Chatting With a Pro

All the regular poker players were treating the guy sitting next to me with a good deal of respect. They all knew his name - Scott - and they were acting like he was some kind of big shot.

"Where are you going next on the tour, Scott?" asked a regular I'd played with many times.

"There is a tournament in Regina."

During a lull, when neither of us were in the hand, I asked him if he was a professional poker player.  He shrugged.

"If you could call it that..."

"I'll take that as a 'yes'."

Scott laughed. "Well, I don't do anything else, so you could say that."

I didn't want to  bother the man, but I was curious. How does one make a living playing cards? Particularly when one lives in a place like Calgary? How does he handle the variance? Does he play set hours? I had far too many questions to pester the man with.

The one thing I really wanted to know was if he ever wished - like Mike the Vegas pro - that he had a regular job with a regular pay cheque. So I asked him that.

"Well, my wife has a good job so that stability is there."

Okay. Fair enough. So "no".

A little while later I asked him if he usually played at the $1/$2 stakes.

"Well, no. I usually play $2/$5. Sometimes $5/$10. And Tournaments. But you can certainly make money at $1/$2. Look at this table - you can make more at a $1/$2 table like this than you could at an average $2/$5 table." Scott was up about $300 at this point - after playing for about three hours. Making $100/hour is definitely pulling down a good living but of course it doesn't always go that well.

I wish I had the nerve to ask him more questions, but to tell the truth I was more concerned with concentrating on the game. I will say that I didn't see him enter a lot of pots - he played tight, waiting for decent cards. And he played a lot of his hands "in position" - something I still need to understand how to do effectively.

Chop?

When I first started playing live poker I was quite confused when one time, while I was in the big blind, it folded to the guy in the small blind who turned to me and said "chop?" What he was asking was if instead of him completing the blind (for a dollar in this case)  and playing the hand, whether I'd prefer just to take my big blind back (and he'd get his small blind back) and we could move on to the next hand - a practice commonly known as chopping.

Chopping is usually seen as a good thing to do - it speeds the play up and it keeps things friendly. Other players don't have to wait while two guys contest a small pot. Once I got the concept, I usually chopped in this situation.

Some guys live by a "I never chop" creed. I guess the chop offends their uber-competitive nature.

I once witnessed a hand where it folded to the small blind, who then asked the big blind if he wanted to chop. "No way!" said the big blind, figuring the small blind was weak and just wanted to save a dollar.

"Okay, fine." said the small blind, who then raised it to $25!

The big blind did not know what to make of this move, but I think he was afraid he'd look foolish if he folded, so he called.

The flop came down king high. The small blind moved all in and the big blind called. The small blind turned over his cards - AA! He had offered a chop with pocket aces! The big blind had a king, of course, and the turn and river didn't save him. This was one of the strangest hands I have ever seen and since that day when ever anyone offers a chop, I take it.

The last time I chopped my opponent showed me that he had Qd 6d. I laughed and showed him my Jd 7d. Imagine the trouble I would have been in if diamonds hit the board. Of course what would have been bad for me would have been good for him - perhaps he is this very moment writing a blog about why one should never chop - but the main point is that chopping keeps the game friendly, and when your opponents are having a good time they are more likely to play looser.

It also saves you a blind.

Look Out for Split Pots

Sometimes it is difficult to spot a split pot and you have to pay close attention to make sure you aren't mucking a hand that chops.

Let me explain by relating the following hand that I observed at the poker room yesterday:

Player One limped in from early position with A6o.
Player Two raised to $10 from middle position with AQo
Player Three raised to $20 from the small blind with KK
Player One calls. (If you paying attention you will notice Player One will make several mistakes in this hand. Calling a bet that is ten times the big blind with a weak ace is certainly a questionable move.)
Player two calls.

The flop is:

Player Three (who has KK) bets $50. I guess he was hoping neither of the other guys had an ace and his kings were still good.
Player One (the guy with A6o) calls.
Player Two (AQo) raises to $150.
Player Three now knows his kings are no good, so he folds.
Player One calls. I could write a paragraph about why this is a terrible call but let's move along.

The turn:

Player Three, who just folded KK, looks like he wants to puke.

Player One (A6o) checks
Player Two might be worried that his AQ is not good, but he isn't. He is kind of a gambler and I think he knows that Player One isn't very good. He bets $100.
Player One calls.

The river:

Here is the point of this blog post: Player One does not realize it, but this river has just saved his ass. The 7 on the river has negated Player Two's kicker because now both players have the same hand: AA77K.

