5,589 MILES FROM VEGAS

New blog?

2005-11-09T13:21:00.000-05:00

Because I don't live in Chile any longer, I'm going to change the Web address and name of this blog to The Surly Poker Gnome, which should be available at http://surlypokergnome.blogspot.com.
See you there!

In the Zone

2005-11-08T00:58:00.000-05:00

If it's possible to be in that magical fun happy place that sports stars refer to as "The Zone," then I think I'm there. Except for that in poker, we tend to use the more humble term of "running good" because of the random nature of the cards.

Fine then. I'm running good. I keep getting pocket Kings with no Aces on the flop. I'll suck out on you any day, and you'll like it. When I have second pair vs. your top pair, I'll check-raise you and you'll fold. Or I'll hit two pair on the turn. Which way would you like it?

It was like tonight at the new Emory game. I lost about $200 in the first half hour, but then I rebought and ended up cashing out a profit of about $200. Near the end of the night, a few people at my table were complaining because I was taking down a lot of pots that never got close to showdown. (I wish they had gotten to showdown -- I had some monster hands.) I raised from middle position with pocket 8s. This guy known as Pipsqueek looked at me and asked whether I wanted him to call or fold.

"I don't care what you do. It's money for me either way," I said.

He folded. So did everyone else. I'll take it.

Here's the question: How long can this last? How long can I live the dream of three big bets per 100 hands?

I haven't even played $15/$30 again because I'm irrationally worried that this run is going to come to a crashing halt. Then again, maybe the real reason I haven't played $15/$30 again is that I don't feel up to it for whatever reason (tired, half-drunk, etc.).

Like online poker itself, this good run can't last forever. Or can it?

Milestone

2005-11-06T10:23:00.000-05:00

I got the call at about 9:45 p.m. last night. I was eating Chinese and watching Ultimate Fighting at Drew's.

My dad was on the line. He told me he and my mom had been locked out of the house, and they needed me to come home and let them in.

No problem, I thought. But the fish are going to have to pay.

The circumstances were right. It was a Saturday night. The cards have been running extremely well. I wasn't tired.

I decided I would take a shot at $15/$30 if the tables were good enough.

And let me tell you, they were good enough! I jumped ahead early with some routine hands -- check-raise top pair, turn two pair kind of hands. Then I lost small amounts on some second-best hands. The river brought a two pair to me but a flush to my opponent. A pocket pair of 8s lost to a pair of Jacks on the river.

But I still felt good. I was able to steal a few pots before the two magic hands both came at the same time.

First I limped with A2 from late position. Three people saw a flop with two cards of my suit. Early position bet, middle position called, I raised. Early position three-bet, middle position folded, I capped. Turn brought a blank. Bet and called. River brought my flush. Bet, raise, call. Big pot vs. a flopped set.

The biggest hand was going on at another table. I held 98 offsuit from the big blind in a big multiway pot. Flop brought a gut shot. Turn brought a double belly-buster. River filled me in with a highly unlikely third nut straight. I check-raised the field on the river, but then I got three bet! Fuck. I'm screwed. But I automatically called because the pot was enormous. The raiser turned over another flopped set, and I collected.

Shortly afterward, the tables dried up. I got tired and went to sleep, waiting until this morning to check my results.

I woke up this morning and went straight to PokerTracker. There was the verdict: $1,033 profits in a 1.5-hour Saturday night session. My first $1,000 day! The most money I've ever made in a day. And I did it by playing a computer game in my parents' basement.

Metagame

2005-11-03T11:11:00.000-05:00

A few years ago, I played in a few Magic: The Gathering tournaments in the Atlanta area. They were always fun because you could test your best deck against anyone else's, and it wasn't expensive to enter.

In Magic, each card has a different ability, so your goal was to combine about 60 cards (out of the thousands available) into a deck that worked. But that wasn't enough to win a tournament. You had to consider the metagame -- the game inside the game. You had to use a deck that would work well against the popular decks of the time. You had to construct a 15-card sideboard that had specific defenses against certain kinds of decks (Protection from Red, for example).

When it comes to poker, game theory and metagame tactics are pretty closely related. Game theory advocates changing your tactics to create an overall better strategy that will presumably win you more money. The metagame adjustments are simply the implementation of that strategy.

The most obvious example is when using in-game data to tailor your decisions to specific opponents. If someone only goes to showdown 15 percent of the time, it makes sense to bluff at him at every opportunity. Most of the time, he will fold. If someone is overly aggressive, you should respond with aggression when you have an edge. If an opponent is a calling station, do not try to bluff him. When against a very loose player preflop, loosen up your calling standards as well. When a super-tight player raises from early position, go ahead and fold hands like AT suited unless there are other reasons to play.

You want to present your strongest game to each of your opponents. When you bluff, you want to make the bluff look real. A ridiculous overbet often is not a good bluff because it's too obvious. Suspicious overbets always look like bluffs -- and sometimes that's exactly what you want.

Matt Matros wrote a column in Card Player discussing how to apply game theory in a no limit hold 'em situation. Here's the question: if you flop a draw with overcards on a paired board, how do you want to play? Do you want to represent the three of a kind? Do you want to bluff? Do you want to simply play your draw? Ideally, you want to accomplish all of these goals at once while maximizing your expectation.

The components of game theory and metagaming break down into many familiar sub-categories, such as game selection, bluff frequency, changing gears, inflection points, flop texture and value bets.

You can call it whatever you want, but each of these tactics are meant to be weighted together to find an answer to the question, "How should I play good poker?"

Book Review: "The Making of a Poker Player"

2005-11-02T11:15:00.000-05:00

The main flaw of "The Making of a Poker Player," by Matt Matros, is that it's written for beginners. It was overhyped as a book focusing on game theory and skill development, but instead all it offers is a narrative of one man's climb up the ladder.

I suppose there's nothing inherently wrong with that. The reader can follow along with Matros as he plays home games while in grad school, visits Atlantic City and eventually finished third place in a World Poker Tour event.

Along the way, Matros explains the rules of hold 'em and passes along antidotes about what it feels like to learn the game, step by step.

I'm sure basic information about how to play pot limit Omaha is useful for some people out there. I'm sure the story of a guy who got lucky in the World Poker Tour is just fascinating for tournament junkies. I'm sure someone out there needs to use the glossary to find out what "no limit" means.

But that ain't me. I feel like the marketing for this book was deceptive, and the strategic content to be severely lacking.

This was billed as a book largely dealing with game theory. Instead, we get one chapter on it. And this chapter isn't even useful. It's 13 pages that mentions some of game theory's fundamentals, but it offers almost no practical information on what should be an important concept. I wrote about this topic a few days ago in this post.

It also really bothered me that the chapter dealing with Internet poker was so bad. This book was only released a month or two ago, and the information sounds like it came from 2002. While the content seems dated, the more severe problem is that it lacks insight. A good poker book for beginners would also offer something for more advanced players.

Furthermore, Matros gets his facts wrong. He says PokerTracker costs $40, but it's been $55 for at least a year now. He makes reference to a program called PokerStat (which I'm not familiar with), without even mentioning Poker Office. He says PokerStars, Party Poker, Ultimate Bet and Paradise Poker make up the "Big Four" poker sites. In reality, PokerRoom, the Prima Network and Pacific Poker are also right up there in terms of size, according to pokerpulse.com.

Early on in the book, Matros spends some time blabbering on about how easy limit poker is compared to no limit hold 'em. I'll say this: I welcome any no limit player at any table I play at stakes up to $15/$30. Limit is harder to play and to learn than no limit, and authors like Ed Miller have made the same claim.

At one point, Matros says he's never seen a tight $3/$6 limit game. That shows how much he knows about online poker, where $3/$6 is a difficult and important stepping stone where many decent players fail.

I'm trying not to be too hard on the book, because it isn't that bad. The writing is somewhat engaging, and the story is mildly interesting. But this is not a book for me or for any poker player I know. It's too much like "Poker for Dummies."

Here's the link to the CardPlayer book review.

Emory Game Resurrected

2005-11-01T01:44:00.000-05:00

Just before I departed Atlanta for Santiago, Chile, I made a big score the last time I ever attended the Thursday night Emory game. I forced a friend of mine out of a big pot by pushing with pocket Queens to beat a lesser hand (I later learned my friend had a straight but was scared of the flush). Then on my very last hand, I hit it big with some suited connectors.

A few months later, I heard that the Emory game had died out, for whatever reason.

But now, it's back, baby!

It's now hosted by new people, but many of the faces at the game are the same. There's a strong contingent of clueless college kids, as well as a few crazy rounders who like to pretend that they're playing solid poker. My favorite one is a guy that Daniel dubbed "Random Hand," because he plays just about any two cards.

I love this game because it's loose, and the personalities make it a good time. There's lots of table talk and plenty of university students who like to think they know what they're doing -- until I bust them, at least. The game is $2/$3 no limit with a $300 max buyin.

Tonight I got lucky and was dealt plenty of good cards. I had pocket Kings three times, and they took down medium-size pots every time.

Another medium pot was won when I flopped two pair with KJ. In retrospect, I believe I played the hand too passively against Random Hand. He kept betting and I kept calling. I figured this was a decent strategy against his likely longshot draw or weak top pair. As long as he kept betting away, I would make money. Unfortunately, he checked and folded the river. I think I should have raised him on the flop, but then again, he may have simply folded at that point. Maybe I won the maximum on the hand. Who knows how Random Hand may choose to play?

There were a few other great hands through the night. The most memorable was when one guy was drawing dead except to a runner-runner straight. He made his perfect cards on the turn and the river to take down a huge pot.

I feel OK about my play. I was much more upbeat this session than I was last week, which I believe helps encourage action and generates a positive table image. I found myself wondering if I was getting too much respect at the table, but then again, I did get callers any time they had any pair or any draw. The only times they folded was when it was pretty damn clear I had them beat. I showed down winners repeatedly. A couple of bluffing opportunities were successful for small pots. I also feel like my reading skills are pretty good.

On the downside, I worry when I give off tells that I can't control. I guess I need more routine live-game practice to avoid the shaky hand tell, which almost always indicates a strong hand. I know it's elementary, and I feel like a tool for giving off that tell. I'll just have to work on it. In the meantime, I'll have to keep scaring people with my false tells.

At one point, the action was on Random Hand. He reached for some chips and was about to bet. But then he looked in my eyes, and I allowed myself a very small smile at the right corner of my lips. He checked. I bet. He folded.

"I know what that smile means," Random Hand said. "I've been seeing it all night."

That's right, Random Hand. You know me.

Game Theory

2005-10-28T11:57:00.000-05:00

I'm reading Matt Matros' new book, "The Making of a Poker Player," which deals with many poker ideas, including a short section on game theory. I'll probably post a review of the book when I finish it. So far I've found it to be lacking, but I won't make a final judgment until it's finished.

The crux of game theory is that you should consider how to have a solid game overall, rather than making every individual decision based on rote tactics. Game theory recommends concepts like randomly bluffing at predetermined percentages of the time based on the second-hand of your watch, or mixing up your game in order to set up future plays.

The more complicated explanation of game theory is that if you make the optimal play, you don't care whether your opponent calls or folds. That's because you're trying to make a bet based on the value of your hand that your opponent cannot counter.

Game theory predicts that there is a mathematically "optimal" move at all points in the hand, and that by learning some complicated math-based rules, you can become unbeatable.

Sure. To some extent that's true.

My complaint is that the game theorist wants a perfect answer at all times, and I have a hard time believing that there is such a thing as a grand universal theory of poker. Steven Hawking isn't going to wake up one day and present a master formula for playing like God would.

In my opinion, a lot of the same solutions that game theory recommends can also be reached by playing solid poker -- especially when it comes to reading the texture of the flop and evaluating the value of all possible hands.

The most important and useful aspect of game theory to me is that it suggests constantly mixing up and evaluating your game. Attention to exactly how you play poker, both at the table or behind a book, is how people improve their games and become better poker players. There are very few automatic answers (side note: I can think of one automatic answer. When you raise preflop in limit hold 'em and get one early position caller who checks to you on the flop, always bet). Every answer should be considered depending on the specific situation at hand, depending on many factors. Often, the correct answer is not the obvious one.

A game theory expert can tell me that the math says minimum raises in no limit hold 'em make sense. A game theory expert can tell me that preflop calling makes more sense than frequent raising (like this numbers-based article implies). Normally, I would claim you can't argue with the numbers.

But as a poker player, I am certain that bigger bets and isolation raises are more than a little important. When it comes to these kinds of minute details about the game, I believe the game theorists are absolutely wrong.

Book Review: "Ace on the River"

2005-10-27T11:26:00.000-05:00

Limit hold 'em is about playing your hand; no limit is about playing your opponents' hands, says Barry Greenstein in his book, "Ace on the River."

Made like a coffee table book, with glossy pages and hundreds of colorful photos, "Ace on the River" reads like a life guide for a poker player. Originally written as a chapter for Doyle Brunson's "Super System 2," Greenstein's book spends a lot of time examining the psychological and philosophical underpinnings of winning poker. It's only in the last third of the book does Greenstein discuss hand analysis and specific strategies.

And perhaps that's the beauty of it. This book, although written for "advanced players," could be picked up at any chapter by anyone. You don't need to know anything about poker to learn about mental toughness, the dangers of gambling and the difficulties of balancing the greedy pursuit of money with self-fulfillment.

The abstract discussion puts readers in the right mindset to play poker thoughtfully and successfully. The strategy section offers real value when you're sitting at the poker table.

The strategies are laid out in a series of hand examples, with photo illustrations showing hole cards, chip counts and pot sizes at various stages of a no limit tournament. Greenstein encourages readers to come up with their own answer to the problem before turning the page and finding the solution.

He discusses bet sizes, the luck factor of tournaments, making bluffs and leveraging your chips. His analysis of the move-in zone (when a player is getting dangerously low on chips as the blinds are escalating) is fairly elementary, but it's always good to hear advice about tournament fundamentals repeated by a pro.

I agree with almost everything in the book, except for a few things.

_In a limit hold 'em hand example, Greenstein cold calls a button raise with A2 suited. He then proceeds to check-raise the flop when the A pairs, bet the turn and bet the river. The river bet is an important value bet even though he may be outkicked. I agree with that. I'm not sure it's such a good idea to cold call with A2 suited from the small blind. I would be more inclined to raise or fold.

_In a quiz about what kind of world views are needed to be a successful poker player, Greenstein says it's wrong to know the value of the dollar. I understand his point that money at the poker table should be viewed more as a tool to an end than an instrument for commercial purchasing power. But I believe there's a balance, that everything needs to be kept in perspective in terms of money. If you don't know the value of the dollar, that increases the likelihood that you will burn money away because it doesn't mean much to you.

_In a no limit hand example, Greenstein suggests some kind of fancy raising when he hits top pair K on the turn despite a pair of 10s on the board. Author David Sklansky took issue with this move a couple of months ago in this 2+2 Magazine article. Sklansky suggests checking the turn and calling a sizable river bet.

The main failing of "Ace on the River" is that it doesn't break much new ground. But perhaps it wasn't meant to.

The strength of this book is that it expresses ideas in a clear manner that will make almost anyone a better poker player. Its advice is especially valuable to winning players who hope not to make the same mistakes as Greenstein did.

At one point, Greenstein had just given some money to a charity that he had won from poker. Upon receiving the donation, someone remarked that Greenstein must be a rich man. Actually, Greenstein says, he was a negative millionaire at the time. Of course, it all came back.

Borderline

2005-10-26T09:56:00.000-05:00

LEBOWSKI: Your "revolution" is over, Mr. Lebowski! Condolences! The bums lost! ... My advice is, do what your parents did! Get a job, sir! The bums will always lose -- do you hear me, Lebowski? THE BUMS WILL ALWAYS--

--The Big Lebowski

Nick and I pulled up to the border patrol station as we were re-entering the United States yesterday on our way back from Montreal.

A gray-haired, cranky border patrol agent asks for our driver's licenses and starts asking questions.

"How long were you in Canada?" he said.

"Since Thursday," I said.

"And what do you do for a living, to be able to afford this vacation," he asked.

"I'm a journalist, but I'm kind of in between jobs," I said. Nick told the guy that he was a freelance web developer.

"So you're both unemployed," the border patrol asshole said. "Where do you get money?"

"Umm ... I play Internet poker," I responded.

"You make it to the casino?" the border patrol said. "Pop the trunk. I'm going to have to search your bags."

It was funny. We were two guys traveling to Montreal for a five-day weekend to visit a friend who we knew from Germany and Chile. I guess we look like bums to the border patrol.

And yes, we did make it to the Casino de Montreal! It was a pretty nice place, but they don't have any authentic poker games. They did a very brisk business of other games though: blackjack, baccarat, slots, roulette, war. All the usuals. Just no hold 'em or stud. I tried to get into a blackjack game, but the wait was too long to be worthwhile. So eventually, I just went to the cashier's window and bought some of their chips as souveniers.

Now I'm back to my home court, with a lot of poker action to look forward to. I just put some money in my Party Poker account, and the games are as fishy as they ever were. It's so much better to play there than against the few remaining sharks at the ex-Party Poker sister sites (Empire, Eurobet, etc.) And I can open as many as 10 tables now! Yay!

You win this battle, Party Poker.

Later this week, I'm excited about playing in the new Emory game with Daniel. He said it was uber-fishy, and I love busting college kids. Maybe I'm evil?

Back to Internet poker news: PokerAce HUD is now out of beta, which means that there's a new version of it that you have to pay for. It costs $25, but I think that price is well worth it. PokerAce HUD is far better than Gametime+ and PlayerView.net. It displays opponents' hole cards at showdown. It's faster. It's very customizable to display the stats you want.

I also wanted to recommend this post from The Cards Speak poker blog: Shoulders of Giants. The posts he makes reference to are a treasure trove of poker information that you won't find in any printed book.

Good luck at the tables!

Do Your Duty

2005-10-19T16:12:00.000-05:00

Everyone needs to get together for the common good. Justice must be done.

We all must take on our personal responsibilities so that everyone can benefit. Each of us has a duty to live up to.

We must bust the short stacks. Short stacks need to be punished for having so little money that it's not even worth it. They don't deserve to sit at the table when they're just wasting space.

Together, we can mete out these fish's doom. Put short stacks all in on marginal hands. Take a risk on a marginal hand because the consequences of losing aren't that great. They can't hurt you much. And when the short stacks do happen to win, you can always fall back on the Galaga Theory of Poker: A fish who captures your chips will give them back to you soon enough.

I'm heading to Montreal tomorrow to visit a friend and hang out over the weekend. I doubt I'll get to play any poker, but who knows!

No Limit

2005-10-18T12:47:00.000-05:00

I've been back in no limit land for more than a week now, working off the Poker Stars, Empire Poker and Eurobet bonuses.

No limit is fun! Limit is definitely my best game, but you can't beat the thrill of going all in on a strong draw and hitting it against multiple callers. The excitement of betting all your money on one hand can't be rivaled.

I always think of this gray-hair I overheard in Biloxi more than a year ago at the Grand. One of the players had just left a no limit game to play in a limit game, and the gray-hair said, "He prefers the structure of limit." There was an unsubtle sneer in the gray-hair's voice.

It's silly for no limit players to ridicule limit players. In my experience, limit is a more nuanced game with more profit potential. And I've found that no limit players tend to suck donkey balls at limit.

But what sticks with me about the gray-hair's statement is that the whole point of no limit is that it's so freestyle.

