Red Bull + Poker

"There are few things that are so unpardonably neglected in our country as poker..."

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:00:00 PDT

"There are few things that are so unpardonably neglected in our country as poker. The upper class knows very little about it. Now and then you find ambassadors who have sort of a general knowledge of the game, but the ignorance of the people is fearful. Why, I have known clergymen, good men, kind-hearted, liberal, sincere, and all that, who did not know the meaning of a flush. It is enough to make one ashamed of the species." - Mark Twain

The Long View of Tony Shelton

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:00:00 PDT

The Las Vegas Sun has a very good article up about a long time (since '69) Vegas staple of the poker scene, Tony Shelton. I especially liked the following excerpts from the piece, which exhibit some of the generosity, bravado, insanity, benevolence and character present in the poker world.

His first assignment: a pot-limit Omaha cash game with blinds of $25 and $50, a big poker game by any standards, and huge at the time.

The lineup included Doyle Brunson, Puggy Pearson and other high-stakes gamblers.

"It was about six or seven of them," Shelton said. "Right there sits Doyle. Right there sits Steve Wynn. Right there sits Puggy. They said they were playing Omaha. At the time, I didn’t know what Omaha was. I said, 'Mr. Brunson, how many cards do I give these people?'

"Well, everything stopped. Doyle sat back, he looked at me and he pushed back his hat. He said, 'Here's what we'll do, son. You give us each four cards. Deal 'em low, deal 'em slow and deal 'em off the top, and I'll help you run the game.' Doyle was a very nice man. If he had been a real (expletive) and said get this (expletive) out of here, I would have been finished before I started."

...

He befriended many world champion poker players, including Jack Straus, who won the 1982 World Series title and was known for his heart and generosity.

One day Straus was walking down Fremont Street when a busted-out gambler came up behind him and asked to borrow $200.

"Jack reached in his pocket and pulled out two hundred-dollar bills and handed them to the guy back over his shoulder. He didn't even look to see who the guy was. He told me, 'Oh, hell, if I saw him he might think he has to pay me back.'"

Shelton recalls the time Binion asked Sailor Roberts, the 1975 world champion, if he could play a few hands for Roberts in a no-limit Texas hold 'em game at the Horseshoe.

"Now, nobody could refuse Benny," Shelton said. "So Sailor says, 'Sure.' He goes to get a coffee and smoke a cigarette. He comes back and Benny has all Sailor's chips in the middle. I don't know how much it was — $10,000, $6,000, whatever. Sailor leans over and he says, 'Well, son, you got all my money in the center, whatcha got?'

"And Benny says, 'I don't know. I left my glasses at home. I just didn't want all these son of a (guns) to think they could bluff me.'"

You can read the full article Poker Veteran Has Seen It All, here.

"Poker is the game closest to the western conception of life..."

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:00:00 PDT

"Poker is the game closest to the western conception of life, where life and thought are recognized as intimately combined, where free will prevails over philosophies of fate or of chance, where men are considered moral agents and where - at least in the short run - the important thing is not what happens but what people think happens." - John Lukacs

The Russians Are Coming

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:00:00 PDT

I've had a couple of good sessions in a row now and I'm starting to build a little momentum that I can hopefully ride through the rest of the series. In my last session, I played an interesting hand with a Ruskie player whom I had been observing/marking my entire time at the table. I had watched him raise pots to $70 pre-flop with jackoff (J6o), as well as make a significant number of bluffs. He wasn't a horrible player as I'd also seen him fold straights and over-pairs. But he was still too aggro for his own good and I felt that given the opportunity, he would bluff off all of his chips to me. The Ruskie was in the 10 seat and I was in the 1 hole. So I had position on him all night, except for the following hand:

The pot is raised in early position to $12. Three players call and it comes to the Ruskie on the button who just calls. I look down at AQ and call. (I could have made a big re-raise here to isolate, which would have been a fine play, but I decided just to see a flop first. The rest of the table was pretty tight and I am out of position. If I hit the flop and encounter any resistance from anyone but the Ruskie, I will likely fold). The big blind calls as well and we see the flop 6 handed.

The flop comes Q-10-8 all clubs. I check, looking to see what develops. It's checked around to the Ruskie. He bets $35. I really have no choice but to call here. I know that the other players are not going to stay in the pot without made hands and any made hand here such as a set or baby flush is going to raise, save for the nuts. The nuts might smooth call. So in this rare case I am essentially calling for information. I am pretty sure that I am ahead of the Ruskie in the hand.

Everyone else folds. Awesome. No one has the nuts, which also means that the Ruskie might be drawing with the A. The turn is the 10. I don't love it, because my opponents' range is very wide and he could be betting second pair on the flop, but I decide to stick with my read. I check to play pot control and let him fire another bet that I can call. He fires $75 on queue and I beat him into the pot with my chips. My plan for the river is to fade a club and then hope he fires a three barrel bluff on the river. If a club comes, I check fold.

The river delivers the 6. I study my opponent and he looks to me like he's intent on trying to steal the pot. He gave off some timing tells on the turn, that helped me reinforce my read on him and I felt like he's going to be firing the river with air. I only have top two with an ace here on a three flushed and paired board, but I feel like it's good and I am willing, nay going to try to commit the rest of my chips to this pot. This is after all the spot that I have been waiting for with this player. My hand rates to beat him the vast majority of the time and if he just happened to wake up with Q-10 here or he made some kind of miracle hand with 66 or my read is totally wrong and he flopped the nuts, than I will live with that result. But I make a living because my reads are usually right and I trust them.

So after studying him, I check again, because I know he can't help himself. He moves all-in for about $400. I don't even have to think about it, because I've already played the hand out in my head. I snap call him and he says, "You win." He doesn't want to show his hand so I say, "You can muck it if you like."

(There is a competitive advantage for me to not show my hand to the rest of the table here at showdown, because if he mucks, I take the pot and don't have to show. If that happens, the rest of the table will assume that I had a full house and I will happily reinforce that belief so that I can go on to steal many more pots than I might be able to otherwise).

He tables AJ. I show my hand and the table goes a little nuts because of the insta-call with only top pair. One player remarks, "Wow, what kind of read was that?" Ferve would later point out that a non-club K on the river would have been bad. It certainly would have. I was so locked into the A and given that my opponents' range was so wide, I wasn't thinking too much about his kicker. The K for example could have been a disaster card for me, because it would have been much tougher to put him on a straight at that moment, since I would have thought that he would have re-raised with that hand from the button pre-flop.

Thankfully that hand worked to perfection and certainly an argument could be made for a different and more aggressive strategy, but I felt like the plan that I employed was optimal for that particular situation and table dynamic and I can't complain about the outcome. It did make dinner with Ferve and KJ McG a bit more enjoyable afterwards. It also made it my treat!

Are Drugs The Answer?

noreply@blogger.com (LA Tony) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:00:00 PDT

(LA Tony is a part-time player based in Los Angeles, California and a special guest blogger for RBP).

I shake.

Not a violent shake, more of a slight tremor that comes with an increased heart rate and anxious nerves. Unlike the shaking we experience in California with regularity (particularly of late), my shaking is 100% predictable. It happens whenever I have a big hand in a potentially lucrative pot with opponents that I'm fairly certain are willing to go to war with their hands.

I know what some of my tells are. I wish I could say I know what all of them are, but opponents can still sniff a bluff out of me from time to time and they still occasionally fold strong hands when I've got them crushed, so I know I've still got tells of some sort that I need to identify.

The tells that I am aware of I will intentionally employ during each poker session to mask the times that I do it unintentionally. The first step toward fixing a problem is admitting you have one, and let's face it, tells are a HUGE problem for poker players.

