After registering for the $1,500 (just in time it turns out: I was in at about 8:45pm on the day before and forgot to ask how many runners, but was told it maxed out before 10pm that evening), I had to play a little cash.
I bumped into Alex E who showed me around the action: sick tables at the $50k HORSE (Hansen, Huck Seed, Seidel next to each other with Antonius and Chau Giang also on the table); mega-busy STT sat action (and Alex's patented tip of going backwards through the queue); 5-5 PLO that Alex reckons was a "good game"; but I opt to play safe with $2/5 NLH.
The cash at the Rio is generally reckoned to be soft and I will be disappointed if I am a net loser at the end of the trip.Today's table seemed to be playing quite passively as usual (except for the opening raises to 25 or 30 the action pre tends to be passive). The players were not button-straddling either which imo means they are not totally on their game.
I decided to sit down with a full $500 and advanced this pretty quickly to $800 by just barrelling really.
Standard stuff: 83o on the button, raise and call a min-raise from a tight/weak player in the BB after one other caller in between. Flop 8-4-4 with two hearts. BB bets 60 into 120 or so (obviously looking to be raised off his hand). The other fella calls and both of them are seen off by a pop to $200.
I had drifted back a bit when I get my first powerhouse 5h2c and make it $20 from the cut-off, called by the button and the BB. Flop Kc6h2d . I bet $40, called twice. The turn is 5d. BB checks again, and I bet $100 for value (possibly a bit small in hindsight). The Button calls (again) and now the BB check-raises to $200.
Huh ?I am not sure what to make of this. If the intention was to confuse, he succeeded. No hand makes sense for this action. I was a bit worried on the flop that they are trapping with a set (only because I have seen both players slow play a set).
If either player has a set (666 being the most likely) then I would have expected a raise from the button and if the bb has a set then surely he must c/r all in at this stage.
Although a set doesn't really make sense I don't want to put all my money in dead so I elect to just call and await developments. The button calls as well !
So $600 has gone in on this turn. Presumably at least one of them has a diamond draw so I think I can easily get away from a diamond river. The river is 8h and the BB immediately shoves for $450. He has me covered, but the button has more behind.
Hmm ... I have the lowest hand that isn't one pair.
I cannot think what hand makes sense for the BB. I am not worried about a straight, but I am beating a bluff only, really. Except I am beating AK but how can he have AK ?
He's betting into two players for 100bb and we have shown interest in the pot on all streets. He is sort of shaking which I assume means he is bluffing or has a monster (set of 6s would be a monster here and this is what I put him on really despite the illogical bets).
I decide not to be a hero but when the button folds Kd9d face up, the blind shows AsKh.
OMG ! I folded the powerhouse 2pair getting 3-1 on the river. I cannot believe what I have done and instead of having $1,600 I am back to $375.
Looking back. I think I should go for the textbook interpretation of min-riase=bluff and knowing there are draws out there, push all in on the check-raise. May even get two callers and scoop a monster. Button has played his hand like what it is really and you can see what he was up to with position and plenty of chips behind. I let the BB off big style though with my disguised hand.
Please, please, do not let me commit such a crime again. I can only put it down to first-day nerves.
After this, obviously I titled off my money - in the last pot of the night I was down to $150 and saw a 6way flop with Q9dd. Flop J96hh.
Check/check/ I shove for $135. button calls me with 9c5c(!). 5 on the river and I call it a night.
Need to try to get some sleep before the $1,500 tomorrow.
Tuesday 30 June 2009
ABC of Vegas
A is for arrivals. I do find that Vegas is a pleasant place to land into the US. The immigration and customs there are friendlier than anywhere else, in my experience. You actually get the impression they are there to help speed you to the tables as soon as possible.
The flight itself went well - we caught up some time that was lost to a late departure slot - and approached the city just 15mins behind schedule. It was a good landing but I wish they wouldn't do that thing where they bank the plane in a series of sharp turns - they feel like 270degree turns at 45degrees to the perpendicular. To me it always seems like we're about to drop out of the sky at any moment.
At least we got a good view of the strip - the hotels look like toytown from this perspective. When you drive past them, however, they appear larger than life. And of course if you try to walk all the way through one, you have to cross 3 timezones.
Once on the ground, the immigration queue is a pretty happy place. Apart from 3 guys from Circus Casino, Stoke (pink polo shirts and pink tinsel cowboy hats), the only other obvious poker player I spot is Steve Davis in a very understated black and white Team Ladbrokes top.
Steve (unlike Shane Warne and Boris Becker) doesn't have a big sporting clash with the WSOP, I guess. As we know, he's got a pretty decent record in Vegas.
B is for Baggage. The first of the Vegas attractions is of course the comedy baggage carousel, which stops and emits loud buzzing sounds at 30second intervals, and is split into 2 separate belts for no apparent reason. My two (!) suitcases appear one from each belt (a bit of a mystery) and in a bit of a clue to the outside weather they are noticeably hot to the touch.
After that, I had to declare my cash at customs (a first for me: the well-documented hassle of turning internet $$ into cash in Vegas at the moment has forced me to go for the option of just bringing a load of actual folding stuff). If any of you ever need to do this (> $10k is reportable) I can tell you it's very easy so I wouldn't be concerned about it.
Apparently you have to declare on the way back as well but the customs guy gave me the impression that they didn't have a lot of need for those forms ...
C is for Cabs/Check-in. There's never a problem getting a taxi from the airport. As usual, however, the route taken by the driver appeared to bear little relationship to the actual distance or direction from A to B. Nonetheless, we got there $30 later and a short while later I was checked into the Masquerade Tower at The Rio.
I have stayed at the Rio before and played there a lot but even so I have never been to the other wing of the hotel, having always been in the Ipanema Tower (it's only 100meters away mind you!) and I got lost 2 or 3 times before finding my way to the elevators.
I did resist the urge to play before I even unpacked, but after wasting as much time as I reasonably could getting settled in, I was drawn to the Amazon room to register for the $1,500 and of course to play a little cash, of which more next post ...
The flight itself went well - we caught up some time that was lost to a late departure slot - and approached the city just 15mins behind schedule. It was a good landing but I wish they wouldn't do that thing where they bank the plane in a series of sharp turns - they feel like 270degree turns at 45degrees to the perpendicular. To me it always seems like we're about to drop out of the sky at any moment.
At least we got a good view of the strip - the hotels look like toytown from this perspective. When you drive past them, however, they appear larger than life. And of course if you try to walk all the way through one, you have to cross 3 timezones.
Once on the ground, the immigration queue is a pretty happy place. Apart from 3 guys from Circus Casino, Stoke (pink polo shirts and pink tinsel cowboy hats), the only other obvious poker player I spot is Steve Davis in a very understated black and white Team Ladbrokes top.
Steve (unlike Shane Warne and Boris Becker) doesn't have a big sporting clash with the WSOP, I guess. As we know, he's got a pretty decent record in Vegas.
B is for Baggage. The first of the Vegas attractions is of course the comedy baggage carousel, which stops and emits loud buzzing sounds at 30second intervals, and is split into 2 separate belts for no apparent reason. My two (!) suitcases appear one from each belt (a bit of a mystery) and in a bit of a clue to the outside weather they are noticeably hot to the touch.
After that, I had to declare my cash at customs (a first for me: the well-documented hassle of turning internet $$ into cash in Vegas at the moment has forced me to go for the option of just bringing a load of actual folding stuff). If any of you ever need to do this (> $10k is reportable) I can tell you it's very easy so I wouldn't be concerned about it.
Apparently you have to declare on the way back as well but the customs guy gave me the impression that they didn't have a lot of need for those forms ...
C is for Cabs/Check-in. There's never a problem getting a taxi from the airport. As usual, however, the route taken by the driver appeared to bear little relationship to the actual distance or direction from A to B. Nonetheless, we got there $30 later and a short while later I was checked into the Masquerade Tower at The Rio.
I have stayed at the Rio before and played there a lot but even so I have never been to the other wing of the hotel, having always been in the Ipanema Tower (it's only 100meters away mind you!) and I got lost 2 or 3 times before finding my way to the elevators.
I did resist the urge to play before I even unpacked, but after wasting as much time as I reasonably could getting settled in, I was drawn to the Amazon room to register for the $1,500 and of course to play a little cash, of which more next post ...
Monday 29 June 2009
Say Hello, Wave Goodbye
So, we've been from A to Z. Now it's time to go from A to B. Or from LGW to LAS to be precise. It's an early start as Sunday engineering works mean a special (i.e. slow) train timetable. The train really trundles down to St Pancras, and then the Gatwick Express is so pedestrian that it's practically stationary on the journey from Victoria.
Despite that, it only arrives 5 mins behind schedule, so if it actually went at full speed it would be almost like a teleport I guess. The fact that it terminates practically in the check-in hall makes it a good choice compared to the prospect of M1-M25-M23 with roadworks all the way. The very empty carriages made for a pretty painless trip so far. Maybe the trains & tube were so empty because everyone is already here - the place is packed !
I am glad I managed to retain my Virgin Flying Club Gold Card for one more year so although I haven't managed to secure an Upper Class ticket, I get to check-in as if I have and skip straight to celeb-spotting in the Virgin lounge. Very short on logos and branded shirts this year. There is word of Frank Lampard, but I don't recognise anyone.
Looking around for clues, I see a few laptops (possible evidence of a last-minute poker fix?) and then one or two fellas who seem a bit too young and a bit too fashionable to plausibly be flying upper class except on ill-gotten sponsorship deals. At the gate, a chatter of "satellites" and "multiple Day 1s" floats around the queue so I know there is poker lurking below the surface.
Further poker clues turn up when I take my seat in Premium Economy and say hello to my neighbour, who turns out to be Naomi Hissey (Customer Development Manager for poker at Ladbrokes). She's obviously loving the poker role and flies in-character in oversize sunglasses.
I give her one of my new-for-Vegas09 H-bomb cards. "Are you sponsored for the series then?" Sadly not. We swap a few names. "Ladbrokes? You must know Louise then ... and Jake ...". Ladbrokes have done something similar to what Gutshot did last year: supersat packages instead of direct main event seats to get more people out there.
The Virgin fleet on the Las Vegas route is not known for using their most modern aircraft and I notice that the leg-rest on my seat is apparently broken. I'm in a good mood, so I'm not too fussed, but they send an engineer over anyway and after he confirms the prognosis I am happy to accept a friendly apology. I am pleasantly surprised, therefore, when they offer to comp me some flying club miles as a Gold Card member (they have a list, you see, and it's quite nice that they come up to you and acknowledge you personally).
I thought no more of it, and I was genuinely shocked when shortly before take-off they asked for a quiet word ... would I "mind" if they gave me a complimentary upgrade to Upper Class ? YBA ... :)
I'm running good already !
Despite that, it only arrives 5 mins behind schedule, so if it actually went at full speed it would be almost like a teleport I guess. The fact that it terminates practically in the check-in hall makes it a good choice compared to the prospect of M1-M25-M23 with roadworks all the way. The very empty carriages made for a pretty painless trip so far. Maybe the trains & tube were so empty because everyone is already here - the place is packed !
I am glad I managed to retain my Virgin Flying Club Gold Card for one more year so although I haven't managed to secure an Upper Class ticket, I get to check-in as if I have and skip straight to celeb-spotting in the Virgin lounge. Very short on logos and branded shirts this year. There is word of Frank Lampard, but I don't recognise anyone.
Looking around for clues, I see a few laptops (possible evidence of a last-minute poker fix?) and then one or two fellas who seem a bit too young and a bit too fashionable to plausibly be flying upper class except on ill-gotten sponsorship deals. At the gate, a chatter of "satellites" and "multiple Day 1s" floats around the queue so I know there is poker lurking below the surface.
Further poker clues turn up when I take my seat in Premium Economy and say hello to my neighbour, who turns out to be Naomi Hissey (Customer Development Manager for poker at Ladbrokes). She's obviously loving the poker role and flies in-character in oversize sunglasses.
I give her one of my new-for-Vegas09 H-bomb cards. "Are you sponsored for the series then?" Sadly not. We swap a few names. "Ladbrokes? You must know Louise then ... and Jake ...". Ladbrokes have done something similar to what Gutshot did last year: supersat packages instead of direct main event seats to get more people out there.
The Virgin fleet on the Las Vegas route is not known for using their most modern aircraft and I notice that the leg-rest on my seat is apparently broken. I'm in a good mood, so I'm not too fussed, but they send an engineer over anyway and after he confirms the prognosis I am happy to accept a friendly apology. I am pleasantly surprised, therefore, when they offer to comp me some flying club miles as a Gold Card member (they have a list, you see, and it's quite nice that they come up to you and acknowledge you personally).
I thought no more of it, and I was genuinely shocked when shortly before take-off they asked for a quiet word ... would I "mind" if they gave me a complimentary upgrade to Upper Class ? YBA ... :)
I'm running good already !
Sunday 28 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 26
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day 26: Z is for ...
Z is for zzzzz: Sometimes, poker can be boring. Tight is right, they say, and even I have to concede that there is a lot of truth in that. But tight can be pretty boring and sleep-inducing at times. Actually I can recall several players at the Gutshot/International who have been known to fall asleep at the table. These were tight players, accustomed to lots of time passing with no action, so they possibly weren't playing all that differently to how they might have done if they were awake.
Some other players have a knack for appearing to be off with the fairies only to wake up when holding Aces.
Of course, sleeping through a cash game is one thing. Sleeping during a tournament probably is a clear-cut bad idea but it's not unknown for a player to oversleep and turn up late !
I'm usually a world-class sleeper. I can sleep pretty much anywhere and anywhen, although I don't think I have ever nodded off playing poker. My particular playing style (playing every hand ...) keeps me involved and awake. I must also admit that I will sometimes find a bad beat or a big win stays with me and then I can be awake for hours thinking about it.
I'm hoping that in Vegas my results will lead to sweet dreams not recurring nightmares.
Z is for Zoom: Well, nearly there. About to zoom off from Gatwick to Vegas. It seemed a long way off when I first booked the trip but now I'm less than 24 hours from being back involved in the WSOP !
Hope you enjoyed the A - Z. Thanks to Mat and Jonny for their suggestions and reminders !
Day 26: Z is for ...
Z is for zzzzz: Sometimes, poker can be boring. Tight is right, they say, and even I have to concede that there is a lot of truth in that. But tight can be pretty boring and sleep-inducing at times. Actually I can recall several players at the Gutshot/International who have been known to fall asleep at the table. These were tight players, accustomed to lots of time passing with no action, so they possibly weren't playing all that differently to how they might have done if they were awake.
Some other players have a knack for appearing to be off with the fairies only to wake up when holding Aces.
Of course, sleeping through a cash game is one thing. Sleeping during a tournament probably is a clear-cut bad idea but it's not unknown for a player to oversleep and turn up late !
I'm usually a world-class sleeper. I can sleep pretty much anywhere and anywhen, although I don't think I have ever nodded off playing poker. My particular playing style (playing every hand ...) keeps me involved and awake. I must also admit that I will sometimes find a bad beat or a big win stays with me and then I can be awake for hours thinking about it.
I'm hoping that in Vegas my results will lead to sweet dreams not recurring nightmares.
Z is for Zoom: Well, nearly there. About to zoom off from Gatwick to Vegas. It seemed a long way off when I first booked the trip but now I'm less than 24 hours from being back involved in the WSOP !
