A Problem with Navy Yard Conspiracy Theories

After reading this article on Wired.com, I came to a realization that I am really surprised to not have seen written before. The usual fodder is present, and even though it certainly is plausible that the powers that be could be manipulating this event as a "false flag" to implement something like strict gun control, one thing is for sure: the shooter was NOT under mind control. Rahm Emmanuel made the famous public statement "never let a tragedy go to waste", no matter the event, it would be the optimal political strategy.

Again, I have no idea what technologies exist to accomplish this, let alone what could possibly be under development, but if the powers that be wanted to take this route, we would see many of these..a lot more. Maybe they would be strategically spaced apart so as not to attract too much attention, but there would never be events spaced 6 months apart or more. This isn't Sandy Hook, which will easily be recalled even a decade from now (reference Columbine shootings). Sure this happened at a navy base, but the random targets weren't children and the body count was low. I'm pretty sure that no one remembers the name of the Fort Hood shooter and most people have probably forgotten it altogether.

A Really Impressive Hand

A Kevmath tweet of the Bad Beat Jackpot hand at Mohegan Sun.  Drink it in, you probably will never see this again as long as you live....

Hold Me Closer Tiny Donker: A Ridiculous Yet Common Spot

 

Note:  The above hand was submitted from a student playing NL50 CAP.  It was altered slightly to make the donk bets tinier in order to fully illustrate the point.  The advice for this hand is geared to small stakes guys who may have a tendency to over-analyze certain hands. This hand is not really unusual and will probably seem shockingly mundane to a lot of people, but it is a great example of choosing whether or not to accept negative implied odds.

Advice:

Unless playing mid-high stakes where a certain amount of deception is necessary, I have found it to be a rather poor idea to float the flop with this kind of hand. It is NOT because it isn't profitable and it's not because you have a fear of him drawing out on you. Rather, it is combination of these factors:

1) Your hand isn't likely to improve, so for all intents and purposes we need to analyze it with consideration to the fact that it won't improve.

2) His hand is probably weak, but on future streets, he isn't likely to put in much money as a bluff (or else he would be doing so now), in addition to the fact that he will probably keep betting small unless he improves, as he did in the scenario.  His tiny donk bet is a foreshadowing of what we can expect from him in the future.

I would prefer to play the hand strong because of the fact that under the circumstances of the read, your hand has negative implied odds because when you are good, playing it this way will win the minimum, but when he catches it can be extremely difficult to figure out what he did or did not hit and you will be forced to pay a larger bet.

On this board, I would narrow his range down to:

1) Pure bluffs
2) Gut shot or open-ended straight draw
3) Any pair as well as Kx all the way up to KQ
4) Rarely better than a pair

As you can see, if he is only going to make tiny bluffs and/or value bets, we don't gain value by letting him bluff, so we don't care if he goes away right now. Same thing with his draws. He will bet tiny on the come and then probably just a tiny bluff if he misses, but then pot it when he hits, but unfortunately, enough strange things can happen that you will be (or at least feel) obligated to call a lot of river bets that you wish you didn't have to.

The same thing happens when he has any pair. The action will go tiny bet, tiny bet, then right up your sweet ass when he improves.

So what do we do? We are left with two options: shove or make a large overbet, like 5bb with the intention of shoving any turn, except perhaps a K. This will get max value from all his top pairs as well as his draws, with the occasional call from a real crappy pair.  In sum, this is a hand that can not be overplayed, and underplaying it is the only alternative.

Jumps in Logic: A Rare Glimpse Into the Mind of the Shepherd

Not all doctors are incompetent...

Maybe it’s not fair to label this as being “conspiracy minded”, but the subject in question is a member of that camp’s philosophy. I also should point out now that since my viewpoints so far has the seemed to be in complete opposition to Alex Jones that I am not in any way saying that these things are not occurring, as I do understand that I have no knowledge of what my neighbors are doing behind closed doors, let alone what happens in top-secret on the national stage. I guess that part of my problem with this is the conspiracy camp’s extremely condescending label of “sheep” for those people who are apparently “asleep” or “kowtowing to authority” or “locked into the system ”. Perhaps I just get a little bit of joy from picking apart their logical fallacies, as you shall see in this mind-boggling conundrum of logic that isn’t exactly what you could label as “conspiracy”, but it is certainly plucked from the same point of view as those expressed daily at Prison Planet.

With regards to what I’m going to say about wheat, I’m not contesting that. In fact, from the little bit that I’ve heard and all the hullabaloo surrounding gluten, I’m actually giving this the benefit of the doubt and it is not what this blog post is concerned with.

A friend of mine recently visited his doctor for a routine checkup and I believe was discussing his recent weight loss and had mentioned how reducing/eliminating wheat from his diet was credited as being the cause. He then told me how he expected his doctor to disagree with him and was surprised that the doctor agreed.

Did you spot the problem with that? While those two sentences make perfect sense grammatically and probably wouldn’t even raise an eyebrow if scanned over quickly, that is a confounding flip-flop in logic.

Let’s decode:

A layman is expressing hereto unknown medical knowledge to a medical professional with the expectation that said medical professional is either too stupid to understand it or is too indoctrinated into “the system” to comprehend it without dismissing or ridiculing it. This is only the first layer.

The second layer applies to the expectations of the layman, who said “I was surprised that he agreed with me.” Why should anyone be surprised that someone who has a minimum of 8 years of rigorous study just to get a PhD have the knowledge that a layman can get from a Google search? Admittedly, a layman does have a certain open-mindedness when peering into fields in which he has little to no knowledge, but that sort of open-mindedness is of the brand that gets you duped and conned. Any professional or semi professional poker player can attest to this, as they bear witness daily to what happens when outsiders stumble into their domain.

The part that is unclear is whether or not my friend was impressed with himself or the doctor, in which case neither scenario makes much sense. If he had to convince the doctor that his relative inexperience somehow trumped the doctor’s pseudo-scientific worldview, then by default, doctors aren’t nearly as stupid as they are believed to be by conspiracy enthusiasts. On the other hand, if he was happy that the doctor somehow validated his Internet knowledge, then by default, doctors actually aren’t so stupid or hopelessly entrenched in the system after all and you should vaccinate your children without fear of autism.

Letter to a Friend: The Sad State of Limit Hold'Em Circa 2013

Hieronymus Bosch's eerily prophetic "9 Levels of the Limit Hold'Em Abyss" (1539) 

A few days ago, a friend of mine asked me my opinion about whether or not it was a good idea to start adding some Limit Hold’em into his table load. He said that he was assuming it wasn’t much different from short stack poker and he figured that he could also get a 2bb/100 winrate.

