A casino is kind of intimidating. Even though I have played about three dozen times at eight different card rooms, I still feel nervous walking into a casino. I'm doing something (Gambling! Temptation leading to ruination and hell-fire!) that my inner-prude does not approve of. Excitement mixed with guilt - much like I felt in my youth when I screwed up the courage to buy a girlie magazine. Maybe this is part of the reason I enjoy going to card rooms, to have that long forgotten feeling return.
There are positive and negative consequence to being fearful. Fear makes you cautious, less likely to make a bad call because you are concentrating on the possible negative outcome rather than hoping for the positive outcome. The fearful player is on high alert - all your primal survival instincts are activated and you are more likely to pick up on danger signs a less attentive player would miss.
Unfortunately the negative aspects of fear out-weigh the benefits. Being in a fearful state means that instinct rather than logic is guiding your actions.
Let me give you an example of how I let my fear lead me to make a very bad and costly decision: I had been playing at a somewhat tight table of $1/$2 NLHE for an hour when a maniac sat down and started betting and raising everything. He stole a few pots before the table caught on that he was going to play pretty much every hand like a game of chicken, so everyone loosened up in the hopes of hitting a decent hand and getting paid off. Rather than back off, the maniac just stepped on the gas even harder betting 20 times the big blind pre-flop almost every hand. The table loosened up even more and suddenly everything was completely insane. The maniac had lost the $300 he had brought to the table, bought another $300 and lost that in about fifteen minutes, and with a smile like this was the most fun he ever had he bought another $300 in chips. I was way to scared to play! I knew any hand I played I had to be prepared to take to a showdown, I had to be prepared to pay a minimum of $40 just to see a flop. I was in middle position when I was dealt AK of hearts. The maniac was down to $65 again, and he pushed it all-in from early position. Another very loose player (let's call him Scott, because that was his name.) called ahead of me. Scott had also been losing and re-buying, and after his $65 call he had only another $100 in chips left. My turn to act. I have about $180 in chips. What do I do? The best thing would be to push all in. AKs is a good hand, but only if you can see all five board cards, so just calling would mean I'd be putting myself in a tough spot if I miss the flop. Scott has been playing ultra-aggressively and would certainly put his last $100 into the pot if he didn't see an Ace or King hit, knowing I'm scared and would fold. True there is only about a 50% chance I will hit a king or ace or heart flush, but if Scott calls (a probability) then I've a 50% shot at pot I've put less than half the chips into - and that's if Scott or the maniac are holding a pocket pair. If either or both of the have Ace-something then I'm a big favourite. My pot odds get even better if someone behind me calls too. Clearly the superior move, the logical move, is to go all-in. But I'm too scared. All these huge bets have turned me into coward and I don't have the courage to put all my chips in. And, even worse, I don't have the common sense to fold a hand I won't raise with. I do the worst possible thing because I let my emotion dictate my action - I call.
The three of us see the flop: 9c 2d 4h. As expected Scott goes all-in. Of course I should probably call with my Ace high, Scott was going all-in with anything here, but I'm way too chicken to make that call. I fold. With no more betting possible, the Maniac and Scott flip their cards over. The Maniac has pocket 8's. Scott has J6 of hearts (seriously?!). The turn and river are both hearts and Scott hits a runner-runner flush that would have been crushed by my nut flush had I not been to afraid to play that hand properly.
It's ok to be afraid, but make sure you keep it in check. Small amounts of fear are even beneficial if you can recognize and over-ride your impulses with logic. But when you feel too scared to play well, then it's best to just step away from the table. There is no shame in recognizing your limitations. You have to do this, in fact, before you can find a way to conquer your fear and become a better player.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
When You're Beat, You're Beat
No matter how good your hand is, you have to let it go if you think you are beat. That means if you have an ace high flush and the there are two pair on the board, if you bet the pot and an opponent comes over the top on you, you'd better believe he has a full house. Your flush is as worthless as any two rags and as hard as it is, you have to lay them down.
This is one of the most difficult parts of the game; learning to make tough laydowns. Sometimes you know you are beat but it's just so hard to fold a nice hand! If this is a problem you have, then you must learn to take pride in your good folds. Donks want to be known for making hero calls and hero bluffs. You are not a donk. You want to be known for making great laydowns.
Yesterday I made the best pre-flop fold I have ever made in my life.
I brought $200 to a $1/$2 NLHE table. I had barely sat down when on my second or third hand I was dealt pocket kings. There was a straddle on board with one caller, so I raised it $10 (anymore would get too much attention) and the fellow on my left re-raised to $25. Sweet! The small blind, who only had about $60 called. What to do? There is only one hand I am afraid of, and the odds of being dealt AA are less than half of one percent, so I'm confident I'm ahead and it's time to punish these undisciplined louts. I make it $100 to go, committing half my stack, and I'm hoping that someone calls. However the guy on my left does not call - he goes all in with about $300. I should be elated, but instead I am filled with the cold certainty that this guy has the pocket aces. I don't care if the odds are 221 to 1 against it - I think a decent player (and I've played this guy before - he's very good) doesn't re-raise a bet 50 times the big blind with anything but AA. The guy in the small blind calls with the remaining $40 or so he has - whatever.
I think this guy has aces, but am I really going to fold pocket kings pre-flop? I don't think I've folded this hand pre-flop in my life, but I am convinced I am behind. I fold. As there can be no more betting, I show my kings. Lefty nods and says "great fold" and turns over the black aces. The guy in the small blind shows ace-king off, which means had I called I would have only a single king to hit. The dealer lays out the hand and there are no miracle flushes or straight to save the guy with AK. I thank the poker gods that the last king didn't show up either - that would have been hard to swallow.
So. I lost half my stack, but I didn't lose all of it. And I did gain something else - Respect. Knowing that I was now seen as a very disciplined player meant that the others really didn't want to tangle with me too much. I knuckled down and three hours later I had grown my remaining $100 to $330, leaving the table with a $130 profit. How did I do that? I played unbelievably tight, disciplined poker and I basically scared the crap out of everyone when I did enter a pot.
But even if hadn't made that comeback, the important thing is that I laid down a monster hand when I knew it was beat.
This is one of the most difficult parts of the game; learning to make tough laydowns. Sometimes you know you are beat but it's just so hard to fold a nice hand! If this is a problem you have, then you must learn to take pride in your good folds. Donks want to be known for making hero calls and hero bluffs. You are not a donk. You want to be known for making great laydowns.
Yesterday I made the best pre-flop fold I have ever made in my life.
I brought $200 to a $1/$2 NLHE table. I had barely sat down when on my second or third hand I was dealt pocket kings. There was a straddle on board with one caller, so I raised it $10 (anymore would get too much attention) and the fellow on my left re-raised to $25. Sweet! The small blind, who only had about $60 called. What to do? There is only one hand I am afraid of, and the odds of being dealt AA are less than half of one percent, so I'm confident I'm ahead and it's time to punish these undisciplined louts. I make it $100 to go, committing half my stack, and I'm hoping that someone calls. However the guy on my left does not call - he goes all in with about $300. I should be elated, but instead I am filled with the cold certainty that this guy has the pocket aces. I don't care if the odds are 221 to 1 against it - I think a decent player (and I've played this guy before - he's very good) doesn't re-raise a bet 50 times the big blind with anything but AA. The guy in the small blind calls with the remaining $40 or so he has - whatever.
I think this guy has aces, but am I really going to fold pocket kings pre-flop? I don't think I've folded this hand pre-flop in my life, but I am convinced I am behind. I fold. As there can be no more betting, I show my kings. Lefty nods and says "great fold" and turns over the black aces. The guy in the small blind shows ace-king off, which means had I called I would have only a single king to hit. The dealer lays out the hand and there are no miracle flushes or straight to save the guy with AK. I thank the poker gods that the last king didn't show up either - that would have been hard to swallow.
So. I lost half my stack, but I didn't lose all of it. And I did gain something else - Respect. Knowing that I was now seen as a very disciplined player meant that the others really didn't want to tangle with me too much. I knuckled down and three hours later I had grown my remaining $100 to $330, leaving the table with a $130 profit. How did I do that? I played unbelievably tight, disciplined poker and I basically scared the crap out of everyone when I did enter a pot.
But even if hadn't made that comeback, the important thing is that I laid down a monster hand when I knew it was beat.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Oh, Vanity! Oh, Cuteness!
....oh, where did all my chips go?
I sometimes think the game that poker most resembles is rock, paper, scissors - except that instead of three objects there are three thousand different things that beat each other in different ways. Spark plugs beat paper clips but cell phones beat spark plugs. Coffee pots beat parking tickets which beat alarm clocks which beat...well, you get the idea. Your style of play may work against certain types of opponents, but be disastrous against others. The great poker players are the ones who can tell a can opener from a gas pedal and change themselves from a D-cell battery into a bowl of guacamole.
I came into the poker room in the perfect mind-state; calm and confident - but instead of allowing caution to temper my confidence I let my ego take over and become cocky and cute. Then I became broke. I wont bore you with a card-by-card retelling. I simply under-estimated an opponent. He suckered me. How did he do it? How did he convince me he was a moron when in fact he was a genius? He simply looked up at the TV nearest our table and said, "There is a new Harold and Kumar movie coming out? Sweet!".
Now I ask you, is there a poker player in the world who upon hearing those words would not be convinced that the speaker (who, by the way, was drinking chocolate milk and resembled Alfred E. Newman) would soon be busted out? I certainly thought so and I eagerly waited to see how many of his chips would end up in front of me. The problem was that Alfred turned out to be the best poker player I have ever played against. He is amazing. And at the time I could not admit he was better than I because, well, he said that thing about Harold and Kumar so obviously he is an idiot. An idiot who got all my chips.
In retrospect I think Alfred is simply a type of player I have not developed an effective counter-strategy for yet. So, while I lick my wounds I hope I have learned something that will make me a better player down the road.
We'll meet again Mr. Newman.
I sometimes think the game that poker most resembles is rock, paper, scissors - except that instead of three objects there are three thousand different things that beat each other in different ways. Spark plugs beat paper clips but cell phones beat spark plugs. Coffee pots beat parking tickets which beat alarm clocks which beat...well, you get the idea. Your style of play may work against certain types of opponents, but be disastrous against others. The great poker players are the ones who can tell a can opener from a gas pedal and change themselves from a D-cell battery into a bowl of guacamole.
--------
I came into the poker room in the perfect mind-state; calm and confident - but instead of allowing caution to temper my confidence I let my ego take over and become cocky and cute. Then I became broke. I wont bore you with a card-by-card retelling. I simply under-estimated an opponent. He suckered me. How did he do it? How did he convince me he was a moron when in fact he was a genius? He simply looked up at the TV nearest our table and said, "There is a new Harold and Kumar movie coming out? Sweet!".
Now I ask you, is there a poker player in the world who upon hearing those words would not be convinced that the speaker (who, by the way, was drinking chocolate milk and resembled Alfred E. Newman) would soon be busted out? I certainly thought so and I eagerly waited to see how many of his chips would end up in front of me. The problem was that Alfred turned out to be the best poker player I have ever played against. He is amazing. And at the time I could not admit he was better than I because, well, he said that thing about Harold and Kumar so obviously he is an idiot. An idiot who got all my chips.
In retrospect I think Alfred is simply a type of player I have not developed an effective counter-strategy for yet. So, while I lick my wounds I hope I have learned something that will make me a better player down the road.
We'll meet again Mr. Newman.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
The ITBSMCTBPA trick
I didn't invent this trick, but I witnessed someone using it once to great effect and I have used it more than once myself. I call it the "I'm too busy stacking my chips to be paying attention" trick.
Here is how it works. Whenever I have just won a really big pot I let myself talk about how happy -or lucky- I am. I send the message that I'm just some shlub who doesn't play a lot of poker and gee I'm really happy I won this big pot. I really take my time gathering, sorting and stacking my chips and I pay no attention to the cards dealt for the next hand until its my turn to act. Usually I have rags and I muck them and that's that. If, however, I have been dealt strong cards I will bet them with a kind "whatever" attitude. The message I hope to send is that I just won all these chips so I'm gonna gamble now because I can afford to lose. I go right back to sorting my chips and I don't even look up until the flop is dealt.
I try to give out a "yeah, sure - I'm here to gamble vibe" and it is surprising how often this works. Opponents often do not give me credit for actually having a hand and call bets they would normally fold to.
It takes some acting, but not much since I really am happy and excited about winning that last pot - it's more just looking distracted until the point comes that I do the "gee - I guess I should be paying attention here" act. This usually involves me checking my hole cards again ( message: I am so distracted I can't remember what I have) before playing the hand out.
So there you go. That's the ITBSMCTBPA trick. Try it sometime.
And be careful that someone doesn't try it on you.
Here is how it works. Whenever I have just won a really big pot I let myself talk about how happy -or lucky- I am. I send the message that I'm just some shlub who doesn't play a lot of poker and gee I'm really happy I won this big pot. I really take my time gathering, sorting and stacking my chips and I pay no attention to the cards dealt for the next hand until its my turn to act. Usually I have rags and I muck them and that's that. If, however, I have been dealt strong cards I will bet them with a kind "whatever" attitude. The message I hope to send is that I just won all these chips so I'm gonna gamble now because I can afford to lose. I go right back to sorting my chips and I don't even look up until the flop is dealt.
I try to give out a "yeah, sure - I'm here to gamble vibe" and it is surprising how often this works. Opponents often do not give me credit for actually having a hand and call bets they would normally fold to.
It takes some acting, but not much since I really am happy and excited about winning that last pot - it's more just looking distracted until the point comes that I do the "gee - I guess I should be paying attention here" act. This usually involves me checking my hole cards again ( message: I am so distracted I can't remember what I have) before playing the hand out.
So there you go. That's the ITBSMCTBPA trick. Try it sometime.
