Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. Its been over two months since my last post and these are my sins:
I have sucked at live poker. Really bad.
I have broke even at on-line poker. (But see Sharkscope graph for "Darvcus" on PokerStars. There is a pattern.)
I have not hosted any live games in my new basement, although the poker table got a workout with family in town over the Winter holidays. Endless drinks from the bar make for a lively game.
I have seemingly lost my ablity to read players at live poker. I have lost my feel for the game.
I have cursed at all the new on-line players invading the live poker scene, and their snarky appearances on TV. Why should I hate their good fortune? I guess its inevitable, right?
END CONFESSION
I am thankful to have a job and things are going well with my practice. My children do not feel the effects of the economic downswing and I strive to maintain this status. I am bringing in some new business and I continue to stay relatively busy. I am positioning myself to benefit when the economy picks back up.
I laugh at all the young guns invading the TV poker scene -- they have no life experience. I go to work day in and day out, and I sometimes question the energy that I must expend to stay on top of it all. But then I look back on what I have learned and experienced, and the example that I set for my children. And I smile and continue forward.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Sick stack
After the Alamo Bowl which Missou won last night, I logged on to FullTilt to play a few SNGs. I opened the "Hanson Hangout" 6-max PLO table to witness what may be the best run in the history of on-line poker to date.
When I opened the table, Ziigmund had around $800,000 on the table, and everyone else was somewhere around $30K to $50K. Then I watched him run it up this --
Someone in the chat said he reloaded several times to $250K total, so his win at this point is around $1.3 million. I had two thoughts as I watched this:
My $30 SNGs seem to incredibly insignificant.
This gives me hope.
I've always subscribed to the view that if someone else can do it, then I can do it, too. But would I really have the balls to plunk down $250K at one table to run it up like this? Maybe, if I had this type of bankroll. But i dunno.
When I opened the table, Ziigmund had around $800,000 on the table, and everyone else was somewhere around $30K to $50K. Then I watched him run it up this --
Someone in the chat said he reloaded several times to $250K total, so his win at this point is around $1.3 million. I had two thoughts as I watched this:
My $30 SNGs seem to incredibly insignificant.
This gives me hope.
I've always subscribed to the view that if someone else can do it, then I can do it, too. But would I really have the balls to plunk down $250K at one table to run it up like this? Maybe, if I had this type of bankroll. But i dunno.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
40
Has it really been four months since my last post? Still, I won't apologize because I write this for myself to chronicle my poker. I hate poker blogs that apologize for the frequency of posts.
*****************
I am now 40. Upon reaching the official date of middle age, I reflect that I remain a avid poker player and fan. I still play as often as I can, which is not often enough. I need to go to Vegas for a weekend and play in a few donkaments and easier cash games than I encounter in Missouri.
Since its been so long since my last post, it is time to dump all of the stuff I’ve written over the last few months but haven’t taken the time to actually publish.
********************
Punished for a Good Read
$2/5 NLHE game at Harrahs. Villain has about $500 and I have him covered. Villain is somewhat loose, not too aggressive, but I don’t have a lot of history with him and we have only been at the table together for maybe 30 minutes.
Villain limps UTG+2, and there are a few other callers. I have JJ and make it $25. Villain calls, the remainder fold.
Pot is about $60. Flop is 6d-7d-4c. Villain checks. I bet $50, Villain calls. My read is that he is on a draw of some sort, probably diamonds. His mannerisms in calling said to me, “Don’t try to push me around. I can’t be pushed off this hand so easily.” Like he was sort of offended by my bet.
Pot is now about $160. Turn is (6d-7d-4c)-Th. Villain checks. I bet $100. Villain calls. I get the same read as on the flop from his call.
Pot is about $360. River is (6d-7d-4c-Th)-9s. Villain quickly pushes for about $325. Given the action in this hand, this is a huge bet. My immediate reaction is that he is trying to bully me out of the pot. This cannot be a value bet. If he had the straight or a two-pair hand, he would bet much less to get a call out of me.
I think for while. He is staring at me. I get an extremely strong read that he does not want me to call. Its as if I can read his mind. I am reluctant given the size of the bet. The Golden Rule of No Limit is screaming at me: “Don’t go broke with one pair.” But my read is completely overriding the Golden Rule.
So I call, and wait for him to table his hand. He does not, and there is a long pause. The dealer tells him to show his hand. He very sheepishly says, “Pair of fours.” He turns over 8d-4d. I table my jacks. I’m congratulated for a very tough call. The dealer starts to collect the pot and push it my way.
The someone at the other end of the table says, “He has a straight.” Villain, the dealer, and the entire table initially missed that he had a straight, 10 to 6. Villain says, “Oh shit, sorry. I was only thinking about the flush. I just thought I missed my flush. I didn’t see the straight.”
So this fucker stumbles upon the winner without realizing it, runner-runner for the straight. This means that he really did think that he was bluffing at the river. My read was exactly right – he thought he was way behind and he did not want me to call. During a break in the action later, he apologized again for missing the straight, and I believe that he actually missed the straight and misread his hand on the river.
So, congratulations to me for making the right read, but I lose about $500. This hand, and specifically my river call for about $325, made the difference between having a winning and losing night. I later dug myself most of the way out of this hole during the remainder of the session, and ended up losing about $200 for the night.
********************
Trust Your Read
During this session my read was on. Not just during the game, but even as I sat down.
Something I always do when I arrive at a table is scope everyone out and make an initial read as to their ability and style. Hey, they’re doing the same about me, right?
So I have learned to trust my instincts on these matters. Whatever I feel about a player determines how I play against them, until proven otherwise. For example, someone may be trying to give off the appearance of being cocky and the table captain, but if I detect fear underlying this appearance then I will play against him knowing that his decisions are ultimately controlled by his fear rather than his cocky act.
So when I sat down at the Main Game and checked out the players, I said to myself about Seat 7: “Looks quiet, and knowledgeable but scared. Probably plays too tight and gives away PF hand strength based on the frequency of his raises. Looks like the kind of guy that could lose his stack with a one-pair hand.”
About 90 minutes later this hand comes up:
Seat 7 has around $600 and I have around $1000. I raise to $20 UTG in Seat 4 with 88. UTG+1 calls, Seat 7 raises to $65 total. SB calls, I call, UTG+1 calls.
Four players to the flop of K-8-4, all spades. SB and I check, UTG+1 checks. Seat 7 bets $80, SB folds. Time to announce that this is my pot. I raise to $250 total. UTG+1 folds. Seat 7 thinks for a bit and just calls.
Hmmm…now what does he have? PF I think that his range is AA-JJ, AK, maybe getting frisky on the re-raise with AQ, TT, 99. The call of my check-raise signals one of three things – (1) AK with or without the A-spades, (2) AA with or without the A-spades or (3) KK. But thinking further, would he just call my flop check-raise with KK? No, he would shove.
That leaves us with two hands – AA and AK – neither of which give him the flush yet, both of which I beat, and both of which fit my read of him the moment I sat down. He’s going broke with a one pair hand unless he hits the flush with the A-spades.
Turn is a non-spade low card, I push and he calls the remainder of his chips which is around $300. The river gives me the boat with 88844. He reveals AK (both red), confirming my read.
An now is a good time to reinforce my Golden Rule of No-Limit Hold ‘em: Don’t go broke with one pair.
********************
Mississippi Straddle Hand
THE SHORT VERSION for the reading impaired and impatient
$2/5 NLHE with a Mississippi Straddle (See explanation in long version). Villain is a 40-something, shade-wearing LAG, bordering on a tilting spew-monkey LAGtard based on recent hands.
I am UTG+1 with about $735, Villain has me covered. UTG folds, and I raise to $20 with JJ. But after the UTG fold and my action, dealer then announces that button straddled, so SB is first to act instead of UTG. I pull my bet back.
SB completes, BB folds, and I announce raise. Dealer will only let me raise to my original $20 raise, which is now a min-raise with the straddle in play. Villain is to my immediate left and calls. Button calls, SB calls. Four to the flop with a $80 pot.
Flop is 6c-7d-8d. SB checks. I bet $60. Villain calls, Button folds, and SB calls. Pot is now $265.
Turn is (6c-7d-8d)-Qc. SB checks. I check. Villain bets $225. SB folds.
THE LONG VERSION
This is a very interesting hand and a long one because there’s a lot that goes into my read. Are you willing to take the time think through this one with me?
The Game:
$2/5 NLHE, Harrahs in Kansas City. This is played with the “Mississippi Straddle” which is new to this card-room. Any one player besides BB and SB can straddle, which is double the BB. The player in latest position has the first option to straddle. Examples: If UTG and cut-off both want to straddle, CO has priority; if CO and Button both want to straddle, Button has priority. Pre-flop, the first player to act is the player immediately after the straddle. If button straddles, the SB must act first PF; if CO straddles, then button must act first, etc.
This option is relatively new, and both the dealer and players are getting used to it. Its not always used in every hand, so the dealer has to announce when someone is straddling to let the table know who should act first PF. Sometimes its goofed up by players and the dealer…
The Set-Up and My Table Image:
I have $735 to start this hand. I am at the main game, having played at the feeder table for only about 30 minutes. I’ve been up and down in this game, from a high of $1200 to a low of $400. I got back to over $700 about an hour earlier. I’ve been loose PF, but have hit absolutely nothing so my appearance is relatively tight for about the last hour.
The Hand:
I am UTG+1 with JJ. UTG folds and I raise to $20. Standard PF raise has been to $20 or $25 at this table.
Dealer then says, “Take that back, there is a straddle on the button.” I did not see the straddle and dealer did not call it out before UTG started the action. The SB also did not see the straddle. I simply acted after UTG folded. So, it turns out that UTG and I acted out of turn. I pull my bet back.
Now SB completes to $10, BB folds and the action is on me. Dealer says, “If you want to play this hand, your previous action is binding.” I do want to play the hand, and announce raise. Now I want to raise to $50 total. I ask for clarification about what the dealer meant by “previous action.” Dealer explains that my raise amount was also binding. So, according to the dealer, if I want to play the hand, I must to raise to exactly $20, which is now just a min-raise.
I contemplate calling the floor for a ruling, but decide that would probably be detrimental because the floor would either: (1) uphold the ruling, in which case my $20 raise stands and I’ve stopped the action and called unwanted attention to myself; or (2) overrule the dealer, in which case I would raise to a larger amount and spook everyone that didn’t already have a premium pair, scaring away all action. That’s what some players want to do with JJ pre-flop. But, I don’t like to play scared. So I let it go and just raise to $20.
Villain to my immediate left calls, and everyone else folds. So its SB, me, Villain and Button in the hand.
Flop is 6c-7d-8d. SB checks. I bet $60. Villain calls, Button folds, and SB calls. At this point I’m thinking that Villain and SB are probably on draws, or I could be up against a big hand, but I’m leaning more toward draws because a big hand would probably put in a healthy raise here given the coordinated nature of the board.. Pot is now $265.
Turn is (6c-7d-8d)-Qc. SB checks. I get the vibe that SB is scared of the board and is done with the hand. I check with the intention of check-raising Villain if he bets, or bailing out, depending upon my read of Villain’s action.
Villain bets $225. SB, as I thought, folds. Action is now on me. Time to size things up. I go into the tank for several minutes on this one.
The Villain:
I sat to the left of Villain at the feeder table and now he has position on me. He’s 40-ish and wearing silly oversized shades, dressed business casual – better dressed than most in the room. He thinks he’s a player. He’s been one of the loosest players at both tables. I can tell he’s been bluffing a lot, not afraid to mix it up. Bets at a lot of orphan pots. So going to the flop his range is wide open – he’ll call a standard PF raise with any two playable cards.
I have not seen him make any big calls when he is way behind. He did get unlucky within the last hour and got stacked for nearly $800, and he re-bought for the max $500. He’s quickly built that up to around $800 and now just has me covered. I think he may still be steaming a bit from the beat that he took, which is why he appears to be pushing the action even more right now.
My analysis:
First, the pot odds. The pot is $490 and its $225 for me to call. What if I pushed? I have about $665 in my stack, so if I pushed my raise to him would be about another $430 more in a $1155 pot. He would get better than 2 to 1 if he called my push, but I still think that this is enough of a raise that he would fold everything but a very strong hand.
What does he have? I can start by ruling out a big pocket pair. Given what happened PF with the straddle goof, he would certainly have re-raised with AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, and maybe also AQ and TT. Given how the PF action went, his call signals any pair 99 or lower and any two other playable cards, including all manner of suited connectors. So he doesn’t have a big PF hand, but he could have anything else.
