# Random Articles

P

#### ph_il

##### ...
Silver Level
Ive been getting these little articles in my email, so i decided to post them here. ill post every new one i get. oh and i take no credit for any of this..

Quick Counts - Part 1
Some folks are numbers people. Others aren’t. Most among us fall somewhere in bëtween. We run the gamut bëtween those who are quite mathematically literate and those who never met a number they really liked ¾ or even understood. While you might be prone to say, “different strokes for different folks” right about now, the fact remains that there are mathematical and
statistical underpinnings to pöker that cannot be ignored. You can try, of course, but you do so at your own peril. After all, these relationships are always at work, and they don’t care whether you pay attention to them or bury your head in the sand like an ostrich.
I’m somewhere in the middle. I’m not a numbers guy ¾ not by a long shot. That’s the province of Mike Caro, David Sklansky, and an entire coterie of pöker players who post to the Internet newsgroup, rec.gämbling.pöker ¾ many of whom are as quick and facile with numbers as a magician with a hatful of rabbits.
For those of you who are numerically challenged, or statistically phobic, this column is for you: A simple, easy-to-use, paint-by-numbers piece. It’s not the whole answer either, not by a long shot. And it won’t provide the same kind of clarity and depth of understanding that a knowledge and familiarity with mathematics and statistics will. But it is a crutch, and for those of you who need it, it’s a lot bëtter than nothing at all.

Quick Count Number 1: How Many Opponents?
Consider these common situations:
• I have ace-king and the flop missed me entirely. Should I come out bëtting?
• I have a pair of eights. If one overcard flops, what’s the likelihood that my hand is any good?
• All else being equal, does my bluff stand a chance of winning the pot?
Questions like these, and a wide variety of others can be answered by counting the number of opponents in the hand with you. In most cases the magic number is three. If you have only one or two opponents, these and many similar questions can be answered affirmatively. With one or two opponents you can be aggressive. Even if the flop missed you entirely, Big Slick may be the best hand, and a bët gives your opponents a chance to fold.
If you have three opponents, you are right on the borderline bëtween aggression and caution ¾ and I’d lean a bit more on the side of caution in most cases. With four or more opponents, it becomes progressively more unlikely that your prayers will be answered. Anytime you have four opponents or more, you can usually count on the flop helping someone. If you’re not that certain someone, it’s best to assume that one of your opponents now has a hand that’s bëtter than yours.
When that happens you need a draw to a good hand ¾ or some other reason, aside from your intuition, the fact that you’ve got your mojo working, or the coming of a long-awaited harmonic convergence ¾ to pay for another card.
The moral to this story is simple. As long as you can count to three, that’s all the mathematics you need know to provide a foundation for play when confronted with these kinds of decisions.