He’s a sharp guy, so I have no idea how he came to these conclusions, but since I felt that it deserved a lengthy answer, I figured it would be best to share what I have to say, since apparently the answer wasn’t as obvious as I had previously thought.

A little background information:

Looking back on the game of Limit Hold’Em brings back some fond memories as well as some cringe worthy moments. It was where I first started my “career” (if you could even call it that back then). Like many people starting out, I thought that being a professional poker player was “cool” and that I would ride up the limits like a white Phil Ivey and be autographing my own version of Play Poker Like the Pros at Borders. Obviously, Phil Ivey is black, Phil Hellmuth’s ghost writer doesn’t know shit about poker, and Borders, much like limit hold ‘em, only exists in most people’s memories.

So, back to the question.  A few years back, I had a stellar rakeback deal on the Cake Network and since there wasn’t a whole lot on offer at the NLH stakes that I preferred playing, I figured I would take a shot at those “soft” limit tables and rock it out for that juicy 2bb/100 winrate. It took me about 2 days to wake up to the fact that I didn’t know what the fuck was going on. It seemed like every raise was getting 3-bet by both reg and fish and that as much as I tried to fight back, I still ended up getting my ass kicked at showdown. On the offensive end, I couldn’t push a guy off bottom pair, which might sound like a good thing to people accustomed to getting value in a game like NLH, but when coupled with the first statement, I was getting the worst of both worlds.

As most long term players can tell you, the fish will tend to mimic the regs both in open raise size and 3-bet tendencies. This doesn’t tend to be a good thing. Why not? As the game matured, the aggression employed by regulars has been ratcheted up in all games. The end result was that getting a cheap shot to hit our draws and then getting rewarded handsomely for doing so (how all of us “pros” made our money) no longer was a viable source of profit. All of a sudden, our attempts to isolate were thwarted and we found ourselves being the victims of said isolation plays.

In our efforts to beat fish, we still need to have the ability to play flops with them where they can be complicit to our will and bend over and take it as we command them to. In NLH, we still have the ability to punish such unruly behavior (albeit much less so in 2013 than in 2004), but unfortunately, in LHE this is no longer the case.

The horror story does not end there. A recent ongoing discussion has shed a lot of light on the profit killing rake in small stakes NLH games, but muffled are the screams of the souls crying out from LHE rake purgatory. They get hit the hardest, but quite frankly, since so few players play these games, nobody really gives a shit so they must carry on and suffer in silence.

The last, and perhaps worst, problem comes from the fact that since these games are the closest to being “solved”, the strategic champions of yesterday who failed to understand the nuances of game theory inevitably got pushed down into the lower limits. Now not only do you need to try and rip the stale money from the fish’s’ gills after it has been filtered through the dirty fingertips of the Mob, you also have to dodge the spears of the Spartans just to squeeze out your 000.1bb/100 winrate after rakeback. Good luck to you, fine sir!

Proof That Online Poker is Rigged!

Below is an old post from the Great Bill Rini but I have to smile every time that I think about it :)

One can hardly read any poker forum without running across individuals claiming that this or that site is rigged. Usually they are humiliated with the forum “experts” rudely telling them that the reason they’re losing is because they aren’t good poker players. I’m sad to say that I used to be one of those “experts.” I was one of the doubters until I actually caught one site cheating.

If you view the image below it looks like a normal hand being played (certain information has been dedacted to protect the innocent).

Normal Table

It looks normal unless you really examine the photo. Using some highly classified vector digital imaging software from the CIA I picked up on eBay for $50, I caught the dealer dealing off the bottom of the deck. I was as shocked as anyone but it all made sense once I thought about it. Notice in the picture above how they put that little box in front of the players sitting to the right and left of the dealer so as to obstruct their view. Players sitting that close would normally catch a dishonest dealer but “conveniently” the software blocks their view. Coincidence? Hardly!

Dealing from the bottom of the deck!

But that wasn’t the only cheating I caught. Notice the player to the right of the dealer in Seat 1. Notice anything out of place? Neither did I at first. But again, I used my imaging software to get a close up and guess what I see?

Cards up the sleeve

He’s got a card hidden up his sleeve! I guess it should have been obvious after his fourth pocket aces in a row.

Conclusion:  Online Poker is Rigged!

So now I have proof that online poker is rigged and if anybody tries to tell you differently, they’re in on it! If you feel you’ve been cheated then you may want to check out a tool developed by Bill’s Poker Blog called the RT Hand History Analyzer for Rigged Poker Games. It can tell you if there are any statistical abnormalities with any of the hands you feed it. Really a great tool to help you gather evidence about online poker being rigged.

Score a Point For the Paranoid: Protecting Yourself From NSA Snooping

Even a broken watch is right twice a day as was confirmed in last week's not-so-surprising reveal that major internet companies have been compliant with providing the NSA access to our private emails, file transfers, photos, videos, and chats via a program called "PRISM".  Here is Slate's breakdown of how the average law-abiding citizen can dodge the All Seeing Eyes of government spooks:

If you have followed the startling revelations about the scope of the U.S. government’s surveillance efforts in recent days, you may have thought you were reading about the end of privacy. But even when faced with the most ubiquitous of modern surveillance, there are ways to keep your communications away from prying eyes.

On Thursday, the Washington Post and the Guardian revealed a top-secret National Security Agency program called PRISM, which reportedly involves mining private data from the servers of companies including Google, Microsoft, Facebook, AOL, and Yahoo. The tech giants have denied participating in the program—but according to a leaked set of NSA slides, PRISM involves the monitoring of emails, file transfers, photos, videos, chats, and even live surveillance of search terms. Separate disclosures have revealed that the NSA is scooping up millions of phone records from at least three major phone networks in the United States, using the data as part of program the White House says is aimed at finding terrorists.

Read full article on Slate.com

Bilderbergers "Unjustly" Prepare Terrorist Alert at Annual Conference

Do you really want this guy spewing apocalyptic Bible verses on your front lawn?

The annual Bilderberg Conference is said to be a gathering of the most powerful people on earth that includes various heads of state both foreign and domestic, influential media personalities and high profile CEOs from billion-dollar companies such as Google.  Since there is a lot of secrecy surrounding this event including the location of the hotel where it is held, I would say that there is a good reason to feel at least somewhat wary of the motives of this elite group. I've also read (though admittedly will never bother to confirm) that American heads of state are forbidden by law to meet with foreign heads of state in secret. To his credit, Alex Jones has gone to great lengths to uncover the locations of the conference and bring national media attention to this event, as well as spearheading an organized protest outside the hotel where the event is held with his trademark megaphone in hand, blaring an impressive diatribe denouncing the evils of the New World Order.

