Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Poker > Stud

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 02-23-2007, 06:40 AM
PokrLikeItsProse PokrLikeItsProse is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,751
Default Re: Razz past and present

[ QUOTE ]


<u>Ante Stealing</u>
In this section, the difference between the 15/30 and 30/60 games is usually considered, but with some notable exceptions. On p. 108 the author states "When I am reraised on third street and have been trying to steal the ante, I will generally fold. In order to call in this particular spot, you usually need about a three-card nine." He then lists several factors that could cause him to adjust this strategy, but the size of the antes is NOT one of them. In a HU 15/30 game, your odds to call the reraise are 3.5:1, but in a full ring 30/60 games you're getting 4.7:1. Couldn't the difference affect how bad a hand you call with?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is at least partly accounted for by his advice to steal more in the big ante game than in the small ante game. Since you're going to be stealing with more three-card nines in the big ante game, you're going to be calling a reraise with a weaker range than in the small ante game.

He advises to throw away all three-card jacks to reraises, so he seems to think that the border for defending is somewhere between a three-card nine and a three-card ten, tending toward the nine.

[ QUOTE ]

On p. 109, item 5 of his summary advises players to steal with a three-card nine even with 3 or 4 low cards behind you. In order to consider this play a "steal" there has to be a reasonable chance that all the low cards behind you will fold, but when was the last time you played at a razz table with that many low cards out and not ONE player willing to call you? In fact, most razz games today are so loose that if you raise with a smooth three-card 9, it's more of a value bet than a steal! He's obviously assuming a very rocky game which I've heard used to be the norm.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your contention has been that Sklansky is inappropriate for today's structure. If people are calling more often here, it's not because the structure causes looser play, it's because people are looser now than they used to be. Note that the next item advises to adjust your steal frequency based on how likely you are to be called.

[ QUOTE ]

In fact, there are several other examples of advice that disregards how the pot odds created by high antes should change your starting requirements. Like on p. 116 when the author categorizes a 752 starting hand as "weak" if three other babies are gone.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, you miss the context. Look at this in conjunction with the preceding page. He advices raising with "all playable hands" except for a few exceptions, but gives the 752 as an example of a weak but playable hand that would now prefer to play for just a limp if possible in the 15-30 structure.

[ QUOTE ]

On p. 117, when talking about the hands you need to call a single raise, he says that you can loosen up a little in the 30/60 game and MOST three-card sevens can be played unless a lot of your outs are dead. How often would you fold a live three-card seven to a single raise? Clearly he hadn't seen a lot of the hole cards turned over at online razz tables when he wrote this (or even at the 2006 WSOP).


[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, this a matter of psychology and not structure. This is similar to people who complain that HPFAP is not applicable to today's "modern" tables, especially online, forgetting that HPFAP was criticized when it first came out for giving advice that was "too loose".

And he's not talking about folding a live three-card seven, he's talking about folding one whose value goes down because of dead cards. And, I have gotten into the habit of folding rough sevens such as 762 in early position when a lot of the cards showing are aces, threes, and fours and players at my table raise often enough that I worry about having to play for two bets on third street.


[ QUOTE ]

Maybe we can understand his tight play a little better by considering that he's figuring his odds to call a single raise in the 15/30 game as 28:15 and in the 30/60 games as 70:30. This is only a 25% increase, but it's also mathematically wrong since he completely neglects the bring-in in the 30/60 game! The actual pot odds are 80:30 in the 30/60 game for a 43% increase over the 15/30 game. It's a natural mistake though since he makes the same error on p. 107 in claiming that an ante steal at 30/60 is risking $30 to win $40 (should be $50), and again on p. 112 when calculating the odds to defend your bring-in. Here he states that when you're only getting 2.8:1 in the 15/30 game, you'd be correct to fold 100% of the time against a probable steal but the 7:2 odds you get in the 30/60 game could swing it to a call if you hold the best possible hole cards. Except that your pot odds in this spot are actually 4:1 in the 30/60 game. Might this change the correct strategy a little?


[/ QUOTE ]

I concede that it looks like the text contains some math errors.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-23-2007, 10:35 AM
SGspecial SGspecial is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Doctor Razz
Posts: 1,209
Default Re: Razz past and present

[ QUOTE ]
No one is suggesting that the size of the initial pot doesn't matter. I'm just saying that a lot of folks overstate the difference between low-ante games and higher-ante games.

[/ QUOTE ]

From Sklansky on Razz: "the ante and betting structure is extremely important in determining the correct strategy in the game of razz."

I assume you're counting David Sklansky as one of these folks?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-23-2007, 10:44 AM
SGspecial SGspecial is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Doctor Razz
Posts: 1,209
Default Re: Razz past and present

[ QUOTE ]
You are not factoring reverse implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You lost me here, you will have to explain your point a bit better. Sounds like more implied odds junk to me [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That can't be it, since there are no implied odds in Razz.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-23-2007, 10:44 AM
*TT* *TT* is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Vehicle Chooser For Life!
Posts: 17,198
Default Re: Razz past and present

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are not factoring reverse implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You lost me here, you will have to explain your point a bit better. Sounds like more implied odds junk to me [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That can't be it, since there are no implied odds in Razz.