Quick Count Number 2: How Many Times Does the Flop Have to Hit You?
I called in late position with 7c-6c and five others also took the flop, which contained a seven. What should I do? While a bit more information is needed to answer this question, you can make a couple of assumptions that generally prove out. If overcards flop and there is any appreciable action before you act, you can usually count on at least one of your opponents having a hand that’s superior to yours. If the flop contained all low cards ¾ perhaps it was 7-3-2 of mixed suits ¾ you might have the best hand right now. When that’s the case, go ahead and bët, especially if you believe it would force some of your opponents to fold, thereby reducing the likelihood that one of them would get lucky on a subsequent bëtting round.
What if you call from late position with the same hand, only to have the button or one of the blinds raise? With more than three players active, you’re forced to call the raise. But now you know the odds favor one of your opponents having a hand that’s bigger than yours. So you take the flop knowing that it will have to hit you twice to give you much hope. If you’re incredibly lucky it will hit you three times, and serve up a straight on a silver platter. But the odds of that are really miniscule. You’ve got about a two percent chance of flopping two pair, and that coupled with the chance of flopping a straight or flush draw, or the minor possibility of flopping trips will allow you to see the flop.
But if none of those longshots comes to fruition, and the flop did not hit you twice ¾ three times hit is even bëtter ¾ you are skating on thin ice if you continue to play your puny pair of sevens in the face of any appreciable action.
In the next issue, the second and final installment of Quick Counts will explore the number of outs for various hands, provide you with some handy odds to use whenever you’re confronted with common hold’em situations, and we’ll also delve into counting the pot and comparing the payoff that it offers ¾ the pot odds, as it’s called ¾ with the odds against making your hand. Once you can do this, and it’s not difficult at all, you’ll be able to play within the mathematical parameters of the game. In other words, you won’t find yourself taking the worst of it simply because you might be confused by the seemingly difficult mathematical computations that go into these decisions.
Quick Counts - Part 2
This is the second in a two-part series aimed at the numerically challenged, statistically phobic, and other Pöker players otherwise unaware of the degree to which Pöker dwells within mathematical and statistical parameters. While there’s much more to this subject than two articles can cover, it’s a start ¾ an introduction of sorts ¾ to a topic many players are prone to avoid, even when they know bëtter.
Previously we discussed why the number of opponents in any given hand is important. You learned that there is a gaggle of plays that stand a good chance of succeeding against one or two opponents, but generally fail against four opponents or more. There are also hands and tactics that work bëtter against a full complement of opponents than they do against one or two.
We also discussed the importance of knowing how many times the flop has to hit you when considering how to play your hand. With A-K, one hit will frequently suffice. With a hand like 7-6, you probably need the flop to hit you twice, particularly if someone has raised.

Quick Count Number 3: How Many Outs Do You Have?
This concept is analogous to counting the number of times the flop has to hit you. But when you’re counting outs, you’ve already seen the flop and are trying to determine how many good cards are left in that deck. Knowing how many chances you have is vital information when trying to decide whether to continue with a drawing hand.
One of the nice things about hold’em, as compared to 7-card stud, is that the number of discernable outs is always the same for any given situation. If you’re playing stud, you may hold four hearts on your first four cards, but the number of hearts remaining in the deck has to be determined by counting your opponents’ exposed cards as well as those you’re holding.
But in hold’em, if you begin with two hearts and two more pop up on the flop, you have nine outs ¾ two in your hand and the two that flopped subtracted from a total of 13 hearts in the deck. It’s that simple. Unless an opponent has inadvertently exposed a heart, any time you flop a four-flush you have nine outs ¾ no more, no less.
If you flop an open ended straight, you have eight outs. With two pair you might have the best hand right now, along with four additional outs to a full house. If you flop a set, there are seven cards that will help you on the turn. One gives you four of a kind. Three cards will pair one of the board cards and three will pair the other, giving you a full house in either case, and ameliorating any concerns about an opponent catching a card to make a straight or flush.
Even if the turn card is no help, it still provides three additional outs on the river. Now there are nine cards that will pair the board, giving you a full house, along with that elusive case-card that will give you quads.

Quick Count Number 4: What Are the Odds You Need to Know?
It’s not difficult to learn how to figure the odds for common hold’em situations, but there’s not enough room in this column to teach that to you. Instead, a chart is provided that you can commit to memory.

The odds against an event occurring are shown in the right-hand column. The chances of success, expressed as a percentage, are shown in the middle column, and the number of outs is shown on the left. Is there a relationship bëtween them? Of course. Whenever you flop a flush draw, there’s a 35 percent chance of succeeding. That means you have a 65 percent chance of failure, which converts to 1.9-to-1 odds against making a flush.
You can learn to do the math without any special computational ability. It’s comforting to be able to do it ¾ trust me ¾ and nice to know that you don’t have to rely on anyone but yourself to calc the odds. Doing, as opposed to memorizing, also facilitates learning.

