pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 20 Jan 2009 18:26:44
From: DELETETHIS
Subject: A No Limit question
I am starting to think I have no business playing NL poker. I rarely
draw out on people. I was just thinking I might keep a written record
this year of the number of times players draw out on me and the number
that I hit the river to win a pot. If I were guessing I would guess
somewhere between 7-1 or 8-1. I am sure that we tend to recall the beats
more than our suck outs but I am 100% that my ratio would be over 5-1.

I know - bet more in NL to protect your hand but that sure cuts down on
the size of the pots you do win. I dont really know if I should
continue playing NL. My approach to poker is attempting to take out as
much of the "gamble" as I can. I rarely draw out and when I do the odds
are there to try or I just need to make a "statement" that I WILL call
with a marginal hand or draw.

Guess my question is: should a player that limits his "gamble" and
rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?




 
Date: 21 Jan 2009 14:24:50
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 20 2009 6:26 PM, DELETETHIS wrote:

> Guess my question is: should a player that limits his "gamble" and
> rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?

See what bugs me is that you guys keep complaining that there's no poker
content on RGP yet I've seen this sort of question answered what must have
been hundreds of times since I started lurking here in 2003 and then
posting.

Obviously you'll have less suckouts than your opponents because you don't
get in the habit of getting in bad as much as they do. Yes, your "made
hands" are going to lose to draws for big pots, and that's the nature of
the game.

The term you should look up is implied odds. While it's been the
scapegoat of many bad plays throughout the poker boom years, the
underlying idea is there. As an extreme example, let's say you and your
opponent both have $200 stacks. He raises to $10 preflop in a $1/$2 NL
game and accidentally exposes AA. You also know he can basically never
get away from a hand like AA. What hands should you be calling with
preflop? The answer is everything. Once you figure out why you'll be
closer to figuring out NLHE.

---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com

"I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz

"It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra

________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 22 Jan 2009 19:48:18
From: pokertank.us
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22, 10:57=A0am, "FangBanger" <a29b...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Jan 21 2009 4:24 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 20 2009 6:26 PM, DELETETHIS wrote:
>
> > > Guess my question is: =A0should a player that limits his "gamble" and
> > > rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?
>
> > See what bugs me is that you guys keep complaining that there's no poke=
r
> > content on RGP yet I've seen this sort of question answered what must h=
ave
> > been hundreds of times since I started lurking here in 2003 and then
> > posting.
>
> > Obviously you'll have less suckouts than your opponents because you don=
't
> > get in the habit of getting in bad as much as they do. =A0Yes, your "ma=
de
> > hands" are going to lose to draws for big pots, and that's the nature o=
f
> > the game.
>
> > The term you should look up is implied odds. =A0While it's been the
> > scapegoat of many bad plays throughout the poker boom years, the
> > underlying idea is there. =A0As an extreme example, let's say you and y=
our
> > opponent both have $200 stacks. =A0He raises to $10 preflop in a $1/$2 =
NL
> > game and accidentally exposes AA. =A0You also know he can basically nev=
er
> > get away from a hand like AA. =A0What hands should you be calling with
> > preflop? =A0The answer is everything. =A0Once you figure out why you'll=
be
> > closer to figuring out NLHE.
>
> > ---
> > Morphy
> > xaqmor...@donkeymanifesto.com
> >http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
>
> > "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" =A0--igotskillz
>
> > "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
> > obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra
>
> This is an EXCELLENT POST!!
>
> I love the ones who , when they lose their whole stack with AA say "I had
> you preflop". They raise it to 20 in a 2-5 nl game and you call with 77,
> you flop a 7 and win 1200 from them .
>
> Yes moron .. you had the best of it for the first 20 bucks , and I had th=
e
> best of it for the next 1160 dollars
>
> THAT IS IMPLIED ODDS
>
> iN MORPHS ABOVE EXAMPLE .. I CALL EVERY SINGLE TIME .. even with a2
>
> Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities=
.
> Voltaire
>
> ________________________________________________________________________=
=A0
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com- Hide qu=
oted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yep. I agree completely.

- Hank

---
www.pokertank.us - Poker news and educational resources


  
Date: 22 Jan 2009 19:40:36
From: pokertank.us
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 21, 4:24=A0pm, "XaQ Morphy" <a1c5...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Jan 20 2009 6:26 PM, DELETETHIS wrote:
>
> > Guess my question is: =A0should a player that limits his "gamble" and
> > rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?
>
> See what bugs me is that you guys keep complaining that there's no poker
> content on RGP yet I've seen this sort of question answered what must hav=
e
> been hundreds of times since I started lurking here in 2003 and then
> posting.
>
> Obviously you'll have less suckouts than your opponents because you don't
> get in the habit of getting in bad as much as they do. =A0Yes, your "made
> hands" are going to lose to draws for big pots, and that's the nature of
> the game.
>
> The term you should look up is implied odds. =A0While it's been the
> scapegoat of many bad plays throughout the poker boom years, the
> underlying idea is there. =A0As an extreme example, let's say you and you=
r
> opponent both have $200 stacks. =A0He raises to $10 preflop in a $1/$2 NL
> game and accidentally exposes AA. =A0You also know he can basically never
> get away from a hand like AA. =A0What hands should you be calling with
> preflop? =A0The answer is everything. =A0Once you figure out why you'll b=
e
> closer to figuring out NLHE.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmor...@donkeymanifesto.comhttp://www.donkeymanifesto.com
>
> "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" =A0--igotskillz
>
> "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
> obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra
>
> ________________________________________________________________________=
=A0
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com

Excellent point. I couldn't agree more...

- Hank

---
www.pokertank.us - Poker news and educational resources


  
Date: 22 Jan 2009 11:32:27
From: joeturn
Subject: Re: A No Limit question

> "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" =A0--igotskillz
>
> "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
> obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra
>
> -------=A0
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com

I think you got cheatware and continuously try to lead people to
sluaghter!

Then for live games bad beats are still alive..If one goes fishing on
a draw and catches

it is a miracle he did not loose. Cheap flops can get the best of both
of us!

Cant read my own cards is your rebuttle for online gambling
corruption!!

If you check a lock the software can and will take your card if
needed, It thinks the needed queen was either folded or still in the
deck Or a poker stars moderater cost me !! They have the ability to
change/edit all the cards even the community cards online ,again like
a commercial fisherman,reals them in<I;-)


  
Date: 22 Jan 2009 09:54:39
From: joeturn
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
The way poker should be played and the way it is being played has
changed since online cheatware became rampant!!

There use to be a phrase "Bad Beat" and suckouts!! Those are no longer
availabilities!! Now adays its common place,
to see someone push you all in pre flop with a ten 4 off suit and you
have big slick!!

They have waited patiently on you to get a calling hand so they can
grab your stack!!

They only have to maintain a minute lead with their cheatware so as
not to be susspicious!

They may bait you on occassion allowing you to win against them!

Now they have you where they want you and the very next time you have
a non foldable hand they will change their hole cards

to beat you!! Then most likely dissapeer off into the sunset with your
stack leaving you to think he got his revenge and left$$$$$

I was dealt pocket Queens once and checked them! there were no bets ,
So a free flop took place coming 10dJdQh.I again checked to see if the
straight had been hit!

A small raise pulled 4 of us into the call.The turn brought the Queen
of diamonds now I have quads .I bett a fair amount and two callers and
the last player pushed all in!

I am about to call all in when my Queen of clubs suddenly became a 9
of clubs! I had to fold!! The guy that won had Queens full and beat a
straight and a flush$$$$$$$$$


   
Date: 22 Jan 2009 10:59:16
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 11:54 AM, joeturn wrote:

> The way poker should be played and the way it is being played has
> changed since online cheatware became rampant!!

Easy there chief, no need to get worked up. This entire thread is talking
about live poker.

> dissapeer

However, it's a tie as to the most amusing part of your story: the word
above, or the fact that even when the cards are there on the screen in
front of you that you can't read your own hand.

