated enough to play Holdem so I'm crushing the .05/.10 limit O8 game on stars. -
Tracker is great. First for your own stats... As long as you always input all your hands, it keeps track of nearly everything for you. True win rate, BB/100, what you win with each hand type (but you need a lot of samples for this to mean a lot), the average percent of the pot taken out by rake per limit (I have .5/1 through 15/30 and it's kinda interesting), std deviation per hour or per 100 hands, the stats it can give you is endless.Like I found out I was overplaying suited connecters regardless of if the table was loose enough, or maybe out of position on a table that wasn't passive enough. All of my biggest loosing hands were suited aces or suited connectors (though I also have a lot of winning suited connectors, but that isn't the point). So I cut back on playing those a hell of a lot unless like 3 people had limped already, or 2 if it's like T9 suited. There's just all kinds of stats it can give you, but you need a lot of hands. And as smash said, party is now easiest with tracker because of party storing hands locally and tracker taking those. Supposedly UB is easy now with (I think?) an addon that grabs hands as they're played by watching the client window, but you'd have to read up on that, I only do tourneys at UB and don't track them, but I read about autograbber for UB.For other people's stats... You can use Playerview or GameTracker+ to get live stats in almost realtime on people at your table. Technically PokerOffice does this even better, but not really because it doesn't put it over the table itself right by their names, and thus multi-tabling with live stats is rough with PokerOffice. You can do this by default with Tracker itself, but you need to use Playerview or Gametracker+ if you want it to be on top of the table itself by people's names, plus there is tons more configurability then.Ooops, too long a post already. If you have any specific questions Jayson, just reply on here or PM me.Just wondering how many people here use Pokertracker... and if you use it.. how indepth are you, as well please add what limits you play, and on what sites... I play mainly UltimateBet and PokerStars soon to be joining all the fun going on at pokermountain! Anyways guys I am considering buying it and want to know if you truly think its worth the price. -
Yeah, I'm with Smash on this one. But there are times when you know (or should know) you're beat. That'll be my next attempt at improving my game. I basically almost always pay off with TPTK unless it's really obvious I'm beat in a certain way.Especially say on a turn checkraise is where I'm imagining I have leaks. Example: I have AKo, raise from early, say 1 late coldcaller and both blinds call. Flop is A82 rainbow. Turn is a 9. I had bet out flop, and all but sb folds. On the turn he checkraises me. Now if you don't know your opponent, this does tend to mean your tptk isn't good. He could have AQ AJ and doesn't believe you, but still. Basically at this stage I never lay down the hand there, really ever. I call, and call his river bet.I'm still not utterly sure what I think about it.Draw-heavy boards are different because people semi-bluff draws constantly in the games I play.So for a viewpoint on this issue (that I don't fully agree with, compared to the style of play normally seen on 15/30 on party), check out:http://tinyurl.com/6x6b6It's from the second to latest cardplayer about calling raises in such situations.
-
Basically what everybody else said overall, but I did want to make one key point about your number 2.When there are 4-6 people in the hand, many of them staying to the river, tells and lots of other things become not nearly AS important. Basically at that point it's almost pure pot odds. Out of the 4-6 ONE of them isn't bluffing if there are bets and/or raises on all the streets with tons of people calling.You need to have tptk in the very least to win, quite often more (yeah I'm overgeneralizing but oh well). So basically tells go out the window, you either have the goods, or are drawing to the goods, and that's about it in a big multiway family pot.If it's 6way or more, I'd so almost rather have nut flush draw than only tptk, while that's probably a fallacy, but that's how I often feel if my tables turn that loose. I just won a monster pot having the nut open ended draw that hit on the river 6-7-way. I ended up winning a 35 or 36BB pot, like 2-3 people had 2 pair.*snip*2) Since I play low-limits, there is usually at least 4-6 in the pot to see the flop. This is where I get really confused.How the hell can you keep any eye on so many people at once and remember what they had on the showdown? How do you keep it all straight?Any tips or advice is appreciated, Poor AK. The flop was 9TA, I had QJc and a bdf draw along with my open ended. River was K. AK was smoked by another 2 pair pre-river and he had like no outs to win.Btw, I feel bad about saying the nut draw thing, I'll probably get yelled at for saying such things, but I did mean it ONLY for like 6way pots or larger.
