Posted by Dr Fro 2:10 PM
I was doing some analysis on my poker success and failures over the past 3 years. I looked at the chart and came to the following conclusions:

- Up until late 2003, the Total Success tracked my success in cardrooms pretty closely, then it followed my success in home games after that. This isn't surprising. In the UK, I played mainly in cardrooms and only had a little penny ante game at home. However, after moving back to H-town, the popularity of poker in homes (and the stakes in home games) skyrocketed.

- The pink line, tournament success, slowly dips down with only two big jumps - a big score in an Aberdeen tournament and a very big score at the same place. Other than that, it has steadly declined since late 2002. It has been 1.5 years since I won a penny in a tournament. Interestingly, I have been "on the bubble" more times than I can count in that same timeframe. Something needs to be done to fix my tournament woes.

- I was pleasantly surprised to see my cardroom success as positive. With that horrible rake at the Top Hat, it is hard to stay above water.

- You'll notice that my analysis starts with an arse-raping at the London Victoria Grosvner (the "Vic") the first week of January 2002. That one hurt. Had I started my analysis one week later, it would have been prettier.

- There is a nice $1,600 jump from $2.6k to $4.2k in late Feb 2004. That was a nice result and I had assumed that it would single-handedly skew the overall results. It does not. It does, hoever, disguise a certain trend in home games...

- ... it hides the fact that from Novembe 2003 to today, I am break-even in home games if you ignore the $1.6k score. This tells me that something has changed and I can only attribute it to the rising skill level of the competition I face. The ESPN-boom was profitable for many of us initially, but the guys have either a) gotten killed and quit or b) wised up and improved. Either way, the easy pickins that were once everywhere are a bit harder to find these days.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:32 PM
Greg "Fossilman" Raymer is the 2004 WSOP Champion.


The flop came 5s 4d 2d, turn 2h, river 2c.
Buttload of bettin on every street.

Williams showed Ah 4s,
Raymer turned over the $5 million hand: 8d 8c.

That's a boat beating another boat. Hard to fault the Texan




(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:31 PM
All time money winners at the WSOP

Link

Harrington was in 9th all time at the start of this year's WSOP at $1,975,858. With this year's $1,500,000 he's now at $2,475,858. That would put him in 6th all time behind Hellmuth ($3,526,750), Chan, Cloutier, Ferguson and Moneymaker. Of course, the top three this year will all be in front of him also at the end of the tournament, so he's still in 9th place.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:29 PM
josh arieh just eliminated


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:18 PM
Blinds increase to $50,000-$100,000, $10,000 ante.


Chip Count (official):
Greg Raymer $14,965,000
David Williams $8,630,000
Josh Arieh $2,100,000

see the profiles below, this David Williams is at SMU and is 23 years old!!!!!!


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 8:36 PM
Player profiles


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 8:34 PM
As of 30 minutes ago

Greg Raymer $12 million
Josh Arieh $3.6 million
David Williams $5 million
Dan Harrington $2.6 million
Glenn Hughes $1.5 million




(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 8:23 PM
In re: the previous post...

It depends on the line up, but in my opinion, if anything, the players at Junell's call too much, not too seldom. This changes as the night goes on, and Lee correctly pointed out that the the size of a stack plays into the phsycology of it. But as long as the call does not by itself jeopardize the stack, a pot sized bet is usually called. Maybe things have changed since I was last there.




(1) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 7:26 AM
Why No Limit?

I played some no limit with some guys last night and won a respectable amount for the four hours I was there. As I have lamented before, it's quite hard to find a decent-sized limit game anymore these days - everyone wants to either play for very small stakes or play pot limit or no limit ("big bet") with nothing in between. I understand the allure to many new players of playing no limit because it's the game that's on television and a good night playing no limit can be very lucrative to one's bankroll. That's great, but I came to the conclusion last night that most of the guys who are wanting to play big bet games don't know how to play them properly - at least many of the guys I played with last night, that is.

When I say that these guys don't know how to play no limit, I am not saying that they don't know how to play holdem or how to play poker. Nor am I really saying that they are bad players - most of these guys can quote Sklansky and Cloutier's books, too, and their hand selection and their awareness of position for the most part shows that they've mastered the theory of holdem itself. They can play the game. But what I am saying is that generally, the players in these games don't bet properly and are scared off by bets that really shouldn't be scary at all.

What I have found is that most of the guys in these games are comfortable making and calling bets around $25 or $30. Given the $1-2 blind structure that we played last night, a modest $5 preflop raise will usually get a couple of callers and build the pot to around $20 before the flop. Thus anyone who calls a $25 bet into the flop and continues betting or calling that same amount on later streets is severely underbetting the pot and giving his opponent favorable odds and a profitable chance to catch up.

My answer to this is simple when I play with these guys - if I have a hand I always bet and raise in increments of the pot, and if I am in favorable position or otherwise isolated against a single opponent, I will play this way for most draws, too. I recognize that sometimes I'm taking the worst of it when I do this, but against this group of opponents at least, I know that any bet or raise outside of their comfort zone makes it increasingly likely that I will win the pot without a showdown*. This is Doyle Brunson 101 - always put your thumb on your opponent and make him play defense - yet for all of the Cloutiers and Lee Joneses and Kriegers that these guys like to quote, I think they somehow skipped Super System. Their loss, in more ways than one.

I don't play many hands, but when I do I am committed and I am willing to fight. And in no limit, this is the only correct way to play. Otherwise it becomes a drawing game.

This gets me back to the title of my post - why do so many people want to play no limit these days if they are not willing to play correctly? I don't know. Perhaps it's the allure of playing the same game as on television or maybe it's the excitement of going all-in with a monster hand. I think that many of these guys would likely be better served playing in a bigger limit game, maybe $10-20 or even $20-40.



* Bob Ciaffone says that knowing when and how to "fire the other barrel" is one of the most important skills one can have when playing no limit poker. That is, if a heavyhanded show of strength doesn't work the first time it's very likely to work on the very next card. In other words, if your pot sized bet somehow gets a crying call quite often an even bigger bet on the next card (pot x3) is usually enough to force your opponent to give up submit.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 6:25 PM
story




(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 9:21 AM
Somebody has a lot of time on their hands.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 8:53 AM
ACTION FOR TONIGHT IS OVER 279 Players remain

Average Chip count is 92,365.

Hellmuth has been eliminated!!!!!!!!

Howard Lederer has been eliminated by Doyle Brunson

Dutch Boyd's little brother played the following hand:
Hes got 88
Against QQ
Flop-- Q 8 4
Betting goes crazy
Turn-- 8
...The river is no help to the queens.

Dutch is out, though.



(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 5:05 PM
More WSOP updates

1090 players remain at the beginning of Day 3.
On Day three, Chan, Amarillo Slim and Dutch Boyd were all eliminated.

Previous champs D Brunson and "Jesus" Ferguson have appr. tripled their respective stacks


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 5:41 PM
More WSOP updates

London player Robert Lin went all in on Phil Hellmuth on the river. Phil loses his cool, swears,stand ups, throws his chair on the floor and storms away, folding his hand.

Moneymaker is playing today

2 people on the same table dealt the King of Diamonds. Evidently there was quite a commotion over this. It was a bad deck.

Moneymaker lost 9s full of kings to kings full of 9s. So, no repeat champion for WSOP 2004. This is how the Moneymaker hand went:
Moneymaker: A9o
Killer : KJo
Flop: 99K
Turn K
River 5.
Moneymaker busted out on this hand.

The AC busted, and people are hot.

Cloutier is out. Ivey starts on Sunday.

Ben Affleck played on Saturday, as did:

