"Drawing Hand" v. "Made Hand"

[F Paulsson]

For those that didn't get the memo:

There is no intrinsic difference between a "drawing hand" and a "made hand." A hand has a certain chance of winning after showdown. Any classification that uses some arbitrary division with words such as "made" and "drawing" only leads you to faulty conclusions.

That is all.

/FP, annoyed.

 

[ChuckTs]

Thank you!

The misunderstanding of this point is where false adages like "AK is only a drawing hand" come from. People fear QQ because it's a "made hand" but don't look at the actual equities - obviously QQ is a ~55/45 favourite over AK.

Anyways good point and PLEASE READ THIS, people.

/Taylor, also annoyed with the nonsense posts lately

 

[NineLions]

Stickie this thread in the new "beginners" section ....

 

[F Paulsson]

United we stand, together we march!

After writing this post I saw your rant in another thread on exactly the same topic. Great minds think alike.

 

[bluesboy47]

While I agree with you that in holdem a "made hand" simply isn’t all that clear. Big pairs versus a draw (straight or flush draws or as ChuckTs discusses AK) just doesn’t translate into a clear cut situation in holdem; the concept does apply to 5 card draw. When 5 card was more popular the game was often played with a jacks-or-better rule. That rule stipulated that the opening hand had to be at least a large pair, that a draw couldn’t open the pot.

Gary Carson in his book, The Complete Book of Hold’Em Poker talks about one theoretical perspective of poker as poker being a conflict between a made hand and a draw. However he does discuss the fact that the concept is not useful in all situations.

 

[WVHillbilly]

Can I continue to use my other meaningless poker clichés?

"You either win small or lose big with aces."
"Any two cards can win."
"I had to call. Pot odds!"
"They were sooted!"
"You've got to know when your aces are no good."
"Try telling that to Doyle Brunson."
And my favorite: "I play the player, not the cards."

 

[BelgoSuisse]

A "made hand" is just a hand that draws to the cards that do not improve the "drawing hand" they face.

 

[zachvac]

A "made hand" is just a hand that draws to the cards that do not improve the "drawing hand" they face.

EXACTLY. I've been trying to get this point across for so long and it's amazing how many people will argue this. AA vs. KK to a blank flop (no flush or straight draws, no aces or kings) is drawing to runner-runner with 43 and 42 outs respectively (out of 45 and 43 cards in the deck) or if a K hits they have 2 outs to a redraw.

This comes up a lot especially when it's all-in. If the chips are in the pot and the hands are face up, "playable hand" has no meaning. equity is the ONLY thing that matters at this point. Despite KQ being a better hand than A3o preflop with future action, when you get it all-in A3o is the better hand because it has a higher equity. That's all.

 

[KenFischer]

I like how Rolf Slotboom puts it in his book "Hold'em on the Come":

"Every hand you play has a leader and one or more chasers... Every hand is a study in implied odds."

So, perhaps the real question to ponder with any hand isn't whether you are drawing, but instead whether you are in the lead (considered along with the odds of that changing).

 

[zachvac]

I like how Rolf Slotboom puts it in his book "Hold'em on the Come":

"Every hand you play has a leader and one or more chasers... Every hand is a study in implied odds."

So, perhaps the real question to ponder with any hand isn't whether you are drawing, but instead whether you are in the lead (considered along with the odds of that changing).

This is part of it, but there's also cases such as an OESFD. You are ahead on the flop but the majority of the time you will be a dog on the turn. So you have to look at how likely you are to win the hand along with how that is likely to change on future streets and how the betting is likely to go on future streets.

edit: Sorry, just realized that you actually did say that in parentheses. Sorry I can't read

 

[nevadanick]

Right on, bluesboy, re: the J's or better. Remember those days well ...

As I recall, there are several reasons why it changed. J's or better did result in lower rakes for live tables (there was no online poker then). More players wanted to 'chase' hands and realizing it would create more in rake, casinos agreed and removed the J's or better requirements. With the exception of private games, these were still mostly 'limit' tables.

Along came Holdem hand-in-hand with internet 'instant gratification'. Then they gave Lady Luck a floating seat and 'ATC' became common for the internet player. Internet sites created freerolls. Why? To suck more cash players into the sites. It WORKED ...

poker sites became Big Business. Not to be outdone, they added bonusses, rakebacks and things like Frequent Player Points - patterned after Credit Card Rewards and Airline Frequent Flyer Miles. Who can't resist flying a million miles to get one 'FREE' trip, or spending $10,000 on your Credit Card to get a 'FREE' leather briefcase?

These items just don't match the mentality of J's or better. Changed the face of real poker - forever. Where would the 3,8o player be today if they couldn't go all-in FIRST .

