Assani's Poker Thread (2 Viewers)

[rabidfireweasel]

I have said for a long while that PLO was the game to be learned. The lack of books and the seeming similarities between it and hold 'em, combined with it being an action game can make it extremely profitable.

Many people, even good players have gaps or leaks in their games. IMO, the average PLO player is terrible and will make numerous mistakes of the stacking level variety.

 

[Alias]

Assani, how long do you think it will be until you have at least a million to your name?

quite a while due to my spending probably.

I'll be out there the last week of September staying at Mandalay Bay, I will look you and MassRaider up, Eddie can come too, he blew me off last time *cough*

 

[Dentist]

I sweated some PLO8 last night while Assani was playing.

It doesn't seem nearly as fun as tournaments, and I can't believe there's such an overlay since most true fishies would play hold 'em right? maybe some foreigners like the LOL8.

Funny thing is... teecoy went from crushing tournament poker to playing O8 before his screen name was eliminated... i'm sure the dude didn't quit poker... but I'm suprised he changed his screen name since that one was preselected to be lucky.

Very much disagree. I think the hold em games online nowadays are pretty damn tough because theres so much information out there. Many people still misplay PLO8 by huge amounts. At $3/6 and above(and sometimes tough $2/4 games) most people are very good. However, at $1/2 and below, there are a ton of idiots who make plays that are just mindblowing.

Fascinating.I guess there is a lot of information easily readable on NLHE and LHE.

it's just that a game like PLO8 seems like something only a relatively advanced poker player would even attempt.

it just doesn't seem like the type of game that joe above average who just deposited $500 on pokerstars would even attmpt to play.

I think that possibly your command of LOL8 is just so superior that you are able to exploit medium strength players.

How do you feel about most people's NLHE tournament games both below the $50 level and above it (assuming no satillite to said game)

 

[Jimboozie]

I have said for a long while that PLO was the game to be learned. The lack of books and the seeming similarities between it and hold 'em, combined with it being an action game can make it extremely profitable. Many people, even good players have gaps or leaks in their games. IMO, the average PLO player is terrible and will make numerous mistakes of the stacking level variety.

Yeah, but there is a ton more variance in PLO. A bad player could sit in a tough PLO game and often leave a winner. You're often no less than a 60-40 dog. Comparatively, a bad player has significantly less chance of beating a tough NLHE game.

 

[Jimboozie]

it's just that a game like PLO8 seems like something only a relatively advanced poker player would even attempt.

Just think of all the players out there who are sick of holdem and want to give something new a try. There's quite a few.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

I have said for a long while that PLO was the game to be learned. The lack of books and the seeming similarities between it and hold 'em, combined with it being an action game can make it extremely profitable. Many people, even good players have gaps or leaks in their games. IMO, the average PLO player is terrible and will make numerous mistakes of the stacking level variety.

Yeah, but there is a ton more variance in PLO. A bad player could sit in a tough PLO game and often leave a winner. You're often no less than a 60-40 dog. Comparatively, a bad player has significantly less chance of beating a tough NLHE game.

I think you are overstating the top- although certainly there is variance.. A bad player will occasionally (not often) leave a winner in a tough game. A bad player is often in much worse shape- especially in PLO8 than 60/40. I have seen countless guys broke in full ring game with bottom two and no redraws.

 

[Dentist]

Assani,

your new dedication to PLO8 got me to thinking.

I've always enjoyed tournament hold 'em, and have had good success as long as I stick with rebuys.

However, it's been long known on these boards that my BEST game bar none is Razz.

I've never really tested it at the bigger games on PS though... so I could be humbled.

I'm adept full table, short table, heads up.. all of it

Is there much of a money making opportunity in limit razz?

Right now there's only a $5-10 game going.. i haven't scouted the night time games, but I wonder if a $10-20 ever gets going.

However, I've always been wary of stud games online because aren't there programs to remember cards and assist you with outs, etc.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I have said for a long while that PLO was the game to be learned. The lack of books and the seeming similarities between it and hold 'em, combined with it being an action game can make it extremely profitable. Many people, even good players have gaps or leaks in their games. IMO, the average PLO player is terrible and will make numerous mistakes of the stacking level variety.

The first time I ever played PLO live, a guy stacked off $5000 to me with the 2nd nut flush in just a $2/5 game! Thats what got me into it and thats definitely what you're talking about.With that said, I've seen it be hit or miss. Jeff Hwang(author of "Pot Limit Omaha Poker: The Big Play Strategy) has been organizing a game at the Wynn recently, and I went and played and found it to be a very tough 5 handed game. Basically, people who seek out PLO usually know what they're doing. What you're hoping to get is people on the NLHE waiting lists to come on over or for people to "give it a shot" because many of them really are clueless.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Assani, how long do you think it will be until you have at least a million to your name?

quite a while due to my spending probably.

I'll be out there the last week of September staying at Mandalay Bay, I will look you and MassRaider up, Eddie can come too, he blew me off last time *cough*

sounds good man

 

[Assani Fisher]

I sweated some PLO8 last night while Assani was playing.

It doesn't seem nearly as fun as tournaments, and I can't believe there's such an overlay since most true fishies would play hold 'em right? maybe some foreigners like the LOL8.

Funny thing is... teecoy went from crushing tournament poker to playing O8 before his screen name was eliminated... i'm sure the dude didn't quit poker... but I'm suprised he changed his screen name since that one was preselected to be lucky.

Very much disagree. I think the hold em games online nowadays are pretty damn tough because theres so much information out there. Many people still misplay PLO8 by huge amounts. At $3/6 and above(and sometimes tough $2/4 games) most people are very good. However, at $1/2 and below, there are a ton of idiots who make plays that are just mindblowing.

Fascinating.I guess there is a lot of information easily readable on NLHE and LHE.

it's just that a game like PLO8 seems like something only a relatively advanced poker player would even attempt.

it just doesn't seem like the type of game that joe above average who just deposited $500 on pokerstars would even attmpt to play.

I think that possibly your command of LOL8 is just so superior that you are able to exploit medium strength players.

How do you feel about most people's NLHE tournament games both below the $50 level and above it (assuming no satillite to said game)

Yeah I can understand what you're saying, and I don't really know why. But its just not the case at the lower levels.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I have said for a long while that PLO was the game to be learned. The lack of books and the seeming similarities between it and hold 'em, combined with it being an action game can make it extremely profitable. Many people, even good players have gaps or leaks in their games. IMO, the average PLO player is terrible and will make numerous mistakes of the stacking level variety.

Yeah, but there is a ton more variance in PLO. A bad player could sit in a tough PLO game and often leave a winner. You're often no less than a 60-40 dog. Comparatively, a bad player has significantly less chance of beating a tough NLHE game.

This is very true, and a big reason why I think online is better for PLO and PLO8 if you're playing with competant players. In a live game against solid players, its a given that many big pots will be 60/40s or even closer. You do have the option to run it twice live(or make other deals to take some of the money back). However, against good players PLO/PLO8 is definitely a volume game where you need to put in a ton of hands to minimize variance, and that simply can't be done live with the slow pace.Notice, however, that I continually said "against good players." The reason to play these games live is that some people will stack off with 2nd nut flush like I said above, and against them the variance is minimal.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Assani,your new dedication to PLO8 got me to thinking.I've always enjoyed tournament hold 'em, and have had good success as long as I stick with rebuys.However, it's been long known on these boards that my BEST game bar none is Razz.I've never really tested it at the bigger games on PS though... so I could be humbled.I'm adept full table, short table, heads up.. all of itIs there much of a money making opportunity in limit razz?Right now there's only a $5-10 game going.. i haven't scouted the night time games, but I wonder if a $10-20 ever gets going.However, I've always been wary of stud games online because aren't there programs to remember cards and assist you with outs, etc.

I could be wrong, but Razz seems to me like a game where once you get to a certain level, everyone is around the same skill level and there no way to really get any better. I could be wrong though.I certainly don't have much experience, so the best way to find out is to just give it a shot.

