Episode 221: Benny Glaser

Benny Glaser is a mixed games specialist from the United Kingdom. With three WSOP bracelets to his name, he is finally getting some recognition as a world-class mixed games expert. We talk to him about why he chose to focus on games that, especially in the UK, are played far less frequently than no-limit hold ’em, why these games haven’t taken off in popularity, how he stays on top of so many different games, and the threat that artificial intelligence poses to non-hold ’em games.

Plus, a big announcement from Nate, and Andrew discusses a big call down he made in the WSOP Main Event.

Timestamps

0:30 – hello & welcome
16:30 – strategy
50:30 – Benny Glaser

Strategy

Beginning of Level 2, 150/300. I open to 750 UTG2 with ATo (while noting that the very active Euro on my left is doing the fold hold). CO, BN, and BB call. CO and BN are among the weaker players at the table, BB seems quite good.

Flop T66cc, check to me, I bet 1200 into 3000ish, only BB calls (he called pretty quickly, though I put less stock in timing tells for better players).

Turn 4o. He checks, I bet 2200, he raises to 8000, and I take a long time calling.

River 3o. He bets 16K into 25K.

3 thoughts on “Episode 221: Benny Glaser

  1. Andrew and Nate, you mentioned in this episode (and in past episodes) this idea of “solving” a particular game. Would you mind explaining what you mean by this and how it might affect the game in the future? Is it possible that you mean someone will have figured out the correct line of action for every possible scenario? That seems unlikely so I’m not exactly sure what you mean by solve. Thanks so much!
    Amazed how this show just seems to be getting better and better.

    • Tricky subject, but you’ve got the right idea. Check out our interviews with the Computer Poker Research Group if you want to learn more about this. They’re the ones who “essentially solved” heads up limit hold ’em. For multi-player games, it’s less clear that a “solution” will exist.

  2. Sorry to revisit a painful hand for you, but in the strategy segment you say that when you bet the turn your ideal outcome from that would be for your opponent to fold. However, if you have TPTK on a relatively dry board and you have good reasons for hoping your opponent folds when you bet, is that not in itself an excellent reason not to bet? If your opponent putting money in the pot when you have TPTK is not the scenario you’re hoping for then surely you never want to bet? (And apologies again, I know that you acknowledged in the show that you shouldn’t have bet, but I don’t think this specific line of reasoning was covered.)

Comments are closed.