As can be expected, he keeps his readers informed of all things Bilderberger via his two websites. The annual meeting of the Bilderberg Club is the Prison Planet equivalent of Christmas season and brings with it all sorts of news and non-news in a constantly updating feed of orgiastic paranoia. This year is different, however, and bears some actual news that is worth noting. Apparently, the Bilderbergers have gone the extra mile of putting their high-level security team on terrorist alert. With their ever vigilant itchy twitter fingers in full tilt mode, the Jonesians are in an uproar concerning this new development and feel that it is unjustly applied.

But is it really? I can certainly understand the anger at being lumped into what the US government would consider to be the ultimate enemies of the state. In my opinion, this is a perfectly reasonable and necessary precaution. The second claim by the Jonesians is that this should not be done since no specific threat has been made, to which I say, "do the specifics really matter?" Even if Alex Jones is right about everything he says, the Bilderbergers have every reason to potentially fear for their lives. From what I understand, these protests have been peaceful in the past, but that doesn’t negate the fact that many in the ranks of the conspiracy crowd are strong supporters of gun rights and can boast of the most impressive mental illness to health ratio of any group on earth found outside the perimeter of a psychiatric hospital.

A not insignificant number within their ranks believe that the Bilderbergers are not only untrustworthy on the political level, but rather, that they are agents of the Antichrist. Even stranger, the fringe of the group even believe they are a race of shape shifting reptilians who have traveled all the way from planet Nibiru to enslave humankind from the 4^th dimension, well outside of humanity’s reach of retaliation. So I ask: are these really the sorts of people you want picketing outside your event? If you were to ask me, the idea of people gathering in protest outside of my home in the belief that I’m hell-bent on the destruction of modern society would be positively terrifying, especially coupled with the fact that Alex Jones followers believe that it is perfectly logical to tote deadly weapons in public as some sort of “peaceful” protest against those they believe are out to permanently strip away their right to bear arms. The fact that these people are acting within their Constitutional rights would give me no comfort. Given the daily mishmash of Bible quotes in response to every news “event” on the Prison Planet website, it isn’t hard to picture a bold psycho who dropped his meds on the car floor on the way to Conspirapalooza attempting to fulfill biblical prophecy which says that the Antichrist will die of a lethal head wound. Sniper rifle, anyone?

How about this g- nevermind, that's just fucking cool...

The Bluff Catch Insta-Snap Off: A Universally Poor Strategy

Occasionally we find ourselves in the position of where we fully intend to hero call when OOP on the river with a weak hand in what appears to be a tough spot. Especially when facing off against regs, it can be almost irresistible to snap call as a glorious way of saying "fuck you, I just owned you pal!".

I know that I have done it, and anyone who has ever played a significant amount of volume has done the same thing. But is this really a good idea? It might give a quick hit of heroin to your ego, but it's a really poor idea. It's almost so simple that it needs no explanation, but I am going to give it anyway:

If you alert this player to the fact that you can not only read the board really well, have the guts to make and "easy" hero call in a really scary spot, and that you can predict his tendencies, then you are only going to make him play better. After all, don't you want him to try this again in the future? I'm not saying that you should do this in what I would consider to be average spots like pot controlling a pretty good hand when a flush hits, but you should definitely let the clock tick down a bit before making the call. Not that you should dramatize it every time, but I would recommend letting it tick down in proportion to how difficult the call is to make.

So for instance, if you plan on calling with ace high on a wet board, let the timer run all the way down. As a side benefit, you can expect that given a similar situation, your opponent should be at least somewhat emboldened to try the same play with the different that size, being that he "almost" got you the last time.

5 Tips for Self Marketing for Poker Sponsorship

By Stevie Clapton


Most that take their Poker playing very seriously one day aspire to be offered asponsorship. Players that receive sponsorships are actually paid to play poker, and are not required to rely upon their earnings in order to continue playing at a high level. Unfortunately, what most do not realize is that good play alone will not get you a sponsorship. You have to effectively market yourself to the sponsors and prove to them that an investment in you will provide them enough visibility to give them a positive return. No sponsor is going to continue to sponsor a player when it is not profitable for them or their business. This is usually why you see the "personalities" within the poker scene receiving the most lucrative sponsorships. They may not always be the "best" players in the world, but they draw viewers to the sport, which is in the favor of those that hold events, and therefore in the favor of the company that is providing the sponsorship. They will certainly forego the better player for a player that will give them a better return on their investment.

Increase Your Skill

Having a personality might help, but there is nothing better for your chances at receiving a sponsorship than just being downright good at the game. Make sure that you are constantly studying, and playing the game enough in your spare time to where playing well just becomes second nature. You know what you need to do with each and every hand. Try to keep a daily practice schedule to the best of your ability.

Participate In the Community

Participate in the community wherever you can. Go to events. Go to conventions. Try to play in private games with other experienced or semiprofessional players. Take part in all of the major forums and discussion boards about the game. Do anything and everything that you possibly can to get your name out there, and recognized by as many people within the industry as you possibly can.

Join Tournaments with Visibility

Is there an upcoming tournament that is going to be receiving coverage from a number of prominent media sources? These provide you with a perfect opportunity to begin making a name for yourself and marketing yourself for the purpose of securing a sponsorship. Get some wins under your belt. Get your name mentioned in a few newspapers, magazines, and websites. Look at it as building a career portfolio, and it is the only thing that most companies are going to have to judge you on.

Meet Those in Positions to Make It Happen

Did you hear about a new company that is looking to sponsor a player at around your skill level? Is there someone in the industry who might be able to connect you to potential sponsorship opportunities? Remember, no one is going to give you a sponsorship just because they like you, but it certainly does help to know people in positions that can help you to achieve sponsorship. Sometimes, the companies know nothing more than that poker provides them an opportunity to profit, and choose their sponsorships with a consultant in the industry.

Become an Expert

Do you feel like you know everything there is to know about poker? Using your knowledge of the game to promote yourself as a player can be an excellent way to attract attention to your career. Start a website and offer hints or industry incite. Publish a free downloadable eBook, that details the basics of becoming a
solid poker player. Write guest blogs for prominent poker blogs, and link to your own profiles or website as a way to build a following. Receiving a sponsorship can be difficult. It requires a personality that draws viewers, results that keep your relevant, and a marketing plan to get your noticed. But with a little due diligence, you can quickly become recognized as a top up and coming poker player, worthy of his first sponsorship.

Author Bio: Stevie Clapton is a part of BingoSites.com who provide poker articles and reviews.