ABECASSIS, MICHEL ABRAHAMS, IAN ABUEG, REBECCA L. ADAM SCHOENFELD ADAMS, KENNETH AFFLECK, BEN AGUAS, WILFREDO AHERN, CHRISTOPHER J. AKIVA, BEN-AMI AKIYAMA, TODD M. ALIMI, DAVID ALLEN, JAMES T. ALLEN, MATTHEW W. ALLIS, MICHAEL L. ALSPACH, DANIEL L. ALVAREZ, LEANDRO AMMON, FREDRICK M. ANASTASYADIS, KONSTANTIN ANDERSEN, MADS ANDERSON, DENNIS R. ANDERSON, TOMAS ANDREW GLAZER ANDREW, HOWARD ANGEL, DAVID ANNIE DUKE ANTHONY, RICHARD P. APPLEMAN, MICKEY APPLING, MIKE ARIEH, JOSH ARMSTRONG, BENJAMIN S. ARMSTRONG, PAUL ARNOLD, DOLPH ASHBY, RICHARD A. ASMO, LOUIS J. ATENELOFF, JAIME ATHERLEY, NOEL ATKINSON, BRUCE AWADA, YEHIA BACH, DAVID J. BADIMANSOUR, FARIBORZ BAILEY, DAVID M. BALAS, ELI BALDI, ARMANDO J. BALDWIN, BOBBY BARABINO, RICK BARBARA ENRIGHT BARCH, JOHN D. BARKER, CHUCK BARNETT, DANIEL BARRY SHULMAN BARTON, DON BARTON, RICH BATTLES, DOUGLAS A. BAVERMAN, DAYNE A. BAXTER, BILLY BEADLES, PATTI BECHTEL, JAMES G. BEEBE, GLENN BEEVERS, JOE BEHL, RICHARD L. BEILFUSS, LARRY M. BEIRNE, NICHOLAS A. BELT, LEE BENICHOU, PAUL S. BENNETT, AIDAN P. BENVENITSI, TOMER BENYAMINE, DAVID BERESLAVSKEY, VADIN BERG, KENNETH BERGER, FREDERICK J. BERMAN, LYLE A. BETTS, ROBERT BIBB, CURTIS BIGLER, CHRIS BITTAN, MICHEL S. BJORIN, CHRIS BLACKEY, JAMES BLEILER, STEVEN A. BLOOM, ANTHONY BOATMAN, BARNY BOATMAN, ROSS BOBBY BALDWIN BOLTON, CHARLES BONAVIDA, RAYMOND BONETTI, JOHN J. BONYADI, FARZAD BOOTH, DOUGLAS R. BOSTON, ALAN BOUBLI, JAN BOWEN, FRED BOXELL, LEO W. BOYARSKY, JAY S. BOYD, DUTCH BOYER, ANDRE BRABEC, FRANK BRADLEY, JOHN M. BRADLEY, OWEN J. BRANDENBURG, JOSEPH E. BRANNAN, DAVID BRANT, BEARCAT BRAYER, SCOTT BRENES, ALEX BRENES, HUMBERTO BRENNAN, WILLIAM E. BRITE, STEPHEN G. BRODSKY, ALAN M. BRODY, JONATHAN M. BROWN, CHAD BROWN, CHAD BROWN, FREDRICK W. BROWN, JASON BROWNING, NICHOLAS BRUEL, PATRICK BRUNSON, DOYLE BRUNSON, TODD BUCKHALTER, JOHN BUENO, PATRICK BUI, JULES BUI, JULES BULGER, DAVID E. BUONOCORE, BRYAN C. BUONOCORE, BRYAN C. BURTMAN, MARK L. BUSS, JERRY BYRUM, JEREMY W. CALDWELL, WAYNE L. CALKINS, JEFF CALLAGHAN, FRANK CALLAHAN, BENJAMIN P. CALLEGARI, ALFRED CALVERT, GUY CAMPBELL, RAYMOND A. CAMPEAU, MARTIN CANTOR, CLIFFORD M. CANTOR, CLIFFORD M. CAPPS, JOSEPH CARSON, MICHAEL CARTER, BRENT CASSIDY, JOE D. CELUSTA, ROMAN CERNUTO, JOHN A. CHA, JIMMY CHAKBAZOF, PAUL J. CHAN, JOHNNY CHEN, DAVID T. CHENERY, PHILIP A. CHESNOFF, DAVID CHITWOOD, JACKY N. CHIU, DAVID CHRRON, STEVEN D. CHUONG, CHAU CITRONE, CARLO W. CLOUTIER, T.J. COBB, ARTIE COBB, DAVE COHEN, CLAUDE COHEN, RICHARD COLCLOUGH, DAVID COMEE, WILLIAM D. CONRAD, KIRK L. COPE, TOM M. CORDOVEZ, DIEGO CORMAN, BRUCE P. COSTA, PETER COURTNEY, JAMES A. COUSINEAU, ANTHONY COWAN, BENJAMIN D. COX, MIKE COZEN, GLENN E. CRASH, HOWARD CREWSE, LYNN CRUNKLETON, HENRY D. CUMMINGS, MICHEAL V. CUNNINGHAM, ALLEN CUNNINGHAM, DONALD CURRY SR., WAYNE M. DALLMAN, THOMAS J. DANIEL, STEVE DARDEN JR., PAUL L. DARDEN JR., PAUL L. DAVID, FRED DAVIS K.U. DAVIS, WILLIAM DE BEAU LOX, RONNIE DECAROLIS, ALFRED J. DEEB, KASSAM IBRAHIM DEHAAS, EDUARD DEHKHARGHANI, RAY DEKNIJFF, MARTIN DELAMOS, PETER DEMETRIOU, HARRY DEREI, ASHER DEWREEDE, STEVE DIAZ, ARTURO DIETRICH, ALEXANDER DILEO, NICHOLAS S. DISCENZA, T.C. DIX, MAURICE DO, CONG DOBBS, JOHN DOLLISON, KUM N. DONEV, IVO DONOHEW, CARROLL F. DONUGHY, IVAN DOUGHERTY, RYAN T. DOUMITT, CHARLES S. DUARTE, BILLY DUCEY, NICK DUKE, ANNIE DUMONT, DANIEL R. DUMONT, DANIEL R. DUNBAR, DAVID DUONG, TAM DUONG, TAM DYKES, CALVIN R. DDS DYKSTRA, KEVIN EADIE, JOHN P. EARLE, PHILIP EBANKS, RONNIE C. ED NORTON EDWARDS, MARK H. EICHEL, WILLIAM, JR. EICHHARDT, PETER EIKESETH, ENDRE ELEZRA, ELI ELYAHOU, S. ENGLESMAN, WILLIAM A. EPSTEIN, MICHAEL EPSTEIN, MICHAEL ESFANDIARI, ANTONIO ESKANDANI, MORI ESPOSITO, JOHN J., JR. ESPOSITO, MICHAEL ETHIER, AL EVANS, DAVID W. EVANS, PAUL FAGAN, MIKE FAN, FRANCIS FARHA, SAM FARLEY, JOHN FARRELL, ANTHONY J. FEDUNIAK, BOB FEDUNIAK, MAUREEN FEEHAN, MICHAEL FENCHUK, WILLIAM G. FERGUSON, CHRIS FERNANDO, RAJV K. FERRARO, JON J. FERREL, JAMES A. FETTER, MICHAEL E. FIORDELISO, WILLIAM FISCHBEIN, JOEL FITOUSSI, BRUNO FIXEL, ALAN FLACK, LAYNE FLANIKEN, TEX R. FLATON, KEN FLYNT, LARRY FORREST, TED FOSSMARK, ANDRE FOX, JACK FRANGOS, NIKOLAOS FRANK, B.C. FRANK, CLAUS-PETER FRANKLIN, TOM FREDJ, SAMUEL M. FREEDMAN, AVRAHAM FRIEDMAN, PRAHLAD FRITZ, ANDREAS FRUTKIN, JONATHAN B. FRYMER, WILLIAM FUCHS, CAROL FUHS, DANNY FULLERTON, JOHN B. FULLERTON, RICHARD FULOP, ROB FUND, WARREN G. FURR, BRUCE FURST, RAFAEL FUSCIARDA, LORENZO E. GABALDON, FELIS GAMBOA, ANDY GANIAS, CHRIS GARDNER, JULIAN GARRIS, STEVE R. GARZA, TOMMY J. GAZES, BILL GEARY, JIM GEERS, ROBERT GENSICKI, GREG GERARD, GEORGE GERASIMOV, KIRILL GIANG, CHAU TU GIBSON, THOMAS R. GIORDANO, PETER GLANTZ, MATTHEW GLAZER, ANDY GLERFOSS, JOGVAN K. GOEHRING, ALAN GOICOECHEA, ROBERT GOLA, JASON M. GOLDBERG, FREDERICK R. GOLDSTEIN, HARVEY M. GOLDSTEIN, KEN GOLF AMBASSADOR BILL JONES GOLF, AMBASSADOR GOLSER, MARKUS GOMEZ, JOSE GOMM, ANDREW M. GORDON, PHIL S. GRAND, TONY GRAY, JASON GRAY, SCOTT GREENSTEIN, BARRY GREG F.B.T. GREGORICH, MARK GREY, DAVID GRIGORIAN, CHRIS GRIMES, TOMMY GRIO JR, BERNARD GRIZZLE, SAM GROVES, GERARD P. GROYSMAN, GENADY GUALTIERI, JOE GUNACA, SCOTT G. GUNDAYAO, DIONISIO GURA, NICHOLAS HABIB, HASAN HADDAH, SAM HALE, JOHNNY HALL, HARLEY HALLAN, PRIYANAND HALPERN, DAVID HANLEY, JOHN HANNA, NICKO HANSEN, GUSTEV B. HANSEN, THOR HARDIE, GEORGE HARMAN, JENNIFER HARRINGTON, DAN HARRISON, INSUK HARRISON, JOSEPH D. HARROCH, RICHARD HARTMAN, TONY HAUBELT, GARY J. HAUGAN, PETER HAVESON, BRIAN D. HAVESON, BRIAN D. HAWKINS, KEITH HAYDEN, MELISSA HAZEN, DAVID R. HEANEY, JOHN E. HEIMILLER, DANIEL M. HEIMOWITZ, JAY B. HEIMOWITZ, LONNIE HEINTSCHEL, CHRISTOPHER P. HEINTSCHEL, MICHAEL O. HELLMUTH, PHIL HENDERSON, FRANK G. HENEGHAN, PAT HENNIGAN, JOHN HIDI, ANDRE HOANG, CHUC HOELLEIN, JOHN HOEPPNER, JAMES HOFF, BOBBY HOLLAND, RANDY HOLLANDER, WALTER J. HOLLINK, ROB HOLUM, ERIC HOPKINS, GREG HORAN, W.D. HORROCKS, JOHN W. HORWITZ, AL R. HOURANI, ELIAS F. HOWARD, WILLIAM R. HUNTER, KYLE HUTSON, RANDY M. IBRAHIM, MOHAMED INASHIMA, JOHN ISAAC, MICHEAL C. ISAAC, THOMAS W. ISAACS, SUSIE IVEY, PHILLIP JACOBS, KEN JACOBS, KEN JACOBS, TOM JAMES, KENNA S. JASSINOWSKY, CY JEFF SHULMAN JELLADIAN, DAN JENSEN, RANDY G. JENSON, OOD ERLEND JETT, CHIP JIN, CAILIN JOACHIM, BRIAN J. JOHANSSON, LARS C. JOHN ESPOSITO JOHNSON, CHIP JOHNSON, CREWS JOHNSON, TIMOTHY D. JOHNSTON, BERRY JONAS, TODD B. JONAS, TRAVIS JONES, JESSE JONES, LINDSEY JORDAN, JERRY L. JORGENSEN, THEO D. JUANDA, JOHN JUDAH, MEL JUSTIN, DAVID B. KALLAKIS, ACHILLEAS M. KAPLAN, GABE KAPLAN, JONATHAN KAPOVICH, JOHN M. KARABOURNIOTIS, ANARGYROS KARAGULLEYAN, CHRIS KASSELA, FRANK KASTLE, CASEY KATZ, NICKY J. KAUFMAN, PETE KELLER, KEVIN M. KEOHAN, MIKE KETTNER, ERIC KHABBAZ, ADNAN KIM, DAVID D. KIMBROUGH, CLARENCE KING, JEFFREY P. KINNEY, MICHAEL KIRKEBY, ROBERT KISTER, SCOTT KLAMAIN, RICHARD V. KLINGER, PEPE KNOPOW, Q. KO, BERNARD KOHLBERG, CURT P.L KORSON, ALAN J. KOZIC, LOU KREX, STEPHEN C. KROH, PAUL E., JR. KRZYSIK, MARK C. LA, MENG LAAK, PHIL LADANYI, PAUL LAIKIN, ROBERT J. LAING, MIKE