To call it a gala event understates the case. The poker bloggers were out in force, perhaps explaining why less than 1/3 of the field was gone after the first hour of play.
However, my favorite hand of the night was this little beauty, both because of what all it entailed, who was at the table and who it was against. Read on ...
Full Tilt Poker Game #1107160299: Bad Beat on Cancer (6592578), Table 7 - 60/120 - No Limit Hold'em - 22:14:20 ET - 2006/10/15
Seat 1: smokkee (2,755)
Seat 2: Peggy_NC (7,510)
Seat 4: puckett101 (8,345)
Seat 5: DrPauly (6,640)
Seat 6: yestbay1 (2,085)
Seat 7: Landonfan (4,630)
Seat 8: shancpa (2,265), is sitting out
Seat 9: ringo6624 (1,640)
DrPauly posts the small blind of 60
yestbay1 posts the big blind of 120
The button is in seat #4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to puckett101 [7d 2h]
Landonfan folds
shancpa folds
ringo6624 folds
smokkee folds
Peggy_NC folds
puckett101 raises to 8,344
DrPauly folds
yestbay1 folds
Uncalled bet of 8,224 returned to puckett101
puckett101 shows [7d 2h] (Seven Two high)
puckett101 wins the pot (300)
That's right. On the button, I hoyed Dr. Pauly and another of the WWdN poker game crew with The Hammer. I made it into about the top 20% of the field, but no hand made me prouder than that one.
That hammer was so mighty that it was fit for use by John Henry.
]]>"Chuck Norris has the greatest Poker-Face of all time. He won the 1983 World Series of Poker, despite holding only a Joker, a Get out of Jail Free Monopoloy card, a 2 of clubs, 7 of spades and a green #4 card from the game UNO."
]]>This would be a clear violation of the trust placed in us by our allies and may ultimately end up hurting our anti-terrorism efforts.
One reassuring note is that the British Government has said that it will not extradite any British person charged in connection with operating a gambling site because they actions would not be a crime in Britain.
In any case, on what planet does the FBI have the right to arrest an executive of a properly licensed and publicly listed company whos business activities are conducted entirely outside of the United States.
What would the US administration say if China started arresting american tourists because of the content of their personal websites ?
]]>Full Tilt Poker Game #791457239: .COM $200K Giveaway Rd. 1 (4930906), Table 85 - 30/60 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:24:51 ET - 2006/07/12
Seat 1: puckett101 (2,064)
Seat 2: Spydertoezzzz (8,985)
Seat 3: JoeFU2 (1,165), is sitting out
Seat 4: irishhammer (6,117)
Seat 5: papamark82 (6,725)
Seat 6: stewdog187 (3,280)
Seat 7: trckery2001 (4,244)
Seat 8: typeRintegra (1,520), is sitting out
Seat 9: TonyD83 (640)
Spydertoezzzz posts the small blind of 30
JoeFU2 posts the big blind of 60
The button is in seat #1
trckery2001 is feeling confused
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to puckett101 [2d 7c]
irishhammer calls 60
papamark82 folds
stewdog187 calls 60
trckery2001 calls 60
typeRintegra folds
TonyD83 folds
puckett101 raises to 2,064, and is all in
Spydertoezzzz folds
JoeFU2 folds
irishhammer folds
stewdog187 folds
trckery2001 calls 2,004
puckett101 shows [2d 7c]
trckery2001 shows [Ad 7s]
*** FLOP *** [2s 4h 7h]
*** TURN *** [2s 4h 7h] [Tc]
*** RIVER *** [2s 4h 7h Tc] [Kd]
puckett101 shows two pair, Sevens and Twos
trckery2001 shows a pair of Sevens
puckett101 wins the pot (4,338) with two pair, Sevens and Twos
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 4,338 | Rake 0
Board: [2s 4h 7h Tc Kd]
Seat 1: puckett101 (button) showed [2d 7c] and won (4,338) with two pair, Sevens and Twos
Seat 2: Spydertoezzzz (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 3: JoeFU2 (big blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 4: irishhammer folded before the Flop
Seat 5: papamark82 didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: stewdog187 folded before the Flop
Seat 7: trckery2001 showed [Ad 7s] and lost with a pair of Sevens
Seat 8: typeRintegra didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: TonyD83 didn't bet (folded)
As we all know, The Hammer was clearly a dominating favorite in this hand before the flop. That ace might as well have been an anchor.
