Posted by Dr Fro 4:53 PM
Lagniappe

- I would love to try Poker Tracker some time. I am travelling right now, but I'll get around to installing it some time when I return. Has anybody tried this or something similiar?

- We played on Sunday and I won $94. I felt like ass when I woke up on Monday, though, so I am not sure it was worth it. For some reason, I can't sleep after poker. I keep going through all the decisions/hands in my head and it keeps me from falling asleep. Some single malt scotch will usually do the trick.

- November 14 is definitely the date for the next tournament. A website is under construction. No need to sign up yet, but if you are dying to reserve a spot, you can send $100. Most importantly, you need to get it on your calander.

- I'd like to do an online tournament sometime soon. It seems that Pacific Poker allows you to organize your own private tournament on their site. I don't see where Party Poker allows the same. Anybody with some experience here?

- I have a new player on Party I like to follow around and sit at his table. Do a search on JZAUS. He is terrible. Easy money. Talks a lot of smack. Do you have any players you search for? I hope you don't answer "phreaux"!

- Ariticle



(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 10:06 PM
Football Pool
For the longest time my dad and his friends ran a massive football pickem game each week in Snyder, my hometown in West Texas. They ran this game out of the offices of a local oilfield drilling company and all of the guys from all of the crews all over the state would send in entries, as would a lot of the local guys in town and my dad and his friends and even my brother and I and some of our friends. At time there were more than a hundred entries in the game and it made for some healthy pots in return for a little $20 wager.

Last year the company went public and the CEO decreed that they would no longer allow any organized gambling to take place on company property. I can see his point, but it was still disappointing last summer when the game ended. In response, my brother and I decided to start our own version of the pool last year just before the season started and we were able to recruit two other guys to play. It turned out to be a lot of fun.

This year we are doing it again and our goal is to recruit 6 more players for a total of 10 and I am posting an open invitation to the blog for anyone who might be interested in playing.

The rules are fairly simple:

- Pay $20. 75% ($15) goes into the weekly pot. 25% ($5) goes into the overall pot.

- Weekly Pot: Choose any 5 NFL games each week and pick the winner against the spread. The player who correctly picks all 5 of his games that week wins the weekly pot for that week. If more than one player picks 5 games correctly, then the weekly pot is split. If no one picks 5 games correctly then the weekly pot carries over into the next week(s) until there is a winner.

- Overall Pot: You may also pick the winners (against the spread) of every NFL game in a particular week. At the end of the season the player with the most total games picked correctly will win the overall pot.

That's it. That's the idea of the game. There are a few more specific rules in response to certain situations (ie carryovers) and you can find those rules here.


If you are interested in playing, please send me an email and I will get you set up. I need to know who you are specifically, or know someone who knows you and can vouch for you (and so on), but otherwise anyone is welcome to play.




(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 3:39 PM
If you can't win at the game, you can still make money. Find out how.



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 11:55 AM
When I was in college and for my first year out of college, I used to bet a lot on sports. I used to lose a lot betting on sports. One day the light bulb went off over my head, and I decided that I was too smart to be throwing away money like that. Most people would have quit. Not me, not this gambler. I knew (see earlier post) that it is very much possible to have a positive EV in sports gambling. I just didn’t know how. Yet.

The first thing I did was to consult my very large Excel spreadsheets that tracked every penny one and lost and won over the years. (Hey, I’m an accountant, what did you expect?). I noticed some patterns. I noticed that I consistently won on Saturdays, lost on Sundays and got killed on MNF. I got clobbered in all sports other than football. In all cases, I typically did well on my “games of the week” top picks, but poorly on the other picks. I did better on SWC and Big XII football than on Pac-10. I did better on AFC teams than on NFC teams. What could be gleaned from all of this?

First, I figured out that I did better on games where I knew the teams better. As I watch 10x the college football then pro football, it shouldn’t be surprising that I did better on Saturdays. Furthermore, the Big XII teams that had played UT (a game that I likely saw in person) were more familiar to me. Thus, I could predict better than the field how they would fare in their next game.

The pattern over the course of the weekend was clear to: I won on Saturday and got a little & cash rich. I bet like an fool on payday on Sunday morn and got in a hole. I started pressing late Sunday and dug a bigger hole. I would double-up-to-catch-up on MNF and lose.

So I took the above observations and developed a list of 9 commandments to follow. I followed the religiously for the next 4 years and won an average of $2k per year. I eventually quit because I found myself with very little time for research (a wedding on the way, marathon training, a pending move overseas). But here are the commandments I followed:

1. Focus your attention where you are good. Only bet on college football. Avoid other sports. Avoid pro sports. Do most of your betting on the teams you watch the most.

2. When you get up, bag a winner. That doesn’t mean you have to quit betting, but it certainly means that you don’t take unnecessary risks for larger sums just because you are up.

3. Don’t press it when you are down. Just cut your losses and wait for the next weekend. MNF is a coin-toss, so why put $500 on it? Put $100 on each of 5 games next Saturday and you will do better in the long run.

4. Don’t bet larger than your bankroll allows. If you have $2,000 to play with, then you really shouldn’t bet > $100 per game. You should probably bet $50. Betting too much can put all of your eggs in one basket, which is an unnecessary risk. Gambling is a marathon, not a sprint.

5. Avoid the fool’s bets. Parlays and teasers are primarily for fools and degenerates. There are a few exceptions. For instance, parlying a favorite with the associated over or parlaying the dog with the associated under can at times be a smart play. This is based on the fact there is greater than 25% probability for each of these 2 scenarios out of the 4 possible scenarios. This is due to correlation. Furthermore, teasers can be valuable on betting O/U’s on very low totals. This is because the amount of points given on a tease is fixed regardless of the underlying O/U. Thus, the 6pts represent a greater percentage of the O/U on low O/U’s. In the extreme case, if an O/U was set at 6 (ridiculous, but I am trying to make a point), then you could tease it to 0, and have a sure thing. Conversely, if the O/U is 90, it is unlikely that 6 points will make much of a difference.

6. Play on your own terms. If you did your research and decided that Notre Dame-3 is a good bet, and then call your bookie and he gives you ND-5, walk away.

7. Only play your top 3 –5 games each week. Picks # 6 – 100 are less likely to come through and you are probably just going to pay a lot of unnecessary juice. Gambling is interesting like that. Imagine if the Yankees could choose which 3 teams they would play each year. Why would they play the Sox? They would play Tampa Bay, Kansas City, and Montreal and go undefeated, assuring themselves a spot in the playoffs. You have the opportunity in gambling. You don’t have to be on the most difficult games.

