Congrats to both Carlos Mortensen and Todd Brunson on their induction into the Poker Hall of Fame. I consider both gentlemen friends and tough players. These two are a total contrast with Carlos being the wild aggressive tournament phenom, while Todd gets in due to his solid cash game grinding skills.
As is the case every year with the Hall of Fame, debates arise about the process and ultimately who should or shouldn’t get in. I’ve given it a lot of thought and would like to see a few tweaks:
A) Builder Category
Currently the criteria for this category reads like this: “Or, for non-players, contributed to the overall growth and success of the game of poker, with indelible positive and lasting results.”
For the sake of clarity, I would like to see this phrase changed slightly to avoid confusion in the future. I would add, “To qualify, the person must have worked in the industry as a non-player, and/or created something that benefited the poker community as a non-player.”
I also find it difficult to vote for someone in the builder category when it takes up a spot that a player may have gotten. Since builders represent a small percentage of the nominees, my suggestion to address this is to induct a builder once every 4 years in addition to the two players that go in annually. That way people like Matt Savage, Steve Lipscomb, John Duthie, Bruno Fitoussi and others would compete against each other in this category and not be judged against players. It’s quite difficult to judge apples and oranges, so just the apples against the apples, and the oranges against the oranges.
B) Define criteria better
This is the current criteria for players:
A player must have played poker against acknowledged top competition
Be a minimum of 40 years old at time of nomination
Played for high stakes
Played consistently well, gaining the respect of peers
Stood the test of time
Some of these criteria are self explanatory, but there are others that are quite confusing and not clearly defined.
1. A player must have played poker against acknowledged top competition
What defines top competition exactly? When the Hall of Fame was created, this could only happen if a player played the highest stakes cash games against the worlds best players. Since the 70’s poker has changed a great deal. You have online poker skills, tournament players, and a wide range of stakes that could be considered high stakes.
Frankly, in today’s environment this criteria is far too vague and leaves way too much room for interpretation. Any nominee that is going to make the list is going to qualify under this criteria, it’s implied and doesn’t really say much. We have never had a player nominee that wouldn’t automatically qualify under this criteria. It’s quite silly actually. I would discard it entirely.
2. Be a minimum of 40 years old at time of nomination
You can’t be more clear than this!
3. Played for high stakes
What qualifies as high stakes? Is $5-$10 no limit hold’em a high stakes game? Are $1000 buy in tournaments considered high stakes in 2016? I think we should actually clarify this clearly and adjust when necessary. So for cash games I would go with $400-$800 limits and above. For no limit cash games, $25-$50 blind minimum.
What are high stakes tournaments in 2016? I would say at a minimum you would have to go with $10,000 buy ins to consider it high stakes and even that is a stretch. It may be more accurate to say, “Above $10,000 buy ins.”
4. Played consistently well, gaining the respect of peers
This seems impossible to actually define. Ultimately the voters votes answer this question. Which peers? Media votes in the poker Hall of Fame, are they peers? Do they have any insight into how good the cash game players are? What does “consistently well” mean exactly? I have played terrible at times over the last 20 years. This criteria is too similar to the last criteria “Stood the Test of Time.” I would change it to, “Their poker skills earned the respect of their peers.”
5. Stood the test of time
How much time exactly? How does one define this? If John Smith was the best player in the world from ages 25-50 but at 55 was just awful, did he stand the test of time? How much time? If Joe Blow had millions of dollars playing poker in his 20’s and 30’s but went broke in his early 40’s against tougher competition, did he stand the test of time? For this criteria we should add “Stood the test of time over a period of 15 years or more.
If I had my say I would change the criteria for players to look like this:
1. Must Be a minimum of 40 years old at time of nomination
2. Played for High Stakes.
-Tournaments with buy ins over $10,000
-Limit Cash games $400-$800 and above
-No Limit Cash games of $25-$50 and above
3. Their poker skills are well respected by their peers
4. They were exceptional in at least one of these areas:
-Cash Games
-Tournaments
-Online Poker
5. Stood the test of time over a period of 15 years or more
C) Change the voting process
Currently living members of the Hall of Fame and certain media members are given ten votes they can divvy up any way they want between one to three nominees. This system is broken and gives voting blocks far too much power. Get three living members to throw all ten of their votes at a nominee and he is very likely to get inducted. It shouldn’t be this way and I hope they strongly consider dumping this method.
An alternate method I think is far more fair is to have every voter vote for exactly two people and rank them #1 and #2. The most #1 votes gets in. If there is a tie, the #2 vote acts as the tiebreaker. For the second player, the second most #1 votes gets in, and the same process would occur in a tie. Or, you could simply assign a point value to those picks giving 2 points for a #1 vote and 1 point for a #2 vote.
This doesn’t solve the problem of voting blocks but it curbs it and allows people to vote with their conscious rather than voting based on politics or to manipulate the vote. For example, say I thought John and Bill both deserve votes equally. If I know Bill has no chance to get in, I then throw all my votes to John increasing the chances of him getting in. With my system, I would simply put Bill down as my #1 and John down as my #2.
D) Fan voting
There is a place for it. However, not all spots should be decided by fan vote otherwise it would simply become a popularity contest. I am unaware of who the panel is that decides who is on the nomination list, but I think what would work best is to reserve four spots for a fan vote and have the other six spots decided by the panel and living members.
Read this:
A player must have played poker against acknowledged top competition
Be a minimum of 40 years old at time of nomination
Played for high stakes
Played consistently well, gaining the respect of peers
Stood the test of time
Or, for non-players, contributed to the overall growth and success of the game of poker, with indelible positive and lasting results.
When you are done reading it… read it again. Does it say anywhere that a player needs to be a good ambassador for the game? Does it say anywhere that it matters how much the nominees donated to children’s charities? No. It doesn’t.
If you are voting, and disagree with the criteria for entry, raise that issue, but please respect the rules and vote accordingly. This isn’t a popularity contest nor is it a place to just get people you think are nice guys in. A player should be judged based on the criteria designed for player inductions. A non-player should be judged for their work in the industry. So, a guy like Chris Moneymaker, for example, should be judged solely as a player. Which means that any of the great things he has done over the years as an ambassador for the game have no relevance. He is to be judged by the criteria designed for players.
With that said, let’s take a look at the list of nominees in terms of how many check marks they get based on the criteria.
Chris Bjorin 5/5
Humberto Brenes 4/5
Todd Brunson 5/5
Eli Elezra 3/5
Bruno Fitoussi 3/5 (1/1 builder category)
Chris Moneymaker 2/5
Carlos Mortensen 5/5
Max Pescatori 3/5
Matt Savage 1/1
David ‘Devilfish’ Ulliott. 5/5
I have 4 of the nominees down as clearly qualifying. The others you could debate, but it’s my vote and I get to cast it based on my perception of these candidates. In addition to that, I look at who BEST meets the criteria. Not just someone who meets its minimums, but a player who excelled in each area. While some of the nominees meet the criteria, there is a list of players I could name that meet it more strongly. I came up with a list of players that were not nominated, that likely should have been:
David Chiu-
5 WSOP Bracelets
Tournament of Champions Winner
WPT Championship Winner
$8 million in tournament earnings
Great at all games in both tournament and cash game formats
Huck Seed-
WSOP Main Event Champion
4 WSOP Bracelets
$7.6 million in tournament earnings
Played the highest stakes against the worlds best in cash games
John Duthie (builder category)
Created the EPT from scratch by going country to country working on deals to host events across nations with challenging regulations. Made TV deals to give the events added prestige, and today, the EPT is the largest and most successful poker tour in the world
David Oppenhiem-
One of the most consistent and biggest cash game winners over the last 20 years playing in the highest stakes games around
$1.8 million in tournaments on an extremely limited tourney schedule
Highly respected among his peers in all games
Ray Dehkharghani-
1 WSOP Bracelet
$1.6 million in tournaments on an extremely limited tourney schedule
Many will argue he is the best mixed game player in the world today and has been consistently in the biggest games in the world for 20 years
Highly respected among his peers in all games
Isai Scheinberg (builder category)
Changed the poker landscape forever with the creation of PokerStars the worlds biggest poker brand and industry leader. Saved many in the poker industry by buying Full Tilt Poker and repaying millions of dollars to players who were unlikely to ever recoup their money.
