Sunday, July 09, 2006
$1000 NL Holdem WSOP Event
I'm giving in and playing in my first WSOP event, the cheapest NLHE ovent offered. It starts tomorrow (Monday) at noon, and is supposed to run three days. The most expensive tournaments I've played in the past cost $540, so this is a bit of a stretch for me. Also, I expect there'll be over 2000 entrants, and I'll probably be playing 11 hours tomorrow.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Weekend of Tournaments
My freshman and sophomore college roommate Ben and his girlfriend Lauren were in town this past week. We played a little 1-2 NL and several smallish tournaments (mostly around $100 buyins). Ben won two of the five tournaments we played (although one of them had only 9 players), and cashed in all but one.
The second tournament Ben won was at Sam's town. I arrived a bit drunk (don't worry, a friend drove me), and about 45 minutes into the tournament, but they let me buy in at that point and I managed to triple my stack in the first several hands. It seems that if you are obviously drunk, people are much more willing to call your raises with ace high or bottom pair. Meanwhile, Ben had built his stack up to become one of the chip leaders, and he was eventually moved over to my table as players were eliminated. Playing shorthanded, the blinds were becoming overwhelming and my M was down around 5. I decided to try to steal the blinds with 87o. Ben decided to call me with a meager A5s. The flop was A44, leaving me almost dead. The turn was another 4, leaving me with absolutely no chance to win the pot. I did have one out for a split though, and sure enough, the case 4 came on the river. We both played the board.... but I was knocked out near the money a while later on a bad beat (AA heads up, all-in preflop).
The one tournament Ben failed to cash in was the noon tournament at Caesars. This time I fared much better, placing fourth out of almost 150. Actually, we agreed to a split at the end. The tournament director had some sort of computer program to determine fair payouts corresponding to everyone's ship counts at the final table. I held out for an extra $75 or so. I really would have preferred playing, but I had other engagements, and Ben had been wiating for me for several hours and wanted to get the hell out of Caesars (the only place his luck had failed him). Frustratingly, the tournament director took a full hour to give us our money, and this was after we had just spent about 20 minutes agreeing on how the chop would work. Other than the long wait for our cash, the tournament was well-run, I thought.
In our last tournament, an evening one at Binion's, I convinced Lauren to let me pay 90% of her entry fee if I would get 90% of her winnings. She did pretty well, lasting much longer than I did, but failed to earn me any money. Ben, on the other hand, came in 6th (they paid 10). He had been chip leader but ran into some bad luck at the final table, where the initial pots were so big that there was absolutely no room to maneuver beyond pushing all-in pre-flop.
The second tournament Ben won was at Sam's town. I arrived a bit drunk (don't worry, a friend drove me), and about 45 minutes into the tournament, but they let me buy in at that point and I managed to triple my stack in the first several hands. It seems that if you are obviously drunk, people are much more willing to call your raises with ace high or bottom pair. Meanwhile, Ben had built his stack up to become one of the chip leaders, and he was eventually moved over to my table as players were eliminated. Playing shorthanded, the blinds were becoming overwhelming and my M was down around 5. I decided to try to steal the blinds with 87o. Ben decided to call me with a meager A5s. The flop was A44, leaving me almost dead. The turn was another 4, leaving me with absolutely no chance to win the pot. I did have one out for a split though, and sure enough, the case 4 came on the river. We both played the board.... but I was knocked out near the money a while later on a bad beat (AA heads up, all-in preflop).
The one tournament Ben failed to cash in was the noon tournament at Caesars. This time I fared much better, placing fourth out of almost 150. Actually, we agreed to a split at the end. The tournament director had some sort of computer program to determine fair payouts corresponding to everyone's ship counts at the final table. I held out for an extra $75 or so. I really would have preferred playing, but I had other engagements, and Ben had been wiating for me for several hours and wanted to get the hell out of Caesars (the only place his luck had failed him). Frustratingly, the tournament director took a full hour to give us our money, and this was after we had just spent about 20 minutes agreeing on how the chop would work. Other than the long wait for our cash, the tournament was well-run, I thought.
In our last tournament, an evening one at Binion's, I convinced Lauren to let me pay 90% of her entry fee if I would get 90% of her winnings. She did pretty well, lasting much longer than I did, but failed to earn me any money. Ben, on the other hand, came in 6th (they paid 10). He had been chip leader but ran into some bad luck at the final table, where the initial pots were so big that there was absolutely no room to maneuver beyond pushing all-in pre-flop.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
First Day, WSOP 2006
Yesterday marked the first "open event" at the 2006 WSOP, held at the Rio. The first event was a $500 tournament open only to casino employees (congrats to my buddy Jackson, a dealer at the Mirage who took 13th out of 1232. Actually, I don't know his last name so that might not be the guy I know. Still, congratulations Jackson Young, whoever you are.) Anyway, the first event was the $1500 No Limit Holdem event that I had considered playing in. However, the idea of being forced to play 10 hours, plus time for dinner and 8 breaks, was rather daunting. Plus, the event is supposed to last 3 days, and I have some friends coming in on Thursday. Instead, I decided to just stop by the Rio and check the place out. I was hoping to get in a cash game if possible. I also thought I might stick around long enough to play their $500 "second chance" tournament, which is supposedly run every day at 5 pm.
I wasn't sure I'd be able to park due to the likelihood that it'd be ridiculously crowded, but for some reason there was a ton of parking, much more than there used to be on a weekend night back in February when I played at the Rio a lot. Still, when I got inside, the place was packed. I had to wander around a bit before I figured out where the tournament was being held, but when I neared it, the scene was rather spectacular. They have booths set up for sponsors and things all along the hallway. Even though the tournament had already started, the hallways were still crowded with specatators and the media. I walked by a photo booth with sample photos of WSOP bracelet winners, including Scotty Nguyen. Then I turned to go and who happened to be walking by, but Scotty himself.
In the tournament room were over 200 tables full of players. Since this was not enought to accommodate all the players, they had alternates rotating in whenever anyone was eliminated. Supposedly there ended up being more than 2600 players. I could barely move through the aisles so I stayed near the entrance and watched ten or so uneventful hands of Gavin Smith's table. John D'Agostino was being interviewed behind me. I was surprised to see how many big name players showed up for such an inexpensive and lengthy event. John Juanda, Joe Bartholdi (I'm a fan because he seemed like a cool guy when I talked to him during my first trip to Vegas 3 years ago), Howard Lederer, and others. I stopped to watch Jennifer Harmon after she raised to 150 before the flop (blinds of 25-50, she had about 2000 in mid-late position). The big blind raised her to 700. She pushed all-in after a few seconds, and the big blind immediately called with about 1600. He had AKo. Harmon's QQ held up.
It was only about 2pm at this point, and there were no cash games going, so I decided not to stick around for the 5pm tournament. Besides, the place was so crazy and hectic I didn't feel like trying to figure out where it was going to be held or how to sign up for it. I went over to play at the Wynn, where they have a promotion where if you play 50 hours by July 22 you get to play in a $100,000 freeroll tournament. The Wynn was also packed, by far the most crowded I've seen it on a Tuesday afternoon. I'm not sure if this was because of the promotion or the WSOP being in town, but they had only one or two empty tables in the place and every game had a sizable list. I played their 15-30 game while waiting for 2-5 NL, and lost about $100, (bad luck this time, I'm quite certain. I had 3 sets all lose to straights on the river). Then I moved over to the 2-5 game, where I had much better luck, including runner-runner quad 5's, and a semibluff that was called but I caught my flush. I got 6 hours in towards my 50 before becoming exhausted (jet-lag from flying in from the east coast).
As a side note, I started reading The Professor, The Banker, and the Suicide King by Michael Craig. It's an interesting story about billionaire Andy Beal coming to Vegas to play the best poker players head's up for stakes between 10K-20K and 100K-200K. Beal becomes extremely competitive, to the point where Barry Greenstein at one point admits that Beal had outplayed him during one session, and later Ted Forrest says he had been outplayed as well.
I wasn't sure I'd be able to park due to the likelihood that it'd be ridiculously crowded, but for some reason there was a ton of parking, much more than there used to be on a weekend night back in February when I played at the Rio a lot. Still, when I got inside, the place was packed. I had to wander around a bit before I figured out where the tournament was being held, but when I neared it, the scene was rather spectacular. They have booths set up for sponsors and things all along the hallway. Even though the tournament had already started, the hallways were still crowded with specatators and the media. I walked by a photo booth with sample photos of WSOP bracelet winners, including Scotty Nguyen. Then I turned to go and who happened to be walking by, but Scotty himself.
In the tournament room were over 200 tables full of players. Since this was not enought to accommodate all the players, they had alternates rotating in whenever anyone was eliminated. Supposedly there ended up being more than 2600 players. I could barely move through the aisles so I stayed near the entrance and watched ten or so uneventful hands of Gavin Smith's table. John D'Agostino was being interviewed behind me. I was surprised to see how many big name players showed up for such an inexpensive and lengthy event. John Juanda, Joe Bartholdi (I'm a fan because he seemed like a cool guy when I talked to him during my first trip to Vegas 3 years ago), Howard Lederer, and others. I stopped to watch Jennifer Harmon after she raised to 150 before the flop (blinds of 25-50, she had about 2000 in mid-late position). The big blind raised her to 700. She pushed all-in after a few seconds, and the big blind immediately called with about 1600. He had AKo. Harmon's QQ held up.
It was only about 2pm at this point, and there were no cash games going, so I decided not to stick around for the 5pm tournament. Besides, the place was so crazy and hectic I didn't feel like trying to figure out where it was going to be held or how to sign up for it. I went over to play at the Wynn, where they have a promotion where if you play 50 hours by July 22 you get to play in a $100,000 freeroll tournament. The Wynn was also packed, by far the most crowded I've seen it on a Tuesday afternoon. I'm not sure if this was because of the promotion or the WSOP being in town, but they had only one or two empty tables in the place and every game had a sizable list. I played their 15-30 game while waiting for 2-5 NL, and lost about $100, (bad luck this time, I'm quite certain. I had 3 sets all lose to straights on the river). Then I moved over to the 2-5 game, where I had much better luck, including runner-runner quad 5's, and a semibluff that was called but I caught my flush. I got 6 hours in towards my 50 before becoming exhausted (jet-lag from flying in from the east coast).
As a side note, I started reading The Professor, The Banker, and the Suicide King by Michael Craig. It's an interesting story about billionaire Andy Beal coming to Vegas to play the best poker players head's up for stakes between 10K-20K and 100K-200K. Beal becomes extremely competitive, to the point where Barry Greenstein at one point admits that Beal had outplayed him during one session, and later Ted Forrest says he had been outplayed as well.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Complicated Hand vs. Joe
My friend Joe has been in town the past couple of weeks and we've been playing a lot of 1-2 NL. Late Sunday night we got into a game full of weak, loose, drinkers, and Joe and I were dominating the table. I was playing a hyper-aggressive style and Joe, to my left, was just sitting back playing good, solid poker.
A lot of people, when they play at a table with friends, are reluctant to play hands heads-up against their friends. This is completely understandable, and I can't really fault them for it. Nonetheless, this behavior does disrupt the natural flow of the game. Each player at the table should be able to assume that their opponents are playing for themselves and only for themselves (this is especially important in torunaments, where collusion would be even more profitable). Anyway, Joe and I have a history of not going any easier against each other, as is exemplified in what follows.
In the following hand, I had about $425 left in mid-late position, and Joe had me covered. Nobody else at the table had over $300, as far as I can remember. There were two limpers and I limped in with KTs. Joe limped in behind me, and the small blind completed.
$11
Flop: Ks Kc 9c.
This is a flop where I am very likely to have the best hand, but if I don't, it has the potential to get me into plenty of trouble. My T kicker is worrisome.
Action to me: check, check, bet $20. This player is quite aggressive, and likes to be tricky, so this bet actually suggests he does not have a king. Anyway, with three players behind me, I just call. Joe raises to $100. This constitutes a raise of $80 into a pot of size $68 (after rake). Could Joe be raising with an inside straight draw like JT? Yes, but this seems very unlikely. Obviously, Joe has to suspect that one of his opponents has a big hand, so this would be an extremely risky bluff. I am about 95% certain he is holding the last K, possibly even K9 or maybe even 99. Joe is not the type to play Kx preflop, unless possibly if it's suited. It is hard for me to imagine that my KT is the best hand in this situation. The blinds fold. The original bettor ponders for a while, and says "you must have my king outkicked." Then he shows his hand to the guy next to him, who nods. Then he folds.
Now, in my experience, when someone states something about his hand just before showing it to someone and then folding, he is telling the truth over 95% of the time. He has no incentive to mislead the other players if he is going to be out of the hand anyway, and if he were lying about it to help his table image, he wouldn't show it to the person next to him. Suddenly, I had some doubt about Joe's hand. I still thought he might be holding a king, but now I was significantly less certain than I was before. I decided I needed to find out where I was, so I raised to $250 (a $150 raise into a $228 pot). After some deliberation, Joe called. At this point I was again pretty sure Joe had the best hand. I would have expected him to re-raise there, but maybe he figured he could get the rest of my money in on the turn and river.
Pot: $528
Turn: Ts. Now I have the nuts. With about $155 left in my stack, I put out a bet of $50. After calling my flop raise, Joe can't fold to such a small bet. He pushed me all-in, and I obviously called. Joe showed KJ.
Pot: $835.
River: Tc. Joe and I split the pot with KKKTT.
A lot of people, when they play at a table with friends, are reluctant to play hands heads-up against their friends. This is completely understandable, and I can't really fault them for it. Nonetheless, this behavior does disrupt the natural flow of the game. Each player at the table should be able to assume that their opponents are playing for themselves and only for themselves (this is especially important in torunaments, where collusion would be even more profitable). Anyway, Joe and I have a history of not going any easier against each other, as is exemplified in what follows.
In the following hand, I had about $425 left in mid-late position, and Joe had me covered. Nobody else at the table had over $300, as far as I can remember. There were two limpers and I limped in with KTs. Joe limped in behind me, and the small blind completed.
$11
Flop: Ks Kc 9c.
This is a flop where I am very likely to have the best hand, but if I don't, it has the potential to get me into plenty of trouble. My T kicker is worrisome.
Action to me: check, check, bet $20. This player is quite aggressive, and likes to be tricky, so this bet actually suggests he does not have a king. Anyway, with three players behind me, I just call. Joe raises to $100. This constitutes a raise of $80 into a pot of size $68 (after rake). Could Joe be raising with an inside straight draw like JT? Yes, but this seems very unlikely. Obviously, Joe has to suspect that one of his opponents has a big hand, so this would be an extremely risky bluff. I am about 95% certain he is holding the last K, possibly even K9 or maybe even 99. Joe is not the type to play Kx preflop, unless possibly if it's suited. It is hard for me to imagine that my KT is the best hand in this situation. The blinds fold. The original bettor ponders for a while, and says "you must have my king outkicked." Then he shows his hand to the guy next to him, who nods. Then he folds.
Now, in my experience, when someone states something about his hand just before showing it to someone and then folding, he is telling the truth over 95% of the time. He has no incentive to mislead the other players if he is going to be out of the hand anyway, and if he were lying about it to help his table image, he wouldn't show it to the person next to him. Suddenly, I had some doubt about Joe's hand. I still thought he might be holding a king, but now I was significantly less certain than I was before. I decided I needed to find out where I was, so I raised to $250 (a $150 raise into a $228 pot). After some deliberation, Joe called. At this point I was again pretty sure Joe had the best hand. I would have expected him to re-raise there, but maybe he figured he could get the rest of my money in on the turn and river.
Pot: $528
Turn: Ts. Now I have the nuts. With about $155 left in my stack, I put out a bet of $50. After calling my flop raise, Joe can't fold to such a small bet. He pushed me all-in, and I obviously called. Joe showed KJ.
Pot: $835.
River: Tc. Joe and I split the pot with KKKTT.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
"The Snake"
Out of curiosity, I went to the Hendon Mob database to see who placed in the tournament I wrote about last time. Turns out, the guy who sucked out against me went on to win the darn thing. I saw him again on Monday night at Mandalay Bay playing craps, and he was wearing a leather jacket with "Snake" on the back. I was amused to see that he calls himself Kevin "The Snake" Blakey on the database.
Friday, May 26, 2006
First "Festival" Event
When people I know find out that I am a serious poker player, they often ask me "when am I going to see you on TV?" Since most televised events cost $10K or more, the answer is I am not going to be on television anytime soon. I suppose that I might be in a televised event during the WSOP, since they often televise lower buy-in events. Frankly, though, I'm not sure I want to play a televised event - I don't particualarly like being in front of a camera and I think they make you sign release forms and stuff that at least a few poker pros object to (Chris Ferguson and Andy Bloch, for example, no longer play in WPT events for this reason). Even the lowest buyin events at the WSOP are over $1K, and I very rarely play events over $400. Last night, however, I decided to try my hand at the $540 evening tournament at Mandalay Bay, part of their "Mandalay Bay Poker Championship." If I made it to the money, at least I would have some form of recognition to point my "fans" to. Besides, I am falling behind one of my poker buddies from back in college. The last time I saw him was the day after he placed in the WSOP event.
