Poker Tracker just opened my eyes...

[mcguff 0]

assuming the following hands, and the these hands stayed through the river you can expect the following probabilities of winning:1) AQo 19.26%2) KQo 17.67%3) AJo 13.23%4) 66 23.62%5) 9Ts 26.22% hope this helps

[Smasharoo 0]

assuming the following hands, and the these hands stayed through the river you can expect the following probabilities of winning:1)  AQo  19.26%2) KQo  17.67%3) AJo  13.23%4) 66    23.62%5) 9Ts  26.22%  hope this helps

Did you read my post regarding it? It's a ludicrously unrealistic example and it's STILL benefical for you raise PF eevn if it ends up eing capped. Being able to present a random example from Twodimes is a bad, bad reason to change the way you play. If you'd like I can provide you with 50 other examples where you're a prohibative favorite five handed.Let me know if that would help you to understand the massive mistake you're making or not.By the way, I assume you regularly cap with 9Ts considering your deep research of one hand, yes?

[NYIsles 0]

I appreciate your posts, Smasharoo. Very thoughtful, and they really do make you think about things. But as I said in my last post, there are other things to take into account. If you've read Sklansky's Tournament Poker, he brings up a point about how you play differently in a tournament vs. a cash game: namely, you're broke, you're done; they're broke, they're done. Because of this concept, you should not regularly make the same number of borderline plays as you would in a cash game.Granted, what I'm talking about is not the exact same concept, but a parallel can be drawn. If you are constantly going to drive small percentage plays, you will end up with higher bankroll swings... and if you're operating on a limited bankroll, that can be devastating. If your bankroll is virtually unlimited, you can push small percentage plays to the limit, knowing that you'll come out ahead in the long run. But, if your bankroll can't withstand extreme swings, you're probably better off playing more conservatively, and taking a smaller profit while protecting your bankroll.What I do take offense to is your indication that I'm making a "massive" mistake in playing this way. I'm not a fish who voluntarily plays 40% of pots and raises preflop 1% of the time with no regard to position; I still play a tight aggressive game, and I am, statistically, a winning player.

[TexasCoffee 0]

Man, are you on the Stanford debate team or something?! I don't agree with anything that you say but I sure admire the way you say it.

[Smasharoo 0]

I appreciate your posts, Smasharoo. Very thoughtful, and they really do make you think about things. But as I said in my last post, there are other things to take into account. I have one consideration when I play poker.Winning money. If you've read Sklansky's Tournament Poker, he brings up a point about how you play differently in a tournament vs. a cash game: namely, you're broke, you're done; they're broke, they're done. Because of this concept, you should not regularly make the same number of borderline plays as you would in a cash game.We're not talking about tournaments. We're talking about cash games. See the part where he says "you wouldn't do what you'd do in cash games"?That means you DO IT IN CASH GAMES.Granted, what I'm talking about is not the exact same concept, but a parallel can be drawn. If you are constantly going to drive small percentage plays, you will end up with higher bankroll swings... and if you're operating on a limited bankroll, that can be devastating.You're grossly, grossly, underestimating the average edge you're giving up by not raising preflop. It's not a maringal percentage play. It is, most importantly, a decision you'll face thousands of times of a year. If you give up .1 BB in expectation 10000 times you've cost yourself 1000BB. If you play $1/$2 that's 2 grand. I don't know about you, but I could allways use an extra two grand. If your bankroll is virtually unlimited, you can push small percentage plays to the limit, knowing that you'll come out ahead in the long run. But, if your bankroll can't withstand extreme swings, you're probably better off playing more conservatively, and taking a smaller profit while protecting your bankroll.Why would you be playing at a limit you're not properly bankrolled for AT ALL? If you can't fade the variance at a given game, play at a lower limit untill you can. Playing a game you're not bankrolled for is idiotic, particularly if a proper bankroll is a trivial thing to aquire at a limit you could be playing at. A $600 bankroll at $1/$2 is going to let you pretty much fade any variance caused by you PLAYING CORRECTLY for maximum profit. What I do take offense to is your indication that I'm making a "massive" mistake in playing this way. I'm not a fish who voluntarily plays 40% of pots and raises preflop 1% of the time with no regard to position; I still play a tight aggressive game, and I am, statistically, a winning player.You are making a massive mistake. What's frustrating is that you don't seem to understand why.You're basically playing half a game. You're playing agressively POSTFLOP but not PREFLOP in games where many of the mistakes are made PREFLOP. Sure you're statistically a winning player. I could train a retarded chimp to be a winning player at the average low limit holdem game in about a week. Playing tight weak will win money at the average low limit holdem game. What's your goal long term though? I had just assumed it was to build a bankroll suffient to be able to beat higher limit games. If that's not the case, if it's to eek out a few thousand dollars a year playing $3/$6 you're probably on the right track.Here's the thing I don't understand the most:WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO MAKE LESS MONEY?

