There Is (Probably) No "Best" Way to Play Poker

The title of this article is either transparently true or patently false - depending on your point of view, and the game you're playing.
I think it's more true than false, once we specify the circumstances. In a live, cash game or a multi-table tournament played No-Limit or Pot-Limit, I think it's deeply and importantly true, if not (yet) demonstrably so from a game theoretic perspective.
But, you may differ with me, and that's OK too, since the proof is still a faint hope. Let's take a look and see where we end up.
To keep the topic manageable, we'll stick with Hold'em, although the issue generalizes to all poker games of interesting levels of complexity. (Aside: One reason why some of the "simpler" games like Five-Stud are rarely played anymore is that there are optimal ways to play them and the more skilled players quickly bust the lesser.)
Limit - Heads-Up Play
Here, there likely is a reasonably well-defined strategic approach that approximates optimality. The foundations are based on principles involving the expected value of particular plays marked cards and a recognition of the importance of position, and on inducing probabilistic assessments of one's opponent.
The fully developed strategy isn't known but it has been approximated. We discussed this in two earlier articles on bots. The pride of these silicon-based poker warriors is a bot dubbed Polaris, a very long listing of code that resides on a computer in Edmonton, Alberta.

Phil know a thing or two about Polaris.

Polaris plays superb Limit Hold'em against a single opponent. In fact, it plays better than almost anyone in the world. It has taken on all comers from carbon-based entities to other bots and has won impressively.
So, from a mathematical perspective, the strategic features that have been written into Polaris are closer to the "best" way to play this particular game than anything any human player has developed - so far.
It's important to appreciate that Polaris is a genuine AI (an "artificial intelligence"). It learns. It's programmed with a set of effective initial heuristics, but its success depends on software that allows it to induce a representation of the features of its opponent's play and to make adjustments to them. In short, it doesn't have a "best way" to play; it has a "best way" to adapt.
It's worth noting that this learning feature is so powerful that several of the programmers who worked on Polaris and who play excellently against mere mortals have admitted they cannot beat the beast - even though they wrote the software that it's using.
No-Limit - Heads-Up Play
This game is one step up in complexity from Limit, and there are suggestions that particular strategies are more useful than others.
For example, Daniel Negreanu has developed a primitive approach to this game that is surprisingly effective marked card tricks . It goes like this: Min-raise on the button. If checked to you on the flop, bet two-thirds of the pot. That's it.
It has some interesting effects on opponents. They often get flustered and angry and do things like reraise two or three times the BB, giving you both position on the hand and solid calling odds.
They also often try to play the same game but usually overbet pre-flop again, giving up the opportunity for nuanced play.

Kid Poker's mama didn't raise no fools.

Is it foolproof? Only against a fool, but it makes the point that the game is still sufficiently limited in complexity so that game-theoretic heuristics exist that provide a player with an edge.
But the game is more complex. Loosening the bounds on betting adds a substantial number of variables to the mix and no one has (yet) figured out how to program in a set of workable strategic principles. And, for what it's worth, Polaris doesn't play it.
Limit Hold'em - Full-Ring Game

The computational requirements needed to capture a full-ring game are off the charts, well beyond the capacity of any existing computer.
It isn't just that there are these other opponents whose approach and styles differ from each other, which would be difficult enough to represent. It is that each of these individuals "interacts" with each of the others.
That is, your play (and mine) changes as a reaction to the play of others at the table, whose approach to the game is similarly affected by the play of still others, including you and me. And so forth.
Consequently, the kinds of strategic approaches that Polaris uses cannot be instantiated in any manageable form. And, even if they could, from a pure computational capacity perspective, no one knows what they are so no one knows what code to write.
Of course, there are a bunch of heuristics that have been developed regarding position, hand strength, the impact of the blinds, the role of bluffing and the like. But most good players know them and they are far from algorithmic in nature.
No-Limit - Full-Ring Game
This is the game that Doyle Brunson called, back in the days when the phrase meant something, The Cadillac of Poker. He liked playing it just because it is so deliciously complex and when games get structurally and tactically complex, the psychological elements rise in importance and rules of thumb lose their effectiveness.