Only 42 people entered the $540 evening event, with 5 places to be paid. Actually, I think there were a few more entries after the tournament started, but their were still fewer than 50. My first table was mostly tight except for a pretty loose player directly to my right - a very favorable situation, really. I decided to play a little aggressively because the table was tight and I would almost always have position on the only guy who usually called. I had increased my stack from the initial 3000 to about 4000 (blinds at 25-50), when I picked up AA in middle position. the guy to my right limped in, and I raised to 200. I think my aggressive play may have paid off a bit here, because the next two people called behind me, and then the big blind went all-in for over 2500, probably an over-sized bet regardless of his holding. Anyway, the loose player folded and after several seconds of fake pondering, I pushed all-in too (I think this makes it look like I may just have AQ or something). The two players behind me folded. My AA held up against his 99, and my stack was up to about 7000. Meanwhile, some of the more experience playes were getting frustrated by our dealers. The first two dealers of the night were truly terrible. They certainly knew the rules, but they couldn't keep up with the action, and seemed not to have much motor control in their arms or fingers. Basically, the players had to announce where the action was, when it was time to put out the flop, what order he was supposed to deal in, etc. Fortunately, after that, we had much better, more experienced dealers, but those first two were just so ridiculous I felt I had to mention it here even though it doesn't much relate to the rest of the story.
At the first break (after 3 rounds of 40 minutes), with about 30 players left, I was the chip leader with about 18,000 in chips, with average around 4,500. After the break, another player at my table began getting very loose and aggressive, taking down a lot of pots. After about an hour, he was up to 15,000, and I was up to 30,000. We were playing 7-handed because only 15 players remaine. Blinds were 200-400 with antes of 25, so each hand had 775 in the pot to start. With him on the button and me in the big blind, he opened with a raise to 1200. I had 89o. This is a difficult situation because I think I can push him out with a raise, but if I raise to 4000 or something, I would really not welcome a reraise all-in, which was a common move on his part. I would probably have to fold if he did that. Alternatively, I could just push all-in right here. The player to my left, the big blind, was very solid, with around 8000 left. He would probably fold without a very unlikely AA-JJ. This would also force the original raiser to decide if he wanted to risk the whole tournament on this one hand. I think he would probably have made that raise to 1200 with about half of his possible hands, trying to steal the blinds, so it's not that likely he has a hand strong enough to call. I think he'd call with AJs or better, so let's do some Dan Harrington style calculations to see what the EV of an all-in raise here would be.
About 1.8% the big blind calls me with a big pair. Assuming the button folds in this case, the EV for me in this situation is:
% win/loss EV
17.2% I win, + 9575 1647
82.8% I lose, - 7800 -6458
Sum = -4811
Obviously bad for me, but this happens less than 2% of the time. The other 98% looks like this:
% win/loss EV
87.6% button folds + 1975 1730
12.4% button calls
17.2% I win +15775 336
82.8% I lose -14800 -1520
Sum = 546
Overall EV = .018*-4811 + .982*546 = -87 + 537 = 450.
Obviously I don't know exactly what hands my opponents might call or fold with here, so there is no way to get as precise as the number above indicate. Still, it looks like pushing all-in here is probably good for the Expected Value. Probably a bit too much risk, however. I'd really rather not lose 15000 chips, which will happen about 10% of the time.
Instead, I decided to just call with my 98o. Not sure if this was a good idea. The big blind folded.
Pot $3000
Flop: 9d 9h Td.
Great flop for my hand, obviously. Despite the obvious draws on the board, I chanced a check here because my opponent was so very aggressive. As expected he bet, but only $1200. This looked a lot like a probe bet, so I figured he probably had nothing. A hand like a pair of tens or an overpair would want to bet more to charge me to draw to my straight (or flush). Anyway, I raised to 4500, and he came back over the top, all-in. I called, and he showed QJo with the J of diamonds. I was about 82.5% to win, but the K came on the river for his straight.
I held on for another hour or so before being the first knocked out at the final table. It was fun, though, and I feel like I played quite well. My inclusion in the Hendon Mob Poker Database will have to wait, though.
Only 42 people entered the $540 evening event, with 5 places to be paid. Actually, I think there were a few more entries after the tournament started, but their were still fewer than 50. My first table was mostly tight except for a pretty loose player directly to my right - a very favorable situation, really. I decided to play a little aggressively because the table was tight and I would almost always have position on the only guy who usually called. I had increased my stack from the initial 3000 to about 4000 (blinds at 25-50), when I picked up AA in middle position. the guy to my right limped in, and I raised to 200. I think my aggressive play may have paid off a bit here, because the next two people called behind me, and then the big blind went all-in for over 2500, probably an over-sized bet regardless of his holding. Anyway, the loose player folded and after several seconds of fake pondering, I pushed all-in too (I think this makes it look like I may just have AQ or something). The two players behind me folded. My AA held up against his 99, and my stack was up to about 7000. Meanwhile, some of the more experience playes were getting frustrated by our dealers. The first two dealers of the night were truly terrible. They certainly knew the rules, but they couldn't keep up with the action, and seemed not to have much motor control in their arms or fingers. Basically, the players had to announce where the action was, when it was time to put out the flop, what order he was supposed to deal in, etc. Fortunately, after that, we had much better, more experienced dealers, but those first two were just so ridiculous I felt I had to mention it here even though it doesn't much relate to the rest of the story.
At the first break (after 3 rounds of 40 minutes), with about 30 players left, I was the chip leader with about 18,000 in chips, with average around 4,500. After the break, another player at my table began getting very loose and aggressive, taking down a lot of pots. After about an hour, he was up to 15,000, and I was up to 30,000. We were playing 7-handed because only 15 players remaine. Blinds were 200-400 with antes of 25, so each hand had 775 in the pot to start. With him on the button and me in the big blind, he opened with a raise to 1200. I had 89o. This is a difficult situation because I think I can push him out with a raise, but if I raise to 4000 or something, I would really not welcome a reraise all-in, which was a common move on his part. I would probably have to fold if he did that. Alternatively, I could just push all-in right here. The player to my left, the big blind, was very solid, with around 8000 left. He would probably fold without a very unlikely AA-JJ. This would also force the original raiser to decide if he wanted to risk the whole tournament on this one hand. I think he would probably have made that raise to 1200 with about half of his possible hands, trying to steal the blinds, so it's not that likely he has a hand strong enough to call. I think he'd call with AJs or better, so let's do some Dan Harrington style calculations to see what the EV of an all-in raise here would be.
About 1.8% the big blind calls me with a big pair. Assuming the button folds in this case, the EV for me in this situation is:
% win/loss EV
17.2% I win, + 9575 1647
82.8% I lose, - 7800 -6458
Sum = -4811
Obviously bad for me, but this happens less than 2% of the time. The other 98% looks like this:
% win/loss EV
87.6% button folds + 1975 1730
12.4% button calls
17.2% I win +15775 336
82.8% I lose -14800 -1520
Sum = 546
Overall EV = .018*-4811 + .982*546 = -87 + 537 = 450.
Obviously I don't know exactly what hands my opponents might call or fold with here, so there is no way to get as precise as the number above indicate. Still, it looks like pushing all-in here is probably good for the Expected Value. Probably a bit too much risk, however. I'd really rather not lose 15000 chips, which will happen about 10% of the time.
Instead, I decided to just call with my 98o. Not sure if this was a good idea. The big blind folded.
Pot $3000
Flop: 9d 9h Td.
Great flop for my hand, obviously. Despite the obvious draws on the board, I chanced a check here because my opponent was so very aggressive. As expected he bet, but only $1200. This looked a lot like a probe bet, so I figured he probably had nothing. A hand like a pair of tens or an overpair would want to bet more to charge me to draw to my straight (or flush). Anyway, I raised to 4500, and he came back over the top, all-in. I called, and he showed QJo with the J of diamonds. I was about 82.5% to win, but the K came on the river for his straight.
I held on for another hour or so before being the first knocked out at the final table. It was fun, though, and I feel like I played quite well. My inclusion in the Hendon Mob Poker Database will have to wait, though.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
WPT and Drunkenness at the Mirage
The "Mirage Poker Showdown" is currently going on at the Mirage, culminating in a $10,000 buyin World Poker Tour event, which started a couple days ago. I've seen Dan Harrington, Antonio Esfandiari, the golden palace guy, David Williams, John Juanda, Darrell Dicken (aka Gigabet, his online name), and WSOP bracelet winner Anthony Reategui (see below for why I recognized him). For some reason, there have also been extremely drunk people playing poker this week. In only one case could I directly link a player's drunkenness to the "poker showdown." The rest of the drunkenness seems unrelated.
Just like anybody else, drunk people like attention; the difference is that most sober people won't sacrifice their dignity to get it. For instance, after making a joke and getting a few laughs, a sober person will usually leave it at that, whereas a drunk person will repeat it over and over. The shorter the attention-getting comment, the better. In the case of three people on Friday and Monday nights, they developed their own catch phrases that they used over and over in order to keep attention on them.
Both nights had a few drunken supporting characters and a main character who started out sober and friendly and progressively got drunker and drunker until he or she had become incoherent and vulgar, with personalities changing so much that they were nearly unrecognizable as the people next to whom I had initially sat down. The hero of Friday night was Luke, a "pro" in his late twenties who moved to Las Vegas in August. It was a 2-5NL game and I sat to his left. He recognized me from some previous poker room meeting, and asked my name. At this point he was completely coherent; the only evidence that he had already started drinking was the bottle of Corona in front of him. I told him my name, and he told me his name was Luke. We had a friendly conversation about living in Las Vegas. He told me he spent most of his time smoking weed and playing video games (he just got XBox 360, which I haven't played yet) with his roommates, one of whom was sitting across the table from us, and that they were both playing poker for a living.
For the next hour or so Luke alternately pounded Yaeger shots and Coronas. As he did, he got louder and more loose and aggressive. His favorite catch-phrase was "You assholes might not find me funny, but I am. I'm very funny." My friend Dan showed up during this time and sat in our game. Dan is a very solid, winning player (he is a teacher in the Teach for America program). He had built his stack up from $200 to about $250 I think. Meanwhile, Luke and re-bought several times, but now had over $700 in front of him. On a recent hand he had drawn out on a mediocre and ridiculously conceited player who had been playing in the $1500 "poker showdown" event. He said he placed fourth, so maybe it was Ray Fliano, I dunno. Anyway, he couldn't stand the terribleness of losing to AQ all-in pre-flop to beat his JJ, so he left in a huff. Anyway, with Luke on the button, Dan picked up AT. I can't remember exacly how it played out since it was a few days ago, but to the best of my recollection, Dan raised to $20, and Luke raised to $50 (which meant very little since he had been raising more than half the time). Dan called and they saw a flop of T 7 4, no flush draw. Dan checked since he knew Luke would bet for him. When Luke bet only $30, Dan became suspicious by the small bet and just called (I would have raised). The turn was another ten, and all the money went in... Luke had a full house, 4's over 10's, beating Dan.... wow. Against a player playing random cards three of a kind with an ace kicker is a huge hand. Anyway, Dan left and later told me he won all his money back at craps.
A little after 3 am another guy showed up, overweight and already about as drunk as Luke was. His catch phrase was "I don't like it, I llllove it!" which he first used to describe how he felt about Luke's poker style and later used to describe many other things as well. He was also playing extremely aggressively, and doing quite well. Whenever he won he would rake all his chips in and sift his fingers through them while shouting "I llllove gold!" He told me that earlier that day he had lost a $200,000 pot. "A $200 pot?" I asked. "No, $200,000." He showed me his wrist, where he was wearing a WSOP bracelet. He told me he had just come in 3rd place in the Mirage Heads-up event, and David Singer had drawn out on him; that's why he got drunk and came to play 2-5 NL. Later a friend of his came to play too, and I learned the bracelet holder was Anthony Reategui. Once Anthony had finally gotten around to stacking all his chips, his friend started flicking chips across the table to knock them over, something I wouldn't expect would ever be tolerated, but this was 4:30 am and the dealers had long since given up trying to maintain order.
Amidst this chaos, Luke was nearly thrown out for excessive use of profanities. For most of the night nobody complained about it, but then we got a dealer who was clearly uncomfortable about Luke's profanity and asked him to stop... when the floorperson came over, Luke still didn't stop, and the floorperson asked "do we need to cut off your drinks?" Luke's response was "if you cut off my drinks, I'll cut off your fucking titties." Somehow Luke wasn't thrown out, but his drinks were immediately cut off. According to his roommate Joe, "The thing about Luke is... he's an idiot." Supposedly, Luke isn't allowed to drink in their apartment.
On Monday night I sat down at the 1-2 NL game at the Mirage, partly because I didn't have a lot of cash on me, and partly because I noticed that 8 of the other 9 players had alcoholic beverages in front of them. For the next five hours no fewer than five of my opponents were drinking alcohol at any time. The girl next to me was a very attractive blond girl named Anne who had just turned 21, and her boyfriend was at a neighboring table. A 33 year old guy named Rafael was also at the table. He had arrived with another woman who he later found out was married and her husband was also in the poker room. Despite the boyfriend, after his first woman had left, Rafael decided to hit on Anne. Admittedly, she econouraged him by telling him that her relationship "wasn't serious," and she was pretty receptive to his flirting. Really, though she was just being friendly to everyone. She was talking to me a lot since I was sitting next to her, and Rafael was none too pleased about that. For the next four hours Rafael tried to get her number so he could go visit her in Guadalahara, where she was vacationing at some later time (with her boyfriend, I suspect). Anyway, Anne is the drunkard from this particular night, getting friendlier and more talkative, spilling beer on herself, and later catching her tipping beer bottle between her breasts so it wouldn't fall. Her catch phrase was "what does that mean??" which she liked to say after the flop came out, but she didn't really need to have a catch phrase to attract attention. A new player sat down across from us and asked her to lift her shirt up because it was "too distracting." "Sorry, I guess they're kind of falling out, " replied Anne bashfully. Rafael left with only her email address (and $900).
Interstingly, Anthony and Anne probably won about $100 each, while Luke lost about $1000.
Just like anybody else, drunk people like attention; the difference is that most sober people won't sacrifice their dignity to get it. For instance, after making a joke and getting a few laughs, a sober person will usually leave it at that, whereas a drunk person will repeat it over and over. The shorter the attention-getting comment, the better. In the case of three people on Friday and Monday nights, they developed their own catch phrases that they used over and over in order to keep attention on them.
Both nights had a few drunken supporting characters and a main character who started out sober and friendly and progressively got drunker and drunker until he or she had become incoherent and vulgar, with personalities changing so much that they were nearly unrecognizable as the people next to whom I had initially sat down. The hero of Friday night was Luke, a "pro" in his late twenties who moved to Las Vegas in August. It was a 2-5NL game and I sat to his left. He recognized me from some previous poker room meeting, and asked my name. At this point he was completely coherent; the only evidence that he had already started drinking was the bottle of Corona in front of him. I told him my name, and he told me his name was Luke. We had a friendly conversation about living in Las Vegas. He told me he spent most of his time smoking weed and playing video games (he just got XBox 360, which I haven't played yet) with his roommates, one of whom was sitting across the table from us, and that they were both playing poker for a living.
For the next hour or so Luke alternately pounded Yaeger shots and Coronas. As he did, he got louder and more loose and aggressive. His favorite catch-phrase was "You assholes might not find me funny, but I am. I'm very funny." My friend Dan showed up during this time and sat in our game. Dan is a very solid, winning player (he is a teacher in the Teach for America program). He had built his stack up from $200 to about $250 I think. Meanwhile, Luke and re-bought several times, but now had over $700 in front of him. On a recent hand he had drawn out on a mediocre and ridiculously conceited player who had been playing in the $1500 "poker showdown" event. He said he placed fourth, so maybe it was Ray Fliano, I dunno. Anyway, he couldn't stand the terribleness of losing to AQ all-in pre-flop to beat his JJ, so he left in a huff. Anyway, with Luke on the button, Dan picked up AT. I can't remember exacly how it played out since it was a few days ago, but to the best of my recollection, Dan raised to $20, and Luke raised to $50 (which meant very little since he had been raising more than half the time). Dan called and they saw a flop of T 7 4, no flush draw. Dan checked since he knew Luke would bet for him. When Luke bet only $30, Dan became suspicious by the small bet and just called (I would have raised). The turn was another ten, and all the money went in... Luke had a full house, 4's over 10's, beating Dan.... wow. Against a player playing random cards three of a kind with an ace kicker is a huge hand. Anyway, Dan left and later told me he won all his money back at craps.
