c4countdown

I thought I'd get a thread started on my other favourite hobby, poker. Well that's not true I only play no-limit Texas hold 'em. That's the only type of poker you see on TV, well of the channels I have anyway, and it annoys me a bit when they call it "poker" all the time, as there are about 50 different poker variants.

Anyway, do we have any players here? I don't do tournaments, cash ones I mean, I tend to play a lot of heads-up (one on one) against my girlfriend who plays pretty well, and we play as a 4 on a Friday night. It's quite fun but I do find it gets repetitive and you need an enormous amount of patience if you want to play properly. I do well at it because I'm a mathematical person, plus I'm quite good at reading people's feelings. It's always fun when you've passed before the flop to try and work out what the other players have. Calvin (my step dad) is the easiest one to figure out. Although he never shows any emotion at all, he tends to stick the same betting strategies all the time. Mostly when he's got a strong hand he tends to bet very small in the hope of a re-raise, but because he bets so small you know it has to be a real hand, not a bluff. This happened last week and after the hand was over I correctly said that he had three kings.

I would only say that there's no much personal input into the game. Apart from deciding how much money to put in the middle, you don't do anything else. You can't choose your cards, change your cards during a hand, swap cards etc... so apart from the betting rounds, it's all in the deal of the cards.

Martin

I think there was once an online game in Pokerstars involving some Countdowners IIRC.

I do like playing online and I only play on Pokerstars. I would prefer to play in person though as theres more interaction. I actually spent £60 on a set of 1000 poker chips and £40 on a tournament clock but have not been able to use them as I can't find friends in Liverpool who play Hold 'Em Poker .

I think winning poker though comes down to Maths, working out pot odds and probabilities.

Yes if I were to compare it with Scrabble, you can't pass your tiles before the flop in Scrabble! If the blinds are low enough you can keep passing until you get a good hand, and if you're disciplined enough to pass when you don't have anything you will (IMO) make money in the long run, although we strictly never play for money (not least because nobody has any!) so you get some silly hands where people just get bored and push all in and stuff.

Martin

Martin Gardner wrote:Yes if I were to compare it with Scrabble, you can't pass your tiles before the flop in Scrabble! If the blinds are low enough you can keep passing until you get a good hand, and if you're disciplined enough to pass when you don't have anything you will (IMO) make money in the long run, although we strictly never play for money (not least because nobody has any!) so you get some silly hands where people just get bored and push all in and stuff.

Martin

Most poeple get blinded away though in a game of Poker so although its good to play tight and wait for good cards, you just sometimes have to take a stab with not-so-good cards and hope for the best, making bluffing a key part of winning (as well as maths).

Like you say, the only problem with a Freeroll game is when people go all in, especially on the first hand. What makes it more annoying is that the person who goes all in first on hand #1, normally has shit cards like 7-2 and will win most of the time against J-Q and K-A etc, hence why I prefer playing in person.

I do think that some people do cheat online, because noone can see what you are doing.

We do a "fake cash game" - that is to say if you lose all your money you can buy in again. It means if you do get eliminated you can just buy in again. But still people don't play as if its real money. I might suggest we all put £5 or something just to make people take it seriously but I don't think they'd accept that anyway. I wonder what the blinds would be, 10p and 20p maybe?

Anyway yes sadly in poker nothing's a certainty and unless you've got a big pair chances are you are no better than 75% - 25% favourite at any time.

Martin

Martin Gardner wrote:We do a "fake cash game" - that is to say if you lose all your money you can buy in again. It means if you do get eliminated you can just buy in again. But still people don't play as if its real money. I might suggest we all put £5 or something just to make people take it seriously but I don't think they'd accept that anyway. I wonder what the blinds would be, 10p and 20p maybe?

Anyway yes sadly in poker nothing's a certainty and unless you've got a big pair chances are you are no better than 75% - 25% favourite at any time.

Martin

I hate tournaments with re-buys to be honest. I have only been to a casino one time, but when I was there it was a £20 buy-in where you could re-buy after a certain amount of time IIRC. After losing my original chips, I called it a night there, but the woman who was sitting to my right had done a total of 5 re-buys before I left, which just disgusted me.

If I was to host a game, I would get everyone to buy in for £10 or £20 depending on the number of players and it would be a case of winner takes all. Normally the prize money is divided out to the top 3 players, but I wouldn't do that. Luckily with the Poker Genie timer I bought, it would work out the best amount of chips for people to start off with and the blinds time limits etc.

Even with a high pair like A-A, K-K, if someone has say 4-5s, then they have a chance of getting a flush or straight, so you can't always rely on big pairs.

