Every Poker Book You've Ever Read Is Wrong

[Kat]

Since I didn't grow up in North America I'm not sure how a 5-year old is typically taught how to play baseball, but I will lay a pound to a penny the first lesson isn't a detailed description of the infield fly rule. However, by the time you're playing... I dunno.... I should've really used an analogy where I know wot I'm talking about, but... at some point you're going to need to know the more complex rules of baseball or you're going to screw up. And then, kittens, there is shouting.

It's often been noted that the answer to any poker question is "it depends." If someone stonewalls you with this response you should clearly ask "depends on wot?" However, many poker situations are quite complex and "it depends" is actually the only responsible answer.

In the vast majority of poker books there are basic rules and strategies that work most of the time. But few of them work all of the time. I was reminded of this in a HF tournament tonight when the question of checking hands down near the bubble to increase the odds of busting a shorty cropped up. Cos we've all learned that checking down is good here. We want people to bust, rite? Wrong. At least it's wrong in some situations and "How to win NLTs by some obscure Full Tilt pro" probably doesn't cover those situations where it's wrong because you don't teach a 5-year old the infield fly rule.

There are several "introductory" Omaha books. All of them have errors in them either because they by necessity omit some of the subtleties of the game or because the author has simply messed up. The best Omaha book which could just about be called "introductory" (although I'd recommend reading something else first) is "Pot-Limit Omaha Poker" by Jeff Hwang. (It mostly covers PLO as the name suggests although there is some P/LO8 in there too.) It's not an easy book but at 330 pages it manages to cover the basics of Omaha. I just ordered a copy of Hwang's new book. "Advanced Concepts Volume I" is over 500 pages long and I'm hoping that there is only one additional volume beyond this because frankly I am getting a little intimidated by how little I apparently know about Omaha.

The point I want to emphasize here is not that you should all be building massive libraries and spending all your time reading books. However, I do think it's important to be wary of things that "everybody knows." I get called all kinds of names for making "donkey plays" like betting into dry side-pots and related crimes. I make plenty of mistakes when I play, but there are times when it's correct to protect a short-stack, bet a dry side-pot, and fold AA pre-flop in that castrated form of Omaha that many of you enjoy. And it takes a while to learn these subtleties. So when you look at these funny animations of poker tables I'd recommend doing so with your eyes and mind open and with a faint smile on your face. The smile helps because it is almost pure that the Poker Gods are going to shaft you at some point within the next hour and if you can't see the funny side of it you might as well turn off your computer and play baseball.

[Holdem Freak]

In some weird twisted way I followed that post(hope I am not the only one). The "it depends" phrase has been used by all of us at one time or another. The most I have used it is when someone gives you a scenario but does not go into depth with things like position, time invested, other playing styles, etc. So yes in a way I guess it is over used but in an understandable way. As for Omaha I am completely blind on that game and leave that to the experts, hence why I do not play and there is no book out there that could help me, but on that note you seem to enjoy it and would back your suggestion up on that book for anyone wanting to better their game (damn run on sentences).

[Yoda]

Depends is always the answer for most questions in poker. I recall reading a poker book and in it a person asked the pro a question about how to play AK in mid position in a $10 tourney. thats the only information the pro got to make a suggestion. Of course the pro went off to say how if was impossible to make a correrct answer, because it DEPENDS on a lot of factors like chip stacks, style of play, blinds, agression and how long at table. There is no perfect style loose or tight. Each has merits.

while I have abourt 15-20 books, Ive learned alot just by asking questions to people I know are better then me. One of the reasons I like having Kat around here. Almost feel like im bothering the heck out of him, so i try to back off, when in actuality, Im dieing to ask another 100 questions. If he willing he is a great source of information.

Id really want to go over that check down situation. I believe it was an isolation play from an all in from a short stack in omaha hl and was reraised by the chip leader. I kinda thought he was isolating with hands that werent worthy of a reraise and the short stacked doubled up. Now im no omaha expert, but doesnt the same concept of the check down still hold in omaha? For myself, If i only have a so, so hand im NL and facing an all in, I really dont want to try to isolate with a hand that only so so like KJ. Im ok with a call and better chancew to knock out player to get to money.



