Message Board : poker sucks

toebori,

It seems you and I are out of the same pod.  I have a love/hate relationship with poker.  I, too, have read most of the book, and though my I.Q. has never been tested, I am sure it is not as high as yours.  I make up for that with grim determination.

Unlike you, I still get mad at opponents after a suck out, but I try to hide it and I do not think I go on tilt as a result.

I was in a $2 - $5 game last Friday, and after sitting at the table having as much fun as “watching paint dry” while waiting on a hand, the excellet player on my right leaned over and said in a low voice, “I don't mean to be critical, but you know this is a loose game. 

I can't do it.  I just can't bet a J-4o like he did a few minutes later after he had leaned over and told me to watch his play.  He said, “I'll give it a shot to the flop, and if nothing happens I'll probably c-bet.”  The flop had two overcards and a raise to him so he released the hand.

In a tournment on Saturday, with blinds of $100 and $200, I was in late position with A-Ks, and about 3100 (of the original 4000) chips left.  There were four limpers when the action got to me.  Just what I wanted.  I made it $700.00 to go.  A woman on my left went all-in, her husband, seated next to her, went all-in, and old Ms. Betty, gray-haired, and wrikled faced from constant smoking, went all-in.  Action was back on me, and I, natrually (or unnaturally?) went all-in. 

There were three all-ins so the cards were turned over: 1st all-in 7-8s, her husband A-3s, Mrs. Betty 7-10o, and my A-Ks!  Well kiss my ass.  My stack was covered and I knew — with my luck or lack thereof — that I was going down the tubes.

The 7-8s made trip 8s and won the main pot.  Her husband paired his 3 and took the remaining pittance.

Of course (heh, heh, heh, isn't hindsight wonderful), if I had known this I might have gone all-in when it was my turn to act pre-flop.  But the 7-8s was short-stacked and would have probably called.

On line I am on a rush, surge, rising tide, or whatever, so I not going to complain too much.  In my last twelve tournaments over three days I have cashed in six of them; three firsts and three seconds.  In my last four low-stakes cash game during the same period I cashed in three and lost in one, all in about equal amounts.  I know, however, all of this can change on a dime.

I told a “good” poker playing buddy of mine this, and I believe it with all my heard: “At the lowest stakes in cash games on-line and in the lowest buy-in tournaments the players are way better than what I run into in live games and tournaments around here most of the time.

In fact, if anybody reads this, I was thinking about making a separate post, but here goes:

In my weekly tournament the players are so dumb and loose, that I have been thinking (emphasis: just thinking) about ways to combat them.  If a 3BB or 4BB preflop raise doesn't thin the field should I consider going up to 5BB - 10BB.  Sooner or later some poker zombie is going to call the 3BB or 4BB bet and I'll get involved with a good hand that gets sucked out on anyway.  Would these much larger bets slow them down in you folks opinion? 

If you don't think so, then please give me your best idea for combatting the “Invasion of the Poker Zombies.”

toebori, thanks for the opportunity to whine; I am good at it!

Natcheztoo

This is not the first time I have seen this complaint posted in a poker forum!

The problem as I see it: When you are in a very loose game with lots of calling stations, the advantage of having the “best” hand is not very high.  Try this: pick your favorite on-line poker odds calculator, put in AA for one player and 4 random hands for 4 other players pre-flop.  Let the calculator figure the odds.  You'll find two things:

1) AA wins more often than the other hands

2) AA loses more often than it wins(!)

What this means in a practical sense is that you can beat lose games, but you are going to see a huge amount of variance.  It becomes imperative to play within your bankroll when you are in these kind of games.

EDIT: The above turns out to be slightly inaccurate.  It looks like AA wins somewhat more often than it wins (like 56%) and KK is the hand that loses more often.  Anyway the main idea is the same: you don't win as often as you might think when you have a strong hand.  Be mentally (and financially!) ready…

All:

No whining this time, just observations and idea I'd like confirmed or vetoed.

