So the WSOP recently released it’s ten nominees for induction into the 2014 Poker Hall of Fame. The process for this appears to be a combination of a fan vote, with some additions where necessary. For example, Bob Hooks is on the list and I can’t imagine he was voted in by the fans. I’m embarrassed to say that while I have heard the name before, I have no idea who he is or what his accomplishments are. If I don’t know, then the only ones who would, would likely have to be poker historians. I don’t think the general public is familiar with him, so I’m led to believe that his name was added by the WSOP.
This years list of nominees looks like this:
Chris Bjorin
Bruno Fitoussi
Ted Forrest
Jen Harman
Bob Hooks
Mike Matusow
Jack McClelland
Daniel Negreanu
Huckleberry Seed
Info on players here: HOF Bios
Plenty of great, and likely deserving players not on this list. Too many to mention, but a few highlights would include players like Gus Hansen, John Juanda, and Carlos Mortensen. Regardless, any list will always be open to scrutiny and second guessing, but it is surprising to see these names not on the ballot in 2014.
Should age matter?
The real question I have for all of you is this: should Hall of Fame voters choose the person most deserving of the award, or should age be a factor? About 6 years ago they instituted a rule that you must be 40 years of age or older to be inducted. This addresses one of the key criteria for induction, “stood the test of time.” So the question is whether or not someone who is 75 years old, no longer at their peak or even playing, trumps the credentials of someone 45 years old who has been in the game for, say, 20 odd years?
What do they do in other Hall of Fames? I am not too familiar with what usually happens with other Hall of Fames so I’m genuinely asking, but instinctively I would think that the player who is most qualified based on the criteria should always be the one who gets in. So for example, If the NHL had a 40+ rule, would it make sense to induct a player like Jaromir Jagr, despite the fact that he is still playing competitively, over a player like Lanny McDonald, who is much older, but who maybe wasn’t as accomplished in his career? I think so.
Maybe I’m wrong about this, I’m open to that, but it just makes sense to me to induct the most deserving person each year. For a poker example, let’s look at the careers of Chris Bjorin and John Juanda. Bjorin has been a beast for ages, but if you compared the stats of both players in terms of how they meet the criteria, I think Juanda clearly gets the edge. His tournament results are better overall, and he has played the highest stakes cash games in the world, gaining the respect of his peers. Bjorin is no slouch, and I want it to be clear that I think he is a fantastic player that meets much of the criteria, but I think Juanda is even more qualified. Bjorin is 66, Juanda is just 43. Should that matter? Personally I think absolutely not.
************************************************************
What role does being a nice guy play?
I don’t think the HOF should be a popularity contest. Being a “nice guy” isn’t one of the criteria. I don’t think anyone would classify Johnny Moss or Stu Ungar as nice guys, but both clearly have a place in the poker hall of fame. Now, Tom McEvoy is most certainly a nice guy, and I think that’s one of the key reasons he was inducted last year, despite their being more qualified candidates based on the criteria.
This was my argument against Scotty Nguyen’s induction being delayed because of his drunken antics during the $50k Player Championship on ESPN. On paper, Scotty fulfilled all the criteria. There is one criteria relating to non players, the builders category, that isn’t really applicable to players. The criteria is listed as follows:
• 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.
Notice it says “Or, for non-players.” I read that as meaning if you qualify on the first five, that last one isn’t a requirement. The media writing about Scotty not getting into the HOF as a result of his antics that night was just way off base! Again, the poker hall of fame isn’t for nice guys, its for kick ass poker players!
Even Howard Lederer, infamous for his involvement in the FTP scandal, should not be excluded based on that. I don’t believe Howard meets the criteria, but the negative mark he left on the game shouldn’t be a consideration unless he was being considered for the HOF in the builders category exclusively. If he was a player that met the first five criteria, I would support his induction. Where do you draw the line? If a player has a criminal record unrelated to poker, should that have anything to do with his place in the poker hall of fame? Not in my opinion. Not at all.
***********************************************************
“He will get in eventually, let some others get in first”
I’ve heard this one A LOT and it doesn’t make sense to me. There is already a built in age criteria, 40+ years of age. A player who is 60 is no more qualified than a player who is 40, they both meet the criteria equally. You could debate that a 40 year old hasn’t stood the test of time compared to a 60 year old, but what if that 40 year old has been in the game for close to 20 years? The question of whether a player has stood the test of time is up to the voters. Is a 50 year old who is still competitive at high levels less qualified on the “stood the test of time” criteria than a 70 year old who hasn’t played competitively in 15 years?
Doyle Brunson recently said on twitter that he believes an inductee must meet ALL the criteria. I’m assuming he means the five related to players and not necessarily the one for the builders category. When I first got into poker in the late 90’s, you didn’t have a chance in hell of getting in the hall of fame unless you ponied up in the big cash games in Vegas. Being a great tournament player wasn’t enough. Playing against “acknowledged top competition” meant specifically that you had to be a high stakes cash game player. Well, the poker world looks very different today and there are high stakes game from LA to Macau, and of course on the internet.
When they made the switch to two inductions per year, a byproduct of that is that it waters down the hall of fame. It will mean that there will be a lot more members in there that are questionable. Imagine how different the poker hall of fame looks if in the last 10 years, only one person entered each year? Now, I’m not suggesting that a change back to one inductee per year is necessary, but I would hope that the voters would really stick to the listed criteria closely. A guy being a jerk, or one who isn’t media friendly, is NOT reason to keep them out of the hall.
