Internet Poker Pro

Black Swan

2009-09-07T14:50:00.002+01:00

Well, I'm back. Fleetingly. Not much has changed, except I now win so little children in Chinese workhouses shake their heads at my hourly rate. The WSOP was fun, in the sense that it started to look like Phil Ivey had nearly won all the money in the poker economy. I've not seen anyone definitively say, but I'd bet that (a) there was a settlement (b) it would have still been enormous. The fantasy of the poker dot-com has finally burst, with pokerroad suspending the only interesting feed they had, the mini Ivey interview. If they can't "monetize" that, then those eyeballs are not for monetizing.

The bottom line is, however, I'm disappointed. I did a tour of the blogs and in two years, they are no better, if not worse. Same old results orientated thinking. Same old only sing when I'm winning. Same old lack of fucking interesting insight. I guess with the games getting harder, only the IS's survived.

Blast from the Past

2007-06-23T15:37:00.000+01:00

WSOP '07 has prompted me out of my lethargy. God, I miss the old days. Listening *live* to the Mortensen main event win. Those newspaper like reports Conjelco used to do. Glazer, when he wasn't fantasising over Hellmuth in the hot tub, actually mentioning what was happening in the cash games. But now the ESPN sport steamroller is flattening everything, even to the extent the live coverage now is no longer live. Amusingly, one of those WSOP inbreeds, who is so irrelevant that I can't bother to even google who it was, basically justified that the WSOP was a sport because people watched it and there was a lot of prize money. So if they paid guys to wank on TV that would be a sport? (Ok, they do, its called porn, and is the true purpose of the internet and the reason why playing poker one handed is so essential.) This is the kind of powerful logical thinking that got the US and its 53rd state into Iraqistan I guess.

Andy W, bless him, pointed out that Eli E has saved the WSOP with his prop bets amongst the big game players. Although he was a little kind hearted letting Brunson out of it, I would have let the King of Poker sweat it out a little longer, tottering from pee wee tournament to the next, heart thumping through blind pride. It just shows that arrogance can overtake intellect even amongst the best of them. Other breaking news seems to be that some of those big name stars are busto! - gasp! Better breaking news is the *uncapped* 1k/2k/4k NL/PLO that aba is playing in, often just headsup vs Sammy Farha. Now that is a monster game. The gossip so far is that aba is a big winner - at one point they did flips for 100K. (I just threw up :()

Michael Craig. WTF. I mean What The Fuck! I actually liked his book on the Big Game, although when Gryko mentioned, in passing, once again fist fucking me in a shorthanded Omaha limit game, that it was a "bit of a love letter to the pros", he got me thinking. But the courtship is now over and it is full on, cheesy, 80s hard core porn. Not since Jesse May did that awful, fawning, can't-speak-with-his-mouth full, interview with Padraig Parkinson has there been such a deluge of sycophancy. Doesn't he get embarrassed at his new "best friend to the pros" status? Don't they get embarrassed? Some of it is bad, most of it is just toe-curlingly awful. For example, he once said Clonie Gowen had movie star looks. Hmmm.

On the poker front, i am ticking along, but not making half as much as I was last year. I have played too many types of game, and with the exception of triple draw, I've won at them all. Just not won well. I've had to ship out a ton of money on that damn real life expenses stuff, which hasn't helped. Ho hum. See you soon. Maybe.

An Interrupted Cry

2006-12-16T18:06:00.000Z

I thought I would do my year end early, not because like MBK I won't be playing much poker, but just to get it out of the fucking way. As I have a lot to say, my usual artful prose will be replaced with semi-random bullet points:

Ennui. For me poker and ennui have always been familiar bedfellows, but fuck me. I could seriously give it up. Maybe.

It's been a good year. Not in the scale of MBK or Wint, but considering my all-round amateurishness I'm moderately pleased. I won just about twice what I won last year. Thank you 6 max NL.

I could and perhaps should have won more. But I spent all my winnings and never really moved up. Goddamn you high on the hog uber-extravagant lifestyle you!

Rolf S's book is by far the best book on PLO. This isn't saying much but is true. Most of the short stackers who have appeared on places like Stars have seemed to have completely misunderstood what Rolf was writing about.

On the subject of Stars, I tried their NL 6 max games and they were much tougher than their old days Crypto equivalents. There were lots of VIP 20, PFR 20 types and the squeeze or thin 3 bet was very common. Bye, bye again Stars.

Betfair – what a fuck up. I mean what a serious fuck up.

If you're not following my blog by a feed reader, you need to. I suspect this will be about as active as GROAN's blog. This could very well be the last post. Then again it might not either. But don't hold your breath.

High Stakes Poker. By far the best poker tv show. Mostly because Gabe Kaplan's commentary is so good. Funny, and occasionally even perceptive.

Danny Boy on said High Stakes show. Man, he was bad. Some bad beats of epic proportions but many, many times he would say “I can't believe you've just so obviously hit a monster and now betting. So unreal. So obvious. But I call anyway.” In comparison Phil Laak looked v v good. And I liked his T-shirts.

One final point, which at first seems obvious, but I've not seen it explicitly said. At the very highest stakes the skill differential is so small you are competiting on bankrolls and the ability to weather variance and emotional control. If all your Foes have 5 times the tank you have, ceteris paribus, you are going to need to be lucky to survive.

Merry Christmas, and Ho, Fucking, Ho.

It's Great When You're Straight

2006-11-11T11:57:00.000Z

This post was going to be a review of Rolf's new book, but I couldn't be bothered. Over the last month or so, since the bubble burst, the NL since has taken a battering. The crypto network went pop, and Betfair have made the inexplicable decision to borrow PokerChamps software, which not only doesn't have hand histories, but shuts the door on all that PT shenanigans. Maybe it was deliberate.

I have been putting in the hours playing a fair chunk of limit hilo, having my usual rush followed by my usual crunch, although this time I have managed to stop playing before I have started losing money in the game. Anyway, envious of MBK - in a good way I might add - I thought I would give PLO a spin again. (Short interlude, I think its telling of all the poker bloggers etc that Ben has bounced back from a crushing setback. Ok, Gryko too but that was awhile ago. Cue Neitzche quotes.)

Here are some hands I'm proud of:

Poker Stars
Pot Limit Omaha Ring game
Blinds: $5/$10
8 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: $744.80
UTG+1: $1000
MP1: $1022
MP2: $1104
CO: $1669
Hero: $957
SB: $580.50
BB: $1865.30

Pre-flop: (8 players) Hero is Button with :as :8d :ah :5c
UTG calls, UTG+1 folds, MP1 raises to $45, MP2 calls, CO calls, Hero raises to $80, 3 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, CO calls.

Flop: :kd :2h :jh ($345, 4 players)
MP1 bets $342, 2 folds, Hero folds.
Uncalled bets: $342 returned to MP1.

Results:
Final pot: $345

---

Poker Stars
Pot Limit Omaha Ring game
Blinds: $5/$10
3 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
Button: $714.20
Hero: $1509.80
BB: $1689
(Important note..this Foe is very, very aggro)

Pre-flop: (3 players) Hero is SB with :4c :5s :8c :9h
Button raises to $35, Hero calls, BB folds.

Flop: :8d :as :5c ($80, 2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $79, Hero calls.

Turn: :7c ($238, 2 players)
Hero checks, Button checks.

River: :2c ($238, 2 players)
Hero bets $100, Button raises to $310, Hero calls.

Results:
Final pot: $858
---

I just noticed Pete had an interesting post on the ennui descending on the current spate of internet players. My fists got tired thumping the air with joy and my feet sore dancing with glee at the demise of these D&D playing mother-fuckers.

(Please refer to the last post and its comments if this outburst seems a little odd.)

You're a Bleedin' Motherfucker Now Aren't You

2006-10-07T02:27:00.000+01:00

I've just spent a fascinating hour or so reading a great blog. Okay, it was mine. Ego aside, click on some of the old post links on the right, then click on more of them on the new posts you selected. Be sure to read the comments. There is some good shit in there.

Well, the US finally went ahead and did it. They seem to becoming more of a theocracy day by day. It's gonna be hard to tell them from Iran soon. End of off-topic point. The real point is all the fun gnashing and grinding of teeth by all those young bucks on the HSNL forum. I suspect we won't be getting any “How Should I Invest My Millions into Being a Global CEO” posts soon. It's always tears at bedtime when you confiscate the mechanical pencils and d20 dice off the D&D society.

I had a battle through some of the WCOOP. Man, the standard was poor. I was no superstar, but there was a lot of dead wood in the events I played. The Razz event basically became the Bet Every Street event. I got a tiny draw in the plo8b, which I have written up for my paying job, so you will see it at CPE in a few months. Yes, tournament plo8b in a poker magazine. Fair credit to Rolf S; having spent most of my Net time arguing with and insulting him, he now pays me to write obscure stuff with obscurer titles. Back to the WCOOP, the main problem is still one of concentration. For awhile I was in a really good spot in the $320 NLHE, but I'm sure the fact I was playing 4+ other cash games at the same time didn't help my performance. Knowing that I'm unlikely to win, I tend to see them as a waste of time that needs to be filled by playing proper, profitable poker. Thankfully man-flu prevented me from spunking off any more money past the plo8b event.

I have been playing PLO and PLO8b as a change of pace on Party recently. The standard, at least at the 5-10 levels, is still surprisingly low. Unfortunately, I have not been playing great either, and PLO variance has been cruel. Certainly it seems that PLO brings out the gambler in me. I have been more than a little ring rusty. Having said that, I have lost *ALL* my big pots. That is, $17k or so of pots where I've put my money in well, or thereabouts. Also, it's easy how soon you forget how many hands end up being crooked coin tosses. I must be running at 20-30% on them too so results have matched performance. I may persevere though – the games look that good. Thank god for NLHE and its robust crushing edges for bailing me out.

As a general note, if you did know my screen names but now wonder why I'm so damned ignorant, it's simply that I've turned off chat. So no offence.

Not Donne

2006-09-12T09:44:00.000+01:00

Now seems as good a time as any to comment on the WSOP (I originally wrote this before the end of the last Series, fwiw.) Now any Constant Reader will no doubt already know my view on poker-as-sport. If not, check out my old post 'Sport of Kings'. However, there was a very dim, but surprisingly significant chance that poker *could* have ended up as some kind of sport. But I think this WSOP was the death knell.

I am not the first to comment that a successful sport needs successful characters and the clashes and dramas therein. Skill, determination, domination and revival all wrapped up in the competitive arena. Crucially, these participants are aspirational. Everyday Joe Schmoe wants to be his stars, but appreciates and respects that there is an enormous divide between top pro and amateur. But that desire to approach, if not cross, the divide drives behaviour and ultimately unleashes the capitalistic process. Incredibly, against the odds, WPT season 1 almost had this. The continued success of a handful of players gave a sport-like feel to proceedings. How things have changed. Now there is an Everyman feel to tournament poker. It seems like 'anyone' can win a big event. This generates a certain appeal and plenty of drama. But this phenomenon is more in line with reality TV or a quiz show than a sport, and a pretty skill-less one at that. These kinds of things may generate a burst of interest, but that eventually wanes and the ratings die. And there go the sponsors.

For the last few years random donks have been winning dontaskically. Here are some of my favourites. At a WSOP circuit final table, 4 or so handed, Joe Hachem reraises - crucially putting in half his stack. Fellow chip leader reraises allin cold, i.e. he had no contribution to the pot so far, leaving Joe a handful of chips on his obvious, almost regardless of holding, compulsory call. The reraiser had QJs. This play is so bad I’m struggling for words. A better known one is the hand that crippled Greg Raymer in the 2005 Big Dance. Greg raises and continuation bets the ragged flop. He then goes allin on the turn with his KK. His foe has QJs and calls to hit his flush draw. The foe's play is hugely problematic. Firstly, why float no pair, no draw with no implied odds on the flop? Secondly, he called instantly on the turn - no calculation to even see if he was getting the right price. These plays and the success that ensues are akin to a golfing novice wining the US Open with a broomstick. But it gets worse. The WPT is deliberately deskilling the game. The blind increases actually accelerate once you get to the televised final table and it is not uncommon for headsup to be a battle of 10-15 big blind stacks. Lastly, look at the recent WSOP. Would the participants in any real sporting event be treated as shabbily as the poker mugs this year? Would Wimbledon field tatty old balls and saggy nets a la the big HORSE event? For me the coup de grace was the payouts of the Main Event. Once again the organiser arbitrally creates a final table structure to benefit headlines and not players. Nice gradual increases from 9th to 2nd then kachunk, a double the money increase to $12 million for first. I just wish they had done an overt, ugly deal to fuck up those marketing monkeys.

A Change of Pace

2006-08-27T02:01:00.000+01:00

For a change I thought I might talk about actual poker playing, as opposed to the usual GOM rants and ravings. August has been an interesting month. I started late, owing to my hols and got off to a reasonable start. Then, just a week or so ago, I was kicking around Stars looking at the WCOOP schedule, when I saw a new tab. “Other Games”. One click later I was looking at HORSE cash games. I guess the ESPN WSOP stuff was good for something after all. We all want to be Chip Reese now. Pretty soon I was on a 100BB rush in the 10-20 game and I started seeing a new, brighter future as a HORSE specialist. Now this fantasy didn’t quite run into busting down the Big Game in a couple of years, but I hate to admit that I actually was enjoying poker again. Not just enjoying the winning, but the actual game itself. And I could play it seemingly for hours at an end. In one day I did 10 hours, 7.5 in one session. And this was playing multiple tables as well. To put this into perspective, I probably haven’t done a big bet session over 4 hours in two years. It almost felt therapeutic.

Perhaps too much so, as I quickly hit a 170BB downswing and I had to stop visualising the delivery of the Porsche from the Stars VIP scheme. It struck me that I probably wasn’t that good after all. On a closer look, the problem seemed to be, paradoxically, in the HO’ element of HORSE (this is putting aside a pretty bad run of luck in Razz, which is truly a game to create the manically depressed.) The HORSE games are 8 handed but then often ran short. More than this, the H and the O were nearly *always* short, as people sat out to avoid paying the blinds. Now Faithful Readers will know of my issues with short handed Omaha. But I also kinda feel the same about short handed limit holdem too. Whereas I have a vague clue how to play 4 or 5 handed limit holdem – as opposed to the Omaha equivalent – I just don’t like it. Too much play “feels” like being a fish. In fact the levels of aggression are so pumped up and calling to the river very thin is so common it was hard to tell chump from champ. Time and again I would button raise, continuation bet against the BB caller and he would take a card off with just one overcard and no other draw. Whether this is right or not, I don’t really know. It may very well be the right play. I just don’t like playing poker like that.

In the end I think it comes down to the blinds. When the game becomes a fundamental scramble for that blind money, I’m just not as effective. It turns me into an alternating tight passive – insane aggro fish. Back to NL.

FWIW, my second article is up on the Cardplayer site here – probably a bit more similar in tone to the stuff here. And with a pretty picture too.

Time-saving Device

2006-08-02T13:54:00.000+01:00

I´m on my hols again and thankfully Cardplayer has come to my rescue on the posting front. My first article can be found at:

BDD Cardplayer Debut

Feel free to kick me around here.

Take them Dives for the Short-end Money

2006-07-22T08:39:00.000+01:00

The WSOP is shit again. Now not shit in the Harrahs are running it like they are prime contenders in the half-wit Olympics sense. Although, if other reports are even partly true, then they are a shoo in for that particular Championship. Nor do I mean the death of any kind of impartial, non-tourney sycophantic reporting. That died probably a couple of years back. What has really struck me is how bad it has been for those folks who want Poker to be a sport.

Obviously, Harrahs and the Media Circus clearly view poker as just another reality TV show. Because they wouldn’t treat genuine sports stars in such a shoddy way. But unfortunately the results of some of the play seem to be confirming their suspicions. The big names are not dominating. This is bad for poker-as-a-sport. What brings the money into a sport, especially in the USA, is either dominance of, or conflict between, sporting characters. And by characters I mean Tiger Woods not Mike the Mouth. This was always going to be hard for Poker, but crap shoot structures are always going to hurt this. In the WPT, for example, the antes accelerate as you get closer to the big money.

If some of the play is to be believed of the Cardplayer hand by hand, some of the winners have chumped their way to victory. Some of the recent John Gale victory hands were especially dubious. And saddo I am, I tracked Jules Gardner’s 3rd place quite closely and the ultimate winner seems to have played quite poorly. Certainly his move of calling off all his chips with KQs before the flop was very suspect – yes I actually number crunched this one, thanks Andy W.

The ultimate problem is that this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. The more like Big Brother or Date My Daughter it becomes, the more it will be treated like cheap, ratings eating TV. But the public may have an unlimited appetite for sport, but far from it for another reality TV show.

Crisis on Infinite Earths

2006-07-01T21:27:00.000+01:00

Well, that was interesting. For those of you that thought I was starting a burgeoning porn empire over the last few days, I'm afraid not. I was hijacked, which was a disconcerting experience as at first, not knowing about this kind of thing at all, I thought my PC had been hacked and I went into full-on anti-virus/spyware frenzy. Several pointless hours later it dawned on me that any hackers would most likely be emptying my bank accounts, not auto-posting pornography links. Anyway, after a spot of reminding, Blogspot got it back.

On a poker front, as June was quite bad, I thought I would have a spin at a few tourneys, to magic myself into profit. No joy. However I did finally figure out what I am doing wrong. Now those that knew of me back in the old, B&M days knew me as a good tournament player. In fact an occassional reader here said he that I was very, very good indeed - I think it was just mindless flattery but it was nice :) He was also aghast at my playing cash. Which showed just how much a "star" I was in those days. Anyway, masturbatory digression aside, I think my problem is that I still play these tourneys like these good ol' days. Some examples.

I'm chipleader on a full table when a tight player just UTG raises, putting in just about 30% of his stack. With 77 on the button I decide to put him to the test and put him allin. He calls with AQ and he wins the race. Standard? Internet-wise, yes. Old school no. If he was facing a real world drive back him into the middle of the night we would say something like this to himself. It is almost 100% certain that I am at best a 50/50. And quite a few times I will be badly dominated. And its a long drive. Pass. On the Net, he thinks a bit more like, fuckit, another tourney in 5 mins, call.

Similarly, with only 10 or so big blinds I face two limpers on the button. Finding KQs I move allin, expecting to increase my stack by 30%. The real worry, the first limper, passes. After some thought, the second limper calls for a big chunk of his stack with 99. Obvious result. Again, classic Internet woolly thinking. His hand wasn't good enough to raise, but is good enough to call a massive chunk of his stack with no extra factors like hitting the bubble or the like.

Well its only been two years now since I stopped playing live. I'm a slow learner.

King's Shilling

2006-06-19T20:52:00.000+01:00

Well the world certainly turns. As the early birds may know, I am now a writer for Card Player Europe. Those who remember my robust dialogues with Rolf S, the European editor, may be a little surprised. However the Dutch have a long history of being both able to enjoy an argument and also being able to put it behind them. So those of you who have enjoyed my midly patronising style can now pick it up in print. Feel free to send raving, mildly insane letters of praise to Cardplayer. For the blog loyalists, there will still be the usual GOM stuff here, and if you want to kick off something based on my articles, then be my guest. This will remain the same old place to hang out and prove how wrong I am and I don't expect a lot of cross over traffic.

Just so this post isnt completely void of poker content, I thought I would just mention that I seem to be having my usual summer. First losing month of any significance this year, although I have been on meagre rations the last few months too. Still winning more than last year though. Touch wood.

I made the mistake of watching the WSOP Main Event on TV. Andy Black looked good. Aaron Kanter and Tiffany Williamsen though....brrrrrrrr.

Gödel

2006-06-02T21:18:00.000+01:00

It has been said that basically the career of a top class mathematician is basically over before the guy’s thirty. It’s a young man game and basically the rest of his life is spent wistfully retrospective. Now I doubt I could be argued as a top class anything but I kinda know the feeling. The best of this blog is not to come. It’s already shot its bolt. One of my favourites was Sport of Kings. It was one of my classic rage against the dying of the light entries where my true vitriolic colours were revealed.

Now against all common sense I actually watched a few televised tourneys to see if I was another pointless Nostradamus or did I really get a glimpse beyond the veil? First, the unintentionally funny. Mad Marty being a tourney director for a proper live event. Now I reported before that he did some sad TV stuff but those vanity 6 player crapshoots barely qualify as poker. But this was a real tourney! It makes you wonder what the qualifications of a tournament director are. Just turning up? Being matey with a load of players and being involved in the worst tourney decision in TV history?

Comedy apart, WTF about the WPT? I can't understand why any serious pro plays in it. Except for the rationale that if you don't stand outside in a thunderstorm you can't get hit by lightening. It that all the WPT has turned into? An exercise of clutching a lightning rod in the dark and hoping to get zapped? I’m afraid so. Let’s have a further look. One of the obvious statements about tournament poker is that you would like to have more chance to exert your skill when the money matters most. This boils down to having more play at the final table.

How does the WPT compare to say the WSOP circuit in that regard? The truth is frightening, unless you are especially conductive. At a Circuit event the blinds increase on average by 30% in each round. At headsup the players had about 200 big blinds of play between them. All good. In the rollin’ dem bones WPT the blinds increase by 60-70% each round, and at headsup the players have an amazing 70 or so big blinds between them. Which often then turns into 30. So with often nearly $500k to $1million to play for, skill has effectively been removed from the equation.

This is basically turning the WPT less into a sport – no surprise there – and more into a bad reality TV show. This is bad for poker for several reasons. Foremost, if other TV teaches us anything, is that people get easily bored with reality TV after awhile. Not in the general, where there is mountains of the inane crap, but in the particular, where shows quickly die after several series or less. Also, and especially so for the poker is sport lunacy crowd, sponsorship will never be interested in the game until there are recognisable characters. Series one promised this, but now every Tom, Dick and Harry is winning an event. Investment does not follow the anonymous.

So although I am envious of the strike it rich crowd I still steer clear of the tournament scene as I know that I just couldn’t cope with the most important poker experience of my life coming down to red and black, odd and even.

Transference

2006-05-04T00:21:00.000+01:00

Bluff kindly gave me a kick to put up a new post, so you have him to blame. I really enjoy 2+2. Not in any productive way, to do with actually playing poker and improving my game, rather just all the shit and patheticness and noise. It seems very similar to a pornography addiction, without worrying about being caught out by the wife. The HSNL forum is a sewer. Most posts revolve around people guessing what the other posters will say and posting it first, or alternatively copying the poster above them, adding no text or value whatsoever. Or alternatively copying the poster above them, adding no text or value whatsoever.

(Who says there isn’t a rich seam of humour in what I post? Oh, hi Wintermute :-)

The PLO forum has got better. Okay, it has got *more*. Most of the posts are still mediocre at best, and the majority of folk there are probably in what David Young would christen “they can count past 13 stage”. BTW for PLO fans Bluff did post an interesting drawing hand problem. I didn’t necessarily agree with all his answers, but I did agree with the point he was getting at. Worth a serious look.

What has really got me very amused recently is a *serious* post on “what I should do with my life” issues. It seems that earning $200K+ isn’t enough for these young kids today, they want to be entrepreneur Captains of Industry too. And surely their skills of fleecing WPT worshipping donks will easily translate into broking/real-estate/CEO stardom? In true 2+2 GroupThink style, responder-after-responder genuinely believed that this question had some validity and was not the product of a too-much-too-soon insanity.

The short answer, would be grow up. I mean this literally. Life is the best teacher and no amount of “I am sure it’s a transferable skill” will actually replace *doing* the damned thing in the first place. You want to work in finance. Well do it. Just don’t think that knowing what a continuation bet is will be a worthy substitute. But there’s more. First off, don’t suppose that because you are a winning player today that you will be a winning player in ten years time. The game we play is almost unrecognisable from that I learnt almost a decade ago, except for the pasteboard bit. The good players evolve line is nice, but some players are just right people in right time and right place beneficiaries, no matter their winrate. There used to be a lot of marsupials on this planet, and they used to be very successful, until they met up with placentate mammals. How many marsupial lions have you seen recently?

The most ridiculous assumption is that poker success has an underlying set of traits or characteristics that would transfer to business success. Now for some real world players this may be true. Some of the skills and meta-game understandings that folk that understand Gary Caron’s old RPG aphorism of “being in the entertainment business” may be of some use en route to the Board Room. But being able to 8 table for 12 hours without going on tilt or insane? Profitable, yes. Transferable, no. Business will always be about people and how you handle them and unfortunately those fleshy, carbon-based things will always a key component. And saying “lol, u suck” may not be the best way to engage with them on the path to wealth and success.

Atlas

2006-03-29T23:34:00.000+01:00

Well, it's been a long time again. Also, in true lazy blogger style I will spend the vast bulk of this post talking about the *last* post. However, for the Faithful Reader there is a semi-useful tip at the end.

I didn't reply to the any blogs I would recommend comment. I was once asked this self same question at the table by one of my fans. Yes, I did used to have fans who would invariably declaim that they had learned more from my blog about PLO than anywhere else, just before blink-blink-swoosh they scooped me out of a pot. I replied without hesitation that the best stuff available on the Net was Roy Cooke's stuff. Anything else, he inquired? Silence.

To my mind 99.99% of blogs fall into one of two camps. The first is the Internal Monologue. This takes the form of I played; I lost; I won; here’s the hand. You get the picture. Just as if you had really looked into the mental processes of a poker player, chilling thought though that may be, this can be a fun place to visit but ultimately unrewarding. WTFP. The other kind I term A Day in the Life Of. In these the poker is often a sideline alongside a lot of other Socio-Economic-Political-Military-Complex stuff. I respect that this is what blogging is all about, but personally if I want that kind of stuff I buy a newspaper, figuratively speaking.

On the contentious point of ZeeJustin et al – and at least he’s had the decency to go into quiet mode now – I fall into both camps really. I have from my B&M days zero-tolerance for cheaters. OK, well approximating to zero. If they were very bad players too, then I was happy to deal them in. But the nature of online cheating is more insidious. Although it has been argued that Zee didn’t gain too much of an edge from what he did, by my approximate, rough-and-ready maths, if he was playing 5 accounts at once he was 5 times more likely to win. Although this does not seem to work out to be a big edge like say skilled collusion in a cash game, he is still 5x better off than me. This cannot be insignificant.