A little after 3 am another guy showed up, overweight and already about as drunk as Luke was. His catch phrase was "I don't like it, I llllove it!" which he first used to describe how he felt about Luke's poker style and later used to describe many other things as well. He was also playing extremely aggressively, and doing quite well. Whenever he won he would rake all his chips in and sift his fingers through them while shouting "I llllove gold!" He told me that earlier that day he had lost a $200,000 pot. "A $200 pot?" I asked. "No, $200,000." He showed me his wrist, where he was wearing a WSOP bracelet. He told me he had just come in 3rd place in the Mirage Heads-up event, and David Singer had drawn out on him; that's why he got drunk and came to play 2-5 NL. Later a friend of his came to play too, and I learned the bracelet holder was Anthony Reategui. Once Anthony had finally gotten around to stacking all his chips, his friend started flicking chips across the table to knock them over, something I wouldn't expect would ever be tolerated, but this was 4:30 am and the dealers had long since given up trying to maintain order.
Amidst this chaos, Luke was nearly thrown out for excessive use of profanities. For most of the night nobody complained about it, but then we got a dealer who was clearly uncomfortable about Luke's profanity and asked him to stop... when the floorperson came over, Luke still didn't stop, and the floorperson asked "do we need to cut off your drinks?" Luke's response was "if you cut off my drinks, I'll cut off your fucking titties." Somehow Luke wasn't thrown out, but his drinks were immediately cut off. According to his roommate Joe, "The thing about Luke is... he's an idiot." Supposedly, Luke isn't allowed to drink in their apartment.
On Monday night I sat down at the 1-2 NL game at the Mirage, partly because I didn't have a lot of cash on me, and partly because I noticed that 8 of the other 9 players had alcoholic beverages in front of them. For the next five hours no fewer than five of my opponents were drinking alcohol at any time. The girl next to me was a very attractive blond girl named Anne who had just turned 21, and her boyfriend was at a neighboring table. A 33 year old guy named Rafael was also at the table. He had arrived with another woman who he later found out was married and her husband was also in the poker room. Despite the boyfriend, after his first woman had left, Rafael decided to hit on Anne. Admittedly, she econouraged him by telling him that her relationship "wasn't serious," and she was pretty receptive to his flirting. Really, though she was just being friendly to everyone. She was talking to me a lot since I was sitting next to her, and Rafael was none too pleased about that. For the next four hours Rafael tried to get her number so he could go visit her in Guadalahara, where she was vacationing at some later time (with her boyfriend, I suspect). Anyway, Anne is the drunkard from this particular night, getting friendlier and more talkative, spilling beer on herself, and later catching her tipping beer bottle between her breasts so it wouldn't fall. Her catch phrase was "what does that mean??" which she liked to say after the flop came out, but she didn't really need to have a catch phrase to attract attention. A new player sat down across from us and asked her to lift her shirt up because it was "too distracting." "Sorry, I guess they're kind of falling out, " replied Anne bashfully. Rafael left with only her email address (and $900).
Interstingly, Anthony and Anne probably won about $100 each, while Luke lost about $1000.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Two Hands at Caesars
With visitors and travel I haven't really been able to settle back into a routine recently. I've been playing mostly at the Mirage, with their lower rake and $15 food comps, but I haven't really settled in there, either. I've been going to different casinos a few times each week. In the past year and a half, a lot of new rooms have opened up: MGM, Caesars, Venetian, and Red Rock, for example. Almost every room in town now runs 2-5 NL holdem, which is probably the most popular game now, along with the low limits from 2-4 to 4-8. There are so many games in town now that each casino rarely uses even half their poker tables during the week. This makes me worry slightly about the health of the poker boom, but at least it means I usually get seated very quickly after I arrive in the poker room.
Anyway, as I've mentioned before, I had some issues with the way Caesars' poker room was run when it first opened. I decided to give it another shot last night. Things seem to be running much more smoothly there now (except the restrooms are still inadequate). Since this is supposed to be my poker blog, I figured I'd describe a couple hands, which I haven't done in a while.
I sat down in the $2-5 NL game with $200. Caesars has no maximum buy-in, so the $200 was a very small stack compared to most of the others. Most people will tell you that it's a disadvantage to play with a short stack, but I actually think it's an advantage. For one thing, it's a mathematical fact that it is advantageous to be all-in on an early round when you have more than one opponent, because it's possible that one of your opponents will fold what would have been the winning hand. Having a small stack increases the chances of this situation arising. Having the smallest stack also means that, on every hand, I know exactly how much I'm playing for. This can effect strategy considerably. When all the other players have large stacks, they need to be concerned with each other and try to play optimal big-stack strategy. By definition, these big-stack strategies are not as effective against a smaller stack; as the small stack, I can take advantage of these discrepancies. Some people (like the guy in the first hand I describe below) may argue that buying short is a devious strategy to be frowned upon. These players must be in the minority, though. If many people agreed with this, then more casinos would have a large minimum buyin, which would eliminate the problem. As it stands, I'm quite comfortable buying in for whatever the rules allow me. Besides, I like to get a feel for the table without risking too much when I first sit down; sometimes I will pull out more cash to increase my stack after half an hour or so. Enough about short stacks... on to the first hand.
This was about the 5th hand I played, and I was down to $193 I think. An experienced player in early-middle position with over $500 raised to $15. Two to his left, I called with KJ of diamonds. This is a marginal holding, but I like to mix it up early in my session because it gives my opponents a false impression of me, which I can sometimes use to my advantage later. Besides, KJs isn't a bad hand. The player in the cutoff, two to my left, raised to $50. He had about $5K. The original raiser called, and I was left with a decision. Should I call another $35 here? There was $118 in the pot already ($122 - $4 rake), so I was being offered about 3.3-1 odds. I knew I might be up against a big pair or AK, but my hand had straight and flush-draw possibilities, and 3.3-1 is pretty attractive, so I called. My stack was now down to $143, and there was $157 in the pot. The flop came Kc Js 4d, clearly an excellent flop for my hand. The first player checked, and I decided to check as well. Unless the last player had specifically AQ, I think this was a good place to slow-play. The last player bet $60, less than half the pot. The first player folded, and I figured I might as well put the rest in now, in case he had some sort of draw. He called and turned over AK. My two pair held up. Now, this is where things got interesting. After counting down the last $83, the guy with AK tossed the money into the air and across the table, chips going all over, including into other players stacks.
"What the Hell are you doing?" I asked him. "I don't throw your chips around."
"They're not your chips until I put them into the pot," he replied.
Then (and this was the most inappropriate action in the whole ordeal, I think), the other player who had been involved in the hand decided to stick up for the guy who had thrown the chips everywhere! "Sometimes good players who lose to bad players get frustrated," he said.
"That means he should throw chips across the room? I've seen much worse beats than that and nobody threw anything. You can get frustrated without having to throw things."
Then he decided to explain to me how it's bad for the game to come in and sit down with only $200. "It's not real poker. You clearly didn't come here to play poker. You called a $50 raise, a quarter of your stack, and you didn't have enough left for him to get you out."
Anyway, the rest of the table took my side and the chip-thrower kept quiet after that.
Here's a hand I think I didn't play so well. I had KQs under-the-gun and limped. There were a couple more limpers, and then an asian girl on the button, a pretty good player, raised to $20. (She was friends with the chip-thrower, but she hadn't seen the incident, and he had moved to another table at this point. I don't think she knew about it.) One of the blinds called, I called, and the two limpers called. There was about $100 in the pot. I had very close to $500 left after the call.
Flop: Kc Td 3h. My suit was spades, so no help there, but I did have top pair. The blind checked, and I think I should have bet $60-$80 here. Instead, I checked and decided to see how the hand developed. My thinking was that if there was much action behind me, I could get away from the hand, and if not, maybe I could get another bet out of the asian girl who raised pre-flop. The next two players checked, the girl bet $75 and the blind folded. This was was pretty much what I had hoped would happen when I checked, but my situation was actually very precarious. I had no idea where I stood with respect to the asian girl's hand, and I had two players behind me that were still in the hand. They could be planning to check raise, or maybe one has a straight draw. They were loose enough that I couldn't rule our KT or QJ. The girl could have me beat with AA, AK, TT, or even KK, or she could have me tied with KQ. Continuation bets here are very risky with 4 opponents, so that is actually not that likely (which I should have considered when I checked before). I decided to play it safe again and just call the $75. The next two players folded.
Turn: 7c (or something). With the two players behind me having folded, I now felt like I should be my hand. With the pot at $250, I bet $150 of my remaining $425. In retrospect, I think this was a mistake. It was very likely that she would either fold or raise here. If she raises, I have to figure she has me beat (or at least tied), and I'd have to fold. That's exactly what happened. Instead, I think perhaps I should have checked. Then if she checked behind me, I might be able to get something out of her on the river. The way I played it, I might as well have had nothing, because there was no way the hand was going to reach a showdown - generally a bad way to play medium-strong hands like top pair. Still, the biggest mistake was probably check-calling the flop (or maybe I should have folded pre-flop?). I needed to define my hand for them, so that they could react accordingly. By showing weakness when I checked the flop, I was unable to get any sense for where I stood in the hand.
Anyway, as I've mentioned before, I had some issues with the way Caesars' poker room was run when it first opened. I decided to give it another shot last night. Things seem to be running much more smoothly there now (except the restrooms are still inadequate). Since this is supposed to be my poker blog, I figured I'd describe a couple hands, which I haven't done in a while.
I sat down in the $2-5 NL game with $200. Caesars has no maximum buy-in, so the $200 was a very small stack compared to most of the others. Most people will tell you that it's a disadvantage to play with a short stack, but I actually think it's an advantage. For one thing, it's a mathematical fact that it is advantageous to be all-in on an early round when you have more than one opponent, because it's possible that one of your opponents will fold what would have been the winning hand. Having a small stack increases the chances of this situation arising. Having the smallest stack also means that, on every hand, I know exactly how much I'm playing for. This can effect strategy considerably. When all the other players have large stacks, they need to be concerned with each other and try to play optimal big-stack strategy. By definition, these big-stack strategies are not as effective against a smaller stack; as the small stack, I can take advantage of these discrepancies. Some people (like the guy in the first hand I describe below) may argue that buying short is a devious strategy to be frowned upon. These players must be in the minority, though. If many people agreed with this, then more casinos would have a large minimum buyin, which would eliminate the problem. As it stands, I'm quite comfortable buying in for whatever the rules allow me. Besides, I like to get a feel for the table without risking too much when I first sit down; sometimes I will pull out more cash to increase my stack after half an hour or so. Enough about short stacks... on to the first hand.
This was about the 5th hand I played, and I was down to $193 I think. An experienced player in early-middle position with over $500 raised to $15. Two to his left, I called with KJ of diamonds. This is a marginal holding, but I like to mix it up early in my session because it gives my opponents a false impression of me, which I can sometimes use to my advantage later. Besides, KJs isn't a bad hand. The player in the cutoff, two to my left, raised to $50. He had about $5K. The original raiser called, and I was left with a decision. Should I call another $35 here? There was $118 in the pot already ($122 - $4 rake), so I was being offered about 3.3-1 odds. I knew I might be up against a big pair or AK, but my hand had straight and flush-draw possibilities, and 3.3-1 is pretty attractive, so I called. My stack was now down to $143, and there was $157 in the pot. The flop came Kc Js 4d, clearly an excellent flop for my hand. The first player checked, and I decided to check as well. Unless the last player had specifically AQ, I think this was a good place to slow-play. The last player bet $60, less than half the pot. The first player folded, and I figured I might as well put the rest in now, in case he had some sort of draw. He called and turned over AK. My two pair held up. Now, this is where things got interesting. After counting down the last $83, the guy with AK tossed the money into the air and across the table, chips going all over, including into other players stacks.
"What the Hell are you doing?" I asked him. "I don't throw your chips around."
"They're not your chips until I put them into the pot," he replied.
Then (and this was the most inappropriate action in the whole ordeal, I think), the other player who had been involved in the hand decided to stick up for the guy who had thrown the chips everywhere! "Sometimes good players who lose to bad players get frustrated," he said.
"That means he should throw chips across the room? I've seen much worse beats than that and nobody threw anything. You can get frustrated without having to throw things."
Then he decided to explain to me how it's bad for the game to come in and sit down with only $200. "It's not real poker. You clearly didn't come here to play poker. You called a $50 raise, a quarter of your stack, and you didn't have enough left for him to get you out."
Anyway, the rest of the table took my side and the chip-thrower kept quiet after that.
Here's a hand I think I didn't play so well. I had KQs under-the-gun and limped. There were a couple more limpers, and then an asian girl on the button, a pretty good player, raised to $20. (She was friends with the chip-thrower, but she hadn't seen the incident, and he had moved to another table at this point. I don't think she knew about it.) One of the blinds called, I called, and the two limpers called. There was about $100 in the pot. I had very close to $500 left after the call.
Flop: Kc Td 3h. My suit was spades, so no help there, but I did have top pair. The blind checked, and I think I should have bet $60-$80 here. Instead, I checked and decided to see how the hand developed. My thinking was that if there was much action behind me, I could get away from the hand, and if not, maybe I could get another bet out of the asian girl who raised pre-flop. The next two players checked, the girl bet $75 and the blind folded. This was was pretty much what I had hoped would happen when I checked, but my situation was actually very precarious. I had no idea where I stood with respect to the asian girl's hand, and I had two players behind me that were still in the hand. They could be planning to check raise, or maybe one has a straight draw. They were loose enough that I couldn't rule our KT or QJ. The girl could have me beat with AA, AK, TT, or even KK, or she could have me tied with KQ. Continuation bets here are very risky with 4 opponents, so that is actually not that likely (which I should have considered when I checked before). I decided to play it safe again and just call the $75. The next two players folded.
Turn: 7c (or something). With the two players behind me having folded, I now felt like I should be my hand. With the pot at $250, I bet $150 of my remaining $425. In retrospect, I think this was a mistake. It was very likely that she would either fold or raise here. If she raises, I have to figure she has me beat (or at least tied), and I'd have to fold. That's exactly what happened. Instead, I think perhaps I should have checked. Then if she checked behind me, I might be able to get something out of her on the river. The way I played it, I might as well have had nothing, because there was no way the hand was going to reach a showdown - generally a bad way to play medium-strong hands like top pair. Still, the biggest mistake was probably check-calling the flop (or maybe I should have folded pre-flop?). I needed to define my hand for them, so that they could react accordingly. By showing weakness when I checked the flop, I was unable to get any sense for where I stood in the hand.
Friday, May 05, 2006
I'm back
It's been a few weeks since my last post... I want to apologize if you have been checking in every so often expecting to find a post. I have tried to keep up a good pace, but I haven't been playing much recently, and nothing too exciting has happened at the poker tables except for an implosion at the 5-10NL game one night where I lost all of my significant winnings after what had been a very profitable night. I got tired, took a break, came back, and decided I might as well play one more round. I don't like thinking about what happened next, so that's all I'm going to say about that right now.
The WPT and WSOP circuit are in town now, but their events are usually at noon (when I wake up), and most of them are over $1000 to enter (the cheaper ones have already past), so I don't think I'll be playing in any of them. Anyone want to stake me to a tourney in the $2k-$3k range? A word of advice: don't bother. I haven't been doing too well in tournaments recently, either.
The WPT and WSOP circuit are in town now, but their events are usually at noon (when I wake up), and most of them are over $1000 to enter (the cheaper ones have already past), so I don't think I'll be playing in any of them. Anyone want to stake me to a tourney in the $2k-$3k range? A word of advice: don't bother. I haven't been doing too well in tournaments recently, either.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
New Poker Room at the Venetian
Last night I finally remembered to go check out the Venetian's new poker room. It's quite nice-looking, probably the third nicest looking after the Bellagio and Wynn. Like the Wynn (but not the Bellagio), it has all the state-of-the-art queuing technology. It also has more room between the tables to walk around than do most places (Bellagio has the least). When I got there I put my name on the list for 2-5 NL. They had about 5 tables of this running, which is quite a lot for a Tuesday night. However, that constituted about half the games running in the room, and most of the other games were 4-8 limit. Most of the tables were empty.
While waiting for my 2-5 seat, I took a seat in a 4-8 game. I was surprised to see that the rake they take there is under 10%. They don't take out the fourth dollar until the pot has reached $80. Unfortunately, when I moved over to the 2-5 game, it turned out that they take the usual 10%. Still, the Venetian seems like an excellent place to play 4-8, and reasonably good for 2-5. They also will give you a $15 food comp after only a couple hours of play, and they'll bring food to the table. I don't have much of an idea of what's available, but I got a hamburger, and it was not so great.