LAMKIN, BRIAN K. LANDRUM, STEPHEN LASZCZ, XAVIER LAUX, BARBARA LAZAROU, VASSILIOS A. LAZZARO, KEVIN K. LAZZARO, KEVIN K. LE, TUAN LECKEY, SAMUEL LEDERER, HOWARD H. LEFKOWITZ, MATT LEHR, CHARLES K. JR. LENNAARD, KEN R. LENNAARD, KEN R. LENT, GARY LEONIDAS, ALFREDO C. LEROY, DIDIER LESLE, MIKE LESTER, JASON LEVI, DAVID LEVINE, RALPH L. LIANG, XIANG S. LIEBERT, KATHLEEN LIFFEY, RORY F. LIGATOR, JAIME LILES, MIKE LIN, RAY HO LINDA JOHNSON LINDGREN, ERICK A. LINDGREN, THOMAS A. LINDHOLM, ERIC LINDSAY, JACK F. LIU, JOANNE LONG, JOHN D. LONGSON, O'NEIL LORENZO, ARNOLD R. LOTT, STEVE LUBER, MIKE LUMLEY, DAVID L. LUND, HANS LUNDBERG, JAN LUNDBERG, SCOTTY LUONG, DEE LUSKE, MARCEL LY, MIHN LYONS, TIMOTHY R. MA, HIEU (TONY) MACOLINO, ROBERT F. MADDISON, JOHN A. MAGEE, MICHAEL J. MAGIL, RICHARD A. MAGRIEL, PAUL MAHMOOD, AYAZ MAHMOOD, AYAZ MAIRHOFER, PETER MAISANO, DOMINIC MALATESTA, GENE MALENSKI, THOMAS D. MALONE, MARK C. MANCHON, JOHNNY MANDELL, OLIVIA H. MANN, HOWARD MANNING, JEFFREY R. MARCIANO, ELIE MARGOLIS, A. MARGOLIS, ERNESTO MARIANI, FRANK MARKHOLT, LEE MARMORSTEIN, PHILLIP MARSHA WAGGONER MARSHALL, CARY MARTIN, ANDREW MASON MALMUTH MATT DAMON MATTHEWS, PHILIP L. MATUSOW, MIKE MATZ, MARC A. MAX SHAPIRO MAY, MIKE MAYFIELD, SCOTT D. MCCARTHY, DON MCCLAIN, MICHAEL MCCLAIN, MICHAEL MCCLLENDON, JAMES C. MCCORMICK, THOMAS MCDANIEL, MATT MCDONALD, IAN MCDONALD, TRISTAN MCEVOY, TOM Mc GUIRE, TOBY MCINTOSH, JOHN MCKEEVER, GEORGE E. MCKELVEY, CARL MCKINNEY, WILLIAM MCLENNA, LANE MCMILLIAN, RONALD MCNAMARA, DONALD MEEHAN, JAMES M. MELISSA HAYDEN MELTON, STEVE MERVIS, JEFF MICHAEL O'MALLEY MICHEAL, JOHN MIKE CARO MILES, RICHARD MILKOWSKI, JAMES MILLER, ALAN MILLER, JIM M. MINOR, MIKE MIZRACHI, ROBERT P. MLADEN, IVIN MOHAMMED, BARKATUL H. MONEYMAKER, CHRISTOPHER B. MOORE, BUD MOORE, CHAD A. MOORE, JAMES MOORE, PAT MORAD, QUSHQAR MORALEZ, NICK P. MORRIS, BEN MORTENSON, CARLOS MOSBACHER, GERSON D. MOUSTAKIS, DINO MOYES, WILLIAM C. MUCKLEROY, MIKE K. MUCKLEROY, MIKE K. NADELL, BRIAN NADELL, BRIAN NAKANO, YOSHIO NAQUIN JR., LESTER J. NARIZNY, JOHN NASELLO, RICHARD NASSERI, AMIR NEAL, PAUL NEELY, JAMES E. NEGREANU, DANIEL NEVERS, GARTH A. NG, TONY NGO, HONG NGUYEN, MEN NGUYEN, MINH NGUYEN, PHI NGUYEN, SCOTTY NILSSON, MIKAEL C. NISSAN, JACOB C. NORMAN, JEFFREY K. NOYES, WILLARD OCONNOR, PATRICK O'DEA, DONN ODELL, FRANKIE LEE OHANA, MARC OLIVERIA, RAUL S. ONEIL, TIMOTHY K. OPPENHEIM, DAVID OSTROW, TODD A. PAK, YONG PALMER, EDDIE I. PANAYIOTOU, ERACLES PAPACHATZAKIS, ALEXANDROS PARKINSON, PADRDIG PASEKA, KURT PAUL CLARK PAULEY, DAVID PECHAC, JAMES PEEL, MILTON PELLEGRINI, EDWARD V. PERRAULT, PASCAL PERRY, RALPH PERRY, RALPH PERSSON, PETER K. PEVNER, BARRY C. PFEFFER, SCOTT PHAM, DAVID D. PHAN, YOUNG PHAPHONE, KIT PHILLIPS, DALE PHILLIPS, KEN M. PHILLIPS, LOU DIAMOND PILKINGTON, FLAN PIPE, RICHARD S. PITIRRI, JOSEPH PITSILIDES, GEORGE PLASTIK, DAVID PLONA, BRIAN C. POELS, PAT D. POPEJOY, ANTHONY PORCALLA, EMILLIO PRESCOTT, MATT PRESTON, AMARILLO SLIM PURLE, WILLIAM QUINTERO, REFUGIO V. QUTAMI, DANNY RAMDIN, ANNJANO M. RAMDIN, ANNJANO M. RAMSEY, GEORGE F. RAYMER, GREGORY P. RECHNITZER, GEORGE REDMAN, ROBERT W. REED, JIM REESE, CHIP REGIS, JOHN L. REICHERT, TOD L. RESNICK, EUGENE J. RESURRECTION, BOB REYES, CECILIA300 RICE, THOMAS L. RICHMAN, JOHN RIDER, STEPHEN J. RITTER, DAVID I. ROBERT TURNER ROBERTS, BENJAMIN RODIS, GEORGE RODMAN, BLAIR ROEPKE, DAVID W. ROKACH, LUCY ROLL, FREDRICK E. ROMANO, THOMAS A. ROSE, MARK ROSE, RON M. ROSEN, STEVEN G. ROSENBLUM, RUSSELL ROSENKRANTZ, ABRAHAM M. ROSENKRANTZ, JOSE M. ROSS, DAVID M. ROSS, JACKSON D. ROTHSTEIN, JEFFREY F. ROUSH, JAMES T. ROWSHANAEI, HAMID E. ROY, JEAN GUY RUBIN, DAVID S. RUDD, RALPH RUSSELL, GREGORY S. RUSSOMANNO, FRANK RUTLEDGE, JOE SAGLE, JASON M. SAI, RAMEEN SALAMEH, NICOLA SALEH, IBRAHIM S. SALEM, LEE SALZMAN, RICHARD SANDROCK, CHRISTOPHER A. SANTMYER, ROBERT SARCONE, JAMES D. SARNOFF, BENJAMIN J. SCALA, TRACY SCARBO, JAMES W. SCHAFER, LARY A. SCHANTZ, AARON P. SCHARF, EDWARD SCHEINMAN, ANDREW SCHENKER, SAM SCHIAFFINO, CHRIS SCHMIEDT, ERNEST L. SCHNEIDER, TOM SCHOENFELD, ADAM SCHRAM, FRANK B. SCHRIER, STAN SCHWARTZ, RICHARD D. SCOTT, LARRY D. SEED, HUCK SEIDEL, ERIK SEIF, MARK SENAY-ELLEFSON, SANDY SEREBRIN, ALAN M. SETIA, SUDHIR SEVRANSKY, TED SEXTON, MICHAEL R. SHEIKHAN, SHAHRAM SHERKHAN, FARNOOD SHERMAN, JOE SHERRIFF, JOHN SHIM, TOM Y. SHIPLEY, JOHN SHIREY, HILBERT SHKOLNIK, STEVEN SHOQUIST, PAUL SHOTEN, CHARLES SHUCLAM, DEAN C. SHULMAN, BARRY SHULMAN, JEFF SIDEL, MICHAEL H. SIGETY, LARRY SIGUR, FREDERICK J. JR. SILBER, GERALD SILBER, REAGAN SILVERBERG, MONTE SIMMONS, REGINALD B. SIMMONS, REGINALD B. SINGER, DAVID E. SINGER, DAVID E. SJAVIK, JAN OLAV SKJONSTAD, HAN C. SKLANSKY, DAVID B. SLEIGHEL, HARRY C. SLEZAK, BOB SMITH, DONALD P. SMITH, GARY S. SMITH, GRANT A. SNELSON, GEORGE R. SODERSTROM, JOHAN E. SOLID, MR. SONG, KEVIN K. SORENSEN, JAN SOVA, MAURICE SPADAVECCHIA, JOHN SPITALNIC, PAUL T. SPRENKLE, DAVID ST. GERMAIN, LEONARD R. STANLEY, RON STATIROUDIS, GUS STAWSKI, JOSE STENEHJEM, JEROME D. STERN, MAX STEVE BADGER STEVENS, DAVID P. STICKLEY, CARL STITELMAN, ORI M. STOCKINGER, SIGI STONUM, ALLAN STORAAKERS, JOHAN STORDAHL, VERNON M. STORY, REX S. STRAHL, BRIAN STRZEMP, JOHN STUDER, DANIEL STUDLEY, JULIEN J. STULTZ, LAWRENCE E. STUPAK, BOB STURGEON, BOB B. SUNAR, SURINDER SUSIE ISAACS SWEETON, TIMOTHY TAN, VINCENT TANNOUS, ABRAHAM TARR, JIM N. TATTRIE, HOWARD M. TEIXEIRA, MANUEL G. TENNER, MARK TERCEK, CARL TERRELL, MIKE A. TESTUD, PAUL THALER, GABE THIPTINNAKON, PHONGTHEP THOMAS, HARRY THOMAS, JERRI THOMPSON, DONALD G. THOMPSON, RICK L. THOMPSON, ROBERT A. THORSON, OLOF I. THREADGILL, WALTER M. THUNG, ROY TOMKO, DEREK TOMKO, DEWEY TONG, DENNIS J. TOPP, BRIAN TOZZI, JOHN TRAN, AN VAN TRAN, ANTHONY TRAN, JIMMY N. TRAN, LOI KHUON TRAN, NHUT M. TRAN, THITHI TRAPANI, MARKO J. TRUETT, BOB TRUMPER, SIMON TSCHERNIA, PAUL TSIPRAILIDIS, CRIS TURK, GREGG TURNER, ROBERT ULLIOTT, DAVID VAHEDI, AMIR VAN, TRI C. VANHORN, BRUCE M. VARKONYI, ROBERT VASWANI, RAM VATAN, MEHDI VEACH, JOHN T. VELLIOS, PANTELIS K. VIGDOR, STEVEN VILANDOS, PETER J. VINAS, TOMMY VINCE BURGIO VINH, VINNIE VIOLETTE, CYNDY VITHA, SATISH H. WAGGONER, MARSHA WALKER, DANNY WAN, MANLEE WANG, LIN POON WARD, JACK WARD, JIM WARREN KARP WATERMAN, DENNIS WATKINS, BRYAN G. WATKINSON, LEE WATTEL, MIKE J. WAY, RICHARD WEILAND, BARTON G. WEISENBERG, DENNIS WEISS, OUSATAVE A. WEITZMAN, MARK WESTLEY, PAUL WEUM, DEWEY WHEELER, STUART WHEELER, STUART WHINERY, CHRIS S. WHITE, DAVID WIENER, MELVIN WIGHT, CHARLES C., III WILEY, BILL WILKINSON, LAMAR V. WILLIAMS, CARSON G. WILLIAMS, GARY M. WILLIAMS, GRADY WILLIAMS, JUANITA WILLIAMSON, ROBERT L. III WILLIS, ROBERT D. WILLS, ROGERS B. WILSDON, STEPHEN WILSON, BOBBY J. WILSON, MARTY WILSON, SAM C. WILSON, SKIP WINK WITHERS, DAVID L. WONG, BRANDON W. WORTH, JAMES B. WYNN, GREG YAMRON, BRUCE YBARRA, RUBEN YOON, STEVE ZAKERI, BEHMAN A. ZALEWSKI, HERTZEL ZANGO, HERMAN ZEIDMAN, CORY ZELIN, MICHAEL P. ZEWIN, DON A. ZHANG, HUAI ZIBITS, PAUL ZIMBLER, PAUL ZIMMERMAN, ROBERT P. ZINMAN, STEPHEN L. ZOLOTOW, STEPHEN

