HammerBlog

« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 »

June 28, 2006

THRSONE

Or, The Hammer Reigns Supreme Over Nearly Everyone ...

The tournament was brutal. I kept making do with junk all night - the highest pair I had was pocket jacks. After that, I caught a pair of 10s which ran into queens and rivered a straight to win. I caught a pair of 9s that resulted in this doozy:

$5 + $0.50 Tournament (4828390), Table 7 - 25/50 - No Limit Hold'em - 4:27:44 ET - 2006/06/28
Seat 1: puckett101 (3,285)
Seat 2: Tripten (2,165)
Seat 3: mcmoney28 (855)
Seat 4: NiceUnderground (3,665)
Seat 5: _Skyody_ (3,320)
Seat 6: Swinganamiss (2,335)
Seat 7: TheHappyBurrito (1,285)
Seat 8: 72master (1,985)
Seat 9: billyHo10281 (1,155)
TheHappyBurrito posts the small blind of 25
72master posts the big blind of 50
The button is in seat #5
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to puckett101 [9c 9s]
billyHo10281 folds
puckett101 raises to 300
Tripten folds
mcmoney28 raises to 855, and is all in
NiceUnderground folds
_Skyody_ folds
TheHappyBurrito folds
72master folds
puckett101 calls 555
mcmoney28 shows [9h 9d]
puckett101 shows [9c 9s]
*** FLOP *** [5c Ac 3h]
*** TURN *** [5c Ac 3h] [Tc]
*** RIVER *** [5c Ac 3h Tc] [Qc]
mcmoney28 shows a pair of Nines
puckett101 shows a flush, Ace high
puckett101 wins the pot (1,785) with a flush, Ace high

Yes. It really happened. And wow.

As tons of people keep saying, "That's poker."

But here's the amazing thing about the tourney (besides me reversing a recent string of bad luck, final tabling and finishing 6th for a nice cash payout when my pocket fives ran into Ac-Jd and the board came up Kd-4s-8h-Kh and, purely for the hell of it, 8d at the river to make two pair with top kicker against Our Hero) - The Hammer was utterly dominant. It was more dominant than A-J, a hand that took out at least two people (myself included). The Hammer induced folds, gave the big blinds walks and resulted in this little beauty here:

$5 + $0.50 Tournament (4828390), Table 3 - 800/1600 Ante 200 - No Limit Hold'em - 7:05:31 ET - 2006/06/28
Seat 2: IZZY412 (18,448)
Seat 3: BiggES77 (49,220)
Seat 5: preacher76 (39,580)
Seat 6: puckett101 (17,615)
Seat 7: PostModernBoy (21,266)
Seat 8: LaParka (47,371)
IZZY412 antes 200
BiggES77 antes 200
preacher76 antes 200
puckett101 antes 200
PostModernBoy antes 200
LaParka antes 200
PostModernBoy posts the small blind of 800
LaParka posts the big blind of 1,600
The button is in seat #6
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to puckett101 [6c 3h]
IZZY412 folds
BiggES77 calls 1,600
preacher76 folds
puckett101 folds
PostModernBoy calls 800
LaParka checks
*** FLOP *** [8d 6d 4d]
PostModernBoy checks
LaParka checks
BiggES77 checks
*** TURN *** [8d 6d 4d] [4s]
PostModernBoy bets 3,200
LaParka calls 3,200
BiggES77 folds
*** RIVER *** [8d 6d 4d 4s] [5h]
PostModernBoy checks
LaParka checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
PostModernBoy shows [2d Ac] (a pair of Fours)
LaParka shows [7d 2h] (a straight, Eight high)
LaParka wins the pot (12,400) with a straight, Eight high

Players pushed all-in with it pre-flop and showed after they folded - for a while, it felt like a WWDN tourney. It was utterly beautiful.

One hand in particular got me thinking though. We all know about outs, but what about the opposite of outs? I'm thinking of this, not to get all meta on you here, as poker's equivalent of dark matter - the cards that can hit that are utterly meaningless to either player and yet decide the contest. Here's the hand that got me thinking:

$5 + $0.50 Tournament (4828390), Table 15 - 40/80 - No Limit Hold'em - 4:45:13 ET - 2006/06/28
Seat 1: puckett101 (6,575)
Seat 3: crazi_ivan (3,570)
Seat 4: Dwill13 (1,870)
Seat 5: veritaslost (5,935)
Seat 6: pod300 (1,515)
Seat 7: francys (4,325)
Seat 8: PostModernBoy (3,875)
Seat 9: BBC111 (4,635)
BBC111 posts the small blind of 40
puckett101 posts the big blind of 80
The button is in seat #8
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to puckett101 [Ah Qh]
crazi_ivan calls 80
Dwill13 folds
veritaslost folds
pod300 calls 80
francys calls 80
PostModernBoy calls 80
BBC111 calls 40
puckett101 raises to 480
crazi_ivan calls 400
pod300 calls 400
francys calls 400
PostModernBoy folds
BBC111 folds
*** FLOP *** [7c 5c 4c]
puckett101 bets 2,080
crazi_ivan folds
pod300 calls 1,035, and is all in
francys folds
puckett101 shows [Ah Qh]
pod300 shows [Ac 8h]
Uncalled bet of 1,045 returned to puckett101
*** TURN *** [7c 5c 4c] [2d]
*** RIVER *** [7c 5c 4c 2d] [9h]
puckett101 shows Ace Queen high
pod300 shows Ace Nine high
puckett101 wins the pot (4,150) with Ace Queen high

I'm chip leader, I bet big before the flop because I'm tired of limpers. Amazingly, three people called a 6x blind bet pre-flop with blinds of $40/$80. I was stunned. The flop was bloody ugly - all clubs and low cards, me with nothing. So what do you do as a chip leader with a possible flush on the board and nothing but two overs? That's right! BET THE POT! It should be a game show, like Press Your Luck - have little poker whammies dancing around - we could call them suckies for suck outs.

At any rate, I had one caller - Ac-8h. Nut flush draw. Gutshot straight draw. Any 6, 8 or club makes their hand. Crap. 15 outs. That's 54% to make the hand before the turn. 35% after the turn.

As I was sitting there hoping for blanks, it occurred to me that:

1. 18 cards had bean dealt, all but four of which had been discarded.
2. Three cards had been dealt on the flop with one burned.

That means 30 cards remained in the deck with 15 possible outs (and people grousing about how the 9 they threw away woulda won the pot, dammit!). What about my outs? Any card that isn't a club, 8 or 6. I don't need a queen or an ace - I just need blanks ... poker dark matter, if you will. I need the absence of meaningful cards, the absence of poker stuff, if that makes sense.

So are those also outs? Or are they something different? And do we count / consider those in the same way? We certainly don't seem to consider them unless we're watching tournament poker and someone is praying for their tournament life that only blanks hit the board, but - when we're counting outs - maybe we also need to start thinking of the inverse of outs - not cards that will make our hand, but cards that will nullify or negate the impact of our opponent's hand.

Posted by puckett at 12:41 PM | Comments (0)

June 23, 2006

Some questions ...

I found there at Iakaris' blog and they supposedly came from TripJax's blog. They seemed interesting, so here's a stab at answering them.

1. What is the biggest mistake people make at a NL table?
People rely on all-ins "as seen on TV!" far too much. They overlook how to bet properly and sensibly and fail to craft a credible story about their hand in doing so. In the long run, that failure costs them money because they don't get called on their good hands and get called on their bad ones. That sort of recklessness can also push them out of tournaments quickly if they make that play at the wrong time. I will always remember the time I caught pocket aces and someone ahead of me - who had been stealing blinds all night - went all-in and I called (remember, it ain't bluffing if you call). They turned over off-suit rags and got annoyed when I told them to get their hands out of the cookie jar (my exact words). Sure enough, only a few hands later, they went all-in again and I had pocket aces AGAIN but this time, having doubled up off them already, I now had them completely covered. That ended their tournament. A more sensible bet might have spared them for a few more hands.

2. What is the biggest mistake people make at a Limit table?
Fixed or Pot? In fixed, I suspect people have a tendency to call it to showdown since the stack consequences are smaller. In pot limit, I suspect it would be a tendency to consistently bet the pot to price people out.

3. Why do you play poker?
Relaxation, a social activity and a mental exercise. I've been playing poker since I was a kid - it was mostly five-card draw and seven-card stud then, but I've played in Vegas for fun and to pay for trips there, I've decimated office games (I used to work with a poor bastard who was such a fish that - even playing limit at .05 minimums and .25 maximums - I would routinely take $20-$30 off him in one night. One lost hand put him on perma-tilt and he wouldn't stop - he just bet harder ... I trash-talked him mercilessly. After about three weeks of taking everyone's money, I was banned from the game - it didn't bug me much - my back was starting to hurt from all the change I had to carry home every Friday) and a friend of mine and I used to play no-look poker on overnights at the radio station. It used to be one of the few ways I could interact with my dad without fighting. It's always been a way for friends of mine and I to get together, have a couple of beers and talk trash to each other for three or four hours while taking each other's money (read: I take their money).

4. If you weren't playing poker, what would you be doing?
The same things I do when I'm not playing poker.

5. What is your favorite poker book and why?
Phil Gordon's "Little Green Book." Clear, concise ... it is a deceptively simple book which explains complex ideas in ways that are easy to understand. It's a masterpiece of writing about poker, even if some of the concepts aren't quite as advanced as something Sklansky puts out.

