Draw Comments Can Go Here

[Tom Bayes]

OK, here are my quick takes (although I'm not really the target audience for your article).

1. I don't really ever remember hearing the misconception "You can't make money at draw". It's probably difficult to near-impossible to be a pro playing strictly draw (maybe bigpooch can do it, but I think he plays other games as well). I haven't tried, since I have a regular job and like to play draw tourneys since I like to find weird niche games [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

2. Most of the bad draw players (the curious newbies and the perpetual call stations and weak-tighties) tend to play the smallest games, but there are occasional donkey sightings in the bigger games, when a guy with a big bankroll and a big ego decides he wants to play draw. A few years ago, when I was playing Paradise cash games semi-regularly, there was a simply awful player who I'd play at whatever limit he wanted. He donked off money every day for a few weeks, then disappeared. You do have to be careful with game selection, since most of the regulars in higher games are decent or better and it can be hard to beat the rake, especially at the sites like Ongame that are raketraps.

3. PL 5CD donkaments are all about luck. There is no skill. Come flip coins with me [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Actually, I have a good track record in draw MTTs across several sites, although it took me a while to get accustomed to the more aggressive play and better tournament poker skills found at Stars. Planet Poker tends to attract incredibly passive play, B2B had dumb Swedish donkeys who pay off with anything, and Ongame was nice because lots of people would not take the rebuy/addon. In general, I think draw MTTs are +EV for people who have both decent 5CD fundamentals and are semi-competent at tournament strategy and can change gears as the blinds increase. A lot of old-school draw players can't/won't adjust to shallow stacks and a lot of new-school players try too many stupid bluffs and pay off with marginal hands and believe they have pot odds to make calls when they really don't.

4. MW's articles are the seminal work for online draw poker. Some of the posters in Other Poker have some quibbles and starting hand charts should never be played robotically, but most of the smallest games can be beat just playing Wiesenberg 101. Note-taking and figuring out your opponents is the next step.

5. Don't educate the fish! While this is trivial to 2+2ers, this really must be a misconception because so many players spew chips because they can't fold two low pair, a hand where you are usually SA/WB (slightly ahead/way behind).

6. I agree in general, but I have notes on players that it is not a good idea to cap low trips against. I haven't played as many Stars cash games as you, but I don't totally agree that " Many players have the misconception that a three-bet or cap means a monster in draw. That simply isn’t true. " From a sizable subset of your opponents, 3-bets and caps are monsters.

7. I'm guessing the variance in online draw is higher than the sort of standard deviations that Mason would find in the jacks-or-better Gardena games of a bygone era. I'm speculating, but the lack of physical tells and the general higher level of aggression online as opposed to live increases the variance in just about all forms of poker. 5CD has still got to be one of the lowest variance poker games out there, especially when compared to its degenerate cousin 2-7 Triple Draw Lowball.

8. Never bluffing is bad. Bluffing too much is bad. I'd like to have seen more guidance in determining when and how often to bluff, and when to use a game-theoretic approach of bluffing when you have certain hands or an exploitive approach to adjust for players that are too tight/too loose.

Another criticism is that you were never totally clear as to whether you were playing limit or PL draw, although I inferred that you were addressing limit draw. I think bluffing and playing come hands, along with bet sizing, is one of the main areas where one must think differently when playing PL or NL draw as opposed to limit.

In general, I liked the article and I'm happy to have seen a draw article. Your grade: A- [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Murakawa]

From you, I am extatic to see anything B- or up.

Many of these misconception are from players that I "coach" personally, IE people who will teach me some hold em' in exchange for draw help, and another thing which I don't really want to get into.

I thought the full title of the article said Limit.

As for not educating the fish, I have talked with many people about this, and one person brought up that super system was supposed to destroy the poker games when it just made them juicier. Anyway, if someone posted these question in the forum SOMEONE would have answered them.

Capping with trips --- yes, but fold your KK against someone who only plays AA in hold 'em. I could have explained more about how this is player dependant, and draw can be a player dependant game. All of poker is. It seemed that 2+2ers would know that. I think if this is article 2 in how to play draw, always take detailed notes is in article 1.

Of course never bluffing is bad, but very few players bluff just enough. Again, maybe I could have reworded it about how to find an equlibrium about bluffing (i wrote a horrendous article about just this which I have shown to nobody).

To number 3 about tourneys... you know they're not coinflips, and yes there is variance... well you know. I'm not sure you're criticizing so much as expanding what I said. How come the first time you final tabled you won, Tom Bayes? Because you're a really good draw player. I know oyu know that but if you have luck enough to get to the final table, then you are probably skilled enough to win, especially against only the 6 people left. If sure you do recall someone posting that "there is always a really good chance a competent player can win" and someone else posting hands with huge mistakes who also went on to win.