While waiting for my 2-5 seat, I took a seat in a 4-8 game. I was surprised to see that the rake they take there is under 10%. They don't take out the fourth dollar until the pot has reached $80. Unfortunately, when I moved over to the 2-5 game, it turned out that they take the usual 10%. Still, the Venetian seems like an excellent place to play 4-8, and reasonably good for 2-5. They also will give you a $15 food comp after only a couple hours of play, and they'll bring food to the table. I don't have much of an idea of what's available, but I got a hamburger, and it was not so great.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Sammy and Chau: NL at the Bellagio
I went back to play at the Bellagio for a few hours and, indeed, I could tell I was pretty rusty. Fortunately, none of the horrible floorpeople were there. I went to the Bellagio because figured it would be the most likely place to have good NL games going at 4 am, and they cap the buyin at $200, which I figured would be good since I expected to be a bit rusty. I had forgotten how cool the Bellagio's poker room is. Playing at the lowest limits available in a poker room, as I do at the Bellagio, makes the atmosphere feel much different from playing at the highest limits, which is what I've gotten used to at other casinos. It's too bad the floorpeople there tend to be so terrible.
The other cool thing about the Bellagio is that it attracts the best players in the world. This morning, Barry Greenstein and David Benyamine were playing with a few other people in Bobby's Room, and Chau Giang and Sammy Farha were playing 100-200 NL with a few other players out on the regular casino floor at a table by the cashier. This is the biggest NL game I have ever witnessed, with a minimum buyin of $20K. As I walked by the table as I went to cash out my chips, Giang was shouting something playfully at Farha. At this point the game had shrunk to 3-handed. The third player (who I didn't recognize) was out of his seat, laughing that he wanted nothing to do with whatever was going on. I stopped behind Giang to watch the hand. It was still pre-flop and there was less than $2,000 in the pot I think. Giang was sitting to the left of the dealer. Now he was standing and leaning forward with his hands on the table as he shouted across it to Sammy. Sammy, like me, was having some difficulty understanding what Chau was saying, but it seemed he had just gone all-in for another $30K.
"So if I say 'yes,' then it's another $30K?" Farha asked Chau. Farha was holding his cards up in the air to allow a woman behind him to see his cards.
"Yes, yes, thirty thousand," replied Giang.
"Ok, put the flop out there," said Sammy. I interpreted this to mean he had called, but Chau reached into the pot and started pulling in the chips. The dealer seemed to have no problem with this, and proceeded to put out the 5 board cards. Anyway, I guess Sammy actually had folded. As Giang began to muck his cards, the third player, who was standing next to me to the left of Giang, reached in and playfully tried to turn over Chau's cards... Giang slapped his hand away, then turned over one of his cards: a king. He then claimed to have had AK, which clearly upset Farha. "I don't know why I fucking laid it down!" The third player claimed to have also had an ace, and tried to get Giang to tell him which ace he had... Chau refused to respond, suggesting that he may have been afriad to be caught in a lie (if he named the wrong suit, the other guy would know he had been lying). I don't pretend to be able to figure out all the motives and double-speak of a world-class player like Chau Giang, but I guess this suggests Giang didn't have the ace... I dunno.
After cashing out, I walked by the table again, and Farha was clearly steaming. He made a raise preflop with about 7 black chips, and Chau asked him how much it was. "I don't know, what does it matter? Here!" Farha responded irritably. He threw in a whole stack of $1,000 chips. I didn't stay to watch the rest of the hand.
The other cool thing about the Bellagio is that it attracts the best players in the world. This morning, Barry Greenstein and David Benyamine were playing with a few other people in Bobby's Room, and Chau Giang and Sammy Farha were playing 100-200 NL with a few other players out on the regular casino floor at a table by the cashier. This is the biggest NL game I have ever witnessed, with a minimum buyin of $20K. As I walked by the table as I went to cash out my chips, Giang was shouting something playfully at Farha. At this point the game had shrunk to 3-handed. The third player (who I didn't recognize) was out of his seat, laughing that he wanted nothing to do with whatever was going on. I stopped behind Giang to watch the hand. It was still pre-flop and there was less than $2,000 in the pot I think. Giang was sitting to the left of the dealer. Now he was standing and leaning forward with his hands on the table as he shouted across it to Sammy. Sammy, like me, was having some difficulty understanding what Chau was saying, but it seemed he had just gone all-in for another $30K.
"So if I say 'yes,' then it's another $30K?" Farha asked Chau. Farha was holding his cards up in the air to allow a woman behind him to see his cards.
"Yes, yes, thirty thousand," replied Giang.
"Ok, put the flop out there," said Sammy. I interpreted this to mean he had called, but Chau reached into the pot and started pulling in the chips. The dealer seemed to have no problem with this, and proceeded to put out the 5 board cards. Anyway, I guess Sammy actually had folded. As Giang began to muck his cards, the third player, who was standing next to me to the left of Giang, reached in and playfully tried to turn over Chau's cards... Giang slapped his hand away, then turned over one of his cards: a king. He then claimed to have had AK, which clearly upset Farha. "I don't know why I fucking laid it down!" The third player claimed to have also had an ace, and tried to get Giang to tell him which ace he had... Chau refused to respond, suggesting that he may have been afriad to be caught in a lie (if he named the wrong suit, the other guy would know he had been lying). I don't pretend to be able to figure out all the motives and double-speak of a world-class player like Chau Giang, but I guess this suggests Giang didn't have the ace... I dunno.
After cashing out, I walked by the table again, and Farha was clearly steaming. He made a raise preflop with about 7 black chips, and Chau asked him how much it was. "I don't know, what does it matter? Here!" Farha responded irritably. He threw in a whole stack of $1,000 chips. I didn't stay to watch the rest of the hand.
Rust
I was back on the east coast again for about ten days, and just got back late Monday night. I haven't played any poker since my last blog post, so that's why you haven't heard from me at all. I'm a big baseball fan, and that will be taking up some of my time during the season (in fact, my fantasy draft in Brooklyn was one of the reasons I was on the east coast). It's always a strange feeling going back to the casino for the first time after a week or so off, and this has been nearly two weeks. Maybe I'll start back at 1-2NL for a few days.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Gambling Theory and Other Topics by Mason Malmuth
One of the books I thought I needed to read upon deciding to become a professional gambler was Gambling Theory and Other Topics by Mason Malmuth. After all, I wanted to become a serious gambler, and it says right on the cover that it is "Absolutely MUST Reading for All Serious Gamblers." With a title like "Gambling Theory," I was expecting the book to be a technical exposition aspects of game theory that are useful to gambling. As it turns out, the nebulous idea of "other topics" comprises about 90% of the text. To be fair, most of these "other topics" concern gambling and are reasonably insightful. Sometimes, even entertaining.
Several times in his 300+ page book, Malmuth mentions that the idea of "non-self-weighting strategies" is the over-arching theme that holds all topics in the book together. This is the idea that in order to overcome the negative expectation of a negative-sum game, one must be able weight his bets himself (that is, the game cannot be "self-weighting"). For instance, in order to overcome the rake in poker, you need to be able to choose which hands to put your money into. To this I say: no shit. You mean I can't expect to win by just calling down every hand, regardless of my cards? Malmuth is right to consider this idea central to a winning gambling strategy; that he considers this topic to be profound is somewhat ridiculous. Also troubling is that he applies this idea to situtations that can be seen as positive-sum games, such as investing in the stock market. He extends to many extreme lengths. For example, Malmuth says that in life, introverted people are living a self-weighting strategy by only speaking when they have something useful to say, and this is why most successful gamblers are introverts. Hmmmm.... if you say so. I would have guessed it's because we tend to be kind of nerdy, thinking a lot about numbers and probabilities.
There is a section on "tournament strategy" that suggests doing all you can to conserve your chips when you are short-stacked. He has a list of 18 concepts about tournament strategy that can help you follow this suggestion. Number 11 is "Don't go out with a bang..." He says that you should "try to make those few remaining chips last as long as possible." This goes along with concept number 15: "Steal less late in a tournament if low on chips." As far as I can tell, these two ideas fly in the face of the advice in Harrington on Holdem, Volume II, which suggests become more and more aggressive as your M gets low. (M is a measure of chip count compared to the blinds.) Both books are published by Malmuth's and Sklansky's 2+2 publishing. So which is it, 2+2? Aggressive or passive when short-stacked? I'll have to reread Harrington's and Malmuth's justification on this topic. As I recall, Harrington gives vague justification, saying "you don't have time to sit around and wait for a good hand," but Malmuth's justification is more mathemeatical.
I found the section on "Calculating your Standard Deviation" to be particularly useful and probably could be correctly billed as "must reading for all serious gamblers." Before reading this section, I wasn't sure how to calculate my standard deviation correctly, and I was thinking I would have to derive the formula myself. Anyway, if you gamble for a living, read this section at least. However, be aware that there is a typo in the formula: in the places where you see "N," replace it with "N-1" (thanks to my dad for pointing this out). If you play a lot, this fix does not make much difference.
That is a problem I have with the entire line of 2+2 publishing's publications. These books sell like hotcakes (even better, maybe), and new editions come out every year. Despite this, almost every page has either a typo or grammatical error of the sort I would be ashamed to have left in an 5-page essay that I wrote in two hours. I usually have a typo or two in my posts on this blog, but I go and change them when I realize it. How do the errors in 2+2 persist, edition after edition? This is an enigma that haunts me like the missing license plates in Las Vegas. Why are these glaringly obvious transgressions allowed to persist? Usually the typos and grammatical errors don't make a big difference, but come on, why not try to get it right? Even if they usually don't matter much, they do sometimes make a difference, like when numbers or formulas are involved.
Overall, I recommend skipping this book except for some of the sections in the first half of Part Two: Theory in Practice. The sections entitiled "How much do I need?" and "Calculating your standard deviation" are particularly useful. Some other sections convered topics I found painfully obvious, but maybe some professional gamblers could benefit. For instance, Part Three: Pseudo Theory Exposed. For more advanced analysis, you may want to check out The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic by Richard Epstein, although it is $50 on Amazon. I haven't read it yet, but it looks promising. Anybody have any other suggested reading?
Several times in his 300+ page book, Malmuth mentions that the idea of "non-self-weighting strategies" is the over-arching theme that holds all topics in the book together. This is the idea that in order to overcome the negative expectation of a negative-sum game, one must be able weight his bets himself (that is, the game cannot be "self-weighting"). For instance, in order to overcome the rake in poker, you need to be able to choose which hands to put your money into. To this I say: no shit. You mean I can't expect to win by just calling down every hand, regardless of my cards? Malmuth is right to consider this idea central to a winning gambling strategy; that he considers this topic to be profound is somewhat ridiculous. Also troubling is that he applies this idea to situtations that can be seen as positive-sum games, such as investing in the stock market. He extends to many extreme lengths. For example, Malmuth says that in life, introverted people are living a self-weighting strategy by only speaking when they have something useful to say, and this is why most successful gamblers are introverts. Hmmmm.... if you say so. I would have guessed it's because we tend to be kind of nerdy, thinking a lot about numbers and probabilities.
There is a section on "tournament strategy" that suggests doing all you can to conserve your chips when you are short-stacked. He has a list of 18 concepts about tournament strategy that can help you follow this suggestion. Number 11 is "Don't go out with a bang..." He says that you should "try to make those few remaining chips last as long as possible." This goes along with concept number 15: "Steal less late in a tournament if low on chips." As far as I can tell, these two ideas fly in the face of the advice in Harrington on Holdem, Volume II, which suggests become more and more aggressive as your M gets low. (M is a measure of chip count compared to the blinds.) Both books are published by Malmuth's and Sklansky's 2+2 publishing. So which is it, 2+2? Aggressive or passive when short-stacked? I'll have to reread Harrington's and Malmuth's justification on this topic. As I recall, Harrington gives vague justification, saying "you don't have time to sit around and wait for a good hand," but Malmuth's justification is more mathemeatical.
I found the section on "Calculating your Standard Deviation" to be particularly useful and probably could be correctly billed as "must reading for all serious gamblers." Before reading this section, I wasn't sure how to calculate my standard deviation correctly, and I was thinking I would have to derive the formula myself. Anyway, if you gamble for a living, read this section at least. However, be aware that there is a typo in the formula: in the places where you see "N," replace it with "N-1" (thanks to my dad for pointing this out). If you play a lot, this fix does not make much difference.
That is a problem I have with the entire line of 2+2 publishing's publications. These books sell like hotcakes (even better, maybe), and new editions come out every year. Despite this, almost every page has either a typo or grammatical error of the sort I would be ashamed to have left in an 5-page essay that I wrote in two hours. I usually have a typo or two in my posts on this blog, but I go and change them when I realize it. How do the errors in 2+2 persist, edition after edition? This is an enigma that haunts me like the missing license plates in Las Vegas. Why are these glaringly obvious transgressions allowed to persist? Usually the typos and grammatical errors don't make a big difference, but come on, why not try to get it right? Even if they usually don't matter much, they do sometimes make a difference, like when numbers or formulas are involved.
Overall, I recommend skipping this book except for some of the sections in the first half of Part Two: Theory in Practice. The sections entitiled "How much do I need?" and "Calculating your standard deviation" are particularly useful. Some other sections convered topics I found painfully obvious, but maybe some professional gamblers could benefit. For instance, Part Three: Pseudo Theory Exposed. For more advanced analysis, you may want to check out The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic by Richard Epstein, although it is $50 on Amazon. I haven't read it yet, but it looks promising. Anybody have any other suggested reading?
Monday, March 13, 2006
14th place
After five and a half hours of play, I was knocked out in 14th place (top 10 were paid).
For lack of anything interesting to discuss (that is, I don't feel like putting in the effort at the moment), here is the hand I was knocked out on.
Blinds are 500-1000 with antes at 200. There are seven players, and I am in the big blind with about 8000 left. The pot contains 3900 pre-flop, so my M is a meager 2. The second player limps in for 1000, everyone folds except the small blind, who calls. The small blind is also short stacked, with about 10,000 left, and the limper has about 15,000. I have 96o. At this point, going all-in is an option, but I had been quite aggressive recently and I think I would have gotten called. Anyway, I just check.
Flop: 9s 7d 3h. A very good-looking flop for my hand, as I now have top pair. The small blind checks, I check, the limper bets 2000, and the small blind folds This is just about exactly what I wanted to happen when I checked on the flop. There is now 7400 in the pot, and I have 6000 left. I go all-in with my top pair. Unfortunately, the limper has a set of threes and calls immediately. No help from the turn or river means I am out of chips.
For lack of anything interesting to discuss (that is, I don't feel like putting in the effort at the moment), here is the hand I was knocked out on.
Blinds are 500-1000 with antes at 200. There are seven players, and I am in the big blind with about 8000 left. The pot contains 3900 pre-flop, so my M is a meager 2. The second player limps in for 1000, everyone folds except the small blind, who calls. The small blind is also short stacked, with about 10,000 left, and the limper has about 15,000. I have 96o. At this point, going all-in is an option, but I had been quite aggressive recently and I think I would have gotten called. Anyway, I just check.
Flop: 9s 7d 3h. A very good-looking flop for my hand, as I now have top pair. The small blind checks, I check, the limper bets 2000, and the small blind folds This is just about exactly what I wanted to happen when I checked on the flop. There is now 7400 in the pot, and I have 6000 left. I go all-in with my top pair. Unfortunately, the limper has a set of threes and calls immediately. No help from the turn or river means I am out of chips.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
WSOP Freeroll Tonight
The freeroll is at the Rio tonight at 7 PM, just a couple hours from now. There are 40 players, I think, and $17500 paid out to the top ten.
Oh, and by the way, Friday night I hit two "jackpot" hands (quads or better), after not hitting any in January or February. Each jackpot hand pays out from $40 to $599... My two hands totalled $110. Oh well. I'll take it. (The hands were quad 3's and quad 7's.)
Oh, and by the way, Friday night I hit two "jackpot" hands (quads or better), after not hitting any in January or February. Each jackpot hand pays out from $40 to $599... My two hands totalled $110. Oh well. I'll take it. (The hands were quad 3's and quad 7's.)
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Venetian Poker Room
For several months now, rumors have been circulating about the Venetian opening a poker room. First, I heard it was supposed to open in December 2005. This date came and went without any new poker room at the Venetian (perhaps people got it confused with Caesars, which did open its poker room that month). Then I heard it would open in February. Still, no. Anyway, last night I had a chance encounter with a dealer I know from the Rio and then Caesars. I saw her in the parking lot last night outside a local grocery store, and she told me she took a job at the Venetian's new poker room- which opens April 2. I just checked their website, which confirms this date. Judging by the website (and the dealer's description), it should be nice. Maybe I'll stop by the Venetian this week and see if I can get a peek at the new room.
