If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

My friend Jack is from China. When he speaks English, he does so with a very heavy accent, and his word selection has on occasion caused me to reach for my pen to capture the moment. Like this one time…

We were playing shorthanded $40-80 limit hold’em in the middle of the night. A hand came up where I raised before the flop, and I raised on the flop. On the turn, it was headsup, me and Jack. Jack bet the turn and I called. On the river, Jack bet and I folded. Jack showed his cards. He had a very strong hand.

A little while later, the same thing happened. Jack and I played a pot, and on the river, Jack bet and I folded. Again he showed a good hand.

Soon after that, Jack raised from under-the-gun, and everyone folded around to me in the big blind. I folded. Jack showed pocket kings. What he intended to say to me was something that meant “You have a good nose for sensing when I have a good hand.”

What he actually said was, “You smell good.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This post was submitted by Tommy Angelo.  You can find more more blog posts by Tommy at www.tommyangelo.com. 

If you would like to contribute a post to billrini.com please see this page for guidelines.

Posted on Aug 24.08 to Poker | No Comments »  

I received an email tonight from Chris at Part Time Poker informing me that the submitted story I posted here titled History of Texas Hold’em was stolen from his site. Not wanting to jump to conclusions I emailed James Hatfield from The Absolute Nuts asking him to clarify. Before Chris James could answer in full James Chris pointed out that several of the articles from The Absolute Nuts appeared stolen.

I checked this out and the most recent post on The Absolute Nuts is an article titled “Starting Hand Nicknames.” I cut and paste the first paragraph and put it into Google and saw the same exact article, word for word, on About.com written by Bill Burton.

The second story on his site, WSOP- History, I did the same and found the same exact story on Poker.com. No author is attributed to this story on Poker.com’s website.

The third story on his site about the death of John Bonetti was word for word copied from the Telegraph.co.uk. Again, no author attributed to the story on the Telegraph.co.uk website.

The next post on his blog about Michael Phelps was word for word the same article on The Australian written by Ben English.

Mr. Hatfield has given no credit to any source. He claims he didn’t know he had to link back to the original source. I can only assume Mr. Hatfield has never written a report in his academic life. Even in primary school they require you to cite your sources in the footnotes or bibliography.

I really wish I could attribute this to an oversight or perhaps even a misunderstanding of copyright law but when someone repeatedly uses copyrighted material without making any reference back to the original source . . . well, that just seems intentional. I mean, there’s not even a “I saw this on . . .” sort of identifier that this work isn’t his.

Mr. Hayfield says on his website:

First thing Id like to say to all that have read my Blog is that I am sorry. I was unaware that i had to include links to site if Used other sites information I will do better in the future. I have since removed all post that did not include a link. Once again I am sorry. They may be re posted in the future with credit given to the original author. I did not mean to offend or cheat anyone

James T Hatfield

I wish I could accept that at face value but James intentionally tried to mislead me. When I go back to our communications prior to posting the article, his first email to me said:

yes i would love to write for you as well anything to get more people to my site

“I would love to write for you” pretty much indicates that he was attempting to have me believe that what he was sending me was his own work.

He sent me an article and then sent me another email shortly after with a subject line “sory i messed up the first draft heres another.” Again, the use of the word draft is meant to imply that he was making revisions to something he wrote. The revision he was making here was that he only copy and pasted part of the original article. He had left off several of the last few paragraphs and his follow up email was simply to include those chopped off paragraphs.

Sorry, but this is one of those pet peeves of mine. I get tired of seeing the words I’ve written on other people’s sites without so much as an attempt to give credit. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve run across Proof That Online Poker is Rigged on message boards and other websites where someone is attempting to take credit for my work.

All of this reminds me of a great quote:

If I plagiarize, it’s only because I like someone else’s idea better than mine and I want credit for it. Anna Chin-Williams

Fortunately, Chris from Part Time Poker has no problem with his article being posted here as long as it’s been properly attributed (which it is now). I would like to thank Chris for his understanding in all of this.

Posted on Aug 23.08 to Poker | 4 Comments »  

Invented by nomadic Druidsin the 3rd Century, its name originally could only be pronounced by a well-squeezed wolf. However, after the “Treat Thy Wolves the Way Thee Would Like to be Treated Act” of early Druid law, the name of the game was changed to “Toth Hoth Thoth” and could be easily spoken by humans, regardless of their being squeezed.

