Things started well, but it only takes one stupid moment to blow everything.
I started with $100 in chips and won a $40 pot simply by betting after it was checked to me post-flop.
Then I got real lucky. I had the red kings under the gun and limped in, expecting a raise from someone down the line. Instead it looked like it was going to be a family pot with everyone throwing in two blue $1 chips into the middle. Then the big blind raised it to $40. I glanced at his stack - with only another $100 or so behind him I was pretty sure he was going to call whatever I choose to bet here. I wanted to make a bet big enough that no one else would call - I didn't want a mutiway pot that increased my chances of losing - so I made it $100 total. It folded back to the big blind who went all in and I snap called. The flop came Qd 5d 8h. The turn brought Ad, and my heart sank a bit, but the river was 9d, giving me the nut flush. I showed my cards and my opponent flashed the 10c.
Ten of clubs? What was he thinking? The other card had to be another 10, I guess. Still, it seemed pretty loose of him to push all in with pocket tens.
How could he be so dumb?
I now had almost $300, but I went card dead for an hour or so. I started losing my patience, playing hands I shouldn't have played and chasing. I was soon under $200 and found myself in middle position with KQo - not a great hand but certainly playable. I raised to $5. There was one caller and then the big blind raised to $25. At least I thought the dealer said "twenty-five". I was getting very tired and could not concentrate. I knew I should just fold, but decided to gamble and threw another $20 into the middle. That is when the dealer informed me that the bet wasn't $25 but $45 - I had misheard and was not paying close enough attention. Damn. My $25 was committed, so if I folded it would be lost. I quickly decided the best course of action would be to put the $20 balance in.
What am I doing in this hand?
The flop was Kd 4h 6h. My opponent checked. With top pair, queen kicker I thought it was likely I was ahead here, and with two hearts on board I thought it unlikely that my opponent was slow playing as he should be defending against the flush draw. I didn't want to give him a free card, so I bet $100 - most of my remaining stack. He instantly went all in for about another $25. Shit. Damn. I called and he showed pocket aces. Of course. How obvious. The turn and river brought no miracle saves for me. I was down to $27.
How could I be so dumb?
It is very rare to see a player who has been crippled like I have been leave the table with his pathetic little stack. Pride makes him stick around until he gets a hand to shove with. Usually the short stack will bust out, but can sometimes make a comeback with a little luck.
But I have no pride. I don't care what people think of me. I'd rather save that $27. I think if I cash out all these little small amounts then, over the course of years, I will save myself a large amount. So I left. Which is probably the smartest thing I could have done.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Friday, July 13, 2012
Tales of Cowboy Poker Madness: Part 4
Saturday night during Stampede. Players were coming and going so fast that it seemed like every time I looked up there was a new face at the table. At one point Bob the Hippy sat down. I had played Bob before; he hardly ever says a word (I call him Bob after Silent Bob) but plays very well. He looks like an organic zucchini farmer in his floppy hat, jeans and sandals. He sports a full beard and has calm icy blue eyes. Not the type you'd suspect was a poker shark, which probably has helped win him a lot of pots. Sitting down at around the same time as Bob is a guy who is dressed like Bertrand "ElkY" Grospellier; some kind of blingy designer t-shirt, Sophia Loren aviator shades and Guy Fieri hair.
A few hands in, Bob opens the betting with $20 and gets called by ElkY-Guy. The flop is Ah 7d 4c. Bob shoots out a another $20, ElkY-Guy re-raises to $60 and Bob calls. the turn is Qh. Bob bets $100 and ElkY just calls. The river brings 9h and Bob puts his last $120 in, and ElkY-Guy calls. Bob flips over Ad Ac for a set of aces. ElkY-Guy turns over 10h 7h and wins with the flush. The table is stunned that ElkY-Guy has played so bad...and won. But nobody says anything until, of all people, Bob speaks in a mild voice; "Nice hand." Bob calmly takes three crisp $100 bills out of his pocket and re-buys.
Un. Real.
That night I was using a Professor Chaos action figure as my card protector. As ElkY-Guy is raking in his chips he tells me that it is the coolest card protector he has ever seen. I say something like it was a gift from a friend.