Because no limit often boils down to a game of traps and bluffs, starting hand values and blind stealing tends to go down in value. It's more important to consider the implied odds of an all-in bet than it is to consider the incremental value of getting every last little chip you can from a made hand (as in limit).

The best part of no limit though is that it's The Biggest Game In Town. Therefore, it has the most fish. I seriously think that some of these no limit fish will never improve their game, and many of them will be around for a long time. When the other games dry up, I know where to find some good friends!

Feeling Good

2005-10-17T00:34:00.000-05:00

I just got back from Little Rock, Ark., where I had a good weekend at a friend's wedding. I met some cool people, and I only played poker with Erin at the airport for a few minutes before his flight left.

But I did get to play in my brother's game on Thursday. Man oh man. My brother is OK at poker, but some of his friends seriously suck. I love it.

The best hand of the night came against the guy who beat me last time we played when he called with only overcards on the flop and caught an Ace to take down the pot. This time, he wouldn't be so lucky. I had an extra incentive because this guy can be kind of obnoxious. And he likes to think he's good at poker. Which he's not.

We saw the flop heads-up, and I caught of set of 9s. The other two cards were a 6 and a 4. No flush possibility. He checked and I bet $2. He called. The turn brought a 10. He checked, I bet $3, and he said, "I'll put in five."

"What does that mean?" I asked. I wanted to know whether he was raising my bet by $5, or if he was trying to raise me $2 to $5 total. He said he wanted it to be $5 total, and I informed him that he needed to raise at least the amount of my bet.

"Fine," he said. "Let's raise it to $10 total."

"Fine," I said. "I'm all in."

"Fold," he said.

He folded so fast he didn't even realize that he could have called my all-in bet for only a couple of dollars more. I offered him the chance to pull his cards out of the muck and call the $2 more (this is a friendly game, after all), but he declined. He said he had QJ for a straight draw. I raked in a big pot.

Other fun hands came up when I had pocket 4s on a flop of 236 rainbow. I looked at the other guy in the pot, who was completely wasted.

"You don't have jack shit," I said. "I'm all in."

He took the bait and called with 75! Of course he didn't catch anything.

Another time, I called down with a pair of 7s, knowing my opponent didn't have anything.

All in all, every one of my reads was correct. And I was able to tame the fish, who would much rather just redistribute money among themselves.

Good times, good times.

I'm reading Barry Greenstein's "Ace on the River" now, which is very good so far. It's thoughtfully written, and the glossy pages really help the photos of poker rooms from around the world.

Lessons from Stars

2005-10-12T16:10:00.000-05:00

I finally cleared the PokerStars bonus, which was OK. I didn't make any money, but I was able to learn a good bit.

Perhaps one of the most important things to know for future reference is that the amount of money I deposit for the bonus simply isn't enough for me to feel comfortable at the limits I'm playing. A $600 deposit doesn't provide enough of a comfort level for me to play my best game at $5/$10 (no less $10/$20).

Secondly, bonus whoring at shorthanded games tends to be a losing proposition. I know that shorthanded games can be very profitable, but when you only have $600 to work with, the variance seems to be too high for even $3/$6 limit games. Note to self: stop playing shorthanded when working off bonuses, even if the game selection blows.

Another thing: PokerStars simply isn't as good for limit games. There's a good reason that Party Poker has the most and the best limit games. Party Poker allows passive datamining with PokerTracker, PokerStars doesn't. Party Poker has more limit players and a larger player pool. Party Poker has a Buddy List that is much easier to use than PokerStars for finding the big fish.

Finally, this experience at PokerStars has made me realize something that I should have figured out a long time ago. I've fallen into the trap of the "irrational exuberance" of the poker fad. I fooled myself into thinking that the games won't dry up too much. The problem with that way of thinking is that the games will dry up somewhat, and if I'm forced to play at a site that's not Party Poker, my profits will be additionally cut.

And what will I do if and when the games dry up? PokerStars made me realize that I'd have a much harder time dropping down in limits than I like to admit. When I only had $80 left in my Stars account, I had to drop down to .10/.25 no limit games, which I haven't played since February. Let me tell you, that was painful. The games are soft, but I barely cared whether I won or lost. The money was nearly meaningless to me. I couldn't play well because I wasn't into it.

I like to think that if I were forced to play at that level, I could do it because I'd still make money and I like poker. But I also like to think that I would quit playing rather than have that as my regular game.

---

Empire Bonus: PLAYOCT, 100 percent to $100, with a 10X workthru. Link.

Fallout!

2005-10-11T10:21:00.000-05:00

I don't have too much to add to the discussion about the Party Poker separation from its skins, so I'll just bitch about it a little bit.

Top 10 Things That Suck About Party's Move:

1. Having my bankroll somewhere in limbo between Eurobet and Neteller.
2. Playing shorthanded games on PokerStars because they don't have an effective queing system to place players in full ring games.
3. Being unable to datamine observed hands at PokerStars.
4. No rakeback.
5. There are no mods for Stars!
6. Wil Wheaton.
7. Shitty game selection.
8. Fewer fish.
9. I think that picture of the cat sitting across the table is looking at me funny.
10. Losing money!

For some real analysis, once again I recommend ScurvyDog's blog.

Not to worry though -- Party Poker is bringing back rakeback, and it will be all good.

Party Disconnect

2005-10-10T10:03:00.000-05:00

Party Poker and all of its skins (Empire Poker, MultiPoker, Eurobet, Intertops) were shut down most of the day on Saturday, and there were big changes when they came back online.

Party Poker had divorced itself from its skins. That means that only Party Poker players can play at Party Poker tables, and the sister sites could no longer play on Party Poker's tables. Party Poker also changed its system to put blackjack on the main screen and to allow 10-tabling. The main 2+2 thread on the situation can be read here.

So I logged on to Eurobet to see what the effect of the move was. It was drastic. The number of players had dropped from a normal of about 60,000 to 7,000 yesterday. Right now, there are only 5,300 players on Eurobet. Party Poker still has tens of thousands of players.

When I searched my fish list on Eurobet, only one name popped up.

Obviously, most all of the fish play on Party Poker. Most all of the sharks play on the Party Poker skins so they can get rakeback.

Of course, fishy games are much more important than rakeback. Rakeback is a nice few hundred dollars a month, but without fishy games, poker is much less profitable.

I withdrew all of my money from Eurobet. I deposited $600 into PokerStars to take advantage of their new 25 percent up to $150 bonus. If they created that bonus to attract people who were pissed off at the Party Poker network, their plan worked!

The outcome of all this is that I'll have to find a new site for rakeback. I hope I can find an affiliate that will give me rakeback at Party, where all of my favorite fish are still hanging out.

There's a bigger picture here, too. This move by Party Poker protects its fish by separating them from the sharks who play on the skins. The fish will last longer before busting out, and that's always good for the poker economy. Long live the fish!

Research

2005-10-07T10:28:00.000-06:00

I was wondering: can super tight players really make a profit? Can you win by only playing the ultra-premium hands?

The reason I got thinking about this was a 2+2 post dealing with how you should play against rocks.

This is where PokerTracker comes in handy.

From my 5/10 data, there were 16 winners and 14 losers among players with more than 100 hands and VP$IP (Voluntarily Put Money Into The Pot) of 10 or less. That would seem to suggest that you can play super tight and still make a little bit of money. The numbers were similar when I narrowed and widened the number of hands requirement.

Let's take it a step farther. There must be some point where you're simply losing money by playing too tight.

VP$IP of 5 or less: 0 players in database
6 or less: 1 losing player
7 or less: 2 losing players
8 or less: 5 losers, 3 winners
9 or less: 10 losers, 7 winners

The only conclusion of this little exercise is that you can't play too tight. You're more likely to lose than to win if you do. In my experience, you need to fall near the 15 percent to 20 percent range of hands played if you want to be a long-term winning player.

Every winning player in my database (except one) with more than 1,000 hands played had a VP$IP between 11 percent and 26 percent.

Blogger Tourney

2005-10-05T21:01:00.000-06:00

I have registered to play in the
Online Poker Blogger Championship!

This event is powered by PokerStars.

Registration code: 9570326

Podcasts

2005-10-04T13:17:00.000-06:00

Who wouldn't like to listen to poker radio shows on their computer while they're playing cards?

There are a few poker podcasts out there, although I've only listened to a couple of them.

One of them is the best-known, which is Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio. It comes out every Sunday, and I like it a lot. They usually talk about news in the poker world, respond to e-mails and talk a little strategy. They also have had book reviews, guests and analysis of how to play certain hands.

The other I've listened to is called Poker Diagram, which is a couple of crazy Brits who play a sit n go tournament. They walk the listener through the tournament as they're playing, and they also just talk about poker in general.

To listen to these radio shows, I recommend downloading iTunes here. Then you install it and run it. Then click on the "Podcasts" button on the left of the iTunes screen. Click on "Podcast Directory," and then you can search for and subscribe to the show you want to hear.

Or you can just download the shows from the Web sites that I linked to above.

Here is a list of some other results I got when I searched for "poker" in iTunes:

_VC Poker Radio
_Joe Average Poker Radio
_Route 66 Poker Podcast
_Rounders -- The Poker Show

Tampa -- Sith Arts

2005-10-02T22:58:00.000-06:00

I'm actually back from Tampa, and it was a fun trip. I lost a little bit, but I'm not complaining. I'll just make it back!

Some thoughts:

_I actually like the single table sit n gos at the Rock. I played three for $120 each time. The payouts were $450 for first, $300 for second and $200 for third. The blinds started at $25/$50, and the initial chip count was $1,500. Blinds went up every 10 hands. It was very Party Poker. I think it's fun to throw your chips up in the air and see who catches them. Good for the poker economy.

_Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods apparently played the $1,060 buyin sit no gos on Friday night at the Rock. I didn't find out that they were right there until just after they had left.

_A few hands were really fun. I liked catching a flush with 86s at Derby Lane, and then catching another with 96s at the Hard Rock Seminole but losing to a higher flush. At that last table at Hard Rock Seminole, I also had sets of Aces and Kings cracked, which didn't bother me. It was funny. I mean, I figure suckouts don't hurt at all when they're at $2/$2 limit.

_At one of the sit n gos, this frat guy player started arguing with another player about whether you have to say "raise" or not when when it's your turn to act and you throw a bigger chip into the pot (you do, otherwise it's just a call). Then the player questioned the dealer a little, and the dealer flipped out. "I'm in charge of this table, and I'll fucking explain the rule after the hand is over," he said. He could have gotten in trouble if the player had complained to management, but the player apologized instead.

_Only one of the three dog tracks had its poker room open (Derby Lane). I think the dog tracks rotate which poker room is open depending on which one is having races.

_I love implied odds.

_It's hard to keep track of pot size when there are eight people in the hand for multiple bets every round.

_You can have an ungodly win rate at a super fishy $2/$2 limit table. Think as high as 50 big bets per hour.

_I like XM Satellite Radio on Airtran.

_The Hard Rock Seminole has a club atmosphere at about 3 a.m. early Sunday morning. One guy was spinning around on his head.

Tampa -- My God

2005-10-01T11:28:00.000-06:00

I almost feel sorry for these damn fish here in Tampa. They're some of the shittiest poker players I've ever seen.

Daniel, Sham and I arrived at the Hard Rock Seminole Casino at about 3 a.m. early Saturday morning. I immediately sat at a $2/$2 limit table, and I won two of my first three hands. After two hours, I was up $207 -- 50 big bets an hour.

These players are so bad. They shouldn't be allowed near a poker table. They shouldn't be allowed to play cards. They make me lose a little more faith in humanity. They're dumb gamblers who don't even know how to play the game, drink too much and are destined to lose their money to anyone who has half a clue.

There was an asshole to my left who played every hand, and a dumb woman to his left who played and raised every single pot. Then to my right, there were three guys who had never played poker before. Hello!

The funniest part was when the drunk asshole told about half the table he'd buy drinks for them, but then he promptly busted out before the cocktail waitress returned. And keep in mind, this ain't Vegas. In Tampa, you have to pay full price for your drinks. So I had to shell out $4.50 for my Bud Light, and the dumn woman had to pay $14 for her double Hennesy. I find that funny because the only reason she ordered it was to screw over the asshole.

Don't get me wrong -- it was a good time. It's true no fold em hold em. Really, I had an average of eight or nine people to see the flop. It's profitable, but these people are just terrible. Like Daniel wrote, the state law that limits bets to $2 only seems to encourage people to play more. I wouldn't be surprised to see much more gambling in Florida in the coming years.

Just don't try to bluff the fish! They sure won't fold for anything -- not when they're capping with hands like Q7o and 93o preflop.

You Can't Save Many Bets

2005-09-29T15:37:00.000-06:00

It seems to me that it's a fine line between profiting the most from a hand and losing the least. If you know that you have the best hand, then it makes sense to figure out how to get the most money into the pot.

But many times, you have to be resigned to seeing a showdown with what may well be the second-best hand. You know you're likely beat, but the chance that you will win and the size of the pot mean that you should pay off that last bet or two.

The problem is that I find myself spending a lot of extra bets on hands that turn out to be second-best. I usually want to jam the pot when I believe have the best hand, and I want to gain information, position and equity by raising and making other people fold.

My point is that it's difficult to save bets because that often means you would have to scale back your aggression. And I strongly believe that aggressive play wins the most money in the long run, even if it costs a little bit more on those second-best hands. I think it's difficult to try and save money, because those hands are the ones where you should be thinking about value betting and fighting for the pot.

Of course, some hands are clearer. When you're way ahead or way behind, it's easy to check-call, check-call, bet. And against a passive opponent, it's easy to raise the turn and perhaps check the river, depending on the situation.

But I don't know how much you can really try to save money on losing hands without losing money on winning hands as well.

Separately, I am continually impressed with Sound of a Suckout. He had another excellent post here.

The post rang true with me for a couple of reasons. First, he talks about how you need to examine your game closely when you're winning, moreso than when you're losing. I need to work on that. And he also talks about how it's easy to get complacent in your game. He's absolutely right, once again.

Braves Win!

2005-09-28T11:21:00.000-06:00

The Atlanta Braves won their 14th consecutive division title last nigth -- a feat unheard of in professional sports. No other team has ever been this good for this long.

I've been a Braves fan since I was 4 years old, when I have vague memories of something good happening in 1982. Of course, it wasn't until a few years later that I begged to stay up late to see the end of games, but the point is that I've been with the Braves my whole life. From Little League baseball to Internet broadcasts in Santiago. From being the worst team in 1990 to being the best team ever since.

I'm incredibly lucky to have a team that I love so much do so well for all these years. Despite my bitching about their bullpen or their offense or their managerial decisions, the fact is that everything always works out every year.

Some people say that the Braves aren't a great team because they've only won the World Series once during this unprecedented run. I disagree. While one championship is disappointing, I don't think that should take away from the greater, more difficult challenge of being the best of their class, year after year.

The playoffs are a crapshoot anyway. Anything can happen in a short series.

And this year, perhaps the Braves will get lucky one more time and win their second championship.

Go Braves!

One Year Past....

2005-09-27T10:07:00.000-06:00

I arrived in Santiago, Chile one year ago today after a long plane flight from Atlanta.

When my flight landed, my main game was $25 buyin no limit on Ultimate Bet. My bankroll was $2,200, which shrunk to $2,000 by the end of the year and $800 by the end of January. Other than that, all I had was my dwindling savings and my small pay from The Santiago Times.

I wonder what would have happened if I had not recovered from that bankroll downswing in January. What if I had gone bust then?

I would never have gotten good at limit. My total profits would not now exceed $12,500. Perhaps I would still be in Chile. Maybe I would have returned to the States sooner.

Poker has shaped my life over the last eight months. Without poker money, I would have had to have found another job in Chile. Maybe I would have liked my new job. Maybe I would have liked that job enough to stay in South America. Perhaps my Spanish would have improved more. Perhaps I would have fallen in love.

Or maybe I would have run out of money and been forced to come crawling home. I could have ended up broke. I certainly would have needed a new job by now -- I wouldn't have had the luxury of taking my time looking for jobs while making regular vacations.

The one inescapable conclusion is that poker has given me more opportunities than I would have had otherwise. Whether that's for the best or not is debatable.

But I do know this: Poker has guaranteed me a secondary income for the rest of my life, barring an enormous economic depression that would drive all the fish away. I am good enough at the game to consistently win, even if the games get rocky.

I will never be poor. I will never be hungry. I will always have poker to pay for my basic needs, if not more.

For that, I am grateful.

Up next: the card rooms of Tampa, Florida!

Not much...

2005-09-21T22:41:00.000-06:00

Poker continues to be good, although I don't really understand why I tend to play less when I'm winning. Perhaps because I feel like I'm on my game and don't want to ruin it? Or maybe a more realistic answer is that it means I'm treating poker more like a part-time job in which I earn money, and I don't want to sink too many hours into it.

Don't get me wrong; I still love poker. But losing is what motivates me to play and get back above even.

It reminds me of a part in the book, "The Professor, The Banker and The Suicide King." At one point, Ted Forrest loses big -- real big -- early on in a session, but he sits through for hours and hours to get even. Generally, I agree with the conventional wisdom that when you're running bad, you should stop playing for a while to gather yourself and find a better game. But sometimes, like Forrest says, it can be an excellent character- and confidence-building exercise to work yourself back into the black. That applies especially if you're in a good game and you feel like you're playing well.

Separately, I was impressed by this post: Cold Calling: The Silent Killer. Check it out.

I'll leave you with a Hand of the Day. It may have been my single biggest hand in a limit ring game. Thank you, river!

***** Hand History for Game 2753770897 *****
$10/$20 Texas Hold'em - Thursday, September 22, 00:00:25 EDT 2005
Table Table 41362 (9 max) (Real Money)
Seat 2 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 1: ScubaDiva57 ( $458.44 )
Seat 2: pokerinchile ( $489 )
Seat 3: allgold111 ( $307 )
Seat 5: capt_Yip ( $185 )
Seat 7: garfield33 ( $657.24 )
Seat 8: jjbear ( $437 )
Seat 9: KidSunshine ( $915.95 )
Seat 6: Jujubes ( $405 )
Seat 4: pokernoob420 ( $500 )
allgold111 posts small blind [$5].
pokernoob420 posts big blind [$10].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to pokerinchile [ Jd Ac ]
capt_Yip folds.
Jujubes folds.
garfield33 folds.
jjbear folds.
KidSunshine calls [$10].
ScubaDiva57 calls [$10].
pokerinchile raises [$20].
allgold111 folds.
pokernoob420 calls [$10].
>You have options at Devils den Table!.
KidSunshine calls [$10].
ScubaDiva57 calls [$10].
** Dealing Flop ** [ Td, Ah, 7h ]
pokernoob420 checks.
>You have options at Devils den Table!.
KidSunshine checks.
ScubaDiva57 checks.
pokerinchile bets [$10].
pokernoob420 calls [$10].
KidSunshine calls [$10].
ScubaDiva57 calls [$10].
** Dealing Turn ** [ Js ]
pokernoob420 checks.
KidSunshine checks.
ScubaDiva57 bets [$20].
pokerinchile raises [$40].
>You have options at Devils den Table!.
>You have options at Devils den Table!.
pokernoob420 calls [$40].
KidSunshine raises [$60].
>You have options at Devils den Table!.
ScubaDiva57 calls [$40].
pokerinchile calls [$20].
pokernoob420 calls [$20].
** Dealing River ** [ Ad ]
pokernoob420 checks.
KidSunshine bets [$20].
>You have options at Table 13058 Table!.
ScubaDiva57 folds.
pokerinchile raises [$40].
pokernoob420 folds.
KidSunshine calls [$20].
pokerinchile shows [ Jd, Ac ] a full house, Aces full of jacks.
KidSunshine doesn't show [ Qs, Kc ] a straight, ten to ace.
pokerinchile wins $442 from the main pot with a full house, Aces full of jacks.