Remember - you must commit to The Hammer in order to experience flops like this. By committing, I mean all-in. The Hammer rewards those who dedicate themselves to it.
For the record, two hands later, I was knocked out by the player who lost this hand. They rivered a flush holding 5h-2c to crack my K-J suited and the pocket aces of the player who called my all-in re-raise. Go figure.
]]>Isn't it odd that, instead of allowing financial services to transfer money to casinos and allowing U.S. citizens to use gaming services located off-shore to comply with the WTO rulings, the U.S. is taking action to further hinder financial services from transferring money and criminalize online gaming in flagrant violation of the WTO ruling? How about calling your representatives at the state and federal levels to ensure that your state isn't violating the WTO ruling and pressure your federal representatives to make sure that we comply with the WTO ruling at a federal level?
]]>In a 90-player freeroll which had a prize of exactly one entry into the next tournament, the following hand decided the match:
Full Tilt Poker Game #785277592: .NET Satellite to Round 1 (5202652), Table 1 - 500/1000 - No Limit Hold'em - 10:42:11 ET - 2006/07/10
Seat 6: puckett101 (78,320)
Seat 7: mandrake11 (33,640)
Seat 8: smpchicana77 (23,040)
smpchicana77 posts the small blind of 500
puckett101 posts the big blind of 1,000
The button is in seat #7
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to puckett101 [Ah Ac]
mandrake11 raises to 2,000
smpchicana77 calls 1,500
puckett101 raises to 78,320, and is all in
mandrake11 calls 31,640, and is all in
smpchicana77 calls 21,040, and is all in
puckett101 shows [Ah Ac]
mandrake11 shows [Ad Jh]
smpchicana77 shows [Kh Ks]
Uncalled bet of 44,680 returned to puckett101
*** FLOP *** [4s 4c 6s]
*** TURN *** [4s 4c 6s] [8h]
*** RIVER *** [4s 4c 6s 8h] [2s]
puckett101 shows two pair, Aces and Fours
mandrake11 shows a pair of Fours
puckett101 wins the side pot (21,200) with two pair, Aces and Fours
smpchicana77 shows two pair, Kings and Fours
puckett101 wins the main pot (69,120) with two pair, Aces and Fours
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 90,320 Main pot 69,120. Side pot 21,200. | Rake 0
Board: [4s 4c 6s 8h 2s]
Seat 6: puckett101 (big blind) showed [Ah Ac] and won (90,320) with two pair, Aces and Fours
Seat 7: mandrake11 (button) showed [Ad Jh] and lost with a pair of Fours
Seat 8: smpchicana77 (small blind) showed [Kh Ks] and lost with two pair, Kings and Fours
I was lucky in that I happened to catch the absolute best starting hand at the same time that the other two players, both of whom were covered and then some, caught hands that allowed them to call my all-in bet. I had also been pushing them around a bit which allowed them to think that I might be bluffing. This is not a particularly subtle play - the raise makes decisions easy. My opponents must call or fold. There is no opportunity to re-raise or play games to see a flop and perhaps make a hand at the flop or turn. They must define the strength of their hand, put me on a range of holdings (which, at that point, could have been anything from 9-10 suited on up) and determine whether their hand was strong enough to call. I suspect that if the player holding pocket kings was immediately to my left, the player with A-Jo might not have called the all-in. As it was, with two all-ins ahead and pocket kings with the opportunity to triple up, calling my all-in made sense. My aces held up and I eliminated both remaining players to win the only seat offered in the freeroll. The key lesson, stated often, is not to slowplay the big boys.
