10 Tips For Winning At Online Poker

This is why these strategies will help you improve the way you play. This and all subsequent betting rounds begin with the player to the dealer's left and continue clockwise. Against Player B, the optimal player, it does not get as good as it does when it is trained for games by Player B, but it is better against either of the other two players than when it has been been trained for 4, games against Player B. Why is theory important when it comes to making badass adjustments in your strategy? Its third move was perhaps a little suspect so that goes down to only one bead instead of two and it is less likely to try that again, but if it does it will not be tricked in exactly the same way again. Lots of good points in this article that I think most older successful poker players have started thinking about a lot more since April

Why more than 256,074 poker players have joined CardsChat

10 Tips for Winning Online Poker

For the terms that you do not know or understand, check out the Poker Glossary for the descriptions and explanations of the common terms used in poker. Before you even start getting cards handed to you, there are a few table rules that you need to look out for when sitting down.

Blinds are used instead of Antes, a forced bet that the players have to place before receiving any cards, only two people will have to bet per round. Small blind only bets half of the ante, or minimum starting bet, and the Big Blind will place the full minimum bet.

Once the SB and BB have been placed, the dealer then hands out the cards. Each player looks at the two cards that they were dealt, and from there the first round of betting starts. If someone raises, all players are then asked again if they want to Call, Raise, or Fold. Once everyone has placed the exact amount into the pot, the next round can start. After the first round of betting, the dealer will then place three cards in the middle of the table. These three cards are called The Flop.

After the three cards have been placed, another round of betting occurs. Depending on the two cards you have in front of you, you can decide to either Raise, Call, Check, or Fold. Once the entire table has had their turn, the next round begins. The dealer will now place one more card in the middle of the table, along with the three previously placed cards; this card is called The Turn. Now there are 4 community cards, and the two personal cards that each player has. Another round of betting will start, along with the same choices as before.

The last card is then dealt by the dealer, making a total of 5 community cards. The last card dealt is called The River. This will be the last round for betting. Whichever players are still in the game at this point will take turns placing bets or checking.

The last player to Call on a bet will have to show their cards to the other players. If this player is the round winner, the other players can choose to show their cards or keep them hidden it is a good strategy to keep them hidden regardless of whether you were bluffing or had a good hand. Obviously, the round winner will take what amount of chips that are in the pot. You are no longer able to play once you run out of chips. Online gaming has been legal in France since thanks to the French Gambling Act, allowing regulated and licensed poker sites to run and offer their services, but there is a catch.

On Monday, the poker giant Amaya Inc. Play our Online Poker Game and improve your skills. This no-download game can be played on any Windows or Mac computer and on Android and iPhone mobiles and tablets. The game is very similar to Multiplayer live Texas Holdem, but here you play poker against the casino.

You are the only player and play against the casino versus against other players. No money is involved, no credit cards, this game is freely played for fun. This Flash poker game was provided by Bovada Poker Room. Ante A small part of a bet that is contributed by each player placed into the initial pot of a poker hand.

Bad Beat When a player that is favored to win is beaten by the underdog hand, usually due to getting the winning hand with the help of the River card. Bankroll The amount of money a player has to bet with. Bet The first chips placed into the pot during a round. Big Blind The larger of the two blind bets. It is the first full bet placed during a round.

Blank A card that is dealt that does not affect the standings of a hand. Bluff When a player, who doesn't have a good hand, bets as if they had an excellent hand; essentially lying in order to beat out the other players.

Board All of the cards placed on the table during a community card game, like Texas Hold'Em. Button A white disc that determines which player is considered the dealer. Buy-In The amount of money a player pays to get chips and participate in a game or tournament. Call Putting the amount of money equal to the most recent bet or raise into the pot. Calling Station A player that almost always Calls, very rarely folding, and only raising when they have a great hand.

Cash Game A poker game that uses real money instead of chips. Check Not making a bet, with the option of 1 continuing in the round, 2 being able to call, or 3 being able to raise later on in the round.