Yeah, I play casually. I'd say I've lost about £300 on online poker.

The Real Richard Brittain wrote:Yeah, I play casually. I'd say I've lost about £300 on online poker.

Wow. I actually played with real as well on Pokerstars, but as soon I started to fall under my original deposit, I chickened out and I cashed out .

A cash game is not actually a tournament at all - you can pick up and chips and leave at any time, and cash them in, like you see in the Monte Carlo films. The idea is the chips are worth real money, and the idea is to make as much profit as you can and then leaves. The game has not fixed finish, and only finishes when everybody leaves, which could in theory be days or weeks if new players keep replacing the ones that leave.

Anyway I had a brilliant night - played a bit tighter this time and managed to get from $10 000 (fictional) to $45 400. Key plays were me raising with pocket jacks and pushing all in after a flop of 10-8-4 and beating Calvin who had king-ten and decided to take me on. I think he was the only one of the three that didn't realise I had a pocket pair.

Later on in the game I raised with pocket tens and got called by Calvin, and flopped a set of tens, 10-9-4 or something. The next card was a jack which scared me a little so when Calvin re-raised me I pushed all in, and as it turned out he was drawing dead anyway. He was second in chips and this put me on about $40 000. Next hand mum went all in because she had no money left, I called with pocket fives and flopped another set, and basically nobody wanted to play after that.

Martin

In this game I wasn't able to cash out. I think it was £20 for 1500 in chips IIRC and the chips we had, we had to play with until we lost them all or won. I think there is a Poker Den II poker game on TV on Wednesday nights, where people start with £10,000 or £20,000 buy-ins and they can re-buy and cash out, when they want. It's a non-stop game lasting 24 hours, where people can come in and go as they please.

Sounds like you had a good game. Pity it stopped because noone wanted to play any more (or this a cash game, so you will pick up where you left off?). I think if someone is willing to play a game of poker, they should play until there is only one person left (thats how I would personally play IMO). Its just a matter of finding the players .

Just thought I'd pay my tuppence worth in here. I've been bitten by the bug a couple of times and I'm quite a weak player.. not strong enough to make money over time. My finest achievement was winning £400 on my birthday from a £10 stake. My lowest point was buying £25 of chips at the Gutshot club in London, sitting down at a £1/£1 cash table, and losing it all first hand, then having a four-hour night bus journey home to think about what I did wrong (three things, I think).

I disagree with most of what has been said here about poker strategy, most of which is based around finding the best strategy. There is no ultimate strategy to winning a poker game; how you play should be almost entirely based on how the rest of the table is playing, either in cash or tournament play. Usually tight and aggressive is a good plan, but there are tables where that will almost never make you money. Sometimes being creative will win you plenty of pots, others it's best to let other people be creative and take advantage when you've got good cards.

Joseph Bolas wrote:Like you say, the only problem with a Freeroll game is when people go all in, especially on the first hand. What makes it more annoying is that the person who goes all in first on hand #1, normally has shit cards like 7-2 and will win most of the time against J-Q and K-A etc, hence why I prefer playing in person.

I don't think 7-2 will win most of the time in this scenario, Joe. Nor do I think it's a problem. If you know exactly what these players are doing then you should be adjusting your game to accommodate it, and this particualr situation is one of the easiest to adjust to. Got AK and someone has pushed before you with what you know is 7-2 on the first hand? Fold it every time. Just because you're favourite in this race doesn't mean it's profitable to call. Remember, when you double through 70% of the time, you will still only go on to cash about 50% of the time. But if you lose, as you will, 30% of the time, you're out and you'll cash 0% of the time. Same position half way into the game and your rationale will be very different.

But yeah, freerolls are shit.

Joseph Bolas wrote:I do think that some people do cheat online, because noone can see what you are doing.

Nobody cheats online really. It's actually really hard to do and also very well monitored, as you can imagine, so it's impractical. (Some) bad poker players use it as an excuse for their own inadequacies and their misunderstanding of the game. I would go as far as saying it's much easier to cheat in a real life tournament than it is to cheat online.

Joseph Bolas wrote:I think winning poker though comes down to Maths, working out pot odds and probabilities.

I disagree here as well, completely. In fact, most people doing the maths are doing it wrongly - calculating the odds of winning a hand fine but not applying it properly. Just because you got all your chips in as a 75% favourite four times tonight and lost every time, doesn't mean you played the hands correctly. A lot of players will just call themselves unlucky if it happens, but a good player will take a more critical perspective and come to the conclusion that being all-in in those situations was probably the wrong play (I myself am not in this denomination of poker-players, as evidenced by the fist-shaped holes in my wall). Obviously it helps but most of the stuff you really need to know can just be learnt. See the above example for an example of a problem that a lot of novices will get wrong.