Does he have a big hand, including a set of 888, 777, 666, QQQ or T9/54? I’m sure he does not have a set of queens. I think its unlikely that he flopped a set, because then he very likely would have raised my $60 bet on the flop. Either the SB or I could easily have had two diamonds on the flop and he would bet a set hard to drive out a flush draw. The same analysis applies to T9/54 for the flopped straight – he would raise that hand to protect on the flop.
What about a good but not very strong hand, like 87, 86, or 76 for two pair? Yes, these seem like real possibilities. He might call with these hands, see how the board develops on the flop and if another diamond comes.
What about AQ? Maybe, but I can’t see him floating the flop with SB yet to act with just two overcards, unless his design was to take the hand away later. Unless… he has AQ diamond. This would be a perfect hand to bet here on the turn because he now has top pair and the nut flush draw.
What about a no-pair flush draw, like AK diamonds? He likely would have raised PF with any AK hand, so I don’t see this holding.
What about a bluff? Yes, also a very real possibility, given his playing style and the fact that he might be somewhat steaming and also smelling weakness by SB and me. (I have to factor in SB somewhat in this hand even though he’s already folded, because Villain bet $225 with SB and me still to act on the turn.)
So, I settle on this range:
Big pair like AA, KK, QQ, JJ – not really possible.
AK – not really possible
Set of 888, 777, 666 or T9/65 for the straight – about 10%, because he probably would have raised on the flop
AQ-diamonds – 10%
Two pair with 87, 86 or 76 – 30%
Bluff – 50%
Overall, this hand smells most like a bluff because my flop bet plus a check on the turn looks weakish, and because SB really seemed to be on a draw. My CR push here would look most like a set of QQQ or AA/KK. He calls if he has a set or the straight, he probably calls with the flush draw (especially with AQ flush draw) and its 50/50 whether he calls or folds two pair because my push looks most like a set of QQQ.
Finally, is he capable of analyze this hand enough to lay down two-pair? I think so, based on his prior play.
So I pushed. What do you think of my reasoning and action?
********************
*****************
I am now 40. Upon reaching the official date of middle age, I reflect that I remain a avid poker player and fan. I still play as often as I can, which is not often enough. I need to go to Vegas for a weekend and play in a few donkaments and easier cash games than I encounter in Missouri.
Since its been so long since my last post, it is time to dump all of the stuff I’ve written over the last few months but haven’t taken the time to actually publish.
********************
Punished for a Good Read
$2/5 NLHE game at Harrahs. Villain has about $500 and I have him covered. Villain is somewhat loose, not too aggressive, but I don’t have a lot of history with him and we have only been at the table together for maybe 30 minutes.
Villain limps UTG+2, and there are a few other callers. I have JJ and make it $25. Villain calls, the remainder fold.
Pot is about $60. Flop is 6d-7d-4c. Villain checks. I bet $50, Villain calls. My read is that he is on a draw of some sort, probably diamonds. His mannerisms in calling said to me, “Don’t try to push me around. I can’t be pushed off this hand so easily.” Like he was sort of offended by my bet.
Pot is now about $160. Turn is (6d-7d-4c)-Th. Villain checks. I bet $100. Villain calls. I get the same read as on the flop from his call.
Pot is about $360. River is (6d-7d-4c-Th)-9s. Villain quickly pushes for about $325. Given the action in this hand, this is a huge bet. My immediate reaction is that he is trying to bully me out of the pot. This cannot be a value bet. If he had the straight or a two-pair hand, he would bet much less to get a call out of me.
I think for while. He is staring at me. I get an extremely strong read that he does not want me to call. Its as if I can read his mind. I am reluctant given the size of the bet. The Golden Rule of No Limit is screaming at me: “Don’t go broke with one pair.” But my read is completely overriding the Golden Rule.
So I call, and wait for him to table his hand. He does not, and there is a long pause. The dealer tells him to show his hand. He very sheepishly says, “Pair of fours.” He turns over 8d-4d. I table my jacks. I’m congratulated for a very tough call. The dealer starts to collect the pot and push it my way.
The someone at the other end of the table says, “He has a straight.” Villain, the dealer, and the entire table initially missed that he had a straight, 10 to 6. Villain says, “Oh shit, sorry. I was only thinking about the flush. I just thought I missed my flush. I didn’t see the straight.”
So this fucker stumbles upon the winner without realizing it, runner-runner for the straight. This means that he really did think that he was bluffing at the river. My read was exactly right – he thought he was way behind and he did not want me to call. During a break in the action later, he apologized again for missing the straight, and I believe that he actually missed the straight and misread his hand on the river.
So, congratulations to me for making the right read, but I lose about $500. This hand, and specifically my river call for about $325, made the difference between having a winning and losing night. I later dug myself most of the way out of this hole during the remainder of the session, and ended up losing about $200 for the night.
********************
Trust Your Read
During this session my read was on. Not just during the game, but even as I sat down.
Something I always do when I arrive at a table is scope everyone out and make an initial read as to their ability and style. Hey, they’re doing the same about me, right?
So I have learned to trust my instincts on these matters. Whatever I feel about a player determines how I play against them, until proven otherwise. For example, someone may be trying to give off the appearance of being cocky and the table captain, but if I detect fear underlying this appearance then I will play against him knowing that his decisions are ultimately controlled by his fear rather than his cocky act.
So when I sat down at the Main Game and checked out the players, I said to myself about Seat 7: “Looks quiet, and knowledgeable but scared. Probably plays too tight and gives away PF hand strength based on the frequency of his raises. Looks like the kind of guy that could lose his stack with a one-pair hand.”
About 90 minutes later this hand comes up:
Seat 7 has around $600 and I have around $1000. I raise to $20 UTG in Seat 4 with 88. UTG+1 calls, Seat 7 raises to $65 total. SB calls, I call, UTG+1 calls.
Four players to the flop of K-8-4, all spades. SB and I check, UTG+1 checks. Seat 7 bets $80, SB folds. Time to announce that this is my pot. I raise to $250 total. UTG+1 folds. Seat 7 thinks for a bit and just calls.
Hmmm…now what does he have? PF I think that his range is AA-JJ, AK, maybe getting frisky on the re-raise with AQ, TT, 99. The call of my check-raise signals one of three things – (1) AK with or without the A-spades, (2) AA with or without the A-spades or (3) KK. But thinking further, would he just call my flop check-raise with KK? No, he would shove.
That leaves us with two hands – AA and AK – neither of which give him the flush yet, both of which I beat, and both of which fit my read of him the moment I sat down. He’s going broke with a one pair hand unless he hits the flush with the A-spades.
Turn is a non-spade low card, I push and he calls the remainder of his chips which is around $300. The river gives me the boat with 88844. He reveals AK (both red), confirming my read.
An now is a good time to reinforce my Golden Rule of No-Limit Hold ‘em: Don’t go broke with one pair.
********************
Mississippi Straddle Hand
THE SHORT VERSION for the reading impaired and impatient
$2/5 NLHE with a Mississippi Straddle (See explanation in long version). Villain is a 40-something, shade-wearing LAG, bordering on a tilting spew-monkey LAGtard based on recent hands.
I am UTG+1 with about $735, Villain has me covered. UTG folds, and I raise to $20 with JJ. But after the UTG fold and my action, dealer then announces that button straddled, so SB is first to act instead of UTG. I pull my bet back.
SB completes, BB folds, and I announce raise. Dealer will only let me raise to my original $20 raise, which is now a min-raise with the straddle in play. Villain is to my immediate left and calls. Button calls, SB calls. Four to the flop with a $80 pot.
Flop is 6c-7d-8d. SB checks. I bet $60. Villain calls, Button folds, and SB calls. Pot is now $265.
Turn is (6c-7d-8d)-Qc. SB checks. I check. Villain bets $225. SB folds.
THE LONG VERSION
This is a very interesting hand and a long one because there’s a lot that goes into my read. Are you willing to take the time think through this one with me?
The Game:
$2/5 NLHE, Harrahs in Kansas City. This is played with the “Mississippi Straddle” which is new to this card-room. Any one player besides BB and SB can straddle, which is double the BB. The player in latest position has the first option to straddle. Examples: If UTG and cut-off both want to straddle, CO has priority; if CO and Button both want to straddle, Button has priority. Pre-flop, the first player to act is the player immediately after the straddle. If button straddles, the SB must act first PF; if CO straddles, then button must act first, etc.
This option is relatively new, and both the dealer and players are getting used to it. Its not always used in every hand, so the dealer has to announce when someone is straddling to let the table know who should act first PF. Sometimes its goofed up by players and the dealer…
The Set-Up and My Table Image:
I have $735 to start this hand. I am at the main game, having played at the feeder table for only about 30 minutes. I’ve been up and down in this game, from a high of $1200 to a low of $400. I got back to over $700 about an hour earlier. I’ve been loose PF, but have hit absolutely nothing so my appearance is relatively tight for about the last hour.
The Hand:
I am UTG+1 with JJ. UTG folds and I raise to $20. Standard PF raise has been to $20 or $25 at this table.
Dealer then says, “Take that back, there is a straddle on the button.” I did not see the straddle and dealer did not call it out before UTG started the action. The SB also did not see the straddle. I simply acted after UTG folded. So, it turns out that UTG and I acted out of turn. I pull my bet back.
Now SB completes to $10, BB folds and the action is on me. Dealer says, “If you want to play this hand, your previous action is binding.” I do want to play the hand, and announce raise. Now I want to raise to $50 total. I ask for clarification about what the dealer meant by “previous action.” Dealer explains that my raise amount was also binding. So, according to the dealer, if I want to play the hand, I must to raise to exactly $20, which is now just a min-raise.
I contemplate calling the floor for a ruling, but decide that would probably be detrimental because the floor would either: (1) uphold the ruling, in which case my $20 raise stands and I’ve stopped the action and called unwanted attention to myself; or (2) overrule the dealer, in which case I would raise to a larger amount and spook everyone that didn’t already have a premium pair, scaring away all action. That’s what some players want to do with JJ pre-flop. But, I don’t like to play scared. So I let it go and just raise to $20.
Villain to my immediate left calls, and everyone else folds. So its SB, me, Villain and Button in the hand.
Flop is 6c-7d-8d. SB checks. I bet $60. Villain calls, Button folds, and SB calls. At this point I’m thinking that Villain and SB are probably on draws, or I could be up against a big hand, but I’m leaning more toward draws because a big hand would probably put in a healthy raise here given the coordinated nature of the board.. Pot is now $265.
Turn is (6c-7d-8d)-Qc. SB checks. I get the vibe that SB is scared of the board and is done with the hand. I check with the intention of check-raising Villain if he bets, or bailing out, depending upon my read of Villain’s action.
Villain bets $225. SB, as I thought, folds. Action is now on me. Time to size things up. I go into the tank for several minutes on this one.
The Villain:
I sat to the left of Villain at the feeder table and now he has position on me. He’s 40-ish and wearing silly oversized shades, dressed business casual – better dressed than most in the room. He thinks he’s a player. He’s been one of the loosest players at both tables. I can tell he’s been bluffing a lot, not afraid to mix it up. Bets at a lot of orphan pots. So going to the flop his range is wide open – he’ll call a standard PF raise with any two playable cards.
I have not seen him make any big calls when he is way behind. He did get unlucky within the last hour and got stacked for nearly $800, and he re-bought for the max $500. He’s quickly built that up to around $800 and now just has me covered. I think he may still be steaming a bit from the beat that he took, which is why he appears to be pushing the action even more right now.
My analysis:
First, the pot odds. The pot is $490 and its $225 for me to call. What if I pushed? I have about $665 in my stack, so if I pushed my raise to him would be about another $430 more in a $1155 pot. He would get better than 2 to 1 if he called my push, but I still think that this is enough of a raise that he would fold everything but a very strong hand.
What does he have? I can start by ruling out a big pocket pair. Given what happened PF with the straddle goof, he would certainly have re-raised with AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, and maybe also AQ and TT. Given how the PF action went, his call signals any pair 99 or lower and any two other playable cards, including all manner of suited connectors. So he doesn’t have a big PF hand, but he could have anything else.
Does he have a big hand, including a set of 888, 777, 666, QQQ or T9/54? I’m sure he does not have a set of queens. I think its unlikely that he flopped a set, because then he very likely would have raised my $60 bet on the flop. Either the SB or I could easily have had two diamonds on the flop and he would bet a set hard to drive out a flush draw. The same analysis applies to T9/54 for the flopped straight – he would raise that hand to protect on the flop.