Chip Small, round piece of plastic that represents a monetary value used in place of cash. Community Cards Cards that are placed in the middle of the table, which can be used by all players to create their hand; there are 5 cards in total. Connectors A Hold'Em hand whose two initial cards are one unit apart in rank. Dealer The player that actually or theoretically deals the cards.

Disconnect Protection When playing online poker, some tables offer protection if a player were to suddenly disconnect from their game due to connectivity issues, etc. Dominated Hand A hand that will usually always lose to a better hand that is usually played.

Draw Playing a hand that is not considered good, in hopes of receiving the right cards. Early Position The three seats to the left of the Blinds.

Expectation The amount a player expect to win on average based on certain plays. Favorite A player that has the best hand, statistically, to win the pot. Flop The first three cards placed on the board in a community card game. Flush Five cards of the same suit. It beats a Straight and loses to a Full House. Fold To forfeit from a round of poker, usually done when a player has a poor hand.

Free Card A Turn or River card in which a player did not have to bet on due to previous plays. Gutshot When a player has the possibility of getting a Straight, but is missing one card to do so. Heads Up A pot that is contested by only two players. Kicker An unpaired hand that is used to determine the winner between two hands that are almost equal in value. Loose Player A player that plays on a lot of starting hands.

Maniac A player that overly and aggressively raises, bets, and bluffs. No-Limit Poker A type of poker where the player can bet any amount of chips when it is their turn to bet.

Nuts The best possible hand based on the board. Odds The chances or likelihood that something happening. Offsuit A Hold'Em hand where the two starting cards of different suits. Then, when they are ready, get into some easy poker chip regroupings. Keep practicing and changing the numbers so they sometimes need regrouping and sometimes don't; but so they get better and better at doing it. They are now using the colors both representationally and quantitatively -- trading quantities for chips that represent them, and vice versa.

Then introduce double digit additions and subtractions that don't require regrouping the poker chips, e. The first of these, for example is adding 4 blues and 6 whites to 2 blues and 3 whites to end up with 6 blues and 9 whites, 69; the last takes 3 blues and 5 whites away from 5 blues and 6 whites to leave 2 blues and 1 white, When they are comfortable with these, introduce double digit addition and subtraction that requires regrouping poker chips, e. As you do all these things it is important to walk around the room watching what students are doing, and asking those who seem to be having trouble to explain what they are doing and why.

In some ways, seeing how they manipulate the chips gives you some insight into their understanding or lack of it. Usually when they explain their faulty manipulations you can see what sorts of, usually conceptual, problems they are having. And you can tell or show them something they need to know, or ask them leading questions to get them to self-correct. Sometimes they will simply make counting mistakes, however, e. That kind of mistake is not as important for teaching purposes at this point as conceptual mistakes.

They tend to make fewer careless mere counting errors once they see that gives them wrong answers. After gradually taking them into problems involving greater and greater difficulty, at some point you will be able to give them something like just one red poker chip and ask them to take away 37 from it, and they will be able to figure it out and do it, and give you the answer --not because they have been shown since they will not have been shown , but because they understand.

Then, after they are comfortable and good at doing this, you can point out that when numbers are written numerically, the columns are like the different color poker chips. The first column is like white poker chips, telling you how many "ones" you have, and the second column is like blue poker chips, telling you how many 10's or chips worth ten you have This would be a good time to tell them that in fact the columns are even named like the poker chips -- the one's column, the ten's column, the hundred's column, etc.

Remember, they have learned to write numbers by rote and by practice; they should find it interesting that written numbers have these parts --i. Then show them that adding and subtracting some double digit numbers not requiring regrouping on paper is like doing it with different color i.

Let them try some. Let them do additions and subtractions on paper, checking their answers and their manipulations with different color group value poker chips. Then demonstrate how adding and subtracting numbers that require regrouping on paper is just like adding and subtracting numbers that their poker chips represent that require exchanging. You may want to stick representative poker chips above your columns on the chalk board, or have them use crayons to put the poker chip colors above their columns on their paper using, say, yellow for white if they have white paper.

Show them how they can "exchange" numerals in their various columns by crossing out and replacing those they are borrowing from, carrying to, adding to, or regrouping. This is sometimes somewhat difficult for them at first because at first they have a difficult time keeping their substitutions straight and writing them where they can notice and read them and remember what they mean.

