The Short Stack Hero

Happy 31st Birthday Jessica!

2012-01-15T18:26:00.000-05:00

The Null Flop, pt. II

2012-01-13T09:00:00.000-05:00

In my last article concerning the null flop, I ended with the beginning process of reading a donk bettor's hand on a K99 rainbow flop by first understanding his common flat range. If you have not yet done so, please read the previous article, lest you become hopelessly lost and confused as we move forward.

As it stands, the red-outlined ranked hands below are the only ones we will concern ourselves with, being that your typical villain has little to no desire to draw to a backdoor flush when out of position. Notice how I include all gutshots as hits, as they not only give villain some small chance to improve, they also allow him the ability to bluff even when he misses if some inconsistency in your betting pattern is detected.

Facing off against the widest possible villain flat range (most ranges won't include the weakest suited kings, etc.), we can see that he connects at least weakly with this flop just under 50% of the time. From here, we need to divide the two basic actions of betting and checking and determine which hand ranges are appropriate for each one. Check-raising is excluded from this specific flop because any villain worth his salt will quickly realize that this aggressive action can't possibly be supported by his range when contrasted with our own, i.e. all check-raises look like they are begging for a fold as few hands within our own range can bet/all in.

When villain checks:

Again, if we assume that he is only giving up in those rare instances when he flops a weak ace high, he is likely going into check/call mode with the very top of his range (due to the deck being crippled), as well as AA (occasionally donked, yet rare), some 9x, as well as all Kx hands, which are effectively now all bluff-catchers due to domination concerns.

The presence of the gutshot here might present something of an oddity to experienced players. Notice how I listed the appropriate response as a check/call. Since clearly he does not have the odds to draw to the gutshot, why is this appropriate? It's simple: by check/calling, he gets to realize the full equity of his hand because he can sometimes improve to a pair and win if hero just bets once with his air and then gives up on the turn and river. If you combine that with his ability to bluff if his draw bricks out after hero checks the turn, he now has a very profitable play on his hands.

When villain leads out:

Now we are down to business. Since villain's top pair range is severely weakened by domination concerns, we can scratch this possibility from the list. Though he might also choose to lead with AA, this most radical scenario that fails to include card removal from our own open raise range and a 0% 3-bet frequency on his end makes this a complete non-factor at just over 2%. We can effectively exclude this from his donking range entirely.

Adding all this up means that his donking range is severely polarized between air (50.4%) and trip 9's (12.9%). If we give him full credit for having trip 9's as well as all air when he donks, that means he is almost 4 times as likely to have nothing as he is to have a 9!

So we should raise every donk bet, right? Right?!

WRONG.

Check back in for The Null Flop, pt. III as I walk through every step from the flop to the river!

The Donk Bettor's Delight: The Null Flop, pt. I

2012-01-06T15:58:00.011-05:00

Null Flop: a flop that typically has all of these specific characteristics

1) It contains a pair.

2) It contains zero flush draws.

3) There is at least a 3 gap between the pair and the remaining card.

Drier than the Sahara Desert, the null flop, by it's very definition, is extremely difficult to hit in any meaningful way, despite how tight or loose the players involved in the hand are. When I say "meaningful", I mean hit in such a way that it can support 3 streets of legitimate betting action vs. a thinking player and creates this massive black hole of null ranges for both opponents in a heads up pot. Here are three examples:

Tc Td 4h
As 5h 5d
Kh 9s 9c

Many open-raisers are of the opinion that you can bet all your air with immunity on these types of flops, believing that they either tend to hit your opponent very hard or not at all.

And they would be right unless, of course, that particular villain is thinking precisely the same way you are and decides to take the lead in the betting with a donk bet, which is typically 2bb in a 20bb CAP setting. Perhaps it would be helpful to stop thinking in terms of the derogatory term "donk bet" and begin thinking of it more as a "reversed c-bet".

Before analyzing any of these specific flops, you must first begin thinking in terms of ranges. If you grew up in or around Russia, where apparently the only type of poker that they have been exposed to is played (coincidentally?) with exactly 20 big blinds at all times, your BB flat range vs. a standard button open of 33.3% will look something like this:

The specifics of the range are not nearly as important as noticing what this range almost never consists of: strong aces and small-middle pairs. There is a premium placed on suitedness and connectedness, but very rarely will villain sneak up on you with complete trash, although they will show up with the occasional KK or AA. Essentially, you are looking at a range of hands that can flop or draw well but tend to be undervalued in 3-bet situations even if they do still show a profit when shoved, like Q9s or KJo.

Now, let's look at how this flat range connects with Kh 9s 9c by means of Flopzilla, assuming that all hands will be distributed in equal proportions (they won't, of course):

And now villain leads into you...what does this mean?? Check back early next week to find out on the The Null Flop, pt. II!

Introduction to Donk Bet Counter-Strategies

2012-01-06T15:48:00.004-05:00

Donk bet: the act of defending vs. a raise when out of position after limping or calling from the blinds and then leading into the raiser with a bet.

For these next several articles, I am going to explore the psychology and methods of donking that you will encounter. Rather than giving the solution (which I have), I first want to lay out the criteria for understanding why players are flocking to this increasingly important move in the 20bb CAP player's arsenal, as I feel that only if players understand the "why" first will they then be able to understand the "how" of defending against it.

I plan on doing this by introducing two special kinds of flops and their variants: the null flop and the "as yet to be cleverly named" other flop :)

An Interview With Max "Chisness" Chiswick, Prospective Isle of Man Representative

2012-01-05T13:10:00.005-05:00

As you readers are probably acutely aware, the recent rake calculations from Poker Stars have caused quite a stir amid the poker population as they have shifted from the dealt method of rake calculation to weighted contributed, which is now the industry standard. In response to the uproar in the Two Plus Two community and the subsequent strike, Stars has confronted the issue and offered to alleviate it by selecting 4 respected members of the poker community to travel to the Isle of Man and work directly with Stars management to settle the matter. One of the volunteers is short stack legend, Max "Chisness" Chiswick. I knew him intimately from our confrontations on the felt, but thought it was best to delve further into his plans and intentions before offering my personal support to his cause.

Lorin: 20bb CAP was created as a solution to the short stacker problem in larger stack buy in games. Do you think it has solved this problem effectively?

Chisness: I think it's solved the problem of the anti-shortstackers having legitimate arguments (e.g. there shouldn't be overlap in stakes, not fair to have such a large gap in buy in sizes) against us, but feel like 20-50bb (or 20-40bb on FTP) was a fair compromise and overall better.

It involved the risk/reward of having to stick around with deeper stacks to attack a deeper recreational player. It had much more revolving of players at each table (many ss'ers leave after doubling), which led to shorter waitlists. Since full stackers had the option of deeper only tables, the 20-50bb solution should have been acceptable.

Lorin: I have heard reports that many of those strongly opposed to short stacking only gave their public support to 20bb CAP because they (falsely) believed that no one would want to play it. Now that many recreational players have flocked to this game, these very same players are once again in an uproar. Legitimate arguments aside, do you feel that their frustration is in any way justified?

Chisness: No, I think this proves that recreational players clearly like playing with shorter stacks as they've stuck with them throughout all the changes. I understand their frustration, but they're the ones who defeated the 20-100 games in the first place. If they want to be able to play with short recreational players (I remember always loving seeing the 20-40 buyin guys at the full tables) then they should accept these 20-100 games back rather than trying to attack the CAP games.

Lorin: That has been my observation as well. Before playing full time at FTP before finally ending up at Stars, I was a strong supporter of the Cake network. They were one of the very first networks to strike back against short stacking back in April of 2010, even though it never reached any "critical" level there. However, once the buy in was raised to 30bb, I noticed a massive dropoff in traffic, particularly that of the recreational player. I could only conclude that the rec players actually desired to play with small stacks. That being said, do you feel that there is room for short stack poker, mid stack poker and deep stack poker to exist side-by-side without cannibalizing each other?

Chisness: I think there will automatically be some harm done to the alternatives when multiple options are given (Wal-Mart being put in next to Target will always make things worse). Deep [100bb minimum] seems to be a fairly niche offering that isn't super popular so isn't too relevant. It makes sense for there to be a separation between short (CAP) and mid (regular) because of the uproar previously discussed so I think having 2 main levels is the best overall alternative to keep the majority happy. The only potential change that would make sense is switching back from CAP to 20-50, but that seems unlikely to happen and isn't really part of my goals in this meeting.

So I don't think they're killing each other, they're just making each offering more difficult than if there were only one.

Lorin: Ok, now that we have those things addressed, let's move to the original purpose of this discussion. Once the "natural advantage" of short stacking was essentially handicapped by the introduction of 20bb CAP, many of the players who stuck around began noticing a new problem, which is that of the rake. I noticed that your PTR graph has seemed stagnant over the past several months. Do you attribute that to the rake or is it something else?

Chisness: Well I think a lot of it was due to autopiloting and not keeping up properly with the games by studying. Also, other factors like the games generally getting tougher, fewer rec players, Black Friday, etc.

However, I do think rake is a big problem. As a percentage of rake my winrate (and everyone else's) has been getting smaller and smaller. I mentioned on 2+2 that when virtually no one can make a decent profit at a game, that the rake should be fixed (at what point that happens is unclear, but tons of graphs have flatlined lately). The rake has been essentially the same since Stars launched (I think), but it's important to put rake in the context of winrates. 8 years ago rake of 4bb/100 may have been half of a solid player's winrate, but now it's generally 2-4x or even much more.

Others have said in the forums that the structure of poker rake in general is pretty crazy and that it's got to be by far one of the most expensive games in the world (especially when compared to many games that offer monthly flat fees or hourly fees). This is unfortunately out of scope for my arguments, but seems very open for discussion now that the rake has crushed so many winrates.

Lorin: I was initially appalled by the announcement of the rakeback changes at Stars. However, after I had time to absorb the information and the public response from Stars, I came to the conclusion that they are making a genuine effort to restore balance to their overall gaming structure and thinking of what is best for their longterm goals, which are, in fact, in alignment with the goals of the players as well. Yet, even with the best of intentions, they can easily overlook flawed rake structures in existing games and potentially damage them further. I am thinking specifically of NL50-100 at 20bb CAP.

I understand that you are a midstakes player, but creating a healthy feeder system through the lower limits impacts you directly as well. Do you have any specific plans to address the rake problem at the small limit games if you are chosen to represent us at the Isle of Man?

Chisness: Firstly addressing CAP, before going I'd like to do some research into comparing CAP rake rates at same stakes with regular NLHE rake rates.

As for the stakes like NL50-100 (CAP and non), that problem is one of the biggest I've seen and seems like one of the most important to address. I wrote in my bio that Stars right now has increased VPP multipliers for the smallest limits (like NL5), but switching these to rake reductions instead and expanding the rake reductions to more stakes is crucial for, as you put it, a healthy feeder system that lets winners keep more *cash* in the system to move up through the stakes.

There's a fair chance that these sorts of indirect (to midstakes CAP) changes will be the core of what we're able to do in these meetings, so I'm going to be sure to do some rake analyses of these stakes as well in order to paint a picture of how it changes throughout the stakes. As potentially the only NLHE guy going, it's crucial for me to look at the lower stakes as well.

Lorin: I get lots of coaching requests from people who have literally never played online cash games before. Rather, they are looking to make a "soft" transition from their daily grind of SNGs or MTTs into the world of NL cash games while limiting their overall risk exposure. Looking at it from this perspective, I suppose it could be interpreted that CAP games are actually doing a service to the overall community of NLHE cash game players by, once again, creating a solid feeder system. However, I worry that if I direct them to the small limits which are, it appears, difficult to beat based on structure alone, they might become discouraged and return to the games they are familiar with. Do you think that emphasizing this idea to Stars management might sway them to apply more focus in this area?

Chisness: I think focusing on the general idea that "predatory" rake that makes games close to unbeatable (I can mention this is especially true of newer players who enter at these lower stakes) is certainly terrible for players and the health of the ecosystem, but may also be bad for PokerStars when so many players are discouraged from playing, not telling their friends about it, and generally just not enjoying the game.

Lorin: I would say that you are somewhat of a cultish figure in poker right now, well known among short stackers and 20bb CAP players, but perhaps not a recognizable name to the community at large (though I admit that I may be wrong about this). Even though you are an expert at navigating the Poker Stars rewards system, do you feel that having recently spent your career focused on short stack strategies can create too large of a stigma for you to garner support from the wider poker community? Basically, what I am asking is: why should non-CAP players support you?

Chisness: Well, there is a stigma with non-short players respecting anyone who does CAP/short which I can't do much about, but I have been playing seriously since around 2007 and spent from around 2006 to 2009 playing non-short poker, so hopefully that doesn't get completely overlooked.

More importantly, I am at the moment the main 6max NLHE representative option and pledge to do my best to support all 6max NLHE games, not just those that I play. I'm very willing to listen to advice from players at any game type or stake within 6max NLHE to consider their viewpoints.

Finally, many changes that affect my own games will also affect the wider poker community and non-CAP games, so my general analytical skills and poker experience are important to look at.

Lorin: Do you have any specific sources of information that you have planned to turn to in regards to how the WC change will affect other games? Essentially, do you have knowledgeable contacts who play other games besides 20bb CAP with whom you speak with on a regular basis?

Chisness: Unfortunately, since Black Friday and because I'm American, most of my friends aren't playing anymore. I think it's very important to get some data to compare dealt vs. WC and each indivdually across the stakes at CAP and regular NLHE 6max. If selected, I'd first make a spreadsheet listing the exact data I need to acquire. I'd then either request the data from Poker Stars directly (to be given either in advance or at their HQ) or go to 2+2 to get the data manually from [the players].

Lorin: Lastly, if no changes or improvements are made to the rake structure, do you think that Poker Stars is still the best place to play moving forward into 2012 and beyond?

Chisness: Poker Stars generally has better rake than other sites (and many other sites use WC as well), has a better rewards system, better game selection options, better software, and seems much safer (see recent botting scandals on other top networks). They've also shown much good faith in canceling the changes they made and letting this meeting convene to address them (and generally communicating well with players).

If I didn't play many tables, I might look into another top network, but would only move to that if I thought my hourly would be noticeably higher.

If you would like to lend your support to Chisness, you can cast your vote here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28/internet-poker/2p2-community-choose-your-reps-negotiate-pokerstars-1148227/

Thanks to you Max, and best of luck in the polls!!

Out of Retirement and Back to Blogging!

2011-12-31T15:11:00.008-05:00

The following new post is in response to my friend Gary's newest piece on his excellent new blog. I went to use the comment box but realized that as the words kept flowing, it would be much more appropriate to designate the comment as a complete post on its own where I could add all the relevant links with ease.

To begin, please read Gary's commentary on the new proposed rakeback changes for Poker Stars players here.

Here is my response:

Unfortunately, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a response from Poker Stars pros. Quite frankly, it ain't gonna happen....

They are surely under some sort of contract, not to mention, if they are receiving 100% Rakeback currently, any potential changes do not affect them AT ALL (or at least, minimally).

This goes back to a potential solution that I have been rolling around in my head aimed specifically at rake reduction for CAP players. Being that the CAP communities are probably less segmented from other player pools (we are more connected/share more knowledge, etc. through various information hubs), it is not inconceivable that a gentleman's agreement could be reached to "chop" in all blind vs. blind scenarios between regulars, as this is where most rake is taken from the player pool. This could be done simply by having the small blind fold all hands when the action is folded around to him, regardless of the cards he holds. The EV of both players would now become exactly zero.

Of course, the fish wouldn't know or cooperate, but that is fine. More importantly, the players who perform best in the blinds, especially the rare few who post an actual positive winrate when opening the SB might not like the idea so much. I am thinking specifically of guys like MistTheFlop, x_QUIXTAR_x, RaiseMoon, and Alphafoil.

Pause and think for a moment about small winrate players like Alphafoil who simply kick ass from the SB. If he were forced to abandon his winrate from opening the SB when BvB, he might no longer be a net winning player before RB is calculated. Therefore, I strongly suspect that Alphafoil would be resistant to any specific changes that would cause a negative impact to his overall income.

In light of this idea, think of how this concept could be extended to current Poker Stars pros and how it becomes significant when you begin thinking about certain short stackers who have struggled in the new 20bb CAP game era, like WizardOfAhhs. His position concerning rake changes must be quite difficult because if he takes any action that could potentially threaten his pro status that causes it to be revoked, he might no longer be a net winner in the game if he continues to use strategies that are now obsolete in the post-short stacking era. To see evidence of this, all you need to do is reference the graphs of how certain players have performed on PokerTableRatings after February 2011. Previous short stack legends such as WizardOfAhhs, IMSAKIDD and Chisness have flatlined, while on a rather tragic note, 1Bunn and matate have gone into a complete nosedive.

I know this all sounds completely cynical, but I can't argue with the logic of responding to any potential rake changes with anything more than silence if you are an employee of Poker Stars with your job at stake.

Retiring SSH- Please Follow My New Blog!

2011-08-23T23:08:00.003-04:00

Unfortunately, due to Black Friday and the changes it has made to my poker career, I no longer feel it wise to maintain this blog. It is not that I don't have anything else to say on the subject of poker (I have plenty, believe me), but rather, I am not in a place to discuss my current goings on in that regard.

However, I am happy to say that I can finally take my writing in a new direction, one which I have been wanting to do for a while, but much of which I did not feel fit with this theme. I didn't want to taint what I considered to be a quality poker blog by discussing off topic things like philosophy, non-poker books, current affairs, or whatever. I will now have the freedom to write on any topic or post links to whatever I feel like, and I am anxiously waiting to see where it goes.

To all of you who have followed and supported me over the last 3 years, I will be forever grateful, and things would be amiss if you did not follow me on to this next project. Hope to see you there!

http://lorinyelle.blogspot.com

P.S. You damn well better believe that I am still coaching/teaching short stacking and 20bb CAP strategy! Click here if you are interested:

Short Stack Revolution

Keeping a Poker Journal

2011-06-20T23:48:00.002-04:00

(Apologies for going so long without an update - I actually have two other blog posts in the works but they both kind of turned into "bit off more than I could chew" scenarios.)

So, I don't know what's going on lately. I feel like I've been playing well, doing the same things I always do, with one significant change: I am suddenly sucking at poker.

Anyone else had that feeling?

I should say, I didn't know what was going on at first. Then, I opened up something I haven't in awhile - a MS word document titled, "Poker Journal."

My poker career maybe hasn't been as long as some others, but I've been doing this for over a year now, and I've learned a lot of things, from a lot of different people, and from myself, too. All of that learning and studying and practicing pulled me from marginal microstakes loser to significant mid stakes winner. There's just one problem: Most of what I learned just doesn't stick.

It's not my fault, really. Studies show that no matter how good people think they are at remembering things, human memory is actually pretty crappy. No matter how much they do things by feel, they're wrong as often as right. So here I am, my knowledge slowly slipping, my play slowly regressing, until that stubborn microstakes loser is piloting my mouse in a handful of 5/10 games. Whoops.

The poker journal is the fastest and most efficient way to stuff the skeleton of that microstakes loser back in the closet. For example, when I took the Short Stack Revolution course, my VPIP went up, my 3bet stat went up, and the difference between my VPIP and PFR shrunk by a lot. But over time, that stuff started slipping. Without a journal, I'm screwed. I either have to go back and learn everything from the beginning, or, even worse, I have no idea what has slipped and I have no way back. The journal turns days or weeks of hard study into a one hour refresher course.

If you're like me, you flirt with the line between profession and addiction with poker (okay, actually I do that with everything I enjoy). Even on my days off, I'm constantly thinking about past plays, new lines, math tweaks, or whatever. Now, I know you think you'll remember it and apply it later. The honest truth is, you usually won't. The poker journal serves as a quick catch-all for all the wild poker thoughts roaming around in your brain.

Usually I try to update my poker journal about twice a month, once with thoughts about whatever I am digging through (even if it's something relatively devoid of strategic content), and once with an analysis/report of how the month turned out, plus whenever the impulse strikes me or I learned something specific I don't want to forget.

It might seem like a waste of time when you're doing it, but when you need it later, it'll prove invaluable. My suggestion: Take an hour a month and give it a try.

Apocalypse Nope

2011-05-22T00:15:00.000-04:00

WARNING: Video spoken in the international language of comedy

Pondering the Aftermath

2011-04-20T21:06:00.004-04:00

Update: The official statement is, apparently, that Full Tilt and Pokerstars have reached an agreement with the DoJ and will return all US players money, as well as continue service outside the United States, presumably in exchange for obscene amounts of money in fines.

However, at this point, the DoJ is saying "hey, we don't want your money, we'll make sure FT gives it back" while FT says "Hey, we want to give you your money, but the DoJ has it and won't give it up.

It's probably a waiting game at this point.

Friday April 15 is certain to become a legendary date in online poker history, as the United States Department of Justice issued a scathing indictment against three major poker sites: Pokerstars, Full Tilt Poker, and Absolute/Ultimate Bet.

With the apparent removal of 20bb tables from Party Poker, Pokerstars and Full Tilt are rapidly becoming not only the best places to play, but the o

nly places, if you're a short stack player. If you're an American, then it's no choice at all.

I wish there was more that could be said on the topic, but for now it's all questions and no answers. It's unclear as to when (if) American players will be able to access their bankrolls on these sites, and these poker giants are currently blasted with epic volumes of customer e-mail, and hesitant to change customer addresses (I suspect their suspicions may be aroused by the thousands who allegedly managed to relocate outside the U.S. mere days after the announcement.)

For the record, my next blog post wasn't going to be about this at all. It was going to be about the importance of taking time off from your regular poker play. I guess I jinxed us all, because we're all getting a bit of time off. Even if you're not an American player, game quantity is shrinking and shifting considerably.

For those of you that don't know, I currently live in South Korea. My wife and I went on vacation to the port city of Busan, famed for its beautiful beaches. Yep, that means Asian swimsuit girl post-savers.

Thanks a lot, Department of Justice.

So for now, we wait.

I'm one of the "lucky" few, planning on moving to Canada in the next few months anyway to rebuild. How to rebuild is still a big question. It's a question that will likely remain unanswered in the coming weeks, as the dust on this won't settle anytime soon.

Good luck everyone, no matter how your poker is (or isn't) going. If the poker community can use their collective "one time" to find a strong way through this, I'd submit now is the time to bust it out.

No Joke This Time- Short Stack Revolution Video 5 is Now Free

2011-04-09T02:43:00.001-04:00

I decided to offer the segment titled Single Caller IP 1 as a free sample. No need to worry about getting Fricke Rolled this time, just CLICK HERE and fill out the form and you will be provided a special link for download.

Feel free to leave some comments here, but only after you have watched it. :)

Building True Loyalty in Online Poker

2011-04-05T13:12:00.004-04:00

I read recently on Bill Rini's excellent blog which covers the online poker industry that the concept of "Loyalty" programs are a complete joke. Poker is essentially a commodity business so most players will rationally act in their own self-interest and respond to whoever offers them the best financial incentives. I generally agreed with this but got to thinking about ways that this could be changed.

Of course, when we are referring to loyalty programs, this generally only applies to players of the high volume nature. While liquidity from recreational players is ranked the highest in terms of value, we still can't overlook the role played by high volume regulars whose play is necessary to run the engine that grinds recreational money down into rake for the site.

I received my Full Tilt Black Card in November. I was fully expecting it to be just another piece of laminated card board, but was pleasantly surprised to find out that it was a credit card shaped piece of painted steel with my name inscribed on it. I know it's kind of cheesy, but I couldn't help but feel a little bit of pride while feeling it's weight in my hand. Kind of like a trophy, I always thought.

