Found my “target audience”…

Well, Judith obviously saw the “Ode to Judith” post, where I discussed the min raise. Her paraphrased responses are as follows:

“OK teach - This was among the first things I read. You do make a very strong case as usual - and I really do understand and agree for 95% of the time. However (just so you remember I love to discuss/debate as much as you do) how about the following ideas: (I know you will kill them with some big bang but here it goes anyway)

1)- I want to increase the pot a bit at a minimum cost to me as I see potential in my cards - in other words - I risk 40 call it lost leader - pot will increase 5 - 6 times that if I get my cards I got extra chips from more people - if not - I did not lose anything that really matters.

2)- I hope to obtain some level of "respect" from other players that I can build on.

3)- I think I have a decent hand but I am too low on chips - to risk preflop 3-4 x the blinds - it takes too much out of my stack .... (this last one I probably can argue your point for you lol)

CHEERS

PS - my eyes are improving in leaps and bounce my spelling is not”

I should note, I ran spell check before posting, so spelling is not an issue J

“Oh yes and one more comment/question would you should you raise hard preflop with say AK - as you put it it only can beat a bluff - then why risk so many chips on it? This is a very honest question - I am not cheeky or something - but what is the best thing to do? limp? or put out the bet and if flop misses you... retreat? or pretend? Here is an other Q I meant to ask you for some time now - when I see (in a all in situation) say a 44 against a AK or a 77 against an AK if I remember correctly the 77 has higher odds then the 44 - why? Or am I just having vision issues? LOLCheers teach”

So Judith, let us break down the above scenarios and put this min raise theory of ours into the grinder.

In response to number one, you want to increase the pot at minimal cost. I am assuming that you are putting in this “min-raise” being the first person to open the pot. Typically speaking, while you may “build a pot,” you will not be successful in knocking players out of the hand. Typically, they will treat this as a limp, thus they will limp with the hands they would normally limp in with and raise with the hands they would normally raise. So, if the soul purpose of this min-raise is to begin to build a pot, it would be “acceptable.” My guess though is that if you do this often, will be reraised by “better” players with a larger hand raise, who is doing nothing more than making a positional play on you.

Additionally, it should be noted that many a player “complains” about how the best preflop hand in limit poker “rarely” holds up (I do not necessarily agree with this). A big reason why hands don’t necessarily hold in limit is because raises can only be put in by increasing from the previous bet (10/20 - first raise is 20...). This generally offers the blinds sufficient odds to play if they have somewhat of a hand, and there are callers between raiser and blind.

No limit, on the other hand, allows us the luxury of pricing in chasers or buying them out pretty much when we feel like it. I cannot think of many hands where I would purposely want five callers AND be raising from the early position. One might argue that hands such as 9-8 suited would not mind five callers. Do we really play that hand when we are in the early position?
If we are in the late position putting in a min raise, we are not fully utilizing our positional advantage. Anyone who has entered the pot will call, and we risk a re-raise if someone has put in a limp, with hopes of a raise behind. More often than not, one’s ego gets stuck and runs into a monster. Additionally, how can we get a read on our opposition’s hand ranges with a min raise. If they will limp with any “playable” hand (from position), we really do not know what our opponents might have. For these reasons, I am still not a fan of the min raise.

As for number two, “you plan to obtain some level of respect from other players you can build on.” I hate to be the one to say this, but the Beer Guy has a real hard time respecting a min raise. In fact, I would be inclined to come over top of that min raise more often than not, providing I had position and was in a position to at the very least hold up (+EV) heads up. So honestly, I am not sure how one would plan to build respect with a min raise.

And for the third point you made, Judith, I think I have a decent hand but I am too low on chips - to risk preflop 3-4 x the blinds - it takes too much out of my stack .... (this last one I probably can argue your point for you lol). Go back and read my endgame series. If your chip stack is too low, you are in all-in or fold mode. You have no post flop betting power at this time, so you might as well maximize the impact of your bet. Push all-in or fold!

The AK ordeal

As for your commentary on the AK ordeal, I believe you took my quote entirely out of context. If I recall correctly, the board missed you completely, while you were holding AK. A face card did flop (queen, I believe). Your opposition pushed all-in, you called. The only hand you could beat at the time of the call was a bluff. Any pocket pair beat you, any pair beat you, and any set beats you. You cannot “correctly” make the call on that particular bet unless you are deep stacked and your opponent is short stacked, generally speaking.

77 is 54-45 heads up vs. AK. 44 is 53-46. Quickly, the reason that 7’s are ever so slightly higher than fours heads up vs. AK is because fours stand a slightly better chance of being counterfeited than sevens do. There are five values that help neither sevens nor AK but are higher than sevens (q, j, 10, 9, 8). There are eight values above fours that help neither the fours nor the ace king. It is more probable, mathematically speaking that the fours get counterfeited (board such as 10-10-5-5-2). The board missed the fours and the ace king, and the sevens and the ace king. 4’s vs. AK = AK win (by virtue of the ace kicker - 10-10-5-5-A, vs. 10-10-5-5-4). With 7s vs. AK, the sevens hold up (10-10-7-7-2 vs. 10-10-5-5-A). See why?

Keep asking questions and I will do my best to explain, discuss and debate!

Mike



Poker Strategy
Small Stakes Holdem

My live poker project…

For about a month or two now, a friend and I have been working on holding regular, live poker tournaments to support a local charitable cause. I envisioned that we would quickly become known as having the best run local games in the area. Additionally, I pictured being able to price it high enough to be gone with any potential riff raff, yet at the same time attract enough players to make it a sizable event. I think we have on our hands EXACTLY what I envisioned.

This weekend marked the inaugural tournament (while we have all these visions, we still do not know what the hell we’re calling it). We had about one-third the number of players we expected; however, we weren’t necessarily expecting a full house for our opening week. From a timing standpoint, we managed to start just about on time (15 minutes late by choice). The tournament still finished exactly on time.

Perhaps best of all was the reaction from the players who participated. Everyone, with no exception, walked away telling us that we put on what was by far THE BEST poker tournament they have ever played. Honestly though, we did nothing that “shouldn’t be done” in every poker tournament. We just made sure that we had the bases covered. We provided a nice poker tabletop and a new deck of cards. Some instrumental jazz played in the background for mood music. We invested in a decent set of poker chips, with denominations on them.

Our blind structure is very logical, as it deliberately progresses and allows for play in the first hour, without the threat of immediate short stacking. Everything was spelled out. A set of rules were on display for everyone to read. We had a nice blind clock, so everyone knew where we stood with respect to the blinds. Said another way, we were organized. Its ironic how one can create such an experience for people just by simply focusing on the things we are supposed to do.

I am confident that next week’s game we will be more than half way to our goal of the number of players we are targeting, and I would not be surprised if in 4 weeks, we are taking our show on the road, in addition to hosting our “weekly games.”

So, I guess I should speak of the actual tournament results, considering I mentioned the whole set-up. Long story short, SuperDonk emerged victorious. Well, actually, there was a three way split, but he had the most chips when they split the prize money.

I had just mentioned a day or two earlier that I have not really had any SuperDonk stories for the poker blog for quite a while. There have been several SuperDonk stories, none of which were poker related “enough” to be included here, is what I am saying. Honestly though, he played nearly perfect poker. From our count, he only lost one showdown all day long, and the pot was relatively small. He was doing a fine job of betting for value and not going too far in his hands. He “done good.”

I have a long day ahead of me today, and on very little sleep. On the agenda today is more work for CheckRayz’ July schedule, working off another poker reload bonus, and soccer. Strategy post most likely on the horizon tomorrow.

Mike

stars World Blogger Championship of Online Poker...

After a decent first hour and a half, I got cut in half, then crippled, and then ousted... 384th place for the Beer Guy. Of course, three minutes too late to register for the shark tourney...

Mike

Happy Father's Day...

Here's to all the Fathers out there... Have a happy father's day. Take the extra time to spend it with your children/family. My afternoon is filled with "little kid stuff" as they like to call it. I will be still participating in the blogger event at Stars tonight. More than likely, I will have my lil angels at my side playing with me. They like pokerstars because it has a picture of them as my avatar from three years ago. So, if I do anything donk-like, that is my reason excuse. I "should" also be playing the PLO tourney tonight (also at stars) with sharky and company.

Speaking of the angels of mine... In a rare occurance, a personal pic... This one is from right after their Kindergarten school play. They did a dinosaur play, and afterwards, they gave all the parents a personal tour of the Dinosaur Museum that they collectively built...

Apparantly, we're having technical issues, so instead... here is a link to said picture of Daddy's Lil Angels.

Poker legislation updates...

This is a reposting of an email I received from the Poker Player's Alliance:

Dear PPA Member:

The federal effort to ban online gambling has cleared another hurdle and within the next 10 days the House of Representatives will be voting on H.R. 4777, The Internet Gaming Prohibition Act. It is essential that your member of Congress know that you oppose this legislation. We have posted an updated letter that you can send TODAY by going to http://capwiz.com/pokerplayersalliance/issues/alert/?alertid=8585611

It is critical that Congress hears from you before this vote!