Leaders after Sat are (approximate):
Paul Kraus $135,000
Mike Laing $120,000
John "World" Hennigan $65,000
Greg Raymer $52,000
Ron Rose $40,000
Freddy Deeb $38,000
Dave "Devilfish" Ulliot $35,000
Kathy Kolberg $33,000
Lyle Berman $30,000
Julian Gardner $30,000


Notables include (approximate):
Erik Seidel $23,000
Johnny Chan $21,000
Doyle Brunson $14,000
Phil Hellmuth $12,000
Howard Lederer $10,000



(1) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 5:09 PM
Play your man

It is very important in poker, especially in "big bet" poker to play your man. The beginner plays his own hand. The novice learns to play his man by narrowing down his opponent's possible hands based on how much he bet and when. It doesn't take much poker experience to "play your man" against strangers and figure out they have a flush because they checked until the third heart came and then check-raised you. What I want to talk about here is playing your man when you actually have a lot of experience against them and your decision is based on patterns picked up in previous hands. This is a skill that can really elevate your game, and below is some advice on the matter:

1. Perhaps you watch a guy limp in with 72o. How many times have you called a guy because "I know he always plays with trash" only to lose to a big hand? The fact is, Ted Hoth (a maniac if you don't know him) gets dealt pocket Aces as frequently as you do. He actually has more straights and flushes on the river than you do (because he plays more hands). So knowing that someone is "loose" is valuable information, but it can be misapplied. Don't assume that the loose player has nothing - this assumption will cost you money. Instead, when the board shows complete rags and you have an overpair, fear that the loose player ended up with two pair and just call (don't bet). Label the loose players, but fear them with rags on the board.

2. Just think how rich you would be if you always knew when somebody was bluffing. You could also be pretty darn rich if you knew that there was, say, a 60% chance that someone was bluffing. There are a ton of hands that warrant a call if you knew that there was a 60% chance someone was bluffing. Here is one way to do so. Pay attention to experienced players when they are on the button (or last to act because the button has folded). Notice if they automatically bet on the river when it is checked around to them. There are experienced players out there that know that this is a very profitable play w any 2 cards. The foil to this is if you notice the pattern, you can call this bet with something as lame as bottom pair. You may even raise to get the other players out of the pot. Label players who automatically bet on the button and call them.

3. Some people in NL give away their hand based on the size of their pre-flop bet. Maybe they bet 3x the blind with high suited connectors like AKs, but bet 5x the blind with AA and KK. Whatever. The point is that the vary their bet and give away information. But beware, an experienced player may vary his bet for a reason other than his cards. Specifically, they may bet more or less based on the number of pre-flop callers. So as long as it is not an experienced player, you can learn a lot by remembering how big the pre-flop raise was when you see their hands at the showdown.

4. Some people Post Oak Bluff and others never do. Doyle Brunson defines a Post Oak bluff as one that is not very large (presumably out of fear of being raised). Doyle says he never Post Oak bluffs and most experienced players never do. Notice if somebody ever does. The next time they make a fairly small or medium sized bet into a large pot, raise them your entire stack regardless what your hand is.

