...the STRADDLE and SLEEPER bets...

In the game of poker the play is centered around the act of betting to generate a pot to win at the end of each hand. Each game has it's on variations of betting allowed and/or mandated. Some games require "antes", others mandate "blinds". 

 An "ante" is a forced bet required by all players in the game to generate a pot to play for, before the hand is dealt. After the cards are dealt each player has the option to check, increase the pot with a bet, call the additional bet, raise the initial bet or fold. In the game of Texas Hold'em though there is a required "blind" bet from only two players. The first two players to the left of the player who is the dealer are referred to as the "small blind" and the "big blind". A $1/$2 Hold'em cash game refers to the blind structure of the game. The $1 being the small blind and the $2 being the big blind.

In some games there is an additional blind bet that is allowed that is referred to as a "straddle" or a "sleeper" aka... Mississippi straddle bet. A straddle is an optional and voluntary raise of the big blind before the cards are dealt.  They are basically the same, just named from the position you might be making the bet from. The straddle is commonly used from the "UTG" (under the gun) position, which is the first person to act after the big blind. . When it is used in any other position it is referred to as a sleeper or a Mississippi straddle. The main reason for a straddle bet is to, in effect, "buy" the rights or privilege of acting last, which is normally the big blinds privilege, barring a raise before it gets back to the big blind. This isn't always the case for the implemented straddle either. There are re-straddle options and a raise of the straddle that will change the outcome of who actually acts last.

Now that you know about the straddle options, should you put this into your pre-flop arsenal!?!Whether or not you have in the past here are a few things to consider before you do so (again).

1. The only advantage to a straddle is that you get to act last during the pre-flop round of betting. You also have to consider that you have put in a raise with no information about your hand and if your straddle is raised you will need a very nive to a premium hand to be able to call, eventually resulting in a waste of money..... so, don't straddle.

2. If you are playing in a lower stakes game than you are accustomed to your straddles may be a way to double the blinds from the onset of the hand....so, straddle.

3. If you feel you can get opponents out of their comfort zones or it may force them to fold it may work out to your advantage...so, straddle.

Some players will insist that the straddle will add more excitement to the game due to the increase of the pots generated (especially if there are antes and blinds). Some will say that it takes away from the game due to the changing of positions that occur. Others will say it's just a fool's bet and a dumb thing to do. But there are those who believe that if played correctly it can be very profitable and may be the answer to getting out of a slump.

Personally, I don't care to straddle. But I don't mind if others do, I get see my cards and still have the option to fold. Whatever the reason or by whatever reasoning you have convinced yourself to use a straddle....

good luck to ya! cause most of the time it's only gonna be a sweetener to the pot for someone who actually had info to decide upon.

chapelout...GetSome.GIVEBACK.GetHome. 

Skill...The Great Poker Debate...Luck part2

Some of the responses and comments about this here debate HERE and in other forums with the same topic and discussion are pretty interesting. Here are a few I have found:

Mr. XXXX, I hope you are still reading comments posted here.

I am the Litigation Support Director for the Poker Player's Alliance and in that capacity I was a major force in seeking to have the Cigital study done.

Your basic criticism of the study is not invalid, but is actually beside the point. The study does not BY ITSELF prove that poker is a game of mostly skill. What is does is validate a key and very important part of the overall argument that poker is a game of mostly skill.

What is validates is that poker is most frequently resolved by decisions made by the players, not by the turning over of the cards. And even when the cards are turned over, 50% of the time decisions of the players have thwarted the result that would have occurred had the cards alone been the deciding factor.

Proving this was extremely important to the overall effort. Most folks unfamiliar with poker assume that turning over the best hand is how poker is decided most of the time. They therefore conclude that poker is mostly decided by what cards a player is dealt.

By showing these folks that the actual deal of the cards does NOT decide the outcome the vast majority of poker hands, we then force them to consider and think about how the game is played vs. how the game is dealt.

Once we have them thinking about how the game is played, we can then educate them on all the various factors BESIDES the cards a player holds that must be considered in making the decision to check, bet, call, raise or fold.

And that is where we ultimately prove that skill at making correct decisions is only partially based on the cards and, in fact, most often the actual cards are the least important factor in making that decision.

And thats when the light bulb goes off over their heads and we have convinced them, as we have in 3 courts so far, that the evidence that poker is game of mostly skill is "overwhelming."

Patrick Fleming
PPA Litigation Support Director
       *************************************************************************


I respect the data. I also respect your questioning of the data. And I believe, also being a card carrying member of the PPA, that this matter of skill versus luck cannot be answered simply. The reason for this is the elements of choice, will, endurance, deception and determination. Your examination of the study and I believe the study itself does not take into account the specific skill level of the participants and the opponents nor the amount of hours they had played continuously, whether they were simultaneously playing multiple tables or even multiple sites and if they normally played at these higher stakes, the strategies they were employing.