The original Hold em rules vary widely from their current manifestation. It was a game of fear, ritual sacrifice, and rarely involved playing cards. On the rare occasion a “deck” of “cards” was introduced to “Hoth Thoth,” one was guaranteed that all players would be cooked and “eaten on the morrow.” Consisting of one enormous card made of limestone, original Hold ‘Em decks weighed three tons and could only be dealt to a player if the dealer had the slaves necessary to move it (or if the players agreed before the game that should the card be needed, one simply had to point at it, and the others would understand that their “morrow-eating” was imminent, thereby negating the need to tire out anybody’s slaves).

By the 7th Century, Christianity had established itself on the British Isles, and with the consolidation of the old Pagan tribes came the incorporation of many of their rituals. Therefore, Hold ‘Em was an easy choice to make the transition into Christianity. At the request of the church, St. Jack of Canterbury gave the game a face-lift, and the rules were adjusted to fit a Christian model. The deck was expanded to seventeen suits, with number cards reaching into the forties. It was decided to keep the inevitable murder of the players, but it was deemed best that no one be eaten, for sanitary reasons. To pay him for his hard work, St. Jack was burned alive as a martyr: and that’s where we get the expression “pocket jacks.”

Over the next few centuries the game spread across the globe. In Ethiopia, it was used to ward off evil spirits. The Ottoman Empire was so fond of Texas Hold ‘Em that it was often called “Texas.” And then the first World Series of

It was 12th Century China, and the field of competition was crafty, ornery, and highly Chinese. The tournament lasted eleven years and participants were allowed six potty breaks. Favorites to win early on were Jing Ong ‘Ok, Jimmy Ray Tang, Krang Pra Po, Li Lin, and Doyle Brunson. The lead changed hands frequently, with many competitors dropping out due to exploding bladders until the field was whittled down to heads up between Li Lin and Doyle. Then one dewy morning, in the eleventh year, Li Lin went all in on a Dahli Parton bluff. Doyle was about to fold and let him steal the blinds when he changed his mind, took out the revolver he invented, and shot Lin in the face. And thus begun the Brunson Dynasty that ruled China with an iron fist for four hundred bloodstained years.

Inevitably, Texas Hold ‘Em would come to America, and boy did it come hard. It was such a sensation in the original thirteen colonies that its play by the revolutionary soldiers nearly cost America the war.

George Washington wrote in his diary at Valley Forge:

Dearest Diary,

I fear that this cursed Game will ruin our Chances for Liberty from those tax-hungry Britains. I can not recall a Time when the Prospects for Victory was as bleak as they are now. T’other Night, young Johnny and Jimmy Ray were to watch the Ridge over our Camp for incoming Red Coats, and just as Johnny was removing his Britches (for they were engaged in Strip Texas Hold Them) he took a British Bullet in his bare Bum-bum. His alarmed Yawp awoke the Men, and we beat back the Brits, but not without much Cost in Life and the Rumours that Johnny and Jimmy Ray were totally Homosexual with one Another. Not to mention that I e’en caught the Slaves playing Cards as well. Do they not know that we are fighting for Freedom here? I am at Wittingham’s End with this most Rotten of Sports. O what shall I do, sweet Diary? At least you understand me. You are my best friend for Forever.
Hugs and the most tender of Kisses,

Georgie

But the war was saved when Doyle Brunson flew over to England on his enchanted Pegasus and shot Kaiser Wilhelm in the face.

Which more or less brings the game up to date. So please, the next time you play Hold ‘em, take a moment of reverence to acknowledge the bloody centuries that lie beneath every hand you’re dealt. And don’t fuck with Doyle Brunson.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This post was written by Robb Telfer. You can read more quality content like this on the Part Time Poker website.

Posted on Aug 21.08 to Poker, Poker Humor | 1 Comment »  

Boss Media who runs IPN has been ordered by a Maltese court to cease commercial activity from their servers based in Malta before September 18th 2008.  PokerTrillion.com who initiated the suit against Boss Media is hyping up this story to make it seem like Boss Media and IPN will be completely offline on Sept 18. 

