Friday, February 29, 2008
MA Internet Gambling Ban in Trouble
This article slipped past me while I was on vacation, but thankfully I was able to catch it on Professor Nesson's blog, eon. Apparently, the provision of Governor Patrick's casino bill that would criminalize online poker, about which I wrote to him in opposition, is finding itself with no political support:
Stumble It!
While his casino bill’s overall prospects remain far from clear, Gov. Deval Patrick’s bid to criminalize online betting appears especially imperiled, with the administration treating that provision as incidental.It appears this article was originally published by the State House News Service.Close observers of the upcoming gambling debate say the move to outlaw Internet gambling, with prison sentences of up to two years, could be a casualty. Administration officials concede that the ban is not central to the three-casino plan, which Patrick estimates could generate up to $450 million in annual state tax revenues.
Senate President Pro Tempore Stanley Rosenberg, designated by Senate President Therese Murray as her top adviser on gambling, called the ban “very, very difficult” to enforce.
Labels: poker
Stumble It!
Famous Players Play Better
Terrence Chan recently made the humorous observation that not only is the hand reporting from major poker tournaments largely inaccurate (this is well-known) but that the reporters tend to reconstruct the details in ways that make "name players" look good. He cites two recent examples from his own experience, one in which he was the lesser known player and one where he was the more famous.
Although I thought this was funny and probably not without some truth, it doesn't gel with my own limited experience. For instance, this blurb about me busting Barry Greenstein from the 2007 WSOP main event makes it seem like he made an overly large re-raise with QQ:
"Andrew Brokos made it 6,000 to go and Barry Greenstein raised it to 33,000. Brokos made the call and saw a flop of {J-Diamonds}{10-Diamonds}{7-Clubs}. Greenstein found himself all-in on the flop with pocket queens against Brokos pocket aces. The aces held up and Greenstein was eliminated. After the hand, Brokos is up to 285,000."
In fact, my raise had already been called in front of him, so there was something like 20,000 in the pot already, making his reraise to 33,000 perfectly reasonable.
Stumble It!
Although I thought this was funny and probably not without some truth, it doesn't gel with my own limited experience. For instance, this blurb about me busting Barry Greenstein from the 2007 WSOP main event makes it seem like he made an overly large re-raise with QQ:
"Andrew Brokos made it 6,000 to go and Barry Greenstein raised it to 33,000. Brokos made the call and saw a flop of {J-Diamonds}{10-Diamonds}{7-Clubs}. Greenstein found himself all-in on the flop with pocket queens against Brokos pocket aces. The aces held up and Greenstein was eliminated. After the hand, Brokos is up to 285,000."
In fact, my raise had already been called in front of him, so there was something like 20,000 in the pot already, making his reraise to 33,000 perfectly reasonable.
Stumble It!
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Back from the Grand Canyon
I'm just back from three wonderful days at the Grand Canyon with Emily. It really is an amazing place. I'd been once before, about fifteen years ago, but didn't remember too much about it. We took a lot of pictures, some of which I'll post here soon, but trite as this sounds, they don't do it justice.
The Grand Canyon isn't the most beautiful or picturesque or captivating of the many canyons to be found in the American Southwest. It's simply the biggest. To appreciate it, then, there's really no alternative to standing on its rim, looking thousands of feet straight down to the canyon floor and out across of miles of gullies and plateaus.
One gets a sense, not only of its great physical proportions, but of the extraordinary expanse of time it embodies. To see the tiny (from a distance) Colorado river and imagine it carving this vast canyon inch by inch is literally mind-boggling. Conceptually, one can envision the river carrying away bits of sediment, eventually triggering large landslides in which tons of shale collapsed into the emerging pit, but it's impossible to contain within the human brain a true sense of the hundreds of millions of years required to produce this magnificent landscape.
As a species, we have difficulty pondering even much shorter time-scales. The current controversy about global warming and the consequences that our actions today may have in the future demonstrates how poorly we incorporate even the next few human generations into our moral calculus. In all likelihood, human civilization will run its course and fade from the memory of the universe and, despite the frantic work of the Colorado, the Grand Canyon will appear to the last set of human eyes to gaze upon it indistinguishable from the way it looks to me today. There is nothing like staring into this geological abyss to remind you of your own impermanence and that of your entire species.
Stumble It!
The Grand Canyon isn't the most beautiful or picturesque or captivating of the many canyons to be found in the American Southwest. It's simply the biggest. To appreciate it, then, there's really no alternative to standing on its rim, looking thousands of feet straight down to the canyon floor and out across of miles of gullies and plateaus.
One gets a sense, not only of its great physical proportions, but of the extraordinary expanse of time it embodies. To see the tiny (from a distance) Colorado river and imagine it carving this vast canyon inch by inch is literally mind-boggling. Conceptually, one can envision the river carrying away bits of sediment, eventually triggering large landslides in which tons of shale collapsed into the emerging pit, but it's impossible to contain within the human brain a true sense of the hundreds of millions of years required to produce this magnificent landscape.
As a species, we have difficulty pondering even much shorter time-scales. The current controversy about global warming and the consequences that our actions today may have in the future demonstrates how poorly we incorporate even the next few human generations into our moral calculus. In all likelihood, human civilization will run its course and fade from the memory of the universe and, despite the frantic work of the Colorado, the Grand Canyon will appear to the last set of human eyes to gaze upon it indistinguishable from the way it looks to me today. There is nothing like staring into this geological abyss to remind you of your own impermanence and that of your entire species.
Stumble It!
Sunday, February 24, 2008
God It's Great to Be Good at Poker
I recently came across this pretty amusing collection of quotes about why work sucks. The one they ranked 10th was actually my favorite and comes from one of my favorite writers:
“It was true that I didn’t have much ambition, but there ought to be a place for people without ambition, I mean a better place than the one usually reserved. How in the hell could a man enjoy being awakened at 6:30 a.m. by an alarm clock, leap out of bed, dress, force-feed, shit, piss, brush teeth and hair, and fight traffic to get to a place where essentially you made lots of money for somebody else and were asked to be grateful for the opportunity to do so?”
—Charles Bukowski, Factotum, Black Sparrow Press, 1975
Stumble It!
“It was true that I didn’t have much ambition, but there ought to be a place for people without ambition, I mean a better place than the one usually reserved. How in the hell could a man enjoy being awakened at 6:30 a.m. by an alarm clock, leap out of bed, dress, force-feed, shit, piss, brush teeth and hair, and fight traffic to get to a place where essentially you made lots of money for somebody else and were asked to be grateful for the opportunity to do so?”
—Charles Bukowski, Factotum, Black Sparrow Press, 1975
Labels: personal
Stumble It!
Getting It In and Getting Out
An illustrative S/8 hand I played recently:
Hand #15452617704
7 Card Stud *High-Low* ($10/$20), Ante $1
*3rd Street* - (0.60 SB)
somebody: xx xx Ah___raises___calls
foucault82: 4d 4h 4s___raises
badabang: xx xx Jc___folds
luckymonkey9: xx xx 7c___folds
Jshorts7: xx xx 5d___calls
umhmm: xx xx 3h___folds
*4th Street* - (6.90 SB)
somebody: xx xx Ah Qc___*checks*___calls
foucault82: 4d 4h 4s 2c___bets
Jshorts7: xx xx 5d 9h___calls
*5th Street* - (4.95 BB)
somebody: xx xx Ah Qc Kc___*bets*___calls
foucault82: 4d 4h 4s 2c 9s___raises
Jshorts7: xx xx 5d 9h 7s___calls
*6th Street* - (10.95 BB)
somebody: xx xx Ah Qc Kc Ac___*bets*
foucault82: 4d 4h 4s 2c 9s 8c___calls
Jshorts7: xx xx 5d 9h 7s 2h___calls
*River* - (13.95 BB)
somebody: xx xx Ah Qc Kc Ac xx___*bets*
foucault82: 4d 4h 4s 2c 9s 8c 6h___folds
Jshorts7: xx xx 5d 9h 7s 2h xx___folds
*Total pot:* (13.95 BB)
Results:
Total pot $279 Rake $3
In Stud/8, one of your best opportunities for deception comes in situations like this, where you can play a well-concealed high hand like a low hand. Ideally, you can knock out other players who might have won the half of the pot that it looks like you are trying to win and get it heads up with a player who has every reason to think his hand is best for the half that you actually are winning.
I 2-bet third street here in the hopes of knocking out the limping low hand and getting the pot heads up with a likely pair of Aces. I still make money if the limper comes along, but not as much as if he folds. The same is true when he bricks on fourth (though based on the hand played out, it seems he may have had a small pair in the hole, which clearly should have folded third, rather than a razz hand).
So far, my play is consistent with that of a strong low draw. It's not until fifth street that I start to tip my hand by raising when I catch a brick and both of my opponents appear to catch well. But by this point the pot is large and the bets are big.
Unfortunately, my opponent catches a disastrous card on 6th, almost certainly giving him better trips than mine. If he did start a pair of Aces, though, his third card could be anything, so I've certainly got the odds to draw at a boat even assuming the risk that I'm drawing dead.