Well that's it for now, I need to go watch the Rocket get his 8th win of the season. See you at Texadelphia. Comment below or email if you also have patterns you notice that help you play your man.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 1:06 PM
Random updates on the WSOP

First of all, most of this is from the internet, so take it with a grain of salt:

1. Binion's will cap the entries at 2,600 this year. Last year there were app 800 players.

2. Thus, whoever wins the main event will immediately become that all-time cash winner for the WS. Even though some guys have 9 bracelets and Chan won it twice for over a mil each.

3. There is a rumor that C Moneymaker is not playing becuase they got to the max 2,600 before he signed up.

4. Binion's is taking app 7% of the prize pool in juice. So 2,600 * 10,000 * 7% = $1.8M.

5. Chris Moneymaker placed in the money in the Pot Limit Omaha event. I think PL Omaha is verrrry difficult. I think this shows that CM is not some lucky idiot, but that he actually has some card sense.

6. The 2005 WSOP will be partially moved to the Rio.

7. Has anybody seen any futures odds on pros in this year's WSOP? I would imagine that with 2,600, even a pro like Ivey would be a massive long-shot.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 4:29 PM
I just saw that Jim McManus, author of Positively Fifth Street won some serious cash this week at the WSOP.

I never did a final review of the book. It was awesome. It was well written, which is rare for poker books. It is not a strategy book per se, but it is impossible to write about poker without covering strategy & I learned a lot from it.

It is impossible to read it without getting an itch to play in the Big Dance.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 4:58 PM
What a great hand to stimulate discussion....

I focused on whether or not Hero was correct to bet all in with the flush, which was his question. At that point in time, it was the right move, even though it lost. However, what I did not address is if the hand was played properly on each of the three previous streets. Morris starts to hit on this in the comments below (which maxed out on space) and finished his though in the email below:


From: Chris
To: Dr. Fro

Craig,

This is a very interesting hand you posted about on the site. I was curious as to what you thoughts were on the hand, from both players' perspective. I think that they both misplayed the hand, although the outcome may have been exactly the same, except they would have both been watching 4th and 5th streets with the hands turned up. Here's what I mean.

I'm assuming there was no raise before the flop. After the flop, I think hero should have done more than make a "modest bet." I know I would have bet very big with top pair, top kicker, top draw. (From my experience playing with you, I think you would make a sizeable bet as well.) I would even be willing to risk my entire tournament by moving all in. (note that I said moving all in, I would have to ponder very hard about calling all in)

Now assume you are Mr. Suited Connecter. If he puts Hero on top pair and an over card, he has to calculate that he has 15 outs twice. In other words, the favorite to win the hand. (never mind that he would have been overestimating his outs, I think most players in that spot would think 15 outs was right.) I could also justify moving all in with this hand after the flop, in fact, I would call an all in with this hand faster than I would with Hero's. I can see Mr. Suited Connectors strategy though, see 4th street cheaply, try to make your hand and then move in, but that’s not my style. I'd rather make the other guy decide how much he likes his hand than the other way around.

My point being, I'm surprised they both didn't try to win the hand immediately after the flop. I think any combinations of events is very reasonable. I could see Hero moving in after the flop and getting called, I could see him moving all in and Suited Connector folding, I could see Hero betting and Suited Connector coming over the top and getting a fold or a call as well. Furthermore, I think Hero made a HUGE mistake by not applying the heat after a blank on 4th street. If I am Mr.. Suited Connector and I missed on the turn, I am no longer the favorite and would have a difficult time calling a large bet with 6 high.

Just my thoughts.

Chris




(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 2:00 PM
Because Fro and I are cheap, we only subscribe to the free "basic" comments package and thus the comments in the "bad beat" post are limited out. Feel free to start a new set of comments here.

Also, I don't mean to be beating up on poor Hero through my comments on the hand, nor do I suspect does Morris. It's just interesting to talk about.



(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 11:34 AM
In reference to the post about the straight flush, I wouldn't necessarily say that was a bad beat. Perhaps I don't know enough details, but he's holding an open-ended draw to two nut straights and the opportunity for a backdoor flush and straight flush. The board wasn't threatening enough that it would have made me think anyone had already made a better hand than me (no face cards and no flopped straights) and if my straight gets made with no flush I will get paid, especially if the perfect card comes (as it did) and I get to smack any big flush around who thinks he may be indeed holding the nuts (as he did).

In roundabout way though, I agree with Fro - it's just something that happens and can't be prevented - that's just poker, so don't worry about it. These things happen and that's one of the reasons we keep playing the game.

Now, refer to my post from January about flopping a nut flush, making a one card bottom end of a straight flush on the river... and then only check-calling because it's quite clear that that idiot Al sitting at the end of the table has called a shitload of bets, raises, and check raises and now holds the one card top end of the same straight flush. That one hurt.

(I think I just broker another JG poker blog rule by telling this story... Can I get a spanking?)


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 9:00 AM
From: Reader, brand new holdem player
To: Dr. Fro

I hope you enjoyed Belize.

I did not win on Saturday. After being low on chips all night, I had a few good hands and took the chip lead. Shortly thereafter, I suffered my worst beat to date.

I had pocket AH and 8H. The flop was 3H, 4H and 8S. Almost everyone folded and it was down to a 2 person game. I made modest bet, with high pair and a four flush. I don't remember the turn card, but it was no help and would not have made a higher pair. Still having the high pair and a four flush, I made another modest bet. The river comes 7H. I bet large, but hopefully not large enough to take the other player didn't call. I figure he would call if he also made a flush with any high card in the pocket. He raises me all in. I quickly called.

I give you one guess what his pocket cards were. I knew it was all that could beat me, but what are the odds of him making the straight flush. I figured he either had made a high flush or was trying to bluff me out of the hand.

Did I do something wrong or do you agree that it sounds like a bad beat?

From: Dr. Fro
To: Reader, brand new holdem player

5h6h

I wouldn't ever sweat that. If you play always assuming that nobody ever gets 4 of a kind or a straight flush, you will seldom regret that assumption. Conversely, the assumption will make you a lot of money fairly often.

There are 13 hearts - 3 on the board, 2 in your hand which leaves 8. Those 8 form 28 unique combinations (8*7, then divided by 2 since order is irrelevant). Of the 28, 27 are dead to you and only 1 beats you. Unless you feel the beating you take is 27 times what you would win if they are dead to you, betting up this hand is the right move.

:-)


From: Reader, brand new holdem player
To: Dr. Fro

That is comforting advice, but it doesn't heal the wounds.

Out of curiosity, why do you only include the hearts in your odds analysis? Is it because you would need to assume the other player has also made a flush or otherwise would not be betting the hand?


From: Dr. Fro
To: Reader, brand new holdem player

Kinda...

I first assume that they would only play if they had the hearts and then prove that you made the right move. The fact that they MAY call with other hands only helps my case. The possibility of them folding any flush at all is too remote to consider* and so even though it hurts my case, I consider it immaterial. Plus, since you were betting before the flush came, they may put you on top pair and call with two pair or three of a kind or a pocket pair higher than 8 or even a straight.

*note that this is less true in a big game with tough players, but I knew that the game in question was with a bunch of fish.




(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 8:27 AM
I think I have told just about everybody in H-town, but in case you didnt know, Mrs. Dr. Fro and I are moving to Dallas around July 1. I'll miss playing all my Houston games. You can continue to send me invites, as I will be visiting Houston pretty often. I imagine John and I will still put together a tournament and I will drive in for that.

If you know of any action in the Big D, let me know.




(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 7:55 AM
This really doesn't have anything to do with poker or gambling, so I am stretching the rules just a little bit by posting this. I used to post things like this on my personal blog that I shut down about 6 months ago and I need a new forum.

That said this is one of the most interesting articles I have read in a long time and I want to share it. It's about large multiplayer video games and the real-money economies that have sprung up around them and offered economists the opportunity to study a perfectly artificial phenomenon. Personally I think it's quite fascinating. If anyone reading this plays these games, I would be interested in learning about your experiences and your opinion of the article.

Now back to your regularly scheduled poker blog.




(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 8:33 PM
The weekend of June 4-6, the Mrs is out of town, which means 48 hours of poker for me. If you have any thoughts, let me know. JG and I may go to Louisiana for 24 hours.

The only thing that is out is hosting a game at my house....the house is on the market and it needs to stay perfect.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 7:00 PM
I watched the '03 WSOP on ESPN (again) last night. It was the "Dutch Boyd" episodes. You know, he starts the day with a huge stack of chips, they show him a lot, they do the interview with the chip-tricks, and near the end of the episode, he loses it all to Chris Moneymaker and walks out with his buddies saying something like "we are going to take over this town."

For some reason, I took a liking to this guy. Maybe it is because he reminds me of Mike in Rounders, which is my favorite movie. Maybe because he is Doogie Howser, which I could be if, well, if I were smarter. Maybe it's the backward-visor, which is how I wore mine all week in Belize. I certainly felt like he was more of the guy's guy than even Moneymaker. Anyhew, I liked him.

I found this piece on him, which is long but interesting.

Then I read this and this on him, which aren't so nice.