I think the biggest mistake the media and others make when it comes to voting, is focusing on how good of a poker ambassador a player is. They shouldn’t. It doesn’t matter at all. Again, unless the person is being considered in the builders category. That’s where I would put a guy like Bruno Fitoussi. He qualifies on all the criteria, but mostly it’s his contribution as a pioneer in spreading the game globally and getting Americans to make the trip over to Paris before the inception of The World Poker Tour. He was instrumental in poker becoming more of a global game.
When I read articles written by various poker media outlets I think there is way too much emphasis on things that have nothing at all to do with the criteria. When Phil Ivey turns 40, he deserves to be in. That would be true even if in the next three years he finds himself in a Ray Rice like scandal, curses the game, shuns the media, or even pees on a dealers leg after losing a pot.
So please, no more discussion about a players contribution to the game unless you are specifically talking about the builders category. Let’s focus on what matters, the players actual poker playing ability. I don’t care about their personality or what they have given back to the game. If they meet the criteria, put em in the hall.
Lots of great discussion and blogs on the topic of whether or not political discussion belongs at the poker table. As Shane Schleger stated on twitter, poker is one of the few egalitarian events where it doesn’t matter what your religion, race, political affiliation, or gender is at all. It’s a place where Muslims can sit with Jews, feminists can sit with chauvinists, and none of that matters. The game has historically always brought people together. I’ve been playing for over 20 years now and I can count on one hand the number of times a political discussion broke out at the table. I’m not saying this is either good, or bad, it’s just been my experience.
Before I go any further I want to link you to the three blogs I read on the topic:
Nolan Dalla: Political Sensorship
Robbie Strazynski: No Room for Politics in Poker
Victoria Coren: No Politics at the Poker Table?
I’m not going to write an in-depth blog as these three have, as I feel they have covered all the bases for the most part. I did want to go public with my position on political censorship at the poker table and how that may affect what people are or aren’t allowed to wear at the table.
I strongly believe that there should be two sets of rules in terms of the rigidness of what is allowed and what is not. One for televised events, and another for non-televised events. For non-televised I’m pretty much OK with someone wearing anything they want, whether it be offensive or not. Of course, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and I’m not sure exactly where that line is, but I’d leave that up to the discretion of the organizers.
In the case of a televised event, things get a bit more tricky. If I were hosting a poker show that will air across the world, I would like it to be as Switzerland as possible. I’d love for the viewing audience to focus on the characters, the poker, the fun, and the excitement rather than being distracted by what they may view as an offensive political message.
I will echo what Vicky said in her blog, that PokerStars was put in a lose-lose situation thanks to the decisions made by Daniel Colman and Olivier Busquet to wear shirts that said “Free Palestine,” and “Save Gaza” respectively.
Do nothing at all, and run the risk of people being shocked and upset with the company for allowing it. Or, release a statement restricting the rights of the players to wear clothing that may offend.
I think both camps make really strong points! Read the blogs and you will see that you will have some moments where you will say, “OK, that’s fair” even if you are on the other side mostly. Personally, I support people’s right to an opinion and to express themselves however they choose to. Having said that, I also support the broadcasters and organizers right to create rules that they deem appropriate for a worldwide broadcast.
I know, that seems wishy-washy, but it’s a complicated issue. The easiest solution would be for poker players who wanted to make a political message to do so in a way that is INCLUSIVE rather than EXCLUSIVE. In fact, I think one of the shirts is inclusive and the other is exclusive.
“Save Gaza” is quite vague and if that offends you, you may be a bit too sensitive! Regardless of what “side” you are on, I would imagine you want to see an end to the suffering and the deaths. Whether you attribute those deaths to Hamas, or the IDF, I imagine that peace is a solution all sides can agree on. In other words, some may see that and think, “Save Gaza from the terrorist organization Hamas.” Others may see it as a plea for the IDF to lay down their weapons. Either way, yes save Gaza. It’s an atrocity and something we can all back. Peace is the goal.
“Free Palestine” is the one that I find to be exclusive. This is a more loaded political message. It implies that A) Palestine is a state, and that B) it is not a free state. A) is simply not a historical fact, nor has it ever been. B) is up for debate, as some may say the region is occupied illegally while others argue that it is already free. And again, some may argue that freeing Palestine requires the elimination of Hamas.
I have shared my political views on the matter via twitter, but it’s not something I would feel appropriate for a poker table, especially a televised broadcast. It’s not the forum I would choose, but again, I respect others right to express their views in that manner if they choose to.
I applaud people who take a stand. I respect it. I find it a lot more honest and genuine and even though I may disagree with the conclusion, I can trust that this person is sharing with me what they truly think. I much prefer that over wishy-washy, and I’m rarely ever wishy-washy! Sometimes that offends people. I may have a different political view than you do, and for some people that is enough for them to hate me and want me dead. That’s happened on more than one occasion!
I don’t hate those that disagree with me. I’m happy to have civil discussions and debate about heated topics like politics and religion, and I don’t take disagreement personally. If you choose to hate someone for disagreeing with your political views, what does that say about you? Also, what makes you such an expert on the subject that you aren’t open to being wrong?
I don’t watch FOX News, CNN, or MSNBC. In fact, I don’t watch any network news. I keep up by doing lots of reading online, whether it be The Toronto Star, various blogs, Wikipedia, or interesting articles I may find. I am no expert, but I find it silly when people tell me I don’t have an educated opinion on the topic. Oh, but you do? Unless you are there, in the thick of it, any information you get could be way off base, just like my research could be wildly inaccurate. I’m open to that possibility, but are you? Or are you so certain that only the information you gather is correct and that every other source of information is tainted?
I have close friends who fought in Israel. One who was very high up the intelligence ladder. I’m not claiming that my sources are so much better than others, but I do respect the fact that they have been there, and they have been a part of the conflict. While it’s true that naturally lends itself to bias, all of my research points me to one specific quote that I personally believe to be a fact. “If Hamas puts down it’s weapons, there will be no more war. If Israel puts down it’s weapons, there will be no more Israel.”
