Some poker-y things that I miss

Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2008

The Las Vegas Hilton poker room

NetTeller

Party Poker

Shana Hiatt

The "Red Bull and Poker" blog


**********


OK, that's all this crummy little post is going to be (except there was one more thing that I thought of to add to the list, then promptly forgot again; I'll add it back in later if I remember). But now I have a problem. It has to do with the ease with which I can be distracted from one task by another only tangentially related. You see, I tried to do a simple Google Images search for "sad" to find something appropriate with which to illustrate this post. One of the first images that caught my eye was the one shown above, which is Marcel Duchamp's 1911-1912 painting "Sad young man in a train." I looked, then looked again, then looked some more, and for the life of me couldn't see either a young man or a train.

This intrigued me, and soon trying to unlock the mystery of this painting completely displaced my interest in actually making something useful and/or thought-provoking out of a list of poker-y things that I miss--which is why the list didn't grow any longer or more interesting. I haven't found any one place that dissects the painting and points to specific parts saying, "this line is ______ and this curve is _________." Sort of a map of the painting, which is what I was looking for.

However, I did find a bunch of short descriptions of it, including a bit by Duchamp himself, and learned the following additional tidbits: The young man is nude. It's a self-portrait. The young man is walking down the corridor of a train that is violently lurching to and fro, tossing him about. There are actually many separate renderings of the young man, apparently sort of a stop-action sequence, as with Duchamp's most famous work (which came right after this one), "Nude Descending a Staircase." He is smoking a pipe. The pipe and his walking stick are beloved objects. According to one commentator, the man's penis is prominently displayed and he may be masturbating. Yes, in the corridor of a train. There are theories about why he is sad, all of which seem to be wildly speculative and ungrounded.

OK, I can see the walking stick. I think the thing just to the left of the walking stick looks like a tibia, so is probably supposed to be the lower leg. I also found the alleged penis, because of the detailed description of the masturbation theory here. That small, dark, horizontal thing may be the pipe with a wisp of smoke coming out of it, though it looks more like a cigar to me, if anything. But honestly, even after an hour spent looking at and reading about this painting, I still don't see the overall outline of a man, nor his face, nor features that would suggest sadness, nor multiple copies of the figure, nor anything that looks like a train or the corridor thereof, nor anything that would clue us in that the pipe and walking sticks are beloved objects. Yet apparently all of these things are there, and quite obvious to other people who have studied the painting. (Unless it's all just a massive case of the Emperor's New Clothes, and Duchamp is having a big ol' laugh at everybody who thinks they see these things. With Duchamp, that is not an impossibility.) Maybe if one looks at the full-sized original it's all easier to see. Here is the other most complete description of the painting that I found, though it's not really a lot of help.

(OK, I can see a shape that might be his head. But if so, it's hugely oversized compared to what I think is his leg and the walking stick, and distorted, looking sort of like an Easter Island head. Furthermore, if that's his head that I'm seeing, then it looks like both of his hands are holding his head, just like in "The Scream." But then that would leave no hands with which to be holding his walking stick or his, uh, other implement. Besides, that would make him anguished, not sad. I really don't think Duchamp would be copying or parodying Munch here, at least not without that being prominently featured by every commentator. So I'm not blind to what might be his head--it's just that I've considered it and decided that I'm trying too hard to discern it, and my eyes are finding things that aren't there, in addition to not finding things that are apparently there.)

Anyway, as you can see, this bit of intrigue completely overwhelmed my initial interest in drawing up a list of poker-y things that I miss, which means that said list will probably never be completed now. It has now completely overtaken this blog post as well, making it almost entirely about something other than what it started out being, and having nothing to do with poker, except for the (now misleading) title and the first 17 words. I can't even think of any relevant labels to attach to it. I'm pathetic.

This may be the strangest post I've put up yet. For the record, it is the first time that the word "masturbation" has appeared. I thought it would also be the first time that the word "penis" appeared, but a quick search told me I was wrong about that. There was one previous such usage, which I had forgotten about.

Read Full Poker Blog Post

Another shirt I would love to wear

Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2008

While I was navigating through the crowds toward the poker room at Excalibur this evening, I saw a kid wearing a t-shirt that I would love to wear (though I wouldn't actually do it). It said, "Your lack of skills makes me sad."

