Saturday, February 28, 2009 - smokin_aces
Last Wednesday, DENERODAY won the Ultimate Bet Blog Tournament. We asked him to share his thoughts on his preparation for the Sunday 200K (first prize for the Blog Tournament was a seat at the 200K) His original post is here.
“Well here we are two days before the 200K! Sense last weeks Blog tournament I haven’t had much time for poker, only playing in a couple tournaments. Saturday will be my day to bone up on my play. I already have myself signed up for two $100 and one $1000 tournament and intend to play each as if it was the 200K. I consider myself a fairly tight, passively aggressive player. In the past I played alot of Lowball (5 card draw low) and this tought me alot of patience. All I can do is play my best game and hope that “OLD MAN RIVER ISN’T AGAINST ME”. You all know what I mean, flop the best, make your move, get called by second best and watch him take you down on the river. I never hold this against a player because I usually make them really pay to make that draw. Well we’ll see how it goes and I will be back to hopefully report some good news.”
Good luck DENERODAY!
Tags: blog, blog tournament, DENERODAY, Poker Strategy, Sunday 200K
Comments (1)
Thursday, February 26, 2009 - APmedia
As we near the final episode of our 7 episode best damn poker show series II..I look to our players and viewers once again for their input. Our goal in filming series II was to improve on what we learned in producing series I and hence create more loyal viewership by both entertaining and educating them. This would be the same objective we have for producing series III as we desire to deliver a better show each and every time around.
As I anxiously await your feedback I’d like to share what we changed from series I to series II and why. We first decided to change the format by having someone eliminated every episode to be consistent with other top rated reality shows.
After Phil and Annie chose their teams their players competed in three team matches where they earned points for their teams. At the ends of those three matches the team with the most points would earn a thirty thousand chip advantage at the championship table. As it turned out Annie’s team fought back from a big deficit in the last team match and tied the competition, but that all added drama we didn’t have in series one when those team matches had no value, no one was eliminated (after each team match both Phil and Annie had to eliminate another player) nor was the winner granted immunity. It made each episode meaningful to the overall competition.
We also wanted to develop the characters more by offering more interviews both pre and post play but as well, capture their thoughts from the time of the current hand. This was also accomplished by starting with less players so we could give more air time to those likely to succeed. I think we also saw a significant improvement in the level of play from the players chosen this series.
Additionally, we wanted Phil and Annie to support their comments further vs. just shouting out things like “he shouldn’t’ have raised there…or “ I would have like to have just seen a call.” In addition to capturing further commentary to above we ended each episode with an “ultimate hand” feature, taking the key hand of the episode – replaying it and finally directing viewers to the site to hear a more in depth analysis from Phil and Annie’s perspective…both you will find quite opposite from one another.
Unlike other poker television shows we deliver both quality tournament poker supported by behind the scenes commentary from two legendary pros. Commentary that can help viewers understand strategy more clearly and in a more entertaining format. By allowing players 3 ways to qualify and open to anyone, we get a diverse group of offline and online players all who if lucky enough can land their way not into just another tournament show, but directly on a featured table televised on a national network. These are benefits only the ultimatebet.net best damn poker show offers. Phil and Annie charge students and celebrity students almost 50K+ for this kind of one on one coaching and instruction. Aside from what you see on camera the pros are with their teams anytime they are not viewing the action from the coaches studio.
But don’t’ let us tell you how great this show is..please tell us your thoughts on how we can improve for both those who want to participate on a future show and or simply view. We want to thank all of our viewers over the past two series and are committed to delivering quality poker programming.
Thanks,
Garin – Marketing
Tags: Annie Duke, Best Damn Poker Show, Phil Hellmuth, Poker Strategy, ub marketing
Comments (2)
Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - HollywoodDave
OK so call us sick and twisted or too competitive for our own good, but I’ve got a prop bet going with Annie right now that promises to truly add to the level of degeneracy in my quest to become the best professional gambler i can be. Shortly after UB launched the new Steps sngs, she called me with the challenge to race her to a WSOP 12k main event prize package. But the catch is, we can only buy in at Step One for 10 cents!!!
Yup…first one to make it thru all 10 steps to the WSOP seat wins the bet. But this is hardly just about winning our way thru the ranks — cuz if we bust out at any point in the steps, we have to go all the way back down to step 1 and start comletely from scratch!! Basically there are 4 possible results in every step tourney — win and get a ticket for the next level, get a ticket to repeat the same level, get a ticket to go DOWN a level, or busto!!!
So the secret to winning this prop bet is to accumulate as many of the lower-level tickets as possible before taking a shot at the higher steps. So far i’ve turned 18 step one entries (less than 2 bucks outta my pocket, baby!) into 4 beautiful step 4 tickets. But that definitely won’t be enough to take the shot at the big step 10 nut, so my plan is to pick up 20 or so step 4 tickets before going for the gold!