They tend to start getting scratched-out numbers and "new" numbers in a mess that is difficult to deal with. But once they see the need to be more orderly, and once you show them some ways they can be more orderly, they tend to be able to do all right.

Let them do problems on paper and check their own answers with poker chips. Give them lots of practice, and, as time goes on, make certain they can all do the algorithmic calculation fairly formally and that they can also understand what they are doing if they were to stop and think about it. Again, the whole time you can walk around and around the room seeing who might need extra help, or what you might have to do for everyone.

Doing this in this way lets you almost see what they are individually thinking and it lets you know who might be having trouble, and where, and what you might need to do to ameliorate that trouble. You may find general difficulties or you may find each child has his own peculiar difficulties, if any. For a while my children tended to forget the "one's" they already had when they regrouped; they would forget to mix the "new" one's with the "old" one's.

So, if they had 34 to start with and borrowed 10 from the thirty, they would forget about the 4 ones they already had, and subtract from 10 instead of from Children in schools using small desk spaces sometimes get their different piles of poker chips confused, since they may not put their "subtracted" chips far enough away or they may not put their "regrouped" chips far enough away from a "working" pile of chips.

Columns above one's and colors "above" white are each representations of groups of numbers, but columns are a relational property representation, whereas colors are not. Colors are a simple or inherent or immediately obvious property. Columns are relational, more complex, and less obvious. Once color or columnar values are established, three blue chips are always thirty, but a written numeral three is not thirty unless it is in a column with only one non-decimal column to its right.

Column representations of groups are more difficult to comprehend than color representations, and I suspect that is 1 because they depend on location relative to other numerals which have to be remembered to be looked for and then examined, rather than on just one inherent property, such as color or shape , and 2 because children can physically exchange "higher value" color chips for the equivalent number of lower value ones, whereas doing that is not so easy or obvious in using columns.

In regard to 1 , as anyone knows who has ever put things together from a kit, any time objects are distinctly colored and referred to in the directions by those colors, they are made easier to distinguish than when they have to be identified by size or other relative properties, which requires finding other similar objects and examining them all together to make comparisons.

In regard to 2 , it is easy to physically change, say a blue chip, for ten white ones and then have, say, fourteen white ones altogether from which to subtract if you already had four one's. But it is difficult to represent this trade with written numerals in columns, since you have to scratch stuff out and then place the new quantity in a slightly different place, and because you end up with new columns as in putting the number "14" all in the one's column, when borrowing 10 from, say 30 in the number "34", in order to subtract 8.

Further, 3 I suspect there is something more "real" or simply more meaningful to a child to say "a blue chip is worth 10 white ones" than there is to say "this '1' is worth 10 of this '1' because it is over here instead of over here"; value based on place seems stranger than value based on color, or it seems somehow more arbitrary. But regardless of WHY children can associate colors with numerical groupings more readily than they do with relative column positions, they do.

Columnar representation of groups is simply one way of designating groups. But it is important to understand why groups need to be designated at all, and what is actually going on in assigning what has come to be known as "place-value" designation. Groups make it easier to count large quantities; but apart from counting, it is only in writing numbers that group designations are important. Spoken numbers are the same no matter how they might be written or designated.

They can even be designated in written word form, such as "four thousand three hundred sixty five" -- as when you spell out dollar amounts in word form in writing a check. And notice, that in spoken form there are no place-values mentioned though there may seem to be.

That is we say "five thousand fifty four", not "five thousand no hundred and fifty four". Starting with "zero", it is the twelfth unique number name. Similarly "four thousand, three hundred, twenty nine" is just a unique name for a particular quantity. It could have been given a totally unique name say "gumph" just like "eleven" was, but it would be difficult to remember totally unique names for all the numbers.

