[Jlall]

jdonn, on Jan 25 2010, 05:00 PM, said:

You are giving me too much credit. I didn't reraise preflop because I was operating under some assumption they won't see what I'm up to. I did it because I had a good hand, or strictly speaking I did it to hopefully reduce the amount of players who saw the flop.

Yeah obv but there are already a million people in the pot for 2 bets, and they won't fold. If you think about certain hands and what you'd do with them in this spot, I think you'd realize you would want to call pretty much every single one if you decided to play because you can't thin the field very much at this point (you can get rid of the blinds, maybe). You would need a really premium hand to want to juice the pot some more, like you had.

In that case, you are telegraphing your hand if you raise at this point. You could try to balance by raising some other hands in that spot also like 87s or 66, but then you're basically burning money with those hands. You could also try to balance by never reraising in this spot. Or you could simply always call with your 87s and 66 hands, and always raise with your AA/KK/QQ hands, and hope they don't notice.

Obviously the latter is correct against these morons, for the sole reason that they don't notice what you do. It's unlikely they remember by the river that you were the one who made it 3. So I totally agree with that, but just follow through on that by remembering that THEY DO NOT KNOW YOU HAVE AA, even though you have made it really obvious.

[karlson]

2/4 limit players live don't think about what you might have, just like bad bridge players don't think about what anyone else has, they just "bid their own hand".

I would have 6-bet if possible.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Jan 25 2010, 05:00 PM, said:

You are giving me too much credit. I didn't reraise preflop because I was operating under some assumption they won't see what I'm up to. I did it because I had a good hand, or strictly speaking I did it to hopefully reduce the amount of players who saw the flop.

So the points here for me are they probably aren't thinking, if they are they are probably thinking badly, and (of course) mathematically 6-6 is very unlikely in any case. Got it thx!

I think you're pretty unlikely to thin the field with a raise after everyone but the blinds is already in for 2 bets (unless you get lucky and a blind or, say, UTG re-pops it). The pot odds are just too big. If the initial raiser acted later or (better still) you acted earlier, could be a different story.

Aside from any generalizations about $2-$4 Hold'Em players, after seeing an UTG raise and 6 (or so) cold calls, I wouldn't base any plays on the assumption that someone at the table knows what's going on.

[Jlall]

Anyone know what the rake is for live 2/4 limit hold em? I told jdonn I suspected it was so high that the game was unbeatable by even the best player in the world, and I wonder if that's true. The rake + tip can just completely overwhelm even a huge bigbet/100 winrate if it is too high, which it probably is in order for the games to be worth it for a casino to run.

[jdonn]

I'll find out what it is next time I play. I still think it's beatable. FWIW obviously I'm the worst poker player in the universe, and over the first 4 sessions totalling 6 hours I'm up $157. I have no idea what makes a good sample size though. Including probably 40-50 given away in tips as well.

About thinning the field, one thing is the blinds did fold (one of them even saying how she really wanted to see the flop) so to some extent it worked. The other is yes I was hoping UTG would 4 bet it, and that might get some people out. But he didn't with K-K so that part was probably mistaken.

[ArtK78]

In the 2/4 limit games that I have played in (which has not been for some time), if you are heads-up there is no cap. So, if you wanted to go all-in, you could.

The rake varies from casino to casino, but it is pretty high compared to the pots. But the game is definitely beatable as there are so many bad players. I used to play these games frequently, and I am definitely ahead.

Also, the rake is capped, so once you get to the rake cap, the rest of the pot is for the players.

As for the hand, I would always assume that my Aces full is the best hand. The chances of quads are so small as to be almost dismissed. The fact that the player is raising doesn't mean he has quads, unless you get a read on him.

[jjbrr]

I don't know the exact numbers but quick research suggests that it is beatable, but it's not worth it. The general consensus seems to be to play 4/8 or 5/10 when you can and use good judgment for table selection.

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Jan 25 2010, 05:32 PM, said:

I'll find out what it is next time I play. I still think it's beatable. FWIW obviously I'm the worst poker player in the universe, and over the first 4 sessions totalling 6 hours I'm up $157. I have no idea what makes a good sample size though. Including probably 40-50 given away in tips as well.

haha, lets just say if you showed a sample of 10k LHE hands, you would get laughed off the planet for thinking that is a meaningful sample.

Obviously playing live you can pretty much never get a sample size large enough to know your true winrate, but 6 hours of live play is maybe a few minutes online, fwiw.

Also 40 bets is not much of a swing, you can easily go on 500 BB downswings as a winning player (obviously depending on your true winrate).

Not to be like "lol live players" but they really have no idea about sample size/variance/etc because they cannot play enough hands.

[Jlall]

jjbrr, on Jan 25 2010, 05:35 PM, said:

I don't know the exact numbers but quick research suggests that it is beatable, but it's not worth it. The general consensus seems to be to play 4/8 or 5/10 when you can and use good judgment for table selection.