So far Annie has only made step 3, but has accumulated something like 20 step 2 tickets, so I think i’ve got a slight edge. Doing the math makes me think, on average, a highly skilled player would still need to play something like 1000 step ones in order to win a WSOP seat (only buying in at the first level, never rebuying higher). So if i’m at 4 step 4 tix at 18 step one buy-ins, I’m thinking i’ll blast thru a cool 100 step ones to get to around 20 step 4’s and then take the shot. Still far shy of the 1000 i’d need to play on average, but i’ll take a 10% gamble and see how it goes.
The truly sick thing here is the stakes — being as competitive as Annie and I are, of course its not about some huge amount of money or some kind of sick humiliation. Rather, in these tough economic times, the loser has to take the winner and a guest out for a fabulously lavish dinner at the location of the winner’s choice this summer in Vegas at the WSOP!
Never one to pass up a good months-long struggle against the odds, Annie’s boyfriend Joe (also a good friend of mine) got in on the action to make it a 3-way prop bet and race to the WSOP seat… so if you see myself, Annie, or Joe playing in the lower-level step sngs over the next few months, come say hi & cheer us on….
…Actually, come cheer ME on, but make sure to give them plenty of harassment! I’ve gotta exploit every possible edge at my disposal to win this thing, so everyone’s welcome to join in the fun. Rock on –
-hd.
Tags: Annie Duke, Hollywood Dave, online pro, Poker Strategy, prop bet, STEPS tournament, WSOP
Comments (4)
Monday, February 23, 2009 - John Greene
The Art Of War (Sun Tzu’s ancient military tome, not the excruciating Westley Snipes movie) offers a lot of advice to the poker player. I was given a copy a couple of decades ago by my grandfather, who said it was a good guide to playing chess, but I’ve discovered that it works beautifully as a guide to poker play that how to be player that no only wins, but wins well. Here’s Section III, in which the philosopher and military expert extolls the virtues of winning through strategy.- Sun Tzu said: The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.
- To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.
- Thus the good fighter is able to secure himself against defeat, but cannot make certain of defeating the enemy.
- Hence the saying: One may know how to conquer without being able to do it.
- Security against defeat implies defensive tactics; ability to defeat the enemy means taking the offensive.
- Standing on the defensive indicates insufficient strength; attacking, a superabundance of strength.
- The general who is skilled in defense hides in the most secret recesses of the earth; he who is skilled in attack flashes forth from the topmost heights of heaven. Thus on the one hand we have ability to protect ourselves; on the other, a victory that is complete.
- To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the acme of excellence.
- Neither is it the acme of excellence if you fight and conquer and the whole Empire says, “Well done!”
- To lift a rabbit pelt is no sign of great strength; to see the sun and moon is no sign of sharp sight; to hear the noise of thunder is no sign of a quick ear.
- What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease.
- Hence his victories bring him neither reputation for wisdom nor credit for courage.
- He wins his battles by making no mistakes. Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated.
- Hence the skillful fighter puts himself into a position which makes defeat impossible, and does not miss the moment for defeating the enemy.
- Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
- The consummate leader cultivates the moral law, and strictly adheres to method and discipline; thus it is in his power to control success.
- In respect of military method, we have, firstly, Measurement; secondly, Estimation of quantity; thirdly, Calculation; fourthly, Balancing of chances; fifthly, Victory.
- Measurement owes its existence to Earth; Estimation of quantity to Measurement; Calculation to Estimation of quantity; Balancing of chances to Calculation; and Victory to Balancing of chances.
- A victorious army opposed to a routed one, is as a pound’s weight placed in the scale against a single grain.
- The onrush of a conquering force is like the bursting of pent-up waters into a chasm a thousand fathoms deep.
Tags: art of war, Poker Strategy, sun tzu
Comments (0)
Saturday, February 21, 2009 - C00LHandNuke
When the dust settled after the preliminary four tables, there were twenty-one contestants left on the show. Now it was up to Phil and Annie to draft nine players each for their team. Standing there for the draft in front of the cameras and bright lights was pretty intense. Plus, I was having flashbacks to last season when a number of contestants were called by name, jumped for joy, and then later found out that they were in the group being cut. Did it make good TV? Yes. Was it cruel? Maybe. Did it have me on edge? Definitely. So I stood there keen to spot any “Survivor” twists that might be coming.
Starting off the draft, one player was singled out as having played the best in the prelims. This player received all kinds of gushing comments, but neither Phil nor Annie said the player’s name for a while. I’m sure each of the contestants, myself included, was hoping deep inside that they would be that player. But because “being the best” wasn’t really my strategy for round one, I knew it wasn’t me. Finally, Annie Duke revealed the identity of this player with her first pick – Darryl.
