From the Desk of the Poker Philosopher

I went out to the Rio last night to play the 7PM $1000 second chance tournament. For some reason, even though our table was apparently sold out, four players didn't show up in the time I was there, which unfortunately was not very long. In fact I was probably the first eliminated from a field of 60. Some loud mouth tool who had apparently been donking it up in the cheaper series tournaments opened to 150 at 25/50. I called with 97s, then a nerdy Asian kid made it 500 from the button. The tool folded, and I called cuz effective stacks were 5K. Flop QT8, I check, he bets 500, I call. Turn 6 gives me the nuts, I check, he bets 1500, I shove, he calls with QQ for top set and spikes a 6 on the river. That knocks me down to 800 or so.

Then this kid who actually seemed to be pretty good, was very attentive and such, opened to 125 against one of the away BB's. He varied his opening size, and the last time he raised this small, he had KT. I jammed with Q8s, and he called pretty quickly with KJo. Good read? Anyway that was the end of me.

I sat with $1000 at a 5/10 table and almost immediately lost a substantial pot. I raised AQo to $35 from middle position, the button, who had the gaunt face and fashionable attire of a German but was actually an algebra teacher from Dallas, called, and the BB, a smart looking young white guy, called too. Flop was KKT, we checked it all the way around. Turn was a third club, like a 6 or something, and the BB bet out $75. I had the Ac, so I called.

River was an off-suit A, and he checked. I value bet $200, and he called with Jc 7c for a flush. Whoops. It's a no cap game, so I put $500 in bills on the table.

For a while I was completely card dead, and the table was pretty tight aggressive (for a live game), but there was a lot of straddling, so I made some nice squeeze plays to pick up some chips in a few straddled pots.

To my left was a hipster-looking guy from Chicago named Jeremy. He talked a lot, which was a little annoying, but he was kind of fun I guess. He seemed to be aggressive, though he was also getting absolutely run over by the deck and was on a bit of positive tilt. The best example of this: Jeremy limped UTG, UTG+1 raised to $30, two calls, he re-raises to $180, UTG+1 instantly jams for like $700. As Jeremy is thinking, UTG+1 shows him an Ace. Jeremy tells him, "I've got AK, I shouldn't call for a chop, but why would you show me the A? I think you have AK also," and he called. The guy did in fact have AK also, and they chopped.

Jeremy's brother is also at the table, and seems to be a little newer to the game, as Jeremy is constantly explaining to him why he played a hand a certain way. The two of them discuss the psychology of showing the A, and brother man apparently thought it was a reverse tell and that the guy had AA, mostly because of his lack of hesitation when he 4-bet shoved.

In my favorite hand of the night, there was a straddle UTG, brother man called UTG+2, algebra teacher called (he was loose), and I popped it to $120 with 86s in the SB. Brother man called pretty quick. For whatever reason, I felt like he had a mid pocket pair.

The flop was 853, giving me a gut shot. I bet $150, because it's live poker and smaller c-bets work, and because if he was torn between raising and calling, I wanted him to feel comfortable calling so I'd have a shot at hitting my draw. As soon as I bet, my opponent quickly glanced over at this brother, Jeremy. I took from this that he was unsure about what he was supposed to do here and instinctively looking at his brother because that was who had been teaching him the game. It was just a split second, then he very clearly counted my stack and his own chips before putting out his call.

Having picked up on his weakness, I was planning to fire at the turn. But then the dealer rolled a deuce, giving me a double gutshot, and I decided to check and see if I could get a free card or at least put in the last bet rather than risk getting raised off my hand. My opponent bet 300, and remembering his suspicion when the guy insta-shoved pre-flop against his brother, I instantly moved all in, charging the guy his last 500 and change. He tanked, told me he didn't think I had anything, and folded. The nervous glance at Jeremy also made me think he was concerned about looking dumb by making the wrong play, and basically making a bad call is more likely to end in embarassment than making a bad fold, since I may not (and in fact did not) show my bluff.

That was the only big pot I won all night, and in three hours, I never saw a hand better than that AQ. Right before I left, though, there was a hilarious hand between the two brothers, which Jeremy had already announced would be his last. At his brother's urging, he straddled UTG, his brother called, and like three more people called. On a Th 8c 4c flop, Jeremy bet $120 and only his brother called. The turn was the 5h, Jeremy bet $300, and his brother raised him $500 more. It was obvious to me at this point that the brother had at least a set. While Jeremy was thinking, his brother playfully flashed him the 7c. Based on the AK vs AK hand and the discussion following, there was a lot of leveling going on here, and the whole table knew it and was laughing at this little family feud. Finally, Jeremy shrugged and called. The turn blanked, and Jeremy checked and called an all in for like $500 more. His brother obviously showed him 76, which was double gutted on the flop. The student becomes the master!

Jeremy was still up $700 on the night, so he didn't mind too much dropping $1200 to his brother on his last hand. As they left, the brother asked what I had in our big pot, and I told him about my bluff, which he took in stride. I made like $350 in three hours, so I guess it was worth my time, but boring as hell cuz I was card dead and mostly the table was pretty boring.

Labels: Las Vegas, poker, poker strategy, session review

Stumble It!

I heard this story from Bond, who heard it from someone else, so I have no idea how true it is, but I think it's hilarious, regardless.

Some NLHE tournament or something, guy raises pre-flop, Chan calls out of the blinds. On the flop, Chan check-raises all him, and the guy starts agonizing over his decision. He's grunting, groaning, staring at Chan, asking what he's got, holding his head in his hands, just making a big production out of it. Finally, after like two minutes of this, he goes, "Bang! Bang! God you!" and flips over bottom set. Then, as the dealer is pushing him the pot, he takes out his cell phone, and, with Chan still at the table, calls up his buddy, and says, "Hey, dude, guess what?! I just slow-rolled Johnny Chan!!!"

Labels: poker, wsop

Stumble It!

After the $5K yesterday, I played a $512+13 ten-handed satellite. It was winner take all in tournament lammers, but since this was live poker, my understanding was that deals were almost always made.

The play was predictably bad. Tons of limping pre-flop, no one ever raised without having AK or TT+. Oh except one guy who raised A8 then stacked off on a 764 flop, losing to a set of 6's.

Half the table was comprised of a group of Mexicans who were all friends with each other. One lady was concerned about collusion, but I think she was just a racist, cuz the guys only spoke English at the table and weren't like constantly getting involved in the same pots or anything. One of the Mexicans, a kind of fat guy with a goatee and some badass tatoos, got into a little spat with some European donk who was insisting that a guy who called all in on the river (European wasn't involved in the pot) had to reveal his cards even though he mucked when the better turned over the nuts.

The Mexican guy seemed mostly to be messing with the European, who was taking it way too seriously. They called over the floor, who confirmed that the hand should have been shown. The Mexican made a big show of apologizing for questioning the European.

A few hands later, once again a pot the Euro wasn't involved in, some guy who barely spoke English through in a five hundred chip and held up five fingers. The dealer announced a raise, and the European asked if it shouldn't be a call, since the guy didn't say raise. The dealer ignored him, but the Mexican guy laughed and said, "I bet you were the hall monitor at your school. Always run to the principal's office and tell him when people are smoking in the parking lot." Whole table laughed at the fuming European.

Still at 25/50 (2000 starting chips, 15 minute levels, shit structure), the funny Mexican opens for 250. I flat call with QQ cuz from what I've seen he's capable of reading hands and can probably play pretty well against a 3-bet when he's opened so large to begin with. Two other guys call, whoops. Flop T 8 5, check to the Mexican, he bets 850, I shove 1600, guy to my left (the one who doubled with set of 6's) insta-re-shoves, and I know I'm toast. I'm sure any of these donkeys is capable of calling my all in cold with worse than QQ, but they'd have to think about it. The insta-call is scary.

THEN, the Mexican starts going on about how sick this is and how he's got a big hand and finally he shoves in too and I have to be just smoked. But nope Mexican has JTs, other guy has 97 for an open-ender, and my hand holds up.

We get down to four-handed, and I've got half the chips in play, though blinds are humongous. The 97 guy to my left is second in chips, then there's some white kid and one of the Mexicans both kinda short. 97 guy proposes a 500 chip save. Are you insane? The kid has 2 BB's and no idea how to play a stack that size, we would just be giving him $500 for no reason. I decline the chop, and instantly win some enemies at the table.

I bust the kid with A2s on my button v his last BB, and again decline a $500 save, since I still have half the chips in play. Mexican open completes from the SB, I find AK and shove, showing it when he folds (since I'm going to be shoving a lot). "Thought so," he said. "I folded A9." Wow, how terrible to open complete that and then fold to a shove. No way I am dealing with this guy still in it.