Hope you enjoyed the A - Z. Thanks to Mat and Jonny for their suggestions and reminders !
Saturday 27 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 25
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day 25: Y is for ...
Y is for YBA. An acronym that is forever associated with gutshot. "You'll Be Alright" is another of those wonderful phrases with an infinite spectrum of meaning. I don't know if it really was coined by gutshotters (anyone care to suggest a clear provenance ?) but its use in conversation is a clear giveaway of associations with gutshot.
A quick "google" on the abbreviation reveals that the most accepted use seems to be "Young British Artist" although "You'll Be Alright" does make it into the 6 "accepted" definitions along with the airport code for Banff, Youth Basketball Association, Youth Bowling Association and Youth Buddhist Association (of Hawaii). Hmm....
I am not clear what the criteria are for "acceptance" on acronymfinder.com are, but I do know that YBA is absolutely accepted among gutshot aficionados and, indeed, it is more or less mandatory to get one or more instances into any serious conversation.
Y is for YOYO. As we have discussed previously, nicknames cannot be changed once granted and ideally no two players should share a nickname in common. So, I am stuck with H-bomb and in any case YOYO has been taken by the unique Mike Khan and indeed by UK professional Julian Thew, whom I met in Vegas last year actually.
But, were it not for these reasons, then I would have a claim on the name I think. In both cash and tournaments my stack is prone to wild gyrations. Occasionally this is due to the natural flow of the cards and luck but usually it is a symptom of finding multiple excuses to get into pots and not wanting to give up on them.
I am not sure if there is any effective cure for my YOYO tendencies. There is a potential solution to the fact that "YOYO" is taken. Someone recently suggested to be that I could take "Zebedee" instead. This has not been claimed as far as I know. It could also give me something to write about on Day 26 ....
Day 25: Y is for ...
Y is for YBA. An acronym that is forever associated with gutshot. "You'll Be Alright" is another of those wonderful phrases with an infinite spectrum of meaning. I don't know if it really was coined by gutshotters (anyone care to suggest a clear provenance ?) but its use in conversation is a clear giveaway of associations with gutshot.
A quick "google" on the abbreviation reveals that the most accepted use seems to be "Young British Artist" although "You'll Be Alright" does make it into the 6 "accepted" definitions along with the airport code for Banff, Youth Basketball Association, Youth Bowling Association and Youth Buddhist Association (of Hawaii). Hmm....
I am not clear what the criteria are for "acceptance" on acronymfinder.com are, but I do know that YBA is absolutely accepted among gutshot aficionados and, indeed, it is more or less mandatory to get one or more instances into any serious conversation.
Y is for YOYO. As we have discussed previously, nicknames cannot be changed once granted and ideally no two players should share a nickname in common. So, I am stuck with H-bomb and in any case YOYO has been taken by the unique Mike Khan and indeed by UK professional Julian Thew, whom I met in Vegas last year actually.
But, were it not for these reasons, then I would have a claim on the name I think. In both cash and tournaments my stack is prone to wild gyrations. Occasionally this is due to the natural flow of the cards and luck but usually it is a symptom of finding multiple excuses to get into pots and not wanting to give up on them.
I am not sure if there is any effective cure for my YOYO tendencies. There is a potential solution to the fact that "YOYO" is taken. Someone recently suggested to be that I could take "Zebedee" instead. This has not been claimed as far as I know. It could also give me something to write about on Day 26 ....
Friday 26 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 24
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day 24: X is for ...
X is for x. As in "I put him on A-x", or "raise to get rid of players limping with A-x or K-x".
x is the generic "unknown" of course and oftentimes we are involved in a "battle of the x's". How big is your kicker ? x marks the spot and the more spots the better, of course, where our side card is concerned.
I often find that in post-mortem, x gets an upgrade. If we held A7 and were out-x'd by AK or AQ then our 7 may suddenly become and 8 or a 9, perhaps a ten so that our play sounds a little better in the glare of public discussion. Where's the harm in a little license ?
For tournament success, we probably need to have a little of the x-factor going for us. Win a few of those AK vs Ax races (in both directions) and all will be well. If not, we soon have an "X" next to our name.
X is for XX. As someone who likes to play random cards at the slightest excuse, I especially enjoy those situations where it is actually correct to play any holding. Best of all are the tournament scenarios where it becomes optimal to open-shove with ATC (any two cards). Those positions are often fairly clear-cut. The main consideration is the stack sizes, the lateness of our position in the betting round and, vitally, the action being folded to us.
Braver still are the re-raises with any two cards. These are the real high-octane plays. It's hard to spot these opportunities and harder still to pull the trigger with 92o. But the thrill of success is hard to beat. If you're caught out, then seeing your 9 high beat Aces is of course something of a guilty pleasure all of it's own.
Day 24: X is for ...
X is for x. As in "I put him on A-x", or "raise to get rid of players limping with A-x or K-x".
x is the generic "unknown" of course and oftentimes we are involved in a "battle of the x's". How big is your kicker ? x marks the spot and the more spots the better, of course, where our side card is concerned.
I often find that in post-mortem, x gets an upgrade. If we held A7 and were out-x'd by AK or AQ then our 7 may suddenly become and 8 or a 9, perhaps a ten so that our play sounds a little better in the glare of public discussion. Where's the harm in a little license ?
For tournament success, we probably need to have a little of the x-factor going for us. Win a few of those AK vs Ax races (in both directions) and all will be well. If not, we soon have an "X" next to our name.
X is for XX. As someone who likes to play random cards at the slightest excuse, I especially enjoy those situations where it is actually correct to play any holding. Best of all are the tournament scenarios where it becomes optimal to open-shove with ATC (any two cards). Those positions are often fairly clear-cut. The main consideration is the stack sizes, the lateness of our position in the betting round and, vitally, the action being folded to us.
Braver still are the re-raises with any two cards. These are the real high-octane plays. It's hard to spot these opportunities and harder still to pull the trigger with 92o. But the thrill of success is hard to beat. If you're caught out, then seeing your 9 high beat Aces is of course something of a guilty pleasure all of it's own.
Half Writ
I got half way there ...
The A - Z of poker got as far as "M" with just the one serious hiccup in the publishing process.
Then N for Next didn't quite make it, and then it was "O" for Oh, I missed another day. P for Procrastination set in ....
The time to Vegas seems to have sneaked by pretty quickly. So much so that to catch up now I need to get to X marks the spot all in one go.
I am going to give it a try.
Again (in this blog) I am going to re-date the entries once I actually compose them so that it all appears, in the mirror of history, to have been a smooth daily prose progression.
The A - Z of poker got as far as "M" with just the one serious hiccup in the publishing process.
Then N for Next didn't quite make it, and then it was "O" for Oh, I missed another day. P for Procrastination set in ....
The time to Vegas seems to have sneaked by pretty quickly. So much so that to catch up now I need to get to X marks the spot all in one go.
I am going to give it a try.
Again (in this blog) I am going to re-date the entries once I actually compose them so that it all appears, in the mirror of history, to have been a smooth daily prose progression.
Thursday 25 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 23
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day 23: W is for ...
W is for WSOP: When we say "WSOP" I suppose a lot of us mean the "main event" itself but of course S is for Series and you cannot accuse the current WSOP for failing to offer sufficient quantity of events. By the time we come to the big one, it will be event #57. Quite a variety of events will have preceded it. Some are styled "World Championship" events although since all of the other events also offer a "bracelet" I think this particular distinction is lost on almost everybody.
This year will be my second attempt at the $10,000 World Championship of No Limit Hold'em. I muse to myself sometimes on the extent to which my chances of winning the title exceed zero. I think they really are not quite zero whereas there is presumably no other sport where I could enter the world championships with any chance at all of coming out the champion. Of course in nearly every other event, my chances would be zeroed out instantly because I wouldn't even be able to enter.
Such is the unique nature of poker's world championship. Anyone can enter, an enormous number of the entrants might win it. We can play next to a world champion and we play on equal terms, speak the same language of poker and we really can beat them. It's fantastic.
W is for Why ? Especially as in "Why, oh why?". I dedicated a series of blogs to the "W.O.W." factor already and I feel confident I will have many more occasions to utter these words. Most of them can be covered under the biggest "W.O.W." of them all. "Why, oh why didn't I THINK before I .... called, pushed, folded, played in this game, stayed in this game, left this game, took a shot, drank those shots, or any one of 100 other poker sins".
I guess W can also be for Why Not ? A useful and versatile answer ! Could I win the WSOP this year ? Yes, why not .... ?
Day 23: W is for ...
W is for WSOP: When we say "WSOP" I suppose a lot of us mean the "main event" itself but of course S is for Series and you cannot accuse the current WSOP for failing to offer sufficient quantity of events. By the time we come to the big one, it will be event #57. Quite a variety of events will have preceded it. Some are styled "World Championship" events although since all of the other events also offer a "bracelet" I think this particular distinction is lost on almost everybody.
This year will be my second attempt at the $10,000 World Championship of No Limit Hold'em. I muse to myself sometimes on the extent to which my chances of winning the title exceed zero. I think they really are not quite zero whereas there is presumably no other sport where I could enter the world championships with any chance at all of coming out the champion. Of course in nearly every other event, my chances would be zeroed out instantly because I wouldn't even be able to enter.
Such is the unique nature of poker's world championship. Anyone can enter, an enormous number of the entrants might win it. We can play next to a world champion and we play on equal terms, speak the same language of poker and we really can beat them. It's fantastic.
W is for Why ? Especially as in "Why, oh why?". I dedicated a series of blogs to the "W.O.W." factor already and I feel confident I will have many more occasions to utter these words. Most of them can be covered under the biggest "W.O.W." of them all. "Why, oh why didn't I THINK before I .... called, pushed, folded, played in this game, stayed in this game, left this game, took a shot, drank those shots, or any one of 100 other poker sins".
I guess W can also be for Why Not ? A useful and versatile answer ! Could I win the WSOP this year ? Yes, why not .... ?
Wednesday 24 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 22
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day 22: V is for ...
V is for Vegas. What else could it be ? I love Las Vegas. Obviously there is a lot to Vegas that I never take advantage of, but I simply do not tire of the 24hour feast of poker there. This trip will be about my 6th, I think, and I am not close to even thinking of "too much poker".
Barry, I understand, has been something like 20 times and I know there are many players who will go for several weeks every year. I think it's like chips (the potato kind). Something so intrinsically fantastic that there is no such thing as a surfeit of it.
This will be my longest trip so far (11 nights, or two weeks as my wife likes to describe it). Potentially (pretty please ...) it could be longer if I make it to day-3 of the main event. I suppose when I arrive it will seem like a long trip ahead of me but I know with 100% certainty that it will seem too soon to leave 11 days later.
I think it's quite possible that I know more people in Vegas (at this time of year) than in any other City in the world. I can guarantee to bump into dozens of people I know from The Gutshot, The International and of course there are many dozens more people whom I know from the UK poker scene who don't necessarily know me. So, I feel at home there and there is never a lack of a topic to strike up a conversation. "See, I had AQ in the cut-off ...."
V is for Virgin. I understand that British Airways are soon to start up a Las Vegas route (if they don't go bankrupt first, I suppose). This would certainly be a welcome move. I am a fan of Virgin Atlantic (and I have the Gold Card to prove it), but even I get frustrated at the liberties they appear to take on the Las Vegas route. The strong impression conveyed is that they are a monopoly and they know it ! So, expect work out planes and zero chance of booking a reward flight with the billion flying club miles that I have racked up over the years.
Still, I associate Virgin with the trip to Vegas and it's hard to carry too much of a bad feeling about that. Typically, I do not travel "in logo". I can't quite put my finger on why but I notice that to a large extent the others leave the branded apparel in the suitcase as well. Which makes "spot the poker player" one degree harder unless (like last year) they are unmistakable (Gus Hansen) or insist of telling everyone who will listen that they just took down EPT Monte Carlo (Glen Chorny).
Day 22: V is for ...
V is for Vegas. What else could it be ? I love Las Vegas. Obviously there is a lot to Vegas that I never take advantage of, but I simply do not tire of the 24hour feast of poker there. This trip will be about my 6th, I think, and I am not close to even thinking of "too much poker".
Barry, I understand, has been something like 20 times and I know there are many players who will go for several weeks every year. I think it's like chips (the potato kind). Something so intrinsically fantastic that there is no such thing as a surfeit of it.
This will be my longest trip so far (11 nights, or two weeks as my wife likes to describe it). Potentially (pretty please ...) it could be longer if I make it to day-3 of the main event. I suppose when I arrive it will seem like a long trip ahead of me but I know with 100% certainty that it will seem too soon to leave 11 days later.
I think it's quite possible that I know more people in Vegas (at this time of year) than in any other City in the world. I can guarantee to bump into dozens of people I know from The Gutshot, The International and of course there are many dozens more people whom I know from the UK poker scene who don't necessarily know me. So, I feel at home there and there is never a lack of a topic to strike up a conversation. "See, I had AQ in the cut-off ...."
V is for Virgin. I understand that British Airways are soon to start up a Las Vegas route (if they don't go bankrupt first, I suppose). This would certainly be a welcome move. I am a fan of Virgin Atlantic (and I have the Gold Card to prove it), but even I get frustrated at the liberties they appear to take on the Las Vegas route. The strong impression conveyed is that they are a monopoly and they know it ! So, expect work out planes and zero chance of booking a reward flight with the billion flying club miles that I have racked up over the years.
Still, I associate Virgin with the trip to Vegas and it's hard to carry too much of a bad feeling about that. Typically, I do not travel "in logo". I can't quite put my finger on why but I notice that to a large extent the others leave the branded apparel in the suitcase as well. Which makes "spot the poker player" one degree harder unless (like last year) they are unmistakable (Gus Hansen) or insist of telling everyone who will listen that they just took down EPT Monte Carlo (Glen Chorny).
Tuesday 23 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 21
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day 21: U is for ...
U is for UIGEA. An ugly acronym, which represents an especially heavy-handed piece of US legislation. UIGEA stands for Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 and refers to Title VIII of the SAFE Port Act 2006 that was tacked on at the end and thereby sneaked into law in the most ridiculous fashion. (ps: I just learned that SAFE is itself an acronym for "Security and Accountability For Every". That clever recursive acronym may be the best bit of the whole bill).
As we all know, this act caused tremendous ructions: the exit from the US of Party Poker, for example, and the subsequent collapse in its stockmarket value. Unjustified arrests of directors of legitimate gaming companies, and so on.
I personally find the whole concept of the bill to be ludicrous. The inconsistency of US rules just defies belief. I can't even summon up the energy to look into it properly to understand what the rules really say. I am 100% confident that, if I did, I would find it to be badly conceived and poorly executed.
I find it easier to just ignore it, which is of course what the great majority of "US" poker sites did. Pokerstars and Full Tilt, in particular, seem to have carried on regardless.
Mind you, I can imagine that the bill must genuinely inconvenience the average American poker player. I recently discovered what a pain it is to move money from Full Tilt into usable US$ form to make my buy in at the WSOP. I think this difficulty resulted partly from UIGEA in that Full Tilt could not buy me in directly.
The rest of the problems arose from the general stickiness of transactions involving moving money around when the institutions involved don't have any great incentive to help you. I lost more playing cash on Full Tilt whilst I figured out how to get the money out than it would have cost me simply to proceed immediately with the least elegant and most expensive transfer method. Doh!
