Izmet Fekali

(by Abdul Jalib M'hall)

I am not taking a position on the integrity of online poker games; I just want to discuss the logic governing online collusion.

Colluding online is trivial. You can make free long distance calls via the Internet and your computer.

"If" people were colluding online, what would we expect to see? They can't do too much second best hand mucking, as it would be too easy to catch by the site. However, they could ram-n-jam when one of them has the nuts or close to it. So, you should see a lot of jamming and then folding, and a fair number of bad beats with nonsensical holdings.

For example, when one of a pair of partners has AA, the other could raise under the gun with 62. Most people think this has negative EV, because they reason that the partners are paying two to one, but this is not the case in a loose game. The AA has about 50% equity in a loose game, so even if the 62 had 0% equity, they are making a ton of money capping it preflop against several opponents. Additionally, the guy who raised preflop with 62 may get some additional profit on later hands, when people misplay against him based on their memory of this event. The next time the guy raises under the gun, he may get extra action, and he may even have 62 again, and he'll just love it, because his partner has AA again.

Now, of course what sometimes happens here is that the flop comes A94, and so the 62 and AA cap it again, getting action because they seemed to be crazy on previous hands. The turn comes a 3 and they jam, the river is a 5, and the 62 wins with the second nuts. A lot of hands go down like that, apparently, so they don't raise any big red flags. The EV for this type of collusion is much bigger than what Ed thinks, I think.

Some of the victims might jump up and down after being bad beat repeatedly, accusing the online site of some sort of problem with their random number generator or site security. Others dismiss the complaints based on the apparent fishiness of the players. However, the apparently psychic plays need not require psychic powers, fishiness, or hacks of the data/servers. It is merely exactly what you would expect if there were collusion.

The level of collusion could be at an insignificant level, making healthy profits possible, but the level of collusion could quickly increase in a short time. If that were to occur, you might see several good players dump back their winnings all at once.

You might also see this, however, as a result of either variance or sloppiness. The standard deviation of two tables of $10-$20 online is about $350 per hour, compared to about $150 per hour for a tight real world game. (The $350 per hour s.d. comes from my back of the envelope extrapolations from real world loose game s.d., and also from a friend's spreadsheet of his results using Mason's formula.) So, you're going to have swings of $700 in an hour. I guarantee that a lot of the balking is due to this high standard deviation, which comes both from the increased hands per hour and the guys jamming, for whatever reason, with 62. As for sloppiness, I heard one guy saying how his girlfriend plays two games, watches TV, and talks on the phone all at the same time. The sloppiness encouraged by early success could creep in and turn a pro into a fish without his realizing it, conceivably.

So, again, I don't have any position here. I just wanted to point out that if people were colluding then we would expect to see this higher than normal bad beat incidence, and also that the profitability of the games could drastically change in a short time according to the number of colluders. However, just because there is this high level of observed bad beats does not mean that people are colluding, as there could be other reasons for it, with the most obvious alternate explanation being just plain fishiness.

By the way, I agree with Ed that if the online rooms are going to charge $3 per hand, the players should insist the online room have several experienced poker players hired full-time as game "police."

Abdul Jalib

Technorati Tags: Abdul Jalib, online poker, poker, texas holdem

Technorati Tags: Abdul Jalib, online poker, poker, texas holdem

Comments(0)

Posted By: Izmet Fekali 
Date: Tuesday, 18 April 2000, at 12:10 a.m. 
In Response To: Re: Loose ones KILLING me!!!(long) (Gary Carson) 
2+2 Forum

Optimal hold'em strategy is a defensive one. You make yourself unbeatable, you let your opponents bang their heads & weapons against your fortress walls. They are not playing optimally against you (they are either trying to find cracks in your armor and are zigging and zagging around or they are simply stupid and don't have a clue how to play) and must therefore be losing money to you.

Now imagine an opponent that is zigging so much (i.e. he starts raising utg with 54s to confuse you, so you are folding KQo in middle position) that he is starting to walk on the razor's edge, playing with matchsticks. The defensive optimal strategy will still get the money against this guy, but seeing 54s utg makes you think, "hey, this sucker is trying to give money away and I'm not getting my fair share!" Indeed, somebody else, probably some poor fishy excuse for a player, a let's-see-the-flop guy nails him with A7o. You are winning, but you are not getting what's coming to you!

Exploitation time!

So next time, you re-raise the smart ass with KJo to isolate. You kick his ass. You take the dough. You humiliate the poor wanna-bee. You start building chip towers. You are one slick sunuvagun. His suboptimal play opened up your opponent, and you jumped at the opportunity to exploit him by adjusting your play (in Abdul's words, the no. 1 guy in hold'em defense, you are zigging as the opponent is zagging) a notch. However, you are playing suboptimaly yourself now! You opened up to exploitation too now and are counting on the fact that nobody at the table is smart enough to make use of it. More so, you could be losing money now to any player playing solid poker, but even if that happens, you figure to offset the losses by robbing the fish.