It had a Nike swoosh on it, too, though I don't know whether it was an official Nike product or a knock-off. I couldn't find such an item in the online Nike store just now, but maybe they made it once and discontinued it.

Anyway, it's the sort of thing that I think about poker opponents from time to time, though I would never actually say it. But it gives me a sinister little pleasure to think about having that written across my chest.

Read Full Poker Blog Post

Brush with fame

Date: Wed, Aug 13, 2008

I became familiar with the name of Lyric Duveyoung during this year's WSOP, watching the PokerNews live updates. It's one of those names that you really can't help but notice and remember, once you've seen it. (I listed it among the "just plain weird" in a silly post here, but it kind of grew on me as I saw it more, and I've come to think it's pretty cool. Then again, I'm fond of names like Dweezil Zappa and Moxie CrimeFighter Jillette, so you might question my taste.)

He was at the final table of Event #5, $1000 no-limit hold'em with rebuys, which ESPN broadcast last night. They mentioned incidentally that Duveyoung was the author and proprietor of the Donkey Test. I took that test last year and reported on my results here. I found it to be a difficult and worthwhile challenge.

I also mentioned in that post that I found a bunch of annoying typos in the test. In an addendum, I reported that the site's owner had contacted me about this aspect of my post, asked what errors I had found, and then fixed nearly all of them, which pleased me greatly.

So when they mentioned last night that Duveyoung was Mr. Donkey Test, I thought it was kind of odd that if he were the one I corresponded with last year I wouldn't have remembered the name. I checked my email archives, and found that the name part of the email address was just "lyricd," and the messages were signed simply "Lyric," which I probably at that point assumed was a pseudonym of some sort.

So you see? I have corresponded with poker people who are now famous, and didn't even realize it. Obviously, this makes me a Very Important Person myself.

Incidentally, I included two photos of Duveyoung above for a couple of reasons. First, I couldn't decide which one was better. More importantly, though, I think it's amusing to see the difference in a player's appearance when he's in his normal poker-playing clothes and when he's "badged up" for a televised final table appearance, looking like a NASCAR racer with every visible square inch sold off to somebody. This isn't a complaint. I don't begrudge him or anybody else for doing that. I probably would, too, given the opportunity. I just think it's funny enough to be worth pointing out explicitly.

Read Full Poker Blog Post

So pretty!

Date: Tue, Aug 12, 2008

Imagine Homer Simpson, in his dreaming-of-food voice: "Mmmm. Straight flush. Mmmm."

It should be an outrage to every right-thinking poker player that I had this, but then had to let some other idiot have half of the pot because of some crummy little low hand he found. Harumph! Straight flushes should never have to split the pot.

Read Full Poker Blog Post

What should I do?

Date: Tue, Aug 12, 2008

I was playing at the Palms last night and found myself with an extraordinarily difficult decision to make. I thought I would share it with you.

The situation is actually pretty simple on the surface. I was under the gun, looking down at Q-Q. I put in what had been my standard raise for that table to $15 (this is a $1-3 no-limit game). There was one caller in middle position. Then the small blind raised to $85. He had about $300 in chips total. I had about $400. While I was thinking about what to do, the middle-position caller looked completely bored and impatient--I was about as certain as I could be that he would fold, no matter what I did (which proved to be the case), so we can essentially leave him out of the picture, except for the fact that he has contributed some dead money to the pot.

This sort of problem obviously boils down to an assessment of what possible hands am I up against. If it's A-K, well, I'm not thrilled to flip a coin for this much money, because if I wait, some better situation than that will come up. On the other hand, I am a slight favorite (about 56%), so if comes to that, I won't object. If he has A-Q or J-J or anything worse, I'd be delighted to get as much money into the pot as possible.

The dilemma, of course, is that he could be sitting on K-K or A-A, in which case I'm about a 4:1 underdog. Those are the only two hands that have me worried.