[Smasharoo 0]

Man, are you on the Stanford debate team or something?!  I don't agree with anything that you say but I sure admire the way you say it.

Me? Nope, but I did go to Harvard and write for a living so it might be that.

[NYIsles 0]

Looking at my book and my online record keeping program I'm up $83,937.24 since January '03 playing live and online at limits not higher than $3/$6 ecept on very rare occasions over probably a couple of hundred thousand hands. There's something about this that interests me, Smasharoo. Not intended as a question for debate, really, just a question about goals, etc.If you were to play for a period of 2 years (1/03 through today) for a total amount of time equivalent to that of working a full time job, you'd have put in approximately 4,000 hours of play. An $83K gain during that period would mean that you've been earning about 3.5BB/hour at a 3-6 game. (Granted, you may have been playing more than one table at a time while on the internet, but you've also intimated that you're not doing this full time - I think you mentioned you're a writer.)So, here's my question: you're obviously a winning player at this level, and you obviously know a great deal about the game. I would think that once your poker bankroll began to increase significantly, you would want to move up in limits so that you would be earning more per hour. I would further imagine that once you had successfully hit the $40K mark, you could easily have been playing in a 40-80 game. (Even if your local cardrooms wouldn't support the action, you can find it without much difficulty on many internet sites.)Is there a reason you haven't (or at least hadn't earlier) moved past the 3-6 level?

[Smasharoo 0]

Is there a reason you haven't (or at least hadn't earlier) moved past the 3-6 level?I do occasionally play higher, but I'm really more intrested in spending most of the money I win rather than using it to support a bankroll to play higher. $3/$6 is fine for me. I keep a bankroll of maybe $5000 around to play poker, so I guess I could play $10/$20 if I felt like it. I play mostly online, however and 4 tabling $3/$6 is much more profitable for me than single tabling $10/$20. I'm almost exactly at 2BB/100 (2.003/100) playing $3/$6 online, I do much, much, better live but I'm playing 1/8th as many hands in the same given time span. I play maybe 3 or four hours a day most days, so 12-16 "Table hours" a day. I work from home as well, so I often use pkoer to let my mind know I'm done working for the day. I have the kind of personality that would work for 18 hours straight if I didn't make some sort of mental seperation. Sometimes I play more hours in a day, sometimes I don't play for a week or more. I love writing. Even if I were the best poker player ever to live, I'd still be a writer who plays poker instead of a poker player who writes. If you know what I mean..That doesn't mean I don't want to play as well as I can at all times. Poker paid for my car and my wifes so far. Pretty good for a part time hobby!

[NYIsles 0]

Interesting. Thanks again for the posts, and the debate.

[TX RedRocker 0]

You guys be sure to play in the forum poker tourney when we get it set up. Both of you seem to know allot about the game. I would really like a chance to play with both of ya.Take Care,

[NYIsles 0]

Thx, Red. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for it...

[Actuary 3]

maybe the first use of"Do you see why?"or not, I don't know, I'm new-ish.Anyway, great discussion.Hope no one minds the bump.

[Guest]

I've read through this a few times and I have to say I understand Smasharoo's frustration in getting his point across.There is really no better way to explain the value gained in raising pre-flop. It's a lesson that cost me a few hundred dollars to learn before I started to really study playing the game and read some good books.