And be careful that someone doesn't try it on you.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Donkey Gets Greedy, Donkey Gets Punched.
"Donkey gets greedy, donkey gets punched" is a mantra and a reminder. It is also the title of a really good short story by Steve Almond. I was involved in a good donkey-punching yesterday when I was dealt 2-4 off suit in the big blind in a $1-$2 NLHE game. Six guys limped in and I saw the flop for free: 3c 5d 9c.
I bet $10 and the guy under the gun, who is critically short-stacked, goes all-in with his last $35. He gets one caller and it folds back to me. With $95 in the pot, I'm getting good pot odds so I put in the $25 difference. The turn brings an ace (not of clubs), giving me the straight. I bet $100 and the third player folds. The all-in guy shows pocket jacks. The river is a blank and I scoop up a $120 pot that took almost no skill on my part to win.
What happened? Mr. Fish-hooks got greedy and got punched. With JJ he sould have made a decent raise pre-flop instead of just limping and letting hands like 2 4 off into the action. He was greedy, hoping to build the pot up before taking it. If you want to buid the pot, do it by raising. It would be better to bet $10, get one caller and then have just one hand to beat post-flop than limping, getting six callers and having six hands to beat.
I bet $10 and the guy under the gun, who is critically short-stacked, goes all-in with his last $35. He gets one caller and it folds back to me. With $95 in the pot, I'm getting good pot odds so I put in the $25 difference. The turn brings an ace (not of clubs), giving me the straight. I bet $100 and the third player folds. The all-in guy shows pocket jacks. The river is a blank and I scoop up a $120 pot that took almost no skill on my part to win.
What happened? Mr. Fish-hooks got greedy and got punched. With JJ he sould have made a decent raise pre-flop instead of just limping and letting hands like 2 4 off into the action. He was greedy, hoping to build the pot up before taking it. If you want to buid the pot, do it by raising. It would be better to bet $10, get one caller and then have just one hand to beat post-flop than limping, getting six callers and having six hands to beat.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Monkeys and Ninjas
In the middle of a losing session at the Casino I made a remark about how much easier it was to play against monkeys and ninjas than against real people. I was just trying to loosen myself and the others up a bit, but this one guy turn to me with a very serious expression.
"Never play on-line poker," he admonished me. "It will ruin your live game."
I have given a lot of thought to that remark. There is something to it, but at the same time internet poker is a way to get a lot of experience in a relatively short period of time. Annette Obrestad, a twenty two year old Norwegian on-line phenom, claimed she played more hands of poker than Doyle Brunson. For anyone who has been playing for six years to say they have seen more hands than a professional with over sixty years experience seems ridiculous, but when you realize that on-line poker sees about four times as many hands per hour than live poker and then factor in that some players are able to play as many as ten tables simultaneously then it doesn't seem so far fetched.
The one big worry I have is that playing on-line I don't worry about physical tells. I let myself express happiness and anger without fear that others can get a read on me. This is the greatest danger in playing live after playing Card_Monkey69 and pokerninja1985. Pursed lips and furrowed brows can be deadly if your opponent can make a guess at the thoughts behind them.
The one big myth I'd like to explode is that live poker for money is much tighter than on-line poker for money. I disagree. I have played about the same amount of $1-$2 NLHE in both the real and virtual worlds, and in my opinion the on-line game is significantly tighter. I think this is because it easier to be patient on-line, where the next hand is one minute away, than in live poker where you have to wait much longer. I know a lot of people disagree with me, but that's the way I see it.
"Never play on-line poker," he admonished me. "It will ruin your live game."
I have given a lot of thought to that remark. There is something to it, but at the same time internet poker is a way to get a lot of experience in a relatively short period of time. Annette Obrestad, a twenty two year old Norwegian on-line phenom, claimed she played more hands of poker than Doyle Brunson. For anyone who has been playing for six years to say they have seen more hands than a professional with over sixty years experience seems ridiculous, but when you realize that on-line poker sees about four times as many hands per hour than live poker and then factor in that some players are able to play as many as ten tables simultaneously then it doesn't seem so far fetched.
The one big worry I have is that playing on-line I don't worry about physical tells. I let myself express happiness and anger without fear that others can get a read on me. This is the greatest danger in playing live after playing Card_Monkey69 and pokerninja1985. Pursed lips and furrowed brows can be deadly if your opponent can make a guess at the thoughts behind them.
The one big myth I'd like to explode is that live poker for money is much tighter than on-line poker for money. I disagree. I have played about the same amount of $1-$2 NLHE in both the real and virtual worlds, and in my opinion the on-line game is significantly tighter. I think this is because it easier to be patient on-line, where the next hand is one minute away, than in live poker where you have to wait much longer. I know a lot of people disagree with me, but that's the way I see it.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Math + Psychology = Poker
A couple of posts back I talked about playing medium and small pocket pairs. I said that if you missed the flop with these hands you should not continue on: "no set, not bet." I am now going to contradict myself and say that sometimes you can profitably continue playing such a hand, but your success will depend largely on the read of your opponent.
Once, playing $1-$2 NLHE, I was dealt pocket fours in early position. I believe I had established a tight table image, so I put in a raise that I thought might win the pot right there $15. I got called by the one player I feared the most, Mr. Cool (that's what I called him in my head anyway) a fellow who always seemed to win every pot he played. Everyone else folded. The pot was $33 and the flop was something like Kc 7h 5h. I checked and he fired out $30 and I quickly re-raised to $100. He thought long and hard before folding. "Nice bet," he said as the dealer push the pot towards me. I hope I didn't look too relieved.
So, on the face of it this look like a pretty dumb bluff on my part, but I had a good reasons for playing the hand the way I did. Some reasons were psychological, some math based. Whenever you are heads up to see the flop, chances are that the flop will not improve your hand. The good news is that the flop probably won't help your opponent either. I wasn't just hoping Mr. Cool didn't have a king, I knew it was mathematically unlikely.
When he called my pre-flop raise, I put him on a pretty narrow range AA, KK, QQ, JJ, 10 10, 99, AK, AQ, AJ. Had the flop contained an ace instead of the king, I would have not put another penny into the pot. I figured it was a 50-50 chance he had an ace-something. Actually, if my read on his range was correct, then there was a greater than 50% chance he had the ace. Remember my last post? There are 6 different combinations that make each pocket pair - so there are 6 combinations that make AA. There are 16 combinations that make AK, so 48 different combinations that make AK, AQ or AJ. In total that is 54 possible combinations for the range I put him on that give him an ace and only 30 that don't (6 each for KK, QQ, JJ, 10 10 and 99) so if an ace hits the flop I have to think it's likely I'm behind AND there is little chance I can push him off the pot. Of course at the time I couldn't do these calculations in my head, but the point of my writing this now (and you reading this now) is to give us a feel for the math so we can make better guesses when the time comes.
So I feel better about continuing with a king-high flop. If I could have done the math at the table, I would have found there were only 22 combinations on his range that included a king (16 for AK and 6 for KK) plus 6 for AA (which, obviously, he would not fold) out of a total 84 combinations. So if I strongly represent a king, it is likely I'll take down the pot. Even if I'm not ahead, I can still push him off hands like QQ, JJ and 10 10 if he is convinced I have a king.
I thought a check-raise would be more effective than a straight continuation bet for purely psychological reasons. A continuation bet might be seen as an attempt to buy the pot, whereas a check raise is much less expected. It has the big benefit of rewarding me with a $63 pot instead of a $33 pot, and should win against everything but AA, AK, KK or one of those "invisible" sets.
It worked for me that time, partially because my tight image had Mr.Cool convinced I had lucked out on the flop and hit the king. But try it too often and sooner or later your opponent will come back at you. So be careful
Once, playing $1-$2 NLHE, I was dealt pocket fours in early position. I believe I had established a tight table image, so I put in a raise that I thought might win the pot right there $15. I got called by the one player I feared the most, Mr. Cool (that's what I called him in my head anyway) a fellow who always seemed to win every pot he played. Everyone else folded. The pot was $33 and the flop was something like Kc 7h 5h. I checked and he fired out $30 and I quickly re-raised to $100. He thought long and hard before folding. "Nice bet," he said as the dealer push the pot towards me. I hope I didn't look too relieved.
So, on the face of it this look like a pretty dumb bluff on my part, but I had a good reasons for playing the hand the way I did. Some reasons were psychological, some math based. Whenever you are heads up to see the flop, chances are that the flop will not improve your hand. The good news is that the flop probably won't help your opponent either. I wasn't just hoping Mr. Cool didn't have a king, I knew it was mathematically unlikely.
When he called my pre-flop raise, I put him on a pretty narrow range AA, KK, QQ, JJ, 10 10, 99, AK, AQ, AJ. Had the flop contained an ace instead of the king, I would have not put another penny into the pot. I figured it was a 50-50 chance he had an ace-something. Actually, if my read on his range was correct, then there was a greater than 50% chance he had the ace. Remember my last post? There are 6 different combinations that make each pocket pair - so there are 6 combinations that make AA. There are 16 combinations that make AK, so 48 different combinations that make AK, AQ or AJ. In total that is 54 possible combinations for the range I put him on that give him an ace and only 30 that don't (6 each for KK, QQ, JJ, 10 10 and 99) so if an ace hits the flop I have to think it's likely I'm behind AND there is little chance I can push him off the pot. Of course at the time I couldn't do these calculations in my head, but the point of my writing this now (and you reading this now) is to give us a feel for the math so we can make better guesses when the time comes.
So I feel better about continuing with a king-high flop. If I could have done the math at the table, I would have found there were only 22 combinations on his range that included a king (16 for AK and 6 for KK) plus 6 for AA (which, obviously, he would not fold) out of a total 84 combinations. So if I strongly represent a king, it is likely I'll take down the pot. Even if I'm not ahead, I can still push him off hands like QQ, JJ and 10 10 if he is convinced I have a king.
I thought a check-raise would be more effective than a straight continuation bet for purely psychological reasons. A continuation bet might be seen as an attempt to buy the pot, whereas a check raise is much less expected. It has the big benefit of rewarding me with a $63 pot instead of a $33 pot, and should win against everything but AA, AK, KK or one of those "invisible" sets.
It worked for me that time, partially because my tight image had Mr.Cool convinced I had lucked out on the flop and hit the king. But try it too often and sooner or later your opponent will come back at you. So be careful
Saturday, September 17, 2011
A Little Math Trick
You are in a tournament and have made the final table; nine players are left all with roughly the same amount of chips. One of your opponents, Jimmy, is a tight player you feel you have a great read on.
While sitting in middle position you are dealt QQ and you open the betting with a wager three times the big blind. Jimmy, on your left, pushes all in and everyone else folds. From your experience you are certain that Jimmy is holding either AA, KK or AK. If you call and he has rockets or cowboys, you are probably looking at a ninth place finish. If you call and he has AK, you are a slight favourite to become the chip leader- an upside that would make you take the gamble if you thought he was likely to have AK. So what do you do?
On the face of it, the answer seems to be "fold". If Jimmy has either AA, KK or AK, then that means there is a 2 out of 3 chance he has AA or KK, right?
Well, no. Actually it is more likely he has AK.
Let's do the math: There are 6 possible combinations of cards out of the deck that give him AA:
While sitting in middle position you are dealt QQ and you open the betting with a wager three times the big blind. Jimmy, on your left, pushes all in and everyone else folds. From your experience you are certain that Jimmy is holding either AA, KK or AK. If you call and he has rockets or cowboys, you are probably looking at a ninth place finish. If you call and he has AK, you are a slight favourite to become the chip leader- an upside that would make you take the gamble if you thought he was likely to have AK. So what do you do?
On the face of it, the answer seems to be "fold". If Jimmy has either AA, KK or AK, then that means there is a 2 out of 3 chance he has AA or KK, right?
Well, no. Actually it is more likely he has AK.
Let's do the math: There are 6 possible combinations of cards out of the deck that give him AA:
Ac Ah, Ad As, As Ah, As Ac, Ah Ad, Ad Ac
There are 6 possible combinations of cards in the deck that give KK:
Kc Kh, Kd Ks, Ks Kh, Ks Kc, Kh Kd, Kd Kc
However there are 16 combinations of cards that give Jimmy AK:
Ac Kc, Ac Kd, Ac Ks, Ac Kh
Ad Kc, Ad Kd, Ad Ks, Ad Kh
As Kc, As Kd, As Ks, As Kh
Ah Kc, Ah Kd, Ah Ks, Ah Kh
Of 28 different combinations of cards that give Jimmy AA, KK or AK 16 of them make the AK and only 12 make an over pair to your QQ. There is a 57% chance you are ahead of Jimmy right now.
Whether or not you decide it is a worthwile call, the point is to remember when calculating your chances against the various hands in your opponents range that the odds of being dealt any two specific cards of different ranks is much greater than the odds of being dealt a specific pair.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Small and Medium Pocket Pairs
In a game like $1-$2 No Limit Hold'em, the difference between a winning session and a losing session usually comes down to one or two big pots you won or lost. I like playing small and medium pocket pairs because they provide me the opportunity to win a big pot with a smaller risk of losing a big pot.
It is difficult to discuss how to play any hand because, as always. so much depends on the read you have on your opponents. Still, small and medium pocket pairs are among the more straight-forward hands to play, which is another reason I like them. Or maybe that's the same reason. Whatever. The point is that I will gladly call a pre-flop raise of four times the big blind (or more!) holding only pocket threes if the conditions are right.
What are theses conditions? Well for starters it helps to have a tight table image. If you are very selective about the hands you play, the other players should notice. When they have you pegged as a tight player, they are less likely to put you on something like pocket threes and therefore you increase the chance they will pay you off. So I'm less likely to play a small pocket pair just after joining a table - better to wait until you've established that tight image.