According to Gaming Intelligence Group, PokerTrillion.com CEO, Andy Pyrah, said: “Today’s decision will in effect bring down Boss Media’s operation in their licensed jurisdiction of Malta on September 18, and any partner still on the Boss (IPN) Poker Network at this stage will see their service closed down too.”

While it’s possible that Boss could be offline on Sept. 18, I think it’s highly unlikely.  IPN hosts fronts like Yahoo Poker, Virgin Poker, and Paradise so this isn’t some fly by night network.  They may not even have anything important still happening in Malta.  I know St. Minver that is somehow associated with Boss and IPN is located here in Gibraltar so who knows what they have here or there? 

Here’s what Boss Media has to say on their website in response:

Poker Trillion’s recent comments are a reckless attempt to support a legal action that is without merit and initiated as retribution for their dismissal from the Boss Media network. To be clear, player funds are not affected by the current proceedings. All players’ funds are held separately under the control of the Malta Lotteries and Gaming Authority and cannot be seized by any court.

Poker Trillion is a former customer of Boss Media who was terminated because of rake back violations. They have since then repeatedly tried to disrupt the Boss Media business through the dissemination of groundless rumors. In April 2008 Poker Trillion alleged in a press release a claim that among other things, Boss Media player funds were frozen. The allegations were false but typical of the type of tactics employed by Poker Trillion.

So you’ve got both sides of the story.  Who am I more likely to believe?  Well, that’s up to you but I’m inclined to go with something closer to Boss’ version. 

Posted on Aug 19.08 to Online Poker, Poker, Poker News | No Comments »  

Looks like the summer slowdown is kicking in.  The overall market was off about 5.5%.  A lot of that came from the 7.5% slide by Stars.  Microgaming had the biggest loss at 10% which followed a slightly down week the prior and an off week two weeks ago.  They’ve slipped below Pacific and seem to be running neck and neck with Bodog for bottom of the pack. 

Source PokerSiteScout

Party probably staved off a loss for the week on the back of its record breaking bad beat jackpot which crossed the $1 million dollar mark.  That comes the week following Party hosting a $1 million guaranteed that they crushed offering a $1.2 million prize pool. 

This week saw the FTOPS IX come to a close with their $2.5 million guarantee being played out on Sunday.  Tilt missed the guarantee by about $60K but they more than covered their loss in fees ($170,800).  It also came at the end of 17 other big events so not a bad. 

Tilt player yuvee04 was impressive winning back to back FTOPS events worth over $170K.

Posted on Aug 18.08 to Poker | No Comments »  

When we see these big guaranteed tournaments it’s often easy to look at the number of people who registered and the amount contributed to the prize pool and make a determination about whether the guarantee was met or not.  While, technically, from a player’s perspective this is all that matters, from a business perspective there is much more going on. 

Let’s say I’m running a $1000 guaranteed tournament with a $100 buy-in.  Obviously at 10 players it’s break even and anything over that is icing on the cake.  And if we have less than 10 players then we say that the tournament is offering an overlay equal to the difference between $100 times the difference in players to break even.

But what you don’t see in this simple calculation is how those 10 players got into the tournament.  If I gave out 2 seats in freerolls then my break even on a $1000 guarantee isn’t $1000 but $1200.  Likewise if I had a 2 seat guarantee qualifier and I only attracted enough players for 1 seat then my break even cost goes up to $1300. 

The reason I mention this is that players can still get an overlay on an event that has met it’s guarantee.  Probably the best way to do that is to play in the guaranteed qualifiers.  Many of these high-profile tournaments have to pump a lot of players in via qualifiers.  I’ll take a stab and say that the industry average is about 70% of a big event’s players are through qualifiers.  That’s a guesstimate because so many other factors come into play.  For instance, a $200 buy-in event will have more direct buy-ins than would a $1,000 buy-in event. 

If 70% of the entries are qualifiers then an event that needs 2000 players to break even will be qualifying approximately 1400.  That’s a lot of qualifier players.  And many of the qualifying tournaments will offer overlays. 