All too often, poker is now a game of 'who gets lucky', making it more a game of 'chance' than 'skill'. Poker used to be played on skill, reads, tells, bets and cards - and a little luck. There are hundreds of ticket lottos every week in every part of the world. Now there are lottos every minute of every day and they call them 'poker sites'.

Interesting how appropriate the term "Good LUCK on the felt" has become ...

 

[drawingneardead]

All too often, poker is now a game of 'who gets lucky', making it more a game of 'chance' than 'skill'. Poker used to be played on skill, reads, tells, bets and cards - and a little luck. There are hundreds of ticket lottos every week in every part of the world. Now there are lottos every minute of every day and they call them 'poker sites'.

Interesting how appropriate the term "Good LUCK on the felt" has become ...

Absolutely right! However, the action at live casinos has not degraded in such a manner. The players of the new age of poker you mention are being felted at an amazing pace in live games.

Online poker is absolutely not representative of the real game which is being played in casinos. Players who learn primarily online are missing a HUGE aspect of game theory.

Meanwhile brick & mortar players who are drawn to the convenience of online poker are appalled at what is considered "solid play" online.

The outlook is very good though. This situation is what top players and professionals around the globe want to perpetuate. The net is a fish farm, and no amount of online experience makes a player ready to hit the live games.

 

[F Paulsson]

Absolutely right! However, the action at live casinos has not degraded in such a manner. The players of the new age of poker you mention are being felted at an amazing pace in live games.

Online poker is absolutely not representative of the real game which is being played in casinos. Players who learn primarily online are missing a HUGE aspect of game theory.

Meanwhile brick & mortar players who are drawn to the convenience of online poker are appalled at what is considered "solid play" online.

The outlook is very good though. This situation is what top players and professionals around the globe want to perpetuate. The net is a fish farm, and no amount of online experience makes a player ready to hit the live games.

What aspect of game theory is it you expect an online player to miss? Or are you using the term with a definition of your own? "Game theory" is a branch of mathematics.

What do you mean when you say that "no amount of online experence makes a player ready to hit the live games?"

I've never played poker in a casino. You're welcome to harp on that and point out how that disqualifies me from saying anything on this matter. But people I know and trust have, and some of them play very successfully both online and live. Without exception - and I mean that, without exception - they say that the live games are softer and much easier to beat. A Vegas pro compared the $40/$80 at Commerce to $1/$2 at pokerstars in level of difficulty to beat.

But according to you, the online players are the fish. That makes me wonder how anyone could miss out on putting their bankroll online and just sweep online poker players clean.

Do you ever play online?

 

[aliengenius]

Without exception - and I mean that, without exception - they say that the live games are softer and much easier to beat. A Vegas pro compared the $40/$80 at Commerce to $1/$2 at PokerStars in level of difficulty to beat.

QFT. Your standard $1/$2 live NL game plays far worse than $0.01/$0.02NL on Stars. It's not even close.

 

[nevadanick]

What aspect of game theory is it you expect an online player to miss? Or are you using the term with a definition of your own? "Game theory" is a branch of mathematics.

True enough, it is a branch of mathematics. The problem when math is applied to tourney play in pure theory, there are calls that must be made according to the math alone.

The problem is that in a 5 hour online tourney, you will see approx 300 hands dealt. At 15% rate of seeing flops (45 hands), in order to apply only math means that you must be in that winning math percentage 'most' of the time, AND in an order of wins that gives the pure theory player a larger chip stack.

Discounting variance, average odds of playing tight, premium hands and applying pure theory, 70% of your hands will be winners = approx 33. It also, by the same theory, leaves you with 12 losing hands. Spawns the question - how many times will you survive those 12 losing hands?

Theory only works well - in theory, IMO.

 

[Irexes]

To reiterate what others have said, everything I have read and my own live experience indicates that live play is a lot worse (and certainly at comparable levels) than online.


But in response to the OP.. Testify FP, Testify.

 

[drawingneardead]

The use of the term "game theory" was a mistake on my part. I should have used the term "poker theory" instead. "Game theory" is not even a poker term at all. As you say; it is a term of mathematics. Also, I think it originally had to do with "war games", but I am not gonna look anything up. (call the fact checker)

I never referred to any hand as a "drawing hand". I refer to hands like small PPs and AK a "hit or miss" hand. Meaning that it usually needs to improve to stay the best hand, and must usually muck in the face of adversity if it fails to improve. This is common terminology in older circles though.

I am declaring that whatever FP says pertaining to online vs. live play to be %100 accurate. All my problems with online poker and tournament structure are inherent and have nothing to do with other players. I have little experience with online play and would rather spend time on strategic discussion.