Amazingly, he shoves at his next five opportunities, and every time, he shows an Ace. Must be nice. At this point I'm blinded down to just below average, and I tell the guys I'm now willing to do the $500 save. "Why now but not before?" 97 asks.

"I had a lot more chips then."

He stares at me like I just raped a nun. "Oh, so now that you have less chips, you want to make a deal?"

"Yes," I tell him very simply.

They both agree, and we play on. I shove A3 from the button for 7 BB's, and the Mexican tanks. What now? He finally calls with AJ (tough spot there, amigo), but I spike my 3. "Why you put all those chips in there with A3?" he asks me disgustedly.

"It wasn't really that many chips." We play on, he keeps picking up shoving hands. I correctly muck A9 when he standard raisies the button, and he shows us AJ. Must be nice.

Blinds go up again, I shove A3 for 6 BB from the button, now 97 insta-calls. Christ, how do these weak-tight nits get dealt premiums every fucking time? He's got KK, and I'm down to 500, which is only half the BB I now have to post. 97 open limps the button, Mexican completes, and on the flop they agree verbally to check it down and have the dealer just put out the board all at once. Blatant collusion, but whatever. I make two pair to triple up.

Next hand, Mexican min-raises the button, I've got 1/3 of my stack in the pot blind so I try to call as confidently as possible with 94o, but BB calls the min-raise anyway. Board is 875, BB is going to check, but then Mexican bets out of turn. BB is a little offended Mex wasn't going to check it down with him, but then decides he's going to do the betting. He bets, Mex shoves 66, he calls with K7. Mex spikes on the turn to eliminate me and collect 75% of the chips in play.

The second I'm eliminated, they agree to a 50/50 chop. I mean, they agree instantly, no haggling or anything. My head explodes thinking about how much equity the Mexican is giving up here. Each of them pays me 250 from his half and they both leave happy.

Oh, and just to be clear, 76 was not one of the Mexicans. These guys weren't buddies or anything, just live players who enjoy making awful deals. The atrocious deal making in these things alone is probably enough edge to justify playing them, never mind that the play is terrible at all stages. The only problem is that I had to stand in line for like 45 minutes to get a seat in one.

Oh the low rake is a sweet deal, too. Factor in a $10 meal voucher, and you're only paying $3 juice.

Labels: narrative, poker, poker strategy, session review, trip report, wsop

Stumble It!

I am both pretty good at poker and kind of arrogant, so it is rare for me not to be one of the best players at any poker table and even rarer for me to admit it. In yesterday’s $5K 6-max event, I was not one of the best players at my table. I probably was not even in the top half.

While waiting for the tournament to start, I recognized Grayfx (from the 2+2 forums) walking into the Poker Kitchen. We caught up for a minute, then headed into the Amazon Room, where he introduced me to Bond18, who to my great disappointment was not wearing one of his trademark suits. His shirt had buttons on it, though, which still made him one of the best-dressed players in the room. Superfluous Man joined us as well, and we all speculated about the size and difficulty of the field before taking our seats.

“So where’s everyone sitting?” Bond finally asks.I glance at my card. “Table 71, Seat 3.” He shoots me a look, glances at his own card, and then shows it to me. It reads, “Table 71, Seat 2.” The day is not off to a good start. At least I’ve got position and someone to talk to.

This sucks for Bond and me, because we'd both prefer not to have the other at the table, but it really sucks for the two guys who are backing both of us. I know we're not the only two horses they've got in this event, but it's a major beat for them to have the two of us playing against each other with the same money.

Our whole table turns out to be very solid, probably one of the toughest in the whole tournament, especially based on some stories we hear from others. In the 1 seat is a very solid Swedish player. Swedes have a reputation for being super-aggressive, but this guy was just very, very solid. As Bond put it, “I haven’t seen him get one wrong yet.”

Then there was Bond, then me, then to my left a guy in his mid-20's who was getting some attention from the Pocket Fives people covering the event. Rounding out the table were two middle-aged white guys in cheap polo shirts.

Stereotyping alone led me to think that these two would be the weakest players at the table, which isn’t to say they would be bad. The second guy was pretty tight and straight-forward, but the first one, whose polo read “Legends of Sports”, seemed sorta spewy. He was just a little too loose passive, limping into a lot of pots, calling raises, checking, betting too small, etc. Oh, and there was this hand: he limps UTG+1, button limps, SB completes, I check Ts7 on my BB. Flop KsQs3s. I lead 150, Legends calls, everyone else folds. Turn is an off-suit T, I check, he bets 200, I decide I could have a lot of outs and am getting a good price, so I call. River blank, I check, he shoves. Huh? Yeah, he shoves his 9K stack at this <1K pot. I turbo muck and roll my eyes at Bond.

That was the only pot I played for the first 3-4 orbits, not even making position raises from the button or completing in the SB. I just wasn’t getting playable hands, and there was no one at the table playing so badly that I was looking for excuses to play pots with him. Finally, I found what looked like a good spot to make a play. The Swede, who’d been opening kind of aggressively pre-flop at first, raised to 150, and Bond called. I decided it was a good squeeze spot and made it 750 from the button. Legends quickly through 4-bet me cold to 2000 from the BB, and I turbo-mucked my 2-4s.

A few orbits later, blinds were up to 50/100, and Bond opened UTG. I hadn’t been messing with him much except in our blind battles, but with JJ, I had an easy reraise to 900. The p5'er on my left, however, thought for a bit and made it 2400 (Bond claims he made it 2100, but I was pretty sure it was 2400). Either way, I didn’t feel I could stack off for 100 BB’s with JJ against a cold 4-bettor, so I mucked.

Around this time, I notice Legends talking to some guy in a Full Tilt shirt and hat. From what I overhear of their conversation, it sounds like the guy is complimenting Legends on something he wrote. “...nice counterpoint to Ferguson’s more mechanical chapter.” Wait a damn minute. Is that... yeah. The guy I pegged for table fish is none other than world renowned poker player Ted Forrest. I must be missing something.

One of the last hands before break, I raise to 300 with Jc8c in the CO and Forrest calls in the SB. Flop Qd Jd Ts. He checks and calls 500 on the flop, then checks and folds to 1500 on a blank turn.I tell Bond how I didn’t recognize Forrest until right before break, and he laughs at me. Although he agrees Forrest looks different in person, he figured it out in about 10 seconds. Oh, well. Then I tell him I figured Forrest for the soft spot at the table, and to my surprise, he agreed. “I don’t think he’s been playing well at all.”We get back from break with blinds at 100/200. After folding an orbit or two, get Ad-Qd on the button with an 8400 stack and open to 550. The p5'er calls in the SB, everyone else folds. Flop Qc 8d 4c. He checks and calls a bet of 800. Turn is the 6h, he checks and calls 1600. Then he bets 3600 into me on a 9c river. Ugh. I’ll have fewer than 10BB’s if I call and lose. Did he really check-call twice with a flush draw? I could see doing it on the flop, but the turn was a pretty big bet to call on a draw. Maybe he picked up a pair also? OK, well if he’s bluffing, what’s he bluffing with? There aren’t any other draws out there that missed. It’s hard to put him on a flush, but I just can’t see any other hand that makes sense. How did he get to the river with a hand that needs to bluff? I finally fold, and he shows me a pair of 3's. Huh? I guess he outplayed me on the river, but even if he successfully bluffs every club river, he’s still losing money on the turn call. I’m baffled, but I think I did a good job of not letting it tilt me.

The very next hand, I open KQ to 600 UTG, and the same guy makes it 1800. Then Ted caps his cards, thinks for a minute, and shoves 4200. Easy muck with KQ, right? P5'er is priced in to call with any two, but has AQ. Who wants to guess Forrest’s hand. Anyone? AA? KK? AK? Would you believe a pair of deuces? He wins the flip, and the p5'er is absolutely floored, but manages to avoid any outright berating. There was plenty of other stuff I saw Ted do sometimes that seemed bad to me, but I could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he knows something I don’t. But there is just NO WAY that 4-bet shoving deuces there can be anything but a spew, and not a small one, at that.

I work my stack back up to 6000 when Forrest raised my BB to 550. I was just thinking how I was a little too deep to re-steal, but then I found AA. I’d need a narrow range to 3-bet him here, and at the time that seemed like a good reason to flat call, but thinking back on that 22 hand, maybe I should have reraised. Anyway, the flop came Kd Qx 5d, I checked, he bet 500, and folded when I raised to 2000.