What about a good but not very strong hand, like 87, 86, or 76 for two pair? Yes, these seem like real possibilities. He might call with these hands, see how the board develops on the flop and if another diamond comes.
What about AQ? Maybe, but I can’t see him floating the flop with SB yet to act with just two overcards, unless his design was to take the hand away later. Unless… he has AQ diamond. This would be a perfect hand to bet here on the turn because he now has top pair and the nut flush draw.
What about a no-pair flush draw, like AK diamonds? He likely would have raised PF with any AK hand, so I don’t see this holding.
What about a bluff? Yes, also a very real possibility, given his playing style and the fact that he might be somewhat steaming and also smelling weakness by SB and me. (I have to factor in SB somewhat in this hand even though he’s already folded, because Villain bet $225 with SB and me still to act on the turn.)
So, I settle on this range:
Big pair like AA, KK, QQ, JJ – not really possible.
AK – not really possible
Set of 888, 777, 666 or T9/65 for the straight – about 10%, because he probably would have raised on the flop
AQ-diamonds – 10%
Two pair with 87, 86 or 76 – 30%
Bluff – 50%
Overall, this hand smells most like a bluff because my flop bet plus a check on the turn looks weakish, and because SB really seemed to be on a draw. My CR push here would look most like a set of QQQ or AA/KK. He calls if he has a set or the straight, he probably calls with the flush draw (especially with AQ flush draw) and its 50/50 whether he calls or folds two pair because my push looks most like a set of QQQ.
Finally, is he capable of analyze this hand enough to lay down two-pair? I think so, based on his prior play.
So I pushed. What do you think of my reasoning and action?
********************
Sunday, August 24, 2008
29 days
We have now been in the new house for 4 weeks and 1 day. Moving is really tiring. We are 35% unpacked. Basement work continues. Life chugs on without regard to whether you're moving, I have discovered.
I will post more on my poker exploits in the near future.
*************
WHAT IS UP with the Giant Fucking Sunglasses that every woman wears these days? I can't be the only one that thinks Giant Sunglasses are completely silly, can I?
The first time I saw a pair of modern Giant Sunglasses on a woman, I thought to myself, "She must have gotten punched and she's covering up a black eye." Even now when I see a pair of Giant Sunglasses on a women (which is all the time and everywhere during the summer) the same thought runs through my head, even though I have now realized that this is the current fashion. The world is filled with women who have been punched in the face and are trying to hide it.
My wife gave in at some point, maybe last Autumn, and purchased a pair of Giant Sunglasses. I giggled. She knows what I think about them. I've even seen them on some men, which makes me really sad for these poor bastards.
**************
Scotty Nguyen's victory on ESPN last week was quite a poker show. I've played with guys like that, but not very much. We've all seen someone act like that in a non-poker setting. You're out with a group having drinks, and the liquid flows freely for a while. Then someone has too much, gets pissed off at something, and turns on the raging anger.
Everyone gets uncomfortable. It ends in a fight, or the group just sort of disperses into the night. Later, that guy either doesn't get invited, or everyone tip-toes carefully around him when the drinking starts again.
If you have one of these guys at the the poker table, I guess the goal is to get all of his chips before someone else does. If he gets lucky, oh well.
***********
Not having a poker "champ" at the end of the WSOP doesn't feel right. Yeah, its gonna build drama as the Main Event starts airing, but it still feels unfinished.
I will post more on my poker exploits in the near future.
*************
WHAT IS UP with the Giant Fucking Sunglasses that every woman wears these days? I can't be the only one that thinks Giant Sunglasses are completely silly, can I?
The first time I saw a pair of modern Giant Sunglasses on a woman, I thought to myself, "She must have gotten punched and she's covering up a black eye." Even now when I see a pair of Giant Sunglasses on a women (which is all the time and everywhere during the summer) the same thought runs through my head, even though I have now realized that this is the current fashion. The world is filled with women who have been punched in the face and are trying to hide it.
My wife gave in at some point, maybe last Autumn, and purchased a pair of Giant Sunglasses. I giggled. She knows what I think about them. I've even seen them on some men, which makes me really sad for these poor bastards.
**************
Scotty Nguyen's victory on ESPN last week was quite a poker show. I've played with guys like that, but not very much. We've all seen someone act like that in a non-poker setting. You're out with a group having drinks, and the liquid flows freely for a while. Then someone has too much, gets pissed off at something, and turns on the raging anger.
Everyone gets uncomfortable. It ends in a fight, or the group just sort of disperses into the night. Later, that guy either doesn't get invited, or everyone tip-toes carefully around him when the drinking starts again.
If you have one of these guys at the the poker table, I guess the goal is to get all of his chips before someone else does. If he gets lucky, oh well.
***********
Not having a poker "champ" at the end of the WSOP doesn't feel right. Yeah, its gonna build drama as the Main Event starts airing, but it still feels unfinished.
Monday, July 14, 2008
"I'm a Gambler"
So immediately after my tilt-inducing fucked up hand last night, this curious exchange occurred with the guy on my immediate left.
I had just pulled another $500 buy-in from my pocket and put it on the table, and was dealt 22 in the SB. There was a Mississippi straddle to $10 on the button, so I was the first to act PF in the SB. I call the $10 straddle, and then guy on my right in the BB raises to $45. Its folded around to me and I call. Yeah, a bit tilty.
The flop is K-J-9. Another air ball, and I check. BB quickly checks. I just want him to bet so I can fold and regroup.
Turn is J, check-check. River is a small card, and we check-check again.
As I am turning over my deuces, I say, "I think I missed a bet." An honest statement, because his three checks would seem to indicate extreme weakness.
This guy turns over two queens, and says, "No, I wasn't going anywhere." Then, he launches into an odd speech.
"I wasn't going anywhere. I would have called if you bet. I'm a gambler. I don't want to take anyone's chips. You don't want me to take your chips, do you? Because I would have called. There's no way I would fold to a bet. That flop didn't scare me, and I would have called."
This goes on for a bit as he keeps pestering me with different variations of this question. "Do you want me to take your chips? Cause I'm a gambler, and I will if you want me to." He was yapping earlier, before this speech, so I don't think he's trying to encourage my tilt. He's not that clever. He's just one of these guys that boasts and yammers a lot. He's maybe 55, and sort of socially inept. However, I am in no mood for his bullshit.
Its like I am playing an odd logic game, and my options are:
A. Tell him to shut the fuck up (not really my character)
B. Ignore him (impossible, since he won't shut up on his own)
C. Reply with an honest response
D. Escalate the dispute, to induce his tilt
I selected "C. Honest response" and went this route: "Gee, and here I thought we were playing poker to take each others' chips."
Apparently, this is the wrong approach, and I have suddenly hit a nerve. The rant is just getting started
"I didn't want to take your chips," he continues. "I'm really a nice guy, but I'm a gambler. I just like friendly poker. If I don't like someone, I will go after them and take all their chips. You don't want to get on my bad side, cause I will take all your chips. I can't stand assholes at the table. That's what gets me going. And I can gamble. I've placed five-figure bets on the craps table. I gamble big, so you don't want to mess with me."
What the hell did I do to deserve this? This goes on as the hands continue. I have shifted into 'ignore mode' and now I am silent, to no avail. He continues. "Do you know how to play craps?" Yes, but I remain silent.
"See those craps tables over there?" He's now kneeling on his seat, twisting around and pointing. "I placed a ten thousand dollar odds bet when I was rolling for a six. Ten thousand dollars! I'm not afraid to gamble. I can gamble big, if that's what you want to do."
As a general rule, I stay quiet at the tables. I don't talk during hands. I will engage in friendly conversation between hands, mostly to gather information. But I am not at the poker table to make friends or for the social interaction. I am there to win and take everyone's chips, plain and simple.
So, I have absolutely no idea why The Gambler launched into me. As he is rambling, I replay the last few orbits to see if there is something I did to set him off. The only thing I can think about, however, is the horrible hand where I just donked off my $750 stack to Mega-Rock who flopped a set of kings.
I remain silent, and while The Gambler is still babbling I run QQ into AA and proceed to donate another buy-in to the Mega-Rock. I think I was on tilt, but I'm not really sure. My poker judgment was far too cloudy at that point to properly assess what was happening. I guess clouded judgment is my form of tilt.
I finally got to escape The Gambler. What a sad poker night.
I had just pulled another $500 buy-in from my pocket and put it on the table, and was dealt 22 in the SB. There was a Mississippi straddle to $10 on the button, so I was the first to act PF in the SB. I call the $10 straddle, and then guy on my right in the BB raises to $45. Its folded around to me and I call. Yeah, a bit tilty.
The flop is K-J-9. Another air ball, and I check. BB quickly checks. I just want him to bet so I can fold and regroup.
Turn is J, check-check. River is a small card, and we check-check again.
As I am turning over my deuces, I say, "I think I missed a bet." An honest statement, because his three checks would seem to indicate extreme weakness.
This guy turns over two queens, and says, "No, I wasn't going anywhere." Then, he launches into an odd speech.
"I wasn't going anywhere. I would have called if you bet. I'm a gambler. I don't want to take anyone's chips. You don't want me to take your chips, do you? Because I would have called. There's no way I would fold to a bet. That flop didn't scare me, and I would have called."
This goes on for a bit as he keeps pestering me with different variations of this question. "Do you want me to take your chips? Cause I'm a gambler, and I will if you want me to." He was yapping earlier, before this speech, so I don't think he's trying to encourage my tilt. He's not that clever. He's just one of these guys that boasts and yammers a lot. He's maybe 55, and sort of socially inept. However, I am in no mood for his bullshit.
Its like I am playing an odd logic game, and my options are:
A. Tell him to shut the fuck up (not really my character)
B. Ignore him (impossible, since he won't shut up on his own)
C. Reply with an honest response
D. Escalate the dispute, to induce his tilt
I selected "C. Honest response" and went this route: "Gee, and here I thought we were playing poker to take each others' chips."
Apparently, this is the wrong approach, and I have suddenly hit a nerve. The rant is just getting started
"I didn't want to take your chips," he continues. "I'm really a nice guy, but I'm a gambler. I just like friendly poker. If I don't like someone, I will go after them and take all their chips. You don't want to get on my bad side, cause I will take all your chips. I can't stand assholes at the table. That's what gets me going. And I can gamble. I've placed five-figure bets on the craps table. I gamble big, so you don't want to mess with me."
What the hell did I do to deserve this? This goes on as the hands continue. I have shifted into 'ignore mode' and now I am silent, to no avail. He continues. "Do you know how to play craps?" Yes, but I remain silent.
"See those craps tables over there?" He's now kneeling on his seat, twisting around and pointing. "I placed a ten thousand dollar odds bet when I was rolling for a six. Ten thousand dollars! I'm not afraid to gamble. I can gamble big, if that's what you want to do."
As a general rule, I stay quiet at the tables. I don't talk during hands. I will engage in friendly conversation between hands, mostly to gather information. But I am not at the poker table to make friends or for the social interaction. I am there to win and take everyone's chips, plain and simple.
So, I have absolutely no idea why The Gambler launched into me. As he is rambling, I replay the last few orbits to see if there is something I did to set him off. The only thing I can think about, however, is the horrible hand where I just donked off my $750 stack to Mega-Rock who flopped a set of kings.
I remain silent, and while The Gambler is still babbling I run QQ into AA and proceed to donate another buy-in to the Mega-Rock. I think I was on tilt, but I'm not really sure. My poker judgment was far too cloudy at that point to properly assess what was happening. I guess clouded judgment is my form of tilt.
I finally got to escape The Gambler. What a sad poker night.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Distractions
We are closing on our new house on Tuesday. At that point, for the first time in my life, I will own two houses. Odd thought. We move in one week, and close on the sale of our current house at the end of August.
Things have been crazy busy in my non-poker life. House showings, offers, negotiations, packing, loan arrangements, moving companies, new house insurance, new carpet in the new house, basement improvements. And then there is work, which has been extremely busy. The economy and the legal work is in a slump -- except for me. Every project for nearly every client that I have is active. Meetings, contract negotiations, speeches, e-mail, phone conference calls, court documents, conferences.
Its a wonder that I manage to keep on top of everything. At least I think I am.
So I went to play some poker tonight. Poker remains my get-away from my non-poker life. Unfortunately, life distractions cause lack of focus at the table.