Additionally, the Poker Players Alliance is seeking members who would be willing to lend their name to a letter that would be published in their local newspaper. These letters would let fellow citizens know that Congress is seeking ban online poker and open the door to greater government involvement in our personal affairs. If you would be willing to put your name on a letter contact us immediately at email@pokerplayersalliance.org

Finally, we wanted to make you aware of an excellent editorial published on June 9th in the Los Angeles Times. I encourage each of you to read this enlightened and thoughtful look at the current Congressional debate surrounding online gambling. The complete editorial can be found by going to http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion.

Thank you for all you do to support the Poker Players Alliance. And rest assured that we are working tirelessly on your behalf.

Sincerely,

Michael Bolcerek,
president Poker Players Alliance


Contact your local rep by telephone:
Bachus
Spencer
AL
(202) 225-4921

Berman
Howard
CA
(202) 225-4695

Boucher
Rick
VA
(202) 225-3861

Cannon
Chris
UT
(202) 225-7751

Chabot
Steve
OH
(202) 225-2216

Coble
Howard
NC
(202) 225-3065

Conyers
John
MI
(202) 225-5126

Delahunt
Bill
MA
(202) 225-3111

Feeney
Tom
FL
(202) 225-2706

Flake
Jeff
AZ
(202) 225-2635

Forbes
Randy
VA
(202) 225-6365

Franks
Trent
AZ
(202) 225-4576

Gallegly
Elton
CA
(202) 225-5811

Gohmert
Louie
TX
(202) 225-3035

Goodlatte
Bob
VA
(202) 225-5431

Green
Mark
WI
(202) 225-5665

Hostettler
John
IN
(202) 225-4636

Hyde
Henry
IL
(202) 225-4561

Inglis
Bob
SC
(202) 225-6030

Issa
Darrell
CA
(202) 225-3906

Jackson Lee
Sheila
TX
(202) 225-3816

Jenkins
Bill
TN
(202) 225-6356

Keller
Ric
FL
(202) 225-2176

King
Steve
IA
(202) 225-4426

Lofgren
Zoe
CA
(202) 225-3072

Lungren
Dan
CA
(202) 225-5716

Meehan
Marty
MA
(202) 225-3411

Nadler
Jerry
NY
(202) 225-5635

Pence
Mike
IN
(202) 225-3021

Sanchez
Linda
CA
(202) 225-6676

Schiff
Adam
CA
(202) 225-4176

Scott
Bobby
VA
(202) 225-8351

Sensenbrenner
Jim
WI
(202) 225-5101

Smith
Lamar
TX
(202) 225-4236

Van Hollen
Chris
MD
(202) 225-5341

Wasserman Schultz
Debbie
FL
(202) 225-7931

Waters
Maxine
CA
(202) 225-2201

Weiner
Anthony
NY
(202) 225-6616

Wexler
Bob
FL
(202) 225-3001

Other links on regarding this legislation:

Write your elected official on this matter.

Lou Krieger's blog - excellent insight and commentary regarding this legislation. Lou has been on top of this issue since day 1.



Politics & Poker

Why min raises are -EV… or “Ode to Judith”…

Judith, this one’s for you while you are recovering from your eye surgery. May the first page you read when you are “back” be this article.

I am not very sure why anyone (Judith) would make a “min-raise” when playing Hold’em in a tournament or a ring game. We raise pre-flop for the following primary reasons:

1. For value - We are confident we have the best hand and wish to charge our opponents for the right to draw on us.

2. For isolation - Our hands stand up best against few opponents, we want to narrow the field down to 1-2 players.

3. To steal the blinds - We wish to take the pot uncontested without seeing a flop.

4. As a semi-bluff - We are not sure we have the best hand, but we have a decent hand, so let’s raise and see if we can knock players who have already entered out (in addition to the blinds).

5. As a total bluff and/or to deceive - Usually later position, with suited connectors or “the hammer”

6. To manipulate pot size - To try to build a bigger pot that will psychologically commit players to the pot upon the flop.

I propose that a standard raise of between 3-5 times the blinds can “usually” accomplish raising for value, isolation, stealing, bluffing or semi-bluffing, and pot building. Specifically, a “standard raise” usually charges players “too much” for the right to draw, as they are not getting the proper pot odds to “play garbage.” At the same time, it is also typically allowing for only those hands who will make suitable “second best” hands will be playing (Axs, pocket pairs, etc). For this reason, you get a read on the probable hand range you are up against.

As a hypothetical, you are under the gun and are holding AK suited. Making it simple, blinds are 10-20, everyone has a stack of 1000. You put in a raise of 80 (or 4 times the big blinds). You are raising because you feel you have the best hand pre-flop and wish to charge others for the right to draw on you. Now the pot is 110, it is costing 80 for anyone to play (70 for the small blind, and 60 for the big blind) - assuming there’s not a re-raise. What hands can “correctly” call with those pot odds? Can the guy on the button with king-three suited who would “really love to see a flop with this” call you correctly? How about the small blind with Queen Jack “not suited?” Are they making a mistake by calling with those hands? Do we want to force our opposition to make mistakes, even if they are unaware of the fact that they are making said mistake?

Now, let us replay this scenario, and we will just put in the min raise. Blinds 10-20, everyone stacking 1000. UTG, you are dealt AK suited. You place the minimum raise out there of 40. Now the pot contains 70, it costs 40 to stay, which is close to 2:1. Suddenly, QJ “not suited” from the small blind is playable for 30 (even though the field is getting 2:1, keep in mind, the blinds get in cheaper because they’re already partially involved), and the big blind is now justified in calling with his pocket twos, as he’s getting nearly 3:1. In fact, if he had the hammer, and the small blind called, he would be correct in calling. Furthermore, you have not made the blinds define their hands. They could be playing with any two cards. Later positions and button “could” be as well.

This means that on the flop, we are going to have to bet out to figure out what we should have began to determine pre-flop. The min-raise neither defines our hand, nor helps us to determine a hand range our opposition is playing. This of course, means that we have no idea where we are at in the hand. Supposing we have four to five callers in the min raise scenario, and a pot of 200, how much do you think it will cost us to find out where we are at under the gun? It might be relatively simple if the flop comes AK2 to know where we are at, but what about a color coordinated flop away from us, where we have top pair (A-J-10 all of clubs).

If we bet ½ the pot, we are risking an additional 100 chips MINIMUM (a bit more than 10% of our stack) to find out if we have the best hand. With four players, we can pretty much count on anyone who has the K or Q of clubs to stay. We can count on any Kings or queens to most likely stay, especially if there are already players calling your ½ pot bet. Furthermore, how about any ace now, specifically AJ or A10? My guess is that for ½ the pot, even the big blind with pocket twos also stays, especially if he has a club. We are no longer truly ahead on this board, and we did not charge proper odds for anyone to have the right to catch up to us. Additionally, we have no “cheap” way of determining whether we are truly ahead in the hand. A pot size bet or an over bet would tell us, but then the problem becomes that five handed, we are most likely beat, so there is really little to nothing that is +EV for us to do. Check is -EV and tells us nothing, any size bet tells us nothing, an over bet is called only when we are beat. See the dilemma here?

If we throw out a standard raise, we get one or two opponents. We have a pot size of roughly 200. Same flop comes A-J-10 all of clubs). This time, we have 1-2 players to bet into instead of four or five. We throw out a continuation bet of half the pot. We remain confident that this flop is scary to the one or two opposing players and we will only be called by hands that contain the king of clubs, the queen of clubs. Odds are Ax will fold, unless x is clubbed, at which time, they will call. A set will likely re-raise here, fearing the fourth club. With this continuation bet, we know better where we stand and stand a better chance (due to bigger raise, fewer opponents, and same pot size).

More on this in the next few days. I am confident that I didn’t go through everything as thoroughly as I would have liked. I am of course blaming this on the quitting smoking gig, which is making me more scatter brained than normal. My point though, Judith, min raise is not good. Hope you do well with your surgery today.

Mike



Poker Strategy
Small Stakes Holdem

It was not me…

Very recently, a poker room called Check N Raise Poker seems to have cheated their players out of promised WSOP seats won through a tournament. I first came across this news via Felicia’s Blog.

Following the link paths, there are conversation threads regarding the topic on twoplustwo and RGP.

This marks the second time in as many months where scandal of some sort has had a near miss with my CheckRayz name.

There was also a scandal with CheckRaised, which can be read about here at haley's blog. Essentially, there was a Trojan in a web-based program on this site (rake back calculator).

I wish to point out, that in no way, shape, and/or form am I now or have I ever been associated with either Check N Raise Poker, or CheckRaised. Our names may be similar (CheckRayz vs. Check N Raise Poker vs. CheckRaised), but they are not the same. Please be aware of that…
Additionally, I do my best to “do my homework” when it comes to promoting poker rooms or endorsing poker rooms within our CheckRayz Organization. Does this mean that I will never be “burned?” Probably not. Honestly, there are times when one will never see it coming. Other times, “how could I be so blind” is a question that comes to mind. Yet other times, we avoid a room and dodge a bullet.

I never made it around to Check N Raise. It was not because I saw something coming though. It was simply that their affiliate manager did us a favor and did not return my email requesting information on their site. That is one way to filter someone out. If I email or contact by phone an affiliate manager and do not get a response in a timely manner, I move on to the next poker room. It is that simple. Of course, when they in fact respond, I review with a fine tooth comb the requested information, and may come up with additional questions. I am rather new to the business end of this; however, I am not new to business. Either way, I am learning quickly though and erring on the side of caution.

