I've just been reading an interview with Bill Edler in Bluff Magazine. In it he comments that there is "tons more" luck in tournament poker than in cash games.

As a great tourney fan I was all ready to get offended by this. Tournament and cash games need different skills, but they're both just as skillful. Then I got to this line:

"Until science significantly elongates human life, tournament players will never reach the long run."

I've got to admit, he has a point.

Poker is a mix of luck and skill. In the short run anyone can get lucky. Ace-two off can beat pocket rockets. But in the long run skill wins.

If you play cash games you can just keep on playing, hand after hand, repeating similar situations again and again. You can reach a pretty long run view of the game in which your skill level really matters.

It's more difficult to do that in tournaments. There just aren't as many around. It's rare if not impossible for a player to bust out of one tournament then immediately play in another. Then another. Then another.

Even if they do, they will be starting from the early stages again. Tournament play requires different skills throughout the different stages - play at the final table is very different to play at the first blind levels. Even people who play nothing but tourneys are unlikely to see enough final tables to count as the "long run".

So what do I do now with that insight? Does it mean I should give up tournaments as pure gambling?

No. What it means to me is that I should play more tournaments in order to get as close as possible to the "long run".

Photo Credit: dicemanic (Creative Commons)

Labels: general, poker

Sometimes it's possible to think too much.

Last night at The Nuts Poker we were still on the first blind level and I was dealt A-3. I made my standard raise and everyone folded except the short stack who called. The flop came down with an ace, at which point I checked and the short stack went all in.

My instinct was to fold - I had a bad kicker and and no flush draw. My stack was far from huge so I really couldn't afford to throw chips at a bad ace.

Still, it was a decent pot so I stopped to think. And managed to convince myself that this was a desperate last-ditch bluff by the short stack, representing the Ace when he only had one person to fool. If he'd really had anything he'd have gone all-in pre-flop. He was probably on random paint like K-J.

That analysis fitted my observation of him so far. Perhaps more importantly it gave me the answer I subconsciously wanted. So I called.

I should have trusted my instincts - he showed A-10 for a better pair.

As it happened I got lucky: a 3 on the river saved me. I felt genuinely embarrassed at putting my opponent out. Still, I paid for it later in the evening when an A-J I was convinced was sound ran smack into A-A. That left me short stacked and I never recovered.

So today's note to self: think hard - but trust your instincts.

Labels: improving my game, nuts, poker

If you play online poker tournaments - multi-table or sit 'n' go - for any length of time you'll come across "Double or Done" (DorD) players. So what is "Double or Done"?

"D or D" could also stand for "Do or Die". It's a strategy for no-limit, no-rebuy tourneys that involves pushing all your money into an early big pot on a coin flip hand. If you lose you're out. But if you win... you've doubled up early, giving you a big advantage for the rest of the game.

My immediate reaction to this is very negative. For a start I don't like that sort of playing style, either in my opponents or myself. I'm also not convinced the maths adds up - it fails to take into account the entrance fee for the tourney. You'd have to play twice as many tournaments to get the same expected result, costing you twice as much in entry fees.

On second thoughts, maybe there is something to it. Tournament structure means that only a minority of players end in the money, the rest get paid nothing. If for example it's choice of four tournaments where you do well and just miss the money, or eight tournaments where you make the final table, then the latter is probably a better financial proposition. Even taking into account the entry fees, perhaps it does work.

There's also the time factor. If you're going to end up with nothing, better to find out before investing a couple of hours of time that could be more profitably spent elsewhere. If time is money then playing a tourney for three hours and going out on the bubble is expensive.

So part of me thinks that maybe there really is something in DorD poker. As of yet I haven't tried it. Even if it does make financial sense (I'm still not convinced) it's simply not the sort of game I want to play. My main motive for playing poker is fun.

On the other hand, there are bills to be paid...

Labels: glossary, poker, strategy

Before playing poker online I always try to get in at least a short session on the PS2. I've found that this gives me a fairly reliable idea of how my luck is running. Am I in for a good day where all the cards fall my way? Or is it "one of those days" where nothing will go right for me and I'm better off not risking real money?

