String bets and betting etiquette

If you have never played poker in a casino card room, you may find your first trip intimidating. Every card room has its own rules and some of the things you might do in a game at a friends place may not be allowed. It is a good idea to try to familiarize yourself with the rules beforehand to avoid costly mistakes. Most card rooms have their rules posted somewhere, but you will be able to pick up most of them just through careful observation.

When you sit at a table, you will usually be given the option to "post" - that is no matter your position, you can put in the amount of the big blind and you will be dealt in right away. I recommend not posting but waiting until the big blind comes to you - this gives you the opportunity to just observe as few hands.

Many rules revolve around the way you handle your chips. Most (but not all) poker tables have a betting line and any chips you push over that line are committed. If you grab a handful of $5 chips, reach over that line and drop a couple on the felt, you might be told that the rest of the chips in your hand are also committed to the pot. Similarly, you can not put three $5 chips over the line, then go back and grab another three $5 chips and put them in as well. The only time you would be allowed to bet in this manner would be if you announced your total bet before you started moving your chips.

The reason these rules exist is to try to eliminate "string betting". A string bet is a way some players try to get a read on an opponents strength. They might move a whole bunch of chips of over the line and then, seeing a look of glee on an opponents face, pull some back. Or they might see a look of disappointment in their opponent and so go back for more chips. Some players still try something like this by grabbing a big stack of chips and pretending they are going to bet them, just to see your reaction. Just remember that in most places the bet isn't made until the chips cross the line, so don't give your hand away!

Some tables don't have betting lines, and you need to be very careful about how you place your bet. I played at one such place where the rule that was any chips you took out from your stack where automatically committed to the pot, so be very careful! I find you can avoid trouble if you get in the habit of verbally announcing the size of your bet - once you do that then you are committed to that bet, and you are usually free to move your chips anyway you like.

Here is a scenario I have seen dozens of times: Someone in early position raises and a player acting after them who wasn't paying attention bets less than the raise. Oops. Sorry pal, but either you kiss those chips goodbye or you make up the difference (and this is one instance where a player is allowed to move chips in two motions). This happens frequently and the offending player often blames the dealer for not announcing the raise loudly enough, but of course its his own fault.

If you bet or call out of turn, those chips are also committed.

Any cards that cross the betting line are considered dead. Some casinos will consider your hand dead if the cards are even touching the betting line, unless they have a card protector (a chip, a lucky charm, whatever...) sitting on them. It is a good idea to use a card protector to prevent the dealer from accidentally mucking your cards. If another player carelessly throws away his hand and his cards mix with yours, your hand will also be dead if you don't have a card protector.

There are a lot of other rules of course and each place is different, so take the time to familiarize yourself with the local customs.

Bad Beats and Lucky Draws

Book Review:
Bad Beats and Lucky Draws
By Phil Hellmuth Jr.
2004, HarperCollins

You should be suspicious of any poker book published in 2004 - the year of pokermania. Chris Moneymaker, an accountant from Nashville, had won the World Series of Poker main even the previous year. Moneymaker was very much an average guy and his victory opened the floodgates for millions of everyday folks to get into the game. Interest in poker had never been higher and a lot of poker books suddenly appeared on bookstore shelves to cash in on the craze.

This book, a collection of stories by poker personality Phil Hellmuth, is pretty typical of the books rushed into print that year - fairly fluffy stuff designed to excite the reader with tales of amazing hands, bold bluffs, fantastic folds and the most unlikely scenarios you can imagine. In other words it is a book designed to feed the hype. I admit I found it entertaining, but I think if anyone tried to base their style of play from the stories they read in this book, the result would be disastrous. It has been said that to the untrained eye, poker at its highest level looks a lot like poker at its lowest levels and books like this make it look simpler than it is. All the complex nuances, all the hours of observation required to make an informed decision in poker are excluded when a hand is distilled down to a page of description. Still, anyone just interested in a “highlight reel” kind of poker book will find a few hours of entertainment here.

When not to go all-in

...well there are probably a great many times when you shouldn't go all-in, but let me tell you about a hand I played yesterday when I pushed all my chips in at the wrong moment and it cost me. I was playing $1-$2 no-limit hold 'em at a pretty loose table - one where the standard pre-flop raise was $15. I was on the button with As 3s when the guy under the gun limped and four guys called ahead of me. I decide to call, the small blind completes and the big blind just checks, so seven players get to see the flop.