The Theory Of Poker by Sklansky is a good read, but any poker book would be a good start for you guys. It is easy to get bogged down in the theory though; I know the book like the back of my hand and I'm still shit, so go figure.

I am curious Jono, have you agreed with anything I have said .

Ginger Jono wrote:I don't think 7-2 will win most of the time in this scenario, Joe. Nor do I think it's a problem. If you know exactly what these players are doing then you should be adjusting your game to accommodate it, and this particualr situation is one of the easiest to adjust to. Got AK and someone has pushed before you with what you know is 7-2 on the first hand? Fold it every time.

Oh I know 7-2 doesn't wont win that often, I was using 7-2 as an example . I would find it hard to know what a player is doing if I am playing them for the first time and on hand #1 they go all in. I do fold now on the first hand every time, regardless of whether someone has gone in pre-flop or not. Infact I also tend to fold A-A's more than play them because again I seem to lose alot with A-A, again to low connectors or suited cards etc (I mustn't be playing A-A right then ).

Ginger Jono wrote:Nobody cheats online really. It's actually really hard to do and also very well monitored, as you can imagine, so it's impractical. (Some) bad poker players use it as an excuse for their own inadequacies and their misunderstanding of the game. I would go as far as saying it's much easier to cheat in a real life tournament than it is to cheat online.

Poker rooms are indeed well monitored to make sure noone cheats but I still have my doubts. I am not a expert poker player, I will admit that. I agree with being able to cheat more in a live game. I've seen The Real Hustle before, which has shown alot of poker scams that can take place in live games, so theres got to be a way to beat the system online surely.

Ginger Jono wrote:I disagree here as well, completely. In fact, most people doing the maths are doing it wrongly - calculating the odds of winning a hand fine but not applying it properly. Just because you got all your chips in as a 75% favourite four times tonight and lost every time, doesn't mean you played the hands correctly. A lot of players will just call themselves unlucky if it happens, but a good player will take a more critical perspective and come to the conclusion that being all-in in those situations was probably the wrong play (I myself am not in this denomination of poker-players, as evidenced by the fist-shaped holes in my wall).

I do like to focus on working out pot odds and possible outs when I play a hand. Knowing how good my math skills are , I am possibly applying the figures wrongly. When I do have bad beats I do let them get to me but not all the time.

Ginger Jono wrote:The Theory Of Poker by Sklansky is a good read, but any poker book would be a good start for you guys. It is easy to get bogged down in the theory though; I know the book like the back of my hand and I'm still shit, so go figure.

When it comes to books I have Super System by Doyle Brunson and also Harrington on Hold 'Em by Dan Harrington. I also have subsscriptions to Poker Player and WPT magazines, I just haven't read any of them.

Well I think both are true - I've just read "In the money" by Antonio Esfandiari and I thought it was quite good - my first book was a beginner's guide to poker type thing which goes through all the betting, the hands, what beats what, etc which you do need to know but you also need more than that. This book is quite good as it goes far beyond that.

It is maths of course, the player with the best hand usually wins. Certainly if you've missed your hand on the river the only way to win the pot is to make a big bet and make it look like a value bet. So knowing mathematically that with ace-king of heart on a board with queen-7-2 with two hearts, if you think the opponent's got one pair you've got 15 outs - 9 hearts, 3 kings and three aces to hit. So that works out at about 59% chance of hitting and winning the pot. Obviously if they've got pocket 7s then its much lower because they've got 3 sevens, and assuming that it's 7 and 2 of hearts and the queen of clubs, the queen of hearts doesn't win the pot because it makes a full-house for your opponent.

But you already know this. I think Countdowners should make very good poker players as the best Countdowners and very good at maths. Obviously if you don't have the best hand you can still bluff it, and if both players have the same flush draw and miss it, jack high could be the best hand, but if they other player bets the pot the jack high can't possibly call.

All the same I read a really good website that said the primary factor is your opponents. I play with the same three opponents every time and I know them quite well. Calvin for example is very aggressive and can't lay down any sort of hand whatsoever, it's rare for him to pass an ace high. I know that I snuck in from the small blind once with 2-4 and the flop came down 2-4-6 at which point I thought I must have the best hand. After I bet he re-raised me, I raised and he re-raised again at which point I went all in and he called - with jack high. I he jack 7 so he could have hit for a straight but didn't and I took all his chips on a jack high.

