Alderian - I disagree. Suppose we both want to live, but in a drunken moment I call your mother a donkey and in the heat of the moment you offer me outside to choose my pistol. Like a hot head I accept. At this point we are dualist. You may be the best shot in thw world, but I may be the luckiest. You know that you life expectancy if you proceed any further will be reduced. However, you also know that I will forget about the whole thing when I wake up from my stuper. Backing away from the dual, by laughing it off, or saying I'm too drunk and it would be murder or whatever brings your life expectancy back to where it was 30 mins before. The best dualer in the world can not be as good as the dualer who can avoid a shot being fired.

I play Poker but my EV increases on the nights I stay at home.

Dualist duel by definition. You don't seem to understand the difference between a practitioner and a one time participant. Do something one time does not a practitioner make.

Only if poker requires thinking.

Note, I am going on the assumption that you are merely having a bit of fun and that this is not a series debate.

The point of dualing isn't merely to survive. It is to beat the other person. In your example the person that chooses not to dual may be better at living than otherwise, but is not a better dualist.

When you stay home, you become better at not losing money perhaps, but you do not become better at winning other peoples' money.

@Steephie - As presented (his opponent pushed when they were nearly even) only a fool.calls that as he is getting even money on a 5 to 1 long shot. Understand, his odds of getting another king is about 20%, 12% on the flop and a bit more than 4% each on the turn and river. So his odds of improving if he assumes he is beat is only about 20%. Meanwhile even if his opponents is AK, his opponent has 6% per card (plus a bit) or 30% preflop of hitting another A. As it happened, he was pocket rockets so he only had to worry about a chop (straight or flush on the board their hands didn't improve or a boat on the board) or another king or some flush or stright involing the Ks Maniac had in his hands. Based on the betting in front of him, Maniac made the art move. Even money when you believe you are the underdog is not a smart bet to call.

One of the local casinos is starting a new kind of torunament. It'd an "All-in or fold". Basically, there is no calling. You either go all-in preflop or you fold. Of course, the guy who wins the first hand won't actually be all in if he does it on the second hand.

It sounds like fun.

Keep in mind that Steephie said it would be worth it if it was cheap. Maniac then gave more details including the fact that the other player had gone all in, and therefore it wasn't cheap.

Also keep in mind Steephie is under 18 and can't play in any casino in the world to the best of my knowledge. I've been playing poker since he was in diapers (about 16 years now). :-) when you got a read, you got a read. Doesn't matter if it is a small call. Lots of fish make the mistake of making the small calls, then they get lucky and start taking more and more risks until they bust out because the lucky badbeats turn on them.

all-in or fold sounds stupid, unless you are playing with experienced players, otherwise the first hand will eliminate half the table leaving one big fish with a huge advantage whether it was won from skill or luck. also it would depend if each hand had an ante or not.

I think it would be fun to try on a low buyin (say $100+$10) and coule be more intersting with something like a $50 bounty as well.

well i would be interested to see how you find it if you decide to play but to me sounds like luck takes precedence over skill this way a lot more than in normal poker

With school starting up and still having 50-60 hour weeks at work, I doubt I will have time to play any poker. I'm not even joining games here.

I would think most hands would be everyone but one folding. It would take two players both getting very strong hands to go all in at the same time. Or one very strong hand and one badly timed bluff.

I've played all-in or fold.

It's kinda boring. No limit is a very aggressive game already, it didn't need to make it more so.

The all-in or fold game is good experience for playing later stages of a traditional poker tournament where several players are holding stacks around 10x the big blind. You can afford to limp in and fold to a raise or fold when you miss the flop. You have to pick a hand and move all-in. Don't raise, move all-in. There are very few situations where you could fold to a re-raise so get your chips in first.

Picking the hand to shove with is easy enough, shove every pr, every two cards above an 8 and all suiting connectors even if there is a gap, ie 5s 7s. You may also add connecting off suit cards if you are in later position. The hands to avoid are ace-2 to ace-7. In later positions you may want to shove any K or Q.

Generally only call an all in with monsters AA KK and possibly QQ and JJ calling with AK and AQ isn't awful, but isn't great either.