Most physical tells are easy enough to fake. Sitting back in the chair to indicate strength, covering your mouth during a hand, etc. These are tells I've caught myself doing in a hand, and once you catch yourself doing something that's in Caro's book, you've got to immediately file it away for use at a later time during that session. Tells can be a valuable tool in your poker playing arsenal if you know how to manipulate them to your advantage.

Some tells are more difficult to artificially reproduce. That's where the shaking comes in.

Early on, my main focus was on trying to control the tremors as much as possible. That proved to be a futile exercise, and in retrospect, not at all what I should have been trying to do.

Shaking is a distinctive physical tell that a LOT of poker players watch for, and I eventually realized that I could use it to my advantage, particularly with opponents who I play with frequently. Instead of trying to prevent the tremors, I would instead induce them - generating the same type of shaking on hands that I need to convey strength on when I was weak.

For those of you who have tried forcing yourself to shake, it's not easy. Like anything, I've gotten better at it with time, but shaking continues to be the far most difficult tell that I have to mask.

I am sure that many of you have similar challenging tells you've had to battle with during the course of playing. It's worth your time to study how you play the game. It'll earn you more money.

The Funniest Thing Overhead at the Tables

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 00:00:00 PDT

A young guy at our table was quite the comedian last night. He made a joke that was only enhanced by the fact that this was a 20-something year old kid feigning outrage and talking about Vegas like he was a grizzled life long veteran of the place.

He was talking about how bad the drink service was at the tables, since he couldn't get one to save his life. He exclaimed in a gregarious and mocking tone that he was, "Outraged! Vegas used to be about service. It was the one thing that you could count on. What happened? You know who still takes care of their customers?" He goes on in an animated and emphatic fashion, "The Imperial Palace! You know why? 'Cause they don't have any."

The Nuclear Option

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 06:30:00 PDT

As I had uncharacteristically Tweeted from the poker table tonight, the game that I was in went nuclear. It was a pretty good game all night and at times it was spectacular. I did battle with a kindly older gent with a cowboy hat, whom I can only describe as a calling station. We played a couple of big pots together, of which I won both and on one of them I felt that I could have made a better play had I fast-played my hand from the flop on. I wound up doubling through the Cowboy anyway, but against a better player, my play would be a tactical mistake that could have cost me. Here is what went down:

I have AA in early position and raise it to $15. The Cowboy, who is already in my sights as a target, re-raised in position to $40. I decide that since the pot will be heads up, I can just smooth call here and disguise the strength of my hand. I like this play.

The flop comes 6-6-5. I check. He bets $35 and I raise it to $80. This is the play that I don't like. I put him on JJ or QQ. He calls and the turn is a 4, at which point I shove for $210 more and he calls. The river is a 3 and he tables QQ. Most players when gathering in a large all-in pot feel good and self-satisfied. I felt good, but after thinking about the hand for a few seconds, I didn't like the line that I took.

This hand worked out because the Cowboy wasn't a good enough player to analyze the hand correctly or disciplined enough to lay down a big but losing over-pair. What I did sub-optimally was to give him a chance to do so on the flop. I essentially announced that I had a big hand by check-raising. I should have just lead out on the flop. I think if I do so with a small bet, he won't be able to put me on Aces ever, (because I also didn't push pre-flop) and he will never lay his hand down. (Granted this player may never lay his hand down in this spot no matter what I do, but what about a slightly better player?)

A cardinal rule when playing with a calling station is that when you know that you have way the best of it, bet, bet, bet. They are, by definition, calling stations and they will help you build the pot. I think that a better line against this type of player, when your are out of position and you know what he has, is to bet out on the flop, call any raises or any bets on the flop, make a small bet or check call the turn and then jam the river.

The Cowboy would eventually spew the entirety of his $1,000 stack (at its peak), busting out when calling a big over bet all-in with A high on the flop. Being the gentleman that he was, he stood up and with a kind of inner-peace about him and big grin on his face said, "Awe, it's OK. I'm rich." Now that's what I call a dream opponent.

Somewhere after my winning a few big pots and the Cowboy busting out, a new player came to the table and that's when the game went nuclear. He came to the table with a yellow chip (1k). He cashed it in for reds and bought in for $100, going all-in pre-flop every hand during his first orbit. He would lose that and rebuy $300 and lose that and rebuy $500. He'd lose that and then he went and got 4 white chips (5k each) and assorted green and black for a total of about 25k. We were playing 1-3 and the max buy-in was $500. I think his chip retrieval amount was overkill. He re-bought for $500, doubled it and then busted again. All the while he was talking about how how bad the players at the table were and he got into a war of words of sorts with his neighbor.

After a while I realized that this action player, whom I had never seen before, was a frequent player in the big games and for whatever reason (prop bet perhaps?) was splashing around in this relatively tiny game. I also realized that his war of words was designed to tilt the other player and that he was going along with the guy saying ridiculously inappropriate and vile things. Things that if said to people more prone to emotional responses would elicit a swift punch to the throat or a security escort out of the casino.

So although the action guy was playing fast and talking fast, his intention was to bust everyone at the table and to spend as much money as it took to do so. He wasn't your average drunken fool that just came to sit down and play. I made him for an Eastern European internet tourney player that had made a big score and was now splashing around in Vegas. I knew that he made me for a player and was eyeing my big stack and working on building a table image. I knew he wouldn't just stack off to me without a fight once he built up about $1,000 or so in chips again.

I decided that I could certainly out-play him, but that many of the pots could be decided by a fair amount of luck and that he could easily break me with a lucky hand in the short term. A player who was talking to him and came from a 25-50 game also sat down to play next to him and they were sharing a little bit too much information post-mortem than I liked. For example, after action guy bet an opponent out of the pot on the river, he showed his hole cards to his buddy only and I had to ask the dealer to turn over what he showed. This always bugs me, because friends already have a line on each others' play and friends who are trying to give information to each other and no one else, while not direct collusion, is always something to watch out for at the table. It's one thing if two short stack donks from Ohio are doing it, but two local (probably professional) high stakes players? I don't think so. Show one person show us all.

Since I had about 30% of my bankroll on the table, my primary target (the Cowboy) had busted out and now I had to deal with the added element of a second high stakes player in the game, I decided that the value proposition had gone from +EV to -EV in a hurry. I decided to book the win and head home.

Some of My Favorite Tweets from the WSOP - Vol. 2

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:00:00 PDT

It's about that time. Time for Vol. 2 of the series that everyone is aTwitter about, Some of My Favorite Tweets from the WSOP:

@taopauly  Stud humor... RT @ChrisKPHall: Me to @BenjoDiMeo. "Only 66 players for the $10k Stud?" Benjo: "Yes, they all died last year..."

@taopauly  loldonkaments... RT @change100: Overheard in the Amazon Room "What the fuck am I doing here? I can't play poker."

@taopauly  jay harassed by the cops for drinking a redbull. "is there cocaine in that?" said the cop. i didnt want to tell him what was in my pocket

@TexDolly  ANYONE EVER TRIED DRIED FRUIT?...AWESOME

@TexDolly  i'm practicing for my upcoming colonostomy...Doc, you all in? you got the nuts?

Who knew Erik Seidel's Twitter was a comedic goldmine?
@Erik_Seidel  Just heard a great prop bet. Huck bet Bobby Bellande in a 2 mile race but Huck has to run backwards in heels.