8. Avoid the bright lights. Although it is more fun to bet on marquee games, in all likelihood, the lines are properly set. The real opportunities to win are on games between a couple teams nobody cares about – say, Baylor v Kansas.

9. Trust the experts and don’t be afraid to pay for advice. Shannon and I started paying for advice from Lance Zierlein, who, IMHO, knows more about sports handicapping than anyone I will ever come in contact with.

So what in the hell does this have to do with poker? It was only about 1.5 years later that I increased my interest in poker. I was losing, and I wanted to win. I knew I could. At the time, I didn’t consciously apply my 9 commandments. However, the changed way of the thinking that those 9 commandments had on me guided my efforts in poker. I just dug up my old 9 commandments today (in honor of the USC-Va Tech game) and I realize that they can absolutely be applied to poker.


1. Focus your attention where you are good. I am better at Holdem than Omaha. Why play Omaha. As I got better at PL, I focused on it, and now that NL is my expertise, that is where I spend my time.

2. When you get up, bag a winner. That doesn’t mean you have to quit playing, but it certainly means that you don’t take unnecessary risks for larger sums just because you are up. This can be applied over the course of a single night (don’t’ play like a fool just because you are up) and on a more macro level (don’t step up to a bigger game just because you are running hot.)

3. Don’t press it when you are down. This is called going on tilt in poker and it often happens without clearly realizing it at the time, but it can be seen with perfect clarity in hindsight. Unless you are absolutely convinced that you are the best guy at the table. Just get up if you are getting hammered. There will be plenty of games in the future, but if your bankroll has vanished, it won’t matter.

4. Don’t bet larger than your bankroll allows. I have nothing more to add here. If you bet more than you can afford, you will find yourself pressing when losing, and then you have to apply rule # 3.

5. Avoid the fool’s bets. This is the commandment that translates over to poker the least. However, I can think of some examples: a) insurance that doesn’t pay fair odds b) playing in a jackpot game with too high juice c) and many more decision in dealer’s choice stupid games

6. Play on your own terms. If you don’t like the juice, the players, the rules, the limits, the anything – don’t play just to play. Just say no.

7. Only play your top 3 –5 games each week. Why play in a game of good players for small stakes when you could play bad players for higher stakes. Choose your games wisely.

8. Avoid the bright lights. You may have a blast playing in the high limits game in Bellagio, but you can win more at Cousin Eddy’s Thursday night game. Don’t be lured in by the bright lights, or you may find your self meeting the same fate of that proverbial deer in headlights.

9. Trust the experts and don’t be afraid to pay for advice. Read books, read online. Take advice from guys who win, not from unproven players. Buy Super System. Buy the Book of Tells.





(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:03 AM
A different angle on seat selection.



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 3:38 PM
From Nukees:






(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 3:33 PM




(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 2:07 PM
I will be in Houston Sunday night and looking to take somebody's money. Anybody's.

If you are interested in letting me win all of your money, let me know. I get in town at 6:00.



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 1:55 PM
A point that is lost on many people, but touched on here is that if have a decent (but not the nuts) hand on the river and are pretty positive your opponent holds a busted drawing hand, you shouldn't bet. If he holds a busted draw, this should only result in a fold, which gets you nothing more than if you checked. Checking at least gives the possiblity that they will try to steal on the river, which gives you more money.



(0) comments

Posted by Junelli 12:45 PM
This is a test from my new Blog account. Thanks for the invite, and I'll try to make some worthwhile contributions...
Junelli



(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 11:05 AM
I have 5 more gmail invites if anyone would like to try it. Just send me an email to the address at the right and I will invite you for free.

(unlike Fro who likes to extort t-shirts from people)


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 8:40 PM
The best resource for rules.



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 2:18 PM
From the mailbag:

From: Junell
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 5:51 PM
To: Dr Fro
Subject: Vegas

After 8 years away, I finally made it back to Vegas this past weekend. Itwas a joyous homecoming akin to a reunion of long lost siblings. After 3 days and nights of nonstop gambling, I finished the weekend with a small profit of $375. While not very significant, it's always good to make it out of Vegas with a profit (no matter how small). More importantly however, $375 is misleading because it gives the impression that I didn'tgamble much. Nothing could be further from the truth. Of the 71 hoursIwas in Vegas, 48 was spent at a table. Here's how it went...

$8-$16 Hold 'Em (Bellagio), 2 hrs, +$205
No-Limit Hold 'Em (Bellagio), 5 hrs, ($200)
Satellite to the $1,000 NL tournament (Bellagio), 1.5 hrs, 3rd Place(netcost -$40)
Satellite to the $1,000 NL tournament (Bellagio), 1.5 hrs, 3rd Place(netcost $240)
Blackjack (Ceasars & Paris), 5 hrs, ($430)
No-Limit Hold 'Em (Golden Nugget), 6 hrs, ($700)
Blackjack (MGM), 3 hrs, + $1,050
Blackjack (Mirage), 1 hr, ($200)
Blackjack (MGM), 1 hr, + $190
No-Limit Hold 'Em (Bellagio), 15 hrs!!, + $310
Blackjack (MGM), 2 hrs, + $625Craps (MGM), 1 hr, ($60)
Blackjack (MGM), 3 hrs, ($250)
VideoPoker (Airport), 0.5 hr, ($30)