As a side note, I have heard that Caesars' poker room, which supposedly cost $13 million (not sure what cost so much), has not been doing so well. I still haven't been back there since making this post about why I didn't like playing there.
As a side note, I have heard that Caesars' poker room, which supposedly cost $13 million (not sure what cost so much), has not been doing so well. I still haven't been back there since making this post about why I didn't like playing there.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Rio WSOP Freeroll - I'm In!
Well, it's semi-official. I convinced one of the floormen at the Rio to tell me whether I had over 80 hours in February, and he looked at the computer and said I was well over 80, probably over 95 (by my count I only played there 84:15, but who's counting? Oh, right...)
As I understand it, the freeroll tournament is March 11 at 7 pm. Supposedly there will be about 40 players. First place gets a seat into the main event of the 2006 WSOP. Second through tenth places receive percentage payouts from a pool of about $7500. If this is accurate, the average player will win $17500/40 = $437.50.
The money for the freeroll tournament all comes directly from the players: $1 is taken from every pot. This money also funds the high-hand jackpots, which pay out from $40 to $599 if you get four-of-a-kind or a straight flush. ($599 because, at $600, more paperwork is required.) I don't particularly like the jackpots because it compromises the purity of the game, but it does encourage worse play from my opponents at times. For example, one woman twice stood up and looked at the front board in the middle of a hand, clearly checking the jackpot sizes... and both times she indeed had a high hand. She just couldn't wait for the hand to be over to see how much she had won! That's a pretty ridiculous tell. On the second of these two hands, this tell allowed me to just call on the river - instead of raising - with a full house (it was a limit game and I couldn't bring myself to fold it).
Over the course of the month, I think I saw at least 30 of these jackpot hands get paid out to people at my tables. Assuming an average of 8 players at my table at any given time, and assuming that I play the same number of potential jackpot hands as the average players, we can calculate the probability that none of these 30 jackpot hands were won by yours truly. It's simply (7/8)^30, which comes to .0182, according to Google's calculator. I bring this up, of course, because this is exactly what happened.
As I understand it, the freeroll tournament is March 11 at 7 pm. Supposedly there will be about 40 players. First place gets a seat into the main event of the 2006 WSOP. Second through tenth places receive percentage payouts from a pool of about $7500. If this is accurate, the average player will win $17500/40 = $437.50.
The money for the freeroll tournament all comes directly from the players: $1 is taken from every pot. This money also funds the high-hand jackpots, which pay out from $40 to $599 if you get four-of-a-kind or a straight flush. ($599 because, at $600, more paperwork is required.) I don't particularly like the jackpots because it compromises the purity of the game, but it does encourage worse play from my opponents at times. For example, one woman twice stood up and looked at the front board in the middle of a hand, clearly checking the jackpot sizes... and both times she indeed had a high hand. She just couldn't wait for the hand to be over to see how much she had won! That's a pretty ridiculous tell. On the second of these two hands, this tell allowed me to just call on the river - instead of raising - with a full house (it was a limit game and I couldn't bring myself to fold it).
Over the course of the month, I think I saw at least 30 of these jackpot hands get paid out to people at my tables. Assuming an average of 8 players at my table at any given time, and assuming that I play the same number of potential jackpot hands as the average players, we can calculate the probability that none of these 30 jackpot hands were won by yours truly. It's simply (7/8)^30, which comes to .0182, according to Google's calculator. I bring this up, of course, because this is exactly what happened.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Variance
In gambling, as in the stock market, you must consider two things when determining whether a game or portfolio is worthwhile: volatility and expected return. In gambling, these things are usually measured in hourly rate. Most gamblers underestimate the former and overestimate the latter. In fact, most gamblers I know probably have little concept of what volatility even is. According to Malmuth in Gambling Theory and Other Topics, an expert player may have to play over 4000 hours before he can be voer 99.8% sure to be above even (based on a standard devation of $650 and a win rate of $30). That's two full years of full-time playing before you can be assured of being in the black! How many pros would have the bankroll, patience, and psychological fortitude to play that long before throwing in the towel?
Volatility is a measure of the riskiness inherent in a game. The most common and useful measure is the standard deviation. If my standard deviation in a game were $300/hour and my expected return were $0/hour, then 68% I can expect to be within one standard deviation (-$300 to $300) after one hour of play. 95% of the time I can expect to be within 2 standard deviations (-$600 to $600).
Keeping these number in mind, I've found, is very useful for two reasons. First, it keeps me humble and prevents me from putting my bankroll at great risk. Usually, doubling stakes means more than doubling standard deviation, because competition tends to be better. Also expected return will be less than double for the same reason. Thus, if I were to move up from my usual $2-5NL game to the $5-10NL game, as I planned to do in January, I would have to accept a doubling of my standard deviation, while less than doubling my expected return.
Second, knowing about these standard deviation helps keep losses in perspective. A common question gamblers ask themselves (and others) when they are running badly is "Am I playing badly or am I just unlucky recently?" If you know your standard deviation, you can at least give yourself some idea by answering the question: "If I were playing as well as I normally do, what is the likelihood that I would have lost as much as I have over the past X hours?" Usually the number will be higher than you would have expected. This doesn't quite give you the answer you were looking for ("Bad or unlucky?"), but it does give you some perspective on how much luck really does play into results. For me, this can help me to regain my confidence during a losing streak.
Most people tend to attribute their good results to skill and their bad results to bad luck. I am just the opposite. In fact this post was inspired by a statistically unlikely session I had last night, where I came out almost 4 standard devation ABOVE my mean over the course of 7 hours. Boy, was I ever lucky!
By the way, the Rio games got good again and I'm going to qualify for the WSOP freeroll tournament. I sure hope volatility is on my side again that day.
Volatility is a measure of the riskiness inherent in a game. The most common and useful measure is the standard deviation. If my standard deviation in a game were $300/hour and my expected return were $0/hour, then 68% I can expect to be within one standard deviation (-$300 to $300) after one hour of play. 95% of the time I can expect to be within 2 standard deviations (-$600 to $600).
Keeping these number in mind, I've found, is very useful for two reasons. First, it keeps me humble and prevents me from putting my bankroll at great risk. Usually, doubling stakes means more than doubling standard deviation, because competition tends to be better. Also expected return will be less than double for the same reason. Thus, if I were to move up from my usual $2-5NL game to the $5-10NL game, as I planned to do in January, I would have to accept a doubling of my standard deviation, while less than doubling my expected return.
Second, knowing about these standard deviation helps keep losses in perspective. A common question gamblers ask themselves (and others) when they are running badly is "Am I playing badly or am I just unlucky recently?" If you know your standard deviation, you can at least give yourself some idea by answering the question: "If I were playing as well as I normally do, what is the likelihood that I would have lost as much as I have over the past X hours?" Usually the number will be higher than you would have expected. This doesn't quite give you the answer you were looking for ("Bad or unlucky?"), but it does give you some perspective on how much luck really does play into results. For me, this can help me to regain my confidence during a losing streak.
Most people tend to attribute their good results to skill and their bad results to bad luck. I am just the opposite. In fact this post was inspired by a statistically unlikely session I had last night, where I came out almost 4 standard devation ABOVE my mean over the course of 7 hours. Boy, was I ever lucky!
By the way, the Rio games got good again and I'm going to qualify for the WSOP freeroll tournament. I sure hope volatility is on my side again that day.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Commerce Casino
I was in LA with Brigid this weekend, and on our way back to Vegas we stopped to check out the Commerce Casino. There's a chance I'll move to LA at some point, so I wanted to see what the poker options there are. I've read quite a bit about the differences between Vegas and LA for poker (most recentlyin Malmuth's Gambling Theory and Other Topics), but I wanted to see first hand. I've heard the Commerce has the largest poker room in the world (by number of tables). Actually, it's two rooms - one high limit and one low limit. Both are bigger than any room in Vegas, with the low limit room somewhat larger.
Since I stopped playing at the Bellagio, seeing the big name poker stars isn't as routine for me as before, so it was fun to see all the recognizable faces at the Commerce. The first star I noticed was Gus Hansen, Brigid's favorite player for obvious reasons. At his table were Phil Ivey, David Benyamine, Lyle Berman, Eli Elezra, and a couple others I don't remember now. Todd Brunson at David Williams were playing nearby, too. Unlike at the Bellagio, where there is a semi-private room for the "big game," the big games at the Commerce are right on the floor with all the other tables, which is pretty cool.
Except for some inconvenience getting to the Commerce (lots of traffic in LA), it seems like a viable poker option. Next time I go I'll check out the Bicycle. Any other good poker rooms in LA?
Since I stopped playing at the Bellagio, seeing the big name poker stars isn't as routine for me as before, so it was fun to see all the recognizable faces at the Commerce. The first star I noticed was Gus Hansen, Brigid's favorite player for obvious reasons. At his table were Phil Ivey, David Benyamine, Lyle Berman, Eli Elezra, and a couple others I don't remember now. Todd Brunson at David Williams were playing nearby, too. Unlike at the Bellagio, where there is a semi-private room for the "big game," the big games at the Commerce are right on the floor with all the other tables, which is pretty cool.
Except for some inconvenience getting to the Commerce (lots of traffic in LA), it seems like a viable poker option. Next time I go I'll check out the Bicycle. Any other good poker rooms in LA?
Monday, February 13, 2006
Rio WSOP Freeroll Update
As I described in my last post, I'm considering trying to qualify for the freeroll WSOP satellite tournament at the Rio by playing 80 hours in February. The qualifiers from January played their tournament Sunday night. There were 18 qualifiers, 16 of whom showed up for the freeroll. I recognized about half of them, and they were all decent players, as expected.
There are a few new important factors for me to consider. First is that 2nd-10th place were also paid, a total of just under $3000. So the total value of the tournament is now about $12,000. Unfortunately, word has gotten out about this promotion, and a lot more players will probably be qualifying in February. In my previous post, I had guessed that there would be 24 players - now I think there will be over 35. I'll guess 40. Qualification is now worth only about $400 to me (previously approximated at $560).
Another problem is that the influx of new players who are serious about poker has made the Rio games much, much tougher than usual. About 80% of my opponents the past few days have been competent professional players. I'm used to maybe 40%. Aside from the promotion, continuing to play in these games would be an example of terrible game selection, .
On the other hand, I have already racked up about 43 hours this month, so I only have 37 more to go in the span of 15 days. If it weren't for this promotion, I would probably play at the Rio 0-10 more hours this month, so I would have to play about 32 extra hours there to qualify. Since qualifying is worth $400 to me, this amounts to $12.50 an hour.
Would my win rate at the Mirage (or some other casino) be at least $12.50/hour more than what I expect to win in the very tough games at the Rio? This seems very likely. If that's the case, it no longer makes much sense for me to pursue the goal of playing 80 hours. On the other hand... my girlfriend is coming to town this weekend and I could play 4-8 limit with her at the Rio and avoid the sharks. The 4-8 Rio game is certainly not $12.50/hour worse than any other 4-8 game in town. I don't know what to do.
There are a few new important factors for me to consider. First is that 2nd-10th place were also paid, a total of just under $3000. So the total value of the tournament is now about $12,000. Unfortunately, word has gotten out about this promotion, and a lot more players will probably be qualifying in February. In my previous post, I had guessed that there would be 24 players - now I think there will be over 35. I'll guess 40. Qualification is now worth only about $400 to me (previously approximated at $560).
Another problem is that the influx of new players who are serious about poker has made the Rio games much, much tougher than usual. About 80% of my opponents the past few days have been competent professional players. I'm used to maybe 40%. Aside from the promotion, continuing to play in these games would be an example of terrible game selection, .
On the other hand, I have already racked up about 43 hours this month, so I only have 37 more to go in the span of 15 days. If it weren't for this promotion, I would probably play at the Rio 0-10 more hours this month, so I would have to play about 32 extra hours there to qualify. Since qualifying is worth $400 to me, this amounts to $12.50 an hour.
Would my win rate at the Mirage (or some other casino) be at least $12.50/hour more than what I expect to win in the very tough games at the Rio? This seems very likely. If that's the case, it no longer makes much sense for me to pursue the goal of playing 80 hours. On the other hand... my girlfriend is coming to town this weekend and I could play 4-8 limit with her at the Rio and avoid the sharks. The 4-8 Rio game is certainly not $12.50/hour worse than any other 4-8 game in town. I don't know what to do.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
80 hours at the Rio
This week I found out the Rio has been running a promotion where you get to play in a freeroll satellite tournament for the main event of the WSOP. All you have to do is play 80 hours in a calendar month, or win two of their daily tournaments in a month. I had heard rumors about this for a while, but nobody seemed to know quite what was going on, even the dealers and floorment. Despite this, there were supposedly 17 people who qualified back in December, and they played their freeroll on January. I don't see how this is possible, since in mid-January, the poker room staff still couldn't give me any information about what the promotion was, and their rewards card swipers weren't even working, meaning they must have kept hand records of everyone's hours. Never did the rumors include mention of the WSOP, only that there might be some sort of freeroll for players who log a lot of hours. Suffice it to say that there was a lot of confusion and hearsay surrounding the situation until last week.
Now, the situation is much clearer. They have the rules posted on the wall, and the comp card swipers are working again. I play a lot at the Rio, but also a lot at other places, so I'm trying to determine whether it's worth trying to reach 80 hours. Here are some factors that will weigh in the decision.
How much of a commitment would this be? I didn't start playing at the Rio this month until Friday, Feb 3 because I didn't know about this promotion and I'd been playing at the Mirage insted. Since Friday I have 18 hours logged at the Rio. February is 1/4 over, so my 18 hours are behind pace - I need 62 more in 3 weeks. Without trying, I would probably play 20-35 more hours there this month anyway. So the opportunity cost is about 35 hours during which I would be doing something else. For instance, I recently found out that the Mirage gives a $15 food comp just for playing. The 2-5 Mirage games are pretty good, but not quite as good as the Rio. The Mirage also has good 10-20 and 20-40 limit games, and a lower rake than the Rio.
How many players would I be going up against? Supposedly there are about 18 qualifiers from January, and they'll be playing on Sunday. So far this month, the Rio has been much more crowded than in January. Although I suspect this is mostly because of the Super Bowl, it's also possible that now that the rules are posted, more people are attempting to qualify for the tournament. The shortness of the month compensates for this somewhat. I approximate 24 other qualifiers for February.
How tough would my competition be? There are two players at the Rio who are probably better than I am, but they don't play there every day, so I doubt they'll qualify. The regulars at the Rio are decent, but not great. The real problem here is that there will be no fish - against a normal tournament field, at least 20% of the players are terrible. This won't be the case. I have relatively solid tournament skills, so I'd say that against a field of 24 solid players, I have about a 1/16 chance to win. If I knew the tournament structure, I could make a better approximation.
How much is the prize worth to me? Well, the prize is entry into the $10,000 WSOP main event. Although I could afford it, I would not put up the $10K entry fee on my own, so clearly it is worth less than that to me. How much would I be willing to pay to enter the tournament? $9000? Probably. Close enough.
What is my equity? $9000/16 = $562.50. So, I'm spending about 35 extra hours at the Rio over the course of 3 weeks for an expected extra $560, or about $16 an hour (neglecting the length of the freeroll tournament itself). Is that worth it? Probably - $16 is still a significant boost to my win rate.
I'll try to keep myself on pace, and then check out the freeroll on Sunday to see who shows up, what the structure is, and how many players there are.
Now, the situation is much clearer. They have the rules posted on the wall, and the comp card swipers are working again. I play a lot at the Rio, but also a lot at other places, so I'm trying to determine whether it's worth trying to reach 80 hours. Here are some factors that will weigh in the decision.
How much of a commitment would this be? I didn't start playing at the Rio this month until Friday, Feb 3 because I didn't know about this promotion and I'd been playing at the Mirage insted. Since Friday I have 18 hours logged at the Rio. February is 1/4 over, so my 18 hours are behind pace - I need 62 more in 3 weeks. Without trying, I would probably play 20-35 more hours there this month anyway. So the opportunity cost is about 35 hours during which I would be doing something else. For instance, I recently found out that the Mirage gives a $15 food comp just for playing. The 2-5 Mirage games are pretty good, but not quite as good as the Rio. The Mirage also has good 10-20 and 20-40 limit games, and a lower rake than the Rio.
How many players would I be going up against? Supposedly there are about 18 qualifiers from January, and they'll be playing on Sunday. So far this month, the Rio has been much more crowded than in January. Although I suspect this is mostly because of the Super Bowl, it's also possible that now that the rules are posted, more people are attempting to qualify for the tournament. The shortness of the month compensates for this somewhat. I approximate 24 other qualifiers for February.