On the surface, this can also be said of many of the items with Full Tilt's logo that can be found littered throughout their store, but herein lies the problem: once you have items that can be exchanged for points in lieu of cash based rewards that can be purchased with the same points, you have forever tainted the symbolic value of those items. Let me explain:

Rakeback Nation has a great rewards system that offers items that can be exchanged for points built up by generating rake. Unlike items bought at an online poker store for points, getting these items does not deduct from your rakeback in any way. Similarly, there are no optional bonuses or gift cards that you have to pass up. What does this mean? This means that I can thoroughly enjoy the Kindle that I "achieved" without having to feel like I paid for it.

While Full Tilt can counter that they offer a special avatar or watch for those who finish first in their FTOPS or Mini-FTOPS events respectively, since everyone understands that only one winner gets to enjoy these symbolic items and that there is a certain amount of luck needed to achieve them, they are not an appropriate way to incentivize play. In the same vein, having your handle being listed on any kind of anonymous monthly leaderboard only to have it swept away the following month doesn't feel like your accomplishments are exactly being appreciated, either. And just how are they recognizing such achievements? By offering cash and buy in tokens, of course! Once again, Bill Rini is right: all the sites are doing this and again reducing their product into a commodity business. While this might be good for future advertisements of one's coaching services, it doesn't exactly appeal to someone's emotions and sense of loyalty.

Here is my proposition: the sites should begin mailing out actual trophies and plaques that recognize personal, stakewide, and sitewide milestones that are achievable to anyone who grinds hard enough. Furthermore, they should offer a permanent place on the site for a "Hall of Fame" for various achievements where a player can choose to be awarded with a photo and their real name. Here are some suggestions:

Stakewide and Sitewide (based on minimum number of hands played):

Most hands played
Most money earned
Highest winrate
Most first place finishes
Most knockouts
Most cashes
Most final tables

Personal:

$10k in career winnings
$100k in career winnings, etc.
$10M in total wagers, etc. (doesn't mean much, but makes you look a total baller)
100k hands played in a month, etc.
Best poker blog ;)

It is no secret in business that people have bigger needs than just wanting more money- they want full appreciation for the work that they do. Most of the work done by poker players is never recognized in any formal way- even for those at the top of their craft. What player do you know that wouldn't want a special trophy room dedicated to honoring his achievements in a way that his friends and family can understand? And how do you think they would feel towards the site that finally acknowledged such performances in a tangible way?

Let me know what you think!

Introduction of a Poker Player, Part 2

2011-03-24T00:39:00.006-04:00

Serious question time. Are you losing at this game?

Check your gut response (of course I’m not!) at the door and ponder it. How much do you make? How much time does it take you to get it? How do you feel when you’re done?

Keep in mind that in poker, the only reason anyone makes any money at all (and they do) is because there are hordes of people who don’t realize they are losing. If they did, they’d quit.

If you run far enough, there's a $20,000 bonus at the end!

Just don't overthink it.

Poker players are notorious for not being able to assess their own skill level. Well, finally in December 2010, after pushing myself to the absolute limit for three months, I was ready to really look at my poker game in the mirror, and I did not like what I saw. I was, without a doubt, a losing player. I had plenty of justifications for it (some legitimate, some... less so), but there it was. At the end of the day, it was costing me money to play poker.

A poker friend of mine told me about someone he knew, a guy named Lorin. He claimed that Lorin’s shortstack class was not only useful, it was a hell of a bargain. My first thought? Fuck that.

I’d already spent hundreds of dollars on poker related stuff. Hold’em Manager, Table Ninja, Leak Buster, coaching time, the list goes on. (Sometime, I’ll do a product review of all the crap I bought.) Any winnings I may have made were long gone to these “investments.” I was thoroughly convinced there were more people making money selling stuff to poker players, than their were poker players making money.

No matter which way I sliced it, I needed help. My “win”rate sucked, and I wasn’t really improving, despite all my study. So I made a deal with myself. I’d take a chunk of my quickly dwindling bankroll and spend it on Lorin’s training. Then, I’d dedicate the rest of my roll into learning his system. If I start winning, great. If I go broke, fine. I quit.

My first impression of Lorin was that he was a professional. A good thing, too. If I’m paying for a service, I'm looking for someone who takes the job seriously. A good poker player isn't necessarily a good coach.

With Lorin, it was clear he knew what he was doing. He had a clear system, a simple presentation method, and a no-nonsense attitude.

Every mentor is different, but despite my repeated begging,

Lorin refuses to teach me the secret to bitchin' abs or a date with

Helena Bonham Carter.

His repeated request was simple: If you want to make money from my system, just do everything I tell you to do. Fair enough. I figured, I paid him the money, no sense only going half way.

So off I went. I stopped playing at Pokerstars. I stopped mass-tabling. I started shoving more and calling less. I stopped playing at fishless tables. As each new video came out, I watched it like a religion and committed it to memory.

I can overlook the rest of it Judas,
but if you flat call with Q9o one more time,
we are going to have a fucking problem.

At first, it wasn’t easy. I immediately hit a severe downswing where my EV line made modest gains, but my actual profit line dropped like a stone. But something was happening. My EV line was heading somewhere I’m quite sure it was very confused and disoriented to be: up.

The downswing ended as they always do, and I started making money. Compared to where I was, I feel comfortable saying it was “a lot” of money. I moved from the .25/.50 game on Pokerstars, to the .25/.50 game on Full Tilt, and then very quickly to .50/1.00 and into 1/2. The best part was, because I was following Lorin’s system of table selection, the games didn’t really get much harder as I moved up. There became fewer games to play (not playing fishless tables meant more and more ineligible games as I moved up), but the games were still good.

Today, just two months later, I have the bankroll to play at 2/4 (NL400) with consistency, and I’m a winner in that game. Best of all, most of my profit comes from kicking ass (winning), not kissing it (rakeback).

I’m still learning. I’m not there yet. Right now I’m transitioning from working guy to full time pro. I expect that in the future of this blog, a lot of my posts will be about how I made and am still making that transition. But I can say with certainty that’s the direction I’m heading, and I wouldn’t be there without Lorin’s help.

Thanks man. I owe you one.

Introduction of a Poker Player, Part 1

2011-03-22T20:22:00.006-04:00

I wish this was a story I could have told from the beginning. It's an interesting one, all told - one guys journey from a casual tournament player, to a fish on a heater, to a mass tabling low stakes grinder, until finally getting it together and finding myself short-stacking for high stakes, with enough money on the line to make my parents and most of my friends feel a bit nauseous just hearing about it.

When it comes down to it though, there's an underpinning of consistency, logic, and hard, hard work that - for all the highs and lows - lets me make a living doing something I love: playing poker.

(Trust me, if you want to win, you better really love poker, because there are plenty of days when poker does not love you back.)

So, like most trendy stories these days, let's go ahead and start from the middle.

In November of 2010, I had had enough. I knew I was a winning poker player, or at least, I had it in me to become one. I just wasn't working hard enough.

Contrary to popular belief, desire and hard work are

not always a guarantee for success.

Nevermind that I was already playing five hours a day, studying when I wasn't at the table, and just generally driving myself insane. I was playing .25/.50 and .50/1.00 20bb games on Pokerstars, about 20 tables at once, about 200,000 hands a month. I got coaching. I played better, faster, harder and smarter than I ever had.

The month sucked. I posted something like a -2bb/100 loss rate, kept afloat by the rakeback I had generated.

Okay, bad luck. Still getting my feet wet. It happens. So December rolled in, I started with a clean slate, moved back down to .25/.50, and hit the tables harder than ever.

An artists rendition of trying to play on

Pokerstars in December.

On December 22, I was still losing. Badly. (Okay, not that badly, about the same as before. All I knew is that I had a goal - to play full time - and unless I planned on playing roughly 37 hours a day, I was never going to make enough money to do that.) Again, the Pokerstars bonuses were the only money I made, and had to use them to offset the losses, too.

It was time. I'd played literally hundreds of thousands of hands of poker. Sample sizes were not an issue. Nor was tilt, lack of discipline, or any other excuse I could come up with.

I was a loser. Not the funny, good natured hollywood loser who gets the hot emo girl with his fumbling charm, either. The kind destined to leave his money behind on the poker table.

Something needed to change and soon, or my poker career would be busto before it even took off.

Rethinking Lines for Creative Short Stack Heads Up Play

2011-03-21T12:09:00.004-04:00

In the ever elusive quest for original material, I have been away for awhile plotting my next move. While shooting a video for my Short Stack Revolution strategy video series, I discovered some very interesting lines that can be used to combat aggressive heads up min-raisers. The short stack tourist reader might find the idea of creative short stack play to be shocking, but the advanced player should immediately recognize the need for taking tricky lines against such opponents because they know that even frequent 3-betting or playing fit-or-fold after the flop is the perfect recipe for getting robbed blind with minimal villain effort.

The first hand isn't truly interesting when viewed outside the realm of traditional short stack strategy. When dealt A9s heads up and facing a min-raise, the knee jerk reaction is to shove, but that will just allow him to get away unscathed far too often for my taste. The caveat here is that this particular villain is open-raising 90%. However, once I make this call, I am probably never folding but I will have to let the flop texture and his betting line determine my overall strategy. In this case, the flop makes it very easy to see how to proceed.

To the naked eye, it should appear obvious that this flop is hitting few players' ranges, but just to be clear, let's see what Flopzilla, another great program by the maker of Cardrunners EV, has to say:

After accounting for card removal, we can see that villain's range has only connected 16.3% of the time. Even more telling is precisely how villain's range has hit. The fact that he has bet on all streets on this board texture means that his range has become more polarized with every single bet. Essentially, there are only 6 real categories of hands that can conceivably bet both the flop and turn:

1. Flushdraws
2. PP below TP
3. Overpairs
4. 3 of a kind
5. Full houses
6. Quads

Given the tendencies to check full houses and quads, we can discount those from the range, leaving probable villain hits now at 14.24%. Of course, since we can estimate that he will be checking a Q as well some lower PP's and overpairs on either the flop or the turn, we know that this actual range of hits is considerably less in reality. Given the overall board texture and the bet sizing, a call down is clearly in order. Taking this line has more benefits than just winning the pot. It also lets your opponents know that you are patient and fearless. Though by habit he will most likely continue to open 90%, he will be forced to give up much more frequently after the flop, which in turn will allow us to call even lighter pre-flop and swipe away more hands with pure bluffs.

You don't need to be the Rain Man to figure this out in real time, but it certainly helps if you take a little time out of your day when you aren't playing to learn exactly how to handle some various situations.

If the first hand was largely unconvincing, this next hand is sure to raise some eyebrows. Once again, villain is opening approximately 90%.

Though this hand is more difficult to solve with Flopzilla, I can say this with some certainty: his line looks stronger than the previous villain's. By checking the flop and betting both the turn and the river, he is representing a hand that was either very strong on the flop or one that somehow improved on the turn but yet was willing to check call the flop, and to a far lesser degree, 2nd pair or QQ that was going for pot committing thin value on the river. So which categories of hands were most appropriate for this play and how often are they hitting the flop?

1. Top pair: 11.9%
2. Overpair: 0.63%
3. Two Pair: 2.83%
4. Set: 0.94%

Just as important as his tendencies to miss the flop entirely are the relevancy of the turn and river cards. Even when opening 90%, there is still no guarantee that 82, 83, and 32 are in his range. So this leaves us with a much higher probability of bluffs than strong hands.

The fate of this hand was decided ahead of time. As soon as I flopped a straight draw, I decided that I was never folding, simply because I was aware that this flop is rarely hitting my opponent strongly and I can combine that fact with my overall equity. The question then becomes how to maximize my overall expectation given possible outcomes.

Notice that in no point of this hand do I want to risk getting check raised. If I had no equity or a vulnerable hand I would surely bet, but by checking along I now have increased my overall winning percentage in addition to the ability to snap off bluffs. I would like to also note that if at any point I catch a T or Q I am calling down.

I showed this hand to one of my students who was amazed that I would try to bluff any opponent who puts in half of the effective stack on the river. In actuality, this is precisely the point. He is only committed to the hand if he has what he is representing, which is basically Kx+. He also probably assumes that I know he isn't willing to fold after putting in this much money and believes that this lends credibility to his bluff. Being that I wasn't particularly familiar with this opponent, I don't necessarily know how willing he would be to bet a weak king on the river, but it is quite likely that he is looking to check call any pairs J or worse. In this light it now is beginning to look suspiciously like a polarized range. Given his incredibly high opening raise percentage, I am just not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Short Stack Strategy is Now on Video!

2011-02-09T23:29:00.002-05:00

After two weeks of blood, sweat, and tears I have 90% completed a version of my short stack strategy seminar on a video set. All of the theoretical concepts are completed and ready for immediate download, leaving only the sweat session and HEM mastery versions to be recorded so I will be taking pre-orders at the introductory price of $295. Starting on Valentine's Day, I will be showing my love for the world by raising the price of the video collection to $395. The videos contain over 60 power point slides and over 60 unique, fully-visual hand examples to illustrate each post-flop concept. All purchases will also include my hand charts and a half hour consultation. Periodic supplementary content will be available by popular demand

Here is a list of the videos and some of the contents of each:

1. Essentials

HUD setup with explanation of both weak and strong stats
Game selection with effective player tagging
Seat selection
The 4 major goals of post-flop play: maximum value, pot control, protecting your hand, and unexploitability

2. Pre-flop Concepts

Interpreting different raise sizes by position
Recognizing an iso-raise
Squeezing
Facing cold 3 and 4-bets
Counteracting unusual 3-bet sizes such as the min 3-bet and the single re-raise

3. Single Caller OOP

Evaluating flop texture
Criteria for C-betting
Playing all marginal hands, including overcards, 2nd & 3rd pair, and TPWK
Playing draws
Bluffing the turn
Check raising marginal value on the turn
Interpreting and countering the 3 different donk bets: the min-bet, the half pot bet, and the full pot bet
Ace high flops
Multi-way Pots

4. Single Caller IP

Same concepts as above, with a strategy for playing draws on the turn on river
Playing vs. a single limper by position
Range balancing
Going for thin value

5. Blind Play

Evaluating limper strength by position
How to proceed on your free play
Heads up strategy for the small blind
Playing the BB when the SB limps
Countering aggressive heads up min-raisers

Total runtime of the videos is over 5 hours. Contact me for payment options or if you would like a short preview of them, which I can provide over Teamviewer.

The Great Fish and Pony Show

2010-12-10T23:21:00.001-05:00

Though it is most likely that having a legal and regulated online poker market in the U.S. is good for the long-term health of our game, I am beginning to get extremely frazzled by this glowing report of how great things will be after a potential 15 month blackout period. Here is a partial list of my concerns that seems to be growing by the hour since I first learned of this a few days ago:

A NEW POKER BOOM WILL OCCUR THAT WILL DWARF THE FIRST ONE.

Though I believe this to be most likely, it is still theoretical at this point and likely to be short lived. That one was powered by forces that happened to coincide perfectly that no longer exist today.

A) The world economy was thriving on the real estate bubble.

B) Poker first entered the public consciousness through the entirely new usage of lipstick cameras to show hole cards for the first time and a Cinderella story titled "Moneymaker" won over the imagination of the masses.

C) Online poker was new and enthusiasm was at the highest point that will ever exist.

THE FISH POOL WILL BE GIGANTIC AND NEVER ENDING DUE TO THE EASE OF LIQUIDITY

Wow....where to start?!

With the possibility of states being able to opt out, it is very unclear just how many states will be contributing to this fishpool. Living in Kentucky, I am incredibly fearful that my state will not opt in due to the prior efforts of our governor whose sole interest at this point seems to be in protecting our statewide passion for primitive auto racing, aka "Horse Racing". Sure, I live right by Indiana and would be willing to make a moderate commute there to play, but with its state coffers juiced with the proceeds of riverboat gambling, can I truly rely on this?

Even after this is accounted for, the fishpool will be nothing like what we witnessed the first time around. Back then, poker knowledge at large consisted of little more than knowing that a flush beats a straight. Concepts like pot odds, blind stealing, and position were foreign and arcane to the general population and the outcome was such that if you stuck with top pair or better and drew only to the nuts, you were crushing the game. Nowadays, the quality of competition at your neighborhood bar freeroll is stronger than what you would have encountered online 6 years ago.

There was a serious information black hole that existed back then that no longer does. Training sites, forums, and high quality texts are the standard means of improvement and never again will sub-standard trash like Phil Hellmuth's Play Poker Like the Pros be so eagerly gobbled up by aspiring players. Now the pros not only play significantly better than their opponents, they play GOOD. Since the fish tend to copy the moves and tendencies of everyone else around them, they will play better by default...no question.

Where does this leave us? I believe that it is a certainty that we will eventually end up right back where we are right now. Eventually all shitty players go bust and the ones that don't will improve, and perhaps greatly so. The games will once again be tough, but hey, we can always cash out our rakeback without all the fuss!

In conclusion, it is extremely difficult to imagine a scenario that can possibly make up for over a year of productivity loss. I am not saying that it isn't necessary in the long run, but the ever-glowing reports of how great things will be seem incredibly naive at this point, especially in light of the fact that we are giving up something of great value that is currently guaranteed for something that we are only envisioning at this time. If history can help us predict anything, it shows us that people are really lousy at making predictions.

As the saying goes "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". Are there really two in the bush? I'm just so not sure...

Tinkering With The Nash Equilibrium, Pt. III- The Short Stack Houdini

2010-11-25T00:11:00.000-05:00

In the last post about this subject, I ended with a note of how just adding a dead small blind can seriously impact what you can get away with in terms of open shoving a 20BB stack. This is a direct benefit of short stacking and does not have much of an effect for larger stacks, as the potential gain becomes a much smaller percentage of the total stack size while severely increasing the risk. This week's post takes the concept of pushing complete trash to the extreme and examines what happens when you have a player who posts on the cutoff and the action passes to you in the blinds.

Before I get into it, let's take a look at what I normally do in this situation:

Now, time for a quick quiz:

Q. What the fuck just happened there?

A) Short stack donk on tilt.

B) Idiot who thinks Q8 "double suited" is the nuts because it can make two different straight flushes.

C) Astute short stacker looking to gain a quick and easy profit against two very weak hand ranges.

Answer: C

Think about what happens after someone posts and then checks. His range is now weaker than the big blind's. It's simple: he had the option to make a cheap raise in a steal position and declined to do so. Of course, he could be trapping, but this becomes very unlikely, for these reasons:

1) The button still has to act, meaning that this player is potentially acting out of position against three players whose ranges are completely undefined. Furthermore, if he was hoping to limp-reraise against the button, even the fish know that this would be a parlay of highly unlikely events that includes having the button raising and calling the back raise, yet NOT having enough of a hand to call a single open raise.

2) Few hands can stand any real pressure against two completely random hands and expect to both win the hand WHILE ALSO generating a medium to large pot without the fear of overcards. This includes 99-KK, and good broadway hands. Therefore, it generally makes more sense to just raise with these hands, especially when you factor in what I pointed out in Part 1.

The bottom line is that most players will play their hand's straight up when posting in, meaning that they will raise when they have a good hand and check when they don't. Since there are very hands that are not good enough to raise yet believe they are good enough to call a shove.....we do the shoving!

At this point in time, this should be making sense. Of course, since I have the tools to prove my hypothesis, I will do so. The simulation that I will run builds upon the knowledge from the other TWTNE posts, so if you have not read them already, I would go back and do so now so that your understanding of this part is complete.

Step 1- Assigning a Range to the Poster

This can never be an exact science since everyone is a little bit different, so we must figure out what a "reasonably reasonable" player would do. Here is what I came up with:

Yes, I expect that most players will be open raising with at least 55-88 as well as many other hands in this range, but I prefer to leave them in to compensate for when the player does something completely unexpected, like check with AA or AQ.

Step 2- Assign a Calling Range for the Big Blind

Although once again this is not perfect, this is a little easier to do since I have a lot of experience with the calling ranges of heads up shoves. Even though I expect the actual calling range to be tighter than this, I will use the optimal call of the Nash Equilibrium shove. That range is 44+, A7o+, A3s+, KJo+. KTs+, QJs.

Step 3- Assign a Calling Range for the Poster

While I could certainly figure out a CALL, CALL range, over the hundreds of times that I have done this, I have never seen both players call. I therefore assume that if the big blind calls, the poster will fold, especially because several of the calling hands I assign to him do not match up well in large 3-way pots.

Instead, I give him a call range of 44-88, A5o-A9o, and A2s-A8s. Of course, most of this is purely theoretical and assumedly tighter than what I present here, yet I still feel that this a good approximation of a worst case scenario.

Now it's time to run the simulation. I use a $3/6 game with 20BB effective stacks.

It is pretty difficult to tell whether or not the 73s is a sampling size error, so during play, I prefer to err on the side of aggression in situations where the cost of being wrong is usually tiny in the long run, yet the upside is likely high, especially when you factor in metagame benefits.

Once again, let's see what happens when the poster puts up both the big blind and a dead small blind and things get even more interesting.....

That's right, bitches!

Remember...this is the worst case scenario. I normally shove all hands (ok, maybe not the best hands) with or without the dead small blind present. After all, the only guys who might be keen on the fact that I am shoving everything here are the regs and they will often be too involved in their other games to know whether or not the poster had just posted or if he had limped. Even still, they might consider the proposition too risky overall to call light since they don't understand as well as I do how often the poster is actually making the call.

This play has nothing but upsides:

A) They fold and you pick up some easy money. This happens about 85% of the time.

B) They call and you suck out and win. No explanation needed here!

C) They call and you showdown a turd and lose. Now you look like a complete spewtard and you will have no trouble getting action from that point on.

Final note: you can do this play over and over again because it is a very infrequent scenario that would allow you to do this to the same person several times. While this could happen in full ring games, there still is nothing much that people can do about it, particularly because so few of these hands are ever getting shown down and it is consistent with how I play many high quality hands as well. In 6-max games, the situation becomes even better as those players who are not patient enough to wait 3 hands until the big blind hits them will likely not last long enough to become a victim of this play a second time.

In conclusion, I hoped that you all have enjoyed this series and it has opened your eyes to things that you never thought possible.

My Wedding and Honeymoon in Washington DC

2010-10-14T00:39:00.000-04:00

Normally I don't confide anything in my blog about my personal life if it doesn't pertain to poker, but you only get married for the second time once so I thought I would share a few photos!

It's official, Jessica is no longer a Hicks! She's still fucking crazy, though....

The bridal party. That's my lovely daughter, Alura, in the middle. Travis is that fat fuck taking up half the page three dudes down from me.

Asher, a.k.a. "Baby Stack". Nice tux, little man!

Lincoln, my wife's hero.

Would have been my future home, but not after these next two pics...

"Tastes like chicken!"

"Not so short stacked after all, eh ladies?" Take that, Scott Brown!

Two potential titles: "A Long Ways Up" or "Just Before I Stepped On And Then Sat On My Goddamn Glasses And Broke Them"

The Capitol Building

Jessica in front of the Capitol

Proud to be from Kentucky. Steve Beshear, lick my nuts!

"Quit giving me the stink eye, you little shit!"

"I want YOU to short stack!"

Short Stack Training Seminar!

2010-09-20T17:05:00.000-04:00

From now, I will be running 3-4 person simultaneous short stack training seminars. I found that using this format allows me to make the coaching more affordable for more people, making it preferable to the one-on-one style I had been previously using. It will cover the material below and run about 5+ hours, making it the best poker coaching bargain you will find anywhere! If you want more information, check out my site Short Stack Revolution.

