So this afternoon I’m playing 1/2 limit, working off the $25 bonus at PokerStars, when something very unusual happened. I was holding KK and lost. Right, I know, that’s not that unusual, especially because my opponent was holding AQ suited and turned an A to beat my pair of Kings.
Yeah, I know, call “The X-Files.”
Here’s the strange thing: my opponent seemed upset about this. I mean really torn up, like Andrew Black at the 2005 WSOP when Bernard Lee was late coming back from the break. He left the table a few orbits later, and before his blind came around he promised he’d transfer me $10 to cover the cost of that beat. (I actually lost only $9 on the hand.) I politely refused, saying that bad beats are part of the game, and as far as that goes, AQs vs. KK isn’t that bad a beat.
But sure enough, checking my e-mail tonight, I have a letter from PokerStars saying a transfer of $10 was confirmed to my account, from the player who nicked me in that pot.
He clearly wants me to have it; I clearly don’t want it. So what’s my action? Do I send it back with a note saying “Thanks, but no thanks”? Keep it? Buy into a tournament and split the winnings with him? I mean, it’s only ten bucks, but what’s my ethical responsibility as a poker player?
Posted by Mike as Poker at 1:57 AM PDT
7 Comments »
What are the odds of hitting quads four times in four days? (Once per day that is. I may be lucky, but I’m not THAT lucky). Either way I’m not complaining.
The best one of all was the last one. All-in after getting short stacked in a 20 table SNG on stars with A-Q suited, I get called by pocket 3’s.
The flop: 4 - 5 - 4. The turn: 4. The river: 4.
Quads on board and my ace kicker played. THEM’S QUADS BITCHES!
Posted by Beck as Poker at 1:08 PM PDT
5 Comments »
Dabbling a little at 3/6 limit when this catastrophe occurred. My read on the player on my left had, up until this point, been that he was overly weak-tight.
Whoops.
Names have been changed to protect the innocent.
FullTiltPoker Game #XXXXXXXXX: Table Cordoba - $3/$6 - Limit Hold’em - 18:33:34 ET - 2006/05/14
Seat 1, “HammerKiller” ($71.50)
Seat 2 ($354)
Seat 3 ($142)
Seat 4 ($51)
Seat 5 ($175.50)
Seat 6 ($95.50), is sitting out
Seat 7 ($42.50)
Seat 8 ($159)
Seat 9, Mike ($84.50)
Mike posts the small blind of $1.50
HammerKiller posts the big blind of $3
The button is in seat #8
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Mike [7s 2h]
Seat 2 folds
Seat 3 folds
Seat 4 folds
Seat 5 folds
Seat 7 folds
Seat 8 folds
Mike raises to $6
HammerKiller calls $3
*** FLOP *** [2d Ts 7h]
Mike bets $3
HammerKiller raises to $6
Mike raises to $9
HammerKiller raises to $12
Mike calls $3
*** TURN *** [2d Ts 7h] [5c]
Mike bets $6
HammerKiller calls $6
*** RIVER *** [2d Ts 7h 5c] [Jh]
Mike bets $6
HammerKiller raises to $12
Mike calls $6
*** SHOW DOWN ***
HammerKiller shows [9c 8d] (a straight, Jack high)
Mike mucks
HammerKiller wins the pot ($69) with a straight, Jack high
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $72 | Rake $3
Board: [2d Ts 7h 5c Jh]
Seat 1: HammerKiller (big blind) showed [9c 8d] and won ($69) with a straight, Jack high
Seat 2: Seat 2 didn’t bet (folded)
Seat 3: Seat 3 didn’t bet (folded)
Seat 4: Seat 4 didn’t bet (folded)
Seat 5: Seat 5 didn’t bet (folded)
Seat 6: Seat 6 is sitting out
Seat 7: Seat 7 didn’t bet (folded)
Seat 8: Seat 8 (button) didn’t bet (folded)
Seat 9: Mike (small blind) mucked [7s 2h] - two pair, Sevens and Twos
Thanks a million, Hammerites.
Posted by Mike as Poker at 5:33 PM PDT
6 Comments »
I’ve been practicing playing tables of varying numbers of opponents via a little game I dreamt up which I’ve been calling “Reverse Sit & Go’s.”
Here’s how it works: I sit down at an empty 10 person limit table, plop down some cash, and wait for someone to join me. When someone does, we play heads-up. Gradually more people sit down, and I have to continually adjust for the number of people at the table. Once the table fills up, I play around to my blind, pick up my money, and plop down at a brand new empty table.