6. Who is your favorite poker player and why?
Depends on the day and which aspect of the game. I like watching Phil Laak for entertainment, Daniel Negreanu for his joy at the table, Annie Duke is amazing to watch because of how skillfully she applies her psychology background to manipulate a table, I love watching Chris Ferguson for his methodical approach (I want to know how he almost NEVER makes a bad decision at the poker table), Phil Gordon for his ability to explain the game, Mike Matusow for good-natured trash talk (as opposed to, say, Tony G.), Lance Funston for pure comedy (I literally cried while watching some of the hands he was in - Norman Chad's running commentary about his play should be burned to CD and sold in the comedy section of record stores), Barry Greenstein and everyone else who gives part or all of their tournament winnings to charity, John Juanda for his short-stack play and incredibly calm demeanor ... the list could go on infinitely.

7. Which poker player do you dislike the most and why?
Tony G. Pure and simple. His outbursts and insults are uncalled for and inappropriate. Matusow toes the line. Tony G. goes so far over it that I doubt he can remember where it was.

8. Do your coworkers know about your blog?
Not this one.

9. What is the most you have won in a cash game or MTT (both live and online)?
Single hand in a cash game? Maybe $20-$30. I still play low limits. MTT? Around $100 or so.

10. What is the most you have lost in a cash game or in one day total (both live and online)?
Cash game - I had a bad run the other day and lost around $12 for the day, but made up the loss with SNG / tournament play.

11. Who was your first poker blog read?
Wil Wheaton.

12. What satisfies you more, your aces holding up for a big pot or a bluff working for a big pot?
The bluff, especially with 7-2 off-suit, the reason this blog exists. Any idiot can win with aces. It takes a special kind of idiot to win with 7-2 off-suit.

13. Why do you blog?
It helps me understand my game better, learn from my mistakes and get insight from others to help improve as a player. If I can explain or teach a concept to someone, I usually understand it fairly well.

14. Do you read blogs from an RSS reader like bloglines or do you visit each blog?
I visit them.

15. Would you rather play poker for a living than do what you currently do for a living?
I'm perfectly happy with poker remaining a pastime.

16. Do you wear a tin foil hat on occasion?
No.

17. If you had to pin it down to one specific trait, what does a great poker player have (or do) that separates them from an average player?
The constant ability / desire to learn and improve their game, regardless of where the learning or improvement comes from.

18. Is Drizz the coolest person on the planet for naming his baby Vegas?
Beats me. No opinion.

19. What is your primary poker goal and are you close to accomplishing it?
I probably should set some goals, huh?

20. What is your primary online site and why?
Lately, Full Tilt. The interface is awesome and the custom tabs are great - no more scrolling through $200 heads up SNGs to get to the ones that are appropriate for my bankroll. I aso really like the last hand feature because it shows screenshots of up to 50 previous hands. In addition, the players seem to be a little better - I'm not playing poker to earn money - I'm playing it to improve as a player. Playing calling stations and fish may be good for my bankroll, but I'd rather improve than cash out.

21. What site do you dislike and why?
I've only played on two. I really don't dislike either.

Posted by puckett at 02:47 PM | Comments (0)

Purely for the record ...

Gabe Kaplan may well be the single worst poker announcer ever. His announcing is about as skillful as Colin Quinn's poker playing. It's as if he has never held a deck of cards ... I stopped watching the heads up poker showdown simply because:

1. I can't handle his voice.
2. Whereas some poker commentators try to explain what a player might be thinking while deciding what to do with a hand (see: Lederer, Howard and Gordon, Phil), Kaplan usually states the blindingly obvious ("He's got a pocket pair!") and then states the exact opposite of what the player subsequently does (i.e. "He's gonna have to lay this one down!" [Player goes all-in] "Or maybe not!").
3. His calls are invariably wrong (see above). Gabe, you're a lousy commentator, but you're invited to any home game I ever hold. Bring money. Lots of it.

I swear, it seems like he has never even played the game - not a single variant of it. I've read some folks who get irritated by Vince Van Patten breathlessly exclaiming that so-and-so is looking down at a wired pair of 8s! In my opinion, Vince and Mike actually make a good announcing team, but Kaplan? Total car wreck. You could team him with Phil Gordon AND Howard Lederer and he would still be so awful that he might actually decrease their ability to offer insightful commentary on the play, sort of like the way that Chernobyl's meltdown had effects on surrounding areas.

On the other hand, it might be funny to watch that - I can't imagine that either one of them would put up with Kaplan's constant stream of incorrect calls and bumbling asides that have nothing to do with the play.

Welcome back, Kotter. Please go away again. Now.

Posted by puckett at 02:04 PM | Comments (0)

The last few days ...

1) Why do I bother with freerolls? Full Tilt Poker was doing a freeroll satellite to a Red Rock tournament and I figured I might as well - it's free, right? I started off well - I picked up 5-6s on the first hand and folded it when three people went all-in. The flop was 7-8-9 rainbow and I almost cried. Running the Pokerstove sim later, I realized I was actually the pre-flop favorite because of the multi-way pot - I was 32% to win or something silly like that. After the flop, I was about 99%. The second hand took some of the sting out when I caught pocket queens. I made a sensible bet which was automatically re-raised by three people to all-in. One of them had 9-7s - that, honestly, was the only hand that worried me. The other two players were both holding A-K, dramatically reducing the odds that they'd catch a pair. By the river, I was holding a full house. Things went to hell when I caught pocket aces UTG and bet 3.5x. In a freeroll, that's like saying you want to play badminton. I had one caller in UTG+1 and then UTG+2 announced they were tired and went all-in. No callers, I raised all-in and UTG+1 folded. UTG+2 showed 7-6o. So far, so good, and so it was until the river when they were holding a full house and I was holding a portion of my anatomy. Phil Gordon was once asked about the circumstances under which he would fold pocket aces and he said never. I would like to respectfully ask Phil whether he considered freerolls and low buy-in tourneys before he answered. Honestly, we all know I would have called anyway. I had aces! Whatever he had could NOT be better than aces before the flop. Luckily, I had him covered. Next hand, I caught Q-9h and two all-ins in front of me, one of them the person who caught the boat. By this point, I'm thinking that it's a queen and a 9, they're soooted and that's probably good enough to crack whatever else anyone is holding and I was right - the boater had off-suit gapped junk like 8-2 or something. The other caller had pocket 3s. Naturally, the only thing helpful to hit the board was a 3 at the river to add insult to injury. With $70 left, I pushed all-in with off-suit gapped crap which included a 9 - and that will become important later - because the blinds were $50 and it seems like any idiot can rub any two cards together to make fire. Naturally, I rivered a 9-high four-flush to win the main pot and prove my point. Back up to $375 and with blinds still at $50, I pushed in again to end my misery. Thankfully, the board brought tons of useful cards, all of which were higher than my 8-7o and none of which could be used with any runner-runner combination to help me win. I finished in 32nd place. Like I said before I wished everyone luck - playing in the first 10 minutes of a freeroll and placing 32nd ... isn't that like winning the main event?

2) Cash games. Heavens. I could move up in limit to the $.50/$1 tables, but I'm not sure the level of play would be any better there. A normal 3-4x blind bet is simply insufficient to indicate strength at the $.05/$.10 tables which is what I normally play. Here's a perfect example which just happened to run in my favor tonight:

Table Sparkling (6 max) - $0.05/$0.10 - No Limit Hold'em - 4:14:07 ET - 2006/06/23
Seat 1: Holliday_PHD ($10.75)
Seat 3: Gabri29 ($10)
Seat 4: just_got_felted ($15.60)
Seat 5: puckett101 ($3.70)
Seat 6: potliqour666 ($1.50)
puckett101 posts the small blind of $0.05
potliqour666 posts the big blind of $0.10
Gabri29 posts $0.10
The button is in seat #4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to puckett101 [9s 8h]
Holliday_PHD raises to $0.20
Gabri29 calls $0.10
just_got_felted folds
puckett101 calls $0.15
potliqour666 calls $0.10
*** FLOP *** [9c 8s Js]
puckett101 bets $0.30
potliqour666 raises to $1.30, and is all in
Holliday_PHD calls $1.30
Gabri29 folds
puckett101 raises to $3.50, and is all in
Holliday_PHD calls $2.20
puckett101 shows [9s 8h]
potliqour666 shows [Ac 7s]
Holliday_PHD shows [Tc Kd]
*** TURN *** [9c 8s Js] [9h]
*** RIVER *** [9c 8s Js 9h] [5d]
puckett101 shows a full house, Nines full of Eights
Holliday_PHD shows a pair of Nines
puckett101 wins the side pot ($3.95) with a full house, Nines full of Eights
potliqour666 shows a pair of Nines
puckett101 wins the main pot ($4.25) with a full house, Nines full of Eights
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $9.10 Main pot $4.70. Side pot $4.40. | Rake $0.90
Board: [9c 8s Js 9h 5d]
Seat 1: Holliday_PHD showed [Tc Kd] and lost with a pair of Nines
Seat 3: Gabri29 folded on the Flop
Seat 4: just_got_felted (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: puckett101 (small blind) showed [9s 8h] and won ($8.20) with a full house, Nines full of Eights
Seat 6: potliqour666 (big blind) showed [Ac 7s] and lost with a pair of Nines

So let's review - Holliday, someone who showed himself to be a solid player later, raises 2x the blind with K-10o. That isn't a big enough bet to make me lay down 8-9o. Potliqour (spelling correct) calls with A-7o. The flop hits me like its name is Ike Turner and I bet 3x with two pair flopped. Dudebro raises all-in with NOTHING. Holliday called with an open-ended straight draw. At the time, I was concerned that he was holding one or both of the two cards that scared me - a queen and a 10. I was right on the first part, but he was waiting for a queen or 7 to make his straight. That was a very reasonable play on his part considering his stack size, dudebro's stack size and dudebro's loose play to that point (which had already cost me a stack because he was calling 10-12x bets with K-6c and bottom pair). Since he called and didn't raise into me, I pushed all-in. If he was on a draw, I wanted him to pay for it and I liked my chances with two pair. He though about it for a while and called. The turn brought another 9 and they were both drawing dead. Life was good, I did a mental Ewok victory dance and left the table not long after that. I took down a few more pots by betting 8-10x the blind as a standard bet to push marginal hands out - I left the table with something on the order of $.90 than I had when I sat down.

