I went on a hell of a rush two days ago. In just 40 hands, I was dealt pocket Aces, Kings (twice!), queens, jacks, tens, and fives, along with AKs and AQo. Many people advocate “playing your rush.” In other words, you’re getting such great cards that you should play a much wider range than normal in order to take advantage of your luck. What an awful idea! First of all, I’m already playing in a manner which appears maniacal. There were a few show downs, naturally, but quite a lot more pots that I took down without a show down. If I start opening up and playing hands like KTo or 45s… or 49o… then I’m going to get called down, picked off, and run over.
The problem here is what’s known as the Monte Carlo fallacy. [Note: this is not related to the Monte Carlo method of evaluating option value or outcome probability]. The Monte Carlo fallacy is expecting what appears to be patterns within random events to continue. Basically, it’s the belief that non-randomness holds for periods of time during otherwise random activity. And it’s dumb. A good example would be if you were playing roulette and a red number had come up 10 times in a row. One person might declare that red has been coming so much that it must come red again. Another might argue that black is “due” and bet heavily on black. In both cases, the outcome of the next spin is as random as ever, and both people are wrong.
And here’s another thing: you hear plenty of people talk about being “on a rush,” but you never hear them talk about negative rushes. Someone who hasn’t had a hand in a very long time isn’t going to see AK and declare, “Ordinarily I would play this, but I’m on a negative rush, so I better not.” Of course, a person who keeps getting sucked out on, despite betting appropriately, or whose aces keep getting cracked, may alter his or her play incorrectly as a consequence. In anticipation of being sucked out on, the player turns passive, thereby inviting further suck outs (gotta love them vicious cycles eh?). There again, the person is erroneously assuming that past results will continue in the future when in truth, future results are random and will follow the exact long term results predicted by the laws of probability.
There is, of course, a psychological element to a rush. If you’ve been running the table over thanks to lucky cards, then you may be able to continue to beat down your opponents even when the cards dry up. However, unless your opponents have no spine at all, they’ll quickly realize that you’re playing far too many hands and will begin to play back at you, eventually costing you as much, if not more, than you made while stomping all over the place like an elephant. Some people can keep control of a table that way, though, and if you can, good for you. I can’t, and not many can. Prior to writing Super/System, Doyle Brunson asserts that he would always raise the next hand after winning a pot. In that manner, he kept his momentum going. But since writing Super/System, players have gotten so much more aggressive that such aggressive abandon can never work for very long.
So take my advice. There’s no such thing as a rush, except after the fact. If you’re getting a run of good cards, you should expect that to continue for precisely zero more hands. And if it does continue anyway? Enjoy it while it lasts. But don’t get sucked into the fallacy of thinking it’s going to last.
Posted by Beck as Poker, Poker Strategy at 12:48 AM PST
1 Comment »
Merry Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanza, Holiday, or whatever in hell you choose to celebrate. May all your check raises be mighty, and all your calls be sick. May your folds be spot on and your pre-flop raises meet with respect. May the donkeys be unlucky, plentiful, and incapable of learning. Poker metaphor, poker metaphor, poker metaphor, poker metaphor! Peace bitches!
Posted by Beck as Poker at 5:29 PM PST
3 Comments »
I played a hand today where I made an incredible call. Afterwards though, I couldn’t help thinking that it was an awful call that I shouldn’t have made.
The action in brief: In an online $1/$2 game I’m fairly new to the table, but have been playing quite aggressively (I had a run of good cards, but hadn’t needed to show them down, so it no doubt looked like I was a bit unhinged). I started the hand with $196, and Villain had $197. Three people limped, including Villain in the cutoff, and from the button, I raised to $11 with AQo, and would have been delighted to simply take down the $9 in the pot. Everyone folded to the Villain who called. The flop came 8s 6c 8c, Villain checked, I made a standard continuation bet of $15 into the $29 pot, and Villain check-raised all-in.
I thought about it for as much time as Full Tilt would let me, then called at the last second. Villain had 9h 7h for an OESD, and the 6 and J on the turn and river helped him none at all. I dragged a $396 pot with Ace high, and that just doesn’t happen very often. I gave myself a pat on the back for an incredible call. Then I started thinking about it.
First of all, even had I known what he had, I could hardly call with much confidence. My chances of winning were 49.7% vs 49.4%. But the real question is, what exactly do I think I’m beating here? The answer is that the only hands I’m beating are a big draw being pushed hard, in which case my ace high is a coin flip at best, or a total bluff, in which case my opponent still has live cards.