A Failed Prediction: No Limit Holdem Still #1 Worldwide

The following article was originally printed on Bill Rini's Poker Blog.

Perhaps as far back as 7 years ago, a prediction I had read by several high stakes pros was that Pot Limit Omaha would eventually overtake No Limit Holdem as the game of choice. Being that it offered an excessive amount of action, presumably what the recreational players craved, fish would be drawn to it en masse like moths to a street lamp. It’s now closing in on 2013, and PLO, which has admittedly made some modest gains in popularity, has completely failed to surpass Holdem. What happened?

First off, a disclaimer: I don’t play PLO. It’s not because I didn’t want to, or rather, because I didn’t want to want to, but because after spending my first few years educating myself in the realms of LHE and NLH, I really didn’t care to be bothered to learn what in my mind essentially amounted to a more complicated version of NLH with two wild cards. I understood the concept of how guys would overplay “Holdem hands” like aces or kings in the hole, but I really didn’t like the idea of having to completely relearn how to interpret things like bottom set or when you should dump your nut straight in a large multi-way pot on the flop because one or more players are probably free rolling you with redraws while your hand is otherwise dead to the entire rest of the deck.

Furthermore, the times I did try it, I was immediately put off by trying to remember exactly what my four hole cards were. The fact that you can only use two and must use two and that they weren’t dealt out neatly arranged by suits and ordered from deuce to ace made it really difficult for a novice player to read his own hand, and I certainly was never going to get caught dead trying to do this on my own while people were staring me down at a casino like I was some backwoods schmuck.

I like to compare it to my old job as a waiter at Applebee’s. It took my first 9 months on the job to memorize and become comfortable with the contents and ingredients of each item on the menu. Occasionally, I would attempt to make the switch to a potentially higher earning service job like the ones at the Olive Garden, but that meant another large time investment where I would have to begin again as a complete rookie, bumbling people’s orders while standing in front of an entire restaurant full of people.

So with the assumption in mind that I’m not a fish (depending on whom you ask, of course), who’s coveted business ultimately determines the success or failure of a given game, how does my own experience relate to the recreational player’s concept of what makes a game enjoyable or worthwhile? It actually shouldn’t be surprising at all. If I could sum it up in a single word, it would be “complexity”. If you were around long enough ago to witness the dawn of the free “pub tournament”, which is enormously popular in America, you would remember the days of when 90% of the players would have to be instructed on how to post their blinds and fistfights would break out because one player couldn’t understand why his top pair with a 6 kicker somehow didn’t split the pot with the guy holding a 9 kicker. After a tedious 3 years or so, most of them had a grasp of the rules and the progress of the game would progress as smoothly as is possible in an environment where people are constantly spilling drinks on their hole cards and wandering off to take a piss just before passing out in the stall.

This would be the arc of the evolution of the common fish, as I see it. Although still terrible, they did eventually learn that a weak ace shouldn’t necessarily go to the felt and that 22 normally needs to flop a set in order to continue. The last thing these folks want is a new reason for people to yell out “c’mon!” while they fumble with their cards trying to determine what they have and having to face a new round of humiliation the first time they show down the nut flush, only to go busto once they are condescendingly reminded that they only hold the single ace of the suit.

Fish might crave action, but it might not be in the flavor of what you might consider fun or rewarding. I did read an article long ago by Rolf Slotboom which strongly recommended that casinos spread PLO to keep the recs interested, being that a larger short term luck factor would lead to them having some really huge nights. There is an extreme flaw to this argument: the converse is also true. Since it is no secret that potential winrates at PLO far exceed that of Holdem, this means that the recs are confronted with some devastating losses as well. Even though it seems like the fish have a complete disregard for money, that doesn’t mean they have endless pockets and enjoy going to home to their wives and explaining how they dropped $400 on some game they don’t even understand after being gone for just 45 minutes. They still have a pain threshold that needs to expand slowly and the massive swings and difficult river decisions with seemingly big hands in PLO are frightening. Unless playing on short money, they will have to play a lot more uncomfortable turns and rivers because they aren’t offered the “easy way out” granted by the all in play of Holdem, a not-so-elegant facet of the game that made it even fun and accessible for grandma to play on New Year’s Eve because she could just push in all her chips the moment she felt herself nodding off from all the champagne and painkillers.

Lastly, the concept that is the easiest to overlook and the one I believe contributed the most to the lack off takeoff is…..it’s really freaking hard to calculate the pot! Holdem’s rise to popularity is attributable to its simplicity: any two cards can win, after all! Simple to read your cards and simple to figure the pot. PLO requires that you constantly need to recalculate what is in the pot in order to figure what size raise is allowable, and even then it isn’t so straightforward. I constantly need to remind myself of how open raising for pot in a $1/2 game is somehow $7. This leads to ridiculously complex side pots and split pots, which further leads to lengthier hands and, most assuredly, lengthier arguments over who won the hand and how the pot should be divvied up fairly. Since so few people spread this at home games and fewer still spread them in home tourneys (I have yet to hear of this occurring), this would naturally lead to fewer games online and even fewer in brick and mortar casinos.

The Personality of Online Poker Players- An Initial Inquiry

The following article was originally published in 2010 at http://fifthidea.com/personality and contains the results of a scientific study by Paul Fayngersh and Mark Kizelshteyn.  

SSH Commentary: As for the reprinting of non-original works, I was hoping to add commentary to the end of each piece.  After reading this article in its entirety, I can see that this may not be appropriate for this piece, as I am compelled to share an alarming statistic that appears at the end that calls some of the results into question, specifically anything that correlates with a player's stated winrate.  

All of the methods used are stated in the study below, so to make this brief, I will just say that the study consists of 63 total participants who responded to a series of questions on an online survey.  Here is the questionable information:

"Poker may be a game, but for such a large part of our sample (59%) that consider themselves professional of semi-professional players, poker comprises the sole or significant part of their income. In this situation a strong case can me made for classifying poker as work and not leisure. Even for the remaining self-labeled amateur players, all but two posted winning results, signifying that their poker play is profitable."

What!!???  Assuming that I was "conscientious" with my basic math abilities, that means that 24 out of 26 (92%) of the "self-described amateur" players were winners!  Translation: A mere 8% were telling the truth.  The fact that rakeback was not mentioned makes this information reek of an even larger pile of bull shit.  Certainly not scientific in scope, but from many scans of various players and player types on Pokertableratings.com over the years, I was able to glean that on PokerStars, FTP, and the Cake Network that, by all probability, your average modern internet pro does NOT have a positive winrate, but rather, makes all of his income from rakeback and bonuses.  If I am correct in my thinking, this statement would have been at least somewhat less true at the time of this publication, and yet still, the term "rakeback pro" predates 2010 by at least two years.  If we were to actually gather REAL data from poker players, I would even remain skeptical that 92% of actual pros could post winning results after 6 months of play- before OR after rakeback.  What disturbs me most is that the authors of the study just take this information without question.  I can certainly call their competence into question after reading this.