-
Did you read the article on Gus in the last cardplayer? It talks about this hand, kinda interesting.[edit]Ok I lied, technically it's not the current, but it's the most current I have gotten in the mail. The article is at:http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/a...4525&m_id=65555He basically said he put him on a small PP, like 33-77, and if he did indeed have that read it is totally the correct call off pot odds (along with his usual wanting to keep up his image and whatever else you want to say). Correct pot odds because of what was already in with his raise I mean.Anyway, the article is interesting. And it is rather amusing that people call him utterly lucky when he's had as much overall success as he has. Not to say he isn't lucky on certain days, we all are. /shrugI don't remember which event it was but...My favorite was when Gus called Antonio's all-in bet with T8s (Antonio had 77). Antonio sees the T8 and says something like, "I don't get it--have you lost your mind?"Gus puts his arm around Antonio to watch the flop (the whole time looking like he KNOWS he's going to hit it) and when he hits it, he get this big grin and says, "oh, my God," and looks at Antonio as if he should be proud of him.Antonio wanders back to his seat muttering, "what an idiot".Antonio is broke because Gus had him out-chipped.Funny stuff. -
PS. Why are you insulting to insult? How childish can you be? No, you don't have explain to me why in this example it is shorthanded, but thanks for the offer of a lesson.You weren't the only one discussing this earlier. Other examples were talked about such as with 1-2 limpers which makes it not the same as shorthanded, especially depending on where they limped from.If UTG+1 limps, you complete, and BB raises is this the same as a typical shorthanded example?But again, thanks for the free lesson offer.From there I went on to quote JH because this situation is shorthanded.With everybody folding to the blinds this is Shorthanded play If you can't see that I will explain it to you. -
Ok, I did. And I indeed wasn't quite fair to you, as the starter of this discussion WAS likely asking about blind-battles where he'd completed in SB after all folded to him (I assume he now knows he should typically raise here, if he's going to play at all, after all this discussion). The original guy who asked the question had like 5 questions and he didn't explicitly say it was a blind battle, but it was indeed easy to infer that if you read close.My main reason I came down on you is because of this statement:
No you haven't read it properly.My original statement was that if you have limped you never fold to a single raise.wrto came back with a pathetic example of where you actually had to make a mistake to create a situation that he thought justified his argument. Teh fact that he is still wrong is irrelevantHere is the post that put into the blind battle*snip*Go back and read it again.Jesus, I did finish reading, and of course the Toad is right with his argument, he changed what the original argument was. He changed it utterly to a blind battle. Duh you call one more HU vs BB. And if you have suited cards and BB raises in a family pot obviously you're taking one more off.
And this is totally correct if you limped any legit hand (or even semi-legit). But you complete a hell of a lot more hands than legit or semi-legit in sb, and in some cases (yes rare) it can be correct to fold to a raise, even if it's just one. Even if you think the example is contrived that WRTO gave, shrug.If you have 83s or his T5s, and mid limps, you complete, and BB raises (it isn't just a blind battle where he expects to steal HU now, mid limped), then it's not like 83s or T5s has to be an automatic call unless you know BB is a maniac or a bad player. The point is, it will be 3handed, so the pot odds aren't THAT huge for making a call, and unless you flop a flush draw/flush or a very rare two-pair/trips, you're never going to know where you're at in the hand.Maybe this seems so clear to me because I play a limit that has a 2/3 chip blind structure, 15/30. You complete ANY hand in sb if it isn't raised preflop because you're paying 1/3rd of a small bet (obviously you probably raise if it's folded to you, but I'm talking if there are limpers). And if you complete with T2o 73o or whatever, you're not obliged to call a raise if BB raises and the limpers call.Perhaps this is less likely in a more normal 1/2 structure of blinds where you won't have completed with any two.To finish any discussion on this from me, I basically just took exception with your bolded NEVER comment, because absolutes are rarely correct in poker. Even if you don't like the "contrived example" someone came up with.However, regardless of how many players are in the pot if it is raised back to you, never fold to a single bet raise. -
Jesus, I did finish reading, and of course the Toad is right with his argument, he changed what the original argument was. He changed it utterly to a blind battle. Duh you call one more HU vs BB. And if you have suited cards and BB raises in a family pot obviously you're taking one more off.