GENERAL SHORT STACK CONCEPTS

A Full Visual Tutorial of StoxEV (the Short Stacker's Best Friend)
Proper HUD Configuation
Analysis of Software Aids
Superior Game Selection Techniques
Seat Selection
Analysis of Existing Short Stack "Literature" and Their Inaccuracies and Where They Falls Short
Playing Against All Player Types, including:

TAGs
LAGs
LAPs
Short stackers

SPECIFIC SHORT STACK CONCEPTS

Hand Ranges for Opening the Pot
Hand Ranges for Shoving
Calling 3-bets
Raise and Bet Sizing
Continuation Betting
Post Flop Play for Weak, Semi-Strong, and Strong Hands
Playing Draws
Heads Up and Multi-Way Pots
Heads Up in the Small Blind
Free Blind Plays
Individual Hand Analysis

ADVANCED CONCEPTS

Combatting Troublesome Regulars
Holdem Manager Play Breakdown
The Squeeze Play
Case Studies of Other Short Stackers (What They Do That Works and Fails)

Each session will end with an open forum for discussion. Please feel free to bring any additional concepts to the session, as EVERYTHING short stack related will be covered.

What's More?

Every person who pays for the class will get my personal hand charts for shoving from every position in a 6-max game, as well as an importable file for Holdem Manager HUD configuration, adjusted for sample sizes!

If you or your bankroll are not ready for the class quite yet, I do offer the hand charts and HUD file for $95.you

The ShortStack Song....

2010-09-08T00:50:00.007-04:00

Here is our little opus to our loyal shortstackers, and a little hello to our haters as well......ENJOY!!!

A very special thanks to Taylor Mayd for recording and mixing the song for us. Look for his first album out in November.....

Tinkering With The Nash Equilibrium, Pt. II- Beyond Unexploitable Shoving

2010-09-04T03:35:00.000-04:00

In the last post, we took a look at quite a few hands that were profitable to shove when heads up in the small blind. I had also shown the hands with which it were profitable to defend against this play. This time around, however, we will take a different tack and assume that we know that the big blind will be defending with the proper range against the unexploitable shove range. Once again, we will use my favorite hypothetical example of a $2/4 game with 20BB stacks and a 5% rake and a defending hand range of 44+, A7o+, A3s+, KJo+, KTs+, QJs. The simulation was run Monte Carlo style 10000k times.

Now here is what we can push:

The rabbit hole keeps getting deeper.... Notice that even after running the simulation 10 million times, there is still a tiny sampling error with 93s and assumedly the 53s as well, as neither J3s nor T3s are profitable and the 53s shows a minuscule $.01 profit, respectively. Our unexploitable range has now grown from 38.4% of hands to an incredible 54.7%.

But why stop here? Most players I play against simply refuse to make calls with hands like KTs, A3s, and QJs...even guys who I play against every day. Let's run the simulation one more time with a more "typical" calling range of 55+, A8o+, A7s+, KJo+, KJs+.

86.4% of all hands are now playable. In other words, all but the biggest of turds. Oh? What is that you say? 86.4% is not enough? Ok then, let's toss a dead small blind into the pot and run it again and see what happens.

Happy now? Yes, it's true. With a typical calling range aided by the compensation of a dead small blind, you can now shove every single hand. Naturally, logic dictates that you shouldn't be doing this. While it would work a few times, it would quickly backfire and cause otherwise nitty players to begin playing more correctly against you and would thwart future attempts with a tighter shove range. Besides, it's hardly optimal. Rather, this was just an intellectual primer for the third and final installment of this series, where we finally combine all this knowledge to make you the ultimate motherfuckin' shortstack Houdini.

Tinkering With The Nash Equilibrium, Pt. I- Unexploitable Shoving

2010-08-27T00:30:00.000-04:00

The situation: everyone folds around to you in the small blind. You have 20BBs. While everyone is confident in their ability to play premium hands heads up out of position, certain hands like weak aces and suited connectors can pose a serious problem, particularly when you are lacking post-flop maneuverability due to your short stack and the inability to launch an elaborate three street bluff. You can either raise small or limp, though each of them has their own weaknesses. If you raise small, when you are 3-bet, you will have to lay down a majority of these hands, whether or not you believe that your opponent is bluffing. Limping will cause a serious imbalance in your range and makes you vulnerable to an in-position opponent whose range is completely undefined.

Two other options remain, and those are folding and going all in. Since the aggressive move is usually superior, I would opt to go all in. But which hands are profitable to do so? A few years back, I was in awe of the Sklansky-Chubukov numbers as outlined in No Limit Hold'Em Theory and Practice. For those who have not heard, the SC numbers represent the upper limit of your stack size in a $1/2 game where you can move all in from the small blind and have that play be preferable to folding- if you were to flip your hand over first and allow your opponent to play perfectly against you.

At first I thought this was magic and now I look back at it as being hilariously nitty. I have since been taught how to use the Nash Equilibrium via StoxEV to shove the highest percentage of hands for the maximum profit. Though I have no idea how this was solved, I don't need to know how to build a car to drive it, either.

Here are the hands that we can shove for 20BB in a $2/4 game with the rake factored in (which the SC numbers fail to account for).

Not bad, huh? Now suppose that an astute opponent knows what you are doing and what your precise range is. How should he defend?

Clearly, there is very little he can do...not to mention that many players are not even comfortable calling with the bottom of this range. In fact, players can only react to this in one of two ways. They will either start calling lighter, which is a mistake, or they can call tighter and try and wait you out, making your shoves more profitable.

Although this lesson was fairly remedial, in the next, we will move on to some more advanced related concepts and you with then really begin to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes....

Determining the Correct 3-Bet Calling Frequency

2010-08-22T02:09:00.000-04:00

Compared to the previous examples, finding your correct 3-bet calling frequency against a specific opponent is easy, though it takes a large sample. Unlike 3-bet shoving, however, the penalty for making the wrong decision here is quite severe, being that you are now limiting to only winning one way- showdown. Other than your opponent's range, you have two other considerations: the rake and the effective stack size. For this example, I will summon our old friend "KaySmash" with a 20BB effective stack size and a $2/4 setting. The stakes are very important here and that is due to the impact of the rake, which you will soon see. In case you don't recall, KaySmash has a 3-bet range of 18%. For this exercise, we will treat all 3-bets as an all-in shove, particularly since the 4-bet re-shove gets called somewhere in excess of 90%, despite the size of the 3-bet.

Using NoahSD's method as discussed previously, we combine the 18% 3-bet frequency with a quick hand history review off all such hands that were shown down. For this particular player, we have a range of approximately 22+, A7o+, A2s+, KJo+, and KTs+ (actually 18.5%). This is a fairly strong and not uncommon re-steal range.

For the simulation, I open min-raised every hand and then called with every single hand against the 18.5% range. Here is what we get:

Probably a little tighter that you would expect? The good thing is that this information is not privy to all players and they frequently make mistakes in this category...even when they [think they] understand what a shortstacker is doing. While a call with with KQs is just a marginal no-no, a call with KQo or KJs is just disastrous! Take a look at similar calls that often seem correct to players, like 22, A7o, and KJo. And they say that being suited is overrated?

Even when we reduce the effective stack size to 16BB, the calling range changes only slightly, with the addition that you can now also call with A9o, A8s, and KQs.

A much more dramatic thing happens when we begin begin tinkering with the stakes. Let's now run the simulation with 20BB's in a $.50/1.00 game. Here is what we get:

Looks like 44 is now a clear fold with the stronger impact of the rake. The effects become much more dramatic as we increase the re-steal range, but the evidence is clear- the rake matters. What's more is that it penalizes the calling player more, since the winning player is the one who pays it, and when you call you only have the option of winning at showdown.

Using Your Holdem Manager for Ultimate Domination, Cont.

2010-08-13T02:15:00.001-04:00

In a previous post, I had outlined a plan on how you can sift through your HEM database to gain crushing information on your opponents. I had offered some specific numbers on Kaysmash, and now I will show you how we can use this information against him with StoxEV. Here is what we do:

If we assume that he is raising 2.5x 44% of the time, his range is approximately 22+, A2o+, A2s+, K9o+, K2s+, Q9o+, Q8s+, J9o+, J8s+, 76o+, 54s+, 86o+, 64s+. This does not need to be exact, as he will be folding out the weakest part of this range virtually* every time. The important thing is getting his raising frequency correct, which we have already determined.

Now we must figure out his calling frequency of 56% (since he is folding 44%). This not quite exact either, but still easy to figure out, particularly when reviewing my hand histories to find specific examples of hands he has called with. In so doing, we get a calling range of 22+, A5o+, A2s+, KTo+, K9s+, QJo+, QTs+, JTs. This is an admittedly broad calling range, but in so doing, he prevents getting heavily exploited by shortstackers.

By factoring in the stakes of $2/4, rake and dead money from the blinds and then running the simulation 5000k times with a 20BB stack, here is what we end up with:

Voila! The highlighted hands are the profitable reshoving range and the number below is the exact amount in $ that we can expect to profit per trial, on average. Depending on the stack size, we can begin to shove more or less hands, but now his calling frequency will also be affected as well. However, if we were to deduct just 3BB from the effective stack (this will not likely change his default calling range), the grid now appears as thus:

Amazing! Now the next time you hear someone complain about a shortstacker having a mathematical advantage you will have a true understanding of what they are talking about.

For those of you who are interested in this incredible piece of software, please contact me and I can get you a $35 discount.

*Even good players sometimes get frustrated and go on tilt and will call with a ridiculous hand like 97s. For players who do this consistently, you now must fold your "non-showdown" hands such as low off-suit broadways and middle suited connectors.

Finding Hidden Value in Pokerworld "Gold Chip Double Up to Cash" SNG's

2010-08-07T00:16:00.000-04:00

At Pokerworld, there is currently a promotion offering two separate gold chip sit and goes. The details are as follows:

12 entrants, top 6 earn cash!

Though the payouts are small at $5 and $15 respectively, the gambler in me is always looking for that freeroll hustle! As it were, though these are a fairly easy score, they do not fill up often. Just the other night, I had signed up for the $15 payout one, only to find that hours later, it did not even fill up. I guess this would be understandable, as there are many gold chip satellite events that offer the potential of a significantly higher payout...if you have a few hours to spare.

However, if you plan on putting in large volume of hands and get started early in the day, you can score some extra EV, often just by sitting down! How? Since these take so long to fill up, it is very easy for someone to either have forgotten that they had entered (perhaps even the night before) or have gotten up to do something else and neglected them altogether. The one I played in had just such a player. He was "sitting" to left and we all had a field day stealing his blinds. Having just one such player missing brings your average EV from $7.50 to $8.18. That's an automatic increase of 9%. Doesn't sound like much, but that ask any SNG pro if that matters, and they will all tell you that they would kill for such an extra edge!

Just remember to unregister before you leave your computer!

Using Your Holdem Manager for Ultimate Domination

2010-08-03T15:31:00.001-04:00

I have felt it and I know you have too. There's that one guy who you know, you just KNOW has been 3-betting you light and stealing your blinds more often than your HUD would lead you to believe. This of course brings us to the inherent flaw of using one: it can only give us average statistics, and quite often says little, if anything, about how a foe is playing against you in particular. But what if we could just take a little extra time to dig a little bit deeper into our database to find out the exact answers to these otherwise simple little questions?

Thus began my quest to find such answers. Don't get me wrong. Although I have railed against using a HUD in the past, I have since jumped this hurdle as I began to realize that using one is not something you do, but rather, something that you learn. Helpful as they are, I was still craving these answers and knew that I could never be EXCELLENT as a shortstacker until I found it out. Many people are reading this and surely believing that you can just tweak the filters and voila, there you have it. Nope. The "Vs Player" filter will only give you basic information such as total winnings and show you hands where said player is sitting at the same table as you. Even if you try to get clever and filter it further for only hands where the action was unopened and you raised on the button and the big blind 3-bet you, the first thing that you will likely see when you replay a hand is that the villain you were looking to get a read on had already exited the hand.

I tried posting on forums, collaborating with confidants, and even writing to the actual programmers to find out how to do this. Perhaps I was not explicit enough in that I was looking for actual percentages, but I got the same information over and over. It was simply not functional and led me to the same dead end.

Then the news broke on Pokertableratings about the 40putts/Kinetica/Littlezen shortstacker softplaying scandal. A member of the esteemed DeucesCracked training site playing under the name NoahSD had taken extensive time to write a long and detailed report using statistical analysis to break down the 3-bet ranges of these players when playing against each other. Aha! So there is somebody out there who actually knows how to do this!

I thought for a while on how best to get this information from him, but then just decided to simply ask. Lo and behold, in less than an hour's time, here is what he replied:

Hi Lorin,
Unfortunately HM isn't really designed to do this. I've been told that they plan to eventually add the stat "Player A's 3-bet % vs. Player B", but I think it's likely to be far in the future.

I used custom software to get my own answers, and frankly I have no idea how it works. The only way I know how to do this without hiring a programmer to do it for you is with this tedious method:

To get Player A's 3-bet % vs. Player B:

1) Select player B in HM.
2) In the filter menu, go to more filters and add "PFR = True".
3) Run the report.
4) In the bottom half of HM, select the "All" radio button next to "last 500". Right click and select "export all hands to hard drive" and choose a spot to export those hands.
5) Options -> Database Management. Create a new database.
6) Import the hands that you exported into that database. This is a database of all hands where player B raised preflop.
7) Select Player A and run a report with no filter. The 3-bet % that the report shows is Player A's 3-bet % when Player B raised.

If you make a database with all the hands where you raised preflop, you should be able to quickly look at the 3-bet %s that various players have against you.

Hope that helps,
Noah

This was just awesome to me. Though he might consider this tedious (and technically it is), I am no stranger to tedious work as I have spent countless hours running simulations using Stox EV that could often top 5 minutes for just a single, detailed run. So what is one to do with such information?

Use it to completely dominate and control your opposition.

That statement being rather vague, I will give an example using a player whom we will term "KaySmash" to show you just how we can put this into practice. On the HUD, it says that KaySmash opens the button 44% of the time. I filtered out all hands where I was on the big blind. Then I created a new database per the instructions and when I loaded it up, I set my filters to "Unopened" and "Button" and set it to run the report against KaySmash. True to form, he actually was raising that frequency. All that victimization was just a figment of my imagination! More importantly, I can now see that he is folding to my 3-bet 44% of the time. Since I am now armed with the information that he is not attempting to exploit my folding tendencies and just playing by a script, I can hereby assume that he will be treating me no differently when I am in the small blind as well.

While this information is excellent, it allows to me play a perfect shove or fold game against him, but doesn't really allow for much room for true exploitation since he is calling rather frequently. So digging a little deeper, I then follow NoahSD's plan to find out how often KaySmash is 3-betting me by filtering out the hands where I raise the button and then running the report with KaySmash in the big blind and the small blind has declined to enter the pot. Here is where it gets really interesting.

KaySmash is 3-betting me approximately 18% of the time, and never, ever just flat calling. Though I was quite sure of this, since I am dealing with a rotating base of players on any single day, it is often easy to confuse them. The fact that he is unwilling to get tricky makes him extraordinarily easy to beat.

I will give you guys a chance to digest this information for a few days and then in the next post I will show you precisely how we can use this information for an optimal strategy against this particular opponent.

Peace!

This Blog is Officially Moving!

2010-06-10T20:44:00.001-04:00

This blog has officially moved to Pokerworld. After earning 50,000 gold chips at their site, I was able to trade them in for a majority share in their site. What does this mean? This means that now the bullshit that I blabber about has corporate funding and if you don't like it, we now have the ability to lobby your local government to bulldoze your house.

Check out the new setup HERE.

An Open Letter to Drew Chapman

2010-06-06T19:22:00.003-04:00

Drew, first and foremost, a disclaimer: I am not writing this to single you out or criticize you. I am writing this publicly because it it something that has been troubling both myself and Travis for some time now and we believe that you and others will be helped greatly by reading this.

Though I sympathize greatly with your most recent downswing, I am concerned that you are dealing with it in the wrong light. What I am referring to is your decision to upload your hands to Poker Luck Meter and posting the results of it.

Yesterday I decided to finally do away with my own EV calculator permanently. The reason? I can not think of a single time that it has either helped or reassure me during a session or afterwards. Though I believe that there is both a time and a place for such tools (which will be addressed in a future post), they are far more likely to be a destructive force in your career than a helping hand. You already know that you are a winning player and with your very honest reflective skills, you know full well the quality of your play in any given day. Having an imperfect tool spit back that information without consideration of your opponent or metagame history and based solely on information gleaned in showdown situations is only likely to make you feel victimized.

As any economist can tell you, the pain of a dollar lost is more than the joy felt by a dollar won. What this translates to is that the visualization of a bad run will make you feel much worse than the knowledge of having run well will make you feel good. Perhaps more importantly, it is the denial of reality in that Sklansky bucks can not be withdrawn to pay your rent or put food on the table.

Of even more to concern to me is that posting a bad EV run puts your excellent blog in serious danger of becoming mediocre. Postings of bad runs on blogs are fodder for the common folk. It also tends to draw a powwow of other people who are anxious to spill their guts about bad beats to whom they expect will provide a sympathetic ear. These people usually have nothing to offer and will threaten to take you down with with them. Your self-awareness and the ability to express it is rare and it is what has drawn you your followers and the great respect of your readership. Don't let that go away. Every bad run hides within it a very compelling moral lesson. Find that lesson, and mine it into gold.

Dealing With the Consequences of Being Results Oriented

2010-06-05T02:53:00.000-04:00

I wonder if it will ever be possible to escape the tyranny of the overplayed mantra of "you must focus on the long-term, young grasshopper." This advice would be great, but only if delivered in a dojo or a confessional or perhaps from high on a mountaintop in Tibet. Everyone can understand this on an intellectual level- this has never, to my knowledge, been contested. Yet to repeat it, as I have been guilty of many times in the past is to ignore the mechanisms which truly allow someone to enjoy success in poker for the long run.

When I was outside today talking to my Ipad (an article for another day), I realized that in many situations it is often far wiser to babysit your mood than it is to invite marginal situations. What am I talking about? While this will vary greatly from player to player and game to game, what I am referring to for myself personally, as a shortstacker, is usually one of two situations:

1. I get 3-bet all in and have to decide whether to deviate from the script and make a close call against a seemingly aggressive and relatively unknown opponent, knowing full well that the profit is measured in a few theoretical dollars to defend a raise one-tenth of the size of the call. The variance is enormous and the metagame benefits are tiny, if they ever even existed in the first place. After all, does my opponent ever need know that I just folded A9s or 66? He will most likely just assume I was on a straight steal and forget about this hand 5 minutes later.

2. Someone open shoves on my big blind from the small blind. I am holding a hand like A7s. I know that the call is usually correct, but it is actually much closer than most of you will realize. As that is a discussion for another time, I will just state the obvious fact that you aren't a monster favorite over anything, particularly after paying the rake.

These two situations are basically identical in that I must risk a relatively large amount of money to score a tiny amount of equity with no ancillary benefits. Even if I prove that I am willing to take a flip with perhaps somewhat the the worst of it with the benefit of the dead money from the raise or the blind, the chances of being able to leverage the outcome of these situations in any given session is very small.

But wait! The Mantra of the Long-Term says you should always take a profitable situation. I will counter that with the other great poker mantra of It Depends. What does it depend on, exactly? Why, your mood of course! If you are feeling good and know that the outcome of making this call won't hurt you or it will be fun to take the gamble, do it. If you know that making a bad call or losing $160 to defend your $12 raise will scorch you, you should decline. Better still, if you even have to ASK yourself if it will bother you, I can guarantee you that it will.

Monitoring your mood, I have come to believe, is one of the most important ongoing actions you can take at the poker table. Virtually every time that we sit down we will experience a wide range of painful consequences that vary drastically in their intensity. And just as you won't have the energy to run five miles every day when you wake up, your ability to cope with the swings in this game is far from stable and can run the entire gamut, often within a single session.

In my best month ever at the cash game tables where I made over $20,000, this was the exact approach that I took. I woke in the morning and immediately sat down at just $1/2 tables with a sprinkling of some $2/4 game. If I felt good, I would begin opening some $3/6 games and perhaps even some $5/10. If I was having fun or doing well, I would continue playing high, but if I began to dread shoving 75s heads up for $200, I would drop down to whatever level that I felt comfortable at. By doing this and only taking on the level of pain that I felt I could appropriately handle, I could play longer and more often. The end result was not only my highest grossing month ever, but also my highest volume as well.

In conclusion, we can not escape that we are results oriented. This is part of our most basic mental wiring and most of us have as much control over this as we do control over how fast our grass grows. In essence, if we are to believe in the long-term, we are required to trick ourselves and our natural thought processes. Basically, we must delude ourselves into seeing things for how they really are. Rather than to engage in such a bizarre contradiction, I believe that we are much better suited to simply ride the ebb and flow of our emotions than to deny their existence. We are all results-oriented. Deal with it.

How to Get Rich at World Series of Poker

2010-05-31T23:58:00.001-04:00

Every year, starting at the end of May, excitement bubbles and egos flare up as the WSOP begins again. While a small, elite crew hope to set records and make historical bounds, the average professional is just hoping to score a profit on the overlay of recreational players who stampede the gates of the Rio every year. After spotting a new article on Cardplayer.com yesterday, I saw an opportunity to make a huge potential windfall on the first mentioned brand of player without the benefit of talent or experience.

Before I go into my spiel, I would like to point out that I am not a professional sports bettor, so if I am making any clear mistakes, please kindly bring them to my attention. On the other hand, if I misspell a word or make any other ridiculous oversight, please don't waste your time pointing it out (yes, that was for you Ronnie...er, Mr. Jolly Toper).

In any case, on Cardplayer I had spotted an article about Tom Dwan offering a prop bet that gives himself 3.25:1 odds to win a bracelet this year. What is better is that he does not benefit in regards to the bet by winning multiple bracelets in a single year. While many people might balk at taking such a bet against such a massive talent, had I $5k to plunk down, I would give serious consideration to taking this bet.

It is fairly common knowledge that the best way to succeed in such prop bets is to play in the smaller field events. Unfortunately for Dwan, most of said events are in dying breed games like stud and lowball. To make matters worse, these events are populated with old guard veterans who will possess a huge gap of experience and knowledge over Dwan. Secondly, as we all know, tournament strategy varies widely from cash game strategy. While Dwan has scored over $1m in various tournaments, he still will have to overcome the disadvantage he possesses at stacked final tables to those play and study tournaments full-time.

This article was not meant to single out Dwan as a clear sucker in such bets. In fact, I would probably do a little more homework before taking such a bet. His was merely the first such bet that I saw and the tip of the iceberg where profitable situations are concerned. If you take a look HERE, you will see that virtually no one has the track record to lay these type of odds for such a bet. Many well known names, such as Chris Ferguson, Men "The Master" Nguyen, T.J. Cloutier, Scotty Nguyen, and even Stu Ungar himself have averaged over four years in between bracelet winning WSOPs.

Is a guy like Dwan better than all of these guys? Maybe, maybe not. Even still, the odds are stacked against him because he is running against the legacy of players who competed in far smaller fields with runners that sometimes did not even crack the 20 mark. While there may be more events these days, three of them are not open to Dwan and several of them run concurrently to one another. Many of the fields are gigantic and rebuy events have been eliminated as well.

Furthermore, all "x-factors" will benefit you and you only. Your man blows up and decides to go home early, you win. He needs to fly to Montana for a family emergency, you win. He comes in second in an event, goes and gets hammered at the bar and doesn't show up the next day, you win (for that day, anyhow). If you take action with multiple players, it would be very hard to really take a bath on the deal, since each event can only have one winner. This means that if you lose one bet, you are that much closer to winning your other ones. Also, anyone winning multiple bracelets, even if it was one of your guys, would be doing you a favor. I imagine that you could also benefit in classic arbitration style by taking bets with a player who has bracelet bets as well as bets to cash, since these goals are in complete opposition.