The board after the flop: Ad Kc Ac


Okay. So, I have three aces - but am I ahead? Probably. I'm thinking anyone with a strong ace would have raised it preflop, right? The five guys ahead of me all check. I think that maybe there is a stronger ace out there, but nothing higher than A 10 at the most. If I am right, then there is a possibility that another high card on the board will make the kickers irrelevant. What to do? With only $14 in the pot, a bet of $10 felt right to me here, so that's what I did. Acting after so many players checked, it might look like a steal and I might get a call from someone on the club draw, or someone with a king. The Chinese lady in the big blind raised it to $25 and everyone else folds. Now what? I'm about 6o% sure I'm ahead, so I call.


The board after the turn: Ad Kc Ac Kd

Oh, wow. I have aces full of kings. She might have that too. I check and she bets $55. I don't know what to think. To be honest with aces-full I'm too excited to think clearly. I look at how many chips she has left and guess it to be around $250, and I have more than that left. And this is where I make my big mistake - I go all-in. Why did I do this? Why not just call her bet and see if I can get more out of her on the river? Was I afraid of a king coming on the river and losing to quad kings? No. I really thought it was going to be a split pot - that each of us had an ace, so my all-in move here was a big mistake. Of course she folded her king, and while I scooped up a $119 pot I probably could have gotten another $55 out of her on the river.

This hand is a perfect example of what they call "leaving money on the table". I won a big pot, but I should have won more. Rookies make mistakes like this all the time, and maybe I'm still a rookie. It is difficult to learn not to leave money on the table. When you win a hand you feel good, and you don't always realize that you've made a costly mistake. The money you should win but don't negatively effects your bottom-line as much as the money you lose.

The WSOP: 1998-2000

The international appeal of poker began to be reflected in the Worlds Series of Poker champions when Vietnamese born Thuan (Scotty) Nguyen took down pokers top honour in 1998, followed by Irishman Noel Furlong in 1999.

The 2000 WSOP of poker main event saw a then record 512 competitors vie for the $1.5 million first place would bring. Among the players fighting it out that year was Jim McManus, who had been sent by Harpers Magazine to report on the tournament. Not satisfied to simply watch, McManus took the advance Harper's had given him and won a satellite, giving him a ticket to play in the big game himself. A lifelong amateur player, McManus went on a terrific run and made it all the way to the final table, finishing fifth and collecting $248,000. He then wrote a book about it; Positively Fifth Street. On a personal note, I read Positively Fifth Street and was captivated by it. It was this book that got me interested in poker and I'm sure it had a similar effect on hundreds, maybe thousands, of others.



The final two players that year were T. J. Cloutier and Chris "Jesus" Ferguson. The contrast between the two men made this final showdown particularly dramatic. Cloutier was an almost perfect example of the old type of Texas road gambler; a sixty-one year old Texan who had honed his skills over decades of playing in the illegal backroom games in the American south west. A professional football player in his younger days, T.J. was physically intimidating as well. The "old school" of poker players could not have a better representative.



Chris Ferguson was everything Cloutier was not: A slim young Californian who had just completed his Ph.D in computer science. With his beard and long brown hair, he bore a striking resemblance to the popular image of Christ, hence his nickname. Ferguson had none of the swagger and intimidation of the "old school", but he had a deep understanding of the mathematics and game theory. In the end, Cloutier outplayed Ferguson. Ferguson later said he knew that he couldn't beat T.J. "straight-up" and that to win he would have to get lucky - and that's exactly what happened. With Ferguson holding a slight chip lead, he got into a showdown holding A9 against Cloutiers' AQ, but a miracle 9 came on the river and Chris Ferguson won. This victory seemed to spark new interest among average people. If an egghead (albiet an egghead that looks like Jesus) can beat a tough old Texan, then it seemed like any reasonably intellegent person might be able to do allright at this game.

Busting Mr.Tight

One of the hardest things to do in a ring game is to bust a tight player. Tight players are always looking for a reason to fold and only bet when the are pretty certain they are ahead. I like to think I'm a tight player but I've seen some guys and gals fold forty or more hands in a row, patiently waiting for something really strong to play.