It just makes it easier to remember all the names by making them fit certain patterns, and we start those patterns in English at the number "thirteen" or some might consider it to be "twenty one", since the "teens" are different from the decades. We only use the concept of represented groupings when we write numbers using numerals. What happens in writing numbers numerically is that if we are going to use ten numerals, as we do in our everyday base-ten "normal" arithmetic, and if we are going to start with 0 as the lowest single numeral, then when we get to the number "ten", we have to do something else, because we have used up all the representing symbols i.

Now we are stuck when it comes to writing the next number, which is "ten". To write a ten we need to do something else like make a different size numeral or a different color numeral or a different angled numeral, or something.

On the abacus, you move all the beads on the one's row back and move forward a bead on the ten's row. What is chosen for written numbers is to start a new column. And since the first number that needs that column in order to be written numerically is the number ten, we simply say "we will use this column to designate a ten" -- and so that you more easily recognize it is a different column, we will include something to show where the old column is that has all the numbers from zero to nine; we will put a zero in the original column.

And, to be economical, instead of using other different columns for different numbers of tens, we can just use this one column and different numerals in it to designate how many tens we are talking about, in writing any given number.

Then it turns out that by changing out the numerals in the original column and the numerals in the "ten" column, we can make combinations of our ten numerals that represent each of the numbers from 0 to Now we are stuck again for a way to write one hundred. We add another column. Representations, Conventions, Algorithmic Manipulations, and Logic.

The written numbering system we use is merely conventional and totally arbitrary and, though it is in a sense logically structured, it could be very different and still be logically structured. Although it is useful to many people for representing numbers and calculating with numbers, it is necessary for neither.

We could represent numbers differently and do calculations quite differently. For, although the relationships between quantities is "fixed" or "determined" by logic, and although the way we manipulate various designations in order to calculate quickly and accurately is determined by logic, the way we designate those quantities in the first place is not "fixed" by logic or by reasoning alone, but is merely a matter of invented symbolism, designed in a way to be as useful as possible.

There are algorithms for multiplying and dividing on an abacus, and you can develop an algorithm for multiplying and dividing Roman numerals.

But following algorithms is neither understanding the principles the algorithms are based on, nor is it a sign of understanding what one is doing mathematically. Developing algorithms requires understanding; using them does not. But what is somewhat useful once you learn it, is not necessarily easy to learn. It is not easy for an adult to learn a new language, though most children learn their first language fairly well by a very tender age and can fairly easily use it as adults.

The use of columnar representation for groups i. And further, it is not easy to learn to manipulate written numbers in multi-step ways because often the manipulations or algorithms we are taught, though they have a complex or "deep" logical rationale, have no readily apparent basis, and it is more difficult to remember unrelated sequences the longer they are.

Most adults who can multiply using paper and pencil have no clue why you do it the way you do or why it works. Now arithmetic teachers and parents tend to confuse the teaching and learning of logical, conventional or representational, and algorithmic manipulative computational aspects of math.

And sometimes they neglect to teach one aspect because they think they have taught it when they teach other aspects. That is not necessarily true. The "new math" instruction, in those cases where it failed, was an attempt to teach math logically in many cases by people who did not understand its logic while not teaching and giving sufficient practice in, many of the representational or algorithmic computational aspects of math.

The traditional approach tends to neglect logic or to assume that teaching algorithmic computations is teaching the logic of math. There are some new methods out that use certain kinds of manipulatives 22 to teach groupings, but those manipulatives aren't usually merely representational. Instead they simply present groups of, say 10's, by proportionally longer segments than things that present one's or five's; or like rolls of pennies, they actually hold things or ten things or two things, or whatever.

Students need to learn three different aspects of math; and what effectively teaches one aspect may not teach the other aspects. The three aspects are 1 mathematical conventions, 2 the logic s of mathematical ideas, and 3 mathematical algorithmic manipulations for calculating.

There is no a priori order to teaching these different aspects; whatever order is most effective with a given student or group of students is the best order. Students need to be taught the "normal", everyday conventional representations of arithmetic, and they need to be taught how to manipulate and calculate with written numbers by a variety of different means -- by calculators, by computer, by abacus, and by the society's "normal" algorithmic manipulations 23 , which in western countries are the methods of "regrouping" in addition and subtraction, multiplying multi-digit numbers in precise steps, and doing long division, etc.