Mum is very passive and tends to call or fold but not much else. This is really good because you can keep the pots as small as you like. If you bet once then check the turn and the river she will usually check as well, so if you've only got one pair it won't cost you much. But if you do bet she's very likely to call so all you're doing is making the pot bigger.

Christine is the toughest opponent. We play heads up a lot and she makes bets and raises a lot. I would say she can't lay a hand down very well - she's likely to call an all-in bet with just one pair where other players might lay it down, but I've taught her to play and in that sense it makes her hard to read. Still I think her biggest weakness is raising before the flop out of position then checking the flop and effectively folding to any bet.

Martin

Martin Gardner wrote:Well I think both are true - I've just read "In the money" by Antonio Esfandiari and I thought it was quite good - my first book was a beginner's guide to poker type thing which goes through all the betting, the hands, what beats what, etc which you do need to know but you also need more than that. This book is quite good as it goes far beyond that.

What was the name of your first book, or was it Antonio's In The Money?

Martin Gardner wrote:But you already know this. I think Countdowners should make very good poker players as the best Countdowners and very good at maths.

I'm screwed then

Is anyone watching Poker on ITV4. Theres a character by the initials E.G. and for an amateur he is doing quite good.

Well it's in French which is why I didn't mention it - maybe Jeff could read it!

Martin

Martin Gardner wrote:Well it's in French which is why I didn't mention it - may Jeff could read it!

Martin

Yeah, I think that would be hard for me to read. I didn't like French in school and did no better with Spanish .

What I find with playing something like a 7-2, say you're in the small blind and you just have to call, although a 7 is as likely to come down as any other card it's unlikely to be top pair. So if the flop comes down K-Q-7 you're now losing to any king or queen or indeed a seven with a medium kicker. So I find playing hands like these, even when you do hit the flop you're still losing. With an ace-king in this situation you're beating anyone unless they have pocket aces or something that beats one pair. I just find personally limping in even while it's sometimes mathematically right, you can get yourself into trouble thinking 'I might have the best hand' when in fact you don't, so I prefer to pass these even when I'm getting good odds to call, just so I can't get involved in the pot. On the other hand last week I passed a 10-2 offsuit before the flop and it came down 10-10-2, so it's not always wrong to limp in.

A good laugh is to play "anti-poker" - the same rules but the worst hand (in the traditional sense) wins, not the best one. For example, on a board like A-A-10-9-7 any hand with two cards less than a 7 is the nuts, because there's no hand that beats it. Even 6-5 against 2-3, the best 5 cards are the 5 on the board.

Martin

I played a Freeroll game last night for a laugh and got rather annoyed with my final hand of the game:

There was 7 of us left and I was in seat 7 (out of 10 seats) and I was the Big Blind and had been dealt 9s-9d. 3 people called before me, so I decided to raise the pot to 250 (SB/BB = 15/30), of which 2 called and 1 folded. The flop came up Kd-2h-7s and the first to act bets 33. Thinking I was still in the lead, I reraised to 250 again and they called. The other played had folded so it was heads-up. The turn card was 2c (Kd-2h-7s-2c) and my opponent checked.

Thinking that they didn't like the second 2 and that I was still leading, now with 2 pair, I bet 500. At this point my opponent reraises to 1000 and I call which puts me all in. The cards are then revealed and my opponent ends up having a 7c-2s as pocket cards and therefore wins 2900 with a full house.

What in Christ's name does all that mean?

It means don't play in freerolls. And if you do and get beat by someone shit, don't be downhearted, because if you take that badly then when it's actual money you're playing for, you won't be able to handle it.

Ginger Jono wrote:It means don't play in freerolls. And if you do and get beat by someone shit, don't be downhearted, because if you take that badly then when it's actual money you're playing for, you won't be able to handle it.

I really don't like freerolls but its the only I can play Hold' Em Poker. I would definitely play for real money, so as to have a more proper game, but I would only do that at a live game, never online (well not online anymore).

The hardest thing is dealing with bad beats.

One thing I love about poker is the Ice-Cold Decks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNz-Duyx3Lc

Joseph Bolas wrote:One thing I love about poker is the Ice-Cold Decks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNz-Duyx3Lc

Yeah that one is on my blog somewhere. What I do dislike about those one-table TV formats is it's so much luck based. Rather than saying Texas Hold'em is a game is a game of luck, I'd say there's not enough skill in it. I mean you don't choose your own cards, nor can you swap them. The same with the community cards. The whole hand plays itself out, all you can decided to do is whether to bet or not. I mean in contrast with bridge or something where you physically place the cards in the middle, that's more interactive. Especially in one table situations where the tactics include getting your money in with the worst hand and relying on luck to win the pot.