The children of the region are not the enemy and I’m saddened by all the deaths. The enemy, from where I stand, is Hamas. I don’t believe they want peace. I don’t believe that Israel is purposely trying to look bad to the rest of the world by targeting children and civilians. I believe they are doing what they believe to be right in order to protect their own children and civilians. Something Hamas doesn’t appear to be too concerned about…
If you choose to hate me because of my stated position, that is your right. You can claim that I am ignorant and uninformed, but are you open to the possibility that you may not have it right? Because I am.
I’m well aware that by taking a strong stand one way or the other that opens me up to criticism and I’m OK with that. I’ll leave you with my favorite quote: “To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.”- Aristotle
I choose to have an opinion and that is my right, just as much as it’s your right to criticize me, judge me, or even despise me as a result.
So I am headed to my seat in the 50k Euro Super High Roller event and at the same time, the smaller 1k Euro Estrellas main event was going full force. The event was a massive success with loads of amateurs and pros alike.
As I walked by one of the tables, a Spanish gentleman said he was a big fan and asked if I’d pose for a picture with him. He was in the Estrellas main event and currently sitting in the big blind. He asked the player in the small blind if he wouldn’t mind snapping the pic. So they stood up and I stood next to the gentleman posing for the pic. As this was happening the dealer started dealing the hand. They were literally standing with their legs almost touching their chairs, certainly within reach of their chairs and not in a position to hurt the integrity of the game in the least.
Well, after the picture was snapped, the dealer quickly grabbed both of their hands and threw them in the muck. No warning. It’s just cold blooded man! The dealer made a mistake, because the way the First Card off the Deck rule is written, you need to be withing arms reach of your chair. Neither player broke any rules, but the dealer clearly didn’t understand the rule and mucked both their hands. Poor guy in the small blind gets punished for being a nice guy and taking a pic for the guy next to him. This is wrong. This is more common than I’d like to see, and it really upset me. It had no effect on my tournament, but the question dawned on me, “What are we trying to accomplish with such harsh penalties for harmless infractions?”
This isn’t the only rule where I think the penalties don’t match the “crime” and while I understand the need for rules to protect the integrity of the game, I also don’t see why we can’t enforce these rules by first giving a warning.
A perfect example was a hand Alberto Tomba, the famous skier, played in EPT San Remo several years ago. He was a novice and didn’t read through the entire rules sheet before playing. (Question: is this something we want to force amateurs to do before entering an event, or should we be more welcoming to these types of players?)
So Alberto is in a hand, he bets the flop and thought everyone had folded so he showed his cards face up on the table. He had AK and the board was T-6-2. An honest mistake and quite a penalty to have to play the rest of the hand out against an opponent he didn’t see had called! Alberto ends up losing the hand, and then the floorman comes to him and issues him a one round penalty for exposing his cards before the action was complete.
I spoke with Alberto last year about this very incident while playing in a celebrity event with Rafa. He hasn’t played any tournaments since and his reasoning was that he didn’t really know all the rules and didn’t want to keep getting penalties.
What is so wrong with allowing dealers and floormen to exercise common sense? I know that in the TDA rules, it often says, “Player MAY be issued a penalty,” but I’ve personally never seen it be anything but automatic in the most obviously harmless of situations. How that should have been handled was like this: The dealer/floorman should have said, “Alberto, you are not allowed to show your cards until the hand is over. If it happens again you will get a one round penalty which means you’ll have to step away from the table and sacrifice your blinds and antes.”
By biggest problem with the auto-penalty mentality is that the vast majority of infractions being penalized are harmless mistakes made by amateur players. Another example:
Heads up pot
Board reads TKJ 4 Q
Player A checks and then player B checks and turns over AK for the nuts straight. Often amateur players get excited in the moment and don’t even realize what they have and that’s typically what is happening in cases like this. He sees his hand as top pair top kicker and is just excited to get the hand over with, not realizing he made a straight. What should happen is a warning, “Sir, you are not allowed to check the nut hand if you are the last to act.” Instead, what I’ve seen happen in every instance, is this player is issued a penalty. Enforcing this penalty under the guise of protecting the integrity of the game is maddening and outright silly.
I’m asking, I’m pleading for a change in focus in these types of situations. More leniency, more understanding, more player friendly. Less rigorous, less harsh, and less cold blooded.
If you are a dealer or a tournament director, before you issue a penalty ask yourself this one important question: do you believe that the players intent was to cheat, angle shoot, or breach the integrity of the game, or was it a relatively harmless error on his part?
We all want the same thing I would imagine. A safe, friendly, fun environment to play these tournaments in, so industry wide lets reexamine some of the ways in which we are enforcing penalties and take a deeper look at what it is we are trying to accomplish.
2:30am now as I write this after a night out with the boys in one of my favorite cities, Toronto, Canada. Confession: I have had a few cocktails and then a few more to top it off as I write this. I wanted to write this as it was fresh in my mind, despite my mind possibly being a bit cloudy at the moment:
Had a cab drop me off at my hotel and noticed a street vendor selling hotdogs and the like. Most of you have likely experienced the kind of hunger you feel after a night of drinking, and how good of an idea a street meat hotdog sounds like! Being a vegan myself, I was happy to find that this vendor offered a veggie dog. I happily ordered two and smothered them in ketchup, mustard, and plenty of pickles.