It’s quite good practice, and has proven rather profitable too. Turns out that most people really stink at limit short-handed poker. Today though, something most entertaining happened. Once the table filled up, I stayed. In fact, I had no intention of leaving for quite a while.
On the four players to my immediate left I had place a single, identical note. It read “Calling station/moron.” Usually, you understand, simply labeling someone a calling station is sufficient. But these were gifted calling stations. The worst two would call down with any ace and play any two cards. One of them once called me down with queen high. I kid you not. These people were special, and I wasn’t leaving that table until I had taken as much money as humanly possible from them.
I succeeded in breaking two of them and taking quite a bit from a third. But that’s not the reason I’m telling this story. The reason is to talk about a single hand. A hand where I got incredibly lucky without ever realizing I needed the luck. So without further ado, the story of that fateful hand:
I was in the big blind with A-Q of hearts. Three of the calling stations limped in, naturally, along with a couple other players. I raised, and they all called. Naturally. The flop was 6 - 9 - 9 with two hearts. Gleefully, I bet my flush draw. Naturally, everyone called.
The turn was an Ace, so the board was now 6 - 9 - 9 - A. I bet out again, quite certain I had the best hand. The first calling station now called all-in, and the second one raised! I assumed he’d been calling all along with just an ace–perhaps something worse–regardless, filled with hubris and overdosing on my own pride, I recklessly three bet (everyone else had folded). The calling station called.
The river was a second Ace, giving me aces full of nines. I bet, the calling station called, and that was that. My cards went up first. Then came the all-in calling station’s. It turned out he actually had a hand. A - 9 suited. We split the main pot. The second calling station’s cards were mucked, and I took the juicy side pot. Then I headed off to the hand history to see what he had.
He had Q - 9 suited. I was behind him all the way to the river. Then I thought about it some more. It suddenly occurred to me: the second calling station had an ace, I had an ace, and on the turn I was dead to an ace. I had hit a one outer on the river to pull ahead without ever realizing I was behind. (Alright, if you want to be pedantic about it, any non-queen heart would have been good to win the side-pot, but you get the picture).
That’s poker for you.
OK, one more story from that session. It’s just too amusing not to tell.
The two calling stations from the previous hand had both busted out and one of them was away from the table. I was about ready to leave the table, and wasn’t even paying attention to the action as I fished around for a Bob Dylan CD. I heard the beep indicating action was on me and I looked up to see what was going on. The one calling station/moron (henceforth CS/M) had raised in early position and it had folded around to me on the big blind where I looked down on 4 - 7 of hearts.
My internal monologue: Fold. I should definitely… but 3.5 : 1 odds… he could have a wide range here and– no, I should fold. Definitely. But then… of course… how am I ever going to take this guy’s money if I don’t play any pots. Hell, one small bet and play it from there.
So I called. The flop was 5 - 8 - J. I had nothing but an inside straight draw and resolved to surrender this pathetic hand which I never should have played in the first place. Surprisingly, CS/M checked behind. “Interesting,” though I, “he must just have some unpaired Ace and doesn’t want to bet into the guy who’s been taking his money all this time.
The turn was a miracle 6 giving me the nuts. (”Yay!”)Gleefully, I bet out (note: when playing against calling stations, always bet your hands. They’re not going to bet them for you, they’re just going to do what they do, namely call). CS/M then raised. (”Joy!”) I three bet it, and he capped. (”Is that the hallelujah chorus I hear playing? No, that’s just Bob Dylan. Just as good.”)
The river was a 9, which made my straight unnecessarily higher, and made the board a bit scarier I suppose. Anyway, I bet out, and CS/M just called. Up went my cards, and into the muck went his. Off I raced to the hand history.
He had Q-Q.
He had a pair of queens in the hole and checked behind on the flop. The pot was far too small on the flop for me to chase an inside straight. All he had to do was bet and take it. Instead of protecting his hand, though, winning a 4 1/2 small bet pot, he gave up a free card and lost a 12 big bet pot. Let this be a lesson to you kiddos: protect your freaking hand.
Posted by Beck as Poker at 9:35 PM PDT
3 Comments »
Lou Krieger has been tirelessly covering attempts by Congrassman Goodlatte to formally and officially outlaw online gambling (with certain hypocritical and inexplicable excpetions for horse race betting). Now he posts a link to a site allowing each and every one of you to easily contact Congress and voice your opposition to this bit of particularly blinkered legislation. I encourage everyone who reads this to click over and add your name to the campaign. Those of you with blogs of your own, I encourage you to post links to the site.