Another important factor is stack size: both my own and that of the opponent(s) I will see the flop with. If I am in a $1-$2 game with 3-3, and a guy in front of me raises it to $10, then he had better have at least another $100 in chips left for me to proceed. Remember the whole point is to win a big pot, so if your opponent is short stacked then calling him doesn't make sense. The only time such a call makes sense is when you are confident that a loose player with a larger stack behind you will also call.
If in the above example my own stack is less than $100, that too will limit my potential reward enough that I should not play the hand - a good example of why it is not good to play with a stack of less than fifty big blinds in a ring game.
Perhaps the most important condition to consider when playing small and medium pair is how loose your opponent is. The looser he or she is, the better the chance of a pay off. If you have seen this opponent go all-in after the flop with an over pair, or top pair-ace kicker, you know you are in better shape to be paid off if you hit your set. So, the looser the opponent the better.
Which leads us to the next condition: position. Obviously it is an advantage to play from late position as you can see which players, and more importantly how many players, are interested in seeing the flop. Ideally you want to see the flop against several opponents because then if you hit your set it is much more likely one of them will also have hit a hand they can't get away from, and that's when the big pay offs happen.
Which is not to say you should not play small and medium pairs from early position. If I am dealt small pocket pairs in an early position, I will often enter the pot with a modest raise. Everyone says that you should try to see the flop as cheaply as possible with speculative hands, which is why I wouldn't limp in - a raise from early position, combined with a tight image, sends out a message that I'm on a stronger hand and therefore I'm much less likely to have someone re-raise and push me out before the flop. My father called this move The Pre-Emptive Strike and I'm a big fan of it. If you raise the same amount from early position whether you have pocket threes or pocket aces it makes it difficult for your opponents to guess what you have.
Those are some of the things I consider before I play small and medium pairs.
After the flop it should obvious to you whether or not continue. The rule is simply "no set, no bet". This a great thing about a hand like 33 - it is very easy to fold after a flop like A 10 9. Holding a "better" hand like A J might get you into a lot of trouble with a flop like that! If the stars align (as they will do 12% of the time) and the flop brings a third 3, you are now in great shape, and the other sucker holding two pair or an over pair is in danger of losing his stack or doubling you up.
Of course this whole post is a gross over simplification. Hitting a set is no guarantee of winning. I trust you have enough brains in your head to know a set of threes is probably worthless when after turn there are four hearts on the board and your opponent seems very happy.
Use your own judgement. I'm just telling you what I find works for me. If you find you consistently lose more than you win with small and medium pairs then it could be that this particular strategy just doesn't work with your style of play. But you may also find it works very well.
You are on your own.
It is difficult to discuss how to play any hand because, as always. so much depends on the read you have on your opponents. Still, small and medium pocket pairs are among the more straight-forward hands to play, which is another reason I like them. Or maybe that's the same reason. Whatever. The point is that I will gladly call a pre-flop raise of four times the big blind (or more!) holding only pocket threes if the conditions are right.
What are theses conditions? Well for starters it helps to have a tight table image. If you are very selective about the hands you play, the other players should notice. When they have you pegged as a tight player, they are less likely to put you on something like pocket threes and therefore you increase the chance they will pay you off. So I'm less likely to play a small pocket pair just after joining a table - better to wait until you've established that tight image.
Another important factor is stack size: both my own and that of the opponent(s) I will see the flop with. If I am in a $1-$2 game with 3-3, and a guy in front of me raises it to $10, then he had better have at least another $100 in chips left for me to proceed. Remember the whole point is to win a big pot, so if your opponent is short stacked then calling him doesn't make sense. The only time such a call makes sense is when you are confident that a loose player with a larger stack behind you will also call.
If in the above example my own stack is less than $100, that too will limit my potential reward enough that I should not play the hand - a good example of why it is not good to play with a stack of less than fifty big blinds in a ring game.
Perhaps the most important condition to consider when playing small and medium pair is how loose your opponent is. The looser he or she is, the better the chance of a pay off. If you have seen this opponent go all-in after the flop with an over pair, or top pair-ace kicker, you know you are in better shape to be paid off if you hit your set. So, the looser the opponent the better.
Which leads us to the next condition: position. Obviously it is an advantage to play from late position as you can see which players, and more importantly how many players, are interested in seeing the flop. Ideally you want to see the flop against several opponents because then if you hit your set it is much more likely one of them will also have hit a hand they can't get away from, and that's when the big pay offs happen.
Which is not to say you should not play small and medium pairs from early position. If I am dealt small pocket pairs in an early position, I will often enter the pot with a modest raise. Everyone says that you should try to see the flop as cheaply as possible with speculative hands, which is why I wouldn't limp in - a raise from early position, combined with a tight image, sends out a message that I'm on a stronger hand and therefore I'm much less likely to have someone re-raise and push me out before the flop. My father called this move The Pre-Emptive Strike and I'm a big fan of it. If you raise the same amount from early position whether you have pocket threes or pocket aces it makes it difficult for your opponents to guess what you have.
Those are some of the things I consider before I play small and medium pairs.
After the flop it should obvious to you whether or not continue. The rule is simply "no set, no bet". This a great thing about a hand like 33 - it is very easy to fold after a flop like A 10 9. Holding a "better" hand like A J might get you into a lot of trouble with a flop like that! If the stars align (as they will do 12% of the time) and the flop brings a third 3, you are now in great shape, and the other sucker holding two pair or an over pair is in danger of losing his stack or doubling you up.
Of course this whole post is a gross over simplification. Hitting a set is no guarantee of winning. I trust you have enough brains in your head to know a set of threes is probably worthless when after turn there are four hearts on the board and your opponent seems very happy.
Use your own judgement. I'm just telling you what I find works for me. If you find you consistently lose more than you win with small and medium pairs then it could be that this particular strategy just doesn't work with your style of play. But you may also find it works very well.
You are on your own.
Friday, September 9, 2011
The Roll is Over
The beginning of the end was when I blew up my on-line bankroll.
Next, I played in a home game (for the first time at my house) and being a generous host I refused to take any of my guest's money. My wife is far more rude. We played three quick tournament style games and the missus won two and came in second in the third. It would be unbecoming for me to complain of the outrageous bad beats and plain bad luck I suffered that night. That would be unseemly. But even when you lose in a home game you usually have a lot of fun. This time the comedy was supplied by the men - fairly experienced players - who seemed to always be the first to be knocked out while the women in attendance did the best. My friend Eric salvaged some of the male pride by winning the last tourney. I won't mention the manner in which he knocked me out of that game. I am a better man than to talk about that.
The last nail in the coffin was when I visited the casino a few days ago. I took half of my small bankroll and lost just about all of it.
Winning streaks and losing streaks are part of poker. The trick is not to loose everything whenever things go south. Yes my bankroll is half of what it was a week ago, but it is infinitely larger than the nothing it was two months ago. I will just have to buckle down and rebuild.
(cue the Chumbawumba)
Next, I played in a home game (for the first time at my house) and being a generous host I refused to take any of my guest's money. My wife is far more rude. We played three quick tournament style games and the missus won two and came in second in the third. It would be unbecoming for me to complain of the outrageous bad beats and plain bad luck I suffered that night. That would be unseemly. But even when you lose in a home game you usually have a lot of fun. This time the comedy was supplied by the men - fairly experienced players - who seemed to always be the first to be knocked out while the women in attendance did the best. My friend Eric salvaged some of the male pride by winning the last tourney. I won't mention the manner in which he knocked me out of that game. I am a better man than to talk about that.
The last nail in the coffin was when I visited the casino a few days ago. I took half of my small bankroll and lost just about all of it.
Winning streaks and losing streaks are part of poker. The trick is not to loose everything whenever things go south. Yes my bankroll is half of what it was a week ago, but it is infinitely larger than the nothing it was two months ago. I will just have to buckle down and rebuild.
(cue the Chumbawumba)
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Watch You Mouth
At a casino, discussing a hand in play that you are not involved in is a strict no-no. In a home game, openly speculating on who has what might be part of the fun (If it is a very friendly game that no-one is too serious about) but things are more serious at a casino. By saying what you think somebody has you are effectively giving advice to the players still in the hand. This is beyond bad etiquette - it is against the rules.
At the casino yesterday I witnessed a had where two players went all the way to the river. Mr.Hair-Gel was betting as if he had a strong hand - bets of two-thirds the pot on both the flop and the turn. Mr.Loosey-Goosey was just calling and I (and probably everyone else at the table) suspected he was on the flush draw. The river brought a third club to the board and some idiot who was not in the hand turned to Mr.Hair-Gel and said. "You've been rivered!"
This is a bad thing to do. Basically, this moron was telling Hair-Gel how to play his hand. One of the most basic rules of poker is that each player has to make independent decisions. Getting help is cheating and offering opinions is forbidden. Both players in the hand I witnessed hand every right to be upset, but Hair-Gel said in a remarkably calm voice, "You can not comment on hands you are not involved in, Sir." I found this odd if only because Mr. Loosey-Goosey was the one who was being negatively effected by the comment, but I guess the sting of falling behind on the river made Hair-Gel testy.
Play resumed with a noticeable new chill in the air. The idiot behaved himself from then on, but had he continued to break this rule I have no doubt he would have been told to leave.
If you are thinking about making the leap from home games to the casino remember to never talk about what you think other people are holding. Even if you are in the hand, it is only acceptable if you are playing against a single opponent. Saying what you think one player has is giving information to the third player in the hand - and this is every bit as bad as commenting on hands you are not involved in.
At the casino yesterday I witnessed a had where two players went all the way to the river. Mr.Hair-Gel was betting as if he had a strong hand - bets of two-thirds the pot on both the flop and the turn. Mr.Loosey-Goosey was just calling and I (and probably everyone else at the table) suspected he was on the flush draw. The river brought a third club to the board and some idiot who was not in the hand turned to Mr.Hair-Gel and said. "You've been rivered!"
This is a bad thing to do. Basically, this moron was telling Hair-Gel how to play his hand. One of the most basic rules of poker is that each player has to make independent decisions. Getting help is cheating and offering opinions is forbidden. Both players in the hand I witnessed hand every right to be upset, but Hair-Gel said in a remarkably calm voice, "You can not comment on hands you are not involved in, Sir." I found this odd if only because Mr. Loosey-Goosey was the one who was being negatively effected by the comment, but I guess the sting of falling behind on the river made Hair-Gel testy.
Play resumed with a noticeable new chill in the air. The idiot behaved himself from then on, but had he continued to break this rule I have no doubt he would have been told to leave.
If you are thinking about making the leap from home games to the casino remember to never talk about what you think other people are holding. Even if you are in the hand, it is only acceptable if you are playing against a single opponent. Saying what you think one player has is giving information to the third player in the hand - and this is every bit as bad as commenting on hands you are not involved in.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Don't be a Statistic
Gambling addiction has been shown to be linked to depression, divorce and suicide. I say “linked to” rather than “the cause of” because there is always a difficulty in determining causal relationships. Does one gamble because one is depressed? Is one depressed because one gambles? All I can say is that there is a link. According David Phillips, a sociology professor at the University of California at San Diego, the suicide rate in Las Vegas is 60% higher than in an average American city of the same size. Las Vegas, in his words, has the highest suicide rate in the United States. Suicide rates in Atlantic City are 42% higher in the years after gambling was legalized there than they were when gambling was illegal.(1)
This is, of course, not the kind of thing that the tourist board likes to talk about. They like to show pictures of people having a good time. In fact the gambling industry funded another study by the University of California, Irvine that -surprise!- shows no appreciable difference in the suicide rates of Las Vegas and other American cities(2)
Before you sit down to play any game of chance, including poker, you have to know the odds. Now not every gambling addict plays poker, and not every poker player is a gambling addict, but I think there is a slippery slope to be conscious of.
Being deeply in debt is a major contributing factor to suicide. A 2002 joint study by the University of Hong Kong and Melbourne University focused on the causes of financial debt of those who committed suicide in the city of Hong Kong, and found that gambling was the leading cause. The following chart was taken from the study:
Table 1
Main Causes of Debt Associated With Suicides
Causes of debt
Gambling 33.8 %
Business difficulties/Failed business 11.4 %
Overconsumption of goods and services 7.6 %
Residential rent 7.2 %
Investment losses 5.5 %
Overcommitted mortgage 4.1 %
Buying illegal drugs 2.4 %
Unable to meet basic living expenses 2.1 %
Unemployment 1.4 % (3)
Getting hard facts and figures is hard but I’m pretty sure more than one person who has lost everything playing poker has decided to cash in his chips.
Be careful. Monitor yourself. Seek help if you feel things slipping away.
(1) Christian Century; 01/28/98, Vol. 115 Issue 3, p77, 4/9p
(2) Industry engages suicide debate. By: Bhatt, Rob, Las Vegas Business Press, 10/12/98, Vol. 15, Issue 41
(3) Journal of Applied Social Psychology December 1, 2007
Saturday, September 3, 2011
My On-Line Down Fall
Friends, I come before you a shameful man. I have sinned in the eyes of the Poker Gods and I have ignored my our good advice and the council of my bankroll manager (my wife). I allowed the excitement, the rush, to overrule my common sense and it has led to the devastation of my on line bankroll. Here is the sad story.
Just two weeks ago I signed up with 888 poker and received $8 for doing so. I started out with the intention of just playing the 2 cent tables and building the bankroll. And that is just what I did for the first week, building it up to $24. Then I started straying up to the 5 cent tables, and while the results were inconsistent, I still was winning. Two days ago my on-line balance was $57.
Then yesterday I went nuts. I took $30 - a majority of my bankroll- to a table where the big blind was 30 cents .I played very well, and got a bit lucky. After two hours at this table I had turned that $30 into $99. My on line bankroll was now $126. But did I stop? Did I quit while I was ahead? Yes I did! I stopped. I turned the computer off. I took a shower. I swore to myself I was not going to play poker for the rest of the day. I fed the dogs. Then turned the computer back on. Took $120 to a table where the big blind was $1. And I lost it all in five minutes.