Player One checks.
Player Two bets $75
Player One calls.
Player Two shows AQ.
Player One: (Throws his cards in the muck) "Dammit! You have me out kicked!"
Player Two: "You had an ace?"
Player One: "Yeah, ace six."
Player Two: "Then it would have been a spit pot. The river counterfeited my kicker."
Player One: "Huh? Oh. Fuck."
Player Two: (Gleefully gathering in a $550 pot) "Too late now!"

Oh dear.

The sad truth, my dear readers, is that this kind of thing happens all too frequently. Please try to remember this warning and pay close attention so that it doesn't happen to you!

Durn it all

I got busted out today, which always sucks, but sometimes that's just the way it goes. What makes it particularly bitter is that I had doubled up and then some before busting out on a somewhat questionable move.

Had AKs (spades) and got heads up against a ultra-aggressive player. We had $80 in the pot pre-flop, and the flop came Qs 9d 4s. I bet $100, figuring I could buy it with the tight image I had. But the baddie moved all in on me. With only another $60 to call and a whole lotta outs (nine spades, plus the over cards) I pretty much had to call, but I didn't hit a spade or an ace or a king...My opponent had Q 10, which felted me.

That's poker.

------JJJ99------

Two days later - I added the following:

Just before he busted me, the guy in the above hand made a comment to the effect that he was gunning for me because I had taken a big pot off him.

"What are you talking about? I've not even been in the same hand with you." I was really puzzled.

"No, not today," he replied, "this was a little while ago."

Huh? The guy looked vaguely familiar and I guess I may have played him before. But a big pot? I don't remember it.

It was just a few hands later that he busted me. I remember clearly that when I made my $100 bet he said "You have it again? You can't have it every time!" then he pushed all-in.

This "act weak when you are strong" bit is fairly typical of the sharkier guys. When a guy says something that sound like he is weak (aw shucks, do you really have a good hand?) then acts strong (I really shouldn't be doing this but....all-in) you should believe the action more than the words.

Two days after this hand, as I am lying in bed, it suddenly comes to me! This was indeed a guy I took a big pot off of - in fact I wrote about it in Winning is Wonderful (finis). He was the guy who flopped a nut flush on me and got me to raise him all in with my set of tens. Then, I sucked out a runner-runner full house on him.

On that occasion, just as I was about to make the raise that would put him all-in, he said something like "Aw, come on man! Be nice!" - the same kind of "I'm weak" talk he used on me two weeks later.

How could I have forgotten?

Ok. Next time we meet my friend, I won't fall for your trap again.

Busting the Lagtard

The names in this blog have not been changed to protect anyone. If Francis ever reads this (extremely unlikely!) I would hope that instead of being offended, he could learn something.

You will often hear of poker players being classified in four basic ways; tight-weak, tight-aggressive, loose-weak and loose-aggressive. "Tight" refers to a tendency to only play good hands, while a "loose" player will play more hands with a wider range of hole cards. An aggressive player bets often and bets heavy - thus always keeping pressure on their opponents.  A "weak" or "passive" player is cautious and will usually only bet when they are certain they are ahead. These are just generalizations, of course, and if you go out there thinking that there are only four types of players - and that a player can not switch styles in the middle of a game - then you are kidding yourself. Anyway, generalizations are helpful when trying to simplify things. So lets just play along for a minute.

It is widely believed that in no-limit hold'em, being aggressive is crucial. This is what attracts the macho men to the game - the idea that they can win with sheer balls and bullshit. The loose aggressive player (often denoted as LAG on poker blogs) is often the most successful model - but to be successful long term a LAG must be able to sense when they have run up against a player holding a hand they simply will not fold. If the LAG never learns to take his foot off the gas, eventually he will loose all his chips when his opponent flops the nuts and the LAG tries to bluff him. This is where aggression crosses the line into stupidity, and such players are sometimes referred to as Lagtards - guys who don't know when to stop.

Francis, is a lagtard.

Francis plays a lot of hands To be fair he doesn't always try to scoop every pot he plays, but he does bluff an awful lot. His worst problem is that when an opponent makes a big bet, Francis too often assumes it is a bluff - probably because he assumes the other guy is playing the way he himself plays - and so gets caught playing inferior hands against opponents he can't bluff. Still, his sheer aggression wins him a lot of pots. I have seen him build $200 into $1200 in about ninety minutes. I have seen him lose $1200 in about ten minutes.

In my post small stakes-big pots I related a hand in which Francis lost over $750 in a single hand, leaving him with only $350 in chips. When a lagtard looses a big pot, they often respond by stomping on the gas even harder, and that is exactly what Francis did on the very next hand. I was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time to be the wall he would drive full speed into.

