From the Desk of the Poker Philosopher

Oooph. Man I feel like I just got brutalized all month, but the truth is that I was nearly even until about 10 days ago, and then things really hit the skids. It was some combination of running bad, getting frustrated, and once finding myself in an expensive game with a player who may have been better than I thought.

On the plus side, I got in a lot of hands this month, nearly 38K. Unfortunately, I ran at -1 BB/100, which combined with a continued failure to thrive in tournaments, resulted in my worst month ever. It was enough to wipe out the gains of February and then some. I haven't added in my rakeback yet, and hopefully that will be substantial, but either way I've got some rebuilding to do.

Also, I played NLHE cash games almost exclusively, so I'm not going to bother with PLO or tournament stats or anything. I'm now just under 2 BB/100 for the year, which isn't great, but still means I'm making decent money given the stakes I'm playing. I'm at about 80% of where I wanted to be for the year, but honestly if I continue at this pace for the rest of 2008, I'd have no room to complain. Downswings are always frustrating when you're in them, but my big picture is still bright, so I try to focus on that. Here's my really swingy graph for the first quarter of the year:

Labels: personal, poker

Stumble It!

I've written before about the importance of thin value bets, but I think at least some of these are too thin:

Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners

Seat 0: Villain ($13917.50) -
Seat 1: Hero ($5098.50) - -


PRE-FLOP:

Hero posts small blind $25
Villain posts BIG blind $50
Dealt To: Hero


RAISE Hero ($150)
CALL Villain ($150)


FLOP:

Pot: $350


CHECK Villain
BET Hero ($200)
CALL Villain ($200)


TURN:

Pot: $750


CHECK Villain
BET Hero ($450)
CALL Villain ($450)


RIVER:

Pot: $1650


CHECK Villain
BET Hero ($1300)
CALL Villain ($1300)


SHOWDOWN:
Hero:

Villain:


Villain collected $4199.5 from main pot with flush, nine high

SUMMARY:
Total pot: $4200 Rake: $.50

Final Board:


Seat 1: 6h 5d 4s 3d 7s: straight, seven high. - Net Gain/Loss: ($-2100)
Seat 0: 9s 8s 4s 7s 2s: flush, nine high. - Net Gain/Loss: ($2099.5)



Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners

Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners

Seat 0: Villain ($6580.75) -
Seat 1: Hero ($19249.25) - -


PRE-FLOP:

Hero posts small blind $25
Villain posts BIG blind $50
Dealt To: Hero


RAISE Hero ($150)
CALL Villain ($150)


FLOP:

Pot: $350


CHECK Villain
BET Hero ($200)
CALL Villain ($200)


TURN:

Pot: $750


CHECK Villain
BET Hero ($550)
CALL Villain ($550)


RIVER:

Pot: $1850


CHECK Villain
BET Hero ($1325)
CALL Villain ($1325)


SHOWDOWN:
Hero:

Villain:


Villain collected $4449.5 from main pot with straight, five high

SUMMARY:
Total pot: $4450 Rake: $.50

Final Board:


Seat 1: Kh Ac Js 5d Ad: a pair of aces. - Net Gain/Loss: ($-2225)
Seat 0: 2c As 5d 3d 4s: straight, five high. - Net Gain/Loss: ($2224.5)



Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners

Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners

Seat 0: Villain ($8805.25) - -
Seat 1: Hero ($17024.25) -


PRE-FLOP:

Villain posts small blind $25
Hero posts BIG blind $50
Dealt To: Hero




FLOP:

Pot: $75




TURN:

Pot: $75




RIVER:

Pot: $75



Villain collected $7049.5 from main pot with two pair, sixes and fives

SUMMARY:
Total pot: $7050 Rake: $.50

Final Board:


Seat 1: As Ac Kc 9s 6h: a pair of aces. - Net Gain/Loss: ($-50)
Seat 0: 5c 6s 5h Kc 6h: two pair, sixes and fives. - Net Gain/Loss: ($7024.5)


Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners

Edit: Looks like the action got dropped on the last hand, but basically he open limped the button, I popped it to $250, he called. Then I bet every street with AA and he called down with 65 for a turned two pair.

Labels: heads up, NLHE, poker, poker strategy, session review

Stumble It!

Last month, my girlfriend and I spent a few days at the Grand Canyon. I know most of you probably don't care, but for those of you who know me or who enjoy looking at pictures of other peoples' vacations, here are some pictures:



Here I am standing on an icy precipice. We tried to do some hiking, but even with crampons, the ice made the already-treacherous paths even more harrowing. Also, people share trails with mules, which means that often there was no way to avoid trudging through a sludge of partially melted snow mixed with mud and mule poop. That was kind of unpleasant.




Here's one of the trails zig-zagging across one wall of the canyon. We went maybe 10-15% of the way down, but the full hike is kind of an ordeal. You have to spend the night in the canyon, as they are very insistent that you cannot make it down and back in one day.


This is the cabin where we stayed. Hopefully you can tell how close it was to the rim. We didn't actually have a rim view, though, because there was another cabin in the way. Those were all booked, unfortunately.



Some nice but kind of weird family took our picture.

Labels: personal

Stumble It!

My One Minute Recommendation: Harrington on Cash Games Volume One scores a 5/10. Players who are new to NLHE cash games will find it initially helpful, especially if they are interested in full ring play. Those who are already moderately successful at cash games will find little of use, especially if they are trying to improve at short-handed online games.

If this review is helpful to you, please consider purchasing this or other poker books through my Amazon affiliate links. 100% of the proceeds go to the Boston Debate League.