It seems his company got screwed, went bankrupt and people lost money. As much as that suck, well, shit happens. There are bankruptcy laws in America for a reason, and I feel sorry for those who got screwed, but they have to realize that Dutch did nothing to screw them. As long as there is no fraud, then the company does not have to pay.

We have bankruptcy laws to promote small business. Sometimes they fail. Sometimes they turn into Microsoft. But if you lost money at PokerSpot, I don't think that is sufficient reason to be mad at Boyd.

One more thought - if you play online poker and you have a big balance (more than you need for the level you play), take the money out. You should never have more in there than what you need for a buy-in, and the loss of one buy-in should not be devastating to you financially.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 4:56 PM
Vegas baby


(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 1:54 PM
I was sitting in church yesterday with my fiancee and as usual, at the end of the service the minister stood up to introduce new members of the church. One guy in particular was wearing a pink and red striped number with a big wide collar and three buttons unbuttoned to show a flash of his well-developed and hairless chest. His hair was perfectly teased and frosted and his face was darkly tanned like someone who knows the inside of a tanning booth. He was, in short, a quintessential tough guy in a pretty shirt.

"Easy money," I mumbled to myself when I saw this gentleman.

"Huh?" asked the fiancee.

"That guy, I can just look at him and tell he's someone I would like to play cards with. He looks like someone who could be worth a lot of money in the hands of a good poker player."

"You know him? You've played cards with him? Where?"

"No, I don't know him. I just mean he looks like someone who would think he's a better card player than he is. I like to play with guys like that."

"Oh... Well, you need to get a life and quit salivating over new church members."




(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 5:36 PM
Three Different Kinds of Maniacs

Now's time for a quick post about the maniacs I encountered briefly in New Orleans last week. I encountered three, specifically, and each one was a different type of maniac with different approaches to the game.

Our story begins about 3 hours into a session at the 6-12 table. I had been running over the game since I sat down in it - I flopped a set of aces on my second hand in the game and didn't look back as I worked my profits up to about $400. One of the best feelings in the world is to control a poker table - to be the best player at the table and know that everyone is hinging their decisions on what you do yourself. One of the best pieces of advice in Sklansky's holdem book is to almost always raise if you have a playable hand (Group 6 or better) if are the first one into a pot before the flop. This accomplishes two things: 1.) It drives out a lot of limpers and 2.) It disguises the strength of your hand, which is especially effective in weak games whenever pre-flop raises are automatically assumed to be big pairs or A-face.

Now, just reading the preceding paragraph, one could make the case that I would be playing dangerously and giving off the image of a maniac, and to some extent is true. When I able to play this way and dominate a game many more astute players will start to notice that I am winning pots with hands like queens up or one card teeny straights and they will begin to make comments like, "I saw you raise last time with Jack Four" or "You'll play any two cards, won't you?" In turn, this will begin to frustrate them and I am able to get very good reads on their own cards when they play back at me or otherwise try to keep me "honest" by not allowing me to play aggressively. While I do appear to be playing recklessly, what they don't usually notice is that my raises are only done in very specific circumstances and with very specific cards and that even after a pre-flop raise I will fold unless I hit a part of the flop. As far as these players are concerned, I am a maniac and I am playing wild and randomly. And this is the way I want it to be... until I show a nut flush or large pair at the end and completely blindside their honesty-keeping middle pair or little flush. I know what I am doing, even when it doesn't appear so.

And then their are true maniacs.

Like I said, I was sitting in the 6-12 game on Sunday when an open seat directly to my right was filled by an older man named Rene. Rene was a true cajun poker player with his thin white hair and gold jewelry and his thick thick swamp accent. He announced to the table that he was tired of the 1-4-8-8 Omaha Hi game because he had been unlucky and thus he "wanted to gamble" in the 6-12 holdem game. Nonetheless, he player tight for about one orbit of the table until he came to his big blind and was raised by another player. He immediately reraised back and after much raising and cursing on the flop and end cards he lost a rather large pot when he pocket 66 was beaten by a pocket KK. After that hand he was off and running and capping every pot before the flop. It only emboldened him further when he won a few of these pots and soon he was bragging about how large his stack was and how bad the other players were playing because they did not want to call his raises.

At one point he even capped a pot pre-flop AT and won the hand with trip tens on the river and beating pocket AA and QQ. After this he turned to me and said,

"I gotta fren' who be a real good pokuh playuh and he tell me that Ace Ten is the wuhst hand you can play. Now they say that Ace King is a bettah hand but I always win with Ace Ten so I gotta believe that Ace Ten is just bettuh."

I knew that Rene was probably going to be very profitable to the game in the long run, but after seeing him play that hand and hearing that crazy speech, I also knew that he had assumed my role of crazy maniac and that I was going to have to gear down and just play a more patient Lee Jones style of poker.

After about thirty minutes of Rene, the seat to Rene's right opened up and an older woman wearing a "Marine Mom" sweatshirt sat down to play. She pulled a crisp $100 bill from her fanny pack and immediately posted her out-of-sequence blind and raised right away when the action came back to her. This seriously pissed off Rene, who proceeded to reraise her. She reraised, he capped it, and she was all in her $100 by the end of the hand, which was subsequently won by a player at the end of the table who had flopped a broadway straight against Rene and Marine Mom's respective bottom and middle pairs. This was a huge pot and I could not believe that I had seen. She pulled out another $100 bill and on the very next hand she and Rene did it again, generating another very large pot that was subsequently won by a third player. All this time I was sitting and praying for good cards to play hoping that neither would go broke until I managed to get a share of the free money.

This lasted for for another 15 minutes - Marine Mom pulling out $100 bills and Rene rapidly blowing through his chips - until I realized that all of my profitability in the game had evaporated with the addition of the dueling maniacs. I was no longer able to play aggressively and wittily like before and instead I was reduced back to a low gear style of play. This was no fun! I then noticed that I was sufficienly staked to go try my hand at the 10-20 table, so I got up and found a seat in the bigger game.

As I was beginning to get established in the bigger game and had won a couple of hands a seat opened up and to my horror, Marine Mom sat down. This time she bought in for $300 and while she was not quite as quick to raise as she had been in the 6-12 game, she was quite willing to call everything that came her way until she could see the river card and the culmination of her hand. At that point she sometimes folded and sometimes showed, but it clear she wasn't craving action as much as she was just hoping to get lucky and win in the end.

Eventually, a seat opened at the table and a strange looking beatnik type man in a skullcap and a dyed soul patch beard sat down. Like Marine Mom in the game before he kept raising pots early and often and would always call down to the river and show any two face cards. This gentleman was also a maniac, but he was a rich maniac and played not so much from aggression as perhaps from a bullying personality or just an urge to make the game more fun by making more action.

Being a 10-20 game, the pots were proportionately larger than in the smaller 6-12 game. This wasn't a particularly tough game to beat though, but one had to have cards in the end because it was a rare pot that wasn't shown down. The maniacs contributed to this - first by always calling to the end and second because good players held on to marginal hands longer because they knew they were more likely winners against the poorer competition.

The most memorable hand of the night occurred shortly before I left. Soul Patch and Marine Mom capped the pot before the flop along with three other players and after much raising and calling they arrived at the showdown with one other (very solid) player there and a near $1000 pot between them all. The board was raggedy with both a straight and a flush showing but no face cards. Soul Patch and the solid player both showed AKo in hopes of winning with high cards. Marine Mom held on to her cards for a couple of seconds and once she realized that neither of the other players had paired up she began to scream, "Two Nothings! Two Nothings! You mean all youse gots is a pair of two nothings! Aye Aye! Whoo hoo!" at which point she turned over her own 3-4 of spades which had made bottom pair on the flop. She giggle with glee and scooped the large pot back to her seat with huge smile on her face.

I saw all of this and figured it unexplainably insane and then it hit me - she was playing to make a score! This woman was not interested in playing good poker, nor was she necessarily interested in being a winning player necessarily. Rather, she was playing in the hopes of hitting a jackpot and stuffing a wad of cash in her pockets. This is why she was so happy at winning the huge pot - because she got lucky and won! Most of us who play poker seriously and won a very large pot with nothing but an underpair would probably feel sheepish at "stealing" such a pot and maybe even a little embarassed to even be contesting at the end with a weak hand and two opponents. I personally would probably also feel a little relieved to have survived such a debacle in spite of my poor play, too, but I damn sure wouldn't shriek and smile as if winning the big pot was the best thing to ever happen to me and the only goal of my playing poker. But that's what this woman did because she was playing poker like a big slot machine. She wasn't playing for the competition, she wasn't playing for the strategy, and she wasn't playing in the hopes of just "playing well" and honing her game. No, she was playing because she wanted to win a lot of money. And in retrospect, this explained her style of play, too. All of her crazy raises and rebuys were not because she was interested in generating any action or because she was ignorant about proper play. In fact, I would venture to guess that she played that way in spite of knowing better, specifically because she wanted to win money and the only way to win big pots is to help create big pots. It was written all over her face. She knew she was lucky to have won that pot and that was the whole point.

