All were in Chinese, attempting to sell various fake documentation. I noticed and stopped the assault after two hours. However, the topics and posts remained until recently (3 p.m.) when I deleted all remaining remnants. The clean-up is complete.

I hope you didn't suffer any significant inconvenience. Thank you for continuing to test our Poker1 forum. It will be more widely promoted and available soon.

-- Mike Caro

There are so many players that just don't quite get that you a) have to play to scoop and b) you better be nutted on one board with a shot at the other.  With 5 cards down, its unlikely a non-nut hand is going to win in a full ring game.

But tonight, some guy wanted to play 5-2-2 (double board high, 5 down) but where you could play THREE of your down cards in making a 5 card hand.  

I couldn't quite figure out what to think of it.  First of all, even more you need to be nutted to win anything.   But the problem to me seemed to be that how do you really know what the nuts is?   I mean, at any time someone could have quads and you really have no way of knowing that they have.

So how do you play it?  Do you just ignore quads and figure that people will not have three of the same rank down very often, so just ignore it?  

It occurred to me that since quads are possible on every hand, live reads become very important.  Does that heavy betting player just have the nut full house or do they have the quads?   With double boards there are probably 3-4 different quads that are potentially out there, assuming you are probably blocking a few of them. 

The other thing that occurs to me is that any time one has a better understanding of a game that the opponents, there is a big advantage.  And from what I saw, a lot of players really underestimated how strong of a hand would be needed to win.

Can you recommend any books on High Limit Omaha 8 or Better?

Thank you,

Bill H.

What I've specifically noticed in the On Demands, is that full pot sized bets and raises are better in the earlier rounds, and as the blinds to stacks shorten, smaller opening bet sizes get the same "bang for your buck" so to speak. But could I be losing value from the player that is going to call regardless? Or am I protecting my own stack from such close equties?

Im curious to find out if keeping with pot sized bets throughout the tournament, or while playing cash is better off or if your better varying your bet size depending on the strength of your hand.

I do understand that varying your bet sized based on strength is giving away information about your starting hand. However, I feel (but am not sure) that the equities are so close in many opening hands, that telegraphing a "strong" hand is not particularly an issue. This also may differ depending on the stakes and ability of the players? 

What are the thoughts on this?

Thanks for any comments. 

Usually, you should choose an amount from 2.5 to 3 times the big blind, while rarely varying it with something larger or even with a minimum raise of just twice the big blind.

Strange

This might sound strange to you, because you're used to seeing opening raises of 5 times the big blind and more quite often. But 2.75, with mild variation, is appropriate and enough to do the job.

Over a long period of time, opening raises averaging larger than 3 times the big blind become less profitable. And don't forget, calling, rather than raising, is often a good choice, despite what you've heard.

70 percent

What if there are already other players who voluntarily entered the pot? Then you should add approximately 70 percent of that additional money to your raise.

I'm sharing this information because I want you to know what I've discovered by research. You're invited to agree or disagree below. It's your forum.

-- Mike Caro

(Grammar note: I've deliberately chosen to use numbers above that would normally be spelled as words -- like "3", instead of "three" -- because numbers with decimal fractions are included. I'm aware that nine or less is usually spelled thusly. So, no grammatical nitpicking on that one, please. I'm sure I'll make plenty of other mistakes you can correct.)

Something has been bothering me for years and it's what is often called "New Poker."

Why? Because it treats the science of poker as if it's the fashion industry. According to its adherents, you have to keep up with the changes, because what won in 2016 doesn't win in 2020.

False

But that's not true. Core poker winning strategy never changes. Players change, though. So, you adapt to opponents' mistakes the same way you always did. You take advantage.

What was true in 1970 is still true in 2020, fifty years later, and always will be. Sure, my recent research has refined that strategy, but the core truths stay the same.

You can't beat rational strategy by playing poorly. So-called "new-poker" players are super-aggressive and tend to promote and teach clearly losing decisions on the basis of what's in fashion.

Decades ago

Ranges, EV -- almost all those terms you hear thrown about are actually recycled variations of concepts I and others pioneered many decades ago. Unfortunately, "new poker" is nothing more than misapplication of those concepts.

If you bet or raise too much or too often, you're easy to exploit. Today, poker tables are populated by players trying to mimic "new poker." And almost all of them fail miserably. Granted, there are those that can brag about the millions of dollars they won. But with so many players making similar nonsensical decisions, a few will get lucky for a year or two. They will pass along their "wisdom" based on that good fortune.

The truth is, you don't have to adjust to "new poker" at all. Those players will self-destruct. Of course, you can beat them even faster if you do adjust to their mistakes, thereby taking full advantage.

No different

But that's no different from the way we handled them forty years ago. There were just less of them back then. And when they came to our tables, we said, "Yum-yum!"

"New poker" advocates are sending thousands of potentially winning players to slaughter -- all so they can feed their egos by babbling on the Internet, in books, and on TV.

Maybe you saw my self-quote of the day on the Poker1 home page yesterday. It was:

“New Poker” allows overly aggressive players to remain convinced of your stupidity while you win their money.

Think about it -- Mike Caro

(I would be honored if you would help start the first conversation at Poker1 Talk by replying. And, no, you don't have to agree. This is your forum.)

--Mike Caro

Although you'll find detailed guidance about Poker1 Talk (forum) etiquette and usage below, this is a simple welcoming message to our Poker1 family.

Please remember to be polite and to treat other contributors like guests in your living room.

--  Mike Caro