How tough would my competition be? There are two players at the Rio who are probably better than I am, but they don't play there every day, so I doubt they'll qualify. The regulars at the Rio are decent, but not great. The real problem here is that there will be no fish - against a normal tournament field, at least 20% of the players are terrible. This won't be the case. I have relatively solid tournament skills, so I'd say that against a field of 24 solid players, I have about a 1/16 chance to win. If I knew the tournament structure, I could make a better approximation.
How much is the prize worth to me? Well, the prize is entry into the $10,000 WSOP main event. Although I could afford it, I would not put up the $10K entry fee on my own, so clearly it is worth less than that to me. How much would I be willing to pay to enter the tournament? $9000? Probably. Close enough.
What is my equity? $9000/16 = $562.50. So, I'm spending about 35 extra hours at the Rio over the course of 3 weeks for an expected extra $560, or about $16 an hour (neglecting the length of the freeroll tournament itself). Is that worth it? Probably - $16 is still a significant boost to my win rate.
I'll try to keep myself on pace, and then check out the freeroll on Sunday to see who shows up, what the structure is, and how many players there are.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Caesars
As I mentioned before, Caesars has a new poker room. It opened mid-December. The room is very large and has state of the art technology. It's located in its own alcove right between the sportsbook and Pure (supposedly the most popular nightclub in the world right now). I've played there several times and the games are reasonably good. However, I don't plan on going back anytime soon for the following reasons...
1. Unreasonable rules. The MGM room had this same problem when they opened up. The people in charge want to make strict rules to try to eliminate any gray area when disputes arise. This is understandable - advisable even. The problem is that players and dealers are used to a certain set of rules, written and unwritten, that are used in all the other poker rooms in town. When you make new rules and tell neither the players nor the dealers, it is unreasonable, and will only cause more disputes. The solution is probably to have strict rules that conform to the current customs of play in poker rooms around Vegas. A good example of this is "cutting your stack" when betting. If you want to bet $70 and you bring out a stack of sixteen $5 chips, most casinos allow you to count out these chips and then bring two back, as long as you leave your hand on them. At Caesars, this is an $80 bet unless you verbally declare "$70". This rule alone makes me very unlikely to want to play at Caesars again, unless they change it.
2. Poor service. I wanted to get some food and another player told me they will bring food to the table, and all I had to do was ask for a menu. This is a nice feature that some, but not all, casinos offer. I got my menu and the floorperson asked me for my ID so I could get a comp card. All I had to do was give the waitress my card when I ordered. Well, four hours, $17, and one cheeseburger later, I still didn't have my comp card or any discount, and I was out of my seat asking the floorperson where I could get my card. She said I should go to the front desk. The front desk told me I had to go out into the casino, past the deli to the rewards center to get it. So I searched the casino for a few minutes, found the rewards center, got my card, and went home. The next time I went to Caesars I had been playing for about 6 hours when I decided to order some food. Suffice it to say that an hour and a half later, after they had finally gotten around to asking me for my order, I was ready to leave. And not come back. Now, I realize getting food brought to me at the table is a luxury, but expecting the casino to follow through on their offer of it should not be to much to ask.
3. Inadaquate restrooms. The restroom has just a few urinals and is located just outside the poker room, to be shared with sportsbook patrons and nightclub goers. This means lines are common, especially when the nightclub is hopping. On the plus side, it makes for an amusing social scene as the world of the drunken nightclub people collides with the world of the poker players.
All of these problems, particularly the first two, can be fixed rather easily. In fact, I expect them to be fixed within a month or two. Until then, Las Vegas has plenty of other more worthy options.
1. Unreasonable rules. The MGM room had this same problem when they opened up. The people in charge want to make strict rules to try to eliminate any gray area when disputes arise. This is understandable - advisable even. The problem is that players and dealers are used to a certain set of rules, written and unwritten, that are used in all the other poker rooms in town. When you make new rules and tell neither the players nor the dealers, it is unreasonable, and will only cause more disputes. The solution is probably to have strict rules that conform to the current customs of play in poker rooms around Vegas. A good example of this is "cutting your stack" when betting. If you want to bet $70 and you bring out a stack of sixteen $5 chips, most casinos allow you to count out these chips and then bring two back, as long as you leave your hand on them. At Caesars, this is an $80 bet unless you verbally declare "$70". This rule alone makes me very unlikely to want to play at Caesars again, unless they change it.
2. Poor service. I wanted to get some food and another player told me they will bring food to the table, and all I had to do was ask for a menu. This is a nice feature that some, but not all, casinos offer. I got my menu and the floorperson asked me for my ID so I could get a comp card. All I had to do was give the waitress my card when I ordered. Well, four hours, $17, and one cheeseburger later, I still didn't have my comp card or any discount, and I was out of my seat asking the floorperson where I could get my card. She said I should go to the front desk. The front desk told me I had to go out into the casino, past the deli to the rewards center to get it. So I searched the casino for a few minutes, found the rewards center, got my card, and went home. The next time I went to Caesars I had been playing for about 6 hours when I decided to order some food. Suffice it to say that an hour and a half later, after they had finally gotten around to asking me for my order, I was ready to leave. And not come back. Now, I realize getting food brought to me at the table is a luxury, but expecting the casino to follow through on their offer of it should not be to much to ask.
3. Inadaquate restrooms. The restroom has just a few urinals and is located just outside the poker room, to be shared with sportsbook patrons and nightclub goers. This means lines are common, especially when the nightclub is hopping. On the plus side, it makes for an amusing social scene as the world of the drunken nightclub people collides with the world of the poker players.
All of these problems, particularly the first two, can be fixed rather easily. In fact, I expect them to be fixed within a month or two. Until then, Las Vegas has plenty of other more worthy options.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Wynn Tournament and 5/10NL
My sleeping schedule is now such that I am awake at noon and can play in the acclaimed Wynn tournament. The tournament is $330, and you start out with an M of 40. M, named after backgammon and poker theorist Paul Magriel, is the ratio of the size of your stack to the size of the pot before the flop. A higher M generally means that more skill is involved. A lower M implies a lot of all-in bets, eliminating most post-flop skill. Thus, most good players prefer tournaments where you have a high M for most of the tournament. This happens when the stacks start out big and the blinds move up slowly - at the Wynn they move up every 45 minutes. For comparison, the Mirage tournaments on Tuesday and Wednesday start with an M of 15 an the blinds move up every 30 minutes.
Anyway, I played in the Wynn tournament for the first time yesterday. It attracted 88 players, for a pretty substantial prize pool. Unfortunately, a high percentage of the players were pretty good, due probably to the structure attracting better players. I was doing well until I got a little too excited with 55 in the big blind and reraised what I percieved to be a steal from the button, and ran into QQ. This took out half my stack, and I couldn't get anything going after that.
Later, I went to play the 5-10 NL game. This game is entirely beatable, although I failed to beat it yesterday. The game was looser than the average 2-5 NL game, which is saying something. I hope yesterday was representative of what can be expected at that level. If so, I'll be playing there more often in the coming months. For now, I'll be playing a mix of that and 2-5 NL.
Anyway, I played in the Wynn tournament for the first time yesterday. It attracted 88 players, for a pretty substantial prize pool. Unfortunately, a high percentage of the players were pretty good, due probably to the structure attracting better players. I was doing well until I got a little too excited with 55 in the big blind and reraised what I percieved to be a steal from the button, and ran into QQ. This took out half my stack, and I couldn't get anything going after that.
Later, I went to play the 5-10 NL game. This game is entirely beatable, although I failed to beat it yesterday. The game was looser than the average 2-5 NL game, which is saying something. I hope yesterday was representative of what can be expected at that level. If so, I'll be playing there more often in the coming months. For now, I'll be playing a mix of that and 2-5 NL.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Folding KK
The conventional wisdom is that, in a cash game (as opposed to a tournament), KK should practically never be folded before the flop. In Harrington on Holdem Volume I, Dan Harrington describes a time that he almost folded them, but then decided to call anyway. He claims to have never folded KK before the flop.
I've folded KK before the flop once in my life, back in college against my old roommate Ben. I now think it was a bad decision, although Ben insists that he did, indeed, have AA (I'm not entirely sure he's telling me the truth, though). Anyway, I almost folded KK again yesterday at the Rio, and after analyzing the situation more closely, I'm still not sure what I should have done.
Here's the situation. Playing 2-5 NL, I was in the small blind with about $800. The under-the-gun player, who had exactly $332 left, raised to $25. He was tight and rather passive, an I hadn't seen him do anything out of line in the couple of hours we had been there. So already I knew he had to have a premium hand.
The next player had over $1000 behind. He was loose and aggressive, and raised to $100. I figured him for AQ or better, TT or better. Everyone folded to me, and I looked down at KK. I decided that I very likely had the best hand, but that the UTG player also had to have an excellent hand, and was likely to put in the rest of his money if I just called. This was my best chance of getting the loose-aggressive player's money into the pot. So, instead of reraising, which is the usual play, I just cold-called the $100. The big blind folded, and, as expected, the UTG player went all-in for his last $232. He did this so confidently and uncaringly that I felt he very likely had AA.
The loose aggressive player spent a minute or so considering his play, and made the comment "I'm either going all-in or folding," essentially eliminating the chance he had AA... so at this point I was really hoping he pushes all-in. Alas, he folded, accidentally flashing two face cards that I thought were JJ (he confirmed this after the hand). In any case, he certainly was not holding an ace.
Now the action was back to me. I am reasonably confident the UTG player has AA, but can I really lay down KK? I was being offered 232 to 533 odds. This means I need to think I have about a 30% chance to win the hand to make calling correct. If he has AA I am only about 18 or 19% to win the hand. In my mind at the time, I was thinking that if he didn't have AA, I was about 80% to win. After further analysis, I think that if he didn't have AA, I was really only about 75% to win, but I was pretty close. (The 75% statistics was calculated with pokerstove, assuming the other possible hands he could have were 88-KK, ATs+, KQs, or AKo. Adding in a few hands like 78s doesn't change things much.) I decided to call, but expected to see him turn over AA... which is exactly what happened.
Anyway, doing the math shows that I needed to be 79% confident that my opponent was holding AA to make folding correct. Was I that confident? Uh... I dunno, I've always found it hard to put numbers on these things. I actually think I was about 80% sure he had AA. So, maybe folding would have been correct after all.
I've folded KK before the flop once in my life, back in college against my old roommate Ben. I now think it was a bad decision, although Ben insists that he did, indeed, have AA (I'm not entirely sure he's telling me the truth, though). Anyway, I almost folded KK again yesterday at the Rio, and after analyzing the situation more closely, I'm still not sure what I should have done.
Here's the situation. Playing 2-5 NL, I was in the small blind with about $800. The under-the-gun player, who had exactly $332 left, raised to $25. He was tight and rather passive, an I hadn't seen him do anything out of line in the couple of hours we had been there. So already I knew he had to have a premium hand.
The next player had over $1000 behind. He was loose and aggressive, and raised to $100. I figured him for AQ or better, TT or better. Everyone folded to me, and I looked down at KK. I decided that I very likely had the best hand, but that the UTG player also had to have an excellent hand, and was likely to put in the rest of his money if I just called. This was my best chance of getting the loose-aggressive player's money into the pot. So, instead of reraising, which is the usual play, I just cold-called the $100. The big blind folded, and, as expected, the UTG player went all-in for his last $232. He did this so confidently and uncaringly that I felt he very likely had AA.
The loose aggressive player spent a minute or so considering his play, and made the comment "I'm either going all-in or folding," essentially eliminating the chance he had AA... so at this point I was really hoping he pushes all-in. Alas, he folded, accidentally flashing two face cards that I thought were JJ (he confirmed this after the hand). In any case, he certainly was not holding an ace.
Now the action was back to me. I am reasonably confident the UTG player has AA, but can I really lay down KK? I was being offered 232 to 533 odds. This means I need to think I have about a 30% chance to win the hand to make calling correct. If he has AA I am only about 18 or 19% to win the hand. In my mind at the time, I was thinking that if he didn't have AA, I was about 80% to win. After further analysis, I think that if he didn't have AA, I was really only about 75% to win, but I was pretty close. (The 75% statistics was calculated with pokerstove, assuming the other possible hands he could have were 88-KK, ATs+, KQs, or AKo. Adding in a few hands like 78s doesn't change things much.) I decided to call, but expected to see him turn over AA... which is exactly what happened.
Anyway, doing the math shows that I needed to be 79% confident that my opponent was holding AA to make folding correct. Was I that confident? Uh... I dunno, I've always found it hard to put numbers on these things. I actually think I was about 80% sure he had AA. So, maybe folding would have been correct after all.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Is This Bad?
While playing at the Rio last night, I ordered I coke. When I was just finishing it off, I felt something strange in my mouth. What I removed was a tiny piece of broken glass - in fact, it pricked my finger, causing it to bleed for a few minutes. I wonder how long will it take me to notice if I swallowed any similar fragments.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Quick Update
Since the last time you heard from me, I've had a terrible losing streak (actually the 15-30 game at the Wynn was in the midst of this) and then a complete turnaround, getting me back into the black for the month.
Sorry to my loyal readers for not posting for a week. I've been working on a couple of other projects, and not much interesting has happened. Here's the best I can do to try to interest you:
- In the lobby at the Mirage this past weekend there was an enormous crowd for the new Jet nightclub. Nearly naked models painted with the Jet logo sprawled on sofas on a stage and also stood on platforms amid the crowd, which included photographers and celebrities, of whom I could only recognize Shannon Elizabeth (who, by the way, is a very good poker player - I learned today that she won the "Nicky Hilton New Year's Eve Poker Tournament" at Caesars. Hey Nicky, why wasn't I invited to play in this??)
- Luck in the Mirage tournaments has been eluding me recently, as has wakefulness during the noon Wynn tournaments, which are supposedly the best under $1000 tournaments in town. I swear I'll get up in time for one at some point.
- The Rio still has the best 2-5 NL game in town, as far as I can tell. However, most of their card shufflers have broken, their comp system makes no sense, and they persist in using cards so old that they have worn out splotches on the back. "They're not marked if they're all like that!" Um... right. I'm not going to complain too much as long as their poker room continues to attract drunken tourists.
Sorry to my loyal readers for not posting for a week. I've been working on a couple of other projects, and not much interesting has happened. Here's the best I can do to try to interest you:
- In the lobby at the Mirage this past weekend there was an enormous crowd for the new Jet nightclub. Nearly naked models painted with the Jet logo sprawled on sofas on a stage and also stood on platforms amid the crowd, which included photographers and celebrities, of whom I could only recognize Shannon Elizabeth (who, by the way, is a very good poker player - I learned today that she won the "Nicky Hilton New Year's Eve Poker Tournament" at Caesars. Hey Nicky, why wasn't I invited to play in this??)
- Luck in the Mirage tournaments has been eluding me recently, as has wakefulness during the noon Wynn tournaments, which are supposedly the best under $1000 tournaments in town. I swear I'll get up in time for one at some point.
- The Rio still has the best 2-5 NL game in town, as far as I can tell. However, most of their card shufflers have broken, their comp system makes no sense, and they persist in using cards so old that they have worn out splotches on the back. "They're not marked if they're all like that!" Um... right. I'm not going to complain too much as long as their poker room continues to attract drunken tourists.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
15-30 holdem at the Wynn
On the strength of my strong showing at the limit tournament earlier this week and the suggestion of FJDelgado when he was here a few weeks ago, I decided to play some limit holdem at the Wynn. I'd played the 15-30 game there a few times before (while waiting for a no-limit seat to open up), and done pretty well. I decided to watch the game while waiting for my seat to open up. One guy in his late twenties was talking about how he comes to the poker room to drink, not really to play cards. Supposedly, he drinks every day, and he said that he had taken two days off and he couldn't digest his food and that he basically needs to drink just to get through the day. He was the flashy, talkative type of drunkard, and among the wildest players I've ever seen, and that includes many hours of 2-4, 3-6, 4-8 and 8-16 games. He was playing more than 50% of his hands and winning a lot of pots on miracle turn and river cards.
Things got even more ridiculous once I got my seat. The flashy drunkard started putting in his $30 for a raise every hand before the cards were even dealt. While he was not required to leave the money out there (he could have taken it back before the action got around to him), he was quite faithful in leaving it there, except sometimes putting in another $15 if someone had raised in front of him. Obviously, this made for a strange but profitable game for the rest of the players. It also meant that the game demanded an unorthodox approach. Playing "by the book" in this situation was clearly not the optimal strategy. This made it all the more interesting that Mason Malmuth, one of the well known authors of "the book" was sitting at the table at the time.
