"Superior" Poker: Possible to eliminate the endless waiting in Hold 'Em?

This is very important to understand when it comes to determining whether a competitive game of any sort that involves at least a little randomness is popular or not. If it’s not possible to win a reasonable amount of type if you aren’t quite the best player, you’re not going to get people that keep coming back to the game trying to recreate their “winning” game plan. Omaha hi/lo is a great game, but incredibly complicated compared to Texas Hold’em. Any additional strategic avenues that the rules cause, they pale in comparison to the number of people that are uninterested because of just how lost they get.

Games that involve perfect information and are deep enough (like Chess), get around this by being games of perfect information and interesting to play even if you’re not very good. If you play someone much better than you in such games, you can’t blame your losses on luck. Once you start adding randomness, people aren’t going to like it if they don’t win at least sometimes as they’ll see the game’s randomness always going against them - especially if there’s no effective basic strategy.

This seems like it has to have an entirely different optimal strategy compared to a typical ring game. If this is at all typical, I’m sure there’s been plenty written about it, and I don’t want to just repeat everything that’s probably been said but, damn, that really changes your approach in deciding to whether to bother playing a hand. It seems like it should be called turbo-fold poker, and the more hands you fold the more you see.

Recliner, I’m not really clear on whether you’re playing Limit or No Limit. They are very different games, as is Tournament play. What is your main interest?

If the book you have is Small Stakes Hold’em: Winning Big with Expert Play that is a good start. What to read next depends on which type of game you want to learn … and you definitely must focus on one type while learning.

As for card counters and poker, well, I am one. I played BJ for a living before switching to poker in 1992 and I know quite a few others who have done so.

What makes a successful poker player? I would say the one big factor that all good players have is that they are fast thinkers, able to process a lot of data very quickly. Deep thinking is necessary when analyzing play away from the table, but there is rarely time for it during a hand.

Yes, actually I do have a Hold 'Em variant that I sometimes play with friends to make it more fun and prevent a “fold-fest.” I invented this game myself and have never shared it with anyone, except a close circle of friends. I doubt I will ever be able to profit from it, so here it is in a nutshell. (All/any(?) rights reserved, if you think you can sell this idea, I’ll cut you in for 50/50 :wink: )

For lack of a better name, it’s called Drop and Bet. You can play 4, 5, or 6-card D&B. 4-card has a max of 11 players, 5-card has a max of 8 players, 6-card has a max of 7 players.

5-card is probably the most balanced version, so I’ll describe that one: All players are dealt 5 cards, with blinds just like regular HE. UTG (first to act after the blinds) then has to drop one of his cards, then either call, raise, or fold just like regular HE. To make things even more interesting, we usually play “face-up” D&B, so all discards are displayed face-up in front of the player that dropped them. (And trust me, this can sometimes get very interesting.)

So the pre-flop progresses as usual, with all players having dropped one card and then acting. After the flop, every player drops another card before they act, with play progressing as usual. After the turn, the last card is dropped, leaving each player still in the hand with 2 cards before the river is dealt.

In the 4-card variant, there is no drop pre-flop, just a drop post-flop and post-turn. In the 6-card variant there is a drop pre-flop AND a drop post-river.

Trust me when I say this game can get very fun and very interesting, and the pots very large. It was designed to counter exactly what you’re complaining about where most people fold on most hands. This game makes it VERY rare for anyone to fold before the turn or even the river. (In the 6-card variant, almost nobody folds until the river, and the hands can be downright godly!) And the variant with the drops being face-up add even more excitement to the boredom that regular Hold 'Em can often be.

The cards other people have previously discarded often affect which card you decide to drop. And it always gets people talking when someone has decided to drop something interesting, say like a pair of Aces, on two consecutive drops. :smiley:

(Missed the edit window)

Oh yeah, and the really fun part is that it can often be EXCRUCIATING to decide on which card to drop. You can’t imagine how difficult it can be to decide what to drop until you’ve played it. The game is usually accompanied by groaning, moaning, and hesitation as people decide what to drop. (And this can be both a useful tell, or a useful head-fake.)