When I miss on the river, though, I can safely fold despite getting nearly 14:1. For one thing, I'm about that sure I'm beat. But more importantly, it is very likely that my other opponent will overcall or even raise with a low, cutting my pot odds and half and maybe even creating a situation where I still end up folding. The fact that he folds with three low cards showing when the other guy can't possibly have a low suggests to me that he started a pair rather than a razz hand, since otherwise he would have either peeled fourth without a pair or a three-low, which is unlikely, or paired one of his hole cards on fifth or sixth, which is possible.
Stumble It!
Hand #15452617704
7 Card Stud *High-Low* ($10/$20), Ante $1
*3rd Street* - (0.60 SB)
somebody: xx xx Ah___raises___calls
foucault82: 4d 4h 4s___raises
badabang: xx xx Jc___folds
luckymonkey9: xx xx 7c___folds
Jshorts7: xx xx 5d___calls
umhmm: xx xx 3h___folds
*4th Street* - (6.90 SB)
somebody: xx xx Ah Qc___*checks*___calls
foucault82: 4d 4h 4s 2c___bets
Jshorts7: xx xx 5d 9h___calls
*5th Street* - (4.95 BB)
somebody: xx xx Ah Qc Kc___*bets*___calls
foucault82: 4d 4h 4s 2c 9s___raises
Jshorts7: xx xx 5d 9h 7s___calls
*6th Street* - (10.95 BB)
somebody: xx xx Ah Qc Kc Ac___*bets*
foucault82: 4d 4h 4s 2c 9s 8c___calls
Jshorts7: xx xx 5d 9h 7s 2h___calls
*River* - (13.95 BB)
somebody: xx xx Ah Qc Kc Ac xx___*bets*
foucault82: 4d 4h 4s 2c 9s 8c 6h___folds
Jshorts7: xx xx 5d 9h 7s 2h xx___folds
*Total pot:* (13.95 BB)
Results:
Total pot $279 Rake $3
In Stud/8, one of your best opportunities for deception comes in situations like this, where you can play a well-concealed high hand like a low hand. Ideally, you can knock out other players who might have won the half of the pot that it looks like you are trying to win and get it heads up with a player who has every reason to think his hand is best for the half that you actually are winning.
I 2-bet third street here in the hopes of knocking out the limping low hand and getting the pot heads up with a likely pair of Aces. I still make money if the limper comes along, but not as much as if he folds. The same is true when he bricks on fourth (though based on the hand played out, it seems he may have had a small pair in the hole, which clearly should have folded third, rather than a razz hand).
So far, my play is consistent with that of a strong low draw. It's not until fifth street that I start to tip my hand by raising when I catch a brick and both of my opponents appear to catch well. But by this point the pot is large and the bets are big.
Unfortunately, my opponent catches a disastrous card on 6th, almost certainly giving him better trips than mine. If he did start a pair of Aces, though, his third card could be anything, so I've certainly got the odds to draw at a boat even assuming the risk that I'm drawing dead.
When I miss on the river, though, I can safely fold despite getting nearly 14:1. For one thing, I'm about that sure I'm beat. But more importantly, it is very likely that my other opponent will overcall or even raise with a low, cutting my pot odds and half and maybe even creating a situation where I still end up folding. The fact that he folds with three low cards showing when the other guy can't possibly have a low suggests to me that he started a pair rather than a razz hand, since otherwise he would have either peeled fourth without a pair or a three-low, which is unlikely, or paired one of his hole cards on fifth or sixth, which is possible.
Labels: poker, poker strategy, session review, Stud/8
Stumble It!
Re-Raising in PLO
In Pot Limit Omaha, hand values tend to run close, which means that people often do not fold to re-raises. Consequently, a lot of players will never reraise without Aces, and any time you do re-raise, your thinking opponents will put you on Aces. By occasionally re-raising with other hands, however, you can confuse your opponents, both inducing mistakes now and protecting your future reraises when you do have Aces:
Poker Stars
Pot Limit Omaha Ring game
Blinds: $2/$4
4 players
Converter
Pre-flop: (4 players) Foucault is SB with :qc :9h :jd :th
UTG raises to $14, Button folds, Foucault raises to $46, BB folds, UTG calls.
Flop: :7h :8d :6d ($96, 2 players)
Foucault bets $70, UTG raises to $304, Foucault raises all-in $350, UTG calls.
Turn: :7d ($796, 1 player + 1 all-in - Main pot: $796)
River: :2d ($796, 1 player + 1 all-in - Main pot: $796)
Results:
Final pot: $796
Ugh, the converter didn't capture my opponent's hand here, and I only sort of recall it from memory, but it was something trashy, I want to say TT86 without diamonds (ie I won). I know that he got it in on this flop with top and bottom pair, which is always questionable in PLO and especially on a board this coordinated. The only possible justification for it is that he put me on Aces. Granted there are a lot of bad players who will just re-raise Aces, pot any flop, and get the money in, but against someone competent, they are at least going to have the nut flush draw if they get it in with Aces on this flop. So even there I hate his play. But I do think it's a good example of how I got an opponent to make two bad calls by re-raising with something other than Aces.
There are a few reasons why I chose this hand to reraise. For one, it's a monster, one of the best in PLO, meanings that I figure to be in good shape against my opponent's range. It's also a hand that plays well in multiway pots, because of its ability to flop the nuts with re-draws, but in this case there was only one player who could potentially get in on the fun anyway. Lastly, there will be a lot of flops that I like, so I will rarely be giving up after putting a lot of money in pre-flop.
Stumble It!
Poker Stars
Pot Limit Omaha Ring game
Blinds: $2/$4
4 players
Converter
Pre-flop: (4 players) Foucault is SB with :qc :9h :jd :th
UTG raises to $14, Button folds, Foucault raises to $46, BB folds, UTG calls.
Flop: :7h :8d :6d ($96, 2 players)
Foucault bets $70, UTG raises to $304, Foucault raises all-in $350, UTG calls.
Turn: :7d ($796, 1 player + 1 all-in - Main pot: $796)
River: :2d ($796, 1 player + 1 all-in - Main pot: $796)
Results:
Final pot: $796
Ugh, the converter didn't capture my opponent's hand here, and I only sort of recall it from memory, but it was something trashy, I want to say TT86 without diamonds (ie I won). I know that he got it in on this flop with top and bottom pair, which is always questionable in PLO and especially on a board this coordinated. The only possible justification for it is that he put me on Aces. Granted there are a lot of bad players who will just re-raise Aces, pot any flop, and get the money in, but against someone competent, they are at least going to have the nut flush draw if they get it in with Aces on this flop. So even there I hate his play. But I do think it's a good example of how I got an opponent to make two bad calls by re-raising with something other than Aces.
There are a few reasons why I chose this hand to reraise. For one, it's a monster, one of the best in PLO, meanings that I figure to be in good shape against my opponent's range. It's also a hand that plays well in multiway pots, because of its ability to flop the nuts with re-draws, but in this case there was only one player who could potentially get in on the fun anyway. Lastly, there will be a lot of flops that I like, so I will rarely be giving up after putting a lot of money in pre-flop.
Labels: PLO, poker, poker strategy, session review
Stumble It!
In Vegas, For a Vacation From Gambling
I flew into Las Vegas last night for a hastily scheduled vacation. I may be the only person in the world who comes here in order to take a break from gambling. This afternoon, Emily and I are leaving for three nights at the Grand Canyon. That means I likely won't be updating the blog for a few days. Unlike some fancier blogging platforms, Blogger doesn't allow me to 'trickle' out posts by backdating them to publish automatically at a future date. So today, I'm going to make 4-5 posts that I've had in the hopper for a while, and you loyal readers can decide for yourselves whether you'd rather binge and read them all at once or just read one a day and pretend I am still updating regularly.
Stumble It!
Labels: personal
Stumble It!
Jamming With the Best of It
On the night of the O/8 FTOPS, I decided to play some O/8 cash as well and came upon what seems to be a pretty common profitable spot in low limit O/8 ring games:
Poker Stars
Limit Omaha Ring game
Limit: $5/$10
9 players
Converter
Pre-flop: (9 players) Foucault is MP3 with :kc :2h :5s :ac
2 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 raises, Foucault calls, 4 folds, MP1 calls.
Flop: :5d :5h :4s (7.4SB, 3 players)
MP1 checks, MP2 bets, Foucault raises, MP1 calls, MP2 calls.
Turn: :2s (6.7BB, 3 players)
MP1 checks, MP2 bets, Foucault raises, MP1 calls, MP2 calls.
River: :7d (12.7BB, 3 players)
MP1 checks, MP2 checks, Foucault bets, MP1 raises, MP2 calls, Foucault 3-bets, MP1 caps, MP2 calls, Foucault calls.
Results:
Final pot: 24.7BB
For some reason the converter isn't showing my opponents' hands, but they both had A3xx for the nut low and a straight. It should have been obvious to both of them that this was the case and that they were going to get quartered with a third person jamming the pot and a pair on the board. Better players usually know not to cap the betting with just the nut low, since they will often end up sharing that half of the pot. Although in this case the nut low also made a straight, they still should have backed off given how easy it was to get quartered it anyone had a full house.
