Why Are You Never There?

I have been writing my Ace Speaks strategy column for quite a while now. In addition to writing this column in Card Player, I have contributed to Poker Pages, to European-poker.com, to the Australian "Poker Network," and to the German-based Internet site ISA. People all around the world have read my material, and I get e-mail from people living in countries I had never heard of. I have come to know almost all of the top players and writers because of contacts we have had, because of some kind of ideas exchange, or simply because we write for the same magazine. All of these people always ask me the same thing: "Ace, why are you never there? We read your stuff and hear good things about you, but we never see you." In this column, I will try to explain the reasons why.

Sometime ago, one of the regular posters on TwoPlusTwo and I were involved in a short exchange of ideas. He had posted on the pot-limit and no-limit forum about a few pot-limit Omaha hands he had played during World Series of Poker side games against famous players like Jack Keller and David Sklansky. Readers of this column know that my favorite game is pot-limit Omaha, and I was surprised – and pleased – to learn that one of the big adepts of limit poker, Sklansky, was involved in this highly fluctuating game, this "roller coaster ride," as we call it. However, that's not very relevant here; what's relevant is that the poster, who wanted feedback on the way he played against these famous players, claimed the games he was in were "amazing." I doubted this.

A while ago, I read a column in Card Player in which the author (Greg Dinkin) raised some excellent points about sports betting and poker. He stated:

"I don't buy that markets of any kind are totally efficient, but what I have come to understand is that the more information that exists, the more efficient markets become. When I look for opportunities, I avoid things that get a lot of attention: blue-chip stocks and the NFL. In these two endeavors, with dozens of analysts and intense public interest, it's rare to find a situation in which information isn't already priced in.

"In poker, the best games are the ones that nobody knows about. The minute it becomes known that there is a live game, two things start to happen. The first is that good players flock to this game. The second is that the live players start to go broke and the game gets tougher. Great games rarely stay great for long, as the top players put in for table changes and the bad players go broke.

"Want to find the best opportunities in poker and business? Look where no one else is looking."

I believe one of the main reasons that lots of fairly good or even excellent players are always broke is that they flunk in game and table selection. Their egos cannot stand that they be seen in a game that is not the biggest in the house. They simply have to play that tournament they know they cannot win, or in that game "with all that money on the table," a game they may not even be very good at (for example, the biggest games in the house are often rotation games, and there are very few players who excel in all games). Also, grinder-type players can sometimes be found in the toughest, most aggressive pot-limit Omaha games, where they don't stand a chance. I like to play in games in which I have some kind of control. I like to play in games that I know will be there tomorrow, next week, and next month. I like to play in the same casino all the time, so that I can get to know my opponents' tendencies, strengths, and weaknesses. I like to play according to some kind of shift plan. I like to play against players who don't hit and run. I like to play in games that will last, and against people who come to play, who will stay at one table and don't ask for table changes all the time or start walking when they've won a pot. In short, I like continuity, consistency, and a little bit of control, as well. I want to know the rules and the procedures of the casino I'm in. I want to know what to expect from the players, dealers, and other personnel – and what not to expect. When I'm playing abroad in a place I have never been before, I know I'm in bad shape.* I don't know my opponents, I don't know how they play or how they think I play, I don't know which games will last and which games won't, and so on. On top of that, especially during the big tournaments, with so many things going on at the same time, it is hard to stay focused on two of the most important things: choosing the best game and playing your best game. Also, you can expect to be up against better opposition than in your regular game: People are not going to travel 500 miles if they expect to lose their money, are they? This doesn't mean there is no easy money at the big tournaments – quite the contrary, in fact – but you can expect some of the best players in the area waiting to get their share, too.

It is very important in poker to look at not just the number of bad players (that is, the easy money) in a game, but also the number of excellent players, the ones who can be dangerous to your bankroll. I have always claimed that it's better to pick a game with eight average players and yourself than a game with three suckers and five experts – even though I know lots of players who disagree with me on this. Whenever I find a game played for stakes that matter and I see no player who can seriously threaten me, I know I have found myself a home. That's why I play regularly at only two or three places, places that offer my favorite game (pot-limit Omaha) on a regular basis, and where it is possible to win a lot of money but the danger of losing is not that great. The way poker is played nowadays (with people still bringing their own money, rather than being sponsored in the big games and big events), there is no need to play in the toughest games in the world, because there is nothing to be gained from that. Nobody is going to give you a medal if you beat the eight toughest players in the world out of their money, and nobody is going to sue you for playing against only weaker opposition. The only thing that matters is how much money you have made at the end of the year.*

In almost all sports, home teams perform better than visiting teams. While this may partly be because of the audience (because fans will tend to cheer for the home team and try to intimidate the visiting team), there are also other factors, like rhythm – the home team doesn't have to change its habits; the players can go through the same routine they always do – fatigue from traveling, fear of the unknown, and lack of information regarding local rules and procedures. If in almost all sports there is such a thing as home advantage, I cannot see why this would not be the case in poker.