-
(The bold text refers to her talking about SHORTHANDED play, not if somebody in early or mid raises your BB on a full table and it's folded to you.)I wanted to read all this before posting, but jesus, I can't wait. You are continually harping and sometimes taking stuff out of context. She was freaking talking about SHORTHANDED PLAY. You're acting like this is a catch-all. Sure if it's a shorthanded table, 3-4 people, everything you've said utterly applies. Or if you believe it is indeed a steal attempt from CO/Button, (which it isn't always, I love when I get a premium hand in CO on a full table and the blinds defend like madmen). You're acting like if mid raises in a fullhanded table you call with any two cards in BB because you have pot odds to do so. This is a recipe for disaster.WRTO never said if you limp a legit hand you should fold to one raise, he specifically was talking about if you COMPLETE in small-blind with semi-trash and BB raises. I'm assuming you only completed because there was 1 or more limpers, that's usually the case if you didn't raise. If it's suited and like 2 limpers were in then sure call based on pot odds. But in his exact example of button limping (which is scary in itself unless you KNOW he's a fish if he was first in on button and he limped), you complete some trash, and BB raises, what do you do? This is what he said, not HU (though you turned YOUR example to HU so you could harp and quote a few things you've read about percentages of HU hands vs each other.Quite often you are getting fine odds to complete any trash in SB, but if it's raised then you really don't want to get involved for another bet necessarily. If it's suited and will be 4 or more handed you probably will call the raise, but what if it's not suited? Sometimes you don't want to waste another full small bet. I love how you are talking black and white NEVER FOLD bullsh1t. Good thing we have someone telling us the ABC do/never dos of poker.It's a relief there are exact rules we can follow for poker, it's not situational or anything. Thank god.
You really don't get it do you.JH says you do call J6 in the blind if you are raised heads upIs The Almighty going to have to come down and shake you before you learn to listen?
No you don't. You fold J6 and 83s for the same reasons you fold T5s after you limp form the SB and the BB raises.Thank you, come again.If someone raises your blind...do you call every time? -
Ya mean 4th street right?well actually the bring in bets and betting order are slightly different than 7 stud. for instance, the 5th street bet is not affected by visible pairs. -
God. God told me that 2+2 is favored. That and the grapevine, but mostly god.favoured according to whom? -
Hah, most of the posters there (if you read the whole thread) did say they believed it quite unlikely, and didn't buy it, blah blah. I just read the whole thing. And Barry appears to have said he didn't mean those nasty implications after Jen did her post. But that didn't stop Daniel from destroying him in his post.I cant believe no one on that forum understood what daniel was doing, Sklansky advanced tournament hold em 101, geeze you steal when its crunch time daniel wouldn't have called anyones all inn because it was more profitable to steal from the rocks.Shurely barry knows this right? It was a fun read. I kinda feel sorry for Barry, he got "outplayed" in posts, heh. No match for DN.