Most sites would rather eat it on the qualifiers where nobody is paying much attention than flop on the guarantee which will most certainly catch the attention of investors, players, and the industry.  Nobody wants to be seen as not being able to make a big guarantee on a marquee event so you could find a lot of value in the qualifiers where they may be giving out a lot of free seats in order to pump up their numbers for the target event. 

Your best bet for value is to wait for something big where the room has a lot of money on the line.  Think along the lines of FTOPS, WCOOP, Party’s recent Birthday Millions, etc.  Obviously the size of the room will dictate how "a lot of money on the line" is defined but what you’re looking for is a period where the room is trying to shovel as many players into an event or series of events as possible.

Then start taking note of which guaranteed qualifiers are missing their guarantees.  Chances are that if it misses once it will keep missing unless some other factor changes.  For instance, a tournament at off-peak hours may miss every day because of reduced liquidity at those hours.  Another tournament might only miss on Mondays.  Figure out the pattern of the losses and get some added value for free. 

Obviously, we’re not talking about a massive amount of EV here but it’s free so why not take it? 

Posted on Aug 17.08 to Online Poker, Poker, Poker Strategy | No Comments »  

The Party Poker BBJP went north of $1 million this week and below is the hand that took it down.  Full house beat by, quads, beat by a royal flush. 

***** Hand History for Game 7299704817 *****

0.50/1 Texas Hold’em Game Table (Limit) - Thu Aug 14 23:11:13 EDT 2008

Table Jackpot 1419013 (Real Money) — Seat 8 is the button

Total number of players : 10

Seat 1: ShoulderGuy ($102.28)

Seat 2: bucktooth1 ($28.80)

Seat 3: judith75 ($67)

Seat 4: wisard333 ($24.90)

Seat 5: pelusin111 ($14.90)

Seat 6: DismasX ($35.25)

Seat 7: fkjnyh ($12.25)

Seat 8: hc8601 ($22.90)

Seat 9: Hiyaall ($28.77)

Seat 10: chimbila007 ($28.30)

Hiyaall  posts small blind (0.25)

chimbila007  posts big blind (0.50)

** Dealing down cards **

Dealt to ShoulderGuy [  Kd,    Kh]

Dealt to bucktooth1 [xx, xx]

Dealt to judith75 [  9c,   9s]

Dealt to wisard333 [xx, xx]

Dealt to pelusin111 [xx, xx]

Dealt to DismasX [xx, xx]

Dealt to fkjnyh [xx, xx]

Dealt to hc8601 [xx, xx]

Dealt to Hiyaall [  Qc,   Ac]

Dealt to chimbila007 [xx, xx]

ShoulderGuy raises (1) to 1

bucktooth1 folds

judith75 calls (1)

wisard333 calls (1)

pelusin111 folds

DismasX folds

fkjnyh folds

hc8601 folds

Hiyaall calls (0.75)

chimbila007 folds

** Dealing Flop **:  [  Kc,   9h,   Tc]

Hiyaall checks

ShoulderGuy bets (0.50)

judith75 raises (1) to 1

wisard333 folds

Hiyaall calls (1)

ShoulderGuy raises (1) to 1.50

judith75 raises (1) to 2

Hiyaall calls (1)

ShoulderGuy calls (0.50)

** Dealing Turn **:  [  Jc]

Hiyaall checks

ShoulderGuy bets (1)

judith75 calls (1)

Hiyaall calls (1)

** Dealing River **:  [  9d]

Hiyaall bets (1)

ShoulderGuy raises (2) to 2

judith75 raises (3) to 3

Hiyaall raises (3) to 4

ShoulderGuy calls (2)

judith75 calls (1)

** Summary **

Main Pot: $24 | Rake: $1 | Jackpot Contribution: $0.50

Board: [  Kc,   9h,   Tc    Jc   9d]

bucktooth1 balance $28.80, didn’t bet (folded)

wisard333 balance $23.90, lost $1 (folded)

pelusin111 balance $14.90, didn’t bet (folded)

DismasX balance $35.25, didn’t bet (folded)

fkjnyh balance $12.25, didn’t bet (folded)

hc8601 balance $22.90, didn’t bet (folded)

chimbila007 balance $27.80, lost $0.50 (folded)

ShoulderGuy balance $94.28, lost $8

[Full House -   Kd,   Kh   Kc   9h   9d]

judith75 balance $59, lost $8

[Four of a kind -   9c,   9s   9h   9d   Kc]

Hiyaall balance $44.77, bet $8, collected $24, net +$16 

[Royal Flush -   Ac,   Kc,   Qc,   Jc    Tc ]

Judith75 wins Bad Beat Jackpot - $354,683.57

Hiyall wins - $177,341.79 + $24 from the POT!!!!