There was a park bench right next to the vendor, three park benches actually, and I promptly sat down on the bench and gorged on one of my guilty pleasures. I noticed that two benches down laid a homeless man with a long gray beard peacefully sleeping. I don’t know this mans story, how he got there, who he was, but as I munched on this awesome meal I pondered about this fellow human being and what got him to where he was. What struggles he may have faced, what losses or abuse he may have dealt with. That thought process led me towards compassion for him.
As I was sitting there alone in thought, two girls sat down on the bench in between us to enjoy their own hungover meal. I had already thought about what kind of a difference I wanted to make for this man, but when these two girls sat down, I thought about the situation in a bigger way.
People who do charitable acts and talk about them publicly are either applauded, or vilified as attention whores only seeking to be seen in a good light. I’m sure some of you reading this blog may feel that way right now and I’m fully aware of that. There will always be naysayers, but they don’t stop me from being public about making a difference because I feel like there is a deeper value in that. A bigger game if you will.
Sure, there is something noble about giving without anyone else seeing the act, but does that mean there is evil in giving with the hopes of inspiring others to give as well? I don’t think so. Recently, led by a group of young German poker players with a conscious for living a bigger life, one that consists of more than just using their talent to beat people out of money at the poker table, have started an initiative called REG- short for Raising for Effective Giving REG
I applaud their efforts to make a difference on a bigger scale, and all those that either use their personal wealth, celebrity, or influence to make a difference in a public way.
So let’s get back to me on the street at 2:30am eating a delicious veggie dog alongside two young girls and what I presumed to be a homeless man. As I said, I’d already been thinking about how I could make a difference for this man. Buy him a hotdog and leave it by his side when he awoke? Or maybe leave a few bucks in the bag he laid on while he slept, when a bigger game dawned on me. Here is what I chose to do:
The man was asleep and the difference I made for him isn’t something I’d likely see with my own eyes, but what would be a bigger game? What if I could make a difference for the two girls on the bench beside him? How could I do that?
Well, I decided to give it a try. Shamelessly, I made an elaborate display in front of them, reaching into my pocket as I’d already inhaled my veggie dogs, and pulled out $10. Of course, this $10 doesn’t change my life any as I’ve been blessed financially, but my intention was to make a difference, in the moment, with that $10. I looked for a spot to put it so the man wouldn’t lose it and didn’t see any real safe place other than right in his hands. I got close to him, put the two $5 bills into his hands, making sure that he had a firm grip on them. Once I placed them in his hand, I walked back to my hotel. The two girls obviously saw the whole thing and said, “You are a nice man.”
As poker players, lets look deeper into this situation and break it down a little further shall we? What was my real motivation for doing that? What was my motivation for then coming straight back to my hotel and writing a blog about it? What is the purpose of sharing this story with all of you?
There are at least two ways to look at it. One being that I did this to impress these girls by showing them how generous I am so they would like me, and then sharing this with all of you would give you all the warm and fuzzies so you may respond with, “Wow, Daniel you are such an awesome guy!” I’m certain that at least some of you will think along those lines and I won’t make you wrong.
What is another possibility? I wanted to make a small difference for a homeless man. I also wanted to teach/show the girls the value of giving and that there are good people in this world that are willing to help someone who is down on their luck. Writing a blog about my experience, well why would I do that? Another possibility… to inspire. To anyone reading this that wants to live a bigger life, that wants to make a difference for their friends, family, community, and the world.
I have seen crazier things! A year ago I offered a woman $10 to quit smoking for a year. She was just a fan railing me at the WSOP and when she told her kids about the offer they encouraged her to do it! Just this summer, a year later, she came back to my rail while I was playing the One Drop. 25 pounds lighter, smoke free, and soda free! Now, am I taking credit for the commitment and dedication it took for her to achieve such an accomplishment? Hell no, however, I do believe that it’s possible that the encounter with me sparked something in her that created a chain of events that led her down a more positive path.
Seeing her succeed like that is akin to a high I yearn for. I was so happy for this woman, and the thought that I could have possibly inspired these changes for her and her family are more rewarding than winning any poker tournament ever could be.
I consider myself to be quite self aware and I also have thick skin. I already know what some of the comments to this blog will create. Truth is, I don’t really care to waste my time or energy on those that choose to nitpick on why I do what I do. That frustration or annoyance pales in comparison to what I have seen with my own eyes, when people do good deeds, share their stories, and inspire others to make a bigger difference for those in their life, their community, and ultimately, the world.
If you have never played the game, this blog should give you a basic guideline and understand of how to play. I’m not going to delve into deep strategy here, the blog would get annoyingly long, but I wanted to give you guys a quick idea how my favorite poker game works:
The Deal:
Each player is dealt two cards down and one face up. The lowest card by suit (lowest to highest: clubs, diamonds, hearts, spades) is forced to start the action with a bring in. Say you are playing $20-$40 limit, the bring in would have a choice to bring it in for $5 or complete the bet to $20. Tip #1 always bring it in for the minimum. Very few cases where it would ever be correct to do otherwise. May come up in a tourney at times, but don’t do it in cash games at all.
Once betting is complete, all players still in the hand get another up card. The highest board is first (aces are high) and can check or bet $20. On fifth street the bet doubles to $40 and is now the betting limit for all further streets. On seventh street, or the river, everyone gets a card faced down.
Who wins:
Just like in regular poker, half the pot is awarded to the best poker hand, however, another half the pot is awarded to the low if someone qualifies for low. In order to qualify for low, you must have 5 cards 8 or lower, and pairs don’t count. The best low possible is A2345 you can also play that same hand for high as a straight.