 

[Short Corner]

Hey Assani,Can I get your feedback on a situation last night?I played in a local game last night and lost the biggest pot of my life and I'd love to get your thoughts/analysis. I've been beating myself up all day.I won $500 the previous night and bought in for that last night. It's a weak group of players. Early on, I got AA in early position and raised the 2/5 blinds to $20. I got two callers from loose players and the flop came Q-2-2. Two hearts. I bet $50. I get a fold. The guy in the cutoff raises me $50. This guy has been playing a lot of pots and showed down questionable hands. Against another guy, he fished to the river on a flush draw when he was getting about 1.5 to 1 on a big bet on the turn. I put him on a flush draw or AQ/KQ. It feels like a feeler bet. I think he's a customer, so I put him all in for $250 more. He thinks for a solid minute. Not acting, really thinking. I usually don't talk at the table, but I'm now begging for a call. I try to get him to call. After about three minutes he finally calls and shows J-2 of diamonds. . I don't improve and he talks #### to me about being a weak player and how could I go all in with such a weak hand. He "had me" on A2 or QQ. I was and shook it off. The guy had been there twenty minutes before he took my money and the money of the flushed guy and hit and ran. I was down to $200.I battled back and over four hours managed to get my stack to $2,100 from very solid play. I don't drink when I play and others were, particularly the obnoxious guy who runs the game. We got into a bit of a spat when I asked to spread a pot and calculated pot odds, then made a big call and won about $500 off him earlier with correct odds. He criticized and I said something along the lines of having to call before hitting one of my 13 outs against top pair.This guy bought in for $1,000 twice and had a stack that was within $40 of mine when I had $2,100. He was drunk and had obvious tells. He picked up queens once and kings and both times immediately stopped his gabbing and got serious. Otherwise he was flicking in raises and playing super loose and showing down marginal hands. I am getting close to cashing out and leaving, as it's about 2AM. I have been waiting forever to trap the guy. I was in middle position and it was checked to me. I looked at JJ and decided that this time I wanted to limp in hoping for a raise from one of a couple of loose players who raise junk. I am not in love with jacks, but I feel like I know where I stand with this crowd and am prepared to fold them on a bad flop. Sure enough, drunk guy in late position raises to $25. He's gabbing and laughing at some conversation and I am positive that he doesn't have a premium hand because his demeanor changes markedly. The woman in the BB goes all in for about $80. She's super weak and I'm not worried much about her. I think my jacks are good. I study the pot for a few seconds and the drunk guy makes a comment about me being and internet player and pot odds. I get more information that puts him on a marginal hand. I am sure he has KQ at best, but probably not even that. Could be as weak as 7s-Q10. That's the range I'm thinking. I announce raise and carefully count out another $200 and push it in. Almost immediately he says, "Another $500." All ears perk up. The woman on the BB makes a comment along the lines of "I'm going home." I immediately put her on AX and I know I'm ahead of her and that she has one or more cards of the over cards I'm worried about. I reevaluate whether he could have me and I'm seeing his balls doing the betting. He's trying to mark his territory in the game and has a beef against my math approach apparently. I think for awhile and announce all in for a total of about $2,100. He gives a couple of speeches that confirm that I'm good, then he says something along the lines of "I don't give a #### if I lose. My gut tells me I'm going to win this pot." I don't say a thing. He says he knows I have him now, but that he has a good feeling. He calls. He turns over KJ offsuit. Then he brags that he "has one of my outs." I tell him that I don't need it and the woman on the BB turns over A9 suited. Of course, flop comes a king. Turn another king. I'm drawing dead. He celebrates wildly starting on the first king and it gets worse as I take it perfectly stoically and say that I'm content. I got my money in in a good spot. But the ahole isn't done. He starts lecturing me about how you can't trust pot odds and you have to rely on your gut. Goes on as he stacks and I'm left with about $40. Obviously I know conventional wisdom says that if you can get your money in as a 70% favorite, you always should... But is there a point where you've reached a certain multiple of the buyin that you should cash in and insure a win?I find that I pretty consistently build big stacks only to eventually run into such a situation where the big hand takes it all away. The reason is because I never adjust my game to my stack. I am always willing to put all my chips in play even if I'm not going to rebuy. Is that correct? Is it mathematically correct to keep risking your chips against bigger stacks when you've reached a certain multiple of the buyin? Should I have a different approach to cash games? Should I try to keep the pots small and rely on my ability to outplay with post flop play and situations where I can get value with hands I'm sure are good? I built my stack that way. Should I be prepared to fold hands when I know I have a clear advantage just because of pot size and the downside risk? I "should" have had about $4,200 after that hand, but instead I lost $500.I'm just wondering if you tend to avoid the big clashes and rely on grinding or if you think that I should continue to put all my chips in play if I can. If I won that hand, I'd have had a stack four times bigger than anything else on the table and would be past the danger zone where I could lose my stack. I find that I'm often back to square one before I get to enjoy that big stack advantage. Any insight would be great! If it weren't this hand, I fell like I'd have pushed on some other hand with an advantage only to lose most of my stack. You can only enjoy your edge if you're left with chips. I didn't intend to rebuy past the $500 and didn't, so knowing that going in does it make sense to play within a narrower range of pot sizes or can you not look at the game in terms of a single buyin? When do you walk away? When do you decide to limit pot sizes? I felt very strongly that I had at least a coin flip and probably closer to 3:2 or better when I pushed and I was right. What would you have done?

Can one of the mods please move this to the BBV forum?

 

[tribecalledjeff]

Hey Assani,Can I get your feedback on a situation last night?I played in a local game last night and lost the biggest pot of my life and I'd love to get your thoughts/analysis. I've been beating myself up all day.I won $500 the previous night and bought in for that last night. It's a weak group of players. Early on, I got AA in early position and raised the 2/5 blinds to $20. I got two callers from loose players and the flop came Q-2-2. Two hearts. I bet $50. I get a fold. The guy in the cutoff raises me $50. This guy has been playing a lot of pots and showed down questionable hands. Against another guy, he fished to the river on a flush draw when he was getting about 1.5 to 1 on a big bet on the turn. I put him on a flush draw or AQ/KQ. It feels like a feeler bet. I think he's a customer, so I put him all in for $250 more. He thinks for a solid minute. Not acting, really thinking. I usually don't talk at the table, but I'm now begging for a call. I try to get him to call. After about three minutes he finally calls and shows J-2 of diamonds. . I don't improve and he talks #### to me about being a weak player and how could I go all in with such a weak hand. He "had me" on A2 or QQ. I was and shook it off. The guy had been there twenty minutes before he took my money and the money of the flushed guy and hit and ran. I was down to $200.I battled back and over four hours managed to get my stack to $2,100 from very solid play. I don't drink when I play and others were, particularly the obnoxious guy who runs the game. We got into a bit of a spat when I asked to spread a pot and calculated pot odds, then made a big call and won about $500 off him earlier with correct odds. He criticized and I said something along the lines of having to call before hitting one of my 13 outs against top pair.This guy bought in for $1,000 twice and had a stack that was within $40 of mine when I had $2,100. He was drunk and had obvious tells. He picked up queens once and kings and both times immediately stopped his gabbing and got serious. Otherwise he was flicking in raises and playing super loose and showing down marginal hands. I am getting close to cashing out and leaving, as it's about 2AM. I have been waiting forever to trap the guy. I was in middle position and it was checked to me. I looked at JJ and decided that this time I wanted to limp in hoping for a raise from one of a couple of loose players who raise junk. I am not in love with jacks, but I feel like I know where I stand with this crowd and am prepared to fold them on a bad flop. Sure enough, drunk guy in late position raises to $25. He's gabbing and laughing at some conversation and I am positive that he doesn't have a premium hand because his demeanor changes markedly. The woman in the BB goes all in for about $80. She's super weak and I'm not worried much about her. I think my jacks are good. I study the pot for a few seconds and the drunk guy makes a comment about me being and internet player and pot odds. I get more information that puts him on a marginal hand. I am sure he has KQ at best, but probably not even that. Could be as weak as 7s-Q10. That's the range I'm thinking. I announce raise and carefully count out another $200 and push it in. Almost immediately he says, "Another $500." All ears perk up. The woman on the BB makes a comment along the lines of "I'm going home." I immediately put her on AX and I know I'm ahead of her and that she has one or more cards of the over cards I'm worried about. I reevaluate whether he could have me and I'm seeing his balls doing the betting. He's trying to mark his territory in the game and has a beef against my math approach apparently. I think for awhile and announce all in for a total of about $2,100. He gives a couple of speeches that confirm that I'm good, then he says something along the lines of "I don't give a #### if I lose. My gut tells me I'm going to win this pot." I don't say a thing. He says he knows I have him now, but that he has a good feeling. He calls. He turns over KJ offsuit. Then he brags that he "has one of my outs." I tell him that I don't need it and the woman on the BB turns over A9 suited. Of course, flop comes a king. Turn another king. I'm drawing dead. He celebrates wildly starting on the first king and it gets worse as I take it perfectly stoically and say that I'm content. I got my money in in a good spot. But the ahole isn't done. He starts lecturing me about how you can't trust pot odds and you have to rely on your gut. Goes on as he stacks and I'm left with about $40. Obviously I know conventional wisdom says that if you can get your money in as a 70% favorite, you always should... But is there a point where you've reached a certain multiple of the buyin that you should cash in and insure a win?I find that I pretty consistently build big stacks only to eventually run into such a situation where the big hand takes it all away. The reason is because I never adjust my game to my stack. I am always willing to put all my chips in play even if I'm not going to rebuy. Is that correct? Is it mathematically correct to keep risking your chips against bigger stacks when you've reached a certain multiple of the buyin? Should I have a different approach to cash games? Should I try to keep the pots small and rely on my ability to outplay with post flop play and situations where I can get value with hands I'm sure are good? I built my stack that way. Should I be prepared to fold hands when I know I have a clear advantage just because of pot size and the downside risk? I "should" have had about $4,200 after that hand, but instead I lost $500.I'm just wondering if you tend to avoid the big clashes and rely on grinding or if you think that I should continue to put all my chips in play if I can. If I won that hand, I'd have had a stack four times bigger than anything else on the table and would be past the danger zone where I could lose my stack. I find that I'm often back to square one before I get to enjoy that big stack advantage. Any insight would be great! If it weren't this hand, I fell like I'd have pushed on some other hand with an advantage only to lose most of my stack. You can only enjoy your edge if you're left with chips. I didn't intend to rebuy past the $500 and didn't, so knowing that going in does it make sense to play within a narrower range of pot sizes or can you not look at the game in terms of a single buyin? When do you walk away? When do you decide to limit pot sizes? I felt very strongly that I had at least a coin flip and probably closer to 3:2 or better when I pushed and I was right. What would you have done?