At the casino I most frequently go to, I've played at the same table a few times with a guy who I just call "Mr. Tight". Mr. Tight is a rock. He plays only premium hands. When he bets (which he might do once every hour) - you get out of his way. He tends to only make money from players who don't know how tight he is - people who have just joined the table, or have been drinking, or are just plain stupid. A few weeks ago I saw something I didn't think I would ever see: I saw Mr. Tight lose all his chips in a single hand. I would like to relate the hand because I think it is an excellent illustration of a good way to play against super-tight players.

Pre-Flop. When the following hand occurred, Mr. Tight had about $250 in chips. He was the first to act (Under the Gun) and raised the $2 big blind to $15. Now unless you are unconscious, you knew that Mr. Tight had a hand - AA, KK, QQ, AK, AQ, or maybe JJ. That's how tight this guy is. One good thing about playing against super-tight dudes is that it is pretty easy to guess what they have. Everyone folds except one guy, a really good player named Tom. Tom calls and the two of them see the flop.

The Flop: Ah 6c 6d.
The pot was $32 so Mr. Tights' bet of $20 here was pretty standard. I expected he had an ace pre-flop, and the continuation bet he made me even more certain. I expected Tom to fold, so I was very surprised when Tom immediately raised it to $80. Huh? Immediately I thought Tom was trying to push Mr.Tight out of the pot. Tight players fold easily right? Mr. Tight looked like he had something very sour in his mouth. Finally, after agonizing over his decision for a minute, Mr.Tight said something I will never forget: "If I can't call this, then I have no business being at this table," and he pushed the balance of $60 in.

The Turn: 9c.
Mr. Tight checked. Tom reached for his chips "If you can call $80," he said "Then you should be able to call $160". This $160 just covered the rest of Mr. Tights' chips - a call would put him all-in. In my head I was sure Tom was bluffing. I knew Mr.Tight had an ace, but could he call all-in with just a pair, even a pair of aces? After all, Tom could easily have a six. Mr. Tight, looked like he was going to throw-up, but after a minute he said, "I call." By making this call, Mr. Tight was all-in. As there could be no more wagering, the two players showed their hands; Mr. Tight showed he had A K and Tom showed 8 6. I don't think a single person at the table really thought Tom had the 6. Why bet so much after the flop, against such a tight player if you didn't want him to fold? I couldn't make sense of it, but there it was. Only another ace on the river would save Mr. Tight now.

The River: I don't remember, but it wasn't an ace.
Mr. Tight, to his credit, didn't whine or complain or get angry. He gathered up his things and left quietly.

"Seat open!" yelled the dealer.

I turned to Tom, who was stacking his chips to my right, and said "When you made that big bet after the flop I was sure you trying to get him to fold."

Without looking up at all, Tom replied "I was trying to get him to fold." Words which really puzzle me. Did he really want to win the pot right there? Maybe. The comment seems weird to me.

So what exactly happened here? I don't know what went through Tom's mind, but my guess is something like this: When Mr. Tight raised pre-flop, Tom wasn't afraid to call him knowing that he stood a good chance of bluffing him off on a later street. When the flop came, Tom knew he was ahead of everything but AA. So why the big bet? Tom bet so much that it looked to everybody like an obvious steal attempt. This is, in my opinion, an absolutely brilliant move! Disguising a strong hand as a bluff in an obvious bluffing situation is not a move I have witnessed often, and it requires having a very good read on your opponent to pull off. Tom was actually betting that Mr. Tight would find the guts to make a tough call on the flop and an even tougher call on the turn. Mr. Tight was betting on Tom being a bully. Tom won a massive pot because he read his opponent correctly, and Mr. Tight lost because he read his opponent incorrectly. Poker is about people.

The WSOP: 1992-1997

From 1991 to 1999, first prize in the main event at the World Series of poker was set at an even million dollars. The number of players entering the tournament grew steadily from 194 at the start of the decade to 393 at the end - steady growth, but nothing spectacular.

For the first half of the decade, the main event was won by names most people today would not recognize. Dan Harrington changed that with his 1995 win. Rather than slipping back into the shadows, Harrington leveraged his new profile and wrote a number of very good books on poker.

The following year a kid from California named Huckleberry Seed (Do you think his parents were hippies?) won the title, which created ripples of interest outside of the poker world.