WSOP

2005-09-18T23:51:00.000-06:00

I sat down in the living room tonight after sending application materials for a job in Washington. I thought about playing poker first, but I figured I should probably relax instead of worrying at the tables.

First I flipped to the Phillies-Marlins game, which the Marlins won (and which helps the Braves keep their 5-game lead!) Then I saw that last week's World Series of Poker was on next. I got excited when I saw the lineup of the final table for the $5,000 no limit event: T.J. Cloutier, John Hennigan, Todd Brunson, Tony Ma and John Bonetti.

But, as usual, the coverage totally sucked. When will TV get over this fascination with only showing all-in showdowns? That's not poker. It's fucking preflop play, over and over again.

And they don't even do that very well. They only show the chip counts occasionally, they don't break down the pot odds for the viewer, they don't give the audience any idea of the hand number. It makes me mad.

Poker is a game played on the flop. I wish the rest of the world could see that on TV every once in a while.

---

Meanwhile, the tables have been overly good. I haven't even been playing much, and I've still recorded some very nice wins. What can I say?

I must be living right!

Buckhead Poker

2005-09-15T23:59:00.000-06:00

I successfully stayed away from online poker yesterday, but I still got into a live game!

I went to a Buckhead home game for the second time. It's a pretty good group of guys who play, and they have a fairly nice poker table and a dealer. I broke even for the night, but it was pretty fun.

There were two highlights of the evening.

The first was when one of the guys at the game insisted that a made hand always has better odds to win than a drawing hand. That got a lot of the guys (including me) laughing, and one of them set up a prop bet. The bet was that they would set up hole cards of 22 and KQs on a board of JTX, with the J and T of the same suit as the K and Q. So the KQ drawing hand would have nine outs for the flush, another six outs for the straight, and another six outs for top pair. I wish I could have gotten in on the prop bet!

So the two guys set up those cards on the table and then peeled off the turn and river. They bet $5 a hand for 15 hands. Of course, the KQ hand won the vast majority of the time. Everyone was laughing because the guy with 22 couldn't believe he was losing. Afterward, we looked up the exact probability on a Web site. KQ turned out to be a 72 percent favorite in that situation.

The other funny thing was a hand I was involved in. I looked down at my hole cards from the big blind and saw Jh 6d. It was checked around and the flop came JTX, all diamonds. With top pair and a very weak diamond draw, I made a pot-sized bet, which was very small. I got one caller. The turn was an unsuited rag, and I bet half the pot. I still got one caller who appeared weak. The river brought a fourth diamond, making me a flush with the 6 of diamonds. I bet about half the pot again, and the other guy called.

"Well, all I've got is a flush with the 6. Can you beat that?" I asked.

"You only have the 6? I think I can beat that flush," the other guy said.

Then I flipped up my cards. I was as shocked as anyone to turn over a very different hand from the one I thought I had. I had the Q of diamonds and the 6 of hearts. I hadn't just made a flush on the river, I had made a straight flush! On top of that, I probably extracted near maximum value from the hand because I think my opponent wouldn't have stayed in if I had been betting stronger.

Good times, good times.

Win, win, win

2005-09-15T08:36:00.000-06:00

Is there something wrong with me? I just keep winning!

I don't know if this is the best winning streak of my poker career in monetary terms, but it's certainly the longest. So far in September, I've had two losing days, and one of those was the first day of the month.

The weird thing about it is that I can feel myself falling into some of the traps that are set up for gamblers. I feel like I may never lose; I feel like the games are easy; I feel like I should step up in limits if I'm doing so well at these; I feel discontent with just winning without any sort of challenge.

It would be easy to make a costly error at this point. I'm going to do what I can to avoid it. If that means playing more conservatively (gasp!), then maybe that's what I'll do.

I'm thinking about taking a day off, but that seems counter-intuitive. You don't take a day off during a winning streak...

Do you?

Showing Down

2005-09-13T10:28:00.000-06:00

The problem with good (but not great hands) on the flop is that you often have to take them to showdown, even when you suspect you're beat. And paying off sucks.

The idea is that if you're involved in a 10 big bet pot, you only need to win 1 in 10 times for the hand to be worth one more bet on the river. Fine. Easy enough.

The more difficult situation is on the turn, when you're facing a check-raise. Or a turn re-raise. And then there's the river, which sucks because river raises are rarely bluffs.

So I find myself in these situations constantly -- I know I have to be pretty damn sure to be able to fold a decent hand in a large pot, but calling down makes the baby Jesus cry. I'd love it if I could be the one doing the raising (as is usually the case) but sometimes all you can do is call and hope. It seems so weak.

Then again, it feels great when you do catch that chance that your opponent is bluffing and take down a large pot with a weak hand. I know Dan Harrington was writing about tournament no limit hold em when he says opponents are bluffing as much as 10 percent of the time, but I think that estimate generally applies to limit poker as well.

What gives me a hard time is having faith in the math. I know how to do the math. You add the probability that your opponent is bluffing to the chance that your hand is best. Then you compare that percentage to the size of the pot, and if your bet cost is a smaller percentage of the pot than your chance of winning, than you can call every time if your estimates are anywhere near accurate.

I still hate it though. It always feels like I'm throwing away money in those low percentage situations. I make the call, because I know folding is wrong (especially against maniacs), but I won't like it.

So long, sweet run

2005-09-12T10:43:00.000-06:00

Oh, I hate to see you go. But now, it is time to say goodbye.

Farewell, sweet winning streak. I certainly will miss you. Perhaps we'll meet again someday. I'll wait for you.

OK, OK, it wasn't that great of a winning streak. I basically had about eight or nine winning days in a row. Most of them were small wins, with one big day mixed in.

But that came to a halt last night, when I finally posted a loss. Aw, shcuks. Can't win them all. I wish I could!

The loss doesn't bother me. It wasn't even large.

In a way, it might be good that I lost a little. I can't get complacent, and I certainly don't want to get too cocky.

Want to bet I start a new winning streak today?

Shorthanded Play

2005-09-07T13:17:00.000-06:00

I have mixed feelings about shorthanded play. Is it more or less profitable than full ring? Is the higher variance worth it?

I don't know. When I was clearing the Poker Room bonus about a week and a half ago, I played mostly 2/4 5 max games. I got killed. Granted, I was experimenting a bit with the concept of balls-out aggression and seeing the showdown. Granted, I was sucked out on a lot. Granted, it was 2/4 and these things are to be expected. Despite that, I wonder if shorthanded games are even worth it.

Then again, while clearing the Poker Stars bonus today, I played 3/6 6 max games. I came out slightly ahead before receiving the bonus, and the play was atrocious.

Here are my problems with shorthanded play:

1) Because the range of playable hands is higher, you can't give your opponents as much credit for a strong hand as you can in full ring games. Therefore, you have to go to showdown more often with more marginal hands. That means that it's more difficult to push any advantage that you might have because you have less information to make a choice with.

2) Because you'll take more hands to showdown, turn and river play becomes less important (unless you have a strong hand). Many times, you have to simply call down.

3) Variance is higher because you have to see more hands to the end. I don't know if you gain any discernable edge in shorthanded play that would compensate for the increased variance.

4) Loose players gain significant preflop value. A player who sees the flop 50 percent of the time in a shorthanded game may be able to survive, but a player who only sees the flop 40 percent of the time in a full ring game will usually get busted eventually. Because it's correct to see the flop more frequently in a shorthanded game, loose preflop play isn't as big of a sin.

My gut feeling is that the expected value of shorthanded play is similar to full ring play. Unfortunately, shorthanded play tends to help fish out both preflop and with hands that they want to take to showdown. Fortunately, they're still fish and will pay you off rather than folding an obvious losing hand.

Now that these bonuses are clear, I get to go back to my home field: Eurobet! See you at the 5/10 full ring tables!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again

2005-09-06T09:35:00.000-06:00

No limit can be freakin boring.

The only mild excitement in no limit comes when you actually do get a hand that you have a chance to play after waiting forever. Then you might make a bet preflop or on the flop.

And if you get raised, or, worse, check-raised, you'll likely fold. Maybe every few hundred hands you'll get a hand that's worth pushing. And even then, your opponent is more than likely to do just what you would do in the same situation: fold. Or he might call with a better hand.

So you have a game that seems like it should be interesting, but it's not because the large bet sizes make no limit largely a game of betting and folding. (Or just checking and folding).

Don't get me wrong; no limit is quite profitable. There are so many fish out there that don't even understand the basics of no limit. They couldn't spot a bluff or a continuation bet if it were wrapped around their throats.

The point is that no limit can be mind-numbingly tedious, even when you're winning.

While I was clearing the Empire Poker bonus last night, I played Mindsweeper most of the time just to have something entertaining to do.

Seriously. I had to play Mindsweeper to occupy myself while four-tabling $100 buyin no limit games.

I hate to critisize the game that has brought me so much money because fish see it on TV. I just don't think no limit is the game for me as long as limit poker is profitable as well. In limit, at least you can play some hands.

When Mindsweeper is more interesting than poker, something is definitely wrong.

Bonii

2005-09-04T10:24:00.000-06:00

I love working off bonuses. They're so profitable!

So don't miss the bandwagon. I think the Poker Room bonus is expired, but there are still plenty of wonderful whoring opportunities out there right now. And I mean now.

Poker Stars: They have a 20 percent up to $120 bonus that expires Sept. 9.

Party Poker: Use bonus code USETOWIN to get 20 percent up to $100 in bonus money, expiring Sept. 6. I've heard this bonus isn't available to everyone.

Empire Poker: Use bonus code PLAYSEP to get a 100 percent bonus up to $100, expiring Sept. 6. You only have three days to work off this 10 times workthru requirement.

Multi Poker: They have a weird bonus scheme that offers 100 percent up to $500, or 100 percent to lesser amounts if you wish. Find out more info here. I'm not going to take advantage of these bonuses. The 20 times workthru is just ridiculous. I'd make more on rakeback playing 3/6 limit on Eurobet.

Eurobet: There was some talk that their monthly $25 bonus was gone (which is only really useful if you have rakeback there anyway). But someone found that the bonus code PETRA25 will work this month at least. More details can be found here.

I've also changed the way I work off poker bonuses again. Before I advocated working them off at 1/2 6-max limit games. While that may be the quickest way to clear them, I don't know if it's the most profitable. So recently, I've gone back to playing NL$100 for these bonuses (the Party Poker ones). I figure NL$100 takes slightly longer to work off the bonuses, but it's also a more profitable game. And I think it's good to keep my no limit game in shape.

Running Bad

2005-09-02T00:52:00.000-06:00

Rather than write a post about these terrible bad beats, I'll just try not to dwell on it.

Where the Money Comes From

2005-08-31T13:23:00.000-06:00

I was talking to my friend Drew last night about where I thought the most money was to be made in limit poker. I highly recommended Jennifer Harmon's limit section of Super System II (which Drew had recently read), and many of these thoughts echo her sentiments.

Because limit is a game of value betting, I feel the best way to make money is to maximize your profit when you have the best hand or increase your chances by thinning the field with a more marginal hand.

Here are the three ways I told Drew that you make money in limit hold 'em poker:

1. Check-raising.

2. Bluffing.

3. Semibluffing/saving bets when you're committed to calling down anyway.

Check-raising makes you money because it's often the only way for you to protect your hand. In a multiway pot, if you check-raise the flop from early position, you can frequently drive out many drawing hands that would have paid one bet but are unwilling to pay the price of two. Additionally, check-raising is valueable when you have a strong draw, although these kinds of bets are made more for value than to thin the field. Thirdly, check-raising with a hand like second pair can often win you the pot when you bet it out again on the turn if you can get the hand heads-up after the flop.

Bluffing is difficult in limit hold em because you can't intimidate opponents with a big bet; every bet you make can only be as big as the limit you are playing at. But when you can pull off a successful bluff, it's a major coup. When you get someone to fold the better hand, you're collecting somewhere between two and 10 big bets that wouldn't belong to you if you went to showdown. Now that's value betting! Because the bet sizes in limit are regulated, it's important to think about how often your bluff will make your opponent fold. If you think your opponent will fold one out of seven times, and your bet is less than one seventh of the pot size, than you're making money if your estimates are close to accurate.

When I mention saving bets, I'm referring to Jennifer Harmon's advice of raising from late position on the turn if you think that will make your opponent check to you on the river. The cost of raising the turn and calling down is the same -- two bets (one each on the turn and river, or one on the turn and one on the river). But you can make a lot of extra money this way if you get lucky. If you hit trips or two pair on the river, you can fire again. Or, sometimes, your opponent will simply fold the turn.

Of course, these are just three tactical in-game concepts that ignore the larger places where money in limit comes from. From a macro standpoint, the money is generated by the fishiest players who add value to every pot and go too far with hands that they are unlikely to win. It also comes from players who don't know the odds and continue with hands they should have folded, or vice versa.

Also, these tactics all are secondary to the most important aspects of limit hold em: aggression and value betting. Aggression and value betting are like the guiding principles of correct play. Check-raising, bluffing and semibluffing are merely ends to those means.

Back In Action

2005-08-29T20:06:00.000-06:00

I've been out of the online poker world for the last few days because I made a trip to Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and Annapolis, Md., over the weekend. I visited friends and saw three fun baseball games.

But I also got to teach one of my friends how to play no limit Texas hold 'em!

I always enjoy trying to bring new players into the game. I'm not sure how good I am at it, but I like to convey both the fun and the potential profitability of the game.

The first night, we didn't play for real money and just used poker chips. It was a great time. My friend who was new to the game kept talking a big game and saying things like, "You have a big hand, little lady?" to my friend Brigid. It cracked me up.

Then we played for a $5 buy-in on the second night, and the cards ran cold for the new guy. It was too bad; I wanted him to win.

Oh well. At least I won! I hope my friend plays again and continues to enjoy the game. The only problem is that he's extremely risk-averse, and he hates losing even small amounts of money. That kind of attitude won't fly in poker. You have to spend money to make money. You have to take calculated risks based on the expectation that you will come out ahead in the long run even if you lose that specific hand.

Most of all, you have to appreciate the fact that upward and downward swings play a large role in poker. It takes some time to understand just how dead the cards can be at times. Fortunately for me, I haven't run bad for quite some time now. Let's hope I don't get my due any time soon.

Making the Most of It

2005-08-23T13:29:00.000-06:00

One of the blogs I read, Sound of a Suckout, had a post a few days ago about how you could sacrifice some profit to try to minimize your variance. The author, ScurvyDog, is a winning player at $15/$30 limit hold em, and I highly recommend his blog.

Here's an excerpt from that post, titled Pioneering Days.

"... there's no law etched in stone that you must subscribe to the cult of hyper aggressive, in an attempt to maximize BB/100. I'm not talking about nut peddling, far from it, but more about situations like playing 88 from MP, A10s UTG+1, etc. Open-raising with it if everyone folds to you is +EV, especially if you back it up by playing hard and fast, even when the flop misses you, but it's also going to increase your overall variance and likely not greatly increase your BB/100. ...

There's nothing wrong with simply folding that pair of eights, despite the fact that raising with it is slightly EV in the long run, if folding it serves a larger purpose as far as your goals."

It's an interesting idea. Perhaps it could work if you could identify the most marginal situations and sacrifice tiny percentages of expected value.

But I disagree.

I believe there's only one way to play poker: tight and aggressive. You need to ram and jam; you need to play every hand to the fullest. You need to bet and raise, not call and fold.

Additionally, I don't know how possible it is to only sacrifice a small percentage of expected value by folding those pocket eights preflop. Profits often come from making the most of marginal hands. By playing them aggressively, one of a few things will happen:

1. You will win the pot by betting hard with what you believe is the best hand.

2. You will win the hand by flopping a set or a draw that pans out on the turn or river.

3. You will win the hand by bluffing.

4. You will get into a heads-up battle where you have to spend some money to see a showdown.

5. You will bet the flop and fold to a raise.

Overall, you will make money by playing those eights. Why would you sacrifice any of your potential earnings by folding a possible winning hand?

If you're afraid of the variance, you should step down to lower limits.

Poker is about making the most out of every situation through thoughtful and aggressive plays. Anything less leads down a weak and tight road, and that's a road you don't want to travel.

$10,000.00

2005-08-19T10:39:00.000-06:00

If you were a contestant on The Price Is Right, you could wait in your seat and hope for whoever Rod Roddy's replacement is to call your name. Then you would bid $1 and hope to advance to the main event, and maybe even the showcase showdown. But first, you would get to spin the big wheel. If you hit $1.00 exactly (a 1 in 20 chance), you would win $1,000 and get another roll of the wheel. Then if you hit $1.00 again, you would win $10,000.

Or, you could play poker.

That's what I did. I've crossed five figures for the first time, and my total poker winnings are now over $10,000 for the first time!

Maybe none of my friends will read this and I won't have to buy them beers...

I know a lot of people have made much more, but I'm pretty damn proud that I've gotten this high. A quick recap of my poker career: I started playing $25 buyin no limit hold em games online in spring 2004. I first experimented with limit last fall, and eventually I decided that limit is the future if I want to grow my bankroll and move up.

There were many false starts in my limit experience. I met with some early failure on Absolute Poker in November and December, and then some more troubles at Full Tilt in December. The final straw was a huge downswing at Ultimate Bet in January. I retreated to smaller no limit games. Then I clawed my way back and had a few more successes and failures at limit poker.

Finally though, I feel like I have a solid grasp on limit, and my winrate is steadily improving at every limit I play. My regular game is still $3/$6, but I'll play as high as $10/$20 if the game is fishy.

I'd play higher if I had a real job, but $3/$6 is fine for now. I don't want to take too many chances with my only current source of income.

I remember something Daniel told me a while ago from Phil Gordon's book. In the book, he says that once you reach your first $100,000, you should take a vacation. I'm only 1/10th of the way there, so I guess I have more poker playing to do before I get any time off!

The Nugget

2005-08-18T09:25:00.000-06:00

Our crew walked into the Golden Nugget in downtown Las Vegas for its Sunday morning tournament on June 27, 2004.

Daniel, Old Sham and I paid our $55 entry fees to the 57-player tourney, and the cards were in the air. The first hour of the tournament was limit hold 'em. I think they did it that way so some of the people wouldn't bust out so quickly.

Even though I didn't have hardly any limit experience at the time, I was still able to catch some hands and build up a nice little advantage early on.

The no limit play started after the first break. I was wearing my now-retired red shirt and my Atlanta Braves hat. When I caught pocket aces and bet it strongly the whole way, one crazy older guy called me down. I turned over my cards, and he exploded.

"I should have known you had aces! You have an A on your hat already!" he said. He was crazy and terrible at poker, but he was fun to have at the table. He busted shortly thereafter.

Of course, as is typical of these tournaments, the blinds started going up very quickly. I had to think about making moves.

