Posted Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:16 am GMT by AHBrownell
As a tight player I know that I need to learn how to play "loose" in some circumstances to take my game to the next level. My friend and I recently had a conversation where he argued that if you have 5 or more limpers and are in the SB you should call with any hand - 72os included. He based this on the idea that no hand will be a 10:1 underdog before the flop.
After thinking about this a bit more though it seems that this is not true. Lets say you have 72os and you are up against K7, 22, A2, Q7, and TT . 72 is actually unable to win unless it can make the other players fold a better hand.
So - how do you determine what is playable with lots of limpers? The "any two cards can win" game seems to have some value, but there are obviously some hands that are better than others.
AK is unable to win against AA, QQ, K7. KQ, and QJ - so just thinking of situations where hands are screwed is not a good way to discuss this either.
In general, its seems that most hands implied/pot odds increase with more players - and their odds of winning decreases. However, is their any way to assess the break even point --- where the odds to win, justify the pot odds to call preflop?
It would be interesting if we could create two groups - 1) Hands which the long run odds justify calling; 2) Hands which the long run odds do NOT justify calling.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:11 am GMT by tame_deuces
Your friend has a point, but he is also forgetting some things. We also want a hand we will be able to play easily. We're in the SB so we will be OOP in a multiway pot, in NL that is a very bad thing with semi-weak hands. So we want hands that can hit strong.
I'd say anything suited or connected would do nicely for the price, other hands often bring trouble. A hand like say K5o will almost always be difficult to play after the flop if we happen to hit.
Note that this is an NL observation. In FL I think we can have looser reqs,
Posted Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:45 pm GMT by AHBrownell
Yah tame thats the general concept - but in terms of the actual math. Is there a way to assess this?
I mean are there simulations that calculate odds to win vs number of players with average hands? For every hand with X number of players for all values of X.
Like AK vs 72 is about 2:1 - but I would think 72's chances greatly diminish against 2 players with overcards. Against 3 players I would think that 72 has basically no shot unless it hits both a 7 and 2 or two 7s or two 2s - or better. These situations rarely happen. So is it safe to assume that if you are have 3+ players involved in a hand folding 72 preflop is the best +EV play? What about 45s? Or KQs? Or even AA?
With AA for instance your chances of winning drastically decreases as more players enter the pot - yet its always profitable to play because a bigger pot justifies the lowest possible chance to win (about 30% against 9 random hands).
This is a complicated part of hold'em. Even though a hand like 67s will lose more often against more players - its value increases with more players. Whereas hands like A9 seem to decrease drastically in value the more players that enter the pot.
In Phil Gordon's little green book. He discusses a situation where a hand gains substaintial value because it plays against multiple players - it was an underdog heads up, but becomes a favorite against two hands.
This is what I'm trying to get at - there is a mathematcially correct group of hands that should be played if you can play multiple player pots and there are "strong" hands which should nearly always be folded if they are in multiple player pots.
The simple approach is: play suited connectors, suited aces, and pocket pairs in multiway pots; fold easily dominated hands in multiway pots - and reduce the competition with racing hands (cards that generally win with top pair - not straights or flushes)...
I'm more concerned with the border line plays - the marginal hands which everyone pretty much tosses - is it profitable to ever play a hand like Q4os? How about T2os? I am not talking about the value gained by playing these hands to setup your opponents - that is another issue; what I am asking is - are these hands profitable to play on their own in any circumstances? The answer may be yes - I just have no idea...
Posted Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:15 pm GMT by Iron Butt
| Quote: | | I mean are there simulations that calculate odds to win vs number of players with average hands? For every hand with X number of players for all values of X. |
You mean something like this?
koti.mbnet.fi/jraevaar/pokercalculator/
pokerstove.com/pokerstove/
Posted Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:36 pm GMT by snoogins47
The trickiest part about this is not the pure equity math nonsense, it's the "playability" factor which, despite what anybody will tell you, basically comes down to a bunch of fuzzy logic and voodoo.