As most of you know, the Bellagio is the poker mecca. Constantly full, it's hard not to get excited from the buzz of 25 packed tables. Additionally, you have the crowd of onlookers standing alongside the outside tables watching the games. Couple that with the occasional"celebrity professional" sighting, and you're in for a good time (while there I saw Johnny Chan, Scotty Nguyen, David Sklansky, Eskimo Clark, and"World" Hennigan). Overall, I was very pleased with my Hold 'Em performance. Each time I played, I took a commanding chip lead at the table and used it to push everyone around. On both nights I played, I could've walked away with$1,200-$1,500 profit. Unfortunately though, I stayed too long and was on the losing end of 2 big hands that limited my winnings. The first was at the Bellagio's No-Limit table. The buy-in was fixed at$200, and after 3.5 hours I had approximately $1,300. I loosened up, saw more flops, and tried to push people around to buy more pots. While it worked in the beginning, it began to wear off. This strategy, combinedwith a few missed hands and some cold cards, brought my stack down toapprox $950. A young guy at my table, who looked like a Backstreet Boy, had built up a respectable stack (~$700), and used it very aggressively. He had gone all-in 3 times in the past hour, once showing a bluff. I had reluctantly laid down some decent hands to his raises, and was waiting patiently to put him all-in. I wanted his stack, and was determined to get it. Then came the hand...While in middle position, I'm dealt KQo. In early position, Backstreet made his usual preflop raise to $25 (happened almost every hand). I smooth called, and a short stack on the button raised all-in for $80 more. Backstreet and I both call. The pot preflop is approx $320. The flopis K82 rainbow, and I now hold top pair with a Queen kicker. Backstreet leads out with a bet of $150. I instantly thought about his previous bluffs, aggressive play, and what he might be holding. For whatever reason, I didn't put him on KK or AK, but instead figured he had Ax, an underpair, or maybe even a Kx. I also doubted that he would lead out with a $150 bet if he had hit a set. I also considered that his previous bets had forced me to lay down some decent hands. It seemed like he was trying to buy the pot to get me out. The combined pots were now $470 (before my call), and I knew that if I smooth called him, I'd be faced with another big bet on the turn (likely$300-700). I decided I couldn't get away from this hand, and that it was likely that my stack was going in (either now or on the turn, and either because I moved in, or because he put me in). I didn't want to give him the chance to put me all-in or give him the pot odds to call my possible all-in bet on the turn, so I decided to move in right there, making it $850 to go. This raise constituted 95% of his stack. Of course, I was hoping he would lay it down so I could be heads up with the button for the remaining pot of $320 (if I lost to the button, but forced Backstreet tolay his hand down, I would net +$45 on the hand). I also figured I was in pretty good shape should he call with a weaker hand.Backstreet went into the tank, taking approximately 5-6 minutes to make his decision. His 5 minute staredown was one of the longest I've everexperienced, and I was not the least bit comfortable that he was taking so long. To make matters worse, he turned his cards face up (before he made his decision) so that I, and the whole table, could see that he held AK. Iwas dominated. I'm not sure what the poker etiquette or rule is on revealing your hand during the hand, but I've seen it done a few times, and I think it shouldn't be allowed. It's a cheap way to get a reaction from your oppponent (believe me it's very hard to keep your composure when you see that you're about to lose (or win) a pot of $1,700.00. Anyway, I did my best not to give him a read, and he didn't seem to pickupon anything dispositive. But after a few more minutes he finally looked up, said "fuck it. I call." All I could do was rap the table and tell him"good hand". The player next to me immediately looked over and said that there is no way he would've called that bet with only top pair topkicker. That made me feel somewhat better but it also made me wonder whether or not my move should've been made against one of the "rocks," not the tablebully. In the end it turned out that the button (who had moved all-in) had AA. His Aces held up, and the button took the main pot of $320, Backstreet took the side pot of $1,700, and I took the next cab home. Net winnings for 6 hours of play: +$5. Some of you may disagree, but based on the situation, what I held, Backstreet's previous actions, and the likelihood that I held the best hand, I still think I made the right move.The second big losing hand took place at the No-Limit table at theGoldenNugget, and was remarkably similar to Men the Master's play in the WSOP(except that I had a better hand). I was dealt JJ on the button. I raised $40 and was called by 3 people. Flop was J82. I had top set, but therewere two spades on the board. First position bet $25, the idiot in middle position called, and late position folded. I immediately raised all-inmaking it $400 to go. First position folded, but "idiot" calls with a spade draw (K7 spades). The flush hits on the river, and I'm forced togive up over 5 hrs of profit. That's poker, but yes, I did give him a few choice words before I left. :) The only other hand worth mentioning was a big score I made against a guy who slowplayed a straight. I was dealt QQ in late position. It was raisedto $20 before it got to me, and I merely smooth called the raise, hoping to build a good pot while not revealing any strength. 4 players saw the flop of AQJ, and I now held a set of queens. It was a good and bad flop for me. First I knew that everyone else likely paired up, and I was going to get plenty of action. However I was very concerned about the straight. First position bets $40, and is called by "Slowplayer". I raise making it $75 to go. Both players call and the pot is now approx $300. The turn is aTen, \just about the worst card I wanted to see because anyone holding a King now has me beat. Both players check to me. I contemplate betting, but quickly decide the fallicy in that move because anyone holding a King is likely to move all-in on me, and force me to lay down my set of Queens. I check. The river pairs the board with another Jack, and I now have QQQJJ. Bothplayers check again to me, and I immediately move all-in for $300. First player folds, and the Slowplayer quickly calls with Broadway (which he made on the turn). He's shocked and extremely pissed when I show him myboat. I casually remark that it's his fault for slowplaying and letting me see the river card for free.

Specific hands aside, I also wanted to mention my take on the various pokerrooms in Vegas. Bellagio has a good variety of games $4-$8, $8-16,$20-$40, and $30-60, No-Limit with $200 fixed buy-in, and No-Limit (inthehigh stakes room where the pros play) with a minimum $600 buy-in, but nomax. The dealers told me that most players buy-in for approx $2,000. Golden Nugget has a pretty good room, but I've been told that they're about to downsize it to only 8 tables. There's not as much action and the table sare for smaller limits $2-4 and $4-8. The No-Limit table is $100-$500 buy-in. I enjoyed playing here. The Luxor is a piece of shit with about 10 low limit tables. They do have one No-Limit table, but it's a maximum $50 buy-in. Not worth your time. Other than Bellagio, the Mirage has the best room. About 20-30 tables at all limits. The No-Limit table is a flat $300 buy-in. I really liked this room, but didn't want to wait for a seat (too drunk at 2am). Finally, the Bellagio has the best "eye candy" of all with tons of hotchicks in skirts so short they could double as belts. I'm looking forward to my next trip.

Mark



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 8:45 AM
I once wrote on here that the juice is too high on tournaments on Party Poker. Perhaps I was wrong.

For a $30 sit-and-go, you pay $3 juice.

The most comparable cash game is $25 NL. Over 1 hour (the average time of a tournament), there will be 60 hands, about 12 of which you will win. I think the juice is capped around 30c, so that is $3.60.

So the juice seems comparable. Am I missing something?



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 8:20 AM
From the same Poker Room site linked below, I found this gem from Bob Ciaffone:

An examination of poker literature will show considerable disagreement on
the subject of where to sit at a poker table. We are, of course, not talking
about avoiding tobacco smoke, excessive body odor, or a player who overflows his
allotted seating space. We are discussing purely poker considerations.