Then in 1997 Stu Ungar shocked the poker world when he won the main event for the third time. By 1997 Stu Ungar had been battling drug addiction for over ten years and despite his poker triumphs he was deeply in debt. Few people wanted anything to do with him. Everyone remembered the 1990 WSOP, when Stu did not show up for the third day of play and was found unconscious in his hotel room after too much cocaine. Once unquestionably the best poker player in the world, Stu was now up all night before the tournament trying to convince someone to back him. Billy Baxter, an old friend, finally agreed to pay Ungar's entrance fee (in exchange for a cut of Ungar's winnings) but by the time the tournament began Stu was exhausted and began falling asleep at the table. Miraculously, he made through the first day. From his second day on, Ungar destroyed his competition. Showing up well rested each day, he quickly amassed a huge chip lead and won the tournament easily. He split the million dollars evenly with Baxter.

What could have been -should have been- the turning point in Ungars life may have been his undoing. Ungar blew his winnings in a few months, mostly on drugs and sports betting. Ungar's addiction prevented him from competing in the WSOP the following year. A year and a half after his amazing third main event win, Stuart Errol Ungar was found dead in a seedy Las Vegas hotel room. Despite having won millions at poker in his lifetime, Ungar died without assets. At his funeral a collection was taken up to pay for the service.

Wink: The Ninja Who Wanted to be Noticed

Another example of how reading fine literature will make you a better poker player.

Wink is very excited to have been accepted to the Summer Moon School for Ninjas - he can't wait to show everyone what a great ninja he is! But it becomes apparent Winks' desire for recognition is a problem. Master Zutsu tries to teach Wink with wise sayings such as "The flower that flaunts its colours is the first to be plucked!" But Wink can't help himself - he just has to be the centre of attention. After all, what is the point of being an awesome ninja if nobody notices?

The other day at the poker table there was a guy who had to let everyone know what a poker genius he was. After every hand Wink (as I called him) would say how he knew exactly what somebody had for this or that reason, or why even though he lost he had made a smart move. Predictably, Wink didn't last too long.

The Wink types are the easiest to beat because they beat themselves. They are always trying the fancy moves. They bluff too much. They suspect that others are bluffing when they are not. They are in it for thrills and to win the admiration of others.

Don't be a Wink. Remember the wisdom of Master Zutsu; "The loudest cricket is the first to be caught."

The Days We Lose

Most commercials for on-line poker sites show attractive looking people doing courageous things and being rewarded with mountains of chips. Bucking the trend is one commercial where the frustrated faces of losers are shown, with the tag-line "We play because the nights we lose are the nights we learn the most." This is brilliant commercial, because it is saying to people "So, you are losing money playing poker? Well, just think about how much you are learning! Don't give up! You are just a few losing sessions away from being a poker genius!" Still, there is a grain of truth to the commercial. Usually when you lose it is because of some mistake you made, and if you are truthful with yourself you can identify your error and make yourself less likely to repeat it.

Yesterday I took $100 to the casino, built it up to $300 in two hours, then lost it in a single hand. I won't bore you with the details, but it was a bad beat that took me out. I lost to a guy I don't like very much (he's kind of a know-it-all) and that wounded my pride a bit, but I also feel good in the knowledge that I had all my chips in when I was a favourite to double up. I read the situation well, correctly put my opponent on the hand he was holding, set a trap and sprung it on him. He had to get lucky to beat me.

So while I lost I feel I have learned a great deal. The trick is being honest with yourself. It is hard to admit when you made a mistake, and if you can't do that then you are dooming yourself to repeating your mistakes.

A Good Time to Bluff

I'm sorry to say I can't remember exactly where I heard this, but I recall a pro offering the following advice. I'm dutifully passing it along as it seems sensible to me.



It is advisable, generally speaking, to try to get "tight-weak" or "loose-weak" opponents heads up. By "weak" I mean players who lay their hands down without a great deal of pressure. By getting such players heads-up you stand a very good chance of simply scooping the pot with a good sized bet post-flop. If the player calls, you can shut it down and minimize your losses, but such losses should be more than off-set by the number of pots you will win. Your success, of course, depends mostly on a proper read of your opponent, but knowing which flops are best to bluff is important too. Our anonymous professional said that the ideal flop has one high card and two low cards in it - your opponent is unlikely to have connected with this and will be unable to call your continuation bet.

