justincredible;1274344 wrote:Doesn't sound like the kind of poker I'd be interested in playing then.

Eh, it's usually because someone insists that wild cards are "sissy" poker. I honestly don't care either way.

I'm a fan of dealers choice too but no one wants to play that anymore.

I like playing pretty much all poker. It's just I dont get to play w friends anymore so I pretty much just play 1-2 and tourneys at the casino.

Steel Valley Football;1274362 wrote:I'm a fan of dealers choice too but no one wants to play that anymore.

I hate it.

Steel Valley Football;1274322 wrote:7-9, 10-8, etc suited aren't bad hands to play actually. Not call big, but play.

I agree they are not bad hands. To call a 8* big blind bet I will never call with it. I also figure a good player to fold such a hand if I make that big of a bet. If a player calls I usually put them on a big ace or a pocket pair. Hardly ever would I put someone on a suited connector after a bet that big.

gport_tennis;1274347 wrote:Middle suited connectors are hands taylor made to crack aces. there are just tons of outs to hit. and if the flop comes out dry it's easy to fold

I agree completely and if the bet is not to much will call with the hand. I will not call with it if there is a big bet though.

A/K: Anna Kournikova, looks good but never wins

All kidding aside, 2/7 offsuit is the worst hand, statistically.
AA is the best hand, statistically. All you can hope for are the statistics.

People that are saying they hate AA are saying that in jest. Of course we remember our AA bad beats more than we remember all the times we've folded 2/7 preflop.

ernest_t_bass;1274393 wrote:I hate it.

I hate you.

Steel Valley Football;1274362 wrote:I'm a fan of dealers choice too but no one wants to play that anymore.

I know where you can play dealers choice Omaha. It's 3-6 limit so the game is just a crap shoot though

mcburg93;1274411 wrote:I agree they are not bad hands. To call a 8* big blind bet I will never call with it. I also figure a good player to fold such a hand if I make that big of a bet. If a player calls I usually put them on a big ace or a pocket pair. Hardly ever would I put someone on a suited connector after a bet that big.

There isn't a hand I would never play. You got to mix it up or you become a book

sleeper;1274321 wrote:Like if you win the pot, or if everyone folds. I only recommend doing this until you've built a solid reputation enough that people think that when you bet, you have something big.

But then how to take down a big hand when you have the nuts?

The key to good poker is controlling the size of the pot. Overbetting is very costly on multiple fronts, both in losing more on hands you're beat and in taking down smaller pots because you chase out weaker hands. Definitely a feel for the players and the game where you want to bet enough to get weaker but dangerous hands to fold without throwing chips away if you're weak or potentially behind on the next card.

Someone asked about raising open-ended straights. You always have to vary your style, but it's a good value play because people will often fold garbage and sometimes you actually take a pot from someone else with the same draw. Then if you do hit the straight you've already got a larger pot to work with and look like you may have been betting top pair or something (to lesser skilled players).

Personally I think the whole "reading a player" is BS. Novice players certainly have tells, but most decent players really don't. "Reads" are more about the common cards, pot/bet size, and tendencies. If you play that, you have an edge but if you overbet you can piss away the marginal value of that edge. And good players with an edge can still only break-even or lose money for months because no one can really overcome consistently bad "luck" unless they are playing fish. You look at the Main Event, which really gives someone the best opportunity to exploit an edge in a single game, and the % of pros in the money generally approximates the % of pros in the entire field (i.e. pros aren't really doing any better than non-pros).

Most people these days in a no-limit game in Vegas are competent enough such that there's no easy money and it's really tough to grind out a living. Before everyone started playing, people who knew the game could yield a huge edge playing basic odds.

Speaking of the main event. 2 new episodes are starting on espn now.

But then how to take down a big hand when you have the nuts?

The odds of you having the nuts vs. your opponent having a hand good enough to stay in the pot with you long enough are extremely low as is.

Once you have control the table, you can play any hand on the planet and win pots. A lot of my friends will slow play hands with me, so you can tell if they have something based on their better/calling pattern. It's easy to minimize you losses if you control the betting amount as well as every other aspect of the game.

ernest_t_bass;1274393 wrote:I hate it.

This.

sleeper;1274580 wrote:The odds of you having the nuts vs. your opponent having a hand good enough to stay in the pot with you long enough are extremely low as is.

And winning poker is ALL ABOUT getting paid on those hands. I've played quite a bit in Vegas ($2-$5), and after 4-6 hours whether I win or lose usually depends on a couple of really big pots. That's when you have to make the big call or set a big trap. That's also, by the way, why skilled players will slow play a lot of hands, especially when other players overbet a lot.

The biggest intermediate player mistake in poker is being afraid of getting called by opponents on draws. You want people to call with draws because you're +EV. Yeah you'll get sucked out on occasionally, that's variance. And if you don't overbet the pot, you can always lay down on the turn or river if it's obvious they hit their flush/straight.

Steel Valley Football;1274362 wrote:I'm a fan of dealers choice too but no one wants to play that anymore.

ernest_t_bass;1274393 wrote:I hate it.

like_that;1274602 wrote:This.