However, I have a lot of sympathy with Chaos. I have no doubt that Party was completely arbitrary in how and why it seized the money. Although $100k seems harsh-but-fair, what about if he had $500k in his account. And more tellingly, if he had $20k in his account would they have prosecuted him for the additional $80k? Anyone with any experience of Party can unfortunately answer these questions themselves. Disturbingly, “The Player’s Friend” PokerStars came out of the whole affair very poorly. It seems that in any large stacks NL game I sat in, I might be playing an unofficial team of soft players. The whole notion that online poker is helpless to this is as ridiculous as the idea that it is mostly harmless. There would be a variety of very simple detections and remedies that Stars could put into place, but it’s clear that they simply cannot be bothered. I had some experience of the Stars collusion detection in action – I got some tiny rebate from some collusion play they detected. The whole process was shrouded in the absurd and the ineffective. The amount was so tiny it could have only been one or two blinds; they wouldn’t say what game was involved, or players, or even when. I don’t see myself playing on Stars for some time.

Now the tip. One of the problems with short-handed NL is that no one wants to do the heavy lifting of thinking through things themselves. This is what often makes 2+2 forums and the like self-fulfilling prophecies in terms of advice. Here’s one based on an old favourite. Its often said to isolate with a vengeance against loose players short handed. This is mostly true. Except some of these folk are what I call “Fight Every Fight” guys. What this means is that they do not want to give up on any pot and they will often bet, raise, check-raise on very thin values. Especially in raised pots. So if you isolate raise them, especially in fixed buyin games, you often find them in much more rambunctious mood and harder to play than if you hadn’t. So don’t raise them. Let’sjust play poker through the streets instead.

Republic

2006-02-27T00:00:00.000Z

I was going to write something meaningful and profound, but I couldn’t be bothered. I don’t seem to be the only one with a problem with posting. Most of my favourite blogs have gone very much into silent mode.

Never mind. Favourite was a hell of an exaggeration anyway.

You can tell the poker scene is really exploding in the UK. There are now two broadly available poker mags now on the High Street. Well I say two, but I can’t seem to find Poker Player for love nor money. The new kid on the block is WPT Magazine, or something like that. Now normally I treat the printed word like a Franciscan monk; but UK poker magazines invariable find their way into the bin within a couple of hours.

Now I understand that they are aimed at the lowest common denominator but often they contain advice that is simply, utterly wrong. In one issue of Poker Player, the amusingly nicknamed "The Boy" explained that having a staking plan was a key component in successful cash game plan. That is, sit down with a small amount of money and when you have made a fixed amount of profit, immediately leave. With some additional permutations I can't bring myself to repeat. Now even if this "expert" is just filling word count, this madness should not get past any sane editorial process. Oops.

WPT Magazine, or whatever the damn thing is called, is certainly glossier, and doesn’t have all the usual UK pseudo-player-parasites involved. But it is still outstandingly bad. How about this situation. Three handed in a 5-3-2 payout SNG everyone has roughly the same chips (it is a bit vague here). Either one or maybe both of your opponents go allin. The advice is to pass your AA. At least this will keep the tables healthy.

I couldn't leave you without a comment on 2+2. As pointed out by Beset, there has been some excellent Sklansky-kicking on the HSNL forum. Also fascinating was watching ZeeJustin trying to defend open softplaying as being ethically right as "PokerStars don’t really mind". He then further exemplifies his *ethics* by admitting to playing multiple seats in MTT, which has cost him his ability to play on Party and $100K.

An example worthy of Socrates himself.

Four Ps

2006-02-04T11:52:00.000Z

I have surprisingly found myself still enjoying playing short handed NL. Winning helps of course. As I have commented before, when you play NL you really do feel that the "decision", with all its many variables, is king. In PLO, by comparison, it’s often just playing the maths of the situation. This is down to a very simple factor. In most big hands in NL, you are either really right or really wrong. In PLO, by contrast, big pots are often contested with hands that are very close in value and you are normally either side of a 60/40 shot.

One lesson I would like to think I would bring from my NL game to PLO is the importance of position. When you play NL, especially short-handed, the importance of position is magnified. You can feel how much harder it is to play any hand, especially in a raised pot, when you are first to act. PLO players, unfortunately, treat position almost as an irrelevance, and basically play the same hands wherever they are sat. And this gambling hurts. Here's an example:

You're sat in a six handed NL game with a mix of strong and weak players. You limp UTG with A6 suited (which I would never do, btw) and a good player raises behind you 4 times the blinds and everyone passes back to you. You both have 100x blind stacks. This is a clear pass.

Now look at a comparable situation in PLO.

You limp UTG with a nut suited ragged hand and again the same happens. But being a PLO player you call. The flop comes giving you a nut flush draw and a small pair. You check, the good player continuation bets, as he often does headsup, and you check raise.

He sets you allin.

Oops.

This is a hugely common set of circumstances that you will see at PLO tables from 2-4 and up. Players, often good players, contriving to get themselves into situations where they are putting their whole stack in jeopardy with marginal hands, just because they think position does not apply to them.

It Pays to Be Right

2006-01-11T01:04:00.000Z

I thought I would let you guys do all the work this time. OK, I did have to think of the jazzy titles. Mostly after the first link, you are looking at explanations.

Except for the last one, which needs no explanation.

Pair of Ragged Claws Scuttling

Snail on a Razor
Grocery Clerk (mostly my comments)
Absolutely Goddamn Right

Someday this War's Gonna End

Death Card
It's Gonna Be Hot

And I thought: My God... the genius of that. The genius

One of Those Guys that had that Weird Light Around Him

A Letter to Hooke

2006-01-07T00:37:00.000Z

I guess we're all here bright and breezy in a new exciting year. And as promised, I am going to do a little PLOing for you old timers out there. Last year, BluffThis! a regular both here and on 2+2, did a very provocative post about tight play in PLO. As per usual, it didn't garner a whole heap of intelligent responses, however, I thought it might be useful to examine his thoughts and give my views here instead. You can find his post at :

http://tinyurl.com/9qzo6

(Quick disclaimer. Bluff has an almost psychopathic hatred of using tools like PokerTracker. I just don't understand it, but I do forgive him :) Is PT as useful for PLO players? Absolutely not. Does it have its uses? Absolutely does. It lets you build rough and ready profiles of players. Now if a guy is playing half his hands and raising with most of them, unlike in holdem, this doesn't *necessarily* mean he's a bad player. But it certainly means he's not a rock. So a raise on the flop is not always the nuts. Also, just for ease of use of reviewing significant hands. PT is a godsend. Diversionary rant over.)

This post of Bluff's is unusual and interesting. Most PLO players just play the preflop quite loosely and with little thought, and then focus from the flop onwards. It’s not unusual to have players with stats of VIP 40%+ and still be winning players. Having said this, there is a profile of winning players, playing circa low 30 preflop and raising with half of their hands they play, so clearly some players are being quite discerning about their standards, if not to Bluff's rigor.

I did feel, though, that there were several elements missing from Bluff's analysis.

1. It's Not the Full Story

If you are going to play as tight as this article advocates then you MUST be raising with the vast majority of the hands you are playing. One of the key raising strategies in PLO is to elevate the stakes when you have an advantage. Clearly, if you are playing this tight, the sheer quality of your hands will be an advantage over the field. So you have to be raising a lot, from all positions.

2. You Need to Link Preflop to Postflop

To my mind, a key element in expert PLO play is how do you link your preflop play to the play running through the streets. One of the reasons I never adopted the raising more strategy was just that I found myself banging it in on too weak values on the flop or the turn. I had a disconnect between my preflop play and the rest of my game. If you are going to be a TAG preflop you are going to need to have an excellent understanding of how you extend this approach against various opponents and situations. The overwhelming advantage and paradoxical disadvantage is that there is no published information on this style of play.

3. It Doesn't Always Win the Most Money

The TAG approach works best in the bigger games. Here, many pots are three way or headsup on the flop, and the game gets NLHE-esque characteristics at times. But certainly from 2-4 and thereabouts, the nature of the game is very different. Many pots are more multiway, regardless of raising, so the UberTAG approach doesn't necessarily have the same impact. Moreover, the pot doesn't need to already be inflated for some schmuck to charge his whole stack in into a poor situation. Bad flush draw, top pair can be a stacking off hand in an unraised pot at the 2-4 level; it may require an inflated, juicier prize in the middle to get people to play quite as loosely at the higher stakes. And of course because of this, it becomes less of a mistake.

These caveats to one side, interesting food for thought for PLO devotees.

Every One's a Winner

2005-12-29T21:20:00.000Z

YTD: +35951.01 (final)

A disappointing year in the end. Sure, I made a profit again, which on the basis of this thing just being a hobby, albeit a dangerously obsessive one, is more than most folk can say about their hobbies. But this was, I felt, the chance of a serious breakthrough year, and as the insane poker boom continues, years like this feel burdened with tremendous opportunity cost.

There were two serious areas of weakness, both of which annoy the fuck out of me in retrospect.

Firstly, I failed in that most important micro-game skill - playing lots of hands. Without a doubt, one of the greatest benefits available to an online player is the capacity to play a ball-breakingly large number of hands. If you have an edge, the more often you apply that edge, the more $ you make. Christ, I sound like Roy Cooke. But it is that easy. There was no reason why I couldn't play a good 180-200k hands this year, but I didn't even get close - ergo, money down the drain.

The second, and to my mind, the more damning factor was how poorly I played the meta-game. I have been playing poker for nearly a decade now and this should be my main advantage, not a Verbal-from-Usual-Suspects-stylee gimpy lame foot.

I played the 5-10 Omaha game too long when I should have just stepped down for a while. I took a calamitous shot at the 10-20 during the worst run of my life and when it was certainly not clear that I even had an edge in the game. I then tottered from poor game selection to poor game selection, wanking money off like a pervert in a sex-movie theatre. 30-60 limit holdem on a short roll for the first time anyone? 30-60 short-handed limit O8b - the game I am officially listed as the World's Worst At, against the best on the net? It was hardly fucking cricket. I start to feel my teeth shake and my eyeballs loosen just thinking about it.

As an "interesting" example of these two factors combined, if I had played my most consistent games, the $400 PLO and PLO8b, exclusively, for the number of hands I should have played in a year, I would have made $100k very easily. Lovely.

So what does the future hold for BDD and this blog?

Well, I am afraid you are going to have to put up with this more relaxed pace of posting. I promised I would never turn this into some kind of wet diary or “I played XXX and won XXX” mindlessness you get on so many blogs, with only cursory views or analysis. So less is more.

Also, finally, I am going to kill the YTD. I accept that the title of the blog is misleading enough – we have explained that already, haven’t we – but the YTD just creates the wrong impression. I am not a pro. Please God, I never will have to be a pro. I originally put the YTD up because at the time, NO ONE was talking about figures. This was 18 months ago, remember. And I felt that the YTD was (a) a sign of seriousness (b) would encourage people to come back.

But the world has turned since then.

Lots of very successful fulltime players talk about how much they are winning, well kinda, ok at least when they *are* winning.

This *doesn’t* mean I am going to get all shy on how I am doing. It just means that it isn’t going to be at the top of every post.

Anyway…Good Luck…Merry Christmas…and a Prosperous New Year for us all.

Interim Management

2005-12-17T20:10:00.000Z

YTD: +$34610.95

Well it's been a while again. I'm in the throes of a very long Christmas vacation so I am doing little playing, or writing. I will do a summary, rather gloomy post to sum up the year before we come to the end of it. And next year I have a nice post based on BluffThis's excellent PLO post on playing tight, and why I didn't feel it was the complete story.

Some things that have tickled me of late:

1. Prahald losing $500k at one point in one session against poker Wunderkid Patrik Antonius. Imagaine, sat in your smalls, scratching your bollocks, click-click, there goes another $100k. No high class, movie-star-look-alike, whores. No Presidential Villa at The Wynn. Just you and your living room and click-click-woosh. Insane.

2. Mad Marty Wilson as a tournament director on UK TV. Oh boy. Alledgedly a lovely fella, he was involved in a very dubious incident on a televised event as a player where he made a counterfitted two pair against a foes higher two, which from his expression he clearly knew, and no one stopped the player leaving the event, even though it had live commentary. It turned out that the Tournament Director had a piece of Marty too. Purely a coincidence, no doubt. And now he too can have that esteemed honour based on a wide experience of directing, well, hmmm, yes, (long silence.) UK TV poker once again in super shape.

3. Back before the Internet made donk plays the norm in tourneys, many "analysts", ok the guy with too much hairspray and the guy with, unfortunately, too much death, used to talk about "The Worst Play in Poker." This was commonly accepted as John Bonnetti crashing his stack into the 3rd place in a 90s Big One when the other stack only had a few blinds worth left. Of course worse plays happen all the time now, and if they win, then all the better. Here's one that seemed to slip under everyone's net:

(before the hand Hachem had about $300k, Pham a bit less.)

Hand #43 - Kido Pham has the button in seat 2, Tran raises to $18,000, Pham reraises to $50,000, Hachem reraises to $150,000, Tran folds, and Pham thinks for a minute before moving all in. Hachem asks for a count of Pham's remaining chips before saying, "It doesn't matter, I call." Hachem shows pocket kings (Kc-Kd), and Pham shows Js-10c.

While the chips are counted down before the flop, Scotty Nguyen says, "I threw away the other two kings, baby." The crowd explodes into laughter, releasing the tension of this big all-in situation.

Hachem has Pham outchipped, and Pham will need to improve to stay alive here.

The flop comes Jc-Jh-2s, and Pham flops trip jacks to take the lead

I guess this answers the question as to what kind of pro Pham is.

Merry Christmas.

Fuck 'Em and Their Law

2005-11-29T21:08:00.000Z

YTD: +$27516.80

Well it’s been an interesting time since we last spoke. Interesting as in the Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.”

As 2+2ers may be aware, I have had a momentary digression into the world of No Limit holdem. Very momentary. After a good early run, I found myself at almost exactly a breakeven point. So I stopped. Why?

• I was too loose. Up to the 5-10 level, ring games, the standard of play was mostly snug. Most games had 2, at most 3 people, seeing the flop and I found having to play so tight quite dull. What made it worse was that even if you found a good hand, you often had to abandon it if a nut peddler woke up. Quite often I stacked myself, normally with QQ, getting frustrated against an obvious AA.
• The obvious solution is to play short-handed. The problem then was that the game requires too much judgment. One of the beauties of PLO is that unless you have a complete brainfart, it is rare that you are drawing terribly thin. If you are off your game at NL though, you can find yourself looking down the throat of 2-3 outers quite often. Unless you are playing super tight, you really do need to know your foes tendencies. Some guys, if you massively over-raise and they call, they have a set; others, well they just have TPMK.

So I went back to PLO.

For a while.

It struck me, really for the first time, how little action and how small the prospects are for a PLO player once he gets to the 2-4 level. At prime playing time there are maybe 5-6 400 games, 0-2 1000 games, 3-7 2000 games and some bigger shorthanded games here and there. But that is it for the entire of the net. And to be frank, some of those games aren't that good either.

Coupled with this, where are the new players going to come from? They are all hitting the holdem games. As a slightly tangential example, if a higher stakes plo8b game starts up on Stars, 4-6 of the players will be old faces, one of whom I have been playing since the long gone UB game at the turn of the millennium.

So I have taken up knitting instead.

Or at least, the poker equivalent of knitting...limit holdem. Early signs are encouraging. I am not a complete fish. I am not going on tilt (yet). I am 6 tabling without losing my sanity. Let's see what happens.

Inhale, Inhale, You're the Victim

2005-11-01T23:58:00.000Z

YTD: +$35339.16

I have a confession to make. Several really. The original purpose of this site was not quite as philanthropic as perhaps it seems. As a business man (or a business, man) I had visions of turning this “Internet Property” into a stream of beautiful Benjamins. Incredibly, there was a phrase for this in the ol’ Dot Com Boom, which was “monetize eyeballs”. People got millions on half-assed ideas on how to do this. I kid you not.

So what happened? I realised that I just don’t like poker players. Now this probably comes as no surprise to Constant Readers, in fact “don’t like” smells like a severe understatement. But if you do a poker business, and my thoughts were around a Rakeback/Advice kind of style thing, then, axiomatically, you have to deal with Poker Players. Whinging, moaning, acting like 1.4 wannabes…say my old buddy Wintermute or his equivalent joined up? Emails full of drunken diatribes about strippers and “funny” picture emails galore.

Excuse me, I’ve just brought up a little sick into my mouth.

Of course the chance of a real catch like Wintermute of 2+2 fame was unlikely; but I had to face the fact that he is far from a sole example. Lots of people like Jackass. And now they play poker too.

So that dream died, and I had my boot on its neck.

One of the things that tickled me of late is the powerful argument – I have won more money than you, therefore I am more right than you. This is closely followed by the I have won MUUUCH more than you; therefore I am actually a more evolved form of life, ignorant amoeba boy.

Such arguments always tickle me. Despite the title of this blog – ok it was chosen with a view to marketability, as was the original URL – I am not a full time player. Nor do I have any wish, large Lottery win to one side, of being one. Almost *anyone* who is playing for a living should be making more than me. End of story. Yet still this powerful debating tool still rears its ugly head.

A fine example can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/767vu

I am still not clear whether Rolf S wilfully tried to misread the thread we “debated” in. I still think it was a sad and not unexpected case of turf-guarding. But it has ended up being one of my favourite threads on the now almost useless PLO forum at 2+2.

Come play my game I'll test ya

John Stuart Mill

2005-10-23T01:48:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$38362.83

Well it’s been awhile. I was going to write a polemic on the stupidity of poker site management and then low and behold, Party Poker finally did something right. Now I won’t trawl over dead news, but thankfully I did predict that this would be good for Party in private mails and I will buck the trend and say “publicly” that this will be a very successful move. 2+2 was interesting during this time. After the “apocalypse now” response, came the “well, they NEED us multitablers so everything will go back to normal” response. Uh huh. Maybe not. Although multi-ers do provide sizeable chunks of rake they also provide the anathema of online poker profitability – better than breakeven play. In fact often downright good play. As my dear friend Chaos has been saying for some time, and now the public nature of Party’s results clearly show, bad players burn fast. Widespread poker ineptitude is the management mantra. Let’s show those 2+2’ers the road!

Some other things that have caught my eye. A new poker magazine in the UK, completely aimed at the mainstream. Crap. So crap I actually put it in the garbage and pulled out my treasured Card Player Europe issues instead. And just today, in desperate search of poker content I found “Poker Player”, which has so many adverts that it makes Card Player look like the Bible in format. And content so bad even Paul Samuels at Poker Pages was shaking his head.

Anyway. The point of this particular missive was that I caught some interesting WPT shows the other night. The amusing Aviation one, where Surinder played like a meditator on valium. If Paris had undergone a thermonuclear attack by Martians, Tony G had revealed himself to be Beyonce and demanded instant sexual gratification, and the legs had fallen off the table, Surinder would have twitched, looked into the horizon and quietly said “call.” The very next show I saw was the Carlos Mortenson win. Incredibly, some great poker seems to have been played AND actually captured too. But in the aftermath I remembered that His Highness of Rightness, Paul Philips had commented on this show, so I dutifully looked it up. Putting aside his typical, easily denied if necessary, vague assertion of collusion, he was pretty damning about the amateur calling allin on Carlos with TT when David Pham basically had not even a blind left. There was $250,000 difference between 3rd and 2nd. Anyway, pretty sharpish the maths weenies came out of the woodwork and quite rightly showed that this wasn’t a bad call after all, and mathematically it was probably correct. So PP made a full and gracious retraction and apology and that was that. Heh :)

But something stuck in my craw here. It does STILL seem bad, doesn’t it? Regardless of the maths it just does not feel right. And this is the important, if there is one, idea today. There is maths and there is maths. And a little learning is dangerous thing. After those madcap world-ending guys finished inventing Game Theory, one of the problems they quickly faced was that their original view provided for a linear progression of outcomes. In plain speech, something with twice the value should be twice as important or give twice the satisfaction. But the real world doesn’t work that way. One million dollars is often much more than 10x one hundred thousand dollars in terms of value and impact. And being five times dead doesn't necessarily feel much worse than just once dead. (The term mathematician’s use for this is Utility, btw.)

And this was the choice facing our amateur friend. On the one hand was $250K, not insignificant by any measure, on the other $500k. For a student, and we were led to believe not a wealthy one, the opportunity deriving from the second figure is potentially massive. If you factored in utility into the equations, then the seemingly ok call was very, very bad indeed. And it also shows that sometimes you have to trust your gut over supposed “maths.”

X-Post

2005-10-10T17:33:00.000+01:00

No YTD, original content or any of that crap.

Just the only reason for 2+2 ever existing:

http://tinyurl.com/9uckn

Michel: "Boy, I sure hope my 5:4 edge holds up, otherwise I am going to die."

Harmonica

2005-09-27T13:39:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$30564.99

There was a small demand, after my last post on the good ol' days, for some more anecdotes on the heart break and wallet ache of playing poker in the pre-Internet era.

I was going to make the main focus the amusing story of when a player drove across country to confront a well known poker contributor, occasional funny man, and often hard nut. This confrontation was principally around a pick axe handle, brought just for the occasion. On seeing his interlocutor, stepping out of a car with the said debating tool poised for questioning, our comedian said, quietly, coolly "Is that all you've got?" Which if it had been me, would have provoked a fast rewind of existence so far, back into the car, reverse out of the street, Keystone Cops-style, and getting the fuck out of Dodge.

This did not happen.

The next day I saw our jovial friend, still jovial, and as unblemished as he ever could be. Our misguided friend, however, was bundled up like a decade early audition for The Mummy.

Within two weeks, they were both playing at the same table again.

However, I didn't want to make the prime focus of my reminisces *quite* so negative, so instead I have the triumverate of terror.

The Good

Blackpool, in the North of England, was very much an acquired taste, and a poor one at that. However back in the 90s, it was often home to some of the worst cash players in human existence, and that alone made the trip worthwhile. These were the types that thought 10 card Omaha the epitome of skill, and a 8th nut low a solid investment.

However, at my table was a more fearsome bunch. A guy who would later end up European champion. Another, the youngest player to win $1 million at the WSOP. In the hand in question there was some considerable preflop action and on the flop a tight, fearless, aggressive, well known Oriental player went all-in. I put him on a flush draw and called him with top pair and some kind of American wrap - this was some time ago, please! As we were friends and there was no more betting we shared our hands. He had an overpair and a flush draw, which made matters worse as he hit his pair on the turn. I was now in a world of hurt. A seemingly irrelevant river arrived and I desperately shuffled my cards, trying to find something that would win me this monster pot.

"You have the straight," he gently nudged me.

Only he had seen my hand.

Ever since, in the same circumstances, I have repaid the favour for those unfortunates who haven't realised that they have thumped me with their exposed hand.

And as a sad addendum, the player in question got effectively broke and never recovered.

The Bad

Let's Quantum Leap forward half a decade. We are now in a very pleasant cash game playing my game of choice, PLO8b. The main donator in this game was a young, loose student guy, from a very rich family. He was waaay to aggressive and had a waaay to high opinion of his own game. By the river of this particular hand, I had him all-in and declared my hand "Nut full, and a low" and exposed my hand to the table. My low wasn't great, hence the "and a low" phrase.

Well the youngster shook his hand and thought and shook his head some more. "You win" he said, and started to muck his hand.

"No wait!" shouted The Rock, who had not spoke a word for the last two hours and had saw his hand inadvertently as he was sat next to him. This is the key point. At no point was his hand exposed to the table. Rather, The Rock had seen it because the student was taking one last wistful look at it before conceding defeat.

"You have a better low, look" and the Rock showed him.

To say I was fucking livid was an understatement. We both knew why The Rock had done this. He hadn't wanted to let the loose money get into my stack. He wanted a chance to get it himself.

"If he puts his fucking hand down, *I* will show him he's beat me", I said softly, truthfully.

The Rock looked guilty, went quiet again, busted the rich kid and promptly left almost the next hand.

The Ugly

OK time trippers, we are back to the start of my career again. The soon to be WSOP millionaire kid was busting up games all over England. He was good and he was on fire. At the time he was ferried around the country by some old friends, one a small time tourney hustler, the other, well just a hustler at best, at worst a rumoured cheat, although that was to come later.

Having duly bust the cash table again, the young tyro needed a hand carrying his chips to the cash desk and the hustler duly obliged.

Some time later our friend realised that he was £50 short.

Yes, his friend, long established from his recent teenage years, and an older figure by far, many hours spent following the white line with, and whom he would often give money to, well, just because he could, had stolen from him.

Yes, his friendship was only worth £50.

WCOOP

2005-09-18T08:58:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$21828.54

Well that's the end of the WCOOP for me for another year. I only played the two PLO events, both making kaput, but playing very differently in both.

The rebuy event went poorly. I did not have my head "straight" and I decided that as I was likely to not win the event, I should keep my outgoings low. Entering a rebuy event with this approach, especially one where swings can be as severe as PLO, is simply fatal. My stack could have been at least 50% bigger at the first break if I had played my normal game and shortly afterwards my stack took a big hit when I talked myself into believing that a player could not have called bets to the river just to draw to a bad straight. Soon afterwards, IGHN, feeling I never really did myself justice.

The main PLO event did not have rebuys and so it was important to play well right from the off. Which I did. When the blinds are small in comparison to stack sizes then my lack of aggression preflop and playing through the streets style pays dividends. Funnily enough, when the PLO element diminishes and it becomes more tournament poker, then the "faces" start to do much better. I don't think it was a coincidence that the final table of this event had no cash game players in it - the rebuy event was the same, as I recall.

As a whole the event went well and I played something approximating my A game. Some key hands, however, "fated" me to lose. Raising on the button with a very healthy stack with A88 suited, a strong player in the big blind called. I bet the flop when I hit my set, he called, we both checked the turn when a flush draw came and he bet into me on the river when the 3 flush was added to by a straight card. Eventually I summoned up a pass. Later, I called on the button with JJ ss after an early limper. Everyone checked a QQx flop and I took a stab at it. Unfortunately I not only got a caller, I picked up a J on the turn, and payed off a small bet on the river against quads. 0-2 vs destiny so far.