Why the disagreement? Let me outline the problem. Two principles that all
poker authorities agree on are it is desirable to act after your opponent and
you want to act last or as late as possible in multihanded pots. Quite often
there is a player in the game that is a bulldozer, someone that plays a lot of
hands and does a lot of betting. You cannot have everything. If this individual
is on your left, you play a lot of hands with him having position on you. if
this individual is on your right, the betting comes through you and the field
acts after you do. So there is no one seat that is desirable in all situations.

Which is more important, to have position on the bulldozer or have position
on the field? To me, this is not a close decision. I want to be placed well in
multihanded pots, so I would rather have the bulldozer on my left. I believe
anyone who tells you to plop down on the immediate left of a heavy bettor is
giving you bad advice. Here are some reasons why.

First, when there is a player in the game who does a lot of betting and
raising, the game usually gets fired up, and most of the pots are multihanded.
You will not be dueling heads-up against the bulldozer very often. Note that in
the old days, a lot of your heads-up situations in hold'em came from being in
the blind along with your opponent, but most of today's players chop in this
situation.

Second, having position on a guy who almost always bets is not worth as
much as some people think. In a sense, you can act after him by checking and
having him bet, if you wish. Position is of greater value when it is on someone
who is less predictable.

Third, your toughest poker decisions often come as a result of a bet
through you by someone who you may well have beat, but some unknown hands behind
you. When you have a mediocre holding such as second pair and a good kicker or
top pair and a weak kicker, you are a likely favorite against someone who bets
every time it is his turn to act, but not against too large a field. If you
raise and try to get the bulldozer all to yourself, you may run into a good hand
and find out about it only after a sizable investment of funds. Just calling may
let people in on a draw that you could have knocked out with a raise.

My advice is to consider the seat on the immediate left of a bulldozer the
"death seat," the one place you should avoid in a hold'em game. Let the
bulldozer have position on you, but get good position on all those multihanded
pots where he pumps. He who acts last has the blade.

Choosing your seat is a topic that does not get a lot of discussion. It is something that I have thought about a quite a bit and I am always very intentional in my seat selection. I think Bob makes a good point in attacking the conventional wisdom that the best seat is one to the left of the maniac. (As a matter of fact, he takes this wisdom to be so conventional, he actually never bothers to point it out.) For the most part, I agree. The way I would make his argument along the same field v maniac line he drew is this:

- You already have an advantage over the maniac. You are a better player than he is.
- You need every advantage you can get over the field, so take it by positioning yourself to have an advantage over them.

However, I am not sure that his advice is golden. I think there are some situations where it still makes sense to sit to the left of the maniac. For instance, if the maniac is Ted and he is not only aggressive, but also completely unpredictable and random. I am talking about the sort of maniac that will single handedly determine whether each and every person at the table will be a winner or a loser. In this case, since it is only the maniac about which you are concerned, you should sit to his left.

For the more normal maniac, I would take Bob's advice.



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:25 PM
I think I need to study this for a while to see if I disagree. I noticed that 32o is lower than 27o, which surprises me. My least favorite hand of J9o is on there as a negative EV.

I think the value should change dramatically for NL v PL v Limit. What do you guys think about this?



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:09 PM
This could come in handy.



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:06 PM
ESPN is going to add a new poker show. This time, it will be fiction, ala Playmakers.

My first thought is that this will be lame. But, Rounders was awesome, so surely it can be done on TV too. We will see.



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:44 AM
Although we havent successfully added the hit counter to the site, I can see we have surpassed 7,000 hits. Verrrrry nice. I guess my mom was wrong when she told me 20 years ago that nobody cares what I think.



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 9:46 AM

Phil Helmuth writes about a duece-to-seven game:

After playing all night long, the following hand came up against Freddy Deeb,
who was now playing me heads up. Freddy opened for $3,200 and I looked at
2-3-6-7. At this point, I decided that I would make my move before I looked
at the last card, in order to confuse Freddy's read of me. If my last card
was a 4 or a 5, I would have one of the best possible hands, and I didn't
want to give off too much strength. So, I simply decided to move all in for
the $25,000 I had lying in front of me. Freddy decided to call and it was my
turn to act, so I quickly looked back at the last card, and it was a 9.
Yippee! A pat 9 is a very strong hand in deuce-to-seven. I rapped pat (I
didn't draw a card), and then Freddy studied for a minute before drawing one
card. I knew that I was at least a 2-to-1 favorite over any draw that Freddy
had, so I was feeling pretty good at this point. Freddy asked, "Do you want
to make a save?" This means, let's split some of the money in the pot at the
appropriate odds, but I decided that if he beat this hand, I would take my
$105,000 loss and go get some sleep. Freddy took a long time to look at his
last card, which was 100 percent appropriate. I would have taken a long time
myself to "sweat out" a $50,000 card. Freddy made an 8 to break me, and I
stared in disbelief at his hand before realizing that it was over; I was
done playing. I had lost $105,000! Finally, I thought, "Oh well, there will
be another better day coming soon!" Freddy said, "Phil, you really played
that hand well." I never did tell Freddy that I had raised my last $22,000
in the dark.

Am I missing something? Why would anybody not look at one of their own cards with that much money at stake? These aren't the actions of a professional, they are the actions of a degenerate taking unecessary risks. And he writes about it?

(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 8:27 AM
Fro and I are making a couple of minor changes to the blog - specifically, we are inviting a couple of other guys to join us. Be on the lookout for some new names this week.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 8:15 AM
Morris has a great point. And it is because of his great points that JG is giving Morris and Junell blogger rights to make their own posts rather than be limited to the comments section. I will just add some numbers to Morris' point:

It the pot is $100, you have the full house, and you know your opponent has a draw to the nut flush. His odds are 2 to 1 against making the flush (35% chance of winning). If you make a pot-sized bet of $100, it is correct for him to call, because he will get his 2 to 1 (the 2 being your bet and the pot).

But this only considers pot odds, not implied odds. He should be willing to call an even larger bet, because if the flush does come, he will win more than 2 to 1, since there are more betting rounds. However, since many players don't correctly consider this, you are probably best off just giving him the pot odds at 35%. By the way, the exact amount is $116.29, not an exact pot sized bet of $100.

On the turn, the pot is now $100+$116+$116 and the flush still has not come. His odds have shrunk to 9 out of 46, so your next bet must be a smaller % of the pot than the last one. The exact amount is $106.71, but we'll call it $106 that gives him pot odds to call. Again, due to implied odds he should call a higher bet.