Jeff Lisandro-
6 WSOP Bracelets (3 Stud format bracelets in the same year)
$5.4 million in tournament earnings
Winning High Stakes Cash Game Player
John Hennigan-
4 WSOP Bracelets
Winner of the $50k Players Championship
$6.8 million in tournament earnings
Winning High Stakes Cash Game Player
I can’t tell you how many people I’ve had reach out to me to tell me how much more fitting my list is compared to the list of nominees for 2016. It’s just a crying shame that players like David Oppenhiem and Ray Dehkharghani don’t get nominated because the fans likely have no idea who they are. They don’t play on TV, instead they just make millions in the cash games and every great mixed game player both knows who they are and respects their games immensely.
It’s also likely that members of the poker media are not privy to how good or bad these cash game players are. There is no way to keep score, so all they can really do is poll the players that actually play against them.
The poker world has changed a great deal over the last 15 years and a wider audience of people pays attention to the game. Prior to the poker boom the people deciding who would be nominated and inducted into the poker hall of fame had intimate knowledge of the players and who made the most sense. Today that’s all been blurred by the process. Too many people who really don’t have insight into who is most deserving are having an effect on the list of nominees that get put forth.
I haven’t decided yet how I am going to divvy up my votes, but what I can tell you is that if I didn’t give someone a 5/5 or a 1/1 on the criteria, I will not be voting for them. The one guy who sticks out for me from this years class is: Carlos Mortensen
WSOP Main Event Champion
WPT Championship Winner
2 WSOP Bracelets
3-Time WPT Winner
All-Time Money Leader on the WPT
$12 million in tournament earnings
I don’t think Carlos has much to offer on his resume in terms of cash games, but his results in a limited tournament schedule compared to your typical tournament player is just remarkable. It’s too good to ignore. He has been dominant in tournaments and I would argue that he may have the highest ROI in tournaments of anyone over 30 years old (Fedor is not 30 yet right???)
So one thing I’m sure on is that Carlos will be getting my vote. The question is, will I give him all 10 of my votes or spread them around? I’m not sure yet, but I do believe the Matador is deserving of the honor.
Friday night I headed down to Binion’s Horseshoe to speak at BARGE. For those unfamiliar with BARGE, its a group of players that have gathered together for the last 26 years to enjoy their passion, reconnect with friends, and have a great time playing all kinds of crazy forms of poker.
I walked into the room and they were in the midst of a Calcutta. Calcuttas are really fun and I used to do them in the poker rooms I attended as a teenager. It’s kind of like fantasy poker. A group of people get together the day before, say, the Super High Roller Bowl and go through the list of entrants one by one, where the highest bidder earns the rights to that player.
For this example let’s say the minimum bid is $1000. A name gets thrown out and then people in the room bid higher amounts until the player is sold to that highest bidder. Of course, you could buy yourself if you think its worth it.
So let’s say Fedor Holz sells for $30,000. Next player up is Brian Rast, and he goes for $16,000. You continue to do this until players have been chosen for different prices. All the bid money goes into a separate Calcutta prize pool that you could divvy up however you choose. It could be a winner take all, you could pay 3 spots, or you could even mimic the prize pool for the actual tournament. To take part in the Calcutta you don’t even have to play the event, you are basically just betting on horses.
Let’s say the Calcutta prize pool totals $300,000 and first prize gets 50% for $150,000. If you took Fedor for $30,000 you would get 5-1 odds if he wins it all, but also get money back if he finishes in the money depending how you divvied up the prize pool.
Now, contrast that with an amateur in the event who you might be able to get for the minimum of $1000. If he wins, you would get 150-1 on your money! Crazier things have happened right?
Anyway, I thought it was really cool to walk in on the Calcutta, but quickly realized that I was scheduled to speak Saturday night! Oops.
************************************************************
All dressed up with no place to go, I headed over to Bellagio to play in the big mixed game again. It was the same old crew of Gus Hansen, Phil Ivey, Patrik Antonius, Doyle Brunson, David Oppenhiem, and a few other stragglers that came and went. As usual, they were playing props, something I haven’t done in I can’t remember how many years. “Props” is short for proposition bets and they are quite complicated and intricate. The simplest prop bet one could make would be betting on the flop being black or red. That’s not the kind of props we play.
Everyone has a suit, and then picks 10 props. For example, you could have these 10:
234
358
59J
QT4
567
K82
A47
468
4TQ
AKQ
Everyone has their own 10 props and any time one of your flops hit, that’s wins you some money. If the flop came K82, you get a prop. If the flop came 5-5-8, you would get a prop also.
You also have suits, so if your A, K, or Q of your suit is in the middle of the flop, that’s a prop.
We play Jacks too. If the Jack of your suit hits the flop its a prop as long as there is at least one more of your suit on the flop. If not, that’s called a stiff Jack and it means you have to pay everyone else instead!
We even play 7’s. If your 7 hits the flop in the middle that’s $5k a man, if it hits on the side that’s $2k.
If you hit a prop, you are on for doubles the next hand; meaning the value of all your props doubles. If you hit another one, you’d be on for triples the next hand.
The only skill in this form of gambling is paying attention and making sure you don’t sleep one. If you sleep a prop, meaning you don’t see it and verbalize it, you don’t get paid. Say for example I was on for doubles and my 7 hit the middle which means I’d get $10k a man. If I say, “I see my 7,” but don’t add, “and I’m on for doubles,” I would only get $5k a man.
This is essentially juice free gambling for degens and I must say, I really love it! The props typically play bigger than the actual poker game. I ended up playing until 4:30am and winning $50k in the poker game, but losing a whopping $436,000 playing props!
***********************************************************
Saturday night I spoke to the crowd at BARGE, discussing mental preparation, goal setting, and ways to improve your poker game. After that, I opened the floor to questions and I got a good one, “What can we do to help make the game more fun and enticing to recreational players?” Interestingly enough, the room was full of mostly recreational players who enjoy playing, but have been turned off by the game somewhat because it’s become less entertaining and far too serious.
I heard countless complaints about the slow pace, about the lack of social interaction with the professional players, and overall just a less inviting environment.
It was a good question and I pondered on it for a second. I finally responded by saying, “You should tell them.” I went on to explain that it’s in their best interest, as well as the pros best interest, if they shared how they felt with the pros at the table. No need to be rude or confrontational, but wake them up to how they are being destructive to their own bottom line.
Something along the lines of, “Can I give you some feedback? I come to Vegas to have fun, I know I’m no professional player and I don’t expect to win and I’m OK with that. This is part of my entertainment budget that I could spend on shows, restaurants, in the sports book, or playing poker. You make it difficult for me to choose poker because you take an excessive amount of time to make decisions, you don’t engage in conversation with me or anyone else, and when I quit you instantly quit; making me feel like a fool. I don’t like feeling like a fool. I get that this is your job and you need to take it seriously, but you should also consider that if I’m not having any fun playing with you, I’m simply not going to play with you. Then you sharks can go after each other while I’m at the craps table.”
That may not work. The pro may dismiss what you have to say entirely, but he will hear you loud and clear and when he goes home that night I promise you it will affect him, especially if you explain things to him in a very kind and constructive way. Attack him and he will likely get defensive, but speak calmly and at least something will sink in I think.
If you are a pro and see behavior from another pro that will likely hurt your bottom line, don’t be afraid to use your VOICE! Let the pro know how they are showing up. Help them understand how their behavior might be costing them money.
When I first moved to Vegas I remember the local pros in the high stakes games being very friendly with the weekend tourists. They would start a game with just the pros to “open the shop” and then when a tourist sat down they asked them how they’ve been, how long they are in town, how are the kids, how is business, how’s the golf game, whatever. They instinctively understood that they weren’t just poker players there to fleece tourists. They were partly entertainers hoping to make the environment friendly enough, and fun enough to bring back continued business. Why? For one, it’s just a better way to live your life and treat weekend tourists like human beings, but secondly, they understood that in the long run, this made better business sense.
***********************************************************
So I briefly touched on losing $436k in props. I can honestly say that when I left the game at 4:30am I was quite happy with how I played and happy about winning in the poker game. I never spend more than 10 seconds lamenting my bad luck in props and exactly zero time questioning my decision to play. In fact, I will likely play props every time I play poker because I think it helps me be even more focused and play better in the poker game. That seems counter intuitive, but I think it’s true. I’m not spending any time on my phone, I’m watching every flop intently and paying attention to all the upcards in Stud. I could do all this without playing props, of course, but it adds extra incentive to not just go on auto pilot.
I’ve put in 99 of the 200 hours I set as a goal this year to play cash at Bellagio and hope to get in a couple more sessions in before I fly to Barcelona. Still down on the year but had back to back wins and feel like my play and stamina is improving with each session.