The coup de grace came after the four hour mark. With only 10 big blinds left I raised UTG with QQ64 ss. The big blind, a poor cash player I had some experience with, reraised me. I hummed and hawwed and eventually passed. He showed an AKJ9 ds. The very next hand, my reraiser and I were on the blinds and he raised again. With AA94 ss I reraised and he set me in. His AAJ6 hit two pair and kismet won. Interestingly or not, if I had called and doubled up on the QQ hand, I *still* get busted the very next hand. No wonder I hate tourneys.

Dead Presidents to Represent Me

2005-09-09T18:25:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$23138.19

All good things come in threes. Trilogies for a start. Rocky films as another. After the interlude of the last post, I thought it would be interesting to look at some hands that highlighted some of the key points made in my PLO quiz and answer posts:

The Dave D Factor

One of the things I admitted, or maybe conceded, was that much of my play revolved around putting my money in when I was mathematically getting the best of it. This isn’t exactly rocket science of course, but I felt it was something my foes didn’t necessarily understand. Here’s an interesting example of this:

$1000 PL Omaha Hi
Table Table 39938 (Real Money)
Seat 10 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 2: pandirector ( $1000 )
Seat 3: Vivaldi1 ( $1000 )
Seat 4: BUGSY5040 ( $1415 )
Seat 6: THAIHOLDEM ( $1118.25 )
Seat 8: Efletch ( $510 )
Seat 10: gostop999 ( $6153 )
Seat 9: Hero ( $1872 )
Seat 5: Mordin1 ( $1144.25 )
Seat 1: MAKE4_KILL_U ( $990 )
Seat 7: flash11 ( $580 )
MAKE4_KILL_U posts small blind [$5].
pandirector posts big blind [$10].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ Ad 8c Qd 5d ]
BUGSY5040 folds.
Mordin1 folds.
THAIHOLDEM folds.
flash11 calls [$10].
Efletch calls [$10].
Hero calls [$10].
gostop999 calls [$10].
MAKE4_KILL_U folds.
pandirector checks.
** Dealing Flop ** [ 3d, Ts, 6d ]
pandirector bets [$52.25].
flash11 folds.
Efletch calls [$52.25].
Hero calls [$52.25].
gostop999 raises [$313.5].
pandirector is all-In.
Efletch is all-In.
Hero calls [$937.75].
gostop999 raises [$4198.75].
Hero is all-In.
** Dealing Turn ** [ 5h ]
** Dealing River ** [ Qh ]
gostop999 shows [ Tc, 9s, 3s, Th ] three of a kind, tens.
pandirector doesn't show [ Td, Jd, 3h, Js ] two pairs, tens and threes.
Efletch shows [ 7c, 6h, 3c, 4h ] a straight, three to seven.
Hero doesn't show [ Ad, 8c, Qd, 5d ] two pairs, queens and fives.
gostop999 wins $2650.25 from side pot #3 with three of a kind, tens.
gostop999 wins $1744 from side pot #2 with three of a kind, tens.
gostop999 wins $1470 from side pot #1 with three of a kind, tens.
Efletch wins $2052 from the main pot with a straight, three to seven.

Interestingly, I was getting a good price on my calls, even though I was counterfitted by the other diamonds being out there. Also note what a blunder Efletch makes in this hand. Even though he gets 3 to 1 for his money, he still isn’t get the right price. This is a milder example of my point that even good players make terrible mistakes in these spots.

The Fabrizio Fumble

Pete Fab raised an interesting point, which I mostly ignored, that sometimes you *think* you are in a good spot, but in actually fact you are being strangled. These don’t happen that often, but this was an interesting example against a LAP:

POKERSTARS GAME OMAHA POT LIMIT ($3/$6)
Table 'Harpalyke' Seat #9 is the button
Seat 1: DextSiegler ($767 in chips)
Seat 2: Tekkie ($246 in chips)
Seat 3: lokemupsally ($691.45 in chips)
Seat 4: dmacgran ($600 in chips)
Seat 6: otro ($240 in chips)
Seat 7: someclown ($2302.25 in chips)
Seat 8: kylki ($679.50 in chips)
Seat 9: Hero ($1482.25 in chips)
DextSiegler: posts small blind $3
Tekkie: posts big blind $6
otro: posts big blind $6
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [Qd 9h Tc 8d]
lokemupsally: raises $6 to $12
dmacgran: calls $12
otro: calls $6
someclown: folds
kylki: calls $12
Hero: calls $12
DextSiegler: calls $9
Tekkie: calls $6
*** FLOP *** [9s Qc 6d]
DextSiegler: checks
Tekkie: checks
lokemupsally: bets $36
dmacgran: folds
otro: folds
kylki: folds
Hero: raises $132 to $168
DextSiegler: folds
Tekkie: folds
lokemupsally: raises $417 to $585
Hero: calls $417
*** TURN *** [9s Qc 6d] [4h]
lokemupsally: bets $94.45 and is all-in
Hero: calls $94.45
*** RIVER *** [9s Qc 6d 4h] [7h]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
lokemupsally: shows [Qs Ks Qh Td] (three of a kind, Queens)
Hero: shows [Qd 9h Tc 8d] (a straight, Six to Ten)
Hero collected $1439.90 from pot

For some reason I had convinced myself that I had played Lokem b4 and that he was a LAP. I’m not sure after this hand  If Lokem was a LAP then I was in great shape here, but in actually fact I was in a world of unspeakable hurt.

The Pete B Problem

One of the things Pete B raised was I was underestimating my opponents. Perhaps, I replied, but one of the things that struck me, and keeps on striking me, is how seemingly good players make hideously bad errors in the area of making plays that are putting themselves allin in big pots. Here is one that so horrified me that four months later I could instantly recall it. What made it more bizarre was that Reydel was a strong, tight player.

$1000 PL Omaha Hi
Table Table 48783 (Real Money)
Seat 3 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 1: Barnielle ( $2723.1 )
Seat 2: ISSIMI ( $925 )
Seat 3: Hero ( $2187 )
Seat 4: ReydelMundo1 ( $2051 )
Seat 5: dakyras ( $1805.5 )
Seat 8: KrIs2704 ( $1915 )
Seat 10: MAKE4_KILL_U ( $2402 )
Seat 7: dismas ( $300 )
Seat 9: Cubus ( $572.5 )
Seat 6: suziemarie ( $787.5 )
ReydelMundo1 posts small blind [$5].
dakyras posts big blind [$10].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ Ad 4c 9d Tc ]
suziemarie calls [$10].
dismas folds.
KrIs2704 folds.
Cubus folds.
MAKE4_KILL_U folds.
Barnielle folds.
ISSIMI calls [$10].
Hero raises [$30].
ReydelMundo1 calls [$25].
dakyras folds.
suziemarie calls [$20].
ISSIMI calls [$20].
** Dealing Flop ** [ Ks, Jc, 8c ]
ReydelMundo1 bets [$127].
suziemarie folds.
ISSIMI folds.
Hero raises [$500].
ReydelMundo1 calls [$373].
** Dealing Turn ** [ 8d ]
ReydelMundo1 checks.
Hero bets [$1000].
ReydelMundo1 is all-In.
Hero calls [$521].
** Dealing River ** [ 2s ]
Hero shows [ Ad, 4c, 9d, Tc ] a pair of eights.
ReydelMundo1 shows [ As, Kh, Jh, Qd ] two pairs, kings and jacks.
ReydelMundo1 wins $4169 from the main pot with two pairs, kings and jacks.

Now my play needs some explanation. At the time I was raising with a lot of hands in position so this was certainly not an “I have AA raise”. Also, Reydel was not the kind of player who would lead out with the nut flush draw, and I felt that two pair or a small set were his most likely hands.

His play on the turn is unfathomable. There is no reason to think that I don’t have a full here. And if he called on the flop thinking I have AA, he has now turned into a monster dog. Furthermore, what hand can I pass for 500 into a 3500 pot? This is classis DIYDDIYD of the most insane order. No read or feel can compensate for the fact that check raising in this spot cannot be the right play.

It's Hammer Time

2005-09-05T23:36:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$25333.89

I love the WCOOP. Not because of the *actual* events, in which I invariably play very poorly - case in point, busted out nice and early in the $200 PLO. The real reason is all those satellites. PLO sats are heaven sent. I am currently running at well over 200% profit on them, which is quite an achievement considering that they are "capped" in terms of how much you can win.

How has this been achieved?

The heady combination of completely clueless PLO play coupled with no idea at how to play a game where winning a seat is the goal.

Many times I saw players with monster stacks, far in excess of what was needed to drift into a seat, get into pointless confrontations and not even make it to the final table.

After one such occasion, a very unusual hand occurred at the final table. The antes were something like 1-2k, maybe 800-1600 and I had about 20k. The other short stack had 16k and was conveniently situated on my right. The other four players were waaay chipped up. We were in a classic bubble situation, with only 5 seats getting paid.

Everyone passed to me in late middle position. The blinds were both very losey goosey. I had AA with some other nice cards.

I passed.

Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen

2005-08-27T17:21:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$21059.39

We had a great response to the PLO quiz. Lots of thought, debate and comment. Someone from 2+2 came by here the other day and said where was the best place to talk about PLO, with the demise of that forum.

I said here. Thanks guys for proving me right.

I found the problem both interesting and paradoxical. Interesting because the “obvious” play becomes very hard to do; paradoxical because it follows a theme we have seen in this blog, of good plays from experts being indistinguishable from bad plays from the unskilled.

The inexperienced eye, on seeing the problem, thinks “I have nothing; I should call and see what happens on the river.” Those players who have done their homework will recognise this as a fairly familiar case of the drawing hand having a greater EV than the made hands *if* there was no further betting, made slightly more unusual by the fact this is happening on the turn as opposed to the flop. These players go “Great, I should get all and get my foes allin too.”

But this is the root of the problem.

If by raising, you make one of your opponents fold, either because he doesn’t have the straight or, admittedly rarely, he realises that he is in danger from being freerolled or the like, then by now being headsup, you go from being a healthy EV positive to a slightly EV negative.

So as so many of the responders pointed out, the correct answer is to just call. Which was the same answer the neophyte gets too, but with a lot less hand wringing.

FWIW, I thought the miniraise was an interesting spin, but still had all the same dangers, ultimately, of a full blown raise.

The answer doesn’t change with very big stacks involved, except for the case where A slowplays and reopens the betting and B stays in. Then you can surprise the pair of them by suddenly springing into life and raising again.

The betting order problem proved slightly more intractable. Aksu gave a clue, in that ideally you would like to be betting first in this spot. Of course asking for a seat change in the middle of the hand may give things away a little. However there is a long shot scenario that does make you bet first. That is check-check-bet. Hopefully then, A and B are both dirty sand bagging dogs and will suddenly spring into life.

Or they will both pass because we are actually in the wrong problem.

Wholeness and the Implicate Order

2005-08-24T22:15:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$19784.89

Imagine you are on the turn of a PLO hand against two other players, A and B, to be original. There has been a some action on the flop, say a bet and some calls, and the turn presents you with the delight of a nut flush draw and top trips, and you are last to speak.

(Clearly this is a fictious example :-)

However, there is also a clear straight visible. The pot contains $100 dollars and you and your foes all have $1300 left.

What is your strategy? Assume A and B are not idiots.

What do you do if A bets out and B raises?

Is this any different from A checking and B betting?

If you could choose a betting order, what would you choose?

And lastly how would having bigger stacks change things?

They Turn Their Back on the Land

2005-08-16T00:57:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$19316.06

I have been playing poker for what seems like an age now. Certainly in Internet terms, it has been almost forever since I first stepped into a casino for my one buyin into a rebuy tournament - I lasted 20 minutes and had to walk home in the dark.

When I do stop to reflect, I realise how very different the pre-Internet, pre-ESPN world of poker in the UK was to this new halcyon age we play in. And very different are the players too.

When I played, Poker was just coming out of its Dark Age. The revelations of Late Night Poker were still ahead of us and the game was still mostly full of degenerates, losers and "characters". At 25 I was one of the youngest players by a very wide margin. The number of "professionals" was so tiny as to be insignificant. Several players had very dubious sources of income and were themselves not perhaps, the kind of people you took home to have Tea and Biscuits with Mother and the Vicar. The cash game I cut my teeth in, as I have mentioned before, did not have cards speak as a rule. It was that severe. If a fellow exposed his “losing” hand, showing the winner, without realising it, only players in that pot could mention it. More bizarrely, I saw people split pots with opponents who claimed to have the same hand, tabled in front of them, but in fact had a loser. I did not say a word.

I witnessed a fight at my table where a young gun, later a very successful pro, got into a drunken brawl, rolled around on the floor with the guy next to him, yet when management resumed calm, they then both of them sat together and carried on playing as if nothing had happened at all. Two maiden Aunts. I had a large combat knife pulled on me once, and was jokingly prodded with it by a celebrity drunken player. Joke, yes. Unnerving, yes too. There were other, more brutal conflicts, where serious harm was inflicted.

I used to play with people who were widely known as cheats, pot shorters, rat holers and all round not very nice types. There were some nice folks too, but they were very much in the minority. In fact, anyone not old enough to be my Dad was a minority.

Trying to make poker players behave ethically was, and I guess still is, a bit like forcing maggots back into the corpse.

Despite all this, we all knew what were were doing. We were gambling, some more successfully than others. We didn't kid ourselves that we were involved in "sport" and some fantastic mental athletics. And although some of the players would not be creating an emotional and societal vacuum by winking out of existence, we all, roughly speaking, behaved reasonably ok around the table. And despite our differences, please god we had them, I did feel something in common with them.

Today there are huge swathes of players I feel almost nothing in common with at all.

The Idiot Savants are a strange breed. These Uber-geeks normally come from some teenage sad-fest of gaming like organised Warcraft or Magic the Gathering. Now I have a little sympathy for Geekness, as I am certainly a closet Geek myself, despite having once played rugby and all that inevitably entails. But these types are beyond the pale. Normally very young, if even legal, and with a capacity to play huge hours over many, many screens they churn through winning at a relentless, religious rate. But in the end, you start to ask yourself, impressive though they are, is that it? I mean, what are they going to do when they grow up? As pointless, valueless lives go, poker player is up there with compulsory masturbator. So much talent, so little point.

Whereas the ID's are rare, the other group I feel little connection with is the swarm of Nearly Men. At first glance, these folk seem to be winning players; some significantly so. But when you start to look a little deeper, perhaps reading blogs or comments or forums the penny drops. They really have no clue what they are doing. I don't mean this to be patronising, certainly with my results I would struggle to do so. But often they can talk the talk but can't walk the walk. Or maybe they can execute but don't understand why or how they are winning, which in the long term can be just as bankroll fatal. As a group they are surviving on low rake, insane WSOP/WPT driven newbies and variance. The tsunami is coming, but these guys are still playing on the beach.

The last group, often overlapping the others, is certainly my least favourite. The ESPN wannabes. These are the kind of people who try and combine Poker with Jackass. The kindest thing I could say is that they are juvenile, but even when I was young, I was never that juvenile. The ESPN types fill forums, blogs, tourneys and cash games. Now I am no saint in cash game comments, to my shame. But hopefully what I say is always funny, and often becomes self-deprecating. In fact I have become quite friendly with several people I started off whining to. But I would never criticise someone that I had just beaten. Or write posts which showed continually how bad everyone else played whilst I was a righteous superstar. Or just be so damn fucking rude. Their demi-god and spiritual leader is Amir "Rocks and Rings" Esfandiari. I just wish I could put him and his mini-Mexican fucking wave into some of the games I used to play in.

Christ, I am starting to sound like an old man.

New York State of Mind

2005-08-13T19:34:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$15612.19

Apologies for another long pause. Work has a habit of getting in the way, and I play so many tables, 4-5, when I do play, that blogging is impossible.

Although the trend is slowly back upwards, it disguises the usual wide range of swings. So far this month I have been nearly two grand up, three grand down, now just a bit above break even. At times I have played gloriously, others very, very poorly. This is one of the intrinsic reasons I enjoy PLO play - the "rightness" of your play is often very transparent; who the hell could tell in that value bet/stop and go/semi-bluff turn raise of limit holdem. I did actually try NLHE for a little while, but I found it intrinsically dull.

A bad play: hilo in an unraised pot. FLop comes J55 and its checked around. Turn comes 9 and the big blind micro bets - $6 in a $20 pot and I raise with a399. He mini raises and I call :( He bets the pot on the river and I call and he shows 55. This kind of mini raise is often a big tell. But the mistake is raising the turn. He is almost certainly not semi bluffing here...he either has me murdered or I have him murdered. In these spots there is no shame in going limp, especially if you can't pass a raise :(

A good play: an unraised pot comes t34 rainbow. Loosey bets and I raise with 4467 and a good player cold calls, loosey passes. Turn comes a K putting out a 2 flush. I bet about 3/4 of the pot and good player raises the full pot. I pass.

Unusual play: I raise with AAQJ suited, bad player calls, loose, sometimes good or bad player reraises, I reraise again, bad player cold calls everything, other foe raises again (yes we all three had plenty of money!) and I pass. Yes pass. As it happens, $ and EV wise the pass was probably wrong, but thinking wise, it was very encouraging.

Lorenz

2005-07-31T02:37:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$14880.84

One of the things that interests scientists isn't just the numbers revealed by experiment, but the underlying numbers. By this we mean the numbers that drive the numbers. One of the most common understandings of that now, popularised by book and TV, is chaos theory. This was "discovered" by a guy who realised that just minute changes in his underlying system had massive impact on the behaviours he was modelling, which turned out to be the weather. Incidently, this is one of the more "fun" explanations of Ice Ages. It's not asteroids or dramatic climate change, rather just that a tiny change in our weather system "flips" the climate into an alternate Ice Age state. Nice.

My YTD, subject to much interest of late, has also had some interesting numbers beneath it. As the Faithful Reader will recall, I started my Bad Run by going through a ton of money at 5-10 PLO. About $30k to be exact. What the numbers never showed, and got lost under the avalanche of loss, was that I had started to stage a come back. I had won back about $8k of it, before Party flipped the PLO climate over by the introduction of the 10-20 game. Overnight there was no 5-10 to be had anywhere on the net. In fact on Party, there was barely any action above 1-2. I foolishly took a shot at the 10-20, lost 14k in less than 2 hours, and then spiralled into bad game selection and some painful bursts of tilt. Fate sucks.

There is another very pleasing number under today's YTD. I have stopped playing for July a day early, so I can bask in the advent of black text appearing in my profit for the month column. OK, that black text is effectively zero, but considering that at points I have been nearly $6k down this month it feels very, very good.

Here's hoping that my own personal Ice Age is about to change state too!

The Question

2005-07-25T23:44:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$11091.89

Well posts on here have been about as common as The Hendon Mob Diary entries. Has anyone checked out that morgue recently? It is truly terrible. There seemed to be a minor revolt the other day where someone dared ask WTF was the point of the site anymore, but thank god Harry "Gus Layne Danny Doyle are my Best Friends" Dem was on track to put things right. I never understood the Prima sponsorship deal. I wonder if Prima are now starting to ask the same question.

Enough gossip, this was actually going to be about poker for a change, and about asking the right questions.

Most of the interesting questions in Poker are meta questions like "which game should I play", "why am I losing", "how does my style effect my profitability", "why am I *still* losing" etc. These are tough questions to answer.

Questions about individual hands are often not as interesting, however in some cases, where a seemingly sensible approach can lead to completely the wrong view, it is about asking the RIGHT question. There was a interesting case on 2+2 recently on the Omaha8 forum about PLO8b. You can read about it here at http://tinyurl.com/c2goc

There is a lot of talk about +EV and getting 3 to 1 on each of the bets called. But they are not asking the right question. Which is given the hero's statement that he almost never passes a nut low in this spot, he is in effect betting his whole stack, and saying what is his return when the smoke is cleared. The bets on the other streets are illusory, kinda.

The analysis then becomes a straightforward one. Assuming that he will get 1/4d or even 1/6d some of the time, can he make money on the reminder of his hands? Using some rough estimates, I got the Hero losing about $500 over 30% of his hands, hands where he puts some money in but gets some, less, back. This means he would have to make $500 plus over the remaining 70% of his hands just to break even. Is this possible?

One of his foes has a short stack. If this is the "carvee", then he will have potentially risked his entire stack for half of fcuk all. He has to hope that he gets to carve up the other full stack instead, but he has no strong outs for the high. It wouldn't be too unreasonable to have almost no outs for the high. Lastly, none of the calculations so far have included the chance that he puts money in on the turn, but is counterfeited by the river.

Clearly, obviously, when you ask this question, he is not getting the right price. It may be a fold on the flop, although most players would struggle to make it. It certainly is a fold on the turn.

The Question is a crusading television journalist who is determined to root out corruption where he finds it. To that end, when he encounters stories he can't investigate by normal or legal means, he dons a special mask, kept in a special compartment in his belt buckle, that makes it appear that he has no face

Music of Chance

2005-07-11T00:19:00.000+01:00

YTD: Anyone want my kidney, check out ebay

Well the WSOP is coming to a close, so the current rich vein of comedy will run out, probably just before my bankroll.

So a quick interlude of other things that have tickled my fancy.

For some time now, Mike Paulle has been so laser-like shrewd on the poker scene that on the perception stakes he has put Stevie Wonder's fashion guru to shame. This comment was a real blast. In the head to head between Rafi "Most Winningest PLO player on the Net last year" Amit and Vinny "Angle shooting scumbag" Vinh,the inimitable Paulle commented "You get the feeling that Vinh is toying with Amit, setting him up for the kill." 3 hours later Rafi had the title. If you had ever played Rafi headsup then you would know how even more a joke this was.

Another thing you should check out is the interview of Todd Brunson by that hero worshipping geek on Cardplayer.com. Mr Fluffer, seemingly in a new pair of skateboarding knee pads, actually posed the question "Was winning a braclet as good as wining $13 million in a night?" This is the amount that Brunson alledgedly won in the headsup against the banker. You can actually see the synapses flaring in Brunson's head as he tries to figure out (a) is the questioner insane? (b) has he slipped into an alternate universe where winning some gold plated jingle-jangle is the equivalent of 13 very very large.

One day this war will be over.

Interest Breaks Out

2005-07-07T19:27:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$14444.34

God, the WSOP has been boring this year. Maybe it’s because I'm not connected to the "real world" in that sense anymore. Sure, I've followed the mostly excellent coverage on Cardplayer - excellent in that it’s quick and easy - but there seems to be little character to the event anymore. Where are the hidden dramas and the background cash game gossip? It seemed that all those guys who wanted to turn Poker into a "sport" got what they wanted, except it turned out to be a homogenous ESPN-lite of the very worst kind, dog jumping meets log rolling meets ESPN "the Ocho". Anyone who has watched the Cardplayer videos will have seen reverential interview fellatio of the very worst kind.

But right near the end it got suddenly and unexpectedly interesting.

The Phil Hellmuth Interview

Check out his interview on Cardplayer. Never has a Poker player seemed to have tipped so far into total insanity. He was like a characterture of a mockery of a spoof. He truly is blessed.

Danny "Boy" N Becomes Phil Hellmuth

Danny N's blog has been a joy through his current rough patch. He has put the Y back into self-delusional. His latest entry where he talks about trying to persuade Chris Ferguson to stop using the moniker "Jesus" is like stepping into the Twilight Zone. Oh to be a fly on the wall in that "conversation", as Chris slowly tries to back out of the room, eyes flitting from side to side, fake but nervous smile plastered to his face. If I was Chris I would have told him only if he stopped using "self aggrandizing, insincere, publicity hungry prick" as his nickname. Oh, sorry, that’s just what others think of him.

The World's Best Internet Omaha Player Becomes the World's Best Omaha Player

You did read about him here first and it was no surprise for me, in fact a real delight, for a guy whom I donated so much money to on the Ether to go on and win the Big Omaha Event. It was also no surprise for the nonsense to take place over the fuck rule. Refaelmit doesn’t even speak English as a first language, and although his English is excellent, I'm sure speaking with poker players on a day to day basis will roughen up anyone's vocabulary.

What was very interesting was seeing who thought this rule was a good one. One interview, with that mad homeless person from last years WSOP, basically said "yes I'm an angle shooting twat." And this was the basic timbre of the "people" who "thought" it was a "good" thing.

More of the Same

Those people who knew Simon Trumper before he got "famous" would not have been surprised by the accusations about him and the now "something for him to be properly famous for" Barry G incident. Simon has a long history of previous in this area. I don't know him personally, and believe he is a nice guy, but I suspect like a lot of tourney "pros" has a severe case of Solipsism, otherwise known as IABS (I Am Blessed Syndrome - see Hellmuth above.) When all eyes are on him then doing the decent thing by his opponent is the last thing on his mind, as after all, all eyes are on him, so doing...etc etc ad nausem.

Hopefully for the Faithful reader I won't have to state my position on events, bearing in mind that I was brought up in a game where "cards speak" wasn't a rule. What has been amusing has been looking at the defence case for the behaviour. There have been the rule analists, who seem to have trouble with the fact that the "mutually assured destruction" principle of having to have a rule for every situation will either make the game unrecognisable or unworkable. The "faces" response has been predictable and even more noteworthy. Of serious mention must be Harry "I know everyone and must name drop them in every post" Demitrou on THM. And Barney Boatman's defence on the same forum had more subtext than a Kafka novel. As the child-fondling Texan poker star is fond of saying "Would you like to face a Grand Jury with this guy?"

I can’t imagine the Big Dance will be anywhere near as entertaining.

Delphi

2005-07-03T19:01:00.000+01:00

YTD: crap, 16k ish, doing this from a pda

Well we got a fair response to the plo8b quiz, both here and on 2+2. Here's my views on the hands, which for a change I feel quite certain-ish on.

Hand 1

The real clue here was that the foes were very tight, but not especially skilled. What kind of hands could foe1 have in such a case? Clearly either an AA hand, or an A23 hand, most likely suited. In the first case he will most likely reraise, which is great for my hand, but in the second he will just call, which is likely to encourage foe2 to call also.

This second case, which is far the most likely, puts me in the uncomfortable position of having turned my hand faceup, yet still having plenty of money left to bet out of position. Unless a 2 comes, there are very few safe flops against two tight foes.