I’ll bottom line with this: They were not us, and other than similar names, we were nowhere near the fire.

Mike

--- The not smoking thing is getting easier, thank God.




Poker News

Poker News

quick hits...

Just a real quick hit here. Perhaps, time permitting I will make a real post tonight. If not... definitely tommorrow.

1. I'm buried in the "No Limit Hold'em - Theory and Practice" book Sklanksy put out... All I have to say is "wow!" (its a must have)

2. CheckRayz returns to Noble Poker tonight for the 10K guaranteed. Need ten for this tourney to make it a go. Two seats should be added to the prize pool, if I remember correctly.

3. I'm still in the not smoking project. I am intermittantly tilting, so bare with me. I won't crack under pressure to smoke, but the withdrawl and lifestyle change really sux *but well worth it long-term.

4. I struck a promotional gig for the blog with 5 star deal. This is where I buy my poker chips and poker supplies. If you're in the market for anything poker related, check them out. They have the better prices on the net. Additionally, if someone sees something they like on their site, and they wish to "rake" for it, I'm willing to discuss such a possibility - hit me up via email, and we can do things on a case by case basis.

5. My live series of tournaments begin this weekend. We're running a ten week event to support a local charitable cause. More on this later in the week.

Mike

Special Edition of the Mailbag… Because I’m “that guy”

Oh my, I’m still laughing the morning after. Funny story… I received this email from a guy who claims to be a member of CheckRayz. I am quite certain he forgets that I recall where he came from… In any event, I’d like to post his complete email here (because I‘m “that guy“), along with my response… and then some further commentary.

First *for background information:

my blog entry on freerolls from this weekend,

Original announcement on the CheckRayz Challenge

Now, email from this “member”

Hi Mike,

I see your so called "freeroll" has entry requirements of drag hands. A "freeroll" by definition is FREE entry. That means no drags, player points, coupons, money fee, etc. You are advertising an event as a "freeroll" when it is anything but that, due to your entry requirements. What you are doing is called a "bait and switch". Saying you have one thing, get people to your site and then say "oh, by the way, our freeroll is not exactly free because .................."

Mike, as you well know, what you are doing is dishonest and a total scam. You should read what the players say on the poker forums about your kind of "special" freerolls.

In a way it is kind of sad that you have to resort to these kinds of tactics in order to lure players to your site.Just a suggestion, try running honest freerolls (no entry gimmicks) and I bet you have more players than what you get doing things in a dishonest manner.

Mike

(note, its not me talking to myself, he is also named Mike, it would seem).

My word for word response:

There is nothing dishonest in the celeb tournament. I am clearly stating that there is a $500 freeroll with a 50 raked hand requirement. This is no different than sites such as Poker4ever, which if I recall correctly, you joined us from there via another forum who held a special 500 freeroll for peeps who qualify...

I am not sure that I can agree with you regarding being dishonest, because I am certainly not a dishonest person. If you read my blog, you'd clearly see my take on freerolls both in general and specifically.

Thanks for your "concern" and "take" on this matter.

Mike

I think I went above and beyond the call of duty by even responding to this "member," but anyways… I didn’t want him whining that I didn’t get back to him.

That being said, we get some commentary on the matter.

“As I well know, what I am doing is dishonest?” As I well know? Oh my god, this guy has me soiling myself in laughter. You might want to start by going back to “your little corner of the internet” and re-assess whether or not I am an honest person. Wait, wait wait… let me back up here, as I am getting way way ahead of myself.

Let’s do a play by play on his letter to me…

1. "I see your so called "freeroll" has entry requirements of drag hands." - You see this because I properly disclosed such a requirement in my announcements and on my blog.

2. "A "freeroll" by definition is FREE entry." - I am not charging anything… It is a free entry, for those who qualify as stated.

3. "That means no drags, player points, coupons, money fee, etc." - No, that means that you are charged nothing to get in… said another way… Let me spell it out for you Mike… You contribute N-O-T-H-I-N-G to the prize pool… Got it? Was that slow enough for ya, Mike? That being said, there is nothing being charged for the entry to the $500 event. There is a hand requirement, which has been stated each and every time all day long since day 1.

4. "You are advertising an event as a "freeroll" when it is anything but that, due to your entry requirements." --- so, when a given “forum” has an event somewhere such as I don’t know, say Trident Poker for example… If the freeroll has a password, its not a “freeroll?” I mean after all, Mike, there is an entry requirement, you must have a password. (let me guess, “wait a minute, wait a minute… that’s different”). Of course it is Mike, of course it is.

5. What you are doing is called a "bait and switch". Educate yourself on what “bait and switch” truly means. Here, let me help you. Click on this thing called a “link” I put there to help you "better understand" what a "bait and switch" truly is.

6. Saying you have one thing, get people to your site and then say "oh, by the way, our freeroll is not exactly free because --- once again, I stated from day 1 there were hand requirements. I stated exactly what those requirements were… from day 1. And once again, is there an entry fee?

7. Mike, as you well know, what you are doing is dishonest and a total scam. - no, it seems very straight forward. I’m offering a nice, private, $500 promotional freeroll. I set requirements, which is within my right, 'as you well know.' No scam, nothing dishonest… Or do you mean "dishonest" in that you don’t rake hands?

8. You should read what the players say on the poker forums about your kind of "special" freerolls. - I really have no interest in what people on “the poker forums” say about this. Really, I don’t.

9. In a way it is kind of sad that you have to resort to these kinds of tactics in order to lure players to your site. - I hate to burst the bubble here, Mike. This promotional freeroll was not designed to “lure” peeps to my site. It was designed to reward my players who are raking it, playing the buy-in events, supporting the cause, so to speak. If it were to "lure" people to my site, I'd perhaps offer that size of a freeroll with no requirement and act like I hold "these types of events" all the time?

10. Just a suggestion, try running honest freerolls (no entry gimmicks) and I bet you have more players than what you get doing things in a dishonest manner. - I am running “honest” events. I have no intentions of running a freeroll now or in the future to give away cash prizes. All promotional money that I work to obtain goes towards the cash players and the buy-ins. Which, I really hate to break it to ya, Mike… These are the players that the poker rooms want. They are also the players I want playing with CheckRayz. I don’t think any of us are truly interested in full-time freerollers who have no intentions of depositing and playing. None of us wants the players who constantly have their hands out with no intention of contributing and no desire to work towards anything.

You obviously have me confused with someone else.

Once again, there is nothing wrong with asking questions, peeps... however, come correctly. This assclown "member" accusing me of being dishonest and misleading? Telling me I should read what "they" say on other forums regarding a promotional freeroll that has a requirement of sorts to gain entry? Are you f-ing kidding me? I care what "they" say? Actually, the people who's opinion I care about (in this topic) are my depositing players at CheckRayz. I don't care what "they" say (they being "other forums")...

Dude, thanks for the laugh. You get your thirty seconds of fame and now I'm done...

Nuff said,

Mike

CheckRayz Mailbag

Personal: Quit Smoking...

Yesterday, I am happy to say I gave up smoking after being a smoker for roughly 21 years. I am in good company with this whole quitting smoking ordeal, as 3 of my friends are quitting with me. This is something that is long overdue.

Historically, two things happen when I quit. My words do not seem to flow, both in speaking and in writing. Second, I tend to want to clean and/or re-arrange everything under the sun. Thus, you have a short post today and a fresh coat of paint on the Poker Pub.

Mike


Misc. Offtopic Ramblings

Freebies (read: freerolls, forums, blogs, advice) are a privilege, not a right

By nature, I am a highly opinionated person. I am also a skeptic, but that is irrelevant to this post. Recently, a hot topic of discussion in the Shark Forum has been freerolls and I decided it’s long since overdue for me to add my +EV (opinion) to the discussion.


For starters, what is a freeroll? A freeroll poker tournament is one in which it costs nothing to enter, and pays out something. There are different types and purposes of freeroll poker tournaments that poker rooms hold. Generally speaking, they are as follows:


1. Strictly Promotional in Nature Freeroll Poker Tournaments - these tournaments are open to the public. Any Tom, Dick, Harry, Sally, Bob, and Carol, and Ted, and Alice can enter, providing they have the common sense required to click, download, and register for a “real money account” at the hosting poker room. These tournaments have no entry fee; have no criteria other than bottom of the barrel at best common sense. A cash prize is usually paid out to the top portion of the field. The purpose of these tournaments is to draw players to the hosting poker room. They are promotional in nature, not designed to build a bankroll from them, just to get a player’s foot in the door.


2. Promotional Incentive Freeroll Poker Tournaments - these tournaments are open to the public, but have some sort of qualification involved. Registration is free in the traditional sense (no direct entry fee) and pays out a prize of some value, generally cash. There is, however, something required in order to gain entry. Make a first time deposit, play x number of raked hands within a specified timeframe, answer a trivia question, refer a friend, etc. These freeroll poker tournaments are generally designed to reward a client base for “supporting the cause.”


3. Private Freeroll poker tournaments - these freerolls may or may not be open to the public. They are generally organized and obtained by a third party group, of which the organizer may set requirements (or choose not to) as he or she sees fit. CheckRayz and the Shark Poker Tour often hold private events of this nature. The Blogger Poker Tour is also a great example of such a private event.