[doctorpaul 0]

Very intersting spirited discussion indeed!Understanding the idea of preflop is fine, but you get a bad beat or three, and chuck the textbook out the window. (for worse, not better)Consider the % chance of AA winning -75% Obviously, if you held AA, you want to get as much cash in the kitty ASAP. Of course, last night I had AA, three limpers, i raised, and everyone folded. Kind of sucks, doesnt it? But, it was the right play, I believe, in the long term. If I came across KK or JJ I am a 4-1 on shot against either. If I let them see the flop for free, some of their shit cards may have met crap flop cards, and given them a draw.WHat if the % chance of winning was 60%, or only 55%? As long as you are above 50, then raising, as smash says, is the better play (only a newbie, but I gotta agree on this one)I think the problem is that we only see these hands 10% of the time (ie 2-3*hour in B and m, we remember the bad beats, everyone folding, but I am reminded of another posting here, where someone was arguing along the same lines, with regard to JJ. ie overcards, outdrawn, etc. It was only when he checked his pokertracker, and saw his OVERALL percentage that he changed the error of his ways)PS smash, I read and reread the post regarding your money, levels, and why you did not move up levels. It was very insightful on a number of levels!

[gadzooks64 0]

This is my own thought w/r/t low limit, but I believe you're better off playing more selectively and raising pre-flop a smaller percentage of time than the "books" will tell you.  Primarily because most of the books are written by people who are playing middle to higher limits, where players are capable of folding hands to pre-flop raises.I think you couldn't be more wrong.  Most LLHE PF raises are made for value, not to cut down the feild.  While it's occasionally benefical to some hands to lessen the number of people seeing a flop, it's ussually more benefical to get more money in while you have the best hand.  When I was first playing at the 1-2 level, I found I wasn't having a great deal of success, even though pokertracker had me classified as an eagle (tight-aggressive-neutral).  My VPIP was around 16%, and my pre-flop raise % was somewhere between 8-10%.  What I found was that my pre-flop raises were not driving people out of pots I would prefer to play something other than multiway, and I would get outdrawn very frequently even though I held premium starting hands.I think you're a little confused, frankly.   If you raise premium hands and 6 people call you're going to win just as many times as if you limp and 6 people limp.  You will, however, WIN MORE MONEY when you raise.  The only way you loose money by raising PF with premium starting hands is if you'd loose limping with them.  If you're playing in a game where people will cold call PF raises with hands worse than yours it's pretty much statistically impossible for it to be correct not to raise.I've since started to limp much more pre-flop, to cut down on more of the borderline hands... and to slowplay/checkraise my strong flops SLIGHTLY more than I would in games with better players.  The net result is that I'm still classified as an eagle, but my VPIP is closer to 13%, and my pre-flop raise % is between 5-6%.  The biggest difference I've noticed is that I'm now winning about 3BB/hour at the lower levels.  (I realize it's short term, but these results are based on regular play over the course of several months...)You're losing money by not raising.  I've noticed the same thing at the low levels in casinos.  I just came back from the Borgata, where I played at the 3-6 table all weekend.  It was not uncommon for pre-flop betting to be capped with someone holding AJ offsuit.  I just layed in the weeds and bet my premium hands aggressively after the flop, since I knew I would have callers.  I often didn't play a hand for a couple of hours at a time.   But at the end of the weekend, after about 18 hours of play, I left ahead about 50 big bets.  (That's net of dealer and waitress tokes...)How would you have made less money by raising those same hands PF in a game where people will see a capped flop with AJ?This has been a recurring theme at the B&Ms, so I don't intend to adjust my game any time soon, until I start moving up to the higher levels...If you don't, you're going to  have an inevitable criplling downswing which won't have been offset by you raising for value PF and you won't understand why.  Raising PF with good hands is one of the main benefits of playing in loose LL games.   You get insanely good odds on your money when people call your raise with AQ with 89o  (or better yet, AJ).  Giving up that opportunity is leaving money on the table, not to mention giving marginal hands implied odds to draw out against you.  It's really an amazingly unsound and bad idea all around.

Smash, I can sympathize with this guy. And, I totally see your point. My question is would you apply this to NL as well as L? I play low stakes NL and I am really getting frustrated losing so much money raising pre-flop with some of my premium drawing hands (AKs and AKo, especially) that I end up folding to a bad flop or losing to a small pair, made straight, etc.I know in the long run these hands pay off but so far PT is showing me losing money on these hands.The engineer half of my brain says, "Keep doing what you're doing and the numbers will take care of themselves in the long run." The other half says, "This f'ing sucks!"