All other players win 22,167.72

Posted on Aug 15.08 to Online Poker, Poker, Poker News | 4 Comments »  

According to the rumor mill, Mason Malmuth has ordered 2+2 mods to pull links to quality strategy posts on the popular message board because they may be impacting book sales. 

There was even a post on the News, Views, and Gossip forum but it says that it’s been moved. 

But if you click on that link it takes you to a page saying that you are not authorized to view the page which seems very strange. 

So I did a search on the person who started the thread, jdrury12, and it says that he has no posts. 

However searching by keyword I do see jdrury12 has been registered on the site since Jan 2008 and has 30 posts to his credit. Weird. 

Obviously this is pure speculation but back in May Ed Miller posted that he had been pressured to pull his strategy articles off his website and put them behind a subscription wall.  Specifically he says "For the last nine months, behind the scenes, I’ve been receiving pressure and threats aimed at forcing me either to shut down Noted Poker Authority or to make the vast majority of the content available for pay only (sounds ridiculous, I know)."  I remember thinking at the time that it seemed odd that anyone would be threatening Miller.  The only conclusion I could come to was that it was from 2+2 Publishing or some other business partner who wasn’t happy that he was giving away so much for free. 

If this is true then I think it’s truly sad.  Not just that 2+2 would make it harder to find quality content on 2+2 but that they would resort to threats aimed at people like Ed Miller.  I credit much of what I know about poker to 2+2 and Ed Miller.  If it hadn’t been for Miller’s excellent strategy posts I would have never purchased his book. 

In a way, if this is true, I think 2+2 is acting like the RIAA.  Instead of being creative and trying to better monetize their content they’re attempting to penalize the users.  And they’re using the same analogies about authors (artists in the case of the RIAA) royalties being impacted to justify their actions.  Obviously Miller didn’t think his website was hurting his royalties but 2+2 did so they allegedly put the pressure on him to put his content behind a paid subscription wall. 

Posted on Aug 13.08 to Poker | 5 Comments »  

Bad news first:

Unless you’re one of the very select few who have the smarts, the necessary love of the game, enough gamble in you and the almost super-human discipline required to make it to the very highest echelons of poker players, chances are pretty low you’re going to get rich off of this game. "It’s a hard way to make an easy living," indeed. This text isn’t aimed at teaching you strategies to become a better player. Its goal is to give you a realistic idea not of what it takes to be a successful player, but what it is to be one.

This may come off as cheating, but the road to being a successful poker player starts with you defining what you mean with "success." If the idea seems foreign to you, or if all that comes to mind is some vague notion of making a million bucks, then you may certainly still make money but chances are you still won’t feel successful. I should know; I used to fit the bill.

For most smart people who are willing to put in some work, there’s no doubt that there’s money to be made at poker, online or live. But where many seem to fall short (or rather, outrageously long) is in their estimates of how much money they’ll be able to make. And the final showstopper is when they run head-first into the near certainty that is the Peter Principle. For those of you who haven’t heard of it before, I give you the definition from Wikipedia:

"[The Peter Principle] holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their ‘level of incompetence’), and there they remain."

This is true for most organizations, and doubly true for poker. Clearly, the hierarchy is there for us; we have different limits and stakes. We can move up from $10 buy-in tables to $25 buy-in tables, from $3/$6 limit hold ‘em to $5/$10, and so on. What makes it doubly true for poker isn’t that we move up, though, it’s that we ourselves get to decide when we’re ready to advance. And how many people do you know that objectively and honestly can judge their own talents?