After another pot or two, I was back up around 8000. Stakes were up to 100/200/25, and I made it 600 UTG with A-Qo. The other middle aged guy who wasn’t Ted called in the SB, something he’d do with a wider range than he should, and the Swede called in the BB, which I figured could be a wide range since he was kind of priced in to a 3-way pot. Hence, I bet 1400 on a Ts 8s 3d flop. The Swede called after a moment of thought. Turn was a blank, and we checked it through. River was the Js, and he quickly checked again. Based on his timing alone, I didn’t feel he would have a flush here, so I bet 3200. This bet-check-bet line is so often a pot control line with a good one pair hand that I’ll often bluff whiffed overs on the river against a certain type of player, not to mention that scare card falling on the river.

But as soon as the chips left my hand, my brain started shouting at me, “What are you doing?! This is bad! Bad! He knows you’re bluffing. He’s suspicious. He’s going to call!” The negative thoughts burning through my head were making me paranoid that I’d give off some tell. I stared hard at the felt, trying my best not to flinch beneath the Swede’s calm, casual gaze. He counted off the chips for a call, and I tried not to look sick. He moved them forwards, then pulled them back again. Then he confidently set them in the middle. “Call.” T9 is good, sir. Nice call. I thought this hand over afterwards, and I don’t feel it’s a bad spot, intrinsically, to bluff. I could and would play JJ+, AJ, and flush draws like this some of the time. However, I think I had a bad feeling about it because my timing was wrong. I checked too quickly on the turn, whereas with an overpair or a flush draw I would probably need to think about what to do with it. And again, while my river range is much wider than flush or air and includes a lot of hands that beat T9, I probably think for at least a second or two before making a thinnish value bet (and compared to the river ranges of most live players, any one pair hand is a thin value bet). Also, the Swede hadn’t seen me make bets like this before, which may have made him more inclined to figured me for flush or bluff. I felt thoroughly outplayed.

After an orbit or two of looking for a good resteal spot, I find A9 in the SB facing a button raise from Bond. “All in.” Much to my dismay, Pocket 5's caps his cards and shoves over the top from his BB, tabling AcQd. Ugh. But wait is that a 9c in the door? Followed by another 9? And the Jc? Trips on the flop puts me way out in front, and he shakes his head in frustration and gathers his things. The table calls him back when the Qc turns. Suddenly he’s got 10 outs on the river. I grimace as a 3c rolls off and puts him back in action. He was even shorter than I, so I’ve still got a little to work with. I open shove once or twice to get up around 2800, then get A4 in the SB against another Bond button raise. I shove, he makes a good call with Kd Td, and as soon as I see a diamond in the door, I know I’m in trouble. He flops a flush draw, but my A-high miraculously holds up.

Next orbit, I raise to 600 with K-Qo, and Forrest calls. Flop AK5. I check, and he bets 400. Easy call. Turn blank, I check, he bets 900, and I call. River A, I check prepared to call a bet of any size, but he checks back and my hand is good. Based on how Forrest had been playing, I was 99% confident in my hand on the flop and turn. He’d always been playing one pair hands for pot control on early streets and betting larger with his monsters, so I really couldn’t think of a possible holding for him that beat me. That was a bit of a confidence booster.

Blinds are 150/300 after break, and an orbit or two later, I’m sitting in the BB with 4800. P5's opens UTG to 800 and Forrest calls. P5's was capable of pretty aggressive pre-flop play from any position, and Forrest had been taking a lot of flops in position, so I was looking for an excuse to squeeze. K-Jo was plenty good, and I had the perfect stack size for it. P5's folded, but Forrest tanked and counted it down. Once he didn’t call instantly, I figured I was in decent shape, cuz he isn’t going to turn over JJ+ or AK. He flips A-Js afhsakhgklashgkla’jfdsahglkahgag why do they never have AQ or TT or something that’s good but still gives me a ****ing chance?!?!?! Flop A T x, but I can’t drill the gutter ball and Forrest eliminates me.

Labels: narrative, poker, poker strategy, session review, trip report, wsop

Stumble It!

I'd been going back and forth on whether to play this. I've been frustrated with how few prelim events I've played and how little playing time I ended up with in the two that I did play. However, my bankroll can't really handle more shots right now, especially since I still need to buy into the main event and want to have 100% of my own action in that. I don't generally like taking stakes, but I really wanted to play tomorrow's event and was able to line up a deal that met my needs well. I sold 1/3 of my action to two different people for $2500 each, so I'm freerolling tomorrow for 1/3 of anything I win. If I'm lucky enough to win a big prize, I'm sure it will be frustrating to give away 2/3 of it, but playing what should be one of the best events in the series without denting my bankroll will be nice.

Wish me luck!

Labels: poker, wsop

Stumble It!

I was browsing this blog from a Vegas taxi driver and was very glad to see this post about all the racism surrounding NBA All Star Weekend. I was in Vegas while Mandalay Bay was hosting the NBA All Star game, in fact I was staying just next door at the Luxor, but as that was only the second time I'd ever been to the city, I didn't really have a point of comparison for the crowds, traffic, etc. Before realizing that this event was going on, I did note that Vegas seemed a lot more diverse than I remembered it, but I never felt particularly unsafe or saw any criminal behavior or anything like that.

The next time I was in Vegas, which was about a month later, however, I heard from cab drivers, poker dealers, and hotel employees (all white) about how bad that weekend was, not just in terms of crowds, but about how it was unsafe to walk outside, people were getting shot in the street, etc. Like I said, I had been walking around the Strip that weekend without seeing any of this, but I kept hearing the same thing from so many people that I started to think maybe there was some truth to it, even though my spidey sense was telling me this was mostly just racism talking, as there were so many more black tourists that weekend than there usually are in Vegas.

Anyway, I was glad to see that at least one Vegas cab driver felt the same way I did about all this fear-mongering. He reports overwhelmingly posititive experiences from that weekend and argues that the traffic and crime were not abnormal for a three-day weekend in Vegas. Best of all, he frames his anti-racist ethic in a classically Vegas way:

"Las Vegas needs to grow up and respect all races and cultures that visit and spend money." (emphasis added)

Labels: Las Vegas, race

Stumble It!

For those who liked the first Rekrul story I linked a few days ago, here are some more:

I Saved a Life Today
I Made a Friend Today
I Made an Enemy Today

Labels: poker, trip report

Stumble It!

2+2's Matt "mlagoo" Lagoo has just won the largest top prize in the history of the Poker Stars Sunday Million, taking down 1st place money of $315K with no chop in the quarterly $1000 buy-in event. I've briefly met Matt twice in Vegas, once just last week, and he's just as friendly, humble, and good-natured in real life as he is on the internet. Everyone who knows him says he's been having a really, legimitately bad run of luck at tournament poker for a really long time now, so it's awesome to see him finally getting what he deserves. Way to go, Matt!

Labels: poker

Stumble It!

Apparently I didn't have Poker Stars set to record HH's on this computer, so I don't have the exact details, but this is from the $200 HORSE tournament. First, the history that set it up:

I raised like A239 or something from UTG+1, SB calls, everyone else folds. Flop is QQ6r, he checks, I figure (based on my very limited knowledge of O/8), that he should mostly have low hands to be calling a raise from the SB. I'm more likely to have a Q or a big pair, so I bet. He calls. Huh. I picked up a low draw on the turn and so it checked it throuh, and then the river blanked, we checked through again, and he had AK63, don't think he was even suited pre-flop. What do you think this is, fish, Texas Hold 'Em?

Anyway, a few hands later, I raise AQT3ss, and fish calls in BB. Flop T42r, giving me top pair top kicker and the nut low draw. He checks and calls a bet. Turn K, he checks and calls. River K, he checks and calls, my hand is good. I didn't even look at what he had, but I did write him this letter:

Dear fish,

Welcome to Valuetown. Population: You.

Sincerely, Foucault

PS Sundays suck. I lost so many crucial coin flips today and ended up with one shallow cash in the Stars Second Chance (TT < AKs) despite accumulating nice stacks in the UB 200K (button misclick calls my resteal with 94s and sucks out on my K5s), FTP 500K (UTG+1 limp-calls 25% of his stack with 33 and flops a set against my KK), Stars Warm Up (AKs < TT), Stars HORSE (AAxx < AJ63 on QJx flop in O/8, then same guy gets rolled up J's in 7-Stud when I make a desperation push), and the FTP Mulligan (TT < AK, AQs < ATs, Q7 < 66, KQ < JJ).

Labels: poker, poker strategy, session review

Stumble It!

Ray "ExitOnly" Coburn busted from the WSOP $2000 PLHE tournament in 8th place when his 44 lost to AK all in pre-flop. That's worth $22,000 and change. Congratulations, Ray!

Labels: poker, wsop

Stumble It!