Stumble It!
Poker Stars
Limit Omaha Ring game
Limit: $5/$10
9 players
Converter
Pre-flop: (9 players) Foucault is MP3 with :kc :2h :5s :ac
2 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 raises, Foucault calls, 4 folds, MP1 calls.
Flop: :5d :5h :4s (7.4SB, 3 players)
MP1 checks, MP2 bets, Foucault raises, MP1 calls, MP2 calls.
Turn: :2s (6.7BB, 3 players)
MP1 checks, MP2 bets, Foucault raises, MP1 calls, MP2 calls.
River: :7d (12.7BB, 3 players)
MP1 checks, MP2 checks, Foucault bets, MP1 raises, MP2 calls, Foucault 3-bets, MP1 caps, MP2 calls, Foucault calls.
Results:
Final pot: 24.7BB
For some reason the converter isn't showing my opponents' hands, but they both had A3xx for the nut low and a straight. It should have been obvious to both of them that this was the case and that they were going to get quartered with a third person jamming the pot and a pair on the board. Better players usually know not to cap the betting with just the nut low, since they will often end up sharing that half of the pot. Although in this case the nut low also made a straight, they still should have backed off given how easy it was to get quartered it anyone had a full house.
Labels: O8, poker, poker strategy, session review
Stumble It!
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Steven Levitt's Daughter Learns to Cheat at Poker
This is a post from a few month's ago from the blog of University of Chicago economist and author of Freakonomics Steven Levitt, but I just came across it and thought I would share. Levitt is a poker enthusiast currently working on the use of online poker statistics to resolve the skill vs. luck debate. In this video, he explains that it was a proud day for him when his seven-year-old daughter, who already knew how to play seven-card-stud, stacked the deck to give herself a pair of Aces. Not that he was proud that she was cheating, but simply that she was thinking in such a strategic way at a young age.
Stumble It!
Labels: poker
Stumble It!
Friday, February 22, 2008
WSOP Rules Changes
Poker Managers Hall of Famer Matt Savage, writing for Pokernews, reports that in a recent lunch with WSOP Tournament Director Jack Effel, he learned of some of the rules changes that will be in effect at the 2008 WSOP:
Like Savage, I am glad to see the penalty for excessive celebration. Not only is this rude and unsportsmanlike, but it wastes the time of everyone at the table. I'd rather get dealt an extra hand or two than watch Brenes' shark psychologically devour his opponent.
There should be more tomorrow, including information about "changes to the facility" that will hopefully be welcome news to anyone who had to play in the tent last year.
Stumble It!
One new rule that I like is Rule #36 which states: "Excessive celebration through extended theatrics, inappropriate behavior, or physical actions, gestures, or conduct may be subject to penalty. Hevad Khan and Humberto Brenes could be in real trouble in 2008.Elsewhere, he mentions that the "show one, show all" rule, which required a player to show both of his cards if he chose to show one of them after a hand, has also been eliminated. I never much cared about this one one way or the other, but it was very unpopular, and Daniel Negreanu in particular has been actively working to get it eliminated for some time.
Rule #43 (i) states: "Advertising a .com gaming site that conducts business with U.S. residents" refers to the once-blanket ban against "dot-com" appearances. That ban goes away, and it will again open up the logo wars to many online companies around the world. However, online poker sites that accept US business (such as Full Tilt and PokerStars) will not be allowed to use the ".com" suffix, and must use ".net" advertising instead.
Make sure you get a good look at Rule #88, the new "Cell Phone Rule": "Penalties will be given for using the phone at the table, whether in a hand or not." Also, note Rule #89: "iPods, iTouch, Treos, Blackberrys with headsets are not allowed."
Like Savage, I am glad to see the penalty for excessive celebration. Not only is this rude and unsportsmanlike, but it wastes the time of everyone at the table. I'd rather get dealt an extra hand or two than watch Brenes' shark psychologically devour his opponent.
There should be more tomorrow, including information about "changes to the facility" that will hopefully be welcome news to anyone who had to play in the tent last year.
Stumble It!
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Matusow Redux
Back in December, I made a post about sitting briefly with Mike Matusow in a 25/50 6-Max NLHE game. It was one of the first times I played that high, and it ended with Mike stacking me when he flopped trips against my KK in a re-raised pot.Now that my bankroll is a bit bigger and my skills are somewhat improved, I've been sitting in big games with him more often. Matusow's presence at the table contributes to a good game in three ways:
1. He loses. This is the biggest one, of course. He claims to have lost $3 million playing online. That sounds like an exaggeration to me, based on the stakes he plays and his tendency for hyperbole. But he's surely lost a lot. He isn't bad when he's at his best, but he does tilt easily and do some spewy things.
2. He attracts weak players. His name is in red and they've seen him on TV, so they want to sit at his table. That makes the game even better, though these players do tend to buy in short, which is annoying.
3. He encourages other mid-stakes regulars to take shots for the same reasons I do. I think I'm at least a bit better than most of them, and while I avoid them as best I can at 5/10, I'll take any edge I can get at 25/50.
Anyhow, I sat at a 25/50 again over the weekend, and made one bad fold to Mike and one call that, though it lost, I think may have been good:
Full Tilt Poker, $25/$50 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 7 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
UTG: $5,000
UTG+1: $11,305
MP: $5,422
CO: $9,594
BTN: $2,591
SB: $7,968
Hero (BB): $5,000
Pre-Flop: T
T
dealt to Hero (BB)2 folds, MP raises to $150, CO calls $150, BTN folds, SB calls $125, Hero raises to $750, MP folds, CO raises to $2,150, 2 folds
Results: $1,800 Pot ($1,800 Rake)
CO showed J
6 (Jack Six high) I really overthought this one. It's such an obvious spot for me to make a squeeze play, and so unlikely for him to have a better pair, plus there's a lot of dead money in the pot. I just got into my head that it was so transparent that it had to be for real. I'm posting this as a kind of public shaming, it's really very bad.
Here's the call that I think would generally be good, because again his line doesn't make much sense, except that I think since he'd recently shown me a bluff he may just not be bluffing here no matter how unlikely a K is for him:
Full Tilt Poker, $25/$50 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
UTG+1: $1,010
UTG+2: $6,294
MP1: $11,501
MP2: $4,442
CO: $7,677
BTN: $4,254
SB: $8,134
Hero (BB): $6,091
UTG: $825
Pre-Flop: A
Q
dealt to Hero (BB)5 folds, CO raises to $175, 2 folds, Hero raises to $591, CO calls $416
Flop: ($1,207) T
3 3 (2 Players)Hero checks, CO checks
Turn: ($1,207) 9
(2 Players)Hero checks, CO bets $850, Hero calls $850
River: ($2,907) K
(2 Players)Hero checks, CO bets $1,700, Hero calls $1,700
Results: $6,307 Pot ($3 Rake)
CO showed K
A (two pair, Kings and Threes) and WON $6,304 (+$3,163 NET)Hero mucked A
Q (a pair of Threes) and LOST (-$3,141 NET)Although it didn't feel like a good time for him to bluff me, I also didn't think he bet less than a pair of K's on the river, and that's such a small part of his range for getting to the river, that I felt obliged to call. I'm kind of surprised that the didn't 4-bet this pre-flop, but otherwise I think he played it very well.
So I'm still down to Matusow, but I've done quite well in the 25/50 game otherwise, so I'm still glad to have screwed up the courage to sit in it.
Labels: NLHE, poker, poker strategy, session review
Stumble It!
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The One That Got Away
I was sitting in a 50/100 NL game on Ultimate Bet with a full-stacked player against whom I felt I had a pretty good edge when who should come and sit us than poker brat Phil Hellmuth. Unfortunately, he only sat with $3000. If it weren't for the other guy I wanted to play deep, I wouldn't have minded, but I really didn't want Phil's short stack interfering with that.So I started giving him shit for, talking trash, accusing him of being broke, etc. I was thinking this was a win-win-win. Either:
1. He puts more money on the table; and/or
2. We get into a pissing match that leads to a heads up match that leads to profit; and/or
3. He gets tilted and starts playing worse.
I hadn't anticipated
4. He gets pissed and leaves.
I mean honestly, of all people, Phil Hellmuth gets angry about trash talk? Granted, I did start in on him as soon as he sat down, but it's pretty ridiculous that he's short stacking the biggest game on the site that sponsors him. The FTP pros do that too, and it annoys the hell out of me.
It's one thing to buy in for $80 at a 2/4 table, because there are tons of those running and people can always go to another table. But this was the only 50/100 table running and there were three people sitting with full stacks. Having some clown sit with 30 BB's completely disrupts the existing dynamic. Sponsored players shouldn't be killing a site's biggest games.
But anyway, here are some hands. We started off at 25/50. Villain 1 was the guy I was there to play against. I kept playing for a bit with the other guy hoping my target would sit back in.