"How much do you want for it?" he asks me.
"I can't sell it," I reply. "It was a gift."
"I'll give you $50 for it." he says.
"Naw. I can't."
He just shrugs and we get back to the next hand.
And I suddenly realize he is not the biggest idiot at the table after all.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
How Much Do I Buy in For?: Part 3
Another good day yesterday when I took $100, played for four hours, and left with $120. I only played one big hand - I was dealt pocket aces and someone bet $40 ahead of me. I moved all-in, thinking a call was likely, and sure enough I was called and doubled up. Now I wonder, if I had $300 in front of me, would my opponent have been so quick to call? Would he have been able to bluff me off a board full of straight draws and flush draws?
Playing small-buy-in poker suits my conservative style, but it might not work for your style. If you are a more aggressive player, a big stack allows you to contest a lot of pots and get action when you do catch a hand.
What works for one person may not work for another - which is why poker is so great. There is no right and wrong, just what works and what doesn't work.
Playing small-buy-in poker suits my conservative style, but it might not work for your style. If you are a more aggressive player, a big stack allows you to contest a lot of pots and get action when you do catch a hand.
What works for one person may not work for another - which is why poker is so great. There is no right and wrong, just what works and what doesn't work.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Tales of Cowboy Poker Madness: Part 3
Usually there are two or three poker tables going and a dozen others sitting empty, but on a Saturday during Stampede that is reversed - all but two tables were full and I expect that those two would soon be used as well.
I didn't recognize half of the dealers. Obviously Calgary casinos have to bring in extra staff during Stampede, but where do the dealers come from? It takes a while to learn how to deal poker - they must come in from out of town during Stampede.
Anyway it was a zoo.
At one point a Jonathan Franzen look-alike gets up to stretch between hands. He takes a few steps away from the table and a small Asian man sits down in his chair and picks up the cards that have just been dealt. The dealer, in the mildest tone, says "Sir, this is not your table." The Asian man looks at the rest of us in surprise. "Oh, sorry" he mutters and puts the hand down. Nobody says anything as the Asian man meekly leaves us and the original player sits back down - like this happens all the time. When Franzen sits down, looks at his cards and folds them, the Asian guy, who was still nearby, says "You folded that!? You are crazy!" and of course everyone laughs.
I wonder what would have happened if no one had noticed and the Asian guy had played the hand out?
I didn't recognize half of the dealers. Obviously Calgary casinos have to bring in extra staff during Stampede, but where do the dealers come from? It takes a while to learn how to deal poker - they must come in from out of town during Stampede.
Anyway it was a zoo.
At one point a Jonathan Franzen look-alike gets up to stretch between hands. He takes a few steps away from the table and a small Asian man sits down in his chair and picks up the cards that have just been dealt. The dealer, in the mildest tone, says "Sir, this is not your table." The Asian man looks at the rest of us in surprise. "Oh, sorry" he mutters and puts the hand down. Nobody says anything as the Asian man meekly leaves us and the original player sits back down - like this happens all the time. When Franzen sits down, looks at his cards and folds them, the Asian guy, who was still nearby, says "You folded that!? You are crazy!" and of course everyone laughs.
I wonder what would have happened if no one had noticed and the Asian guy had played the hand out?
Monday, July 9, 2012
How Much Do I Buy in For? Part 2
In my last post I described a hand where a maniac called an all-in bet without even looking at his hole cards. This seems a very stupid thing to do, but there were some mitigating circumstances which led him to do what he did. For one thing the all-in was for only $85 or so. The Maniac had been winning a lot, so it didn't seem like that much money to take a chance on, and not looking at his hole cards just means he was here to gamble. He was there to have fun - not to be smart!
The lesson we can learn here is that if you are short stacked (or if you just bring a smaller stack to the table to begin with) you are more likely to get called when you go all-in because the bigger stacks don't care as much about losing $85 as they might care about losing $300. People are willing to treat money they have won very recklessly - but when you place a bet big enough that they would be behind for the session if they lost, they tend to tighten up.
If you are a tight player, after awhile it become obvious to the other players and thus it is difficult to get callers when you do have good hands. However, if you have a smaller stack then you can maybe get called by bigger stacks willing to gamble.
