Lavatory Humour
Apr. 2nd, 2007 07:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksSome interesting posers today, of a mainly theoretical bent. Here's the first:
You pick up 8c 8d in the cut-off in a typical afternoon Flamingo game. There are four limpers to you and, because you have decided to relentlessly bet everything for value against what seem to be random callers, you decide to raise. The button calls, as does the big blind, as do the four limpers. $25 in pot.
Flop brings 8h 6h 4c. It's checked round to you and you bet. Button raises. This guy seems your fairly typical player in the Flamingo, perhaps a fraction better than average, but still very loose-passive by any modern terminology. You three-bet and he caps it. You call. $56 in pot.
Turn brings 5s. You check. He bets. You call. $64 in pot.
River brings 4h, completing your full house. You bet. Button raises. You three-bet, and button four-bets. Because you started the betting round head-to-head, there is no cap on the number of raises. What do you do here?
If you five-bet, how many raises are you prepared to go before you flat-call?
I decided to five-bet. Opponent six-bets it. What is his range?
I decide to flat-call. Am I favourite or a dog?
++++++
O'Shea's is running a $1-$5 spread-limit game with a single dollar ante. Anyone who has read the early stuff by Sklansky and Malmuth will know that the theory here is to play very tight. However, is this the case in practice? I know that Sklansky also touched upon this point in later writings. His observation was that, although theory dictated tight play and would guarantee a profit, it would not necessarily maximize your profit. The O'Shea's game is meant to be wild'n'wooly, with $30 pots and five players common pre-flop.
This touches on the point made by Matt and seconded by Michael, that it is necessary to loosen your starting-hand criteria in these loose-passive low-limit games. The question is, in what way do you loosen your criteria, and how far? Clearly if players are calling with a much wider range of hands, then hands like K9s in late position become playable, because you are quite likely to be up against Kx a lot of the time. Similarly, if you know that all the players will come in with any Ace, but will not even raise with AK, then you have to reassess hands like AT-off in late.
A third factor here is the high-hand bonus in some poker rooms, which affects your EV on certain hands such as small pocket pairs and suited connectors and can affect your decision whether or not to bet on the flop or turn if you have a set, there is a small pot, a large bonus for your particular set if it becomes quads, and it looks like a bet will push out the remaining players.
One habit which has caught me out a couple of times is the pre-flop limp with KK. I've seen four players do this, and, much though they deny it, the reason that they do it is because they are frightened of an Ace appearing on the flop. I think there are a larger number of players than I suspected who quite simply raise with nothing except Aces.
+++++++
Well, we are 10 days in, and I've finally crawled into the black. The collection of idiots that I'm required to face continues to put a strain on the brain, but you do get the occasional opponent with whom you can hold a half-way intelligent conversation.
However, my deepest joy of the night was perhaps a childish one. It was coming up to 11pm at the MGM and there were two tight female players to my left, a good player to their left, then a weak woman player, a weak middle-aged foreign guy, and then three competent youngsters, and finally a young Asian woman who was not very good.
About half an hour earlier, said Asian woman had put $5 all-in into a $40 pot after I had raised pre-flop with Ac Tc. Board was Kd Jd 5s 3s. I figured her for a moderate King or perhaps a flush draw and, after quite a long pause for thought (for me) I decided to call, thinking that I just about had value.
River brought a nine and Asian woman tabled QT-off, hitting a four-outer for a straight. Irritating to make the right call with just Ace-high and to be sucked out on.
It didn't take long for me to win it back, when my AA beat her KK. After a minimum rebuy, she asked for a set-up, bemoaning her bad luck. Set-up requests are a pain in the bum. They waste about five minutes to no purpose except to make a bad player think that their luck might change.
I could see that the middle-aged guy was preparing to leave, so there wasn't much value left in the game. One of the youngsters had also said earlier that he was leaving for an 11pm tournament. So I just picked up a couple of racks, stacked my chips (or, as far as Asian woman was concerned, her chips) and joined two other players in leaving the table, making Asian woman look rather foolish, I thought.
Like I said, a childish pleasure.
As I returned from cashing in, not five minutes later, Asian woman had left the table to play in a $65 sit'n'go. I hope she busted.