@Erik_Seidel  There should be a provision in the Geneva convention that addresses the first couple of levels of Omaha 8 events. Gotta be worse then Gitmo

@Erik_Seidel  I bet over 8 on the number of swine flu deaths at the Rio this year so far I'm losing but I'm hoping to rally later this month

@Erik_Seidel  The Lakers recent run has caused Kobe's ego to get out of control.. I hear he's taken to calling himself the Phil Ivey of basketball

@Erik_Seidel  Had a nice chat with Chef Jose from the poker kitchen. He has a new book coming out called Eat Like An Inmate, 4 Simple Recipes

This one has nothing to do with poker, but I like MMA, I like comedy and I like Joe Rogan. This Tweet gets an honorary mention.
@joerogandotnet  One time I wore a fanny pack and drank a zima at the same time. I don't give a FUCK.

Running Like Dog Shit = A New Site Design

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:38:00 PDT

I've been running like dog shit during the series so far and that will have to change soon. In my best session to date, I grinded out a meager $250 profit while correctly laying down 3 flopped sets on the turn or river, trips and pocket kings pre-flop.

Rather than whine about it and rehash the bad beat stories that nobody wants to hear, I have been taking a respite from the variance of the maniacal WSOP cash games. (Make no mistake about it, there is no recession going on in Vegas during the WSOP).

During my little break I decided to therapeutically delve into the creation of a new design for the site. Since I was tired of looking at my old design and I kinda like this one (it still has that new baby smell), I might be motivated to post a bit more frequently. Hopefully, I'll be able to spin some tales about dragging monster pots while skillfully out-playing my opponents.

Oh and KJ McG just arrived. Hopefully she can do some damage and I can sweat her at some final tables. She's playing the $1500 event tomorrow, the Main Event and perhaps one or two in between.

Some of My Favorite Tweets from the WSOP - Vol. 1

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:12:00 PDT

I must say that I really can't stand Twittering. I've tried to Tweet while at the table. I've tried to Tweet while on vacation. It's just a no go for me. When playing poker, Twatting is much like talking: While doing either of them you can't be observing, which is a big key to success. And when I am off doing other cool stuff, well I'd just rather be enjoying the moment than texting about it into my phone.

Having said that, there are a few Tweeters that I do enjoy following. Here is an little homage to their sacrifice during the WSOP for our enjoyment. As for me, I'll Tweet here and there when I'm home, bored and on my lappy.

No Money, Mo' Jerky:
@taopauly Sign of economic times... a dealer asked me to buy a piece of him in Venetian tourney. I said no & gave him a bag of beef jerky instead

Notice how the word brothel is mostly broth? (Damn it, that should have been a Tweet! I think I just Twitblocked myself.):
@taopauly bathrooms outside by poker kitchen smell like tijuana brothel

By Mennen obviously:
@wickedchops Dear Poker Players in the Amazon Room at the #wsop. It's called Speed Stick. It's not expensive.

Snarktacular:
@wickedchops That was quick. Jamie Gold 1st player out of #WSOP Champions Invitational. Crowd applauded his efforts and by efforts we mean exit.

Danny Boy:
@RealKidPoker Sitting next to the funniest Filipino lady ever. She just asked me 'why is Matusow always broke?' '

Positive affirmations by WSOP CEO Jeffrey Pollack for Phil Hellmuth:
@wickedchops RT @JeffreyPollack: @phil_hellmuth Glad to c u r venting thru Twitter as opposed to at ur fellow players @ the table. Very healthy step 4 u!

I couldn't agree more:
@TexDolly got knocked out....never drug one chip...i beat 128 players, spent a 16 hour day playing. lost 40K..that's why i hate tournaments!!

Twittering on the edge:
@barrygreenstein My girlfriend Alex is naming people who tweet better than I do. It would embarrassing if she left me for a better tweeter.

Doyle still has his salt:
@TexDolly Jenny Woo is one crazy bitch...lol

You Go To War With The Bankroll That You Have

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Sat, 30 May 2009 06:37:00 PDT

After an exhausting, painful and balls-out fun mini-vacation to play hockey in the Arizona Hockey Classic last weekend with my LA team and this subsequent weeks' convalescence, I took my sun-poisoned skin-shedding ass out to play some poker. Last night was my official kick-off for the 2009 WSOP. Instead of wasting my time in tournies, I hit the cash games. (Generating side game action, by the way, was the initial intent behind starting the WSOP back in 1970. And I'm old school.) I bounced around three poker rooms before settling in on a 2-4 NL game at one of my old haunts.

A combination of tax time, dental expenses and uncooperative cards of the last couple of months has left me way under-rolled for this years' festivities. I am very unhappy about this fact and to be perfectly honest, I shouldn't have even considered playing above 1-2. Alas the game at hand was too juicy to pass up. So although I didn't have the bankroll that I wanted, I sat and made $400 before I had to post my first blind. I then ended up winning another large pot for a nice final tally. Here is how the latter hand went down:

I pick up KK and raise it up in early position to $20 and I get both players to my immediate left as my only two customers. They both looked Middle Eastern to me, so I'll tag them as ME1 (directly on my left) & ME2 (who has racked up his chips and is about to leave). Both ME's are relatively tight players.

The flop comes K57. I lead out and make a fishing bet of $30. Both ME's call. The turn is the 4. I bet out $80. ME1 folds and ME2 min-raises me to $160. He has about $600 behind in his racks. At this point I go into a careful analysis of what his hand should be. The nuts would be 6-8 (3-6 also makes a straight) and I think that he is too tight to have called a raise pre-flop with that hand. Also, he looks super-strong on the turn with a min-raise into that sized pot. The combination of his flop call and turn min-raise eliminates AQ and the already highly improbable A-K in my mind. Deductive logic puts him on pocket 5's or 7's for a set and I feel that if I continue to fast play my hand, he won't be able to get away from it.

So I re-raise an additional $225. He calls fairly quickly. The river is the 10, which means I still have the 3rd nuts and I decide that if my read is correct, I must get max-value out of this hand on the river. So I shove all in for his last $375 and he calls pretty quickly again. He turns over a set alright, a set of 4's! He got to go bust on his last hand of the session finding out that what he thought was his miracle card on the turn was really my miracle card. What was he doing floating the flop on a board like that anyway?

Now I will try and get a nice long sleep before watching game 1 of the Stanley Cup Finals and then going back to war with a bankroll that is a little closer to the one that I want than it was a day ago.

The Silliest Seat Change

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Mon, 18 May 2009 09:47:00 PDT

I was sitting and waiting for my seat to open up last night and whilst I waited I bore witness to the silliest of poker room rituals; the double racked, cross table, chair swapped seat change with the rather unusual accompanying reversal - less than a hand after the initial move. Let me explain:

The gentleman in seat 3 requested a seat change and when seat 8 opened up, he threw a chip over to lock it up for himself. He had a bit of a chip management issue, as he was sitting with 2k in assorted red, blue and green. Instead of calling in the movers he takes his time fumbling his chips with his sausage fingers while racking 'em up. Then he moves his empty food service table that had been at his side from 3 to 8. On his way back, he stops to smell the roses, by chatting up the women who is working the front desk, which happens to be adjacent to his table.

The next item of business on our itinerant friends' agenda is to swap out chairs, because his is lucky or something? He sets sail on his circuitous route again making a bit of a mess of the foot traffic along the way from 3 to 8. Finally, he transports his chips to their brand new home in seat 8. As he sits down a new player is ready to take his old seat and within 10 seconds our friend decides that he wants his old seat back and another installment of this riveting drama begins as our man re-starts his chip dance back to seat 3.

I heard him say, "That sometimes poker is about musical chairs". No, Sir. No, it is never about that and all you are doing is slowing the game down. Although while as an observer, I was mildly amused by his antics, I couldn't help but feel my IQ drop a few points for it.