Phil made his first pick next. I really wasn’t expecting Phil to pick me high in the draft for one reason. The day before the prelims started PokerH0 came to me with an odd proposition: basically he wanted me to be a sleeper agent for Team Hellmuth. He proposed that I play “mediocre” or even outright bad so that Annie wouldn’t draft me. Meanwhile, Phil could draft me lower and use his upper picks to take players from Annie’s top tier. Because he had played with me a lot before, H0 said that I would be a near lock to make Phil’s final three. Very sneaky. It also gives you an idea of just how bad these two coaching teams wanted to win. Annie and I had never played together live or online, but Shawn Rice and I had several hours together during a WPT event and knew each other a little from online. Because Rice knew me, I doubted whether the plan would work and I told H0 that I just couldn’t go out on national TV and intentionally make myself look like a donkey (looking like a donkey unintentionally was still a very viable option of course!). In any event, Phil chose “ShipItMuppet,” a long-time UB grinder as his top pick.
When Shaundle and Jason were the number two picks for Annie and Phil respectively, I can honestly say I was getting nervous. Unless I went to Phil’s team, I figured I needed a reasonably high draft pick to make the final table. For her third pick, Annie started off by saying she was going with a player who she thought was probably an “unrecognized talent” and that it was very close between this pick and Shaundle. To me, this sounded like the Darryl build up all over again. And I was mentally prepared not to hear my name. So, when she picked me third I was pretty friggin’ psyched. You can see my excitement on the show. It was such a relief to go in the top three because I now felt like the spot on the final table was mine to lose. But as the first semifinal match would show, I had no reason to feel so safe.
The structure for the semifinals was the same as the prelims – 10k in chips, one player from each team would be eliminated and the table winner had immunity. On top of that, we were playing for team points that would affect starting stacks at the final table. The final table starting stack was going to be 100k. But whichever team won the semis would get 10k off the losing teams stack (so the starting stacks would be 90k vs 110k). This was huge. And just to make it more cutthroat, each semifinal table winner would also get $1000 cash.
The first semi table was full of surprises. Annie’s team consisted of Darryl, Niago and Patrick. Darryl lost a race early to Muppet. Patrick played great poker but couldn’t outlast Niago, who won the table. So the first shocker of the show came when Annie was faced with the decision of whether to cut Darryl (who probably was the most experienced player at the table with the most lifetime winnings) or Patrick (who played a solid error-free table). I think in Annie’s mind, fairness ultimately won out and Darryl was cut. This was both good news and bad news for me. First, it effectively meant I moved up to the number two spot on Team Duke. Second, the Niago-Patrick one-two finish staked us to a healthy point lead. The bad part was that it showed me just how easy it would be to take a “bad beat” here and be off the show.
The second semi table was a disaster for Team Duke. My teammates were the first three busted. Now it was Team Duke that faced the huge point deficit going into the third and last semifinal table. Specifically, we needed to bust two of Phil’s players in 6th and 5th or else Team Hellmuth was guaranteed the chip lead on the final table. Even if we busted two of Phil’s players first, Team Hellmuth would still get the chip lead if his remaining player won the table. The table lineup was like this:
Seat 1 – Me (Team Duke)
Seat 2 – David (Team Hellmuth) – a very talented and successful on-line cash player. Perhaps his most impressive claim to fame is being a lifetime winner in heads up cash games against Tom “drrrrr” Dwan.
Seat 3 – SassyTexan (Team Duke) – Tight, aggressive and solid. Sassy was at my prelim table and when Annie gave me my choice for a table mate, Sassy was my first pick. I knew her solid play would keep the two of us from getting mixed up in any needless confrontations.
Seat 4 – Brad (Team Hellmuth) – my first impression was that he could be pretty wild.
Seat 5 – Jon (Team Duke) – probably the most inexperienced player in the field. Like Brad, I expected him to be unpredictable.
Seat 6 – Jason (Team Hellmuth) – another talented young on-line phenom. Jason is routinely ranked in the top 100 for on-line multi-table tournaments. He would be aggressive and the most dangerous. Fortunately, I would have position on him.
The first hand of the table really affected my strategy for the whole tournament. Brad raised from the button, Jon min raised from the blind and Brad put in a fourth bet that was just barely above a min raise. Jon called. The flop came down three baby cards with two diamonds. Jon check folded to a half-pot cbet from Brad. From the outside, it looked like Jon had a weak ace, maybe AJ to A8, that missed and Brad probably had a reasonable overpair or a big ace. As it turns out, Jon had the AQ of diamonds and Brad had tens. I probably wouldn’t have thought about the hand again, but I got called into the coach’s booth before the button orbited the table again.
