Getting "priced in"

ROFL, if there is some hostility as this thread continues, its because of this. Cowboy is repeating that people just don't understand. They do but disagree, and I think there are many kinds of players disagreeing. I can see your point about opening up your range when last to act with several in the pot...but it should be hands like semi connectors with nut possibilities against this many players not ATC where you can catch all kinds of crushed hands...and I know its your max but 20% is way too much. The players reading this thread aren't one dimensional, but maybe not enough calling stations have read this yet.

Its been my experiance that with 5 or more callers they are eating each others cards, ie, alot of the A off. KQ and such are not "live" giving me a better chance of hitting with lessor cards and leaving them not much to draw to.

There probably will be some shared cards, but with five in there will also likely be a setminer, better drawing cards etc. An advantage to doing something like this is the worst players are looking to get their money in right away. Some seem to think they'll build a pot to take it down with ace high, and there are others who will call it all off with any part of the board...but you have no reads at this point. You can play better speculative hands and more of them for a couple hundred chips. There will still be bad players to pay you off after you hit, so you don't need to be throwing so much in blind.

no one is acting behind you, remember this is a PREFLOP situation, I dont suggest it unless you are in a blind or on the button.

LOL. OK, Cowboy. I even conceded some points to you, and you respond by telling me the basis again...which everyone knows...and I didn't contradict in my post...I'm out. In the words of the mystery mailer, "I need to let it go"

What if im sitting and a .5/1 limit table with lets say 3k. Does that mean i should call every single bet/raise preflop since its less than 20% of my stack??

I don't think anybody called anybody an idiot. I said Cowboy was getting cranky because he was.

But who's disparaging whom anyway? You say you've learned a lot on this thread. There are many well-reasoned responses as to why Cowboy's play is a bad one. Not that he's a bad person or a bad player, but that this particular advice is verifiably bogus. Rather than counter these responses, he tells us to go back to the Dummies book and yells to re-read his thread. He says ignore the 20%, but his original thread is where he laid out the paramaters which are: first hand of a tournament, call up to 20% with any two cards including 72o.

It's not bad what he has in mind. He's looking for huge implied odds. But there's no reason to think he'll defy statistical probability and hit a monster often enough to justify a huge call. And when it comes to beginners' books - that's one of the main premises: know your playable hand ranges.

Cowboy is giving terrible advice. He's basically saying be a calling station in the worst possible position. Then if you don't hit, get away from it. We mortals might not be able to do that, but Cowboy will always have perfect knowledge - even though he's the first to act, and he'll know just when to fold or bet the two pair he just hit. Cowboy probably is a pretty good post-flop player. He'd have to be to adhere to a strategy like this.

Note that he didn't talk about creative play like coming back with a raise to see where he stands, etc. Just to call against statistical odds.

This has not been an arguments. It's been a discussion. Now maybe it's an argument. There is a lot of kindness to new players here, but it's a two-way street. Several of us have put quite a bit of effort in cogently responding to Cowboy's question. But we're dummies. Then he gets an e-mail from a mysterious player and because there's this one person who happens to agree with him but doesn't have the strength of his conviction to participate openly in the discussion, now we're all one-dimensional players who just will never get it. Who sent you the e-mail, Cowboy? I bet it was Doyle himself. Well, then. That settles it.

My concern is not about convincing Cowboy because obviously that is not going to happen. My concern is with the integrity of the forum. CarsdChat has been a place where topics can be discussed accurately and dispassionately, minds can be changed and many things can be learned. Now with this 50-post race going on, there's a plethora of bad advice in the forums. I hate to see beginners exposed to this kind of stuff, but I guess they will benefit in the long run if they can wade through it and learn how to discern quality from crap.

I doubt this is a big hole in Cowboy's game because the 20% scenario he describes is pretty rare. I look for good implied odds too, but usually not at that price and in that position. But in analyzing poker problems, you look at the long run. If you make that play at every opportunity and there are going to be thousands of opportunities over the course of your career, what are the effects on your bankroll going to be? If it's clearly shown that it's a losing play but you still want to do it, what's the logic in that?