++++++
I've also started spending my comp points. Even at a buck an hour, these can build up, and I seem to have a small fortune in my Harrah's Total reqrds package. So I've been taking out $20 a time for food at the Tropical Breeze Cafe. I guess I have quite a bit on the MGM account as well. Am I turning into Grubby?
I'm getting less scared of difficult social situations. I noticed that my $20 comp had Paradise Buffet ticked rather than Tropical Breeze, but only after I had eaten my meal at the Tropical Breeze! In the past I would have been too scared to say anything here and I would have just paid the cash. But, I gritted my teeth and, with heart pounding, I pointed out to one of the staff how both I and the poker room guy had made a mistake, but that the poker room guy had now finished his shift.
Manageress then telephoned the poker room and spoke to Charlie (the swing-shift poker room manager), who said that he would change it, no problem.
Why do I find these situations so astronomically difficult? I have no idea, but while I was trying to explain things to the manageress, I was getting tongue-tied and heading towards a panic attack, or, well, so it felt. The feeling is so unpleasant that I can see why I sometimes just don't go through with it.
++++++
English groups making a living from being played in lavatories, part two:
Pet Shop Boys (Bellagio)
Bananarama (Flamingo, still punting that 1980s soundtrack)
++++++
A couple more Vegas pictures.
The name is getting there, slowly.
This guy likes going for eight the hard way. (Craps reference there, guys.... Keep up.)
You pick up 8c 8d in the cut-off in a typical afternoon Flamingo game. There are four limpers to you and, because you have decided to relentlessly bet everything for value against what seem to be random callers, you decide to raise. The button calls, as does the big blind, as do the four limpers. $25 in pot.
Flop brings 8h 6h 4c. It's checked round to you and you bet. Button raises. This guy seems your fairly typical player in the Flamingo, perhaps a fraction better than average, but still very loose-passive by any modern terminology. You three-bet and he caps it. You call. $56 in pot.
Turn brings 5s. You check. He bets. You call. $64 in pot.
River brings 4h, completing your full house. You bet. Button raises. You three-bet, and button four-bets. Because you started the betting round head-to-head, there is no cap on the number of raises. What do you do here?
If you five-bet, how many raises are you prepared to go before you flat-call?
I decided to five-bet. Opponent six-bets it. What is his range?
I decide to flat-call. Am I favourite or a dog?
++++++
O'Shea's is running a $1-$5 spread-limit game with a single dollar ante. Anyone who has read the early stuff by Sklansky and Malmuth will know that the theory here is to play very tight. However, is this the case in practice? I know that Sklansky also touched upon this point in later writings. His observation was that, although theory dictated tight play and would guarantee a profit, it would not necessarily maximize your profit. The O'Shea's game is meant to be wild'n'wooly, with $30 pots and five players common pre-flop.
This touches on the point made by Matt and seconded by Michael, that it is necessary to loosen your starting-hand criteria in these loose-passive low-limit games. The question is, in what way do you loosen your criteria, and how far? Clearly if players are calling with a much wider range of hands, then hands like K9s in late position become playable, because you are quite likely to be up against Kx a lot of the time. Similarly, if you know that all the players will come in with any Ace, but will not even raise with AK, then you have to reassess hands like AT-off in late.
A third factor here is the high-hand bonus in some poker rooms, which affects your EV on certain hands such as small pocket pairs and suited connectors and can affect your decision whether or not to bet on the flop or turn if you have a set, there is a small pot, a large bonus for your particular set if it becomes quads, and it looks like a bet will push out the remaining players.
One habit which has caught me out a couple of times is the pre-flop limp with KK. I've seen four players do this, and, much though they deny it, the reason that they do it is because they are frightened of an Ace appearing on the flop. I think there are a larger number of players than I suspected who quite simply raise with nothing except Aces.
+++++++
Well, we are 10 days in, and I've finally crawled into the black. The collection of idiots that I'm required to face continues to put a strain on the brain, but you do get the occasional opponent with whom you can hold a half-way intelligent conversation.
However, my deepest joy of the night was perhaps a childish one. It was coming up to 11pm at the MGM and there were two tight female players to my left, a good player to their left, then a weak woman player, a weak middle-aged foreign guy, and then three competent youngsters, and finally a young Asian woman who was not very good.