This all ignores 2 aspects: 1) his consideration that you might be bluffing & 2) his consideration that you may already hold the full house & thus he is drawing dead. To add these into the above calculations would make it to complex, but I would suggest that you not ignore these in real life.

So I go through all of this to give you this simple advice:
1) the correct bet on the flop is approximately = the pot
2) the correct bet on the turn is approximately the same as the flop

Forget the math and remember these rules and you will do fine.



(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 9:25 PM
OK, I will go ahead and try and finish the thought about drawing hands in a low limit game (hopefully I can do this in a minimum of words):

You occasionally hear people opine that the value of certain drawing hands (ie Ax suited, suited connectors, JTo) increases before the flop in low limit games. This is indeed correct, but not necessarily because these hands have an inherent edge over big hands like AA and AK and KK. Rather, the value of these hands go up because the low limit structure encourages most of the other players to play poorly.

There are mainly two types of players in low-limit games - new players and players who play too poorly to play in bigger games. Many of the latter group vehemently protest against this characterization and instead state that they are in the 3-6 or 4-8 game because they cannot "afford" the big game. This is indeed true, but the reason they cannot afford to play higher limits is not because they are poor - instead it is because their style of poker requires so much calling that they quickly use up their chips and thus in a bigger game they need more money than they would in a smaller game.

Now here is where it gets tricky: the reason that they call so much is because the game is actually too small for them.

I know this is confusing, but most people don't look at a call through the prism of expected value or pot odds - most people look at a call in terms of the dollar amount of the bet. They think, "What the hell, it's only $3" and thus throw that money into the pot because the rush they get from playing the hand outweighs the monetary value of the bet or, more importantly, the punishment that comes from being a loser.

The whole idea of an economic decision process and the incentive and reward strtucture that come from it is the reason why I love poker so much. And, as an economist, I can tell you that it's the reason why playing poker for something other than money is so little fun. There has to be an incentive and the decision being made has to actually count for something or the game is worthless. And this indeed is why low-limit games aren't that much fun for most people who consider themselves serious players - most of the other players aren't taking it seriously enough to make good decisions so the integrity of the game is compromised in a way. The stakes are so low that oftentimes it's like your not playing for money at all.

So how does this relate to the discussion of starting hands? Precisely because the pots get so absolutely big in smaller games (ie the ratio of bet size to pot size) the expected value of drawing hands increases implicitly before the flop. Since everyone else is waiting to win the pot with a drawing hand, it's often correct to join them when the opportunity presents itself.

The trick, then, is learning when the opportunity is really there and when it's not.






(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 9:02 PM
See, I buy a house and I end up getting excited about "heavy trash day" and neglect my duties to the poker blog. This is pathetic.

Anyway, to contribute to the discussion about big hands - many inexperienced or poor players might also explain that they don't play big starting hands fast because they "always get beat".

(I wouldn't necessarily call this "slowplaying" because it's not done out of strategy for the purpose of trapping or stealing bets)

This mentality is something of a self-fulfilling prophesy - if you are afraid to bet big then yes, the draws will all stay in and one of them will beat you. This is akin to "implict collusion" - no, this is implicit collusion - because while big hands have an edge over each individual drawing hand, collectively, the totality of the drawing hands together has a bigger edge than the big hand. No individual hand will necessarily beat AA every time, but one of them certainly will if it's constantly 5 vs 1 seeing every flop.

I could make this really complicated and start talking about low-limit theory versus expected value, etc etc, but I'll just stick with the comment about the self-fulfilling nature of such attitudes.




(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 4:09 PM

I just made something of an a-hole post on hornfans.com to a guy that complained about getting drawn out on by flushes. I suggested that he bet his made hands rather than play them slow. That reminded me of a post I have had in my head…….

A lot people don’t fully understand why betting the goods (vs playing slow) is correct, even if they know that it is in fact correct.

People understand that big pre-flop raises:
- help you limit the # of possible hands you are up against, thus making it easier to put a player on a hand, and play fancier.
- Get value for your good hands
- Make draws pay the maximum price to draw out on you (and in PL and NL, often too big of a price that what they should be willing to play)

The benefit that that I believe most people would not name is that:
***You increase your chance of winning, without given (much, if) any increase to your callers.*******

What???

If you have red Aces and another guy has black KK, another (SB) has 7s6s, and another (BB) has 7c2h, then if all of you are in, the odds are:

(all rounded to the nearest 1%)
AA…58%
KK…18%
67….20%
27….5%

All players will likely stay in for the BB. Let’s say you raise it up and run off everyone but KK (the likely result). The pre-flop odds are:

AA…81%
KK…19%

Basically, of the 25% given up by the two other players, you just got 24% and he got 1%!!!!!!!!!!! Do you see how huge this is? What if I told you that 4 of us would play poker and as long as your hand was best, you get the pot. As long as any of the other 3 of us win, I get the pot – all to myself. This is effectively the situation I have created by knocking the other 2 guys out of the pot and taking (almost) all of their chance to win.

Now I carefully chose a situation to make my point, but the fact is that slowplaying big hands, especially AA is simply wrong. The only reason to EVER do it is for advertising, but the value of advertising is pretty low in most situations unless you play with the same group pretty regularly.

(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 3:53 PM
In honor of Junell's and Greene's pending nuptials, I offer:

A man came home from a poker game late one night and found his hideous harpy of a wife waiting for him with a rolling pin.
"Where the hell have you been?" she asked.
"You'll have to pack all your things, dear," he ad-libbed. "I've just lost you in a card game."
"How did you manage to do that?"
"It wasn't easy, honest. I had to fold with a royal flush."



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 3:32 PM
A pretty decent listing of poker websites here.



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 3:24 PM




(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 1:26 PM
Yet another article on charity gambling in TX. What the article fails to point out is the ultimate irony - this tournament would be legal if all prizes went to the participants and none to charity. (of course, it would have to be a 'private' game, too).

Looks like an easy field:






(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 1:26 PM
There are some decent points in this series of 3 articles on winning online I think the 3 most important ones are:

Game selection – it is so easy to jump from game to game, so why would you not limit yourself to only games that are easy to beat. Why would you not invest 10 minutes observing before diving in?

Notes – I have to admit that I have never done this, as my online play has never been frequent enough for it to pay dividends. That is starting to change. In the real world, I have volumes of notes in my head. But online, it is important to write (or type) them down due to the larger field of players you will see and the greater difficulty involved in “remembering” on online person vs a physical one.