How big should your bets be? Our pro suggests that your post-flop bluff be about 2/3 the pot, but it depends on the situation. The idea is to bet the smallest amount that you think will be enough to make your opponent fold, that way you minimize your losses if they got lucky and connected with the flop. Think of it as a "value bluff"; the opposite of a value bet (when you think you are ahead and bet the maximum amount you think your opponent will call.)

Try to get heads-up by raising a guy who limped in (limping is usually a sign of a weaker player). If you get called by someone else behind you, that might be okay if they too are weak. Our pro says betting a "one high - two low" flop is effective three-way as well as heads up.

As always, general rules like this can go out the window in any number of specific situations. If you have a loose table image, even a weak player might decide to play back at you. This is just another example of how "playing the person" is often more important than "playing the cards"

Japan

7:30 am:

Nothing to do with poker...but our thoughts and prayers for you in Northern Japan today.

If you are are poker player, why not donate a little to the Red Cross or some other organization today? If you have the money to play the game you could probably spare a little.

When you sit at a poker table, you have to be ruthless. You must try to take every one's money without any regard to whether or not they can afford to lose that money. But I am a big believer in finding balance in life, so if you are ruthless at the table it seems a good idea to be generous away from the table. The more generous you are away from the table, the easier you will find it to be ruthless at the table.

I am pledging any winnings today to the Red Cross. If I lose? I don't plan on losing. I'm gonna be a ruthless bastard today.

2:50 pm:

Holy crap that went well!

For a guy who said he doesn't believe in luck, I decided to surround my self with as much positive energy as possible. I borrowed my wife's Porkbelly Futures baseball cap, thinking that maybe Paul Quarrington might help me out a bit. For a card protector I took a heart-shaped pink paperweight my niece Posey sent me for Christmas. Seriously, how could I lose?

I walked into the poker room and there was one seat open at the only table going, another good omen. I sat down between a bald, muscle bound dude with tattoos down both arms and an elderly Chinese man. I folded my first three hands and then was dealt pocket queens. I made a modest raise, not wanting to make things too hard if an Ace or King came on the flop. The flop came Qc 9d 5c. I was so excited that I thought I was first to act - "All in!" I practically shout and begin pushing my chips.

The dealer gives me a dirty look. "There are two people to act ahead of you."

"Oh. Right. Sorry." I sheepishly pull my chips back. Nice move Mr.Cool. Not surprisingly the other two guys check. "All in," I softly say and push in my chips. Whatta dork! Then something weird happens - the first guy calls. Huh? Could he have AQ? AA? KK? 99? I'm trying to make sense of his call when the second guy also calls! I think he must be on the flush draw, and now feels "priced in". Crap. Even though I know I'm ahead there is a decent chance one of these guys is going catch me and make this the shortest poker session of my life. But no more clubs came and my set held up. Just like that I have three times the chips I came with.

The rest of the day went well. I can't say I played my best poker, but I always won the big pots I got involved in. After three hours I had made a little more than $900 - the most I've made in a session.

On the way home I stopped in at the Red Cross and donated the money. I am certain that I did so well because in the back of my mind I knew that my winnings would mean something. If I pocketed the cash instead of following through on my pledge I would be giving into the kind of greedy impulses that make people terrible poker players.

And I wouldn't feel as good as I do right now.

The WSOP: 1982-1991

In 1982 Jack Straus pulled off what is still regarded as the most improbable victory in the WSOP main event when he was reduced to a single $500 chip on the second day of play and then went on to win the tournament. Straus was a very likable professional, so his victory seemed like a breath of fresh air after back-to-back wins by the self-destructive Stu Unger and the 1979 win by Hal Fowler, an unknown amateur who won despite popping Valium and making horrible calls. Straus's dramatic victory seemed to many people to put the WSOP back on its proper track. 1982 also marked the first time over one hundred players entered the tournament, and was the first time the winner received more than half a million in prize money.

In 1987 Johnny Chan won his first main event. Although American, Chan had been born in China, and his success was a harbinger that poker's popularity was now reaching far beyond the United States. In 1988 Chan repeated as champion; previously only Doyle Brunson and Stu Unger had managed to win the title back-to-back, and no one has done it again since Chan. A clip from Chan's 1988 victory over Erik Seidel is featured in the movie Rounders.