The hand before I got summoned to the booth, I flopped bottom two pair in a multi-way pot between Jason, myself and Brad. Jason had top pair (queen) with a weak kicker and we went to war on the turn. Jason made three queens on the river and checked to me. Being counterfeited on the river, I knew the only way to win was to bet. Jason made the easy call and I tabled my “busted monster” and read the hand out loud as “queens and eights.” I congratulated Jason on his nice suckout and he got defensive, insisting that his queen on the flop was ahead of my eights. He missed the fact that I had flopped two pair. This started a lot of sarcasm and ball busting from me. I had just asked Jason if a pair of queens beats two pair in his home game when I was summoned to the coach’s booth.
In the coach’s booth Annie asked me to go back to the table and talk about a hand from the prelims where Jason got all in with two over cards and a flush draw versus a pair. She wasn’t allowed to tell me what cards other players had during the semi table. But as we had only played a few hands, only one of which had significant action. I was able to deduce that Jon had a hand like AK or AQ of diamonds on the first hand. This revelation was edited out of the show as aired. But knowing this fact changed my approach to the game. Jon had clearly made a huge error. Barring a brain fart by Sassy or myself, Jon would probably be Annie’s choice for elimination. Combine this with the elimination of Darryl in the first match and the performance of Team Duke’s players on the second table and I figured that my spot on the final table was nearly assured. This pushed my strategy back toward the style I employed during the preliminaries, but Annie also told me to take some more risks because Phil’s players were “playing scared.”
Throughout the semifinal table I never held a pair – not even deuces. Nevertheless, I cultivated a tight image, won a lot of pots with well timed bluffs and reraises and only had to show down two more hands during the whole match.
The first elimination of the match came when Jason raised from early position. I held KQ in the cutoff. Normally I would consider playing here, but David was on my left (on the button) and had checked his hole cards already. When he checked them, his posture changed ever so slightly. He leaned forward a bit, which I interpreted as he had a hand. I didn’t want to get caught between two of Phil’s players in a situation where I might be dominated so I bowed out. As it turns out, David’s suited Ace-Ten caught top pair, but got busted by Jason’s top two pair.
The big hand that made the show for me was when Jon opened in early position with KK five-handed and I had AK in the blind. I had a stack size of about 15 big blinds. This is a good size stack to reraise with. With that in mind, had this been a regular online SNG, I would have moved all in 100% of the time. And after sitting there for over an hour without a pair, AK looked like the nuts to me. But two things made me go with a different line. The first was my read on Jon. As soon as he checked his hole cards his demeanor changed. On the show that aired you can see his head rolling around on his shoulders like a Stevie Wonder bobble head doll. He was suddenly very relaxed and excited, but trying to hide it. Everything pointed to him having a HUGE hand. Based on my read, he had QQ at a minimum. The second thing that made a reraise my less favored move was that, this being team play, I didn’t want to bust Jon at this point, or worse, get busted by him. I couldn’t be sure that he would fold 99 in this spot.
Taking all that into account, I almost folded preflop. And based solely on my read, had Phil and Annie NOT been watching my hole cards, I probably would have folded. Ultimately I decided that the problem with folding was that if my read was wrong, I would have played AK like a total rube and Annie might cut me based solely on this play. Also, I felt like there was little chance of Jon bluffing me on the flop if he had a hand like AJ or AQ and if an ace hit, I could just open-shove – thereby letting him know that I’ve got a real hand. As it turned out, I blanked the flop and checked folded to Jon’s all-in bet.
But this hand also highlights two of my strategies for any poker game, particularly hold ‘em. The first is when to look at your hole cards. There are a lot of theories out there. Some very good players like Chris Ferguson suggest waiting until it is your turn to act. I used to do this, but think it is probably not the best plan. By waiting until the action is on you to look at your cards, you not only slow down the game, but you also ensure that almost everyone is looking at you when you do check your cards. That’s bad. Most players give up tells (1) when they first look at their cards (2) when they make a bet and (3) when they face action from an opponent. You can’t avoid all eyes being on you when you bet. And if you are heads up, your opponent, if she’s good, will certainly be watching you in the third scenario. So why draw attention to yourself in the one scenario you control: when you look at your hole cards for the first time?
Therefore, one of the things I like to do is look at my hole cards when no one is looking at me. Even when I’m under the gun I usually look at my first card before my second even arrives because players are usually watching the dealer pitch cards to them instead. Just knowing the rank of my first card under the gun vastly narrows my probable plays. Preferably, I look at my cards while the action is at the opposite end of the table. If timed right, I only miss one player checking his cards while I check mine. All things being equal, I’ll try to time my peek with the tightest player at the table. If he raises, I don’t need any tells. I know he has a hand. Besides hiding inadvertent tells from opponents, this has the added benefit of allowing me to prepare myself for how I want to act when the action is on me.