I myself learned concepts from book, but alot was learned just by asking questions to better players. getting different views and coming up with my own thoughts on a viriaty of subjects.

Just yodas 2 cents

[Kat]

Ok imagine this situation in a NLT. Maybe an SNG so there's a hard bubble at 3rd place (3 pay) and there are 4 players left. The blinds are 50/100. One player has 200 chips, 2 players have 1500 chips, and you have 6000 chips.

Situation A. The short stack shoves UTG and you are the button. If you call it seems likely the BB will also call and you will have 2 players to check it down to bust the shorty. Most players would do this with a good hand then check it down if the BB (or both blinds) call. I think this is wrong from the perspective of the player with the big stack. You want the shorty to stay alive because while the shorty is still alive you can keep attacking the medium stacks until you have almost all the chips in play. So here I would iso-raise and be quite happy to LOSE to the shorty.

An even more extreme situation. Same stack sizes but now shorty shoves UTG on your big blind (you still have the big stack). Both medium stacks fold. You look down at AA and snap call. Thereby making a mistake IMO. Fold the AA and get back to pounding the medium stacks.

Both plays, particularly the latter, may sound absurd. And I can tell you (because I've seen the pXf pros do it in their videos) that SNG specialists make plays like this all the time.

[Yoda]

Ok imagine this situation in a NLT. Maybe an SNG so there's a hard bubble at 3rd place (3 pay) and there are 4 players left. The blinds are 50/100. One player has 200 chips, 2 players have 1500 chips, and you have 6000 chips.

Situation A. The short stack shoves UTG and you are the button. If you call it seems likely the BB will also call and you will have 2 players to check it down to bust the shorty. Most players would do this with a good hand then check it down if the BB (or both blinds) call. I think this is wrong from the perspective of the player with the big stack. You want the shorty to stay alive because while the shorty is still alive you can keep attacking the medium stacks until you have almost all the chips in play. So here I would iso-raise and be quite happy to LOSE to the shorty.

An even more extreme situation. Same stack sizes but now shorty shoves UTG on your big blind (you still have the big stack). Both medium stacks fold. You look down at AA and snap call. Thereby making a mistake IMO. Fold the AA and get back to pounding the medium stacks.

Both plays, particularly the latter, may sound absurd. And I can tell you (because I've seen the pXf pros do it in their videos) that SNG specialists make plays like this all the time.


Are you suggestion that someone would see a flop and bet into a dry side pot with nothing and that ok? I also understadning if U have AA,,,your gonna isolate, thats easy, but betting dry pots im just lost. Maybe Im missunderstanding here.

[Melina 07]

I see your point and can see how that could be an advantage but you would have to have a large lead like in your example cause any other situation and i think its rude and bad poker

[Kat]

I would bet a dry side pot with no hand at all to protect a shorty in a scenario like that above. It's a win-win situation against a medium stack who is forced to fold in such a situation. If you accidentally bust the shorty you get all the chips. I might also fold AA rather than isolate with it if it is more likely to keep in the shorty.

And Melina, screw rude, the point is to win. But I agree without a huge stack the play is bad.

[phishfinder2]

Wow such great info here. The concept Kat is talking about is IMO an advanced strategy employed by forward thinking players. Although my poker library is limited to just a few books ( Harrington, Brunson, Mike Cairo and the like )none of my reading to this point has even touched on this kind of play. Because I was the SS Kat was talking about in his Omaha example he was talking about, I got to through my two cents in on this one.