As to poker being a purely statistical game, of course it's not. One of Sklansky's priniciples is to manipulate the situation so your opponent will do the opposite of what he would do if you were playing your cards up. If it's pure statistics, then just play all the cards up. But you assess your opponents, you project an image and represent different hands. you bluff, you trap, sometimes you make a call against one player that you wouldn't against another because of the implied odds. But if there is one part of poker that's more clearly statistically determined than others, it is when to make a CALL. Not a bet or a raise, but a CALL. If you are going to call when you don't have the pot odds, you should have a good reason. We've asked Cowboy to show us what that reason is and all he comes up with is that we're one-dimensional players who should re-read his original post then go back to the dummies books.

I'm glad you found something of value in this thread. Cowboy says he likes discussing, but I can't find an instance here where's he's done any discussing or contemplating at all. But perhaps you have.
Gary

I can't count the number of times my pocket As were sucked out on by my not pushing all in pre-flop! At the CC FR at Carbon Fri., I hit A-A once, pushed-the others folded, and I won the pot---Then I got it AGAIN maybe 5-6 hands later, and got greedy, so I raised 390 I think, was called by 8-10--and he flopped the straight! I can't help but wonder if I'd have done what I did the 1st time, push, would I have gone all the way instead of out at 40th (or so).

I suppose that was the line that made me respond that way.

I suppose that poker is a game where a little shit-talk is normal and sometimes it might just carry over here.

And yes I have heard some attitude coming from the other direction too.

But yes.. I continue to enjoy this discussion.

Rick, you're a regular poster and probably a good player. You can't possibly be serious to think that the aberrational outcome of one or two hands is justification to alter the way you play.

I hate to be nit-picking, but James did not call Cowboy an idiot. He called him an IGNORANT STUBBORN IDIOT.

There's a difference.

Capslock, help me with technique.

How do you post two quotes from different posts in one reply?

How does one post a jpg and continue to text below it?

How does on learn these marvelous techniques?

I learned how to Screen Capture from CardsChat and thought that was pretty darned cool, but now I want to take it to the next level.

That's not what this is about. That's the way Cowboy's framing it: two different opinions, both valid. You stick to yours and I'll stick to mine.

But that's not at all the case in regards to this scenario. There is demonstrably a right and a wrong here. Cowboy has every right to stick with the wrong opinion, but it's NOT just two sides jawing at each other. Cowboy seems like a decent guy, but he doesn't listen to reason and he's stuck in his ways. He might be a damned good player for all I know.

The danger here is for a newbie to come along, see the argument and think there are equally valid points on both sides. If you believe in proper hand analysis, that is just not true.

I totally understand Cowboy's point and concede that it's fantastic if you stumble in to the dream scenario. But there's a clearly predictable possibility of that happening, and it does not measure up to the pot odds in this situation. A creative player such as Cowboy - or perhaps even me on occasion - might do it anyway, but we're handicapped by our early position, especially if we DO somewhat hit the flop. The large pot pretty much justifies taking many draws and if we don't hit - which we usually don't, it would be easy to burn our entire stack on the VERY FIRST HAND.

That's if it even gets that far. What if Cowboy calls $300 in the small blind, then the Big Blind goes all in. A couple more call. Great pot odds there. Are we going to call the all-in and put our whole tourney on the fate of a first-hand all-in donkfest. I invite discussion. Somebody please tell me how this makes sense.

But the much more likely result is that Cowboy throws in his $300, misses the flop and folds to a post-flop raise, thereby starting his tourney up to 20% behind. Who wants to consistently play in such a way that you put yourself in this position? I'm just about blue in the face. I give up on Cowboy, and the rest of you seem to have a good understanding of the situation, so I suppose it's just silly for me to even be making these comments.

There is seldom such a clearcut situation where the right and the wrong are so obviously discernible, yet somebody chooses to see it as a disagreement between two equivalently valued opinions. It is most definitely not that.
Gary

FWIW, I have no argument against the wrongness of the OPs proposed trick-play. You needn't convince me of the argument. In the original scenario there are a slim few hands I would not either raise or fold.

As to your other questions, most all of the info you need is here:
Poker Forums - vB Code List

The basic jist is you use 'tags' enclosed in [brackets] to begin a special function and end them with the same thing with a slash [/brackets].

Let's pretend straight [brackets] are {curly} ones for the sake of example and I'll show you.