The reason I hate it is because you can burn so much money on one damn game. I'll play $10 friendlies with the in-laws, and we end up playing $1 burn games, that could go on 10+ hands. In my opinion, when you give up 10% of your starting amount, that's not friendly! I usually sit out hands when I play dealers choice, until I have something worth playing. Then it's just obvious.

ernest_t_bass;1274792 wrote:The reason I hate it is because you can burn so much money on one damn game. I'll play $10 friendlies with the in-laws, and we end up playing $1 burn games, that could go on 10+ hands. In my opinion, when you give up 10% of your starting amount, that's not friendly! I usually sit out hands when I play dealers choice, until I have something worth playing. Then it's just obvious.

That, and there is just no consistency.

like_that;1274835 wrote:That, and there is just no consistency.

Since I don't play enough, I'm usually asking what the hell the rules are to each game, every damn time. Idiot = me.

ernest_t_bass;1274837 wrote: Idiot = me.

Sounds about right. LO fucking L.

Rotinaj;1274886 wrote:Sounds about right. LO fucking L.

gut;1274672 wrote:And winning poker is ALL ABOUT getting paid on those hands. I've played quite a bit in Vegas ($2-$5), and after 4-6 hours whether I win or lose usually depends on a couple of really big pots. That's when you have to make the big call or set a big trap. That's also, by the way, why skilled players will slow play a lot of hands, especially when other players overbet a lot.

I disagree. If you wait around for the big hand for the infinitesimal chance that you will get a big hand and someone else will have a big hand that's slightly worse than yours; you will go broke before that happens.

Maybe it depends on the limit, but from my experience people love to go on draws to hit a big hand. Make them pay to do that and play the odds.

sleeper;1275020 wrote:I disagree. If you wait around for the big hand for the infinitesimal chance that you will get a big hand and someone else will have a big hand that's slightly worse than yours; you will go broke before that happens.

Maybe it depends on the limit, but from my experience people love to go on draws to hit a big hand. Make them pay to do that and play the odds.

He is not saying only monster hands. He is saying that one or a couple big pots usually makes or breaks the night. Could be flopped two pair vs. pocket over pair.

sleeper;1275020 wrote:I disagree. If you wait around for the big hand for the infinitesimal chance that you will get a big hand and someone else will have a big hand that's slightly worse than yours; you will go broke before that happens.

Maybe it depends on the limit, but from my experience people love to go on draws to hit a big hand. Make them pay to do that and play the odds.

Maybe I'm not saying it very clearly.

No limit hold'em comes down to a few hands. You have to play smart, manage your bets, and play all the other hands smartly to stay in the game. But reality is someone needs a good hand when you have a better one in order to really get paid.

The "nuts" come around a lot more than you are claiming - it's hardly infinitesimal. I would guess in a normal 4-6hr session I have at least 3-4 hands that can't be beat, and sometimes you know that on the turn or even the flop. I only need to successfully trap once to mostly guarantee a decent winning night.

And you're simply wrong about going broke before getting the big hands. That doesn't happen if you're a smart player. I'm often +/- a bill or two after a few hours, average pot in $2/$5 might be typically about $30-$50. If you aren't good at trapping then you absolutely will lose money in the long-run. Aggressive play to take down small pots means you have to win like 70% of the time just to break-even

sleeper;1275020 wrote: Maybe it depends on the limit, but from my experience people love to go on draws to hit a big hand. Make them pay to do that and play the odds.

100% correct. $1/$2 is amateur hour. I'll freely admit to realizing I could not even break-even in the long-run in that game. I decided to give $2/$5 a shot and suddenly people were respecting my bets, "reading" my bets as I wanted them to (more often than not), and I started winning. It is a much better game than $1/$2. The problem with the lower limit is most people buy-in with $100-$200 and have no qualms about pushing it on bad draws, no reservations about calling you if they are wrong because they are comfortable losing what's in front of them. That's not the case with $2/$5 where 6 bills is a more typical buy-in, and table leaders have $1-$1.5k sitting in front of them.

I still get drawn on, and still plenty of bad beats. Most of the time, people aren't making ridiculously dumb calls though. The key is to spot the loose players - the people that are difficult to bluff successfully because that kills you. They're also the people you have to keep pots smaller with. Spot the guys who will pay you off, and spot the guys you have to outplay and you can consistently win. Easier said than done, but in my experience $1/$2 is a bunch of people flipping coins. I just don't play that level any more.

I wasn't saying an infinitesimal chance of getting the nuts; I was saying getting the nuts and having someone with a good enough hand to pay you off.

My style doesn't come down to a few hands. You play the percentages the whole night; play in position, play tight starting hands, etc. When you can start exerting control over the table with aggressively betting when you are getting the best odds and folding when you are not, you will win over the long haul. I find that people who slow play too much either a) don't get paid off or b)end up getting screwed by a runner runner double gutshot straight. To me it's not worth it. I do slow play every once in a while, but only after I have control over the table.