Everything depends on what this particular player would do here with various holdings, so let me tell you about him. He's loud and obnoxious, just about my least favorite sort of person to share the table with. He's late 50s, wearing fancy designer clothes and sunglasses. He tries to tell everybody what to do. He thinks he knows the rules and procedures better than the dealers do. On about half of hands, he acts out of turn, just ignoring the player to his right--and he doesn't stop no matter how many times he is asked to wait for his turn. He absurdly flirts with the cocktail waitresses. He talks loudly with a friend at the table between hands in a language that I think is modern Hebrew--often during hands, too, no matter how many times the dealers remind him of the English-only rule. (Obviously, rules are for lesser people than him.) At one point in the evening, he opens a package that I'm guessing was a frequent-player reward from the Palms--some sort of carry bag. He literally just tosses the wrapping and stuffing paper over his shoulder onto the floor, when there was a wastebasket within six feet of his seat. He's just the sort of egocentric jerk to think, "Somebody else can pick that up for me."

As for his playing style, for the most part he's a pretty bad calling station. When he does get aggressive, sometimes it's with a rare premium holding, but at least as often it's with something mediocre that he is way overplaying--not bluffing, really, just oblivious to signs of strength from opponents, as if blasting away will resolve the situation in his favor.

He and I have had exactly one previous significant encounter, and I think it hugely influences how both he and I are thinking here, so I'll tell you about it. For the most part, I was playing perfectly straightforwardly. But of course I have to throw in a few change-ups. This was one of them. I raised to $15 from the cutoff position with a 4-5 offsuit. This guy was my only caller. The flop came what turned out to be an absolutely perfect Q-4-5, because he was sitting on A-Q. He checked, I bet just under the size of the pot. He called. Turn was a 10 and the fourth suit (so no flush draws possible). Again, check, substantial bet, call. River was another blank that I don't remember. He checked. I pushed all in for my last $109. He thought for a long time, then finally called. When he saw that I had won, and that I had raised with a lousy 4-5 offsuit before the flop, he cursed at me, and said to anybody who would listen, "Who plays crap like that?" and "How am I supposed to put him on 4-5 when he raises?" That, of course, is precisely the point of playing hands like that once in a while, but I guess that is beyond his comprehension. He said that he thought I had A-K, even though I hadn't played a missed flop like that at any time in the session. (Frankly, I don't think he pays enough attention to hands that he's not in to have any idea of what I am or am not capable of doing.)

He has had to rebuy a couple of times (including after that hand, which almost wiped him out), and both he and I know that most of the money I've made tonight has come from him. That history raises the real possibility that he is out for some revenge, and/or may be suspicious that my raise on this hand is more B.S. from me.

I'm struck particularly by the size of the reraise. Most players with A-A or K-K would not put in a nearly six-fold reraise. They would raise to $45 or $50, maybe as much as $60, but something that is easier for a weaker hand to call. $85 seems to me mostly likely to be J-J, maybe 10-10, and I would think Q-Q if not for the fact that that's what I have, making it highly unlikely that he has the other two of them. A-K is also distinctly possible, with him not wanting to have to play the whole hand against me from out of position, and thus raising enough to take it down now, or at least find out if I'm looking like I have the two hands he would be worried about, namely A-A or K-K. He could also do this with complete crap, with his enormous ego driving him to want me to fold so he could show me (and the rest of the table) a bluff.

I pretty quickly rule out calling. It's not a terrible move, but I think it's the worst of my three choices here. If I call and the flop has an ace or king and he bets at it, I can get away. But the only reason to get away in that situation is if he has A-K. If he has A-A or K-K, I want to get away from it now, not before I give him an additional $70. Worse is that he might bet at such a flop with J-J or 10-10, in which case I will give him $70, then fold way the best hand. So I rule this out, and decide that I have to choose betwen folding and moving all-in (because there is no point in a smaller raise).

Folding is a real possibility. I'm ahead for the session. I've got a comfortable read on this table and think I can continue to play profitably without a lot of risk of losing my whole stack. I've only invested $15 on this hand. But there is this huge consideration: You've heard that money you don't lose is just as valuable as money you win. That's undoubtedly true. But it's also true that money you don't win is just as lost as money that you did actually lose. In other words, it's not true that folding means merely a $15 loss. It also means the loss of almost $300 that I might have won. The opportunities to win $300 in one shot in a $1-3 game are few and far between, and I don't want to miss one, if the situation is a right.