Malmuth, author of Gambling Theory and Other Topics, Hold'Em Poker for Advanced Players, and many other books on gambling and poker, is notorious for being a very tight and inflexible player. He sat down just a minute after I did. A somewhat tall and chubby guy, he, like his collaborator David Sklansky, looks like a computer scientist from the 1970's, the type who only went outside 2 or 3 times a month to buy more chocolate bars so they wouldn't starve to death. When I looked at him I thought "hey, that guy looks a lot like Mason Mulmuth." Then I saw that his shirt said "Two plus Two Publishing," which is the company he owns with Sklansky. A minute later "Mason" was called for the 5-10 NL game, and he looked around for a few seconds, so at that point I was pretty certain it was him. I thought it was kind of cool to be playing with him, as this was the first time I'd ever actually played with a well-known poker player. Because of his reputation of "playing by the book," I was very curious to see how he would react to the unusual circumstances caused by the maniac at the table. For instance, if he had AA or KK, would he raise, as the book suggests, or would he just limp in and then reraise when the bet came around to him again?
Well, Malmuth basically just folded every hand, looking somewhat perturbed. I couldn't tell if he was annoyed about the maniac at the table, but I got the sense that he was just normally nervous and fidgety, and it probably had nothing to do with the maniac (who, by the way, caught an incredible run of cards and won several hundred dollars while I was there). Malmuth got into a discussion with me and some of the players around me about how badly run some of the cardrooms in Vegas were, especially criticizing the new Caesars room for being put completely out of the way (I'll give my own opinion of Caesars in a future post). Then he abruptly stopped himself, saying, "I used to care about this stuff, but not any more. I actually used to do some consulting on poker room management, but nobody ever listened to me."
Malmuth only played one hand that I can remember, and his straightforward style made his hand extremely readable. I hesitate to describe the hand because I didn't play it well myself, but this is what happened... An early position player raised and I cold-called from middle position with 77 (probably should fold here, right?). Malmuth, two to my left, reraised in late position. The only hands I think he would do this with are AA, KK, QQ and AK, maybe AQs. Folds to the EP raiser, who reraised again. I coldcalled again (probably should have folded again here due to the high likelihood Malmuth has AA or KK and will re-raise), and Malmuth just called. This call pretty much eliminated the chance Malmuth has AA, as he would reraise with that hand. Probably also KK. Now the most likely hands he can have are QQ, AK, JJ, KK, or maybe AQs or AA. The flop came KK4. EP player checked, I checked, Malmuth bet, EP raised, I folded, and Malmuth just called. At this point, it's still tough to say which hand Malmuth is holding, but I would still guess QQ. Turn was a blank, EP bet and Malmuth just called. At this point, he almost certainly had QQ. He would have raised with any hand that had a K. He might have AA or JJ, but those hands were unlikely to begin with. The river was another blank, EP bet again, and Malmuth called again. Sure enough, Malmuth turned over QQ, while EP had only JJ. My guess is that EP had no idea who he was going up against, as there was almost no way he had the best hand on the river.
Incidentally, the maniac drunkard caught two huge hands against me and I lost several hundred dollars. Limit poker isn't as easy as I was led to believe.
Things got even more ridiculous once I got my seat. The flashy drunkard started putting in his $30 for a raise every hand before the cards were even dealt. While he was not required to leave the money out there (he could have taken it back before the action got around to him), he was quite faithful in leaving it there, except sometimes putting in another $15 if someone had raised in front of him. Obviously, this made for a strange but profitable game for the rest of the players. It also meant that the game demanded an unorthodox approach. Playing "by the book" in this situation was clearly not the optimal strategy. This made it all the more interesting that Mason Malmuth, one of the well known authors of "the book" was sitting at the table at the time.
Malmuth, author of Gambling Theory and Other Topics, Hold'Em Poker for Advanced Players, and many other books on gambling and poker, is notorious for being a very tight and inflexible player. He sat down just a minute after I did. A somewhat tall and chubby guy, he, like his collaborator David Sklansky, looks like a computer scientist from the 1970's, the type who only went outside 2 or 3 times a month to buy more chocolate bars so they wouldn't starve to death. When I looked at him I thought "hey, that guy looks a lot like Mason Mulmuth." Then I saw that his shirt said "Two plus Two Publishing," which is the company he owns with Sklansky. A minute later "Mason" was called for the 5-10 NL game, and he looked around for a few seconds, so at that point I was pretty certain it was him. I thought it was kind of cool to be playing with him, as this was the first time I'd ever actually played with a well-known poker player. Because of his reputation of "playing by the book," I was very curious to see how he would react to the unusual circumstances caused by the maniac at the table. For instance, if he had AA or KK, would he raise, as the book suggests, or would he just limp in and then reraise when the bet came around to him again?
Well, Malmuth basically just folded every hand, looking somewhat perturbed. I couldn't tell if he was annoyed about the maniac at the table, but I got the sense that he was just normally nervous and fidgety, and it probably had nothing to do with the maniac (who, by the way, caught an incredible run of cards and won several hundred dollars while I was there). Malmuth got into a discussion with me and some of the players around me about how badly run some of the cardrooms in Vegas were, especially criticizing the new Caesars room for being put completely out of the way (I'll give my own opinion of Caesars in a future post). Then he abruptly stopped himself, saying, "I used to care about this stuff, but not any more. I actually used to do some consulting on poker room management, but nobody ever listened to me."
Malmuth only played one hand that I can remember, and his straightforward style made his hand extremely readable. I hesitate to describe the hand because I didn't play it well myself, but this is what happened... An early position player raised and I cold-called from middle position with 77 (probably should fold here, right?). Malmuth, two to my left, reraised in late position. The only hands I think he would do this with are AA, KK, QQ and AK, maybe AQs. Folds to the EP raiser, who reraised again. I coldcalled again (probably should have folded again here due to the high likelihood Malmuth has AA or KK and will re-raise), and Malmuth just called. This call pretty much eliminated the chance Malmuth has AA, as he would reraise with that hand. Probably also KK. Now the most likely hands he can have are QQ, AK, JJ, KK, or maybe AQs or AA. The flop came KK4. EP player checked, I checked, Malmuth bet, EP raised, I folded, and Malmuth just called. At this point, it's still tough to say which hand Malmuth is holding, but I would still guess QQ. Turn was a blank, EP bet and Malmuth just called. At this point, he almost certainly had QQ. He would have raised with any hand that had a K. He might have AA or JJ, but those hands were unlikely to begin with. The river was another blank, EP bet again, and Malmuth called again. Sure enough, Malmuth turned over QQ, while EP had only JJ. My guess is that EP had no idea who he was going up against, as there was almost no way he had the best hand on the river.
Incidentally, the maniac drunkard caught two huge hands against me and I lost several hundred dollars. Limit poker isn't as easy as I was led to believe.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Limit Tournament
As I've mentioned before, I like to play occassionally in the 7pm weekday tournaments at the Mirage. On Tuesday and Wednesday it's a $130 no-limit holdem tournament with unlimited $100 rebuys. Thursday, it's $230 plus a single $200 rebuy (which I won a few weeks ago). I had never played their Monday tournament before, and as it turns out, it's a limit holdem tournament. Although I've never played in a live limit tournament before (I've played a few online), I figured I would play in it anyway.
I know for a fact that young people play limit holdem, but it seems that they do not play limit holdem tournaments. The median age at the final table other than me was probably 55; there was only one other player under 30 and nobody looked like he was between 30 and 45. I don't know why this is. I guess the young players who play limit don't waste their time on small tournaments like this one.
Anyway, I came in 4th and cashed for a few hundred dollars. This was the second time since my big win a few weeks ago that I just barely clawed my way into the money in a tournament. The other time was in the 2am tournament at Binions when Aaron and Joe were here. In that tournament, I knocked out Aaron with my KK after having advised him to play more aggressively, and Joe bubbled out one hand before me. Sorry guys.
Bobby and others tell me that the $300 noon tournament at the Wynn on weekdays is the best tournament in town. If I ever get up early enough I'll probably try it out.
I know for a fact that young people play limit holdem, but it seems that they do not play limit holdem tournaments. The median age at the final table other than me was probably 55; there was only one other player under 30 and nobody looked like he was between 30 and 45. I don't know why this is. I guess the young players who play limit don't waste their time on small tournaments like this one.
Anyway, I came in 4th and cashed for a few hundred dollars. This was the second time since my big win a few weeks ago that I just barely clawed my way into the money in a tournament. The other time was in the 2am tournament at Binions when Aaron and Joe were here. In that tournament, I knocked out Aaron with my KK after having advised him to play more aggressively, and Joe bubbled out one hand before me. Sorry guys.
Bobby and others tell me that the $300 noon tournament at the Wynn on weekdays is the best tournament in town. If I ever get up early enough I'll probably try it out.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Back to the "Routine"
My brother and girlfriend left town Wednesday night. Lots of low-limit holdem, as expected, and also two trips two Red Rock Canyon and one to Valley of Fire. We also saw Munich.
Before I went home for the holidays, my friends Aaron and Joe were in town. When I got back, I had my girlfriend and brother in town. So, it's been a couple of weeks since I've lived in my normal lifestyle. What is "normal"? I'm not quite sure, since I don't really have any sort of routine. Basically, I try to exercise and get one or two other things done each day, as well as playing at least a few hours of poker. Besides that it's pretty much just watching tv, playing video games, reading (mostly online news or books about poker), writing occasionally in this blog, and sleeping. The best part is that I rarely ever have to do anything on any given day if I don't want to, so I rarely have anything really to worry about. It also means that I have to be self-disciplined, something which I am not particularly good at, but I could be a lot worse (eg Aaron). My efforts to become more self-disciplined have been quite valuable to me personally. Up until my move to Vegas I had always been in school or had a job (like almost everyone else in the world), and my free time was generally geared towards trying to de-stress. Now that all of my time is essentially "free time," I am forced to evaluate what my personal priorities and try to set goals for myself - all those things that in the past had essentially been decided for me. I recently heard a quote from TomMcEvoy where he said he considers pro poker players to be "the last of the true free spirits." I don't know exactly what he means by that and it's almost certainly not quite true, but somehow that quote fits what I am trying to say here. Pro poker players truly are free-spirits; we have chosen an unorthodox means of supporting ourselves and we need not answer to anyone.
Observing what one chooses to do with one's time when one has no responsibilities is very revealing. Regardless of what I may be doing a year from now or ten years from now, I feel like this time is extremely valuable for purposes of self reflection... something that is probably particularly valuable for someone who found a normal 9-5 office job intolerable, despite the fact that it involved almost precisely his chosen field of study, and thus should presumably have been a satisfying career.
Other lifestyle improvements that have occured since my move to Vegas include flossing, exercising a bit more, drinking much less, and sleeping much better. Also, I'm better at poker now.
Before I went home for the holidays, my friends Aaron and Joe were in town. When I got back, I had my girlfriend and brother in town. So, it's been a couple of weeks since I've lived in my normal lifestyle. What is "normal"? I'm not quite sure, since I don't really have any sort of routine. Basically, I try to exercise and get one or two other things done each day, as well as playing at least a few hours of poker. Besides that it's pretty much just watching tv, playing video games, reading (mostly online news or books about poker), writing occasionally in this blog, and sleeping. The best part is that I rarely ever have to do anything on any given day if I don't want to, so I rarely have anything really to worry about. It also means that I have to be self-disciplined, something which I am not particularly good at, but I could be a lot worse (eg Aaron). My efforts to become more self-disciplined have been quite valuable to me personally. Up until my move to Vegas I had always been in school or had a job (like almost everyone else in the world), and my free time was generally geared towards trying to de-stress. Now that all of my time is essentially "free time," I am forced to evaluate what my personal priorities and try to set goals for myself - all those things that in the past had essentially been decided for me. I recently heard a quote from TomMcEvoy where he said he considers pro poker players to be "the last of the true free spirits." I don't know exactly what he means by that and it's almost certainly not quite true, but somehow that quote fits what I am trying to say here. Pro poker players truly are free-spirits; we have chosen an unorthodox means of supporting ourselves and we need not answer to anyone.
Observing what one chooses to do with one's time when one has no responsibilities is very revealing. Regardless of what I may be doing a year from now or ten years from now, I feel like this time is extremely valuable for purposes of self reflection... something that is probably particularly valuable for someone who found a normal 9-5 office job intolerable, despite the fact that it involved almost precisely his chosen field of study, and thus should presumably have been a satisfying career.
Other lifestyle improvements that have occured since my move to Vegas include flossing, exercising a bit more, drinking much less, and sleeping much better. Also, I'm better at poker now.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Low-Limit Again
I'm back in Las Vegas after a nice, relaxing week back in Massachusetts with the family. With me are my girlfriend Brigid and my brother Max. Brigid is now a casino poker veteran, but this will be the first time for Max, so we'll probably be starting at 2-4, maybe 3-6. In any case, this means a lot of low-limit holdem for me this week. Since I haven't played any form of poker for over a week, it should be a nice way for me to ease back into the Vegas poker scene.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Happy Holidays
After a great (and quite profitable) weekend meeting FJDelgado and hanging out with Joe and Aaron, I'm back home for the holidays until New Year's. It's always a nice change of pace, hanging out with the family and old friends and going for walks out in the frigid air. Happy Holidays everyone... unless you are one of the minority (I hope) of Christians who are offended by the phrase "Happy Holidays" like Bill O'Reilly is. In that case, Screw You.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Visitors
When I moved to Las Vegas, I thought I'd be getting a visitor at least every two weeks or so. After all, when I told my friends I'd be living here, the most common response I got was "Great! I'll definitely come visit you." The fact that most of these very same people had made a trip to Vegas in the six months before telling me that, made me think they actually would come visit. Somehow, this isn't the way it has worked out at all. My only visitors so far have been my girlfriend and my mother. Oh, and my friend Joe, but that doesn't really count since he lives here anyway and was only in town because he had been displaced from his med school for a month after Katrina.
This weekend, however, that is all about to change. I will finally have an actual visitor, my college friend Aaron. Also, Joe will be in town, and so will FJDelgado, who I'll be meeting for the first time. All of us play poker, although at somewhat different levels. If necessary, we could probably all agree to play 15-30 limit, but more likely, I think we'll just have a drink at the bar. In any case, I'm looking forward to finally having some different people around. Then I head back home for Christmas, and then back to Vegas with Brigid and my brother.
This weekend, however, that is all about to change. I will finally have an actual visitor, my college friend Aaron. Also, Joe will be in town, and so will FJDelgado, who I'll be meeting for the first time. All of us play poker, although at somewhat different levels. If necessary, we could probably all agree to play 15-30 limit, but more likely, I think we'll just have a drink at the bar. In any case, I'm looking forward to finally having some different people around. Then I head back home for Christmas, and then back to Vegas with Brigid and my brother.
Friday, December 16, 2005
Victory
The past month or so, I've been playing the tournament at the Mirage during the week. The cash games at the Rio and elsewhere are still pretty juicy on the weekend, but it seems like during the week, the biggest fish are playing in these tournaments. I also like the change of pace of playing in a tournament. The Mirage tournament is $130 plus unlimited $100 rebuys for the first hour, except on Thursday, when it's $230 plus a single $200 rebuy. Most people do the rebuy, so on Thursday it's essentially a $430 tournament. I've played in six or seven of these in the past couple months, and have never managed to make it to the money, which is either top 5 or top 9 finishers (depending on whether there are at least 50 entrants). However, my tournament strategy has been improving and I just know I'm better than nearly all of the players who play in these things.
So, yesterday (Thursday), after I got up around 4pm, I decided I'd try to make it to the tournament. I've been reading Harrington on Holdem Volume II, which is an excellent book about tournament strategy, so I decided I would do some last-minute reading before heading out. I've reached the part on Heads-Up (1v1) play, which is only useful if I make it to the final two... little did I know this would be the case later on in the night. However, the tournament was over after only one heads-up hand, and I didn't play it quite as Harrington suggested anyway. So, I guess the last-minute studying was kind of useless after all.
There were 59 entrants and about 50 rebuys, for a prize pool of I guess $21,800. First place is supposed to get 26% but this didn't quite work out when I did the math, so I'm not quite sure what the deal is. Anyway, I received nearly what I think I was supposed to. Here are some highlights:
Tournament lasted exactly 6 hours, going from 7pm to 1am.
Dealt AA once, raised in early position (EP), won the blinds.
Never dealt KK or QQ.