So now, looking back on those three players, I think it's safe to say that all three had very different mindsets that contributed to each playing in such a maniacal way. Rene felt he was a good poker player and was due to win with his Ace Ten against the book-smart but inexperienced younger players at the table. He fought raises with reraises because he didn't want to be pushed around. He wasn't a bully but he also was not going to let himself be bullied. Rene was a loose maniac - he felt he could outplay the rest of the table and wanted to prove it.

Soul Patch on the other hand wanted to gamble and to control the table. He wasn't necessarily interested in what other players did or even in winning any pots - he was more interested in bending the game to his will and making the other players uncomfortable with his constant raises and reraises. Soul Patch was definitely a bully who hoped to win through intimidation - he was an aggressive maniac who loved action.

Marine Mom was completely different from the other two in that she was a passive maniac who played along in the knowledge that one can't win pots if one's cards are in the muck.

Three different maniacs.

So what's my point? My point quite simply is that playing with one maniac is actually fairly straightforward and profitable: loosen up a little bit and take advantage of the extra calls and raises, and where possible, try and isolate against the maniac. But when you are playing against more than one maniac, things get tough. I could have beaten Rene by himself because I could outplay him and fold when he had the best of it and let him pay me off when he did. I could have beaten soul patch by himself because I would have just let him bet my hand for me in his hopes of pushing me around. And I could have beaten Marine Mom because of her preference for calling everything to the river, even if she had the worst possble hand on the board.

Together, though, it was a different story. In a sense, two maniacs butting heads is much the same effect as fish in a low limit game - implicit collusion gone wild. It's fairly easy to beat one, but beating two might get really expensive.


(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 10:49 AM
I am in Houston sitting by my desk at work drinking coffee... heh heh



Thanks to everyone who has sent me emails about new limit games. I have a list of about 5 different games/houses/clubs that I intend to try out in the next few weeks.

I also have have a post about a crazy maniacal woman that I played with in New Orleans next week with a couple of lessons about playing in crazy games with Maniacs. I hope to get it posted sometime this afternoon.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 7:47 PM
I am in Belize and starting reading Positively Fifth Street today as a result of an endorsement of the book from Barclay at Houston Hobby airport that was so strong that he insisted on my taking his copy.

That was a month ago, but I started it today over a pina colada by the pool and am about 100 pages deep. This book rocks, and I know the reason why.

Most books on poker focus on strategy. They are written by guys that understand math but not the English language (guys like me). I am educated enough to appreciate a well written book, but I can't do it myself. It's like good music - I know it when I hear it, but damn if I can't even clap and sing at the same time.

The author, Jim McManus, evidently has a background in both math and humanities, and the combination is a refreshing change to the usual staticentric (i just made that up) stuff that is 100% on spot but makes for slow reading.

And as a plus - he is a baseball fan and makes some insightful analogies between the two forms of competition. As a MLB fan myself, these analogies hit home (pun intended).

Poker Nation is a clear 2nd place to PFS so far...


(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 1:46 AM
A Quick Story About a Tough Guy

Work has been busy the past couple of days and I haven't been able to get to my New Orleans stories the way I wanted to. Nonetheless, I am up late tonight after a friendly round of beer poker with the neighbors and something happened in their game that reminded me about a quick story to share.

I played in the neighbor game tonight to be friendly. I would say that I played "just for fun" but I've become less and less a fan lately of home poker because it just doesn't require the same skills as does a good cash holdem game played in a casino or cardroom. The element of luck in most of these games and their inherent design in favor of expensive drawing hands is just not that fun to me now. It's more about action and bravado and not necessarily about skill and strategy. For instance - being dealt the best hand at the beginning does not mean as much and isn't that much more profitable than a lesser hand because the pots grow so big and the bets stay so comfortably small that the proper strategy quite often is to draw often and let luck decide the winners.

Something else that bothers me about home poker is how the focus isn't really about winning as much as it's about being social. In fact, players that focus on winning are often shunned because they make the atmosphere too competitive. When Dr Fro became a regular in my home game a few years ago, before I learned to play casino poker even, a couple of other guys quit coming because they said he was "too serious" and no fun to play with. Most of you reading this know Fro and know that he's a great guy and a good friend to a lot of people, and even at the poker table he likes to crack jokes and be friendly and talkative, but since he plays to win and is competitive too, some people don't like to play with him. This is ridiculous - why play the game if you don't want to win? Why hold it against someone who does? Why don't we just sit around and drink beer and watch Cinemax instead then and not even worry about playing cards?

By focusing on being friendly quite often rules are relaxed and unfairness is tolerated all in the spirit of keeping everyone happy. For instance, tonight many players who were busted purchased chips off of other players and the sellers then just pocketed the cash and simply recirculated the chips already on the table. Everyone knows that most players who are up in a card game will tighten up and become risk averse as the game goes on because they want to "lock in" a win. (Mike Caro touches on this concept from time to time as a strategic move - it's easier to bluff people who are in this mindset.) While there is nothing inherently wrong with this basic human psychology - everyone feels this way from time to time - it is still wrong and unfair to take money off of the table, especially in the form of chips, because that risk averse tendency is even stronger if a player has to reach into his pocket. Once a winning player already has money in his pocket he's very reluctant to put that money back into the game and risk losing it. This makes it difficult for other players to recover their losses because the stakes of the game have essentially changed and the expected value of winning hands has therefore declined because there is less money to be wagered. For this reason many casinos do not allow players to pocket any money until they have left the game for good and quite often they also do not allow players to buy chips from one another unless the cash paid for the chips is immediately exchanged for chips. This didn't happen tonight in the "friendly" game and thus many players who appeared to be short stacked were really big winners and the game tightened up considerably towards the end because of it.

I say all of this because I saw a Tough Guy do this on Saturday in a 6-12 game and have no clue as to what he was doing or why the other players in the game were frustrated with him. This particular TG was on quite a run when I sat down and had apparently made some rather frustrating river wins against the rest of the table and built up a large stack. Like most Tough Guys he also had a cell phone that was constantly ringing and finally at one point he decided to get up and "go get some lunch." He picked up his chips and walked to the cage and cashed in about $600 of which $400 seemed to be profits from I could discern. He then walked back to the table and asked the dealer if he could "reserve" his lucky seat and come back in about half an hour. The dealer told him to check with the brush and the brush told him that he would have to go to the bottom of the list since he had cashed in his chips. He seemed frustrated and argued a bit and finally agreed that he would put $100 back on the table for now and the rest when he returned. Naturally when he returned the original dealer was gone and the brush had wandered off on some other chore and the TG sat down and tried to play off of his $100 stack. Those of us who had seen him build his stack were rather interested in having him continue on in the game because of his bad play, so I and some other players at the table asked the dealer to make him cash in for the full amount again. When the dealer did this the TG seemed surprise and replied, "I can't... I already cashed them in!" I sincerely believe he had no idea whatsoever what the big deal was to the rest of us.

As this was going on, the gentleman next to me turned and quietly said, "I bet if they make him do it he'll quit and not want to risk losing that stack!" And in fact, when he finally was forced to rebuy for the entire amount he saw about four more hands and reather disgustedly got up and left the table when the blinds came to him. We were all disappointed but since it was only Saturday afternoon I had a feeling that like all TG's he would be back. The lure of what seems like easy money in one's first poker experience is quite strong to tough guys, and in fact, our hero was back at the same table when I sat down on Sunday afternoon. This time did not look as happy as the day before ("I was hitting those big straights yesterday!") and he rebought into the game for about $400 over the course of the afternoon. When he finally did get that last cell phone call he played one more hand and was out the door with a scowl. Another tough guy with empty pockets.







(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 6:52 PM
Location, Location, Location!

One of the most commonly unappreciated aspects of holdem, by both new and experienced players alike, is the importance of position. When I first started playing the game five years ago I completely disregarded the advice in my books about position because I was much more interested in mixing things up and playing! than I was interested in seemingly not-as-fun strategy. It’s rather difficult to quantify why late position is better than early position, but once you’ve logged enough hours at the table and you begin to appreciate the game and to transcend the immediate bet-raise-call-fold aspect of poker, you begin to see that going last has some major advantages. Sometimes with the same two cards it’s proper to draw and sometimes it’s good to call a raise and sometimes it’s right to fold and in all of those situations your decision is heavily influenced by where you are sitting relative to the dealer button. I saw a lot of tough guys in pretty shirts making some rather pointedly weak plays this weekend because they were not aware of their position at the table.

Probably the most obvious advantage to going late is that you are protected by people raising behind you and thus costing yourself a bet when you should have folded. If I am receiving pot odds of 10 to 1 and have 6 outs left in the deck, it’s proper for me to call a bet because in the long run I will win 10 bets for every 8 bets that I lose for a net gain of 2 bets. However, if I am forced to call a raise to see another card my pot odds are now just 5 to 1 and I lose 3 bets in the long run. When the raiser goes first I can make my decision based on whether I have a positive or negative expectation relative to the pot and I can call or fold accordingly. However, if the raise is behind me I have now already put the bet into the pot and may or may not be getting proper odds when it comes time to call the raise, especially if the raise causes other players to fold. In this case I have already sacrificed a bet and may no longer have any chance of recovering it. Thus, it’s better to go later because it’s more likely that you will be acting behind raisers and thus will have a better quantity of information on which to act.