Early on, at the $2-5 NL feeder table, I ran my starting $500 stack up to about $1200. Good start, things going smoothly. By the time I got moved to the main game, I was around $800. Then I play this train-wreck of a hand:
I have about $750 at the start of this hand. I raise UTG with A8-hearts. Mega-rock re-raises to $60. Everyone else folds but me, and I just call.
Flop is Kh-Qs-8d. I check, and Mega-Rock checks. I think he missed.
Turn is (Kh-Qs-8d)-4h. Now I have a pair and a flush draw. I lead for $80. Mega-Rock raises to $300. He has about $300 more behind, very close to the rest of my stack. He just has me covered. I go into the tank and then emerge with this conclusion:
He has AK and is overplaying a one-pair hand, and he will lay down to pressure for the remainder of his stack. He re-raises PF, checked the flop because he had only one pair, and is scared I might have a set. At the feeder table, he gave the appearance of an extremely scared player in several occasions, and I pegged him as someone that could be bet off a hand.
So I push. He quickly calls, and I have that "Oh shit moment." I immediately know I made a bad read. I know what he has even before he shows -- a set of KKK or QQQ. I need a heart to win.
The river bricks out, no heart, and he shows a set of Kings. I have managed to cough up my entire stack on a third -pair, flush draw hand with one card to go when he was already pot-committed and had top set.
What the fuck was I doing? I should have lost only $60 in that hand, and not $750. Clearly I was unfocused and upon reflection I can't imagine ever playing this hand this poorly under normal circumstances.
Yuck.
Strangely, I think the aggravation of not being able to make it to Vegas this year is also causing me some sort of odd poker frustration that I have not experienced before. I am ready to take the next step in poker, but continue to dink around in the local $2-5 NL game, which is the best my little slice of the poker world has to offer. I see some of the players still in the WSOP Main Event, and I so want to take my shot.
Some day.
Things have been crazy busy in my non-poker life. House showings, offers, negotiations, packing, loan arrangements, moving companies, new house insurance, new carpet in the new house, basement improvements. And then there is work, which has been extremely busy. The economy and the legal work is in a slump -- except for me. Every project for nearly every client that I have is active. Meetings, contract negotiations, speeches, e-mail, phone conference calls, court documents, conferences.
Its a wonder that I manage to keep on top of everything. At least I think I am.
So I went to play some poker tonight. Poker remains my get-away from my non-poker life. Unfortunately, life distractions cause lack of focus at the table.
Early on, at the $2-5 NL feeder table, I ran my starting $500 stack up to about $1200. Good start, things going smoothly. By the time I got moved to the main game, I was around $800. Then I play this train-wreck of a hand:
I have about $750 at the start of this hand. I raise UTG with A8-hearts. Mega-rock re-raises to $60. Everyone else folds but me, and I just call.
Flop is Kh-Qs-8d. I check, and Mega-Rock checks. I think he missed.
Turn is (Kh-Qs-8d)-4h. Now I have a pair and a flush draw. I lead for $80. Mega-Rock raises to $300. He has about $300 more behind, very close to the rest of my stack. He just has me covered. I go into the tank and then emerge with this conclusion:
He has AK and is overplaying a one-pair hand, and he will lay down to pressure for the remainder of his stack. He re-raises PF, checked the flop because he had only one pair, and is scared I might have a set. At the feeder table, he gave the appearance of an extremely scared player in several occasions, and I pegged him as someone that could be bet off a hand.
So I push. He quickly calls, and I have that "Oh shit moment." I immediately know I made a bad read. I know what he has even before he shows -- a set of KKK or QQQ. I need a heart to win.
The river bricks out, no heart, and he shows a set of Kings. I have managed to cough up my entire stack on a third -pair, flush draw hand with one card to go when he was already pot-committed and had top set.
What the fuck was I doing? I should have lost only $60 in that hand, and not $750. Clearly I was unfocused and upon reflection I can't imagine ever playing this hand this poorly under normal circumstances.
Yuck.
Strangely, I think the aggravation of not being able to make it to Vegas this year is also causing me some sort of odd poker frustration that I have not experienced before. I am ready to take the next step in poker, but continue to dink around in the local $2-5 NL game, which is the best my little slice of the poker world has to offer. I see some of the players still in the WSOP Main Event, and I so want to take my shot.
Some day.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Missing Vegas
I really don't understand how some of the pros can keep buying into so many WSOP events and not cashing. At all. I saw that Gavin Smith busted from Day 1-A of the Main Event. He said on the most recent episode of PokerRoad Radio that he has not cashed in a single event, and he's played in many of the 51 events. Financially and psychologically, how does someone accomplish this?
*******
I got away to Harrahs last night. I called in and got on the $2-5 NLHE list at 8:15pm, and I was #8. By 10:30pm I had moved up to #2 on the list, so I said "fuck it" and went home.
I was prepared to declare that poker was in a serious decline in the KC area, but the game lists were close to 20-deep last night.
*******
I've been sticking to a very strict on-line bankroll management plan. No more than than 5% of my total account for any single site on any table. I'm playing a very steady pace and things are starting to build back up. I'm keeping the bluffs and loose calls to a minimum, and it helps ease the variance. ABC poker can be somewhat boring, but its more profitable for me. Usually, I'm just happy to be playing, consideraing how busy life and work have been for me.
*******
I am currently reading Every Hand Revealed by Gus Hansen and Bigger Deal by Anthony Holden. I like Gus's post-flop thinking process. I like Holden's writing style, and I think this book is better than Big Deal. The problem that I had with Big Deal is that it was seriously dated by the modern poker boom. Reading about the world travels of a tournament player in the late 80's was just not exciting compared to the cash in play during the modern tournament era.
*******
I am seriously disappointed about not being able to take a Vegas trip during the WSOP this year. I have been following the WSOP news on a daily basis, and it makes me miss live play that much more. Even if I could not play in a tournament, I would love to teleport to the Rio and play in the cash games for two days. My goal is to make it to Vegas in June/July 2009, and possibly a trip early Winter this year if life will allow.
*******
I got away to Harrahs last night. I called in and got on the $2-5 NLHE list at 8:15pm, and I was #8. By 10:30pm I had moved up to #2 on the list, so I said "fuck it" and went home.
I was prepared to declare that poker was in a serious decline in the KC area, but the game lists were close to 20-deep last night.
*******
I've been sticking to a very strict on-line bankroll management plan. No more than than 5% of my total account for any single site on any table. I'm playing a very steady pace and things are starting to build back up. I'm keeping the bluffs and loose calls to a minimum, and it helps ease the variance. ABC poker can be somewhat boring, but its more profitable for me. Usually, I'm just happy to be playing, consideraing how busy life and work have been for me.
*******
I am currently reading Every Hand Revealed by Gus Hansen and Bigger Deal by Anthony Holden. I like Gus's post-flop thinking process. I like Holden's writing style, and I think this book is better than Big Deal. The problem that I had with Big Deal is that it was seriously dated by the modern poker boom. Reading about the world travels of a tournament player in the late 80's was just not exciting compared to the cash in play during the modern tournament era.
*******
I am seriously disappointed about not being able to take a Vegas trip during the WSOP this year. I have been following the WSOP news on a daily basis, and it makes me miss live play that much more. Even if I could not play in a tournament, I would love to teleport to the Rio and play in the cash games for two days. My goal is to make it to Vegas in June/July 2009, and possibly a trip early Winter this year if life will allow.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
The State of Modern Pop Poker
HISTORY WILL REVEAL that the height of the poker boom coincided with the last days of Shana Hiatt as the perky sideline commentator for the World Poker Tour. The decline of the modern poker era begins exactly with the announcement that Shana was leaving the WPT.
This is not to suggest that there is necessarily a causal relationship between these two events, although her departure may have played some role, however slight. Shana’s departure started the revolving door of beautiful but ignorant WPT sideline commentators, punctuated by the world’s worst interview question posed by replacement Courtney Friel as players were eliminated from a WPT final table: “So how did you feel when you busted out?”
Although hardcore poker players may have been reluctant to admit it, Season 4 of the WPT was a watershed event for poker in one primary respect – its when we all fully realized that the WPT format was really boring. The accelerated blind schedule in the final stages of a WPT tournament reduced the options of the world’s most highly skilled poker experts to a single action – push all-in or fold.
It was at this point that poker aficionados started skipping the weekly WPT broadcast in favor of logging on to their favorite internet poker site and playing a few more sit-n-goes before bedtime. We had all become educated regarding how to play final tables, and we could experience more real action in an on-line sit-n-go instead of watching six pudgy unknown dudes in shades and ball caps or beanies sit and try to act stoic while masking sheer televised terror, a la David Williams heads-up final table play at the WSOP 2004 Main Event. The WPT may have been on the tube in the background as viewers/players battled for their own personal final table victory on PokerStars, but they were no longer really paying attention to the WPT. Today, the WPT has moved to a second network, and has already started shopping for a third. The WPT’s days are numbered.
Along comes High Stakes Poker, televised cash game poker at its finest. Compared to the WPT, this show was exciting – real players it a cozy back-room lounge setting, exchanging barbs and playing for “cold hard cash,” as we were constantly reminded by AJ Benza. We watched Daniel Negreanu repeatedly call off fifteen WPT tournament buy-ins on the river as he explained with perfect accuracy how his flopped straight had been crushed by lucky a suckout. We could see he was beat, he know he was beat, he explained to the table and the audience how he was beat, and he still called. A player with crystal clear poker vision going completely blind in the heat of battle. This was poker excitement.
But then even High Stakes Poker outgrew its own skin. The stakes were raised as players bought in for a brain-melting $500,000 to $1 million, fueled by higher blinds and double-blind straddles. The stakes were clearly too high for certain participants, as they routinely started to “run it three times” in order to reduce variance and generate split pots.
High Stakes Poker bottomed out when Guy Laliberte graciously wrote off significant equity as he agreed to split a very large pot with David Benyamine to prevent a significant financial impact to Benyamine. Doyle Brunson summed up the hand by noting that it represented just another pot to Laliberte but a “lifetime” to Benyamine. Even if an exaggeration, we knew that this was painful for Benyamine.
These split pot bail-outs were contrary to the very spirit of poker. Poker is a zero-sum game of clear winners and losers. You make a bet, put your chips in the middle, and deal with the outcome. Someone wins the pot, and the rest lose. In America, we want touchdowns, home runs, grand slams and bust outs! We will not tolerate exciting foreplay followed by a limp-dicked fade-out.
So that brings us to the WSOP in 2008. We are nearly one year from the most boring final table in the history of the WSOP, where Jerry Yang hijacked the table by invoking the Almighty Himself to make the correct cards appear on the board. His empassioned appeals to God were almost drowned out by the wife of Lee Watkinson, who was likewise pleading to a higher power in favor of her husband over the small, undeserving, anonymous amateur.
The highlight of the 2008 WSOP appears to be poker players as gamblers, who are so bored with the game of poker that they require side action in the form of prop bets that exceed the value of the prize pools for which they compete. The world’s best players have sucked so much money out of the poker economy that the tournament stakes no longer bring the buzz that made the first season of the WPT so terribly exciting.
Harrahs and the other gaming corporations have co-opted the world of tournament poker because they remain true to the secret ingredient of gaming: lots of money in a casino means higher profits. By all means necessary, the casino corporations’ collective goal is to bring more money from the poker economy onto the casino property. There, creative gamblers will find ways to empty their pockets. Even the cream of the poker crop – none other than Phil Ivey – boasts about his million-dollar losses at the craps table in the form of shaky hand-held videos shot by Barry Greenstein. The new cool is not just to win at poker, but take your poker winnings and piss them away to the casino.
Harrahs has done a masterful job of ensuring maximum revenue from the WSOP. They run six tournaments simultaneously in multiple conference rooms to ensure that all tables are filled to capacity at all times. To ensure maximum excitement for the Series, Harrahs has managed, either by design or happenstance, to have created a fever among the top tier of the poker community for one magic talisman – bracelets!
The players have a seemingly unquenchable thirst for more bracelets. Who has the most bracelets? Who won the most bracelets last year? Who’s going to win the most bracelets this year? Who has the most prop bets for bracelets? Money is no longer the most important method of keeping score in poker. The poker world needs more bracelets!
To satisfy this new demand, Harrahs offers more tournaments, giving players even more opportunities to collect more bracelets – and allowing Harrahs to collect more juice. Players are bewildered by the flurry of overlapping tournaments, while Harrahs ensures that juice is being collected from every chair at every table in every room, every day and all day from the start of the tournament until the final bracelet is handed out. And, they even run added tournaments after the Main Event has started, to keep the busted players in a chair with the juice running. A player watching the final table of the WSOP represents lost potential revenue – put them in a seat and charge the juice one more time.