Overview

The original Harrington on Hold 'Em revolutionized tournament poker, introducing tens of thousands of amateur players to what were then advanced moves and concepts: the continuation bet, the squeeze play, and M, the now-famous ratio of a player's stack to the blinds and antes. This legacy created unrivaled anticipation for the Harrington on Cash Games (HOC) series, the first two volumes of which were released simultaneously last week.

So are they worth the hype? As with so many questions in no-limit hold 'em (NLHE), the answer is, “It depends.” Players who are new to NLHE cash games will have the most to gain, especially if they are interested in full ring play. Those who are already moderately successful at cash games will find few springboards to improvement, especially if they are interested in short-handed online games.

Though Harrington and his publishers at 2+2 should have been more up front about the intended audience, the books are wisely geared towards fans of tournament books who want to venture into no-limit cash games. Harrington writes primarily about full ring (i.e. 9- or 10-handed) games, and though his examples sometimes suggest otherwise, his advice is most applicable in smaller stakes, passive live games. Again, this makes sense given the implicitly intended audience, but it ought to have been made more clear.

Reading HOC Volume 1 should certainly make cash game novices safer and more confident at the tables. Harrington's advice steers them clear of common and expensive pitfalls, particularly the perils of playing out of position and overvaluing one-pair hands. Armed with this advice, new players will be able to protect their bankrolls and avoid hemorrhaging money while they learn from the best teacher of all: experience.

This is a double-edged sword, however. Because so much of the advice in HOC Volume I borders on the formulaic and overly cautious, it carries the very real danger of delaying, if not stunting, the growth of advanced no-limit hold 'em skills. Reading an opponent's hand and manipulating his range, which even 2+2's David Sklansky has acknowledged as the most important and profitable NLHE skills, are not only lacking from but positively devalued by HOC Volume I.

The result is a manual that, though very good for turning a new player into a reasonably good player, may actually delay that same player's transition to becoming very good or great. More experienced, higher stakes players, particularly those accustomed to more aggressive short-handed online games, will find little of use, at least in the first volume of the series.

Concepts and Theory

Harrington gets a lot of tricky bits of poker theory right, explaining them concisely but clearly and convincingly. He suggests some analogies and thought experiments that should be very helpful to players who lack a clear understanding of metagame, implied odds, equity, and the way stack sizes affect proper play. Reading these sections of HOC Volume I before starting a session could easily double or triple the educational value of the experience accumulated during that session.

Unfortunately, it will be necessary for the player to supply the experience himself, because Harrington's practical advice and examples, though numerous, are often misleading and sometimes painfully bad. In his Introduction, for instance, the author analyzes a hand from High Stakes Poker where the players brutally bungle nearly every key decision point. They even violate Harrington's oft-repeated warnings against overvaluing one pair, not giving opponents enough credit in multi-way pots, and bloating the pot from out of position. Despite all of this, the author concludes that, “This was a great hand, with a lot of excellent decisions by the three main players.”

Part of the problem stems from the fact that Harrington seems confused about the central objectives of the NLHE cash game player and how they differ from those of the tournament player. In the Introduction, he nonsensically asserts that, “in tournament poker, your time horizon is very limited. You need to seize every opportunity as it presents itself or risk getting blinded away. Cash games don't have that same kind of pressure. They're much more a game of patience. You don't need to swing at balls that just graze the strike zone; you can wait for the fat ones that you can blast out of the park.”

To the extent that there's any truth to this claim, it is owing to the deeper stacks generally found in cash game play, not to any kind of time limitation. A tournament player can gladly felt an overpair in many situations simply because the money already in the pot is so large relative to the money remaining in his stack, not because he won't have time to find a better opportunity. A cash game player with a similar stack would have no reason to pass on this opportunity, and a deep-stacked tournament player would need to be more cautious with all of his chips that have not yet been wagered.

In the very next section, Harrington offers a much more helpful summary of the key principles at work in NLHE cash games, which he calls “The Strength Principle” (bet strong hands, check middling ones, fold or bluff weak ones), “The Aggression Principle” (betting and raising is generally better than checking and calling), “The Betting Principle” (most good bets will either force better hands to fold, weaker hands to call, or drawing hands to pay too high a price), and “The Deception Principle” (“Never do anything all of the time.”) This is a pretty good introduction to deep-stacked NLHE play, and only the fourth principle is a bit incomplete. After all, many good players manage to be very deceptive while always playing a certain hand the same way simply because they also play very different hands in an identical fashion.

Though Harrington does an admirable job with these “Basic Concepts”, his explorations of these key concepts is ultimately shallow and rudimentary. This is part of what makes it good for beginners, but it is also the reason why more advanced players will have little to gain from this volume. Implied odds, for instance, are absolutely critical to NLHE and ripe for in-depth analysi, but HOC Volume I never gets beyond the elementary definition of 'how much you stand to win if you hit your hand.'

But implied odds are about more than winning additional bets. They are about equity that can be accumulated on later streets, whether from value betting, bluffing, or all around out-playing an opponent because of a certain card that flopped, turned, or rivered Yet Harrington has little to say about how factors like position and bluff outs can influence the calculation of pot odds.

The second major part of the book focuses on “The Elements of No-Limit Hold 'Em Cash”, topics like hand selection, pot commitment, and hand reading. Once again, Harrington explains these quite well and occasionally even rises to the level of insightful. A few of his gems may enlighten even some relatively knowledeable readers, as when he rather succintly states that, “By playing a mix of hands, you're actually reducing your opponent's implied odds on his speculative hands” or when he says, “you need to be sure that any betting action by you is capable of multiple interpretations by an observant opponent.”