Here's another example to illustrate what can happen when you try to slowplay the big boys by limping in and extracting more money after the flop:
Full Tilt Poker Game #785289679: .COM Satellite to Round 1 (5202644), Table 3 - 800/1600 - No Limit Hold'em - 10:52:31 ET - 2006/07/10
Seat 4: puckett101 (22,640)
Seat 5: JAMax (38,025)
Seat 6: usarmyproperty (28,540)
Seat 9: mrrobert (45,795)
puckett101 posts the small blind of 800
JAMax posts the big blind of 1,600
The button is in seat #9
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to puckett101 [8h Tc]
usarmyproperty folds
mrrobert calls 1,600
puckett101 calls 800
JAMax checks
*** FLOP *** [9h Js 7s]
puckett101 bets 1,600
JAMax folds
mrrobert calls 1,600
*** TURN *** [9h Js 7s] [6d]
puckett101 bets 1,600
mrrobert raises to 3,200
puckett101 raises to 6,400
mrrobert raises to 9,600
puckett101 raises to 19,440, and is all in
mrrobert calls 9,840
puckett101 shows [8h Tc]
mrrobert shows [Ad As]
*** RIVER *** [9h Js 7s 6d] [Ah]
puckett101 shows a straight, Jack high
mrrobert shows three of a kind, Aces
puckett101 wins the pot (46,880) with a straight, Jack high
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 46,880 | Rake 0
Board: [9h Js 7s 6d Ah]
Seat 4: puckett101 (small blind) showed [8h Tc] and won (46,880) with a straight, Jack high
Seat 5: JAMax (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 6: usarmyproperty didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: mrrobert (button) showed [Ad As] and lost with three of a kind, Aces
In short-handed play, my opponent limped with pocket aces. I limped in the small blind with one-gapped off-suit cards. After the flop, with a possible straight, my opponent merely calls my blind bet. At the turn, with two possible straights on the board, he begins re-raising me. Based on his tricky play, I put him on 8-5 and a smaller straight at best. The re-raises further confirmed my belief that he had a hand, but that it was unlikely to be as strong as mine. While Phil Gordon is right in that the fourth raise means aces, the fifth raise after the flop seems to be the one to be concerned about. By that point, after all the re-raises, he had the pot odds necessary to call my all-in and he obviously believed that his slow-played aces were good, probably putting me on a jack with a medium kicker.
In the parlance of our times, oops.
This is why you don't slowplay aces or kings. The times you only take the blinds will more than off-set the times you double someone else up because they flopped a monster and you think you're trapping them. It is better to win a small pot with a big hand than lose a big pot with a big hand.
As it is, I doubled up on the hand because I flopped the nuts and he over-valued top pair when my betting history should have indicated to him that he was beat. Then again, aces are hard to get away from and he had me covered and then some.
In that freeroll, we both finished in the top 3 to win entries into the next round so the point became moot, but let this be instructive to you. Don't slowplay the big boys. You might lose big because of it.
]]>1. Don't play the early stages. The first few rounds bring nothing but misery. If you do play, understand that it will suck out if it can and your monster starting hand will likely get cracked. I'll spare the gory details of bad beat stories, but I've had aces cracked by 7-6 off-suit hitting a full house and a big pre-flop bet called by 7-4 off-suit. I just pushed with A-J suited before the flop and was called by 8-2 off-suit which won when a deuce hit the river. That's the level of donkery we're talking about.
2. If you must play the early stages, understand that there really is no playing involved. Follow a straight push and pray mantra. If it's good enough to play in those early to middle stages, it's good enough to push with since you'll be getting callers with any paint or ace-rag combination and possibly less. You might consider shading starting hand requirements down to the low end of what you're comfortable with - suited J-9, J-Q, J-10 off-suit, 9-10 suited, etc. Your opponents will be playing any ace, any king and so forth. They will also be playing hands that are worse, believing that any two cards can win. As long as you're comfortable with three and four-way action, feel free to roll the dice and hope your cards are live. If you happen to have ace-rag or king-rag, you're likely to be dominated by someone.
3. Don't think about your hand. Your decision is push or fold, at least until the field is drastically reduced. Don't calculate pot odds, don't calculate implied odds. If you call, someone will go all-in. If you bet, someone will go all-in. The action happens before the flop in all but the most extreme cases, removing all decisions and opportunity for mistakes. Your only thought should be about whether you think your cards are as good or better than what everyone else is holding.
4. Although this may sound contradictory and crazy, TRY to play dominated hands. In general, it means you'll have at least one live card. It's almost better if you play the off-suit gapped rags you wouldn't touch at any other time because it will generally give you two live cards to everyone else's paint-rag.
Freerolls can be fun as long as you don't take them too seriously. My best freeroll performances have come when I'm multi-tabling and focusing on another game and only check the freeroll when I have to raise, call or fold. In my best performance, I had become the chip leader simply by pushing and folding and minimizing the window again. I honestly wasn't paying attention. That says something about the quality of play, but there is also opportunity in freerolls - as long as you don't mind bad beats. After all, you're only getting what you pay for.
]]>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.
]]>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.
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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>[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.
]]>