Against some players, the likelihood that the huge bet represented a draw is great, and the call is much easier to make (so long as they never play made hands that agressively–fairly common, as the made hand wants to milk the pot and get paid off). But I didn’t know anything about this guy. He could be some random internet donkey who assumed people always bluff at paired boards and liked his chances with pocket 3s. He could have a 6 and be convinced I’d never bet if I had an 8. He could have reasonably assumed that any sane person would fold anything less than 9s-or-better.
Most of the time though, what you’re up against is someone with trip 8s who has read too much about the importance of protecting their hand on draw heavy boards. Given that we were in a coin flip on the flop, my expectation in calling his bet was only around $26, but the times that I’m behind, I’m going to be a huge dog, drawing to 6 outs at best. If he has 67 I’m about a 26% chance to win, and if he holds 78, I have less than a 1% chance of winning. Big negative expectation there. Essentially, I’d have to think he was pushing a draw a significant majority of the time to profitably call there. Fortunately, I got lucky this time.
Posted by Beck as Poker, Poker Strategy at 10:44 PM PST
2 Comments »
I just got back from a week long skiing trip, and you know what I discovered with regard to poker? Nothing. Turns out it’s hard to think about game strategy while hurtling down the side of a mountain covered in frozen water with a pair of sleds strapped to your feet. I did, however, learn that when two people under such conditions crunch into each other fairly solidly, both will go flying in a tumble of snow and ski gear. Fortunately no one was hurt, but I did get to revisit that entertaining alpine phenomenon known as the “Yard sale.” These things happen. OK, some random poker content:
The Thursday prior to my skiing trip, I played some poker at Foxwoods. I was dealt pocket jacks 5 times during an 8 hour session. Twice they went down in flames, once they won with a pre-flop re-raise, once they won after flopping a set. And the fifth time? First hand of the session, having posted from the cut-off, I merely called a raise in front of me with my two black jacks. I made a little more money on the hand by calling the continuation bet, but it’s often hard to get any action after flopping quads. Cue Quagmire:
Alllll riiiiight.
Posted by Beck as Poker at 5:06 PM PST
2 Comments »
A friend of mine is getting married in Las Vegas soon, probably in January. I haven’t been to Vegas in more than five years, and back then I didn’t know squat about Texas Hold’em or, indeed, poker in general. I played a little $1-$5 Stud and got my tourist ass handed to me on a platter.
It’s only going to be a weekend trip, so I won’t have time to check out every single room there. And I have no idea when it will be feasible for me to go back (that is, of course, assuming I even decide to board the flight home; January in Vegas is so much more appealing than January in Indiana). So for those of you readers who live in or regularly visit Las Vegas, if I had to pick, say, three poker rooms that combine the best action for low-limit Hold’em (I probably won’t be playing anything bigger than 4/8) and the best ambience for their poker room, and the best possible action for all other games (especially craps) so that my non-poker-playing friends won’t be bored out of their skull, which three should I pick?
My list right now looks like this:
1. Binion’s
2. Rio
3. Bellagio
. . . but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise. Binion’s and Rio should be somewhat obvious for their history with the WSOP; Bellagio, well, hey, it’s about the most luxurious place in the world and there’s something a bit strange about the idea of a dork like me playing 4/8 limit there.
But if anyone knows a better place to go — especially downtown, since the wedding will be at the Golden Nugget — I’m all ears.
Posted by Mike as Gambling, Life, Poker, Reviews at 1:26 AM PST
6 Comments »
Chip Reese, regular in the Big Game at the Bellagio, winner of the inaugural WSOP $50,000 H.O.R.S.E championship, easily one of the top five poker players of all time, has died at the age of 56. CardPlayer.com reports that he died in his sleep at his Las Vegas home after being sent home from the hospital the previous day. Poker has lost a legend.
Edit by Mike: When I was browsing 2+2 I’d heard about this. In the impromptu memoriam thread, someone suggested the idea of naming the WSOP $50K HORSE event after Chip, and I thought it was such a good idea I spun off a separate thread devoted to it.
So if anyone reading is or knows The Powers That Be at the WSOP, please consider this. It would be a fitting tribute to a legend of poker.
Posted by Beck as Life, Poker at 6:34 PM PST
1 Comment »
In the latest of a series of online video spots that he has been producing for Reason Online (a libertarian publication), Drew Carey highlights the case of a VFW lodge in Dallas which hosted a regular poker tournament to raise money for charity that was raided in a SWAT style sting by local law enforcement. I doubt any regular readers of this site are in need of convincing that poker should be legal, but maybe you know someone that could benefit from the link. Anyway, here’s the video (hopefully this works, I’ve never posted embedded video before). Enjoy.
Posted by Beck as Poker at 2:39 PM PST
1 Comment »