So we have been conditioned to love poker through television broadcasts, and to pay homage to the victors. Harrahs has finally figured out how to wring the most money from the poker community, and the players are willing, if unwitting, accomplices in their zeal to rack up tournament wins and then donate significant portions to the casino. The victors boast of their wins to the omnipresent poker media, who are eager to report chip counts, tournament results, and outrageous prop bets that keep the poker community entertained.
And we will still continue to play, regardless. Because underneath it all, we still love the game of poker, even if it has become too mainstream.
This is not to suggest that there is necessarily a causal relationship between these two events, although her departure may have played some role, however slight. Shana’s departure started the revolving door of beautiful but ignorant WPT sideline commentators, punctuated by the world’s worst interview question posed by replacement Courtney Friel as players were eliminated from a WPT final table: “So how did you feel when you busted out?”
Although hardcore poker players may have been reluctant to admit it, Season 4 of the WPT was a watershed event for poker in one primary respect – its when we all fully realized that the WPT format was really boring. The accelerated blind schedule in the final stages of a WPT tournament reduced the options of the world’s most highly skilled poker experts to a single action – push all-in or fold.
It was at this point that poker aficionados started skipping the weekly WPT broadcast in favor of logging on to their favorite internet poker site and playing a few more sit-n-goes before bedtime. We had all become educated regarding how to play final tables, and we could experience more real action in an on-line sit-n-go instead of watching six pudgy unknown dudes in shades and ball caps or beanies sit and try to act stoic while masking sheer televised terror, a la David Williams heads-up final table play at the WSOP 2004 Main Event. The WPT may have been on the tube in the background as viewers/players battled for their own personal final table victory on PokerStars, but they were no longer really paying attention to the WPT. Today, the WPT has moved to a second network, and has already started shopping for a third. The WPT’s days are numbered.
Along comes High Stakes Poker, televised cash game poker at its finest. Compared to the WPT, this show was exciting – real players it a cozy back-room lounge setting, exchanging barbs and playing for “cold hard cash,” as we were constantly reminded by AJ Benza. We watched Daniel Negreanu repeatedly call off fifteen WPT tournament buy-ins on the river as he explained with perfect accuracy how his flopped straight had been crushed by lucky a suckout. We could see he was beat, he know he was beat, he explained to the table and the audience how he was beat, and he still called. A player with crystal clear poker vision going completely blind in the heat of battle. This was poker excitement.
But then even High Stakes Poker outgrew its own skin. The stakes were raised as players bought in for a brain-melting $500,000 to $1 million, fueled by higher blinds and double-blind straddles. The stakes were clearly too high for certain participants, as they routinely started to “run it three times” in order to reduce variance and generate split pots.
High Stakes Poker bottomed out when Guy Laliberte graciously wrote off significant equity as he agreed to split a very large pot with David Benyamine to prevent a significant financial impact to Benyamine. Doyle Brunson summed up the hand by noting that it represented just another pot to Laliberte but a “lifetime” to Benyamine. Even if an exaggeration, we knew that this was painful for Benyamine.
These split pot bail-outs were contrary to the very spirit of poker. Poker is a zero-sum game of clear winners and losers. You make a bet, put your chips in the middle, and deal with the outcome. Someone wins the pot, and the rest lose. In America, we want touchdowns, home runs, grand slams and bust outs! We will not tolerate exciting foreplay followed by a limp-dicked fade-out.
So that brings us to the WSOP in 2008. We are nearly one year from the most boring final table in the history of the WSOP, where Jerry Yang hijacked the table by invoking the Almighty Himself to make the correct cards appear on the board. His empassioned appeals to God were almost drowned out by the wife of Lee Watkinson, who was likewise pleading to a higher power in favor of her husband over the small, undeserving, anonymous amateur.
The highlight of the 2008 WSOP appears to be poker players as gamblers, who are so bored with the game of poker that they require side action in the form of prop bets that exceed the value of the prize pools for which they compete. The world’s best players have sucked so much money out of the poker economy that the tournament stakes no longer bring the buzz that made the first season of the WPT so terribly exciting.
Harrahs and the other gaming corporations have co-opted the world of tournament poker because they remain true to the secret ingredient of gaming: lots of money in a casino means higher profits. By all means necessary, the casino corporations’ collective goal is to bring more money from the poker economy onto the casino property. There, creative gamblers will find ways to empty their pockets. Even the cream of the poker crop – none other than Phil Ivey – boasts about his million-dollar losses at the craps table in the form of shaky hand-held videos shot by Barry Greenstein. The new cool is not just to win at poker, but take your poker winnings and piss them away to the casino.
Harrahs has done a masterful job of ensuring maximum revenue from the WSOP. They run six tournaments simultaneously in multiple conference rooms to ensure that all tables are filled to capacity at all times. To ensure maximum excitement for the Series, Harrahs has managed, either by design or happenstance, to have created a fever among the top tier of the poker community for one magic talisman – bracelets!
The players have a seemingly unquenchable thirst for more bracelets. Who has the most bracelets? Who won the most bracelets last year? Who’s going to win the most bracelets this year? Who has the most prop bets for bracelets? Money is no longer the most important method of keeping score in poker. The poker world needs more bracelets!
To satisfy this new demand, Harrahs offers more tournaments, giving players even more opportunities to collect more bracelets – and allowing Harrahs to collect more juice. Players are bewildered by the flurry of overlapping tournaments, while Harrahs ensures that juice is being collected from every chair at every table in every room, every day and all day from the start of the tournament until the final bracelet is handed out. And, they even run added tournaments after the Main Event has started, to keep the busted players in a chair with the juice running. A player watching the final table of the WSOP represents lost potential revenue – put them in a seat and charge the juice one more time.
So we have been conditioned to love poker through television broadcasts, and to pay homage to the victors. Harrahs has finally figured out how to wring the most money from the poker community, and the players are willing, if unwitting, accomplices in their zeal to rack up tournament wins and then donate significant portions to the casino. The victors boast of their wins to the omnipresent poker media, who are eager to report chip counts, tournament results, and outrageous prop bets that keep the poker community entertained.
And we will still continue to play, regardless. Because underneath it all, we still love the game of poker, even if it has become too mainstream.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Math and other stuff
WATCHING the Life of Ivey videos on PokerRoad, I realize something. There are lot of players that have substantial talent, but his extra strength seems to be the complete and absolute disregard for the real value of money. If you're a natural and you don't care about the money -- I mean really don't care -- then you can play without an ounce of fear. There are a lot of legendary gamblers, but Ivey seems to be in that extremely rare class that just does not care about the value of money even a little bit and is therefore devoid of any fear while playing at any level.
I've come close to this feeling on a few occasions, in my little corner of the poker world. When playing in the Ameristar Thursday night tournament (the only tournament in town worth playing), there have been a few nights where I was completely ambivalent about my outcome in the tournament. I had a medium to shortish stack in the middle stages, and the NL cash tables were bursting with the donks that had already busted out.
*************
POKER MEDIA PEOPLE, please stop interviewing Durrrr. He may be the latest poker prodigy, but he interviews poorly and has nothing to offer the audience.
*************
THE EGO OF POKER PLAYERS is starting to really show. Everyone has a writing blog or a video blog or a website or is being interviewed for their amazing and outlandish prop bets during the WSOP. For some its just a natural method of expression. For many others, its a pure ego trip to get their face on the tube and be watched by others.
*************
Listening to PokerRoad, I get the impression that a good number of players just sign up and play the WSOP tournaments, but don't regularly study the game or take the time to analyze their own game and improve, fill their leaks, etc. Its amazing how many buy-ins appear to be carelessly pissed away by careless play. Its as if some of the players are treating each tournament like just another boring day at the office rather than giving it the focus and attention needed to succeed on a continuous basis. Not everyone, but a lot of them.
*************
And now let's play -- Did I Play AK Like Donk?
Potentially big hand at the Main Table from this session, for which some math is required.
Villain plays with Team Yellow but has shown a propensity for overly tight play recently. I started with him at the Feeder Table and he was much more loose back then. I think his natural tendency is looser play, but has felt a bit ‘snake bit’ by this table. He has $435 and I have $1800. We are in the later part of my session and I am table boss.
Villain raises UTG to $35. Standard opening PF raise has been to $20 or $25 and I have been calling raises with a frustrating frequency to the other players. If Villain had a bigger stack I think a raise to $35 would signal a wider range of hands (including medium pocket pairs) but because he has recently lost several hundred and is visibly frustrated by his results at this table, my instinct is that he is protecting a genuinely big hand with the extra large raise.
One MP players calls. I have AK-spades in the CO an raise to $135. Its folded to Villain and he quickly pushes for about $300 over my raise. Squeezed caller in between us folds, and now its up to me.
Pot is 35 + 35 + 135 + 5 + 400 = $610. I am getting just over 2 to 1. What is his range of hands?
I think he has AA, KK, maybe QQ or JJ. I can put him on QQ or JJ only if I think he is extra frustrated and because he thinks I am bullying the table too much. His actions seem genuine, like he finally has the goods and is not afraid of the action. I do not see him doing this with AK, and absolutely not AQ or worse. He is clearly a cash game player, and is not treating this like a tournament.
So, I settle on 75% AA or KK and 25% QQ, possibly JJ. I fold, doing some quick calculations and deciding that the $300 call is better left in my stack against a close decision. Should I have called?
My equity against AA and KK is 77%/23%:
77% x -$300 = -$231
23% x $610 = $140
Total EV against AA and KK is -$91
My equity against QQ and JJ is 54%/46%:
54% x -$300 = -$162
46% x $610 = $280
Total EV against QQ and JJ is $118
75% x -$91 = -$68
25% x $118 = $30
Total EV against his weighted hand range is -$38. Yeah, I can find better situations for my chips.
This would become a +$18 EV if I think there is an equal chance he has AA, KK, QQ and JJ. Still not very good for my $300 call, compared to how I have been running this table.. I should be able to turn $300 into $500 based on how this table has been treating me.
I folded face down and said I had JJ, thinking that this lie would make it more likely for him to disclose his real hand if it beat mine. (The psychology of this lie is that he would have less inclination to lie that he had a bigger hand then he really did.) Villain did not show, but later said that he had QQ and did not want a call. Over the course of the next few hands, several other players at the table said they think he was lying about QQ and thought he had AA or KK, supporting my evaluation of the hand.
If I knew that he actually had exactly QQ, the EV of my call is $118, which is a clear call even considering how I was dominating this table. But I think he was lying, and not just as a rationalization of my calculations.
I've come close to this feeling on a few occasions, in my little corner of the poker world. When playing in the Ameristar Thursday night tournament (the only tournament in town worth playing), there have been a few nights where I was completely ambivalent about my outcome in the tournament. I had a medium to shortish stack in the middle stages, and the NL cash tables were bursting with the donks that had already busted out.
*************
POKER MEDIA PEOPLE, please stop interviewing Durrrr. He may be the latest poker prodigy, but he interviews poorly and has nothing to offer the audience.
*************
THE EGO OF POKER PLAYERS is starting to really show. Everyone has a writing blog or a video blog or a website or is being interviewed for their amazing and outlandish prop bets during the WSOP. For some its just a natural method of expression. For many others, its a pure ego trip to get their face on the tube and be watched by others.
*************
Listening to PokerRoad, I get the impression that a good number of players just sign up and play the WSOP tournaments, but don't regularly study the game or take the time to analyze their own game and improve, fill their leaks, etc. Its amazing how many buy-ins appear to be carelessly pissed away by careless play. Its as if some of the players are treating each tournament like just another boring day at the office rather than giving it the focus and attention needed to succeed on a continuous basis. Not everyone, but a lot of them.
*************
And now let's play -- Did I Play AK Like Donk?
Potentially big hand at the Main Table from this session, for which some math is required.
Villain plays with Team Yellow but has shown a propensity for overly tight play recently. I started with him at the Feeder Table and he was much more loose back then. I think his natural tendency is looser play, but has felt a bit ‘snake bit’ by this table. He has $435 and I have $1800. We are in the later part of my session and I am table boss.
Villain raises UTG to $35. Standard opening PF raise has been to $20 or $25 and I have been calling raises with a frustrating frequency to the other players. If Villain had a bigger stack I think a raise to $35 would signal a wider range of hands (including medium pocket pairs) but because he has recently lost several hundred and is visibly frustrated by his results at this table, my instinct is that he is protecting a genuinely big hand with the extra large raise.
