Re: Beating the Fish Online

[MILESFNW]

<< The damn swings are killing me at the $1/$2 on Party Poker. Every time I
had a big pair, too many people would call and I'd get sucked out on. KK,
lost to A4c on the turn (Js 8h 6c Ah 7s), preflop was three-bet. QQ lost
to a runner-runner straight (5h 6d) after flopping a set (7h 5c Qh 8d 4c).
On the day, 0-3 with QQ, 0-2 with KK, and 0-2 with TT. I'm thinking
about sticking to B&M in the Bay Area. What does everyone else suggest?>>

I suggest changing your strategy. Your QQs, KKs and TTs don't have as much
value in the games you're describing, where everyone is seeing the flop with
anything. If you can't eliminate the field with those cards, slow down with
them unless you flop a set, in which case ram and jam. Play more suited
connectors and the like, and when you hit your big hands, bet like a man
posessed.

Milesfnw

[Craig Franck]

"Paul Phillips" <rgp-10@improving.org> wrote

> MILESFNW <milesfnw@aol.com> wrote:
> >I suggest changing your strategy. Your QQs, KKs and TTs don't have as much
> >value in the games you're describing, where everyone is seeing the flop with
> >anything. If you can't eliminate the field with those cards, slow down with
> >them unless you flop a set, in which case ram and jam. Play more suited
> >connectors and the like, and when you hit your big hands, bet like a man
> >posessed.
>
> No offense, but this is terrible advice. Your KKs and QQs have far
> more value in a game where everyone is calling raises and seeing the flop
> with you than they do in a tight game. You won't win the pot as often,
> obviously, but you will win much more when you do win.

But the OP was looking for ways to limit his swings. The advice
that was given was correct for that. Pushing small advantages to
the limit is what you do when you don't care about swings. I
believe Sklansky said one reason good pros bust out more
frequently than their lesser peers is because of this effect.

> The strategy adjustment you are proposing is "put less money in the pot
> when you have the best hand." This should be intuitively false.

It is intuitively false, but it's often the best strategy.

First of all, the value of any hand except aces goes down with
each additional raise someone makes. So if you put in the first
raise, and it comes back to you capped, the odds of you having
the best hand come the flop goes way down (which is the only
way to think about it unless you can win it right there).

Also, if you want to limit your swings in LL games with loose
players, I would suggest not re-raising with big pairs for two
reasons. 1) You won't limit the field 2) You make staying in
to the end more correct because they are getting better odds.

You also have it backwards about big pairs being worth "far
more" in loose rather than tight games. When a lot of people
are playing until the end, drawing hands go up in value.
Drawing to a nut flush or straight in a big field is going to be
more profitable than jacking up the pot preflop and hoping
your queens don't get crushed again.

--
Craig Franck
craig.franck@verizon.net
Cortland, NY

[SFGreenDay]

> > >I suggest changing your strategy. Your QQs, KKs and TTs don't have as much
> > >value in the games you're describing, where everyone is seeing the flop
with
> > >anything. If you can't eliminate the field with those cards, slow down
with
> > >them unless you flop a set, in which case ram and jam. Play more suited
> > >connectors and the like, and when you hit your big hands, bet like a man
> > >posessed.
> >
> > No offense, but this is terrible advice. Your KKs and QQs have far
> > more value in a game where everyone is calling raises and seeing the flop
> > with you than they do in a tight game. You won't win the pot as often,
> > obviously, but you will win much more when you do win.
>
> But the OP was looking for ways to limit his swings. The advice
> that was given was correct for that. Pushing small advantages to
> the limit is what you do when you don't care about swings. I
> believe Sklansky said one reason good pros bust out more
> frequently than their lesser peers is because of this effect.
>
> > The strategy adjustment you are proposing is "put less money in the pot
> > when you have the best hand." This should be intuitively false.
>
> It is intuitively false, but it's often the best strategy.
>
> First of all, the value of any hand except aces goes down with
> each additional raise someone makes. So if you put in the first
> raise, and it comes back to you capped, the odds of you having
> the best hand come the flop goes way down (which is the only
> way to think about it unless you can win it right there).
>
> Also, if you want to limit your swings in LL games with loose
> players, I would suggest not re-raising with big pairs for two
> reasons. 1) You won't limit the field 2) You make staying in
> to the end more correct because they are getting better odds.
>
> You also have it backwards about big pairs being worth "far
> more" in loose rather than tight games. When a lot of people
> are playing until the end, drawing hands go up in value.
> Drawing to a nut flush or straight in a big field is going to be
> more profitable than jacking up the pot preflop and hoping
> your queens don't get crushed again.
>