---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com

"I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz

"It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra

-------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 22 Jan 2009 08:57:17
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 21 2009 4:24 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:

> On Jan 20 2009 6:26 PM, DELETETHIS wrote:
>
> > Guess my question is: should a player that limits his "gamble" and
> > rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?
>
> See what bugs me is that you guys keep complaining that there's no poker
> content on RGP yet I've seen this sort of question answered what must have
> been hundreds of times since I started lurking here in 2003 and then
> posting.
>
> Obviously you'll have less suckouts than your opponents because you don't
> get in the habit of getting in bad as much as they do. Yes, your "made
> hands" are going to lose to draws for big pots, and that's the nature of
> the game.
>
> The term you should look up is implied odds. While it's been the
> scapegoat of many bad plays throughout the poker boom years, the
> underlying idea is there. As an extreme example, let's say you and your
> opponent both have $200 stacks. He raises to $10 preflop in a $1/$2 NL
> game and accidentally exposes AA. You also know he can basically never
> get away from a hand like AA. What hands should you be calling with
> preflop? The answer is everything. Once you figure out why you'll be
> closer to figuring out NLHE.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
>
> "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz
>
> "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
> obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra

This is an EXCELLENT POST!!

I love the ones who , when they lose their whole stack with AA say "I had
you preflop". They raise it to 20 in a 2-5 nl game and you call with 77,
you flop a 7 and win 1200 from them .

Yes moron .. you had the best of it for the first 20 bucks , and I had the
best of it for the next 1160 dollars

THAT IS IMPLIED ODDS

iN MORPHS ABOVE EXAMPLE .. I CALL EVERY SINGLE TIME .. even with a2


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

________________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 22 Jan 2009 13:34:21
From: I eat donks
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 4:57 PM, FangBanger wrote:

>
> This is an EXCELLENT POST!!
>
> I love the ones who , when they lose their whole stack with AA say "I had
> you preflop". They raise it to 20 in a 2-5 nl game and you call with 77,
> you flop a 7 and win 1200 from them .
>
> Yes moron .. you had the best of it for the first 20 bucks , and I had the
> best of it for the next 1160 dollars
>
> THAT IS IMPLIED ODDS
>
> iN MORPHS ABOVE EXAMPLE .. I CALL EVERY SINGLE TIME .. even with a2
>
>

Have you ever wondered why you couldnt even hack it as a dealer? You have
the answer right there. yes, do call 5% of your stack with A2 (suited or
otherwise) preflop when you know the other guy has AA. We can always do a
'DoggieAid' when you've lost the last of your food money.

That is implied odds indeed! You'll go far calling for implied odds of 20
to 1 when the odds of you hitting are >30 to 1.


'So donkeys, come rally,
And the last hand let us raise!
The miracle suck-outs will tally,
And save the donkey race!'

________________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 22 Jan 2009 16:23:13
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 3:34 PM, I eat donks wrote:

> On Jan 22 2009 4:57 PM, FangBanger wrote:
>
> >
> > This is an EXCELLENT POST!!
> >
> > I love the ones who , when they lose their whole stack with AA say "I had
> > you preflop". They raise it to 20 in a 2-5 nl game and you call with 77,
> > you flop a 7 and win 1200 from them .
> >
> > Yes moron .. you had the best of it for the first 20 bucks , and I had the
> > best of it for the next 1160 dollars
> >
> > THAT IS IMPLIED ODDS
> >
> > iN MORPHS ABOVE EXAMPLE .. I CALL EVERY SINGLE TIME .. even with a2
> >
> >
>
> Have you ever wondered why you couldnt even hack it as a dealer? You have
> the answer right there. yes, do call 5% of your stack with A2 (suited or
> otherwise) preflop when you know the other guy has AA. We can always do a
> 'DoggieAid' when you've lost the last of your food money.
>
> That is implied odds indeed! You'll go far calling for implied odds of 20
> to 1 when the odds of you hitting are >30 to 1.
>
>
> 'So donkeys, come rally,
> And the last hand let us raise!
> The miracle suck-outs will tally,
> And save the donkey race!'

aa ARE 9-1 AGAINST a2 YOU IGNORANT FUCK !! NOT 30-1


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

-----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




     
Date: 22 Jan 2009 18:07:42
From: MMelia
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 7:23 PM, FangBanger wrote:

> On Jan 22 2009 3:34 PM, I eat donks wrote:
>
> > On Jan 22 2009 4:57 PM, FangBanger wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This is an EXCELLENT POST!!
> > >
> > > I love the ones who , when they lose their whole stack with AA say "I had
> > > you preflop". They raise it to 20 in a 2-5 nl game and you call with 77,
> > > you flop a 7 and win 1200 from them .
> > >
> > > Yes moron .. you had the best of it for the first 20 bucks , and I had
the
> > > best of it for the next 1160 dollars
> > >
> > > THAT IS IMPLIED ODDS
> > >
> > > iN MORPHS ABOVE EXAMPLE .. I CALL EVERY SINGLE TIME .. even with a2
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Have you ever wondered why you couldnt even hack it as a dealer? You have
> > the answer right there. yes, do call 5% of your stack with A2 (suited or
> > otherwise) preflop when you know the other guy has AA. We can always do a
> > 'DoggieAid' when you've lost the last of your food money.
> >
> > That is implied odds indeed! You'll go far calling for implied odds of 20
> > to 1 when the odds of you hitting are >30 to 1.
> >
> >
> > 'So donkeys, come rally,
> > And the last hand let us raise!
> > The miracle suck-outs will tally,
> > And save the donkey race!'
>
> aa ARE 9-1 AGAINST a2 YOU IGNORANT FUCK !! NOT 30-1
>
>
> Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
> Voltaire

Fang is/was a dealer? That explains allot. I was wondering where all
that name dropping comes from... you were dealing to them not playing
them? lol

------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



      
Date: 23 Jan 2009 06:21:00
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 8:07 PM, MMelia wrote:

> On Jan 22 2009 7:23 PM, FangBanger wrote:
>
> > On Jan 22 2009 3:34 PM, I eat donks wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 22 2009 4:57 PM, FangBanger wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This is an EXCELLENT POST!!
> > > >
> > > > I love the ones who , when they lose their whole stack with AA say "I
had
> > > > you preflop". They raise it to 20 in a 2-5 nl game and you call with
77,
> > > > you flop a 7 and win 1200 from them .
> > > >
> > > > Yes moron .. you had the best of it for the first 20 bucks , and I had
> the
> > > > best of it for the next 1160 dollars
> > > >
> > > > THAT IS IMPLIED ODDS
> > > >
> > > > iN MORPHS ABOVE EXAMPLE .. I CALL EVERY SINGLE TIME .. even with a2
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Have you ever wondered why you couldnt even hack it as a dealer? You
have
> > > the answer right there. yes, do call 5% of your stack with A2 (suited or
> > > otherwise) preflop when you know the other guy has AA. We can always do
a
> > > 'DoggieAid' when you've lost the last of your food money.
> > >
> > > That is implied odds indeed! You'll go far calling for implied odds of
20
> > > to 1 when the odds of you hitting are >30 to 1.
> > >
> > >
> > > 'So donkeys, come rally,
> > > And the last hand let us raise!
> > > The miracle suck-outs will tally,
> > > And save the donkey race!'
> >
> > aa ARE 9-1 AGAINST a2 YOU IGNORANT FUCK !! NOT 30-1
> >
> >
> > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
> > Voltaire
>
> Fang is/was a dealer? That explains allot. I was wondering where all
> that name dropping comes from... you were dealing to them not playing
> them? lol

BOTH as well as partying with some !!


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

________________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



       
Date: 23 Jan 2009 07:58:24
From: MMelia
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 23 2009 9:21 AM, FangBanger wrote:

> On Jan 22 2009 8:07 PM, MMelia wrote:
>
> > On Jan 22 2009 7:23 PM, FangBanger wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 22 2009 3:34 PM, I eat donks wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Jan 22 2009 4:57 PM, FangBanger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is an EXCELLENT POST!!
> > > > >
> > > > > I love the ones who , when they lose their whole stack with AA say "I
> had
> > > > > you preflop". They raise it to 20 in a 2-5 nl game and you call with
> 77,
> > > > > you flop a 7 and win 1200 from them .
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes moron .. you had the best of it for the first 20 bucks , and I
had
> > the
> > > > > best of it for the next 1160 dollars
> > > > >
> > > > > THAT IS IMPLIED ODDS
> > > > >
> > > > > iN MORPHS ABOVE EXAMPLE .. I CALL EVERY SINGLE TIME .. even with a2
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Have you ever wondered why you couldnt even hack it as a dealer? You
> have
> > > > the answer right there. yes, do call 5% of your stack with A2 (suited
or
> > > > otherwise) preflop when you know the other guy has AA. We can always
do
> a
> > > > 'DoggieAid' when you've lost the last of your food money.
> > > >
> > > > That is implied odds indeed! You'll go far calling for implied odds of
> 20
> > > > to 1 when the odds of you hitting are >30 to 1.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 'So donkeys, come rally,
> > > > And the last hand let us raise!
> > > > The miracle suck-outs will tally,
> > > > And save the donkey race!'
> > >
> > > aa ARE 9-1 AGAINST a2 YOU IGNORANT FUCK !! NOT 30-1
> > >
> > >
> > > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
atrocities.
> > > Voltaire
> >
> > Fang is/was a dealer? That explains allot. I was wondering where all
> > that name dropping comes from... you were dealing to them not playing
> > them? lol
>
> BOTH as well as partying with some !!
>
>
> Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
> Voltaire

Cool. Do you still deal?