One MP players calls. I have AK-spades in the CO an raise to $135. Its folded to Villain and he quickly pushes for about $300 over my raise. Squeezed caller in between us folds, and now its up to me.
Pot is 35 + 35 + 135 + 5 + 400 = $610. I am getting just over 2 to 1. What is his range of hands?
I think he has AA, KK, maybe QQ or JJ. I can put him on QQ or JJ only if I think he is extra frustrated and because he thinks I am bullying the table too much. His actions seem genuine, like he finally has the goods and is not afraid of the action. I do not see him doing this with AK, and absolutely not AQ or worse. He is clearly a cash game player, and is not treating this like a tournament.
So, I settle on 75% AA or KK and 25% QQ, possibly JJ. I fold, doing some quick calculations and deciding that the $300 call is better left in my stack against a close decision. Should I have called?
My equity against AA and KK is 77%/23%:
77% x -$300 = -$231
23% x $610 = $140
Total EV against AA and KK is -$91
My equity against QQ and JJ is 54%/46%:
54% x -$300 = -$162
46% x $610 = $280
Total EV against QQ and JJ is $118
75% x -$91 = -$68
25% x $118 = $30
Total EV against his weighted hand range is -$38. Yeah, I can find better situations for my chips.
This would become a +$18 EV if I think there is an equal chance he has AA, KK, QQ and JJ. Still not very good for my $300 call, compared to how I have been running this table.. I should be able to turn $300 into $500 based on how this table has been treating me.
I folded face down and said I had JJ, thinking that this lie would make it more likely for him to disclose his real hand if it beat mine. (The psychology of this lie is that he would have less inclination to lie that he had a bigger hand then he really did.) Villain did not show, but later said that he had QQ and did not want a call. Over the course of the next few hands, several other players at the table said they think he was lying about QQ and thought he had AA or KK, supporting my evaluation of the hand.
If I knew that he actually had exactly QQ, the EV of my call is $118, which is a clear call even considering how I was dominating this table. But I think he was lying, and not just as a rationalization of my calculations.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
I Play Live
As sad as my on-line results have been, my live play continues in the opposite direction.
Harrahs $2/5 NLHE last night, bought in for $500, cashed out for $2209. Sweet night. I had a dead-on read on every player at the table at all times. I can just feel where players are at when I am focused. I made three of my best reads ever for river calls with weakish hands.
As I was driving home I realized something -- I did not lose even one hand at showdown all night. I bailed before the river, bluffed before the river or won at showdown. That is a receipe for running a table.
I so wish I could jump on a plane and hit the Rio cash games right now.
***********
As for on-line play, I've found a game that is profitable -- 2-7 triple draw. Its actually a fun game, and not filled with sharks. I'm not sure who plays this, but the majority are weak players. I would assume anyone spending a significant amount of time playing this would know what they're doing, but I guess not.
This game seems intuitive for me, and I ran some calculations on Friday to get a better grasp on the math of the game. I don't have the math completely figured out, but I think I've got a lot of it. I reviewed this section in Super/System and I will read some more.
As I was driving home I realized something -- I did not lose even one hand at showdown all night. I bailed before the river, bluffed before the river or won at showdown. That is a receipe for running a table.
I so wish I could jump on a plane and hit the Rio cash games right now.
***********
As for on-line play, I've found a game that is profitable -- 2-7 triple draw. Its actually a fun game, and not filled with sharks. I'm not sure who plays this, but the majority are weak players. I would assume anyone spending a significant amount of time playing this would know what they're doing, but I guess not.
This game seems intuitive for me, and I ran some calculations on Friday to get a better grasp on the math of the game. I don't have the math completely figured out, but I think I've got a lot of it. I reviewed this section in Super/System and I will read some more.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Game Over
I am ready to formally announce that the on-line games have gone bad. Real bad.
Two years ago, every low level SNG (up to around the $20 level, and maybe higher) was composed of maybe 5 donks, 2-3 decent to good players and 1-2 solid players. Usually someone, and maybe more than 1 player, was gone after 5-10 hands. After 20 hands, you might have lost 2 or 3. The 50-100 of the 75-150 level was the money bubble.
I've been playing in $30 to $50 SNGs, and I've hit a cold streak. So, like a good bankroll manager, I dropped down to the $20 SNGs. I am in one right now and every player is still in the game at the 60/120 level. Everyone is playing a solid, basic, winning SNG strategy.
And now we're at the 80/160 level with 7 players left and they are all playing solid pushbot strategy. There are no clear donks.
The UIGEA has eviscerated on-line poker.
Two years ago, every low level SNG (up to around the $20 level, and maybe higher) was composed of maybe 5 donks, 2-3 decent to good players and 1-2 solid players. Usually someone, and maybe more than 1 player, was gone after 5-10 hands. After 20 hands, you might have lost 2 or 3. The 50-100 of the 75-150 level was the money bubble.
I've been playing in $30 to $50 SNGs, and I've hit a cold streak. So, like a good bankroll manager, I dropped down to the $20 SNGs. I am in one right now and every player is still in the game at the 60/120 level. Everyone is playing a solid, basic, winning SNG strategy.
And now we're at the 80/160 level with 7 players left and they are all playing solid pushbot strategy. There are no clear donks.
The UIGEA has eviscerated on-line poker.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Can You Fleece a Donkey?
What the hell is with all the "poker training" sites? Is it just this obvious to anyone else but me?
Sample Advertizament
1. I've won a lot of money playing on-line poker!
Yeah, it was back before the UIGEA. And yeah, the games have gotten a lot harder to make money on-line. In fact, things are drying up for me, just like everyone else. But wait ... just listen to this!
2. I can teach you to play poker! I can show you exactly how I used to make a lot of money playing on-line poker. Just pay me $100 per hour (which, by the way, was my former win/100BB before the UIGEA).
3. You can win lots of money like me! Assuming the UIGEA is overturned and the fish can find a way to deposit, just like back when I used to win a lot. Go get'em!
Sample Advertizament
1. I've won a lot of money playing on-line poker!
Yeah, it was back before the UIGEA. And yeah, the games have gotten a lot harder to make money on-line. In fact, things are drying up for me, just like everyone else. But wait ... just listen to this!
2. I can teach you to play poker! I can show you exactly how I used to make a lot of money playing on-line poker. Just pay me $100 per hour (which, by the way, was my former win/100BB before the UIGEA).
3. You can win lots of money like me! Assuming the UIGEA is overturned and the fish can find a way to deposit, just like back when I used to win a lot. Go get'em!
Friday, May 23, 2008
Dear Heaven
Yeah, this rocks. You know who it is, but I'll bet you haven't hard it yet...
Dear Heaven
And then check out "Thought You Knew" ...
Dear Heaven
And then check out "Thought You Knew" ...
Saturday, May 17, 2008
An American Idol
David Cook came home to Blue Springs on Friday and there was a huge parade and rally at his high school, Blue Springs South. My wife got tickets and we took the kids.
After the parade, he and his family processed into the high school football and track stadium. The show was on a stage in the middle of the field at about the 10 yard line, The stands on both sides were packed, and there were thousands more standing along the sides and around the field. Only a few hundred lucky people got onto the field. We did not get a seat (not by a long shot) but I managed to find a nice little spot at a location that was immediately to the right of the stage (the very furthest point from the entrance), with nothing between us and a clear view of the stage but a chain-link fence just outside the running track.
He ended up sitting on the right side of the stage, so we were among the fortunate few to have an unobstructed and straight view of him, although at a significant distance. As I later told my wife, aside from Roman (my son) this was the most pictures that I have ever taken of a guy.
At the start of the show he said a few words, and it was clearly an extremely emotional moment. As he described it, he has been living in his little "American Idol bubble" and now he comes home to 10,000 people packed into his high school stadium to honor his achievement.
Immediately when he sat down, they starting shooting fireworks off behind the stage. The pictures below were taken just as he stood back up, very likely choking back tears and taking in the moment.
We have a neat connection to this event. One of Amelia's (my daughter) best friends at school is named Aylish. David Cook is Aylish's uncle. Aylish and her mom were part of the family entourage and were on the stage, but on the other side and not visible except partially in a few of my pictures. I ran into them on Saturday and she said that they "partied like rock stars" until after 1am that night/morning with David and family.
It was a very cool experience.
After the parade, he and his family processed into the high school football and track stadium. The show was on a stage in the middle of the field at about the 10 yard line, The stands on both sides were packed, and there were thousands more standing along the sides and around the field. Only a few hundred lucky people got onto the field. We did not get a seat (not by a long shot) but I managed to find a nice little spot at a location that was immediately to the right of the stage (the very furthest point from the entrance), with nothing between us and a clear view of the stage but a chain-link fence just outside the running track.
He ended up sitting on the right side of the stage, so we were among the fortunate few to have an unobstructed and straight view of him, although at a significant distance. As I later told my wife, aside from Roman (my son) this was the most pictures that I have ever taken of a guy.
At the start of the show he said a few words, and it was clearly an extremely emotional moment. As he described it, he has been living in his little "American Idol bubble" and now he comes home to 10,000 people packed into his high school stadium to honor his achievement.
Immediately when he sat down, they starting shooting fireworks off behind the stage. The pictures below were taken just as he stood back up, very likely choking back tears and taking in the moment.
We have a neat connection to this event. One of Amelia's (my daughter) best friends at school is named Aylish. David Cook is Aylish's uncle. Aylish and her mom were part of the family entourage and were on the stage, but on the other side and not visible except partially in a few of my pictures. I ran into them on Saturday and she said that they "partied like rock stars" until after 1am that night/morning with David and family.
It was a very cool experience.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Iron Man
Still playing poker, and thinking about it when I’m not playing. I’ve played a few live sessions since my last blog post, and I also finally won the Thursday night Chiptalk tournament. Here is my most recent live $2/5 NL session at Harrahs, max $500 buy-in.
My worst hand of the night, at the feeder table –
Folded to me in MP and I raise to $20 with KJ-not-suited. Button calls. He’s a quiet, somewhat creepy but observant and solid old guy. He might be an accountant. I have some history with this guy, and some of the biggest pots I’ve ever played in KC have been against him. Overall, he’s gotten the best of me several times, which I can’t say for very many players in KC.
Before the flop, the floor calls my name for the main table.
Flop is K-7-4, all clubs. I have no club. I bet $30, and button calls. I think he’s drawing to the flush. Turn is a low card, non-club. I bet $80, and he raises to $280 total. He only has about $55 behind, so he is effectively all-in. This bet just screams flush draw, and I’m positive he has the A-clubs. But does be have another club in his hand?
Time to size him up. His left hand is holding his cards, the way players will hold their cards maybe ½ inch off the table. His right hand is covering his mouth. He is absolutely motionless. I pull two $100 stacks from their moorings, to see if I get any reaction. He remains frozen, like a scared rabbit hunkered down before it flees. He is staring at a point on the table between me and the community cards. All signs point to a bluff, or rather a semi-bluff. I don’t think he wants a call. I don’t think he has AK, which means that I’m ahead. And, I'm about to move to the main game -- which somehow played a minor role in my decision, but I'm not sure how or why.
So I push, and he promptly calls his few remaining chips and shows me AQ-clubs. Bad read by me. I really believe that he knew I was trying to get a read on him, and he was intentionally giving off weak tells – hand on the mouth, motionless, afraid of eye contact. Fuckin’ sneaky old bastard.
My two best hands of the night, now at the main table –
1. Button is somewhat of an action player. As the cards are dealt, but before looking, he says “I feel a button raise coming on.” Folded to me in MP, I raise to $20 with A7-diamonds. Button calls, SB folds, BB calls. I say to Button, “You were supposed to re-raise.”
Flop is A-J-7 rainbow, giving me two pair. BB checks, I lead out for $45, button calls, BB folds. Turn is (A-J-7)-5, and I bet $90, button calls. River is (A-J-7-5)-7. I think for a long time, like I might be unsure what to do here, trying to give the “I missed my draw” signal. Or maybe the “Are my kings any good?” vibe. I’m actually just trying to figure out the maximum that he will call. Then I bet $160. Button quickly calls, and shows AQ after I reveal my boat.
He acts aggravated, and says “Nice catch. Good raise with A7.” I’m not sure if he’s serious or sarcastic, and whether he is aggravated with himself or me. After giving me $315, he donked off his remaining $400 or so after a couple more orbits. I’m pretty sure my hand tilted him.