I will often recheck my hole cards when the action comes to me. But I will never show genuine surprise or excitement when I look down at AA or KK. The reason is I checked my cards earlier and I’ve been preparing myself for several seconds for how I want to look when I check the second time. So now I can try to give a false tell if I want to.
Case in point, on the show when I had the AK, the action was on me but I was staring at Jason for some time while I thought about what line to take. Once I knew I was going to call, I pretended to ask the dealer if the action was on me. Then I acted sheepish, like I just realized the table had been waiting on me, checked my hole cards (for a second time) and nonchalantly called Jon’s raise. If you watch the show closely, you can pick up on it.
The second strategy this hand highlights is that you have to constantly reevaluate your options. When I first saw I had AK, no one had acted yet. Like I said, given my drought of hands and my stack size, I was hoping someone would raise just so I could autoshove. When Jon raised, I had to reevaluate based on my read. And even after that, I had to reevaluate the whole scenario based on the team aspect of the game. After each evaluation, my plan changed. I went from shove, to fold, to call.
Ultimately, Brad went out 5th. Jason would later lose a heads up battle with Jon when Jon’s AQ sucked out on Jason’s AK all in preflop. The end result was a final table where each player would start with 100k in chips. Without giving too much away, the final table was crazy. There was some great poker. Some amusing hi jinks. And some bold bluffs that really blew up. So be sure to tune in!
Tags: bestdamnpokershow, players, poker media, Poker Poker Poker, Poker Strategy, VIP
Comments (2)
Monday, February 16, 2009 - John Greene
Last time, I reviewed short-stack strategy in games and how it can help you out, now let’s talk about a more pleasant problem to have during a poker tournament: maximizing the time you spend having the biggest stack and how you can hold onto it.
The big stack means that you’re the Boss Hogg of the country that is the poker tables and everyone else is them Duke boys. Sure, they may be able to zip around and nip at you, but you can have throw them in the pokey before they know what happened. Make looser calls and limp into the hands that you’d turn your nose up at most of the time. (They’re very likely to not break out without the help of dynamite, either.) You’d likely never dream of playing 6/7 or 7/8 at the beginning of a tournament, but if you can afford to run the odds and play loosely, do it.
Forcing your opponent to put their whole stack out there when you have a good starting hand is also a must. If you’ve got KK or QQ, go for it and make them pay if they want to play against you. Having a big stack means that you can lose a bit on hands like that if they do have something better and it means that every move you make intimidates the competition.
Later in any tournament, using your stack as well as your cards is very important. While you shouldn’t go all-in on every hand, being able to confidently work your way up from the bottom of the final tables. The more chips you bring in from the bottom, the more you can pay against succeeding levels.
Tags: big stack, playing with a big stack, Poker Strategy, stack strategy
Comments (0)
Saturday, February 14, 2009 - Phil Hellmuth
At World Poker Tour championship in Tunica, Miss.a few years ago, 100 players were remaining (out of 540 who had bought in), when I witnessed a showdown between 2004 “Champion of the Year” Daniel Negreanu and 2003 “Champion of the Year” Chip Jett. With the blinds at $500-$1,000, the antes at $200 a man, Jett opened for $3,100 with Ah-8h, and Negreanu called with Kc-Qc. Then the deal got very interesting.
After a flop of Jd-5c-3c, Negreanu had a king-high flush draw and two overcards (cards that are higher than the ones on the board, in this case the king and queen). Jett studied the situation and counted his chips — he had $22,000 total. After a few moments, Jett moved all-in, and Negreanu replied: “I have to call you.” When the hands were flipped up, I thought, “Ugh, I hate Chip’s tactics here, what was he thinking?”
Knowing how a player typically reasons, Jett was probably thinking two things:
- Negreanu’s hand was weak enough that a $14,000 raise would get him to fold.
- Negreanu might have a “drawing hand” (cards that have the potential of becoming a strong hand, in this case a flush), but Jett’s ace-high hole cards carried more favorable odds.
What Jett didn’t fully consider is that when Negreanu bet out $8,000 (he had almost $90,000 in chips), he was sending a message: “I’m committed to playing this hand, and I’m certainly calling a $14,000 raise. So this is not a good spot to be moving all-in bluffing!”
As it turns out, of course, Negreanu was drawing, and the second part of Jett’s plan was still theoretically in play. Even though Negreanu was drawing, Jett was not the favorite to win the pot. In fact, even though his ace-high was currently the best hand, he was a 3-to-2 underdog to win the pot.
Why not just respect Negreanu’s $8,000 bet and throw your hand away, thus saving $22,000 in chips to fight on with? After all, there was only $7,000 in the pot when Daniel bet out $8,000. Is it really worth it to get involved in a pot that small with no pair and no draw?
Winning no-limit Hold’em tournaments is all about choosing the right place and the right time to put your chips into the pot. This wasn’t it.