What gets poker players into even bigger trouble is that when we’ve advanced to our level of incompetence, we’re not just sitting there, like the archetypical government official that I imagine Dr. Peter had in mind. Now we’re losing money. And since most of us aren’t very good at assessing our own skill, it’s often the case that we stubbornly keep bleeding chips, blaming everything but ourselves - "bad luck," "rigged site," etc. - for our inability to win. For many, moving down in stakes is a last resort and often comes with our own pride as a bitter pill to swallow. Some refuse to ever move down (some even move up!), and simply go broke.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

The fundamental reason this happens to so many people is because they have this notion of being winning players, as if that’s a digital measurement. They climb the ranks, but they don’t particularly know what they’re aiming for - just as long as they go up. In fact, for these people, winning money might not even be how they (consciously or otherwise) define success, but instead they focus on reaching new limits. Have you ever thought that way? Thinking to yourself that you’re shooting for limit X by, say, the end of next month? Isn’t that odd? Why have "moving up" as a goal?

Now, there is certainly evidence suggesting that people enjoy games that have levels. Look at any of the online multiplayer games, like World of Warcraft or EverQuest. You don’t even have to be that modern about it, look at Super Mario Bros! Their designers know exactly what draws people in; it’s that next level. Always reach for that next level. And amateur poker players, I contend, often view things in the same light. That next level. If I play this-or-that many hands at $50NL, I can move up. If I win another $200, I can advance. It becomes the end, not the means. And the big problem with having that sort of achievement as a goal is that the psychology of it may give you an anticlimactic feeling once you’ve reached it. So now you’re playing at a level with twice the buy-in you played for last month. What now - you’re done with poker? Or perhaps you have not thought about what you’ll do once you get there. Or, which my experience says is more likely, you figure that once you get there you’ll start to work towards the next level above that.

When I was fighting to move up the levels, I made money, no doubt, but I didn’t feel successful. I felt like I still had more work to do. Don’t get me wrong, challenging yourself is good. But when the only goal you have in mind is that next level, you’ve essentially undertaken the poker equivalent of Sisyphus’s punishment: just when you get there, you start over.

So in the end, it comes down to this: My suggestion is that you define success in a way that can eventually make you feel satisfied with what you have and where you are. Once I realized that I won’t be able to climb the ladder indefinitely, I also realized that I’m not going to be a hot shot pro at any point in my life. I’m not good enough. I never will be good enough. But the trick is that now I’m perfectly satisfied with beating the small stakes online games for some change here and there. I’m enjoying the mental challenge of poker while padding my paycheck a little.

In my book, that makes me a successful poker player.

And if you can do the same, find a reasonable and achievable goal, then hopefully you, too, can feel successful. The downside is that you will probably have to get used to the idea that in the end, your career winnings won’t buy you a tropical island. And maybe accepting an extra income of "only" $100 (or $1,000 or whatever amount you end up with) a month seems like you’re settling for less than you had hoped. But on the flipside, you can avoid the dangerous tendency of constantly striving to move up, and the Peter Principle will never apply to you. And you can feel happy about what you do achieve.

In my book, that would make you a successful poker player.

BLURB: Fredrik Paulsson occasionally manages to practice what he teaches, and you can read more about and from him in his blog

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This post was submitted by Fredrik Paulsson.  You can find more more blog posts by Fredrik at fredrikpaulsson.blogspot.com.

If you would like to contribute a post to billrini.com please see this page for guidelines.

Posted on Aug 12.08 to Poker | No Comments »  

When I play no-limit hold’em, sometimes I’m a minimum wager wagerer. And I don’t mean minimum wager wagerer as in ‘one who tries to bet the smallest amount that will get them to fold if they have nothing,’ such as when the flop is A-A-6 rainbow and a bluffer bets half the pot or thereabouts. I’m talking here about minimum wager as in the absolute lowest legal limit. Sometimes I do it because I think it’s the best play and sometimes I do it because I’m a silly boy.

Last week I made three minimum wagers in one night, at The Venetian. The first two were about 20 minutes apart in a $2-5 blinds game.