Just another argument for taking a small stack (say, fifty times the big blind) to a ring game.
The lesson we can learn here is that if you are short stacked (or if you just bring a smaller stack to the table to begin with) you are more likely to get called when you go all-in because the bigger stacks don't care as much about losing $85 as they might care about losing $300. People are willing to treat money they have won very recklessly - but when you place a bet big enough that they would be behind for the session if they lost, they tend to tighten up.
If you are a tight player, after awhile it become obvious to the other players and thus it is difficult to get callers when you do have good hands. However, if you have a smaller stack then you can maybe get called by bigger stacks willing to gamble.
Just another argument for taking a small stack (say, fifty times the big blind) to a ring game.
Tales of Cowboy Poker Madness: Part 2
An older gentleman brought $100 to the table. To say he seemed disinterested in the game would be putting it mildly - he took a book out and began reading. He only ever looked away from the book (which I think was a Bruce Springstein biography) when it was his turn to act.
After maybe twenty minutes he goes all-in with about $85 from middle position and is called by a maniac in the small blind who hasn't even looked at his hole cards! Obviously the maniac, who has a big stack, likes to gamble - but why not look at your cards? If you are that much of an adrenaline junkie that you need to do things like this to enjoy yourself, then my friend you have a problem.
Anyway. The older guy flips over 77 and the maniac flips over K8. The pocket sevens hold up until Maniac spikes an eight on the river. Maniac scoops up the chips while the older fellow re-buys for another $100.
And the party just keeps going.
After maybe twenty minutes he goes all-in with about $85 from middle position and is called by a maniac in the small blind who hasn't even looked at his hole cards! Obviously the maniac, who has a big stack, likes to gamble - but why not look at your cards? If you are that much of an adrenaline junkie that you need to do things like this to enjoy yourself, then my friend you have a problem.
Anyway. The older guy flips over 77 and the maniac flips over K8. The pocket sevens hold up until Maniac spikes an eight on the river. Maniac scoops up the chips while the older fellow re-buys for another $100.
And the party just keeps going.
Tales of Cowboy Poker Madness: Part 1
Both Ugly Joe and the Aussie had been running hot. Each had over $600 in chips in front of them. Ugly was under the gun and raised it to $15. It folded to the Aussie on the button who called, as did Bling Girl in the big blind.
The flop came Jd Qd 9h. Ugly checks and Aussie fires $40 into the pot. Bling girl folds and Ugly calls.
The turn is 10d, so the board is Jd Qd 9h 10d Ugly bets $60 and Aussie calls.
The river is 9d making the board Jd Qd 9h 10d 9d. An unbelievable board! Straights, flushes, full-houses, straight-flushes and even quads are possible! Ugly bets $50 and Aussie immediately re-raises to $150 and Ugly instantly moves all-in with his remaining $500. Aussie thinks four a minute and calls. The players flip their cards over. Aussie had Qc 10h for just two pair while Ugly had Ad 5d for the flush.
In an essay of 2,000 words or much less please explain why both these guys played extremely poorly.
The flop came Jd Qd 9h. Ugly checks and Aussie fires $40 into the pot. Bling girl folds and Ugly calls.
The turn is 10d, so the board is Jd Qd 9h 10d Ugly bets $60 and Aussie calls.
The river is 9d making the board Jd Qd 9h 10d 9d. An unbelievable board! Straights, flushes, full-houses, straight-flushes and even quads are possible! Ugly bets $50 and Aussie immediately re-raises to $150 and Ugly instantly moves all-in with his remaining $500. Aussie thinks four a minute and calls. The players flip their cards over. Aussie had Qc 10h for just two pair while Ugly had Ad 5d for the flush.
In an essay of 2,000 words or much less please explain why both these guys played extremely poorly.
Sunday, July 8, 2012
How Much Do I Buy in For?
People who are losing tend to continue to lose while people who are winning tend to continue to win.
STUCK: In poker to be stuck is to have lost money over the course of a session.