Martin

Corby wrote:What in Christ's name does all that mean?

Freeroll - have a shit at no cost.

Gevin-Gavin wrote:

Corby wrote:What in Christ's name does all that mean?

Freeroll - have a shit at no cost.

Freeroll is good when you can't afford a poker tournament. Though I would rather like to be able to afford to attend a poker tournament in person.

For the new members to the forum (since Charlie's plug), do any of youse play poker online, and if so where?

I play at numerous places, have made a good few quid over the years, but not really enough to live off. Would be interesting to play you lot...

Ian Volante wrote:I play at numerous places, have made a good few quid over the years, but not really enough to live off. Would be interesting to play you lot...

During the era of the Mailing List, there was an one-off online poker tournament arranged by Scott Kenyon.

I think if there was enough interest, we should be able to start another, more frequent tournament, definitely

Sounds good to me, I do have an account there.

Ian Volante wrote:Sounds good to me, I do have an account there.

We need to find more players

Whilst I'm a willing player, I closed my Pokerstars account recently in ongoing efforts to give up the game (I'm very unlucky, and I've been playing long enough and hard enough to KNOW that I really mean that, it's not just a feeling), and I'm only on Paddy Power Poker now.

Otherwise, I'd love to get involved.

I've been up and down all my poker career, at one point I got up to playing $20/$40 blinds No Limit cash tables. When I lost a $3,800 pot on the river to a 2-outer, I began my drop back down to reality - big money for a skint-ass student at university.

That would have to be one of my worst moments. The other followed one of my best moments.
As a challenge with a mate, I turned $1 into $6,300 in the space of about a week... and then took about the same amount of time to turn it back into $0. Thanks, addictive personality.

Matt Morrison wrote:Whilst I'm a willing player, I closed my Pokerstars account recently in ongoing efforts to give up the game (I'm very unlucky, and I've been playing long enough and hard enough to KNOW that I really mean that, it's not just a feeling), and I'm only on Paddy Power Poker now.

How unlucky were you on Pokerstars?

I only play for fake money, so wouldn't play for real money online (don't trust it).

Joseph Bolas wrote:How unlucky were you on Pokerstars?

Just a kind of standard unluckiness really if that makes sense. Well, it doesn't, but luck isn't that easy to measure.
Only played on there a few times, my main site was always PPP, PokerStars was a brief aside taken up shortly before deciding to give up.

Joseph Bolas wrote:I only play for fake money, so wouldn't play for real money online (don't trust it).

Nothing like a healthy dose of paranoia I know the feeling though, to scream "fix" would certainly have been a satisfyingly diversion to my atrocious luck at times.

One thing I do know is that you can't play poker for play money. It's as simple as that. Even if it's only 1p/2p blinds (we all started somewhere) there has to be money involved for the game to work.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Joseph Bolas wrote:How unlucky were you on Pokerstars?

Just a kind of standard unluckiness really if that makes sense. Well, it doesn't, but luck isn't that easy to measure.
Only played on there a few times, my main site was always PPP, PokerStars was a brief aside taken up shortly before deciding to give up.

Joseph Bolas wrote:I only play for fake money, so wouldn't play for real money online (don't trust it).

Nothing like a healthy dose of paranoia I know the feeling though, to scream "fix" would certainly have been a satisfyingly diversion to my atrocious luck at times.

One thing I do know is that you can't play poker for play money. It's as simple as that. Even if it's only 1p/2p blinds (we all started somewhere) there has to be money involved for the game to work.

What you consider to be bad luck is probably just bad play that you think is justified but really, over time, won't work out. The ones who cry 'fix' are just more retarded than the ones who cry 'bad luck'.

What you said about poker for money is 100% right. Poker without money isn't poker. I don't give a damn how many tournaments you win or how many play dollars you have.

Matt Morrison wrote:Nothing like a healthy dose of paranoia I know the feeling though, to scream "fix" would certainly have been a satisfyingly diversion to my atrocious luck at times.

I have seen some jammy hands, but then I guess they don't really count, because I only play with fake money and wouldn't dare to play with real money online.

Matt Morrison wrote:One thing I do know is that you can't play poker for play money. It's as simple as that. Even if it's only 1p/2p blinds (we all started somewhere) there has to be money involved for the game to work.