My virtual bankroll is acting as a canary down the poker mine shaft. If it sings sweetly then I know all is well. If it chokes, falls over and dies then bad luck is in the air.

This should, of course, be nonsense. My luck on the PS2 and my luck on PKR are totally independent. Yet (without having done a rigourous statistical analysis) I'm convinced it works. Why?

Because hot and cold streaks are real.

However they're about a lot more than just the cards. Much as I might hate to admit it, my cold streaks are largely my own fault even though they look like luck.

Poker hands rarely come down 7-2 off suit or pocket aces, they're usually somewhere in between. Deciding how to play a hand is a mixture of conscious analysis and subconscious "instinct" developed over many hours of play. Most decisions we make during the game are marginal - if our poker instinct is off then a hot streak can become a cold one very quickly. Maybe other players have more self-awareness than me, but in my case I know my brain often interprets a run of bad decisions as a run of bad beats.

So my cold streaks are real and what seems to me to be a frozen deck is often a clue that I'm not on form. I've learned to listen to my poker canary and either continue playing on the PS2 until it starts "singing" or give poker a miss for the day.

Labels: general, poker

It's now two months since I started playing poker online for real money at PKR, so it's a good time to take a step back and see how things are going.

Initially I only played tournaments and sit 'n' gos. I've since expanded my play to ring games. I still prefer tourneys, it's just that I rarely have enough time to invest. There's no point starting a tournament hoping to get knocked out before your playing window closes! Initially my ring game play was awful and I'd usually lose my buy-in, but I've improved considerably.

The bottom line of course is my bankroll. How has this fared? Well it's currently about 10% higher than when I started. That's not enough for me to class as an ace but definitely better than a deuce! I'm pleasantly surprised that I've had two months of play for free, even a small profit is an unexpected bonus. And given that I'm still very much a newbie it makes me think there's hope for me yet.

So it's onwards and - hopefully - upwards.

Labels: general, poker

Am I the only one who suffers from "straight blindness"? I hate to think how often I've lost a big pot because I didn't even notice a possible straight developing. It's probably one of the worst leaks in my poker.

Hopefully it's not just me who has this problem. It would seem logical that straights are somehow more difficult to see than other hands. Pairs, trips etc are about matching values, flushes are about matching suits. Straights however involve sets of different numbers which may have different suits. It's a more complex pattern to match.

There's probably a project in there for some cognitive science student. As for me I'm going to try and consciously remember to stop and look for straights until the patterns are fully burned into my brain.

Labels: general, improving my game, poker

Since I openly admit my poker failures I think it's only fair that I'm allowed to brag about my occasional successes: Last night I entered an online tournament and from the field of 246 ended up in 3rd place! Yippee!

This being a money game, I won around 25 times by buy-in as a prize for 3rd place. Given the micro-stakes at which I play that doesn't come to much but that's not the point. To manage that result after only about two months of serious play makes me very happy.

Unfortunately it's probably still a little early to retire and write my memoirs.

Labels: general, poker

Online gaming site Bodog has suddenly gone offline. Apparently there's a nasty legal dispute brewing. Calvin Ayre's explanation simply says it's due to a dispute over domain name ownership.

Shoemoney reckons there's more to it than that. If he's right then any precedent could have far wider ramifications than just online poker.

Labels: news, poker

Sometimes the poker gods really do seem out to get me. I've had a bad few days, nothing going right.

The latest example was a tourney. Dreadful cards, the one time I had good ones another player had better. I was left short stacked but managed to hang on for a while.

Eventually I was down to about three big blinds and badly needed some luck. On the small blind I was dealt 9-9, most people folded and nobody raised so I pushed all in. Everyone folded except one guy who called. Turned out he had Q-4 off suit, putting me well ahead on probabilities. Would he get lucky and hit a queen?

Of course he did. Not only that, he hit a 4 to go with it - delivering me a piping hot knock-out injury with a large side-order of insult.

It's a good job I'm strict about following the poker prime directive.

Labels: bad beats, poker

So there I am with A-8 diamonds and bet in since it was cheap. The flop comes down with 2 diamonds, 10 diamonds and 5 something else. Possible nut flush so I bet, everyone calls. Turn brings a low diamond, yippee! I bet small, wanting to pump the pot, everyone calls except the guy on my right who raises. Now I know I've got him - he must have a flush as well and my Ace will win - so I reraise. Everyone folds except the guy on my right who calls.