First lets see if I can put more info out there. In the game there where 5 players left on the FT, top 3 get paid. The big stack had about 12,000, the 2 med. stacks had about 5 to 6,000, the next player about 2,500 and my SS was about 1000. I think the blinds where about 400-800. The big stack was the button and the 2 med. stacks where the blinds, I was UTG. I shoved all-in to a pot with about 1700 of bilds and anties. The next player folded and the button/big stack put out the isolation bet of about 3000, the blinds folded. Now in what I have read a call is in order here so as too have another caller to check down the pot with, increasing the chances of knocking me out and putting everyone closer to being ITM. This strategy is to insure making the money.

In Kat's strategy the forward thinking player's plan is to win the Tourney!!!
In this case he has less fear of the SS then he has of the med. stacks. One double up by a med stack would put them up to being almost even with the big stack. At this point in the game the big stack has just barely a 2 to 1 advantage on the med stacks and would not like to give the med stacks a chance to get more chips. So you would want to be up against the SS alone and even if he doubled me up he would still have a more then 4 to 1 advantage over me. So the bet-to-isolate also prevents one of the med stacks from calling. Having me knocked out by a med stack does the big stack no good. Therefore betting to give the med stack no chance of getting my chips and making him more powerful this would be a proper play to make.

I plead my case in in support of this play.

Now all this being said. The strategy did not work out in this case. I got doubled up and survived to make third place, while the big stack bubbled the game going out in 4th. It goes to show all the best laid plans of mice and men and poker players don't always agree with the poker gods.

Here kitty kitty, come hither !!!!!!!!

[Kat]

Good synopsis Ed. Let me add that, as we saw in the tourney last nite, this play can backfire. But, when the relative stack sizes are right, if you make the play 100 times it's going to show a profit in the long haul.

[Kat]

I would bet a dry side pot with no hand at all to protect a shorty in a scenario like that above. It's a win-win situation against a medium stack who is forced to fold in such a situation. If you accidentally bust the shorty you get all the chips. I might also fold AA rather than isolate with it if it is more likely to keep in the shorty.

And Melina, screw rude, the point is to win. But I agree without a huge stack the play is bad.

Let me amend that by way of a quiz. There's one class of play that I occasionally make in non-forum games that I would not make in a forum game because I think it would be rude. (Although tempting.) Any ideas wot I'm talking about?

[phishfinder2]

Thanks Kat
I believe you are right the long haul odds favor this play.
Others may not agree but just getting these ideas out there is a plus for every one. Weather or not people decide to use this type of play is up to them, it is still info we need to have in our arsenal.

While we are talking about info for the arsenal, Kat can you give me your take on the "post oak bluff", another strategy briefly talked about late last night. Yoda was reading the wikipedia definition of it and I thought you mentioned another side to it.

Here kitty kitty, come hither....

[Kat]

Thanks Kat
I believe you are right the long haul odds favor this play.
Others may not agree but just getting these ideas out there is a plus for every one. Weather or not people decide to use this type of play is up to them, it is still info we need to have in our arsenal.

While we are talking about info for the arsenal, Kat can you give me your take on the "post oak bluff", another strategy briefly talked about late last night. Yoda was reading the wikipedia definition of it and I thought you mentioned another side to it.

Here kitty kitty, come hither....

Yeah I was directing him to the Urban Dictionary definition since I wrote it. Basically it's a reverse psychology small bluff that's meant to look like a value bet. You were min-leading a few flops and Phaedrus brought it up (after popping you back). It got a bad rep cos Doyle called it "gutless" - which I think is silly cos, as we are discussing, like most plays it has its place.

[Melina 07]

Let me amend that by way of a quiz. There's one class of play that I occasionally make in non-forum games that I would not make in a forum game because I think it would be rude. (Although tempting.) Any ideas wot I'm talking about?

what happened to Melina screw rude ?????

I def like the play Kat speaks of to protect the ss if your a big cl Makes me wanna know more. I play really well shorthanded good to have a new play to think on

i still think it is rude in any other situation but what i don't find rude is slow playing why do other people find it rude isin't that poker??? to trap ??? and get all their chips cause i know slow playing gets me more of that persons chips when i do

[phishfinder2]

Let me amend that by way of a quiz. There's one class of play that I occasionally make in non-forum games that I would not make in a forum game because I think it would be rude. (Although tempting.) Any ideas wot I'm talking about?