The Tight-Aggressive Strategy

The bulk of the book outlines what Harrington names his “Tight-Aggressive Strategy”. Harrington’s emphasis on practical advice was a much-appreciated hallmark of his tournament series, but there is a reason why the better cash game books of late have focused on theory and principles. Even played full ring, deep-stack NLHE allows for a huge amount of flexibility in the play of any given hand. Nebulous factors such as history, table image, and meta-game can swing a call into a fold or a fold into a raise, but they are notoriously difficult to encapsulate in a playbook.

Harrington is on the right track by introducing a coherent strategy that demonstrates a possible mix of hand ranges in the situations he examines. However, readers rarely get more than a glimpse of the reasoning behind the particular frequencies and combinations he recommends. The author himself admits the haphazard nature of his strategy when he resorts to justifying a certain mix of checks and bets because it “feels about right.” Granted this is not going to be an exact science, but without a much more thorough explanation of how various plays and hands complement each other, the reader gets a recipe rather than a learning tool.

When Harrington does share his reasoning, it’s often disappointing. The fundamental problem is that he rarely argues in terms of equity. He prefers instead to talk about information, pot control, and “taking down the pot”, all of which ought to be subordinate to manipulating an opponent’s range so as to maximize your equity. Presumably hand-reading and equity analysis lie somewhere below the surface when the author indicates that a bet “smells like a bluff” or that it is “too soon to give up”, but he never reveals the warrants for his extra-sensory perceptions.

This flawed reasoning is evident when the author says things like, “A pot-sized bet is large enough to accomplish anything that a bigger bet could accomplish.” Although an overbet may provide as much information as a pot-sized bet and charge draws a good price, the one thing it does not accomplish as well ought to be obvious: putting more money into the pot when you have the best hand! Similarly, there is no intrinsic need to take a moderate but likely best hand to showdown. A bet that exposes you to a raise is not a liability if only hands that have you crushed will make that raise.

Harrington’s reasoning also tends to rely on assumptions about his opponents that will ring false to most players. They are people who fold AQ to a single raise on dry Ace-high flops and let the first person to bet at a paired board take it down, no matter how implausible his line.

As for the strategy itself, it isn’t bad. Pre-flop, Harrington makes some good points about how and why to diversify your ranges. His central premise, that NLHE is about seeing a lot of cheap flops, can’t be true for everyone at the table, but it’s true enough if you’re one of the best. This section also debunks some common myths about pot odds and what hands should be played out of position for a discount.

The section on flop play in heads up pots is the longest in the book, and undeservedly so. Flop play has at least as much to do with how the board texture fits your opponent’s pre-flop range as it does with your own hand, yet Harrington’s analysis always proceeds from the latter. And despite its length, this section barely scratches the surface of possible flop situations. It’s an admirable attempt, but offering practical advice for every situation is simply impossible. Explanation of the decision-making process, which is so much more important, is the inevitable casualty.

This isn’t to say that there is no explanation of the decision-making process- quite the contrary. But as explained above, a lot of important stuff is left out. Covering those details would have been much more useful than a engaging in a precise and minute analysis of a few select flop situations from every angle.

The section on flop play in multi-way pots is both shorter and better. Rather than analyzing examples ad nauseum, Harrington concentrates on the big picture. He repeatedly hammers home his central thesis that play generally should and will be more straight-forward. For this reason, position is especially valuable. And despite what Harrington says, your bets should often be smaller, since the mere act of betting will command more respect.

Conclusion

Harrington reserves turn and river play for Volume II, which severely limits the stand-alone value of this book. Tournament converts will need the most help on these streets, and the fact that these sections complete the Tight-Aggressive strategy, HOC Volume I does not contain a fully playable strategy, even though the outlining of such occupies the bulk of the book.

Ultimately, the author’s preference for practical advice over theoretical discussion makes Harrington on Cash Volume I something of a crutch for beginning players, with all of the good and bad that that implies. It will surely plug some common leaks and keep them out of trouble, which means that smaller stakes games will probably start to get a bit tougher. Because the material on winning NLHE thought processes is so sporadic and flawed, however, this book may actually stunt a reader’s growth at some point and will certainly be of little use to experienced players seeking to improve or to short-handed players of any stripe. They might do well to read it anyway, however, simply to be up on the latest formulaic play likely to invade the NLHE scene.

If you enjoyed this review, you might like my other book reviews or my poker strategy articles as well. And don't forget to benefit the Boston Debate League by purchasing your copy of Harrington on Cash Games Volume I using my affiliate link above.

Labels: book review, NLHE, poker, poker strategy

Stumble It!

Two exciting deliveries arrived yesterday. The first was my new laptop. My old machine was going on five years and pathetic at handling all my poker applications. Also the screen was so lame compared to my dual monitor wide-screen desktop set-up. The new computer has a 17" screen, which will make it a little more awkward to carry than is ideal for a laptop but will make the multi-tabling much more manageable. It's pretty thin, too, which is sexy. Here it is alongside my desktop set-up:


My poker library is visible in the background of this one:


And the other new arrival:


Hopefully I'll have a review of Volume I up by the end of the week. I'm out of town until Thursday, probably won't be updating the blog, but I will have a lot of time for reading and writing.

Labels: personal, poker

Stumble It!

I was in Providence Wednesday night for the Rhode Island Urban Debate League's end of the year banquet. It was a powerful event marked by three highlights: speeches from Providence mayor David Cicilline, Great Debaters star Nate Parker, and the graduating seniors of the RIUDL. Perhaps the biggest story, though, was the amazing turnout. Dozens of students and coaches brought their families and were joined by League supporters, school district officials, and Brown University students who work with the League. The overwhelming turnout even forced a last minute change of venue to a larger ballroom at the Westin Providence. The Providence Journal and the Brown Daily Herald covered the event.

