Draw Comments Can Go Here

[Murakawa]

Ahhh yeah...

[jfk]

I don't read the "Other Poker" sub-forum much and am unfamiliar with your background.

If you could, some biographical info would be of interest.

How long have you been playing draw? What books or vehicles did you use to teach yourself draw? Why did you gravitate to online draw versus other games? How long did it take you to win regularly in online draw? What poker skills do you feel are most and least important in draw?

Your article deals with "misconceptions". Is there an active draw community in which these views are widely held? Do you feel that most draw players are remnants of players who played years ago or those who've migrated from hold 'em? What (if any) playing aids do you use to keep track of your opponents tendencies? Are notes sufficient enough or is the playing community small enough that remembering individuals is not hard?

Lastly, what sites offer draw? Have you found any casino/card room draw games in this day and age?

Enjoyed the article.

[Murakawa]

Because most of these questions are about me and not the article I'll be brief, but I'm sure you want to know basically how I know what I know.

I've been playing draw since I was a little kid (which doesn't count) but also for as long as I have been playing online (which is a year since I've been playing seriously, several years just for fun). At first I played a couple of low stakes tables of draw, before finally moving onto some higher stakes tables, and then back to multi-tabling. I first read the Wiesenberg Article mentioned in my article about draw, then started playing draw on pokerroom, where I was an immediate winner. This was before I was playing online seriously and found the small swings in draw to accomodate my tiny bankroll. I then read the rest of Wiesenberg's articles, finally deposited more money on pokerroom, and played whenever there was a live game. I also played the daily pokerroom draw tourneys whenever I could. I found that by taking notes and following Wisenberg's suggestions I was able to crush the games, could usually put players on hands, and started to scribble out odds in my free time (college classes). I also started posting on 2+2 more often (where I had asked questions when I first started playing) and found that I knew about as much as almost anyone else on the forum when there was a draw question. I took a hiatus until stars added draw and then played on there, first at low stakes, then multi tabling 2/4 and 3/6 and playing 5/10 when there was a live game. I also recently read the Ankeny book from the 70's which is hard to find but very good. He deals with PL draw and antes but many of the concepts still ring true. It is actually kind of like the theory of poker for draw a few years earlier, but also only applies game theory to draw. Therefore the examples in the book are very helpful and do deal with common situations.

As for remembering players, I take notes rabidly, and use poker graphers to track my progress.

I scour the major poker forums looking for anything new on draw, and have a couple of informal students and mentors in draw. The misconceptions are based on problems that players that ask me or the forums for help often hold. These are also questions that I had when first playing draw. On this forum or others, there is often a draw newcomer who asks about the Wiesenberg Standards, or calling with 2 pair. Of all the people that I've ghosted and were losing players, every single one of them took 2 small pair too far. There are also many newcomers who ask if winning at draw is sustainable as a poker income, and I think that it can be. So, basically, these misconceptions come from this forum and others, and others who have asked me about draw (and others whom I have asked).

Most draw players are hold 'em players who have migrated to draw when they see the tab that says "draw", or they remember playing it as kids and decide to take a shot. Few players seem to be from the pre-hold 'em gardena, CA days of draw with a joker and antes, but some are still around. Many of these players play lowball, as far as I can tell.

I have never played live outside of a home game, and have asked all around for live draw games and they don't seem to exist.

As for the sites that offer draw, well, this also doesn't have to do with the article. Look for Wiesenberg's articles in Cardplayer.com, they are the best resource for draw. He has an entire article on that. The short list, though, is US: pokerstars, planet, microgaming (with antes) NON US: pokerroom, boss network (fortune), 24h network (PL only)

Play at stars if in US, otherwise play at boss network if you can otherwise pokerroom.

I hope this answers your questions

Mura

[Biggle10]

#5 is so very player dependent. Can you define what you classify as low 2-pair? I agree that its a raise or fold situation usually.

[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

[Murakawa]

Low two pair, in this case, is 8's up or worse. I usually fold 9's up and often ten's up. It just gets you into too much trouble.

I isually treat 10's up or less as low two pair. This works because if your opponent makes 2 pair you'll still be ahead some of the time... this is because they'r emostly not open raising with less than Jacks. Therefore, if I'm going to play, I'd like to play with someone that jacks cannot easily out draw.

It is kind of similar to playing QQ in late position against limpers. 1 limper I fold QQ (usually) 1 limper I raised KK (in general). Queens become a drawing hand with a lot of people in the pot and drop in value even if you're ahead before the draw. If you don't improve and there are 3 opponents with pairs drawing 3 then you're not in a good situtuation. That's even true with something like 5577x

[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...