Can one of the mods please move this to the BBV forum?

 

[tribecalledjeff]

Sorry Short Corner. What forum is that? I don't want to pollute the thread. I just lost $2,100 on a pot and am interested in Assani's thoughts on home many times your stack you should consider heading out or refusing to commit all your chips?

If you had just asked that, Short Corner wouldn't have made that post.Your post is a (very) thinly disguised bad beat thread.

 

[SharkBait]

Sorry Short Corner. What forum is that? I don't want to pollute the thread. I just lost $2,100 on a pot and am interested in Assani's thoughts on home many times your stack you should consider heading out or refusing to commit all your chips?

If you had just asked that, Short Corner wouldn't have made that post.Your post is a (very) thinly disguised bad beat thread.

Could have been a "look at me, I play high enough stakes I can lose $2100 on a hand" post...

 

[rockalum]

Assani,

your new dedication to PLO8 got me to thinking.

I've always enjoyed tournament hold 'em, and have had good success as long as I stick with rebuys.

However, it's been long known on these boards that my BEST game bar none is Razz.

I've never really tested it at the bigger games on PS though... so I could be humbled.

I'm adept full table, short table, heads up.. all of it

Is there much of a money making opportunity in limit razz?

Right now there's only a $5-10 game going.. i haven't scouted the night time games, but I wonder if a $10-20 ever gets going.

However, I've always been wary of stud games online because aren't there programs to remember cards and assist you with outs, etc.

dang i love this game. i've tried omaha but i suck at it.

 

[moderated]

Hey Assani,Can I get your feedback on a situation last night?I played in a local game last night and lost the biggest pot of my life and I'd love to get your thoughts/analysis. I've been beating myself up all day.I won $500 the previous night and bought in for that last night. It's a weak group of players. Early on, I got AA in early position and raised the 2/5 blinds to $20. I got two callers from loose players and the flop came Q-2-2. Two hearts. I bet $50. I get a fold. The guy in the cutoff raises me $50. This guy has been playing a lot of pots and showed down questionable hands. Against another guy, he fished to the river on a flush draw when he was getting about 1.5 to 1 on a big bet on the turn. I put him on a flush draw or AQ/KQ. It feels like a feeler bet. I think he's a customer, so I put him all in for $250 more. He thinks for a solid minute. Not acting, really thinking. I usually don't talk at the table, but I'm now begging for a call. I try to get him to call. After about three minutes he finally calls and shows J-2 of diamonds. . I don't improve and he talks #### to me about being a weak player and how could I go all in with such a weak hand. He "had me" on A2 or QQ. I was and shook it off. The guy had been there twenty minutes before he took my money and the money of the flushed guy and hit and ran. I was down to $200.I battled back and over four hours managed to get my stack to $2,100 from very solid play. I don't drink when I play and others were, particularly the obnoxious guy who runs the game. We got into a bit of a spat when I asked to spread a pot and calculated pot odds, then made a big call and won about $500 off him earlier with correct odds. He criticized and I said something along the lines of having to call before hitting one of my 13 outs against top pair.This guy bought in for $1,000 twice and had a stack that was within $40 of mine when I had $2,100. He was drunk and had obvious tells. He picked up queens once and kings and both times immediately stopped his gabbing and got serious. Otherwise he was flicking in raises and playing super loose and showing down marginal hands. I am getting close to cashing out and leaving, as it's about 2AM. I have been waiting forever to trap the guy. I was in middle position and it was checked to me. I looked at JJ and decided that this time I wanted to limp in hoping for a raise from one of a couple of loose players who raise junk. I am not in love with jacks, but I feel like I know where I stand with this crowd and am prepared to fold them on a bad flop. Sure enough, drunk guy in late position raises to $25. He's gabbing and laughing at some conversation and I am positive that he doesn't have a premium hand because his demeanor changes markedly. The woman in the BB goes all in for about $80. She's super weak and I'm not worried much about her. I think my jacks are good. I study the pot for a few seconds and the drunk guy makes a comment about me being and internet player and pot odds. I get more information that puts him on a marginal hand. I am sure he has KQ at best, but probably not even that. Could be as weak as 7s-Q10. That's the range I'm thinking. I announce raise and carefully count out another $200 and push it in. Almost immediately he says, "Another $500." All ears perk up. The woman on the BB makes a comment along the lines of "I'm going home." I immediately put her on AX and I know I'm ahead of her and that she has one or more cards of the over cards I'm worried about. I reevaluate whether he could have me and I'm seeing his balls doing the betting. He's trying to mark his territory in the game and has a beef against my math approach apparently. I think for awhile and announce all in for a total of about $2,100. He gives a couple of speeches that confirm that I'm good, then he says something along the lines of "I don't give a #### if I lose. My gut tells me I'm going to win this pot." I don't say a thing. He says he knows I have him now, but that he has a good feeling. He calls. He turns over KJ offsuit. Then he brags that he "has one of my outs." I tell him that I don't need it and the woman on the BB turns over A9 suited. Of course, flop comes a king. Turn another king. I'm drawing dead. He celebrates wildly starting on the first king and it gets worse as I take it perfectly stoically and say that I'm content. I got my money in in a good spot. But the ahole isn't done. He starts lecturing me about how you can't trust pot odds and you have to rely on your gut. Goes on as he stacks and I'm left with about $40. Obviously I know conventional wisdom says that if you can get your money in as a 70% favorite, you always should... But is there a point where you've reached a certain multiple of the buyin that you should cash in and insure a win?I find that I pretty consistently build big stacks only to eventually run into such a situation where the big hand takes it all away. The reason is because I never adjust my game to my stack. I am always willing to put all my chips in play even if I'm not going to rebuy. Is that correct? Is it mathematically correct to keep risking your chips against bigger stacks when you've reached a certain multiple of the buyin? Should I have a different approach to cash games? Should I try to keep the pots small and rely on my ability to outplay with post flop play and situations where I can get value with hands I'm sure are good? I built my stack that way. Should I be prepared to fold hands when I know I have a clear advantage just because of pot size and the downside risk? I "should" have had about $4,200 after that hand, but instead I lost $500.I'm just wondering if you tend to avoid the big clashes and rely on grinding or if you think that I should continue to put all my chips in play if I can. If I won that hand, I'd have had a stack four times bigger than anything else on the table and would be past the danger zone where I could lose my stack. I find that I'm often back to square one before I get to enjoy that big stack advantage. Any insight would be great! If it weren't this hand, I fell like I'd have pushed on some other hand with an advantage only to lose most of my stack. You can only enjoy your edge if you're left with chips. I didn't intend to rebuy past the $500 and didn't, so knowing that going in does it make sense to play within a narrower range of pot sizes or can you not look at the game in terms of a single buyin? When do you walk away? When do you decide to limit pot sizes? I felt very strongly that I had at least a coin flip and probably closer to 3:2 or better when I pushed and I was right. What would you have done?Can one of the mods please move this to the BBV forum?

LOL

 

[DrJ]

Sorry Short Corner. What forum is that? I don't want to pollute the thread. I just lost $2,100 on a pot and am interested in Assani's thoughts on home many times your stack you should consider heading out or refusing to commit all your chips?

If you had just asked that, Short Corner wouldn't have made that post.Your post is a (very) thinly disguised bad beat thread.

Could have been a "look at me, I play high enough stakes I can lose $2100 on a hand" post...

I am within $50 of where I started three days ago. I'm just wondering where the tournament mentality and cash game mentality differ when it relates to stack size and multiples of buyins. My game is very good. Management of this issue consistently seems to work against me.

Well, look at it from a bankroll management standpoint. We'll say you're typically buying in at $500, so your roll would typically be 10K (buy in 5% of roll). That's pretty standard. When you've run it up to 2100, you now have 18% of your current bankroll sitting at that table. Yes - that's a pretty large percentage of your roll to risk on one hand. And getting over 400 BB's into the pot preflop without AA or at least KK - you're kind of asking for this.

 

[Zow]

Hey Assani, if you're ever looking for a change some very very soft (as in loose passive games) in Laughlin. You'd torch any game here.

 

[DrJ]

Sorry Short Corner. What forum is that? I don't want to pollute the thread. I just lost $2,100 on a pot and am interested in Assani's thoughts on home many times your stack you should consider heading out or refusing to commit all your chips?

If you had just asked that, Short Corner wouldn't have made that post.Your post is a (very) thinly disguised bad beat thread.

Could have been a "look at me, I play high enough stakes I can lose $2100 on a hand" post...