Last Friday I was in a tournament and misplayed a hand which hastened my departure from the tournament — at a full table in the cutoff I limped with K-J, even though I knew better — I then sat down in the $2 - $5 NL cash game  and bought in for the minimum $300.00.  I mentioned this in my original reply to toebori (what in hell does that name mean or signify?) above where an excellent player (really) leaned over and told me, “You do know this is a loose game.”  I suppose he was telling me I had to loosen up if I expected to go any good.  What happened to the maxim: PLAY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE TABLE OR YOUR OPPONENT PLAYS?  I lost $65.00 in blinds and by seeing one flop and decided to leave.

The next day, at Ledbetter's Pool Hall I sat down in the $1 - $2 NL game with a minimun $20.00 buy-in. 

You guys should come to southwest Mississippi and go to Ledbetter's with me.  Talk about culture shock; toothless players, a player that keeps an empty 20oz., plastic coke bottle in his bib overall so he can just lean forward and spit snuff juice into it, dark guys with bling-bling, a pregnant young woman yelling down the table when her bet was called, “You ain't got shit!” and toothless Red, spying my Ole Miss cap, telling me, “Boy, you got the wrong hat for this place.”  Just on general princples (self preservation) I don't like playing a game in which arguments can and do arise in a venue that keeps a big stock of long, hard pool cues on hand.

Everybody bought in for $20.00, but I bought in for $40.00.  All chips were $1.00 denomination, but they were red, white, green and black all comingled.  If the game on Friday was supposed to be loose, then this game was post childbirth vaginal loose!

In amazement I saw most everybody at the table limping on most hands.  After a preflop bet a good portion of them would call.  I sat there playing my usual tight-aggresive game, but it was not working.  The sign on the door said: “You must be 21 to enter,” but a seventeen year old kid on my left leaned over and told me, “You can't just sit there and wait for a good hand.”  Wow!  I was told this twice in my last two cash games.

I lost my $40, rebought for $20, lost it and decided to go home and think about it.

Here are my thoughts on which I seek comment:

I am thinking that I should buy-in for $200 - $300 while everybody else buys in for $20 - $40.  Then, I play tight until I get a hand, at which point I use my stack to intimidate my loose opponents with overbets or all-in shoves.  Make then realize they will be playing for all of their chips when they wade in against me.

Tell me quick if this is a goofy idea on how to attack this game so I can drop it before I go and try it.  If it is goofy, what are your ideas?

Thanks and good luck,

Natchez

mbuss,

Perhaps I used too much hyperbole!  I have actually only witnessed two incidents at Ledbetter's Pool Hall involving poker:

1)  They play poker on the tops of huge pool tables, and they have a house rule that if the dealer accidently exposes a card while trying to send it to the other end of the table, he must put a $25 chip in the pot!  To try and avoid this, most people dealing (the deal is passed) from one end of the table or the other, will slide a card down a couple players, and it will be passed along till it reaches its final destination. 

Once I was in “sliding position,” and when I touched the card to slide it my fingers stuck to the card a little bit and it flipped over.  Immediately I was told to put $25 in the pot.  I replied, “Why should I?  I am not the dealer.  I was just helping.”  Immediately there was an uproar from the good ole boys and girls, so I angrily and reluctantly complied.  When I threw the $25 chip on the table  I was hot and I said, “OK, there it is, but from now on I'm not touching another Goddamn card!”  Whooee!  One beady-eyed, be-capped, neanderthal-like cretin, with a cigarette sticking straight out of his puckered lips, removed it and replied, “Well thar padnuh, everybody's got to help a little.  Iffn that's the way you feel about it maybe you should quit playing here.”  I sucked it up and stayed.

The other incident was when one woman, when it was her turn to act, raised her hand as if to rap the table and check.  The woman on her left assumed she had, and threw in a bet.  A verbal hissy fit ensued that seemed to snowball.  After a lot of hissing and posturing, woman number two left for the restroom.  The first “semi-checker” leaned over to the other woman's husband and told him, “You had better tell that bitch to shut up or I'll shut her up.”

So, that's the worst of it.