Stack sizes, your abilities, your opponent's abilities... if your opponents are bad... HOW are they bad? The general idea is right though, the big offsuited cards are tricky as hell to play in multiway pots; the little suited cards lose a lot of value shorthanded.
"is it profitable to ever play a hand like Q4os? How about T2os? "
In short: yes. There are plenty of situations. Mostly, they involve short stacks, or bad opponents.
Posted Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:23 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
It depends how comfortable you are playing out of position with marginal hands after the flop, a situation that usually favors the better players. The trick is, no one raised pre-flop most of the time, so most people will only flop marginal hands at best (unless they hit a set or a concealed straight). But the bigger the odds get, and the better you are at playing, the better the payout on crappy hands can be. I once flopped trips by calling with T2, and nearly tripled my stack--that was a return of like 250x my investment... so you can see how easy it is to justify calling in the SB with a variety of hands, particularly in a passive game.
Posted Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:43 pm GMT by tame_deuces
You can't really put math down on NL too much. Not in the sense that you can get alot of neat formulas telling you if this is winning or optimal. Atleast this gets impossible in a typical 100BB stacked ring game. There are simply put far too many variables and unknowns to take into account. In FL this is somewhat easier, because it has a more rigid structure of betting.
So in NL the best thing you can hope for is basic concepts or ideas that have been proven profitable over the long term. But since the betting system is so messed up, there are alot of different strategies to chose from and it is even hazy which ones are the best. And when we try to figure out which ones are best we will almost always know that variance can skewer any results we find anyway (is he a profitable lag or just running good over 50k hands etc.).
Posted Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:00 pm GMT by AHBrownell
Any recommendation in how to get some experience playing "loose" without going broke? My tight style works - plain and simple. I don't feel the need to play loose very often - but I'd like the option because when I encounter a ROCK filled table I know that I am supposed to change gears; I just don't know how to do that. 
Posted Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:13 am GMT by tame_deuces
| AHBrownell wrote: | | Any recommendation in how to get some experience playing "loose" without going broke? My tight style works - plain and simple. I don't feel the need to play loose very often - but I'd like the option because when I encounter a ROCK filled table I know that I am supposed to change gears; I just don't know how to do that. |
Here are things rocks don't like:
- Being raised
- Being OOP.
- People check/raising or simply raising turn.
- Big overbets.
- Boards filled with straight and flush possibilites.
They especially dislike a combination of several of the above, so when such occasions occur, then go for it.
Apart from that, playing loose as in seeing later streets and caliing alittle loosely on earlier streets is better if you got a couple of pot splashers and loose guns and the table, because versus those it can pay to see later streets because of implied odds.
Versus rocks you probably want to be more loose aggressive and see if you just can't push them out on earlier streets, you usually have low implied odds versus rocks. Though if your image gets 'laggy' enough, you might get lucky and have a rock loosening up on you at the wrong time...but we want more than luck.
Posted Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:03 am GMT by lwestatbus
I love these situations in FL as I've made some monster pots with really marginal cards but lots of callers. I am waaaayyyy ahead on these. (See my post at http://www.texasholdem-poker.com/forum/t16432/biggest-pot-with-worst-cards.)
Here's how I see it. First, it is dirt cheap to buy a chance at a lot of money (not only what is in the pot but will go in later). Second, you know instantly on the flop whether to head for the hills or not. Third, I'm not sure that position is as important as it might be otherwise, especially if the pot was raised preflop. If you miss the flop you're gone anyway. If you hit it big you're actually in a nice position to check raise at the right time. Fourth, since your cards are marginal, when you do make your hand it is pretty stealthy.
I'm in the same position as AHB in that I am trying to move my game beyond the tight beginner level. One thing I'm experimenting with is loosening up starting hands a lot at a table where there aren't a lot of raises. I'll also call a raise with marginal cards (cards I'd normally see a flop with in the absence of a raise) if there are enough callers in the pot. I'll literally be saying to myself, "Call if two of these five guys also call, otherwise fold."
Interesting post and discussion.
Posted Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:16 am GMT by AHBrownell
statbus - nice reply.