I was two off the button and had been dealt pocket queens. A ten dollar bet seemed appropriate, so threw out two $5 chips. The table was still buzzing about the massive pot we had all just witnessed, so little attention was being paid to the current hand. Tom folded and got back to stacking his chips. Francis, in the small blind, raised it to $30. Big blind folded and I called. The flop was something like J 9 4 rainbow - nothing scary. I bet $40 and Francis called. The turn was a Queen, giving me top set but also raising the possibility of a straight. I checked and Francis pushed all-in. Now could he have a straight? Maybe - but if he did, why would he bet so much? No, he'd bet a smaller amount with the straight. This all-in is a classic lagtard bluff. I call.

The river is a low card. I turn over my set and Francis starts cursing. He curses his bad luck. He leaves the table. Seat open.

Tom says "What is his problem? He was behind in that hand all the way - what is he so upset about?"

I think he is upset that he was so incredibly unlucky that he ran into a hand he could not bluff. This is the lament of the lagtard. They believe they are skillful when they just being reckless. They believe they can dance in a minefield and then they curse their bad luck when they step on a mine.

Poet at the Poker Table

Just a link to an interesting article:

Poet at the Poker Table

Small stakes - big pots.

There is an assumption that if you play poker at the lowest level you are not exposing yourself to serious losses or gains. After all $1/$2 no limit is such piddly stakes, right? This is the lowest level casinos in North America play at but it is plenty steep enough to lose outrageous amounts of money if you are reckless. Many times I have witnessed someone busting out and re-buying multiple times. I once saw a guy lose about $1,200 in two hours at a $1/$2 table. I have lost $600 myself in a single night.

Believe it or not, you can make a living playing $1/$2 no limit. I met a guy in Vegas who was doing just that. Mike was a laid-off construction worker who had just bought a house and had bills to pay. He turned to poker, playing an average of twelve hours a day, six days a week. With such a grueling schedule he was able to average about $1000 per week. Glamorous, huh? I asked if he ever considered going back to construction, and he told me he would quit poker the second a good construction job came along. Still, the point is that if you are serious and dedicated, it is possible to make a living at the $1/$2 table.

Last Friday the biggest pot I had ever witnessed at a $1/$2 table went down. Because the most you can bring to this level is $300, it is rare to see truly massive pots. But Tom (see previous post) and Francis (a young Filipino lagtard*) had very large stacks; about $750 and $1100 respectively. They had both been here all night (it was now about 1 p.m.) so those stacks presumably were the fruits of many hours labour. Another guy dressed in an Eberle jersey and matching Oilers cap had just joined the table about an hour earlier, but had quickly built his stack to about $700.

Tom raised to $15 on the button when it had folded to him and both Francis in the small blind and Eberle in the big blind called. There was $45 in the pot when the flop came As 10s 8d. Francis led out with a $20 bet which Eberle called before Tom raised to $50. Francis seemed genuinely excited that there was so much interest in the pot, and gleefully announced "Three-fifty!", pushing another $330 in chips forward.  Wow. To my surprise Eberle hardly even thought about it before calling, and then Tom pushed all in with his remaining $685. Holy crap. Francis need another $400 or so to call and he doesn't even give it much thought, pushing four stacks of $5 chips into the middle. Eberle only has about $300 left, but he puts it in.

Holy crap. With two guys all-in there can be no more betting. What is going on here? Tom says "If either of you guys have pocket aces, you are probably good." and he shows pocket tens. Francis lets out a soft curse and turns over A 10 - he needs to hit an ace to win. Eberle doesn't show, which makes me think he is on a flush draw, maybe a straight-flush draw. But when the four of spades comes on the turn he shows no reaction. The river is a blank and Eberle mucks. "Seat open," he says and walks away from the table.

Tom rakes in a pot of around $2,200. Not bad for "low stakes" poker.



*What is a lagtard? Stay tuned for my next post: Busting the Lagtard

Thinking through the hand

Here is an interesting hand I witnessed on my last trip to the casino - I am going to try to reconstruct it for you, because I believe it demonstrates how good poker players think.

The players involved are Tom and Robin. Both are very good players who play aggressively. Robin tends to bluff a lot, but because he bets the same whether he has a hand or not, it is difficult to tell when he is bluffing. Tom plays a tighter range of starting hands than Robin does and bluffs less frequently, but he times his moves well - bluffing only when he senses weakness.

The game is $1/$2 NLHE, and when the following hand occurred both players had about $500 in chips. A couple of players limped in when Robin, in late position, made his standard pre-flop raise of $20. We will find out later that Robin is holding K4 off - a pretty crappy hand. I would not suggest anyone do what Robin did here, but Robin is such a good post-flop player that he can often win on a later street with inferior cards.

