Why you guys aren't crushing these Microlimit games...

[TheRake]

[ QUOTE ]
So I think majorkong's advice would be better stated as: pay attention to the pot odds. Saying, "don't fold so much" is just an invitation to people to start getting into trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you,
I had a problem when this was first posted. I think encouraging new players to chase when they may or may not have proper odds to do so is a little irresponsable. Part of playing winning poker is realizing when you are beat and laying down a hand that may be drawing dead or near dead regardless of how big the pot gets.

Regardless of what people think or say on this board weak/tight is not a terrible way to play micro limit games. It is true that it may not maximize winnings, but it WILL make you a winning player at this level. Learning when to turn up the heat and when to dial it back is something that can only come with experience. Telling someone it is okay to chase if they have not taken the time or fully obsorbed the proper mathematics to make this determination simply because the pot is large is just a way to make this learning curve a very expensive one.

I posted earlier in this thread to ask what Majorkong considered "crushing the game" and got no response. IMO "crushing" is a realive term and I think may be relavent to some of the winning players who post here. I apologize if it seemed sarcastic, but I felt it was a legitamite question.

In closing I would just like to state that I greatly respect Majorkong's experience and knowledge. In fact I actively seek out his posts, but I suspect that this post may do more harm than good for some of the newer players that are still trying to learn this great game.

TheRake

[TBone]

I think you may have misinterpreted the post. MajorKong did not suggest chasing, rather playing the pot odds and not folding when you actually have the pot odds to call.

If readers of the post don't understand pot odds at this point, that would be one of the first things they should learn by reading. Understanding pot odds, and playing according to the pot odds makes it mathematically possible to win at poker as opposed to relying moreso on luck.

I would define crushing the game as winning > 2 BB / hr.

I believe another point of the Major's post was to stop seeing "monsters under the bed" and folding what could very well be the winning hand. Throwing away the winning hand to aggression is what you're supposed to be making the OTHER people do by playing aggressively.

T

[JDErickson]

I have been playing for about 4 months and to be honest I still have problems figuring out odds and pot odds, especially on the fly. I'm sure this will come naturally to experienced players, but to me, and I believe most newer players, these mathematical figures can't be figured quick enough to play online. I try and think about it on every hand but a lot of times it is just "Its a big pot, so I am going to see this down" vs, " this is a small pot, Its not worth my money".

One thing I can say to the newer players who aren't hot with odds yet is "Don't Chase unless the pot is big". The more remote your outs are the pot must be bigger.

I think MajorKong was exactly right in what he said. Just not sure if newer players like me are at the point of utilizing it to the fullest.

Jim

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been playing for about 4 months and to be honest I still have problems figuring out odds and pot odds, especially on the fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

The best thing to do is to just memorize the pot odds on the most common situations you face. So post flop, you are going to draw one card (usually the odds are close enough to the same drawing to the turn, and drawing to the river that you can treat them the same):

--Flush draw (2suited in your hand, 2 of the suit on the board): about 4-1

--Open ended straight draw: about 5-1 (4.8 to the turn, 4.75 to the river)

--Gutshot straight draw: about 11-1 (actually 10.75-1 to the turn, 10.5 to one to the river)

--Overcards (odds of pairing one of your cards when both are higher than any card on the flop): about 6.5 to one (6.8 turn, 6.6 river)

--drawing to one pair (you have middle or low pair and while it may be good, you'd really like to improve to either two pair or trips): about 8.5-1

--Drawing to a pocket pair (you missed your set on the flop): 22.5-1 and 22 to one.


Anything I left out anybody? Are my numbers right?

The really important thing to remember however, is that improving your hand may not win it for ya. If you can accurately put your opponent on a hand it may be that your actual odds of improving to a winning hand are much worse than just the odds of improving your hand to something better than you already have.

[rkiray]

Nice post. I agree with it in general. Just to make it easy on myself I think of overcards as 7-1. Makes the math easier and is slightly conservative, which is probably good since you won't win every time you hit your overcards anyway.

[ramjam]

Good post! You're math just got a lot better. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Ed Miller]

I had a problem when this was first posted. I think encouraging new players to chase when they may or may not have proper odds to do so is a little irresponsable. Part of playing winning poker is realizing when you are beat and laying down a hand that may be drawing dead or near dead regardless of how big the pot gets.

Frankly, I think encouraging new players to lay down all their marginal hands regardless of pot size is irresponsible. Yet this is exactly what almost every book on hold 'em advises you to do. And I see it manifest in post after post on this board.

Laying down top pair is the exception, not the rule. This is doubly true when the pot has been raised preflop. Yet in post after post, I see, "well, Axs is really a poor hand because you have to lay down if you flop an ace."

Well, if you HAD to lay down if you flopped an ace, then Axs WOULD be a pretty crappy hand. Fortunately, you don't, and Axs is a pretty decent hand... especially hands like A9s and A8s. Someone drilled it into all these newbies heads that they need to fold if they flop an ace. It certainly wasn't me.