One piece of advice my father gave me about the stock market was to "cut your losses short and let your profits run." This advice has been echoed by many people when it comes to poker - that if you are winning you should stay at the table for as long as you continue to keep winning, but if you are losing you should leave. This seems fairly straight forward but it is actually counter to what most people believe - that one should quit when one is ahead. "Quit while you're ahead" thinking means you leave profitable tables with small gains when you should be leaving them with large gains. It also makes people stay at tables where they have been losing money because they are trying to get "unstuck," which often leads to greater losses.
One way to cut your losses short is to buy in for smaller amounts than the maximum. At the $1/$2 level I play, the minimum buy in is $50 and the maximum is $300. I used to always buy in for between $200 to $300 - thinking I could maximize my profit should I get all-in with the nuts against another big stack. However a string of losing sessions had so depleted my bankroll that it seemed prudent to take smaller amounts. Taking only $100 has the effect of "cutting my losses short" but, should the table turn in my favor, I can still make a decent profit.
Friday I made a decent profit. Taking only $100 forced me to play very disciplined - you can not afford crazy bluffs or calling with mediocre holdings when you are short stacked - and after five hours of poker I left with exactly $500. Now, would I have made more with a larger buy in? Possibly. But it is erroneous to think that because I left up $400, I would therefore have made $1,200 if I had bought in for $300. It doesn't work that way in the real world.
Yesterday I returned to the poker room with $100, but this time things did not go well and after only two hours I left with the $20 I had remaining. When I got to $20 I realized that the chances of me getting unstuck were so slim that I might as well save the $20 and go home. If I had started with $300 and had lost $80, I almost certainly would have played on in the hopes of getting unstuck. And maybe I would have. But it is more likely I would have continued to lose. This is because people who are losing tend to continue to lose while people who are winning tend to continue to win. Or as my stockbroker father would say, "The trend is your friend."
So here we have the tale of two poker sessions, one winning session where I let my profits run and a losing session where I cut my loses short (although I should have cut them much shorter!). I am up $320 for the two sessions.
Many people think that being a great poker player means turning a profit in the majority of sessions you play, but you can be a winning player even if only half, or even less than half, of your sessions are positive - as long as your positive sessions are very positive and your negative sessions are only mildly negative. Again this is counter to what most people, even a lot of experienced poker players, believe. They eke out a lot of small gains and a few terrible losses, but since they have more winning sessions than losing sessions and they believe they are better than average players when they have been losing money over time.
STUCK: In poker to be stuck is to have lost money over the course of a session.
One piece of advice my father gave me about the stock market was to "cut your losses short and let your profits run." This advice has been echoed by many people when it comes to poker - that if you are winning you should stay at the table for as long as you continue to keep winning, but if you are losing you should leave. This seems fairly straight forward but it is actually counter to what most people believe - that one should quit when one is ahead. "Quit while you're ahead" thinking means you leave profitable tables with small gains when you should be leaving them with large gains. It also makes people stay at tables where they have been losing money because they are trying to get "unstuck," which often leads to greater losses.
One way to cut your losses short is to buy in for smaller amounts than the maximum. At the $1/$2 level I play, the minimum buy in is $50 and the maximum is $300. I used to always buy in for between $200 to $300 - thinking I could maximize my profit should I get all-in with the nuts against another big stack. However a string of losing sessions had so depleted my bankroll that it seemed prudent to take smaller amounts. Taking only $100 has the effect of "cutting my losses short" but, should the table turn in my favor, I can still make a decent profit.
Friday I made a decent profit. Taking only $100 forced me to play very disciplined - you can not afford crazy bluffs or calling with mediocre holdings when you are short stacked - and after five hours of poker I left with exactly $500. Now, would I have made more with a larger buy in? Possibly. But it is erroneous to think that because I left up $400, I would therefore have made $1,200 if I had bought in for $300. It doesn't work that way in the real world.
Yesterday I returned to the poker room with $100, but this time things did not go well and after only two hours I left with the $20 I had remaining. When I got to $20 I realized that the chances of me getting unstuck were so slim that I might as well save the $20 and go home. If I had started with $300 and had lost $80, I almost certainly would have played on in the hopes of getting unstuck. And maybe I would have. But it is more likely I would have continued to lose. This is because people who are losing tend to continue to lose while people who are winning tend to continue to win. Or as my stockbroker father would say, "The trend is your friend."