Still, my issues presumably were nothing compared to those experienced by US players and I genuinely feel for them. Smart move by the US Government to force millions of law-abiding citizens to use offshore, inconvenient, expensive, possibly illegal and sometimes risky methods to move their own money ... not.
U is for Unlucky. Say no more really. "unlucky" or "ul" is what I always say when knocking out an opponent in a tournament. I say the same thing whether it's a complete cooler (his KK vs my AA), a bad beat (his AA vs my QJ), his bad play, my bad play, whatever it is. I consciously try never to say "sorry" even if the scenario is such that my play merits an apology !
I am not sorry, obviously, and I feel quite strongly about not wanting to rub it in.
Day 21: U is for ...
U is for UIGEA. An ugly acronym, which represents an especially heavy-handed piece of US legislation. UIGEA stands for Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 and refers to Title VIII of the SAFE Port Act 2006 that was tacked on at the end and thereby sneaked into law in the most ridiculous fashion. (ps: I just learned that SAFE is itself an acronym for "Security and Accountability For Every". That clever recursive acronym may be the best bit of the whole bill).
As we all know, this act caused tremendous ructions: the exit from the US of Party Poker, for example, and the subsequent collapse in its stockmarket value. Unjustified arrests of directors of legitimate gaming companies, and so on.
I personally find the whole concept of the bill to be ludicrous. The inconsistency of US rules just defies belief. I can't even summon up the energy to look into it properly to understand what the rules really say. I am 100% confident that, if I did, I would find it to be badly conceived and poorly executed.
I find it easier to just ignore it, which is of course what the great majority of "US" poker sites did. Pokerstars and Full Tilt, in particular, seem to have carried on regardless.
Mind you, I can imagine that the bill must genuinely inconvenience the average American poker player. I recently discovered what a pain it is to move money from Full Tilt into usable US$ form to make my buy in at the WSOP. I think this difficulty resulted partly from UIGEA in that Full Tilt could not buy me in directly.
The rest of the problems arose from the general stickiness of transactions involving moving money around when the institutions involved don't have any great incentive to help you. I lost more playing cash on Full Tilt whilst I figured out how to get the money out than it would have cost me simply to proceed immediately with the least elegant and most expensive transfer method. Doh!
Still, my issues presumably were nothing compared to those experienced by US players and I genuinely feel for them. Smart move by the US Government to force millions of law-abiding citizens to use offshore, inconvenient, expensive, possibly illegal and sometimes risky methods to move their own money ... not.
U is for Unlucky. Say no more really. "unlucky" or "ul" is what I always say when knocking out an opponent in a tournament. I say the same thing whether it's a complete cooler (his KK vs my AA), a bad beat (his AA vs my QJ), his bad play, my bad play, whatever it is. I consciously try never to say "sorry" even if the scenario is such that my play merits an apology !
I am not sorry, obviously, and I feel quite strongly about not wanting to rub it in.
Monday 22 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 20
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day 20: T is for ...
T is for Tilt. An obvious choice for today. We are all susceptible to it, I suppose. Do we recognise it in others ? I think we do, and we should be looking to take advantage of it. Do we recognise it in ourselves ? I think people may have differing views on this.
Some will argue that it should be rather clear to us when we are tilting and then equally obvious that we should take defensive measures (which should really be some version of stopping play !). I believe others will take the view that the point where we cross from rational to tilt-driven is more insidious.
In either case, most of us will find a reason to carry on whilst on tilt. A good one is "they know I am on tilt so I will be able to get paid off more easily when I have a monster". Hmm ...
What about self-announced tilt ? Should we pay any attention ? Player-dependent I suppose. If I announce "I'm on tilt" you can generally take this at face value and know that I am going to be getting involved with bold and aggressive moves, sometimes bordering on desperation. This will not help you very much, however, as that is how I play anyway.
If Gandi announces tilt then you might, at best, include single-suited Aces and the 2nd nuts into his range.
The other facet to tilt is inducing tilt in others. This is an area in which I am world class. I don't need to engage in any particular tactics. Just playing my normal game and refraining to justify my play is enough to tilt certain people (naming no names, Miriam).
Lastly there is hindsight tilt. This is a very special type of tilt that manifests itself away from the table. It comes about in flashbacks and bad dreams when we rage and tilt at our own inexplicable play that resulted in yet another untimely (it's always untimely) tournament exit.
T is for Timing. Once we have put into action a solid game, have made proper adjustments to our opponents and the game state, and made every effort to plan our actions, a tournament result will often hinge on that certain something - "timing". I suppose it may be another synonym for "luck".
How else to explain that after waiting patiently for the right spot, just when we pick up KK and the action is call, raise, call, call, call and we are in the small blind. We push with the ideal stack size ..... and this time, the big blind has Aces !!
Day 20: T is for ...
T is for Tilt. An obvious choice for today. We are all susceptible to it, I suppose. Do we recognise it in others ? I think we do, and we should be looking to take advantage of it. Do we recognise it in ourselves ? I think people may have differing views on this.
Some will argue that it should be rather clear to us when we are tilting and then equally obvious that we should take defensive measures (which should really be some version of stopping play !). I believe others will take the view that the point where we cross from rational to tilt-driven is more insidious.
In either case, most of us will find a reason to carry on whilst on tilt. A good one is "they know I am on tilt so I will be able to get paid off more easily when I have a monster". Hmm ...
What about self-announced tilt ? Should we pay any attention ? Player-dependent I suppose. If I announce "I'm on tilt" you can generally take this at face value and know that I am going to be getting involved with bold and aggressive moves, sometimes bordering on desperation. This will not help you very much, however, as that is how I play anyway.
If Gandi announces tilt then you might, at best, include single-suited Aces and the 2nd nuts into his range.
The other facet to tilt is inducing tilt in others. This is an area in which I am world class. I don't need to engage in any particular tactics. Just playing my normal game and refraining to justify my play is enough to tilt certain people (naming no names, Miriam).
Lastly there is hindsight tilt. This is a very special type of tilt that manifests itself away from the table. It comes about in flashbacks and bad dreams when we rage and tilt at our own inexplicable play that resulted in yet another untimely (it's always untimely) tournament exit.
T is for Timing. Once we have put into action a solid game, have made proper adjustments to our opponents and the game state, and made every effort to plan our actions, a tournament result will often hinge on that certain something - "timing". I suppose it may be another synonym for "luck".
How else to explain that after waiting patiently for the right spot, just when we pick up KK and the action is call, raise, call, call, call and we are in the small blind. We push with the ideal stack size ..... and this time, the big blind has Aces !!
Sunday 21 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 19
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day 19: S is for ...
S is for Sunglasses. In the common perception, sunglasses must be one of the first things that are associated with the game. And, if I think about recent WSOP champions, then the immediate mental image of Joe Hachem, Chris Moneymaker and (especially) Greg Raymer has them wearing their trademark sunglasses.
I have never worn them myself during the game. I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to see the cards properly ! I also have chosen not to wear headphones or use an iPod. I rarely wear a hat at the table. In all these cases I suppose I am concerned I would lose more in terms of being able to follow the action than I would gain by appearing inscrutable. (Admittedly the hat shouldn't be too much of an issue!).
I have been wondering lately about changing my approach. It does, genuinely, seem to be the case that most successful players do use the full armoury. A case of "if you can't beat'em, join'em ?"
S is for Speech Play. This is an area of the game that I feel I am way behind in. I disapprove of certain tactics in poker which verge on rule-breaking but there are some devices that are definitely part of the game. I think physical "acting" such as feinting to move all-in or making a dummy "fold" action are completely acceptable and it's up to the opponent to defend against these. I don't use these very much, either.
Speech play is a 100% valid weapon I believe (obviously abusive language, and so on, is not).
Jamie Gold (2006 Main Event champion) is generally reckoned to have made enormous use of it. Admittedly his tactics were said to be at the very edge of the rules, so I do find that my admiration for his skillful application is significantly tempered by the thought that he was angle-shooting. That, and the fact he seems to be very annoying to play with ! Overall, in fact, I am neutral on him as I haven't met him and haven't played with him and I don't like to form a judgement based purely on the media. It's safe to say that the media isn't fair and balanced.
I think in the big tournaments I may revert to the default position of being silent in hands I am involved with. I think this is probably the safest option as I know I am weak at speech play. The counterargument is that trying to do this is likely to be pretty tricky (you may think I am a pretty quiet chap, but still 12 hours a day is a long time to be mute !) and that what could happen is that I end up giving a lot away on the few occasions I break the pledge.
The alternative - constant babble - may be worth a try. Maybe the English accent will confuse them, to my advantage !
Day 19: S is for ...
S is for Sunglasses. In the common perception, sunglasses must be one of the first things that are associated with the game. And, if I think about recent WSOP champions, then the immediate mental image of Joe Hachem, Chris Moneymaker and (especially) Greg Raymer has them wearing their trademark sunglasses.
I have never worn them myself during the game. I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to see the cards properly ! I also have chosen not to wear headphones or use an iPod. I rarely wear a hat at the table. In all these cases I suppose I am concerned I would lose more in terms of being able to follow the action than I would gain by appearing inscrutable. (Admittedly the hat shouldn't be too much of an issue!).
I have been wondering lately about changing my approach. It does, genuinely, seem to be the case that most successful players do use the full armoury. A case of "if you can't beat'em, join'em ?"
S is for Speech Play. This is an area of the game that I feel I am way behind in. I disapprove of certain tactics in poker which verge on rule-breaking but there are some devices that are definitely part of the game. I think physical "acting" such as feinting to move all-in or making a dummy "fold" action are completely acceptable and it's up to the opponent to defend against these. I don't use these very much, either.
Speech play is a 100% valid weapon I believe (obviously abusive language, and so on, is not).
Jamie Gold (2006 Main Event champion) is generally reckoned to have made enormous use of it. Admittedly his tactics were said to be at the very edge of the rules, so I do find that my admiration for his skillful application is significantly tempered by the thought that he was angle-shooting. That, and the fact he seems to be very annoying to play with ! Overall, in fact, I am neutral on him as I haven't met him and haven't played with him and I don't like to form a judgement based purely on the media. It's safe to say that the media isn't fair and balanced.
I think in the big tournaments I may revert to the default position of being silent in hands I am involved with. I think this is probably the safest option as I know I am weak at speech play. The counterargument is that trying to do this is likely to be pretty tricky (you may think I am a pretty quiet chap, but still 12 hours a day is a long time to be mute !) and that what could happen is that I end up giving a lot away on the few occasions I break the pledge.
The alternative - constant babble - may be worth a try. Maybe the English accent will confuse them, to my advantage !
Saturday 20 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 18
From London to Vegas in 16 Letters
Day 18: R is for ...
R is for Razz. This was the first R that came into my mind even though for a long time I had literally no idea what Razz was (never having played it or watched it). Barry helpfully told me to "just play it the same as low-ball" which was of no use at all when I hadn't played that game either.
Eventually I was forced to learn the game when I decided to participate in the first HORSE tournament staged at The International. Actually, that format was filled with games I didn't know. Arguably I didn't even really know "H for Hold'em", since it was limit hold'em. The other games were even more exotic. I thought I might know "O" for Omaha but it turned out to be limit Omaha Hi-Lo Split which is not at all similar to PLO (high only).
Razz is 7-card stud (2 card down & 1 card up initially, followed by 3 more up cards and then a final down card. A total of 4 up, 3 down and no community cards) played for the low only.
The winning hand is the LOWEST 5-card hand you can make. Straights and flushes are not counted and Aces are low, so the nuts is A-2-3-4-5.
What is not apparent from these straightforward rules is what a mad, gambling game it can be.
There are 5 rounds of betting (after the initial 3 cards, then on each subsequent card) and the limits double on the 3rd round. So the fact is, even at limit, the pots get very big very quickly.
The other thing is that you get an extremely clear view of the relative merits of your own hand vs your opponents hand as it develops on each street. Lastly, unlike Hold'em where the best starting hand (AA) can often win unimproved, the best starting Razz hand [A-2-3] can be destroyed by bad cards to the point where you effectively have no hand at all whilst your opponents unpromising junk develops into a winner.
Ironically for a limit game, I find it presents quite a few opportunities for bluffing especially as you often have a very good idea what hole cards your opponents must have started with.
I used to find the whole idea of a game played for high-low split rather unappealing, let alone low-only, but now I will be actively on the look out for some Razz action on my trip to Vegas this year.
R is for Rules of Thumb. I find these very useful ! A classic example would be the "less than 10BB" rule or the "10% rule". As I understand them, the first rule tells me to push all in rather than raise if I have < id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">stack in a tournament. The second tells me that when playing a deep stack I can call a push from a short stack with any two cards if it represents less than 10% of my chips. Then there is the 20-1 rule which aims to help us decide whether to call with a small pair hoping to hit a set.
The usefulness of these rules is obvious. They substitute for tricky calculation in real time at the table and, if they are well-founded, then they can mean that we make lots of good decisions.
Their failing is that of course they fail to take account of all the game conditions. The fact is in a tournament poker situation, there are an incredible number of relevant variables including the whole payout structure, all of the chip stacks and their relative positions, player images, betting patterns, game dynamics and so on. Rules, de facto, cannot cope with this rich dataset.
A more subtle issue is that reliance on rules can tend to take us away from a proper analysis of the situation. Failing to practice the analysis stores up future problem.
Perhaps I need a new rule: Use No Rules.
Day 18: R is for ...
R is for Razz. This was the first R that came into my mind even though for a long time I had literally no idea what Razz was (never having played it or watched it). Barry helpfully told me to "just play it the same as low-ball" which was of no use at all when I hadn't played that game either.
Eventually I was forced to learn the game when I decided to participate in the first HORSE tournament staged at The International. Actually, that format was filled with games I didn't know. Arguably I didn't even really know "H for Hold'em", since it was limit hold'em. The other games were even more exotic. I thought I might know "O" for Omaha but it turned out to be limit Omaha Hi-Lo Split which is not at all similar to PLO (high only).
Razz is 7-card stud (2 card down & 1 card up initially, followed by 3 more up cards and then a final down card. A total of 4 up, 3 down and no community cards) played for the low only.
The winning hand is the LOWEST 5-card hand you can make. Straights and flushes are not counted and Aces are low, so the nuts is A-2-3-4-5.
What is not apparent from these straightforward rules is what a mad, gambling game it can be.
There are 5 rounds of betting (after the initial 3 cards, then on each subsequent card) and the limits double on the 3rd round. So the fact is, even at limit, the pots get very big very quickly.
The other thing is that you get an extremely clear view of the relative merits of your own hand vs your opponents hand as it develops on each street. Lastly, unlike Hold'em where the best starting hand (AA) can often win unimproved, the best starting Razz hand [A-2-3] can be destroyed by bad cards to the point where you effectively have no hand at all whilst your opponents unpromising junk develops into a winner.
Ironically for a limit game, I find it presents quite a few opportunities for bluffing especially as you often have a very good idea what hole cards your opponents must have started with.
I used to find the whole idea of a game played for high-low split rather unappealing, let alone low-only, but now I will be actively on the look out for some Razz action on my trip to Vegas this year.
R is for Rules of Thumb. I find these very useful ! A classic example would be the "less than 10BB" rule or the "10% rule". As I understand them, the first rule tells me to push all in rather than raise if I have < id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">stack in a tournament. The second tells me that when playing a deep stack I can call a push from a short stack with any two cards if it represents less than 10% of my chips. Then there is the 20-1 rule which aims to help us decide whether to call with a small pair hoping to hit a set.