I think the main problem is the fundamental concept of "being beat." You cannot be beaten until the river. Before the river, even if you are behind, you are drawing, not beaten. You have a chance to win. It is this chance, plus the chance you are ahead, plus the big overlay that the pot gives you that makes it correct to continue when in doubt.

The big dividing line is whether the pot was raised before the flop or not. It is difficult to play too loosely after the flop when it was raised before the flop. On the other hand, when the pot was unraised before the flop, you need to really start evaluating the quality of the hands you want to continue with, including top pair. This is the spot where you fold your ace-rag hands if it looks like you might be drawing slim. This is the spot where you fold your weak draws because you are worried someone might raise behind you. This is the spot where a board full of potential redraws can turn a call or raise into a fold.

Make no mistake, though. The money in low-limit hold 'em is made by those who know how to push the edges and win more than their share of the big pots. Limit hold 'em is just plain not a game of laydowns. Those who make the expert laydowns (as opposed to the routine ones that many players make), but do not aggressively pursue the big pots, will be only marginal winners at best.

Regardless of what people think or say on this board weak/tight is not a terrible way to play micro limit games. It is true that it may not maximize winnings, but it WILL make you a winning player at this level.

I agree. You can play tight before the flop, and weak-tight poker after the flop and beat small limit games. You will not beat them for that much, but you will beat them.

But why learn to play that way? If you learn to play that way, you will not be prepared to move up. If you play that way in mid-limit games, you will not win. You will never be more than a mediocre player. The time to start learning to play correctly is now, in micro-limits. Why learn a simple strategy that beats only very soft games when you can learn a more complex strategy that can beat any limit hold 'em game? Especially when the more complex strategy will win much more in the soft games as well.

You guys are here to learn to play solid, winning poker. Solid winning poker means playing tight before the flop, tight in small pots, and aggressively in big pots.

[Ed Miller]

Folding for one bet on the flop in the A3s is just plain bad. You cannot profitably call with A3s before the flop if you plan to make that fold every time (perhaps this is why so many seem to think the hand should be folded before the flop).

Now, just because you called or raised the flop does not mean that you will necessarily show the hand down. After you act on the flop, you need to do some hand-reading to figure out where you stand. This is a skill that you learn with time. But you are permitted to call on the flop and fold on the turn, for instance... there is no rule that says that if you call the flop, you have committed to calling two more big bets.

But just because you have to make a potentially tough decision later in the hand doesn't mean that you should avoid it by folding. Folding A3s for one bet on the flop after that action is simply giving money away. There is no other educated way to view it.

[tpir]

5 outs = ~8 to 1 (5+8 = 13)
6 outs = ~7 to 1 (6+7 = 13)
7 = ~6 to 1 (7+6 = 13)
8 = ~5 to 1 (8+5 = 13)
9 = ~4 to 1 (9+4 = 13)

this involves some rounding and falls apart outside of this range (4 outs = ~11 to 1) but it's an easy way to quickly recall approximately what odds you are looking for in common situations.

great thread kong!
-tpir

[Ed Miller]

So several of you have objected to my post because I only talked about big pots and little pots without mention of "pot odds." I intentionally did not mention that concept for a couple of reasons:

1. Discussing "pot odds" automatically makes many newer players assume that they are behind. "I have middle pair, and I am getting 8-to-1 to call, so I can call because of the pot odds." The assumption, of course, is that you are behind and drawing. This will often be the case when you have middle pair, but it won't always be the case. The chance that your hand is best is more important when the pot is big.

2. Discussion of "pot odds" makes people play more passively. People think "I have odds to call." They don't think "I'm getting 8-to-1, so I should raise." Frequently you should raise instead of call when the pot is big. The reason is that you improve your chance to win the pot with a raise. When the pot is large, that improved chance is often worth more than the extra bet that you invest.

When you have a marginal hand in a big pot, your hand has value for two reasons. First, you may improve... a chance that you can quantify mathematically. Second, you may have the best hand (or be in the position to eliminate the person with the best hand if no one has a good hand). This chance is much harder to quantify. But it is also VERY costly to ignore. So the pot is laying you 8-to-1. You have a hand that is 14-to-1 against to improve.. but it might be the best hand. What should you do? Well, I can't tell you. But I can tell you that IN GENERAL, when the pot is big, you should continue and when the pot is small, you should fold.

Why should you continue when the pot is big but fold when it is small? 8-to-1 is 8-to-1, after all. The reason is that later bets are smaller in proportion to the pot when it is big than when it is small. Calling down with a marginal made hand is cheaper when the pot contains 16 small bets and it is 2 small bets to you than when it contains only 8 small bets and it is 1 small bet to you.

Furthermore, raising to knock out marginal hands is more profitable when the pot is big. It is much easier to improve your chances of winning by 5% with one extra bet than it is to improve it by 10%. Thus, there is more value to staying in when the pot is big.