I was betting hard on all of these hands, until I knew I was beaten. But
the field was so passive. In the QQ hand described, I was UTG+1 and
raised, getting 3 cold callers and the BB. BB checked to me on the flop,
I bet, got three callers. Same thing on turn. BB bets his straight on
the turn, I call, one guy folds, the other calls (he flopped a set of 5s).

Same deal with KK, bet hard till the ace fell, checked, called on river.

I flopped another set of queens earlier and was busted on a flush draw in
a potlimit tourney. Why don't people fold?

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[Mike]

On Aug 2 2003 3:45PM, Craig Franck wrote:

> But the OP was looking for ways to limit his swings. The advice
> that was given was correct for that. Pushing small advantages to
> the limit is what you do when you don't care about swings. I
> believe Sklansky said one reason good pros bust out more
> frequently than their lesser peers is because of this effect.

Jamming it up preflop with big pairs should not be viewed as "pushing
small advantages."

> > The strategy adjustment you are proposing is "put less money in the pot
> > when you have the best hand." This should be intuitively false.
>
> It is intuitively false, but it's often the best strategy.
>
> First of all, the value of any hand except aces goes down with
> each additional raise someone makes. So if you put in the first
> raise, and it comes back to you capped, the odds of you having
> the best hand come the flop goes way down (which is the only
> way to think about it unless you can win it right there).

Your definition of "value" is different from Paul's, as well as mine.

> Also, if you want to limit your swings in LL games with loose
> players, I would suggest not re-raising with big pairs for two
> reasons. 1) You won't limit the field 2) You make staying in
> to the end more correct because they are getting better odds.

Do you have evidence for this claim? Such as Turbo sims?

Regards,
Mike

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[Mike]

On Aug 2 2003 11:36PM, SFGreenDay wrote:

> I flopped another set of queens earlier and was busted on a flush draw in
> a potlimit tourney. Why don't people fold?

Most don't have the discipline to fold. Folding is too boring for them.
They came to play, not to fold.

Regards,
Mike

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[Scott Crabtree]

> I flopped another set of queens earlier and was busted on a flush draw in
> a potlimit tourney. Why don't people fold?

"Ours is not to wonder why..." but to suck it up and deal with it.

So they don't fold. You can't change that. Accept it and use it to your
advantage. You fold. Then fold again. And fold some more, ad nauseum, if
that's what it takes. Then when your monster hits, play it to the hilt, and
note who's at the table... you may find them folding the next time you're in
a hand.

As to that last example, I'm not a tourney expert, but don't you have to
treat tournament play quite differently than ring table play. Won't many
good tourney players call hands to a draw that they'd fold in a heartbeat in
ring play?

Which makes me think of another question worth asking: Could it be that you
are exhibiting that which so annoys you in others? Maybe some other skilled
player at the table is look at you and saying, "I can't believe some of the
hands this guy is playing with?"

I find that online, I'm more tempted to "action play" rather than smart
play, simply because the online game has less external mental stimulation to
occupy me when I'm out of a hand. No real conversation, cute cocktail
waitresses, jackpot announcements, or tell studies of the others at the
table.

Just those blinking lights and beeps. Enough to put me to sleep. So I make
sure I am doing something else when online to overcome the boredom and
resultant impulsive behavior, even reading a book a la TJ Cloutier.

[Aaron]

"Craig Franck" <craig.franck@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<bE_Wa.4184$Wt.36@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>...

> But the OP was looking for ways to limit his swings. The advice

In a B&M if you can't beat the fish with
your cards you can beat them with a baseball
bat. Online poker limits your swings.

