Texas Holtem Poker

It seems to me in my limited experience with Pot Limit Hold’Em that big pairs are the bread-and-butter hands because you rarely get the pot odds for drawing hands. Should you play stuff like Ax and Kx (and maybe even Qx) more often and low-to-medium sequenced hands somewhat less? Am I all wet?

Answer 1:

In my (also limited) PL experience, at least in the game where I play, pot odds for drawing hands often exist. The game is very much a trapping game, where even though big pairs, top two etc. may win most of the pots, suited aces, suited connectors and the like often win the largest pots. There’s a lot of limping or small raises with several callers pre-flop, and it often pays to
play hands that will win big if they hit.

Answer 2:

I doubt you’re “all wet.” Remember your position becomes vital in Pot Limit, maybe as important as the cards you hold – for instance if you are in late position and a bunch of people have limped in, you can bang in a pot size raise and completely destroy their drawing odds. My favorite situation in pot-limit is holding a nice big pair (or better still two pair) with a bunch of players drawing to a flush and or straight. Sure, about 35% of the time they’ll get there, but 65% of the time they won’t, and you can charge them huge amounts of money for the those two cards. This is a gross simplification, but Pot Limit and No-Limit are aggressive, big card games. Obviously Doyle Bruson stressed the importance of using small connectors, but that playing strategy was coupled with exceptional reading skills, relentless aggression, and what he himself admits is pretty much an instinct for when he’s beaten/has the best hand. For us mere mortals, selective big card aggression is a good way of getting the money. Therefore, I’d be cautious of playing Ax, Kx, unless you have a good read on your opponents.

Answer 3:

It seems pretty clear in context that “suited aces” here refers to Ax suited, not two aces of the same suit.

Recently the Station Casino in Kansas Cityraised the rakes:
1-5 Stud from $3.50 max to 5.00
3-6 Hold’em from 3.50 max to 4.50
5-10 Hold’em from 3.5 to 4.00

The employees say that the decision to raise the rake came fromLas Vegas. Are these the normal rakes inLas Vegas, or is the Station putting the screws to us again? I’ve always felt that the Station Casino here saw us more as suckers than valued customers. That attitude may work in Vegas, but does set well with us in the Mid-west. So, my question is are we getting screwed here in K. C. or is this normal and acceptable raise in the rake.

Answer 1:

Yes you are so are we here in Vegas the Casino won’t it all so just relax and enjoy yourself. In the big clubs the rake is 3.00 at Sam town it is 2.00 But at some it is more.

Answer 2:

Screwed.  Especially if there’s a jackpot rake in addition, and you tip $1 per pot.  It’s hard enough to beat 1-5 stud with a $2.50 rake and $0.5 tip, $7 from each pot is crazy. The 5-10 game MAY be beatable, but probably not. If it’s a maniac’s game where you can sit and play like a rock yet still get action, you can probably do ok (though you’ll be bored to tears). Better yet, save your money and head toCaliforniaor Vegas a few times each year. One possible advantage to an insane rake – it will tend to keep smart players out of your game. Including you, perhaps.

Answer 3:

I played in a $10-$20 private game recently that had a $7 chop. $2 of this rake was supposedly going to pay for a $3,000 Royal flush bonus, but the only people who have won this bonus so far have been other dealers who owed the houseman money. You should be upset about the rake increase, but I believe the higher limit games are beatable even with the increase you describe in the chop.

I read in Caro that it is not profitable to raise inTexaswith a pair ofQUEENSin first position when there are 9 players behind you. I cannot see why? The risk somebody has a better hand (AA, KK) is about 4, 5 %. The chance that somebody has an approximately equal hand (AK almost 50%) is about 13 % the chance you have the best hand before flop is AT LEAST 82. Is that not enough to raise? In all other poker games it is, why not inTexas. I cannot understand how he came to his conclusion. According to my own computation QQ is a clear raise in all positions in all types ofTexas(Limit to No-limit). Has Caro committed a mistake, or have I? P.S. Caro says that it’s NOT PROFITABLE to raise QQ, but you should do it as “deception”. My question is still the same, how come it’s not profitable to raise when you are a 82% favorite?

Answer 1:

If he said it is not profitable he is clearly wrong. If he said it is not AS profitable as simply calling, he would be right in many types of games. Even if he did say the first statement, I’m sure he meant the second.

Answer 2:

I’ve got no idea about whatever simulations have been done to support the raise or call decision. But while being an 82% favorite pre-flop is an important consideration, it doesn’t necessarily mean raising increases profits. While the raise clearly won’t chase out the better hands (those 18% of the time they’re present), it will chase out weaker hands. Against weaker hands, it doesn’t seem impossible that it’s more profitable to wait to push your QQ until you see a flop with no Aces or Kings. Perhaps the pots you’ll gain by, for instance, chasing out hands like Ax with a raise will be a smaller factor compared to the EV you’ll get in those situations where a non-AK flop gives someone else top pair, & of course larger still on flops like AQ4.

Answer 3:

It’s perfectly correct to raise under the gun with queens. I frequently recommend calling, but that has built-in danger, especially for some beginners and for players likely to be bewildered by the implications of how opponents respond. In hold ‘em before the flop, the deciding factor in whether or not to raise has less to do with the relative strength of your hand at the moment than it does in seven-card stud. In hold ‘em, your hand is largely defined by what happens on the flop — three cards all at once. I tend to weigh the value of raising less heavily than some other experts and world-class players, I concede, though, that raising might be the tactic you should choose the majority of the time from a game theory standpoint against perfect opponents. I’m not sure about that, though. And just-calling may be wrong, depending on your image and your lineup of opponents. I don’t know what the “raise for deception” advice meant, but my guess is that I was recommending a strategy wherein you should usually call, but should occasionally raise so that aware opponents are put off guard.