Poker Perambulation

I talked about that yesterday for stud play. I’ve gotten to the ‘right’ way by stumbling and dragging myself to this position. It is the opposite of rationality based on other games and blinds. In no-limit, bet sizing rules make it wrong to price in things like flush draws. Many of the bad beat blogs are about the folks who didn’t respect the pot odds offered.  But, in tournament play, I’m not one to really knock it. Sooner-or-later, at-some-point all tournament play is donk play. Are those that implement it sooner than the prudent that far from the true path? That isn’t the case when we talk ring games. And the ideas that work at limit Hold’em with its three betting rounds confuse those who play stud with its five.

When I started off playing stud, I asked for advice from a friend. JB is old school army and poker augmented his pay all the way to retirement and beyond. He gave me some great advices that didn’t work. What worked at his tables which were often 5-10 and up fell flat when I implemented them. You raise (complete) with AA as an example. Early aggression with a purpose isn’t viable at low stakes. Even Sklansky mentions that most completing at lower stakes is -EV.

There weren’t a lot of books out there that are a decent read with decent goals that apply to stud. Sklansky has the best book but his stuff is never an easy read. And, some of his advice requires more patience than even the Buddha could muster. Throw in the new aggression and his originally valid premise is weakened further. Anyway, the book JB said taught him most was an old one that was out-of-print but I found a copy on Amazon. One of the things it said was that the average hand at stud is a set of nines. Now I can’t testify to the science and data behind that claim. I did discuss it at one table and the others were unanimous that it was an overstatement of fact. I think it is right or darn close if a bit off.

At stud – especially under 5-10 – you see a lot of hands that not only win but that their holder is willing to promote that are well under that set of nines. It happens regularly. At the very low tables I play at I see people consistently promoting a weak two-pair hand and winning with it fairly regularly. That makes folks dubious when a claim like 999 being average surface. And most playing stud come from a limit Hold’em background where two pair is almost always thought a nut hand.

But stud has a lot of really big hands. Just how you weight things makes that 999 premise one closer to the fact than the majority of players realize. When you throw in their Hold’em experience, they make even more mistakes. Things are a bit forgiving because even the best players at many tables are far from mistake free players. Figuring outs versus cards remaining takes a mental capacity beyond casual play. I know I don’t have it. But, I can come closer than most of my competition.

While stud is carries more variance than many other choices, it can also reward those with a modicum of understanding below the level of what is remotely standing a chance for profitability at other limit games. Few care about watching for dead cards that would make their hand. I see hands where there are three queens exposed on third street and all three of those players will participate. I see late hands made or not with four card straight and even gutshot ones that are made with the cards on either side having 2 dead cards that were exposed. This is not optimal play or anything close.

What stud can do is reward the tight-passive like no other game. That is another thing that flies in the face of common poker knowledge. It is there because of the number of participants who contribute and build pots that any reasonable drawing hand or made hand want to continue playing. I’ll see the high hand often betting because he has ‘scare cards’ up. I see bad play when the next guy raises with three of a color showing and several behind him. I watch players with 5’s up bet from 4th through 7th street. All this sets up weak-passive like no other game can. Early aggression is usually counter productive. I’m not saying always. Always is a bad word to use at a poker table. But it is the case more often than not.

If you think the fish have dried up with the difficulties in funding, maybe you should visit the stud tables. Play some cheap or even funny money tables to get the lay of the land. And, when you’ve figured it out, please! don’t tap on the glass.

ADDENDUM:

Bit of an example.  I was on UB yesterday evening playing .05-.10 because it was the only active game. I lost a buyin ($1) being a donk.  I was having fun and hardly thinking about a profit. I took a look in the lobby and there was a 1-2 game.  Now Mojo will testify that I don't have the roll to play that responsibly. But, it was 4 or 5 sitting and I had solid notes on two of them.  They were known quantity that I feel I can exploit. 

I sat with one loose-passive calling station.  And the other a hyper aggressive guy that wins his share of 3rd street pots.   Those are small pots.  If he get a caller, he doesn't change — Mr Bet-bet-bet.  The others were people I could get out of the way of if I had to.

Long story short.  Didn't play long.  Left up a buy-in when they got a bit tilted and went to capping.   Gotta love it!

No related posts.