Before long, it became obvious that my only weapon was the preflop all-in. But I waited until the right moment. Then, when I was under the gun and threatened by a sizable big blind, I pushed with pocket 4s. I got one caller who had a couple of high cards (AQ or something like it), and my 4s held up.

That wasn't the only lucky thing to happen on that hand. After the hand ended, the tournament director moved me to a new table, right behind the button. I got to dodge the blind for another round!

That would buy me enough time to catch a good hand.

Not that I needed it. I pushed all-in again on the first hand I was dealt. One of the big stacks called me, and I doubled up again.

That was my plan. Just keep moving in with premium hands until I could gain enough of a foothold to see a flop. Everyone at the table caught on to my plan, but that didn't stop them from calling me repeatedly, and my cards kept holding up.

Meanwhile, the Atlanta Braves and Baltimore Orioles game was on TV. The Braves had been slumping early in the season and the All Star break was quickly approaching. The Braves had to do something if they were going to keep up in the divisional race and try for a 13th straight title. The Braves came back from big deficit in the late innings, and then starter-turned-closer John Smoltz struck out former Brave Javy Lopez for the final out. The game turned around the season and the Braves never looked back.

Back at the tournament, I was moved to the final table. For the first time in hours, I had more chips than most of the other players. Before the blinds even got to me, a few people had busted out.

I couldn't believe it. I had already made the money, and now I had a shot at winning this thing. I started getting superstitious. I washed my hands carefully during every break, making sure not to get my watch wet. I tried to time my bathroom breaks so I would arrive at my seat with plenty of time.

I picked up some pots with preflop raises, and suddenly I was the big stack. I was looking down at piles and piles of yellow chips. Hundreds of them. I had about 130,000 chips, another guy was near 100,000 in chips, and a third guy was sitting with around 40,000 or so.

Then came the crucial hand: 83 suited. A crowd had gathered at the rail, and one of the women yelled, "Show us your smile!" I looked back, grinned and tipped my cap. Everyone was cheering for me, and I pushed all in on the short stack.

My reasoning was that if I was against two overcards, I was about a 5:3 dog. Against one overcard, I was in a race situation. So even with the lowly 83, I could significantly improve my chances of winning it all by knocking out a player.

He called, and his overcards held up.

After a couple more hands, I still held a narrow lead over the other two guys. The second-place opponent, an older Irishman, asked if we wanted to chop the pot.

I initially resisted the idea, preferring instead to play it out. But then I realized that I was probably outmatched, and if we split the pot three ways, everyone would still make more money than they would if they finished in second or third.

So I agreed to split it up.

I was declared the first place finisher, although the three of us all received the same $770 prize.

I had won a Vegas tournament. I was on top of the world.

I haven't felt that good since, nor have I won that much money at once in the last 14 months.

That was early in my poker career. It gave me the bankroll and confidence boost to continue playing and improving.

But that tournament is still my crowning poker achievement, and I wonder when I'll feel that good again at the poker table. Maybe when I'm playing $100/$200 limit at the Bellagio!

(Someday)

Gone Fishin'

2005-08-15T16:28:00.000-06:00

I never was much of a fisher. The one time I hit it big was when I was 13 years old and went on a Boy Scout trip to the Boundary Waters between Minnesota and Canada. In those rivers, all you had to do was lower the hook into the water with something shiny on it, and then you'd dip the rod up and down for a few minutes. If you were there at dawn or dusk, you'd catch a lot of walleye. And they tasted delicious.

I think I'm beginning to learn what real fishing is like. You wait. You try to find the part of the pond that has the most fish. Then you wait. And you move to another table. And wait.

You check your buddy list on Party Poker for some fish you've been tracking. You chase them down and try to sit at their tables.

Other times, you sit at a table and just hang out for a while. You don't post the blinds, you just sit. And then, with the help of PokerAce HUD and PokerTracker, you'll begin to see if there are any fish in the area.

You want to go fishing in a pond with table averages of more than 30 percent seeing the flop (VP$P).

Perhaps more importantly, you want to sit to the left of the big fish. Often, the table averages don't matter. What's important is that you have the fish to your right.

Rinse. Repeat. Open new tables. Wait for numbers to pop up. Wait some more. Eventually, you'll find the fish. When you find a monster fish, add him to your buddy list so you can track him down later.

And then, at last, you're ready to play. Cast your line deep and have your bait prepared.

It's time to go fishing. They won't have a chance.

Um, 1/2

2005-08-12T07:57:00.000-06:00

Daniel and I reached a conclusion that many people have probably already decided. When bonus whoring, it's best to clear the bonus in a quick, low-risk manner.

That means playing $1/2 6-max limit poker at four tables until it's done.

I know, I know ... it's all poker, and bonus money is still poker money. Why should I change my game just because of some bonus?

I have an easy answer to that. It's poker's golden rule: Do what makes you the most money.

Through 700 hands to clear the current $100 Party Poker bonus, I made about $50 in game play (not counting the bonus). So I was up a total of $150 in just a few hours of play. That freed me up to continue working on my computer and consider whrere to invest my gambling money next.

Another consideration is rakeback. If I had rakeback at Party Poker, I would probably play my regular 3/6 limit game. That way, I would be clearing the bonus and earning higher rakeback at the same time.

Slight change of topic: I was reading the 2+2 forums to find out if it would be worthwhile to invest in the Multipoker bonus. It's $100, but the workthru is 2,000 raked hands. One 3/6 player said that over that many hands, a typical 3/6 player could expect to earn $105 in rakeback alone. So I guess I won't waste my time at Multipoker anymore unless they come up with a better deal or I'm itching to play thousands of hands of 1/2 6-max again.

Here's another thing. The players at 1/2 6-max are so angry! They get so mad every time someone has the better hand or sucks out on them. I guess it's just the nature of the beast because these players are more likely to be some of the least experienced poker players out there. And it makes me laugh sometimes. I was called a fish about a dozen times just while clearing that bonus. Whatever.

The point seems to be that these low-limit players have no tolerance for losses. They fail to understand that suckouts are a part of the game, moreso in shorthanded play than in other games. Yes, the best hand on the flop usually wins. But there are also many other hands that are worth continuing with if the odds (or bluffing) justify it.

That's poker. Get used to it.

A Cry for Help

2005-08-11T22:47:00.000-06:00

I've pretty much decided that my Gigabyte GA-7DPXDW+ motherboard must be rubbish. I installed two new hard drives in a mirrored RAID yesterday, and one of them has already crashed.

Not good. Very not good.

So if anyone has any ideas, please let me know.

Here's what I need:

1) Suggestions about replacement motherboards/server workstations. I would be looking for a dual processer board that supports the AMD Athlon MP chipset. I'd also like the board to have RAID controllers, but I guess that's not necessary.

2) A computer genious who can come up with a miracle cure for my computer. Yes, the bios and drivers are all updated. Yes, this is the fourth (fourth!) hard drive to fail under this system.

3) Ideas about a complete replacement for this computer at a cheap price.

Let me know. Until then, online profits will be severely limited.

Computer

2005-08-10T12:53:00.000-06:00

My computer is having issues again, so once more I cannot play poker or even whore casino bonuses.

Argh! Yar!

Maybe I should look on the bright side: even though I'm wasting all of my waking hours trying to fix this damn computer, maybe I'm avoiding a terrible losing streak. Yeah, right.

I finished reading Super System II today, and I thought it was good. The best section was Jennifer Harmon's limit guidance, which I've mentioned previously. Doyle's no limit section was very similar to the original Super/System.

I also thought the Omaha 8, Omaha Hi and Triple Draw sections were well thought-out. As a novice to these games, it was helpful to learn starting hand requirements and basic strategies. I hope to play more of these games in the future!

Working for a Living

2005-08-07T20:08:00.000-06:00

I have my first job interview tomorrow for a reporting job in South Carolina. I guess I'm glad that I'm finally getting back to work, but it's yet another signal that this easy life is going to end before long. It's been nice quitting my job, living in Santiago, traveling and playing poker for a living. I can't do it forever though. It's a fun life, but poker isn't everything.

That said, poker still rules.

Tunica was a lot of fun, even though I lost a little money. I won about $200 in limit play and lost $140 on blackjack and $360 on no limit hold em. The no limit game was almost very profitable, if not for a couple of bad beats. On both of them, I made good reads preflop and pushed all in. Unfortunately, my pocket 9s and AT didn't hold up against KJo and 87s. Oh well. I'd do it again!

The most interesting hand of the trip came at a table at the Horseshoe in a 4/8 limit hold em game. Daniel and I were sitting at the table, and he recounts some of the excellent table talk in this post.

Going into the hand, two of the players were known quantities. There was Old Sham in the small blind, who called most hands preflop and only bet postflop with a very strong hand. Then there was a guy in late position who played every hand to the river and hardly ever folded.

I had pocket queens from middle position. Early position raised, I reraised, and eventually I capped the betting at five bets. Five people saw the flop with 25 small bets in the pot.

The flop brought 457 (or something similar to that). It was three bet on the flop, and four people saw the turn with me leading the betting. There were about 19 big bets when the turn card came.

It was a 6 to put four to a straight on the board. Old Sham, the rock, bets. Early position folds and I fold, knowing that my pocket pair is either drawing dead or nearly dead. The late position calling station calls.

The river brings a 3 to put a straight on the board. Old Sham and the late position player split the pot. Old Sham had the 3 in his hand already and had made the straight on the turn.

Should I have folded?

Daniel and I did the math, and it comes out to a pretty close call. I would have been drawing to a three-way split pot with not more than six outs (as many as three 8s and three 3s). A three-way split pot of 20 big bets is 6.67. If I had six outs, I was getting about 6.7:1 on my call. And I know I was way behind and drawing to a split pot.

It's a very very close call. The pot was enormous. There was no way I could scoop the pot. But for one more bet, I think I should have seen the river. It was too large to fold. Oh well.

It was a good trip all-around though. The play was loose and passive, just like last time I was in Tunica. Sometimes, you can't make the cards do what you want though. Even then, I was almost a winner if not for those no limit hands.

Back to casino bonuses and the new Party Poker bonus!

Here's the link for the Party bonus: BONUSAUG

Tunica (take 2)

2005-08-03T15:00:00.000-06:00

A few quick notes...

_ I made back more than half the money I lost last night in an afternoon session today. The conditions were almost as good as last night, and this time I won!

_ Tunica will be fantastic. It will probably be even more profitable than last time! Water, water everywhere, but not a drop for the fish to drink. I'm staying at the Horseshoe, which is very nice. I can only hope the play is as passive as it was a month ago.

_ I've been wanting to write a post about a rule of thumb I tell myself over and over again. Here it is: Aggression is hardly ever spewing chips. Sure, aggressive play will cost you money when you're behind. But more often than not, you're either ahead or drawing to the nuts. And sometimes, you'll win the hand on a bluff, which is a huge coup. Spewing chips is only wrong when you get yourself committed to a hand you can't win. But in the long run, aggression wins the money.

_ My journey into 10/20 land last night made clear something I've read before. The play isn't better, it's just more aggressive. You have to call down more against maniacs, and that means there are more marginal situations. But those marginal situations will add up to profits, especially against overly loose players.

Wish me luck in Tunica!

Shot Down

2005-08-03T09:25:00.000-06:00

The best analogy for last night at the tables is to compare the games to blackjack. It was like I kept being dealt hands that added up to 11, and I kept doubling down and losing. Now imagine doing that over, and over, and over.

I found the big fish all right. I did everything right. I searched my buddy list first and found one fish playing at a 2/4 game. Normally I try to not play 2/4 because I hate losing at low limits, but I reminded myself that I should go to where the game conditions are right. Of course, it was a fishy game. Of course, I did lose about $20.

Then another fish popped up on my buddy list. He was playing 15/30. I watched the game for a few minutes, and it was fishier than the 2/4 game! There were three people at the table who saw the flop more than 60 percent of the time. I wasn't sure whether I should join a high limit like that, but I got on the waiting list. But by the time it was my turn to sit at the table, two of the fish had left. It wasn't worth the risk any more, so I didn't even play a hand.

One of those same fish then sat in a 10/20 6-max game. I had to sit next to him.

And that's when things started going downhill. Any card that could hurt me on the turn or river did. Any card that could help me never came. My reads were right, but that didn't save me. I was correct almost every time when I thought someone was bluffing, but I still couldn't beat their pair of 10s that they got on the river.

I made a couple of mistakes, but not big ones. Against some of these maniacs, I felt like I had to play back at them. One guy raised almost everything and check-raised everything else. When I caught a flush draw against him heads-up, I check-raised him on a flop semibluff. He raised me after I bet out the turn, and the river didn't bring any help. I lose.

The other mistake I can think of was when I was against a predictable player with pocket 10s. When we saw the flop heads-up and the flop came queen high, I told myself there was no way I was going to fold. This guy had already sucked out on me a couple of times and was starting to get out of line. I was right not to fold the flop, but it turns out the ace on the turn gave him top pair, and the diamond on the river gave him the nut flush.

It went on like that from there. It got worse and worse. I don't think I tilted, but I was feeling kind of dizzy near the end.

The majority of the time, the opposite would have happened. I would have made a lot of money at those tables. I would have walked away happy that I found excellent game conditions and played a solid, aggressive game. I would have been thankful when my cards hit and concessionary when they didn't. Given the same conditions again, I would have played the same and won.

In all, it was my second-worst day of poker ever. My worst came in January, when my bankroll plummetted during a terrible losing streak. That won't happen this time.

Fortunately, I'm going to Tunica again! I leave tonight for two days of gambling. What better way to make back your money than at live tables against North Mississippi fish?

A Couple of Limit Ideas

2005-08-01T08:54:00.000-06:00

We all know that short stacks need to be punished.

Fish, also, have another thing coming, and I'm more than happy to give them a expensive poker lessons all day long at the tables.

With that in mind, I've found yet another way to make my game more aggressive. Pretty much any time there's one (and only one) limper in the pot, and I find a playable hand, I will raise!

I know this is not a new tactic, but it's fun to take it to the extreme. I like doing it with marginal yet playable hands sometimes if my read on the limper is correct. So many things can go right: you can hit the flop, you can isolate the limper, you can set yourself up to bluff later ...

Oh, you limp? I raise with 78 suited! You check the flop? I bet!

Another thing I've gotten better at is laying down hands based on my reads of players. A few months ago, I fell into the trap of almost always calling one more bet on the river. My reasoning was that I was folding too much. If I got to the river with any hand at all, I leaned toward a call.

The problem with that is that it's an automatic, thoughtless decision. Just because it's hard to put fishy players on a specific hand doesn't mean you don't have a lot of information to work with. You have all the bets from the entire hand. You know the relative strength of your opponent's hand. You know the pot size and the odds. You can figure out your opponent's likely holdings. You can calculate how often you have to win to make a call worthwhile by comparing your estimated winning chances to the pot odds.

You have plenty of facts to base a decision on, and that decision isn't always an automatic call. I should say that if you make it to the river, a showdown is often justified unless you completely miss your draw.

My favorite is when a tight, passive player check-raises the river. It's so remotely unlikely that he's bluffing in this situation that it's frequently an easy fold. I'll save that bet, thank you.

Casinos

2005-07-28T08:42:00.000-06:00

Right when all these cool new poker programs come out, I've decided to play something other than poker.

In case you don't know, I've heard great things about PokerAce HUD, which apparently works very similar to Playerview.net and Gametime+. The advantages of PokerAce HUD are that it's free, and it will graphically show you mucked cards at showdown on the screen! The disadvantage is that it only works on the Party skins so far.

Meanwhile, PokerTracker is being updated regularly, and it now uses PostgreSQL databases (instead of Access) if you want to give it a try (check out the PokerTracker forums for details). I don't know what PostgreSQL is exactly, but it's supposedly a lot faster.

Gametime+ also has a version that's compatible with PostgreSQL.

But despite all this great stuff, I've gone to the dark side of the force.

Casino gambling. Blackjack. Negative EV.

These are supposed to be the games for suckers, the games where the house wins. These are supposed to be games that only losers play who can't control their gambling impulses so they hope to get lucky in the short term, knowing that over time, their luck cannot possibly hold because the house almost always wins in the end.

But wait! There's a lot of free money out there! Free money? Yes, free money! Casinos are happy to hand out bonus money that make blackjack +EV if you follow the rules.

Here are the rules:

1) Follow the blackjack strategy chart religiously.

2) Cash out as soon as you clear the bonus.

3) Understand that you should only play a game when you think you have an edge, and in blackjack, you only have an edge if you're getting a bonus that's significantly more than the expected variance during the workthru period.

Obviously, I'm a novice at all this. For a much better guide on how to casino whore, go to this post from Sound of a Suckout, which is a great poker blog anyway.

Free money!

Photos from Vegas

2005-07-25T22:49:00.000-06:00

At long last ... pictures!

Sorry about the crappy quality of some of them. They were all taken with camera phones. Most of them are mine, but some were taken by Drew.

Dan Harrington playing in the World Series of Poker at the Rio

Scotty Nguyen

Drew and Mike Caro at Doyle Brunson's WSOP party

Me, Drew, Matt and Nick at a table at the Rio during the WSOP

View of the WSOP action at the Rio

Daniel

Todd Brunson

Me playing drunken 2/4 limit at the Sahara

Kathy Liebert

Drew only plays slots if it's a really big slot machine

Poker Sins

2005-07-22T18:37:00.000-06:00

Here are a few things that I've done recently that are guaranteed to hurt your bankroll:

_Playing poker right after you wake up. I did this when I woke up this morning, and then again after a took a nap. Terrible results both times. I wish I would learn my lesson...

_Making decisions too quickly.

_Failing to stop playing after you realize you're game isn't at its best.

_Getting sucked out on. I'm still trying to figure out how to make sure flush cards only come when I need them, and not when my opponents need them. I'm working on it!

---

Also, there's a new bonus at Poker Stars. It's a 20 percent bonus up to $120. You need to deposit $600 to get the maximum bonus amount. I like Poker Stars, but I feel like I was so used to playing at the Party sites that I made some mistakes. I wasn't used to the faster speed of the games or having to wait for specific tables.

That reminds me of another item for the list above: Don't experiment with your game when changing poker sites. I was trying to be more aggressive in some situations, and I was also trying new things in terms of blind defense. But I think the several things foiled me: not being accustomed to the software and not having any PokerTracker data on the Poker Stars players.

Here's the obvious point I'm trying to make:

Don't play stupid. There are a lot of common-sense solutions to poker problems. Just think about things before making careless decisions. I've gotten pretty good at this, but sometimes I have days like today where I completely slip up and forget everything I've learned.

Game Selection

2005-07-20T09:18:00.000-06:00

I'm not sure if this is the right way to handle game selection, but this is the way I do it:

I select a table and join it if there are fewer than two tight-aggressive players. I try to sit with the fish at my right. I want the table to have voluntarily put money into the pot more than 30 percent of the time on average. I want the table's preflop aggression factor to be less than 10 percent. If there are two fish to my right, I will stay at a table even if its averages dip below my ideals. But if the players to my right seem solid and the table seems OK, I may leave anyway.

Sound good?

I'm trying to be very picky about which tables I will sit at and who I will play against. My reasoning is that so much of the money in limit poker comes from the people who have no idea what they're doing. Because most players at least have some clue, they won't give away as much money as the real fish. Therefore, I should concentrate on finding the easy money.

It's been working well so far.

The most interesting part of the game selection experiment is that I give more importance to the stats of the players to my right at the table than I do to the table averages. Mike Caro was saying in "Super System 2" that most of your money comes from the players to your right, and I'm testing that theory.

