|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 58 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-11-06 | | Chesschatology: <Sneaky>
I like your strategy- very simple and elegant. The tier of hands changes though, according to: (a) No. players
(b) Blind size:total kitty
(c) Position (which you acknowledge!)
Also, how do you deal with raises from eary positioned players after the flop- doesn't that interfere with your predictability strategy of betting 4 x pot? That said I really like it, and will give it a try- I guess it's just a template which you can vary from a bit by occassionally check-raising, semi-bluffing etc. One last thing-
One tell that often works is simple-a player who re-checks his cards after the flop is probably going for a flush. Amazing how many people do this! One more- If you raise with many small chips rather than few big ones, people seem to read your hand as weaker for some reason. Cool chess-forum, keep it up!! |
|
Apr-11-06
 | | Sneaky: <blingice> I used to play online for money but I got sick of it. I go to card rooms and find myself in the occasional informal game. The bluff-lure I described above actually happened at the US Open in 2004 in the skittles room. Some punks started a holdem table that saw a lot of action in between rounds! (Just in case you think I'm a millionaire or something, the actual stakes were 50 cents / 1 dollar blinds, I multiplied everything by 10 to normalize it to familiar casino standards.) <Chesschatology> I should have added the disclaimer that my strategy description is not complete, there are nuances which space prohibited. When it comes to playing shorthanded, I just imagine that a number of people folded in front of me. So an early position in a shorthanded game is like a middle position in a full 10 player game. If there are 10 people at the table and you're in the short blinds, and everybody folds to you, then it's exactly like heads-up play. The hands that I play most differently depending on position are the notorious KJ and QJ hands, two very iffy hands to begin with. (Novices like to bet strong on these hands, but in fact they are muckable.) I might play them in a shorthanded game but be inclined to ditch them from a bad position on a big table. <Also, how do you deal with raises from eary positioned players> Good point. Suppose the blinds are 5/10 and somebody opens for 40, just like I would do, and now it's my turn to bet. Depending on what cards I have determines what I might do. If I have an AQ, I will simply call and let them have the initiative on the flop. There isn't much else you can do. If I have the fishooks (JJ) then my situation is much different. I want to make sure that if the flop comes T92 that my Jacks are really good. Therefore I will raise their 40 another 40: an informational raise. I want to put them on a hand. If they raise me back, now I'm thinking QQ, or KK, or AA. I'm scared. If they merely call, then I put them on AK or AQ or even something sort of wimpy like QJ suited. It might seem like 40 is a lot of money to spend for "information" but remember this information could save you thousands later in the hand. If I have a rag-pair (22, 33, etc.) I'll probably fold them, or if I'm very desparate (e.g. short stacked and about to be eliminated from a tournament) I might try to go all-in and pray that he doesn't have a pair. <One tell that often works is simple-a player who re-checks his cards after the flop is probably going for a flush.> True but it depends on the flop. Let's say two people get into a raising war like I described above, then the flop comes T52. That's the kind of crappy flop that probably missed both of them. One guy's got AQ and the other one has 99 and neither one of them knows if their hand is any good. That's why I'm an advocate of making a very gutsy bluff at that stage. Go ahead and bet your 99 as if you know it's good and see what the other guy does. If he's on a draw, he should fold. If he calls you, he probably has an overpair like JJ or at least a ten with a good kicker. One thing that I watch for is how long it takes people to call a bet. Suppose the pot is 300 on the flop and two clubs show up. Somebody bets 100 and somebody else INSTANTLY calls. I put him on the flush draw. Why? Well suppose he had a pair. Now he's got something to think about. Does he have the top pair? How's his kicker? Should he raise? A very difficult decision. But if you have a flush draw, you quickly see that you're getting 4:1 odds, so the decision is a no-brainer. |
|
| Apr-11-06 | | refutor: <sneaky> you better hope your poker buddies don't read this forum ;) |
|
| Apr-12-06 | | AdrianP: <11.)they’d fix those sticky V12’s in his Rolls Royce.: V12's = 12 valves.> V12 does not signify 12 valves - it denotes an engine with 12 cylinders in a V-shaped configuration. A V12 engine will have at least 24 valves; possibly, 48; sometimes even 60. |
|