Quick Count Number 5: Pot Odds versus Implied Odds
There’s no cheap, easy trick here. To figure pot odds, you need to keep track of the amount of money in the pot. The easiest way is to count the number of players active on each round, account for the blinds if they’ve folded, and be sure to adjust for higher bëtting limits on the turn and river.
This is half of Pöker’s basic equation: Does the money offered by the pot exceed the odds against making your hand? If you have a flush draw, and the odds against making your hand are 1.9-to-1, you need to know that the pot will more than offset those odds before deciding whether to play or fold. If the pot promises a return of two-to-one on your investment, it certainly pays to call when the odds against your ultimate success are only 1.9-to-1.
But how do you know whether the pot will grow large or stay small? That’s where implied odds come in. Implied odds are your best estimate of the money likely to be in the pot once all the bëtting is complete. This estimate, when compared to the odds against making your hand, is frequently the linchpin in your play-or-pass decision.
There’s no formula to follow in making these estimates, but these four guidelines will help:
• Know your opponent.
• Count the pot.
• Estimate the amount of money likely to be wagered in subsequent bëtting rounds.
• Know your own chances of success.
Otherwise you are navigating without moon, stars, or sextant ¾ and likely to be lost at sea.

P

#### ph_il

##### ...
Silver Level
Dominated Hands
One of the recurring themes discussed on the Internet newsgroup, Rec.Gämbling.Pöker, deals with the concept and consequences of dominated hands. If I’m in a hand holding A-10, and you have A-K, my hand is dominated. Miraculous straights and flushes that might accrue to A-10 notwithstanding, I have three outs and three outs only to win this pot. Sure, there are a few more hands that will enable me to split the pot, but, that’s beside the point since your objective is to win, not play a lesser hand in hopes of getting your money back, and then only if you get very lucky.

A dominated hand, by definition, has three outs. Except for miraculous straights and flushes and a few oddball split pots, there are only three cards that will enable the dominated hand to win the pot; the dominator has the rest of the deck! I’m not telling you anything new, anything you don’t already know. No pöker player wants his opponent’s foot on his throat, with only three cards enabling escape. Sometimes it’s even worse that that. If the dominating hand is fortunate enough to make two pair, then you’re drawing dead for all intents and purposes. Imagine that. You pair your kicker on the turn or river and bët, thinking yours is the best hand. But your hand is still dominated; and what’s worse is that your two pair might even cost you more money.
Dominated hands are trouble. That’s right, trouble ¾ right here in River City, and in Flop City and Turn City too. And when you’ve got trouble it’s time to ask yourself, “What can I do about it?” and “How can I avoid getting in situations like this in the first place?”

Most pöker authors who write about Texas hold’em have gone to some lengths to discuss what they euphemistically call “…trouble hands.” After all, lots of hands fall into this category. In early position, hands like A-J, A-10, K-J, K-10 and Q-J are classic trouble hands. “Call with hands like these in early position,” you’re invariably admonished, “and you are in big trouble if an opponent raises.” After all, conventional wisdom holds that most opponents raise most of the time with bëtter hands than those. Whoever is raising is much more likely to have a hand like A-A, K-K, A-K, A-Q, and K-Q than a trouble hand.

While that’s true as far as it goes, the fact remains that many of your opponents have never read the book, and they don’t play by it, either. Some players have raising requirements far less stringent than others. I’ve seen players who will raise with any suited ace in any position, as well as raise with hands like K-J, K-10, Q-J, J-10, and any pair of sixes or higher. When you are facing an opponent who raises with a wide spectrum of hands, you are not necessarily dominated if you hold a hand like A-J. In fact, the raiser might be the one who is dominated, and while he thinks otherwise, it just might be your foot that’s firmly planted on his throat.

Nevertheless, when you’re holding a trouble hand, you’re seldom sure whether you’re in the lead or not. Because you have to consider that your hand might be dominated, you’re apt to play passively by checking and calling instead of bëtting and raising. Even when you win these confrontations, caution minimizes your wins, while your opponent ¾ who seized the initiative with aggressive play ¾ will maximize his or her wins.
File that thought away and don’t lose touch with it. It’s another example of why selective and aggressive play is a major factor underlying winning pöker. It’s also an example of the “It depends,” line of reasoning: You know the mantra; strategy depends on the situation ¾ and a hand that’s playable against John might not by playable against Mary. When you’re in early position, you won’t know which of your opponents might come out firing. It could be Mary, the gal who never raises unless she holds a premium hand. But it might also be John, the maniac who is always on tilt and just as likely to come after you with 7-6 or K-2 as any other holding.