Cool thing about this game is that you don’t have to use the same 5 cards for the high and the low. For example if your hand was:
A2458KK
Your high is a pair of kings
Your low is A2458
The best low in the hand is the player with the 5 lowest cards as defined by the highest card in their hand. Example:
34567
beats A2348
for low
Starting Hands:
The type of hands that are ideal for this games are hands that have the potential to win both the high and the low, or “scoop” as it’s commonly known. So for example, a hand like 3h 4h 5h is a great starting hand. Three parts to a wheel (A2345), a three flush, and a three straight. You don’t need a hand that strong to start, but aside from getting rolled up trips, these are the qualities you are looking for in a good hand. In fact, in most situations you would rather have that hand over AA9, and you most certainly would rather have 345 of hearts over KK8.
Pairs: You don’t want to play low pairs with a high kicker. There are spots where you can play 445 or 22A, but you don’t want to play hands like K66. There are spots where you can, but for the most part avoid those hands. Higher pairs like Jacks or better can be played but you need to play them carefully. For example, if you have JJ8 and a player with a Queen raises, FOLD! If a player with a high card raises that means they almost always have what they are representing so your Jacks are no good and you don’t want to play second best high pairs in Stud 8. Worst case scenario. In fact, you should probably even fold a hand like KK7 if an Ace raises. The ace likely either has a pair of aces or three low cards. You are a small favorite against three low ones, but a sizable underdog to aces.
Broadway straight draws: No. Don’t do it! Fold hands like 9TJ or KQJ they suck. Again, I get that there are spots where there is value in these hands, but I wouldn’t recommend playing them unless you are highly skilled at the game.
Three flushes: play virtually any 3 low cards that are suited or have an ace in them. Play most three card flushes with two low cards and one high card provided your suit is live, meaning there isn’t more than one of your suit already dead. I’d avoid playing hands like KJ4 of spades.
Low cards: Best to have three low cards that are working together, or three low cards with an Ace in your hand. A hand like 457 has straight potential, while A57 can win with a low and the Ace playing for high. Avoid low draws like 248 unless you are the only player in the pot with a low card in the hand. The hand plays fine if your opponent has a King showing, but you don’t want to get attached to this hand unless you improve immediately.
Playing 4th street:
Unlike in 7 card stud high, where if you call on 3rd street you should usually continue to 5th street, in Stud 8 or better you should be folding more often when things go badly. Either you catching bad, or your opponent catching too good. A few examples of when to fold:
You 4589
Opponent (xx) 4c Ac
You 237T
Opponent (xx) K Q
You JJ94
Opponent (xx) 3s As
You shouldn’t always fold, but if you catch bad and your opponent catches good, you should. If you both catch bad, you can see 5th street more often. A few examples of catching bad and continuing:
You 4h 5h 6h 9s
Opponent (xx) 2c 8h
You As 4c 7s Ts
Opponent (xx) Qh 7d
You As 4c 6d Kc
Opponent (xx) 5 J
In this example you should actually BET!
In multi-way pots playing 4th street can get tricky and is where the fun begins! You may have decisions where you need to know if it’s better to raise an opponent OUT of a pot, or leave him in. This happens on later streets as well, but is more common on 4th. Example:
You 2347
Player A (xx) 4J
Player B (xx) Q7
If player B bets, would you raise to get player A to fold his likely busted low draw, or call and let him have a cheap 5th street card? With dead money already in the pot, you should RAISE here and go heads up against the player who likely has queens. One good card and player A may have you in bad shape. Imagine he started with 345 and caught the Jack. If you just call, he will be getting a very good price to see one more card. If he catches an A, 2, 6, or a 7 you know will have a real battle for low. Get him out and go for the scoop!
If you are playing a high hand on 4th like KK9 how you play 4th street is all dependent upon what your opponent catches. If your opponents board is
24
56
3A
47
Or virtually any two low cards, you should CHECK and call against some boards. If you have two pair or better, you can lean towards betting or even check raising against boards like 37. What if you have a monster?
You 2h 3h 4h 5h
Player A (xx) KJ
Player B (xx) 28
In this case if it’s checked to you, you should bet, but if player A bet, you may consider slowplaying here and NOT raising on third street. This is one of those opportunities to be creative and mix up your play.
Ok so this is getting super long and I could write a 200 page book on the game, but I’ll leave you with one more 5th street situation:
You A2467
Player A (xx) K4K
Player B (xx) 58Q
If player A bets, he often will, and you are next to act, you should NOT raise! You already have a 7 low and the best player B can be drawing to is an 8 low. More importantly, you are super unlikely to scoop player A who likely has trip Kings, so to maximize value it’s better to leave player B in the pot.
Stud 8 is a game of inches, making the slightly better decisions in tight spots then your opponent. When to squeeze value with a raise, when to force a player out, when to get a hand heads up, when to lay down a hand against dangerous boards. It’s a very skillful game and there is a lot more to it then I could write in a short blog. I recommend you try it out either at a casino or online at www.pokerstars.com you may find that it becomes your favorite poker game too!
About to go to bed so will get straight to it. Tight player, not in terms of number of hands played, but in terms of preflop raising frequency raised under the gun. Two called, including the button James Obst. I called from the small blind with Qc Jc.
The flop came J T 9 with two diamonds. I checked, tight player, otherwise known as Tony “Muscles” bets 2600 on the flop and Obst calls on the button. I call.
Turn 3s, total brick. My read on the hand was that Muscles had me beat and Obst was on a draw. Against Muscles I figure I have a lot of outs, he likely has a hand like AA. That’s what he said he had later anyway. I decided this was a good spot to put Muscles in the middle. If I lead the turn he has to worry about both my hand and Obst behind him, so I bet 4200. Muscles tanked for a while and finally folded, while Obst called.
River was another blank, 5 of spades and I saw no reason to bet the end. I’m never getting called by worse, and I may get a free showdown if he happened to have a hand like KJ. He checked and I won the pot as he missed his draw. Plan worked perfectly. I got the best hand to fold, and the draw to call and miss!