About half an hour earlier, said Asian woman had put $5 all-in into a $40 pot after I had raised pre-flop with Ac Tc. Board was Kd Jd 5s 3s. I figured her for a moderate King or perhaps a flush draw and, after quite a long pause for thought (for me) I decided to call, thinking that I just about had value.
River brought a nine and Asian woman tabled QT-off, hitting a four-outer for a straight. Irritating to make the right call with just Ace-high and to be sucked out on.
It didn't take long for me to win it back, when my AA beat her KK. After a minimum rebuy, she asked for a set-up, bemoaning her bad luck. Set-up requests are a pain in the bum. They waste about five minutes to no purpose except to make a bad player think that their luck might change.
I could see that the middle-aged guy was preparing to leave, so there wasn't much value left in the game. One of the youngsters had also said earlier that he was leaving for an 11pm tournament. So I just picked up a couple of racks, stacked my chips (or, as far as Asian woman was concerned, her chips) and joined two other players in leaving the table, making Asian woman look rather foolish, I thought.
Like I said, a childish pleasure.
As I returned from cashing in, not five minutes later, Asian woman had left the table to play in a $65 sit'n'go. I hope she busted.
++++++
I've also started spending my comp points. Even at a buck an hour, these can build up, and I seem to have a small fortune in my Harrah's Total reqrds package. So I've been taking out $20 a time for food at the Tropical Breeze Cafe. I guess I have quite a bit on the MGM account as well. Am I turning into Grubby?
I'm getting less scared of difficult social situations. I noticed that my $20 comp had Paradise Buffet ticked rather than Tropical Breeze, but only after I had eaten my meal at the Tropical Breeze! In the past I would have been too scared to say anything here and I would have just paid the cash. But, I gritted my teeth and, with heart pounding, I pointed out to one of the staff how both I and the poker room guy had made a mistake, but that the poker room guy had now finished his shift.
Manageress then telephoned the poker room and spoke to Charlie (the swing-shift poker room manager), who said that he would change it, no problem.
Why do I find these situations so astronomically difficult? I have no idea, but while I was trying to explain things to the manageress, I was getting tongue-tied and heading towards a panic attack, or, well, so it felt. The feeling is so unpleasant that I can see why I sometimes just don't go through with it.
++++++
English groups making a living from being played in lavatories, part two:
Pet Shop Boys (Bellagio)
Bananarama (Flamingo, still punting that 1980s soundtrack)
++++++
A couple more Vegas pictures.
The name is getting there, slowly.
This guy likes going for eight the hard way. (Craps reference there, guys.... Keep up.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 02:05 pm (UTC)Hmmm, Quads and a SF...
No idea if you're a favorite or not, but I think you win the hand to the sixes full.
"Now if it had been no limit"
Date: 2007-04-02 02:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 03:09 pm (UTC)In your O'Shea's game, I think any pocket pair is playable from any position (e.g., 22 from UTG). Still raise preflop with pocket pairs where there is value to raising, even hands like 66 from the button with several limpers. Also play suited connectors, suited aces, suited gappers (up to 3 gaps) and two broadway card hands from just about any position. Suitedness would be valuable in these games.
Michael
no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 06:19 pm (UTC)The arguement is that each raise gives you and your opponent more information about the strength of each others hand. The argument here is one of whether your opponent is only looking at the strength of his own hand or whether he is paying attention to the fact you are raising him back.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 03:19 pm (UTC)I think the best way to loosen your starting requirements is still to play hands that are very well-defined on the flop. So any pair, any suited ace, any medium+ suited connectors. What you dont want to start playing are hands like suited kings, or ATo. It's not that they're intrinsically weak it's just that its too easy to make the second best hand.
matt
no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 04:01 pm (UTC)Yes, I like the phrase "hands that are wel;l-defined on the flop", although I think that suited kings are okay in postion, solely because they often "become well-defined" with the ace of that suit appearing, and you often have an idea whether or not you are in front from opponents' actions post-flop. But I get away from any activity.
Suited connectors are profitable, but can get you into a lot of trouble. Remember, 40% of the time that three of a suit is on the board, a fourth of that suit is on the board.