Raising all-in is the other viable option. If he has 10-10 or J-J, I think he will probably fold, guessing that I have A-A or K-K, especially since I raised from the one-hole, and I'll have $100 in profit with no further risk--not a bad outcome at all. But, of course, I'm happy to have him call with J-J or 10-10. I can't decide whether he is more likely to call or fold with A-K, but it doesn't much matter, because I'm essentially neutral about such a call. There's a small chance that he would fold K-K, fearing that I have A-A, but it's not really very likely. The argument against the raise here is the old "you'll only get called if you're beat." That's not quite true here, because of all of the A-K combinations he could have, but still, if he calls, I'm going to dread seeing his cards.

Here's the math: According to Poker Stove, if I have Q-Q and my opponent's range is A-A, K-K, Q-Q, J-J, 10-10, and A-K, given the frequency with which he might have all of those, and the possibility of us splitting the pot, my equity here is 52.4% to his 47.6%. I didn't know that precisely at the time, of course, but it wasn't hard to guess that it was going to run just about 50/50. That's because I'm exactly as far ahead of 10-10 and J-J as I am behind K-K and A-A, against the unlikely Q-Q we're exactly even, and against A-K I'm a slight favorite. Surprisingly, even if we remove 10-10 from his range, I only drop slightly in equity, down to 47.4%, so still just about even.

So there's the situation, in as much detail as I think I can relate it. What should I do? I'll return tomorrow with the end of the story.

Read Full Poker Blog Post

Just give me the small piece

Date: Sun, Aug 10, 2008

Playing $1-$2 no-limit hold'em at Mandalay Bay this afternoon, I saw a move that makes perfect emotional sense, but is completely insane from a profit-maximizing perspective.

On my left was a retiree, obviously local and well known to all of the dealers and floor personnel. His name is Sammy. He is a stereotypical--maybe even archetypal--local "rock." On the hand in question, a middle-position player raised to $10 after a couple of limpers. Nobody called behind him. Sammy was in the small blind. He put in a curiously large reraise, to about $55. The big blind and limpers folded.

The original raiser was the only one left with a decision, and he looked unsure what to do. As he was contemplating his options, Sammy deliberately turned face up his two red aces, and said, "Does that make your decision any easier?" His lone remaining opponent smirked, then said, "I suppose I could go in with a 9% chance of winning," but then folded. (I'm guessing from this comment and the fact that he apparently had a genuinely difficult decision that he most likely had A-K, which is indeed in the ballpark of a 10:1 dog to pocket aces.) As Sammy was scooping up the itty-bitty pot, he said, "Good. The last thing I need is you drawing out on me."

As I said, on an emotional level I can understand perfectly what was going on there. Sammy has played poker for a long time and has seen his aces cracked by inferior hands too many times. The sting of those memories weighs heavily on him, and he has devised a strategy to reduce the chance that he will have to feel that hurt again: He bets so big that nobody will call. And if it looks like that didn't do the trick by itself, and somebody might call anyway, he shows them the aces to dissuade them. He collects the small pot, quite content with the outcome, because he didn't lose.

It's obvious that that last phrase is the key to the whole thing. Never losing with aces has become his primary focus.

But it's a completely irrational way to play the hand if your goal is to maximize your lifetime profit from all of the times you are dealt pocket aces. In order to do that, you somehow have to get opponents to put as much money as possible into the pot when they are 4:1 or even 10:1 underdogs to win. If maximizing long-term profit were Sammy's goal, he should bet an amount that he thinks is the most that will be called by a player with A-K. (Exactly what that amount might be will vary with the opponent, relative table position, chip stacks, etc.) The question he should be silently asking himself is, "What is the most that this guy will be willing to call?" Sammy, contrarily, is asking himself, "How much will it take to make this guy fold?"

Given that that is his goal, one might wonder why he doesn't just move all in. My guess is that the psychological pain of possibly losing his entire stack if he fails to chase somebody away (e.g., somebody sitting on K-K, or a player who is drunk or otherwise entirely carefree, or one who is stuck badly and willing to gamble it up) and his aces get cracked is just too much to bear. So he instead has evolved this one-two punch of a big over-raise, followed by showing his cards, if necessary, to complete the effect without putting his entire stack at risk.

Most players, though, understand that being a winning player means getting maximum value from the rare occasion of being delivered a prize such as A-A. That, in turn, means coaxing opponents into the pot with more money. Yeah, it also means that you'll occasionally lose--and the amount may well be large, even one's entire stack. But the math doesn't lie: over the long run you really will make a lot more than you lose if you somehow manage to get opponents to put as many chips as possible into the pot when they have only a 10% or 20% chance of winning it.