Stupid. Dumb. Idiotic.
Please people. Do as I say, not as I do.
I swear, if it takes me ten years I will build this $6 into $126.
Back to the 2 cent tables!
Just two weeks ago I signed up with 888 poker and received $8 for doing so. I started out with the intention of just playing the 2 cent tables and building the bankroll. And that is just what I did for the first week, building it up to $24. Then I started straying up to the 5 cent tables, and while the results were inconsistent, I still was winning. Two days ago my on-line balance was $57.
Then yesterday I went nuts. I took $30 - a majority of my bankroll- to a table where the big blind was 30 cents .I played very well, and got a bit lucky. After two hours at this table I had turned that $30 into $99. My on line bankroll was now $126. But did I stop? Did I quit while I was ahead? Yes I did! I stopped. I turned the computer off. I took a shower. I swore to myself I was not going to play poker for the rest of the day. I fed the dogs. Then turned the computer back on. Took $120 to a table where the big blind was $1. And I lost it all in five minutes.
Stupid. Dumb. Idiotic.
Please people. Do as I say, not as I do.
I swear, if it takes me ten years I will build this $6 into $126.
Back to the 2 cent tables!
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
On a Roll: Part 3
I forgot to mention that my last trip to the casino saw my magic bankroll grow again. I'm not sure what purpose all my ranting about the table Nazi served, other than just allowing me to vent. Thank you, gentle reader, for listening.
For those of you keeping score, I took $120 to the casino and left with $405 - a very good day.
I have often thought back to that game in Jay's when I hit a three outer on the river. That one lucky moment when this crazy roll began.
For those of you keeping score, I took $120 to the casino and left with $405 - a very good day.
I have often thought back to that game in Jay's when I hit a three outer on the river. That one lucky moment when this crazy roll began.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Meet the Table Nazi
There are lots of rules to playing poker live and each casino has their own rules. At some places you are not allowed to show another player your hole cards - even if you are mucking and the player is not in the hand. One casino might have a rule against wearing a hoodie (seriously!) - another might not allow you to come back to the same table you left without exactly the same amount of chips you left with until 45 minutes have elapsed.
I think it is up to the players to know the casino rules and it is up to the dealers and floor managers to enforce them. Some players, however, think it is their job to tell everyone else what to do. These are the table Nazi's and they come in all shapes and sizes.
On my last trip to the casino I met a table Nazi. This one decided to assume the human form of busty young woman in tight clothes and over sized sunglasses. She was over bearing, arrogant and told everybody how they should behave. I don't know if behavior like this is designed to put other people off their games. Maybe sometimes it is. In this particular case she seemed like a genuine asshole.
Also at the table was a young Asian guy who I had seen at the casino a lot. For some reason the Nazi seemed to be making the Asian kid her main target, needling him when ever he lost a big pot. The kid was sitting directly on her left, so maybe she was trying to goad him into making bad calls. After an hour of this, the kid moved to an open seat on the other side of the table. Fifteen minutes after that the seat on his right came open and the Nazi moved beside him! I could see the kid was very uncomfortable and kind of felt sorry for him, but I guess it is part of the game. What soon happened, however, was just plain bad manners.
The kid was on the big blind when it limped to him. The dealer must have thought he checked because he started to deal the flop when the kid said, "Wait! I want to raise!"
"Oh, sorry, I thought you checked." said the dealer, who had not yet dealt the flop.
"No, I was still thinking. I want to raise it $30."
"It too late!" screeched the Nazi, "You tapped the table! You checked!"
A big argument breaks out as to whether or not this is a legal bet. The dealer decides to let the kid's raise stand, which makes the Nazi fume. Everyone folds to her in the small blind, and she says "Screw you, asshole! I call."
As the dealer starts to deal the flop she says, "If I so much as hit a pair I'm pushing all in, you lousy bastard!"
The board looks harmless: 9h 6d 3c
"All in!" she snaps.
The kid looks miserable. She has bet about $200 into pot of about $70. After agonizing for a minute he calls and shows AK suited.
"Two pair!" yells the Nazi, showing her 3c 6c. "YEAH!" The turn and river bring no help to the kid, who cuts $200 out of his stack.
"The only thing better than doubling up with 3-6, is doing through an angle-shooter like you!" ,and then she actually gives him a little shove! If she were anything but some hot chick that poker nerds are afraid to talk to there would be no way she would get away with that kind of shit. If a dude said and did those things he would have been punched.
Asian guy was now on major tilt and lost the last of his chips to me a couple hands later when I flopped a set of aces. He made a very bad call to me - one he would never have made if the Nazi had not got under his skin.
If you ever find yourself getting mad at a player do not let it effect your game. Easier said than done, I know, but if you can't keep your desire for revenge in check then move to another table, or take a long break.
I think it is up to the players to know the casino rules and it is up to the dealers and floor managers to enforce them. Some players, however, think it is their job to tell everyone else what to do. These are the table Nazi's and they come in all shapes and sizes.
On my last trip to the casino I met a table Nazi. This one decided to assume the human form of busty young woman in tight clothes and over sized sunglasses. She was over bearing, arrogant and told everybody how they should behave. I don't know if behavior like this is designed to put other people off their games. Maybe sometimes it is. In this particular case she seemed like a genuine asshole.
Also at the table was a young Asian guy who I had seen at the casino a lot. For some reason the Nazi seemed to be making the Asian kid her main target, needling him when ever he lost a big pot. The kid was sitting directly on her left, so maybe she was trying to goad him into making bad calls. After an hour of this, the kid moved to an open seat on the other side of the table. Fifteen minutes after that the seat on his right came open and the Nazi moved beside him! I could see the kid was very uncomfortable and kind of felt sorry for him, but I guess it is part of the game. What soon happened, however, was just plain bad manners.
The kid was on the big blind when it limped to him. The dealer must have thought he checked because he started to deal the flop when the kid said, "Wait! I want to raise!"
"Oh, sorry, I thought you checked." said the dealer, who had not yet dealt the flop.
"No, I was still thinking. I want to raise it $30."
"It too late!" screeched the Nazi, "You tapped the table! You checked!"
A big argument breaks out as to whether or not this is a legal bet. The dealer decides to let the kid's raise stand, which makes the Nazi fume. Everyone folds to her in the small blind, and she says "Screw you, asshole! I call."
As the dealer starts to deal the flop she says, "If I so much as hit a pair I'm pushing all in, you lousy bastard!"
The board looks harmless: 9h 6d 3c
"All in!" she snaps.
The kid looks miserable. She has bet about $200 into pot of about $70. After agonizing for a minute he calls and shows AK suited.
"Two pair!" yells the Nazi, showing her 3c 6c. "YEAH!" The turn and river bring no help to the kid, who cuts $200 out of his stack.
"The only thing better than doubling up with 3-6, is doing through an angle-shooter like you!" ,and then she actually gives him a little shove! If she were anything but some hot chick that poker nerds are afraid to talk to there would be no way she would get away with that kind of shit. If a dude said and did those things he would have been punched.
Asian guy was now on major tilt and lost the last of his chips to me a couple hands later when I flopped a set of aces. He made a very bad call to me - one he would never have made if the Nazi had not got under his skin.
If you ever find yourself getting mad at a player do not let it effect your game. Easier said than done, I know, but if you can't keep your desire for revenge in check then move to another table, or take a long break.
Monday, August 22, 2011
On a Roll: Part 2
The week after my lucky win at Jay's garage, my buddy Lee invited me to a home game at Wally's - not a tourney, just a ring game with 50 cent/25 cent blinds and $20 buy in. Hellzya. My wife and sister-in-law joined in too and seven of us played a very friendly game for about four hours.
The most interesting hand came when five players limped in and saw a flop of: Ad 9c 3c. Flops like these often create a lot of action as anyone with an ace will bet heavy to protect against the flush, and any one with the flush or wheel draw might semi-bluff. This is particularly true in home games, where everyone is having fun and chasing more than normal.
Weirdly, it check around to my sister-in-law, Liz, on the button. Liz made a small bet and got two callers. After the turn, the board looked very flushy: Ad 9c 3c 2c. With three people still in the hand it checked around to Liz again and she made another smallish bet. Lee called, Ramone folded.
The river brought yet another club. Now the board looked like this: Ad 9c 3c 2c Ac. Very interesting. "Who had the highest club?" someone asked. Lee thought it might be him, so he bet half the pot only so have Liz put a big re-raise on him. Lee thought quite a while before calling with Jc 9h. Liz turned over Ah 2h for the full house. At first I was stunned that she would chase a runner-runner boat with an obvious flush draw on the board, but when I replayed the hand it made much more sense. Liz only bet when everyone else checked to her, so after the flop she thought it was probable her pair of aces was ahead. She didn't like the club on the turn, even though it gave her two pair, but once again nobody bet so she thought she was probably still ahead. The river was a dream card - filling the boat for her while filling the flush for Lee, and she made a perfect value bet.
I have to say that this hand, and the way Liz played it, illustrates the power of position very well.
When the night ended Liz had mad a tidy profit, as did my wife, and I was happy to be $42 up myself.
Add it to the bankroll.
The most interesting hand came when five players limped in and saw a flop of: Ad 9c 3c. Flops like these often create a lot of action as anyone with an ace will bet heavy to protect against the flush, and any one with the flush or wheel draw might semi-bluff. This is particularly true in home games, where everyone is having fun and chasing more than normal.
Weirdly, it check around to my sister-in-law, Liz, on the button. Liz made a small bet and got two callers. After the turn, the board looked very flushy: Ad 9c 3c 2c. With three people still in the hand it checked around to Liz again and she made another smallish bet. Lee called, Ramone folded.
The river brought yet another club. Now the board looked like this: Ad 9c 3c 2c Ac. Very interesting. "Who had the highest club?" someone asked. Lee thought it might be him, so he bet half the pot only so have Liz put a big re-raise on him. Lee thought quite a while before calling with Jc 9h. Liz turned over Ah 2h for the full house. At first I was stunned that she would chase a runner-runner boat with an obvious flush draw on the board, but when I replayed the hand it made much more sense. Liz only bet when everyone else checked to her, so after the flop she thought it was probable her pair of aces was ahead. She didn't like the club on the turn, even though it gave her two pair, but once again nobody bet so she thought she was probably still ahead. The river was a dream card - filling the boat for her while filling the flush for Lee, and she made a perfect value bet.
I have to say that this hand, and the way Liz played it, illustrates the power of position very well.
When the night ended Liz had mad a tidy profit, as did my wife, and I was happy to be $42 up myself.
Add it to the bankroll.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Free $8
Most on-line sites will offer people a bonus when they make their first deposit. At 888 Poker, they will give you $8 just for downloading their software. If you have been playing play money poker, this is a good chance to try out the real money game at a micro-stakes level; I recommend playing at the 1 cent/2cent tables to get a taste for it. Even at this lowest possible level, you will probably find the competition is much stiffer than the play money games. I have played about three hours at these tables and have managed to grind out 25 cents.
$8 might not seem like a lot, but if you are good and very, very patient you can build it up. Check it out at http://www.888poker.com/
Just remember - nothing is really free. In this case the good folks at 888 are hoping that you like their site enough to deposit a little more, which is fine, but don't deposit any more than you can afford to lose, okay?
$8 might not seem like a lot, but if you are good and very, very patient you can build it up. Check it out at http://www.888poker.com/
Just remember - nothing is really free. In this case the good folks at 888 are hoping that you like their site enough to deposit a little more, which is fine, but don't deposit any more than you can afford to lose, okay?
Saturday, August 20, 2011
On a Roll: Part1
Rolls. Rushes. Lucky streaks. When you are on a heater you forget about those long stretches where you could not catch a break. Just like when you are are on a losing streak and wonder if you will ever win again, when you you are on a winning streak it is easy to let yourself get carried away. I've been on a winning streak and I don't have to tell you how good it feels. I'm trying not to let it go to my head.
I had not played poker for nearly a month when my friend Bradley called to say some buddies of his had a game going and asked if I wanted to join in. Well, yeah! I love home games. Even if you lose you usually have a good time. There were nine guys at his friends' garage - we didn't have a table big enough to seat us all so a small square table was pushed beside a big round table. Playing in a garage at mismatched tables is, in my opinion, what poker is all about. Although I have said you should not drink and play poker, I make exceptions for games like this - just make sure you do not drink more than anyone else.
We played a knockout tourney. $10 to enter and $5 bounties. Every one started with 40 chips and the blinds were raised each time someone got knocked. Most of the guys seemed quite solid, but there were a couple maniacs. I sat back and waited for good cards, but the good cards never came. One by one players got knocked out and the blinds increased but I couldn't find a hand to play and I was afraid to bluff because, well, some of these guys did not fold much. We were down to four players when I had to play - after putting 12 chips into the big blind I only had 6 chips left. I thought I might get a pass when the first two folded, but Nick in the small blind raised. I had not even looked at my cards but I called. I had J 10 - a big favourite over Nick's J 4, and I took the pot down. On the very next hand I was dealt J 10 again (surely a sign from God!) and again Nick raised me. I made a big mistake and went all in. I guess I was still on a high from my double up. It was a dumb move. The others folded and Nick called - this time he had me over a barrel with A J. I found a miracle 10 on the river, and suddenly found I had a decent stack of chips. Thirty minutes later I won the tournament.
Looking back I realize I was very lucky to have survived that one boneheaded play.
My first place plus two bounties netted me $80 and I decided to try and build this $80 up by playing good smart poker. This was my new bankroll. I had taken a break from poker, but now I was back.