In the particular hand mentioned, I nearly called the four-bet, but decided to go one more round. I called his six-bet and he showed the straight flush.
That won him $530 for the high hand. When I got a royal flush six months ago for $599, I just flat-called the guy's bet on the river in order to keep the game "friendly". Perhaps I vaguely thought that what goes around, comes around, so the guy's aggression indicated a lower full house.
By way of recompense, two hours later I hit quad fives (high hand bonus of $326) and this guy was in the hand against me, and I value-bet the hand to death. No sympathy from me any more.
So, all the slightly negative EV plays made for the chance of the high hand finally paid off. Good.
I haven't played the O'Shea game, but the point you need to consider, Michael, is not whether to raise or play various hands, but by how much to bet them. If you know that you will get multiple callers to a five-dollar bet, of course, then it's not to difficult. But in slightly more 'efficient' games, you need to play it a bit more like the old one-to-five stud games, generating the pot before putting in the bigger money.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 09:51 pm (UTC)Whoa, rewind! Where the hell did that nugget come from? It's more like 10%. Suppose you start with two suited cards, then
11C5 = 462
11C4 * 39C1 = 330 * 39 = 12870
11C3 * 39C2 = 165 * 741 = 122265
So of all the times there are 3 or more on the board (122265 / 135597) = 90.16% come from the case of precisely 3.
Suited connectors and pairs are what you should be playing in big multi-way passive pots as you're usually going to need a straight or a flush or a set to beat all the random two pair hands.
matt
Switching the math around
Date: 2007-04-03 11:34 am (UTC)3 cases are possible:
1. You have no cards in the suit
2. You have 1 card in the suit
3. You have 2 cards in the suit
Case 1:
We know 5 cards (our hand + flop), and there are 10 cards left in the suit in the deck
The probability that the river leaves 3 cards in the suit is:
37*36/(47*46) = 61%
Case 2:
We know 5 cards (our hand + flop), and there are 9 cards left in the suit in the deck
The probability that the river leaves 3 cards in the suit is:
38*37/(47*46) = 65%
Case 3:
We know 5 cards (our hand + flop), and there are 10 cards left in the suit in the deck
The probability that the river leaves 3 cards in the suit is:
39*38/(47*46) = 69%
Looks to me that case 1 covers Pete's claim.
Re: Switching the math around
Date: 2007-04-03 12:32 pm (UTC)However a single suited flop is rare ... you are 33 times more likely to flop two of your suit than three when you play suited connectors. Therefore the strategy you adopt when three of your suit flop won't make a big difference either way to your bottom line.
Pete has an irrational fear of flushes losing to higher flushes which I'm trying to confront and cure. Sure it will happen sometimes but you will also win a lot of pots with your flush in large relatively passive multi-way hands. They're also very easy to play - if you bet your flush on the turn and get several callers then you know you're beaten when the fourth of the suit turns up on river and don't have to waste any more money.
matt
Re: Switching the math around
Date: 2007-04-03 04:42 pm (UTC)The scenario I was thinking of was indeed when you have a low flush on the flop. It's a rare situation, I admit, and I did kind of grab the number out of thin air.
My general point, though, was not that I underrate suited connectors, but that many other people overrate them. If I flop any made hand with a suited connector, I play it fast. I see countless opponents slow-play these hands when they flop a straight or a flush, and then moan when they get outdrawn.
I also see countless players call with a draw, not allowing for the potential of a redraw.
So, I'm not saying that suited connectors are bad, just not as strong as most people think, and that they can get inexperienced players into trouble because (passim your point about only reraising on the river with the nuts) although they are often the winning hand, they are not often the nut winning hand.
Oh, and back to my maths. If three of a suit flop and you know of no other cards, then there are 49 unknown cards of which 10 are the suit in question.
So, the chance of a fourth in the suit not appearing on the turn or river is 39/49*38/48 or 0.796*0.792 or 0.63. OK, 37%, not 40%.
However, as you say, if you have a suited connector, then the number of times that the fourth in the suit will appear on the board falls to 31%.
I really don't like phrases such as "won't make a big difference either way to your bottom ine". Are you implying that small differences don't matter, Matt, and that we should only pay attention to the 97% scenarios?