Taken these other factors into account is important for resolving the way a person plays certain hands, certain games, certain stakes and even on certain days. One of your photos begs the question, "If there's so much skill why cant Phil win them all?" There are a lot of answers for this. First of all that question assumes that Phil is the most skilled poker player. Let's say, "he is the most skilled player." There are other factors (most of which I mentioned above) besides luck and chance that can destroy his bids for victory. You can also make this same argument in the game of golf. If it's all skill then why can't Tiger Woods win them all? I think you can give me a great number of reasons and they would probably have parallels to the reasons Phil Hellmuth has troubles.

I suppose I am trying to say that each player takes a different mindset or psychology into each and every game he plays just as a golfer or boxer would. None of us play the same every day or every hand. Poker relies on your ability to adapt to an ever changing landscape of situations that data alone cannot predict or examine.

The data and the ensuing arguments show that the game of poker is complex and does require a good measure of skill. That is becoming more and more obvious as we progress to an inevitable "day in court".

XXXXX
       ************************************************************************

                                            chapelout....GetSome.GIVEBACK.GetHome

SKILL...The Great Poker Debate...LUCK part1

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Poker is a game of high-risk AND chance. So, luck IS a necessary part of the game, but skill is required to  eventually win out!?!

I've heard both sides of the story/argument. "Poker is all luck, it's the luck of the draw/cards!" or even, "Poker is a game of skill, luck has no bearing... a game of skill I say!"

The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines Skill (noun) as:

a. the ability to use one's knowledge effectively and readily in execution or performance.

b. dexterity or coordination especially in the execution of learned tasks.

c. a learned power of doing something competently; a developed aptitude or ability.

The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines Luck as:

a. a force that brings good fortune or adversity.

b. the events or circumstances that operate for or against an individual.

c. favoring chance.

  Skill in poker requires having a proficient ability for reading one's opponent, a developed aptitude of/in making the right decisions, and the dexterity to adapt to the given (and ever-changing) environment. Being lucky or unlucky in poker depends on whether you or your opponents are catching fortunate or adverse cards at fortunate or adverse times. A winning player (at the time) will likely classify the game as one of skill in order to draw attention to his/her skillful talent. The losing player (at the time) may suggest that the play in question was luck of the draw in order to save face of their own abilities.

 In a single hand of poker luck is going to prevail more often than skill. But in a tournament or a long session of play the advantage that a skilled player has from hand to hand may be minimal to begin the session but it will increase throughout the session. In any single session though it is possible for the worst player at the table to walk away a winner and the best player to lose. 

Personally, I feel the skill in poker is dependent upon the player(s) involved in the game. In other words, Poker is a game of luck that is manipulated by the skill of the player(s). 

  Skilled poker players are going to do one of two things when it comes to allowing luck to be involved into the equation in any given hand. One: they are going to put themselves in a position to get lucky at the expense of their competitor and/ or two: they are going to avoid situations where luck has too much of an influence on the outcome. 

I do know that there is enough luck involved in poker to keep horrible players thinking they are great and it's convincing those same players that others are just lucky. As far as answering the question, "how much of poker is luck and how much is skill?" I doubt there will ever be a logical answer or explanation.

 Thanks to the internet games there have been some recent studies and in depth research about poker over the past few years. Until the internet play there were not many players who were open to allowing people to record, study and then report on their play, so it was difficult to get the information necessary to even have a study. Two reports from a recent study have atrracted a great deal of attention. The first was a large scale examination of over 1 million hands played. This study was carried out by the Cigital Group, a consullting firm in Washington, DC. The two main findings were:

                                              1. Three quarter of all hands played never made it to a showdown.

2. Only 12% of those hands were won by the best hand.

So, during this study 88% of the time a  player was able to bet, raise or re-raise his/her opponent and suggest/convince that opponent that they should just lay it down (the best hand). That my friends is where the skill comes into play in poker! That doesn't mean that 88% of the time you bet, raise or re-raise someone they are going to lay it down. Luck plays a role, of course, in the impact of the random turn of a card, the flukiness of the flop, the unlikely river card. That's not only the nature of the game; it's an inherent feature of every interesting thing that people do. But what it does suggest is that the players that held these winning hands that never made it to a showdown could have done just as well holding two blank pieces of paper in place of their cards. It was their strategy (skill) that took it down.

The definitive study will not be one that tracks hands, it will track players. The really convincing data would be those that followed individuals in a variety of games over an extended period of time and found that some had consistently better results than others.