I ended day one with 129,250. Day off tomorrow, will be a gym/golf combo day then back to work on day two. My intention is to end day 2 with 320,000 in chips, make the final table later this coming week, and win the event in November. There will likely be an after party somewhere after my win but I haven’t booked anything just yet.
I wanted to take this time to address the whole Daniel Colman controversy that occurred upon him winning the One Drop after beating me in a fun, exciting, heads up match. The banter between him and I has always been friendly. I personally never had a bad interaction with him and really enjoyed the match. I have heard from other players that he has had some “run ins” with people, but this blog isn’t about gossip, it’s about what I can speak to personally about what happened.
At the end of the match Daniel came to me and said that he didn’t want to do any of the interviews and he didn’t want to promote poker. I told him I absolutely respect that and you don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do. I meant it. I asked him why, and he said that most people lose at poker and he doesn’t want to promote something that has a negative effect on peoples lives. There is some nobility in that.
Truth is, most of you reading this, will be lifetime losers at poker. You are unlikely to become successful professional poker players. It is available to all of you, and some of you will find success at the tables, but the truth is clear: most of you will fail. Sucks huh? It’s the truth and he is right about that. Not everybody can be successful at poker, but for me, I see things a very different way. You know how much I would love to be good enough at golf to play on the PGA tour and win big prize money at the majors? You know how many people play golf, striving to be a top pro, but fail? The vast majority.
I also would have loved to have the talent and physical ability to be a pro hockey player, or rub elbows with Lebron James in the NBA. That wasn’t in the cards for me. Lots of young people devote their lives to a sport, but the truth is, the majority fail to succeed. Only the best of the best will make it.
Many NFL prospects, in high school even, bulk up to 350+ pounds in the hopes of being drafted and making a career out of it. The vast majority will not make it, and often will deal with life threatening health issues as a result of that. Dreams don’t always come true, and sometimes there are real life consequences associated with those failures.
So, I respect Daniel Colman for having empathy for those people that may be jaded into thinking they can easily become a poker superstar and make millions. I wish, in the moment, I could have talked to him more about his decision to decline interviews. Questions I would have asked him:
What are you standing for?
What is the message you want people to hear?
Why not use this platform as an opportunity to educate those very people you are concerned for and make a difference for them?
I have read his statement, and he makes some valid points in it. I think (and he acknowledges this) that it’s difficult to take the position he does, and actually still profit from the game, and the weaker players he exploits. I’m assuming when he plays heads up sit n’ gos online, he doesn’t inform his opponent that he is a professional and they are likely to lose the match.
Lebron James makes more money playing basketball than other players because he is better than them. Colman is a successful player and makes millions because he is an exceptional talent. An accomplishment I would hope he is proud of when he looks back on his life and the opportunities poker has now given him to be financially free and make a difference in the world however he chooses to.
He also mentioned the seedy underbelly of poker. Make no mistake, this world he is talking about exists. However, that’s not all poker is. At least not from the lenses I look through. One Drop collected a group of wealthy men for a fun poker tournament, but the bigger picture? $4.6 million raised for a cause. MAKING A DIFFERENCE! All through a game we all love to play.
I have seen the other side of poker. I don’t deny the dangers for those with addictive personalities, those that put their well being in jeopardy because they overextend themselves. Having said that, studies show that typically people with gambling addictions are drawn to more instant gratification games like slot machines rather than a game of wits like poker.
The other side of poker that I see, and have for 20+ years in the game, is one maybe Daniel hasn’t experienced yet in his life. One where old folks get together to play penny ante poker and socialize. Bingo, Bridge, poker, things that get them out of the house, socializing, being connected with others, and having fun. I’m not advocating seniors blowing their pension playing poker, but if they want to spend $200 playing a game that most lose at, but they enjoy the experience, I see that as a very positive thing. Again, studies show that playing games and using your mind on a regular basis is excellent exercise for the elderly.
Poker, and more specifically poker tournaments are a competition no different than any other competition. The cream rise to the top, make the most money, and the vast majority whether its pool, tennis, basketball, golf, the restaurant business, etc. fail. Capitalism as a system allows people to strive for big success in whatever career they choose.
Daniel opened his statement with “I don’t owe poker anything.” No, I guess not, but I would look at it differently Daniel: GRATITUDE! Being thankful that you found a game you both love to play and are also good enough so that you can make a life for yourself. You don’t owe poker anything, sure, but poker has given you a lot. The camera crew filming the event, the dealers, floor staff, Caesars, the WSOP, ESPN, PokerStars.com for giving you an opportunity to support yourself, the players that came before you and did spend time promoting a game you would have likely never heard about. You don’t owe poker, or me personally anything, much like when a waitress brings your order, you don’t owe her a tip or even a thank you. It’s just a gracious custom, much like doing a winners interview…
I applaud Daniel for wanting to live his life with a higher consciousness and looking more deeply at the bigger picture. I support that, and his right to decline interviews 100%. I also think people are being too harsh on him. He is young, and I’m not saying that in a condescending manner, just at the age of 24 life is just beginning, your views on the world, the questions you have, are just starting to form. I’m not the same person I was when I was 24, and I certainly don’t hold the same views I did when I was 24.
I’ll leave this blog with one personal (not so personal) message for Daniel:
Whatever it is you choose to do in your life, make sure INTEGRITY is at the core of it. If you are genuinely having an issue with the morality of playing poker for a living, make a choice. Don’t compromise your own moral code for money. If you truly believe in your heart that what you are doing hurts people, and you don’t want to hurt people, you need to make a choice.