So here we have the tale of two poker sessions, one winning session where I let my profits run and a losing session where I cut my loses short (although I should have cut them much shorter!). I am up $320 for the two sessions.
Many people think that being a great poker player means turning a profit in the majority of sessions you play, but you can be a winning player even if only half, or even less than half, of your sessions are positive - as long as your positive sessions are very positive and your negative sessions are only mildly negative. Again this is counter to what most people, even a lot of experienced poker players, believe. They eke out a lot of small gains and a few terrible losses, but since they have more winning sessions than losing sessions and they believe they are better than average players when they have been losing money over time.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Stampede on down to the poker room!
I happen to live in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. If you do too, I would highly recommend visiting the poker room at Cowboys Casino (formerly Stampede Casino) right now. You don't live in Calgary? Too bad. Perhaps you should think about grabbing the next flight here. Why? Because the action is stupidly loose right now and will most likely continue to be stupidly loose for nine more days.
You see we have this little thing here called "The Calgary Stampede" - in which normally sane people suddenly dress like cowboys and get bombed out of their tree by the middle of the afternoon. Some of these people are tourists, some are locals who feel that for these ten days in July it is their civic duty to make total asses of themselves.
Yaaahhooo! Yeee haw!
Whatever.
Cowboys casino is right next to the actual stampede grounds - where over a million people are going to congregate over the course of the Stampede. Some will grow tired of the tilt-a-whirl and chuckwagon races and, fortified by too many over-priced beers, decide to give poker a try. At least this is what I was hoping as I made my way to the poker room. The reality exceeded my wildest dreams - the room was hopping with fish, donkeys, drunks and maniacs. I had a great session by just waiting for monster hands. Normally if I only bet great hands people catch on and I don't get any action, but today the fish were coming and going so fast they never had a chance to figure it out. I never had to bluff because there wasn't a point in bluffing - why bluff when you know you will get callers? And with action this stupidly loose there are always plenty of callers.
So.
Go to Cowboys Casino! Right now! Hurry!
You see we have this little thing here called "The Calgary Stampede" - in which normally sane people suddenly dress like cowboys and get bombed out of their tree by the middle of the afternoon. Some of these people are tourists, some are locals who feel that for these ten days in July it is their civic duty to make total asses of themselves.
Yaaahhooo! Yeee haw!
Whatever.
Cowboys casino is right next to the actual stampede grounds - where over a million people are going to congregate over the course of the Stampede. Some will grow tired of the tilt-a-whirl and chuckwagon races and, fortified by too many over-priced beers, decide to give poker a try. At least this is what I was hoping as I made my way to the poker room. The reality exceeded my wildest dreams - the room was hopping with fish, donkeys, drunks and maniacs. I had a great session by just waiting for monster hands. Normally if I only bet great hands people catch on and I don't get any action, but today the fish were coming and going so fast they never had a chance to figure it out. I never had to bluff because there wasn't a point in bluffing - why bluff when you know you will get callers? And with action this stupidly loose there are always plenty of callers.
So.
Go to Cowboys Casino! Right now! Hurry!
Monday, July 2, 2012
What did John Morgan have?
Yesterday saw the start of the richest poker tournament in history; The Big One for One Drop. The cost to enter the tournament was a cool one million dollars. A few got in cheaper than that - both Gus Hansen and Phil Hellmuth won their seats in tournaments run a day earlier. As you might expect, the field of forty eight players features a mix of both famous and not-quite famous poker pros along with a handful of rich business men. The winner will take home over $18,000,000 dollars - the largest prize in poker tournament history. By far.
It is not surprising that in such an incredible tournament, one of the most amazing hands in WSOP history went down. Here is what happened: It was halfway though the first day. Tom Dwan had made a opening bet of 32K and Russian poker pro Mikhail Smirnov called with the red eights in the small blind. American businessman John Morgan also called from the big blind.
The flop came Js 8c 7s. Flopping a set of eights, Smirnov led out with a 50K bet - about half the pot. Morgan called quickly and Dwan folded. The turn brought an 8s - giving Smirnov the nearly unbeatable quad eights. Smirinov made a pot-sized 200k bet and Morgan called almost instantly.