| Apr-13-06 | | Chesschatology: <Sneaky> Thanks for the explanation- and fascinating stuff. Gonna give this a try next poker game I play- I'll let you know how I do. One great thing about the system is that it's manageable- i.e. practical. I've read some really technical stuff- (i.e. Sklansky's "The Theory of Poker") and it is just so complicated that I can't even begin to put it into practice unless I take an hour on every bet, and probably not even then! |
|
Apr-13-06
| | Sneaky: I always feel guilty giving somebody poker tips and hearing them say "I'll give that a try!" Please realize you might end up losing a good chunk of change. Part of the strategy involves how you play the post-flop situations when you're already committed to a huge pot--it requires knowing when to bluff, knowing when to lay down, etc. Post-flop play is a very murky situation that requires a lot of practice, otherwise you find yourself just getting pushed around by people who might not even have the best hand. |
|
| Apr-14-06 | | FICSwoodpusher: I don't know much about ICC ratings except that many people say they are inflated (i.e. a high rating on ICC would be a lower rating somewhere else). I have been playing for about 2 weeks on playchess.com. I almost got my blitz rating to 2000 but I need a new strategy now as the ratings seem to be quite volatile and lately mine has been dropping. PS: I am red_rook on playchess.com. |
|
| Apr-16-06 | | c o r e: Your system sounds like one that will work in many situations. The only players that will consistently do well against this strategy are the old poker room vultures- they're very tight and have nerves of steel. Matching up against these antediluvian tacticians with a no-look raise can be dangerous; they will only play when they can make you pay. The bright side is twofold. First, these guys almost never bluff- they're too honest. Second, you'll find them mostly in limit games- so they pose little threat to you. Take a look at these charts when you get the chance. These are the most useful hand-rankings I have seen, along with a breakdown according to your position and # of players. Notice how they compare to your own breakdowns. It's interesting to note that a 9-8 suited is mathematically more valuable before the flop than a A-10 off suit with a full game. (By the way, the wizard is _the_ source for the science of gaming.) http://wizardofodds.com/holdem
Perhaps those in attendance at the National Open in Vegas this year would like to meet for a friendly game between friendly games. I'm always accepting donations. ;) |
|
Apr-16-06
| | Sneaky: Thanks, core.
The mathematics behind holdem in my opinion are greatly misunderstood. The question of "What are the odds that hand X will beat hand Y after 5 cards are dealt" is important, especially when you're deciding to go all in before the flop. However, more important questions are in the air.
Sure, a 6-7 suited might make a monster hand, but if I have AK and up comes an Ace and two cards of your suit, I'll be sure to push in enough chips to make you fold your pipe-dream of sucking out a flush. For that reason AK is praised, because it's a money maker, and 67 is a limper hand that gets pushed out of pots very easily. In short, what you MIGHT get by the time river card comes up is not nearly as important as what you KNOW you have on the flop. Add to that the fact that some hands will create big money making opportunities while other hands will be very transparent. For instance, rag pairs (22, 33, 44, etc.) usually lose, but in the rare cases when you flop a set you're ready to take somebody for all their chips. |
|
| Apr-17-06 | | c o r e: Of course that's pretty much true. If the game could easily be boiled down to simple math, it wouldn't be nearly as interesting. In that way, poker is like chess: "perfect play" is a fallacy- even at the highest levels of play there is still room for style. And all preparation aside, it's all decided heads up, OTB. |
|
Apr-17-06
| | Sneaky: The great mathematician John Von Neumann contributed so much to the mathematics of Game Theory, and one of his life's ambitions was to come up with a mathematical model for no-limit Poker so that we would be able to define what perfect play is, the mathematics behind bluffing, and so forth. After years of work, he came up empty handed. This is an enormous testament to the subtlety of the game. |
|
| Apr-18-06 | | Chesschatology: (1)
<Sneaky>
Don't worry- I only ever bet what I don't mind losing. (2) Anyone seen the Cincinatti Kid? |
|
Apr-25-06
| | Sneaky: The mother of all bad beats --
I bet strong with K of diamonds / Queen of diamonds. I get re-raised.
I nervously call. (I had to considering laying down the hand because KQ is dominated by a few good hands: AA, KK, QQ, AK, AQ, and is an underdog to any other pair.) Flop comes up: Ace of clubs, Jack of diamonds, 10 of diamonds. That's what you call "Flopping broadway!!" Not only that, but I have an oustide straight flush draw, the most powerful draw hand in all of poker. I decide to slowplay this monster flop and check my hand. He goes all in. I call instantly.
He flips over Ace of spades, 9 of spades.
Do you see where this is going?
The turn comes, the nine of clubs.
The river comes, the nine of hearts.