Last night I played till 3:30am at Bellagio in the $1500-$3000 mixed game. We play 8 hands of each game and there is a total of 11 games in the mix:
Hold’em
Omaha 8
Razz
Stud
Stud 8
2-7 Triple Draw
Pot Limit Omaha
No Limit Hold’em
2-7 No Limit Single Draw
Badugi
2-7 Razz
The blinds for the limit games are $1000 and $1500. When we play the no limit/pot limit games we play with $500 and $800 blinds, but the big blind throws in a dead $700 and the small blind throws in a dead $500. That’s both good for action and ensures that the amount paid per round in the big bet games is equivalent to the limit games. The big bet games are also played with a $30k cap, meaning the most you can lose in any given hand is $30k.
The cast of characters in the game last night was quite nostalgic for me. A lot of the most popular faces during the golden era that you don’t hear much about anymore were playing. The likes of Phil Ivey, Doyle Brunson, Gus Hansen, Patrik Antonius, Jennifer Harman, with a little bit of new blood sprinkled in.
Just like in the old days, props were being played. I remember when we used to play props on shows like Poker After Dark or High Stakes Poker it ended up being quite confusing for the viewer, and it’s no less confusing today.
After the clock struck midnight it was time to kick it up to $2000-$4000 for the night owls who would play around the clock. From what they’ve told me, the game has been going strong and hasn’t broke for 5+ days. The high stakes poker economy is as healthy as I ever remember it. Usually for a game that size the player pool in town at any given time wouldn’t surpass 15. It seems as though there are currently still 30+ players in town who make appearances in the game. I would have thought that after the WSOP the games would dry up, but nope. They are going strong.
I had one interesting Stud hand I wanted to share that I think I got outplayed on and am quite certain I made a mistake on. It’s also a good segue into the story I wanted to share as one of my best memories playing poker.
With the other players on a short break, it was three handed for just a moment with Phil Ivey bringing it in for $500 with the 3 of spades. Gus raised with the Ace of clubs. I looked down at (77) 4 and decided to 3-bet Gus. Gus is going to raise with any Ace in this situation and my 77 are going to be the best hand a high percentage of the time. Phil Ivey then re-raised and Gus folded. I called.
With Ivey re-raising here, his most likely hand is a pair in the hole. When you know that your opponent likely has a pair in the hole, you have the added benefit of seeing if they ever make two pair until 6th street and can play perfectly despite being pretty sure you are chasing. I didn’t plan on folding my buried pair unless Phil broke out into an open pair.
On 4th street Phil caught a Q and I caught a 6. Not the worst card in the deck for me as I now had a 3 card straight draw. He bet I called.
On 5th street our boards look like this:
Ivey: (xx) 3s Qd Jc
Me: (77) 4h 6d 4c
Great card for me so I bet, expecting Phil to either fold or call. Pairing your door card is quite powerful as the likelihood of you having trips is pretty high. To my surprise, Ivey raised!
WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
I took a second to think about it and ultimately decided to fold. If I put him on a pair on 3rd street and he is raising now despite me pairing my door card, he is representing trip Queens or Jacks. He is never on a stone cold bluff in this situation and he had to start with a really strong hand on 3rd street to continue. The question is, were there enough hands that I beat and exactly what kind of hands do I beat?
Could he have just Aces or Kings? I think it’s a possibility but extremely unlikely that he would choose to raise rather than call. So what can I really beat??? Aha! If he started with any of these suited hands:
39T
3TK
3AK
The Queen and Jack are powerful cards for him to represent, but even if I do call, he has enough outs to win the pot and it’s only costing him one extra bet. There is also a decent chance he thinks I started with three suited cards and all I have is the pair that I’m showing. If I did have any of those hands he would be correct in assuming I would fold.
The last part of the equation that leads me to believe I made a mistake is that I can still catch a 7 or a 4 to beat his higher trips, and I also have some backdoor outs if I catch a 5-3 or 5-8. It’s not a lot of help, but it’s help nonetheless. An argument can also be made that if he did have the trips he wouldn’t want to lose me on 5th street and elect to wait till 6th street to raise me.
I still don’t know if Ivey had me beat on this hand and I’ll never know for sure. What I can say, is that I think my fold was premature and my hand warranted at least a call to 6th street.
***********************************************************
I don’t even remember what year it was, but there was some tournament in San Diego that brought out all the high stakes players including the likes of Chip Reese and Johnny Chan. After the tournament, a $4000-$8000 cash game broke out. The problem was, nobody brought enough money to buy chips to play a game that size, so we all agreed to play with $1 chips and settle up back in Las Vegas. This requires a lot of trust and I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like it since.
It was a full game for a while, but about 12 hours in it was down to just me, Phil Ivey, and Gus Hansen. We were playing the 8-Game mix with a $100k cap in the big bet games with blinds at $10000-$2000. Needless to say, the swings were big, and they happened rapidly.
At probably 8am Phil looks over at me and says, “You broke your cherry huh?” I had no idea what he was talking about. “What do you mean?” I asked.
He then says, “You hit beantown. First time you ever been stuck a big bean?” I still wasn’t quite sure what the hell he was talking about, then it dawned on me that I was stuck $1.3 million in the game while Ivey was all smiles. I guess a “big bean” is a million. Good to know.
He was right, it was the first time I was down over a million in a poker game, and yet I was thoroughly enjoying the battle. We ended up playing well over 24 hours and I put on a late rush scooping back-to-back three way capped PLO pots and snuck all the way out of the hole.
Everything about that night was surreal and I know it was for Ivey too. He mentions it regularly to me as one of the most fun nights he ever had playing poker. I’m sure him having a pretty big score played a role in his fond memories of it all, but there was something more to it. I still find it difficult to explain why it was so special and will always stick out to me. I guess if I had to describe I would say that it just felt animalistic in some way. Three young bulls bulls going to battle in a dinky little casino in a remote part of San Diego playing for millions… with $1 chips. I can’t say that I remember any other cash game session as vividly as I do that one.
One of my goals this year was to get back to playing high stakes mixed games at Bellagio and I’ve really been enjoying the process. I started out red hot but then cooled off considerably since then. All told, I’ve played 89 hours this year and despite a small win last night I’m currently in the red $276,200. My goal is to play 200 hours by the end of the year and profit $250k. If I have any interesting hands come up, I’ll be sure to share them with you.
Season 13 of PokerStars’ European Poker Tour begins this August in my favorite city out of all the cities I’ve visited in Europe, Barcelona. This tournament is always well attended and it’s clear that I’m not alone in my assessment of Barcelona as a great vacation spot.
The location for the event couldn’t be more perfect. You walk outside the hotel and are right on the beach. Tons of restaurants all lined up with a wide variety of cuisine from middle eastern to Japanese. If you like to party, the clubs right on the beach are, in a word, insane! Things are a bit different than what you may be used to if you are an American going for the first time. If you show up to a club at midnight you may think to yourself, “Where is everybody?” By 1am until sunrise, the places are all just packed and the energy is unlike any you’ve experienced. Have I mentioned how much I love Barcelona?
The reason I wrote this blog was in part to tempt you on making it out to Barcelona, and the other was to offer you an idea as to how to get there. I get that not everyone has the bankroll to just plop down a big chunk of cash on flights, hotels, and then a main event buy in. If that’s you, then check this out:Spin N’ Go
For as little as 10 Euro, with a little bit of luck, you could win a package worth enough money to cover all your expenses as well as a main event seat where you could win life-changing money.
This promotion ran for last season’s EPT Grand Final in Monte Carlo and it was a huge success! There were 121 spin and go qualifiers in the event making it the largest EPT Grand Final we have had in a very long time. What really stuck out to me as different, or special, about this event, was the amount of new players I’d never seen before; some playing their very first live event!
Knowing that there would be an added boost to the prize pool thanks to the promo, all the biggest names in the game made it out there to take advantage of the added value. After all, it’s not like these Spin & Go players all played like Jason Mercier!
I don’t say that to be patronizing, but obviously professional players are going to have a better chance at reaching the final table. Having said that, one of the Spin N’ Go qualifiers DID make the final table! His name was Asan Umarov and he turned €10 into €305,660 with all expenses paid.
Throughout the week I ran into so many new players playing their first event that I had an idea, since I’m sure a lot of the qualifiers were really nervous playing in the EPT Grand Final main event, I thought it would make sense to do an exclusive Q & A session with the qualifiers before the main event started to give them that extra boost of confidence and help them out a little with their poker game.
Poker’s health and growth is only as strong as the base of recreational and new players who come into the game. When I heard about the Spin & Go promotion, and then saw how great it worked out in Monte Carlo, I wanted to make sure any and everyone interested knew about it. Good news is, there is still enough time to qualify on PokerStars. The bad news is, you better get cracking because it ends July 31st!