If I may make a suggestion, why not continue to do what you love, empower others, educate others about the dangers of this lifestyle, and use the money your talents allow you to earn, to make a difference in the world? Not by staking people btw! Lol. You have the potential at a very young age to make a positive impact on the world, both with your money and intelligence. Don’t waste the gifts you’ve been given, and be grateful for the kind of life you are able to create as a result of those gifts.
I’m 39 years old and for about 15 years I’ve been grinding WSOP events regularly. The days are longer now than they used to be, and there are three times as many events as when I started! I typically sleep like a baby, but I’ve been quite tired this summer after making lots of consecutive deep runs that cut into my sleep.
I knew this coming into the WSOP, so part of my plan to address it was to late register most of the events and I’ve done that. Rather than play from 4pm to 3am, I usually play from about 6:30pm to 3:00am on the day ones.
I went to the gym around 2pm yesterday then decided to head straight over to the $1500 Stud starting at level 2 around 5:00pm. By the end of the first night, around 2:30am I was taking naps in between hands! I still managed to get through the day with a healthy stack despite several mistakes throughout the day.
I felt good on day 2, and late in the day went on a rush to get me to 110k in chips. Down to 10 players, I was sitting on about 80k when the following hand happened:
Bring in: 2d
Kravchenko: Jd Raise
Me: (J9) Q Call
Other: Q Fold
Other: 5 Fold
Bring in: calls
This is a HUGE mistake! Just massive and I was so tired I wasn’t thinking clearly. For those of you who don’t play Stud, this is a huge mistake for various reasons. First of all, with that board Kravchenko is going to raise 100% of the time in that spot. Yes, even with a 2-3 in the hole, he is going to raise into two dead Queens, a 5, and a 2. It’s essentially automatic. On top of that, I have a Jack on the hole, making it less likely he has a pair of them.
The correct play is to re-raise. Since there is another Queen out, Kravchenko would actually give me MORE credit for having at least a pair of Queens. Either way, if he has junk in the hole, the hand is over and I win it on 3rd street.
Right after I put the call in I thought to myself, “What are you doing, you idiot?” Anyway, the bring in came along with (K-6) 2 rainbow, an awful hand to defend for one bet, but certainly he would have folded if I re-raised.
To make a long story short, the bring in, who started with three off suit cards, caught 4 consecutive diamonds to make a flush and ultimately beat the two pair that I made. I ended up making an excellent read on 5th street on against this player, but the point is, it’s not a situation I should have ever been in. Also, even though my read was correct, that my opponent didn’t have the flush on 5th or 6th street, I put him on KK with a visible flush draw. That is a lot of outs against my Jacks up and a straight draw.
Of all the tournaments I played this summer, including my second place finish to Paul Volpe in the $10k NL 2-7 Single Draw, this one was the most gutting. I was in a great spot to win a bracelet, and had a brain fart that could have cost me #7.
Oh well! Tonight is my favorite game, $10k Stud 8 and I’ll likely show up around 5pm and do my absolute best!
I’m going to keep this short, but I feel like I need to speak up, and speak out against a decision made by a floorman at the WSOP named Dave Lamb. To make a long story short, Mikey was all in and deep in a tournament. He needed help and was being himself, a loud, sometimes childish and obnoxious guy that most people who watch TV love to see, while others may not like his antics. It’s typical Mike “The Mouth” acting like he has at the WSOP for 10+ years.
He ends up winning the pot, doesn’t berate anyone in the tournament, then celebrates loudly away from the table. Then, out of the blue Dave Lamb crosses the line of his duties in a big way by issuing Mike a one round penalty in the late stages of the game. This wouldn’t even happen in sports, as refs are typically very careful to call tacky fouls or penalties late in the game, and Mike’s “outburst” hurt no one.
For the sake of argument, let’s just say that Mike was guilty of excessive celebration according to the TDA rules. How in the world can you justify such a harsh penalty without issuing a simple warning prior to that decision? A simple, “Hey Mike, you have been warned. If you do that again you will get a one round penalty for excessive celebration.”
This is consistent with a major problem I have with quite a few of the TDA rules that go straight to a penalty without giving the players the benefit of the doubt, and the courtesy of a warning.
That needs to change. I don’t know how to make it change, but I needed to say something. We need to stop taking ourselves so seriously. Dave Lamb thought Mike celebrated excessively. Several of the players in the tournament disagreed and showed their support for Mike via twitter. Unfortunately, that can’t be reversed at this point, but I’m hoping that in the future we can all agree that a TD shouldn’t have such a heavy influence on the outcome of a tournament, ESPECIALLY without first issuing a warning. I can’t think of a good argument for punishing players so severely without a just, stern, and fair warning.
Too many of these automatic penalties hurt the amateur players in a big way. A couple examples:
1. Checking the nuts in position. It’s typically novice players who overlook their hand, or are just lost in the moment that do this. For example, a board reads KQJT and it’s checked to them and they check with the Ace without thinking. Giving him a penalty for this is absurd. ONE warning is sufficient, and if he does it again, a penalty is in order.
2. Turning your hand over before the action is done. This is ALWAYS an error by the player turning over his hand usually in a raising war where he believes that the two players are all in. Example: Player A bets 25k and Player B says raise and puts out 75k. Player A, thinking he is all in, quickly says call and turns his hand face up before the river is dealt. Not only does he suffer the penalty of having to play his cards face up for the rest of the hand due to his error, he is ALSO issued a penalty according to TDA rules? Atrocious. This happened to Alberto Tomba in San Remo, and YEARS later he is still afraid to enter an EPT event because he isn’t familiar with all the rules. A novice player scared away foolishly.