The End of the Bad Beat Jackpot Drop In California? Let's Hope So!

noreply@blogger.com (LA Tony) — Fri, 08 May 2009 15:23:00 PDT

(LA Tony is a part-time player based in Los Angeles, California and a special guest blogger for RBP).

Before I get into why California card room's bad beat jackpots are actually not a winning proposition at all, let's talk recession, shall we?

Times are tough. People don't have as much discretionary income as they used to, so they aren't gambling as much, or as often as they used to. All those stories you read about gambling revenues being down significantly at casinos also apply to poker players. We're all feeling the same effects. The pro-to-donk ratio is increasing. Money is not only harder to win than it used to be at a given table, there's less of it to win.

When the spotlight is on making money during a recession, poker players want to maximize their hourly rate as much as possible. That means keeping expenses to a minimum and maximizing profit potential during every hand you play.

Easy enough right? Not quite. Particularly in California card rooms.

The first challenge comes in the form of how California card rooms make their money in most of their live poker cash games - "the drop" is what it's referred to, and usually there's a saucy adjective or two thrown in between those two words when it's mentioned at a poker table. Rather than take a "rake" from the pot like card rooms in Vegas do, California card rooms take a "drop".

A "rake" is a percentage of the pot that is dependent on the size of the pot. As the size of the pot increases, the rake increases up to a capped amount - usually $4 in most mid-limit poker games. This is preferable since the house isn't collecting an abnormally high percentage of smaller pots.

A "drop" is a flat fee. Instead of taking a percentage of the pot, they take the ENTIRE fee as soon as the flop is shown. Sound dreadful? It is. Imagine a $100NL 2-3 blind game with a starting pot of $8 and a $4 "drop". On the flop, the casino will immediately take the $4 "drop" from the pot - leaving $4 for the players to win. That translates to a net profit of $1 assuming a $3 limp-in. Spending $3 to win $1 doesn't sound terribly appealing does it?

But wait, there's more!

There's a second drop that's collected on every flop as well. An additional $1 per hand "bad beat jackpot" drop. My "spend $3 to win $1" scenario is incorrect. It should read "spend $3 to win nothing".

The $1 bad beat jackpot drop makes everyone playing in the hand eligible to win the bad beat jackpot. Typically the jackpot is divvied up 50-25-25. 50% of the jackpot goes to the person with the 2nd best hand - the "bad beat" hand, 25% goes to the winning hand and the remaining 25% is split among everyone else who was dealt in at the table.

I'm sure some of you are thinking that this extra $1 drop really isn't a big deal because it all eventually comes back to the players right?

Wrong.

First off, these jackpots are extremely difficult to win. It takes a huge hand (usually aces full of 10's or better) beaten by 4 of a kind or better, and BOTH hole cards must play. For example, if you are holding AT and your opponent is holding KK on a JAAAQ board, the jackpot is NOT awarded because although your opponent has aces full of kings and you have quad aces, your T kicker does not play because of the Q on the board.

Think about all the times playing in live cash games where you've had aces full of tens or better (with both hole cards playing), now subtract the hands where your opponent did NOT have quads or better to beat you (with both hole cards playing). How many hands are left? Zero? 1? MAYBE 2 if you're really lucky?

Now think about every other hand you've played live. Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Imagine you kept $1 from each of those hands instead of giving it to the house to win a bad beat jackpot. Why would anyone willingly give $1 to the house for the chance to win it back later vs. just keeping the dollar?

Sound unappealing? It gets better! What if I told you that the house is actually keeping 15-25 cents of every dollar that you're hoping to one day win back as an "administrative fee"?

If you're completely incensed by this point - you're not alone.

Now for some good news. A couple of LA area poker players are suing 5 Southern California card rooms - contenting that the bad beat jackpots the card rooms offer are illegal and demanding an immediate injunction to stop collections for bad beat jackpots in casinos immediately, which would stop the collection of the $1 bad beat jackpot fee.

This story is gaining steam in the media, helped along by an in-depth write up in Los Angeles Times this week.

The two plaintiffs, Dennis Chae and Jeff Kim, state in their lawsuit that the jackpots are illegal because a "purchase" is necessary to win. You have no choice but to pay the dollar and under California law (and the laws of many other states), that is illegal. There has to be a "no purchase necessary" option to win or it can't be offered.

The plantiffs have requested class action status for the suit, which would enable all of us who have been forced to pay this fee an opportunity to get at least some portion of our money back.

It sounds like an open and shut case right? Not so fast. Believe it or not, the casinos say that they have always offered a no purchase necessary option to any player who requests it. Haig Kelegian, managing general partner of the Bicycle Casino in Bell Gardens stated, "if players at my casino ask, and very few do, they can play at tables that don't collect the $1 fees"

That is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever heard come out of a casino manager's mouth.

"They're just doing this to try to figure out a way to sue somebody," Kelegian said. "We have always had no purchase necessary."

You have? Really? If that were the case, don't you think everyone, players and dealers included, would know about this option and request it on a 24x7 basis? Why would anyone pay $1 per hand to be eligible for a jackpot that I could win for free just by sitting at a different table?

All of us should strongly advocate for the elimination of the $1 bad beat jackpot fee. If they want to eliminate bad beat jackpots altogether, so be it. I'll still wind up ahead in the long run - and so will you.

Canadian Invasion

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Mon, 04 May 2009 17:29:00 PDT

As per my recent Tweet, I played poker last night with a trio of Canadians. Our table became rather loose and fun with a really good energy as we played into the wee hours. We had a guy from Toronto, a young fella from Vancouver and an older gent from New Brunswick.

Readers of this blog already know all about my affinity for our northern neighbors and their hockey playing culture. I used the opportunity to discuss all things hockey with my table mates, defaming Mike Milbury after every hand for ruining the Isles and chiming on this years' phenomenal playoff match-ups. Then I asked my Toronto born counterpart the all important question, "What do you think of the Quebecois?" (I should disclose that I've been to Montreal on a few occasions and I do have a few friends up there that are top notch folks.)

The Torontonian replied, "Oh, we don't get involved in politics, eh." I pressed saying, "I just meant in general." My new friend remained tight-lipped. Than later, as we were cataloging the nationalities of the others at the table, including a Brit, a Filipino, a Syrian and an Israeli, the Torontonian would quip, "At least there are no Frogs." This sudden change of heart gave me the opening I was looking for to tell one of my favorite jokes of all time:

A guy from Montreal and a guy from Toronto are in a heated political debate at which point a Genie appears and tells them that they will each get one wish. The Genie tells the guy from Montreal to go ahead with his wish first. The Montrealer says, "Quebec should be its own country and should not have its culture spoiled by all of the other Canadians. I wish you would build a solid concrete wall all around the province of Quebec. And to make sure we keep everyone else out, let's build it 100 ft. high."

The Genie says, "OK, done. You now have your wall." The Genie then asks the Torontonian for his one wish. The Torontonian says, "Fill it with water."

The Cascading Effects of Good & Bad Play

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:32:00 PDT

Poker hands happen. Sometimes they happen and you don't quite realize exactly how the hand you just played will influence a later one until it happens. I played a series of hands in a recent session that set me up to stack one of my opponents in a large pot. Here's how it went down:

I was playing 1-3 NL and had bought in for $300. (The max buy-in is $500). In the first pot of consequence, I would raise on the button to $15 with K-Q off-suit. I would be called by one player and the flop would come 5-6-8. I would continuation bet $30 and get called. the turn brought a welcome Q. I would bet $65 and the river delivered a 9. My opponent would lead out for $200. Given that this was an old man, I felt he'd be too tight to be bluffing there and I folded, putting him on A-7 or 7-7. I tell him as much and say, "Nice catch Sir, I only had Kings." I am fishing for confirmation of my read here. He gives me none.