Management is worried that as the “bling-bling” gentlemen pass the word about this tournament their percentage of the participants will conitinue to increase.  I don't know at what point critical mass will be reached, but with a near equal mixture of “bling-blings” and “good ole boys” I don't want to be there.

So, set aside the danger factor, mbuss.  From a strategical point of view you seem to be agreeing with my “buy in big and threaten them” intentions.  Right?

Natchez

P.S. Sorry I get so verbose, but I love telling about my experiences.  If I should just stick to the dry bones here, just tell me.

My problem is that you'll be playing with short-stackers, and the upside hardly seems worth it. Even if they're guaranteed to reload for $20 every time you stack them, it could take you all night to double up. You might as well play LHE.

You're correct that short-stacked games play a lot more like LHE.  (In some ways, even more infuriating than LHE — in that you only have one or two betting rounds.   You certainly can't protect draws or make grand bluffs once all the action is all-in.)

But that's not a bad thing in the long run.  It keeps bad players in these games hoping to get lucky.  At times, they will be lucky.   But over time they'll make these games profitable.

Everything I've read about the Florida $100 max games indicates that these games are wildly beatable over the long run.   You don't even need much NLHE savvy (at least until you sextuple up; then you'd better not be donking off your new deep stack indiscriminately); you just play patiently and show up with better hands than everyone else.

Ed's short-stack approach in GSIHE may be too tight for the $5-10 game, and in general you can add a few hands when you're pretty certain you're ahead of everyone's range.   But for the most part you're just waiting on good hands, getting called with them, and getting all the money in with the best of it.   Sometimes you'll lose, but when you win you'll do quite well.

Of course if you'd rather pass up a profitable but boring game and play “real poker” at a lower or negative edge, that's your choice.

AKQJ10 said:

What are you hoping to accomplish? Are you trying to get them to fold inferior hands / draws that aren't getting the right price?   If so, why?

Absolutely not.  What I am condisering, and remeber i asked for opinions, was to use my stack to bet when I thought I was best and it would keep them from sucking out by staying in.

It sounds like you just ran bad at a short-stack game and are desperately flailing around for a “solution”.   Instead step back.   Deal with a short-term run of cards.  It happens.   IF YOU DON'T LEARN NOT TO “ADJUST” FOR A MERE RUN OF BAD CARDS YOU'LL NEVER SUCCEED AT POKER IN THE LONG TERM.   Seriously.

Not quite “…desperatelyu flailing around.”  Just trying to figure this confounding game out.

Now, if you're proposing buying in for $200 because your opponents will make $200 mistakes and you won't, that's a great idea.   Maybe you'll push for twice the pot and they'll still call with flush draws.  If so, great!   You can make a fortune.  (But you still won't win every hand.)

By jove, you've got it!  I just didn't state my aims clearly.

If you're proposing just making wild overbets so that you can “guarantee” winning a small pot instead of risking getting drawn out on, you're approaching poker foolishly.   (For one thing, think about what hands they will call a three-times-the-pot overbet with.   And think about your equity against that range of hands.)

You really should go read or reread what GSIHE says about running bad and about pushing people off draws.

Thanks!  Will do.

Natchez

AKQJ10 said:

> What I am condisering, and remeber i asked for opinions, was to use my stack to bet when I

> thought I was best and it would keep them from sucking out by staying in.

Fair enough, and I’m not just trying to berate you.   So here’s a question.

Suppose you and an opponent both have $1000 remaining in the stack, there’s $100 in the pot, and you hold the current nuts with As Ac on a flop of:

Ad 6h 4d

Moreover, you somehow know that your opponent has Kd Qd for a nut flush draw.

Which is better:

- To bet $50, which you expect your opponent to call?

