Maggie's Farm

this works in a multi-way no-limit game? its got to do more than brute-force odds calculation, its got to be able to read several personalities, as implied odds can be manipulated.

there's a huge difference between low limit (no-foldem holdem) and high limit play as well, but the betting units are just chips, how can a computer assign a meaningful value to a chip that might mean a quarter ($.25) or a Quarter ($25)?

I don't get the concept of luck in poker. there's no luck, only probabilities, and someone could draw to inside straights with the correct implied pot odds with a positive expectation.

and I'd be careful about judging based on betting patterns. a preflop checkraise followed by the check-raiser betting on the flop is standard in a serious game regardless of whether the flop hit and could mean anything from a bluff to a made hand.

If I'm holding a gutshot straight and, all other things being equal, I'll call if the pot presents a payback of 9-1 or more. the thing is, the money favorite bet and the odds favorite call are both correct.

obviously the trips will win most of the time, but the made straight will pay for all the losses.

but that's the point. the reason both bet and call are good actions is because over the long haul, betting on an inside straight that gives at least 9-1 return (on 8-1 odds) still shows a profit even if the straight stays broken most of the time. remember, this isn't heads-up play.

I'm not going to get those pot odds (9-1) unless there are other players calling your bets. 8-1 are the odds of making the straight, so I'd be careful with small straights (don't want to be caught with the ignorant end) and, depending on the situation might not call anyway. so aggressive play with your trips is the right tactic, thinning the herd to give drawing hands less than the correct odds to call.

the most alarming thing to hear in poker: "how big is your full house?"

true story: common in Las Vegas are bad beat jackpots. a small amount is raked from each pot and put aside into a bad beat jackpot. meaning, whoever loses with (depending on the house) at least quads or maybe aces full, gets one half of the jackpot, the rest is shared with the table. at the Excalibur the jackpot had reached somewhere north of $20,000 when, at a 7 card stud table, a queen high straight flush was losing to a king high straight flush and the table was beginning to celebrate. but it was only 6th street, and the river card was a king suited to the queen high straight flush. no bad beat, chopped pot. the guy who lost the bad beat came flying out of his seat at the dealer, hands around his throat, choking him until the floormen dragged him away.

tournament games.

the structure of the rising blinds and go-for-broke mindset makes these games different, but here's a solution you can try in any of the free online tournaments. buy into a game and then just watch for about 20 minutes until the maniacs have had their way and most of the players are gone. you'll be down your blinds but otherwise in good shape (because its still your stack vs every other chip that isn't yours, just as it was when the tournament began). now you can play aggressively with knowledge of tactics and odds for loose shorthanded games and you should come out alright because they are maniacs and you are not.

true story: my gun club held poker tournaments after league nights, and I had the smallest of the three remaining stacks, small enough so that I knew I had no chance of winning, but the payout included the second place finisher. I decided to fold every hand, not defend any blind, assuming correctly that in the four or five hands I had left before I was blinded out, the big stack would put the smaller stack all-in and if he won, I'd finish second. which is what happened, with me holding a single chip and the second place prize money.

I'm looking at it differently. if I ask you whether a 100-1 bet is good or not, you can't answer the question without knowing the payout. if the payout is 101-1, the bet is good because it shows a net positive expectation.

I'm not thinking of a poker game as something that lasts an evening. I'm thinking of all the hands I've played and will play. that's, what, tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands counting casual online play? with that sample size, I'll happily make those bets, knowing I'll lose almost all, but also knowing the probabilities will be at or vanishingly close to the true odds, which makes those bets long term winners.

so if you play high suited cards preflop, you are a likely winner if the flush fills, which it will about 20% of the time, and a likely winner if the high cards pair even if the flush doesn't fill. AK is a small favorite over an aggressive any JJ or lesser pair, so if the flush odds don't materialize, you've got a reason to keep with the draw and another way of winning. here you can bet in ways to disguise the flush draw as a high pair or a pair as a flush draw, and, a bluff on the river might win the hand anyway.

I'll accept losses when things go sideways because probabilities aren't guarantees. calling it luck is superficial and unhelpful labelling (luck = good outcome; bad luck = bad outcome). Understanding probabilities means understanding how the game (in fact, how the universe) works. I'm prepared in that I have a feel for the other players and a grasp of basic math. but luck describes an outcome, but doesn't tell you how to get there.

you'd be welcome in any game I'd play in. we'll give you an ice cold beer, make you feel at home, be your best friends for the evening, and when you tap out, we'd invite you back. rinse, repeat.