Now, let's take the 97% scenario. As you say, this is the main part of the suited connector conundrum. Usually you wll flop a draw. It's also the main flaw in most people's plays of suited connectors. If you get yourself out of position (say, with an aggressive player on your right), you might face a bet into you, with three players still to act. Many players call here, then face a raise behind them, and call again.
They then hit their flush on the turn, get checked to, bet it, get called, and, one time in five or thereabouts, get outdrawn on the river.
That's 20% of the hands in question, a HUGE difference to your expected rate of return.
When the straight is made on the turn, there will usually be a flush draw out there in these multi-way games, and the same problem arises.
I don't see this as an irrational fear, because I see it many many times. For this reason I play suited connectors rather differently from the way I play Ax suited.
Just because a danger is "small" that does't mean that it is non-existent, which appears to be your line of thought, Matt. This is the common attitude in the world (and very much so in business). If there is less than a 5% chance of something happening this year, let's count it as zero, because to allow for it happening will affect our bottom line a bit, which will upset investors. Far better to assume that it won't happen, because, well, it's very unikely, isn't it?
PJ
Re: Switching the math around
Date: 2007-04-03 06:39 pm (UTC)Let's try to assign an EV to this very favourable spot. First of all the chance of another flush card coming isnt 20% it's 7/44 (assuming at least one is in someone elses hand, and if it isnt even better for you) which is 16% - let's say 1 in 6.
So 5/6 of the time you bet the turn, get called in two spots say, bet the river get called in one. Profit 16 + 4 + 2 = 22 small bets
And 1/6 of the time you bet the turn, get called in two spots, and usually will have to pay on river. Loss 4 small bets.
So the EV is 5/6 * 22 - 4/6 = 17 2/3 ... call it 18 small bets.
Now do you see why your fears of the river are completely irrelevant. You have a huge EV of 18 small bets here. Who cares what comes? This is a fantastic spot to be in.
The real issue, and only valid question, is whether to pay on the flop to see the turn. Of course I've simplified here by ignoring boats but also by ignoring your chance to reraise the turn, or catch bluffs on river.
Intuitively it's fairly obvious now that paying one small bet on the flop to see the turn is fantastic value, paying two is OK, but paying three is breakeven at absolute best and probably wrong.
However raising the flop is arguably better as you may get a free turn card.
matt
no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 06:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-02 09:52 pm (UTC)But as the bill is irrelevant, surely you can easily stay "in cahrge" of the situation?
"Here we are sweetie, here's my comp. I notice the poker guy goofed on it - see if you can sort it out for me please - if not, just let me know and I will leave cash and use it next time..." ?
no subject
Date: 2007-04-03 04:45 pm (UTC)And I still haven't summoned up the courage to ask for a Bellagio buffet comp. Why can't they have a clock-in system like they have at the Wynn?
PJ
5 bets & buffets
Date: 2007-04-03 11:10 am (UTC)I think Mat laid it out well for the reasoning on why it is best just to call the opponent's 4 bet here. Even if he is an idiot overplaying a worse hand he will have provided you an extra bet, and you won't have overplayed your hand. Putting in too many bets on early cheap streets like preflop and on the flop only costs you a fraction of a bet long term and can help set up plays on later streets or with your overall image. But once all the cards are out there has to be a limit on how aggressively you play even the 2nd nuts.
Regarding buffets, I think it shows the difference with you British and us yanks. The way most americans are going to look at it is that it's your comps and you should be able to spend them any way you want, a wrong restaurant name notwithstanding. The key here is that the amount of the comp is the same. Even if you had asked for a steak house comp of $40 and inadvertently been given a comp for another restaurant for a lesser amount, you should still not feel shy about asking for it to be changed, assuming of course your comp credits allow it. You are the one doing them a favor by patronizing their establishment, and not the other way around. Americans are just more pushy about these things, even (especially :)? ) in gray areas. So next time instead of playing the wilting violet inside, just step up and say, DON'T TRY TO FUCK ME OVER! CHANGE MY DAMN COMP DUDE!
BluffTHIS!