Now loose opponents are a similar story. They are playing suboptimaly. The situation is crying out for the heavy guns. You start playing K4s in early position as you know the fish will school limping behind you. You are playing suboptimaly now, trying to nail the stupid. People are saying stuff like "the value of suited aces and kings went up." It works.

Of course, as you dropped the Enterprise's shields, you opened her up to Ferengi attacks. No big worries here, the Ferengis are playing the $30-60 tables now, banging their heads against Klingons and each other, it's some kind of an ego thing, I guess… (do Sklansky's words "game selection" ring a bell here?…). Just watch out with the corner of the eye for any suspicious activity towards your table. If a couple of dangerous characters sit down, you are done with the fish exploitation, you must get those shields up pronto. If not, you are dead meat when you get your ass raised playing 33 utg.

My point is, a good defensive strategy (we are still searching for a true game theoretic solution to hold'em) will get the money in any game. You simply have to learn how to defend yourself. The next step is exploitation if you want to be greedy. Loose games provide marvelous opportunities to do that. The money is out there for grabs. Stop whining about bad beats. Chips are floating your way in loose games (if you play goot), you just can't see it because of the variance muddying the waters.

Any suboptimal play by your opponent drops a coin in your pocket, but you must have the pocket at the right place to intercept. When opposition is stupid, you can start shoving your hand into their pockets (and be aware that while leaning over somebody could have his hand in your pants).

People, stop whining. Learn to play solid. Start enjoying loose games.

– Izmet Fekali

Technorati Tags: Izmet Fekali, poker, texas holdem

Comments(0)

You will not find the following advice in any book, including S&M. Is it any good? Judge for yourself.

Izmet

---

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 99 20:32:58 MET
From: izmet@siol.net (Izmet Fekali)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Subject: Jamming with AQs

Connie writes on 2+2:

Dear Izmet, 6-12 hold'em

I'm in the big blind last night at the Normandie, where they have no small blind. About 5 callers and a regular 10-20 thru 20-40 player(whose regular game broke)raises on the button. I have A-Q both diamonds, I called. Would 3 betting have been best, in regards to what you refer to as the EV(estimated value?).

Everybody but the raiser could have been holding almost any two touching cards(unsuited). And all the limpers would have called my re-raise, and then certainly a cap at that point from the button.

I think the main reason I didn't re-raise was due to my horrible position, and then to a lessor extent, that I was somewhat intimidated by the higher limit player.

Thanks for any help, Connie

PS: I like the super-simplified explination for implied odds you provide at your site.

There are good arguments for calling only (as Jim suggests in his reply). You have bad position for all betting rounds, but a good chance to check-raise the button if the flop hits you, thus, narrowing the field easily. This is the standard play "by the book," which increases chances to win the pot and enables you to get out cheaply if the flop doesn't hit.

It's a good, bulletproof, profitable strategy.

See, if you make the pot too big, postflop play turns into a crap shoot and anything can happen. Most poker players hate that, they hate getting sucked out by freak draws that would have folded on the flop, hadn't the pot been so big. And that's exactly what happens often when a multiway pot gets blown up out of proportions. There are no guaranties, you can flop good and still lose big. You have little control of the play on the flop and beyond, and whatever your edge in postflop play was, it's gone through the window. Swelled pots are a source of frustration. For a drunken, Rolex-wearing German tourist with a miniskirt chick hanging on his shoulder, this is fun. For a pro with a modest bankroll, big pots are toying with death. You can see traces of sweat on his forehead and upper lip. It's a nightmare.

But so what. If you have a bankroll, you should ram 'n jam on the flop. Yes, the skill factor goes way down postflop, but you are having way best of it now. Jamming is profitable.

I assume Connie is talking about a typical California-stye game where players are loose and trigger-happy. The limpers would surely raise with AQ/QQ or better, so we are safe to assume our only concern is the raiser on the button.

This guy can have a wide range of cards, if he is a good player (and even a wider one if he is a maniac). There are many hands that show profit with a raise against multiple limpers. The only hands you that can give you trouble are AA, KK, QQ and AK. Against these hands, reraise with AQs is not such a good idea, as you are either dominated (against KK, QQ and AK) or destroyed (against AA). But even here, the five dupes in are covering for you with their contributions (as a good chunk of their money is dead, since they have a relatively small chance of winning the pot). You are not in bad shape even when dominated.