The usefulness of these rules is obvious. They substitute for tricky calculation in real time at the table and, if they are well-founded, then they can mean that we make lots of good decisions.
Their failing is that of course they fail to take account of all the game conditions. The fact is in a tournament poker situation, there are an incredible number of relevant variables including the whole payout structure, all of the chip stacks and their relative positions, player images, betting patterns, game dynamics and so on. Rules, de facto, cannot cope with this rich dataset.
A more subtle issue is that reliance on rules can tend to take us away from a proper analysis of the situation. Failing to practice the analysis stores up future problem.
Perhaps I need a new rule: Use No Rules.
Friday 19 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 17
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day 17: Q is for ...
Q is for Quitting. I think one of the commonest things my sons ask me during or after a cash session is "why didn't you quit while you were ahead". It's kind of futile to attempt an explanation / justification along the lines of "table conditions, meta-considerations, game-flow" and so on. An answer of the "I didn't want to" variety probably stands more of a chance.
To be sure, their reasoning isn't particularly sound (basically, if I am ahead by any amount and no matter how short the elapsed time, they think I should be cashing out).
However, many are the times I look back on a session and lament not cashing out earlier. Quitting whilst I am ahead is something I am all but incapable of. It goes against all my instincts. To do so would mean leaving a game that might actually be a good game and is pretty certainly an enjoyable game (winning = enjoyable). I also consider hit'n'run to be a capital offence.
Based on evidence of my sessions, an independent analyst might conclude that I must equate hit'n'run with ever leaving the game in profit. That is to say, I have a strong tendency to play until I'm bust. I need to quit doing that !
Q is for Qualifier. As you know, I qualified to play in the main event of the WSOP this year. It's the second year that I've managed this and in fact it's really only the 2nd year that I tried to. I don't really take this to mean that I am all that good at qualification but I might feel next year (and subsequent years) that I have to do it again and I have visions of spending $1000s trying.
I'm wondering whether to actually play more qualifiers when I actually get to Vegas. It sounds a strange idea at first, but I have been told there is a lot of value in the single-table SnG qualifiers at the Rio. Perhaps the knowledge that I am already "in" will allow me to play without too much fear, which may be a good thing. But it would feel strange to lose money playing qualifiers after already making it. Each $ lost this way might feel worse than a $ spent trying to qualify in the first place.
Day 17: Q is for ...
Q is for Quitting. I think one of the commonest things my sons ask me during or after a cash session is "why didn't you quit while you were ahead". It's kind of futile to attempt an explanation / justification along the lines of "table conditions, meta-considerations, game-flow" and so on. An answer of the "I didn't want to" variety probably stands more of a chance.
To be sure, their reasoning isn't particularly sound (basically, if I am ahead by any amount and no matter how short the elapsed time, they think I should be cashing out).
However, many are the times I look back on a session and lament not cashing out earlier. Quitting whilst I am ahead is something I am all but incapable of. It goes against all my instincts. To do so would mean leaving a game that might actually be a good game and is pretty certainly an enjoyable game (winning = enjoyable). I also consider hit'n'run to be a capital offence.
Based on evidence of my sessions, an independent analyst might conclude that I must equate hit'n'run with ever leaving the game in profit. That is to say, I have a strong tendency to play until I'm bust. I need to quit doing that !
Q is for Qualifier. As you know, I qualified to play in the main event of the WSOP this year. It's the second year that I've managed this and in fact it's really only the 2nd year that I tried to. I don't really take this to mean that I am all that good at qualification but I might feel next year (and subsequent years) that I have to do it again and I have visions of spending $1000s trying.
I'm wondering whether to actually play more qualifiers when I actually get to Vegas. It sounds a strange idea at first, but I have been told there is a lot of value in the single-table SnG qualifiers at the Rio. Perhaps the knowledge that I am already "in" will allow me to play without too much fear, which may be a good thing. But it would feel strange to lose money playing qualifiers after already making it. Each $ lost this way might feel worse than a $ spent trying to qualify in the first place.
Thursday 18 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 16
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day 16: P is for ...
P is for PLO. We finally got there! In poker, P is for Pot and Pot is for Omaha. I suppose if you said "pot" out of the poker context, then it might be assumed that you were speaking of the smoking kind of pot. And it often strikes me that smoking and PLO have something in common.
At first it's something that you have heard about but it's something other people do. You can't really see why anyone would want to do it, and you don't imagine that you would get involved with it.
Then one day, for whatever reason, you give it a quick try. You hate it, obviously. It leaves a bad taste in your mouth / wallet. Your initial suspicions were correct.
But, you are persuaded to give it another try and the pain is a little less the second time. Before long, you can't get enough of it and take every opportunity to get your hit. The thought of giving it up is ridiculous.
I actually did manage to give up smoking 12 years, 7 months and 29 days ago. Maybe that is where PLO differs because I am not sure I could ever give up that up.
P is for Position. Position, Position, Position as estate agents might say. I have a feeling that the importance of position follows one of those special rules where it is always slightly more important than you think, even after you have already realised it was more important that you previously thought.
It also follows that poker golden rule that whatever lesson you learn (notwithstanding that you paid for the lesson in cold, hard losses), the lesson has to be learned over and over again.
Repeat after me: Position is everything, only more so.
Day 16: P is for ...
P is for PLO. We finally got there! In poker, P is for Pot and Pot is for Omaha. I suppose if you said "pot" out of the poker context, then it might be assumed that you were speaking of the smoking kind of pot. And it often strikes me that smoking and PLO have something in common.
At first it's something that you have heard about but it's something other people do. You can't really see why anyone would want to do it, and you don't imagine that you would get involved with it.
Then one day, for whatever reason, you give it a quick try. You hate it, obviously. It leaves a bad taste in your mouth / wallet. Your initial suspicions were correct.
But, you are persuaded to give it another try and the pain is a little less the second time. Before long, you can't get enough of it and take every opportunity to get your hit. The thought of giving it up is ridiculous.
I actually did manage to give up smoking 12 years, 7 months and 29 days ago. Maybe that is where PLO differs because I am not sure I could ever give up that up.
P is for Position. Position, Position, Position as estate agents might say. I have a feeling that the importance of position follows one of those special rules where it is always slightly more important than you think, even after you have already realised it was more important that you previously thought.
It also follows that poker golden rule that whatever lesson you learn (notwithstanding that you paid for the lesson in cold, hard losses), the lesson has to be learned over and over again.
Repeat after me: Position is everything, only more so.
Wednesday 17 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 15
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day 15: O is for ...
O is for Omaha. Well, it could be, but without P for Pot, Omaha is really not worthy of discussion so we shall postpone that topic for 1 more letter and instead look at O for Odds. I think even the least mathematical players concede there is merit in being able to quantify the value in particular situations. Some are more tractable than others, of course.
There are some genuinely complex scenarios but what surprises me greatly is how much disagreement one gets (at the table) between experienced players concerning positions as simple as a pre-flop matchup between two hands. You would think that a player would either (a) know the odds, and know they know or (b) not know, but know they don't know. Instead, I often see a wide range of "views" being given and firmly held even though there is quite simply one correct answer.
I am at a loss to explain it.
People often assume that I must know all the odds to the nth degree of accuracy. In fact I know only the most common and useful situations, and to a "give or take" degree of precision. I think this is plenty. I think it's foolish to ignore the usefulness of the basic odds, but it's an area with plenty of scope for spurious accuracy. This is my excuse, anyway, for not having studied it harder.
Actually, on my list of "things to do eventually" is to work out these odds myself, manually. I am half serious about this, as I suspect doing the work would make it much more likely I would remember and it would also give me a lot better understanding of what drives the odds in the first place. I think everyone would agree that understanding is more important than remembering in this case.
O is for "One Time". As in "One time, dealer!" or "Brick it one time" or "Ace one time" or "No Ace one time !" and so on. The power of hope and the belief in suggestion in poker. Hope keeps us going a lot of the time, I guess. Hopes are easily and quickly dashed but are equally quickly resurrected.
Of course the truest "One time" hope is for the "Big One". We hope that this time, this One Time we can be number One.
I'm hoping for a result in Vegas this "One Time" but, if not, then hopefully "Next Time".
Day 15: O is for ...
O is for Omaha. Well, it could be, but without P for Pot, Omaha is really not worthy of discussion so we shall postpone that topic for 1 more letter and instead look at O for Odds. I think even the least mathematical players concede there is merit in being able to quantify the value in particular situations. Some are more tractable than others, of course.
There are some genuinely complex scenarios but what surprises me greatly is how much disagreement one gets (at the table) between experienced players concerning positions as simple as a pre-flop matchup between two hands. You would think that a player would either (a) know the odds, and know they know or (b) not know, but know they don't know. Instead, I often see a wide range of "views" being given and firmly held even though there is quite simply one correct answer.
I am at a loss to explain it.
People often assume that I must know all the odds to the nth degree of accuracy. In fact I know only the most common and useful situations, and to a "give or take" degree of precision. I think this is plenty. I think it's foolish to ignore the usefulness of the basic odds, but it's an area with plenty of scope for spurious accuracy. This is my excuse, anyway, for not having studied it harder.
Actually, on my list of "things to do eventually" is to work out these odds myself, manually. I am half serious about this, as I suspect doing the work would make it much more likely I would remember and it would also give me a lot better understanding of what drives the odds in the first place. I think everyone would agree that understanding is more important than remembering in this case.
O is for "One Time". As in "One time, dealer!" or "Brick it one time" or "Ace one time" or "No Ace one time !" and so on. The power of hope and the belief in suggestion in poker. Hope keeps us going a lot of the time, I guess. Hopes are easily and quickly dashed but are equally quickly resurrected.
Of course the truest "One time" hope is for the "Big One". We hope that this time, this One Time we can be number One.
I'm hoping for a result in Vegas this "One Time" but, if not, then hopefully "Next Time".
Tuesday 16 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 14
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day 14: N is for ...
N is for "nh". One of those ubiquitous shorthand comments that is liberally sprinkled into the chat boxes of online poker, "gg", "omg" and "wtf" being among the other bestsellers. Like some of those obscure words in long-lost languages, "nh" manages to pack a lot of nuanced meaning into 2 letters.
It can mean anything from "I can't believe I paid off 3 streets of value when you obviously flopped the nuts" to "I can't believe you called for a gutshot to the low end on a flushing paired and straightening board".
Personally, I rarely go beyond "nh", "ul" and (in tournaments) "gg" in the chat window. I do certainly go on tilt and am not beyond a silent rant at the injustice of it all (it's silent to them whether or not I actually scream it out loud) but I never vent my anguish in the chat. As we all know, however, the same cannot be said for all our opponents. The stream of abuse that can sometimes follow a perceived bad beat is incredible, and often hilarious.
I never join in the "discussion", not even to rebut suggestions that I am a "donk" (or worse). Actually, my style of play often triggers the odd comment. I don't respond. One reason it that I could never hope to equal that timeless riposte by Barry the Bully in one of his earliest videos. You must remember it: "Retard with your money".
N is for Never (as in Never Again). Never must be one of the most ill-used words in the whole English language. Never again will we ... play whilst drinking / drunk ... play on tilt .... play above our bankroll ... play above our limits ... play Omaha of any kind at any limits or in any venue. Never again will we rock up for 5 hours in an MTT then push with Q7o on the bubble. The list goes on.
I agree with that oldest of epithets: Never say Never.
Day 14: N is for ...
N is for "nh". One of those ubiquitous shorthand comments that is liberally sprinkled into the chat boxes of online poker, "gg", "omg" and "wtf" being among the other bestsellers. Like some of those obscure words in long-lost languages, "nh" manages to pack a lot of nuanced meaning into 2 letters.
It can mean anything from "I can't believe I paid off 3 streets of value when you obviously flopped the nuts" to "I can't believe you called for a gutshot to the low end on a flushing paired and straightening board".
Personally, I rarely go beyond "nh", "ul" and (in tournaments) "gg" in the chat window. I do certainly go on tilt and am not beyond a silent rant at the injustice of it all (it's silent to them whether or not I actually scream it out loud) but I never vent my anguish in the chat. As we all know, however, the same cannot be said for all our opponents. The stream of abuse that can sometimes follow a perceived bad beat is incredible, and often hilarious.
I never join in the "discussion", not even to rebut suggestions that I am a "donk" (or worse). Actually, my style of play often triggers the odd comment. I don't respond. One reason it that I could never hope to equal that timeless riposte by Barry the Bully in one of his earliest videos. You must remember it: "Retard with your money".
N is for Never (as in Never Again). Never must be one of the most ill-used words in the whole English language. Never again will we ... play whilst drinking / drunk ... play on tilt .... play above our bankroll ... play above our limits ... play Omaha of any kind at any limits or in any venue. Never again will we rock up for 5 hours in an MTT then push with Q7o on the bubble. The list goes on.
I agree with that oldest of epithets: Never say Never.
Follow That Blog !
If you look on the sidebar and scroll down a bit you will find an icon which you can click to say you are following my blog.
It will make me feel better if a few of you do that, so I so do not feel I am talking to a brick wall ! I think I have a pretty good idea who regularly reads the blog, in fact, but it would be interesting to really see.
I reserve the right to take the icon down again if an unsatisfingly small number of you actually do so....
By the way, you may notice I have registered myself as a follower. This is not just because I wanted to get the numbers up (from 1 to 2) but I really do read my own blog avidly. I find it quite interesting to look back and see waht I was thinking and doing at last year's WSOP for example !
They say it is a good idea to learn from your mistakes so I am putting some serious study into the catalogue of errors that are recorded on this blog !
It will make me feel better if a few of you do that, so I so do not feel I am talking to a brick wall ! I think I have a pretty good idea who regularly reads the blog, in fact, but it would be interesting to really see.
I reserve the right to take the icon down again if an unsatisfingly small number of you actually do so....
By the way, you may notice I have registered myself as a follower. This is not just because I wanted to get the numbers up (from 1 to 2) but I really do read my own blog avidly. I find it quite interesting to look back and see waht I was thinking and doing at last year's WSOP for example !
They say it is a good idea to learn from your mistakes so I am putting some serious study into the catalogue of errors that are recorded on this blog !
Monday 15 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 13
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day 13: M is for ...
M is for M: I was introduced to "M", like many of us, by Dan Harrington in his excellent "Harrington on Hold'em" series of tournament books. The M itself is apparently for Magriel, an individual whom I have never heard of before or since. For such an important concept, I actually think Harrington develops it relatively little in the book.
Mind you, not as little as "Harrington's Q" which he defines, names after himself, and then never refers to again !
M in this context is the number of rounds of blinds and antes that our stack permits us to survive for. It needs rather a lot of modifications and qualifiers to truly inform our best play, but it's a very useful shortcut for a basic determination of our tournament situation. And, of course, any poker concept that can be summarised in an acronym finds favour with me. One-letter acronyms ftw !
M is for Merging Ranges: This is an example of the kind of concept that you hear the modern players discussing. I have no idea what it means ! Actually, that is not true. I have some idea what it means, like I have some idea about ICM.
I suppose I really ought to put the extra effort in to study some of the poker theory and mathematics of poker. I am not someone who believes that the maths & theory is all important. I think common sense and experience can take you a long way. But it surely must add a dimension to one's game. Is this more important than adding in some psychology or table talking skills ? Probably not, but it is possibly easier to learn (for someone like me, anyway).