I am within $50 of where I started three days ago. I'm just wondering where the tournament mentality and cash game mentality differ when it relates to stack size and multiples of buyins. My game is very good. Management of this issue consistently seems to work against me.

Well, look at it from a bankroll management standpoint. We'll say you're typically buying in at $500, so your roll would typically be 10K (buy in 5% of roll). That's pretty standard. When you've run it up to 2100, you now have 18% of your current bankroll sitting at that table. Yes - that's a pretty large percentage of your roll to risk on one hand.

So what would you recommend I do: Limit losses when I double the buy-in? Triple it? Avoid big confrontations? In the hand I described, knowing I was ahead, the last thing I wanted to do was just call and let him catch/not know if he caught if there's an overcard and check into an all-in. Or do I just call without any raising and hope to hit the flop? I guarantee I'm not doing that if I'm less than double my buy-in and I can get my money in.

Well, you also got 400 BB's into the pot preflop with J's. Doing that without AA or at least KK, you're kind of asking for this. Really, it's not all that great of a hand to try and limp reraise with. A better move would have been to raise it preflop rather than trying to be tricky. If he comes over the top, call it and play after the flop.

 

[Zow]

Ham: You made the right read on all accounts. Played perfect poker. I guess the general sentiment is that if you can't afford to lose what you put out you shouldn't play, but if you can the total amount/limit to be bet should have no bearing on your specific read in a hand. You made the right play and got a bad beat. "That's poker."

 

[Zow]

Sorry Short Corner. What forum is that? I don't want to pollute the thread. I just lost $2,100 on a pot and am interested in Assani's thoughts on home many times your stack you should consider heading out or refusing to commit all your chips?

If you had just asked that, Short Corner wouldn't have made that post.Your post is a (very) thinly disguised bad beat thread.

Could have been a "look at me, I play high enough stakes I can lose $2100 on a hand" post...

I am within $50 of where I started three days ago. I'm just wondering where the tournament mentality and cash game mentality differ when it relates to stack size and multiples of buyins. My game is very good. Management of this issue consistently seems to work against me.

Well, look at it from a bankroll management standpoint. We'll say you're typically buying in at $500, so your roll would typically be 10K (buy in 5% of roll). That's pretty standard. When you've run it up to 2100, you now have 18% of your current bankroll sitting at that table. Yes - that's a pretty large percentage of your roll to risk on one hand.

So what would you recommend I do: Limit losses when I double the buy-in? Triple it? Avoid big confrontations? In the hand I described, knowing I was ahead, the last thing I wanted to do was just call and let him catch/not know if he caught if there's an overcard and check into an all-in. Or do I just call without any raising and hope to hit the flop? I guarantee I'm not doing that if I'm less than double my buy-in and I can get my money in.

Well, you also got 400 BB's into the pot preflop with J's. Doing that without AA or at least KK, you're kind of asking for this. Really, it's not all that great of a hand to try and limp reraise with. A better move would have been to raise it preflop rather than trying to be tricky. If he comes over the top, call it and play after the flop.

I agree with you here, but if Ham's read is as good as he described (if so, he's a hell of a lot better at reading a player than I am - I can never pick up stuff like this) he made the "right" play IMO. A just call with the best hand allows this guy to continuation bet with his "awe shucks" image and Ham is left sweating an over card.

 

[Zow]

Sorry Short Corner. What forum is that? I don't want to pollute the thread. I just lost $2,100 on a pot and am interested in Assani's thoughts on home many times your stack you should consider heading out or refusing to commit all your chips?

If you had just asked that, Short Corner wouldn't have made that post.Your post is a (very) thinly disguised bad beat thread.

Could have been a "look at me, I play high enough stakes I can lose $2100 on a hand" post...

I am within $50 of where I started three days ago. I'm just wondering where the tournament mentality and cash game mentality differ when it relates to stack size and multiples of buyins. My game is very good. Management of this issue consistently seems to work against me.

Well, look at it from a bankroll management standpoint. We'll say you're typically buying in at $500, so your roll would typically be 10K (buy in 5% of roll). That's pretty standard. When you've run it up to 2100, you now have 18% of your current bankroll sitting at that table. Yes - that's a pretty large percentage of your roll to risk on one hand.

So what would you recommend I do: Limit losses when I double the buy-in? Triple it? Avoid big confrontations? In the hand I described, knowing I was ahead, the last thing I wanted to do was just call and let him catch/not know if he caught if there's an overcard and check into an all-in. Or do I just call without any raising and hope to hit the flop? I guarantee I'm not doing that if I'm less than double my buy-in and I can get my money in.

Well, you also got 400 BB's into the pot preflop with J's. Doing that without AA or at least KK, you're kind of asking for this. Really, it's not all that great of a hand to try and limp reraise with. A better move would have been to raise it preflop rather than trying to be tricky. If he comes over the top, call it and play after the flop.

This just requires a shift in strategy. I have to know that I'm shifting, when and why. The way I tend to amass big stacks is by forcing players into tough decisions by giving them close to the right pot odds in proportion to how much I think the player will call. If a player is apt to make really bad decisions and call overbets, I overbet. If they will gamble a touch and make bad decisions, I do that. In this case, my mind was bent on making a guy I'd been planning to trap commit the maximum amount to a bad decision. I think it the future I'll change my strategy when I reach 2X the buyin and bend less towards trapping and more towards keeping pots small and only betting for value / making big laydowns if I must. I'll see how that goes.

why? anything less than maximizing your hand value in a specific hand will cause you to win less over time.

 

[Zow]

Ham: You made the right read on all accounts. Played perfect poker. I guess the general sentiment is that if you can't afford to lose what you put out you shouldn't play, but if you can the total amount/limit to be bet should have no bearing on your specific read in a hand. You made the right play and got a bad beat. "That's poker."

I played great poker, but didn't necessarily play well given the bankroll considerations. That's what I'm trying to adjust to. I am not inclined to over play jacks, by the way. I was SURE I was ahead. This guy was pretty heated and his bravado was directly proportionate to how marginal his hand was. He raised his hand and casually and cavalierly tossed his raise in, which ALWAYS meant he was speculating. If he had a hand, he'd square up and and pay attention to the action. I WISH everyone were that easy to read. This guy is easy when he's drunk and having fun. That said, putting 4X my buy-in at risk in one hand negates a lot of equity earned through hours of success. I think that warrants some kind of algorithmic curve were risk aversion increases in proportion to the multiple of the buyin. I think this is mathematically necessary to avoid losing that equity.

so you didn't overplay your hand. i'm not understanding your knee jerk hesitation to play big pots even though you know you're ahead and can maximize your hand value by betting it all. I guess if you can't afford to lose the 2100 you shouldn't even have it on the tabe period. But to alter otherwise good play and to play the hand differently/weaker simply because the right play requires putting a lot of chips in seems like a losing strategy.

 

[Zow]

Sorry Short Corner. What forum is that? I don't want to pollute the thread. I just lost $2,100 on a pot and am interested in Assani's thoughts on home many times your stack you should consider heading out or refusing to commit all your chips?

If you had just asked that, Short Corner wouldn't have made that post.Your post is a (very) thinly disguised bad beat thread.

Could have been a "look at me, I play high enough stakes I can lose $2100 on a hand" post...

I am within $50 of where I started three days ago. I'm just wondering where the tournament mentality and cash game mentality differ when it relates to stack size and multiples of buyins. My game is very good. Management of this issue consistently seems to work against me.

Well, look at it from a bankroll management standpoint. We'll say you're typically buying in at $500, so your roll would typically be 10K (buy in 5% of roll). That's pretty standard. When you've run it up to 2100, you now have 18% of your current bankroll sitting at that table. Yes - that's a pretty large percentage of your roll to risk on one hand.

So what would you recommend I do: Limit losses when I double the buy-in? Triple it? Avoid big confrontations? In the hand I described, knowing I was ahead, the last thing I wanted to do was just call and let him catch/not know if he caught if there's an overcard and check into an all-in. Or do I just call without any raising and hope to hit the flop? I guarantee I'm not doing that if I'm less than double my buy-in and I can get my money in.

Well, you also got 400 BB's into the pot preflop with J's. Doing that without AA or at least KK, you're kind of asking for this. Really, it's not all that great of a hand to try and limp reraise with. A better move would have been to raise it preflop rather than trying to be tricky. If he comes over the top, call it and play after the flop.

This just requires a shift in strategy. I have to know that I'm shifting, when and why. The way I tend to amass big stacks is by forcing players into tough decisions by giving them close to the right pot odds in proportion to how much I think the player will call. If a player is apt to make really bad decisions and call overbets, I overbet. If they will gamble a touch and make bad decisions, I do that. In this case, my mind was bent on making a guy I'd been planning to trap commit the maximum amount to a bad decision. I think it the future I'll change my strategy when I reach 2X the buyin and bend less towards trapping and more towards keeping pots small and only betting for value / making big laydowns if I must. I'll see how that goes.

why? anything less than maximizing your hand value in a specific hand will cause you to win less over time.