The toughest games in the world today, which all but certainly take place in high stakes cash games online, are without a doubt the most sophisticated and advanced form of poker that’s ever existed. Being able to beat those games requires more knowledge and skill than any time period in history. That’s a given. Debating this would be silly, but is it more difficult to make a living playing poker today than it was in the pre-internet poker boom days of the 90’s? That is the topic of this blog:
For some online poker players, when they think of the old days, they think of the golden era of poker where the games were juicy and there were a lot of them. During the early 2000’s when Moneymaker won the main event PokerStars and the entire online poker industry were bringing in more and more new players to the game at an alarming rate. For anyone who was already a professional poker player at the time, this was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Instead of having to go to a casino, wait around for a seat, and play 25 hands an hour one-tabling, they could sit at home in their underwear, play nitty on 20 tables and just rake in the cash. I don’t think there was ever a time in history that it was easier to make a living playing poker than that time period.
Even if you weren’t a pro, the learning curve to becoming one was quick. Plenty of books and poker forums existed that could help you develop a strategy that could win in a short period of time. In that era, learning the basics and playing “tight” was enough to make a decent living playing poker without ever having to leave your house.
Of course, that gravy train was never going to last. Players continued to improve, and those that didn’t, lost consistently and stopped playing. The only way to continue that gravy train was to continue to bring in new players at the same rate. The number of people trying to make a living online increased and the ratio of winning players to losing players at each table also shifted. In order to survive the changing environment, winning players had to work even harder on improving their skill set, meaning the new recreational players would be at an even bigger disadvantage than before. They’d lose their bankrolls even faster, wouldn’t have good experiences, and then stop playing.
So make no mistake, you shouldn’t underestimate the amount of skill and work it takes to be a winning high stakes player online. While the golden era of poker was a much easier time to make a living playing poker, I assert that it is much more accessible and easier for a young player to make a living playing poker today than it was in the 90’s.
It would seem like that’s a total contradiction? How can games be tougher today, yet it’s supposedly easier to make a living now as compared to the 90’s? I’m going to go over just a few reasons why I think making a living playing poker today is much easier than it was in the 90’s:
1. Number of Hands
In the 90’s, the most popular form of poker was limit hold’em. Pot limit hold’em games popped up occasionally, but those games were mostly populated by professional players and tourists weren’t really drawn to that format. They would go broke quickly and hardly post any winning sessions. Playing limit hold’em, while a much faster form of poker, still only saw about 30-35 hands dealt per hour. So if you put in an 8 hour session, you would gain about 250 hands of experience under your belt. It would take you about four long days to play 1000 hands.
If you are playing live games for a living these days, you would likely get less hands than that because no limit hold’em has taken over as the most popular form of poker so you would be playing 25-30 hands depending on who is at your table.
Multi-tabling online poker, though, allows you to play hundreds of hands per hour. That allows professionals to play more games at lower stakes, lowering their variance while also being able to play in better games.
In the 90’s, if you needed to make $25 an hour to earn a living wage, you couldn’t sit at 10 different $2-$4 tables with the tourists, you needed to play either a $10-$20 or $20-$40 limit game to make that much money against mostly professionals.
2. Learning Curve
In Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers, he discussed the theory that it takes about 10,000 hours to master anything. Assuming there is something to this, in the 90’s it would take players about 4-5 years to get that many hours in. In that time period, a player would be getting about 300,000 hands of experience. Online play allows you to get that much experience in just a few months if you grind hard over multiple tables. The amount of time it takes to learn how to play the game well today is far less than it was in the 90’s.
It’s important to note, that the definition of playing well in the 90’s is far different than it is today. It’s relative. While it took 4-5 years to play well in the 90’s, that version of playing well would not be enough to beat the much tougher games of today. It was playing well, relative to the field. Learning to “play well” enough relative to the field can happen much more quickly today than it did back then. There are a lot more resources outside of simply the ability to play online that might help get you there, and well discuss that in a separate point.
3. Availability
Poker is a lot more popular today than it was in the 90’s. You could argue that it’s not as popular today as it was in the golden era, but there is no question that there are more poker games being played around the world today than there was in the 90’s. If you were a pro back then, you likely played limit hold’em. If you played limit hold’em in Vegas you might find 2-3 $20-$40 games at the Mirage, and one spotty $40-$80 limit hold’em game littered with pros and few recreational players. Higher mixed games existed, but overall your options were limited. If those games weren’t good, you could try the $15-$30 Stud, but it wasn’t like you had a sea of poker tables to choose games and stakes from. If the games weren’t good, you either sat and made less money or didn’t play. There was nowhere else to really go and find better games.
4. Global Options
This point ties into availability. Unless you lived in California, Las Vegas, or Atlantic City, being a professional poker player wasn’t likely an option for you. You would have to decide to move to one of those places to find regular games. Question is, how could you make the decision to move to one of those places without enough experience and knowledge to be a winning player? Would seem like a pretty foolish idea.
Sure games existed in Europe and other parts of the world, but they weren’t exactly advertised on TV so you had to actively go looking for them.
Today, there are local cardrooms with regular games in most parts of America and the world, and that says nothing about the fact that internet poker is available globally. Online poker allows you to make a living wage from anywhere in the world that has wifi. (and is legal of course)
In the 90’s, if you grew up in Frankfurt, Germany and liked poker, how would you even go about becoming a professional? How would you get good enough to justify leaving your homeland to find games abroad? Where would you even go? How would you know where good games existed? The list of geographical obstacles was long.
5. Study Tools
There were study tools available in the 90’s. There were books available and by then they even had Mike Caro’s Poker Probe witch was a software program that allowed you to run very simple hand simulations. Before Doyle Brunson decided to write Super System, though, there just wasn’t any way to learn how to play the game outside of actually just sitting your butt down, taking your lumps, surviving the losses, and learning to play well enough before you went broke.
Today, you have a wide variety of study tools available, many of which will cost you absolutely nothing. Poker forums where you can read and learn from other pros. Twitch streams where you can watch pros like Jason Somerville walk you through his thought process during hands. Television, YouTube, Poker Central, or PokerStars.tv where you can watch how pros play hands in tournaments and have access to their hole cards.
A 16 year old kid could learn a ton about how to play poker without ever risking a dime of his own money. He could play free play on PokerStars, then, once he is equipped with enough knowledge he could theoretically be a winning player from the first real money hand he ever played!
If you do want to spend some money, there are advanced books available today as well as coaching sites that get really deep into high end strategy.
Those are just five reasons but I could list many more reasons why it was more difficult to make the decision to be a professional poker player in the 90’s than it is today. It’s not to say that guys like isaac Haxton, Olivier Busquet, and Dani Stern wouldn’t have been smart enough to beat the games in the 90’s, it’s to say that there is very little chance that they would have even bothered to put in the effort required to do so.
Doyle pointed out on Twitter that people who were drawn to being professional poker players in the old days did so because of the absence of any really good options in their lives. Most were not educated. Most were not qualified to get good mainstream jobs. Professional poker players back in those days were hustlers finding a way to make it in the world. For people like the guys I mentioned, they are educated and have all kinds of opportunities to get good jobs in the real world.
The existence of online poker is what made this lifestyle accessible to young, brilliant, educated young people who saw an opportunity to make an “easy living” from the comfort of their own home. I don’t think any of the three guys I mentioned would have been professional poker players in the 90’s! Again, not because they weren’t capable, but mostly because it would have been a bad decision. Professional poker players were misfits in that era. Hustlers, that were smart enough to find a way to survive in life despite limited options in terms of valid career choices.
The reason this whole topic came up in the first place was a general feeling that there was a lack of appreciation for the level of skill and intuition that professional pokers of the 90’s and before had. This idea that, “If I could have played in that era I would have crushed the games.” No, you probably wouldn’t have. The learning that would have been available to you back then doesn’t resemble today in the least. The best players in that era, were just amazing poker players. The best players of today are amazing poker players.
Just imagine taking a smart 21 year old kid and plopping him back to 1995. A kid that today is a professional poker player making hundreds of thousands of dollars. You really think he would have been able to cut it back then? Maybe, but it would have been a long shot unless his parents gave him a bankroll that could fade all the bumps and bruises he would take on the way towards becoming a winning player. The years of sitting at one table playing 30 hands an hour trying to master the game. The struggle of trying to make enough money to pay rent for his Las Vegas motel each month. The constant inner struggle of wondering if you should give it all up and use his college degree to get a “real job.”