-To bet $100, which you expect to induce your opponent to fold?

the “book” answer is to bet the $50. since we don’t know how the rest of the betting
will go in this hypothetical i’ll assume this is the last of the betting (which would certainly not
be the case in a real game). you win 2 out of 3 times so in a total of hands 1)with a $50
bet twice you add $150 to your stack and once you lose your $50 for net gain of $250. 2) with a
$100 bet he folds and you have a net gain of $300. something wrong here- try another
hypothetical.

you have a made hand and your opponent has the flush draw after the turn. $100 in the pot and
you each have $150 left in your stacks. same as above he calls a $50 bet but folds to $100.
you win 4 out of 5 times so in a total of 5 hands 1) with a $50 bet 4 times you add $150 to your
stack and the 1 time he hits his draw you lose another $100 when he pushes on the river for a net gain of $500. 2) with the $100 bet he folds and you have a net gain of $500. if you had more in
your stacks you could lose a huge amount the 1 time he hits against your 3 aces.

i know Ed says you make a lot more by not pushing him out and even tho i’m sure Ed is
correct and follow his advice in these situations i havn’t found a way to convince myself
“on paper”.

overbetting is also a way to reduce variance to which one mite reply “scared money don’t
make money” but in the $100 max buy in games i play the “bird in the hand” can be much
better than going back down to a crippling $100.

in my present less frustated state of mind i would not title this thread “poker sucks”
but something more along the lines of “what advantage ?”. most recently i watched
the most “calling of stations” i have ever seen. he didn’t do so bad. i certainly realize
in the short run a monkey trained to push all in every hand could also do well but lose
(of course) in the long run.

i have read posts by others displaying supior poker knowledge only to find that, while
in the black, they aren’t doing all that well in the long run. my own conclusion is that
the fundamentals Ed and others teach is only a starting point- like learning basic
strategy for blackjack except that you can be slightly on the plus side after the rake.
like the difficult skill of card counting at blackjack there is something way beyond the
fundamentals that you need to be a decent winner at poker. Ed and others acknowledge
this fact and point in the direction of “playing the player” however the skills to observe
and quantify the actions of an opponent and utilize that info to bring in the bucks is
just glossed over in the many poker books i’ve read.

so we get the fundamentals from our teachers and are pretty much left on our own to
take it from there. the direction for improvement is indicated, i mean it’s not like secret
info is witheld, but the “x factor” is a matter of personal drive, intellegence and discovery,
this is as it should (must) be as with success in anything in life. others can take you only
so far and the “cream will rise” as this is the only way to have winners.

i have gotten out of this thread that my frustration must be directed towards my own
lack of ability and will start to work on the real game of poker beyond the fundamentals.
Ed wrote somewhere that a player low on fundametals but experienced at reading
the player would have a great advantage over someone like myself.

i hope PNLV2 goes more into playing the player and humbly suggest to Ed that a whole
book on the subject could be the next direction to take in poker instruction,

tobori (that’s i robot backwards as i originaly wanted to program my calculator to
play poker- a joke now)

toebori said:

---

since we don’t know how the rest of the betting
will go in this hypothetical i’ll assume this is the last of the betting….

something wrong here- try another
hypothetical.

What's wrong is, you changed the hypothetical!

My point is implied odds.    You changed my example to make implied odds meaningless, because you made us somehow all-in for the $50 more.   So I'm pretty sure you didn't understand the point of my example.

Incidentally, you're 100% correct that you'd rather your opponent fold if he's getting correct odds to draw.

(I'll reply to the rest of your post later; I just noticed this in the first graf and wanted to set it straight. )

Anyone see what I'm getting at, given that we certainly do expect and warmly welcome further betting?

Hint: I basically stole this example from NLHE: TAP, p. 53, “Don't Take Away Their Rope,” except I made up numbers on the fly.

Hint #2: A flush isn't really just a 2:1 dog against a set with two cards to come.   It's 3:1   Why?

AKQJ10 said:

Hint #2: A flush isn't really just a 2:1 dog against a set with two cards to come.   It's 3:1   Why?

Because one of the possible flush cards will pair the board turning a set into a boat and another of the possible flush cards will make the set into quads. Also, if a safe flush card comes on the turn, it can still be paired on the river. The set holder knows the 3:1 situation while the flush-draw holder, at best,  is only aware that this is a possibility and will likely continue on thinking he/she is a 2:1 dog.