Learning to use these things takes lots of repetition and practice, using games or whatever to make it as interesting as possible. But these things are generally matters of simply drill or practice on the part of children. But students should not be forced to try to make sense of these things by teachers who think that these things are matters of obvious or simple logic.

These are not matters of obvious or simple logic, as I have tried to demonstrate in this paper. Children will be swimming upstream if they are looking for logic when they are merely learning conventions or learning algorithms whose logic is far more complicated than being able to remember the steps of the algorithms, which itself is difficult enough for the children.

And any teacher who makes it look to children like conventions and algorithmic manipulations are matters of logic they need to understand, is doing them a severe disservice. On the other hand, children do need to work on the logical aspects of mathematics, some of which follow from given conventions or representations and some of which have nothing to do with any particular conventions but have to do merely with the way quantities relate to each other.

But developing children's mathematical insight and intuition requires something other than repetition, drill, or practice. Many of these things can be done simultaneously though they may not be in any way related to each other. Students can be helped to get logical insights that will stand them in good stead when they eventually get to algebra and calculus 24 , even though at a different time of the day or week they are only learning how to "borrow" and "carry" currently called "regrouping" two-column numbers.

They can learn geometrical insights in various ways, in some cases through playing miniature golf on all kinds of strange surfaces, through origami , through making periscopes or kaleidoscopes, through doing some surveying, through studying the buoyancy of different shaped objects, or however. Or they can be taught different things that might be related to each other, as the poker chip colors and the column representations of groups.

What is important is that teachers can understand which elements are conventional or conventionally representational, which elements are logical, and which elements are complexly algorithmic so that they teach these different kinds of elements, each in its own appropriate way, giving practice in those things which benefit from practice, and guiding understanding in those things which require understanding.

And teachers need to understand which elements of mathematics are conventional or conventionally representational, which elements are logical, and which elements are complexly algorithmic so that they can teach those distinctions themselves when students are ready to be able to understand and assimilate them. Conceptual structures for multiunit numbers: Cognition and Instruction, 7 4 , Children's understanding of place value: Young Children, 48 5 , Young children continue to reinvent arithmetic: Mere repetition about conceptual matters can work in cases where intervening experiences or information have taken a student to a new level of awareness so that what is repeated to him will have "new meaning" or relevance to him that it did not before.

Repetition about conceptual points without new levels of awareness will generally not be helpful. And mere repetition concerning non-conceptual matters may be helpful, as in interminably reminding a young baseball player to keep his swing level, a young boxer to keep his guard up and his feet moving, or a child learning to ride a bicycle to "keep peddling; keep peddling; PEDDLE! If you think you understand place value, then answer why columns have the names they do.

That is, why is the tens column the tens column or the hundreds column the hundreds column? And, could there have been some method other than columns that would have done the same things columns do, as effectively? If so, what, how, and why? If not, why not? In other words, why do we write numbers using columns, and why the particular columns that we use? In informal questioning, I have not met any primary grade teachers who can answer these questions or who have ever even thought about them before.

How something is taught, or how the teaching or material is structured, to a particular individual and sometimes to similar groups of individuals is extremely important for how effectively or efficiently someone or everyone can learn it. Sometimes the structure is crucial to learning it at all. A simple example first: It is even difficult for an American to grasp a phone number if you pause after the fourth digit instead of the third "three, two, three, two pause , five, five, five".

I had a difficult time learning from a book that did many regions simultaneously in different cross-sections of time. I could make my own cross-sectional comparisons after studying each region in entirety, but I could not construct a whole region from what, to me, were a jumble of cross-sectional parts.

The only way to keep the bike from tipping over was to lean far out over the remaining training wheel. The child was justifiably riding at a 30 degree angle to the bike. When I took off the other training wheel to teach her to ride, it took about ten minutes just to get her back to a normal novice's initial upright riding position.

I don't believe she could have ever learned to ride by the father's method. Many people I have taught have taken whole courses in photography that were not structured very well, and my perspective enlightens their understanding in a way they may not have achieved in the direction they were going.