Short of breaking the rules and cheating I can't think of any rude plays........

Well except for maybe hurling a snot rocket in the pot.....but I'd like to hear what you'd consider rude.

Remember the object is to win....... it is a competition.

[Kat]

Short of breaking the rules and cheating I can't think of any rude plays........

Well except for maybe hurling a snot rocket in the pot.....but I'd like to hear what you'd consider rude.

Remember the object is to win....... it is a competition.

Something I wouldn't do in a forum tourney is make a play on someone that I knew to be -EV simply to try to tilt them. In fact I'd probably only make such a play in a public tourney or cash game against someone who was being an AH. It's the sort of thing that you can do in O8 by playing trash cos trash hits more than it does in HE and if you snap someone who is tiltable it can actually work out profitable. So I guess in that sense the play is +EV but I think it's poor etiquette against friends.

[Kat]

what happened to Melina screw rude ?????

I def like the play Kat speaks of to protect the ss if your a big cl Makes me wanna know more. I play really well shorthanded good to have a new play to think on

i still think it is rude in any other situation but what i don't find rude is slow playing why do other people find it rude isin't that poker??? to trap ??? and get all their chips cause i know slow playing gets me more of that persons chips when i do


Since you don't have a passport and I am currently unable to enter Canada the subject is moot.

[Melina 07]

really hahaha i would

[omahakid]

well most of the time it is definatly better to check a dry pot with a ss all in, basic tournament theory, in an extreme example like you posted here i see your point, but it isnt necessarily right, would depend on the typ of players who are in middle, ofcourse poker is situational and sometimes in same scenario a certain play is better than a textbook play....but you layed out a scenario that makes your point valid, i say that isnt the norm usualy you check the bubble ss unless you make a monster....and id never laydown AA against a ss bubble shove thats just insane ....there are situations where laying AA is correct but that isnt one

[Kat]

well most of the time it is definatly better to check a dry pot with a ss all in, basic tournament theory, in an extreme example like you posted here i see your point, but it isnt necessarily right, would depend on the typ of players who are in middle, ofcourse poker is situational and sometimes in same scenario a certain play is better than a textbook play....but you layed out a scenario that makes your point valid, i say that isnt the norm usualy you check the bubble ss unless you make a monster....and id never laydown AA against a ss bubble shove thats just insane ....there are situations where laying AA is correct but that isnt one

You may not do so but David Sklansky would.

[omahakid]

Yeah Kat Ive read tournement poker for advanced players by Sklansky....I dont have it in front of me, hurricane Ike stole it ;) but I dont think he said lay down AA in bb against a bubble shove of 200 and u have 100 bb up...and thats what i thought your scenario was, I could see laying down AA if it would severly decrease your odds of moving up, as Sklansky was talking about, and realy I think his only in very rare situations....why woulld you ever lay down a 4 to 1 favorite when your geting 4 to 1 on your money...also i think his bubble theory was in tournaments that paid out alot farther than 3 places, which would change bubble theory greatly...like s n g's 9 handed id say roi is more important than any 1 scenario so id play AA fast with 4 left most of the time but i can see folding it against a middle stack reshove against ss

[Yoda]

The move I think is totally classless in poker is when some one is is all in and someone holding the nuts sits out and uses there time before they call. totally classless imo.

[omahakid]

yeah slowrollers will burn in hades

[Kat]

You'd do it cos 2-1 = 1.

You can analyze this via ICMs and all that fancy stuff, but again let's just look at a toy model:

1 big stack, 2 medium, 1 short, 3 pay.

The medium stacks are so intent on making the money that they will give up their blinds to the big stack every orbit. So the big stack wants the shorty to survive. And by giving the shorty his/her blind every orbit but grabbing the blinds of both medium stacks every orbit the big stack gets bigger. Doesn't matter if you hold AA or 72 the cards, as is often the case in situations dominated by pure game theory, are completely irrelevant.