The third party group maintains the right to place restrictions on these events. The restrictions can be having a blog and being a blogger, or play x number of raked hands, or even make x number of quality posts on the resident poker forum. These private freeroll poker tournaments are not a right; they are a privilege, which brings me right to the point of my ranting.


Far too many people in this world believe they are entitled to a free lunch. This cannot be further from the truth. Originally, I allowed myself to become very irritated when I announced the private $500 freeroll at Celeb Poker, and placed what I believe to be simple requirements in order to qualify for this event. 50 raked hands at .50/$1 or higher is where I set the bar. I could have set it higher. I chose not to. I could have not even included any requirement. I chose to not go that route either. I could have set the bar anywhere I chose. Why, you ask? Because it is my rules, my $500, I can do whatever I damn well please with it, that’s why!


An individual cited how she did not believe this was fair, citing a reason such as “well, many tournament players are not good at ring games, just like many ring players aren’t good in tournaments, so this rule is not fair!”


First, I did not state it is fair. They are my rules, so they’re designed to be fair to me. I put the effort in obtaining a $500 freeroll. If you work with poker rooms to obtain such a freeroll, then you set the rules. I will either not play, if I do not find the rules “fair”… or I will and I will follow your rules without question or complaint. If I do not like the rules, I will not post on it, I will not complain… I will just go away. Fair enough?


Going one step further, in my clarification, let us suppose I did not find the rules “fair.” And let us suppose that I had the exact same opinion that our little lady I speak of had, when she said, “tourney players are not always good cash players, thus this is unfair.” IF I were to post such a thing, first I would privately email them regarding such unfair rules.


I would not stop there though, and I believe it is something like what I am about to say that separates people like me from people like “them.” In my opinion, I do not have the right to complain unless I bring some sort of value to my complaint. In this case, a solution… Following along in the example, and once again assuming I am Ms. Complainer, citing how unfair the rules are, in order for me to “earn” the right to complain, I have to offer a solution or a suggestion as to how I could make it “fair.”


So, to continue, I am she… I cite, “Your rules are unfair to tournament players such as me who would be willing to support the cause by playing raked hands. I deposit and play regularly. I am not a freeloader by any means. I am, however, afraid that I will break myself by playing 50 raked hands at .50/1 and above. I am, however, willing to do something to gain qualification. Would it be at all possible for me to still “work” for the “right” to play in your tournament, but instead of playing raked hands, could I gain entry by participating in X number of buy-in tournaments and/or sit-n-go’s? I am strictly a tournament player and have no problem playing 10 sit n go’s or tournaments at $x.


I believe this would be fair to both you and me, and give people such as myself the opportunity to qualify. Additionally, you just might find that the number of people who are willing to participate will increase as a direct result of such a qualification process. In the event you do not find my suggestion appropriate, I will understand completely and won’t complain one bit. I do appreciate the hard work you do and all of your efforts. Thank you in advance for considering my suggestion and hearing my concerns”


But then again, that would require a complaint coming from someone who is not out shopping around to find that free lunch, now wouldn’t it?


Mike



Thoughts on Poker

Second Leg of the CheckRayz Challenge and an interesting blog hit…

The second leg of the June CheckRayz Challenge is for new members, specifically players new to Kiwi Poker only, sorry vets... you'll have a piece of the pie as well. Just not this piece

In an attempt to drive up membership numbers and depositing players, I put forth the following offer.

1. If you have not yet downloaded Kiwi Poker, download it now here.

2. Deposit $50 or more.

3. Play in all 3 of the CheckRayz events at Kiwi poker this month, I will refund $10 dollars, plus I will reimburse for a single tournament entry up to $10 additional dollars.

4. Play in two of the three CheckRayz events at Kiwi Poker for the month of June, I will refund $6, plus reimburse for an additional tournament entry up to $5.

5. Play in one of the three CheckRayz events at Kiwi Poker for the month, I'll refund $3 and refund an additional tournament entry up to $3.

Follow the instructions above, email me through the checkrayz site or via pm here if you have any questions. Once again, new depositing players (to kiwi poker, using the above link), putting in $50 or more into their poker accounts and following the instructions here. This offer is only good to new players to Kiwi Poker who download through my link.

Interesting Search Results

Going through my site statistics today, I find that I am ranked #13 for the following search thread:

Morons and 21st century idiots - well, not me, but my commentary on the "Idiot Rep From Virginia..." But I am flattered no less...

Mike




CheckRayz Announcements

How to handle the tool to your right and MANY other poker-related ramblings…

I’m writing this while on the poker table. Yes, I am still playing NL. Yes, I am still on my poker bonus whoring mission. And yes, I am going after yet another “Mr. 63%.” Yes, I just reloaded, as I too get the beat layed on me from time to time. Despite every effort on his behalf to rattle my cage, I am not tilting. Don’t get me wrong, I “needed” five minutes away from the table to regain my composure and reflect on what the hell just happened. That also opened up the seat immediately to his left, which to me is much better a position than all the way across the table, especially if I am looking to dismantle him piece by piece.


As I type this, I am dealt KK in the BB. Other people are gunning for this clown as well, so I have to keep this in mind. Half the table is tilting with his 23% preflop raise. He called me cleanly and we are heads up. I didn’t take him for nearly as much as I wanted. I want it all. I am sure after the last beat; he knows that I’m gunning for him. He knows everyone is.


I observed him over roughly 200 hands, raising and continuing, stealing, just running over the entire table. When I first sat down, I knew he was “that guy.” I have to wonder though; did simply knowing this, seeing him all-in on a board he completely missed with Ace-x have me on “tilt” of sorts? Did this fact alone impair my judgment, even if it was ever so slight? We’ll dive into “the hand” and “the comment” to see.


I am looking to pick my spot, and dealt jack-eight suited in the big blind. Once again, he is sitting all the way across the table at this time, and he throws in a min raise, which two people including myself call cleanly. The flop comes jack-three-five. If he is Ax, he has outs. He seemed to have a pattern of min raising with Ax with x>7, from what I was able to notice. I would later see that the 2x raise is Xx, with X>10 and x<7. The board “probably” hit him somehow, I think to myself as he throws out a pot bet. I have top pair, “ok” kicker, so I play ball with him. I raise into him. He re-raises me, which I have seen him do with virtually nothing. My judgment slightly impaired, I re-re-raise to all-in. I am confident I have the best hand. I do not think he has a jack, probably low pair and an over card to me. There is one heart on the board, so I have the possibility of runner-runner flush, I think to myself.

Well, the good news is that my read was somewhat correct, in that I did in fact have the best hand. He had a jack… and a six. I had a jack… and an eight. The six comes on the turn; he has two pair and tells me “I knew you were bluffing.” If I was not already tilting, that comment does the trick. I sign off, take a quick walk around the block, come back and sit next to him, calm… composed. I will get that money back. It does not need to come from him, but I will get it back.


The fact of the matter is that this hand “may” have been what some people consider a “bad beat.” I do not. I wanted him with the better hand, him calling down or pushing with the lesser. I got exactly what I wanted. The only regrets I have (and no, it was not that turn card either), is that I chose to make this play with “that hand,” combined with the way I played pre-flop (calling out of position, not representing strength).


In looking back, Jack eight suited is not really a “strong” hand. It is definitely not a top pair hand. Its better suited (no pun intended) for its connectivity and the ability to make a straight. Two pair, for that matter, can get a brotha’ in trouble if not careful. Heads up against a random hand, J8s is 54% to win preflop. Against his hand range for that min raise, it is a coin toss. However, I am 80% against my read post flop, assuming my read is dead on. Using “after the fact math,” something I do not condone, I am still roughly 80% on that board. Hand ranges are better to calculate more realistic results (which is why I do not buy into the after the fact computations showing who was ahead and using that as my “how could he call?” indicator).


Did I have the edge when I made this move? Absolutely. Would I have been better served to wait for a better opportunity, which included being in position and raising preflop? Damn right. Did I misplay from OOP? Probably.


I am still re-adjusting to the no limit game. For the most part, I have been successful. I seem to forget where I am at from time to time though. I have called once when I was card dead, and another time when I was dominated. Those two were the only costly “total mistakes” of note. The hand I just discussed was a mistake as well, but not as large of a mistake (just as costly). I have a lot of work to do during this NL project of mine. TPGK is not always good to go. Nor is TPTK all the time, depending on the pre-flop story told. I have to keep in mind that while limit is a game of exploiting slight edges, no limit is a game of doubling through your opposition. Hands that are “playable” in limit are not nearly as playable in no limit. The re-raise can easily put you in a “shit or get off the pot scenario,” as often a re-raise results in the opposing donk pushing all-in, instead of that dramatic and deliberate build-up in limit, where the three bet comes into play. Nope, fast forward to all-in.


As stated, in limit you push your slight edges. In no limit, you pick your spots. Yes, as we speak, the sticky tab is going on the monitor. Right on cue, “Mr. 63%” took a hike. I marked him and will play wherever he chooses to sit down. Another one sat down, however… to my left this time. He is apparently a Jack Black fan, as his name is one of the songs Jack’s band sings (read: the hero to nasty man).