_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




     
Date: 22 Jan 2009 17:43:35
From: I eat donks
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 23 2009 12:23 AM, FangBanger wrote:

>
> aa ARE 9-1 AGAINST a2 YOU IGNORANT FUCK !! NOT 30-1
>
>

What are you? Yes, that's right, a fucking moron. You think its 9 to 1
that you'll flop the best hand with A2 against AA?

As a dealer, I thought you would know the difference between runing a hand
hot and cold, and actually flopping the best hand, which where your
implied odds comes into play when calling preflop raises. Alas, I forgot
that you are a moron.

See Morphdonk, told you these morons might knew how to say 'implied odds',
but have no fucking clue when it comes to actually applying the concept.

'So donkeys, come rally,
And the last hand let us raise!
The miracle suck-outs will tally,
And save the donkey race!'

-------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



    
Date: 22 Jan 2009 13:39:15
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 3:34 PM, I eat donks wrote:

> That is implied odds indeed! You'll go far calling for implied odds of 20
> to 1 when the odds of you hitting are >30 to 1.

It's the concept Nick. Everyone understood it but you and that other
idiot. No one else had a problem understanding how my paragraph displayed
the simple understanding of implied odds. There was no need at all to
nick pick it like you did. For you and the other idiot who still had to
throw in his ridiculous post, here...same example, stacks are
$1000000000000000000000000000 each. Happy?

---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com

"I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz

"It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra

------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




     
Date: 22 Jan 2009 16:25:06
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 3:39 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:

> On Jan 22 2009 3:34 PM, I eat donks wrote:
>
> > That is implied odds indeed! You'll go far calling for implied odds of 20
> > to 1 when the odds of you hitting are >30 to 1.
>
> It's the concept Nick. Everyone understood it but you and that other
> idiot. No one else had a problem understanding how my paragraph displayed
> the simple understanding of implied odds. There was no need at all to
> nick pick it like you did. For you and the other idiot who still had to
> throw in his ridiculous post, here...same example, stacks are
> $1000000000000000000000000000 each. Happy?
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
>
> "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz
>
> "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
> obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra

500 DOLLAR STACKS IS PLENTY AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO KNOWS THAT AA ARE ONLY
9-1 AGAINST A2


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



      
Date: 22 Jan 2009 17:46:28
From: I eat donks
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 23 2009 12:25 AM, FangBanger wrote:


>
> 500 DOLLAR STACKS IS PLENTY AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO KNOWS THAT AA ARE ONLY
> 9-1 AGAINST A2
>

I think you are the only one stupid enough to think that flopping the best
hand is the same as having the best hand at showdown. If not, how the
fuck do you get the 9 to 1 figure?

Are you stacking off at the flop regardless? You really area fucking
moron.

> Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
> Voltaire


'So donkeys, come rally,
And the last hand let us raise!
The miracle suck-outs will tally,
And save the donkey race!'

_____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



     
Date: 22 Jan 2009 14:00:54
From: I eat donks
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 9:39 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:

> On Jan 22 2009 3:34 PM, I eat donks wrote:
>
> > That is implied odds indeed! You'll go far calling for implied odds of 20
> > to 1 when the odds of you hitting are >30 to 1.
>
> It's the concept Nick. Everyone understood it but you and that other
> idiot. No one else had a problem understanding how my paragraph displayed
> the simple understanding of implied odds. There was no need at all to
> nick pick it like you did. For you and the other idiot who still had to
> throw in his ridiculous post, here...same example, stacks are
> $1000000000000000000000000000 each. Happy?
>
> ---

Now you and I might understand implied odds, but your original example can
mislead the average low-stakes player. They might have a vague idea of
implied odds, but do not realised the correct odds of hitting, and
therefore think: '20 to 1, cant let that go!' One example is that we
just had Doggie saying that he would be calling with A2 in your original
example.

Another is the amount of idiots who buy-in for the minimum (20BBs) and
proceed to call pot raises (at least 4 BBs) preflop with connectors or
baby pairs. I've lost count of the times that I try to suppress my
laughter in my local casino playing 5/5 PLH.

A lot of these people dont really understand shallow stack poker is a
completely different game to deep stack poker, and play both in the same
idiotic manner. Even if they have heard of implied odds, they dont
realised that the stacks have to be deep enough for such play to be
profitable.

'So donkeys, come rally,
And the last hand let us raise!
The miracle suck-outs will tally,
And save the donkey race!'

_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




     
Date: 22 Jan 2009 13:56:39
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 4:39 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:

> On Jan 22 2009 3:34 PM, I eat donks wrote:
>
> > That is implied odds indeed! You'll go far calling for implied odds of 20
> > to 1 when the odds of you hitting are >30 to 1.
>
> It's the concept Nick. Everyone understood it but you and that other
> idiot. No one else had a problem understanding how my paragraph displayed
> the simple understanding of implied odds. There was no need at all to
> nick pick it like you did. For you and the other idiot who still had to
> throw in his ridiculous post, here...same example, stacks are
> $1000000000000000000000000000 each. Happy?

Nick pick: To quarrel over minutiae and end up making a total ass of one's
self.

Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

---
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



      
Date: 22 Jan 2009 14:21:50
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 3:56 PM, FellKnight wrote:

> Nick pick: To quarrel over minutiae and end up making a total ass of one's
> self.

Be sure to give credit to the inventor of this term: Nit Wool.

---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com

"I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz

"It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra

_____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 22 Jan 2009 09:43:52
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 10:57 AM, FangBanger wrote:

> This is an EXCELLENT POST!!

You're scaring me.

---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com

"I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz

"It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra

____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 22 Jan 2009 09:45:13
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
> You're scaring me.

I would be scared.

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

---
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




     
Date: 22 Jan 2009 16:21:26
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 11:45 AM, John_Brian_K wrote:

> > You're scaring me.
>
> I would be scared.

NOT IF YOU HAD EVER MADE A DECENT POKER RELATED POST
>
> ========================================
> You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
> nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
> ========
> BOOM byae
> John


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

-----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 22 Jan 2009 09:17:24
From: MMelia
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 11:57 AM, FangBanger wrote:

> On Jan 21 2009 4:24 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
>
> > On Jan 20 2009 6:26 PM, DELETETHIS wrote:
> >
> > > Guess my question is: should a player that limits his "gamble" and
> > > rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?
> >
> > See what bugs me is that you guys keep complaining that there's no poker
> > content on RGP yet I've seen this sort of question answered what must have
> > been hundreds of times since I started lurking here in 2003 and then
> > posting.
> >
> > Obviously you'll have less suckouts than your opponents because you don't
> > get in the habit of getting in bad as much as they do. Yes, your "made
> > hands" are going to lose to draws for big pots, and that's the nature of
> > the game.
> >
> > The term you should look up is implied odds. While it's been the
> > scapegoat of many bad plays throughout the poker boom years, the
> > underlying idea is there. As an extreme example, let's say you and your
> > opponent both have $200 stacks. He raises to $10 preflop in a $1/$2 NL
> > game and accidentally exposes AA. You also know he can basically never
> > get away from a hand like AA. What hands should you be calling with
> > preflop? The answer is everything. Once you figure out why you'll be
> > closer to figuring out NLHE.
> >
> > ---
> > Morphy
> > xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> > http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> >
> > "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz
> >
> > "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
> > obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra
>
> This is an EXCELLENT POST!!
>
> I love the ones who , when they lose their whole stack with AA say "I had
> you preflop". They raise it to 20 in a 2-5 nl game and you call with 77,
> you flop a 7 and win 1200 from them .
>
> Yes moron .. you had the best of it for the first 20 bucks , and I had the
> best of it for the next 1160 dollars
>
> THAT IS IMPLIED ODDS
>
> iN MORPHS ABOVE EXAMPLE .. I CALL EVERY SINGLE TIME .. even with a2
>
>
> Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
> Voltaire

I don't think you can call with any ace even with the 500 stacks. A2 may
not be correct because its 28-1 for any three cards in sequence. The odds
for the flop to come exactly 345 has to be HUGE. Flopping 2 pair is no
good obviously. A suited Ace is 118-1 to flop a flush. Flopping trips
using 1 of your hole cards is 73-1, and you'd be looking for exactly 22
since your ace is no good.