[SFGreenDay]

> So they don't fold. You can't change that. Accept it and use it to your
> advantage. You fold. Then fold again. And fold some more, ad nauseum, if
> that's what it takes. Then when your monster hits, play it to the hilt, and
> note who's at the table... you may find them folding the next time you're in
> a hand.

Flopping a set of Queens isn't a monster? I had been folding, and
folding, and folding.

>
> As to that last example, I'm not a tourney expert, but don't you have to
> treat tournament play quite differently than ring table play. Won't many
> good tourney players call hands to a draw that they'd fold in a heartbeat in
> ring play?

I made a pot-sized bet after the flop, which was about half my stack,
which was average-sized. I was raised the pot by the flush draw and I
called, making me all-in.

>
> Which makes me think of another question worth asking: Could it be that you
> are exhibiting that which so annoys you in others? Maybe some other skilled
> player at the table is look at you and saying, "I can't believe some of the
> hands this guy is playing with?"

Maybe someone who only plays AA, KK, QQ, and AKs is playing fewer hands
than me at $1/$2 on Party. I stick to Sklansky's group 1-4 hands, plus
Axs, KJ, QJ, and pairs down to 55, as a general rule. I get to play junk
hands 10% of the time, because I get to see the flop for free in the BB
almost always.

>
> I find that online, I'm more tempted to "action play" rather than smart
> play, simply because the online game has less external mental stimulation to
> occupy me when I'm out of a hand. No real conversation, cute cocktail
> waitresses, jackpot announcements, or tell studies of the others at the
> table.
>
> Just those blinking lights and beeps. Enough to put me to sleep. So I make
> sure I am doing something else when online to overcome the boredom and
> resultant impulsive behavior, even reading a book a la TJ Cloutier.

I do keep busy. Sometimes I read RGP. I talk to friends on IM.

I just have noticed that when I get big pairs for hole cards, they rarely
hold up. I busted out of a session after buying in for 25 big bets,
because of the suck outs. I know that I'll win in the long run with the
way I'm playing with them, but as a poor grad student, I can't afford to
swing much lower (like busting out for $50).

I've heard that $1/$2 on Pokerstars is much more normal than Party. Can
anyone vouch for that?

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[ChowYuenFatt]

Was this in a full/max6 table?
If u're thinkin of moving-up the limits to avoid these stupid plays (max6
tables)...think again.
But I guess u can see a difference in a full table.



On Aug 3 2003 11:36AM, SFGreenDay wrote:

> > > >I suggest changing your strategy. Your QQs, KKs and TTs don't have as
much
> > > >value in the games you're describing, where everyone is seeing the flop
> with
> > > >anything. If you can't eliminate the field with those cards, slow down
> with
> > > >them unless you flop a set, in which case ram and jam. Play more suited
> > > >connectors and the like, and when you hit your big hands, bet like a man
> > > >posessed.
> > >
> > > No offense, but this is terrible advice. Your KKs and QQs have far
> > > more value in a game where everyone is calling raises and seeing the flop
> > > with you than they do in a tight game. You won't win the pot as often,
> > > obviously, but you will win much more when you do win.
> >
> > But the OP was looking for ways to limit his swings. The advice
> > that was given was correct for that. Pushing small advantages to
> > the limit is what you do when you don't care about swings. I
> > believe Sklansky said one reason good pros bust out more
> > frequently than their lesser peers is because of this effect.
> >
> > > The strategy adjustment you are proposing is "put less money in the pot
> > > when you have the best hand." This should be intuitively false.
> >
> > It is intuitively false, but it's often the best strategy.
> >
> > First of all, the value of any hand except aces goes down with
> > each additional raise someone makes. So if you put in the first
> > raise, and it comes back to you capped, the odds of you having
> > the best hand come the flop goes way down (which is the only
> > way to think about it unless you can win it right there).
> >
> > Also, if you want to limit your swings in LL games with loose
> > players, I would suggest not re-raising with big pairs for two
> > reasons. 1) You won't limit the field 2) You make staying in
> > to the end more correct because they are getting better odds.
> >
> > You also have it backwards about big pairs being worth "far
> > more" in loose rather than tight games. When a lot of people
> > are playing until the end, drawing hands go up in value.
> > Drawing to a nut flush or straight in a big field is going to be
> > more profitable than jacking up the pot preflop and hoping
> > your queens don't get crushed again.
> >
>
> I was betting hard on all of these hands, until I knew I was beaten. But
> the field was so passive. In the QQ hand described, I was UTG+1 and
> raised, getting 3 cold callers and the BB. BB checked to me on the flop,
> I bet, got three callers. Same thing on turn. BB bets his straight on
> the turn, I call, one guy folds, the other calls (he flopped a set of 5s).
>
> Same deal with KK, bet hard till the ace fell, checked, called on river.
>
> I flopped another set of queens earlier and was busted on a flush draw in
> a potlimit tourney. Why don't people fold?