I'll take A-A over A-K for as much money as I have in front of me, if my opponent is willing, and eagerly step up to do it again and again and again, as many times as possible. I know that this means losing that stake one out of ten times or so. I also know that I don't get to choose when the loaded chamber on that ten-round revolver pointed at my head will be the one under the firing pin. In a lifetime, it will sometimes happen three or four times in a row, and I'll feel like I got run over by a truck, and may start whining like Phil Hellmuth or Mike Matusow about how the universe is stacked against me. (See here for my personally most painful story of aces cracked for large pots nearly back-to-back.) But I understand that that is the price one necessarily must pay in order to reap the most long-term profit. It is not optional. It is literally impossible to get the greater reward without taking the risk.

There is a theorem in economics and game theory about something called "minimax" strategy. It involves picking a strategy that minimizes one's maximum possible loss. This isn't quite that, because Sammy could still lose everything on the hand (unless he secretly has a third component to his strategy, which is to fold if he gets reraised--I kind of doubt that he would, but with a set of values so distorted, it's hard to say for sure). Instead, he is trying to minimize the probability of losing anything at all. If there's a specific name for that in game theory, I don't know what it is.

But regardless of the label we might put on it, Sammy's strategy is essentially the equivalent of accepting a virtual certainty of walking away with the tiny slice of pie in the illustration above, rather than go for the whole pie, because he's unwilling to take the chance of losing everything, even when he is, at minimum, a 3:1 favorite. (Statistically, the best hand to put up against A-A is something like 7-8 of a suit not held by Mr. Aces. You're only about a 3:1 underdog in that scenario.)

It's not necessarily irrational, if one values avoiding the pain of a loss more than one values maximizing long-term profit. But I have to admit that that is an ordering of values and priorities that is utterly foreign to me.

Matt Lessinger, who I think is one of the finest columnists in Card Player magazine's stable, wrote an enlightening and clear-headed piece on the Sammy mindset a couple of years ago. I recommend reading (or re-reading) the whole thing here. I'll leave you with the excellent mini-lecture embodied in just one of his paragraphs:

I don't care if you are a rank novice or a world champion. It doesn't
matter whether you are in a tournament or a cash game. You could be playing for
pennies or Porsches. It's all the same. If you can get all of your money in as a
4-1 favorite, do it. And if you lose, live with it. It happens. Wait
for the next opportunity to arise, and then do it again. If you are
able to consistently create that scenario, you will be a successful player--end
of story.

Read Full Poker Blog Post

"Did you see that?"

Date: Sun, Aug 10, 2008

At the Suncoast Friday evening, one dealer's pitching technique was quite bad. She flashed a lot more cards than most.

One time a card she was dealing to the player on my right apparently flashed in a way that it would have been visible to me had I been watching, but my attention was somewhere else at that instant. She stopped the deal and asked me, "Did you see that?" I didn't even know what "that" she was referring to--some spectacular sports play on one of the TVs? I guess my look of confusion and reply of "See what?" weren't quite convincing enough, because then she explained that the card had flashed and I might have seen it. Nope. She apparently believed me and moved on.

But what a horrible way to decide what to do! Given the dishonesty of human beings in general, and the known propensity for a substantial percentage of poker players in particular to take advantage of any edge, whether ethical or not, it's sheer laziness on her part to take the easy way out and just ask whether a possible flashed card was seen. If I'm the guy whose card might have been seen, why should my ability to keep my cards secret from my opponents in this hand be made to rely on whether these strangers will happen to choose to answer her honestly?

The only correct and fair way to handle the situation is to replace the card. If it flipped or twisted or bounced in such a way that the dealer could see it, or it is reasonably possible that any other player could have seen it had he been paying attention, then just replace it--period.

I suspect that this particular dealer didn't want to do that because she would be replacing cards on almost every hand, her technique was so bad. So instead she developed the alternative "honor system."

It's a shame that poker players on the whole aren't honorable enough for an honor system to work, but we have to confront the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be.