My conclusion? Screw ring games. They suck.

3) Thoughts on being the short-stack and pot commitment. Maybe it's just that I'm a guy, but in poker, I don't like being told I'm committed to anything. In a $5+.50 SNG last night, I was down to WAY less than two orbits. Blinds were $600/$1200 and I had around $2500. Instead of pushing in with any two, I waited for a pocket pair. In the meantime, mid-stacks were pushing in with marginal aces and drawing hands and getting knocked out. As Sklansky pointed out, sometimes it's better not to mix it up, no matter how badly short-stacked you are - you can move up in the pay ladder that way. Finally I caught a pocket pair and pushed in - when it held, I doubled up. I did that again and fought my way back to finish 3rd for a nice little payout that more than erased my losses from cash games for the day. In fact, I was up a few bucks. Let's hear it for me! At any rate, this whole concept of pot commitment is math ... I never have liked math, so let me offer this idea - let's say you're on a date and the restaurant was just horrible. After you've barely touched your food because it tastes so bad, the waiter comes up to you and tells you that the meal was going to cost half the money in your wallet and offers you an unknown dessert which will cost the rest of the money in your wallet. Would you believe you were meal committed and risk going broke for a rancid slice of apple pie, or would you hold onto the money and maybe take your date to a movie afterward to make up for the ghastly food? If you're being asked to call half your stack and don't have much in the way of hole cards or haven't hit anything, it may make sense in Sklansky's model to fold and pray that the next hand hits you or another opponent (if you're short-handed) and helps you move up the pay ladder. Just sayin'.

4) Pot odds. I've exchanged a few emails about this subject, particularly making it unprofitable for someone to call, lately and this hand came up:

$5 + $0.50 Sit & Go (4845020), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 2:30:27 ET - 2006/06/22
Seat 1: lonniej (1,330)
Seat 2: Em_Em420 (970)
Seat 3: FC Levski (2,885)
Seat 4: puckett101 (1,765)
Seat 5: bigchefdan (1,645)
Seat 6: spoony503 (1,410), is sitting out
Seat 7: Major magoo (1,320)
Seat 8: DMercado (5,035)
Seat 9: puntertm (1,365)
FC Levski posts the small blind of 20
puckett101 posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to puckett101 [Td Th]
bigchefdan raises to 189
spoony503 folds
Major magoo raises to 338
DMercado folds
puntertm folds
lonniej folds
Em_Em420 folds
FC Levski folds
puckett101 raises to 1,765, and is all in
bigchefdan has 15 seconds left to act
bigchefdan folds
Major magoo folds
Uncalled bet of 1,427 returned to puckett101
puckett101 mucks
puckett101 wins the pot (885)
The blinds are now 25/50
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 885 | Rake 0
Seat 4: puckett101 (big blind) collected (885), mucked
Seat 5: bigchefdan folded before the Flop
Seat 7: Major magoo folded before the Flop

So let's think about what happened here. First of all, I was lucky enough to have a hand in the big blind, but what's REALLY going on? I don't claim to understand pot odds well and I'm working on that aspect of my game, but after some recent email discussions, I have been able to identify what people when they're trying to make it unprofitable to call and one tactic is making bets that are not standard multipliers. If it's 1.6 to 1, maybe they won't call! If it's 3.2 to 2.9, maybe I'll take the pot down! Sure. Maybe that's so. And maybe if you're playing like that, I'll do this again and take your bets that smell like bluffs and pot odds gerrymandering. These bets flat out stank - they reeked of trickery, indignity and odious behavior. They carried the aroma of theft. Pushing all-in forces a decision and, as Phil Gordon points out in the Little Green Book, poker is about making correct decisions. There are no more games at that point, considering I had both of them covered, even if it wasn't by much. Their decision was call or fold. There would be no more attempts to adjust pot odds in their favor. They both folded and I took down a nice pot without ever seeing a flop. The lesson here? If someone has guts, adjusting the amount of money in the pot to make pot odds more favorable to you won't help. If you have a significantly smaller stack than the other person, they're still likely to call. Poker is situational.

The other problem with this is that it told a confusing story - if the first raise had been, say, $140 (remember, $20/$40 blinds), I might have just flat called to see a flop, but the first raise wasn't 3.5x, it was something like 4.6x the big blind. The second raise didn't correct it - it may well have just been hitting the min raise button (which part of me doubts since that would have at least made the last digit a 9), but it was something on the order of 8.46x or some nonsense (I'm estimating multipliers here - if I'm wrong, I don't much care), not 3x the previous raise to indicate a significantly stronger hand - remember the Gap Concept here ... you have to have a better hand to call with than to raise with and if you're re-raising, that hand has to be a monster. These bets looked and smelled fishy; since I had a decent pocket pair, I forced an end to the game and forced a decision in the process. I don't claim to be an expert, but everything I've read indicate that you must tell a story, whether you have a hand, are bluffing or are semi-bluffing.

The story must portray strength if you're trying to force a fold or uncertainty if you're trying to extract money with the best hand. That's the point behind continuation and value bets - to force decisions. The more decisions someone has to make, the more likely they are to make a mistake. If you bet 3.5x or 4x before the flop and 5-10x after the flop, you're either saying the flop hit you or your hole cards are still strong. If you bet 3.5x or 4x before the flop and check or make a small feeler bet after the flop, you're either trying to find out where your opponent(s) is, trap someone, see if you can make your draw or stop the bleeding. Similar concepts apply at the turn and river - all of this combines to say "I have a strong hand" or "I'm not sure I have that much ... you should probably call me or re-raise me to find out ... muahahahaha." That story must be credible - you have to make your opponent BELIEVE they're beat before they call ... unless you want them to call. If that story gets confusing at any time, someone might push because they think you're bluffing and catch you with your pants down. Remember, this story needs to be direct and plausible - no trickery here. Think Stephen King's level of directness ... not David Foster Wallace and his penchant for writing what most people would call novels in his footnotes.

Here's a perfect example of a simple portrayal of strength, including a feeler bet:

$5 + $0.50 Sit & Go (4845020), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 2:28:41 ET - 2006/06/22
Seat 2: Em_Em420 (1,280)
Seat 4: puckett101 (1,455)
Em_Em420 posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #9
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to puckett101 [Jh Kc]
puckett101 raises to 140
Em_Em420 calls 100
*** FLOP *** [2h 2d 3h]
Em_Em420 has 15 seconds left to act
Em_Em420 bets 150
puckett101 raises to 1,315, and is all in
Em_Em420 folds
Uncalled bet of 1,165 returned to puckett101
puckett101 mucks
puckett101 wins the pot (600)

I had nothing but good hole cards before the flop. I bet 3.5x before the flop, representing strength. In position, I was able to re-raise that 3.75x blind bet to all-in - my opponent may have made a small pair (they obviously didn't have a deuce) but it wasn't a pair they felt strongly enough about to call an all-in. They found out where they were at in the hand relatively cheaply - where they were was having to make a decision about the rest of their chips. They felt it wasn't worth the call and they may have been right.

Here's another example from a cash game:

Table Brookdale (6 max) - $0.05/$0.10 - No Limit Hold'em - 22:31:34 ET - 2006/06/21
Seat 1: puckett101 ($4.45)
Seat 2: maxswell ($3.95)
Seat 3: The Card Reader ($4.90)
Seat 4: BurninThousands ($4.55)
Seat 5: kilgore3363 ($3.40)
Seat 6: mdmaxx1 ($4.60)
mdmaxx1 posts the small blind of $0.05
puckett101 posts the big blind of $0.10
The button is in seat #5
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to puckett101 [9c 8c]
maxswell folds
The Card Reader folds
BurninThousands folds
kilgore3363 folds
mdmaxx1 calls $0.05
puckett101 checks
*** FLOP *** [Tc Td 7s]
mdmaxx1 bets $0.10
puckett101 raises to $0.30
mdmaxx1 calls $0.20
*** TURN *** [Tc Td 7s] [As]
mdmaxx1 bets $0.10
puckett101 raises to $0.85
mdmaxx1 has 15 seconds left to act
mdmaxx1 calls $0.75
*** RIVER *** [Tc Td 7s As] [5s]
mdmaxx1 checks
puckett101 bets $2.25
mdmaxx1 has 15 seconds left to act
mdmaxx1 folds
Uncalled bet of $2.25 returned to puckett101
puckett101 mucks
puckett101 wins the pot ($2.25)

In cash games, I like to see flops cheaply - hell, I'll play almost any two cards in a ring game if I can just get to the flop. I seem to be a monster after the flop because it usually hits me hard when I'm holding rags and the strength of my hand is concealed - I limped in, what could I possibly have that's worth betting 8.5x the blind with 10-9-6 on the board? It's obviously not better than the A-9o that the person across the table has.