Just read a good post from Taylor Caby (Green Plastic) over at Cardrunners that captures very well my sentiments towards at least one segment of the WSOP scene:

"I'm already really tired of the whole live poker scene. I don't HATE vegas by any means, but i do hate the tourney circuit and all the bs that goes along with it. For the most part, these players are miserable. They berate dealers, act like they are celebrities, look down on players who aren't in the "in" crowd, etc. It's almost like high school all over again, except it is a bunch of grown men (and occasionally women, who often times i've found are even worse with this stuff)."

He goes on to draw a distinction between live and internet pros, and while I certainly agree that the latter tend to be better players, I'm not sure they're necessarily better mannered. Internet pros are so accustomed to having a good game available whenever they want it that they take it for granted and often have little concern for the ethics of poker. The anonymity of the internet, combined with the fact that many of these guys are very young and not accustomed to being popular, seems to give them license to run their mouths, berate other players, act cocky, etc. A lot of them are very willing to bring that behavior with them when they play live.

Case in point is the guy I called "Izod" from my $2500 6-max trip report. It turned out he was a member of 2+2, as I suspected he was, and he responded to my trip report basically to defend his behavior because he said he was trying to tilt the fish. In my opinion, this misses the point entirely. Essentially, he was saying, "No, no, I was acting like a complete douche because I thought I could make some money by doing it!" Congratulations, you're a life fish.

I also think is a lie, or at least an exaggeration. I'm pretty sure the kid acted exactly the way he wanted to act, making fun of Dogtown and laughing at his play to his face, and then attached some ad hoc "justification" to this shameful behavior. It certainly wasn't the case that this guy needed any encouragement to make a loose call, and even if it were, well, it would take a lot more than a small edge in a poker tournament to cause me to make a complete tool out of myself.

Labels: Las Vegas, poker, wsop

Stumble It!

This is one of the best poker stories I've read. Definitely check it out:

Rekrul in Korea

Labels: narrative, poker, trip report

Stumble It!

Ray Coburn, 2+2's ExitOnly, has final tabled the $2000 PLHE event at the WSOP (yeah, the one I scrubbed out of in like 2 hours). He's coming in as the short stack, but this kid is so good, he's probably the favorite to win anyway.

Check out his blog, too. Good luck, Ray!

Labels: poker, wsop

Stumble It!

My website is finally up! It's still a little rough around the edges, but check out http://www.thinkingpoker.net. It's not just for redirecting anymore!

At the moment, there are just a few links to some of what I consider my best poker writing. I'm hoping eventually to add a section for reviews of poker rooms, books, computer programs, web sites, etc. I'd also be very interested in suggestions for other interesting content.

You can expect to see some ads on the site and the blog soon, as well. Sorry, hippies, but I'm giving away valuable information here, and damned if I wouldn't like to make some money off of it myself.

Please let me know what you think!
Stumble It!

Today I played my second preliminary event in the 2007 World Series of Poker. The game was pot-limit, rather than no limit, Texas Hold 'Em, with a $2000 buy-in. As the name implies, a player may not at any point bet or raise more than the amount in the pot. The game still plays very similarly to no limit hold'em, especially given the relatively shallow stacks we get to work with. The most important difference is that antes are never used in pot limit games, so that the forced blind bets drive the action exclusively. This means pots are smaller pre-flop, and therefore a tighter, more conservative strategy is generally correct. That's not a 100% good thing for me, because although I'm capable of adapting, that's not my preferred style of play. However, smaller pots also mean there are more decisions to be made in any given hand, and since I expect generally to make better decisions than my opponents, that's a source of profit for me.

On the way to the Rio, I had to stop at Bank of America to get some cash. I hate Bank of America. Unfortunately, I got stuck with them after they bought out Fidelity, with whom I'd previously had an account. They constantly mail me credit card offers inside envelopes labeled "Important Account Information!" Jesus Christ, you are a multi-billion dollar financial institution, why are you resorting to fly-by-night, Publisher's Clearinghouse scam tactics?

Anyway, I go up to the teller, swipe my card, enter my PIN, and tell her I want to withdraw money from my checking account. "Would you like to open a Nevada account now that you live out here?"

What in God's name are you blathering about? "I don't live here, I'm just out here for about a month." I made one other withdrawal a few days ago, and I have no idea, even if the teller knew that she would conclude that I now live in Vegas. And even if I did, why would I want to change my account? Because I've always wanted a Nevada routing number on my checks?

"Oh, are you visiting family?"

What? Why do you care, just give me my money. "Kinda, my girlfriend."

She smiles. "Have you heard about our blahblablah credit card?"

Ugh. "Yes." Any chance that will spare me the spiel?

"Great, well you can get blah blah blah APR..."

"Not interested," I interrupt her.

"Maybe just for overdraft protection?"

"No thank you."

"OK, I'm just going to have to get my supervisor to authorize this, one moment." As we are waiting for the supervisor, she looks at me with a smile that tells me more inane badgering is on its way. "Can I ask why you're not interested in the credit card."

Good @#$% God, enough with the credit card! "I'm really not interested."

"It's an $8500 line of credit," the supervisor interjects.

This is unbelievable. I'm a very level-headed guy, and it takes a lot to get an abrupt response out of me. "Seriously, I don't want the credit card."

"OK, then, here you are, sir." The bitch finally signs the form to authorize my withdrawal, and I leave with my money.

My starting table in the tournament was fairly solid, with at least two other young, appropriately aggressive players. The softest looking spots were a middle-aged man with a big brown moustache and an older guy in blue sunglasses. The older guy largely fit my stereotype of loose passive play, but he turned out to have a bit of crazy in him.

We started with 4000 chips and blinds of 25/50. With fewer than 100 big blinds in the starting stacks, this is a pretty shallow structure that doesn't allow a lot of room for mistakes or bad luck. The first pot that I played, a few people still had not taken their seats, and one of the empty spots at the table was in the big blind. The action folded to the old guy, who just called the blind in late position. This is generally a weak play, but even more so when there's no one in the seat to defend the big blind. I decided I was going to raise with any two cards, but then i turned out I had Ace-King anyway. I raised to 275 and took it down. As I was planning on raising thiis guy quite a bit, often as a bluff, I showed him the Ace-King, hoping it would buy me a little credit next time.

Next orbit, one of the better players on my immediate right open raised to 150. This was the first time action had folded to him in late position, and I had a feeling he was going to be opening a pretty wide range. I was prepared to reraise him light, but then found Ace-Queen, which against a late position open is a legitimate reraising hand anyway. I made it 450, and he folded.

A few hands later, the old guy raised to 150, and the kid on my right reraised him to 400, which he called. On a flop of Q94, all different suits, the guy checked and called a bet of 600. The turn was something irrelevant, the old man checked, the kid bet 1000, and then the old man put him all in for 2500 more. Wow, that kind of action from a loose passive old man is usually a pretty strong hand. The kid must have the same thought, because he thought for a long time before calling with a pair of Aces. And the old man has... King-Ten, for nothing more than a gut shot straight draw! Like I said, he had a little crazy to him. The river paired the board, and the kid took down a nice pot.

Soon after, the old guy, who still had a fair number of chips, called the blind bet of 50, the same young guy called also, and I raised to 275 with Ace-nine of spades. The old guy was the only caller, and we saw an AK5 flop. He checked, and I decided to check also and give him a chance to launch some crazy at me. He bet 500 on an 2 turn, which I called. The river was a 3, and he checked. I thought it was unlikely he'd call a bet with anything worse than my top pair weak kicker, so I just turned over my hand, and he mucked.

Next orbit, I opened from late position with a raise of 150 holding Ace-King. A guy on my left who'd been quiet and pursed his lips like a duck bill whenever he played a pot called, and one of the more aggressive players in the small blind reached for some chips. I don't think I had a particularly aggressive image, but nonetheless, some players will often reraise light in this spot with what is called a 'squeeze play.' Basically he is hoping that I will fold often because I'm worried about the guy left to act behind me, and that the guy behind me will not often have a strong hand since he elected not to reraise me the first time. With the blinds plus my raise and a call already in the pot, that's a lot of chips to take down without a fight.

Given that Ace-King is a strong hand in its own right, and that there was some chance the kid was just on a squeeze play, I was prepared to come back over the top of his raise. However, he ended up raising very small, making is just 400. This made me suspicious, because the fact that he's offering such good odds on a call suggests he could have a very strong hand like AA or KK. I opted just to call his reraise after all, as I could get away cheap if I was behind and might be able to keep dominated hands like AQ and KJ around, whereas they would probably fold if I put in another raise. On the right flop, those hands could lose a lot of money to me. The flop was all rags, though, something like 753, and I folded to a bet. Oh well.