Read Full Poker Blog Post

Danny Gans is as good as they say

Date: Sun, Aug 10, 2008

I took a day off from poker yesterday (except for a bit of razz on Stars). Instead I went out with a friend who had managed to get free seats to see Danny Gans at the Mirage from http://showtickets4locals.com/. The tickets are usually $110 each, so this was a great score. (It's not easy. I've tried a few times, but as soon as the email goes out that Gans tickets are up for grabs, their phone lines clog up.) Early next year Gans is leaving the Mirage and will start performing at the Encore. My hunch is that free tickets won't be offered anymore at that point, so I really wanted to see him on the cheap while I still could.

It's a good show. He is as talented as everybody says. The show must have a fair amount of change and flexibility, because I've heard of other bits and impressions that he does that weren't on display last night. My favorite parts were (1) George Burns doing a cover of M.C. Hammer's "Can't Touch This," (2) Bill Clinton doing a naughtily customized version of Gloria Gainor's "I Will Survive," (3) an excellent recreation of "Carnac the Magnificent," with current events-based jokes just like Carson would do if he were still alive and on the air, (4) recitals of famous movie scenes, including "Forrest Gump," "Rocky," and "Scent of a Woman," and (5) a funny series of impersonations of pop music stars whose lyrics are basically unintelligible. My only complaint was that the whole thing was too loud. (Does that sound like a grumpy old man, or what? Next thing you know, I'll be yelling at the neighbor kids to keep off of my lawn.)

Before the show we ate at one of the Mirage's new restaurants, "BLT Burger" (thus making the whole thing not exactly free, and surely fulfilling one of the hotel's hopes for how people getting free tickets will behave). I had recently read VegasRex's impression of the place, and thought it sounded worth a try. It was. I had their signature piece, the BLT Burger. Usually I ask restaurants to skip whatever special sauce they want to put on a burger, because, well, plain ol' ketchup is better. But I decided to be adventurous (yeah, this is my idea of "adventurous"--tells you a lot about how pathetic my life is, doesn't it?) and let them sauce away as they would. And I was glad I did--one of the rare times that I found something I liked even better than ketchup. Overall, I thought it was the best burger I've ever had. My friend, not so much. Her impression was basically, "Meh." But then again, she had warned me as we set out that she was in a foul mood and was pretty much going to hate everything about the evening, so you have to take that into consideration.

Have to say, though, that the fries were way unworthy of the $6 additional price. She had the skinny fries, I the fat fries, and neither were particularly good. You get better at "In and Out Burger." My friend's black-and-white shake, though, was quite tasty, and may have justified its $6 charge.

Oh, and their music was way too loud, too. Seriously, my friend and I tried talking a couple of times, and then basically gave up and sat there staring at each other, because conversation involved a frustrating amount of "What did you say?" and "I can't hear you." Why do restaurants do this? Doesn't everybody find this as maddening as we did?

Read Full Poker Blog Post

Unusual razz hand

Date: Sun, Aug 10, 2008

I won't bore you with the full hand history, because who bet and raised when isn't terribly interesting. What was interesting was that all three of us in the hand were obviously catching great cards, and it was going to be a very close showdown. My 6-5-4-3-A won by the smallest possible margin against 6-5-4-3-2, and a usually winning 7-5-4-3-2 was the big loser here.

Just look around the board and count the good cards. Collectively, we're showing two aces, three deuces, all four 3s, all four 4s, all four 5s, two 6s, and two 7s--that is, 21 out of the 28 lowest cards in the deck. There just weren't very many more playable cards available!

Strange stuff.

Online razz is SO rigged!

Read Full Poker Blog Post

800

Date: Sat, Aug 9, 2008

That's right, I have somehow managed to concoct yet another hundred things to write about poker since my last mini-milestone of #700, exactly one month (31 days) ago. I guess I've been on something of a blogging tear, because that's by far the fastest hundred posts yet, breaking my previous record of 42 days. Honestly, I'm not trying to do that. I just write when I feel like saying something; sometimes that's more frequent, sometimes less so. But geez--when I think about it, how can any one person average more than three things worth writing or reading about poker every day???

Traffic continues to gradually build. By a handy coincidence, it was just a tad shy of a year ago that I installed the Google Analytics tracking code and started watching how many people were looking in on me. You can see the year's worth of data below. (The dip to zero in December is not real. It's an artifact caused by overhauling the look of the blog, and forgetting to put the Google Analytics code back in for a week or so.)