Your best chances come from making 2 pair which is a looser in this hand
when you hold an Ace.

----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



    
Date: 22 Jan 2009 16:20:24
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 11:17 AM, MMelia wrote:

> On Jan 22 2009 11:57 AM, FangBanger wrote:
>
> > On Jan 21 2009 4:24 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 20 2009 6:26 PM, DELETETHIS wrote:
> > >
> > > > Guess my question is: should a player that limits his "gamble" and
> > > > rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?
> > >
> > > See what bugs me is that you guys keep complaining that there's no poker
> > > content on RGP yet I've seen this sort of question answered what must
have
> > > been hundreds of times since I started lurking here in 2003 and then
> > > posting.
> > >
> > > Obviously you'll have less suckouts than your opponents because you don't
> > > get in the habit of getting in bad as much as they do. Yes, your "made
> > > hands" are going to lose to draws for big pots, and that's the nature of
> > > the game.
> > >
> > > The term you should look up is implied odds. While it's been the
> > > scapegoat of many bad plays throughout the poker boom years, the
> > > underlying idea is there. As an extreme example, let's say you and your
> > > opponent both have $200 stacks. He raises to $10 preflop in a $1/$2 NL
> > > game and accidentally exposes AA. You also know he can basically never
> > > get away from a hand like AA. What hands should you be calling with
> > > preflop? The answer is everything. Once you figure out why you'll be
> > > closer to figuring out NLHE.
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Morphy
> > > xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> > > http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> > >
> > > "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz
> > >
> > > "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
> > > obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra
> >
> > This is an EXCELLENT POST!!
> >
> > I love the ones who , when they lose their whole stack with AA say "I had
> > you preflop". They raise it to 20 in a 2-5 nl game and you call with 77,
> > you flop a 7 and win 1200 from them .
> >
> > Yes moron .. you had the best of it for the first 20 bucks , and I had the
> > best of it for the next 1160 dollars
> >
> > THAT IS IMPLIED ODDS
> >
> > iN MORPHS ABOVE EXAMPLE .. I CALL EVERY SINGLE TIME .. even with a2
> >
> >
> > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
> > Voltaire
>
> I don't think you can call with any ace even with the 500 stacks. A2 may
> not be correct because its 28-1 for any three cards in sequence. The odds
> for the flop to come exactly 345 has to be HUGE. Flopping 2 pair is no
> good obviously. A suited Ace is 118-1 to flop a flush. Flopping trips
> using 1 of your hole cards is 73-1, and you'd be looking for exactly 22
> since your ace is no good.
>
> Your best chances come from making 2 pair which is a looser in this hand
> when you hold an Ace.

AA against A2 is 91% or 9-1 your math is bad ... real bad

Plus you are forgetting about all the times you can make him lay down the
aces when the board is say 6789 hearts when you know he has 2 black aces


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

-----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



     
Date: 23 Jan 2009 08:53:05
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 6:20 PM, FangBanger wrote:

> AA against A2 is 91% or 9-1 your math is bad ... real bad

Not that I want to argue since we've been getting along so well lately,
but AA vs. A2 is only 9:1 assuming all the money is in preflop or all 5
cards are seen for free. What these guys are getting at is that an
unpaired hand is 22:1 or whatever to flop 2 pair or better which is what
you need to beat AA, and since you almost always are going to be facing a
bet on the flop, the 22:1 is what you should go by for pure math rather
than the 9:1.

However...

> Plus you are forgetting about all the times you can make him lay down the
> aces when the board is say 6789 hearts when you know he has 2 black aces

They didn't consider that at all because they are so focused on their own
hand. They also didn't consider the fact that I was just making an
example and wasn't opening up a situation for them to nitpick to death.

---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com

"I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz

"It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra

------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




      
Date: 23 Jan 2009 08:58:16
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
> They didn't consider that at all because they are so focused on their own
> hand. They also didn't consider the fact that I was just making an
> example and wasn't opening up a situation for them to nitpick to death.

Hi Morph welcome to RGP. Have you been playing poker long?

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

_______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



     
Date: 22 Jan 2009 22:43:04
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:20:24 -0800, "FangBanger"
<a29bed1@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>AA against A2 is 91% or 9-1 your math is bad ... real bad

But that's assuming the hand goes to showdown. Suppose the flop
comes something like Q-4-7. The next two cards in the deck are 3-5.

If you hang in there till showdown, you'll make the straight and win.
But it would be foolish to call a bet on the flop. You're not going
to see the showdown on this hand. You pretty much need to make your
hand on the flop to go any further. So, your odds are a lot worse
than 9-1.


     
Date: 22 Jan 2009 16:56:34
From: MMelia
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 7:20 PM, FangBanger wrote:

> On Jan 22 2009 11:17 AM, MMelia wrote:
>
> > On Jan 22 2009 11:57 AM, FangBanger wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 21 2009 4:24 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Jan 20 2009 6:26 PM, DELETETHIS wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Guess my question is: should a player that limits his "gamble" and
> > > > > rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?
> > > >
> > > > See what bugs me is that you guys keep complaining that there's no
poker
> > > > content on RGP yet I've seen this sort of question answered what must
> have
> > > > been hundreds of times since I started lurking here in 2003 and then
> > > > posting.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously you'll have less suckouts than your opponents because you
don't
> > > > get in the habit of getting in bad as much as they do. Yes, your "made
> > > > hands" are going to lose to draws for big pots, and that's the nature
of
> > > > the game.
> > > >
> > > > The term you should look up is implied odds. While it's been the
> > > > scapegoat of many bad plays throughout the poker boom years, the
> > > > underlying idea is there. As an extreme example, let's say you and
your
> > > > opponent both have $200 stacks. He raises to $10 preflop in a $1/$2 NL
> > > > game and accidentally exposes AA. You also know he can basically never
> > > > get away from a hand like AA. What hands should you be calling with
> > > > preflop? The answer is everything. Once you figure out why you'll be
> > > > closer to figuring out NLHE.
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Morphy
> > > > xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> > > > http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> > > >
> > > > "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz
> > > >
> > > > "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
> > > > obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra
> > >
> > > This is an EXCELLENT POST!!
> > >
> > > I love the ones who , when they lose their whole stack with AA say "I had
> > > you preflop". They raise it to 20 in a 2-5 nl game and you call with 77,
> > > you flop a 7 and win 1200 from them .
> > >
> > > Yes moron .. you had the best of it for the first 20 bucks , and I had
the
> > > best of it for the next 1160 dollars
> > >
> > > THAT IS IMPLIED ODDS
> > >
> > > iN MORPHS ABOVE EXAMPLE .. I CALL EVERY SINGLE TIME .. even with a2
> > >
> > >
> > > Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
atrocities.
> > > Voltaire
> >
> > I don't think you can call with any ace even with the 500 stacks. A2 may
> > not be correct because its 28-1 for any three cards in sequence. The odds
> > for the flop to come exactly 345 has to be HUGE. Flopping 2 pair is no
> > good obviously. A suited Ace is 118-1 to flop a flush. Flopping trips
> > using 1 of your hole cards is 73-1, and you'd be looking for exactly 22
> > since your ace is no good.
> >
> > Your best chances come from making 2 pair which is a looser in this hand
> > when you hold an Ace.
>
> AA against A2 is 91% or 9-1 your math is bad ... real bad
>
> Plus you are forgetting about all the times you can make him lay down the
> aces when the board is say 6789 hearts when you know he has 2 black aces
>
>
> Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
> Voltaire

You're forgetting Morphy stated he won't lay down. And... with that in
mind, my math is perfect.

Thanks. Please come again.

---
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




      
Date: 23 Jan 2009 08:54:02
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 6:56 PM, MMelia wrote:

> You're forgetting Morphy stated he won't lay down. And... with that in
> mind, my math is perfect.
>
> Thanks. Please come again.

Your math is perfect but you're going to out of your way to be a total
nitfuck, and it's pissing me off. See quote #2 below, you obfuscating
nitfuck!!