I would play for money, but it would have to be in person. I have the chips, timer and cards for a game, but don't really know many friends in Liverpool, who play poker. I could do go to a casino, but I would be more comfortable playing against people (for money) that I already know. Plus it would be a small group too, which I would prefer also.

Jon O'Neill wrote:What you consider to be bad luck is probably just bad play that you think is justified but really, over time, won't work out. The ones who cry 'fix' are just more retarded than the ones who cry 'bad luck'.

This is why I'm hesitant to shout about my bad luck. Actually, that's a lie, I'm not hesitant about it all, I love to complain.
BUT - I really do mean that I really am really unlucky. In life as well as in poker.
I've played SO much poker (I sadly really do mean SO much poker) that I do know intimately the difference between bad play and bad luck, and I don't confuse the two, not even to save face or kid myself.

My usual regime:
play amazing -> bad luck -> deep breath -> play amazing -> bad luck -> get annoyed -> bad play -> no money -> angry

you're damn right though, most bad players do like to claim bad luck, but I assure you this isn't me
(mind you most bad players think they're much better than they are too... hehe)

Matt Morrison wrote:BUT - I really do mean that I really am really unlucky. In life as well as in poker.

Your post in another thread about what happens to you when you get drunk at parties would seem to bear this out.

Phil Reynolds wrote:Your post in another thread about what happens to you when you get drunk at parties would seem to bear this out.

No that was one of my rare lucky moments! "Any hole's a goal" and all that

Matt Morrison wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:Your post in another thread about what happens to you when you get drunk at parties would seem to bear this out.

No that was one of my rare lucky moments! "Any hole's a goal" and all that

Where do you live?

Matt Morrison wrote:I've played SO much poker (I sadly really do mean SO much poker) that I do know intimately the difference between bad play and bad luck, and I don't confuse the two, not even to save face or kid myself.

Maybe your whole perception of bad play versus bad luck is wrong, despite a lot of practice. For example, Scrabble players for a long time thought it was a really bad idea to put vowels next to a double letter score on the first turn. Presumably they just thought they were "unlucky" when their good play was not rewarded. Only when computer simulation came along did they realise that it's a mistake to play that way; you should never sacrifice points to avoid the DLS.

This seems a lot more plausible to me than that you are a terminally unlucky person, especially on just one poker site. I guess I find the whole idea of "lucky" and "unlucky" people a bit bizarre. Especially coming from someone who finds Deal or No Deal so transparent!

Good points Charlie, it's always tough getting into discussions about luck - some people believe it exists, some people don't, and people's interpretations of its manifestations differ wildly, particularly when discussing their own luck as opposed to someone else's.

Sadly, it's entirely impossible for me to prove that I suffer bad luck, or even that my bad luck is not just bad play. It's just one of those ungraspable unknowable things, so this discussion won't really go anywhere, but perhaps might be worth pointing out one example:

I remember (these aren't the sort of hands you forget!) losing a hand when having flopped top quads (eg. holding 99 and 993 flops) I think 8 times. Which is pretty incredible. It's hard enough to flop quads at the best of times, I can at least be glad that poker sites don't have a "raise bet to everything you own" button. Most people will never in their poker careers lose having flopped quads (ok, maybe once in their lives, I dunno) but I've suffered it 8 times in less than 10 years experience. And needless to say it's never worked in reverse; I've never had top quads flopped against me and turned out to win myself.

Also, should be pointed out I have spent long periods of time on 3 or 4 poker sites since I began playing, all treated me fairly similarly.

Matt Morrison wrote:Good points Charlie, it's always tough getting into discussions about luck - some people believe it exists, some people don't, and people's interpretations of its manifestations differ wildly, particularly when discussing their own luck as opposed to someone else's.

Sadly, it's entirely impossible for me to prove that I suffer bad luck, or even that my bad luck is not just bad play. It's just one of those ungraspable unknowable things, so this discussion won't really go anywhere, but perhaps might be worth pointing out one example:

I remember (these aren't the sort of hands you forget!) losing a hand when having flopped top quads (eg. holding 99 and 993 flops) I think 8 times. Which is pretty incredible. It's hard enough to flop quads at the best of times, I can at least be glad that poker sites don't have a "raise bet to everything you own" button. Most people will never in their poker careers lose having flopped quads (ok, maybe once in their lives, I dunno) but I've suffered it 8 times in less than 10 years experience. And needless to say it's never worked in reverse; I've never had top quads flopped against me and turned out to win myself.

Also, should be pointed out I have spent long periods of time on 3 or 4 poker sites since I began playing, all treated me fairly similarly.