In the next meaningful hand I had J4 in the BB with a straddle in place. I called the straddle and we saw a multi-way flop with maybe 6 players. The flop came J102. I lead out and got called by the straddler. The turn is the Q. I still like my pair and flush draw and continue my aggressive line by firing again and again I am called. The river is is the K. Now even if I could beat a hand before, I can beat nothing at this point. I check and my opponent makes a rather milky bet, which I fold to.

Two things have happened by now. I am stuck about $200 and I have established an image that I am aggressive and will fire into pots, but that I can also fold big hands or give up on pots that I've put chips into. I decided to reload max, because the game is good and there are a couple of loose spots with a lot of chips.

The next hand of interest is played out against a player we'll call the Pirate, due to his bald head, long straight beard and I think he even had an earring. (If not he will have one for this story). I picked up J8 on the button and raise it to $15. I get called, only by the Pirate, who had limped in early position. He checks dark. (Which by the way I think is almost always a terrible play pre-flop). The flop comes a pretty ragged 10x-6-2x. I like to vary my c-betting frequency and this is a pretty good flop for me to give a free card and try to improve my hand before making any play, especially given the table image that I have cultivated. The turn brings the 7. I have just improved to a flush draw. My opponent bets out in a rather jerky manner $35. I decide that he can't have much of a hand here, so I raise it to $85. He quickly calls. The river is the A. I like it, but a low club would have been best. He checks and I bet $125. He mucks and I can tell that he is not happy about the hand.

In the next orbit, I picked up pocket 10's in early position and raised it to $15. I was called in 4 spots, Pirate included. The flop comes 1052. A player that was in the blinds and is rocking a short stack of a little over $100, bets $45 into a $75 pot. I think now about how to best proceed with the nuts. I want to get more value out of this hand than just the bettors' short stack. I want to build the pot. There is an loose guy yet to act behind me and I want him to come along, but I don't want to flat the $45, have the loose guy call and give better odds to the Pirate behind him to call with a draw. I decide that my optimal play here in this nicely bloated pot is a min-raise. Two players fold and the Pirate shoves all-in, ARRRRGGGHHH! Now I am hoping that the Pirate has a lower set. The shorty folds after babbling about how sure he is that he has me beat, but not the Pirate. It's $325 total to me and naturally I call. He tables K8 which is the worst case for me, but the board pairs deuces on the turn, killing his flush draw.

Upon seeing my hand the Pirate says, "You had the set of 10's again." He was referring to his earlier hand against me where I had outplayed him. This indicated to me that it had bothered him and perhaps forced him to overplay his flush draw here.

I found this series of hands interesting in that the Pirate seemed to be making an uncharacteristically desperate play, yet I think he understood the concept of fold equity and was trying to get me off of my hand. He simply mis-read the strength of my hand, but given that I had seemingly been able to fold big hands to big bets, his play might have worked against me. Plus he still had a punchers chance to hit his flush. And that's a gamble that I will take every time.

I felt that I played all of the hands requiring decisions well and that the Pirate, by making a silly dark check in his first pot against me, put himself in a position to be outplayed. My feeling on that play is that you are already out of position in the hand, so why remove one of your options on the flop by checking in the dark? When out of position I usually like to have every tool at my disposal. The Pirates' bad plays cascaded into worse ones and I was able to capitalize.

Nixing the Spreadsheet

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:30:00 PDT

When I first started playing poker for a living I kept very detailed records. I'd keep a line item in a spreadsheet for every session that I played. I built in calculations for all manner of interesting stats; Average win rate per hour, average win rate per day, average win/loss, etc. The analytical part of my brain would obsess over these numbers. After all, I am playing for the rent money, the food money and the everything else money. So I needed concrete stats over a long period of time to inform my own income projections.

A negative consequence of The Spreadsheet for me though, was the creation of artificial ceilings. Too often I would protect a win that was well over the average for that game, because I'd feel uncomfortable with risking the profits. It's always OK to quit when you are uncomfortable, but you should also examine why that is and if it's a limiting emotional response, you should rectify it. It is in that spirit that I began to question the need and/or the effect of The Spreadsheet.

I determined that after 2000 hours of record keeping, I knew that I could earn a base living playing poker and that all of the stats I had in my head were useless. When you have mastered the money management aspect of poker and the emotional issues that arise from playing for a living, the only thing left is to play each hand optimally. That's it. In the games that I play in, I nearly always have an edge over the entire table. In order to push that edge I need to be playing as many hours at my peak performance as possible.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if I've just lost a handful of monster pots to bad beats and if that was all my profit for the week. The hand that I had last won or lost is over and done with. The next hand is out of reach. The only hand that matters in the one right now. The only thing that matters about this hand is playing it as well as I can, regardless of the results prior or the expected results later.

As the evolution of my game has progressed, it is in that head space that I now exit. The money and results matter less now than ever. Outplaying my opponents in this hand is all that matters. If I have done that, I don't care how much I've won or lost. And the only things that I am focusing on now are keeping myself in shape to play as many hours of my A game as possible, improving my A game, selecting good games and playing each hand as well as possible.

All of the poker hands that I play are part of one long lifetime session. So it doesn't matter when the variance comes. I am never stuck and never ahead during a session anymore. I don't even think about the long term results. The question of, whether or not I can make a living, has been answered. And I have never felt freer.

No Complaints and No Grievances

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:53:00 PDT

I played a short session last night as I am trying to adjust my hours. The room wasn't in what I'd call a high energy state. There were plenty of games going, but almost all were declining by the time I got there. There also didn't seem to be a lot of money in play, so all things being equal, I just took a random seat.

In just a couple of hours that seat would produce the exact same hand 3 times: QQ. I would win all three and would think to myself about all of the times when I or more likely others might complain about getting the same (bad) cards over and over during a given session. It just goes to illustrate the point that the luck factor always balances out and you just have to ride out the bad, accept the good and stop complaining and grieving when things don't go your way.

I would also make quad deuces with 62 from the BB for a small pot. Of course I know the stipulation for any high hand bonus is that both hole cards have to play, so I know my hand doesn't qualify. Others weren't quite so with it. Also seated at my table was a quiet and respectable Indian kid. We'll call him Kumar. (That's not racist is it?) Although very well composed in general, it was obvious that Kumar was new to poker. He wound up making a royal flush on the river using only the Ad in the hole and everyone groaned that it was too bad that he didn't qualify for the diamond royal, which was also coincidentally the hand of the day for an additional $200 on top of whatever the current bonus level was. Kumar raked in his pot with the nuts like a doe-eyed deer in headlights staring at the dealer incredulously as she denied him his extra money.

Kumar, being far too well mannered to say anything while seated with us, would get up and talk to the Floorman a few minutes later. The Floorman would confide in me (during our hourly debriefing/BS session) that Kumar queried about why his royal didn't qualify for the bonus and after receiving the standard and correct, "Both hole cards have to play, Sir." He'd reply, "So, I don't get the bonus? Even this late at night?" After demonstrating his lack of understanding of basic casino/gambling/poker/math principles, Kumar would then put himself through a sort of self-imposed torture.

