Draw Poker: Play Poker, Quit Work and Sleep Till Noon

[Al Mirpuri]

I have just finished reading John Fox's book (originally published in 1978).

A few thoughts:

Jacks or better, California Draw was much more interesting and difficult than today's two blinds format,

Fox's point count for determining whether to sandbag (check and then raise when someone else opened) or not was truly revolutionary (even if later shown to be flawed by Mike Caro in Supersystem),

For some unfathomable reason, Fox only thought of raising when strong after the draw or calling if you thought your opponent bluffing he never seemed to think a call for value was in order. I take it Fox was not implying that he was 'card reading' was so precise that a player was only confronted with the raise/fold dichotomy after the draw but I have a bad feeling that maybe he was doing just that but he does not state it explicitly,

In one of the poker essays books Mason Malmuth mentions Jacks Back which was played without the bug and was Jacks or better unless passed out when it became lowball. This seemed like a hell of a game to me but no mention of it in Fox's book so if nothing else he was not enamoured of it. Do any of you old-timers remember it?

Finally, what was 'old reliable' the tell so powerful that if your opponent was bluffing it revealed it to you infallibly. A tell so powerful that Fox sold it separately for $25 (in 1978!)? Not that I think such a thing exists but it is interesting that Fox thought so. (It is not the 'weak when strong, strong when weak' tell nor the 'lots of chatter when good silent when bluffing' or 'looks at you when bluffing, looks away when strong', all of which are mentioned in the text so just what could it be?)

[Murakawa]

how do banned spammers get to post? That's weird. Anyway euchre is a man's game.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
For some unfathomable reason, Fox only thought of raising when strong after the draw or calling if you thought your opponent bluffing he never seemed to think a call for value was in order. I take it Fox was not implying that he was 'card reading' was so precise that a player was only confronted with the raise/fold dichotomy after the draw but I have a bad feeling that maybe he was doing just that but he does not state it explicitly

[/ QUOTE ]

never say never but most commonly a "value call" is actually "i'm not sure so i'll do this" - compromise like that is bad in all forms of poker

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[2461Badugi]

[ QUOTE ]
how do banned spammers get to post? That's weird.

[/ QUOTE ]

All mods can ban spammers, but only the specific forum mods can delete posts. So somebody came along and canned the spammer but the post remains for the moment.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For some unfathomable reason, Fox only thought of raising when strong after the draw or calling if you thought your opponent bluffing he never seemed to think a call for value was in order. I take it Fox was not implying that he was 'card reading' was so precise that a player was only confronted with the raise/fold dichotomy after the draw but I have a bad feeling that maybe he was doing just that but he does not state it explicitly

[/ QUOTE ]

never say never but most commonly a "value call" is actually "i'm not sure so i'll do this" - compromise like that is bad in all forms of poker

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[/ QUOTE ]

You dismiss the value call too easily. I think there are plenty of situations where calling is right but folding/raisng is wrong.

[Murakawa]

[ QUOTE ]

You dismiss the value call too easily. I think there are plenty of situations where calling is right but folding/raisng is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

true that. Often you have pot odds to call, and raising will only loose you another bet and never get just called.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
You dismiss the value call too easily. I think there are plenty of situations where calling is right but folding/raisng is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

i completely agree with the second sentence

poker isnt an overly complex game - you dont have to have any particular IQ gift to be succesful at it - compared to other games poker is a test of the practical not the theoretical

i think that when your playing you should always be backing your own judgement because if you arent then your not going to refine and develop that judgement which ultimately is going to seperate winners and losers - i think the value call is commonly a way of not backing your judgement - its commonly a way of being lazy and not thinking enough

never heard of the author but the little piece you extracted rang true to me as making this point

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...never heard of the author...

[/ QUOTE ]

Friend,

John Fox was a Gardena pro in the 1970s, a true California Draw expert.

If you ever play live then you must buy this book.

If you don't play live you can still extract value from it.

Thank me once you have read the book and realised what a big favour I have just done you. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Phat Mack]

Hey Al,

A few brief comments:

limon was trying to find out what 'old reliable' was four or five years ago. You might PM him and ask if he ever found out.

Jacks Back was a good game with a lot of interesting strategy. Guts back (guts to open, then back to lowball) was a good game that had it's advocates as a heads up game. See Mike Caro's New Poker Games book.

If you like this book, read Fox's How to Hustle Home Poker. It has a lot of interesting stuff about non-standard games.

Fox's paragraph on <u>Players of Modest Mentality Who Form Hypotheses</u>, and the discussion that ensues on the following several pages, is the best explanation of the current political situation ever written.