Other ramblings, as promised…


Congrats goes out to CheckRayz member gary812 for taking down the May CheckRayz Challenge. Gary generated the most net revenue for the month of May at our featured rooms, thus he takes down a cool $100 from the Beer Guy. Thanks to everyone who participated in the challenge. Individual poker room winners and prizes will be announced within the next week.


On the calendar


Tonight at 10pm EDT, Kiwi Poker is the stop for the CheckRayz Leaderboard Poker Tour, where we have one seat to the 10K guaranteed added to the prize pool. The buy-in for tonight’s event is $3+.30. Check back over the weekend, as I will have a special offer for Poker Pub readers regarding Kiwi Poker. This too will be part of the June CheckRayz Challenge.


Saturday at 5pm, the CheckRayz Leaderboard Poker Tour returns to the official tour sponsor, River Belle Poker for a $1+.10, $50 added poker tournament. The tournament is located under private multi-table tournaments.


Passwords for both events are available on the CheckRayz Poker Tournament Schedule page.


CheckRayz Challenge


The first leg of the June CheckRayz Challenge has been announced. Rake 50 hands at .50/1 or higher at Celeb Poker and qualify for the $500 freeroll poker tournament in July. This is an easy qualification process, with the opportunity to play for a sweet prize pool. Don’t be shy, download, deposit and play today. Members of CheckRayz, who download through my link are also eligible for a special 250% first time deposit bonus, as opposed to the normal 50% bonus Celeb are currently offering. Please note, only those who have downloaded through me and met the play requirements will be eligible for the $500 freeroll.


As mentioned, there will be multiple legs in the June CheckRayz Challenge. The second leg will be at Kiwi Poker. Stay tuned for details…


Blogger Poker Tour


The blogger poker tour is back this weekend, with Haley being the host. In case you didn’t know, the Blogger Poker Tour is sending a blogger to the WSOP, fully equipped with chip, chair, gear, and more. If you have a blog, and are a blogger, this is a no-brainer. Register, play, and compete for the wsop prize package. More great prizes are also available, such as poker tables, a sweet monitor, ipods, Gear and more!


This just in… Haley has a bounty on her head in the event this weekend, which equates to a direct entry into the grand finals. Details regarding the bounty and password for this weekend’s event can be found on Haley's poker blog. Bloggers wishing to join can do so via this blogger poker tour link. Be sure to tell them the beer guy sent ya!


Legislation on Poker


More and more, I am beginning to think we need to rename our country “The People’s Republic of America” when I read about new legislation enacted and/or proposed. As many of you know, there has been legislation proposed in congress to not only ban internet gambling, but also to have the internet service provider block access to gambling related websites. This legislation made it out of the committee, but has not yet gone to the floor for a vote. Coincidentally, The People’s Republic of China has successfully strong-armed Google to block access to websites in which the Chinese Government does not approve. Are we making the path to China becoming “more like us” much shorter?


Additionally, “The Great State of Washington” decided to make it a felony for the citizens of their state to engage in online gambling. The law went into effect this week. They have no plan for as to how they will enforce this law, however, the law is in fact on the books.


Back to poker table action


Some donkey, appropriately named “Donkeyman” (by his own choosing, I imagine) just pushed all-in preflop with King six suited from the big blind. UTG limper called with ace six not suited. DM caught on the river. This table is sweetening more and more by the second.


A final note...


Wow, seems like I put out a week’s worth of commentary in one post. I suspect it is because my writer’s block has gone away for the time being, at least. Well… that combined with the need to re-focus myself, and it doesn’t hurt that I have made progress in getting things done behind the scenes.


I leave by giving a shout-out to my friend Scott, who qualified for regionals last night through the World Tavern Poker Tour. He had his back against the wall, and NEEDED to win last night to gain access to regional. With the Beer Guy’s Harrington on Hold’em vol. 2 as his guide, he called his shot and took down the event. Way to go Scott!


Mike



Poker
Blogger Poker Tour
Thoughts on Poker
CheckRayz Announcements

CheckRayz News

Apologies for not updating over the last few days. I’ve had a lot of irons in the fire.... nuff said.

Briefly, I am proud to announce the first leg of the June CheckRayz Challenge shall take place at Celeb Poker. Celeb Poker have agreed to hold a private $500 freeroll for all who qualify for the first leg of the June CheckRayz Challenge. Rake 50 hands at .50/$1 or higher between now and the end of June to qualify. Obviously, one must be tracked through my download link in order to participate in this event. Download Celeb Poker here.

Registration is open for 10K guaranteed MTQ at Kiwi Poker and the $50 added $1+.10 money-added poker tournament at River Belle Poker. Passwords are available on the CheckRayz Poker Tournament Schedule page, where you must be logged in to access the password.

More to post (actual poker content) either later today and/or tomorrow.

Mike



CheckRayz Announcements

Must be something to the “90th minute”

Our Outdoor Soccer Season starts tonight and the world cup is just around the corner, so I figured I would give this entry a soccer feel to it. Speaking of the world cup, you heard it first on the Poker Pub (which means it must be true, right?); the US will not go through to the second round. I repeat, the US National squad will not go through to the second round (read: they will finish last in their group).


In fact, it is far more likely the world ends tomorrow (you can actually bet on this) than for the US to win the cup. “Beer guy, how can you say that?” you ask. I look no further than our “back-up” keeper, Tim Howard. He failed to get one start all season long at United, yet he is our number two guy? I’d be willing to bet he has match fitness… not!


More on the World Cup later this week. Onto the point of my post. As we all know, a soccer game lasts 90 minutes (two 45-minute halves). I think there is very little more exciting than a goal in the closing minute. There’s just something about that last second effort in stoppage time that gets my heart racing and keeps me on the edge of my seat. Hitting the through-ball to the forward on the run, separation of defenders, chip on the keeper and that’s the ball game.


I’ve had my second “90th minute goal” of sorts in three days. Just like in “football”, there’s really nothing more exciting. Off we go to prima (32 Red, to be exact --- also has football ties) where the Beer Guy is UTG in the “90th minute”… Peaking at the hole cards, he sees “4-5 suited!” This is a playable hand, providing the table refuses to raise, as they have been most of the afternoon, so I limp. Two other limpers (mid position and cutoff), big blind completes. Four handed we see the flop of 6 (hearts), 7 (clubs), 2 (diamonds).


Big blind checks, middle position bets out the pot, folds around to me. With two to one odds, I make the call. I am not really wanting to raise here, and certainly not fond of folding my draw, especially considering we are in “stoppage time.” For the record, “last hand of the night” does not mean we have the green light to donk out. I knew I should not be playing this hand before even limping. I stand ready to release if the board and bet seems to go against me.


Continuing in the hand, the turn card delivers a queen of spades. This time, my opposition offers me 3 to 1. Again, I call, figuring if I take 2:1 on the flop, I’ll gladly accept 3:1 on the turn for this hand, right? The river delivers my through-ball, sending me an 8 of hearts. Keeping in mind, I do not have the nuts; I still have one “defender” to beat. I check, figuring he is going to step in. He does, with a pot-sized bet. I put the move on him, raising to place him all-in. He bites on my move and I bury the ball in the back of the net, showing a straight to his set of queens.


Overall, there has been more to my game than these last second suck outs of mine. And rest assured, they were in fact both suck outs. In fact, just to demonstrate such, we will walk through a hand where I played “more correctly” and the best hand (from your hero) held up.


Same day, same game… same position, this time I am dealt Kings under the gun. Ideally speaking, I like to limp/raise with aces, kings, AK, and 2-7o under the gun. The table, being only 5% preflop raise does not give me confidence I will have the opportunity to re-raise before the flop. That being said, I throw in a small 3x raise to see who wants to play ball. I get three callers, the semi-loose passive/aggressive button, and the small and big blinds that have yet to fold to a steal. Four handed we see a flop of Jack (clubs), 9 (hearts), 4 (clubs). Blinds check to me, and I throw out a suspicious looking 1/3 times pot bet. S-LPA puts in a raise of pot size. My suspicion is that he has either KJ, QJ, or J10, of which he may be willing to play some ball. Action folds to me and I reraise him, merely doubling his bet. He moves all-in, which doubles mine. Is he stronger than I am right now? Was he stronger pre-flop and playing possum?


Aces are unlikely, as his summary demonstrates he would have correctly re-raised preflop. Kings, well… I have kings, so unlikely. Queens? Perhaps. AK? Unlikely, especially considering the all-in move. He has to have “something.” While he could have set, I think not. I put him on a pocket pair, most likely Queens or tens. I make the call, he shows me his queens and the board misses everyone on the turn and river. My kings hold up as he calls me a… “Donk.” Nice!


More tomorrow.


Mike



Poker Strategy
Small Stakes Holdem
Poker Stories

Whoring for Bonus

(I hear the crowd cheering when it appears I won’t be discussing luck vs. skill today - I‘m cheering too, rest assured).


My goal for the month of June is to go back to bonus whoring, to some extent. Going through and looking at my respective poker accounts last week, I cannot help but notice several bonuses still pending in my accounts. It occurs to me that when I first began playing (outside of my little world known as poker.com), bonus whoring was a significant portion of my game. My goal for the week was to complete all outstanding bonuses that were worth obtaining (read: I am not going to sit on the .10/.20 cent tables to play through for a bonus. Bonus and games willing, I’ll do it, but I am not dropping down to play a ridiculous game just to achieve said bonus.