My deepest thanks for reading, for adding me to your blogrolls, for recommending me to friends, for submitting comments, and for clicking on the ugly Google ads over there on the left.

Read Full Poker Blog Post

Poker gems, #157

Date: Sat, Aug 9, 2008

Jennifer Tilly, in Bluff magazine column, May, 2008, p. 48.


I used to like poker because I thought I had control over my future. Now I realize we are all just buffeted by destiny. We are cannon fodder. Remember that shot in Saving Private Ryan where everybody is charging the shore? The ones who survived were lucky, that's all. They were not better soldiers. They just didn't run into any bullets.

Read Full Poker Blog Post

The next new Vegas poker room

Date: Sat, Aug 9, 2008

I haven't driven down Boulder Highway in many months, so I was oblivious to the fact that the Nevada Palace is being replaced with the "Eastside Cannery," apparently set to open August 28. The photo above is dated July 7.

See here for the casino's description of its poker room.

Incidentally, Vegas Today and Tomorrow, where I found the photo, is usually the best place for checking on progress of Las Vegas construction projects.

Read Full Poker Blog Post

PokerStars customer support

Date: Sat, Aug 9, 2008

Are you curious what PokerStars does when you report a possible instance of abuse of the disconnection protection feature? I was, because before the incident I mentioned earlier, I had never noticed what I considered to be a suspicious disconnection. Well, today I found out what they do about it.

(A word of explanation for those who don't play online or otherwise haven't faced this issue. Suppose your Internet connection goes dead in the middle of a hand. You have money in the pot, but cannot act when it's your turn. What should the site do? It seems unfair that you would have to just reliquish all claim to the pot as if you had folded. After all, you might have the best hand. Conversely, if somebody else has the best hand, it's unfair to him to simply give you back whatever you had put into the pot, which is another possible solution to the problem. The most common compromise is the all-in protection. This means that the site temporarily acts as if the amount you had put into the pot at the time of the disconnection is all that you had on the virtual table. The hand plays out. You cannot lose any more money, but you also cannot win from any other player more than what you had in the pot when the disconnection occurred. Other players still in the hand can continue betting, creating a side pot for which you are not eligible. It's a pretty good solution, but some players are known to abuse it. If there is a situation in which a player has a fair amount of money in the pot, but he's unsure whether he's ahead or behind, he doesn't want to fold and lose what he has already invested in the hand, but he also is fearful that he'll have to put in a lot more money before the hand is done, and he doesn't want to do that, because he's not sure he's going to win. So he pulls the plug on himself. It limits his potential gain, but also limits his potential loss. The sites consider this an abuse of the disconnection protection system.)

Here's the email I got a few hours after reporting the possible abuse:

Hello Robert,

Thank you for bringing your concerns to our
attention. The integrity of our site and games are of utmost importance to us,
and as such, we take any hint of unethical play extremely seriously. I have
completed my investigation into the play of 'BTB13'.

The first
thing to do in such cases is look at the hand in question. We consider an all in
to be suspicious if the user is facing action, or the prospect of action, with a
medium strength or drawing hand. Indeed I would term this a somewhat
suspicious all in.

That said one hand neither proves or disproves
abuse; with all in abuse cases, we look at *all* of a player's recent all in
protection hands.
Hands with all in protection can generally be
classified into one of three
categories:

1) Suspicious, where
the player holds a medium strength or drawing hand, and is facing action or the
likelihood of action

2) Neutral, where the player holds a hand of
no value, and disconnects facing small action (the most common of these is to
disconnect in the blinds preflop)

3) Unfavorable, where the player
holds a hand that is clearly worth betting, and disconnects instead, costing him
the chance to bet. This also includes hands where the player disconnects preflop
and has his hand folded, or when facing no action post flop - without the
likelihood of action from the remaining players

For all in abusers,
we look for a pattern whereby the player's connection history shows almost all
suspicious all in protections, a few neutrals, and essentially no unfavorable
disconnections.