I certainly think that betting theories that focus on the stack sizes are very powerful and that's really something I would like to improve in my game. I think a combination of study plus experience is required in that area: study the maths and the typical situations, practice using that in real-game situations, then come back and review the hands with the benefit of hindsight and the luxury of time to analyse. Ideally discuss the hands with other players as well.
M obviously also stands for Must try harder ...
Day 13: M is for ...
M is for M: I was introduced to "M", like many of us, by Dan Harrington in his excellent "Harrington on Hold'em" series of tournament books. The M itself is apparently for Magriel, an individual whom I have never heard of before or since. For such an important concept, I actually think Harrington develops it relatively little in the book.
Mind you, not as little as "Harrington's Q" which he defines, names after himself, and then never refers to again !
M in this context is the number of rounds of blinds and antes that our stack permits us to survive for. It needs rather a lot of modifications and qualifiers to truly inform our best play, but it's a very useful shortcut for a basic determination of our tournament situation. And, of course, any poker concept that can be summarised in an acronym finds favour with me. One-letter acronyms ftw !
M is for Merging Ranges: This is an example of the kind of concept that you hear the modern players discussing. I have no idea what it means ! Actually, that is not true. I have some idea what it means, like I have some idea about ICM.
I suppose I really ought to put the extra effort in to study some of the poker theory and mathematics of poker. I am not someone who believes that the maths & theory is all important. I think common sense and experience can take you a long way. But it surely must add a dimension to one's game. Is this more important than adding in some psychology or table talking skills ? Probably not, but it is possibly easier to learn (for someone like me, anyway).
I certainly think that betting theories that focus on the stack sizes are very powerful and that's really something I would like to improve in my game. I think a combination of study plus experience is required in that area: study the maths and the typical situations, practice using that in real-game situations, then come back and review the hands with the benefit of hindsight and the luxury of time to analyse. Ideally discuss the hands with other players as well.
M obviously also stands for Must try harder ...
One Day At A Time
I have received some complaints that my A-Z of poker is not being published on a satisfactory daily basis. My apologies to readers.
It's a good thing that I'm not a paid journalist, with this sort of record at missing publication deadlines.
Although, in fact, it may be the lack of an true externally-imposed deadline that is causing the problem because I am in fact pretty good with real deadlines (a legacy of many essay-crisis-all-nighters from University days).
I should say, in deference to those who studied proper essay-producing degrees, that when I say "essay crisis" it is in the metaphorical sense. I had the good fortune to study a degree where precious little actual written output was required.
However, when such hard-copy evidence of effort was required, and after not neglecting to put in the required hours at the bar/pinball/darts match etc., I would always get it done somehow.
So, I cannot properly account for my failure to produce the daily blog. I will catch up shortly. Since I don't have a time machine, the blogs will appear in a cluster and not in true daily sequence.
The reader can, if he so wishes, delay reading the entries so as to simulate the effect of daily output.
Now, blogger allows me to date the entries as if I posted them on the daily schedule and I will probably take advantage of that facility. So, for many readers it will appear as if the blogs follow the proper sequence and they will be left to wonder what on Earth I am on about in this post.
It's a good thing that I'm not a paid journalist, with this sort of record at missing publication deadlines.
Although, in fact, it may be the lack of an true externally-imposed deadline that is causing the problem because I am in fact pretty good with real deadlines (a legacy of many essay-crisis-all-nighters from University days).
I should say, in deference to those who studied proper essay-producing degrees, that when I say "essay crisis" it is in the metaphorical sense. I had the good fortune to study a degree where precious little actual written output was required.
However, when such hard-copy evidence of effort was required, and after not neglecting to put in the required hours at the bar/pinball/darts match etc., I would always get it done somehow.
So, I cannot properly account for my failure to produce the daily blog. I will catch up shortly. Since I don't have a time machine, the blogs will appear in a cluster and not in true daily sequence.
The reader can, if he so wishes, delay reading the entries so as to simulate the effect of daily output.
Now, blogger allows me to date the entries as if I posted them on the daily schedule and I will probably take advantage of that facility. So, for many readers it will appear as if the blogs follow the proper sequence and they will be left to wonder what on Earth I am on about in this post.
Sunday 14 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 12
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day12: L is for ...
L is for Live. Live is the kind of poker I prefer, I have concluded. Yes, it's slower, more expensive, less comfortable and theoretically less profitable. However, I don't really play for profit (I'm not playing deliberately for loss either, despite any evidence to the contrary). So, really, the appeal of internet poker is mainly that it's there for all those times that I cannot get to a live game.
I especially like playing live where I know the place, the people, their names and they know me. So I have always enjoyed playing at the Gutshot (before it closed) and at The International now.
I also love playing live in Vegas, obviously. Clearly that is a different live experience to playing in a small (by Vegas standards that is !) club in London but it's one of the Wonders of the World and the fact is that I do know a lot of people even in Vegas (like me they are visiting from London) - especially at this time of year. Those friendly faces enhance the Vegas experience for me.
"Live" is also what my cards tend to be at showdown. Since I often play the most ridiculous hands at the slightest excuse, I am often caught out with 9-2o vs A-K and similar match-ups. The best that can be said about that is that my cards are "live". The definition can also be extended, when the need arises, to 9-2o facing AA.
"Live one" is not a label one wants to attract of course. But no one would argue that any game with me in it is likely to be Live-ly !
L is for Legal. Is poker legal? Is internet poker legal ? I simplify the question considerably, of course, especially as the most important qualifier to the question is L for Location. My view is that the answer in most cases is that it hasn't been definitively shown NOT to be legal.
In the event that the decision is that it is NOT legal, then my view is that the decision is ridiculous ! The situation in the US is of course ridiculously ridiculous.
I think that, on the face of it, poker and/or internet poker may be illegal in quite a few places in the US (but not in others ... the very definition of ridiculous imo). The idea that one of the most popular and perfectly defensible pastimes can be illegal in the country with more poker players than anywhere else in the world just beggars belief. It's even less reasonable than that other brilliant idea ... Prohibition.
Reportedly, President Obama is pro-poker (following quite a tradition amongst US presidents)and may sort the mess out, but I would imagine he's busy and wouldn't want to be holding my breath.
Day12: L is for ...
L is for Live. Live is the kind of poker I prefer, I have concluded. Yes, it's slower, more expensive, less comfortable and theoretically less profitable. However, I don't really play for profit (I'm not playing deliberately for loss either, despite any evidence to the contrary). So, really, the appeal of internet poker is mainly that it's there for all those times that I cannot get to a live game.
I especially like playing live where I know the place, the people, their names and they know me. So I have always enjoyed playing at the Gutshot (before it closed) and at The International now.
I also love playing live in Vegas, obviously. Clearly that is a different live experience to playing in a small (by Vegas standards that is !) club in London but it's one of the Wonders of the World and the fact is that I do know a lot of people even in Vegas (like me they are visiting from London) - especially at this time of year. Those friendly faces enhance the Vegas experience for me.
"Live" is also what my cards tend to be at showdown. Since I often play the most ridiculous hands at the slightest excuse, I am often caught out with 9-2o vs A-K and similar match-ups. The best that can be said about that is that my cards are "live". The definition can also be extended, when the need arises, to 9-2o facing AA.
"Live one" is not a label one wants to attract of course. But no one would argue that any game with me in it is likely to be Live-ly !
L is for Legal. Is poker legal? Is internet poker legal ? I simplify the question considerably, of course, especially as the most important qualifier to the question is L for Location. My view is that the answer in most cases is that it hasn't been definitively shown NOT to be legal.
In the event that the decision is that it is NOT legal, then my view is that the decision is ridiculous ! The situation in the US is of course ridiculously ridiculous.
I think that, on the face of it, poker and/or internet poker may be illegal in quite a few places in the US (but not in others ... the very definition of ridiculous imo). The idea that one of the most popular and perfectly defensible pastimes can be illegal in the country with more poker players than anywhere else in the world just beggars belief. It's even less reasonable than that other brilliant idea ... Prohibition.
Reportedly, President Obama is pro-poker (following quite a tradition amongst US presidents)and may sort the mess out, but I would imagine he's busy and wouldn't want to be holding my breath.
Saturday 13 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 11
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day11: K is for ...
K is for Karma. I believe it ! I suspect 'Karma' has a very technical meaning, strictly speaking, but of course I am thinking of "it was meant to be" and "I just felt lucky".
My travel plans for June and July have certainly been karma-affected. My qualification for the WSOP main event - by means of a quadruple-shootout win - had all the hallmarks of the magic "K for Karma".
Ideally, this karma should extend into the event itself and produce the necessary one-outers and bricks required to see me into the money. I do genuinely think that having a positive attitude and feeling good about one's chances helps in the actual tournament. This has nothing to do with superstition, and everyone to do with the fact that poker as a mind game relies on confidence, and on projecting doubt into the mind of the opponent.
I am equally certain that when I hit a miracle river after a terrible call and say "it was karma, I felt lucky!" my opponent will not appreciate that it was all meant to be.
K is for Kelly Criterion. This principle states that wherever and whenever there is demand for a poker club, and such poker club is not definitely illegal, then that poker club shall be opened !
It is also apparently the name of a mathematical principle that aims to put some method behind every gambler's hunch that they have a "system for beating the house". It's a pretty pukka (and relatively simple) piece of theory that gives the optimal size of bets according to certain conditions and is also used in financial applications.
The most interesting application of it that I have personally come across was in the "The Vic roulette team" story. I say "story" as if to suggest it is fiction, but it's a known fact. Or, if not, then it should be true. Actually, it was widely reported, eg here.
Essentially, a group of smart poker players took advantage of a seriously -EV promotion that the Victoria Casino offered on roulette (40-1 odds on the "day of the month" number). The team of players pooled together a large bankroll to exploit the edge freely offered by the house to the players and the Kelly Criterion was used to decide on the correct betting strategy to maximise the win whilst minimising the risk of getting unlucky and going bust.
I have played (poker) with a couple of people from the team that ran up many tens of thousands of profit from this wheeze and it's nearly as much fun listening to the tale as having been in the team itself (actually, probably more fun but less profitable !).
Day11: K is for ...
K is for Karma. I believe it ! I suspect 'Karma' has a very technical meaning, strictly speaking, but of course I am thinking of "it was meant to be" and "I just felt lucky".
My travel plans for June and July have certainly been karma-affected. My qualification for the WSOP main event - by means of a quadruple-shootout win - had all the hallmarks of the magic "K for Karma".
Ideally, this karma should extend into the event itself and produce the necessary one-outers and bricks required to see me into the money. I do genuinely think that having a positive attitude and feeling good about one's chances helps in the actual tournament. This has nothing to do with superstition, and everyone to do with the fact that poker as a mind game relies on confidence, and on projecting doubt into the mind of the opponent.
I am equally certain that when I hit a miracle river after a terrible call and say "it was karma, I felt lucky!" my opponent will not appreciate that it was all meant to be.
K is for Kelly Criterion. This principle states that wherever and whenever there is demand for a poker club, and such poker club is not definitely illegal, then that poker club shall be opened !
It is also apparently the name of a mathematical principle that aims to put some method behind every gambler's hunch that they have a "system for beating the house". It's a pretty pukka (and relatively simple) piece of theory that gives the optimal size of bets according to certain conditions and is also used in financial applications.
The most interesting application of it that I have personally come across was in the "The Vic roulette team" story. I say "story" as if to suggest it is fiction, but it's a known fact. Or, if not, then it should be true. Actually, it was widely reported, eg here.
Essentially, a group of smart poker players took advantage of a seriously -EV promotion that the Victoria Casino offered on roulette (40-1 odds on the "day of the month" number). The team of players pooled together a large bankroll to exploit the edge freely offered by the house to the players and the Kelly Criterion was used to decide on the correct betting strategy to maximise the win whilst minimising the risk of getting unlucky and going bust.
I have played (poker) with a couple of people from the team that ran up many tens of thousands of profit from this wheeze and it's nearly as much fun listening to the tale as having been in the team itself (actually, probably more fun but less profitable !).
Friday 12 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 10
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day10: J is for ...
J is for Jacks. Pocket Jacks is one of those hands that is routinely referred to as "the hardest hand to play in Hold'em" or used in such phrases as "I hate Jacks; I always lose with them".
There is some merit to the claim that Jacks present a difficult problem. I suppose the main issue is that they will usually be the best hand pre-flop, but will generate strong action only when behind (or racing at best). In that sense, they are similar to AQ and indeed pocket Queens: another hand that I find can lead to very bad spots.
The fact is, though, that people will extend "I hate XX" up to Queens, Ace-King, pockets Kings and even to Aces. "I hate Aces" is one of the most bizarre things that poker players utter. It's a curious syndrome which is the result of the truism that poker leads constantly to disappointment !
J is for January (and July). If it's January, it's time to reset that spreadsheet with those precise columns of P&L, hours played, rake, ROI%, $VPIP and so on. Good intentions abound. Actually, I do know of some players who really have kept meticulous records (in some cases, from the very beginning of their poker playing career). Those players tend to be winners, although the losing player with accurate records is in some ways more impressive (he/she has a peculiarly realistic and objective viewpoint on the game).
More often, though, if it's February then the spreadsheet has probably been neglected beyond reasonable hope of repair !
Now, if it's July (as it soon will be) then it's time for a 2nd chance (it's a game of two halves?) and of course it's the WSOP. If ever there was a chance to repair the damage in one go, this is it !
Day10: J is for ...
J is for Jacks. Pocket Jacks is one of those hands that is routinely referred to as "the hardest hand to play in Hold'em" or used in such phrases as "I hate Jacks; I always lose with them".
There is some merit to the claim that Jacks present a difficult problem. I suppose the main issue is that they will usually be the best hand pre-flop, but will generate strong action only when behind (or racing at best). In that sense, they are similar to AQ and indeed pocket Queens: another hand that I find can lead to very bad spots.
The fact is, though, that people will extend "I hate XX" up to Queens, Ace-King, pockets Kings and even to Aces. "I hate Aces" is one of the most bizarre things that poker players utter. It's a curious syndrome which is the result of the truism that poker leads constantly to disappointment !
J is for January (and July). If it's January, it's time to reset that spreadsheet with those precise columns of P&L, hours played, rake, ROI%, $VPIP and so on. Good intentions abound. Actually, I do know of some players who really have kept meticulous records (in some cases, from the very beginning of their poker playing career). Those players tend to be winners, although the losing player with accurate records is in some ways more impressive (he/she has a peculiarly realistic and objective viewpoint on the game).
More often, though, if it's February then the spreadsheet has probably been neglected beyond reasonable hope of repair !
Now, if it's July (as it soon will be) then it's time for a 2nd chance (it's a game of two halves?) and of course it's the WSOP. If ever there was a chance to repair the damage in one go, this is it !
Thursday 11 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 9
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day9: I is for ...
I is for International. Another obvious choice for the A-Z. After the disappointment of seeing the Gutshot close, it has been nice to see so many familiar faces at The International club nearby. It's not got quite the same ring as "Gutshot", but still. You do meet the most fascinating people there and I've enjoyed/endured some pretty sick sessions of poker there. Some of those, in turn, have been chronicled on my blog.