Mayor Cicilline spoke briefly but eloquently about the importance of debate and the history of the Rhode Island Urban Debate League. Though he's new to office, he seems to have had a long-standing relationship with the League. To say that I'm jealous would be an understatement.

Then, a young woman named Rosanna Castro gave awards and introduced the RIUDL's graduating seniors. Rosanna was one of the League's first debaters, and since graduating in 2004, she has gone on to join the school board. We've got some strong allies on the Boston School Committee, but once again, jealousy ensued as I listened to this bright, articulate, confident young woman credit so much of her success to debate.

The seniors had similar stories to tell. The Boston Debate League did two joint events with the RIUDL this year, so I've gotten to know some of their students a bit. It was moving to watch them pondering such an emotional milestone as graduation and reflecting on an activity that has meant so much to them. Some read from carefully prepared speeches, others reveled in hamming it up on the fly, and still others giggled nervously through quick thank yous to their coaches and teammates. But always, they acknowledged that were it not for joining the debate team, they would never be able to speak so eloquently before a crowd of hundreds.

The real show-stopper was Nate Parker, who starred alongside Denzel Washington in The Great Debaters. Now this was a guy to be jealous of. Nate is young, handsome, charismatic, smart, articulate, well-informed, successful, and presumably pretty well-off financially these days.
Experiencing so much success as a young man and being tapped by one of the most popular and talented actors and directors in America to star in his film is the kind of thing that would go to most people's heads, especially those who spend so much time in Hollywood. But Nate seems down-to-Earth and genuinely passionate about debate. Though he was unfamiliar with the activity prior to starring in the film, Parker now describes debate as "a major step in leveling the playing field" for disadvantaged students. He's since traveled the country to attend several other urban debate events.

Needless to say, he's a big hit with the students. After speaking for a few minutes, he invited the audience to come up on stage and ask him questions. Not surprisingly, several giggling girls were the first to take him up on the offer.

When asked about the upcoming presidential election, he gave a characteristically thoughtful response. "I really wanted to approach this with an open mind. I didn't, you know, want to just say 'Oh I'm for the black guy!' I've read all the candidates' books and I've never missed one of the debates. But after taking it all in, I'm supporting Obama." That line was met with thunderous applause.

I'm usually skeptical of celebrities who want to pontificate about politics, and this country certainly doesn't have the best track record with actors-turned-politicians. But I couldn't help thinking what a great candidate and great leader Parker would make.

Labels: narrative, personal, trip report, urban debate league

Stumble It!

I've mentioned from time to time how annoying it is when people "hit and run", or win a big pot and quit immediately. Although it can occur at any table, it's especially annoying when playing heads up because the game is more personal and because when they quit, there's no one left for you to play with. Truthfully, though I give them a hard time about it in the hopes that they'll stay, I actually don't think that weak players who like to buy in short and quit when they double up are doing anything rude or unethical.

Most of them, like the guy who did it to me yesterday, know that they are not as good as I and just want to gamble. It's annoying when they quit because it feels like they are taking money out of my pocket, but really there's no reason they should be ethically obligated to play me until they lose it all. It's different to get hit and run after playing someone for a long time or by someone I play on a regular basis, but the gamblers are welcome to keep taking shots at me and to quit whenever they're lucky enough to have the lead.

I encountered a different violation of heads up ethics today, though, which was completely unacceptable: a guy who refused to leave my table when I told him I didn't want to play him.

Even when I'm not actively playing, I often sit at a few heads up tables in case one of the random gamblers or a regular against whom I think I have an edge decides he wants to play me. If someone I don't want to play sits with me, I will sit out and type "no ty". Usually they will leave to find another table. If all the other tables are full, I'll leave and let them have the table, but otherwise I think I have a rightful claim to keep the table and decide whom I will and will not play. There are plenty of other regulars who do this as well, and most people respect this.

But today, someone decided to give me a hard time about it. There were plenty of other tables open- in fact, I think mine may have been the only occupied one. However, when I told him "no ty", he wanted to know why not.

I'm not in it for my ego, so I came right out and told him, "I'd rather wait for someone less good."

"I'm not good. We've never played before." This was true, but I'd seen him playing multiple tables of 25/50 heads up with some decent players, so I had a feeling he was going to be pretty good, and frankly I am not all that great heads up relative to the other regulars in the high stakes games.

"Sorry, but you could you plz find another table?"

"Come on, let's just play for fun. Forget about the money." Mind you, this was a $2000 table.

I tried just ignoring him for a while, but he wouldn't leave. Finally, I got up and went to a different table. Seconds later, he was sitting across from me at the table, too. "What is your problem?" I asked. "I don't want to play you, could you please just find another table?"

"No I want to play. There are no other games going. Come on, just for fun." Of course, the more he begged, the more convinced I was that he was better than I and that I did not want to play him. I left for another table, and he found me again. Finally I figured out to shake him.

On FTP, whoever was at the table first gets the button in the first hand. So I sat in, and he siad "ty". I raised, he re-raised, I folded and sat out. "LOL!" he wrote. I quit and went to a new table. He quickly found me, and we played one more hand with me in position. This time, he folded, and I sat out again.

"You keep following me, I'm going to keep playing my button and quitting," I told him.

"That's fine, you play your button so bad." I'm not sure how he got that from two hands, but if he was game, so was I. I don't think there's a player in the world who could beat me if I got to have position on every hand. Despite his bravado, he didn't show up at my next table.

Labels: heads up, NLHE, poker

Stumble It!