I chose to print this because I still consider it a good read, but it should be clear to all readers that anything that claims to be scientific by requesting self-administered information and/or results is drinking its own snake oil.  Because if the above is true, it is safe to assume that all of the below statements are true:

1) All photos on a dating site are up to date and accurate, and that when you meet these people in person you will always think, "wow, you look WAY better than you do in your photo!"

2) Every male under the age of 25 has at least 9 inches of penis and has scored with women in the double digits.

3) Everyone who has ever claimed that online poker is rigged ACTUALLY is the most awesomest player they know, with decades of winning experience in live arenas.  They are also very humble as well, since they always fail to mention how much they kick ass at Keno and the State Lottery.


PREFACE

This study was born out of a personal observation regarding the existence of a “poker type” – the seemingly very similar profiles of people who are drawn to the game. Discussion with friends familiar with the topic yielded consensus. Despite the fact that poker players are actually quite diverse, come from many different backgrounds, and exhibit a multitude of playing styles, there does appear to be a common thread that ties everyone together. 

We thought it would be interesting to conduct an independent and informal investigation into the personality traits of poker players. Fortunately, our survey received a good amount of respondents and we were able to synthesize some very interesting results from that data. We initially wrote a full academic paper, but decided that this would be overwhelming and/or boring to simply publish online. So what follows below is an abridged and modified summary of our research designed into a one-page website. We hope you enjoy it and would greatly appreciate any feedback, comments, or questions you may have.

ABSTRACT

This study provides a first glance at the personality type of online poker players within the framework of the Five-Factor model. Participants from two online poker forums were asked to complete a questionnaire that contained the Big Five Inventory personality assessment as well as questions pertaining to their poker gameplay. Our results indicated significantly lower scores for online poker players compared to the general population on the Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness personality traits. Additionally, interesting personality correlations with particular poker gameplay statistics (such as Win Rate, Aggression Factor, and Went to Showdown percentage) are uncovered, the most notable being lower scores on Neuroticism correlating strongly with poker success. Finally, the notion of whether one’s psychometric personality matches one’s “poker personality” – their playing style – is analyzed. Further research directions are proposed for a more comprehensive assessment. 

INTRODUCTION

Poker has long been a fixture of the American ethos and by many standards more of a national pastime than even baseball or football. With the rise of televised and online poker in the 2000s, the game has enjoyed exponential growth in the US and has spread globally. From a study of North American and Western European poker players it was estimated that 15 million people play online for real money (2.6% of the adult population), with 7 million playing at least once a month (1.4%). There are an estimated average of at least 150,000 users playing at any given time (www.pokerscout.com), and in 2010 the online poker industry is estimated to surpass over $4 billion in revenue (Global Betting and Gaming Consultants, 2009). Even with this self-evident venerable global interest in poker, no studies have been performed regarding the personalities of poker players. Firstly, this exploration aims to simply compare poker players’ Big Five personality scores to those of the general population. Secondly, differences are investigated between various sub-segments of the online poker population. Finally, we aim to unearth whether there are specific personality correlations with various aspects of poker gameplay that measure ‘looseness,’ aggressiveness, and success. Participants Poker players were solicited for participation from two US-based websites. Seventy-three anonymous respondents completed the survey (70 male, 3 female). Consent was implicit due to given instructions and no compensation was offered. Materials Survey questions were embedded into an online questionnaire using Google Docs software. The first section of the survey contained the Big Five Inventory (John et al., 1991; John et al., 2008). The second part of the survey consisted of general questions, in which participants responded to their gender, age range, and birth order. Also, subjects were required to self-assess on a 1-5 Likert scale on the following questions: “Are you an aggressive person?” and “Are you an aggressive poker player?” The final part of the survey dealt with details of the participants’ poker play and consisted of the following questions: “How long have you been playing Poker?” (< 6 months, 6 months – 2 years, 2-5 years, 5-9 years, 10+ years), “What stakes do you predominantly play?” (Low, Mid, High), “What type of poker player do you consider yourself?” (Amateur, Semi-professional, Professional), “Do you use online poker tracking software?” (Yes, No – though I frequently play online, No – I play predominantly live poker), and finally “What game do you predominantly play” triggered a pull-down menu of the most popular games, with participants having the option to fill one in themselves if not present on the list. Procedure Poker players from two US-based online poker forums were requested to take a short survey. The first forum was the TwoPlusTwo “Internet Poker” forum. TwoPlusTwo is a gaming-related multimedia publishing company that also sponsors and hosts one of the most visited poker discussion forums on the Internet. Since solicitation of any kind is prohibited on the TwoPlusTwo forums, special permission was requested and granted by the forum moderators. The second forum was the DeucesCracked “General Discussion” forum. DeucesCracked is a specialized online poker strategy, coaching, and education website. Players who responded positively to using tracking software were then asked to open their software and retrieve specific statistics about their gameplay. Players were requested to filter their sessions for the previous six months (April 1, 2009 to October 31, 2009) and for their principal game. Statistics collected were VP$IP, PFR, AF, WTSD, BB/100, and number of hands played (seeTable 1 for definitions). Internet surveys based on self-report questionnaires and self-selected samples have shown to be diverse with respect to socioeconomic status, geographic region, and age, are consistent with findings from traditional methods and prove to be a very reliable tool for psychological research (Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004).

RESULTS

General results

The Big Five Inventory scores were compared to a large sample of US males obtained from a contemporary study on personality by Dr. David P. Schmitt (personal communication, December 28, 2009). Female respondents (N=3) and players who play predominantly live poker (N=7) were dropped from our sample. Male online poker players (N=63) scored significantly lower than the general US male population sample on Extraversion, t(62) = −5.10, p < .001, Agreeableness, t(62) = −4.74, p < .001, and Conscientiousness, t(62) = −4.40, p < .001. No significance was obtained on Neuroticism and Openness. 

There was also a stark difference between players who predominantly play “6max” games, games with a maximum of six players that are usually characterized by faster tempo and higher aggression, versus those who play “Full Ring” games, which have a maximum of ten players and are usually associated with a slower and tighter style. Full Ring players scored significantly higher on Neuroticism than 6max players, F(38,1) = 8.33, p < .01, and ranked themselves to be much less aggressive poker players F(38,1) = 7.32, p < .01.