The target audience is people who have read Wisenberg 101 but are still struggling or not sure on how to deal with certain situations. In the original Wiesenberg article he mentions to fold small 2 pair and reraise Jacks up. it's easy to miss, but this is something you see that winning players understand but slow winners or losing players have left from their game. There is a difference between making 2bb/100 and 5bb/100 and a lot of these details are about value bets that, besides my personal "coaching" (really just some ghosting) students, many players do not make.

All these things are from my own experience, and I chose each point from complaints made to me by beginning or barely intermediate draw players.

As for the hard games: At least when I have played higher stakes draw I have done well against good players. The win rate is lower, and the games go slower, but even without a donk at the table you can outplay people. You have to be up against the 5 best players of draw to simply be losing to rake... I know a few top draw players who won't play the higher stakes games, and one who says that they are full of it and aren't adjusting their game properly. I think it is somewhere in between, and of course you should look at table selection. When I play high stakes I mix up my game against the right opponents and play standard against others. It works.

I feel like we're arguing for the same thing most of the time. Big Thanks for your comments, though.

Mura

[Tom Bayes]

[ QUOTE ]

I thought the full title of the article said Limit.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I interpreted the "low-limit" as meaning small stakes and you specifically meant low fixed limit. It is true that most of your comments are applicable to the pot-limit games as well.

[ QUOTE ]

As for not educating the fish, I have talked with many people about this, and one person brought up that super system was supposed to destroy the poker games when it just made them juicier. Anyway, if someone posted these question in the forum SOMEONE would have answered them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I should have used an emoticon. I was kidding about educating the fish. People that want to get better and study the game will hunt down resources and people that just want to click their mouse and gamb00l and not think will keep donating.

[ QUOTE ]

Of course never bluffing is bad, but very few players bluff just enough. Again, maybe I could have reworded it about how to find an equlibrium about bluffing.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is one of the aspects of draw that keeps the game interesting, in that it is difficult to get your bluffing equilibrium just right. Most opponents make enough errors (either too tight or too loose) that you can usually exploit them better than playing a strict Ankeny-style game. BTW, do you have any specific hands that you always bluff with or not? (Maybe you don't want to answer [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

[ QUOTE ]

To number 3 about tourneys... you know they're not coinflips, and yes there is variance... well you know. I'm not sure you're criticizing so much as expanding what I said.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mostly expanding, as I play most tournament draw and feel more comfortable blathering about that game than ring play. I've reached more of a comfort zone with the Stars tourneys now, as I've adjusted to the Stars blind structure and I have some semblance of notes on most of the tourney regulars by now and there seem to be fewer maniac newbies-who are tougher to play than call stations or rocks.

Mura, remember the wild player who beat you HU in a tourney a couple of months ago (by hitting an astounding number of draws) and how he was bragging about how he "owned" draw because he was on a huge lucky streak. I checked him out on officialpokerrankings dot com and his 5CD MTT results recently are pretty sucky. That player (with a very LAGgy style) seems to be feast or famine, final table or busto.

I've been thinking over the last few days how draw is a game where there are not many "coinflip" type hands that are so commonplace in holdem. Draw situations are usually of the "Way Ahead/Way Behind" scenario. I'm going to check out the MTT archives and see if there is any good stuff on WA/WB that can be transferred from NLHE to PL5CD.

I have some more draw tourney thoughts, but maybe I'll post them back in Other Poker.

[Murakawa]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is one of the aspects of draw that keeps the game interesting, in that it is difficult to get your bluffing equilibrium just right. Most opponents make enough errors (either too tight or too loose) that you can usually exploit them better than playing a strict Ankeny-style game. BTW, do you have any specific hands that you always bluff with or not? (Maybe you don't want to answer )

[/ QUOTE ]

ankeny is a beast. I undestand and probably applied what he has said in his book without realizing it, but he really bothers to do all the math just to prove it. I think those few players from the garden days would absolutely destroy the high stakes tables because they know that against certain opponents bluffing is way +EV and they can adjust.

No, I won't tell you which hands I bluff with, but I will say that there are 2 kinds of bluffs (which are not semi bluffs, like standing pat with 2 pair) : totall BS from the beginning (draws 1 or stands pat with nothing), the continuation bluff, just betting an unimproved hand after the draw because you think your opponent is weak and may fold a better hand, and come draw bluffs, where you have 7-10 outs depending on which cards you have in your hand, what type of hand your opponent has, and which kind of draw you have. You mostly see the last kind.

Standing pat with 2 pair.. I just... I won't do it. Most players will call down with aces up and screw you. I can stand pat with two pair to induce a call when I think someone will call me with a lone hand...