In defense of Jett’s move, he made his play because he thought Negreanu was bluffing. Perhaps he sensed weakness in Daniel, and thought he acted accordingly. In fact, Negreanu was semi-bluffing with his flush draw — but plenty capable of betting $8,000 on a bluff in this situation. Jett simply made a bad read: He thought Negreanu was weaker than he really was.
The rest of the story is that the 7c hit on the next card, to give Negreanu his flush, and Jett was eliminated in 100th place. Negreanu went on to make the final six players, hit the World Poker Tour television coverage, and eventually finish the tour in third place.
Playing too aggressively could entail:
a) Betting big with a strong hand
b) Calling all of your chips with a strong hand
c) Moving all-in every hand
d) Betting small amounts relative to the pot size
Answer: C
Tags: Daniel Negreanu, Phil Hellmuth, Poker Strategy
Comments (0)
Saturday, February 14, 2009 - C00LHandNuke
So by now you’ve probably seen the first two episodes of the Best Damn Poker Show 2 on Fox Sports. The competition was structured so that 24 players would be separated into four six-person tables. One person would be eliminated from each table based on how well Phil and Annie thought they played (dropping our number to 20). But if you were the chip leader at the end, you had elimination immunity. After that Phil and Annie would each select nine contestants to be on their team for round two. The draft would therefore eliminate another two players. After the draft we would play another round with three tables of six-handed action. Phil and Annie would then select their three best players to square off for the final table.
With this in mind, I went into round one with a very specific strategy – play tight and don’t make any stupid mistakes. I would show my “skills” off in round two, after the draft. In many ways, this is the exact same strategy I use when playing the early stages of an on-line sit-n-go. There is very little reason to get involved with a hand like A8 offsuit early on, because, barring some miracle flop like AA8 and an opponent w/ AK, you are just unlikely to get paid off. Yet even at the $500+ buy in levels, I see people defend their big blind with Ax all the time in the opening rounds – the aggressive players may even reraise if the suspect a steal! They flop an ace and lose 1/3 of their stack (or more) because the initial raiser had an ace with a better kicker. To put it another way, when you are nine-handed and the top three spots get paid, it’s almost impossible to amass enough chips to assure yourself a cash. Almost all you can do by getting out of line early is lose.
I was on the fourth table. This gave me the advantage of seeing how the first three tables went. None of the contestants were made privy to hole cards absent a show-down, but watching the first three tables reinforced my strategy. On a few occasions players got busted at the table, but weren’t selected for elimination because the bust was “righteous.” In other words, they played well but either got cold-decked, took a bad beat, or lost a coin flip as the aggressor. Also, from the comments made by Annie and Phil, it was pretty obvious that several players at the second table had some holes in their game. So I figured that I could pretty much count on one or hopefully two of these players to not be drafted. The only wrinkle came when the third table played so well that no player was eliminated. Hollywood Dave dramatically told us at the beginning of the fourth table that because of this, they might eliminate two players from our table. But taking everything into account, it didn’t change my strategy. Essentially I had to finish in the top four of my six-person table to “cash.”
The players on my table were lined up like this:
Niago (seat #1 – the grinder from LA) Niago is very attractive and she knows it. I’m not saying she is stuck up. Far from it. She is a really honest and down-to-earth person. Rather, she knows that men will do stupid things at a poker table whenever an attractive woman is in the hand. And from talking to her at dinner the night before, I could tell that she knew how to adjust her game for guys who would try to bully her. So if she raised my big blind from the button, I would be less likely to three bet without having a good hand.
Patrick (seat #2 – the on-line qualifier) Patrick beat over 8000 players in a series of on-line free rolls to win his seat on the show. As you would expect, he is your typical on-line whiz kid . . . just turned twenty-one, uber-aggressive and hopped up on Red-Bull and vodkas. NOT! Patrick was among the oldest competitors and has three kids older than the majority of the online poker-playing population. So he’s not your typical young-gun jammer. And you have to respect the time, skill and luck factor that guided Patrick through such massive fields in the series of tournys he won to get here. Bottom line, he was an enigma. He was hard to plan for and harder to read. But I expected him to be aggressive and play position – two keys to internet success in particular.
Shawn (seat #3 – the hero in this story, at least for now)
Tony (seat #4 – the body builder from New York) Tony sat in the seat behind me for the flight out to SoCal, but he didn’t know that. During the flight, I got to listen to him tell the guy next to him all of his “good” poker stories. From these stories I knew the following: Tony had experience in big buy-in live events and he liked to play loose early on when the blinds were small in hopes of flopping huge and getting someone to stack off light. With him on my left, I could fire into him on a lot of uncoordinated flops if he limped expecting him to fold most hands. If he called, I would know he had a hand.