Enter a rather tall and rotund, track-suited 50-ish fella straight outta central casting for the Sopranos, whom I would later find out was from my old stomping grounds in Long Island, NY. We'll call him Joey Buttafuoco. Joey came to the table from a broken game and he was chipped up. I wondered how he had done so well on such a dry night. Had he hit a high hand bonus himself? Was he just a card rack? Could he really play? I would get my answer later, partially in the following hand that he played with Kumar:

After a couple of limpers entered the pot, including Kumar in position, Joey made it $12 to go from the SB. I don't recall the exact action (there was some betting and the two had built a pot), but on a board of 10-9-5-8-J, Joey would check and Kumar would bet $50. Kumar had about $200 left and had his hand on a $100 stack, looking very strong. Joey says, "I raise." Kumar, perhaps thinking incorrectly that he's being preemptive says, "I call." Kumar's reticence was revealed instantaneously as he then said sheepishly, "How much do you raise?" Now the rule here is that although Joey hadn't declared an amount, the verbal actions of both are binding. So Joey has to at least put in $100 and Kumar has to call. But Joey still has the option to bet as much as he wants and now he wants to go all-in.

Kumar now looks to the dealer for shelter from the storm, as he doesn't want to put $200 more into the pot. (He had actually racked up his $400 earlier in the orbit and had been planning on leaving with those chips.) The Floor comes over and rules correctly that his verbal actions are binding, even out of turn and he is forced to put his money in. Joey rolls over the nuts, KQ. Somehow he had gotten all the way to the river for a pure gut-shot and stacked our inexperienced friend, who tabled 77 for the dummy end of the straight.

Kumar would be left to walk away from the table chip-less and wondering how he could have lost his stack in just a couple of hands. Perhaps he was tilted from not getting the high hand money. Perhaps he was unsure of how to play against a big stack. Perhaps guys from Long Island induce him to go insane. (I know they do that to me sometimes). Whatever the reason, he fortunately seemed smart enough, at least to me, to let experience be his teacher.

How to Out Quit Your Opponents

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:00:00 PDT

I realized that I've mentioned the section in Tommy Angelo's Elements of Poker on out quitting your opponents many times in this humble outlet for words, but I haven't written a post directly on it. I had been thinking of writing a detailed analysis of the thought process that goes into my decision making when considering when to quit a game, but really Angelo says it best.

1. "... I realized that every session of cash-game poker I ever play will end on a quit, so I really should continue forever to work on getting better at quitting..."

2. "In order to quit well, you must be in control of yourself at the end of the session. To achieve your highest possible score, you must be at your A-performance and your A-mindset all the way to the end, especially to the very end, of every session, not only so that you will make your best betting decisions, but also so that you will make your best quitting decisions."

3. "When you are winning and you reach a point in the session when the happiness you will gain by winning more money will be much less than the pain you will endure if you lose, quit. Away from the table you can examine how and why this imbalance occurs. Meanwhile, learn to trust the quitting voice, and to react without question."

These three ideas are so succinctly stated that I don't really have much to add. Except to say that I think that these ideas are applicable to 99% of poker players. There are an elite few, I'm thinking of the Greensteins, Iveys and Brunsons of the poker world who came up playing marathon sessions until the games broke. In Ace on the River Greenstein says, that he "played until the end of every session." For him that meant playing everyday for a set amount of time regardless of how much he was winning or losing at any point. If he could find bigger games, he could play his A game for days on end if need be.

For most of us, especially when playing under-rolled or deep into a game, Angelo's writings are wise words to live by. We can also use them as a jumping off point to achieve a higher and more consistent level of success as we figure out ways to increase the regularity and duration of our sessions. We should always be striving to reach the example that the elite level players have set for us.

My Own March Madness

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 05:42:00 PDT

I think that one of the most important weapons in any poker players' arsenal is sleep. I feel like I am playing my best game when I am well rested and that is no coincidence. Tommy Angelo writes about how to out quit your opponents, which is true and since it is, you can also say that you can out start your opponents. You can do this by putting yourself in the right situation to win. That means arriving to the game well rested, well nourished, selecting a good game, etc.

I haven't played much live poker this week, mainly because I feel like shit from falling back into an unhealthy sleep cycle. Instead, I did some catching up on poker reading and played in some big field MTT's on Stars. But I would rather (and should) be playing live cash games, as that is where my biggest edge lies. Couple that with the fact that this week and the two surrounding it are pretty big in Vegas due to all of the sports bettors in town for March Madness and it's driving me into My Own March Madness that I haven't been able to get healthier.

My physiology is a funny thing as it reacts to my tendency to binge on everything: Booze, women, exercise, food, laziness, you name it. I have been pretty good at keeping poker in balance, because it is my job and I treat it as such. It's not just another indulgence, rather it fuels my real indulgences when I choose to say hello to them again. Therefore, I almost never play poker during or after I've "over-indulged" in something else.

It seems that like most people I have been struggling my entire life to find balance and more specifically the sleep that goes with it. My ability to sleep is such a fragile thing and a good night of poker followed by a steak dinner and too many pints of Guinness and shots of whatever, will throw me off for days, if not weeks.

Perhaps my hard partying days should be suspended. After all, having the freedom of a poker player means that there are no demands on you from the outside world and you can do what you like when you like. But that freedom does come with a price. That price is the discipline to maintain it by not over indulging. It seems that my main concern these days should be, how I can maintain the right sleep patterns, because that is the number one enemy in my quest to move up the poker ranks.

One thing I can always control is how much or how little I exercise. I always feel better when I exercise more, but at the moment, I am indulging in laziness and I haven't done anything physically challenging lately. That will change in about 5 minutes. After that, I will get my shit together and head out to play a rare (for me) AM live session. Today, should be the perfect day to do this, with all of the out of town action either getting up early or not sleeping at all at the tables.

I'll play until I'm tired and come home for a nap, and hopefully I'll be able to head back out for a night session as well. A long day like that might help get me back to a good 4am-11am sleep cycle. No drinking, no junk food, no women (well, at least until Mon.) and maybe I can get back into the routines that have made me successful so far and jump over this obstacle that I have unfortunately created for myself.

Clicking Around on PokerRoad.com

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:00:00 PDT

Yesterday I spent some time on PokerRoad.com and listened to a bunch of episodes in their Tuesdays With Ivey series. The premise of this series is that Barry Greenstein calls his good friend Phil Ivey once a week and records a 15 minute or so call. And by far my favorite call of the series is titled, Phil Drops His Horses.

It's pretty hilarious when Phil relates that when Nenad Medic had won a near million dollar first place prize in a major tournament, he didn't know that he had staked Medic. Phil had been getting calls and texts about Nenad making the final table and had no clue who he was, thinking that he was some live game fish that was about to win big and then populate the cash games. Ivey in fact, only knew that he had been staking a Serb, but wasn't aware of his real name.

A 10K buy-in to a major tourney - 10k. A cut of first place prize money - 450k. Not knowing that your guy won - Priceless.

Another interesting item was Phil "OMGClayAiken" Galfond's segment on PokerRoad's Cash Plays series. In it he discusses various topics relating to both online and live cash game strategy in both NLHE and PLO, including the concept of "player intensity" and just what he thinks of playing Phil Ivey. (Jump to about 16:00 and 17:45 respectively).

The Dark Shove

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:50:00 PDT

As I had previously Twittered?, Tweeted?, Twatted? (whatever terminology you prefer), I played a rather large pot in a 1/2 NL game with a fairly recognizable player who has appeared on NBC's Poker After Dark. It was non other than Cory Zeidman. I had been sitting in my game last night for a few hours before he arrived and I was the big stack at the table with about $800 in chips.