2. Lots of limpers to me on the button, and I limp with 47-diamonds. SB and BB check. Flop is 3d-Kc-6d. Checked to me, and I bet $20. Its folded to MP guy, who just sat down a few hands ago and is the only player wearing shades. He raises to $50 total, and has about $370 more behind. I have him covered. Its folded to me, and I raise $200 more, which should signal that we are playing for his whole stack. I’m pretty sure he has a high king, probably not AK or he would have raised PF.
He pushes, and I quickly call $170 more. Turn and river both bring help, as the final board reads 3d-Kc-6d-2d-5c, completing my straight and flush. My opponent is shocked and dismayed when I table my hand. Everyone else is shocked to see 47s.
Mr. Shades slinks away, claiming that he called "with a high king." Like KQ?! One of the players at his end of the table says, "If he pushed with KQ or worse, he deserves to lose." I guess I would have to agree there. But then again, he didn't know too much about how I play. And, he was technically ahead -- but all in all risking your whole stack with top pair, non-nut kicker cleary breaks my Golden Rule of No Limit Hold 'Em -- Don't go broke with one pair.
I get lots of respect for the remainder of the session. My reputation is now that I could have any two cards and I don’t appear to be bluffing too often. Which, of course, opens the door to lots of bluffing opportunities at small and medium orphan pots. Showing down some goofy strong hands really frightens skittish players.
I rack up for $1475 and head home.
My worst hand of the night, at the feeder table –
Folded to me in MP and I raise to $20 with KJ-not-suited. Button calls. He’s a quiet, somewhat creepy but observant and solid old guy. He might be an accountant. I have some history with this guy, and some of the biggest pots I’ve ever played in KC have been against him. Overall, he’s gotten the best of me several times, which I can’t say for very many players in KC.
Before the flop, the floor calls my name for the main table.
Flop is K-7-4, all clubs. I have no club. I bet $30, and button calls. I think he’s drawing to the flush. Turn is a low card, non-club. I bet $80, and he raises to $280 total. He only has about $55 behind, so he is effectively all-in. This bet just screams flush draw, and I’m positive he has the A-clubs. But does be have another club in his hand?
Time to size him up. His left hand is holding his cards, the way players will hold their cards maybe ½ inch off the table. His right hand is covering his mouth. He is absolutely motionless. I pull two $100 stacks from their moorings, to see if I get any reaction. He remains frozen, like a scared rabbit hunkered down before it flees. He is staring at a point on the table between me and the community cards. All signs point to a bluff, or rather a semi-bluff. I don’t think he wants a call. I don’t think he has AK, which means that I’m ahead. And, I'm about to move to the main game -- which somehow played a minor role in my decision, but I'm not sure how or why.
So I push, and he promptly calls his few remaining chips and shows me AQ-clubs. Bad read by me. I really believe that he knew I was trying to get a read on him, and he was intentionally giving off weak tells – hand on the mouth, motionless, afraid of eye contact. Fuckin’ sneaky old bastard.
My two best hands of the night, now at the main table –
1. Button is somewhat of an action player. As the cards are dealt, but before looking, he says “I feel a button raise coming on.” Folded to me in MP, I raise to $20 with A7-diamonds. Button calls, SB folds, BB calls. I say to Button, “You were supposed to re-raise.”
Flop is A-J-7 rainbow, giving me two pair. BB checks, I lead out for $45, button calls, BB folds. Turn is (A-J-7)-5, and I bet $90, button calls. River is (A-J-7-5)-7. I think for a long time, like I might be unsure what to do here, trying to give the “I missed my draw” signal. Or maybe the “Are my kings any good?” vibe. I’m actually just trying to figure out the maximum that he will call. Then I bet $160. Button quickly calls, and shows AQ after I reveal my boat.
He acts aggravated, and says “Nice catch. Good raise with A7.” I’m not sure if he’s serious or sarcastic, and whether he is aggravated with himself or me. After giving me $315, he donked off his remaining $400 or so after a couple more orbits. I’m pretty sure my hand tilted him.
2. Lots of limpers to me on the button, and I limp with 47-diamonds. SB and BB check. Flop is 3d-Kc-6d. Checked to me, and I bet $20. Its folded to MP guy, who just sat down a few hands ago and is the only player wearing shades. He raises to $50 total, and has about $370 more behind. I have him covered. Its folded to me, and I raise $200 more, which should signal that we are playing for his whole stack. I’m pretty sure he has a high king, probably not AK or he would have raised PF.
He pushes, and I quickly call $170 more. Turn and river both bring help, as the final board reads 3d-Kc-6d-2d-5c, completing my straight and flush. My opponent is shocked and dismayed when I table my hand. Everyone else is shocked to see 47s.
Mr. Shades slinks away, claiming that he called "with a high king." Like KQ?! One of the players at his end of the table says, "If he pushed with KQ or worse, he deserves to lose." I guess I would have to agree there. But then again, he didn't know too much about how I play. And, he was technically ahead -- but all in all risking your whole stack with top pair, non-nut kicker cleary breaks my Golden Rule of No Limit Hold 'Em -- Don't go broke with one pair.
I get lots of respect for the remainder of the session. My reputation is now that I could have any two cards and I don’t appear to be bluffing too often. Which, of course, opens the door to lots of bluffing opportunities at small and medium orphan pots. Showing down some goofy strong hands really frightens skittish players.
I rack up for $1475 and head home.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
In The Long Run
I read the Antonius article in the most recent CardPlayer issue, noting with particular interest where he called out Doyle Brunson to any game for any stakes at any time. Doyle!
Then I read the most recent entry in Doyle's blog last night where he accepts the challenge. The interest part is where he says "I’m willing to commit to for at least a seven figure match." I can only assume that this statement means that the match could also possibly involve both players putting up eight figures. Yikes. I just think its cool that Doyle has a blog. It certainly sounds like his voice -- I can hear the folksy, easy-going southern drawl in my head as I read his blog.
********
Dr. Pauly devoted an entire blog post to my all-time favorite hand, which is T8s, and specifially T8-spades if I can select a suit. Cool.
********
I read poker blogs much more than I write in my own. I try to learn what I can from the mistakes and discussions of others. There are not to many that consistently stick to the meat of the game -- strategy, hand analysis and review of their own play.
One thing that I have noticed to be almost a universal truth about the way poker players think. In the early and middle stages of a player's career arc, there is intense focus on hand analysis and learning game strategy to reach a desired skill level. Then when the player believes they have reached that skill level, they slow down or entirely stop the strategy discussion and just play, and their focus turns to other aspects of the game.
This is when many players get beat -- they focus more on bad beats, variance, the behavior of other players, and generally stop learning the game. But I have noticed that the very best players acknowledge that they are always learning. They learn from each mistake in each session.
When you read poker blogs or maybe the poker forums, you can quickly tell where players are at in their career arc and which players will continue to learn the game.
********
I went skiing today in Utah. Actually, the rest of the family went skiing, and I went snowboarding for the first time. Learning to snowboard involves a lot of falling down. I already know that tomorrow morning I will feel like I have been beat up by secret police during the night.
********
While on vacation, I still get a bit of poker in at night after everyone else crashes. Its still my refuge from the world, no matter whether I am at home or on vacation. Its my thing that I do for myself and that I don't have to explain to anyone else, except those that are interested in listenng. My charm at the on-line NLHE cash games seems to have returned. Despite my prior whining about the downfall of on-line cash games -- of maybe because of that? -- I have rediscovered a winning game. I think I know why.
I saw the movie "No Country for Old Men" a few days ago. I will save a full discussion of that movie for another time, but the movie had an interesting effect on my mindset toward life, and also poker. Only the poker part is relevant to this blog. It made me realize that life is very long and that over the course of my life, God willing, I will play hundreds of thousands and maybe even millions of poker hands. I will be playing this game for the rest of my life. I already know this to be true.
Consequently, I am in no rush for immediate victory. I know that my "long run" will be as long of a run as I can put in -- the rest of my life. I have a newfound contentment to play at a steady, even pace and patiently wait for the good starting hands and the best board cards to get my money in the pot. This is my style. Its wonderful when you can dig deep into a work of art -- a book, a movie, whatever catches your interest -- and pull out meaning that changes your life. These sort of events don't happen to often, and you have to pay attention or they will slip out of view like a ghost.
Then I read the most recent entry in Doyle's blog last night where he accepts the challenge. The interest part is where he says "I’m willing to commit to for at least a seven figure match." I can only assume that this statement means that the match could also possibly involve both players putting up eight figures. Yikes. I just think its cool that Doyle has a blog. It certainly sounds like his voice -- I can hear the folksy, easy-going southern drawl in my head as I read his blog.
********
Dr. Pauly devoted an entire blog post to my all-time favorite hand, which is T8s, and specifially T8-spades if I can select a suit. Cool.
********
I read poker blogs much more than I write in my own. I try to learn what I can from the mistakes and discussions of others. There are not to many that consistently stick to the meat of the game -- strategy, hand analysis and review of their own play.
One thing that I have noticed to be almost a universal truth about the way poker players think. In the early and middle stages of a player's career arc, there is intense focus on hand analysis and learning game strategy to reach a desired skill level. Then when the player believes they have reached that skill level, they slow down or entirely stop the strategy discussion and just play, and their focus turns to other aspects of the game.
This is when many players get beat -- they focus more on bad beats, variance, the behavior of other players, and generally stop learning the game. But I have noticed that the very best players acknowledge that they are always learning. They learn from each mistake in each session.
When you read poker blogs or maybe the poker forums, you can quickly tell where players are at in their career arc and which players will continue to learn the game.
********
I went skiing today in Utah. Actually, the rest of the family went skiing, and I went snowboarding for the first time. Learning to snowboard involves a lot of falling down. I already know that tomorrow morning I will feel like I have been beat up by secret police during the night.
********
While on vacation, I still get a bit of poker in at night after everyone else crashes. Its still my refuge from the world, no matter whether I am at home or on vacation. Its my thing that I do for myself and that I don't have to explain to anyone else, except those that are interested in listenng. My charm at the on-line NLHE cash games seems to have returned. Despite my prior whining about the downfall of on-line cash games -- of maybe because of that? -- I have rediscovered a winning game. I think I know why.
I saw the movie "No Country for Old Men" a few days ago. I will save a full discussion of that movie for another time, but the movie had an interesting effect on my mindset toward life, and also poker. Only the poker part is relevant to this blog. It made me realize that life is very long and that over the course of my life, God willing, I will play hundreds of thousands and maybe even millions of poker hands. I will be playing this game for the rest of my life. I already know this to be true.
Consequently, I am in no rush for immediate victory. I know that my "long run" will be as long of a run as I can put in -- the rest of my life. I have a newfound contentment to play at a steady, even pace and patiently wait for the good starting hands and the best board cards to get my money in the pot. This is my style. Its wonderful when you can dig deep into a work of art -- a book, a movie, whatever catches your interest -- and pull out meaning that changes your life. These sort of events don't happen to often, and you have to pay attention or they will slip out of view like a ghost.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Poker is Easy
First hand of a new SNG –
PokerStars Game Tournament Level I (10/20)
Seat 1: (1500 in chips)
Seat 2: (1500 in chips)
Seat 3: (1500 in chips)
Seat 4: (1500 in chips)
Seat 5: (1500 in chips)
Seat 6: (1500 in chips)
Seat 7: Darvcus (1500 in chips)
Seat 8: (1500 in chips)
Seat 9: (1500 in chips)
Seat 2: posts small blind 10
Seat 3: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Darvcus [Ad Ac]
folds
folds
Seat 6: raises 20 to 40
Darvcus: raises 80 to 120
folds
folds
folds
Seat 2: raises 80 to 200
folds
Seat 6: calls 160
Darvcus: raises 460 to 660
Seat 2: calls 460
Seat 6: calls 460
*** FLOP *** [Ah As Qc]
Seat 2: bets 840 and is all-in
Seat 6: folds
Darvcus: calls 840 and is all-in
*** TURN *** [Ah As Qc] [Qh]
*** RIVER *** [Ah As Qc Qh] [Kh]
Seat 6 said, "nh"
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Seat 2: shows [7d 7s] (two pair, Aces and Queens)
Darvcus: shows [Ad Ac] (four of a kind, Aces)Darvcus collected 3680 from pot
PokerStars Game Tournament Level I (10/20)
Seat 1: (1500 in chips)
Seat 2: (1500 in chips)
Seat 3: (1500 in chips)
Seat 4: (1500 in chips)
Seat 5: (1500 in chips)
Seat 6: (1500 in chips)
Seat 7: Darvcus (1500 in chips)
Seat 8: (1500 in chips)
Seat 9: (1500 in chips)
Seat 2: posts small blind 10
Seat 3: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Darvcus [Ad Ac]
folds
folds
Seat 6: raises 20 to 40
Darvcus: raises 80 to 120
folds
folds
folds
Seat 2: raises 80 to 200
folds
Seat 6: calls 160
Darvcus: raises 460 to 660
Seat 2: calls 460
Seat 6: calls 460
*** FLOP *** [Ah As Qc]
Seat 2: bets 840 and is all-in
Seat 6: folds
Darvcus: calls 840 and is all-in
*** TURN *** [Ah As Qc] [Qh]
*** RIVER *** [Ah As Qc Qh] [Kh]
Seat 6 said, "nh"
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Seat 2: shows [7d 7s] (two pair, Aces and Queens)
Darvcus: shows [Ad Ac] (four of a kind, Aces)Darvcus collected 3680 from pot
Thursday, March 06, 2008
On Bluffing
Gus Hansen has some recent blog post about bluffing here. Some interesting thoughts by him that are worth consideration:
“Bluffing is a key component to a winning poker strategy, and therefore I am constantly trying to add more and more bluffing features into my game. Some might think that I already bluff too much, but truth be told I still need to work on my bluffing frequencies in some specific situations.The fact that trickery and deception play a significantly larger role in short-handed poker makes the matter even more imminent. In heads-up play you are constantly on the move, and being able to pull the trigger in all sorts of situations with or without a hand is of utmost importance.”