Despite his occasional crazy tendencies, the old man was still my best source of chips, so I kept hammering at him, raising his next call with a pair of 9's. The flop was KQ9, all clubs. Trips 9's is a very strong hand, but with all those clubs out there, slowplaying is too risky. I bet 400 into a pot of about 600, and much to my disappointment, he folded.

At this point, the table broke, and we all got moved to empty seats at other tables. Blinds went up to 50/100, and I didn't get much in the way of playable hands. I did open to 300 once with a pair of Queens, and an Italian (actually from Italy, not an Italian-American) called out of his BB. The flop was 7c 5d 2c, he checked, I bet 400, and he raised to 1000. It's pretty unlikely I'm beat here, but there are a lot of scary cards that could fall on the turn, and even if I just call, my opponent may slow down with worse hands than mine anyway. So, I moved all in for about 4000 more, and he folded.

On the last hand before our first break, the action folded to me on the button. I opened for the maximum, which was 350, holding a pair of 4's. The thing is that with a pair of 4's, I probably have the best hand, but anyone holding two overcards, even something as weak as 65, has the odds to call. Hence, I raised a little more than my usual 300. The big blind called anyway, and then he led into me for 500 on a Td 5h 2d flop. Hmmmm. When people call out of position pre-flop, they almost always check to the raiser on the flop, because the raiser usually bets the flop whether he hit it or not. Then the out of position player can raise if he likes his hand. The fact that this guy did attempt to check-raise me made me think he could be trying to steal on the cheap, and although there are two cards higher than my pair on the board, I felt I could still be ahead, so I called.

The turn was the 7h, putting two flush draws and several straight draws on the board. The guy bet 500 again. The pot was now 1750, and he was betting less than 1/3 of that, which gives me good odds if I'm on any kind of draw. This could mean that he himself is on a draw and wants to prevent me from making a larger bet, or that he is worried about the strength of his hand, or that he is bad at poker and trying to 'trap' me. Unfortunately, with about 5000 chips in my stack, I was in an awkward spot. I felt that if I just called the bet, it would be clear I was weak (since I'd passed up two opportunities to raise on a board where a lot of draws are possible), and he'd be able to bluff me on a lot of scary river cards. I also felt that even a small raise could be threatening to some of his better hands, because he will then be in the same situation on the river: even if he suspects he's ahead now, unless he wants to risk 5000 chips to find out, he'll be out position and potentially facing an all in bet on a scary river card. So I made a small raise, to just 1500, prepared to fold if he moved all in.

But he just called, and the river was the Ad, completing the flush that was the most likely draw for him to have had. He checked, which is actually bad to do if he just made a flush, but live players do this all the time anyway. There was about 5000 in the pot, and I had 3500 left in my stack. I contemplated moving all in to represent the flush and possibly knock him off some mid-pair hands that were beating me, but I decided the turn raise wasn't very consistent with me having a flush draw, and so I just gave up and checked. He turned over Ace-five offsuit, exactly the kind of thing I was hoping I could make him fold on the turn. Oh well, he probably would have snapped off my river bluff anyway. Not a great way to start the break.

When we came back, blinds were 75/150, meaning I could afford only 12-13 more orbits if I didn't pick up some chips. I stole the blinds once with A2 in late position and with KQ first to act. Then when I was in the big blind, the A5 guy made a pretty weak raise to just 350 from early position and got one call. I decided I was going to make a squeeze play with any hand that had sufficient showdown value, something like a pair or two big cards. But then I found a pair of Aces, the best possible starting hand! I reraised 900 more, but they both folded. At least that validates my feeling that it would have been a good time to bluff.

That put me back around 5000 after paying the blinds. After another orbit at the table, the first player to act just called 150, and I was next with Ace-Queen. I raised to 600, everyone else folded, and he called. The flop was Ah 3s 4h, giving me top pair with a good kicker. To my surprise, the other player led into me for 1000. There was now 1425 in the pot and about 4500 in my stack, so at this point my only objective is to get as much money in the pot as I can. If I'm beat, there's nothing I can do about it- we're too shallow for me to fold a hand this strong.

So how do I do that? Even my opponent was bluffing or semi-bluffing, there's a good chance he'll give up once I call that big bet unless he improves to a hand that beats me. This is what poker theorists call "reverse implied odds"- if he has this kind of hand, I stand to lose the rest of my chips if he does improve while winning nothing further if he does not. That's an argument to raise now, just to keep him from improving on a semi-bluffing hand.

If he has top pair with a worse kicker, I also think raising is the best way to get paid off, as there are a lot of turn cards that could scare him, and he may think that I am semi-bluffing if I raise. If he has a better hand than mine, well, then he is just going to win a big pot, and there's not anything I can do about it. So I raised, he moved all in, I called, and he showed me pocket 4's for three of a kind. The turn put another heart on the board, and since I had the Qh, this actually gave me a chance to win on the river, but alas, it was not to be. I lost the pot and was eliminated.

This last hand actually presents a very interesting situation, because although I was never the statistical favorite to win the pot, not pre-flop and certainly not on the flop, I believe that the way the hand as a whole will play out results in me showing a long-term profit. Allow me to explain:

When my opponent calls the raise to 600 pre-flop holding a pair of 4's, he is hunting for that third 4 on the flop to make three of a kind. He knows I'm likely to have fairly strong hand to be raising him from early position, and the times that he catches trips, he'll have a well-disguised monster and expects me to have something strong enough to pay him off. This is what poker theorists call "implied odds"- although his 44 is actually a slight favorite over my AQ, he has to realize that I could easily have a pair bigger than his 4's, in which case rather than being a slight favorite, he's going to be a big dog. He is not counting on the strength of his lowly pair winning the pot unimproved. Rather, he is speculating, making a small investment pre-flop with the intention of either winning a big pot when he makes his trips or getting away cheap when he doesn't.

But does he actually get paid off often enough for this strategy to be profitable? I think that he does not. Since he has already called 150, my raise charges him 450 more to see the flop. The times that he doesn't flop trips, he's generally going to have to check and fold to a bet, and I'm going to bet most flops, whether or not they improve my hand. So for example on a K85 flop, he will be folding the best hand, but he has to fold, since I could easily have AK, KJ, AA, or many other hands that have him drawing nearly dead. He'll only hit that 4 only about 15% of the time, which means that he'll be checking and folding about 85% of the time.

I have 4500 chips left in my stack, so if he wins all of them the 15% of the time that he does hit the 4, he'll come out alright. However, he isn't going to get my stack anywhere near that often. If the flop had been K84, he would have gotten one bet at most out of me, because once he bet or called a bet, I would have given up on my AQ and kept the rest of my money. He got a "perfect storm" flop that gave me a strong hand and him an even stronger one. Much more often, he'll miss and get bluffed out, or he'll hit, but I won't have a hand that can pay him off. In short, the implied odds aren't there for him to make that call pre-flop, even though he happened to win a big pot this time simply because the stars aligned in his favor.

Although this is analysis of the situation is a little rough around the edges, I think it illustrates an interesting point. Even though 100% of my money went into the pot when I was behind in the hand, I'm actually the one who stands to make money in this situation long term. Having won a big pot, however, my opponent will likely never realize that he was in fact making a marginally losing play. That's the magic of poker, and what makes it such a difficult game to master: losing plays work often enough to deceive players into thinking they are winning strategies. And winning players often find themselves playing Monday morning quarterback from the sidelines.

Labels: Las Vegas, narrative, poker strategy, session review, trip report, wsop

Stumble It!

On Monday, I played my first WSOP preliminary event, a $2500 6-max tournament. This is a little beyond my bankroll, but there are so few opportunities to play 6-max tournaments, and I'm not playing many other events, so I decided to go for it.

The dealer at my first table was a bit of a character himself. As I sat down, he was talking with a dealer at the next table over about Ben Affleck (who, for those who don't know, is an avid poker player and at the WSOP). After finishing that conversation, he explained to us that he had a movie script that was going to "make millions" and he just needed to get it under Affleck's nose to escape the drudgery of poker dealing forever. Someone asked him, sarcastically, why he would want to leave this job, to which he replied, "I am so sick of getting cussed at and having cards thrown at me and all that bullshit. It's like, why are you getting angry at me? I dealt the cards, but I didn't tell you to call that raise with 76s."

To the dealer's left, in the 1 seat, is a young surfer dude with blond, spiky hair, dark sunglasses, and a goatee that juts out several inches below his chin. "Gnarly", as I’ll refer to him, worries me a bit just because guys our age don’t usually have the disposable income that would allow them to play a $2500 poker tournament with a negative expectation. He isn’t bad, but he does play very straight-forwardly, and his table talk demonstrates a rather shallow level of thinking about the game.