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[ChowYuenFatt]

PokerStars $1/2 players tend to be more reasonable and rational.
I enjoy playin there.

On Aug 3 2003 9:30AM, SFGreenDay wrote:

> > So they don't fold. You can't change that. Accept it and use it to your
> > advantage. You fold. Then fold again. And fold some more, ad nauseum, if
> > that's what it takes. Then when your monster hits, play it to the hilt,
and
> > note who's at the table... you may find them folding the next time you're
in
> > a hand.
>
> Flopping a set of Queens isn't a monster? I had been folding, and
> folding, and folding.
>
> >
> > As to that last example, I'm not a tourney expert, but don't you have to
> > treat tournament play quite differently than ring table play. Won't many
> > good tourney players call hands to a draw that they'd fold in a heartbeat
in
> > ring play?
>
> I made a pot-sized bet after the flop, which was about half my stack,
> which was average-sized. I was raised the pot by the flush draw and I
> called, making me all-in.
>
> >
> > Which makes me think of another question worth asking: Could it be that you
> > are exhibiting that which so annoys you in others? Maybe some other
skilled
> > player at the table is look at you and saying, "I can't believe some of the
> > hands this guy is playing with?"
>
> Maybe someone who only plays AA, KK, QQ, and AKs is playing fewer hands
> than me at $1/$2 on Party. I stick to Sklansky's group 1-4 hands, plus
> Axs, KJ, QJ, and pairs down to 55, as a general rule. I get to play junk
> hands 10% of the time, because I get to see the flop for free in the BB
> almost always.
>
> >
> > I find that online, I'm more tempted to "action play" rather than smart
> > play, simply because the online game has less external mental stimulation
to
> > occupy me when I'm out of a hand. No real conversation, cute cocktail
> > waitresses, jackpot announcements, or tell studies of the others at the
> > table.
> >
> > Just those blinking lights and beeps. Enough to put me to sleep. So I
make
> > sure I am doing something else when online to overcome the boredom and
> > resultant impulsive behavior, even reading a book a la TJ Cloutier.
>
> I do keep busy. Sometimes I read RGP. I talk to friends on IM.
>
> I just have noticed that when I get big pairs for hole cards, they rarely
> hold up. I busted out of a session after buying in for 25 big bets,
> because of the suck outs. I know that I'll win in the long run with the
> way I'm playing with them, but as a poor grad student, I can't afford to
> swing much lower (like busting out for $50).
>
> I've heard that $1/$2 on Pokerstars is much more normal than Party. Can
> anyone vouch for that?

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[Mike]

On Aug 3 2003 12:18PM, Craig Franck wrote:

> I don't think I have a different definition, it's just that a concept
> as broad as "value" can mean many different things. The definition
> of "win the most money in the long run," while the most common,
> is not as useful in a thread about limiting swings, since pot
> management is more of an issue.

If you define value as "win the most money" then your statement of "any
hand except aces goes down with each additional raise someone makes" is
wrong. KK makes more money from 8 callers than it does from 1 caller (in
general). It wins less often, but it wins more money on average (i.e. its
EV).

> > Do you have evidence for this claim? Such as Turbo sims?
>
> Not immediately available. Are you suggesting that to limit swings
> you should re-raise more often?

No. But I would question why SFGreenDay would care more about his swings
than his EV. So far I don't think anyone has addressed that issue. It's
usually the wrong metric to look at.

Regards,
Mike

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[Stephen D. Cohen]

"Scott Crabtree" <scottcrab@SPAMFREEpobox.com> wrote in message news:<Ta1Xa.9480$gi.4605144@news2.news.adelphia.net>...