“Notice that if I don't have any experience playing 'live' against someone, I always put them in a much tighter category than where I would be found. Against most opponents in big buy-in tournaments, a decent-sized bet on the turn will be enough to take out hands like AQ and AJ and maybe even 88 as well.”
“From past experiences I know for a fact, that each and every tournament player, I have encountered out there, cherish their chips to such a degree that bluffing should be upgraded from an occasional occurrence to a major weapon at your disposal in every hand you play.”
I don’t know if he is just advertising, but I would wager not. Against the right players, its very important to keep these thoughts in mind. Against the right players.
“Bluffing is a key component to a winning poker strategy, and therefore I am constantly trying to add more and more bluffing features into my game. Some might think that I already bluff too much, but truth be told I still need to work on my bluffing frequencies in some specific situations.The fact that trickery and deception play a significantly larger role in short-handed poker makes the matter even more imminent. In heads-up play you are constantly on the move, and being able to pull the trigger in all sorts of situations with or without a hand is of utmost importance.”
“Notice that if I don't have any experience playing 'live' against someone, I always put them in a much tighter category than where I would be found. Against most opponents in big buy-in tournaments, a decent-sized bet on the turn will be enough to take out hands like AQ and AJ and maybe even 88 as well.”
“From past experiences I know for a fact, that each and every tournament player, I have encountered out there, cherish their chips to such a degree that bluffing should be upgraded from an occasional occurrence to a major weapon at your disposal in every hand you play.”
I don’t know if he is just advertising, but I would wager not. Against the right players, its very important to keep these thoughts in mind. Against the right players.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Call of the Day
Occasionally, rarely, I can make a read on-line.
PokerStars Tournament $25+$2 WSOP Steps
Hold'em No Limit - Level III (25/50)
9-max Seat #8 is the button
Seat 3 (1270 in chips)
Seat 8 (1445 in chips)
Seat 9: Darvcus (1715 in chips)
Darvcus: posts small blind 25
Seat 1 posts big blind 50
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Darvcus [Ac 9c]
folds
Seat 3 raises 100 to 150
folds
folds
folds
Seat 8 calls 150
Darvcus: calls 125
folds
*** FLOP *** [3c 4d 9h]
Darvcus: checks
Seat 3 bets 150
Seat 8 folds
Darvcus: raises 300 to 450
Seat 3 raises 670 to 1120 and is all-in
Darvcus: calls 670
*** TURN *** [3c 4d 9h] [As]
*** RIVER *** [3c 4d 9h As] [2s]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Darvcus: shows [Ac 9c] (two pair, Aces and Nines)
Seat 3 shows [Kh Qh] (high card Ace)
Darvcus collected 2740 from pot
My C/R was to test whether I was ahead. His push should signal that I am not. He could very easily have something like JJ here, or any overpair. No real logic to the decision, and this was not a math based call. I could just feel it. This often happens live for me, but so rarely on-line.
PokerStars Tournament $25+$2 WSOP Steps
Hold'em No Limit - Level III (25/50)
9-max Seat #8 is the button
Seat 3 (1270 in chips)
Seat 8 (1445 in chips)
Seat 9: Darvcus (1715 in chips)
Darvcus: posts small blind 25
Seat 1 posts big blind 50
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Darvcus [Ac 9c]
folds
Seat 3 raises 100 to 150
folds
folds
folds
Seat 8 calls 150
Darvcus: calls 125
folds
*** FLOP *** [3c 4d 9h]
Darvcus: checks
Seat 3 bets 150
Seat 8 folds
Darvcus: raises 300 to 450
Seat 3 raises 670 to 1120 and is all-in
Darvcus: calls 670
*** TURN *** [3c 4d 9h] [As]
*** RIVER *** [3c 4d 9h As] [2s]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Darvcus: shows [Ac 9c] (two pair, Aces and Nines)
Seat 3 shows [Kh Qh] (high card Ace)
Darvcus collected 2740 from pot
My C/R was to test whether I was ahead. His push should signal that I am not. He could very easily have something like JJ here, or any overpair. No real logic to the decision, and this was not a math based call. I could just feel it. This often happens live for me, but so rarely on-line.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
American Beauty
Quite by accident I have watched most of the movie American Beauty twice in the last couple of weeks. Upon the second viewing, I am struck by the symbolism in the movie.
I liked this movie when I originally saw it in the theaters, but it did not strike the chord with me then as it does now. I do not exactly relate to Lester Burnham, but I understand what brought him down in his world. I have seen in others how the stress of life’s routines can create what happened to his family.
There is significant use of color in the movie, and a few other symbols. My take on their meaning:
Red = The unobtainable for Lester
Red is the most significant color in the movie. Lester’s front door is red. Lester’s wife, Carolyn, meticulously grows red roses. Before Carolyn starts to clean the house that she is trying to to sell, she takes off her dress and reveals a bright red slip, in which she runs around the house in a frantic cleaning spree. Lester’s object of desire, Angela, is viewed alternately covered by, showered by, and bathing in a sea of red rose petals.
Lester’s first encounter with Angela at the basketball game concludes with Angela opening her sweater to a burst of red rose petals. Lester sees Angela on his bedroom ceiling awash in red rose petals. In a dream, Lester wanders into the bathroom to find Angela in a bathtub filled with water and red rose petals. Lester’s root-beer encounter with Angela in his kitchen results in him urping up a red rose petal. In the final scenes of the movie, where Lester and Angela almost consummate their lustful relationship, a vase of red roses is in the background behind Angela in nearly every shot. The dancing white grocery bag that symbolizes the ultimate beauty for Ricky Fitz appears before bright red doors; Lester sees this scene while delivering his eulogy at the end of the movie. Red symbolizes the things that Lester wants but cannot or will not have in life.
Blue = sexuality
Jim and Jim, the gay couple that live on Robin Hood Trail with whom Lester jogs, both wear blue. The wife of the Real Estate King wears blue at the party. The Real Estate King wears a blue suit when he seduces Jane at their lunch. When Jane strips in her bedroom for Ricky while he is filming her from his bedroom next door, the curtains framing Jane’s figure are blue.
When Ricky’s father, Frank, watches Ricky and Lester through the window of Lester’s garage, when Frank mistakenly believes that Ricky is going down on Lester, Lester is reclining in a large, round chair with blue cushions. Lester and Carolyn almost get it on their blue and white striped couch in their living room, before Carolyn warns Lester that he’s about to spill beer on the couch and ruins the moment.
Black & white = normalcy
Ricky wears only black and white clothes. Ricky’s room consists of black and white, mostly video tapes lining the shelves. Ricky wears a tuxedo with a white jacket for his catering work at the party. Jane is always dressed in black and white. Her lipstick is some dark, colorless shade. Ricky films things that are white – the dead dove, the dancing white grocery sack. By the end of the movie, despite their troubles, Jane and Ricky are the normal people who survive their twisted family lives and presumably escape to New York to start their new life.
Gun = release and salvation
The Real Estate King tells Jane that he relieves stress by shooting a gun. Jane takes up handgun target practice to relieve the stress in her life. She is most happy after shooting a gun. Frank has a handgun collection that is housed in locked cabinets. Ricky opens a cabinet with a duplicate key to show Jane the Nazi serving plate. His access to an item stored with the gun collection is a way of connecting with Jane, to later escape his world with Jane.
At the end of the movie, Carolyn is walking up to the house in the rain clutching a gun, energized by her self-help tapes and ready to kill Lester. Frank kills Lester at the end of the movie with a handgun, which saves Lester from his depressing world. Lester’s red blood splatters on a pure white wall when he is shot in the head.
I liked this movie when I originally saw it in the theaters, but it did not strike the chord with me then as it does now. I do not exactly relate to Lester Burnham, but I understand what brought him down in his world. I have seen in others how the stress of life’s routines can create what happened to his family.
There is significant use of color in the movie, and a few other symbols. My take on their meaning:
Red = The unobtainable for Lester
Red is the most significant color in the movie. Lester’s front door is red. Lester’s wife, Carolyn, meticulously grows red roses. Before Carolyn starts to clean the house that she is trying to to sell, she takes off her dress and reveals a bright red slip, in which she runs around the house in a frantic cleaning spree. Lester’s object of desire, Angela, is viewed alternately covered by, showered by, and bathing in a sea of red rose petals.
Lester’s first encounter with Angela at the basketball game concludes with Angela opening her sweater to a burst of red rose petals. Lester sees Angela on his bedroom ceiling awash in red rose petals. In a dream, Lester wanders into the bathroom to find Angela in a bathtub filled with water and red rose petals. Lester’s root-beer encounter with Angela in his kitchen results in him urping up a red rose petal. In the final scenes of the movie, where Lester and Angela almost consummate their lustful relationship, a vase of red roses is in the background behind Angela in nearly every shot. The dancing white grocery bag that symbolizes the ultimate beauty for Ricky Fitz appears before bright red doors; Lester sees this scene while delivering his eulogy at the end of the movie. Red symbolizes the things that Lester wants but cannot or will not have in life.
Blue = sexuality
Jim and Jim, the gay couple that live on Robin Hood Trail with whom Lester jogs, both wear blue. The wife of the Real Estate King wears blue at the party. The Real Estate King wears a blue suit when he seduces Jane at their lunch. When Jane strips in her bedroom for Ricky while he is filming her from his bedroom next door, the curtains framing Jane’s figure are blue.
When Ricky’s father, Frank, watches Ricky and Lester through the window of Lester’s garage, when Frank mistakenly believes that Ricky is going down on Lester, Lester is reclining in a large, round chair with blue cushions. Lester and Carolyn almost get it on their blue and white striped couch in their living room, before Carolyn warns Lester that he’s about to spill beer on the couch and ruins the moment.
Black & white = normalcy
Ricky wears only black and white clothes. Ricky’s room consists of black and white, mostly video tapes lining the shelves. Ricky wears a tuxedo with a white jacket for his catering work at the party. Jane is always dressed in black and white. Her lipstick is some dark, colorless shade. Ricky films things that are white – the dead dove, the dancing white grocery sack. By the end of the movie, despite their troubles, Jane and Ricky are the normal people who survive their twisted family lives and presumably escape to New York to start their new life.
Gun = release and salvation
The Real Estate King tells Jane that he relieves stress by shooting a gun. Jane takes up handgun target practice to relieve the stress in her life. She is most happy after shooting a gun. Frank has a handgun collection that is housed in locked cabinets. Ricky opens a cabinet with a duplicate key to show Jane the Nazi serving plate. His access to an item stored with the gun collection is a way of connecting with Jane, to later escape his world with Jane.
At the end of the movie, Carolyn is walking up to the house in the rain clutching a gun, energized by her self-help tapes and ready to kill Lester. Frank kills Lester at the end of the movie with a handgun, which saves Lester from his depressing world. Lester’s red blood splatters on a pure white wall when he is shot in the head.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