I figure if I can either isolate the players to my right or try to play pots that they're involved in, then they are practically dead money. I'll have position on them almost every time. And that's a huge advantage.

Anyone else have different game selection criteria? I know it may be tougher to find games this loose and passive at higher limits because it's hard enough at 3/6.

Speaking of which ...

Is it just me, or are the limit games even tighter now than they were three months ago? I know a series of posts appears on the 2+2 Forums every now and then about how fewer people are voluntarily putting their money into the pot, but I haven't seen one in a while.

I think it must be true that the games are tightening a little bit all the time. Fortunately for all of us, they still have a long way to go before these games are unplayable. Seriously, the Party Poker player pool is now reaching over 80,000 on most nights. That's a lot of fish.

---

I know I said I would post photos here from Vegas, but I realized I don't have e-mail enabled on my cell phone, so I can't send the photos from there to the computer. I'm thinking about sucking it up and paying the money for Internet access from my phone, but then again, I'm trying to be cheap now that I don't have a job. I'll have to think about it.

Back in the Game

2005-07-18T14:47:00.000-06:00

Well, I never really left. But I've been taking my time since moving back to Atlanta, and that included short poker hours and no blogging.

So I'll try to hit the high points of the last two weeks ... starting with Vegas!

The single-best part of the trip was playing drunken $2/4 limit poker at the Sahara. I had dropped about $300 a few minutes before at the Flamingo, and I wanted to let loose for the first time in the long time. So I followed the advice of this classic post and decided to gamble!

I straddled every time. I put a guy on tilt by winning with 10-4 offsuit. I had a steady stream of alcohol. I won hands I shouldn't have. Any time I thought I was playing too tight, I raised. I tried to play any hand that I could think of a nickname for. It wasn't quite profitable, but I didn't lose too much money, and I had a great time at that table.

Other highlights: sitting at a no limit table with Shirley Williams (the mother of 2004 WSOP runner-up David Williams), winning a tricky no limit game at Binion's and visiting the Rio while the World Series was going on.

My friends and I got invited to a party hosted by Doylesroom.com, which is Doyle Brunson's poker site. I've never played there, but I wouldn't miss an opportunity to go to a poker party with free drinks! It was weird, like something out of the dot-com boom of the late 90s. There were go-go dancers and hot California girls. I got to see Scotty Nguyen, Mike Caro, Todd Brunson, Mike Sexton, Vince Van Patton, Kathy Liebert, Daniel Negreanu and more.

Here's a quick rundown of some other site news:

_ I've decided to not change the name of this blog, even though I don't live in Chile anymore. I like the name, and it would just be a pain to change it up. If you got a problem with that, we can settle it at a heads-up table. Bring it.

_ I started playing 3/6 limit poker again on Sunday, with some success. Each time I return to limit, I do better than the last. I prefer limit poker because I find it to be more interesting than no limit because post-flop play is more important. The only reason I haven't been playing limit over the last couple of months is that I wanted to keep to the "safe" money at $100 buy in no limit ring games. But now I think my risk is only slightly more at 3/6, rakeback is higher from limit games, and the reward is potentially much greater. Go limit!

_ My poker friend from Santiago just started his own poker blog. Check out his blog, The Poker Pilot.

_ I just finished reading Jennifer Harmon's limit section from "Super System II." She does a good job of offering insight into the game and reinforcing the major limit concepts. She doesn't give much new information, but her recommendations are useful because she talks about thinking on the game, reading hands and varying your play based on the exact situation.

_ I have photos from Brunson's WSOP party, which I will post on this site soon if the resolution is good enough.

Memories from the tables

2005-07-04T06:53:00.000-06:00

Man, Tunica was so awesome.

It's hard to compare it to other gambling towns I've been to because it had been so long since I last travelled to one of them. But I can say this for certain: Tunica has got to be one of the fishiest places to play low-limit poker.

I finished the three-day weekend with a $257 profit, which isn't bad considering that I felt like the cards were running cold for me most of the time.

My last night there, I found myself at a real juicy 4/8 table at the Horseshoe (which has a beautiful new poker room -- the best in town). I couldn't seem to catch any cards at all, and I only won five hands in my first six hours of that session.

Normally, I would have stopped after a couple of hours and accepted the loss. The fish would still be there when I get back, and it's less likely that I'd go on tilt. Also, it seems that the cards are more likely to start running hot after taking a break, even though that's statistically invalid.

But this was my last night in Tunica, and I wanted to prove to myself that I could beat these fish even without any good cards. I just needed to be patient.

So I waited. And waited. The good cards wouldn't come, and I was being slowly blinded away. When I finally started to get good hands, I was rivered repeatedly. That can be expensive. But finally, I played A8 of spades out of early position (which is OK in a game that loose and passive). I caught an 8 on the flop and another on the turn, and this gray hair paid me off. He said he couldn't imagine what kind of hand I would play that would have an 8, and I wasn't sad to show him. He was surprised given my tight table image. I was playing as loose as I could, but that was still tighter than anyone else.

Shortly afterward, a tricky but bad player tried to bluff me out of a pot in which I had top pair of tens from a starting hand of KT. He had successfully bluffed me a couple of times throughout the night, and this time I called him down. He showed second pair of nines. The last hand to put me back in the black was big slick that turned into a boat.

Score! After 8.5 hours, it was time to go to sleep at 9:15 a.m. I recorded a $22 profit at that table, which was more like a moral victory than a monetary one. Meanwhile, my friend Hal accumulated $700 in profits at his 4/8 table, which was fun to see. He had about a zillion white chips in front of him.

Now, on to some quick thoughts from the trip...

_ Live games are great for building confidence in limit because it proves that my game is strong, at least against bad players.

_ I want to make a few hundred more dollars at $100 buy-in no limit online, and then I want to return to limit poker. I plan on buying a digital timer with an alarm that goes off after 2 hours of play. That way, I could stop before I lose my concentration.

_ I need to learn how to bluff more effectively in limit games. I rarely did so on this trip because most of the players were calling stations. But it could be wildly profitable if it's successful even a small percentage of the time.

_ I wonder if there's a way to pinpoint someone's bluffing tendencies from Poker Tracker?

_ I'm fascinated by the concept of pot equity, and I plan on studying it in depth.

_ The comps in Tunica are awesome. Most of the casinos give you full credit for a huge meal after only two hours of play.

The Ultimate Freeroll

2005-07-02T08:56:00.000-06:00

Chile turned out to be a nine-month freeroll where I placed in the money no matter what I did.

I went there with a few thousand in savings and a $1,500 bankroll. I returned with nothing in savings but about $8,000 in total profits. In effect, I got to live in Chile, I got experience working at The Santiago Times, quit my previous job, had a lot of fun, learned a new language, improved my poker skills and returned to the States with about as much money as I left with.

I win. I wouldn't trade it for anything.

Now, back to my continuing dream life in Tunica...

Friday was the first poker marathon day I've had in a long, long time. I started at about 7:30 a.m. at the 3/6 table at the Gold Strike. This guy named the Kid was playing at the table, and he was the only other aggressive player, but that doesn't mean he was any good. He was certainly entertaining though. This other guy with tattoos got kicked out of the poker room for refusing to place his bet after saying "call," but he was back later.

Then I moved on to a $30 freeze out tournament at Sam's Town, where I lasted about an hour and a half before busting out when I went all-in with KQs and ran into J3s. My opponent hit a flush on the turn.

From there, it was back to the Strike. The rest of the crew arrived in town shortly afterward, and I played some 1/2 no limit at the Hollywood. Then back to Sam's Town, and finally a return home to the Strike, where I tried some 5/10.

Up until then, I had posted winning at every single table I had sat at. I was pretty proud of that accomplishment. But then Daniel told me that I should come back to 3/6 because it was so fishy.

It was fishy, but I couldn't take advantage of it and posted my first loss. I should have known it wouldn't go well as soon as the dealer mistakenly awarded me the pot and then took it away to give it to the correct winner. It was a bad omen.

For the next four hours, I won three hands. Two of those three hands I won after straddling -- "Gamboool!" One of those hands was a 92o, which I bluffed hard and won for my first victory at that table.

The next straddle I got an 85o that I raised preflop heads-up because my opponent was so weak that I thought I could make her fold like I did the last time I straddled. The flop came a beautiful 467 for a straight, and she called me down the whole way. My only other win there was pocket 2s that turned into a boat.

Today I want to hit the tables hard again and play some 4/8. I'm perfectly capable of playing higher limits, but I simply don't want to risk much of this money that I'll be living off of for the next few months. If today is anything like the last two, I can't lose!

---

The night before last was my first night back in the States. I thought I would sleep soundly because I was pretty tired after 23 hours of traveling, but I was wrong.

I had a dream where I saw my friend Steve from Santiago as he continues his life back here in the U.S.A. His brother was there too, even though I've never met him.

Then I was walking down the street I grew up on, carrying my green backpack around my shoulder and my poker laptop in my hand. Suddenly, a robber tried to grab my backpack, but it was hooked around my right shoulder, and I wouldn't let go. I chased after the would-be robber, but it turned out I had bigger problems. The robber had been working with an airplane and had tied a super-strong string from my backpack to an airplane.

I didn't let go of the backpack in time and was suddenly flying over my old neighborhood in Atlanta. I was trying to decide whether to let go of the poker laptop, drop the backpack, fall to the ground or climb the rope. All the while, the plane was lifting my higher and higher off the ground.

Then I woke up.

A Trip

2005-07-01T08:49:00.000-06:00

Where the hell am I?

Tunica, Miss., that's where. Nothing ... like ... Santiago.

I went from winter to summer. I traveled from 5 p.m. on Wednesday until 4 p.m. on Thursday, when I finally arrived at the Gold Strike. I dropped my bags off at the hotel room and headed straight to the poker room.

So there I was, on little rest, still accidentally speaking in Spanish sometimes. I sat at a 3/6 table with something I haven't seen in a long time -- a group of Southern folk missing teeth, with Southern accents, playing live poker.

I had been away too long. I had forgotten how passive live games can be.

It wasn't long before I got my favorite hand of the trip so far. It was 54 suited from the small blind. I flopped bottom pair and a flush draw, and then I check-raised the field. The flush came on the turn, which I bet out and got several callers. I bet the river and got raised by the button, but I reraised and showed down the unpredictable flush. Nice pot.

I've been here for only one night so far, but I've won money at every table I've sat at. It's so passive compared to any online game you could find.

At 11 a.m., I'll head over to Sam's Town for a $30 buy-in freeze-out no limit tourney. The field will be about 75 players, and I plan to make the money!

My friend Daniel has some good posts on the trip so far.

Tunica!

2005-06-30T05:51:00.000-06:00

I just got off a plane in Atlanta, and now it's time to go straight to Tunica!

I'll try to write updates from the first real poker tables I've seen in almost a year.

I'm sure it'll be strange to be back, but I'm ready to sit at a table.

My plan: post a live straddle and shout "Gam-boooool!!!"

PokerintheUSA.blogspot.com?

2005-06-27T11:50:00.000-06:00

Surely, pokerintheUSA.blogspot.com wouldn't be as interesting as Poker In Chile or 5,589 Miles From Vegas.

But I am moving back to the States, so this blog will have to change somehow. I can't very well claim to be a lost poker player on the other side of the world if I'm in the States.

I need to come up with an idea. One concept is that I could turn this blog into a forum for hand analysis. My friends and I already exchange Hands of the Day, which are either problem hands or victory hands. It might be fun to have a place to post and talk about hands.

Or maybe I'll just do the same thing I've always done, except I'll just re-brand the blog for whatever I'm doing.

We'll see. I'd be happy to hear any suggestions.

The plan from here:

1) Leave Santiago on Wednesday.
2) From the Atlanta airport, drive directly to Tunica, Miss., for gambling. I won't even see my family first.
3) Get back in Atlanta just in time for July 4.
4) Travel to Vegas on July 8.
5) Get rich.
6) Go bust.
7) Find a job.

Maybe I should just stop after No. 5.

Back in the grind

2005-06-23T16:23:00.000-06:00

I'm going to go with the easy-way-out entry full of notes.

---

It's funny why I'm a winning player. It's not because I'm particularly good, although I would certainly place myself in the better-than-average category.

What's interesting is that when I look at my gambling spreadsheet this year, I find that all of my profits come from bonus whoring and rakeback. At the tables themselves, I'm slightly down for the year! But I'm way up overall because of bonuses and rakeback.

I don't feel too bad about being down in actual play because I did a lot of experimenting early on at different limits and shorthanded games. Research often costs money, and I think it was a worthwhile effort.

---

Speaking of bonuses, the Empire Poker redeposit bonus started Thursday (bonus code JUNEFEVER). It's a 100 percent bonus up to $100, with a 15X (1,500 hands) workthrough. I went ahead and deposited $600 into my account so I can four-table NL$100 there.

---

The reality of the expendable bankroll is beginning to set in. I figured out how much money I have left in my poker accounts after living off of it for a couple of months. I'll be using that money to survive when I move back to Atlanta until I find a real job.

So I have a few thousand dollars of poker money to party and travel with for a while. I mean, I figure I'm willing to use my poker money for a good cause, and avoiding the real world seems like a noble endeavor. When I work again, I'll just rebuild.

---

My friend Daniel over at Poker Cats is once again in Vegas! Wish him luck.

---

Upon my return to the States, I'll travel straight from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport to Tunica for a weekend of gambling. The next weekend, I'll be in Vegas at the same time as the World Series of Poker main event.

I can't wait!

---

I'm beginning to work with some friends on a competition to make a quality poker bot. This bot is not for online play -- the purpose of it is to try to make a smart computer program that can play poker. It's part of a competition called the WSOPR (World Series of Poker Robots).

We're just starting the planning on this, but if anyone has any ideas or resources on building computer programs that can play poker, let me know.

It's interesting to me that it seems like there is no poker program that's a truly effective opponent against good players. I've read about a couple that supposedly do well, but I don't know of any that I could test out.

---

Coming back to the no limit tables after vacation is funny. I had so much pent up aggression/gamble that I blew a couple of buyins when I finally got to play again. But now I feel like I'm back on my game. And it was fun to mix it up with a little gamble.

My Biggest Leak

2005-06-20T09:06:00.000-06:00

Despite my prolonged vacation from the tables because of all these travels through South America (aww, poor me), I've still been reading and thinking about my game.

And I think I've realized my biggest leak (in limit poker, at least).

It's something I like to think about because of this old (but very good) 2+2 post by Ed Miller: "I think my biggest leak is..." He emphasizes that many people don't know their biggest leak because it goes deeper than missing a marginal decision. Major leaks more frequently occur when you have a fundamental problem of mindset or playing style that you can't identify or can't change. Of course, it's necessary to be able to identify a problem in order to fix it.

So here's my problem: I play a formulaic game. I play tight preflop and will only try out marginal hands if I have position and several players have entered the pot. I will generally call down with any hand that's 2 pair or better.

But most of all, I haven't been trying to read hands as well as I should. I've fallen into the trap of merely putting my opponents on a range of hands rather than specific hands.

Over the last two or three months, I've called down much more because of another post of Ed Miller's where he says that many people's biggest leak is that they fold too much. And I agree that folding too much is a huge leak, but my problem has been that I've called down mindlessly against my opponents' mysterious holdings.

The problem is that when my opponents hold a tough hand to figure out, I slip into calldown mode rather than put them on a specific hand. That isn't to say I should always fold even when I think I'm beat, but I need to pay closer attention.

And that's what it all comes down to. Reading hands isn't like skimming a book. Reading hands is more like analyzing every word of poetry, looking for the meaning behind the words. Unfortunately, I often don't have the patience for poetry.

I was inspired by this 2+2 magazine article: "Some Notes on Reading Hands: Part II"

Perhaps, when I go back to the promised land of limit poker, this time it will be for good. For now, I'll keep taking the safe money at no limit games.

Soft games

2005-06-15T08:30:00.000-06:00

Once again, coming at you from Buenos Aires, where all the women are beautiful but not a poker game in sight...

A few of my friends that I talk with about poker always want to debate what the softest site is. Some say Paradise Poker, some say Ultimate Bet, others claim the Party Poker network of sites.

My preference? None of the above.

My thinking is that all the sites are pretty fishy -- so much so that it's hard to tell the difference. I had a hell of a time at Ultimate Bet in late January, but now it's one of my best sites.

I lost a little money at Poker Room (Sucky Room) because of their sucky software, but then I made it back quickly against the sucky players.

When I was a newbie, I told everyone who would listen how much I hated Party Poker, but now it's probably my favorite site.

My feeling is that among the larger sites, there are going to plenty of fish in the pond. Any negative downswings a player has at these sites is just that: a short-term decline that will even out in the long run.

Sure, some of the smaller sites may have tougher games. But if you play at any of the major ones, there are so many players, such a large mix of good and bad players, that the games aren't that tough overall.

Quick update

2005-06-14T19:05:00.000-06:00

Well, I'm in Buenos Aires, Argentina this week, and I haven't had hardly any time to play any poker at all in the last week and a half.

But I figure I should write something.

I played a small amount last week to clear the Party Poker bonus.

I also played five heads-up matches against my friend Matt while he was visiting, and I lost all but one. Whatever -- I'm happy to contribute to my future profits!

The Chile poker tournament that was scheduled for the weekend was cancelled, so that was disappointing. I guess I'll look at it as money saved because winning any tournament is unlikely.

That's all for now. Keep grinding it out at the tables until I get back!

I think this is my first real vacation from poker, and I can only hope it will do more good than harm to my game.

All's Well

2005-06-08T09:08:00.000-06:00

Just a few quick tidbits to report...

I've reached my bankroll goal for my time in Chile, which means that I will feel good about myself (and my savings) when I head back to the U.S. in a few wekks.

No limit really paid off last week. I'm always amazed how easy poker seems when you're winning.

My friend Matt from Atlanta is in town visiting this week, so don't expect many posts. I already lost one poker game to him, but it was a suckout. Can't feel bad about that.

Finally, there's a tournament here that takes place on Saturday. You can read about it at PokerChile. I'm siked. The buyin is 30,000 pesos (about US$50), and first prize is ... wait for it ...

One million pesos! (Said with a Dr. Evil voice)

I'll have a full report on it later.

---

Link:
Party Poker Bonus (expires today!)

Fundamental Dispute

2005-06-03T09:27:00.000-06:00

You hold AA preflop. Rockets. American Airlines. Bullets.

Three people come into a raised pot. Flop comes rags, perhaps with a flush possibility and a K. You bet your AA. Player No. 2 folds, player No. 3 raises big.

Push, call or fold?

I argue for pushing with AA. I think I have the best hand. The only hands I'm behind right now are KK or a set. My thinking is that aggression goes rewarded when you believe you have the best hand.

I'm willing to accept a loss. I'm willing to lose my entire stack in this situation because I will win this hand much more than I will lose it. I think calling or folding is weak play and will cost you money.

But some players that I know and respect see things differently.

They argue that against most of these weak, fishy players in no limit games, you have to take a reraise like this very seriously. Why would your opponent keep raising you when you've already shown strength?

So maybe you should raise for information at some point, or simply let the hand go and wait for a better opportunity, my friends say. Any yokel could have a hidden set, and it's not worth the chance.