> I find that online, I'm more tempted to "action play" rather than smart
> play, simply because the online game has less external mental stimulation to
> occupy me when I'm out of a hand. No real conversation, cute cocktail
> waitresses, jackpot announcements, or tell studies of the others at the
> table.
>
> Just those blinking lights and beeps. Enough to put me to sleep. So I make
> sure I am doing something else when online to overcome the boredom and
> resultant impulsive behavior, even reading a book a la TJ Cloutier.

I play O8 in another window. Keeping the two games straight
keeps me focused on the game. It also helps me with both games - I
tend towards being too loose in Hold'em and too tight in O8. Playing
both balances me nicely.

Regards,

Steve Cohen

[The Beet Man]

"Craig Franck" <craig.franck@verizon.net> wrote:

>"Paul Phillips" <rgp-10@improving.org> wrote
>
>> MILESFNW <milesfnw@aol.com> wrote:
>> >I suggest changing your strategy. Your QQs, KKs and TTs don't have as much
>> >value in the games you're describing, where everyone is seeing the flop with
>> >anything. If you can't eliminate the field with those cards, slow down with
>> >them unless you flop a set, in which case ram and jam. Play more suited
>> >connectors and the like, and when you hit your big hands, bet like a man
>> >posessed.
>>
>> No offense, but this is terrible advice. Your KKs and QQs have far
>> more value in a game where everyone is calling raises and seeing the flop
>> with you than they do in a tight game. You won't win the pot as often,
>> obviously, but you will win much more when you do win.
>
>But the OP was looking for ways to limit his swings. The advice
>that was given was correct for that. Pushing small advantages to
>the limit is what you do when you don't care about swings.

The preflop edge of KK and QQ over random trash hands is huge, not
small. Against 6 random hands, QQ has about 32% equity and each
random hand has about 11%. That's about the same edge QQ has over 6
random hands on a T94 rainbow flop, which is a pretty good one for QQ.
You'd raise it up on the T94 flop, right?

>I believe Sklansky said one reason good pros bust out more
>frequently than their lesser peers is because of this effect.

I don't remember him saying that, but S&M have said several times that
the best way to lower your swings is to improve your hand reading
skills. It can be tough to read your opponents' hand in a zoo game,
but it can be done.

>It is intuitively false, but it's often the best strategy.
>
>First of all, the value of any hand except aces goes down with
>each additional raise someone makes. So if you put in the first
>raise, and it comes back to you capped, the odds of you having
>the best hand come the flop goes way down (which is the only
>way to think about it unless you can win it right there).

This is true, but with a hand like queens, KK and AA just aren't out
there very often. There's only about a 1% chance any particular
opponent has KK or AA, so against 9 opponents you'll only run into KK
or AA about 9% of the time. If the opponents putting in the raise or
a re-raise are passive, your QQ may have problems, but in a wacky game
when I have queens and it gets capped, I'm still going to assume I
have the best hand preflop.

>You also have it backwards about big pairs being worth "far
>more" in loose rather than tight games. When a lot of people
>are playing until the end, drawing hands go up in value.

So do big pairs. Big pairs can make sets, two pair using a pair on
board, a big flush if 4 of the suit come, etc. I've seen people
assert that small pairs go up in value in these games while big pairs
go down, which just doesn't make any sense. Anything a small pair can
do, a big pair can do better.

It's true that you'll have to call more losing bets on the river with
AA than you will with 44, but you can more reliably bet AA on the
river than you can with 44.

>Drawing to a nut flush or straight in a big field is going to be
>more profitable than jacking up the pot preflop and hoping
>your queens don't get crushed again.

A nut flush or straight draw is of higher equity than QQ against a
zillion random hands, yeah, but the holder of the 98o or whatever
still has to catch that draw. Maybe him pay through the nose to do
it.

--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man.