Re: 5 bets & buffets
Date: 2007-04-03 01:29 pm (UTC)Re: 5 bets & buffets
Date: 2007-04-03 02:01 pm (UTC)Bluff
Re: 5 bets & buffets
Date: 2007-04-03 04:54 pm (UTC)The problem here is that much of the "aggression" shown by Americans in these situations is "ritualistic" (in the anthropological sense) and the British simply have a different ritualistic system. Asking people to switch ritualistic systems at the drop of a proverbial hat is far harder than people think (hence the reason for some people looking uncomfortable in casual clothese while others look relaxed in them).
Now, if I "lose it" in this kind of situation, the control goes out of the window and there is no ritual involved. A red mist descends and there is severe danger of blood on the streets.
This actually happened at the poker table last October (not the blood, but the danger thereof), when some coiffured twat from a mid-west shithole tried to stop me discussing an interesting ruling with the dealer.
"It's Over. Move on. Next hand", said 18-stone dick-head, who was probably the sheriff or fire marshall in Shit-hole, Pennsylvania.
Down came red mist and I just said "don't you tell me when I can and can't discuss something. Who the fuck are you? You might be big at home. How big are you here?" And then I stood up and, well, anything might have happened, because I had genuinely lost it, but the dealer said "Pete, sit down, please".
Dick-head had virtually gone white, while I was shaking with rage.
So, perhaps it's best if I keep the quietitude....
PJ
Re: 5 bets & buffets
Date: 2007-04-03 05:26 pm (UTC)LOL. How can you be that feisty at the poker table and feel awkward asking for a comp to be changed in a situation much less likely to lead to a physical confrontation?
I grant you that it is hard to change one's cultural norms just because of temporarily being in a different culture. But if you really want to get acclimated to american style hyper macho aggression, rent a car and drive around at rush hour and experience or inflict some "road rage". :)
Bluff
P.S. I presume it fair to say you Brits have your own shit-holes over there? For example the burb of Warrington.
Re: 5 bets & buffets
Date: 2007-04-04 08:20 am (UTC)Ahh, now if you want a funny story about a rented car in the USA and a minor prang incurred in a car park with an 80-year old Jewish blind lady driving a car with more damage on it than that inflicted on the average tank in World War II, I'm afraid that I can't print it here.
PJ
Re: 5 bets & buffets
Date: 2007-04-04 10:48 pm (UTC)Now, being that I'm a Brummie, we were in Birmingham (and what with local knowledge and all, I felt perfectly safe -- let's try this again in Lozells or Chelmseley Wood, shall we?), and our height/weight/age disparity is not exactly in your favour, I was slightly bemused. On the other hand, it sounded like a damn fine idea at the time.
I can therefore relate both to the 18-stone asshole in question and to yourself in the situation you describe. (Well, not therefore precisely: I'm using induction.) You are probably one of the most frightening people I've ever met when you're pissed -- and I use the term deliberately, because to be honest it's one of the few American terms that doesn't have an exact English equivalent. I've dealt with 6'9" Scottish neanderthal kick-boxing champions whom I've inadvertently insulted; I've dealt with 5'3" Australian midgets with four mates at the invisible gloomy end of the Sydney bar who apparently like basketball more than me ... but I understand these social dynamics. It sort of comes with the territory. Dealing with you, when you're pissed, is, genuinely, worrying.
(Luckily, it doesn't seem to last very long. And what the heck. Adrenaline rushes are a good thing.)
So it doesn't surprise me that the twerp in question went white.
And it doesn't really address your basic problem, as stated several times over the last two weeks or so:
Dude. The secret to avoiding social unpleasantness in America is tipping.
Not bribing. None of this maitre d' crap. The secret of success is to find the most attractive waitress/bartron in the place and bung her (I'm assuming its a her) a Jackson. Ideally, you should do this when you order your second drink (yup, even a coke or OJ) when walking in, just to establish the principle.
The point is, these people know what's going on and who to talk to, and will do the embarrassing footwork for you. Hell, I forget what minimum wage is in the US these days, but it can't be much more that 45 cents after taxes. That sort of money makes an impression.
And don't forget the most important part of the rule. Find the most attractive one. If you can't get your immediate problem solved, you can at least go home with them.