In the above example, it was pure post-flop aggression and betting to my opponent's vomit factor - you know, that level of betting where sphincters tighten and stomachs turn. I limped, re-raised after the flop, really re-raised him when an ace hit the board and bet 22.5x the blind - which was the size of the pot - at the river. He didn't feel his hand had improved and I took a nice pot with nothing more than a draw that didn't pan out after the flop.

The common factor here is that these bets tell a credible story - they all say, "You're beat, you know you're beat, I know that you know that you're beat, and you know that I know that. I'm going to take so much money out of you that you're going to feel like my personal ATM."

The other common factor? All of these bet series induced folds (which was a damn good thing because there was only one hand in them that I actually was comfortable with). They told credible stories that made people feel like they were cutting their losses and living to play another hand that they might win. They gave that hand up. That can't be estimated enough.

I think all this stuff is elementary, but given what I keep seeing in SNGs and ring games, it may not be.

Just some thoughts from an early morning when I finished up in cash games and couldn't find an SNG ready to go.

Posted by puckett at 09:45 AM | Comments (0)

June 22, 2006

More coverage of Washington's new gambling law

Ken's 'Schrammie' Award: Sen. Margarita Prentice
New Washington Online Poker Law Stretches Tentacles
Internet gaming ban is a rash move all in
There's a fairly active discussion on the Seattle Times website including some comments from the Washington State Gambling Commission.

Don't forget to sign the petition and join the Poker Players Alliance

Posted by terry at 04:42 PM | Comments (0)

June 20, 2006

Back in (the) black.

After all my muttering about bad beat lately, I need to shut up now because I came in 2nd in an SNG this morning and finished first in one tonight, more than erasing my losses yesterday.

Pocket kings held up and flopped sets against short-stacks who went all-in pre-flop with A-4o. I was able to make well-timed bets with draws on scary boards (my favorite tonight was a board of [8h Ks 6d] [Js] when I held 10-9s - a queen or 7 made a straight, Qs made a straight flush, any spade made a flush - it didn't matter that I didn't have a made hand - my hand had so many outs - and so many people had checked the flop and to me on the turn - that I HAD to bet the pot). My semi-bluffs worked and pushed people off stronger hands. In short, it was all zen tonight, baby.

One very interesting hand that prompted some discussion when it was over (I think in part because it was the hand that burst the bubble) was this one:

120/240 - No Limit Hold'em - 3:07:00 ET - 2006/06/20
Seat 4: mow grass (1,910)
Seat 6: welderles (3,295)
Seat 7: puckett101 (5,715)
Seat 8: dingo1414 (2,580)
mow grass posts the small blind of 120
welderles posts the big blind of 240
The button is in seat #8
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to puckett101 [Jd Qd]
puckett101 raises to 750
dingo1414 raises to 2,580, and is all in
mow grass folds
welderles folds
puckett101 has 15 seconds left to act
puckett101 calls 1,830
welderles is feeling confused
dingo1414 shows [Ts Tc]
puckett101 shows [Jd Qd]
*** FLOP *** [4h 2s 3d]
*** TURN *** [4h 2s 3d] [Qs]
*** RIVER *** [4h 2s 3d Qs] [2d]
dingo1414 shows two pair, Tens and Twos
puckett101 shows two pair, Queens and Twos
puckett101 wins the pot (5,520) with two pair, Queens and Twos

The person knocked out asked me why I called and I had actually debated calling. What it boiled down to, for me, was that the pot was a little over $3,600 and I was being asked to call $1,800 with J-Qd. That hand isn't a lock, but I'm getting 2-to-1 on my money - if I'm understanding pot odds correctly, that means the correct mathematical decision was to call and besides, I had them covered and then some. While it would have switched chip leaders, I still would have been in the game with sufficient chips to make plays. The person calling asked what I put them on - I think it's a leak in my game that I didn't put them on a hand exactly (i.e. I didn't think they had pocket queens or A-Jo or something else like it). I thought about the math, how they had been playing, what hands they had played before and how, how many chips I put into the pot and the possiblity that they were trying to take down the pot right then, adding over $1k to their stack in the process. I had also been running the table a bit, raising into blinds with a fair number of hands - not quite stealing, but not quite winning legitimately. I just priced them off their hands and, as we all know, that can lead to frustration and frustration leads to anger and anger leads to tilting and betting with crap. In short, I knew they had something but I also didn't figure it was that strong with so few people remaining in the game.

As it turned out, I won the hand - I suppose that means that, regardless of whether my math was right or wrong, my play was correct. In running the numbers afterward, my hand was a slight underdog before the flop, a bigger underdog after the flop and - oddly enough, a 95% favorite after the turn.

If you have any thoughts on it, I'd appreciate it.

Posted by puckett at 08:00 AM | Comments (0)

June 19, 2006

Bad beats galore.

After getting beat up on in some SNGs tonight when hands didn't hold up, I switched to a low limit ring game.

Jesus. I was better off in the SNGs.

I catch pocket 9s and know I'm going to flop a set. When the 9 hits on the flop, I'm not surprised, I just bet it, and hard. Luckily, the big stack has pocket queens and keeps calling straight to the river when I go all-in ... and another queen hit. Insert appropriate colorful language.

Or how about a flop of A-5-2s when I'm holding 6-7s against one opponent? My opponent raised all-in, I called and saw pocket nines. The turn comes and those pocket 9s turned into a four flush.

Insert creative use of English, Spanish, Italian and some gutter-punk Japanese I picked up some years back.

There were more, but the long and short of it is that I got my money in with the best hand and then ... here comes the suck out.

I think I finished down a bit for the night ... probably quite a bit down. Two blown SNGs (an $11+1 turbo, which I'll never do again), and a suck out in the $10+1 which knocked me out in 6th place, plus some gnarly suck outs in the ring games, and I'm happy to be close to my original deposit.

Perhaps the most annoying part is that one of the people persisted in saying nice hand when people were all-in before the flop or sucked out (i.e. "Oh, you caught a four-flush at the turn after making a donk play and going all-in with pocket 9s after the board flopped spades and you got called by someone with a made flush? Nice hand." or "Oh, you ran your A-Qo into pocket jacks pre-flop and you won the race? Nice hand. Very well-played."). Let me be clear about this:

There is nothing nice about sucking out. There is no skill in it. You did not outplay the other person. You dodged a bullet. Rivering a set of queens to beat a flopped set of 9s (and, in fairness, it's really hard to make people realize their top pair is beat, especially with a big pocket pair) is not a good play. It's dumb luck to catch a two-outer at the river to beat a made hand. A suck out is never a nice hand. You should be ashamed of them, not congratulating people. A suck out only occurs when a bad play is made, when someone makes an incorrect decision. Since poker is, in large part, decided by making correct decisions, celebrating the screw ups only encourages people to think they're playing well ...

Hey ... maybe I should start telling people who suck out on me in ring games nice hand more often ... maybe they'll play with crap more often and I'll realize a better EV down the road ...

In other words, feed the fish.

But it still sucks to know that I, even with my limited skills, was the best player at the table and my hands just didn't hold up. Such is life.

Posted by puckett at 09:07 AM | Comments (0)

June 18, 2006

Hold on, this will only take a second ...

Well, as part of me feared, I got knocked out of the blogger tournament pretty early in. I watched 10-20 hands of dead money chasing pots with 7-8h, 9-3o and even 7-2o (which called the big blind, called a bet or two on the way and rivered a backdoor flush to win) and when I found K-10 in my hand and Q-9 on the board and I had raised pre-flop, I continued betting. Well, someone to my right re-raised to twice my post-flop bet and, based on their play so far, I figured that they were bluffing since they hadn't raised before the flop with their hand, so I re-raised all-in. Sure enough, they called and turned over K-Q. The turn made a set of queens and the river made a full house. I'm not hugely unhappy with my play because a lot of players are sitting out and watching limpers call with any two cards no matter what you bet is a little frustrating so it simply wasn't fun and my odds of making the prizes were slim (top 1 or 2% get anything at all of a starting field of 2249).

[Does this sound like rationalization for failure? Perhaps. Maybe I wasn't motivated to play in this and let my frustration with the quality of play get the best of me. Maybe I subconsciously knocked myself out. I'll ponder that.]

Right now, I'm watching Matt play heads up at a table of nine because seven people are sitting out and have been since the tourney started. His pocket jacks just got cracked by someone who raised pre-flop with K-6o.

This tourney is great marketing and promotions for PokerStars, but the quality of play is abominable - I mean, who in their right mind with even the most basic knowledge of poker calls the big blind with 9-3 off-suit? It's like watching Colin Quinn on Celebrity Poker Showdown - any two hole cards will do. 9-3o is a betting hand, right? I mean, a 9 is a good card, it can only be beaten by an ace, a king, a queen, a jack or a 10 - what are the odds that any of my opponents are holding any of those?

