Don't Look Back

Hall of Fame baseball pitcher Leroy Robert "Satchel" Paige was born in 1904, possibly. I have also seen his birth year reported as 1901, 1905, and 1906. His mother emphatically claimed her son was born in 1904 and I have no reason to believe she was bluffing. The enigmatic Paige evaded the question of age by stating on numerous occasions, "Age is a question of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." The 6-foot-3-inch, wiry right-hander accumulated an astonishing 55 no-hitters over a span of 21 seasons in the Negro Leagues. In 1948, shortly after Jackie Robinson broke the "color line," he joined the Cleveland Indians to become the second black player in the junior circuit (Larry Doby preceded him). At the age of approximately 61, Paige took the mound for the final time in the Major Leagues. On that day, the man Joe DiMaggio once claimed was the best pitcher he ever faced fired three scoreless innings against the Kansas City Athletics.

Aside from being immensely talented, Paige was very quotable. Let's shuffle up with some words of wisdom from this ageless wonder: "Don't look back. Something might be gaining on you."

In our game, the players who may be gaining on us are those who invest time and money to improve their playing ability. In early November, I attended the fourth annual World Poker Players Conference (WPPC) at Bellagio Hotel and Casino. Card Player Cruises hosted the event in conjunction with the Mike Caro University. The festivities began at 9 a.m. with a continental breakfast (I gave the Bellagio food service staff five forks for the pastry and fresh fruit) and ended shortly after 6 p.m. Approximately 390 of us listened to and learned from some of the best.

Firing fastballs from the podium in the form of individual lectures (aided by terrific Power Point slides) were the esteemed Mike Caro (who doubled as our emcee) and Card Player columnists/staff Barry Tanenbaum, Mark Gregorich, Lee Jones, Daniel Negreanu, and Mike Sexton. Mark Tenner and Linda Johnson teamed in tandem to discuss the most common errors made in Omaha eight-or-better. A closing one-hour question-and-answer session provided us with an opportunity to delve into the minds of Jennifer Harman, George Epstein, Roy Cooke, and Doyle "Texas Dolly" Brunson. During breaks, we discussed poker with our fellow attendees, purchased items of interest, and rubbed elbows with current and future legends of the game.

The speakers provided concepts, suggestions, poker math, examples, and anecdotes all geared to improve our games. There are various ways to give you a taste of the information we received. After struggling with a few alternatives, I decided to highlight one speaker. I picked Negreanu, since his topic was final-table play in no-limit hold'em tournaments; a timely subject and one rarely covered in print. In addition, Daniel is open with his considerable knowledge and willing to get into deep analysis. Fortunately, he has a knack of being able to break down complex subjects into easy-to-understand language. For example, when suggesting that we will almost always be unhappy if, after making an opening raise with A-Q in no-limit play, we are called or reraised, Daniel hesitated, looked at us, smiled, and stated unequivocally, "Ace-queen sucks!" We'll delve into one area of Daniel's presentation later, but first I'd like to examine several excellent concepts that the other lecturers and panelists highlighted.

Tips and Tidbits

Patience and position are paramount. Several speakers emphasized these points. While we, especially those of us who watch televised tournaments, are becoming increasingly aware that unbridled aggression often pays off in late-stage tournament poker, we should be selectively aggressive in ring games ("ring" is synonymous with "live" or "cash"), since blind aggression is easy to defend against when the aggressor is out of position and/or dominated by a better hand. For example, imagine that you are raising every hand in a $10-$20 hold'em game. Your average holding would be something like J-7. Surely, one of your nine opponents would have a better hand than J-7 and might put you to the test with a reraise. Being out of position is detrimental. Poker is a game of incomplete information, thus the first player to reveal additional information about his hand on each betting round is at a disadvantage.

Defending your blinds may be dangerous to your stack. Some players, when in the blind positions, have a tendency to play inferior hands simply because they are protecting their investment in the pot. As a stock and bond investor, I will be the first to tell you that poker is a game of risk/reward, and you should evaluate your holding (in part) based on the chips you invest in a pot compared to your expected return. But, don't look at the blind you post as "your" money, since it now belongs to the winner of the pot. Instead, consider the chips you put up as part of the pot, and base your decision to fold, call, or raise on the value of your hand, your opponents' actions, their tendencies, and the odds the pot is offering. A proper evaluation will enable you to make correct decisions concerning when to defend. An evaluation rooted in protecting the money you have posted will lead you down the wrong path. Remember, patience and position are paramount. If you believe you have been playing too many weak hands from the blind positions, I suggest that when in doubt, you should fold and wait for a better hand – one with which you will not be the first player to act on the flop, turn, and river.