Amazingly the following year Chan nearly did it again, coming in second place to a young man named Phil Hellmuth. Only 24 years old at the time, Hellmuth was the youngest player ever to win the main event (a distinction now held by Joe Cada, who was only 21 when he won in 2009). Hellmuth's youth and caustic jabbering earned him the nickname "Poker Brat" and he quickly became one of poker's most well known personalities.

In 1990 the growing international interest in poker was once again made evident when Iranian Mansour Matloubi took the main event title.

In 1991 more than 200 players entered the main event, and for the first time the winner took home more than a million dollars. Poker's growth though the 'eighties had been slow and steady.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Year - Winner- Prize Money (USD)-Entrants

1982-Jack Sraus-$520,000-104

1983-Tom McEvoy-$540,000-108

1984-Jack Keller-$660,000-132

1985-Bill Smith-$700,000-140

1986-Barry Johnston-$570,000-141

1987-Johnny Chan-$625,000-152

1988-Johnny Chan-$700,000-167

1989-Phil Hellmuth, Jr.-$755,000-178

1990-Mansour Matloubi-$895,000-194

1991-Brad Daugherty-$1,000,000-215

Gabba Gabba Hey

My last post was a bit of a disjointed rambling. Sorry about that. There was one very important point I wanted to make about why live poker is a great place to improve your skills and I completely forgot to mention it. So here it is:

In a live-person game (opposed to on-line) after big hands the winner and and loser often quickly discuss why they made the moves they did. These little comments are incredibly valuable to people learning how others approach different situations. I don't think I've ever been at a table where this has not happened. The hand is over, so the players usually don't see the harm in discussing it, even though the chat reveals to other players how they play. Just being at the table and listening to these post-hand recaps will give you many mini-lessons. The fact that it takes a little while between hands for the dealer to extract the rake, push the chips to the winner, exchange decks and deal, means that these little analysis sessions naturally tend to fill the void.

Do be careful, because good players will change up their strategies - particularly after talking about them. Be wary of the guy who says he always plays this or that situation a certain way, he might be setting you up. But you can take most of what you hear at face value, because much of the talk won't be about the cards but about the other players. The comments you will hear will be something like:

"When you called my bet after the turn, I knew I was dead."

"I didn't put you on aces. Why did you just limp in with aces?"

"I wasn't sure if you hit the king or the queen on the flop."

Such comments reveal information about the speaker's thought process and also reveal a bit about how your opponents feel about each other. You don't even have to play a hand to learn a lot.

For similar reasons, one of the best things you can do to improve your game is to discuss your experiences with friends who also play. A friend of mine told me about how he got knocked out of a tournament in Vegas when he made a bad call with pocket queens post-flop. I remember his description of the hand and I have learned from his experience and it didn't cost me anything. Many professionals are constantly analysing their play by discussing hands with friends - you should too.

Poker is about people

...or as the old saying goes: Poker is not a card game played by people, it is a people game played with cards. This is particularly true of no-limit hold'em, where bluffing plays a much bigger role that it does in limit games. Math skills are essential in limit games, where over the long run the player who makes the best decisions based on the odds will almost always come out ahead. In a five hour session of no-limit, whether you are a big winner or big loser may depend on how you played a single hand.



The difference between the approach you should take to limit and no-limit is underscored by recent advances in poker-playing computer modeling. In the last ten years several universities have begun trying to develop computer programs that can compete (and beat) the best human players. Great strides have been made with computers when it comes to limit hold'em, with programs that consistently win against very good players. No-limit has proven a harder game for computers because it is hard for computers to understand human psychology. The really great no-limit players are conscious of what patterns they have established, and may change the pattern at a crucial moment.



The psychological aspect of no-limit is what makes trying to learn the game so difficult. A poker book (or blog) may say what is usually the best move in certain situations, but has your opponent also read that book?



If you want to play no-limit, I would highly recommend playing "real life" games rather than on-line. On-line is great for getting a grounding in the basics, and because of the speed of on-line poker you can get a lot of experience in a short time. Because you don't get many physical tells in on-line poker, you are forced to concentrate on bet-size as the primary clue to understanding your opponents approach to the game. This is great because bet size -when combined with what type of player you feel your opponent to be- is the best clue to the strength of his or her cards. This grounding has been the basis that has allowed many on-line players to make the leap to real-life poker.