Seriously. This may sound like sour grapes, but it isn't - my warmups for this, in which I focused on solid, tight, aggressive play, made me money. I spent yesterday reading Gordon and Sklansky and had a chat with Andy Bloch very early this morning in which he gave me a couple of good MTT strategy tips and those can only be good things. In other words, my preparation was worth more to me than anything in the prize pool.

And frankly, the hell with the prize pool - I would have had to make it to 50th to get something I wanted (a $215 buy-in) and then get knocked out by 41st to keep it and NOT get a bloody iPod (this is a poker blog, I'll keep my bitching about Apple's walled garden offline but seriously, buy Creative MP3 players - they cost less, play anything and don't lock you into iTunes). If I didn't, I'd have to make it to 20th to get another buy-in. I just wanted the experience.

And frankly, maybe some of it is sour grapes because this entire thing left a bad taste in my mouth. I just watched someone switch from sitting out for the entire tournament to going all-in pre-flop with A-10c in the pocket. Matt called him and flopped a set of 8s to knock him out, begging the question of whether river justice has a twin called flop justice because, given the circumstances, Matt deserved to win that one. It's just annoying because I'm watching bad players make bad moves and win because of it. I'm back to the knowledge that good players rarely suck out but frequently get sucked out on.

At any rate, I'm done griping. Dave, Matt and a couple of other HammerBlog readers and contributors are still in the thick of things - Matt's actually one of the chip leaders at the moment. If I don't get into a side game, I may post another update later on.

Posted by puckett at 09:10 PM | Comments (0)

Why playing dominated hands is a good thing.

You know you're having an utterly brutal evening at the table when even your opponents are commenting on how many bad beats you've taken and calling them brutal, but I can't complain too much.

In one of the early hands of the tournament, I put a beat so horrific on three other players, knocking them out, that it could easily be argued that I deserved it. Here it is:

$6 + $0.50 Sit & Go (Turbo), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 3:29:19 ET - 2006/06/18
Seat 1: Phat Crack Ho (1,455)
Seat 2: sfsamurai (1,455)
Seat 3: Snake Luck (1,470)
Seat 4: ariganello (1,410)
Seat 5: Timmster (1,065)
Seat 6: MALAMMUTE (2,265)
Seat 7: puckett101 (1,500)
Seat 8: Witch-king (1,500)
Seat 9: Menno-Homer (1,380)
Snake Luck posts the small blind of 15
ariganello posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to puckett101 [Ah Qd]
Timmster calls 30
MALAMMUTE folds
puckett101 raises to 150
Witch-king folds
Menno-Homer calls 150
Phat Crack Ho folds
sfsamurai folds
Snake Luck folds
ariganello raises to 1,410, and is all in
Timmster calls 1,035, and is all in
puckett101 raises to 1,500, and is all in
Menno-Homer calls 1,230, and is all in
puckett101 shows [Ah Qd]
Menno-Homer shows [9s 9d]
ariganello shows [Ad Kc]
Timmster shows [3s 3d]
Uncalled bet of 90 returned to puckett101
*** FLOP *** [Tc 5d 5s]
*** TURN *** [Tc 5d 5s] [2c]
*** RIVER *** [Tc 5d 5s 2c] [Qh]
puckett101 shows two pair, Queens and Fives
ariganello shows a pair of Fives
puckett101 wins side pot #2 (60) with two pair, Queens and Fives
Menno-Homer shows two pair, Nines and Fives
puckett101 wins side pot #1 (945) with two pair, Queens and Fives
Timmster shows two pair, Fives and Threes
puckett101 wins the main pot (4,275) with two pair, Queens and Fives
Timmster stands up
Menno-Homer stands up
ariganello stands up
The blinds are now 20/40
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 5,280 Main pot 4,275. Side pot 1 945. Side pot 2 60. | Rake 0
Board: [Tc 5d 5s 2c Qh]
Seat 1: Phat Crack Ho didn't bet (folded)
Seat 2: sfsamurai (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: Snake Luck (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 4: ariganello (big blind) showed [Ad Kc] and lost with a pair of Fives
Seat 5: Timmster showed [3s 3d] and lost with two pair, Fives and Threes
Seat 6: MALAMMUTE didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: puckett101 showed [Ah Qd] and won (5,280) with two pair, Queens and Fives
Seat 8: Witch-king didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: Menno-Homer showed [9s 9d] and lost with two pair, Nines and Fives

Yup. With A-Qo in early position, I raised before the flop and called TWO all-ins (I didn't know there would be one behind me) - pretty much knowing it was going to be ugly and I'd be facing a couple of things I didn't like - to go to showdown against two pocket pairs and a dominating hand. Naturally, I rivered a queen, knocked 3 people out of a single-table SNG, nearly quadrupled my stack and proceeded to blow half of it by running K-Jo into A-Ko with a king and an ace on the board against the short-stack.

Later in the game, after some ups and downs, I wake up in the big blind with pocket kings. UTG raises to $1,100 with $400 blinds and $800 blinds less than 1 minute away. I push all-in, recognizing that they have been betting big UTG for the entire match and I think they're stealing blinds - even if they aren't, I'm ready to rumble with my cowboys. UTG turns over pocket queens and I'm elated - until our dear UTG hits a set at the turn and I have enough left for one blind.

I hit J-10d in the small blind and pushed all-in. I really didn't have another choice. The big blind, the former Pocket Queen UTG sucker outer, called and turned over A-6o. I spiked a 10 on the flop and it held up through the river, letting me double up. I sat out one hand then found myself UTG with A-Qo and pushed all-in. Again, I had a caller, this time with pocket deuces. I spiked an ace on the flop, caught another at the turn and the hand was done. I was very much back in the game, having gone from $795 to $1,590 to $3,930 (second stack) in four hands. I started pushing hard then, all-in pre-flop for 3 of 4 hands to pick up blinds and built my stack to $4,930, the second or third - maybe fourth - time I had been chip leader in this SNG.

Then came a fateful hand. For the first time in a few days, I had pocket aces and I was in the big blind with $600 blinds. UTG+1 called, the small blind pushed all-in and I raised all-in. UTG+1 folded and the small blind turned over K-8d. The flop brough a king and two diamonds, the turn brought another ace and the river made a full house for me. Bingo - we're in the money.

This is about when I suggested a chop - I was still the chip leader and one person agreed. The other didn't and we kept playing.

This is where dominated hands turned into the nuts. That whole A-Qo bit early on? That was just a warm-up.

UTG, I raise to a little over 3.5x the big blind with K-Qo. The big blind pushes all-in and I call. BB turns over K-8o and spikes an 8 on the turn.

Short-stacked AGAIN and in the big blind with $45 left after the blind, I push A-6o into the powerhouse UTG hand of 6-7o. Naturally, UTG spikes a 7 at the flop and I'm done.

UTG was a sport about it though - having beaten me with a set at the turn that doubled them up and eventually knocking me out with a dominated hand, UTG pointed out that the beats I had taken were pretty brutal since the hands I was playing were actually worth playing. However, I also had to point out that only one of the bad beats I took put me out (the rest just decimated my stack) and since I was so short-stacked, UTG had to call regardless. The bad beat I laid down knocked three people out in one hand. UTG went on to win it all, and I was there to cheer them on.

Earlier tonight, I watched a WPT rerun in which Chris Ferguson went all-in pre-flop with pocket aces and got called by crap that turned into a straight at the river. While the hand was going on and his opponent was congratulating him on a good hand, Ferguson kept saying that he had beaten aces before and it wasn't over. Sure enough, at the end, everyone was stunned. Mike Sexton and Vince Van Patten were horrified at the beat Ferguson took, which knocked him out in ... 5th place, I think. And it was ugly. Ferguson played it right - it was just a suck out and that's part of poker, unfortunately. If we all knew we were going to win if we drew pocket aces, where would the fun be?

With all the talk about starting hand selection, bet strategies, etc., the SNGs I played tonight to warm up for Blogger Championship and watching the WPT tonight reminded me that poker is an unpredictable beast, that dominated hands may become dominating and you may drown in the river when you were sitting pretty at the flop.

I've been reading David Sklansky's book on tournament poker tonight and I realize that he is brilliant, clearly knows what he's talking about and offers sound advice for nearly every stage of an MTT or a single-table tournament, including suggestion for how to play if you're trying to win or merely trying to move up a notch on the pay ladder.

But with all that said, there are still probabilities at play and there are always as many sides to those probabilites as there are players in the game. While it is likely that pocket aces will hold up against any two random cards, we also know that they don't and that any two random cards can flop two pair, a set or a full house, or possibly a straight or a flush. These possibilities are unlikely, but they happen. In other words, you can do everything right and still come out on the wrong end.

Tonight, I'm finishing a little down from where I started, but feeling successful nonetheless. I keep finishing in the money in SNGs, and I'm up for the week, especially after my WWDN finish and finishing fairly well in a $5+.50 45-person SNG. More importantly, my play style has changed significantly and, thanks to some coaching from Matt especially, I'm able to mix it up a lot more in later stages of the game.

I'm not an expert by any means (and frankly, I'd love to donate $500 to help put a bad beat on cancer to get 30 minutes of Phil Gordon's time to get a massive crash course on pot odds, implied odds and all the other math because Sklansky just confuses me half the time) but I'm getting better, and could I really ask for more?