On Tuesday, I posted about a rally I attended at the Massachusetts State House to protest a provision of Governor Patrick's casino legislation that made playing poker online a felony punishable by up to $25,000 and/or two years in jail. I'm happy to report that the committee holding a hearing on the bill that day did not recommend it to the full Congress and that, when it did come to the floor, the bill was voted down.

Professor Charles Nesson of Harvard Law School, who has been trying to determine who or what interests are pushing this anti-internet gambling language, has it from Governor Patrick's mouth that the source of this provision is Attorney General Coakley.

The Poker Players' Alliance now has some links to news coverage of the rally and some pictures up on their site, including the one above, of the Poker Prison prop that I mentioned on Tuesday. Here's a good group shot, I'm on the left towards the back in the black and white hat:

Labels: legislation, personal, poker

Stumble It!

I'd been playing this short stacker heads up at 10/20 NL. He was pretty bad, but I was going to need to make a hand to bust him. Finally, I got AKo and made my standard $60 raise. He shoved all in for about $400, I snap-called, and he turned over As Ks, making him a slight favorite. The flop came Js 9h 5s, and a Qs on the turn gave him the nuts. Here's the chat the ensued:

Dealer: Foucault shows Ace King high.
Dealer: Villain wins the pot ($794.90) with a flush, Ace high
Dealer: Villain is sitting out. Hand # 5709278675 has been cancelled
Foucault: you %@!#%
Foucault: hit and run?
Villain: have to ur better than me
Villain: i got lucky
Foucault: have a good day
Villain: gg

Even though it's annoying and rude when these guys double up and quit, I play them in the full knowledge that that's probably what they're going to do, if they're lucky enough to double up in the first place. And if he's willing to come right out and admit that he was just gambling, I really can't blame the guy for making the wise decision and quitting while he's ahead. Really I should just be appreciative that he was willing to play me in the first place.

Labels: heads up, poker

Stumble It!

I dragged my ass out of bed this morning and got over to the State House around 8:30 AM for a rally, organized by the Poker Players' Alliance and by Harvard Law School professor Charlie Nesson and his Global Poker Strategic Thinking Society.

Since they were going to have coffee and donuts, I literally rolled out of bed, put some clothes on, and left my apartment in a showerless, foodless, caffeineless fog. Unfortunately, this resulted in my not checking my camera batteries or bringing spares. The damn thing was dead, so I don't have any pictures of my own, though there should be some up online soon.

We were there in opposition to a portion of a casinos bill, endorsed by Governor Patrick, that would make playing online poker a felony punishable by up to two years in prison and/or a $25,000 fine. As Drew Lesofski, the PPA's grassroots organizer, pointed out, this is worse than the penalty for drunk driving.

Especially troubling is that no one will admit to backing this provision of the legislation. As Nesson writes in an op/ed piece for today's Boston Globe:

"Who wrote the bill’s strange provision to criminalize online games? The governor’s people say it wasn’t him (even though it’s nominally his bill). The Las Vegas casino interests say it’s not them. So who put it in there? Who stands behind it now? Perhaps both questions will be put to the governor today, at the Legislature’s public hearing. Inquiring minds want to know."

I found our crew just across the street from the State House, on the Boston Commons. There looked to be about a hundred people milling around, many of them in hard hats. It didn't seem implausible to me that online poker would be popular among the blue collar crowd.

After beelining for coffee and a Boston Cream donut, I found Charlie and his partner-in-crime as GPSTS, Andrew Woods, and congratulated them on the turnout. They introduced me to Drew Lesofski and also to Randy Castonguay, the PPA's Massachusetts director.

A few minutes later, someone called out for everyone to follow him, and I dutifully followed the tide of bodies until I realized I was the only one not wearing a hard hat. Apparently the union people were actually here in support of the casinos bill, which would create tens of thousands of new union jobs. That didn't stop them from stealing our coffee and donuts, though.

When I rejoined my fellow online poker advocates, I was disappointed to find that we numbered no more than forty. We did, however, stand out in our bright red t-shirts that declared "Poker is Not a Crime". As I said, I didn't have my camera, but you can see Nesson and others wearing the shirts in this photo that accompanied a Globe article on the hearing.

Also eye-catching was the cardboard "poker prison" built by Randy's wife and mother, who contributed some badly needed estrogen to our contingent.

Randy and Charlie both spoke to our humble mass for a few minutes, in vastly contrasting styles. Randy was all energy, shamelessly barking into a bullhorn about freedom, the right to play poker, and a man he knew with congenitive heart failure who claimed that online poker was the only joy left in his life. He came across as a little cheesy, but I think that's probably an asset for a job like his, and I certainly admire his willingness to show so much spirit despite the lackluster response from the crowd.

Charlie was the just the opposite, soft-spoken and contemplative. Personally, I found his arguments about the educational value of poker as a strategic game and a model for business and economics much more convincing. He concluded with a call-and-response chant that we were going to use when the governor walked past. Raising his voice for the only time during his speech, he shouted, "Now is the time!"

"Poker's not a crime!" we all shouted back.

Then it was time for him and Randy to head into the State House for the hearing. About half of our number went in as well, but I had no interest at all in watching the open hearing, which Andrew Woods warned me could take many, many hours. So I stayed outside as the union congregation filed past us.

Imagine, if you will, a few dozen scrawny internet geeks facing down a few hundred burly guys in hard hats shouting jeers at us. "Nice turnout!" was the one that hurt the most. The excuse was made that it was 9AM the morning after St. Patty's day and much of the college student/frat boy crowd was hung over, but I'm sure 99% of those union guys spent yesterday ****faced as well. They were just more passionate and better organized. Oh and probably getting paid overtime to be there.

