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.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
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.
The 2011 WSOP gets under way
That's right. What used to be a single tournament that took a couple of days back in the early 1970's has sprawled in to a massive, some might say bloated, extravaganza that now includes fifty eight separate events culminating in the main event, which doesn't start until July (no that's not a typo; July not June) 7th. As the WSOP has gotten bigger, it is hard not to argue that having so many events is diluting the mystique somewhat. Can earning a WSOP bracelet be considered the ultimate poker achievement when they are handing out fifty two of them in a year?
Some events are considered more prestigious than others. The main event has always been considered, well, the main event. A couple months ago I had written four posts on the main event from 1971-2000 ( 1971-1981, 1982-1991, 1992-1997, 1998-2000) because I knowing about the history of the main event was integral to having a basic knowledge of poker history. Then I petered out...interestingly I stopped writing about the main event just at the point in it's history when it began to be won by people who were previously unknowns in the poker world. Amateurs and unknowns make up the vast majority of the massive numbers of competitors in the main event, making it statistically unlikely that a well known celebrity player will win the big one.
Because of this, many poker snobs see the main event as a circus and claim that the winner of the event called "The Poker Player's Championship", a five-day event starting July 2nd, crowns the true champion. One reason this tournament is considered a tougher test is that instead of just playing the ubiquitous No-Limit Texas Hold 'Em, players are required to play a number of different forms of poker in rotation: Limit Hold'em, Omaha Hi-Low Split-8 or Better, Seven Card Razz , Seven Card Stud, Seven Card Stud Hi-Low Split-8 or Better, No-Limit Hold'em, Pot-Limit Omaha and 2-7 Triple Draw Lowball . Obviously only extremely serious players are going to be skilled at all these different forms of poker; I don't even know what 2-7 Triple Draw Lowball is! And just as obviously this not a tournament that an average person could follow on television without getting confused. So for the great unwashed masses, the main event remains the ultimate tournament.
I will try to complete my little summation of the WSOP main event before the 2011 main event gets under way. With over a month, I should have no problem.
Some events are considered more prestigious than others. The main event has always been considered, well, the main event. A couple months ago I had written four posts on the main event from 1971-2000 ( 1971-1981, 1982-1991, 1992-1997, 1998-2000) because I knowing about the history of the main event was integral to having a basic knowledge of poker history. Then I petered out...interestingly I stopped writing about the main event just at the point in it's history when it began to be won by people who were previously unknowns in the poker world. Amateurs and unknowns make up the vast majority of the massive numbers of competitors in the main event, making it statistically unlikely that a well known celebrity player will win the big one.
Because of this, many poker snobs see the main event as a circus and claim that the winner of the event called "The Poker Player's Championship", a five-day event starting July 2nd, crowns the true champion. One reason this tournament is considered a tougher test is that instead of just playing the ubiquitous No-Limit Texas Hold 'Em, players are required to play a number of different forms of poker in rotation: Limit Hold'em, Omaha Hi-Low Split-8 or Better, Seven Card Razz , Seven Card Stud, Seven Card Stud Hi-Low Split-8 or Better, No-Limit Hold'em, Pot-Limit Omaha and 2-7 Triple Draw Lowball . Obviously only extremely serious players are going to be skilled at all these different forms of poker; I don't even know what 2-7 Triple Draw Lowball is! And just as obviously this not a tournament that an average person could follow on television without getting confused. So for the great unwashed masses, the main event remains the ultimate tournament.
I will try to complete my little summation of the WSOP main event before the 2011 main event gets under way. With over a month, I should have no problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)