Unfortunately, it isn't going to be easy to do this, as another study of online poker by Ingo Fielder and Jan-Philipp Rock at the University of Hamburg discovered.

They examined the results of over 51,000 online players and found, to their (and my) surprise, that the majority of them play fewer than 100 hands, lose their bankroll and quit. They conclude, if you're concerned, that poker is overwhelmingly a game of skill.

In my next post I will provide responses to some studies that have been provided over the past few years.

chapelout for now.....GetSome.GIVEBACK.GetHome



...Full Tilt Ponzhi...



     Manhattan’s U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara claimed on Tuesday that Full Tilt Poker and its board of directors operated the company “as a massive Ponzi scheme against its own players.”

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan said on Tuesday they were filing legal papers as part of a civil money laundering complaint that alleged Full Tilt Poker improperly used funds of online poker players to pay members of its board of directors, including famous poker players Howard Lederer and Christopher “Jesus” Ferguson, $440 million since April 2007.

    Bharara announced the filing of a motion to amend a forfeiture and civil money laundering complaint that was filed in April, alleging that Full Tilt and board members Lederer, Ferguson and Rafael Furst, together with Full Tilt CEO Ray Bitar, defrauded poker players out of some $300 million by not maintaining funds at the company sufficient to repay players.

    “Full Tilt was not a legitimate poker company, but a global Ponzi scheme,” Bharara said in a statement. “Full Tilt insiders lined their own pockets with funds picked from the pockets of their most loyal customers while blithely lying to both players and the public alike about the safety and security of the money deposited.” Federal prosecutors have drawn up an amended complaint that names Bitar, Lederer, Ferguson and Furst, adding them to the original complaint which was filed seeking $3 billion from Full Tilt Poker and unrelated poker companies, PokerStars and Absolute Poker. The proposed amended complaint claims that in 2008 and 2009 Full Tilt sent emails to its players and posted messages on online poker message boards, assuring players that “unlike some companies in our industry, we completely understand and accept that your account money belongs to you, not Full Tilt Poker.” But the new complaint claims that the company did not have enough funds to repay players and that by March 31 Full Tilt only had $60 million or so in its bank accounts while owing $390 million to players around the world, including $150 million in the U.S.

    Federal prosecutors claim that Full Tilt’s board members got rich because the company used player funds to pay them massive amounts of money that largely was transferred to their accounts in Switzerland and other overseas locations. Specifically, the feds allege that Bitar pocketed $41 million and Lederer got $42 million. Jesus Ferguson allegedly was allocated $87 million in distributions and received at least $25 million, federal prosecutors claim.

    U.S. government lawyers believe that Full Tilt Poker started to face a growing cash crunch in 2010 because it could not collect funds from U.S. players due to the federal government’s efforts to disrupt the payment processors that facilitate the flow of funds in the online poker industry. Indeed, Bharara’s office believes that by August 2010 Full Tilt’s payment processing network had been severely disrupted and that the company could no longer withdraw money from U.S. players’ bank accounts. So instead, the feds claim, Full Tilt continued to credit player accounts without disclosing its inability to fund those credits, letting players make online poker bets with $130 million of “phantom funds” that resulted in a massive shortfall when other players won the bogus money in poker games.

    According to the proposed complaint, when the U.S. government unsealed an indictment against Bitar and effectively shut down Full Tilt’s U.S. operations in April, Full Tilt’s leaders realized they were facing a serious cash crunch but continued to accept foreign player funds while facing $300 million in liabilities. In June Lederer allegedly told others at Full Tilt that the company only had $6 million and Bitar worried in an internal email about a “run on the bank.”

    Full Tilt has previously denied any wrongdoing and recently tried to explain its actions to its many irate customers, saying it had been a victim of a massive heist perpetrated by a payment processor and the U.S. government’s moves against the online poker industry.

data source provided as reported by http://www.forbes.com/

the.C.bet

"C"ontinuation betting is a bet that is made after the flop by a player who initially raised pre-flop. Most aggressive players are going to follow-up their pre-flop raises with a "C" bet in just about any situation the board may present them on the flop.

The first, easiest, and most obvious situation to "C" bet is when you have a premium hand and hit the flop and now have a strong-dominant hand. By making a pre-flop raise you have already suggested that you have a strong hand so you should continue that aggression with a bet of at least half to two thirds the size of the pot.