No. I don't buy into this. Look at the equation.Say it takes a minimum of 100 time units to amass 4X the buy-in. If you lose the entire amount, as you eventually will by committing all of your chips despite the odds, you lose that 100 units of time plus the buy-in. Given infinite time, I agree with you, but there is a time value on the money given finite time committed and finite buy-ins. As such, it is necessary to protect your time equity when you increase the multiple of the buy-ins in proportion to the time invested. At a certain point (I'm guessing 3X?) it's worth it to walk away and come back later with a single buy-in OR adjust our strategy to avoiding downside risk until you can take some cash out of play.

ok, i misunderstood what you were saying before and i see what you're getting at. but think of it this way: all that "time" is not wasted as it allowed you to get into a mathematically wonderful situation with a ton of cash in the pot. You were set to win like 2500 on the hand or whatever it was and were very favored to do so. You would not have had this opportunity without the time and risk value already used up, so it isn't wasted at all. on that note though, i am a firm believer in getting up after about 3X the buy-in (unless their is "drunk money" at the table) because i find I tend to play slightly looser with a big stack making my play not as profitable.

 

[Zow]

Ham: You made the right read on all accounts. Played perfect poker. I guess the general sentiment is that if you can't afford to lose what you put out you shouldn't play, but if you can the total amount/limit to be bet should have no bearing on your specific read in a hand. You made the right play and got a bad beat. "That's poker."

I played great poker, but didn't necessarily play well given the bankroll considerations. That's what I'm trying to adjust to. I am not inclined to over play jacks, by the way. I was SURE I was ahead. This guy was pretty heated and his bravado was directly proportionate to how marginal his hand was. He raised his hand and casually and cavalierly tossed his raise in, which ALWAYS meant he was speculating. If he had a hand, he'd square up and and pay attention to the action. I WISH everyone were that easy to read. This guy is easy when he's drunk and having fun. That said, putting 4X my buy-in at risk in one hand negates a lot of equity earned through hours of success. I think that warrants some kind of algorithmic curve were risk aversion increases in proportion to the multiple of the buyin. I think this is mathematically necessary to avoid losing that equity.

so you didn't overplay your hand. i'm not understanding your knee jerk hesitation to play big pots even though you know you're ahead and can maximize your hand value by betting it all. I guess if you can't afford to lose the 2100 you shouldn't even have it on the tabe period. But to alter otherwise good play and to play the hand differently/weaker simply because the right play requires putting a lot of chips in seems like a losing strategy.

I lost $500, which was within $50 of what I won the night before. This isn't about the money, it's about strategy. I think there's got to be a logrithmic relationship between time invested, multiple of buy-in earned and downside risk management to optimize profits. Otherwise, assuming there is always a crippling stack to clash with, you will eventually lose the value you amassed and the time. At a certain point, banking profits is essential to long-term strategy when you don't have unlimited time or buy-ins. I'm getting a sense of what I should do to adjust. Given the stack and circumstances, I think adjusting to Dr. J.'s suggestion makes sense, while playing "my way" makes sense below say 2X the buyin. You must protect that time equity.

This is a monster assumption and my take on this "time equity" theory of yours was discussed in my last post. Essentially if you make plays with a +EV your time equity is never wasted.

 

[DrJ]

Sorry Short Corner. What forum is that? I don't want to pollute the thread. I just lost $2,100 on a pot and am interested in Assani's thoughts on home many times your stack you should consider heading out or refusing to commit all your chips?

If you had just asked that, Short Corner wouldn't have made that post.Your post is a (very) thinly disguised bad beat thread.

Could have been a "look at me, I play high enough stakes I can lose $2100 on a hand" post...

I am within $50 of where I started three days ago. I'm just wondering where the tournament mentality and cash game mentality differ when it relates to stack size and multiples of buyins. My game is very good. Management of this issue consistently seems to work against me.

Well, look at it from a bankroll management standpoint. We'll say you're typically buying in at $500, so your roll would typically be 10K (buy in 5% of roll). That's pretty standard. When you've run it up to 2100, you now have 18% of your current bankroll sitting at that table. Yes - that's a pretty large percentage of your roll to risk on one hand.

So what would you recommend I do: Limit losses when I double the buy-in? Triple it? Avoid big confrontations? In the hand I described, knowing I was ahead, the last thing I wanted to do was just call and let him catch/not know if he caught if there's an overcard and check into an all-in. Or do I just call without any raising and hope to hit the flop? I guarantee I'm not doing that if I'm less than double my buy-in and I can get my money in.

Well, you also got 400 BB's into the pot preflop with J's. Doing that without AA or at least KK, you're kind of asking for this. Really, it's not all that great of a hand to try and limp reraise with. A better move would have been to raise it preflop rather than trying to be tricky. If he comes over the top, call it and play after the flop.

I agree with you here, but if Ham's read is as good as he described (if so, he's a hell of a lot better at reading a player than I am - I can never pick up stuff like this) he made the "right" play IMO. A just call with the best hand allows this guy to continuation bet with his "awe shucks" image and Ham is left sweating an over card.

Yes, and no. From an EV standpoint, it is the correct move. From a bankroll management standpoint, it might not be, in order to control variance. You get your entire stack in as a 70/30 favorite 2 times in a row, you have a 51% chance of losing all of your money. At some point, unless the amount you are buying in at is insignificant to you, have to consider the bankroll aspects of it. Let's say Ham hits this one and he doubles up. He now has $4200. Other dude is rich so he buys in again for 20K. Same cards come up again - should Ham risk the $4200 in the same situation? It comes up again - now Ham has $8400. Should he do it again? From an EV standpoint, yes. From a bankroll management standpoint, he's now risking almost half of his bankroll on a single hand. He's a pawn to variance. And odds are much better than not that this dude has now hit a K along the way.

 

[Zow]

Sorry Short Corner. What forum is that? I don't want to pollute the thread. I just lost $2,100 on a pot and am interested in Assani's thoughts on home many times your stack you should consider heading out or refusing to commit all your chips?

If you had just asked that, Short Corner wouldn't have made that post.Your post is a (very) thinly disguised bad beat thread.

Could have been a "look at me, I play high enough stakes I can lose $2100 on a hand" post...

I am within $50 of where I started three days ago. I'm just wondering where the tournament mentality and cash game mentality differ when it relates to stack size and multiples of buyins. My game is very good. Management of this issue consistently seems to work against me.

Well, look at it from a bankroll management standpoint. We'll say you're typically buying in at $500, so your roll would typically be 10K (buy in 5% of roll). That's pretty standard. When you've run it up to 2100, you now have 18% of your current bankroll sitting at that table. Yes - that's a pretty large percentage of your roll to risk on one hand.

So what would you recommend I do: Limit losses when I double the buy-in? Triple it? Avoid big confrontations? In the hand I described, knowing I was ahead, the last thing I wanted to do was just call and let him catch/not know if he caught if there's an overcard and check into an all-in. Or do I just call without any raising and hope to hit the flop? I guarantee I'm not doing that if I'm less than double my buy-in and I can get my money in.

Well, you also got 400 BB's into the pot preflop with J's. Doing that without AA or at least KK, you're kind of asking for this. Really, it's not all that great of a hand to try and limp reraise with. A better move would have been to raise it preflop rather than trying to be tricky. If he comes over the top, call it and play after the flop.

I agree with you here, but if Ham's read is as good as he described (if so, he's a hell of a lot better at reading a player than I am - I can never pick up stuff like this) he made the "right" play IMO. A just call with the best hand allows this guy to continuation bet with his "awe shucks" image and Ham is left sweating an over card.

Yes, and no. From an EV standpoint, it is the correct move. From a bankroll management standpoint, it might not be, in order to control variance. You get your entire stack in as a 70/30 favorite 2 times in a row, you have a 51% chance of losing all of your money. At some point, unless the amount you are buying in at is insignificant to you, have to consider the bankroll aspects of it. Let's say Ham hits this one and he doubles up. He now has $4200. Other dude is rich so he buys in again for 20K. Same cards come up again - should Ham risk the $4200 in the same situation? It comes up again - now Ham has $8400. Should he do it again? From an EV standpoint, yes. From a bankroll management standpoint, he's now risking almost half of his bankroll on a single hand. He's a pawn to variance.

Fair enough - but if he stays at the same stakes it is highly unlikely he'll have the same decision to make as >2000 stacks are not common at the table. But by your theory, Ham is still a 1:1 to quadruple his stack (assuming to 70 percent to win both times). Despite him risking his entire roll his EV there is sick - and that's what recreational/semi-regular poker is all about.

 

[Zow]

Ham: You made the right read on all accounts. Played perfect poker. I guess the general sentiment is that if you can't afford to lose what you put out you shouldn't play, but if you can the total amount/limit to be bet should have no bearing on your specific read in a hand. You made the right play and got a bad beat. "That's poker."