[/ QUOTE ]

VERY wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-23-2007, 11:04 AM
SGspecial SGspecial is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Doctor Razz
Posts: 1,209
Default Re: Razz past and present

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are not factoring reverse implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You lost me here, you will have to explain your point a bit better. Sounds like more implied odds junk to me [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That can't be it, since there are no implied odds in Razz.

[/ QUOTE ]

VERY wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just going by Sklansky on Razz. Despite the fact that he included an essay on implied odds in Sklansky on Poker which explained the fact the he coined the term and has used it in all his subsequent books, implied odds does not appear ONCE in Sklansky on Razz.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-23-2007, 11:10 AM
*TT* *TT* is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Vehicle Chooser For Life!
Posts: 17,198
Default Re: Razz past and present

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are not factoring reverse implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You lost me here, you will have to explain your point a bit better. Sounds like more implied odds junk to me [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That can't be it, since there are no implied odds in Razz.

[/ QUOTE ]

VERY wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just going by Sklansky on Razz. Despite the fact that he included an essay on implied odds in Sklansky on Poker which explained the fact the he coined the term and has used it in all his subsequent books, implied odds does not appear ONCE in Sklansky on Razz.

[/ QUOTE ]

There doesn't need to be a discussion on implied odds to know that implied odds are weighing in future decisions - its an advanced concept. Mind you there are discussions of implied odds in Theory of Poker (published before SOR) using Razz as an example.

Seriously, your a nit. This thread has mad that clear to me. Perhaps you can take an un-nitting class, or some anti-nit pills? More fiber? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-23-2007, 12:27 PM
SplawnDarts SplawnDarts is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,332
Default Re: Razz past and present

[ QUOTE ]
No one is suggesting that the size of the initial pot doesn't matter. I'm just saying that a lot of folks overstate the difference between low-ante games and higher-ante games.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be somewhat true. However, the difference is quite large, so some fairly bombastic statements would be required to do that.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-23-2007, 12:59 PM
SGspecial SGspecial is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Doctor Razz
Posts: 1,209
Default Re: Razz past and present

[ QUOTE ]

I'm just going by Sklansky on Razz. Despite the fact that he included an essay on implied odds in Sklansky on Poker which explained the fact the he coined the term and has used it in all his subsequent books, implied odds does not appear ONCE in Sklansky on Razz.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

There doesn't need to be a discussion on implied odds to know that implied odds are weighing in future decisions - its an advanced concept. Mind you there are discussions of implied odds in Theory of Poker (published before SOR) using Razz as an example.

Seriously, your a nit. This thread has mad that clear to me. Perhaps you can take an un-nitting class, or some anti-nit pills? More fiber? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

There doesn't NEED to be a discussion on anything in a poker book. Authors can give you advice and say "trust me" and you just go and play like they say forever and ever. Personally, I like advanced concepts. I may not be brilliant enough to intuitively know how they should affect my decisions, so I like it when a book explains advanced concepts to me.

I'm not sure I like your assetion that I'm a nit though. A "nit picker" maybe, but certainly not a nit. Then again, if we were playing 15/30 razz at the Stardust in 1979, then I would take that as a compliment [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

P.S. how did you know I need more fiber? you must have a very good read on me...
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-23-2007, 03:49 PM
7n7 7n7 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,369
Default Re: Razz past and present

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are not factoring reverse implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You lost me here, you will have to explain your point a bit better. Sounds like more implied odds junk to me [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That can't be it, since there are no implied odds in Razz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, at a loss here. I know that TT is well into the debate with you, but you need to go back and look up the definition of implied odds again. After you've done that, use logic to determine if it can apply to all forms of poker or not. (Hint: yes)

This quote kind of reminds me of Ed Miller's interview that basically said a lot of players mis-apply concepts they read in books. In this case, it's what they don't read.

All that to say, you're reading books wrong. You gotta' do some thinking beyond what's in print and use knowledge gained from other sources. You can't read them like a cookbook with an exact recipe to be found.

If I sound smug, my bad, but I was the exact same way when I first started my reading.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-23-2007, 04:25 PM
SGspecial SGspecial is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Doctor Razz
Posts: 1,209
Default Re: Razz past and present

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are not factoring reverse implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You lost me here, you will have to explain your point a bit better. Sounds like more implied odds junk to me [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That can't be it, since there are no implied odds in Razz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, at a loss here. I know that TT is well into the debate with you, but you need to go back and look up the definition of implied odds again. After you've done that, use logic to determine if it can apply to all forms of poker or not. (Hint: yes)

This quote kind of reminds me of Ed Miller's interview that basically said a lot of players mis-apply concepts they read in books. In this case, it's what they don't read.

All that to say, you're reading books wrong. You gotta' do some thinking beyond what's in print and use knowledge gained from other sources. You can't read them like a cookbook with an exact recipe to be found.

If I sound smug, my bad, but I was the exact same way when I first started my reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

No prob 7n7, and thanks for your input. You have every right to be smug after reading that, just like I have a right to be facetious [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Check out the rest of the thread for further explanation if you haven't already...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.