I disagree, but I'm not sure I'm right. I think the sacrifice is worth it and it's part of the game. You need to lose your stack sometimes. No limit poker isn't about cutting corners and trying to be cheap. No limit poker is about intimidation, aggression and confidence. When I think there's a probability I have the best hand, I will take the risk.

That's kind of a one-dimensional view though, and there are constant exceptions. The situation depends on the flop texture, the betting action and your reads on your opponents.

Sometimes it's OK to fold the best hand because the risk outweighs the reward.

Most of the time, though, I do not fear the Iraqi insurgent hiding in the weeds with an RPG -- a powerful set that can strike me down in an instant. Being afraid of the RPG is more dangerous than the RPG itself, and I believe I will win more through fearless plays than I will lose through crash landings.

Link:
Morton's Theorem

The Truth

2005-06-01T10:15:00.000-06:00

I don't believe in much, but I have faith in what I know about poker.

I think playing with wild cards with the gringos here is fun, but not necessarily profitable.

I'm thankful when fish suck out on me because that's how I make money in the long run.

Good players win and bad players lose over time.

Losing streaks are short-term occurrences that are nothing to worry about. I know that I'm good at poker and the results will come.

I know it's important to keep accurate records of wins and losses because I should only try to bluff other players, not myself.

Even the best poker player is lost at sea without a bankroll to support the limits he's playing at.

The rake is expensive, but the games are still profitable.

No limit poker is easier to play than limit poker, at least at the levels I play.

Aggressive play wins money; passive play misses opportunities.

It takes money to make money.

Most people don't have the discipline to play poker well, even if they have a strong grasp of the game.

The only way to improve is to practice and study.

Betting for information can be valuable, but it's often overpriced.

Losing is part of the game.

Getting in with the best of it is always profitable. But sometimes it's OK to fold in marginal situations.

I hold these truths to be self-evident ... and comforting.

Link:
Everything I needed to know about poker I learned from watching Star Wars

People smarter than me...

2005-05-29T11:34:00.000-06:00

Lee Jones and David Sklansky are much smarter than me. I generally trust their advice, but I've found some passages in their work that are worth some thought.

Over the last few days, I've been skimming through Jones' "Winning Low Limit Hold 'Em" and Sklansky's "Hold 'em Poker For Advanced Players." I've read both of these books before, and they're always good to review again.

There are a couple of ideas I found interesting upon review.

When you're heads-up with a top pair and weak kicker, Jones suggests raising if the bet comes directly from your right. I agree with that. But if that gets you heads-up on the turn, and your opponent checks, Jones suggests also checking and then calling a bet on the river. Sure, that makes sense if you strongly fear you're outkicked, but it seems like there are so many hands that people will bet out on the flop without having top pair with a better kicker. If you don't bet the turn, then you're missing an opportunity here, in my opinion. I guess it depends on the situation: Betting the turn makes sense if you feel like there's a good chance you're ahead, but not if you're dominated. It has to be a judgment call.

Then I found this line in Sklansky: "The second important concept concerning fourth-street play is that you should be betting good hands on the flop, but frequently check-raising with them on the turn." He gives the example of holding AK on a flop of Axx rainbow from early position. I'll grant that this strategy would work well in this specific situation, but it's hard to pull off a check-raise in this situation with anything less than paired A with top kicker if it's a multiway pot. Additionally, you would need the flop to be otherwise ragged for this to be effective. Sklansky isn't wrong, but this advice seems misleading because it's only useful in specific situations.

---

Meanwhile, play has been decent at the tables. I've been winning small, which is much better than losing. I finished the Sucky Room bonus, and now I've moved on to the Poker Stars bonus. Ultimate Bet also has a reload bonus if you use Neteller.

I played $2/$4 limit on Sucky Room so I could clear that bonus faster, and it was a successful endeavor. The play on Sucky Room is so sucky.

I'm trying to stick with no limit games for a while because it seems like a safer game than limit in that the downswings are shorter and less expensive. I don't know for a fact that no limit has less variance than limit, but that's my perception. If anyone knows of any literature that discusses the contrast between variance at no limit and the variance at limit, I would be interested to read about it.

So no limit games are fine, but I really miss playing limit poker. Limit is just more interesting to me -- it seems like a more intricate game, and you don't have to fold preflop or on the flop as much because the bet sizes are comparatively smaller. And limit is certainly better for rakeback! :)

I'll be back at limit before long, but I've set a monetary goal for no limit before I switch back. I have to fortify the good ol' bankroll first.

---

Link:
Check out my friend Daniel's blog, Poker Cats, during his poker trip to New Orleans.

Sucky Room

2005-05-27T01:08:00.000-06:00

I've played at a lot of online poker sites, but Sucky Room (I mean, Poker Room) is the suckiest.

You can't rebuy chips if you lose part of your stack in no limit games.

The blinds on the no limit games are listed as, for example, $1/$1 instead of $0.5/$1.

There's only a little beep to let you know it's your turn, but it doesn't tell you (at least on the downloaded version) which table it's your turn at.

The software is jerky and slow.

You get booted from tables at random sometimes.

But Sucky Room does have a few strong points:

It's sucky, meaning there are a lot of fish.

You can curse all you want because it's too sucky to censor you.

The bonus is OK -- it's 30 percent up to $500 through bonuswhores.com. It's a bit too slow to clear at no limit for my tastes though.

So I'm stuck at Sucky Room, playing these sucky games, and hoping I make some money so that the suck is worthwhile! Daniel swears it is.

Peter's Principle

2005-05-23T09:21:00.000-06:00

In an organization, each person rises to the level of his own incompetence.
--Laurence J. Peter

Sound familiar?

In poker, this is a problem. Everyone wants to play at their highest level, and yet when you find that limit, you're bound to lose because you're either over your head or the rake severely cuts into your winnings.

Then it becomes difficult to play at a lower level while keeping your pride.

I've talked before about my disgust with having to step down to no limit or $2/$4 limit after playing $5/$10 6-max and $3/$6 full. It's hard to retreat to a level where your winnings are safer and your peers are fishier.

"I'm much better than these fish at this level. What am I doing here?" I think.

That's when it's most important to realize a universal truth about poker. Poker is all about money.

I'm reminded of when my friend Irene asked me how I manage to keep winning at online gambling.

"I play against people who are worse than me," I said.

It's not important to prove yourself against tougher competition. Moving up in limits is only worthwhile if it's in pursuit of greater profits. Stepping down in limits is always smart when you need to recover from failed advances into higher stratospheres.

If you don't stop your losses soon enough, the Poker Gods win. They will bust you for playing out of your limit. They will delight in giving your money to players who deserve it more than you. When that happens, you're the fish. When the Poker Gods aren't busy fattening fish for the slaughter, they're busy with the slaughter itself.

I can live with that (for now). I can be happy at $100 buyin no limit games for a while -- after all, I'm making good money again after the first three weeks of May brought a downswing.

But I don't know how long I can stay content at this level after getting a taste of victory in places where the pots are larger and the players are nearly as fishy.

There will be no quiet retirement in the green fields of NL$100 for me. Eventually, I'll return to these more expensive limit games to try again. For now, I need to be patient, continue winning and keep building my bankroll.

Link:
Party Poker bonus

Oh yeah

2005-05-20T01:32:00.000-06:00

That's what I'm talking about!

It had been so long since I hit a great rush that I had forgotten what it felt like. And at no limit, it feels so much sweeter to crush your opponents and have those big stacks pushed my way.

Oh, yes. Oh god yes.

The night started out like all my nights at the tables have recently. I sit down, and within a half hour, I've lost three buyins. My very first hand, I lost to overtrips vs. a medium-sized stack.

Then I toiled away for a while, and then everything came together at the same time.

Busting two people at once. Losing the main pot with a set of 8 vs. a straight, but winning the larger side pot vs. a fish who couldn't let his KK go. Taking out AK top pair with KQ two pair. Quads that get action.

Wow, that feels good. This is how it should be.

Now to begin the cycle again: confidence building, winning, taking it for granted and then a slide before climbing back up again. Fortunately, I think I can limit the slides and maximize the wins.

Tonight reminded me of how very different no limit and limit are. No limit is just a simpler game, there's no question in my mind. I believe Miller or Malmuth said so once too. And in a simpler game, the edges are sharper, and the fish are more likely to pay because you can decide what pot odds to offer your opponent by varying bet sizes.

Limit is more based on faith. You have to believe and know you're making the right move at all times, even when that right move fails time and time again.

In no limit, making the right move is more likely to offer instant gratification.

Separately, I want to hear some feedback on my last post. Since then, I've gotten the idea that those universal truths/maxims I listed may be one of my biggest leaks. These rules of thumbs have been drilled into my head over and over again until I don't pay close enough attention to the game at hand and adjust to the individual situation. Perhaps that's the trick.

No Limit Hell

2005-05-19T11:40:00.000-06:00

No limit did not welcome me back with open arms.

I feel good about my play, and yet I lost.

Why?

I wish there were something to be gained from this losing. The moral always seems to be the same: gain a greater understanding of variance, and all will be well in the long run.

Well, sorry. I don't understand variance at all.

I was thinking about this last night.

In limit poker, I figure about two-thirds of players are losers and one-third are winners. A losing player, by definition, will continue to lose over the long run. That means that if he plays long enough, he will go bust. The opposite is true for a winning player -- if he plays long enough, he will make a lot of money.

OK, that's obvious. But this is where variance comes in. Variance keeps the fish happy. It's like fish food, feeding them and feeding them and feeding them until they become bloated and die. They make easy prey for other predators, or, more likely, the toilet bowl.

Variance is hard to comprehend because I know I am a winning player. If I'm a winning player, then why have I been losing?

The only explanation I can come up with is that variance is continually higher than I expect. I make tens of thousands of little decisions each day at the tables, and I expect those small marginal edges I have to add up to something. I expect QQ to beat AK about 55 percent of the time. I expect top pair on the flop to hold up most of the time. I will see a showdown with two pair, even vs. a threatening board. I will call down with A high heads-up vs. a non-threatening board and a very loose player who won't fold.

I believe these are universal truths. If I follow these maxims, the money will come to me. It always seemed that because of the large number of decisions involved over a single poker session, those small edges I can exploit will add up. After all, if you flip a coin 10 times, it can come up tails seven or eight of those times. But if you flip the coin 10,000 times, you'll come extremely close to a 50 percent distribution between heads and tails.

Possible explanations for losing streaks:

1) Variance is higher than the odds.

2) Although I may make tens of thousands of decisions per session, there are only a few decisions that are better decisions than my opponents would make.

3) Everything I know about poker is wrong.

4) I'm clueless.

If anyone has any thoughts, please leave a comment or shoot me an e-mail. Also, I'd love to read a discussion dealing with variance from this perspective, either in a book or on a Web site.

Time to Swallow My Pride

2005-05-18T11:40:00.000-06:00

Stupid reality setting in. Yar!

I'm not going to get into the whole typical whiny diatribe about limit poker and variance. It's true that May has sucked, but it's been a slow suck that hasn't been too painful.

What would be really painful would be having to get a job before I planned because my bankroll ran out too soon.

So I'm going to suck it up and step down in limits significantly. I'm going to play boring no limit games for hours and hours because the money is easier there. I'm going to play no limit despite a losing streak there because I know it has and probably always will be my most consistent winner.

I'm going to play no limit because I need the money.

Just watch:

Check. Fold. Fold. Check. All in!

Link:
Party Poker bonus

Quick hits

2005-05-17T12:01:00.000-06:00

My Internet access has been sporadic because the modem is quickly failing, so that's my excuse for not blogging.

Some items:

_I love listening to poker radio broadcasts while I'm playing. I've listened to Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio just about since it started. I listened to an episode of Poker Diagram last night, which was fun. These guys are British and crazy.
Here are some other links, shamelessly stolen from the Card Club Web site:
http://www.brendoman.com/matt
http://www.pokerpodcast.co.uk
Really, you're playing poker, and you probably want something to listen to. It's better than getting distracted by Web surfing.

_I've gone through something of a slump through the first two weeks of May. It's annoying, and hopefully it will be over soon. I've ended my experiment at playing at $5/$10 6-max, although I actually did OK there and broke near-even. I just decided that I couldn't afford the risk because I'm going to need this bankroll to live off of when I move back to the states. I considered playing some NL$100 for a while, but I've had bad luck there recently and I find I'm lacking patience for NL. So back to $3/$6 for me.

_On a whim, I played a $100+$9 sit-and-go last night. I doubled up early with AA vs. a preflop all-in with 99. I mostly folded around until the blinds got significant. Then when we were down to five players, I decided I needed to steal some blinds to ensure a spot in the money. I raised all in on the button with AK and got called by the big stack in the small blind, who had 55. The big blind was also all in with something like J8. The 55 holds up, and I go home on the bubble. I don't feel bad about it.

_Girls in Argentina are so hot. Every ... single ... one. Wow.

Going bust

2005-05-12T12:26:00.000-06:00

My bankroll is as good as it's ever been, but the money is going to run out.

I'm using my bankroll to support myself here in Chile, and I'll continue to spend it when I get back to the States at the end of June or early July.

This bankroll will then be dedicated to keeping me away from work for as long as possible. I'll live with my parents, crash on people's couches and travel to Baltimore, Washington, Tunica?, Vegas, Tampa, New Orleans?, New York?, Austin?, Michigan? and Canada. Damn. I bet some of those question marks don't work out.

I'll play poker in home games, in basement games, in bed and outside at the pool at my brother's apartment.

Who knows how long it will last? The States are more expensive than Chile, and I don't know how long I can stretch out this money while I'm trying to be frugal and live it up at the same time.

So it will slowly shrink until it approaches $0. When it gets close, I'll have to start looking for a job.

Dammit.

Eyes Wide Shut

2005-05-10T00:24:00.000-06:00

If you can't quite see the computer screen, is that a good signal that you should stop playing?

I couldn't pull myself away, despite being half-asleep and a little bit drunk. The games were too good. It's the toothpick principle: the game was so good, I needed toothpicks to prop my eyes open.

To be honest, I probably should have stopped much earlier in the evening. Even against utter fish, it's hard to play anywhere near your best game in that condition.

Fortunately, I didn't need anywhere near my best game to make back some of the money I had lost earlier in the day. When I was done, I was happily surprised to find that I was close to even on the day.

I've been experimenting with the $5/$10 limit shorthanded tables on Eurobet. It's an adventure! These tables are generally much looser than full ring tables at any limit that I've seen. The level of play also seems to be quite manageable.

Shorthanded play has its natural consequences: more variance and a higher number of hands per time played. Not that I mind; shorthanded games turn me into an action junky. I pay closer attention because something is always happening. I've been limiting myself to two or three tables at a time because everything happens much faster than in full ring games. We'll see how long that lasts.

These games have been a good experience so far. I'm up a few hundred, and I think I can survive at this level. It's a lot easier for me to pull out aggressive moves in shorthanded games than I could in 3/6 full ring. Clearly, my mistake is not using these moves in the full ring games. But in 6-max, I feel like aggressive play is even more important, so that makes it much easier for me to convince myself to raise with second pair and a backdoor draw, for example.

Speaking of survival, I'm becoming convinced that that's all that's important. As long as I'm a winning player at a limit, I'll feel good about myself because I'm making money and staying alive.

Of course it would be awesome if I could pull down the 2.5 BB/100 that some people can claim, but I've never come close to that over a long-term period at any limit I've ever played. I'll be satisfied with myself if I can just beat the game. That's a reward in and of itself. I'm going to try not to worry about my winrate and concentrate more on continued learning and playing my best game. After all, winrate is the result, not the cause.

In conjunction with this trial-basis move to 5/10, I've decided to forego the Tuesday reload bonus at Empire poker that I mentioned yesterday. I read a post on 2+2 from a guy who said he made about $100/1000 hands anyway, so it wouldn't even be worthwhile to slum it for the sake of a bonus at a site that could potentially close his account without cause. I'm inclined to agree.

Link:
PokerDiagram podcast

The problem with losing streaks

2005-05-08T09:20:00.000-06:00

Is that they suck.

But beyond that, they can try your confidence and induce tilt. And maybe that's the way it should be. Maybe on some level, tilt is appropriate, if it means that you're questioning yourself and making necessary improvements to your game. Of course tilt will cost you money in the short term, and nobody tilts on purpose, but I would rather gain something from my downswings that just ride them out with uncaring determination that you're doing nothing wrong.

Unless you are in fact doing nothing wrong and playing perfect poker. In that case, carry on.

Of course, I'm talking about running bad because that's where I've been recently. I like to think that the beats get easier to take over time. Maybe.

It doesn't take long for me to start finding things wrong with my play. My thoughts: "I should have value bet that river. I should have called down. I shouldn't have bluffed there. I should have folded when I had the chance on the flop. I should have raised instead of called."

Or, eventually, more sophisticated thoughts: "Mother f&*@)*( son of a *$%)! damn bad beating loose calling seeing the river @$$hole fish! You'll give me that money right back just as soon as I beat it out of you!" Or, in espanol, "Concha tu madre, jueon culeado!" (To native speakers: sorry about the spelling.)

So, after all this babbling, we get to the point.

Things I have learned in the last week:
_It's OK to limp with QJs or other suited broadway, even under the gun
_Short-handed play can be a gold mine!
_It's really hard to tell if you're running bad or playing poorly. There were some good ideas in this thread from the 2+2 Forums, but I had a hard time finding any distinct patterns in my recent play, probably because of small sample sizes. My running hypothesis is that win percentages with premium hands give some indication of whether you're running good or bad, but there's no way to measure how much action you're getting on those premium hands. If flopped quads only win you the blinds, you aren't really reaping much benefit.
_I need to work on my suckout skills. The fish seem to be able to do it better than me. I wonder why?
_Despite a lot of experience multitabling, I have to admit that I sometimes lose focus and make marginal plays because I missed out on previous action or just simply aren't concentrating enough. Reminds me of this post from The Cards Speak: On Self Affirmation.

---

Did I mention shorthanded play? If you care about improving your overall game and your shorthanded game in particular, read these articles by Jason Pohl. If you don't, you're only hurting yourself.

---

There's been a lot of chatter on the 2+2 Internet Gambling Forum about Empire Poker closing a lot of peoples' accounts. Supposedly, they selectively closed accounts of players who were costing the company money by only taking advantage of bonuses.

While all this is going on, Empire Poker has decided to offer a Tuesday-only 50 percent reload bonus up to $100 with the bonus code Tuesday100. I'm confident Empire Poker would not confiscate my money if I played there only for the bonus, but they could well close my account. I think the risk is small, and I'll probably take advantage of this bonus.

Update: An alleged Empire Poker representative explains the account closures

Going Pro

2005-05-06T09:17:00.000-06:00

It was in March of 2004 when Daniel and I first started debating "going pro."

At the time, going pro meant stepping up from the home game routine and trying to make some real money on the Internet. My first try, I went bust faster than Keanu Reeves falling to the ground when he tries to jump those buildings in "The Matrix."

But it didn't take long to start making a little money, and then a little more.

Now, once again, I've gone pro. Nothing has changed, except for that for the first time, I'm living off my poker winnings.

When I moved to Chile more than seven months ago, I had nearly $5,000 saved up to last me for the foreseeable future. You can live off $500 a month here, but I've spent a little bit more than that.

I've been building up my bankroll preparing for this day -- the day that my bankroll's growth may shrink even if I'm winning because I'm having to use it to pay for drinks of Pisco sour, empanadas de champignon and Lucky Strike lights.