This purpose of this blog isn’t to discredit the young wizards of today, it was to pay due respect to the professionals of old who beat the odds and were able to make a living playing poker when few would even dare or succeed.
So was it easier to make a living playing poker professionally than it is today? You’ve got to be kidding me! Are games tougher today than they were in the 90’s by a wide margin? Of course!
Since Black Friday back in 2011 we have heard from Howard in a radio interview as well as an extensive “Lederer Files” interview conducted by PokerNews. Neither was received well and one of the more common objections to those interviews was the lack of personal responsibility for what ultimately happened. Much of the Lederer Files interview was spent deflecting blame and there was no real sense of a meaningful apology for his role in all of it. My assumption is that Howard did those interviews to clear his name to some degree, but I think it just enraged people even more. There was a smugness and an arrogance present during that interview that was off-putting to many.
During that period I was extremely vocal about my displeasure with him personally and with how everything was being handled. Looking back, while I stand by what I said back then, I would have handled it a little differently. It’s been five years now and I’ve grown up a little since then. I don’t regret being vocal about it all, but I would have left out the talk of baseball bats and handled my response more responsibly.
I’ve spoken to a few people about whether or not I should be the one to release a statement from Howard Lederer and I didn’t get much support. I heard:
“Why should it be you?”
“Let him just post it on his own. You posting it is an endorsement of him and what he is writing.”
Ultimately, I think the poker community will want to read this message and the vehicle is less important than the message itself. My posting of it, is neither an endorsement or a condemnation. I’m simply the messenger and I will provide my two cents on the statement below. Here is Howard’s statement to the poker community:
Howard’s Statement:
I am writing to apologize to everyone in the poker community, especially to all the players who had money on Full Tilt Poker on April 15, 2011. When Full Tilt Poker closed in 2011, there was a shortfall in funds, a distressed sale to recover those funds, and a long delay in repaying players. Throughout this period, there was little explanation for the delay, and no apology. Players felt lied to. They trusted the site, and they trusted me, and I didn’t live up to that trust.
I take full responsibility for Full Tilt’s failure to protect player deposits leading up to Black Friday. The shortfall in player deposits should never have happened. I should have provided better oversight or made sure that responsible others provided that oversight. I was a founder in the company that launched Full Tilt, and I became the face of the company’s management in the poker community. Many of our players played on the site because they trusted me.
Even though I was no longer overseeing day to day operations, my inattention in the two years leading up to Black Friday imperiled players’ deposits. My involvement in Full Tilt from 2003-2008 put me in a unique position of trust—a trust that I disappointed by failing to ensure that Full Tilt was properly governed when I stepped away in 2008. My failure to make sure proper oversight was in place when I left resulted in the situation that began to unfold on Black Friday. Players were not able to get their money back for a minimum of a year and a half, and, for many, it has been much longer. I’ve been a poker player my entire adult life. I know the importance of having access to one’s bankroll. The lost opportunity, frustration, and anxiety many of FTP’s customers experienced in the intervening years is unacceptable. I cannot be sorry enough for what happened.
During Full Tilt’s rise, I received a lot of praise. I couldn’t see it at the time, but I let the headlines change me. In the first couple of years after Black Friday I made lots of excuses, to my friends, my family and myself, for why I wasn’t the bad guy or big-headed or wrong. In the months immediately following the crisis, I focused a lot of energy on trying to refute allegations that were factually untrue. I convinced myself that I was a victim of circumstance and that criticism was being unfairly directed toward me instead of others. I was missing the bigger picture.
At a wedding in the fall of 2014, I was sitting with a friend, talking about Full Tilt. I was grumbling about how unfair my lot in life had become. My friend didn’t let me off the hook. I’m paraphrasing here, but he said, “Howard, it doesn’t matter whether you knew about the shortfall or what you did to help players get paid. These players feel like you lied to them. You were the face of the company in the poker community. Thousands of players played on the site because they trusted you. Many pros represented the site because they thought you were in control. And you happily accepted the accolades while falling short of their trust.”
At the time, my friend’s response felt like a slap in the face, but it is clear to me now that it was fair. An apology is not enough, but it is what I am able to offer to the poker community in the wake of a travesty that I should not have allowed to happen. I am sorry.
************************************************************
I think this is the kind of apology people would have liked to read five years ago. It may be too little too late for some, but it’s a far cry from The Lederer Files. Does it definitively answer all the questions surrounding what he knew and what he didn’t know? No. Does it change the fact that people who trusted Howard, both investors and customers alike, were let down? No. Does it mean that you should be any less pissed at him for what happened? That one is up to you I guess.
Thankfully, PokerStars came to the rescue a few years ago and made a deal with the DOJ to take over the company and make sure that the customers with money on the site were paid. Without PokerStars, it seems highly likely that none of the players who ultimately got paid would have ever gotten their money. I do know that Howard was working on multiple deals during that time, but from what I heard, it didn’t seem like any of those deals would have panned out if not for PokerStars.
With Full Tilt Poker merging with PokerStars this week, it marks the end of an era. Some call it the “golden era.” The perfect storm that created a poker boom like we’d never seen before and may never see again. The Full Tilt Poker chapter has been closed, and It appears as though Howard wanted to write this apology to turn the page on his own life. My guess is that many will have no interest in an apology from him. I do think there are some who, despite it changing nothing, will appreciate it.
If anything, I think writing this statement is good for him. It’s the right thing to do. Of course, I wish it happened five years ago but it doesn’t seem like Howard was in a place where he was ready to take responsibility for his role back then. In this statement, he does, and at the very least, I would imagine that its a relief for him to get it off his chest. The choice to accept his apology is a personal one. There is no right or wrong way to receive it. For what its worth, I personally believe the apology to be genuine.
I don’t, however, expect Howard to ever be in charge of making decisions in the poker community in the future and I don’t think he has any aspirations to. My guess is that he just wants to be able to play poker again without the vitriol sent in his direction. Will this apology accomplish that? I don’t know. I can only say that for me, I’m not bothered by him being at the poker table anymore. The players have been paid and he seems to be finally acknowledging and owning that he really screwed up. I have no interest in continuing to hold my grudge against him. I don’t expect us to ever be “pals,” as we never really were even before, but the venom I once held inside for him has subsided and I’d also like to close that chapter of my own life.
Some more interesting hands to cover this week. I will go over every option in detail and cover the good, the bad, and the ugly behind every one of the choices.
Hand #1
You have 89 suited under the gun in a 9 handed tourney. You are deep stacked with over 100 big blinds and there are antes. You chose from the following options:
Call 19%
Min-Raise 30%
Fold 29%
Raise 3 times the blind 22%
Let’s take a deeper look at each option separately.
FOLD
You could make a case for folding this hand. That case would have to be something along the lines of, “I am very bad at playing post-flop, especially out of position. I get myself into bad spots and often don’t know what to do.” If this is you, you are likely a beginning player and this might just be the best option for you. For most of these examples, though, I’m going to come at it from the perspective that you are a great player and discuss the optimal play. For a really good tournament player, this is not a fold. I don’t know of any top tournament player that doesn’t have 89 suited in their range, even from first position. We’ll get into why later.
CALL
What case can you make for call? Well, there are a few. If you are in an extremely passive (typically lower buy in) game where people are happy to limp in and see flops, this might be a great spot to start the limp-a-thon. The other case for limping depends on how you play personally. There are some great players who do incorporate limping, but they are mostly a dying breed. It is quite rare, but some players do mix it up with some limps. If you are one of those players that occasionally likes to limp in from early position, its really important that you try to balance your range. It doesn’t need to be perfectly balanced, but you don’t want it to be blatantly obvious that you could never have AA, KK, or AK when you limp. If you want to limp 89 suited, you will need to protect yourself from being bullied by also limping with strong hands occasionally too. It’s not a play I make, I’m not much of a limper in today’s game, but about 10 years ago it was a play I utilized much more frequently.
RAISE 3 TIMES THE BLIND
OK, if you are typically a player who opens for 3 times the blind rather than less, there is nothing wrong with that. I’m a big proponent of “small ball,” however, so it’s not something I would do in this case with any part of my range. What’s important here if you choose 3x the blind, is that you are making this play with ALL the hands you would play in this situation. You don’t really want to play the psychological warfare game of mixing up your raise sizes based on the strength of your hand. Perceptive opponents will notice if you min-raised with Aces, but then made a bigger raise with 89 suited, or vice versa.
So again, nothing “wrong” with making it 3 times the blind, but it isn’t what I consider to be the optimal play in tournaments today.