Friend of mine in Vegas made this exact AA fold a couple of years ago on a final table bubble.

[Kat]

Yeah Kat Ive read tournement poker for advanced players by Sklansky....I dont have it in front of me, hurricane Ike stole it ;) but I dont think he said lay down AA in bb against a bubble shove of 200 and u have 100 bb up...and thats what i thought your scenario was, I could see laying down AA if it would severly decrease your odds of moving up, as Sklansky was talking about, and realy I think his only in very rare situations....why woulld you ever lay down a 4 to 1 favorite when your geting 4 to 1 on your money...also i think his bubble theory was in tournaments that paid out alot farther than 3 places, which would change bubble theory greatly...like s n g's 9 handed id say roi is more important than any 1 scenario so id play AA fast with 4 left most of the time but i can see folding it against a middle stack reshove against ss

In the book you refer to Sklansky actually uses the example of QQ on the button but if you follow his logic it also applies to AA in my scenario. It's on pages 80/81.

[PoorScouser]

What a fantastic thread, and I would like to give my tuppence worth on it. I basically 100% agree with what Kat is saying in regard to wanting the shorty not to bust (when chipped up) if it is apparent there are easy pickings in blinds at bubble time. If the shorty happens to be to my left then even better, and Im gonna give them walks all day and night in the blind on blind confrontations while stealing like **** at every opportunity from the 2 medium stacks.

I also love the retarded comments that you get from people at the table who arent capable of thinking deeply enough to see what your actually trying to acheive when want to keep a shorty in the game. I dont profess to be a poker genius and could improve in a lot of areas myself but everytime I hear a 'what are you playing at dude, its in your interest to take him out' I have to laugh. Let's be clear about this once and for all, it might be in my interest if i was an average to good stack but it is absolutely not in my interests if i have a huge chiplead and the med stacks are giving up on their blinds like Henry VIII did on his wives.

I have never heard of or practiced the folding aces PF thing (except in a satellite) but i may add that one to my playbook if the right situation pops up. The logic behind it makes perfect sense IMO, and that is the only thing that matters to me. I don't mean to be vulgar but I couldn't give a flying **** if David Sklansky or anyone else for that matter endorses a play. There have been times past where I have let my own personal judgement be clouded by something read in a book (and didnt necessarily agree with) and it usually ends up costing me. For that reason I made a conscious decision a few months ago to play by my own rules and make my own mistakes from now on as I believe it is the best way to learn.

This does not mean I pay no attention to commonly accepted poker concepts, but rather I try to think outside the box a little and try to exploit them if possible. I certainly do not take any concept as gospel. It won't work all the time and I can be guilty as hell of giving too much/little credit to my opponents but the key is to learn from these mistakes and remember what works against what types of player.

I also thank you Kat for putting into words and refining an idea/play which I have used for a while now. I can say from experience that it 100% works in practice too, so give it a go people next time you find yourself a monster chipleader in a sit n go.

[Walnut Dog]

sometimes i agree with poorscouser, somtimes i dont... it depends.... :)

[rcgs59]

Kat your Logic , makes me like you more and more, that's why I find you a dangerous yet very interesting opponent lol

[EricJames]

I appreciate all the information & support from you guys, I am an amateur now, but i am sure I will become a pro soon. Thanks.

25th Wedding Anniversary (http://www.uniqueromanticgiftideas.com)

[Misty]

I appreciate all the information & support from you guys, I am an amateur now, but i am sure I will become a pro soon. Thanks.

25th Wedding Anniversary (http://www.uniqueromanticgiftideas.com)

edit: seems Cali knows you so ...Welcome!

[brilliantinsulation]

I have just started getting the hang of Poker. I hope I can learn some more strategies from you guys. Thanks in Advance.
Home Insulation (http://www.brilliantinsulation.com.au)

[nslpn20]

I am a filthy SPAMMER (http://spam.com)