I played great poker, but didn't necessarily play well given the bankroll considerations. That's what I'm trying to adjust to. I am not inclined to over play jacks, by the way. I was SURE I was ahead. This guy was pretty heated and his bravado was directly proportionate to how marginal his hand was. He raised his hand and casually and cavalierly tossed his raise in, which ALWAYS meant he was speculating. If he had a hand, he'd square up and and pay attention to the action. I WISH everyone were that easy to read. This guy is easy when he's drunk and having fun. That said, putting 4X my buy-in at risk in one hand negates a lot of equity earned through hours of success. I think that warrants some kind of algorithmic curve were risk aversion increases in proportion to the multiple of the buyin. I think this is mathematically necessary to avoid losing that equity.

so you didn't overplay your hand. i'm not understanding your knee jerk hesitation to play big pots even though you know you're ahead and can maximize your hand value by betting it all. I guess if you can't afford to lose the 2100 you shouldn't even have it on the tabe period. But to alter otherwise good play and to play the hand differently/weaker simply because the right play requires putting a lot of chips in seems like a losing strategy.

I lost $500, which was within $50 of what I won the night before. This isn't about the money, it's about strategy. I think there's got to be a logrithmic relationship between time invested, multiple of buy-in earned and downside risk management to optimize profits. Otherwise, assuming there is always a crippling stack to clash with, you will eventually lose the value you amassed and the time. At a certain point, banking profits is essential to long-term strategy when you don't have unlimited time or buy-ins. I'm getting a sense of what I should do to adjust. Given the stack and circumstances, I think adjusting to Dr. J.'s suggestion makes sense, while playing "my way" makes sense below say 2X the buyin. You must protect that time equity.

This is a monster assumption and my take on this "time equity" theory of yours was discussed in my last post. Essentially if you make plays with a +EV your time equity is never wasted.

How can that be? If you go back to 0 and lose 1 time unit, that's less value lost than if you go back to 0 and lose 1000 time units. There is a time value on money.

Right - and this value has been realized by your opportunity to be a 70 percent favorite to win 2000+. Without your prior play you wouldn't have had this valued opportunity. Your time isn't lost. Think of it as you are writing your screen play. If you figure you spend 300 hours on it you figure you have a 100 percent chance to sell it for say 100,000. But if you spend 1000 hours on it you have a 70 percent chance to win 1,000,000. Even if you don't get the screen play, those 700 extra hours were not wasted or lost in time - they increased your overall EV.

 

[DrJ]

Sorry Short Corner. What forum is that? I don't want to pollute the thread. I just lost $2,100 on a pot and am interested in Assani's thoughts on home many times your stack you should consider heading out or refusing to commit all your chips?

If you had just asked that, Short Corner wouldn't have made that post.Your post is a (very) thinly disguised bad beat thread.

Could have been a "look at me, I play high enough stakes I can lose $2100 on a hand" post...

I am within $50 of where I started three days ago. I'm just wondering where the tournament mentality and cash game mentality differ when it relates to stack size and multiples of buyins. My game is very good. Management of this issue consistently seems to work against me.

Well, look at it from a bankroll management standpoint. We'll say you're typically buying in at $500, so your roll would typically be 10K (buy in 5% of roll). That's pretty standard. When you've run it up to 2100, you now have 18% of your current bankroll sitting at that table. Yes - that's a pretty large percentage of your roll to risk on one hand.

So what would you recommend I do: Limit losses when I double the buy-in? Triple it? Avoid big confrontations? In the hand I described, knowing I was ahead, the last thing I wanted to do was just call and let him catch/not know if he caught if there's an overcard and check into an all-in. Or do I just call without any raising and hope to hit the flop? I guarantee I'm not doing that if I'm less than double my buy-in and I can get my money in.

Well, you also got 400 BB's into the pot preflop with J's. Doing that without AA or at least KK, you're kind of asking for this. Really, it's not all that great of a hand to try and limp reraise with. A better move would have been to raise it preflop rather than trying to be tricky. If he comes over the top, call it and play after the flop.

I agree with you here, but if Ham's read is as good as he described (if so, he's a hell of a lot better at reading a player than I am - I can never pick up stuff like this) he made the "right" play IMO. A just call with the best hand allows this guy to continuation bet with his "awe shucks" image and Ham is left sweating an over card.

Yes, and no. From an EV standpoint, it is the correct move. From a bankroll management standpoint, it might not be, in order to control variance. You get your entire stack in as a 70/30 favorite 2 times in a row, you have a 51% chance of losing all of your money. At some point, unless the amount you are buying in at is insignificant to you, have to consider the bankroll aspects of it. Let's say Ham hits this one and he doubles up. He now has $4200. Other dude is rich so he buys in again for 20K. Same cards come up again - should Ham risk the $4200 in the same situation? It comes up again - now Ham has $8400. Should he do it again? From an EV standpoint, yes. From a bankroll management standpoint, he's now risking almost half of his bankroll on a single hand. He's a pawn to variance.

Fair enough - but if he stays at the same stakes it is highly unlikely he'll have the same decision to make as >2000 stacks are not common at the table. But by your theory, Ham is still a 1:1 to quadruple his stack (assuming to 70 percent to win both times). Despite him risking his entire roll his EV there is sick - and that's what recreational/semi-regular poker is all about.

Well, let's say that Ham has spent a year running up his bankroll. He now has 100K. Someone offers him a bet - he gets JJ and the other guy gets 2 random cards, they're playing for his entire roll. That's better EV than this situation - should he take it? If losing your 100K and year of time don't bother you, and you say you could just grind back up if you have to, go for it. It all depends on how risk averse you are.I believe Doyle Brunson has stated that he would put his entire roll at risk preflop with AA because he feels he could win it back again. Many players wouldn't, despite the massive EV simply because of variance. There isn't necessarily a right answer - it all comes down to how averse you are to risk.

 

[Zow]

[Well, let's say that Ham has spent a year running up his bankroll. He now has 100K. Someone offers him a bet - he gets JJ and the other guy gets 2 random cards, they're playing for his entire roll. That's better EV than this situation - should he take it? If losing your 100K and year of time don't bother you, and you say you could just grind back up if you have to, go for it. It all depends on how risk averse you are.I believe Doyle Brunson has stated that he would put his entire roll at risk preflop with AA because he feels he could win it back again. Many players wouldn't, despite the massive EV simply because of variance. There isn't necessarily a right answer - it all comes down to how averse you are to risk.

Exactly, and I guess I was assuming Ham is a risk-neutral person. I like to think that I am (at least as a poker player) and therefore if you told me I had to play poker very well for 100 hours and doing so would net me either 5,000 or a 50% chance at 15,000 - I'd take the chance and wouldn't consider those 100 hours of play lost equity. Not that I wouldn't be bothered by it, in fact I'd be pissed as hell initially, but isn't the overall point of poker to maximize profits? If so, then risk-neutral is going to ALWAYS give you the best +EV so I don't see a point in considering playing another way. We aren't gambling with livelihoods or lives here as recreational players.

 

[Zow]

Great insight Dr. J. I feel like if I apply some kind of consistent formula to this aspect of my game, I can increase profits by several hundred percent without having to rely on the big score. Spreading the variance out is more in line with my goals. I really want to drain that mother ####er who won that luck pot one game at a time -- thousands of dollars over weeks and months like a leech attached to his nuts that makes him anemic. That's more fun to me than hitting that one big hand.

but by ignoring a maximized EV math says you won't

 

[bostonfred]

I've struggled with this as well. I think there are two problems here. First, AA is not a good enough hand to commit your entire stack with postflop, even if there is no pair on the board. It's a classic example of falling in love with a one pair hand. The second isn't so much about your bankroll, although if you're even talking about losing 2100 here as some kind of big deal, then you're playing at a level that is too high for your bankroll. The problem is that a few beats like this will make you play scared, or in this case get greedy for a $4200 pot is going to make you make a loose play. I think you suffer from the same problem a lot of middle tier poker players have, which is that you can't take 1/2 seriously, but you start to get nervous at 2/5 or 5/10 stakes once you've doubled or quadrupled up. If that's the case, I think it's resonable to play 2/5, but you need to walk away from the table when you quadruple up like this until you get to the point that a beat like this doesn't phase you. And that's going to take a legitimate bankroll, not just you saying, well, I can afford to rebuy if I have to.

I've walked away from a great session as a loser on several occasions, and it feels terrible. You play great all day, then one hand later, you lose a huge hand on a bad beat and all that work is wasted. On the one hand, you feel like you've been screwed by variance. And you can even show why he made a terrible call with J2 preflop, or why he got lucky when he put all his chips in postflop with the second best hand then caught runner runner to beat you. But the problem might be that, in the long run, you're playing a style of poker that can be beat. You might only play for stacks with the nuts, but play too many hands preflop. So you throw away $25 again and again, calling raises with junk hands in the hopes of stacking your opponent. It works all day, until you catch one bad beat, and then you blame variance. But in reality, what happened was that you won precisely as many hands as you were supposed to, and lost with the nuts precisely as often as you were supposed to. Every penny you lost was because of loose preflop calls or other mistakes. Or you might play super tight, but overcommit with AA postflop against an opponent who would play J2 for a substantial raise. This was actually a pretty standard hand, and exactly the kind of hand that I want to hit against a tight opponent if I play a junky hand.