---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com

"I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz

"It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra

--------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



       
Date: 23 Jan 2009 14:37:57
From: MMelia
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 23 2009 11:54 AM, XaQ Morphy wrote:

> On Jan 22 2009 6:56 PM, MMelia wrote:
>
> > You're forgetting Morphy stated he won't lay down. And... with that in
> > mind, my math is perfect.
> >
> > Thanks. Please come again.
>
> Your math is perfect but you're going to out of your way to be a total
> nitfuck, and it's pissing me off. See quote #2 below, you obfuscating
> nitfuck!!
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
>
> "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz
>
> "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
> obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra

Whatever. So we can't talk if you don't agree... fuck off.

--------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 22 Jan 2009 07:14:17
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 21 2009 4:24 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:

> The term you should look up is implied odds. While it's been the
> scapegoat of many bad plays throughout the poker boom years, the
> underlying idea is there. As an extreme example, let's say you and your
> opponent both have $200 stacks. He raises to $10 preflop in a $1/$2 NL
> game and accidentally exposes AA. You also know he can basically never
> get away from a hand like AA. What hands should you be calling with
> preflop? The answer is everything. Once you figure out why you'll be
> closer to figuring out NLHE.

OK nits, same thing as above with $500 stacks.

Fuckin idiots.

---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com

"I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz

"It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra

________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 22 Jan 2009 07:47:36
From: MMelia
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 10:14 AM, XaQ Morphy wrote:

> On Jan 21 2009 4:24 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
>
> > The term you should look up is implied odds. While it's been the
> > scapegoat of many bad plays throughout the poker boom years, the
> > underlying idea is there. As an extreme example, let's say you and your
> > opponent both have $200 stacks. He raises to $10 preflop in a $1/$2 NL
> > game and accidentally exposes AA. You also know he can basically never
> > get away from a hand like AA. What hands should you be calling with
> > preflop? The answer is everything. Once you figure out why you'll be
> > closer to figuring out NLHE.
>
> OK nits, same thing as above with $500 stacks.
>
> Fuckin idiots.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
>
> "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz
>
> "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
> obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra

Ok, I guess I don't get it then.

-----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 22 Jan 2009 07:53:15
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 9:47 AM, MMelia wrote:

> Ok, I guess I don't get it then.

I was trying to make a simple point about how implied odds matter much
more in NLHE and from a limit player's perspective it's a very different
concept. Nit Wool jumped all over it because I used too small of a stack
size.

---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com

"I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz

"It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra

-------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



     
Date: 22 Jan 2009 13:22:34
From: I eat donks
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 3:53 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:

> On Jan 22 2009 9:47 AM, MMelia wrote:
>
> > Ok, I guess I don't get it then.
>
> I was trying to make a simple point about how implied odds matter much
> more in NLHE and from a limit player's perspective it's a very different
> concept. Nit Wool jumped all over it because I used too small of a stack
> size.
>
> ---

Come now donk. You do know the average IQ here, I hope. The original
example you used can lead a lot of these intellectually challenged players
to really call with any two when stacks aren't deep enough to do so, and
end-up all washed-up like our Doggie. Do you really want that on your
consious? Taken in that context, I was doing you a favour.


'So donkeys, come rally,
And the last hand let us raise!
The miracle suck-outs will tally,
And save the donkey race!'

------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 22 Jan 2009 03:35:56
From: MMelia
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 21 2009 5:24 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:

> On Jan 20 2009 6:26 PM, DELETETHIS wrote:
>
> > Guess my question is: should a player that limits his "gamble" and
> > rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?
>
> See what bugs me is that you guys keep complaining that there's no poker
> content on RGP yet I've seen this sort of question answered what must have
> been hundreds of times since I started lurking here in 2003 and then
> posting.
>
> Obviously you'll have less suckouts than your opponents because you don't
> get in the habit of getting in bad as much as they do. Yes, your "made
> hands" are going to lose to draws for big pots, and that's the nature of
> the game.
>
> The term you should look up is implied odds. While it's been the
> scapegoat of many bad plays throughout the poker boom years, the
> underlying idea is there. As an extreme example, let's say you and your
> opponent both have $200 stacks. He raises to $10 preflop in a $1/$2 NL
> game and accidentally exposes AA. You also know he can basically never
> get away from a hand like AA. What hands should you be calling with
> preflop? The answer is everything. Once you figure out why you'll be
> closer to figuring out NLHE.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
>
> "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz
>
> "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
> obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra

Because $10 is only 5% of both stacks, and he won't fold if you make your
hand so you will stack him. So your implied odds are 20 to 1 if you hit
your hand.

The good old 5/10 rule.

______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 21 Jan 2009 17:17:54
From: I eat donks
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 21 2009 10:24 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:

to draws for big pots, and that's the nature of
> the game.
>
> The term you should look up is implied odds. While it's been the
> scapegoat of many bad plays throughout the poker boom years, the
> underlying idea is there. As an extreme example, let's say you and your
> opponent both have $200 stacks. He raises to $10 preflop in a $1/$2 NL
> game and accidentally exposes AA. You also know he can basically never
> get away from a hand like AA. What hands should you be calling with
> preflop? The answer is everything. Once you figure out why you'll be
> closer to figuring out NLHE.

Er....not quite. The odds of flopping two pair or better with 2 unpaired
cards is more than 20 to 1 (think its in the region of 22 to 28 to 1
depending on the exact cards eg., suited connectors, one-gapper, unsuited
connectos, any two unsuited etc.). Hard to make money with those odds
when you are only getting 20 to 1 implied odds. Plus there AA will always
have redraws against two pairs and trips, and sometimes against a flush.

I think you mean any pair rather than two cards.



> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
>
> "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz
>
> "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
> obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra


'So donkeys, come rally,
And the last hand let us raise!
The miracle suck-outs will tally,
And save the donkey race!'

-----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 22 Jan 2009 09:00:57
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 21 2009 7:17 PM, I eat donks wrote:

> On Jan 21 2009 10:24 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
>
> to draws for big pots, and that's the nature of
> > the game.
> >
> > The term you should look up is implied odds. While it's been the
> > scapegoat of many bad plays throughout the poker boom years, the
> > underlying idea is there. As an extreme example, let's say you and your
> > opponent both have $200 stacks. He raises to $10 preflop in a $1/$2 NL
> > game and accidentally exposes AA. You also know he can basically never
> > get away from a hand like AA. What hands should you be calling with
> > preflop? The answer is everything. Once you figure out why you'll be
> > closer to figuring out NLHE.
>
> Er....not quite. The odds of flopping two pair or better with 2 unpaired
> cards is more than 20 to 1 (think its in the region of 22 to 28 to 1
> depending on the exact cards eg., suited connectors, one-gapper, unsuited
> connectos, any two unsuited etc.). Hard to make money with those odds
> when you are only getting 20 to 1 implied odds. Plus there AA will always
> have redraws against two pairs and trips, and sometimes against a flush.
>
> I think you mean any pair rather than two cards.

WRONG MORON .. when you know exactly what 2 cards a player has .. he is
at your mercy .

You can throw the "book math " out the window
>
>
>
> > ---
> > Morphy
> > xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> > http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> >
> > "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz
> >
> > "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
> > obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra
>
>
> 'So donkeys, come rally,
> And the last hand let us raise!
> The miracle suck-outs will tally,
> And save the donkey race!'


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



    
Date: 22 Jan 2009 13:14:19
From: I eat donks
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 5:00 PM, FangBanger wrote:

>
> WRONG MORON .. when you know exactly what 2 cards a player has .. he is
> at your mercy .
>
> You can throw the "book math " out the window


Bad dog! Tell you what, if you are so confident in your statement, why
not you and I have a simple game? I will have aces everytime, and will
play them face up so you will know what the exact cards I have everytime.
I will only raise 25% of my stack preflop. Let's see how long you can
last before you go broke.

You are getting worse in your old age.

'So donkeys, come rally,
And the last hand let us raise!
The miracle suck-outs will tally,
And save the donkey race!'

________________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 22 Jan 2009 07:59:02
From: MMelia
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 21 2009 8:17 PM, I eat donks wrote:

> On Jan 21 2009 10:24 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
>
> to draws for big pots, and that's the nature of
> > the game.
> >
> > The term you should look up is implied odds. While it's been the
> > scapegoat of many bad plays throughout the poker boom years, the
> > underlying idea is there. As an extreme example, let's say you and your
> > opponent both have $200 stacks. He raises to $10 preflop in a $1/$2 NL
> > game and accidentally exposes AA. You also know he can basically never
> > get away from a hand like AA. What hands should you be calling with
> > preflop? The answer is everything. Once you figure out why you'll be
> > closer to figuring out NLHE.
>
> Er....not quite. The odds of flopping two pair or better with 2 unpaired
> cards is more than 20 to 1 (think its in the region of 22 to 28 to 1
> depending on the exact cards eg., suited connectors, one-gapper, unsuited
> connectos, any two unsuited etc.). Hard to make money with those odds
> when you are only getting 20 to 1 implied odds. Plus there AA will always
> have redraws against two pairs and trips, and sometimes against a flush.
>
> I think you mean any pair rather than two cards.
>
>
>
> > ---
> > Morphy
> > xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> > http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> >
> > "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz
> >
> > "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
> > obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra
>
>
> 'So donkeys, come rally,
> And the last hand let us raise!
> The miracle suck-outs will tally,
> And save the donkey race!'