The hell with suck outs and brutal beats. I sucked out too and that suck out let me finish in the money (even though I doubt anything will ever beat that rivered hammer straight when I was all-in against K-Qh and caught runner-runner to win, allowing me to play tight-aggressive for the rest of the tournament with a reputation as a calling station which made everyone call or re-raise me with marginal hands).

All things considered, life is good. Brutal beats or not. It's hard to be mad when I still made money at it.

Posted by puckett at 08:55 AM | Comments (0)

Washington State & More

For some reason legislators at both the state and federal level think we need to be protected from online poker houses that are we're told run by organized criminals, money launderers and persons unknown who just want to steal our money. Our children need to be protected from online gambling as well as those who are 'adicted' to gambling.

While it is true that online poker houses are all based overseas and beyond the reach of US Law and the courts. It is not true to claim that they somehow offer a less wholesome gambling experience than brick and mortar casinos in the United States. Obviously the first factor regulating their conduct is reputation. The first time somebody can prove they were ripped off customers will depart in droves. Secondly the countries that host these online ventures take regulation very seriously, the largest two (Pokerstars and Party Gaming inc.) are based in Britain where regulation of gambling is excellent. Party Gaming Inc. is also publicy listed on the London Stock Exchange will all the responsibilities for proper reporting and conduct that that brings.

I've heard it claimed that the Federal Wire Act prohibits online gambling. I've yet to find any supporting case law for this claim. This law was intended to prohibit wagering on sporting events using a telephone. If indeed federal law prohibits online gambling then why is so much effort being expended to try and pass new laws to further outlaw online gambling. In any case no current or proposed federal law targets the players. These laws relate only to the use of credit cards and wire transfers by casinos.

The real shame is that brick & motor casinos cannot offer the depth in terms of games or range of buyins that are offered online. I can't go play a $1 sit-n-go at a real casino or a $1 6000 player multi-table tournament, or for $3 play my way into the world series of poker main event. These are all games that could only be offered online. Locally I can find hold'em tournaments twice per day, these are $50 buy-in games with only space for a limited number of players. At $50 poker is a lot less fun than $5.

If the Washington State Legislatures intent is as they say to protect players and children then why on earth make it a felony to play online. They try to soften the blow by saying that a likely sentence for a first offence would be less than 90 days in state prison rather than the 10 years technically possible under state sentencing guidelines for a class C felony. They chose not to mention the loss of job prospects & civil rights that comes with a felony conviction or indeed why somebody who played a hand of cards deserves any punishment at all. Why was this law passed with no public consultation ? for some reason the lawmakers felt it was best that we not know about it until after it became law denying citizens their right to participate in their own government.

I hope that our legislators will see sense and realize that we're not a bunch of crooks because we want to play card games with a few online friends. Until then I'll see you in the freeroll games.

I'll continue to host this Blog for those who want to contribute your stories, bear in mind I may be forced to close it down if the state believes I'm promoting online gambling. I hope the ACLU & EFF will be around if that happens.

As a footnote a poll by KIRO TV shows 86% of state residents are opposed to making online gambling illegal.

Posted by terry at 02:54 AM | Comments (0)

June 15, 2006

Writing about poker illegal ?

It seems from this article the Washington State Gambling Commission intends to shut down sites which write about online poker under the states new law which prohibits all forms of online gambling (except horse race wagering, state lotteries and anything else the state wants to allow).

Wil Wheaton writes about this here

Please sign my petition opposing this new law.

Posted by terry at 05:33 PM | Comments (0)

June 14, 2006

The WWDN Invitational.

For once, I have a reason to do a recap, but only because I didn't get knocked out in 67th place like normal. The upshot of it is that I made a few good plays early, but ran A-Ko into pocket jacks that held up and became the short-stack of the tournament with about $300 in chips left with $30 blinds. As the short-stack, my play was basically down to all-in with anything decent - I doubled up once and then came up with this little gem:

Level IV (50/100) - 2006/06/13 - 21:21:00 (ET)
ArtofSuckout: posts small blind 50
puckett101: posts big blind 100
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to puckett101 [Js Qd]
Lasner: calls 100
Up4Poker: raises 275 to 375
puckett101: raises 505 to 880 and is all-in
Up4Poker: calls 505
*** FLOP *** [Th 9d 4c]
*** TURN *** [Th 9d 4c] [8d]
*** RIVER *** [Th 9d 4c 8d] [9h]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
puckett101: shows [Js Qd] (a straight, Eight to Queen)
Up4Poker: shows [Jh As] (a pair of Nines)
puckett101 collected 1910 from pot

That hand all but crippled The Luckbox (who was holding $1465 to my $880), and put me back in the game in a big way.

A couple of hands later, we had this lovely little hand. UTG+1 with A-10o, I raised. Let's see what happened next:

Level IV (50/100) - 2006/06/13 - 21:29:01 (ET)
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to puckett101 [Th Ac]
puckett101: raises 300 to 400
BrainMc: raises 1260 to 1660 and is all-in
puckett101: calls 1260
*** FLOP *** [2s As Ks]
*** TURN *** [2s As Ks] [Ts]
*** RIVER *** [2s As Ks Ts] [Tc]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
BrainMc: shows [Js Jh] (a flush, Ace high)
puckett101: shows [Th Ac] (a full house, Tens full of Aces)

So, to recap - my A-10o ran into pocket Jacks with my opponent all-in. I paired my ace to make the best hand at the flop, but my opponent caught a flush at the turn to make a better hand, but the river brought a full house for me to crack the flush which cracked my aces which cracked his jacks. If you followed all that. Chalk up another near double-up - an outrageous one.

My final favorite hand was this little example of double-up domination with the then chip leader who was beating the pants off everyone at the table:

Level VIII (200/400) - 2006/06/13 - 22:36:42 (ET)
puckett101: posts small blind 200
MiamiDon: posts big blind 400
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to puckett101 [As Jc]
MsJoanne: calls 400
puckett101: raises 2400 to 2800
MsJoanne: raises 2400 to 5200
puckett101: raises 2572 to 7772 and is all-in
MsJoanne: calls 2572
*** FLOP *** [Qd 8s 4h]
*** TURN *** [Qd 8s 4h] [6s]
*** RIVER *** [Qd 8s 4h 6s] [Kd]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
puckett101: shows [As Jc] (high card Ace)
MsJoanne: shows [Ad Ts] (high card Ace - lower kicker)
puckett101 collected 16069 from pot

Nothing fancy, just a flurry of raising and re-raising that probably should have made someone fold at some point, but I'm not complaining.

After all the dust settled, I made my first final table in the WWDN and placed fourth for a hammer-like payout of $72. Not bad at all.

Posted by puckett at 08:57 PM | Comments (0)

June 13, 2006

Just when you thought "Hee Haw" was only a TV show ...

I was in late position in a turbo SNG last night and found myself with A-3s. After the table folded to me, I bet 3.5x the big blind, ready to take the blinds. The big blind called me. After pairing my 3 at the flop and with nothing too scary on the board, I made a pot-sized continuation bet which, at this point in the game, represented about 1/3 of the stack. The BB called again. At the turn, I bet and the BB went all in. Due to the passive play so far, the lack of any draw on the board and calling big bets, I put him on a bluff - an overcard or two, no pair, trying to take the pot, so I called and he showed 7-4 off-suit. He had paired his 7 at the turn, but had already called 1/3 of his stack with no pair and no draw.

Annoyingly, I couldn't catch up. I'm not calling it a bad beat, just grousing about the crap people will play passively. Hell, if you're going to play rags, BET the damned things.

Posted by puckett at 10:07 PM | Comments (0)

June 09, 2006

Satan > The Hammer??

It appears so, as my 666 turns into a full house on the turn to completely suck out on shadowtwin's hammer!

PokerStars Game #5176748509: Tournament #25651640, $10+$1 Hold'em No Limit - Level XI (600/1200) - 2006/06/06 - 23:24:05 (ET)
Table '25651640 8' 9-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: ricoM (17566 in chips)
Seat 2: heffmike (15969 in chips)
Seat 3: kaellinn18 (11026 in chips)
Seat 6: shadowtwin (7813 in chips)
Seat 8: Wil Wheaton (16721 in chips)
Seat 9: Mungo36 (34405 in chips)
ricoM: posts the ante 75
heffmike: posts the ante 75
kaellinn18: posts the ante 75
shadowtwin: posts the ante 75
Wil Wheaton: posts the ante 75
Mungo36: posts the ante 75
heffmike: posts small blind 600
kaellinn18: posts big blind 1200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
shadowtwin: calls 1200
Mungo36 said, "can't show all the time"
Wil Wheaton: folds
Mungo36: folds
ricoM: raises 1200 to 2400
heffmike: folds
kaellinn18: raises 8551 to 10951 and is all-in
shadowtwin: calls 6538 and is all-in
ricoM: folds
shadowtwin said, "now I just have to"
Wil Wheaton said, "HAMMER!"
*** FLOP *** [6h Kc 5d]
kaellinn18 said, "oh god"
Wil Wheaton said, "YES!"
Mungo36 said, "hammer"
shadowtwin said, "ouch"
*** TURN *** [6h Kc 5d] [Ks]
kaellinn18 said, "whew"
*** RIVER *** [6h Kc 5d Ks] [2d]
kaellinn18 said, "I sucked out hard"
*** SHOW DOWN ***
kaellinn18: shows [6c 6d] (a full house, Sixes full of Kings)
shadowtwin: shows [7d 2h] (two pair, Kings and Deuces)
kaellinn18 collected 18926 from pot
ricoM said, "nh"
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 18926 | Rake 0
Board [6h Kc 5d Ks 2d]
Seat 1: ricoM (button) folded before Flop
Seat 2: heffmike (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 3: kaellinn18 (big blind) showed [6c 6d] and won (18926) with a full house, Sixes full of Kings
Seat 6: shadowtwin showed [7d 2h] and lost with two pair, Kings and Deuces
Seat 8: Wil Wheaton folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: Mungo36 folded before Flop (didn't bet)

Posted by kaellinn18 at 06:18 PM | Comments (1)

June 07, 2006

Watching Lance Funston is better than having pocket 10s cracked by a draw.