My lecturer did not structure the material for us, and to me the whole thing was an endless, indistinguishable collection of popes and kings and wars. I tried to memorize it all and it was virtually impossible. I found out at the end of the term that the other professor who taught the course to all my friends spent each of his lectures simply structuring a framework in order to give a perspective for the students to place the details they were reading.

He admitted at the end of the year that was a big mistake; students did not learn as well using this structure. I did not become good at organic chemistry. There appeared to be much memorization needed to learn each of these individual formulas. I happened to notice the relationship the night before the midterm exam, purely by luck and some coincidental reasoning about something else. I figured I was the last to see it of the students in the course and that, as usual, I had been very naive about the material.

It turned out I was the only one to see it. I did extremely well but everyone else did miserably on the test because memory under exam conditions was no match for reasoning. Had the teachers or the book simply specifically said the first formula was a general principle from which you could derive all the others, most of the other students would have done well on the test also.

There could be millions of examples. Most people have known teachers who just could not explain things very well, or who could only explain something one precise way, so that if a student did not follow that particular explanation, he had no chance of learning that thing from that teacher.

The structure of the presentation to a particular student is important to learning. In a small town not terribly far from Birmingham, there is a recently opened McDonald's that serves chocolate shakes which are off-white in color and which taste like not very good vanilla shakes. They are not like other McDonald's chocolate shakes.

When I told the manager how the shakes tasted, her response was that the shake machine was brand new, was installed by experts, and had been certified by them the previous week --the shake machine met McDonald's exacting standards, so the shakes were the way they were supposed to be; there was nothing wrong with them. There was no convincing her. After she returned to her office I realized, and mentioned to the sales staff, that I should have asked her to take a taste test to try to distinguish her chocolate shakes from her vanilla ones.

That would show her there was no difference. The staff told me that would not work since there was a clear difference: Unfortunately, too many teachers teach like that manager manages.

They think if they do well what the manuals and the college courses and the curriculum guides tell them to do, then they have taught well and have done their job. What the children get out of it is irrelevant to how good a teacher they are. It is the presentation, not the reaction to the presentation, that they are concerned about. To them "teaching" is the presentation or the setting up of the classroom for discovery or work.

If they "teach" well what children already know, they are good teachers. If they make dynamic well-prepared presentations with much enthusiasm, or if they assign particular projects, they are good teachers, even if no child understands the material, discovers anything, or cares about it. If they train their students to be able to do, for example, fractions on a test, they have done a good job teaching arithmetic whether those children understand fractions outside of a test situation or not. And if by whatever means necessary they train children to do those fractions well, it is irrelevant if they forever poison the child's interest in mathematics.

Teaching, for teachers like these, is just a matter of the proper technique, not a matter of the results. Well, that is not any more true than that those shakes meet McDonald's standards just because the technique by which they are made is "certified". I am not saying that classroom teachers ought to be able to teach so that every child learns. There are variables outside of even the best teachers' control. But teachers ought to be able to tell what their reasonably capable students already know, so they do not waste their time or bore them.

Teachers ought to be able to tell whether reasonably capable students understand new material, or whether it needs to be presented again in a different way or at a different time. And teachers ought to be able to tell whether they are stimulating those students' minds about the material or whether they are poisoning any interest the child might have.

All the techniques in all the instructional manuals and curriculum guides in all the world only aim at those ends. Techniques are not ends in themselves; they are only means to ends. Those teachers who perfect their instructional techniques by merely polishing their presentations, rearranging the classroom environment, or conscientiously designing new projects, without any understanding of, or regard for, what they are actually doing to children may as well be co-managing that McDonald's.

Some of these studies interpreted to show that children do not understand place-value, are, I believe, mistaken. Jones and Thornton explain the following "place-value task": Use your social profile to sign in faster.

Or use your PokerNews account: Bad username or password Sign in. Home Strategy Texas Hold'em Poker. Multiple-Level Thinking in Poker: At What Level Are You? October 06, Matthew Pitt. Online Casinos in Malaysia Turning a Nut Draw After Floating.

Why use a GTO poker strategy?

Leave a Reply