I'm still waiting for my first tournament win here. As things stand, with my imminent trip to Vegas, I suppose I am hoping that my first "International" success (in the geographical sense) comes before my first "The International" victory.
I is for ITM. There were a few acronymical choices here. ICM was another very obvious candidate although then I would have had to write about what I don't know about the Independent Chip Model rather than what I do (either that, or go for an exceptionally short entry).
ITM (In The Money) is where we all want to be of course. I am still waiting for my first ITM finish in any WSOP, GUKPT, EPT etc event and I certainly hope I can tick that off in the next few weeks. On the whole, I don't place great emphasis on ITM finishes in tournaments. I prefer to shoot for the win - a great excuse for wild plays near the bubble. Discussion of correct play near the money does seem to generate quite a polarised debate.
Some players (eg Derek Kelly of Gutshot fame) are adamant that the first duty of a tournament player is to cash and that only then can the business of climbing the payscale take precedence. Others (especially the internet hotshots/youngsters/JoeJoe-lookalikes) are equally clear that cashing, per se, is not an objective. The two schools of thought might recommend the same play in a particular situation but the latter will give little or no weight to "tournament life" as an independent priority.
I have never agreed with Derek about the over-riding need to cash in any particular event but insofar as I have failed so far to make a money finish in any major event, I will be wimping out big time if the occasion arises in Vegas in 2 weeks' time !
Day9: I is for ...
I is for International. Another obvious choice for the A-Z. After the disappointment of seeing the Gutshot close, it has been nice to see so many familiar faces at The International club nearby. It's not got quite the same ring as "Gutshot", but still. You do meet the most fascinating people there and I've enjoyed/endured some pretty sick sessions of poker there. Some of those, in turn, have been chronicled on my blog.
I'm still waiting for my first tournament win here. As things stand, with my imminent trip to Vegas, I suppose I am hoping that my first "International" success (in the geographical sense) comes before my first "The International" victory.
I is for ITM. There were a few acronymical choices here. ICM was another very obvious candidate although then I would have had to write about what I don't know about the Independent Chip Model rather than what I do (either that, or go for an exceptionally short entry).
ITM (In The Money) is where we all want to be of course. I am still waiting for my first ITM finish in any WSOP, GUKPT, EPT etc event and I certainly hope I can tick that off in the next few weeks. On the whole, I don't place great emphasis on ITM finishes in tournaments. I prefer to shoot for the win - a great excuse for wild plays near the bubble. Discussion of correct play near the money does seem to generate quite a polarised debate.
Some players (eg Derek Kelly of Gutshot fame) are adamant that the first duty of a tournament player is to cash and that only then can the business of climbing the payscale take precedence. Others (especially the internet hotshots/youngsters/JoeJoe-lookalikes) are equally clear that cashing, per se, is not an objective. The two schools of thought might recommend the same play in a particular situation but the latter will give little or no weight to "tournament life" as an independent priority.
I have never agreed with Derek about the over-riding need to cash in any particular event but insofar as I have failed so far to make a money finish in any major event, I will be wimping out big time if the occasion arises in Vegas in 2 weeks' time !
Wednesday 10 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 8
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day8: H is for ...
H is for H-Bomb. Poker nicknames are for life. I can't ever change my name now and (like any good poker moniker) it was not invented by the owner.
I believe it was "Ron Burgundy" of the Gutshot forum who coined the phrase during a lively forum league game last year. I had just scooped a huge pile of chips in my trademark style of building a massive pot whilst in need of some help from the deck, and then hitting.
The phrase "H-bomb" immediately resonated with the other players in the game, and the name stuck.
The H-bomb style is built on aggression and luck. The luck sometimes appears to flow in unlimited quantities. The aggression rarely slackens. The collective memory of my opponents (and myself) tends to selectively remember those occasions when the aggression and luck have combined to suitably thermonuclear effect.
The H-bomb effect is often instantaneous. I will sometimes sit in a stagnant £1-2 PLO game, where the £500 stacks are moving at glacial speed, and have the whole table all-in pre-flop within 5 hands. Usually sooner.
At the WSOP this year I am hoping to explode a few bombs without causing too much collateral damage.
H is for Hendon Mob. Ask poker players what "Hendon Mob" means to them and I am guessing that whilst many could name one or more of the four mobsters, nearly all of them would mention the massive database hosted on their site. Results from every significant poker tournament are tracked there. Hundreds of tournaments per month, thousands of players. A cash in a WSOP, EPT, GUKPT would obviously be there along with all the successes from festivals (large and small) from all over the world.
Type in the name of any famous player and their achievements will be listed. However, it is not just the world champions and household names. Many of my poker friends merit inclusion. Sometimes it can be just a £300 place in a £50 end of festival freezeout.
Not a big deal really ? But: they are there and I am not !
This is one reason why if I get near the money in Vegas this year, I am folding till past the bubble. I am folding until I am in that database !
Day8: H is for ...
H is for H-Bomb. Poker nicknames are for life. I can't ever change my name now and (like any good poker moniker) it was not invented by the owner.
I believe it was "Ron Burgundy" of the Gutshot forum who coined the phrase during a lively forum league game last year. I had just scooped a huge pile of chips in my trademark style of building a massive pot whilst in need of some help from the deck, and then hitting.
The phrase "H-bomb" immediately resonated with the other players in the game, and the name stuck.
The H-bomb style is built on aggression and luck. The luck sometimes appears to flow in unlimited quantities. The aggression rarely slackens. The collective memory of my opponents (and myself) tends to selectively remember those occasions when the aggression and luck have combined to suitably thermonuclear effect.
The H-bomb effect is often instantaneous. I will sometimes sit in a stagnant £1-2 PLO game, where the £500 stacks are moving at glacial speed, and have the whole table all-in pre-flop within 5 hands. Usually sooner.
At the WSOP this year I am hoping to explode a few bombs without causing too much collateral damage.
H is for Hendon Mob. Ask poker players what "Hendon Mob" means to them and I am guessing that whilst many could name one or more of the four mobsters, nearly all of them would mention the massive database hosted on their site. Results from every significant poker tournament are tracked there. Hundreds of tournaments per month, thousands of players. A cash in a WSOP, EPT, GUKPT would obviously be there along with all the successes from festivals (large and small) from all over the world.
Type in the name of any famous player and their achievements will be listed. However, it is not just the world champions and household names. Many of my poker friends merit inclusion. Sometimes it can be just a £300 place in a £50 end of festival freezeout.
Not a big deal really ? But: they are there and I am not !
This is one reason why if I get near the money in Vegas this year, I am folding till past the bubble. I am folding until I am in that database !
Tuesday 9 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 7
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day7: G is for ...
G is for Gutshot. Where to start? Well, that is where it all started for me. I came to the old Gutshot club in November 2004 as the guest at a corporate event. I hadn't played before (except for a dabble online at Ladbrokes.com). It was a £50 rebuy and - although I could certainly afford the stakes - I didn't want to be throwing money away.
So it was that I eked out my dwindling stack so I just made it to the end of the rebuy where I could get the extra value add-on without having needed any rebuys. I think I had less than one blind left at that stage. Do you recognise this thriftiness in my current rebuy approach ? No ?
Well, after the break I went on a mini heater and after reaching the final table with the chip-lead I eventually went on to finish 2nd (A3 losing to J6 - I still remember the hand).
The rest, as they say, is history and I hosted many a corporate event myself at the Gutshot before it finally shut its doors for the last time.
G is for Gamble. I am firmly in the school that argues poker is a game of skill. I don't deny the role that lady luck plays, but her part is played on the stage of skillful foundations. As such, I will tend to resist the assertion that poker is gambling at all.
The good player, I would argue, can wrestle control away from the luck fairy and his enterprise is more akin to investment than speculation.
On the whole, I think not nearly enough research has been done in an attempt to support the skill hypothesis. I have generally been underwhelmed by the evidence and arguments marshaled in defence of poker as a skill game whenever it has come to legal proceedings.
Of course, even if you accept this line of reasoning, you should realise that I apply it to "other players". Myself, I like a gamble !
Day7: G is for ...
G is for Gutshot. Where to start? Well, that is where it all started for me. I came to the old Gutshot club in November 2004 as the guest at a corporate event. I hadn't played before (except for a dabble online at Ladbrokes.com). It was a £50 rebuy and - although I could certainly afford the stakes - I didn't want to be throwing money away.
So it was that I eked out my dwindling stack so I just made it to the end of the rebuy where I could get the extra value add-on without having needed any rebuys. I think I had less than one blind left at that stage. Do you recognise this thriftiness in my current rebuy approach ? No ?
Well, after the break I went on a mini heater and after reaching the final table with the chip-lead I eventually went on to finish 2nd (A3 losing to J6 - I still remember the hand).
The rest, as they say, is history and I hosted many a corporate event myself at the Gutshot before it finally shut its doors for the last time.
G is for Gamble. I am firmly in the school that argues poker is a game of skill. I don't deny the role that lady luck plays, but her part is played on the stage of skillful foundations. As such, I will tend to resist the assertion that poker is gambling at all.
The good player, I would argue, can wrestle control away from the luck fairy and his enterprise is more akin to investment than speculation.
On the whole, I think not nearly enough research has been done in an attempt to support the skill hypothesis. I have generally been underwhelmed by the evidence and arguments marshaled in defence of poker as a skill game whenever it has come to legal proceedings.
Of course, even if you accept this line of reasoning, you should realise that I apply it to "other players". Myself, I like a gamble !
Monday 8 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 6
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day6: F is for ...
F is for Fold. My fold button is generally broken, both live & online. That goes for both cash and tournaments. I take, rather literally, the view that you can't win by folding. I love the action too much (as most of my opponents quickly realise, whether they like it or not).
However, occasionally, I embrace the F-word. I have done so most notably at the WSOP events last year. It takes a huge effort of will for me to do this, but I was rewarded with some fairly deep runs. I was, briefly, able to appreciate the power of the fold !
Mind you, the hands that haunt in the long run are the bad folds, much more than the ill-advised calls. In fact the worst kind are those where I folded and forever feel that I had been robbed (having not seen my opponent's hand).
Folding QQ on the river vs Thomas Fougeron in the Main Event last year, for example. In many ways a routine hand, but I felt I allowed myself to get outplayed and I am still thinking about the fold a year later !
I do accept (in theory) that we're supposed to make the decision and move on. I think I feel those difficult folds more keenly because it is so counter to my normal approach.
Of course the other folds that annoy me are the ones that my opponents don't make when I bluff all streets and push all-in on the river !
F is for Forum. There's only one real forum in poker of course (and I don't mean 2+2). I didn't take to the forum at first (I'm too old!). It took me a while to get used to the way conversations are conducted on the interweb. Personally, I still stick very much to the offline and old-school maxim "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all".
But I must have found plenty of nice things to say, as I now am the 4th most prolific poster of all time on the Gutshot forum and am now catching "omen666". So perhaps it was quantity not quality which earned me the 2008 GOSCAR for "Forum Poster of The Year"!
Day6: F is for ...
F is for Fold. My fold button is generally broken, both live & online. That goes for both cash and tournaments. I take, rather literally, the view that you can't win by folding. I love the action too much (as most of my opponents quickly realise, whether they like it or not).
However, occasionally, I embrace the F-word. I have done so most notably at the WSOP events last year. It takes a huge effort of will for me to do this, but I was rewarded with some fairly deep runs. I was, briefly, able to appreciate the power of the fold !
Mind you, the hands that haunt in the long run are the bad folds, much more than the ill-advised calls. In fact the worst kind are those where I folded and forever feel that I had been robbed (having not seen my opponent's hand).
Folding QQ on the river vs Thomas Fougeron in the Main Event last year, for example. In many ways a routine hand, but I felt I allowed myself to get outplayed and I am still thinking about the fold a year later !
I do accept (in theory) that we're supposed to make the decision and move on. I think I feel those difficult folds more keenly because it is so counter to my normal approach.
Of course the other folds that annoy me are the ones that my opponents don't make when I bluff all streets and push all-in on the river !
F is for Forum. There's only one real forum in poker of course (and I don't mean 2+2). I didn't take to the forum at first (I'm too old!). It took me a while to get used to the way conversations are conducted on the interweb. Personally, I still stick very much to the offline and old-school maxim "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all".
But I must have found plenty of nice things to say, as I now am the 4th most prolific poster of all time on the Gutshot forum and am now catching "omen666". So perhaps it was quantity not quality which earned me the 2008 GOSCAR for "Forum Poster of The Year"!
Sunday 7 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 5
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day5: E if for ...
E is for +EV (positive Expected Value). One of those many buzz-words and acronyms beloved of poker math-geeks. Also a shorthand among poker aficionados for a favourable happening in any part of life.
We're supposed to play "+EV poker": making the right choices in terms of game selection, positional play, hand ranges, pot odds and so on. Opinions seems to vary on whether we should pursue an EV edge at all costs, but it's hard to argue that +EV is a bad model for success.
For me, though, poker is +EV by nature. I love playing, and writing about it, reading about it, just being around it. I am a wholehearted subscriber to the notion that "the next best thing to playing poker and winning, is playing poker and losing".
The fact is, of course, that this attitude is almost certainly -EV in terms of the actual business of winning. However, from the glass-half-full perspective, poker is win-win for me.
E if for Early Night. This is a bad thing in poker terms. On a Sunday night I will generally play at least one of the large field MTTs. Tonight I played the $250k guarantee (30,000 runners) and the benchmark "Sunday Millions" on pokerstars, and I also played the $50k and $100k guarantees on gutshot.com.
The "Million" routinely runs till breakfast-time on Monday. The others are not quite as intense, but should see the winners playing until the early hours.
So, being able to switch off the PC at 11:30pm meant this was definitely a "-EV" evening. An opportunity to catch up on sleep was scant compensation!
Day5: E if for ...
E is for +EV (positive Expected Value). One of those many buzz-words and acronyms beloved of poker math-geeks. Also a shorthand among poker aficionados for a favourable happening in any part of life.
We're supposed to play "+EV poker": making the right choices in terms of game selection, positional play, hand ranges, pot odds and so on. Opinions seems to vary on whether we should pursue an EV edge at all costs, but it's hard to argue that +EV is a bad model for success.
For me, though, poker is +EV by nature. I love playing, and writing about it, reading about it, just being around it. I am a wholehearted subscriber to the notion that "the next best thing to playing poker and winning, is playing poker and losing".
The fact is, of course, that this attitude is almost certainly -EV in terms of the actual business of winning. However, from the glass-half-full perspective, poker is win-win for me.
E if for Early Night. This is a bad thing in poker terms. On a Sunday night I will generally play at least one of the large field MTTs. Tonight I played the $250k guarantee (30,000 runners) and the benchmark "Sunday Millions" on pokerstars, and I also played the $50k and $100k guarantees on gutshot.com.
The "Million" routinely runs till breakfast-time on Monday. The others are not quite as intense, but should see the winners playing until the early hours.
So, being able to switch off the PC at 11:30pm meant this was definitely a "-EV" evening. An opportunity to catch up on sleep was scant compensation!
Saturday 6 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 4
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day4: D is for ....
D is for Discipline. An obvious choice. If you had to pick out a few essential qualities for successful poker then you might be able to argue that mathematical ability is necessary (but you will find plenty of counterexamples among "natural" players), or that player-reading is vital (but, in truth, a solid and winning game is possible without this especially online where its importance is limited).
The ability to bluff ? The heart to gamble ? Being born lucky ?