Let me know how those two new strategies work out. Its funny that you said, "Call if two of these five guys also call, otherwise fold." I think this all the time too. It seems like the important thing to recognize is that some hands are much better here than others. A hand like AJos is a terrible hand to "just see the flop" if there are like 3 limpers and you are in mid position imo - but 89s loves these situations...
Still, I find that in the short-mid run the more "get lucky" cards I play, the worse I tend to do. This is probably because I am too anxious to get rid of these hands when I miss AND these types of calls are more subject to variance. If you play all day and never hit one (but called 200 of them) then you may be WAY down. This sort of thing (never hitting the board) rarely happens if you are only playing premium hands with the ocasional rag in the blinds or with a perfect preflop action...
Posted Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:27 am GMT by supafrey
Strange.. I like suited connects for the exact reasons you say you hate them. Big swings and easy to toss away...
Posted Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:08 pm GMT by BeerWench13
| AHBrownell wrote: | | Any recommendation in how to get some experience playing "loose" without going broke? |
I'm a rock if you ask anyone who plays poker with me. Well, that's what I'd have them believe anyway. Of couse, most of the players that I play on a regular basis are loose/aggressive. This makes my tight/aggressive style profitable. I can make steals with marginal hands because they think that I only bet with the nuts. I have established this persona for just this reason. All I have to do is hit a few big hands and steal a lot of small pots.
However, if given a different situation where I'm playing a majority of players who are tight, I completely change styles. I will play a lot of hands that I wouldn't normally play and I will be the aggressor. It's fun being table captain. You just have to know when to make the right plays. There's no real way to teach this completely since it's more instinctual and situational. If you know your opponents are tight, especially tight/passive, raise, raise, raise. Just remember that position is important and you have to recognize when you're beaten.
After a while, it becomes obvious that you're raising in position quite often and, if you showdown with a few marginal hands, you'll gain little respect from the table. This is when you get tight players to loosen up a bit. They're sick of you always raising their limps preflop and throwing money at the pot like a maniac. When this happens, you can tighten up a bit and play your usual style and they should pay you well. There's a lot of psychology in poker.
The theory I'm referring to above, I've used in live play. When playing online, I just sit and wait because I'm usually doing about 5 other things at the same time so I'm unlikely to get bored. I can't get the same read on my opponents online either. If I can't get any action at a table, I usually leave and find another.
Posted Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:42 pm GMT by UrAteUp
| supafrey wrote: | | Strange.. I like suited connects for the exact reasons you say you hate them. Big swings and easy to toss away... |
Very true statement here. I love suited connectors. They are generally a gold mine waiting to be discovered. If they don't hit, throw them away. No harm and no foul.
AH...there are several good answers you have received to your question. Honestly the best advice is learn what the top 10 starting hands of poker are and start with those. After you have those figured out and still think your playing to tight, run it out to the top 20 hands. Also keep in mind there is never a guarantee you won't go broke learning how to perfect a strategy that works for you...
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:25 am GMT by snoogins47
| tame_deuces wrote: | Here are things rocks don't like:
- Being raised
- Being OOP.
- People check/raising or simply raising turn.
- Big overbets.
- Boards filled with straight and flush possibilites. |
Funny, because pretty much everything except maybe the last one, are the things nutjobs, like myself, also hate.
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:13 am GMT by BeerWench13
AH, try being the bus driver one night instead of riding along. Be the "maniac" at the table. It's actually very refreshing for tight players and a great outlet. One of the most profitable nights I had in a home game I ran the table for about 30 minutes and turned $50 into over $250. The LAG players that I was playing with had no clue what to think. One of them actually said "Who are you and what have you done with the player we know?"
Posted Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:10 pm GMT by tame_deuces
| snoogins47 wrote: | | tame_deuces wrote: | Here are things rocks don't like:
- Being raised
- Being OOP.
- People check/raising or simply raising turn.
- Big overbets.
- Boards filled with straight and flush possibilites. |
Funny, because pretty much everything except maybe the last one, are the things nutjobs, like myself, also hate. |
It is evident that you need to get nuttier. And you obviously need to turn more straights and flushes, so that when opponents c/r the turn it is their funeral.
|
|