Expensive Beat
Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners
Seat 0: Villain 1 ($8591) Sitting Out
Seat 1: Hero ($5447) -
- 
Seat 2: VILLAIN 2 ($4900) -
PRE-FLOP:
Hero posts small blind $25
VILLAIN 2 posts BIG blind $50
Dealt To: Hero
FLOP:
Pot: $75
TURN:
Pot: $75
RIVER:
Pot: $75
VILLAIN 2 collected $9799 from main pot with full house, jacks full of sevens
SUMMARY:
Total pot: $9800 Rake: $1
Final Board:
Seat 2: Jc 7s 7c Jd Jh: full house, jacks full of sevens. - Net Gain/Loss: ($9749)
Bad Beat?
Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners
Seat 1: Hero ($6140) -
Seat 2: VILLAIN 2 ($8398) -
Seat 4: Villain 3 ($6049) -
PRE-FLOP:
Hero posts small blind $25
VILLAIN 2 posts BIG blind $50
Dealt To: Hero
RAISE Villain 3 ($175)
RAISE Hero ($600)
FOLD VILLAIN 2
CALL Villain 3 ($600)
FLOP:
Pot: $1425
BET Hero ($950)
CALL Villain 3 ($950)
TURN:
Pot: $3325
BET Hero ($1550)
CALL Villain 3 ($1550)
RIVER:
Pot: $6425
RAISE Hero ($3040)
CALL Villain 3 ($2949)
UNCALLED Hero ($91)
SHOWDOWN:
Hero:
Villain 3:
Villain 3 collected $12147 from main pot with flush, ace high
SUMMARY:
Total pot: $12148 Rake: $1
Final Board:
Seat 1: Ah Ks 5s Ad 5c: two pair, aces and fives. - Net Gain/Loss: ($-6049)
Seat 4: Ac 8c Qc 5c 7c: flush, ace high. - Net Gain/Loss: ($5832)
I'm not thrilled with how I played this, I think I should have just bet more/shoved the turn, because it's unlikely he calls river with worse but I kind of have to shove anyway since I'm not going to check-fold. By this point, the mark had left the table, and I kept playing 3-handed for a bit with these guys. It was really just frustration after losing these pots, though, and I'm proud of myself for quitting even though I was stuck a lot and I really didn't want to, but it was the right thing to do.
But major props go to Todd for alerting me that my guy was now sitting at 50/100 NLHE. Things went a little better this time around, and the stakes were higher.
This One Wasn't Even Against That Guy
Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners
Seat 0: Villain 1 ($14001)
Seat 1: Hero ($15677) -
Seat 3: VILLAIN 2 ($11048) -
Seat 4: dannyred99 ($3662) -
PRE-FLOP:
VILLAIN 2 posts small blind $50
dannyred99 posts BIG blind $100
Dealt To: Hero
FOLD Villain 1
RAISE Hero ($300)
CALL VILLAIN 2 ($300)
CALL dannyred99 ($300)
FLOP:
Pot: $1050
CHECK VILLAIN 2
CHECK dannyred99
BET Hero ($650)
CALL VILLAIN 2 ($650)
FOLD dannyred99
TURN:
Pot: $2350
CHECK VILLAIN 2
BET Hero ($1750)
CALL VILLAIN 2 ($1750)
RIVER:
Pot: $5850
CHECK VILLAIN 2
BET Hero ($4500)
CALL VILLAIN 2 ($4500)
SHOWDOWN:
Hero:
MUCK VILLAIN 2
Hero collected $14698 from main pot with straight, king high
SUMMARY:
Total pot: $14700 Rake: $2
Final Board:
Seat 1: Ts Qd Kh Jd 9h: straight, king high. - Net Gain/Loss: ($7498)
I Flop Nuts Good
Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners
Seat 0: Villain 1 ($9788.50) -
Seat 1: Hero ($36319.50) -
Seat 3: VILLAIN 2 ($9900) -
PRE-FLOP:
VILLAIN 2 posts small blind $50
Villain 1 posts BIG blind $100
Dealt To: Hero
RAISE Hero ($350)
FOLD VILLAIN 2
CALL Villain 1 ($350)
FLOP:
Pot: $850
CHECK Villain 1
BET Hero ($550)
CALL Villain 1 ($550)
TURN:
Pot: $1950
CHECK Villain 1
BET Hero ($1400)
RAISE Villain 1 ($8888.50)
CALL Hero ($8888.50)
RIVER:
Pot: $21127
SHOWDOWN:
Villain 1:
Hero:
Hero collected $19626 from main pot with straight, nine high
SUMMARY:
Total pot: $19627 Rake: $1
Final Board:
Seat 0: 8d 9d 8s 6s 9c: two pair, nines and eights. - Net Gain/Loss: ($-9788.5)
Seat 1: 7d 5d 8s 6s 9c: straight, nine high. - Net Gain/Loss: ($9837.5)
Ugh Disgusting River
Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners
Seat 0: Villain 1 ($20172) -
Seat 1: Hero ($38334) -
Seat 3: VILLAIN 2 ($9250) -
PRE-FLOP:
Villain 1 posts small blind $50
Hero posts BIG blind $100
Dealt To: Hero
RAISE VILLAIN 2 ($350)
CALL Villain 1 ($350)
CALL Hero ($350)
FLOP:
Pot: $1200
CHECK Villain 1
BET Hero ($800)
CALL VILLAIN 2 ($800)
FOLD Villain 1
TURN:
Pot: $2800
BET Hero ($1700)
CALL VILLAIN 2 ($1700)
RIVER:
Pot: $6200
BET Hero ($2500)
RAISE VILLAIN 2 ($6400)
FOLD Hero
UNCALLED VILLAIN 2 ($3900)
VILLAIN 2 collected $11049 from main pot
SUMMARY:
Total pot: $11050 Rake: $1
Final Board:
Rockets!
Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners
Seat 0: Villain 1 ($24268) -
Seat 1: Hero ($28229) -
Seat 3: VILLAIN 2 ($15248) -
PRE-FLOP:
Villain 1 posts small blind $50
Hero posts BIG blind $100
Dealt To: Hero
RAISE VILLAIN 2 ($350)
FOLD Villain 1
RAISE Hero ($1400)
CALL VILLAIN 2 ($1400)
FLOP:
Pot: $3200
BET Hero ($2200)
CALL VILLAIN 2 ($2200)
TURN:
Pot: $7600
CHECK Hero
CHECK VILLAIN 2
RIVER:
Pot: $7600
BET Hero ($4600)
CALL VILLAIN 2 ($4600)
SHOWDOWN:
Hero:
MUCK VILLAIN 2
Hero collected $16449 from main pot with a pair of aces
SUMMARY:
Total pot: $16450 Rake: $1
Final Board:
Seat 1: Ah Ac 9s 6c Jc: a pair of aces. - Net Gain/Loss: ($8249)
Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners
Thanks again, Todd! I owe you.
Labels: NLHE, poker, poker strategy, session review
Stumble It!
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Book Review: Sklansky on Poker
Sklansky on Poker has not aged well. This isn’t to say that any of its content has been proven wrong, only that more recent publications and the resurgent popularity of big bet games have rendered much of the material irrelevant.
The section “Sklansky on Razz” is certainly the best material on that game in print, but it’s a game that’s rarely spread anymore. As for the other essays, they were even at the time of publication little more than Theory of Poker simplified and explained for beginners. The examples and many of the concepts are specific to fixed limit games, and some even more restricted to obsolete games like jacks-or-better five card draw.
More recent publications, some authored by Sklansky himself, cover this material in greater depth and nuance. Tournament Poker for Advanced Players, for instance, subsumes the tournament essays in this manual. And numerous books targeted to beginners in Hold ‘Em or other games, not to mention Theory of Poker, introduce concepts like pot odds, implied odds, expectation, and semi-bluffing more clearly, in greater detail, and with more relevant examples.
These essays would be of little interest to most serious players anyway. This isn’t to say that even experts always get them right, but they at least understand the concepts in theory, which is all that Sklansky’s very short essays address. Only beginners would find this material new or helpful, and many better books are now available to them.
The exception to all of this is the second half of the book, “Sklansky on Razz”. This is Sklansky at his best and is well worth the cost of the book to anyone who wants to succeed in this deceptively simple game.
Razz is a game well suited to Sklansky’s particular talent for identifying counter-intuitive but mathematically sound plays. Since there is only one kind of hand a player can make, deception and hand-reading are less important than in other forms of poker and “many general principles and concepts of poker can best be illustrated via the game of razz.”
Sklansky goes on to use the game to illustrate some nuances of pot odds, higher level thinking, relative position, range mixing, inducing mistakes, and ante stealing/defense. He doesn’t always draw the connection in so many words, but reading Sklansky’s thoughts on razz should help astute players better employ these concepts in any game.
For razz players, he also demonstrates some little known facts about the game. On fifth street, for instance, a four-card six is often a favorite over a rough made nine. And on third street, depending on which cards are dead, 8-6-4 can be a favorite over 3-2-A. Recognizing these situations better than one’s opponents can be very valuable, as they may happily but mistakenly cap the betting thinking they have the best of it.