PokerStars has recently started playing tourneys where the blinds are 5 and 5 throughout while the ante keeps rising. This forces you to play aggressively very quickly.

voltaire, you are pretty much describing Pineapple and Crazy Pineapple; they are played with three cards.

The long-run winners will still be the tight players but those who play a lot of hands will push a lot of big pots back and forth between them after the tight players have folded, same as Omaha HiLo.

Lots of interesting discussion. I didn’t see mentioned yet the one thing that is likely to please the OP, and that is to play multiple tables at once. That way, you can continue with your 14/10/4, or however you play, while not climbing the walls from boredom. Live, I don’t have an answer for you, except to wear an ipod like everyone else seems to now. Or spend most of your time watching the other players, and remembering how they play their hands, practicing your hand reading, etc…

As far as card counting and poker, I’m not sure how you’re supposed to play stud well, and limit in general, without having a very firm grasp of the mathematics involved and knowing which cards are dead.

Close, but obviously mine has more cards, which greatly diminishes people’s willingness to fold early. Also, my game has the discard happening before each player’s betting action, instead of everyone dropping at the same time after betting, and that does make a difference. And that combined with the face-up discards can make for a really fun, and very strategic game.

As for the proper strategy being to play tight, well sort of, but when you have that sheer number of cards, and possible dominating hands to make, it is usually very difficult to do so. The result is that everybody plays a little loose. Folding pre-flop is quite rare, and that by itself is enough to improve upon the main gripe of the OP.

By extension then, the OP could solve his problem simply by playing every hand in Hold 'em. Do you see the flaw there?

Hand selection is a huge factor in any limit poker game, quite likely it is the single biggest factor in separating the winners from the losers. A person who plays too many hands simply cannot win.

Certain games, Omaha HiLo or your game, for example, can appear to unsophisticated players to have a lot of playable hands … in other words, players can delude themselves in thinking that nearly every hand is playable, but in reality certain hands are far superior to others and those who are able to recognize those hands have a significant advantage over those who don’t. That results in loose games which the tighter players can exploit by doing nothing more than playing tight.

It’s actually kind of wrong to say that “it’s correct to play tight”. If you play against a massive amount of loose and passive bad players, playing “loose” is more profitable. How you should play depends on how the others are playing. If people are folding too much you should play more aggressively. If they are playing too aggressively, you should call more often (which is loose/passive). At a table of maniacs who are limping in then bluffing and betting like crazy post flop, you should limp along a lot and then play passively post flop. Letting them bluff off their money when you have a medium or weakish hand, and trying to get paid off big when you know you’re ahead.

There’s some truth to what you say, of course. But no, it’s not nearly the same thing as just playing every hand in Hold 'em. I assure you, it is not the correct strategy to fold pre-flop more than 1-3 out of 10 hands in my game, unless maybe you’re often facing multiple raises and your hands are unusually uncoordinated, which is relatively rare.

In this game, the criteria for what defines a ‘playable’ pre-flop hand are simply a lot wider, and a lot less clear, than that of HE. So, not only does that aspect address the complaints of the OP, but the aspect of face-up discards also adds some excitement, and some additional information to work with, compared to regular HE.

Either way, regardless of what the “proper” strategy is, I assure you that there will be A LOT less early folding (even by normally tight players,) more people involved deeper into the hand, more excitement, and more to analyze and think about than playing plain old Hold 'em. In other words, it’s just a lot less boring, and that’s what the OP is after. Try it out sometime, even if you gotta play by yourself to just test it out.

Ok, let me amend that to “In a very loose game with many unsophisticated players it is correct to loosen up somewhat compared to how you would play in a tighter game containing knowledgeable players … but is still correct to play tighter than the other players.” and vice versa.