:-/ |
|
| Apr-25-06 | | square dance: <sneaky> thats horrible. ive got one for you. hearing this story might just put you on tilt... i was playing on ultimatebet.com and i was sb and everyone folded to me and i had A 9os. bb was the small stack having only a few hundred chips left so i made some standard raise, 3x the bb iirc, and he/she called. the flop is A 5 6 rainbow and i immediately go all in figuring my As are good and bb calls with Q 4os. <dramatic pause>
wtf!?! right? thats what im thinking anyway. Q high and, at best, needing runner, runner for a straight. well, this is the beauty of online poker. turn: 2
river: 3
i was a 95%-5% favorite after the flop. i think you were too. that was the worst call ive ever seen in poker in my entire life, except when a friend of mine called out a four card straight against me, but thats a different story. ;-) |
|
| Apr-25-06 | | Drifter: Hi <Sneaky> You said you used to play poker for money online but you got bored of it. Why? You say your USCF rating is 1800. Im curious - what are your standard and blitz ratings on ICC? Im 1850 Standard and 1600 blitz. Id love to get an idea as to what my offical rating might be. My account name on ICC is OzJuggler. whats yours? Id like to add you to my buddy list and maybe we can play, It sounds like we are have reasonably similar strengths. Cheers mate! |
|
Apr-26-06
| | Sneaky: <i was a 95%-5% favorite after the flop. i think you were too.> No way, I was a 99%+ favorite, because most of his outs would make my straight flush. One of the two aces that was unaccounted for was the Ace of diamonds, and if that came up I'd have a royal flush! He didn't have any outs per se, he had to pray for two-card running combos, like running jacks, or in his case, running nines while avoiding the nine of diamonds. To say the odds were "astronomical" would be hyperbole but it has to be a hall of fame bad-beat none the less. |
|
| Apr-26-06 | | square dance: <sneaky> i dont think you can be better than a 98% favorite after the flop. |
|
| Apr-26-06 | | Chesschatology: <Bad Beats>
Check out this very funny link:
"How to write Bad Beat Stories"
http://www.parttimepoker.com/poker-... |
|
| Apr-26-06 | | square dance: <i dont think you can be better than a 98% favorite after the flop.> of course i mean unless you flop the nuts. |
|
Apr-26-06
| | Sneaky: <i dont think you can be better than a 98% favorite after the flop.> Oh sure you can, but in retrospect my position might not have been that strong, since handful of two-card combinations could have saved him. But just for the sake of argument, suppose you hold AA and the flop comes up AKK, and somebody goes all-in with only a pair of deuces. The only way for them to win are running deuces on the turn and river. The odds of the first deuce will be 2/45, and the next one will be 1/44, for a grand total of 1 chance in 990, about 0.1% <Drifter: Im curious - what are your standard and blitz ratings on ICC?> I haven't played much standard, but my blitz rating is about 1650. The only way to judge your official rating to get an official rating. Blitz games are a very poor indicator. <My account name on ICC is OzJuggler. whats yours?> Sneaky, of course. |
|
Apr-26-06
| | Sneaky: <"How to write Bad Beat Stories"> Hilarious!! |
|
| Apr-26-06 | | square dance: <sneaky> i suppose thats so. i always thought that needing two running cards, even if they are specific cards, amounted to a 2% chance after the flop. btw, i checked on an odds calculator and you were 97-98% after the flop on your bad beat hand. |
|
| May-02-06 | | deefree: I noticed you have a collection of "Philidor's Legacy" games. I enjoyed playing over them yesterday. |
|
| May-02-06 | | deefree: I had a friend who was an expert at spotting "rook stalemates" like the ones in your crazy rooks collection. His name was Jim Nagy and we used to call it a "Nagymate" when he pulled that on someone. He did it to me twice! |
|
May-15-06
| | Sneaky: That sneaky old Lowenthal Sicilian. You can refute it 1000 times over "on paper" but when you're staring at it over the board it can be very frightening. NN vs Sneaky, FICS, 15 minutes + 5/move
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nb5 a6?! <The starting point to Lowenthal schenanigens> 
click for larger view6. Nd6+ Bxd6 7. Qxd6 Qf6 8. Qd1 <Bobby Fischer's move, so you know it must be best.> Qg6 9. Nc3 d5! 
click for larger view10. Nxd5 <The correct recapture. 10.exd5? makes White look very silly after ...Nd4. 10.Qxe5? Be6 11.Qd1 Rad8 and Black gets way too much development for a mere pawn> Qxe4+ 11. Be3 Nd4 12. Nc7+ Ke7 13. Rc1 <Taking the rook on a8 immediately is not recommended. That's one of the reasons I love this line, it's very tempting to just grab the loot.> Bg4 <Always nice to develop with a threat. Of course f3 is impossible because of Qxe3+> 
click for larger view14. Qd2? <Fatal error. Qd3 and the "jury is out" on the resulting position. But this is just horrible for White. > Rd8! <I loved this move, and my computer confirms it. ...Rc8 is tempting since it strikes at both the knight and the c2 pawn, but Black stirs things up too much with Qb4+ in that line. This line renders Qb4+ harmless and Black is clearly better.> 15. Qb4+ Rd6 16. Qa4? 
click for larger view<Monday puzzle time> 16...Nxc2+ 17. Qxc2 Qxc2 0-1 |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 58 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