River comes down 5 something. Now I pause. He could have hit a full house but it's unlikely. And if he'd had a pair or trips on the turn, would be really have called a reraise with the possible flush on the board? No way.

So I go all-in and he shows... 2-2 for a full house. Ouch.

Hoist by my own petard. Previously I'd been bullying and bluffing him until I got caught out once. Since then I'd been playing it straight but obviously hadn't sufficiently adjusted my table image. So when I did have a hand he assumed I was bluffing and stayed in with me, got lucky and hit a better hand.

Howwwwllll....

Labels: bad beats, poker

So there I was in a multi-table tournament. About ten places from the bubble and doing very, very well. Everything was going right, I had the deepest stack on my table and was dominating it. I was getting more than my share of good cards and even when I was dealt bad cards I was usually able to bluff and bully the pot to myself. My chip count kept rising and I felt on top of the world.

Then I was dealt A-5s and bet. Everyone folded except one player who called. Flop came down with a J-8-5, so with a low pair and an Ace kicker I thought it worth another bet. My opponent called. The turn produced a two so I turned up the pressure and bet again. This time my opponent thought about it and went all in. At which point I...

...called.

What?!? What was I thinking? Sure, he probably didn't have trip 2s or he'd have folded after the flop. But given the way I'd been playing as aggressive bully there was no way he'd risk an all-in bluff. Even if he was bluffing, there were two cards on the board plus two in his hand he could hit to beat me on the river. And if he had almost anything in hand he'd have me beat. Basically I was gambling half my stack plus my lead - and possibly my spot in the money - on hitting another 5 or an Ace on the river. Five outs, about a 10 per cent chance. There wasn't even any chance of bullying him into a fold since he was all-in. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Turn over the cards, he'd hit paired Jacks on the flop. The river changed nothing and suddenly I'm knocked off my perch.

What was I thinking? I wasn't thinking.

So why did I do it? Sort of "positive tilt". I was enjoying being table captain and part of me had begun to believe I was invincible. Part of me also wanted the macho thrill of taking another player down and raking in a huge pile of chips. I wasn't betting with my head, I was betting with my balls.

Somehow I managed to hold things together and claw my way back, ending the tourney in 3rd place. If it hadn't been for that one stupid call I might have been first.

As John Vorhaus says in Killer Poker Online, Vol 2: "there's no place anywhere in poker for dick measuring contests".

Lesson learned.

Labels: improving my game, poker

Version 1.3 of PKR online poker has now been released, and very good it looks too. The most visible improvements are extra voices and emotes including a generic "/em" command. Poker professionals sometimes look down their noses at this sort of thing, but for a hobby player like me they make the game a lot more fun and are the main reason I play on PKR.

The other major change is - finally - the inclusion of a "Notes" box for opponents. This is essential for online play at any level of play. Previously PKR allowed you to assign icons to players (fish, shark, rock, etc) but not free text notes. I've been keeping mine in a spreadsheet, which works but is less than optimal. This change fixes what for me was the biggest hole in PKR.

All I want now is integration with PokerTracker. Pretty please?

Labels: PKR, poker

Last night at The Nuts I witnessed the most amazing example of beginner's luck. One of the people there hadn't played poker before and only came along because she was visiting one of the regulars. Despite this, she managed to personally take down at least six players!

The "best" moment came when one player went all in with A-Q. She called with 5-6 suited... and managed to hit three sixes and claim another scalp.

She reached the final table of 8 from the starting field of 30, finally going out in position 6. What makes it especially galling is that I went out in position 7...

Labels: general, nuts, poker

One of the most satisfying ways of taking down an opponent in poker is with a "reverse bluff" - drawing them in by making them think you've got a poor hand when really you have a monster.

Hat tip to Bill Rini for pointing out this masterclass video in how to mislead the opposition by faking a subtle tell that you don't like your cards. I wish I was as quick thinking as this guy:

Labels: humour, poker

I'm not normally a fan of suited connectors, however one of my favourite hands is Ace-Deuce suited.