So calling has some merit, but again I am looking for a dream flop, and I miss out on the chance of potentially getting allin against a worse AA.

This leads me to an unusual correct answer of mini raising. This will probably provoke foe1 into reraising again if he has aces, but leaves me much less pot committed than if I make a potsize raise.

Hand 2

We had the full gamut of answers for this one, from raising allin, calling to passing on the flop.

The interesting thing here is the maths of the situation if you go allin. Against the range of hands where he is currently in front, from a pair to trips, you are no worse than a 6 to 4 dog and are sometimes a small favourite. More interestingly, you are a massive favourite against all his drawing hands, often as much as 9 to 1. And its not unreasonable to put him on such a hand here. Your nut no pair may win. Moreover, how will you you play the river if you miss...just pass? Especially if the board pairs, you may be passing the winning hand. Put all these together, plus some passing equity, admittedly slight, and pushing on the turn is clearly right.

A Tale of Two Cities

2005-06-27T16:02:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$21653.53

Well I'm not poker dead yet. I've dropped down a few limits and I'm playing mostly plo8b, where in theory I should be "safer". I'm still rusty at plo8b, having given it a break for quite some time. I thought I would do a quiz of two interesting hands that I misplayed over the table, but in the post match analysis managed to come up with some better plays.

BTW, I'm a big believer in doing your serious thinking *away* from the table. There's just not enough time over the table, especially if you are multi-ing. Model hands, have a think, and look for replicable situations in the future.

Here's the quiz:

Hand 1

Seat 2: Galka888 ( $647.52 )
Seat 3: Foe 2 ( $611.1 )
Seat 4: sparkyone ( $954.9 )
Seat 5: studpool ( $563.74 )
Seat 7: ProfitBiich ( $564.3 )
Seat 8: BigDaveD_UK ( $336.6 )
Seat 10: easytime2003 ( $189.3 )
Seat 1: Foe ( $394 )
Seat 9: SOON2BCHAMP ( $406 )
studpool posts small blind [$2].
ProfitBiich posts big blind [$4].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to BigDaveD_UK [ Ah 3d Ad Th ]
BigDaveD_UK calls [$4].
SOON2BCHAMP folds.
>You have options at Table 36562 Table!.
easytime2003 folds.
Foe raises [$18].
Galka888 folds.
Foe 2 calls [$18].

Everyone else folds to you. Both these players are very tight, but that does not mean especially skilled. Action?

Hand 2

Table "Fort-de-France" (real money) -- Seat 3 is the button
Seat 1: dauni ($466.00 in chips)
Seat 2: redsword ($737.00 in chips)
Seat 3: sorbus ($141.00 in chips)
Seat 4: fival ($1,397.50 in chips)
Seat 5: MRWINGMAN ($202.00 in chips)
Seat 6: iwtymyc ($442.00 in chips)
Seat 7: sc1mitar ($394.50 in chips)
Seat 8: OttoPost ($356.50 in chips)
Seat 9: WillRoberts ($93.00 in chips)
Seat 10: Foe ($1,563.25 in chips)
fival : Post Small Blind ($2)
MRWINGMAN: Post Big Blind ($4)
Dealing...
Dealt to sc1mitar [ 6c ]
Dealt to sc1mitar [ As ]
Dealt to sc1mitar [ 2c ]
Dealt to sc1mitar [ Js ]
iwtymyc : Call ($4)
sc1mitar: Call ($4)
OttoPost: Fold
WillRoberts: Fold
Foe: Call ($4)
dauni : Call ($4)
redsword: Call ($4)
sorbus : Fold
fival : Fold
MRWINGMAN: Check
*** FLOP *** : [ Kh 3s 5c ]
MRWINGMAN: Check
iwtymyc : Check
sc1mitar: Check
Foe: Bet ($26)
dauni : Call ($26)
redsword: Fold
MRWINGMAN: Fold
iwtymyc : Fold
sc1mitar: Call ($26)
*** TURN *** : [ Kh 3s 5c ] [ Qs ]
sc1mitar: Check
Foe: Bet ($104)

The Foe here was loose to the extent of clinical insanity. In the short time I had played him he had played 90% of his hands, raising 30% of them. Probably the only hand he wasn't likely to have in this spot was A2, as he would have raised preflop with it.

Answers please on a postcard! Or the comments.

Oh Vienna!

2005-06-15T18:33:00.000+01:00

Well, this was going to be a continuation of the excellent comments shared in the previous entry - which is well worth your while to check out. However, I stumbled across some things on the Net during my travals that so shocked and appalled me that I feel compelled to write about them instead. But the real stuff, it's a come'in.

Both of these revalations involved the Evil Empire of Shulman.

Surprisingly, the coverage of the WSOP at cardplayer.com has been excellent; Poker Pages hasn't had a lookin. This saddens me somewhat, for nostalgic reasons, as the best coverage ever was their live Web Audio of the Mortenson victory. Incidently, it was the follow up to this, the live coverage of Ulliot's win in Tunica - 填lliot raises, everyone passes - that confimed me in my belief that it would be better for everyone if we had flatter structures. A belief that kinda makes me a flat earther in today's Poker World.

But on the negative side, and I mean very fuckingly negative side, I finally came across some articles for Cardplayer Europe, or should I say The Jesse May and Friends Vanity Press. After surveying this 'material' I was reaching gladly again for my boiling water enema hose-pipe. But my hand was stayed. By the Poker soft-porn of a Jesse May interview. How could he ask any questions when he so clearly had his mouth full? Mike Cappeletti, or however you spell it, must be giving himself a high five, amongst other things, now that he has been replaced as The Nadir of Poker.

Please don't search this stuff out to confim it...they don't deserve the hits.

And pass me the hose when the water heats up.

Training Montage

2005-06-11T07:37:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$23206.65

Unlike most Rocky adventures, the Hero hasn't comeback to win; he's come back to lose.

I decided to take a shot at the 10-20 PLO game on Party simply because the 5-10, where I had been slowly building a recovery, had pinged out of existance. BTW this is a very bad move by Party. The 5-10 was vibrant and sustainable. The 10-20 will destroy a lot of players as they simply will not have the $100-200k required to play it properly. But when have Party ever understood Poker?

So have much shot-taking money do you put at risk? $4k? $6k? Try $14k :( The play was loose and poor and so was I. Whereas the 5-10 downward spiral was probably 5% bad play, this debacle was more like 70%.

Since then my judgement has been poor. Having ground out and played around a little, I then took a shot at my absolutely worse game of limit hilo and promptly went on tilt for another $2.5k I could little afford.

So in my reduced circumstances I need to have a set of reduced goals. I'm going to go back to the basics of the start of the year, and play a lot of 2-4 , 3-6 PLO8b and see if I can retrench and rebuild. Stick along for the ride.

Here's a reaaaally bad hand:

Might as well reveal that I was Sc1mitar, as if you didn't already know, as that Party account is no more.

Of course the real bad play on the hand is the river. What could he be playing for? I might as well have got $1400 and thrown it on the fire.

***** Hand History for Game 2164902552 *****
$2000 PL Omaha Hi - Monday, June 06, 15:27:03 EDT 2005
Table Table 52014 (Real Money)
Seat 4 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 2: Kivelaki ( $6857 )
Seat 3: yumyum777 ( $3362 )
Seat 4: PokerSvend ( $1815 )
Seat 5: neZhdan ( $7157.5 )
Seat 7: Byrrr ( $2000 )
Seat 8: mahmouda ( $2097 )
Seat 10: flyingfux11 ( $3269.12 )
Seat 9: flash237 ( $440 )
Seat 6: Sc1mitar ( $2983 )
Seat 1: feerless ( $1880 )
neZhdan posts small blind [$10].
Sc1mitar posts big blind [$20].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Sc1mitar [ Qs 5s Jh Ts ]
Byrrr folds.
mahmouda folds.
flash237 calls [$20].
flyingfux11 calls [$20].
mahmouda: anybody6
feerless calls [$20].
Kivelaki folds.
yumyum777 folds.
PokerSvend folds.
>You have options at Table 52103 Table!.
neZhdan calls [$10].
Sc1mitar checks.
** Dealing Flop ** [ 8s, Ad, Td ]
neZhdan checks.
Sc1mitar checks.
flash237 bets [$97].
flyingfux11 calls [$97].
feerless folds.
lidam: what
neZhdan calls [$97].
Sc1mitar calls [$97].
** Dealing Turn ** [ Kh ]
neZhdan checks.
Sc1mitar checks.
flash237 checks.
flyingfux11 bets [$325].
neZhdan folds
Sc1mitar raises [$1460].
flash237 folds.
flyingfux11 calls [$1135].
** Dealing River ** [ 5d ]
Sc1mitar is all-In.
flyingfux11 calls [$1406].
Sc1mitar shows [ Qs, 5s, Jh, Ts ] a straight, ten to ace.
flyingfux11 shows [ 9c, 3d, Ks, Kd ] a flush, ace high.
flyingfux11 wins $6217 from the main pot with a flush, ace high.

On a more cheerful note, this clip really amused me:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/extempore/99803.html

Drink to Me Only with Labyrinthine Eyes

2005-05-29T10:51:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$31998.20

Something really just tickled me. As Faithful Readers know, I have long used a labrinythe of spreadsheets for analysis and record keeping purposes. One of the things I track is my estimated bankroll for a particular game.

So over 320 hours in the 2-4 PLO games on the net, I am 95% certain of having a win rate between $6 and $116 per hour, with an estimated bankroll of under $10k. Which shows how well I ran there.

In the infamous 5-10 PLO game, for a while at least, my estimated bankroll was between $40-50K, which felt about right.

With my recent form, this figure has changed somewhat. My new estimated bankroll requirement to play the 5-10 PLO game is...

$1,904,036

So it looks like a place finish in the Big One is necessary. Vegas here I come!

Eternal Recurrence

2005-05-26T00:08:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$31709.81

Well that was interesting.

As it was a year ago, so shall it be again.

Back in my last bad blip, an old pal and sparring buddy, Pete F from 2+2 said I had gone on "winner's tilt". This phrase stuck with me and has some truth in what has happened this month.

I haven't played bad. I haven't played well. Strictly speaking, I have been very, very unlucky. But when you play all your hands like they are made out of titanium, four tables at a time, then you will experience some swings. If I had been swingy-er in the other way, I would have been easily $40k+ on the month. But when you play this way, "winner's tilt" as it were, you start to abdicate so0me decision making that perhaps you would have made before. And this was actually part of your edge.

But all in all, I feel ok. It would have been better to have won and feel ok, but I know the difference was slight and I just need to refocus.

What, if some day or night, a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: ‘This life, as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh… must return to you—all in the same succession and sequence

For Aksu: Popular Music from the Cold Country: A Play in Three Parts

2005-05-14T17:08:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$55131.00

Part I

Our Cold Country* friend enters the cardroom for the first time. He is supremely confident in his abilities, having played 420 million hands of poker already. He has won and lost and won and lost, ad nauseum, hundreds of thousands of dollars. And he has only just turned seventeen.

Hands on his hips, cocksure, the crowds part around him. Mostly this is because he is six foot five and rather “chunky”. But mostly because, despite this overwhelming stature, our friend looks a lot like a girl.

He strides towards the green baize arena.

Part II

Plunking down mixed piles of stacks of Euros and Dollars, Mr Cold Country asks his soon-to-be-busted-foes, in his perfect, polite, pristine English:

“What game are we playing please?”

“Knock Out Whist”, replies the blue-rinse and pearls elderly lady, nervously pushing back her pince-nez and casting worried glances at her friends at the table. None of them is under seventy.

Our friend leans back in his chair with a grin.

Surely this “Knock Out Whist” is exactly and identically the same as short handed limit holdem, the game he has devoted his life to since a boy. EVERY game, in essence, he has found to be the same as short-handed limit holdem.

“I raise”, he says, pushing forward a stack of greenbacks.

Part III

“You garbage, you play such junk, u mf, I bust u , lol, lmao, u f**ker, I show u, RiverStars again, u broke, llllllloooooollllll”

----

*Cold Country is an amalgam of Scandinavia and the Nordics

----

Of course this play is based on an unfair stereotype. In general, Nordic and Scandinavian players are the best in the world, especially in the limit holdem, big stakes games. However. Sometimes stereotypes are useful. And if you are playing a game that ISN’T short-handed limit holdem, especially when it’s not holdem at all, then sometimes treating the best players in the world as guilty until proven innocent can be very profitable.

I raise.

Speak Softly, But Carry a Big Stick

2005-05-06T13:06:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$59911.61

What is winning?

Is it that beautiful pause, the magical disappearance of your opponents’ hands into the ether, the electronic ecstasy of the chips swooping towards your pixelated player?

No.

Winning is decisions.

PLO is not limit holdem. In limit holdem, a good player crafts out his edge on every hand, tweaking the most out of every theoretical EV, especially in small pots, where the odds can be more easily manipulated and the number of foes is fewer. Limit holdem is about every hand.

Speak loudly, carry a bigger stick, and hit often.

I mostly ignore the small pots.

Sure, if “no one” wants them, then I will take them, tyvm. But I am not trying to turn a small pot into a big one unless I have a very powerful hand. And if someone wants to bluff me in these spots, fine. Bully me, that’s ok too.

Speak softly.

And if I don’t feel that the situation is right, I am happy to pass draws that it seems everyone else is happy to get broke with.

So where does a PLO player make his profit?

Big decisions.

If the pot is raised, or it is multiway, or there is some action then the soft speaking stops. Here is where I can make decisions where the “rightness” of them really matters. Now we are in the territory of the big stick.

Whereas before I was passing nut flush draws with a yawn and a shrug, now I am raising them even though I know I am against trips and there is a weaker flush draw out there too. Or calling a $1000 allin in a massively raised pot with just a middle pin draw. Or raising a big stack when he bets out when a straight hits the turn, even though I just have the trips. The big stick of key decision making is striking out.

All of these hands really happened my friends, and in each and every one of them, win or lose, and some were certainly lost, I was happy with the decision.

Winning may be about decisions, but what kind of decisions? Soft ones, and sometimes brutal ones. It’s where you wield the big stick that makes the difference.

Outré

2005-04-24T21:04:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$53820.86

I remember outré as one of the very first words I looked up in a proper dictionary. I suspect I was going through an adolescent Lovecraftian phase. And the pronunciation marks I confused for punctuation marks :)

For those of my Faithful Readers who don't frequent dictionary.com, or Innsmouth, outré means bizarre or beyond normal propriety. And that is what decision making is like on Party in the PLO games at the moment. Time and time again, in big pots and in small, I see normally sane players making insane decisions.

On the decision-making front, I've been enjoying Pete Birk's wrestlings with PLO. Paradoxically, what he dislikes about PLO is what invigorates me about the game - that making decisions really matters. Now many people believe that limit holdem is also about making decisions, but really, until you get to high enough stakes, its about replacing decisions with playing more hands. Until you reach a boundary limit of playability, playing more hands will nearly always be more profitable than eking out every ounce of EV out of every hand. What is also strange for an experienced PLO player is that decision making is more important in small pots than in large ones. Small pots are where good limit holdem players craft out nice parts of their hourly rate; big pots are where even a chimp learns that it is nearly always right to call on the end.

I saw an outré play today. For a change the variance went the right way and I booked a healthy winning session. This strange hand certainly helped:

Unraised pot with a flop of QJx. A loose UTG, stack of 1k, bets the pot and the other limpers pass to me. I have JJJ and some backdoors. And a 2k stack. I decide that it would be very unusual for this loose player to bet out the full pot with the nuts, so I raise it up to 200. A tight player, Outré, also with 1k, flat calls. UTG raises again allin. After a little thought, I can't get over my initial impression that UTG was not holding QQ and was now trying to squeeze me out against the cold caller. Who surely must be drawing. It seems to make sense to try and get Outré out and I also move in, and Outré calls for a nice 3k ish pot. Standard play so far? BDD in healthy shape?

I have one out.

UTG had kinda the hand I suspected, 33KT. But Outré had QQ!

At first I thought this was a terrible play, timidity in the face of possible draws and that Outré was trying to wait for a blank turn. But now I'm not so sure.

On one hand, the pot is now big and its worth his while to try and win it now. If he reraised I am *probably* going to pass - this is Party after all - and maybe UTG will move too. Pot won, no risk. There is also the losing his market fear if we are both drawing and it pairs up. Lastly, what does he do if the straight hits? Pass to a bet?

But say Outré has read both UTG and myself well. Say he puts UTG on a poorish hand, and myself either on a big draw or a big wrap. If he raises, I only stay with the hand that hurts him most! By calling, he locks me into a hand with 1 out, if I am behind, and keeps the pot potentially small if I do have the drawing monster. And if UTG goes bonkers, I might misread him...

Unfortunately genius and idiocy is often inseparable in PLO.

And FWIW, I hit the case Jack.

Outré indeed.

Shake your Money, Maker

2005-04-19T20:11:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$41871.53

We have looked at previously how a lot of people are overplaying draws online. In fact I have passed *a lot* of nut flush draws recently because I thought the situation wasn't right. Let's now turn this on its head and look at how drawing hands can be a money maker in the right situation.

Of course the best way to work out the profitability of these things is to run through the maths yourself. Back in the day, I actually, geekily, used to do this with pen and paper and then on spreadsheets. Now there are a whole range of free simulators out there on the Net for you to play with. However, for the less mathematically inclined, I’ve put together a simple check list that can guide your play:

1.Is the pot big?
Now you don’t necessarily want it to be so huge that there can be no real action left, because then you will have probably made a different kind of error in that you will have put too much money in preflop in relation to the stack sizes in play.

2.Is the pot multiway?
Although that normally means that some of your drawing outs are in your foe’s hands, this is compensated by the much greater money you can win.

3.Are you drawing to the nuts?
If you are lumping it in on a draw, it normally makes sense to make sure that if you hit, you win. Especially against more than one opponent. Good nut draws are of course our old friend the nut flush draw, but are also straight draws where you have more than 8 cards to hit, often called a “wrap”.

4.Have you got another draw?
If you have another draw as well as your main draw this can make a huge difference. Even if it is as little as a middle pin straight draw or two pair.

If you can answer yes to all these points, it is almost certainly mathematically correct to play your draw and probably play it fast.

Here’s an example from my own play. I called a preflop raise with A K J 7 double suited from a loose player and we went to the flop three-way. We all had healthy stacks of $600 or so. The flop came K J 9, giving me two of my suit and also top two pair. The initial raiser bet and I raised him, got reraised by the player behind me and we all got our money in on the flop. Of course they both had the QT and there was much grumbling when the river gave me the nut flush. But if you look at the maths of the situation, with three way action, I was actually a monster favourite, having over 50% chance of winning the pot. As the breakeven point in this situation is 33% this is a massive edge

It may have looked like gambling, but in fact it was a sure money maker.

100 Bullets

2005-04-10T18:49:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$42537.25

The Party games are still very, very good. This was obviously going to be the case. You were never going to go from 2 games of 5-10 all across the Net to 4-6 games just on one site and fill them just with good players. Even the good players have interesting leaks in their games and the bad players, well the bad players are truly some of the worst I have played with.

Since I last posted I won 5k then lost it in a fairly amazing sequence. The tail end of the upswing was a bit disappointing - rating my game I felt I had started to play poorly and should have won much more. The next day my bad play continued and I threw off 5k in a bad day's session. Was this the end of the swing...far from it, just the beginning.

I hit the game the next day determined to play better and within 10 minutes I was up 3k, job done you might think. Now I am not one to "leave some sugar on the table" and I ploughed on, ending up 5k down. Yes a 8k swing. Play resumed again in the evening and once again I was just under 3k up, only to finish the day up 500 bucks. So what happened?

Well, a few hands I played badly, one in particular for a 6k+ pot which was especially bad, taking my obvious set of aces (I had check raised preflop) against an obvious top straight on the flop, battering in 2800 as a serious dog.

However, close analysis showed that I had been involved in 17k on pots where I was allin as a favourite. Now that is not a typo, $17000. 17 dimes. It turned out I was 400 to 1 to lose all of them, which I duly did. In fact I was only 20 to 1 to win them ALL. So it would have been considerably easier to be up 17k in just one day.

I find these statistics quite warming. I think its key to review your play in PLO and ensure you have been focused on decisions and not winning pots. It's stats like this that stave off tilt. And in such loose games you should fully expect such fierce swings. One hand in particular springs to mind. I called a bet on the flop in a raised pot with the nut flush draw, hoping to pick up another caller, which I did. (The flop had an ace on it, hence the caution.) The caller had a four high flush draw, a small pair and a small middle pin straight draw. The turn brought the only card that could get us both involved. A flush card that also hit his small pair. I bet the pot, leaving a little left over, and the river brought a pair up, giving him the pot. This parlay, the only one in which I can lose any money at all, was 164 to 1. Then to add insult to injury, he had top set against my middle set and bust me again in a 4k pot, with money he only had from that unfeasible hand.

In a very real sense, long may it continue. Just with different outcomes :)

Deus Ex Machina

2005-04-03T13:52:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$42805.97

Sometimes I see ghosts. Sometimes I go looking for them; sometimes they go looking for me. When you have haunted the net for as long as I have, the damned place seems littered with the corpses of fallen friends and foes, games and sites.

I like to go to the Neverwinpoker forum for two reasons. I like to see old Linden_Arden, who I used to play with on Stars back in the day; and I am afraid to look at the onlinechamp forum, if it even still exists.

The ghost of Onlinechamp is an instructional one. A couple of years ago, the biggest ring game online was the 15-30 Limit Hilo, then quickly after the 30-60 Hilo. For arrivistes to the poker scene this probably seems incredible. After all there are games many times that size now, some even 10x. But back then, unless you wanted to play King of Ding headsup on UB, this game was it. And because it was the biggest, it also attracted the maddest. And the best. And the worst. I played in the game for quite some time, mostly out of ego as I doubt I made money in it. Not all of the casualties got broke – after all, Big Dave D is never seen on any sites now either – but a fair few got turned into ghosts along the way.

El Ganador evolved into a PLO expert. The clinically insane DARTHVADER seemed to spin off into the stars and out of the Stars, although as a lottery winner in the US he had money to burn. My dear friend LEECHKA seemed to drop off the end of the world. ORION1 seemed to turn himself into a parody of every Cold Country maniac stereotype I ever piss-taked about, either riding the crest of a massive rush or crashing down to near brokedom. Alex1, the tournament wizard and seemingly the worst cash game player I have ever played. And of course the infamous Mr Robert, who is now beating the 75-150, probably chatting no more than 5 words a year and still confounding the critics as to how he did it.

But in my mind the ghost of Onlinechamp overshadows them all. The first time I met OLC, as he was affectionately known, he was being praised by some anonymous railbird. Whereas today you can see this quite often, especially if it’s a well known player, back then it really stood out. As did his catchphrase, “Ship the Sherbert to Herbert” whenever he won a pot. Yes, he really did have a catchphrase.

This probably makes him sound quite annoying. Which he was. But he was also good fun, and as his rush continued, he built his own site, which for a time attracted seem serious names from Stars, including Josh Arieh.

Then the rush ended, and boy did it end. The rumour mill was he lost 60k in a couple of weeks, which effectively wiped him out. He sat in, and then sat out the entire time in the fledgling 100-200 holdem game, clearly just for showboating purposes. The web site was the scene of a very public disintegration. Like one of those scenes in a disaster movie, where the support cables start to “POP” out of the ground, snaking cables whipping around, building swaying, but still standing while you watch and wait for the next snap. At times he seemed barely rational. I guess the end was a very public, lawyer threatening bust up with Josh Arieh.

Of course the tragic thing about this ghost is that if he had held on just a while longer, who knows what might have happened in the super boom of the last year. I mean people go to the Neverwin site even though NEVERWIN ALMOST NEVER POSTS THERE. I guess what haunts poor OLC most is that he would of almost certainly have had a piece of Josh Arieh if they had still been friends, and that alone may have cost him up to $250 000.

I said that sometimes the ghosts come to me. Whilst looking at the Neverwin site, I noticed a very strange post by DanDruff, the 100-200 player. It seems that IMDB.com has an entry for Andy Glazer. For those who don’t know, this is a very comprehensive info site on cinema, maintained by user submissions. Why on earth would the Poker Pundit have an entry there, as he had almost no involvement with the film industry except a cameo in the Stuey movie? This becomes even more curious, if you check out the entry, in that there is a very comprehensive bio, as well as the mention of the date he died and the fact he committed suicide, which in itself is not well know. And who submitted this entry? Andy Glazer. A strange and chilling testimony.

Vincent Gray: Do you know why you're afraid when you're alone? I do

Another Kind of Russian Roulette

2005-03-30T07:52:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$40413.22

Whilst desperately trying to find something poker related and INTERESTING to read this morning I was delighted to discover that my old buddy Burnley John had won the Main Event at Dublin and pocketed himself the best part of $200k. Thereby confirming his status as a top Tourney pro and proving that his result in the EPT in London last year was no fluke.

Of course I am being sarcastic.

FWIW, it was a thread about John, previously known as Grumpy John, that finally finished me off on The Hendon Mob forum. I ended up arguing with a poster who said that "his results spoke for themselves" and was insisting that he was a great player, even though he had never played with him and I had for the best part of the year. The penny finally dropped :)

My own view on John is fairly irrelevant and certainly out of date. He may have transformed himself as a player. Certainly when I knew him, no one would pack up their cases and leave Dodge when he sat down. He wasn't a complete fish either. The point is, and I've made it before, is that short term results on tournaments tell you almost nothing.

One of my favourite old time RGPers says it best. Sgt. Rock's seminal post can be found in full here: http://tinyurl.com/55k2n

My favourite excerpt is:

Russian Roulette (Just Shoot Me, Please)

Is there some guy in your game who seems to win over time, even though you think he plays like shit? Do you lie awake nights trying to figureout how God could let this happen? It does happen. You probably already thought of some of these possible explanations for the phenomenon:
1. You just THINK he plays bad, but he's actually using winning
strategies more advanced than you ever imagined.
2. He's really a loser, but sneaks chips onto his stacks to appear a
winner.
3. He's really a loser, but you only saw his good days, and missed all
the times he got his ass kicked.
4. He cheats.