If it were you and I discussing strategy, yes, you are certainly correct. My remarks are very simplified, being aimed at people who are taking the first steps toward learning to play well. Your remarks are astute and correct, but, IMHO, too advanced for the current level of discussion. I fear they would be taken by players who overestimate their abilities as a go-ahead to join in the wild action.

For many people, becoming weak-tight is the first step toward becoming a winning player. Yes, good players will roll all over the weak-tight guy, but if he is playing in a very loose low limit game, playing only a small selection of high quality hands will dramatically improve the results of someone who has been playing only on hunches and machismo … and will build his bankroll rather than deplete it.

When I was learning poker I was playing the $2/$4 and $4/$8 games in Vegas and doing my best to apply the strategies in Hold 'em for Advanced Players (the only real book available at the time.) I talked to a couple of poker pros and they told me “You are probably playing too tight for the games you are in, but when you move up you will be ready.” That turned out to be true; when I moved to the $10/$20 Hold 'em and O8 games at the Mirage it didn’t take the regulars very long to stop rushing to get on the list to transfer to the game I was in.

And when I made the switch to internet poker, my tight aggressive style … well, let’s just say I haven’t even thought about looking for a job since PlanetPoker started up in 1998.

To summarize my point of view: If you are playing poker for fun, play for stakes you can afford and gamble it up; sometimes you’ll get lucky and score a nice win. If you are trying to learn to play poker seriously with the intention of earning money over the long-run, a very good first step is learn what actually constitutes a good starting hand in your chosen game and to limit your play to hands that are mathematically profitable. You’ll spend a lot of time watching the maniacs push huge pots back and forth between them, but the money you save by not joining in the frenzy means that you get to keep the pots you win rather than putting the chips right back in the middle of the table.

If you are playing in a loose passive game, you can loosen up a bit, but the most important thing to understand is what you can loosen up with, and when.

In very loose games, (especially loose but somewhat aggressive games) you want to tighten up on hands like KTo, QTo, etc. These hands do not play well against a large field. When they win, they tend to win small pots. When the lose, they cost you a lot of money. In any event, they are extremely hard hands to play well.

A typical result for a hand like KTo is that you’ll flop a pair of Kings or a pair of tens. If you flop top pair with tens, a lot of weak players will hang around with one or two overcards and run you down. If you flop a king, a passive player with KQ will check and call all the way to the river, and you’ll never know where you stand.

To play such hands well, you have to know exactly who you’re playing with, and watch who called from what position. A weak-tight player calling from early position, and two or three callers after him? KTo is death. You’re probably look at AQ, AK, KQ, TT, or something like that. Hands that have you dominated. On the other hand, if one weak player calls instead of raising from late position and you’re on the button, you can raise and try to get heads-up with him with position. But if the blinds call the raise, you’re in a tough spot again because you have no idea what they have.

On the other hand, with five or more players in in an unraised pot, you can play any pairs or small suited connectors. These are hands that generally either hit the flop big or miss completely. The biggest risk with these hands is that you get ‘pot-stuck’ by having the odds to call for marginal draws. But in general, they are easier to play - if you don’t hit a four-flush, a set, or two pair on the flop, you’re done. It cost you a small bet. But if you hit your set, you stand to rake in a nice big pot.

One thing to remember about Hold-Em: It’s a community card game, which means it’s harder to outrun other players than in a game like stud. Therefore, there’s a premium on good starting hands. The surest way to lose in a ring game is to play too loosely, or to play without due consideration to position or where you sit in respect to the aggressive players. Playing raised pots with weak hands will wipe out your bankroll.

Omaha: Omaha high is a game that you can indeed play looser, as there are many hands that stand to make big multi-way draws on the flop. It’s harder to play the game after the flop, however, so if you’re not skilled at the game, you need to play big hands that can make the nuts, and that’s it.