It folds to Tom who is in the big blind. Tom knows Robin could have just about anything here, so he decides to call. Unfortunately we will never see what Tom's hole cards are. The flop is Ac Kc 8h. Tom checks. Robin has hit middle pair. He thinks that if Tom has an ace he would probably bet it to protect against the flush draw. So Robin thinks his King might be good, but he is worried Tom might also have a king with a better kicker. Robin decides to put out a "feeler bet" -in this case a $20 bet which is roughly half the pot. Robin thinks Tom will probably fold if he has nothing, and will probably raise with an ace. Tom, however, chooses to call. What does this mean? Robin suspects Tom either has two clubs or a king - so he really has no clue if he is ahead or behind. Of course Tom would also just call here if he had a monster hand like AA, KK or AK.

Although we never learn what Tom has, we do know that he has neither a king or an ace - because if he had he would have won the hand. So why did he call the flop? Tom knows Robin could have anything - and he also knows (like I know) that Robin tends to give up on his bluffs if his opponent shows no sign of backing down. Tom, I think, is getting ready to scoop the pot with a bluff of his own.

The turn is 8d. Tom checks. Robin checks. Why? I don't know! Tom, I have noticed, likes to take down pots on the turn. I believe he was hoping to check-raise. Robin has no idea where he is, so he checks.

There is about $85 in the pot when the river comes, making the board Ac Kc 8h 8d 9s. Tom checks. Robin bets $50 and Tom re-raises to $200. Wow!

So what do you think Tom has? What do you think Robin will do?

Think about it for a second. Robin thinks about it for quite a while. He decides Tom does not have an ace. For whatever reason he has concluded that this big bet on the river is either a stone cold bluff, or a sign that this is going to be a split pot. The pair of eights and the ace on the board has made Robins' weak kicker irrelevant. Robin decides to call. It seems an amazing call to make, but if you think through the hand the way Robin did it makes sense.

Robin shows his hand and Tom is astounded. "How can you call with just a king?" he asks andd luckily for me and you, Robin tells everyone exactly what he was thinking. Which I just re-wrote for you here.

Tom disgustedly throws his cards in the muck and Robin rakes in a big pot.

The most important piece of poker advice ever

I am a good poker player but I am not a great poker player. Luckily for me, just being good is often all it takes to win money. How do mediocre guys like me win? The answer happens to be the greatest piece of poker wisdom ever. Now pay attention. This is important. Are you ready? Here it is:

Play against people that are worse than you are.

That's right. If you go into a card room with the goal of taking on the best poker sharks you can find just to prove how good you are, well then you are asking for trouble. Sure, playing against top rate opponents is a great way to make you a better player - if you are smart enough to learn from the experience - but you should make your bread and butter against schmucks who bluff too much and chase draws at bad odds.

So if your goal is to prove yourself to be a badass by beating all the other badasses, well have fun and good luck. 

Even if you are just mediocre - like me - you should also keep trying to improve. Remember, the better you get, the easier it will be to find people that are worse than you. Logging the hours in the poker room will also help you identify the players who are better than you. It is fine to sit at a table that has one or two guys that are better than you, you can learn from them without losing money to them. Just make sure that most of the guys at the table are worse than you. Often it takes a while, maybe an hour or two, to really figure out who is good and who is bad, so be very cautious at first. If you discover that there are three or four guys better than you, switch tables or go home. The longer you stay the more likely it is you will lose money. 

Now here is the hard part - do you have the ability to admit that there are better players out there than you? Can you identify them? Can you say to yourself, "Tom is better than me because he mixes up his game better than I do. He switches styles very well and I have trouble guessing what he is doing. I am not going to try to impress all these other guys by standing up to Tom and beating him - screw that. I am going to avoid Tom unless I have the nuts." Can you swallow your ego and do that? If so then you might avoid losing all your chips to Tom, and then when those fish Dick and Harry donk off all their chips you won't be there to collect some of them.

Poker and Existentialism

I recently reread Waiting for Godot. To me the main message is how most of us, maybe all of us, live each day doing pretty much the same things and thinking the same thoughts as all the rest of our days. We remember so little and so learn very little from our experiences. We do not progress, we repeat. Habit is the great deadener.

I believe that the poker rooms of the world are filled with Vladimirs, Estragons, Pozzos and Luckys. They repeat and repeat and repeat. They play the same style, makes the same great plays and the same dumb plays. Make the same jokes. They win and they lose, but they don't change and they don't learn.

I started writing this blog in an attempt to remember, and by remembering hopefully learning something.

After all, I am just a Vladimir too.