Even if you don't feel like betting against poker's wunderkind, there are many far less skilled wannabes with raging egos that will happily give you action on a variety of bets. Just make sure that if you do it, don't take a bet with a guy who has a reputation for being broke!

A Patent on the Sun

2010-05-07T01:42:00.001-04:00

Q: What do the upward mobility of women, low overnight interest rates, and Internet poker have in common?

A: They have all created a brain drain on society, to some degree or another.

Do you see why?

I decided to write this post while watching Michael Moore's newest documentary, Capitalism, A Love Story. While I think the man is by and large a serious blowhard, I do enjoy his films because there is always at least a smidgeon of material that is good food for thought.

There was a segment in the movie where he examines the great discovery of the polio vaccine by Joseph Salk. When asked who owned the patent for it, he replied, "The people do. You wouldn't put a patent on the sun would you?". Moore then proceeded to speak of how often some of the brightest minds nowadays moved on to very lucrative careers in finance where they produce nothing of real value, rather than giving their gifts for the betterment of humankind.

David Sklansky, in his brilliant new book, DUCY?, agrees, though he decides to peel back another layer to answer the question of "why"? In the first decade of this century, interest rates were unnaturally low, making the world of finance much easier to succeed in. Money was cheap and getting loans was easy. This made Wall Street the place where top graduates went after school, hungrier to get rich than to win a Nobel.

Though certainly in a category all by itself, the upward mobility of women has adversely affected the American school system. Just a few decades ago, when career opportunities for women were scarce outside of the home, the brightest minds competed for jobs in education. Now that the glass ceiling has been raised for women, they too, have decided to seek out ways to better their own lives in lieu of others.

Lastly, we have Internet poker. The boom ushered in by Chris Moneymaker's historic WSOP win created yet another selfish diversion for today's youth. Of course, you can't really blame them. Why should you sit around in your engineering class when you could be clicking buttons for $150 an hour in your dorm room?

Naturally, I would never think of casting judgment over any of these people who have chosen these paths, as that would be the height of hypocrisy. However, I often wonder what I would be doing with my life had I not stumbled into poker. I have always wanted to be a writer, first by means of fiction and now, more recently, nonfiction. I had always told myself that I would begin to pursue this other side of myself once I reached a plateau in poker where I no longer feared for money each month. Though I have no intentions of quitting the game, I am very happy to acknowledge that I am finally here.

I plan on creating a new blog that has a unifying theme that is very difficult to pin down. It will contain entertaining discussion pieces that seek out simple truths in life or examine existing contemporary wisdom. I would like to recruit some potential writers from this site, being that poker players get a unique glimpse of life that is often obscured to outsiders. If you are interested, please contact me!

Location:Venado Dr,Louisville/Jefferson County,United States

Ipads, A Huge Wiener, and Mass-Tabling

2010-05-01T02:44:00.002-04:00

The end of the following article was edited to add more content.

Other than when I bought my house last year, I made the largest single cash purchase of my life today when I bought two 3G 16g Ipads- one for my fiancée, Jessica, and one for myself. Before writing it off as the largest impulse buy ever, hear me out. Jessica is going back to college this summer and wanted a laptop all her own. I talked her into getting an Ipad because of the versatility and portability, and hey, sometimes it's just plain cool to be on the cutting edge of technology! I was already planning on getting one myself once Pokerworld rolled them out in their brand new store, but here was the problem: Jessica wanted a computer all her own and was rightly concerned that hmy ridiculous apps and greasy fingerprints would make their way onto hers,h and being the colossal cock that I am, I just couldn't let myself fall behind someone in my own household in the technology category. Soy I bought one, too. Oh yeah, speaking of cocks, I saw this gigantic phallic symbol in the parking lot after leaving Best Buy with my new loot.

But here is why I had really wanted one: it would be the best thing for blogging, writing, emailing, and social networking and make them possible anytime, anywhere. But couldn't I just do this on the desktop or laptop that I already own? Well, yes and no. You see, I am very fickle about when and where I like to do my work. Though it might be hard to explain to a lot of people, the thought of doing anything on my desktop in my basement other than multi-tabling poker completely sickens me. While I tend to get more "otherish" type work done on my laptop, it still can be a huge drag because I tend to have to do more than my share of fatherly duties as soon as I poke my head out of the basement. Maybe I could take the laptop elsewhere, but that is considered to be the shared computer, so that is mostly out of the question.

But the Ipad... that is where I saw the true potential. The ability to bring it to coffee shops easily, the 10 hours you get on a single charge, being able to respond to emails and chats lying down (as anyone who keeps email correspondence with me can tell you, I am quite the slouch when it comes to response times), being able to blog anywhere...and that is not to mention all of the other amazing things it can do that you have already heard about. It truly is a stunning piece of technology and I am using my blogger app on it right now.

Of course, I would never waste your time just writing about what I consider to be an exciting day. Mass-tabling: it's what I've always wanted to do since I watched the sippincriss 24-tabling SNG session on Stoxpoker about a year and a half ago. He was the first person to introduce to me the concept of stacking your tables and, naturally, made it look very easy in the video. I went to dinner that night just aching for the chance to give it a shot and salivating over the thought of the five figure months that I would be turning in from that point on. Obviously, it was a disaster and that is why you haven't heard about it. I was folding the wrong hands, timing out, spazzing out over easy decisions, and altogether just spun over the whole affair. It took me about 20 minutes to realize that it just wasn't for me.

That was the mistake.

On my most recent mental kick, I have been thinking a lot about what it takes to be successful in any endeavor. The very un-sexy answer: hard work. No matter what sort of natural ability you possess, in order to become a true artist in any craft, you must pursue it to the point of obsession. That was my fatal error in my lack-luster quest to be a mass-tabler. I was expecting it to be easy. So for whatever reason, I was revisiting this idea and decided that like all good ideas, it needed to be planned out.

The first thing I did was go to pokersoftware.com to read up on this program I had read about called Stack and Tile. The premise of the program was that by using hot keys, you could create a large stack of tables which would tile out into a grid as action was required and when you exited the hand, the tables would be shuffled back into the stack. Sounds simple and effective enough, but I know now that even the best laid plans are often thwarted. I began playing with bthe program, which works with most of the major networks and skins, including Pokerworld. I realized right away that managing hot keys would be a time intensive affair for someone like myself who was used to only using a mouse and a number pad. Also, the thought of taking actions on a stack of tables and not seeing the results and taking on faith that they were even being implemented was stressful in its own right. Therefore, I did the only thing that a reasonable person could do: I took an entire two days off from playing to re-learn table management on penny stakes. That is not all I did. I also took a lot of time experimenting with different game modifications to find out what clicked with me the most on a personal level and the results were pretty surprising.

Another step that I finally decided to look into was improving my mouse. I did a quick review on poker listings.com to see which ones were best for poker. The Razer Imperator got the best score for a wired one, followed by the Logitech G500. The first day I went out looking for the Imperator and found that only the Logitech was available. I had spent some time agonizing over whether to buy the Logitech or another Razer model and eventually decided that I would go with the reviews and take the former since it had more buttons.

Once I took it home, I realized that I could have made a better decision, as the buttons on the side of the mouse were slightly difficult to reach and the ones mounted on top were in awkward places. Also, the more I played around with different hot keys, the more I realized that the mouse only needed an extra two (for me, anyhow) and the extra keyboard commands should take care of the rest. I therefore decided to take it back and exchange it for the Razer Deathadder (even though the Imperator was now in stock), a simplified model with two very easy to reach buttons on the side, as you can see below.

The point behind this article was to show that good mass-tabling is no different than good poker-- they are both about subtlety. While I had recognized this truth in the former, often spending hours trying to figure out how to squeeze another nickel out of a given opponent per confrontation, I had long failed to recognize it in the latter. Good mass-tabling is about finding all of those tiny ways that you can shave one-tenth of a second from each decision or automate really simple, annoying things like handling buy ins or waiting lists, not about finding some silver bullet method to success.

Tap Lightly on the Glass

2010-04-25T23:01:00.000-04:00

The following article is a piece that I had written for publication for Parttimepoker.com.

Conventional wisdom tells us that we should do everything we can to avoid educating the fish. This seemed simple enough to understand, and for the first six and a half years of my career I accepted it as gospel. If they don't ever play any better, they can't ever beat you, right? In an online session where you can always find a good game and might never see the same face again, I couldn't agree more. But what about giving away a few gems in a live setting?

Back when I played baseball as a freshman in college, my team ran an annual fund raiser called the “Night at the Races” at the local Elks Lodge. This was a rather embarrassing affair where we had to name a small wooden low-rider horse and then "ride" it by sitting on it and peddling our feet as drunken rednecks gambled on the outcome while bellowing out condescending vitriol in a smoky, cramped space. As if this wouldn't have been memorable enough, it was also the first time I had ever received gambling advice that was just dangerous enough to get me into trouble. Besides the veritable humiliation, the Night at the Races also spread notable sucker games such as Beat the Dealer and Parish-style blackjack. Though Beat the Dealer was fun enough at first, I was eventually drawn to the illusion of control blackjack offered that other games did not. Even though I was failing to exercise this perceived control at the time, the fact that you could handle your own cards and order the dealer to give you more cards seemed good enough. I knew so little about this game that I didn't even care what the dealer was showing, I just thought that the goal was to get as close to 21 as possible without going over, much like games of paper football in after-school detention.

It wasn't long after I sat down that I found myself in a tough spot. I had a hard 15 and the dealer was showing a 6. Though I didn’t care what the dealer’s up card was, I did know that hitting a hard 15 meant that I was likely going to be watching my dollar bet sliding into the dealer’s tray. A couple seats next to me was Paul Burke, our junior catcher and one of the team captains. He was a great player who would later go on to sign a professional contract with the Atlanta Braves and a person that all the freshmen looked up to. When Paul noticed my hesitation, he said, "Yelly- you have to expect that the dealer has a 10 for his down card, since there are more 10-valued cards than anything else in the deck." His basic credibility combined with some quick common sense told me that he was right. After thinking for a few seconds I decided to do something that I would never have done before- stand on 15 so that the dealer would bust. To make a long story short, the dealer did just that, I felt like a genius, and thus began what would surely become a very profitable career as a professional blackjack player. Of course, this would have been lovely, except for the fact that it never happened. Intermittently over the next 5 years, my little bit of "helpful" knowledge was enough to get me to keep going back for more at our local riverboat casino and bled me to the tune of about $80 a session, which was my average daily take as a waiter at Applebee's. How strange, I thought. Why don't I ever win when I am as good as I am?

In the stores of every casino lobby, for $1.99 you can purchase a small card that contains the correct basic strategy for blackjack. Ask yourself why a casino would sell such a useful item at such a low cost. Surely the players would play worse without it, leading to a greater short-term profit for the casino, but is allowing them to do this better than earning their long-term business? Does this card actually accomplish anything? Yes. It allows the owner to feel that he is smarter than his fellow tablemates, even though he is certainly not going to follow the instructions on the card 100% of the time (he’s psychic, too- don’t forget that). This concept is not lost on the casino. They understand full well the value of making that player comfortable within the game while still possessing an unbeatable, albeit smaller edge. They would rather keep the golden goose alive and hatching than to slaughter it for its meat.

But what about the complete novice poker player? Is he any different? Does offering this player (read: potential customer) a bit of sound advice or perhaps recommending a good book really hurt your bottomline? Should we really take the fly-by-night mortgage broker approach and punish them as harshly as possible on the first confrontation for merely being ignorant? Much as getting a hot stock tip hardly makes you a solid day trader, no green poker player has ever immediately started crushing the games after being taught that 92o sucks. Though Paul had no idea what he was doing when he gave me my first good tip about blackjack, he was definitely on to something...

Clearly, helping the semi-competent player who regularly wins the annual perfect attendance award at your local cardroom hardly makes any sense, but creating a long-term customer out of the curious gentleman who strayed a little too far from his regular craps game is sheer brilliance. Though his motivations for wandering into the unknown might not be entirely clear, two things are for certain: he wants to enjoy himself and he doesn't want to look like a complete fool. Obviously, berating this man's bad play is such a horrendous breach of good business policy that it warrants no further discussion. Likewise, being courteous and sportsmanlike should be so obvious that it also need not be mentioned further as well. But how about the heretical example of offering up a quick tip about something as remedial as pot odds or schooling him about the long odds of drawing to an inside straight and ask yourself which of the following it is more likely to accomplish: creating a dangerous adversary or potentially igniting a long-term interest into a game that on the surface seems so simple but is actually highly complex? How about recommending a good introductory read such as Winning Low Limit Hold’em by Lee Jones or Getting Started in Hold’em by Ed Miller? Will this man immediately stop donating to the Average Joe Poker Pro Fund or will this game instantly become more interesting than its upstairs 3-card variant on the blackjack felt?

From where I stand, I can only see the upsides to taking this approach. After all, these novice players getting their feet wet in the game for the first time can never usurp your knowledge when you are the source of that knowledge. You now know what they know, but they will never be able to grasp the depth of what you know and what it took for you to get where you are. The next time they come wandering through and there are several open seats around, don’t be surprised if they choose to sit with you for being the helpful and kind soul that you are. That tiny bit of knowledge that you drop on them will probably never be particularly helpful, but like Paul’s little blackjack tip, it might get them to keep coming back for many years to come. After all, as we all know, you can shear a sheep many times, but you can only skin him once.

Looking Forward into the Month of April

2010-04-04T01:56:00.001-04:00

As many of you are aware at this point, Lee Jones made an announcement last week that the Cake Network will be raising the minimum buy in to 30 BB. Though this worries some people who are glued to their short stacking methods, I am actually looking forward to it because I see it not as an obstacle, but as a professional challenge. I already have certain plans in place, but I will be spending much time on StoxEV to find new optimal strategies.

Other than that, I just got my new Dell 30 inch monitor on Friday in the mail. Though the cost of almost $1,000 might seem insanity to some people, I was really turned by the idea of having 2560 X 1600 resolution and being able to fit what I thought would be 12 Pokerworld games with no overlap on one monitor, rather than 9. Though some people can bring their A-game to 2 or even 3 monitors at once, I am definitely not one of them. I can only focus on one screen at a time and any games designated to the second might actually be negative EV, though I will never really know for sure. To my surprise, with the improved resolution of the Dell, I can now fit 20 Pokerworld games with minimal overlap! That definitely sounds like too much at this point, though I very much expect to be able to profitably play 16 games at once for the first time ever.

As an aside, I also plan on getting back into SNG's, full stacking, and limit hold'em as well. I have tried my luck at several thousand hands of limit so far, and though I have found the experience to be fun, I do realize that I need some serious brush up work to be very competitive. I did find myself purposely calling down very light at times, often with very little chance of winning, just to see how the opposition is playing and to make notes. Thinking about this method give me an idea for a simple piece of advice on what I believe that everyone should take a day to do (myself included), and that is just to watch several tables and just fill up your notes in as much detail as possible. Try to standardize all of them beforehand so that you will be able to read it later quickly. Also, try your best not to instinctively judge what your opponents are doing as either right or wrong. If you see them do something that worked (or at least almost worked) that you would never have considered doing, resist the urge of privately writing them off as a donk. Rather, do your best to figure out why they would take such a proposition.

In David Sklansky's amazing new book DUCY?, which is 2+2 shorthand for "Do You See Why?" makes a great argument for always using this sort of analysis before making any investment or taking any proposition, particularly when it seems that doing so would be a no-brainer for yourself. After all, Sklansky makes the powerful point that if you are either unwilling or unable to figure out what the other party is hoping to gain, then most likely YOU are the sucker.

Correspondence With My Horse, Drew Chapman

2010-03-30T01:34:00.000-04:00

About a week a half ago, I decided for the first time ever that I would back a player. I have long been opposed to this idea due to the fact that winning players shouldn't need to be staked and, of course, the awful experiences of numerous other people. This was different, though. First of all, Drew never wanted anything more from me than advice, and secondly, he was already a winning player. Though I won't give out the exact details of the arrangement, I will say that he has a strong winning record in the $8 HUSNG's on the Cake Network, which you can read at his blog, Heads Up Chicago.

After having some correspondence that night with Drew, I realized A) he is probably ready to step it up, perhaps into the $25's and B) that it would be a fun project on my part. Partaking in this new field started me thinking on what normally goes wrong with such agreements, namely backing losing players and stressing their results. I feel that these problems can be eliminated by putting someone into higher volume and/or bigger games provided that they are already winning, yet not properly rolled and also that the staking operation should be worthwhile as a recreational cost. After all, if you are ever stressing the results of your horses, you are just playing above your roll! I also believe too many people are involved in staking because they are trying to get rich. I believe that other than the legendary staking operation of Sheets and Bax, you should do it with the goal in mind of creating a small supplementary income stream.

All that being said, I strongly urge anyone who is interested to check out Drew's Blog. Though it is early in the making, it is very clear that he is going places in this game and the quality of the writing and analysis is just plain excellent. Currently he has hit a rough patch and looking for advice on how to break out of it, though I think he has already figured it out.

Hey man. Thanks a lot for your encouraging comments on the blog, that means a lot.

Things are going okay. I still haven't completely "recovered" as it were from the slump of the last week-two, but things are looking up a bit. I had a decent session the other day, made about $60 in 3 hours. Of course, later that day I lost about half of that back in the course of two games, but it was at least, finally, a winning session in which nothing went too seriously or bizzare-ly awry.

In terms of the 25s, my record for this week is 8 wins/9 losses, so not great but not horrible. I've been good about employing focus and judgement, which has helped.

I played a little recreationally last night. I have discovered a new way to play poker purely for fun when I'm not concerned about profitability or over-analysis of my game [read=when I'm tired/want a beer]: don't play hold 'em. Specifically, I hit up the micro and low stakes 8-game SNGs on Stars, which can be tons of fun, as I really enjoy razz and 2-7 draw without having the same degree of technical knowledge of those games as I have with HE...
Anyway, tomorrow I get back on the horse (no pun intended). Perhaps I'll have a little pre-game study session with Moshman's book and/or some videos to prime my brain, as well as possibly some physical exercise. I have been experimenting with such tactics to see how they affect my play, to some success; specifically, I've noticed that when I've spent part of the day out being mentally & physically active in other ways, my game benefits... I will let you know how things shape up. Thanks again for all your support!

-Drew

Having games that you play for "fun" is always important. Ironically, when you are not playing for money, per se, you are often encouraged to try those things that you always wondered about that might be able to push your game to that next level, yet the fear of "playing incorrectly" (according to what we we THINK we know) often paralyzes our actions. Besides, when playing for fun when are never auto-piloting the decisions and we actually become much more mentally active than we normally are when trying to play "well."

-Lorin

Something just occurred to me, and I wanted to run it by you. I think that i've been thinking about this stake the wrong way, and I'll tell you why. So far I've been treating the $25 games too much like the $5s & $10s; that is, I game select for opponents with a negative ROI, and play them with the same mindset and in basically the same way as I play my lower-stake, & mostly lower-skill, opponents, because I play them during the same grind sessions through which I try to eke out my profit. This raises two problems: 1) I'm not in the right mindset. I'm grinding, mostly playing ABC poker because that's mostly all that's needed to beat the smaller games. This means I'm not using these $25s to really push myself and learn how to play the "new" game at the higher level, and I'm leaving myself vulnerable to opponents who are playing a more nuanced game/whose focus is fresher/etc. And, 2) the losses that I take from the $25s have a more pronounced psychological effect on my session, for the reasons I mentioned in my previous blog posting. If I win $30 over the course of 4 matches and then lose most of it in one, the degrading effect on my confidence and momentum is significant, and probably makes me less effective. Perhaps if I played on your stake in exclusive sessions, or otherwise separated these matches from my regular grind, it would have an overall positive effect. Thoughts? I should prob turn this into a blog post...

-Drew

Hmmm....since you are very careful about game selection, there is no way of being certain that the fish in the bigger game are any better or worse than those in your regular game. One thing that is for certain is that since the losses do affect you more acutely at the higher level, some part of you must be playing a little more weak-tight. If this is true, then your opponents will be playing a proportionally more aggressive game than yourself, making them appear to be tougher, though it might only be you who is getting weaker. I strongly suggest that you stick with your normal game, but if a player is doing something that you find confusing or frustrating, it is best just to move on. Even though you are feeling down at the moment, you will adjust as your pain threshold increases.

I do agree with the idea of game and stake segregation. It is a known fact that when playing multiple stakes side by side, the larger game affects your judgment and you will pay less attention to the smaller game. Rather than reiterate an article that has already been executed greatly, I will turn you over this link at Pocket Fives when it has already been explained, particularly Jennifear's comments at the bottom.

-Lorin

Closing in on the End of the Bet

2010-03-29T19:01:00.000-04:00

Lorin Offers to Settle the Bet

2010-03-28T00:03:00.000-04:00

An Open Letter to Jolly Toper

2010-03-22T17:40:00.001-04:00

The following post was originally going to be a reply to several comments by "jolly toper" in some of our recent posts. However, when planning out in my mind what I wanted to say, I realized that the information I am about to put forth was too important to risk having it be missed by our regular readership.

Congratulations, Ronnie Kruger. Rather than joining and being the third best player on "Team Charlatan", you have chosen to burn your bridges with Travis and claim the spot as the #1 player on Team Barfly. I am failing to see how this has done you any good. Rather than aligning yourself with players who have achieved the position that you used to seek and are capable of pulling you up, you are choosing to keep company with people who lack the technical knowledge and experience to ever prove any of your theories about poker wrong.

Being a long time friend of yours, you should be happy that Travis has finally taken the step to achieve a goal he has sought after for a very long time. Now that you are attempting to dismiss and diminish his recent accomplishments in a hurtful way, you have failed to seize the golden opportunity that had lain before you, and that is to simply ask him: how did you do it? Even better, ask him what he did that you did not.

I'll tell you what that is. Travis did not get there by possessing an overabundance of intelligence or natural ability, as he has neither :). Both of these traits will only get you about 10% of the way there, anyhow. What Travis did was keep pushing through when the experience reached the height of his pain threshold. It was neither easy nor was it fun. Though he may have been able to do this on his own, he had me by his side the whole time to make sure that he never gave up. I supplied him with the knowledge and the standard and he made that extra push on his own. It was nothing more and nothing less. Though I can hardly take the credit for what Travis did by virtue of his own fortitude, he would gladly tell you that he could not have done it without me.

As a friend, Travis would have been willing to do the same for you. Instead, you retreated back into the purgatorial shell that I like to call the "transition phase" and chose to discredit him rather than face where you are lacking. The transition phase is the stage that exists when you are clearly the best player in your regular game and are entertaining thoughts about going pro. However, making this transition is like going from being the high school basketball star to riding the bench on your college team. It strongly arouses the insecurity that comes from being the best in the local pool to testing yourself against those who are clearly better than you.

Most potential pros will never get out of the transition phase, as they feel that acknowledging the accomplishments of others somehow lessens their sense of self-worth. They prefer to label those with better results than themselves as "lucky", or take your unique position that we have contrived this massive illusion to mask the fact that we are just jacking each other off in our basements while collecting unemployment checks. Players in the transition phase find it too painful to come to grips with their weaknesses as players and forcefully block any attempts by others to help them. I would know, because I have been there. Now at this stage in my career, I wish that I had taken more steps to surround myself with people who knew more about the game and played better than I did. Unfortunately, at the time, my ego just would not have allowed it and I have suffered by choosing to pass up on the experience.

I doubt that this is what you had originally set out to accomplish in poker. While being the best player in your home game might garner you respect on a small scale, you know that you can never respect yourself for having given up on your dream of being a professional. So rather than trying to pull people back down to your level, get up off the floor and join them instead. Now that you have officially severed your ties with both myself and Travis, you have to surround yourself with new poker friends. Hopefully, they will know more about the game than yourself and thereby be in a better position to uplift you.