Finally, there were some differences between players who labeled themselves as “professional” or “semi-professional” with those who described themselves as “amateur.” Professional and semi-professional players scored even lower on Extraversion than amateurs, F(62,1) = 3.55, p = .055, and Conscientiousness, F(62,1) = 5.03, p < .05, suggesting that these two scales may form the defining characteristics of professional poker players. Professionals also self-reported as being more aggressive poker players, F(62,1) = 6.36, p < .05 – though these assessments were not corroborated by actual poker statistics as defined by Aggression Factor (AF) and Went to Showdown percentage (WTSD). Unsurprisingly, professional and semi-professional players correlated with playing higher stakes, and, in the normalized NL Holdem 6max sample, a significantly higher Win Rate (BB/100) than amateurs F(20,1) = 4.52, p < .05.

Gameplay results

The gameplay results derived from participants’ online poker tracking software uncover interesting particularities. As previously hinted, the extent to which someone describes oneself as being an “aggressive player” correlated with both stakes played, r(21) = .69, p < .01 and professional level, r(21) = .56, p < .001. However, it appears that players’ concept of poker aggression actually corresponded to “looseness,” that is, how frequently they voluntarily entered the pot (VP$IP), r(21) = .46, p < .05 and their preflop raise percentage (PFR), r(21) = .57, p < .001, and not to more accurate measures of poker aggression such as Aggression Factor and Went to Showdown percentage.

Participants’ self-report scores on being an “aggressive person” correlated significantly with WTSD, r(20) = .45, p < .05 and negatively with AF, r(20) = −.46, p < .05.

The most noteworthy results of all – surely the ones poker players themselves would be most interested in – are the two [non-poker gameplay] factors that correlated significantly with success. Win rate negatively correlated with both Neuroticism, r(21) = −.45, p < .05 and a player’s age r(21) = −.49, p < .05.

DISCUSSION

Significant results on three out of five personality traits on the Five-Factor model – pronounced differences on Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness – suggest a distinct personality profile for online poker players. The results on Extraversion and Agreeableness are not surprising. Low scores on Extraversion are expected of those who engage in a solitary endeavor requiring great introspection and mental activity for many consecutive hours. Any of the friendly communication that live pokers enjoy amongst themselves is almost entirely relinquished in online poker. There may be personality differences between predominantly live and predominantly online poker players; unfortunately covering live poker players was not within the scope of this study.

The very nature of poker almost requires one to be disagreeable; duplicity and cunning are the name of the game. In a situation of finite limited resources and zero-sum gains, self-interest must come to the forefront if success is to be achieved. However, low scores on Agreeableness are unlikely a factor specific to poker itself, but rather a dynamic that may be generalized to other highly competitive and solitary endeavors (for example, chess and tennis). Bilalic, McLeod, and Gobet (2006) showed that children with lower Agreeableness were much more likely to take up chess, and also proposed males’ general lower scores on Agreeableness as one reason why boys took up chess much more commonly than girls. [Avni, Kipper, and Fox (1987) found that adult chess players are also more introverted than the general population, marking a potential particular likeness between poker and chess players.]

Disagreeable people who do not get along well with others may choose to pursue activities such as online poker rather than activities in more interpersonal settings, and/or be less likely to be called to participate in such activities by others. Also, as a general characteristic of Internet activity, engaging in online poker requires almost no need for agreeable behavior that is frequently demanded in face-to-face situations and thus would appeal more to disagreeable people.

Conscientiousness yielded the most surprising results amongst the differing personality factors. We expected poker players to be more conscientious than the general population, when in fact our results indicate that they are not only less conscientious, but that professional and semi-professional players were significantly less conscientious than amateur players.

Our initial disconnect lies in a subtle distinction: one should not confuse poker gameplay for the poker lifestyle. Poker gameplay seems like it requires traits of high conscientiousness, but the qualities of the poker lifestyle in fact exhibit the opposite. Personality tests measure perceptions of the world and how these perceptions inform decisions, not the traits necessary to perform a certain task well. It would be incorrect to expect discipline, industry, organization, and the need for achievement – traits associated with high Conscientiousness – to be prevalent in successful poker players simply because these traits may be beneficial for poker gameplay. It is more pertinent to focus on the fact that poker players have chosen a very nontraditional career and/or hobby choice, are shying away from highly structured and regulated environments, are escaping rigid work or study schedules, and examine the underlying personality dimensions which inform such decisions.

Most evident is that high conscientiousness is linked to social conformity; in fact, in early personality research the terms were sometimes used interchangeably (Leary & Hoyle, 2009). Playing poker as a hobby, and surely as a profession, would less likely appeal to highly conscientiousness individuals with the propensity to follow socially prescribed norms.

Poker success

In terms of poker play, the most revealing finding of this preliminary study are the two correlations with win rate. Firstly, win rate correlated negatively with age; younger players achieved higher win rates irrespective of poker experience. The fact that “young guns” are always threatening to take over is actually a commonly held belief in the poker world whose truth is now verified by experimental data. Poker strategy is constantly evolving and one must always stay ahead of the curve to succeed. Strategy is not only continuously changing, but the rate at which it changes has been accelerating in recent years with the explosion of online poker and associated training, coaching, and strategy websites. Moreover, there are probably several cognitive biases and maladaptive habits that are engrained in older poker players that prevent them from properly adapting to newer playing methods. The commitment and status quo biases particularly come to mind.

Secondly, win rate negatively correlated with Neuroticism; players who are less easily affected by negative emotions have significantly higher win rates! We believe this to be strongly related to the notion of “tilt,” a unique poker term referring to an angry, frustrated, or destructive mental state causing worse-than-normal, irrational play. Again, it is commonly acknowledged that “tilt control” is a crucial aspect that separates good players from bad players, and great players from merely good players. Our results are the first to verify these notions empirically – emotional control is paramount to poker success.

Aggression

Another impetus for conducting this study was to investigate whether one’s real-life aggression matches their poker gameplay aggression levels. We asked participants to rate themselves as aggressive people and aggressive poker players and then compared this with their actual poker statistics. Unsurprisingly, self-rating scores on the aggressive poker player question correlated with both professional level and stakes played, meaning that professional and high-stakes players significantly considered themselves to be more aggressive poker players. In fact, there was no correlation according to the traditional measures of poker aggression (AF and WTSD), though there was a correlation with both VP$IP and PFR, measures usually associated more with players’ ‘looseness’ and only somewhat with aggression. (VP$IP and PFR are extremely linked and always should be considered paired; in our sample their correlation was r(21) = .841, p < .001) Participants misjudged their looseness for aggression probably because the looseness statistics are significantly more salient and easier to measure heuristically.