Stepping up – It is so easy to step it up to a bigger game when you are running well. The reason you should not is analogous to the reason you should never take the “double-up-to-catch-up” strategy in roulette. Once the cold streak hits, you will be wiped out. Stay at the same stakes and use you winnings to weather the storm, not to jump into a bigger storm.



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 4:48 PM
I was going to make a long post on the first round of the WSOP Main Event on ESPN last night, but all but 2 of my points were already made by others on HornFans.com. My two remaining points are:

- People are dicks when they knock other people out. They seem to just rake in their chips and smile. There are very few "good game", "nice hand", or "that's a bad beat" comments. Just a thanks for all the chips & don't let the door hit you in the ace on the way out looks.

- The really good pros all seem to have one thing in common. They fold when they are beat. They'll sweat over it, but when push comes to shove, they never make an all-in call to a re-raise without the nuts.



(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 4:30 PM
This has nothing to do with poker, but I have free bandwidth here, and it's damn funny. (and clean, too!)

pinkey.wmv


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 3:41 PM
This is an interesting list. It has WSOP (all events) winners sorted by the number of times they have won money. This probably is a much, much better indicator of skill than total $ won, which would lean toward recent winners. Also, the # of bracelets can be a bit misleading, because it completely discounts 2nd place et al finishes. So, this is probably as good of a listing as possible of the best (tournament) players ever.

I don't see Canonico's name on the list...



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 4:29 PM
Business Week Article

ZeeJustin and I have played together before. I don't know how anyone could play 8 tables at once and I doubt an 18 yr old is that good. But he probably does win.



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 1:23 PM
We played on Friday and I picked up $40.

It was largely the same group that I previously played w here in Dallas. I noticed that pre-flop raises always drew grunts from the others. It seemed to be frowned upon, as it took away from the friendly atmosphere. I have always found this curious.

I am capable of playing something for fun, and I am capable of playing competitively. What I am not capable of doing is playing semi-competitively. If we are playing for money, then expect me to compete to the greatest of my ability. To frown upon pre-flop raises puts me in an unfamiliar territory of trying to win, without giving any sort of appearance that I am actually trying very hard. Odd.

But we had fun.



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:05 PM
Although not set in cement, Nov 14 is starting to shape up as the date for the 6th somewhat annual poker tournament (aka "The Big One", "Dr Fro's Tournament" or "Craig and John go to White Castle")

Mark your calander
Let us know if you have feedback on the date
I am happy to hear your thoughts on format
What will not change is that it is NLHE
It will be hard to get me to change my mind about no-rebuy
I am open to suggestions on price ($100 all 5 previous times), payouts (last time it was 6 of 49) size (last time 49), rules (any best practices we have failed to incorporate?), venue (I doubt anyone disliked Merry's house), timing (Sunday seems to work best, but let me know).

Another sure thing is the "trophy" which has existed for all previous tournaments.

I'd like to add/change something. Maybe put a bounty out there...something like, if you eliminate a previous champion (Gary, Hugh, Boyd, Jim, Chris) you get $50. Thoughts?

Maybe we could up the ante and make it $200, even if it meant fewer tables. Maybe.

Another aspect of our tournament I have always been fond of is the length. There are too many tournaments out there that end in a few hours. I say that 1/2 the field should be eliminated around 4.5 hours and the whole thing should be decided in 8.5-9.0 hours.

One thing that will change is that, due to poker tournament popularity, demand will exceed supply, and it will be easy to enforce the pre-pay before the day rule.

Let me know if you have input...



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 3:04 PM
I'd be interested to hear an attorney's thoughts on this one.



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 2:14 PM

It isn't often that poker, politics and humor converge, but the joke below is pretty funny:

Transcript of The Editors' regular Saturday-night poker game with Dick Cheney, 6/19/04. Start tape at 12:32 AM.

The Editors: We'll take three cards.

Dick Cheney: Give me one.

Sounds of cards being placed down, dealt, retrieved, and rearranged in hand. Non-committal noises, puffing of cigars.

TE: Fifty bucks.

DC: I'm in. Show 'em.

TE: Two pair, sevens and fives.

DC: Not good enough.

TE: What do you have?

DC: Better than that, that's for sure. Pay up.

TE: Can you show us your cards?

DC: Sure. One of them's a six.

TE: You need to show all your cards. That's the way the game is played.

Colin Powell: Ladies and gentlemen. We have accumulated overwhelming evidence that Mr. Cheney's poker hand is far, far better than two pair. Note this satellite photo, taken three minutes ago when The Editors went to get more chips. In it we clearly see the back sides of five playing cards, arranged in a poker hand. Defector reports have assured us that Mr. Cheney's hand was already well advanced at this stage. Later, Mr. Cheney drew only one card. Why only one card? Would a man without a strong hand choose only one card? We are absolutely convinced that Mr. Cheney has at least a full house.

Tim Russert: Wow. Colin Powell really hit a homerun for the Administration right there. A very powerful performance. My dad played a lot of poker in World War 2, and he taught me many things about life. Read my book.

TE: He's extremely good at Power Point. But we would like to see the cards, or else we can't really be sure he has anything to beat two pair. We don't think he would lie to us, but ... well, it is a very rich pot.

Jonah Goldberg: Liberal critics of Mr. Cheney's poker hand contend that "he doesn't have anything." Oh, really, liberal critics? Cheney has already showed them the six of clubs, and yet these liberals persist in saying he has "nothing". Why do liberals consider the six of clubs to be "nothing"? Is it because the six of clubs is black?

Matt Drudge: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE**** *****MUST CREDIT THEDRUDGE REPORT***** The Drudge Report has learned that Dick Cheney has a royal flush, hearts. Developing ...

TE: Perhaps if you could just show us a subset of your cards which beat 2 pair? Or tell us exactly what your hand is?

DC: We will show you our cards after we have collected the pot. It is important that things be done in this order, otherwise the foundation of our entire poker game will be destroyed.

TE: We aren't sure ...

DC: (collecting pot) Very good. And here are my cards. A straight flush.

Judith Miller: Dick Cheney has revealed a straight flush, confirming his pre-collection claims about beating two pair.

TE: That's not a flush! Those cards are of different suits. It's not a flush.

Mark Steyn: When will it end? Now liberal critics complain that Dick Cheney's cards are not all the same suit. Naturally, these are the same liberals who are always whining about a lack of diversity in higher education. It seems like segregation is OK with these liberals, as long as it damages Republicans.

MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE**** *****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGEREPORT***** A witness has come forward claiming that The Editors engage in racial profiling in blog-linking. Developing ...

TE: Wait! It's not even a straight! You've got a eight and ten of hearts, a six of clubs, and the seven and five of diamonds. You have a ten high. That's nothing.

Sean Hannity: Well, well, well. In another sign of liberal desperation, liberals now complain that a ten high is "nothing". Does ten equal zero in liberal mathematics? That would explain a lot.

Robert Novak: It's a perfectly valid poker hand. Apparently, liberals have never heard of a "skip straight". It's a kind of straight, just with one card missing. But if you skip around the missing nine, it's a straight.

Alan Colmes: Mother says I mustn't play poker.

TE: There is no such thing as a "skip straight".

Brit Hume: It seems like some people are still playing poker like it's September 10th. Back then, you needed to have all your cards in order to claim a straight. But, as we learned on that day, sometimes you won't have perfect knowledge. Sometimes you have to learn to connect the dots, and see the patterns which are not visible to superficial analysis of the type favored by the CIA and the State Department. Dick Cheney's skip straight is a winning poker hand for the post-9/11 world.

Rush Limbaugh: Do The Editors have two pairs, or a pair of twos? First they say one thing, then another. What are they hiding?

Andrew Sullivan: Dick Cheney never said he had a straight. He was very careful about this. His cards can form many different hands. None of these hands alone can beat a pair of twos; but, taken together, the combination of all possible hands presents a more compelling case for taking the pot than simply screaming "Pair of twos! Pair of twos!" as unprincipled liberal critics of the Vice President so often do.

MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE**** *****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGEREPORT***** Did The Editors claim to have "a pair of Jews"? Are theyanti-Semites as well as racists? Developing ...

Zell Miller: As a lifelong liberal Democrat, I believe Dick Cheney, and I hate liberals and Democrats.

William Safire: Why are liberals so obsessed by Dick Cheney's poker hand? The pot has been taken, the deal is done. If liberals are upset that we are no longer playing by the Marquis of Queensbury patty-cake poker rules, they clearly lack the stomach to play poker in the post-September 11th environment. And why do they never complain about Saddam Hussein's poker playing, which was a thousand times worse?

Christopher Hitchens: The Left won't be happy until the pot is divided up equally between Yassar Arafat, Osama bin Laden, and Hitler. Orwell would have seen this.

Ann Coulter: Why do liberals object so strenuously to the idea of conservatives having a "straight"? Perhaps because it doesn't fit in with the radical homosexual/Islamist agenda they hold so dear?

Report of the Bipartisan Commission on Poker Hands: There is no such thing as a "skip straight".

DC: I have access to poker rules that the Commission doesn't, and soI know for a fact that the cards in my hand are all intimately connected.

George W. Bush: Dick Cheney is telling the truth. I'm a nice man who would drink a beer with you.

Vladimir Putin: I dealt Dick Cheney three aces and two kings.

DC: My deal.

(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 9:21 AM
Junell wrote me a while back about how much cash he was winning in LA, Party Poker, and at home. At the time, I lost a couple times in a row.

Junell later wrote me talking about a recent string of losing sessions; at the time, I was on cloud 9, after winning in my first attempt in Dallas and winning again in Graham.

Then, I got pounded at Party Poker and he went to Planck/Gary's tournament and won first place.

It does go to show how cyclical poker can be. It is so important to keep this in perspective, because I have to admit that sometimes I lose that perspective. If you know you are good. If you know you have a positive EV. If you can look back at your records and prove to yourself that you win consistently in the long run, you have to keep those losses in perspective. When I lose perspective, it usually goes like this:

I am running hot, winning all the time. I am not only playing well, I seem to have incredible luck too. It is iterative, because my winnings give me big stacks and then my big stacks make it
a) easier to win because I can bully around smaller stacks
b) easier to weather the storm of volatility. I can go for draws with wild volatility and small +EV. I can force the scared money to fold on draws they should make but can ill afford to try.

Then, I get a little cocky and play a couple hands that I shouldn't. It is hard to say when this happens, because I play a lot of "hands that I shouldn't" as part of my image building. I lose. Since my winning streak is long and mighty, I assume that I will win it back, so I press. And lose. I press again, and lose. Now my stack & bankroll are no longer massvie, and I lose the very 2 advantages I mentioned above. Which causes further losses.

With my advantages gone and the losses stacking up (at this point, still "up" or even, just not as much), I then make the cardinal sin. I fall slightly below even for the sesson, and then become obsessed with leaving as a winner. I take risks fail. Rather than cutting my losses, I increase them.

I then hide in a poker cave for a couple weeks like a dog that has been beat. Like a dog, I eventually forgive and forget and start humping my master's let again. When I come back out, I am back to my good poker playing ways - no more pooping on the carpet.

The lesson learned is to walk away sometimes when you are losing. Some pros go on about not walking away from a game just because you are down. I disagree. The fact that you are losing could be darn luck, but now that you are losing:

1) your stack is smaller, and you have less competitive advantage
2) their stack is bigger, and they have gained competitive advantage
3) if you were winning, you would be in their head and maybe able to bully them around. but you are losing, and they will continue to take shots at you. too many shots to give you a chance of digging out of a hole
4) you may not be in the best frame of mind. I don't mean that the losses caused tilt. I mean that you sat down initially not in the best frame of mind (pre-occupied with work/spouse, tired, etc). In other words the frame of mind caused your losses, not that your losses caused your frame of mind or tilt. Thus, you can only expect to continue to lose without a change of mind

Thus, I say that if you are losing, sometimes you should just "up & leave" as we say in Texas.



(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 2:16 PM
Jackpot Jay has his own take on a favorite subject of ours here, poker literature.

I am reading Cloutier and McEvoy right now, and it's quite good. I also agree with the "simplistic" take on Helmuth and am quite pleased he mentions the Zen book. I like that one a lot.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 8:53 AM
I played quite a bit on Party Poker this weekend and was up a ton going into Sunday night. I should have gone to bed, but I stayed up and gave back almost all I won. This is my preliminary assessment of PP:

The sit-n-go tournaments are very easy to win. I made a lot of money, including 2 first place finishes. It seems that people play too passive for the format. The problem with these tournaments is that the juice is steep - 10%!