It probably doesn't make sense statistically. I haven't done the numbers, but I'd guess that compared to any other suited connectors the advantage of having the Ace is outweighed by only having one straight draw instead of four. So why do I like the hand?

I think it's largely psychological. I know I can be happy with either a very low or very high flop, plus I've got outs in the form of a possible flush draw. It feels like I've got more options than with ordinary suited connectors, even if the probabilities don't support that.

It also confuses opponents, I don't think anybody has ever put me on A-2s. Ace-Deuce suited makes a great instrument of psychological warfare. Nothing beats the look on the opponent's face when I take them down with it.

Above all else, I think A-2s is simply fun to play - and having fun is one of my main reasons for playing poker.

Labels: general, hands, poker

When starting something new it's always worth being aware of your motives. Otherwise you won't know whether you're succeeding or whether you're off course. It's difficult to steer without knowing where you're going.

So I sat down to think about why I play poker. It struck me that there are four main motives that are probably common to most people. I call these the "Four 'F's".

• Fame
  Poker may not yet be the next rock 'n' roll but it's getting that way. As the popularity of the game increases and TV coverage expands this trend is likely to grow. Being a TV poker player is a route to fame for those who would like to be a celebrity but are disadvantaged by possessing talent.
  
  
• Fortune
  Poker's about winning money, make no mistake. With no real money at stake there's no real game. So, is the money your primary motivation? Are you playing poker to get rich?
  
  
• Friends
  Poker is a great social game, whether it be a regular beer-fuelled session with friends or meeting new people at a poker club. This is something that online poker currently lacks to a large degree, however it's getting there as sites such as PKR add human features to the online game.
  
  
• Fun
  Fun comes in a lot of shapes and forms, many people would say that becoming rich and famous is fun! Here I'm talking about the fun of the game itself rather than the benefits of winning.

So where do I stand on this list of motives? Very definitely on the "fun" and "friendship" end - which is probably why I play on PKR rather than some of the more well-known sites.

Yes, I'd like to get rich playing the game - but I'm realistic enough to realise that's not likely to happen. At least not for a while. If I just wanted money the best strategy would be to grind away at the limit tables using poker assistant software to tell me when to bet. That would be no fun.

As to fame... no thank you. I come from the generation before the urge to be "on television" became society's number one driving force. If I were to appear on a televised poker show I'd probably want to do a Kendo Nagasaki!

Labels: general, poker

Well that was a bad weekend for poker. I didn't finish in the money once either in tourneys or sit & gos. Some of it was bad beats, much was simple bad play. Rather than grumble I'm going to treat it as a learning experience - why did I do so badly? Why did I lose?

I can think of two reasons. The first is that I had a lot of other things going on. Things I should have been doing, things I wanted to be doing, things I was thinking about doing. The result was that my mind was wandering.

The second reason is, ironically, that I've been reading too much about poker. In particular I'm reading the excellent Killer Poker Online, Vol. 2 by John Vorhaus. In the long run this book will definitely help my game, but in the short term I'm concentrating too much on thinking about the concepts in the book rather than internalising them into my play.

So, two main reasons for my poor play this weekend. Which are in fact exactly the same reason: not concentrating on the game in front of me.

Lesson learned.

Labels: general, improving my game, poker

It's true what they say: so long as you have a chip and a seat you're in with a chance.

This afternoon I played a 10 person "Sit and Go" on PKR. Very early on I was seduced by seeing two aces in the pocket, misread the board badly and ended up being reduced to a tiny number of chips and the probability of being first out before the blinds even went up.

Yet somehow I managed to ratchet my play up a notch and hang on. Ended up in second place and in the money.

I'm not sure if this means I'm a very good player or a very bad player!

Maybe I'm just a very stubborn one.

Labels: poker

The UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport has announced a crackdown that will restrict which non-UK gambling websites can advertise here. From September 1st, gambling sites (which appears to include poker sites) will only be allowed to advertise in the UK if they satisfy the DCMS as to the standards of their operation.

Gambling sites based in the European Economic Area (EEA) and "whitelisted" jurisdictions will be exempt from the ban. Currently the only white-listed jurisdictions are Alderney and the Isle of Man.