The good news is that you aren't done yet- not by a long shot. Part of what makes poker so great is that you can take it up at any point in your life and you do not have to rely on the judgment of others as to whether or not you succeed. It's completely meritocratic. So if you still want make it in the poker world, stop reading this blog right now and pick up a poker book. You hold nothing but contempt for what it contains, anyhow. However, if you want to stick around for one last piece of advice, here it is: My baseball coach in college once gathered the team up and told us about how Tony Gwynn, the best hitter alive, would take 400 swings in front of a mirror every single day. Then he said, "if Tony Gwynn has to do it that many times, then how many times do you have to do it?"

Stand right now in front of that mirror. Now take a long, hard look at yourself, and start swinging away.

The Prop Bet

2010-03-21T02:10:00.000-04:00

First of all, I would like to congratulate Travis for officially quitting his 9 to 5 and going pro this month. Fittingly, he not only had his first $2k day this month at the cash game tables, but his second and third as well. Now that he is running hot and a little ahead of me in the winnings category for the month, we thought we should run a special little prop bet to see who can earn more. The rules are simple: $ won and rakeback count, bonuses do not.

WHAT'S AT STAKE

The winner gets to dress as the pimp and the loser gets to dress up as the ho. And oh yeah, we wear these outfits out in public at Travis's bar, The Golden Nugget.

It's very important that Travis get humbled immediately, else he start thinking that this whole poker thing is easy. Besides, my massive ego simply can not allow this to happen. We figured that this plenty demeaning, but if anyone else out there has a better idea, we would love to hear it!

Run Your Poker Game Like a Business…(Part I)

2010-03-17T02:07:00.005-04:00

One of the most common things Lorin and I talk about nowadays are concepts concerning poker that have nothing to do with the play at the table. For any aspiring pro, or even for somebody looking to advance recreationally, there are a myriad of other factors to consider. We have touched on this topic before but I think that it bears it’s own blog post at it is some great advice gleamed from our successes (but more often from our mistakes) that doesn’t give away strategy to those Short Stack Haters that read the blog just to get a glimpse at our playbook.

There is no doubt that 95% (if not more) of the system we use at the table came from Lorin. The only reason that he keeps me around is that I have a much larger experience base for life factors away from the table. As he has really started to make some serious money, he needed someone to help him out with the other complications that inevitably arise from a rapid ascent into unknown territories. It worked out for both of us. He gave me the play book for shortstacking and I gave him advice on financial issues, marketing, “significant other” issues etc. (while we both got to hang out and waste time under the guise of “meetings”).

To get to the point, I have always believed that there is an optimal way to do EVERYTHING. The difference between “optimal” and “adequate” will often be quite small but their importance cannot be overstated. This should be apparent to students of the game. The difference between being a 1.00bb per 100 winner and a 1.25bb per 100 winner is monumental. While that seems like a tiny margin, (especially if a bb is only $1 or $2) over the course of a year, that is the difference between living in you grandma’s basement and buying your first house.

So, in order to give some hard learned advice to our loyal Short Stack Hero readers, here are some points that will hopefully help you make the transition to pro or help you out with some of the issues arising from that transition if you are already there….

1. Find the best Vendors…..
Before I sold The Bar that I owned, I got very good at looking for the right business partners. Some people may call them Vendors or Suppliers, but I always looked at them as business partners and that may have an ingredient of my success (and I will take this oppurtunity to brag, I won MAXIM magazine's "Great American Neighborhood Bar Search" a year and a half after I took over). Look for the best deal. Just because a certain company (poker site) is the one everybody uses, doesn’t mean that it is the best fit for you. If I found a liquor rep that was hungry and creative, I knew that we could make each other a lot of money if we worked together. There is a reason that Lorin and I both play predominately at POKERWORLD and speak so highly of RAKEBACKNATION. They have been fantastic partners (and us telling you this doesn’t hurt our game at all). Everybody Plays at PokerStars and FullTilt. But why? They are all the public know. They have great marketing plans. But ask yourself, what pays for that marketing and does it help you. Tilt may be superior to PokerWorld when it comes to High Stake game availability. But you know what? I don’t play $10 $20NL and up so I don’t care. Pokerworld has plenty of games at the stakes that I play and a great rotation of tournaments so the rest is just window dressing. But here is the real kicker. Smaller sites pay better because they are looking to build market share. If I was running a promotional event at the Bar, I didn’t approach Budweiser for prizes or financial support because they don’t budget much for Promotions because they don’t have to. They own the market. Coors, however, was awesome to work with because they want some of Bud’s market share. Same with Poker sites. Last Month I raked $4,711.63. With the rake chase that was done with RakeBack Nation, I earned a bonus of $575. A player that raked the same as me at Full Tilt only earned a bonus of $75. Not to mention that I earned 33% Rakeback while he only earned 27%. So, for the same amount I play I earned $2146 ($4700 x .33 = $1551 + $575) while he earned $1344 ($4700 x .27 = $1269 + $75). I won’t even mention the almost $800 I made from PokerWorld’s Gold stack bonus’ (although I guess I just did). So by choosing the right partner and nothing else, I made $782 extra last month. In a year, that is $9384. And that doesn’t require getting better at the game at all, just running your “business” better. I have nothing bad to say about FullTilt as I still play there (ie. Use that vendor) for some things, I just found a better fit to my current business model with PokerWorld as my major “business partner”. It is just choosing the smartest way to do business.

2. Stay up to speed on the Market.

Almost every industry has industry related material such as books, magazines, seminars etc. Poker is no different and actually has a HUGE volume of material available. And I am not just speaking of books on strategy, but also magazines, pod casts, websites etc. It is important to stay abreast of the “market” to help keep up with trends and be knowledgeable about your business. Not to mention, it is a great source of information for tips on the game such as the emergence of the UTG bet as a steal, common SNG strategies etc. It also fills you in on broad subjects like the UIGEA and the legal battles over Poker that may be going on in your state or country. If you owned a bar, you would need to be aware of possible changes to the liquor law. This is no different. After all, if you are going to be a pro, you should be an expert in the field.

Next Week I will address some other issues such as surrounding yourself with the right people and using all the tools (especially technology) to your advantage.

Loss of Focus to Focus of Loss

2010-03-12T00:46:00.000-05:00

Today I ended the session fairly early after booking my largest loss of the year to date of $1,400. More importantly than that, this was my first loss of the month. Since winning every session is not particularly interesting, I decided to "make" this an opportunity to write a new post. But first, take a leap of faith with me.

WINNING EVERY SESSION IS BAD FOR YOU

Until you have experienced this personally for a large sum of money, you will consider this complete and utter horseshit. I don't blame you. Several months ago, when said Mr. Kruger was challenging the credibility of my results, he questioned (at least to Travis, who passed the message on to me) why I would not be at home playing day and night and enjoying the fruits of my automatic money machine. This is a very valid question and it has many answers, but the first and foremost, and the one by which I hope to make you understand is this: you lose the hunger.

Here is my analogy. When you go the entire day without eating and decide that you will order pizza tonight, you engorge yourself when it first arrives (at least I do!). Those first few slices are amazing but as your belly gets full, the pizza, while it may taste the same, declines in pleasure and you quickly find something else that is more entertaining. Though I have stated this before and it has been stated many times before (as the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility), the reason this is bad for you is that when the money rolls in, there is no urgent need to improve.

To this day, I can not think of any time in my playing career where I was truly focused during a rush. The facets of my game where I need improvement are always present and I make a mental list of them, yet there is no pressing need to fill those gaps as long as you are winning. However, when that downswing hits, you are forced to look at your performance for the session and make a checklist of all the things that you could have done differently and with the pain of loss, the hunger quickly sets back in.

Now I am not saying that this imperfection within yourself is something that you should strive to eliminate completely once you finally get to experience it. No professionals are perfect, rather, they are just more aware of their imperfections and can bounce back quicker when they arise.

The Midwest Poker Regionals: How Deep Are You?

2010-03-03T17:00:00.000-05:00

Every time a tournament is played there is always at least one person who is asking "what is the structure"? If the stacks are deep and the levels are long everybody is happy and everybody has an advantage.

Wait a minute.... Surely a long structure can't be good for everyone, can it? Naturally, it can't. This weekend I got a great opportunity to find out just how wrong this idea is in practice. I am quite certain that starting with 15k in chips at blinds of 25/50 and hour long levels was the milkshake that brought all the boys to the yard to plunk down their $2,100. Did it do them any good? No. Did it do me good? Well, yes and no.

Here is what happens when you are this deep and the money is this significant:

Everybody gets scared and thinks they need the nuts to play a big pot. Being that this was far and away the largest tournament around, the money spent for most people was very large and the anticipation leading up to the event was even bigger. Not only did they not want to lose their chips, they were also afraid of losing out on getting their $2,100 worth of entertainment for the day with no other equivalent outlet for another few months, at least. If you are in a position to play such an event, here is what you can expect and how you can get an advantage.

IMPLIED ODDS

Starting at 300BB deep, getting huge implied odds is a no-brainer...there aren't any! Though this certainly flies in the face of anything you have been taught, a simple dose of common sense says that it shouldn't. Implied odds rely on a willingness of your opponent to cash off his chips to you. If everyone is afraid of committing large portions of his chips at any point in the hand, then they are just not willing to give you implied odds. I saw guys with big pairs, trips, and sets shut down immediately after getting check raised small on the flop and often times after just being flat-called. After all, if the guy with a known big hand isn't willing to give action, then you definitely can't expect the guy with the lesser hand to be pushing real hard either. In essence, perception becomes the consensus reality so if you had planned on playing a big pot, you had better have the nuts or....

LAUNCH A BIG BLUFF

This would have been trivially easy. When you are this deep and everyone is playing this straightforwardly with big money on the line, this is how you play big to win big. Three betting was virtually non-existent in the first 4 levels and few hands even went to show down. Would I have had the guts to do this? I am not quite sure, but I did perfectly well for the first 6 hours or so making lots of small bluffs with a success rate that was close to 100%. Here are a few examples:

A weak player limps in early position and I notice that this guy is capable of peeling light on the flop but not willing to take any hands to showdown. So I limp on the CO with 75o and if he checks, I will fire 3 barrels no matter what. The older gentleman in the BB is of no concern as well because he shares the exact same tendencies, so barring anything unusual, I will try to bluff both of them on the turn if necessary, though I would probably give up on the river if they both got that far. In any case, the flop is K94. The guy checks and calls as expect and the BB folds. Turn is a T and he checks and calls another 1/2 pot bet. The river makes a backdoor flush and though my first instinct is to check because no one could ever believe I hit that card, I realize that I am not competing with poker competency, but their fear of failure and looking foolish. So I another 2/3 pot and he grunts and lays it down.

#2. A very loose, though seemingly decent post-flop player limps in middle position for 150. I decided that I will make a play at him on my button if no one else enters, despite what my cards are. I look down to see 96o. First, I should give a little background info on this guy. The very first hand of the tournament he limps in EP with AA. He gets heads up with the BB, who check calls a board of 764 to the river and then leads out for $500 when the straight hits (about 1/3-1/2 pot), which he obviously has. The loose player laughs disgustedly to himself and then flips over his aces. Not a huge laydown technically, yet many people could not bring themselves to do this. Personally I feel that this was a huge mistake on his part to show, but I happily file this piece of information away since I might be able to use it later. Secondly, I see that he is perfectly willing to lead at a lot of flops, yet is not paying off on the river.

So I do what any reasonable player would do and raise my Big Lick to 600. The flop is KT7. He checks, I fire my annoying half pot bet and he grunts and folds. It is duly noted that once I again I plan on firing at least two barrels and then making a judgment call on the third, if necessary.

KNOW WHEN TO SHOW

Just as bluffing indiscriminately should never be done, showing your cards should also be meticulously planned. As I soon found out after my first table broke and I got moved, if you are winning too often without a showdown, it is crucial to show a good hand. Here is where I feel that I made a rather small, yet significant mistake. I had about 22,000 in chips with blinds of 100/200 and made my typical raise of 500 with KQo and got a caller behind as well as both blinds. The flop was beautiful as it came KK7 rainbow. Being that these guys often took off a card on the flop, I decided to go ahead and bet 1,000 and the loose player behind me whom I had already tangled with several times decides to be my only customer. An ace hit on the turn which did me no harm but looked as if it would totally scare away any action so I decided to check it.

Though some people might advocate firing again in case he has a king, I just don't consider this to be good advice because if he has a K, the money is going in anyway and the chance that the ace really helped him is minimal and would only allow me to get one more bet from him if he does have it. However, checking gives him a chance to think he can take it away. He doesn't oblige and checks behind and a 9 falls on the river. I bet 2,000 and he quickly folds and I muck my hand. Being that we had played several pots and has now been moved off of all of them (I still had not showed a hand yet), he naturally inquires as to what I had. I told him the truth, that I had KQ and even mentioned that I should have showed that one.

It was then that I realized that I had made a mistake. Even though I had the goods about half of the hands in which I had won, the only thing they thought about me what that I was a complete fucking thief. After all, though I had previously flopped a set and also had trip K's, they didn't know this. By not establishing my honesty, per se, I actually encouraged "Wild" Bill, an old timer from Tennessee who wasn't particularly good, to take a shot at me a short while later on a scary turn card because he said "he keeps raising."

The hand in question occurred when I was on the cutoff and was playing my rush with a K4s. The flop came down 764 with two spades. Bill, who had been playing very loose and calling often in his blinds, decided to check and call my half pot bet. When the A of clubs hit on the turn and he checked again, I saw an opportunity to move him off a better hand or get him to fold a straight draw. I bet half pot, about 2,000 and he check raised me 6,000. Did he have it? It was hard to say since he was playing so loose, but then again, I only had a pair of fours which could have been good at showdown had I gotten there, yet my own thieving image could have spurned him to make that check raise when an ace hit that also completed a flush. Excluding things like chaos theory, had I showed the KQo hand, I would have had more confidence in whether or not he was bluffing. Bill showed plenty of inclination in that direction and though the result could easily have been the same, I would now have had a better opportunity to read how Bill was reading me which could have led to a profitable play in the future.

This highlights one of the more interesting aspects of the game in that what is real is not actually what happens, but rather what people believe happens. The information flowing around the table amongst common competition tends to be very polarized. In other words, you are either a thief or you aren't. In Bill's opinion I was the former and I am sure that everyone around the table more or less agreed with him. Therefore by betting the flush card in this instance and then folding, I was only confirming their suspicions and it was now going to be harder to pull of my tricks in the future. Being that you have more shitty hands than good hands and miss more flops than you hit, I would rather preserve my ability to steal than to get a small bet paid off, since no one was really paying off big anyway.

GETTING PAID OFF (HOPEFULLY)

Now that I was down to 26k in chips after a high of 32k, I was delighted to pick up KK under the gun. With blinds of 200/400 with a 50 ante, I made my standard raise of 1,000 and was hoping that Bill would take this opportunity to show me that a naive greenhorn couldn't sit at his table. He said, "I'll be your huckleberry" and called. The action folds around to Megan in the BB on my immediate right. She has already proven to be nitty and unimaginative, though solid. With 12k left in chips, I am excited when she 3-bets it to 4,000. I announce that I am all in and after some deliberation, Bill folds. Megan turns over AQs and the board runs her out a four card straight to take the pot. Though it was my somewhat laggy image that caused this otherwise good result, it is very important to remember that preflop your edge can only be so big and therefore, it is MUCH more preferable to win a lot of pots uncontested.

At this point I was in quandary. Though I wanted to update my Twitter, it was now crucial that I be present for every single hand. I also didn't want to sound like I was whining, because hey, that's poker! So with a stack now of 14k, I was looking to either chip up or make a big move. With the blinds rising however, open-limping, which was previously very common, was occurring much less frequently. Here was my plan: the new guy who had been moved to my immediate left was playing very nitty and was neither raising much nor calling any raises. My goal was to force the action if we got to play heads up. With his stack at about 30k, I was virtually certain that he wouldn't be calling open shoves with anything less than 99+ and AQ+. However, my short stacking experience armed me with the knowledge that even if he was calling much lighter, it was still profitable to shove any two cards! However, as my stack dwindled to 10k and the blinds now at 300/600 with a 75 ante, he would be much more willing to call with for 1/3 of his stack than for about 1/2. So do I make a move now or do I wait?

Here is my philosophy about tournaments. Once your stack dwindles beyond a certain point, the value of your tournament life plummets, especially if you are intent on winning the event or at least getting to the final table. With 46 out of 102 players left, I was still a long ways out and was not planning on scrapping by the entire time. My stack also needed just a little push so that I could successfully threaten other players with some power moves, which I was ready and willing to do.

With Smitty limping UTG (the player I had been tangling with) and a very laggy player limping two spots after him, I looked down to see A2o in the SB. With 10k left, there was really only two options here: shove or fold. Calling was not an option since I would only get action post-flop if I was beat and flopping a great with with A2o is a lot more difficult than most people realize. In other words, I would be a waste of 300 chips. Now I understand how this might look, but hear me out:

1. The only hand I had showed this entire time was KK.
2. Smitty was playing very loose with a combination of raising and limp-calling and showing no inclination to limp re-raise. He had about 50k.
3. The LAG behind him had a very large stack, but showed that he was willing to raise with any two cards. When I first sat at the table, I even saw him raise Smitty and Bill with A2o. Though I understand that he is certainly not doing this every time, it is much like playing blockers in PLO- he could have such a hand and be willing to call, but the prior action makes it much less likely so. My main concern was that he would call with a small, yet larger ace or a small PP.
4. The BB behind me is almost never calling.
5. Any time you hold an ace, you have a shot against a player's entire range unless he holds aces. Given Smitty's tendencies and the fact that I held a blocker, this almost never occurs.

Finally, #6, the X-Factor
Smitty and I had been chatting it up and this makes him somewhat more likely to fold in a very marginal spot, rather than eliminate his new buddy.

So combining the fold equity, the value of future fold equity by increasing my stack by 30%, my suckout equity, and the diminished value of my stack, I choose to shove. The BB and Smitty fold as expected, but then the LAG calls and surprisingly shows me ATs. I don't know why he chose to overlimp in this spot but I still spike my 2, only to be rivered by a broadway straight.

Given the outcome of the hand, I am still very happy with the decision I made, specifically because it was all meticulously planned. Even though I was able to small ball my way to doubling my stack, I was very unlucky to have lost my tournament life to the only two large pots that I had played. Once again, that is poker!

Twitter and Tourney

2010-02-26T22:41:00.000-05:00

Hi Folks,

On the brink of the big day and I have just gotten set up on Twitter so that anyone who wants to can follow my progress at the Midwest Regional Poker Championship. My name is lyelle01 and hopefully I got everything set up correctly. Leave me a quick comment if anything needs to be changed.

Rush Poker, Part II- Strategy Tips

2010-02-21T01:32:00.000-05:00

Not too long ago I heard a brilliant saying that I would now like to quote: the man who understands how will always have a job, the man who understands why will always be his boss. Much like leading the horse to water, this post is not just going to be about what I think is good to do, but more importantly, why it should be done. In the poker world, and often even among many low-mid level professionals like myself, there is an obsession with how to do things and emulating the people who do them well. Those that developed these concepts and strategies did so because they understand why they work. If you can follow and understand the "why's" that I will provide below, you should soon be developing similar strategies on your own and will gain deep insights to the intrinsic nature of the complexities of poker.

I will begin by explaining what I like to do on the button and then follow it up with a rather long, yet easy to understand explanation. The good news is that you can easily execute the "how" for a profit without understanding the "why", yet fully grasping the "why" is necessary if you want to excel.

THE HOW: I open min-raise ANY 2 cards and follow it up with a 2BB c-bet if against only one opponent. If both blinds call, I give up unless I hit something good.

THE WHY: Stealing the blinds is important. In fact, it's huge. As David Sklansky has said in several of his earliest works, all hands of hold'em begin as a battle for the blinds. This concept is so simplistic and obvious that the fact alone makes it easy to overlook. Those who believe that the game is just about winning huge pots are slowly losing money to people who are comfortable with this very basic truth about the game. Min-raising makes this very easy, as it is a simple odds play and therefore only needs to work 57% of the time to break even since it is so cheap to do. I can already guess what some of you might be thinking: if this is so easy and effective to do, why not do it all the time in any kind of game? To answer this, we must now ponder the flip side of this equation by asking "why not?"

WHY NOT? What prevents you from doing this normally is your table image. This is one of those concepts that I had previously explored in theory for short stacking (in which case it is a very sound strategy and some players actually use it or something similar). Even otherwise nitty and uncreative players would soon go to great lengths to prevent you from doing this and though your great hands would get payed off nicely, your marginal to medium-strong hands would suffer greatly after the flop, as it would be very difficult to figure out what to do with a hand like QJ when the flop is J95 and you face a large check-raise by a TAG. Naturally, much more of your hands fall into the second category.

WHY NOW? The constant shifting tables in a large player base make it very unlikely that you will face the same lineup in the blinds in the same steal situation more than a couple of times per session at most. The small blind, who has made half the investment as the big blind, has little incentive to stick around with a couple of turds in the mere hope that he can make a 3-bet bluff to pick up your $2 raise when he can fold immediately and hope to pick up aces on the very next deal...even if he knows what you are up to! Given that he can move on to the next hand with precious little thought, it is easy to assume that this is exactly what he will do, approximately in the ballpark of 60-70% of the time on average. Essentially, this means that you are only facing one opponent over half of the time and his cards are completely random and you will have position on him the entire hand. Knowing this, as well as the strong incentive to try to cash in on another lotto ticket immediately if he folds makes him more inclined to refuse to get tricky and just pass.

Attempting to steal the blinds in Rush poker is very similar to a back alley mugging in the real world. With no witnesses around, your crime is not only more likely to succeed, but also very importantly, it is less likely to face retributive action from others. Once they have folded their hands, the other players have been moved away from the crime scene and allow you to do your dirty work without their scrutiny. While this has no bearing on the current situation, it makes it more probable that you can continue to get away with this for a long, long time.

But doesn't raising the minimum give him great implied odds? Absolutely not...in fact, his implied odds are very poor. A little known secret about implied odds is that they are only available when you choose to cooperate with your opponent and pay him off with a lesser hand. Therefore if you are raising with trash, I recommend that you only commit a large portion of your chips if you make at least two pair or better. Too many people instinctively believe that implied odds are a necessary component of specific two card combinations like 98o or 54s. Unfortunately for them, flopping a large hand with their own breed of trash will occur very rarely and far more rarely will you have a hand that you are willing to commit with yourself. The likely result is that they will frequently call with their pus and then fold to your tiny continuation bet. Furthermore, by keeping the pot very small, you can fire another cheap bet of around 1/2 pot if your opponent check calls and a scare card comes on the turn.

The min-raise also has a very strong and yet subtle psychological aspect to it. When you make this play, since calling is very cheap and folding feels compellingly weak, your opponents will often become indignant and call with a hand that has no post-flop potential out of stubbornness alone. The small post-flop pot combined with a complete lack of information of you as a player makes them more likely to fold than normal because the incentive to play the hand out with some potentially very difficult decisions is simply not worth the hassle to many players.

WHAT ABOUT FACING LIGHT 3-BETS? The question is: is it really light? Here is how I would recommend determining if the 3-bet is indeed light.

1. The small blind has 3-bet you. For the reasons above, the incentives for the small blind to both plan and execute this kind of bluff are simply not there. He also does need to be at least somewhat concerned that the BB might have picked up a large hand behind him, and although not likely, this is just one more facet to discourage this play.