It is this razz material that makes Sklansky on Poker potentially of interest to today’s poker player. The information from most of the other essays can be better gleaned from Theory of Poker, Tournament Poker for Advanced Players, and the better beginner’s books on the market.
Stumble It!
The section “Sklansky on Razz” is certainly the best material on that game in print, but it’s a game that’s rarely spread anymore. As for the other essays, they were even at the time of publication little more than Theory of Poker simplified and explained for beginners. The examples and many of the concepts are specific to fixed limit games, and some even more restricted to obsolete games like jacks-or-better five card draw.
More recent publications, some authored by Sklansky himself, cover this material in greater depth and nuance. Tournament Poker for Advanced Players, for instance, subsumes the tournament essays in this manual. And numerous books targeted to beginners in Hold ‘Em or other games, not to mention Theory of Poker, introduce concepts like pot odds, implied odds, expectation, and semi-bluffing more clearly, in greater detail, and with more relevant examples.
These essays would be of little interest to most serious players anyway. This isn’t to say that even experts always get them right, but they at least understand the concepts in theory, which is all that Sklansky’s very short essays address. Only beginners would find this material new or helpful, and many better books are now available to them.
The exception to all of this is the second half of the book, “Sklansky on Razz”. This is Sklansky at his best and is well worth the cost of the book to anyone who wants to succeed in this deceptively simple game.
Razz is a game well suited to Sklansky’s particular talent for identifying counter-intuitive but mathematically sound plays. Since there is only one kind of hand a player can make, deception and hand-reading are less important than in other forms of poker and “many general principles and concepts of poker can best be illustrated via the game of razz.”
Sklansky goes on to use the game to illustrate some nuances of pot odds, higher level thinking, relative position, range mixing, inducing mistakes, and ante stealing/defense. He doesn’t always draw the connection in so many words, but reading Sklansky’s thoughts on razz should help astute players better employ these concepts in any game.
For razz players, he also demonstrates some little known facts about the game. On fifth street, for instance, a four-card six is often a favorite over a rough made nine. And on third street, depending on which cards are dead, 8-6-4 can be a favorite over 3-2-A. Recognizing these situations better than one’s opponents can be very valuable, as they may happily but mistakenly cap the betting thinking they have the best of it.
It is this razz material that makes Sklansky on Poker potentially of interest to today’s poker player. The information from most of the other essays can be better gleaned from Theory of Poker, Tournament Poker for Advanced Players, and the better beginner’s books on the market.
Labels: book review, poker, poker strategy, Razz, tournament
Stumble It!
Suspected Poker Cheats Murdered
The Gainesville Sun reports that
Stumble It!
Jerome Anthony Henry, 48, of Seville, and Richard David Smith and Robert Erwin Ford, both 50 and from Palatka, were killed inside the structure, a former bar that officers said people had been using as the location for a "high-stakes" poker game.This is one of the reasons I've generally stayed away from private games, despite the stories I've heard about how great they can be. There's always an increased risk that you're being cheated, but if you win, there's also the chance that some shady character is going to think you cheated. Or just rob the place. Or that the game will be busted by the cops. I'd rather remain in the safety of my home and play tougher, smaller stakes games online- but play eight of them once!All four men had been involved in the game, which started Friday afternoon and continued through the night, said Sheriff's Office spokesman Major Keith Riddick.
Crittenden had been in the game and lost, officers reported.
"We understand that he felt that they were cheating, and he went back apparently to confront them about that," Riddick said.
Stumble It!
Monday, February 18, 2008
FTOPS Main Event and the Rest of Sunday
The day started well enough. I began my Sunday earlier than usual to play the $240 knock-out FTPS event and the Poker Stars $2 Million Frequent Player Point tournament. I got up nice stacks in both, and did manage to cash for a few hundred in the FPP (though in fairness they paid 1/3 of the field).
FTOPS Event 19
I took some big pots early off a huge fish in the FTOPS. I also had a solid regular from the cash games I frequent to my immediate right and got the chance to make a play at him:
Full Tilt Poker, NL Hold'em Tournament, 30/60 Blinds, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
BTN: 5,675
SB: 2,150
Hero (BB): 5,025
UTG: 3,065
UTG+1: 5,180
UTG+2: 4,095
MP1: 4,950
MP2: 1,110
CO: 1,620
Pre-Flop: (90) 8 7 dealt to Hero (BB)
7 folds, SB raises to 150, Hero calls 90
Flop: (300) 9 6 7 (2 Players)
SB bets 210, Hero calls 210
Turn: (720) A (2 Players)
SB bets 420, Hero raises to 4,665 and is All-In, SB folds
Results: 1,560 Pot
Hero mucked 8 7 and WON 1,560 (+780 NET)
It's often not great to fast-play a big draw on the turn, since you only have one street to catch, but I like this turn shove for a few reasons:
1. The A is a good card for him to bluff, so my pair could be good.
2. Call flop, raise turn looks like a slowplay. Granted this isn't the best flop to slowplay, but in a blind battle it wouldn't be inconceivable for me to have a set or straight. It's a pretty crappy feeling to hold something like AJ in his shoes. That isn't to say he's going to fold it, but he might.
3. It worked.
After this I had up a nice stack, a bit of which I lost in a coin flip with the same fish who gave me many of them to me. For the next two hours, I pretty much just maintained, by which point I was getting kind of shallow. I shoved Q3 from the SB into a BB who had a stack of about 12x (before posting). I probably ought to run some numbers on this, because I think it's close. With no antes, it's any easy fold, but the antes on FTP are quite late, which made me want to get aggressive. Unfortunately, he had an easy call with 99.
That left me short enough myself that I had to push or fold. I actually managed to pick up JJ, only to run it into AK in the BB. Needless to say, I lost the flip.
Stars Million
In the Stars Million, I picked up an early stack against this genius:
Poker Stars, $200 + $15 NL Hold'em Tournament, 50/100 Blinds, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
Hero (MP1): 9,075
MP2: 17,310
CO: 9,425
BTN: 8,425
SB: 9,525
BB: 18,62
UTG: 9,525
UTG+1: 7,725
UTG+2: 17,675
Pre-Flop: (150) 8 8 dealt to Hero (MP1)
UTG calls 100, 2 folds, Hero calls 100, 4 folds, BB checks
Flop: (350) 6 5 A (3 Players)
BB checks, UTG checks, Hero bets 225, BB folds, UTG calls 225
Turn: (800) 9 (2 Players)
UTG checks, Hero checks
River: (800) 7 (2 Players)
UTG bets 1,400, Hero raises to 4,750, UTG calls 3,350
Results: 10,300 Pot
Hero showed 8 8 (a straight, Five to Nine) and WON 10,300 (+5,225 NET)
UTG mucked A K and LOST (-5,075 NET)
I may actually have been able to stack him on the river, it seemed like he had clicked "call any". But I am always worried that these otherwise very loose players will panic when all their chips are in jeopardy, so I decided to bet about half his stack.
There was another guy who would always open for like 4 or 5x the BB and often fold to a re-raise, so I made a few moves on him and got up a nice stack. I lost most of it on a flip when AJs < TT, then lost the rest when JJ < 99.
FTOPS Event 20
Full Tilt Poker, NL Hold'em Tournament, 50/100 Blinds, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
UTG+1: 3,470
UTG+2: 8,975
MP1: 5,215
Hero (MP2): 7,040
CO: 5,905
BTN: 3,440
SB: 6,315
BB: 2,640
UTG: 6,880
Pre-Flop: (150) K J dealt to Hero (MP2)
4 folds, Hero raises to 240, 2 folds, SB calls 190, BB calls 140
Flop: (720) 4 Q Q (3 Players)
SB checks, BB checks, Hero bets 550, SB calls 550, BB folds
Turn: (1,820) 7 (2 Players)
SB bets 1,600, Hero raises to 6,250 and is All-In, SB folds
Results: 5,020 Pot
Hero mucked K J and WON 5,020 (+2,630 NET)
This line felt kind of weak to me, though it's not a bad way to play a Q. I think that when it's not a Q, it's usually a probing bet trying to figure out how strong I was, so I went ahead and let him know that I had the nuts.