So off I went, working off my bonuses at the various poker sites I frequent. As I may or may not have mentioned, I made the switch to playing full table limit now, as opposed to the short-handed limit. It occurs to me that the semi-loose aggressive player is ideal for shorthanded play. That… is not me. I “can” play semi-loose, but really, I am more of a tight aggressive player. When I loosen up my play in ring games, I find myself outside of my comfort zone. Thus, it makes sense that I play at a table that is ideal for my style of play. After all, I preach table selection, right? Might as well go a step further and go with game selection as well.


Anyways… off to Sun Poker I go to clear my free $40 (shout out to Sharky for sending me to the donk-infested beaches of Sun Poker). $40 cleared in no time at all. Sun will be my first stop every month. Fast forwarding to the point of my writing today, PokerStars. This is my “online poker birthplace.” I got my start here, and frankly, I played as if I was a newborn when I first started playing online. Actually, a newborn could have beaten me, now that I think of it.


I had a decent size reload bonus I needed to work off, so I fire up a few tables, varying in limits and once again full table limit Hold’em being the game of choice. I couldn’t help but notice the presence of “Mr. 63%” on one of the tables. Usually, his hand looked as follows:


Pre-flop raise, continuation bet/call the reraise, turn bet/call the reraise, fold…


unless he hit, then it was


Pre-flop raise, continuation bet/re-reraise; turn bet/call, bet/re-reraise…


As his bankroll seems to dwindle down into non-existence, I suspect the table full of nine other players who are seeing less than 30% of the flop and all but two profitable will quickly break up. Just like clockwork, player busts out, fails to reload and the table begins breaking up. I have no desire to play at a cash poker table among players who are seeing 20-25% of the flops, raising 10%, post-flop aggression factors above 2. So, smartly I depart, looking for a “better” game. Fortunately, I kept “Mr. 63%” marked, so I tracked him down to a $1/$2 NL table. This could be fun, I thought. I was showing profit and close to working my bonus off, so I shut down the remaining two limit tables, in favor of playing against “Mr.63%.” Moreover, I was “outside of my world” here. Unfortunately for me, he left quickly. However, the game was somewhat donk infested, so I decided to stay, but only until I achieved my bonus play-through requirements.


I sat down with twice table minimum in this game, which was less than the max, of course. My goal was to take a shot, but to do so smartly. The table was not very aggressive pre-flop and people only seemed to bet when they hit their hands. In short, it was a non-hostile, mostly transparent table. Two players in particular I had noticed playing hands like Queen-two suited, or Jack-eight “not suited” under the gun and to a limp. Usually three to four players would see the flop per hand. Players seemed to raise A-x and large pocket pairs preflop, but avoided raising other hands, even in position.


It was on my final hand, that I had my donk-like moment. Keeping in mind that I know the very next hand in which the rake becomes “enough“ my bonus is released. The hand plays out as follows:


Two players are sitting out. I limp after two folds and a call. The player to my left (one of the out of position donks) raises, making it 4x BB. The small blind folds and big blind calls, because that is what the BB does. Player sitting to my right calls, so I too cleanly call. I have the pot odds to call and see a flop with my hand. I’m thinking raiser has Ax, with X most likely 9-Q. In the event he had a large pocket pair, he would have tipped us off with a larger than 4x raise, I suspect. If the blinds have a large pocket pair, or AK-A10, they reraise here. My preliminary suspicion is that one of the two acting before me has Ax (x=small) and the other is suited somehow or might even have an ace, who knows. I am rather certain, however, that at least two of my three opponents are spending at least one of the other’s outs.


The flop comes Ah, 2h, 7d. I nearly forgot to mention that I am holding 6h-7h. The BB checks, player to my right checks, as do I. Original raiser pushes out a “bet pot” move. I suspect if he bets the pot, he is not trying to extract value or suck anyone in. I believe he has a pair, but not a set, nor is he on a flush draw. BB calls. The ace scares him off if he does not have one of his own. Player to my right folds. Thinking this one over for a bit, I count my outs. I’m on a flush draw (potentially 9 outs), I have middle pair (2 potential outs) and my other card may or may not have outs (I’ll call it ½ of an out). Obviously, no one has the hearted ace, as it’s on the board. I have neither of them on Ace-King or two pair, as the hand would have been re-raised before getting back to me, I suspect. Additionally, the bettor would not have pushed out a pot-sized bet, in my opinion, based on how the table has played out previously. He would want to suck value from his two pair, even if it were ace-two, while at the same time, not giving the odds to draw to the flush or the better two pair.


Considering all, I throw out the all-in re-raise, which offers about 2.5:1 odds to the original raiser, I am certain he is going to be a taker. The blind may or may not join in, but I am not very worried about him, as his stack was small, relatively speaking and he‘d not cover my all-in bet. Did I mention this was my last hand of the evening, win or lose? Pot is full and split. Turn comes off 5 of spades, and the river brings the king of hearts (told you no one was playing A-K, or at least A-K with the king being hearted).


My flush, ace high shows down, muck from opponent number 1 (ace-queen not suited though queen was hearted), pot slides to me. Second opponent mucks (Ac-8c). Main pot also slides to me.


Once again, this was somewhat donk-like of a play for me, and a bit out of character. However, (here comes the justification), my bonus was replacing my loss if I lost the hand (and then some). I was confident that if one of my nine flush outs came my way, I was good. I was confident that I had more outs clean than my opposition did. It was my last hand of the evening, and I was close to a “Freeroll” situation, given the above. Had this hand played out earlier in the day, or without the bonus riding on the line, I would have likely folded.


I knew calling this hand after the raise/call was incorrect, even though I had the pot odds and raising was “more correct.” Folding was an option, but “just was not going to happen,” given all of the above.


More from the felt tomorrow.


Mike



Poker Strategy
Small Stakes Holdem

More on Luck vs. Skill in Poker

I think my assessment was somewhat accurate on the luck vs. skill problem in poker yesterday. As mentioned, I am not a math guy. Despite that, the “equation” still does not look complete. It may not be accurate either.


If I were forced to draw an equation for a six-seat table, it would have looked something like the following:


Six Seat Poker Table =Player 1 (skill+luck factor) + Player 2(skill+luck factor)… Player 6 (skill + luck factor)


I had skill varying from 6-1, with the most skilled player at the table receiving the 6, and the least skilled player receiving the 1. I had the luck factor evenly distributed among the six players, so that every player is 1/6th lucky.


Problems with the formula


I have problems; however, with the formula of mine that I would have committed to had I been “forced” to commit to a formula I believed to be accurate.


First, time needs to be taken into consideration, in that the longer the game goes on, the less luck has to do with it. I did not represent that in my formula above. Second, I suspect hand strength and position would have to be taken into consideration if we are speaking of just one hand. However, we are not referring to any one hand; we are referring to a session, perhaps even a career or a lifetime of poker.


Third, I have not considered how “in tune” one is with said skill-sets, which does vary, by the way. This brings me to the next point. Skill is not something that I can represent by assigning a six to the best player at the table, and a five to the next. Who is to say that the best player at the table is not at least twice as skilled as the second best player? If that, in fact were the case, then 6 for #1 and 5 for #2 would not be mathematically correct.


Finally, I did not take into consideration the ability for lesser, unskilled players to adapt to a given game, or just straight up improve their game over time. This also stands to reason that the most skilled of player’s improvement is not accounted for. Even taking all of that into consideration, I am still unsure if it would be accurate.


Time factor
In tune with skills
Skill multiple
Adaptation


Luck over the long haul - the time factor


I am rather certain that despite what is said, luck still plays out over the long haul. People have said that one’s poker statistics over the course of their career shows that luck has nothing to do with their results. If they are a highly skilled poker, you will not find evidence of luck in their statistics. This is not completely true. You will in fact find luck in their statistics, as you will see instances where they sucked out on another player (who played their pocket aces poorly, perhaps), and also instances where an opponent successfully chased, despite the poor odds and unlikelihood of catching their hand.


If luck were not evident in one’s long-term statistics, then anti-luck also would not be present. This would state that throughout the course of one’s career, every hand that should hold up does hold up to the extent that it should. Or at the very least, that over one’s career, they are equally lucky and unlucky, providing they are technically sound to the extent that we “assessed” them to be.


Over time, luck has “less” impact on one’s play, but it is still sure to be present, especially when analyzing shorter-term results. If the “long term” is made up of a series of “short terms,” and luck is believed to have more “presence” over a short-term scenario, then luck must also be present, to some extent over the course of one’s complete poker career. I would argue, however, that it is less evident over the long haul than over the short-term results.


A quick thought though. We all should have seen the expected value charts for starting hands. Is time and luck factored into the equation for these EV charts? Take for example the Starting hand EV Chart here; broken out by position for a ten-seat table, from the button, we can expect to win AN AVERAGE of 2.96 BB (big bets) per instance of receiving pocket aces on the button. Does this mean each and every time we will win exactly 2.96 big bets per instance of receiving said hand on the button? No. However, it does mean that we can expect that we will win an average of 2.96 big bets every time we are dealt aces on the button over the course of our playing career at a ten-seat limit table when we are playing optimally. Said another way, assuming we always bring the A game when we are dealt aces, sometimes we will win more than 2.96 big bets, other times less. Over our career, we can expect to win 2.96 big bets per time we get aces on the button. This takes into consideration the “suckout factor” as well, from my perspective.