To me, a real table with real people sitting at it is what poker is all about. Being able to tell at a glance which players should have gone home to bed hours ago and who seems alert is part of the game. The way people stack their chips, how they hold their cards, what they look at first immediately after the flop....and how you do all these things too, is just as important as knowing how to bet a top pair with a flush draw.

If on-line poker was as exciting as real-life poker, then why do all the T.V. ads for poker sites show real people playing instead of computer avatars?

So by all means get a quick education playing on-line. And when you are ready for the real deal, find yourself a real game.

Pocket Cowboys Make My Day

Again: We're talking $1/$2 no limit hold'em.

I'm thinking perhaps I should have chosen a different title for this post. Please, refrain from "Brokeback Mountain" jokes, okay? The "pocket cowboys" I'm talking about have to do with the beautiful experience of being dealt a pair of kings.

I only took $100 to the casino today in order to limit my losses should things go south. After only ten minutes I was on the button when I looked down at the cowboys. What made it even better was that the straddle was on and four guys had called the $5 straddle. There was $28 in the pot before I had the chance to act. I raised to $30, reasoning this was low enough to attract callers but not so much that I would have a hard time folding should an ace hit the flop. Rasing from the button with monster cards has the added bonus that someone might think I was trying to steal the pot and play back at me. I only got one caller - the guy who put the straddle on- and the flop came A K 5 rainbow - giving me a set of kings. Being first to act, I bet half the pot, figuring if he has an ace he'll call. The only way I can build the pot is if he has an ace and thinks he has me beat. Anything else and he folds, unless he tries to bluff. He folds, giving me a $58 pot, and I do something I hardly every do - I show my hand. Not only do I show my hand, but I say "I thought I would get more callers with just a $3o pre-flop bet."

Why did I show my hand? Why did I remind everyone of the size of the bet I made with this monster? I'm not sure. I thought that weaker players at the table would expect me to play that way again if I got a good hand. I thought that the stronger players would expect me to be bluffing the next time I made a similar move - why else would I show? Does that make any sense? Poker is about mind games. I thought I knew who was strong and who was weak, so I thought I was giving myself a better chance down the road.

The very next time I'm on the button something really great happens - I'm dealt pocket kings again. Just like last time the straddle is on, and there is already about $30 in the pot before I have to act. "I raise to $30, " I announce. This time I have three callers and they are the three players I had pegged as my best opponents. I think they think I'm full of shit. The flop is Qh 10s 4h - giving me an over pair. The first two players check, but a guy in a designer baseball cap bets $70. This is the classic bet someone makes when they think they are ahead, but are afraid of the flush draw. He might actually be ahead too, but when I think of the range of hands he could be holding it seems likely he has pair of queens. Only one way to find out - I push my remaining chips into the center. The two others fold and Designer Baseball Cap thinks for awhile. I hope he's thinking about how I deliberately showed my kings like I was setting him up for a bluff, and maybe he is thinking about that because he calls and shows A Q - top pair, top kicker. His hand doesn't improve, and I rake a little more than $350 - enough to buy a few spiffy hats of my own.

An over pair is not a killer hand, but it is the relative strength, not the absolute strength of your cards that matter. I was pretty sure DBC thought I was bluffing, so I knew he would call if he hit the flop hard enough, and a pair of queens with an ace kicker is strong enough if you think the other guy is bluffing.

The WSOP: 1971-1981

The World Series of Poker (WSOP) began in the early seventies when Benny Binion, owner of the Horseshoe Casino, invited six players to compete against each other with the champion to be determined by secret ballot. Obviously this voting approach was unsatisfactory and in subsequent years the winner was determined by a “freeze out” tournament.

The main event of the WSOP has, over the decades, proven pivotal in dragging poker out of the disreputable gambling dens and into the light of public acceptance. Perhaps the first big step on this journey occurred when Amarillo Slim Preston won the first tournament contested WSOP in 1972. Slim almost perfectly fit the public’s romantic ideal of a poker player; a thin, leathery cowboy with an endless supply of anecdotes, he was impossible not to like. Slim went on several talk shows, including The Tonight Show, and his charisma did wonders for the reputation of the game.