 

[Irexes]

Online poker is absolutely not representative of the real game which is being played in casinos. Players who learn primarily online are missing a HUGE aspect of game theory.

Meanwhile brick & mortar players who are drawn to the convenience of online poker are appalled at what is considered "solid play" online.

The outlook is very good though. This situation is what top players and professionals around the globe want to perpetuate. The net is a fish farm, and no amount of online experience makes a player ready to hit the live games.

I'm glad you agree that all of the above is innaccurate. Though you refer elsewhere to having sufficient experience online to have determined the cards were not reflective of liveplay. Perhaps we should "declare" that comment as ill-informed as well.

 

[zachvac]

True enough, it is a branch of mathematics. The problem when math is applied to tourney play in pure theory, there are calls that must be made according to the math alone.

The problem is that in a 5 hour online tourney, you will see approx 300 hands dealt. At 15% rate of seeing flops (45 hands), in order to apply only math means that you must be in that winning math percentage 'most' of the time, AND in an order of wins that gives the pure theory player a larger chip stack.

Discounting variance, average odds of playing tight, premium hands and applying pure theory, 70% of your hands will be winners = approx 33. It also, by the same theory, leaves you with 12 losing hands. Spawns the question - how many times will you survive those 12 losing hands?

Theory only works well - in theory, IMO.

wow, sorry but this is plain wrong. The math never says to make a play, you use math to apply what you want to happen and find out what the best move is in terms of ev with that goal in mind. I don't where you even use math in this example (unless you mean the arithmetic of calculating 15% and 70%). I hate it when people say stuff like that with math and science. You hear all the time "math says", or "science says", or better yet "scientists say". At least that last one can be true, although all scientists rarely say the same thing. Math does not determine how many hands to play. You can use math to determine the amount of hands you want to play using a variety of information, including how tight the table is, and including the tournament structure (which you would include not wanting to lose 12 hands). Basically this entire thing is just crap trying to discredit something you don't even understand. Sorry, I know you hate math, but it's useful in poker, and even the pros understand it even though they understand the game so well that they don't even think of it as math anymore, it's probably just flat out instinct.

 

[zachvac]

Absolutely right! However, the action at live casinos has not degraded in such a manner. The players of the new age of poker you mention are being felted at an amazing pace in live games.

They're actually getting felted at an amazing pace in online games too. A heavy majority of the players online lose long-term. That's because not only do the good players take money from the bad players, when the bad players are playing each other, flipping coins for money, they lose to the rake (rake also takes a share when good players take from bad players, but you get the point).

Online poker is absolutely not representative of the real game which is being played in casinos. Players who learn primarily online are missing a HUGE aspect of game theory.

You corrected yourself later saying you meant poker theory. Please explain what aspect internet players miss. The only difference I see in it is tells, but then again I'm not old enough to play in a casino, and although I play live most of my play is online. So I probably am missing a part of poker theory, please elaborate on this HUGE aspect I'm missing out on, aside from feeling superior because you feel live poker is so much better but can't come up with a reason.

Meanwhile brick & mortar players who are drawn to the convenience of online poker are appalled at what is considered "solid play" online.

Umm, no they're not. They may be appalled by the bad play online, just as they are at the bad play live. If they play high enough stakes live to see a lot of solid play, I'm pretty sure that level online is pretty damn solid.

The outlook is very good though. This situation is what top players and professionals around the globe want to perpetuate. The net is a fish farm, and no amount of online experience makes a player ready to hit the live games.

Why is that? Because you play live and just want to make wild claims about how superior you are? I have several friends who play online and I don't even think they make money online (sort of thing how they don't keep track, sort of mumble something about being on a bad run), yet they absolutely destroy the casino poker and tell me about all kinds of horrible play. Another kid who just learned the game this year, I helped him out a bit getting started, sent him online money for cash, and he didn't do half bad, was making a small but steady profit at 10nl. Over Spring break last week he went to a casino up in canada where the age limit is 19, and told me about how he bought in at a $1/$2 table for $100, started off really scared with so much money on the table, but basically once he got comfortable just ran over the game, and profited over $200.


So you can sit and talk about how the internet players are all fish and how the live players laugh at them, but apart from that last part, it's simply not true. You happen to catch Brian Townsend aka sbrugby on high stakes poker? He didn't do anything spectacular but he played with the best players in the world and I think he ended up with a profit. That was one of the first times he'd played live poker ever, he made all his profit online. Although he didn't look real comfortable there, he sort of seemed really quiet and nervous, he definitely settled in and held his own. OK I've given some facts, your turn.

 

[zachvac]

oh and no big deal, but game theory is actually a branch of economics that involves a lot of math, not a branch of mathematics. Doesn't really matter but I thought I'd point that out.