2. His stack is below 100BB. Since short stacking is not allowed in these games and the typical reg is always sitting with a full stack, you must assume that anyone with less is either A) almost broke B) playing on scared money and C) just not all that likely to be very good. Playing with a stack of 20BB or less can give you an automatic advantage and 100BB or more gives you maximum maneuverability against most players at the table. Anything in between is no man's land and all good or aspiring players know this. What's more? Good players are also the ones who understand that defending your blinds matters. Therefore, if a player has less than 100BB, be apt to give him credit for what he is representing.

3. You see that your opponent in the BB has more than 1 entry in the game and you see him playing day after day. This is the one who is most likely to be pushing back at you with air.

It is important to realize that the advice I am providing here is not new or original. It took me about 15 minutes of play to realize that this was possible and therefore it was no surprise to be reading about it by other more well-known players. When advice such as this becomes wide spread, good counter strategies are likely soon on the way. The obvious solution would be to start light 4-betting opponents who fit the above criteria. This was also very clear when I noticed that my legitimate 4-betting hands were causing most 3-bets to fold. In light of this observation, I find that flat-calling with your best hands is preferable to 4-betting.

Originally, I was hoping that HUD's would never enter the scene. This is not because I don't believe in them as a strategy tool. After my rants against them this past summer, I came to grips with the fact that I must suck it up and learn them or put myself at a serious disadvantage to those who harness their power. I did not want them in this game because I felt that this gave me a better edge against certain sectors of my competition who would be weakened without them. I am also concerned that they will hurt the profitability of the plays recommended above, but these plays are sturdy and powerful enough in their own right that they should be effective in this particular arena regardless.

Given the news that PT3 and HEM are now offering fixes to make their HUDs usable in Rush poker, I will have to take this advance into consideration as I delve further into this game. At this point in time, I have not had the opportunity to incorporate the new HUD features into this game and therefore am not qualified to comment on their effects (or lack of) at this time. Hopefully, you guys who are reading this and experimenting with this game will try this out and share some of your insights on its effectiveness. In a future post, I will supply and examine some hand examples in these situations with some in-depth commentary. Best of luck!

December and January Results

2010-02-18T22:35:00.002-05:00

Cash: $23,619
Rakeback: ~$6,750
Tournament Winnings: $573
Gold Stack Bonus: $323
Gold Card Race: $310
Race Chase: $3,200

Not shown: ~$350 Rush Poker (played on my laptop)
$120 Heads up

TOTAL: $35,145

I was kind of reluctant to post this at first in light of recent security attacks on my FT account, my rakeback account, and the blog itself. Rest assured, there is no more money in any of these accounts, as I cashed it all away on one misclick against Isildur1 shortly thereafter (though it is still in dispute on a datamining charge). If said hacking scum is reading this right now, you know who you are and I hope you die in a grease fire.

Essentially this was all made in about 6 weeks time, as I was actually stuck about $500 as of the middle of December and then immediately began to run like Cantu. Over this span I ran over $5,000 over EV, but would have certainly been happy running totally even or below. I did manage to skeet by on the January Rake Chase which added heftily to my January total, which also pushed me past the $20k mark for the first time ever in the cash games, which was truly exciting for me on a personal level.

Though I spent the first week and a half away from the tables this month, things are still looking solid, though I have a rather moderate goal of making at least $6k since I have not been able to log the hours. Other than that, I am very excited to be an official affiliate of Rakebacknation and also have been invited to do some writing for parttimepoker.com, their affiliated site. Though the details have not yet been worked out, I plan on offering more original content on that platform and hopefully offering my share of deranged humor as well!

As an aside, I would like to send a special thank you to my friend and colleague, Crazy Bear, whose influence on my game boosted my results practically overnight and without his help, none of what you see above would have been possible.

How to Cause Tilt

2010-02-14T12:48:00.000-05:00

I found this as an addendum to a great article by grapsfan on Pocket Fives. It was written by Jennifear and I consider this to be absolute gold:

I'm not much of a chatter, and you won't find this advice anywhere in a book, because it doesn't promote the game. If you want to tangle in the chatbox and have a little fun, then I have one word for ya:

Illogic.

If you want to tilt someone in a nasty fashion, use an argument devoid of logic. The reaction you get is priceless. When you beat KK with A4, then "it's about time I won a coinflip", or "no aces flopped last hand, so I felt they would hit this hand".... this even works better if the flop last time contained an ace.

"It was suited." "It wasn't suited so I had TWO chances to hit a flush, not just one." "I had a feeling." "I have all the chips now, so I must be better than you." These one-liners work.
If they can't beat your argument with logic, they will become very frustrated and tilty. Plus you aren't getting mad, your goal is now truly to get them upset, and use your newfound image to your advantage, so you won't get caught up in defending your plays. One last word of advice if you are going to use the chatbox as a weapon: Fight right, nice left. You want the player on your right to call your 3-bet value raise out of frustration, but you want to be able to continue to steal from the player on your left.

An Appeal to Capitalists

2010-02-12T19:47:00.005-05:00

I plan on playing in the main event of this series on the 27th of this month and I am looking to sell pieces of myself. The total buy in is $2,100, of which I will be paying the first $1,000 as well as the $100 entry fee. Anyone who wants to contribute will actually be getting a small overlay on their money (100% rakeback!) with an added bonus that if I place in the top 3 spots, I will be paying out an additional 10% of my winnings. For example, if someone wants to buy a $100 dollar share of the $2,100 buy in, they will be contributing just over 4.7% of the total, but will be receiving a 5% share of the prize.

Here is how I plan to do this:

I will sell pieces of myself in increments no smaller than $25 with returns as explained above. I will list all contributors and the total amount purchased at the end of this post and will keep amending the list as more people contribute. Should anyone prefer to remain anonymous, your contribution will be listed with only your first and last initial labeled. All stakers should send the money to Poopatron at Poker Stars and then follow up by email to let me know of the transfer. If you do not have a PS account and would like to be involved, please email me and we can make an alternate arrangement. I will be providing up to the minute updates via Twitter and will be taking photos from the event as well.

Here is a list of the contributors thus far:

$25- Jerry Hodges
$50- Adam Monteiro
$50- Jonathan Novak
$100- Daniel Yelle
$50- Rakebacknation Rob
$100- cucinella
$100- Crazy Bear

Total Raised- $475

Thanks!!

Rush Poker, Part I- Structure and Theory

2010-02-10T18:06:00.000-05:00

By means of popular demand, I decided to take on this topic first. Rush poker, in essence, is the action player's wet dream and finally fulfills the demand that has driven recreational play online in the first place. For those unfortunate souls who have yet to try it, the premise of Rush poker is thus: you enter the game without having to post, as positions are dealt at random with the player who has gone the longest without posting the BB being the one who must take it. From there, if you do not like your starting hand, you have the option of using a "quick fold" feature where you immediately leave your current table and are seamlessly transported to another and are instantly dealt into a new hand with an entirely new set of opponents. Tables are unobservable as the action consists of one large player pool that is constantly shifting. A full ring table that would normally deal between 55-80 hands per hour now averages about 250-275. If it isn't already clear, the implications of such play are profound, as are the means of profiting from such play. Here is my take on the advantages:

1. No time spent on wait lists or waiting to post

Recreational and serious amateurs will have a hard time grasping how important this is to your overall profitability. Given that I consider our readership here to be above the curve in general, this shouldn't really require an explanation other than to state the obvious: more time at the tables = more $.

2. Lack of specific reads

Many people consider this to be a fault but I consider this to be an advantage. The truth is that this is, in fact, neutral. Those who admit that this burdens their play have unwittingly revealed a weakness in their game and all weaknesses can be exploited. Naturally, that specific reads are difficult and often impossible to achieve works both for and against you. So who benefits? The guy who actually knows how to play fundamentally strong poker! The Phil Hellmuths of the world would get slaughtered and the Sklansky-bots would reign supreme. Being that your average work-a-day professional falls into the second category, this is good news indeed!

3. Ease of folding makes hand reading easier

Funny how most people like to complain that a group of fish drawing against your aces makes the game impossible to win and then go on to complain that the fish now have very little incentive to play their crappy 53o now that they can instantly be dealt into another hand. I can't say that I really care either way, except that now if you raise from EP and get a cold caller in the CO and they need said 53 to make the only available straight in a heads up pot, they almost CAN'T have it! Likewise, elaborate bluffs will almost never occur except as the result of a draw that bricked on the river. Naturally no game variant could ever be this predictable, but it certainly is to a higher than normal degree.

3. Easy to rathole

No, I do not mean this in the short stack sense. Though I plan on taking this concept one step further in my future post about reflections on a year of short stacking, I will have to touch on this briefly in order to make the point clear. Pretend that you are 200BB deep and then look at the following examples and notice the error in thinking:

A. When I have AA, I want to be able to stack someone holding QQ.
B. When I have the nut flush, I want to be able to stack someone holding the K high flush.
C. When I flop a royal flush, I want to be able to stack someone who flopped a straight flush.

Here is my quick take on the above examples:

A. When you are this deep, it will be extremely difficult to get someone holding QQ or even KK to commit a ton of money preflop, and made much more difficult when there is essentially no game history established. Furthermore, a bad flop such as 8h7h6h when the QQ holder does not have the appropriate suit and already made suspicious of the possibility of being up against aces is likely to make them clam up and play passively or simply make the correct fold early in the hand out of nothing more than fear alone.

B. This is pretty much the same as the example above, with the added fact that if the board is paired or the fourth of the suit falls, they are very likely to play passively when there is a lot of money behind, but would of course have happily stacked off in the common 100BB scenario even when the above scare cards are present.

C. This is the whole concept of "I want to be able to stack someone when I flop a set" taken to its logical extreme. Naturally, this scenario is ridiculous due to its rarity, but it is something to consider when chasing what I like to call "jackpot hands" like small pairs. Flopping huge is not the same thing as flopping huge and getting paid. The deeper you are, the more difficult this becomes to do as a large favorite. I don't know about you, but I would not feel particularly good about getting all in 200BB deep with a set of 2's on a rainbow board of K92.

So what does this mean? Being really deep adds significantly to your total bluffing equity but quite likely subtracts significantly from your value equity. Unfortunately, with the lack of metagame built into the structure of Rush poker itself, exercising large bluffs on a regular basis would be suicide. I would strongly suggest that you rathole your winnings when get much above 100BB and just re-enter the game with a full stack.

While I am sure that this advice will ruffle a few feathers, my short stack experience has shown me the truth of the situation. My win rate over the past 5 months has been about 1.5ptBB/100 (a true short stack artist can enjoy a WR in the 1.75-2 range). With my somewhat extensive use of PTR, I have determined that this is approximately equal to what an ordinary full stack professional earns. A very good full stacker can expect a WR of 2.5BB and only a small elite group can hope to ever earn anywhere near 3BB or higher. Please don't draw on the example of Nanonoko, as his LTWR is extraordinary and he should be considered an outlier on all accounts.

What sort of assumptions can we draw from this information? That the first 20% of your stack provides the majority of your entire earnings! Furthermore, the remainder of your stack forces you to take greater and greater risks for a proportionally poorer and poorer return on your investment. While ratholing might be preferable in an ordinary situation, external factors like good seating and long wait lists make this a Catch 22 when playing in a good game. They might hate that they are sitting the the right of a great player when they are both 200BB deep, but reluctant to leave a huge fish on their right who is spewing away all his money. The constant reshuffling of tables and seating in Rush poker make this a non-factor and should be exploited to the fullest.

This concludes part I on my take on the basic structural theory of the game, and I will conclude part II with my advice on HUD availability and late position strategy. I am really hoping for feedback from you guys so that we might be able to delve even further into this fascinating innovation of online poker.

Thinking of Moving in a New Direction

2010-01-30T03:01:00.000-05:00

As enjoying as it has been playing the part of the villain for greater part of the past year, it might be time to move on and wear the shell of a new identity. No, it was not due to Full Tilt's move to raise the minimum buy in, which I am in fact quite pleased about for reasons that will be explained in an upcoming blogpost. The move is more about the desire to not dilute the quality of the writing by visibly wearing such a divisive uniform. As stated previously, this blog has never been to endorse short stacking or any other poker form or strategy. When it all comes down to the wire, there are really only two kinds of play that I truly endorse- the fun kind and the profitable kind. As it were, both Travis and I have been very grateful for the ongoing support of our dedicated readers and their openmindedness to strategies that they might not even necessarily agree with, yet can still respect as just another aspect to a complex and ever-changing game.

Incidentally however, this move is actually inspired by Full Tilt's introduction of Rush Poker. Though considered by some to be a mockery of purist poker, I actually embrace it as a very innovative and profitable move on their part that fills a gap in an area that was lacking in both online and brick and mortar play- instant action and gratification for both enthusiasts and recreational players alike. How does this tie in to the move to change the direction of our blog? Due to my most recent strategy construct improvements in short stacking, I have gleaned some super insights on how to exploit a strategy glitch that this new type of play allows. And no, I am not referring to short stacking these games. Even if it were possible, I would not choose to do this. I have been full stacking these games a bit this month to some good win rates and massive profits and I am eager to share these insights in the hope that our current and future readers will be able to explore them without bias in ways that they will find to be both enjoyable and profitable. Too many people have been quick to judge my knowledge of the game based on the way in which I choose to express my skills within the game and I do want short stacking to hide the fact that I have been making a living purely off this game in one form or another for close to 5 years now- a feat that I am truly proud of.

This blog has always been and will continue to be about managing the professional lifestyle, thinking outside the box and challenging conventional and outdated poker dogma. My ultimate personal goal is not to be the best short stacker in the world, nor full stacker, or even the best player. I would prefer to leave a legacy as one of the great poker writers and thinkers about the game, and I feel that the identity of "The Short Stack Hero" will only burden this ultimate goal. For this I would personally like to request a favor from our regular readers to let us know in which ways they feel they have benefited most from the content on this site so that we can pave the path to future.

In any case, here are the articles that I have been meticulously mulling over in my mind to post over the course of the last month, not in any particular order:

January and December results
Full Tilt's move to raise the minimum buy in
Game Theory, Short Stacking, and "what's best for the game"
Rush Poker review and strategy concepts
Insights gained from looking back on a year of short stacking. This will be truly epic!
Bankroll Theory, part III (I was wrong)

As always, thank you for reading and your support!

Lorin

The Poker Stars Blogger Championship

2010-01-09T18:03:00.003-05:00

I have registered to play in the PokerStars World Blogger Championship of Online Poker! Bloggers can register to play for free in the WBCOOP, if you don’t have a PokerStars account you can get your Free Poker Download at PokerStars
Registration code: 361858

Focusing on the Long Term

2009-12-31T01:57:00.001-05:00

Just a few days ago, I began ruminating on the concept of "focusing on the long-term." Widely accepted as the wisdom of dealing with bad beats and bad temporary results, poker authors everywhere have been regurgitating this advice for years, much to the dismay of...oh, just about everyone. In fact, I can not think of a more abstract or depressing way of viewing this game. After all, they say we can never get too high or low about a given cash game session as it is really just one long game that goes on and on and on and on and ON..... Apparently the journey of a thousand miles not only begins with the first step but ends somewhere far beyond the visible horizon at a place that we won't even recognize when we get there. Luckily for all of you, I have managed to take this poorly constructed yet well-meaning advice and turn it into something usable. I will be the first to admit that there is nothing groundbreaking that I am about to present here, yet I am sure that some of you have oft overlooked it.

This meditation first began when pondering the effects of attempting to win the rake chase at Pokerworld for the month of January. That wasn't a typo- for those of you who don't know, a rake "chase" is different than a rake "race" in that there are guaranteed tiered payouts for everyone who reaches specific rake plateaus. The one in question rewards an extra $1,400 in cash to all those who rake at least $8,000 (high volume, if this is not already obvious) and $3,000 to all of those who rake at least $15,000 (extraordinary volume!). Being that you are rewarded for consistent performance, this is superior to the alternative.

While this goal seem ludicrous to me personally when I saw it, it seemed quite doable the first time I raked $800 in a single day and realized that it was about 9 hours of play. Though I knew it was unreasonable to think I could do this every day, I was quite happy to realize that it would only take 19 sessions like this. Doing some quick calculations yielded that it would take somewhere between 180-200 hours of play of 9-tabling. Further examination showed me that not only would I bring home that extra dough, it would also glue me to the table and force me to play when I would otherwise quit, creating much higher earns overall. Being that I can track my rake to the penny using HEM, the previously abstract "long term" now had an end in sight. When you have a distinct end point in that is actually tangible and achievable, the bad beats become much more tolerable and the long sessions now have a meaning other "win more" or "get unstuck".

The "goal" of winning at poker over the long-term is no better than the goal of finishing college, losing weight, or making Supernova Elite next year. All experts say that these things must be broken down into manageable sub-goals that are achievable and measurable and preferably have some kind of reward for each step. The above goals would be better stated as taking 6 credit hours each semester, limiting yourself to 1,500 calories per day, or earning x FPP's each day. While the idea of raking $15,000 is unheard of for myself personally, I know that I can get through each day visualizing that $3,000 pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

For those of you who would like to follow my progress towards this goal, click here and search for the player name "Papa Rozzi" at Poker World, right at the top of the list!

P.S. A quick word of caution: do not let goals of earning FPP's or rake or rakeback distract you from your ultimate goal- making money. Do not consume yourself with pushing past your maximum table limits to quickly reach a goal that will happen on its own. As always, if the amount of money you earn at the tables is ultimately eclipsed by the rakeback you earn on a monthly basis, you are doing something wrong or misusing your focus.

Moving Up and Losing Me Bottle

2009-12-22T13:59:00.002-05:00

After last month of playing mostly $1/2 with some $2/4 and $3/6 and showing success in all of these stakes, I figured that the best move would be to start December playing only $2/4 and $3/6 from that point on, being well rolled for both games. Being that playing the bigger pots in the larger games was distracting me from playing well in the smaller game, it seemed to make logical sense to eliminate the smallest game from my menu and enjoy the better win rates in the larger games. Naturally, had this worked out so well, there would be no reason to make this post.

What I am attempting to explore here is whether or not you will do better in the long run by moving up now, EVEN IF you are well rolled and competent enough to beat the higher game. Here is what I have found out:

1. BIGGER WINS CAN LEAD TO SHORTER SESSIONS

Coventional poker knowledge: you should always keep playing when you are winning. Short stack hero says: HORSESHIT. Don't get me wrong here: I am not disagreeing with what all of the poker authors are saying in spirit, but rather, what they are saying in practice. They have never addressed the psychological fact that people experience more pain due to a loss than the joy they receive relative to an equal win.

When I first started the month, I went up about $2,500 right out of the gate, in 3 short sessions. Most of this came in $1,000 spurts experienced in the course of short runs of about 1-2 hours. While this might feel quite good while it is happening, it is totally eclipsed by taking a dinner break and giving back $1,000 in 30 minutes. The result? It is very easy to go up a lot (relative to the smaller stakes you had been playing) and then find some external reason to quit and enjoy your win for the day. To make matters worse, we create our own psychological barriers according the law of diminishing marginal utility. It feels good to win the first $500 of the day and very good to hit $1,000 for the day, yet beyond this point, things begin to change. Going up to $1,500 will make me feel only slightly better, yet dropping down to $500 for the day will make me feel lousy, with the irony being that had you told me the previous day that I would be making $500 tomorrow, I would be satisfied.

In sum, though $1,000 is still the same to me that it was in November, when you are playing just $2/4 and $3/6, it is an average of 2 full buy ins. Easy to make and easy to give back. My mind was simply not prepared for this.

2. BIGGER LOSSES ARE LIKELY TO LEAD TO LONGER SESSIONS

This requires no extrapolation, for all of us have done this a some point.

3. BAD RUNS CAN EQUAL LONGER TIME AWAY FROM THE GAME

We all know by know that poker profits are not just measured by the month, but also by the day, the hour, and to some people, by the hand. No matter how big a single session is, time spent afterward away from the table will likely hurt your profits more than a long, slightly tilty session if you are a competent player. The second week of the month was terrible. I lost about $2,800 in the course of 3 short sessions and ran $3,300 under EV. I had intellectualized that this would happen at some point, yet I was stilled floored by the fact it not only did, but that it happened so soon. When you take a loss that is this disruptive, the thought of sitting at your desk becomes burdensome, if not intolerable. Some people are made of stone and things like this just roll of their backs. I am not one of them and I imagine that you are most likely not as well.

4. GAME SELECTION BECOMES FAR MORE DIFFICULT

Damn short stackers have completely infested the full ring $2/4 and $3/6 games at Full Tilt (not for much longer, though)! Rather than whine about it though, I just won't sit and play with them if there are too many and they have position on me. Likewise, the higher you play, the fish become fewer and less frequent. So for guys who are used to playing at 16-24 tables with little thought, this just becomes much more difficult to do.

As if it weren't difficult enough to make money at this game, making more money requires even more consideration than simply win rates and bank roll management. Am I saying not to give it a try? Absolutely not- just keep this on the back burner and be self-conscious at all times.

Following in Glenn Beck's Footsteps

2009-11-14T18:05:00.002-05:00

This post is an apology to our regular readers. We were going to do a series on the "debate" with narrow minded full stackers but are scrapping it after much consideration. After all, winning an argument requires a certain amount of cooperation on the part of the arguee - where the person in question decides to submit and see things from your point of view. Doing so in this case is also counter productive, because it is tantamount to tapping on the glass. As long as we are dismissed, our play becomes highly profitable. The minute we are taken seriously, we will seriously need to consider doing something else, like working at McDonald's ;)

As anyone who has been following the last few posts can see, narrow minded fools will not be persuaded under any circumstances. They simply change the argument when they see a point which they can not possibly win and spout more and more ridiculous things as a consequence. Had we not let our utterly massive egos get in the way, we would have ignored such blather long ago, and that is precisely what we will do from this point on.

For those of you who have been following this blog over the course of its evolution, you fully understand that this blog was not meant to promote short stacking or any other style of poker. It was meant to challenge conventional wisdom and groupthink to reach conclusions that help a person succeed in their own fashion. I should know. I have read pretty much every single significant text on hold'em since the day I declared that I wanted to be a professional over 6 years ago now. While I am very grateful for the knowledge that has been handed down to me, I also never had the chance to develop a style all my own. This knowledge has given me the tools of the professional and given me a good living, though it has also almost certainly prevented me from ever becoming a top player with a unique approach to the game. I am hoping to break that mold for the rest of you and not further waste your time by engaging in arguments with idiots. I'll leave that to Glenn from now on.

An Amazing Hand by Any Measure...

2009-11-09T19:54:00.002-05:00

Willing to Trade: Short Stack Snake Oil for Baby Stack College Fund

2009-11-06T20:54:00.000-05:00

I wanted to offer my services as a coach, perhaps for the last time. As I have vastly improved my game and winnings, I have become less and less inclined to take on new students, and quite likely will stop doing it altogether as of the end of this month. For anyone who is interested, the rate is $150 per hour, or $125 per hour for those who sign up at my rakeback site, with a minimum of 2 hours purchased.

I have included my results since September 1st and this is the last time I will be posting them as well. I don't care to gloss over the content of this site with brags or pissing contests about win rates. I am only including this now for street cred and to show that you can make a lot of money when short stacking correctly and without even putting in extreme volume.

*The oddly staked games came from a conversion error from Cake poker hands where the small blind wasn't posted. All nasty responses posted will be deleted, so don't even waste your time. Just contact me at lyelle@insightbb.com.

Debate #1: Learn to Play Full-Stacked

2009-11-05T22:16:00.001-05:00

As we all know, short stackers are a bunch of talentless, uncreative twits who are either lazy or greedy and have no respect for the game. Luckily this is poker and not alternative music and we don't need to pretend that are we here for anything other than the money. So why should any of us "learn" to play full stacked (we have said many times that we do, but since you won't believe us anyway, just assume that we don't)? Here are the objections to this lousy argument:

IS THIS REALLY WHAT YOU WANT?