Lynn “Sassytexan” (seat #5 – long-time UB grinder) Sassy is a student of Shawn Rice poker. Now I’ve had the pleasure of playing with Shawn for about twelve hours of day one of the WPT’s World Poker Challenge Championship, so I figured that at least in the early stages, Sassy’s game would be solid, maybe even to the point of being ABC-like. If she put lots of chips in the pot, she had the hand. I wouldn’t expect her to bluff or get too carried away with a draw.
Lenal (seat #6 – a pro from Miami, FLA . . . cue Lou Reed’s “Walk on the Wild Side”) Lenal is covered in tattoos which may lead you to think he is a wild man, but he is a pro. He’s played lots of big events and his home game in Florida includes Chino Rheem (maybe you’ve heard of him from the final table of the 2008 WSOP Main Event) and most of the Mizrachi brothers (if you haven’t heard of them, you’re not reading this because you have no internet and likely have been living on a desert island for the last five years). Needless to say, he was the wild card and the player I would most likely try to avoid.
As play got underway, I stuck to my strategy of playing tight. This was made easier by the fact that I never held a hand better than J8 off suit for the first hour. I love it when the cards and your strategy align! On the first hand I had 72 off suit in the big blind. Tony and Niago limped. The flop came A35 rainbow. I checked. Tony bet and Niago folded. I hemmed and hawed a bit before folding, telling Tony I had misplayed a big pocket pair. In the coach’s booth, Phil commented on my theatrics. But my rationale was simple, I wanted to portray an image that would allow me to steal later and represent the ace when need be. It worked. Even with bad cards, I was able to build my stack by leading into ugly flops against Tony and Lynn, usually after getting a free peek from the big blind or raising the button.
The main hand that shaped the table was a battle of the blinds between Sassy and Lenal. With blinds at 100/200 Sassy had QQ and tried to make it 600 to go by throwing in a 500 chip on top of her 100 small blind. But she didn’t announce raise and thus the “one chip rule” meant she had just called. Lenal wisely decided to see a flop for free with the J9. So the first mistake was made by Sassy. I see a lot of internet players make mistakes like this when they try to move to the brick-and-mortar world. The flop came down J94 with two clubs. Gin for Lenal! Sassy bet 500 and Lenal just called. I believe his call was the second mistake in the hand. When Sassy tried to raise preflop it should have told Lenal she had some sort of hand. Her bet on the flop could have just been frustration with two big cards that missed like KQ, Ax or the like, or she could have a medium to big pair, or even a flush draw or straight draw. Bottom line, she could have anything. Lenal needed to define her hand and protect his hand on this draw heavy board. The turn brought the Q of spades (putting two spades on board and completing the KT straight and the less likely T8 straight). Now all hell breaks loose. Lenal finally puts pressure on the pot and Sassy tanks for a bit before going all in. Lenal makes the somewhat-crying call. When the hands were turned up, I breathed I small sigh of relief because it was the first hand I saw where I felt like a clear mistake had been made. Remember, my strategy was to basically wait for the other players to make a mistake, even if it wasn’t against me. So for the first time at the table, I felt relatively safe.
As it turned out, Phil and Annie actually faulted Lenal more for the hand he played just prior to this one. But because I couldn’t see the whole cards, I had no way of knowing that Lenal was in jeopardy. In that hand he raised under the gun with A4 off suit and defended against a near-min raise from Patrick (holding KK). Even though he was getting great odds due to the smallish reraise, he had a dog hand that was likely a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 dog. And that’s assuming he gets to see all five cards. In reality, he is a bigger dog because unless he flops two pair or better, he will have to fold on most flops. Even assuming all three aces are live, he will flop the ace less than 20% of the time. The same goes if the 4 is the live card and he is up against a bigger ace. One thing worse than only having three outs, is having three outs, but not knowing what they are. That’s the situation you’re in with a rag ace when there is a lot of action preflop. When someone offers me 3 to 1 to call their three-bet it used to make me sick to my stomach to fold because it looks so weak. But in my case, this is ego talking. In order to win, you have to put ego aside and do what’s right.
My cards continued below the Mendoza line for the rest of the table. Near the end I had two hands that didn’t make the television airing, but were mildly interesting. The first, I picked up KK in the small blind and everyone folded to me. I raised it 2.5 times the big blind and had to use all my Jedi mind tricks just to get Tony to call. We took a flop and my read was he completely whiffed. I went ahead with a smallish cbet hoping he would interpret weakness and make a play. He almost bit, but then seemed to remember that Phil and Annie were watching and that he had air. He folded.