Rational behind this strategy is that you just want to win the blinds uncontested. We all know that AA and KK don't come around that often so you need to be raising with cards like 7s 5s to put pressure on the caller. If he calls with 2 over cards he is favourite but you have live cards and you will get plenty of people folding better hands A8, A6 KJ Q9 J8 etc, etc etc and even if they call it is unlikely (unless they have an overpair) that you will be dominated. How many of their calling hands contain a 7 or 5? Not many.

Even though you know everyone else is shoving light, you still have to really narrow your calling range. When you raise with 75suited you will win about 30 % of hands uncontested and about 40% on the contested hands. 58% in total. If you call with AK suited you are going to be behind to all prs, dominate all Ax hands but only be about 60/40 to all bluffs and 75s shoves. Your AK call will be about the same as your 75s shove. Call with it if shover is in late position or is very short stack but throw it away otherwise. Calling with AQ Aj AT suited or not is risky and I avoid it.

Final tip only over call ( calling after someone else has called with AA or KK

**You CAN'T afford to limp in and fold to a raise or fold when you miss the flop

Draugnar, I know that in the situation presented *after* I posted, it was a bad choice to call, but I still believe that making a small call when you still have a reasonable chance to beat your opponent, it's worth it. These are the hands that can bring in loads of cash or lose very little. At least in a tournament, not sure about a standard cash game, but if you think you earn more than 5 times as much as you lose if you get lucky, I'd say it's a good gamble. That is assuming your calculations are right. And I don't mean to imply anything with that, just that it's too early for such calculations (and I forgot how to make the calculations anyway) here.

Isn't this principle called 'implied odds' in English? Limping in cheap so you can hit the jackpot?

all-in or fold sounds like it could be fun for a fast game, but it's like gunboat is to full press IMO. Some like it, no doubt, but I think it's MUCH less fun. The only reason I occassionally play one is, well, I don't have a clue why I do it really. Basically you should be hoping for an awesome hand in position with other players already all-in I think, because then people aren't scared away by your all-in, and you can't be surprised by others going all-in as well...

And the rest of the game would be stealing pots and folding, with maybe a face-off if 2 (or maybe even more) persons happen to go all-in in the same round, of which one may be bluffing. I think there's just much less to such a game, but it's also fast-paced I suppose?

So for the record, I do think Maniac did the smart move.

On a side note: I'm sure someone in my life will one day claim this one way or the other, and then I want some smart answer ready, so I'll pose the question: Who are better in Poker, blacks or whites? I'm sure some of you will say that's racist, but I don't care. I'm no racist. However, I would like to be able to get a racist back in his place in as many ways as possible. :P

This makes me want to organize a webdip poker tournament :)

I haven't played since Vegas.

That should be doable if we don't use actual money, otherwise I don't think we should involve webdip in any way for legal reasons. And then I'm out as well.

Unless someone pays my buy-in, lol. If you do, I suppose you deserve at least a big portion of the profit I make.

Preflop any out is worth exactly 2% per chamce to hit it on the board so 6% chance to hit your out on the flop. After the flop, it goes up slightly as now you know 5 of the 52 cards.

I should say that ia the odds from the player perspective. In televised games, the odds can be more precisely computed by and for the audience as we know if any of the outs were folded or are sitting in the opponents hand.

Black versus white: arguably the greatest cash game player is Phil Ivey and he is black while many consider Daniel Negraneu (sp?) to be possibly the greatest tournament player and others consider Doyle Brunson, both white. There is no inherent difference at poker in race of the player although some.might argue the Chinese love to gamble amd are better than non-Chinese.

Is the outs-part to me, about the 2K v 2A thing?

If so: there are 2 outs that are equally fine, and you know 4 cards already, after flop you know 7, with 3 chances at a K, which is 25% chance at this point? Of course you could still hit a K later, but if you don't hit a K by now it's fine to check/fold IMO, especially if there's an A. If you're not talking about that example, then yes, you're right.

As far as playing a tournament, if there is nothing to lose or gain, it isn't poker cause idiots will play any two cards.

There's rep and fake money. It's not much, but it's all relative. Some will think of money as not much, others will love the fake money, because they are in a way like points here. Sure they're useless, but I don't want to lose them.

Fake money can have value if you have to earn more and don't just get 100K every day just for logging in. The problem with the free sites is you get given money every day, more and more of it.