No such thing as bad luck in the long run, and in poker the long run aint than long. Play well consistently and you shall have your reward.

Paul Howe wrote:No such thing as bad luck in the long run

I'm sorry Paul, but if I had a pound for every time somebody had tried to justify to me my alleged bad luck with that cliche, I wouldn't need to even play the damn game! It might be true in 99% of cases, and believe me I wish I was a member of that 99%. I'm not getting off on trying to prove that I'm unlucky, trust me!

Of course, I secretly hope it's still true and that one day things will turn around... but I've been waiting for a long enough time now, I'm not holding my breath.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Paul Howe wrote:No such thing as bad luck in the long run

I'm sorry Paul, but if I had a pound for every time somebody had tried to justify to me my alleged bad luck with that cliche, I wouldn't need to even play the damn game!

You must have been moaning a lot then. Sorry mate but I'm with Jono, it's a really unbecoming habit and you're doing little more than draping a transparent veil over your inadequacy.

You have been quite unlucky with the amount of abuse you've received on here though Perhaps you've been cursed by a leprechaun.

I've always thought that poker is simply a matter of knowing when to hold them, knowing when the fold them, and most importantly knowing when to walk away (though sometimes it's necessary to run rather walk). Another piece of advice I would give to a novice is to never count your money when you're sitting at the table, for the simple reason that there'll be enough time for counting when the dealing's done.

Paul Howe wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:

Paul Howe wrote:No such thing as bad luck in the long run

I'm sorry Paul, but if I had a pound for every time somebody had tried to justify to me my alleged bad luck with that cliche, I wouldn't need to even play the damn game!

You must have been moaning a lot then. Sorry mate but I'm with Jono, it's a really unbecoming habit and you're doing little more than draping a transparent veil over your inadequacy.

You have been quite unlucky with the amount of abuse you've received on here though Perhaps you've been cursed by a leprechaun.

Grrr i'm being overanalysed again!
Ok, I confess: I'd have about four pounds, and I'd still be playing poker. And i'd still be unlucky. Sorry, 'unlucky'. Happy?

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:"Any hole's a goal" and all that

Where do you live?

Ah, you've updated your profile so now I know, even down to the street address in Teignmouth which is handy. Except I also now know what you look like so I've gone off the idea.

Nice website by the way.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:"Any hole's a goal" and all that

Where do you live?

Ah, you've updated your profile so now I know, even down to the street address in Teignmouth which is handy. Except I also now know what you look like so I've gone off the idea.

Nice website by the way.

Hah! Yeah... your lack of a smiley to accompany your original question left me confused as to whether you were simply asking where I lived or whether it was very much a wink wink nudge nudge chortle chortle comment, and you know how I love to be misunderstood here, so for once I took the moral high ground and responded properly (via my profile)... did mean to send you a PM, but I didn't. Anyway thanks for the props on the website. I won't send you a link to my Facebook account, just in case 500 more attractive photos cause you to fall in love with me again, which would be messy for both of us.

Matt Morrison wrote:Yeah... your lack of a smiley to accompany your original question left me confused as to whether you were simply asking where I lived or whether it was very much a wink wink nudge nudge chortle chortle comment

To a poker player (see? I'm on-topic) I'd have thoughts the odds were pretty hefty. Yeah, I'm often frustrated by the lack of what you might call a 'deadpan' smiley; there's the one called 'Neutral' but it doesn't really look like a deadpan facial expression to me, more sort of forlorn. It would be more useful to have one with a neutral expression but one eyebrow raised significantly higher than the other, in classic Leonard Nimoy fashion.

I won't send you a link to my Facebook account

Good. I don't do Facebook.

Phil Reynolds wrote:Good. I don't do Facebook.

I could turn you.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:I've played SO much poker (I sadly really do mean SO much poker) that I do know intimately the difference between bad play and bad luck, and I don't confuse the two, not even to save face or kid myself.

Maybe your whole perception of bad play versus bad luck is wrong, despite a lot of practice. For example, Scrabble players for a long time thought it was a really bad idea to put vowels next to a double letter score on the first turn. Presumably they just thought they were "unlucky" when their good play was not rewarded. Only when computer simulation came along did they realise that it's a mistake to play that way; you should never sacrifice points to avoid the DLS.

This seems a lot more plausible to me than that you are a terminally unlucky person, especially on just one poker site. I guess I find the whole idea of "lucky" and "unlucky" people a bit bizarre. Especially coming from someone who finds Deal or No Deal so transparent!