Thinning the field may thin your bankroll. Of the 15 concepts Mike Caro imparted, I chose this one because it shows that you must scrutinize a poker axiom before you accept it. In Mike's words:

"As a lot of you know, I'm not a fan of thin-the-field strategies. Thinning the field is where you try to get rid of a lot of players, presumably to give your hand a better chance. You'll see a lot of literature about the advantages of thinning the field, so that you don't get drawn out on so much. But it fails by succeeding in the wrong way." Mike then asked us, "When you raise with the intent of thinning the field, what type of hands are you most likely to chase out of the pot?" We got the answer right: weak hands. Mike then informed us that the most likely result is that we will be left against the strong hands. He continued, "Yes, there are hands that you would prefer to play against fewer opponents, but there is practically no way to accomplish this because the strategy leads to your playing against the wrong kind of players. So, here is the answer … here is the answer … raise the pot to thin the field when weak players are in and strong players wait to act behind you. But, if the strong players are already in and the weak players are yet to act, don't raise. You want to give the weak players a chance to come in. You don't want to isolate against just the strong players."

Avoid letting opponents get a read on you. I'd be remiss if I didn't share some insight imparted by Barry Tanenbaum. He is a great theorist, a winning player, and a terrific public speaker. Barry's lecture covered six Ps: position, people, pasteboards, predictability, pot odds, and planning. Although Barry burrowed deeply into several subjects, he was cognizant that approximately (from a show of hands) 70 percent of the people who attended this WPPC event have been playing poker for less than three years. Here's my excerpted version of Barry on predictability:

"You need to concentrate on what your tendencies are. How are you playing hands? What are you doing repetitively over and over and over again? Do you check-raise only when catching two pair on the flop? Do you always lead out with a flush draw on the flop? Or, do you sometimes bet and sometimes check? Do you always check? Well, in addition to watching everyone else's game, you need to be watching your game. This is most important when you play against people over and over again. It's important to give these players a different look. For example, if you always raise when you flop two pair, consider just calling occasionally, because that play changes your predictability. Of course, the only time you need to vary your play (from optimum strategy) is when your opponents have diagnosed your play. That is when they are reading you so clearly that you need to do something different.

Staying with Barry's "P" theme, I think of poker as perpetuating puzzles. When we sit down in a hold'em game, we may recognize some players and recall their tendencies. Other opponents are new to us, and their tendencies must be "learned." When the cards are dealt, we know nothing about what an opponent has until he reacts with body language and/or takes action (folds, calls, or raises). His initial decision becomes a piece of the puzzle that we are trying to solve. Our reaction to his decision is another piece of the puzzle, because, as Barry pointed out (here comes another "P" word), our opponent's perception of our play must be factored in. On the flop, turn, and river, decisions can be translated into additional puzzle pieces. These pieces are "positioned" in our imaginary puzzle. If our assumptions are incorrect, we may force a piece into the wrong position. Similarly, if we mislead our opponent, he will fail to put the puzzle together correctly and, for example, may pay us off when he should have folded. Often, a hand is played in simplistic fashion with no raises. When that happens, the puzzle is rarely solved. Other hands are capped preflop and heavy betting continues throughout the play of the hand. In those instances, we are often certain that we know the two cards in our opponent's hand. The way each hand is played gives us a piece of information that we will incorporate the next time we attempt to complete a puzzle against that same opponent. When competing against "regulars," strive to begin with more pieces in place than your opponents and you will gain a significant advantage.

Daniel Negreanu Dissects Final-Table Play

Five years ago, Daniel and I shared a pizza and discussed poker. Well, more accurately, he talked and I listened. The output became an interview/article in a now defunct poker magazine. The title for that piece came to me very easily: Negreanu – A Study in Excellence. If Daniel were a stock on the NASDAQ, his chart would show a sharp breakout in 1997 with a long, ascending price line through the years. This year, he captured ESPN Player of the Year honors and is vying for Card Player's prestigious Player of the Year award. He has taken down more than $3 million in tournament prize money in 2004. Negreanu is feared at the table, but universally liked in the industry. He told me years ago that he would like to promote poker as much as possible, thus it was no surprise to see him on the list of speakers for his third WPPC appearance.

Daniel began by surprising us with a nicely tailored gray suit (I was expecting a Toronto Maple Leaf jersey) and telling us there are many books on the market that provide helpful strategy to get us from the early stages of a tournament to the final table, but there isn't much material that tells us what to do when we get there. For the next 52 minutes, Daniel filled us in.

The young star stressed that one style doesn't fit all players. For Negreanu, as Green Bay Packer coach Vince Lombardi once said, "Winning isn't everything – it's the only thing!" But, not many of us have accumulated Daniel's poker bankroll, and some prefer to carefully climb the prize pool ladder as opposed to taking maximum risk in an effort to win. So, Daniel advises us to be sure we are making decisions that we are comfortable with based on our personal situation and the prize pool distribution. He acknowledges that with today's huge fields, there are often substantial (if not life-changing) differences in major events between sixth- and third-place money, thus many who make a final table may choose to deploy survival strategies even to the detriment of winning the tourney. Negreanu noted, "If your motivation is to win, you'll be more aggressive and more willing to take risks, as opposed to those who are looking to move up the ladder and get the fifth- or fourth-place prize. They will try to avoid confrontation." In summary, the man who picked up his first "Binion's bracelet" at age 23 tells us to decide what place or places we are shooting for and devise an action plan geared to achieving that result.

Negreanu's mantra was, limping is often a very good strategy. He stated, "Sure, you've read books that tell you to either raise or fold, but that's not always true. Limping is a cautious way of staying involved when you're out of position, you have a player with a big stack yet to act, and your hand is too good to fold."