About an hour later, I lost a smallish coin flip TT < KJo, and an hour after that I picked up a big pot with AKs:
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
SB: 7,853
BB: 5,449
UTG: 10,774
UTG+1: 4,815
UTG+2: 22,319
Hero (MP1): 4,805
MP2: 8,821
CO: 5,785
BTN: 8,477
Pre-Flop: (645) A K dealt to Hero (MP1)
UTG calls 280, 2 folds, Hero raises to 1,280, 5 folds, UTG calls 1,000
Flop: (3,205) 8 5 A (2 Players)
UTG checks, Hero checks
Turn: (3,205) J (2 Players)
UTG bets 1,400, Hero raises to 3,500 and is All-In, UTG calls 2,100
River: (10,205) 6 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)
Results: 10,205 Pot
UTG showed K J (a pair of Jacks) and LOST (-4,805 NET)
Hero showed A K (a pair of Aces) and WON 10,205 (+5,400 NET)
I managed to win a coin flip, AQ > 44, and then there was the guy who just wouldn't let go:
Full Tilt Poker, NL Hold'em Tournament, 170/340 Blinds, 25 Ante, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
BB: 8,575
UTG: 4,234
UTG+1: 5,795
UTG+2: 39,293
MP1: 22,322
Hero (MP2): 10,050
CO: 19,932
BTN: 8,746
SB: 9,077
Pre-Flop: (735) J Q dealt to Hero (MP2)
4 folds, Hero raises to 775, CO folds, BTN calls 775, 2 folds
Flop: (2,285) 4 2 K (2 Players)
Hero bets 1,250, BTN calls 1,250
Turn: (4,785) 9 (2 Players)
Hero bets 3,000, BTN calls 3,000
River: (10,785) 9 (2 Players)
Hero checks, BTN checks
Results: 10,785 Pot
Hero showed J Q (a pair of Nines) and LOST (-5,050 NET)
BTN showed J J (two pair, Jacks and Nines) and WON 10,785 (+5,735 NET)
I was sure he had a pair worse than K's, though I didn't expect it be quite as good as J's. That shouldn't make a difference, but psychologically, it does. I really need to stop being so aggressive in tournaments.
But it's OK Because....
One nice pot at 10/20 makes up for everything:
Full Tilt Poker, $10/$20 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 5 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
SB: $6,618
BB: $3,554
UTG: $5,205
CO: $7,504
Hero (BTN): $2,355
Pre-Flop: K J dealt to Hero (BTN)
UTG folds, CO calls $20, Hero raises to $90, 2 folds, CO calls $70
Flop: ($210) A T 9 (2 Players)
CO checks, Hero bets $165, CO calls $165
Turn: ($540) 8 (2 Players)
CO checks, Hero bets $400, CO calls $400
River: ($1,340) J (2 Players)
CO bets $1,900, Hero calls $1,700 and is All-In
Results: $4,740 Pot
CO showed Q 6 (a flush, Ace high) and LOST (-$2,355 NET)
Hero showed K J (a flush, Ace high) and WON $4,737 (+$2,382 NET)
As you can see, this guy was the table fish. The wait list was 30-deep to get on this table. Of course, I didn't give up my seat until he left. I was just trying to decide how much I should bet on the river when he went ahead and shoved for me! Cooler for him, of course, but that's why don't play Q6s.
Thank goodness FTOPS is over so there's no more tournament temptation and I get back to cash games.
Stumble It!
FTOPS Event 19
I took some big pots early off a huge fish in the FTOPS. I also had a solid regular from the cash games I frequent to my immediate right and got the chance to make a play at him:
Full Tilt Poker, NL Hold'em Tournament, 30/60 Blinds, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
BTN: 5,675
SB: 2,150
Hero (BB): 5,025
UTG: 3,065
UTG+1: 5,180
UTG+2: 4,095
MP1: 4,950
MP2: 1,110
CO: 1,620
Pre-Flop: (90) 8
7 dealt to Hero (BB)7 folds, SB raises to 150, Hero calls 90
Flop: (300) 9
6 7 (2 Players)SB bets 210, Hero calls 210
Turn: (720) A
(2 Players)SB bets 420, Hero raises to 4,665 and is All-In, SB folds
Results: 1,560 Pot
Hero mucked 8
7 and WON 1,560 (+780 NET)It's often not great to fast-play a big draw on the turn, since you only have one street to catch, but I like this turn shove for a few reasons:
1. The A is a good card for him to bluff, so my pair could be good.
2. Call flop, raise turn looks like a slowplay. Granted this isn't the best flop to slowplay, but in a blind battle it wouldn't be inconceivable for me to have a set or straight. It's a pretty crappy feeling to hold something like AJ in his shoes. That isn't to say he's going to fold it, but he might.
3. It worked.
After this I had up a nice stack, a bit of which I lost in a coin flip with the same fish who gave me many of them to me. For the next two hours, I pretty much just maintained, by which point I was getting kind of shallow. I shoved Q3 from the SB into a BB who had a stack of about 12x (before posting). I probably ought to run some numbers on this, because I think it's close. With no antes, it's any easy fold, but the antes on FTP are quite late, which made me want to get aggressive. Unfortunately, he had an easy call with 99.
That left me short enough myself that I had to push or fold. I actually managed to pick up JJ, only to run it into AK in the BB. Needless to say, I lost the flip.
Stars Million
In the Stars Million, I picked up an early stack against this genius:
Poker Stars, $200 + $15 NL Hold'em Tournament, 50/100 Blinds, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
Hero (MP1): 9,075
MP2: 17,310
CO: 9,425
BTN: 8,425
SB: 9,525
BB: 18,62
UTG: 9,525
UTG+1: 7,725
UTG+2: 17,675
Pre-Flop: (150) 8
8 dealt to Hero (MP1)UTG calls 100, 2 folds, Hero calls 100, 4 folds, BB checks
Flop: (350) 6
5 A (3 Players)BB checks, UTG checks, Hero bets 225, BB folds, UTG calls 225
Turn: (800) 9
(2 Players)UTG checks, Hero checks
River: (800) 7
(2 Players)UTG bets 1,400, Hero raises to 4,750, UTG calls 3,350
Results: 10,300 Pot
Hero showed 8
8 (a straight, Five to Nine) and WON 10,300 (+5,225 NET)UTG mucked A
K and LOST (-5,075 NET)I may actually have been able to stack him on the river, it seemed like he had clicked "call any". But I am always worried that these otherwise very loose players will panic when all their chips are in jeopardy, so I decided to bet about half his stack.
There was another guy who would always open for like 4 or 5x the BB and often fold to a re-raise, so I made a few moves on him and got up a nice stack. I lost most of it on a flip when AJs < TT, then lost the rest when JJ < 99.
FTOPS Event 20
Full Tilt Poker, NL Hold'em Tournament, 50/100 Blinds, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
UTG+1: 3,470
UTG+2: 8,975
MP1: 5,215
Hero (MP2): 7,040
CO: 5,905
BTN: 3,440
SB: 6,315
BB: 2,640
UTG: 6,880
Pre-Flop: (150) K
J dealt to Hero (MP2)4 folds, Hero raises to 240, 2 folds, SB calls 190, BB calls 140
Flop: (720) 4
Q Q (3 Players)SB checks, BB checks, Hero bets 550, SB calls 550, BB folds
Turn: (1,820) 7
(2 Players)SB bets 1,600, Hero raises to 6,250 and is All-In, SB folds
Results: 5,020 Pot
Hero mucked K
J and WON 5,020 (+2,630 NET)This line felt kind of weak to me, though it's not a bad way to play a Q. I think that when it's not a Q, it's usually a probing bet trying to figure out how strong I was, so I went ahead and let him know that I had the nuts.
About an hour later, I lost a smallish coin flip TT < KJo, and an hour after that I picked up a big pot with AKs:
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
SB: 7,853
BB: 5,449
UTG: 10,774
UTG+1: 4,815
UTG+2: 22,319
Hero (MP1): 4,805
MP2: 8,821
CO: 5,785
BTN: 8,477
Pre-Flop: (645) A
K dealt to Hero (MP1)UTG calls 280, 2 folds, Hero raises to 1,280, 5 folds, UTG calls 1,000
Flop: (3,205) 8
5 A (2 Players)UTG checks, Hero checks
Turn: (3,205) J
(2 Players)UTG bets 1,400, Hero raises to 3,500 and is All-In, UTG calls 2,100
River: (10,205) 6
(2 Players - 1 is All-In)Results: 10,205 Pot
UTG showed K
J (a pair of Jacks) and LOST (-4,805 NET)Hero showed A
K (a pair of Aces) and WON 10,205 (+5,400 NET)I managed to win a coin flip, AQ > 44, and then there was the guy who just wouldn't let go:
Full Tilt Poker, NL Hold'em Tournament, 170/340 Blinds, 25 Ante, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
BB: 8,575
UTG: 4,234
UTG+1: 5,795
UTG+2: 39,293
MP1: 22,322
Hero (MP2): 10,050
CO: 19,932
BTN: 8,746
SB: 9,077
Pre-Flop: (735) J
Q dealt to Hero (MP2)4 folds, Hero raises to 775, CO folds, BTN calls 775, 2 folds
Flop: (2,285) 4
2 K (2 Players)Hero bets 1,250, BTN calls 1,250
Turn: (4,785) 9
(2 Players)Hero bets 3,000, BTN calls 3,000
River: (10,785) 9
(2 Players)Hero checks, BTN checks
Results: 10,785 Pot
Hero showed J
Q (a pair of Nines) and LOST (-5,050 NET)BTN showed J
J (two pair, Jacks and Nines) and WON 10,785 (+5,735 NET)I was sure he had a pair worse than K's, though I didn't expect it be quite as good as J's. That shouldn't make a difference, but psychologically, it does. I really need to stop being so aggressive in tournaments.
But it's OK Because....