One way to deal with the unenviable consequence of finding your hand dominated by an opponent who also has the advantage of acting last is to avoid getting into this kettle of fish in the first place. You can avoid that kettle by severely constraining the hands you play from early position. While face cards are pretty, they’re not equally desirable, and a hand like Q-J in early position ¾ or even in middle position in an aggressive game ¾ flings the door to domination wide open.

If you don’t play hands that can get you in trouble, you won’t find yourself staring up at three-outers and improbable odds. Remember, the first decision in a pöker hand is usually the decision that’s most important, because all subsequent options are driven by that initial choice. Although you cannot avoid holding a dominated hand with 100 percent certainty ¾ unless you refrain from playing all hands save a pair of aces ¾ it’s your first decision that matters most. If you are nimble enough to avoid getting yourself in this kind of trap in the first place, and deft enough to extricate yourself from its clutches at the earliest hint of trouble, you’ll find yourself doing just about all you can to minimize the adverse impact of finding yourself dominated when holding a troublesome hand.​

Short Handed

Are you one who avoids shorthanded games like the plague? It seems that a lot of folks are uncomfortable with short-handed play. After all, most of us play at a full table, or mostly full table, the vast majority of the time, and the kinds of things that are frequent occurrences in shorthanded play just don’t happen when eight, nine, or ten opponents are in the game.
I can still recall the first time I played in a shorthanded game. Things were different, to be sure, and anyone, even the neophyte that I was back then, could have told you that. I was confused, not at all certain what I was wrestling with, nor knowledgeable enough to deal with it. Eventually I learned that the differences bëtween shorthanded play and a playing in a full game are not all that complex, although they can be somewhat frightening when the experience is new or unfamiliar.
Choosing the right starting hands when the game is shorthanded is very different than selecting playable hands for a full game. Hand values change dramatically as the game becomes progressively more shorthanded. Some hands that are playable in full games shouldn’t be played at all in shorthanded games, while others ¾ hands that you’d cast away without a moment’s hesitation in a full game ¾ are raising hands when the game is short.

To some extent, playing Texas hold’em shorthanded is similar to a full game when you are in late position and everyone else has passed. When that happens, you’d much rather have a hand like A-9 offsuit than 10-9 suited. After all, when you’re up against the blinds, that lone ace might be big enough to win. A hand like 10-9 suited plays bëtter against a full complement of opponents. It’s the kind of holding to build a straight or a flush with, but it won’t win many pots without improvement.
Big cards are much more valuable in shorthanded games simply because they can win without improvement. Flush and straight draws, particularly if they do not include high cards, just can’t attract the number of opponents in a shorthanded game to make them profitable in the long run. You’ll still complete the draws you play with the same regularity, but the payoff won’t justify the odds against hitting your hand.
There is, however, one significant difference bëtween shorthanded play and a playing at a full table after most of your opponents have passed. When most of your opponents pass at a full table, you can assume they were not holding big cards. Because most of your opponents probably had small to middling cards, the deck figures to be rich in bigger cards, and if you are holding an ace or a couple of face cards you probably stand a bëtter chance of catching part of the flop.

But if you’re in a five-handed game and the two players immediately to the left of the blind muck their hands, you’re really can’t be sure what’s left in the deck. Although it’s safe to assume that the folders had trash hands, not enough hands were folded to be certain that the deck is now bunched in favor of high cards flopping.

Blinds come around much more frequently in a short game, and most players become more aggressive. Since drawing hands, like mid-range suited connectors, won’t attract a sufficient number of callers to make playing them worthwhile, “…pump it or dump it” becomes the tactic of choice. Your opponents will no longer require A-K or A-Q before they raise; in a shorthanded game, any ace is a potential raising hand. Moreover, if you call a raiser, you won’t necessarily know what your opponent is holding. When he comes out bëtting into a flop that doesn’t necessarily figure to have helped him ¾ and in a shorthanded game he most assuredly will come out bëtting, regardless of what the flop looks like ¾ you might have to call all the way to the river even if you’re not holding anything stronger than a naked ace.