I try not to complain about having good hands cracked too much. I've done it to people on lousy bluffs and I've had it done to me. When it happened tonight, I consoled myself with knowing that I had the best hand before and after the flop, I got all my money into the pot with the best hand and my hand just didn't hold up.

Here's how it went down:

Table 5 - 1000/2000 - No Limit Hold'em - 20:36:12 ET - 2006/06/06
Seat 1: puckett101 (27,070)
Seat 6: Dipped808 (13,608)
Seat 7: ol22 (26,822)
Dipped808 posts the small blind of 1,000
ol22 posts the big blind of 2,000
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to puckett101 [Tc Ts]
puckett101 raises to 8,000
Dipped808 folds
ol22 calls 6,000
*** FLOP *** [8d 5d Ad]
ol22 checks
puckett101 bets 17,000
ol22 calls 17,000
*** TURN *** [8d 5d Ad] [9d]
ol22 bets 1,822, and is all in
puckett101 calls 1,822
ol22 shows [Kc Qd]
puckett101 shows [Tc Ts]
*** RIVER *** [8d 5d Ad 9d] [3h]
ol22 shows a flush, Ace high
puckett101 shows a pair of Tens
ol22 wins the pot (54,644) with a flush, Ace high
puckett101: gg
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 54,644 | Rake 0
Board: [8d 5d Ad 9d 3h]
Seat 1: puckett101 showed [Tc Ts] and lost with a pair of Tens
Seat 6: Dipped808 (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 7: ol22 (big blind) showed [Kc Qd] and won (54,644) with a flush, Ace high

So, in practical terms, here's how it went down. Three-handed play, I look down at pocket 10s. I have been aggressive pre-flop all-night with good hands (some of which went to showdown and revealed premium hands, helping to establish a tight, aggressive table image) and this is a decent pocket pair. I'm first to act and can put the pressure on for the entire hand so I raise to $8k. With that bet, short-handed and with those hole cards, I can understand the call. At this point, it's basically a coin flip and I'm a little ahead with the pocket pair. When the flop hit, I bet the pot. The diamond board worried me, but there was only one overcard and I didn't put my opponent on an ace, so I bet the pot. After some hesitation, my opponent called. At this point, I'm actually a little behind on a percentage basis, but still have the best hand. The turn brought another diamond and I was hosed. I was pot committed, didn't have enough for a blind and was done. I finished third, which isn't bad out of 45 players, but I was happy because I was aggressive, made good reads, made good laydowns and played damn good poker from start to finish and consistently added to my chip stack.

And with that little pat on my back to myself made, let's hear it for Lance Funston. I've only watched the first few episodes of his tournament (and in my mind, no matter what happens, it's HIS tournament) but I've never had more fun watching poker (except maybe watching Colin Quinn play rags in Celebrity Poker Showdown and then watching Phil Gordon all but put a gun to his head to escape the miserable play). Although I know opinions vary, I like Norman Chad as an announcer. It's like watching Click and Clack from Car Talk do poker play-by-play (and just as funny) to hear Chad's stunned reactions as Funston counts out chips by color ("I raise one purple, two green and five orange"), raises with the worst hand at the table and sucks out at the river to make his hand, and tries to see every single flop.

I swear, it's like no one ever taught the guy how to fold - or lose, for that matter. But still, watching him play is just flat out joyful. It's hysterically funny to watch him make donkey plays that work and then, because they worked, watch everyone try to play him in the hopes that it won't work only to find out he actually had a hand that time. As Chad said, J-10 off-suit might as well be quad aces to Funston and he plays it like it is.

I think what people are missing here is a concept that I keep hearing pros talk about but that Funston is being criticized for. To crib from Against Me!, "Fight every fight like you can win." Pros often talk about being able to play any two cards like pocket aces and I presume the converse is also true. I'll freely admit that Funston is playing far too many hands and I fully expect it to come back to bite him in the ass, but in the meantime, he's playing every hand like he has pocket rockets and is going to make quads at the flop and I think the guy deserves a little respect for that.

The catch, of course, is that I can't tell whether Funston is really as inexperienced with poker as he seems or whether he's acting like a fish to rake in the money as a smart strategy. Either way, it makes for a damn good story.

Now, in my warped little poker mind, these two tales are closely woven together for one reason, and that's a comment Phil Gordon made on ESPN (reprinted on Expert Insight) last year: "Great players experience more bad beats than bad players."

For clarification, I do not consider myself a great player. Hell, I don't even consider myself a rank amateur, but the article offers some salve to people who get beat by bad plays, draws, etc. It's really an outstanding article, but here is the core idea: "Great players get their money into the pot with the best hand and the suckers are forced to draw out. As a corollary, great players rarely deliver a bad beat: they almost never get their money into the pot drawing slim."

That is almost what knocked me out of the SNG today. In fairness, he could have caught one of 9 cards for the flush, 3 kings or 3 queens for top pair - removing the king of diamonds to correctly calculate outs, he had 15 (or, purely as an outlandish possibility, runner-runner for an a-10 straight). Using the Rule of Four, that's a 60% chance to strengthen the hand. The pot before my bet was $17,000 and I bet the pot, making the pot $34,000, so he was being asked to call $17k to potentially win $34k. At 2-to-1, he was right to shovel his money in.

I don't think I made the wrong play because his hand was not made when he called that bet and mine was still solid. I do know that he made the right one, both based on the math and the results (he won the tournament on the next hand).

But it's okay. I more than tripled up on my buy-in, got to analyze my play on the hand and conclude that both of us were right (and if I'm wrong, please let me know - I'm looking to improve my game, not stroke my ego), and got to watch Lance Funston frustrate everyone while reading Phil Gordon's "Little Green Book." I think, purely in a metaphysical sense, I'm the big winner.

Posted by puckett at 03:05 AM | Comments (1)

June 05, 2006

Since it's been a while ...

I have been paying a lot of attention lately while watching poker - establishing table image, reading when to fold and so forth. I've been working on playing tight, aggressive poker, focusing on premium hands but dropping down to hands that are all face cards. I don't limp anymore. If I'm coming in, I'm raising to 3-3.5x the big blind if I'm the first to raise. If I have a hand that's worth re-raising, I'm betting 3-3.5x the previous raise.

I also muck like it's my job. In this tournament, I hadn't knocked anyone out (at least, not that I remember), but I had decimated two chip stacks when it went to showdown. I had won 10 pots before the flop, a couple after the flop, a couple to folds at the turn and was 100% at showdown. I mucked my small blinds rather than limp in to try to see a flop. I was carefully crafting my table image to be a player who always raised if he was playing and only played if he had premium hands. My track record at the table had already shown that.

With all that in mind, I didn't blink or hesitate to make the following play which was consistent with earlier bets when I won the pot. Sadly, I forgot that I had auto-muck turned on, so I couldn't get a chuckle out of it by showing.

$1 + $0.25 Sit & Go (Turbo) (4542079), Table 1 - 200/400 - No Limit Hold'em - 23:28:51 ET - 2006/06/04
Seat 4: puckett101 (3,800)
Seat 5: marlboroman34 (4,720)
Seat 7: thadonger (2,035)
Seat 8: Duffer520 (2,945)
Duffer520 posts the small blind of 200
puckett101 posts the big blind of 400
The button is in seat #7
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to puckett101 [7d 2c]
marlboroman34 folds
thadonger folds
Duffer520 calls 200
puckett101 raises to 1,600
Duffer520 folds
Uncalled bet of 1,200 returned to puckett101
puckett101 mucks
puckett101 wins the pot (800)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 800 | Rake 0
Seat 4: puckett101 (big blind) collected (800), mucked
Seat 5: marlboroman34 didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: thadonger (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 8: Duffer520 (small blind) folded before the Flop

I only lost one hand in that tournament. Sadly, that hand was the one that made me finish second when I pushed with a dominated hand. Table image will only take you so far - it won't get you past a cowboy holding Q-Js if you're holding J-3o. Such is life.

On the other hand, I won money. Any tourney you finish in the black is a good one.

Posted by puckett at 04:19 AM | Comments (0)

June 03, 2006

The solace of poker ...

Something that may get lost in all our blogging about Ms and orbits and suck outs and bad beats (and I'll get to complaining about those in a moment) is that poker, when played with the right people, can be a reassuring, comforting pastime. When played with even one or two sociable and good-natured people, even a $1 turbo SNG can become a place where jokes and banter make friends, even if only for 30-45 minutes. The suck outs suck less, the bad beats don't seem so bad.