The cash games ( I only played NL and PL) are pretty tough. The combination of fish that will play with anything and sharks that can eat my lunch swimming at the same table (and getting up and sitting down constantly) had me at a loss on how to play. They beat me senseless



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 5:50 PM
On December 2, 2002, I won the most money I had ever won in a poker tournament. Little did I know at the time, I would not win again until 20 months later. It went 18 straight tournaments and lost $1,580 before I saw a red cent. That red cent ($110, net) barely made a dent in my cumulative losses, but it is a start...

#..... Date.................. Tournament..... Won/Loss...... Cumulative
1..... 2003................ Satellite................ $(20)............. $(20)
2..... 2003................ Satellite................ $(20)............. $(40)
3..... 2003................ Satellite................ $-................... $(40)
4..... 2003................ Satellite................ $(20)............. $(60)
5..... 2003................ Satellite................ $(20)............. $(80)
6..... 2003................ Satellite................ $(20)............. $(100)
7..... 2003................ The Big One......... $(100).......... $(200)
8..... 2003................ Junells #1............. $(75)............. $(275)
9..... 2003................ Peden.................... $(200).......... $(475)
10... 10/25/2003... Friendship Sc Clb $(75)............. $(550)
11... 5/12/2003...... Junells................... $(100).......... $(650)
12... 1/10/2004..... Charity-Foodbank.$(310).......... $(960)
13... 2/12/2004..... Stacy's garage ...... $(20)............. $(980)
14... 2/15/2004...... Junells Rebuy....... $(280).......... $(1,260)
15... 4/4/2004........ Top Hat................. $(110)............$(1,370)
16... 4/18/2004...... Plancks.................. $(150)........... $(1,520)
17... 4/18/2004...... Plancks #2............. $(20)............. $(1,540)
18............................. Tamplen................ $(40)............. $(1,580)
19... 8/1/2004........ Graham, TX.......... $110.............. $(1,470)*****************

and the,
20... 8/7/2004....... PartyPoker "$33"............. $(33)............. $(1,503)
21... 8/7/2004....... PartyPoker "$33"............. $(33)............. $(1,536)
22... 8/7/2004....... PartyPoker "$55"............. $195............. $(1,341)



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 5:43 PM
I just signed up for PartPoker today and lost a little bit in the $25 PL game. I lost 2 $30 SitNGo's and then played a $50 and won the top prize of $250. Here is the last hand:

***** Hand History for Game 823134326
*****400/800 TourneyTexasHTGameTable (NL) (Tournament 5116715) - Sat Aug 07 18:39:17 EDT 2004Table Table 11900 (Real Money) -- Seat 10 is the buttonTotal number of players : 2Seat 3: headhunter17 (4228)Seat 10: phreaux (5772)
phreaux posts small blind (200)headhunter17 posts big blind (400)
** Dealing down cards
**Dealt to phreaux [ 2h, 8c ] phreaux calls (200)headhunter17 checks.
** Dealing Flop
** : [ 8d, 2c, Jh ] headhunter17 checks.phreaux bets (400)headhunter17 calls (400)
** Dealing Turn
** : [ 6d ] headhunter17 checks.phreaux bets (500)headhunter17 calls (500)
** Dealing River
** : [ Ad ] headhunter17 bets (2928)headhunter17 is all-In.phreaux calls (2928)Creating Main Pot with $8456 with headhunter17
** Summary
**Main Pot: 8456 Board: [ 8d 2c Jh 6d Ad ]headhunter17 balance 0, lost 4228 [ 8h Td ] [ a pair of eights -- Ad,Jh,Td,8h,8d ]phreaux balance 10000, bet 4228, collected 8456, net +4228 [ 2h 8c ] [ two pairs, eights and twos -- Ad,8c,8d,2h,2c ]




(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 12:26 PM
From: "John Smiley" <john@pokercampus.com>
To: Fro
Subject: Houston Poker - NL Tournament Today
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 12:15:06 -0500

Howdy Poker Players :^)
Don't forget to visit and support: http://www.PokerCampus.com/forums/
Houston's Only Poker Forum

Here are the games I know of over the weekend.I hope to see you at one or all of them :^)
If you haven't been to these games before,you will need an invite.
Call my cell 936-537-2777

------------------------------------------------
Tonight!Saturday: 5PM $100 NL Holdem Tournament
$1,300 Avg, 1st. Place. Pays 3-5 places.

Saturday: 6PM $1/$2 Pot Limit Holdem
Saturday: 6PM $10/$20 Limit Holdem
Sunday: 4PM $100 NL Holdem Tournament$1,300 Avg, 1st. Place. Pays 3-5 places.
Sunday: 5PM $1/$2 Pot Limit Holdem
Sunday: 5PM $10/$20 Limit Holdem
Monday:Our 8th online tournamentwill be Monday August 9th at 8PM.
PokerStars $10+1 No Limit Holdem.

How to play:
1-Load your PokerStars Software.
2-Login
3-Click on "Tourney"
4-Click on "Private"
5-In List Box click on "Poker Campus Week #8 NLHE"
6-Click on "Register"
7-Enter Password pokercampus
------------------------------------------------
Please let me know if your are coming.
Questions?
Email: John@PokerCampus.comJohn Smiley: cell 936-537-2777
And don't forget to visit and support : Poker Campus
Houston's Only Poker Forum
John :^)





(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 8:32 AM
After my rant a couple weeks ago against the Art of War article, I find this gem by Paul Samuel. I like everything he writes.

The article seemed appropriate for this forum given that we play in Junell's add-on tournament. Most people go by the rule "it is always correct to add-on, unless you have a monster stack." Paul sheds some light on this rule.



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 2:37 PM
I just got back from a weekend at the lake with 10 guys and a lot of beer. I won $ at spades, then won $ at blackjack and then late on Saturday night, we played a $25 poker tournament. We started with $1,000 in TC's, and Beavis hit a flush and my stack quickly fell to $100. I slowly built it up again and ended up winning the whole tournament. All of the other players were beginners, and the beginner's mistake were plenty. The most common two were:

- slowplaying big pocket pairs. It is hard to explain the concept to a beginner that you need to get the money in pre-flop on AA and KK, and it is a mistake I made for a long time. They'll learn.

- overvaluing baby pocket pairs. I think that every pocket pair called every bet on every street last night.

All of these guys have "card sense" just not a lot of poker experience. That helps. Guys that play a lot of spades and similar games tend to pick up poker pretty quickly, and you could see the improvement in their play even over the course of short little tournament.



(0) comments