Sometimes You Must Count on Courage, Not Cards

Daniel told us the same hand might be played differently depending upon where we are in relation to the relative stack sizes. For example, let's say I am one of three remaining players, I have $80,000 in chips, and there is $240,000 in play. I pick up K-10 offsuit. I'm at par (average stack size) with a playable hand. How I choose to play my hand will depend on several factors: my objective (I'm a "go for the win by taking calculated risks" type of player); the amount of the blinds; the other two stack sizes; my opponents' tendencies; how they perceive me; and my relative position. Let's focus on one of the variables – relative position – as we stretch this example:

• If I am on the button and the small blind has a small stack, that means the big blind has me covered. So, assuming $2,000-$4,000 blinds, I will limp in to increase the probability of pot loss that the small blind must incur if he chooses to play. Sure, raising is not an awful alternative, but that play would commit me more and put me at greater risk against the big-blind opponent who is a threat to knock me out. My intent is to put additional pressure on the short stack while avoiding a major confrontation with the chip leader. By limping, I'm staying active when in position and working toward my objectives. If all goes well, I will either catch the flop or attempt to steal the pot on the flop if both opponents check. If you are thinking I have not considered the possibility that the small-blind player will pick up a good hand and move in, creating an opportunity for a triple up, I have considered that possibility. That's where taking calculated risk (my K-10 hand ranks in the top 40 of the 169 hold'em starting hands) comes in.

• Now, we'll switch the blind players' stack sizes. I am still on the button, but the big-blind player has a tiny stack and the small blind has me covered. Again, we'll assume $2,000-$4,000 blinds. In this scenario, I will raise. I am hoping to make the small-blind player release his marginal hands. In addition, I want to put pressure on the big-blind player's small stack because I am in position and rate to have a better hand than he does. In this instance, the big-stack player in the small blind is less invested than in the previous example, and he must act first on the next three streets. He is less likely to choose to get involved. Of course, if the small-blind player gives me action, I will play very cautiously throughout the hand. As Daniel stated, "You have to respect chips; they represent power."

When I cover tournaments, the biggest mistake I see short-stack players make during threehanded play is waiting for strong hands because they are fearful of committing to the type of hand that isn't going to hold up if they are forced to go all in. Alas, by being overly selective, they are harming themselves in two ways:

1. As the short stack becomes shorter due to the cost of blinds and antes, an opponent's fear factor is reduced. By raising, a relatively short-stacked player creates two possible ways to win a pot (his opponents may fold or he may wind up with the best hand). If a player's stack becomes unthreateningly short, he will be called in at least one spot, thus he has only one way to win (by showing the best hand). In the words of the talented Jennifer Harman, "Try not to let yourself get too short. If you have enough chips that you can hurt somebody, it's a lot easier to pick up a pot compared to when you let yourself get too low, you move in, and it's an automatic call for your opponents."

2. By prolonging an inevitable all-in stand, a player will negatively affect his net gain, assuming he gets lucky by winning his all-in play and then gets hot. For example, using our $240,000 in chips in play blueprint and giving me $20,000, if my reluctance to take a stand takes me from $20,000 down to $10,000 and I go on a three-win all-in tear against the chip leader, I will increase my total to $80,000. While getting to par is nothing to cough at, winning three coin-flip hands is difficult (a 7-to-1 probability). On the other hand, if I had moved in with $20,000 immediately and won only two coin-flip hands, I would have the same $80,000. Winning two coin flips is a "mere" 3-to-1.

Daniel pointed out some psychological benefits of playing strongly with a small stack: "With a short stack and playing threehanded, you want to be aggressive. You can't wait for good cards; you have to be the one to push. That may go against popular opinion, but if you force the action and nobody picks up a hand for a while, you may find yourself in a healthy situation sooner than later. You may be able to exploit the average-stack player because he's thinking that he's going to wait you out, so he will play more cautiously. The big stack might be thinking he has lots of chips, so there is no reason to gamble at this time. The short-stack player should be thinking, 'I'm going to start pushing and get back in this game.' What you don't want to do as the short stack is call when your opponents raise. If you are raised, resort to basic card strategy."

One of the things I discovered early on about poker is that several correct strategies go against my generally conservative nature, thus I must fight my propensity toward risk avoidance. If you have a tendency to play conservatively in an effort to survive when shorthanded and are suffering from "shortstackitis," I hope Daniel and I were able to provide some food for thought.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."

- Socrates

Your quest for poker knowledge is good. The pursuit of poker proficiency is an ongoing process. It is something that requires attention and effort. The annual World Poker Players Conference is a great way to grow your game and build your bankroll.

If you missed WPPC IV, fear not. The seminar was taped and is available on DVD (with several bonus interviews) through www.cardplayercruises.com/dvd.htm for a very reasonable $41.95 (including shipping). No Internet access? Call (888) 999-4880 or send a note and check to Card Player Cruises at 121 Quail Run Road in Henderson, NV 89014.

E-mail Lee with comments, questions, and suggestions for feature articles.