Today, I have lost to two rivered A-10 straights which cracked top pair or two pair. I went all-in before the flop with an M of just under 3 while holding pocket 8s and flopped 10 8 10 ... but lost to a rivered king because my caller was holding K-10c. I went all-in before the flop with A-K off-suit and was called by pocket kings. I flopped my ace, but lost to a rivered diamond four flush (for the record, the odds of catching runner-runner diamonds to make a flush - even holding two diamonds, much less one - are something ridiculously small that I don't remember off the top of my head. It is the least probable flush). That's how my day has been.

However, every time it's happened, the people who sucked out were gracious about it, admitted it was a suck out and wished me good luck and congratulated me on well-played hands. And likewise, every time I suck out, I make a point of apologizing to people and letting them know they made the right play and that luck was the only reason I won.

Frankly, that's incredibly meaningful. Yes, poker is a game of misdirection and deceit, but why can't we be civil about it? Why can't we all simply be NICE to each other? Rudeness doesn't put me on tilt, it just makes me ignore someone and makes everyone's time at the table less enjoyable.

Be gracious, even in defeat. It's more sporting.

Here are two opposite ends of the spectrum.

Last night, I was watching John Juanda playing against Mike Matusow on Full Tilt Poker. The rail was just brutal - constant insults, catcalls, profanity - even racist epithets directed toward both players. Later, while watching John D'Agostino play at another table, it was no different. It was, without question, the absolute ugliest observer chat I have ever seen in my life. We're talking about comments that - even in polite society - would get your ass kicked and deservedly so.

And yet last night and this morning, I had entirely different experiences with John Juanda. While the abuse hurled at the pros would seem to make them likely to turn off observer chat, he was joking back and forth with someone who just graduated law school and myself about criminal justice and whether habitual bluffers should be prosecuted.

And yesterday, after asking him very politely if he'd be willing to play a few hands at lower stakes because I couldn't afford $50/$100 NLHE (particularly not facing his bankroll), he sat down at a $.50/$1 fixed limit table and stunned everyone there just by playing a few hands. I know this much - everyone who was sitting at that table will always remember that moment. Hell, I took screen captures - the online poker equivalent of carrying a digital camera to capture a moment with a player you admire. After my years of journalism, I don't get star-struck because I used to sit next to folks like Mel Gibson and Ron Howard and ask them questions. Yesterday, I was a raving fanboy.

See, it's been a very hard few weeks for my fiancee and I - I've been on disability for over seven weeks due to massive back problems and have been unable to do anything - I can't go to the grocery store, I can't pick things up, I can't even really walk. I need more help than I ever have before in my life, just to get through daily life and simple things like putting dishes in the dishwasher and taking them out. Tuesday, my neurosurgeon pointed at an MRI of my neck and brain and identified symptoms of multiple sclerosis and didn't name any other condition that could be causing all this - I'm waiting to see a neurologist for a second opinion, but right now, it feels like being all-in with 7c-2d against A-Kh with a board of Qh Jh 9d 8c and hoping to make a pair on the river or go home early. I can't spend more than about an hour or so sitting up on any given day because of the pain. I have only left my apartment a handful of times in the past two months and most of those times have been for MRIs or doctors' appointments.

But last night, when John Juanda was in the big blind and I caught K-10s ahead of him, I forgot all that for a moment. And when I paired my king at the flop, the only thing I could think about was that I can't even consider myself an amateur, I was head-to-head against one of the best poker players in the world and I had just made my hand. When it finally came to showdown and he turned over J-8c with a board of Kc 5c 6h 9s Jd, I realized a few things:

1. He had 12 reasons to go to the river. He had a 36% chance of making his flush and caught 3 more outs at the turn for a 24% chance of making his flush or catching a straight at the river. In short, he had a grip of ways to beat me. I had to dodge more bullets than Neo in "The Matrix" to win. I just got lucky and my hand held up.
2. I had just played a heads-up hand with one of the world's best and most gracious poker players and won.

The pot size was ridiculously small (I was embarrassed even asking him to play at the stakes I could afford, but I learned long ago that you never get what you don't ask for, but - IF you ask - something magical might just happen) but the pot wasn't the point. John Juanda graciously gave a few minutes of his time and it made my week ... and I imagine more than a few people, myself included, told their spouses, co-workers, poker buddies ... even people that don't even know a thing about poker ... that they shared a table with him for a moment and that it made their week as well. For him, those few moments were likely nothing. If I ever meet him face to face, I doubt he'd even remember although he'd probably say something polite like "Yeah, that was a lot of fun. I just had to focus on the higher-limit games I was in, otherwise I would have stayed longer," but to me and the people at that table, I suspect it meant everything. There's a George Bailey moment for you.

Thank you, John.

And that's what I mean by the solace of poker.

Several years ago, I think it was 1999, I drove from San Diego to Denver to visit a dear friend for New Year's. I had broken up with my fiancee of a few years only a few months before under very bad circumstances which - not to put too detailed a point on it - involved her infidelity. I was trying to grieve, trying to heal and trying to get past it all. I had routed my return trip so that I could go through Vegas and play some poker at Circus Circus (it's pretty much my favorite casino besides the ones on Fremont with .25 craps, etc.) - nothing fancy, just five-card draw with a $5 maximum bet. It took a while to get a table going because it was the start of a week and not many people were around, but when that table started, it was great. The dealer was funny and talkative and made up her own nicknames for people (any time it came around to me, she said, "Bet's to you, San Diego"). It was just guys at the table and we talked about baseball and sports and women and our best and worst hands of poker ... the stuff that men who have never met before and are unlikely to meet again talk about when they are in the company of men at a poker table. I was the youngest there by at least 20 years, but I was playing well and taking down pots. Finally, one of the guys I had been talking to most apologized and said he had to leave, but on his way out, he stopped, put his hand on my shoulder and whispered some advice to me:

1. Slow down.
2. Don't tip so much.

Then he grinned and walked away. It may not sound like much, but at that time, after that conversation, it was a moment of genuine human connection and those are too few and far between and too often go unappreciated when they happen.

I think sometimes we all forget how nice it can be to sit down and have a friendly game and tease each other and talk about whatever comes to mind, to take our minds off of whatever else may be troubling us in our lives ... and how healing that can really be. And maybe that means that we're missing the best thing poker really has to offer.

Posted by puckett at 05:56 AM | Comments (0)

June 02, 2006

HammerBlog Representing!

As part of the registration process for PokerStars' World Blogger Championship, we need to post banners. Since I'm technically inept when it comes to Moveable Type templates, I'm posting mine as an entry. Perhaps the members of the 7-2 off-suit crew will also be joining?

I say we get some side action going - maybe we all kick in $10 for the first person to get knocked out by or with ... The Hammer?

Gotta stay true to the game here. We're all about the rags, folks. We make Gus Hansen look like he plays nothing but premium hands.

Posted by puckett at 12:01 AM | Comments (0)

June 01, 2006

Celebritar Poke Poke!

It's usually a bad sign when any kind of activity begins televised events featuring celebrites. Remember Network Battle Of The Stars? Oof. Forget jumping the shark - when you're added to a Rock & Jock softball team, that's when you know it's done.

For the most part, watching Bravo's Celebrity Poker Showdown has been engaging for one reason and one reason only. While the "celebrities" they invite can generate a moment or two of laughter from quips, it's mostly akin to watching a monkey hump a doorknob while a bus filled with schoolchildren drive over a cliff and destroy every Bald Eagle nest on the way down before crashing to a bloody halt in a grocery store giveaway box of cute little beagle mix puppies wagging their tails. The play is almost universally bad and, while I don't claim to be an expert, I routinely watch people move in with, for example 9c-6h with a board of Ah, Qc and 10d on the chance that they just might make a pair.

They play poker like Luke Skywalker.

So what's engaging about that?

Simple.

Phil Gordon's running commentary.

Maybe I'm a contrarian, but Phil's constant, hand-by-hand analysis made me want to bitch-slap Dave Foley until he was incapable of speech because Phil's insight essentially provided a detailed tutorial of what not to do at a poker table and also provided a significant glimpse into how people are playing now that NLHE is so visible. Rags? Call your raise and re-raise. 9-6 is good, right? Yeah, it's gotta be good. These are the absolute nuts.

Phil, meanwhile, is holding his head in his hands as he watches the disaster unfold before him.

He was never mean about his comments, but he was direct and dropped nuggets of wisdom about every hand like a card-playing version of Robert Fulghum.

For whatever reason though, Phil isn't calling this season and has been replaced with Phil Hellmuth. So far, the only reason to watch is Dave Foley's cracks and the off chance that someone will do something entertaining at the table.

That's really no reason to watch people play bad poker. You can get that on ESPN and the Travel Channel. I'll reserve judgment until I've watched another episode or two. Perhaps Phil is just shy about appearing on camera. Maybe he'll be a little less camera shy and a little more talkative as he gets used to being on camera and sitting next to a star as big as Dave Foley.

In the meantime, I miss Phil Gordon because his commentary was incredibly useful to anyone starting out. If you get a chance, you might want to record the old episodes. They were actually worth watching.

Posted by puckett at 10:21 AM | Comments (0)