Even online, the HU games are not really beatable until 3/6 because the rake is too high, and online rakes are much better than live rakes. Of course online HU is much tougher than live full ring at the same stakes, but generally your winrate HU is going to have a higher possible cap than in FR.

Josh please report back when you get the numbers, assuming your winrate is something like a massive 6BB per 100 hands, we can see what your winrate would be after rake and tip etc and how beatable the game is.

[jdonn]

Btw when we say "not beatable" what do we mean exactly? Like you can't get rich off it, or you can't make a living off it, or you can't come out ahead at all?

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Jan 25 2010, 05:51 PM, said:

Btw when we say "not beatable" what do we mean exactly? Like you can't get rich off it, or you can't make a living off it, or you can't come out ahead at all?

I mean it wouldn't surprise me if the best player in the world did not have a positive winrate after rake+tip. So basically I mean it literally, although Jeremy seems to have searched 2+2 for this already so if they say it is beatable but not worth it I'm sure they're right.

[jdonn]

Ok for I'll find out the rake, and also the next time or two I play I'll (try to) keep track of how many hands per hour. I was thinking of everything in terms of time but of course it's hands that matter.

It's actually good to know. I'm fully convinced the level of play in certain places is so bad I can come out ahead, but if I have to move up to 4-8 or 1-2 NL or something then I want to know that. Of course I'll keep trying to get better before I do that...

[Lobowolf]

FWIW, I concur with "beatable, but not worth it" (apart from recreational benefit, obviously).

[Mbodell]

I'd raise the turn and re-raise the river. The odds that he has 66 are about 1% and certainly aren't greater than 5%. People will call with any boat, any straight, and most trips as well as some folks with something like AK. This is 2-4 limit we are talking about. There are twice as many A6 hands he could have that would play this hand strong as there are 66 hands, so both of those would play it like he did (as would 77), even by a reasonable player.

[jdonn]

Mbodell, on Jan 25 2010, 06:54 PM, said:

I'd raise the turn and re-raise the river.  The odds that he has 66 are about 1% and certainly aren't greater than 5%.  People will call with any boat, any straight, and most trips as well as some folks with something like AK.  This is 2-4 limit we are talking about.  There are twice as many A6 hands he could have that would play this hand strong as there are 66 hands, so both of those would play it like he did (as would 77), even by a reasonable player.

You realize you were crushed on the turn, right? On the flop too, but by even many more possible hands on the turn.

[Jlall]

Raising the turn is pretty lol...

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Jan 25 2010, 07:40 PM, said:

Raising the turn is pretty lol...

See, I did a lot of things right!

[Lobowolf]

Now, when's someone going to start a 7-stud high/low split thread, so we can REALLY get into it?!

[Stephen Tu]

2-4 LHE in Vegas is easily beatable IMO, no question about it, the players are LOL bad. Rake is 10%, $4 cap usually, it's just not a problem with the games this juicy (5 people cold-calling an UTG raise!). There are plenty of tourists there who came to play hands, not to fold them. 2-4 in California, with a killer flat $4 rake every hand regardless of pot size, that's potentially unbeatable depending on table conditions. Vegas should be beatable as long as you don't over-tip. Also avoid places with jackpot drop if convenient. Of course "beatable" < minimum wage = maybe $6/hr, this is for recreation not for a living. And really if you are a +EV player you should try to find a casino where the lowest is 3-6 or 4-8 (Bellagio), the level of play is the same since the casual players just pick the lowest limit offered where they happen to be.

LOL at "raising to reduce field size". In no fold'em limit hold'em, you are raising strictly to get more money in the pot. You might only get it back 40% w/ AA, but you are getting 6:1! Missing the pre-flop raise doesn't make up for any deceptive post-flop value you might gain, the players aren't paying attention anyway, and even the few that do can't exploit you for too many bets anyway since you can always just call down and only lose say 2 big bets on turn/river. how to play LHE vs. donks != how to play high-stakes LHE/NLHE vs. good winning regs. Also with aces, you actually don't mind the whole table coming along for as many bets as you can get in pre-flop. You get beat more often, sure, but the extra bets on every street makes the pots you still hold on to win enormous, and is greater EV than fewer people in the pot.

Josh get Miller's SSHE book. And w/ top boat please put in at least 6 BB before just calling the 7th bet, unless you have strong evidence that villain knows how to play.

[Jlall]

Maybe this was not clear but I was never suggesting not raising pre with AA, I was saying that in doing so you are acknowledging that you are playing vs people who will not later know in, say, a hand like this, that your entire range is now AA and nothing else. Ergo putting them on quads because they "know" you have AA and are playing perfectly against you is a big mistake.

$4 flat rake seems pretty lol, I don't see how anyone could possibly beat that. Vegas rake seems better, but you still have to have a massive winrate to overcome that kind of rake.