Hopefully, I'll be able to make some money over these next two months before I move back to the States at the end of June. Then I plan on living off my poker winnings for a few months before I make a regrettable return to the real world (or get lucky, keep winning, and move up in limits enough to sustain myself. That's unlikely though).

Until then, I'll be a short-term poker professional, making my bread at the tables and paying my own way. I'll be living off a daily dose of fish while throwing myself at the mercy of the Poker Gods.

Wish me luck!

Hand of the Day:
Bad river laydown?

Like Bart Simpson at a blackboard

2005-05-04T11:50:00.000-06:00

I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.

I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.

Limit vs. No Limit

2005-05-02T08:52:00.000-06:00

Never before have the differences between limit and no limit seemed so clear as they do now.

Now if I only knew how to exploit them better ...

I finally feel like I'm getting comfortable at limit, which took forever. So what do I do? Take a tour of the $100 buyin no limit games at Party Poker.

Wow. Most of these players are bad.

The whole feel of the game is different to me. You have to fold more, and calling down to the river is generally bad strategy unless you have a pretty damn good hand.

While the moments of winning big hands are more exciting than in limit, they come like a flash of lightning. One minute you have $100, the next you either have $200 or $0 if you go all in and get a caller.

That said, the time in between these big hands seems to pass very slowly. No limit can be quite boring when you're not getting any cards.

Limit is in many ways more fun because you get involved with more hands, it's more profitable to reach a showdown, and there seems to be a right and wrong answer for each of the multiple decisions in each hand.

No limit goes more like this when you have a good hand:

Check the flop. Call the bet. Check the turn. Re-raise all in. I bet my opponent didn't see that trap coming. But that's the way you do it.

The bottom line though is that they both can be good games. There's plenty of money out there for all of us.

---

Take advantage of the PokerNow bonus. They'll give you a bonus of 30 percent on your next deposit up to $200. So deposit more than $667 to get the maximum.

---

Hand of the Day: How badly did I play this?

I commented in this thread that I thought betting out the flop with T7o top pair wasn't a good move. I'm sorry, but T7o is just too damn weak to bet out into a multiway pot from the big blind. You're going to get callers, and one of them is more than likely to already have or soon will have a better hand. Keep the pot small, go for a check-raise or wait for the turn with a shitty top pair hand like this. You're not protecting anything by betting it out, and I can't see how the bet is for much value either.

---

Other interesting hands/posts:

Did I play this draw correctly?
I don't wanna raise...QJs UTG
How much would GOD make playing poker?

The Peacemaker

2005-04-27T23:36:00.000-06:00

Villain: Made your flush, huh?

Then he bets $20 into an $80 pot.

He was right. I had made my flush with J8 on the river. So why was he betting into me on the river if he had read me correctly?

Either he was bluffing, he was testing me, or he wanted a call.

Hero: I did make my flush. You have a better flush?

Villain: No.

My read was correct when I called. He hadn't made his flush. This calling station had made a boat on the river by holding onto pocket TT the whole way and made a boat on the river with the third 10. He dragged the $300 pot from the $100 buyin no limit pot.

I could have just called. I should have just called. But my read on him was correct. He didn't have a flush.

So now it's time for the NL$100 revenge tour. I'm taking no mercy. This aggression will not stand. These fish need to pay for their transgressions.

Could I make more money playing 3/6 limit? Probably.

But as I told Daniel: I need to make things right.

Value Betting

2005-04-26T15:12:00.000-06:00

When I grow up, I want to be able to value bet like the pros.

But I still can't seem to get it down yet, despite repeated readings of "Small Stakes Hold em," other books and the 2+2 forums.

I'm working on it though, and someday, I may well move up from my status as a winning 3/6 player to an expert player.

Value betting is betting with a marginal hand when you think you may get a call from a lesser hand (or something like that).

The easiest place to value bet is the river, when you think you may be beat, but you believe it's more likely you're best. This happens a lot when a flush card, straight card or overcard falls. Bet it out with a plan in mind about what you'll do if you get raised -- whether to call or fold.

On earlier streets, it may not be value betting exactly, but there are many times when Sklansky, Miller and Malmuth recommend raising with many kinds of draws. Their most famous example is raising with middle pair from late position when you also have a backdoor straight or some other longshot-type draw.

I'm working on it, but it's hard to make these raises when it feels like you're just throwing money away most of the time. I guess it's worth it for the times when your draw does come through.

I guess the Cliff Notes version of Sklansky's advice is this: when in later position than the bettor, raise the flop with any hand that is paired and has any draw, or any straight or flush draw if you have a pot equity edge or think you could gain a free card. I think that about sums it up. Anyone disagree with that synopsis?

Put another way, it seems like in late position if it's worth a call, you should almost always raise.

This aggressive play stuff is hard! The balance between making correct aggressive plays and simply throwing away money seems quite precarious because I don't know exactly what I'm doing.

Comments are appreciated.

Hands of the Day:
QJ top pair hand
Punishing Drawers
AK Bluff

Razu!

2005-04-25T23:06:00.000-06:00

I'll keep this post short and to the point.

Not enough people take advantage of hands like KJ and KQ from middle to late position.

If there are only limpers in front of you, it's profitable to raise every time. If there's a raiser, of course you can safely let it go most of the time.

I've linked to this before, but it drives the point home: Ed Miller's Hand Quiz.

He says that KJ is known as a trouble hand, but you should raise it if there's no sign you're in trouble (meaning limpers). There's no question in my mind that he's right, at least for limit poker. KJ is a strong hand.

Poker for the People

2005-04-22T13:17:00.000-06:00

Here's the cure for the world's ills: poker.

I could start a charity, called Poker for the People, that would teach people in developing countries how to play online poker.

By taking advantage of fishy players in the United States, the world's underclasses could greatly improve their lifestyles, put food on the table for their families or buy a car. They could save money for a better education for their children. They could be able to afford health treatments they wouldn't otherwise be able to pay for.

The beauty of this plan is that these new poker players wouldn't have to win much. A little money goes a long way in the developing world. Back when I was only making about $300 a month on poker, people here in Chile were still shocked because that's more than many people make working long hours at hard jobs.

Even breaking even on the bonuses would create a tremendous windfall.

So here's the plan: I'll set up an institute that will methodically train people in foreign countries to play poker. It will be a rigorous and difficult course, but the best will excel and make money off of Party Poker, just like many of us are doing now!

Where's the flaw?

Well, there's the obvious problem, which is that there are more losing poker players than winning ones. It stands to reason that new poker players in foreign countries would have a difficult learning curve, just like most winning players in the States do. The difference is that these players can't afford to lose.

If only this idea could work, though! Too bad it can't -- the world probably doesn't need any more degenerate gamblers than it already has.

It's a fun idea though.

Link:
Party Poker bonus

Newbie Insight

2005-04-20T14:32:00.000-06:00

I ran into this Brit on my way to Mendoza, Argentina last weekend, and when he learned I make money on poker, he was fascinated.

We ate a delicious steak dinner (Argentina may well have the best steaks in the world), drank some excellent Malbec wine and then talked poker on the way back to the hotel.

What impressed me about the Brit, whose name was Jason, was that he seemed to ask all the right questions about the game.

"How do you overcome bad luck? How do you deal with the poor runs of cards? How do you ensure that you don't get frustrated and blow your money? How do you keep a level head when things go wrong?" he asked.

Jason immediately realized that the psychological factors of the game are almost as important as game play itself. It took me quite some time to be able to mentally absorb the bad beats, even long after I knew they were just part of the game. Knowing something and acting on it are two different things.

In answer to his questions, I responded that you need to be prepared for a bad run of cards but realize that it doesn't last. Good players always beat bad players in the long run.

I told him that I'm a winning player, but I have losing days all the time. No one wins all the time, and no one loses all the time -- that's what keeps losing players coming back for more.

I safeguard my bankroll by making sure I play at a level where I'm sure I can handle the losses and still be well-off. If I were to lose too much, I would step down to a lower level to rebuild my bankroll rather than playing at the same (or higher) level until I went bust.

I emphasized the importance of playing against players worse than yourself. It does no good to play at your exact level of skill because that would mean you'd be lucky to do better than break even.

It reminds me of what David Sklansky says in "Small Stakes Hold Em." He talks about how humans are great at pattern recognition, but that it's a terrible skill to have in poker because the patterns aren't there. Every hand is an individual event, and past events have no bearing on future performance, unlike many other aspects of life.

Perhaps the natural inclination to get frustrated when patterns don't work out contributes to people going on tilt. It makes sense that it's easier to get angry when you do everything right but the results are unfavorable. What do you do when you do the right thing for the right reason, but get the wrong result? You just keep on keeping on.

Jason didn't know much about poker, but he knew that it wasn't the game for him because he doesn't have the mental fortitude to deal with the random fall of the cards.

The poker players with natural skills quickly acquire the ability to separate the results from their actions. The rest of us need to learn the hard way, by repeated practice at each limit.

New PT

2005-04-19T20:48:00.000-06:00

The only thing to write about is my new PokerTracker database. I've been using the default database since I first starting using this kick-ass program in December, and it was running a bit slow. Now it moves a good bit faster.

Before changing over the database, I went through and put fish on my buddy list so I can track them down. Discussion on the best way to do this can be found in the PokerTracker Guide.

The play itself on Eurobet is just trucking along. I've been pretty even for the last week or so, which means I have nothing to complain about.

I feel like I've been suffering more than my share of bad beats, but then again, I always feel that way!

It makes me wonder which is worse: to get good hands and lose more than your fair share, or to not get any good hands at all? Probably the first option, because second-best hands are the most expensive.

In other trivial poker news:

_I traveled to Mendoza, Argentina over the weekend to renew my tourist visa, which I have to do every three months. I rode on the bus with this Irish guy who was fascinated by the prospect of making money at online poker. I had "Small Stakes Hold em" on me, and he asked to borrow it. I was happy to oblige him and tell him some basics. But I think giving that book to a complete newbie is like handing nukes to a cat.

_Speaking of cats, my friends Daniel, Drew and Shammie leave for Vegas on Thursday. Be sure to check out Daniel's blog for updates from the gambling capital of the world.

_For my brother's birthday a couple of months ago, I transferred $50 into an Ultimate Bet account for him. He played the $5 and $1 tournaments until he was down to $2, but then came all the way back to build up to $150. Then he sold his stake to a friend of his, who blew all the money. Would my brother buy back in? Of course he would! A winning player can't stay away. So now he's slugging it out again at UB.

How to make money

2005-04-15T16:04:00.000-06:00

This should be a simple question, but I'm not sure it is: Where do your poker profits come from?

The easiest answer is "other players." Sklansky, Miller et all like to talk about how poker is a game of profiting off of other people, making their loss your gain. That much is obvious.

Most profits come from fish. Good players are naturally harder to play against, and most of anyone's winnings are going to come from bad players.

But how do bad players give away money? Even the worst players know the rules of the game and are familiar with starting hands and when to lay down a hopeless hand.

There are several ways fish give away money. The primary source of winnings is preflop. I understand and respect how postflop play is the difference between a good and mediocre player, but I believe the most common and expensive mistakes are made preflop.

A player who sees the flop on 50 percent of the hands he is dealt is going to lose money. It's inevitable. They lose money when they limp with hands they shouldn't, and then it becomes more expensive when they have to call preflop raises and reraises.

Perhaps more expensive than that is when a shit hand like Kx offsuit hits and the player feels like he has to call the hand down to the river.

Postflop play is also important -- and more difficult -- because many players are not that loose preflop. Against these opponents, value betting marginal hands, bluffing, calling down and laying down at the right times becomes critical.

The point is that you don't make money in poker by knowing the basics. Profits come from taking advantage of betting mistakes as the hand progresses.

Poker is all about betting. If your read is correct that you have the best hand, you will win.

Of course, there are some times when checking and slow-playing are appropriate when you have the best hand.

But most winnings come from people who call your bets when they shouldn't.

Link:
Bill Fillmaff, Chapter 2

On Luck: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Variance

2005-04-13T11:50:00.000-06:00

Variance is a bitch.

Or is it?

Isn't the principle of aggressive play that you're increasing your risk for a chance at a larger reward? Isn't that what you want -- to win the most over time in exchange for some swings when you try to push a small edge?

The point of value betting is that there's a likelihood of getting called by a lesser hand against your marginal hand. Over time, those small percentage points add up to profits.

The problem is that suckouts happen. Sometimes those small advantages are easily overcome. And for some reason, it seems like these facials tend to come all at once, turning a mediocre session into a disaster.

Variance seems like a terrible cross for the good poker player to bear. It feels like an unfair consequence of a fundamentally fair game.

A more mature approach would be to embrace variance. Variance is what gives fish hope. If fish never won, they wouldn't play the game. They wouldn't keep coming back for more even after they've lost more than they won. We want to feed the fish for the slaughter.

Gutshots, backdoor draws, unlikely two pairs on the river, hitting Ax heads-up on the end vs. top pair ... these are the kinds of beats that fish thrive on.

The important thing to remember is that your top pair, top kicker will hold up more over the long run than their longshot draw. A fundamental concept of poker is that better hands are less probable than more likely hands -- a single pair is more common and will hold up much more often than not against a flush draw.

The contradiction of poker psychology is to learn to love luck and variance when it isn't with you. In fact, most of the time, fish benefit from luck more than a good player ever will. Luck is a byproduct of opportunity; when fish play more hands than they should, they also create more opportunities to make a longshot draw.

Fortunately, fish pay a steep price on these opportunities. Winning players come out on top because they know and respect the odds. Good players only invest money in a pot if the reward is greater than the risk -- that is to say, if the situation has a positive expected value (EV).

Against fish, there are only two ways a good player can lose over the long run: by going on tilt or playing above their bankroll. Otherwise, time will cure all ills and fatten all wallets.

Link:
An article about being a prop

Golden Age

2005-04-10T11:22:00.000-06:00

There is no doubt that this is the Golden Age of poker, and there's no end in sight.

The Party Poker network is approaching 100,000 users at peak hours. The fish are biting. There are dozens of TV poker broadcasts a week (so I hear -- they don't quite come in on Chilean cable). Home games seem prevalent and Vegas is booming.

Most importantly, the games are easy. I truly believe that anyone who puts in the effort to learn the game can make some good money.

I don't know when this boom started. It was before Chris Moneymaker, before the World Poker Tour. It may have begun more three or four years ago with the advent of hole cams on the British "Late Night Poker."

But there's no end in sight. The good times are here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future.

I can only hope that they will continue for years to come.

As long as the number of online players stays steady or increases, the percentage of those players who are fish will stay relatively the same.

Link:
Streaks Spreadsheet

I think I'll get by

2005-04-07T09:00:00.000-06:00

I've gotten into a pretty effective poker routine (or maybe I've just been lucky):

After a long day of reading, hanging out, eating at good Chilean restaurants and drinking, I finally log on to play poker at about 1 or 2 a.m. It's been profitable for me to find tables that are shorthanded because it's easier to exploit fishes' mistakes there.

I start out with a couple of 3/6 tables shorthanded, start up some music from Yahoo! Radio, crank up Pokertracker and Gametime+, and then open a couple more tables.

The funny thing is that these three- or four-handed, late-night 3/6 games are even fishier than I would have thought. So when I lost a few pots against ridiculous gutshots and third pair draws that turn into trips, I started getting a little angry.

It was almost funny that I was getting frustrated. I haven't gotten pissed off at a table in a while -- in part because I've been winning, but also because I've adjusted to the reality of variance and beats.

I would not say I was tilting, because that would imply I was letting emotions affect my game negatively. Instead, I became more focused.

I was still mildly annoyed about 30 minutes later before I looked up and realized I had won a few hundred dollars. Heh.

Link:
Report spammers

The Dude Abides

2005-04-04T18:42:00.000-06:00

WALTER: They're nihilists, Donny, nothing to be afraid of.
DIETER: Vee don't care. Vee still vant zat money or vee fuck you up.
--The Big Lebowski

At the poker table, I am like the nihilists. I believe in nothing, and I want the money.

It's hard to believe in nothing though. Superstitions always creep in.

I've written about how to appease the Poker Gods before, but there are other myths I tell myself as well.

Like when I'm on a good run, I think I should play more to maximize my profit. Of course, that only makes sense if I'm running well because of superior play and not dumb luck.

Or when I was on my way to winning a small tournament at the Golden Nugget in Las Vegas, I was sure to take my watch off any time I washed my hands, and then I made sure my hands were dry before putting it back on.

That was the only way to assure victory.

Does that make sense? None whatsoever.

But I don't think my transgressions are nearly as bad as many of the professionals I read about.

They have faith in things like intuition, which may exist, but more often than not it's a perception of tells.

People such as Doyle Brunson say they always play the next hand after a winning hand. Playing junk cards just because I had won the previous hand never worked for me.

Others talk about competitive spirit and motivation, but I think what they really mean is that they're focused and lucky.

The danger of these beliefs is that they can get the best of a player who lets them affect his play.

But superstitions are not without their merits. Believing in something often gives a player a psychological advantage, most often in the form of confidence.

That would be a comfort.

I'm doomed to the hard road of cold facts and odds.

Link:
Empire bonus starts Wednesday

Anniversary

2005-04-01T08:48:00.000-06:00

It was a little more than a year ago when I was on the graveyard shift at my old job in Atlanta.

I had been thinking about "going pro" and taking the dive into online poker, and this was the perfect night for it. Everything was quiet, I was alone in the office, and I was ready to test the waters.

So I cranked up Party Poker, deposited $50, and played the lowest-level no limit game I could find, the $25 buyin.

After only a few minutes, my $50 was gone. I don't know what happened to it. I imagine I must have called some all-ins without knowing any better. In fact, I'm sure I knew nearly nothing.

I bought in for another $50, and lost that almost as fast as the first $50.

That let me know I wasn't ready, even for one of the easiest games on the Internet.

One month later, I challenged Party Poker anew, and this time I only lost $18. The next day, I won $13. Then I won again, and again, and I was hooked.

I moved on to other sites and kept winning in general. When I helped cover the Group of Eight Summit on Sea Island off Georgia's coast, I was sure to log in from my hotel room. When I was watching a baseball game, I'd put some money on the table and play.

At the end of June, I went to Vegas for the first time. I stayed in the Horseshoe, won a big pot at the NL table, lost a tournament at the Orleans, and came in first place at a small buyin 57-player tourney at the Nugget. I'll recount that tourney another time, but suffice it to say that I felt I had established myself.

Soon afterward, Daniel and I started hitting up the home game scene in Atlanta, which proved to be quite profitable.

We also went on something of a disasterous trip to Biloxi, Mississippi, but at least it was educational. I also scored a home game tournament win to help boost my confidence.

Almost all of this play was no limit hold em. What did I know about other forms of poker? I had only been experienced what they play on TV.

When I first went to Vegas, Daniel and I joked about how much we hated limit poker, and we couldn't figure out why there were so few no limit tables in comparison.

I moved to Santiago, Chile at the end of September, and soon decided that limit poker is not only essential, but that there's a tremendous profit potential there.

So I got more serious, read the 2+2 forums more, read more books and dove into the limit pool.

I found limit to be much more difficult than no limit because I couldn't bomb the pot with large bets when you wanted to represent a strong hand. I couldn't adjust the odds I was offering my opponents, and it was cheaper for people to try to stay in and suck out on me.