Each of those things do happen sometimes. Some are common, and some are rare. Any one of them might explain an instance of the "bad player whowins" phenomenon, which also does happen sometimes.There is another possible explanation that you may not have considered.Maybe he really does play badly (i.e., to a negative expectation, trial after trial) but maybe he really has been winning for six months, or two years, or however long you've known him. Huh? How can that be?

Imagine this: At dawn tomorrow, everyone on Earth plays Russian Roulette. Six chambers, one bullet, spin, one pull. Next dawn, everyone left standing does it again, and so on, day after day. Before long, world population gets pretty sparse. No more traffic jams,Blockbuster always has the movie you want, and whenever you actually encounter another still-living person, you know that, hey, this guy is a SURVIVOR! So far. He's gone up against some tough odds, but he's still here. So far. Just like that jerk in the poker room who plays likeshit but has been running over everyone. So far.

Genuinely bad players in the poker scene are in more ways than one just like the "players" in the Global Russian Roulette analogy; all are destined to eventually bite the big one. Those who bust out early or on schedule fade from memory quickly, while the few survivors stand out,and appear to be phenomena. At least until dawn tomorrow.

By the way, the daily Russian Roulette scenario reduces the 6.2 billion world population to just one million in about 48 days; to one thousand in about 85 days; to one hundred in about 97 days, and makes our species extinct somewhere around day 120. Give or take, depending on who gets lucky and who doesn't. Bad players, on the other hand, well, no,they're not headed for extinction. Truly bad players will eventually lose, and unless they have other income, will go broke. But many do have other income, and these days, for every one who doesn't, and who goes broke and leaves poker, *1.414 new guys step in to take his place.That's not attrition, it's growth.

[ * 3.141 in Los Angeles only ]

You may wonder where I'm getting all these numbers. Don't worry,they're just statistics, and a recent study revealed that 88% of all statistics are completely made up.

Port Of Amsterdam

2005-03-26T17:40:00.000Z

YTD: +$33895.48

One of the things I have always been proud of in the production of this blog has been my titles. Over time we have had hip-hop to philosophy. I guess today's title shows quite a bit of how my mind works. I was going to do the classic clichéd Bowie "Ch-ch-changes" thang, then I realised quite how REALLY clichéd that actually is, so instead I chose a slightly less well known Bowie song. Not one that has worn the ravages of time well, but still better than that bizarre garden gnome effort. (BTW I'm not a Bowie fan; I was brain-washed by my brother as a child.)

So what are the ch-ch-new things then?

Well the good news is that I am back in the world of the gainfully employed, starting in early April. This means that my wife can finally stop holding her breath and I can surgically remove my laptop from my hands. I think this spells good news for the blog. I have been aware for a while that the volume of posts has dropped. This is a function of having played something like 1000 hands a day. At the end of that, poker is the very last thing on your mind.

So I think less will be more.

Ok, some poker now.

I have been giving the 1k game on Party a spin of late, with moderately good results so far. I guess the first interesting observation is that although the play is often too loose, there hasn't been many of the complete donkeys that you would expect, and often filled the Stars game in its heyday. There have been some strange short stack players, playing maybe 15% of their hands and raising with nearly all of them, which is a new style for those size of games. Also many people are playing almost exactly the same, playing something like 35% of their hands and raising between 10-15% of them. This is a classic winning style, but requires a lot of flop onwards skill, and its clear a lot of them just don't have it.

Anyway, just to show that I practice what I preach:

$1000 PL Omaha Hi
Seat 7 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 2: Hero ( $1788.75 )
Seat 3: AIG86 ( $2248.5 )
Seat 4: lidoooo ( $155 )
Seat 5: Alphabetx ( $175.75 )
Seat 6: crusader3 ( $1127 )
Seat 7: Foe ( $2450.75 )
Seat 8: dmc213 ( $2385.5 )
Seat 10: churchel ( $2890 )
Seat 1: onedayflyer ( $985 )
Seat 9: Jacob93 ( $935 )
dmc213 posts small blind [$5].
Jacob93 posts big blind [$10].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ As Ac Kc Ks ]
onedayflyer folds.
Hero calls [$10].
AIG86 folds.
lidoooo folds.
Alphabetx folds.
crusader3 folds.
Foe raises [$20].
dmc213 calls [$15].
Jacob93 folds.
Hero calls [$10].
** Dealing Flop ** [ 7d, 7c, 3h ]
dmc213 checks.
Hero checks.
Foe checks.
** Dealing Turn ** [ Th ]
dmc213 checks.
Hero checks.
Foe bets [$67].
dmc213 folds.
Hero calls [$67].
** Dealing River ** [ Qs ]
Hero checks.
Foe bets [$201].
Hero calls [$201].
Foe shows [ Ad, 3d, Js, 2h ] two pairs, sevens and threes.
Hero shows [ As, Ac, Kc, Ks ] two pairs, aces and sevens.
Hero wins $603 from the main pot with two pairs, aces and sevens.

The Dark Side of the Moon

2005-03-20T18:23:00.000Z

YTD: +$29750.86

Although it looks like a nice improvement in my YTD, actually its been a fairly painful swing...I actually shot up over 6.5k from the last figure, only to crash and burn 4.5k in a couple of hours yesterday, most of them thankfully bad beats.

One of the problems of playing between 500-1000 hands a day is that they start to wash over you, a blur of nuts, draws, suckouts and bad beats. Very rarely do I sit up and find myself in a uniquely challenging or surprising hand. The hand below is a rare exception:

$400 PL Omaha Hi - Thursday, March 17
Table Table 36545 (Real Money)
Seat 8 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 7: sieuwping ( $561 )
Seat 8: Hero ( $1621.9 )
Seat 6: pentium ( $400 )
Seat 4: kaffeuffe ( $219.8 )
Seat 2: ucrags ( $511.3 )
Seat 1: ofiss ( $261.4 )
Seat 10: spybar ( $400 )
Seat 9: zeeman72 ( $405.3 )
Seat 3: pannekoek111 ( $80 )
zeeman72 posts small blind [$2].
spybar posts big blind [$4].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ 7c Jh 8d 9s ]
ofiss calls [$4].
kaffeuffe folds.
pentium folds.
sieuwping could not respond in time.(disconnected)
sieuwping folds.
Hero raises [$12].

This is a loose but mostly ok raise. It will disguise my hand and maybe move out the blinds. Regardless, playing a bigger pot, in position, with this hand is not a bad thing.

zeeman72 calls [$10].
spybar calls [$8].
ofiss calls [$8].
** Dealing Flop ** [ 8s, Jd, 6h ]
zeeman72 checks.
spybar checks.
ofiss checks.
Hero bets [$40].

This is a great flop as my hand is completely disguised. I may get action from MUCH inferior hands, thinking I have AA.

zeeman72 raises [$165.6].
spybar calls [$165.6].
ofiss folds.

This was very bizarre. I must admit that at the time I was completely flummoxed. Make no mistake, if I was headsup against zeeman all the money would have gone in on the flop. But what kind of hands could spybar be calling with? Surely only a monster draw or perhaps bottom trips to basically put in nearly half his stack cold. What should my action be?

Like most players, I can tend to make decisions fairly quickly simply because I have played or analysed similar situations many times before. This was a genuine original and I had to use Party's miserly think time. And I did something strange...I called. Clearly I have a at least 6 nut outs, unless the very improbable worst case is out there. There is also a very real chance that they both have draws and in that case I am in good shape, especially considering the fact I am getting 3 to 1. Let's use position and see how things develop.

Hero calls [$125.6].

** Dealing Turn ** [ Qc ]
zeeman72 checks.
spybar checks.

This is a death card. This must have made someone a straight, but why do they then check? Any decent player would bet the pot with the straight to give the worse possible odds to drawing hands. But this is Party :-) And many, many times I have seen people trap check here even though it is insane. Also, and an important factor, I cannot make trips pass here as there is ample odds to call, unless the Foe makes a terrible mistake.

Hero checks.
** Dealing River ** [ 2c ]
zeeman72 checks.
spybar checks.

??? There is now a surprising case for a bet. Although again if you are called you are probably beat. I chicken out.

Hero checks.
zeeman72 shows [ Ac, 5s, Ad, 7h ] a pair of aces.
spybar doesn't show [ 9h, 7s, 3c, 8c ] a pair of eights.
Hero shows [ 7c, Jh, 8d, 9s ] two pairs, jacks and eights.
Hero wins $541.8 from the main pot with two pairs, jacks and eights.

Insane play by spybar and overplay by zeeman. The deceptive raise had its affect in confusing my opponents; unfortunately it also confused me :-(

Mandelbrot Set

2005-03-14T22:08:00.000Z

YTD: +27882.59

I remember a while back, Chaos coming up with his theory of strange attractors for tournaments. Without going into too much detail, he was coining a chaos theory term, a branch of physics/maths, to show how certain stack sizes evolve into larger or smaller sizes, somewhat regardless of how the person plays. It's an interesting and useful idea.

Another theory from the same set of disciplines, fractals, also has some interesting ramifications for poker thought. Basically, a fractal can be defined as a system having similar detail at all scales. Have you not noticed that a lot of poker games are like that? Take holdem for example. There are lots of differences between say the 5-10 limit game and the 100-200 game on Stars. But also a huge amount of similarities. Sure, the game plays differently because of a huge increase of aggression, but the fundamentals stay the same. A guy playing 40% of his hands would be just as much a fish in the big game as the little. And a lot of the technical plays, such as blind defense, are also basically the same.

Limit holdem is a fractal.

Looking through Pete B's excellent blog, I realised that PLO is very different. PB is currently exploring low limit PLO and he commented on some hands he played. Looking at them, I realised that I would play them very differently in the games I frequent. This corroborates my old thinking that if you want to learn PLO, don't expect what you learn in the micro-limits to have much value once you move up into meaningful money.

With Pete's permission, here are the hands, with my comments in italics:

Hand 1

PB calls a small raise with 5h 6s 7s 7h and 4 other players take a flop of 3s 4c 2s. UTG calls, as does someone else, the initial raiser folds, and Pete calls. The turn brings a blank, everyone takes off and goes allin, and PB scoops against the other top straights when he hits his small flush on the river.

This is a great example of a backgammon concept that crosses the divide really well - losing one's market. This is that you are NOT afraid that you will get outdrawn, rather that the next card will be so terrifying for your opponent that you won't be able to get any more money out of him. So if he is bluffing, he probably switches off once you flat call anyway; if he has a hand, you need to sweep him in now before he gets nervous about a deadly looking turn. A figure closely approximating zero of online players are capable of passing the "dry" nuts at this point.

Hand 2

PB dealt AAJ8 single-suited under the gun, raises and gets one caller - a conservative player. PB has about $124 against his $30. The flop came 833 rainbow. PB bet 2/3rds of the pot and gets raised the pot. PB puts the foe on a big pair and reraises, foe passes.

I don't like the UTG raise, but that is a stylistic point more than anything. I like the bet on the flop but the reraise is not a good play, at least in my games. First off, he could have a three. But that isn't the real point. The reraise is a variation of my famous "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" play. Ok it's only famous if you have been reading this blog :-( You're damned if he has the 3, cos you are putting in a big chunk of change for 2 outs. But critically, you're kinda damned if he doesn't have the 3 because you are making him pass when he has something like 2 outs. These aren't free cards...he is charging himself for them! If you go limp he may have a rush of blood to the head and bluff off his money. And if you are losing, the result is the same. More upside, same downside.

Clouds are not spheres, mountains are not cones, coastlines are not circles, and bark is not smooth, nor does lightning travel in a straight line

Pots You Could Jump a Dawg Over

2005-03-10T09:36:00.000Z

YTD: +$28301.74

Well before I could even bask in the glow of a good start to the month, I went on a rare but deadly tilt-fest. 6k in 6 hours. At least half of that just money set fire to. I got into one of those moods, impossibly dangerous online, where the money was meaningless. I might just have well been playing a video game. Anyway I put the brakes back on a won a little back yesterday. Whilst treading water again at Party I saw this massive 3.5k pot in the 400 buyin game. No that is not a typo:

***** Hand History for Game xxx *****
$400 PL Omaha Hi - Wednesday, March 09, x EDT 2005
Table Table 36798 (Real Money)
Seat 9 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 3: AwwwNutz ( $1605.85 )
Seat 8: MMMIII ( $409.8 )
Seat 9: chiseler ( $1526.4 )
Seat 2: Hero ( $573.6 )
Seat 5: BERDYFISH ( $473.7 )
Seat 10: PimpOwnage ( $417 )
Seat 6: Dr__Q__ ( $390 )
Seat 7: ALCHEMIST33 ( $200 )
Seat 1: pannekoek111 ( $76 )
Seat 4: greeengoat ( $192 )
PimpOwnage posts small blind [$2].
pannekoek111 posts big blind [$4].
ALCHEMIST33 posts big blind [$4].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ 5c 8h Kd Js ]
>You have options at Table 36695 Table!.
Hero folds.

I told you I was playing better!

AwwwNutz calls [$4].
greeengoat folds.
BERDYFISH folds.
Dr__Q__ calls [$4].
ALCHEMIST33 checks.
MMMIII folds.
chiseler raises [$26].

This guy had been like Chufty on speed. I had a vague suspicion that it was Darwinism from Stars, but I couldnt figure why he would be playing so small.

PimpOwnage calls [$24].
pannekoek111 folds.
AwwwNutz calls [$22].
Dr__Q__ calls [$22].
ALCHEMIST33 folds.
** Dealing Flop ** [ Ts, 4c, 2s ]
PimpOwnage checks.
AwwwNutz bets [$109].
Dr__Q__ calls [$109].
chiseler calls [$109].
PimpOwnage folds.
** Dealing Turn ** [ Jd ]
AwwwNutz bets [$436].

Unless Awww has at least top trips, this is a bet of death here. He will only be called by better hands. The J is a magic card because this is a raised pot and the TJ combination is likely to hit a lot of hands. But Aww is Scandinavian :)

Dr__Q__ is all-In. (roughly 255 ish)

Q is no idiot...this is a real death knell for Aww's hand if he is pushing two pair.

chiseler calls [$436].
** Dealing River ** [ Ac ]
AwwwNutz is all-In. (about 950ish)
chiseler is all-In. (called the bet)
AwwwNutz shows [ 4d, 8d, 7s, Tc ] two pairs, tens and fours.
Dr__Q__ shows [ 4h, Jh, 4s, Jc ] three of a kind, jacks.
chiseler shows [ Qd, Qs, Td, Ks ] a straight, ten to ace.
AwwwNutz wins $79.45 from side pot #2 with two pairs, tens and fours.
chiseler wins $2272.8 from side pot #1 with a straight, ten to ace.
chiseler wins $1201 from the main pot with a straight, ten to ace.

What a mess. Played like a holdem hand, this hand should have been given up on the turn. Its a hell of a parlay for Aww to be winning on the turn now and still survive a river. And the river bet is a foolish bluff. Chiseler has been very loose and may call with just aces up for value. And he may be betting into a dry pot anyway.

God bless Party. If only I could take advantage :)

The Case of Charles Dexter Ward

2005-03-04T23:27:00.000Z

YTD: +$32106.74

Well, the madness has descended. On the outside these guys look like PLO players, or at least they fill up the seats on the screen. Inside, however, they are demonic creatures beyond sane comprehension. They are Party Poker players.

Party has gone PLO mad, with the limit increase causing a frenzy. Last week, there was barely a game of 5-10 PLO on Stars a day. Now there are 4-6 around the clock. The lower limits are similarly pumping.

I wish I could report I am doing well, but I'm not. Variance is going to be huge. A pair with a bad flush draw is enough to call off your money through to the river, may all that see it bless it. Some are no doubt winning big. Some are doing their bollocks. One guy, probably the best PLO8b player on the net, lost the best part of 20k in 48 hours. These guys were not laying down hands :(

Personally I'm treading water, but I'm looking forward to much, much more.

YOG-SOTHOTH!

Youth is Wasted on the Young

2005-03-01T22:41:00.000Z

YTD: +$27289.09

One of the perennial posters on the UK scene is David Young. My views on him are fairly well-known, in fact I posted something to this effect on Andy Ward's blog the other day. In brief I like his integrity, but wonder what the poker point is. In general, poker does not seem to be DY's subject, but he did come up with something once that has lodged in my mind ever since.

The Cash Game Tournament.

The idea is simple. You sit in a cash game, ideally one a bit below money-wise than you are used to. The object of the tournament is to play up your money until you can buy into the next biggest game. And then the next. Ad infinitum. It can be quite fun, although it smells too much of gambling to be my taste. Anyway, the new 10-20 game on Stars was looming over me and I thought I would try and spin 200 in the 1-2 to get a buyin. Of course I lasted about half an hour :-(

The hand that basically finished me off really showed how badly newbies to the game can cause themselves mischief trying out PLO. Although he beat me in this particular instance :-( And remember this was a 1-2 blind game so it was supposed to be of a reasonable standard.

I raised quite loosely on the button with a suited ace - I had been showing some speed. The SB reraised me..quite likely aces, and I called. The flop came Q J T mixed suits. He checked and so did I. The turn came a 6, giving me a nut flush draw. He checked and I bet about 3/4 of the pot, roughly half his remaining stack. He called. The turn gave us an interesting K. He checked again, and not having even a pair to show I set him allin. He was maybe getting 3-4 to 1 on this call. He just had Aces! And no draw to even call the turn. He had decided that I was bluffing, without thinking through the fact that I could be bluffing with better than one pair. Also, I think he thought that the AA in his hand made it more likely that I was bluffing, when in actual fact it was the opposite. This isn't holdem. 99% of the time I must have some part of this board.

I guess the 10-20 game is a little way off still.

Viva Las Vegas!

2005-02-23T17:18:00.000Z

YTD: +$28368.85

Well finally one of those tournament things paid off. Last Saturday night, I played a Winner-Takes-All satellite to the $1500 PLO event at the WSOP and managed to stumble my way to victory :-) Hopefully I will be another fat bloke talking about how I turned one hundred bucks into hundreds of thousands on ESPN...hold it, maybe I need to lose weight!

I almost didn't play the event itself as I was feeling quite under the weather with a man-cold that I haven't been able to throw off. But because it had been organised by one of the immortals on the 2+2 plo forum, and occasionally here, Acesover8s, I gave it a spin.

To be honest, I didn't pay a whole heap of attention to the early stages as I was having some big swings on PLO8b on Stars. There was a lot of play though, and after taking an early lead I then bluffed off a few too many chips and had to get into waiting mode.

Even this didn't really pay off, and with 13-14 players left I had less than 2% of the chips in play. In these kind of stages the way to play is very simple - make sure you have enough to make a raise...and make sure you raise and don't call off your chips so at least you have two ways to win. I trawled through this mud for quite some time, building back up, but never enough where my stack had any real kind of play to it beside allin. Eventually this tight aggressive approach got me to the final table, but only with 7 big blinds. So again my approach was dictated for me...wait for hands, make cheap moves where possible and be aggressive if I played at all. The game was being played to a very very loose aggro style, and it simply didnt make sense trying to play flops with such a short stack. I ended up passing a lot of hands that I would play in a cash game and it seemed I was the only one really making that kind of adjustment. This doesn't mean I was adverse to making a steal or two with something like Kh,2d,Js,Qs for example...but these were position moves only.

My first big break was when I raised with Ad,Jd,Ac,4d and got a caller who also called for a reasonable allin bet on the flop of 10d,Qh,5d. The fact I was called by Ah,7c,5h,7h showed just how loose the table was playing. Kind of a hybrid PLO/NLHE combo :) This gave me room to breathe, but I was still playing a tight game, for example I passed a medium suited pair to a raise in my big blind. All the confrontations would be of my choosing, if I could help it.

I ticked along in this fashion for quite a while. One of the things I was lucky with was that when I did get my raises called, I tended to hit something on the flop, even if it was only a good draw. This meant it was much easier to follow through and bet the flop. Then I made my first real bad mistake. I called a very loose raiser from the big blind with Ah,8s,9d,4c and the flop only brought me Jc,7s,8c. Now I could actually be in front here, and I do have a half-assed draw, but I felt I needed more in this spot, especially and perhaps paradoxically BECAUSE he was a loose raiser. I hung tight for a while until I got a chance to make a nice move to make up for my previous poor one:

With only $3100 in my stack I called 1800 more from the small blind from the same loose raiser with 8d,7c,Jc,7d. Yes, CALLED. You guessed it, I was going to bet regardless of what came on the flop, which was an ok Kd,4d,2c...my foe passed.

Only a few hands later i found myself headsup facing over a 5 to 1 chip disadvantage. I would have to get lucky. What was in my favor was that my opponent was playing very, very fast. Now some people prefer trying to finish off a tourney in this way, a quick murder. But I don't like it. Especially when the antes are large enough and my stack still of a size that if I double up a few times, I'm the chip favourite. There was no point in limping as he would raise...so I was happy to let him limp and if I was in, I was firing. I lost some ground, then doubled up with kings. Immediately I bet out the very next hand with bottom two pair on the flop, and passed to a raise. Again, I wasn't going to try and get lucky on a call.

I was then lucky for 9c,As,Kd,2d to stand up against Jc,Kh,10d,Qh allin preflop. The power really shifted when I reraised with 10h,4s,10s,2c against 10c,3d,Ad,7d and won on the flop when nothing came. To be honest I don't like either of our plays in this hand...my tens action is too extreme and he should really pass to the reraise.

Now I was chip leader the difference in approaches was very apparent. I didn't give him much action at all, I was looking to grind him out, and when he raised I only called with Qh,Ad,3h,Ks. The flop came a very nice 10c,6s,Js and I check raised him allin with his 7s,4d,7c,Jc and I hit my str8 on the river! My opponent played a great game, considering his inexperience but I feel he tried to close me down too quickly instead of just anteing me out.

So, adorned in Absolutepoker.com livery, to Vegas I shall go!

Holdem Hating...Interlude

2005-02-18T18:08:00.000Z

YTD: +$22858.90

I did give another Holdem tourney a spin..the 10+1 rebuy on Stars. It was OK. I played more ABC poker and things worked out well-ish. 73rd out of 557. But again it was the same old same old. I got bored. These things just take too damn long. And then I start looking at the prize list and realise that unless I come at least 3rd or 4th it's barely worth winning. So then exasperation adds to the boredom.

However I do recognise that this is where a lot of the money is today online so I probably do have to persevere. Maybe I should play the Stars every week and look at the daily large comps on Party. Undecided.

Still prefer cash games tho :-)

Flushed with Success

2005-02-17T16:01:00.000Z

YTD: +$22281.80

One of the things that clearly differentiates No Limit Hold'em players coming to Pot Limit Omaha is how they play the nut flush draw, especially if they are coming from No Limit Hold'em tournament-style.

Basically, if you find yourself all-in playing the nut flush draw in No Limit, you are never in much jeopardy. In fact many players will move all-in themselves, trying to win the pot then and there. The reason that you are nearly always in reasonably fine shape playing this way is that in Hold'em it is comparatively rare for your opponent to have the nuts, such as a hidden set. More than likely you are facing just one pair, and you are near enough to even money not to care, and maybe a small favourite if you have two overcards to the flop. So in the majority of situations, it's hard to make a sizeable error in playing the nut flush draw in big bet Hold'em In many cases the cards are playing you, not you playing the cards, and you are not having to make any brain-aching decisions.

The situation is very different in Pot Limit Omaha.

Because the average hand in Omaha is much stronger, if you over commit to the nut flush draw you are very likely to find yourself against a made hand. This is especially a problem heads up, as you may find yourself getting basically even money on a hand which may be as bad as a 2 to 1 dog, in the case of a hidden set. Time and time again, especially on the Net where NL players are having "a shot" at a PLO game, I see them heave in 100 or so blinds heads up in an un raised pot. Basically they are turning a marginal situation into one that has a very poor long term expected value.

As an example, in a PLO game online a tight player bet into a field of 3-4 players with two of a suit, but no other draw available on the flop. We both have comparatively monster stacks. I passed the nut flush draw! The reasoning was that if I raised, he would either pass, and I would have won a small pot, or he would have re raised, in which case I would be finding myself committed to a bigger pot in which I was a reasonable underdog. If I just called and hit I would not get paid anyway. This is a rare situation but perfectly sensible if you know your foe.

Conversely, in a multi-way pot, if my raise will set me all-in on the flop I am often happy to play the aggressor even though I may expect to get called and I would also expect to have some of my outs in other people's hands. This is because I am still drawing to the nuts, but I will be getting much better money odds and this may actually turn it into a long term positive expectation situation, especially if I have even as little as a back door out extra.

Next time you find yourself with the nut flush draw and little else, think about factors such as position, how big the pot is, whether your raise can actually makes someone pass, how deep your and your opponents stacks are, and how you will play the turn. You can actually decide how to play the cards; they don't have to play you!

Holdem Hater

2005-02-14T16:03:00.000Z

YTD: +$23750.50

I hate Texas Holdem.

I must admit to a slight fondness for the limit version of the game, but the mindsets between it and PLO are so vast and varied that I find it hard to switch from one to the other, as a disappointing Party session taught me last month. I passed to a classic underpair value bet/bluff just because there was 4 to a straight and a caller - even though I had drove all the action with my top pair, good kicker - even though I was getting laid more than 10 to 1!

But back to the subject at hand, hating holdem, of the NL and tourney variety.

Of course it hasn't always been this way. Like most Brits, I grew up playing tournament holdem, small buyins and pot limit. And I was good at it. However now the world has tilted on its axis and the world of NL tourney play is vastly different from the one I cut my teeth on. Back in the day, and it seems now so very long ago, to be a winning player you simply had to be intelligently aggressive. Most dead money, as it is labelled, was tight passive and could only really cause you harm if it got hit by the deck. Of course now the so-called dead money is ticking away like a time bomb. Sure they don't play "properly"; they grotesquely overplay all their hands on almost every street; having to call or bet on the river is unknown to them - they are already allin. Maybe playing this way is deadly for their bankrolls, but they don't care, they're just having fun doing what their "heroes" do on ESPN. But you can be sure that it can be deadly to you, if you don't make the right adjustments to your game or you are just plain unlucky.