In reviewing this players connection history for
the past couple of months I find that this player generally has an average
connection to the site.
With that said whilst the player has logged
plenty of hours on the site there were only a few other hands where the all in
protection was used.
Of those other hands there was definitely no
noticeable pattern. In fact I found many hands where disconnection was
clearly unfavorable to the player. The following hand is the
case:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

PokerStars
Game #19349887999: Triple Draw 2-7 Lowball Limit ($2/$4) -
2008/08/04 -
09:39:40 (ET)
Table 'Catriona' 6-max Seat #4 is the button Seat 1: moobaC
($81 in chips) Seat 2: razvan1ian ($148 in chips) Seat 3: Jovanella ($129 in
chips) Seat 4: mile.p1 ($118.50 in chips) Seat 5: BTB13 ($84 in chips) Seat 6:
Mighty Chub ($147 in chips)
BTB13: posts small blind $1
Mighty Chub: posts
big blind $2
*** DEALING HANDS ***
moobaC: raises $2 to $4
razvan1ian:
raises $2 to $6
Jovanella: folds
razvan1ian said, "master of the
89"
mile.p1: folds
BTB13: calls $5
Mighty Chub: folds
razvan1ian
said, "mile p1"
moobaC: calls $2
*** FIRST DRAW ***
BTB13: discards 1
card
moobaC: discards 2 cards
razvan1ian: discards 2 cards
BTB13: bets
$2
moobaC: calls $2
razvan1ian: raises $2 to $4
BTB13: raises $2 to
$6
moobaC: calls $4
razvan1ian: raises $2 to $8
Betting is
capped
BTB13: calls $2
moobaC: calls $2
*** SECOND DRAW ***
BTB13:
stands pat
moobaC: discards 2 cards
razvan1ian: discards 1 card
BTB13
has timed out while being disconnected
BTB13 is being treated as
all-in
moobaC: checks
razvan1ian: checks
*** THIRD DRAW
***
razvan1ian said, "lol"
razvan1ian said, "wuss"
razvan1ian said,
"looooooooool"
BTB13 is disconnected
razvan1ian said, "gimme a 4 3 maybe
7"
BTB13 has timed out while disconnected
BTB13: stands pat
moobaC:
discards 1 card
razvan1ian: discards 1 card
moobaC: checks
razvan1ian:
checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
BTB13: shows [2s 5c 8s 3c 6s] (Lo:
8,6,5,3,2)
moobaC: mucks hand
razvan1ian: mucks hand
BTB13 collected
$42 from pot
BTB13 is sitting out
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $44 Rake
$2
Seat 1: moobaC mucked
Seat 2: razvan1ian mucked
Seat 3: Jovanella
folded before the Draw (didn't bet) Seat 4: mile.p1 (button) folded before the
Draw (didn't bet) Seat 5: BTB13 (small blind) showed [2s 5c 8s 3c 6s] and won
($42) with Lo:
8,6,5,3,2
Seat 6: Mighty Chub (big blind) folded before
the
Draw

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I
think you will agree with me that this hand can certainly be classified as
unfavorable for the player!

I can only conclude that player
'BTB13' is not abusing their all in privileges. I will however make a note
of this investigation in their account for future reference.

If
there is anything else that I can help you with, don't hesitate to let me
know.


Regards,

Howard
PokerStars Support
Team

This is so excellent. They took the report seriously, investigated it in an apparently thorough manner, and reported back to me quickly, including an explanation of how they look into such things. They have successfully dispelled my suspicion.

PokerStars support is simply the best in the business.

Read Full Poker Blog Post

The geopolitical awareness of poker players

Date: Sat, Aug 9, 2008

Doyle Brunson writes this in his book, My 50 Most Memorable Hands, p. 93:

Not many people realize the insular world a lot of the true gamblers live
in. I remember "Corky" McCorquodale, one of the original inductees into the
Poker Hall of Fame, asking me, "What is Vietnam?" This was almost at the end of
the Vietnam War. Another well known pro asked me, "Is the Isle of Man close to
the water?" Also he asked, "What language do they speak in London?"

I was reminded of this tonight while playing poker at Suncoast. Several players obviously knew each other. This snippet of conversation ensued:

Player 1: "Did you hear what's happening in Russia?"

Player 2: "No. What?"

Player 1: "They're having a war."

Player 2: "A war? With who?"

Player 1: "Georgia."

Player 2: "Georgia?"

Player 3: "Not our Georgia. There's another one over there."

Player 2: "Well, I'll be damned."

Read Full Poker Blog Post