The river was the Ks, making the board Js 8c 7s 8s Ks. The only hand Morgan could possibly have that could beat Smirnov was 9s 10s - giving him a straight flush. Smirnov bet 600k - again a roughly pot-sized bet, and Morgan thought it over quickly and pushed all-in for a total of 3.4 million - just slightly less than Smirnov's entire stack.
Smirnov pondered his decision for about five minutes, then folded his quad eights face up for everyone to see. Immediately the poker-world was abuzz - had Mikhail Smirnov just made the greatest fold in the history of the WSOP, or had he made one of the worst fold ever? How could anybody fold quad eights?!
Smirnov explained that he didn't think Morgan had KK or he would have re-raised Dwan pre-flop. He also felt JJ was unlikely. "A bluff is impossible because he is not a professional and he likes to play in the tournament," said Smirnov later. That pretty much left 10s 9s as the only hand Morgan could have that he would shove with. "For me it was an easy fold," said Smirnov.
So what did Morgan have? We will never know for sure because he didn't show and so far he has refused to say. "I will never tell," said Morgan, "out of respect for my opponent."
At first I thought Smirnov made a terrible fold, but the more I think about it the more plausible 10s 9s seems. With those pocket cards, Morgan was ahead of Smirnov after the flop with the nut-straight over Smirnov's set of eights. The turn would have given Morgan the straight-flush while giving Smirnov the quads.
We will never know for sure.
Meanwhile day two of the tournament has begun with thirty seven of the original forty eight still competing. Just twenty six are left as I write this, including Mikhail Smirnov in 16th place. Smirnov won a brilliant hand today in which he knocked out both Tom Dwan and Daniel Negreanu.
John Morgan has been knocked out.
It is not surprising that in such an incredible tournament, one of the most amazing hands in WSOP history went down. Here is what happened: It was halfway though the first day. Tom Dwan had made a opening bet of 32K and Russian poker pro Mikhail Smirnov called with the red eights in the small blind. American businessman John Morgan also called from the big blind.
The flop came Js 8c 7s. Flopping a set of eights, Smirnov led out with a 50K bet - about half the pot. Morgan called quickly and Dwan folded. The turn brought an 8s - giving Smirnov the nearly unbeatable quad eights. Smirinov made a pot-sized 200k bet and Morgan called almost instantly.
The river was the Ks, making the board Js 8c 7s 8s Ks. The only hand Morgan could possibly have that could beat Smirnov was 9s 10s - giving him a straight flush. Smirnov bet 600k - again a roughly pot-sized bet, and Morgan thought it over quickly and pushed all-in for a total of 3.4 million - just slightly less than Smirnov's entire stack.
Smirnov pondered his decision for about five minutes, then folded his quad eights face up for everyone to see. Immediately the poker-world was abuzz - had Mikhail Smirnov just made the greatest fold in the history of the WSOP, or had he made one of the worst fold ever? How could anybody fold quad eights?!
Smirnov explained that he didn't think Morgan had KK or he would have re-raised Dwan pre-flop. He also felt JJ was unlikely. "A bluff is impossible because he is not a professional and he likes to play in the tournament," said Smirnov later. That pretty much left 10s 9s as the only hand Morgan could have that he would shove with. "For me it was an easy fold," said Smirnov.
So what did Morgan have? We will never know for sure because he didn't show and so far he has refused to say. "I will never tell," said Morgan, "out of respect for my opponent."
At first I thought Smirnov made a terrible fold, but the more I think about it the more plausible 10s 9s seems. With those pocket cards, Morgan was ahead of Smirnov after the flop with the nut-straight over Smirnov's set of eights. The turn would have given Morgan the straight-flush while giving Smirnov the quads.
We will never know for sure.
Meanwhile day two of the tournament has begun with thirty seven of the original forty eight still competing. Just twenty six are left as I write this, including Mikhail Smirnov in 16th place. Smirnov won a brilliant hand today in which he knocked out both Tom Dwan and Daniel Negreanu.
John Morgan has been knocked out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)