To his left, and my right, is a black guy in his early 30's. For reasons I’m not going to speculate about here, there are very few black poker players. I’ve played with only a handful (that I know about- obviously I usually have no idea about race when playing online), and with one notable exception, they’ve all been quite bad at poker. However, the ones I’ve played with have almost all been flashy, wearing expensive sunglasses, big jewelry, etc. In this way, they’re like a lot of the young Italian guys who play at Foxwoods, fundamentally gamblers looking to splash around and show off how much money they have. The only talented black guy I can recall playing with is also much more conservative in his dress and mannerisms, so I think this is primarily a sample size issue. The guy at this table is both quiet and dressed in a subdued fashion, wearing a black sweatshirt that says “Dogtown” in small letters on the sleeve, so I’m not prepared to assume he’ll be a weak player based on his demographics alone, the way I would if he were, for instance, an old white man.

I’m in the 3 seat, which at a 6-handed table, puts me in the center, across from the dealer and slightly to his left. To my left is a young, pudgy guy in an ill-fitting Izod shirt. He talks quite a bit about what’s going on, and from the things he’s saying, I’m able to gather that he’s pretty knowledgeable about tournament play and poker in general, almost certainly the best of my opponents at the table. We’ll call him Izod.

To his left is a guy I’ll call Vinny. Vinny looks straight out of the cast of the Sopranos: track suit, gold chain, slicked back hair, etc. Then again, I say that about every poker playing Italian from Long Island, so that says something either about me or about Long Island Italians. Regardless, Vinny actually turns out to be a pretty even-tempered, friendly guy.

Next around the table is an older gentleman who shall henceforth be known as Gramps. In my experience, old guys are almost always tight passive (meaning they play very hands, and rarely bet or raise when they are playing) or loose passive (they play a lot of hands, but still are almost always checking or calling other people’s bets rather than forcing the action themselves). Gramps turns out to be of the latter variety, and is no worry to me whatsoever.

Despite my reluctance to assume he will be, Dogtown quickly makes clear that he is, in fact, not only a fish, but one of the worst poker players I’ve ever played with. He hates to fold, will play almost any two cards pre-flop, call almost any raise, rarely fold if he catches any piece of the board, randomly bluff in awful spots, and make it very obvious when he has a good hand. In short, I love having him on my right, and love watching him get lucky over and over again against the better players at the table. In particular, he takes a lot of chips from Izod by rivering a lucky two pair.

Izod was very vocal in criticizing Dogtown’s play, and finally, in his own defense, Dogtown said sheepishly, “If you concentrate, you can feel which cards are going to come.”

That just fueled the fire. Now Izod and Vinny are both openly mocking him, laughing and making jokes about his play while he’s sitting right there. He’s taking it well, but it’s annoying the hell out of me. For one thing, it’s bad for business to make fun of bad play. The old agage is, “Don’t tap the glass,” a reference to a common aquarium warning against disurbing the fish. Professionals make money based on the mistakes of bad players, so we benefit from an atmosphere where mistakes are accepted and encouraged, not mocked.

More importantly, though, this is just rude. Guys like Izod give all internet poker players a bad reputation with their lack of class. It's ironic how many pros will justify their profession ethically by saying that losing players are compensated for their money with entertainment while at the same time behaving so rudely to someone who is clearly a losing player.

After reducing him to 500 chips, Dogtown doubles up Izod up by calling his all in (with blinds still 25/50) with 98 offsuit. Izod’s AJ holds up, much to my dismay, but he goes out fairly soon anyway.

Early on, I’m not getting much in the way of cards, and with Dogtown on my right calling everything, I don’t have a lot of room to steal pots. He does eventually donate most of his chips, though, and finds himself with only about 1700 at the 50/100 level. He just calls the big blind, and I look down at A5. This is far from a great holding, but I’ve been looking to get involved with Dogtown before he loses the last of his money, and just the Ace is enough to put me well ahead of his range right now. I raise to 300, and he, of course, calls.

The flop of 842 is a good one for me, giving me a inside straight draw. However, there are now 750 chips in the pot, and 1400 in Dogtown’s stack. He checks, but I know he’ll never fold better hands, and he’ll occasionally put me in a tough spot with worse. I don’t want to get all in with him right here, but I don’t want to bet and fold what could be the best hand, either, so I check as well. Awkward spots like these are why I shouldn't make plays this like this.

The turn is an Ace, giving me top pair, though with one of the worst possible kickers. Admittedly, Dogtown doesn’t much like folding, but given how scary this Ace ought to be to him, I think he’s more likely to bluff at the river (or call a river bet with worse) than to call the turn with a worse hand than mine. So, I check again.

The river is a T, and now Dogtown announces, “All in.” Ugh. I wanted him to bluff, but he’s just bet twice the pot, and all I have is top pair with a weak kicker. Whatever, I can’t fold now.

“Call.”

“Good call,” he says, looking unhappy before he's even seen my cards. He turns over KT as he’s exiting the table. Wow, now that is beyond atrocious. On the river, he picked up a hand that could very possibly be good, and then he turned it into a bluff by moving all in for two times the pot. I’m not going to call that bet with worse than KT, and he knew that, because he knew he was beat before I turned over the winning hand. With his hand, he ought to make either a smaller bet that I could call with worse, or check and give me a chance to bluff. Oh well, I guess that’s just the kind of thinking that bad poker players can’t or won’t employ.

The best hand I see at this table is AJ, which I raise to 300 first to act. Vinny calls on the button, and then Gramps reraises to 850 from the SB. A reraise from loose passive Gramps? Even with AJ, it's time to get out of the way. I fold, and Vinny grumbles to me good naturedly, "300 and fold? You put me in a helluva spot. I call."

Flop 643, Gramps bets 2000, and 1500, and Vinny calls, telling me, "You owe me 2300 chips."

I'm tempted to respond, "I didn't tell you to call a raise with 76s," but I catch myself, realizing that speculating about his hand, even in reference to the dealer's earlier comment, would be inappropriate.

Gramps moves all in on a Q turn, and Vinny deliberates for a while before folding 76s face up! Heh. Gramps, of course, shows him a pair of Aces. This is why I say I'm not worried about him: certainly he can be dealt good cards, but he'll never give me a tough decision, because his play is just too straight-forward.

This table breaks, and I'm moved to another, slightly tougher looking table. There are a few more young guys here who look like they could be competent and no obvious fish. On closer inspection, though, there are two white guys in their early 30's who give signs of being little more than ardent enthusiasts with lucrative careers that enable an expensive hobby. One in particular is wearing a corporate polo shirt with a World Series of Poker visor. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone wearing poker clothing (except for gear worn as part of an endorsement, obviously) who was any good at the game. Only amateurs wear tee-shirts that say "I went all in at the World Series of Poker!"

But I digress. The three players on my right, the aforementioned pair included, turned out to be pretty loose passive, so I was raising their limps with a lot of medium-strength hands. Generally I'd win the pot with a flop bet, whether or not I hit anything, and sometimes I'd fold if they played back at me. Nothing complicated. Once, the guy to my immediate right just called the big blind of 200 first to act, and I raised to 900 with A9. One of the corporate amateurs in the big blind called, as did the limper, which was not the result I wanted.

I got a flop of A87, which is actually kind of tricky when I have A9. If I bet the flop, I'm pretty much only going to get action from people with two pair or top pair and a better kicker. So, I check, reluctantly giving a free card to two players. The turn brings a T, potentially making more two pair hands for others but giving me an open-ended straight draw. They all check to me again, and now I bet 1700, prepared to call a check-raise, though I wouldn't be happy about it. The BB calls, while the other guy folds. We check it through on a K river, and my A9 prevails over his A2. Excellent, that's exactly why he shouldn't be calling a raise with an easily dominated A2.

I'd just been thinking how nice it was that I was able to get away with all this raising because even when the table thought I was bluffing, all they would do was call me pre-flop and then give up if the flop missed them, which is exactly what I wanted them to do anyway. Then I got dealt a pair of Kings, and thought how nice it would be if someone did re-raise me, and sure enough I made my standard raise to 600 and the button, who'd been giving me the stink-eye every time I raised, made it 2500. Niiiiiice. I had about 16,000 chips to start the hand, but I was worried he'd fold most worse hands if I moved all in preflop because live poker tournaments are like that, so I just called his raise, deciding to check-raise all in on the flop.

The flop was a lovely 852, and I figured it was very unlikely my opponent could get away from another overpair. I checked, he asked what I had left, and then bet 5000. I moved all in for like 7000 more, and he folded. Oh well, it was still practically a double up.