But against other possible hands the button could have (Axs/K9s/98s/77/KJo or better), you are a happy camper. You will make a load of money even when against a better hand like JJ. But remember, you are increasing EV (drastically, I might add) here at the expense of higher variance. Reraise is a most profitable play, yet you still might not want to do it. Profitability is not the only factor when judging a certain poker play. For some pros living in the van by the river, variance is baaaaaaad. They prefer calling.

How profitable is the reraise (and a subsequent cap if rereraised, Nevada style) with AQs?

I ran a $10-20 Turbo sim for Connie with a player on the button holding JJ and a player in the big blind with AQ (I did not bother to set up the sim with a single blind like Connie's game, because if the game is loose, the blind structure is not that important). The lineup was loose, with players that tend to go a bit too far postflop. To put it simply, it was a fishy table, except for the two test players. I used the same profile (optimized for playing in loose games) for both the button (JJ) and the big blind (AQs). The results after 500000 runs with 5 or more opponents (at least 4 limpers + the button raiser):

AQs calling a raise in the big blind, min. 5 opponents: 
---------------------------------------------
JJ, win rate: 28.0%, $ net per hand: $39.27
AQs, win rate: 26.1%, $ net per hand: $20.78

AQs jamming preflop in the big blind, min. 5 opponents:
---------------------------------------------
JJ, win rate: 30.0%, $ net per hand: $61.61
AQs, win rate: 27.2%, $ net per hand: $36.81

Against JJ and four other opponents, AQs just flat called, tried to keep the pot small and went for a check raise with top pair on the flop. With no hit, AQ called for one bet on the flop with two overcards (which is a pretty much correct play, given the size of the pot). It did quite ok, earning a big bet per hand.

But, when AQs capped it preflop, it earned almost twice as much! The difference between calling and jamming was more than one and a half small bet. And that's a lot, baby! Note also the difference your jamming made to JJ's profits. The button should buy you a drink for making him $20 with your aggressive preflop play. You both profited, but the fish should think twice before entering a pot with trash again…

Here's the same sim, but with QQ on the button. The situation seems hopeless, but the fish covered the losses. Jamming with AQs against QQ boosted profit per hand from $3.74 to $09.91. It's not that much, considering the increased variance, but hey, I can use every dollar…

AQs calling a raise in the big blind, min. 5 opponents:
---------------------------------------------
QQ, win rate: 31.5%, $ net per hand: $40.76
AQs, win rate: 19.6%, $ net per hand: $03.74

AQs jamming preflop in the big blind min. 5 opponents:
---------------------------------------------
QQ, win rate: 33.7%, $ net per hand: $69.93
AQs, win rate: 20.7%, $ net per hand: $09.91

The interesting thing here is that you are still making money jamming preflop even when against dominating hand. The fish in the pot took care of that. With enough callers (10-way family pots), you could safely reraise even if you strongly suspected aces.

Of course, Turbo sims are perceived as unreliable by most posters here, maybe they are indeed… but then again, they make you think anyway, don't they?

Izmet

---

Subject: Re: Jamming with AQs
From: garycarson@mindspring.com ("Gary Carson")
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 15:01:21 -0600
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker

Connie writes on 2+2:

Dear Izmet, 6-12 hold'em

-snip-

(really long post about AQS on blind after a bunch of limpers and a raise by an unknown, but probably loose aggresive button.)

-snip-

Izmet's analysis did a good job of showing how it's not that important to have the best hand preflop, it's important to have the best of it. And, the two aren't the same thing.

With AQs against 5-6 hands of mostly loose players, AQs has the best of it and a raise is usually right.

Gary Carson

---

Subject: Re: Jamming with AQs
From: stevebadger58NOSPAM@hotmail.com ("Badger")
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 14:26:11 -0800
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker

Izmet's analysis did a good job of showing how it's not that important to have the best hand preflop, it's important to have the best of it. And,the two aren't the same thing.

With AQs against 5-6 hands of mostly loose players, AQs has the best of it and a raise is usually right.

And that's assuming AQs isn't the best hand, which from the description of the raiser may well be a poor conclusion to jump to. The raiser very well could have a hand weaker than the AQs. I don't read all these silly AQ threads on 2+2, but keeping the pot small in this situation with this hand is the philosophy of a player afraid of their own shadow who doesn't want to work to win.

What I find interesting is that anybody could the small philosophy, with a hand like this in a situation like this. Even Gary manages to be right on this. :)

Badger

"I don't know what the hell I was talking about." — Gary Carson

---

Subject: Holy $hit Izmet ! Thank You
Posted By: Connie
Date: Wednesday, 29 December 1999, at 8:32 p.m. 
In Response To: Re: Izmet, help me out. (Izmet Fekali)

I can't believe the trouble you went to!!

Thanks again,

Conni

Technorati Tags: Izmet Fekali, poker

Comments(0)