Your right, flopping 2 pair is 49-1. 2%

______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 22 Jan 2009 09:02:14
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 9:59 AM, MMelia wrote:

> On Jan 21 2009 8:17 PM, I eat donks wrote:
>
> > On Jan 21 2009 10:24 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> >
> > to draws for big pots, and that's the nature of
> > > the game.
> > >
> > > The term you should look up is implied odds. While it's been the
> > > scapegoat of many bad plays throughout the poker boom years, the
> > > underlying idea is there. As an extreme example, let's say you and your
> > > opponent both have $200 stacks. He raises to $10 preflop in a $1/$2 NL
> > > game and accidentally exposes AA. You also know he can basically never
> > > get away from a hand like AA. What hands should you be calling with
> > > preflop? The answer is everything. Once you figure out why you'll be
> > > closer to figuring out NLHE.
> >
> > Er....not quite. The odds of flopping two pair or better with 2 unpaired
> > cards is more than 20 to 1 (think its in the region of 22 to 28 to 1
> > depending on the exact cards eg., suited connectors, one-gapper, unsuited
> > connectos, any two unsuited etc.). Hard to make money with those odds
> > when you are only getting 20 to 1 implied odds. Plus there AA will always
> > have redraws against two pairs and trips, and sometimes against a flush.
> >
> > I think you mean any pair rather than two cards.
> >
> >
> >
> > > ---
> > > Morphy
> > > xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> > > http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> > >
> > > "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz
> > >
> > > "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
> > > obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra
> >
> >
> > 'So donkeys, come rally,
> > And the last hand let us raise!
> > The miracle suck-outs will tally,
> > And save the donkey race!'
>
> Your right, flopping 2 pair is 49-1. 2%

For 30 years .. the standard was 40-1


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 21 Jan 2009 14:07:58
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
If you're counting on drawing out, you can't win. It's hard enough
winning when you have the lead, yet you're talking about drawing out?





On Jan 20, 4:26=EF=BF=BDpm, DELETETHIS <"minus200(DELETETHIS)"@bellsouth.ne=
t >
wrote:
> I am starting to think I have no business playing NL poker. =EF=BF=BDI ra=
rely
> draw out on people. =EF=BF=BDI was just thinking I might keep a written r=
ecord
> this year of the number of times players draw out on me and the number
> that I hit the river to win a pot. =EF=BF=BDIf I were guessing I would gu=
ess
> somewhere between 7-1 or 8-1. I am sure that we tend to recall the beats
> more than our suck outs but I am 100% that my ratio would be over 5-1.
>
> I know - bet more in NL to protect your hand but that sure cuts down on
> the size of the pots you do win. =EF=BF=BDI dont really know if I should
> continue playing NL. =EF=BF=BDMy approach to poker is attempting to take =
out as
> much of the "gamble" as I can. =EF=BF=BDI rarely draw out and when I do t=
he odds
> are there to try or I just need to make a "statement" that I WILL call
> with a marginal hand or draw.
>
> Guess my question is: =EF=BF=BDshould a player that limits his "gamble" a=
nd
> rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?



  
Date: 21 Jan 2009 18:05:24
From: DELETETHIS
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
I rarely go into the river behind - I may not be betting enough prior to
that but that is a different subject

RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> If you're counting on drawing out, you can't win. It's hard enough
> winning when you have the lead, yet you're talking about drawing out?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 20, 4:26�pm, DELETETHIS <"minus200(DELETETHIS)"@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>> I am starting to think I have no business playing NL poker. �I rarely
>> draw out on people. �I was just thinking I might keep a written record
>> this year of the number of times players draw out on me and the number
>> that I hit the river to win a pot. �If I were guessing I would guess
>> somewhere between 7-1 or 8-1. I am sure that we tend to recall the beats
>> more than our suck outs but I am 100% that my ratio would be over 5-1.
>>
>> I know - bet more in NL to protect your hand but that sure cuts down on
>> the size of the pots you do win. �I dont really know if I should
>> continue playing NL. �My approach to poker is attempting to take out as
>> much of the "gamble" as I can. �I rarely draw out and when I do the odds
>> are there to try or I just need to make a "statement" that I WILL call
>> with a marginal hand or draw.
>>
>> Guess my question is: �should a player that limits his "gamble" and
>> rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?
>


   
Date: 22 Jan 2009 01:22:50
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
DELETETHIS wrote:
> I rarely go into the river behind

Perhaps this is a clue as to why you rarely suck out.


--
Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/


 
Date: 21 Jan 2009 11:32:16
From:
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 20, 7:26=A0pm, DELETETHIS <"minus200(DELETETHIS)"@bellsouth.net >
wrote:
>
> Guess my question is: =A0should a player that limits his "gamble" and
> rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?

IMO, you shouldn't play any form of poker with that mentality.

All you talk about is calling and sucking out. It sounds like you play
passively/weak-tight. Poker is gambling. Mix it up. Try playing your
draws aggressively, for example. Next time you get a good draw, check-
raise the shit of someone.

JG




  
Date: 21 Jan 2009 18:03:21
From: DELETETHIS
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
I will assure you that I am not a robot playing poker - I know how to
change gears. In many games played in the modern style - being a
"calling station" will produce more profit. However when these TV pros
slow down betting sometimes I need to bet my own hand - hard work this poker

also if you thing gambling is the way to win at poker -- GOOD LUCK you
need it

HeckaGuy@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jan 20, 7:26 pm, DELETETHIS <"minus200(DELETETHIS)"@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>> Guess my question is: should a player that limits his "gamble" and
>> rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?
>
> IMO, you shouldn't play any form of poker with that mentality.
>
> All you talk about is calling and sucking out. It sounds like you play
> passively/weak-tight. Poker is gambling. Mix it up. Try playing your
> draws aggressively, for example. Next time you get a good draw, check-
> raise the shit of someone.
>
> JG
>
>


 
Date: 21 Jan 2009 10:54:36
From: eldo77
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 20 2009 7:26 PM, DELETETHIS wrote:


> Guess my question is: should a player that limits his "gamble" and
> rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?

Yes. You can play and still win. With this mindset you will be a small
winner over time.
The numbers don't have to be "well" in your favor to draw or bet strongly.
They just need to be in your favor.If you just break even in this regard
it will help your image to be seen taking a few chances.But don't take
those chances without at least "breakeven" odds.

Betting your hands strongly is a must. You never know when a "nothing" pot
is going to get big. You just have to keep pounding.It's a big mistake to
slow play a good hand just because you think everybody might run if you
bet.A mistake I've made way too many times.

ONE or TWO pots a session are going to make the difference in winning or
losing so you cannot lower your standards. Everything else is window
dressing except those one or two hands. But you don't know when they're
coming.

I know I'll catch some flak for this but Russ have written some excellent
stuff on how to play these small no limit games. Just a reminder. I think
you already know this.

eldo77

________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 21 Jan 2009 08:15:35
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
> Guess my question is: should a player that limits his "gamble" and
> rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?

Play 10-20 or 15-30LHE. Swings are less and it is mostly math.

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

-----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 22 Jan 2009 08:38:53
From:
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
> > Maybe I am just a better LHE player than I am a NLHE player, but this is
> > not close to my experience.
>
> One thing to remember is the odds are ALMOST NEVER there for a draw in NL
> and ALMOST ALWAYS there to draw in Limit.

You are both overgeneralizing. Every point you guys are making
depends greatly upon the make-up of the game. A tight 10-20 (2-3
players seeing the flop) plays very much like an average 1/2. A ram-
jam 10-20 plays more like a 5/10NL. I would rather play in a ram-jam
limit game than a standard NL - but those are harder to find nowadays.

Croupe




  
Date: 21 Jan 2009 20:35:10
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
As of 2002, there was only one card room in the US running a NL game.
And it was only played twice a week with small blinds. I know where
all games were and used to be until I went on RGP. The BIG GAME is now
history? Wonder why? The game was five/six cheats starting the game
and having a sucker sit down to chop him up. Most of those who played
in the game are now BROKE. No more income:).