I had not played poker for nearly a month when my friend Bradley called to say some buddies of his had a game going and asked if I wanted to join in. Well, yeah! I love home games. Even if you lose you usually have a good time. There were nine guys at his friends' garage - we didn't have a table big enough to seat us all so a small square table was pushed beside a big round table. Playing in a garage at mismatched tables is, in my opinion, what poker is all about. Although I have said you should not drink and play poker, I make exceptions for games like this - just make sure you do not drink more than anyone else.
We played a knockout tourney. $10 to enter and $5 bounties. Every one started with 40 chips and the blinds were raised each time someone got knocked. Most of the guys seemed quite solid, but there were a couple maniacs. I sat back and waited for good cards, but the good cards never came. One by one players got knocked out and the blinds increased but I couldn't find a hand to play and I was afraid to bluff because, well, some of these guys did not fold much. We were down to four players when I had to play - after putting 12 chips into the big blind I only had 6 chips left. I thought I might get a pass when the first two folded, but Nick in the small blind raised. I had not even looked at my cards but I called. I had J 10 - a big favourite over Nick's J 4, and I took the pot down. On the very next hand I was dealt J 10 again (surely a sign from God!) and again Nick raised me. I made a big mistake and went all in. I guess I was still on a high from my double up. It was a dumb move. The others folded and Nick called - this time he had me over a barrel with A J. I found a miracle 10 on the river, and suddenly found I had a decent stack of chips. Thirty minutes later I won the tournament.
Looking back I realize I was very lucky to have survived that one boneheaded play.
My first place plus two bounties netted me $80 and I decided to try and build this $80 up by playing good smart poker. This was my new bankroll. I had taken a break from poker, but now I was back.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
The Self-Awarness Theory of Poker
Poker used to be an old man's game, but now it is dominated by men in their twenties. Lots of people explain this as a reflection of how the young men are naturally more aggressive than their mellower elders, and aggression translates into success at poker. While I agree with this generalization, I don't think it provides a complete explanation why these kids are doing so well.
A private theory I have is that young people are more self-conscious; they are keenly aware of how others perceive them, and this greater self-awareness is at least as important as aggression when it comes to winning at poker. Young people are still "finding themselves" - trying different fashions, life-styles, friends and even trying different moral codes and belief systems. All the while they are "finding themselves" they are monitoring what other people think of them, usually trying to impress certain people and annoy certain people. When young people play poker, that part of their brain that detects how others think about them is more alert.
Old people, the ones who found themselves long ago, don't really give a rat's ass what others think of them. They have stopped monitoring the reactions others have to them. They just don't care.
Old people. Well, we've seen it all haven't we? From our years of experience we've learned to categorize poker opponents into groups an employ different styles depending on what group the opponent falls into. This works fine in general, but it leaves us open to unexpected plays - perhaps from an observant young guy who can change gears on us.
Experience is wonderful, but it can actually be a liability if you just keep doing the same things that have always worked for you. Like it or not, you have to keep adjusting your game - if you don't then don't be surprised if a kid who doesn't look old enough to drive takes all your chips.
Don't let your experience make you complacent.
A private theory I have is that young people are more self-conscious; they are keenly aware of how others perceive them, and this greater self-awareness is at least as important as aggression when it comes to winning at poker. Young people are still "finding themselves" - trying different fashions, life-styles, friends and even trying different moral codes and belief systems. All the while they are "finding themselves" they are monitoring what other people think of them, usually trying to impress certain people and annoy certain people. When young people play poker, that part of their brain that detects how others think about them is more alert.
Old people, the ones who found themselves long ago, don't really give a rat's ass what others think of them. They have stopped monitoring the reactions others have to them. They just don't care.
Old people. Well, we've seen it all haven't we? From our years of experience we've learned to categorize poker opponents into groups an employ different styles depending on what group the opponent falls into. This works fine in general, but it leaves us open to unexpected plays - perhaps from an observant young guy who can change gears on us.
Experience is wonderful, but it can actually be a liability if you just keep doing the same things that have always worked for you. Like it or not, you have to keep adjusting your game - if you don't then don't be surprised if a kid who doesn't look old enough to drive takes all your chips.
Don't let your experience make you complacent.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Pick Up Your Poker Game
Book Review:
Pick Up Your Poker Game
by Adam Slutsky
2011, Turner Publishing
Pick Up Your Poker Game by Adam Slutsky will hit the bookstores sometime next month. It is a slim paperback that according to the dust jacket will benefit you “Whether you’re a seasoned pro or a bare-bones beginner.” Such something-for-everybody pronouncements are usually a sign that the book will contain a lot vague generalities - and such is the case with Pick Up Your Poker Game. While I’m neither a pro or a beginner, I did glean a few bits of useful advice. Unfortunately most of what is written here is common knowledge to all but the most novice player, and what advanced advice he gives on aggressive play would be dangerous for a beginner to try.
Let’s start with the positive. Slutsky does a good job explaining why the aggressive approach is often best - something I’ve heard many times but had never had explained to me. By focusing on the importance of getting information from your opponents, Slutsky rightly rejects the passive approach because it does not force your opponent to make decisions - providing you with no valuable information. But I don’t think a novice player really has the ability to use this information well - or even understand it. I fear the beginning player will come away from this book trying to play the aggressive style without knowing how to do so effectively.
The book is organized into 52 short chapters - each one a specific piece of advice. While I like this approach, I have to say that the central idea of each chapter gets lost in sentences that spiral off hither and yon. Slutsky, primarily a magazine contributor, seems to have had difficulty “padding out” each chapter to three or four pages. I would have preferred him to say what he had to say in clear, simple prose. For example, where a good writer would have written “If you are worried your eyes are giving you away, wear sunglasses” Slutsky chooses to write “However, for those players who cannot hide their “retinal emotions,” the protection that darkened shields provide is invaluable.” Huh? Such purple prose is both annoying and distracting. He frequently repeats himself - not to drive home an important point but to fleash out what should have been a series of four magazine articles into a book. All the good points he makes get lost in the “one wishing to maximize one’s financial returns at the green felt would do well to” and “conversely, simply taking the opposite approach will not necessarily yield positive results.” Blah, blah, blah. I had visions of Ernest Hemingway rising from the grave and beating Adam Slutsky to death.
For all this I might still have been able to give this book a qualified reccomendation were it not for chapter 29: Beware the Player Who Has Nothing to Lose where Slutsky gives very bad advice - that you should avoid playing at a table where some nut is taking every hand to a showdown. That’s exactly the table you should play at! Slutsky makes his case by telling the story of some shlub who takes too much of his bankroll to a $25/$50 game and gets all in with AA only to be beaten by some fool playing a garbage hand. Slutsky thinks this story illustrates that one should avoid playing against maniacs. He should have used this story to illustrate the importance of bankroll management. It is foolish to avoid playing against maniacs - ultimately they loose more than they win and you should always put yourself in the position to take some of their losses. You are putting the law of averages on your side.
Worth a read if you are willing to pick and choose what to believe and what to reject but with so many better poker books out there, why bother?
Pick Up Your Poker Game
by Adam Slutsky
2011, Turner Publishing
Pick Up Your Poker Game by Adam Slutsky will hit the bookstores sometime next month. It is a slim paperback that according to the dust jacket will benefit you “Whether you’re a seasoned pro or a bare-bones beginner.” Such something-for-everybody pronouncements are usually a sign that the book will contain a lot vague generalities - and such is the case with Pick Up Your Poker Game. While I’m neither a pro or a beginner, I did glean a few bits of useful advice. Unfortunately most of what is written here is common knowledge to all but the most novice player, and what advanced advice he gives on aggressive play would be dangerous for a beginner to try.
Let’s start with the positive. Slutsky does a good job explaining why the aggressive approach is often best - something I’ve heard many times but had never had explained to me. By focusing on the importance of getting information from your opponents, Slutsky rightly rejects the passive approach because it does not force your opponent to make decisions - providing you with no valuable information. But I don’t think a novice player really has the ability to use this information well - or even understand it. I fear the beginning player will come away from this book trying to play the aggressive style without knowing how to do so effectively.
The book is organized into 52 short chapters - each one a specific piece of advice. While I like this approach, I have to say that the central idea of each chapter gets lost in sentences that spiral off hither and yon. Slutsky, primarily a magazine contributor, seems to have had difficulty “padding out” each chapter to three or four pages. I would have preferred him to say what he had to say in clear, simple prose. For example, where a good writer would have written “If you are worried your eyes are giving you away, wear sunglasses” Slutsky chooses to write “However, for those players who cannot hide their “retinal emotions,” the protection that darkened shields provide is invaluable.” Huh? Such purple prose is both annoying and distracting. He frequently repeats himself - not to drive home an important point but to fleash out what should have been a series of four magazine articles into a book. All the good points he makes get lost in the “one wishing to maximize one’s financial returns at the green felt would do well to” and “conversely, simply taking the opposite approach will not necessarily yield positive results.” Blah, blah, blah. I had visions of Ernest Hemingway rising from the grave and beating Adam Slutsky to death.
For all this I might still have been able to give this book a qualified reccomendation were it not for chapter 29: Beware the Player Who Has Nothing to Lose where Slutsky gives very bad advice - that you should avoid playing at a table where some nut is taking every hand to a showdown. That’s exactly the table you should play at! Slutsky makes his case by telling the story of some shlub who takes too much of his bankroll to a $25/$50 game and gets all in with AA only to be beaten by some fool playing a garbage hand. Slutsky thinks this story illustrates that one should avoid playing against maniacs. He should have used this story to illustrate the importance of bankroll management. It is foolish to avoid playing against maniacs - ultimately they loose more than they win and you should always put yourself in the position to take some of their losses. You are putting the law of averages on your side.
Worth a read if you are willing to pick and choose what to believe and what to reject but with so many better poker books out there, why bother?
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Don't Pull a "Hewitt"
They had started with over six thousand players. On day eight, they had finally gotten it down to ten. The next player out would be forgotten, while the remaining nine would become celebrities...for the next four months anyway...so the play was tight and cautious. In situations like this it is often simply the first person to make a mistake that gets knocked out, and in the end that is exactly what happened - John Hewitt made a bad decision.
Up until that point Hewitts play on day eight had been very disciplined. The day had started with twenty-two men playing on three different tables. The feature table is designed to seat nine people comfortably, but when they got down to ten players the decision was made to make them all play at the same table. It would be more dramatic and much more television-friendly that way. As they moved all the remaining players together, Hewitt who was the short stack, commented that he liked his chances of cracking the top nine because he was "the tightest player at the table." This selective approach worked well for Hewitt at first and he climbed from tenth spot up to seventh when for some reason he decided to throw caution to wind and got punished for it.
Here is how the hand went down. It was level 36 and the big blinds and antes amounted to a pot of 1.15 million before the cards were even dealt. John Hewitt, with 13.72 million in chips remaining, looked down at his hole cards and saw king-queen off suit; a border-line hand, but he had been playing so cautiously that he must have figured that a raise here would likely win him the pot as the other players would certainly give him some credit. So Hewitt made a pot sized bet of 1.1 million; big enough to look very serious, yet leaving himself enough chips that he could fold if someone came back with a big re-raise.
The action folded to Badih Bounahra, who was in tenth place at that moment and happened to have been dealt pocket kings. Bounahra made a big show over his decision, pretending to agonize over what he should do. This play-acting, while an important part of the deceptive nature of poker, draws a lot of criticism from some people and is often derisively referred to as "hollywooding". ESPN commentator Phil Helmuth certainly thought Bounahra's acting was very transparent, saying such blatant hollywooding should be a clear signal he had a monster hand. The two minute performance ended with Bounahara pushing his entire 9.1 million in chips into the pot.
Hewitt thought for a moment then called. He showed little reaction when Bounahara flipped over his kings. Bounahara was a 90% favourite to win that hand and win it he did, going up to 19.95 million in chips. Hewitt had only 4.12 million left - less than half of what the player in ninth spot had. Hewitt was so far behind that he would need a miracle run to make it into the November Nine and that didn't happen. He was knocked out shortly thereafter.
Clearly Hewitt should have known his KQo was an underdog to ANY hand that Bounahara would be willing to go all-in with. Later, when asked why he called, Hewitt explained that he felt "the range of hands he (Bounahara) could have had included pocket jacks down to pocket eights. I was hoping I was up against something like that." Let's examine this sentence because, I believe, it perfectly illustrates the kind of bad thinking that even a very successful player can fall victim to. Firstly it contains the word "hope" - a word you hear poker losers use a lot. There is a word for people who find themselves making bad calls because they hope their opponent is playing the bottom end of his range. That word is "donkey". Hewitt made a donkey call. What makes it worse is that even if Hewitt's dream came true and Bounahara had something like 77, Hewitt would still be a slight underdog with a 48% chance to win. Why make a call when the best case scenario still has you slightly behind?
Some would say the 2.25 million in the pot gave Hewitt proper pot odds to call if he knew he was up against an under-pair, and that might be true if this hand occurred in a ring game, but this hand occurred when the penalty for losing the hand was to seriously cripple your chances of making the November Nine; a downside so big that it would be stupid to call. Which is not to say Hewitt is stupid but that he just made a stupid call.
John Hewitt will almost certainly never have a better chance to make the final table at the WSOP main event. For the rest of his life he will have to think about the one donkey call. The rest of us can learn from his mistake and hopefully never repeat it.
Up until that point Hewitts play on day eight had been very disciplined. The day had started with twenty-two men playing on three different tables. The feature table is designed to seat nine people comfortably, but when they got down to ten players the decision was made to make them all play at the same table. It would be more dramatic and much more television-friendly that way. As they moved all the remaining players together, Hewitt who was the short stack, commented that he liked his chances of cracking the top nine because he was "the tightest player at the table." This selective approach worked well for Hewitt at first and he climbed from tenth spot up to seventh when for some reason he decided to throw caution to wind and got punished for it.
