Critique

I haven't personally written anything lately, just putting up interesting posts by other people. I thought it would be interesting to write a critique of some strategy I randomly found on the internet:

http://boardgames.about.com/od/poker/a/holdem_strategy.htm

It depends in part on how many players are in the game, but a general rule is that you should seriously consider folding before the flop if you have two non-pair cards, both less than 10.

Not a bad rule to give beginners. Advice I gave to someone who was learning the rules just an hour before he was to play in his first game of Hold'em ever, I suggested that he fold hand where both cards weren't ten and higher, except for pocket pairs.

A more conservative player might fold if just one of the cards is less than 10;

This is actually extremely loose advice. A conservative player would fold A7 or A9 in a heart beat, and would only play AT if the conditions were perfect.

a more aggressive player might stay in with, for example, an 8 and 9 of the same suit (because those cards give you decent possibilities for a straight or a flush).

I contend with the word aggressive player here. A loose player might come in with a suited connector more often than a passive player, but that has no bearing on how aggressively they play. (I guess an aggressive player might try to raise a suited connector, but this doesn't seem to be the point they are making.)

If the big blind (a forced bet designed to ensure that every hand has a pot) is low enough, it may be worthwhile to pay in so that you can see the flop even if you don't have particularly strong cards in your hand.

This advice is somewhat correct but doesn't give you enough detail and could get you into trouble. The absolute value of the big blind is irrelevant. All that is relevant is the size of the big blind relative to future bets, and in a tournament situation, how large they are compared to the number of total chips in the tournament.

In Las Vegas, they have 4/8 games where the blinds preflop are 1/2, although a raise brings it to 6 total. In those games, you can come in with a lot of crap since the implied odds are very high, since the betting size effectively doubles on the flop. But at the same time, the raise is by so much that in an aggressive game preflop, you still have to be positionally aware, or you'll end up being forced to fold your limps too often to the raises. And I still wouldn't come in with offsuit crap in these games, but I think you can play nearly any two suited in position with a lot of limpers, and suited stuff with at least one high card in early position.

In a tournament, you actually should play extremely tight when the blinds are small, and much looser then the blinds are large. That is because you come in with very little overlay for those times you don't have the best hand. If you play hands like KTo that easily can make a second best or dominated hand, you will have some hard decisions when people start to overbet the tiny pots.

With seven players at a table, two pair or better will generally be the winning hand.

I think this advice is dangerous as it seems to try to tell you not to showdown with less than two pair. Top pair will win more than it's share, and you should usually not fold top pair for only one bet.

If you don't have the high pair after the flop (e.g. if the flop is K-9-5, the high pair would be two Ks), and you're not in good position for a straight or a flush, you should probably get out of the hand.

I guess this is a good start for beginners, but in practice far too weak. This, like most bad poker advice, ignores the size of the pot. Play loose in large pots and tight in small pots. He should also really differentiate between a gutshot straight draw vs. an open ended straight draw, as they are wildly different creatures.

If you're first to bet after the flop, don't be afraid to check. This can work to your advantage in two ways. First, if your hand is on the weak side, you might be able to see one more card without having to put more into the pot. Second, if your hand is strong, you could convince an opponent or two that it's weaker than it really is.

Now the author decides to give some random betting advice. Unfortunately I think this advice alone will be more harmful than saying nothing. It is only one small piece of a larger betting strategy, and a newcomer to the game will think that in early position, checking is always correct. He is suggesting that you should check both your strong and weak hands.

Clearly it is not correct to bet a weak hand. A marginal or strong hand has a better argument for betting especially in small pots. In large pots a checkraise may be in order to protect it.

I disagree strongly with him mentioning the second point. If he means deception through slowplaying, then this is terrible advice to give a beginner. Slowplaying is very rarely correct in loose, small stakes games that the beginner is probably playing. If he means deception through check raising, more detail is needed on good check raising situations or the advice is completely meaningless.

After fourth street, don't stay in the pot hoping for a straight or flush, unless you can do so on a check (that is, without putting more chips into the pot). Although there will be times when you would have drawn the straight or flush, they will be outweighed by the times you wouldn't.

Terrible, terrible advice. In limit poker the flush draw is almost always drawing until the river because it is rare that you don't get the required 4 to 1 plus implied odds to draw profitably. You are certainly an underdog to make your flush, but the original author seems to have completely no grasp of equity, odds or pot size. Often, open ended straight draws will be getting the right odds to draw as well.

Is he talking about no-limit poker? Maybe this advice has a lot more merit when people are making pot sized bets to drive you out of the hand.

But as general advice (don't draw to a straight or flush until the river) is terrible in limit poker, and bad in no-limit, as there are many situations where you want to take one more off because of the odds situation.

That said, there is a point where the investment you've already made virtually dictates that you hang in there. It's useful to measure this in terms of percentage of your chips. For example, if you've already committed 40% of your chips to the pot, another 5% isn't that much. This is a gray area, so once again the best advice is to be cautious.

This seems to suggest that he was talking about no limit poker all along. If only he had stated that earlier, there would be far less confusion. His advice was far too loose preflop for NL, and gives some strange general advice.

Now he is talking about being pot-committed, but gets it horribly wrong. It is irrelevant how many chips you have invested in the pot. All that matters is how much is in the pot at the time of your decision. Now he is saying this is a grey area, when really the math makes this usually a fairly clear decision based on odds.

In conclusion, this is an example of the terrible advice on the internet for how to play poker, and why a lot of people can lose a lot of money to good players very quickly. It is clear that the writer knows very little about poker, and doesn't realize how dangerous advice like this really can be, when people will gamble real money based on it.