As the years passed, more “events” were added to the WSOP. Championship bracelets were given for different types of poker: Limit and No-Limit Hold ‘em, different stud games, various Omaha and even Razz tournaments all became part of the WSOP. The big championship game came to be known as the “Main Event”. When you hear so-and-so won the WSOP - it usually is referring to the main event, which is a massive No-Limit Texas Hold ‘Em tournament.

Throughout the seventies and eighties the main event drew relatively few contestants, possibly because the $10,000 entrance fee was too much for most people to pay. It was 1982 before the 100 player mark was broken and it was 1991 before the main event drew more than 200 players. As the entrance fee remained fixed, over the years it gradually became less of a barrier to professional and amateur players alike.

In 1983 Al Alvarez wrote a book called The Biggest Game in Town. It was both a history of poker and an account of the 1981 main event which was won by Stu Ungar. Alvarez was and is a great writer of both poetry and prose, and was also Sylvia Plath’s close friend and editor. He knows how to put words together. But he also knows a lot about poker, being a long-time player himself. The combination of writing ability an deep knowledge of his subject makes The Biggest Game in Town, in quite a few people’s opinion, the best book about poker. I have read it a few times and I have recommended it to people who want to understand what all the fuss is about. The game has never had a more eloquent spokesperson.

I do, however, two small quibbles. Quibble number one: historical inaccuracy.

After Benny Binion took over the Horseshoe Casino, he slowly began to develop it into the main poker place in Las Vegas. Binion achieved this in part by creating a myth - the myth of Johnny Moss and Nick the Greek. In a nutshell, the story goes that Nick the Greek, the most famous gambler in the world at the time, came to Vegas in 1949 and asked Binion to set up the highest stakes poker game possible. Binion called in Johnny Moss (who would later win the WSOP main event twice) to duel it out with The Greek. The game, according to legend, lasted five months with only short breaks for meals and rest. Binion set up the table right at the front of his casino and the epic struggle drew thousands of curious onlookers who, it is assumed, spent their money in Binion’s place. Binion even went so far as to claim Albert Einstein came to the Horseshoe and was introduced to Binion’s friends as “Little Al. He runs a lot of the action in Jersey.” After five months of fortunes sliding back and forth between the two men, Moss finally wore The Greek down, until The Greek finally stood up and uttered the famous words: “Mr. Moss, I have to let you go.”

That’s the story. Binion claimed the epic game was the inspiration for him starting the WSOP. The story quickly became accepted as truth and was given credibility when Alvarez repeated it in detail in The Biggest Game in Town. The only problem is that it almost certainly did not happen. There is no record Nick the Greek ever spoke of such a match, much less participated in it, and the story seems to have started only after Nick’s death. If such as match took place, with thousands of tourists serving as witnesses, then there must be a mountain of photos to prove it - but the fact that no one has ever brought forth a single picture of this game is a pretty strong argument that it never happened. Still a great story. One really can’t blame Alvarez, who was a poet not an historian, for perpetuating the myth.

The only other quibble I have is Alvarez’s obvious dislike for the man who won the 1981 WSOP main event, Stu Ungar. If Amarillo Slim Preston moved poker towards the light of respectability, then Ungar certainly moved it back towards the dark. Far from eloquent, Ungar is portrayed by Alvarez as barely human - communicating with monosyllabic grunts. Ungar was a terrible drug addict, which may have also fuelled Alvarez’s distaste. Still the portrait of Ungar as somehow sub-human reflects poorly on Alvarez.

People are rarely as good or as bad our snap judgements make them out to be. Ungar was almost certainly a much more complex person than Alvarez makes out and Amarillo Slim Preston would become a pariah in the poker world when in 2003 he was charged with indecency in an incident involving a 12 year old child.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Year - Winner- Prize Money (USD)-Entrants

1971-Johnny Moss-$30,000-6
1972-"Amarillo Slim" Preston-$80,000-8
1973-Walter "Puggy" Pearson-$130,000-13
1974-Johnny Moss-$160,000sm-16
1975-Brian "Sailor" Roberts-$210,000-21
1976-Doyle Brunson-$220,000-22
1977-Doyle Brunson-$340,000-34
1978-Bobby Baldwin-$210,000-42
1979-Hal Fowler-$270,000-54
1980-Stu Ungar-$385,000-73
1981-Stu Ungar-$375,000-75