The phenomenal growth of poker in recent years owes a great deal to the popularity of online poker sites. Should access to those be denied us, it could finally be the axe that beheads the poker boom that pundits have delighted in foretelling for years.
That, and you should never miss a chance to piss in a congressman’s breakfast cereal.
Posted by Beck as Poker at 4:33 PM PDT
No Comments »
I have a hypothetical question for you all, my good readers of Steal the Blinds. Leave your thoughts in the comments.
The situation: you’re in Vegas for a bachelor/ette party and decide to take a shot at the 20/40 LHE game. Shortly after you sit down, you notice that two players are doing something weird with their chips. They riffle a stack of 20 chips between hands, but then once the hand starts, they cut them into irregular stacks, seemingly at random. You suspect they’re cheating, and sure enough, you quickly figure out their relatively simplistic & obvious code.
Having figured out their code, you now know what both of these cheaters holds each and every hand.
Here’s the moral dilemma: What do you do with this knowledge? Do you use your knowledge to beat the socks off these guys & take their money, or do you immediately report them to the house? They’re cheaters, so it’s clearly fair and just that their cheating be their own undoing. At the same time, the other, less observant players at the table are being unfairly taken advantage of.
So what do you do?
Posted by Beck as Poker at 3:29 PM PDT
16 Comments »
If you play limit poker, I hope you’ve read and are using Beck’s Quick and Dirty (but Accurate) System for Figuring Out if You have Pot Odds to Call a Bet With a Drawing Hand (BQaD(bA)SfFOiYhPOtCaBWaDH for short). If you find memorizing odds charts difficult and trying to remember them in the heat of the action impossible, as I do, then this system is a godsend. One bit of quick arithmetic and you know whether the odds are on your side. I’ve found this is especially valuable in live games, where taking a lot of time to ponder a call is sometimes a tell you don’t want to give off.
It is everything Beck said it would be: quick and dirty, but accurate. There is, however, a correction that needs to be made. This was discovered both in the comments to Beck’s original post and to a thread I started in that post’s honor at the 2+2 Message Boards.
The correction is fairly simple, but the explanation behind it is not. So if algebra frightens you, here’s the Cliff Notes correction: Beck’s formula says you can draw profitably (assuming it’s one bet to you) if Outs x Bets In Pot > Unseen Cards (47 on the flop, 46 on the turn). The correction is:
Outs x (Bets In Pot + 1) > Unseen Cards
This stems from the difference between how people talk about probability. Most people think of probability as a “1 in X” chance. If you watch “Deal Or No Deal,” you’ll see Howie Mandel and the contestants discuss this often. Poker players, however, prefer to think in terms of odds being “X to 1.” This is a subtle difference.
Beck’s original formula is derived from a more complicated equation I laid out both in the comments and the 2+2 thread:
[(number of bets in the pot) / (amount of bets to call)] > [(unseen cards) / (outs)]
Unfortunately, this is flawed. The left term is in “odds” format (pot to amount of bets to call), and the right term is in “probability” format (all unseen cards vs. outs). Therefore, you have to change one of the terms to match the other. Happily, this yields the same result.
If you change the left term to probability format, you have to add one bet. If you’re charged one bet to win a seven-bet pot, after all, you will be adding your bet to the pot. So instead of “7-1,” you can think of it being “1 in 8.”
But let’s think of it like we should as poker players, and change the right term to odds format. Instead of “unseen cards / outs,” it should be “non-outs / outs,” or, to make it easier to adjust to Beck’s formula, “(unseen cards - outs) / outs.”
So the complicated form of the equation would then be:
[(number of bets in the pot) / (amount of bets to call)] > [(unseen cards - outs) / (outs)]
The first term is Beck’s “Bets” idea, adjusted for whether or not you have to call one bet or multiple bets. Multiply both sides of the equation by “Outs”:
Outs x Bets > Unseen cards - Outs
Add “Outs” to both sides:
(Outs x Bets) + Outs > Unseen cards
And a little algebraic wizardry leaves us with:
Outs x (Bets + 1) > Unseen cards
Which is the exact same result we had going from the other angle.
(You know what this means? This means Beck’s formula was a little too tight. Now we can draw even thinner! Yay for chasing like a fish!)