I believe it also takes into consideration that we do not play these hands all the way to the river every time. The chart, from my best guess, assumes that over time, we are beat here, we win to showdown here, we lose to showdown, and we end it early by either folding our opposition or folding ourselves. This brings me to my next point, and perhaps the final point of the day:


The hand range impact on luck


If I have “standards” with my starting hand selection, relative to hand strength and position, do I “need” as much luck as those who play against me and have “less” standards or perhaps even “no standards” at all? If what I deduced above is correct, luck is already factored into the equation. I need only play the +EV hands optimally in position and over time, providing I play optimally, I “should” show a profit closely resembling the EV chart throughout my career. If this is true, or close to true, then I would suspect that a player’s hand range and skill factor would have to go into the luck vs. skill calculation.


Even so, it still does not answer the question of just how much of the game is skill and how much is luck…


Mike

Luck vs Skill in Poker...

1luck
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English lucke, from Middle Dutch luc; akin to Middle High German gelücke luck
1 a : a force that brings good fortune or adversity
b : the events or circumstances that operate for or against an individual
2 : favoring chance


Skill
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English skil, from Old Norse, distinction, knowledge; probably akin to Old English scylian to separate, sciell shell -- more at SHELL
1 obsolete : CAUSE, REASON
2 a : the ability to use one's knowledge effectively and readily in execution or performance
b : dexterity or coordination especially in the execution of learned physical tasks
3 : a learned power of doing something competently : a developed aptitude or ability (language skills)


Much has been discussed about luck vs. skill and how it applies to poker in the blogosphere. I first was put onto the discussion by visiting Biggestron’s blog, where he was commenting on Jordan’s post of luck versus skill. It sounds as if Jordan had really initiated the conversation. Sounds of a suckout blog and F-Train also addressed the issue. On a related note, The Cards Speak broke down successful habits of online players. All these are great reads, by the way. I would also like to “try” to address this whole luck versus skill issue as I see it. I admit I am in slightly over my head with this, but I am going to give it a try.


I am not sure that the “is poker a game of luck or skill problem” is one that has a consistent answer. First, is it the question appropriately posed “is poker either a game of chance (luck) or is it a game of skill?” If posed that way, we cannot answer that question one way or the other with absolute certainty. Poker could be a game of “skill” generally speaking, however if you put ten drunken idiots in a room for a diaper party, none of which have played more than five hands lifetime, there’s not going to be a lot of skill, yet you will see mad skills if the ten greatest players in the world gathered for a game of high stakes poker. These games are close to opposite extremes. I would contend that the high stakes “mostly skilled” game will feature “some” luck. The drunken game would perhaps also demonstrate a bit of skill, as one person, while not skilled in poker, may be a well-established bullshit artist and can knock someone off his or her hand. Bluffing is a skill. Therefore, I guess it (skill vs. chance or luck) cannot be an “either or” problem, thus the statement: “Poker is a game of pure (luck, chance, or skill)” cannot be accurate.


What could be accurate is to say, “Poker is a game of skill with a bit of chance (luck),” or maybe even “poker is a game of luck with some skill.” How do we know which is accurate? Additionally, can we measure to what degree luck comes into play and to what degree it is skilled? How much of an advantage does a skilled player have over a lucky one, or is it the other way around?


At the top of this entry, I put in the definitions of luck and skill, as defined by Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, further defining luck and skill. We determined that poker is not a game of only luck or only skill, so can we measure just how much luck and how much skill the game contains? Let us try.


Each player is dealt two hole cards, which come to us via chance or luck. A round of betting occurs, which I would define as a skilled moment, as the skilled player will take into consideration his or her hole cards that have came (by luck or chance), his or her position, the table make-up, chip stack, blind sizes, etc. A “good” player will consider all of this when determining whether to continue playing, as well as how to play. He will be aware of his opposition and understand what he needs to do to get the ideal situation for his hand to stand the best chance of winning. For purposes of this exercise, let us say a “skilled” player is at a short-handed, 6-max donkey infested table (mostly players who are not terribly skilled). Our player gets aces under the gun. He knows that action behind him has been heavy, often with people limping, and whoever has the button raising the minimum, because “that’s what you do on the button.” So, we go limp limp, raise, fold, call (BB) and action comes back around. Player suspects he can steal or isolate right here by going all-in, but also knows that even the luckiest of people will know for certain, even those who lack skill, if he all-ins. He instead figures putting in a strong re-raise, he can isolate to heads up or three handed and extract more chips post-flop. UTG hero puts in a reraise of six times the blind and the button calls, “because he’s on the button,” and the big blind is committed, so he also calls, “because he was in the big blind and called one raise, so why not.”


The “chance” flop comes. We will say it comes 2-7-9 rain bowed and misses everyone. The big blind checks, because the flop misses him. The hero also checks, because he is certain the button will bet, “because that’s what the unskilled button does.” Additionally, he feels comfortable that he can give a free card without being hurt. If by chance the button bets out, UTG is confident the big blind will no more than call, and there is a chance to get those extra chips in before putting the re-raise in to isolate heads up. UTG checks. Button bets out, putting in a bet that is 1/8th the pot. BB calls cleanly, because he already has money in the pot, and it is cheap, never once thinking about what the next player is going to do. The skilled player decides he can afford to be three handed, so he puts in a slight reraise, roughly ½ the pot. The button calls, as does the big blind, who now does not want to be left out.


Turn card, by chance brings a queen, making the board 2-7-9-Q, all rainbowed now. The big blind bets out hard, sliding all-in. The skilled player thinks for a bit, rather certain the queen helped the big blind. He would not likely have bet unless it helped him. Thinking of the logical hand ranges, BB “could” have AQ or KQ or QJ, but would have re-raised preflop, or at least looked more confident in calling. He is not good at hiding his emotions preflop. He is unlikely to be on a straight draw, as we do not think he would notice that yet. We will confidently put him on Qx, of which x could equal ten, 9, 8, 7,6,5,4,3,2 with great confidence. We have not seen three queens (believing one is in his hand). There is 4 tens, eights, sixes, fives, fours, and threes not seen, and 3 nines, sevens, and twos not seen. It is more likely that he has one queen and another card, probably suited, no danger of a flush and little danger of a straight, if in fact we are correct in our quick analysis. It is more likely, given the incomplete information we have that we are still ahead. We all have equal amount of chips to make this simple in calculation of luck versus skill, so we make the call.


The button folds because we called. The small blind turns over Queen-four suited. A king hit’s the river and we take the hand down. The button reveals he had king-two not suited. We sit confident that even if the BB lucked out and hit his hand, we skillfully manipulated the situation surrounding the round that we got in the most ideal set of circumstances to allow our hand the chance to hold up. We understand aces play better against few opponents. Had we held the other hands (K-2 not suited, or Q-4s) and faced the move the UTG made, we would have released our hand, even if we were representing.


Even if the board had changed to QJ10 all suited to one of our cards and a ten on the turn(say we have kings this time), we have sufficient outs to make a call, knowing that 1 king gives us the nut straight flush, three other kings give us the straight, another ten or one of the two aces gives us a boat. We understand how luck comes into play, and through our actions and posture at the table, we manipulate others into “giving us our way” to allow chance to work in our favor… or at least to not work against us.


If broken down, we have a moment of chance (deal), a round of skill (action), a moment of chance (flop), a round of skill (action), a moment of chance (turn), a round of skill (action), a moment of chance (river), a round of skill (action), and then the showdown (the sum of the universe of chance and skill in this particular hand). This gives us each four chance moments and four skill moments, assuming a hand plays out completely. If calculated by completed hands, we see eight rounds, four chance, and four skill. Is this indicative that luck and skill are 50-50 in poker? I guess that would be the case IF every willing player played every hand from flop to showdown. However, as we saw in the three-handed example above, one player dropped out. Ironically, he “would have been” the one to benefit by chance or luck had he stayed in and called the all-in bet. The skilled player knew “if I call, he probably will not, because he does not know any better.” We think that he thinks that one of us has him beat and it would be incorrect to be three handed and all-in. We also suspect if we had folded, he would have called because “we can’t let him steal now, can we?” Essentially, the skilled player understands how his hand best plays from the position he is in, against the opposition he is up against, with the stack he and everyone else has, and he puts together a strategy to give him the “best chance” of a hand holding up. His presence and mindset at the table reduces the luck factor.


Could we say that despite an equal number of chance occurrences compared to skill opportunities per complete hand, there is more time during the action or skill round, so we can accurately measure the game as being “more skilled” because there’s more time spent on the skill aspect, whereas the luck portion only lasts the duration of the blink of an eye? I would say no to this problem. Although, during the luck flop, turn, and river, even preflop, my eyes are not on the board. Instead, I am looking at my opposition’s reaction to what they are seeing (note: irrelevant in online poker).


So still, we cannot demonstrate “exactly” how much luck versus how much skill a game of poker contains. We might be able to deduce, however, that the longer a game lasts, the less effect luck has on a given hand. Let us keep it simple, and conclude so far that poker is 50% luck and 50% skill. The next problem arises; can a skilled player also be a lucky player?