The ad ban is expected to hit some 1,000 sites including Betfred Casino and Poker, Interpoker.com and Littlewoodscasino.com which are all currently based in Netherlands Antilles. The ban only covers advertising by the sites and not (at least for now) their activity.

Some will undoubtedly suspect economic protectionism at the root of this, however the DCMS is adamant that the objective is player safety and security. Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, James Purnell said:

"I make no apology for banning adverts for websites operating from places that don’t meet our strict standards. Protection is my number one priority."

It's not clear from reading the press release whether the ban on advertising will include sponsorship of TV shows such as late night poker tournaments. It's also unclear what happens to companies that are based in one location but regulated under another jurisdiction such as Alderney.

The new rules could also affect website owners and bloggers in the UK hoping to make money from advertising revenue... *sigh*

Labels: news, poker, uk

A couple of people have pointed out that I tend to use a lot of jargon for a beginner. Sorry about that. To help out I'm going to make some posts explaining various bits of jargon. Hopefully these will over time build up into a sort of poker glossary. Today I'm starting with something I know only too well: the Bubble.

What Is The Bubble?

The term "bubble" is one that occurs in knock-out tournament play. In most tournament's there's a certain finishing position you must reach before you win money (or points). For example in a tournament with 200 players starting you might have to finish 20th or above to win a prize.

The highest position in which you receive nothing is called the "bubble" - in the example above it would be 21st.

Strictly speaking the bubble refers to just this one position, I tend to use it for the whole cluster of positions just below the money.

Why is the bubble important? Because nobody wants to go out just on the bubble. Nobody wants to just miss the money. Better to have gone out early rather than spend all that much time playing and still get nothing.

As people get knocked out and the tournament approaches the bubble many of those remaining tend to play much tighter. They play less hands, risk less chips and try to hang on by their fingertips for a chance at the money.

Then, eventually, someone goes out in bubble position. Now all those remaining are guaranteed to win at least something. There is a collective sigh (or cheer!) of relief as the bubble "bursts" and play often starts to loosen up again.

Labels: glossary, poker

Last night I played in a small tournament. Nothing odd about that, except that this was face-to-face rather than online!

It was my first experience of The Nuts Poker League ("As Seen On TV" - on Dragons' Den). If you're in the UK and fancy some friendly poker with no money involved than you might want to check it out.

No money? That's right. The Nuts is a league system, much like a darts or table footy pub league. The game is a simple no-limit Hold 'Em knock out and points are awarded depending on final position. Points are tallied up quarterly - and what do points mean? Well, initially a seat at the regional finals, then potentially the national championship. There's even talk (not confirmed on the website) of the ultimate winner getting a seat at the World Series.

The advantage of playing for points (apart from being legal!) is that it costs nothing to play. Nothing. I was sceptical about this, expecting some hidden charge like a sign-up fee, but there really is no catch. The league is supported by the pubs, who are basically paying to get people through their doors on quiet nights. A win-win setup.

The game last night had just over 20 players of varying degrees of skill. The organiser did a good job of making sure that everyone was comfortable with the game and he even acted as drinks waiter for us!

How did I do? Went out on the bubble at position nine with the top eight going to the final table and the points. Which I don't think is too bad considering that a) the best cards I was dealt all night were 8-8 and b) the woman on my left played lots of starting hands and frequently managed to hit the flop.

I'll definitely be going back.

Labels: nuts, poker, uk

Well, that strategy seems to have potential. I didn't win the money but ended within two places of it.

Things started well, though it did mean some scary bluffs/gambles - such as going all in with King high after the flop (my opponent had a shortish stack and, as I hoped, folded). So I built up a nice pile of chips then held tight during the second quarter and let others knock themselves out. When the third quarter arrived I was ready to go on the offensive, unfortunatley I then suffered a total drought of good cards.

I'm definitely going to continue experimenting with this strategy. Yes it's risky, but in terms of bankroll there's no difference between missing the money by two places and missing by 20 - or even 200. It's financially btter to have (say) three tourneys in the money and three where I get knocked out immediately than to have six where I just miss the money.