Here is how the hand went down. It was level 36 and the big blinds and antes amounted to a pot of 1.15 million before the cards were even dealt. John Hewitt, with 13.72 million in chips remaining, looked down at his hole cards and saw king-queen off suit; a border-line hand, but he had been playing so cautiously that he must have figured that a raise here would likely win him the pot as the other players would certainly give him some credit. So Hewitt made a pot sized bet of 1.1 million; big enough to look very serious, yet leaving himself enough chips that he could fold if someone came back with a big re-raise.
The action folded to Badih Bounahra, who was in tenth place at that moment and happened to have been dealt pocket kings. Bounahra made a big show over his decision, pretending to agonize over what he should do. This play-acting, while an important part of the deceptive nature of poker, draws a lot of criticism from some people and is often derisively referred to as "hollywooding". ESPN commentator Phil Helmuth certainly thought Bounahra's acting was very transparent, saying such blatant hollywooding should be a clear signal he had a monster hand. The two minute performance ended with Bounahara pushing his entire 9.1 million in chips into the pot.
Hewitt thought for a moment then called. He showed little reaction when Bounahara flipped over his kings. Bounahara was a 90% favourite to win that hand and win it he did, going up to 19.95 million in chips. Hewitt had only 4.12 million left - less than half of what the player in ninth spot had. Hewitt was so far behind that he would need a miracle run to make it into the November Nine and that didn't happen. He was knocked out shortly thereafter.
Clearly Hewitt should have known his KQo was an underdog to ANY hand that Bounahara would be willing to go all-in with. Later, when asked why he called, Hewitt explained that he felt "the range of hands he (Bounahara) could have had included pocket jacks down to pocket eights. I was hoping I was up against something like that." Let's examine this sentence because, I believe, it perfectly illustrates the kind of bad thinking that even a very successful player can fall victim to. Firstly it contains the word "hope" - a word you hear poker losers use a lot. There is a word for people who find themselves making bad calls because they hope their opponent is playing the bottom end of his range. That word is "donkey". Hewitt made a donkey call. What makes it worse is that even if Hewitt's dream came true and Bounahara had something like 77, Hewitt would still be a slight underdog with a 48% chance to win. Why make a call when the best case scenario still has you slightly behind?
Some would say the 2.25 million in the pot gave Hewitt proper pot odds to call if he knew he was up against an under-pair, and that might be true if this hand occurred in a ring game, but this hand occurred when the penalty for losing the hand was to seriously cripple your chances of making the November Nine; a downside so big that it would be stupid to call. Which is not to say Hewitt is stupid but that he just made a stupid call.
John Hewitt will almost certainly never have a better chance to make the final table at the WSOP main event. For the rest of his life he will have to think about the one donkey call. The rest of us can learn from his mistake and hopefully never repeat it.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The 2011 WSOP Main Event: November Nine Set
We now know who the nine men who will battle for the title of world champion are, and with seven different nations being represented it truly is a world championship. Unfortunately Canada is not one of those countries, as Calgarian Khoa Nguyen was knocked out in eleventh spot. The nine (with chip counts) who will be returning in November to duke it out are:
1 Martin Staszko. Trinec , Czech Republic (40,175,000)
2 Eoghan O'Dea. Dublin, Ireland (33,925,000)
3 Matt Giannetti. Las Vegas, Nevada (24,750,000)
4 Phil Collins. Las Vegas, Nevada (23,875,000)
5 Ben Lamb. Tulsa, Oklahoma (20,875,000)
6 Badih Bounahra. Belize City, Belize (19,700,000)
7 Pius Heinz. Germany (16,425,000)
8 Anton Makiievskyi. Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine (13,825,000)
9 Samuel Holden. Sussex, Great Britain (12,375,000)
1 Martin Staszko. Trinec , Czech Republic (40,175,000)
2 Eoghan O'Dea. Dublin, Ireland (33,925,000)
3 Matt Giannetti. Las Vegas, Nevada (24,750,000)
4 Phil Collins. Las Vegas, Nevada (23,875,000)
5 Ben Lamb. Tulsa, Oklahoma (20,875,000)
6 Badih Bounahra. Belize City, Belize (19,700,000)
7 Pius Heinz. Germany (16,425,000)
8 Anton Makiievskyi. Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine (13,825,000)
9 Samuel Holden. Sussex, Great Britain (12,375,000)
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
WSOP 2011 Main Event: Counting Down to Nine
They started with a field of 6,865. The action starts today with 22 players left and will end when we are down to nine. Those nine, the "November Nine" will then get a four month break before playing for all the marbles.
Of the 22 left, none of them have names that the average poker fan will recognize. Well, there is Phil Collins (not that Phil Collins) and Christopher Moore (not that Christopher Moore) and more than a few people who actually make their living playing card games, but no one whose ever been in a t.v. commercial...yet.
The chip leader is chubby Ukrainian Anton "Snack Daddy" Makiievskyi. I can't imagine many people want to see this guy win it all - he doesn't have a lot of charisma and won't attract many new people to the game. Except maybe in the Ukraine. The current second place player, good-looking young Irishman Eoghan O'Dea from would be a far more popular champ. In third spot we have Khoa Nguyen - with a name like that he must be from...let's see...Calgary?! Go, Khoa! Khoa is the last Canadian standing.
The players left (with chip counts) are:
1 Anton Makiievskyi. Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine (21,045,000)
2 Eoghan O'Dea. Dublin, Ireland (19,500,000)
3 Khoa Nguyen. Calgary, Canada (16,435,000)
4 Andrey Pateychuk. Russia (16,245,000)
5 Ben Lamb. Tulsa, Oklahoma (14,690,000)
6 Phil Collins. Las Vegas, Nevada (13,805,000)
7 John Hewitt. San Jose, Costa Rica (13,265,000)
8 Ryan Lenaghan. New Orleans, Louisiana (10,415,000)
9 Matt Giannetti. Las Vegas, Nevada (8,920,000)
10 Konstantinos Mamaliadis. Durban, South Africa (8,195,000)
11 Pius Heinz. Germany (7,510,000)
12 Aleksandr Mozhnyakov. Himki, Russia (7,075,000)
13 Scott Schwalich. West Carrollton, Ohio (6,920,000)
14 Martin Staszko. Trinec , Czech Republic (6,380,000)
15 Bryan Devonshire. Henderson, Nevada (6,190,000)
16 Sam Barnhart. Little Rock, Arkansas (4,935,000)
17 Samuel Holden. Sussex, , Great Britain (4,740,000)
18 Gionni Demers. Jackson, New Jersey (4,655,000)
19 Kenny Shih. Azusa, California (4,530,000)
20 Lars Bonding. Las Vegas (4,140,000)
21 Badih Bounahra. Belize City, Belize (3,835,000)
22 Chris Moore. Countryside, Illinois (3,040,000)
Of the 22 left, none of them have names that the average poker fan will recognize. Well, there is Phil Collins (not that Phil Collins) and Christopher Moore (not that Christopher Moore) and more than a few people who actually make their living playing card games, but no one whose ever been in a t.v. commercial...yet.
The chip leader is chubby Ukrainian Anton "Snack Daddy" Makiievskyi. I can't imagine many people want to see this guy win it all - he doesn't have a lot of charisma and won't attract many new people to the game. Except maybe in the Ukraine. The current second place player, good-looking young Irishman Eoghan O'Dea from would be a far more popular champ. In third spot we have Khoa Nguyen - with a name like that he must be from...let's see...Calgary?! Go, Khoa! Khoa is the last Canadian standing.
The players left (with chip counts) are:
1 Anton Makiievskyi. Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine (21,045,000)
2 Eoghan O'Dea. Dublin, Ireland (19,500,000)
3 Khoa Nguyen. Calgary, Canada (16,435,000)
4 Andrey Pateychuk. Russia (16,245,000)
5 Ben Lamb. Tulsa, Oklahoma (14,690,000)
6 Phil Collins. Las Vegas, Nevada (13,805,000)
7 John Hewitt. San Jose, Costa Rica (13,265,000)
8 Ryan Lenaghan. New Orleans, Louisiana (10,415,000)
9 Matt Giannetti. Las Vegas, Nevada (8,920,000)
10 Konstantinos Mamaliadis. Durban, South Africa (8,195,000)
11 Pius Heinz. Germany (7,510,000)
12 Aleksandr Mozhnyakov. Himki, Russia (7,075,000)
13 Scott Schwalich. West Carrollton, Ohio (6,920,000)
14 Martin Staszko. Trinec , Czech Republic (6,380,000)
15 Bryan Devonshire. Henderson, Nevada (6,190,000)
16 Sam Barnhart. Little Rock, Arkansas (4,935,000)
17 Samuel Holden. Sussex, , Great Britain (4,740,000)
18 Gionni Demers. Jackson, New Jersey (4,655,000)
19 Kenny Shih. Azusa, California (4,530,000)
20 Lars Bonding. Las Vegas (4,140,000)
21 Badih Bounahra. Belize City, Belize (3,835,000)
22 Chris Moore. Countryside, Illinois (3,040,000)
Friday, July 15, 2011
WSOP 2011 Main Event Day 3
Day three is in the books and many of those who lead at the beginning of the day are nowhere to be seen. That's the way it goes. 852 are still left it - which is more than the entire number of players in the 2003 main event.
At the Top: The current chip leader is Patrick Poirier, an AINHO (American I've Never Heard Of). There is an overwhelming chance the championship will be won by a AINHO, who will then become a celebrity. That's the way it goes. Ben Lamb, who was leading going into the day, fell back to 174th - which is still not that bad a spot to be in.
Player of the Year Battle: Earlier I blogged about Phil Hellmuth coming in second place in two WSOP events this year. Shortly after my post Phil came in second place yet again - this time in the prestigious Poker Players Championship event. The amazing performances have Phil at the top in the points standings for the Player of the Year award with Ben Lamb close behind in second. This battle for the POY honors has added some extra interest to the main event as both Hellmuth (currently hanging in at 770th place) and Lamb are both still alive.
Star Watch: Not too many poker stars remain among those still standing - and those that are still in the hunt are fairly far down the leader board. Patrick Antonious, in seventh place going into day three, didn't make it out of day three. The top "star" is Erick Lindgren at 169th spot, followed by Vanessa Rousso in 242nd and Freddy Deeb in 265th.
Other big names remaining include Daniel Negreanu (400), Todd Brunson (514), Mickey Appleman (526), and Jeff Madsen (626). Yeah, I know I predicted a charge up the leader board by Madsen. Oh, well. That's the way it goes.
Canuck Watch: Sol Bergen, the pride of Saskatoon, fell from 16th to the still very respectable 52nd today. In all there are six Canadians in the top 50 spots, including current top Canadian David Barter who is sitting pretty in 4th. One Canadian who will not win it all this year is the defending WSOP main event champ Jonathan Duhamel, who crashed out in day two.
A lot of people say that the key to Duhamel's 2010 victory was when he knocked Matt Affleck out with only 15 people remaining with a big suck-out on the river. That hand has been talked about a lot but I only recently viewed it on YouTube. If you haven't seen it, just type "Matt Affleck Jonathan Duhamel" in the search window. The next time you feel gutted about a bad beat you took, remember what happened to Matt and it won't seem so bad.
That's the way it goes.
At the Top: The current chip leader is Patrick Poirier, an AINHO (American I've Never Heard Of). There is an overwhelming chance the championship will be won by a AINHO, who will then become a celebrity. That's the way it goes. Ben Lamb, who was leading going into the day, fell back to 174th - which is still not that bad a spot to be in.
Player of the Year Battle: Earlier I blogged about Phil Hellmuth coming in second place in two WSOP events this year. Shortly after my post Phil came in second place yet again - this time in the prestigious Poker Players Championship event. The amazing performances have Phil at the top in the points standings for the Player of the Year award with Ben Lamb close behind in second. This battle for the POY honors has added some extra interest to the main event as both Hellmuth (currently hanging in at 770th place) and Lamb are both still alive.
Star Watch: Not too many poker stars remain among those still standing - and those that are still in the hunt are fairly far down the leader board. Patrick Antonious, in seventh place going into day three, didn't make it out of day three. The top "star" is Erick Lindgren at 169th spot, followed by Vanessa Rousso in 242nd and Freddy Deeb in 265th.
Other big names remaining include Daniel Negreanu (400), Todd Brunson (514), Mickey Appleman (526), and Jeff Madsen (626). Yeah, I know I predicted a charge up the leader board by Madsen. Oh, well. That's the way it goes.
Canuck Watch: Sol Bergen, the pride of Saskatoon, fell from 16th to the still very respectable 52nd today. In all there are six Canadians in the top 50 spots, including current top Canadian David Barter who is sitting pretty in 4th. One Canadian who will not win it all this year is the defending WSOP main event champ Jonathan Duhamel, who crashed out in day two.
A lot of people say that the key to Duhamel's 2010 victory was when he knocked Matt Affleck out with only 15 people remaining with a big suck-out on the river. That hand has been talked about a lot but I only recently viewed it on YouTube. If you haven't seen it, just type "Matt Affleck Jonathan Duhamel" in the search window. The next time you feel gutted about a bad beat you took, remember what happened to Matt and it won't seem so bad.
That's the way it goes.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
The 2011 WSOP Main Event
This year 6,865 people entered the main event in the World Series of Poker - a number well off the peak in 2006 when 8,773 player battled it out for pokers' most prized championship but still large enough that the future of the spectacle seems solid enough. Today is a day off before play resumes tomorrow in what is officially called "Day 3" even though this event has been going on for six days already. With such a massive field the "first day" was run on four different dates (1A, 1B, 1C and 1D) with a quarter of the entrants playing on each day. Day two was similarly divided into two different days, so tomorrow will be the first time that all the remaining players (there are 1,864 left) will be playing simultaneously.