I do not have to look too far for that result. I consider myself a skilled player. Last night during the shark tournament, I became short-stacked on a garbage hand where the lucky player prevailed. I was dealt 7-5 suited UTG and pushed all-in, hoping for the steal. A player called with Ace-King “not suited.” This player was not skilled by any means, for the record. His king and my seven hit the flop, along with a two. Turn brought a five and the river was irrelevant. I was back in the game. He got “tilty” just as I had appeared (though I was not on tilt), and he went out the very next hand.


Now about my play, I was short stacked. The blinds were coming to me next hand. I did not believe that the hand I received in the BB was going to be stronger than 7-5s. I also believed that even if it were, there would be callers and raisers in front of me, making it difficult for me to isolate. Furthermore, I KNEW I would only be called by hands that were greater than mine, most likely only one or two hands though. I knew my raise would mean more UTG and first to act than if I re-raised from the big blind, supposing a reraise was even possible. Skillfully, I decided to move with seven-five suited knowing full well that if I had a caller or callers, I would be the underdog for the hand and NEEDED to get lucky. Six-four suited was not going to call me, and two three not suited sure the hell was not going to call me. There was a “chance” that no one had a hand that would even call me. This would give me a steal, which was possible and I would not be “as” pressured from the big blind and small blind positions. For me to do this, it took knowledge, or skill. Remember, skill is defined as the ability to use one's knowledge effectively and readily in execution or performance.




I skillfully put myself in the best situation to get lucky and/or win the pot outright. Even if by chance, I had aces, I still push all-in right there with that short stack. So, assuming I am considered a “skilled” player, I also demonstrate the ability to be a “lucky” player.
Not being a math guy, I do not know how to represent that in the form of an equation. I am confident, however, that players can be placed into the following basic categories:


1. All luck - novice
2. Some luck, some skill - novice somewhat familiar to the game
3. Some skill, some luck - average player
4. Lots of skill, some luck - expert, a complete poker player


Of course, each category would have several sub-categories (less over-simplification). As stated, I cannot represent the “formula” in equation form, but I am certain that if we stated 100% of the poker game is x% luck plus y% skill, we would not be able to give luck plus skill a static number. I also believe that moreover we would be correct in somehow assigning each player involved a skill number, based on knowledge and understanding of the game and their ability to recognize and manipulate situations. The sum of those numbers would make up the “luck factor” in their particular game.


Overall, I do believe that the shorter a game or a career, the more luck has to do with it. If we are all dealt only one hand, and the winning hand is the champion. No one is ever dealt another hand after this championship hand, then luck is everything (100% luck). No skill involved. We are forced to play our hand that by chance has come to us. We are all in and to the river we go.


If we are only permitted to either move all-in or fold, then luck still dominates (less than 100% luck). Though skill and discipline does come into play, as we recognize for which hands this would work.


If we are allowed the opportunity to lay odds, make plays, and approach the game in a cerebral, calculating manner and we are not in a time restricted situation, skill cuts down the opportunity for luck, assuming luck or chance is evenly distributed over time, of course. Ten seater, luck evenly distributed over each player (each person gets 1/10 of luck). Skill factor on one to ten, ten being most skilled, nine being second most skilled, etc. Over time, the most skilled player will win most, providing the game goes on forever. (10*1/10 luck) vs. (9*1/10 luck) vs. (8*1/10 luck). I guess though this would assume that each person would be proportionately more skilled as the next, and is not 100% accurate. It is enough to show me, however, that the skilled player has the edge over the unskilled player, especially if we take into consideration time. The longer we play, the more of an edge the skilled have over the unskilled.


One more point, and I will end this “rambling of a madman” style of post. A skilled player also has the ability and wisdom to extract full or nearly full value from hands in which he wins (say an extra 10% on average when he wins, to keep it simple), and save 10% on the hands in which he loses by either not calling the river bet when he believes through his skill and wisdom that he is beat, or by not making the bet on the backend when he knows will be called only when he is beat. He is making an additional ten percent on average when he wins, and losing 10% less when he loses. Over time, this adds up, does it not? Does this give him the edge over an unskilled player? Bet your ass it does! I may not be able to demonstrate on paper whether poker is more a game of skill or a game of chance. I might not be able to tell you to what extent poker is a game of skill over a game of chance or luck. Surely, if we sit down at a table, I might be able to show ya.


Mike

Getting from A to B

Over the past few days, I have discussed where my poker game was last year versus where my poker game is today. How did I get to where I am today? I attribute my evolution to many factors, of which education, belief, drive and practical application are by far the largest factors in which has driven me to become a better poker player.


I do not know about you. But as for me, if I have a “hobby,” a “profession,” or even a “passion” for something, its kind of important to me that I am both enjoying it and good at what I am doing. I am passionate about writing, for example. I think I am good at it. I drive myself to write daily. This is something that always has been on my “to do” list, but various things prevented me from doing so. I hold myself accountable to post my thoughts daily… or close to daily at the Poker Pub. My writing helps me to focus, understand, and yes, even vent. In addition to that, I am working on improving my writing (the sudden, unexplained use of spelling and grammar check being one small improvement). I am trying to write on the things I know, or wish to know that are of interest to me. I stick to a style of writing that is somewhat conversational while telling a story all at the same time. I feel that style of writing is my strongest. I drive myself to do this early and often.


When working to improve my poker game, once again something I feel that I am good at and thoroughly enjoy, I push myself to play better. I work daily to add at least one new “thing” to my game. I push myself to read. Speaking of reading, I have never been much of a reader. Historically, I have not “allowed” myself to enjoy what some people would refer to as “a good book.” Five pages and I am snoring. So, reading books does not come natural to me. I still cannot force myself to read books such as Harry Potter or (insert next book turned into movie here). I have been able to manage to read any books Philosophical in nature, relating to Poker, or relating to the technical side of investing. I guess I am not a fan of reading for leisure, and that is acceptable. What is not acceptable is if I would not be willing, driven to read books that will assist me in improving something in my life. I hold myself accountable in that I shall always have a book in front of me that will help me out in some way. I drive myself to read daily. I find my game and my life improving daily by reading daily.


I drive myself to implement the skills and concepts I have read into my game or my life. Obviously, this requires that I have done the due diligence necessary to allow me to “believe” what I have read. I am a straight up skeptic by nature, so rest assured I will not read that in which I do not believe, unless it is to gather “the other” point of view. Harrington’s book, for example, tells me to push with all hands ranked about the ten-eight offsuit when my M is low and I am first to open the pot. For someone not used to doing such seemingly outrageous things, this is quite scary. It requires belief, faith even. It requires me to step well outside my comfort zone. No one ever said poker was a comfortable game, by the way. It stands to reason that I just might be required to face some scary, not so comfortable situations from time to time. I believed, I stepped out on a limb, and I pushed. Now, I am all about “drinking the kool-aid” that Action Dan serves in his literary works.


I choose my “experts” carefully and avoid “false profits.” What do I mean by false profits? Ever been to school, college perhaps… or even a seminar at work. The subject matter expert is speaking, however there’s “that guy” sitting in the front and on the right of the boardroom/class room who usually seems to summarize what the speaker says. He does not do this to gain further understanding; but instead, he does this to show everyone else what he “knows.” If allowed, he dominates the conversation of the class in a disruptive manner (to the speaker) and tries to position himself as the subject matter expert, as opposed to letting the speaker continue to speak. After class or the seminar lets out, he attempts to “herd his flock” and if allowed, he installs himself as the expert, offering half-assed, out of context advice. Some people actually follow this person, which could be scary. They figure he knew enough to hang in conversation, he must know what the hell he is talking about. My contention is that I am unlikely to follow someone blindly unless they have “been there and done that.” This does not mean I will not consider what “that guy” has to say. However, there will be no installation as expert, nor will there be blind following from “this guy.” People such as Harrington have in fact been there. They have done that. I will follow them, still striving to understand what I am following and why I am following it, of course.


Once again, tying into the skeptic in me, I must know what I believe AND why I believe it. I have great difficulty accepting things as fact when I cannot make sense of them. I run the “logical equation” in my head and it must balance when I encounter a potential belief. If the equation does not balance, or seems incomplete, I cannot accept it. I look to disprove it, investigate further, or not even waste my time pondering such things. Pure and simple, I think for myself. I know enough to know I do not know everything. I know enough to know that it is not wise to accept blindly. If I cannot answer the basic questions, “what do I believe” and “why do I believe the way I do,” we do not have a balanced equation.


Finally, we have practical application. If I believe (generally speaking) it is correct to push with ten-eight offsuit at a tight table while close to the bubble and a low M, I must implement this belief when it is appropriate, right? What good is a belief if I am not willing to apply it? Additionally, I believe I am a good poker player. I believe my game needs constant attention; improving, reflecting upon, and studying it to become a better poker player. I believe I am capable both physically and mentally of making such improvements. I believe that bankroll willing, I can move up the ranks. I believe in myself, I believe in that which I choose to read. And I believe in what I write in my poker blog.


Finally, I believe that one year from today, I will look back at this entry and think to myself, “Wow, relatively speaking, I had no clue what I was doing back then, did I?” I guess that is part of the evolution of a poker player though.


Mike