I had never played with Cory before, but I knew a few things about him. For starters, I had seen him in the room a couple of weeks ago and he seemed like he was simply having fun and playing in loose/maniacal manner, without regard for a couple of buy-ins in his piddly 1/2 NL game. I also knew that just a day or so ago he had chopped up the Wynn Classic for a nice score. Lastly, he likes to be the table captain, which was very evident in his most recent TV appearance on PAD. In short, despite the fact that he was an established and successful pro, I knew he'd be good for the game and I would be out to stack him.

In keeping with his proclivity to impose his presence on the table, he looked at me upon sitting and said, "Now there's a man with a stack." Another new player assumed the seat directly to my left and he seemed intent to out aggress Cory, despite only buying in for $100. Good luck, Sir. Cory meanwhile had more than doubled up during his first orbit by winning his first half dozen hands, playing them mostly blind.

And then the following hand goes down. The new player on my left, we'll call him Maniac Jr., is UTG and open raises to $25 blind pre-flop. Cory re-raises to $75 blind and it's clear to me that he just wants to flip coins for Maniac Jr's $100, while eliminating the rest of the field. I am in the BB as it folds around to me and I look down at A-Q off. As you might have read in the I'm Moving to the Yukon post, this is the kind of hand that I have taken up against many a drunken Yuk with great success, but this is different. I know Cory is not drunk, not tilted and capable of playing optimally at any point in the hand. I also feel that there is not a whole lot of dead money between us and I know that if I am patient, a better spot will present itself. While this is going through my head, I pull out my earbuds to clarify the raise and Cory says, "Uh oh, the headphones came out! Come on, you only have $2 in the pot, you know what you are supposed to do." I agreed and folded. He won the pot with 10-6 vs. his opponents A-8.

The very next hand, in the small blind I peep A-Q again, but suited this time. Cory makes an uncharacteristic limp, when a player in late position makes it $10. The button calls $10, I call $10, Maniac Jr. on my left who just lost his short stack to Cory, now in the BB, makes it $50 to go. Cory smooth calls. The initial raiser calls, the button calls and I call. The flop is AQx two hearts. I am first to act and decide to set a trap, because I know that Maniac Jr. is going to juice the pot for me and Cory's big stack might very well come along for the ride.

Maniac Jr. bets $40 into a $250 pot. Perfect! Cory flat calls, the initial pre-flop raiser flat calls and the button flat calls. Now it's on me and I'm ready to drop the hammer in this bloated pot and see what shakes loose. I begin to cut out the $40 from my stack, with the intent to raise. In doing so, I incorrectly make two stacks of $25 at first and as I correct this, Cory says, "It's only $40" in what is perhaps an observant jab at my momentary and inconsequential mis-management of a handful of chips. I pick my head up and say in a measured tone in tempo, "No it's not." He says seemingly slightly surprised, "Oh, you're raising?" "Yes. It's going to be $340", I say.

At this point there is a crowd of players, friends of players, up dealers and floor staff all standing around the table and watching the hand. (Hell, even Ferve was behind me). Maniac Jr. puts in the rest of his dead $100 and Cory flat calls the $300 with relative ease. All of the other players fold and now I have exactly what I want. The dealer points out that there will be a side pot. When she finishes and before she can deal the turn I say, "Sylvia, I am all-in blind." She confirms and Cory, now a bit more reticent feels that he must commit, so he verbally calls (which is binding) before the turn is dealt. This also commits the rest of his stack as I have him covered.

At this point I feel that he has the worst possible blind hand that he could have hit the flop with without flopping a set and that's two hearts. As the turn hits, (7c) my feeling is confirmed as Cory starts calling for a heart. The river brings an off suit 9 and my top two held up as I raked a monster pot. Cory would leave the game knowing all along that he was just gambling and having fun. Ferve and I would joke that it was nice of him to give a little back to the lower rungs of the poker ladder after making such nice score at the Wynn. I am not complaining. For me it was mission accomplished.

Protecting the Integrity of The Game

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:26:00 PDT

It seems that The Poker Grump is often writing about the instances at the tables when opponents are unwilling or unable to protect their hole cards, thus providing free and corruptible information to their table neighbors. I was in a situation last session where a kid kept exposing his cards to me. I told him twice and he thanked me before falling back into his lazy habit of peeling them without protecting them.

Then I wound up UTG with the kid in the BB and as he checked his hole cards he was literally angled towards me on the corner seat (he was on the middle plane) and peeled them so that I could see them clear as day, suits and all.

I was playing in a room in which I am very well known by floor staff and dealers alike. The dealer at my table was looking in my direction, as I would have first action, but he was staring over my head. I believe he was momentarily distracted by the TV. I said, "Dealer, I saw his cards." I got no reaction. I repeated myself and still not one reaction from the dealer or anyone else at the table. Since no one seemed to care, I decided to go ahead and raise, which is what I wanted to do with my hand. The action folded around to the Euro (same one from the Who Needs Aces post) and he called my raise. The action folds around to the kid who also calls from the BB.

The dealer now says, "Three players" and prepares to deal the flop. I say, "Dealer, stop! Did you hear what I said?" He says, "No." I say, "I saw his cards. I know exactly what they are, suits and all." The dealer doesn't doubt me and calls the Floor who doesn't doubt me either, but needs to verify that I saw what I think I saw. He asks me what the kid had. I said, "8h-9d. I think you should give him his money back." The Floor agrees, kills his hand, lets the dealer refund the bet and then shows my opponent what I had seen. Now we can play a fair hand.

What's interesting about this situation is that the kid had heard me tell the dealer that I had seen his hand, but he either didn't believe me or didn't care. He called my raise saying something like, "Oh well, you know what I have, so I guess you'll know what to do." We had a pretty good rapport at the table, so he really had no reason to think I was shooting an angle. I really think that he was just tired and didn't care about protecting himself. He just wanted to play every hand. Which he accomplished by the way.

Another note here is that the Euro, was silent and expressionless throughout this process. He seemed either oblivious to the fact that I was trying to protect him as much as the game in general. I also knew that his English was just fine and he could have communicated something if he wanted to. So, his indifference and willingness to play the hand without equal knowledge was a bit curious to me.

It can be very difficult to damn near impossible to protect the integrity of the game when the players in it are uninterested in the very concept. But just as in life, that doesn't mean that those of us who know better shouldn't continue to do our best to maintain a square game. In the long run, it's better for everybody.

As is usually the case, nobody says it better than The Bear, as he expresses a sentiment always worth repeating, from Ace on the River:

"I follow a stricter set of ethical guidelines than most of my opponents, even if it costs me money in the short run. It has given me inner peace, and in the long run I have actually profited from it.

...I try to be honest even in borderline areas.

Some players believe that they are justified when they disregard the rules against someone who has cheated. Others believe it is acceptable to disregard the rules against someone who may cheat them. Still others believe
that they are above the rules and everyone is fair game. If you are scrupulously honest, no one is likely to cheat you in retaliation or because he thinks you may cheat him.

Dishonesty gets in the way of a winning player. If losers are in a game with suspicious activity, they will have a reason to stop playing. Conversely, players will like to play with you as long as they know you play honestly. I try to set a standard for obeying the rules against all opponents. If I can gain the respect of the other players, they may follow my lead."

Who Needs Aces?

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:19:00 PDT

I want to tell you about a sort of funny hand that I witnessed during my last session. There was a solid seeming Goth-Amish looking 20 something year old player in seat 1, a 40 something Euro of dubious playing ability in seat 2 and a burly late 30's fellow with a southern accent in seat 9, who has been running awfully at the table. We'll call him Down South. I am in seat 7 nearer Down South as I watch and listen to the hand go down. Both Goth-Amish and Euro are relatively new at the table.