More interestingly are the two gameplay correlations with the Aggressive Person self-report. Responses to Aggressive Person correlated with WTSD and negatively correlated with AF! Those who consider themselves so be aggressive people are significantly more likely to not fold their hand – this seems more or less logical. But why do those who consider the opposite, that they are not aggressive people, have significantly higher measures of AF? It’s an interesting result with no straightforward answer, but perhaps it suggests that people exhibit opposite behavior at the poker tables; unassuming and laid-back individuals enter a venue that facilitates aggressive activity which they can’t or don’t want to pursue in their day-to-day regular lives. These contradictory results warrant more investigation (and we would also love to hear our readers’ opinions).

Internet Use

An obvious confounder unfortunately present in this study is the fact that participants are likely to be moderate or heavy Internet users irrespective of their poker play, and of course even more so when one considers actually playing online and participating in poker discussion forums as Internet use. Landers and Lounsbury (2004) did find that heavier Internet use correlated to lower scores on Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness – similar to results obtained herein, though significant variance from the general population was not measured in their study.

Landers and Lounsbury (2004) also measured what type of Internet use participants were engaged in, following previous research that established broad categories for types of Internet use: Communication (including E-mail and Chat), Leisure (including music, role-playing, shopping), and Academic (research, online course participation). Problematically online poker does not fit comfortably in any of the established Internet use categories making it difficult to consolidate their results with ours. Poker may be a game, but for such a large part of our sample (59%) that consider themselves professional of semi-professional players, poker comprises the sole or significant part of their income. In this situation a strong case can me made for classifying poker as work and not leisure. Even for the remaining self-labeled amateur players, all but two posted winning results, signifying that their poker play is profitable. What is noteworthy is that Landers and Lounsbury (2004) indicated that subjects who primarily used the Internet for academic work purposes actually scored higher on Conscientiousness, whereas we found that professional poker players scored lower on Conscientiousness than amateur players. These facts provide some impetus for classifying both playing poker online and participation in strategy and discussion forums as wholly separate from conventional Internet use, and we believe that the categories established by Landers and Lounsbury (2004) and others are impossible to extrapolate to online poker behavior.

Another reason why Internet use alone cannot fully explain our results is that differences within our population sample signify a proclivity towards low Extraversion and Conscientiousness as a defining feature of professional poker players. Even within a sample already skewed toward low scores on both these traits, professional poker players still scored significantly lower than amateur players – regardless of how much time they actually spend playing online. Therefore Internet use may not be the only factor at play here, even if online poker players share similar personality traits with general Internet users. Also worth noting is the anecdotal evidence of many poker players who start out as live players – either playing with friends or at card rooms – who eventually switch to online play out of convenience or professional decision (the actual figures associated with this occurrence are unknown).

Conclusion

This study provides some interesting initial findings on the personality profiles of online poker players. Further research would surely benefit from a larger sample size and perhaps more granular comparisons could be explored, such as potential differences between players who predominantly play one game versus another (e.g, Holdem vs. Omaha). The role played by one’s level of Neuroticism should be explored in more depth, as it may be the single most important factor that correlates with poker success. It would also be noteworthy to determine whether the personalities of online players are congruent with live poker players – the rules of the game may be the same in both cases but the actual act of playing is quite different. Moreover, the results of live poker players will establish whether a distinct poker personality exists separate from the online players’ personalities that are congruent with other heavy Internet users.

Your Best Defense Against Leveling: The Reset Switch

As you all know, when playing against the same opponents day in and day out, a dynamic will ensue against one or more troublesome players.  Occasionally, the leveling war will become so indecipherable to onlookers that it will appear as if both players are raging donkeys.  Check raises on the turn with gutshots, river over shoves with bottom pair for value, you name it.  While these things certainly have their place in the game of poker and most specifically in heads up matches, a much simpler and, more importantly, a much more appropriate solution is to apply what I have come to call "the reset switch".  Simple and easy, the reset switch is mostly just instantly switching gears back to an ABC game and pounding your opponents into oblivion. Notice how I used the word "mostly".

You see, when a leveling war develops, the first guy to drop out is the winner.  If one party wishes to continue a leveling war without the cooperation of the other party and insists that every single hand requires massive amounts of trickery, than the resistant party is literally no longer distinguishable from a donkey.  Just ask my friend Travis.  I used to bluff constantly in our heads up matches 5 years ago and these days he won't fold bottom pair to me despite how ugly the board gets.  I now bluff him like once every 3 months or so in our home game to reinforce this image of dishonesty.  Donkeys love catching bluffs.

Back to the matter at hand.  "Oh no!" you must be thinking.  "I can't let him insta-profit on my blinds or by not defending my steals!"

Ahem... A topic to be extrapolated on more another day, to be crudely to the point: insta-profit is a bullshit poker concept.  To be clear: the math checks out on paper most certainly, but it doesn't gel with how the game is actually played, specifically with regards to the attitude and paranoia of the aggressor.  Anyone who wishes to fully take advantage of the concept of the insta-profit scenario is gradually pushing the boundaries of a careful balanced strategy.  Said aggressor is also expecting that the targeted nit will eventually make some random play back. This often results in the aggressor going broke with something stupid, like bottom pair or ace high (think of poor Travis).  But...more on that topic another day.

For now, let's focus on the second component of the reset switch, which is to not chicken out.  Stop being a pussy and forget the #3 (yes, I am skipping #2 for now) and by far most offensive bullshit poker concept, "protecting your hand".  I can't wait to extrapolate on the many flaws of this one, but I will give this tip: the desire and tendency to "protect" one's hand is the basis of virtually all hand reading.  By selectively violating this basic poker tenet, you are well on your way to becoming an expert at the game.  Here are two quick examples of how this concept can be used against you when protecting your hand causes you to become "too honest".

You are the PFR in each scenario:

You raise 6h 5h and the flop Jh Th 9h.  Someone donks into you.  You are expected to raise.

You raise Td Ts.  Flop is 5 4 2.  You are expected to bet the flop.  If you check the flop, you are also expected to bet or raise the turn.

Challenge: ask yourself why in both scenario.  Look beyond the obvious answers.  I am absolutely NOT saying that raising is wrong or even bad.