A little while later, though the same guy gave me some actual trouble. After winning that pot and getting up a nice stack, I was playing more aggressively than ever. I raised 6s 5s, the kid (Jewish, with stylish sunglasses and clothing and such) called in the SB, and one of the corporate amateurs called from the BB. Flop Qc Jc 6d, and they checked to me. Bottom pair not good enough on this board, I check, too.

Turn 5h, they check to me again, and I bet 1200. Now the kid in the SB check-raises to 2500. Blech. I have the worst possible two pair, and the size of his raise, barely the minimum possible amount, suggests that he's got at least a better two pair. However, there aren't a lot of ways for him to have that. QJ is the most plausible, then 65, but my holding makes that unlikely. I doubt he'd play Q6 or Q5, I think he would have reraised QQ or JJ preflop, which makes high three of a kind unlikely, and again, with me holding 65, it's unlikely he has 66 or 55. I had seen him raise before on a draw, but in that case he was in position, which he isn't now. Our effective stacks were over 20,000, so even though I thought he could have a draw, I didn't want to 3-bet him and commit my entire stack to this pot. So I called.

The river was an ugly K, improving hands like KQ and KJ that I was beating on the turn. Now he bets 3200, which is like half the pot. I only have to be good about 25% of the time, and I decided he could be on a missed draw or even value betting like KT or something that he had semi-bluffed on the turn and then made top pair with. So I called, and he showed me QJ. Nice hand.

We had our second break of the day, and then the guy to my right was busted and replaced by a pudgy dude with a short stack. My Jewish friend asked how much the guy had, to which the man dejectedly replied, "Like $5." I eyed his stack myself and counted only about 3000 chips. Blinds were now 150/300 with a 25 ante, so he didn't have a lot of room to maneuver. He moved all in from late position a few times to pick up the dead money and grew his stack to about 4000.

He was moving in with such frequency that, combined with his pessimistic statement when he first sat down, I knew he was ready to give up and I was going to have to call him with a somewhat wide range if the opportunity arose. Sure enough, he shoved all 4000 chips second to act, and I looked down at 99. I only had about 12,000 chips, so I was a little reluctant to flip a coin with him if he had two overcards to my pair. However, based on my read, I had to figure him for a wide range that could include smaller pairs and stuff like A8 that I was way ahead of. So I moved all in over the top of his raise. I turned over my 99, and to my delight, he turned over 75s. With more than ten times then big blind and four players to act behind him, that's a pretty bad move, and I'm in great shape with a pair higher than either of his cards.

Buuuuuuuut a 963 flop is not good new for me, even though it gives me three of a kind, and I groaned audibly when I saw it. The turn, of course, is a 4 to give my opponent a straight. I could still improve to a full house if the river pairs the board, but that doesn't happen, and I'm down to 8000.

Next hand, the same player open raised to 1000. I had AQ, and moved all in for my last 8000. He folded, and after that the table broke, and I was moved to my toughest table yet. There was one mustachioed old man to my left who was quite bad, but then there were two young Asian guys and a pretty competent Brit.

One of my first hands at the table, the Brit opened for 1000 on the button and folded when I reraised to 3000 with AKo in the SB. I only had like 6000 behind, but there are plenty of live players who will and fold to a flop shove, so I figured that would be more +EV than shoving pre-flop.

On my first button, I raised to 850 with QJo, and one of the Asian kids called from the BB. He checked and called a bet on an A34hh flop. I caught a J on the turn and checked it back, but the river blanked, and I folded to a bet.

Next orbit, I opened with KJo and folded to a reraise from the other Asian kid. Then, first to act, I opened to 850 again with AJs, and again got reraised, this time by the first Asian. I had like 7500 behind, and thought for a while about what to do. It was annoying to get reraised again, but I felt like the fact that I'd just been reraised actually made it less likely that he'd be doing it light here. I ultimately folded, but I wasn't happy about it, and I'm still not sure it was correct.

After paying another round of blinds and antes, I was getting rather short, and started looking for a chance to reraise all in over someone's open. The Brit on my right, probably the most aggressive player at the table, made a small raise from middle position to 800, and I decided I was going to move in with anything halfway decent. I found K9 and shoved for 5400. He stared me down and kept shaking his head. "I just don't think you have anything. I haven't got much," he said apologetically as he called and turned over KQs. Ugh. Q on the turn puts the nail in my coffin.

Labels: Las Vegas, poker, poker strategy, session review, trip report, wsop

Stumble It!

A few months ago, I was invited to a meeting at Harvard Law School where a group of academics, journalists, medical professionals, and poker players discussed whether and how to go about legitimizing the game of poker in the United States. Here's the trip report from that meeting.

A few weeks ago, one of the coordinators of that meeting informed me of a follow-up luncheon in Las Vegas. I invited a few 2p2'ers I thought would be interested and interesting, and while LearnedFromTV accepted, Jurollo elected to play the $2K NLHE event that was starting at the same time. What a degenerate.

Anyway, I ended up having a pretty interesting lunch with LFTV, Howard Lederer, Andy Bloch, and Andrew Woods, who was representing Harvard Law School and specifically Professor Nesson, who was the force behind this whole thing. The focus of this meeting was on the creation of what Nesson et al are calling a "Poker University". Something alone these lines was brought up at the first meeting, but I didn’t really understand what was meant at the time and kind of dismissed it. Listening to Andrew talk about it, though, I now think it sounds like a very good way to go about legitimizing the game of poker.

The germ of the idea was formed from the observation that poker seems to have strong appeal among university students, from undergraduates and law students. Professor Nesson was curious to know why this game held such strong appeal for the extremely bright students he knew from Harvard Law School.

The idea now is turn the legitimacy of the academic eye on the game by focusing on its relationship to mathematics, business negotiations, computer science, wall street, venture capitalism, and even FBI hostage negotiation. With the help of Full Tilt Poker, Harvard Law School is going to start a small student organization dedicated to using poker as a teaching tool.

Teams of three or so students will play each other heads up on FTP. In different rooms, they will discuss each decision out loud, with microphone running to record their conversations and decision-making processes. FTP will provide large time banks to allow for extended discussion. After the session, a transcript and/or recording will be made available to a panel of academics or other experts from the fields listed above, who will comment on how the thinking parallels elements of their fields.

Andrew identified three objectives for this initiative:

1. To separate poker, in the mind of the general public, from the pathologies of gambling. The goal here would be to demonstrate all of the skills that go into playing the game of poker and highlight their applications in both the academic and "real" worlds. Certainly, starting the first of these clubs at one of the world’s most prestigious academic institutions will be a big step towards that goal, but ultimately the intent is to create a kit that would enable such clubs to be replicated at colleges and universities around the world. Then, there could be inter-scholastic and even inter-continental competition.

2. To get the academic community involved in poker. There was a consensus that Chen and Ankenman’s book, "The Mathematics of Poker", could easily be the focus of a graduate-level mathematics course for students with no intrinsic interest in poker. That is, the most advanced mathematic concepts are sufficiently interesting to be worthy of study as an end in themselves rather than a means of improving one’s poker game. There was also talk of developing a poker-based elective course, but concern that this would meet overwhelming institutional resistance in the current climate.

3. To generate a body of academic evidence supporting the predominance of skill over luck for use in future litigation. Howard said that Full Tilt Poker has given celebrity economist Steven Levitt access to a random sample of unbiased, anonamized hand histories from their records and that he has already begun the number crunching. Although Levitt had already been collecting data from voluntarily submitted hand histories, these were inevitably going to be biased towards the results of winning players.

This led to a more general discussion of current litigation strategies and the familiar long-term versus single hand debate. The lawyers and would-be lawyers at the table suggested that, since poker player is a viable profession vis-a-vis the IRS, one could argue in court that playing more than one of poker is a common business practice. Thus, courts would need to consider whether skill predominates in the long term rather than in a single hand.

Howard was not convinced, and claimed there was confusion created by conflating ‘skill’ and ‘edge’. Skill is the cause of an edge, but they are not the same thing. As he puts it, skill is the betting, while luck is the cards. He argues that since so few hands go to showdown, and often the hand that would have won at showdown ends up folding at some point during the hand, the skill (betting) is predominating over the luck (cards). He credits Sklansky with developing a hypothetical game, dubbed ‘lucker’ by Levitt, in which there is no folding. The divergence of results between the same hands played in lucker versus poker would be owing to skill.

I like the idea of using academia as a diving off point for legitimizing the game, both because poker really does seem to hold such tremendous appeal for many students, and because the corruption of these youth seems to be a concern for poker's opponents. Focusing on the benefits of learning the game might help to neutralize that argument and give legitimacy to the common (but flawed, in my opinion) belief that the majority of losing poker players are knowingly engaging in an exchange of cash for entertainment. I know people tend to get all up in arms about 'educating the fish', but personally I would find the profession of poker player less ethically questionable if the fish were a bit better educated, at least about the extent to which there really is a skill element to the game.