It probably doesn't help my mood that my timing and luck is way out of kilter. I make a move in an unraised pot with 22 and then suddenly, bink, bink, bink, out pops a whole raft of slowplayed pocket pairs. I've got someone drawing to 4 outs for a big pot, and not only does he hit it, another runner comes to ensure someone else beats me too. Depressing.

Some examples of mild madness that you could see every day now on the web. We are playing the 215 tourney on Stars. There are three limpers to the button, with the blinds at 50, so 225 in the pot. The button goes allin for over 2000. Yum. Playing a winner-take-all 1-tale satellite, a guy limps for 50 UTG and I raise with 99 in the CO to 150. Everyone folds to him and he goes allin for 900+ more. With KJo.

These and many, many more are just standard moves in the NL world now. The game I used to enjoy, where you could outwit each other through the streets has fairly much gone, at least online. I'm sure there are sensible and strategic adjustments you can make. Dan N seems to have made them, along with some others. But I don't seem to have the heart or the will to make them, which is foolish considering how much money is flying around in these things.

Rushin' Roulette

2005-02-10T01:11:00.000Z

YTD: +$25965.30

There was some interest in my posting hands from my rush, which I'm *almost* going to resist. The problem is that when you are hitting this well, most of the hands are fairly uninteresting. It’s mostly a question of having hold of someone by the bollocks and gently squeezing. Or maybe roughly. This does not make great reading. So instead, I'm gonna post those hands that I won, but played really, really bad :-) But from now on, interesting hands only, whichever way the rush is going!

The first hand is so bad I can’t even comment on it – it speaks for itself:

PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha High, $4 BB (9 handed)
saw flop|saw showdown
CO ($432.50)
Button ($266.90)
SB ($456.40)
BB ($109)
UTG ($837.75)
UTG+1 ($728.20)
MP1 ($684.95)
MP2 ($285)
Hero ($743.20)

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with Js, 7h, Qs, Td.
UTG calls $4, UTG+1 raises to $8, 2 folds, Hero calls $8, 1 fold, Button calls $8, SB calls $6, BB raises to $52, UTG folds, UTG+1 calls $44, Hero calls $44, Button folds, SB calls $44.

Flop: ($220) 3s, Jd, Kc (4 players)
SB checks, BB bets $57 (All-In), UTG+1 raises to $388, Hero calls $388, SB folds.

Turn: ($1053) 8s (3 players, 1 all-in)
UTG+1 bets $288.2 (All-In), Hero calls $288.20.

River: ($1629.40) 9d (3 players, 2 all-in)

Final Pot: $1629.40
Main Pot: $391, between BB, UTG+1 and Hero. > Pot won by Hero ($391).
Pot 2: $1238.40, between UTG+1 and Hero. > Pot won by Hero ($1238.40).

BB has Ad 5d Kh Ah (one pair, aces).
UTG+1 has 7s Kd Ks 7c (three of a kind, kings).
Hero has Js 7h Qs Td (straight, king high).
Outcome: Hero wins $1629.40.

I have no excuses for this hand. I played every street badly. I deserved to lose. I must have been a touch on tilt. What is interesting is that the turn call looked good, but in actual fact made me even deader. NH. Not.

This one is bad, but there is some thought at least:

PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha High, $4 BB (8 handed)
saw flop|saw showdown

MP1 ($353.90)
MP2 ($1851.45)
CO ($390)
Hero ($1299.65)
SB ($308.40)
BB ($524.40)
UTG ($233.60)
UTG+1 ($187)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 9s, 5c, 8s, 6h.
2 folds, MP1 calls $4, 2 folds, Hero raises to $12, 1 fold, BB raises to $42, MP1 raises to $140, Hero calls $128, BB calls $98.

OK, I’m loose as a goose here, but it now looks like they both have high pairs, maybe both even with AA. In that scenario my hand is quite good.

Flop: ($422) Th, 2d, 6d (3 players)
BB bets $384.4 (All-In), MP1 calls $213.90 (All-In), Hero calls $384.40.

This is far from a dream flop. But if my read is right, then even if one has the nut flush draw, this is an ok call. Unbelievable but true.

Turn: ($1404.70) Jc (3 players, 2 all-in)

River: ($1404.70) 6c (3 players, 2 all-in)

Final Pot: $1404.70
Main Pot: $1063.70, between MP1, Hero and BB. > Pot won by Hero ($1063.70).
Pot 2: $341, between Hero and BB. > Pot won by Hero ($341).

MP1 has 5h As Ad 8d (two pair, aces and sixes)
BB has Td 9d 8h 7s (two pair, tens and sixes).
Hero has 9s 5c 8s 6h (trips, sixes)

Outcome: Hero wins $1404.70.

Arrrrrggggghhhh. My read was very, very bad. In fact I was almost drawing dead. However, compared to the first hand this was World Class Play :-)

So. An amusing slant on a rush? Not to worry, I have played *some* hands well too.

Not so Super System

2005-02-06T00:30:00.000Z

YTD: +$19781.95

A little while back a poster asked me for my views on Super System 2 (SS2). Finally, the slow boat from China delivered this long-awaited tome from the Doylesroom.com site after only a wait of 1 1/2 months from shipping. What's my initial view?

Crap.

I haven't read it all yet, and I sincerely doubt I will do. Even for a poker book the writing is mostly poor. I guess the problem for me is that I expected it to be of a similar quality to SS1, which although was often about antiquated games, was always full of top-notch advice. In SS2 you get a lot of filler...a LOT OF FILLER. Do you want to know the history of NLHE? Or the WPT? Or a synopsis of Mike Caro's n books? Well here it is. But wait, isn't this supposed to be a book for *experts*?

I've only read one full section, the PLO. I can't imagine that anything in it you wouldn't have already figured out for yourself if you had played a bit. Certainly nothing as useful as the Ciaffone and Ruben books. Not one thing that was an eye opener. I guess there was the prohibition on early raising that I liked, but I understand that I may be in the minority there and for me its more a style thing - lots of players seem to raise early and do okay. There was also some bad advice and IMHO at least one piece of fatal advice, so bad I can't mention it just in case it is widely taken up and it is directly responsible for my becoming a millionaire :-)

But it does make a very effective doorstop.

The Mouth of Madness

2005-02-02T10:35:00.000Z

YTD: +$11083.55

Apologies to my Constant Readers for the long hiatus...too much play and too much other stuff going on. I thought this hand was a very interesting one as I am either a complete fish or I played it very well. Needless to say my Foe went beserk after this and went into a long diatribe about how useless I am. Not a good tactic with me as (a) I have the money (b) I am funnier at the needle stuff than most (c) I have the money.

Omaha Pot Limit ($2/$4) - 2005/01/24 -
19:09:00 (ET)
Table 'Abnoba' Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: haloofflies ($55.15 in chips)
Seat 3: fixer410 ($494.45 in chips)
Seat 4: TheDummy ($461 in chips)
Seat 7: Foe ($513.15 in chips)
Seat 8: Hero ($362 in chips)
Seat 9: proffen ($1793.95 in chips)
fixer410: posts small blind $2
TheDummy: posts big blind $4
Svenning: sits out
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [5s 7c 4d 8d]
Foe: calls $4
Hero: raises $8 to $12

I certainly don't always raise with this kind of stuff in early position. However I felt my foe was fairly exploitable and I would rather have him "to myself" if that was the case

mamakitty has returned
proffen: folds
haloofflies: folds
fixer410: folds
TheDummy: folds
Foe: calls $8
*** FLOP *** [2d Ad 9s]
Foe: checks
Hero: bets $24

A standard "Yes I really do have them bet"

Foe: raises $76.50 to $100.50

This was a strange one. Why check raise supposed trips with a flush draw? He didn't seem that kind of player at all. And of course my own flush draw makes it less likely he has one. The clearest explanation is that he has trips or two pair himself and that he doesn't believe me. My outs, plus the surprise factor of the middle pin just about make this a call for the turn.

Hero: calls $76.50

*** TURN *** [2d Ad 9s] [Th]
Foe: bets $228

Assuming I'm right on his hand, this card has just shot my outs through the roof. I would have passed a blank on the turn, but if all my outs are good, this is actually a trivial call.

Hero: calls $228
*** RIVER *** [2d Ad 9s Th] [5d]
Foe: bets $25
Hero: calls $21.50 and is all-in
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Foe: shows [9c 9h Ah 5c] (three of a kind, Nines)
Hero: shows [5s 7c 4d 8d] (a flush, Ace high)
Hero collected $727 from pot

Insanity or good play?

I Pity the Fool

2005-01-27T21:36:00.000Z

YTD: +$6684.38

Andy Ward, in his usual perceptive style, is having a dig at people who are sponsored in his recent blog entry, although his allusion might be a bit obscure for non-Brits. I agree with his sentiments but very much disagree with his outcomes - if you can get a sponsorship deal then as the curious gambling phrase goes, "fill your boots!" Because these times cannot last.

To explain my thinking, you will have to traverse back with me to the times of the Great Dot-com Explosion. These too were times of great wealth and little sense. I was fortunate, or maybe not, to be involved in a Dot-Bomb at the time. Many times I would meet with very intelligent people with great ideas, wonderful original ideas, but when asked "How do you make money?" they would come over all queasy and blank-eyed (incidentally my favorite answer was "monetize eyeballs"...that brings back the memories.) Internet poker and the sponsorship it brings is very reminiscent of this situation, well without the very intelligent people and ideas bit.

What in very simple terms do the sponsors get from their players? What has The Hendon Mob brought Prima that has justified its tremendous outlay? I don't know what their deal is, who pays RFB and other exes; nor do I know THM except by reputation and rumour. But its fairly clear that if THM were to have even a reasonably bad year, it would be very hard to justify that cost in terms of promotion and gained revenue from new players. In fact I think of myself as being very internet savvy, and to be frank I don't see what they are doing to bring revenue to Prima at all. Their site is mostly abandoned by them; they don't seem to be doing much promotion in terms of playing online; their results in events have mostly been in ones where there has been no logos anyway. The truth is that they are being sponsored because that is what Internet Poker Sites Do, not because of any real, tangible marketing $ to revenue benefit. And if the value of THM is questionable, what about Jac Arama?

What do you think would have happened to Ram and Barney in the recent Atlantic City events, as depicted in their diary, if poker sites were run by professional business people? Or Roy the Boy after admitting he avoided the people he was supposed to be promoting? They would be sacked of course. I am not guessing that these sites are run by the clueless. I know. By a chain of circumstance I happened to know the casino/poker room manager of a very substantial Poker site. He had no experience whatsoever in poker or casinos or gambling or leisure or even entertainment marketing. In fact he had been a junior marketing guy for a consumer goods firm. Excellent

Fill your boots whilst you can.

Shit into Caviar

2005-01-21T23:09:00.000Z

YTD: +$3290.00

Ok, I'm officially giving up the 5-10 on Stars. Sure I have been unlucky, but I have also played pretty damn poorly in it too. In fact if I had sacked the 5-10 games at the start of the month, instead of now, I would be nearly $5k better off. So for now, multitabling it is instead.

Another quick comment before we get into the hand thing. I picked up Phil H's Play like the Pro's whatever book for a quick browse in Borders today. What a laugh. I'm sure the assistants were wondering what the tall fat guy in the Games section was chuckling at. The PLO section was a joy and pure Phil. If you feel like you want to buy it, send me the money instead - I have a roaring fire burning in my hearth that will save you the trouble.

Here's a very strange hand of PLO8b:

Game - (blinds $2/$4) Pot Limit Omaha Hi/Lo 8 -

Table "Fort-de-France" (real money) -- Seat 9 is the button
Seat 1: Hero ($390.75 in chips)
Seat 2: OregonG ($205.75 in chips)
Seat 3: jackthepump ($426.50 in chips)
Seat 4: Villan ($789.50 in chips)
Seat 5: hunidoo ($432.50 in chips)
Seat 6: SmartyGL4110 ($118.75 in chips)
Seat 7: dauni ($1,120.50 in chips)
Seat 8: jbrave ($131.00 in chips)
Seat 9: sparky5 ($338.00 in chips)
Seat 10: PBAKID ($209.75 in chips)
PBAKID : Post Small Blind ($2)
Hero: Post Big Blind ($4)
jbrave : Post ($4)
Dealing...
Dealt to Hero [ 6h Qh 9d Jd ]
OregonG : Fold
jackthepump: Call ($4)
Villan: Call ($4)
hunidoo : Call ($4)
SmartyGL4110: Fold
dauni : Fold
jbrave : Check
sparky5 : Call ($4)
PBAKID : Call ($2)
Hero: Check

Free Garbage!

*** FLOP *** : [ 8h Ah Td ]

I've hit a really interesting flop. Of course there are lots of ways, against the field, that I could be in trouble, but the best way to find out is to bet.

PBAKID : Check
Hero: Bet ($20)
jackthepump: Fold
Villan: Raise ($88)
hunidoo : Fold
jbrave : Fold
sparky5 : Call ($88)
PBAKID : Call ($88)

This guy can be erratic, and the value is there for the str8 draws alone.

Hero: Call ($68)
*** TURN *** : [ 8h Ah Td ] [ Qs ]

PBAKID : Check

This is quite a good turn. I have the second nuts. However this is hilo and the pure nuts is much less likely to be here, especially as I have one blocker. If I check, it may get checked around, which would be ugly; if someone else bets I may call anyway. I need to make the low draws pay now.

Hero: Bet ($298.75)
Villan: Call ($298.75)
sparky5 : Call All-in ($246)
PBAKID : Call All-in ($117.75)
*** RIVER *** : [ 8h Ah Td Qs ] [ Qc ]

Bad river :-(

*** SUMMARY ***
Pot: $848 | Side pot 1: $384.75 | Side pot 2: $105.50 | Rake: $3
Board: [ 8h Ah Td Qs Qc ]
Hero bet $390.75, collected $1,338.25, net +$947.50 (showed hand) [
6h Qh 9d Jd ]
HI: a straight, eight to queen
Villan lost $390.75 [ 4h 8s 2s 3h ]
HI: two pair, queens and eights
sparky5 lost $338 (showed hand) [ 4c 3s 2h Jh ]
HI: a pair of queens
PBAKID lost $209.75 (showed hand) [ Kh 8d 7h 9c ]
HI: two pair, queens and eights

Huzzah!

An interesting thing about the hand is that if you run some twodimes sims, my equity on the turn is massive, even though a lot of cards were bad for me. It wasn't even that bad on the flop either. This is the way in which 8b is very different than hi only. It is very common, even starting with garbage, to have a hand that is absolutely crushing the opposition, especially if they are drawing for lows. This hand is a freak in that basically all the flush draws were dead, but it still shows that the game is one of playing big edges, not small ones. If only I could remember that in the 5-10 game :-)

Call of calls

2005-01-15T16:17:00.000Z

YTD: +$1311.25

Here is a very interesting, very marginal hand I played on Paradise. It shows the importance of notes, but also of taking a bit of time to think through the options, something I am very guilty of not doing in many spots, but especially on the river.

(Blinds $2/$4) Pot Limit Omaha Hi -

Seat 1: quads ($393.25 in chips)
Seat 2: shoryuken ($400.00 in chips)
Seat 3: BigRichard ($220.00 in chips)
Seat 4: Hero ($396.75 in chips)
Seat 5: PhilBrodie ($289.25 in chips)
Seat 6: oldman ($1,511.25 in chips)
Seat 7: dauni ($450.00 in chips)
Seat 8: Kwtwa Kwtr ($947.50 in chips)
Seat 9: another ($835.50 in chips)
Seat 10: Foe ($368.00 in chips)
another : Post Small Blind ($2)
Foe : Post Big Blind ($4)
shoryuken: Sit out
Dealing...
Dealt to Hero [ 7s 4c 5c 6c ]
quads : Fold
BigRichard: Raise ($14)
Hero: Call ($14)
PhilBrodie: Fold
oldman : Fold
dauni : Fold
Kwtwa Kwtr: Fold
another : Call ($12)
Foe : Call ($10)

Standard call here.

*** FLOP *** : [ Kd 5h 8c ]
another : Check
Foe : Check
BigRichard: Check
Hero: Bet ($50)
another : Fold
Foe : Call ($50)
BigRichard: Fold

Again fairly standard, with a nice draw, the preflop raiser checking and a chance to win the button.

*** TURN *** : [ Kd 5h 8c ] [ Tc ]
Foe : Check
Hero: Bet ($120)
Foe : Call ($120)

More problematic. I’m both betting the flush draw for value, also setting up the river for a bluff if everything misses. Note that I’m thinking ahead here so I don’t bet the pot and leave him with an autocall on the river. Once he calls, I’m not sure I want to hit the flush :(

*** RIVER *** : [ Kd 5h 8c Tc ] [ Td ]

Not great.

Foe : Bet ($184)
This looks like a simple pass.

Or is it?

Sometimes you get a desperation bet here with something like an overpair by completely clueless types. But although the foe is not a great player, he isn’t quite that bad. He could also have hit trips and decided that as he will call, he may as well bet. But I have played this hand like I have a set, not a draw, and you would expect him to check this. Could my baby pair be winning? Could he have had a draw too and now having missed, sees a bluff as his only out? I looked up his notes. “Checks the nuts on the river”, it says. Hmmm. I am either going to look a genius or a loon.

Hero: Call ($184)

*** SUMMARY ***
Pot: $761 | Rake: $3
Board: [ Kd 5h 8c Tc Td ]

Hero bet $368, collected $761, net +$393 (showed hand) [ 7s 4c 5c
6c ] (two pair, tens and fives)

Foe lost $368 (showed hand) [4s 7c 6h Qc]

Genius is it then!

Of course this is a very marginal hand. He could have very easily had trips, or an overpair. But the play of the hand, thinking through the options, coupled with the extremely valuable note, just about pushed it into being a call.

If only my play had been as thoughtful all month!

Radar Down

2005-01-09T11:16:00.000Z

YTD: -$1194.25

One of the many blessings, and perhaps curses, of playing online is that you can review key hands. As I have often stressed in this blog, the critical factor is not whether you win or lose, but the quality of the decisions you are making. And boy, am I making some shit decisions. About $2500 of stinkers so far this month. I really find it much more dispiriting and demoralizing to lose a little but play really badly, like I am now, than to lose a lot and know it was just the vagaries of fortune.

Here are some prime examples of poker “skill” in my best game of plo8b:

- I raise UTG with AKK2 and get reraised by a mostly unknown player. So he probably has AA or AA baby. I call and the flop comes T99 two spades. I have the bare A of spades. He bets and I check-raise him allin I nice chunky amount. He improves on his AA to make a small flush. There are so many mistakes in this hand that Sklansky style, I will leave it to others to elaborate.

- I raise in the CO with AJT4 ds and pick up a really bad player caller in the big blind. The flop comes AT9 offsuit and he bets the pot into me. Clearly he either has trips, two pair or a str8 draw, maybe even a wrap. Although the draw is the most likely of these, it also puts me in some considerable harm as it probably gives him a backdoor low too, meaning I have very very few cards to scoop on the turn and river. With this “in mind” I set myself allin to the tune of $1k. His monstrous but not entirely unexpected QJ87 scoops.

- Last, and certainly least in the brains stakes. I call UTG with A247 ds and call a late raise from the most aggressive player in plo8b history. The flop comes 38K mixed suits. I check call. The turn comes a Q giving me a baby flush draw too. I check raise a huge amount allin. Of course there two problems with this play, very different than the allin on the turn coups I have described before. This is that I have no showdown value. I could literally end up with A8 high, which even with this very aggressive opponent will not be winning. Secondly, if he does have a hand, I am likely to get paid off if I hit the perfecta of a low heart. Another meta-game issue is that this particular player has almost never passed to one of my check raises historically, and I knew that as I was doing it. My foe had an easy call with KKQ9 and a nice blank on the river flushed away my $1200.

If I keep on playing so well in my best game, it may turn out to be a long, long year.

Fierce Creatures

2005-01-04T18:16:00.000Z

YTD: +$665.90

I thought I would start off the year with an old favourite, PLO8b. One of the things I like about the game is that it enables you to mix both passivity and select aggression, perhaps more so than PLO where pure aggression itself is better rewarded. There is probably only one PLO8b player who plays like it is PLO in the 5-10 game on Stars, and he isn't that effective in ring games.

Hopefully this hand will help illustrate this approach.

PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha/8, $10 BB (9 handed) converter

CO ($829.30)

Button ($607.60)

SB ($939.50)

BB ($1000)

UTG ($728.25)

UTG+1 ($3271.85)

Hero ($1173.50)

MP2 ($1147)

MP3 ($280)

Preflop: Hero is MP1 with 2c, 9c, As, Td.

UTG calls $10, UTG+1 calls $10, Hero calls $10, 2 folds, CO calls $10, 1 fold, SB completes, BB checks.

This is standard call with a weakish A2 in early position. You want more callers in this spot.

Flop: ($60) 3h, 5c, Th (6 players)

SB checks, BB checks, UTG bets $57, UTG+1 folds, Hero calls $57, CO folds, SB folds, BB folds.

Again I don't mind picking up more callers behind me here. The interesting thing is that this player is a momentum type...he is almost certain to bet again on the turn. Also note my pair of tens alone may be in front.

Turn: ($174) Qs (2 players)

UTG bets $171,

This is a classic PL problem. I may be in front; I certainly have a good draw. Even if I am behind I have some outs to get out of trouble. It is very hard for him to be completely crushing me. Also, I cannot just call here as I know he will bet the river if a blank comes and I will have a tough call with just one pair. I must either fold or raise.

Hero raises to $684, UTG folds.

Final Pot: $1029

Main Pot: $516, won by Hero.

Pot 2: $513, returned to Hero.

When you believe you are either in front, or having a good draw on the turn, but you don't know which way you need to go and will struggle to make a decision on the river, then seriously consider raising if it will put you allin or thereabouts. This is a fairly common situation in all PLO-type games, although this is a "thin" example of it, driven by the fact I knew what kind of player it was.

Faithful readers may notice that this is a flip-side of the "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" play I talked about in a previous post. Whereas in that example, you were often -EV against nearly all the possible range of hands of your foe, here you are either nicely +EV, or a small dog, coupled with the power of folding equity. A powerful combination.

This is the End, my only Friend

2004-12-31T18:15:00.000Z

YTD: +$44955.06

Well no major surprises or upsets going into the last day. A nice little recovery to get me back in the black for December, which would have been even nicer but for some bad beats today :(

Some great hands to look forward to for next year, including my best ever call (?); shit to caviar in PLO8b; making a big move in PLO8b. Be there or be square!

Good luck and thanks for staying with me.

Have a great New Year.

State of the Nation

2004-12-23T21:20:00.000Z

YTD: +$ 44161.01

So a year in Poker is finally over. Or as near as we can get to it with Christmas and the New Year just over the horizon. As promised, I am going to share all my detailed stats on how I did over the year. All the win rates are taken in $ ph and are only used when they are a reasonable number of hours played. Yes, some of these results were the result of extensive multitabling; because the program I use for tracking Omaha results is less reliable than PTracker, all these figures are based off my spreadsheets instead of the more usual $/100 hands commonly used for the Net.

PLO + $27938.78

Although it certainly didn’t start off that way, this soon became my bread-and-butter game, contributing the vast bulk of my profits.

Best result: 5-10 at $159.40 ph; hours played 154 hours

PLO8b +$12,652.03

I didn’t play enough plo8b, which is strange considering I always considered it my best game. I guess I just lost sight of it and got caught up in other games. My 2-4 result was the best ph I had proportionally speaking. I was also disappointed with my result in the 5-10 game on Stars, where I basically broke even, although in my defence I only played very few hours.

Best result: 2-4 at $ 118.40 ph; hours played 93 hours

Limit Holdem +$5446.67

Holdem was the fallback position for when my play went awry during the year. It’s nice to know that I have a B game plan that I can turn to for a break. The main problem with it is that I basically find it too boring and routine, especially when I have to multitable to generate a healthy win rate. Also I found that my concentration tended to wane after a while and it was hard to put together long sessions.

Best result: 15-30 at $106.25 ph; hours played 112 hours

Limit Hilo -$2526.63

Despite pretension to the contrary I have to finally accept that I suck at this game. Last year was a mediocre set of results. This year was a slight negative. The game brings out the worse in me, putting me on tilt. And when the game gets short handed I’m mostly clueless and even more tiltful.

No real meaningful hours except 10-20, where I was a 21 bucks ph loser

Tourney -$234.04

Once again my tourney results have been nothing to shout home about, although I have played very few MTT at all. My worse game by far was NLHE, with 9 comps, $2736 outlay, no return! However this result was very skewed by the fact of a tilt/unlucky go at a $100 rebuy comp.

I have a 13% ROI on turbo 1 tables, which shows how little effort or focus I put into them. Most were $105 although some were $55. In general I returned a paltry 10% on NLHE across all types. I was a bit disappointed to see that I was -1% on MTT satellites for the big Sunday comps on Stars, especially as I had extolled their money-making virtues. But also I did play them kinda wild and often used them as a means to “let off steam” from the 5-10 PLO. I still think they are good value tho’. Surprisingly, I had a –VE PLO year, although again I only played a handful. PLO8b was a more impressive 52.5% although this isn’t as good as my 80% ROI across all kinds of Omaha comp over the last two years.

In general though, these figures highlight the main problem I have with MTTs. Even with a very good ROI, my hourly rate for them still ends up less than a good cash game. So why bother?

Best site

Stars of course with +$27k, followed by Party and its Skins with +$12k. Better still - no negative sites!

For Chaos – Rake was $10.5k as far as I could track it in cash games.

Goals for Next Year

Focus on PLO and PLO8b almost exclusively
Play even less tourneys but take shots at the big ones.
Don’t spend the bankroll :(
Win $60k (I think this is very achievable and I hope to be nearer 80 than 60)

Good luck and best wishes to you all!

Two Questions

2004-12-20T23:25:00.000Z

YTD: +$40541.11

As I am on an extended break over the Christmas period, my "State of the Nation" post will probably be my last major post of the year. So I thought I would give you, Constant Reader, the chance to have a say as to what is in it. Tell me what stats and figures you are interested in and I will include them, no-holds-barred.

The second question is for the maths boffins out there? How do we calculate implied odds, but more importantly, how do we see if we have met them? This could be especially important in PLO where you not only need to hit your hand but have it stand up.