Of course, that theory does depend on my actually getting the money rather than missing by two places. Watch this space!

Labels: poker, strategy

Another day, another multi-table tournament without hitting the money.

I'd survived until about the halfway point but with a severely short stack. So when I was dealt K-K I had to push in, even though I was out of position. Two other people called. It turned out that each had a single Ace - and another Ace fell on the board. Bye bye Valeyard.

My tournament poker play isn't too bad. I often win money in single-table tournaments. On multi-table I always outlast the fish and usually finish near the bubble. A few times I've won money and once got to the final table. However I'm still going out too early too often. Why?

I try to play fairly tight, fairly aggressive. That gets me quite a long way, but by the middle of the tourney I'm usually pretty short stacked. That restricts my options and often results in beats like the one above.

So what I need to do is to find a way of getting to the same place with more chips. Sounds easy when I put it like that...

What I want is to build up a bigger stack early, then protect it strongly until the blinds start getting high. At that point I can use it to attack.

My guess is that I should play looser and more aggressive early when the blinds are low, especially when I have position. Then if I can build up a decent stack I need to pull in my horns and play ultra-tight until the middle of the tournament.

Essentially it's a gamble. If I'm right then that strategy will probably mean getting into the money more often, at the cost of going out of more tournaments early.

Which won't do my ego much good but should help my bankroll.

Labels: improving my game, poker, strategy

Apologies if this post seems a bit preachy - it's aimed as much at me as at anyone else.

The first rule of any game involving money is simple:

Never bet more than you can afford to lose

Usually I prefer "guidelines" to "rules", but for me that is a cast-iron rule. In fact I like to go further and say:

Never bet more than you can comfortably afford to lose

Anything can become addictive, especially if - like me - you have a slightly obsessive personality. Poker is especially dangerous because of its alluring combination of luck and skill, risk and reward.

Even if you think you're on to a "sure thing", don't risk what you can't afford to lose. If you keep betting on 99% certainties then you will lose one day.

What about holding the nuts, is it safe to risk excessive loss then? It might be if you're a person who never, ever gets anything wrong. In the heat of the moment we can overlook things and in our desire to win can see what we want to see. More than once I've been surprised by a hand I simply didn't see coming.

It's not just money either. Even if you control your financial losses, there are other potential costs. If you're coming home from work and playing poker until 3AM, will you be any good at your job the next day? Will you even be fit to drive safely? If you're spending all your free hours at the online poker tables, what will happen to your relationships and your social life? If you stop going to the gym and live on pizza, what will happen to your health?

Poker is a game of control and the most important thing to control is yourself.

Labels: general, poker

Since you're taking the time to read my blog (thank you) you deserve to know a little something about me. What qualifications do I have to give advice on how to play poker?

None at all.

As of summer 2007 I'm a newbie, a poker "deuce" hoping one day to become an "ace".

My name's Trevor, I live in Edinburgh and I've played poker occasionally for years. Before 2007 it was only ever socially with friends. These were usually penny stake games of dealer's choice, mainly Stud and exotic variants such as "Whores, Fours and One-Eyed Jacks" (not recommended - at least not when sober). As you can see I was never a serious player.

Towards the end of 2006, following the massive interest in televised Hold 'Em and internet poker rooms, I started thinking about the game more seriously. I bought some books and computer programs and started teaching myself the basics of playing Hold 'Em. I even joined a few internet poker rooms and experimented with "play money".

Summer 2007 I took a deep breath and opened a real money account with PKR.com (as "Valeyard", you'll find me in the low stakes tourneys). It was wonderful - I lost money, but not too much, and loved it. Occasionally I even won a little - and since I mainly play tournaments my losses were never excessive. (Rule one: never bet more than you can comfortably afford to lose).

It soon occurred to me that it might be fun to blog about poker, sharing my experiences with people who hadn't quite made the leap from poker for play money to poker for real. And, I confess, I could do with supplementing my bankroll with a little extra cash made through advertising.

I hope you'll find something useful or at least interesting in this blog. Please remember that I am not an expert - treat anything I say with a healthy degree of scepticism. If I'm wrong, tell me in the comments.

See you at the tables!

Labels: about me, poker