And if any American academic institution carries legitimacy, it's Harvard University, so where better to get something like this off the ground?

Oh, and for those who don't know, Jurollo went on to chop the $2K NLHE event three ways for something like $350K!

Labels: poker

Stumble It!

On Friday I played some 5/10 NL at the Rio with Tom (LearnedFromTV on 2+2). He took a seat to my immediate left, but didn't give me much trouble and provided a welcome relief from the boredom of live cash play. No particularly interesting hands, but here, I think, were the best:

Very first hand of the game (we got seated all at once in a new game), UTG raises to $35, I have KK in MP2 and make it 120, he calls. Flop 734, he check-calls $200, turn 9, he check-folds to my all in for $680. I was pretty sure I wasn't getting paid off on the first hand of the game, but what can I do?

Next orbit, it folds to the CO, who's exactly the kind of guy you want to have at your live table: doofy-looking, middle-aged white guy in bad sunglasses, some sort of hometown hero who hates to fold and thinks he's much better than he is. He min-raises to 20, I make it 70 with AKo on the button, and he calls. The flop comes down J64r, and he checks quickly, picking up a stack of chips as though to call my bet. Mike Caro tells me strong means weak, so I bet $100, exactly the amount he's holding. He calls. Turn Q puts a flush draw on the board, he checks quickly and chambers some chips again, but folds to my $200 bet, flashing me a Jack. "He folded the best hand, didn't he?" Tom whispers. I just nod.

A while later, the guy from the KK hand puts out a Mississippi straddle (same as a straddle, except you do it from the button, and SB has to act first), as he does everytime he's on the button. I make it 70 with AJs in the SB, and action folds to the straddle, who calls. Flop Qs Jc 6c, he calls a bet of 120. The turn blanks, and I ask how much he has left. "A little over $600." Tricky spot. I felt he could still have a pretty wide range here, including draws and worse J's, and he's probably going to bet almost all of it if I check. Maybe check-raise all in is best then? Anyway, I bet $240, figuring I could fold to a shove, but that it wouldn't look like I was going to fold, and thus he wouldn't shove worse hands. He just called again. With the drawy board, I can't see him slowplaying two streets, especially when it looks so much like I'm going to call the turn, so I check a blank river and call his quick all in of like $430. He shows me Ac Qc. Damn, it all makes sense now.

There was no table limit, so I reloaded for $1500. I limped 8s 5s behind a limper and got a beautiful 6s 7c 9s flop. Action checks to me, I bet $35 into a $40 pot, BB (kind of a station) calls. Turn off-suit K, he checks and calls $120. River off-suit A, he checks again, I grab four hundred dollar bills (a little more than the size of the pot) and toss them impetuously into the pot. He calls and mucks when I show.

I finished the session stuck about $750, mostly from raising people who limped straddles, firing at the flop, and folding when they played back. Several times they showed me hands, though, so I still think I was probably making profitable plays.

Oh, one funny hand, there were like four limpers, and I check 54o on the BB. Flop TT5, I am of course giving up on this dog, but it checks around. Turn 5, I still don't like my hand much, but we'll see what happens. Checks again, river A, I might actually get some value out of this! I bet $25 into the $60 pot and get one call. "I got the low boat," I tell him, turning up my hand. He shows me AT for the virtual nuts! Wowowow checks trips top kicker on the flop AND fails to raise the river when he is a lock AND can expect a huge raise to get paid off by the case T.

The guy was actually really fun though, he was probably in his late 60's, said he was from Colorado, and seemed to know all the dealers. I called him the "wheelchair cowboy" because he wore a black leather jacket and ten-gallon hat while whizzing around in a motorized scooter. But he kept making wisecracks in a heavy Western accent that were especially funny coming from him. The one I remember, I had just lost a pot to the only woman at the table, and he stared me down and informed me, "You got beat by a girl."

"I sure did."

"That's alrut. I useta lahk that sorta thang. Can be fun."

Labels: Las Vegas, poker, poker strategy, session review, trip report

Stumble It!

Justin ended up chopping the $2000 NLHE with three players remaining. Rumor is that he got like $370K, but that's not confirmed. I'm sure it was a sick score regardless. Way to go, J!

In other news, 2+2'er T_Mac has final tabled the $1500 NLHE. I haven't been reporting on all of it, but I'm pretty sure there's been someone from 2+2 at the final table of damn near every NLHE event so far.

I'm playing my first prelim today, the $2500 6-max NLHE. I think this field may be a bit tougher than some, since live fish don't like playing short-handed, but there are so few opportunities to play a live, 6-max tournament....

Labels: poker, wsop

Stumble It!

I invited Justin to a lunch with Andy Bloch and Howard Lederer (more on this later) like two weeks ago. Here was his response:

"Andrew, I should be available that day. I am in Vegas on June 12th. I can take that day off from tournaments if it is definitely going to be on the 15th. Sounds interesting. Yes that is my number still. ~Justin"

I sent him an update with more details the day before, and here was his respone:

"andrew, i would love to go but I am playing the $2k tomorrow which starts at noon I believe. let me know if you meet up another night. ~justin "

At the time, I was like, 'What a degen, this guy can't skip one day to have lunch with two of the best poker players in the world?' Guess it worked out well for him. Last I checked he was like 3/8, first place is nearly $600K!!!! Gogogogogogogo!

Labels: poker, wsop

Stumble It!

Over continental breakfast, Emily and I discuss what to do about the last episode of Sopranos, which was to air that night. Though Emily is not a fan of the show, I very much am. The complication was that, lacking either cable or ready access to friends with cable, I'd missed the last two episodes. My first instinct was to hold off on watching the finale until I'd seen these others, but Emily pointed out how difficult it would be to avoid hearing about it. That made sense, so we planned to arrive at our HBO-equipped hotel by 9PM central, since Sopranos comes on at 10 on the East cost.

A few hours of driving brought us to Omaha, one of the hidden jewels of our trip. I was expecting some small, backwater, sleepy town, especially after our experience with Cleveland. But what we found was a really hip, vibrant, and charming downtown marketplace. There seemed to be a really nice mix of people enjoying the public space, plus bookstores, music stores, and restaurants. We lunched at a delicious cafe that served a wide variety of freshly prepared meals, picked up a few CD's as our selection of road music was growing stale, and then headed just north of the city to a prarie safari.

For just $5/person, we got access to a scenic drive and footpath through habitats populated with elk, buffalo, wolves, black bears, and cranes, many of which came within feet of the car. It was very cool, but we lingered a bit longer than planned and ended up having to floor it to reach our final destination of North Platte by 9PM. We made it with minutes to spare, and I turned on HBO only to find the Sopranos nearly over. Since when did it start airing at 9PM/8PM central? Infuriating.

There weren't a lot of restaurants to choose from, but we found a very cheap diner called Penny's that offered decent food and all-day breakfast. I was hoping to have my coffee poured by a bee-hived waitress in her early forties, but instead our server was a young Asian woman with a lot of scars on her face. The chef was a white guy in his early twenties with one arm in a sling, which made us wonder about how Penny treats her employees.

Now wanting to see the Sopranos finale more than ever, I changed our hotel reservation for the next night to a different place just outside of Denver that had HBO. This time we made it to the city with plenty of time to stop for burritos and browse an amazing bookstore called The Tattered Cover. I love bookstores, and this rates with Powell's in Portland, Chicago's Seminary Coop, and Somerville's McIntyre & Moore as one of the best I've visited.

The flagship location is in an old theater building and preserves the feel with bookshelves spread out across the balconies, mezzanine, pit, etc. Old rows of folding chairs provide places to sit and read, and the basement offers the largest collection of quality bargain books (ie stuff someone would actually want, provided their interests were specific enough) I've ever seen.

I'm going to make a whole separate post about my reactions to the Sopranos finale, but for now I'll just say I was pretty disappointed and felt kind of dumb for going to such great lengths to see it. Funny enough, though, we were seated near a large group loudly discussing the ending at dinner, so Emily was proven correct that I would not have avoided hearing about it. Denver's downtown mall, much like Omaha's, was quite charming and offered a variety of appealing restaurants. It was a bit more fashionable, though, and not in a good way. Maybe this was a function of the kind of people going out to dinner on a random Monday night, but the place had kind of a snobby, obnoxious undertone to it. We had a good time, nonetheless.

The weather in the morning wasn't great, so we elected to skip any more Denver sightseeing and head o