Omaha-Hi Low: A totally different game than Omaha high, and a game that rewards people who play very tightly before the flop. You never want to play a hand that stands to only win half the pot. You need hands that can sweep both high and low, or hands that are huge for high and which, if made, won’t share the pot with a low hand (because no low will be possible). The range of hands that meet these qualifications are very small.

All of this changes playing heads-up or very short-handed. In my experience, Omaha short-handed in one of the most difficult games to play. You’re no longer playing for the nuts, but it’s extremely hard to tell what you’re opponent has. It’s also possible for opponents to hit a big hand on the flop, then back into an even bigger hand on the turn or river (i.e. hitting a set on the flop, then making a runner-runner flush on the turn and river). In addition, there are hands that can flop big draws in Omaha that are actually more likely to win than the current best hand. This makes it hard to use an opponent’s betting patterns to figure out what they have.

As for professional poker players not knowing the math - a lot of them really do. Chris Ferguson has a Ph.D in math, as I recall. Most of the top players know the math of the game just fine. But these guys also play a lot of short-handed games, and in short-handed and heads-up games, playing the player becomes much more important than playing the cards. When you see these guys on TV, it’s usually in the late stages of a tournament, and often when the table is down to six players or left. The strategy at that point completely changes. If you take their playing style into a limit ring game with ten players, you’ll get killed.

In addition, the strategy for tournaments changes dramatically. The climbing antes and blinds forces players to play looser, and the relative chip stacks and the payout rates of the specific tournament also affect strategy. So don’t assume that what you see on TV is how you should play.

I was at a low limit game today at PokerStars and I think a guy a found a way to get around the endless waiting. He was playing at 21 tables at one time. 21 tables! All low limit, all the same stakes.

It was actually quite irritating as he was taking his full allotment of time every time it was his turn. EVERY FRICKING TIME! The table was a ‘designated’ fast table.

I wish there was an option for the players to kick players off the table if they continually delay the game. of course it would have to unanimous amongst the remaining players, and only done after he went to the time bank, over and over and over again.

If they’re going to do that, then TPTB might as well allow bots, as the guy is probably playing as systematically as a bot would anyway. Screwing around with the freeroll tournaments, and the mass sitting out and using all the time allotment makes it a bit dull. (Other than on the bubble, and then I understand the urge to delay) OTOH, it’s interesting practicing playing different games with anywhere from 8 players to HU.

I’ve never multi-tabled more than 2 at a time—and I was terrible at it—but I thought with tools like Table Ninja and Poker Tracker/Hold 'Em Manager, you could play a lot of tables at once w/o being a jackass. Was he short-stacked at each one too?

Returning to Hold 'Em, it seems that Pot-Limit Hold 'Em might be the best of both worlds, regarding a more playable, less boring form of poker. Why did Hold Em evolve without antes, as opposed to all other forms of poker at that time (5, 7-Stud, 5-Draw Hi, Lowball, Jacks or better)?

Add an ante, raise the blinds, add a large straddle, all large relative to the max bet and it becomes worthwhile to play more marginal hands. Of course, what you have done is to make it much more of a gambling game and less a skill game. It seems evident to me that any rule that increases the likelihood of playing makes it more likely that a lucky hand will wind. Sure, play the 2,7 suited. If the odds are good enough it might be worth it. But I wouldn’t want to play such a game.

Having blinds instead of antes is just a way to speed up the game. Instead of having everybody put in a small amount every hand, it’s faster and easier to just have one or two players ante for everybody. It started out as “Dealer antes for everybody” but since the dealer already has the big advantage of being in last position and doesn’t really need any added inducement to play a hand, the blind(s) got moved to first position as a way to induce more action.

Regarding people playing multiple games online, the first thing I do when joining a table is check each player to see if I can determine how many games they are playing. You can’t always tell, because they can hide themselves from search. Knowing that a guy is playing 12 or 24 games tells me a lot about the way he is playing and the kind of hand he is likely to have … very valuable information.

GG, I was at a ring game, low fixed limit.