MIN-RAISE
This is the play you will see most often in higher buy-in tournaments with the worlds best players. I should also note, that a min-raise, or close to a min-raise, is virtually the same thing. For example, if the blinds are 400-800 with a 100 ante, making it 1600, 1700, or 1850 is basically a min-raise and the sizing you choose won’t have much effect on your win rate in the long run. At that level, I personally choose 1800.
I’ve said in previous blogs that it’s really important to get involved in more situations than the average player. The players who win tournaments today are typically quite active and looking for spots to build a stack so they can play table bully. The key reason to add this hand to your range from early position is that it will add some deception to your game. If you only play big pairs, AK, and AQ from first position, you will only get action from better hands, or hands that are looking to bust you. You never want to be pigeon holed into too narrow of a range. It’s very exploitable, especially when the stacks are deep. When I know a tight player is raising from under the gun, I’m folding AJ, but I’ll happily call him with 78 suited or something like 66.
In this extreme example, if a player is playing only 99+, AK and AQ, I will get the best of him with 66 or 78 suited in position provided the stacks are deep. Depending how poorly the player plays post flop, these types of hands provide a potentially big payday for you. Or, with position you can steal pots from your opponent when he whiffs the AK and gives up.
Hand #2
Under the gun player raises and you call on the button with QJ suited. The big blind also calls. In this example, you are deep stacked and in a tournament, but that’s really not relevant because it shouldn’t effect your decision much at all. The flop comes Q J T rainbow. The big blind leads out, the under the gun player calls. Your choices:
Call 41%
Fold 4%
Raise Small 33%
Raise Big 22%
FOLD
Oh come on! What the heck are you hoping to flop if you hit top two pairs and don’t even see another card! That’s way too tight. Obviously this is a potentially dangerous situation but your opponents card combos could actually have you in great shape. For example, the BB may have QT and the UTG player could have AA. In a spot like that, you would be making a terrible fold. Same if its AQ vs AQ, KQ vs KK, etc. The flop is just way too early to be bailing on this hand.
RAISE SMALL
I really hate this play. What the heck is the point of this? If you say, “To find out where you are at” please promise me you will never again make a raise to “find out where you are at.” A raise here is akin to turning top two pair into a bluff. No one will ever think you are bluffing in this situation, and you have just about the worst hand you could have to raise there. What other hands would you raise with there? Sets, 89, K9, and AK yes? So you are representing a better hand than you actually have. A small raise isn’t going to get them to fold, though, since they likely have some kind of a draw worth staying in the hand for a small raise. If either of your opponents has a straight, they may re-raise you here, so now what? Call and try to hit the 4-outer? Fold and screw yourself out a free card? I get that you may want to “protect” your hand but this isn’t a spot where that’s likely to happen. No joke, I would rather make this play with 99 than I would with QJ! I would be turning the 99 into a total bluff in the hopes of firing three bullets and representing AK. You don’t need to turn the QJ into a bluff because it rates to be the best hand most of the time anyway.
RAISE BIG
This is definitely better than raising small. A big raise actually will help define your opponents hands and you might get some draws to fold. You may even get a hand like AA to fold. If you do get called, though, you are probably in some trouble. If you get re-raised, you can be all but certain your hand is no good. This play actually might help you “find out where you are at” but it’s still not the recommended choice.
CALL
This might be the most clearly correct answer of any of the polls I’ve shared. Calling does allow your opponents to maybe catch a card to beat you, but the beauty of that is you will see it and be able to get away easily. There are so many bad cards that can fall on the turn that will allow you to get away cheaply. These cards may also actually scare a player with a better hand than you into not betting the turn giving you a free river. For example, if you are up against 89 and TT and the turn is an Ace, which one of those two guys is betting? Neither. YOU maybe should though!!! You can NOW take your two pairs and turn them into a total bluff. If the Ace didn’t give either player the straight, you can be all but certain that you are not in the lead. When you called the flop in position after a bet and a call, then an Ace hits, they both check, and you bet, what the heck do you think they will put you on? A King all day, and every day. You should bet the turn here and if you get called it’s likely by a player with two pair or a set trying to fill up. It’s important that if the board doesn’t change on the river, that you ALSO bluff this river.
Calling allows you to play pot control, to get away cheaply when a bad turn card hits, to represent a scary turn card and bluff the pot, to make the nuts on the turn and possible stack a player with AK, TT, or JJ if it’s a Queen on the turn. So many good things come from calling with this hand in position! Don’t go screwing it up by turning the hand into a bluff on the flop with a raise.
If you don’t “get this” than you really need to think more deeply about it. Its an extremely important concept. You hear commentators and players talk about the power of position often, but don’t be fooled into thinking this means that “power poker” is raising and re-raising from position. A call is a deadly weapon that opens up so many juicy possibilities to get creative later in the hand.
Hand #3
Blinds at 50-100 in a deep stacked tournament, a player makes it 250, the button calls, and you are sitting in the small blind with KK. Here are your choices:
Call 9%
Raise to 600 28%
Raise to 1200 53%
Raise to 1800 10%
CALL
OK, for once I don’t think call is the best option! Having said that, there are some spots where I absolutely would call because its part of a larger game plan for the specific table I’m playing at. If I’m not planning to 3-bet at all really, then I don’t want to do it only in spots where I am out of position and playing my cards mostly face up with a deep stack. If you never, ever, 3-bet as a bluff in this situation, then it might be correct for you to also call with the Kings here.
RAISE TO 600
This is just pretty goofy. I’ve never seen a good player “click it back” in a multi-way pot, especially out of position. What’s the goal here? No one is ever folding, so sure, you are making the pot bigger, but you also make it even more difficult to play your hand post-flop since you’ll have no idea what your opponents have. Think about all the terrible or dangerous flops for Kings in this situation:
A-7-2
T-8-7
4-5-7
Q-J-7
9-2-3
Why 9-2-3? If you bet the 9-2-3 flop and your opponent raises you, what do you think he has? He may have a set, or he may know that you can’t hit that flop hard, so he is going to represent a set and put you to the test with a raise on the flop, a bigger bet on the turn, and a big bet on the river. You will be playing your hand face up, and just totally guessing. So as you can see, even what should be deemed a “good flop” poses potential problems for you.
RAISE to 1800
This is just too much! There is 650 in the pot before you put a chip in, and you are investing 1800 to win it right there. Sure, you won’t get called by anything but monster hands, but if you are going to be making it 1800 with Kings, then you will also need to do that with hands like 7-2 off suit occasionally.
RAISE to 1200
This is the right range. You can make it 1100, 1250, or 1075 if you like, but this is the right area. It’s a big enough raise to force your opponents to pay a hefty price to try and out play you post-flop, but not so big a price that you don’t get the value from Kings that a raise to 1800 doesn’t get. Often with a raise to 1200 you will pick up the pot right there, but you also may get one or two callers depending on the type of hands they have. if you do get called in one or two spots, this is not the time to just put your head down and FIRE FIRE FIRE three bullets, throwing caution to the wind. When they call, you squeeze out some value pre-flop with your powerhouse, but you want to be careful not to get stacked when your opponents show resistance.
I will be playing poker today at Bellagio and hopefully there are a few interesting hands I’ll be able to share with you all in a future blog. Hope you learned something!
Ok no dilly dally, blabbity bloobity intros and all that. Lets get to the hands.
Hand #1
You raise under the gun with AQ offsuit in a 9 handed tournament and the tight player two to your left 3-bets. The loose player on the button calls. Here is what you voted:
Call 52%
4-Bet Small 6%
4-Bet Big 7%
Fold 35%
If you are reading these poll questions and claim you can’t answer because you don’t have enough information, always assume that if I don’t actually give you anymore information, that none exists. OK? Guys, it’s not that hard. We are looking for the “best” answers and understand that you won’t always make the same play and that other factors matter. What also matters is being able to answer all these questions with incomplete information to the best of your ability. Poker is a game of incomplete information. If I asked, “What do you do with KQ?” and the options are raise, fold, and call, you CAN actually come up with an answer to that question. In most cases, you would raise with KQ, sometimes you would fold, and other times you would call. The “best” answer here is probably raise. Get it?
OK, back to the hand. I like FOLD with the AQ best. The first player is tight and re-raised you from early position when YOU raised under the gun. The loose player on the button calling was mostly a decoy in the question because he isn’t all that relevant to your decision. AQ off suit, I didn’t say it was suited so that should imply to you it was off suit, plays very poorly post flop against a tight player raising from that position. Your “reverse implied odds” in this situation are terrible. If you flop the Queen, or the Ace, you are still going to be behind a decent amount of the time. When you are ahead, you probably won’t get much action. If it comes Queen high and he has AK or JJ, you may win a little. If it comes Ace high and he has Kings, again, not much action coming your way. ESPECIALLY in a tournament, this is NOT the kind of situation you want to speculate.