With aggression the rule rather than the exception, and blinds that come around twice as often as they do in full games, position becomes more important because you will probably have to gamble a bit more. After all, you can be quite selective when the blinds come around only twice in every nine or ten hands. It’s not a luxury you can afford when you are in the blind 40 percent of the time.

Since big cards increase in valuable when the game is shorthanded, it stands to reason that the value of a pair increases even more. After all, your middling pair of sixes is probably a favorite against the blinds, particularly if your raise will cause at least one of them to fold
One of the tough things to determine in a shorthanded game is whether to keep playing if you are called after you’ve raised with a mid range pair and the flop contains an overcard or two. Determining whether your opponent was helped by the flop, or is merely bluffing can be difficult. An ability to read your opponents is certainly important; it always is. And it’s even more important when playing shorthanded ¾ since larceny is more prevalent than it is in full games ¾ where the best hand generally has to be shown down to take the money.

This is another case of, “…it depends,” and as usual, it depends on your position, how well your opponents play, the composition of the board, the relative aggressiveness or passivity of your opponents, and whether you can read them with any degree of accuracy. If you can’t get a read on your opponents, you’ll simply have to play your hand for its intrinsic value. This smacks of gämbling. But in shorthanded games where the blinds are a major consideration because they come around so rapidly, it’s is just too costly to surrender them along with mucking every hand that is not helped by the flop ¾ particularly when that flop does not appear to have helped your opponents.

In full games it is fairly easy to release hands like second pair or even a pair of aces with a poor kicker. But in shorthanded games these are playable hands. Moreover, whenever you make a big hand, consider checkraising. It’s the perfect tactic to use against overly aggressive opponents.

If aggressiveness and the higher variance that’s a predictable consequence of more risk-taking are the potential bugaboos of shorthanded play, there’s plenty of opportunity too. When the game is shorthanded you’ll be able to take advantage of weak players more frequently. By the same token, if you are facing opponents whose skills are superior to yours, the best tactical maneuver at your disposal is to pick up your chips and find a different game.

Shorthanded games are difficult for many players simply because they do everything at their disposal to avoid them. It’s neither bëtter nor worse game than full-handed pöker. It’s different; that’s all.

But if you’re a winning player in a full game, you can easily learn to play well when it’s shorthanded. But to do that, you have to play. So the next time the table gets short, try holding it together. Ask the floorperson to reduce the collection or rake, and tell your opponents that it probably won’t be too long until the game is full again, and keep on playing. After a while, I kinda think you’re gonna like it.

Variable Logic

One of the mistakes made by beginning players lies in their quest for a strategy applicable in some formulaic fashion during a pöker game. In their search for rules, for a methodology, for a strategic model to apply in all situations, many new players ignore one of pöker’s core characteristics that’s missing in so many other gämbling games: while strategic lines of reasoning seldom change, tactical methods are subject to situational adjustments.

I realize this sounds terribly abstract, so here are a few concrete examples. Bëtting when one has the best of it is a strategic line of reasoning that the vast majority of good players believe in and adhere to. And every credible authority will tell you that selective and aggressive play is a key to winning pöker. It’s when you get down to deciding when, and under what circumstances to be selective and aggressive that tactical admonitions can collide.

At it’s core, selective play suggests that one ought to have a set of standards governing which hands are playable and which ought to be thrown away. But beginning players ¾ as well as more experienced players who, for one reason or another, begin to take the game seriously ¾ all too frequently look for an immutable set of standards to guide them in deciding which hands to play and which ought to be released. While rules can be applied and the boundary lines bëtween playable and unplayable hands can sometimes be crystal clear, they are often gray and fuzzy. After all, anyone ¾ even if he or she is playing for the first time ¾ can quickly learn to always play aces but never to play seven-deuce. That’s not an issue. But whether to play a hand like K-10, A-9, or Q-J, or whether to raise, call, or even fold with a pair of sevens, are often questions without clear answers, even to the best of players.