 

[Irexes]

Game theory has applications all over the place. Prisoner's dilemma being a model used to theorise the nuclear arms race for example.

Aspects of it could easily have application to poker.

 

[drawingneardead]

I'm glad you agree that all of the above is innaccurate. Though you refer elsewhere to having sufficient experience online to have determined the cards were not reflective of liveplay. Perhaps we should "declare" that comment as ill-informed as well.

You were selectively reading my posts in the other thread. I got about 2 solid weeks in at a pokerpro casino. Probably 6 to 8 hours per day. Nice casino too (4Winds), beautiful. Saw Antonio Esfandiari there....

I probably have a similar amount of online play, between 60 and 80 hours I imagine. My time was typically dedicated to cash games, but I got a few SNG's in as well. To make money I had to play more selectively, as the action is bigger on any given hand. (More people misplaying) online casinos and pokerpro seem to be the same.


I can think of alot of players that would be irritated at the idea of online poker being better than live games, but I am not one of them. Personally, I will stick to the tables where I can read players minds, but I don't care what anyone else does.

Furthermore, I respect any player who considers himself a student of the game and never stops growing as a player. Where they play doesnt matter to me.

 

[Irexes]

I can think of alot of players that would be irritated at the idea of online poker being better than live games, but I am not one of them. Personally, I will stick to the tables where I can read players minds, but I don't care what anyone else does.

Furthermore, I respect any player who considers himself a student of the game and never stops growing as a player. Where they play doesnt matter to me.

Then someone else has been using your Cardschat account to make damning comments about online poker being not random and what constitutes solid play online not matching up to the same thing live.

You are doing a good job of appearing to be discussing these things, but each time you are challenged you just move on to a different point and gloss over the bits you don't like. It's a classic interweb debating strategy called bait and switch and I'm a fool for indulging it this long.

 

[drawingneardead]

They're actually getting felted at an amazing pace in online games too. A heavy majority of the players online lose long-term. That's because not only do the good players take money from the bad players, when the bad players are playing each other, flipping coins for money, they lose to the rake (rake also takes a share when good players take from bad players, but you get the point).

Agreed

You corrected yourself later saying you meant poker theory. Please explain what aspect internet players miss. The only difference I see in it is tells, but then again I'm not old enough to play in a casino, and although I play live most of my play is online. So I probably am missing a part of poker theory, please elaborate on this HUGE aspect I'm missing out on, aside from feeling superior because you feel live poker is so much better but can't come up with a reason.

You play live. I believe that your understanding is very well developed. My statement was a generalization, and for that I apologize

Umm, no they're not. They may be appalled by the bad play online, just as they are at the bad play live. If they play high enough stakes live to see a lot of solid play, I'm pretty sure that level online is pretty damn solid.

The bad play I have seen is the same. It just is way more prevalent in online casinos, @ similar stakes. I hope to discuss this and answer your question about the psychological aspect. I would like to do it in another context.

Why is that? Because you play live and just want to make wild claims about how superior you are? I have several friends who play online and I don't even think they make money online (sort of thing how they don't keep track, sort of mumble something about being on a bad run), yet they absolutely destroy the casino poker and tell me about all kinds of horrible play. Another kid who just learned the game this year, I helped him out a bit getting started, sent him online money for cash, and he didn't do half bad, was making a small but steady profit at 10nl. Over Spring break last week he went to a casino up in Canada where the age limit is 19, and told me about how he bought in at a $1/$2 table for $100, started off really scared with so much money on the table, but basically once he got comfortable just ran over the game, and profited over $200.


So you can sit and talk about how the internet players are all fish and how the live players laugh at them, but apart from that last part, it's simply not true. You happen to catch Brian Townsend aka sbrugby on high stakes poker? He didn't do anything spectacular but he played with the best players in the world and I think he ended up with a profit. That was one of the first times he'd played live poker ever, he made all his profit online. Although he didn't look real comfortable there, he sort of seemed really quiet and nervous, he definitely settled in and held his own. OK I've given some facts, your turn.

If I made statements that seemed to be absolute, i was wrong and I apologize. Still, every solid online player I have ever met are members of this forum that I met in the last few days. As previously mentioned, I have met very few good players in live games as well. A handful is a good description. Your points are well taken.

I appreciate and respect your ability to make logical arguements, the ability is in short supply. I have made some illogical arguements in this thread, that is for sure. To be honest, the lack of understanding in another thread has me near-convinced that, because online players rely more heavily on math, they think all questions in poker are answered by mathematical formulas. This is far from correct.

I am making no claim to knowing the ways of online poker. If I made claims in contrast to this, they were innacurate.