I assume that since you both play online and take the time out of your day to google poker terms, that this game is important to you and therefore the money that you make (or attempt to make) is also important to you. So if we learn how to play poker, how exactly does this benefit you? You must be assuming that since we are talentless to begin with, you will still be able to crush us in your .10/.25 game where you would proudly reign as king if it were not for those lowly dissident short stackers. Yet what if that isn't the case? You have now turned an untalented fish into a competing force that now swallows fish whole rather than taking a nibble from them and saving the good parts for YOU.

But now here's the thing. If I'm talentless and yet still found a way to win, why would I give that up, especially when giving it up would mean that I would have to work a 9 to 5 job on someone else's terms? At least the people who say "DIE SHORTSTACK SKUM" have their priorities in order....

YOU WOULD MAKE A LOT MORE MONEY PLAYING WITH A FULL STACK

Supposing this is true (I'm talentless), I just don't see how this is any concern of yours. Alas, it's not a concern of mine either. No one has said anything like "you could play so many more tables" or "you will have so much less stress" or "you won't lose any sleep because you got bluffed out of a huge pot" or even "you could play much longer sessions." I eventually came to the conclusion (see article titled: ...And Everything is Illuminated) that these things are what REALLY matter to me. My win rate was probably a little bit better, but the swings made it difficult to play for long sessions at a time and I often would put in 20-25 hour weeks, which could make subpar months difficult to live on.

SHORT STACKING WOULDN'T BE ANY FUN

It's a job dillhole, it's not supposed to be fun. A job that I make a lot of money doing and yet once again, I don't see how this is any of your concern. In fact, this is what should console you and your choice to sweat it out every day and warm your soul when you can't sleep at night. I traded my win rate and variance for the fun that you get out of the game. Is this what bothers you or is it that you worry that I actually DO enjoy it? I DO...sorry, you lose again!!!

YOU ARE TAKING THE FUN OUT OF IT FOR REGULARS!

This is just stupid. Making the game fun is something that you do in a live setting or home game to keep the fish around. I don't recall anyone saying that this is some kind of rule for online play, and chances are that if you are making it fun for someone else, you have been doing something wrong. In other words, if guys are following you around from table to table it isn't because of your quick wit or because they admire your play.

And besides...all those regs hate each other, and they hate you as well. Case closed.

SHORT STACKING IS A SIMPLE, ROBOTIC, AND LAME STRATEGY

First of all, let me clarify that short stacking falls into two categories that I now like to coin: passive short stacking and exploitive short stacking. Passive short stacking is the one that most of you are familiar with and I fail to see how this is a problem in your normal game. Those are the guys who sit around and wait for premium hands and try to get all in with them before the flop. I don't understand how or why you think guys like this are ruining the game, because all you need to do is fold to their raises and steal their blinds. They are out there looking for large edges and since those come along very seldom, these guys won't be playing a whole lot of pots with you. In short, quit acting like a fucking cry baby, because that is what you are if you are complaining about this. And don't worry- these guys aren't making much money.

If passive short stacking is the poker equivalent of pan handling then all you would need to do is cross the street to avoid them. An exploitive short stacker is a back alley mugger who will chase you across the street and stab you just to take the quarter that they just saw you stick in your pocket. They are masters of finding small edges and aren't afraid to stick in all their money to get it. This what the truly successful ones are doing, and some of them are making upwards of $400,000 a year, in other words, what you would make in approximately 80 years in your normal .10/.25 game or 26 years working your job at McDonald's.

Now if there were a Nobel Prize for poker, the person who created exploitive short stacking surely would have won it. You might think it is simple, yet it is actually a superior strategy when placed side by side with ALL of them. "But it's so simple...." you whine. Exactly. It's what made Windows superior to DOS, which made computing accessible to the masses. Full stacked poker is actually a very weak strategy (let's lump them all together, for argument's sake), because for most people it does more harm than good. If it is only available or usable by a small group of elite players, then that says more about the person wielding it than it does about the strategy.

Pretend for a minute that someone were attacking you with a knife. What would you rather defend yourself with, your own knife or a can of pepper spray? With the knife, you have to get in close where you are in the most danger, strike better than your opponent and hit vital organs and then jump back before they can strike back. With the can of pepper spray, you can stand back at a distance, shoot it in their general direction and then run away while they curse you.

It has been said that if you don't know what you are doing then taking a knife to a fight poses more danger to yourself than it does to your adversary. After all, I'm not out to kill anyone, I just want to live to fight another day...

Short Stacker Poker Extortion

2009-09-21T22:16:00.021-04:00

Lorin said something today that got me thinking. He talked about a guy calling his shove with 78s and then saying something like "serves you right you short stack peice of shit" or something along those lines when his hand hit and he stacked Lorin. One of the benefits of short stacking is the fact that other players hate us. This is evident on almost every forum post about shortstackers regardless of the forum. This is a benefit because players will call bets and shoves lighter than they should in the hopes of busting us. What they don't realize is that we don't leave the table when we get busted, we just reload. We only leave when we double up (or reach a predetermined stack size that we deem unwieldy).
I say that we take this a step further. From now on, whenever I sit down at a new table (lets say a $1-$2 NL Full Ring game) I will make the table an offer. It the chat box, as soon as I buy in for my Short stack and they all know what I am there to do, I will type in the Chat Box something along the lines of:

"Attention Players. Since none of you want me here and I will only leave when I double up, I will cut you all a deal. If each of you pony up $4, I will go ahead and leave and not return for at least 2 hours. If not I will stay, make your lives miserable by shoving on your weak attempts at blind steals, destroying your continuation bets and eating your blinds mercilessly. Eventually I will crack one of you for $40, then leave and be back in exactly 30 minutes to ruin your day again. Discuss amongst yourselves, but I need your answer before I have to post the Big Blind".

While possibly morally ambiguous, if nothing else this attempt at extortion should at least throw several of my table mates into full on uber-tilt, especially when they continuously see this at every table they play at. Just a thought. Let me know what you think, or if you have a better wording for my new "table greeting"

The Law of Unintended Consequences

2009-09-13T17:55:00.002-04:00

We see this everywhere. A smoking ban in bars leads to more drunk driving deaths when people drive further to get to bar that has heated outdoor smoking areas. Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" program hurts the Demolition Derby sport by causing a drought of old vehicles that now going straight to the junkyard. Why should we care? Because all players who are upset by the short stack epidemic are witnessing this happening right now. The culprit? A powerful new generation of poker software that we all love and enjoy.

Many people have suggested that we raise the minimum buy in. I would like to point out, though, that the minimum buy in has always been 20BB pretty much across the board. Yet if you peel the layers back a little further, you will see that there only exists a short stack swarm at sites where the newer highly advanced HUD's are not only rampant, but encouraged. After all, the 20BB minimum buy in exists at the Cake Poker network as well, yet there are very few short stackers who exist there and none of them are particularly dangerous...because of the site wide ban on this software.

The highly detailed HUD's available through HEM and PT3 et al. paved the way for short stackers who can now slice through you with razor thin margins because of a huge list of very specific stats that can track your patterns of play from every single position at the table and can feed this information into advanced simulators on their free time like StoxEV that can measure their expected value down to the PENNY. Even if a player has never logged any hands against you, they can still purchase hand histories by the million and have a complete profile against you as soon as they wake up at noon.

So is this new generation of software aids the true danger to the game? I would wager a "yes" here. Even Kyle "Cottonseed" Hendon made a remark in one of his videos on Stox Poker that the HEM HUD is so good that it is almost like cheating. While the lines have blurred tremendously since their inception, it is certainly quickly reaching that point. Had you explained to an old time pro back in 1999 what people were doing now to the game they almost certainly would have called it such.

Intermission

2009-09-12T16:00:00.001-04:00

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

The Perils of Emulating Your Own Success

2009-08-21T00:31:00.002-04:00

It would seem a very rational thing to do. You pick the game of your choice, learn the fundamentals and mechanics of solid play and then slowly become a winner in that game. Though you don't quite know fully what you are doing yet, you try some creative plays and some of them turn out to be brilliant. Perhaps you got a little lucky here and there with these plays, but mostly they were fundamentally sound and based on good observation of your opponents and the flow of the game. You congratulate yourself and vow that you will do these good deeds again. Well done!

On the other hand, during your experimental phase you also make some plays that don't turn out quite so well. Actually, that is an understatement- they are monumental fucking failures. In fact, had you eliminated two of the plays from your session, you would have actually come out a small winner for the day. You take these harsh lessons to bed with you, only this time you vow to never make these plays again.

Now that you are bumping around less frequently in the dark and have pruned all of the major atrocities from your game, you start winning fast now...and BIG. You could keep on trying new things, but you are a professional and you have bills to pay, so better to just stick with the formula- at least for now.

Right now I play x tables with y win rate for z hours per week. If I play x + 3 tables for z + 15 hours a week, even if I can maintain a win rate of just y - b, I can pay off my car and my credit cards in 5 1/2 months!! ...And all I have to do is keep doing what I've been doing!

Except for one tiny little problem...it just doesn't work anymore. Is it the variance? The bad beats? The fact that your opponents are catching on to you? Perhaps a combination of all these things, but they are merely symptoms of the real problem. The real problem is that by failing to react appropriately to the situation at hand yet still playing fundamentally decent in a formulaic fashion, you moved from an exploitative/optimal strategy to one that is only approaching optimal, at best. This what occurs when you begin applying your commonly most effective lines to every single hand.

Once this finally dawns on you, it truly becomes easy to understand. Your best lines were developed in response to game flow that existed THEN but is not likely to be present NOW. In the past, you were to trying to play GREAT, not just ADEQUATE. However, in all likelihood, the lines that you are using formulaicly at this point are probably rarely awful, but they also going to rarely be great as well. And great play is what creates good win rates and solid monthly incomes. Making the occasional horrific play that you would not normally make is not necessarily something to be avoided at all costs, but rather shows that you still have blood pumping through your veins. The only types of plays that should be cut completely from your game are those odds defying blundering all-in calls on the turn.

By emulating your past success, you are settling for mediocrity and being just plain lazy. The bottom line is very simple- you must strive to get a little bit better every day. That is how you got to where you are right now. This is the very minimal requirement, even if you plan on only keeping your current win rate. As they say "if you aren't slowly getting better, you are slowly getting worse."

Some Poker Haiku, an attempt at Suckout Therapy

2009-08-07T22:43:00.004-04:00

My Queens versus fours
Please Dear God no fucking four
That is such Bullshit

Douche bag sucked out
I bounce around in huge Tilt
I hope he gets AIDS

I hate this damn game
I will never play again
and then I reload

Now Douche bag will pay
Just need a fresh beverage
Will kick him in cunt

Why does God hate me
Douchebaggery Rewarded
This site is rigged

Holy Shit, I won
Finally Motherfucker
Suck on these Nizzuts

I hope these Haiku brought some Peace and Serenity to you as the did me....I would love to see some from our readers if any of you get inspired....

I Had a Sneaking Suspicion...

2009-07-21T02:59:00.002-04:00

My Favorite New Line and Why it is Perfect for Short Stackers....

2009-07-14T23:21:00.004-04:00

One of my Favorite things about Poker, and especially ShortStacking, is using players preconceived notions against them. This is part of the "changing gears" that you hear about all the time, but you can take it much farther than that. One of the nice things about Shortstacking is that you don't have to take the time to establish a table image, as most players already have a preconceived (and misguided) notion about what type of player you are the moment that you sit down at the Table. My new favorite "value line" is nothing new or groundbreaking, but it takes perfect advantage of those notions and the ego that SS haters attach to the style.

The basis is this: If you flop a big hand that is obvious, start with a bet. Lets say you raise preflop with AQ of hearts and get a caller. The flop comes down 9 6 3, all hearts. You flopped the nuts. Conventional wisdom, and natural urges tell you to slow play and let them catch up. The problem with this is that they are going to be very suspicious of any flop check with a big move later, and unless they have a set or maybe the K of hearts, you might get some money from them, but not much. So since there is nothing to lose, bet it. It looks like a steal and since most players see SS'rs as tight, overly aggressive push-monkeys, they aren't going to buy it. They will call with a lot of single pairs, weak draws and ANY overpair.

Now that you have set the stage and got them involved, check the turn. It almost doesn't matter what the card is. Check it. Now it appears that you took a shot to win the pot but you are a spineless, unimaginative push-monkey and are giving up. This sets the stage for the next step....

Shove the River! By playing this line, it appears that:

You missed the flop and continuation bet the flop to take it down. Their call scared you. The turn didn't help (or you would have shoved, that is what you do, after all) and then, when you smelled weakness, you tried to buy your way out of your bluff by shoving all in (it only costs a little for you to shove, you are a Broke-ass SSer after all and it is the only move you know).

I have found that this is almost universally how they perceive this line.

Imagine their chagrin (and my titty-rubbing joy) when they call and I turn over the nuts to crap all over their A-9 (or whatever crap they tricked themselves into thinking was good enough to beat your "Bluff") and show a play so imaginative that they NEVER saw it coming from a "simple-minded Shortstacker".

There are of course a few exceptions to this line, but it works great when you flop that obvious big hand and want to extract value (it works very well when you flop the trips on a paired board as well). It really tends to throw opponents off balance because now they can't pigeon hole you into a non thinking shove monkey which is where they are comfortable with you being. Play around with it a little but I guarantee that it is a VERY worthy addition to your arsenal.

If you generate any feedback with this line or have variations, please let us know. We love the discussion.

P.S. Congrats to our own Short Stack Hero, Lorin Yelle for buying his first House. He closed last Friday and moved in Yesterday. He now has a Righteous "Man-Cave".

Bing Blang Blaow- Cashout (on my Titt1es)

2009-07-03T02:57:00.004-04:00

From the mind of the legendary $.25/.50 heads up no limit player, Ch3ckraise. With no further ado, I now present to you the remastered version of Bing Bang Blaow- Cashout (on my Titt1es).

ch3ckraise: BING BLANG BLAOW
ch3ckraise: CH3CK RAISE IN THA HOUSE
ch3ckraise: I JUST WON $50.00 FROM YOU
ch3ckraise: U COULD HAVE USED IT TO BUY SOME FOOD
ch3ckraise: BUT YOU CANT NOW
ch3ckraise: CUZ IMMA CASH IT OUT
ch3ckraise: AND RUB IT ON MY TITT1ES
tilted1: wtf

ch3ckraise: BING BLANG BLAOW
ch3ckraise: CH3CK RAISE IN THA HOUSE
DANGEROUSS: fish
ch3ckraise: I JUST WON $50.00 FROM YOU
ch3ckraise: U COULD HAVE USED IT TO BUY SOME FOOD
ch3ckraise: BUT YOU CANT NOW
ch3ckraise: CUZ IMMA CASH IT OUT
ch3ckraise: AND RUB IT ON MY TITT1ES
DANGEROUSS: fhaggot, stfu w your stupid ni**er song

Iplay4funn: omg
Iplay4funn: how can u call with with that
ch3ckraise: BING BLANG BLAOW
Iplay4funn: hmoron
ch3ckraise: CH3CK RAISE IN THA HOUSE
play4funn: is calling the only thing u kno how to do donk?
ch3ckraise: I JUST WON $50.00 FROM YOU
ch3ckraise: U COULD HAVE USED IT TO BUY SOME FOOD
ch3ckraise: BUT YOU CANT NOW
ch3ckraise: CUZ IMMA CASH IT OUT
play4funn: whats wrong with u
ch3ckraise: AND RUB IT ON MY TITT1ES

ch3ckraise: BING BLANG BLAOW
ch3ckraise: CH3CK RAISE IN THA HOUSE
DANGEROUSS: donkey
ch3ckraise: I JUST WON $50.00 FROM YOU
ch3ckraise: U COULD HAVE USED IT TO BUY SOME FOOD
ch3ckraise: BUT YOU CANT NOW
ch3ckraise: CUZ IMMA CASH IT OUT
ch3ckraise: AND RUB IT ON MY TITT1ES

(Observer) oneOuttedsir: GOD DO U EVEN KNO HOW 2 PLAY
(Observer) oneOuttedsir: I HOPE UR MOM GETS CANCER
ch3ckraise: BING BLANG BLAOW
ch3ckraise: CH3CK RAISE IN THA HOUSE
(Observer) oneOuttedsir: LETS PLAY $100NL HU PU SSY
ch3ckraise: I JUST WON $50.00 FROM YOU
ch3ckraise: U COULD HAVE USED IT TO BUY SOME FOOD
ch3ckraise: BUT YOU CANT NOW
ch3ckraise: CUZ IMMA CASH IT OUT
ch3ckraise: AND RUB IT ON MY TITT1ES
(Observer) oneOuttedsir: IM SITTING WAITING FOR U

Alternative Line #2: The Mega-Raise Pot Shove

2009-07-02T11:23:00.004-04:00

Unlike the previous example, this one does not actually need to be AK per se, but rather any medium-strong hand with showdown value. Here is the criteria needed:

1. You are in one of the blind positions.
2. You have a medium strong hand that doesn't play particularly well post-flop out of position, preferably in this order:
AK, AQ, AJ, 99, ATs, 88, KQs, KQo, ATo, KJs
3. You have no more than two limpers in the pot and first limper must be very loose, with a VPIP of 30% or higher. The higher the VPIP, the looser on the above scale you can go.
4. You raise to approximately 1/3 of the effective smaller stack.
5. You shove all in on any flop when called.

The theory: You do this because the alternatives are to limp (which clearly sucks and will never show any real profit), make a normal raise, or move all in. Making a standard raise makes your stack size really awkward for post-flop betting and makes these hands very difficult to play since you will miss the flop about 2/3 of the time. Moving all in is a fine, though sub-optimal play. Even a fish realizes that he needs a showdown value hand to call a bet this size and it will scare away his business virtually every time.

So let's be straight here from the get-go: usually when you attempt this play, your opponent will fold. In that regard, it is no different than shoving over a raise with your premium hands. You don't expect to get called with those hands in every instance, though you are happy when you do. When he does call, take a look at what happens in the example above. By raising one third of the effective stack, you are facing your opponent with a pot-size bet on the flop and offering him odds of 2:1 to call. In other words, you are putting him in the position of making the largest mistake.

Surely, for a bet this size on the flop, your opponents will only be calling when you are beat, right? Wrong. Here is a list of common calls you will see in this spot:

1. Top pair or better
2. Any pair
3. All draws including gut shots
4. Overcards
5. Naked aces

In a nut shell, very few good hands and a whole lot of complete shit. Once again, this play in not done for any kind of deceptive purposes, but rather is a strong psychological lure for weak-minded opponents and gamblers. By targeting exclusively loose opponents who have pretty much already told you explicitly that their hand was not good enough to raise but they wanted to see a flop anyway, you are seducing them into making a bad play.

Of course, when you flop a relatively strong hand, you should either bet very small or check. Typical opponents who are bad enough to call a raise this large in the first place are primed to make a hopeless bluff at such a large pot. By relatively, I mean relative the the board and your opponents likely calling range. A hand like AK on an A-2-2 board is extremely strong and even weak opponents are not likely to stack away with QJs in this spot (though they sometimes will!), but of course he is not getting helped by any free cards, so give him a chance to piss his money away.

Why does this play work? Perhaps it is best not to ask such questions. Never in my career have I been bad enough to get lured by such an obvious ploy, so I can't even begin to imagine what is going through the mind of someone who does. Admittedly, this play was not created by myself, but rather snatched from the hands of a short stacker who is much better than me. When reviewing his hand histories, I was astonished by the horrible calls his opponents were making, including a K7 on an A-A-5 board when he was holding KQ! I began making this play indiscriminately only to soon find that it was never working when I wanted it to, and "working" when I didn't want it to. It has only been recently that I have found it to work astonishingly well against very loose opponents. Against typical opponents or unknowns, you are better off either limping or moving all in with these types of hands.

The Consequences of Failing to Listen to Your Inner Voice

2009-06-17T23:51:00.002-04:00

Am I on tilt right now?
Am I getting too tired to play?
Should I leave this table?
Should I call this raise?
Should I play ATo under the gun?
Should I go ahead and bluff here?
Should I steal with this turd of a hand?

No matter what the question is, the answer never changes. It's always the one you least wanted to hear. Notice how the simple act of asking yourself that question gives you the answer. Also notice how failing to act on the advice given back to you is a mistake about 90% of the time.

Ahh...one of the beauties of this game of poker. That same voice inside you that you use to consistently lie to your girlfriend, your wife, your parents, your kids, and even yourself will not persuade the powers of the universe that you are not completely full of shit. Because when you deny that inner voice, you are betraying your well-honed poker instincts in favor of your ego or your emotions, which are the least suited for rational decision making at the table. Decisions made on the fly are almost never good ones. Great decisions are planned in advance with contingencies already put into place for any card that can hit on the turn or river.

Though it is never easy, this is some of the most solid advice you will ever receive: if you have to ask the question, you already know the answer.

Busted!! The Short Stack Hero is as Cheap as I said...

2009-06-13T00:39:00.005-04:00

Here, as evidence to back up my previous claim as to How Cheap The Short Stack Hero is, are pictures shot by an accomplice of Lorin in all his Cheap Ass Glory!!!

This is him stealing a butt from an ashtray to smoke.....

...and here is him snagging his tip back from the bartender.....

I may be fat but I can always go on a diet. This kind of cheap lives forever!!!!

Alternative Line #1B: Defending Against the Limp Re-raise

2009-06-11T04:00:00.003-04:00

It is undeniable that after reading the previous post on how to play AK that some short stackers out there will undoubtedly be using this play. The question is, how should another short stacker respond? Rather than come out and say it, let's just look at a hypothethical example.

A short stacker (abcy123, perhaps?) limps from early position. You are dealt QQ on the cutoff. Should you raise? No!!!

Why? Pretty simple. Mr. Abcy123 has just played his hand face-up. If you raise, you know he is going to shove and you are right back to a 54% favorite (vs. AKs), and you are essentially flipping for the pot with no real advantage, which is contrary to why anyone would short stack in the first place. Of course, your hand is clearly too good to fold, so what should you do? Break the short stacker's one Commandment and limp, goddamnit!

Why limp? If it isn't 100% obvious at this point, then I will state the obvious. The AK is 2:1 to hit on the flop. If you limp and someone else raises, you can now get all in as a favorite against one or two players. Not perfect, but certainly better than getting all in against a single player as a 50/50 proposition. Even better still, you get to see the flop in position and you can instantly bail if the dreaded A or K hits or you can even slow-play if you hit a Q and the AK bricks. What could be easier than playing a hand face-up?

Don't be that Guy: An introduction to the "Kruger Complex"

2009-06-09T21:14:00.015-04:00

We all know that guy. Unfortunately, most of us have been that guy even if only for a moment). But let me urge you.....DON'T BE THAT GUY!!! In case you are wondering to which guy I am referring, it is the guy that bitches and complains that the game is rigged and yet continues to play anyway. He will swear that the game is rigged, speak knowingly about the "Doomswitch" and try to utterly convince you that the poker site that he plays at deliberately rigs the deck, just to keep him from bankrupting every player on the site and thus ruining their business. Their arguments are sincere, numerous and ultimately, retarded. This kind of mindset not only taxes your emotional bankroll and limits your ability to accept the realities of, and therefore improve your game, but it also proves to everybody around you that you are, indeed, a total douche bag.

Lets start by looking at their arguments and pointing out the stupidity of each in turn:

"Everytime I get all in and am ahead, somebody hits a 4 outer to beat me! This game HAS to be rigged!!!"