In your case, I think the problem with your style is that you don't adjust your game enough for deep stack poker. You're too willing to commit with weaker hands. You committed your entire stack to what you had to assume was a coinflip based on your read. If I had to guess, this kind of confrontation helped you get to your 2100 in the first place, and it was inevitable that you were going to lose one of these eventually for your whole stack.

 

[Zow]

[Well, let's say that Ham has spent a year running up his bankroll. He now has 100K. Someone offers him a bet - he gets JJ and the other guy gets 2 random cards, they're playing for his entire roll. That's better EV than this situation - should he take it? If losing your 100K and year of time don't bother you, and you say you could just grind back up if you have to, go for it. It all depends on how risk averse you are.I believe Doyle Brunson has stated that he would put his entire roll at risk preflop with AA because he feels he could win it back again. Many players wouldn't, despite the massive EV simply because of variance. There isn't necessarily a right answer - it all comes down to how averse you are to risk.

Exactly, and I guess I was assuming Ham is a risk-neutral person. I like to think that I am (at least as a poker player) and therefore if you told me I had to play poker very well for 100 hours and doing so would net me either 5,000 or a 50% chance at 15,000 - I'd take the chance and wouldn't consider those 100 hours of play lost equity.

I have a total killer instinct. I'm a go for the jugular kind of guy. I want to drain you to the felt on each hand if I can. I felted at least eight players last night. Several left. I think it's part of what lent to the slow boil of what made the guy resent me and want to bust me. But I have to be smarter than allowing it to all get away on one hand. I want to take away as much power from inferior players as possible.

but in theoretical finite math terms you didn't let it all get away - odds have an inherent absolute monetary value

 

[Alias]

I ♥ 2Jo

 

[Alias]

I ♥ 2Jo

It was sooted. Diamonds. It was the most head shaking hand I've hand in some time. I respect calling junk if you suspect strength. This guy was not good. The fact he didn't autocall my all in and literally stewed for a full minute "putting me" on A-2 or QQ with a Q-2-2 board really threw me. He legitimately didn't know where he stood and after about five minutes when he called he seemed shocked that his 2 was good. It was pretty staggering. I figured after a minute of sincere contemplation he'd have called if he could beat me, so I started lobbying for a call with QX or a flush draw. Little did I know. Everyone else at the table, including me, had a head scratching moment when he turned over that hand.

:( read my post again (out loud)

 

[bostonfred]

I ♥ 2Jo

It was sooted. Diamonds. It was the most head shaking hand I've hand in some time. I respect calling junk if you suspect strength. This guy was not good. The fact he didn't autocall my all in and literally stewed for a full minute "putting me" on A-2 or QQ with a Q-2-2 board really threw me. He legitimately didn't know where he stood and after about five minutes when he called he seemed shocked that his 2 was good. It was pretty staggering. I figured after a minute of sincere contemplation he'd have called if he could beat me, so I started lobbying for a call with QX or a flush draw. Little did I know. Everyone else at the table, including me, had a head scratching moment when he turned over that hand.

Seeing him flip J2 shouldn't be surprising at all in deep stack poker. He was getting implied odds of 84 to 1 on his preflop call, because you were willing to stack off with AA unimproved. You should be taking advantage of his loose play by raising bigger preflop and playing more conservatively postflop once you have a deep stack. You should also realize that hands like AA and KK don't play well at all when you have over 400 BB, and JJ plays absolutely terribly

 

[DrJ]

I ♥ 2Jo

It was sooted. Diamonds. It was the most head shaking hand I've hand in some time. I respect calling junk if you suspect strength. This guy was not good. The fact he didn't autocall my all in and literally stewed for a full minute "putting me" on A-2 or QQ with a Q-2-2 board really threw me. He legitimately didn't know where he stood and after about five minutes when he called he seemed shocked that his 2 was good. It was pretty staggering. I figured after a minute of sincere contemplation he'd have called if he could beat me, so I started lobbying for a call with QX or a flush draw. Little did I know. Everyone else at the table, including me, had a head scratching moment when he turned over that hand.

Seeing him flip J2 shouldn't be surprising at all in deep stack poker. He was getting implied odds of 84 to 1 on his preflop call, because you were willing to stack off with AA unimproved. You should be taking advantage of his loose play by raising bigger preflop and playing more conservatively postflop once you have a deep stack. You should also realize that hands like AA and KK don't play well at all when you have over 400 BB, and JJ plays absolutely terribly

Hand in question he raised to $20 preflop and villain seems to have about $400 in front of him. Not really deep stacks at that point, and villain only getting about 20:1 implied on a crappy J2. It was definitely poor play.

 

[bostonfred]

I ♥ 2Jo

It was sooted. Diamonds. It was the most head shaking hand I've hand in some time. I respect calling junk if you suspect strength. This guy was not good. The fact he didn't autocall my all in and literally stewed for a full minute "putting me" on A-2 or QQ with a Q-2-2 board really threw me. He legitimately didn't know where he stood and after about five minutes when he called he seemed shocked that his 2 was good. It was pretty staggering. I figured after a minute of sincere contemplation he'd have called if he could beat me, so I started lobbying for a call with QX or a flush draw. Little did I know. Everyone else at the table, including me, had a head scratching moment when he turned over that hand.

Seeing him flip J2 shouldn't be surprising at all in deep stack poker. He was getting implied odds of 84 to 1 on his preflop call, because you were willing to stack off with AA unimproved. You should be taking advantage of his loose play by raising bigger preflop and playing more conservatively postflop once you have a deep stack. You should also realize that hands like AA and KK don't play well at all when you have over 400 BB, and JJ plays absolutely terribly

Hand in question he raised to $20 preflop and villain seems to have about $400 in front of him. Not really deep stacks at that point, and villain only getting about 20:1 implied on a crappy J2. It was definitely poor play.

Of course it is. Although he certainly had better than a 5% chance of beating Ham, even if Ham had aces. But the real question is, do you think players do this often enough that Ham made a mistake shoving all in postflop?

 

[DrJ]

I ♥ 2Jo

It was sooted. Diamonds. It was the most head shaking hand I've hand in some time. I respect calling junk if you suspect strength. This guy was not good. The fact he didn't autocall my all in and literally stewed for a full minute "putting me" on A-2 or QQ with a Q-2-2 board really threw me. He legitimately didn't know where he stood and after about five minutes when he called he seemed shocked that his 2 was good. It was pretty staggering. I figured after a minute of sincere contemplation he'd have called if he could beat me, so I started lobbying for a call with QX or a flush draw. Little did I know. Everyone else at the table, including me, had a head scratching moment when he turned over that hand.

Seeing him flip J2 shouldn't be surprising at all in deep stack poker. He was getting implied odds of 84 to 1 on his preflop call, because you were willing to stack off with AA unimproved. You should be taking advantage of his loose play by raising bigger preflop and playing more conservatively postflop once you have a deep stack. You should also realize that hands like AA and KK don't play well at all when you have over 400 BB, and JJ plays absolutely terribly

Hand in question he raised to $20 preflop and villain seems to have about $400 in front of him. Not really deep stacks at that point, and villain only getting about 20:1 implied on a crappy J2. It was definitely poor play.

Of course it is. Although he certainly had better than a 5% chance of beating Ham, even if Ham had aces. But the real question is, do you think players do this often enough that Ham made a mistake shoving all in postflop?

I think the question is what is this particular player's range for making that raise - I think this includes just about any Q and will have a Q far more often than a 2. Probably will be a flush draw more often than a 2 as well, which is what Ham put him as most likely having. I also think with this type of villain, he will call this bet behind quite a bit. And yes he's more than a 5% chance to beat Ham, but he can't possibly believe that Ham is going to stack off every time he gets a Q22 flop. There will be plenty of times where he gets this flop and takes down little more than the preflop action. Not a lot of justification for playing that hand against preflop raises with that short of a stack.At the initial $500 buy in his aggressive pushing of premiums isn't an issue. It really isn't true deepstack play quite yet, and he isn't giving that great of implied odds against drawing hands. Once he doubles and hits 200BB territory, that's when he needs to start adjusting.

 

[bostonfred]

I ♥ 2Jo

It was sooted. Diamonds. It was the most head shaking hand I've hand in some time. I respect calling junk if you suspect strength. This guy was not good. The fact he didn't autocall my all in and literally stewed for a full minute "putting me" on A-2 or QQ with a Q-2-2 board really threw me. He legitimately didn't know where he stood and after about five minutes when he called he seemed shocked that his 2 was good. It was pretty staggering. I figured after a minute of sincere contemplation he'd have called if he could beat me, so I started lobbying for a call with QX or a flush draw. Little did I know. Everyone else at the table, including me, had a head scratching moment when he turned over that hand.

Seeing him flip J2 shouldn't be surprising at all in deep stack poker. He was getting implied odds of 84 to 1 on his preflop call, because you were willing to stack off with AA unimproved. You should be taking advantage of his loose play by raising bigger preflop and playing more conservatively postflop once you have a deep stack. You should also realize that hands like AA and KK don't play well at all when you have over 400 BB, and JJ plays absolutely terribly

Hand in question he raised to $20 preflop and villain seems to have about $400 in front of him. Not really deep stacks at that point, and villain only getting about 20:1 implied on a crappy J2. It was definitely poor play.