Here is an example to help out:

You are in a $1/$2 holdem game. You have QJ suited in late position. It folds around to you and you raise to $8. Small blind folds and the big blind calls your raise. The flop comes out Q76. The big blind checks to you. This is a classic position for you to bet out with a "C" bet of at least $12-$14. At this point the "C" bet continues your aggressive play, serves to protect your top pair and forces drawing and mid pair hands to have to invest more to see the hand play out which is building the pot for you! In a cash game and one that has a straight flush jackpot you should be cautious when the board comes with suited connectors or connecting cards as this one did, but the aggressive play only forces the opponent deeper into his/her stack to see it play out.
Another area that will come into play for a "C" bet is when you have flopped an open ended straight opportunity. You raise pre-flop with with KQ, the flop comes 10 J 8. Even though you have not actually hit the flop you have made a connection and have several outs that may come. An A or 9 which gives you 6 opportunities or a K or Q adds even more. Making a "C" bet is in your best interest here, by checking you jeopardize your aggressive table presence you've established.

Another spot when you should consider making a continuation bet is when you miss the flop completely after showing aggression preflop. Although you don't have a solid hand at this point, you still most likely have outs on your opponent, and you might be able to take down the pot right away. Here's a good example:
You're playing $1/$2 , and have AK suited in the cutoff. It folds to you, you raise to $9, and the big blind calls. The flop comes down 4-8-10 with one card of your suit. Although you really don't have much of a hand here, I'd bet out if the big blind checks to you. By checking they show that they don't have much either, so you should fire out $12 here to see if you can take the pot. Worst case scenario, he/she calls and you most likely have six outs (any ace or king) to win plus the backdoor flush draw.
Next up... the double barrell.

chapelout....GetSome.GIVEBACK.GetHome

some data source provided from pokersite.com



the.VALUE.bet

 

One of the most profitable plays in No Limit Holdem is the value bet, when applied corectly! A value bet is a bet you want to make when you feel you are ahead in a hand and can entice a caller(s) that would lead to a nicer payoff at showdown.

Good hands only come around ever so often, so it is necessary to extract as much of a return on your investment as possible when you have that opportunity!

Here is an example of value betting when you are ahead:

You are in a $1/$2  NL Holdem game and get dealt AK under the gun. You raise to $9 and get one caller from late position. The flop comes A73. At this point you have top pair/top kicker and probably feel confident that you have the best hand. A medium size bet, half the value of the pot, is probably what you want to bet. This looks (and actually is) a continuation bet, but it is also a value bet to entice an affordable call from the other player. It doesn't show dominant strength and as mentioned may just reak continuation bet enough to get the call. The turn comes K. Now you have top two. You may be inclined to check, hoping for an opportunity to check/raise but it is more profitable in the long run to bet out again with a medium size bet. If you check and get a check in return you just lost the opportunity to increase the value of your ROI in a favorable position with the strength of your hand. The river comes 2. The board is now A73K2. At this point you want to make a bet about one third of the pot. If your opponent calls, with top pair or a lower valued two pair, you have gotten paid off from each bet and take down a nice pot!

A value bet can also be used as a river bet when there is a question as to where your hand stands. And here is an example for that situation:

Again you are in a $1/$2 game. You have 10,8 suited and call from late position. You, the blinds and the button are all in the hand with no pre-flop raise. The flop comes 10,7,6. You bet out a "feeler"/"protector" bet of $5 (into an $8 pot) to see where your top pair stands. You get one caller. Now you are heads up. The turn is a 2. Again you bet out, $10 this time and get called. The river comes an 8. This makes for a scary board with any 9 making a straight. What to do now.... theVALUEbet! 

 If you check on the river there are two things that can happen. The first is that he checks as well, and shows down an inferior hand. In this case, you'll win no extra money. The second is that he fires out a medium sized bet, and you have to call with your top two pair. He then shows down the straight, and you lose the medium sized bet.

Now, if you do bet out, there are three things that can happen:
    The first is that your opponent folds if they have a poor hand. In this case you earn no extra money, and it's the same outcome whether you check or bet.
    The second situation is that you bet out, and your opponent calls with a worse two pair, or top pair. In this case you win an extra bet on the end, because if you had checked they would have checked behind.
    The third case is that you bet out, and your opponent has the straight and raises. In this case you can simply fold your hand, and lose the medium sized bet.

    As you can see, in situations #1 and #3 it's a wash regardless if you bet or check, but in situation #2, you actually earn an extra bet on the end. Because of this, you should always fire out in these situations, because it is actually more profitable to bet than it is to check.

Ok, so if you we look at each case:

1. Your opponent has nothing. Regardless if you check or bet, you're still winning the same sized pot.
2. Your opponent has a decent hand, but not the straight. In this case, if you check, you win nothing extra, but if you bet out, he'll call and show down the worse hand. In this case, betting wins you extra money.
3. Your opponent has the straight. If you check, they'll bet, and you'll lose a medium sized bet. If you bet, they'll raise, you'll fold, and you lose a medium sized bet. So once again, no difference.

chapelout.........GetSome.GIVEBACK.GetHome

some data status provided from pokersite.org