Governor Patrick never did come by, but I did meet a few people from 2+2, including two pretty cool guys who guy by the screen names Self Made and Schwza. We talked poker for a while and considered going inside, but the union guys were lined up out the door and all the way down to the street waiting to get in, and the guards announced that no one else would be admitted. So, we went our separate ways.

I'll post an update with more photos and links as they become available.

Labels: legislation, poker, trip report

Stumble It!

It was brought to my attention that updates haven't appeared on the blog since Thursday, though I'd been making them. Apparently my terrible hosting company, Ipower (I'm not giving them a link here, and I urge you never to use them), 'updated' me to some new hosting platform or something. I didn't request this change, and apparently as a result I was supposed to redirect the address to which Blogger publishes my files. None of this was made clear to me, of course. Their incompetence was also responsible for some downtime in January. Sorry about that.
Stumble It!

I got up big stacks in both the $200 UB and the $500 FTP tournaments today. The UB went south when I called a tiny raise from the CO with 64s in my BB. He had been active, we were both kinda deep stacked, and there were antes, so I was getting quite good odds. Anyway, I check-raised all in with my open ended draw on an A75 flop. His range for betting this flop ought to be really wide, but he had AK and knocked me down to 15 BB's. Then I folded a bit, shoved AJ, got called by 88, flopped a Jack, and lost to a turned 8.

I doubled up very early in the FTP (which started with 250 BB stacks):

Full Tilt Poker, NL Hold'em Tournament, 15/30 Blinds, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

Hero (SB): 4,910
BB: 5,605
UTG: 5,000
UTG+1: 5,230
UTG+2: 4,955
MP1: 4,955
MP2: 4,610
CO: 4,540
BTN: 5,195

Pre-Flop: (45) 7 7 dealt to Hero (SB)
4 folds, MP2 raises to 135, CO calls 135, BTN folds, Hero calls 120, BB folds

Flop: (435) T 7 5 (3 Players)
Hero bets 275, MP2 calls 275, CO calls 275

Turn: (1,260) 9 (3 Players)
Hero bets 1,000, MP2 calls 1,000, CO raises to 4,130 and is All-In, Hero raises to 4,500 and is All-In, MP2 folds

River: (10,520) 3 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

Results: 10,520 Pot
Hero showed 7 7 (three of a kind, Sevens) and WON 10,520 (+5,980 NET)
CO showed 8 5 (a pair of Fives) and LOST (-4,540 NET)


I'm leading here just because these randoms tend to be too passive for my taste and I want to make sure the bets get into the pot. I also think that, unlike better players, these guys won't play for pot control the way they should with top pairs, overpairs, etc. In other words, I'm not missing out on a bet from marginal hands and I'm setting them up to lose a lot when they have a worse made hand.

In all honesty, the fact that the overcaller woke up on the turn scared me. He really should have fastplayed a big hand on the flop as deep as we are, as drawy as the board is, and with two people already showing interest in the pot. Even though the 9 only completed gutshots, I didn't think it was inconceivable for him to have a straight or a set of 9's.

Of course, people are idiots early in tournaments and folding a set of 7s would be absurd in this spot. So we get it in and he's got bottom pair and a gutshot after calling with 85o pre-flop. That works. Best of all, the guy's screenname, and I swear I'm not making this up, was "WideRange." You certainly do, sir.

After that, nothing happened for a while, but it didn't need to. I got ground down to an average stack, then doubled up when AK beat out TT. As I was getting blinded down again, I noticed a big stack named EazyPeazy. I didn't recognize the name, but he was playing well. I googled him and found a bunch of links about him playing 1K/2K mixed games with Doyle Brunson, Chip Reese, and Ted Forrest. So of course I found a spot to 3-bet him in position with 94s.

Other than that I was pretty card dead and quiet, though. Eventually I picked up KK in early position, raised, and called a shove from the BB, who was actually the third player (who folded on the turn) in the hand posted above. Anyway her 66 flopped quads to knock me down to 12 BB's. The very next hand I picked up AQ and shoved in. JJ called, but I won the flip and doubled back up.

I still wasn't catching much in the way of hands, though, and as the bubble approached I was getting short stacked. However, my table was wickedly tight and I managed to get away with quite a few open shoves without ever getting called. I took another hit when the action folded to one of the more active players with a 10x stack on the button. He shoved, and I called with A7 on my BB, only to lose to his K2.

After paying the small blind and a few antes, I was left with a 3.5x stack. The action folded to me, and I would have shoved any two cards, though I happened to get QQ. Astoundingly, no one called, which was actually fine. As short as I was, winning the blinds and antes uncontested is a fine result even with QQ.

This moron on my right was stalling every single hand, which was both annoying in its own right and particularly bad because I was rarely in a position to steal his blind, though it was ripe for the taking. I did once shove Q8o under the gun just because Stally McStallerson was in the BB.

Even after the bubble burst, play continued to be very tight, and I stayed alive but short through well-timed shoving. Finally, I moved in with 33 and a 10x stack UTG+1 and got called by JJ to bust in like 223 out of more than 3000 participants. Sadly, that was worth barely twice my buy-in back. However, I did bust FTP pro Sigi Stockinger, which was good for a $200 bounty. Also, I'll be getting a T-shirt in the mail, so that's something.

Labels: NLHE, poker, session review, tournament

Stumble It!

We were down to the final five in last night's $1000 WSOP satellite. We were all getting our entry fee back, but there was only one seat to be awarded (which was annoying as hell- just one or two more entrants, and there would have been two seats, which makes a world of difference in terms of a good player's satellite expectation).

This opponent was one of the weaker at the table. I thought there was a good chance he would check-raise all in with almost anything on this flop, and as you'll see, I don't need to be at it to represent a hand. As shallow as I am, checking with trips or a good pair would be very plausible here.