The other hand also involved Tony. This time he raised 4.5X from under the gun. I looked down at AJ off suit in the blind. We both had slightly more than 15 big blinds, so I had some fold equity to shove. My read on Tony was that he had a pocket pair that he knew figured to be the best hand five-handed, but that he didn’t want to play a difficult flop with over cards out of position. A lot of this read comes strictly from Tony’s bet size (so you can use it on-line pretty accurately), but it is also supported by my take on his personality. No way he makes that bet with AA, KK, or QQ. It’s not in his trappin’ nature. The only real threat here is that he has AQ. Some players feel the same way about AQ as 55. If they get called and have to play a flop, they hope to hit it hard and turn green when they miss. On the whole, I decided to fold because I didn’t want to run into AQ here (a disaster that would occur probably 1 in 4 times based on my read) and didn’t feel the need to show “strong play” and try to make Tony lay down a hand like 88. If I hadn’t already sensed a mistake from Lenal or if I felt like I needed the chip lead for immunity, I probably would have shoved here. Calling for me wasn’t an option. I talked to him later and he said he had 99.
Well, that pretty much sums up my opening round on the show.
Cheers
Shawn
Tags: Annie Duke, Best Damn Poker Show, C00LHandNuke, Phil Hellmuth, Player's Voice, Poker Strategy
Comments (0)
Thursday, February 12, 2009 - smokin_aces
In last week’s ‘Ask a Pro’, we announced Annie Duke would be answering this week’s question.
Blog reader ‘Ulimate Poker’ asked this great question.
“I would like to know what factors you considered when redesigning the tournament schedule at UltimateBet?”
Here is what Annie Duke had to say.
“That is an easy question to answer because the main and most overriding factor in designing the tournament schedule is the players’ wishes. I truly believe that you cannot be successful in this business if you do not give the players what they want.
When I initially started reworking the tournament schedule I reached out to both the online pros associated with UB such as Debo and P0ker H0 and the Pocket Fives community to really get a bead on what the online poker community wants in a tournament schedule (balancing that with the size of UB and what tournaments it can realistically support).
One really successful example of this is the addition last summer of the $25+2.50 tournament at 9:20 pm eastern every night. That was a tournament that was completely requested by the players. The players practically petitioned for it! We started off at a $7500 guarantee and it has grown ever since now doing over $10K per night.
Another great example is the $1K weekly event. We started that off on Thursday nights with a $100K guarantee but had trouble making that guarantee each week. A bunch of the high limit players spoke to me and told me they would much rather have the event on Wednesday. Stupid me, I thought the $80K on Wednesday would interfere with the $1K but the high limit players told me they like to play more than one tournament at once and that they also like taking Thursday and Fridays off! So I listened to them, moved the event to Wednesday and now BOTH tournaments are doing better. The $1K did a record over $200K last week and the $80K broke $100K for the very first time.
Listening to the players is definitely a win-win. The players are happier and the site is happier too!”
Join us next week when we welcome back Scott Ian to Ask a Pro. Scott Ian, guitarist of Anthrax and talented Ultimate Bet pro has answered here before. So look forward to getting a one on one dialogue with the Poker’s Rock and Roll heavyweight, Scott Ian.
To ask Scott Ian a question, enter your question directly into the comments section of this blog.
ASK SCOTT IAN A QUESTION NOW!
GL
Aces
Tags: Annie Duke, Ask A Pro, Poker Strategy, Scott Ian, tournament structure
Comments (4)
Monday, February 9, 2009 - John Greene
Let’s talk about short stacks in cash games for a minute. Cash games, if you never noticed, are different from a tournament in one very real way: not everybody who sits down has the same number of chips. We’ve all sat down at a table and thought we were doing OK until some yahoo with more chips than sense that can bully their way around drops down and turns the table into a…I’ll call it a <EM>Richard</EM>-waving contest. There are advantages to having a short stack, though.
First, you’re minimizing your risk when you pay with a short stack. If you have fewer poker chips in front of you, you’ve got fewer poker chips to lose. The inverse of this is, of course, that you’ve got payoffs that are minimized. If you’ve got 25x the big blind, you can only win 25x the big blind when you have a fantastic hand.
Secondly, decisions are going to come much easier for you. If you know you’ve got a decent hand, but not the best possible hand, it’s a lot more simple for you to play the hand with fewer chips. You get money in the pot without having to worry too much about drawing hands, two pairs, or anything else that might come your way. The only real concern about playing when short stacked is to get money in the pot while you’re good and doing so on the flop or turn. Doing it there means you don’t have to make that difficult a decision when the river comes ’round.
Finally, and this ties into the previous benefit, it’s going to be easier to walk away from a hand. I’ve seen myself chase bad hands when I had a bulging bankroll, and lost more money than I should have on a whim, instead of playing poker the way I’ve preached for the last two decades.
Of course, if your decisions are easier, so are your opponents. You’re going to have a hard time bluffing when short-stacked and you may find yourself going for the flop or giving up. In some ways, short stack play is the best thing for players new to the game, and I could even argue that it’s the purest form of poker there is.
Tags: From the Felt, Poker Strategy
Comments (1)