The type of hands you want to call a tight players 3-bet in this situation are pairs and suited connectors. A-Q is just asking for trouble. Dump it.
Hand #2
A tight player from under the gun raises to 450 with blinds at 100-200 with a 25 ante. A decent player in middle position calls, and you defend your big blind with 66. The flop comes T-6-5 rainbow. You check, the tight player bets 750 and the middle position player calls. It’s midway through the tournament and you have 12,000 in chips. Tight player has 25,000 in chips and middle position has 14,000. What is your play? You said:
Call 29%
All in 15%
Raise to 2200 36%
Raise to 4000 20%
This is another perfect example of a hand with limited information, where “it depends” is a fair answer. We are looking for the BEST answer, though, and the play you should make most often in this case is CALL with the intention of slow playing to maximize value.
I’ve said many times that being “balanced” isn’t all that important when playing tournaments, but this is the kind of situation where you may want to look for balance. If you check-raise that board, your range of hands is polarized. What that means is simply, you either have a monster hand, a total bluff, or maybe in some cases a draw. Would you check-raise a pair of tens in this spot? Doubtful. You would probably call, though, and if your opponents can beat a pair of tens there is a good chance they will put more money in the pot if you just call.
If you check-raise, this will set off alarm bells that you have two pair or better. Unless you plan on bluffing a decent amount in these spots, it’s not recommended to check-raise here. Now, if the board had a flush draw present it changes EVERYTHING! Now you could represent hands like a straight/flush draw combo, or a pair and a flush draw, or even just the nut flush draw. The more draw heavy the board, the more you can actually disguise the strength of your hand with a raise.
One last reason CALL is best, is it allows your opponents that are way behind to catch up a little so they can draw slim or dead. If the UTG player had just AK, he is folding to a raise on the flop. If he catches an Ace or a King on the turn, though, he might give you action drawing dead. If the other opponent has a hand like JT, you give him a chance to catch a Jack or a Ten on the turn. He hits the Jack and you are in great position to double up. If you check-raise the flop, though, you might lose him.
It’s HARD to flop sets! When you do flop them, your mindset shouldn’t be, “Better take what’s in the middle now and protect the hand from getting beat.” So many of you responded with that, especially those choosing the All In option and its terribly wrong I promise you! You need to maximize value with hands this strong, and part of that process sometimes includes giving players a cheap draw to beat you. Sometimes they will beat you. C’est la vie.
The second best play is clear: raise to 2200. The other two options are quite silly. Raising to 4000 on a dry board is pointless, and going all in could kill action you might otherwise get. With a raise to 2200, a player with an over pair will probably at least call to see the turn.
Hand #3
Everyone folds to the small blind and he raises. You defend your big blind heads up with 6-7. Yes, you should be defending with this hand and a lot worse in these situations against the small blind. Position is POWER, don’t let the small blind run you over. You are in a great spot with position and also the ability to represent a really wide range of hands.
The flop comes T-8-5 he bets, and you call with an open ended straight draw. It’s not the best draw as a 9 could be trouble for you if your opponent has QJ, but it still gives you more than enough of a hand to continue to the turn. You should also assume that catching a 6 or 7 on the turn will give you the best hand often enough to merit a call.
The turn card is a Jack and your opponent checks. You:
Bet: 62%
Check 38%
I know, I know, you want more info. Tough cookie, that’s all you get. Of course, this situation is player dependent and your history with this player would be a factor, but as I said earlier, assume you have zero information and have never played a hand against this opponent.
The best play is to BET. Frankly, this would be true in most situations that went:
SB raise, BB call
SB bet flop, BB call
SB check turn, BB BET!
Not always, obviously, this should go without saying by now. In this particular case the value of your straight draw is significantly diminished. If you catch the 9 the board will be 5-8-T-J-9 so any old Queen or 7 makes a straight. The 4 would still be nice, but the hopes of a big pay day are gone once the Jack hits the turn. You are sitting there in position with no pair, but your opponent doesn’t know that!
Let’s look at the decision from your opponents perspective. What does he do with any of these hands:
A5
AK
44
K6
A6
Every one of those hands beats you, but if you bet the turn when the juicy Jack hits, what the heck can he really beat? Pretty much the only hand he can beat is the one you happen to have!
Hopefully your opponent folds right here, but if doesn’t, there are still some cards that could come off to help win you the pot. Board on the turn reads:
5-8-T-J
If the river comes any of the following cards:
7
Q
A
It would either mean they helped your opponent improve, or they could all be scare cards your opponent would fold to a river bet against. Let’s say he had a hand like K-8 and called the turn. If the 7 hits the river you’ve made a pair, but you lose in a showdown. If you bet the river, though, he would have a tough time calling you since its not at all unreasonable for you to have a 9 in your hand the way the hand played out. This is what we call turning a pair into a bluff, and it’s a good spot for it most of the time.
If you do bet the turn here as a bluff, you usually are going to want to fire off another bluff attempt on the river. I say this assuming you have NO INFO on your opponent. As you get a better sense of how your opponent plays, you can bet this turn and give up on the river.
That will be $2500 please. Send all checks to the “Mushu Doggy Treat Fund.”
This past week I created some poll questions on Twitter that were poker related, and while the majority of you gave the best answer for all three, many of you, based on some of the responses I got, were dedicated to being wrong! Now, you can argue all you want against my thoughts on this, but just realize you will be arguing against not just myself, but the vast majority of top players in the world who would approach all three situations the same way. Let’s break down the hands:
Hand #1
Question was what do you do in a 9 handed tourney, 100 big blinds deep when the player under the gun raises, and you are in second position with AQ suited? You guys responded this way:
Call 52%
Fold 15%
Re-Raise 33%
FOLD
Let’s start with those of you who said fold. It’s very important to understand that if you want to be a winning tournament player you will likely need to play MORE than the average number of hands to be successful. Playing tight can get you into the money, but if you want to win the big money in the top three spots you are going to have to find a way to make your own luck by entering more pots.
AQ suited is too strong a hand to fold. You have 100 big blinds which means your stack is in fine shape and suited cards play pretty well post flop. If you said fold, you are playing too tight! Yes, it’s true that a player under the gun is signifying that he has a strong hand, but unless his raising range is just AK, QQ, KK, and AA, you won’t be in terrible shape overall. Now, if this was the year 2002, I would probably say fold is fine! People in first position played a lot tighter back then.
RE-RAISE
Now, let me start by saying that 3-betting here isn’t exactly “wrong,” but overall I think it’s inferior to calling and there are several key factors. Many of you have asked for “more info” on these scenarios, but you should assume by the fact that I omitted any extra information that the player who raised under the gun is unknown to you. You don’t need a full scouting report on all 9 players to make a good decision. Often when you play a tournament you will sit at a table full of people you have never seen before and will have to just play your cards optimally without the benefit of added information.
When playing tournaments, a major consideration most good players look to avoid is high risk situations. 3-betting increases the size of the pot against a raise from under the gun. As mentioned previously, an under the gun player is usually going to have a pretty strong hand and A-Q suited plays pretty well post flop. If you 3-bet, you are essentially turning A-Q into a bluff. If you want to 3-bet there, you are better off actually having a hand like A3 off suit and do it as a bluff. If the under the gun player 4-bets, or any other player at the table 4-bets, you are going to fold anyway with either hand most of the time. There are more reasons I prefer call to 3-bet, and I will explain them below.
CALL
The hand is too strong to fold, and 3-betting is turning the hand into a bluff. If you 3-bet, there is a pretty good chance you are bloating the pot with the worst hand. That’s not the only reason I prefer call. As I mentioned earlier, if you want to be a long term winner in tournament poker, you will need to play an above average number of hands. You also want to be able to get to the flops with more hands. If you only call raises with weaker holdings, and always 3-bet the top end of your range, you become really exploitable to anyone wanting to squeeze your calls and put you in bad spots.
By calling with hands like AQ suited, AK, AA, KK, QQ, JJ, etc. this keeps the squeezers a little more honest. They won’t abuse your flat calls as much because they know you will also do this with super strong hands. What this opens up for you, is the ability to see flops with hands like JT suited, 77, 67 suited, etc. I’d go as far as to say that when I play tournaments and am sitting on 100 big blinds, if the under the gun player raises, and I am in second position, if I’m gong to play, I choose call well over 90% of the time. I call with my very best hands, and I also hope to take flops with some other hands that play well post flop: smaller pairs and suited connectors. If you ever plan to have a range of hands that you would call with in second position, a hand like AQ suited should be in that range.