All of these are useful but one quality that is simply indispensable (and without which all the other qualities can founder) is discipline.
This is a problem, since many otherwise brilliant players clearly lack it in sufficient quantities. The evidence for that is the descent-to-busto regularly endured by obviously winning players. Quite a lot of them seem to think "D is for Dice".
Discipline means many things in practice: bankroll management, game selection, tilt control, session management and so on.
Unfortunately, discipline is hard to learn, hard to practice, and lapses in discipline tend to be rewarded with swift and severe punishment from the poker gods.
Discipline is going to be the "D" in my plan to play "ABCD poker" in Vegas this year. "Apply Basic Commonsense and Discipline". For me, this will mean things like: NOT accepting the unlimited free alcohol on offer at the cash tables, NOT playing for 28 hours without a break, considering sleep as an option from time to time, and so on.
D is for Disappointment. It's incredible that this game can seem to exert such a strong pull on us, and such desire to get back in the game, when all it really seems to offer most of the time is constant and repeated disappointment !
This is especially true in tournaments. Short of winning the whole thing, the result is generally:
disappointment at an early exit or else:
disappointment at not making the most of a good start or else:
disappointment at falling away in the mid stages or else:
disappointment at losing out on the bubble or else:
disappointment at only just making it past the bubble or else:
disappointment at not making the final table or else:
disappointment at only just making the final table or else:
disappointment at not making the final 3 where all the big money is or else:
disappointment at getting to the final 3 but not finishing the job
Cash games also don't fail to disappoint. Either we played a long time but didn't win much, or we are disappointed that we left too early, or left too late. We didn't cash in when we had a big stack, or didn't carry on when we had a big stack to play with. Or we didn't play well, or we DID play well but weren't rewarded. Or the other players were too good, or too bad. And so it goes on.
In any case, we will be disappointed if we don't get a chance to put it all right next time, and soon.
Day4: D is for ....
D is for Discipline. An obvious choice. If you had to pick out a few essential qualities for successful poker then you might be able to argue that mathematical ability is necessary (but you will find plenty of counterexamples among "natural" players), or that player-reading is vital (but, in truth, a solid and winning game is possible without this especially online where its importance is limited).
The ability to bluff ? The heart to gamble ? Being born lucky ?
All of these are useful but one quality that is simply indispensable (and without which all the other qualities can founder) is discipline.
This is a problem, since many otherwise brilliant players clearly lack it in sufficient quantities. The evidence for that is the descent-to-busto regularly endured by obviously winning players. Quite a lot of them seem to think "D is for Dice".
Discipline means many things in practice: bankroll management, game selection, tilt control, session management and so on.
Unfortunately, discipline is hard to learn, hard to practice, and lapses in discipline tend to be rewarded with swift and severe punishment from the poker gods.
Discipline is going to be the "D" in my plan to play "ABCD poker" in Vegas this year. "Apply Basic Commonsense and Discipline". For me, this will mean things like: NOT accepting the unlimited free alcohol on offer at the cash tables, NOT playing for 28 hours without a break, considering sleep as an option from time to time, and so on.
D is for Disappointment. It's incredible that this game can seem to exert such a strong pull on us, and such desire to get back in the game, when all it really seems to offer most of the time is constant and repeated disappointment !
This is especially true in tournaments. Short of winning the whole thing, the result is generally:
disappointment at an early exit or else:
disappointment at not making the most of a good start or else:
disappointment at falling away in the mid stages or else:
disappointment at losing out on the bubble or else:
disappointment at only just making it past the bubble or else:
disappointment at not making the final table or else:
disappointment at only just making the final table or else:
disappointment at not making the final 3 where all the big money is or else:
disappointment at getting to the final 3 but not finishing the job
Cash games also don't fail to disappoint. Either we played a long time but didn't win much, or we are disappointed that we left too early, or left too late. We didn't cash in when we had a big stack, or didn't carry on when we had a big stack to play with. Or we didn't play well, or we DID play well but weren't rewarded. Or the other players were too good, or too bad. And so it goes on.
In any case, we will be disappointed if we don't get a chance to put it all right next time, and soon.
Friday 5 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 3
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day3: C is for ...
C is for Confidence. Poker is undoubtedly a mind-game. Some of the mental skills are obviously mathematical in nature - counts the outs, calculate the pot odds etc. Some are more qualitative: the discipline required for controlling tilt or good game selection, for example.
Poker, especially tournament poker, throws a lot at us in terms of mental challenge - constant frustration basically ! It can be very difficult to play well when we are running bad and seemingly being 1-outered for fun.
Conversely, when we're on a heater, we believe we can do anything.
I believe that a confident attitude is a positive factor for success. I would characterise it as "necessary but not sufficient". I think that without confidence in our game, we will surely lose. We won't be capable of making the moves that are required, and our observant opponents will pick up on our weakness and exploit it.
Naturally one needs to guard against over-confidence but a healthy dose of self-belief is first order of business.
C is for Concentration. The fact is, there is a lot going on in a poker game. The cards are the least of our worries. We are supposed to be constantly monitoring the state of the game which especially includes how our opponents are playing, all the chips stacks at the table, the current tournament situation including the remaining players, average chips and prize structure.
So many times, in hindsight, we will find that we didn't need to get involved in a particular situation or that we couldn't pass, or that THEY couldn't pass or whatever it may be.
Concentrate !!
Day3: C is for ...
C is for Confidence. Poker is undoubtedly a mind-game. Some of the mental skills are obviously mathematical in nature - counts the outs, calculate the pot odds etc. Some are more qualitative: the discipline required for controlling tilt or good game selection, for example.
Poker, especially tournament poker, throws a lot at us in terms of mental challenge - constant frustration basically ! It can be very difficult to play well when we are running bad and seemingly being 1-outered for fun.
Conversely, when we're on a heater, we believe we can do anything.
I believe that a confident attitude is a positive factor for success. I would characterise it as "necessary but not sufficient". I think that without confidence in our game, we will surely lose. We won't be capable of making the moves that are required, and our observant opponents will pick up on our weakness and exploit it.
Naturally one needs to guard against over-confidence but a healthy dose of self-belief is first order of business.
C is for Concentration. The fact is, there is a lot going on in a poker game. The cards are the least of our worries. We are supposed to be constantly monitoring the state of the game which especially includes how our opponents are playing, all the chips stacks at the table, the current tournament situation including the remaining players, average chips and prize structure.
So many times, in hindsight, we will find that we didn't need to get involved in a particular situation or that we couldn't pass, or that THEY couldn't pass or whatever it may be.
Concentrate !!
Thursday 4 June 2009
A - Z of Poker: Day 2
From London to Vegas in 26 Letters
Day 2: B is for ...
B is for Bankroll Management (BRM). Apparently bankroll management is one of the most important skills of a professional/successful/winning player.Is it more important than running good ? Ha, I doubt it !
I don't play with money I can't afford to lose (fortunately, and I am in the fortunate position to be able to do this).
This is not to say that the money doesn't matter to me. Au contraire. I manage to be very upset when I lose the money I have nominated as my bankroll. This, and managing to have a bankroll in the first place is as far as I am claim to practice BRM !
The fact is that proper BRM is that other B-word .... BORING and most people will agree that when I am playing the game is anything other than boring !
B is for Bad Beat. Ah yes ... a universal constant of poker.
I like to think that I score very high on the etiquette index in poker. You will find that I never slow-roll; I never criticise another player or a dealer; I do not scream and shout; I do not call the clock on people; I do not angle-shoot or seek to bend the rules in any way. For me this is just the right way to behave.
I have to accept in poker that I am giving up some edge because of this, but for me this behaviour is so hard-wired that it is not up for negotiation.
There is one area, though, where I consistently fall short of my own high standards. I cannot help relating bad-beat stories. I try to stop myself but I can't !
I often don't cast them as bad-beats per se; I usually will explain in my story that the event was just one of those things, or my bad play or something other than a pure beat.
However, that just means they are thinly-veiled beats and maybe that's even worse !
I would make a resolution to myself to stop telling bad-beat stories but I'm trying to give up making resolutions that are impossible to keep to !
Day 2: B is for ...
B is for Bankroll Management (BRM). Apparently bankroll management is one of the most important skills of a professional/successful/winning player.Is it more important than running good ? Ha, I doubt it !
I don't play with money I can't afford to lose (fortunately, and I am in the fortunate position to be able to do this).
This is not to say that the money doesn't matter to me. Au contraire. I manage to be very upset when I lose the money I have nominated as my bankroll. This, and managing to have a bankroll in the first place is as far as I am claim to practice BRM !
The fact is that proper BRM is that other B-word .... BORING and most people will agree that when I am playing the game is anything other than boring !
B is for Bad Beat. Ah yes ... a universal constant of poker.
I like to think that I score very high on the etiquette index in poker. You will find that I never slow-roll; I never criticise another player or a dealer; I do not scream and shout; I do not call the clock on people; I do not angle-shoot or seek to bend the rules in any way. For me this is just the right way to behave.
I have to accept in poker that I am giving up some edge because of this, but for me this behaviour is so hard-wired that it is not up for negotiation.
There is one area, though, where I consistently fall short of my own high standards. I cannot help relating bad-beat stories. I try to stop myself but I can't !
I often don't cast them as bad-beats per se; I usually will explain in my story that the event was just one of those things, or my bad play or something other than a pure beat.
However, that just means they are thinly-veiled beats and maybe that's even worse !
I would make a resolution to myself to stop telling bad-beat stories but I'm trying to give up making resolutions that are impossible to keep to !
1 out of 3 Ain't Bad
Three of my poker objectives (in realistic-but-non-trivial category) have been:
- win an MTT at The International
- cash in a WSOP, GUKPT, EPT, etc event **
- win the $20k rebuy comp on gutshot.com (Cake)
** or at least make Day2
In each case, I have been close several times.
In live MTTs at The International I have been runner up, and had other deep runs including 3 final tables in successive weeks.
In the case of the large-field live events, I couldn't say I have been right on the bubble, but I have been late on day1 several times.
In the case of the $20k ($30 rebuy NLH) on Cake, that is on every day at 8pm and I have played it many times. It is a really soft field and I regularly cash in it with a bunch of final tables already. Best place previously =2nd.
Well, last night I finally won the $20k. $4,240 for first place.
I didn't start too well - I hardly won any chips in the rebuy period (had 3,128 when I could have had 3,000 just by buying in and adding on at the break). After adding on I still had a usable stack (5,628 at the 75/150 level) but I frittered away 1/3rd of these before making a slow climb.
I doubled up with AA vs AK at the 125/250/25 level to stand on 17k and with another nice situation (KK vs AK at the 300/600/50) I advanced to 40k. Just playing very solid, tbh.
KK again - vs 52 at the 800/1600/150 level: I raise to 3,599 from the cut-off and the BB calls. The flop is T-5-T. He checks to me and I bet 6,899 into 9,198. He instantly shoves for a total of 35k. Easy call. Up to 80k now and cruising.
I start to open up a bit and am also winning vs short stacks: eg AJ vs JT.
I also pick up some nice pots in position: the SB raises me and I call with K4s on the Big Blind. Flop AK5 (two hearts). He bets, I call. He bets the pot on the turn (a 4); I call. We both check the river which is a Jack. He shows T-5. I should perhaps raise the turn but I don't want to play all-in here and I pick up a 78k pot as it is.
On 140k now and among the top few places.
I am now sat on the immediate right of "patrice1", an unbelievably aggressive player who is in every pot and winning most of them. He is incredibly loose in raising, and calling, and seems impossible to kill. I am not in the best spot position-wise.
I lose a chunk with A3 vs AT. In this pot, I feel my Ace is good and call a shove when the flush hits the river (I am confident the player does not have a flush, which he didn't. He had hit two-pair, however, and I wish I had shoved first on the river to give him the decision). Back to 80k.
I 4-bet all-in vs "patrice1" who calls with Q9 (!!) vs my pair. I hold. Back to 160k. I shove again with AK against him but he finds a fold (he must have had utter filth !)
I picked up another nice pot from the BB vs the same nutter: He makes it 12,600 from UTG (1,500/3,000/300) and I call with Kh9h. This is a call for value here!
Flop: 8-J-J (pretty good flop). Check-check. Tun is a 9. I check-call 14,400. I think I am winning but I want to keep the pot somewhat small out of position to a madman. River: Ace. Not delighted with this card as he can easily have had a random Ace to start.
I feel I have a solid bluff-catcher vs this player and when I check he bets 28,800 - about half his stack. I could check-raise for value I suppose but I call and he shows Q3 (suited).
I evenually knock this player out when I push from the SB with Q7. He only has 8bb and I feel he will call with any hand. My hand is 50% vs random cards and with all the dead money (blinds, antes) it is worth it when I have him outchipped 8-1. He calls with A2 and I make a Queen and a straight !
Now I am in a decent chip-lead with 6left. I keep the pressure up with a lot of small raises and continuation bets and a selection of 3-bets, 4-bets and re-raises based on the situations (and occasionally on good cards !)
I show few hands and am getting quite a few walks in the Big blind. It feels like they don't want to take me on. On the other hand, the 2nd-in-chips player (goliath31) unaccountably seems to pay me off with 2nd best hands in position when I bet 3 streets for value. His passive play cost him huge amounts of chips: he can raise me off these hands easily. Folding would be his 2nd-best play. Calling down is the worst of all options.
At 3-handed, I have more chips than the other two combined and I still have a 4/3 advantage when we start the heads-up.
goliath continued to play pretty passively and I felt it was a matter of time before I would overcome him. However, we were playing deep-stacked now with 850,000 chips in play at the 3,000/6,000/600 level. I did not want to get all-in too quickly when I felt I had an advantage just grinding away.
I had secured a > 3-1 lead when I 4-bet with 99 and faced a call all in from AQ. By the turn, he had a flush draw and a gutshot to go with his 2 overcards, so it wasn't too surprising that he found a winner on the river.
Back to square one ! A long heads-up dragged on.
I actually lost the lead for a short time after getting pretty deep in a hand with 5-2 and flopping a pair and an open-ender. I gave up to a shove on the turn where I had raised his lead bet; I put him on a strong draw but wasn't prepared to call with a pair of deuces !
I had to survive an all-in with AK vs JT. He had limp-shoved my initial raise from the BB (slightly odd play that one) and with my lead restored, I once again built up to a 3.5:1 advantage before getting him to call all-in with Q9 vs 77.
50/50 for the win (or else, back to square one again !) and this time my pair held.
Job done, finally !
I'm hopeful I can tick off the other two this year as well. Starting tonight at the club for the £50 freezeout again.
- win an MTT at The International
- cash in a WSOP, GUKPT, EPT, etc event **
- win the $20k rebuy comp on gutshot.com (Cake)
** or at least make Day2
In each case, I have been close several times.
In live MTTs at The International I have been runner up, and had other deep runs including 3 final tables in successive weeks.
In the case of the large-field live events, I couldn't say I have been right on the bubble, but I have been late on day1 several times.
In the case of the $20k ($30 rebuy NLH) on Cake, that is on every day at 8pm and I have played it many times. It is a really soft field and I regularly cash in it with a bunch of final tables already. Best place previously =2nd.
Well, last night I finally won the $20k. $4,240 for first place.
I didn't start too well - I hardly won any chips in the rebuy period (had 3,128 when I could have had 3,000 just by buying in and adding on at the break). After adding on I still had a usable stack (5,628 at the 75/150 level) but I frittered away 1/3rd of these before making a slow climb.