There's a best way to play, sonny boy ... MY WAY!

It is for this very reason that there is no best way to play. No-Limit is a not a card game. It is a money game played with cards.
Yes, aggression is important, but it must be scaled back in response to wildly aggressive opponents.
Yes, trapping is effective, but not against players capable of making exceptionally sound reads.
The one element of the game that must be acknowledged is that of position, but since nearly everyone knows this, your knowing it won't help a heck of a lot. No-Limit Hold'em is "interactive," and the shifting dynamic tilts the game beyond the domain of any straightforward strategic approach.
It is a good thing this is true. If there were a best way to play we would all learn it and the game would die.

5 Card Draw Rules and Game Play

Five Card Draw is one of most basic forms of poker, and it's the kind of poker you're used to seeing in movies and on TV.
Because the game has been around for such a long time, and has been played in countless home games and card rooms across the nation, there are a couple different variations on the traditional rules. Below you will find all of the most commonly used rules for playing Five Card Draw.
The game is simple: make the best 5-card poker hand possible after one draw, and bet accordingly. The player with the best hand after the second betting round takes the pot.

Blinds and Antes

There are two main ways to play marked card tricks 5-Card Draw:

1. Ante
2. Blinds

The ante method is the original way the game was played, and is most commonly the system used in home games around the world. In this version each player must pay a predetermined ante before being dealt any cards.
In the second system, the game functions as a blinds game, similar to Texas Hold'em. In a blind game, only the two players to the left of the dealer must pay money before the cards are dealt.
The player to the dealer's immediate left pays the small blind, while the player to the left of the small blind pays the big blind.
Although the blind amounts can be set to any amount you like, the small blind is typically half of the big blind, the big blind being approximately 1/100^th of your total buy-in.

The Deal

Once all players have anted (or the blinds have been paid), the dealer deals every player (starting on his left) five cards face down.
After all players receive their five cards, the first betting round ensues. If you're playing with blinds, the betting will start with the player to the left of the big blind (same as Hold'em), while if you're playing with antes, the betting must start with the player to the left of the dealer.
In an ante game like this, the first player to act is allowed to check (meaning they are not forced to bet, and can choose to stay in the hand for free).
For more information on the rules and specifics of how a betting round functions, head to Texas Hold'em Rules and Game Play marked cards lenses.

The Draw Round

When the betting round completes the draw round begins with the player closest to the dealer's left. Assuming this player hasn't already folded, they have the option of changing any amount of cards they choose.
A player can "stand pat", meaning they keep all five cards, or they can throw away any amount from 1-5 cards, getting them replaced with an equal number of cards from the top of the deck.
In some home-games and rule-sets a player may only exchange up to a maximum of three cards. This rule is typically used only in home-games as it only benefits the weaker players. It is almost never correct to call in the first betting round, only to throw away four or all five of your cards.

The Second Betting Round and Showdown

Once all players have received their new cards, each player must evaluate their hand and proceed to the second (and final) betting round. Once this betting round is completed it's time for the showdown (assuming more than one player still has a hand).
Just like almost every other form of poker, the player with the best 5-card poker hand at showdown wins the pot. Head here for a complete list of poker hand rankings.
Once the showdown is complete, the dealer collects all the cards, and passes the deal on to the player to his left.
If you have any questions or comments, drop them in the comments box below.

Who Really Wins at Poker?