Fortunately, that's about when I discovered bonus whoring. It wasn't long before I had accounts at all the Party Poker skins, Absolute Poker, Ultimate Bet, Full Tilt, Paradise Poker and Poker Stars. Anywhere there was a bonus, that's where I would play.

That's also around the time when I started using PokerTracker, which is invaluable.

Despite the ups and downs of limit, I remained convinced that I should stick with limit because I would eventually break through, establish a consistent win rate, and be able to move up.

I tried making $3/6 my regular game for the first time in December. I enjoyed it, but I had a more difficult time there.

My worst losing streak came in the middle of January, when I started losing and went on tilt. I resorted to higher-stakes no limit games to try to make compensate for my limit failures, but only dug myself in a deeper hole. I played in some tournaments, hoping for a big score, but I lost all of them, even the 10-player sit-n-goes.

I was demoralized and thinking of quitting. Daniel had to listen to me bitch over instant messenger all the time about how bad I was doing. And I couldn't continue like this for long, knowing that I was living off my savings account while staying here in Chile.

So I did what any respectable grinder would do: I dug in my heals and played lower-level games that I could easily beat until I had won back my losses. I put in many hours at the $25 buyin no limit games because I knew I would win. At that point, I had little choice.

I thought it would take months, but it only took a few weeks to recover the money I had lost.

I haven't looked back as my roll has continued to grow since then. I made $2/4 limit my regular game until I could establish a good winrate, and I decided to wait until my bankroll exceeded $4,000 before returning to $3/6 for another go. I know that bankroll size may seem excessive for that limit, but I needed the financial and mental security of that level for my self-confidence and also because I will likely have to dip into my poker accounts in a couple of months to live off of.

Today, my bankroll is approaching $5,000. I play $3/6 confidently. I get rakeback, which is like another monthly bonus.

The most important lessons I've learned are about patience, the difference between bad luck and being outplayed, tilt recognition and game selection.

I often think of an article in which Clonie Gowan said she was a fish for two years before finding her poker legs. I'm long past that.

Link:
Odd new game invented by Sklansky

Economics 101

2005-03-30T23:50:00.000-06:00

In real-life economics, money is created when lenders borrow and redistribute assets repeatedly. The details are kind of difficult for me to explain because I don't fully understand them, but if you're interested, you can read about it here.

Money creation is a bit simpler when playing online poker. The FPS ePassporte bonus (bonus code EPASS) on the Party Poker skins is a good example. It's only a $50 bonus (or 10 percent of your deposit) for 250 raked hands played per site, but that can add up.

1. Select FPS ePassporte as your deposit option, fund it with $500 and pay the $25 fee, leaving you with $475 in your account.

2. Deposit $475 to Party Poker for $47.5 bonus (10 percent of $475). Play 250 hands. Withdraw profits plus bonus and original deposit to ePassporte.

3. Repeat step 2 at Empire Poker, depositing the transaction limit of $500 for a $50 bonus.

4. Repeat for PokerNow, Intertops Poker and Multipoker. Eurobet does not offer the EPASS bonus.

5. Be sure to take advantage of the "fish bonus," offered at all NL25 and NL50 games on the Party Poker sites. No bonus code required.

5. Withdraw money and add to bankroll. Profits typically equal $247 (EPASS bonus from five sites) plus $540 (fish bonus over 1250 raked hands).

And that, my friends, is what makes the world go 'round.

Link:
Bill Filmaff's Secret System -- The video especially is pretty funny

P.S. Of course, the IGMPAY bonuses at all the Party skins are better than the EPASS bonuses. But I did the IGMPAY bonuses months ago. Search the 2+2 Forums for details.

Big Game

2005-03-28T10:35:00.000-06:00

In Anthony Holden's "Big Deal: One Year as a Professional Poker Player," he travels from his home game in Britain to private card clubs to psychiatrists to the World Series of Poker.

His is a journey of skill, wits and mental strength.

The inner poker game is what interested me most about this book, which I like to include in a kind of made-up trilogy of poker literature, along with "The Biggest Game in Town" by A. Alvarez and "Positively Fifth Street" by James McManus.

Poker is a game of internal ironies. Many people play a monetarily dangerous game because they secretly need to lose. Others gamble in casinos because their real-life bets seem mundane compared to the contrived circumstances of a card game.

Holden gambles with fierce competitiveness to avenge the hard-luck life of his father.

Few people play poker solely for the money -- it's too much of a mind game for that.

The top pros are fearless because for them, the game is not about money; rather, it's more about a battle of wits represented by clay-tinged chips on a field of green. You always hear pros talk about how it's more about the bracelet or the first-place finish than the money.

The detachment from the emotional and symbolic value of the chips allows the best players to play their best game, regardless of concerns about what the chips may signify. And yet, many of those same so-called professionals couldn't play well in a small-stakes game where the chips seemed smaller and there was less at stake.

The fact that there are more losers than winners at poker, and that the losers keep coming back, is evidence enough that hordes of people have more at stake than money.

In several recent blogs (including Poker on Film and Dead Money = AlCantHang), the authors have admitted that they are either poor or losing players. They continue because they have fun playing poker and they enjoy the challenge of improving their games.

Realizing and understanding our true motives at the poker table is not easy because it's so easy to deny reality. Bad players blame bad luck, good players point to variance -- both valid reasons for losing, but often used as smokescreens for underlying weaknesses in your game (not that I would ever do anything like that!) Losing players don't keep records of their net gains and losses because they like to tell themselves they're breaking even, or a little bit ahead. Many pros are known to play a tight, disciplined game at the poker table, but then leak it out at craps or blackjack as they delude themselves into thinking they're luckier than the house.

So good poker players often need to face the truth -- about their abilities, about the pointlessness of spending their time at a poker table instead of living, about the futility of wishing for good luck when the law of averages always prevails.

For me, the hard facts of life as reflected at the poker table are the most difficult to deal with.

How can I play a confident, fearless game knowing my own weaknesses? How can I ignore those weaknesses without falling into a cycle of denial about my game?

What motivates me to play well if the triviality of poker exceeds the importance of social interactions, thus mirroring the pointlessness of many of my activities?

Why should I care about winning or losing when the pixels on my laptop screen here in Chile are supposed to signify money that I transferred from my bank account to an online bank account to a poker site, to the point where it seems as artificial as the "faith" standard the North American currency is based on?

And yet I play on, with a stronger, more educated game than ever before, driven by deeper ambitions that outweigh these superficial neurosis that sometimes intrude on the psyche like tilt on a losing drunkard in Vegas.

I play poker because I need to prove myself, over and over again. I want to win. I want to make the fish pay for being fish, and I want to be rewarded for rising above their mediocrity. My desire is to feel superior until I am ready to humble myself again at the next-highest limit, and then start the rat race to the top over again.

Of course there are many other reasons. Like fun and profit, for example. But I have the most fun when I'm winning, thus satisfying my ego's need for progress, recognition and victory over the mundane trials of life that eternally threaten to put me on tilt.

Link:
Play in Wednesday's WPBT event on Poker Stars

Blinds

2005-03-26T18:33:00.000-06:00

I was reading through the PokerTracker Guide today, which I've already recommended and reviewed. Seriously, if you have bought PokerTracker, buy the guide for $20.

Anyway, there's a link in the guide to a post about play from the blinds. The linked page was recently taken down, but the original information can be found in this thread. (Thanks Hank!)

This is good stuff. I've read and studied a lot about poker, but it seems like basic preflop play from the blinds gets neglected. And I know that blinds play will become much more important as I move up in limits and fewer people see the flop.

One important point is that I feel like I've been playing too tight from the big blind.

Here are some preflop highlights:

From the big blind

--"Against typical raises, call liberally with hands that have straight or flush potential, as well as pairs. Get away from big offsuit hands that are likely dominated. 65s is usually on par with KQ here."

--Call with any suited Ax, Kx, Qx, Jx, Tx or 9x

--Call with offsuit Ax, KQ-K9, QJ-Q9 and connectors down to 54

--Reraise frequently vs. steal raises

From the small blind

--Call or raise with almost any two suited cards, Ax, Kx, KQ-Q5, JT-J9 and offsuit connectors down to 54. Of course, tighten up a bit if the small blind is 1/3 the big blind, as in a 3/6 game

Of course, this is just a simple sampling of preflop play, and the actual post goes into far more detail.

Hand of the day:
Keep the aggression vs. small paired board?

Five Stupid House Rules, And Five Good Ones

2005-03-25T15:16:00.000-06:00

Home games often have ridiculous ways of playing that detract from the experience and don't make sense. They drive me crazy!

Here's a list of some of the worst home game rules:

1) Five of a kind (with wild cards) beats a straight flush. No, I'm sorry, but I've never seen five of a kind on any poker hand chart. It's not a hand. If you have five 9s, it's four of a kind with a 9 kicker. Where did people get the idea that there's even such a thing as five of a kind?

2) You have to show your hand in the correct order after the showdown. Dudes, just show your cards instead of arguing about it for five minutes. No one cares! For the love of God, just get on with it.

3) You have to call your hand. Please, let the cards speak.

4) There's a max bet but no fixed limit. I guess that's no serious harm, but I'm going to bet the max more often than not.

5) You have to warn people before you pick up your chips to leave. I'm sorry, but where I come from, you can leave with your money any time you want.

And I have to list some rules I love:

1) If your girlfriend calls, you have to pay a penalty and throw money into the pot.

2) No rake!

3) The house is responsible for money missing from the pot.

4) Everyone pitches in for pizza.

5) You can smoke at the table.

Link:
Some notes on reading hands

Tourneys

2005-03-24T10:35:00.000-06:00

Didn't I used to be good at tournaments? What happened?

I don't know. For some reason, while I was drunk last weekend, I got the idea that it would be a good idea to play in some tournaments. I guess that was the gambler in me talking.

So I waited until I was sober, logged into Poker Stars and played six tournaments, finishing 0-for-6. D'oh!

But I guess that's OK. Most of them were multitable tournaments, which seem like a crapshoot anyway.

I like to think of tournaments like the baseball playoffs. The Atlanta Braves make the postseason every year, and have won the World Series only once during their 13 straight seasons of winning their division. Some people say this means the Braves don't have what it takes to perform when it's all on the line, but I argue that it means that anything can happen in a short series.

From the Baseball Prospectus Web site: "Once you're there, lady luck is often your dominatrix and all bets are off."

Low buy-in tournaments seem like a fairly safe bet though. I gave my brother $50 for his birthday to open a poker account at Ultimate Bet, and he quickly dropped down to $2 playing $5 buy-in tournaments. But he clawed his way back up through the $1 and $5 tournaments, and is now sitting pretty with a $150 bankroll.

While I'm rambling on the subject, I think the poker community (ahem, Card Player magazine) focuses way too much on the live tournament scene. Only a small fraction of us will ever play in these $5,000 and $10,000 buy-in tournaments, and most of us only care about the major tournaments anyway.

These articles would be more useful if they talked more about strategy, tactics, other games and poker news. I get frustrated by the attention paid to poker celebrities and no limit hold em all the time.

Link:
How many 5 year olds ...

Note to self

2005-03-23T09:19:00.000-06:00

Self: When explaining the rules of a new game, be sure to get the rules right.

I mistakenly described razz incorrectly to my Tuesday night poker friends here, and it cost me a six luca ($10) pot that I had to forfeit. Dammit!

And even though I was drinking, I could feel the sense of tilt coming on, so I tried to forget about it and move on. I can handle bad beats, but I hate losing when it's my own fault.

Fortunately, I was able to recover some of my money at pot limit hold em. It reminds me of what I was like about a year ago, when I was mostly clueless about how to play the game. These people don't know how to fold, and every bet is a maximum bet.

Previously, I thought they stayed away from pot limit and no limit games because they were too tight. I was absolutely wrong. They stay away because they can't resist getting all their money in the middle.

Unfortunately for me, the cards just didn't fall. I won three pots all night, and two of those were very small.

That's fine though. It was a good time, and you can't play bad poker just because your competition is bad.

Link:
Chip Litre's Poker Mods

Bad Advice

2005-03-22T10:38:00.000-06:00

Sometimes I wonder about Card Player magazine.

Do the authors know how to play poker? Do the editors?

In the recent Card Player with Jennifer Harmon on the cover, a column by Barry Tanenbaum called "Two No-Limit Hold'em Lesson Hands" has some awful advice. Click here to read the full column.

This is the paragraph that is terrible:

The player with the Ahearts Jhearts had a different sort of problem. With a royal-flush draw and a gutshot-straight draw, this player had 12 pure outs. Generally, though, the bet was too large for even that draw to be getting the correct pot odds to call. If he called and missed, another pot-sized bet would again be offering him the wrong price to call. In no-limit, however, there is always an interesting alternative to calling: raising. In limit poker, a raise here, while you sometimes see it, is normally self-defeating. The raiser typically gets called down and has to make his hand. Plus, in limit, any big draw almost always sees the proper odds to draw.

Just awful. If I have a nut flush draw, a gutshot straight draw and overcard outs, I'm going to raise it every single time.

Does Barry Tanenbaum know anything at all about limit poker? If not, he should stop writing about it like he's an authority.

I see this kind of crap in Card Player all too frequently. I like reading the magazine, but when it comes to strategy articles, I'm starting to think it's better to just skip over them unless I trust the author.

Link:
Party Poker bonus

It's raining fish

2005-03-18T10:47:00.000-06:00

I despise fish, and yet I should love them.

If not for the fish, where would the money come from?

Most of my profits come from poor poker players, and I try to avoid confrontations with the more-skilled rounders.

By their nature, fish suck out. Their DNA tells them to not fold.

It's ingrained in their behavior, passed down from elder fish, that they play bad cards poorly. They raise when they should fold, they call when they should raise. They win when they should lose, but more often than not, they lose.

I hate fish because I hate losing to fish. And beating a fish is not very fulfilling because they deserve to lose.

Where do the fish come from? I keep worrying that they'll disappear, that someday they'll reform and suddenly learn how to play poker. I fear that they'll start reading books and forums and tighten their game.

Fortunately, these fish are goldfish. They'll always die, and there will always be more. There are plenty of fish in the sea.

My only recourse is to give them what they've been asking for: A quick mercy killing.

Link:
Poker Player Newspaper

Dodging Tilt

2005-03-17T12:20:00.000-06:00

I got home from Spanish class this morning and almost logged in to Eurobet.

I desperately searched for any distraction, and luckily I found that the last episode of "Tilt" had finished downloading. I watched that, and it was characteristically lackluster. Fortunately, I'm a sucker for anything poker, so it wasn't too bad.

Then I looked back at my desktop and those 10 poker site icons just sitting there, waiting to be clicked on.

I resisted, and instead read through my new copy of "Baseball Prospectus" in preparation for my fantasy baseball draft.

Then I downloaded some photos that my dad had taken during my family's trip to Chile last week.

Finally I was hungry enough to extricate myself from my laptop and pour myself a bowl of Fruit Loops.

Then it was time to walk to work.

I was avoiding poker because I'm more likely to go on tilt while in the middle of this -175BB run.

I'd like to think I'm saving money right now, sitting at my desk at The Santiago Times, by not playing poker.

Mission accomplished; poker unplayed.

At least until after work.

Link:
Empire bonus (log on to your account to see if you're eligible)

Hookers and Poker

2005-03-16T11:18:00.000-06:00

Lee (the consummate gambler), Adam (the hobbit-looking English kid) and I flagged down a cab on the streets of Santiago after our weekly poker game last night.

We all piled in when this woman came running and barged in the taxi door.

"Go, go!" she said in Spanish.

She was obviously flustered: out of breath, panicked and not making much sense. I understood only a little, and I think my fellow English-speakers only caught a little more than I did.

She slouched down in her seat so no one could see her from outside, and she didn't have any money to pay the fare when she asked to be let out a few blocks later. She had been talking crazy, not making any sense, and looking out the window for her unknown pursuer.

When she got out of the car, she immediately ran across the street and jumped into another taxi.

It was a weird end of the night. The only thing I can figure is that she was a prostitute on the run.

Poker itself was a good time.

We ordered the usual 2-for-1 Domino's pizza and played limit hold em the whole time. There was a left-over keg to drink from. I got wiped out, winning only one hand the entire time.

I didn't have any luck at Mexican poker, the winner-take-all game we finish the night with, either.

As Lee was walking out the door, he was disappointed that he had only broken even.

"Anyone want to bet on high card?" he asked.

So that started a wild round of betting on who could draw the higher card out of the deck. At its height, people were making side bets on who would draw the high card! Lee profited more than 20,000 pesos ($35), and I lost a couple thousand.

I even had to borrow my taxi fare from Lee.

Then I gambled some more of that away on high card!

Good thing I had enough left to pay the cab driver -- the prostitute sure didn't.

Hand of the day:
Tight spot for a baby set

Review: Winning Low Limit Hold 'Em

2005-03-15T10:52:00.000-06:00

Lee Jones' "Winning Low Limit Hold 'Em" is like diet "Small Stakes Hold 'Em" by Sklansky and friends.

It's a good book, but it would have been much more useful if I had read it a long time ago rather than now.

But that isn't to say I didn't get something out of it.

The section on check-raising was useful because I had gotten into a groove of almost always betting out a strong hand and building a pot. The check-raising hand examples were useful, too. Jones suggests check-raising top pair Q off AQ as well as top pair K off KJ if the board isn't threatening.

The discussion about how to play weak kickers was also enlightening. I like the idea of raising the flop from late position and then checking the turn. This induces a bet on the river, which you can safely call.

Other than those two sections though, I felt like the book was a pale echo of "Small Stakes Hold 'Em." Throughout the book, Jones makes references to Sklansky and Malmuth, and it sounds like some of their criticisms may have led to the revisions seen in the second edition.

I liked it though -- it's always good to have a review of the basics.

The Sunday night HORSE tourney on Full Tilt was fun. I sucked big time!

I blame the alcohol for my misread in razz that led to my quick demise. I still don't know why I lost that hand.

Everyone should play in these events. Everyone's friendly and chatty, and the competition isn't much different from any other game. Check at the World Poker Bloggers Tour Web site for upcoming events.

As for bonuses, Empire poker is offering an account-specific 15 percent bonus up to $100 with only a 500 hand workthru. Log on to Empire, and if you get a pop-up window, you're eligible for the bonus.

Links:
Ax HU
Typical pair vs. overcard

WPBT HORSE

2005-03-13T19:27:00.000-06:00

The WPBT HORSE Tournament starts pretty soon, and I'll be playing. Anyone is welcome.

It would be fun to chat with anyone playing. My AIM name is mniesse AP.

Here are the details from WPBT itself:

9 p.m.
Full Tilt Poker
$5 Entry Fee
password: thehammer
Courtesy: Iggy

Yes, the game is HORSE. What does that mean? Well, well be playing Texas Hold em, Omaha Hold em, 7 Card Stud and Razz. If youre not familiar with the games, get familiar with the games! It will be fun, believe me. And its just $5 right?

In fact, here are your first ten levels (courtesy Tao of Poker):

Level 1: Holdem 30/60
Level 2: Omaha hi/lo 40/80
Level 3: Razz 50/100 + 10 ante
Level 4: Stud 60/120 +10 ante
Level 5: Stud hi/lo 80/160 + 15 ante
Level 6: Holdem 100/200
Level 7: Omaha hi/lo 120/240
Level 8: Razz 150/200 + 25 ante
Level 9: Stud 200/400 +30 ante
Level 10: Stud hi/lo 250/500 +40 ante