So....back to the reset switch.  The first step requires that you start dumping your crappy preflop hands and let your opponent take a few extra blinds.  This will embolden him further.  Now, for your monsters:  getting full value means that you should violate the basic principle of protecting your hand, which means that you should slowplay both your monsters AND your semi-monsters like top pair in unorthodox ways for both maximum value.  What I mean by unorthodox is that you shouldn't be pulling the trigger and letting your opponent off the hook by raising.  For instance, if someone is raising your BB 80% of the time from the SB and constantly triple barreling with nothing, there is literally no rule that says you can't just flat 77 and call him down with 20 BB.  But let me re-iterate: if the flop is KQJ two tone, calling down here with 77 is just a fish move and you are being reined back into idiot mode.  A better spot would be to take a flop like 654 and just call away.  With a basic belief in the value of protecting one's hand, your opponent is likely to put you on a draw from the flop to the river and donk off all his chips.  So as not to lose the original point, stop raising! 

Final note: straight draws and flush draws with no overcards are now crap!  Sure, they have decent implied odds to a small bet on the flop, but against a guy who just isn't going to fold, becoming aggressive with these hands is suicide, since literally none of them have enough showdown power to make a profit against a belligerent calling station.  I suggest giving up on these frequently.




  

Winning Your Local Pub Tourney

"Can you put another rebuy on my tab, please?"

At the Golden Nugget Saloon, we hold a tourney every two weeks.  It lasts for ten sessions, with the winner of each week qualifying for a season-end final table.  The winner of the final round goes on to a grand first-level bust out in a  medium buy in live tourney at the Horseshoe Indiana casino.  These types of pub tourneys are very common in Louisville, and from what I understand, the rest of the nation as well.  The local rules may vary a lot, but if the event is sponsored by a liquor vendor, typically there will be rebuy chips handed out to those imbibing a specific drink.  As we have unlimited rebuys until there are six players remaining, the stacks get deeper and the play gets sloppier the further into the night we go.

I actually had trouble with these for a long time.  I didn't drink a whole lot and therefore wasn't likely to rebuy more than once or twice, especially given the fact that the chip you draw from the magic bag might just be green, which guarantees that you will get to see lots of hands, but if you choose to play any of them that you will be praying for a tiny pot while eight other players are duking it out for the side pot.  This was especially aggravating, being that my dopey friend Travis seemed like he was playing every pot, limping every hand, calling every bet, raking all the chips and winning or placing at least third virtually every single session.  All this while hooting and acting like a drunken asshole, with his finest moment coming when his top pair of 8's ran out a four flush and lost to a pocket pair of 4's that spiked the lucky river card. The holders of the long-shot hand were young female patrons who were so inexperienced that they were sharing a hand because they could barely read the board, let alone bluff out Sheriff Travis Rose.

That is, until Travis looked down and noticed that he was holding the 9 of hearts.  He shoved his hole cards right in their faces, slapped them down on the table, and then did a cross-armed double chop over his junk and cried out above noise of the bar, "SUCK IT!!!"  Then he turned over to their boyfriends (who are friends, mind you) and said, "Hey Eric and Chris: your girlfriends won't be home tonight because they are going to be busy at the bar, SUCKIN' IT!!!"  Everyone's draw dropped.  Though the Nugget is Ground Zero for this kind of harassment, this was the wartime equivalent of bombing a civilian village.  It's not that Travis isn't normally super-offensive or that we hold him to any kind of standard, but this was a new breed of asshole-low, even for the guy who used to regularly "salt" the rims of margaritas with the rim of his sweaty nutsack.  

Yep.....this is the hallowed loser who was taking all the virtual money off the crusty, bourbon-stained Nugget tabletop felt.

But I digress.  The point was that I should have been taking notes.  Even though he was violating all poker dogma since the publication of Hold'Em Poker, we were playing in a game that simply doesn't exist when douchebags with sunglasses and earbuds come together and start clutching a full rack of $1 chips with white knuckles.  We were playing in game where 80-proof douchebags are calling river bluffs with 4 high and folding nut straights for min-bets on the river.  Winning this battle requires not being critical of said douchebags, but rather, just being slightly less-douchey.

Here are some tips:

1) Limp...a lot

This is disgusting, I know.  But then again, why is that?  Isn't the purpose of raising so that we can win the pot multiple ways through fold equity or making the best hand?  The former ingredient doesn't exist.  If a guy thinks second pair is the nuts, blasting him with all your chips when all you have is a straight draw isn't going to change his mind.  

But there are better reasons.

First and foremost, you AREN'T stealing the blinds.  If you limp on the button and the blinds consider this to be weak, they still won't pounce on it.  Why would they try to raise you off it if they still have a chance of flopping two pair at a cheap price?  Most of these players wouldn't even try to bluff if they KNEW you likely had nothing.  And they also don't see the value in winning the small pots.  They want to win BIG pots, and you can't do that without at least flopping a draw.

Furthermore, in a normal setting, a blind steal at least allows you to narrow down their range somewhat, but these players will flat and play passively with hands you never even considered, like AK for top pair, top two pair, and even sets.  When they lead out for the minimum on the river, this isn't an invitation for you to take the pot away with a raise.  Read it for what it is- the time to squeeze out thin value with a weak top pair.

The value in the steal comes AFTER the flop.  This is when you should be picking up the pot with min-bets or taking free cards with draws and betting them off it on a later street when you miss.  

Lastly, even late in the game, you can do it with 10 big blinds or even less.  After all- shoving only allows you to get snapped off with a wide range, whereas you can win this pot with just 2 big blinds, so why the risk?  

2) Don't 3-bet unless it puts you all in or you want action

3-betting a hand like AK only works if you can hit post-flop, bet them off it post-flop, or get some info on their holding.  In a nutshell, this is a dumb move.  In fact, I think that few competitive players these days even question whether or not this should be done.  They just do it out of habit.  If 3-betting here won't put you all in, you just should call.  This will net you the most money and put you at the least risk.  The blinds tend to rise quickly in games like this, so blowing off 1/3 of your stack with no hand isn't a good idea.  

If you are still in the rebuy period, feel free to do whatever you want with it (besides fold), but realize that you will often have the ability to just check it down when you miss.  And don't get carried away with one pair hands on slippery boards.  You can just min-bet your top pair if you are up against the kind of guy who won't fold a flush draw to any bet, but will also call down anything if the price is right.  If the flush hits and they shove on you, this isn't a level.  They have it.

3) Bring lots of cash and have fun

Don't be the table dick.  No one cares how good you are away from the bar, and in fact, if they are aware of your online exploits then this is even more incentive for them to go out of their way to bust you.  Realize that being quiet and straight-faced when you win a pot just makes you look like an arrogant asshole who's shit doesn't stink.  You should be whooping it up and acting like a jolly arrogant asshole- provided that you draw the line at "suck it".  If you came out to drink, then you are just freerolling on those extra chips.  So make sure that you draw to every gutshot and that when you hit it, you properly rub in their faces that you would have "folded to a bigger bet".  Cheers!