I suppose in poker, luck can even itself out but that's not much comfort when you're on a losing streak. And of course it depends on the pot size - I'd rather win a pot with the worst hand pre-flop if it's a massive pot, not a small one. Speaking of Scrabble I did recount on the favourite words thread that my best ever play in a tournament was POL(A)RISE for 140 points against Hervé Bohbot in the French World Scrabble Championship in 2006. I played CAQUETS which was a lot worse than ACQUETS in the same spot, which prompted him to play FAXA/CA for 50 points instead of DOSE for 21 which would block the triple-triple. I've never simulated this situation but I'd imagine FAXA beats DOSE by a long way because it scores 29 points more, and yet it's cost him a game in the World Championship. So it's comforting that's he's made the mathematical best play, but based on results he must wish he'd made a worse one!

Thought I'd reply here as it's the correct place.

Yeah, one of my most memorable ever pots was when with ace-eight of hearts the flop came down 2-2-3 with two hearts. I elected to just call on the flop and the turn, and when a heart came on the river I moved all in because the pot was pretty big by now - only to find my opponent had two-three offsuit anyway, and had flopped a full house! So in reality the only way I could have won the spot would have been A-A or 8-8 on the turn and river. Just shows you any two cards can win.

the greatest band in the world come from teignmouth

i would be interested in a poker tournament. im absolutely useless tho

tomrowell wrote:the greatest band in the world come from teignmouth

I'm totally lost as to the relevance of the Teignmouth/Muse comment here - but intrigued. Explain!

Matt Morrison wrote:

tomrowell wrote:the greatest band in the world come from teignmouth

I'm totally lost as to the relevance of the Teignmouth/Muse comment here - but intrigued. Explain!

i just saw Teignmouth further up in the post and decided to use my one and only fact about the place. nothing to do with poker whatsoever

tomrowell wrote:i just saw Teignmouth further up in the post and decided to use my one and only fact about the place. nothing to do with poker whatsoever

Which one of the definitions of fact is that?

I play once or twice a week in tournaments (30-40 players) and a once-monthly house game (normally 8-12 players). I find it a very social (by that I mean I have an excuse to booze - like I needed one) and enjoyable pursuit. I don't know any strategy; I use speech play and base my decisions on whether or not I think the other guy is full of shit.

At the start of the night I do look out for the player whose decisions seem to be questionable and then try to capitalise once I get a hand. If I get an early lift I normally play quite tight hoping to preserve a slender lead until we are down to the final table. I only play freeze-outs so avoid playing against retards who go all in with a 6-3 off-suit.

I tend not to do quite badly but infuriatingly I have lost count of the number of times I have been the 'bubble.'

Joseph Bolas wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:I play at numerous places, have made a good few quid over the years, but not really enough to live off. Would be interesting to play you lot...

During the era of the Mailing List, there was an one-off online poker tournament arranged by Scott Kenyon.

I think if there was enough interest, we should be able to start another, more frequent tournament, definitely

Apologies for the VERY slow reply, only just found this place existed! lol. I can currently set up private tournaments on PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker, more than happy to arrange a private Countdown game online at some point if people are interested. Any preference on site, type of game, buy in, day/time, etc. Suggestions welcome please.

Scott.

Scott Kenyon wrote:

Joseph Bolas wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:I play at numerous places, have made a good few quid over the years, but not really enough to live off. Would be interesting to play you lot...

During the era of the Mailing List, there was an one-off online poker tournament arranged by Scott Kenyon.

I think if there was enough interest, we should be able to start another, more frequent tournament, definitely

Apologies for the VERY slow reply, only just found this place existed! lol. I can currently set up private tournaments on PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker, more than happy to arrange a private Countdown game online at some point if people are interested. Any preference on site, type of game, buy in, day/time, etc. Suggestions welcome please.

Scott.

I play at both those sites, I'd prefer $5 or $10 freezeout, I also enjoy playing Omaha hilo.

Scott Kenyon wrote:

Joseph Bolas wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:I play at numerous places, have made a good few quid over the years, but not really enough to live off. Would be interesting to play you lot...

During the era of the Mailing List, there was an one-off online poker tournament arranged by Scott Kenyon.

I think if there was enough interest, we should be able to start another, more frequent tournament, definitely

Apologies for the VERY slow reply, only just found this place existed! lol. I can currently set up private tournaments on PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker, more than happy to arrange a private Countdown game online at some point if people are interested. Any preference on site, type of game, buy in, day/time, etc. Suggestions welcome please.

Scott.

No need to apologise Scott

I would like to play in a tournament online at Pokerstars but I don't think you can do freeroll tournaments can you? (In other words you have to play for real money.)