Let me give an example. I make a loose call in PLO and call a $24 bet getting 3 to 1 odds. But I really needed 6 to 1 odds. I now have a short fall of $74 I need to make up on the turn to break even on the call. Say I hit my hand on the turn, but it will only stand up to the river 60% of the time. Does this mean that I actually need to make $123.33 on the turn to justify the call on the flop? Any help appreciated.

Omaha Instructional

2004-12-20T09:56:00.000Z

YTD: +$40199.56

One of the significant weaknesses I see in many player's games is the overplaying of draws against a made hand, especially when a pot is small. This is a flaw which I see in the very best of the 5-10 game to the ok players in the 2-4. Because they "know" that they are probably no worse than 6:4 dogs, and they are getting 2:1 on the action, they then proceed to lump in their stack against what surely must be a made hand. But these can be very -EV plays. Perhaps an example will make it clear. In a 2-4 game, unraised pot, I flop top trips on a 2TJ rainbow flop. My opponent bets the flop, I raise, he reraises, repeat till his $317 stack has gone :-)

So what has happened here, EV-wise? He has put in $317 to win $341 strange. This is 1.08 to 1 money odds. His "wrap" was just the top cards AKQ and I had a blocker in the 9. So his chance of winning was 1.67 to 1. The whole play has a -EV of about 20% and continually playing like this will soon send him to the poker hospital.

So how do you play it then?

Just call. You will have the right odds, or near enough in most cases, to call a blank turn. And if it pairs up you can pass. Also if you do hit the turn with your draw, you can bet and make him potentially make a very bad call to fill up.

Aggression is good, but not when it drives you to bankroll extinction.

Odds and Sods

2004-12-14T20:39:00.000Z

YTD: +$41033.96

Well I thought I would kick off with one of the amusing PLO hands I have had of late. No not the one where I won a showdown pot for $800 with a pair of twos (?) but the following:

I check raise from UTG with AA double suited and get one caller, the original mini-raiser. The flop comes Kh 4h 8h - which is my suit - so I bet about 3/4 of the pot. The turn pairs the four and I bet the pot, which he calls and he calls the river with his remaining small change when a rag 9 comes. And what does he have? 4c 6s 7d 7h . That's right he called on the flop to hit a middle pin against a potential already made flush and then proceeded to flush his whole stack down with it. Sometimes I do wonder how much longer this kind of madness can continue.

On some miscellaneous topics:

Doyle's Poker Room and the VC skins

Ok...I wanted the book :-) At the table the VC software is ok, but it is too buggy and you can only play two games at once. The games are fantastic however. Several times, playing 10-20 holdem, I had to double check I wasn't playing some kind of free money game. The action made Party look like Stars, mostly fuelled by clueless Brits. The PLO and PLO8b, whilst a bit small, were similar mindless. Never has so much been given by so many with so little.

The Hendon Mob Forum

I've sacked it now. I may post when I want something, like today, but no more for anymore. The incident with Mad Marty in the UK Championship and the responses it drew were just mind boggling. After all the tourney drones wittering on about the importance of the integrity of the game for it to become a sport they then, by and large, just shrug their shoulders when *one of the fundamental rules of poker is broken on TV* It was a bit like a forward scoring a goal and the referee awarding it to the opposition.

On a more amusing note, has been the comments about Grumpy, sorry "Burnley", John. Fair play to the guy winning a big chunk of life changing change. But all the nonsense about what a great player he is and what a breakthrough year he's having, by people who have never played with him, is taking Doyle Disease to dizzy new heights. I have played with John for a reasonable period of time. It wouldn't be rude to say that prior to his win, he was one of many subsistence players that you see on the circuit. And unless he has suddenly metamorphosed his play, I can't imagine he gets people's knees quaking when he sits at the table either.

Card Player

The battle of the giants continues; who can produce the worse poker "journalism" in a month - Rob V or Allyn J? Its tough this month, I just can't separate them.

The Poker Bastard

After a promising start he seems to be flagging. Telling us that poker players are cunts is not breaking news. Saying that THM is the best poker site on the web shows a fierce lack of judgment. Where was the expose, long overdue, of chronic Bolivian Marching Powder use amongst the tourney "faces" that he alluded to? He seems to have gone all toothless.

Coming soon this month...a state of the nation review and detailed win rates for all my games! Woo hoo!

Right to Retort

2004-12-08T18:31:00.000Z

YTD: +$40559.14

My Faithful Reader may remember my critical view on a Rolf Slotbloom article that I found on the web. I talk about it at

I guess Rolf heard about this from some of the guys from the Amsterdam game I was losing money to in the Stars PLO love-fest and he recently wrote me a reply. Here it is in full:

"Hi Dave,

A while ago, someone mentioned your blog, and told me that you commented on one my my works. So, as it turns out I am about a month or three late, but anyway, here's my response.

First of all, thanks for calling me "one of the favourites" - I don't get compliments that often. :) Now, as to the KKxx hand in question. The only time I have written about this hand, was not in an article, but in the "What's Happening" section on my site. You are 100% correct that in the situation described here (deep money / multiway pot) going all-in with kings single-suited is a very marginal decision. In fact, if you read some of my older PLO articles I have more than once shown the dangers of moving in with KK. And in this case the situation was even more dangerous: not just was I up against three players, my kings were very crappy, so even if my reads on my three opponents were excellent, then I would still be ahead by just a fairly slight margin. In fact, no player that I know would have made the final (massive) raise with a hand this weak, because they would have reasoned "with so much action, someone must have aces"- they would either have called or folded. So, I was proud that I had the courage to trust my read and be correct, being a clear favorite against the person with the second-largest stack, who had QQ22 double-suited, while if I remember correctly one other player had JJ22 and another QQxx - meaning that for a large side pot I was in fact an (unexpected) large favorite, and for the main pot I was in good shape as well, no one even holding a single ace or king (!). More than all this, if you read my piece, you will notice the word "fortunately" on more than one occasion, because I *had* been very fortunate. But I had also made a daring but correct decision to not just flatcall to see a flop, but to come back over the top of not just one, not two, but THREE raises with nothing more than crappy kings, and I was obviously proud of that decision. Wouldn't you be proud if you trust your read so much, that you know that if your read is right, you will probably be ahead by just a slight margin, but if it's wrong you will be a massive dog - now, if you still trust your read in a difficult situation like this and you turn out to be right, wouldn't *you* be proud?

I will discuss this entire night of poker into depth in one of my upcoming CardPlayer articles, including this final hand. I have sent over the article already and I cannot make any changes now, so I'll just hope that indeed I have acknowledged how lucky I had been! :) Anyway, Dave, just thought I'd send you a reply, also to compliment you on your blog: it is well-written and contains some excellent info. Keep up the good work, man.

Rolf Slotboom"

Firstly, thanks for the response and the kind words. You were/are one of my preferred writers and I am prepared to forgive this one "lapse" :-)

I guess I would like to add two further points. I still don't like him referring to a short stacked approach as a successful style in PLO; I'm not convinced it can be a good approach except in very unusual conditions and moreover it's a style that will limit a player's ability to develop his game longterm.

More importantly I think that in such highly marginal decisions "backing my judgment and I was right" is not enough; those of you who went through my plo8b example earlier in my blog will see why that is flawed thinking. The reason is that for this play to be correct he probably has to be 40-60% certain that the hands he is against are so bad and so counterfeited. Any permutation of either an AA in there or just better hands as a whole, with an A flush in there, make his hand very much weaker. This means that on the balance of probabilities he is at best zero EV or even losing money on the coup, unless he has a very large headsup sidepot involved, which would affect matters somewhat and this was not mentioned in the original article. Sometimes the weight of mathematics outweigh instinct.

A Taste of the New Part 2

2004-12-02T23:50:00.000Z

YTD: +$41029.90

I guess you all prefer PLO hands then! Thanks for Simon for his thoughts on the hand...here's my reasoning through the streets:

Party Poker 15/30 Hold'em (10 handed)

Preflop: Hero is dealt Ks As

UTG raises, SB calls, Hero calls.

The standard play here would be to reraise. However I have no clue as to how these two foes play. More than likely I will still end up with three players to the flop, but with my hand more exposed and caught in a sandwich between the SB and the UTG. Normally I would follow the typical pound, pound, pound Abdulian strategy, but in this spot I would be somewhat exposed to tricky plays from either side. So I am sacrificing some short-term EV and gaining some deception by just calling instead.

Flop: (1.66 SB) Qd, 5h, 8s (3 players)

SB checks, Hero checks, UTG bets, SB calls, Hero calls.

I may have check raised here if headsup. I want to see what the SB *really* has.

Turn: (2.33 BB) 5c (3 players)

SB checks, Hero checks, UTG bets, SB folds, Hero raises, UTG calls.

Now the SB is gone I can spring my trap. By check raising here it puts real pressure on nonsense no pair hands and *may*, although very unlikely, make an AK or small pair pass.

River: (6.33 BB) 2d (2 players)

Hero bets, UTG folds.

I'm committed now. It's very hard for him to cling to AK in this spot, which is his most likely holding.

Final Pot: 7.33 BB

The nice thing about this play is that I end up losing about the same against a stubborn pocket pair, but also give him the chance to pass a hand that splits the pot. Also the % increase of him passing that underpair is now significant, as opposed to the "I'm putting him on AK so I'm calling all the way down" which mostly happens.

A Taste of the New

2004-11-26T22:44:00.000Z

YTD: +$42030.62

Here's a limit hand for discussion. No clue as to how the opponents play, except that they are on Party :-) FWIW I really liked it. See what you think and I will share my thoughts later.

***For some reason this hand didn't come through properly originally - it has now been ammended***

Party Poker 15/30 Hold'em (10 handed)

Preflop: Hero is dealt Ks As

UTG raises, SB calls, Hero calls.

Flop: (1.66 SB) Qd, 5h, 8s (3 players)

SB checks, Hero checks, UTG bets, SB calls, Hero calls.

Turn: (2.33 BB) 5c (3 players)

SB checks, Hero checks, UTG bets, SB folds, Hero raises, UTG calls.

River: (6.33 BB) 2d (2 players)

Hero bets, UTG folds.

Final Pot: 7.33 BB

Paid in Full

2004-11-19T23:09:00.000Z

YTD +$42552.12

I'm having a little rush on Party. One of the benefits of Poker Tracker is that you can see these rushes in action. I know that 6BB/100 is not my *usual* win rate. One of the beauties of limit holdem is that bad players are transparent. Playing PLO, it is easy to get completely the wrong view on a player as you end up being focused on showdowns, which may not be the whole story. Several players that I had initially labeled as maniacs actually proved to be fine players, and embarrassingly, also turned out to be playing less hands before the flop than me too.

But in a ring limit holdem game, bad players are transparent. They stick out like beacons in the fog, or glints of gold in the darkness. If a guy calls UTG with K7o - bad player; if he is playing 35% of his hands - bad player; if he keeps calling raises cold, or even better, RE-raises cold - bad player.

And Party is absolutely full of them. There was some scaremongering on 2+2 that the 15-30 was tougher, and whilst more aggressive, this in itself is not "tough" and is easy to handle. But some of the play is mind-boggling bad. Two examples:

3 to the flop in an unraised flop. I have QJ in the BB and bet out into a rainbow Q34. Limper folds, SB check raises. I make it 3 bets, he makes it 4 bets and bets the turn of 6 and the river of 7. He has T5o.

The next one amazed me. The player, according to 100 hands in PT is tight sensible, playing 20% of his hands and raising 6-7% of them. He raises midd-late and I defend the BB with 55. The flop comes 866 (2 spades) and I check raise him (no 5 of spades). He calls. The river comes 4 of spades and gritting my teeth I bet out. He calls again. What does this seemingly solid player have?

KQ of diamonds. No draw. No pair. Not even A high. And all his pairing chances could put a four flush on the board.

Party is goot!

Fear of a Black Planet

2004-11-18T13:41:00.000Z

YTD: +$39399.12

I’ve been taking a cursory look at other people’s blogs again. By and large, with some noticeable exceptions, I don’t really enjoy them. This is mostly because they are about life, the universe and everything 80% of the time, and poker maybe 20% of the time. This does not mean that they aren’t well written and interesting; it’s just that I don’t have a huge desire to read about the personal lives of poker playing strangers. Sorry.

But one topic that piqued my interest on a newbie’s blog was that of poker bots destroying online poker. Now the concept of a poker bot has been around now for some time, with whispers and rumors around the edges of the poker community like old scary fairy tales to frighten children. For example, Neverlose on the 100-200 game on Stars is alleged to be a bot. These scaremongers cite the cases of Chess and Backgammon and how computers have “solved” those games, and predict poker Armageddon when the rise of the robots marches into poker. Bullshit.

The reason Chess has proven so amenable to computing is that it is a game that can be beaten if you can process through all the future permutations successfully. Kasporov wasn’t outthought; he was “ground out” by a processing engine with huge capabilities and had been programmed to understand his style. Similarly, backgammon just happened to be a game that fitted a neural net approach, whereas neural nets have not been anywhere near as successful in other games.

To my mind, one of the issues will that will prevent computers tackling high level poker play is that so many situations are very flexible – for example the compensations and differences between playing a hand against many or just one player. Another major factor is the necessary combination of lots of money, technical ability and poker excellence. As Darse Billings put it, as the inventor of the leading HU poker bot, the problem with poker versus the other types of game is that the computer has to think. This is something computers have a long history of not being very good at.

Beating low limit games on a rule-based basis, maybe. Becoming excellent at headsup play, probably. Being able to beat all-comers in a ring environment, I think not.

Interlude...Sound and Fury

2004-11-13T23:37:00.000Z

YTD: +$slightly up, but can't be bothered to update :-(

I am trying to play a little less poker and be a bit more balanced, but in doing so I seem to be unbalancing things on the poker writing front :-) Of course I am referring to the THM thing. Although I was pissed initially, mostly through my own confusion, I wasn't surprised by their reaction to my post in the end. In some ways it's even flattering. However I think I am done there now. As Chaos puts it, its become a place to hang out for no real reason. If I post there, its just for vanity, and I've got enough vanity and ego wrapped up in this place thank you very much :-) Its also good to see a little storm of discontent kick up amongst the Doyle Disease types. That Ambassadors of Poker crap always stuck in my craw and smacked of hypocrisy. But I'll leave it to other to elaborate.

May the Last Become the First

2004-11-10T13:30:00.000Z

YTD: +$38518.61

I liked my play in this one....any comments? Beside the one that the completion preflop was a little loose :-) BTW the foe was v v loose aggressive.

PokerStars 30/60 Hold'em (10 handed)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 7d, 2d.

4 folds, MP2 calls, 3 folds, Hero completes, BB checks.

Flop: (3 SB) As, 2c, Ac (3 players)

Hero checks, BB checks, MP2 bets, Hero calls, BB folds.

Turn: (2.50 BB) 4s (2 players)

Hero checks, MP2 bets, Hero raises, MP2 3-bets, Hero calls.

River: (8.50 BB) Kh (2 players)

Hero checks, MP2 bets, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 10.50 BB

Hero has 7d 2d (two pair, aces and twos).

MP2 has Td 8c (one pair, aces).

Outcome: Hero wins 10.50 BB.

The Best of Bronski

2004-11-09T01:56:00.000Z

YTD +$39953.81

Can you tell me why I seem compelled to fall into the same traps again and again and again?

The Eternal Recurrence?

Having finally fought into profit for the month I proceed to sit in a big hilo limit game, which was great. But I wasn't. As usual I tilted into needing to get lucky and the Gods of Poker didn't disappoint me.

Then I decided to multitable up to four tables of holdem, even though long experience has taught me that two is my maximum, three at a very short push.

Back in the red, then.

Does anyone else have similar repetitive destructive habits of the poker variety?

Look for a repeat of this post sometime soon...

The Boys are Back in Town

2004-11-05T13:03:00.000Z

YTD: +$40803.31

By a strange set of circumstances that I can't explain, suddenly the 30-60 Holdem on Stars has turned into a good game. Admittedly, I am not winning in it yet, but it is far from the rock fest it usually is. How about this one:

An UTG and middle position limper. I raise in the cutoff with AA, all call. The flop comes T86, two spades. I have the A of Spades. Everyone checks and only the UTG limper calls. Turn a rag 2 - check-bet-call. River another 2. Suddenly the UTG springs to life and bets. I raise, he just calls.

And shows 32 of clubs.

I don't think this one needs analysis, rather just praise to god :-)

OK, Alright, You Win

2004-11-02T16:00:00.000Z

YTD: +$Back, but not played yet

A word of advice, don't go on night flights of 4+ hours with small children!

Thanks for all the comments on the hand. I think the answers are fairly clear cut. A6, suited or not, is always a raise. I too, like my friend Chaos, do not like the thinking behind the call play as advocated by Sklansky. The 87, suited or not, *should* always be a pass, although like Aksu, sometimes you feel tempted to raise by "accident". FWIW, I think that this is one of the big leaks of people coming to limit holdem from a big bet tourney perspective, like many UK players do.

Lastly, and surprisingly, no one mentioned the call play with AA. If you raise here and they both pass then this is a disaster, as AA is worth more than 4 times the blinds here. Admittedly, the chances of them both passing are not high, but the trap call play also has some additional positive side effects as it often causes players to go "off on one" with your perceived weakness. In a Party 15-30 game I think that this play is so effective that it should be used at least a good % of the time. If the game was just a bit tighter, or even much tighter like the 10-20 on Stars, then this shoots up as being by far the best play.

Much Ado About Nothing

2004-10-28T15:01:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$STILL ON VACATION!!

As I am going back to limit holdem it struck me that some posts on the game might be useful. This seems doublely so as reading THM, it seems that some posters there, especially Brits, do not necessarily have a good grasp of some of the basics of the game. On reflection, I think that this is a consequence of playing PL Holdem in tourneys, which whilst great fun, resembles limit holdem only as far as oranges resemble apples.

In the limit game, how you play against the blinds and in the blinds can be a huge factor in your hourly earn. Let´s look at a brief quiz to test your knowledge about stealing blinds:

You are in a 15-30 ring game on Party Poker. Everyone passes to you on the button. Assume the blinds are Party typical, i.e., too loose, too aggressive in spots, and unaware.

What is your action with (a)AA (b)87o (c)A6o. How does this change if your hand is suited in (b) and (c)?

Club Tropicana

2004-10-25T19:43:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$VACATION!!!

Cocktails by the pool while my family pitter-patter around me. All-inclusive luxury in searingly hot Gran Canaria. All paid for by poker! In this dark and dismal October, poker-wise, thinking that all this holiday is f.o.c is very sweet.

So just a quick thought for today. The jackpot game on Party, how bad is it really? I´ve been thinking that as -EV bets go, some selected play of the 15-30 jackpot holdem game may be quite a good one. Even winning just one of the "other seats"`may pay for selected participation for the jackpot for another four years, and that isn´t including other meta game factors too.

What do you all think?

Doyle Disease

2004-10-22T19:49:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$41282.46

I first invented the term Doyle Disease some time again. Little did I know it would become an epidemic! For a while I checked out the WPT forum on 2+2, mostly to see Paul Phillips being mischievous. Now 2+2 has always been a bit sycophantic, but the idol worshiping cluelessness that goes on there beggars belief. My recent favourite was actually on the PLO forum, where somewhere said "When Ray Zee criticizes your play, don't defend yourself, just learn." I dimly remember the said Ray Z advocating timeout cheating online if your foes were doing it. Learn at the feet of a master I guess.

However my favourite DDism of late must be on the THM forum where someone referred to Harry D as Harry 'the lionheart' Demetriou. WTF? I almost puked in my shoes. And no one seemed to care or notice. I guess it is only right that a perpetrator of many Doyle Disease-isms should indeed find himself on that holy altar himself.

For my Constant Readers, I will be on my hols for the next week or so, so please be patient. I will try and put some posts up, hotel technology permitting.

Poker Writing Redux

2004-10-19T23:02:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$40627.47

Internet journalism has been a reoccurring theme here. It never ceases to surprise me. Clicking onto Pokerpages today I was fascinated to see a section titled “Top European Poker Players”. Well it was worth a click. There are some strange names there to put it mildly. And some strange omissions. A couple of the players, whilst European in origin, play almost exclusively in the US. One of the players, “The Nugget” I used to know very well. I am sure that he wouldn’t describe himself as a tournament player, or at least I hope he doesn’t. He has had some nice results of late, but his primary focus and ability has always been cash games. Yet one of the most successful big tournament players is not included. I am of course referring to Julian Gardner. Even when you take out his WSOP 2nd, his record across Europe in the late 90s was phenomenal and his winnings turn the Nugget into fool’s gold. But let’s not let the facts get in the way of some pretty pictures. Let’s have some more stuff by Paul S!

Tournaments Part Deux

2004-10-14T13:54:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$44122.93

On the subject of tournaments, or rather whilst other people have been discussing them and I have been mangling my numbers :-), I have played a few recently. Small losses in headsup; a 3rd place in a plo8b on Stars; and also some turbo satellites for the Sunday night $215 tourney. I quite like the fun fast pace of these things but the poorness of the play is truly incredible. It is very common to see people playing the dying stages of these things completely and utterly wrong. I am convinced that a good tourney player could make a nice ROI on these things, even assuming a 10% vig for selling on the entries. Here are some of the terrible plays I saw last time:

I’ve Got a Hand, So I Must Play

We were on the bubble and the big blind completely swallowed up my stack, bar a few hundred $. Everyone passed to the cutoff, who went allin for an amount less than the big blind with TT. This is insane play. There was a maybe a 1% chance he was going to be compelled to post a blind and he could have safely passed his way into the money. But instead he sees an ok hand and automaton like decides he must play it, even though he cannot make anyone pass and must win the hand to showdown.

I’m Table Captain, But I Don’t Know How

In the very same hand the small blind, he had enough chips to take us both out comfortably, decides this is a great spot to finish off the tourney and makes up the blinds. That’s right he doesn’t put me all-in! If he had raised there I probably have to call but it is by no means certain in this very unique situation. He gives me a free shot on the pot which I duly take. Although the TT takes the main pot.

I’m Table Captain Again, But I STILL Don’t Know How

It’s a few hands later and the running ante has taken my last few chips. On four tables there are at least 4 people who will have to go allin on this hand and break the bubble. What’s the correct play here for people who aren’t involved? Pass any hand. It’s that easy. AK – pass; KK – pass; AA – pass. If you are not being compelled to play by the blinds then with only one player to go there is no reason to play any hand. But the table captain from the hand described above sprang into life from late mid position. With players still to act behind him you would expect him to have a monster…but no…he had 87s! Which duly went on to knock out both me and the blind that was also all in. Truly terrible play.

Now for Something Completely Different

2004-10-11T23:16:00.000+01:00

YTD: + $43726.21

We've been having some swell comments in one of my posts about SnG play. Chaos and Andy W believe that you should pass up small edges early on even to double up. I, Paul Phillip's like, don't agree. Here are my stats for why...please feel free to poke big holes in them: (We are assuming 9 handed, $109 entry; if you pass you still have the same chance of getting into the money as you normally do; if you double up you knock out a player)

Finish…Net $...% Place…EV……%P x2…..EV x 2
1………341…....0.16…......53.04….....0.19…..64.41
2………161…....0.14…......23.26….....0.17…..27.37
3………71……..0.16…......11.04….....0.19…..13.41
4……..-109…...0.11….....-12.11…....0.13…..-14.17
5……..-109…...0.10….....-10.9…......0.09…..-9.81
6……..-109…...0.10….....-10.9…......0.08…..-8.72
7……..-109…...0.08….....-8.48…......0.08…..-8.48
8……..-109…...0.08….....-8.48…......0.08…..-8.48
9……..-109…...0.08….....-8.48

This makes the EV for not doubling up in the SNG to be +$28 with a ROI of 26%...very respectable. But after the double up this leaps to an EV of $55.54 with a ROI of 51%. Clearly you have to be very very sure it is a marginal edge if you want to pass it up.

The Madness of Crowds

2004-10-06T18:35:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$47452.03

One of the hardest things to do in Poker is to accept failure.

It is very hard, when you have played the biggest game in town, as it were, to step down to the next level. As the film says, “That’s pride fuckin wit ya.” But the truth is my game is still quite wobbly and results have not improved much. I am still $15k-ish down from my high point. But as the commenter Chaos nicely put it in perspective, considering I only play part-time, I have had a fantastic set of results, even now. I have taken $25k out of that game, in what would only be less than a month’s play to a full-time pro. And yes I am boasting because Christ I need the morale boosting :-)

But I’ve spent the winnings and my virtual bankroll is now kinda thin for this kind of action.

However.

It’s still hard to move down. The 5-10 on Stars is very soft at the moment, as a certain player is hemorrhaging money at an alarming rate. One source said he lost $50k in 24hours, and this is not hard to believe when the average pot is $1-2k.

But the game whilst soft technically is dangerous soft, like quicksand. As the action gets looser so do I, in a mad spiral of ever decreasing edge. The other day I lost a 4k pot to a guy who insists on ram-jamming at any sign of weakness. He plays like The Choirboy on speed and acid :-) Bizarrely he thought he was bluffing but he actually had the best hand, although my draws meant I was 50:50 and 55:45 on the flop and turn respectively.

In theory, this is a great spot to be, taking better than even money on 2:1 shots. But not if I miss. And also this isn’t the way to murder aggressive players; rather in PLO you can wait and catch them drawing thin, instead of tossing a wonky coin.

Another frustration I have noticed is watching the fish win big. I’m grinding away, feeling frustrated, whilst a guy playing 70% of his hands, nearly all of them badly, turns $400 to $7k in an hour. Exasperation and jealousy do not make easy bedfellows.

So I am moving back down to $2-4 PLO (the $3-6 has basically disappeared.) I am worried that the action may burn out of the big game but the truth is that my online BR can’t stomach any more swings at that level.

Back to grinding :-)

“… Fuck pride! Pride only hurts, it never helps.”