On Jan 21, 3:53=EF=BF=BDpm, DELETETHIS <"minus200(DELETETHIS)"@bellsouth.ne=
t >
wrote:
> I dont mean to be a smart ass but I doubt it - there were DAMN few no
> limit games even 15 years ago - was a lot of pot limit across the
> country but almost void of no limit 20 or more years ago
>
> i have been playing almost as long as you but skipped most of the 70's
> playing
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have played both over 50 years and my experience is directly opposite=
of
> > yours.
>
> > eldo77
>
> > -------
> > looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted =
text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



  
Date: 21 Jan 2009 10:37:52
From: eldo77
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 21 2009 11:15 AM, John_Brian_K wrote:

> > Guess my question is: should a player that limits his "gamble" and
> > rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?
>
> Play 10-20 or 15-30LHE. Swings are less and it is mostly math.
>

This is totally wrong except for the math part.
Swings in 10/20 and 15/30 [and even higher limit games] are MUCH greater
than in small no limit games.

eldo77

------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 22 Jan 2009 08:38:27
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 21 2009 12:37 PM, eldo77 wrote:

> On Jan 21 2009 11:15 AM, John_Brian_K wrote:
>
> > > Guess my question is: should a player that limits his "gamble" and
> > > rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?
> >
> > Play 10-20 or 15-30LHE. Swings are less and it is mostly math.
> >
>
> This is totally wrong except for the math part.
> Swings in 10/20 and 15/30 [and even higher limit games] are MUCH greater
> than in small no limit games.
>
> eldo77

you are 100 pct correct . I was going to make this exact post

he has no concept because he has never played either game

He should stick to whining about his love life , cause when he tries poker
. it just plain dont work !!


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 22 Jan 2009 08:49:38
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
> you are 100 pct correct . I was going to make this exact post
>
> he has no concept because he has never played either game
>
> He should stick to whining about his love life , cause when he tries poker
> .. it just plain don't work !!

Maybe you just suck at LHE poker? I 'used' to play 10-20LHE all the time
until they stopped offering it. I have played 1-2NL a few times as well.

At least I have a love life you old fucker.

Man you are an asshole.

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




     
Date: 22 Jan 2009 10:09:08
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 22 2009 10:49 AM, John_Brian_K wrote:

> > you are 100 pct correct . I was going to make this exact post
> >
> > he has no concept because he has never played either game
> >
> > He should stick to whining about his love life , cause when he tries poker
> > .. it just plain don't work !!
>
> Maybe you just suck at LHE poker? I 'used' to play 10-20LHE all the time
> until they stopped offering it. I have played 1-2NL a few times as well.
>
> At least I have a love life you old fucker.
>
> Man you are an asshole.
>
> ========================================
> You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
> nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
> ========
> BOOM byae
> John

3 things "SPARKY"

I have over 500 hours playing in both games mentioned

I have managed over 10,000 hours of both ,not to mention dealt prolly
10-15 k hours of both

And if you get half the pussy I got , and I stll get . you will be a lucky
little boy!!


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 21 Jan 2009 10:44:09
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
> This is totally wrong except for the math part.
> Swings in 10/20 and 15/30 [and even higher limit games] are MUCH greater
> than in small no limit games.
>
> eldo77

REALLY? I have personally played both and my swings in NLHE (1-2) are way
more than 10-20LHE.

Maybe I am just a better LHE player than I am a NLHE player, but this is
not close to my experience.

========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John

----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 22 Jan 2009 08:41:10
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 21 2009 12:44 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:

> > This is totally wrong except for the math part.
> > Swings in 10/20 and 15/30 [and even higher limit games] are MUCH greater
> > than in small no limit games.
> >
> > eldo77
>
> REALLY? I have personally played both and my swings in NLHE (1-2) are way
> more than 10-20LHE.
>
> Maybe I am just a better LHE player than I am a NLHE player, but this is
> not close to my experience.
>
> ========================================
> You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
> nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
> ========
> BOOM byae
> John

100 pct FALSE.. 15-30 LHE is 5 times bigger game than 1-2 nlhe


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 21 Jan 2009 12:44:48
From: eldo77
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 21 2009 1:44 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:

> > This is totally wrong except for the math part.
> > Swings in 10/20 and 15/30 [and even higher limit games] are MUCH greater
> > than in small no limit games.
> >
> > eldo77
>
> REALLY? I have personally played both and my swings in NLHE (1-2) are way
> more than 10-20LHE.

There's something wrong ,then. 1/2 NL is a smaller game than 10/20
LHE.That may be hard for you to believe but I'm convinced it's true.Think
about it. You start a 1/2 NL hand with $3 in the pot. You start a 10/20
LHE hand with $15 in the pot.

I've never done this, but I think if you were to count the accumulated
dollar amount of the pots for several hours in both games the 10/20 would
be bigger.

I have played both over 50 years and my experience is directly opposite of
yours.

>
> Maybe I am just a better LHE player than I am a NLHE player, but this is
> not close to my experience.

One thing to remember is the odds are ALMOST NEVER there for a draw in NL
and ALMOST ALWAYS there to draw in Limit.

eldo77

-------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




     
Date: 22 Jan 2009 03:30:07
From: MMelia
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 21 2009 3:44 PM, eldo77 wrote:

> On Jan 21 2009 1:44 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
>
> > > This is totally wrong except for the math part.
> > > Swings in 10/20 and 15/30 [and even higher limit games] are MUCH greater
> > > than in small no limit games.
> > >
> > > eldo77
> >
> > REALLY? I have personally played both and my swings in NLHE (1-2) are way
> > more than 10-20LHE.
>
> There's something wrong ,then. 1/2 NL is a smaller game than 10/20
> LHE.That may be hard for you to believe but I'm convinced it's true.Think
> about it. You start a 1/2 NL hand with $3 in the pot. You start a 10/20
> LHE hand with $15 in the pot.
>
> I've never done this, but I think if you were to count the accumulated
> dollar amount of the pots for several hours in both games the 10/20 would
> be bigger.
>
> I have played both over 50 years and my experience is directly opposite of
> yours.
>
> >
> > Maybe I am just a better LHE player than I am a NLHE player, but this is
> > not close to my experience.
>
> One thing to remember is the odds are ALMOST NEVER there for a draw in NL
> and ALMOST ALWAYS there to draw in Limit.
>
> eldo77

Are you counting dollar amounts as swings or am I reading this wrong?

Shouldn't you count number of bets won or lost between the two limits?
Isn't that the accurate way to compare two different limits? For example
at 10/20 a player is winning 2BB an
hour but at 1/2 he is winning 4BB an hour? -- so even though it is less $$
1/2 is a better game for him.

-------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



     
Date: 21 Jan 2009 17:53:18
From: DELETETHIS
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
I dont mean to be a smart ass but I doubt it - there were DAMN few no
limit games even 15 years ago - was a lot of pot limit across the
country but almost void of no limit 20 or more years ago

i have been playing almost as long as you but skipped most of the 70's
playing


>
> I have played both over 50 years and my experience is directly opposite of
> yours.
>
>
>
> eldo77
>
> -------
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
>
>


      
Date: 22 Jan 2009 08:45:50
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 21 2009 5:53 PM, DELETETHIS wrote:

> I dont mean to be a smart ass but I doubt it - there were DAMN few no
> limit games even 15 years ago - was a lot of pot limit across the
> country but almost void of no limit 20 or more years ago
>
> i have been playing almost as long as you but skipped most of the 70's
> playing

NLHE has been played 24 hours a day 7 days a week for over 40 years , if
you knew where to go , and who to see.

This is how and why you guys get the moniker "TVSM"

You only know what you have seen and heard on TV ..eldo is 100 pct correct
>
>
> >
> > I have played both over 50 years and my experience is directly opposite of
> > yours.
> >
> >
> >
> > eldo77
> >


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



      
Date: 21 Jan 2009 17:51:47
From: eldo77
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 21 2009 6:53 PM, DELETETHIS wrote:

> I dont mean to be a smart ass but I doubt it - there were DAMN few no
> limit games even 15 years ago - was a lot of pot limit across the
> country but almost void of no limit 20 or more years ago
>
> i have been playing almost as long as you but skipped most of the 70's
> playing
>

No offense taken.Sometimes I don't make things clear or oversimplify
them.I forget that every word on here is parsed strictly.