I didn't check the flop planning to make a move like this, but when I pick up a flush draw on the turn, I figure my hand is worth a call. My pair outs could be good, I may have some implied odds if I make the flush, and I may be able to bluff the river. A shove would surely fold out "bluffs" that were nonetheless better than my six high, but I figured I could fold those on the river anyway. This does give him the option to pre-empt me by "bluffing" again, but he can't expect me to fold much on the river and I didn't think he was aggressive enough for that anyway.

Poker Stars, $1,000 + $50 NL Hold'em Tournament, 200/400 Blinds, 5 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

SB: 15,861
BB: 34,722
UTG: 12,516
Hero (CO): 7,040
BTN: 49,861

Pre-Flop: (800) 5 6 dealt to Hero (CO)
UTG folds, Hero raises to 1,000, 2 folds, BB calls 600

Flop: (2,400) A 2 A (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero checks

Turn: (2,400) J (2 Players)
BB bets 1,200, Hero calls 1,200

River: (4,800) 4 (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets 4,800 and is All-In, BB folds

Results: 4,800 Pot
Hero mucked 5 6 and WON 4,800 (+2,560 NET)

I don't know if he's folding a pair here, but it's pretty unlikely for him to have one. My hand has so little showdown value that even if he only folds his unpaired holdings, I probably still get the 50% of folds I need to make this profitable.

The sad conclusion to this story is that this guy kept making bad calls against me and catching. I made it to the final three, but I kept losing medium-sized pots to him when his Q6s would out-flop my JJ and such. Finally, we got it all in pre-flop with AJs versus 66 (he made a huge shove over my button raise) and he flopped quads.

I didn't stick around for the conclusion, but I can't imagine this guy won. The third player was pretty solid and stacks were deep enough that my buddy here was almost certainly eaten for lunch.

Labels: NLHE, poker, poker strategy, session review, tournament, wsop

Stumble It!

I wonder if this is a record- I got and hit and run five times by the same guy tonight over the course of about three hours. On several occasions, he bought back within the same amount of money he had when he quit the last time, but I was sitting alone on multiple tables, and eventually he started coming to different tables so he could buy in short. I kept playing him because he sucked and eventually it got to be kind of funny how he kept quitting. Unfortunately he took a non-trivial amount of money from me....

Labels: heads up, humor, poker

Stumble It!

DJ Sensei had a good post a while back about advertising. The general idea is that early in a match, especially when heads up, you might make an extra aggressive play in the hopes of convincing your opponent you are a maniac for the rest of the match. These aren't the best examples, but here are three river bets made, in this order, against the same opponent over the course of two days.

I'm not going to comment on every street because I play this guy a lot and it's not impossible that he might find this post. But you can see how the results of each affects his decision in the next.

Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners

Seat 0: Villain ($8273.25) -
Seat 1: Hero ($9856.50) - -


PRE-FLOP:

Hero posts small blind $25
Villain posts BIG blind $50
Dealt To: Hero


RAISE Hero ($150)
RAISE Villain ($525)
CALL Hero ($525)


FLOP:

Pot: $1200


CHECK Villain
BET Hero ($575)
CALL Villain ($575)


TURN:

Pot: $2350


CHECK Villain
BET Hero ($1250)
CALL Villain ($1250)


RIVER:

Pot: $4850


CHECK Villain
BET Hero ($3500)
CALL Villain ($3500)


SHOWDOWN:
Hero:

Villain:


Villain collected $11699.5 from main pot with two pair, kings and fours

SUMMARY:
Total pot: $11700 Rake: $.50

Final Board:


Seat 1: 8h Ks Qs 4c 4d: a pair of fours. - Net Gain/Loss: ($-5975)
Seat 0: Kd Ks Qs 4c 4d: two pair, kings and fours. - Net Gain/Loss: ($5849.5)



Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners

Seat 0: Hero ($10199.75) - -
Seat 1: Villain ($8219) -


PRE-FLOP:

Hero posts small blind $25
Villain posts BIG blind $50
Dealt To: Hero


RAISE Hero ($150)
RAISE Villain ($525)
CALL Hero ($525)


FLOP:

Pot: $1200


CHECK Villain
BET Hero ($675)
CALL Villain ($675)


TURN:

Pot: $2550


CHECK Villain
BET Hero ($1500)
CALL Villain ($1500)


RIVER:

Pot: $5550


CHECK Villain
RAISE Hero ($7499.75)
CALL Villain ($5519)
UNCALLED Hero ($1980.75)


SHOWDOWN:
Hero:

Villain:


Hero collected $16437.5 from main pot with straight, six high

SUMMARY:
Total pot: $16438 Rake: $.50

Final Board:


Seat 0: 5s 6s 2d 3s 4c: straight, six high. - Net Gain/Loss: ($8093.5)
Seat 1: Kh As 6c 4c 8c: ace high. - Net Gain/Loss: ($-10199.8)



Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners

Seat 0: Villain ($4983) -
Seat 1: Hero ($10129.75) - -


PRE-FLOP:

Hero posts small blind $25
Villain posts BIG blind $50
Dealt To: Hero




FLOP:

Pot: $75




TURN:

Pot: $75




RIVER:

Pot: $75



Hero collected $4249.5 from main pot

SUMMARY:
Total pot: $4250 Rake: $.50

Final Board:

Labels: heads up, NLHE, poker, poker strategy, session review

Stumble It!