Four players limped, including the small blind, and I checked in the big blind.  The pot was $25. The flop was a scattered rainbow. I flopped no pair and no draw. The small blind lifted his hand to check, and I put my thumb on the trigger. As soon as his fingers hit the felt, I frisbeed a $5 chip from my stack. It landed without a bounce, just across the betting line. The script from this point typically takes one of two lines. If anyone raises, I’m out. If more than one person calls, I scrutinize them, and usually I come to the
conclusion that they won’t call a big bet on the turn, because history has shown that usually they won’t. Sometimes I’ll get a feeling that a caller is sandbagging with a hand that can stand a big turn bet, such as an overpair or a set or top-pair-top-kicker, but that’s really rare, because 1) they usually don’t have a hand that good, and 2) if they do,
they usually can’t stand to just call a one-chip flop bet. It’s an awkward spot for them, but not for me, because I’ve often been down this road less travelled.

Two players called the $5 bet and the small blind folded. So now the pot was $40, and I would be first to act on the turn. As soon as the turn card hit the table, I bet $50, using two backspun green chips. I mucked and tipped in one motion, a few milliseconds after the second guy folded.

So now I was well on my way to establishing my preferred image, which is WET (weird-tight).

One round and two hands later, I was on the button with pocket fives. Several players limped, I called, the small blind called, and the big blind checked. The pot was $30. The flop was K-T-5 twotone. The small blind bet $20, and everyone folded to me. We both had about $1,000. I thought he was more likely to have a draw than a pair/two-pair/set, but I wasn’t sure enough either way to make any big calls or big laydowns based on this inkling.

I made it $60. He called, and based on the way that he didn’t fold and didn’t raise, I became more sure that he was on a draw, but not super sure. The turn paired the king. I didn’t think this was the kind of player who would call a half-pot-or-bigger bet here with a draw (possibly drawing dead), and I didn’t think he’d be able to contain himself if he had three kings, so when he checked the turn, I was ready. I bet $5 into the $150 pot. There were a couple snickers from the other end of the table, which is a common play from the kibitzers on a hand like this. The small blind took a little while here, I think he was tempted to raise, but then he just called the $5. The river was an offsuit ace. That card made a straight if he had QJ, and it made top pair if he had the nut flush draw, and when he checked, I didn’t get any kind of read on whether he had anything or not, so I went ahead and slung a $100 chip out there in case he did. He folded right away.

Soon after that I moved to a $5-10 blinds game. I bought in for the minimum $400. There was no maximum buy-in. Two rounds later, there was one guy whose stack had gone from $6,000 to $2,000 while I watched. He was frustrated and tilty. During his downswing, which spanned five flops, he had shown two hands to his neighbor before folding while saying, ‘So you think I’m running good?’ This made me think he actually had run good to get up to $6,000, and his neighbor must have said something like ‘You’re running good.’

On my next button, I made my stack $2,000. I start many tables this way, buying in small and then adding on later. When I have the small stack, I play very few hands, and when I have the tall stack, I play a few extra pots against certain players. I don’t know what sort of image this rates to generate. What would you think?

The tilty guy opened for $40 UTG. Folded to me on the button. I had 86o. I called and both blinds folded. Headsup. We both had $2,000. This was the first hand of the session that I called preflop. (I had reraised preflop a couple times when my stack was $400, and everyone folded.)

The flop was 9-7-5 with two hearts, giving me the okeydokes. My opponent bet $100 into the $95 pot. I made it $300. Right away he said ‘Call’ destitutely, and then he put two $100 bills in. Would he call like that with just two overcards? I didn’t think so. Would he just call with an overpair? I didn’t think so. So I had to put him on a flush draw. I was ready to bail if a heart came and he acted weak and bet strong. The turn was an offsuit deuce. He checked. I bet $700. ‘Call,’ he said right away. Then he put the money out. The river was an offsuit three. The instant it hit the table, he pulled his cards up off the table so that his neighbor could see them and said, ‘Is this what you call running good?’ I didn’t think he had even ace-high. If I had to guess his exact cards I would say jack-ten of hearts. He checked. I bet $10.

BLURB:  Tommy Angelo wrote a book called "Elements of Poker."  Tommy is also a poker coach.  You can read many details about his book and his coaching at his website: www.tommyangelo.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This post was submitted by Tommy Angelo.  You can find more more blog posts by Tommy at www.tommyangelo.com. 

If you would like to contribute a post to billrini.com please see this page for guidelines.

Posted on Aug 11.08 to Poker | No Comments »