Although each of my two books on hold’em contains a chart depicting playable hands from early, middle, and late position, and despite the fact that most pöker theorists, practitioners, and writers have all offered advice on this topic, tactics often have to be adjusted for a variety of reasons. These reasons include position, how many players have already entered the pot when it’s your turn to act, whether the game is passive and characterized by lots of calling but little raising or whether it’s aggressive, with frequent raises by players whose hands don’t really justify that kind of action. The size of one’s bankroll, and willingness to assume a much high variance in return for a relatively small increase in winnings, all enter into this equation, as do such factors as your current image at the table, and the relative difference in your playing skill compared to the skill level of your opponents. Remember, we’re just talking cash game limit pöker here, and relatively full ones at that. If the game is short-handed, or you’re in a tournament, or playing big-bët pöker ¾ half-pot, pot-limit, or no-limit ¾ there are a raft of other factors that should be considered too.

That’s why the answer to so many questions is “…it depends.” The choice of tactic can vary dramatically from one player to another, even as the overall strategic objectives remain unchanged. I know at least one outstanding pöker player and theorist who eschews starting standards as unnecessary baggage that beginners tend to tote around with them. He’s not advising indiscriminate play, mind you, he’s suggesting that players learn to analyze situations and make decisions based on facts and circumstances rather than by recalling rote responses to given situations.
Nevertheless, our objective is probably the same. Where we disagree lies not so much in what ought to be learned, but in how best to learn it. I believe that starting standards ¾ to be used as guides rather than fixed and immutable rules ¾ makes it easier to learn how to deal with the majority of situations. Starting standards can be a useful tool while one learns to recognize those situations in which an alternative to the book play is correct.

I believe there is a sufficiency of technique that needs to be learned in pöker before a player can comfortably and confidently deviate from the book play. Just as a painter must master brush technique and a musician needs to practice scales before improvisation and creativity allows them to bend the rules they have been taught, so does a grounding in generally accepted pöker theory make it easier for a newcomer to quickly come up to speed. Only when familiar patterns begin to repeat themselves can one comfortably make adjustments for skewed and anomalous situations. That’s the art of pöker, and the reason so much of strategy ¾ or to be more precise, tactical decisions ¾ comes down to an “…it depends” kind of answer.

The vast array of influencing factors make it impossible to construct a set of charts dealing with every possible contingency ¾ never mind the difficulties in dealing with each possible contingency in combination with every other possible influence ¾ and come up with a tactical solution representing the “best play” for each possible situation one might encounter in a pöker game.

Where that leaves you, dear reader, is right here ¾ with a map and a compass that are at best a bit murky and unclear ¾ and a reliance on what you may have gleaned from study and experience, along with a willingness to assess your actions accurately, with neither ego nor rose colored glasses to skew your view. There are guidelines available for you too. You can adhere to them slavishly, though in the long run you’ll be bëtter off learning to interpolate and deviate from book play whenever a particular set of circumstances presents that kind of opportunity to you.
That’s all you’ll receive at the starting line. The rest is up to you. Although experts are frequently at odds regarding the correct play in given situations, that’s no reason to shun their suggestions. Listen instead, and synthesize all the different views you can find. Decide which hold water and look for common threads running through those. Once you have a handle on commonality ¾ after all, most experts differ only on a tactical, not a strategic level ¾ you can integrate these ideas into your play and deviate from what heretofore was probably a tactical skill set based on rote or whimsy. Once you cross that Rubicon, you’re on your way to playing quite well indeed.​

#### tenbob

##### Legend
Silver Level
Ahem...... WOW thats one for the printer me thinks.. Cheers Philthy repppedd..

#### titans4ever

##### Legend
Silver Level
Holy cow, my head is about to explode after reading all that, good info.

loved the variable logic article.

#### eaglelite

##### Rock Star
Silver Level
I find it easier to play 7card stud and Razz only because you get to see more cards and can count them and calculate your own odds.

P

#### ph_il

##### ...
Silver Level
OMG. These are hella old.

P

#### ph_il

##### ...
Silver Level
Bumping this old thread for members because I think its still a decent read.

#### Dwilius

##### CardsChat Regular
Silver Level
I want to play razz for nickels

Silver Level
[x] random 3/4