Nat Arem, who was instrumental in exposing and investigating the Absolute Poker cheating scandal, reports that he was contacted by a 60 Minutes producer and a Washington Post reporter interested in doing a story on the incident:

A few weeks ago, I was contacted by 60 Minutes in conjunction with a reporter from the Washington Post regarding a story about the Absolute Poker scandal from last fall. I was told that they wanted Adanthar and myself for on-camera interviews with Steve Kroft. I later found out they were also interested in interviewing Michael Josem and Marco Johnson.

Nat goes on to speculate that the story will likely paint online poker in a negative light:

In terms of agenda, I’ve been told that the goal is to “tell the story from soup to nuts.” I don’t really know if that means a negative agenda for online poker, but I get the feeling that it might. That means that this story is unlikely to be a good thing for online poker on the whole. I wish that programs like 60 Minutes would always tell the whole story (ie, get PokerStars involved, explain why some sites are secure and clean, etc), but I can’t really be sure that will happen. If I do end up on-camera, I will be sure to explain that this scandal was online poker’s “Enron” — ie, the biggest and worst scandal in the history of the industry. It is not a commonplace occurrence and people should not take it as such.

Nolan Dalla expresses similar concerns:

Trouble is, the casual uninformed viewer of such a segment is not going to differentiate between creeps like him and the millions of honest and decent online poker players worldwide who enjoy playing poker in their own homes.

Indeed, I fear the target is not going to be the creep, or Absolute Poker (which deserves scrutiny) - but rather the entire online poker industry.

If this is indeed the spin 60 Minutes uses, such a story could not come at a worse time. While there is admittedly no chance the federal government will revoke the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act of 2006, nor pass any of the pro-online legislation offered by our good friends in Congress within the current legislative session, public perceptions will be shaped for a long time by what is shown and seen by 20 million viewers on 60 Minutes.

I fear the portrait will be ugly - a slimy, unregulated, corrupt band of outlaws operating way outside the boundaries of the law or justice. Never mind that many online sites are publicly traded companies with top-flight managers and personnel, and are strictly regulated within their host countries. Perception and reality are two completely different things.

I think it's important to separate out two different issues here. There's certainly a concern that 60 Minutes would paint with a broad brush and portray all internet poker sites, and by extension players, in a negative light. It goes without saying that such a story would be bad.

However, there is a separate issue of whether any coverage of the issue at all, no matter how balanced or nuanced, would be bad. Many members of the online poker community have responded to this scandal with such an attitude, generally believing that any exposure whatsoever of cheating will be misinterpreted by the masses to confirm what they all supposedly believe anyway: that online poker is rigged.

I don't think this concern is unfounded, but if we want online poker to gain recognition as a legitimate, legal activity, then I think we have to take our medicine. The perception of a shadowy world where scandal is covered up and cheating is handled internally by the community is exactly what poker needs to shake. We need to have the courage to air our dirty laundry and allow problems to be solved as they should be in an open society: through media exposure, government regulation, and the reactions of an educated marketplace.

Internet poker is too large and profitable an industry to exist forever in an unregulated legal netherworld. Either it will be prohibited altogether or it will be taxed and regulated like any other legitimate industry. Those of us who would prefer the latter scenario should embrace the publicity and make the argument that this proves the need for regulation.

This kind of publicity is also the best deterrent against future shadiness by other sites. Sadly, the revelation of cheating on 2+2 and other poker forums and blogs has had shockingly little impact on AP's traffic. Plenty of people either don't know or don't care and continue to play there. Surely a site's owners and operators would be much concerned if there were a very really threat of major media outlets like 60 Minutes picking up on any scandal associated with them.

Certainly a one-sided, largely negative story would be undesirable. But 60 Minutes is one of the more responsible TV news journals, and they tend to do relatively in-depth and multi-faceted stories. I don't think there's any reason to leap to the conclusion that they will air an unfair piece.

Assuming 60 Minutes actually goes ahead with the story, which is far from certain, we should take advantage of the opportunity to put our best foot forward and make our case. There is no shortage of well-respected, well-spoken, and likable representatives of the poker world. We need to encourage 60 Minutes to speak with them and get their stories to put the AP scandal in its proper perspective.

Labels: poker

Stumble It!

Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners

Seat 0: Villain ($5899) - -
Seat 1: Hero ($6298) -


PRE-FLOP:

Villain posts small blind $25
Hero posts BIG blind $50
Dealt To: Hero


RAISE Villain ($150)
CALL Hero ($150)


FLOP:

Pot: $350


CHECK Hero
BET Villain ($225)
RAISE Hero ($650)
CALL Villain ($650)


TURN:

Pot: $1875


CHECK Hero
BET Villain ($1000)
CALL Hero ($1000)


RIVER:

Pot: $3875


RAISE Hero ($4498)
CALL Villain ($4099)
UNCALLED Hero ($399)


SHOWDOWN:
Hero:

Villain:


Villain collected $11797.5 from main pot with three nines

SUMMARY:
Total pot: $11798 Rake: $.50

Final Board:


Seat 1: 6h 7h 5h 9s Ad: ace high. - Net Gain/Loss: ($-5899)
Seat 0: 9c 9d 5h 9s Ad: three nines. - Net Gain/Loss: ($5499.5)



The flop is a pretty good one to check-raise on a semi-bluff, and then I improve to a double gutter on the turn. This is really close, and with a more obvious draw, I would fold the turn. But I felt like I could get paid off well if I hit. Then the Ace got there and put a one-card straight on the board. I knew my line looked quite a lot like a draw, and 34, which improved to a pair and openended draw on the turn, was by far the most obvious draw for me to have. It's also possible the A improved me to Aces up, which should make it tricky for him to call with a worse two pair. Unfortunately, he had a set.

Labels: heads up, NLHE, poker, poker strategy, session review

Stumble It!