I doubled up with AA vs AK at the 125/250/25 level to stand on 17k and with another nice situation (KK vs AK at the 300/600/50) I advanced to 40k. Just playing very solid, tbh.
KK again - vs 52 at the 800/1600/150 level: I raise to 3,599 from the cut-off and the BB calls. The flop is T-5-T. He checks to me and I bet 6,899 into 9,198. He instantly shoves for a total of 35k. Easy call. Up to 80k now and cruising.
I start to open up a bit and am also winning vs short stacks: eg AJ vs JT.
I also pick up some nice pots in position: the SB raises me and I call with K4s on the Big Blind. Flop AK5 (two hearts). He bets, I call. He bets the pot on the turn (a 4); I call. We both check the river which is a Jack. He shows T-5. I should perhaps raise the turn but I don't want to play all-in here and I pick up a 78k pot as it is.
On 140k now and among the top few places.
I am now sat on the immediate right of "patrice1", an unbelievably aggressive player who is in every pot and winning most of them. He is incredibly loose in raising, and calling, and seems impossible to kill. I am not in the best spot position-wise.
I lose a chunk with A3 vs AT. In this pot, I feel my Ace is good and call a shove when the flush hits the river (I am confident the player does not have a flush, which he didn't. He had hit two-pair, however, and I wish I had shoved first on the river to give him the decision). Back to 80k.
I 4-bet all-in vs "patrice1" who calls with Q9 (!!) vs my pair. I hold. Back to 160k. I shove again with AK against him but he finds a fold (he must have had utter filth !)
I picked up another nice pot from the BB vs the same nutter: He makes it 12,600 from UTG (1,500/3,000/300) and I call with Kh9h. This is a call for value here!
Flop: 8-J-J (pretty good flop). Check-check. Tun is a 9. I check-call 14,400. I think I am winning but I want to keep the pot somewhat small out of position to a madman. River: Ace. Not delighted with this card as he can easily have had a random Ace to start.
I feel I have a solid bluff-catcher vs this player and when I check he bets 28,800 - about half his stack. I could check-raise for value I suppose but I call and he shows Q3 (suited).
I evenually knock this player out when I push from the SB with Q7. He only has 8bb and I feel he will call with any hand. My hand is 50% vs random cards and with all the dead money (blinds, antes) it is worth it when I have him outchipped 8-1. He calls with A2 and I make a Queen and a straight !
Now I am in a decent chip-lead with 6left. I keep the pressure up with a lot of small raises and continuation bets and a selection of 3-bets, 4-bets and re-raises based on the situations (and occasionally on good cards !)
I show few hands and am getting quite a few walks in the Big blind. It feels like they don't want to take me on. On the other hand, the 2nd-in-chips player (goliath31) unaccountably seems to pay me off with 2nd best hands in position when I bet 3 streets for value. His passive play cost him huge amounts of chips: he can raise me off these hands easily. Folding would be his 2nd-best play. Calling down is the worst of all options.
At 3-handed, I have more chips than the other two combined and I still have a 4/3 advantage when we start the heads-up.
goliath continued to play pretty passively and I felt it was a matter of time before I would overcome him. However, we were playing deep-stacked now with 850,000 chips in play at the 3,000/6,000/600 level. I did not want to get all-in too quickly when I felt I had an advantage just grinding away.
I had secured a > 3-1 lead when I 4-bet with 99 and faced a call all in from AQ. By the turn, he had a flush draw and a gutshot to go with his 2 overcards, so it wasn't too surprising that he found a winner on the river.
Back to square one ! A long heads-up dragged on.
I actually lost the lead for a short time after getting pretty deep in a hand with 5-2 and flopping a pair and an open-ender. I gave up to a shove on the turn where I had raised his lead bet; I put him on a strong draw but wasn't prepared to call with a pair of deuces !
I had to survive an all-in with AK vs JT. He had limp-shoved my initial raise from the BB (slightly odd play that one) and with my lead restored, I once again built up to a 3.5:1 advantage before getting him to call all-in with Q9 vs 77.
50/50 for the win (or else, back to square one again !) and this time my pair held.
Job done, finally !
I'm hopeful I can tick off the other two this year as well. Starting tonight at the club for the £50 freezeout again.
Wednesday 3 June 2009
A – Z of Poker: London to Vegas in 26 Letters
It’s 26 days till I will sit down to play in this year’s WSOP (Event #54) so there is just time to get in a series of blogs containing the wisdom (or lack of it) that I have amassed about this game that we love, hate, or love to hate.
Day 1: A is for ...
A is for Alcohol. It is often said that Alcohol and Poker don’t mix. This is false. I am able to mix the two very easily, and for long periods. I have tested their miscibility to destruction. Bankroll destruction, that is. The things I will do for the scientific method...
A particularly thorough experiment took place at The Venetian last July. The peer-reviewed results are here.
What is true is that Alcohol and Winning Poker are hard to combine. Maybe that’s what they meant?
A is for All-In. Yes indeed. Sooner or later (in tournaments anyway) it comes to this. I certainly prefer to be the one shoving, and not the one making the all-in call. As a general rule, I think it's somewhat accepted that it's better to get your chips in first although I possibly take that nugget of advice to extremes.
Before a big tournament, I will actually practice my all-ins. I'm not joking !
I mentally (and occasionally out loud !) imagine the scenario has arrived and I am saying:
"All in" or
"I'm all in" or
"I'm ALL in" or
"I put you all in" or
"OK, I'll go all in" or
" " (silently pushes chips over the line) or
" " (silently waves hands indicating the shove)
What possible purpose can this serve ? None, really. I guess I can make a tenuous argument that visualisation is a useful approach in tournament poker. Really it's just evidence of my degenerate love of poker !
Day 1: A is for ...
A is for Alcohol. It is often said that Alcohol and Poker don’t mix. This is false. I am able to mix the two very easily, and for long periods. I have tested their miscibility to destruction. Bankroll destruction, that is. The things I will do for the scientific method...
A particularly thorough experiment took place at The Venetian last July. The peer-reviewed results are here.
What is true is that Alcohol and Winning Poker are hard to combine. Maybe that’s what they meant?
A is for All-In. Yes indeed. Sooner or later (in tournaments anyway) it comes to this. I certainly prefer to be the one shoving, and not the one making the all-in call. As a general rule, I think it's somewhat accepted that it's better to get your chips in first although I possibly take that nugget of advice to extremes.
Before a big tournament, I will actually practice my all-ins. I'm not joking !
I mentally (and occasionally out loud !) imagine the scenario has arrived and I am saying:
"All in" or
"I'm all in" or
"I'm ALL in" or
"I put you all in" or
"OK, I'll go all in" or
" " (silently pushes chips over the line) or
" " (silently waves hands indicating the shove)
What possible purpose can this serve ? None, really. I guess I can make a tenuous argument that visualisation is a useful approach in tournament poker. Really it's just evidence of my degenerate love of poker !
Suicide Kings
Down at the International Club on 28th May.
News of my Main Event qualification had reached a lot of players there, so I received plenty of congratulations. That was certainly a big win, but I am still in search of a first MTT win at the club, and I really want to be able to tick off that achievement.
I'm not saying that I'd rather win here than cash in the WSOP, but it's a big hole in my poker CV.
I had a good feeling that this was my night. A positive attitude in the game really helps, and my early form in the tournament backed up my good vibes.
First hand, I tried out the check-raise bluff on the flop and got this through. For once I had started in an upwards direction !
Soon after, I raised with 99 and saw a flop 4-way. One player check-called me on the T-4-4 flop. We checked the six on the turn. The river brought a 9. George-the-Cake called a decent size bet on the river and I added a chunk to my stack.
Now a real stroke of fortune. Steve Z raised the 100/200 blinds to 500 from UTG. Next to speak, I raise to 1,400 with AK. A mid-position player now makes it 3,700 with a bit less than that behind. Steve Z gets out of the way and I decide that (a) I have chips left if I lose (b) the player looks to me like he can raise there without AA or KK and (c) it's my night.
I set him in, and of course he insta-calls with Kings. Steve Z apparently folded AK as well so there are only 2 Aces left. No Ace comes, but the board runs out a completely sick 8-9-T-J-Q so that I river broadway and march into the chip lead.
It doesn't all go my way: I call down a hand with JJ facing AA, and then choose the wrong time to bluff Doug Henshaw. However, I get all those chips (and more) back when I limp and call a raise with KQo. Wilson has also called on the button.
The flop is KT8 all diamonds. I have TP2K and the Queen high flush draw. I check to the raiser who thinks, then pushes for 1.5x the pot.
I give it some thought, but can't really pass (especially as I have him covered). He's winning with KT -- I am a bit shocked at his pre-flop raise tbh. As it was my night, the flush came straight away. Wilson meanwhile had failed to raise preflop with QQ (and missed a chance to knock us both out there and then).
I now move tables and immediately get into a hand with Gary the dealer. As I get dealt in, I am first to act from EP with Jacks. I give a bit of chat to Gary on the BB - in principle I am trying to sell my hand as weaker than it is when I make a raise to 1,700 (300/600).
Gary reciprocates and implies he is raising with air as he makes it 5,700. Gary in fact has pocket 9s. I insta-shove and now Gary tries to get a read off me. I don't know whether he does or not, but he presumably decides insta-shove=AK and makes the call.
A Jack is the first card out and although he picks up a gutshot on the turn, my Jacks hold and I have > 50k.
Soon after, Sam Grafton pushes for 7,200 from his button into my big blind. I am about to pass 33 (I am not a fan of calling with the very small pairs) when Sam says something that makes me change my mind. Not a read, as such, because pockets 3s are hardly crushing any hand.
However, Sam shows pocket 2s! Further confirmation that tonight's the night.
Another table move, and I take out another player. Doug Henshaw pushes with KQ and I snap with Aces. Poor Doug had lost the previous hand with the exact same matchup (vs another player).
I now had > 80k chips, the chip lead and about 3x the average chips with only 2 tables left. I could see victory awaiting me.
So, it was a shock to me that 15minutes later and in about 14th place I suddenly went to the rail in one hand.
I had 78k at the start of the hand and was covered by one player. We're playing 7 handed when I open for 6,000 (blinds 1,000/2,000) from 2 off the button (AQo).
Wilson (who has me slightly outchipped) makes a flamboyant raise to 25,000 from the button.
For some reason, at the time, I felt he was making a bit of a move. In hindsight, why would he do that against a raise from the other big stack ?.
In the heat of the moment, I pretty much insta-shoved. His call came pretty quickly with pocket Kings.
The flop came King-high which sealed matter. I was in a bit of a daze. From "out-in-front" to simply "out" in one rash move.
In discussions afterwards, there was consensus that I should simply and easily fold the AQ to the raise. Once key difference in view, though, was the reasons why I should fold.
In my hindsight analysis, I gave quite a lot of weight to the notion that I do not want to lock horns with the chip leader - the one player who can knock me out. Most of the other players felt that ranges and ICM considerations dictated the fold but were not concerned about "tournament life" as such.
Whatever the right reasons, I am gutted that I blew my chance to cruise onto the final table and perhaps secure that 1st win.
News of my Main Event qualification had reached a lot of players there, so I received plenty of congratulations. That was certainly a big win, but I am still in search of a first MTT win at the club, and I really want to be able to tick off that achievement.
I'm not saying that I'd rather win here than cash in the WSOP, but it's a big hole in my poker CV.
I had a good feeling that this was my night. A positive attitude in the game really helps, and my early form in the tournament backed up my good vibes.
First hand, I tried out the check-raise bluff on the flop and got this through. For once I had started in an upwards direction !
Soon after, I raised with 99 and saw a flop 4-way. One player check-called me on the T-4-4 flop. We checked the six on the turn. The river brought a 9. George-the-Cake called a decent size bet on the river and I added a chunk to my stack.
Now a real stroke of fortune. Steve Z raised the 100/200 blinds to 500 from UTG. Next to speak, I raise to 1,400 with AK. A mid-position player now makes it 3,700 with a bit less than that behind. Steve Z gets out of the way and I decide that (a) I have chips left if I lose (b) the player looks to me like he can raise there without AA or KK and (c) it's my night.
I set him in, and of course he insta-calls with Kings. Steve Z apparently folded AK as well so there are only 2 Aces left. No Ace comes, but the board runs out a completely sick 8-9-T-J-Q so that I river broadway and march into the chip lead.
It doesn't all go my way: I call down a hand with JJ facing AA, and then choose the wrong time to bluff Doug Henshaw. However, I get all those chips (and more) back when I limp and call a raise with KQo. Wilson has also called on the button.
The flop is KT8 all diamonds. I have TP2K and the Queen high flush draw. I check to the raiser who thinks, then pushes for 1.5x the pot.
I give it some thought, but can't really pass (especially as I have him covered). He's winning with KT -- I am a bit shocked at his pre-flop raise tbh. As it was my night, the flush came straight away. Wilson meanwhile had failed to raise preflop with QQ (and missed a chance to knock us both out there and then).
I now move tables and immediately get into a hand with Gary the dealer. As I get dealt in, I am first to act from EP with Jacks. I give a bit of chat to Gary on the BB - in principle I am trying to sell my hand as weaker than it is when I make a raise to 1,700 (300/600).
Gary reciprocates and implies he is raising with air as he makes it 5,700. Gary in fact has pocket 9s. I insta-shove and now Gary tries to get a read off me. I don't know whether he does or not, but he presumably decides insta-shove=AK and makes the call.
A Jack is the first card out and although he picks up a gutshot on the turn, my Jacks hold and I have > 50k.
Soon after, Sam Grafton pushes for 7,200 from his button into my big blind. I am about to pass 33 (I am not a fan of calling with the very small pairs) when Sam says something that makes me change my mind. Not a read, as such, because pockets 3s are hardly crushing any hand.
However, Sam shows pocket 2s! Further confirmation that tonight's the night.
Another table move, and I take out another player. Doug Henshaw pushes with KQ and I snap with Aces. Poor Doug had lost the previous hand with the exact same matchup (vs another player).
I now had > 80k chips, the chip lead and about 3x the average chips with only 2 tables left. I could see victory awaiting me.
So, it was a shock to me that 15minutes later and in about 14th place I suddenly went to the rail in one hand.
I had 78k at the start of the hand and was covered by one player. We're playing 7 handed when I open for 6,000 (blinds 1,000/2,000) from 2 off the button (AQo).
Wilson (who has me slightly outchipped) makes a flamboyant raise to 25,000 from the button.
For some reason, at the time, I felt he was making a bit of a move. In hindsight, why would he do that against a raise from the other big stack ?.
In the heat of the moment, I pretty much insta-shoved. His call came pretty quickly with pocket Kings.
The flop came King-high which sealed matter. I was in a bit of a daze. From "out-in-front" to simply "out" in one rash move.
In discussions afterwards, there was consensus that I should simply and easily fold the AQ to the raise. Once key difference in view, though, was the reasons why I should fold.
In my hindsight analysis, I gave quite a lot of weight to the notion that I do not want to lock horns with the chip leader - the one player who can knock me out. Most of the other players felt that ranges and ICM considerations dictated the fold but were not concerned about "tournament life" as such.
Whatever the right reasons, I am gutted that I blew my chance to cruise onto the final table and perhaps secure that 1st win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)