The vast majority of those remaining are relative unknowns, but a few notables to watch include:
The vast majority of those remaining are relative unknowns, but a few notables to watch include:
- Ben Lamb, the current leader, is a professional poker player who has already won a WSOP bracelet this year in Pot-Limit Omaha.
- Patrick Antonius, a certified poker super-star, is currently in 7th. He is the best chance for a "big name" player to take down the title.
- Sol Bergren is the top Canadian right now, in 16th place. Bergen is from my hometown of Saskatoon, so I gotta root for this guy. With a fourth place finish in a 2007 APPT tour event in Australia, which netted him just under a quarter million Aussie dollars, Bergen has experience in big money situations.
- Tony Hachem, in the 50th spot, is a PokerStars pro who happens to be the brother of the 2005 main event winner, Joe Hachem.
- Jeff Madsen, who has two WSOP bracelets, might be the most feared competitor remaining. In 61st position right now, I would not be surprised to see him make the final table.
- John Racener, who came in second place in last years' main event, is well positioned at 143rd spot.
- Past champions still in the running this year include Carlos Mortensen and Huck Seed.
The Deep Dark Truthful Mirror
Some day you're gonna have to face
the deep dark truthful mirror
and it's gonna tell you things that I still
love you too much to say
- Elvis Costello
I have written a few posts recently about the book Your Worst Poker Enemy, by Alan Schoonmaker. I knew I was getting erratic in my play as of late - the last few trips to the poker room had poor results and when I analysed my play I could see that I was either being too reckless or too timid. I had tried to take a break from the game, but the same impulses that led me to make bad decisions at the poker table also kept me coming back to the casino when I knew I was not in the proper state of mind. Reading the Schoonmaker book was the slap in the face I needed to get me to take a serious step away from the tables for a few weeks, re-evaluate my game and to decide how much of my life I could devote to poker without losing balance. I am still in the middle of my hiatus, but I wanted to let you know that this these breaks from the game are very important.
the deep dark truthful mirror
and it's gonna tell you things that I still
love you too much to say
- Elvis Costello
I have written a few posts recently about the book Your Worst Poker Enemy, by Alan Schoonmaker. I knew I was getting erratic in my play as of late - the last few trips to the poker room had poor results and when I analysed my play I could see that I was either being too reckless or too timid. I had tried to take a break from the game, but the same impulses that led me to make bad decisions at the poker table also kept me coming back to the casino when I knew I was not in the proper state of mind. Reading the Schoonmaker book was the slap in the face I needed to get me to take a serious step away from the tables for a few weeks, re-evaluate my game and to decide how much of my life I could devote to poker without losing balance. I am still in the middle of my hiatus, but I wanted to let you know that this these breaks from the game are very important.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Somebody Here Has Aces...(and it isn't me)
I recommend using an odds calculator to analyse the hands you have played in order to see if you played them properly. A very easy to use odds calculator can be found at the Card Player site.
During my last trip to the casino I was playing poorly and my $100 had dwindled down to $60. Everything I did was wrong, and it got to the point where I just wanted to win a pot, any pot, even a small pot. That is why when I was dealt pocket queens in middle position I made I massive over-bet of $30 just to take down the blinds. I was surprised that the button, a tight player, called me and I was positively sickened when the guy who limped in re-raised to $60. Somebody here has aces and it isn't me. So what do I do?
If I call the pot will be $153 and my $30 call represents a 19% contribution to the pot - exactly the same percentage as my odds of beating pocket aces. If the third player calls I am now betting 16% of the pot. If the third guy has KK my odds of winning drop to 14% but anything else and I'm at least at 18%.
Unless you are Chris Ferguson, you can't do precise three-way calculations in your head at the table. That is why it is good to remember the hand and then use the odds calculator later. The more you use the calculator, the better you will be able to guess at odds at the table.
In the end my decision was not based on math but on my reluctance to fold after committing half my stack. I called as did the guy after me. As I expected the re-raiser had AA. The guy after me had AK. I got very lucky and hit a queen on the turn but regardless of the happy ending did I do the right thing? It is borderline.
The main point should be that I would never have had to make that borderline call if I had not grossly over-bet in the first place.
During my last trip to the casino I was playing poorly and my $100 had dwindled down to $60. Everything I did was wrong, and it got to the point where I just wanted to win a pot, any pot, even a small pot. That is why when I was dealt pocket queens in middle position I made I massive over-bet of $30 just to take down the blinds. I was surprised that the button, a tight player, called me and I was positively sickened when the guy who limped in re-raised to $60. Somebody here has aces and it isn't me. So what do I do?
If I call the pot will be $153 and my $30 call represents a 19% contribution to the pot - exactly the same percentage as my odds of beating pocket aces. If the third player calls I am now betting 16% of the pot. If the third guy has KK my odds of winning drop to 14% but anything else and I'm at least at 18%.
Unless you are Chris Ferguson, you can't do precise three-way calculations in your head at the table. That is why it is good to remember the hand and then use the odds calculator later. The more you use the calculator, the better you will be able to guess at odds at the table.
In the end my decision was not based on math but on my reluctance to fold after committing half my stack. I called as did the guy after me. As I expected the re-raiser had AA. The guy after me had AK. I got very lucky and hit a queen on the turn but regardless of the happy ending did I do the right thing? It is borderline.
The main point should be that I would never have had to make that borderline call if I had not grossly over-bet in the first place.
Monday, June 27, 2011
I'm a Bankroll Moron
Hello. My name is Tyler and I can't play poker within my bankroll limits.
A few weeks ago I discovered how to turn a large amount of play money into a small amount of real money. I then slowly built that small amount until I had quadrupled it. Then I took that entire amount to a table and lost it all. I turned some play money into real money again and this time I was much more disciplined, turning $2 into $35 in about a week. Then I took the entire amount to a table and lost it all. Repeat this pattern two more times and you begin to get the picture.
No matter what stakes you play for and no matter how good you are, if you can't control your impulse to gamble then you will lose your entire bankroll. Playing poker above your bankroll limits is taking an unnecessary risk. It is gambling. It happens to micro-stakes players like me, and it happens to high-stakes players who can't control their impulses.
I'm coming clean about my bankroll management failures in hopes I can break this pattern.
A few weeks ago I discovered how to turn a large amount of play money into a small amount of real money. I then slowly built that small amount until I had quadrupled it. Then I took that entire amount to a table and lost it all. I turned some play money into real money again and this time I was much more disciplined, turning $2 into $35 in about a week. Then I took the entire amount to a table and lost it all. Repeat this pattern two more times and you begin to get the picture.
No matter what stakes you play for and no matter how good you are, if you can't control your impulse to gamble then you will lose your entire bankroll. Playing poker above your bankroll limits is taking an unnecessary risk. It is gambling. It happens to micro-stakes players like me, and it happens to high-stakes players who can't control their impulses.
I'm coming clean about my bankroll management failures in hopes I can break this pattern.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Poker Quiz #1
Hey kids, ready to put your poker knowledge to the test? Well today I have a quiz for you. What makes this quiz special is that it is based on a real hand I witnessed at the casino yesterday. Read the following description of the poker hand and then answer the question. Feel free to give it some thought, but don't take longer than four minutes - which is about as long as you can take in a casino before the other players call the clock on you. Ready? Go.
It is 2:00 p.m. You sit down at a no-limit hold 'em table. The blinds are $1/$2. The most a player is allowed to bring to the table is $300. It is a full table of nine players, most of whom have stacks between $200 and $500, with the notable exception of Player A who has a big pile of chips that you estimate to be around $1200. Over the next three hours you observe Player A entering a lot of pots, raising a lot and pushing others out of pots. Occasionally Player A loses a big pot and his stack takes a few big hits until it is down to around $800. Player B, who had around $400 when you sat down, has played relatively few hands but when he has played he always makes big pre-flop bets and follows them up with bets after the flop. In the three hours you have been here his stack has grown to well over $1000 and many of his wins have come at the expense of Player A.
Then this happens:
The guy under the gun limps in for $2. There is one caller in early position. Player B, in middle position, raises to $20. Player A, on the button, re-raises to $60. It folds back to Player B, who thinks for about five seconds then pushes all his chips in.
What do you think Player B has?
Click here for the answer.
It is 2:00 p.m. You sit down at a no-limit hold 'em table. The blinds are $1/$2. The most a player is allowed to bring to the table is $300. It is a full table of nine players, most of whom have stacks between $200 and $500, with the notable exception of Player A who has a big pile of chips that you estimate to be around $1200. Over the next three hours you observe Player A entering a lot of pots, raising a lot and pushing others out of pots. Occasionally Player A loses a big pot and his stack takes a few big hits until it is down to around $800. Player B, who had around $400 when you sat down, has played relatively few hands but when he has played he always makes big pre-flop bets and follows them up with bets after the flop. In the three hours you have been here his stack has grown to well over $1000 and many of his wins have come at the expense of Player A.
Then this happens:
The guy under the gun limps in for $2. There is one caller in early position. Player B, in middle position, raises to $20. Player A, on the button, re-raises to $60. It folds back to Player B, who thinks for about five seconds then pushes all his chips in.
What do you think Player B has?
Click here for the answer.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
WSOP 2011: Past the Mid-way Mark
Thirty five out of the fifty eight championship bracelets have now been handed out.
Insufferable patriot that I am, I must point out that four championships have been won by Canadians. If these were the "Poker Olympics" then the gold medal count would currently be:
USA - 24
Canada - 4
Britain - 3
France - 2
Russia -1
Ukraine -1
And need I remind everyone that until a new main event champion is crowned in November, the current reigning world poker champion is a Canadian?
As usual most bracelets have gone to relative unknowns. Eight bracelet winners had never even cashed in a WSOP event before their victories. Still some big names have gotten their wins, well three big names any way: John Juanda got his fifth bracelet, Jason "You've Probably Seen Me in PokerStars Commercials" Mercier collected his second, and European poker superstar Bertrand "ElkY" Grospellier collected his first WSOP bracelet.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Juanda's win in 2-7 draw lowball came at the expense of Phil Hellmuth, who despite having more WSOP wins than anyone else is still looking for a championship in any form of poker other than Texas Hold 'em. Since then Hellmuth came in second place again, this time in Seven Card Stud. You almost feel sorry for the guy.
Insufferable patriot that I am, I must point out that four championships have been won by Canadians. If these were the "Poker Olympics" then the gold medal count would currently be:
USA - 24
Canada - 4
Britain - 3
France - 2
Russia -1
Ukraine -1
And need I remind everyone that until a new main event champion is crowned in November, the current reigning world poker champion is a Canadian?
As usual most bracelets have gone to relative unknowns. Eight bracelet winners had never even cashed in a WSOP event before their victories. Still some big names have gotten their wins, well three big names any way: John Juanda got his fifth bracelet, Jason "You've Probably Seen Me in PokerStars Commercials" Mercier collected his second, and European poker superstar Bertrand "ElkY" Grospellier collected his first WSOP bracelet.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Juanda's win in 2-7 draw lowball came at the expense of Phil Hellmuth, who despite having more WSOP wins than anyone else is still looking for a championship in any form of poker other than Texas Hold 'em. Since then Hellmuth came in second place again, this time in Seven Card Stud. You almost feel sorry for the guy.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Good Beat Stories
Another post inspired by Alan Schoonmaker's book, Your Worst Poker Enemy. While it is easy to find books about poker strategy, this is the first book I've found that teaches you to recognize and (hopefully) avoid the psychological mistakes that make you lose money playing poker.
Every poker player can tell you a dozen bad beat stories - tales of big pots lost because some idiot got lucky and won. But who exactly are these idiots who win all these pots? You never hear anyone telling "good beat" stories about when they were a complete idiot and still managed to luck-out and win a pot. People don't tell good beat stories because everyone wants to look skilled, but the truth is that we all have done stupid things and won anyway due to dumb luck. For every bad beat there is a good beat.
Be honest with yourself. If you want to be a consistently good poker player, you have to be able to honestly assess your own ability. Pretending that you have never won because of a miracle card on the river is self-deception.
A week back I was playing in an on-line tournament in which I crushed the field, won almost every hand I played right up to the final table - and it was almost entirely due to luck. Believe me, I'm not being modest. I doubled up very early when I was dealt pocket fives in the big blind, called a raise I really should have folded to and hit my set on the flop when my opponent had top pair with an ace kicker. That's a 7.5 to 1 shot. In fact I think I flopped a set at least six times over the tournament - a very lucky streak. I must have been dealt pocket aces at least five times and right after we got down to being "in the money" - the point at which most players switch from playing tight to loose- I was dealt pocket kings two hands in a row, then pocket queens on the next hand, then pocket kings on the hand after that! Pure dumb, stupid luck. Yet I still almost managed to mess it up when a very tight, solid player went all-in and I called with pocket jacks. I should have known he had pocket aces and he should have taken about a third of my stack with his double up, but a jack came on the river. I wonder how many times he has told his buddies about that bad beat?
Think about your good beats and remember the times you were a lucky jackass the next time you suffer a bad beat yourself - it will make it easier to shrug it off. Over time the good luck and bad luck will balance out and if you are more skilled than your opponents you will win in the long run.
Every poker player can tell you a dozen bad beat stories - tales of big pots lost because some idiot got lucky and won. But who exactly are these idiots who win all these pots? You never hear anyone telling "good beat" stories about when they were a complete idiot and still managed to luck-out and win a pot. People don't tell good beat stories because everyone wants to look skilled, but the truth is that we all have done stupid things and won anyway due to dumb luck. For every bad beat there is a good beat.
Be honest with yourself. If you want to be a consistently good poker player, you have to be able to honestly assess your own ability. Pretending that you have never won because of a miracle card on the river is self-deception.