One nice pot at 10/20 makes up for everything:
Full Tilt Poker, $10/$20 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 5 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
SB: $6,618
BB: $3,554
UTG: $5,205
CO: $7,504
Hero (BTN): $2,355
Pre-Flop: K
J dealt to Hero (BTN)UTG folds, CO calls $20, Hero raises to $90, 2 folds, CO calls $70
Flop: ($210) A
T 9 (2 Players)CO checks, Hero bets $165, CO calls $165
Turn: ($540) 8
(2 Players)CO checks, Hero bets $400, CO calls $400
River: ($1,340) J
(2 Players)CO bets $1,900, Hero calls $1,700 and is All-In
Results: $4,740 Pot
CO showed Q
6 (a flush, Ace high) and LOST (-$2,355 NET)Hero showed K
J (a flush, Ace high) and WON $4,737 (+$2,382 NET)As you can see, this guy was the table fish. The wait list was 30-deep to get on this table. Of course, I didn't give up my seat until he left. I was just trying to decide how much I should bet on the river when he went ahead and shoved for me! Cooler for him, of course, but that's why don't play Q6s.
Thank goodness FTOPS is over so there's no more tournament temptation and I get back to cash games.
Labels: NLHE, poker, poker strategy, session review, tournament
Stumble It!
Ray Zee Responds
Ray Zee, the author of High-Low Split Poker for Advanced Players, posted a brief response to my review of his book on the Two Plus Two forums:
Stumble It!
"tnx for the review.I don't really disagree with this. Beginning players could surely find value in the book, and it couldn't hurt for them to know what's out there when they're ready for it. But I do think there are better resources for players new to split-pot games that cover important basics like O/8 starting hands in greater detail.
i do believe all players would greatly benefit from the book. advanced or intermediate the most of course. but if you are a decent player of other games your skills can be transfered quickly enough to split.
so even a novice at the game can benefit from the book right away if he is experienced in poker.
a complete novice i think should get his feet wet with limit holem or seven stud first then expand his horizons.
no harm in reading any book once thru and getting a feel for it and then coming back when you can get the greatest use of it. if you havent at least skimmed thru it you wont know when you are reeady to digest its value."
Labels: book review, O8, poker, Stud/8
Stumble It!
Sunday, February 17, 2008
FTOPS Event 17
AT $2500, this was one of the largest buy-in online tournaments I'd ever entered, and the first two-day event. It had a great structure, with gradual blind increases every half hour and deep starting stacks.
I got a pretty good starting table, with the only names I recognized being a well-known cash game short stacker and three FTP pros. I didn't know much about mandyb, but I've played a fair amount of full ring cash games lately with the the other two, Marco Liesy and Mike Matusow. Mike at least was probably above average relative to the field, but he was also a known quantity, whereas I was going to have to figure out how to deal with a lot of the others at table. From what I've seen, Marco is a pretty weak deep stack player, so I was happy to have him at the table.
In the second hour, I made a move on Matusow that, though successful, I regretted as soon as I made it and still think is pretty poor:
Full Tilt Poker, NL Hold'em Tournament, 15/30 Blinds, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
BB: 4,810
UTG: 4,860
UTG+1: 5,335
UTG+2: 7,185
MP1: 2,515
Hero (MP2): 4,205
CO: 5,490
BTN: 5,740
SB: 4,860
Pre-Flop: (45) A K dealt to Hero (MP2)
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls 30, 2 folds, Hero raises to 135, UTG+1 calls 105
Flop: (315) 5 8 5 (2 Players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero bets 220, UTG+1 calls 220
Turn: (755) 7 (2 Players)
UTG+1 bets 270, Hero raises to 850, UTG+1 folds
Results: 1,295 Pot
Hero mucked A K and WON 1,295 (+670 NET)
His turn lead is pretty clearly a blocking/probe bet, but my raise doesn't make a lot of sense. Even with a flush it's not necessarily a great raise, and there aren't a lot of ways for me to have a full house. If I had a club, I would have just called and then bet any river, but I think folding is actually better without a club, at least against a skilled handreader who isn't afraid to be a hero. Early in a tournament, Mike's probably playing pretty conservatively, so maybe it's ok. Anyway, it worked.
For the next hour or two I won and lost some small pots but hovered close pretty close to the 5K starting stacks, which was fine, since the blinds were so shallow. Then this happened:
Full Tilt Poker, NL Hold'em Tournament, 40/80 Blinds, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
UTG+1: 1,425
UTG+2: 4,815
MP1: 3,755
MP2: 10,766
CO: 5,445
Hero (BTN): 4,705
SB: 5,480
BB: 10,605
UTG: 8,175
Pre-Flop: (120) K J dealt to Hero (BTN)
4 folds, MP2 raises to 240, CO folds, Hero calls 240, 2 folds
Flop: (600) J 7 9 (2 Players)
MP2 bets 415, Hero calls 415
Turn: (1,430) 4 (2 Players)
MP2 checks, Hero bets 800, MP2 raises to 3,830, Hero raises to 4,050 and is All-In, MP2 calls 220
River: (9,530) 8 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)
Results: 9,530 Pot
MP2 showed T J (a straight, Jack high) and WON 9,530 (+4,825 NET)
Hero showed K J (a pair of Jacks) and LOST (-4,705 NET)
I forgot to register for the $100 PLO rebuy, and now, instead of playing day 2, I've just started the $240 knock-out (it's a $200 tournament with a $40 bounty for every player you eliminate).
Stumble It!
I got a pretty good starting table, with the only names I recognized being a well-known cash game short stacker and three FTP pros. I didn't know much about mandyb, but I've played a fair amount of full ring cash games lately with the the other two, Marco Liesy and Mike Matusow. Mike at least was probably above average relative to the field, but he was also a known quantity, whereas I was going to have to figure out how to deal with a lot of the others at table. From what I've seen, Marco is a pretty weak deep stack player, so I was happy to have him at the table.
In the second hour, I made a move on Matusow that, though successful, I regretted as soon as I made it and still think is pretty poor:
Full Tilt Poker, NL Hold'em Tournament, 15/30 Blinds, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
BB: 4,810
UTG: 4,860
UTG+1: 5,335
UTG+2: 7,185
MP1: 2,515
Hero (MP2): 4,205
CO: 5,490
BTN: 5,740
SB: 4,860
Pre-Flop: (45) A
K dealt to Hero (MP2)UTG folds, UTG+1 calls 30, 2 folds, Hero raises to 135, UTG+1 calls 105
Flop: (315) 5
8 5 (2 Players)UTG+1 checks, Hero bets 220, UTG+1 calls 220
Turn: (755) 7
(2 Players)UTG+1 bets 270, Hero raises to 850, UTG+1 folds
Results: 1,295 Pot
Hero mucked A
K and WON 1,295 (+670 NET)His turn lead is pretty clearly a blocking/probe bet, but my raise doesn't make a lot of sense. Even with a flush it's not necessarily a great raise, and there aren't a lot of ways for me to have a full house. If I had a club, I would have just called and then bet any river, but I think folding is actually better without a club, at least against a skilled handreader who isn't afraid to be a hero. Early in a tournament, Mike's probably playing pretty conservatively, so maybe it's ok. Anyway, it worked.
For the next hour or two I won and lost some small pots but hovered close pretty close to the 5K starting stacks, which was fine, since the blinds were so shallow. Then this happened:
Full Tilt Poker, NL Hold'em Tournament, 40/80 Blinds, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
UTG+1: 1,425
UTG+2: 4,815
MP1: 3,755
MP2: 10,766
CO: 5,445
Hero (BTN): 4,705
SB: 5,480
BB: 10,605
UTG: 8,175
Pre-Flop: (120) K
J dealt to Hero (BTN)4 folds, MP2 raises to 240, CO folds, Hero calls 240, 2 folds
Flop: (600) J
7 9 (2 Players)MP2 bets 415, Hero calls 415
Turn: (1,430) 4
(2 Players)MP2 checks, Hero bets 800, MP2 raises to 3,830, Hero raises to 4,050 and is All-In, MP2 calls 220
River: (9,530) 8
(2 Players - 1 is All-In)Results: 9,530 Pot
MP2 showed T
J (a straight, Jack high) and WON 9,530 (+4,825 NET)Hero showed K
J (a pair of Jacks) and LOST (-4,705 NET)I forgot to register for the $100 PLO rebuy, and now, instead of playing day 2, I've just started the $240 knock-out (it's a $200 tournament with a $40 bounty for every player you eliminate).
Labels: poker, poker strategy, session review, tournament
Stumble It!
Book Review: High-Low Split Poker for Advanced Players
Ray Zee’s book is rightly called, “For Advanced Players.” Players new to Stud/8 or O/8 will need to find another resource, as Zee largely glosses over basic material in favor of advanced thinking and plays. Though occasionally scattershot and disorganized, his book contains a wealth of information for those who play in tough split-pot games.
Stud/8
Though it would be helpful if he came out and said this, Zee’s guiding principle in Stud/8 is that you need to know where you stand. Tough players are aggressive, and pots will often be capped on big bet streets. He advises to play hands that can give action like this and to get out of the way early if you won’t know what to do if your opponents start raising. Thus, rather than pushing small edges on early streets, “It is sometimes good not to play so fast so you can determine where the strength lies.”