-
The point that the original poster missed, and perhaps you did a bit too, is that while it's true that these games are all drawing games, you need to be playing that game TOO. You should be drawing a hell of a lot, though not with WEAK draws. That's why suited connectors and Ax suited (and sometimes Kx suited) should be seeing the flop nearly every time, if the table is passive. And not only should you be trying to flop draws, when you do, depending on how good the draw is, you should be jamming it.You'll have better luck jamming your nut flush draw vs 7 people than you will with AA on the flop (unless you've flopped a set). And again, if it's 7 people jamming KQ on a JT3 rainbow board is also a fine fine plan. If you don't understand this, and are only jamming AA/KK/QQ you're missing the point.Although provocative, I think this post, at heart, raises a good point.The poster claims .5/$1 lim is not poker and is obviously wrong because it's necessarily one level of poker, but his point gets missed entirely.I've tried .5/1 etc. when playing on-line and gradually worked my way up to a high NL game and higher limit games and anyone can tell you that at .5/1 drawing odds are against you. I don't mean you don't have the right odds to draw, I mean hand value goes down because everyone and their brother's children is calling you with their low to no pair 'til the good ol' river brings them their sunshine. It's all about adjusting your game to conditions. You don't want top pair, you want a flush/straight draw or a set. Obviously you will be playing your high PPs and be trying to get them to hold up, but they will only hodl up a small percentage of the time (compared to what you expect from other games). But the pots they win will be huge.
Where it's a good investment for your money depends on a lot of things. What are you trying to get out of playing it? If your goal is to increase your bankroll they're certainly a good investment, if all you have to put in is 300 bucks. Could you win more in NL25? Most probably. Will learning to beat .5/1 teach you a lot more than learning to beat NL25? Most definitely.Are these games unbeatable? No. Are these games a good investment for your money? No.Depending on the definition of poker, specifically, if you want to play what is considered "winning" poker, and see efficacious results of your play, I would agree to a large extent that .5/1 lim is not poker, or at least not the "right" poker to play. -
Hah, didn't think anybody would be interested. This is from my now-defunct database, because as of a few days ago I grabbed all the 15/30 hands and made a new database to be faster, but from my original database of 55k-ish hands:AA: 230KK: 276QQ: 243JJ: 261TT: 24999: 25988: 23477: 25466: 22955: 26344: 23533: 24422: 221Sums to 3198, divided by 13 is 246Expected 249.4So yeah, it's not too far off.seems about rightcan you post your complete PP totals?all your pocket pairs AA + KK + QQ + JJ + 22 = 1231 poket pairs (of the ranklisted A-J and 2)1232 PPs /5 ranks = 246.2 PPs / 55K handsaverage pps = 246.2 expected pps = 249.4thats pretty closei would bet that if you included all the different ranks it would average even closer to 249.hexag1 -
Another thread reminded me of something I checked (because I'm a geek) a couple days ago. Have any of you ever looked at how often you should (statistically) have gotten a specific pocket vs how often you did?When I was reading up on Tracker a few days ago, (because I realized there were a lot of things I didn't know about it), I did wonder.So based on 20,949 hands of 15/30 I should have gotten a specific PP roughly .45 percent of the time. Though when calculating exact stuff I didn't use that, I used 1/13*3/51 to keep the various sig figs and be more accurate.So I should be getting a specific one 95 times (94.79 rounded).AA: 78KK: 110QQ: 80JJ: 10399: 112I included 99 because that's the most I have received any PP in this sample. So my range is min 78 (for AA CRY), and max of 112, with expect at 95.So then I checked my overall hands in tracker for about 55k hands.Hands: 55117Expected: 249 (249.40 rounded)AA: 230KK: 276QQ: 243JJ: 26122: 221The 55k hand sample includes the 21k of course, they aren't independent. So min of 221 and max of 276 with expected at 249.So my conclusion is of course PARTYPOKER IS RIGGED, I'M NOT GETTING ENOUGH POCKET ROCKETS!!11Err I mean :)At least KK is near the top in received if AA is at the bottom.
different playing styles
in General Poker Forum
Posted