Poker is supposed to be fun guys, it’s not war. There is no need for a Nazi like enforcement of rules that don’t accomplish what they are designed to accomplish. If you are a tournament director, you would be wise to take a chill pill, keep it friendly, issue warnings followed by penalties when necessary, and do as little as possible to effect the outcome of tournaments that you haven’t risked a penny to play.
In the early part of the year I was doing my Leadership portion of ChoiceCenter, a course on Emotional Intelligence and I set three specific goals for that 3 month period. One of those goals was poker related, getting back in the top 15 of the GPI and quickly after completing the course I jumped to #1 and held that spot for about 19 weeks!
During leadership, you do what’s called a “PSP” which stands for “Personal Strategic Plan.” You set out a 3 month goal, and then write out a weekly plan on how to accomplish it. My poker PSP included poker study. I watched a lot of videos on www.pokerstars.tv, about 2-4 hours weekly. On top of that, I scheduled poker discussion sessions with friends I respect. Lastly, I watched some training videos on poker. You never get to a point in this game where you stop learning. I wasn’t really playing poker, but I was definitely doing “the work.”
For me, the leadership part of the course was by far the most valuable. The first weekend is called Discovery. That weekend is basically about discovering what holds you back from being as successful as you can be. The next weekend is called Breakthrough, and it’s about essentially “Breaking through” those walls and learning tools to help you accomplish goals that you will set in leadership.
In leadership, you work on your personal goals and are held accountable by coaches and a team dedicated to helping you achieve those goals. You also learn the value of making a difference in the world via a legacy project. My team raised $280,000 in a week for St. Jude’s children’s hospital, one of the top rated charities in the country. A whopping 86% of the money raised goes to the cause which is unheard of with most charities, as a vast majority of funds raised go into marketing and administrative fees. St. Jude’s has loads of volunteers and the hospital does work that changes the world, and they don’t do it for personal profit. They share their findings with the world so that more people with life threatening diseases can find hope.
My experience at ChoiceCenter was awesome and the results I’ve been able to create in my life as a result have been a fulfillment of things I could only dream of. Not just talking about the Player of the Year Awards in poker either. I’m physically the strongest I’ve ever been, easily in the best shape of my life. My relationships with friends and family are stronger and deeper than they ever have been. I have a clear vision for my life and the world. I get that I can make a difference for people, and I also see it as a life worth living. Making a difference. We all can in our own way.
I personally know over 100 people, many of them poker players, who have attended the course. Of all those people, I don’t know of a single graduate (someone who completed the 100 day journey) who had a bad experience and wouldn’t recommend it to their friends and family. I do know exactly 4 people who attended the first weekend, decided they weren’t open to it, didn’t like it, didn’t get it, and decided not to come back for the second weekend. Hey, it’s not for everybody.
From my experience I would guesstimate that about 3-5% of people that attend Discovery decide that it’s not for them. A class earlier this year had 107 people start the class, and by the end of the weekend 3 dropped out, while the other 104 continued on.
I know there are some people in the poker world that are very skeptical about the workshops at ChoiceCenter. I don’t take it personal, and I can speak from personal experience when I say that I believe in the work they do there and have seen results in my life, and in other peoples lives who have attended. The only naysayers I know of that attended, are people who essentially watched the first 10 minutes of a movie and decided that the movie sucked. They are entitled to their opinion, of course, but if I were going to see a movie and get a recommendation from someone, them actually seeing the entire movie would kind of be a prerequisite for me, but that’s just me.
The bulk of the naysayers are people who haven’t attended the course. They either read random postings from people they don’t know personally on the internet that claim to have had a bad experience, or they connect ChoiceCenter to similar programs from the early 80′s.
It’s been over a year now since I completed the course, and since then I have volunteered some of my time to coaching others so that they too can achieve their dreams. I’ve also attended a few signature courses, one course in particular called Masters is something I use in my daily life. It’s especially useful at the poker table after taking a bad beat or making a bad play.
The course is taught by Dr. Jorge Haddock, former dean of George Mason University. He is a brilliant man and that three day course was extremely powerful for me, especially in terms of my poker game. The course, like all ChoiceCenter weekends, is experiential learning, but this course in particular was more intellectually stimulating for me.
I also did a weekend Mens Retreat out in the woods, and for anyone who knows me, they know I’m NOT an outdoorsy guy at all! That was a real stretch for me to say the least, but in the end I enjoyed the weekend, made some good friends along the way, and also bonded more deeply with already existing friends, several of whom are poker players as well. I also realized that I’m just not “that guy” and I’m OK with that. My dad and my brother are both what you might call “manly men.” They can build a house from scratch. Me? Not so much!
As a kid growing up I was the shortest in my class, while my brother was already 6 ft tall by the 6th grade! That certainly caused some insecurities, being the shortest kid in your class will do that. I had a distorted sense of what it meant to be a man. My definition of a “real man” today looks more like this:
Accepting
Certain
Clear
Courageous
Compassionate
Generous
Giving
Honest
Inspiring
Loving
Open
Vulnerable
Those are the characteristics I identify as ones possessed by “real men.” A far cry from what society often sells us:
Bravado
Coldness
Muscles
Wealth
Womanizing
I’m a work in progress just like everyone else, but my vision is clear. I want to live my life possessing the characteristics of what I think a real man should be. I’m going to slip, that much you can bet on, but I’m committed to always righting the ship, course correcting, and getting back on track.
Often when I’m attacked, or feel as though someone is being condescending towards me, that little boy, the one that was the shortest in his class will punch back with fierce and fiery arrogance! I’m aware of that tendency I’ve had throughout my life, and just because I did work at ChoiceCenter doesn’t mean that disappears. I’ll always have that in me, but the difference is now I have both the self awareness and the tools to deal with it like… a real man.