Dealt JJ twice. The first time was in the first hour, and a short stack (550) had gone all-in in EP, and was called by the player to my right. Since my hand was quite strong and I like to play a risky style to accumulate a big stack (and I hadn't used my rebuy yet), I just called. I figured that someone behind me with a weaker hand would be more likely to play, possibly even raising all-in to try to isolate the original all-in. People sometimes do this with relatively weak hands like AJ or 99, and if my JJ held up, I would be easily the chip leader at the table. Being chip leader is a position I am quite capable of exploiting. By just calling, however, I'm inviting AQ to play, too... a hand I'd rather have fold. This was a risk I was willing to take. I'd rather have a player with AK fold, too, but I think AK would call even if I raised all-in (I had about 2600 total I think). Even though I had only called, everyone else folded. The flop came 346, and, to my surprise, the guy to my right went all-in, betting 1550 at a 1700 pot. This is an unorthodox move, and it caught me off guard. What could he have here? With one player all-in, I can rule out a complete bluff. My opponent must think he can beat the all-in player. Usually people will only bet in this situation if they have a very big hand. So, my initial thought was that he must have a set, probably 66. It was also possible he had AA or KK. With these hands, though, he should be betting only 500 or so, trying to draw more of my chips into the pot. I decided that a hand like 88 or 99 was much more likely. Also possibly AK. These are hands that are probably ahead of the all-in raiser, but are still quite vulnerable and thus would like to get me to fold. So, I called and was surprised to see that he had only AJo. The other player had 77. The turn was a 9 and the river a 5, giving the all-in player a straight, but I won the 3100 side pot and came out ahead.
The second time I had JJ I raised and just won the blinds and antes.
Never dealt TT or 99.
I was dealt a pair higher than 88 only three times in six hours! Perhaps this isn't all that surprising. If I played 221 hands, I should expect to get a pair higher than 8's six times on average, so getting them only three times isn't all that ridiculous. Also, I may have played fewer than 221 hands, I'm not sure.
By the time we were down to ten players, there were two tables of five players, and I had the second biggest stack at my table. Two or three players were super short-stacked, but ninth place paid out over $900 and tenth paid $0, so people were playing very tight to try to get into the money. Fortunately for me, the big stack at the table was sitting to my right, allowing me to fold whenever he entered a pot, and steal the blinds and antes whenever he folded (this player would eventually be the tournament's second-place finisher). We had ten players for quite a while. Finally, I was in the small blind and an extremely tight, somewhat passive old pro raised under the gun. I figured him for at least AQ or 99, probably better. The next two players folded to me. I raised all-in with QT. Since the raiser had the third biggest stack at the table, he could have just folded his hand here and coasted into the money easily. He had been playing so tight that I thought this was his main goal, so I figured he would likely fold unless he had AA or KK. Actually, he called with AK! Even if I had AQ, which is about the best he could hope for, he was only a 74% favorite. Against any pair he is at only around 45%. Against a complete bluff he was only about 65% to win. So he was risking a sure $900+ here unnecessarily. Anyway, my QTo was 36% to win, and I caught a queen and knocked him out. The short stacks thanked me, and I was the new chip leader.
We consolidated into one final table of nine players. After a few hands I realized that players were still hanging on and just trying to move up a spot or two, even though 8th, 7th, and 6th paid only $120 or so more than the next lower finish. This was a great situation for me, as the chip leader. I started going all-in about 75% of the time if the players had folded around to me. With a stack of about 40K, I was picking up 2K or 3K each time I did this. Before I knew it, I was up to 60K, out of 160K total on the table. People were noticing what I was doing and even grumbling about it, but I wasn't showing my hands, so they didn't realize just how indiscriminantly I was raising. At one point, though, a micro stack smaller than the small blind limped in. The players in the blinds were particularly tight so I just pushed all-in with J4o. I figured people would see that the all-in player was on the brink of elimination and not want to risk their stacks at this point. I was right, and despite losing the main pot, I still added a bit to my stack from the side pot, which consisted of most of the blinds. The downside was that I had to show my J4o, and now some people were clearly determined to catch me bluffing. One guy actually complained to me. He thought I should be letting more hands in to try to knock out the short stacks. I didn't respond, but obviously, I didn't want the short stacks knocked out at all, since they were the whole reason my strategy was working so well.
I kept the big stack until we were down to four players and I started losing some hands. My J9 lost to AT, my J8 lost to AK. I had the second biggest stack when I found ATs under the gun. Four handed, this is a big hand. I considered a normal-sized raise, but one of the players at the table had recently started raising me all-in whenever I did that. So, I just went all-in myself. The big stack called me with JJ, and I was on the verge of elimination. Fortunately, the dealer put two tens on the board, and I sucked out and became the chip leader again.
When it got to be heads-up, I had about 100K and my oppenent had about 65K. First place was about $1300 more than second, and the Mirage rules forbid deal making, so we had to play it out for high stakes. The blinds were 2K, 4K with antes of 300, and I had the small blind and the button. I looked down at A3o, a good hand heads-up. I raised to 12K, looking for a call because I would have position on the flop. My oppenent raised all-in for another 50K or so. This is the player who had been re-raising me all-in quite frequently in the past 45 minutes or so. As a result, I somewhat recklessly decided to call him. Fortunately, my hand held up against his KJs (I was about 54% to win), and, for the first time ever, I had won a live tournament. They even gave me a framed picture of myself sitting behind all the chips!
So, yesterday (Thursday), after I got up around 4pm, I decided I'd try to make it to the tournament. I've been reading Harrington on Holdem Volume II, which is an excellent book about tournament strategy, so I decided I would do some last-minute reading before heading out. I've reached the part on Heads-Up (1v1) play, which is only useful if I make it to the final two... little did I know this would be the case later on in the night. However, the tournament was over after only one heads-up hand, and I didn't play it quite as Harrington suggested anyway. So, I guess the last-minute studying was kind of useless after all.
There were 59 entrants and about 50 rebuys, for a prize pool of I guess $21,800. First place is supposed to get 26% but this didn't quite work out when I did the math, so I'm not quite sure what the deal is. Anyway, I received nearly what I think I was supposed to. Here are some highlights:
Tournament lasted exactly 6 hours, going from 7pm to 1am.
Dealt AA once, raised in early position (EP), won the blinds.
Never dealt KK or QQ.
Dealt JJ twice. The first time was in the first hour, and a short stack (550) had gone all-in in EP, and was called by the player to my right. Since my hand was quite strong and I like to play a risky style to accumulate a big stack (and I hadn't used my rebuy yet), I just called. I figured that someone behind me with a weaker hand would be more likely to play, possibly even raising all-in to try to isolate the original all-in. People sometimes do this with relatively weak hands like AJ or 99, and if my JJ held up, I would be easily the chip leader at the table. Being chip leader is a position I am quite capable of exploiting. By just calling, however, I'm inviting AQ to play, too... a hand I'd rather have fold. This was a risk I was willing to take. I'd rather have a player with AK fold, too, but I think AK would call even if I raised all-in (I had about 2600 total I think). Even though I had only called, everyone else folded. The flop came 346, and, to my surprise, the guy to my right went all-in, betting 1550 at a 1700 pot. This is an unorthodox move, and it caught me off guard. What could he have here? With one player all-in, I can rule out a complete bluff. My opponent must think he can beat the all-in player. Usually people will only bet in this situation if they have a very big hand. So, my initial thought was that he must have a set, probably 66. It was also possible he had AA or KK. With these hands, though, he should be betting only 500 or so, trying to draw more of my chips into the pot. I decided that a hand like 88 or 99 was much more likely. Also possibly AK. These are hands that are probably ahead of the all-in raiser, but are still quite vulnerable and thus would like to get me to fold. So, I called and was surprised to see that he had only AJo. The other player had 77. The turn was a 9 and the river a 5, giving the all-in player a straight, but I won the 3100 side pot and came out ahead.
The second time I had JJ I raised and just won the blinds and antes.
Never dealt TT or 99.
I was dealt a pair higher than 88 only three times in six hours! Perhaps this isn't all that surprising. If I played 221 hands, I should expect to get a pair higher than 8's six times on average, so getting them only three times isn't all that ridiculous. Also, I may have played fewer than 221 hands, I'm not sure.
By the time we were down to ten players, there were two tables of five players, and I had the second biggest stack at my table. Two or three players were super short-stacked, but ninth place paid out over $900 and tenth paid $0, so people were playing very tight to try to get into the money. Fortunately for me, the big stack at the table was sitting to my right, allowing me to fold whenever he entered a pot, and steal the blinds and antes whenever he folded (this player would eventually be the tournament's second-place finisher). We had ten players for quite a while. Finally, I was in the small blind and an extremely tight, somewhat passive old pro raised under the gun. I figured him for at least AQ or 99, probably better. The next two players folded to me. I raised all-in with QT. Since the raiser had the third biggest stack at the table, he could have just folded his hand here and coasted into the money easily. He had been playing so tight that I thought this was his main goal, so I figured he would likely fold unless he had AA or KK. Actually, he called with AK! Even if I had AQ, which is about the best he could hope for, he was only a 74% favorite. Against any pair he is at only around 45%. Against a complete bluff he was only about 65% to win. So he was risking a sure $900+ here unnecessarily. Anyway, my QTo was 36% to win, and I caught a queen and knocked him out. The short stacks thanked me, and I was the new chip leader.
We consolidated into one final table of nine players. After a few hands I realized that players were still hanging on and just trying to move up a spot or two, even though 8th, 7th, and 6th paid only $120 or so more than the next lower finish. This was a great situation for me, as the chip leader. I started going all-in about 75% of the time if the players had folded around to me. With a stack of about 40K, I was picking up 2K or 3K each time I did this. Before I knew it, I was up to 60K, out of 160K total on the table. People were noticing what I was doing and even grumbling about it, but I wasn't showing my hands, so they didn't realize just how indiscriminantly I was raising. At one point, though, a micro stack smaller than the small blind limped in. The players in the blinds were particularly tight so I just pushed all-in with J4o. I figured people would see that the all-in player was on the brink of elimination and not want to risk their stacks at this point. I was right, and despite losing the main pot, I still added a bit to my stack from the side pot, which consisted of most of the blinds. The downside was that I had to show my J4o, and now some people were clearly determined to catch me bluffing. One guy actually complained to me. He thought I should be letting more hands in to try to knock out the short stacks. I didn't respond, but obviously, I didn't want the short stacks knocked out at all, since they were the whole reason my strategy was working so well.
I kept the big stack until we were down to four players and I started losing some hands. My J9 lost to AT, my J8 lost to AK. I had the second biggest stack when I found ATs under the gun. Four handed, this is a big hand. I considered a normal-sized raise, but one of the players at the table had recently started raising me all-in whenever I did that. So, I just went all-in myself. The big stack called me with JJ, and I was on the verge of elimination. Fortunately, the dealer put two tens on the board, and I sucked out and became the chip leader again.
When it got to be heads-up, I had about 100K and my oppenent had about 65K. First place was about $1300 more than second, and the Mirage rules forbid deal making, so we had to play it out for high stakes. The blinds were 2K, 4K with antes of 300, and I had the small blind and the button. I looked down at A3o, a good hand heads-up. I raised to 12K, looking for a call because I would have position on the flop. My oppenent raised all-in for another 50K or so. This is the player who had been re-raising me all-in quite frequently in the past 45 minutes or so. As a result, I somewhat recklessly decided to call him. Fortunately, my hand held up against his KJs (I was about 54% to win), and, for the first time ever, I had won a live tournament. They even gave me a framed picture of myself sitting behind all the chips!
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Poker Videos
Now that I've completed season 1 of Lost on DVD, I've been getting some poker videos from Netflix. First I tried Phil Hellmuth's instructional videos. Let me just say that I hate Phil Hellmuth and expected his videos to be horrible. I just wanted to make sure. Well, I was right. They are extremely hokey and pretty basic. The only thing of some marginal interest is when he describes some common tells to look for at the table.
The most recent video I got was World Poker Tour: Bad Boys of Poker. Here's how Netflix describes it:
Five of the world's greatest players go head to head at this ultimate Las Vegas showdown. Three-time WPT winner Gus Hansen, Antonio Esfandiari, Paul "The Truth" Darden, Phil Laak, David "Devilfish" Ulliot and WPT satellite tournament winner Mark Richards hit the tables to prove who's the baddest poker player on the planet. Extras include commentary by Antonio Esfandiari and Phil Laak, player bios and outrageous World Poker Tour clips.
Most of these guys are entertaining, and I was interested in the commentary by Esfandiari and Laak, so I decided to give it a try. It was well worth it. The commentary by "The Magician" and "The Unabomber" was consistently amusing and, when they would describe what was going through their minds as they played, even insightful (unfortunately they did this only a few times). They had interesting and funny stories to tell about the other players. According to Esfandiari, for instance, Devilfish is "the most funnest guy in the world to go to a strip club with." Also, both Esfandiari and Laak are in awe of Gus Hansen (who isn't?), although they jokingly talk about how lucky he is. They say that Gus is coming out with a book in the near future, which is the first I've heard of this - I'm excited to read it. Anyway, as a person who now plays so much poker that it sometimes gets a bit draining, I found it encouraging to see how much fun these guys still have.
Next DVD: Howard Lederer: "Tells" All
The most recent video I got was World Poker Tour: Bad Boys of Poker. Here's how Netflix describes it:
Five of the world's greatest players go head to head at this ultimate Las Vegas showdown. Three-time WPT winner Gus Hansen, Antonio Esfandiari, Paul "The Truth" Darden, Phil Laak, David "Devilfish" Ulliot and WPT satellite tournament winner Mark Richards hit the tables to prove who's the baddest poker player on the planet. Extras include commentary by Antonio Esfandiari and Phil Laak, player bios and outrageous World Poker Tour clips.
Most of these guys are entertaining, and I was interested in the commentary by Esfandiari and Laak, so I decided to give it a try. It was well worth it. The commentary by "The Magician" and "The Unabomber" was consistently amusing and, when they would describe what was going through their minds as they played, even insightful (unfortunately they did this only a few times). They had interesting and funny stories to tell about the other players. According to Esfandiari, for instance, Devilfish is "the most funnest guy in the world to go to a strip club with." Also, both Esfandiari and Laak are in awe of Gus Hansen (who isn't?), although they jokingly talk about how lucky he is. They say that Gus is coming out with a book in the near future, which is the first I've heard of this - I'm excited to read it. Anyway, as a person who now plays so much poker that it sometimes gets a bit draining, I found it encouraging to see how much fun these guys still have.
Next DVD: Howard Lederer: "Tells" All
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Sponsorship Update
Well, I never heard back from the cardroom.com guy. However, over the weekend I encountered two co-owners (I think) of "card-sharx apparel." After playing and chatting with them for several hours at the Rio, we got to talking about sponsorship. They already have some sorts of deals with Annie Duke, Clonie Gowen, Greg Raymer, Howard Lederer, Eric Seidel, Phil Gordron, Amir Vahedi, and Chris Ferguson. They told me they would consider making me a "featured pro" for their website, but that they weren't ready to start paying my way into tournaments. I asked by email what they meant by "featured pro." Here is the response:
I think I should call the cardroom guy back again.
Hi Keith,
Basically what we are looking to do is just give someone some nice shirts to wear when they play all the time in cash games our tournaments. In exchange for you doing this we will list you as a featured pro on your website. I am the largest site and have license deals with Annie Duke, Howard Lederer, Phil Gordon, Erik Siedel, Amir Vahedi, Greg Raymer and more. This gives you instant credibility. This way you can work with other people to sponsor you into big events etc. All we ask if you get another sponsor to pay for the WSOP etc…is that you still wear our logo also as well as his on the same shirt etc.
Not all of this is perfectly clear. (He is "the largest site"?) I guess the idea is that by putting my name alongside those of a bunch of big-name pros, I might be better able to convince somebody else to sponsor me for tournaments. Hmmmm.... rather enticing. It might even work. However, I feel rather uncomfortable misrepresenting myself like this. Besides, the fact that I've never even played a major tournament would be sure to come out at some point, and I imagine any potential sponsors would have a problem with that last part: "you still wear our logo also as well as his on the same shirt etc."I think I should call the cardroom guy back again.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Rio Update
When I reported on the Rio last time, I complained that the walk from the parking garage was too long. It turns out there is one right outside the poker room, but I just didn't realize it until my friend Dan pointed it out. To get there, you drive by the main entrance, and take a right on Valley View (the one before you get to the Palms) and then the parking is on the right.
Recently I've been playing earlier in the evening because I haven't been awake very late. Unfortantely, the Rio usually only has one 2-5 NL table going at this time, and it takes a while to get a seat. Also, the game doesn't seem quite as wild as it was a couple weeks ago, especially in the early evening. Still, it's the best 2-5 NL game I know of. Also, they have three different poker magazines available to help pass the time while I wait for a table.
Recently I've been playing earlier in the evening because I haven't been awake very late. Unfortantely, the Rio usually only has one 2-5 NL table going at this time, and it takes a while to get a seat. Also, the game doesn't seem quite as wild as it was a couple weeks ago, especially in the early evening. Still, it's the best 2-5 NL game I know of. Also, they have three different poker magazines available to help pass the time while I wait for a table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)