Hand #2
Middle position player raises to 500 with blinds at 100-200. The small blind calls and you are sitting on 8000 in chips and a pair of 99. You guys answered:
Call 46%
Fold 5%
Re-Raise to 2000 30%
All In 19%
FOLD
WAY TOO TIGHT! I read some of the responses and too many of you are stuck on this idea of “set mining” as though the only way you could win this pot is if there is a 9 on the flop. There are PLENTY of good flops for this hand. You need to learn to fight a little harder for pots and not be looking for reasons to fold. If you are folding 99… what are you waiting for!!!
RE-RAISE TO 2000
This is another spot where you are essentially turning your hand into a bit of a bluff. If you make it 2000, what exactly do you plan on doing if the original raiser puts you all in? You going to fold now? You going to call and hope he has AK? You just put in 25% of your stack and are now in a guessing game. If he has AK and you fold, it’s a mistake. If he has a bigger pair and you call, it’s a mistake.
Let’s say one or two of the players call. Now the flop comes K-J-4. What now? You have 6000 left and there is 6000 out there. You going to just hope the 99 are still good? Or what about an A-7-4 flop? You going to just hope no one has the Ace and risk your tournament on it?
Re-raising here just makes your life extremely difficult if your opponents 4-bet, or if they call. Either way you are going to be in tough spots for your tournament life. You would be better off making it 2000 with 9-2 off suit! That way if they 4-bet you have an easy decision.
GO ALL IN
By moving all in before the flop, one thing you make certain is that you won’t get outplayed after the flop! For weaker players just learning the game, this is the option I would advise. It’s not the choice top pros make, but for a beginning player, risking 8000 to win 1000 makes this worth it. One of your opponents may call with AK in which case you will be a small favorite to double up, but when you get called by a bigger pair you are in bad shape as a 4-1 underdog. For those players who lack confidence in their post flop skills, this is what I would recommend.
If you had 30 blinds instead of 40 blinds, this decision becomes a lot closer for even the top pros. With 25 big blinds or less, it would seem like all in is better than call, but with 40 blinds, it’s just a little bit too much to risk for the 1000 return.
Calling is the “safest” option and it’s the choice most top pros would make because they have confidence in their ability to play the 99 post flop. Just because the flop comes J-8-6 doesn’t mean they are going to fold on the flop. Good players are able to gauge when it’s best to continue with a pair. There are also some really good flops for 99. Any three undercards, especially flops like 5-7-8, 6-7-8, 7-8-10, 5-6-8 etc. With flops like that, even when your opponent does have you beat with an over pair, you would still have 6 outs to beat it. That’s usually worth looking at the turn card and reassessing from there.
There are some clearly bad flops as well, like A-K-J for example, but these are easy to play. Your stack goes from 8000 to 7500 with a fold on this flop, and your chances of winning the tournament have been affected only minimally.
The hardest thing about playing the 99 post flop, is that you will have a lot of flops that will be marginal. For example, is Q-8-4 a good or a bad flop? Well if you check, the raiser bets, and the small blind calls, I would call it a bad flop! if it gets checked around and the turn is a 2, I would say it’s quite likely a very good flop for you as there is only one overcard and if they don’t have a Queen only TT or JJ beat you.
Hand #3
Playing deep stacked with blinds of 50-100 the button raises to 250 and you have 78 of hearts. The flop comes down Kc 8s 2c. You check, and your opponent bets 300. You responded with:
Call 59%
Fold 18%
Check-Raise 20%
Fold Preflop 3%
FOLD
Folding the flop is so clearly the worst option of the 4. If you are folding middle pair getting 3-1 odds on the flop against the button who will bet this flop with ANYTHING a high percentage of the time, you are better off just folding before the flop! You will actually lose less in the long run.
How often do you think your 88 are the best hand on this flop in this situation? I think it’s probably 75% plus. I don’t know the actual figure, but if you don’t have the best hand on this flop against a button raise, I’d almost go as far as to say it’s a cooler! He would have to either have a King, a pair in the hole, or maybe an 8 with a better kicker. The chances of him having any of those things is far less likely than him having nothing. If you habitually fold middle pair in this spot you are just going to get totally run over. You don’t play 78 suited just to flop a straight flush, if you flop a pair heads up that is usually going to be the best hand! If not, you have five outs to improve on the turn and you are being laid 3-1 odds.
FOLD PREFLOP
Stop being such a nit!!! Get in there and FIGHT for these pots! Don’t let the button just abuse your big blind, you should be calling with a lot of hands with the understanding that the button’s range of hands is really wide. Besides, 78 suited hits lots of flops. And when I say hits lots of flops, yes, that includes a K-8-2 flop. As I mentioned previously, the only way this could be the correct play for you is if you play so poorly post flop that you would fold on the flop. If you plan to fold on the flop, you might as well not even bother defending your big blind with anything but premium hands.
CHECK-RAISE
I think it’s an OK play if you have a plan to use the check-raise in other spots as well. If you check-raise, your opponent is usually going to fold the worst hand every time. However, against really good players they are often going to still call you with nothing and hope to outplay you later in the hand. You don’t want to make it a habit of bloating the size of the pot with marginal hands out of position. The standard pose for being out of position in marginal spots should be that of DEFENSE. Keep your guard up and react to the player in position, keeping the pots small, and lowering your risk overall.
CALL
This is the STANDARD play in this situation. Guys, watch a high roller poker tournament and you will see that. In most situations a hand goes like this:
Player A raises
Player B defends big blind
Flop comes X-X-X
Player B checks
Player A bets
Player B calls or folds
Learn from the best and emulate what they are doing. Have some faith in the fact that these guys know what they are doing and have thought about the best way to approach these situations. If you don’t trust them… trust me!!!
Let me ask you another question: if you had KT in the same situation and you checked, your opponent bet 300, what would you do? Truth is, you should approach it the exact same way you approach playing 78. Check-raising with KT will put you in a lot of tough spots where you will be guessing. What do you do if he calls the check-raise, the turn is a 2, and he bets? You just going to fold KT? He may have a worse King that he is looking to protect, or he may have a flush draw, or he may have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The safer play is to check call on the flop, and then check call on the turn. Does that sound weak to you? If so, get your ego out of it! A passive play doesn’t equal weak. It’s just often the optimal play.
Now, are there times where I may check-raise with KT or 78 on that flop? Absolutely, but the go to “standard” play is to check call. When I get into psychological warfare with opponents based on our history, I may start to throw some curveballs. I may lead out, I may check-raise, or I may even go for the double check-raise with 78! This all depends on what you know of your opponent and in this example I gave you no information about your opponent so you should take the standard approach- CALL.
If you noticed a theme with these questions, it should be that calling is a deadly weapon in your arsenal that you should use more. Keeps pots smaller, keeps you in the hands with a chance to win, and it also disguises the strength of your hand if you balance your calls with some premium hands, some marginal hands, and occasionally some absolutely trash hands.
************************************************************
Quick poker update from last night. Played an 8 hour session and despite having terrible allergies all night, I felt like I could have played another 8 hours easily. It was the same half PLO, half 2-7 triple draw game and I got off to a terrible start. I was playing too loose in PLO and it was costing me. Half way through the session I was stuck about $230k. Another part of this mix is “PLO Flips” which is quite simple; everyone throws out $10k into the pot, you get 4 cards and the dealer runs out a board. The best hand wins the money.
We do this once every few rounds just one time. However, if someone wants to play another flip, they have to throw in some “juice.” An extra $1000 in there and we do another $10k flip. So if there are 7 players you are looking at $70k plus the $1k juice. After that, if you want to do another flip you have to throw $2k in juice, followed by $3k, etc.
Well, thanks to some dumb luck flips I ran hot in, I was able to get closer to even and by the end of the night I pulled out a $45k win.
One other interesting wrinkle from last night’s game is a special 2-7 triple draw rule. If a player chooses to straddle, which is a blind raise to $3000, they start with a 6th card! Once they make their first draw, though, they go back to playing as normal, but starting with a 6th card means you are far more likely to start with a playable hand. When you don’t get any low cards, though, you sometimes have to just say goodbye to the $3000 you put out there. The shorter handed you play, the more correct it is to put on the straddle. For example, I’m quite certain that in a 4 handed game, its plus EV to straddle, while 6 handed it’s probably not a smart play. I did it often because I felt like I have a significant edge in 2-7 and I wanted to be able to play more hands in that game.
Year to Date Results:
53.5 hours
+$109,0000