The Game: 1/2 NL Hold 'Em
Here's how the action plays out: Pre-flop, Goth-Amish raises to $30 in early position. Euro calls. Down South raises to $60. Goth-Amish re-raises all-in for $175 total. Euro flat calls, leaving him with about $25 left over. Down South goes into a rant about how unlucky he is and how he is going to lose all of his chips in this hand. He exposes his hole cards to me, and he has KK. Of course he feels that Goth-Amish must have AA. Down South can't help himself and calls. He still has more than $25 left, so technically there is still a side pot. Goth-Amish doesn't realize this (or doesn't care) and while Down South is ranting to me and my side of the table, Goth-Amish asks the Euro if he has Aces. This is curious to me, because it does seem like Goth-Amish should have the aces here.

The Euro's facial expression as he is posed this obvious question is absolutely priceless. He gives Goth-Amish a look like, what are you talking about? Why on earth would I need to have aces in a 3-way all-in pot pre-flop? So now I am thinking, that the hands are QQ for Goth-Amish, KK (which I have already seen) for Down South and JJ for Euro. The dealer halts all discussion of the hand at this point, because Euro and Down South still have chips left for the side pot.

The flop comes 10-8-A and Down South starts huffing and puffing about how unbelievable it is that he has KK and the A falls. Of course, he thinks he is already beat pre-flop, so this indignation is just in case, I suppose. Just in case he was really ahead. The flop is checked and the turn brings a 9. The Euro goes, "All-in", quite dramatically. Down South laments his torture and says, "What do you have, $25? Oh Jesus, OK I call for $25." The river is dealt a brick and Down South asks the Euro, "Do you have a set of Aces?" "No", he replies as he tables pocket 9's. That's right, he spiked his set on the turn for the winner. Down South shows his kings and huffs and puffs. Goth-Amish, our mystery man begins to muck his hand and doesn't see the tabled kings from Down South and says to him, "Don't worry man, I had you beat pre-flop."

Huh, I'm thinking? He would have had to have the pocket aces to have him beat and thus the best hand at the end as another ace had flopped. So, Down South says, "What are you talking about? I had KK, look." Goth-Amish then reaches back for his hand and turns over KK.

They should have chopped up the Euro's $200 between them, but really when you are up against KK and KK and you are a Euro, who needs Aces?

Of course, the question of the night is, given the flop, would the Euro have folded to an all-in on the flop by Down South for $25? It seems like an absolutely ludicrous idea, but believe you me, I have seen some really silly things at the poker tables in Vegas and all I can think is that it would have been worth a shot. I have certainly seen stranger things.

The Hand That Everyone is Talking About [High Stakes Poker]

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:16:00 PDT

"Who opened this pot that got 7 callers?", Barry Greenstein asks his table mates.

Listen to Barry's fantastic postmortem on the hand via his Tips From the Bear podcast on PokerRoad.

I'm Moving to The Yukon

noreply@blogger.com (Ted O'Neill) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 09:43:00 PDT

Just about every poker player will have those days where they just get so frustrated with the game that they can't help but question what it is they think that they are still doing at the table. These days are usually only reached after a prolonged slump seems to be extending further and I was at that place last night. I was thinking of leaving for the night when two gents in their late 40's marched up to the front desk, hooting and hollering about wanting to "play some fuckin' cards!" "These guys in here are all scared!", one cackles to the other. I can tell right away that these two chuckleheads are Canadian. Hell yes! I think to myself. Let's play some fuckin' cards!

As it turns out this pair of jokers are from the Yukon, way up in the crazy part of Canada. (I kid the Canadians, I love 'em). So for the sake of this story, we'll call them Alpha-Yuk and Beta-Yuk. Beta-Yuk gets seated at my table while Alpha-Yuk is seated at a table adjacent to mine. Beta-Yuk, who seems like a really nice guy by the way and the much calmer and rational of the duo, proceeds to exalt us with stories of their home game in the Yukon. "Oh, we play 1-2 NL and by 1am there's 7 grand on the table. You watch my buddy, he doesn't care, he just loves to get his money in. It's not uncommon to burn through 10G's in our 1-2 game back home."

The veracity of Beta-Yuk's statements become immediately evident as Alpha-Yuk is a mere 5ft. away from me and all-in on his first hand pre-flop for $300. And his second hand the same. And his third hand and so on. A major gathering of non-playing 20 somethings had gathered around the table and watched in amazement. It was clear to me that Alpha-Yuk didn't care about the money, as long as he could spew his line of verbal detritus and be the center of attention. And I, responding like a Pavlovian dog with a juicy prime rib mere footsteps away, requested a table change.

Of course, getting into this game would not be that simple. No one wanted to leave it. And as for the Yuk in my game, I would find that Beta-Yuk was far less gamble-y than his counterpart. Sure he would raise to $30 or $40 a few times an orbit, but I couldn't get him to bite on my re-raises and he was able to actually play hands post flop. Realizing that these two Yuks weren't created equally, I was still salivating for a spot in the better game. When a seat opened up after a bust out, I still had to wait for another game to break, before finally getting my wish in the wee hours. I would move over, with a stack of $200, which I topped off to $300, making me still stuck $300 on the session so far. Only four things could happen now: I could get even or turn a small/average profit, I could end up with a really big score or I could go home with much less money than I started the day with.

My seat, was directly to the left of Alpha-Yuk, but honestly it really didn't matter. He would always bet between $100 and all-in before every flop. So, I didn't matter which side of him I was on, because I always knew what I was going to have to put in. And for the most part, none of the other players were playing against each other, they were all just waiting for a chance to go against the fish. I pick up A-Qs and he raises on queue to $100-something. I shove all-in, knowing that one, I am ahead. Two, I must play this hand heads-up and three, that I cannot fold anything to him on the flop for a buy-in. (There were zero post flop decisions to be made. He was routinely showing bluffs of 7-2 and 8-3 when not called). He calls and I fast-roll showing my hand. I end up making the nut flush on the river of 10 high board, but while he is posturing before mucking his cards another player at the other end of the table says, "A-Q is good Teddy." Then the dealer says, "He has the nut flush." "Oh, I didn't see that. Even better, but the A-Q was still good."

Not long after that, Alpha-Yuk would change seats, moving to my left. So now he had position on me, but he's not really playing poker anyway. Not long after his move, I pick up pocket aces and limp in for $2, knowing full well what's coming. He raises all-in for another $300. I call and he never shows his hand as I take another easy one down. That would be about all I would get from him.

Later on, Beta-Yuk's table would break and he would join us. I took about $100 off of his hands, which was nothing compared to what Alpha-Yuk did to him. After Alpha-Yuk ran out of cash, he kept asking his buddy for money. When that $1,200 well ran dry, he kept going to the ATM, but could only get $500 a pop. So, after returning, his next two hands were all-in $300 and all-in $200 pre-flop. This ATM sequence alone repeated itself about 5 times and was in addition to the 4G's already donated.

God bless Canada. I might have to hop on the next 747 to the propeller plane to the helicopter to the dogsled and play in these guys' home game in the Yukon. As I like to say, put an ankle bracelet on him and let me know when he's back. And as Beta-Yuk said laughingly, "Boy he sure is stubborn and boy is he terrible at cards." Add well-heeled to that and it's my favorite elixir for a dried up, crusty run of poker sessions. Just when I had forgotten what I loved about playing, these characters popped up and made my night.

I didn't make a huge score, but it's safe to say that I was well entertained and paid better than average for it. What with the verbal altercations and all-in every hand for 3 hours, trash talk by the guy hemorrhaging G's like it aint no thing and the reactions of all of those around the scene, yeah I do love the action and I do feel tired and refreshed all at once.