[P]

"The Beet Man" <beetman@splot.org> wrote in message
news:qvu1jv4kcutbllj7k1qe5kedcoai3jibst@4ax.com...
> "Craig Franck" <craig.franck@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >"Paul Phillips" <rgp-10@improving.org> wrote
> >
> >> MILESFNW <milesfnw@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >I suggest changing your strategy. Your QQs, KKs and TTs don't have as
much
> >> >value in the games you're describing, where everyone is seeing the
flop with
> >> >anything. If you can't eliminate the field with those cards, slow down
with
> >> >them unless you flop a set, in which case ram and jam. Play more
suited
> >> >connectors and the like, and when you hit your big hands, bet like a
man
> >> >posessed.
> >>
> >> No offense, but this is terrible advice. Your KKs and QQs have far
> >> more value in a game where everyone is calling raises and seeing the
flop
> >> with you than they do in a tight game. You won't win the pot as often,
> >> obviously, but you will win much more when you do win.
> >
> >But the OP was looking for ways to limit his swings. The advice
> >that was given was correct for that. Pushing small advantages to
> >the limit is what you do when you don't care about swings.
>
> The preflop edge of KK and QQ over random trash hands is huge, not
> small. Against 6 random hands, QQ has about 32% equity and each
> random hand has about 11%. That's about the same edge QQ has over 6
> random hands on a T94 rainbow flop, which is a pretty good one for QQ.
> You'd raise it up on the T94 flop, right?
>
> >I believe Sklansky said one reason good pros bust out more
> >frequently than their lesser peers is because of this effect.
>
> I don't remember him saying that, but S&M have said several times that
> the best way to lower your swings is to improve your hand reading
> skills. It can be tough to read your opponents' hand in a zoo game,
> but it can be done.
>
> >It is intuitively false, but it's often the best strategy.
> >
> >First of all, the value of any hand except aces goes down with
> >each additional raise someone makes. So if you put in the first
> >raise, and it comes back to you capped, the odds of you having
> >the best hand come the flop goes way down (which is the only
> >way to think about it unless you can win it right there).
>
> This is true, but with a hand like queens, KK and AA just aren't out
> there very often. There's only about a 1% chance any particular
> opponent has KK or AA, so against 9 opponents you'll only run into KK
> or AA about 9% of the time. If the opponents putting in the raise or
> a re-raise are passive, your QQ may have problems, but in a wacky game
> when I have queens and it gets capped, I'm still going to assume I
> have the best hand preflop.
>
> >You also have it backwards about big pairs being worth "far
> >more" in loose rather than tight games. When a lot of people
> >are playing until the end, drawing hands go up in value.
>
> So do big pairs. Big pairs can make sets, two pair using a pair on
> board, a big flush if 4 of the suit come, etc. I've seen people
> assert that small pairs go up in value in these games while big pairs
> go down, which just doesn't make any sense. Anything a small pair can
> do, a big pair can do better.
>
> It's true that you'll have to call more losing bets on the river with
> AA than you will with 44, but you can more reliably bet AA on the
> river than you can with 44.
>
> >Drawing to a nut flush or straight in a big field is going to be
> >more profitable than jacking up the pot preflop and hoping
> >your queens don't get crushed again.
>
> A nut flush or straight draw is of higher equity than QQ against a
> zillion random hands, yeah, but the holder of the 98o or whatever
> still has to catch that draw. Maybe him pay through the nose to do
> it.
>
> --
> This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man.

STOP THE BLOODY CROSSPOSTING! TROLL!

[Michael Langford]

> I've heard that $1/$2 on Pokerstars is much more normal than Party. Can
> anyone vouch for that?

Yes. I would recommend learning how to beat the LL party games though.
They mimic the most profitable real world games, but they don't have
all the wonderfull tells that make the real world ones much more of a
"sure thing". However they are quite a thing to do to "practice value
betting" and learn how little one can bluff.

--Michael

[Checkraiser]

> The best way to limit your swings is to simply not play. The second
> best way to limit your swings is to simply play as badly as you can
> all the time.
>
> Limiting your swings is not really what I'd call a rational goal.

You are correct again, Gary (right on the spot) Carson.
You people should worry about proper bankroll, not about swings.
Nobody can control luck but your bankroll. You can be greatest poker
player in the world and still suffer extremely severe losses. You
should ignore that. You should make good decisions, and if the games
are good enough and the rake is low enough, you will earn money.

If you want to win, accept to lose.

regards, CR