Hat tips to “hydrant” from the comments; “Genesis” and “Str8Fish” from 2+2 for the formula alterations; and especially “Soyunperdedor” from 2+2 for coming through on the explanation.
Posted by Mike as Poker, Poker Strategy at 1:40 PM PDT
3 Comments »
OK, Jaxia has reminded me enough times that I haven’t written anything here in far too long, so here goes a stab at developing a thought I recently had while playing 10/20 LHE at the Taj this past weekend (Won $55 in 10 hours. Gotta love an hourly win rate that’s in line with minimum wage).
I don’t recall which poker author it was who observed that since money tends to move clockwise around the table, you should make friends with the people on your left and make war on the people to your right. Probably Mike Caro. Anyway, I was actively doing just that, congratulating the woman to my left on her wins and laughing at the jokes of the man to the left of her. Meanwhile, the young Asian player to my right, a solid and experienced player, was doing the same thing.
He was chatting me up, making comments on others’ play, and asking me casual questions. I was on my guard not to give anything away, but have to admit I was enjoying the conversation. At one point he asked a question which sets off alarm bells for me. It should for you too. He asked me what poker books I’ve read.
A bit of advice. Never tell anyone what poker books you’ve read (or lie about it). Experienced poker players have read every poker book they can get their hands on. They know the strengths and weaknesses of various authors’ recommendations, and they know what sort of play to expect from a follower of a given authors’ work. If I know you’ve only read Super/System, I know that the one consistent message you’ve had pounded into you is the importance of aggression. If I know you’ve only read Sklansky, I know exactly what hands you’ll play preflop and how you’ll play them. Even if you’ve read the sections from Sklansky’s Theory of Poker about deception, I know the potential hands you might do something funky with and the basic moves you’d make. If you’ve only read T. J. Cloutier, then I know that you’re not going to pay as much attention to pot odds and drawing odds as you should.
If I find out that someone reads 2+2, I know that I’m dealing with someone dangerous. If i find out that someone has read Caro’s Book of Tells, I’m going to behave in the opposite manner of the tells in the book. Strong means weak and weak means strong? Not anymore it doesn’t. If I find out you read Tao of Pauly, I’m going to hit you up for a joint, and if I find out you read Al Can’t Hang, I’m going to order you a double shot of SoCo.
There are two lessons to be learned here. The obvious lesson is to conceal your knowledge level from your opponents. That seems obvious, but it extends to all behavior at the poker table. Don’t criticize the fish for his bad play. Don’t get into an argument with the guy next to you over whether you were a 55% favorite before the flop or a 57% favorite. Don’t talk about how many outs you had, don’t talk about what hands you put somebody on, and for the love of god, don’t tell someone you’re in a tournament with that you swear by Harrington On Hold’em.
The second lesson is that you need to be as knowledgeable as humanly possible. Part of that means everything poker related you can get your hands on. Play Poker Like the Pros by Phil Hellmuth is widely panned as a lousy book on how to play poker, but tell me this: how does a person conceptualize the game who has only read that very book? You don’t know that unless you’ve read it yourself. The process of gaining knowledge doesn’t end at the table either. You should be listening to what other people say. Even if you never open your mouth, people will give away a tremendous amount of information about how they play, their motivations, their mood, you name it. And hey, if you’re in the mood for some small talk, why not ask the guy to your left if he’s read any good books lately?
Posted by Beck as Books, Poker, Poker Strategy at 8:39 PM PDT
7 Comments »
I’m not sure where the guys are, but school is keeping me really busy lately. I’ve tried to play a few hands of poker here and there, but nothing very exciting.
As a matter of fact, I was complaining to CJ about a new site I’m trying and said, “I don’t really like this site. The software is horrible. But, I’m making 4BB/100 there and only 2BB/100 everywhere else.”
He then pointed out the fact that making money and the fish factor should make up for the klugey software 
I’ve moved up and I’m playing $3/$6 limit hold em fairly consistently now. When I can’t find a game, I’ll drop down to $1/$2 or $2/$4. While I feel like I have tightened up, Poker Tracker doesn’t seem to think so. Based on 10k hands:
VP$IP: 30%
PFR%: 10.82%
WSD%: 37%
W$SD%: 45%
So, I STILL play too many hands, and I still go to showdown all too often. Some things never change
Posted by Jaxia as Poker, Poker Strategy at 10:49 AM PDT
7 Comments »