You are technically correct.As recently as 6 years ago you couldn't find
a NL game in a casino anywhere in the U.S. Everything was Limit.

In the 70's and 80's I was playing in illegal raked games. I even ran a
couple of my own. I was playing low blind 1/2 and 2/5 pot limit but they
play a lot like low blind no limit games [ if you play them right].

In the 90's I started playing Limit in casinos since that's all they
offered.TV changed all that.

eldo77



> >
> > I have played both over 50 years and my experience is directly opposite of
> > yours.
> >
> >
> >
> > eldo77
> >

_______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 21 Jan 2009 08:10:05
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 20 2009 6:26 PM, DELETETHIS wrote:

> I am starting to think I have no business playing NL poker. I rarely
> draw out on people. I was just thinking I might keep a written record
> this year of the number of times players draw out on me and the number
> that I hit the river to win a pot. If I were guessing I would guess
> somewhere between 7-1 or 8-1. I am sure that we tend to recall the beats
> more than our suck outs but I am 100% that my ratio would be over 5-1.
>
> I know - bet more in NL to protect your hand but that sure cuts down on
> the size of the pots you do win. I dont really know if I should
> continue playing NL. My approach to poker is attempting to take out as
> much of the "gamble" as I can. I rarely draw out and when I do the odds
> are there to try or I just need to make a "statement" that I WILL call
> with a marginal hand or draw.

NOW THIS LINE INTRIGUES ME > yOU WANT THEM TO KNOW YOU WILL PLAY WITH THE
WORST OF IT ?

WTF for ?
>
> Guess my question is: should a player that limits his "gamble" and
> rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

---
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 21 Jan 2009 01:45:03
From: Ian Stuart
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 21 2009 1:26 AM, DELETETHIS wrote:

> I am starting to think I have no business playing NL poker. I rarely
> draw out on people. I was just thinking I might keep a written record
> this year of the number of times players draw out on me and the number
> that I hit the river to win a pot. If I were guessing I would guess
> somewhere between 7-1 or 8-1. I am sure that we tend to recall the beats
> more than our suck outs but I am 100% that my ratio would be over 5-1.
>
> I know - bet more in NL to protect your hand but that sure cuts down on
> the size of the pots you do win. I dont really know if I should
> continue playing NL. My approach to poker is attempting to take out as
> much of the "gamble" as I can. I rarely draw out and when I do the odds
> are there to try or I just need to make a "statement" that I WILL call
> with a marginal hand or draw.
>
> Guess my question is: should a player that limits his "gamble" and
> rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?


You are either:

A. making a profit and just struggling to handle the inevitable suck-outs
emotionally

or

B. making a loss and focusing on suck-outs as the perceived cause


Think about that carefully and determine honestly which case applies to
you. The way forward should then be clear. If it's not then you really do
have problems.

______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 22 Jan 2009 19:29:48
From: pokertank.us
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 21, 3:45=A0am, "Ian Stuart" <spamsu...@tiscali.co.uk > wrote:
> On Jan 21 2009 1:26 AM, DELETETHIS wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I am starting to think I have no business playing NL poker. =A0I rarely
> > draw out on people. =A0I was just thinking I might keep a written recor=
d
> > this year of the number of times players draw out on me and the number
> > that I hit the river to win a pot. =A0If I were guessing I would guess
> > somewhere between 7-1 or 8-1. I am sure that we tend to recall the beat=
s
> > more than our suck outs but I am 100% that my ratio would be over 5-1.
>
> > I know - bet more in NL to protect your hand but that sure cuts down on
> > the size of the pots you do win. =A0I dont really know if I should
> > continue playing NL. =A0My approach to poker is attempting to take out =
as
> > much of the "gamble" as I can. =A0I rarely draw out and when I do the o=
dds
> > are there to try or I just need to make a "statement" that I WILL call
> > with a marginal hand or draw.
>
> > Guess my question is: =A0should a player that limits his "gamble" and
> > rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?
>
> You are either:
>
> A. making a profit and just struggling to handle the inevitable suck-outs
> emotionally
>
> or
>
> B. making a loss and focusing on suck-outs as the perceived cause
>
> Think about that carefully and determine honestly which case applies to
> you. The way forward should then be clear. If it's not then you really do
> have problems.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________=A0
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted te=
xt -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Gotta agree with this one. If you play premium hands more often, you
are inevitably going to get sucked out more as well. The more you are
ahead pre-flop, lends to many more opportunities to be drawn out on.
A Gus Hansen almost never gets sucked out, however, he sucks out quite
often, and has made millions doing it. Conversely, Phil Helmuth
rarely plays a suckout hand, except for on the occasional bluff hand,
and also rarely sucks out, and has also made millions. It all depends
on the technique you develop and how you capitalize on that perfected
technique.

As for online play, I agree with one of the other posters, especially
when playing no limit holdem tournaments. I took down an 80k
guaranteed a week ago by purposely folding most of my premium hands
when faced with a big raise or all-in situation. On the flip side, I
raised with 8-9s and A-suited 1 out 3 or 4 times I was dealt it,
especially in position. I money 3 out 4 times I play the large
guaranteeds using this technique. Folding premium is a fairly new
technique for me though... By the book, obviously not, but very
affective when I know the premium hands are going to payoff me off
huge when my "suckout" hands hit. This takes some intestinal
fortitude to play the suckout hands, and discipline to fold premiums
when faced with someone shoving, but surprisingly profitable when used
in NLHE tourneys online...

- Hank

---
www.pokertank.us - Poker news and educational resources


  
Date: 21 Jan 2009 17:45:55
From: DELETETHIS
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
I show a profit but very small and I have been playing a long time and
have learned to ignore the frustrations of bad beats and I stay off tilt
and rarely play when I am not ready

Ian Stuart wrote:
> On Jan 21 2009 1:26 AM, DELETETHIS wrote:
>
>> I am starting to think I have no business playing NL poker. I rarely
>> draw out on people. I was just thinking I might keep a written record
>> this year of the number of times players draw out on me and the number
>> that I hit the river to win a pot. If I were guessing I would guess
>> somewhere between 7-1 or 8-1. I am sure that we tend to recall the beats
>> more than our suck outs but I am 100% that my ratio would be over 5-1.
>>
>> I know - bet more in NL to protect your hand but that sure cuts down on
>> the size of the pots you do win. I dont really know if I should
>> continue playing NL. My approach to poker is attempting to take out as
>> much of the "gamble" as I can. I rarely draw out and when I do the odds
>> are there to try or I just need to make a "statement" that I WILL call
>> with a marginal hand or draw.
>>
>> Guess my question is: should a player that limits his "gamble" and
>> rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?
>
>
> You are either:
>
> A. making a profit and just struggling to handle the inevitable suck-outs
> emotionally
>
> or
>
> B. making a loss and focusing on suck-outs as the perceived cause
>
>
> Think about that carefully and determine honestly which case applies to
> you. The way forward should then be clear. If it's not then you really do
> have problems.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
>
>


 
Date: 20 Jan 2009 20:38:36
From: chrishoo
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 20, 7:26 pm, DELETETHIS <"minus200(DELETETHIS)"@bellsouth.net >
wrote:
> I am starting to think I have no business playing NL poker. I rarely
> draw out on people. I was just thinking I might keep a written record
> this year of the number of times players draw out on me and the number
> that I hit the river to win a pot. If I were guessing I would guess
> somewhere between 7-1 or 8-1. I am sure that we tend to recall the beats
> more than our suck outs but I am 100% that my ratio would be over 5-1.
>
> I know - bet more in NL to protect your hand but that sure cuts down on
> the size of the pots you do win. I dont really know if I should
> continue playing NL. My approach to poker is attempting to take out as
> much of the "gamble" as I can. I rarely draw out and when I do the odds
> are there to try or I just need to make a "statement" that I WILL call
> with a marginal hand or draw.
>
> Guess my question is: should a player that limits his "gamble" and
> rarely draws without numbers well in his favor play no limit poker?

If you get in behind more often you will draw out more often. So get
your money in bad. Or keep playing decently and get sucked out on
more than you lay bad beats on people. Your choice.



 
Date: 20 Jan 2009 17:54:28
From: joeturn
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
not online its poisoned


  
Date: 20 Jan 2009 19:00:58
From: joeturn
Subject: Re: A No Limit question
On Jan 20, 8:54=A0pm, joeturn <joeturn2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> not online its poisoned

PS

you can buy this for $15.00 or get the wareze site for $5.00

http://www.playallpoker.com/

have any cards you want you can wait till the turn then select them
maybe a 6/10 of spades will give you the nutts??