This code for bold:
{b}stupid poker strstegy{/b}
stupid poker strstegy (you cant see the code there because I catuall did it with the straight brackets)

This one for a picture:
{img}http://www.erinhilldonkeystud.com/images/donkey_using_computer_hg_clr.gif{/img}

Does:


And so on...

Take a look at that page.

Ok, let me make some purely theoretical arguments against your concept:

1. Although no hand is usually that big of a dog to another in hold'em (even a dominated ace has a 30% chance to win), that is taking into account SEEING THE RIVER.

For example: super tight player raises, and you are certain he has a big pair; you hold 22, and call a raise with then intention of only continuing if you hit a set. Your 22 is 20% to win vs. his AA (5:1 odds): IF you see all five cards! However, you are only 7.5:1 to flop a set (vs. 5:1 for all five cards). So you have to fold to his c-bet when you miss.

The point I'm trying to make here: although no hand is, for example, a 7:1 dog to any other hand, this still isn't enough to complete the sb many time. Why? Because you wont usually see the river, especially since:

2. You can often times hit and still lose, especially with a very weak hand. Maybe you're a super post flop player, and maybe you can lay down A4o on an A72 flop, maybe not. But then, why call 20% of your stack if you need to hit THAT hard to continue. In other words, your setting yourself up to spew with one pair that is probably no good. This is especially true in a multi-way pot, where even TWO pair might not end up a winner.

Your argument is an attempt to understand implied odds, but really you end up putting yourself into negative implied odd situations a lot of the time.

3. Your action is essentially a passive one (call and hope to hit/huge), but there are other more profitable avenues available to you-- if a raiser gets multiple callers, why not try a squeeze play? If there is 20% of your stack out there already to win, why not shove and put them to the test?

^^fairly unorganized thoughts off the top of my head, fwiw.

Thank you very much for weighing in, Genius. I have high respect for your knowledge and thought process.
Gary

Sure. You can call me "AG".

I should apologize. I was an asshole earlier and I know I sort of blew my top. Sorry that I was so mean about this whole situation, I realize that everyone has the right to an opinion and I shouldn't be disrespecting that, even when I disagree. Sorry Cowboy, hopefully we can have a more civil relationship from now on.

lol....everyone tilts man, dont worry about it........but take a min and read this.......
Playing the blinds

Playing out of the blinds is different since you are already in the hand some. You'll play looser here but not too loose and how loose or tight depends solely on how many people are in the hand. If you have a hand even as weak as 79 off suit in the big blind and everyone is in (a "family pot") with a raise then you would call. The reasoning behind this is that you are getting great odds for your money. This same approach is true across the game. The less money out there, the better hand you have to have since you aren't getting good odds. The more money in the pot the weaker your hand has to be to play since if you do win even a small percentage of the time you'll profit.

Its from Basic Texas Holdem Strategy - Learn How to Play Texas Holdem Poker

and all the stragedy threads say the same thing. I admit I am a gambler ans too lose for my own good. but the 20% is my personal maxium meaning even if everyone called the pot I wouldnt go in for more than 20%. for most players it should be what ever they are comfortable with loosing as most of the time, you will fold up post flop. The whole point I am trying to make is the situation is rare, but when it does present its self it is a very good way to make alot of money if it does hit. you make money two ways on this. you hit and take that pot and everyone at the table sizes you up as an ATM machine that will play anyy two cards and you can work that to your advantage in later hands

Why is it so hard to understand? If calling means putting in 20% of your stack, you either shove or you fold. Period.

I am not sure I see the logic in this one. Help me out if you have time. You mean in cash games? Tourneys? Shortstacked? Shorthanded?

At a glance this seems about as crazy as the original idea.

cAPS

I think what TC is saying that in order to call of 20% of your stack, you need a very strong hand, which would be worthy of a shove. Or you're hand is so bad that your best option is to fold.

For example, lets say you're in BB with KK and you have a 1K stack. Its raised to 200/20% of stack in EP and there are 3 callers before you. Well, with KK, you're not going to want to just to call 200 and let 4 other people see the flop, so you're going to want to shove here and isolate.

Thats true pilthy, the stronger the hand the more apt I am to go up to 20%, but this whole thread is about how the number of callers reduces how strong your hand has to be to see the flop.