One of the worst – and most frustrating – poker plays I saw this weekend came in Saturday’s 6-12 game. I was in mid position with a strong drawing hand. A very transparent player raised from the button before the flop and when the flop was rather raggedy everyone checked hoping to see 4th street cheaply for just one bet. I thought this was an obvious play because there were no clear straights or flushes or high cards on the board and thus it was unlikely that anyone had made a hand that could challenge a pre-flop raiser’s likely AA or KK. I say that I thought it was obvious because the player immediately in front of the raiser quite blithely threw his chips into the pot when the action was checked to him and the raiser quite naturally raised right away. This completely changed my strategy of calling for one bet and I was forced to fold a rather strong draw because I was no longer getting the proper odds for taking that draw. All of the other players folded against the expensive raise and the raiser’s AA quite handily defeated the blithe caller’s 67o that had paired on the flop.



(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 4:29 PM
”Tough Guys in Pretty Shirts”

Perhaps the best way for me to start recapping the New Orleans weekend is to describe the action and why I thought it was so good. Like I said in yesterday’s post, I think the weekend action is probably as good or even better than that at Bellagio or Mirage on any given evening because there are fewer pros or sophisticated regulars than one finds in a typical Vegas game but there are just as many bad players wanting to take a shot and even better, because it’s New Orleans they are more likely to have been drinking or still be drunk.

Most of the guys who are playing tend to be younger guys with big egos and no experience and a majority of them play 3-6 because they are either to poor or scared to tolerate higher limits. I don’t think many of them make the connection that calling a lot of bets and playing badly at 3-6 isn’t any less expensive than playing tight in a higher limit game, but that’s not my problem and those that do make that connection are on their way to improving their games rapidly. Anyway, I call these players, “tough guys in pretty shirts” because for the most part they look like they spend a lot of time in the gym and wear the clothes to show it. Typically they will also have perfectly coiffed hair and some piece of jewelry on just in case they might run into Miss Right later in the evening – in other words, they’re ready for the dance clubs and a night on the town but are trying to squeeze in a little poker before going out or before going to bed. If you have spent any time playing in Vegas you know the kind of guy I am talking about and you probably also can see why I love playing with them. Ego and alcohol doth a lucrative appearance make to one’s competitors.

Anyway, as is the usual tone of my posts, I observed a lot of these types of guys this weekend and garnered a lot of material. I was especially intrigued by some of the mistakes they made and how illustrative the consequences of those mistakes were when they came to bear. There are a lot of lessons to be learned, for sure.

For now I am out of time, so I’ll leave it there. I’ll try and get something posted later tonight and then keep going with this material over the next few days.



(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 3:43 PM
With all this talk of no limit and pot limit games it seems that a good limit game is hard to find these days. If anyone has a regular 5-10 or 6-12 or 10-20 game that they know of, I would love hear more about it. I think the Top Hat may have a 10-20 game during the week but I don't know if I'm interested in playing over there right now.

Similarly, if anyone may be interested in helping me start a regular mid limit game at something higher than 1-2 or 2-4, please email me to get something going.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 9:04 AM
Funny


(0) comments

Posted by Johnnymac 7:39 PM
I am back from New Orleans and have a bunch of random things to share from the weekend. I don't know if I will tie it all into one big post or just fire snippets or what, but I have a lot of material that I will try and get posted in the near future.

The short trip report is that Harrah's New Orleans probably have some of the best weekend action I have seen in a long time. This is because the joint is full of either ESPN kids or ignorant cajuns. In fact, I would even say the action is better than Bellagio or Mirage because all three places have guys looking to "gamble" and take a shot, but in New Orleans they are also more likely to be intoxicated, too. That and not as few pros or old retired rocks as in Vegas, either. Harrah's is also definitely better than smaller rooms like those in Lake Charles or even locally here in Houston because there are plenty of new and inexperienced players relative to people who play 20-30 hours a week and thus are less likely to still play bad but make less dumb mistakes.

As far as the room goes, they turned the old crappy shoebox-esque poker room into a new steakhouse and built a HUGE brand new room on the casino floor with probably 35 poker tables and a variety of different games and limits. I'll touch more on the games in a later post, but one thing to point out is that they are still playing Omaha Hi only and had I not been interested in shearing the sheep at 6-12 and 10-20 holdem I would have been very happy to play Hi Omaha instead.

I did have one problem with the apparently widespread abuse among the locals of the "see the hand" rule, but that doesn't come close to making the games not worth playing. I will touch on the whole STH rule later, too. Lot's of good stuff there that I will save for a separate post.


(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 10:47 AM
You can see videos from the WSOP. Most people incorrectly refer to the the "WSOP Main Event" or "WSOP World Championship" as "WSOP". But actually, WSOP consists of many. many events.

I'd like to see some video on the winner of Event #10:

(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 11:44 AM
I got 27th out of 75 guys on Sunday. I had errands to run, so I don't know how it turned out. It was fun, but I pretty much just sat there watching everyone else play. I think I won 4 hands over 3 hours. That is some pretty crappy cards. The tournament was well run and the structure was good. After all, I played 3 hours w/o every really catching a hand. At one point it was pre-flop and I had AQ. I made the minimum raise and another guy went all in. I thought about it for a while. By folding, I could afford to see 14 more hands. I figured that I could get something playable over 14 hands.

If he is all in, he either has:
- a pair, which means I am behind or
- Ace-King, which means I am dominated

I really couldnt picture this guy that hardly played a hand to go all in with anything less. I never found out what he had. I never did get another playable hand.

There was one player that berated another for getting lucky and winning with J-7. I am not sure I will ever understand the logic in this. All you do is discourage bad card playing, which is not in your best interest. You should say, "well played" or "good hand" and encourage them to continue. Furthermore (and somewhat less importantly) it is rude. Very very rude.




(0) comments

Posted by Dr Fro 1:48 PM
Whatcha got?

This is the first part in a series of some stories of mine. There is a lesson to be learned in each of them. This one is one of Boyd’s favorites:

I am in a Holdem tournament at the International Casino in Aberdeen. It is the final table and there must be about 6 or so of us left. Blinds are high and it is one of those situations where every decision may make or break you.

I am dealt a pretty good hand. There is a limper and a raiser. I re-raise the raiser and make everyone else fold. He sits there and contemplates what he wants to do. We both have stacks in excess of the bet. As the time passes, I end up in a daze. He then says, “OK, whatcha got?” I show him my hand at which he laughs and says, “No, I meant how much money you got…I wanna re-reraise you.”

You see, his body language and the setting down of his hand indicated a fold, but technically the hand was still live as it had not touched the muck. To this day, I don’t know if he intentionally played an angle on me or if it was an accident. I thought he was folding and was just curious as to what he folded to. Either way, I learned my lesson to never show your hand if you don’t have to.

(By the way, although he had me dominated pre-flop, I caught up to him and won the hand, as well as some of the prize money.)

Collusion

I was playing in a home tournament in Aberdeen. It ended up just 3 of us. The top two prizes paid out, so you did not want to get eliminated at this point. The blinds were low, so we had a lot of time to play, at least an hour before the blinds were a threat. In that entire hour, I don’t think Ewan or Ian ever bet post flop if they were heads up. You see, they were best friends and they didn’t want to knock each other out. I won’t go into the math, but the strategy provides a massive advantage to them. (on the other hand, in a cash game, I would be indifferent as to what happens in hands I am not involved in.) This was bad enough, but then I noticed that when one of their stacks got low, the other guy would raise big, and then later fold, thereby shifting chips to the player in need. They were ganging up on me.

Lesson learned: you should be very careful about playing poker with people you hardly know, especially tournaments, where a single decision can cost you thousands.

Rags

I was playing at the FSC once and was playing 2-4 from the big blind. I never hit anything but was representing a good hand (that is, betting). On the river, I bet and got a raise from the only other player, Curtis. I folded. He showed me 2-3 and took the pot.

Lesson: In limit poker, it is almost never wrong to call on the end if you are last to act.

Eights

I was playing $4-$8 limit Holdem at the now defunct Ace Kickers Club in Houston (where JG and I met Steve of the Top Hat). I was dealt pocket 8’s on the button. I flopped 8-8-2. I can only lose if someone makes a runner-runner straight flush or quads higher than 8’s. It is as close to a cinch as you can get. It checks around to me and I bet on the button. This was very very stupid for many reasons. The only way to play this hand is to call the early rounds and put in a raise on the river. You must let them catch up to you. The only call you could get is from pocket 2’s.

Lesson learned: don’t bet when you flop quads

Todd-Dog

Glaze and I were playing 5-10-20 Omaha 8 at RT’s in 1999. A couple cops played there, including one HPD named Lou (named changed). Todd busted out and left to go to the ATM. While he was gone, Lou showed up and parked his marked vehicle right out front of the place. Evidently Todd came back and shit in his pants when he saw cop car and took off. We watched him out the window drive by slowly and then take off many times. Once we had Lou open the front door (in uniform) and Todd went flying off. After we all got a good laugh, we called his cell phone and told him to come on in.

Lesson learned: Todd is fun to mess with.

OK, one of these days, I’ll tell you the Pinochle story…





(0) comments