A week back I was playing in an on-line tournament in which I crushed the field, won almost every hand I played right up to the final table - and it was almost entirely due to luck. Believe me, I'm not being modest. I doubled up very early when I was dealt pocket fives in the big blind, called a raise I really should have folded to and hit my set on the flop when my opponent had top pair with an ace kicker. That's a 7.5 to 1 shot. In fact I think I flopped a set at least six times over the tournament - a very lucky streak. I must have been dealt pocket aces at least five times and right after we got down to being "in the money" - the point at which most players switch from playing tight to loose- I was dealt pocket kings two hands in a row, then pocket queens on the next hand, then pocket kings on the hand after that! Pure dumb, stupid luck. Yet I still almost managed to mess it up when a very tight, solid player went all-in and I called with pocket jacks. I should have known he had pocket aces and he should have taken about a third of my stack with his double up, but a jack came on the river. I wonder how many times he has told his buddies about that bad beat?
Think about your good beats and remember the times you were a lucky jackass the next time you suffer a bad beat yourself - it will make it easier to shrug it off. Over time the good luck and bad luck will balance out and if you are more skilled than your opponents you will win in the long run.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
No Bad Beat Stories
In one of my early posts I regurgitated a lot of the poker tips I’d heard from different sources, including the following from Antonio Esfandiari: “Never tell bad beat stories.” Shortly after that post a friend asked me why I thought this particular bit of advice was valuable. I think I replied with something about wanting to project the image of a winner and that telling stories about losing would have the opposite effect. While there is some truth in the answer I gave, I have since found a more important reason for not telling bad beat stories; because by doing so you attempting to convince yourself that you are a better poker player than you are and that your losses are only due to bad luck.
To give credit where it’s due, this revelation comes from a book I am currently reading, Your Worst Poker Enemy, by Alan Schoonmaker. Schoonmaker, a Ph.D. in psychology, outlines the common self-delusions that most operate under which end up costing them money. The central theme of the book is that virtually all poker players (and this includes you and me) over estimate their own abilities and under estimate the abilities of their opponents. Because luck plays a big part in winning and losing in the short term, people can easily blame bad luck rather than bad play for their losses. Telling bad beat stories is a common way to convince yourself you are a great player who has been unlucky. If you accept responsibility for your losses, then you must go through the process of identifying your mistakes and correcting them. Few people want to be honest about their short comings so not surprisingly most of us would rather wait for our luck to change.
As I read over my posts, I see that I have glossed over or ignored a lot of my own short comings. Thinking that I am a better player than I am has stoked my ego but almost certainly hurt my results. I hope I can use this blog to examine where there are holes in my game rather than pretend they don’t exist.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Juanda tops Hellmuth
As interesting as several contests have been in the 2011 WSOP so far, what many people were waiting to see was a bracelet going to one of the superstars of the game. The first fifteen bracelets were all captured by first-time champions which, while nice, is less than satisfying to those who cheer on the big names. Tyler Bonkowski from Regina, although a very nice guy I'm sure, just isn't Johnny Chan.
The star-gazers finally got something to cheer about in event 16: Duece to Seven No-Limit Draw when the final two players battling for the bracelet were four-time WSOP champion John Juanda and Phil Hellmuth, the all-time WSOP bracelet leader. The two players had virtually the same amount of chips for much of their heads up battle and the lead went back and forth for some time before Juanda finally took control. As the game began to slip away from Hellmuth his ledgendary temper showed itself with an occasional outburst, which only seemed to amuse Juanda who went on to win and collect his fifth bracelet.
The loss is likely a bitter one for Hellmuth. Even though his eleven bracelets are more than anyone else (and one more than both Johnny Chan and Doyle Brunson) all of them have come in some form of Hold 'em; limit, pot limit or no limit. Wishing to be considered the undisputed greatest poker player that ever lived, Hellmuth can't shake the criticism that he can only dominate at one form of poker.
The star-gazers finally got something to cheer about in event 16: Duece to Seven No-Limit Draw when the final two players battling for the bracelet were four-time WSOP champion John Juanda and Phil Hellmuth, the all-time WSOP bracelet leader. The two players had virtually the same amount of chips for much of their heads up battle and the lead went back and forth for some time before Juanda finally took control. As the game began to slip away from Hellmuth his ledgendary temper showed itself with an occasional outburst, which only seemed to amuse Juanda who went on to win and collect his fifth bracelet.
The loss is likely a bitter one for Hellmuth. Even though his eleven bracelets are more than anyone else (and one more than both Johnny Chan and Doyle Brunson) all of them have come in some form of Hold 'em; limit, pot limit or no limit. Wishing to be considered the undisputed greatest poker player that ever lived, Hellmuth can't shake the criticism that he can only dominate at one form of poker.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Congrats to the Big Bonkowski
Tyler Bonkowski from Regina, Saskatchewan has won the $3000 buy-in Limit Hold 'Em event at the WSOP.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
One Drop
With the popularity poker has achieved it is not too uncommon to hear of tournaments where people can win a million dollars or more but last week the WSOP announced something truly astounding - that next year they will be having a tournament where it costs a million dollars to enter. Here I will pause while you try to figure out if you read that correctly. A million dollars just to get a seat in the tournament.
The idea comes from Cirque Du Soleil founder Guy Laliberte, who also started the One Drop Foundation; a group that promotes awareness of water issues as well as assisting African villages to access water. 11.11% of the money that would normally be included in the prize pool will go to One Drop.
Brilliant.
So who is going to pony up a cool million just to play poker? Laliberte himself says he will play and already several famous poker pros have said they are in, including: Doyle Brunson, Johnny Chan, Patrik Antonius, Gus Hansen, Tony G. and Daniel Negreanu. Others who have apparently committed to play include:
The idea comes from Cirque Du Soleil founder Guy Laliberte, who also started the One Drop Foundation; a group that promotes awareness of water issues as well as assisting African villages to access water. 11.11% of the money that would normally be included in the prize pool will go to One Drop.
Brilliant.
So who is going to pony up a cool million just to play poker? Laliberte himself says he will play and already several famous poker pros have said they are in, including: Doyle Brunson, Johnny Chan, Patrik Antonius, Gus Hansen, Tony G. and Daniel Negreanu. Others who have apparently committed to play include:
- Bobby Baldwin - C.E.O. of Mirage Resorts and winner of the 1978 WSOP main event.
- Phil Ruffin - Owner of Treasure Island hotel and Casino.
- Andy Beal - The owner of Beal Bank who very nearly beat a team of top Vegas pros in what are very likely the highest stakes poker games that have ever been played. These legendary games are chronicled in Michael Craig's 2005 book The Professor, the Banker, and the Suicide King.
- And apparently a "well known American business man" has also committed. (What is a million dollars to Bill Gates when a charity is involved?)
In fact so far sixteen people have said that they will play. One Vegas pro has said that he predicts a total of fifty one players will compete. I think it will be more than one hundred. Hell, if I had a million dollars...
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
WSOP Update #2: Weirdness
Yeah, I know I said I was taking a week off. Sue me.
The most interesting story to come out of the WSOP so far is Matt Perrins winning the Duece-to-Seven Lowball championship. What makes this an interesting story? Well aparently Perrins had never played this form of poker before entering the event. In fact, the story goes, he only learned how to play by watching about 30 minutes of videos on YouTube. Unbelievable.
Adding to the weirdness is that Perrins hails from the small English town of Rochdale. So far in the 2011 WSOP, 8 championship bracelets have been awarded and now two of them have gone to people from this same town. Jake Cody, who won the $25,000 No-Limit Hold 'em bracelet, is a close nieghbor of Perrins in Rochdale.
Weird.
The most interesting story to come out of the WSOP so far is Matt Perrins winning the Duece-to-Seven Lowball championship. What makes this an interesting story? Well aparently Perrins had never played this form of poker before entering the event. In fact, the story goes, he only learned how to play by watching about 30 minutes of videos on YouTube. Unbelievable.
Adding to the weirdness is that Perrins hails from the small English town of Rochdale. So far in the 2011 WSOP, 8 championship bracelets have been awarded and now two of them have gone to people from this same town. Jake Cody, who won the $25,000 No-Limit Hold 'em bracelet, is a close nieghbor of Perrins in Rochdale.
Weird.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Holy Crap....I'm Sick of Poker
Wow.
Last week I posted about free roll tournaments. Today I spent my entire freaking day off playing in one: a No Limit Hold 'em free roll with a full field of 7,600 people. Usually I get knocked out after three or four hours in somewhere between 300th and 700th place, but today the stars aligned I played really well and got exceptionally lucky, and made it all the way to second place. I really should have won it as I had a big chip lead when it got down to heads up, but my American opponent took me to pieces. Still second place isn't bad; I got $13.50 for my six hours sitting in front of a computer. That's $2.25 an hour. Whoopee!
Okay, I do feel great about out lasting 7,598 others. But my sense of accomplishment is actually overwhelmed by how absolutely sick I am of playing poker. It's like a freaking JOB! I swear I'm gonna take a week and not play poker, or watch poker, or check the WSOP on-line, or read about poker, or even talk about poker for at least a week. If you know me and you hear me even say the word poker, please punch me in the mouth.
See you next week.
Last week I posted about free roll tournaments. Today I spent my entire freaking day off playing in one: a No Limit Hold 'em free roll with a full field of 7,600 people. Usually I get knocked out after three or four hours in somewhere between 300th and 700th place, but today the stars aligned I played really well and got exceptionally lucky, and made it all the way to second place. I really should have won it as I had a big chip lead when it got down to heads up, but my American opponent took me to pieces. Still second place isn't bad; I got $13.50 for my six hours sitting in front of a computer. That's $2.25 an hour. Whoopee!
Okay, I do feel great about out lasting 7,598 others. But my sense of accomplishment is actually overwhelmed by how absolutely sick I am of playing poker. It's like a freaking JOB! I swear I'm gonna take a week and not play poker, or watch poker, or check the WSOP on-line, or read about poker, or even talk about poker for at least a week. If you know me and you hear me even say the word poker, please punch me in the mouth.
See you next week.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
WSOP Update 1
While no bracelets have been handed out yet, currently there are three events being contested and each is actually kind of interesting.
Event 1 is the Casino Employees No-Limit Hold 'Em. With a meager $500 buy in, this is open to (you guessed it) casino employees and has been the traditional first event at the WSOP for some years now. At the end play yesterday they were down to four players and will settle the matter today. Currently in second place is Jason Baker who calls Calgary home, so this gives me someone to root for. I'm wondering if he could he be that dealer from the Stampede Casino named Jason. Couldn't be the same guy, could it?
Event #2 is the Heads Up No-Limit Hold 'em Championship. Heads Up means that two players battle each other until one is knocked out, with the winner advancing to the next round. I was amused to see that in the second round a very close and hard-fought battle occurred between Kenny Tran and John Juanda, in which Juanda finally emerged as the winner. This amused me because I didn't know who Kenny Tran was until I read Jerry Yang's book All In, in which Kenny Tran comes off like a total jerk who tries to bully Yang and mocks his overt Christianity. Well after Jerry Yang, John Juanda is probably the most earnest Christian to be found among the sinners of the poker world, so I imagine losing to him was particularly bitter for Tran. Ha ha. Anyway they are down to eight players now, including Gus Hansen and Canadian Matt Marafioti.
Event #3 is Omaha Hi-Low Split 8 or Better. It would take me a whole blog post to explain how this game is played. All you need to know is that among the remaining 210 players (out of the 925 who entered) are some pretty big names, including Barry Greenstein, Humberto Brenes, T.J. Cloutier (Go T.J.!), Erik Seidel and Men Nguyen.
Despite this rather interesting start to the 2011 WSOP, the big story is that poker superstar Phil Ivey has chosen not to play any WSOP events this year in sympathy for all the Americans who have had their Full Tilt accounts frozen by the FBI. Phil has also announced a lawsuit for over $150,000,000 against Tiltware the company that supplied Full Tilt with the money transfer software.
Stay tuned.
Event 1 is the Casino Employees No-Limit Hold 'Em. With a meager $500 buy in, this is open to (you guessed it) casino employees and has been the traditional first event at the WSOP for some years now. At the end play yesterday they were down to four players and will settle the matter today. Currently in second place is Jason Baker who calls Calgary home, so this gives me someone to root for. I'm wondering if he could he be that dealer from the Stampede Casino named Jason. Couldn't be the same guy, could it?
Event #2 is the Heads Up No-Limit Hold 'em Championship. Heads Up means that two players battle each other until one is knocked out, with the winner advancing to the next round. I was amused to see that in the second round a very close and hard-fought battle occurred between Kenny Tran and John Juanda, in which Juanda finally emerged as the winner. This amused me because I didn't know who Kenny Tran was until I read Jerry Yang's book All In, in which Kenny Tran comes off like a total jerk who tries to bully Yang and mocks his overt Christianity. Well after Jerry Yang, John Juanda is probably the most earnest Christian to be found among the sinners of the poker world, so I imagine losing to him was particularly bitter for Tran. Ha ha. Anyway they are down to eight players now, including Gus Hansen and Canadian Matt Marafioti.
Event #3 is Omaha Hi-Low Split 8 or Better. It would take me a whole blog post to explain how this game is played. All you need to know is that among the remaining 210 players (out of the 925 who entered) are some pretty big names, including Barry Greenstein, Humberto Brenes, T.J. Cloutier (Go T.J.!), Erik Seidel and Men Nguyen.
Despite this rather interesting start to the 2011 WSOP, the big story is that poker superstar Phil Ivey has chosen not to play any WSOP events this year in sympathy for all the Americans who have had their Full Tilt accounts frozen by the FBI. Phil has also announced a lawsuit for over $150,000,000 against Tiltware the company that supplied Full Tilt with the money transfer software.
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)