This is the most common one. This generally develops from two main shortcomings. One is the general disability of the people dumb enough to believe this shit to accurately figure out the outs that beat them. They also tend to believe that if they are ahead, they deserve to win. The other main reason that this theory stays around is the phenomenon of SELECTIVE MEMORY. The brain doesn't usually bother to register the 3 times out of 4 that AK holds up against AT (that's right, you should only win that 3 times out of 4 so quit your bitching. It is not a guaranteed win.) That is the expected result so your brain doesn't bother to take much notice. It will, however, go bat shit crazy when it fully expects to win and doesn't. The rush of adrenaline, mixed with shock, anger, diappointment, and then some more anger (not to mention the deep seeded psychotic, murderous rage directed at the galloping donkey that beat you) is a pretty potent cocktail of mnemonic devices. No wonder you remember every single bad beat. Of course it seems like you always get sucked out on. In your memory it is 100% true, but in reality the universe tends to work itself out as it should, and you, even in all your poker glory, are no exception.

My next favorite theory is the "deep" one that provides the motivation for the site to cheat you. I mean, every murder (especially of a bankroll) has to have a motive. The motive, the pundits say, is that the poker sites want to keep the fish around, to keep them contributing rake to the site. In order to keep the fish from going broke, they have to take money from the "good" players to keep the fish in the game. They do this through bad beats. This argument is stupid for many reasons. First of all, fish are fish for a reason. They will keep coming back. Period. Have you ever known somebody that thought that they were good at poker just give it up? No. Nor will they. They may take a break for a couple weeks to raise the cash for another deposit, but after they grab some cash from mom's purse, they will be right back. The sites know this. Another debunker for this asinine theory is that it is always the douche bag that is down to the felt that is the biggest proponent of this theory. The only problem is, he is the argument against his argument. If the sites are doing this to share the wealth and keep everybody in the game, why do they keep busting you? Because they know you will come back. Saddle up to the hook and have another worm Mr. Fishy....

Another one of my favorites is that there are just too many big hands online as compared to live. It's just not possible. So the Poker sites must be stacking to deck to make hands more exciting. My response to this is simple. You probably haven't played enough live games or you are a total fucking moron. First of all, you are going to see more large hands while playing online. Even if you are only playing 1 table online, you will still see almost twice as many hands an hour as compared to live play. So if you would see one unusual hand in an hour live, you would see one on average every half hour or so online. Now keep that in mind and factor in that most players are playing anywhere from 2 to 24 tables. If you don't see something weird pretty often, you should be concerned. Not to mention, those bumbass bad beats happen live as well. Just last week Lorin and I went to the local casino. We were playing at a pretty loose $1/2 game and on my fifth or sixth hand I raised with 99. Got 2 callers. Flop came 9 6 4 with 2 spades. I bet $25 and get one caller. The turn card is a beauty...4 of spades. I have the top full house and if that guy was drawing for a flush, he just got there. I check, he bets $35 and I just smooth call. The river is the 7 of spades. I bet, he raises, I shove, he calls and tables 44 for a turned set of quads. Fifth hand at the table. I didn't even have to work my way up to that kind of ass whooping. I just laughed. That is poker and it goes to prove that stupid shit happens live. It happens all the time (maybe someday I will tell you about Frenchy and the "one-out-mouth-piss hand").

The reason that it is so important to not be that guy is that you won't really progress in your game if you find shit to blame your results on. Variance is part of the game. As it is in life. I think that one of the things that draws most of us tho this game is that it is so similar to life. You can do everything right and bad stuff can still happen to you. As a matter of fact, it is guaranteed to happen to you. Poker should be teaching you how to deal with those things, not teach you to write it off on some imaginary admin behind a curtain somewhere who is laughing his ass off trying to get you (see pic above, to see how stupid this is). I have seen that truly intelligent and very gifted poker players that hit a wall in their development because they either don't accept the leaks in their game because they don't see their losses being due to leaks, or they live their lives in a perpetual state of TILT because they sit down at the table believing the world is against them and they are going to lose. And they do. It is a self fulfilling prophecy. So for that reason, don't be that guy. You are wasting your time trying to advance in the game if you will let yourself fall into that kind of trap. Also, don't be that guy because it is fucking annoying.....

If you have any other theories on this, we would love to hear them. Both the silly shit that people say to prove the sites are rigged, or the multitude of realities that debunk them. Personally, I could have written for another hour or two on this but I am a little tired of being sober at the moment, so I am going to take care of that.

Hope to hear from you all on this and good luck at the tables (and away from them as well.....)

Short Stack Sexiness- Low Volume/High Win Rate

2009-06-02T18:06:00.004-04:00

The month of May was pretty relaxing. I was still working on my new website, so about 25 hours of these results came from 4-6 tabling. I have also been out shopping for a house, so I was "forced" to take several days off for that as well. Although this win rate (measured in ptBB/100) is not likely sustainable, I am certainly enjoying the current run.

Here are the totals:

Hours: 113
Short Stack Winnings: $7,987
Tournament Winnings: $205
Rakeback: ~$1,500

Total: $9,692
Hourly rate: $85.77

Alternative Line #1: The Limp Re-raise

2009-05-29T02:10:00.005-04:00

The Criteria:

1) You have 4 or more players between yourself and the blinds.
2) Your stack is no more than 27.5BB.
3) There are no early posters.

Why do this?

The benefits of this line are very simple and were designed to avoid the negative nature of playing AK from early position. Before I get started, let's take a look at what happens when you open raise.

When you open raise AK from early position, you are necessarily folding out many weaker hands that you wish would have called you, such as A3 or K9. Naturally, not everyone is folding these types of hands, but it is a given that when you raise, the average hand that plays against you increases greatly in strength and players holding these hands are more likely to fold than if you had limped.

Now supposing that you had raised, you are now building a rather large pot out of position against many hands like pocket pairs who will likely put you to the test if you bluff but fold against your value betting boards that contain an Ace or King. And of course, there are many boards that come up so bad that you are forced to immediately give up (8h-9h-Th comes to mind) and concede the pot to a weaker hand that cold-called you in position such as AJ or AQ.

Although playing AK when you miss is actually one of the more rewarding aspects of being a short stacker since it is a real test of your hand reading skills, it is important to never lose sight of the fact that the only real reason that we are here is to learn how to make money. Many fledgling short stackers tend to either overplay or underplay their AK from early position, so limp re-raising is a simple way to counter costly mistakes with this hand.

The Benefits

The main benefit comes from players who are unaware of what you are doing and your tight image and mash the pot button in response to your limp. So if you limp and they raise and then abandon their hand, you have now benefited greatly, because not only have you picked up extra money from a pot-sized raise ($9 in a $1/2 game), you have won without a showdown and picked up the blind money, all without paying any rake. This benefit is magnified when there are several limpers between yourself and the raiser, thereby increasing the size of his raise and your potential reward. If there are cold-callers, all the better. In the past, I have more than doubled my stack several times with this play without ever seeing a flop!

The second benefit comes from one of the Great Truths of Poker, which is:

Once a player has committed money to a hand, he will trick himself into committing more money in blatant acts of denial.

Notice what happens to the sorry douchebag who calls my shove in the replay above. I was able to double up only because we got all in before the flop. Even a fish wouldn't 3-bet an early open raiser with this turd of a hand and also wouldn't stack away on this flop without hitting one of his cards, so I maximized my profit by getting all in pre-flop.

This is also why short stacking works. You often read on the forums about players who claim that they just won't pay off a short stacker, but the truth of the matter is that very, very few players actually play correctly against a short stacker. They tend to either call far too often or fold far too often.

The final benefit actually comes from when no one raises. Now you will usually be playing against only the blinds, only now YOU are position. When they check to you, just fire 2BB's and you can get folds most of the time on pretty much any board. If you are playing against other limpers, just check and fold your hand if you miss or lead out strongly if you hit top pair or better, fully mentally committing yourself to the hand.

The Drawbacks:

The only real drawback here is that you are making yourself very readable. But you know what? It doesn't really matter, because this play will still work over and over again, even against players that you have played thousands of hands against. Remember this: you will make the bulk of your profits by playing your hands in a straight up manner. You aren't doing this to be tricky, but rather because AK plays best when you get to see all five cards or never take a flop at all. Even still, since a few of your opponents will pick up on it and adjust, you still need to balance your range just a little bit by sometimes limp re-raising AA or KK. Just a little bit though...limp re-raising your very best hands is still playing sub-optimally and you will make the most money by open raising with them and generating a pot.

A secondary drawback is that this play does not tend to work very well at stakes above $1/2, even at Cake.

A New Series: Alternative Short Stacker Lines With Big Slick

2009-05-25T04:34:00.006-04:00

AK is the lifeblood of short stackers. Being that you get dealt AK more often than AA and KK combined, learning to maximize your winnings with AK is crucial. Though you are essentially a coin-flip against lower pairs, AK profits most when you are able to avoid a showdown altogether. Combining hand replays with in-depth analyses, this new series is guaranteed to open your eyes to the dangers and opportunities available when playing NLH's most infamous hand.

With Friends Like These...

2009-05-23T15:42:00.002-04:00

This is a replay of a typical conversation that Lorin and I have in the afternoons under the guise of doing real work.

P.S. We would like to thank our graphic artist, Adam Hicks for the outstanding job he did on our site artwork. If you are interested in seeing more of his work, click here.

Cake Results and Shameless Plugging

2009-05-18T17:53:00.005-04:00

Ok everybody...I have been pimping Cake Poker out forever and I am finally showing why. The players there are either very bad or just don't care about their money. I only wish I could have had the Cake Hand Converter way back when, but the results would still be roughly the same. The Cake Hand Converter is a nifty little contraption that converts Cake hand histories into Poker Stars ones so that you are able to upload them into your PT3 or HEM database. I decided to start using PT3 for analyzing hands but HEM for the HUD (which I have been experimenting more with), though even with the HH's from Cake, it is still not possible to use a HUD.

A few notes about my progress at Cake:

1) The bad news: I play as many $2/4 - $3/6 games as possible, though sadly, they run sporadically and are not always available. The good news: the quality of play at at $3/6 (and some at $5/10) is somewhere between a $.50/1 and $1/2 game at Full Tilt.

2) The $5/10 game there is unique in that it does not have a core group of regulars. Since it comes together rather infrequently and is well above a typical (good) $2/4 player's comfort level, it tends to consist mainly of 6-max players and people looking to gamble it up. Beatable as it is, I am still easing my way into it, as you will often find yourself flipping for $200 or more, which can easily turn an otherwise good session at $1/2 into a quick loser.

3) A little more shameless plugging: the support staff is phenomenal and the payouts are fast. I have been getting pretty ticked off at Full Tilt for having screwed up a $5,000 cashout numerous times and basically leaving that money in limbo for 50 days and counting. I guess they threw the payout doomswitch on me. The better attention I get at Cake combined with the horrific level of competition makes it a solid winner in my book.

What's more? This is an incredible network to bonus whore and build a bankroll. Of the 4 skins offered at Rakebacknation.com, all of them are no longer taking ANY deductions from your rakeback, including sign up bonuses and comp purchases. You can also change your screen name weekly- a short stacker's wet dream!!

A Further Examination of Relative Value: Moving Beyond Theory and Into Practice

2009-05-15T03:12:00.008-04:00

This hand is a direct continuation of the concept presented in the last post with a very different outcome.

Raising TT under the gun is obviously a standard play and I am naturally hoping for only a single caller, but those hopes are dashed when LostOn4thSt enters the pot in the BB. However, being squeezed in position here is actually better than facing two opponents acting behind me, due to the fact that if the BB and I both check the flop and the last player takes an action, I effectively act last.

So we take a flop and it comes J high with a wet texture. Unlike in the previous example, wet board textures provide many more semi-bluffing opportunities and dilute the quality of the information you receive in response to your bets. Had this hand been heads up, I would normally lead out and give a crying call to a raise because there are many more opportunities for a lone opponent to take a deceptive action on a board texture such as this.

Naturally LostOn4thSt checks, but this isn't just a normal check. He insta-checks. It has been my experience that the insta-check is most often meant as a ruse to lure me into betting and then snap me off with a check raise. But that's not all: LostOn4thSt and I have a lot of history. He has probably won as much money off me as anyone I have played against as a short stacker, in various ways. He always either shows up with the goods or draws out horribly, as he did earlier this session when we got all in pre-flop holding KK and 55 respectively. I spiked my set and he caught runner-runner straight with his fives. The bad beat is not the point, however. He enjoys butting heads with me and would almost certainly enjoy cracking me for a third time in a single session. Therefore his range could be quite wide in this spot, though my experience with him tells me that he still would not pass up the opportunity to re-raise me with JJ+ and AK. It would not surprise me though to have him show up with many top pair type hands, J9 for 2 pair, or a set of nines or sixes. 96 is always out of his range, as he is a good player and though I am sure he would like nothing better than to crack me, he is not stupid either. Of course, he is playing a lot of tables and just as easily could have mentally checked out of this hand so as not to waste any more time than is necessary. However, his quick action definitely gives me pause.

I check my hand and evaluate the action behind me.

Now let's examine the cold caller's range. I have a note on this chap that he has cold called me with AA before, and that's clearly bad news. Truth be told, this is actually a great defense against short stackers that only the clever or the dimwitted tend to use. Typical players are so ritualistic that they just can't bring themselves to make a flat call with a big pair to be deceptive or draw other players in the pot. Opponents who break this long standing tradition give me fits. After all, I am folding TT if I get re-raised by anyone outside of the blind positions, but flopping good is a recipe to going broke against said players. So here is the problem: QQ, KK, and AA are all still in his range. JJ is mostly discounted because most decent players understand well the dangers of building a large pot with a vulnerable hand such as this.

Here's the kicker: just like the previous hand with QQ, I am relying on the third player in the hand to give me the information that I desire from my nemesis in the BB. But get this- in a three way pot like this, the wet texture of the board is now working FOR me rather than AGAINST me!! Here is how:

1) If he cold called me with QQ, KK, or AA, this flop has surely made him panic. If he was screwing around with any of the above hands, now is the time to quit fucking around and take down this pot. He might try a smallish bet against just myself, but with another full stacked player with an undefined range, he is virtually always betting 2/3-full pot with these hands.

2) If he did flop one of the many available draws here and decides to bluff at it, he will either play it strong or choose to take a free card. I know that he has picked up on my range and that he understands that I am just as likely as he is to play this flop fast against two players, so my check has clearly labeled my hand as bricks, specifically AK in his mind. Therefore if he is betting around 1/2 pot or less, he is clearly full of shit, the way I see it.

3) If he flopped a set with 99 or 66, I still expect him to mostly play it strong to build a good pot with the full stacker while his hand still has maximum value. He could have possibly chosen to re-raise me with 99, as players often do to me, but generally speaking a set is a rare hand, so I still am forced to play the odds here. Top two pair is virtually always going pot here, and I don't even concern myself with the possibility of J6 because even fish don't really play that hand.

But in any case....

After my check he bets $10, roughly half the pot. He's trying to buy it because he thinks I completely whiffed!

As soon as the BB folds, it's time to escort this gentleman to Value Town and shove it all in. Since players are never truly predictable in a vacuum, I can estimate that I am ahead about 85% of the time when he makes such a weak play, but there are even greater benefits here. When the betting gets back to him he is now getting slightly better than 2.5:1 to call, and just as importantly, he knows he has no further decisions to make. When I execute this play, I often see some truly horrific calls, like 22, A7, and sometimes even two undercards drawing virtually dead. So not only have I gleaned the value of my marginal holding using a bit of short stacker sleight-of-hand, I have also maximized value by doing so.

A Glimpse Into the Mind of The Short Stack Hero

2009-05-12T22:46:00.006-04:00

This is just an example of how I determine a line post-flop as a short stacker BEFORE I commit any money to the hand. This replay is a hand that had developed during a sweat session with one of my students. Although at first glance this appears to be nothing special, this is a common scenario where many short stackers tend to get lost because they do not understand the proper analysis. Though sweat sessions don't tend to be the ideal teaching tool, particularly for short stackers, I was very happy that this hand came up because this is a frequent danger spot.

Key concepts to note:
1) Position
2) Number of opponents
3) Board texture

When I raise from early position, as a short stacker I generally give my opponents credit for picking up on my tight image, therefore, I can usually (though not always) expect them to re-raise with better hands because they expect that I will be getting all in with them. So the first player calls. Given that the overcaller will be forced to play this pot out of position against two other players, I can expect him to re-raise all hands that beat me and even a hand such as AKo virtually 100% of the time, particularly because the original caller's stack is only 40BB. I can also expect him to re-raise with JJ and sometimes even TT.

Now that their pre-flop ranges are somewhat defined, we take a flop. The fact that the flop comes up K high is not necessarily a disaster. The board is very dry, particularly when coupled with the fact that I have removed two queens from the deck, reducing the probability that either of my opponents could be holding precisely QT, the only legitimate drawing hand that fits this flop. The only thing questionable here is my position after the flop.

Since AA, KK, AK, and JJ have mostly been eliminated from my opponent's ranges, this board is not particularly bad. A partial concern here is giving a free card that beats me, namely to gut shots. However with only 4 outs to a gut shot, I am far more concerned with getting my money in bad on the flop than letting either opponent draw for free. The question that remains, however, is how to get my opponents to reveal the accurate strength of their holdings without overcommitting myself in a potential two-out disaster.

Given that the board is so dry, this is surprisingly easy to do, though it really is a function of several years of experience reading common opponent tendencies and bet sizes. The small blind begins by checking. No matter the strength of the small blind's hand, I expect him to check every time. He clearly is never folding anything that beats me, but of those hands that do, I expect him to almost always either check call or check raise. Far more importantly, I am interested in how the last player to act will respond to both of our checks, but I already have my line in place.

After two players check, many online players will tend to bet despite the quality of their hand. I have noticed, however, that the size of their bets is often teeming with information. The presence of the third player in the hand tends to glean higher quality information than when he is absent, and coupled with the dry nature of the board and the effective stack sizes, I can expect that he will:

1) Value bet precisely between 2/3 to full pot with top pair and two pair strength hands with the full intention of commitment.
2) Check behind sets, which have pretty much been eliminated from both players' ranges, with the exception of a set of fours.
3) Check behind on a miss or weak draw.
4) Bet 1/2 pot or less with 2nd pair type hands, open straights, and sometimes even gut shots, and complete air.

Therefore my plan with this hand is to check fold if the last player bets EXACTLY $13 or more or bets $10 or more and gets either raised or called by the small blind. If he bets $12 or less and the small blind folds, I will check raise him all in, or if he bets less than $10 and the small blind just calls, I will check raise both of them all in, because now my stack-to-pot ratio is very good to get it in with 2nd pair and perceived weakness on both players.

I prefer this to leading out because in order to get back the right quality information, I need to bet a substantial portion of the pot, approximately $13 or more. At that point, it becomes a very expensive probe and I am nearing a threshold where I might find it difficult to fold even though I am almost always getting my money in with very little equity. Betting less than that will often get low quality information because it would appear exactly to be what is was: a probe with a weak hand. Furthermore, if I lead out and do not get raised (as I would expect to after giving the illusion of flop commitment and they like their hand), then I will have to push the rest in on the turn, barring some highly unusual information. Due to the dry nature of the board, I can reasonably expect that they might tread somewhat cautiously with the few semi-bluff type hands in their ranges, fearing that I may be slowplaying on a board such as this, yet even still, most players are so senselessly terrified of giving that free card that I can also expect that the last player will still bet a K even when he is highly suspicious of being beat and then proceed to talk himself into cashing away for the rest.

But that is not all- if the last player checks behind, I now get to see how the small blind reacts on the turn. I am somewhat concerned about an A or J hitting on the turn, but the quality of my hand has still not been defined enough to be all that concerned about getting drawn out on. Just to restate, I would rather get drawn out on holding a weakish hand having only invested $6 than be drawing to 2 outs having invested $45.

When the turn is a veritable blank and the small blind leads out for pot, most all bluffs have now been eliminated from his range and he is betting to take this pot down, most likely getting a little leery of the developing flush (once again, for no good reason). His bet sizing is unrestrained and very much looks like he is committed. I can now safely fold with a clean conscience.

On a final note, had the small blind bet another amount, I would have to re-evaluate how to proceed, but given the actual turn card and his decisive action, with the player left to act no longer being any concern and given his flop inactivity and barring any unusual draw out (namely a low set) I am effectively playing this hand heads up.

Drunken Musings on Poker and The Book of Five Rings

2009-05-12T02:41:00.003-04:00

In his seminal work "The Book of Five Rings", Miyamoto Musashi laid down a treatise for out thinking your opponent in combat. A major basis for this philosophy was using all the tools available to you. For example, samurai at the time carried 2 swords. A long sword called a Katana (which was the standard weapon of the samurai) and a mainly ceremonial short sword called a Wakizashi which was basically carried to be used when indoors after the samurai had politely surrendered his Katana at the door. The right to carry 2 swords was reserved only for the samurai class, so as a mark of station they all carried them. In combat, however, no samurai used both swords. This seemed asinine to Musashi, if you had two swords, why not use them. He was never defeated in battle by the way and retired a legend (and still is today).

He expounds on this principle further when speaking of a carpenter and his selection of material. Know what kind of wood is good for what and use it accordingly (this was a note to Generals about the use of their troops but follow along). Use stong but gnarled and knotted wood for supports inside the wall. Use the straight and even but weaker wood for decoration, etc...you get the drift. Now take a second and apply that to your poker game.

We all have our own skill set. We have been trained through our devotion to this cruel mistress of a game to push all the small edges. Too often I think that we apply that concept to cards, pot odds, position, dead money and all the other galaxy of concepts that we try to keep in our head. When was the last time you tried to push YOUR edge? When did you use YOUR skill set to establish situations that give you an edge? Are you disciplined enough to wait for the right situation? Are you better at post flop play? Do you have the ability to fire a 3 barrel bluff when you need to? There is a reason that even Top Pros don't play exactly the same. Nobody would argue that Phil Hellmuth and Daniel Negreanu aren't both great poker players, but their styles are very, very different. They were both able (as well as every other truly great player) to figure out what they do well and use it. They took the wood they had and used it to build a palace....

Another great example of this is Bruce Lee and his Art of Jeet Kune Do. Unlike most other styles which taught all disciples to fight the same way, Jeet Kune Do stressed taking the natural strengths of an INDIVDUAL and finding the style that worked for THAT INDIVIDUAL. Bruce's system was based on Wing Chun Kung Fu, Boxing, French Fencing, and the Japanese Tea Ceremony (I couldn't make this up, I'm not that clever) because that was what worked with his personality and his bodies natural abilities.

Now don't get me wrong, we all have to work on our weaknesses. Which we all do. When was the last time you stopped and thought about what advantages you have over your oppenents? Lorin and I are pretty good examples. We have entirely different skill sets. He has more discipline (when it comes to poker) than any person I have ever met. He is also very competitve and very analytical. He wants to find THE answer. You put those together and he is fucking ICEMAN from Top Gun. He doesn't make a mistake and will wear the whole table down until they get frustrated and do something stupid. He is too proud to get impatient or make a mistake. I, on the other hand, have very little patience, rely a little more on reads and look for AN answer, not necessarily THE answer. We traditionally played very differently, but fortunately we have found a system that allows both of us to use our particular skill sets, and helps us develop those skills we lack while providing a safety net of sorts.

If you are reading this, you are either a serious devotee of the fickle Poker Bitch, or you have entirely too much time on your hands. Regardless, do yourself a favor and before you log in for your next session, put down the book that somebody wrote about how THEY play, and think about how YOU should play. What are your strengths (and how can you use them) and what are your weaknesses (and how can you not let them be a liability while you fix them). What is your second sword? If you can really master that, someday I will probably be reading YOUR book....

Good luck at the tables (and away from them as well)....