Lucky in Love

2004-10-01T16:40:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$49741.28

I’ve tried playing through the bad patch like last time but it’s hard. Hard because I am playing bad, especially in critical, very large pots. Hard because I am being fucking unlucky. In the space of a couple of hours the other day I lost $8500 in pots, three in total, when I was more than even money to win all three. I was actually about 650 to 1 to lose all three. I seem good at hitting these 500+ longshots :(

Just to show that I post the ugly as well as the beautiful, here is a hand I really chewed up:

PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha High, $10 BB (8 handed)

saw flop|saw showdown

MP2 ($2938)

CO ($1104.25)

Button ($1221.75)

SB ($892.50)

BB ($735.50)

UTG ($517)

UTG+1 ($536)

Hero ($2924.25)

Preflop: Hero is MP1 with 9s, 4s, 8h, 7h.

UTG calls $10, 1 fold, Hero raises to $30, MP2 calls $30, 2 folds, SB raises to $140, 1 fold, UTG calls $130, Hero calls $110, MP2 calls $110.

This was a loose gambling raise by me here. If I am thinking str8 I should really pass to the reraise as although the reraiser is marked as AA, the other two guys are likely to have hands that seriously interfere with mine.

Flop: ($570) 9d, Tc, 3c (4 players)

SB bets $567, UTG calls $377 (All-In), Hero raises to $1134, MP2 raises to $2798, SB calls $185.50 (All-In), Hero calls $1650.25 (All-In).

This is just madness. I'm drawing far to weak here for multi-way action. Although I convinced myself if I could just get out the guy behind me I would be in good shape, the reality is that even then I am probably drawing to 6 ish outs based on the action in front. And if he does call, I am probably drawing next to dead - which was the case.

Turn: ($7281.75) Kh (4 players, 3 all-in)

River: ($7281.75) 7s (4 players, 3 all-in)

Final Pot: $7281.75

Main Pot: $2078, between MP2, SB, UTG and Hero.Pot won by UTG ($2078)

Pot 2: $1126.50, between MP2, SB and Hero.Pot won by MP2 ($1126.50)

Pot 3: $4063.50, between MP2 and Hero.Pot won by MP2 ($4063.50)
Pot 4: $13.75, returned to MP2.

SB has Ks Ac Ah Qc (one pair, aces).

UTG has 8d Js Qd 9h (straight, king high).

Hero has 9s 4s 8h 7h (two pair, nines and sevens).

MP2 has 6c 4h 9c Th (two pair, tens and nines)

Outcome: MP2 wins $5203.75. UTG wins $2078.

Get by With a Little Help from my Friends

2004-09-28T21:47:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$52271.43

Apologies for faithful readers for a slightly longer than usual pause between posts - unfortunately my pc is somewhat on the blink again.

I wanted to get back to another topic raised by David Young in a comment a week or so back. The problem, if you can call it that, is an influx of new, WPT and ESPN driven players, cluelessly diving into a pot limit holdem game. In the classic way of lemmings searching for a suitable cliff, PLHE is the worst game they could have stumbled onto, bar plo8b. Their chances of even short term success, never mind long term, are very, very low. Especially playing Gus-stylee tourney moves.

But why is this bad and why should players care?

Players who make any substantial amount of money in live action should look at themselves as being in the entertainment business. Live players, especially in the UK, are a valuable commodity. They do not exist in US or Internet type numbers. Many players may be 'happy' to pay to be 'entertained' over a long period, but will struggle to maintain an interest facing unrelenting losses. A player after throwing off a couple of thousand $ in short order may never return, yet if he had felt that he had a remote chance and was getting some kind of value for money he may have gladly paid for many years to come.

So what is the solution?

Firstly, the newbie players should be treated well. As Tommy Angelo says, this is how you should treat everyone over the felt, not just the fish. Unfortunately for DY, the Vic, the place in question, is fairly well known for having an unfriendly ambiance. And that's putting it mildly.

Okay, anything else? Dealers choice games. Although they can confuse beginners the inherent luck in them shoots up variance and gives weaker players a shot at the loot. Here though the new players are their own worst enemies, as they tend to see these more varied games as some kind of conspiracy to befuddle the money out of their pockets.

The only answer is one that US casinos have adopted but the half-wits that populate card room management in the UK are unlikely to adopt unless coerced by the players. Who unfortunately themselves don't see the wood for the trees. NL games instead of PL. And crucially, critically, maximum buyins of about 100x the big blind. These factors will give conditions more akin to the tourneys these types know and love, shoot up the luck to give them a chance to get some winning sessions, but still leave skill as the dominant factor.

Everyone's a winner.

The Crade of True Art and True Science

2004-09-22T14:25:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$52786.73

I did promise a hand about AA some time ago. Well here it is. The last time we looked at AA is was where a player seemingly overdefended his hand and made a weak call. Although the outcome in this hand is the same - I call - hopefully you will agree that the reasoning and situation is much more sound.

PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha High, $10 BB (9 handed) converter

saw flop|saw showdown

CO ($632.50)
Button ($261)
SB ($1070)
Hero ($2489.75)
UTG ($390)
UTG+1 ($205)
MP1 ($1083)
MP2 ($57.25)
MP3 ($1516.50)

Preflop: Hero is BB with Th, Ah, Ac, 7s.
1 fold, UTG+1 calls $10, 3 folds, CO calls $10, 1 fold, SB raises to $50, Hero raises to $140, UTG+1 folds, CO folds, SB calls $90.

I'm not a big fan of raising with any hand out of position. But there are some big advantages to be had here. SB is a tight, solid player and is actually likely to be raising with one of the hands I can dominate, e.g. a high pair-ish hand. Also a reraise is likely to push out the limpers and actually give me position on the whole coup.

Flop: ($300) Ts, 2c, 4d (2 players)

SB checks, Hero bets $230, SB raises to $930, Hero calls $700.

When I completely miss a flop I do not always auto bet it, simply because it gives good players the opportunity to check raise me thin out of the hand, figuring that my reraise must mean aces. As faithful readers will have noticed, this is not always the case, but it will still be their most likely view of my holding. In this case I felt that the flop was fairly safe for a bet and SB thought for some time before check raising me.

Now sometimes the pause check raise is a sure fire tell of "let me think while I raise with the nuts". But in this case it is very difficult for my foe, if I have read him right, to have trips. It is very unlikely, if next to impossible for him to have a draw, or even two pair. And the ten in my hand nicely makes the top trip scenario unlikely too. As a contributing factor, just a few hands before I had wiped him out, raising with suited aces, hitting the nut flush on the flop and he had check raised me with the K high flush. So he was potentially in the mood for revenge and he was good enough to be making a move.

So after some thought I decided that either he had me strangled or I had him strangled, on which basis it must be a fairly straightforward call for better than 2 to 1 money.

Turn: ($2160) 3d (2 players)

River: ($2160) 3h (2 players)

Final Pot: $2160
Main Pot: $2160, between SB and Hero.
Results
SB has Kc Tc Ad Kd (two pair, kings and threes).
Hero has Th Ah Ac 7s (two pair, aces and threes).

Outcome: Hero wins $2160.

Afterwards I did some more of my infamous EV analysis, which I may write up later - I just can't get the damn tables in. It showed that the breakeven point, where calling was neutral, was with SB having trips a massive 65% of the time, assuming my "he has few outs or I have few outs" analysis was correct. Clearly, based on my read of the player, this was a hugely profitable call.

Science and Art in the same bed again! Who would have thought it?

The Music of Chance

2004-09-20T18:55:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$55394.38

David Young made some interesting points in response to my gripe about tournament play. So much so that I think I will break them into two separate posts. Here’s what he said in response to my complaining about the luck factor:

“It will even out if you play more tournaments. Make that a LOT more tournaments. Accept that or don't play.”

I think that this is a common fallacy. The difference between luck, or variance if you want to be more high-falutin, in tournaments and cash is that if you keep your stack at consistent levels, online buy-in maximums to one side, in a cash game, then when and how you have good and bad luck makes little difference. However, in a tournament, exactly when and how your bad luck strikes could be the difference between being a major success or going broke. Perhaps a slightly hypothetical example will make this clearer.

Imagine, in an alternate universe we have the power to see the destiny of a tournament player over the next two years. We know that despite excellent play, discipline and some recent success that Mr X will lose $1million in entry fees and expenses over the next two years. I don’t think that this is particularly an extreme example – see Sklansky for his look at tournament variance and the potential for “bad runs”. Certainly, Mr X, playing the circuit across the globe could easily rack up such expenses. Unfortunately for Mr X, his tank is exactly $0.9 million and this bad run will render him broke.

But Twilight Zone style we can stand with him at the cross roads of a major drama that may give him a chance to avoid his fate.

Mr X is down to the last few tables of the World Series, just before the albatross of long term doom is about to descend on him. Mr X is at the peak of his game. He has all his chips in the middle on the right side of a 6:4 shot. If he loses, he pockets $100,000, and like a Flying Dutchman, sails off to his doom and poker ignominy. If he wins, he will go on to get into the major money and pocket $2.5 million. The bad run will still come, but he will survive and go on to potential greater success. Unfortunately our glimpse into the Book of Destiny only extends for two years so we don’t know what the long term, whatever that means for a tournament player, actually holds. But at least now he has a shot. (I know that this is very much a similar situation to Harry D found himself and I am only using it because it struck me how it highlighted the importance of “particular” luck. All other resemblances to people and events living and dead, past or future, is purely coincidental.)

The whole of Mr X’s poker existence rests on a crooked coin flip.

Now I know I have grossly simplified rather complex issues around money management to make my point, but I think the point is still well made. In tournaments, the luck may never break even because some events are hugely distorted in value and these almost-never –to-be-repeated events just do not exist in cash games, assuming you are playing within a sensible bankroll.

Success or failure is just a coin flip away.

Apocalypse Now

2004-09-20T17:17:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$55394.38

I said that I wouldn't waste column space commenting on the vagaries of my YTD. But yesterday was such a "correction" that it seemed that if I didn't mention it, people would wonder how the hell I couldn't. For half the loss I played bad, for the other half, I was unlucky. Interesting, if my 50/50s and favourite hands had all stood up, as opposed to all being washed to sea, my 8k loss would have been a 4k profit. Such is the variance of PLO. Ho hum. I will probably have a breather from the big game and also spend some of my winnings on financing some much needed cars. Coming very soon will be some posts on the interesting points DY raised in his comment to one of my posts.

Interlude

2004-09-18T22:53:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$62945.48

It seems that more people read my blog during the week than at the weekend, so I will just leave a "stopping by" post before the bigger splurge of the AA in PLO analysis :-)

God I hate tournaments. I played a couple of single table sats for the 215 NL event on Sunday. Yes, sadly, I will only play the big Stars tourney if I win my way in.

I had one player all-in six times before the flop. He was a real ESPN player, moving allin on a huge variety of hands, often grossly overbetting the pot. Six times I could have bust him. And he won every one. Which was a 153 to 1 shot. 153 to 1 to survive the tourney and yet he did so. When I started moaning and whining - why do I do that? - he said "Well, thats poker". This beggars two questions:

1) Why do I whinge and cry like a baby online, behaviour which I would never do or condone in the real world? This seriously disappoints me. I don't do it often, but tourneys especially bring out the worst in me. Maybe its the arrogance of being knocked out by players I perceive, rightly or wrongly, to be "worse" than me. Also I think its the frustration of tournament-style poker, where when it's over, it's over. No more chances. I'm turning into a nit.

2) "Well, that's poker." There is probably now a huge number, if not the majority of tournament players, that think NLHE is about moving all-in preflop on semi-garbage. And that's the whole of the game now.

I'll stick to cash.

*Breaking News* just watching the US Poker Championship of 2003...ye Gods, how much worse can Phil Hellmuth play!

Dumb and Dumber

2004-09-13T20:57:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$61322.68

I've noticed a strange phenomenon on the Stars 5-10 game. This is that players who are otherwise moderate to tight preflop, simply cannot play from the flop onwards.

This is doubly strange as in a game like limit holdem, preflop looseness can and should be a huge predictor of playing ability and player profitability. Here in the mysterious world of PLO, we can have a player who is playing 50% of his hands preflop, but is a fine player and making profit, yet on the other hand have a guy playing less than 30% of his hands, leaking money like a sieve and playing quite poorly.

Here's some examples:

PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha High, $10 BB (8 handed)

saw flop|saw showdown

SB ($1928.50)

BB ($878)

UTG ($1221)

UTG+1 (Unlucky) ($852)

MP1 ($458.50)

MP2 (Foolish) ($1696)

CO ($955.50)

Button ($1126)

Preflop:

1 fold, UTG+1 (Unlucky) calls $10, MP1 calls $10, MP2 (Foolish) raises to $55, 1 fold, Button calls $55, 2 folds, UTG+1 (Unlucky) calls $45, MP1 calls $45.

Flop: ($235) Kc, 8s, 5s (4 players)

Unlucky checks, MP1 checks, Foolish bets $232, Button folds, Unlucky raises to $797, MP1 folds, Foolish calls $565.

Turn: ($1829) 5d (2 players)

River: ($1829) 6h (2 players)

Final Pot: $1829

Main Pot: $1829, between Unlucky and Foolish. > Pot won by Foolish ($1829).
Foolish has Ad Ac Kd Tc
Unlucky has Jc As Js 8d

Outcome: Foolish wins $1829.

Now no matter how you cut it up and slice it, this was a bad flop call. Sure people make plays on you in this game, but at very best it was EV neutral and at worse a losing call in the long run. This player has a serious AA problem.

This one was even worse:

PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha High, $10 BB (6 handed)

MP ($971.30)
CO ($683.25)
Button ($2905.50)
Hero ($1303)
BB ($200)
UTG ($608.75)

Preflop: Hero is SB with Ad, 2s, 2d, 3c.

1 fold, MP calls $10, CO raises to $30, 1 fold, Hero calls $25, BB calls $20, MP folds.

Flop: ($100) 4c, 9h, 2c (3 players)

Hero checks, BB checks, CO bets $50, Hero raises to $230, BB calls $170 (All-In), CO calls $180.

Turn: ($730) 7c (3 players, 1 all-in)

Hero bets $570, CO calls $423.25 (All-In).

River: ($1723.25) 6d (3 players, 2 all-in)

Final Pot: $1723.25

Main Pot: $610, between CO, Hero and BB.

Pot 2: $966.50, between CO and Hero.
Pot won by CO ($966.50)
CO has Js Jc Ts Kc

BB has Qc Ac Jh 6s (flush, ace high).

Outcome: CO wins $966.50. BB wins $610. Hero wins $146.75.

The CO thought a hell of a long time before making that call. This let me know that he didn't have that great a hand. It also let him know that I was going to bet the turn regardless, which to some extent the stack sizes predicated anyway.

He's made a "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" call here. Either I've got trips, in which case he is not getting the right price for his hand, especially as the other player has cold called...meaning surely some of his outs are OUT. Or, because I am that kind of player, I have the nut flush draw, in which case he is gambling his whole stack on JJ being good.

In the short term these kinds of players may do well, as they catch what they probably see as bluffs with their isolated one pair kind of hands. But these bluffs are often high % draws or even the nuts and over time this "I raised before the flop so I'm committed" will only commit them ultimately to the rail.

Sport of Kings

2004-09-13T19:01:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$63485.73

Whenever I hear Poker described as a sport I laugh. Or cry. It is beyond ridiculous to the absurd. Here are my views on how Poker is like a Sport:

You Can Behave Like a Cock

The ESPN coverage has highlighted some truly terrible behaviour. It used to be that there was a tightening of the lips, a grimace and a firm handshake. Now we can watch the likes of Mattias Andersson contort and roll around like an epileptic contortionist crossed with a hillbilly/porcine coupling, whilst the impassive Saint of Cowboy Murderers, Chris Ferguson, shows not a trace of emotion in the foreground. And many, many more.

You Get an Audience

People watch you. Millions of people watch you. However the same is true in the US for such luminaries as “dog jumping” and “crazy golf”. We must be so proud.

You Can Take Drugs

There have been recent exposes on performance enhancing drugs in the US especially. There are plenty of drugs in Poker, also of the performance enhancing kind. Or at least the players “think” that a quick toot of Nicaraguan Marching Powder in the dinner break improves performance.

And that’s it, really.

On why Poker isn’t like a Sport:

The Luck Factor Does Not Dominate the Skill

Imagine a Wimbledon where everyone in the quarter finals of the Men’s event is not only unranked, but a club player. Then imagine that in the final a guy from the crowd barges his way onto the court and wins the title. Then watch the Reno event for Season 2. Dreams do come true.

Experience is Not Easily Overcome

Any master sportsman not only has genetics as an advantage over his amateur counterparts, but literally a lifetime of preparation, grueling training and countless experience. Even if you are literally a sporting genius this cannot be easily overcome. Unless you take up the “sport” of poker, in which case a few books, a bit of thought, maybe 6 months of play then you’re in with a chance.

The Players Benefit from the Media

Beside the ability to play $5K to $10K tournaments every month I struggle to see what the poker pros have gained from their Sportification. Besides exposing their game plans. Proper sponsorship and added prize money simply haven’t materialized. And this is three years later. It’s even debatable how much value has been added through extra players, as they seem mostly to want to play games that in the long term will destroy their own, probably far-to-small bankrolls, i.e. tournaments and NL cash.

The Sport and TV Negotiate

“We’ve decided that Soccer is a bit boring, so we’re going to get rid of goal keepers. Any problems?”

Poker’s negotiating position to TV seems trousers around the feet, ankle’s firmly gripped. Shorter rounds. No logos. Rights waiving. Speed poker???

I will leave the last word to an auld favourite of RGP, Steve Badger. Steve was the first person to give me a public slap on a forum for talking garbage and although abrasive, is rarely wrong on matters Poker related:

“ESPN is marketing to their own target market, definitely not the "casual fan". The target demographic is 18-34 year old males, and to be blunt, specifically the dork/loser element of that demographic -- people who go into a frenzy over the result of a game that they themselves don't participate in, and even call talk radio to yell at other people about such
games…They can't relate (much) to Doyle or Howard. They can relate to someone about their age making idiotic trash talk, just like they do.

It is basic sports TV marketing, and is partly why ESPN loves poker. Poker *has* people very similar to their prime market. Major sport personalities are not nearly as relate-able to. The viewers can't say "I could do that" when watching Barry Bonds, but they could look at any of this crew and think "that could be me"."

Do As I Say Not Do As I Do

2004-09-09T15:09:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$57930.03

Whilst I was criticising Rolf S going all-in with KK before the flop in PLO, I was very aware that I had made a very similar play myself. However in this case, the play was very clear and I was also aware that this was going to be a play with a lot of luck involved in its outcome:

PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha High, $10 BB (8 handed)

Button ($845)
SB ($388)
BB ($1678)
UTG ($661.75)
UTG+1 ($803)
MP1 ($541)
Hero ($2488)
CO ($1094)

Preflop: Hero is MP2 with Ks, 8s, Kh, Ac.

3 folds, Hero raises to $30, CO calls $30, Button calls $30, SB raises to $160, 1 fold, Hero raises to $550, CO calls $520, Button folds, SB calls $228 (All-In).

Preflop the action is straightforward. The SB had started reraising me with less than AA type values as he had noticed that my initial raising standards were lowish, at least in position. The extra A in my hand also gives me a touch more security that he doesn't have the AA. On this basis, my equity in the hand will be significantly improved if I can get CO to pass, as I may then win the pot unimproved. As he has shown no strength whatsoever, this further makes a reraise the better play.

Flop: ($1528) 6d, 2s, 9d (3 players, 1 all-in)

When CO called the big raise cold I basically put him on one of two hands. Either two pairs, or a 4 card straightening hand. Basically my strategy was that unless the flop comes three cards in sequence, I will bet the remainder.

The flop itself is fairly disasterous. As a 9876 kind of hand was a very likely holding, this flop may have hit him pretty hard. But if I check-called, I would be getting 4 to 1 on his bet, and even if he has the armageddon which is 9876 with diamonds, I'm only a 5.5 to 1 dog. Against "just" two pair and a str8 draw, i would be getting the right price to call. So perhaps betting is better? Betting may make him pass hands that he should probably call, especially as he may be worried about the flush draw. Also if he has the two pair hand, I may be a very big favourite and I wouldn't want to give him a free card to hit on the turn.

Hero bets $1525, CO calls $544 (All-In).

Turn: ($3597) 5h (3 players, 2 all-in)

River: ($3597) Ah (3 players, 2 all-in)

Final Pot: $3597
Results below:

SB has Qc Ts Kd As (one pair, aces).

Hero has Ks 8s Kh Ac (one pair, aces).

CO has 9c Th Jc Qd (one pair, nines).

Outcome: Hero wins $2995. SB wins $602.

Not only was a very lucky to win this hand the strange thing is that no one played their hand wrong. The SB with a small stack is entitled to make a move against a loose player and the CO, suspecting that we both have AA is getting great value.

Often it can be the case in PLO that all the participants play correctly and the Gods of Poker reward and punish as they see fit. This hand they were kind.

Down at the End of Lonely Street

2004-09-06T14:33:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$57896.08

"I had trips and he hit quads on the river, XXXPoker.com must be fixed!"

This is a common cry and one that shows how little the vast bulk of poker players actually know about the mathematical underpinnings of the game they play. Longshots are common. Miracles seem to happen everyday. In PLO, longshots very rarely are very long, as the 6 card combinations make nearly anything seem possible. But what about $1600 lost in a 515 to 1 shot?

I think that qualifies as a longshot.

This was actually a parlay. In about the space of an hour I lost to runner runner straights when holding trips, or in one case the nut flush to runner runner full. The latter one was almost amusing, as I flopped the nut straight and the nut flush draw and wondered to myself, "How am I gonna get paid on this one?". I bet it, hit the flush on the turn and bet it again. My opponent had called on the flop with top pair, Q kicker and no draw.

Losing all three pots was a parlay of 515 to 1.

I didn't smash up the computer.

I didn't shake my fist at the "cashout curse".

I did moan and whine a bit.

But I basically accepted that as a loose player my perceived action will make these hands happen more often and I should welcome it. Because calling for runner runner is one of the worst spots a PLO player can themselves into.

Then I knuckled down and still ground out a winning session.

Words are Like Leaves

2004-09-04T13:50:00.000+01:00

YTD: +$61390.88

I don’t read a lot about poker any more, nor post on many forums. I’ve already commented on the dire state of posting on the popular forums. I recently did a trawl of poker writing to see how that was getting on. Ughh. I was right to stay away. I was astounded by how much of it was simply bad. Bad as in wrong. Or dumb. Or both. Here are some examples, and not just the soft targets like “The UK’s answer to Mike Caro”.

Anything by Phil Hellmuth

OK..I lied…one soft target then. The man is self-delusional to the point of insanity. As a case in point, read his view of the WPT event with Hoyt Corkins. Then watch it. Then marvel at how on earth Phil got from one to the other, except as justification for being comprehensively outplayed.

Harry Demetriou at Poker in Europe

Poker Europa has long been the Cardplayer of Europe. And that is not a compliment. Although Harry generated mixed views after his appearance on THM, with his knowing everyone style, I always quite liked him, as much as you can from glowing letters on a screen. Then this article :-( Here are some quotes:

“A good player in a cash game should also be a good player in tournament play as the basics for play itself in both are the same”

This made me grimace, but it may have just been an over-simplification. As a practical matter, the intersection of sets between good cash and good tourney players is tiny. And from a theoretical POV there are even more differences. But I guess the rules are the same.

“…more than fair proportion has little or no experience of tournament play…termed dead money… 40-50%... have next to no chance of …tremendous overlay in terms of positive expectation .”

This is a corollary to the small fields with better players are harder than massive fields with mostly chimps argument. Quality outweighs quantity. Paul Phillips has already shown how simply preposterous this is. But it is.

“There is also the question of value for money as most tournaments typically charge around 6-9% as an entry fee for the privilege of playing whilst cash games can vary tremendously and are seldom less than 10% regardless of whether they are raked or time charge games.”

??? WTF

“Another appealing aspect of tournament play is that it is also possible (at least in many of today's bigger buy in no limit tournaments) to make a big score. On the downside however is that because of the increased volatility you will need a relatively much larger bankroll to play tournaments than cash games.”

Sklansky showed that even in moderate several hundred player fields exceptional tourney players could go many, many years without a profit. Based on the big score criterion then the lottery is a good investment too.

Rolf Slotboom

I always though quite highly of Rolf’s game, from what he has described of it in his articles at least. Then reading his latest article I found:

(On losing several pots) “…it was not just the money: The lucky image that I have had been shattered.”

This brought a grimace but maybe it’s a language thing as English isn’t his native tongue.

“I thought it was best to stick to my short stack, move-in-early strategy that has given me so much success in previous years”

This brought a tightening of the lips and a shake of the head. Was he actually describing PLO?

Finally, he described a hand where he takes KK single suited against 4 other players, all big stacks, all-in before the flop. Now there are some exceptional circumstances when this may happen, but in general its poor play, or at best very, very, very marginal. Obviously he wins, but the story is positioned very much as a triumph of his skill and ability, without really stressing how exceptionally lucky he had been.

Another one out of the favourites then.

Dan Negreanu on RGP

I popped into rgp to see if things had improved. Heh. What was apparent though was that DN has not learned the lesson of that fine poker player though he may be, whenever he puts his “thoughts” into writing, he’s far from impressive. Here are some words of wisdom:

“ When a great player is playing his best, he may be capable of unheard of laydowns, oron the other side of the coin monster calls or monster bluffs even. Typically average to good players can only marvel at how a guy like John Hennigan plays a particular hand. Often, it's simple "over their head"

and very closely related to:

“You can use a chess analogy: if good chess players didn't understand why Bobby Fisher made a play they may see it as a mistake. Only Fisher knows that it is the best play available. With poker, good players might not understand the reasoning behind a play that a great player makes. Only a player that has a GREAT understanding of the game can deem whether or not another player is skillful.”

Hellmuth hubris?

“He's just got "feel", that one unquantifiable poker skill that "math guys" so desperately want but simply can't learn.”

I haven’t put up the ripostes that DN deservedly received over these gems, you can Google them yourself. However the last one was answered so elegantly it merits repeating:

“You say that like there weren't (at least) two "math guys" at the final table of this years WSOP final. It's a pity that one had to knock out the other.

It's those kind of statements which make it pretty clear that you don't really have much of an understanding of what "math" is.

The difference between "feel" and "math" is the difference between heads and tails. It's the same coin. It's just that the "math" people know that the coin has two sides, whereas the "feel" people think it has only one.'