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

Bullies and Goaders

I've gone to the Casino enough to start to get to know some of the other players. Most of them I've made my own names for.

Grumpy Old Guy (see last post) is a bearded older fellow who seems to never speak unless it is to criticize the play of others. His style is to try to get under the skin of his opponents, so that when he has a strong hand they will allow their desire to beat him get them into trouble. He is a goader. I like playing against goaders because they tend to be unimaginative players- they don't tend to try outrageous bluffs or weird moves. When GOG gets a strong hand, he makes a big bet. He is hoping that his big bet will be seen as an extension of his verbal bluster, and that someone with a weaker hand will "stand up to him".

Here is the difference between a bully and a goader: a bully acts aggressively to get you to fold while a goader acts aggressively to get you to call. While their boorish table manners may be the same, the bully bets big with weak cards to steamroll opponents- and eventually people catch on, and start pushing back. Goaders want to be mistaken for bullies - they want you to push back, because they have the cards to back up their hands.

When you are playing with a loud, rude person try to determine if he (or she) is a bully or a goader by paying attention to the relation between the size of their bets and the strength of their cards. Adjust your play accordingly.

Know When to Fold 'Em

The games referred to today are all $1/$2 no-limit texas hold 'em.

A few weeks ago I was playing poorly, having negative thoughts and losing money.

I remember my last trip to the casino when nothing seemed to go right. One of the things that happens when you are not doing well is that you tend to start over playing your good hands in an attempt to force things to turn around - and that's exactly the trap I fell into. I was bleeding chips, and instead of tightening up I started playing more and more hands just hoping to get lucky. I entered a family pot with 4h 5c and when the flop came down 4s 5s 6c my only thought was protecting my two pair against a flush draw. I made a bet about twice the size of the pot and the guy right after me - a guy who had been playing tight and smart - moved all-in on me. When this sort of thing happens you have to accept that your opponent either flopped a straight or trips; those are the only hands a sane person would re-raise with in this situation - just as I put in a big bet to protect against the flush, he was sure he had a better hand and he had to bet big in case I was actually drawing to the flush myself. So what did I do? Like the desperate donkey I was, I called. Yes, he had the straight. No, I did not make a full house. I realized that making a call like that, among several other donkey plays I made that day, was a sign to take a break from the game.

Yesterday I went back to the Casino. I played very well, more than doubling the money I took in. But more important than making or losing money is whether or not you played properly, and as look back on that session I am very happy with the choices I made.

Know when you are probably beat. I was in late position with $140 in chips. I had been playing for twenty minutes without having a decent hand when I looked at AK offsuit. There were six limpers ahead of me, so I decided to raise it from $2 to $15. To my surprise three of my opponents called my rather large bet. One guy, a Grouchy Old Guy, even said to me "What do you have? Ace king?" When the flop came Ac Qd 3c I was pretty sure I was good, but like the previous week I was afraid of the flush draw. So I bet $50. Two guys folded, but Grouchy Old Guy didn't seem fazed at all. "Let's make it $150," he said while pushing a big stack forward. Now the the tilty-donkey me of a few weeks ago would have called - after all I'd already put $65 in to this pot - and I've got a pair of aces with a king kicker. Well that's donkey thinking. GOG knows I've probably got an ace, so he only makes that bet if he's sure he's got me beat. So why should I throw my last $75 bucks away too? I fold and GOG shows his pocket 3's - he flopped the set. Even while part of me is angry that my hand didn't hold up, I'm very proud that I had the discipline to lay that hand down. Instead of being busted out, I still had that $75 left.

Two and a half hours later I had grown that $75 to $370 and I left with a nice profit - which could never have happened if I had made that one donkey call.