In terms of showdown equity, Stud/8 hands often run close in value, particularly on early streets. Thus, how well a hand will play on future streets becomes the true test of its worth. Good players find their edge by recognizing the many conditions that affect whether and how a hand should be played. Will the pot be heads up or multiway? Which cards are live? Is there an opportunity to misrepresent your hand?
Much of Zee’s Stud/8 material is devoted to a street-by-street analysis of how to play. For third street, he offers a comprehensive analysis of the possible starting hands, when to play them, and how they ought to be played. This is one of the highlights of the book. Players make third street decisions on every hand they play, so it’s important to be airtight on the fundamentals, and this text can advance exactly that goal.
The discussions of future streets are good but much less thorough. They read more like a laundry list of possible plays than a full consideration of the situations in which a player may find himself. To be fair, this is not entirely Zee’s fault. Stud/8 is a complex game with a lot of variables, and it would be difficult to write a comprehensive guide to play on later streets. For advanced players who already know how to handle common situations, Zee’s thoughts on tricky spots and expert plays are a treasure trove.
Unsurprisingly, the text becomes even more disorganized in its second-half, where a hodge-podge of ideas is collected as “Miscellaneous Topics”. These include thoughts on slow-playing, bluffing, and random plays that didn’t fit elsewhere in the text. Again, it’s valuable information, but the presentation is a little lacking.
Zee’s sections on types of Stud/8 games (ie tight, loose, short-handed), psychology, and hand-reading fall short of the standard set by the earlier material. They are valuable enough, but rather generic (the Psychology and Hand-Reading sections of both the Stud/8 and O/8 manuals are literally identical, borrowed from Sklansky’s Theory of Poker, save for a few details). Much the same can be said for the Questions and Answers: I suppose there’s no harm in including them, but they introduce no new material and offer little advantage over re-reading the text.
O/8
Although the first section of the O/8 text is devoted to “Basic Play”, it is still not ideal for beginners. Zee does articulate the basic goal of O/8, particularly in weak low-limit games: “your primary edge comes from the fact that you won’t be drawing to less than the nuts.” Unlike the very helpful review of third-street hands in Stud/8, however, this section does not categorize the various types playable O/8 holdings or discuss when and how to play them. Instead, Zee presumes this knowledge on the part of the reader and dives straight into special cases of what not to play and which weak-looking hands could actually be played for a profit.
After this brief discussion of starting hands, the “Basic Play” section consists of a list of disjointed “Concepts” numbered and strung together. They are valuable tidbits, but the lack of any organizing structure prevents the reader from getting a holistic sense of the game and its flow.
Zee devotes the bulk of the O/8 manual to “Advanced Strategy” for higher-limit games. Here, just playing tight and drawing to the nuts will not suffice. Instead, “this is a game of trying to get in cheaply before the flop…. The big decision is to analyze the flop and understand how it relates to your hand and whether you should play on.”
Profitable players in these games make good decisions about how well flops connect with their holdings and how to play for maximum profit against opponent’s likely holdings. The key is “to have the nuts with draws to better hands.” In other words, in a game where most players are tight and only putting in money with the nut low, having counterfeit protection to the second nut low is essential. Outside shots to a gutshot straight or a backdoor flush also contribute important equity. Holding the nuts without any of these is rarely sufficient to withstand heavy action.
Of course, these ideal situations do not arise all that often. In the meantime, Zee explains how to steal pots, how to exercise restraint even with strong hands when there are a lot of draws out, and how to handle tough spots with marginal holdings.
Despite its catch-all name, the “Additional Advanced Concepts” section is actually organized more logically than most of the book. It consists primarily of advice on how to adapt your play to game conditions (i.e. tight, loose, or short-handed). As with the Stud/8 material, the Psychology, Hand Reading, and Questions & Answers sections are largely repetitive and generic.
Ray Zee’s High-Low Split Poker is not, nor does it purport to be, a comprehensive guide to playing Stud/8 and O/8. It reads more like an off-the-cuff brainstorming of all the little things that separate the players in these games from the merely good. But Zee is one such great player, and his musings, however disjointed, are worth many times their cover price.
Stumble It!
Stud/8
Though it would be helpful if he came out and said this, Zee’s guiding principle in Stud/8 is that you need to know where you stand. Tough players are aggressive, and pots will often be capped on big bet streets. He advises to play hands that can give action like this and to get out of the way early if you won’t know what to do if your opponents start raising. Thus, rather than pushing small edges on early streets, “It is sometimes good not to play so fast so you can determine where the strength lies.”
In terms of showdown equity, Stud/8 hands often run close in value, particularly on early streets. Thus, how well a hand will play on future streets becomes the true test of its worth. Good players find their edge by recognizing the many conditions that affect whether and how a hand should be played. Will the pot be heads up or multiway? Which cards are live? Is there an opportunity to misrepresent your hand?
Much of Zee’s Stud/8 material is devoted to a street-by-street analysis of how to play. For third street, he offers a comprehensive analysis of the possible starting hands, when to play them, and how they ought to be played. This is one of the highlights of the book. Players make third street decisions on every hand they play, so it’s important to be airtight on the fundamentals, and this text can advance exactly that goal.
The discussions of future streets are good but much less thorough. They read more like a laundry list of possible plays than a full consideration of the situations in which a player may find himself. To be fair, this is not entirely Zee’s fault. Stud/8 is a complex game with a lot of variables, and it would be difficult to write a comprehensive guide to play on later streets. For advanced players who already know how to handle common situations, Zee’s thoughts on tricky spots and expert plays are a treasure trove.
Unsurprisingly, the text becomes even more disorganized in its second-half, where a hodge-podge of ideas is collected as “Miscellaneous Topics”. These include thoughts on slow-playing, bluffing, and random plays that didn’t fit elsewhere in the text. Again, it’s valuable information, but the presentation is a little lacking.
Zee’s sections on types of Stud/8 games (ie tight, loose, short-handed), psychology, and hand-reading fall short of the standard set by the earlier material. They are valuable enough, but rather generic (the Psychology and Hand-Reading sections of both the Stud/8 and O/8 manuals are literally identical, borrowed from Sklansky’s Theory of Poker, save for a few details). Much the same can be said for the Questions and Answers: I suppose there’s no harm in including them, but they introduce no new material and offer little advantage over re-reading the text.
O/8
Although the first section of the O/8 text is devoted to “Basic Play”, it is still not ideal for beginners. Zee does articulate the basic goal of O/8, particularly in weak low-limit games: “your primary edge comes from the fact that you won’t be drawing to less than the nuts.” Unlike the very helpful review of third-street hands in Stud/8, however, this section does not categorize the various types playable O/8 holdings or discuss when and how to play them. Instead, Zee presumes this knowledge on the part of the reader and dives straight into special cases of what not to play and which weak-looking hands could actually be played for a profit.
After this brief discussion of starting hands, the “Basic Play” section consists of a list of disjointed “Concepts” numbered and strung together. They are valuable tidbits, but the lack of any organizing structure prevents the reader from getting a holistic sense of the game and its flow.
Zee devotes the bulk of the O/8 manual to “Advanced Strategy” for higher-limit games. Here, just playing tight and drawing to the nuts will not suffice. Instead, “this is a game of trying to get in cheaply before the flop…. The big decision is to analyze the flop and understand how it relates to your hand and whether you should play on.”
Profitable players in these games make good decisions about how well flops connect with their holdings and how to play for maximum profit against opponent’s likely holdings. The key is “to have the nuts with draws to better hands.” In other words, in a game where most players are tight and only putting in money with the nut low, having counterfeit protection to the second nut low is essential. Outside shots to a gutshot straight or a backdoor flush also contribute important equity. Holding the nuts without any of these is rarely sufficient to withstand heavy action.
Of course, these ideal situations do not arise all that often. In the meantime, Zee explains how to steal pots, how to exercise restraint even with strong hands when there are a lot of draws out, and how to handle tough spots with marginal holdings.
Despite its catch-all name, the “Additional Advanced Concepts” section is actually organized more logically than most of the book. It consists primarily of advice on how to adapt your play to game conditions (i.e. tight, loose, or short-handed). As with the Stud/8 material, the Psychology, Hand Reading, and Questions & Answers sections are largely repetitive and generic.
Ray Zee’s High-Low Split Poker is not, nor does it purport to be, a comprehensive guide to playing Stud/8 and O/8. It reads more like an off-the-cuff brainstorming of all the little things that separate the players in these games from the merely good. But Zee is one such great player, and his musings, however disjointed, are worth many times their cover price.
Labels: book review, O8, poker, poker strategy, Stud/8
Stumble It!
Saturday, February 16, 2008
FTOPS Event 15
$200 6-max NLHE. Same old, same old. I've already posted most of the key hands on 2+2, and I don't feel like re-converting them, but you can check out that thread if you want to see them. Two were kind of big folds, one was a bad beat/questionable call. It was over pretty quick, and I chose to skip the evening's 7 Card Stud tournament cuz I kind of suck at that game.
Stumble It!
Labels: poker, poker strategy, session review, tournament
Stumble It!