Every poker player is a winning poker player ... to hear them tell it. But how many of these players are telling the truth?
Winning. It's a drumbeat theme on Web sites and poker blogs, and in chat rooms and discussion groups.
I'm active on a couple of these and have invested a lot of time and energy on this topic.
My fellow poker junkies are a knowledgeable and successful gang. A good bit of what follows comes from our discussions, although the opinions expressed are mine.
I expect that not everyone will agree with me. If you take issue, leave a comment. There are few better ways to learn than by having legit, solid disagreements.
The Stakes Matter
First, the stakes being played marked cards for are critical.
This feature so overwhelms all others that we need to break the discussion down into levels - where "level" refers to cash, not skill.
You can find excellent players at the lowest stakes and truly horrible players at the highest.
Second, private house games are different from games in licensed cardrooms, live play is different from online poker play, and short-handed play is different from full-ring games.
For this essay, I'm restricting myself to ring games played live in a brick-and-mortar casino or cardroom with a dealer hired by the house.
The other settings have a host of basic differences that force a different kind of discussion - which we can have some other time.
Lowest Levels: Limitations of Low-Limit
Here I'm thinking of the lowest stakes routinely played, from the 50¢/$1 Texas Holdem Limit games (although games this small are rare), through the more frequently spread $1/$2 Limit, to the popular $2/$4 games.
An awful lot of folks play at this level of poker.
I suspect that maybe as many as 80% to 85% of all regular poker players never venture above it.
There aren't any No-Limit games spread these days that, in my mind, qualify.
The least costly that's commonly found is $1/$2 with a maximum buy-in of $100, which is certainly not at the "lowest" level.
I am quite certain that, among these legions of regulars, there are no long-term winners.
None, ningunos, net, keine.
This game essentially cannot be beaten on anything like a long-term basis. The problem is the natural variation in the game (i.e., "luck"), plus a host of other factors.
These include the rake - usually between $3 and $5 (although some rooms are now raking $6) per hand - the dealer's toke and, as is often the case in these lower-limit games, a "bad beat" jackpot.
Combined, these costs mean that up to $8 is taken out of every pot. In a $1/$2 game this amounts to 4BBs an hour.
Winning 1 or 2 BB/hour under these conditions would be a glorious but essentially unreachable goal and, even if you were sufficiently skilled to pull this off, the gas, food and waitress tokes will flatline you.
These lowest-level games marked cards lenses are for recreational players only. If you play here and are only losing a little, which I interpret as 1SB an hour or less, you should be very pleased with yourself and happy.
You're having a great time playing a fabulous game with friends and compatriots, and it's costing you less than dinner at a decent restaurant or a movie for two at the local Cineplex.
Life is good.
Low to Mid-Levels: The Five Percenters
Here I include Limit games from $4/$8 up to $10/$20 or perhaps $15/$30, and No-Limit games with blinds of $1/$2 provided that the maximum buy-in is no more than $200.
At these levels it is possible to be a long-term, consistent winner, but it is a tough row to hoe.
As in the above games, the rake, tokes and bad beat jackpots present a nearly insurmountable barrier.
It's difficult to see how one can play with +Expected Value at this level.
My guess is that fewer than 5% of the people who routinely play at these levels in legitimate cardrooms are making money.
Yes, a few whose skills are near to top of the game, with good bankroll management and nonexistent tilt factor, are clearing 1 or perhaps 2BB a hour.
But they are rare creatures.
Mid- to Semi-High Levels: The True Pros Emerge
These games run from $20/$40 to $80/$160 Limit and $ 2/$5 to $10/$20 No-Limit.
At these levels, things change. My estimate is that between 10% or 15% of regulars in these games are long-term winners (it could be a tad more; it's hard to tell).
The impact of the rake is lessened at these stakes, but the critical factor is that it is at this level that you first find regular "contributors" - folks with a lot of money and a lot of gamble in 'em.
Regular gamblers who routinely shoot craps with black chips and play blackjack with purples like to play poker too, but they don't get any zip out of playing at lower levels.
They are rarely sufficiently skilled to present much of a problem to the experts and, as a result, provide the profit margin.
Not surprisingly, it's at this level that the true poker professional first shows up.
High Stakes: Preying on the Rich
I'm counting as high stakes anything above the previous levels.
Here, things shift once more. My educated guess is that well over half of the players are longtime winners.
As with the preceding category, this is mainly because they feed off a (smaller but reliable) stable of well-heeled contributors.
There are a lot of millionaires who love action - you would likely recognize some of their names.
They are often good players and might do well at lower levels, but prefer to play with the very best.
Without these folks, the top players would just move money around and around the table.
A common guesstimate is that only about 5% of all regular players are long-term winners.
This is probably correct, but you need to appreciate that these players are distributed unevenly throughout the levels at which poker is played.