Of course it is. Although he certainly had better than a 5% chance of beating Ham, even if Ham had aces. But the real question is, do you think players do this often enough that Ham made a mistake shoving all in postflop?

I think the question is what is this particular player's range for making that raise - I think this includes just about any Q and will have a Q far more often than a 2. Probably will be a flush draw more often than a 2 as well, which is what Ham put him as most likely having. I also think with this type of villain, he will call this bet behind quite a bit. And yes he's more than a 5% chance to beat Ham, but he can't possibly believe that Ham is going to stack off every time he gets a Q22 flop. There will be plenty of times where he gets this flop and takes down little more than the preflop action. Not a lot of justification for playing that hand against preflop raises with that short of a stack.

2/5 and 5/10 players rarely commit postflop with top pair and less than an ace kicker. Even TPTK is fairly rare, although TPTK may shove first. This guy may have made a loose call preflop, but he was correct that Ham made an even looser play postflop by shoving with a hand that only gets called by a deuce or better.

 

[DrJ]

I ♥ 2Jo

It was sooted. Diamonds. It was the most head shaking hand I've hand in some time. I respect calling junk if you suspect strength. This guy was not good. The fact he didn't autocall my all in and literally stewed for a full minute "putting me" on A-2 or QQ with a Q-2-2 board really threw me. He legitimately didn't know where he stood and after about five minutes when he called he seemed shocked that his 2 was good. It was pretty staggering. I figured after a minute of sincere contemplation he'd have called if he could beat me, so I started lobbying for a call with QX or a flush draw. Little did I know. Everyone else at the table, including me, had a head scratching moment when he turned over that hand.

Seeing him flip J2 shouldn't be surprising at all in deep stack poker. He was getting implied odds of 84 to 1 on his preflop call, because you were willing to stack off with AA unimproved. You should be taking advantage of his loose play by raising bigger preflop and playing more conservatively postflop once you have a deep stack. You should also realize that hands like AA and KK don't play well at all when you have over 400 BB, and JJ plays absolutely terribly

Hand in question he raised to $20 preflop and villain seems to have about $400 in front of him. Not really deep stacks at that point, and villain only getting about 20:1 implied on a crappy J2. It was definitely poor play.

Of course it is. Although he certainly had better than a 5% chance of beating Ham, even if Ham had aces. But the real question is, do you think players do this often enough that Ham made a mistake shoving all in postflop?

I think the question is what is this particular player's range for making that raise - I think this includes just about any Q and will have a Q far more often than a 2. Probably will be a flush draw more often than a 2 as well, which is what Ham put him as most likely having. I also think with this type of villain, he will call this bet behind quite a bit. And yes he's more than a 5% chance to beat Ham, but he can't possibly believe that Ham is going to stack off every time he gets a Q22 flop. There will be plenty of times where he gets this flop and takes down little more than the preflop action. Not a lot of justification for playing that hand against preflop raises with that short of a stack.

2/5 and 5/10 players rarely commit postflop with top pair and less than an ace kicker. Even TPTK is fairly rare, although TPTK may shove first. This guy may have made a loose call preflop, but he was correct that Ham made an even looser play postflop by shoving with a hand that only gets called by a deuce or better.

His read on this guy is that he's been showing down a ton of marginal hands and playing badly overall.

 

[bostonfred]

And yes he's more than a 5% chance to beat Ham, but he can't possibly believe that Ham is going to stack off every time he gets a Q22 flop. There will be plenty of times where he gets this flop and takes down little more than the preflop action. Not a lot of justification for playing that hand against preflop raises with that short of a stack.At the initial $500 buy in his aggressive pushing of premiums isn't an issue. It really isn't true deepstack play quite yet. Once he doubles and hits 200BB territory, that's when he needs to start adjusting.

I'm not defending the villain's play. I'm saying that the villain's play is common. Loose players tend to play junk for bigger raises than they should. They're loose for small bets preflop, but relatively tight for big bets postflop. I agree that Ham's play on the AA hand isn't a deepstack issue for him. But I bet the loose player perceives it as a stack level decision and won't commit here with KQ. Ham's only getting called by a deuce or better when he reraises all in, but he may get more money from a queen if he smooth calls the minraise postflop. Shoving was a mistake unless he had some reason to make a very specific read.

 

[DrJ]

And yes he's more than a 5% chance to beat Ham, but he can't possibly believe that Ham is going to stack off every time he gets a Q22 flop. There will be plenty of times where he gets this flop and takes down little more than the preflop action. Not a lot of justification for playing that hand against preflop raises with that short of a stack.At the initial $500 buy in his aggressive pushing of premiums isn't an issue. It really isn't true deepstack play quite yet. Once he doubles and hits 200BB territory, that's when he needs to start adjusting.

I'm not defending the villain's play. I'm saying that the villain's play is common. Loose players tend to play junk for bigger raises than they should. They're loose for small bets preflop, but relatively tight for big bets postflop. I agree that Ham's play on the AA hand isn't a deepstack issue for him. But I bet the loose player perceives it as a stack level decision and won't commit here with KQ. Ham's only getting called by a deuce or better when he reraises all in, but he may get more money from a queen if he smooth calls the minraise postflop. Shoving was a mistake unless he had some reason to make a very specific read.

Yeah, I can see your point.

 

[Short Corner]

In your case, I think the problem with your style is that you don't adjust your game enough for deep stack poker.

I have this same problem BTW.

 

[Ned]

wow, reply #8000 here.

 

[bostonfred]

In your case, I think the problem with your style is that you don't adjust your game enough for deep stack poker.

:X I have this same problem BTW.

This is probably the single biggest area where good NL poker players make their profit off of weaker players. Go back through this thread and reread how many times Assani talks about making the big fold in a deep stacked cash game. Then look at him calling off his entire stack with JJ on a Q high board in a tournament when he's short stacked. RFW's biggest pieces of advice are that he'll gladly pay you in nickels if you always pay him in dollars, and that you should always be looking for the bet size that makes each of your opponents uncomfortable. The book Professional No Limit Holdem is entirely about managing the ratio between your stack size and the pot size and making sure you don't get committed with subpar hands. This is an especially big deal with players who have recently moved up a level. When a player who normally plays 1/2 sits down in a 2/5 game, watch to see how often he goes all in. A lot of time, loose players will splash around with too many little bets early in a hand, but they'll pucker up when you present them with a stack level decision because they're not used to playing for such large amounts. The calling stations will still commit with KQ on a Q22 board, but you have to ease them into it, unlike Ham shoving his chips in with AA hoping for a call. You can punish the set miners by raising bigger preflop. Preflop raises of 7BB or more are common in big bet poker. You can punish the TAGs by playing back at them postflop.

 

[Zow]

Well Ham we had that convo last night and sure enough it comes back to "bite" me

Playing in a loose but passive 1-2 game. Lot of multi-way action even to the river. Unfortunately I was pretty much card-dead the entire time and after 4 hours I was still sitting at about my buy-in (400). Caught KK two off the button. Second position led out for 15 (standard table raise). One caller to my right and I raised it to 40. Folded to button who then goes all in for 275. Original raiser and caller fold to me. My read on the guy, who apparently had been sitting there for 16 plus hours, was that he overplayed hands. They also had an aces cracked promo (shouldn't be a thought in a NL game) but the game seem liked the type to consider it. I was about 95 percent sure he didn't have AA. I thought for two minutes, recalling our exact convo from last night - it was a relatively huge call for me and I felt pretty comfortable that with a healthy stack I could still have a profitable night with a ay down. Nonetheless my EV on the hand was 440+ and it only cost me 275. That's a winning call. I called and he showed JJ.

Of course, the guy spikes a J on the turn to beat me.

 

[DrJ]

In your case, I think the problem with your style is that you don't adjust your game enough for deep stack poker.

I have this same problem BTW.

This is probably the single biggest area where good NL poker players make their profit off of weaker players. Go back through this thread and reread how many times Assani talks about making the big fold in a deep stacked cash game. Then look at him calling off his entire stack with JJ on a Q high board in a tournament when he's short stacked. RFW's biggest pieces of advice are that he'll gladly pay you in nickels if you always pay him in dollars, and that you should always be looking for the bet size that makes each of your opponents uncomfortable. The book Professional No Limit Holdem is entirely about managing the ratio between your stack size and the pot size and making sure you don't get committed with subpar hands. This is an especially big deal with players who have recently moved up a level. When a player who normally plays 1/2 sits down in a 2/5 game, watch to see how often he goes all in. A lot of time, loose players will splash around with too many little bets early in a hand, but they'll pucker up when you present them with a stack level decision because they're not used to playing for such large amounts. The calling stations will still commit with KQ on a Q22 board, but you have to ease them into it, unlike Ham shoving his chips in with AA hoping for a call. You can punish the set miners by raising bigger preflop. Preflop raises of 7BB or more are common in big bet poker. You can punish the TAGs by playing back at them postflop.

Harrington's new books - Harrington on Cash Games are pretty solid as well.